It is indeed risk analysis.  The risk of a temporary fix versus are
genuine repair; the risk of finding the right workman,  the risk that
one's decisions or work will be challenged.  To some extent I suppose
there is a risk to funds that might otherwise preserve something more
obviously of value.

I merely want to give good council to a colleague and assure success of
the project.

I am concluding that the work should be taken apart and repaired; that
the selection of the craftsman should be done with care; that the work
if done well should be observed and learned from; and that there are
risks that are not avoidable.  It is not my decision to make.

-jc


On Apr 10, 2004, at 11:17 AM, Gabriel Orgrease wrote:

> John Callan wrote:
>
>> Ken,
>>
>> Given that this is a significant staircase in a significant building,
>> what kind of experience and qualifications would be needed for the
>> person supervising this work?  How many helpers and what are their
>> qualifications?  What are the risks that historic material will be
>> damaged beyond repair?
>>
>> Is this something that a typical (if there is such a thing) historic
>> site maintenance crew can handle if only the curators trusted the
>> skills of the reluctantly verbal members of our community?
>>
>> -jc
>
> Put it this way John... in both of the examples that I have been
> working
> on in neither case would I give over the task to another mechanic than
> myself. Let alone supervision while standing nearby watching, or far
> away thinking. I would not want to stand there and supervise anyone but
> the best, and I only know 1/2 of a person for that (and I think they
> should be proud). In each case there are reasons for intimacy between
> the supervision and execution within the confines of one brain and one
> body that preclude division of labor. So, I guess the qualifications
> start with needing a master mechanic with proven experience and an
> ability to see 'outside' of the box to understand the nontangibles of
> the project. As to # of helpers, seems to me as few as possible and
> only
> enough that the master mechanic can keep control of the situation. No
> naked dumb & bumbler allowed.
>
> What you need to do is pick the right person to do the job, and so the
> qualifications should I would think focus on just how to qualify the
> master mechanic desired... and an oral and hands-on examination should
> be considered on-site... interview whomever at the railing and ask them
> what they think about it and how they would do it... go watch them do
> work elsewhere and see how they flow... which brings up something I
> have
> been contemplating which is the degree to which a mechanic is so tuned
> into their work, the objects, and the materials that they are working
> with that they talk dirty to them while working as in, "Baby, please
> don't f'n do that! Here, here you go, there, yeah, that is where I want
> you. Stay there now. Don't move. Yeah, that is nice." It is something
> of
> a wake up call when the mechanic realizes the very nice middle-class
> suburbanite docents are standing behind them to watch and listen the
> whole time. We are talking engagement in the task and focus.
>
> Have it in the specs that if you, or whomever, is not satisfied with
> the
> interview scenario then somebody has to go back to scratch. You may try
> qualification of 30 years experience rather than the paper-wash of 5
> years? I don't know for sure. If you end up with an idiot you will know
> it soon enough, if you end up with someone that knows what they are
> doing you might not notice. Then, again, it depends on if you stand
> around eves dropping.
>
> In the case of the stone rail & newel it would take longer to explain
> what needed to be done to lift it, which was 90% of the job, than it
> took to actually do it. The work after that was easy enough but it
> could
> still be messed up by a mechanic that did not take care, understand
> what
> was going on, or why, and had no patience or experience. Too damned
> much
> time is spent explaining WHY something has to be done in a particular
> way and I'll be honest in saying that the minute I have to explain my
> explanation then I might as well do it myself. The risk of damage to
> historic fabric is too high for the communications process to interfere
> with it. I say this considering that I have been involved in some
> fairly
> complex management situations on projects.
>
> In the case of the wooden stair it was not so much a problem of
> disassembly as much as making sure the parts needed to be salvaged for
> reconstruction were salvaged... meaning that the vital information was
> not lost in the process. Photographs were taken, the process went
> slowly
> step by step and the exploration of the structure occured concurrent
> with the disassembly. When you begin adding on layers of supervision
> the
> complications increase exponentially, not linear, and in a hands-off
> approach the more details that are figured out in the beginning the
> less
> opportunity for error in the end. But... the further intelligence is
> stepped away from the hands-on aspect of the process the greater the
> likelihood of damage to historic fabric. You need to figure out where
> on
> the sliding scales you want the project to end up and what controls
> there will be to monitor quality control and stop the process in time
> if
> it is going in a bad direction. Me, right now, I am very much into
> wanting direct and immediate control of the situation... if the job
> allows stepping back a few notches no problem.
>
> Every railing and newel combination is going to be a different
> situation
> and require a different solution.
>
> In answer to your last question... no. The reluctantly verbal members
> of
> our community need to open their mouths and talk. If you cannot find a
> way to get them to pre-verbalize their solutions, if not even to the
> extent of getting them to wave their arms around to mimic good physical
> form in work practice... then good luck. They should at least be able
> to
> do this communication with you, or with assistance from a professional
> supervisor and experienced coach (hint) to work with and evaluate the
> existing work-skill resources. I don't know what typical is.
>
> Sounds to me like you have a cost-benefit-risk analysis underway.
>
> ][<
>
> --
> 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>
>

--
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>