restoring the roost

North Carolina Country Living and Farmhouse Style

North Carolina Country Living and Farmhouse Style
since 2010

historic preservation and sustainability

Old Tenant House

· architectural history, historic preservation and sustainability, new house

What’s that? Yup, you read it right–there is an old tenant house (or modest farm dwelling) that sits just over the property line from the land we have been given on which to build our house!

 It’s in pretty rough shape and overgrown with vegetation (we saw the biggest spider we’ve ever seen in our lives inside) but interesting nonetheless. It appears to have been quite altered but contains three rooms with a sleeping loft above and is clad in vertical wood siding and features a stone exterior chimney with upper brick portion. It sits on a foundation of rough stacked stone piers.

One of the coolest things is the big “bottle dump” trash pit down the hill from the house, where there are literally hundreds of old glass bottles all over the ground that have been stuck in the dirt for who knows how many decades.
Here are more photos:

one of the only remaining windows in the house

the first room upon entering–the primary “living room” or “parlor” as evidenced by the mantel
a view of the primary entrance door to the house into the “living room” or “parlor”

This room in the photos below may have been a bedroom possibly–it contains a ladder that leads to a loft above likely used for sleeping or storage.

The newspaper in the photo below looks as though it was used as insulation between wood exterior and interior walls. I found a piece that had a date of 1915 on it!

the upstairs loft
This room in the photo below was the old kitchen. You can see the watermarks/ghostmark on the wood wall where the stove was and there is still an existing piece of a stove pipe piercing the roof.

After all this time of wanting to rehab an old farmhouse, it’s thrilling to know that there is indeed something old right near where we will be building a new house. I’m just grateful that I was able to document the structure before it falls in or is damaged any further.

Using Reclaimed Materials in a New Build

· historic preservation and sustainability, Homesteading, new house

Using reclaimed building materials in a new house or in home décor projects is super trendy these days (in my opinion). I think we have to be very careful in how we go about doing this–especially in new construction. A few examples of reclaimed materials might be old wood, windows, brick, stone, architectural trim and interior moldings, old mantels, brackets, and so forth.
It’s one thing to use some old wood to mill reclaimed wood flooring if it’s from something that is local or that belonged to the property, but I think it’s entirely another to rip historic architectural features out of abandoned properties with no concern as to its provenance or the context in which it was used.
I completely understand that people love a beautiful old mantel but I feel that I need to respect the piece’s history and context in how it was used.  Don’t get me wrong–I’m all for using old materials in order to recycle them especially if they have already been taken out of a property that was demolished–but let’s not go stripping houses and buildings for their architecture before their fate is decided.
We are hoping to use a few reclaimed materials in our build–in particular some reclaimed heart pine for flooring. Heart pine was widely used in early North Carolina homes and other buildings-there are several lumber businesses in the area that specialize in using old, discarded heart pine wood. We may also use some stones from the property to use in the fireplace construction or for steps outside or around the porches. If we can find some nice old wood on the property that would be suitable we may even think about using the wood for beams or some shelving.
Below are some inspiration photos that I have saved of reclaimed materials used in new construction:
 
 
 

Hurricane Matthew and Historic Properties

· historic preservation and sustainability, restoration basics

Sometimes during a natural disaster we don’t think much about our historic buildings. It’s important to know in the aftermath how to treat historic properties that have sustained damage.
Hurricane Matthew has had a devastating effect here in North Carolina with the flooding of so many communities and homes in addition to the loss of life. Once the waters have receded, we must think long and hard about how to rebuild appropriately in order to save the parts of our built environment that are so important to our local and state history. Documentation of the damage is critically important!
Most large-scale historic sites should have a plan for natural disasters such as hurricanes and flooding.  But many smaller historic sites as well as commercial historic downtowns and historic districts that never expected flooding do not have a plan. Below are some links to valuable resources providing information from the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office on what to do should a natural disaster strike in order to protect and repair historic properties.
Click HERE for a great article from the NC HPO’s website on the importance of planning for natural disasters near historic properties.
Click HERE for information on Hurricane Preparedness and please check out all the other links (located HERE) to very informative articles on other disaster preparedness topics such as “Tips for Drying Out a Water Damaged Building,” “Reporting Damage to Your Historic Property,” and many more.

When is an old house not worth saving?

· historic preservation and sustainability, restoration basics

I know this is probably a loaded question, but at some point as preservationists we have to admit that we cannot save everything. And for those opposed to preservation who make the comment that “you cannot save everything,”– Don’t worry, we won’t. Far far too much is already lost.

But looking at the cold hard fact that yes, we must tear down some of our buildings at some point I grapple with the question of at what point is a building not worth saving anymore?  This is a very hard line to draw–it certainly is not black and white.

Is it when the building is literally falling down in a heap of materials?

This house may be deteriorated, but it is not beyond repair and restoration. However, its type is common throughout rural North Carolina, and there are probably other better examples of it in it’s home county.

an example of a dwelling that is literally falling apart and probably too far gone for any type of rescue

Or when it has been so altered physically and functionally that it’s historic integrity has been completely compromised?

this house does not look as it would have originally been built with many severe alterations including replacement windows, enclosed porches, and changes in fenestration patterns.

Or perhaps the building or house is a run-of-the-mill house with no distinctive or outstanding stylistic elements or historic significance?

This house is a standard one-story modest dwelling whose form and characteristics are very common in North Carolina, it is not architecturally outstanding in any way and thus does not make a compelling case for preservation if the time came when it would be more prudent to demolish rather than preserve.
This is another very common house type in North Carolina that has experienced compromising alterations, including changes in the window fenestration patterns and replacement of doors and windows. It does not possess any rare or outstanding architectural significance.

I think the demolition of an old building can be warranted for all of these above reasons. It is certainly true many times that historically significant and architecturally outstanding buildings are sadly demolished. But the same is true for architecturally boring and standard buildings with no meaningful historical narrative or important connection of which we would want to preserve for the future. I’m not so sure we need to save old buildings that don’t warrant preservation for a good reason. We can be focusing our energy on other important causes in our field.

Of course there are always exceptions to my opinions stated above. For some properties there may be a personal connection to a family and therefore that family has an interest in preserving it for their own sense of history. That is a decision that should be left up to the family.

Also, common house types that are found in historic districts may contribute to the district’s significance as a whole, and therefore should be preserved as a whole. They may not be all that significant on their own but are important in defining character for a particular town and it’s historic streetscape.

So, what do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

PNC Conference Recap

· architectural history, historic preservation and sustainability

I recently attended the Preservation North Carolina annual conference last week. This year’s was held in downtown Raleigh and the theme was “1964: The New Historic.”

As you can probably tell, several sessions focused on modernism and recognizing resources from our recent past. The conference offered a great primer on modernist buildings, particularly mid-century resources in North Carolina, and the issues and challenges of preserving these for our future.

One of the sessions I attended given by my former professor, Jo Ramsay Leimenstoll, detailed how we need to be looking at the integrity of historic resources from our recent past not only through the lens of its physical historic fabric, but also using a values-based approach. It’s interesting to think of the meaning of historic integrity with the community in mind, but it certainly makes a lot of sense and is something to be considered more often. The session also explored the seven aspects of integrity (location, setting, materials, design, workmanship, feeling and association) and how these need to be addressed in terms of preservation and National Register significance for our mid-century resources.

Another session I attended highlighted the ability of lasers and other technologies to record and document buildings to scale as a form of measuring and creating rectified, scaled imaging. It was so cool and really demonstrated just how much new technology is changing the field of architectural history and historic preservation.

And lastly, the keynote speaker on Friday, Steven Semes, offered a really fresh and needed perspective, in my opinion, on designing new and compatible infill in historic districts. So often we preservationists interpret Secretary Standard No. 9 that calls for:

“New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.”

…to mean that we need to be constructing new structures or additions that are clearly and wholly different from the old, yet compatible in massing, scale, etc. This often results in a contemporary addition or infill property that does not fit in with the character of the district or allude to its stylistic character. Semes reminded the audience that it is okay and perhaps better to be designing stylistically compatible buildings that can still be differentiated from the old so that the character and historic integrity of the place or district is not compromised. An infill structure does not have to be modern or contemporary in all cases. It was certainly an interesting stance that I hadn’t heard–a backlash to the current line of thinking for a lot of preservation purists.

Unfortunately I did not get to enjoy many of the social gatherings and activities that were offered (the costs of being a new mother, haha!) but I am looking forward to future conferences for sure. Next year’s is going to be in Salisbury!