Estimate the number of historic buildings demolished each year because American communities can’t figure out how to use them, and you would—conservatively—reach a number in the hundreds. Internationally, the number is much greater.

“Unlike a picture or a statue, a building must continue to justify itself on more than artistic grounds,” wrote Constance Greiff in Lost America, From the Atlantic to the Mississippi. “It must continue, in some way, to be functional if it is to survive. And, only recently have Americans begun to accept the notion that function might include the provision of visual delight, variety in the townscape, or a sense of place and identity.”

One of several institutions of higher learning to recognize this latter truth is Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, which is working to restore many of its historic buildings, originally designed as residences, and adapt them for educational use. What’s relevant about this project for individual homeowners is decisions the university made about what features to retain, which to rework, and how to accommodate modern systems and codes.

Yale acquired the Skinner-Trowbridge house in 1978. It had been used in various ways through the years, including for classrooms, but had suffered deterioration over time. In 1999, Yale’s governing board decided to use the mansion, which the New Haven Preservation Trust has called “New Haven’s finest Greek Revival house … a priceless heritage,” to accommodate the School of Management’s prestigious International Center for Finance. For restoration of the 14,OOO-square-foot space, Yale turned to Helpern Architects of New York City, a firm known for its educational and preservation work.

The building is located on Hillhouse Avenue, which was developed in 1792 by James Hillhouse, a 1773 Yale graduate and contemporary of Nathan Hale, on his farm in a rural section of New Haven. Senator Hillhouse, who served in Congress during George Washington’s presidency and as Yale’s treasurer for more than fifty years, laid out a road and lined it with elms. He specified that houses must be set back fifty feet from the two-lane street and mandated that homeowners hire a leading architect for residential design. The result of Hillhouse’s plan was a street Charles Dickens called “the most beautiful in America.” All but two of the homes Dickens admired on the upper section of the street have survived, and all are owned by the university. (Ironically, one of the two no longer standing is Hillhouse’s own, demolished in 1942 at the instruction of its owner, who feared it would “fall to decay, or pass into the hands of strangers who have no interest in it.” Local preservationists tried, but failed, to save it.)

Aaron N. Skinner, a Yale-trained lawyer, bought his 100-foot-wide lot for $1,000 in September 1830 and agreed to build a residence costing at least $3,500 in the six-month period beginning May 1, 1834. For his home’s design, Skinner hired architects Ithiel Town and Alexander Jackson Davis; Town’s extensive architectural library stood at the lower end of Hillhouse Avenue. It is said that Davis based his design on Decimus Burton’s plans for the 1823 Greenough Villa in Regent’s Park, London.

His Greek Revival design was cruciform with a two-story Ionic-columned portico facing east to the street. Its central core was balanced by two one-story pavilions, which made a graceful transition from the imposing portico to the landscape. The main entry was a Doric-columned porch on the south side. Built of brick, it was veneered in stucco, coursed to imitate stone blocks, and painted a light stone color. According to one historian, Skinner’s house was the model for “at least nine other Town and Davis temple houses within a radius of fifty miles.”

Skinner, who was admitted to the bar in 1829, founded an exclusive school for boys in the house, served four terms in the Connecticut legislature, and, as mayor of New Haven from 1850-54, took an interest in the city’s parks and streetscape. In 1858 he sold the house to Judge W.W. Boardman, who had it remodeled in a more eclectic style, possibly by Henry Austin, who designed New Haven’s City Hall. The roof parapet was removed and a second story was added to both flanking wings. The upper windows of these additions were outlined with round-headed gouged frames popular in the Victorian period. Inside, the front hall received a new staircase and carved deep-relief crown moldings with chevronesque banding.

In 1907 another new owner, Rutherford Trowbridge, scion of a wealthy New Haven shipping family, expanded the mansion. He added a large dining room featuring a semicircular bay with leaded windows on its north side and an open porch and two-story kitchen/service addition on the west.

For Yale’s restoration, project architect Margaret Castillo took her lead from the building’s architectural pedigree and from historic sources, such as Davis’s diaries in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City. The intent of the changes was to be consistent with the character of the house and its anticipated use.

Outdoors, sections of original cast-iron fence, found in an outbuilding, were reproduced, and a parterre garden, a buffer between house and rear parking lot, was recreated from plans by Marian Coffin, dating to 1926. The grade behind the house and the basement slab were lowered, permitting the basement to be used for office and administrative space. The basement was also expanded under the west porch, with a scored stucco facing that matches the adjacent foundation. Landscaping and a system of outdoor paths integrate the house with the School of Management complex.

Inside, twelve-foot-seven-inch ceilings on the first floor and ten-foot-seven-inch ceilings on the second floor were retained. The original room configuration was also kept, with a few exceptions. The southwest comer room was subdivided to create space for an elevator, pantry and recycling areas, and an office on each floor. For the elevator, a mezzanine was added off the main stair landing. The rear wing was redesigned to accommodate a staircase and offices. The mansion now houses about twenty administrative and faculty offices, a computer center, a library with desk space for visiting scholars and dignitaries, and a reception/gathering room in the 1907 dining room.

Interior finishes were as important as space design. In the front hall, missing sections of circa 1858 crown molding were meticulously copied—and redone when installation revealed they did not perfectly imitate the originals. The entry’s glass tracery was restored and the sweeping staircase was retained, as were all five of the mansion’s fireplaces. Double-hung replacement windows with true divided lights and wooden muntins were custom-made using insulated glass; new weights carry their heavier bulk. In the library, use of the original interior pocket shutters was revived. Where Greek Revival period curtains once divided rooms, custom-made wooden doors were installed; on the second floor they function as smoke doors off the open stairhall. Inlaid oak and mahogany floors were restored and laid with area rugs instead of institutional wall-to-wall carpeting. The rear staircase has brass handrails and unfading green slate flooring similar to the material used for the outdoor paths—prettier and quieter than metal stairs. In the historic rooms, incandescent chandeliers and lamps replaced fluorescent lighting.

The result of thoughtful planning and careful craftsmanship is a building that meets current codes and standards but minimizes their visual impact. The architects declined to eliminate small sliding panels under the oversized windows, designed to allow the windows to open as doors onto the terrace, to install HVAC units. Instead, they kept the panels and installed discreet brass floor grates under the windows to channel forced hot air heat up from the basement; air conditioning is ducted in the attic through equally discreet ceiling grilles. In the front hall, the required fire command panel is just one foot square; a larger panel is located in the basement. A new rear entry convenient to the parking lot and other School of Management buildings provides access for the disabled, rather than exterior ramps.

At present, the future of the Skinner-Trowbridge house seems assured. Perhaps it is not just a building that has “learned” to function in a new way, but one that has something to teach future architects, international business people, and other communities.

In keeping with the building’s use, work focused on restoring the gracious residential character of the house. The main entrance’s beveled-glass-panel door, sidelights, and flat-arched fanlight with leaded tracery offer a graceful introduction to the interior. Sections of the deeply carved, chevronesque banding on the ceiling’s crown moldings were reproduced.

The grand staircase, once closed off because of water damage to the second floor, was reopened, with the aid of rear fire stairs, sprinklers, and smoke detectors. Here, as throughout the house, incandescent chandeliers and wall sconces were preferred over more institutional fluorescent lighting. Wall decorations include a permanent exhibition of international bond certificates in reproduction frames.

In the lounge/seminar room, added as a dining room in 1907, the clear and rippled leaded-glass bay windows were fully restored, as was the room’s oak wall paneling and fireplace, which is surmounted by the Trowbridge family crest. The joist design of the Colonial Revival ceiling was emphasized, and incandescent light fixtures replaced fluorescent ones.

Restoration Standards

The U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, drawn from Stewart Brand’s 1994 book, How Buildings Learn:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements taken from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to the historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

9. 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.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Windows manufactured by:
Architectural Components Inc.
26 North Leverett Road
Montague, Massachusetts 01351
413-367-9441 Fax 413-367-9461

Completed in early January 1993, Weld Hall looks now as it did when it was originally built in 1870. Brick and sandstone were cleaned and fire escapes were removed, replaced by fire code compliant interior stairs.

The new wood sash installed as part of a comprehensive dormitory improvement program at Harvard University feature true-divided-lites and insulating glass.

Harvard freshmen may be the smartest of the lot. But they are not necessarily kinder or gentler than their colleagues at other schools around the country. So, when the University began a five year restoration program of the 16 freshman dorms on the storied Harvard Yard, the durability of the materials and the quality of the skills that the manufacturers and contractors could provide was paramount. But while the school would have liked the buildings in the Yard, which is a National Register Historic District, to endure indefinitely, budget constraints and a tight construction schedule precluded an iron-clad restoration. What they did manage to pull-off, however, bears testament to the fact that compromise is not always one step down from perfection; sometimes it’s better. Particularly when it comes to windows.

Dorms on the Yard had been painted white since the early 1920s. While this single palette had been an enduring part of Harvard’s image, the architects felt each building should be painted in colors dating to its period of construction. above.

3 BUILDINGS, 2 CONTRACTORS, MANY WINDOWS

This ambitious project—part renovation and part restoration—began in late 1991, nearly thirty years after Benjamin Thompson and his firm, The Architect’s Collaborative (TAC), completed a similar project on the Yard. TAC’s approach, stripping back much of the early or original finishes and exposing brick walls, lent a distinctly modern tone to what were then a complex of worn and stodgy dorms. But, by the late eighties, the stark white finishes had begun to gray and the sealer that coated the brick walls had darkened. While the interior was bad, the exteriors were worse. The dorms had reached a state where a simple coat of paint and a good scrubbing were far from adequate to reverse the decay. The roofs leaked, the paint wouldn’t stay on the trim, and replacement windows and storm sash were broken. Handicapped accessibility and the capacity of the existing mechanical and electrical systems were also pressing issues that pointed the school toward a comprehensive renovation plan.

Goody Clancy & Associates, a Boston-based architectural firm, handled the renovation of three of the sixteen dorms on the Yard. This article looks at two of these buildings, Weld and Hollis Halls. The third, Stoughton Hall, is similar to Hollis. Because the time scheduled for these projects was short, general contractors were brought on board before design work was completed to work in collaboration with the architect and the owner. Contracts for construction were let to two firms; Beacon Construction for Weld Hall and Shawmut Design and Construction for Hollis and Stoughton. The general contractors bid the subcontracts competitively and eventually selected two window manufacturers to supply the new sash: Architectural Components, a small shop in Montague, Massachusetts, was awarded the contract for the windows at Weld and KSD Custom Windows, another small shop in Tilton, New Hampshire, was awarded the contract for Hollis and Stoughton. While each of the projects required different windows—the number of lites and the muntin profiles of the sash differed slightly from one building to the next—performance and durability standards were exacting and universal.

WORKING VACATION

Weld Hall, built in 1870 to designs by the Boston-based architectural firm Ware and Van Brunt, was one of the first of the 16 dorms to be renovated. Because the University had limited overflow space for the first year class—they had determined the minimum number of beds it could have available at anyone time during the five year project—renovation of each building was kept to an extremely stringent schedule. Weld was one of several consecutive projects for which the University had scheduled a seven month period for construction—demolition could begin after commencement in June and had to be completed by New Year’s Day.

Goody Clancy’s first contact with the University was in November 1991; the scope of the project was discussed and access to the structure was scheduled during a portion of the winter break—from the day after Christmas to New Year’s Day—to conduct investigations and draft preliminary design drawings. Architectural contracts were awarded in December 1991 and construction documents were completed by March 1992.

A MATERIAL THING

Goody Clancy retained the consulting firm Preservation Technology Associates (PTA) to assist in the investigation of the building exterior and prepare recommendations for the repair of the windows and roof, and the repair, cleaning, and conservation of the brick and sandstone facades. After considerable forensic and archival work, Goody Clancy and PTA provided the University with recommendations for the exterior conservation work and a package describing an architecturally sensitive, yet cost efficient and thermally effective, solution of the windows. Several options were presented; single-glazed true-divided wood sash with exterior storm windows, the same sash with a single interior storm panel, and true-divided wood sash with insulating glass. To avoid the maintenance headaches that had plagued the buildings with wood sash over the years, the University insisted that aluminum units also be considered.

A full section of the sash at Weld reveals the similarity of this and the sash used at Hollis Hall. Note, however, that the brick mould, muntin profile, and the number of lites in each sash is different. Fiberglass screens were installed on each window, as much to keep students and their popers in the buildings as insects and other unwanted guests out. An applied molded-wood stop was used to secure the insulating glass units from the interior. This puttyless glazing detail was used in an effort t0 reduce maintenance costs and improve durability. It also conveniently eliminated the need to resolve compatibility problems between the seal on the insulating glass and glazing putty.

Harvard had worked hard to build a strong relationship with the community, particularly the Cambridge Historical Commission, and made sure they were brought into the decision process. And, in fact, the Commission’s experience with other projects in which aluminum windows had not performed as specified was central to the sash selection. The savings the school expected from reducing the need for periodic painting were lost when it noted that the existing trim—cornices, doors, mullions, and dormers—would continue to need painting and that when the finish on the aluminum failed, costs associated with repairing the windows would be considerably higher. The building team and Commission also expressed a concern about the historical accuracy of the new sash; the aluminum sash required a metal subframe, that would either reduce the sight lines (by making the frame wider) or require removal or modification of the existing wood frame. Removing the existing frame was not feasible. The loss of that much historic fabric was unacceptable and it would have been nearly impossible to remove the frames without destroying the existing masonry surrounding the window openings. Lastly, the Commission and the University also wanted to see mockups of the windows. The long lead times for both the fabrication of the mock-up and manufacture of the aluminum windows led the building team, including the school, to reach a joint decision to pursue wood sash options.

MOCKING UP

Three mock-ups were installed and tested. A true-divided lite sash, with insulating glass was selected as the most durable and maintenance free of the mock-ups—single glazed sash with exterior storms were too dependent on the user for their thermal performance, and the sash with interior storm panels were considered problematic from a maintenance and safety standpoint. Because the applied glazing is flush with the interior face of the sash, there is a tendency for people to hit the glass while attempting to open the window by pushing on the meeting rail. In fact, the glass in the mock-up was broken within a week of being installed.

Because the Yard is part of the Old Cambridge Historic District, the Commission required that work on the exterior the buildings meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. At Weld, where the lites in the sash are quite large, this mandate meant the glazing had to appear hand-blown. A local manufacturer built the glass units by hand; standard mechanical fabrication would not have kept the aluminum dividing strip between the panes within the 3/8- to 5/16-inch sightlines of the reproduction windows. (Industry standard is 1/2 inch.) The exterior sheet of each unit is restoration glass made in Germany that is separated from a sheet of standard float glass by a dual seal of poly-isobutalene and silicone.

SPEEDY DELIVERY

Once the University had been convinced that the wood sash were the most appropriate choice, the real work began. Windows were ordered as the selection meeting was disbanding; the manufacturers needed as great a lead time as possible and the architects had little time to spare.

As the work of preparing the existing frames got underway, it became apparent that the amount of repair was more extensive than the subcontractor had anticipated. Goody Clancy and PTA worked as a team with Beacon and the subcontractor to establish procedures and standards for scraping, selecting areas for dutchman repair, and epoxy consolidation.

Despite the incredible pace of the project, the building team had done its homework thoroughly, and discoveries and disputes over standards were few. The cooperative environment that had been established at the outset of the project set the tone for the few problems that did arise, which were quickly resolved and had little effect on the tight delivery schedule. The job, new windows and all, was delivered as promised on January first.

Although Hollis, shown here, and Stoughton appear to be twins, Hollis was built in 1763 in the Georgian style and Stoughton, designed 40 years later by Charles Bulfinch, in the Federal style.

While the work at Weld had focused on finding an appropriate replacement sash and minor repairs to the frame, at Hollis and Stoughton the windows had suffered greater abuse. So, while the overall scope of the project on these buildings was not as wide as it had been at Weld—there was considerably less structural work here—repairing the wood window frames that had been damaged less than twenty years earlier when aluminum windows were installed was a considerable task. And, with a two and one-half month slot to complete the renovation (work was to be completed during the summer intersession, between June and August 31) there was a lot to do in a little time.

TEARING OUT THE TIN

Because the schedule on this project was so short, and the building was occupied, access for investigations was limited to a few representative areas. Only a single aluminum replacement window and its panning systems was removed to document the existing and original conditions. When the aluminum windows had been installed, the contractors had torn-off the blind stops, much of the moulding, and several of the outermost edges of the sills. Despite the damage, PTA and Goody Clancy uncovered evidence of the original sash thickness and weight pockets that had been cut out from the solid 3 by 5 inch frame sections. The original sash was approximately 15/16 inches thick and had broad flat muntins. These sash were replaced during a renovation in the early nineteenth century with sash that had a narrower muntin, similar to those originally used in Stoughton Hall. Information on the size and profile of this later muntin was available both in HABS documentation for Hollis and in a single surviving example of the Stoughton muntin, which was on display in the dormitory. The design of the muntins, which was based on the archival evidence, and several variations to accommodate the thicker glass were reviewed and revised with the input of both window manufacturers—to ensure strength and durability—and the Cambridge Historical Commission—to ensure historical appropriateness. Eventually, a slightly narrower and much deeper muntin was selected to accommodate the insulating glass and the durability performance requirements.

Detail drawings of the sash show construction of the wood glazing stop that holds the insulating glass and the different waterproofing details between the wood window frame and masonry. At Hollis and Stoughton, both pieces of glass in the insulating units are standard float glass. While restoration glass would have been more appropriate, the University decided that the smaller lites in these sash would not reveal the irregularity in the more expensive glass.

MATCHING NEW BITS WITH OLD

Paint was stripped from the existing frame material and soft spots and checks were repaired with epoxy consolidants and fillers. Dutchmen for portions of several sills and dozens of blindstops were milled from white pine and mahogany before they were fitted to the frames. To ensure that the repair would be durable, the dutchmen were custom cut to fit the straight and square rabbets and mortises that the mechanics from Colony Architectural, the window subcontractor, had pared out of the jagged edges of the damaged frames. Colony’s mechanics used galvanized nails and waterproof glue to secure the dutchmen. Once the frame repair was done, they hung the new mahogany sash using brass pulleys, locks, and lifts and copper sash chains.

LOOKING OUT ON THE YARD

After more than a year of service, the restored and renovated dorms have been well received by students and the University. The historically accurate paint palettes on the window frames and the substantial wood sash have brought a rich variety of architectural detail back to the Yard and have met, or exceeded, the University’s performance expectations. In the end, it seems the thoughtful debate about windows and the cooperative working relationships developed during the project have left Harvard with a physical plant that matches its academic reputation.

Technical information for this article was supplied by Judith Selwyn, John Clancy, Susan Pranger, and Seth Ravitz.

Project: Hollis, Stoughton, and Weld Halls, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Owner: President & Fellows of Harvard College

Client: Weld: Harvard Real Estate (Peter Riley, proj. manager). Hollis & Stoughton: Faculty of Arts & Sciences (Alana Knuff, proj. manager)

Architect: Goody Clancy & Associates, Boston, MA (John Clancy, partner-in-charge; Susan Pranger, proj. manager; James Norris, Victor Ortale, Randi Holland, and Martin Deluga, proj. architects)

Architecturol Conservation: Preservation Technology Associates (Judith Selwyn, principal; William Finch, associate)

Contractor, Weld Hall: Beacon Construction (Seth Ravitz, proj. manager)

Contractor, Hollis Hall: Shawmut Design & Const. (Michele Murphy, proj. manager) Painting Subcontractor, Weld Hall: Soep Painting Corporation

Window Controctor: Colony Architectural. Cost: Weld, $5m; Hollis & Stoughton $5.4m

Building Materials: Slate, Weld: Buckingham Slate. Slate, Hollis & Stoughton: Pethryn Purple (Wales). Copper: Revere Copper Products. PVC membrane: Sarnalil. Windows, Weld: Architectural Components. Windows, Hollis & Stoughton: KSD Custom Windows. Glass (Weld Hall, only): SA Bendheim. Windows, Hollis & Stoughton: KSD Custom Wood Products. Paint, exterior: Hancock and Conlux. Paint, interior, Benjamin Moore. Epoxy consolidants and lillers: Abatron.

Photos: PTA, unless otherwise noted.

Architect
Goody, Clancy & Associates
334 Boylston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
617-262-2760

Architectural Conservation
Preservation Technology Associates, Inc.
One Washington Mall
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
617-227-0900

Contractor (Weld Hall)
Beacon Construction Company
Three Center Plaza
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
617-742-8800

Contractor (Hollis and Stoughton Halls)
Shawmut Design & Construction
173 B Norfolk Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02119
617-427-4700