[MassHistPres] Material Alternatives for Historic Rehabilitation

[Ward Hamilton]

This is a very interesting topic and it occurs to me that I better qualify
my earlier responses. To go back to the original post, the first question
asked was:

"Can anyone recommend alternatives for a slate roof on historic
rehabilitations that would be funded through CPA funds and acceptable per
the Secretary of Interior Standards?"

The short answer is no, there are no acceptable alternatives to natural
slate. According to the Secretary of Interior's Standards, *replacement in
kind* is the standard that guides historic rehabilitation work. The
relatively high cost of a slate is sometimes cited as a prohibitive factor
by applicants for certificates of appropriateness. However, that argument
should not be considered for a CPA-funded project.

The second question posed was:

"Also, what can be used in place of copper gutters again that would be
acceptable to use on a historic home."

In this instance, the imagined reason for the question is that a homeowner
in an LHD needs to replace existing copper gutters that are either
trough-style, applied to the fascia or half-round, hanging at the eaves. If
this project is also CPA-funded then no substitute for replacement in kind
is acceptable.

However, if it is privately owned and funded, the HDC may consider
alternative materials that make the project more affordable and encourage
the homeowner to do the work. Such gutters are considered
character-defining features and care must be taken to select an appropriate
looking substitute. For example, there are sheet metal products available
that mimic the look of lead-coated copper.

In some building styles, wooden gutters are historically a component of the
massing at the eaves of the roof. Such gutters are high maintenance and
prone to failures that extend beyond the gutter and into the cornice
assembly. One option is to line the gutter troughs with copper sheet metal.

However, it is very costly to replace wooden gutters in and have them lined
with copper. And finding a qualified contractor capable of successfully
performing such work is yet another obstacle. Neither of which will do
anything to improve the relatively low volume of runoff that wooden gutter
troughs can handle.

For these reasons, fiberglass or sheetmetal gutters that are identical in
profile and outside dimensions to traditional wooden gutters are sometimes
allowed. Once properly installed and painted it is nearly impossible to
tell the two apart. And the new gutters will allow the roof drainage system
to catch and move a greater volume of runoff away from the building.

The introduction of contemporary materials and technologies into
traditional systems of the building envelope is more than an issue of
aesthetics. Whether it's a breather mat between the cedar shingles and ice
& water shield, the use of closed cell (spray foam) insulation, or PVC
composite materials vs. wood, it is critical that the materials used are
not detrimental to the preservation of historic building fabric.




Ward Hamilton
Chairman
Melrose Historical Commission



On Fri, May 21, 2021, 8:26 AM mastermasonmcgrath <
mastermasonmcgrath at gmail.com> wrote:

> The alternative to quality is cheap, permanence to failure. Stone or
> plastic, natural or contrived. Material or product. There is no acceptable
> alternative to the proper materials. Using plastic would just be kicking a
> can down the road a short way where there would be more bills. QUALITY COST
> LESS IN THE LONG RUN!!!!  Find the money to do a proper job.
>
> Richard McGrath, Chair Lunenburg APDC,  Chair Lunenburg Historical
> Commission, 3d generation master bricklayer and stone mason
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Ward Hamilton <melrosehistcomm at gmail.com>
> Date: 5/21/21 7:50 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Richard Casella <rcasella at historicdoc.com>
> Cc: Masshistpres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Material Alternatives for Historic
> Rehabilitation
>
> You make a good point that fiberglass gutters are not an acceptable
> alternative to copper.
>
>
>
> Ward Hamilton
> Chairman
> Melrose Historical Commission
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2021, 9:02 PM Richard Casella <rcasella at historicdoc.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree that use of CPA funds ups the requirements, but what Standard or
>> reasoning considers fiberglass an acceptable substitute for copper but
>> synthetic slate not a substitute for slate?
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Casella
>>
>> Portsmouth, RI
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* MassHistPres [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] *On Behalf
>> Of *Ward Hamilton
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 20, 2021 8:13 PM
>> *To:* Lyons, Pamela
>> *Cc:* masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [MassHistPres] Material Alternatives for Historic
>> Rehabilitation
>>
>> There is nothing, in my opinion, that is an acceptable alternative for
>> slate in a project funded through CPA funds and acceptable per the
>> Secretary of Interior Standards.
>>
>>
>>
>> Fiberglass gutters, in lieu of copper gutters, may be acceptable for use
>> on a historic home.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ward Hamilton
>>
>> Chairman
>>
>> Melrose Historical Commission
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 8:03 PM Lyons, Pamela <plyons at city.waltham.ma.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> Can anyone recommend alternatives for a slate roof on historic
>> rehabilitations that would be funded through CPA funds and acceptable per
>> the Secretary of Interior Standards?
>>
>> Also, what can be used in place of copper gutters again that would be
>> acceptable to use on a historic home.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>>
>> *Pamela Lyons*
>>
>> Administative Assistant
>>
>> Building Maintenance / Historical Commission
>>
>> P: 781-314-3191
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MassHistPres mailing list
>> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
>> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20210522/60722d2e/attachment-0001.html>