TOWN OF BROOKFIELD
OFFICE OF THE
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
To: Board
of Selectmen
From: Selectman
Robert S. Phillips and Mr. Greg McManus[1]
Subject: Exterior
Condition of the Brookfield Town Hall
Date: August
13, 2002
On July 24, 2002, we examined
the exterior of the Brookfield Town Hall to assess its condition. The following
commentary is based on brief visual observation by walking the perimeter of the
building only. We did not have physical access to any of the exterior or roof
areas beyond what was visible from grade.
The town hall was built in 1904
using excellent workmanship and materials. The detailed brickwork accented by
custom cut limestone headers at various elevations including special shapes as
dictated by the architecture, true keystone arches, slate tiles on the roof
with (we assume) copper flashing, ornate architectural cornice and dental work
at roof soffits, fine oak doors, and broad Palladian windows resulted in a
beautiful building. It has lasted quite well for almost one hundred years
despite a minimum of exterior maintenance.
Because the building is listed
on the historical register, this will have an impact on any recommended or
proposed restoration.
The building probably has its
original slate roof and copper flashing, which was common on public buildings
constructed 100 years ago, with the best flashings being minimum 16 oz.
lead-coated copper. It is not possible
at this stage to determine what was actually used as a flashing material. It is
obvious from visual observations that various repairs and other localized
patches have been made to the existing flashing. The quality and type of repair
should be determined.
Copper flashing has a life cycle
of between 75 and 100 years after which the flashing essentially wears out from
exposure. When this occurs, roof leaks
are predictable at any roof juncture; that is, valleys, hip, transitions to
vertical walls, and any other location where flashings were used for roof
transitions. We are beginning to see such leaking now. It is very important to
confirm repairs have been performed properly.
It is common to fix emergency
leaks quickly and cheaply by applying alternative material patches, such as
rubber flashing materials and sealants to just stop the leak, however these
types of repairs are only a stopgap.
The long-term solution is to
completely replace flashings as necessary. This will require localized removal
of the slate roof. This will be an expensive process. As an estimate removal of
slates will be $1000.00 minimum per square (10’x10’). Lead-coated copper
flashing will cost a minimum of $12 to $15 dollars per linear foot. These costs
do not include necessary equipment to access the roof. This is a large roof and
these costs will easily add up to tens of thousands of dollars to facilitate an
in-kind repair to the existing slate roof.
The roof should be a
priority. It is critical to control
water entry from the top down, not the bottom up, unless other restoration
issues require higher priority.
The damaged wood soffits need to
be addressed with any roof repairs.
This is because localized removal of slates, flashings, deteriorated
wood sheathings, and wood framing
components may be necessary to access the damage associated with the wood
soffits.
Other issues to be considered
include:
·
control of falling snow and
ice;
·
use of alternative roof
materials;
·
installation of gutters.
Control of Falling Snow and Ice:
Because
slate is black and slippery, snow and ice on the town hall roof melt quickly
and avalanche off the roof. These
avalanches pose a very real danger to people and vehicles below. We should consider installing snow retainers
at the perimeter of the roof.
Use of Alternative Roof Materials:
Slate
is also an expensive and labor intensive material to work with. For cost considerations, there are now other
excellent materials available that are good imitations of slate. A roof of such material would appear
consistent with the building’s historic character and could be warranted for up
to 50 years. Snow retainers could be
installed at the same time thus eliminating the safety hazard.
Installation of Gutters:
Currently
there are only gutters above the two main entryways and probably these were
added as a retrofit. Gutters could be
considered for the entire building perimeter. (This would affect the aesthetic
look of the building and historical character.) The downspouts could be tied
into a drainage system to ensure water is drained away from the
foundations. This would help solve
problems with water in the basement.
As stated, repairing the roof should be the top priority. As discussed
below, roof problems are already causing damage elsewhere. It is pointless to invest money in other
repairs when such work is in danger of being undone at any time by new roof
leaks.
The roof has a large overhang
beyond the walls. This was done so
water would fall off the roof well clear of the walls and not run down the
outside of the walls or within them.
However, due to failed flashings
on the roof above the soffits, it is clear that water is now creeping under the
edge of the roof. Rot and substantial
damage to the soffits is visible on three sides of the building. The apparent damage is probably only a
fraction – perhaps half – of the damage’s true extent. Elsewhere the soffits and the decorative
dental work appear to be in good shape.
This will soon change if roof and
soffit repairs are postponed.
As the roof is repaired, the
soffits should also be restored by replacing any rotten wood, scraping the
paint down to the wood, priming, and re-painting.
The walls are constructed with
red clay bricks, probably handmade. The
brick courses are set to a variety of architectural bonds to accentuate the
façade – not just a common running bond – and are accented by limestone header
blocks. The original mortar was colored to match the brick and, to add a subtle
touch, a horizontal rod was pressed into the wet mortar to draw the eye to the
uniformity of the courses.
The walls are designed as a
"mass wall", assumed to be a minimum 16-24 inches thick at the base,
narrowing to 8-12 inches further up. This wall system is not a cavity wall
system, it is designed to deflect and absorb water. Such walls are meant to
"breath"; that is, they allow water as a liquid and a vapor to pass
into the bricks via the mortar joints during periods of rain and out when the
weather clears up. Liquid water is excluded from the wall by the kiln-hardened
outer face of the bricks and limestone materials.
However in many places the mortar
has fallen out. A regular maintenance program of raking and pointing should
have been started, probably at least thirty years ago. Roof leaks, missing
mortar, spalled bricks, and gaps around the doors and windows (see below) have
allowed excessive water inside the walls where it migrates down via gravity
causing various types of damage below.
In particular water seeps into
the bricks where freezing and thawing spalls[2] the outer brick face exposing a porous inner surface. One
can easily see the effects of this spalling: the face of many bricks by the
east entrance will simply crumble under a fingernail. In other places, the
outer brick face has been abraded away by the wind. Once the porous inner is
exposed it absorbs dirt and soot. This is apparent in the many areas where the
walls appear to be black. More importantly, porous bricks absorb water, which
accelerates the freeze and thaw destruction.
The bricks around each window
form a true arch. This means the arch is not only decorative, it is structural
as well; the physical integrity of such arches depends on its bricks staying in
place. Should the mortar fail and the bricks come loose, arches will fall. The
repair costs will be prohibitive.
All the mortar joints on both
bricks and limestone arches need to be raked and repointed. In general raking
and repointing common bond brick is in the range of $8-$10 per square foot.
There are some loose bricks, which need to be replaced.
The spalled bricks need to be
replaced or sealed. Replacement is very expensive. Bricks of the same size,
color, and composition are no longer being made. Perhaps bricks can be
cannibalized from less prominent parts of the building. (Given the present
condition of the brick veneer resulting from freeze-thaw deterioration – a consequence
of excessive water entry via failed flashing and mortar joints – just raking
and repointing joints will not effectively reduce water entry.) A pressure
cleaning, raking, and repointing of mortar joints in most places, should
suffice.
A method of sealing the brick
veneer is recommended. Siloxanes are used for this purpose. They are a clear penetrating sealer that
will significantly reduce water entry by making the wall hydrophobic; that is,
water repellant like a car wax. It will be necessary to recoat the façade every
5-8 years to maintain the waterproofing integrity. Siloxanes are permeable
allowing vapor flow but not water as a liquid. Another alternative would be to
seal with an elastomeric product. Such a seal would last longer but would be unsightly
and not compatible with this historic building.
The building's doors are made
from oak. The window frames are also
likely made from a hardwood, possibly oak. Given the years of neglect, if they
were some softer wood, they would have rotted away long ago.
Still the woodwork is in dire
need of repair. Rotten jambs need to be
replaced. There is a general need for
scraping, neutralizing mold and mildew, re-glazing windows, priming, and
repainting.
There is no caulking between the
masonry and doors and window jambs, and there probably never has been. These gaps – some as much as 3/8” – ½” –
provide yet another channel for water to flow into the walls and cause the
damage described above. All such gaps
should have the substrate properly prepared then caulked and sealed.
The windows are original single
pane. They should be replaced with
energy efficient windows. Given the building’s age and historic character,
visually compatible windows will have to be custom built. These might cost about $35/sq.ft. Although new windows will be expensive, the
energy savings will likely pay for the cost of replacement in just a few years.
The east door is in sorry
shape. It was a beautiful door of solid
oak but, exposed to the elements and neglected, it is bleached and
cracked. The panels are split and the
trim has lifted. It should be restored.
At the foot of the south wall
lies the original concrete apron. This
is convex-shaped to catch water as it falls from the roof, and is pitched to flow
to the east where a drain is supposed to carry the water away to the east
driveway. Currently that drain is
clogged so water pools around the drain and probably finds its way into the
basement. In addition, cracks in the
concrete apron provide water with other paths to the basement.
Replacing the apron and adding
gutters should dramatically reduce the amount of water in the basement. Consideration should be given to unblocking
the basement windows, which for some reason were bricked up long ago. This would provide natural light to the
basement space and allow it to be returned to general use.
There is no concrete apron on
the building’s north side. Water from
the roof hits the ground, splashing soil onto the building and causing
erosion. Gutters on the north side
would eliminate these problems.
The town has recently considered
other building projects such as constructing a new library, DPW facility, and
Safety Complex. However I believe we
should place a higher priority on preserving the fine buildings we already
have.
The Board of Selectmen should
promptly create a committee to oversee the preservation and restoration of the
town hall. Alternatively, it could
augment the charge of the Comprehensive Facilities Committee to include this
responsibility. Either way the responsible committee should also oversee making
the town hall ADA compliant.
The committee should draw up a
comprehensive plan to preserve, restore, and renovate the town hall and make it
ADA compliant. To the extent possible,
it should utilize the previous work by Chenot Associates, Inc.where
appropriate. The plan should include a number of stages reflecting the priority
of the work to be done and the cost for each stage. The committee should hire professional outside help when
necessary.
The committee should include:
·
members from the Board of
Selectmen, the Advisory Committee, and the Capital Improvement Planning
Committee,
·
members knowledgeable about
architecture and construction,
·
members willing and able to
raise funds, and apply for grants,
·
members who represent the
various stakeholders such as the Historical Commission, the Cultural
Commission, town hall staff, and the public at large.
In
1902 the previous town hall burned.
Within two years, by 1904, the Town of Brookfield was able to construct
a new town hall.
It
would be fitting if one hundred years later, in 2004, the town hall could be
restored to its original excellent condition.