Rudy Christian wrote:

>>>It was my decision, not any architect or government employee's decision to stay with the 1940's alterations.<<
>>>You're right. I have adjusted my memory by oversimplifying. Bad habit.
>>>
Rudy:

Over simplification happens to me all the time and I've enjoyed all the
times I've been caught up short here on BP having not taken quite enough
care to be selective in my words. You have certainly brought me up short
to think harder and longer a few times... and I find it very rewarding.
I did feel it was important to point out how the decision was made and
that the architect not be blamed for a decision where his participation
was mainly through the default of not being very aware of any decision
at all. We all too often complain on the trades side of the
intereference or overcommanding presence of the architect bossing the
trades around and here I think there was a very nice mix of respect and
open appreciation.

What is not included here so far in this discussion is the specific
times in which you felt strongly that there was a need to change the
detailing and that in each case, as I recall I hope accurately, you were
put in direct touch with the architect. From my perspective for all of
the subcontractors there were instances in which desire and
interpretation were challanged and it was my role to manage and expedite
a communication process with the architect. I believe in all cases the
architect was quite open to your experience and suggestions and that
though a few compromises had to be made I feel the decision process was
fairly smooth, amenable, pleasant and productive. Keep in mind that the
power of PTN is present in this transaction as the partner in charge on
the architect side was Jim Rhodes who has been present at two IPTW
events, the first one being where he played his banjo at IPTW 2000
during the opening in Harrisburg. We have convergence here. It is an
amazingly wonderful thing.

>My reason was that we "knew" what the 1940's version was, as it was what we were dismantling and it was a relatively true reading of the current bldg. Any "returning" to a pre-1940's version meant several things,...<<
>
>Actually we knew what the 2002 version was. We could only speculate what it was in 1940, although the nature of the building and the existing fabric did indicate little had changed since 1940 other than the paint color. Maybe that's why Portland cement was one of Henry's favorite "preservation" materials. It was a good way to "preserve" the way "HE" wanted things as long as possible.
>
Yes. You are correct. I stand corrected. I read the report about the Gog
& Magog building on the Greenfield site and was struck that Henry saw
the building in London, told his purchaser to purchase it while he went
off in his travels, the building was dismantled and sent to Michigan,
and it became a pile of rocks that the architect sat on to smoke his
pipe during his leisure until someone came along and told him that it
was a building that he had to put all back together again, and when they
did put it back together they lopped off two floors of the building
because the original height would have been out of scale with the toy
Village.

>...1) the return would be speculative, as there were no records to substantiate an assumed, even if intelligently assumed precondition --
>an argument that could have been carried further and substantiated,<<
>
I mean that YOUR argument to go back to pre-1940 could have been carried
further but we would have needed to spend unbudgeted time developing a
case to present what did not seem to matter to the end customer enough
for them to pay the freight. The project was budgeted and bid prior to
the sudden 600% increase in liability insurance and so there was no room
to maneuver. Any slack literally comes out of my pocket.

>Isn't this the essence of restoration vs. preservation? This is one of my particular pet peaveys (something timber framers tend to have). The "philosophy" of the conservation project is all too often left to the interpretation of the individual in control at any given time. In this case the architect (who was actually great to work with) was even confused. On the cover sheet of the project drawing set the project is title "Thomas Edison's Laboratory Building 11 Relocation & Renovation". But on the rest of the drawings the title reads "Relocation & Reassembly".
>
>I probably should have taken that mixed message at face value and not suggested we consider "restoration" at all, but I tend to have a mischievous nature at times. Ken made the right choice in not being swayed by my whim, but it was worth running up the flag pole for me.
>
Well... early on I was confused and seriously asked the architect if the
original intention was to put the building on a barge and move it
through the Great Lakes to the Saint Lawrence etc. Seems to me when we
go to work on the historic theme village we need to accomodate the
frivolity of humans and that the 'story' of the building is likely the
most important historical asset. There is something much more authentic
in my mind though to restoration of a barn on a working farm than there
is to playing with Henry Ford's toys. A need to change and adjust our
gears of perception here and there to suit the unique aspects of a
particular project.

Restoration vs. preservation, even for restoration there is a question
of "when" to restore to. In some cases it even becomes an issue of who
owns the date ie. should a building in Poland be restorated to
pre-German occupation if it is being restored by Germans? Ultimate
restoration without consideration of a timeline may be to allow the
buildings to decay back into the earth where they can eventually become
nutrients for new trees.

It was an admirable flag pole.

>Will the fact that the building is actually Henry Ford's reconstruction of Thomas Edison's dowdy lab returned from Greenfield Village be the interpretation at the Thomas Edison Historic Site? I hope so.
>
I hope so as well. The small amount of work that I did on the marble
fireplace front for the house in Hartford, CT was done with it in mind
that 'perfect' restoration was not a possibility, but 'near perfect'
lent itself to leave enough of a trace in the crack line of a few stones
that a docent can now point at the fireplace and say, "See, this is what
is left over from when the car ran into the building." In my mind it is
the story and myth of a building that keeps the buildings alive. If our
work builds story then we work to keep the buildings alive in the
imagination. A perfect restoration without story I think is a waste of
resources. In my mind the preservation trades, and the mark of fine
craft, needs to be a part of the story. I think I have said over and
over throughout the Edison project that in the end we need to have a
really fine story and that we need to make sure that as we caress the
details that we not forget that we own our story and that when we walk
away, though we leave the building behind, that we walk with our story.
It was a touchy point in the contract negotiation to assure that the
team members on the project who touched the building would have rights
to the story. Neither the head of the foundation or his young lawyer
understood why I was so particular in this regard. The architect and our
lawyer I believe understood full well.

>I wonder what would happen if Donald Trump were to relocate a significant historic structure to Trump Village and ten years later we were asked to return it to its historic site. Would we leave it in its glorified Trumpesque form because Donald did it, or would ten years not be enough time for it to become poetry?
>
It depends on the complex mix of associations that people have with the
building and whether or not Trump builds a museum full of test tubes
holding the last flatulence of his dearly departed friends. (Note: I am
not a friend of the Donald.)

>>>3)... and lastly, if we were to open up the question for debate there would be no end of discussion and chaining through various levels and interpretations and variety of viewpoints. Then there was the simple fact that it was in my power to make this decision, like a mini Robert Moses, and feel comfortable sleeping at night.<<
>>>
>>>The best argument I've heard in a long time for getting trades people involved in "conservation" projects as part of the lead team. A true Dream Team approach would put you (][<en) in the same room with the long list of prestigious names on the cover sheet of the conservation
>>>documents from day one.
>>>
Patience. In order to change the system we need first to understand it
and then to work together slowly with patience and mutual respect.

>The fact that you can sleep at night should be a matter of course not choice. Your opinion and judgment is of the highest caliber and should
>be an integral part of the "variety of viewpoints" on as many projects as possible. By addressing the questions of interpretation and
>philosophy with the inclusion of the "trades" in the process, troublemakers like me wouldn't have a leg to stand on, or a need to stand on it, since we (by representation) would be part of the process.
>
I sleep at night because the team of Apple, Edge, RMS and Christian &
Sons and each and every craftsperson on the project busted their asses
to make it work the best they knew how. Not everything is ever perfect
on a project, but when we can as a group agree on a vision to do
something a little bit different and then make a step forward to realize
the vision then I think it is amazing.

I'm flattered into humble submission. I've never heard of timber framers
on peg legs.

>I enjoyed the Edison Lab project beyond my wildest expectations. It was indeed a learning experience and truth be known my favorite part was seeing our team of technicians so swept up in the "caressing" process that they were making a conscious effort to "preserve" the repairs of their 1940 predecessors. Now that's respecting the artifact!
>
It was way cool in many ways. Now we got to use the story from this
project to find another one. Working on it.

I say this with it in mind that I've done plenty of projects that I hope
I never have to do ever again. We keep looking for the sweet spot.

>Excuse my pumping the rumor mill. I still don't think my interpretation is that far off target.
>
I agree. You were not far off. Every time I called you were available. ;-)

][<en

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>