Jump to content

Talk:Building restoration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should the term "restoration" be included in this article topic?

[edit]

With apologies to the creator of this article, "restoration" is being used in a lay-person's context with respect to historic buildings and inaccurately portrays interventions in a simplistic manner.

The definition of restoration within the context of the built environment is an intervention whose goal is to return a building or landscape to a particular state as it (hypothetically) existed in the past. It has a specific meaning that is not being properly used in this article. Intervention methods could include preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, renovation, or reconstruction (or variations on these terms). They are ranked as to the degree of alteration to the historic fabric of the building of landscape. The section on "heritage restoration" correctly begins with the proper definition of restoration, and then diverges into what is really a rehabilitation--"a part of heritage restoration can involve the replacement of outdated heating and cooling systems with newer ones." A rehabilitation places use value above historic or age value in its accommodation of modern uses.

This article should really be under the rubric of "building conservation" or "architectural conservation," not "building restoration". Tous ensemble 16:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about the non-technical use, which is dangerous, especially a a broader "architectural conservation" page already exists as decent and incomplete. I suppose information can start being transfered there as applicable, and this page can be changed to suite its precise technical meaning (e.g. as used in Secretary of Interior Standards, etc.). Morgan Riley (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Building restoration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Building restoration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rain Queen Modjadji Museum

[edit]

Would like the museum for the Rain Queen Modjadji. Khelobedu is grammatically similar to the quality of life. We now have the Rain Queen Modjadji Achievers Awards and Foundation. Which are founded by HE HrH Dr Tebogo Modjadji-Kekana. Granddaughter to the late Queen Modjadji Tebogo mokope (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

(Ptincher) My initial thoughts on the structure of this article is sections need to be expanded and others reorganized under different categories. Material in the overview I think would work better in either the introduction or a separate category, such as the difference between building restoration and Historic Building Restoration. I think this is an important distinction and should have their own subheading under building restoration.

I like that the article includes the NPS guidelines, but I think we should also include the Canadian Conservation Institute since those standards are well known internationally.

The material in the introduction at the top is only moderately effective. There is a single line which acts as a definition and then a distinction of the U.S. and U.K. but the bulk of it is made up by a quote. While that quote is valuable it doesn't fit there and would probably be better in the overview. The introduction should be reworked to give a sweeping but quick assessment of the field. Jmross10 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My next thought was that storm restoration should fall under a natural disaster category which would include subsections of fire, storms, earthquakes, flooding, etc.Ptincher (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you that this article may benefit from specific sections to allow the article to be a bit more expansive. There is a lot of great information in this article, but it is fairly compacted into the overview section. For readers that may be on the page searching for a specific topic within building restoration, additional sections could make this search easier. For example, sections could be created for the aims of building restoration as well as paint analysis as there is a significant amount of information about each. Additional sections could also be created to expand on a few topics that would bring more content to that page, such as a section for further discussion on the differences in the term restoration in the US versus the UK. While there is a quick mention of this, a new section discussing these differences could add a lot of substance to the article and provide clarity for readers. Allisontje (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be good to create a broader section for agents of deterioration, focusing on things like natural disasters which have a greater effect in building restoration. This way we are addressing a larger concept in conservation and emphasizing how that plays into building restoration. Jmross10 (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Restructuring:

  • Intro/Overview
  • Definitions
  • Reasons behind restoration
- Theoretical
- Practical
  • Standards of Restoration
- commonly recognized standards
- list which organizations take a lead in this field
  • Agents of Deterioration
- List of all agents
- Which ones are the biggest concern for building restoration Ptincher (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


These are just suggested headings, we can reorganize as needed for flow and ease of information. I agree that it would be best to focus on making changes to build a good foundation for future additions from our Wiki collaborators. Ptincher (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of expaning the secretary of state section to be an international definitions section. But, please don't do a US/UK thing in any changes... as this is English language Wikipedia... so geographies are not super useful. As English maybe spoken anywhere. That being said SPAB might be a useful point of reference, as would the stuff in the see also section of that page. Daniel Cull (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a guidelines section would be good to include those charters listed in See Also, in a basic introduction to how they work together, as an international framework for undertaking restoration work. This would probably allow the uncited statement about the difference between US and UK approaches to be removed from the introduction. The WMF also has some useful guidelines freely available online (added to reference section below), including specifically relating to post-disaster restoration. Generally linking this page to the other relevant pages would be useful. Daniel Cull (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that it wouldn't be beneficial to do U.S. versus U.K. in terms of restoration definitions. It limits the understanding of the discipline and doesn't take into consideration that this is an international field. It would be more effective to call it strictly "Definitions" or "Forms of Restoration" and then explore the different aspects of it. That way we create distinction but aren't limited to one country of the other. Especially since the terms are universal in many cases, even if the exact name is not. Jmross10 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a standard definitions section is implemented, it might be a good idea to create a section for national guidelines which acknowledges the Department of State standards but also the various charters in the "See Also" section. Finding a few other charters, from outside of the US/Europe, would be advantageous. This way there's a more rounded view of the discipline. Jmross10 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, the Adaptive reuse page is pretty good, and should probably be linked to, with some short section describing how Adaptive reuse is one form of restoration. Daniel Cull (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Here are a handful of references that may provide some additional information to this article. Please feel free to add your references to this list!

  • Gates, G. A. (2014). Discovering the material secrets of art: Tools of cultural heritage science. American Ceramic Society Bulletin, 93(7), 20-27. This source addresses conservation science methods, with many being applicable to building restoration
Publicly available here: https://ceramics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Cover-story_sept141.pdf Jmross10 (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Government of Canada, CCI (2018). Agents of deterioration. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/conservation-institute/services/agents-deterioration.html. This source addresses the Agents of Deterioration which could provide to the section on storm restoration and other ways to handle damage that may be experienced in a historic building/site.
  • Caple, C. (2000). Conservation Skills: Judgement, method and decision making. New York, NY: Routledge.
This is not publicly available Jmross10 (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ward, P. R. (1986). Nature of Conservation, A Race Against Time. Santa Monica, CA: The J. Paul Getty Institute. These two sources discuss conservation methods which could provide information to the paragraph discussing why building restoration is important and how decisions are made on what to preserve within a historic site.
Publicly available here: https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/nature_of_conservation.html Jmross10 (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jones, R., Silence, P. & Webster, M. (2013). Preserving History: Subterranean Termite Prevention in Colonial Williamsburg. Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. This source discusses the issue of termites within historic buildings and how the restoration of the buildings had to take prevention into consideration. Allisontje (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Publicly available here: http://museumpests.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Preserving-History-Subterranean-Termite-Prevention-in-Colonial-Williamsburg1.pdf Jmross10 (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources that may be good to use

Possible WMF/Disaster Reference:

Cultural Heritage Policies:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Building_restoration&oldid=1200431046"