A policy set in stone
- PDF / 161,500 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 553 x 794 pts Page_size
- 55 Downloads / 163 Views
N LTD 1742–8262 $30.00
Journal of Building Appraisal
VOL.3 NO.2
www.palgrave-Journals.com/jba
PP 89–96
89
Editorial
building. Crinkly tin, as such roofs are often referred, is a poor material for a residential property, being noisy when it rains. It is also, being a metal, a conductor — in this case of sound. The transmission of sound from one unit to another was of embarrassment to those occupying homes next to regular night-time performers. So poor was the sound resistance that in the morning the neighbours placed cards in the front window marking their neighbours’ nocturnal coupling for technical merit and style. On another project where the former industrial space was converted to office use continuous problems were experienced with water leaks where lead flashings had been applied over the profile sheeting with limited success. (Have you tried hammering a lead flashing into the shape of a metal profile sheet on an insubstantial base — you end up flattening the crinkly tin rather than moulding the metal flashing). Most people expect their repaired premises to portray no sign of the past problem. If your car was in an accident you expect the repaired car to show no traces of the former coming together, if your home was in a fire you expect the repaired building to carry no traces of the conflagration. But if your building is listed as being of architectural and historic interest remedying disrepair becomes a challenging philosophical discussion. Repair is not just selecting a remedy that eliminates the consequences of the decline in performance, it is a judgment as to the type of appearance that the remedy should have. Here, in the analogy of the car, the evidence of that bump may have to be very evident after the process of repair so that the original car is able to be differentiated from that part that has been repaired. For a listed building the remedial options may be as follows: – the use of contrasting materials that obviously define the replaced parts; – the use of matching materials where the replaced components are finished in such a way that the replacement can be identified from the neighbouring original materials; – the use of new materials to replicate the appearance; – the use of matching materials provided with a finish that replicates the original appearance of the surfaces when first built so that the weathered adjoining materials are in clear contrast to the replaced material; – the use of matching materials that have been finished with a weathered finish that matches the adjoining parts of the building so that the replacement is indistinguishable from the remainder of the unchanged parts of the property. The property owner will want the latter repair because that leaves his or her property free from the unsightly blemishes caused by nonmatching repairs. The problem for those directing repairs and interpreting the decisions of various Heritage Bodies has been the inconsistency of approach and the lack of a discernable policy directing the outcomes on a building-by-building basis. The impenetrable decisio
Data Loading...
