Comment 92670

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted September 26, 2013 at 16:24:22 in reply to Comment 92668

Maybe, but I am skeptical. The same sort of thing was said about the Lister building and many other heritage buildings that were later restored. It was claimed that the mortar on All Saints was "too soft", although 19th century lime mortars were much softer than today, and softer mortars are still recommended for heritage conservation.

Regarding the "partial collapse", many great European cathedrals suffered partial collapse during construction and are still standing today.

I would imagine that many stone buildings were built without engineers "supervising the foundation" in 19th century Canada (their professional body, the engineering institute, was only founded in 1887).

The fact that it has stood for over 130 years, despite decades of insufficient maintenance, is concrete proof that it wasn't so badly constructed. And, as you later remarked, all this could have been known to the owners before they bought, and yet they were talking about an adaptive re-use back in 2012.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-09-26 16:27:00

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds