How to Construct New Buildings with Historical Fascades

[USSGahagan]

Most new mid to highrise buildings all seem to have modern facades (i.e. glass curtain walls, etc.), but I am interested in developing true historical time peices, such as Parisian 1880-1920 and Art Deco (see links below). I understand more labor is involved for masonry work and that the $/SF will be greater (if highrise hard costs=$200/sf then construction for these buildings = $?/SF), but is it possible for these buidings to be built economically? What would be the cost premium compared to a modern facade? Could the detailed masonry work be duplicated? Can any large commercial construction company handle the project?

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m281/ryangahagan/paris6juin06256tn6.jpg

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m281/ryangahagan/paris6juin06038qs1.jpg

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m281/ryangahagan/384937.jpg

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m281/ryangahagan/191959.jpg

[Kelvin]

You want to gut the Rockefeller? Sweet!

These types of projects are possible, the single biggest problem in my mind relates to the interior structure. In some of the examples you posted, an internal structural steel frame is most certainly present and that is perhaps better than having a series of internal load bearing walls. The others that you show may have the latter.

I have seen smaller (3 or 4 storey) buildings done by ripping off the roof, pounding out the floors and rebuilding the steel frame all the while keeping the original facade intact (later it gets blast cleaning). The project was a 1880's mill with extensive but generally modest brickwork.

Going into higher buildings may prove challenging (ie. getting a crane mobilised, getting debris moved, etc.), but as long as the frame is generally open, it could be done.

If your frame is more congested, you may have to use temporary shores as floors are removed and replaced with new steel, etc.

I won't hazard a guess for cost because so many variables are at play, but don't expect it to be at the low-end of the spectrum!

[USSGahagan]

Actually I'm thinking of developing these buildings from the ground up. The goal would be for their facades to be constructed with such care and attention to detail that they would be near replicas of buildings from their time periods. I'm curious to know if construction companies could handle the task of re-creating these historical buildings and how they would be able to pull it off. Thoughts? Are any of the major construction companies (Tishman, Swinerton, etc) able to handle this type of job?

[Kelvin]

OK sorry I didn't catch your drift. Building a recreation is decidedly easier (and cheaper) than undertaking a restoration and rebuild. Regardless of which GC (gen. contractor) you elect to use, they would likely source a specialty sub-contractor to do the work. Some of what you are proposing could be done by a concrete precaster. They would build custom molds and form liners that can duplicate any surface texture (rock, stone, brick, etc.), color it to match your desired appearance and even add real insets to the piece. The only trick might be finding a way to hide the joint lines between pieces. Custom metal and glass work is quite common, so you can also expect that there are numerous fabricators capable to cutting or stamping pieces for your project.

[USSGahagan]

I hadn't given any thought to precast concrete. That would be very effective at replicating the limestone work of old European buildings at a fraction of the cost (hopefully). This concept seems to be falling in line with historic preservation and with your lead on specialty subs I've found some good specialty construction companies!

[bluedogok]

Cast stone would be your best bet for recreating something like the old hand carved stone elements. If you could find something to make molds of that would make it somewhat cheaper. You might look for some of these items in architectural markets. The was a building that I was the project manager on where we reused some of the old cast stone elements (original building stone and rosettes) and we ended up making some new cast stone pieces to go around the rosettes to make them stand out.

This was the original building built in 1930
http://home.earthlink.net/~jshubert/resume/tbg/jdm-012599s.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~jshubert/resume/tbg/jdm-012599n.jpg

It was stripped down to its bare cast-in-place concrete structure.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jshubert/resume/tbg/jdm-frame.jpg

The facade is completely new, the owner wanted a look similar to the new ballpark across the street.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jshubert/resume/tbg/jdm-1w.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~jshubert/resume/tbg/jdm-3w.jpg

You can do quite a bit with cast stone to create a "vintage" look without a ridiculous cost. On that project the water table was the bulk of the cast stone cost. Our first floor was 4' above grade so that created such a large water table. Brick work can also be used to create a different look for a lower cost, I see many older buildings that have detailed brickwork.

[Drmyeyes]

All of this is very interesting. Is the greater expense of a restoration and rebuild due to the great care involved in stripping out the insufficient structural elements in preparation for rebuild? It seems as though there could be a lot of support for such an approach in spite of the extra effort and cost where original standing materials in a good building could be used.

Is the additional cost for example, twice, triple, or completely variable?

That's an admirable transformation bluedogok, but for myself, I actually prefer the styling of the original building. Nice though, to show what can be done.

[wong21fr]

There's a couple of buildings in Denver that were built in a similar style to what you propose, one of these is the Beauvallon completed in 2004 (Images courtesy of DenverInfill.com):

http://www.denverinfill.com/images/redev/golden_triangle/07_beauvallon2.jpg

http://www.denverinfill.com/images/redev/golden_triangle/07_beauvallon4.jpg

[smurf]

There is a small building going up around here with pre-cast panels. In fact, I believe the whole thing is practically a "building in a box" (some assembly required). Here is a picture by Hankster http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a195/HankBrackin/Chattanooga11-05/P1060058.jpg

[Minato Ku]

Facadism
exemple in Paris where this method is very common :)
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/6918/dsc01097pp9.jpg

Mix of old facade and new facade common in Paris.
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6683/axa1ld9.jpg

Or post Haussmannian building
New residencial buiding build with the Haussmannian facade style. less common in Paris but very common in inner suburbs.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Villa-haussmann.jpg/474px-Villa-haussmann.jpg

[zilfondel]

I hadn't given any thought to precast concrete. That would be very effective at replicating the limestone work of old European buildings at a fraction of the cost (hopefully). This concept seems to be falling in line with historic preservation and with your lead on specialty subs I've found some good specialty construction companies!

Unless you can hire some European craftsman to custom carve the facade pieces, which could take years, you don't really have much choice.

Do you just have a passive interest on this topic, or are you seriously thinking of developing a piece of faux-historic architecture? In any case, you would need an architect to go anywhere beyond mere speculation.

However, technology and building codes have changed so much from the 1800s that what you are asking is essentially impossible - you can build a modern box with a faux-historic looking facade, but that's about as close as you'll ever get.



Just as it is somewhat ridiculous to modify a honda civic into a 1000 horsepower racecar, it would probably be much better to actually buy a period building and renovate it. You just can't replicate history, the craftsmanship, nor the building methods of the past.

[Dr. Smoke]

Disagree zilfondel. There is a majestic old high school south of Seattle, which was painstakingly renovated and strengthened for seismic. It cost $millions more than it would have to start from scratch, and I guess in return they retained many of the original molecules of the structure!

I think it's wonderful to style a building with evolutionary continuity. Those Paris buildings are a great example; other cities such as Prague and St. Petersburg have some of the most beautiful buildings in the world; they will last architecturally, and will always command a premium over conventional modernist.

The cost of any building has more to do with the quality of construction, than its appearance. Sure cultured stone will add some to the cost, but that won't be noticeable compared with cheap quality versus high quality structure and fit-out.

Best thing is to find a building you like, investigate it, and if it passes muster and is a newer building, find the architect. If it's an old building you like, find a newer building you approve of and ask that architect to render your old one. Much better than leaving them to their own (often incompetent) taste of style.

It's pretty easy to find companies that do cultured stone, extruded fiberglass moldings, and period fixtures, with resources such as Sweet's catalog, et al. Heck, you can get your own slightly out-of-date Sweet's CD for free, if you sweet-talk enough architects. Some amazing things in Sweet's, and other resources.

[bryson662001]

This building in Philadelphia is not new and the red brick is very real. However the facade was rather plain and the lower floors had a 70's era metal and glass skin so new owners decided to dress it up. All the work on the lower floors that looks like carved limestone.......is in fact styrofoam, stucco and molded plastic. Notice how there isn't anything on the ground floor holding up all that "weight"? Not only is the material incredably real looking but it is weathering just like real stone. The windows are new also. (the building to it's left is the real thing)

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k50/bryson662001/IMG_0697.jpg

[Daquan13]

The Hearst Tower is one example of that.

The base that surrounds the tower has an old facade from a previous bldg..

[bryson662001]

The Hearst Tower is one example of that.

The base that surrounds the tower has an old facade from a previous bldg..
You may have misunderstood. The base of the building I posted is brand new. My point was that if they can slap that stuff on an old building.....they could also slap it onto a Wall-Mart.......thus recreating a 17th century French palace at a modest cost.

[BTinSF]

Unless you can hire some European craftsman to custom carve the facade pieces, which could take years, you don't really have much choice.


As most of us surely know, colleges and universities all over America have been doing this "new buildings looking old" thing for more than a century. Here. for example, is a photo of the new/old Duke Univeristy Chapel. Colleges like Duke have enough money to do it the right way--Duke did, in fact, import squads of Italian stone carvers in the 1930's:

http://www.chapel.duke.edu/images/wedding_7.jpg

[zilfondel]

So... just what is the reasoning behind having a Wal-Mart with a facade that looks like a 17th century French villa?

Please? Anyone?

[bryson662001]

So... just what is the reasoning behind having a Wal-Mart with a facade that looks like a 17th century French villa?

Please? Anyone?
Go back and read post #1......for the theme of this thread.

[Holden West]

I dislike this practice of slathering buildings with fiberglas and plastic pieces that are supposed to look like stone or terra cotta. It smacks of phoniness. The resulting building lacks integrity and mocks the real materials. We are denying future generations authentic heritage by giving them unrestorable plastic.

A material should be able to tell the viewer what it is by looking at it. I don't like architecture that fools people any more than I would like going into an art museum or opera house to see a classic work only to be told it was a modern piece disguised as a 19th Century work. [/rant]

[Rizzo]

I remember digging through the sample room once of a firm I worked at. In the masonry section crammed way off on some side shelf I found something horrible. Foam cornices. It's true. You know that type of Styrofoam you get in the box when you buy a new tv? Same stuff. Then they spray a coating over it that looks like limestone. I was happy to find out my firm was not using that stuff, but instead using REAL limestone when constructing cornice work. Not to mention, we use casts from older buildings to produce new pieces, so our masonry detailwork was 100% accurate and proportioned, not gaudy, oversized, and tacky you see with many sloppy recreations.

[LMich]

Hayward, aren't you simply talking about EIFS, which is little more than a 'painted' on foam facade?

I know we've come to a place that if you're trying to design in a historic style that every developer in the world would get away with precast concrete, brick veneer walls, and EIFS/GFRC if they could, but it would be nice, again, to see real masonry, again. Heck, I'd be happy if I simply saw more uses of historic materials, even if that means limestone veneer facades.

[ardecila]

We recently bought a new fireplace mantel, hand-carved in marble. Not an antique, and certainly not a phony material. It was crafted somewhere in Latin America (Mexico most likely). The craftsmanship was impeccable, and the price was EXTREMELY good for such an item.

The answer to the cost of traditional craftsmanship is the answer to all other business costs: outsourcing.

[bnk]

The facade is completely new, the owner wanted a look similar to the new ballpark across the street.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jshubert/resume/tbg/jdm-1w.jpg
.

Absolutely hideous. I would rather have a cleaned up former vs. the later monstrosity. Plastic...

[Tanster]

Ive always wonderd why builings dont looks so artistic. i think buildings today lack that artisit beautiful look.
Whys was it cheaper before??
Shounld'nt technology make things easier??

[Coldrsx]

^materials are far more expensive and labour...that being highly skilled tradesman and sculpters etc. are in very very short supply.

it is about ROI now

[rbowk]

those are quite aold buildings you get them in england

[Kelvin]

...and then they disassembled and shipped anywhere in the world for eventual reconstruction.

[ardecila]

it is about ROI now

It's always been about "ROI". In the 1800s, the greatest ROI would be attained by using heavy-duty materials like stone and brick. Buildings with a high level of craftsmanship were built to last hundreds of years, saving the owners from the costs of replacement or refitting down the road.

Today, low-cost building materials and mass production have made it far cheaper to replace structures every 40 years than to build a long-lasting one the first time. At the same time, the building profession has become increasingly unskilled, since each job is essentially the same, using the same 2x4s, plywood, drywall, and asphalt shingles every time.

[WilliamTheArtist]

You might find this building interesting. The "Mid Continent Tower" in Tulsa.

The original "Tudor Gothic" building was built in 1918 and was 16 stories tall. "was tallest west of the Mississippi." In 1980 another 20 stories was added that perfectly matched the old building. They did this by building a section off to one side then "cantilevering" the new tower over the old one. 80,000 pieces of Terra Cotta were used in the facade to match that of the old facade. The stunning architectural achievement has won numerous national awards, including one from The National Trust for Historic Preservation.

http://www.architectmagazine.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=1012&articleID=641610

Here is an old rendering of the original building. It was called the Cosden Building before it became the Mid Continent Tower.
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/7955/cosdenbldlatermidcontinms6.jpg

Here is a photo I found on flickr by "dscott2804". Its not the clearest pic, I assume it was taken from inside the BOK tower. The tallest building on the far left is the Mid Continent Tower. You can look at the bottom section and see the old part on the right and the matching half on the left that supports the rest of the tower above.
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/1319/midconbydscott2804awebnz1.jpg

Here are some pics I have taken of the outside, "the terra cotta work on the far right is original, that on the far left is new" and the interior. Didnt have any that really showed off some of the more intricate terra cotta work.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1903/downtowndecember074cwatzb7.jpg

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2180/img2033cropweb2af8.jpg

[urbanlife]

Well, reality of this, it is all about money. How much does it cost and how much is needed in return. Beyond that, just about anything is possible. So if you wanted to reconstruct architecture that was built in 1800 Paris, then it will cost alot.

I am all for renovated historical architecture because much of that craftsmanship is long gone. In the need to industrialize ourselves, we have lost touch with much of that.

But as an architecture student, my question to recreating the past would be why? We should preserve it and adapt it to our present day, but we shouldn't be recreating it. We seem to have a fascination with eras that we think we know so much about because of what we read and see in pictures, but really we know nothing of that life, how is looked, how it smelled, how it felt beyond what we are told.

So to answer your question, can we reconstruct the building you posted today, the answer is yes, but I sure hope you have the talent to crap money cause you will need it.

[Minato Ku]

This is how we do (picture from Google Map)

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/1108/nouvelleimage10qv5.jpg

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9791/nouvelleimage11ew7.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/1328/nouvelleimage12is7.jpg

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3775/nouvelleimage13xc9.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6412/nouvelleimage14cc5.jpg

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/1341/nouvelleimage9qi0.jpg

Modern building, old facade.

[cwilson]

I love taking old buildings and still using the old faded out look but restoring them and makeing them the new hip thing or place to go!

[plinko]

You might find this building interesting. The "Mid Continent Tower" in Tulsa.

The original "Tudor Gothic" building was built in 1918 and was 16 stories tall. "was tallest west of the Mississippi." In 1980 another 20 stories was added that perfectly matched the old building. They did this by building a section off to one side then "cantilevering" the new tower over the old one. 80,000 pieces of Terra Cotta were used in the facade to match that of the old facade. The stunning architectural achievement has won numerous national awards, including one from The National Trust for Historic Preservation.

The Mid-Continent Building is an excellent example of what the OP was talking about. The terra-cotta facade for that building and many many of the pre-war towers built in the US comes from Gladding-McBean in Lincoln, CA. They are one of the last full service mass production terra-cotta producers in the US (there are a number of smaller guys who can do molds and give you the pieces you want, but GMcB is the gold standard). Then again it was paid for with oil money.

I'd love to specify terra-cotta for a building, but I just haven't come across the right project yet (there are also seismic anchoring issues where I live that drive costs WAY up).

Precast concrete can also give near the desired cut stone effect and if it's done right can be quite nice.

As an architect I completely loathe specifying GFRC, EIFS and particularly extruded foam decorative pieces...but unfortunately it's not my money that pays.

Real cut stone (unless it can be quarried directly from the site, such as in the case of sandstone at large house sites in Santa Barbara where I live) is extremely expensive unless you import it from a place like Isreal, Turkey or India. Hard to get a client buy-off on that though unless they are really set on it (particularly when plaster is typically less than 1/2 the price).

I'm still waiting to see the first tower to be clad in something like eternit board though (integral colors!). That stuff lasts forever and doesn't lose its color at all (even in sea salty air).

[SFUVancouver]

A new Norman Foster-designed mixed-use residential-office tower in Vancouver is under construction. A portion of the base of the tower incorporates the retention and restoration of two historic buildings. The simple task is the preservation of the facade of one building. The complicated task is retaining the entire structure and facade of the second while excavating seven or eight storeys underground to make room for the new tower's sub-structure and the automated parking garage. Here are some recent photos I took of the process and a rendering of the final project.

Jameson House, Pender Street elevation. The two heritage buildings are fully braced now. The cream coloured one on the left is only having its facade preserved while the old mining museum to the right is being saved in its entirety.
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9859/p1050361ky2.jpg
(My photo, taken February 4th, 2008)

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2094/p1050364hb1.jpg
(My photo, taken February 4th, 2008)

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/7194/p1050363jb8.jpg
(My photo, taken February 4th, 2008)

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2237/p1050672yl9.jpg
(My photo, taken March 3rd, 2008)

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1500/jamesonhouseky1.jpg
Source (http://www.jamesonfoster.com/)

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/811/james2nk1.png
Source (http://www.jamesonfoster.com/)

[mhays]

I wish we'd see more historic revival architecture. Preferably done well of course. I like the building in Philly though it's a good point about taking the "structure" to the ground.

That building in Tulsa was a fraction of the height of Seattle's Smith Tower when built. It's either 465' or 500' and was completed in 1914.

[Hed Kandi]

The historical buildings of Europe and Argentina are when architecture reached its pinnacle.

Why aren't buildings like these still being made anymore?

[Hed Kandi]

This building in Philadelphia is not new and the red brick is very real. However the facade was rather plain and the lower floors had a 70's era metal and glass skin so new owners decided to dress it up. All the work on the lower floors that looks like carved limestone.......is in fact styrofoam, stucco and molded plastic. Notice how there isn't anything on the ground floor holding up all that "weight"? Not only is the material incredably real looking but it is weathering just like real stone. The windows are new also. (the building to it's left is the real thing)

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k50/bryson662001/IMG_0697.jpg


That's incredible.

Who was responsible for this project?

[Keith P.]

Here in Halifax, Nova Scotia, due to misguided planning rules and a predominant sentiment favoring faux-Victorian architecture. we have a lot of new buildings with modern materials trying to look old. Most of them don't come off very well. Some examples:

This is a residential block currently under construction. The cladding on the lower floors is precast concrete, supposed to look like stone, but just looks like concrete block. Photo by SSP member phrenic:

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z152/phrenical/DSC00213.jpg


Here's another one, same product, same result. Halifax architecture is really quite unfortunate, full of uninspired sameness. Photo by SSP member Haliguy:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/a_gallant/IMG_1217.jpg

The amount of bad faux-historic architecture here is really depressing. Look at this abomination, built just a couple of years ago. Photo by SSP user Smevo:


http://www.pbase.com/smevo/image/75409794.jpg


This one was a major project that was just completed last year. They actually used real stone on the lower section, but the rest of it is precast concrete and looks it. Another Smevo shot:

http://www.pbase.com/smevo/image/75408467.jpg

Same building from the other side, originally posted by SSP member Someone123:

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/82173502/original.jpg


Another one that comes off even worse. Photo by SSP member Someone123:

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/80631131/original.jpg

Same project, different angle, by SSP member Bluenoser:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2318/1545035093_7f82e0596c_b.jpg


Perhaps the best bad example of such materials in use in Halifax is the 5 year-old Residence Inn by Marriott, but I have been unable to find a picture other than this tiny one which really doesn't do it's awfulness proper justice:

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll229/keith_p/marriotthfx.jpg


So, not always are these faux-historic finishes a good thing. Halifax is a good example of bad architecture that results from trying to make something new look old.

[reddog794]

It almost seems like they're striving for quaint, instead of green, and people focused, you know, dynamic kinda stuff.

[Ducov]

^ Whilst I would agree that faux revivalism architecture is largely an anachronism, I would say that a particularly beautiful old building will do a lot for the populace and public harmony.

If you wanted to make a building the recreates some old styles, then you have to look for a developer that has big funds and a big ego willing to pay for the tip top stuff. (And architects that know what they're doing)

if not, don't try and make an ersatz version, it will look crap, and only become increasingly so over the years. No Styrofoam, no plyboard, it's no use.

If, even with the funds, we can't do the same as our ancestors 100-200 years ago, with our superior technology, well that's pretty lame.

I'm not really keen on ripping the guts out off old buildings whilst just saving the facade. Buildings are more than there exteriors, a true landmark will have interiors equally deserving of preservation.

[munda]

in Chicago there are building The Elysian.
The building will have a classic facade with a grand entry and European style courtyard. Other structural features include colonnades and spires, drawing from classical design. The design of the building was inspired by classic 30's style European buildings.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3875/theelysian3qf.jpg
image taken from a thread by "Steely Dan"

[Hed Kandi]

in Chicago there are building The Elysian.
The building will have a classic facade with a grand entry and European style courtyard. Other structural features include colonnades and spires, drawing from classical design. The design of the building was inspired by classic 30's style European buildings.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3875/theelysian3qf.jpg
image taken from a thread by "Steely Dan"



Wow, that's great~

If they use the proper materials and incorporate the proper masonry, this will turn out incredible!

[someone123]

It's true that if you go down the list of infill projects in Halifax constructed during the past 10 years or so the majority are faux historic. I don't know of any cities that have done this to the same degree.

I can think of some good examples. For instance, the building on the right is new while the one on the left is Victorian:

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/52473888/medium.jpg

There are a few aesthetic deficiencies in the new building. The roof proportions are off (nobody wants useless floors with low ceilings and tiny dormers), the colours are more bland than usual, and there is a garage door for underground parking.

This is a weirder example, where a small brick-clad commercial building was put in front of some precast condo towers (with hideous green mansard roofs). The form of the building suggests there should be an entrance in the middle, but it's actually on the other side:

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/33229583/medium.jpg

Here's a bigger apartment building that mixes some kind of metal cladding (also common in Halifax) with some decent brick work and precast detailing. The building next door is pre-war:

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/42736406/medium.jpg

A slightly better approach is to use brick cladding but add more modern looking detailing:

http://www.pbase.com/halifaxphoto/image/42736427/medium.jpg

Here are some new wooden rowhouses that manage to look decent (but the fences and gates in front are not detailed wrought iron like Victorian and Georgian equivalents): http://glubeslofttownhouses.com/images/gallery/exterior/amur0601_e_06.jpg

Ultimately I don't mind when builders attempt to make new buildings "fit in" with their surroundings but the architectural form needs to fit the budget. Going overboard with cheap detailing just makes things look tacky. It's always better to scale back and build something simpler with high-quality materials (i.e. no hideous precast cladding). Unfortunately, many people don't seem to understand this.