[MassHistPres] Historic buildings and code

[Garrett Laws]

All,

The cost vs assessed "value" is the primary trigger.

I equate these things to statics, if you want to achieve a desired result
then go measure the things that will lead to that result. That being said
there are usually many factors including finances that lead to a final
decision.

Garrett Laws
The Copper & Slate Company, Inc.
(781) 893-1916

On Friday, May 22, 2015, james hadley <jameswhadley at hotmail.com> wrote:

> This is a sad story. It sounds like a question for *The Ethicists* at the *NY
> Times Magazine.* (Formerly is was just* The Ethicist, *but now it a group
> discussion*.*)
> It seems that perhaps the scope was not sufficiently vetted - there are a
> number of repairs that are NOT included in the cost trigger to bring a
> building into compliance, and as I recall, roof repair is one of those. But
> the code is changing so often today that my information may be out of date.
> James Hadley
> Former Chair, Orleans Historical Commission.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: slater at alum.rpi.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','slater at alum.rpi.edu');>
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','masshistpres at cs.umb.edu');>
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:39:04 -0700
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Historic buildings and code
>
> St. Jude’s (aka St. Aloysius) church in Springfield was built in 1874. It
> was hit by a microburst in 2011 and was closed due to damage to the roof.
> Engineers hired by the church found that some structural beams were cracked
> and some of the masonry was also damaged.
>
> The church did not spec out the cost to repair just the damage - the
> engineering firm advised them that they would have to bring the entire
> building into compliance with building and handicapped accessibility code.
> The cost would have been $3.1 million to do this. They said that this was
> due to the fact that the entire roof structure would need to be removed,
> making the work area %” (a 50% work area triggers the full upgrade, and
> work that costs more than 30% of the assessed value triggers the ADA code
> upgrade, which would have included elevators).
>
> The engineering firm appeared before the Springfield historical commission
> to justify a waiver of our Demolition Delay Ordinance. Here is what
> disturbed me: the engineer stated that even if they could have gotten a
> waiver or “looked the other way” and structured the project to not trigger
> a full upgrade, he said that he would not do this. He brought up an example
> of a school in upstate NY that did this and was subsequently damaged in a
> microburst, he claimed 15 children died (though I can find no record of
> this).
>
> The engineer also stated that he advises all his clients to stay away from
> older buildings, especially masonry, because they are so expensive to bring
> up to code and he does not consider them safe until they are updated. He
> basically painted all older buildings as inadequate because they did not
> use modern materials or techniques.
>
> A member of the public, speaking out, called his bluff a bit, saying that
> if what the engineer said was true, nearly every single church in the city
> should be immediately closed because they are dangerous. However the impact
> of the argument was effective – the SHC voted 3-1 to immediately lift the
> demo delay; the church will be demolished. They will rebuild a smaller
> church for the $1.1 million in insurance that they received, a building
> that will likely be hard-pressed to last more than 50 years (since that it
> the threshold they build to these days).
>
> My question is, how do we counter something like this? This is not the
> first time we have “had to” demolish an older building because the cost to
> bring it up to code exceeded its value (remember, Springfield has far lower
> property values than Eastern MA – for example, there is a 12-unit brick
> apartment building on the market right now for $425k). There is a pervasive
> and growing attitude that “older” means “obsolete” and should be cleared
> out whenever possible, even when nothing new is built in its place.
>
> Ralph Slate
> Springfield Historical Commission
>
> ****************************** For administrative questions regarding this
> list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us');>
> directly. PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST. MassHistPres mailing
> list MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu');>
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> ********************************
>


-- 
Cheers,
Garrett Laws

The Copper & Slate Company, Inc.
Fine Roofing and Exterior Finish Carpentry
238 Calvary Street,
Waltham, MA 02453
(781) 893-1916

 Work we do:
http://picasaweb.google.com/copperandslate

 Where we've worked over the years:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=206210316541901083869.00049065ef8543e1ef9c3&ll=42.40115,-71.126862&spn=0.125241,0.289421&t=h&z=12
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20150522/eb22d631/attachment-0001.htm>