Building Conservation - Term Paper Example

Building Conservation Analysis Introduction The Engineering building was designed to depict a sense of aesthetic and ensure full functionalism. The spaces are almost fully utilized other than a few cases that tend to depict the case of modern construction technologies. The design also considered aspects like the capacity of the building occupants and the type of spaces required for its full functionalism. To achieve this aim, the spaces are made public in the low floors but are made more private upwards. The lower floors accommodate most of the occupants while towards the top of the building, private spaces are mainly created. Such spaces are depicted through offices, senior labs, and other spaces that encourage simplified and minimal activities. This was basically meant to reduce the weight of the building along its height. The same goal is achieved through a decrease in the base size of the building along its height. The Engineering Building constitutes various workshops in its ground level, which could hardly be positioned anywhere above along its height. The ground-level workshops cover almost the entire site (Penrose, 2011). This is in addition to the vertical collection that houses laboratory towers, offices, lecture theatres, staircase shafts, as well as lifts. Other, than the physical structure of the building, the chemical aspect of the materials used was also considered for the enhancement of safety measures (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2004). This paper focuses on material chemistry and conserving buildings, with main concentration on the Engineering Building. This is important given the existing contrast between the image of the building at the time it was constructed and in the modern era, typically, the 21st century. The building is known to be a mark of heritage and pride to the British architects but today there are several problems linked to its design and the materials used. Building Brief The renowned British architect James Stirling designed the Engineering Building, which also serves as the first major British building. Construction of the building ended in nineteen sixty-three. The external form of the building reflects the internal functions making it one of the most conspicuous and respected building in the world (Best & Martin, 2006). James Stirling did a lot of work in Leicester school of engineering from nineteen sixty to nineteen sixty-three. He constructed various forms that reflected internal operations of the building representing the liveliest way of presenting technology. Undertaking a structural engineering analysis of historic building focuses on interpreting the same structures with aim of learning or carrying out live-saving changes in both Civil Engineering and architecture of Conservation (Flood, 2010). Buildings conservators usually try to restore as well as preserve buildings, but they could be faced with a number of problems. The major building materials used to create buildings could be submerged in water or even have high humidity levels. Water is a chemical and a requirement in building as well as in conserving buildings but the process behind its impact on building materials is an important aspect to consider in this case. The science behind water as a chemical and a medium of the require building and conservation material raises certain precautions, which are critical for its preservations (Best & Martin, 2006). When considering material chemistry in conserving a building, it is good to consider the most widespread building material available as well as their relative physical and chemical compositions. It is also good to consider the chemical reactions that the materials undergo when mixed with compounds such as water, as a key component in either building or in conserving a building. While there are humidity aspects to consider, it is also good to consider the way conservators repair the damages caused by water whenever they are slowing or halting further damages (Kevin, 2001). The most important aspect to consider is the way such knowledge has been applied or it could be applied in concerning buildings (Kevin, 2001). A look at most of the historic buildings like the Engineering Building could provide modern building conservators with a clear idea on the best conservation measures to take when dealing with today’s building materials. Historic buildings with respect to this case are often well constructed, but time and the type of materials used makes them unstable due to the numerous exposure to environmental conditions that expose the building materials to both chemical and biological processes (Penrose, 2011). Given such circumstances and the biological or chemical processes that these buildings are subjected to, the structure may be considered as unsafe for human inhabiting. The case of the Engineering Building involved an intensive case of trying to conserve resources, an aspect that made the building process cheap and fast. Such aspect contributed to its current status and unsafe condition despite its aesthetic value and a symbol of heritage to the British architects. The building was found to be less comfortable as it was envisioned especially after the World War II, when it was found to become too cold in winder and too hot in summer (Stirling & Gowan, 2009). Typically, this pattern of heat changes hardly happens in modern buildings. The design is outstanding, but it was hardly based on projections concerning the leaking problems of the roof specifically due to its zigzag shape. However, the architects were clever enough to determine to hydraulic pressure resulting from the position of the water tank, about 100 feet above the ground (Stirling & Gowan, 2009). Review of Building Materials Most of the used building materials, which are mainly tackled in this case, are wood, stone, marble, bricks, and tiles. While some of the building materials exist naturally, others are artificial (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2004). This difference also contributes to the material chemistry, which further contribute to the existing difference in conserving them. When dealing with wooden materials, it is critical to consider the chemical structure of wood. Wood is a polymeric cellulose material that is natural but is prone to rot or even decaying when exposed to humidity or water. This aspect brings in great caution whenever conserving wooden parts of a building or when conserving wooden buildings as whole (Gilmour, 2011). Wood materials do not react with water directly, but high levels of humidity contribute to an increase the material bio-deterioration because of organisms such as fungi, bacteria, plants, and molds. This means that wood, as a naturally available material, is mainly subjected to biological deterioration rather than chemical destruction whenever exposed to water (Best & Martin, 2006). Water in this case could originate from natural sources such as humidity, rain, mist, snow, or even form the underground. Conserving a building should thus be in line with the chemical structure of wood, given that biological deterioration is enhanced by the presence of water as a compound. To counter the problem associated with wood material, steel was used instead. Stone and marble on the other hand are made up of calcium carbonate as the main chemical component, but like wood, these materials are available naturally. Unlike wood, which decay or rot whenever exposed to waters under uncontrolled conditions, materials consisting of calcium carbonate wear away because of the reaction caused by water, carbon dioxide, and water. These three chemical substances are always present, and cause great concern whenever deciding on the best approach to use in conserving a building. Building blocks, which consist of mainly stones and marbles, react with water in the presence of carbon dioxide to produce calcium ions and bicarbonate ions. The resulting ions are highly soluble in water. This property enables them to be washed away easily (Penrose, 2011). The entire process lead to the deterioration of building materials made of calcium carbonate thereby risking the destruction of building constructed with their bases in water or buildings within highly humid conditions (Williams, et al., 2011). Building materials such as bricks and tiles may not be readily subjected to the chemical deterioration process faced by calcium carbonate because they are formed from clay. While adequate research covering the building materials made from clay may not exist, such research would be important for building conservators to know the best way forward in protecting buildings from collapsing or from any other form of deterioration (Best & Martin, 2006). Conservation of buildings has to begin with an analysis of the chemical structure of all building materials used. Research has always been successful in establishing the commonest materials used in buildings and constructions as well as the resulting effects when such materials are exposed to chemical compound such as water, more research is highly advocated to establish the best conservation measures without generating further problems. Material limitation A consideration of the Engineering Building could lead to a solution to the many questions and problems that modern engineers and building conservators could be facing. From the building, aspects like the material chemistry, the structure of such materials, the limitation of materials, the design, as well as the purpose of the design or the building itself. All these factors would have contributed to a strong work of construction, but an inadequacy or limitation of one or more of such factors could have been disastrous (William, 1987). The Engineering Building was constructed under a unique design and with a specific aim, but the limitation of some critical features and the materials used make it unsafe for human dwelling at the present. The building still seems to stand strong today, and it makes Robert Maxwell among the best architects of the second half of the 20th century. The main problem is the material used, which were not only traditional, but they appear to have been chosen due to their property of being cheap and east to obtain. The lower level of the building is said to compare with today’s structural standards of single story buildings (William, 1987). The materials are poor in quality making it unsafe for human life. Timber is also used to offer support to the vertical loadings as well as the horizontal loadings. Given the chemical structure of wood, the use of timber makes exposes the building even to further structural problems as both chemical and biological processes take place. The timber would undergo cycles of swelling and shrinkage thereby weakening any individual fixings (Penrose, 2011). Typically, the Engineering Building was constructed with high conservation of energy as one of the major strategies and aims behind structuring an attractive building, but the nature of materials used and their chemical implications to its strength was less considered. People, and particularly the architects as well as the entities owning buildings such as the University of Leicester found it necessary to conserve energy because of the rising costs of the same energy (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2004). While this has been considered as one of the basic ideas in construction activities, safety measures should have been a top priority, which could have been ensured by analyzing the material chemistry as well as the type of materials to be used on a certain construction. The current poor condition of the building is as a result of these material limitations. The environmental conditions should have been considered in choosing the materials and the design to be used (Gilmour, 2011). Another key factor to consider would have been the purpose of the building, which would be determined by both the location and the proximate number of users expected. Also, the duration of the structure should have been considered in this case. In such a case, stronger materials could have been used such as steel instead of timber batten. Original Aim Basically, the Engineering Building was built to serves many purposes. The building was made in such a way that it comprised of huge ground-level workshops that could accommodate heavy machinery. These workshops covered most of the sites that were available. It was also designed to allow a vertical ensemble that consisted of office as well as laboratory towers (Stirling, 1984). The building was also meant to include lecture theaters. Given its magnificent design, stare case shafts and lifts were thought to be critical, but these further increased the building complexity. Literature works about the building are said to have a strong taste for distortion as well as paradox. This is mainly experienced at engineering schools in which diverse forms and the internal functions of the Engineering Building have been considered (Stirling & Gowan, 2009). The orientation of the Engineering Building depicts the real power of architecture in Chicago as it used to be. The Engineering Building was purposely built to accommodate various educational projects that would accommodate both students and staff. While some modern technologies could lead to many critics against Stirling, his work has a very strong commitment to architect and has strong urge and seriousness to his design direction. The program at the Engineering Building today provides a great chance for the creation of many different spaces. The generation of such spaces depicts a functionalist regime besides reflecting a formal but specific use of ach of the generated spaces (Stirling & Gowan, 2009). The Engineering building is designed to include workshops, lecture theaters, mechanical rooms, laboratories, staff offices, and a library. It was basically designed to provide room for a great education and learning space within the university (Williams, et al., 2011). All the spaces were designed based on three major levels of use and functions. The design allowed the construction progression from the building’s ground level to its upper offices level in a reduced manner. In essence, the building is larger at the base than it is at the upper most spaces where accommodation is greatly reduced. The upper part of the building was meant to host offices as a way of reducing population densities as the height of the building increased. The programs seem to change from public spaces to private spaces as the number of floors increase up the building. With this regard, both the first floor and the second floor were designed to have spaces meant for use by all faculty participants. In this case, staff and faculty members activate workshops, lecture theaters, labs, as well as open plazas in a similar manner like social and educational events (Peter & Bickford, 1984). The density of the Engineering building was heavily considered when designing and constructing the building. The density generated by the number of occupants gradually lessens as the height of the building increases. The density at first sharply lessens towards the center floors of the building. In this case, the program changes to sharply to a completely different learning activity, where the number of occupants was projected to reduce sharply as well. In such a case, the programs within the building change to both offices for the heads of departments and senior labs. A decreasing number of occupants up the building were one of the top strategies applied when designing and constructing the building (Stirling & Gowan, 2009). The design was thus based on the projected use of the building in which case the first few floors were meant to accommodate the majority of the users while the number and size of spaces gradually decrease upwards. This design was also meant to provide an idea space and accommodation for the required water tank (Best & Martin, 2006). Discussion of Renovation Renovating efforts of the Engineering Building should start with thorough inspections of the building in terms of both the design and the materials used. This is however best done with respect to the available tenders. The renovation program is under the local authority, whose procurement standards need to be considered and fully observed unless the appropriate authority is obtained for the same task. The cost of tackling urgent works or any other actions is mainly met by the capital contingency of the local authority. The best tender is chosen based on working record but not on the basis of cost. The most potential contractor may however fail to carry out the renovation task according to the required procedures. The best tender would involve upgrading or replacing the weak or warn out materials would be important. Timber is another common material found to have been used in constructing the building, but which need to be replaced with stronger materials such as steal. Initially, the use of these features explains why the materials are seen to have seemingly failed. Again, while the architects were concentrating on coming up with a post-modern structure, the use of technology and machinery could have contributed to a further material failure and more considering the fact that the materials used belong to the Brutalist period (Best & Martin, 2006). The design also depicts a great sense of the Brutalist ideal as indicated by the angular geometric structure (Vittorio, 1982). These structures are today worn out and due to their shape, leaking of water is a common phenomenon in the building. The fact that the roofing material is made of aluminium has contributed to the leaking problem. Given the chemical properties of aluminium, it would be easy to renovate the roof. Its joining property allows it to be joined in various ways such as welding, soldering, riveting, or even using adhesives. The leaking may not stopped by considering a different structure but through the use of various joinery techniques to completely repairing the leaking holes (Williams, et al., 2011). Controlling leaking would prevent water from weakening the inner-most materials making the building including the timber battens. The use of aluminium for the roof would be important due to its property of reflectivity such that it can reflect excessive heat. However, there need to be a way of dealing with its high linear expansion, which could have been the major cause of the leakage. Innovation also need to be done on the workshops. These workshops could be improved to provide a number of different functions. They could be renovated by being transformed in such a way that they include the use of new and more advanced technologies as well as instruments. Major failure could be seen in the inclusion of unused spaces. Renovation in this case should further consider the best way of utilizing the free spaces and achieving full functionalism (Weaver, 1997). The Engineering Building represents a great architectural work during a time when such constructions were seemingly impossible. The construction and design considered both physical and chemical aspects of the material to be used. The use of material such as brick, steel, and glass depicts a sense of the Brutalist period, but a strong consideration in terms of physical and chemical strengths were considered apart from the aesthetic consideration of the construction. The building stands out as a symbol of heritage for the constructions culture of the country. The most interesting bit of the Engineering Building is that chemical weathering of bricks could be lower as compared to other materials that are naturally available such as stones and marble. Wood could in contrary not have supported a building as vast as the Engineering Building (Beazley, 1988). Again, given the chemical structure of wood, which is prone to biological deteriorating processes such as rotting and decaying when exposed to water and oxygen, steel is found to be idea for the construction. While steal is slowly affected by water and oxygen through the rusting processes, it is largely covered under thick concrete thereby cutting off oxygen, a substance required for rusting to take place. The glass use covers most of the taller tower thereby reducing any chances of chemical wreathing of the inner concrete, which could arise when rain water and humidity reach the innermost sections of the building walls and pillars (Penrose, 2011). Such features and designs have made the building stand strong even in the 21st century. Conclusion The Engineering Building is an aesthetic symbol of modern architecture, but it has many structural limitations associated with human safety. Conserving the buildings could seem too difficult given the methods and techniques applied in building the structures. Some of the materials used are too weak given the climatic conditions in the region. Renovation measures and strict conservation is the only way that the building could be conserved. The building today stands as a symbol of ability and aesthetic in construction, but it is no longer safe for use in accordance with its initial purpose (Stirling & Gowan, 2009). In the modern society, construction of buildings is done under the guidance of laid down code and regulations. Both building constructors and conservators need to observe all safety measures, which are mainly established to enhance human safety and protection. The Engineering Building would be strong today given that such the right material choice and physical structure was considered when constructing the building. Building conservation analysis has become a common practice in the modern society and for the Engineering building, such an activity would be the only way to save the structure. Modern codes of construction exempt historic buildings from their regulations but the exemption is lifted when the use of the building changes for instance to become a residential area. This case brings in the ideology that more caution is taken when analyzing the conservation measures and the building materials used in the construction of huge buildings and public spaces as compared to residential buildings. Bibliography American Society of Civil Engineers, 2004. International Symposium On Information Technology In Civil Engineering, November 15-16, 2003, Nashville, Tennessee, Usa. Reston, Va.. s.l.:s.n. Beazley, M., 1988. The World Atlas of Architecture. New York: Portland House . Flood, I., 2010. Towards a Vision for Information Technology In Civil Engineering: Proceedings of 4th Joint. s.l.:s.n. Gander, F., 1998. Science & Steeple flower. New York: New Directions Pub. Corp. Gilmour, S., 2011. Consulting Engineers. DNP/LH/LE6806, Volume 003, pp. 4-16. Kevin, M., 2001. The Great Buildings Collection. New York: McGraw-Hill . Penrose, J., 2011. Stopping the Rot: A guide to enforcement action to save historic buildings. second ed. London: Institute of Historic Building Concervation. Peter, A. & Bickford, T., 1984. James Stirling: Buildings & Projects. New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Roger, C. & Michael, P., 1985. Precedents in Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold . Spain, B., 1992. Cesmm 3 Explained. London: E&FN Spon. Stirling, J., 1984. Buildings and Projects. Peter Arnel and Ted Bickford ed. New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Stirling, J. & Gowan, J., 2009. Leicester University Engineering Building. Space.Form.Body.Technique: Kyle Auch . Formal Strategies EVDA 621. Vittorio, L., 1982. Architecture of the 20th Century in Drawings. New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Weaver, M. E., 1997. Conserving Buildings: A Manual of Techniques and Materials. Revised ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. William, C., 1987. Modern Architecture since 1990. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Williams, D., Martineau, L. & Rellis, K., 2011. University of Leicester Engineering Building: Consultancy appointment to repair and upgrade the roof and gazed walls to the engineering building workshop and Laboratory. s.l.:HOK. Read More