To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin University of Oregon 2023-2024 Phebe Davis Front cover photo credit: Patterson-McDermott Cabin, view looking southeast, Phebe Davis, August 2023 2 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 Table of Contents Prologue 4 To Scrape, or not to Scrape? The Age Old Preservation Question 6 What is Scrape versus Anti-Scrape Theory? 7 Anti-Scrape 9 Scrape 12 Putting these Theories into Context 13 What does Scrape versus Anti-Scrape mean in our world? 19 Aspects of Integrity 22 Buildings and Histories are for People 24 Climate-Changing our Views on Preservation Practices: Taking an Inventory 25 To Scrape or not to Scrape: the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 27 Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 28 Background 29 Goals 30 Recommendations for Treatment 31 Pre-Treatment Analysis and Compliance 32 Pre-Construction Analysis and Compliance 32 Proposed Site 33 Structural Improvements 36 Elevations and Log Work 37 Foundation 42 Roof 44 Windows 46 Door 50 Conclusion 52 Citations 56 To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 3 Prologue 4 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 During a National Council for Preservation Education (NCPE) Internship in the summer of 2023, I was introduced to the Patterson-McDermott Cabin upon a visit to the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park in Skagway, Alaska. The cabin was clearly in rough shape and had not had any maintenance done in a long while. The building itself is not breathtaking by any means, but you can feel the history (and smell the age) of it the moment that you step inside. Historic buildings like this are why I am interested in historic preservation: they are not iconic, well documented monuments that people travel from all around to see but they still hold such important histories and stories to share with us if we listen. These buildings' histories help tell the human story, and without them, that part of our fabric would be lost. How do we best tell these stories and in turn, preserve our buildings and their histories (especially small, unassuming structures like the Patterson-McDermott Cabin)? Both scrape and anti- scrape theories allow for us to answer that question: is it best to maintain a building until we can no longer, or restore buildings that have gone past the point of maintenance? What are our roles as preservationists in regard to deciding the fate of a building? These questions and the scrape versus anti-scrape debate felt applicable to the Patterson-McDermott Cabin. The cabin is being managed as a resource by the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park and was receiving funding for preservation purposes this year, in 2024. Maybe it was good timing or perhaps just my soft spot for neglected buildings, but I decided to help write a preservation plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin and explore what the scrape versus anti-scrape debate means for preservation projects (like this cabin) in our current day. This document will be used in the 2024 scope of work for the Patterson- McDermott Cabin's preservation proposal and will examine the application of both scrape and anti- scrape theory. To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 5 To Scrape, or not to Scrape? The Age Old Preservation Question 6 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 What is Scrape versus Anti-Scrape Theory? Scrape versus Anti-Scrape debate is a philosophical controversy within the field of historic preservation. The theories fall on two ends of a spectrum: “Scrape” theory is the belief that historic structures can be altered and rebuilt to be improved upon, and “anti-scrape” theory supports the intention to keep historic structures intact as they were originally built. (Planetizen, 2021). Scrape versus anti-scrape theory has and continues to lead to much contention on the proper way to preserve a building: to preserve it as a whole, exactly as it was, or is it permissible to make alterations to the building in order to make it relevant and usable? The two theorists who came up with these preservation philosophies were John Ruskin, 1819-1900, (anti-scrape theory) and Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, 1814-1879, (scrape theory). Both of their experiences with architecture framed their different perspectives on how to treat and handle ancient structures, placing them at either end of the spectrum. Both scrape and anti-scrape theories have seemingly gone unnoticed by name in the field, but still influence current day ideas about preservation practices and need to be explored and considered based on individual contexts. These theories tend to put preservationists in two groups: “purists” versus “realists”. “Purists” tend to lean towards “anti-scrape” theory and have a “preserve all that we can, at all costs” outlook, while implementing routine maintenance; “realists” lean towards “scrape” ideas, where it is best to preserve what we are able to, while giving the historic structure what it needs to continue on, and possibly live a different life than the one for which it was built. Rather than belonging on a spectrum, these theories should be viewed as a timeline: to begin with anti-scrape theory and highlight the gravity of maintenance, and if anti-scrape theory has been abandoned, implement scrape theory. Anti-scrape theory stresses the importance of maintenance: as the building ages, maintenance must be done in order to keep the building in good condition and keep its history alive; doing anything more is viewed as “inauthentic."1 Scrape theory steps in after the lack of application of anti-scrape theory: it guides on how to go about rehabilitating a building once it has degraded over time. These resources and the maintenance of them is becoming more and more important due to climate change. As we lose access to resources (due to extreme weather events, water availability, warming impacts, etc.), it is crucial that we protect the structures that are already in the built environment— which can be done through proper maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation. Also to be determined in this argument is how these theories relate to The Secretary 1 Authenticity in this discussion will be defined as “original to the building and its initial construction”. To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 7 of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, including Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction and determination of integrity. The Secretary of Interior established four treatment standards for undertaking the stewardship of historic properties that are eligible or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. They are: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Preservation is defined as: “the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic property.” (“The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Technical Preservation Services” 2023). The main goals of preservation are to protect and stabilize the historic fabric by ways of maintenance, minimizing replacement with new materials. This particular treatment relies on good historic integrity, and attempts to retain as much original character as possible. Preservation is what anti-scrape theory is advocating for. Rehabilitation is defined as: “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.” (“The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Technical Preservation Services” 2023). The main goal of rehabilitation is to make sure that the property is usable, while still retaining historical significance of the building. Scrape theory advocates for rehabilitation. Restoration is defined as: “the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period.” (“The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Technical Preservation Services” 2023). The main goal of restoration is to alter the building in a way that makes it appear as if it is in its period of significance. Scrape theory also advocates for restoration; anti-scrape would consider restoration to be “inauthentic”. Reconstruction is defined as: “the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, buildings, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and its historic location.” (“The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Technical Preservation Services” 2023). Reconstruction will not be discussed as part of the “scrape versus anti-scrape” debate, as it is creating a new structure to represent the past, which is not a point that either side of the argument addresses (Crosby 2001). The focus will be between preservation and rehabilitation— standards that both 8 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 theories address. These theories were thought of in Europe in the late 1800s to early 1900s, but are applicable to all preservation projects, regardless of location. The case study that will be looked at and asking this age old preservation question in this instance will be that of the Patterson-McDermott Cabin, located in Dyea, Alaska. Present day Alaska is a much different context than late 1800s to early 1900s Europe, but the theories are still relevant and give guidelines on how to go about preservation practices. This project aims to propose a people and narrative centered approach to preservation. Anti-Scrape Anti-scrape theory was framed by John Ruskin2, who was born in London and was educated at home by his father, a wine merchant. He grew up in a Protestant household and traveled throughout England and the rest of Europe, forming his opinions about the middle class that he grew up in, and ultimately wrote for. He was regarded for his influential speculation that architecture responded to the “social conditions in which they were produced.” (Shrimpton 2024). John Ruskin was the main theorist behind the anti-scrape movement, and mentions it in his 1849 book: The Seven Lamps of Architecture. In this book, he discusses the principles that should be emulated in a building: Sacrifice, Truth, Power, Beauty, Life, Memory, and Obedience (Ruskin 1849). Memory and Truth pertain to his views on anti- scrape theory far more than the other five: Memory refers to a building becoming a monument or memorial (a perfect civil building) that withstands time and holds meaning, while Truth discusses leaving a building as it was originally constructed, to honor the one who built it (Ruskin 1849). Ruskin’s approach to anti-scrape theory is concerned with maintenance of the building. To him, maintenance is preservation, which is the foundation of anti-scrape theory. Ruskin believes that rehabilitation in any form is “inauthentic” to the building: “The movement against this type of restoration was led by the English writer and art critic John Ruskin, who fought with an almost religious fervour against restoration, and emphasized the intrinsic and moral values in the true and authentic work of past generations.” (Jokilehto 1985, 5-11). Ruskin’s goal, as Jukka Jokilehto3 explains, is to allow the building to remain unchanged for future generations. His belief is that once a building 2 Ruskin’s supporters included Lord Byron, Louis Petit, George Street, John Stevenson, and William Morris (Null 1985,26-41). 3 Jokilehto, along with Null, Pappas, Ferro, and Stovel, wrote articles in the Bulletin for the Association for Preservation Technology. The bulletin focuses on historic structures and best practices on how to preserve them. The theme for 1985 was “Principles in Practice”, and discussed ethics surrounding preservation decisions, as all of these articles address. To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 9 is built by the person who designs and ultimately constructs it, then that is the end of its story. Routine maintenance and upkeep are necessary for this to happen. Ruskin believes maintenance is the only acceptable form of preservation, and he speculated that maintenance was not being implemented enough as a first option for preservation: “The principle of modern times... Is to neglect buildings first, and restore them afterwards. Take proper care of your monuments, and you will not need to restore them,” says Ruskin (Null 1985, 26-41). Ruskin does not believe alterations should be made (any form of rehabilitation or restoration), as those are lies that the building is then telling. John Ruskin states in The Seven Lamps of Architecture, “Do not let us talk then of restoration. The thing is a lie from beginning to end.” (Ruskin 1849). The memory and fabric of the building, to Ruskin, are ruined if rehabilitation takes place: he has no acceptance for rehabilitation whatsoever. The theory proposed by Ruskin is either to maintain the building from the start, or let the building completely surrender to the hands of time. “‘Restoration’... Means the most total destruction which a building can suffer;... a destruction accompanied with false description of the thing destroyed. Do not let us deceive ourselves in this important matter; it is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture… the life of the whole, that spirit which is given only by the hand and eye of the workman, never can be recalled. Another spirit may be given by another time, and it is then a new building; but the spirit of the dead workman cannot be summoned up, and commanded to direct other hands, and other thoughts,” states Ruskin (Ruskin 1849). The restoration that Ruskin refers to is his belief that to restore a building ruins its history, in turn, destroying it. Ruskin is stating that it is impossible to restore any part of a building once time has passed, as the builder is gone, so is the moment in time in which the building was made; this cannot be redone or imitated and still remain authentic to the building. All of this is lost because maintenance has not been enforced on the building, and too much time has passed to undo what was not done: “Restoration, then, is only legitimized by reason of negligence, not on its own virtue. Maintenance and stabilization, on the other hand, are of such importance, that even the artist Ruskin admits that aesthetics must be sacrificed in their favor.” (Null 1985, 26-41). A building only ever needs to be rehabilitated or restored because it was neglected in the first place— even Ruskin admits that maintenance and stabilization should come before aesthetics, and believes this restoration to be inauthentic, or a “lie”. Ruskin not only looks at architecture as art, but also as a thread within the urban fabric. “As 10 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 architecture is memory, then, serving as both standing history and historical consciousness, two duties devolve upon us; ‘the first, to render the architecture of [our own] day historical, and the second, to preserve, as the most precious of inheritances, that of past ages’. In Ruskin’s view the architecture that was so valued included not only churches and major monuments, but also houses and streets, ‘the smallest tenements’, or ‘a small house in a back street behind the market in Vicenza’.” (Null 1985, 26-41). He believes that preservation (maintenance) does not only apply to individual buildings, but to neighborhoods and their urban fabrics, where context is retained. Each building holds memories, and those memories weave together to create cherished spaces within communities: “[Ruskin] …may well have been the first to argue both the artistic and historic value of the common building and the urban fabric…” (Null 1985, 26-41). Historic districts fulfill this role in the preservation realm that we are familiar with today. Because of his philosophies and critiques of the aesthetics of architecture, Ruskin was an inspiration to some to kick off the Arts & Crafts movement (from 1876-1916 in England). The movement shifted away from the current industrialization that societies were facing, and put the focus back on craftsmanship and decorative design. It critiqued the labor being done by machines rather than people, and advocated for human workers over machines and industry (Obniski 2008). Inspired by Ruskin’s philosophies, William Morris became a central character in the Arts & Crafts Movement. He was born west of London in 1834 and had a privileged childhood for the time. Morris went to Oxford University, to study religion, and read books by John Ruskin, who he was very influenced by. After a trip to northern France, he discovered that he was more interested in art and architecture than religion (Victoria and Albert Museum 2018). He became a strong supporter of Ruskin and his ideas of “anti-scrape” theory: “In 1877, William Morris, in his Manifesto for the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) invited his readers to maintenance and respect of the architectural heritage, ‘to treat our ancient buildings as monuments of a bygone art, created by bygone manners, that modern art cannot meddle with without destroying’ and to ‘hand them down instructive and venerable to those that come after us’.” (Jokilehto 1985, 5-11). Because Ruskin placed so much meaning onto preservation and craftsmanship, Morris took these ideas of Ruskin’s to the forefront of the Arts & Crafts movement, creating reverence for our built structures and emphasizing maintenance (Obniski 2008). Morris takes the stance that we should maintain and respect architectural heritage, so that we are able to pass them down to the generations that come after us. Rather than making To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 11 alterations to these buildings, Morris agreed with Ruskin that it is best to let time run its course on our structures, to authentically preserve them for the future—maintaining them for what is to come. Scrape Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc took the other side of this debate: the scrape perspective. He was joined with some other colleagues as well4. Some of these colleagues, along with Viollet-le-Duc, were very interested in Gothic revival architecture. Gothic revival was a “progressive response to Neo- classical order and all its rigidities in the 18th century”, and most likely influenced the preservation opinions of Wyatt, Pugin, and Viollet-le-Duc (Inglis-Taylor 2024). As Gothic revival was somewhat progressive for the time, new ideas about buildings and what to save versus replace became more progressive. Viollet-le-Duc believed that it was important to not only repair buildings and structures, but to improve upon them to avoid having to make those same repairs in the future: he advocated for rehabilitation. He argues: “In restorations there is an essential condition that must always be kept in mind. It is that every portion removed should be replaced with better materials, and in a stronger and more perfect way.” (qtd. in Viollet-Le-Duc 1990). He speaks of restoration, but for the sake of this context, rehabilitation (as The Secretary of Interior would define it) is what it would be referred to in this discussion. Viollet-Le-Duc insists that rehabilitation is to be deployed in order to return the building to a condition that was not the same as it was before (not restoration as The Secretary of Interior would define it), while maintaining similar materials and craftsmanship. Like Ruskin, Viollet-le- Duc views architecture as art, but is indifferent about who it belongs to. Because of this indifference, Viollet-Le-Duc does not view rehabilitation as a destructive process, as Ruskin would. Viollet-Le-Duc discusses his opinions on preservation practices in his letter written to propose restoration work to be done on the Cathedral of Notre-Dame Paris in 1844. “In this case, it is necessary not only that the artist apply himself to propping up, strengthening, and conserving; he must also make every effort to restore to the building through prudent repairs the richness and brightness of which it has been robbed.” (Viollet-Le-Duc 1990). Here he states that in the case of the Notre-Dame, it is best practice to rehabilitate the building to an improved state. Improvements, however, do not mean that the preservationist should be making additions, but rather respecting the additions that have been added during the building’s history. He believes these additions to be a part 4 These colleagues were James Wyatt and Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (Janet A. Null 1985) 12 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 of the building’s story, or fabric: “However, we are by no means saying that it is necessary to suppress all the later additions to the original structure and to bring the monument back to its initial form. On the contrary, we think that each part, added in whatever epoch, ought in principle to be preserved, strengthened, and restored in the style appropriate to it, and this done with a reverent discretion, even with a total abnegation of all personal opinion.” (Viollet-Le-Duc 1990). Viollet-le-Duc defended the idea that the preservationist should make these alterations without being driven by their opinions, and stay true to the fabric of the building (rather than make design decisions to make real changes to the architecture itself, in present day). He considers that material conservation is best, to preserve both the history and the architecture: “What we say for the conservation of the constructional system we say also for the strict conservation of the materials employed in the original forms— first for the sake of history and above all for the sake of art.” (Viollet-Le-Duc 1990). Viollet-le-Duc is also interested in a form of authenticity and honesty through the importance of materiality, much like Ruskin, but done in a way that can sustain the architecture, after the building has surpassed its need for maintenance and needs more than just upkeep. Viollet-le-Duc is not so concerned about how the building was constructed originally, but rather how we can improve upon the architecture once it has deteriorated. His opinions about preservation allow for adaptive reuse to take place in scrape projects. His interest in rehabilitation of historic buildings allows for Viollet-Le-Duc to protect the building’s legacy for generations to come. Putting these Theories into Context Legacy/Examples of Scrape versus Anti-Scrape in the 20th Century It is difficult to find a historic preservation project that is truly “scrape” or “anti-scrape”. If maintenance has ceased for any reason, the structure starts to move past the point in which anti- scrape theory can be applied, and forces it into scrape territory. Two projects that serve as good examples of “majority” scrape or “majority” anti-scrape are Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia and Drayton Hall in Charleston, South Carolina, respectively. Scrape: Colonial Williamsburg Colonial Williamsburg is playfully nicknamed the “Disneyworld of scrape”, as it is a conglomeration of rehabilitation and restoration projects (Campagna 2013). Williamsburg dates To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 13 back to 1699, and many of the town’s buildings have been rehabilitated or restored. Some of the buildings are also staged in ways to make them look as if you are stepping back in time to see them as they originally were, although restoration and rehabilitation has happened both to the building and what the building contains. At least one building has been moved to Colonial Williamsburg from another place: the Bray-Digges House. The Bray-Digges House served as a school for enslaved Black children during the 18th century, and was moved from its original location on the campus of the College of William and Mary to the Colonial Williamsburg Historic Area (Connelly 2023). This approach to rehabilitation attempts to recreate the story of that era through the buildings in Colonial Williamsburg. Colonial Williamsburg would not exist in the same capacity in which it does today without the ability to be rehabilitated, as many of the structures degraded past the point of anti- scrape application. Anti-Scrape: Drayton Hall Drayton Hall in Charleston, South Carolina is a unique example of an anti-scrape project. It is a southern plantation house built between 1747 and 1752 and one of the earliest examples of Palladian architecture found in the United States (“Drayton Hall Architecture’’ 2017). The building had been kept in the Drayton family (which was well maintained while in the family’s ownership) until being acquired by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the 1970s. Instead of needing to rehabilitate it, the National Trust only needed to maintain the house; only structural repairs have been made, including the exterior stairs— all were deemed necessary improvements (Campagna 2013). These repairs are all considered maintenance. Skagway as Context Not only is it difficult to find pure examples of anti-scrape projects in the United States, but also within the context of Alaska, and especially Skagway. The preservation project that will be discussed in this document is the Patterson-McDermott Cabin, located in Dyea, Alaska. Dyea is a sister town to Skagway, which will be referred to most often, as it is remaining while Dyea is mostly abandoned. Skagway was originally inhabited by the Chilkat Tlingit community before the gold rush began, and Dyea was a trading and seasonal fishing village for the Tlingit and Tagish communities (Wackrow 2018). In the summer of 1897, stampeders began establishing themselves in Skagway to prepare themselves for the trek towards the gold fields in the Yukon, specifically Dawson City. There 14 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 were two routes during the gold rush that were taken to get to the Yukon: the White Pass Trail in Skagway, or the Chilkoot Pass Trail in Dyea. Skagway started off as a small homestead, progressed to a “boomtown” with the rush of stampeders, and then became a permanent settlement (National Park Service 2023). The economy then switched from one fueled by stampeders to dependent on the (much harder to come by) tourist dollar. Because of this shift, many of the merchants left Skagway, leaving many buildings abandoned. Residents began upgrading and moving these buildings to align with the slowly emerging city grid (Gurcke 2024). As for Dyea, a small townsite was created during the winter of 1897 through 1898 that was eight blocks long and five blocks wide. Many businesses were established here, such as hotels, restaurants, saloons, and supply houses (similar to Skagway). U.S. Army troops established themselves in March of 1898 as well. Dyea and Skagway were relatively even competitors through this period, but in April of 1898, there was a snow slide on the Chilkoot Trail in Dyea that caused mass casualties and steered many stampeders away from the town. Along with the construction of the White Pass & Yukon Route railroad built in Skagway in May of 1898, people were spending less time in Dyea and more time in Skagway. In the fall of 1898, Dyea was left in the dust and its population began to decline. Parts of its port were no longer accessible in the spring of 1899, and the U.S. Army’s camp To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 15 Skagway Map of Moved Buildings Goldberg Cigar Store YMCA Gymnasium Credit: Goldberg Cigar Store, NPS Credit: YMCA Gymnasium, view looking northeast, Phebe Davis, February 2024 Frye-Bruhn Cold Storage Building Peniel Mission Credit: Frye Bruhn Cold Storage ,building view looking southwest, Phebe Davis, August 2023 Credit: Peniel Mission, view looking southwest, NPS 16 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 had a forest fire, causing them to permanently move to Skagway. The population rapidly decreased after 1900, and after the post office closed in June of 1902, there were less than twelve people living in Dyea by 1903. After most of its population left, Dyea showed promise as a favorable place to farm, and became a homesteading town. Most of the buildings that remained were washed away by flood in the mid-1940s, and now Dyea is mostly an archaeological site, with very few original buildings still standing: the Patterson-McDermott Cabin being one of them (National Park Service 2019). The buildings in Dyea were not built to last over one-hundred years, and were obviously not properly maintained because of this. The buildings were built to accommodate the stampeders and the local population during and a bit after the gold rush, and then left to degrade after the population moved on. When preserving these buildings, such as the Patterson-McDermott Cabin, it needs to be taken into account that these buildings were not built with longevity in mind. What is our role, as preservationists, in preserving buildings that were not intended to exist in the present time? The “scrape versus anti-scrape” debate confronts this question: should we continuously maintain these buildings, or should we let them fade away, just as they were intended to? Not only were these buildings not meant to last long periods of time, movement of buildings plays a massive role in Skagway as well: a lot of the buildings have been moved, so they have been rehabilitated to a certain extent. Skagway and the overwhelming majority of buildings that are a part of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park (established June 30, 1976) fall into the “scrape” category (National Park Service 2022). Many of them have been rehabilitated or moved in order to serve a different purpose in this remote town. According to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) a moved building is always considered adverse. For the sake of this specific scrape versus anti-scrape debate, a moved building will be considered “scraped”, as moving a building is more than an act of maintenance. However, anti-scrape theory does not seem to be open to movement of buildings, as that is not leaving them in their original state or context; it exceeds basic maintenance. Anti-scrape for the sake of this context will refer to buildings that have been solely maintained over time. According to Karl Gurcke, the retired historian at the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, there are several reasons why people were moving buildings in Skagway: the first was associated with the realignment of buildings to the new city street grid, as the town was growing and establishing itself during and after the gold rush (Gurcke 2024). The second reason for the movement To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 17 of buildings was because of the sharp decline in the population of Skagway after the gold rush ended. Skagway started as a boomtown, but that boom did not last. The peak population was between 8,000 to 10,000 around 1897-1898, dipped down to around 3,000 in 1900 and had declined to only 850 people in 1910. Many merchants in the area left and abandoned their buildings, leaving them up for grabs (and to be moved) for the merchants that stayed to make upgrades to their current businesses. The third reason to move buildings is for preservation purposes. When the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park was established, the park acquired two historic buildings (Boss Bakery and the Goldberg Cigar Store), but did not also acquire the land that the buildings were on. (National Park Service 2022) In order to salvage these buildings, they needed to be moved onto park property. This also occurred in 2004 with the Frye-Bruhn Cold Storage Building. The Goldberg Cigar Store was moved by the National Park Service in 1979 for the first time, but is one of the least “touched” buildings in Skagway. It was moved a total of six times, but the interior has remained mostly intact: some of the original wallpaper is still there, and is being preserved behind plexiglass (National Park Service 2019). The building has deteriorated over time, but has been frozen in time in its current state due to maintenance and the efforts to preserve what is left inside. The Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park is responsible for other buildings that have been moved as well, such as: the YMCA Gymnasium (moved 75 feet west to its current location in 1902), Peniel Mission (NPS moved in 1993), and the Cribs (moved various times, acquired by NPS and moved to their property in 2014) (Gurcke 2024). Context of these theorists Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc are both writing their perspectives in Europe (England and France, respectively) during the middle to late 1800s. Preserving buildings during this time period in Europe that are being used, lived in, and well maintained, is a different context than not only the large scale of Alaska, but Skagway. Dyea is especially different, as the town died very quickly after the peak of the gold rush and was abandoned, so there was absolutely no maintenance being done. Buildings were not built to last as they were in Europe; those who built in Alaska did not expect the buildings to have much longevity, contrary to those buildings in Europe in the 1800s. Preservation in Alaska was out of ease of resources already being built, rather than to preserve architectural monuments or aesthetics. The maintenance being done was to keep existing buildings intact— if 18 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 there was no longer a need for the building, there was no longer any maintenance being applied and the building was left to degrade. In the context of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, preservation is about retaining the historic fabrics and stories of the gold rush in Skagway and Dyea. How we preserve these stories and buildings matter, and the contexts in which these projects reside matter: “In each case, the policy of conservation must take full account of the physical, cultural, political, and socio-economic context in order to reach concrete results.” (Jokilehto 1985, 5-11). Context is crucial— especially in one so specific as Dyea. How far out of these contexts can these buildings be moved, before we lose integrity of location and setting? The movement and “collection” of buildings (affectionately coined “building petting zoos”) in Alaska is unique to this region. But, without context, what are we really preserving— materiality, examples of Alaskan architecture, examples of craftsmanship, or narratives? What does Scrape versus Anti-Scrape mean in our world? The “Spectrum” of Scrape versus Anti-Scrape While John Ruskin’s beliefs fall onto one side of the spectrum, Viollet-le-Duc’s fall on the other. In reality, most preservation projects use a combination of both; they start with anti-scrape and shift into scrape as maintenance is no longer actively being applied. Some parts of the building may still reside in anti-scrape territory, while other pieces may need more than just maintenance and find themselves in scrape territory. Ruskin’s views are in the “either or” camp (either maintain the building or do not touch it) and it seems that in preservation practice in the United States, we are needing to deploy Viollet-le-Duc’s perspectives more often. Both of these preservation theories are respected, valid, and serve their purpose in the field: “It cannot be overstressed that opposing philosophies have validity on each side of the spectrum.” (Pappas 1985, 43-50). This was stated by Nicholas A. Pappas, who investigated scrape versus anti-scrape theory in his article in the Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology titled “Scrape and Anti-Scrape: Wherein We Explore the Treacherous Jungle between These Two Extremes; Discover the Perils Hidden Therein; And Seek the Path to Eldorado.” Nicholas Pappas, who critically examined scrape and anti-scrape theory in a 1985 essay, argues that both scrape and anti scrape have valid points, and neither is more important or valid than the other— both are needed and can work in tandem5 to preserve buildings extremely 5 In the case of the Patterson-McDermott Cabin, these theories can work in tandem with each other by rehabilitating the exterior, while preserving the interior. To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 19 well. When implemented, anti-scrape theory can stave off the need for scrape theory application. As we are facing new challenges and need to prioritize our material resources (including buildings that are already in our built environment). We need to start implementing scrape theory more and more into our preservation projects: rather than demolishing an already built but deteriorating building, rehabilitation can take place to save the already embodied materials. Rather than focusing on preserving aesthetics or just the architecture, use and materiality needs to play a major role in the determination of the type of maintenance or rehabilitation a project receives. This includes specific contexts and sites, like Skagway. Because of these new challenges (climate migration and displacement, extreme weather events, water availability, inability to grow crops or other plants, warming impacts, etc.) we need to preserve and maintain due to our lack of— or soon to be— resources, rather than just the importance of aesthetics. These building resources can include trees, water (needed for concrete), metals, etc. Both theories have their benefits and disadvantages, we just need to decide which serve the specific needs of individual preservation projects, including the Patterson-McDermott Cabin. Benefits of Anti-Scrape The benefits of anti-scrape theory are that the building or structure is being portrayed as it was when it was originally built: no new materials, form, or additions. Maintenance has kept the building in good repair. The only difference between the building when it was built and the current day building is the patina of time. In an article about the authenticity of preservation, titled “Authenticity in Restoration Principles and Practices” by Jokilehto, the author states that “Time is an important factor in historic objects. The patina of age is not the dirt deposited on the surface, but it is the permanent alteration of the surface of materials as a result of weathering and aging processes.” (Jokilehto 1985. 5-11). This is an excellent argument for the anti-scrape theorists, as time is a factor that cannot be altered or stopped by human hands. The aging process a building goes through is part of its history, and any alteration of that patina is a “dishonest” representation of the building’s history, according to Ruskin. Maintenance should not necessarily interrupt the patina of time, but rather allow the materials to age without deteriorating. However, even though time ages the building in a way that humans cannot alter it, time can be destructive, not restorative. How can we honor the history and passage of time while still maintaining the building for good use? Part of the allure or beauty from an 20 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 old building is from the age and patina that it has developed over time: “…The old building not only ‘connects forgotten and following ages with each other’ through its signs of age, but possesses actual beauty in those signs of age, ‘in that golden stain of time.’” (Null 1985, 26-41). People cannot replicate or replace this patina— time has to work its magic on the building, while also maintaining the materials to last. Anti-scrape theory is sustainable as long as maintenance is not abandoned: taking care of the building that already exists is the best place to start. Disadvantages of Anti-Scrape This leads into the disadvantages of the anti-scrape argument: as the building ages, it can fall into disrepair due to the hands of time if not properly maintained. The building or structure becomes unsafe for people to enter, and ultimately becomes unusable. Besides representing a history and a narrative, buildings are meant to provide shelter. Without proper maintenance and repairs that will eventually be needed as the materials of the building age, the building can no longer serve its purpose. It becomes a shell, and eventually just an artifact— before then being lost entirely (and losing the history as well). Benefits of Scrape The benefits of scrape theory is that it allows for the building to be rehabilitated after maintenance has been neglected. The full story of the building is able to be told, from original construction all the way to present day. When the scrape theory is applied, the materials in the building are rehabilitated. This paves the way for alternative uses for the current inhabitants, keeping the building usable and active. This is a sustainable practice as well, as anti-scrape theory would prefer to tear down a historic building and start from scratch once the building has reached a state of deterioration, while scrape theory calls for rehabilitation. Ruskin states: “… Accept it as such, pull the building down ... but do it honestly, and do not set up a Lie in [its] place.” (Ruskin 1849). Scrape theory is also sustainable, as it allows for the rehabilitation of already existing buildings and their embodied materials. Disadvantages of Scrape The disadvantage of Scrape theory is that the original building (both the use and the materials To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 21 that are held within it) can also be lost throughout time; whether that is through change in materials, additions, or altering the building in other ways. The patina of time can also be lost to a certain extent as well, as materials are replaced for repair. Most likely the craftsmanship cannot be replicated exactly to how the building was originally constructed, which could be considered a form of “inauthenticity”. Authenticity can show up in many different ways, whether that be the same craftsmanship, in-kind materials, provoking the same feelings and associations, etc. The most important goal is rehabilitating the building for use, regardless of the changes made. The conversation about preservation seemingly falls on a spectrum of “scrape versus anti- scrape” — but rather, the spectrum should be viewed as more of a timeline. Though there are standards that should be followed, there is no one correct way to go about every single preservation project, starting with anti-scrape (maintenance) and then move towards scrape (rehabilitation) when the building has been neglected or fallen into a state where it needs repair. There will always be gray areas and opinions about how to preserve, restore, rehabilitate (the most common use for an old building), or reconstruct individual aspects about every project. Preservation projects all come in different forms, but there is one goal overall: keeping the building and its story alive for future generations, whether that is for sustainability purposes or sharing knowledge from narratives that only that specific building can hold: “Restoration is the method for transmitting the work of art to the future.” (Jokilehto 1985, 5-11). Without maintenance and rehabilitation, our built resources and histories will decay. Buildings want to be used; that is their whole purpose. Aspects of Integrity Determining historic significance is also something that should be taken into account when deciding a preservation treatment for a building. The seven aspects of integrity are used to determine historic significance and eligibility of a property for the National Register of Historic Places. The seven aspects are: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. These aspects are considered when determining the wholeness of the building and its history; if the building does not have the majority of these aspects of integrity, that does not mean the building is not worth saving. Off of garnered materials alone, any historic building should be considered for preservation or rehabilitation. The theorists would have differing opinions about each aspect of integrity: 22 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 Location Location is not discussed explicitly by these theorists. Because of their backgrounds and familiarity with European architecture, movement of buildings was not nearly as common as it is in Alaska. It was easier to move a building most times in Alaska than to rebuild; but in 19th century Europe, only buildings with high importance were ones that were moved. So, does the movement of a building erase its historic authenticity? Depending on which context, that could be the case. Anti-scrape theorists could classify location being an extremely essential aspect of integrity to keep intact; the movement would be altering the historical fabric, which Ruskin is adamantly against. The movement would push the building out of anti-scrape territory and into scrape territory. Scrape theorists may most likely feel indifferent as it would be altering the building, but still worth rehabilitating a building that is deemed historic. Design The retention of the style and overall form of the building is another aspect of integrity. Anti- scrape theorists would feel very strongly toward the maintenance of design when preserving a historic building, keeping the building as anti-scrape as possible. Scrape theorists would feel indifferent about retaining the design, as rehabilitation efforts could alter design strategies within the building. Setting The setting aspect of integrity refers to the character of the place in which the building resides. Advocates for anti-scrape theory would be a supporter of the retention of setting integrity, as that would maintain the historic fabric around the building. Scape theorists would most likely not feel strongly about setting, as it does not impact the building as directly as other aspects of integrity. Materials The original anti-scrape and scrape theorists have differing beliefs about materiality: it is important to Ruskin, while not as much to Viollet-le-Duc. Ruskin believes firmly in the maintenance of materials, so that they do not need to be replaced with other materials– maintenance over rehabilitation. Viollet-le-Duc would support the replacement of materials; the integrity would not matter much in his scrape mentality, as Viollet-le-Duc is an advocate for rehabilitation. To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 23 Workmanship Ruskin believes that the only workmanship that can be done on a building is by that of the original builder; the rest of the work should only be maintenance. Are there ways in which we are able to replicate workmanship to preserve buildings? We absolutely can: by using similar (or even the same) tools or techniques from the time periods in which buildings were built, we can replicate the same type of craftsmanship done originally on the building. Viollet-le-Duc' theory most likely would support in-kind workmanship, but would allow for differences if it meant keeping the building in good repair. Feeling Again, neither theorist has much to say about the integrity of feeling. It could be concluded that anti-scrape theorists would be a major proponent of the retention of feeling, as maintaining the building to exist in the exact same state as it was built for hundreds of years would perpetuate the same feeling throughout that length of time. Scrape theorists would not feel strongly towards the conservation of feeling. Association The integrity of association is also not discussed amongst the theorists. Again, maintaining the historic fabric is important to Ruskin and one could speculate that he, including anti-scrape theorists, would be a supporter of the retention of association. Viollet-le-Duc may not feel as strongly, as he is content with the alteration and rehabilitation of buildings. Buildings and Histories are for People Buildings are places for people and for narratives to be continued. Both maintenance and rehabilitation must be done for the good of the building and to further its history. When choosing how to apply a preservation treatment to a building, ideally we would want to preserve or rehabilitate every building to live up to society’s current needs while also sharing the past. We must do our best to respect the building and its narrative, while also giving it purpose in its current day. Sir Gilbert Scott states: “First, that the monument is an historical document and additions are part of 24 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 that document; second, that man’s temporal needs may take priority over fidelity to the historical document; and third, that “conservatism should be the very key-note of restoration ... The great danger in all restoration is doing too much; and the great difficulty is to know where to stop.” (Null 1985, 26-41). Scott was an English architect during the Gothic Revival period: he had influence on over 850 structures, which he either designed or restored. Some of his most notable restoration projects were Salisbury and Westminster Abbey (Britannica 2024). In his quote, he explains that the building is a piece of history, and additions made to the building become part of its history; our needs for the purpose of the building may overcome the importance of preservation to keep the building in its exact state as it was once built, allowing for rehabilitation to be made. The priority of preservation should always be to conserve, but we need to make sure that we are doing it with the best intentions for the building and its history, while giving it use for the public. Climate-Changing our Views on Preservation Practices: Taking an Inventory Due to a global warming, we need to prioritize retention of embodied materials within already built buildings: after all, “The greenest building… is the one that is already built.” (Elefante 2024). Conservation can work towards maintaining materials and maintaining narratives within built structures: “Conservation work should aim at maintaining the authenticity and the potential unity of this whole.” (Jokilehto 1985, 5-11). Maintaining the building as an built entity and honoring the ways in which it was constructed (including materials, resources, and craftsmanship) when preserving or rehabilitating it is what both conservation and preservation work should intend to do. In order to use historic buildings, we need to make sure they are safe for people to inhabit by rehabilitating and bringing them up to code if they are past the point of maintenance only. Maintenance is incredibly necessary, but is not gratifying in the sense that you can see the effort that was put in— hopefully, if done well, that effort goes unnoticed. In his book, How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built, Stewart Brand wrote a chapter named “The Romance of Maintenance” and explains the gravity of maintenance, but the lack of incentives. The only reward is negating negatives. He explains, “Doing it is a pain. Not doing it can be catastrophic. A constant draining expense, it never makes money.” (Brand 1994). Maintenance is invisible work that people tend not to notice (or even want to do), but is crucial in extending the life of a building and its materials. Caring for the built structures that we already have can be daunting, but this work can prevent us from needing to construct new buildings To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 25 and in turn, saving so many resources. When doing this work, we need to honor the whole, while also breaking the building down into its various parts: to give attention to the details as they come up on a case-by-case basis— that way we can preserve the whole, one piece at a time. Each level of detail should be considered individually (to make up the whole); even small preservation acts can have major impacts on the entirety of the building. If we identify what parts of the building that need to be replaced and what is in good enough condition to stay, we can incorporate both theories into each project: “anti-scraping” the parts that are structurally sound and able to be maintained as they are, or “scraping” the pieces that have experienced decay over time and need replacing. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings is an excellent resource for preservationists that will help when making these decisions over each piece or part, whether to preserve, rehabilitate, restore, or reconstruct and do right by the building. All resources in all buildings need to be considered and treated as valuable. If we can apply anti-scrape theory to buildings before they fall into disrepair, these resources and materials that can be saved. Scrape theory can be applied to buildings that need to be rehabilitated— this will help make our buildings remain and keep their stories alive for future generations to use and enjoy, while also keeping a vast majority of their already embodied materials. The goal should be to keep as much of the building intact as possible, but maintaining it before it gets to the point of needing repair. We, as a society, are recognizing how important preservation is and we are learning how to create ways to legally preserve and protect our buildings and resources. Theories will evolve as preservation is a relatively new practice (to the United States), and we will hopefully come up with a more consistent way to preserve or rehabilitate, even though each building should be analyzed on a case by case basis. Morris states: “stave off decay by daily care”, in which maintenance is a form of preservation; one that should be deployed before needing to rehabilitate, restore, or reconstruct (Jokilehto 1985, 5-11). Both theories have their well-founded points about what is most important to the preservation field: by first implementing the “maintenance is key” idea from anti-scrape theory, and then the idea of not treating buildings as most precious objects but rather as a moldable piece over time can really contribute to the benefit of the preservation sphere, and to the advantage of the environment as well. As this field grows and ages, we will find new techniques that serve us; while treating each part of the building with care and consideration for what is best to retain its already embodied resources 26 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 to conserve for our future. If maintenance and rehabilitation were able to be applied to every already built building (not even historic!), we could drastically lower the amount of construction resources needed by our society and help reduce our climate impact. To Scrape or not to Scrape: the Patterson-McDermott Cabin While considering both scrape and anti-scrape theories, The Patterson-McDermott Cabin will be used as a case study. Through a preservation plan, both options will be explored and implemented, depending on which preservation goals and negotiations, deemed by the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, are best for the cabin. This case study is, in most aspects, past the point of anti-scrape: in order to salvage the building and its history, a lot of rehabilitation work needs to be done. The building was not properly maintained (anti scrape is no longer an option)— as it was not meant to last as long as it has. The cabin has been mothballed (which one could consider to be its own treatment strategy) to buy it more time. As time went on, maintenance issues were exacerbated and the building quickly fell into disrepair. If the Patterson-McDermott Cabin is a battleground between scrape theory and anti-scrape theory, scrape will triumph by a wide margin. There are some aspects that can still have anti-scrape theory applied, but they are small pieces to the overall preservation puzzle. Even though this project may not have universal “scrape versus anti-scrape” applicability (as it is mostly scrape), it sets a good example as to the relevance of this debate in our modern preservation culture today: as we move more towards climate catastrophe with every passing day, we have to preserve and restore what we do have, including their histories. As we lose more (land, materials, resources, species, etc.) due to climate change, we need to prioritize the already-built assets that we have. This most likely means implementing scrape theory, while deploying the intent of maintenance to the buildings that we need to keep in good repair. The Patterson-McDermott is a bit of a “misfit” of a preservation project: it has been moved more than once, and is in dire need of maintenance and rehabilitation work. The Patterson-McDermott serves as an example of what can happen to a building if maintenance is or is not performed: the families that took care of this building when inhabiting it allowed it to last much longer than ever anticipated (keeping it in anti-scrape territory). Once that routine maintenance was no longer applied, the building quickly fell into disrepair and now needs a large scrape effort to be sound once again. Maybe the Patterson-McDermott Cabin does not solve the “scrape vs. anti-scrape” debate, but rather exemplifies the consequences of the To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 27 Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 28 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 Background The Patterson-McDermott Cabin is managed by the National Park Service and is currently awaiting rehabilitation. It is a historic resource within the Chilkoot Trail & Dyea National Historic Landmark district of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. The cabin was originally located 500 feet to the east of its current location. The Patterson-McDermott Cabin has an imprecise beginning, but was most likely built as a barn by Arthur T. Wilson as a part of a homestead application. Wilson, a 42-year-old, unmarried miner from Indiana who began homesteading in Dyea, and filed for a homestead patent through the Homestead Act of 1862 for his 153.69 acre-lot. After Wilson’s death in 1928, a couple of people were squatting in the cabin. Wesley and Vivian Patterson, a couple from California, acquired the cabin in 1946 and rehabilitated the barn into a homestead. The Pattersons added a dormer and second floor in the cabin in 1948. They sold the cabin to John and Lorna McDermott in 1977; the McDermotts expanded upon the dormer and enclosed two windows on the north facade. On August 28, 2002, the McDermotts donated their cabin to the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, aiming to protect the building from the erosion of the Taiya River. The Patterson-McDermott Cabin was moved in September of 2002, and has remained there ever since. The Patterson-McDermott Cabin holds significance for its role in Dyea’s homesteading history, after the gold rush. The period of significance for the cabin dates from 1923 (the last year Wilson could have constructed the cabin) to 1977 (when the Pattersons sold the cabin to the McDermotts). It should be noted that the Patterson-McDermott Cabin is named after both families, due to the Pattersons occupying the building for the majority of the cabin’s history and because the McDermotts donated the property and saved this resource (Wackrow 2018). This property serves as a testament of not only Dyea’s homesteading history, but as an example of what maintenance can do for a building over the years. Others in Dyea have decayed due to time and the environment surrounding them — but due to maintenance, the Patterson-McDermott Cabin has remained. Although not much routine maintenance has been done in the past twenty-two years since the cabin was moved and mothballed, maintenance by the families that lived there kept the building and its history intact. The Patterson-McDermott is an excellent example of the lengths in which maintenance can sustain the longevity of a historic structure: and what can happen when maintenance is no longer applied. To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 29 Goals The main goals for the 2024 preservation plan are to focus on stabilization and to slow deterioration. Goals for 2024 Scope of Work: • Lead and asbestos abatement • Stabilize the cabin and construct a new foundation Scrape or Anti-Scrape? (ADA access to view interior) The goals for the preservation of the cabin mostly • Move the Patterson-McDermott Cabin to a more fall into the scrape category, due to the lack of permanent location routine maintenance performed on the building over • Focus on foundation, stabilization, roof, and restoration time. Because of this, many aspects of the building of front facade to period of significance need to be rehabilitated or reconstructed even, as it • Replace sill logs that have decayed past repair will be crucial in the stabilization process. • Secure exterior envelope to seal interior off to public use, but allow for public to see inside while protecting Some smaller pieces, such as window sashes and the building (mothball the building) logs that remain in good shape are anti-scrape aspects of this project. These goals for 2024 allow for the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park to preserve the cabin for a more public focused use in the future, such as a visitor center, listed under Treatment Alternative #3: Exterior Restoration and Interior Rehabilitation. Credit: Patterson-McDermott Cabin, view looking southeast, Phebe Davis, February 2024 30 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 Recommendations for Treatment 4. “Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and The 2018 Historic Structure Report for the cabin lists three preserved.” Alternatives for Treatment: Treatment Alternative #2 was chosen as the best treatment option for the cabin for the The dormer will be removed, as it is not from the 2024 scope of work. period of significance. 1. No Treatment 5. “Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and 2. Preservation construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship 3. Exterior Restoration and Interior Rehabilitation that characterize a property will be restored.” Non-extant features will be reconstructed (i.e. window Treatment Alternative #2 sashes, door) based on photographic evidence using in-kind materials and matching craftsmanship. Under this treatment alternative, the cabin will be mothballed and the interior of the cabin will be closed off 6. “The existing condition of historic features will from both visitors and excess storage. be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of The Secretary of the Interior identifies standards for the deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of preservation as follows: a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color, and texture.” 1. “A property will be either used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of This includes a new foundation: concrete post and pier the distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spacial with gravel pad (will be made to be inconspicuous). It relationships. Where a treatment and use may not also includes a new roof: removal of the shed dormer have been identified, a property will be protected and, and patching roof per the Structural Engineering Plans. if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken.” 7. “Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. A new site will be determined by the KLGO archeology Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will team for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin, while not be used.” maintaining spatial relationships and keeping the orientation historically accurate. These treatments consist of lead abatement and ridding of the orange chinking found on the exterior of 2. “The historic character of a property will be retained the cabin. and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and 8. “Archaeological resources will be protected and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, avoided.” mitigation measures will be undertaken.” Replacement of materials will be avoided, while also The archaeology team will shovel test on a grid on restoring missing windows and front door, with in-kind where exactly to site the cabin; their survey will take material. place over the course of three days in May of 2024. 3. “Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research.” Completion reports will be prepared after both restoration and stabilization efforts to document the work that was completed, including products used, techniques applied, personnel who performed work, and any additional information to document. To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 31 Pre Treatment Analysis and Pre Construction Analysis and Compliance Compliance Dendrochronology Paint Analysis In order to replace logs on the cabin, a dendrochronology A paint analysis needs to be performed on the interior report determined the age and species of wood that was to determine if there is lead paint in the building; a paint used to construct the cabin: sample was collected in April of 2024 before lead and asbestos abatement. “For the Patterson-McDermott cabin, the results also show that the cabin was built using timbers that were cut between the fall of 1897 and the spring of 1898. This indicates that Arthur Wilson’s barn, which was subsequently rebuilt by the Pattersons and later restored by the McDermotts, was in fact constructed from an earlier building, which was likely built in late 1897 or early 1898.” “The fact that some of the timbers used to construct the Patterson-McDermott cabin appear have some from [sic] alternate sources is not unexpected considering the many phases of construction and repair. However, all of these timbers appear to have been cut around the same time. It is possible that some of these trees might [sic] have been growing closer to the timberline, or they might [sic] have come from a slope facing a different direction. Considering the dates, and the history of timber re-use in the area, it is quite likely that these timbers may have originally come from two separate gold-rush era buildings and were subsequently re-used in the construction of this cabin.” “Finally, absolute dates were determined by cross-dating the floating chronology with tree-ring data from other nearby Sitka spruce stands, available from the International Tree-Ring Data Bank (ITRDB), using Tellervo.” (Ronald H. Towner and Jacob P. Martin 2022) Compliance Completion of the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act compliance requirements will be produced after this preservation plan. Above: Interior view of cabin with white paint on log walls. Credit: Patterson-McDermott Cabin, west interior wall, Phebe Davis, February 2024 32 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 Proposed Site The proposed location for the structure is along the Dyea Road, north of the Taiya River Bridge and south of the remains of Wagon Road. For the proposed site: • Ensure that the building maintains its historic orientation, with the facade facing west, towards the Dyea Road • Ensure that if there is parking, it is in an inconspicuous location, as to not distract from the west facing facade (facing the road) • Comply with The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties • Retain the wooded environment of the proposed site; avoid excessive clearing of vegetation • Tree removal will be dependent on site and driveway dimensions. This will be included in the Dyea Flats Road Engineering plan. • Prepare a site plan for the future location of the cabin Above: Figure 24 from Historic Structure Report showing front deck for (civil engineer will design the driveway off the Dyea accessible access to the cabin. Road) Credit: Patterson Cabin, north and east elevations (586-87), photographed by • Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Hunter Gruening, September 1952 (NPS, KLGO, Steve Hites Collection) Preservation Act to ensure that no archaeological sites are compromised • Ensure all proposed work is in compliance with the Scrape or Anti-Scrape? Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Movement of the cabin would fall under Scrape Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA). Keep accessible theory, as moving a building from its original site grade/ramp for window access to interior, so visitors could be considered as “inauthentic” because the may look inside. building could lose integrity. In this context however, • Ensure there is minimal signage. A wayside will be the movement of a building does not undermine created and situated south of the cabin integrity of location/setting. Considerations around • This structure is not to be used for storage by the park, building orientation retain much of its environmental as there is no fire suppression system and poses a fire character as well. danger. Above: Figure 6 from Historic Structure Report showing current site. Credit: Kalvick Property, view looking southeast, photographed by Kathleen Wackrow, NPS, April 2016 (NPS, AKRO, Historic Architecture, Patterson-McDermott Cabin Digital Files). To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 33 Present Site Above: Current site plan of the Patterson-McDermott Cabin, illustrating its first move Credit: “Site Plan (4)”, McDermott Cabin, Historic American Buildings Survey Drawing (AK-225), delineated by Elizabeth Johnson and Christopher Nielson, 2009. Left: Current site plan of the Patterson-McDermott Cabin, zoomed in Credit: “Site Plan (1)”, McDermott Cabin, Historic American Buildings Survey Drawing (AK-225), delineated by Elizabeth Johnson and Christopher Nielson, 2009. 34 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 Future Site Above: Map showing area that the Patterson-McDermott Cabin will be moved to. Credit: NPS Map by Jonathan Flood To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 35 Structural Improvements Scrape or Anti-Scrape? Complete all structural improvements outlined in the The structural improvements could be both scrape Structural Engineering Plans (2009). and anti-scrape. Stabilizing and maintaining the existing material would be considered anti-scrape, After stabilization efforts are made, transport cabin to new while replacing deteriorated sill logs would be site and set on foundation. scrape. • Remove dormer and rehabilitate roof • Replace sill logs If regular maintenance was done to prevent • Strap (fasten or secure) new sill logs to the rest of the deterioration, it is possible the structure could have building (seen below). retained its original logs, rather than having to • Move the building through a contract with secure replace so many of them, leaving it in the anti-scrape services and heavy equipment for relocation of a category. historic structure • Place on new foundation (gravel pad, 6” above grade, concrete post and pier with sacrificial skirting). • Let the cabin settle into place, then screw logs together Above: Example of strapped logs on the north elevation. Credit: Patterson-McDermott Cabin, view looking southwest, Phebe Davis, February 2024 36 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 Elevations and Log Work Scrape or Anti-Scrape? Repair and/or replace deteriorated sill and wall logs, The replacement of material (logs in this case) would with the original type of species identified by the be considered scrape. dendrochronology specialist (Sitka spruce) using a Dutchman splice, where appropriate. Apply Bora-care on If proper, routine maintenance had been done on exterior of cabin. the cabin and to the logs, many more of them could have been preserved, rather than having to be The main focus is on the exterior elevations only. rehabilitated. As of April 2024 (assessment done by Jesse Guilliams, Preservationist) the extent of the replacement is as follows: Elevations: • North Elevation: sill log and second course will require replacement. • East Elevation: the first four courses of logs (starting from the bottom) will require replacement at the very least (possibly more damage underneath the tarp that currently covers the cabin). • South Elevation: the sill log, second course, and third course will require replacement, and the fourth needs partial replacement, possibly full replacement (to be determined by the crew during the work). • West Elevation: the sill log is missing and will require replacement, the second course and third course require replacement, partial replacement of the fourth course, and replacement of the sixth course (north of the west facing window). Courses twelve through fourteen will also require replacement. Crowns (in addition to new crowns that will exist upon replacement of logs): • NW Corner: north-facing fifth and sixth, west facing sixth • SW Corner: most crowns are in good condition • SE Corner: almost all east facing crowns are missing, south facing fifth and eighth need to be replaced • NE Corner: east facing fourth crown (possibly more damage underneath the tarp that currently covers the cabin) Due to the placement of the cabin next to dense brush, the east elevation is inaccessible for photographs. The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) drawings will be used instead to show extent of log replacement. To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 37 Elevations East Elevation The first four courses of logs will require replacement at the very least (possibly more damage underneath the tarp that currently covers the cabin). 38 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 North Elevation Sill log and second course will require replacement. replacement in-kind with Sitka spruce of matching diameter Credit: HABS Drawings delineated by Elizabeth Johnson (2009) and Christopher Nelson (2009). To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 39 West Elevation The sill log is missing and will require replacement, the second course and third course require replacement, partial replacement of the fourth course, and replacement of the sixth course (north of the west facing window). Courses twelve through fourteen will also require replacement (*under the eave and visible from the interior of the cabin). 40 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 South Elevation The sill log, second course, and third course will require replacement, and the fourth needs partial replacement, possibly full replacement (to be determined by the crew during the work). replacement in-kind with Sitka spruce of matching diameter Credit: HABS Drawings delineated by Elizabeth Johnson (2009) and Christopher Nielson (2009). To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 41 Foundation Construct a new foundation: Excavate below frost line and fill with gravel; sill logs on new foundation; gravel pad, 6” above grade, concrete post and pier with sacrificial skirting (no stem wall). Sill logs will be above grade to accommodate for the high chance flooding in the near future. *Reminder to consult with Troy Feller, the structural engineer who did the original drawings for the Patterson-McDermott, about Structural Engineering Plans (2009). Consider with new site and engineer: future utilities and how to prepare gravel pad for future conduit. Scrape or Anti-Scrape? The new foundation constructed for this building Above: Photo of current cribbing foundation on the Patterson-McDermott would introduce new materials and would be Cabin considered scrape. A new foundation would have Credit: Patterson-McDermott Cabin, view looking northeast, Jesse Guilliams, been needed regardless of maintenance, because of NPS, March 2024 the need to move this project from river erosion and for proper and effective stabilization. Foundation Section Scale: 1 ½” = 1’ 0” Credit: Foundation Section, Phebe Davis 42 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 Foundation Plan Scale: ³/₈” = 1’ 0” Credit: Foundation Plan, Phebe Davis To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 43 Roof Structural Exterior • Remove existing shed dormer and patch roof with in- • Replace verge boards and fascia, in-kind. kind 1⁷/₈” x 8’ rafters and ¾” roof sheathing, per the • Install rolled asphalt roofing per industry standard, Structural Engineering Plans (2009) (page 43, right). oriented vertically on roof and tar the joints, per • Install ¾” plywood roof sheathing over existing 1” by historical photographs dating to 1947 and 1949 • 1- ½” roofing boards, per 2009 structural drawings. (Figures 18 - 20) • Install Grace Ice & Water Shield over plywood sheathing. Above: Figure 18 from Historic Structure Report showing roof and no Above: Figure 20 from Historic Structure Report showing roof and dormer, dormer. highlighted in red to show its removal. Credit: Patterson Cabin, view looking northeast, unknown photographer, NPS, Credit: Patterson Cabin, north and west elevations (586, 208), photographed June 1947 (NPS, KLGO, Dyea Color Slide Collection). by Hunter Gruening, September 1952 (NPS, KLGO, Steve Hites Collection). Above: Figure 19 from Historic Structure Report showing roof and dormer. Credit: Patterson Cabin, north and east elevations, unknown photographer, April 1949 (NPS, KLGO, Dyea Color Slide Collection). 44 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 Scrape or Anti-Scrape? The removal of the dormer and the restoration of the roof with new materials would be considered scrape theory. Because the roof has experienced so much damage over time (and no maintenance has been done), restoration must be done. If maintenance had been done, perhaps the roof could have fallen into anti- scrape territory. Credit: Roof Section, Troy Feller, P.E. (2009) To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 45 Windows Restore window openings and trim per historic *West window on the north elevation will be included in a photographs, dating to 1947 and 1949 (Figures 18 & 19). future scope of work, as it is filled in and main goals for the Install extant historic wood sash windows on all elevations 2024 scope of work is preservation and stabilization. using historical photographs as a guide. If existing historic windows are damaged, repair and/or replace materials in- kind and match existing profiles. If historic windows are no longer extant, reconstruct windows according to windows visible in photographs. Scrape or Anti-Scrape? *Dormer sash stored on the interior of the cabin will The maintenance of existing windows would be anti- be evaluated for inclusion in the museum collection at scrape, while the replacement of new sashes would Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. be considered scrape. East Elevation Windows Above: East elevation from HABS Drawings highlighting window shown in Above: Figure 26 from Historic Structure Report with highlighted window red. shown in red. Credit: HABS Drawings delineated by Elizabeth Johnson (2009) and Christopher Credit: Patterson Cabin, south and east elevations (586-86), photographed by Nielson (2009). Hunter Gruening, September 1952 (NPS, KLGO, Steve Hites Collection). Above: East elevation windows from HABS showing details. Credit: HABS Drawings delineated by Elizabeth Johnson (2009) and Christopher Nielson (2009). 46 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 North Elevation Windows Above: North elevation from HABS Drawings highlighting window shown Above: Figure 19 from Historic Structure Report with multiple highlighted in red. West window was filled in and will not be replaced during the 2024 windows shown in red. scope of work; however, it is from the period of significance and should be Credit: Patterson Cabin, north and east elevations, unknown photographer, considered in future scopes. April 1949 (NPS, KLGO, Dyea Color Slide Collection). Credit: HABS Drawings delineated by Elizabeth Johnson (2009) and Christopher Nielson (2009). Above: East elevation windows from HABS showing details. Credit: HABS Drawings delineated by Elizabeth Johnson (2009) and Christopher Nielson (2009). To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 47 West Elevation Windows Above: West elevation from HABS Drawings highlighting window shown Above: Figure 25 from the Historic Structure Report, highlighting in red. window in red; future goal is to return window to period of significance Credit: HABS Drawings delineated by Elizabeth Johnson (2009) and Christopher with two sashes instead of three Nielson (2009). Credit: Patterson-Cabin, north and west elevations (586-85), photographed by Hunter Gruening, September 1952 (NPS, KLGO, Steve Hites Collection). Window sash to be evaluated for inclusion in the museum collection for the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. Credit: HABS Drawings delineated by Elizabeth Johnson (2009) and Christopher Nielson (2009). 48 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 South Elevation Windows Above: South elevation from HABS Drawings showing no windows. Above: Figure 18 from Historic Structure Report showing south elevation Credit: HABS Drawings delineated by Elizabeth Johnson (2009) and Christopher with a bear skin attached to the south facade. Nielson (2009). Credit: Patterson Cabin, view looking northeast, unknown photographer, NPS, June 1947 (NPS, KLGO, Dyea Color Slide Collection). To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 49 Door Scrape or Anti-Scrape? Construct and install a new jamb to accommodate a new The replacement of material (the door in this case) door at the north elevation. For reference, use historic would be considered scrape. photographs dating to 1949 and 1952 (Figures 19 & 24). If the original door were still in existence, that would Construct a replica four-panel wood sash door and screen be considered anti-scrape, as maintenance on the door, per historic photographs dating to 1952 (Figures 21 door would be needed. & 24). Seal exterior envelope with reconstruction of door. There are no exterior trim packages on the entire building, as seen in Figures 21 and 24, below. Above: Figure 21 from Historic Structure Report highlighting door (and Above: Figure 24 from Historic Structure Report highlighting door (and screen door) in red. screen door) in red. Credit: Patterson Cabin, north and west elevations (586-88), photographed by Credit: Patterson Cabin, north and east elevations (586-87), photographed by Hunter Gruening, September 1952 (NPS, KLGO, Steve Hites Collection). Hunter Gruening, September 1952 (NPS, KLGO, Steve Hites Collection) 50 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 Credit: Drawing by Phebe Davis To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 51 Conclusion 52 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 Scrape versus anti-scrape theory can be applied to all preservation projects, and should be used in tandem with one another. Both are different avenues for maintenance or rehabilitation to be applied to a historic structure. As mentioned, both theories have valid and applicable stances on preservation practices. Anti-scrape theory attempts to preserve all that it can about the building and its history— including its materials and its narrative— by routine maintenance delaying decay. Scrape theory allows for rehabilitation to happen, regardless of the state that the building is in to give the building a new life, while honoring its history through what was left. When maintenance is not done on a building and it begins to deteriorate, scrape theory steps in to allow for rehabilitation to bring the building back to a usable state, and to keep its history intact. Scrape theory is more forgiving and allows for more leeway into saving a building that has deteriorated past its prime. Scrape theory comes after the lack of application of anti-scrape theory. Both theories apply to the Patterson-McDermott Cabin. This cabin is a unique example on how to evaluate and apply scrape versus anti-scrape theories because of its history of movement. Most of the preservation work that is proposed for this cabin will involve scrape theory (because most of the materials have deteriorated), but that is to stabilize the building and restore it to its period of significance. The movement of the cabin would be considered scrape theory, as moving this cabin to a different site would be rehabilitation rather than just maintenance, but the move plays an important role in preserving the structure overall, as its original site was lost due to river erosion. Anti-scrape theory can apply to the materials that need little to no repair (rather, maintenance), such as window sashes and some of the logs on the cabin. However, the replacement of materials that have deteriorated past repair would be scrape theory and is necessary for the well-being of the building. Scrape theory specifically applies to the replacement of deteriorated logs, missing window sashes, and lost door. Constructing a new foundation for the cabin would fall under scrape theory, as it is adding something to the building that was not built when originally constructed (not maintenance but a rehabilitative effort). Removal of the dormer and replacement of roofing materials would be considered scrape theory as well. If buildings need any preserving past maintenance, they will be implementing scrape theory into its preservation plan. This is the case for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin, and most likely the majority of preservation projects that exist today. Sometimes there aren’t enough resources or people that are able to constantly maintain historic buildings, and they degrade over time. This should not mean that they are past preserving: it is better to preserve a building that already exists, to tell its story, and to keep its materials around in mind of the environmental footprint that would be left if a new one were built in its place. To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 53 Each preservation project is different, but will find its own balance of the two theories, applying both when necessary: anti-scrape when only maintenance is necessary, and scrape theory when the building requires more than just maintenance to continue its story. 54 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 55 Citations Brand, Stewart. 1994. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built. New York, New York: Viking Penguin. Campagna, Barbara A. 2013. “True Green Cities / An Interlude on Authenticity | Barbara A. Campagna/Architecture + Planning, PLLC.” Accessed April 15, 2024. https://barbaracampagna.com/2013/02/an-interlude-on-authenticity/. Connelly, Abigail. 2023. “Bray-Digges House Moving to New Location in Colonial Williamsburg Historic Area.” Flat Hat News (blog). Accessed May 2, 2024. https://flathatnews.com/2023/01/23/bray-digges-house-moving-to-new- location-in-colonial-williamsburg-historic-area/. Crosby, Grant. 2001. “Hand Building the Aneroid Lake Resort, 1896-1941: A Study of Charles Seeber’s Horizontal Log Cabins in Oregon’s Wallowa Mountains and Recommended Treatment for their Preservation.” Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon. Drayton Hall. 2017. “Drayton Hall Architecture.” Drayton Hall (blog). Accessed April 15, 2024. https://www.draytonhall.org/ the-estate/architecture/. Elefante, Carl. 2024. “The Greenest Building Is….” Accessed March 17, 2024. https://carlelefante.com/insights/the-greenest- building-is/. Feller, Troy. 2009. “Preservation, Stabilization, and Fire Protection Plans Structural Engineering Plans.” Ferro, Maximilian L. 1985. “Scrape vs. Antiscrape: A Modern American Perspective.” Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology, Principles in Practice, Vol. 17 (No. 3/4): Accessed January 31, 2024. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/1494096 Flood, Jonathan. 2024. “Patterson McDermott Cabin Relocation Archeological Survey.” Gurcke, Karl. 2024. “Movement of Buildings Photo Essay.” Skagway, AK: Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. Inglis-Taylor, Allison Adler. 2024. “What Does Gothic Revival Mean?” National Trust. Accessed April 15, 2024. https://www. nationaltrust.org.uk/discover/history/architecture/what-is-gothic-revival. Johnson, Elizabeth, and Christopher Nielson. 2009. “McDermott Cabin - Historic American Buildings Survey.” Jokilehto, Jukka. 1985. “Authenticity in Restoration Principles and Practices.” Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. 17, (No. 3/4): Accessed February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2307/1494094. National Park Service. 2019. “Dyea - Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service).” Accessed May 5, 2024. https://www.nps.gov/klgo/learn/historyculture/dyea.htm. National Park Service. 2019. “Goldberg Cigar Store - Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service).” December 9, 2019. https://www.nps.gov/klgo/learn/historyculture/goldberg.htm. National Park Service. 2019. “Peniel Mission - Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service).” Accessed April 25, 2024. https://www.nps.gov/klgo/learn/historyculture/peniel.htm. National Park Service. 2020. “Foundation Document Overview: Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, Alaska.” National Park Service. 2022. “U of Oregon Partners with Park to Update Historic Skagway.” Accessed May 12, 2024. https:// www.nps.gov/klgo/learn/historyculture/parnters-in-survey.htm. National Park Service. 2023. “Skagway: Gateway to the Klondike (Teaching with Historic Places) (U.S. National Park Service).” Accessed May 5, 2024. https://www.nps.gov/articles/skagway-gateway-to-the-klondike-teaching-with- historic-places.htm. 56 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 National Park Service. “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Technical Preservation Services (U.S. National Park Service).” 2023. Accessed April 3, 2024. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/ secretary-standards-treatment-historic-properties.htm. National Park Service, Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park. 2019. “The Moore Homestead - Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service).” Accessed March 14, 2024. https://www.nps.gov/klgo/learn/ historyculture/moorehomestead.htm. Null, Janet A. 1985. “Restorers, Villains, and Vandals.” Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology, Principles in Practice, Vol. 17 (No. 3/4): Accessed January 31, 2024. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1494097 Obniski, Monica. 2008. “The Arts and Crafts Movement in America.” The Met’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed April 15, 2024. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/acam/hd_acam. htm. Pappas, Nicholas A. 1985. “Scrape and Anti-Scrape: Wherein We Explore the Treacherous Jungle between These Two Extremes; Discover the Perils Hidden Therein; And Seek the Path to Eldorado.” Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. 17 (No. 3/4): Accessed February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2307/1494098. Planopedia. 2021. “What Is Historic Preservation?” Planopedia. Accessed March 18, 2024. https://www.planetizen.com/ definition/historic-preservation. Ruskin, John. 1849. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. London: Smith, Elder & Co. Shrimpton, Nicholas. 2024. “John Ruskin Biography, Criticism, & Facts.” Britannica. Accessed April 8, 2024. https://www. britannica.com/biography/John-Ruskin. Stovel, Herb. 1985. “The Conservation of the Barnum House.” Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology, Vol. 17 (No. 3/4): Accessed February 1,2024. https://doi.org/10.2307/1494103. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2024. “Sir George Gilbert Scott Biography & Facts.” Accessed May 4, 2024. https:// www.britannica.com/biography/George-Gilbert-Scott. Towner, Ronald H. and Martin, Jacob P. 2022. “Dendroarchaeology in the Klondike: Tree-Ring Research at Two Historic Cabins in Dyea/Skagway.” Dendrochronology. Tuscon, Arizona: University of Arizona. Victoria and Albert Museum. 2018. “Introducing William Morris · V&A.” Accessed April 8, 2024. https://www.vam.ac.uk/ articles/introducing-william-morris. Viollet-Le-Duc, Eugene-Emmanuel. 1990. The Architectural Theory of Viollet-Le-Duc: Readings and Commentary. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Wackrow, Kathleen M. 2018. “Patterson-McDermott Cabin Historic Structure Report.” National Park Service. To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 57 Approval Page 58 Phebe Davis | University of Oregon | Master of Science in Historic Preservation | 2024 University of Oregon Historic Preservation Program Terminal Project Approval Page Student: Phebe Davis Title: To Scrape or Not to Scrape: Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson- McDermott Cabin This Terminal Project has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree in the Historic Preservation Program by: Committee Chairperson: ____________________Ju_s_tin_ _Fo_w_le_r__________Date: __6_/_6/_20_2_4___ GRANT CROSBY Digitally signed by GRANT CROSBY Committee Member: __________________________Da_te_: 20_24_.0_6.0_7 _11_:41_:52_ -0_8'_00_' __Date: __________ Committee Member: _________________________________________Date: __________ Degree awarded: July 2024 To Scrape or Not to Scrape? Writing a Preservation Plan for the Patterson-McDermott Cabin 59