Category: Uncategorized

A measured drawing is a drawing of a building as it actually is, taken from the building itself rather than from anybody’s plans. It sounds like a clerical task. It is the single most useful thing I have been taught, because you cannot do it inattentively — the building stops being a picture about four minutes in and becomes a set of facts, several of which contradict each other.

What the drawing is for

Three things, usually. It is a record, in case the building is altered or lost. It is the base for any intervention, because you cannot design into a space you have not measured. And it is evidence: a plan showing that a wall is 530mm thick at the ground floor and 390mm at the second tells you something about how the building was built and in what order, and that argument can only be made from measurements.

Sketch before you measure anything

The first pass is a freehand survey sketch, roughly to proportion, large, in pencil, with plenty of white space. Not to scale: if it is to scale you will trust it, and it is wrong. Its job is to be a container for numbers. Walk the whole building first and draw every room, every opening, every change of level and every oddity you notice, then decide where dimensions need to go.

Leave it generously spaced, because you will write more on it than you expect: material notes, the direction floorboards run, where plaster sounds hollow, which way a door swings, the fact that one window has four lights and its neighbour has six. I learned to put a north arrow on every sheet after an evening spent unable to work out which elevation I had drawn.

The kit, and what each tool is for

• A 5m steel tape for anything you can reach, and a 30m tape for overall dimensions. The long tape is what keeps your errors from compounding.
• A laser distance meter: faster than a tape, but it needs a surface square to the beam and will measure the wrong thing with great precision.
• A plumb bob and a short spirit level, which answer the question a tape cannot: is this vertical, and is this flat?
• A profile gauge for mouldings, and a scale rule for drafting up.
• A camera, with a rule in the frame for anything you will want to measure later from the photograph.

Running dimensions, not separate ones

This is the technique that changed my drawings most. The instinct is to measure each thing separately: window 1,120; pier 840; window 1,120; and so on along the wall. Every one of those readings carries a small error, and the errors add up, so by the end of a long elevation you are out by an amount you cannot locate.

Instead, lay the long tape along the wall, fix the zero at one corner and leave it there, and record every feature as a cumulative distance from that single zero: 0, 310, 1,430, 2,270, 3,390. Now each number is independent of the others and an error in one does not move anything else. Take the overall dimension last, as a check — if the sum of your intervals does not match it, something is wrong while you are still standing in the room.

Measure from one zero and take the overall last. The check has to happen while you can still reach the wall.

Triangulation, because nothing is square

Rooms in old buildings are not rectangles. They were built by eye against walls that had already settled, and then they settled further. If you measure four walls and assume ninety degrees at every corner, your plan will not close, and the error will land wherever you happen to stop drawing.

The fix is triangulation. Measure the two diagonals of each room as well as the four sides; a triangle with three known sides has only one shape, so the diagonals fix the geometry and tell you exactly how far from square the room is. For an irregular wall, run a straight baseline across the room with the long tape and measure offsets from the baseline to the wall at regular intervals. You end up with a wall described as small deviations from a known straight line, which is far easier to draft.

Heights and one datum

Floors slope, so “floor to ceiling” is not a single number and measuring heights from the floor gives you a building that does not stack. Establish one datum instead: a horizontal line marked around the building at a convenient height, traditionally a metre above the finished floor at a chosen point, transferred with a level. Every vertical dimension is then taken from the datum, up or down, and your sections stack correctly even where the floor does not.

Record what is there, not what was intended

The discipline is to draw what you measured even when it looks like a mistake. Four of the six bays are 1,120 and two are 1,090: draw them that way. The temptation to average, round or regularise is strong, and it is the main way a measured drawing becomes useless, because the irregularity is usually the evidence.

The convention that makes this liveable is to separate the record from the interpretation. Draw as-found conditions solidly; show anything you are inferring — a wall you could not reach, a sill you only saw from the street — in a lighter line, and say so in a note. The Historic American Buildings Survey guidelines, a good free model for how to lay a set out, are strict about that distinction, and it is worth borrowing even for a studio project. Measured: Beacon Hill Doorways is the set where I finally stopped tidying things up, and it is the first drawing I made that taught me something I had not already decided.

Drafting it up

Draft from the field sketch while the building is still fresh, ideally the same day, and keep the sketch — it is part of the record and the only place some of your notes exist. Draw at a scale that can carry the information: 1:50 for plans and sections of a whole small building, 1:20 or 1:10 for a doorway or a window, 1:1 for a moulding profile.

Then add what makes the drawing usable by somebody else: a scale bar as well as a stated scale, a north point, the date of survey, who surveyed it and with what, and a note of anything inaccessible. A measured drawing without a date is a drawing of a building that no longer necessarily exists in that form.

What a scanner does not do

Laser scanning and photogrammetry produce point clouds of extraordinary density, and for a complex surface — a vault, a carved capital, a settled wall — they are plainly better than a tape. But a point cloud is a measurement, not a drawing. Somebody still has to decide which of those millions of points is the wall, which is the plaster added over it, and which is a radiator. Working on the object survey for Conserving the Cast Collection made that obvious: the scan told us the shape, and only handling the casts told us what the shape was made of and where it had been repaired.

Which is the real argument for measuring by hand, at least once per building. The tape makes you touch every surface you record, and you notice things with your hands that you do not notice with your eyes.

Walk along almost any nineteenth-century brick street and you will see two kinds of repointing. In one, the mortar sits slightly back from the face of the brick, matches it in colour, and has worn in the way the brick has worn. In the other, hard grey ribbons stand slightly proud of the wall, and the bricks on either side of them have lost their faces — spalled, crumbled, or gone powdery at the arrises. The second wall was repaired more recently than the first, usually with cement, and the repair is what is destroying it.

What mortar is actually for

The common assumption is that mortar is glue: it holds the bricks together, so stronger is better. In a solid masonry wall this is close to backwards. The wall mostly stands up through compression and geometry — mass, bearing, and friction — and the mortar’s jobs are more subtle. It beds the units so that irregular bricks or stones bear evenly instead of point-loading each other. It accommodates movement, because walls move with temperature, moisture and settlement, and something has to absorb that. And it manages water: it lets moisture that has got into the wall come back out through the joint.

That last one is the heart of it. A traditional solid wall is not waterproof and was never meant to be. It gets damp and then dries, and the mortar is the sacrificial, permeable, slightly soft part of the system through which it dries. Mortar is meant to be the component that fails, because mortar is cheap to replace and bricks are not.

How Portland cement took over

Lime mortar — burnt limestone, slaked with water, mixed with sand — is the mortar of essentially every masonry building before the late nineteenth century. Portland cement was patented by Joseph Aspdin in 1824, but it took decades to become the default; through the second half of the century mortars were commonly gauged, a mostly-lime mix with some cement added for early strength. By the early twentieth century cement-rich mortar had largely won, for reasons that are perfectly good when you are building something new: it sets fast, it sets in cold and wet weather, it is strong in days rather than months, and it suits a steel or concrete frame where the masonry is a veneer rather than the structure.

The problem is that those mortars were then used to repair buildings designed around the opposite set of properties, often by people doing their best with the only material on the shelf.

Three ways hard mortar damages soft masonry

It is harder than the brick. Hand-made brick, soft sandstone and limestone are all weaker than a cement mortar. When the wall expands and contracts, the stress goes into the weakest material — so the brick cracks and spalls at its edges instead of the joint taking the movement. You can watch this happen along a parapet: the joints are pristine and the bricks are losing their corners.

It is much less permeable. Water still gets into the wall, through the top, through a failed flashing, by driving rain. With a permeable lime joint it leaves through the joint. With a dense cement joint the only available exit is the face of the brick or stone itself, so evaporation — and with it the salts carried in the water — happens inside the unit. Salt crystallising just below the surface is what blows the face off.

It is rigid. Lime has a small but real ability to accommodate movement and even to re-heal fine cracks, as free lime dissolves and redeposits. Cement does not flex; it cracks, and the crack is a clean path for water straight into the wall. A hairline crack in a hard joint can admit more water than a soft, slightly open lime joint ever did.

Repointing mortar should never be stronger than the units it sits between. The joint is supposed to be the part that gives way.

What lime does differently

Non-hydraulic lime sets by carbonation: the calcium hydroxide in the mortar reabsorbs carbon dioxide from the air and slowly turns back into calcium carbonate, which is chemically where it started as limestone. That is why it is slow, why it needs air, why it cannot be used in thick lifts, and why it has to be protected from frost and from drying too fast while it cures. It is also why it stays comparatively soft, permeable and forgiving for its whole life.

Hydraulic limes sit between the two: limestone with clay impurities, burnt and slaked, sets partly through reaction with water and partly by carbonation. The European classification gives three broad grades — NHL 2, NHL 3.5 and NHL 5, roughly in order of strength — which makes it possible to choose deliberately rather than by habit. A sheltered interior wall of soft brick wants the weak end; an exposed chimney in a Boston winter wants more.

Repointing, briefly and properly

Most of the damage I have seen was done with good intentions and an angle grinder. The sequence that does not do damage runs roughly like this.

• Only repoint what needs it. Sound mortar that is merely old is not a defect. Repointing a whole elevation because one parapet is failing is a loss of historic fabric for no gain.
• Find out what is there. A mortar analysis — the binder identified, the aggregate washed out, graded and looked at — gives you the ratio, the sand colour and the sand size. That is what makes a new mix match, not a colour chart.
• Rake out by hand, to roughly two to two and a half times the joint width so the new mortar has something to key into. Hand tools and a hacking chisel, not a grinder: a disc widens the joint and takes the arrises off the brick, and that damage is permanent.
• Match the profile. Match the original tooling, and finish the joint back to or slightly behind the face of the unit, never smeared over it. A joint struck proud of the brick sheds water onto the face and hides the real joint width.
• Cure it slowly. Damp the joint before and after, keep it out of sun and wind, protect it from frost. Lime that dries before it carbonates is just coloured sand.

How to tell what you are looking at

A few field tests cost nothing. Scratch the joint with a key: lime will mark and shed a little sand, a cement mortar will resist. Look at the aggregate — lime mortars usually carry visible, locally sourced sand and often lumps of unslaked lime. Look at the relationship between joint and unit: if the joint stands proud and the brick is eroded, somebody has already made this mistake for you. And look at where the wall is wet, because water is the whole argument.

I started paying attention to this while drawing brick walls for Thresholds in Brick, and again on the long elevations of Reuse of the Ropewalk, which has had every kind of repair applied to it in sequence. The same logic holds for objects as for walls: in Conserving the Cast Collection the repairs that caused the most harm were made with a material stronger than the thing it was repairing.

The rule worth remembering

Match the original as closely as you can, and if you cannot, err softer, weaker and more permeable than the masonry around it. A joint that is a little too soft will need redoing in thirty years. A joint that is too hard will quietly destroy the brick, and brick cannot be repointed.

Beacon Hill is the easiest place in Boston to learn to read a building, because almost everything is made of the same three materials and the variations are therefore legible. Brick, granite, painted wood. An hour’s walk, slowly, looking at eye level rather than at rooflines, teaches you more about how a nineteenth-century city was assembled than a week of slides.

Start at the bottom of Chestnut Street

Come up from Charles Street and walk east. The street climbs, and because it climbs, every house has to negotiate the slope: you can watch the string courses step, the basement windows rise and fall relative to the pavement, and the entrance stairs grow and shrink from house to house. This is the most useful thing about the Hill: the ground forces each builder to solve the same problem differently, and the solutions are lined up for comparison.

Notice the general discipline first: flat brick fronts, holes punched in a regular grid, windows getting shorter as they go up, a cornice, dormers above. The hierarchy is about use — the tall windows are the parlour floor, the squat ones at the top are the servants’ rooms — so you can read the social section of the house from the street.

The brick, and the bond

Stand close to a wall and look at how the bricks are arranged. On the better fronts you will often find Flemish bond — stretcher, header, stretcher, header in every course — which ties the outer skin back into the wall and produces a visibly chequered pattern. Service elevations and back walls are more likely to be laid in a running bond of all stretchers, which is faster and cheaper. The bond tells you which face the builder expected to be looked at.

Then look at the joints. On the smartest fronts the bricks are rubbed to a precise face and the joints are hairline, which took enormous labour and is the masonry equivalent of a tailored seam. Elsewhere they are a finger’s width. And look for the repointing: the grey, hard, proud ribbons are modern cement repairs, and beside them you will usually find bricks losing their faces.

The purple windows

A handful of houses on the Hill, most famously on Beacon Street and Chestnut Street, have window panes of a distinct amethyst colour. The usual explanation is that glass imported in the first decades of the nineteenth century contained an excess of manganese, which over long exposure to sunlight turns violet. The colour is not a design decision and not a repair; it is a chemical accident of one batch, and because it happened only to glass of that period it is now evidence of age. Later imitations exist, which is itself a nice problem: a feature originally regarded as a flaw became desirable enough to fake.

While you are there, count the panes. Six-over-six sashes with slender glazing bars are generally early; as the century goes on, sheet glass gets cheaper and the bars disappear, so a single-pane sash in an early house usually means replacement. The bars are the dating clue, not the frame.

Almost everything that looks decorative on these fronts started as a way of keeping water out of a wall.

Doorways

The doorway is where a Beacon Hill house spends its money. Working from the outside in: granite steps, often with a scrubbed hollow in the middle tread from two centuries of use; a pair of engaged columns or flat pilasters; an entablature over them; and above the door an elliptical or semicircular fanlight with lead bars arranged in a fan, a web or a teardrop. Sometimes there are narrow sidelights flanking the door as well, which is how a hall gets daylight before electricity.

Look at the column capitals and you can place the house roughly in time. Slender, flattened, delicately moulded detail belongs to the Federal period around 1800 to 1820 — the idiom associated with Charles Bulfinch, whose Harrison Gray Otis houses on the Hill are the obvious reference. Heavier, bolder Greek orders, often fully pedimented, point to the Greek Revival of the 1830s and 1840s. The shift happens over about thirty years, and on one street you can often see both.

Doorways are what I spent a term measuring for Measured: Beacon Hill Doorways, and the thing that surprised me was how little the proportions repeat. The elements are shared — the same handful of mouldings, the same fanlight types — but the dimensions are all slightly different, because each was made by a joiner to fit an opening that was already built.

Granite, iron, and the bits nobody draws

The grey stone at the base of the walls, at the steps and across the window heads is Massachusetts granite, mostly from Quincy, and it is practical before it is aesthetic: granite takes the wear at the pavement, carries load over an opening, and sheds water where brick would soak. A flat granite lintel over a window is doing the work an arch would otherwise do.

Then the ironwork, where the Hill keeps its small inventions: boot scrapers beside the door, areaway railings with cast-iron newels, coal-hole covers in the sidewalk. Cast iron is repeatable — the same pattern recurs down a street because it came from one foundry mould — while wrought iron is forged and each piece differs slightly. Once you can tell them apart you can date a railing.

Repeated cast ornament of that kind is exactly what I was arguing about in Ornament as Argument: the moment a decorative element can be cast in a mould, its meaning changes, because it stops being a demonstration of a craftsman’s labour and becomes a choice from a catalogue.

Bowfronts, Louisburg Square and Acorn Street

Most of the Hill is flat-fronted, but you will come across bowfronts, the whole facade curving outward in a shallow bow. They become common in the 1820s and 1830s, and they are doing something clever: a bow buys more window area and oblique views along the street from a narrow lot.

Louisburg Square is the one piece of deliberate urban design here: two rows of houses facing a private fenced oval of grass, laid out in the 1830s and owned in common under an agreement usually described as one of the earliest homeowners’ associations in the country. It works entirely through repetition and restraint. No house is remarkable. The space is.

Then go round to Acorn Street, narrow, steeply cobbled, and photographed more than any street in Boston. It was built for the coachmen and servants of the larger houses nearby, so its houses are small, plain and tightly packed. The most photogenic street on the Hill is the service street, and its charm comes from the economy of its construction.

What the walk is actually teaching

By the time you come back down to Charles Street what has changed is not your stock of names. It is that you see the facades as a series of decisions, mostly about water, load and money, a few about status, only occasionally about beauty for its own sake. The granite lintel is there because brick cannot span. The fanlight is there because the hall is dark. The bow is there because the lot is narrow.

Light is the one that keeps pulling me back, and it is what Light Register came out of — the realisation, standing on Mount Vernon Street in late afternoon, that the depth of a reveal and the colour of a brick between them decide how a whole street reads at four o’clock. You can measure a wall in an afternoon. Learning to see the reasons for it takes longer, and this is a good hill to practise on.

Almost every sustainable building I was shown in my first year was new. Timber frame, triple glazing, a green roof, a diagram of air moving through a section. All of it was good work, and none of it addressed the question that now seems to me the most important one: what happens to the building that was already standing on that site?

The arithmetic of starting over

A building’s emissions come in two forms. Operational carbon is what it takes to run — heating, cooling, lighting, hot water — and it accumulates year after year. Embodied carbon is what was spent making it: quarrying, firing, smelting, milling, transporting and assembling the material, plus whatever will eventually be spent demolishing and disposing of it. Operational carbon is the one we have spent forty years learning to reduce, and we have got genuinely good at it. Embodied carbon is the one that is already spent and cannot be recovered.

Which means that demolishing a serviceable building has a cost that does not appear in the new building’s energy model. You write off everything embodied in the old building, you spend a new round of embodied carbon on the replacement, and only then do you begin to collect the operational savings that justified the exercise. The 2011 Preservation Green Lab study found that recovering the carbon spent on a new, more efficient replacement takes between ten and eighty years, depending on the building type and how it is built. Eighty years is beyond most planning horizons.

There is a waste argument alongside the carbon one. The EPA has put construction and demolition debris in the United States at around 600 million tons in a single year, roughly double the municipal solid waste stream, and most of it comes from demolition rather than construction.

An energy model for a new building starts its count on the day the old one comes down. The atmosphere does not.

Most of 2050 is already built

The figure usually quoted is that something like four fifths of the buildings standing in North America and Europe in 2050 exist today. Treat the exact number carefully — it depends on the region and the assumptions — but the direction is not in doubt, particularly in older cities where the stock turns over slowly.

If that is true, the performance of the existing stock is the climate question for buildings, and a perfect new building does not fix a city of leaky old ones. It is also a different kind of design problem: less about inventing a form, more about diagnosing a building and intervening precisely, which is closer to medicine than to sculpture.

Retrofit in the right order

What struck me, reading retrofit case studies, is how unglamorous the effective measures are and how reliably they come in the same order.

• Fix the water first. Gutters, downpipes, flashings, grading away from the wall. A wet wall conducts heat far better than a dry one, and every other measure fails in a wet building.
• Air sealing. Uncontrolled air movement is usually the largest single loss in an old building and the cheapest to reduce. It is also almost entirely invisible, which is why it is skipped.
• Insulate the roof. Most heat leaves upward, the attic is usually accessible, and nothing historic is normally at risk.
• Then the walls, carefully. Insulating a solid masonry wall on its inside face changes where it gets cold and how it dries, and done without understanding the wall’s moisture behaviour it can cause frost damage and rot the uninsulated wall never had.
• Then the systems. A heat pump sized for a sealed and insulated building is much smaller, and cheaper, than one sized for the building as found.

The order matters as much as the measures. Install the heat pump first and you buy a bigger machine than you need, forever.

Windows, the argument that will not die

Replacement windows are the most commonly sold energy retrofit and one of the least efficient uses of money in an old house. The glazing is a small fraction of the envelope area, much of the loss through an old window is air leakage at the sash rather than conduction through the glass, and repairing and weatherstripping an existing sash and adding a storm window gets you close to a replacement unit’s performance at a fraction of the cost.

It also keeps a repairable assembly. An old sash is wood, glass and putty, and any of those can be replaced individually with hand tools. A sealed double-glazed unit is a manufactured product with a service life, and when the seal fails the whole unit is replaced. That is the embodied carbon argument again at the scale of a component: the repairable thing is usually the sustainable thing, even when its instantaneous performance is worse.

What makes reuse hard is rarely the building

The obstacles are mostly procedural. Energy codes written around new construction can be difficult to satisfy with a solid wall, even where the building performs acceptably in use. Appraisals and lending favour new construction because the comparables are easier. Demolition is fast and its costs are immediate, while a retrofit is slow and its costs are discovered as you open things up. And the carbon already in a building has no value on anybody’s balance sheet, so nothing is lost on paper when it is destroyed.

Some counterweights are real, though. The federal historic rehabilitation tax credit — twenty per cent of qualifying costs for a certified rehabilitation of a listed income-producing building — exists precisely to close part of that gap, and it has been the deciding factor in a very large number of projects. It is also, notably, a preservation instrument doing climate work it was not written for.

The honest counterargument

“The greenest building is the one that is already built” is a good slogan and not a universal truth. A building kept in use but never improved can burn fuel for decades and overtake the embodied cost of replacing it. A single-storey building on a transit-served site may be the wrong use of land, and density has a carbon value of its own. Some structures are genuinely at the end of their lives, and some are contaminated, unsafe, or so specific that no second use exists.

So the honest position is not “never demolish”. It is that demolition should have to make its case, with the embodied carbon counted on the same page as the operational savings, instead of being the default that happens when a building has no obvious advocate.

What I would want to design

Working on Reuse of the Ropewalk changed how I read a brief. The building was difficult, enormously long, and committed to a process that no longer exists, and the only way through was to accept its geometry and bend the programme. The result is less free than a new building on an empty site and, I think, better for it — the constraints did the work that an invented concept would otherwise have had to do.

Light Register came from the same instinct at a smaller scale: measuring how much daylight an existing section already delivers before deciding to cut anything new into it. And doing the condition survey for Conserving the Cast Collection taught me the habit underneath all of this, which is to find out what something is made of and how it fails before deciding what to do with it.

Sustainability is a question about time: how long will this last, and how much can be repaired rather than replaced? Asked that way, the buildings we already have are not a constraint on sustainable design. They are the material we are designing with.

The first time I heard the phrase adaptive reuse I assumed it was a polite word for renovation. It is not. Renovation keeps a building doing the job it was built for and makes it do that job better. Adaptive reuse keeps the building and changes the job. A ropewalk becomes apartments. A parish church becomes a climbing gym, which sounds like a joke until you realise that a nave is essentially a tall room with good light and no columns in the middle, which is exactly what a climbing gym needs.

The term, narrowly

It helps to be precise, because the words around this get used loosely. Preservation, strictly, is keeping material: you stabilise what is there and intervene as little as possible. Restoration takes a building back to a chosen moment and removes what came after, which means it always involves a judgement about which decade matters. Rehabilitation repairs a building for continued or compatible use. Adaptive reuse sits inside rehabilitation but foregrounds the change of programme — the new use is the point, and the question becomes how much the building has to give up to accommodate it.

That last question is where the arguments live. A warehouse floor built to carry stacked barrels will carry almost anything you put on it; a warehouse window, cut small to keep heat in and thieves out, will not give an apartment the daylight a building code now expects. The structure is a gift and the envelope is a negotiation, and most of the drawings in a reuse project are about that negotiation.

Historic cities keep producing candidates

Older cities generate these buildings faster than they can absorb them, because they were built around industries that moved or vanished. Boston is full of them. The Cyclorama on Tremont Street was built in 1884 to house a vast circular painting of the Battle of Gettysburg; when the fashion for cyclorama paintings passed it became, among other things, a boxing venue, a flower market and a garage where spark plugs were manufactured. It is now part of the Boston Center for the Arts. Nobody planned that sequence. The building simply turned out to be a wide clear-span room near a streetcar line, and the city kept finding new reasons to want one.

That is the pattern worth noticing: buildings that survive are usually the ones that are generous rather than specific. Big floor plates, high ceilings, thick walls, a structural logic you can read from inside. The quarter-mile Ropewalk in the Charlestown Navy Yard, designed by Alexander Parris in the 1830s, is the extreme case — a building shaped so exactly around one process, the laying of rope for the Navy, that finding a second use for it took most of a century of argument. I spent a semester on that problem in Reuse of the Ropewalk, and the hardest part was never the structure. It was that the building is 1,300 feet long and four bays wide, and almost every programme you can think of wants to be squarer than that.

The carbon argument, which is newer than it sounds

For most of the twentieth century the case for reuse was made on cultural grounds: this building is part of how the city remembers itself, so keep it. That argument is still true and still the one I find most persuasive on a Tuesday afternoon in front of an actual facade. But it loses arguments against spreadsheets, and in the last fifteen years a second case has arrived that does not.

Every building carries embodied carbon: the emissions already spent quarrying, firing, milling, hauling and assembling its material. Demolishing it does not recover any of that, and replacing it spends a fresh round. A 2011 study by the National Trust’s Preservation Green Lab put numbers on the gap and found that it takes somewhere between ten and eighty years for a new, more efficient building to make up for the carbon released in constructing it. Eighty years is longer than many buildings now go between renovations. Meanwhile materials and construction account for roughly a tenth of global energy-related emissions on their own.

An existing building is a stock of material that has already been paid for, in money and in carbon. Demolition writes off both.

What a reuse project actually has to solve

From the handful I have drawn, the recurring problems are narrower than the rhetoric suggests:

• Getting daylight in. Either you enlarge openings, which costs you the facade’s rhythm, or you cut into the plan and bring light down from above. The second is usually better and always more expensive.
• Getting people out. Egress stairs and a second means of escape eat floor area and tend to land exactly where the best room was.
• Getting air and services through. A masonry building has nowhere to hide a duct. You either express the services or you lose ceiling height, and the ceiling height was half of why you wanted the building.
• Keeping the wall dry. Insulating the inside face of a solid masonry wall changes how it dries, and getting that wrong does more damage in ten years than the previous ninety did.

In Thresholds in Brick I was working on the first of those — cutting a new court into a deep masonry plan so that rooms at the centre had daylight from two sides — and the thing I had not expected was how much of the design ended up being about the edge of the cut rather than the cut itself. Where new meets old is where a reuse project is judged.

Where it goes wrong

Two failures are common enough to name. The first is facadism: demolishing everything behind the street wall, propping the wall on steel, and building a new structure behind it. You keep the photograph and lose the building. The rooms, the structural logic, the relationship between window and floor — the things that made the facade mean something — are gone, and what is left is a very expensive piece of scenery.

The second is over-correction: a reuse so deferential that the new work is unreadable, every intervention disguised as period fabric. This is a problem partly because it is dishonest and partly because it is bad for the building’s future. If nobody can tell which mortar is from 1890 and which is from 2019, the next person to repair it will guess, and guess wrong. Ornament is a record of what a period of building thought worth saying, which is more or less the argument I was making in Ornament as Argument; blurring the line between the original statement and a modern imitation of it destroys the evidence.

Why it matters more in a historic city

In a city with a lot of old fabric, reuse is not a special category of project. It is the default condition, and treating it as an exception produces the kind of urban patchwork where every decade is legible as a separate, slightly embarrassed episode. The alternative is to treat the existing stock as the site — not the thing you clear to make a site. That changes what a brief looks like. You start by measuring what you have, you work out what the building is generous about and what it is specific about, and you let the programme bend first.

It is slower, and it asks you to be interested in the building before you are interested in your idea. That is the part I am still learning. But the buildings I walk past survived because somebody, at some point, found them a new job rather than a better site.

The one thing everyone will tell you about Boston University is that it doesn’t have a campus. Walk through it and you are walking through the city — buildings sit between shops, apartments and traffic rather than behind a gate.

This paper treats that fragmentation as evidence rather than a shortcoming. Following the university through a sequence of maps, from the scattered points it occupied across Boston in the late nineteenth century to the Commonwealth Avenue corridor it holds now, it asks what the scatter says about how BU grew: a university founded to belong to the city, expanding by adapting the buildings already standing in it.

AH387: Boston Architecture & Urbanism · Professor Abramson · 7 May 2026

Copley Square sits on nineteenth-century Back Bay landfill — engineered ground, held between Trinity Church and the Boston Public Library. Sasaki’s recent proposal improves circulation and accessibility by trading large portions of green space for structured paving and pathways.

This counter-proposal sinks a shallow amphitheatre four to six feet into the square rather than competing with the vertical authority of the church, and keeps the planting, wrapping the seating in trees instead of clearing them. The plaza is set out on six intersecting circles, each holding a star-based pattern, so that no single shape dominates; blue and green tones carry Boston’s relationship to the water and to its commons.

AH387 · Professor Abramson · 23 February 2026

In colonial America architecture did more than shelter: it declared which identity a place was forming. Two houses make the contrast legible — the Parson Joseph Capen House, built in 1683 in Topsfield, Massachusetts, and Mount Airy, built in 1758 in Richmond County, Virginia.

One is early New England timber framing: a hall-parlor plan wrapped around a central chimney, plain and largely unornamented in line with Puritan ideals of modesty and restraint, and built tight against a harsh climate. The other is among the earliest Palladian houses in the colonies, a raised central block flanked by dependencies, ordered after British estate planning and built for one of Virginia’s wealthiest men, open to a warmer climate. Read together, they show climate, labour, faith and wealth each leaving their mark on a plan.

American Buildings and Landscapes · Professor Moore · 1 October 2025