this response includes input from a number of the design ... · & partners [dmp]: structural...

This response includes input from a number of the Design Team members. From the John Greenwalt Lee Company (JGLCo): John Lee, Principal, and Charles Phillips, AIA. From Dewhurst-Macfarlane & Partners [DMP]: Structural Engineer Tim Macfarlane, RIBA. Also included in recent work at Menokin is DATA Investigations whose archaeological findings and proposals are referenced, and whose report is in the online list of documents attached to the Executive Summary.

Report to the Board of TrusteesPrepared by the Advisory Council

This report summarizes the findings, reactions, recommendations and suggestions by the Advisory Council on Menokin, following the retreat held at Menokin on September 27 and 28, 2009.

General CommentsAs an Advisory Council, we accepted this assignment with the understanding that our role was to provide feedback as design professionals, conservation experts, archaeologists and landscape architects, etc, i.e. as carefully selected experts in our respective fields to assist Menokin in its quest to shape a meaningful, sustainable and responsible future for this important historic, cultural and architectural resource.

The [perceived] tasks at hand were specifically to review:✓ work to date on the stabilization of the collapsed building,✓ work to date on the archaeology at the site, and✓ provide feedback on the concept of the “glass house” for preservation and re-presentation /

interpretation of the historic structure

We were presented on Saturday with four talks that covered the following:Presentation 1:! Site Archaeology Completed to DatePresentation 2:! Conservation WorkPresentation 3:! Overview of Structural Glass TechnologyPresentation 4:! An Overview of Building Conservation / Sustainability / Energy ! ! ! Conservation, etc.

Comments on Presentation 1:The presentation was clear, concise and to the point, laying out the work to date and focusing on the assignments to date, with some references of additional open issues that should be considered.

Through the presentation and the discussion it appears that there is no comprehensive plan for the entire site that would:• clearly delineate what the research to date has revealed for the entire site• outline what additional areas should be studied• determine what the priorities should be and in what sequence• projects the costs for a comprehensive archaeology program.

Note: If there is such plan, it was not clear to us, as we did not have the opportunity to see it, review it, etc.

Design Team Response to First Advisory Council Letter of 23

Recommendations have been made by the Design Team for developing a more holistic approach to the use of the site, including further archaeological investigation. To the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive site plan has been commissioned, but this question is best put to the Executive Director. Please see our Executive Summary for more information about work completed under our contracts with Menokin. A separate engineering summary will follow soon.

Prior to our arrival at Menokin in late 2005, there had been studies, archaeology, and planning going on for ten years using a number of architectural, historic preservation and engineering firms. The details and conclusions of this work should best come from the Executive Director.

When the John Greenwalt Lee Company began at Menokin in late 2005, we were tasked only with immediate stabilization, which necessarily began with extraction of fallen elements that were wedging outward the walls of the SW quadrant. To assist future modeling of the collapse and to ensure no information was lost about an artifact’s location and orientation in the pile, we initiated the recording of XYZ coordinates at several points on each artifact. By spring 2006, we were beginning to provide the Foundation with a vision for the future of the house that contrasted with their original plan to not intervene, including production of the first glass house model in March 2006.

Until that time, the idea was that the house would remain a graceful ruin, but it was becoming increasingly clear that with debris still pushing the walls outward, a lack of downward loading on the walls, and mortar missing from the joints, the house was disintegrating more rapidly than the Board of Trustees had anticipated.

The discussion of an alternate stabilization and presentation of the house began with enclosing the current over-structure (canopy) with sides. The engineers for the over-structure were not happy when they heard this was being discussed, saying that it could not be done and they would object to any attempts to do so. We contacted an additional structural engineer who also said the legs attached to the over-structure had not been designed in such a way to accommodate a partial or full enclosure and would require significant and expensive alterations to enclose.

The Trustees realized that enclosing the house might protect it, but it would no longer be visible, complicating presentation of the house on its site. We also pointed out that even once realigned, these load-bearing walls would need an unobtrusive downward pressure (normally provided by roof and floor loads) to keep the system together. There was also discussion of building a larger glass structure around the entire site so the house could still be seen at a distance while allowing work to proceed inside. In fact this concept pre-dated our arrival. When we presented the idea of integrating the glass into the walls so the original geometry of the house did not change, the Board concluded it was the first viable idea they had received for saving the house and planning for the future.

The “glass house” idea developed from the goal of protecting the remaining building portions from the weathering environment in a way that did not obscure the remaining fabric into a plan for recreating the mass of the building by putting glass in areas where walls and roof were missing. In addition, we believed it ought to be possible to build a glass structure onto which the structural timbers and decorative woodwork could be re-hung in their original locations. The advantage of this strategy over a standard tear-down and reconstruct approach is that the house remains as a ruin, but is protected and can further the Foundation’s mandate to educate both the public and preservation profession about how these buildings were constructed and function.


A key benefit is that there is no alteration of original fabric; the glass abuts but does change the structure and is reversible according to the tenets of preservation philosophy (compatibility, predictability and reversibility). When we first of this plan, we believed it would require a free-standing armature inside to carry some of the glass. It was not until the John Greenwalt Lee Company [JGLCo] team began learning more about Tim Macfarlane’s work and met with him at a Corning Museum Glass Conference that we realized the glass could directly load the stone with structural glass fins, thus eliminating the need for any steel and concrete armature or the addition of new foundations which would inevitably affect both the original elements of the building and the ability to see only the house and its parts as a “visible 18th century building.”

In the summer of 2009, we were asked to provide our ideas for the site in a Vision Statement for the Advisory Council and the Trustees in preparation for their fall retreat to assist with development of a formalized site plan.

Extraction of artifacts since our arrival has been conducted with the assistance of an archaeology team using archaeological recordation methods. Each period of extraction has generated a weekly report to the Board including photographs. Extraction sheets have been entered into a database.

To better understand conditions around the house as discussions for interpretation and protection of the house moved forward, DATA Investigations conducted a close-interval contour survey and shovel test pit inspection to 500 feet out from the house in all directions. All data was linked to a GIS database. In addition, David Givens condcted a more in-depth look at the terraces which appear to be more extensive than previously thought, including an uncommon terraced kitchen garden.

Among the more interesting findings was a shell entrance drive extending from the ravine across from the house to the front door with evidence of flanking dependencies. Samples were collected with future ethno-botanical investigations of seed and pollen sources in mind, as a means to assist dating of garden cultivation and inform us about earlier forestation patterns. The archaeological investigations in 2008 were catalogued by DATA in “An Archaeological Survey of Menokin, Site 44RD35” and an Extraction Summary through 2009 was delivered August 29. We did not know the Advisory Council was unaware of these documents. Details of archaeological work preceding our arrival at Menokin should come directly from the Executive Director.

Although no member of the Design Team has been hired to develop a long-term plan for archaeological investigations, we did work together in preparation for the Advisory Council’s first meeting to lay out a plan for approaching further archaeology and interpretation at the site over the next five years given the issues we believed to be important (but also recognizing that issues such as ethnobotanical studies have not yet taken hold with the Foundation).

The 5-year plan and budget the Advisory Council Chair requested for the first meeting were laid out in the “Proposed Menokin Master Plan Budgeting through 2014” document presented at the September 26-7 meeting and included the Design Team’s sense of how use of the site should proceed. This overview included construction of the “glass house,” development of formal preservation and environmental education programs, archaeology and garden research, and the associated administrative and facilities upgrades that would be needed, with associated budgets. As stated at the first meeting, this plan and budget, unlike the Vision Statement, was not vetted by the Trustees as they had not yet requested such a document from us.


The issues for archaeology and landscape investigation covered in this document were: (in chronological order)

‣ Defining the drive out from the front of the house and across the fields;

‣ Removal of inappropriate vegetation (small trees) from the terraces;

‣ Completion of artifact excavation from the house;

‣ Basement archaeology and archaeology into the surrounding landscape to accommodate environmental systems for the house (ground-air exchange tubes);

‣ Establishment of an archaeological lab at the site and proper storage for site artifacts;

‣ Excavation for toilets near the pavilion trailhead;

‣ Kitchen garden archaeology and ethnobotanical research of terraces and the view-shed to the water (which may be re-established under the easement);

‣ Excavation of the slave quarters/dependencies that appear to flank the drive to the house;

‣ Ethnobotanical survey of field areas and stables to the East of the house;

‣ Further investigation and interpretation of the slave quarters site interrupted during construction of the King Center;

‣ Investigation of the proposed Native American sites located by previous archaeology teams;

‣ Initial underwater archaeology to determine the location and form of docks and the historic shoreline.

The plan included archaeology and ethnobotanical field schools and preparation, with published documentation of the process and re-establishment of some garden areas based on findings. The estimated budget for these archaeological activities, although preliminary, was $1,840,000.00.

Where work with archaeology will proceed from this point is unclear to us since archaeological decisions are now being made directly by the Menokin Foundation where previously these had been coordinated under JGLCo. In addition, JGLCo has not been hired to oversee 2010 extraction work contracted to DATA.

Comments on Presentation 2:This presentation was in fact a limited discussion of the building conservation to this point. It tended to draw from prior projects accomplished by the building conservation firm [The John Lee Company], and less from the work actually accomplished at Menokin to date.

For the first Advisory Council meeting, the team was tasked with providing an overview of work to date. This required that we bring the Council members up to speed on what is possible with timber and masonry conservation, including in-place realignments of walls which the firm has pioneered. It was prudent to show that these techniques are not theoretical, but have been in development over decades by members of this team.


Since 2006, stabilization has been a low Foundation budgeting priority, unless coupled with extraction (which is a necessary precursor to some stabilization efforts). Realignments and repairs were shown in the slideshow Saturday and pointed out at the ruin visit. As a refresher, the newsletters and reports related to this work are attached to the Executive Summary. In 2008 we were given a contract to begin developing a series of improved conservation techniques for dealing with deteriorating building elements. However this contract was cancelled for lack of funds.

As we indicated in the cover e-mail, there are some very important and very positive things that have been completed to date, especially in the way certain aspects of the work were approached, i.e. re-aligning walls as opposed to disassembling and re-assembling walls frequently done in similar cases. While this presentation made clear the philosophical approach to the conservation and technical aspects of stabilization, it simply begged many more questions:

a. What is the level of completion of the extraction and recovery effort to date?

• The NE quadrant is still standing, but emergency intervention was required in 2006 when the cornerstone collapsed and the corner began rotating. This stabilization procedure was presented in the Saturday slideshow. Loose artifacts in this quadrant have been tagged and removed. Stabilization has included removal of a girder and stabilization of the associated roof trussing, enclosure of window openings with plexiglas replicas, enclosure of the hole in the East wall with a plexiglas over plywood fin protection after modern walkways were removed, the first floor ceiling has been padded and braced to buy time for the last original in-place plaster, and a bond beam/ledger has been consolidated so it can retake loads.

• The NW and SW quadrants have been cleared of thousands of artifacts so that it is now possible to walk through these areas that at our arrival had in excess of 9’ feet of tightly-packed sodden debris. Approximately three weeks remain to complete extraction of stone outfall from these quadrants, including beneath the temporary entrance platform erected under Quinn-Evans direction.

• Prior to our arrival, John Milner Associates had extracted key timbers from on top of the SE quadrant collapse, but stopped when they felt the pile was too unsafe and this quadrant remains to be excavated. Most of the as-yet-unexcavated material is stone, both rubble and cut decorative stone inside and outside of the walls. Mechanical lifting of stone out of the SE quadrant will be required. Until this quadrant is extracted, the budget for foundation stabilization and design parameters for attaching glass to foundations remains theoretical.

• In all, we provided an estimate of $140,000 to complete excavation.


b. What is the level of documentation of the extracted/recovered components to date? It is important to know and record the means and methods, products, etc used during the extraction and stabilization process for the Foundation to have a complete record of the entire effort.

As covered in DATA’s Friday evening presentation, artifacts are documented in the field using a theodolite and the archaeological method of recording from one to several XYZ coordinates on each artifact (depending on size) to chronicle the exact location and orientation within the pile at the time of extraction. This method, instituted with the arrival of the John Greenwalt Lee Company, will allow for digital reconstruction of the complex collapse when funding becomes available. Extracted items pre-dating our arrival have a more haphazard method of recordation which we have done our best to integrate into the database.

To be more specific: At the time of extraction, each artifact is photographed (both in the pile and after extraction), tagged with a unique number imprinted on stainless tags that are stailes wired or zip-tied to the artifact, and the artifact is sketched. Also recorded on the artifact retrieval form are the XYZ coordinates, dimensions, material, architectural system the artifact belongs to and its function [e.g. a dragon beam in the roofing system, as well as who made that determination (generally Charles Phillips)], percentage completeness [e.g. do we have a tenon plus 3’ of a joist or about 25% of the joist remains], and stabilization priority. The documentation is in paper and electronic form (the extraction database which is keyed to a GIS database.) To show how the collected XYZ coordinates could be used for a reconstruction, the first 30 pieces of timber extracted from the SW quadrant were plotted three-dimensionally. Images of this plot and of the database were shown in the Saturday presentation.

Once the artifacts have been fumigated and moved to the conservation barn, the form is updated to include storage location. At the end of each extraction period (3-8 weeks worth each year), the extraction sheets are added to the database. During each week of extraction, a report with photographs was produced for the Foundation to summarize what was accomplished and highlight unique finds (again these are attached to the Executive Summary).

Since extraction spans several teams and began before JGLCo arrived when the SE quadrant was extracted with only a a string grid overlay, DATA and Coates & Hodges have integrated everything into a GIS database that is linked to the extraction database. Concurrent with the 2006 GIS database development, at least the second round of 3-D scanning of the ruin was conducted. The Executive Director should be able to provide more details of these non-JGLCo contracts.

In spite of being on our recommended budgets for every year since we arrived, it was not until spring 2009 that limited funding was set aside for more in-depth documentation of extracted elements, and then the funding was only adequate for recording the main structural elements (girders, roof framing, etc). This last item was completed in August 2009 and is included in the database. The Executive Director can provide database access to interested Advisors.


c. What documentation technologies have been used to perform this documentation and how can they be used for future conservation and/or design efforts. A report of the entire process with documentation of before and after, including both prose descriptions and rectified photography should be part of the permanent record. Unfortunately, the depth and detail of the documentation associated with this effort were not clear to us.

A great deal of scanning, student-investigation and assessment, and digital reconstruction work, including creation of the digital walk-through [available on the Menokin website] were completed prior to our arrival and can be provided by the Executive Director.

Our mandate arriving in late 2005 was to save the rapidly-deteriorating building from further collapse. The main focus was removal of artifacts that were wedging the building further apart and, once extraction was completed and we were down to exposed foundations, to begin better understanding the condition of the structure and the full range of repairs that would be necessary to halt its deterioration.

To this process we brought the theodolite recordation of artifact location within the building. Recording this data within the building skeleton has required dozens of new total station locations (datum points) with each phase of extraction since the viewing angle is constantly changing and it is difficult to see beyond debris, walkways, walls, etc in the foreground. Use of this well-known industry-standard procedure for archaeology in a unique new way for above-ground archaeology is an exciting use that could be highlighted by the Foundation through conferences, scholarly articles, etc.

At least two rounds of 3-D scanning of the ruin have been conducted: once under John Milner Associates before they began extraction of the SE quadrant and again in 2006 as the GIS database was being built and coordinated with the extraction database.

It is our understanding that in the early years of the Foundation HABS documented the structure with large format rectified photography and metric cameras, although we have never seen these images. With good photographic documentation occurring during our extractions and throughout each year, there is no reason this information cannot be rectified or further manipulated as makes sense for interpretive purposes in the future.

However the focus of limited funding in recent years has been spent on keeping the building standing. Moving forward, the Foundation can, as it did during the tenure of Founder Martin King coordinate with universities or companies to conduct whatever additional digital documentation of the house on a regular basis that it desires...and can afford. We believe however that the theodolite recordation of data provides all of the information necessary to know where artifacts came to rest. As with any technology for recording where the artifacts landed during this complex collapse, an understanding of the series of forces on the structure at different periods would have to be integrated with an ability to recognize the shattered and weathered pieces – an activity which requires human processing that began in 2009 with Charles Phillips’ further documentation.


d. How systematically was the collapse pattern studied and how was it done or has this information largely been lost in the recovery/stabilization effort or simply because such analysis was not viewed as important/critical/relevant?

It is our understanding that early documentation under Martin King included considerable photographic and oral history documentation to understand the collapse to that point. Collapse pattern analysis has not been part of the scope of our contracts with the Foundation, but again, our methods of tracking the location of fallen artifacts leaves open the door for future analysis of what falling portion of the building pushed the SE quadrant quoin stones out in a neat line while pushing the wall and window eight feet to the West inward and straight down. While that information is not relevant to the immediate needs of stabilization (the focus of our contracts with the Foundation), the options for interpreting the wealth of data being collected have been preserved for the future using our excavation and recordation methods.

e. When all the extraction and recovery efforts are completed what will be the storage requirements and what arrangements should be made for their long-term protection?

It is our contention that everything except the rubble stone and some lath should go back into the building. We believe the best way to interpret these artifacts is to see them in their original three-dimensional orientation to one another for better examination and interpretation. Just having representative pieces on display is not very interesting nor educational. In fact this approach would limit the information for interpretation in the future, when we should theoretically know more and have better technologies and a deeper understanding of this unique type of vernacular construction. In short, it is our contention that long-term off-site storage of the parts is counter-intuitive to education.

Most of the house has been without a roof for decades and the interior woodwork until recently has been stored for decades in a peanut barn. Bringing the timbers inside (and providing adequate protection for the portions of the building still standing), as well as getting stone off the ground, is thus a necessary and very positive first step. The house was originally designed without heating/cooling or (de)humidification systems. Returning the artifacts to an environment where they are protected from the elements and can naturally hydrate and dehydrate slowly with the seasons without being subjected to temperature extremes through natural ventilation would restore the conditions for which they were originally designed.

Although museums have for several decades advocated instituting more stringent temperature and humidity control systems, these designs have come under considerable scrutiny in recent years as being unsustainable – both financially for the museum and for the artifacts that undergo brutal cycling reminiscent of freeze/thaw expansion and contraction.

For comparison, unconditioned spaces at nearby homes of the same period (Sabine Hall and Mount Airy’s front foyers, for example) are exquisite examples of spaces that go through a wide range of moisture and temperature conditions throughout the year, but that do so slowly. Even the interior woodwork removed from Menokin in the 1960s to sit in a barn for decades still retains most of its original paint and is in good condition.


Thus we contend the best approach, based on current understandings in museum engineering, is to moderate the temperature (no freezing or rising beyond 85°F in the summer) and the humidity levels (allowing for adequate ventilation when needed), and not to install a “modern” system that forces the artifacts to go through hundreds of oscillations per day to maintain a very narrow temperature and humidity range.

The present conservation barn, however, was not designed for storage of large timbers, nor for adequate ventilation or to maintain the space above freezing or below 85°F. Improving these facilities has not been a priority of the Foundation to date. Likewise interior woodwork in the King Visitors Center is not being stored in an ideal environment.

f. Does the present storage facility/storage area meet the long-term protection goals for the recovered artifacts?

Long-term storage in either building is not the intention, but moderation of the temperature and functional ventilation in the interim is necessary. The Foundation has not opted to fund these improvements in spite of our recommendations. In fact, there is still no data logging or regular humidification/dehumidification control of the interior woodwork in the Visitors Center as recommended in 2007 when we began noticing accelerated paint loss.

g. What work has been done to date to stabilize the organic materials, i.e. wood consolidation, consolidation of decorative paints and related materials? How much more needs to be done?

Due to budget constraints, very little conservation has been done to date. Then again, very little is needed while the objects lay in storage so long as the climate is stable. In fact less is more. However, it is our understanding Matt Webster completed a condition assessment of the interior elements when he oversaw their return to Menokin and Tom Snyder completed reports on his treatment of the front doorway and best chimneypiece. (For copies, see Executive Director.) The Menokin Foundation has not contracted with the John Greenwalt Lee Company for conservation of non-structural elements.

One of our goals for Menokin has been to do more elegant and preservation-focused conservation of structural timbers – e.g. truly compatible, predictable, and reversible – than has been done previously. A very interesting and unique conservation approach was presented in our slideshow and in the 12-page carbon fiber handout (as well as last year at the American Institute for Conservation Conference in LA) that would give each object only the support it needs for its function. For example, there may be instances where a timber cannot handle its load requirement in the building because of a deteriorated end, and rather than cut away more of the timber to install a prosthesis, a strip of carbon fiber might take up some of the deflection load across the bottom, or an “origami boot” might be made to spread the load at a weakened tenon.

This integrated conservation and engineering approach – which would provide valuable information lacking in the preservation field for both how to assess the current condition of artifacts and the needed load capacity based on function – was to have helped make this the first project to move beyond consolidation strategies that are reversible only in theory. Unfortunately the $80,000 research budget for 2008 was cancelled mid-contract and has not been renewed.


h. Is there a cost projection for the total effort?

Getting to the point of having enough information to develop a conservation budget (based on the data gained about the range of repair techniques available and the degree of support needed by the structural members) was the goal of our 2008 contract, which was cancelled before completion due to lack of funds.

In the absence of enough information, but in an attempt to give the Foundation fundraising goals, we estimated $2M would be necessary for conservation and strengthening of extracted artifacts to be reintroduced into the structure and stabilization of the remaining fabric and foundations. The budgets we have been using to date for completing engineering design work, stabilization and conservation of the key structural systems, and establishment of the glass envelope is $6M, rising to $13M with the return of all artifacts and interiors to their original location within the “glass house.” Again, the goal of 2008 through early 2009 budgets and contracts that were cut short was to answer questions necessary to tightening these budgets.

i. What is the timeframe to complete this activity?

Without knowledge of fundraising plans, we cannot answer this question. However, if full funding were in place and the conservation barn properly conditioned to allow year-round work, we believe materials conservation of all the main structural elements could be completed within a year, with an additional six months for repairs to cut stone and lesser wooden members. That means that we believe – with funding in place – the house could be stabilized, elements conserved, design work completed, and the glass envelope established within two years.

If, as we have recommended, the Glass Connector were constructed to link the Visitors Center and Conservation/Storage Barn as both a design mockup and proof of concept, as well as a means for fundraising, this might add another year to the schedule, but with significant benefit to the ultimate design of the “Glass House.” Again the design and construction of the Connector will refine details, teaching the team along the way, much like we learned from the installation of the temporary plexiglas wall protection to the East wall of the NE quadrant this last year.

In the process, this will eliminate trial and error on the house itself. Once the “Glass House” construction is underway, an assessment of the needs of the interior woodwork for reintroduction into the house and contact with the public will need to become a priority. In the meantime, these items should be monitored and maintained in the environment we have recommended.

j. Criticism was leveled at the current ʻcanopyʼ over the collapsed main building structure. What analysis has been done and what modeling techniques have been used to demonstrate the impact[s] of the canopy on the historic structure / ruin

This is a question best reserved for the Executive Director as the engineering studies and design of this structure preceded our arrival. However, comments about the canopy’s inability to adequately protect the artifacts has come from other consultants, including Baird Smith of Quinn-Evans, designers and installers of the canopy.


Local Structural Engineer Dave Wallace and, to our understanding (although we did not hear this directly from him), Baird Smith, have said in recent years they did not believe the canopy could be altered to provide additional protection from the rain without incurring significant costs. The bigger problem, as we see it, is the canopy does not allow the sun to dry the building elements and kill unwanted growths. From the photographs shown in our Saturday presentation of the central walkway on the first floor being soaked during a light rain and our experiences standing under the canopy when it is raining, rainwater is drawn under the canopy with a Venturi effect, wetting much of the building.

k. It is not clear as to what structural analysis and reinforcing of the historic structure has been performed to date. While there may be empirical reactions regarding the overall stability of the ruin in its present state, we need to remember that it is performing a structural role and, to a certain extent, it will continue to perform additional structural work between now and the final treatment/stabilization, whatever that may be. How stable is the remaining structure? Are there any indications “metrics” that demonstrate increased stability after conservation (i.e. ʻre-alignmentʼ) treatments?

The Executive Director should be able to provide the Advisory Council with copies of the numerous engineering reports commissioned before our arrival in late 2005.

However, what appears scariest at initial glance is not always as perceived. Crack monitors installed nearly ten years ago on the SE quadrant remain unbroken and a photograph from 1925 shows the cracked wall in much the same condition as today. (See our initial 2005 report, attached to the Executive Summary.) Yet before our arrival, much of this wall was being dismantled as too unstable. In 2003, the Foundation received engineered designs for structural steel inside and out of most of the structure from one firm while other firms were at the same time providing considerably more modest stabilization recommendations.

We believe this mixed response and the instinctive concern about structural stability belies a general misunderstanding of the structural role – even among engineers – that these walls and integrated floor and roofing systems have in load-bearing construction. Unfortunately most engineering of historic structures is an imperfect off-shoot of training in modern structural analysis. There is little, if any, training in historic building materials or structural systems at university engineering programs.

Because historic load-bearing masonry structures differ so greatly from modern buildings, engineers tend to distrust what they do not know and may alter with a heavy hand unless carefully guided by conservators and preservation architects for whom these are more familiar. Of course it must also be remembered that the current condition of the house is not a function of weakness in the materials or design, but of falling trees and a lack of timely and appropriate intervention over more than three decades.

Load-bearing masonry is held together by gravity and spreads its loads evenly through the mortar whose function is not to be strong, rather to cushion. The key to sustaining masonry walls is to ensure evenly distributed downward (not outward) pressure from top to bottom and to have masonry unit-to-mortar contact, creating an integrated structural system that acts in concert.


Load is necessary to keep the mortar sound as it goes through the transient bicarbonate dissolutions of rainwater. Without pressure, the lime may re-carbonate, but in a different crystal formation without strength or bonding capacity. When cracks are observed on historic buildings such as between first and second floor windows and at pediments, it is generally due to the lack of load from above at these locations that leads to mortar failure and water infiltration.

When walls are broad and loads are evenly distributed, the loads at ground level on a 50’ high building are about 50 psi. A rubble masonry wall functions and is structural in much the same way as the sand in a mortar: the range of sizes and shapes pack and wedge against one another with the bedding mortar eliminating point-loading stresses. Adding in the weight of the integrally constructed floors and roof, the loading at the base of a 50’ masonry wall might have doubled to 100-150 psi. Thus modern concepts of heavy loads and need for spread footers disappear: the building itself is a spread footer of sorts widening to 40” at its base and distributing loads evenly.

In order for a section of wall to topple, more than half of its mass must move beyond the center of gravity. (This is why several of the projects highlighted in the slideshow on Saturday sought to explain how this process works naturally and how it can be manipulated to bring masonry back into alignment without detrimental dismantling.)

More on engineering and assessment of the structure by DMP follows below.

Comments on Presentation 3:This presentation was mostly a review of structural glass technology and developments and it also tended to focus on prior projects accomplished by the consulting firm (Dewhurst Macfarlane Partners), and less on the proposed structure of the ʻglass houseʼ concept at Menokin.

We were tasked with an introductory Advisory Council meeting and the Executive Director asked Tim Macfarlane to present the same talk given at prior Board meetings and at the American Institute for Conservation (AIC) conference in Los Angeles. These talks first covered what was now possible with structural glass construction (as opposed to the more commonly understood construction of glass hung on other armatures set into modern concrete foundations). Since Tim has pioneered most of the research in the last 20 years that has made this type of construction possible, he is uniquely qualified to use his projects to provide an explanation of this evolution and its relevance for Menokin. Unfortunately due to the interruption in his presentation it was not possible to move onto more of the structural details incorporated in the design to date through work on the Glass Connector and production of the “Glass House” renderings, as well as the carbon fiber and timber analysis just begun prior to cancellation of the 2008 contract.

Though it may seem a rehash of what was presented on Saturday, we hope you’ll permit a review of the technology development in brief through several of DMPs projects below.

First, Tim Macfarlane is a structural engineer and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects at the forefront of glass construction, both the tensile variety with steel cables and those where laminated glass fins provide the structure for the facade glass. (Since resumes for the Design Team were not provided in the Advisory Council packages, we are attaching them as an addenda to this document.)


The new Alpine House at Kew Gardens (2006) features a set of automatically operated blinds that prevent overheating when the sun is too hot for the plants together with a system that blows a continuous stream of cool air over the plants.

To conserve energy, the cooling air is not refrigerated but rather cooled by passing through a labyrinth of pipes buried at a depth where the temperature remains stable year round.

The Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts (home of the Philadelphia Orchestra) is a unique barrel vault design from Dewhurst Macfarlane Partners [DMP] that relies on cables. The unidirectional cable net walls at the ends behind the glass seams carry the weight of the glass and resist wind loads by lifting weights held at their ends. Wind load and deadweight are taken into the cable by the integral cable clamp assembly.

The TKTS ticket booth in Times Square is composed of a structural glass wall using laminations of SentryGlas+ from DuPont (that Tim likens to reinforced concrete in its impact for glass facade construction) which carries the laminated glass bleachers (in red) which seat thousands looking out on the busiest intersection in New York City.

The structural glass Apple Store on 5th Avenue in NYC with glass elevator and stairs is probably the most iconic of the DMP designs…and most relevant to understanding the proposed design for enclosing the missing sections of Menokin’s envelope, as the above ground facade is constructed entirely of glass on glass using fins to carry and distribute loads.


While some issues were discussed, there were several important items that were missing from the discussion:

a. It was not clear to us as to what level of structural analysis and reinforcing was performed - if any - by a licensed structural engineer. The “ruin” is performing a structural role and to a certain extent will perform additional structural work between now and the final treatment, whatever that may be. For the protection of all involved in this project, a structural review of the stabilized “ruin” should be performed to ensure that there are no issues or concerns.

The structural analysis to date has been based on experience of JGLCo and DMP, using measurements and architectural and engineering knowledge gained through years of work on load-bearing masonry buildings of this era. No attempt has been made by DMP to analyze the existing structure but this exercise can be carried out at short notice if the Foundation deems this a funding priority. The accuracy of the analysis will depend on the assumptions made about the remaining stone and timber elements and will, in the end, be a judgement call rather than a strict proof one way or the other.

Under JGLCo, the historic structure has been eased back into a stable, vertically-loaded condition using non-invasive techniques. The stabilization program to date has removed fallen structural elements that were pushing walls out of alignment and added to stability by returning loads to their proper vertical alignment and grouting voids in the masonry to cushion and evenly spread the weight.

At the moment the conservation team and DMP have assessed the stability of the structure from a visual standpoint … which from our considerable experience is as reliable as a calculated assessment. However, a full set of calculations for the completed structure will be developed before reconstruction begins. In order to do this full calculated assessment, the foundations will need to be fully unearthed and analysis of the current condition of remaining structural elements completed, as well as the R&D for the proposed conservation approaches being considered – all of which was cancelled by the Foundation before completion in 2008. Thus a complete calculated assessment exceeds what the Menokin Foundation has contracted for to date.

With the “Glass House” project which the Foundation had previously signed onto now being halted, the focus needs to shift from excavation of fallen building elements to a strict focus on the standing elements to make them as stable as possible. However, at this time there are no 2010 contracts with DMP or JGLCo to proceed with engineering, stabilization or conservation.

b. Along the same lines, thinking about the glass concept, what foundation / footing issues / challenges need to be considered regarding the relationship between the historic structure and the new structure that would support the glass loads? In the absence of any specifics, we are assuming that there will the loads of the glass structure - which are considerable - will not be transferred to the historic structure and footings and will be supported by an independent structural system. A wide range of technical issues need to be addressed, from bracing and underpinning to reinforcement of the historic structure.

While we are confident that such technical issues can be addressed by Dewhurst-Macfarlane, it is important to know well in advance of any construction and/or design expenditures what the potential impacts and considerations should be.


The external walls are currently supported on thick basement retaining walls which are founded 8 to 10 feet below grade. In places the wall has collapsed down to grade. The intention will be to construct the glass walls on the existing stone walls and to support the walls horizontally with glass at the ground floor level.

The glass walls will impose a smaller vertical load on the foundations than was experienced in the original stone load-bearing construction and we do not anticipate measurable differential settlement of the foundations. However, our design – using laminated structural glass that will not shatter even if some layers are breached and the joinery detailing that will allow the building to function much like a timber structure – will ensure the glass will not be bothered if there is foundation settlement.

We look forward in the upcoming meeting to having the necessary time to review the construction details we have been developing with the Advisory Council members.

c. What environmental conditions will be created and how will they affect the original/historic building fabric, ranging from lighting exposure to UV, etc. to temperature and relative humidity, and how these environmental forces will be managed to ensure the long-term preservation of the original/historic building fabric. Along the same lines, what environmental systems should be considered to manage those conditions create an environment that would support the long-term preservation of the ruin and the fragments? Is this existing technology or new? What issues should be considered, i.e. cost, life cycle, operational costs, etc

The environmental conditions inside the house will need to be accurately modeled and understood before construction proceeds. At this stage it is clear that the glass structure will need to be carefully designed to actively moderate the internal temperatures. At the same time, research into what conditions will best suit the materials inside the house will give a more accurate understanding of what limits for temperature and humidity should be set when the schematic design phase is funded.

Considerable thought has been given to this issue already and currently available techniques for shading the roof using photovoltaic cells have been considered together with high performing heat reflective coatings to reduce heat gain. Lengths of buried pipes will be used to introduce consistent ground-temperature air into the house at basement level allowing the opportunity to even out the temperature peaks and modify humidity.

In conjunction with operable vents built into the structure (facilitated by the de facto “ducts” created at the quoin fin intersections) and run by the photovoltaics on the roof, the technologies being proposed have all been around for some time ... although they are being incorporated together in unique ways at Menokin. Our design goal is to be off-grid in screening, lighting, and venting, producing required energy through photovoltaics and the incorporation of low-input, low-maintenance methods of ground-air heat exchange.


d. The ʻglass houseʼ concept would house both organic and inorganic materials, and hence be considered a museum. How would it meet the current environmental standards for the protection of historic artifacts and materials? If not, what would be the implications of Menokin not being able to receive a museum accreditation?

If authorized to proceed with schematic design, producing the best conditions for stone, wood and plaster will be a key part of the engineering. If we can re-create conditions similar to those that prevailed when the house was constructed, would this satisfy the standards (as this is the conditions for which these materials were designed)? If the standard is different, is it appropriate to the goal of prolonging the life of these materials? (See discussion in Part 2 above).

We intend to achieve the gently moderated or buffered interior climate through careful design of the glass enclosure supplemented by natural ventilation and harvesting the thermal mass of the earth through ground-air exchange tubes. Photovoltaic systems in the roof will provide electricity to operate fans and carefully placed louvers to augment natural ventilation.

If there are some artifacts that require special conditioning, these could be presented in display cases that provide a more controlled environment. We foresee no hinderances to museum accreditation.

e. What code and ADA issues need to be considered for the “completed” glass structure, ranging from exit/egress issues, smoke detection and smoke exhaust, sprinklers, etc. While this may appear to be a seemingly simple structure, the extensive use of glass, as well as the fact that there are several interconnected levels (single volume structure with several levels), lead us to believe that all code issues should be reviewed and addressed - in principle - before any commitments are made for further design and/or exploration efforts.

Codes, including ADA issues, would be discussed with the appropriate code officials early in the schematic design phase. A meeting with local code officials should help to clarify what restrictions they would choose to place on the use of the building to ensure that there was no situation that would result in a risk to occupants.

These fire restrictions might prohibit unrestricted access to the house on the basis that someone might go in and fall asleep and burn to death. Otherwise the design will allow for good visual access to all areas of this very small building. Rather than try and interpret code, it might be prudent to hire a fire engineer to put the sensible case forward before speaking to the code officials. All members of the Design Team have found code officials are usually sympathetic to a sound argument, but are unlikely to do the thinking for you. Better to be prepared.

With very little wood flooring remaining, the structure will be visually open and have a limited number of widely-spaced combustibles, thus further inhibiting a strong fire from forming. Therefore any problems can be seen before they get out of hand.

Egress requirements for buildings occupied by less than 30 people and with visitors under the direct supervision of trained guides moving through at a regular pace is minimal. The building naturally has three egress points (front, back, basement). The original stair will likely present the biggest hurdle and must be negotiated with code officials early in the schematic design phase.


ADA does not necessarily require physical access to all spaces, only to the experience of those spaces. Thus this might be a good use of three-dimensional rendering technologies both of the collapse and the current configuration of the building as a means to accomplish accessibility without alteration of original fabric. This might be a great project for a university class in documentation and digital design. If physical access were deemed a priority, it would likely affect interpretation and access for others, but we have ideas for how it could be done (at significant additional cost), depending on client funding priorities and code official assessment.

f. There are still significant design, constructability, cost and time questions that need to be addressed, assuming that a careful, deliberate, focused and detailed review of the project will conclude that this is the right approach. To the best of our knowledge, this information is not readily available and, if it exists, it is an opinion that has not been vetted carefully and in detail.

The conceptual design has only been partially funded to date. Once schematic design begins, a checklist of questions and issues to be addressed should be developed with the assistance of the Advisory Council.

g. Would such a structure require additional staff to administer? Conduct tours? Maintain it?The maintenance and management of the building will be worked out with the Foundation as

the design develops and based on their priorities. The additional staffing and cost of any new facilities that would come with an expanded visitor base will also need to be discussed with Menokin as design proceeds to the Schematic Phase and once the Foundation better clarifies the extent of site activities they wish to provide.

h. Would such a structure be practical and sustainable in a region subject to extreme weather conditions (i.e. hurricanes, earthquakes)?

Yes.

i. How is sustainability and energy conservation going to be addressed at Menokin in general and in the glass house specifically?

The Design Team is keen to integrate best practices in sustainable, energy-conserving measures, as outlined above. We hope the Advisory Council can help us find sympathetic environmental engineers both to join the Design Team and at the Advisory Council level, as we have not yet located an individual with the right mix of skills and experience.

We believe integration of new and old technologies in both the facade and its off-grid functioning are crucial to the educational appeal of this project across a wide range of industries and beyond those interested exclusively in preservation of historic buildings. In fact it plays right into the sustainability design goals of the AIA which seeks carbon-neutral buildings by 2030.

There is no reason the AIA’s Sustainability-2030 should leave historic buildings in its wake. While LEED certifiers may be challenged to pigeon-hole Menokin, the 100% reuse of original timbers and interiors and integration of local energy production (sun, soil, crops) should provide an interesting case to challenge these parameters. It is our hope the Foundation will embrace renewable energy options in all operations.


The presentation included two conceptual renderings. From the presentations, we can only assume that the view of the Lee/Dewhurst-Macfarlane team is that all of these issues will be addressed through an exploratory effort that would bring together the following elements:

✓ The construction of a glass connector between the two NEW structures, i.e. workshop and visitors center

✓ The research on the use of carbon fiber technology

✓ The project can only be a research / design / construction

This series of questions that we are raising and the view that there is only a singular approach to “getting the answers” are a significant concern.

What would the Advisory Council propose? Discussion of these questions would be better conducted face to face. The Design Team looks forward to having the opportunity to discuss this with the Council and Trustee membership.

Comments on Presentation 4:

This presentation was largely superfluous to our task(s) at hand. The site interpretation was speculative, the fund-raising anecdotes largely irrelevant at this point, as were the alternative energy ʻcase histories.ʼ

As a group of professionals, we generally felt that the tone of the presentation was condescending and off-putting. We were, as a group, surprised at the general inclusion of such a presentation in the talks on Saturday.

The presentation raised some simple and fundamental questions, such as

✓ In the light of the very real, important and pertinent information we were expecting to be presented with, why was this talk included?

These issues are worthy of a joint discussion with the Menokin Staff, Trustees, Design Team, and Advisory Council members present. However, we presented our ideas on site use and five-year budgeting as these items were outlined for inclusion at this stage by the Advisory Council Chair. To be clear, the Menokin Foundation has not contracted with any member of the Design Team for site planning services, although we have provided them with thoughts on how to incorporate a wide variety of activities appealing to a broad range of constituencies. This general concept, formalized in the Vision Statement included in the Advisor Packages, has been authorized by the Trustees and, as explained by the Executive Director, is being used as the building block of their long-range planning.

✓ What review over its content did the board and direction, prior to its presentation, have, if any?

See above.


It is unfortunate that time was allotted for this largely irrelevant presentation, as opposed to being able to debate and/or discuss the important questions we all had.

It is unfortunate that the first 80 minutes of Saturday were lost to unscheduled introductions which robbed discussion time. We disagree that this was an irrelevant or superfluous presentation for the first meeting of the Advisory Council (with the goal of introducing members to Menokin), as it speaks to the entire vision for the site that has been articulated to date (and approved by the Trustees through the Vision Statement).

PATH FORWARD

The concept of the glass house has taken a life of its own and is “driving the project,” even though there are significant issues to be addressed, the most important of which is the fundamental question as to whether the glass house approach is the right thing to do. In that regard, the concept needs to be examined carefully, before any further commitments are made, especially in light of the significant fundraising efforts that have to be undertaken to fund it.

“Menokin is embarking on an exciting, brave and ambitious journey to re-present this historic site and make it a learning laboratory of a wide range of issues associated with the protection, preservation and interpretation of a historic site….One of the most interesting things that they are embarking on is a new idea, never attempted before anywhere in the world to the best of my knowledge.

This idea is being developed by a small team of highly creative folks guided by the daring vision of John Lee, a very talented and skilled conservator from Annapolis. John’s vision is to create a glass structure that would have the form, dimensions and proportions of the original house. This glass structure would function as a framework that would protect the ruin and provide additional opportunities for fragments and pieces of the building to be presented in their proper context, etc. In other words, this transparent framework would allow the visitors to experience the scale, construction methods, materials etc. of the original house, by using existing historic fabric in the proper locations, connected to the glass structure. John is collaborating with Tim McFarlane, the internationally acclaimed structural engineer of the “Apple Cube fame”, i.e. one of the leading glass structure experts in the world.

After a few meetings, I realized that this can an important chapter in the way we approach preservation projects. The project has multiple dimensions, from master planning, landscape architecture and horticulture to state-of-the-art conservation issues, sustainable forms of energy uses and down to details as to how this entire effort can and should be documented.

One of my recommendations to the Menokin Board was to create an Advisory Board of nationally recognized experts in several areas of preservation that would help in making this vision a reality. You are one of the individuals who has been identified to be part of this effort.”

– Invitation Letter to Prospective Advisory Council Members by Chair George Skarmeas(copied from June 10, 2009 copy to David Woodcock)

In addition, Menokin needs a clear plan for the future, for all of its components, dimensions, etc. with a comprehensive Master Plan that addresses all of the issues of the site, from subsurface explorations [archaeology] to how the ruin will be stabilized, preserved, interpreted, etc. and how this initiative will be sustained in the future, once it is completed.

On a short term basis, it is important to complete the tasks that are currently underway and have a clear understanding of what has been accomplished to date and what needs to be done next. In addition to the physical effort of the extraction, recovery and documentation of the fragments/components of the building, it is important that a report is included that would document in detail the efforts, the process, the sequence, the storage requirements, budget, long-term considerations, etc.


Having seen some of the reports completed by The John Greenwalt Lee Company, we are confident that this task can be accomplished in a superb way.

Ideally, this process should be (have been) videotaped. It is part of the history of Menokin, part of the interpretation of the house and could be a fundraising and PR tool for the future. [Note: In addition, the before and after conditions when treatments, such as the ʻre-alignments,ʼ were made should have been documented through 3-D laser scanning - or equivalent - method that would record accurately all of the adjustments that were made. It is unfortunate that this was not done. Along the same lines, the project should have pursued the support from major 3-D / documentation software development corporations for this effort. The appeal of the project is such that it is quite possible for a corporate sponsor to have fully supported this effort with the right software and technical support, not only as part of the project, but also as an educational component for future uses, interpretation, etc. This may still be possible, but it will require a significant thinking and planning effort.]

Regular professional videotaping has occurred. Please ask the Executive Director to make these available. Some of the scanning and early documentation are available on the Menokin website. Depending on how much more the Advisory Board wishes to view, please ask the Executive Director to make these available.

The Menokin Foundation would surely appreciate the involvement of a corporation or university that would like to freely give it access to the latest documentation technologies. The design team is tasked with stabilizing the building and providing the best plans for its future protection. While we can and have given the Foundation leads for outside funding help, it is the role of the Foundation and its Executive Director to follow these up.

A 3-dimensional model would be critical in interpreting the history of the House, including its collapse, recovery and present intervention. State-of-the-art technology using laser scanning for both the “ruin” and the fragments can provide all the information necessary to create a 3-D model of the structure(s) and the recovered fragments. Using this technology would allow Menokin to create a three-dimensional model of the house, locate the fragments in three dimensions and understand where all the pieces fit.

There is no disagreement that more tools would be nice. Again work was done toward this end prior to our arrival (see Executive Director for more details). Now all of our recordation (as described above) during extraction is designed with the idea of increasing avenues for interpretation of the collapse in the future. The important and time-sensitive work of stabilizing and protecting the house has been undertaken with appropriate immediacy. The building is not fairing better with stabilization indefinitely postponed.

Advanced users of this technology include forensic experts, such as the FBI, the NTSB, etc who can reconstruct the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the house, the sequence in which it occurred, what caused it, and how the recovered pieces can be placed in their proper locations. In our view, this is important knowledge that would be beneficial in the long-term interpretation and treatment of the house. Unfortunately, from the presentation, it was not clear as to what the level of 3-dimensional documentation is and whether it is possible - at this stage - to create a forensic model of how the building collapsed.


The work of organizations such NTSB and FBI in investigations usually extend over many years and tens of millions of dollars. Menokin can ill-afford to have this put before its immediate needs. Again, nothing is being done to hamper the development of these models at a later date and we would welcome the involvement of this technology as a means to future interpretation.

At Menokin there were no construction drawings prior to our starting. We have slowly created framing diagrams as we worked, whereas NTSB and FBI investigations normally proceed from known condition. The collapse was not a single event, but a several decades long chain of events. Before expending too many precious resources, including time, we believe the use and benefits of conducting a collapse analysis prior to proceeding with stabilization should be carefully weighed.

We would argue that a 3D model could serve as a useful tool in many ways. If a glass intervention is undertaken, then it is even more necessary. A systematic, scientific, carefully documented 3-dimensional model of the structure(s) would be needed in developing a design for the construction of the glass structure and the integration of the fragments into this armature. It would also be an invaluable educational tool for the final interpretation and design of the exhibits.

The glass renderings we produced are a 3-D model of the proposed structure. It is not just a series of pretty pictures, but a model that incorporates all of the design details being proposed.

A physical 3-D model was one of the products to have come out of the 2008 contract that was cut short. Should a physical 3-D model be funded again, it would be useful for testing design theories, as well as educating potential funders.

The process of achieving this goal, the options that are available today, how current knowledge of the structure(s), the fragments, and woodwork will be incorporated in this effort, what the long-term benefits would be and what the schedule and cost implications may be can be a subject of a focused retreat of the Advisory Council and invited experts in this field. This is a task that can be funded through external sources, such as NCPTT, software companies, etc.

The Design Team has been primarily tasked with make the building sound. It is important that this work continue in order to keep options open. With more funding, there would be more options for how to spend money.


Focusing on the “ruin,” it is important to compartmentalize and separate the various activities that are being undertaken and ensure that the best experts/talents undertake them.

The holistic approach we have been using is appropriate. Approaching the work piecemeal across dozens of unrelated contractors is new construction, not preservation.

These are:a. Extraction/recovery of fragments (with all of the documentation requirements of the process)b. Documentation/inventory of fragments. This would include both a 3-D documentation and the

inventory effort.c. Conservation of fragmentsd. Storage and monitoring until they are reusede. Stabilization of the ruinf. Documentation of stabilized ruin and recording. This should include a 3-D laser scanning of the

site and the ruin to a high level of precision and resolution.g. Scientific study of the shed and understanding of impacts on the ruin.h. Options for treating and interpreting the ruin. [We should not assume that the glass house is the

only appropriate choice going forward, until all issues are understood and there are clear answers.]

i. Understanding of all issues associated with the glass house concept. This should be a comprehensive study by a multi-disciplinary team of experts that would address all issues, before any further commitments are made for significant expenditures in research/development/glass connector, etc.

j. Interim plan for the protection of the ruin, until funding is in place for permanent plan.

The design team has provided Menokin with a well-reasoned, integrated, fundable, and inspiring plan of action, broken into practical phases with reasonable (if preliminary) budgets. Unfortunately at this time, there are no contracts to proceed.

Finally, it is imperative that there is a clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of each entity that is participating in the project and/or will participate in the project going forward.

We recognize these are decisions of the Menokin Foundation and we look forward to defining the roles and responsibilities of the Design Team members going forward. JGLCo has the capacity to expand the team as the Trustees and Council desire, pending funding by the Foundation. Achieving a “Glass House” with reintroduced structural members as we have proposed will require considerable integration of skills from design through implementation that is different from new construction or even restoration. It is this integrated, phased approach that non-profits routinely look to John Lee to help them to develop and oversee.

Our recommendation would be to first have a plan, address all the issues, etc. and then figure out what the best way would be to structure the implementation of the plan.

The Design Team looks forward to working with the Menokin Foundation to define scope and priorities of work.


SUMMARY

The glass house concept was admittedly what intrigued most of the Advisory Council members. It is an exciting concept that may open new areas in the world of preservation, conservation, historic site interpretation and museum practices. But it is just a concept. At this juncture, we do not have the information necessary to support it or comment on its feasibility beyond the ʻconceptʼ stage. While the potential may be there, there are several important issues that need to be addressed before this choice is proven to be the most appropriate indeed.

Any path forward would require a significant effort by the Foundation, including an experienced and seasoned project manager to oversee a project that could very well be over $50 million. The Board needs to:

a. Understand where the project is now and what needs to be done to reach a specific goal, whatever that may be

b. Develop a clear vision for the ENTIRE site that would bring all of the dimensions of the property together

c. Have a logical sequence of events leading up to it based on a well crafted plan

d. Create a fundraising plan that can support the mission and vision of Menokin

e. Ensure that all of the goals can be achieved in a sensible, logical and responsible way

It is important to note that all of the participants do care about the project and the site and in many cases they are passionate to a point that may be non-productive. A steady hand and guidance from the Board of Trustees can and will resolve all of these matters and reach a sensible conclusion.

The Design Team looks forward to working with the Menokin Foundation as they define their priorities and set out a plan of action.


this response includes input from a number of the design ... · & partners [dmp]: structural...

Documents