[Posted 3/14/2008]
|
THE NEED FOR A RESIDENT RESTORATION ARCHITECT
(1990) |
Louisbourg's accelerated 0 & M maintenance and
Re-Capitalization programmes have placed an unfair
burden upon the Structural Design and Technical
Maintenance Teams as they are presently constituted.
Because the Park has charged these two related teams
with the responsibility for recommending period
solutions to present-day maintenance and re-cap
problems, they are the de facto protectors of the
historical accuracy of Louisbourg's as-built assets.
Unfortunately, these teams today lack a vital player.
From 1961
until 1972, Louisbourg's developmental capital
construction phase sputtered along without the services
of a resident restoration architect. Problems, which
appeared solvable in those early, heady years, simply
festered into lingering disputes over time. Then, in
1972, the project hired its first, and to date, only
restoration architect. By any standard, he increased the
efficiency and effectiveness of the project's effort in
dramatic fashion.
In 1982,
Louisbourg passed from its developmental to its
operational phase. In this new regime, the Park regarded
the services of a resident restoration architect as
non-essential, and it did not re-write the position.
Unfortunately, time has proven this decision flawed, and
shortsighted. Once again, Louisbourg's 0 & M and Capital
programmes are displaying many of the same
characteristic shortcomings of the pre-1972 era: work
delays; unsure actions; inappropriate, spurious, or
creative designs, communication gaffes,
misunderstandings, and re-inventions of the wheel,
amongst others.
Since 1983,
and for the first time since 1972, a restoration
architect has not chaired the Structural Design Team. As
a result, the team functions, as it did in the 1960's,
much like a ship without its captain. Its crew, though
competent, is ignorant of its proper destination, or of
what dangers lurk in the waters of historical fact in
which it has set sail. Yet, the ship continues on,
landing upon one solution after another, hoping that
each will stand the test of time and historical
scrutiny.
Clearly, if
the Structural Design Team is to succeed in achieving
its goals, its chairman must be a knowledgeable
restoration architect, permanently established, here,
with an eager desire to conduct research in the
Archives/Library, where the record of Louisbourg's
unique construction and architectural heritage is to be
found. The job description, responsibilities, and
language requirement must be the same as it was as for
the previous incumbent, Yvon LeBlanc. The position must
also be indeterminate.
FROM THE RECORD
In
1962, the Department stated that it was unable to
recruit a suitable civil service "Restoration Architect'
anywhere in Canada, the United States or Europe, as one
was neither available nor ready to move to Louisbourg.
(1) As a result, beginning in 1963, Louisbourg decided
to contract out many of its period and modern design
services to the Canadian, R. Calvert, working out of
Toronto, while retaining the Frenchmen, Maurice Berry,
President of the "Compagnie des Architectes des
Monuments Historiques," as a technical advisor to the
project.(2) Calvert, by his own admission, was not a
trained restoration architect, while Berry, though well
versed in 18th century architecture, was but an
occasional visiting architect to Canada, who resided
otherwise in France. (3)
In
particular, this system displayed serious shortcomings:
(1) While Calvert was the one who prepared the
designs, he was not the one who supervised actual
construction, be it by contract or by the
Department's own forces;(4)
(2) Neither the contract nor the visiting
architects had daily, routine contact with the
research staff and their findings, nor, for that
matter, with each other, since they were not
centrally located at Louisbourg. This naturally led
to many misunderstandings ;(5)
(3) Calvert, since he was not a trained
restoration architect, had to learn his practice on
the job. He also had to travel to France on several
occasions to acquaint himself with assorted
technical details.(6)
With the tendering of the first architectural designs in
1965, the Department, though half-heartedly, again tried
to obtain a bilingual resident trained restoration
architect to replace the existing Calvert/Berry style
contract system. (7) At the same time, it embarked upon
developing an architectural capability in Ottawa, with,
ultimately, a plan for stationing a restoration
architect in Halifax, and architectural "specialists" in
Louisbourg.(8) Notwithstanding this undertaking, because
of the investment which the Department had made in
Calvert and Berry, in terms of money and accumulative
expertise, the Department decided to continue with the
Contract system until 1968.
[More of this blog by Eric Krause
- Another Web]
|
|
From time to time,
exceptional blogs will be transferred from recent
postings, or from elsewhere, and placed here at
"Blogging Our Thoughts". Replaced blogs will be archived
for future reference.
[Posted 2/18/2008]
In the annals of Canadian reconstruction, the
Louisbourg Restoration Project (1961-1982) broke from
standard practice in several important areas. Of the
changes, perhaps the most innovative departure occurred
in its decision making process. For the first time, a
reconstruction project actively encouraged a
multi-disciplinary team approach. As a sanctioned
methodology, the considered viewpoint of diverse experts
upon each and every construction issue was nothing short
of radical.
In an attempt to cement together this unusual
alliance, the project placed a common goal before the
different groups: each, in a team format, in its own
individual way, was to contribute to an accurate as
possible, partial rebuilding of 18th century Louisbourg.
Of these groups, the research component would
demand the closest adherence to historical accuracy. Its
official role, to define research standards, was to
ensure an authentic reconstruction. Not surprisingly,
its viewpoint often placed it in opposition to other
groups, and, in particular, to those wishing to
introduce modern intrusions.
In order to define these historical standards,
research had to both develop and participate in
processes. Process is therefore the main topic of this
discussion.
Well-grounded and justifiable historical
premises lie in the presentation of reconstructed
Louisbourg. In process is found an instrument for
demonstrating this fact.
Historical compromise is also a fact of
reconstructed Louisbourg. In example, however, their
numbers are low relative to those numbers authentic.
Notwithstanding, they serve a useful function, revealing
a certain mind-set and room for improvement.
[More of
this blog by
Eric Krause
~ Another Web]
[Posted 2/18/2008]
As I stated earlier,
Louisbourg is not the Jurassic Park of the
reconstruction world. Yet, Louisbourg was to be an
experiment, a model of the past to be built as
accurately as possible. But the fact that the increasing
pressure to compromise will surely kill off the
experiment is not to say that an experiment without
compromise was ever possible. Clearly, a 100 percent
accurate reconstruction, from a philosophical,
evidential and practical point of view, was never
possible, nor was ever attempted.
On the other hand,
Louisbourg, without the restraint of an agreed-upon
"accuracy" benchmark, has continuously metamorphosed,
with each subsequent change "less accurate " in general
thrust (despite windows of opportunity) than the
previous one. If we continue to treat our
reconstructions as we have in the past, I think that one
result is obvious: Louisbourg will become an example,
perhaps even a profitable example, of a theme park where
glitter rather than substance rules.
Ironically, before
that happens, given present pressures to adapt, the
Fortress Site might even end up full circle, to attain
again that which it had once before, in the 1930's.
Then, Louisbourg was an important player in a movement
now known as the romantic approach to the presentation
of Canadian history. In this scenario, buildings may
look historical, as does the Louisbourg 1935-1936
Museum, but improvements would merely reflect the
antique flavour of the fortress without any concern for
any dogmatic scientific presentation of site specific
evidence.
[More of this blog by Eric Krause
~ Another Web]
|
|
|
"BLOGGING OUR
THOUGHTS" ARCHIVES |
What
could easily become known as the Primedia Debacle is merely
one of a number of disturbing examples contributing to a
growing trend to compromise the historic site in the name of
achieving one end or another. These ends, I think, be they
increased visitor numbers or comfort or even revenue are
admirable but without an overriding, identifiable
philosophical bench mark as a basis for our actions, the
means by which we achieve our goals may vary almost at will.
The
reference bench mark with respect to physical development
and intellectual interpretation of the site has always been
"authenticity." In physical matters, "authenticity" has
meant a healthy respect for what research has established to
have been the 18th century "line, level and fabric" of
objects, be they buildings, reproductions or antiques. If
"line, level and fabric" was also to have a spring of 1745
date in the reconstruction process.
Intellectual interpretations were also to be "authentic" or
as "authentic as possible." Fact (truth), or at the least
what research thought that to be, was the bench mark to
which claims of "authenticity" in our interpretation
programme were to refer. As a general rule, the facts were
to reflect the summer of 1744. Special animated portrayals
of events which occurred at Louisbourg in years other than
1744, also now seem appropriate, whenever desired and
feasible .
To sum up
the discussion to this point, the overriding, identifiable
philosophical bench mark upon which physical and
intellectual interpretations of historic Louisbourg are
based is "authenticity." Secondly, "authenticity" is defined
by reference to known or reasoned facts (truth) at a given
period in the history of 18th century Louisbourg.
The thin
edge of the wedge that threatens to distort the
"authenticity" of historic Louisbourg is actually double
edged and has affected both the physical and intellectual
interpretation of the site. In the first instance,
insufficient maintenance funding levels have seriously
compromised the "as built " line, level and fabric" of our
buildings. In the second instance (with one glaring example
in our physical interpretation programme) it is fiction
which threatens to undermine the "authentic" presentation of
historic Louisbourg.
The
maintenance programme was originally envisioned as a process
to preserve the "as built" lines, levels and fabrics" to
their presumed spring of 1745 appearance. Predictably, the
passage of time has proven this goal to be folly as our
reconstructed buildings themselves began to age naturally.
Nevertheless, the assumption remained that despite the
deteriorating appearance of our buildings, at the least, the
integrity of "as built" "line, level and fabric" would be
protected during the maintenance process.
At the
moment, the maintenance process revolves around the excuse,
real or imagined, that in certain instances "as built"
features will not be brought back to their original "as
built" lines, levels and fabrics during a major maintenance
operation. Rather, repairs will be effected as required,
though the result will always be in keeping with traditional
18th century methods.
Clearly,
the above process compromises the Louisbourg definition of
"authenticity" when that bench-mark is tied to a particular
date but not when it is linked to the development of
Louisbourg in general. The question to resolve in light of
National Historic Site Policy that "in restoration and
reconstruction of historic structures that line, level and
fabric shall be as true to the original as possible" and
"that departure from this rule shall be justified by
over-riding necessity or for the purpose of substantially
increasing the life expectancy of the structure, and only
then when modern materials and techniques can be effectively
concealed" is:
Do we
maintain the 1745 date and hence the "as-built" "line, level
and fabric" "authenticity"?
Or do we maintain the 1745 date for justifying which
buildings or features were reconstructed but choose
traditional 18th century repair.
The other edge to the wedge introduces the concept of
fiction to the historic town. Some fiction is unavoidable -
such as smoke and heat detectors - some is avoidable but
placed for creature comfort - washroom signs some is policy,
to further historical interpretation modern exhibit settings
and others are inappropriate or outright mistakes rivetted
hinges or error-ridden interpretations. The problem here is
defining the line that separates the proper use of fiction
at the expense of non-fiction.
[More of this
blog by Eric
Krause
~ Another Web]
|
