Analysis of the Interventions to the stone distillery building

Analysis of the Interventions to the stone distillery building
The stone distillery building in Canada has undergone a couple of interventions throughout history. These interventions entailed rehabilitation, preservation and restoration and took place during different points in history. Restoration, preservation and rehabilitation have differing meanings and hence applications. Restoration entails returning place or equipment to its original form or state with a few improvements while preservation involves repairing and ensuring the existing features remain stable. Rehabilitation on the other hand involves the introduction of completely new features which are compatible with the existing system.
The first intervention which involved the stone distillery chimney had a number of principles upon it. The first measure that was used was the preservation method. The element of preservation can be seen when the chimney that served on the North side of the building was in extremely poor condition and was nearly collapsing. They thus undertook to reduce the chimney in half in order to stabilize it and also put it to a weight at which the existing construction was safe. This action is classified under preservation since it involved the stabilization of an existing feature which in this case was the chimney and it’s repairing which involved reducing it to half its original height. Another supportive fact is that the reconstruction of the chimney was done using sound brick which had been recollected from the original chimney that had been dismantled.
The second intervention also involved a couple of processes. In 1873, the stone distillery building was rehabilitated by the addition of 12 dormers. Although the reason for this action has remained unclear, the action in itself can be classified under rehabilitation since it involved the addition of new parts which in this scenario were the 12 dormers were compatible with the existing system. In 2006 the rehabilitation process also included the conversion of the attic to an office space. In order to make the offices comfortable for its users, the designers decided to take the building through a process of restoration by adding the dormer windows which had been removed in order to allow more light in to the attic. These designs would enable the office occupants to not only enjoy the light but also the view.
The processes undertaken as interventions on the stone distillery building had significant impacts on the character defining elements of the building.The reduction of the height of the tall chimney to half its size destroyed perhaps an outstanding feature about the building. Tall chimneys were very common during the 1870s and its reduction in height made the building lose its historic architecture. The addition of dormers in the building during its reconstruction in 2006 to add more office space gave the building a trace of its historic 12 dormers which had been added in 1873 but later removed. The action of restoration albeit forced by circumstance gave the building back a sense of its architectural history.
The intervention process applied a number of standard guidelines when it was being carried out. One such fundamental guideline is the conservation of the heritage value of a place by not substantially altering the place by either removal or replacement. The guideline can be seen in the replacement of the tall chimney. The designers decided not to totally do away with chimney but to only reduce it in half and they also used materials that and been recovered from the dismantling of the original chimney to reconstruct the new chimney in order to maintain an element of originality. The intervention however went against the standard that stipulates that during an intervention, the site should retain its historic time zone and any intervention should not add a development that gives a false perspective of its place in history.Contravention of this standard is evident when in the year 2006 the designers decided to convert the attic of the building into office space. The introduction of an office space in the building is a fusion of a futuristic and olden architecture. This action would give future generations a distorted impression of the time in history in which the building was fully operational. The designers implemented the standard which stipulates that any intervention should be compatible with the original defining elements of the object or place. The application of this standard is seen in the construction of the dormers in 2006 when the designers were installing office space in the attic.The dormers had a strong historical relation with the building since they were first introduced in 1873 when 12 dormers were constructed.
As a heritage designer, I would not approve the project plan. Even though the projects have been modeled to ensure longevity of the building, the project plans in my opinion would lead to significant loss of the character defining elements of the building. In the first intervention which involved the reduction in half of the chimney, the buildings character defining element is lost.This loss can be attributed to the fact that the tall height of the chimney is what was so fundamentally unique about it since it represented a popular form of architectural design in the 1860s.The introduction of scaffolding and the capping of the building in the year 2006 was also a significant modification of the chimney since these are modern additions which in essence would destroy the historical significance of the chimneys.
The second interventions again according to my opinion were would not be parallel to the standards and guidelines that have been stimulated.The addition of 12 dormers in 1873 were in contravention to the original design of the windows which had been planned for in 1861.The designs in 1861 included no dormer windows, this introduction led to a loss in a character defining element of the building. In 2006, designers again decided to introduce office space in the attic of the building. Even though this move would essential offer more comfort and lighting to the occupants of the office space, it would lead to a fundamental loss in the historical significance of the attic. Apart from the loss in the design specifications of an attic and the architectural beauty during the 1860s, the emergence of office space introduces a modern time setting I the building which in essence leads to a loss of its time in history.
In conclusion, this paper has analyzed the interventions to the stone distillery building. The paper has analyzed issues such as rehabilitation, preservation and restoration in relation to the building. The paper has also analyzed the timeframes when the events related to the building happened. The information in this paper is important for historical details of the interventions on the building.