Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation

8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 1/23

Before and After:

The Fo res igh t and H inds igh t o f Su r vey and I n t e r ven t i on

a t S t . Lou is Cemete ry No . 1 in New Or leans , LA .

Frank G. Matero, John Hinchman and Lindsay Hannah

School of Design, Univer ty of Pennsylvania

www.conlab.org



INTEREST

PROTECTION

PLANNING AND

MANAGEMENT

INTERVENTION

VALUE

SOURCE: Values and Heritage Conservation

Research ReportThe Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles



LOCAL PLANNING

AUTHORITIES THAT

MAINTAIN BUILDINGS

AT RISK REGISTERS

Yes

No

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF

GRADE I AND II* LISTED

BUILDING AT RISK ENTRIES

Historic buildings are an integral part of our history and contribute to our national and regional character and distinctiveness.They areso valuable, yet often so vulnerable. Once lost, they cannot bereplaced.We have a responsibility to preserve these importantbuildings as part of our cultural heritage not only for ourselves,but for future generations.

While the planning system provides protection to preventunsympathetic change to listed buildings, greater loss of historic and architectural fabriccan occur if they are neglected and allowed to decay. Preventing the effects of insidiousdecay and dereliction requires proactive action by all those responsible for and involvedin caring for the historic environment.

Heritage at Risk began with buildings. English Heritage first started work on developinga methodology to identify and categorise buildings at risk in the 1980s and carr ied out

the first sample survey to assess the degree to which they were threatened by neglect.

The term ‘listed building’ is used to describe a building(or structure) that has been designated as being of ‘special architectural or historic interest’.The older andrarer a building is, the more likely it is to be listed.Buildings less than 30 years old are listed only if they areof outstanding quality and under threat. Listed buildingsare graded I, II* and II. Grade I and II* are particularly

important buildings and account for 8% of all listedbuildings.The remaining 92% are of special interestand are listed grade II.

The English Heritage Buildings at Risk register was firstpublished in 1998 and recorded grade I and II* listedbuilding entries at risk through neglect and decay or functional redundancy (or vulnerable to becoming so).Grade I and II* buildings comprise 8% of the totalnumber of listed building entries and are of outstandingnational importance.The 1999 register was taken as the

national baseline, against which change and progress ismeasured and since then, significant progress has beenmade. Of the buildings on the 1999 baseline register,

WHY DO BUILDINGS BECOME AT RISK?

Each case is unique, but there are some recurring reasons why buildings end up at risk:

FUNCTIONAL

REDUNDANCY

A building may no longer be suited to the purposefor which it was originally designed. Changes in

technology, economicpatterns, demography, tasteand government policies canlead to buildings becomingfunctionally redundant – for example some older hospitals, schools, churches,factories, mills, farm andgovernment buildings, aswell as vacant and under-used upper floors of highstreet shops. Once abuilding is vacant and leftunsecured without regular maintenance, it candeteriorate very quickly.

LOCATION

A building might be blightedby its surroundings, whichmay have changed over

time through a change in the economy of an area, the abandonment of industry or as a result of insensitivedevelopment, redevelopmentor road schemes. Reuseor change of ownershipcan also be difficult wherea building lies within thecurtilage of a larger buildingand where access canbe a problem.

ECONOMIC

Economic factors comeinto play in cases where thecost of repair is greater than

the value of the building.This can occur when astructure such as a bridge,memorial or ornamentalbuilding, does not havebeneficial use which willgenerate an income tosustain it. It can also arisewhen the owner lacks themeans to keep the buildingin good repair. Sometimesbuildings are bought for aninflated price, without thecost of repair being takenfully into consideration, or on the mistaken assumption

that permission will begranted for an extension,change of use or for additional buildings.

OWNERSHIP

Uncertain ownership canseriously impair the reuseof a building; around thecountry there is still asignificant number of listedproperties whose titlesare either unregistered or unclear. There are also caseswhere an owner wilfully neglects and refuses torepair or sell a buildingat a reasonable price.

HERITAGE ATRISK 2008 11

‘‘’’

condition of monuments have also been identified at astrategic level, as have practical management needs at

the level of individual sites. What actions are being, or can be, taken to improve the management of scheduledmonuments in order to reduce their vulnerability to risk?

Prioritisation. With large numbers of sites at risk,identifying clear priorities for management action, evenwithin the ‘high risk’ category, is important for EnglishHeritage, for other organisations and for owners andland managers. Our regional teams are already workingwith a range of partners to identify which cases requiremost urgent action.

Information and advice. Provision of information andadvice is crucial.This includes simple information on thelocation and extent of sites, which may not be readily visible to land managers, and more detailed advice on thebest approaches to improving the condition of sites.TheEnglish Heritage National Monuments Record and localauthority Historic Environment Records have increased

the information available to land managers and we are

SCHEDULEDMONUMENTS

AT RISK,BY REGION

High risk

Medium risk

Low risk

continuing to develop their services. English Heritage alsoprovides on-line advice to the owners and managers of sites via the Historic Environment Local Managementweb site www.helm.org.uk ; through its HistoricEnvironment Field Advisers or through the network of local authority Historic Environment Countryside

Advisers that we have co-sponsored with selected localauthority partners.

Partnership. English Heritage cannot deliver the actionsrequired alone.We particularly require the co-operationof major institutional landowners and those organisationscapable of influencing future land management. For example, we work closely with the Forestry Commissionand the Ministry of Defence, both of which haveexemplary records of managing the monuments on their estate; with the National Parks and Areas of OutstandingNatural Beauty of England, to ensure that themanagement of scheduled monuments is incorporatedin their statutory management plans; and with Defra andNatural England to ensure that archaeological concernsare adequately reflected in agri-environment schemes.

If historic buildings matter to acivilised society – as they surely

do – then they have to be lookedafter. One of the greatest enemiesof old and beautiful buildings is

neglect. English Heritage’s Buildingsat Risk register, and now Heritageat Risk, is a vital weapon against

this, exposing the victims of neglectand the dangers they face, andso helping to find new ownersor new uses for the historicbuildings that matter to us all.

GAVIN STAMP ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN

Scheduled monuments are our most valued archaeological sitesand landscapes, designated because they are of national importance.They include prehistoric burial mounds, stone circles and hillforts,Roman towns and villas, medieval settlements, castles and abbeysand the structures of our more recent industrial and military past.

Together they are a unique inheritance that tells the story of many generations of human endeavour and, indeed, they provide the

only record for millennia during which we have no written history.These evocativemonuments also create a unique sense of time and place in the landscape, adding greatly to the distinctiveness of both our towns and our countryside.

Although protected by law, scheduled monuments are still at risk from a wide rangeof processes. Like listed buildings and registered landscapes, they are vulnerable todevelopment. In addition, they are exposed to several intense pressures beyond thereach of the planning system.These include agricultural intensification, forestry and wholly natural forces, such as coastal erosion. It is the pressures which are not controlled by theplanning process which pose the greatest threat to the majority of scheduled monuments.

In 1998 English Heritage published the Monuments atRisk Survey,which examined a 5% sample of England’sdesignated and undesignated archaeological sites anddemonstrated that, since 1945, an average of onearchaeological site has been destroyed every day.The next step was to systematically review all of England’s 19,709 scheduled monuments, beginningwith a pilot study in East Midlands Region.

The full national survey has now been completed andhad two aims: firstly to assess the condition, amenity value and surroundings of every monument and theextent to which it is at risk, and secondly to establishpriorities for action. Its headline findings are that 21% of monuments are at high risk, that a further 33% are atmedium risk, and that there is therefore an urgent needfor action before our heritage is irreparably damaged.

21%OF MONUMENTS ARE AT

HIGH RISK, A FURTHER

33% ARE AT MEDIUM RISK.

THERE IS AN URGENT NEED

FOR ACTION.

From this research it is clear that scheduledmonuments are significantly more likely to be identifiedas being at risk than designated buildings or landscapes.

Why should this be?The explanation is both environmental and economic.

The majority of scheduled monuments are archaeologicalsites, the continued preservation of which depends on

the character of their overlying and surrounding land use.A significant proportion occurs in environments where

the land-use is simply not compatible with their continued survival without positive management action.

In economic terms there are also significant differencesbetween buildings and monuments. Buildings generally have some economic value to their owners, particularly when capable of adaptive reuse. In contrast, although our scheduled monuments are fundamental to the history and sense-of-place of their locality (and thereforecontribute to the wider economy by encouraging

tourism and inward investment) they are of little directeconomic benefit to those who own them and, as aresult, they often suffer from neglect.

THE WAY FORWARD

When damaged or lost, scheduled monuments cannotbe replaced: urgent action is required if we are topass them on to future generations in good condition.Paradoxically, while monuments top the list of heritageassets at risk, the amount of effort needed to ensure

their survival for the future is often minimal andinexpensive – removing brambles, re-routing a footpathor protecting against burrowing rabbits are often all that is required.

In some cases, the risks to scheduled monuments canbe reduced simply by good land management, or by well-informed planning policies and decisions that takefull account of the national importance of historic sites.However, some monuments do require significantresources in order to stabilise their condition, to carry out repairs, or to change the way in which the landon and around the monument is used. In all casesclose co-operation with owners and land managersis essential if progress is to be made.

For the first time, the priorities for improvedmanagement of scheduled monuments have beenidentified nationally.The major sources of risk to the

HERITAGEATRISK 2008 17



Legend

NYSPTILE CONDITION

CONDITION

Complete Replacement

Poor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Good

No Data

An initial overall condition assessment was carried out using a10 point likert scale ranging from poor to good. The assessmentwas carried out by one individual to ensure consistency and thevalues assigned were based on a single overall assessment and not

broken into multiple values that were calculated to arrive at a final number.

THE GREAT TEXACO ROAD MAP

Correlation Among Cavate Dimension and Total Condition Score

Legend

High Condition Score

Medium Condition Score

Low Condition Score

Small Cavate Openings

Medium Cavate Opening

Large Cavate Openings

Large Cavate, High Condition

Cavate MJ092Large Opening Dimensions, High Condition Score

Cavate MJ095Large Opening Dimension, High Condition Score

Plan View of Cavate Group M

ME044

MG068

MJ087

MJ092

MJ095

MJ099

MQ150

MQ160

0 10 20 30 405Meters

Cavate Opening Dimension per Condition Category

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

High Medium Low

Condition Score Categories

%

W i t h i n C o n d i t i o n

C a t e g o r y

Large CavateDimension

MediumCavateDimension

SmallCavateDimension

Most of the cavates in the High Conditiongroup have large opening dimensions. Manycavates with small opening dimensions fall

within the low condition category.

APPENDIX C, Layout 12

132

1 0 6

CONDITIONS LEGEND

i

i

ii

iit

i

i

t

ii

Joint

eterioratedJoint

iiit i

ti

iii

iiiii

i

ii

ii

i i

ii t

iii i

ntrinsicMetallicStaining

xtrinsicMetallicStaining

iiii

i

34

5 0 5 10 Feet

Gradient Representation of Greatest Threat

The Architectural Conservation Laboratory - University of Pennsylvania - 2001

DRAYTON

HALL

Plaster Limit

Joists

Lowest Threat

Greatest Threat

Potential Threat



GraduateProgram in Hi storic Preservation

DeadSpace:DefiningtheNewOrleans CreoleCemetery



GraduateProgram in Hi storic PreservationGraduateSchool of FineAr ts, University of Pennsylvania

Ver. 07/02

TOMB AND MARKER SURVEY

Site: St. Louis 1Cemetery DateFounded: 1789

Street Address: Block bounded by Basin, St. Louis, Conti and Tremé Stre ets

Parish:

Orleans

County: City: New Orleans State: Louisiana- LA

UTM Coordinates: Zone: 15 Easting: 782 200 Northing: 3317450 Owner : Arch diocese of New Orl eans, Roman Catholi c Church Contact: Michael Boudreaux Surveyor(s): Date:Weather : Temperature:_______ Humidi ty: _____ Sunny Rain/snow/fog Overcast

Sunny & windy Rain/snow/fog & windy Overcast & windy

I. IDENTIFICATIONTHNOC: PNTHNOC: ArchdioceseNo.: GIN:Street/Alley Name:

Tomb Name(s):First Burial Date: Last Burial Date:

Military Marker: Biographical Info:

II. ENVIRONMENT (Check appropriatefields.) Orientation : N S E W NW NE SW SE UnknownContext: Isolated (3+ ft) Contiguous (0-3 ft)

Ground: Paved (check all that apply): Shell Stone Brick Asphalt Concrete Other

Unpaved (check all that apply): Soil Vegetation Grass Other: _________________

Precinct:

Enclosure: Curb Wall Fence Chain Other N/AProximity to Path: Adjacent (0-1 ft) Close(1-5 ft) Distant (5+ ft)Path Type: Stone Brick Concrete Asphalt Shell Soi l Grass Other

Proximity to Drain: Adjacent (0-5 ft) Close(5-10 ft) Distant (10+ ft)GradeSlope: Positive Negative Cross-slope NoneAlignment : Normal Sunken Ti lted Fall enFurniture: Bench Scul pture Container/Vase Plaque I mmortelle None

III . DESCRIPTION (Check appropriatefields.)

Tomb TypeModified

Wall/B lock Vault Pediment Tomb Mausoleum TumulusParapet Platform Sarcophagus Step Unknown

MarkerType

Modified

Simple(check all that apply): Headstone/footstone Stele Plaque Other

Compound (check all that apply): Table Basal Pedestal Column Obelisk Other

Pyramid Die

Dead Space: Defining the New Orleans Creole Cemetery

Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania

02/02 Ver. - 1

TOMB AND MARKER SURVEY MANUAL

Site Definition:The official name of the burial ground or cemetery being surveyed.Method: As recorded in official documents. The full name, no abbreviations.

Date Founded Definition:The date when the site was established.Method: Month, day, year (Ex.: mm-dd-yyyy; 03-03-1784).

Street Address Definition:The address or site location.Method: The full address, no abbreviations.

Parish Definition: The name of the parish in which the cemetery is located. “County” may be

substituted for “Parish” in other locations.Method: The full name of the parish, no abbreviations.

County Definition:The name of the county the cemetery is located if it is not run by a "Parish."Method: The full name of the county, no abbreviations.

City Definition:The name of the city in which the cemetery lies. Method: The full name of the city, no abbreviations.

State Definition:The name of the state in which the cemetery lies. Method: The full name of the state and the two-letter postal code abbreviation. Ex.:

Louisiana—LA.

UTM Coordinates Definition: A set of coordinates (easting and northing) that indicates a unique location

according to the Universal Transmercator Grid appearing on maps of the UnitedStates Geological Survey (USGS).

Method: Indicate the centermost coordinate within the cemetery boundary (Zone,Easting, Northing).

Owner Definition: The name of the individual, organization, or polity that holds the deed to the

cemetery’s ground

Method: Full name, no abbreviations.

St. Louis 1 Cemetery - 2001/02 Survey Summary Data

University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Fine Arts

PNTHNOC

1

GEO10V-1

Street AlleyNo.1R

ID NameFerrier

First Date1893

Last 1993

Military Mkr None

NoComment

Biographical

NoInfo

Current StatusExistsfrom1981

Orient SE

Context Contiguous

Path Prox.Adjacent (0-1ft.)

Path Material Asphalt

Drain Prox.Distant(10+ ft.)

GradeNone

Alignment Normal

Tomb TypeSimple Platform

Marker? RepresentationFamily

AlterationsNew/Rebuilt

Perp. Care

IntermentsInactive

Color No Info Height Ft In 7 2General CommentsObvious rebuild

Can'tTell

Brick

Gray

Few

3 3 N/A

3 3 N/A

3 0

3 N/A

2 2

3 0

Primary Structure

Roof

Stucco

Surface Finish

Tablet System

Ornament

AdditionAlteration Material Condition Material Integrity Formal Integrity

ARCHDIOC: ANo1R1

PNTHNOC

2

GEO

9V-1

Street

AlleyNo.1R

ID Name

Dalberni/Clavin/Pecora

First Date

1921

Last

1972

Military Mkr WWI

Clement A. Pecora -Bronze militarymarker in cement in front of tomb.

Biographical NoInfo

Current StatusExistsfrom1981

Orient SE

Context Contiguous

Path Prox.Close((1-5 ft.)

Path Material Asphalt

Drain Prox.Distant(10+ ft.)

GradeNone

Alignment Normal

Tomb Type

Simple Parapet

Marker? RepresentationFamily

AlterationsNone

Perp. Care

IntermentsInactive

Color No Info Height Ft In 5 4General Comments

Cornicealtered--stuccoedover

Brick

Brick

Tan/Gray

Few

3 3 3

3 3 2

3 3

2 0

N/A N/A

2 1

Primary Structure

Roof

Stucco

Surface Finish

Tablet System

Ornament

AdditionAlteration Material Condition Material Integrity Formal Integrity

ARCHDIOC: ANo1R2

14-Apr-02 Page 1 of 367

TOMB and MARKER METALWORK SURVEY - PNTHNOC 2

Sections I and VII from the 3/2001 Site Survey plus 10/2001 Metalwork Survey

P NT HN OC : 2 T HN OC : 002 ARCHDIOC: ANo 1R2 GIN: 9V-1

Street: Alley No.1R IDName: Dalberni/Clavin/Pecora

First Date: 1921 Last Date: 1972Military Marker:WWI

CurrentStatus: Exists from 1981

Comments: Clement A. Pecora - Bronze military marker in cement infront of tomb.

Biographical: No Info

ProgComment: No Comment

SiteName: St . Louis 1 Cemetery Date Founded: 1789

Street Address: Block bounded by Basin, St. Louis, Conti and Tremè Streets

Parish or County Orleans State: Louisiana

TOMB AND MARKER SURVEY

UTM Coordinates: 15Zone: Easting: 782 200 Northing: 331 7450

Site Owner: Archdiocese of New Orleans, Roman Catholic Church Contact: Michael Boudreaux

City: New Orleans

I. IDENTIFICATION

Tomb:

N/A

Tablet Pin missing

VII. Metals

Anchors:

Comp.Encl:

N/A

PartialEncl:

2

Door:

N/A

Ornament:

N/A

Sculpture:

N/A

Accessories:

N/A

Plaque:

N/A

Tomb:

N/A

Tablet:

0

No Metal on Tomb PNTHNOC: 2

IsthereaMetalEnclosure?

If not,Is thereevidenceof one?

Are thereMetalOrnaments?

Ifnot,Is thereevidence?

Ratings:0 =Sign/Total Deterioration, 3 = Good

Page 1 of 350 Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania



St. Louis Cemeteries



ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 12001 / 2002 SURVEY SUMMARY DATAUNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS



D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

B C

14

15

16

17

18

19

10

11

12

13

1A

Legend

9L Tombs

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS

EmergencyStabilized

EmergencyDocumente

1 7 7

D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

B C

14

15

16

17

18

19

10

11

12

13

1A

Tombs Rated Highfor Material Integrityand Poor in Condition

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS

1 7 9

ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 1. NEW ORLEANS, LA. SAVE AMERICAʼS TREASURES PRESERVATION PROJECT 2002-3 ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 1. NEW ORLEANS, LA. SAVE AMERICAʼS TREASURES PRESERVATION PROJECT 2002-3



19

ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 1SAT PRESERVATION PROJECT: TREATMENT SUMMARY

THNOC TOMB NUMBER: 60

ARCHDIOCESE TOMB NUMBER: BA 1

TREATMENT/REPAIRS PERFORMED BY: H. Knight, R. Osborne

DATES: 2/02-8/02

BEFORE PHOTOS: BW1:21-25; C1:22-24; C2:1

AFTER PHOTOS: BW13:16-19; C42:9-11

SUMMARY OF PRE-TREATMENT CONDITIONS:Tomb was in poor condition. NE corner was missing bricks.

SUMMARY OF TREATMENT:

The entire tomb was cleaned of dirt, vegetation, and loose material. Existing brick and newly purchased salvagedbrick were dry-laid in original construction pattern. Mason laid brick using a hydraulic lime based mortar.Mortar joints were filled flush with brick because it is uncertain when the tomb might receive stucco.

Tomb 60, NW Elevation, before. Tomb 60, NW Elevation, after stabilization.

33

ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 1SAT PRESERVATION PROJECT: TREATMENT SUMMARY

THNOC TOMB NUMBER: 166

ARCHDIOCESE TOMB NUMBER: SLS 12

TREATMENT/REPAIRS PERFORMED BY: H. Knight

DATES: 3/12/02, 5/8/02,5/19/02

BEFORE PHOTOS: BW2: 14-15; C2: 25-26

AFTER PHOTOS: BW14:1-2; C43:7-8

SUMMARY OF PRE-TREATMENT CONDITIONS:Tomb was in poor condition. Roof was missing bricks. SE marble jam was missing. Upper one-fourth of marble plaque was missing. Stucco was missing on all facades and step.

SUMMARY OF TREATMENT:

This tomb was only partially stabilized. The entire tomb was cleaned of dirt, vegetation, and loose material.Portland cement on S ridge, NW corner and rear flagstone was removed. Existing brick and newly purchasedsalvaged brick were dry-laid in original construction pattern.

Tomb 166, Roof, before. Tomb 166, Roof, after partial stabilization.

Cemetery Assessment Report 9 Cemetery Assessment Report 8



St. Louis Cemetery No. 2

Top left: Society tomb in Block #3 with a damaged roof.

Top right: The roong materials from the tomb scattered

throughout the site.

Bottom left: Speed Limit sign from the neighboring I-10

overpass now laying in the cemetery.

St. Louis Cemetery No. 2:

Clockwise from top right

1: Multiple oodlines disfgure a tomb.

2: Displaced ironwork.

3: Displaced tablet.

4: Discoloration and accelerated decay on an enclosure.

Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation

Documents

Transcript of Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation