This makes some sense ken but I should ask if when preserving a building and it has some bad rot in places, can you repair, replace or otherwise restore a single or multiple pieces while still preserving the whole?

Hi Tim,

Preservation might be appropriate for a museum artifact where further deterioration of that artefact is desired but there is no intention to repair, restore or use same. If the source of what is causing detrioration to an item can be halted by applying some form of protection e.g. like applying a cover to stop rain falling on a building then we would be using a preventative method and so we now need to add another word to the list - prevention.

If a building is taken apart and some of the parts are changed out with new pieces or deteriorated pieces are repaired then we have probably entered the restoration arena.

"Conservation (Adaptive reuse)" is where techniques including preservation, restoration or repair are used with the intention that the building might experience a new usefulness and an extended working life.

This new use might not be the same as the previous use but care should be taken to ensure that the origins of the building are not overly compromised and preferably that changes made are potentially reversible.

The addition of a splint floor joist or rafter enables the original item to be "preserved" in place even after its own usefulness has been compromised and facilitates the conservation of the building. This technique could be applied where a "patchwork" of repairs is to be avoided but ongoing use is required.

So the list now reads :-

Conservation, Preservation, Prevention, Restoration, Refurbishment, Repair (Fix), Replacement, Delapidate, Demolish, Salvage, Reuse, Conversion (Adaptive Reuse), Change, Alter.

Regards

Ken Hume

Hi Thane,

You have posed quite a profound question and the answer to same is probably dependant on the scale of the intervention required together with the period of time over which these small changes are made.

If a small localised problem exists e.g. a leaking roof, then one might simply take the view that any intervention that takes place should simply be classed as ongoing "maintainence". A new word for the list. Maintainence is attending to all of those routine little tasks that need to be done from time to time to help keep things ticking over. However, when an underlying problem is neglected then this will at some stage likely end up requiring an intervention that might well require elements of repair, replacement, prevention to arrest any future deterioration and ensure ongoing functionality and so should this not be viewed more as conservation rather than preservation.

I understand that the Japanese have over centuries routinely taken their buildings apart to repair and replace defective parts then reassemble the building thereby ensuring the perceived continued prescence and hence preservation of that building as part of the landscape. From a distance it probably appears to be the same building but closer inspection might reveal otherwise e.g. evidence of circular saw marks where previously a hewn surface might have been seen and so the intervention might be viewed locally more as conservation or maybe even restoration than preservation. The answer might quite literally depend upon your viewpoint.

So the list is now updated to include :-

Conservation, Preservation, Restoration, Refurbishment, Maintenance, Repair (Fix), Replacement, Delapidate, Demolish, Salvage, Reuse, Conversion (Adaptive Reuse), Change, Alter.

Please be my guest and introduce us to new words and arguments that might fit into this chain of thought.

Regards

Ken Hume

Hi Don,

Please forgive my not answering your thread in sequence but I had to go off, read and digest your reference article which is very good and a "must" to read in respect of this thread.

It seems once again that there might well be a juxtaposition in the use of the words Preservation and Conservation between the UK and USA.

Who is correct ?

One of the major features of the English language is that it is continually moving forward and the meaning(s) understood for the use of the same words will change with time. Is this just simply a case of the USA being out of synchronisation with the UK ?

For us "preservation" means just that i.e. its more akin in modern parlance to "freeze frame" whereas "conservation" allows a little more freedom to move forward recognising that for a building to remain relevant to society and its future occupants that some changes might be required e.g. the addition of indoor plumbing, telephone & electric cables, provision of a garage rather than carriage shed and stable or possibly allowing "adaptive reuse" of a carriage shed to become a garage !

Regards

Ken Hume

An excellent conversation, and one I am happy to see happening, for two reasons. Our trade is inextricably tied to preservation, and that being the case it would be nice if when we invoked one of these words its use was coming from a common sense of things. Discussions like this one, can only help.

The words on the list are open to conjecture, and for most people they are often used interchangeably, To those who have a deep interest in preservation however, then, as the article Don cites suggests each word has a distinctive meaning, though this meaning might shift somewhat depending where on the spectrum, one comes from...

Maybe this is all just so obvious and might could've remained unsaid, all the same and again, I'm happy to see the discussion happening.

Another word which popped out on Don's list was Replication.

Here is an example of a local building on the Historical building list. I see this often. Someone has a building with lime plaster which has cracked and possibly fallen out in places or it has needed to be removed for some reason. The fix is always with modern joint compound and then a latex paint on top of that, sometimes painting the whole interior. Is this a repair, fix or a change? Is it right?

Tim

Hi Will & Tim,

The loss of historic fabric especially plaster is now viewed with great concern since this tends to be lime based plaster fixed to a split lath backing. The split lath costs a small fortune to replace today and hence cheaper alternatives are sometimes employed (split cane roll). Cracked plaster is in itself not a very good reason for stripping a wall back to the bare frame though this often happens (commonly referred to as "gutting"). Using different materials (synthetic & laytex) to effect a "repair" is indeed a "change" but might not well be regarded as a "fix" since it could potentially cause more problems than it solves. Further advice in this respect can be obtained in the "Old House Handbook" by Marianne Suhr and Roger Hunt (ISBN 978-0-7112-2772-9).

The making of a replica is an interesting concept and one with which I have been involved several times. Though the materials, conversion, layout and cutting methods might be different, expecially on close up inspection, the building pattern can be perfectly preserved in the replica. Most people insure their properties against fire but nearly allways forget to make proper drawing records of their building so that they can actually rebuild following such a catastrophe.

The list now reads :-

Conservation, Preservation, Restoration, Refurbishment, Maintenance, Repair (Fix), Replacement, Delapidate, Demolish, Salvage, Replicataton, Reuse, Conversion (Adaptive Reuse), Change, Alter.

Regards

Ken Hume

Replication and Reconstruction might be interchangeable. However, Reconstruction has the scale of being disciplined on what is known of a previous building now not present.

My man Benjamin's house.

Sometimes "preservation carpenter" is just a fancy name for a maintaince person, but preservation is a completely different field than restoration, rehabilitation etc. Many people do not realize this and call a restoration person for a building they really want "preserved". Even architects have this problem and a preservation architect is in a very different field than a regular architect. I use quotes on "preserved" because this word, like the word perminant, can imply eternal life which is not true for any building. Thus, "impermanent architectre" is a misnomer.

"Poverty is preservation" since people without the money to remodel, restore, etc. leave things alone and thus preserve it.

The word "code" is a mixed blessing! It gives the power of how an old building is changed to a code officer who sometimes does not know the meaning of the words preservation, restoration, etc. Energy codes and stairway codes are good ideas but can very effectively destroy historic buildings! National codes also destroy the regional variation which makes historic buildings interesting on a cultural level. But, codes are a "minimum standard", helping to assure the quality of buildings.

The different meanings of words in various countries are not right or wrong, just different. You just have to remember which country you are talking about!

Jim

I like that statement Jim. Just down the road from the empty barn we looked at and lifted the floor boards on is a farm house which is very original, the elderly lady who lived there did minimal up keep and made no changes to the house which had been in her family for generations. The plaster is original and has not been touched, if I recall rightly not even wall paper, just raw plaster in need of some crack work and a fresh coat of lime wash. The barn on the other hand, allowed sheep manure to pile up over the years attacking the sills also the minimal stone foundation has done a job on the the sills which were not touched by rot, have shifted causing some stress here and there. A case where I wouldn't say poverty but more old time frugalness has won out.

Tim