Present: Roysin Billett, Bill Barry, Matthew Bronski, Jean Carroon, Alison Gould, David Hart, John Hecker, Lisa Howe, Wendall Kalsow, David Kelman, Ellen Lipsey, Doug Manley, Henry Moss, Ivan Myjer, Elizabeth Randall, Brian Roche, Roberto Rosa, Susan Schur, Malcolm Smiley, Jonathan Smith, Laurie Soave, Jay Stanbury, David Trueblood, Sara Wermiel, Brian Winn 1. Trinity Church Improvements and Restoration: David Trueblood, Director of Communication for the parish, introduced Trinity Church’s formidable construction project to the committee from the client’s point of view. H. H. Richardson’s Trinity Church is a world-lass icon, but it is maintained and supported financially by a comparatively small group of people – the members of the parish. Thousands of tourists and office workers swirl around the building every week, but relatively few have been inside. David acknowledged that the public sees the building as forbidding; one of his tasks is to open it up. The impetus for the restoration project was to create more meeting space for the parish in the Church’s basement. The parish then decided to use the occasion of renovating the basement to undertake some important deferred projects. William LeMessurier and Robert Silman, structural engineers, had done a master plan for Trinity in the past, but Goody, Clancy’s more recent planning culminated in profound changes below the church. The current project involved excavating the building’s pile foundations (partly in a 12’ deep trench curving along the outer wall of the apse). 126 years have provided ample time for damage to accumulate from fluctuations in the water table as well as accretions that complicate and constrain use of the building’s whole potential space. The vast first phase of work will include major repairs to the least accessible, higher reaches of the tower and roof; life safety improvements; and repairs to part of LaFarge’s murals. The uses of church buildings have changed over the last hundred years. Even in the late 19th century, churches were simply worship spaces; ancillary spaces were chapels, not Bingo halls. Today, Trinity needs much more support space than was originally provided. The congregation includes 4,300 households; 1700-2000 people attend services. In the past, the building’s only social available space could hold 125 people and was 4 stories above the ground floor in a connected building. By contrast, current standards suggest a 5:1 ratio of support to sanctuary space. David pointed out that Trinity Church has had good times and bad times through its history. At the outset of this project, Trinity had finished a decade of growth and the parish wanted to solve its accumulated space and maintenance problems. Goody, Clancy helped to “find a language for communicating with the parish” and to evaluate the needs expressed by different interest groups in order to establish priorities. As the project became physical Goody, Clancy and Shawmut Design and Construction helped Trinity organize ways to manage the disturbance to neighbors during construction and the public safety aspects of their interesting scaffolded facades and exterior excavation. David listed some heavy decisions that Trinity made as the project moved ahead: > Continue as a parish church throughout construction. Never close the church. It has remained open every weekend. >Prioritize objectives and protect the building. > Appeal to the broadest possible range of financial supporters. Create the Trinity Boston Preservation Trust to elicit support from people who admire the building but are not members of the parish. >Decide how much money could realistically be allocated to the project and work with the parish so that members could comprehend the necessary scale of the effort and its financial implications. At the earliest planning stage, a likely project cost of $12 million caused “shock and awe;” the estimated cost of the project’s more developed plan is closer to $42 million. Lisa Howe, Jean Carroon and their colleagues created a 30-year maintenance plan, but the visible masonry work of the current project is confined to the tower and other features that need complicated scaffolding for access. The project’s dramatic Fraco moveable scaffold (a Boston first), which was designed by Robert Silman, places tall masts on the tower’s projecting granite foundations. Eight masts support 8 levels of scaffold. Seeing this striking new exoskeleton immediately conveys the huge scale and sophistication of the project to the public. Inside, beneath the sanctuary, an uninhabitable undercroft is being transformed into modern, flexible space for large gatherings. Excavation in the undercroft to create reasonable headroom exposed the first step of the granite “wedding cake” foundations. Repairs to exposed pile caps have extended beyond the apse wall to interior structures. A major installation of geothermal wells for heating and cooling helps to avoid visible equipments (flues, condensers, chillers, cooling towers) in Copley Square. This is yet another innovation among many in this staggering project. The parish’s ability to live through such an ambitious construction campaign with so little working area and no downtime is clear evidence of the management skills of Trinity’s staff, their consultants and their contractor. David Trueblood and Matthew Bronski are arranging for a tour of the project site for members of the Historic Resources Committee. 2. Association of Preservation Technologists International (APTI) Conference: Many Boston designers, engineers, technical conservation specialists, and builders attended the APTI conference in Portland in early September and returned with rave reviews. Tobin Tracey, Amy Cole Ives, Julie Klump (all expatriate members of the BSA Historic Resources Committee) proved themselves to be brilliant organizers and indefatigable hosts. Engineering sessions were particularly strong and well attended. Visitors from the Czech Republic and from Scotland reminded us that globalization has not yet created a homogeneous world among the crafts, material resources, and philosophies that govern work on historic structures. 3. BSA Preservation Award: The HRC is still seeking nominations for this award. The names of several individuals were mentioned as candidates, but it was noted that the award has never been given to an individual. Rather, its aim is to recognize an owner who, for example, unexpectedly saves or renovates an old structure, and thereby encourage other owners to do the same. Nevertheless, all suggestions will be considered. 4. Coming Events: >Preservation Mass Fall Fund-Raiser on Thursday, November 6, at Fenway Park >Boston Society of Civil Engineers “This Old Structure Series”- Wednesday evening seminars at MIT, Building 54 $55 per session >MIT Department of Architecture, Building Technology Department Midday Talks every other Monday >APT Northeast, Paint Technology Workshop at the Mark Twain House in Hartford; Saturday, November 8 5. Postscript- State Historic Tax Credit: From our May 2003 meeting notes: “House Bill 2801 is for a State Historic Tax Credit. The advocates plan a 3-year long approach. The Senate Ways and Means Committee wants to include the tax credit in this year’s budget then send it along to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The Boston Preservation Alliance and Historic Boston are planning to work together to demonstrate the effects of a 30% tax credit. Twenty-four states now have or are developing such a rehabilitation tax credit as part of their “smart growth” packages. Maryland, Michigan, and Rhode Islands are good examples.” The State Senate has incorporated a version of this bill in its recently voted Economic Stimulus Package. The Tax Credit is set at 30%. There will be an update and clarification of this interesting legislative move at our November meeting.
featuring Pine Street Inn Tower Structure, Masonry, and Waterproofing 8: 00 a.m., Thursday, November 13, 2003 The Architects' Building, 52 Broad Street, 5th floor, Boston
Henry Moss AIA, Matthew Bronski, and Sara Wermiel, co-leaders and scribes
|