Present: Eric Breitkreutz, Matthew Bronski, Jean Carroon, Michael DeLacey, Ric Detwiller, Taya Dixon, Lesley Donovan, Marilyn Fenollosa, Sutton Giese, Donna Harris, Tarica Harris, David M. Hart, Susan Hollister, Lyn Hovey, Lisa Howe, Wendall Kalsow, David Kelman, Ellen Lipsey, Michael Lynch, Arthur MacLeod, Doug Manley, Henry Moss, Albert Rex, Roberto Rosa, Susan Schur, Caroline Schwirian, Malcolm Smiley, Eric Ward, Sara Wermiel 1. BSA Preservation Award – Eric Ward is arranging for a special award from our Committee to be presented to Stanley Smith, who is retiring as the Executive Director of Historic Boston. The presentation will be made at a farewell reception at the Old State House in the second week of April. 2. Stained Glass Basics for Architects and Other Novices – Lyn Hovey presented a crash course in the basics of stained glass repairs and restoration for our committee members. He illustrated the removal process while emphasizing the toxicity of lead oxides that can be inhaled when the windows are disturbed. Architects need to specify the removal work accordingly. On-site, his staff wears respirators and gloves. They spritz non-fragile areas of lead came first with water to limit dust from becoming airborne. Only HEPA vacuums should be used – not brooms or shop vacs. Depending upon the specific case, plastic barriers containment with negative air pressure and/or pre-and post-removal air quality testing may be required. Back in the studio, dismantling the glazed panels on the bench is also dangerous and is done inside plastic air barriers that are maintained at negative air pressure. Prior to 1950, much of the glazing putty also contained lead for durability; thus the putty is often toxic. Litharge was mixed into paint as a binder. OSHA tests are run for studio and staff at prescribed intervals. This is recognition of the toxicity, risks, and controls of stained glass removal and shop work is a huge cultural change within the stained glass restoration industry. Lyn remembers 3” deposits of dust and debris on the floor of Connick’s studio when he was starting out. Typically, full restoration in the shop involves complete disassembly of the entire panel, cleaning and restoration of glass, and reinstallation of the glass in the exact original locations, set in new lead cames. Meticulous crayon rubbings and numbering record the exact location of each piece before the glass is removed from the lead cames. Lyn showed panels from the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston and St. Patrick’s in Watertown. The process of “plating” (overlapping 2 or more layers of glass for depth, richness, and variation of color) was invented by LaFarge and made popular by Tiffany. He showed examples of these overlapping opalescent panels by LaFarge and 5-layered plating from St. Anne’s in Lowell that added incredible visual richness and depth to the work, but also considerable weight to the panels. Between the glass and lead came, the five layer plated areas at St. Anne’s had a total thickness of 1-3/4”! Each stratum must have its own rubbing and annotation to guide the releading of the disassembled window. Lyn referred to a typology of cracks – old, new, previously repaired, etc. Lyn noted that in the quest for desired new aesthetic effects, Tiffany and LaFarge were pushing the technical envelope of glass manufacture of their time. As a result, some of their glass is now literally coming apart (devitrifying or “sugaring”), creating considerable conservation challenges today. Glass cleaning must be done under the eye of an experienced conservator. Lyn’s studio uses de-ionized water and pH neutral surfactants (basically a soap), then rinses with de-ionized water. Vitreous paint is fired into the glass and tends to be relatively durable, whereas other paints are more fragile. Cleaning of fragile paint is an extremely delicate operation and must be done with the utmost care. Painting lost detail onto fragile original paint is problematic in that the shrinkage and adhesion of the new paint can pull off remaining original paint. Lyn’s studio visually restores lost detail on fragile paint in a reversible manner by adding separate, 2 mil thick clear glass cover-plates to protect the fragile original paint, and painting the missing detail on the clear new cover plate. In adding the missing detail on the new cover-plate, care and artistry are necessary to replicate the original hand. Though visually seamless from 6 feet, the original versus the repair work remains clear to future generations of conservators. Clean fractures are repaired with clear epoxy glues (e.g., Hextall) that now have the same refractive index as glass. Thin seams of copper foil are used to solder the edges of cover-plates and repair broken edges of glass. In installing the glass, the window frame edges must allow the stained/leaded glass panel to “float” within the opening, unrestrained in-plane. In the past, installers often left too little room for expansion between the leaded glass panel and the surrounding window frame and consequently, thermal movement of restrained panels led to bulges and fractures. Lyn and Wendall Kalsow observed this phenomenon at St. Anne’s. 3. Archdiocesan Property Disposal – Lyn Hovey’s talk, with its illustrations from the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, led to a discussion about the removal of stained glass and other sacred objects from churches that are in suppressed parishes. If stained glass were in a church when it was sanctified, then it is considered a sacred religious object (along with the altar, chalices, etc.) and must be removed before the church can be deconsecrated and relegated to other uses. Albert Rex and Marilyn Fenollosa reported that the Boston Preservation Alliance and National Trust have developed a dialog with the Chancellor’s staff, who are responsible for managing the information gathering and disposition of real property. The Chancellor’s staff is working with 357 parishes in 80 “clusters” of 2 to 7 churches. Kathleen Hecht, a lawyer with an academic background in art history, is involved in the execution of Church policies about desanctifying those places of worship that will be sold and preparing them for the marketplace. David O’Brien is in charge of the disposition process. Albert reported that there is a strict set of procedures and tight timetable that must be followed for the closure of churches – only 12 to 18 weeks are allowed from receipt of notice from the Vatican of suppression until the church building is fully desanctified. The desanctification process itself is strict and explicit – for example, the altar stone must be cut-up into a certain number of pieces of a certain size. The strict timetable allows little time to find a potential new home for stained glass windows that must be removed. School closings are moving on a different timeline. Albert thought that a number of desanctified or profane properties might be mothballed for a time if the market’s absorption rate is slow. Though the strict time table for desanctification and the economic and logistical constraints narrow the ability to find solutions for saving all of the significant buildings and artifacts, Albert reported mutual understanding from both sides in the dialogue. Church personnel involved in the closures understanding the preservation community’s appreciation for the significance and beauty of these buildings, windows, and artifacts as architecture and works of art, while the preservation community understands the real constraints and economic pressures on the church that forces these closings, as well as the traditions, canons, and procedures for desanctification that must be respected. Jean Carroon and Michael DeLacey urged continued respect for the beliefs and canons of the Catholic Church regarding their buildings and sacred objects, and continued positive tone to the dialogue with the church in attempting to find mutually agreeable solutions for saving the most significant buildings and artifacts. Last month, Albert said that the Catholic Church expects the sale of churches to other denominations will be their most advantageous outcome financially. This is good news for those concerned about the preservation of the architecture; however, in a number of places, stained glass is being removed. Marilyn noted that “stripped” churches likely will be ineligible for federal historic tax credits. At Our Lady of Pity in Cambridge, congregation that purchased the building bought back the glass. A group that includes Sally Zimmerman from the Cambridge Historic Commission, Steve Stowell from the Lowell Historic Board, Jim Igoe from Preservation Mass, Albert from Boston Preservation Alliance, and Marilyn from the National Trust are in contact with the Archdiocese and trying to make a constructive contribution. This group is considering ways to contribute guidelines to the RFP process that may also help to protect cultural resources, whether they are sacred objects that are removed to a central storehouse (none yet exists) or integral architectural features. The churches that will survive are being called “Welcoming Churches.” These survivors are estimated to carry a $368 million deferred maintenance burden. Historic Boston is thinking about producing a Stewardship Kit to help the congregations of historic churches that may be closed, and this may also be useful to potential purchasers. Lyn Hovey expressed concern about vandalism to windows as soon as the churches are vacated. He and Michael DeLacey suggested that the BSA consider working with other groups to fund a broad study of stained glass and other decorative arts that could identify priorities for protection and longer term preservation. Virginia Raguin was mentioned as a person who is both qualified to produce such a study on stained glass and decorative arts and who is trusted by the Archdiocese. Ellen Lipsey recommended that such a study focus on buildings and artifacts that will connect to the local neighborhood and have been understood as valuable to their particular community. Lyn urged the BSA to write a letter of support to the Archdiocese with an offer of support that the Chancellor might otherwise never find. Wendall Kalsow observed that such a letter and such an offer should come from the BSA and not our committee. 4. APT Northeast – David Hart asked committee members to set aside some time to help at the APT Northeast/APT booth at the Restoration & Renovation Conference when it is in Boston at the end of April. Members of APT Northeast passed around flyers announcing a one-day symposium at Columbia University called State of the Art Techniques for Monitoring and Protecting Historic Structures on March 27, 2004. Among the co-sponsors is the New York Landmarks Conservancy. The morning session concentrates on different aspects of structural movement and displacement. The afternoon session explores cathodic protection of iron and steel. Register on-line at www.apti.org; $90 includes lunch! 5. Granite and Marble Conference – Register now to hold your place in Susan Schur’s May conference. Susan’s technical conferences have attained a national reputation for the quality of their speakers and the new information they present to practicing professionals in the preservation community. The lineup of speakers for this conference is outstanding. The BSA is a co-sponsor. Our HRC webpage (listed below) includes information.
featuring Louis Kahn’s Exeter Library, Masonry Restoration and Waterproofing Carl Jay, Shawmut Design & Construction 8: 00 a.m., Thursday, April 8, 2004 The Architects' Building, 52 Broad Street, 5th floor, Boston
Henry Moss AIA, Matthew Bronski, and Sara Wermiel, co-leaders and scribes
|