Re: Alki Homestead / Fir Lodge Restoration Options

My name is David Rogers, owner of Logs & Timbers, LLC. We have been building with logs, professionally, since 1983. Historic Preservation became a field of interest in the early 1990’s when I became involved with the US Forest Service repairing 1930 era CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) log structures. In the years following, we have become specialized in preservation techniques which comply with each project’s unique issues. The Secretary of the Interiors publications on Preservation Standards and the recommended ideology embodied in the Guidelines are the governing principals we apply to projects we work on.
When we repaired the Log House Museum for the SW Historical Society, many of the same concerns being discussed, regarding the Homestead Restaurant, were encountered. They were solved to everyone’s satisfaction because of the creative professional experience of the architect, engineer and builder working together to form the plan, along with the trust and confidence placed in them by the owner. The public support and approval was very rewarding.
Since then we have encountered and effectively solved many unique structural and aesthetic issues which have arisen on Historic Log Buildings. Because of our experience on large and small projects, and because the Homestead Restaurant is of personal interest to me, I am offering my opinion as it relates to the current set of options on the table.

Option 1 – Log by Log

As a concept, this approach isolates and addresses the complex issues arising from the stated need to entirely remove and rebuild the Roof, as well as the stated need to entirely remove and rebuild the foundation. It does so in an apparent sequential order which keeps the onsite tasks relatively simple. Each of the noted sections or parts will, at some point, need to be precisely defined from a structural perspective. And, arguably, each part should be assessed and evaluated to the same ‘Standard of Rehabilitation’. The grey areas that are in the shadows in this general summary, in my view, are in regard to where exactly the lines are drawn between the ‘roof’ and the ‘core’ and the ‘foundation’? For example, does the ‘core’ include the main floor system? The second floor support system? What is the “top log of the core”? How does the bottom log of the core interface with the floor and foundation? How will it interface with the new foundation? How much of the existing floor systems are to be preserved? What is the assessed condition of each of the logs? What techniques were used to determine the condition? I expect there has been an exhaustive and accurate “as built” set of drawings created which would make these questions easily answerable. If not, one needs to be commissioned.
Disassembly and reassembly of log buildings, when the roof and foundation are to be completely reconstructed, is an efficient method. An important part of that process is to protect the surfaces of the historic fabric being handled, presuming the goal is to preserve the character and appearance of the logs.
If it is important to keep the logwork onsite, the replacement log inventory is usually prepared elsewhere and brought in when the actual reassembly process begins. Depending on the number of pieces identified to be repaired / replaced, this can require a large area for sorting and preparation activities, including the lifting equipment, etc. Noise from chainsaws and other tools can have a dampening effect in residential / commercial settings.
From a public interest perspective, this onsite activity can be a positive connection. Signage and perhaps a daily scheduled narrator for questions and answers would decrease the distraction and work delays due to the public’s interest throughout the day.
Offsite preparation and preassembly adds efficiency to a schedule. The onsite logwork reassembly process is usually very interesting to the public. If repair proceedures and techniques are an important part of a public interest interpretive presentation, perhaps demonstrations on selected components could be scheduled.

Option 2 – Support, Strap, Lift, Lower

The shoring of the building, in its entirety, at one time, would present some tricky problems to overcome, in my opinion. Assuring the stability and alignment of the short sections of logs between openings, designing & establishing cribbing positions that don’t interfere with current and subsequent work, breaching and/or supporting the main floor diaphragm from underneath at interior cribbing stations, (what happens to the existing main floor system?), unnecessary difficulty during the logwork “repair/replace” phase, especially so with “scribe fit” workmanship, potential danger to the masonry fireplaces and a decision as to if a vertical lift of the wall logs would be possible, how would weather protection be accomplished? Other technical problems could be posed but are probably not appropriate in this general response. This method can be efficient, depending on the extent of logs to be repaired / replaced. It is usually utilized when a limited and localized area is isolated and supported.
When everything above and everything below is to be reconstructed, this procedure can become more problematic than beneficial, particularly because the logwork itself needs to be at least partially removed as well.

Option 3 – Shore Up & Span over

This seems to be more of a “Stabilization” method being given permanent status. Stabilization is usually the forerunner of a Phased Master plan. The goal being to protect until such time as the rehabilitation and/or restoration work can be completed, at which time the stabilization treatment is removed or designed in such a way as to be not visible in the end.
Traditional Log structures depend on gravity and the weight of the walls, upper floor and the load path of the roof structure to keep them in place and functioning as an integrated system. Logs are reactive to the seasonal changes, shrinking and swelling in response to moisture, sunlight, temperature, etc. They are not static. If the wall logs are to become a ‘curtain wall’ or ‘siding’ of sorts, new problems are introduced which are significant. Connections, attachments, shrinkage, movement due to unrestrained log tensions, separation at the notched corners, weather tightness, window & door stability, masonry flashings and other technical details would become issues. Admittedly, these issues can be solved, the question is if this technological solution, and all it entails, is worth the cost in terms the permanent and irreversible alteration of many of the “Qualities of Integrity” (referred to in National Register Terms) of this Landmark Structure.
This idea effectively ‘freezes’ the building in its current form, keeping the decayed and failing logs in place, without benefit of repair or replacement or realignment or corrective treatment or preservation action at this time. One would need to inquire as to how a future maintenance plan for the wall logs would be implemented and/or if future repairs are allowed.

________________________________________

If the prevailing guideline is to Restore or Rehabilitate the building, (in accordance with a fairly strict interpretation of the “Standards”), then the original and/or existing configuration, and/or design, along with the connection details, should be given due consideration and preserved, even if they become redundant from a code compliant perspective.
The site is very small as it pertains to the scope of work envisioned. I suggest a variation on Option 1 with the following;

Option 4 (Hybrid) – Support, Strap, Lift, Lower

 Design & Install shoring in such a way as to allow the lifting of the Roof and the upper portion of the Core as a unit, to the extent of 2′ – 3′. (This unit being defined as that part of the structure above the ‘header logs’ of the building, including the upper floor system).
 Disassemble the remaining logwork from the top down to the main floor & Foundation.
 Design & Install shoring to allow the lifting of the existing main floor system as a unit to provide enough clearance for the new foundation design and installation.
 Return the existing floor system to its connection with the Foundation, with required / desired repairs.
 Reassemble the logwork with desired / required repairs.
 Lower the Roof & upper Core assembly onto the reassembled walls
 Remove and Reconstruct the Roof
 Repair the upper Core as required / desired.

This sequence would keep the majority of the building weather protected until the final Roof reconstruction could be accomplished.

________________________________________

Respectfully,

David C. Rogers
Logs & Timbers, LLC
logdoctor@aol.com
503 622 5316 – office