|
|
Present: Bill Barry, Eric Breitkreutz, Matthew Bronski, Rachel Consolly, Michael DeLacey, Jeffrey Harris, David Hart, John Hecker, David Kelman, Michael Lynch, Bill Mack, Doug Manley, Don Mills, Tim Mitchell, Henry Moss, Ivan Myjer, Zac Sargent, Susan Schur, Jay Stanbury, Eric Ward, and Sara Wermiel 1. The Ups and Downs of Window Hardware: Michael Lynch of Simpson Gumpertz & Heger gave a slide presentation on a brief history of window hardware, focusing on the late-18th through the early-20th centuries in the U.S. Michael’s interest and research in the subject began with the Windows Conference for Historic Buildings held in Boston in 1986, and draws from his extensive archival research into hardware patents, his stewardship experience with SPNEA and NYSHPO, and his current investigative work. His ever-burgeoning collection of window hardware pieces feeds his fondness for buying odd old things off eBay for $5 from people in Des Moines who find them inside old tool boxes in their cellars (isn’t the Internet a wonderful thing?). In many cases, Michael’s illustrated presentation showed side-by-side slide images of a patent for a piece of window hardware, an in-situ view of the hardware in an historic house (with portions concealed by the woodwork), and an actual example of the hardware item, showing the full item to clarify how it works. Michael classified the various types of window hardware into two broad and intuitive categories: “things that make windows to go up or stay up” (e.g., sash props, sash pulleys, spring balances), and “things that hold windows down” (e.g., sash fasteners, sash locks). Sash pulleys appeared almost as soon as sash windows replaced casements as the window of choice in English and American architecture in the 1700’s. [Aside: Various members of the committee wondered after the meeting why sash windows replaced casements in 18th century England, while casement windows remained and still remain the window of choice in many other western and central European countries? Was England’s change driven purely by style? After all, casement windows are more easily made, have fewer moving parts, and have a greater net ventilation area. Please let us know if you can shed any light on the matter.] Sash pulleys are documented in England as early as 1725. Some of the earliest examples have wood frames with fruitwood, brass or iron wheels. The Shirley Eustis House in Roxbury (1745) has wood English sash pulleys with a brass bushing in the middle that rolls on a fixed iron pin. Examples from the 1780’s include cast brass pulleys and frames, as well as a hybrid cast iron frame with a wood pulley. The Codman Estate in Lincoln, MA has 1796 sash pulleys consisting of a fruitwood wheel with a wrought iron pin pinned directly into a mortise in the timber jamb (the SPNEA archives contain the original invoices for these windows). The first spring pulley/spring balance system was patented in 1856, although it didn’t become popular until the 20th century. Michael is currently working on a turn-of-the 20th c. brick mill building that has spring balances made from coiled steel tape in a circular housing, somewhat similar to the common retractable steel tape measure. A “slider” was a simpler item with no moving parts that served the same role as a pulley: it simply had a curved, smooth metal or polished wood trough, similar to the top half of a stationary pulley wheel, over which the rope to the sash weight would slide. Michael has recently found a rare glass slider, with the patent date 1863 cast into the glass (thank you eBay)! Window wedges were even simpler devices for holding a sash open: a wood wedge was inserted between the sash edge and the jamb frame, pointed side up, like a vertical doorstop (no counterweight or weight pocket needed). After the Civil War, sash hardware manufacturers, varieties, and patents exploded. The Russell and Erwin catalog of 1865 is the first large-scale American hardware catalog. It was reprinted by APT, and is a great resource. The Winterthur archive collection is also an excellent resource for hardware researchers; it contains many early European and American catalogs. Patent records are a great resource, although many patent records were lost to the fire in 1836. Eccentric sash props were a cam-shaped device that transferred the vertical weight of the sash into horizontal pressure and friction on the jamb frame; an 1861 design innovation in sash props used gum arabic (a natural rubber) on the contact surface to increase friction, and decrease marring of the wood. Some previous designs had a serrated edge, like the head of a pair of pliers, which must have gouged and marred the exposed wood jamb mercilessly. Sash bolts and spring bolts serve to hold the window open and hold it closed. Spring bolts (1804 patent) were essentially a thin metal dowel in a metal tube that connected the sash to a hole in the jamb frame to hold the window sash at a particular height (open or closed). A spring bolt remarkably similar to that shown in the 1865 R&E catalog is still made by Stanley and available in many local hardware stores! Sash fasteners and sash locks hold the window closed by holding the upper and lower sashes together. Many sash fasteners are mistakenly called sash locks. A sash lock has a separate keyed latch to lock it closed; thus, the familiar helical sash “locks” still ubiquitous today are actually sash fasteners. The helical cam design dates to an 1887 patent for the “Champion sash fastener.” In this model the helical cam was concealed in a housing. The open helical cam sash fastener, known as the “Fitch” sash fastener, was introduced in the US in the 1890s. They are still generically called Fitch sash locks in the U.K. Michael would love to learn more about the talented Mr. Fitch, whose helical sash fastener design is still with us today. The beauty of Fitch’s helical design is that it tightens the two window sashes both vertically and horizontally, whereas the straight arm sash fastener does not. Prior to Mr. Fitch, the “Boston Sash Lock” was common in this area – this is a quadrant-type latch where a long, straight arm swings 90-degrees over a spring-loaded catch. The catch prevented a burglar from slipping a knife blade up between the meeting rails and sliding the sash fastener open. Aside from the helical cam innovation, other changes to sash lock design were largely stylistic: finial-like “steeple top” sash fasteners and elaborate cast metal “Eastlake” designs yielded to more simple and streamlined designs in the early twentieth century. Michael cautioned that despite many well-known dates, good patent records, and stylistic differences, dating a building by its hardware is unreliable. In many instances, hardware was either reused from older buildings or stock, or was replaced, thus the window hardware may be either older or younger than the building. Michael is always anxious to see old or unusual window hardware. If you see anything interesting in your historic building or in a box in your cellar, feel free to e-mail him a digital photo (mflynch@sgh.com ). And do tell him if you have any information on the talented Mr. Fitch. 2. Good Additions - Part 4, Underground Expansion: Our 14 April HRC meeting will continue our ongoing series of design discussions on good neighbors/additions in historic contexts. This time, we’ll discuss underground additions in historic contexts, as suggested by Jack Glassman. Jack cited Trinity Church, Old North Church, Old South Meeting House, the Smithsonian’s Ethnic Art Museum, the 36th Street Morgan Library, the Louvre, and the Pusey Library at Harvard as examples to consider. Henry Moss recalled a period in architecture (was it the early 1980’s?) when it seemed that the only additions to historic buildings that won design awards were underground additions. Do we still think so little of current architectural design that the best additions are those that we can’t see? When is an underground addition appropriate and respectful, and when is it timid and meek? Is it possible that an underground addition could be too visually bold and confrontational - after all, many initially argued this about the relatively small portions of the Louvre addition (the pyramids) that are not hidden underground. Ponder these and other questions, and join in the discussion at our meeting on April 14. We’ll continue the digital potluck format for these discussions, so please seek out a couple images of underground additions that we can use to spur discussion. Please e-mail your digital images to Matthew Bronski at mbbronski@sgh.com by the morning of April 13 at the latest. Any digital image format is okay - .tiff, .jpg. bmp. emf, etc. 3. Sources of Innovation in Historic Preservation: Last month, Henry Moss invited the committee to begin to think about innovation in historic preservation, and how it develops in the legislative, theoretical, and technical sectors of our activity for discussion at a future meeting. Michael DeLacey provided the committee with copies of two articles to help spawn thoughts for the upcoming discussion, “A Romance of Rust; Nostalgia, progress, and the meaning of tools” from Harper’s Magazine Jan. 2005, and “Report: Problems experienced by community groups working with the Landmarks Preservation Commission” issued in Nov. 2004 by The Arts and Landmarks Committee of the Women’s City Club of New York. Please gather your thoughts for our initial discussions of this topic at a future meeting, possibly in September. 4. Fenway Park is Saved!: Six years ago, the previous Red Sox ownership told the world that Fenway Park was an obsolete and crumbling facility that simply couldn’t be saved, economically or practically, and that the Red Sox could never compete with the Yankees without a big, new stadium (and some public funds). The media and local politicians swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Politicians and sportscasters offered structural opinions on why Fenway Park simply could not be saved; and those who suggested the Red Sox should renovate historic Fenway Park were alternately ignored and publicly ridiculed (in the Globe, Bob Ryan published an article calling the grassroots advocates of Save Fenway Park! “tree-hugging wussies”, while Dan Shaughnessy declared that the new stadium was “a done-deal” and that those who fought to save Fenway were like the WWII Japanese soldiers found still fighting in the Philippines long after the war had ended). Under the more enlightened new Red Sox ownership, current Red Sox VP/Architect/Planner extraordinaire Janet Marie Smith presented to this committee in May 2003 the Red Sox plans and efforts thus far to renovate, expand, and improve the historic ballpark while preserving its character. Despite the acclaim received for their additions and improvements, until recently, the Red Sox had not yet committed to stay in Fenway for the long-term. On 23 March 2005, the Red Sox Ownership formally announced that they are “committed to remain long-term at Fenway Park, America's most beloved ballpark”. “It is an honor to have the opportunity to protect and preserve Fenway Park," said Sox Principal Owner John Henry "We see how its history and charm attract people from all over the world, and how it helps connect generations within families.” Kudos to the current Red Sox ownership for their enlightened view and open-mindedness, despite the media barrage that preceded them. Kudos to the Sox visionary VP Janet Marie Smith, who already has improved the historic park so dramatically in only three years, and kudos to the grassroots diehards of Save Fenway Park! who took the hits and persisted, and whose Churchillian determination and grit never wavered even in the darkest days of this battle. 5. Brick Conference: Susan Schur distributed registration material and a preliminary schedule for the upcoming conference, Clay Bricks in the 21st Century: Design, Preservation, & Care of Contemporary and Historic Architecture. Poster proposals will be due in Dec. 2005. The conference will be at MIT March 25-26, 2006. 6. Doors Open Lowell: Again this year, the BSA/HRC is serving as a co-sponsor of Doors Open Lowell. The fourth annual Doors Open Lowell, presented as part of Lowell's National Preservation Month activities, will take place May 5-7, 2005. The event offers an insider's look into the preservation of over thirty of Lowell's fabulous historic buildings; many not normally open to the public. It's a celebration of urban living and culture where people and preservation have made Lowell a creative and exciting place to live and work. In 2002, Lowell was the first city in the United States to launch this event dedicated to built heritage, architecture, and design. The inspiration for Doors Open Lowell came from Toronto, which launched the first Doors Open event in North America in 2000. Doors Open originated as part of European Heritage Days in 1991. The event creates access and heightens awareness of the community's architecture and preservation activities. Buildings will be open Friday May 6 (6-9 pm) and Saturday May 7 (9am - 4pm). The event is free and open to the public. Check out www.doorsopenlowell.org for full event information and regular updates. Doors Open Lowell is seeking volunteers to man doors for the event and greet visitors. Preservation and design professionals are particularly welcomed as volunteers (and receive a free T-shirt for their efforts). To volunteer, contact Christine Briggs of the Lowell National Historical Park (Christina_Briggs@nps.gov or 978- 275-1725).
Group discussion "Underground Additions in Historic Contexts" 8: 00 a.m., Thursday, April 14, 2005 The Architects' Building, 52 Broad Street, 5th floor, Boston
Henry Moss, Matthew Bronski, and Sara Wermiel co-leaders and scribes
|