How to Construct New Buildings with Historical Fascades

[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]

Originally Posted by bluedogok

The facade is completely new, the owner wanted a look similar to the new ballpark across the street.

.

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]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

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/ind...ticleID=641610

Here is an old rendering of the original building. It was called the Cosden Building before it became the Mid Continent Tower.


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.


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.

[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)













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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

(My photo, taken February 4th, 2008)


(My photo, taken February 4th, 2008)


(My photo, taken February 4th, 2008)


(My photo, taken March 3rd, 2008)


Source


Source

[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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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:




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



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:





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:



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




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



Same project, different angle, by SSP member Bluenoser:




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:




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.