[MassHistPres] smokestacks

Tue May 31 09:09:44 EDT 2011

Hi all,

The smokestack at the High Service Station at Chestnut Hill Waterworks is in good condition thanks to the work Dennis mentioned.  The Low Service Smokestack received equal scrutiny and care when the complex was redeveloped but it's a tale of all smokestacks are not created equal.

In the past year water started pouring into three living units at the base of the Low Service smokestack.  The repointing was good, the cap was good, but the bricks themselves were allowing the water in.  John Wathney explained it, better than I can, but it seems to be a failure with the yellow brick on the exterior, compounded by use of red brick in the interior, and the differential between the two types of brick.  Long story short, even through-flashing doesn't seem to offer a good medium-to-long range solution. Reluctantly, the Boston Landmarks Commission has signed off on the removal of the Low Service smokestack.  The BLC stresses this was an individual determination and is not meant to set a precedent.

Ellen

Ellen J. Lipsey
Executive Director
Boston Landmarks Commission
Environment Department
City Hall, Room 805
Boston, MA 02201
ellen.lipsey at cityofboston.gov<mailto:ellen.lipsey at cityofboston.gov>
617-635-3850 phone
617-635-3435 fax

________________________________
From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of Dennis De Witt
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 12:11 PM
To: MHC MHC listserve
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] smokestacks

Marcia

As you know, I triggered that on line exchange because we have a 140 ft. stack in the Waterworks Museum building.

In addition to the online thread, I also received other suggestions off line -- not all of which I have yet followed up on.  But our stack is still there, so I will have to eventually.  I do know that our stack, which was in ruinous condition, held together with steel straps and wooden splints and wrapped in chain link, had its masonry restored and its top section completely rebuilt by a firm from the south that specializes in such work.  It was done under the oversight of Andrea Gilmore of Building Conservation Associates in Dedham who could supply their name.

I wonder how often big stacks come up as an issue in LHDs and how they are handled.  In its only such case, the Brookline Preservation Commission required the retention of a Smokestack that is part of a condo in an LHD.  But I have heard, second hand, that the BLC recently signed off on the demolition of a prominent smokestack on a Landmarked condo building.

Below is an edited compilation of the comments I received off line.  Because there were some of interest and this is a very vexing question, it seems worth sharing them.

Dennis J De Witt, Vice-Chairman
Metropolitan Waterworks Museum, Inc.

Hi Dennis,
I recall that Charles Parrott, Lowell National Historical Park historical architect, gave a paper on industrial chimneys, and he therefore may have information on them.
--Sara Wermiel

In 2004 I delivered a paper at the SIA Annual Conference on the history of the tall brick (American) industrial chimney.  In order to get my arms around a vast topic, I followed the thread of the successive tallest
American stack to tell the story of their evolution.  The paper was strictly historical, and said nothing about their modern preservation.  As far as I know, that story has yet to be set down.  However, in Lowell, we
have had some experience dealing with various (brick) industrial chimney preservation issues, and they have run the gamut from desires to partially or fully demolish, to successful schemes for partial rebuilding, spot
veneer brick replacement, and repointing.  So far, we have mostly been successful in keeping the remaining big chimneys up.  But dealing with them is a costly proposition, whether the intent is to demolish or preserve.
 . . .  essentially, other than for long vertical cracking, they are little different than what would
be done for any brick building.  However, as always it depends on the individual situation - each one is a little different.  . .  I, perhaps along with the Lowell Historic Board administrator, Steve Stowell, could review what has happened here in individual cases, and relate our experience. [I have been remiss in not yet taken him up on this site visit offer -- Dennis]
-- Chuck Parrott,  National Park Service

My sense is that most internal water damage is confined to the upper reaches where blown rainwater is concentrated, and where there may be no inner shell, thus directly exposing the structural chimney from inside.
So, water at the base might not be coming down the chimney.  I am not aware of that being a problem with any that I've looked at.  But capping might be a reasonable treatment in any case to keep out that water and help preserve the top of the chimney.
-- Chuck Parrott

Virtually all brick industrial chimneys, and all that vented very hot gasses, contained a separate inner lining that actually carried the smoke.  It was always separated from the structural outer shell with some sort of air space, and was braced from the shell (but not connected to it) for support at designed intervals.  The separation was primarily to deal with expansion and contraction (when the chimney was in service venting hot gases).  But often
the lining ended short of the top of the shell (by which time the gasses had cooled a little), and it was typical for there to be little or no connection between lining and shell at the top, even if lining did rise all
the way to the top.  Moisture concerns was not of much concern when the chimney was operating, since it kept the water and water vapor issues to a minimum.  . . .   The intersection of the chimney with any kind of sloping roof or valley would likely have been an ongoing problem . . .
-- Chuck Parrott

Fred Quivik, may also have some contacts.  He worked on the preservation of the big stack at Anaconda, MT. [Fred is at Michigan Technological University -- Dennis]
-- Duncan Hay, National Park Service

There certainly have been discussions in the past of the challenges of preserving these features which are character-defining of the landscapes of industrial cities in particular.  Generally I think preservation means controlling interior moisture infiltration and build up which is subject then to masonry destroying freeze thaw cycle.  Assuming there is a well-pointed and water tight stack otherwise, this involves capping and introducing some manner of controlled forced air venting to keep the interior moisture level down.  The problem is if the stack has been allowed to sit unused for long, then the extent of structural deterioration and the cost of repairing and repointing can be very high.
-- Michael Steinitz

. . . a recent project in Lexington MA included a 40 foot chimney first used for a factory c. 1870's. The conversion was from commercial use to residential use for brain injury survivors. Our problem was to preserve/restore the chimney to qualify for the National Register designation while satisfying current building code requirements for lateral seismic forces. After studies, our solution was to lower reinforcing bars and fill the chimney with new concrete (like a vertical beam) with minor repairs to the exterior brickwork.
-- David M. Buckley, AIA

A brick smokestack in the Exeter (NH) Manufacturing Company National Register district was used for a cell antenna installation; International Chimney (I think that was the firm) did the work, and repointed with custom-matched lime mortar.  The cell hardware was "painted out" to match the color of the masonry.  At first people were concerned because the lime mortar joints were "too white," but as they aged and weathered back from the edges of the brick, the concerns melted away, too.
-- Linda Ray Wilson, DSHPO, NH Division of Historical Resources

On May 30, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Marcia Starkey wrote:

Hello,
In 2009 the listserve discussed preservation of historic industrial smokestacks. My records show very helpful recommendations for protecting these from deterioration, but no published sources seem to be identified.  Has anyone come across more information in the interim?
Marcia Starkey, Greenfield Historical Commission
******************************
For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us<mailto:Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us> directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu<mailto:MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu>
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
********************************

-----------------------------------------
The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be
confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure
pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended
solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20110531/0de3048f/attachment-0001.htm>