B08_-_Attachment_3_-_RoederHouse_PlasterandStuccoConditionAssessment_Final.pdf

Interior Plaster Condition Assessment and Treatment Recommendations for Building 16 – Frederick A. Roeder House at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park

Harpers Ferry, WV

May 2022

Prepared for:

Mia Parsons Darlene Hassler Peter Dessauer

Harpers Ferry National Historic Park Harpers Ferry, WV

Prepared by:

Courtney Magill NCR Architectural Conservator

Related to Projects:

HAFE PMIS 244076 ‐ Paint Exterior and Refinish Interior Floors of the Historic Roeder House Bldg 16/16A PEPC 102862 ‐ Conserve the Roeder House (Bldg.16/16A) Historic Paint Layers, Plaster, and Wood Floors

Introduction

On March 28, 2022 and April 14, 2022, NCR Architectural Conservator, Courtney Magill; HPTC Exhibits Specialist, Elizabeth Burns; and HAFE Architect, Peter Dessauer, visited Building 16 – the Frederick A.

Roeder House – to assess the current conditions of the interior plaster on the second and attic floors of the resource, the condition of the wall plasters found in the southeast exterior stair hall, and the condition of the exterior stucco on the northwest and southwest elevations of the building. The purpose of these site visits was to provide Harpers Ferry National Historical Park with a conditions assessment and treatment recommendations for an upcoming plaster conservation project.

The goal of this document is to provide the current condition of the plaster and give treatment recommendations that can be used for a Project Agreement.

The recommendations for treatment in this document are based on:

Park Service, Technical Preservation Brief, Preservation Brief #22 The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco (https://www.nps.gov/tps/how‐to‐preserve/briefs/22‐stucco.htm)

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm)

All walls were observed visually and acoustic sounding (lightly tapping with the flat of a fingernail and one knuckle to listen for changes in tone) was performed on all parts of the plaster that were within reach. The sounding was used to determine the presence of voids and detachment of the plaster from the substrate along the walls. Certain areas of the plaster surface in the three stairway areas were not available for acoustic sounding testing due to limited reach. These areas where acoustic sounding was not performed are called out in the marked‐up elevations. Acoustic sounding was also not performed on the exterior stucco of the building. Material testing and analysis was not performed on the exterior stucco or plaster at this time.

Photo elevations of the plaster walls and ceilings were taken onsite, and conditions were later recorded on the printed photographs during the two survey days (See Appendix I for all survey elevations with markup).

Rationale for Conservation

The rationale for the treatment of the extant material on the walls and ceilings of the Roeder House is based on the Preservation treatment approach of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: “applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction.”1 The goal of this project is to conserve and stabilize as much historic fabric as possible in place.

1 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm, page 27.

Survey Area

The survey area encompasses historic lime plasters in two interior floors of the Roeder House, historic lime plaster and limewash in a three‐story exterior stair, and stucco on two elevations of the Roeder House exterior.

Four interior rooms:

Second‐floor South

The second‐floor south room is 22’‐2” x 18’‐10”. All wall elevations consist of brick masonry coated with historic lime plaster except for the NW wall (shared with the north room) which consists of wood with historic plaster on lathe. Features inside consist of two facing exterior doors – one on the SW wall leading to the balcony, and one on the NE wall leading to the back porch and exterior stair; an interior door on the NW wall leading to the north room; three sash windows – two opening on the SW wall and one opening on the NE wall; an open interior stair leading to the first floor at the south corner; a built‐in cabinet at the north corner; and a chimney with a fireplace opening on the NW wall.

The NW and SW wall elevations both contain fragments of historic lime plasters as well as the SE and SW walls of the stair leading to the first floor. Additionally, two larger areas on the lathe ceiling are coated with plaster fragments as well.

Second‐floor North

The second‐floor north room is 12’‐7” x 15’‐9”. All wall elevations consist of brick masonry coated with historic lime plaster except for the SW wall (shared with the south room) which consists of wood with historic plaster on lathe. Features inside consist of an exterior door onto the balcony on the SW wall;

two sash windows – one on the SW wall and one on the NE; an enclosed interior stair at the north corner that leads to the attic; and a brick chimney on the SE wall with no fireplace opening.

All walls contain fragments of historic lime plasters, and the lathe ceiling is largely coated with plaster as well.

Attic North

The north attic room is 13’‐7” x 13’‐4” and is not entirely separate from the south room as they share a partial wall with an opening at the SW side. The NW wall elevation is brick masonry coated with historic lime plasters with a central sash window. The wooden gabled roof on the SW and NE elevations rests on low brick masonry walls with two dormer sash windows on the SW and one on the NE. The SW wall separating the north and south rooms consists of a brick chimney with a fireplace opening and wood with historic lime plaster on lathe. The open stair leading from the attic to the north room is at the north corner of the room.

The NW masonry wall and the SW wood wall both contain extant plasters.

Attic South

The south attic room is 21’‐7” x 18’‐4” and is not entirely separate from the north room as they share a partial wall with an opening at the SW side. The SE wall elevation is brick masonry, the wooden gabled roof on the SW and NE elevations rests on low brick masonry walls with two dormer sash windows on the SW and one on the NE. The NW wall separating the north and south rooms consists of a brick chimney and wood with historic lime plaster on lathe.

The NW wall is the only wall in the south room that had extant plaster.

Exterior Stair:

The exterior stair functions as part of the porch network on the NE elevation (back) of the Roeder House. The stair leads from the basement (ground) level up to the second floor. The stair at the SE end of the porch is enclosed by the SW brick masonry wall of the Roeder House Annex (Building 16a), the NW masonry wall of the adjoining Susan Downey House (Building 15), and the back NE wall of the Roeder House. The Roeder Annex wall and the wall on the back of the Roeder House are approximately 12’ wide, the wall backing the Downey house is approximately 6’ wide, and the height of the stair is approximately 30’.

The brick masonry wall of the Roeder Annex appears to have been coated with a large amount of limewash layers, enough to create a thick coating and likely account for years of building maintenance.

Three different tints of limewash are notable here and on the adjoining wall in the various layers including light blue, light pink, and light yellow. Areas of this thick limewash are noted on the wall rising from the basement to first floor, on the wall of the first‐floor landing to the left of the door into the Annex, and on the wall rising from the first floor to the second floor.

Historic lime plaster on masonry was noted on the masonry wall of the adjoining Susan Downey House.

It was likely that the wall was plastered before the staircase was built as the stairs are not in full contact with that wall and the extant plaster extends unbroken up the wall face from the first to second floor area behind the stringer. Large areas of this wall had been coated or filled with a cement stucco sometime in the past, likely as a stabilization mechanism as the lime plasters began to break off the wall.

These renders extend over to the back wall of the Roeder House and coat that entire elevation, so the SE masonry wall appears to be the only elevation in the exterior stair that is true plaster, since the Annex wall consists of many layers of limewash.

Exterior Stucco:

The northwest and southwest elevations of the building, fronting on Hog Alley and High Street respectively, are composed of brick masonry with a stucco finish on the first floor. On the High Street façade of the building, both on the basement and first floor, the stucco has been incised to imitate stone masonry, much like the façade of the adjoining building just south, the Susan Downey House. A balcony extends from the second level with decorative cast iron supports and railings.

Previous Treatments:

Previous treatments have been conducted on areas of the interior plasters in the past, the most notable of which was an emergency stabilization effort involving injection, edge consolidation, and edging campaign in 2002 by NECRC Conservators. The exterior stucco was also likely modified during a restoration campaign by the NPS in the early 2000s (PMIS 41556). Other undocumented efforts including the use of caulking and epoxies for edging in certain areas and a large scale parging of areas of the external stair appear to have been completed occasionally. Although these undocumented treatments are inappropriate for the historic plaster, they should not be removed during the stabilization process as it will likely cause more damage to the plaster and subsequent loss. Special care should be taken to preserve areas of architectural ghosting, fragments of wallpaper, limewash finished, and historic graffiti on the plasters during stabilization efforts.

Conditions Noted and Recommendations for Treatment

The conditions documented on the plaster walls and ceilings as well as the stucco walls during the surveys included the following:

Cracking

Cracks noted in the plasters ranged from hairline to larger cracks that are ¼ ‐ ½ ” wide. Cracking was most notable on areas of plaster that were applied over wooden lathe (both ceilings and walls) rather than over masonry. However, cracking was still noted on areas of plaster on masonry, mostly concentrated around edges or at joints with other walls or the ceiling. Cracks should be treated with a consolidant for any loose plaster and filled if over 1/8” wide. Extant cracks can potentially be used as injection points for plaster consolidant or adhesives for blind detachment (addressed below) but should be finished with an injection of a grout or finish plaster mix where appropriate. Loose plaster spalls around openings and cracks should be reattached to the wall and any voids around them injected with finish plaster or grout mix. As the ceilings are more delicate and prone to breakages and losses, all cracks greater than a hairline should be filled if possible.

Cracks of varying sizes noted in the stairwell of the second floor south room.

Long crack between the sloped road and the northwest exterior elevation stucco wall.

Area of cracking and stucco loss at the junction of the southwest stucco elevation and first floor porch.

Scratch Coat without Finish Coat

Some areas of the plaster walls, notably around the edges of fragments as well as keys between the lathe strips in areas of loss, have lost their finish coat but the scratch remains underneath. This scratch material is filled with visible lime blebs, coarse to fine aggregate, and animal hair. If friable, these areas should be treated with an appropriate plaster consolidant to prevent material loss. Great care should be taken in treatment as these areas are likely fragile. As the philosophy is preservation and stabilization, scratch fragments should just be preserved as is and not recoated with a new finish coat.

Scratch coat areas with lost finish coat on the northwest wall of the second floor north room. Note also previous edging treatment between scratch and finish coats of the plaster.

Finish Coat without Scratch Coat

These areas are particularly delicate as the finish coat is quite thin and the thicker scratch coats of plaster behind have been lost either through water damage or physical detachment and disintegration.

They should be supported with the utmost care as they are filled behind with an appropriate lime‐based mortar mix for stabilization.

Failing scratch coat under finish coat layer on the northwest wall of the second floor north room.

Friable Plaster

Many edges of the plaster fragments were previously treated with a consolidant to address friability.

However, plaster edges that were not previously treated with a consolidant (such as the plaster fragments under the attic stairs), newly exposed edges (ie. where fragments of plaster fell since the last stabilization, exposing a fresh edge), and areas that have suffered damage (such as the water damage on the northwest wall of the second‐floor north room) are still showing signs of friability and should be treated with an appropriate consolidant.

A section of plaster in the second floor north room in the closet under the stair. This fragment appears to have never been consolidated and the edges and any exposed scratch are quite friable.

Failing Finishes Layer

Historic finishes such as limewash should be treated delicately and preserved in‐place to the greatest extent possible. Limewash colors found in the interior rooms are predominately blue, though a few traces of pink were noted on the southwest wall of the second‐floor south room. The exterior stairwell contains many layers of limewashes on the brick and plaster and traces of yellow, blue, and pink limewashes can be seen. Where finishes layers are failing, a consolidant and/or a conservation adhesive should be used to reattach the edges of the failing fragments to prevent further loss.

Multiple layers of limewash finishes in the exterior stairwell showing areas of disaggregation.

Wallpaper Fragments

Historic wallpaper fragments should also be treated delicately and preserved the greatest extent possible. Any small loose wallpaper fragments found on the walls or ceiling, most notably in the second‐ floor rooms, should be reattached to the plaster surfaces with a conservation adhesive.

The southwest wall of the second floor south room has areas of historic wallpapers still adhered to the plaster surfaces.

Blind Detachment

Areas of blind detachment were detected through acoustical sounding (tap testing) to determine where the plasters have pulled away from the masonry wall or lathe and are no longer attached. On the ceilings and walls, these areas were mostly associated with cracks or with deteriorating scratch coat.

Blind detachment can be corrected with targeted injections of a conservation adhesive or modified plaster to readhere to the base material and prevent loss. These injections should be limited to areas of need and through existing cracks when possible, so the surface of the plaster is not too impacted by injection holes.

A large area of blind detachment is notable in the indicated area of the northwest wall of the second floor north room, likely due to previous water damage.

Edge Detachment

On the ceilings especially where gravity is pulling on the heavy plaster fragments, edges are detaching both in areas that were and were not previously treated with edging stabilization. The detachment ranges from hairline cracks in the edging material to ¼ ‐ ½” gaps. On the walls, edge detachment is less notable or has already been treated with edging stabilization that is faring well still. Where edge detachment is noted, the edges should be gently cleaned and readhered to the base material using a conservation adhesive and edged with an appropriate lime‐based mortar.

Southwest ceiling section of the second floor north room with area of plaster loss and adjacent plaster showing visible edge detachment from the side. Generally, even the areas of plaster on the ceiling that were previously stabilized with edging are cracking and beginning to separate from the lathe.

Previous Treatment / Area of Injection Treatment

As noted previously, various stabilization and conservation campaigns have been carried out on the interior plasters and exterior stuccos of the Roeder House.

The conservation effort in 2002 by NECRC Conservators involved injection, edge consolidation, and edging of plaster fragments. These were noted in the second‐floor rooms and the attic. The adhesive injections were especially noted on the walls in the attic rooms. It also appears that many of the exposed edges of plaster fragments were treated with a consolidant, as they were largely not friable.

Additionally, it appears that many of the edges of the plaster fragments, both on the ceiling and on the walls, had been edged with a light tan scratch‐like plaster mixture to better anchor the fragments. A few areas in the second‐floor north room also appear to have had a few large fills to better tie fragments together. It is apparent from the further edge detachment in treated areas as well as the fragments of broken plaster found on the floor that the treatments were not entirely successful, but likely did save a gross majority of the extant historic plaster.

It is also apparent that smaller campaigns of other, less appropriate treatments have been used to stabilize the plasters over the years as well. These include epoxy and caulking injections at fragment edges in various locations, portland cement edging and backfill in one area on the southwest wall of the second‐floor south room and large patches used on the exterior stair walls, and usage of a hard tan mortar to both edge and fill in areas of loose plaster in areas of the second‐floor rooms. These treatments are not appropriate for the historic plaster, but as their removal would likely cause more damage than good and the rationale for conservation is stabilization in place, they should be left in place unless any of these treatments is found to be causing active damage to the plasters.

Previous treatment in the form of injection points on the northwest plaster wall of the south attic room.

Areas of previous treatment in the form of edging of the extant plaster on the northwest wall of the second floor north room

Area of previous treatment of a Portland cement parging in the exterior stairway.

Ferrous Anchors

Ferrous anchors, mostly in the form of small nails, were noted embedded in some of the plaster and stucco walls. These elements appear stable but could cause damage to the surrounding plaster material if liquid water or high humidity affects them as corrosion will cause expansion of the metal. However, being historic features, they should remain in place. Additionally, extraction from the plaster would likely cause more damage to the existing material. It is therefore recommended that the ferrous elements be treated with a rust convertor or corrosion inhibitor and cracks around their entry points filled by injection. Regular reapplication of the coating should be scheduled in routine maintenance for the building to prevent further degradation and damage as the coating will weather away over time.

Example of a ferrous anchor embedded in the plaster of the northwest wall of the second floor north room.

Sensitive Elements – Historic Graffiti and Architectural Ghosting

Sensitive elements that tell us more about the history of the building such as historic graffiti and architectural ghosting should be treated delicately and preserved in‐place to the greatest extent possible.

The graphite graffiti noted on the attic floor on the northwest wall of the north room and the northwest wall of the south room should be protected during work.

A straight dark line on the ceiling of the second‐floor north room extends from a round hole above the doorway into the south room and likely indicates a previously mounted pipe or another element. This line should be maintained as an architectural ghost.

Area of graphite historic graffiti located on the northwest wall of the attic floor south room.

Area of architectural ghosting on the ceiling of the second floor north room.

Lathe Detachment

A few of the wooden lathe pieces have detached from their anchors on the ceiling, most notably in the second‐floor south room. Those indicated should be re‐anchored if possible.

Area of lathe detachment in the southwest corner of the ceiling of the second floor south room.

Biogrowth

Biogrowth was mostly noted on the exterior of the building at the base of the basement wall and northwest wall. Active biogrowth in these locations should be treated with a biocide on a regular basis to prevent mold and algae growth.

There were some areas on the interior plasters where it appeared as if mold had been previously growing on the surfaces (black spots were noted in the north corner of the second‐floor south room as well as on the northwest wall of the second‐floor north room) due to water intrusion into the building, but it appears that the surveyed plasters are dry now and the mold growth is dead. Where possible without causing damage, these traces should be cleaned from the plaster surface.

Green and black biogrowth as well as vegetation growth at base of northwest exterior wall.

Iron Staining

Iron staining was only noted in one area on the exterior of the building. It should be removed with an appropriate conservation cleaner, and the source replaced and/or treated with a corrosion inhibitor.

Iron staining at top of northeast end of northwest exterior wall.

Conditions for Each Area (Consult Appendix I for accompanying condition drawings):

Four interior rooms:

Second‐floor South

Walls

Much like the fragments surrounding the door in the north room, the plaster surrounding the door on the NW wall of the South room is mostly stable with larger areas of detachment in the top two feet above the doorway, largely associated with cracking. The area above the top right of the doorway has a visible deflection outward that should be addressed. A few ferrous anchors can be seen to the right of the door and a few areas of failing finishes can be seen to the left of the door. Edges on either side of the wall are detaching.

The small fragment above the mantle on the chimney has a large area of detachment in its middle and an area of cracking along its left side. The edges appear to have been consolidated and edged previously but a few areas should be reattached. There are also failing finishes along the right side.

The fragment located above the built‐in cabinet on the northwest wall has a few areas of blind detachment, but overall feels mostly stable as long as the cabinet remains in place. A few cracks extend vertically from the cabinet up to the ceiling. About 25% of the surface has failing finishes. The edges along the top and right side need to be reattached. There appears to be some old mold growth at the right side of this fragment that should be cleaned off if possible, without damaging the plaster or its finishes.

The fragment of the southwest wall to the left door to the balcony is mostly stable with only a few areas of blind detachment, mostly located at the top edge as well as the bottom right towards the doorway, largely associated with cracking. Failing finishes on this wall constitute about 25% of the wall surface. It appears that much of the edge has been previously consolidated and the lower edge of this fragment appears to have been treated with a sort of Grey Portland shelf support system underneath the plaster fragments, possibly inserted with the idea of supporting the weight of the plaster since the baseboard was removed here. It is unclear if the baseboard was removed for this treatment, or the treatment was necessary because the supportive baseboard had been removed. There's a small area that was out of reach at the top left side of the fragment due to the stairwell.

The fragment on the southwest wall to the right of the exterior door appears to be much less stable with a large area of detachment located at its top, especially right of the window extending from the top down 2‐3 ft. Additional blind detachment is noted below the window as well as to its bottom right corner. Extensive repair work appears to have been done below the window where a large crack network has formed. The previous treatment has injected epoxy and caulking in this area as well as filled with a tan mortar to stabilize these fragments. Like on the left, the baseboard here has been pulled off.

The edges are mostly attached and consolidated, though the edge along the bottom of this fragment should be reattached. A few areas of exposed scratch coat at the bottom right are friable and should be consolidated as well as an exposed area next to the top right corner of the window. Finishes were noted as failing on about 20% of the wall surface, mostly concentrated to the right of the window. Areas of larger wallpaper fragments were noted also mostly concentrated to the right and below the window and should be reattached as needed.

Stair

The interior stair leading from the second floor down to the first floor has two walls. The southeast wall is mostly in fair condition but has larger areas of blind detachment occurring near the top of the fragments as well as down near the treads of the stair and along the intersection with the SW wall. It appears that these areas have been consolidated in the past as the plaster is not friable. There is a major gap in between the plaster in the corner at the intersection with the SW fragment that needs to be addressed with fill in order to save this area. Failing finishes are noted in a few areas, and there's a visible line of built‐up limewash layers across the wall that should be preserved.

The fragment on the southwest wall appears to have been addressed with a large repair campaign previously. It appears that most of the area has been skim coated to a thickness of about 1/16” ‐ 1/4” in areas, perhaps with lime. There is a large crack that zig zags across the surface as well as down into the gap with the southeast fragment. A large area of blind detachment was noted at the bottom left of this fragment associated with that cracking as well as another area at the bottom right near the doorway. As noted above there is a large gap between the two fragments of the stairway that should be filled to stabilize the section.

Ceiling

As with the north room, the south room ceiling is crisscrossed with a network of cracking, though these cracks appear to be in more of a linear pattern. Blind detachment is associated mostly with cracking and covers about 40% of the surface. It appears that most of the edges have been consolidated previously and no friability was noted. About 70% of the edges are exhibiting gapping and should be reattached.

Small fragments of wallpaper are noted on both the SW ceiling section as well as the NW ceiling section and architectural ghosting of the ceiling‐mounted pipe noted in the north room extends along the southwest side of the NW fragment. Plaster keys between the wood lathe strips are also noted in this room and should be treated with consolidant. A few strips of lathe near the SW fragment of plaster should be reattached as they have broken loose.

Second‐floor North

Walls

The fragment on the NE wall next to the door is incredibly stable and only shows one crack. The edges have been consolidated.

The fragment on the southeast wall to the left of the chimney is much more unstable with an extensive network of cracking. Detachment surrounds most of this cracking and it appears that much previous conservation and stabilization has been conducted on this wall. Only about 30% of the edges are detaching in this fragment. The cracking and fragmented section to the top left this area is in dire need of stabilization, especially as it appears to be visibly pulling away from the wall. Only a few areas showed friability as most of the edges have been consolidated.

The fragment on the southeast wall to the right of the chimney is also in fairly stable condition. Most of the detachment is also aligned with cracking on the surfaces, most notably in the top two feet of the wall above the door frame (as with the same area in the south room) and along a large crack to the left of the door frame. Many of the edges are attached though with only about 20% of the edge being detached. Again, most of the plaster edges have been consolidated in this area and no friability was noted. A ferrous anchor was noted on the right side of this fragment as well as a currently embedded bracket next to the chimney.

The small fragment on the southwest wall is in fair condition for its size and is associated with the large fragment on the NW wall. It was noted that at least 70% of this fragment appears to have blind detachment, mostly associated with cracking and many of these cracks extend into the adjoining fragment. The area of exposed scratch at the top of this fragment is rather friable and should be consolidated. Other edges appear to have been treated with consolidants previously, however. The top and bottom 1‐2 feet of this fragment need edging.

The fragment on the northwest wall appears to be in the worst condition of any other wall fragment in this room. A great deal of blind detachment (at least 50% of the wall surface) was noted, especially at the right side of the wall and an extensive crack system was noted throughout the wall system. There appears to have been old water damage on the right side and this area corresponds to a downspout located on the exterior of the building; likely overflow from this element or another leak allowed water into the wall here and damaged the underlying scratch coat and its adhesion to the masonry wall. These areas will have to be treated with consolidants and readhesion to the wall insured. While most of the plaster edges appear to have been consolidated, there are sensitive areas of friable scratch noted at the top left corner, in the crescent section of the water‐damaged area, and it at the base of the wall in the middle. Much of the edge appears to be attached and only about 10% needs to be reattached.

Closet

As previously noted, the two small fragments underneath the stairs in the cabinet do not appear to have been treated in a previous conservation campaign. These two fragments are mostly stable. The fragment on the northwest wall shows a small lip at the top where it would have potentially connected with an angled plaster ceiling under the stair. There's a small area of detachment at the bottom and a need for edging alongside this bottom edge. The fragment on the northeast wall has a great need for consolidation as all edges are friable as well as detached and need to be readhered to the wall surface.

Ceiling

The ceiling is in extensive need of conservation, as the heavy historic lime plasters are being affected by gravity and the previous of treatments appear to be failing in areas. There's an extensive crack network across the surface of the ceiling and large areas of blind attachment are associated with the cracking, covering about 60% of the ceiling. About 80% of the edges are consolidated but detaching and need to be reattached. It appears that since the last time the ceiling was conserved, a section of the ceiling at the southwest corner was lost as the edge is friable and previous repair edging is noted on the lathe 3‐5 inches away from this raw edge. A few other areas of friable plaster were noted at the north end of the room in association with the stair – a small fragment appears to have broken off at the top of the angled stair fragment and additionally its edge along the NW wall where it was previously attached is highly friable. Two areas at the east corner appear to have been filled with a tan mortar in order to save those fragments in a later campaign (similar to the mortar seen in the fill on the SW wall of the South room).

Sensitive finishes such as the architectural ghost of the pipe extending from the southern room should be protected and wallpaper fragments are noted all over the surface, but most concentrated at the north end of the room. A large amount of plaster keys are noted between the lathe across the ceiling surface and should be consolidated.

Attic North

Walls

The fragment on the southeast wall can be considered mostly stable. Only two sections were found to have blind detachment ‐ the foot or so at the top across and a small section where cracking is observed at the bottom. There was a small network of cracks running from the top left side towards this cracking area at the bottom. 4 conservation injection points are noted here as well as two ferrous anchors. The top edge as well as the top right corner edges are noted as being detached, but all edges appear to have been consolidated. There is a small section at the bottom right that appears to contain original finishes in the form of limewash. A white square appears to have been applied on the surface, perhaps with limewash, but its purpose is unknown.

The northwest wall has about 30% of the wall displaying blind detachment. Cracking was noted in various areas across the wall surface, though mostly concentrated on the left fragment and at the junction of the walls at the north corner. The left fragment had a variety of ferrous anchors embedded and an old electrical wall anchor was noted embedded at the top right of the window. This wall had a few areas of failing finishes, mostly concentrated in the area above the stairway, with a few smaller areas at the lower half of the left fragment. Historic graphite graffiti was noted to the right of the window and original finishes of a blue limewash were noted at the top of the left fragment. Additionally at the top edges of both the left and right side of these fragments, a plaster lip was noted that denotes where the plaster would have intersected with the plaster ceiling before it was lost. About 50% of the edges are detached and there are a few areas of friability in association with plaster scratch loss, but most of the edges appear to have been consolidated previously. Those few areas of scratch loss without finish coat loss should be backed to prevent loss of the remaining fabric.

Stair

The stair leading down to the second‐floor north room appears to be largely stable, though blind detachment is noted in the cracked corner as well as on the NE wall around a series of exposed scratch areas next to the door. The exposed scratch as well as any edges appears to have been consolidated. As previously noted, the finishes in this area are flaking in areas, especially on the NW wall. Edge detachment in these areas is minimal; a few areas above some of the treads need edging as well as the top edge of the NE wall fragment.

Attic South

The south attic room only contained one plaster fragment on wooden lathe. This fragment was fairly stable, though in the lower 2 feet of the fragment as well as the top right corner blind detachment was noted. 8 injection points from the conservation campaign were noted. Additionally, an epoxy edge repair was noted to the right and at the top corner. A white square appears to have been applied on the surface, perhaps with limewash, but its purpose is unknown. A few patches of scratch coat were noted in a line a foot or two up from the flooring, perhaps from being scraped by something in the past, though much of it appears to be previously consolidated. A few small areas of friable scratch were noted at the bottom right edge and at the left end of the line of scratch holes. All edges above the baseboard were noted as being detached from the lathe. A large piece of graphite historic graffiti can be found at the top of the fragment.

Exterior Stair

Annex Wall

Areas of limewash on the annex wall are built up to such a level where the edges are beginning to flake off and they should be stabilized. Due to these flaking areas, about 25% of these fragments are noted as failing finishes and are very fragile. Sounding testing indicated that there is some blind detachment between finish layers as well, covering about 15% of the surface on the annex. Especially in the area leading from the basement to the first floor, the lower layers of the finishes were noted as being warm yellow, the middle layers being a blue gray, and the top layer being pink. These limewash finishes should be treated with great care to preserve the history of maintenance of the building.

NW Masonry Wall

The plaster on the northwest masonry wall appears to be in fair condition and has a variety of areas of blind detachment, constituting about 40% of the reachable wall. There is minor cracking in association with blind detachment as well. Much like the lime wash on the annex, it appears that this wall was also coated multiple times in many maintenance campaigns with various colored line washes. There is only one noted ferrous element embedded in the surface. It appears that a great deal of stabilization work was previously carried on this wall as there is a large amount of cement stucco infill and skim both at the top and the bottom of this wall (this skim was extended along the entire NE wall of the Roeder House as well). The upper areas of the wall on the second story show about 20% failing limewash finishes. The top 5‐6 ft of the wall was inaccessible for tap testing, but no large cracking is noted in these areas, so it might be fairly stable.

Exterior Stucco

The exterior stucco appears to have been redone in the late 1990s to early 2000s according to the HS‐ CRIS and PMIS records. The stucco condition overall is good, but hairline cracks are exhibited in areas across the southwest elevation mostly in conjunction with window and door openings. Other hairline cracks are also seen on the northwest elevation, mostly concentrated around the opening of the doorway that previously led to the back first floor porch. Cracks should be filled as needed to prevent water ingress to the wall. Some areas of previous repair are apparent but should be left in situ.

The area of stucco on the southwest elevation where the exterior porch has a juncture with the base of the first floor shows deterioration of the stucco in the form of spalling and needs repair. These areas should be patched in kind with a drip edge (without fully abutting the existing porch boards) to prevent rot of the wooden elements and also allow for future replacement of these boards.

The juncture between the sloped roadway edge and the northwest elevation of the building is open and allowing water to enter the building assembly causing a great deal of moisture in the basement wall of the NW room. This opening should be filled with a flexible material such as a sealant to allow for differential movement between the building and the roadway while still preventing liquid water from entering the enclosed space.

A small area of rust staining, appearing to originate from underneath the seamed metal roofing, can be seen on the small area of stucco on the northeast elevation of the stucco. This should be removed with appropriate conservation cleaners and the source of the rust repaired and treated with a rust inhibitor.

Additionally, the four bolts that are embedded in the stucco on the northwest elevation to hold the sign “confectionery” should be treated with a rust inhibitor regularly to prevent potential damage to the stucco.

Biogrowth can be found in the bottom 3 feet of the northwest elevation as well as on the basement level of the southwest elevation. The large amount of biogrowth on the basement level is due to the prevalence of water in this area from rainwater overflow of the street curb and the lack of exposure to sunlight. Larger vegetation was also seen inhabiting a crack in the stucco near the downspout at the east end of the NW elevation. Additionally on the NW elevation, biogrowth was noted along the top of the stucco wall, likely where water gathers and slowly drips down the wall face. These areas should be treated with an appropriate biocide such as D/2 or Prosoco’s Restoration Cleaner on a regular basis and any vegetation removed.

Conclusion and Listed Recommendations for Treatment

As mentioned in the introduction, the treatment rationale for this property stems from the Preservation section of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. It is therefore recommended that the extant plaster should be cleaned and stabilized to prevent further deterioration rather than removed and replaced in‐ kind. Any fills or injection points should be slightly receded from the wall surface to convey that they are repairs. Additional plaster should not be added ‐ the extant scratch/finish coats and limewashes should be consolidated and readhered as needed and stabilized. Any sensitive areas should be protected during work and fragments readhered as needed.

General Recommendations

TEST all cleaning and consolidation products and methodology prior to full scale implementation.

All unstable extant plaster should be consolidated where found to be friable or where acoustic sounding revealed detachment from the wall. Test potential consolidation products (such as CaLoSiL E25, Rhoplex MC‐76, OH100, Paraloid B‐72, Paraloid B‐67) to determine the best solvent to use that will not stain the adjacent surfaces. Consolidate the crumbling/friable plaster with the appropriate products with either a plastic pipette or a needle and syringe to the affected area. Consolidants and/or acrylic adhesives should be applied around fragment edges or through carefully chosen injection points. Injection holes should be drilled as sparingly as possible while still providing for stabilization and re‐adherence of the plaster. Holes should be filled with a historically compatible plaster mix to surface level to lessen visual impact.

Re‐adhere any loose plaster fragments and reattach and inject around the repair location. Very loose fragments should be removed, and the exposed material should be cleaned with a stiff brush and a consolidant applied. Any plaster exposed by removal of the spall should be consolidated and left to cure overnight. An acrylic adhesive should be used to reattach consolidated plaster or stucco fragments. The fragment should be reinstalled in its original location and supported with temporary padded shoring until the adhesive has cured. The cracks/voids around the plaster fragment should be injected with the finish coat of the plaster mix.

Reattach all detached edges with an appropriate conservation adhesive and/or a lime based edging mortar.

Stabilization of all unstable historic finishes with an appropriate conservation adhesive. A consolidant or acrylic adhesive should be applied using plastic pipettes or a needle and syringe to reattach delaminating finishes to the wall surface. Potential products should be tested before widespread usage to avoid staining.

Fill all cracks in the plaster greater than hairline with an appropriate fill such as lime‐based finish or a conservation adhesive where necessary. Recess fill where possible slightly to indicate a repair.

Cracks greater than hairline should be first treated with a consolidant and then injected with either the finish plaster mix or an acrylic or lime‐based grout to stabilize the wall and prevent further deterioration.

Mortar analysis should be conducted to determine the material composition of the plaster. Use a historically compatible mix to fill areas behind gapping plaster, holes drilled for injection, and any fills or rebuilds needed for losses around openings.

All metallic elements should be left in place, lightly cleaned, and painted with a rust converter (often tannic acid compounds) or a corrosion inhibitor coating. Routine maintenance should be scheduled to recoat these elements regularly to prevent future damage.

Recommendations for attic floor room specifically (in addition to the above recommendations for all plaster):

Preservation of historic graffiti in the form of graphite text. This graffiti does not need any treatments as it is stable, but it should be protected during other conservation work.

In the small areas where the finish plaster layer has gapped away from the wall surface and the scratch coat has disintegrated behind, plaster dust should be gently dusted out of the gap with natural bristle brushes, all surfaces consolidated, and a historically compatible plaster fill should be carefully built up behind the fragile areas to support and reattach the finish coat to the wall.

Recommendations for second floor rooms specifically (in addition to the above recommendations for all plaster):

Stabilization and re‐adhesion of historic wallpaper fragments with an appropriate conservation adhesive. Test potential adhesives to determine the best to use that will not stain the adjacent surfaces.

Protection and preservation of architectural ghosting in the form of the pipe mark stretching across both ceilings. This ghosting should not need any treatments as it is stable, but it should be protected during other conservation work and the plaster ceiling beneath these areas conserved so that it is stable and will not be lost.

Consolidation of plaster keys between wooden lathe slats on ceilings. Test potential consolidation products (such as CaLoSiL E25, Rhoplex MC‐76, OH100, Paraloid B‐72, Paraloid B‐

67) to determine the best solvent to use that will not stain the adjacent surfaces. Consolidate the crumbling/friable plaster with the appropriate products with either a plastic pipette or a needle and syringe to the affected area.

Recommendations for limewashes of the Roeder annex wall specifically:

Stabilization and re‐adhesion of multiple layers of failing historic limewash coatings to brick masonry. A consolidant or acrylic adhesive should be applied using plastic pipettes or a needle and syringe to reattach delaminating finishes to the wall surface. Potential products should be tested before widespread usage to avoid staining.

Recommendations for exterior stucco, Northwest elevation with small section at end of wall facing

Northeast:

Rust staining removal on any affected surfaces with an appropriate conservation cleaner at top of northeast section. Source of rust staining should also be addressed to prevent future staining.

Regular biological growth removal on all affected surfaces. No more than hose‐pressurized water should be used in addition to natural bristle brushes and a biocide (quaternary ammonium compound).

Crack between wall of northwest elevation and angled pavement of the street below should be filled with a flexible material such as a sealant to allow for differential movement between the building and the roadway while still preventing liquid water from entering the enclosed space.

Cracks greater than hairline should be injected with an acrylic or lime‐based grout to stabilize the wall and prevent further deterioration.

Recommendations for exterior stucco, Southwest elevation:

Regular biological growth removal on all affected surfaces. No more than hose‐pressurized water should be used in addition to natural bristle brushes and a biocide (quaternary ammonium compound).

Stucco repair at porch on SW facade where material is spalling. Repair should be in‐kind with a similar stucco mix and a drip edge should be included in the repair to prevent future rot and allow for easy replacement of boards if necessary.

Cracks greater than hairline should be injected with an acrylic or lime‐based grout to stabilize the wall and prevent further deterioration.

Appendix I:

Field Notes from Conditions Assessment

V

X X

- \ (l)cl\ ') ✓ � --;::t �\'(\J\ �'\ j t--i

'5

t. c.

"�O N

\ -pa_ '(2,-s A r- J c.

,-vo ( l

. \. lri �

- "-,i; "" "� ' 11(!/l)

SG

�-J\C A {L{::�

#/1/ 4 (

\ t'l'I f"( l

,::., -N I <'TI\

' fl I t t i

'I - � i��(��

4//fJf: _, \)��� �W\,�

1v

/ff

;. �� � />{v.- �,�� �

U)���,-1\l ���.J�

Key Used Onsite During Plaster and Stucco Survey

Second Floor, South

Walls

Northwest Wall, Surrounding Door into North Room

Northwest Wall, Above Mantel 27

Northwest Wall, Above Built-in Cabinet

Southwest Wall, Left of Door to Balcony

OL.f> S� -nrt\1" � Vl'l� ��E.!>Ofl'WO

Southwest Wall, Right of Door to Balcony

Ceiling

(/\S,��

Southwest Wall, Left of Exterior DoorSouthwest Wall, Left of Exterior Door

Nortwest Ceiling Section, North corner looking up and NW 32 ci1�N� ---..� ·-. Nortwest Ceiling Section, East corner looking up and SW 33

Nortwest Ceiling Section, West corner looking up and slightly NE 34

I

Nortwest Ceiling Section, South corner looking up and slightly NE 35

Southwest Ceiling Section, Three fragments looking SW

Interior Stair to First Floor

Southeast Section, full fragment looking SW

Stair to First Floor, Southeast wall, Upper, Looking E 38

,we-=

�"\t.olt

0� lt(;:IO.

'fb-)�\\

1/('iU...

Ot-l "T'\f f'\r,\. Utft.

l\'l'\"\1"�

Stair to First Floor, Southeast wall, Lower, Looking down and SE

Stair to First Floor, Southwest wall, Looking down and SW

Second Floor, North

Southwest Wall, Attached to NW wall fragment r----------, Northwest Wall, Partially attached to SW wall fragment43

Northeast Wall, Right of Attic stair door 44

Southeast Wall, Left of chimney 45 j

! 1 I v\ i 'l

Southeast Wall, Right of chimney

Under Stairs

Under Stair to Attic, Northeast Wall48

Under Stair to Attic, Northwest Wall

Ceiling

N t

Ceiling Section, North corner by entry to Attic Stair, Looking up and slightly NE

'2.

'Z.

Ceiling Section, East corner, Left of chimney on southeast wall, Looking up and slightly SW

Ceiling Section, East corner, Left of chimney on southeast wall, Looking up and slightly SW c.,� (!)Ceiling Section, South corner, Right of chimney and above door on southeast wall, Looking up t

N r

Ceiling Section, West corner, Looking up and slightly NE, Angled area…