Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Historic Structures Report Summaries 2006
CENTER FOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION C H C COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE TEXAS A &M UNIVERSITY 1b` Historic Structures Report Summaries ARCH 648 FALL 2006 r . r 1 a � � /� Barracks #8476 -1943 Heather K. Caldwell, Jeff Daulton, Elisa Lazo, Douglas Mullens 8522 -8524 Warehouse Row Michelle Audenhaert, Kevin Sample, Jessica Thiebout Hanger #46 Aaron Cooper, Amanda Fry, Grace Lo i Contents Introduction 3 The Beginning 7 Chronology of Bryan AAF Base 8 WASP at Bryan Field 9 African American Servicemen 10 Historic Structures Report Summaries Barracks #8476 -1943 11 8522 -8524 Warehouse Row 19 Hangar #46 29 1 INTRODUCTION The Historic Structure Report, like many other tools of American preservation practice owes its formal beginning to the National Park Service, and more specifically to the creative mind of the late Charles E. Peterson, FAIA. In 1931, on being assigned to 'restore' the Moore House, the site of the British surrender at Yorktown, Peterson undertook what was described later as "the first real attempt at accountability of the scholarship and the architectural investigation involved in historic building restoration," (1.) Briefly, the idea of a Historic Structure Report is to gather all available data on the building, its context, its owners, changes over time, and technical information on materials and assemblies, whether it be documentary or visual, and add that to a careful analysis of the building as found, as a guide to all future decisions on repairs and changes to the building. The professional value of observing, recording, and analyzing data, and then drawing conclusions as to the causes and possible remedies, is central to work on existing buildings. It is also a task that demands the ability to utilize a wide variety of disciplines, and to communicate findings effectively. ARCH 648 Preservation Technology is a graduate course taught in the Department of Architecture at Texas A &M University. For several years teams of students from many disciplines enrolled in this class have examined buildings in the Brazos Valley and produced reports that have identified problems and pointed toward causes and solutions. While these are not 'professional' reports, they have proved valuable to many building owners. As the world becomes more aware of the need for conservation and sustainable practice, the retention of older (even 20th century) buildings, will require that we learn to understand their materials and technology. In Fall 2006 the ARCH 648 class used three structures on the Texas A &M's Riverside Campus, the former Bryan Army Air Base, as case studies, and once again another group of students learned the value of "Reading Buildings Instead of Books." (2.) It is our hope that these new analyses of the heritage of WWII and the Korean War on the Riverside campus will draw attention to their significance, and encourage their active reuse, while retaining as much as possible of their historic fabric and character. David G. Woodcock, FAIA, FSA, FAPT Professor of Architecture 1. Russell E.Dickenson, Foreword, The Moore House HSR, NPS, 1981 2. David G. Woodcock, Reading Buildings Not Books: Historic Structure Reports as Learning Tools, APT Bulletin, Vol, 28, No, 1, 1997 3 APT BULLETIN Vol. XXVIII No. 1, 1997 Special Issue on Historic Structures Reports Reading Buildings Instead of Books: Historic Structure Reports as Learning Tools DAVID G. WOODCOCK A disciplined building investigation Students engaged in professional variety of sources, notably Frederick involving research, field study, and studies in architecture, construction, Stahl's Guide to the Maintenance, analysis introduces student teams engineering, landscape architecture, Repair and Alteration of Historic and planning are showing an increas- Buildings (1984). After the owner's to the process and content of a ing recognition of the value of our approvals are obtained and safety historic structure report. cultural and built heritage and the during investigative procedures is advantages of resource conservation. stressed, the team embarks on its The discipline of building investi- examination. While the process is gation provides a unique challenge significantly shorter than a full pro - involving physical and historical fessional analysis, the students gain investigation through field work and an appreciation of field observation, documentary search, followed by sketch documentation, and measur- analytical consideration of the find- ing, as well as an understanding of ings and by an assessment of the the major aspects of the building, its probable causes of observed prob- components, and systems. Historical lems. The investigation is even more research at courthouses and local meaningful if it is carried out by a libraries and the opportunity to group with varied disciplines, skills, recognize the difficulty of using oral and experiences. Such projects have history provide additional data. the advantage noted by the French Traditional and digital cameras are educator Jean Piaget of "learning by used for both general and specific doing," a concept more recently documentation. Some teams have identified by Donald Schon and used a video camera, often with I others as "reflective practice." Team graphic verbal descriptions and projects also support the principle of alarming gyrations of the images, historic preservation as a collabora- sometimes, but not always, reflecting tive effort among diverse specialists. distortions in the subject structure! The historic structure report pro- The analysis that follows the field vides a valuable vehicle for such study makes full use of the National activity. After studying the seminal Park Service Preservation Briefs and work of Charles Peterson at the other published material on building . Moore House, the National Park treatments. The major purpose here = Service's Fort Johnson study, and is not a specification for repair but a other professional precedents, stu- common -sense appreciation of the dents in a preservation philosophy stresses to wbich buildings are sub - ,ems° and practice class at Texas A &M jected and a general understanding of Fig. 1. The First Presbyterian Church in University are asked to identify a structural stability and sound con - Calvert, Texas, at its second location in the simple, readily accessible structure struction principles. While most town, stripped of the tower that appears on for study and to form teams across students tend to have some back - an 1877 photograph of the budding on its the disciplines represented in the ground in architecture and design, original site near the railroad tracks, and class to undertake a building- analysis students from other disciplines have adorned with a Greek Revival facade after the move in 1913. Lumberyard and deed report. gained from these field- related activi- records confirmed the original date of con- The basic ground rules for build- ties. Many have subsequently com- struction of a new church in Calvert. ing investigation are provided from a pleted internships with Main Street 5 38 APT BULLETIN and similar programs, where their p_ ability to provide an initial assess- ment and recognize the need to call I' 1 upon seasoned professionals has rf proved valuable. Mini Since the building analysis report � -, 1i is a four -week homework exercise, 1 J11IIJ Jj I r I it the requirements are limited to a basic description of the structure, MR � identification of four or five maor ' I problems, and suggestions on their �' .1Filli!Irrifi , '" 1 , t probable cause and remedy. Fre- ! t , I quently th e teams are eager to emu- ,- II wrl ,,,� - i I lace the professional case studies --- _ I discussed in class, and the results in t _ I these cases have made significant l ifiII , II1 l , 1 contributions to the understanding of - - — ,Iiffi 1 - °� = 11], �! -w I I. these resources and provided addi- IN tional material for class discussion. "° pi e.3 i The assignment has received excel- 3 lent responses from students, and the results have produced a range of Fig. 2. The Grimes County Courthouse was constructed in 1894, &ter fire had damaged earlier structures on the site. Placing the courtroom on the second floor allowed for clear spans, since important information, there are no rooms above. The Victorian builders provided only one stair in the building, though The official state marker at the an external wooden stair was added to the south side in the 1920s. Concern for life safety and First Presbyterian Church in Calvert, accessibility is a major challenge that can only be addressed by the addition of a sprinkler sys- tem and an elevator, the latter causing a significant reduction in usable space. Documentation Texas, notes that the building was by Texas A & M University student team, summer 1989. HABS Collection, Library of Congress. moved from an adjacent community. However, a study of nineteenth - century lumberyard records and identification of several historical evidence suggested an earlier elevator DAVID G. WOODCOCK, FAIA, RIBA, had been installed, perhaps hydraulic is a professor of architecture at Texas photographs indicate that the present A8cM University and directs the interdis church was built in Calvert but later rather than electric, so this case study ciplinary Certificate in Historic Preserva- moved across town to its present offered proof of the value of careful lion graduate program. location. The evidence was clear, observation and documentation. and the student team received an Occasionally such analyses pro- vide the basis for physical change. Acknowledgments are due to all my invitation to present its findings to students in historic preservation, espe- the members of the church, One of the issues noted in a study of cially to those whose work is described in The Sealy Mansion in Galveston is the Grimes County Courthouse in this article: First Presbyterian Church the only McKim, Mead, White build- Anderson, Texas, was that the study: Geoffrey Brune, Anat Geva, and second -floor courtroom did not meet Emma Hocker; elevator in the George ing in Texas. During its conversion Sealy Mansion: Charles John; Grimes to a medical conference center the accessibility standards. The student's County Courthouse accessibility study: original elevator was to be removed, analysis and proposal suggested a Melissa Paul. The student's analysis of this build- solution chat, with some modifica- ing component provides a permanent tions, is likely to be realized in the record of this important feature. In near future. addition to drawings and descrip- White such studies must be recog- tions of the cage, shaft, and work- nized as academic exercises, there is ings, the study included a brief his- overwhelming evidence that the tory of the residential elevator and introduction to a systematic proce the manufacturer of the elevator, the duce and the basics of observation Sedgwick Machine Works of New and analysis are an invaluable preps York. Prior to this study it had been ration for the professional. The assumed that the Sedgwick elevator process also demonstrates the value was the original, but the physical of the preservation professional to the broader public. 6 r AIL : •• � e r THE BEGINNING Texas became an excellent candidate for establishing Army Air Force Bases during World War II due to wide expanses of land, a large number of clear weather days, and relatively level terrain. Fourteen stations in all were established in Texas, including Bryan Army Air Force Field. Located six miles west of Bryan, the base was activated in 1943 and became instrumental as an instructors' school. One of its most significant contributions to pilot training was the development of the Full Panel Attitude System, making the instrument - training school the only one of its kind in the United States Army Air Forces. Upon the separation of the Air Force from the Army in 1947, the base became Bryan Air Force Base. During World War II, the base had a large number of African American personnel stationed there, as well as a number of women air force service pilots or WASP. At Bryan Army Air Force Field the women flew AT -6's and BT -B's. It was deactivated at the end of World War II and reactivated in 1951 to train pilots for the Korean War. The base was deactivated permanently in 1961. In 1962, the land was deeded to Texas A &M University. 7 CHRONOLOGY OF BRYAN AAF BASE 1942 May 29, Army and officials from the city of Bryan met and recommended the purchase of Bryan Field site. August 5, the official establishment of Army Air Force's advanced flying school is authorized. August 7, the actual construction of the base began. September 20, the commanding officer of the base Major Bingham T. Klein arrives at the base. September 24, the enlisted men started occupancy of the field. 1943 January 1, the construction of the base is 50% complete. March 21, base is re- designated as Army Air Force's instructor school and the first instrument pilot class is enrolled. June 6, Bryan Field is officially dedicated and the city's Citizen's Committee presents a P -51 to the base on behalf of the city of Bryan. 1944 Training Program continues at the base for the whole year. 1945 April 13, the 77th Flying Training Wing established at Bryan Field. October 2, Bryan Field receives telegram from War Department stating that it will be placed on the inactive list effective Oct. 31, 1945. October 31, Bryan Field placed on inactive list, 1951 July 1, Bryan Air Force Base placed on active list. July 20, Bryan Air Force Base named as pilot training school of advanced single engine planes. Base to use T -6's, T -33's, and F -80's in training program. September 17, first class of Aviation Cadets arrived at the base. This class included Allied - National students from the Netherlands, Belgium, and Norway, in addition to American cadets. 1961 Bryan Air Force Base is permanently de- activated. 1962 The Bryan Air Force Base land is deeded to Texas A &M University. 8 AFRICAN AMERICAN SERVICEMEN Numerous African American personnel were stationed at Bryan Army Air Force Base during WW II and the Korean War. Unfortunately, few written records could be found, so oral records were collected. Wayne Sadberry, curator of the Bryan African American Museum, graciously shared his recollections of the era. He said the base played an integral part in both social and economic relations in the community during the WWII and Korean War. Since the community was still segregated at that time, the African American officers had no separate quarters on the base. They were given the choice of either sleeping with their enlisted men, or living off base in civilian housing, which many chose to do. This allowed them to integrate with the locals more freely and made the effects of the base more profound. During the Korean War the officers were allowed to reside in the officers' quarters on base or live off base as well. This created a positive atmosphere in a community that was still segregated throughout. African American servicemen could have guests visit on base and use all the facilities, including the pool. Since the pools were segregated in Bryan, Wayne Sadberry recalls going swimming at the base pool many times. The servicemen, both black and white were instructed to sign in the children in as their guests so they could use the pool. He remembers waiting at the gate many times for a serviceman to walk by and sign him in as his guest. In 1942, the base had a total of twelve barrack buildings for African American enlisted men. Today only four of those survive. They are buildings 8476, 8475, 8474, 8473, 8483, 8487, and, 8488. This report will cover building # 8476. 10 1 0 WASP AT BRYAN FIELD 40 Women Air Force Service Pilots were also stationed at Bryan Army Air Force Base. They flew At- 6's and BT -13s as engineering test • pilots at Bryan Army Air Force Base. Some of these women were: Ruth Westheimer • (Newmark)(43 -W -6), Suzanne • Delano (44 -W -6), Joan Michaels • (44 -W -6), Catherine D'Arezzo (44- W -4). Prior to being stationed at • Bryan Field, they were all trained at Avenger Field in Sweetwater, • Texas, which was a small west Texas town at that time. • Jacqueline Cochran who was a pilot herself • initiated the program. She convinced the • commander of the Army Air Force, General S Henry Hap Arnold, that allowing women to take up roles of maintenance test pilots, • would free up male pilots for flight missions • overseas. The training program was rigorous and successful, producing 1074 pilots. A • total of 18 classes graduated from Avenger • Field. The women ranged from ages 18 -28, • and although they all had various flying experience, from as little as six months, to • full flight instructor status, all had to be pilots • to be accepted into the program. • E_ The women bravely answered the call to • °" serve their country even though they technically remained civilian volunteers • / through out their service. This meant they received no military privileges. Out of the • ' a -�'� 1074 women, 38 died in training or active • duty. The military did not pay for their • funerals or allow a flag to be draped over - • ) their their caskets. Sadly, their own families even 0 had to pay to fly their bodies home. Finally, in 1977, the U.S. officially recognized the • WASP as military veterans. • • • • • 9 • • • • AFRICAN AMERICAN SERVICEMEN • • Numerous African American personnel were stationed at Bryan Army Air Force • Base during WW II and the Korean War. Unfortunately, few written records could • be found, so oral records were collected. Wayne Sadberry, curator of the Bryan African American Museum, graciously shared his recollections of the era. He said • the base played an integral part in both social and economic relations in the • community during the WWII and Korean War. Since the community was still • segregated at that time, the African American officers had no separate quarters on the base. They were given the choice of either sleeping with their enlisted men, or living off base in civilian housing, which many chose to do. This allowed • them to integrate with the locals more freely and made the effects of the base • more profound. • During the Korean War the officers were allowed to reside in the officers' quarters • on base or live off base as well. This created a positive atmosphere in a • community that was still segregated throughout. African American servicemen could have guests visit on base and use all the facilities, including the pool. Since • the pools were segregated in Bryan, Wayne Sadberry recalls going swimming at • the base pool many times. The servicemen, both black and white were 0 instructed to sign in the children in as their guests so they could use the pool. He remembers waiting at the gate many times for a serviceman to walk by and sign • him in as his guest. In 1942, the base had a total of twelve barrack buildings for • African American enlisted men. Today only four of those survive. They are • buildings 8476, 8475, 8474, 8473, 8483, 8487, and, 8488. This report will cover building # 8476. • • • • • S • • • • 10 • • • • • • • Barracks # 84 - 1943 • Bryan Army Air Force Field • Bryan, TX • • • '��a • • �-'" .� ..,;. • n • • >' ' '" "\ _"'tat •' fi ' s fi +� - �'. v c • • • i e � . firi3.i�t�d f,. • • • H istoric Structure Report • H eather K. Caldwell Jeff Daulton • Elisa Lazo • Douglas Mullens • 2006 • • • • • • • • • • • 11 AI _ _..., • • • • ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE AND EXISTING ASSESSMENT • • Affer several trips to the barracks, when it was dry and when i was pouring rain, we were able to see the building inside and out. The trip during the rain proved • most valuable because we were able to pinpoint the exact locations of ceiling leakage. The building, now over sixty years old, has seen better days and has t• • been slowly deteriorating over the years. • �a - ry`d -... • v�\ ,,. s --,1m. � \ .c \ , c -, • • • • • • • Barrack's # 8476 - November 2006 EXTERIOR CONDITION • • "Good" The condition is good enough that the material does not need to be ,• replaced or rehabbed and is structurally sound. IT is still performing its intended purpose well. • "Fair" - The materials condition may need some upkeep, cleaning, and very limited replacement, but its condition does not affect its overall ability to perform • its intended purpose. • II "Poor" - The material has a moderate amount of damage in places that it needs • to be at least partially replaced or strengthened to continue to perform its intended purpose. "Very Poor" - The material is in such bad condition overall that alm.ot all of it • needs to be replaced. It is no longer performing its intended purpose. • • • • • 12 • • * • • • # 8476 Avenue C • Wood Framed Rectangular building with asbestos siding and asphalt shingle • roof. • • • 4111 • 411 Rear View of Barrack's # 8476 O Floor plan: • • z 411 ' f f i . ti 1 • .., • 2 0 L 13 h ITC , A Tr .... • . „„_ _ 1 - 24',. I 24 -V' ..■ . • CM., P1or MN • *cm drat.. dm • 411 .•...5eferaus,•,C d that twial. . • • • • Elevations: , • • -i-:,-..,-,-.Ttftrt::ma,mff.„___ ,b • ... 1 ...— . =:!,....:::::.!„............... .=, a.. = ... ____ — ::- _ ( .100.10, . .....-___. - t- - - — C ■100.11) - ' 311111111 7. ...... -1 ( • 101.1, • • ==., , .."-='.= . . . •--. .-. • • - - • . • - -2. -,-, . . ., .,-, •—• • • ,-- E • .—, 4 ,•—• ,...s.r. . . sr.. • • n t c..-. •-• e . , : .,, ' " ' . .". -..."- . . . . ' - -r- .-. --- c -=--. - a 6 .1 -r-n I: r------ r- .-- . -,------ ,ss-- u- — — — — - r---- : --,-------: ;-s-.. . .,..-Ma<r-''''. . . .—.7.- ,-.—.7:. -. t.', . . .- -• . . . .- -. . . . .—. . . . .—. . . .., ..:., se". . . =a= . . .- E ..-r. . . . .*:ar OWN iii -- ' in FM M iii — -- -------y:=112 — — iii ----- • - EE fq ...1. r.- C A li C ...It 4. a ......... saw f'-- ___.' ...... l,- - - - - - O ( .100,0 (100.) .- 5.3211 Els* • I i ....... r — • 1,---= ES El 11111 = M Iiii 1 • ____ _■..............-- _.....■ • .cw- Covered W.dow ( fran *Iv HO • 4111 • 13 • • • • Site: "Fair" - The barracks building is one of but a handful remaining of what used • to be hundreds of barracks for enlisted men in the second World War. The • building is accessed by a paved road with no improvements (i.e. curbs) which is on a slightly higher level than the building. It is the southernmost in a row of three • similar buildings. The ground level is raised slightly around the building coming up in places to touch the bottom course of siding. • Structure: "Good to Fair " - The barracks building is a long rectangular building with a gable roof of wood light -frame construction on a concrete block foundation. • The building is framed with 2" x 6" walls, 2" x 8" ceiling joists, and 2" x 6" rafters and • kickers. Where visible the wood is dry. The foundation shows signs of settling and • movement. While it is no longer visible in many places due to the rising of the ground level around the building, problems in the doors and windows point to S the foundation. The door frames are somewhat askew and the doors difficult to • operate. The third window from the left on the north side is crooked with the sill • broken from movement. The wall framing, where visible (on the interior), seems to be sound and shows little sign of damage. • • Siding: "Fair to Poor" - The building is covered with two exterior materials. The first and original material dating to the buildings construction in 1942 is asphalt felt siding secured with 1" x 2" vertical wooden battens. The felt is visible in a few • areas where the later covering (asbestos siding) has fallen away, and is 1 documented in historic photographs. The next layer, attached atop the felt • siding, is asbestos siding dating from a later rehab of the facility. The siding runs horizontally in approximately 11 1/2 inch courses. The upper portions of the siding • remain in fairly good shape and show little or no signs of water damage, still • being securely attached. The lowest band, however, is extensively damaged, • mostly where it has come into contact with the ground. Signs of rot and other moisture damage including mold and or mildew are present on most all of the bottom course of siding. The mold /mildew is most heavily concentrated across the south side of the building, whereas the disintegration of the siding is occurs the most around the doors and steps on the north side. At the corners the 50 percent or more of the cover pieces are missing or loose leaving the siding's ends constantly exposed to the weather. • • Paint: "Very Poor" - The paint is in • extremely poor condition and appears to have been last • applied in the remodel many • years ago. On the soffits, facia, windows, and other trim the paint has cracked and almost S completely peeled off leaving the wood exposed to the • weather conditions. The window sills seem to have limited to • extensive rot damage. • • 14 • • • • • Doors: "Fair" - Four exterior doors, only 30" wide, are evenly spaced on the north • side of the barracks. The door frames sit somewhat askew and are difficult to • operate. The steps to the doors on either end of the building, having once sat • even with the thresholds, now sit 3 to 4 inches below the door leaving an open gap. • • Windows: "Poor"- The building has 19 wooden double hung windows that are 35" • wide, originally having 20, with eight on the north facade, seven on the south facade, two on the east facade, and two on the west facade. The third window • from the left on the north elevation is heavily damaged from the shilling • foundation. The window frame is completely crooked, slanting up and to the • right, with the bottom sill plate cracked and bent on its right end. The window sits partially open permanently due to the lack of square. Multiple windows around • the building have broken or cracked panes. On the south side of the building six • of the eight windows as well as the southernmost window on the east and side • have been covered over from the inside so they no longer have any real function, but are still completely intact. • • Roof: "Very poor" - The building is roofed in asphalt shingles. There appear to be • two layers of roofing, both of which are in very poor condition. The shingles are worn and extremely brittle. Many of them have broken and fallen off of the roof • all together. A strong wind is enough to blow them away easily. Vents of • approximately six inches by eighteen inches are spaced about every four feet • on the soffit, all of which are missing the screen meant to cover them, leaving the attic space completely open. Just on the north side of the ridge line is four 4" • vent pipes which appear to be in good condition and vent each of the four • main areas of the building. • • immoi _ _ • • • * .__ 1 • a � F - • _ - -� _ -_ �� 'i � , I ,:. � ' r ; • • • 15 • • • • • INTERIOR CONDITION • Overview: The interior of the barracks as it stands shows signs of two periods of • development. In the first period the walls and doors establishing the four main • areas were built. In the second period the subdivided walls of 101, 103, and 104 were added. This is apparent from the difference in wall materials. Exterior i♦ problems have led to serious interior problems, including leaks and an infestation of insects. Broken windows, open vent pipes, and open soffit vents have allowed any small animal or insect inside. Around the doors, on the ceiling, in the walls, • and in the attic are numerous wasp and hornet nests. Animal droppings are also • present on the floor. • Floors: "Fair"- The barracks have finished floors of 1" by 4" wooden planks. Leaks • in the roof have left parts of the floors exposed to water during the rain, causing • damage to the finish and warping of the floor boards. Despite the superficial • damage to the wood floors they appear to be strong and structurally sound. In 0 the bathroom the flooring is asbestos tile applied over the wood floors. Tiles are loose in some places. • Walls: "Poor" - The exterior walls are framed with 2x6 dimensional lumber and appears to be un- insulated. The interior side of the exterior walls, as well as, the walls dividing the 4 main areas, have 3/4 inch drywall faces. These walls are in • poor condition, with holes and large sections of missing drywall that appears to • have been knocked or torn off. The drywall that remains is in fair condition • showing little if any sign of moisture damage. Some cracks are present at the drywall joints and at window and door frames. Three of the four main areas • have been further partitioned at a later date creating small rooms. These walls • are faced in a 1/4 inch fiber board material. It is in poor condition with cracks in the joints at the corners of the doors and windows. The surfaces of these walls are scratched and gouged heavily. Doors and Windows: "Fair to Poor" - Interior doors between main areas are 30" wide, and the doors to the sub - divided rooms are 32" wide. The 30" doors between the main areas are 5 -panel wooden doors that are much older than • the remaining interior doors. The door to storage in the toilet room has louvered • panels that are broken out. Eight windows on the south half of the building have been covered over and some of the newer walls end into a window. Of the remaining windows most have aluminum mini - blinds covering them which still • function. In room 101 the easternmost window on the north wall was completely • removed and covered on the outside but left with exposed framing on the inside. • • e • • • • 16 • • • • • Ceilings: "Very poor" - The ceilings are a - ' framed with 2" x 8" joists. In 101, 103, • and 104 the ceiling is faced in 3/4" • drywall, and in 102 12" x 12" acoustic �� . tiles have been glued over the • drywall. The drywall ceilings are in very poor condition due to water • damage caused by leaks in the roof. This has caused the ceiling to fall in in • some areas and sag in others. Still in • other areas the ceiling has been • broken or cut away, leaving openings into the attic space. There appears to be no. insulation in the ceiling. In 102 12" x • 12" acoustic tiles cover the drywall making it harder to access the condition of • the ceiling. On the north side of the room extensive water damage is apparent • from spotting on the tiles and from the numerous tiles that have fallen off. 15% to 20% of the tiles have fallen in the room, while at least another 40% are loose or • will fall soon. • • �'. Lighting and Electrical: "Fair" - The ' i electrical system of the barracks is still S � - � properly functioning. Within the space there is a combination of receptacles / i switches mounted flush with the surface • • � I � and also mounted on the surface with i visible conduit, showing signs of � "upgrades" over the years. Damage to ' � the walls and ceilings has Jeff exposed wires. In the main space of 101, 103, and 104 and the toilet room _ , t incandescent fixtures remain mounted • and mostly functioning and intact. In the smaller sub - divided rooms fluorescent fixtures (using 2 fluorescent tubes) are • mounted and mostly functioning. In 102 four 2' x 4' fluorescent light boxes are • surface mounted to the ceiling. The fixture in the northeast corner of the room • dangles, secured only by the electrical wires. • RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE USE • • In strictly functional terms, the building appears to be on a slow descent into nothing more than a pile of wood and debris. In recommending future courses of • action, it would help to know the intent of the owners. Without that knowledge, • we can see three main courses of action; • DO NOTHING • This appears to be the current philosophy. The building looks to be suffering from • long -term neglect. If the owner's assessment is that this is not an important • building, which is what the current condition suggests to any observer, leaving it • • 17 • 0 to the whims of nature will eventually mean the collapse of the structure, Upon • collapse, the building then becomes scrap to be collected and hauled away to • the nearest dump. Doing nothing requires the least amount of work on the part of the current owner. It will be important from a liability standpoint to make sure that the building does not harm anyone as it disintegrates. • DEMOLISH This course of action ranks a short step up from option # 1. Rather than allow the building to slowly make its way to the ground, remaining as an eyesore of growing stature until such time as it becomes a junk pile, take the time and effort to remove it completely. • It would be our hope that prior to the demolition a thorough documentation of • the building would take place. Photos and as -is AutoCAD drawings should be • done to at least document the structure prior to its removal. In this way an • electronic version of the building could be preserved. With these documents, the ID history of the structure and its importance as housing on a military training base would not be completely lost. • RESTORE /REBUILD • Restoring the current structure to its previous glory would be a time - consuming effort. It shows obvious signs of prior renovations, apparently in transitioning from • a residential structure to an office /storage center. Assuming that the structure • would be restored to the appearance of its original incarnation as a housing structure would mean that the intervening office structures would need to be removed. Removal of the office additions would hopefully allow any "ghosts" of • the previous construction to show. The "ghosts" could then be used to aid the • reconstruction. A thorough assessment of the materials would need to take place prior to any work being done to the structure. It would be particularly important to identify and remove any hazardous materials prior to beginning • work. Once completed, the building could serve a number of functions, It could • function as a visible link to the past as part of a larger museum type display. If the • current owners are not interested in the building serving this function on the • Riverside campus, then the building could be relocated to the proposed • American G,I, museum site. The decision to move the structure should be made prior to the reconstruction. Although the building appears to be easy enough to • move, it would be a shame to complete the restoration and then have the • building damaged in the moving process. Once on display at the new site, the interior could be furnished with the typical standards of the WWII era. • Mannequins dressed in period uniforms could complete the image of stepping • back into time. IP • • • • • 18 • • • • • 8522 -8524 Warehouse Row • Bryan Army Air Force Field • Bryan, TX • i • • .- l ow • • 1 �._� . i • f �� • 4;11111 " ill I • • • _ • _ -- " s v • — �-- — ' IA • • 3..5 ! riAk SG P12Nie.= � � Y 0 8 -5 L. P • • • Historic Structure Report Michelle Audenhaert • Kevin Sample • Jessica Thiebout • 2006 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 19 • • • • • PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION • • Wood was to be used throughout the warehouse in a manner that was very IP similar to the buildings constructed on the base during the World War II era. This was done quite possibly in the same effort to conserve steel solely for the • manufacture of planes and other military equipment. • • The warehouse buildings are located at the eastern end of Warehouse Row toward the northern end of the Bryan Air Force Base, to allow easy access to a • spur of the International -Great Northern Railroad. This railroad, which initially • reached Bryan in 1900, served as a significant supply line for this base. It was a • logical decision to build the warehouses in this area to not only take in and store • cargo, but to allow for the quick shipment of cargo to other areas of the country. Signs for other Air Force bases in the region can still be seen inside some of the • warehouses. • The Bryan Air Force Base archives located at 7535 Warehouse Row gave all • available construction drawings to further facilitate the understanding of the • warehouses being examined. The existing conditions of the 8522 -8524 • Warehouse Row were surveyed on October 6, 2006. The warehouses are wood framed buildings set on a concrete foundation. Overall they are an interconnected one story rectangular 60' x 706' building in the north- south, east- • west directions respectively. • The site of the warehouses is flat overall with a marked grade change at the • north to accommodate the railroad spur. The entrances along the north have been infilled; therefore all access to the building occurs along the south • elevation. The north and south elevations are divided by exterior exposed • firewalls that are painted concrete block and clay brick with a clay tile coping cap. These divisions of this one building results in the different warehouses. • • Exterior e The exterior consists of several elements. The original drawings called for just 1" x • 8" # 105 wood siding and a layer of building paper which would be exposed to the interior of the building. While these elements were initially employed, there • has been an addition. Replacement siding, which appears to be Masonite 0 Woodsman lap siding with one layer of building paper on top of the original is now present. This fiberboard siding is cream in color and is sized at 12" x 1 /2." This second siding was also used to cover over the loading door openings after the • railroad spur was filled -in with scrapped equipment and soil. • > 1 r • s r I r e 1',��� .� 4 __ -- PATTERN 105 DROP SIDIN 1-4-- • • • 0 20 • • • • • • • The south elevation of the three warehouses has seen a few changes over the • years. The 8522 Warehouse has a replacement 16' x 16' overhead door. One of • the exterior steel roof ladders has been removed. This is evident by the markedly • different siding where the ladder used to be located. In addition, cut back in the overhang remains. Most of the windows have been infilled with the exception of • the clearstory windows and louvers. The 8523 Warehouse still has an original 12' x • 12' sliding door, but there is also one replacement 16' x 16' overhead door. • Unlike the 8522 Warehouse, the exterior steel roof ladder remains in place. The 8524 Warehouse is very similar to the other two warehouses. The original 12' x 12' sliding door is still intact and functioning, and there is a replacement 16' x 16' • overhead door. However, there is also a replacement 12' x 12' door on the 8524 • Warehouse. • • w`ri a ❑ m a o o ° �.�i [v - n © m'® q r�' _' °ti`s ` m�9 "�'Si �'r311 0 m 0 • — • ..... ..<. 1 _ • ® . 'ere ti .i a ea L a m h i p e a o a a ' o tel e ®"'`4 sn o o " ra' vt m v o rrW . r .O, ,.9 9,91,9 1 • e N ) a • • • • .g 97 • • • • • • Road Elevation • Photographic evidence shows that the original siding and doors were still in • place as of March 1956. This was only four years after the original construction. It is feasible that the replacement siding was installed sometime after the • acquisition of the warehouses by Texas A &M University. The south elevation roof • ladders on buildings 8522 and 8524 were quite possibly removed affer the • installation of the replacement siding. This is supported by the visible seams in • the siding at these two locations. • 21 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Railroad side • • o. .:ee ■ .0 a to ill > C . � n P � ' Fm•no nuet 4o v' mR v.s •. • c .n' nocn \ s Lao. m1 4 c 1i • r `+ � •4 1 (1. _ { _ Y�nc F • �% [LJ S <T err '' EAST (END ) E F ON IdE ST N Dr LEVATION • cC nee �:n .•o•' s. - a �a i r' -o, • • Floor and Foundation The floor and foundation were set in two separate pourings of concrete. The • foundation consists of poured in place concrete foundations with bell footings. • The floor of the warehouses is a 5" concrete slab that was poured throughout the e warehouse. This slab was poured on compact fill with expansion joints set transversely approximately 51' apart. Expansion joints also separate the slab from • the exterior concrete footings. As mentioned earlier, concrete loading docks • protrude from the north side of each warehouse for the once used railroad • tracks. Concrete stairs and ramps extend from each warehouse on the south • side for user access and the loading of trucks. • • • • • • • • • • 22 • • • • • • Roof • The roof is supported by elaborate trusses. These trusses are built -up timber • construction consisting of two 2" x 12" bottom cords, two 2" x 14" top cords, and • two 2" x 10" vertical braces at 6 feet on center. Also comprising these trusses are two 2" x 8" braces or possibly two 2" x 10" braces at diagonals. These built -up • trusses are typical of construction throughout the Bryan Force Base. • �� �. • ; z - ti :: • O''' g . '; ' , ' ' '. , ' i ' '1' ' N \ I \ ! N 3 t 3 al v. 3 , v 1 • r - + • s µ ..— ..u.. f xs w �,- a •I i l : 1 s _ • '('4 xn . t - 1 • ,r x�x �� �� j l ' . u s xY PA H • I i ~' _ f} __ ' llil!T. , i Ar _ f � p _ • # ' 1 � �sc• • • Louvers • There are also 3' 4" x 2' 9" louvers alternating between the clearstory windows, • and they are spaced about 17 feet on center 1 foot below the roof line of the • 8522 -8544 Warehouses. These louvers served to let the hot air rise out of the • building. This method of passive cooling, while effective, is apparently no longer being used. The original drawings and construction provided sliding plywood • covers to "shut" the louvers during cool months. The current use of air • conditioning in the warehouses has given way to leave these louvers closed • throughout the year. i• • • • • • • • 23 • • • • • Trusses • • • • - . 0 • -ter - ' • • The trusses are typically spaced at 17 feet on center with vertical bracing at 12 • feet on center. Each truss spans the 60 foot width of the warehouses and is • approximately 9' 6" in depth. The thickness of each truss is 13." The elements • comprising the truss are fastened together by 3 /4" bolts with washers. Besides the trusses, there are roof joists of 2" x 10" located 24 inches on center with 1" e diagonal sheathing, intricate cross bracing, and a built -up roof. These elaborate • trusses allow for the large spans in the warehouse that create the open space • needed for this type of building. • • • • • • e • • • • • • E • • • • 24 • • • • • • Wall Structure • Each truss sits on built -up columns that are three 2" x 12" boards with a spliced overlap • giving the column an overall dimension of 12" x 13." The elements that hold • together the truss, 3/4" bolts with washers, are also used in the connections for these beams. The wall framing is actual 2" x 4" studs 24 inches on center with • blocking at 6 foot intervals vertically. In addition, diagonal 1" diameter steel cross • bracing was installed at the corners and near the sliding doors for additional • reinforcement. • 4 Y • • 1 lI E • • '1 „ .. 5 f • ✓ � t • • • Firewall • • The firewalls are visible from the • exterior of the building as it protrudes t from the sides and roof of the • • warehouses. The firewalls are comprised of concrete blocks and • clay brick with clay tile caps. Each • wall is primarily concrete block with • clay brick inlayed every 16 inches. There are also clay brick panels at • truss and fire door anchors. At 12 • feet there is a 16" x 16" poured • concrete beam spanning the opening of the fire door. A concrete • block bond beam extending the • remainder of the wall and another • concrete block bond beam of 21' 4" are also located here. • • The wall depth is 16" solid with a Durand's Tin Clad Fire Door by American Sheet • Metal Manufacturers out of New Orleans, LA. The 12' x 12' x 3" fire door is comprised of tin panels which are approximately 11" x 18" in size. During a fire • • • 25 • • • • this door would slide into place by a once common method. A pin would hold the door in place at a downward angle. When a specific heat was reached the • pin would melt and allow the door to slide into place. While this may not have • been particularly special in its time, the mechanical nature of the system is very • different from the electrical systems commonly used today. • ,, • • • • II a • • • • } • • • • Windows The original drawings called for numerous windows throughout the entire • Warehouse Row. Over the years many of these windows have been filled in • except for the clearstory windows seen throughout the structure. These clearstory • windows are 3' 4" x 2' 8" in size and spaced approximately 17 feet on center and 1 foot below the roof line. The other windows, called for in the original • drawings, were apparently removed before the Masonite siding was installed. • This is believed due to the fact that unlike the exterior ladder and loading doors • that were infilled where seams in the siding can be seen, there are no seams to be seen where these were infilled. • / • • • r , te • it • f • 1 4 ,t~ • y a - • • • • 26 • • • • • • EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE • Minimal changes have taken place throughout the 54 years since the building was originally constructed. However, some of these changes are of noteworthy • significance. The installation of new fiberboard siding throughout the exterior • facades most likely occurred in the early 1960's when Texas A &M University took • over the Bryan Air Force Base. The siding is a '/2" x 12" fiberboard siding, possibly Masonite Woodsman lap siding which was readily available during this time • period. It is believed to be Masonite Woodsman lap not just because of the • availability, but due to the waffle like pattern that can be seen on the back of • this type of siding. • y x • • • CONDITION ASSESSMENT • The fiberboard replacement siding appears to be in good condition along the 40 east, west, and north elevations. Along the south elevation the siding has begun • to deteriorate, most likely due to the long exposure to the south Texas sun. • Masonite Woodsman lap siding is no longer made due to a susceptibility to deterioration, and this short lifespan is apparent with the siding that is present on • the warehouses. Additionally, the metal corner bracing that is present on all • exterior corners of the warehouses is breakin• and fallin• off of the structures. • • • 1 • • • • • • • The structure of the warehouses, from all observations, appears to be in a quite 411 performing state. The original beams, trusses, and wall studs are still in place, performing their functions in a sound manner, and show little to no sign of wear. • One minimal split in the column at the northeast end of Warehouse 8523 can be • seen. There are also a few small fractures that can be seen sporadically • throughout the warehouses. • • 27 • • • • RECOMMENDATIONS • Since the overall structure of the 8522 -8524 Warehouse Row appears to be in quite good shape, there are no serious recommendations for improving the • warehouses. Most of the recommendations that can be made are more of a cosmetic nature, but they will still help in prolonging the life of the warehouses. • The Masonite Woodsman lap siding that was installed over the original # 105 wood siding should be removed. The original siding appears to be in very sound • condition. Some steps would need to be taken in order to help increase the life • of this original siding. Minimal repairs would probably be required, and the • entirety of the wood siding would require a suitable coat of paint. • The foundation, only suffering from small deficiencies, requires attention before • any more damage could be done. Concrete cracks should be routed and sealed. All spalls that are apparent in the docks and exterior foundation footings • should be repaired. The resolution of these issues would prevent further • deterioration and would mitigate water infiltration. • We were unable to observe the roof conditions but expect that the roof has reached its life expectancy and should be examined in the near future. As • stated previously, the trusses, columns, and framing are in rather good condition. The fractures in these elements, though rather minimal, should be repaired. It must be noted that these repairs are by no means complicated or costly • matters. • All of the steel fire doors should be repaired to an operable condition. The steel • doors could also greatly benefit from a complete stripping and new coat of • paint. The ease of door openings and closings should also be addressed to allow • for easier user access. The deteriorated exterior wood sills should be stabilized • with a fungicide and infilling. This would allow them to be brought back to their original condition. Where necessary, this wood should be consolidated with 0 epoxy. • The windows require the same treatment to the window seals as was recom- mended for the door sills. Fungicide, infilling, and the possible use of epoxy would • be needed to bring the window sills to a suitable condition. More important however is the issue of broken glass panes. Any broken glass panes pose an imminent hazard. Even though these warehouses see very little user traffic, these • panes of glass should be replaced as soon as possible. • Finally, it is highly recommended that a yearly maintenance schedule is established. In addition, very thorough inspections for the World War II and • Korean War buildings throughout the Texas A &M University Riverside Campus should be conducted every 5 years. Regular scheduled inspection allows the ownership to create a budget and organize a regular repair program above • and beyond the yearly maintenance. The 8522 - 8524 Warehouse Row still Q adequately serves its function, but with a few repairs these structures can be • restored to a state comparable with the original construction. • 28 • • • • • • • Hanga #46 • Army Air Force Field • Bryan , TX • • • -- -. , _ i .„:,„,-' ' _ , ,,,„„,,,,,,,,,,,, ' ' ' ' -' -,-':,,:,--!!„..:4,--i--,1--,R-4:7,,,,,,, • • • • • Y a s T� flb fib �� a . x`40 iD • • \\ \ c ED II • • • Aaron Cooper • Amanda Fry • Grace Lo • 2006 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 29 • • • • • HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION • Hangar 46, (now building 7046) is wood framed with wood trusses. The doors are • wood along with the siding. No interior finishes were used. The facility originally had large sliding fold up doors that slid into two large door pockets. The folding doors, along with the rest of the building, had a large number of windows. The • main hangar area is rectangular in shape, 125' long by 80' wide with a lean -to extension on the east of it, which is 105' by 20'. The oldest photos of the building • do not show the east side of the facility, but the photos from 1956 show a lean -to connected to the east side of the building. The building documentation does • not mention an addition built on affer the original construction. • • • • 1►�y • 0 1. • • • • • ai a sr 3 EESI NOM ®n • FAI MME Ei1I I,-1 • • • • • 1955 photo - West Facade • • O • • • • • • • 30 • e • • • • • .4, 1 • , }: , \ . \ • • 4 • mss; - . • .. •ii • in Nis , I 111 ill 111 • • II1J1 • mai mum, . ,... • i... ; i 1 i F , mod✓ f �k # fm (.. �• .gkPM1...:... • ' 1 r)': ,_......... 34 . • . .. 4., ' 4 '' . ws. '', ' ' 1r , III • • • 1955 photo - Taken from inside of the hangar • • • • • • • • • s a t P@rsk -t3RR 7- - - k -1=3 • • • 1956 photo -East Facade (Southeast corner) • • 31 • • • • • HISTORY OF STRUCTURE Hangar T -46 • • Hangar 46, referred to as T -46 on site plans and contract documents, was built in • 1942. Although this document focuses on hangar 46, hangar 72 nearby shares almost the exact same story. The two buildings are the same size, were built at • the same time, and actually shared the same problems similar fates. Some • documents state that hangar 46 was built in 1943, but these are later documents • basing their information on the opening of Bryan Air Field in 1943. A complete • facility listing and construction type, which shows that hangar 46 was only meant to last ten years. Other facilities made from concrete were labeled "25 year" • construction and were scheduled for replacement accordingly. • Contract documents, fund request documents, letters, memos, and written • phone dialogues, were read and compiled into a structural historical timeline below. • • Hangar T -46 built in 1942 • • Rehabilitated in 1951 • • 9 Nov 1954 wood trusses surveyed for sagging, found to be cause of • ponding on roof —fear of potential failure; study recommended • • 18 May 1955 study completed, finding 10.5" deflection in trusses and hangar doors which slide from top are not functional • • 20 May 1955 decision made to shore center of each wooden truss with a • 10" diameter pole to stop deflection —(12" poles were later installed) • • 24 May 1955 contract document states hangar is in continuous use and is essential for the base mission • • 3 June 1955 truss rods added to remove deflection along with extra • planking • • 25 June $4K estimate to fix trusses • 27 June 1955 project to fix trusses is cancelled decision by General S Disosway is to tear hangars 46 and 72 down and build new ones • • 22 July requested emergency funds to fix trusses • • 05 April 1956 storm with high winds and hail caused major damage including, warping the exterior siding, and shifting the trusses • • 19 April 1956 hangar is condemned due to possible structural failure • • Jun 1956 hangar is fitted with additional temporary bracing • • Jun 1956 hangar specs and statement of work created to repair exterior siding, doors, and trusses • • Aug 1956 requested $8,800.00 requested to fix facility, with majority of the • cost going towards installing tension bar supports, member replacement • and additional wood bracing for the trusses • 9 Sep 1956, hangar 46 given an appraisal value of $53,000.00 and • deemed essential to the Air Force mission • • • • 32 • • • • • • Hangar 46 has an interesting story. It was initially only intended to have a useful • life of ten years. In 1942, speed of construction and time were of value due to • World War II. The hangar, while in use by the military, was used as a mechanics • hangar for various airplanes. In 1951 the entire air field base was rehabilitated, including hangar 46. By 1954 major problems were coming about due to the • roof trusses sagging, causing ponding on the roof and the sliding doors to • function improperly. As seen in the time -line, numerous studies, reports, and requests for funding to fix the trusses and building were made from 1954 to 1956, but little money was ever made available for repair. Twelve inch poles were • installed by in -house (military maintenance troops), to correct the sag in the • trusses and on 3 June, 1955 extra planking and truss rods were added to further • correct the deflection in the trusses. A storm in 1956 caused hangar 46 to be condemned. Interestingly, with the ingenuity of some base troops, the hangar • was temporally fixed and in use again. In trying to decide whether to tear the • hangar down or repair it, the building was reviewed for value. Even with the • damage, hangar 46 was assessed for a value of $53,000.00 and the estimated repairs only totaled $8,800.00. The repairs would fix the siding, doors, and repair • trusses and add tension bars to the trusses. No further written documentation • was found, but the building still stands today. • EXTERIOR CONDITION • • The exterior of Hangar 46, built in 1942 during WWII as an aircraft maintenance • workshop, has not been through any major changes. The hangar is still rectangular in shape, 125' by 80' wide, and has a lean -to extension on the east • side 105' by 20'. The east extension provides additional office space inside the building directly connected to the large open plan hangar. The appearance of • the building has been altered. The entire building is covered with beige colored 24" by 11" fiber cement shingles, which according to photographic evidence, • were installed affer 1956. Sporadic shingle replacements of a darker color are • installed on each facade. The roof is slightly sloped to the north and south with • the high point being at the center in the east -west direction. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 33 • • • • • • WEST FACADE • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • West fapade 2006 • • • There are two 18' by 7' 10" box remnants on the west side still visible and • • exposed which were the foundations of the door pockets for the original sliding doors during 1 940s - 1950s, Steel rebars in the box remnants are exposed and have been cut during the removal of the doo po ckets. There is no information regarding the actual date of demolition, but it apparently took place between • • 1956 and 1969. • • F jt y - • • Exposed rebar from the box � � • • • remnants ~. ' ' � +4 4 . ,� , • • , • 34 • • r • • • • NORTH FACADE • The lower part of the north facade houses the office space inside the building. • The upper part is the mezzanine level, used for storage. There were three rows of • windows which covered the entire facade of the building. However, the two top rows of windows have been removed and covered with siding. The exact • location of the former windows, are still visible from the interior. Currently there • are four sets of three original metal frame windows. The window trim and sills are • painted light brown. Two window air conditioning units are installed for the office space. There are no documents or drawings pertaining to these windows. • Therefore, the date of the current windows and paint color are unknown. • • `+ , • Y f • - • i I • ! • ' ( s • • • North Facade 2006 • • Y :. Lt 461 • ' • • e • • • • • Metal Frame Window 2006 • • 1 35 • • 6 . Ai • • EAST FACADE • • • • • • East Facade 2006 • • The one story office extension runs almost the entire length of the east elevation, e For the most part, this has changed very little. Four window air conditioning units were added to the offices. The same light brown paint color appears on the • lower six panes of glass of 3 central sashes. More windows were removed and • covered up on the hangar wall, above the roof line of the extension. In addition, • a permanent ladder was mounted where the roof of the extension meets the • hangar wall. This ladder gives access to the hangar building roof. The vent pipes on the roof of the extension are original. A garage door and a wood door on • each end of the extension are in place for accessibility to the office space. There • is another door on the southeast corner of the building for accessibility to the hangar. • • SOUTH FACADE e Two rows of three original • windows were removed, as was done on the north facade. The • last bay of windows on the • southwest corner was also �' r • emoved. Currently, four sets of � `,, " 1 -F4 three windows remain at their • original location. The original • gutter and downspouts were removed. The grill at the upper left corner is most likely original. L . � - • It appears in both historic and ., e current photographs, and was • probably for venting heat off the warm roof. • • • 36 • 1 • • • ROOF • The roof is currently not accessible, but a roof description can be obtained from • a set of 1956 specifications for its materials and construction method. According • to this specification, the roof was intended to be asphalt or tar built -up roofing. • EXTERIOR CONDITIONS REPORT • The overall condition of the fiber cement shingles is good. Some shingles have been • replaced, and are darker in color. Currently, there are some damaged and • cracked sidings on each facade. These cracks are mainly located close to the • ground level and could be caused by lawn mowing equipment hitting the shingles or slinging debris at them. Upon visual inspection, the majority of the siding looks • undamaged —see the examples below of the cracks. • • • • • • • • • Damaged siding on the north facade Damaged siding on the west facade • (northwest corner) (southwest corner) • The foundation walls visible above ground level have cracks, and larger gaps in • some locations. Most of these cracks are located on the east extension foundation • wall. A few of these cracks have been filled with caulk or spray -foam insulation. The visible spray -foam insulation has turned into a rusted orange color. One of the larger • gaps has a metal mesh /screen over the opening to block rodents or animals access • under the building. The cracks do not appear to have caused shiffing in the walls. ° kikV Tv sir A #14, • -:: • ". `� "4"!., r+p r ' §� at�i # • .., " + r . ST {f u E k it ad � � r f . • r k n ea Crack on east extension foundation wall C ac east extension foundation wall o • • • 37 • • • • INTERITOR DESCRIPTION e • The interior of the hangar is very simple with an almost completely open plan. It • is a timber frame structure with 6 roof trusses and six 12" columns. They were • installed by "in- house" or by military troops due to a lack of repair funding when the roof truss was sagging. Four of the six columns are in the center span of the • structure. The other two are located in the northwest and southwest corners. The • floor is a concrete slab laid in segments 17' wide by 33' long. On the east there is • a lean -to space with two offices, a men's and women's restroom, a storage room, a janitor's closet and a rolling door to the east exterior. The lean -to • space only has a single story 10 foot ceiling. On the north side there are two • flight mechanics labs and a machine shop. Above these offices, there is a storage mezzanine. There are stairs for access to the mezzanine level, as well as • what appears to be a pulley mechanism used for sending things to and from the • mezzanine. Timber was used in the construction of the hangar instead of steel, • due to the demand for steel in other war supplies in 1942. The stud walls are • exposed on the interior and show the diagonal and horizontal sheathing, which keeps the framing straight. The framing also shows the original locations of the • windows which were removed and covered with new horizontal sheathing. The O hangar is able to resist strong lateral loads because of original threaded rod cross bracing in the walls between each roof truss. • w The open bay comprises the • majority of the hangar. Its dimensions are approximately IIIII 85' x 100'. This space is • completely open with bare • construction. The roof is held L up by large wooden trusses • that span the entire length— • 4 125'. The truss on the west- • most edge has a tensioning bar that was added due to 0 damage from a storm in April • 1956. In addition, there is • lateral bracing along all of the • ` exterior walls of the building, ' adding extra support against • s `� ` , shifting and twisting. •, t ,, • r- --- ' % t 1 -,,i1 N. 1 1 ,i.,...i. i .,:i.-:,,,.- ,., .:, I ( i.,, ii. ii, e • West side of hangar, show tension bar on the • west -most truss with additional lateral bracing from 2" x 4 "s • • • 38 • • 1 The contents of the hangar are all related to flight mechanics. There are parts to two planes as well as repair equipment. There are also two large wind tunnels and a fan, various machines, and an industrial sized scale. The water heater closet is currently also being used for general storage, including several flammable items! There are also other various contents pieces of shop equipment stored in the hangar. INTERITOR CONDITIONS Although overall the structure is in good condition, some repairs are needed. The concrete floor slab is cracked in numerous places. There were extra columns placed in the building affer the storm in 1956. The trusses are in very good condition as well as the columns four columns in the center of the hangar. The truss on the west does not appear to be suffering from deflection since the tensioning bar was added. There is steel lateral bracing in all bays, (bay being defined as areas defined by the trusses and bracing within the ceiling), on the south side and spaced every other bay on the east. There are twelve windows on the east, three per bay, and one window on the south in the southeast corner. The three windows in the western -most bay on the south have been removed and replaced with timber framing and steel lateral bracing. Trusses span an amazing 125'. Vertical beams at the center ,�--- span were later placed to alleviate deflection. ..,.. • Window were removed and L SLL. Tbe.o14twinclow. bucks or framing still remains. Bracing was added to the • exterior wall. • • 39 • • • • • • The structure has an eight inch foundation wall with two wood sill plates. The second sill plate shows the heavy rot occurring in the southeast corner. The • damage appears to be from the gaps from the surrounding windows. The ID glazing around the panes of glass is cracked and falling off. • • * e 3 . ,` • • • � 7 • • - E ' 1 r � . • i ♦ i • Sill plates showing severe signs of rot — moisture from the windows and lots of direct sun light have taken a toll • • • } • '. • i • • e • • • • � " � _: • ; • W ZAs t r ' ', ' ;41,,,,, ro � a ' r • • • Window glazing needs repaired around window muntins • 40 • • • • • • • RECOMMENDATIONS • • The Flight Mechanics Hangar is currently in use by Texas A &M University's • Aerospace Engineering Department. There are machine shops, labs, and offices • currently in use The building seems to be well suited for this purpose. At a minimum, routine maintenance and repair to the hangar needs to take place. • Several items within the interior and exterior should be repaired. Inside the • hangar, floor cracks need to be sealed, windows need new putty installed • around the muntins to prevent future leaks, the bottom sill plate and other rotted wood in the southeast corner should be replaced. Some of the exterior • foundation cracks and tiles also need to be repaired. Otherwise, hangar 46 • should continue to be useful and functional as an annex for Texas A &M's flight • mechanics studies. • A second restoration option is also available. A time period in the early 1950s • would be the easiest to replicate due to the photos and information that is • available. The fiber cement siding shingles should be removed and replaced with horizontal siding like it was originally. The cracks on the foundation walls • need to be repaired. The orange color spray -foam insulation in the cracks needs • to be cleaned out. Since the cracks are minor and have not caused any • structural problems, they can be patched with cement grout. • All the closed window openings around the building should be uncovered. A • suitable replacement to match the original metal frame, since they are relatively • simple in design, could be fabricated. An advantage of uncovering the windows would be to introduce natural daylight into the interior. However, • central air conditioning would need to be installed to balance the additional • heat from the direct sun light. • Most importantly, a pair of sliding doors should be installed in the original location • to restore the original appearance. The sliding doors are the most important • architectural feature of the hangar because it distinguishes it from other buildings located nearby, and avoids the appearance of an ordinary warehouse. In • addition, the sliding doors are an important part of the historic fabric of the • building, connecting the building with the planes, pilots, navigators, and • mechanics from WW II. The original sliding door manufacturing company, Horn Manufacturing, is no longer in operation, but a similar door could be fabricated. • If this cost is too much, similar door and designs could be carefully reviewed and • considered as a replacement. • • • • • IP r 41 e • • • Hangar 7090, which is currently occupied by Texas Transportation Institute, is a • • good examp of the significance of the sliding doors to the building appearance. However, ishes that would be by placing modern sliding doors on the hangar, the • project would have to change from a restoration to rehabilitation, causing a • new review of the windows and fin used. • • • • • • • • i • 1111 ,., 1111J 111 �€ - • • . • • • • • y r • • Hanger 7090 Main Entrance 2006 • • • • fib • • • • • • • • • • 42 • •