ST. JEAN BAPTISTE MORINVILLE - Paroisse St. Jean Baptiste Parish

Transcription

ST. JEAN BAPTISTE MORINVILLE
CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND
RESTORATION REPORT
STEEPLE AND ROOF
HIP ARCHITECTS
D R A F T 23 N OV E M B E R 2 0 1 1
TA B L E O F C O N T E N TS
1.0
Introduction
1
2.0
Historical Significance
3
Condition Assessment
4
1.1
1.2
1 .3
3.0
3. 1
3. 2
3.3
3. 4
3.5
3. 6
3. 7
3. 8
3. 9
4.0
4.1
4 .3
5.0
Scope of Investigation
E xi s t i n g R e c o rd s
R e p o r t S t r u c t u re
1
1
2
C o r n e r Towe r s
L owe r S p i re J u n c t i o n wi t h B r i c k
Belfry
S p i re
M a i n Ro o f
Rear Roof
Interior Obser vations
Additional Obser vations
Condition Summary
5
7
14
17
19
21
23
24
26
Conservation Plan
28
T h e S t a n d a rd s a n d G u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e C o n s e r v a t i o n o f H i s t o r i c
Pl a c e s I n C a n a d a
P ro p o s e d C o n s e r v a t i o n Wo r k s
Outline Budget Pricing
28
35
41
ST J EA N BA PTIST E ROM A N C AT H O L I C C H U RC H
MO RI N V I L L E A L B E RTA
1.0
Introduction
H I P Architects were approached by Gar y Chen, (H eritage
Conser vation
Adviser,
Nor thern
Region,
Historic
Places
Stewardship Section, Historic Resources Management Branch) to
submit a proposal to Keith Vansevenandt, chair of the Building
Commit tee for under taking a condition assessment and restoration
plan for the steeple of the St Jean Baptiste Church in Morinville
Alber ta.
The purpose of the study was to determine possible causes of
water ingress to the building at the steeple. It was repor ted
that during heav y rainfall a considerable amount of water was
obser ved to flow and drip from areas of the steeple. It was noted
that stabilization works to the steeple under taken in 2009 had
dramatically reduced the potential for movement of the steeple
and while these inter ventions had reduced the amount of water
entering the building it had not removed the problem completely.
Following discussions, H I P Architects were requested to expand the
proposed scope of work to the existing roof to provide commentar y
on the condition and possible life expectancy of the roof shingles.
1.1 Scope of Investigation
I an Morgan of H I P Architects visited the site on 23 August 2011
with Fred Kozar and Fred Kozar Jr of Delnor Construction to
under take a condition assessment on the steeple and roof. This
was facilitated through the use of a 120f t hyd raul ic b oom h oist.
The hoist was positioned to the south of the main entrance and
provided access to all areas of the steeple with the exception of
the uppermost section of the spire. Initially it was planned to
manoeuvre the hoist to the east and west sides of the steeple but it
was found that the weight of the hoist was damaging the existing
sidewalk and landscaping. It was decided that fur ther additional
damage to these areas was not necessar y as the original position
of the hoist had afforded adequate access to the building to
under take the necessar y sur vey.
In addition to obser ving the condition of the steeple and the roof
elements on the south of the building the hoist was also used to
obser ve the general condition of the south facade brickwork and
wi n d ows.
1
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
REPORT D R AFT 23 NOVEMBER 2011
The hoist was re -positioned to the nor th of the church and access
was gained to the sacrist y roof and junction with the main nave
ro of.
The sur vey comprised a visual inspection and photographic record
and measurements were taken of key building elements. Low
level invasive methods were also employed to check the junctions
of building elements through the use of small screwdrivers and
picks. Small samples of mor tar and roof shingles were removed
to ascer tain the general condition of the materials.
An interior inspection was also conducted in the steeple and the
roof space over the nave and the connected upper roof of the
sacrist y to obser ve any water staining and potential points of
water ingress. In addition Father I gnacy directed the investigation
to areas of water staining at the junction with the organ lof t and
the nor th west window of the upper level of the sacrist y.
Upon completion of the investigation and sur vey a summar y of the
preliminar y findings was emailed to Keith Vansevenandt on the 24th
August. The information in this repor t builds on the preliminar y
findings through closer examination of the photographic sur vey
and a review of the existing records contained in the files of the
Hi storic Resource Management Branch.
1.2 Existing Records
H I P Architects were provided with access to the provincial records
of the Hi storic Resource Management Branch. These files detailed
works to the building that were under taken since the designation
in 1974. H I P Architects also requested confirmation from the
Church of any additional works that were under taken during this
period.
These records assist in understanding the current condition of
the church and the anticipated life expectancy of the building
elements under consideration in this repor t. They also help us
understand the histor y of the inter ventions that were obser ved and
enable us to determine the success of the previous inter ventions in
preser ving the building.
Date
Scope of Work
1973
‘Significant restoration’ under taken prior to designation – list ed in H eritage Site Sur vey and several repor ts. Assumed that
roof was completely replaced at this time (roof work noted in
summar y of previous grant monies) .
1974
Building Designated first Provincial Historic Resource
1975
General renovations noted in ‘Preliminar y examination of 18
mu ra l s. . .’ by Ci n d ie M La ck.
1977
Ro of Re - s h i n g l e d
La te 1970’s
Re -pointing brickwork (noted in summar y of previous grant
monies )
1979
April and Oct. Restoration of steeple suppor t columns and
beams – Vol. 1 and 2 of Provincial photographic files notes
ex tensive rot in inner columns top steeple and beams suppor t ing them and documents restoration. Believed that tie rods
and cross bracing were not upgraded at this time.
1984
Ro of redone noted by Father Poulin in ‘Preliminar y examina tion of 18 murals...’ by Cindie M Lack.
1986
March grant application notes stabilization of church (underpinning) and re -pointing of brickwork. Also notes the leak in
the bell tower caused by the open louvres and wind.
1987
Underpinning of all foundations by W & R Foundations.
1992
Main south doors restored (along with naive floors )
1998
Window restoration by NAF Restorations Nov 1998, Burges
Bredo Architect repor t March 1998 (repor t also notes that
there is rot in the cedar shakes of the lower sanctuar y roof
and that the ro of fl ashing is poor) , Vol. 3 of provincial photo g rap hic files.
Date unknown
B ell tower floor upgraded with steel liner and concrete toppi n g wi t h d ra i n
Date Unknown
N ew eaves trough installed
2009
Installation of new brace and tie rod system to steeple by W
& R foundations
Information contained within the files was also used in the
preparation of the Building Information Model (BIM) of the building
which is used throughout this repor t to illustrate par ticular areas
of the building.
1.3 Report Structure
The repor t begins by reviewing the Provincial designation file and
listing the H eritage Value and the Character Defining Elements of
the building. By understanding the heritage value of the building
we are able to determine the most appropriate course of action
for the conser vation work s.
The condition assessment splits the steeple and roof into it’s
constituent par ts namely;
•
Corner towers
•
Lower Spire and junction with brick
•
Belfr y
•
Spire
•
Main roof
•
Rear roof
•
Building Interior
As noted the hoist also provided access to the south brickwork and
windows and the sacrist y brickwork and windows. Commentar y
on these area is also provided in the repor t.
Next the repor t addresses the application of the Standards and
Guidelines for the Conser vation of Hi storic Places in Canada. As
the building is provincially designated all works will need to be
under taken in accordance with this document and approved by
the Province prior to works commencing.
The repor t then identifies a proposed scope of work required
to conser ve the building in accordance with the Standards and
Guidelines based on the building elements as noted above and
an order of magnitude pricing provided to guide future works and
applications for grant assistance funding to the Alber ta Historic
Resource Foundation.
An executive summar y will be provided following submission of the
repor t and discussions with the Building Commit tee to ascer tain a
recommended course of action.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
2
2.0
Historical Significance
The historical significance of the building is found in the Provincial
designation file from the Alber ta Register of Historic Places. The
Statement of Significance is prepared for the Church and Rector y
and listed as follows ;
D e s c r i p t i o n o f H i s t o r i c Pl a c e
St. Jean Baptiste Church and Rector y are situated on single, large
town lot on Morinville’s Main Street. The early t wentieth centur y
church is an ornate brick building featuring a steep gable roof, tall
central steeple with flanking towers, and stained glass windows.
The rector y consists of a one and one -half storey mansard roof log
building and a later t wo and one -half storey wood frame building,
both of which have been clad in brick. The church and rector y
maintain their association with the historic Notre Dame Convent,
which is not included in this designation.
H e r i t a g e Va l u e
The heritage value of the St. Jean Baptiste Church and Rector y lies
in their association with French religious culture in the province
and their connection with the majestic architectural traditions of
Q uébec.
In 1891, Father Jean -Baptiste Morin led several francophone
families to the Mori nville area from Q uebec. His new communit y was
par t of a colonization plan to encourage francophone set tlement
in the vast lands of Western Canada. The rapid development of
ecclesiastical infrastructure testifies to the centralit y of the Roman
Catholic Church in the new town. The first chapel in Morinville was
constructed the same year Father Morin and his followers arrived;
three years later, the set tlers built the communit y’s first church.
In 1907, they completed work on the majestic St. Jean Baptiste
Church. The first mass was held in the building on Januar y 1,
1908. The first rector y - a simple log structure constructed in
1895 - was moved and joined to a second building erected in
1912 to create the current rector y. Both the church and the rector y
were faced with brick in the late 1920s.
3
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
St. Jean Baptiste Church is one of the most elaborate and ornate
Roman Catholic churches in Alber ta and reflects the nineteenth
centur y French-Canadian ecclesiastical st yle associated with
architect Thomas Baillairge. Marr ying traditional French Canadian church design with eighteenth centur y British and
French classicism, Baillairge’s architectural st yle was embodied
in numerous Alber ta churches. St. Jean Baptiste Church’s tall
central spire, layout and ornately car ved interior elements all
express dimensions of traditional French-Canadian church design.
Classicist ideas are evident in the pediment, the Romanesque
Revival window arches, and the arrangement of the triple tower
scheme. This foundational template is supplemented with High
Victorian Gothic features, including the layered striping, geometric
pat terning, and dramatic polychromatic design of the exterior.
The combined effect of the church’s various design elements is
one of solemn grandeur, encouraging meditative reflection. The
rector y’s exterior mirrors many of the features of the church. The
building’s interior incorporates the original log presbyter y built in
1895 as an extension on the nor th side.
Source: Alber ta Culture and Communit y Spirit, Historic Resources
Management Branch (File: Des. 431)
C h a ra c t e r D e f i n i n g E l e m e n t s
The character-defining elements of the St. Jean Baptiste Church
and Re ctor y include such features as:
•
spatial relationship bet ween church and re ctor y;
•
unobst ructed view of church and re ctor y from Main St re et.
St. Jean Baptiste Church ex terior:
•
symmetrical form and massing;
•
steep gable roof, central steeple with pinnacles crowned by
cross, and flanking towers surmounted by domes topped by
crosses;
•
diachromatic brickwork, quoins, semi-circular Romanesque
Revival arches over windows, and decorative masonr y elements;
•
fenestration pat tern, including symmetrical arrangement,
stained glass elements, and south rose window;
•
symmetrical arrangement of doors reflecting interior plan of
central nave with flanking aisles;
•
statue of Jesus Christ in recessed alcove.
St. Jean Baptiste Church interior:
•
barrel vault over the nave and semi-dome over the apse;
•
interior plan, columns, balconies, altar, and finishes;
•
ex tensive pressed metal interior sheathing and details;
•
ornate wall and ceiling murals surrounding altar;
•
original furnishings, oil paintings, statuar y, and woodwork.
St. Jean Baptiste Re ctor y:
•
symmetrical form and massing;
•
pyramidal roof with cross gables and crowning statue of St.
Jean Baptiste;
•
decorative masonr y work, including segmental arches and
diachromatic pat terns;
•
“ST JEAN BA PTISTE” let ters ab ove front door;
•
fenestration pat tern, including arched top, oriole windows,
and gabled dorm ers.
3.0
Condition Assessment
An over view of the Provincial files noted a number of significant
inter ventions that have taken place to the building since designation.
The majorit y of these works have been designed to stabilize the
building including the underpinning of the foundations in 1987
and the installation of the revised cross bracing to the steeple in
2009.
The works have ensured that the building is structurally sound
and will unlikely experience any structural failure or deformation
that can lead to detrimental conditions in the building envelope.
Unfor tunately, excessive water ingress can lead to significant
deterioration of building fabric and if lef t unchecked will eventually
lead to failure of the elements and potential structural collapse.
The primar y causes of concern involve the damage caused by the
freeze thaw cycle and the potential for wooden members to rot.
In addition the presence of water in the building fabric provides
the necessar y source for mold and other fungal growths that can
have significant impacts on human health.
To prevent water ingress the building envelope must be functioning
as intended. Roof’s should be designed to shed moisture in all
seasons and the walls and junctions with building features designed
to repel water in the first instance. Secondar y membranes provide
a second line of defence but any moisture that penetrates the
outer layer must be allowed to vent from the building to prevent a
build up of moisture within wall systems.
SPI R E
B E L FRY
LOW E R S PI R E / J U N C TI O N W IT H
B RI C K
CO R N E R TOW E RS
The scope of this study investigates the current condition of the
steeple and the roof to determine potential sources of water
ingress to the building and provide commentar y on the potential
life expectancy of building elements.
As noted the areas of the building have been sub-divided into
their constituent par ts to provide a clearer examination of the
existing condition and provide recommendations for conser vation
treatment.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
4
3. 1 C o r n e r Towe r s
The flanking corner towers were a feature that was added to the
original building when the church was clad with brick back in
1929. They emphasize the ver ticalit y of the central tower and
spi re.
C o r n e r Towe r S o u t h Ea s t
The original tin cladding elements appear in ver y good condition
given their age. There are some noticeable signs of rust where
the tin coating has star ted to break down par ticularly at the
upperm ost horizontal sur face of the dome.
In general the joi nts bet ween the various tin components appear to
be functioning well. The joints of the dome are folded and raised
with minimal signs of deterioration. The general construction of
the suppor ting columns, arches and pediments are also in good
condition with the joints of lapped and welded / nailed and are
close fit ting. The horizontal sur faces are generally falling out ward
to provide the necessar y slope for water shedding. The lower
sur faces are also in relatively good condition with the exception
of some rust on the primar y horizontal sur face above the brick.
This may be cased by local depressions and deformations when
the towers above move in the wind.
The junction bet ween the tin and the brickwork has some areas
of concern. It appears that the tin above does not provide an
adequate lap to the brick and as noted the suppor ting steel straps
are showings signs of rust. The south west corner was raised
slightly by hand and while the wood blocking and framing is still
in relatively good condition the presence of movement suggests
that the strapping and tie down may be compromised.
The junction bet ween the main roof and the tower is in poor
condition. There is no flashing tied into the brickwork and this
appears to be a source of water ingress to the building although
it is a relatively small area. An applied sur face treatment to
the brick is having a marginal affect on the water tightness at
this location.
Water appears to be flowing behind the roof
fascia and while there is the potential for rot to be present in the
roof members, the area is relatively small and the issue may be
mitigated with the application of a revised flashing and upgrades
to the ro of membrane.
5
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
SO U T H W EST TOW E R
A R EAS O F RUST O N BASE
RUST O N D OM E A N D C ROSS F I N I A L
RUST O N ST E E L ST R A P
D ETA I L O F A R EAS O F RUST O N BAS E A N D J O I N TS
POOR FL ASH I N G AT J U N C TI O N WIT H TOWE R
LO OS E F IT TI N G C A P SU G G ESTS ST R A PPI N G IS
COM PROM IS E D
PE D I M E N T D ETA I L
D ETAI L OF JUNCTION WITH ROOF
C o r n e r Towe r S o u t h We s t
The south west corner tower is in slightly poorer condition than
the south east but is still complete and ser viceable.
The upper horizontal sur face of the dome has begun to rust as
have segments of the dome itself. The raised and folded joints of
the dome appear in relatively good condition.
The suppor ting columns and pediment are generally in good
condition but signs of rust are obser ved on the upper sur face of
the pediments which is unusual given that they are sloped and
should be shedding water effectively.
The base of the tinwork shows additional joints to those present in
the south east tower indicating that areas may have been replaced
in previous restoration works. The joints are poorly caulked and
are an obvious cause of water ingress as the building elements
will open up in high winds as the caulking is no longer flexible
enough to accommodate the movement. The water staining on the
brickwork suggests that this issue has occurred for a prolonged
period of time.
The junction bet ween the brick and tin is suffering in much the
same way as the south east tower. There is inadequate lap in the
tin over the brick and the steel straps that are holding down the
tower are rusting. In this instance the tower is not as loose as the
south east but the additional water running down the face of the
brick has resulted in the mor tar becoming damaged through the
freeze thaw action and the fire sur face of some of the bricks is
becoming damaged. The cracks in the brick may also be due to
the force of the wind on the upper elements tr ying to tip the upper
por tion of brick over.
RUST O N D OM E A N D C ROSS F I N I A L
POOR R ESTOR ATI ON OF EXISTI NG JOI NTS
PO O R F L AS H I N G AT J U N C TI O N W IT H B RI C K A N D RUST
OBS ERV ED IN ST R APPING
D ETAI L OF RUST ON PED IMENT
C R AC KS I N B RI C KWO R K A N D M ISSI N G POI N TI N G
BAS E D ETA I L S H OW I N G PA N E L J O I N TS
D ETAI L OF PED IMENT
D ETAI L OF ROOF JUNCTION SHOWING POOR FL ASH ING
The junction with the roof is also suffering from poor flashing
details and execution. Previous at tempts to tuck point the joint
bet ween the flashing and brickwork have failed and the joint is
fully open along it’s entire length. Additional caulking has been
placed in the roof shakes but is unlikely to create any benefit to
the junction.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
6
3.2 Lower Spire and Junction with Brick
The evaluation begins by addressing the junctions on each face of
the spire bet ween the roof, brick and tin elements; the tin fascia’s,
small pitched capping to the brickwork and ver tical elements;
then looking at the small decorative pinnacles that are located on
the 4 corners.
S o u t h Fa c a d e
The south facade brick is in relatively good condition with the
exception of a large crack that has opened at the junction of the
red and buff brick quoin at the east side. It is noted that the
pointing is a lit tle uneven with the brick face and this is leading
to minor deterioration of the pointing in local areas and minor
sp a l l i n g of t h e b rick fa c e.
The junction bet ween the brick and the tin fascia is poorly jointed
and detailed. The brick is cut to follow the pitch of the metal
and at tempts to seal the brick to the tin with mor tar have failed.
Fur thermore there is lit tle to no drip edge to the fascia to provide
a capillar y break to the water flowing off these elements and in
some areas the tin is higher than the brick which is causing water
to enter at this junction.
JUNCTION OF B RI C K A N D TI N E L E M E N TS
BRICK CUT TO PROFI LE OF TIN WITH OPEN / MISSING
MO RTA R
R E-PO I N TI N G R EQU I R E D TO QU OI N D ETA I L
D ETAI L OF TIN JOINTING AT APEX
D EFORMED FASCIA UND ER WEI GHT OF PINNACLE
C LOS E U P O F A PEX D ETA I L I N D I C ATI N G PR EV I O US
R E PA I RS N OTE EXC ESSIV E NA I L PE N ETR ATI O NS
C LOS E UP OF PANELS SHOWING NAI LS PULLING FROM
SUBSTR ATE
O PE N J O I N T AT J U N C TI O N W IT H SO U T H W EST PI N NAC L E
The tin fascias and the small pitched cap to the brick are in
generally good condition and show signs of previous restoration
works that have involved cut ting and patching of the original
material. Some of the fascias are deformed par ticularly at the
junction bet ween the horizontal and pitched panels of the fascia.
In addition the aforementioned restoration has created a number
of additional joints in the fascias and pitched elements that have
been sealed with caulking that is failing in a number of areas as
evidenced by the amount of daylight that can be seen through
the junctions from the inside. There are a number of small nail
and screw penetrations through the tin some of which are open.
While not creating a significant problem they do contribute to the
general wa ter- tightness of the work. The main joi nt bet ween the
pitched elements is in relatively good condition but has opened
up in some instances.
The ver tical face below the belfr y is in good condition with the
triangular inset details close fit ting.
T RIANGL E PAN E L D ETA I L O N SO U TH FAC A D E
7
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
Ea s t Fa c a d e
The brickwork of the east facade is generally in good condition.
There is a crack that follows a previous restoration from the junction
of the roof diagonally to the junction bet ween the horizontal
and pitched fascia. The crack is visible but has not opened up
significantly and the mor tar is generally intact along it’s length.
This may have occurred when the latest tie bracing was installed
to the spire par ticularly if any jacking was used to correct the
level of any members.
The flashing to the roof is in fair condition and is pointed into
the brickwork with minimal deterioration noted. Unfor tunately the
flashing is discontinuous at the nor th east corner of the spire and
this appears as a potential source of wa ter ingress.
JUNCTION OF BRICK AND TIN O N EAST FAC A D E
C R AC K I N B RI C KWO R K AT N O RTH EAST
C R AC K CO N TI N U ES TO COR N E R OF ROOF JU N C TI ON
F L AS H ING IN GENER AL LY GOO D CO N D ITI O N
O PE N J O I N T TO J U N C TI O N O F B RI C K A N D TI N E L E M E N TS
PRI O R R ESTO R ATI O N O F APEX
J U N C TI O N O F B RI C K A N D TI N S H OW I N G D ISCO N TI N U IT Y
OF BUI L D ING ENV ELOPE
D ETA I L O F A PEX - N OT E D R A I N O U T L ET F ROM B E L F RY
FLO O R
D ETA I L O F RO O F J U N C TI ON SHOWING D ISCONTINUOUS
FL ASH I N G
The junction bet ween the tin and the brick is similar to that on
the south and is characteristic of all 4 sides of the steeple. The
brick is again cut to follow the tin and there are a number of areas
where the joint is open and water can enter the building.
The tin fascia and the pitched capping are generally ser viceable
but previous restorations have been under taken poorly creating a
number of badly patched areas where the joints are not lapped
in the general direction of water flow. There is also significant
deformation of the ver tical fascia’s.
As the spire has swayed these joints have opened up and the
caulking is no longer flexible to maintain a water- tight joint.
Another potential contributing factor is the location of the drain
outlet from the belfr y floor. This is discharging on to the pitched
sur face and creating additional water ponding as the sur face
below is not discharging to the ex terior.
The ver tical panels below the belfr y are in good condition as are
the triangular inset details.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
8
We s t Fa c a d e
The brick on the west facade has a number of cracks that have
been repaired in previous restorations. Unfor tunately the previous
re -pointing is poor in some areas and the mor tar is continuing to
fall out of the junctions bet ween bricks.
The junction with the roof has been modified with an additional
flashing. Unfor tunately this flashing is neither laid on a bed of
mor tar nor caulked to the brickwork hence any water running
down the face of the brick above has the potential to enter the
joint. The ver tical but joint bet ween the flashing is also open and
appears to have a minimal lap to the adjoining flashing. As with
the nor th east junction of roof and steeple the nor th west is also
poorly detailed with a discontinuous flashing that allows water to
enter the building.
J U N C TI O N O F B RI C K A N D RO O F S H OW I N G A D D ITI O NA L
F L AS H ING
C R AC K I N B RI C KWO R K
A PEX D ETA I L SHOWI N G OPE N JOI N T
The junction bet ween the tin and the brick is also poor in par ticular
at the nor th west corner. There is a clear gap of up to 3/4” and
as noted previously the lack of a capillar y break at this junction
is potentially allowing a significant amount of water to enter at
this point.
The fascias and pitched capping have again undergone minor
patches and repairs of the junctions. The qualit y of the work is
again poor with patched elements incorrectly lapped to the main
material causing openings for water to enter the building. There
are a number of minor screw / nail holes that are open. The
fascias are generally deformed from the ver tical but the pitched
sur faces are in good condition.
The ver t ical panels below the belfr y are generally in good condition
as are the triangular inset details. The previous restorations that
have been under taken in this area are generally good with most
joi nts appearing to function adequately.
9
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
N O RTH WEST COR N E R SHOWI N G OPE N JOI N T
J U N C TI O N O F B RI C K A N D TI N A N D C R AC K I N
BRICK WORK
D EFORMED AND D ISCOLORED FASCIA
POOR R E- POINTI NG OF BRI CKWOR K
C LOS E U P D ETA I L O F O PE N J O I N T I N TI N A N D RUST O N
PA N E L F ROM PRI O R R ESTO R ATI O N
D ISCONTINUOUS FL ASH ING AT JUNCTION WITH ROOF
N o r t h Fa c a d e
D ETAI L OF WEST APEX SHOWING PRIOR REPAI R
D ETAI L OF TRIANGUL AR PANEL AND SURROUND
POOR F L AS H ING D ETAI L AT ROOF RI DG E
F L AS H I N G IS N OT CO R R EC T LY T U C K PO I N T E D I N TO
B RI C KWO R K
PRI O R R ESTO R ATI O N S H OWING D EFORMATION OF THE
TI N A N D EXC ESSIV E NA I L PENETR ATIONS
NORT H FASCIA
D ETAI L OF NORTH FASCIA
N O RT H EAST CO R N E R S HOWING POOR POINTING AND
C R AC K B ET WE E N BU FF B RI C K QU OI N A N D R E D B RI C K
There is only a small amount of brickwork on the nor th facade
constructed bet ween the main roof and the spire. While the brick
appears in good condition (as with other areas where previous
repointing has occurred) the qualit y of the pointing work is poor.
This may be at tributed to the small areas of brick that are cut to
follow the pitch of the main roof and the star t of the tinwork. This
is especially the case on the nor th east corner where a number of
the mor tar joints are open or there is missing mor tar at the face
of t h e b rick.
The flashing at the junction of the brick and main roof is also poorly
constructed. The flashing junction on the east roof in par ticular is
not laid into a full bed of mor tar and previous at tempts to caulk
the joint have also failed. The flashing on the west roof is in
bet ter condition but as noted the junctions at the corners in both
instances are not continuous and are a potential point of concern.
The joint bet ween the brick and the tin is t ypical of the other 3
sides and has a number of openings in the mor tar joint that can
lead to wa ter entering the building.
The tin fascias and cap are in good condition. There appear to
be less prior repairs to these elements than comparable areas on
the other sides of the steeple and the fascia is less deformed as
a consequence.
The ver tical panels below the belfr y are generally in good
condition as are the triangular inset details. There is a small
ver tical section at the peak of the capping that is open with the
nails protruding from the joi nt.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
10
Pi n n a c l e s
The 4 decorative pinnacles that are located on the lower tin are
a major cause of concern when reviewing the continuit y of the
cladding and the abilit y of the cladding to shed water from the
building.
They are too heav y for the suppor ting tin below and are
inadequately framed internally. This is causing them to become
depressed relative to the adjoining horizontal tin panels and is
leading to water ponding on the sur face and rusting the material.
Fur thermore the lack of adequate suppor t is resulting in the
pinnacles moving in the wind which opens up the joints bet ween
them and the adjoining horizontal panels allowing water to enter.
This is exacerbated by the poor qualit y of the prior repairs which
have resulted in lap joints that do not necessarily follow the flow
of wa ter off the sur faces nor provide an adequate capillar y break
to prevent water ingress.
BAS E O F SO U T H EAST PI N NAC L E N OTI N G R E PL AC E M E N T
M AT ERIAL
BAS E O F SO U T H W EST PI N NAC L E S H OW I N G D E PR ESSI O N
I N SU PPO RT M AT E RI A L
N O RTH WEST PI N NAC LE BASE
CAP AND F IN I A L O F SO U TH WEST PI N NAC L E
SO U T H W EST PI N NAC L E S H OW I N G SU PPO RT B R AC K ETS
A N D RUST I N SU PPO RT PA N E LS
N O RT H WEST PINNACLE BASE SHOWING RUST IN
R E PL AC E M E N T M AT E RI A L
SU PPO RT B R AC K ETS A N D D ET E RI O R ATI O N O F
SU R RO U N D I N G M ETA L
SO U T H W EST PI N NAC L E S H OW I N G SU PPO RT B R AC K ETS
A N D C E M E N TITI O US FI L L M ATE RI A L
N O RT H WEST PINNACLE SHOWING AD D ITIONAL SUPPORT
B R AC KETS
The 2 south pinnacles are generally in bet ter condition but each
one will be examined separately.
South East Pinnacle
The south east pinnacle has received a new cap to the lower
raised base and it appears to be shedding water from the junction
with the 8 small columns that suppor t the 5 segmented pyramidal
top and finial. There are some minor rust spots on the top. The
entire pinnacle is slightly depressed relative to the east face but
is still higher than the south allowing water to flow away from
the building. There are 2 small suppor t brackets on the east side
but they are not adequate to restrain the pinnacle in high winds.
The junction with the main horizontal tin cladding appears to be
functioning with no obser ved openings.
South West Pinnacle
The south west pinnacle appears to be completely original material
and like the south east has had 2 small suppor t brackets at tached
to restrain the pinnacle in high winds. The area under the brackets
has been filled with what is believed to be a cementitious material
but like the south east pinnacle the base has become depressed
relative to the surrounding material and water is collecting at the
11
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
junction. The horizontal material at the junction appears newer
but has rusted significantly due to water collecting at this point.
A number of the joints in this area have been supplemented with a
caulking / mastic material that is crudely applied and has cracked
allowing water to enter the building. The columns, cap and finial
all appear in god condition with some minor rust spots obser ved.
Nor th West Pinnacle
The nor th west pinnacle has undergone a number of inter ventions
at its base including the replacement of some of the surrounding
horizontal material and the installation of a number of suppor t
brackets. The qualit y of the repair is poor as it failed to correct
the depression in the horizontal suppor t material so water is
continuing to collect at this location and enter the building. A
number of joi nts have a sealant material applied but again the
application of which is crude and fails to seal the joints. There
are also a number of extraneous screw and nail fixings in the
suppor t brackets that are not sealed. The pyramidal cap and
finial are in good c ondition with a few minor rust spots obser ved.
N O RT H EAST PI N NAC L E BAS E S H OW I N G PR EV I O US
REPAI RS
Nor th East Pinnacle
The nor th east pinnacle has also undergone a number of
inter ventions at its base including the replacement of some of the
surrounding horizontal materia l. The replacement material has
not weathered well and has some significant rust on its sur face.
The joints bet ween the new and existing material are also poorly
constructed and the caulking / joi nting compound has not sealed
the joint completely. The base of the pinnacle has also been
significantly modified and materials replaced. The horizontal
sur face below the 8 columns has been cut and a drainage
channel formed. It is unclear why this element was modified in
this way but the amendments are ver y crudely formed and have
created additional joi nts that can potentially allow water to enter
the building and damage the suppor ting structure below. The
pyramidal cap and finial are in good condition with a few minor
rust sp ots obser ved.
NORT H EAST PINNACL E S H OWI N G D R A I NAG E C H A N N E L
N O RT H EAST PI N NAC L E S H OW I N G RUST I N
REPL ACEM ENT PANELS
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
12
Interior Obser vations
The lower por tion of the spire and junction with the brick was
inspected from the interior for signs of water staining to indicate
points of ingress. When reviewed it is noted that there is no
back up membrane to the areas of tin and daylight was obser ved
through a number of junctions.
Areas of the pitched fascia have no sheathing behind them as
suppor t to the material and given the relative thinness of the
material and lack of adequate backing it is considered that
these areas present the greatest potential for water ingress to the
building. Any water that enters through the joints in the tin is
not being captured and directed out of the building. It is lef t to
accumulate in the sheathing and structure where it is potentially
causing rot in these members.
High winds and differential wind pressures from one side of the
building to the other is causing the joints to open up and water to
enter the building. At tempts to caulk the joints from the interior
and the application of some low expanding foam have been
largely ineffective and the application lacks consistency on each
fa c e of t h e spi re.
It was communicated that when heav y rainfall occurs water is seen
to run down the primar y suppor t columns of the steeple. Previous
work s t o t h e ste e p l e i n 1 979 h a d re p l a c e d a nu m b e r of rot te n
beams and the bot toms of the suppor t columns were consolidated
with new material. The bot tom of the columns is now encased
in the new tie rod system so any deterioration of these elements
cannot be easily obser ved.
DAY L I G H T V ISI B L E O N EAST FASC I A
V I EW OF NORTH FASC I A A N D M A I N RO O F
CAUL KING APPL I E D TO SO U TH FASC I A
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
FA I L E D C AU L KI N G A LO N G EAST FASC I A
EAST A PEX J U N C TI O N
SO U T H I N T E RI O R
It should be noted that a failure to address water ingress in
this area of the building will eventually lead to replacement of
members similar to the scope of work in 1979.
13
DAY L I G H T V ISI B L E T H RO U G H W EST T RI A N GU L A R PA N E L
WEST FASC I A
A PEX J UNCTION WITH SPR AY FOAM AND MASTIC
SEA L A N T
3.3 Belfr y
The belfr y containing the 4 bell carillon is again examined based
on the 4 sides of the building. While the louvres are open and the
wind will drive rain through the openings, the upgrading of the
floor and presence of a floor drain to collect any water reduces
the long term effects.
The tin work of the belfr y contains a number of decorative
features including the corner columns that are par tially contained
in the wall capped with a capital that has both Corinthian and
Ionic details. The columns suppor t a decorative entablature with
crenelated frieze. The louvres themselves are set into an arched
opening with decorative trim that rests on modest pilasters with
capi tals again with Cori nthian and Ionic details
SO U T H B E L F RY
E N TA B L ATU R E A N D CO LU M N C A PITA LS
SO U T H B E L F RY LO U V R ES SHOWING REPL ACEMENT
B L A D ES
S o u t h Fa c a d e
The base of the belfr y is set to fall away from the building to shed
any water collected at this level and appears to be functioning
well. There is lit tle to no rust obser ved on any elements of the
south facade.
D ETA I L O F PI L AST E R C A PITAL SHOWING HORIZONTAL
SU R FAC E A N D WAT E R CO L L EC TI O N
There is some additional tin flashing and overlapping panels at
the south west base of the column but it is unknown if they were
installed as par t of an earlier restoration. The joints of the south
facade are generally caulked and there are a number of newer
screws indicating that this area has been slightly modified over
time.
The louvres themselves have been modified and some replaced
entirely. The replaced louvres appear as powder coated metal
instead of the traditional tin and the paint finish appears to be
failing. The newer louvres have an upturn to the rear to reduce
the amount of water that can enter. The bird / insect mesh is
damaged in some areas and needs to be replaced.
W EST LO U V R ES S H OW I N G A D D ITI O NA L F L AS H I N G AT
BAS E
CO LU M N C A PITA L W IT H I O N I C A N D CO RI N T H I A N D ETA I L
D ETAI L OF COLUMN BASE
J U N C TI O N O F A RC H E D LO U V R E O PE N I N G
C E N TR A L PI L ASTE R C A PITA L D ETA I L
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
14
We s t Fa c a d e
The belfr y elements on the west facade are in good condition
other than the louvre blades. Some are showing advanced signs
of rust penetration in the metal. As with the south, a number of the
louvre blades have been replaced with a powder coated painted
material and the paint finish is breaking down and allowing rust
to penetrate the metal. Pigeons are also nesting in this area and
their droppings are having a detrimental effect on the base to the
belfr y under the louvres.
The columns, entablature and capitol details are all in good
condition with the joi nts not as heavi ly caulked as the south
facade. The south west column base has some minor damage.
W EST BEL F RY A N D LO U V R ES
W EST BAS E O F B E L F RY S H OW I N G D ET E RI O R ATI O N O F
M ETA L SU R FAC E
SO U T H W EST CO LU M N BAS E S H OW I N G A PPL I E D F I N IS H
The west facade appears to have been coated at some point with
an applied finish. It is unknown if this is a primer that was
applied or the remaining top coat or if the works were suspended
par tially through implementation. The coating is ver y uneven and
shows brush strokes and possible abrasion marks.
D ETAI L OF ENTABL ATURE AND COLUMN CAPITALS
D ETAI L OF NORTH WEST COLUMN CAPITAL
N o r t h Fa c a d e
Complete physical access to the nor th facade was limited due
to the sof tness of the existing landscape and the decision to not
subject the sidewalks to excessive loading that could damage
them. However by gaining access to the west and east sides a
visual inspection was under taken of the component par ts.
D ETA I L O F RI G H T H A N D LO U V R E S H OW I N G RUST A N D
FA I L E D PA I N T / SU R FAC E T R EAT M E N T
The nor th condition is similar to the west in that the columns,
entablature and capitol details are all in good condition with the
joi nts relatively tight.
The louvres are again in poor condition with a number of the
original blades replaced. Both existing and replaced blades
have considerable sur face rust as the original tin coating and the
powder painted coating of the replacement blades is failing.
The wall features have also been coated at some point with an
applied finish and this is also uneven and failing.
NORT H W EST CO R N E R
15
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
N O RT H EAST CO R N E R - N OT E BA D LY RUST E D LO U V R E
B L A D ES O N N O RTH
Ea s t Fa c a d e
The east condition is similar to the south in that the majorit y of
elements with exception of the louvre blades are in good condition.
The base of the belfr y is in good condition and the tin panels are set
to shed water away form the openings. The columns, entablature,
capitals and the crenelated frieze are all in good order and the
joints do not have additional poorly applied caulking.
It also appears that the coating present on the west and nor th was
not applied to this face or if it was it is holding up much bet ter
to the conditions. There is a small area of paint that is flaking
ab ove t h e rig h t a rch b u t i t i s m i n i m a l.
EAST B E L F RY LO U V R ES
EAST BAS E O F B E L F RY
D ETAI L OF CRENEL ATED FRI EZE
The original blades have minimal signs of rust but the painted
finish of the replacement blades is showing signs of deterioration
and these elements will continue to decline if not addresse d.
Belfr y Interior
The interior of the belfr y is in fair condition given the potential
for water to enter the building through the louvres. High winds
and the louvres can force a significant amount of moisture through
the belfr y which could cause significant damage to the building.
The concrete floor is collecting the water that enters and a floor
drain is discharging the water through the lower area of the spire
on the east facade.
D ETA I L O F EAST LO U V R ES S H OW I N G R E PL AC E M E N T
BL AD ES
There are some areas of water staining on the sheathing and wood
framing evidenced by the visibly dark areas but it is not excessive
and the wood fibres are still relatively long and don’t appear to
be rot ten. Access is limited to all areas due to the carillon but the
general obser vations suggest that the tin is shedding the water
from the building.
N O RTH EAST C A PITA L A N D E N TA B L ATU R E
The steel framing is also in good condition with general sur face
rust on members that would be expected given the age of the
building. Again access is limited for a full inspection but there
was lit tle evidence to suggest that and members had deteriorated
to the point where they would be unable to restrain and suppor t
the building.
I N T E RI O R CO R N E R O F B E L F RY W IT H ST E E L A N D
CO N C R ET E F LO O R
I N TE RI O R O F B E L FRY LO O KI N G I N TO SPI R E
I N TE RI O R STE E L FR A M I N G OF B E LF RY
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
16
3.4 Spire
The spire is octagonal in form and is capped by a series of
decorative rings and a cross shaped finial. On the nor th, south,
east and west faces are a steeply pitched dormers that contain
an arched opening with louvres framed by 2 small columns with
unusual capitals with spherical details.
The footprint of the upper spire is significantly smaller than the
belfr y below and the same st yle pinnacles that are located at the
junction bet ween the brick and the tin are also present on the
corn ers.
Horizontal sur face
The horizontal sur face at the junction bet ween the belfr y entablature
and the spire is in good condition and set to fall to the exterior
of the building. A number of the seams have been supplemented
with caulking but appear to be functioning and intact in all but a
few minor areas.
South East Pinnacle
S PI R E F ROM N O RT H EAST S H OW I N G SI G NS O F RUST O N
NORT H
SO U T H D O R M E R
SO U T H EAST PINNACLE NOTING REPL ACEMENT BASE
PA N E LS
SO U T H W EST PI N NAC L E S H OW I N G FA I LU R E O F M ETA L
UND ER W IND PR ESSU R E
SO U T H D O R M E R A N D J U N C TI O N O F PI L AST E R BAS E N OT E
C AU L KI N G O F J O I N T
C LOSE U P OF SOU T H EAST PI N NAC LE BASE JOI N T
SO U T H W EST PI N NAC L E S H OW I N G R E PL AC E D BAS E
TO P O F C A PITA L S H OW I N G WAT E R CO L L EC TI O N
D ETAI L OF PI L ASTER CAPITAL
It appears the south east pinnacle has had a new base formed
to the star t of the circular columns. This is crudely nailed to
the horizontal sur face and a number of the nails are working
loose from the substrate below. A small tie rod has been inser ted
to restrain the top in high winds but there is still considerable
movement in the element.
South West Pinnacle
A new cap has been placed over the original base similar to the
detail on the lower south east pinnacle. The finish on this new
cap is also star ting to deteriorate. The upper cap was obser ved
to move in the wind and it was note that the tin is star ting to split
under the force.
Nor th West Pinnacle
This pinnacle has also received a new cap to the base but it is
showing advanced signs of rust. The stabilit y of the pinnacle
could not be verified but the remaining elements appear in good
condition
17
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
Nor th East Pinnacle
A similar repair has been under taken to the base as on the south
east pinnacle. As per above the new material is nailed to the
exi st i n g a n d a nu m b e r of n a i l s h ave p o p p e d fro m t h e t i n.
Dormers and Louvres
The dormers appear in good condition. The junction bet ween the
feature columns and the horizontal surface is open in areas but it
appears that the horizontal panel is continuous below the columns
so the instance of wa ter penetration is small.
The majorit y of the louvres appear original but some have been
modified with increased returns at the rear to reduce the amount
of water than can be blown through them and into the belfr y
below. The capitals to the feature columns have some sur faces
that appear to hold water but appear well sealed to the ver tical
fa c e ab ove.
Upper Spire
The upper spire has a series of profiled tin panels that are pressed
to represent a tile pat tern. Approximately half way up the spire
the tile pat tern is broken with a panel incorporating a series of 3
raised quatrefoil’s. The junction with this feature panel and the
corners of the spire are detailed with a circular rolled cover.
D ETA I L O F PR ESS E D TI L E PA N E L A N D J U N C TI O N W IT H
RO L L E D CO R N E R PA N E L
CO R N E R D ETA I L A N D J U N C TI O N W IT H D O R M E R
SO U T H W EST PA N E LS S H OW I N G U N EV E N COATI N G
RUST O N W EST A N D N O RT H W EST PA N E LS
WEST D O R M E R
N O RTH EAST PI N NAC L E
The panels are generally in good condition on the south and
east orientations but the nor th and west are showing signs of rust
par ticularly above the nor th dormer. The joints bet ween the tile
pat tern panels are generally close fit ting but some of the junctions
with the corner panels are open as the corner panels are not
formed to follow the profile of the tile pat tern. The joints are a
potential source of water ingress to the building but due to the
steep slope of the spire it is likely that any water will run down
the panels rather than through the joints.
The investigation did not open or remove any panels to confirm if
a building / tar paper membrane was located under the panels.
Access was also limited internally in the spire to check the
presence of a membrane.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
18
3.5 Main Roof
The main Roof of the building is clad with cedar shakes on a
building paper membrane on 1x8” lap jointed sheathing. The
ro of pi tch is at approximately 45 degrees.
The cedar shakes are generally in fair condition given their age
and appear to be shedding wa ter from the sur face. There were
no obser ved areas of roof where the shakes are missing or have
become loose. There is some staining on the roof due to mor tar
run off from the steeple but no moss which is a sign that the shakes
are saturated and not shedding water effectively. Some shakes
are cupped but this is to be expected with a roof of this age.
G E N E R A L V I EW O F W EST RO O F N OTI N G M I N I M A L
D EFORMATION IN SURFACE AND STAINING FROM SPI RE
FASC I A O F W EST V E RG E
C LOS E UP OF WEST ROOF SHAKES SHOWING ROT IN
EX POS E D E D G ES
J U N C TI O N WIT H SO U T H W EST TOW E R N OTI N G PO O R
F L AS H ING AN D D ETE RI O R ATI O N I N V E RG E SH A KES
RI D G E S H OW I N G M ETA L C A P U N D E R C E DA R TI L ES
G E N E R AL VI EW OF EAST ROOF NOTING MINIMAL
D EFORMATION IN SURFACE
D ETAI L OF EAST ROOF VERGE
D ETA I L O F EAST V E RG E S H OW I N G ROT I N PLY WO O D
A N D D ETE RI O R ATI O N O F BU I L D I N G PA PE R
FASC I A JUNCTION WITH EAST TOWER NOTING
POTE NTI A L ROT I N M E M B E RS
There were no significant obser ved depressions in the roof sur face
that would indicate that the roof trusses were under undue distress.
As noted earlier there are some concerns with the junction of the
roof to the steeple and to the flanking corner towers on the south
facade due to a lack of adequate flashings.
The cedar ridge caps are all in place and in some areas a metal
cap flashing is present and visible. It is unknown if this metal
cap is continuous as some light penetration was obser ved from the
interior. This may be due to loose fit ting members rather than the
omission of the cap fl ashing.
The south fascias appear in good condition with the exception of
the junction to the corner towers. H ere water is entering behind
the fascia and while the painted exterior sur face appears in
relatively good condition, it is likely that there is rot present in
some of the members behind.
The roof verge on the south facade is also constructed poorly
with an inadequate lap from the cedar shakes to the fascia. The
last row of shakes are showing advanced signs of decay along
their exposed edge, the building paper is deteriorating as it has
broken down under UV exposure and the plywood sheathing (note
that it appears that the plywood is applied over the original 1x8”
sheathing) is delaminating under the continued exposure.
The east and west eaves are in good condition as are the eaves
trough and downspouts. It is believed that the eaves trough may
have been replaced more recently than the main roof in 1977.
The flashing that ties under the shake roof and into the eaves
trough has been friction fit ted under the roof shakes and it is
19
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
unlikely that this is functioning as intended (the flashing should be
fixed and located under the building paper. An additional layer
of building paper is usually provided to a minimum of 2-0’ from
the roof edge to prevent ice damming) .
The nor th verge and eaves are in a similar condition to the south.
The junction with the stucco clad tower features is also poorly
detailed with inadequate flashings to prevent water ingress. The
fascia junction with the towers is showing signs of rot and the
verge shakes are star ting to deteriorate.
Some water staining was obser ved internally at the nor th west
verge. It is impossible to determine if this has occurred in the
past or is a recent event. The area should be obser ved during a
period of heav y rainfall to ascer tain if this area requires immediate
at tention.
M AIN ROOF NORT H EAST V ERG E
D ETA I L O F C A P TO TOW E R
N O RTH WEST FASC I A A ND JU N C TI ON WIT H TOWE R
I N TE RI O R AT J U N C TI O N WITH SAC RIST Y
I N TE RI O R O F M A I N RO OF
The main roof sheathing boards had some minor areas of water
staining but they are marginal and are not cause for concern.
No structural evaluation of the roof has been under taken to assess
its design capacit y relative to modern building codes. The lack
of any significant deformation of the ro of sur face leads us to
conclude that it has adequate capacit y.
JUNCTION W IT H TOW ER S H OW I N G ROT I N FASC I A
N OT E D WAT E R STA I N I N G O N I N T E RI O R S H EAT H I N G AT
GA B L E
I N T E RI O R O F RI D G E DAY L I G H T WAS O BS E RV E D I N M I N O R
LO C ATI O NS
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
20
3.6 Rear Roof
The rear roof to the sacrist y is constructed in 2 par ts. The upper
follows the pitch of the main roof and is set approximately 3-0’
below its level with the eaves aligned to the internal row of
columns that defines the nave and aisles of the main church.
The lower roof is set approximately 2-0’ below the upper roof
eaves and is set at a lower pitch. Both roofs are made from 5
segments that follow the traditional octagonal form of the sa crist y.
U p p e r ro o f
UPPER SACRIST Y RO O F
U PPE R N O RT H EAST A N D N O RT H RO O F I N D I C ATI N G
D EFORMATION IN ROOF SURFACE AND RI DGE
C LOSE U P OF U PPE R N ORT H EAST ROOF SHA K ES
D ETA I L O F LOW E R C H I M N EY F L AS H I N G A N D DA M AG E D
BRICK WORK
J U N C TI O N O F SAC RIST Y RO O F A N D M A I N RO O F GA B L E
PR ES E N CE OF MOSS ON ROOF SHAKES AND STAINING
O N RO OF SH I N GLES TO R EA R OF TOWE R ON EAST
RO O F S H A K ES O N LOW E R N O RT H EAST RO O F I N PO O R
CO N D ITI O N
D ETAI L OF RI DGE SHOWING ROT TEN SHAKES
A PPL I C ATI ON OF C AU LKI N G TO JOI N TS I N ROOF SHA K ES
The cedar shakes on the upper roof are generally in fair to poor
condition although the ridge shakes bet ween the 5 roof segments
and the general alignment of the shakes is poor. No visible signs
of deformation in the roof trusses and sheathing was obser ved
internally so it is likely that water is star ting to penetrate the
lower course of shingle and cause them to cup.
The gable flashing to the main roof appears intact and is tucked
into the stucco. Additional caulking has been applied to some
areas of the flashing.
A brick chimney engages the roof edge on the east por tion of the
roof and a flashing is located along the roof pitch which is tucked
into the brickwork. The area of the chimney bet ween the 2 roofs
is also in poor condition and due to the colour may have received
som e p a rg i n g o r o t h e r s u r fa c e fi n i s h i n t h e p a st. I t ap p e a rs t h a t
the upper section of the chimney may have been re -constructed
at some point as the brick and jointing are different to the lower
area.
The eaves and fascia are in good condition. Again a small piece
of flashing has been friction fit ted under the shakes but it is not
continuous unless areas have become dislodged since the initial
installation.
21
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
L ow e r R o o f
The lower roof is in ver y poor condition and has almost reached
the end of its functioning use. There are a number of areas where
the upper and secondar y levels of the shakes are completely rot ten
and crumble easily to the touch.
The east facing roof has a small area of cedar shingles that have
been added to the roof behind the small feature tower. This
area is in the sun’s shadow for the majorit y of the year and it is
assumed that due to the shallower roof pitch snow accumulates in
this area. The dark staining on the shingles and presence of moss
on the shakes indicates that this area remains saturated for long
periods of the year.
D ETA I L O F EAV ES S H OW I N G F L AS H I N G A N D N EW E R
EAV ES T RO U G H
LOW E R W EST A N D N O RT H W EST RO O F
N O RTH WEST FASC I A A ND JU N C TI ON WIT H TOWE R
J U N C TI O N O F U PPE R W EST SAC RIST Y RO O F A N D M A I N
RO O F GA B L E
LOW E R W EST RO O F J U N C TI O N W IT H TOW E R S H OW I N G
MOSS O N RO O F SU R FAC E
D ETAI L OF MOSS AND POOR FL ASH ING TO TOWER
V I EW O F LOW E R W EST RO O F N OTI N G PO O R CO N D ITI O N
OF CEDAR S H AK ES
C LOSE U P O F SH A KE CO N D ITI O N
EAV ES C E DA R S H A K ES ARE BAD LY ROT TEN
The condition on the west roof is more serious. A significant
amount of moss is growing in this area and the flashing into
the rear of the small feature tower is not providing adequate
protection. It is considered that snow and ice build up in this area
is having a detrimental effect on the roof shakes and they are no
longer able to shed wa ter wh en raining.
As noted the general condition of the shakes is ver y poor and
at tempts have been made to seal gaps the bet ween the shakes
with a black caulking. Unfor tunately these t ypes of repair have
lit tle to no value in prolonging the life of the roof and protecting
the building interior.
The junction with the chimney appears to be good and the flashing
is tucked and sealed to the brick.
The flashing at the ridge of the lower roof is tied in to the
stucco and the overhang of the upper roof is affording adequate
protection to this inter face.
The eaves and fascia material appear in good condition and the
eaves trough and downspouts functioning. The shakes at this
edge are in poor condition and it is considered that ice damming
in the spring is allowing water to penetrate the building. There
may be considerable damage to the sheathing and possibly to the
ends of the roof trusses in this area.
As with other areas of the ro of a new flashing has been friction
fit ted under the shakes and laps into the newer eves trough.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
22
3.7 Interior Observations
While the sur vey and investigation concentrated on the roof and
steeple, our at tention was drawn to several areas of the church
interior by Father I gnacy where water ingress was noted. Most
of these instances can be traced to areas identified earlier in the
condition assessment.
The most evident of areas surrounds the junction bet ween the
organ lof t and the main semi-circular form of the nave. It is here
that the water entering through the tin panels of the steeple and
at the roof junction with the steeple are causing the most damage
to the interior. The interior tin panels are showing signs of rust
and the paint finish is spalling from the panels. It is also causing
damage to the wood panelling of the organ. While the damage
is clearly visible we are also concerned with the impact the water
is having in concealed areas and the potential for mold to form.
Other areas involve the upper level of the sacrist y on the west
face although the majorit y of the wa ter damage is occurring at
floor level and in the children’s room below. The water is entering
through the shake roof in the area of moss growth and is likely
travelling down the interior of the wall. Damage was obser ved on
the upper level surrounding the access hatch and the area should
be monitored until the ro of repairs can be under taken.
WAT E R DA M AG E O N W EST AT J U N C TI O N W IT H O RGA N
WAT E R STA I N I N G O N W EST
DA M AG E AT EAST J U N C TI O N W IT H O RGA N
D ETAI L OF DAMAGE TO EAST JUNCTION WITH ORGAN
WAT E R DA M AG E I N LOW E R L EV E L O F W EST SAC RIST Y
WAT E R DA M AG E A DJAC E N T TO
WAT E R DA M AG E A DJAC E N T TO ROS E W I N D OW
N OT E STA I N I N G O F C E I L I N G I N EAST U PPE R L EV E L O F
SAC RIST Y
WAT E R DA M AG E TO C H I M N EY
On the east side of the sacrist y it was noted that the ceiling finish
was damaged and had a different colour. Again it is believed
that this had occurred in the past and that the construction of the
small cedar shingle roof to the rear of the feature tower has gone
some way to mitigate water ingress at this point.
Minor damage was also noted at the junction with the brick
chimney. This may be a prior instance as the current flashings
to the chimney at roof level appear to have been installed more
recently and are functional.
23
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
RO O F ACC ESS H ATC H
3.8 Additional Observations
The hoist provided access to the entire south facade of the building
and areas of the rear sacrist y walls and windows. A visual
inspection was also under taken of the east and west facades.
A general over view of our obser vations is provided in this section
and comments on potential conser vation works are included in the
restoration section.
S o u t h Fa c a d e B r i c k a n d W i n d ow s
The south facade brickwork is generally in excellent condition
with no significant cracks obser ved that would suggest that there
are any structural concerns. At the base of the building at the
junction with the sidewalk, the lower courses of brick are damaged
through freeze thaw action and the parging to the corner towers
has areas that are cracked and missing.
There are some minor areas of re -pointing required that could
be considered as general maintenance. Some areas requiring
at tention are the sill’s to the round windows wh ere wa ter is star ting
to spall the brick and the joints are slightly open.
M A I N E N T RY D O O R I N D I C ATI N G S PA L L I N G O F LOW E R
BRICKS
PA RG I N G S PA L L I N G F ROM SO U T H W EST FO U N DATI O N
D ETAI L OF BRICK OVER SI D E ENTRY DOOR
N O M A J O R C R AC KS I N BRI C K WOR K
ROS E W I N D OW W IT H A R EAS O F U N EV E N PO I N TI N G
The sills in general to the windows are star ting to show signs
of wear. There are a number of cracks opening up that if lef t
unchecked will eventually spall badly.
The windows are also in good condition. There are some areas
where the paint is star ting to flake, notably at the sills and in the
storm sashes. The deterioration of the wood is minor and can be
restored with lit tle cost.
R EC ESS FO R I CO N IS PO O R LY D ETA I L E D A N D
CO NST RU C T E D
The area surrounding the icon is also a potential area for water
ingress as rear the panels are not close fit ting and are crudely
formed and fastened.
CI RCUL AR W IND OW S H OW ING FL A KI N G PA I N T
C LOS E U P O F SI L L S H OW I N G MO RTA R M ISSI N G
POI NTI NG
CO N C R ET E SI L LS A N D WINDOWS REQUI RE MINOR
R E PA I RS
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
24
B r i c k wo r k a n d W i n d ow s G e n e ra l
The remaining brickwork and windows are also generally in good
condition throughout the building. Given the window restoration
works under taken by NAF in 1998, the windows now require
a level 1 maintenance program to remove any flaked paint, fil
any checks and voids and repaint. A detailed inventor y of the
windows noting specific areas of maintenance was not prepared
under the scope of this study.
General maintenance of this kind will prolong the life expectancy
of the windows dramatically and drastically reduce the costs
of future maintenance if the areas are lef t to deteriorate. It
is recommended that a program of inspection and general
maintenance is under taken on a 5 year cycl e.
GENER AL BRIC KWO R K IS I N EXC E L L E N T CO N D ITI O N
The brickwork itself is in ver y good condition with minimal cracks
obser ved that would lead us to conclude that there are structural
issues with the building.
W I N D OWS A R E G E N E R A L LY I N G O O D CO N D ITI O N BU T
D O R EQ U I R E SOM E M I N O R M A I N TE NA N C E
ST U CCO TO TOW E R A PPEA RS SO U N D
N O RT H W EST WA L L O F SAC RIST Y H AS SOM E DA M AG E TO
BRICK WORK
M ISSI N G MO RTA R AT J U N C TI O N W IT H BU F F B RI C K
Q U O I N AT N O RTH A N D N O RTH WEST WA L L CO R N E R
SOM E CR ACKING AT NORTH WEST AND WEST WALL
CO R N E R
POT E N TI A L WAT E R DA M AG E B ET W E E N W I N D OWS M AY
BE ENT ERING AT RO O F L EV E L
D ETAI L OF BRICK BET WEEN WINDOWS
D E FO R MATION OF SOLD I ER COURSE AND LINTEL ABOVE
WI N D OW
There are some cracks at the quoin details bet ween the buff and
red brick of the sacrist y. These are visible at the junctions with
the west and nor th west walls and the nor th west wall and nor th
wall at roof level. The pointing has fallen out of some of the joints
which suggests that water is get ting behind the brick possibly
during ice damming of the eaves in the spring.
Another area of concern involves the windows on the nor th west
wall of the sacrist y. H ere the soldier course above the second
level window is visibly deformed over the centre of the window
to the order of 3/4”. The head of the window frame has also
deformed. This leads us to conclude that the steel suppor t lintel
is overly stressed for the load it is carr ying. Given that the brick
was added to the church af ter construction it is possible that the
original wood framing in this area is not strong enough to take the
weight of the brick and the roof load. It is hoped that any water
ingress has not rot ted the wooden structure to the point of failure
but this can only be verified by much more invasive means.
The brick below this window is also in slightly poorer condition
when compared to the general condition of the brick. Some water
staining on the interior also leads us to believe that the roof
shakes are failing in this area and is having a detrimental effect
on the structure.
25
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
3.9 Condition Assessment Summar y and
Primary Areas of Concern
Steeple
The steeple is generally in good condition although there are
minor areas of advanced metal rust in the tin panels that should
be addressed. Failure to under take maintenance will lead to the
failure of the panels either in local areas or the fastenings of the
panels may deteriorate and the panels potentially detach from the
building.
M I N O R RUST O N SPI R E, U PPE R PI N NAC L ES A R E I N G O O D CO N D ITI ON.
The potential for water ingress to the building can be traced to
the junction bet ween the tin and brickwork and specifically to
the tin panels and pinnacles below the belfr y. There are also
concerns with the junction of the main roof and spire and the
lack of adequate flashings to prevent water from entering at this
junction.
T H E O PE N LO U V R ES O F T H E B E L F RY A L LOW WAT E R TO E N T E R T H E BUI LD ING BUT THE BELFRY FLOOR
A N D D R A I N A PPEA R TO B E PR EV E N TI N G EXC ESSIV E WAT E R F ROM ENTERING THE BUI LD ING BELOW.
T H E LO U V R ES A N D H I G H W I N DS ASSIST W IT H V E N TI L ATI N G T H E S PACE AND ALLOWING WATER TO
EVA PO R AT E.
It should be noted that due to the open louvres of the belfr y it
is almost impossible to prevent water from entering the steeple
at this point but the concrete floor (and drain) appears to be
preventing excess ive wa ter from entering the building below.
PO O R J O I N TS A N D I NA B I L IT Y TO S H E D WAT E R D U E TO T H E W E I G H T O F T H E PI N NAC L ES IS C AUSI N G
WAT E R TO E N T E R T H E BU I L D I N G AT T H ES E 4 A R EAS. T H E J U N C TION BET WEEN THE TIN AND THE
B RI C K B E LOW IS O PE N A N D TH E R E A R E SOM E C R AC KS A N D M ISSI N G POI N TI N G I N T HE B RI C K WOR K.
C o r n e r Towe r s
As with the tin panels of the steeple, the corner towers are
generally in good condition although there are minor areas of
advanced metal rust in the tin panels that should be addressed.
It was also noted that the structural stabilit y of the tin por tion of
the south east tower was compromised. While it is not considered
an immediate danger to the public, the area should be monitored.
T H E CO R N E R TOW E RS H AV E SOM E A R EAS O F RUST. T H E TI N PO RTI ON OF THE SOUTH EAST TOWER IS
S L I G H T LY LO OS E A N D S H O U L D B E MO N ITO R E D TO E NSU R E IT R E M AINS STRUCTUR ALLY SOUND. THE
J U N C TI O NS W IT H T H E RO O F H AV E I NA PPRO PRI AT E F L AS H I N G D ETAI LS AND ARE A POTENTIAL AREA
FO R WAT E R I N G R ESS
T H E R E IS A L AC K O F CO N TI N U IT Y W IT H T H E F L AS H I N G AT T H E J U N CTION BET WEEN THE MAIN ROOF
A N D T H E ST E E PL E. T H E R E A R E SOM E M I N O R C R AC KS I N T H E B RI C K WORK AND THE POINTING AT THE
BU F F B RI C K Q U O I NS IS M ISSI N G I N SOM E I NSTA N C ES A L LOW I N G WAT E R TO E N T E R T H E BU I L D I N G.
The junction with the roof and brick of the towers is also a potential
area for water ingress to the building. As with the junction to the
steeple the concern is with the fl ashings and their continuit y.
S o u t h B r i c k a n d W i n d ow s
There are some minor areas where the pointing has fallen out of
the brick joints and the bricks at the junction with the steps and
sidewalk are showing signs of freeze thaw damage. The windows
are generally in good condition but do require painting and some
restoration of the sills.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
26
M a i n Ro o f
The main roof is in good condition. As noted there are issues with
the flashing details to the brick at the steeple and corner towers
and in addition it is noted that the verges are incorrectly detailed
and are allowing some wa ter to enter behind the fascias.
F L AS H I N GS AT J U N C TI O NS W IT H B RI C K A R E I N POOR COND ITION AND ARE ALLOWING WATER TO
E N TE R TH E BU I L D I N G.
V E RG ES A R E PO O R LY D ETA I L E D A L LOWI N G WATE R TO E N T E R B E H I N D T HE FASC I AS
Sacrist y Roof
The upper sacrist y roof is in good condition. There is some
deformation in the roof sur face but this could be caused by poor
installation of the roof shakes when they were replaced.
The lower sacrist y roof is in poor condition and should be
replaced shor tly. There are a number of areas where the roof
shakes are completely rot ten and have excessive moss growing
on them, indicating that they are saturated and are unlikely to be
per forming.
B r i c k wo r k G e n e ra l
The brickwork of the church is generally in excellent condition.
Th ere are a small number of localized areas that re quire re pointing as do some of the joints at the junction of the buff brick
quoins. There is an area of brickwork bet ween the main and level
2 window on the nor th west facade that is showing the effects of
water damage possibly caused by the failure of the roof above.
TH E LOWE R SAC RIST Y RO O F IS I N V E RY PO O R CO N D ITI ON A N D SHOU LD B E R E PL AC E D
T H E L I N T E L A BOV E T H E N O RT H W EST FAC A D E W I NDOW IS SHOWINGS SI GNS OF D ISTRESS AND
TH E B RI C KWO R K B ET WE E N TH E WI N D OWS IS I N POOR CON D ITI ON
27
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
4.0 Conservation Plan
4.1 Introduction
As the church is a provincially designated building all works
related to the conser vation of the Character Defining Elements will
need to follow the Standards and Guidelines for the Conser vation
of Historic Places in Canada and be approved by the Province of
Alber ta, Hi storic Resource Management Branch.
This section of the repor t begins with an over view of the Standards
and Guidelines then lists the appropriate inter ventions to be
under taken to the building to conser ve the structure in accordance
with the guidelines. The recommendations split the building into
the same por t ions as the condition sur vey.
Where alternative measures can be considered to stabilize the
resource until appropriate conser vation works can be under taken
they are listed for consideration.
4.2 The Standards and Guidelines for
the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada.
Th e Standards and Guidelines for the Conser vation of Historic
Places in Canada, referred to as the Standards and Guidelines
within this repor t, are a set of pan Canadian conser vation
principles designed to provide sound practical advice for anyone
when planning for, inter vening on and using a historic place.
Conser vation activities can be seen as a sequence of actions —
from un d ers tan din g the historic place, to p l annin g for its
conser vation and in ter venin g through projects or maintenance.
U n d ers tan din g an historic place is an essential first step to good
conser vation practice. This is normally achieved through research
and investigation. It is impor tant to know where the heritage
value of the historic place lies, along with its condition, evolution
over time, and past and current impor tance to its communit y. The
traditional practices associated with the historic place and the
interrelationship bet ween the historic place, its environment and
its communities should also be considered. The understanding
phase can be lengthy and, in some cases, may run in parallel
with later phases as the understanding of the place evolves and
continues to inform the process. The information collected in this
phase will be used throughout the conser vation decision -making
process and should remain accessible.
Pl a n n i n g is the mechanism that links a comprehensive
understanding of an historic place with inter ventions that respect
its heritage value. Planning should consider all factors affecting
the future of an historic place, including the needs of the owners
and users, communit y interests, the potential for environmental
impacts, available resources and external constraints. The most
effective planning and design approach is an integrated one that
combines heritage conser vation with other planning and project
goals, and engages all par tners and stakeholders early in the
process and throughout. For historic places, the conser vation
planning process also needs to be flexible to allow for discoveries
and for an increased understanding along the way, such as
information gained from archaeological investigations or impact
assessments. It is impor tant to maintain a firm sense of the
larger picture over the long term, and not to emphasize par ticular
character-defining elements at the expense of others.
In ter venin g on an historic place, that is, any action or process
that results in a physical change to its character-defining elements,
must respect and protect its heri tage value. Inter ventions can
include:
Preser vation actions that are par t of the ongoing maintenance
of an historic place;
Rehabilitation activities related to a new use or code
up g ra d es ;
Restoration activities associated with the depiction of an
historic place at a specific period in its histor y.
Inter vening on archaeological sites may fo cus on:
Preser ving the phys ical integrit y of fragile elements;
Recording them;
Providing access for public visitation;
Integrating them into a new st ructure.
These three phases can fur ther be defined through a series of
steps. Although presented sequentially, these steps should be
revisited regularly as par t of the ongoing conser vation decision
making process.
As the H eritage value of the building is already documented
through the Statement of Significance we can plan the work by
first determining the primar y treatment, review the Standards and
follow the Guidelines. Our goal is to guarantee the long term
existence of the resource while balancing economic and technical
considerations. The proposed scope of work will be tailored to
realistic objectives that define priorities and organizes the works
in logical phases.
The conser vation approach to the building will encompass
aspects of all three primar y treatments namely, Pres er va tion,
Re h a b i l i t a t i o n and Res tora tion.
Pres er va tion involves protecting, maintaining and stabilizing
the existing form, material and integrit y of an historic place
or individual component, while protecting its heritage value.
Preser vation can include both shor t - term and interim measures
to protect or stabilize the place, as well as long- term actions
to stave off deterioration or prevent damage. This will keep the
place ser viceable through routine maintenance and small repairs,
rather than inoperable during intrus ive inter ventions, extensive
replacement and new construction. Preser vation tends to be the
most cautious of the conser vation treatments and retains the most
materials. It is therefore more appropriate when heritage values
related to phys ical materials dominate.
Re h a b i l i t a t i o n involves the sensitive adaptation of an historic
place or individual component for a continuing or compatible
contemporar y use, while protecting its heritage value. Rehabilitation
can include replacing missing historic features. The replacement
may be an accurate replica of the missing feature or it may be a
new design compatible with the st yle, era and character of the
historic place. Rehabilitation can revitalize historical relationships
and set tings and is therefore more appropriate when heritage
values related to the context of the historic place dominate.
Res tora tion involves accurately revealing, recovering or
representing the state of an historic place or individual component
as it appeared at a par ticular period in its histor y, while protecting
its heri tage value. Restoration may include removing non characterdefining features from other periods in its histor y and recreating
missing features from the restoration period. Restoration must be
based on clear evidence and detailed knowledge of the earlier
forms and materials being recovere d.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
28
Restoration is most appropriate when strong associative or
symbolic values have been obscured and can be revealed through
removals, repairs and replacements based on historical evidence.
Before the work begins, the restoration period must be selected
and justified and a plan for Restoration developed. The use of
traditional methods and techniques should be encouraged, where
possible, in a restoration project. Restoration is ra rely used today
as the primar y treatment for an entire historic place, but rather
as a secondar y treatment for specific character-defining elements.
If changes to an historic place have acquired value over time, then
Preser vation or a combination of Preser vation and Rehabilitation
would be more appropria te.
Key D e f i n i t i o n s
Pres er va tion: the action or process of protecting, maintaining,
and/or stabilizing the existing materials, form, and integrit y of
an historic place, or of an individual component, while protecting
its heri tage value.
Re h a b i l i t a t i o n : the action or process of making possible a
continuing or compatible contemporar y use of an historic place,
or an individual comp onent, while protecting its heri tage value.
Res tora tion: the action or process of accurately revealing,
recovering or representing the state of an historic place, or of an
individual component, as it appeared at a par ticular period in its
histor y, while protecting its heri tage value.
The Standards for the Conser vation of Historic Places in Canada
promote responsible conser vation practices to help protect
Canada’s historic places. They provide a philosophical approach
to conser vation work. While neither technical nor case -specific,
they offer a framework for making essential decisions about
which character-defining elements of an historic place should
be preser ved and which ones can be altered while protecting
heri tage value.
These Standards are, in fact, principles that express the collective
wisdom that has accumulated in heri tage conser vation practice.
They are rooted in practical and theoretical arguments that evolved
as the field of conser vation developed over the years. Working
from these basic principles gives consistency and an ethical
foundation to the decisions that must be made when conser ving
an historic place.
29
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
The Standards are to be broadly applied throughout the
conser vation process and read as a whole, because they are
interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Conser vation is a case by-case pursuit, based on an understanding of the specific values
of an historic place. While the applicabilit y of each standard
is unique to each case or inter vention, never theless, there is a
consistency in applying the standards to different t ypes of places.
Because the standards are basic principles to be applied using a
reasoned process unique to each historic place, it is impor tant to
fully understand their meaning.
The first nine standards relate to Preser vation, which is at the core
of all conser vation projects. As such, these general standards must
be applied to all conser vation projects regardless of treatment
t ype. Three additional standards are specific to Rehabilitation
projects — Standards 10, 11 and 12 — and t wo additional
sta n d a rd s a re p rovid e d for Resto ra t io n — Sta n d a rd s 1 3 a n d 1 4 .
T h e S t a n d a rd s
General Standards for Preser vation, Rehabilitation and Restoration
1.
Conser ve the heritage value of an historic place. Do not
remove, replace or substantially alter its intact or repairable
character defining elements. Do not move a par t of an historic
place if its cu rrent location is a character-defining element.
2.
Conser ve changes to an historic place that, over time, have
become character defining elements in their own right.
3.
Conser ve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for
minimal inter vention.
4.
Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its
time, place and use. Do not create a false sense of historical
development by adding elements from other historic places
or other proper ties, or by combining features of the same
proper t y that never coexisted.
5.
Find a use for an historic place that requires minimal or no
change to its character-defining elements.
6.
Protect and, if necessar y, stabilize an historic place until any
subsequent inter vention is under taken. Protect and preser ve
archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential
for disturbing archaeological resources, take mitigation
measures to limit damage and loss of information.
7.
Evaluate the existing condition of character-defining elements
to determine the appropriate inter vention needed. Use the
gentlest means possible for any inter vention. Respect heritage
value wh en under taking an inter vention.
8.
Maintain character-defining elements on an ongoing basis.
Repair character defining elements by reinforcing their
materials using recognized conser vation methods. Replace in
kind any extensively deteriorated or missing par ts of characterdefining elements, wh ere there are sur viving protot yp es.
9.
Make any inter vention needed to preser ve character-defining
elements physically and visually compatible with the historic
place and identifiable on close inspection. Document any
inter vention for future reference.
Additional Standards Relating to Rehabilitation
10. Repair rather than replace character-defining elements. Where
character defining elements are too severely deteriorated to
repair, and where sufficient physical evidence exists, replace
them with new elements that match the forms, materials and
detailing of sound versions of the same elements. Where there
is insufficient physical evidence, make the form, material and
detailing of the new elements compatible with the character
of the historic place.
11. Conser ve the heritage value and character-defining elements
when creating any new additions to an historic place or any
related new construction. Make the new work physically and
visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable
from the historic place.
12. Create any new additions or related new construction so that
the essential form and integrit y of an historic place will not
be impaired if the new work is removed in the future.
Additional Standards Relating to Restoration
13. Repair rather than replace character-defining elements from
the restoration period. Where character-defining elements
are too severely deteriorated to repair and where sufficient
physical evidence exists, replace them with new elements that
match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of
the same elements.
14. Replace missing features from the restoration period with new
features whose forms, materials and detailing are based on
sufficient phys ical, documentar y and/or oral evid ence.
A p p l yi n g t h e G u i d e l i n e s
R e p l a ci n g C h a ra c t e r D e f i n i n g E l e m e n t s
The Guidelines should be consulted only when the element to
be inter vened upon has been identified as a character defining
element in a Statement of Significance or equivalent document.
The General Guidelines apply to all inter ventions, whether the
primar y treatment is Preser vation, Rehabilitation or Restoration.
There are additional guidelines for Rehabilitation and Restoration
projects.
Replacement of all or par ts of character-defining elements should
only be considered when repair is not possible, and if there is
sufficient physical evidence to match the forms, materials and
detailing of a sound version of the same element. Replacement
may be required because an existing feature is so severely
deteriorated or damaged that repair is not possible, or because
a feature is missing entirely. In all cases where replacement is
required, sound elements that may be par t of a larger grouping
should be preser ved.
The Guidelines are presented in an ascending sequence of lesser
to greater inter vention — from documenting, to maintaining,
repairing, and replacing character-defining elements. Because
the expressed objective of the Standards is to conser ve the
heritage value of an historic place, projects should focus on the
first activities in the sequence of Guidelines; that is, applying
the standard of minimal inter vention and resor ting to the last
activities in the sequence only when essential functional goals
cannot other wise be met.
H ealth and Safet y
In under taking work on historic places, we must consider the
impact that compliance with current health and safet y codes (public
health, occupational health, life safet y, fire safet y, electrical,
seismic, structural and building codes) and increased securit y
requirements will have on an historic place’s heritage value and
character-defining elements. It is of ten necessar y to look beyond
the ‘let ter’ of code re quirements to their underlying obje ct ive.
The Alber ta Building Code allows for alternative approaches and
re asonable va riance to achieve compliance.
Some historic materials (for example, insulation, lead paint,
etc.) contain toxic substances that are potentially hazardous to
people. Careful investigation and analysis may determine that
some form of abatement is required. All workers involved in the
encapsulation, repair or removal of known hazardous materials
should be adequately trained and wear proper protective gear as
required by applicable legislation.
It is par ticularly impor tant to understand the distinction bet ween
replacement as par t of rehabilitation or restoration.
Replacement as Par t of Rehabilitation
In a Rehabilitation project, replacing a character-defining
feature that is beyond reasonable repair may be appropriate if
its essential form and detailing are still evident. Replacing a
feature that is missing, but known from physical, documentar y
and oral evidence, may be appropriate; however, accepting the
loss and not inter vening is another possibilit y. The approach for
replacement work will depend on the overall design approach and
design intentions, and most par ticularly, on achieving a visual and
functional balance bet ween the new work and the historic place.
In some cases, the preferred design approach will be replacement
in kind ; in other cases, substitute forms, materials or detailing
may be appropriate. In both situations, the replacement should
be visually and physically compatible with, and distinguishable
from, the historic place. If the replacement is in kind, the work
need only be distinguishable on close inspection.
Replacement as Par t of Restoration
In a Restoration project, replacement, as a rule, should be done
in kind.
Recreating earlier forms, materials, textures, finishes,
colours and detailing, and pat terns and relationships, can help
recover or represent an historic place as it appeared at a par ticular
period in its histor y. Success is largely a question of accuracy.
This requires scrupulous at tention to the physical, documentar y
and oral evidence, and careful monitoring of the replication
process. The replacement work is normally distinguishable only
on close inspection or as par t of the project documentation.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
30
General Guidelines for Roofs
Recommended
31
A d d i t i o n a l G u i d e l i n e s f o r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n P ro j e c t s
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the ro of and how it contributes to the
heri tage value of the historic building.
2
Understanding the proper t ies and characteri st ics of Failing to consider the impact of previous changes and
the ro of as well as changes and previous maintenance maintenance practices on the ro of.
pra ct ic es.
3
Documenting the form, materials and condition of ro of
assemblies before under taking an inter vention, including
the ro of’s pi tch, shape, decorative and functional elements,
and materials, and its size, colour and pat terning.
4
Assessing the condition of the ro of assembly and materials
early i n t h e p l a n n i n g p ro c ess so t h a t t h e sc o p e of work i s
based on current conditions.
5
Determining the cause of a ro of’s distress, damage or
deterioration through invest igation, monitoring and
minimally invasive or non -dest ruct ive testing techniqu es.
6
Protecting and maintaining a ro of by cleaning and
maintaining the gut ters, down sp outs and flat ro of
drains, and replacing deteriorated fl ashing in kind. Ro of
sheathing should also be checked for proper venting to
prevent moisture condensation and wa ter penetration, and
to ensure that materials are free from insect infestation.
Failing to maintain ro ofs on a cycl ical basis.
7
Retaining sound or deteriorated ro of assemblies that can
be re paire d.
St ripping the ro of of sound or repairable character
defining materials, such as slate, clay tile, wood and
architectural metal.
8
Stabilizing deteriorated ro ofs by st ructural reinforcement, Removing deteriorated
weather protection or correcting unsafe conditions, as stabi l ize d o r re p a i re d.
re quired, until repair work is under taken.
9
Repairing par ts of ro ofs by patching, pie cing-in,
consolidating, or other wise reinforcing, using recognize d
conser vation methods. Repair may also include the limited
replacement in kind, or with a compatible substitute
materia l, of ex tensively deteriorated or missing par ts of
the ro of. Repairs should match the existing work as cl osely
as possible, both physically and visually.
14
Under taking an inter vention that affects character defining
ro ofs and ro of elements, without first documenting their
existing character and condition.
Failing to replace deteriorated fl ashing, or to clean and
properly maintain gut ters and downspouts and flat roof
drains so that wa ter and debris collect and damage roof
fasteners, sheathing and the underlying st ructure.
ro of
elements
that
could
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from
accid ental damage or exposure to damaging materials
during maintenance or repair work.
11
Replacing in kind ex tensively deteriorated or missing par ts Replacing an entire ro of element, such as a dormer, when
of ro of assemblies wh ere there are sur viving protot yp es.
limited replacement of deteriorated and missing par ts is
possible. Using a substitute material for the replacement
par t that neither conveys the same appearance as the
sur viving par ts of the ro of element, nor is physically or
vi s u a l ly c o mp a t i b l e.
Testing proposed inter ventions to establish appropria te
replacement materials, qualit y of workmanship and
methodology. This can include reviewing sa mples, testing
product s, methods or assemblies, or creating a mock- up.
Testing should be carried out under the same conditions
as the proposed inter vention.
13
Documenting all inter ventions that affect the building’s
roof, and ensuring that the documentation is available to
those responsible for future inter ventions
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
Not Recommended
Repairing a roof assembly, including its functional and
decorative elements, by using a minimal inter vention
approach. Such repairs might include the limited
replacement in kind, or replacement with an appropriate
substitute material, of irreparable or missing elements,
based on documentar y or phys ical evid ence.
Replacing an entire roof element, such as a cupola, dormer
or lightning rod, when the repair of materials and limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing elements is fe asible.
15
Improving the detailing of roof elements, following
recognized conser vation methods, to correct fault y
details. For example, adjusting the slope of a cornice
to prevent ponding, or introducing a new drip edge
at the eave to bet ter direct water runoff away from a
masonr y wall. Such improvements should be physically
and visually compatible.
16
Replacing in kind an entire element of the roof that is too
deteriorated to repair — if the overall form and detailing
are still evident — using the physical evidence as a
model to reproduce the element. This can include a large
section of roofing, a dormer, or a chimney. If using the
same kind of material is not technically or economically
feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be
considered.
17
Failing to reuse intact roofing materials when only the
ro ofing st ructure or sheathing needs replacement.
Removing a roof element that is irreparable, such as a
chimney or dormer, and not replacing it, or replacing
it with a new element that does not convey the same
ap p e a ra n c e o r ser ve t h e sa m e fu n ct io n.
Replacing deteriorated roof elements and materials
that are no longer available with physically or visually
incompatible substitutes.
Replacing missing historic features by designing and Creating a false historical appearance because the
constructing a new roof feature, based on physical and replicated feature is incompatible or based on insufficient
documentar y evidence, or one that is compatible in size, phys ical and documentar y evid ence.
scale, materia l, st yle or colour.
be
10
12
Recommended
A d d i t i o n s o r A l t e ra t i o n s t o R o o f s a n d R o o f E l e m e n t s
18
19
20
Recommended
Not Recommended
Modif ying or replacing a roof or roof element, to
accommodate an expanded program, a new use, or
applicable codes and regulations, in a manner that
resp e ct s t h e b u i l d i n g’ s h e ri t a g e va l u e.
Constructing an addition that requires removing a character
d efining ro of.
Selecting appropriate roof top mechanical and ser vice
equipment and associated piping and cabling, such
as air-conditioning components, transformers or solar
collectors, and installing the equipment as inconspicuously
as possible, while respecting the building’s heritage
value and character defining elements.
Selecting inappropriate roof top mechanical or ser vice
equipment, or installing such equipment in a manner that
compromises the building’s heritage value and character
defining elements.
Designing and constructing additions to roofs, such as
access stairs, elevator or mechanical equipment housing,
decks and terraces, and dormers and sk ylights that are
inconspicuous from the public right of way and do not
damage or obscure character defining elements.
Designing and constructing a roof addition that
compromises the building’s character-defining roof
elements, its st ructural integrit y, or its overall appearance.
Changing the configuration of a roof by adding new
elements, such as dormer windows, vents or sk ylights, in a
manner that negatively affects its heritage value.
Adding significant loads to a roof without assessing the
impact on the building’s structure.
Constructing a roof top addition that blocks natural light
pat terns or impor tant views.
H e a l t h , S a f e t y a n d S e cu r i t y C o n s i d e ra t i o n s
Recommended
Not Recommended
21
Complying with health and sa fet y re quirements, by Damaging or dest roying character-defining elements while
providing lightning protection, or snow and ice guards, making modifications to comp ly with health and safet y
or roof anchors in a manner that conser ves the ro of’s re quirements.
heri tage value and minimizes impact on its characterdefining elements.
22
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, sa fet y and se cu ri t y
re quirements with the least impact on the characterdefining elements and overall heri tage value of the
historic building.
23
Removing or encapsulating haza rd ous materials, such as
asbestos insulation, using the least -invasive abatement
methods possible, and only af ter thorough testing has
been conducted.
24
Protecting roofs against loss or damage by id entif ying
and assessing the specific fi re risks, and by
implementing an appropria te fi re -protection st ra tegy
that addresses those risks.
Making changes to character-defining ro ofs, without first
exploring equivalent systems, methods or devices that may
be less damaging to the character-defining elements and
heri tage value of the historic building.
Recommended
Not Recommended
31
Repairing a roof assembly from the restoration period by
reinforcing its materials.
Replacing an entire roof feature from the restoration period,
such as a cupola or dormer, when the repair of materials
and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing par ts
is p ossib le.
32
Replacing in kind an entire roof feature from the
restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair,
using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce
the feature. The new work should be well documented
and unobtrusively dated to guide future research and
treatment.
Removing an irreparable roof feature from the restoration
period and not replacing it, or replacing it with an
inappropriate new roof feature. Reinstating a roof detail
that is damaging to character defining elements.
R e m ovi n g E xi s t i n g Fe a t u re s f ro m O t h e r Pe r i o d s
Recommended
Not Recommended
Covering flammable character-defining elements with
fi re -resistant sheathing or coatings that alter their
ap p e a ra n c e.
33
Removing or altering a non character-defining roof or Failing to remove a non character-defining roof or roof
roof element, such as a later dormer or asphalt roofing, element from another period that confuses the depiction of
dating from a period other than the restoration period.
the building’s chosen restoration period.
Replacing wood ro of elements with alternate materials,
without carefully considering other options for reducing
fi re sp re a d.
34
Retaining alterations to roof assemblies that address
problems with the original design if those alterations do
not have a negative impact on the building’s heritage
va l u e.
Failing to take proper fi re protection precautions when
using a technique that could endanger the building, such
as applying membranes on wood roofs using heat.
Not Recommended
25
Complying with energy ef ficiency obje ct ives in upgrades Damaging or dest roying character-defining elements while
to the roof assembly in a manner that respects the making modifications to comp ly with energy efficiency
building’s character defining elements, and considers the re quirements.
energy efficiency of the building envelope and systems
as a whole.
26
Working with energy ef ficiency and sustainabilit y
specialists to determine the most appropria te solution to
energy efficiency and sustainabilit y re quirements with
the least impact on the character-defining elements and
overall heritage value of the historic building.
Making changes to the ro of assembly, without first
exploring alternative sustainabilit y solutions that may
overall heri tage value of the historic building.
27
Exercising caution and forese eing the potential ef fe ct s
of insulating the ro of on the building envelope to avoid
damaging changes, such as displacing the dew point
and creating thermal bridges, or incre asing the snow
lo ad.
Installing insulation without anticipating its potential impact
on the building envelope. Inser ting thermal insulation in
ro of assemblies, without providing appropria te vapour
barriers or ventilation.
28
Installing thermal insulation in non -character-defining
roof spaces, such as at tics, without adversely affecting
the building envelope.
Installing insulation in habi table at tic spaces without
considering its ef fe ct on character-defining interior
features such as mouldings.
29
Ensuring that st ruct u ra l, d ra i n a g e a n d a c c ess
requirements to improve the ro of’s energy ef ficiency can
be met without damaging character-defining elements.
30
Assessing the addition of vegetated ro of systems (green
roofs) or storm wa ter ci sterns to flat -roof assemblies,
and their impact on the building’s heri tage value and
st ructural integrit y, before work begins.
Removing a roof element from a later period that ser ves
an impor tant function in the building’s ongoing use, such
as a sk ylight for natural daylight, or a vent for natural
ventilation.
R e c re a t i n g M i s s i n g Fe a t u re s f ro m t h e R e s t o ra t i o n Pe r i o d
Recommended
S u s t a i n a b i l i t y C o n s i d e ra t i o n s
Recommended
A d d i t i o n a l G u i d e l i n e s f o r R e s t o ra t i o n P ro j e c t s
35
Not Recommended
Recreating a missing roof element that existed during the Constructing a roof element that was par t of the building’s
restoration period, based on physical or documentar y original design, but never actually built, or constructing
evid ence; for example, reinstating a dorm er or cupola.
a feature thought to have existed during the restoration
period, but for wh ich there is insufficient documentation.
Adding a vegetated or reflective membrane ro of system
that might comp romise the building’s heri tage value or its
st ructural integrit y.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
32
G e n e r a l G u i d e l i n e s f o r Wa l l s
Recommended
A d d i t i o n a l G u i d e l i n e s f o r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n P ro j e c t s
Not Recommended
1
Understanding the ex terior walls and how they contribute
to the heri tage value of the historic building.
2
Understanding the proper t ies and characteri st ics of Failing to consider the impact of previous changes to the
the ex terior walls as well as changes and previous ex terior wall assembly, such as the addition of insulation
maintenance practices.
and vapour barriers, or new heating or cooling systems.
3
Documenting the comp osition, form, materials, details, Under taking an inter vention that affects exterior wall
dimensions and condition of ex terior wall assemblies assemblies without fi rst documenting their existing
before under taking an inter vention. This includes character and condition.
geometr y, scale, propor t ions, openings, form and
suppor ting frames or structures.
14
Not Recommended
Repairing an exterior wall assembly, including its
functional and decorative elements, by using a minimal
inter vention approach. Such repairs might include the
limited replacement in kind, or replacement using an
appropria te substitute material of irreparable or missing
elements, based on documentar y or physical evidence.
Repairs might also include dismantling and rebuilding
a masonr y or wood wall, if an evaluation of its overall
condition determines that more than limited repair or
replacement in kind is re quired.
Over-cladding a deteriorated or poorly insulated exterior
wall with a new material or assembly, without considering
the impact on heritage value or the condition of underlying
materials.
Improving the dr ying abilit y of exterior wall assemblies
through suitable heating and/or ventilation measures.
Damaging the masonr y of an exterior wall by drilling
drainage holes into the masonr y units or into the joints,
with a drill bit wider than the mor tar joints.
Replacing an entire exterior wall assembly when the
repair and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing
elements is feasible.
Failing to reuse intact cladding when only the internal
par ts of the wall assembly need replacement.
4
Assessing the condition of wall assemblies and their
materials early in the planning process so that the scope
of work is based on cu rrent conditions.
5
Determining the cause of distress, damage or deterioration
of ex terior walls through invest igation, monitoring and
minimally invasive or non -dest ruct ive testing techniqu es.
16
Protecting and maintaining ex terior walls by cleaning Failing to maintain ex terior walls on a cyclical basis.
and repairing damaged materials, and checking ex terior Failing to correct causes of deterioration of the exterior
wall assemblies for moisture penetration and insect wall assembly, such as failed sealants.
infestation, taking corrective action, as necessar y and as
so on as possible.
Accommodating the thermal expansion and contraction Filling moving cracks or expansion joints in exterior wall
of masonr y, concrete and cur tain wall assemblies, by assemblies with materials that inhibit or prevent thermal
introducing expansion or control joints, and incorporating expansion and contraction.
those joints into existing crack pat terns, where feasible,
to minimize impact on character-defining elements.
17
Replacing in kind an irreparable exterior wall assembly,
based on documentar y and physical evidence. If using
the same kind of material is not environmentally sound, or
technically or economically feasible, then a compatible
substitute material may be considered.
6
Introducing a vapour barrier in an exterior wall that was
constructed to be permeable or breathable.
Removing an irreparable exterior wall assembly, such as a
cornice or brise -soleil, and not replacing it, or replacing
it with a new element that does not convey the same
ap p e a ra n c e o r ser ve t h e sa m e fu n ct io n.
7
Retaining sound or deteriorated ex terior wall assemblies
that c a n b e re paire d.
8
Stabilizing deteriorated ex terior walls by using st ructural Removing deteriorated ex terior wall elements that could be
reinforcement, weather protection, or correcting unsafe stabi l ize d o r re p a i re d.
conditions, as re quired, until repair work is under taken.
9
Repairing par ts of ex terior walls by patching, pie cing-in,
consolidating, or other wise reinforcing, using recognize d
conser vation methods. Repair may also include the
limited replacement in kind, or with a compatible
substitute materia l, of ex tensively deteriorated or missing
par ts of the ex terior wall assembly. Repairs should match
the existing work as cl osely as possible, both phys ically
and visual ly.
10
Protecting adjacent character-defining elements from
accid ental damage or exposure to damaging materials
during maintenance or repair work.
19
Replacing in kind ex tensively deteriorated or missing Replacing an entire ex terior wall assembly when only
par ts of ex terior wall assemblies wh ere there are sur vivi n g limited replacement of deteriorated and missing par ts is
protot yp es.
p oss i b l e.
Modif ying exterior walls to accommodate an expanded
program, a new use, or applicable codes and regulations,
in a manner that respects the building’s heritage value.
20
Designing a new addition in a manner that preser ves the Constructing an addition that requires the removal of
character-defining ex terior walls of the historic building. character-defining ex terior walls.
11
18
12
Testing proposed inter ventions to establish appropria te
replacement materials, qualit y of workmanship and
methodology. This can include reviewing sa mples, testing
product s, methods or assemblies, or creating a mock- up.
Testing should be carried out under the same conditions
as the proposed inter vention.
13
Documenting all inter ventions that affect the ex terior
walls, and ensuring that the documentation is available
to those responsible for future inter ventions.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
Replacing deteriorated elements and materials in cur tain
wall assemblies that are no longer available, with
phys ically and visually incompatible substitutes.
Replacing missing historic features by designing and Creating a false historical appearance, because the
constructing a new por tion of the exterior wall assembly, replicated feature is incompatible or based on insufficient
based on physical and documentar y evidence, or one phys ical and documentar y evid ence.
that is compatible in size, scale, material, st yle and
colour.
A d d i t i o n s o r A l t e ra t i o n s t o E x t e r i o r Wa l l s
Recommended
Using a substitute material for the replacement par t that
neither conveys the same appearance as the sur viving par ts
of the element, nor is phys ically or visually compatible.
33
15
Recommended
Not Recommended
H e a l t h , S a f e t y a n d S e cu r i t y C o n s i d e ra t i o n s
Recommended
Complying with health, sa fet y and se cu ri t y re quirements Damaging
or
dest roying
elements
while
making
in a manner that conser ves the heri tage value of the modifications to comp ly with health, sa fet y or securit y
exterior wall assembly and minimizes impact on its re quirements.
character-defining elements.
22
Working with code specialists to determine the most
appropriate solution to health, sa fet y and se cu ri t y
historic building.
23
Removing or encapsulating toxic materials, using the
least invasive abatement methods possible, and only
af ter thorough testing has been conducted.
24
Protecting exterior walls against loss or damage Covering flammable character-defining walls with fi re by identif ying and assessing specific risks, and by resistant sheathing or coatings that alter their appearance.
implementing an appropria te fi re protection and blast
protection st ra tegy that addresses those risks.
Making changes to ex terior walls, without fi rst exploring
equivalent systems, methods or devices that may be less
damaging to character-defining elements and the heritage
value of the historic building.
S u s t a i n a b i l i t y C o n s i d e ra t i o n s
26
Recommended
Not Recommended
Complying with energy ef ficiency obje ct ives in upgrades
to exterior wall assemblies in a manner that respects the
building’s character-defining elements, and considers the
energy efficiency of the building envelope and systems
as a whole.
Changing the comp osition or materials of the ex terior wall
assembly in a manner that comp romises the building’s
character-defining elements and the durabilit y of its
materials.
Assessing the potential impacts of adding insulation to
the building envelope, such as displacing the dew point
and creating thermal bridges.
Recommended
Not Recommended
28
Repairing an exterior wall assembly from the restoration
period by reinforcing its materials; for example, using
heavier gauge metal to reinforce a mullion in a cur tain
wa l l.
Replacing an entire exterior wall assembly from the
restoration period when the repair of materials and limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing par ts is possible.
29
Replacing in kind an entire exterior wall assembly from
the restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair,
using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce
the assembly. The new work should be well documented
and unobtrusively dated to guide future research and
treatment.
Removing an irreparable exterior wall assembly from the
restoration period and not replacing it, or replacing it with
an inappropriate exterior wall assembly.
Not Recommended
21
25
A d d i t i o n a l G u i d e l i n e s f o r R e s t o ra t i o n P ro j e c t s
Replacing single pane glazing with sealed thermal units,
without considering the impact on interrelated elements,
such as cu r tain wall connections.
Inser ting thermal insulation in ex terior wall cavities,
in at tics, and in unheated cellars and crawl spaces,
that might adversely affect the building’s envelope and
character defining elements.
Reinstating an exterior wall detail that is damaging to
adjacent character-defining elements.
R e m ovi n g E xi s t i n g Fe a t u re s f ro m O t h e r Pe r i o d s
Recommended
Not Recommended
30
Removing or altering a non character-defining exterior Failing to remove a non character-defining exterior wall
wall assembly or element from a period other than the assembly or element from another period that confuses the
restoration period.
depiction of the building’s chosen restoration period.
31
Retaining alterations to exterior wall assemblies that Removing an exterior wall assembly or element from a later
address problems with the original design, if those period that ser ves an impor tant function in the building’s
alterations do not have a negative impact on the ongoing use.
building’s heritage value.
R e c re a t i n g M i s s i n g Fe a t u re s f ro m t h e R e s t o ra t i o n Pe r i o d
Recommended
32
Not Recommended
Recreating a missing exterior wall assembly from the Constructing an exterior wall assembly that was par t of the
restoration period, based on physical or documentar y building’s original design, but was never actually built,
evid ence.
or constructing a feature thought to have existed during
the restoration period, but for which there is insufficient
documentation.
Installing insulation on the inside of ex terior walls without
considering the ef fe ct on character defining interior
mouldings or detailing.
27
Working with energy ef ficiency specialists to determine
the most appropria te solution to energy ef ficiency
historic building.
Making changes to the ex terior walls, without first
exploring alternative energy ef ficiency solutions that may
overall heri tage value of the historic building.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
34
4 .3 P ro p o s e d C o n s e r v a t i o n Wo r k s
4 .3. 1 - C o r n e r Towe r s
The proposed restoration works have been organized by building
elements as per the condition assessment. They are presented
as a hierarchal series of inter ventions that look at a minimum
action based on what could be achieved without scaffolding the
building through to a full conser vation approach that addresses
all concerns and is designed to protect the resource to the greatest
practical level.
Item Medium Level Inter vention
1
Wash with ch emical rust remover (such as diluted phosphoric acid )
Use gentle ab rasion methods to remove excess ive areas of rust.
Scrape off caulking and other deleterious materia l
Re - a ffix lo ose na ils a nd fixings
Wash with deterg ent / neutralize
Apply rust inhibitive metal prime r (use one suitable for embedding
polyester fabric mesh where area of existing tin has holes caused by
rust or to fill prior nail holes and other penetrations)
The minimal levels of inter vention are generally not recommended
as a conser vation approach and are seen as a shor t term measure
to be implemented until funding can be identified and a more
robust series of inter ventions under taken.
In this instance the potential impact of not under taking the
medium level of inter vention and the full conser vation approach
are addressed so the Building Commit tee can make an informed
judgement on the level of conser vation to under take in the
immediate future and what works may be deferred to a subsequent
date.
It must be noted that if the building is not scaffolded to allow
full access to the building elements then the works will be
under taken from a hoist similar to that utilized in the condition
assessment. The inter ventions possible are restricted due to the
Operational H ealth and Safet y Regulations and will be subject to
the physical access that such hoist equipment is able to provide
to the building. The schedule for under taking the works will also
be impacted during high winds and the requirement for access
to the steeple will potentially damage the existing hard and sof t
landscaping surrounding the building. A contingency for restoring
the landscaping should be carried in all works.
With some of the proposed inter ventions there is an overlap to
an adjoining building element. Therefore 1 inter vention cannot
be under taken in isolation and the level of the proposed and
implemented inter ventions cannot be dis-similar. For example
it is not recommended to replace roofing elements (high level
inter vention) and omit the works to the flashings and adjoining
brickwork.
35
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
Tin metal work genera l
Apply 2 coats of acr ylic paint
2
Roof Fl ashings
Remove existing flashings and clean out deleterious material from
junction with ro of
Rem ove l ower rows of ro of s h a kes a t ju n ct io n wi t h t ower
Install ice water shield membrane to roof sheathing at junction with
tower
Item Low Level Inter vention
1
Install metal fl ashing tucked into existing brick and re -point
Treat areas of rust with encapsulating metal primer
2
B rickwork
Re -point areas of brickwork where mor tar is missing
Roof Fl ashings
Clean out deleterious material from junction with ro of
Apply caulking to junction with brickwork
3
Re - inst a ll ro of sha kes
3
B rickwork
The hoist will not provide the sa fe working platform to under take
a comprehensive restoration of the Corner Towers. The works
are intended to halt the decay of the metal areas where rust is
present, remove the build up of material in the fl ashing areas and
provide a temporar y seal to water ingress. The towers will require
re -painting in approximately 5-10 years and the caulking may last
3-5 years depending on UV exposure and the general movement
of the towers on the suppor ting brickwork. This action will not
remove the potential for water to enter the building at the junction
bet ween the roof and the towers and does not remove some of the
inherent design problems that exist with the assembly.
The medium level of inter vention will address most concerns with
the current condition par ticularly in respect to the potential for
water ingress at the junction bet ween the tower and the roof
through the installation of correct flashings and the ice and water
shield. As with the low level inter ventions, the towers will require
re -painting in approximately 5-10 years. At this time the pointing
at the flashings should also be inspected and restored if necessar y.
The works do not address the long term structural stabilit y of the
towers and the strapping that is showing signs of decay. These
elements should be monitored and addressed immediately if they
show any signs of instabilit y.
L owe r S p i re a n d J u n c t i o n wi t h B r i c k
Item Full Conser vation
1
1
Re - a f fix l o ose n ai l s a n d fixi n gs
Extend base of tin to cover junction with brickwork ensuring the tin
ex tends below upper feature course of brick and is terminated with
drip edge to prevent wa ter from entering the junction and causing
decay of the b rick a n d st rappin g.
Re p la ce woo d fram i n g as n ec essa r y t o i mp rove stabi l i t y a t b a se
Apply clear silicone sealant (high elasticit y product) to open joints that
cannot be closed without disassembling components and re -creating
them with correct jointing techniques
polyester fabric mesh wh ere area of existing tin has holes caused by
t
2
2
Roof Fl ashings
1
Install ice wa ter shield membrane to ro of sheathing at junction with
tower
Re - a f fix l o ose na ils a nd fixings
Install metal fl ashing tucked into existing brick and re -point
Apply clear silicone sealant (high elastici t y product) to open joi nts
B rickwork
Review with st ructural engineer and supplement / replace as necessar y
to ensure the long term integrit y of the tower.
Removing the tin por tion of the towers to analyse and potentially
replace the strapping that is holding them to the brick will enable
the restoration of the tin work to be under taken in a workshop.
This will likely ensure a higher qualit y of restoration as elements
may be dismantled and rebuilt using solder and folded joints to
improve the wa ter tightness of the materia l.
As an ongoing maintenance program the tin work should be re painted in approximately 5-10 years and the pointing inspected
and restored if necessar y.
Install counter flashing to pinnacle bases to improve junction bet ween
pinnacle and surrounding material. Modif y base of pinnacles as
necessar y to ensure a lap jointed or sealed connection bet ween the
pinnacle and surrounding materia l.
2
Structural Stabilit y
Carefully remove tin elements to invest igate existing st rapping and
st ructural suppor t and connection.
Include tie rod to secure pinnacle to suppor ting structure and reduce
movement in high winds.
Re -point areas of brickwork wh ere mor tar is missing
4
Incorp orate blocking and metal suppor t angles to ensure positive slope
to exterior from pinnacle bases.
Remove l ower rows of roof s h a kes a t ju n ct io n wi t h t ower
3
Tin metal work Pinnacles
Ca refully remove pinnacles minimizing damage to adjoining materia l
Re - inst a ll ro of s h a kes
3
Roof Fl ashings
Apply caulking to junction with brickwork
B rickwork
As with the corn er towers, the hoist will not provide the sa fe
working platform to under take a comprehensive restoration of this
area of the steeple. The works are intended to halt the decay of
the metal areas where rust is present and provide a temporar y
seal to water ingress. The towers will require re -painting in
approximately 5-10 years and the caulking may last 3-5 years
depending on UV exposure and the general movement of the tin
in high winds. This action will not remove the potential for water
to enter the building at the junction bet ween the tin metal and the
brick and does not remove some of the inherent design problems
such as the back slope at the base of the pinnacles that exists with
the assembly.
Recreate severely damaged / modified elements
Ap p ly 2 c o a t s of a cr yl ic p a i n t
3
Roof Fl ashings
Remove existing flashings and clean out deleterious material from
junction with ro of.
Remove existing roof shakes approximately 600mm wide along pitch
of ro of to lap fl ashing and install ice wa ter shield membrane on
shea t hing
Install metal flashing tucked into existing brick joints and stepped to
follow ro of pi tch and re -point
Re -instate roof shakes.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
36
4
1
Junction of Brick and Ti n
Clean out loose material from junction bet ween brick and tin.
Carefully dismantle tin metal components minimizing damage to
adjoining elements as work proceeds
Assess junctions to determine if replacement of mor tar will provid e
necessar y capillar y break to prevent wa ter entering building.
Install additional counter fl ashing with drip edge if necessar y to
protect junction.
5
Inspect components to determine if economically and technically
feasible to restore or if replacement in kind is a more appropriate
conser vation approach.
B rickwork
Recreate severely damaged / modified elements.
Re -point areas of brickwork wh ere mor tar is missing
Wash remaining elements with chemical rust remover (such as diluted
phosphoric acid ) .
The medium level of inter vention will address most concerns with
the current condition par ticularly in respect to the potential for
water ingress at the junction bet ween the steeple and the roof
through the installation of correct flashings and the ice and water
shield. The re -building of the areas around the pinnacles and
the installation of the tie rods will also assist in mitigating the
potential for failure at these junctions. Modif ying the junction of
the tin and brick elements will also prevent water from entering at
this junction by providing an appropriate lap flashing.
The works will not however remove the design flaws within the tin
construction and the building will only retain its water tightness
while the silicone sealant is able to withstand the movement of
the tin panels in high winds or until it deteriorates under UV
degradation. For most sealants the life expectancy under these
conditions will be in the order of 5 years.
To ensure a long term solution is applied to this vulnerable area of
the building a full conser vation approach will require the careful
dismantling of the tin and some of the upper brickwork and the
installation of an appropriate building membrane.
To enable the building to breath and to prevent moisture from
being trapped it is recommended that 2 layers of 15lb per forated
building felt are used. This is a traditional material that when
combined with a flexible flashing and weepholes in the brickwork
will prevent water from entering the building and causing long
term damage to structural elements.
The area in qu estion is illust ra ted in the following 2 images.
37
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
Wash with deterg ent / neutralize.
Inspect all joints and ensure a close tight fit ting assembly can be
provided. Modif y and replace joints to ensure adequate lap is provided
and capillar y break to minimize water ingress through the joints.
Re -affix comp onents.
pinnacle and surrounding materia l.
Ap p ly 2 c o a t s of a cr yl ic p a i n t.
2
B rickwork
Carefully dismantle areas of brickwork, clean bricks and number
special shapes / cut bricks for re -construction.
Protect and set aside for re -construction.
Re -instate bricks following works to substrate and sheathing.
Incorporate brick suppor t angle and brick ties to substrate with flexible
flashing and weepholes to allow any water that has entered the tin
ab ove t o exi t t h e b u i l d i n g.
3
Sheathing and substrate
Inspect sheathing and substrate for areas of rot and replace as
necessa r y.
Incorporate blocking under pinnacles to suppor t weight of pinnacles
and ensure positive slope form building.
Apply 2 layers of 15lb per forated felt building paper, lapped over ice
and wa ter shield at ro of junction.
Incorp orate metal angles and clips to suppor t tin metal and reduce
deflection in members during high winds.
4
Belfry
Roof Fl ashings
Remove existing fl ashings and clean out deleterious material from
junction with ro of.
1
Wash areas to remove bi rd droppings
Remove existing ro of shakes approximately 600mm wide along pi tch of
roof and install ice wa ter shield membrane on sheathing and lapped
up approx. 150mm onto wall sheathing.
Install new metal fl ashing embedded into mor tar joi nt of new brick
suppor t angles.
Re -instate roof shakes.
2
1
Review bird mesh and bot tom louvre assembly to remove the potential
for nesting areas.
1
Wash areas to remove bird droppings
Re - a f fix l o ose na ils a nd fixings
polyester fabric mesh where any area of existing tin has holes caused
by rust or to fill prior nail holes and other penetrations) .
With the exception of the louvre blades and some local areas of rust
the Belfr y is in good condition. As previously noted, access from
the hoist will limit the abilit y to under take a full level conser vation
but in this instance there is lit tle to no difference bet ween a
medium level inter vention and the full conser vation works other
than determining if the louvre blades that were replaced with a
powder coated material in previous conser vation works are to be
replaced with tin metal under a Restoration activit y.
Apply clear silicone sealant (high elastici t y product) to open joi nts that
2
Louvre replacement / Restoration work
Remove powder coated
conser vation works
metal
louvres
installed
during
previous
Carefully examine original louvres for signs of excessive rust, determine
if economically and technically feasible to restore or if replacement in
kind is a more appropria te conser vation approach.
Manufacture new tin louvre blades to profile of original and install
with new bi rd mesh to prevent nesting at base of louvres
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
38
S p i re
1
1
1
2
Wash areas to remove bird droppings
polyester fabric mesh where any area of existing tin has holes caused
by rust or to fill prior nail holes and other penetrations) .
Apply clear silicone sealant (high elastici t y product) to open joi nts that
Review bird mesh and bot tom louvre assembly to remove the potential
for nesting areas.
2
Incorporate blocking and metal suppor t angles to stiffen connection to
base of spire
Re - a f fix l o ose n a i l s an d fixi n gs
As with previous commentar y on the conser vation of the tin work
the success of the inter ventions will be limited due to the abilit y
to access the area from the hoist. There were no major perceived
issues with the spire that are significantly contributing to the water
ingress issues that the conser vation works are primarily aimed to
mitigate.
Works are designed to protect the longevit y of the materials and
again there are only minor differences from the medium level
inter ventions and the full conser vation works that can be related
to the previous replacement of materials.
With all works to the tin metal the new paint coatings that are
applied from the hoist will potentially fail sooner than those
applied from a scaffolding due to the greater level of preparation
and qualit y control that can be achieved from the scaffold. The
paint finish should last approximately 10 years.
39
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
Tin metal work Pinnacles
Ca refully remove pinnacles minimizing damage to adjoining materia l
The structural stabilit y of the south west and south east pinnacles
was investigated in the condition assessment and it was noted
that the high wind pressure was causing some deterioration in
the pinnacle caps. To mitigate the potential for the pinnacles to
deteriorate fur ther they could be removed from the building and
supplemental tie rods and internal stiffening installed to stabilize
them.
pinnacle and surrounding material removing previous conser vation
work s i f re qu i re d.
The louvre blades of the spire appear original to the building
but some are modified on the return por tion and are deformed.
The full conser vation works will look to address these items and
restore them.
Recreate severely damaged / modified elements
Re - a ffix t o spire
3
Louvre Restoration work
Examine louvres and ensure that significant deformations are removed
from blades and that entire blade has integrit y. Replace in kind any
elements that cannot be economically or technically restored.
Ensure bot tom louvre is installed to prevent nesting and install new
bi rd m es h.
Main Roof
R e a r Ro o f
As noted in the condition assessment the main roof is in relatively
good condition given the age of the roof shakes and while there
are some areas of concern adjoining the steeple and corner
towers, there is no immediate requirement to replace the roof.
As noted in the condition assessment por tions of the rear roof are
showing advanced signs of decay and should be replaced. The
works will require the complete replacement of the cedar shakes
and possible replacement of some areas of roof sheathing.
Should it be determined to under take the medium or full conser vation
works to the junction bet ween the tin and brickwork at the main
steeple and replace the associated roof flashings or at the corner
towers then it is recommended that works are under taken to correct
the design deficiency of the south verge. The shakes along this
edge should be replaced ensuring an appropriate overhang is
provided and a verge flashing installed that protects the edge of
the verge fascia.
Unfor tunately with the replacement of the roof there is lit tle to
no reduction in scope from the full conser vation approach to that
of a minimal inter vention. In this instance the only decisions
available are the choice of roofing material and the extent of the
replacement.
In considering the timing to replace the roof, the roof should
be inspected again in 5 years. At that time the west face in
par ticular may show signs of fur ther decay that would lead to the
decision to replace the roof before it deteriorated to the point of
failure where significant damage to the building interior could
occur.
In considering a replacement roof there are a number of options
available to the Building Commit tee that range from replacement
cedar shakes, cedar shingles, asphalt products, composite tiles
and metal. While some of these may require input form the
HRMB of the Province to determine their suitabilit y, they may be
considered on economic grounds to stabilize the resource and
ensure no long term damage occurs to the building interior.
The immediate concern is to replace the lower sacrist y roof but it
is considered that the cedar shakes to the upper sacrist y roof are
also in poor condition. While the works may be considered in a
phased approach it is not recommended. A significant amount
of cost is contained in the set up of the scaffolding required for
access and to return and replace the upper roof as a separate
project will add considerable cost over under taking the works in
a single phase. There is also the risk of damage being caused to
the lower roof during replacement of the upper.
1
Roof replacement
Remove existing roof finish, building paper and inspect roof sheathing,
replacing sheathing members wh ere necessar y.
Ca refully remove existing gut ter and down sp outs and set aside for re installation.
Inspect existing flashings and set aside for re -use if utilized in new
ro of.
Inspect fascias and soffits and replace as necessar y, install eaves
ventilation.
Install new ice and water shield to lower roof and install ice and water
shield to eaves and ridge of upper roof. Balance of upper roof to be
2 layers per forated 15lb building paper.
Install new cedar shingle roof with new ridge flashings, eaves flashings
and re -instated flashings to adjoining building elements. Incorporate
ridge ventilation / ventilation of roof space to prevent build up of
condensation.
2
Parge lower section of chimney and install flashing tuck pointed into
chimney at junction
3
Inspect stucco at junction bet ween upper and lower roofs and at
junction with main roof and replace any hollow areas. Ensure flashings
are tuck pointed into stucco.
In considering a replacement material the same choices are
available as those indicated for the main roof. For the purpose of
this repor t we recommend the installation of a cedar shingle roof.
The cedar shingles are generally more adept at shedding moisture
on lower pitched roofs (such as the lower roof areas) and due to
the direction of the wood grain are less susceptible to cupping
which can lead to moisture collection and saturation at edges.
Installing scaffolding to the rear of the church will also enable the
brickwork to be re -pointed where noted and an investigation to
the issues surrounding the upper window on the nor th west wall.
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
40
5.0 Outline Budget Pricing
Building Interior
Works to restore the building interior that have become damaged
through the water ingress should be coordinated with the scope
of the exterior conser vation works and any proposed ongoing
maintenance and upgrade work that is planned for the interior.
Works should only be under taken when the envelope issues have
been corrected and can be deferred until interior painting is
planned.
The only pressing area of concern relates to the potential for mold
to be present in the building fabric behind the tin panels. It is
recommended that a mold inspection is under taken on the south
of the church and in par ticular in the areas surrounding the organ
lof t wh ere the most visible areas of wa ter damage have occurre d.
In this instance the mitigation cannot be identified until the
results of the sur vey are under taken. It is recommended that a
contingency is carried for the work s.
1
Under take mold assessment sur vey
2
Mitigation of mold to be reviewed following results of sur vey
3
All interior works to be scheduled as par t of interior maintenance and
improvements
1
Re p a i r p a rg i n g t o exi st i n g wi n d ow s i l l s
2
Repoint areas of missing mor tar in genera l
3
Repoint missing mor tar from ci rcular window sills.
4
Under take low level maintenance of existing windows
Remove fla ked p a int
Remove any areas of rot.
Fill checks and prep for painting
Prime and include 2 top coats of paint
5
Re -build area surrounding the ic on.
B r i c k wo r k a n d W i n d ow s G e n e ra l
As per the south facade there are no areas that require immediate
at tention but the windows should be reviewed as par t of the
ongoing maintenance program for the building.
It is recommended that the area of brick identified on the nor th
west facade (bet ween the windows) and the areas of pointing
surrounding the quoins are under taken if the decision to replace
the sacrist y roof is approved.
S o u t h Fa c a d e B r i c k a n d W i n d ow s
There are a number of minor areas of the brickwork and the
windows on the south facade that should be addressed through
the conser vation works. In par ticular the cracks in the concrete
parged sills and the missing pointing in the brick sills should be
under taken. To complete the works the area surrounding the icon
should be re -built to improve the weather tightness of the building
envelope.
This work is best ser ved through access from scaffolding and
should be scheduled when the Building Commit tee commit to the
general medium or full conser vation approach to the building.
A low level maintenance program must also be under taken on the
windows themselves and in par ticular the sills and other areas
where the paint is star ting to flake.
41
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
1
Re p a i r p a rg i n g t o exi st i n g wi n d ow s i l l s
2
Repoint areas of missing mor tar in genera l
3
Under take low level maintenance of existing windows
Remove fla ked p a int
Remove any areas of rot.
Fill checks and prep for painting
Prime and include 2 top coats of paint
4
I nvestigate condition for deformation of window head on nor th west
facade and re -point brickwork.
5.1 Introduction
The scopes of work are summarized by building element and level
of inter vention to provide an outline of the budget pricing that
can be anticipated in under taking the conser vation works. The
budget for individual works is estimated to a level of accuracy of
± 20%.
In addition an allowance is made for the contractors general
requirements and overhead based on the entire level of inter vention.
It should however be noted that the contractors overhead will var y
depending on the scopes of work to be included in each phase.
Following selection of a specific scope of work to be under taken
in a par ticular phase, a revised cost estimate should be prepared
to address the contractors actual overhead and allocate an
appropria te contingency based on the anticipated budget risk.
Detailed design and construction drawings and specifications will
be required before the works can proceed and a revised estimate
will be prepared before tender.
Scope of Work
Low Level Inter vention
Medium Level Inter vention
Full Conser vation
Contra ctors General Re quirements
Basic site fa cilities re quired to suppor t work s.
Basic site fa cilities re quired to suppor t work s
Basic site fa cilities re quired to suppor t work s
All access to building from powered hoist
Ac c ess p rovid e d by sc a f fo l d i n g
Ac c ess p rovid e d by sc a f fo l d i n g
Workshop and storage facilities to conser ve removed elements
and protect for reinstatement.
Budget allowance
Corner Towers
Tin metal work, ro of fl ashings and re -pointing brickwork
Tin metal work, roof flashings, re -pointing brickwork, upgrades
to structural stabilit y.
Tin metal general, tin metal pinnacles, roof flashings, junction
bet ween brick and tin, re -pointing brickwork
Tin metal work reconstruction, brickwork removal and
reconstruction, sheathing and substrate improvements, roof
fl ashings
Tin metal work
Tin metal work, bi rd mesh
Tin metal work, louvre replacement,
Tin metal work
Tin metal work, louvres
Tin metal work genera l, tin metal work pinnacles, louvres
Budget allowance
Lower Spire and Junction with Brick
Budget allowance
Belfr y
Budget allowance
Spi re
Budget allowance
Main Roof
Am end verge detail on south and nor th, replace fl ashings
Budget allowance
Re ar Roof
Rep la c e rea r ro of, p a rg e chimney a nd restore stucco
Budget allowance
Building Interior
Mold assessment sur vey
M old assessment sur vey
Repair parging to existing window sills, re -point brickwork,
maintenance of window frames
maintenance of window frames, modif y recess for ic on
maintenance of window frames
maintenance of window frames, investigate and correct
deficiency in window head on nor th west facade.
M old assessment sur vey
Budget allowance
Sou t h Fa c a d e B rick a n d Wi n d ows
Budget allowance
Brickwork and Windows Genera l
Budget allowance
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7
42
6.0 Recommendations
As with most conser vation works the available funding rarely
meets the anticipated budget and we are forced to make decisions
based on the most pressing areas of concern and the works that
will ensure the greatest long term conser vation and in some
instances sur vival of the resource.
43
PROJ EC T N U M B E R - 1 1 08 - 1 7

ST. JEAN BAPTISTE MORINVILLE - Paroisse St. Jean Baptiste Parish

Transcription

Similar documents

Skoda Roomster - Platinum Motor Group

Sportsmaster Brochure

SUSTAINABLE HARDSCAPES SUSTAINABLE HARDSCAPES

Lamella Roof

7 More London Riverside

Untitled - Tin Roof

Ballast Guard

breakspear crematorium

Enjoy Architecture - 3D Architect Home Design Software