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>
|
