OBSERVATIONS
10
|
A while ago I spent several weeks studying a first-period house* not far from here to try to establish "what was when;" how its form had evolved from construction to the present. Although the land where it stands is associated with the 1692 witchcraft hysteria, it is doubtful that the person for whom it was named--who was hanged as a witch--ever lived in the present center-chimney saltbox house; it is simply too recent, probably dating from no earlier than the early 1700s.
Around 1910 the house was restored according to the best practice of the day to its "original" appearanceÉ which turns out to have been some sixty years earlier than the construction date supported by current scholarship, and well before the witchcraft-associated family even lived there. That restoration was thorough, and--like most work of its time--scarcely documented; the appearance of the house was radically changed inside and out, but the "restorers" did not bother to record either what they had found or the changes they had made. When studying such a building, I hope to find enough information to allow me to reconstruct a general chronology of its early form and materials, but I don't expect to work miracles; usually too much evidence has been obliterated for that to be possible. This house was typical. The principal first-floor rooms and the entrance hall had been reworked to a point where only some structural members--and maybe part of one floor--appeared to be earlier than the late 19th century. Upstairs, more early work survived: evidence in the principal chamber of an early chimney-breast treatment, and a nice piece of paneled wall, still bearing marks of original door casing and hinges, and of a crown molding. Surprisingly, one 18th-century window escaped destruction when the principal windows were replaced with leaded casement sash during the restoration. It survived in the lean-to attic wall. Exterior photographs made over the years before the restoration--over two dozen survive--corroborated that not only was this window early, it was almost certainly the same as the others that had been restored out of existence in 1909. And finally, in the attic, came the best discoveries of all--unequivocal evidence that the "saltbox" lean-to was original, and, in the same space that contained the 18th-century window, very early whitewashed board wall and ceiling finish, hidden and preserved behind mid 19th-century lath and plaster! In the end, of course, what is not known about this first-period house still greatly exceeds what I found out, but I was able to assemble a defensible history of how and when the house had changed over its life, as the first step in helping its owners re-restore it to a more plausible date. Back to the top GOOD,
FAST, CHEAP A contractor friend sent me a newsletter which contained that quote. After I stopped chuckling, it hit me that this little six-word aphorism summed up something very important about how the process of working on buildings (and a lot of other processes, too) takes place. For openers, it says that no matter how much you may want to or deserve to, you can't have everything. "Choose any two" it says, and right there begins the winnowing out of what's really important. A good job, quickly done, will cost more than either of the alternatives. A fast job is likely to be lacking in quality or inexpensiveness. And a cheap job requires that quality or speed of delivery (or both) be compromised. So what is most important, quality, price, or speed of delivery? Obviously, there are as many answers to that question as there are situations in which it can be asked. In some cases, anything more than the proverbial "quick and dirty" will represent overkill. In other situations, where high quality and thoroughness are paramount, speed must be sacrificed or additional funds must be found. The important point is not that Good is better than Fast, or that Cheap is better than Good, but rather that it is not normally possible to have all three qualities at once. Choices have to be made, based on the individual circumstances. None of these choices is intrinsically "right" or "wrong." The only time that major problems arise is when someone expects against all reason and common sense to get it done Good and Fast and Cheap. Back to the top A while ago I saw something startling in the "home" section of the paper: An article about a small and exquisitely-detailed kitchen project contained the astonishing fact that although the construction cost of the kitchen was less than thirty thousand dollars, the architect's fee was on the order of twenty thousand. Furthermore, everyone seemed to be very pleased with the whole business! After I recovered from my shock, I began to think. Two-thirds of the construction cost is an unusually high fee for architectural services, but it is not necessarily inappropriate. It all depends on what services were expected, and what services were provided. Some clients and situations call for extensive involvement. As I looked at the photograph that accompanied the newspaper article, I could see how carefully every element of that kitchen had been considered, and how much design time had been required to bring it to reality. Of course everyone seemed to be pleased with the whole thing--the owners of that kitchen had wanted something very special, a work of architectural art, and they got it. And at the other end of the scale, I often undertake brief consultations, where my total involvement in a project is a half day or less. On one of those consultations long ago, I remember sketching the design for an entire house extension (yes! on the back of the proverbial envelope); I think the fee amounted to a couple of hundred dollars. My client and I were both pleased; I had given him what he wanted and needed, and had spent an appropriate amount of time doing it. It would have simply been as unrealistic for my client to have spent thousands on his design as it would have been for the owners of that kitchen to have tried to design it using far less of their architect's time. And therein lies an important lesson for us all, consultants and clients alike: First-class consulting assistance for your project is available at almost any level of service from a quick-in-and-out consultation to extensive, detailed involvement over the life of the undertaking. Within broad limits, two considerations affect the amount of help you will use: The complexity of the project, and your ability to undertake parts of it yourself. Generally speaking, the more complex your project or the less able you are to undertake it by yourself, the more outside assistance you will need. It's not possible to undertake sophisticated building-conservation projects or works of architectural art on the back of an envelope... but neither is it necessary to use many hours of design time when the back of an envelope will suffice. Back to the top Once upon a time I happened on a wonderful little book with the improbable title, Round Buildings, Square Buildings, & Buildings That Wiggle Like a Fish, by Philip M. Isaacson (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1988). Ostensibly aimed at young people, it is quite simply a gem and a delight for all of us, of all ages--a look at buildings, not as works of architecture, but as objects in (and enclosing) space and light. In just over a hundred pages, beautifully illustrated with the author's photographs from all manner of places and times, this quirky little book is a jargon-free short course in the art of seeingÉ and a visual delight besides. I cannot recommend it enough. Get a copy. Today. Alas, this wonderful little book is now almost certainly out of print, but finding a copy would certainly repay a search on Amazon, E-Bay, or at your local second-hand bookstore. |
Copyright 1993-2008 Allen C. Hill
