Re-purposing/Restoration/Renovation Project

A post to express my joy through pursuing the "infill" concept with "Heritage" architecture, while introducing meaningful participation into the Design Process

Today, nearly 30 years later, the concept has proven itself as a valid architectural concept for the future. Instead of throwing away the our past, we can find joy and value in embracing it fully at then improving on the ideas to create even better solutions for our future.

Now let's watch how we can create 21st century living space in a duplex configuration while enjoying the products our past and implementing the lessons learned for our future.

We don't really benefit by throwing away old ideas. Unless we evaluate and re-evaluate we are just making our job harder. There is no greater joy than making the old ideas better!!!

2nd Installment - April 14, 2012

So, here we have a beautiful example of a craftsmen style home built in 1925. This one is not a contemporary reflection of the craftsmen homes of that era. It was, indeed constructed carefully by craftsmen who created a structure that shows extraordinary pride in the art of construction. The wood framing, still visible in the attic spaces, reveals straight, carefully cured, knot free lumber of full thickness. The rough framing was so well done that today we would gratefully accept the unfinished attic as a finished room!

The concrete foundation walls were painstaking stucco-ed with careful embossing to provide the appearance of cut limestone. Casement windows and hardware provide the ambiance of highly crafted furniture.

And now nearly 100 years later, the structure and foundations are as stable as the day it was built.

Subsequent owners have not been kind to the building, however. It has suffered years of hard use as a halfway house, with destructive remodeling to accommodate insensitive egress requirements of contemporary building codes. Three unfinished, under protected, poorly maintained wooden stair clutter the rear of the house.

A south facing, two-story exterior porch was insensitively enclosed, removing and boarding up windows to create a second interior egress stair. That stair was deemed “non-compliant”, so another exterior stair was added. Poor planning caused two more stairs to be required for egress.

The current zoning ordinance will permit the building to be re-adapted to create two 2-story duplex apartments. Under this adaptation the existing deteriorating stairs can be removed. This configuration will then open up the opportunity to re-purpose the entire rear of the property as a ”protected” garden like courtyard entry while permitting restoration of the rear of the building.

3rd Installment - April 17, 2012

Following an intensive study of the interior spaces through the creation of a three-dimensional model, locating existing and previously modified elements including windows, architectural detailing, mechanical and electrical systems, and interior stairs; a decision was made to approach the project with a duplex configuration with two-story living units located at the front and rear of the building (Scheme A). The other duplex arrangements considered were two 2-story units on the right and left sides (Scheme B), and one unit utilizing the entire first floor and one unit on the second floor (Scheme C).

The Street facade is in need of minor maintenance and restoration. The entry door is an embossed metal clad "6 panel door" that needs replacement and not in keeping with the craftsman style. The sloped concrete walkway provides convenient accessible access but the railings appear 'industrial' and distract from the aesthetic appeal of the entry approach.

Scheme B was discarded because the existing street facade as well as many original interior architectural elements would be lost. Scheme C was discarded because a second unit entry accompanied by an adjacent interior vertical access stair would eliminate many elements of interior architectural detailing in the existing living room space on the first floor; and also because upper and lower units are less attractive to tenants due to noise and fire separation requirements.

The next challenge, following the basic configuration decision was to determine the best entry location for the rear duplex unit.

 
A paved walkway on the right side (South exposure) leads to an existing stoop and rear entry. The roof over the rear stoop appears to be original, reflecting craftsmen styling, while the steel columns supporting the roof are not typical of the period and are probably replacements.

Inside the door, the room appears to have originally been a pantry/utility space and or kitchen, based upon the window configuration on the East wall and interior original built-in shelving. That use however was abandoned long ago and reused for other functions.

4th Installment - April 22, 2012

I apologize to those who are following this real-time experiment for a delay in the progression of this blog post. Practicing architects, too, are distracted by other unexpected professional obligations as has been my experience over the past few days.

Currently, it is my hope that all members of the Roanoke City Architectural Review Board are following this progression of installments in the design process for this proposed project in the Old Southwest Historic District of the City of Roanoke. It is also my hope that the board members will feel free to make comments, including asking questions, as we proceed. My intent is to initiate a process that will permit more efficiency in the architectural review process by utilizing current technology which can enhance the end product of our efforts.

Although I encourage comments and questions from anyone, I must be able to differentiate between those from the Architectural Review Board and others. Therefore, Roanoke City ARB members must identify themselves rather than remaining anonymous so that I have the opportunity on behalf of my client to respond appropriately. (I will also respond to private email comments from ARB members, if preferred.)

It would be helpful to know if my client and I will be honored with the full participation of the Roanoke City Architectural Review Board through this process.

A view from the Southeast of a model of the existing property reveals much about the original construction as well as the many adaptations that have been made over the years. The simplified model of the original carriage house is shown on the right. While the existing main structure is currently vacant, the carriage house is occupied today as an apartment.

In search of a new entry on this side of the building, we take the following into consideration:

A. A set of three original casement windows, with a sill height of approximately 4’-6” above the finished floor on the interior, in combination with the exterior access door around the building corner, suggests that the stoop and the door served as a service entrance to a pantry/utility room in the original home. The high sill height permitted space for work counters and shelving below.

B. The single original casement visible on the exterior is one of a pair of original casements that still exist with one being concealed by early remodeling. A bathroom occupies the existing space on the interior.

C. This 15 light fixed sash does not match the detailing of the original windows and therefore was probably installed as an enclosure element on a second floor “sleeping porch” in a later remodeling.

D. A 3’-0” x 6’-8” commercial grade flush exterior door, which is clearly not original was more recently installed as an emergency egress exit from the second floor level during the building’s use as a halfway house. An existing stair inside the old sleeping porch area could not have been used as emergency egress because it is not code compliant, therefore, requiring installation of the adjacent, deteriorating open treated pine stair on the exterior.

E. A 6-light over 1-light double hung window appears to have been installed at the time of the enclosure of the sleeping porch, like C. above. A bathroom occupies the space inside. This bath room was installed one step above the adjacent room that it serves and two steps above the old sleeping porch floor. There has been water damage in this area and the floor structure adjacent has sagged lower.

F. This is an original sleeping porch column that has been left exposed through several remodels of the building. The siding on the second level, and parts of the first level rear wing, appears to be a contemporary fiber reinforced cementitious material with a pattern and texture mimicking cedar shingles that may have been installed on the original structure.

G. A 3’-0” x 6’-8” 6-panel metal clad exterior door, which is clearly not original was more recently installed as an emergency egress exit from the first floor level during the building’s use as a halfway house. Another open treated pine stair was installed on the exterior.

H. A 3’-8” x 3’-8” aluminum framed sliding glass window (early 1970’s vintage) surrounded aluminum “clapboard” siding encloses an existing interior stairway.

I. An existing 8-light over 8-light double hung window, clearly original, provides day-lighting and ventilation for the basement space below. An adjacent 4-panel wood door in excellent condition also appears to be original.

J. A 2’-8” x 6’-8” commercial grade hollow metal flush exterior door, which is clearly not original was more recently installed as an emergency egress exit from the first floor level during the building’s use as a halfway house. A third open treated pine stair was installed on the exterior.

K. Another single original casement visible on the exterior is one of a pair of original casements that still exist with one being concealed by early remodeling. A bathroom occupies the existing space on the interior.

Some of the original windows in their current locations may be considered for removal, restoration and re-use in alternative locations during the execution of this project.

All three of the dilapidated open treated pine stairs and railings will be removed.