CHAPMAN HALL PRELIMINARY WINDOW ASSESSMENT University of Oregon Campus Planning Campus Planning, Design and Construction June 2015 (updated January 2016) Additional information on the history of Chapman Hall is available in the “Chapman Hall Historic Assessment” and the UO “Campus Heritage Landscape Plan: 4.0 Survey of Buildings,” which can be found on the CPDC website: http://cpdc.uoregon.edu/. Historic images are courtesy the UO archives. Building drawings are available from UO Facilities Services. PROJECT CONTACTS Rachelle Byarlay, Student Planning Assistant Eleni Tsivitzi, Planning Associate UNIVERSITY OF OREGON CAMPUS PLANNING CAMPUS PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 1276 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403-1276 http://cpdc.uoregon.edu (541) 346-5562 CHAPMAN HALL PRELIMINARY WINDOW ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED TREATMENT STRATEGIES 5 BRIEF HISTORY OF STEEL-FRAMED WINDOWS 6 TYPICAL STEEL-FRAMED WINDOW TYPES 6 BRIEF HISTORY OF CHAPMAN HALL 7 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE RANKING OF WINDOWS 9 TYPICAL STEEL-FRAME WINDOW TYPES OF CHAPMAN HALL 11 TYPICAL PROBLEMS FOUND IN STEEL FRAME WINDOWS 13 DETERMINING THE BEST TREATMENT STRATEGIES 16 REPAIR TREATMENT STRATEGIES 17 WEATHERIZING TREATMENT STRATEGIES 20 WEATHERIZING TREATMENT STRATEGIES MATRIX 21 RESOURCES 28 BIBLIOGRAPHY 29 APPENDIX A - HISTORIC RANKING METHODOLOGY 30 APPENDIX B - PRESERVATION BRIEF 13: THE REPAIR AND THERMAL UPGRADING OF HISTORIC STEEL WINDOWS 32 APPENDIX C - TECH NOTES WINDOWS NO. 17: REPAIR AND RETROFITTING INDUSTRIAL STEEL WINDOWS 44 INTRODUCTION Windows are some of the most significant character-defining features of any building. From window opening, to frame, to sash, to glazing, their construction and materials play a major role in the design of the building’s facade and overall composition. A building’s window and facade design can indicate the aesthetic style, building materials, and building technologies of their time and place. Inappropriate or unsympathetic window upgrades and treatments can drastically alter the appearance of a building. With that said, concerns over energy conservation, continued maintenance, and other considerations have lead to growing needs of window treatments and alterations for our historic buildings. This assessment identifies and documents the general condition of the typical window types found in Chapman Hall and provides a variety of treatment recommendations for their continued use. This initial assessment is intended to be used as a preliminary resource for the treatment of Chapman Hall’s original historic windows when planning any alterations or additions. It is important to note that this preliminary assessment is not intended to serve as a complete assessment of every window in Chapman Hall. An in-depth window survey is required in order to fully understand the existing condition of Chapman Hall’s individual steel windows. This assessment consists of a visual appraisal of a sampling of typical windows types found on each facade of Chapman Hall. A broad range of conditions were evaluated including interior paint, exterior paint, glazing compound, window parts, interior stool, exterior sill, hardware, and operability. The overall window condition was ranked using the following scale: EXCELLENT = no/minimal repairs and routine maintenance required GOOD = Some repair of parts required FAIR = Invasive repair of parts required POOR = Invasive repair/replacement required ASSESSMENT SUMMARY The biggest cause of building degradation and failure is moisture (Preservation Brief 13). This is especially true for wet climates like the Pacific Northwest. In conjunction with moisture, another major enemy to buildings is UV exposure. This is why facade orientation and surrounding landscape features can greatly effect the degradation of a building. Overall, while being no exception to these factors, the windows of Chapman Hall sampled for this survey are in GOOD-EXCELLENT condition. No windows were in POOR condition. The most common problems found through this initial survey were the peeling paint, light rust, and cracked and chipping glazing compound. Additional problems found include missing or replaced hardware, difficulty or inability in operating the windows, air gaps, and medium rust. These problems and others can be categorized by facade and orientation. Please note that this is an initial general assessment of Chapman Hall’s steel windows. Before beginning any work, the following summary of conditions for each facade should be further verified with an in depth condition assessment of each window. Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 1 University of Oregon Campus Planning NORTH FACADE: In general, the windows on the north facade are in GOOD-EXCELLENT condition. The north facade sees much less sun during the day and, as a result, less moisture evaporates. This has caused some minor vegetative growth on some of the exterior sills. Typical exterior condition of northern windows. The steel window frames and sashes appear to be in good condition, although there appears to be some paint bubbling on the interior of some windows located in the offices. Also, there appears to be thick layers of paint on some of the windows. Further investigation should be performed to ensure that there is no corrosion hidden under the paint. Another condition found in some of the typical north windows is missing or replaced hardware. Vegetative growth on northern window sill and typical paint bubbling on interior of northern windows. In terms of alterations, one window on the first floor was converted into a second north entry. Also, the windows associated with the elevator shaft have been painted black and vents have been inserted. Vents were inserted into the windows of what is now Room 207A as well. Interior coverings were added on select windows on the first and second floors to provide visual privacy and reduce solar glare. (see Chapman Hall Historic Assessment for more detail) EAST FACADE: There are only a few windows on the east facade. Overall, they appear to be in GOOD condition. The steel window frames and sashes appear to be in good condition, although there appears to be thick layers of paint and bubbling on the interior. Further Typical interior condition of eastern windows. investigation should be performed to ensure that there is no corrosion hidden under the paint. Also, there is dirt and grime on the exterior windows, especially those on the stairwell windows. There have been no significant alterations to the windows on the east facade. 2 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning SOUTH FACADE: The condition of the windows on the south facade are primarily in GOOD-EXCELLENT condition with the exception of those in Room 303, which are in FAIR-GOOD condition. The windows in Room 303 that are in FAIR condition have been exposed to large amounts of sun, excessive moisture, improper maintenance/repairs, or various combinations of the three. Ultra Violet (UV) radiation from the southern sun can cause paint and glazing putty degradation. Cracked and chipping paint and glazing Typical interior condition of southern windows. putty have allowed moisture to penetrate into the raw steel of the frames and develop into light-medium corrosion on the window interiors. Also, there is a visible amount of corrosion coming through the painted steel lintels. The extent of the rust cannot be determined at this time due to limited access. Considering that other south-facing windows are in better condition than those in Room 303, it appears that there is a greater moisture problem in Room 303. However, a more in-depth assessment should be performed to determine the cause and level of degradation. Finally, the exteriors of some windows have been affected by animal Cracked paint, chipping glazing putty, and rust on nests. southern window in Room 303. As mentioned above, the remaining windows on the south facade have the same amount of exposure but are in better condition. Also, the hardware of the south windows in Room 202 and 203 is missing or has been replaced. Throughout the building, some windows are harder to operate and there is what appears to be dirt and grime on the exterior of the frames. Alterations made to south facade windows include the insertion of vents in Room 206 and an air conditioning window unit in Room 302. Also, one of the windows on Rust and animal nest on exterior steel lintels of Room 303 windows. the first floor has also been infilled and Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 3 University of Oregon Campus Planning three windows on the basement floor were relocated to the first floor (see Chapman Hall Historic Assessment for more detail). WEST FACADE: Overall, the west-facing windows are in GOOD condition. Like the south facade, it receives a lot of exposure as evidenced by the interior cracked and chipped paint and glazing putty, although it is not as prominent as the south facade. Cracked and chipped paint have allowed moisture to find its way into the raw steel beneath and some light Typical exterior condition of west windows. corrosion is present on the interior. Some of the steel lintels on the third floor show signs of rust as well. Further investigations should be conducted to verify the extent of the rust. Like the other three facades, the hardware of some of the west facing windows are missing or have been replaced. There have been no major alterations to the windows on the west facade. Typical interior condition of west windows. 4 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED TREATMENT STRATEGIES Based on the overall GOOD-EXCELLENT condition of the windows, the following treatment strategies are recommended first (see page 16 for more information about treatment strategies): ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (see page 18 for more details) REPAIR IN PLACE (see page 18 for more details) To address energy efficiency and thermal comfort concerns, a Weatherizing Strategies Matrix has been developed to help further assess the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment strategy. (see page 21). The following weatherization strategies are recommended for consideration after an in-depth window condition assessment is completed (see page 20 for more information about weatherization strategies): WEATHERSTRIPPING (see page 22 for more details) Weather stripping reduces air gaps where heated air can escape and can be combined with other weatherization strategies. It is recommended that it is applied to all operable windows in Chapman Hall and any fixed windows with air leaks. REPLACE ORIGINAL GLAZING WITH THERMAL GLAZING (see page 24 for more details) This strategy should be carefully considered upon a further in-depth window assessment and determination of potential energy savings and enhanced thermal comfort. The depth of the steel window sections and the load capacity of the steel frames should especially be considered when selecting and specifying the new thermal glazing. This strategy does not have to be applied to all windows - rather, it can be applied to specific rooms or groups of windows based on occupancy needs and the character defining features as described in the Chapman Hall Historic Assessment. STORM WINDOWS (see page 25 for more details) Options for storm windows include interior and exterior, fixed and operable. Interior storm window are usually fixed but there are operable options. Exterior storm windows can be both fixed or operable. Exterior storm windows can negatively impact the appearance of the building facade by altering the appearance of the window composition. Fixed storm windows are most appropriate for fixed windows. If fixed storm windows are installed over operable windows, the storm windows will need to be removed seasonally. This strategy should be carefully considered upon a further in-depth window assessment and determination of potential energy savings and enhanced thermal comfort. Also, it does not have to be applied to all windows - rather, it can be applied to specific rooms or groups of windows based on occupancy needs and the character defining features as described in the Chapman Hall Historic Assessment. Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 5 University of Oregon Campus Planning BRIEF HISTORY OF STEEL-FRAMED WINDOWS Metal windows were available as early as 1860 but did not become popular until after 1890. The technology of the rolled steel industry along with the scare of urban fires are the two primary factors that influenced the switch from wood windows to steel. Almost exclusively found in masonry or concrete buildings, steel windows boasted resistance to fire damage as well as extensive amounts of glass, increased ventilation, and thin profiles of extreme strength. This combination of features greatly affected and changed the appearance of industrial and commercial buildings of the early 20th century. The widespread use of rolled steel windows continued until after WWII when the use of non-corrosive aluminum windows became popular. Despite their decreased use, steel windows are still fabricated today. TYPICAL STEEL-FRAMED WINDOW TYPES 6 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning BRIEF HISTORY OF CHAPMAN HALL Chapman Hall, designed by Ellis Lawrence, was constructed in 1939 to house the Humanities departments and the Student Cooperative Store (university bookstore). Chapman Hall was named for Charles H. Chapman, president of the University from 1893-1896. The capitol project was funded by the Public Works Administration, a New Deal era program. Its siting was a part of the Lawrence plan for the central campus area anchored by the Memorial Quadrangle (1940). The first floor of Chapman Hall served as the students’ Cooperative Bookstore from 1939-1966. Originally, the second floor housed the English department and the third floor housed facilities for the modern Home Economics department. In 1966, the bookstore was 1966 south elevation drawing showing infilled window and three relocated relocated and interior partition windows. walls were added to the GLAZING ABOVE basement and first floors DROPPED CEILING to create a series of offices. DARKENED AND VENTS INSERTED DURING 2001 Since the relocation of the REMODEL bookstore, the upper floors of Chapman Hall have served WINDOW INFILLED DURING 1966 REMODEL as offices and classrooms for various departments. THREE WINDOWS Presently, Chapman Hall RELOCATED FROM BASEMENT TO FIRST houses offices, classrooms, and FLOOR DURING 1966 REMODEL the undergraduate Honors College. Existing south facade and its major window alterations. The first major alterations to the some of Chapman Hall’s windows of took place during the 1966 bookstore relocation. A window on the north facade was converted into a new entry and a window on the south facade was filled in. The second most significant window alterations were part of 1990 ADA Remodel, when three windows associated with an elevator shaft on the north Darkened glazing and vents on south facade of Room 206 as a part of the 2001 Room 207 remodel. Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 7 University of Oregon Campus Planning facade were painted a gloss black and vents were inserted. In 2001, Room 207 underwent a renovation. During this renovation, the ceiling of Room 206 was dropped. The glazing above the dropped ceiling was darkened (method used is unknown at this time) and vents were inserted. Also, glazing was darkened and vents were inserted into the window of room 207A on the north facade. In 2013, 1966 north elevation drawing showing removal of old window and the new second north entry an air conditioning unit was installed in the third floor WINDOW ALTERED TO computer lab and window INSTALL VENTILATION GRILL FOR NEW coverings were placed on ELEVATOR DURING select windows on the first 1990 REMODEL and basement floors to GLAZING DARKENED AND VENTS INSERTED provide visual privacy and DURING 2001 ROOM 207 REMODEL reduce glare. Bug screens GLAZING PAINTED A were also installed on select GLOSS BLACK AFTER INSTALLATION OF NEW windows (unknown date). ELEVATOR SHAFT DURING 1990 REMODEL 1966 SECONDARY A complete description of the NORTH ENTRY WITH alterations to Chapman Hall is 2010 ALTERATIONS provided in the Chapman Hall Existing north facade and its major window alterations. Historic Assessment and can be found in the Campus Planning website. TIMELINE OF WINDOW ALTERATIONS: 1990 Universal 2013: Window A/C unit Access remodel: installed in third floor alterations to Computer Lab. Coverings 1939: Construction windows in new installed over select windows completed elevator shaft on basement and first floors. 1966 Bookstore relocation: A new entry along 2001 Room 207 remodel: Glazing darkened and north facade replaces an original window. On the vents inserted in the window in Room 207A. south facade, a first floor window is infilled and Glazing above dropped ceiling in Room 206 basement windows are relocated to the first floor darkened and vents inserted. 8 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE RANKING OF WINDOWS The historic significance of Chapman Hall’s windows have been identified and ranked as primary, secondary, tertiary, or non-contributing. These rankings are based on the level of significance (defined by their level of contribution to the overall facade composition and their use) and level of integrity (defined as the degree to which the key historic elements are evident today) of the window. The rankings are defined as follows: Primary: Resources that have a high level of historic significance and excellent or good integrity Secondary: Resources that have a reduced level of significance and good or excellent integrity. Also, resources that have a high level of historic significance but fair integrity Tertiary: Resources that have a reduced (medium) level of historic significance but compromised (fair) integrity. Also, resources that have integrity but lack noteworthy significance at this time as an individual resource. Non-Contributing: Resources that lack noteworthy significance or have severely compromised integrity. They do not contribute to the historic significance of a large grouping or district and are not eligible for listing in the National Register. A detailed assessment of the history and significance of each full facade can be found in the Chapman Hall Historic Assessment. Please refer to Appendix A for a full description of the ranking methodology. Historic Significance Ranking of Windows Original facade drawing by Ellis Lawrence, 1938. Note that the original drawing does not reflect the existing conditions of the facade today. West facade windows East facade windows Ranking Key: Primary Secondary Tertiary Non-Contributing Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 9 University of Oregon Campus Planning North facade windows South facade windows Ranking Key: Primary Secondary Tertiary Non-Contributing 10 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning TYPICAL STEEL-FRAME WINDOW TYPES OF CHAPMAN HALL BASEMENT AND FIRST FLOORS The basement and ground floors were originally designed to be the Student Cooperative Bookstore. As a result, the typical windows found on these floors feature security bars. These windows are also combination windows, with some fixed panels and some operable. They are composed of windows 3 lights high by 4 lights wide or 4 lights high by 4 lights wide (see image below). In either window, a 2x4 light panel located one row below the top row of lights is operable and opens inward like a hopper window. Typical basement and first floor windows, Incorporated into the window sash are the existing (left) and original drawings (right). security bars. The construction of these bars match the original elevation drawings but not the original detail drawings (see below). Rather than functioning as a separate element and being imbedded into the brick as they were drawn, they are a part of the window sash itself. The current bars appear to be original despite this discrepancy. Photo of existing, but presumed original, security bars (left) and the original detail drawings for the security bars (right). Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 11 University of Oregon Campus Planning SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS The typical steel-framed window type found on Chapman Hall is a combination window in that some panels are fixed while others are operable. The panels are placed in a vertical orientation and are composed in the frame 6 lights high by 4 lights wide on the second floor and 5 lights high by 4 lights wide on the third floor. In both the second and third floors, a panel of the two Typical third floor window, existing (left) and bottom center lights of each window open inward original drawings (right). as hopper windows. Four upper center lights in a 2 by 2 composition open outward as awning windows. According to the original drawings (see below), the header of a typical window is composed of a concrete lintel with imbedded bolts where a steel angle is attached. This steel angle is used to support the brick veneer over the window opening. The interior of the header is finished out with plaster. The exterior of a typical sill is constructed from terracotta over concrete and slopes down to allow rain to drain away from the window. The interior is constructed from a concrete sill and finished Typical second floor window, existing (left) and with a metal stool. original drawings (right). Original window details. 12 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning TYPICAL PROBLEMS FOUND IN STEEL FRAME WINDOWS THERMAL BRIDGING and CONDENSATION Both single-pane glazing and steel window frames without thermal breaks are poor insulators and can cause thermal bridging from the exterior to the interior. This means that when the air outside is cold, the interior surface of the window and window frame will also be cold. Not only does this result in greater heat loss, but it can also create condensation problems. When warmer, moist air of the interior touches the cold surfaces of the window, the water vapor in the air will cool, condense, and collect on the horizontal surfaces of the window. If condensation is allowed to continuously come into Slight condensation found on interior of contact with the raw metal of the frame, corrosion window in Chapman Hall. Notice corrosion (rust) can occur, and if left to progress, can cause appearing at joints of steel frame. structural damage to the window. If the weather outside is at a freezing level, the poor insulation of the window and frame can cause the condensation in and around the window to freeze as well. The expansion of the freezing water also contributes to the degradation of the window. CORROSION (RUST) The most common source of degradation in steel- frame windows is corrosion. Corrosion (oxidation) is caused by the exposure of raw steel (primarily composed of iron) to air and moisture. Exposure can be caused by excessive and long-term condensation, paint failure, glazing compound failure, building enclosure failures, and other causes that expose the steel to air and moisture. The level of corrosion can be categorized as: LIGHT = flaking, surface rust MEDIUM = rust has penetrated the metal (manifests as a bubbling texture) but has not caused structural Corrosion found permeating through cracks damage in the paint and glazing compound on a HEAVY = rust has deeply penetrated the metal and has window in Chapman Hall. caused structural damage A sharp tool can be used to determine the level of corrosion. Heavy corrosion is present if the metal can be penetrated by the tool and brittle strands can be dug out. Because iron expands in volume when it oxidizes, if corrosion is left untreated, it can increases stress and damage the frame and parts of the adjoining assemblies. Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 13 University of Oregon Campus Planning PAINT FAILURE Paint is used to protect the steel from exposure to air and moisture. When the paint is not regularly maintained, cracks and chipping can occur which may result in moisture penetration and subsequently corrosion. Many layers of paint may also be present. It is important to remember that heavy layers of paint could hide any corrosion problems of the raw steel beneath. It could also negatively affect the operability of the window. Historically, steel windows have been painted with lead paint. It is critical to be aware of the health Paint failure found on a window in Chapman hazards before removing existing paint. Hall. DETERIORATION OF METAL SECTIONS The deterioration of metal sections includes bowing, misaligned, and bent metal sections. This deterioration is often caused by: • expansion of the metal due to corrosion • forceful operation • impact to the window • modifications due to unintended use of original window Repair of the bowed, misaligned, and bent sections is possible through applied pressure and/or heat. Condon Hall metal section deterioration (none found in Chapman Hall at this time). GLASS AND GLAZING COMPOUND FAILURE The most common causes of breaking or cracking of glass include: • impact • bowing, misalignment, or bending of the frame which causes stress on the glass which may lead to breakage • aggressive removal of old glazing compound or paint • alterations to glass panes to allow for vents etc. To prevent the individual panes of glass from falling out of the frame, it is necessary to maintain the glazing compound. Glazing compound failure can cause glass failure Glazing compound failure found in Chapman and can allow moisture to penetrate to through the Hall. raw steel and induce the process of corrosion. 14 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning HARDWARE ABSENCE OR FAILURE The condition of the hardware is a critical factor in determining the level and ease of operability of steel windows. Maintaining the operability of windows allows for natural ventilation and reduces the demand on mechanical cooling systems. It is common for hardware failure to result in removal or incompatible replacement. When rehabilitating steel windows, it is important to assess the presence and condition of all window hardware. If hardware is absent or incompatible replacements are present, one should try to find or salvage original hardware from similar windows Locking mechanisms on upper operable sections do not match the rest of the that may be too damaged to repair. If salvage is windows in Chapman Hall. It appears that not possible, custom fabrication is an option for they are missing handles. replication of original hardware. FAILURE OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE SURROUNDS Masonry or concrete surrounds not only provide structural support for the window but also, in routinely maintained conditions, move moisture away from the window. Typically, steel windows are built directly into their masonry or concrete surrounds. Embedded in the mortar, the subframe is usually left in place if offsite repair is required. If replacement is required, the subframe can only be cut out through the use of a torch. The condition of these surrounds is a major factor in Corrosion of steel lintel in masonry determining if windows can be repaired in place. surrounds on Chapman Hall. Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 15 University of Oregon Campus Planning DETERMINING THE BEST TREATMENT STRATEGIES ENVIRONMENT When looking at treatment options for Chapman Hall’s Thermal Comfort steel frame windows, the project criteria below should be Operability considered. Typically, the assessment, repair, and continued maintenance BEST SOLUTION of historic steel windows is always recommended before SOCIAL ECONOMIC considering window replacement. If replacement is the only Architectural Initial Costs option, replacing with steel windows “in-kind” should be Character Energy Cost considered. Historic Fabric Savings Maintenance Costs PROJECT CRITERIA The personal thermal satisfaction within a certain space. IMPROVE THERMAL “That condition of mind that expresses satisfaction with the thermal COMFORT environment and is assessed by subjective evaluation. “ (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2013) The ease or efficiency with which a window or building can be used. MAINTAIN (http://pdd-dart.rtkl.com/values/usability/) OPERABILITY The character defining features of a historic building. That is, all visual aspects ARCHITECTURAL and physical features that comprise its appearance, including, but not limited CHARACTER to, the overall shape, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, and its site and environment. (Preservation Brief 17) The original materials of a historic building. That is, its integrity, or HISTORIC FABRIC significant historic façade construction material or ornament, or fragments thereof. (http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/faqs/glossary.shtml#h) The initial investment associated with the construction, [renovation], or LOWER INITIAL completion of a building or project. (http://pdd-dart.rtkl.com/values/first- COSTS costs/) The savings achieved by reducing energy consumption. Based on annual ENERGY COST energy costs. (Preservation Green Lab, “Saving Windows, Saving Money: SAVINGS Evaluating the Energy Performance of Window Retrofit and Replacement,” National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2012, p. 32.) LOWER The ongoing costs associated with maintaining a building or project after MAINTENANCE occupation. (http://pdd-dart.rtkl.com/values/operating-costs/) COSTS 16 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning ECONOMIC SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT REPAIR TREATMENT STRATEGIES “It is better to preserve than to restore, better to restore than to reconstruct.” (A. N. Diron, Murtagh 2006, 4) Based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitation, the general order of approach for the treatment of historic windows are as follows: 1. Identify existing historic materials and features, assess their condition, and develop a plan 2. Protect and Maintain historic materials and features that are in EXCELLENT-GOOD condition and continue to maintain those that have been repaired or replaced. 3. Repair historic materials and features (in-kind where possible) that are in GOOD-FAIR condition 4. Replace deteriorated historic materials and features (in-kind where possible) that are in POOR condition or are no longer existing (if recommended) The different condition definitions can be defined as follows: EXCELLENT = no/minimal repairs and routine maintenance required GOOD = Some repair of parts required FAIR = Invasive repair of parts required POOR = Invasive repair/replacement required 1. IDENTIFY “Total replacement need not be necessary.... A careful evaluation of the windows can lead to their retention and repair at a lower cost than complete replacement.” (Young, 211) The first step in any treatment strategy is a careful inspection of each window and its condition to identify which windows can be preserved, which need repairs, and which need to be replaced. Elements to evaluate include, but are not limited to: • sash, frame, and subframe • presence and degree of corrosion • deterioration of steel sections Photo courtesy of NPS. • glass and glazing compounds • presence and condition of hardware • condition of the building surrounds Following this inspection, a rehabilitation plan should be developed. Typically, windows in EXCELLENT-FAIR condition should be Protected and Maintained. Those in GOOD condition should be Repaired in Place, while those in FAIR condition should be Repaired In-Place where possible or Repaired in Shop. Those in POOR condition should be Repaired if possible. If this isn’t feasible, it is recommended that they be replaced in-kind. The ultimate goal of this treatment method and the resulting rehabilitation plan is the retention and preservation of the historic fabric of the windows. Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 17 University of Oregon Campus Planning POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • helps to maintain Operability, Architectural Character, and Historic Fabric by identifying and creating a rehabilitation plan for the continued future use of the windows • Initial Cost is cheaper than full window replacement POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • does not solve heat loss through the thermally unbroken steel or uninsulated glass or any air infiltration issues, so it will not dramatically improve Thermal Comfort or Energy Cost Savings 2. PROTECT AND MAINTAIN “Maintaining historic steel windows for continued use is always recommended.” (Preservation Brief 13) If it is determined that the windows are in EXCELLENT - GOOD condition, the following routine maintenance is recommended: • remove light rust, flaking and excessive paint • prime exposed steel with a rust-inhibiting primer • replace cracked or broken glass & glazing compound • replace missing screws or fasteners • clean & lubricate hinges Photo courtesy of NPS. • repaint all steel sections with two coats of finish paint compatible with the primer • caulk masonry surrounds with elastomeric caulk This routine maintenance should also be performed on the windows in FAIR-POOR condition once they have been treated. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • helps to maintain and improve Operability • retains Architectural Character, and Historic Fabric by maintaining the existing historic windows rather than replacing them • Initial Cost is cheaper than full window replacement • helps improve Thermal Comfort and Energy Cost Savings by reducing some of the air infiltration POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • does not solve heat loss through the thermally unbroken steel or uninsulated glass or any air infiltration issues, so it will not dramatically improve Thermal Comfort or Energy Cost Savings 3a. REPAIR: IN PLACE If corrosion is extensive or the steel window sections are misaligned, routine maintenance will not suffice. Repairing in-place is recommended if the level of degradation allows. The following conditions can be repaired on-site: • medium to heavy corrosion that has not caused structural damage to metal sections 18 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning • realignment of metal sections if distortion is not too great • patching of small holes & uneven areas • cosmetic repairs and routine maintenance When extreme degradation is present, in-place repair may not be possible & may need to be removed for repair in a workshop off-site. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • helps to maintain and improve Operability • retains Architectural Character, and Historic Fabric by maintaining the existing historic windows rather than replacing them • lower Initial Cost than full window replacement Photo courtesy of NPS. POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • does not solve heat loss through the thermally unbroken steel or uninsulated glass or any air infiltration issues, so it will not dramatically improve Thermal Comfort or Energy Cost Savings • higher risk of damage to historic building, especially if welding occurs on site 3b. REPAIR: IN WORKSHOP When degradation of windows is extreme, in-place repair may not be possible. The following conditions require workshop repair: • heavy to extreme corrosion to frame & sash that requires extensive rust removal & cleaning • straightening of bent sections • welding or splicing in of new metal sections Typically, off-site repairs are reserved only for highly significant windows that cannot be replaced as the repairs are major and often cost-prohibitive. The procedures required for this level of repair should be Photo courtesy of NPS. performed only by skilled workmen. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • helps to maintain and improve Operability • retains Architectural Character, and Historic Fabric by maintaining the existing historic windows rather than replacing them POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • does not solve heat loss through the thermally unbroken steel or uninsulated glass or any air infiltration issues, so it will not dramatically improve Thermal Comfort or Energy Cost Savings • higher Initial Cost than Repair In Place. May be cost prohibitive than full window replacement Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 19 University of Oregon Campus Planning 4. WINDOW REPLACEMENT “Replacement should be considered only as a last resort.” (Preservation Brief 13) While replacement should be considered last, it may be justified based on the extent of deterioration and availability of replacement steel sections. If repair is impossible and replacement required, consider the following when choosing compatible replacements: • material • configuration • color • operability • number and size of panes Photo courtesy of NPS. • profile and proportion of metal sections • reflective quality of original glass Replacement windows made of other materials should be carefully considered as they cannot replicate the thin profiles of the original rolled steel sections. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • improves Thermal Comfort and Energy Cost Savings if new windows feature thermal breaks in the steel sections and are glazed with thermal glass POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • higher Initial Costs • loss of Historic Fabric • can negatively affect Architectural Character if the new windows do not reflect the composition and design of the original windows. WEATHERIZING TREATMENT STRATEGIES While historic steel windows are generally not energy efficient, there are weatherization methods that can help retain the historic fabric while improving their energy efficiency. WEATHERIZING STRATEGIES MATRIX The weatherizing strategies discussed in this section have been ranked based on the operation, situation (condition, occupancy, and window type), and the seven project criteria found on page 16. The matrix on the following page has been created to help further assess the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment strategy based on the mentioned criteria. 20 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 21 University of Oregon Campus Planning WEATHERIZING TREATMENT STRATEGIES MATRIX FOR CHAPMAN HALL STEEL WINDOWS PROJECT CRITERIA ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL ECONOMIC WINDOW RANKING WINDOW OCCUPANCY OF HISTORIC WINDOW TREATMENT CONDITION TYPE SIGNIFICANCE TYPE STRATEGY OPTIONS TRANSITION BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ?SPACES includes hallways EXCELLENT and stairwells WEATHERSTRIPPING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PRIMARY INTERIOR SURFACE FILM* • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • WINDOW SLIPS ** • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • OPERABLE EXTERIOR STORM GOOD WINDOW (OPERABLE) *** • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •SECONDARY INTERIOR STORM WINDOW (OPERABLE) *** • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FIXED GLAZING REPLACEMENT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • OCCUPIED TERTIARY EXTERIOR STORM FAIR SEATED WINDOW (FIXED) *** • • • N/A • • • • • • • • • • • • SPACES includes offices, INTERIOR STORM classrooms, WINDOW (FIXED) *** • • • N/A • • • • • • • • • • • • • libraries, and lounges REPAIR/ PARTIAL REPLACEMENT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •NON- CONTRIBUTING FULL REPLACEMENT *** • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • POOR not unknown at KEY: N/A applicable ? this time • ineffective • • effective • • • very effective Further information on the weatherization strategies included in this matrix can be found on pages __. For more information on the historic significance rankings of Chapman Hall’s steel windows and facades, NOTES: *assumes not tinted or reflective film please refer to pages __ in this document and to the Chapman Hall **assumes construction allows for operability Historic Assessment which can be found on the CPDC website. ***assumes they match the original sash configuration and operability I M P R O V E T H E R M A L C O M F O R T M A I N T A I N O P E R A B I L I T Y M A I N T A I N A R C H I T E C T U R A L C H A R A C T E R R E T A I N H I S T O R I C F A B R I C L O W E R I N I T I A L C O S T S E N E R G Y C O S T S A V I N G S L O W E R M A I N T E N A N C E C O S T S WEATHERIZING TREATMENT STRATEGIES 1. TACKLE OTHER ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES FIRST If improving energy efficiency is a primary goal for future Chapman Hall alterations, typically greater efficiency can be achieved and at lower cost through other measures than through window upgrades alone. These measures include but are not limited to: • whole building air sealing • improved insulation • upgraded HVAC system POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • enhances Thermal Comfort by reducing heat loss through more major heat loss sources (floors, walls, and ceilings especially) Major sources of air leaks. Image courtesy of NPS. • lower Initial Cost than window replacement Data source: U.S. Department of Energy. • increases Energy Cost Savings than window replacement alone • retains Historic Fabric and Architectural Character of the windows by addressing greater sources of heat loss first POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • may not address potential maintenance and repair needs of the windows themselves - i.e. continued condensation problems, paint or glazing putty failure, failure of masonry surrounds, etc. • may not resolve Thermal Comfort alone if windows are drafty 2. WEATHERSTRIPPING Weatherstripping is one of the most important first steps in reducing air infiltration around historic windows. There are four types of weatherstripping appropriate for metal windows: • spring-metal • vinyl or EPDM strips • compressible foam tapes • sealant beads Spring-metal options are recommended for steel windows in good condition. The use of more than one type of weatherstripping may be necessary. The success of weatherstripping is dependent on the use of the thinnest material to fill the space where air is leaking in. Too Drawing courtesy of NPS. 22 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning thick and it can bow or misalign the steel sections of the window sash and frame. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • improves Thermal Comfort by reducing drafts and heat loss through air infiltration • lowers Initial Cost than additional glazing or window replacement • retains the Historic Fabric and maintains the Architectural Character • reduces entry points for insects and moisture POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • while drafts are reduced, heat still transfers through metal frames and glazing • frequency of Maintenance depends on material, friction, weather, temperature changes, and normal wear and tear. Metal weatherstripping is the most long lasting. 3. INTERIOR SURFACE FILM Interior surface films are a self-adhesive polyester film that are applied to the interior of the window usually to reduce solar heat gains or to improve security measures. There are a variety of different types of film including: • Dyed/tinted films (NOT recommended for UO campus buildings) • Reflective or metalized films (NOT recommended for UO campus buildings) • Low-e films • Security films Although durable, films may scratch or bubble over time and need to be removed/replaced. Most films have a 5 to 10 year warranty, but can last longer with good care. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • improves Thermal Comfort and Energy Efficiency by reducing heat gain in the summer and potentially reducing radiant heat loss in the winter Application of interior surface film. Photo • retains the Historic Fabric courtesy of Vision Glass Film Products. • reduces UV transmission which reduces fading POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • does not retain Architectural Character of windows as it can alter the tint, color, and reflectivity of the window from the exterior • may have a higher Maintenance Cost than other options as it may scratch or bubble over time and need to be removed/replaced • reduces visible light transmission, however Low-E film can have greater light transmission than other films Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 23 University of Oregon Campus Planning 4. ADDITIONAL GLAZING If weatherstripping alone does not sufficiently improve window thermal efficiency, an additional layer of glazing may be necessary. Before choosing this method of weatherization, a careful analysis of the options should be completed. The most common methods of additional glazing include: • a glazing slip, which is a new layer of transparent glass or plastic installed onto to the window • a separate, independent storm window The energy savings associated with each method is approximately the same. 4a. ADDITIONAL GLAZING - glazing slips One method of additional glazing is a glazing slip. A glazing slip is a permanent second layer of glazing attached directly onto the window sash, either from the exterior or the interior. This glazing is usually made from glass or plastic. The choice depends on the ability of the window to support the weight, visibility needs, and continued maintenance needs. If a single sheet of glazing is applied over the sash of an operable window, the window will become inoperable. To retain operability, separate panels should be affixed to the sash. This could prove to be problematic with the typical windows of Chapman Hall because the operable sections of the windows are located in the center of the window’s length, rather than spanning across the whole window. Consideration and care must be given Plan section drawing of an additional glazing layer options to allow for condensation to escape added to a steel framed window. Image courtesy of NPS. between the window layers. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • improves Thermal Comfort by reducing heat loss through the glass and steel frame by creating an insulating air space between the exterior and the interior layers • retains Historic Fabric • retains Architectural Character of the exterior if additional glazing is applied to the interior • lower Initial Cost when compared to the other options for additional glazing • greater Energy Cost Savings by reducing heat loss through the glass and steel frame by creating an insulating air space between the exterior and the interior layers POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • Operability could be lost if the new glazing cannot be affixed to separate panels • some Architectural Character is lost if new glazing layer is applied to the exterior of the windows • increases Maintenance Costs if condensation , moisture, or grime build up between layers 24 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning 4b. ADDITIONAL GLAZING - exterior storm windows Exterior storm windows can also be used to improve a window’s energy efficiency. Storm windows differ from glazing slips in that they are units independent of the window sash. Storm windows should be compatible with the original sash configuration. Consideration and care must be given to allow for moisture to escape from between the window layers. Storm windows can either be fixed or operable. If a fixed storm window is used over an operable window, to retain operability, the storm window should be removed seasonally. As a result, this option is NOT recommended for UO campus buildings. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • improves Thermal Comfort by reducing Operable exterior storm windows. Photo courtesy heat loss through the glass and steel frame of NPS. by creating an insulating air space between the exterior and the interior layers • comparable Energy Cost Savings to an entire window replacement with energy efficient windows • lower Initial Costs, which can be significantly less than entire window replacement • preserves Historic Fabric by protecting the original historic windows from the elements and extending the life of the historic windows • they can come in Low-E coatings to reduce heat gain from solar exposure and UV radiation damage to the windows and the interior • reduces noise infiltration POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • prevents or interferes with the Operability of Chapman Halls windows • may alter the Architectural Character of the building • some Low-E coatings may also alter the exterior appearance of the building and conflict with the original Architectural Character 4c. ADDITIONAL GLAZING - interior storm windows Like exterior storm windows, interior storm windows can also be applied to a window to improve its energy efficiency. Some operable interior versions are available but most interior storm windows are inoperable and must be removed/installed seasonally for the original windows to remain operable. Consideration and care must be given to allow for excessive moisture to escape from between the window layers. If a fixed storm window is used over an Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 25 University of Oregon Campus Planning operable window, to retain operability, the storm window should be removed seasonally. As a result, this option is NOT recommended for UO campus buildings. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • improves Thermal Comfort by reducing heat loss through the glass and steel frame by creating an insulating air space between the exterior and the interior layers • comparable in Energy Cost Savings to an entire window replacement with energy efficient windows • Initial Cost significantly less than Interior storm window detail that is fastened magnetically. window replacement Drawing courtesy of NPS. • interior storm windows have less of an impact on the exterior appearance, thus preserving Architectural Character • can come in Low-E coatings to reduce heat gains from solar exposure and UV radiation damage to the interior POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • fixed interior windows installed over operable windows require greater Maintenance needs as they have to be removed/installed seasonally if windows are to remain operable in the warmer months. Fixed storm windows over operable windows is NOT recommended for use on UO campus buildings • some Low-E coatings may also alter the exterior appearance of the building and conflict with the original Architectural Character • not as effective as preserving the Historic Fabric as an exterior storm window since it does not protect the historic window from the exterior elements 5. GLAZING REPLACEMENT A second method of additional glazing is replacement with thermal glass. This could come in the form of insulated glass, laminated glass, E-coated glass, and other thermal performance options. Consideration should be made for the weight capacities of the original frame and the depth of the muntin bar sections. Thermal glass can differ in thickness and weight from the original glazing of the Chapman Hall steel windows. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • improves Thermal Comfort by reducing heat loss through uninsulated glazing • retained Architectural Character if the original glazing is not of special interest (stained, figured, etc.). At this time, it is assumed that the original glass of Chapman Hall is not of special interest • greater Energy Cost Savings by reducing heat loss through uninsulated glazing, but heat loss still occurs through thermal bridging from the steel window sash • retains Operability 26 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • usually greater Initial Cost than the Additional Glazing options, but less expensive than window replacement • the depth of the muntin bars may not allow for the thickness of the thermal glass required for the windows to meet certain energy efficiency standards • the original metal sashes may not be able to accommodate the weight of thicker thermal glass. • using glass with a different color, reflective property, or texture can alter the exterior appearance of the building and thus affect Section of a steel window with original plate glass Architectural Character replaced by insulated glass. Drawing by Martha • thermal bridging through the steel frames is L. Werenfels and courtesy of NPS. not addressed 6. WINDOW REPLACEMENT WITH THERMALLY BROKEN STEEL WINDOWS If a historic steel frame window must be replaced, an additional solution for energy efficiency is the replacement of the historic metal frames with thermally broken frames. Traditionally, steel window frame sections were rolled as one solid piece. A thermally broken steel frame can be achieved by fabricating the interior and exterior sections of the window sash separately and then assembling them with a gasket or other thermally resistant material between the sections. This acts as a thermal break. To reiterate, the strategies mentioned earlier in Section drawing of a thermal break detail in this document should be considered first before a steel window frame. Drawing courtesy of considering window replacement. Hope’s Windows. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES • improves Thermal Comfort and Energy Cost Savings by reducing heat loss through the metal sash • lowers continued maintenance cost due to reduced potential condensation problems from thermal bridging of uninsulated glass and solid steel window sections POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES • loss of Historic Fabric by replacing the original windows • potential loss of Architectural Character through incompatible window sash configuration and composition • greatest Initial Cost Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 27 University of Oregon Campus Planning RESOURCES RESTORATION/REPAIR MCM Construction Inc. Window Restoration & Repair: www.mcmbuild.com5621 Willow Lane www.windowrestorationandrepair.com Lake Oswego, OR 97035 3377 Cerritos Avenue 503.699.9600 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 info@mcmbuild.com 562.493.1590 WebInfo@WindowRnR.com Re-View: REPLACE WITH STEEL www.re-view.biz 1235 Saline St. N Hope’s Windows, Inc.: Kansas City, MO 64116 www.hopeswindows.com84 Hopkins Avenue, P.O. Box 580 816.741.2876 Jamestown, NY 14702-0580 716.665.5124 Turner Restoration: www.turnerrestoration.com Torrance Steel Window Co.: James (Jim) Turner www.torrancesteelwindow.com P.O. Box 02775 1819 Abalone Avenue Detroit, MI 48202 Torrance, CA 90501 313.574.9073 310.328.9181/866.776.7563 turnerrestoration@sbcglobal.net info@torrancesteelwindow.com Restoric LLC: Steel Windows & Doors USA: no website www.steelwindowsanddoors.com Neal Vogel 690 Surf Avenue 8 S Michigan Avenue, 38th Floor Stratford, CT 06615 Chicago, IL 60603 203.579.5157 312.854.7456 restoricllc@earthlink.net info@steelwindowsanddoors.com *will not bid against Seekircher The Steel Window Institute Seekircher Steel Window Repair Corp. www.steelwindows.com1300 Sumner Avenue www.seekirchersteelwindow.com Cleveland, OH 44115-2851 John Seekircher 216.241.7333 423 Central Avenue swi@steelwindows.com Peekskill, NY 10566 914.734.8009 seekirchersteelwindow@gmail.com REPLACE WITH ALUMINUM Viridian Window Restoration LLC St. Cloud Window: www.viridianwindow.com www.stcloudwindow.com P.O. Box 12230 390 Industrial Blvd. Portland, OR 97212 Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 503.922.2202 320.251.9311 info@viridianwindow.com info@stcloudwindow.com 28 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning BIBLIOGRAPHY ANSI/ASHRAE. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2013: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta: ASHRAE, 2013. Ellis Lawrence, Chapman Hall: Original Drawings, 1938, University of Oregon. Fisher, Charles E. Preservation Tech Notes: Windows Number Two - Installing Insulating Glass in Existing Steel Windows. National Park Service, 1984. Accessed April 21, 2014. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/tech-notes/Tech- Notes-Windows02.pdf. International Energy Agency. “Energy Efficiency.” Accessed June 2, 2014. http://www.iea.org/topics/energyefficiency/. Nelson, Lee H. Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character--Identifiying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character. National Park Service, 1982. Accessed June 2, 2014. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to- preserve/briefs/17-architectural-character.htm. NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission. “Glossary.” Accessed June 2, 2014. http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/faqs/glossary.shtml#h. Park, Sharon C. Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows. National Park Service, 1984. Accessed April 21, 2014. http://www.nps.gov/ tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/13-steel-windows.htm. Powers, Robert M. Preservation Tech Notes: Windows Number Seventeen -Repair and Retrofitting Industrial Steel Windows. National Park Service, 1989. Accessed April 21, 2014. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/tech-notes/ Tech- Notes-Windows17.pdf. RTKL. “The Dart.” Accessed June 2, 2014. http://pdd-dart.rtkl.com/. United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Glossary of Terms.” Accessed June 2, 2014. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/glossary.html#I. Young, Robert A. Historic Preservation Technology. Hoboken: J. Wiley & Sons, 2008. Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 29 University of Oregon Campus Planning APPENDIX A - HISTORIC RANKING METHODOLOGY excerpt from pp. 44-46 of the Campus Heritage Landscape Plan: 1.0 Landscape Preservation Guidelines and Description of Historic Resources Significance: SIGNIFICANCE “the meaning or value ascribed The actual evaluation of significance was based upon the process to a structure, landscape, developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, in object, or site based on the which a resource must demonstrate significance based upon one or National Register criteria for more of the following criteria: evaluation…” A. Association with significant events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of campus or community Integrity: history. “the authenticity of a property’s B. Association with significant persons. historic identity, evinced C. Distinctive architecturally because it by the survival of physical - embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of characteristics that existed construction; during the property’s historic or prehistoric period…” - represents the work of a master; - possesses high artistic value; or Source: National Park Service, Guidelines for the Treatment of - represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose Cultural Landscapes, p. 5 components may lack individual distinction. (Note: Criterion D, which addresses archeological significance, was not applicable to any campus resources.) Four levels of significance were designated and used to rank each Integrity criteria evaluated for each of the twenty-one landscape areas historic resource. The levels and their criteria were: surveyed: • high significance – considerable contribution to the history of the campus and its growth. Location/Setting – Are • medium significance – noteworthy contribution the history of the important elements still in campus and its growth. their original location and • low significance – discernible contribution to the history of the configuration? campus and its growth. Design – How has the general • very low significance/no significance – no discernible importance structure of the landscape changed since its period of to the history of the campus and its growth. significance? There is always room for debate about a resource’s level of significance, Materials – Are original as this determination is not a strictly objective exercise. Though the materials/vegetation that rationale for determining a specific level might never be entirely were used to structure and irrefutable, it should be defendable. It also needs to be recognized that shape the landscape still present? a resource’s significance might change as important connections to the campus character are eventually realized or discovered. Workmanship – Does the landscape retain characteristic workmanship from the period INTEGRITY of significance? Integrity is the degree to which the key elements that comprise a Feeling – Does the landscape resource’s significance are still evident today. evoke the period of Evaluation of integrity is based upon the National Register process–- significance? defining the essential physical features that represent it’s significance Association – Is it possible and determining whether they are still present and intact enough to associate elements of the landscape with significant to convey their significance. For example, if a building is deemed people or events? significant because of its exterior detailing and materials (criterion C), one would evaluate whether those items have remained relatively 30 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning unaltered. If this is the case, the resource has excellent integrity. Criteria were developed and used in the survey process to help determine each landscape area’s level of integrity (described at left). Integrity is ascertained based on the specific era (or eras) of significance for that particular landscape area. Four levels of integrity were established and applied to each landscape area: • excellent integrity – retains a very high percentage of original fabric, and the original design in- tent is apparent. • good integrity – retains a significant percentage of original fabric, with a discernible design intent. • fair integrity – original fabric is present, but diminished. • poor integrity – contains little historic fabric, and the original design intent is difficult to discern. RANKING LEVELS Historic rankings were determined by evaluating two factors: the resource’s historic significance and its integrity. Using a matrix (below), a historic ranking for each resource was determined based on one of four ranking levels: primary, secondary, tertiary, and non-contributing. Primary Ranking Resources that have a high level of historic significance and excellent or good integrity (likely to be eligible for listing in the National Register). Secondary Ranking Resources that have a reduced level of significance and good or excellent integrity. Also, resources that have a high level of historic significance but fair integrity (possibly eligible for listing in the National Register). Tertiary Ranking Resources that have a reduced (medium) level of historic significance but compromised (fair) integrity. Also, resources that have integrity but lack noteworthy significance at this time as an individual resource. These resources could contribute to the historic significance of a large grouping or district, though they are likely not eligible for listing individually in the National Register. Non-Contributing Ranking Resources that lack noteworthy significance or have severely compromised integrity. They do not contribute to the historic significance of a large grouping or district and are not eligible for listing in the National Register. high historic medium historic low historic very low or no significance significance significance historic sig. excellent integrity primary ranking secondary ranking tertiary ranking non-contributing good integrity primary ranking secondary ranking tertiary ranking non-contributing fair integrity secondary ranking tertiary ranking tertiary ranking non-contributing poor integrity non-contributing non-contributing non-contributing non-contributing Matrix used to determine the historic ranking levels for the landscape areas and buildings under study. Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 31 University of Oregon Campus Planning APPENDIX B - PRESERVATION BRIEF 13: THE REPAIR AND THERMAL UPGRADING OF HISTORIC STEEL WINDOWS 32 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 33 University of Oregon Campus Planning 34 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 35 University of Oregon Campus Planning 36 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 37 University of Oregon Campus Planning 38 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 39 University of Oregon Campus Planning 40 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 41 University of Oregon Campus Planning 42 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 43 University of Oregon Campus Planning APPENDIX C - TECH NOTES WINDOWS NO. 17: REPAIR AND RETROFITTING INDUSTRIAL STEEL WINDOWS 44 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 45 University of Oregon Campus Planning 46 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 47 University of Oregon Campus Planning 48 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 49 University of Oregon Campus Planning 50 Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) University of Oregon Campus Planning Chapman Hall Window Assessment June 2015 (updated January 2016) 51 University of Oregon Campus Planning