• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Foreword
 Site development
 Photography study
 Working drawings






Title: Livery : rehab and restoration
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098829/00001
 Material Information
Title: Livery : rehab and restoration
Physical Description: 25p. ; diagrams, maps, photos.
Language: English
Creator: Seale, Donnie Gaston
Publisher: Donnie Gaston Seale
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Copyright Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Historic preservation
Liveries
Architecture -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Architecture -- Caribbean Area   ( lcsh )
 Notes
General Note: AFA HP document 11
General Note: Terminal project for UF course ARC629
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098829
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Foreword
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Site development
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Photography study
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
    Working drawings
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
Full Text
















".l- *. i '. *. e s j n- r A t- p -e m, -g r t i-.
-.; ,: R :'. ".a t. -h e.. -i., ,t r i y. .of
vi -n f ... *.. ..
,,-, ." f ,,'s .. ,;, 14 to









-is "e.2 .,. q" -the i I i
.4,anal'yt .-,s td
1_ .. . , .. . ,, ., .. ... .. . ... I J ... ...1 ,- ., . .;








S -i.. ,'. s project1'S prepared der., thd a rectl'n ~ .'. *" .':'

. ,,- ... .... .-...- f BiR Reeves^ -at the University f, F o. da. 'f. ^. .
'- . .. *-.*' '- . .. ,. -* . '. - . '. .- j '' : . .' ., ''..,















p. ji.qe: -a compare


t- h, -. spri. g of 197o, O .' : : . % ..,
The fr- purpe of tb-is project;isi 'tos 0uilzt -'Pf
M Ia
.. * -.* -t h.. 'th ul ...-44* t1 s present ondition .. -I ,'thrq- '.v
. ' ', '.







.. e. -. .... .p a. .ece .. .. building ... ,.























)talk '1 _... .:. :.. . ... .. .. ...... ... ...- . . . . ... .. -.
.: . f, '...
-; ; .- at
ad ., ..

























-- .* . e ; ,'-" .7.4.. .
4 *t "' 4:5.u^,,; r.




































-;":" '= -2 .' ' .. 4 w ** ." .- .'. -' 4 "--..
..: -. .',.. ... :, *"".' ./^ . : ], ,, 'L.;










. .. ,' .... ..t. .,, -..s*- .s f. i k. .. . ..a. ^ -' .,
;.,' .,' '.' . . .
: , . , .. .., ., ,:
.. .. .. '.,, .. . . .- ., ... '" .










'~~ ~ ':"i~th ::iTr 'f 1. .:. "" " ': .' -' '! "'L' "-' -
, ,::- '...;: .F ; . = '' ,
... ......... :,~~ - ." ';. -.:.:: ..





(I!


71 _ej-4-. -
'--- -,i -.-
I it __ -

-i i I











i ,."Tn
l -EI

p- '
L"-ffi I['- i--









i:.: M.I ,
II F I -



--- -



_-- --


S,,i---
r-.


U~
II I

; III- -' I \


- - - - - --
" I
'I ....-- --


,6f


"' "




- N i
o 0 I c I
12967 7?949
s N 5-*I
tA12966 j
-- N
S w 2ND ST

m m I I 1461 1
I F1"
-~u Y"" r^ t r ^ 1
S T MIN < S ET9
N P'I m l ~29
C- r a 14608 LA
'" s $,TT^ ^'Tl ^ s ^S






L f g '^ ^ s -V I l 8 ->
T. N N






. _i854 r--1- --'^ ^SM S INS STREET
Nv (
CD W
-r GND r L4 FD i


w w.
OP~


'-1 ~~28--- 1158 L 3--s i-i> X 3 *.---- *?^^? *^
IOUTH MA. z I 46 4I
J 5 S S STREESTREET





00
CD






._.~ - IL




0 -1 4 - _L1 _S

_ _a _ __ l .Iz! ^ '27"76 2775. 'a_ W '- ^ L s
/S
m,4__!.%,o






.7 01 N N
^, ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ --J --- ---.- -
~2855 562-1 456 n
p c


a N
< IX44 128% A ri R) r P




SE2 SI;







o' SECTION 4, TW
i015 < 4
m 1459 4 1
w 0,
t2786 112183 12760 Fj 1 %

SE TIN ,


P IOS, R20E


SCALE' I'





i


- --..- --


300'


ft|"J ^ Cl (7' M O A ----
-j |*______j________ 21wi *
r~n~. JIT '2lJ
NN W 21
aa
.:-W 20
L--r^- a 5 < I .a~^ ^

!4 6$6 20 L_' St^
V. _N W __ ST
a, w

14653 4H^V .. s JW -i-
w co o S



NORTH MAIN




Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 Y ~ r-

~'.:rV '- fL; 5x
p.." ~ c i'i
3'

3.



r .I Ir .3. I, 14
:su~~~p 1:k.l;'" -


*..r..
,9~. ,.,
.I ~:4..;~
.3.


S ,
*%,


:
:.P' ;"


'i~ i"
.~u


* 3 s .. :

OAER-- Boylston Caroline


ji i f "
1 454-


S -:Orsldat~;;- FI'a~d~

"9. .*i VI.. *,3. '' Pu- 3.'




Legal Description- Oig


Repla


K.. '. r'.~t


GaineSville DB H


t of BK 4 RG2


.1


.34

1.3



1-383 '


OBs If:~-403


Lots -12;3;8;9;12,13,16,


Sec


RNG


05 20


TWp


10


Zoneing--


Business


Mgt


000


Present Use-- Poole-Gable Motors


S "'
L*;


3.3 .r





*~ .31
~ ?- 343 r


'
u

: ~
r..- `


:( '~:


:: :. ~:


B;' ;.

;


,~5~..


c- '








. .. .. .. . . .. .


.1884: ... ,t ..is t ck p et n










E. Maf and U verity to the west nd- eas t
at this., time. O the west hal-f; ofJ the .'' c














a .arehou e. I

188: B 188 o changes had taken e on t
.- HISTORIC ANALYSIS . .,





... .~ ~.~'~, 8 t O ai, si t..e b lock -1 pea o1ue, between .

.. E. Mai, ande U.i vers.ity o t. the west. andl eas .,,
r ,: and Union and Masonic to the North' and south. *''
On thi's b~ock there was very ittle construction.of x n

at this. ,tple On the west halfc of the -block.
S.there arevi only four small .structures., on the

S, .1892: st half time the es t faca uild g sits was,



















been complested with ten'stories In sIX
Sa Furrier, Hardware, Drygoods, Offifceland : . r s
'b"a Warehouse. .'d ', wahouse.


so y -this 188: 887 changes had t aken pi e on the a 'w: .
i :' ", '*; "east half of theeblock'where our building ias,

.. located. nnAlthough on the West half there has .- ,

' -/been construct on of six new stories, thts
'amiorst-compleats the west facade ofthe block,
leaving only two small lbaps *in the west facade.^ ^ :


1892: AT this time the west facade of bockhblock has .

: been completed with -en. stories in six. :
Sthconnecting boilndings. On osl rur site t there ": 4: s "

7' .~ ~ been a& small shed added to the warehouse. I , : ' A

.. Also by tistie ti..e a bulging .thtwa on .

": .. ' ."a d. .
;, ' ,' ." ;" :' 3 "' -'.













occupied by the furrier, Hardware, and

drygoods store has changed to W.H. Davis &

Co. Livery.


1897: By this date there had been at the southwest

corner of our site added a Firestation No.

Two. This Was the only construction on the

block between 1892 and 1897. Although

there has been developed from E. Union to E.

Masonic anKalley dividing the block into

two half.


1903: There has been two new additions to the

livery which is now named the Crawford nad

Davis livery. Now the livery is in four

connection building covering most of the

east half of the block,


1909: At this time all the buildings that orainally

stood on the east half of the block have been

removed and replaced with a new livery

building that is on the site today. Although

in the county records show this building as

being built before the turn of the century,

the Sanborn maps show it as being build

between 1903 and 1909.

.i-













1913: :The Sanborn map show at this time that the

livery undergone a few changes, of elements

appear on this map that did not appear on

the 1909 map. First the north half of the

building has a cement floor the south a

earth floor. Second a frame partition runs

the length of the building from the north

entrance to the south entrance. Third there

is another partion cutting the building in

half in the east west direction.


1922: By this time the livery has been converted into

a garage (Studebaker Garage) which is its

present use. Offices have been added in the

north corners. This Garage has a capacity of

seventy five cars.


1928: At this date it can-be noted that little

change has undergone the building since 1922

and also little change to present Time.







Id Sheets
(137S)


j411~IN?


.E50 fT.rro AN YINc
II BRDCOFWAY, NEW YORK


~Lyr;~l.-lr~r*U*lU-**~--~PI~Y--~U~Y -Li~YIYI_li~Li-I(~-YL~~Y*f 1UIJL*I~I-~i~:ii.5Y~li~~YI1~ ~- I-----ii~Y LYLL~I LYL


'' v~aSR"~R~I~~-"~'`~rr~~""t~aSQ~
.n.l:'


~~'-








,I ,W, i
B, --,sotv ve-. \ O-U L orA.

\ / / R P SRI/v/NVO W i o. iNM &/ J\
S1. D r Cosr S 5 INOEPENDFNT HOSEGf C[I a



W .. LF.Al/f,0'0* S7t. -zq ~R RLPCHUR CO.

/cc4 PR/L....





.hNO '"i g|,Zf |,
'3! I-- CO, .-- i. 00,, OM
BI OT 1903 1


iW -- Y /r.S 'A Y I '
L E5 f /O 71 z T e /
c )

a


j//. I l ,,_ ,. '. ~
T /- C73 Iq4 Z3 a0 6r-
C RRr l___. E0 7o /, 6c










\ j ____l[-I i_. Colo, I V, R67 000i e-/_.

His. /" ,.r" .,
0710 R6 9 ma S

W. MCCA'/C r Ecw/ r_
7JLT7/'IPfC/L/[. // i r Ac1. o yr Jyjr
t 6 4000. GAL 7O Cr /o0o000. ,'F 9xL
ifHOJ VRW0lve // 00'VfIf & OwJ4,-
L1845i'TY L-----r /-0.--- --- --M S 2 / / LO^C
A ,o 68"A//2 "Irv/,-i Ciro/./oq C/vPc/rY
*o3/ [ o /000,00 o0. GqsJ. ,w 2-'c /;o4/,s
rCry~ _* I O/f/-Y CO-vYYW,07r//,v /,s ?00,900 G1LS.
k$ .. Ui .A' M F So0 s/c 5/7 sY/y C 30 L4e. ?5 S< 5Q h/.
ac\ tI tIT A[iio 2 5VC /torOP Exvaos.V c


*M .C 26 >101 5 "-00'J. /2S CXES
I .8 C. 3 O /OIo C
-5 -ie J 37 f 9S r 3. HSa0uZvEt-rtos Co C. or f Gt 0 A va


I __|t C| _- _H-M/CA f I> T-r''H. O /Lv 0VCN 7Y 7-
L -O OA, 9CY VrGOI.


A*. ",, Ihi c /SOO' ri" foVE A / Q. G /OO CO GO/ry .'
____ fRu/rrSS 'ST. 6 3. ;/04UTV-rEfI, COY. 0, -'/^S-A NN0




i I jI .





-0 I 0ca tI n map -
"~ ~ ~ ______ __L ___ ___i^^
u t.. o^ L/ N)Or ___ *ET ___S~ED Jr l '^l

r": ii L^
oi.= -;-^a r a


L. ..







4E





Kii
5.iI


UNION


MASONIC


/'


KEY
FIRE WALL 61N A'3V ROOF
;lLr" et'3 METAL CORNICE
n RNGL" ~oCF FIRE WALL ;2'.ABV ROOF.
ILA r7'w F 0 WOOD CORNICE
FIRE WALL l8,N. ABV ROOF.
FRAME PARTITION.
OPENING WITH IRON ODOR.
~ ;" STANDARDAD
IRON OOOR
SWNDOWS & IROKSHUTTEZR.
Io '-;o= WIIDOW-I STORY.
S3o WINDOWS I! & 3STO.,IES

STABLE
BUILDINGS COLORED YELLOW AR F-RAlM
RED BD:CK
SLUE ST3
GAY IRON
S3 BROWN ADOSE
GREN SPECIALSi
6( INDICATE RELATIVE' EIGHTS
FIRE STATION.AssOWx oh i ALTERNATE STREET NUMBiER5ARE ACTUAL
COnSECUTIVI STREET'S ARE AABI|TARAY
b -I- .


_ YV IJ_ L


"
"2

















































227.


7'77.


36EE


cn


LJ


z


i/0
O,Y
V "~

01/06


L
K


ScrArrro


20( 0t


z






Li


Z7.9


220


Lk .


220 221 ??2-





I / x








s ...... .. -.-
** \ .... "/ I -. .- 11' "_ yI /i, I I









,.es r I ..._ot, 'l ,I




, .. .. CL18=
.s --. If_ -/
=- ,. .w 3 ". ,

















.




4&r..


ZL/'r/ her.
i"' "* 1 :

.r : "':. u *eo /


PW 7/ *






p1 i
1; I C 7I






p ~~ *^*I ;n .



























2= = == = : = =i = = =1 = = == t = = = = a r = = = n = a a = = = = a-n S = S l S S W = S S =


. //9 /20 /2/ /22- / /24 /
0 4V 0II
a p
'11







3534
8 V

iI I1
Ni II /


U n r,
p II
7 ,


50 40 30 20 JO 0


Scale of Feet.
50


i -' -- I--,




1B 1 0






rlm







II

II 0
Ii
if
II













11 1
II



*t|
II





- li
II
II







11 I










II
II i


II




II







1i
II









II


II


If


0 40 O3 20 0 0


Scale of Feet.
50


II
II
II

II
11
II
II



II

II
1

I1
II


11
II
11


II

II

II
II
II

II
II

II

II
II
tI
II
II
II
II
II


II
II
II
tl


1 r ~r IL







Ti- orv4As


76 1 117
z ~~ a^ ? 7
.- <: ,, __ -, 5
I ~~" 14 L


*1


hI
0
4 6'8
-I-

w
- _ ,


'13
HR URDOO-JENNIC
HRRObVOOO CO.


KEY '
-IPE WALL b614 CA*V ROOF
S*Usepr lr 3 Ql UMETALCORNICE
S. .OO m For FIRE WALL 12 ABV ROOF.
sUri n F o WOOD CORN;Ce
SRFIRE WALL iN.H. ABV ROOF.
- FRAME PARTITION.
OPENING WITH IRON DOOR.
'STANDARD'
IRON OOOR
WINDOWS & IROK SHIUTTERS.
oo WINDOW-I1 STORY.
vr^WurOows I" &35ETOIRS
I i 2 y&49 ..
S-TABLE
BUILDINGS COLORED YELLOW ARE FRAME
S RED BI:CK
BLUE STONE
GRAY IRON
.. BROWN ADOSE.
GREEN SPECIALS
INDICATE RELATIVE HEIGHTS
+ FIRE STATION, As sHw ow hEY MAP.
ALTERNATE STREET NUMBERS ARE ACTUAL
CONsccUTIVl STREET hOS AcR ARItTrAr a
t^--------------^


- -I- ----































I:



















I
I
'I
:1
Si

4,
It
it




II
ti
"I


>








3





































I'
a
1I


I





U


Ii


.0/.

































z
D
2:




ai


[777, p771


M !70
i |/__ _o


B.~P


/I


B.5 I
(34


E. MASONIC


c-- -


B.S F


191


E. UNION


.L


17-"-9

'-j














PIZ Z !e /4 /6 20 5e76'


E. UNION

~omtv77(209)





r-I
U)v

FZ''





InI









MASONN IC


A'o /I i't.
I -:
Lii
''' r














.1:
~W KY I
;P















n~i -E r -'


B.5 R.


PRINvo GPRgGiE
Cqp cc' ,,70 C~ors
Yoo c.~, )?s
'vo /,-IRE pp







B.5 R-1t








192





z
Z





ui





;"

S'I P/PE "

,. 11
II

- O


I 6 o
I


In 2
S"_
'l^


F4 EE


4"7 ;'iB.4.R3



s .o


I J 8 .W I


Sl


i,'


dBvNv.


5 1
/ '


'(z/z4 -./7 &- ZzQ iS2 ^ 2.36 oj
06.r-


E. UNION


nr. g.r
0 /3 0


II "
II ,

III


II


II
II





| 7
II" t ;'-
II
II
II
II
II


It
II


MASONIC


I /I
/ /e' o/ /"' a


Q:
3W,.


Ii


II
II

I'



II
I'


II

II


300


cm'


/7"3




,CLLre SrNG


""~~ r d


'"' '


A' ij
STrGE


T .


I


... -..... --. .. . ..


/ 3" ,P oF


-N.. t L .l


, ^
t
































































___ I


















Mh~


____I_


_I-
ti
: .




































































43 0~O -
0.





mog
C/) 0-




0CI -k
4 ca


I I


win_

74




































eight : Window Detail
hatJ!L~aration_-






















































bi 0
S

G)


.. : 0


m: PP

'b F: OHl
OOHit '



























































Window Detail
South, Elevation





Lefts Small Along
West Elev. looking
South


















































Right: Detail of Door
Bricked over West Elev,
Left: Small looking
Sit -- 1- ".*






Left: Cornice Detail
West Elevation


- r1~
















































W&st Elevation-
Window Details
t~~2> .i.i .






























p.


Interior View
Looking -Nortgh


F


rli~

























i~rn-rn

~-~JE~mm























br


*I
il


rF


Interior View
Looking -Nortgh


* -A

















im'i~.~




'Interior
. Str ctural Details




















i.6 -\.. CPil4 -_7.t'\,LORTiAD. IN PI Ce RES AM) PROSE

-
STAR --ARAGE- .- "
S The rabid development of the au6ilfi' afd the ex-
cellent means of transit it affords,.together withi he diver-
4iiled ways in which it is used, makes t incmnbcnt upon
an\ community\ nhos4 du.iri is to kLip pace nith the
strides of time o1 hiea within it- confines.one or more-
garages of suitable capacity and equipment .to propPrlb-
care for this importaiii branch of modern. business .\
recognized leader in this line in Central Florida is the Star-.-
Garage of Gainesville, owned by J.'R. foweijeri He has
been engaged in the. automobile business here sinee 19I ^
and at his present location for bth past eight iear" Hezis
a dealer in Cadillac 'and Studebaker Auto'moblde carries...
a full line of repair parts, accessories, tire., tubes. bat-
teries, etc., and does a general repair and storage business.

















S. THE STAR GAR3CE,:,G 1,VESVILLE FLA ';
Other departments are Battery Department -wheie bat-
teries'are sold, rebuilt, recharged and repaired; Paint, Up-
holstery and: Top Shop and used 'car department. In the.
painting-department they.make a specialty of applying the
famous "Duco" finish, the most durable ..as well -'s the
most beautiful automobile finish known to modern science.
.The. Star Garage is located at the corner .of Union
Street and Virginia Avenue and contains about ten thou-
sand square feet of flpor space: -At is without douta. the
Largest establishment of its kind in Ihe county and one-,f
the bestC equippedin this section
Mr. F wler, the .propietor, is one if the.rcpreseniatil
financial citizens of Lhe'county and has always beer cmn-
mendably active in undertakings for the betterment of the
commuiiity: In addition to his other large iireests, lie is'
a stockholder and 1 director -in The First Nattial Bank
:the' oldest and i.tronge-t finarnial institution in Alahlia,
county., -; -
-. -..,.~
























c1



,,


cG




co


















































V ll






: . p


Crawford & Davis' Livery Stable


I


,....


F,'
h s .
r : d







* **: ~ ''


This section is to illustrate drawings of the



existing building and how drawings were made



from the photos.



First:, Measuring course size ..



Second: Counting courses



Third: Relating course size and number of



courses to establish approx. elevations.


_


F


r
I




r
I
w rr


~,
I,




" "


~'''`'
Ct.
'l:.i'"
:::
2


i


I`
''



*




;'ZI~- ,.t-.;r-r-i;. t;47 *










r.~.-',,




___- i .Lr i k.- :L tA 1


i''-.3



ri

















WV. -~ I

.. ;.'I

~~I,
,4b


































V' . . ,:


r .. 1.
L i
i t -.- -~
"
'"~' -:


i ...

-t'-
:-


--- ----)-r -;.~~~~~~r.-rr*rru~.-n~ni*i -rr 1 L"Tr~

L

- it

.LL
t.r

:,.- 1I'P
::-;
'i .i
;i

- 1


rr
;_
.~ .
i, ~,:
3- rr
"' :T ..i- 'I :'.-.
"""' 5'. '
c. a .
""
' :: -- ~ r-''"-7
'
.. .. ..-. I


















P~I'
I IN t


- n


.- _f floor __plan


I-1 l l


II
II
rI


II
fi
'II


II

II
ii
I I
II
I I
I i
I I
II
* II
* II
SII
I I

I I
I t
I I
SII
I I


II
II
II
II
II


if
II



II
II
II
I I
II
I I
II




I I
II
I I
II
II
II
II

II
II


ri
II
II
II
II
II
II

I I
II
ii
It




II
II
II
I,
II
I I
II

II
II
II
II
II

II
u


II
II
II
I I
II
II
)I
II
ii
II
It
II
11
II
'i
II
I i
Is
1J
ii
I I
I I
Ii
I I
Ii
I I
II
II
II
II
Ii
II

















H ;


















w esP. a t 81, ---


2222 2 22


. e.a.s t ...e_ 1 .._


I


ix~


I


P PP ~B ~~ PP ImamsPP


~8pla~a


~~~ ~g ~~ ~~~ ~ ~a LA


2 0 ft.--9





















I
: . - `, :--:~r,,:, .---.--c.:r ------~~---,-- e--
-` ~-' . ., _... -
"~
r : i:,
~,--- *
; ti
'' ~L'
(-l_-i~' ~) I
;---- : -.... .--. S'
.. .. =:- ,. . i
.-:.- .... -. ~-
~.c- '
-i.. ,~r L
r: ; : 1.1- ~ "''
r_ - .. .;1
. r
~ ";e : -. -- V. .`. .'.
.r I ,-- ;-L
`;`-' ;" t
-'r
i. '
~i


zS.-


.1 .
4-r ,1 i.
(t ,.
C- 4.,


e


,.... ''
*~CZI ~"~ L.i- , .. --.-
." I~
t'' ~
~"- -; t.. :i-
---r / r 1; Z
: ... ~..::; .."-L;;I. ~I~::-~I-
; . ..

. ;- '~-~ -.

.I, -: :..t,.l' i-.
~- I -- ~rs ,-,i .:.-.
'li
i '-
r~w~rr.r-~,; ~ Ir, uT~r~,. Li~~r-wrrrshurrrrrR+~4rr~,rrc-)rri.rr- , jr ~Ls~.r~~~ur;~u*cnsIau
.. -t --I
,,... ~I
1... : -i;
i --
-~z.:r,: r
'1 '' .i- -i ;;;-i
- lc.- ..~~ "" c
-s... L;i; .
- -:El: -II-
i
~ -~:.' :: -` -'' "I' -';".~C ~; r::r
- -'-- -c. ..- 1 i
`" i"r:: .
-t
; "r i~
"- -- ~ p: -i~ r;
-f CI
C ;: :. r ..
~~: ~. ,'
? '~ '-' 'I " i
` s-- ~L.
.1.L z . X: 1 .
-,
z y
r, )i "L.

f;~ ,(~; .FI. ~
."~ ~C
-~3i
... Tr.
?


SC'


L

V..'


-rr Su r rcC~aaA.. r -




I.-.












1'


--_- ------ ,------ --'- -+--
~- ----
--= :._
---~--;-;,, h-;~- -..~.-~.~~ _L __
. ______~___~
-C-- ~------ ~" "~"""'~-" -'
--------- --
-- -`~~-~ ~-' -- ----- -- II ----
--


711


NFITT~- -


I


--- ------- --I----- --


"
_ ~~-


~1~i



.~; .~


- ;

-- ---- --
-r- -
---,
-
--
-
--
: --
";
~-
.
+. -
. i
-
I" ':1'~"

~..f
r
L "
i:' ,- :
r- L
r -; -
:r
~.~. i ;:
.~-i. .p .;1'.;~_.
L.
,%: -- ..
~. :.
--
.II, "'"- ~
z :.-:
-c..
..
r
-r

~; -
;,~ -
..-..- 1... -: - r. ; ,.. ~ I--
~: -
r ~.

' I W
-
c
~ C-'
f ;r,
I : r
F
'"
~ i ''
r. .,.. .-.. 1. -~;...,-. ~.-,. ~-- .-
.-

.\- I?-. .~.I..-:~ ~.. -

;;-~
- II ., .I.~ .r '-~'
i~ p- ----
r I I 1 t 7_'~~~~-.` .' ---


:

.~ ..'
I


-J


..
















:


~Xc~icu;.rr~.~i,;..;
" -- r-f-
r
I-

.-~
'C

'' ': -`C
r
~I


~
;"-- r
1
"
:;
-- `-
.:. -~










*1d *. ...*,. .
f.*. . .

* .. -


*. ** *
** .


II ;IIII
II I

II
IIu l II
IIII'

I I

-' [LIZII] LI LIZ

II iI
I II -
u I, I
I I. p


II




I. M II -I
r. II
II1
K _

II
II N II
S~ II ,.
if I i
II i


Iir IIII
1111'1;1'
%li
II ~I
il


r. -
s
;r~ -. ~.- I 'I -


'


- I
NI II

'I
II..I


II*

,r II -- I I

**a-. ,: .I.----
uI II. I
.---: -I---- ------* I '~ *~ .. I*I

.1 II .1II
ii ~II i*
I, .' ii1111

4r' 1I I' .- N1
II ,*I -


II . II I
'J'II

d I-I


i~i


Ii


--


//I. ; UI:'

I*,1 .:
I I~ll


-(--L-~A 'I~ _____~-~-----__ 7 --- - - -1.1 .- .. .I


- I


- ii


I


* I U



.i .- .. I .
..-a





y. -












* .. . A'





.I~~ ~ .,..z




































-. -2 r-- 1
- -,. A

A. ...c,-.




















;r- :
1A.~ 1. .
.'.. ." .i .:i 'A











. -:



*i I I


.'s


1. -- .-L
*~ ~ : 4* ..- .-
.- ~ .*. .. ,i-`
,;. .- .


I I I I I I I I I


1 I ; *


I I I I I I I


-. I I I I I I I I -


~TF f i~t 1111IrII lii


Jolla DIDI


It


*. 1


I


A N v - - 1 1 1 1 1


11


I


"`'
.Y- j ; ~.
.,.~
r. ..


, ~~ ,~.:1
i', =_ .-
:~ 2~~ .- -.
L:li~iL.
-Z " ~~" .. I- -~r..?
". ? .Crl- ` ; :- i,
t~. :"i J~'~ '
,. ~
; r' ?'
c .4~.~
-, :I 3
2 .
1 ,
--
.r ....,
i) .-.,
;+ : .- .::
~: 1
; r
i

r
...
;
r -
~.' ~ '~''. . ": .' I I .I ----
, ,
i

f '----~ --.:r,
~,~

.. I
P~~~~~PBP~~~BBB

~t:; :~,) :L



""ba~na~A/ :


P~P`


--
.. I
~ -
- ;"~ --I
. -. .1 :, ~I'. ""
:~ ----
. --~---
-~-~- I =~-~, ~i ~ ...-..
.
.-- ~ S- o~~,?1Z-''; '' -~L I- ; ~ ~1 : .. : -?
: ~ 3 ~ r
- .- r - --.-~ ,n;
;
'I' ;'
:
b
.-
-
-- -
-.. r~ ci

;
'
-- -i-
,.
1~1'' '" ~': -r.
d'
:


.. ." .


.. I



















I~~~~r. .- . .. ...;.r -.
-'- '%* ~








-a.

-.'i-..L. -C3 .-



-.~., .-- --,r


- ..i**.*




`'*1
*L -AC


S -
















In searching for a vible function for the livery

building one is confronted with the problem of

a building with an enormous amount of space. A

function that needs a large amount of space was

" searched for

Resently farmer marker operators were looking

for a building in which they could lease and

use as an enclosed market space. The Datson

Garage, which just in the next block from my

site was acquired for the market. Only later

to be thrown aside by the city. However one

may make the assumption that this type of a

function could be feasible in the livery

building, which is in the next block from

.the Datson Garage.




SECTION 2605 SKYLIGHTS


2605.1 GENERAL
Approved plastics may be used in skylights provided that:
(a) The skylight is not installed over a shaft or over occupancy
classification H-Special Hazardous.
(b) The plastic is mounted at least four inches (4") above the
roof on a non-combustible or metal clad curb of at least twelve inches
(12") for industrial and commercial structures, and six inches (6")
for residential structures.
(c) The plastic units are installed at least five feet (5') apart
and not less than five feet (5') from any exterior wall, and in no
case shall such units be installed within the distance from an ex-
posure within which openings in walls are required to be fire
protected.
(d) Flat or corrugated panels shall slope from the horizontal
at least three inches in twelve inches (3" in 12") and the panel shall
not exceed ten feet (10') from the bottom to the top of the inclined
plane. Corrugations shall run with the inclined plane.
(e) Dome-shaped or curved units shall rise above the mounting
flange a minimum distance equal to 10 per cent of its maximum
span or five inches (5"), whichever is the greater.
(f) The edges of the plastic material are enclosed in metal.

2605.2- CLASS A PLASTICS
Class A plastics may be used in skylights provided:
(a) The maximum area enclosed within the curb of units shall
not exceed three hundred square feet (300 sq. ft.).
(b) The aggregate area of all such units shall not exceed 33%
per cent of the floor area of the room sheltered by the roof in which
the units are installed.

2605.3 CLASS B PLASTICS
Class B plastics may be used in skylights under the same condi-
tions as allowed in subsection 2605.2 except that the aggregate area
shall not exceed 25 per cent of the floor area sheltered by the roof
upon which it is erected.






















Code Requirments






This building must comply with the Southern


Standard Building Code. For:


Group E Occupant


(E-1) More than 75 person


Type of Construction -- Type II


Fire-Resistive Construction


A6 '


!~" -~k r, -kc


1.
":
:'''.'~ '.: ~~--
i


;'
'
I-
.. : ~
r' "




; i:;


:1 .i. i

-ii
r,


;





8-114 BUILDINGS AND OTIER STRucTURES


Table 8-7R. Protected Steel Roof Deck Construction
(Combustible)*

Thick- Plaster: Fir.-
Above Dock Insulationt nese Mix Thick- Resistance
ind ness Rating
In. Scratch Brown In. Hr Mm
Cement bonded wood-fiberboo.d 1!/ Gypsum-sand 1,2 1:2 2 -
Wood fiberboard, one thickness or two I Gypsum-sand 1.2 1.3 / I 30
Wood fiberboard, T & G wood
sheathing or plywood % Gypsum-sand I2 1.3 % I
SThe constructions shown are combustible by reason of either combustible insulation be-
tween the formed steel deck and asphalt roofing, or mop coating of asphalt on steel deck.
Concrete made with lightweight aggregates and one and one-half times as thick will
qualify construction asnoncombustible except for asphalt.
SPlaster shown is for suspended ceilings. Sprayed on fiber or plaster preparations giving
equal protections can be substituted. (See UL Retardant 2773. Dec. 1959.)

application, was needed. Table 8-7R gives fire-resistance ratings for three com-
mon types of formed steel roof decks supported on steel framing and with fiber-
board insulation and built-up asphalt roofing above and protected below by
suspended ceilings of expanded metal or wire lath and gypsum-sand plaster.

H. Ceilings
The method of attaching ceilings is a major factor in determining the fire
resistance of floors. The nailing of plaster bases of gypsum lath, metal lath, or
gypsum wallboards to the soffits of wood joists is often critical. The longer thinner
nails, particularly those with cement coatings, conduct less heat to char the wood
surrounding them than do the common types of wire nails. Nails in gypsum lath
or gypsum wallboard should not have the heads sunk below the surface in a
manner to crush the friable gypsum core. The minimum sizes of nails for the
attachment of metal lath may be 6d common wire nails or 6d cement-coated nails,
driven slightly inclined not less than 14 in. into the joist and bent over, or IK-in.
11%-gage barbed roofing nails driven full depth. The spacing of such nails should
not exceed 6 in. along each support. Thin nails such as box nails or the cement-
coated types of greater length which provide greater depth of penetration than
previously mentioned nails, give increased fire resistance.
A new type of self-tapping screw, made particularly for the attachment of
gypsum boards, appears to offer greater holding power and less damage to the
core materials than do nails. Such screws can be used to attach wallboards to
either wood or cold-rolled channels without previous drilling.
Consideration should also be given to the character of the plaster base with
respect to loosening of plaster mixes from the base on application of heat sufficient
to char combustible surfaces. The use of wire, or better yet, wire fabric, to
reinforce the plaster nixes applied to such plaster bases assures increased fire
resistance. Clearances for longitudinal expansion of metal furring members are
required to prevent damage from buckling. The tendency of certain plaster bases
and plaster mixes to expand or contract with changes in atmospheric humidity
should also be given consideration where resultant cracking might affect the fire
resistance of structures incorporating such plaster.
Suspendtl cdlmn with openings for air diffusers and light-troffers should be
designed s much openings are not points of vulnerability to fire. Continuous
Id"


FIRE RESISTANCE OF BUILDING MATERIALS AND ASSEMILIFS 8-115

construction above recesses for lighting fixtures and properly designed self-closing
dampers for air ducts provide protection.


Protections for steel beams, girders, and trusses, such as encasements of concrete,
clay, tile, or gypsum blocks, are now often superseded by plastered or sprayed-
on applications applied either to a furred plaster base, such as expanded
metal lath, or to the surface of the member to be protected. The applications may be
conventional plasters of portland or gypsum cements combined with appropriate
aggregates, or one of the many combinations of mineral fibers with hinders such
as asbestos' or mixtures of asbestos and artificial fibers of mineral wool or fiberglass.
While affording equal protection from fire and weighing anywhere from 20
to 60 per cent of the first mentioned encasements, the latter do not have equal
resistance to damage from impacts. Fire tests have shown that sprayed-on fire-
proofing made with portland cement and sand, such as Cunite, spalls badly when
exposed to fire. The addition of an aggregate to afford yielding to thermal strains
appears to be necessary. The National Bureau of Standards tests (Building
Materials and Structure Report 131) gave up to 100 per cent increase in fire
resistance of Cunite when wood sawdust was used as replacement of as much as
50 per cent by volume of the usual 1:4 proportion of sand aggregates. Likewise,
tests have also shown that the protection afforded steel columns by gypsum con-
crete is increased by the use of wood shavings as aggregates. The upper limit of
such increase was about 37 per cent when the shaving content of the mix was
about 1/7 of that of gypsum stucco by weight.
Table 8-7D gives the permissible minimum thicknesses of portland cement
concrete encasement prescribed for the protection of steel members of trusses and
girders. These are also applicable to beams serving as elements of floors.
Protective coverings of plaster or sprayed-on application to furred metal lath
beam encasements are given in Table 8-7S.
Beam encasements of sprayed fiber or cementitious mixtures with gypsum
cement bases are given in Table 8-7T.

S J. Columns
Numerous fire tests have demonstrated that structural steel columns must be
insulated from attainment of temperatures in the ranges above 1,000*F if they
are to support loads imposing, stresses represented by the commonly used formulas
for column design. Structural steel columns loaded to stresses represented by the
formula (17,620-72- ) psi were found in fire tests at Underwriters' Laboratories

to fail at temperatures represented by formula (1040 + 1.8 -50)*F for
slenderness ratios ranging from 40 to 112. Design stresses for structural steel
columns are currently somewhat higher and failure can be expected to occur at
temperatures approximately 60"F lower than given by the formula.
Among the 91 columns subjected to fire tests at UL in the 1917-1918 series
were 71 steel columns of 9 section types, 8 hollow, round cast iron columns, 1 of
which was filled with concrete; 6 concrete columns, 4 of round section and 2
square, including 3 with limestone and 3 with trap rock aggregates; 6 timber
columns, 4 of them of long leaf yellow pine and 2 of Douglas fir. Two columns
were of unprotected steel pipe filled with concrete, 1 having starred angles in the
core. One column or more of each type was subjected to fire test without benefit
of protective insulation, 9 steel columns, representative of 6 section s, had no
rV %? :rN/D rtANvW Kd


I. Beams, Girders, and Trusses


-T




8-116 f BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES

S 8-7S. Furred Steel Beams with Noncombustible
S'_ Protective Coverings


L tab. Fming Prelecte Cominrg FIre-
dil em Rensist.
Depth slh TM1ce:s am Ntes
a t 1" Ulral Maltlal 1 t lll
NL. It l. I Is .Hr MIn
ae 1aa 1t
Rib lath, 3.4-lb 4-in. Retardant
S18 12 diamond mh % 2% Sprayedonfiber 2 2 5 3431-
Loth, 24-gage 3.4-lb Gypsum-vermiculite
"-4 19 10 %-in. mesh ex- % % or gypsum-iperlie 1A 'A 5 trdt2689-
panded metal plaster, 12, 3 N2689-C
,4 20 8 Rib lath, 2 4-gage S Retdarant
4203.44.lb %A-in. No Sprayedonfiber 1'A 1'A No.3705-3
Self furring lath,
-4 8 12 3.4-b %-n. dia- % % Gypsum-perliteplas- I IA 4 Retat
mand mesh ter, I 2 No. 3413-4
Lath, 24-gage 3.4-lb
3.4 10 diamond mesh % e clte acou astal 2 2 4 NoR 3
WF expanded metal plastcor laNo. 343.7
Lath, 3.4-lb %-in.
3-4 16 12 diamond mesh I % Sprayed on fiber 1e 1 e4 Retardant
expanded metal No. 3372-3
Rib latoh, 24-gage Cpspit. .- -
I4 15 12 3.4-lb, %-An. mesh % % Gypsum t 1 4 i taian
expanded metal plaster, It2'A No. 3789-1_
Lath, 3.4-lb self R
- 4 24 8 furring %-in. mesh '% % Cementilious mixture 2 2 4 Reardan
expanded metal No. 4197-2
11-4 29 *8 Lat 3.4-lb self MM mixed gpwm Retardant
f-r29 L .r mesh MiII mixed gypsum t ar aN
furrlng-. mesh plaster 4 No. 4197
Lath, 24-gage 3.4-lb Reardn
C-312 12 Le 2 32.4 IA g 'Gypsum-vermiculite a 1 Retardant
C.3 12 12 -in. mesh ex- 1 % Gy U er i 6 No 2689-4
pounded metal plaster 12
Lath, 3.4-1b, %-In. rib
C-3 15 8 tlath on No. 6 wire / H Sprayed fibers 1 4 -
S Lath 24-gage, 3.4-lb -ilmixd g m-
W4 19 '-In. ms exp. % A Mill mixed gypsum
C.e3 19 W %.ln. meshexp. % % plaster 1 11, 3 -
Smetal
Loth, 24-gage 3.4-.b, M m
D-2 6 a %-In. mesh exp. 1% % Mimixed gypsum 1% 2 -
metal plaster


FiME RESISTANCE OF BUILDING MATEIIIALS AND ASSEMBLIESI--117

STable 8-75 (Cont.)

Lad. Lat Felnlri -Pretace Corri Fire-
mtint Bma Raid-
i Deph Spit Thi ckness
se- IL Material Mt la -- atI -
d io "- I t I'--
N I I. In. In. I. Hr Mi
Lath, 24-gage 3.4-lb,
D-2 3 12 %-in. mesh e- A V Gypsum-vermiculite 1 I 2 -
ponded metal plaster 1,2, 1.3
Lath, 24-gage 3.4-lb,
D-2 7 10 %-n. mesh exp. % % Gypsum-perlile 1 1 2 Retardant
metal acoustical plaster No 3413-9
Lath, 24-gage 3.4-lb,
-1 3 12 %-in. mesh exp. % Gypsum-perlite 1 1 R trdan
metal plaster 1I2, 1:3 No 3413-5
Loth, 24-gage 3.4-tb,
I11 6 12 %-n. mesh exp. % Gypsum-prlte 1 Retardnt
S metal plaster 1t2, 1U3 N, 3413-8


Table 8-7T. Steel Beams with Sprayed-on Cover
Applied to Surfaces
(Adhesive, If required, applied before application of encasement)

-REINFORCING STEEL

I j/-CONCRETE FLOOR,


C-PROTECTIVE
COVERING


Ul UrnLing Depth Thickness, f
Dlign -am, Covering Metedrl .. Rating
las In. I Hr Mi

8-4 25 B Sprayed fiber I 1 1% -
1-4 26 10 Sprayed fiber 3%3 31 4 -
B-4 28 8 Sprayed fiber 1% 1'A 4 Retardant No. 3705-7
B-4 9 10 Sprayed fiber 2% 21V 3 -
C-3 9 12 Sprayed fiber 214 2i 3 Retardant No. 3372-2
3-4' 23 12 Camentitious mixture 214 2% 4 Retardant No. 4197-5
D-2 12 Cementitious mixture 21% 21 4 Retardant No. 4142-2
C-3 16 8 Spray plaster-cementitious 2 2 3 .
mixture
D-1 12 Troweled mill mixed plaster I 1 2 RetardantNo.3413-10


-~-:-
--- ---
.. .~ c---


_ ._._1.__._ __---rt~lCSPP~
-c-------~~---~-';~ "r'"


::




S'







Economical Feasibility




In this section I am presenting an artical

from American Institute of Planners, Nov. 69

"Economic Feasibility Analysis for Urban

Housing Rehabilitation". Although my project

is not one of housing the principals are the

same for restoration giving us a good method

to use in establishing feasibility of out own

project. Because specific information about my

project is not available one must assume that

the design proposal is frasible and continue

the project on that assumption.









I~


LII


S' . "', ,4 2 /



ONOSiS5MIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSVS FOR

RBAN RENEWAL HOUSING LHABILITATION










is how best. to ach;:ieve this goal'. The two alternative
pproc 'ae, o up a ut-rn, or




- ' ' \ ' 1 l '
A. e. Schaaf B' hi paper focuses on the economic feasi-
bility 'of housing' rehabilitation as compared with re-
placement or redevelopment. We assume that'public
policy calls for the elimination of "substandard" units,
'.however defined, and that the only relevant question.
Ais how best 'to achieve this goal. The two alternative
approaches are to ;fix up a unit-rehabilitation, or to
Stear oit down and replace it with a new unit-redevelop-
ig whment. Both arpproachesn fall under the broader heading
"', .^ 'of renewal. ...

s The, bjectiv a of Effcient Resource Utilization
To cast our .approach in a realistic setting, perhaps we
can think of it as applying to a Public Housing Author-
Sity that is endearing to raise housing standards in







economic life, and shelter amenities of the renewed. usedup in construction demolition, and maintenance
Although rehabilitation has become an alternative to a gi area. The authority can buy upsubstandard
new. c tonstrcn in virtually all applicable public policy units and then either rehabilitate them or tear them
situations, few guidelines or criteria exist for determin-: down and replace them with new units. Which should
ing whether rehabilitation or replacement is the most it do? 'e








sion,d, not concern' us. In our global, public context,
desirable way to improve a given portion of the housing In answering this; question, we appraise the feasibility
-- .. stock. This study develops the idea that the answer of rehabilitation 'strictly and solely from the standpoint
depends upon the comparative effects of rehabilitation of achieving the most'economical and efficient use of
and new construction on the future maintenance costs, resources, that is, the housing stock and the resources
economic life, and shelter amenities of the renewed. used'up in construction, demolition, and maintenance
structure. A model is formulated that determines the activities. Considerations such as the personal' income
feasibility of rehabilitation as compared with new con- tax treatment of rehabilitation and new construction
struction and specifies the cost level of renewal that will exp tre w e of great importance to a private
maximize shelter output per unit of input. e nr e ,, .ai a pi
.. e u e ' investor making rehabilitation or replacement deci-
sion:;do not concern us. In our global, public context,
S..'such' taxes' are simply transfers and are important only
A. H. Schaaf is Professor of Business Administration at the .'as policy tools uSid to stimulate or discourage certain
.University of California (Berkeley) and has long been asso- ,. , ; . '.
dated with the University's Center for Real Estate and Urban typeSI:of investment, and entrepreneurship. They do
Economics. He has written monographs and articles in the not represent a 'resource use, and we are interested
fields of real estate, housing, mortgage lending, and urban her only ia the 'feasibility of rehabilitation asia way of

SCH AAF ; 399
~i' '


v rt.,j '!!F I- I T.mm.- ~l ~.rr-m~.;- -1-




providing a specific amount of housing improvement It i' im ptant to see that this conclusion is quite
wi ththe least expenditure of human and nonhmnan incorrect.. -labilitation and redevelopment are equally
resources. ; well-suited'or subsidization, and the absence of private
In focusing purely on the objective of efficient utili- profitability is no reason for rejection of either. Regard.
nation of resources we are avoiding problems of dis- less of proitability, either may be "feasible" as a means
location, relocation, and rationing units after renewal.', of implementing public policies aimed! at improving
However, to again use the Public Housing Authority housing conditions through subsidization of an increased
example, we may assume that each occupying household volume of' residential construction. In our analysis,
prior to renewal will be the postrenewal occupant oi the best anditherefore most "feasible" method is simply
the identical renewed unit. The price he pays to occupy'? the one with the greatest output per unit of input.
the unit will be determined by his ability, to pay rather
than the Authority's acquisition and renewal cost, In .:- The Comparative Cost Approacb
the case of owner-occupied units, we see the Authority .;! The rehabilitation versus redevelopment question can
buying the owner-occupant's house, renewing it, and be, and, often is, resolved on the basis of least-cost.
selling it back to him with contractual payments based This criterion is particularly appealing in that it reduces
on his ability to pay. to a minimum the immediate problem of cost absorp-
tion. Housing is improved at the lowest possible cost
The Profitability Criterion and with the least,impact upon rents and prices, thus
Considered solely as a private investment decision, the minimizing the chances of occupant dislocation. How-
feasibility of residential rehabilitation, both absolutely ever, it is ,clear that sole reliance on least-cost as the
and in comparison with redevelopment, would be de- determinant of the renewal method is insufficient since
termined by its profitability. The investment would be 'attention .must also be directed to the nature and Ion-
made only if the expected returns were competitively :gevity of ti housing improvement that is achieved.
sufficient to justify the investment, and the answer to
the question of rehabilitation versus redevelopment ,.
would depend on which action promised the greater .we are interested . in the
profit. Insofar as private costs and gains coincide with .feasibility of rehabilitation as a way of
those of society, the profitability criterion would result providing a specific amount of housing
in an optimum utilization of the resources in question. improvement with the least expenditure
This is, of course, the major and time-honored way in of human and nonhuman resources.
which this question is solved in a free market economy.
Our problem, however, cannot be solved by address-
ing ourselves solely to the task of determining rehabili- In a' 1960 study, Economic Aspects of Urban Re-
tation and redevelopment costs, cash flows, residuals, newal, a modified least-cost approach was employed.'
and discount rates-the ingredients of the private in- The first step consisted of establishing a single standard
vestment decision. By and large, we are dealing with to which every property in the area was to be renewed.
situations in which neither course of action is profitable. Either rehabilitation or redevelopment was then stipu-
There may, of course, be instances in which better lated depending upon which was the cheapest method
market analysis would reveal profitable rehabilitation of achieving the given standard. The crucial element
or redevelopment opportunities that were not being in this inethodology was acceptance of a uniform stan-
acted upon. Similarly, public action may be on such a dard to be achieved either by rehabilitation or redevel-
broad scale that entire areas are changed, new markets', opmenti specializedd conditions and objectives, partly
are tapped, and no project losses are experienced. How- of a pragmatic nature, made this procedure acceptable
ever, our objective is to improve aggregate housing for the' purposes of this earlier study. However, the
conditions to a point above that achieved without public 'specification of the renewal standard is really a crucial
action. Subsidies rather than profits must ordinarily be part of the problem involved in any comparison of the
relied upon to produce this result. two renewal methods. Much of what.we attempt below
This is riot to say that we will not take account of is in effect aimed at determining the "best" renewal
private profitability criteria. As we shall see, they are standard.
still important to feasibility analysis even if subsidies In Economics of Housing, Lionel Needleman ex-
are required. However, in much of the literature on ,:':.pands' the comparative cost approach by noting that
rehabilitation the implication has been that its useful- ,future maintenance costs and the economic life of the
ness and generality have been overlooked due to a lack : renewed structure must also be considered.2 That is,
of appreciation of profitable opportunities. This argu- 'not orly mary redevelopment and rehabilitation costs
ment has sometimes led to the conclusion that unless differ but, after renewal, the economic life of the
rehabilitation is profitable it cannot be used and that structure a nd the level of maintenance costs may vary
redevelopment is then the only remaining course of ',"depending upon whether rehabilitation or redevelop-
action. 'ment has been used as the means of renewal. These
400 A' U P JOURNAL NOVEMBER 1969

+ I





observations lead to a formulation of the problem ffect, i mod compares the desirability of construct-
which states that rehabilitation is the preferred method i ing a neg builiAing today with that of rehabilitating the
if redevelopment costs exceed the sum of rehabilitation 'existing building now and constructing the new build-
costs plus the present value of the next renewal cost, ing n yeirs from now. In the next section we shall
outlay plus the present value of the annual differeriCe "formulate a. ore general model that will also include
in the maintenance costs of a rehabilitated structure. the possibility of successive future rehabilitation invest-
compared with a new one.3 That is, rehabilitation is ments, that is, it will not necessarily use C but rather the
preferred if: 'most feasible cost magnitude in n years (or perhaps
C [ (1 +i)--" C a series of them) in the discounted cost term. It is wel
C> R+AI 1-- + (1+ (1) to note here ,however, that the investment analysis ir.
Sany event w6uld still be limited to a period equal to
where C= new construction cost, thelength of life of the new building; this, is another
R= rehabilitation cost, result of adding'the depreciation factor (r) to the dis-
i = annual savings in maintenance costs. counted cost term.
with a new structure.rather tan.a The majorishortcoming of the formulation in (1)
rehabilitated one, is that it comletely ignores the problem of defining
n= life of present structure following and determining the "best" renewal standard. In
rehabilitation, and ...
hi= d isnt ateion, and effect, there is just one renewal standard and it is
Discount rate. achieved by single-valued outlays for R or C.' However,
The formulation contained in (1) recognizes rele- different .standards of both rehabilitation and new
vant cost-comparison variables in addition to the re- construction are 'obviously possible and, thus, different
placement and rehabilitation cost outlays themselves. values of, aiad C. Further, as R and C vary, A and n
It also illustrates the point that the feasibility of reha- will also vary. That is, R varies directly with n and in-
bilitation as compared to replacement is greater the versely with Mwlhile C and M vary directly.
higher interest rates are and the more the rehabilitation Another closely, related shortcoming of the formula-
work increases the structure's life and postpones the tion in (1) is 'that it gives no consideration to the
time when replacement must be made. That is, rehabili- 'possibility that a, new structure may provide a higher
station's feasibility is directly related to i and n. However, level of shelter amenities than a rehabilitated one. (The
the construction formulated in (1) contains one error reverse might be true in some cases of "prestige" re-
and, more importantly, ignores a number of complicat- habilitation.) !Although the post-renewal 'occupants
ing factors that should be considered in an appraisal of would not be paying market prices and the public
rehabilitation's feasibility, authority does not. seek to make a profit, the best use
Shortcomings of the Formulation The error in of resources will prevail if we incorporate sbme mea-
(1) concerns the term C/(1 +i)". The term is used to sure of relative levels of shelter amenities into our de-
measure the present value of the amount that will have cision. This is ,necessary in order to insure that the
to be available to replace the structure when rehabilita- renewal expenditure achieves the greatest "bundle"
tion's effects have played out. Ignoring M, the formula- of housing at the lowest possible cost.
tion contained in (1) implies that the owner would be Although data 'may be scarce and unreliable, the
indifferent between rehabilitation and replacement if best, and probably only, way to handle this problem is
C=[R+C/(1+i)"]. This is not true, however. If he to use rent differences to measure differences in amenity
replaces now, he will have a structure n years old in n levels.' By examining the rents of comparable units
years, whereas if he rehabilitates and invests the amount we would try to estimate the rents (or imputed rents
C/(1 +i)", he will have an amount equal to the cost of a in the case o ,owaner-occupied units) that the rehabili-
new structure in n years. tated uhits wil Bing on the open market. We would
Thus the proper comparison is between C and .si estiwat'i e rental value of comparable new
[R+C (1-nr)/(1+i)"], where r denotes the annual units: Then Iei ldadd to (1) (as corrected for the
depreciation rate of the new structure (using straight- i' Te ,oAd r t
C term): a te. qn -epoting the present value of future
line depreciation). We may correctly say (still ignoring . m) ter,,.otn he p .
M) that the owner is indifferent between rehabilitation differences 'in he rent levels of new and rehabilitated
and redevelopment if C= [R+C (1-nr)/(1+i)] be- structures; "
cause in either case he will have an income-producing : Let pD ~ diffeences in the annual rental.
structure for n years and an asset worth the depreciated income of a new structure and a
value of a new structure at the end of n years. If '' rehabilitated structure.
C>[R+C (1-nr)/(1+i)*}, he will rehabilitate and Rehabilitation preerred if
vice versa.
Although this revision corrects the error in the dis- (2)
counted C term, we should note that the use of the 1 'C(i-nr) 1-(+i)-"
C term also represents a limitation in the model. In 'L> + (1+i)"+D
SCH AAF 401
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, '" ... : '"[




TABLE 1 Characteristics of Fire Renewal Standards

Expected
average an-
Structure nual future
Renewal Renewal life maintenance
standard cost (years) cost
Code
compliance $ 8,000 10 $2,000
Structural
repair 28,000 40 1,400
Modernization 4-0,000 40 1,000
Prestige S0,000 40 1,000


N ew


+ C(1-nr) 1-(1+t)
R M +.,-,7i-I" +i L-.

Expected i, The febasibility analysis of each rehabilitation level is
average an.,. 'as follows: ;
nual market,"' .m. .
rental value"" 1", f. C compliance feasibility analysis:
---- ---- *- 'fl~i *' *'B*'r'-' r r1-1.06~1-0
$3,600$100,000 8,000+1,200
.$3,600 .06
$1,600,000(1-.20) 1-1.06-'9
3,600 +$6,000
6,720 .' 1.!06' .06
8,640 =$100,000--[$8,000+$8,892+$44,600+$44,160]
006ff\ i*' .


iuUV,UU j u ouu yUU 9-'" i $
S = 565'2.
2. Structural Repair feasibility analysis:

The formulation in (2) provides the basic model for Y $100b0- $28,000+$600 06-
our analysis of rehabilitation's feasibility. Before we,. ' .6
proceed to examine this model in more detail, how , $100,000(1-.80) 1-1.06- '
": +- +$6,000 ...
ever, note must be taken of still another factor in: ,'' 1.0640 .06
rehabilitation analysis that has not yet been considered. =$0oo-,000 $28,000+$9,300+$1,900+$93,000]
Rehabilitation is obviously an infeasible course if major.' -32,20
land use changes are indicated for the area." Sich.
changes would include both transfers from' residential' 3.' Modernization feasibility analysis:
to nonresidential uses and major increases in residential.. S 1-106-0
densities. Although this problem could be incorporated: Y $00000- $40,000+$200 .
in (2) within the D term, it is probably best to handle. .
.$100,000(1-.80) 0-1
the problem as one of overall area analysis.' This is oi ; 8 +$2,880 6
the approach adopted in the discussion that follows. ". 1.06 .06 J
= $100,000'- [$40,000 + $3,100 + $1,900 + $44,640


Determining the Optimum Renewal Standard =$10,360
In order to clarify the concepts developed to this point,
and indicate the problems that remain unresolved, a' 4. Prestige Rehabilitation feasibility analysis:
simple numerical example is useful. This will illustrate y 0= l 0,000- $ .80 .00+$200 1-1.06-'
how the model expressed in (2) might be used in an .06
actual renewal area study. It will also show why $100,000(1-.80) 1-1
this model cannot determine the optimum standard of. ' + 1.0640 +$960-.
renewal and what must be done in order to determine 10
such a standard. =$100,000-[$80,000+$3,100+$1,900+S
In this example, we assume an apartment house con- =$120,
training four two-bedroom units with numerous code
deficiencies. Following purchase by the local Housing, RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE FEASIBILITY
Authority, investigations of the structure and the local As shown by the feasibility calculations relatin
rental market are made. It is concluded that the re- renewal standard, the model indicates t]
placement cost of the structure is $100,000 and that the modernization and prestige rehabilitation are
new apartments would rent for $200 a month. Four (preferable to new construction)' and that m
levels of rehabilitation are also studied with cost esti- tion 'is the economically most efficient standard
mates and rental values as shown in Table 1. An larly, the least efficient course of action woul
assumed interest rate of six percent is employed in the to be to meet code standards and repair the strn
calculations." After compiling these data, we begin in- not attempt any modernization of the units.
vestigation of rehabilitation's feasibility and determina- These results, however, are not complete.
tion of the optimum renewal standard using the model' earlier in our discussion of the C term, the mo
formulated in (2). Rehabilitation is feasible for any' ates under the assumption that new construct
standard if: renewal action'that will be undertaken when t


c>[ 1(1+i)
C> R+M +

The optimum level of rel
maximizes Y when:
402 ,


061
06 J


14,880]


ANALYSIS
g to each
hat -both
Feasible
odemiza-
:d. Simi-
d appear
picture but

As noted
del oper-
on is the
he effects


C(1-nr) -(1/ of the renewal action adopted now have played out-
-(1 +) D in n: years. In actuality, future renewal investments or
any .kind could be made. Perhaps the most eicient
labilitation is the one that action is rehabilitation to the code compliance standard
three times' and then new construction. Similarly, w:.

/ J N
' ,'


---------- ---------- -~-. -~.,,.~.~~.




might consider .the possibility of code compliance once: feasibility analysis of this situation:requires solving the
Sand then modernization in ten years, or prestige reha- sTfollowig: ;: : n t
bilitation and then code compliance in forty years, and.:' < ' (3)
soon. ,- F .R R, R,(ra (n-3n) ))
It is not. possible to represent all of the alternativesc (1+/), (1+i) (1+i)
investment situations in one generalized formulation,' : 1-(1 ti)- 1- (1+i)-, i
The model in (2) remains the basic framework for .'.+----- +D
comparing immediate new construction with the various.,' .. :'
situations involving rehabilitation.' However, ,three a 1, + ". D+ (+ 'l
types of changes or additions must be made in the .+ + t
basic model in order to adapt it for use in all possible '(+) (1+/)"RI
circumstances. After explaining the nature of these .. ,
changes, we shall illustrate them in a final numerical where
example, which should suffice to indicate the exact way R .cbst of code compliance,
in which any investment situation is to be handled. ', R ==.cost of modernization,
The three types of changes and additions are as cost f new construction,
follows: .., ," n=life of structure rehabilitated to the code
compliance standard,
1. The length of life and corresponding depre- n/ life, of structure rehabilitated to the
ciation rate associated with each renewal standard must .' modernization standard,
be identified. We will do so in the form of subscripts. ':i i 100
Thus, if subscript denotes the code compliance stan-: r-' percent,
dard then R, is the cost of code compliance, n, is the :!.: 'n.-- life of new structure,
life of the structure rehabilitated to code compliance : ,Af' M1-difference in maintenance costs between a
levels, and r, is the straight line depreciation rate.." : new structure and one rehabilitated to the
100 .. : i 'codq compliance standard,
associated with n,, or --percent. D ', difference in rent levels between a new
S1 structure and one rehabilitated to the code
2. All investment situations should continue to compliance standard
be limited to periods equal to the length of the new. '* M ierence in maintenance costs between a
structure's life. Accordingly, any future renewal in-i.: ;i' structure and one rehabilitated to the
.vestment with a life extending beyond such period must .. :' o modernization standard, and
be depreciated so that only that part of the renewed D d. di P erence in rent levels between a new
structure's life that will be used up in the period under structure and one rehabilitated to the
consideration is counted as a cost item. This is, of modernization standard.
course, the same procedure that we followed when we '
depreciated the future new construction term in (2). Using the values of our earlier numerical example,
However, as we shall see in the example below, a." the solution of (') is as follows:
slightly different treatment is required when new con- $8,000 $8,000
struction is no longer the final or residual renewal $00,000- 000+ 1.06 + 1.062
investment that is made. .. \
W4,000 (.025(50-30))
3. If a new future rehabilitation investment is !' +' 1 +$1,200
of a different type than the one immediately preceding' .' .
it, D and M will change. In this event, the new levels. 1-. 06- 1-106-_,
of D and M must be treated as annuities beginning at,'. ',.06 + .06
the time the new investment is made and continuing.. '' 1-1.06-(so-5") 1-1.66-'e(-s
for the life of the new investment or to the end of $200. .06- +- $2,880 0--6
the total investment period (the life of a new struc-'. 1,0630 1'0630
ture), whichever is less. The values of such annuities .100, 000+' $ 52,+24
=$100,000-L$8,000+$4,525+$2,492+$3,486
are then discounted back to the present time and used
as cost-comparison items just as in (2). We must also +$16,524+$82,620+$399+$5,947)
use subscripts to identify D and M with their corre- =-$23,993.
spending renewal standards. This formulation compares new construction cost
A single numerical example should demonstrate the .with the sum of0 code compliance cost, the present values
method of incorporating these changes in the basic' of the cost of'code compliance ten and twenty years
model formulated in (2). In this example we inves- ;from now,, the present value of that part of moderniza-
tigate the feasibility of rehabilitating the structure to,, tion cost thirty 'yeqrs hence that will be used up during
the code compliance standard three times over and then the life span 9f"d.'a new structure (with an annual,
rehabilitating to the modernization' standard. The straight-line, dcpeciation rate of .025 stemming from
SCHAA .. 403

", *.. / ; .; .




the forty-year life of the modernized structure, one-half
of the modernization investment will have been used,
up in the twenty years that follow the thirtieth year
of the fifty-year life span of the new structure), the
present values of the annual maintenance cost and rent:
differences for the next thirty years between a new
building and one rehabilitated to the code compliance
standard, and the present values of the annual mainte-
nance cost and rent differences between a new building
and one rehabilitated to the modernization standard,
such differences to obtain for a twenty-year period
beginning thirty years from now. In this example, this
particular pattern of rehabilitation investment is not
feasible. As always, rehabilitation is feasible if the
total cost of any investment situation involving rehabili-
tation is less than the cost of immediate new construc-
tion. The optimum standard of reh:.bilitation is the
combination that maximizes such cost difference. If no
combination has a total cost less than that required for
new construction, the latter is the optimum standard.'


clearapic, as *ell as the cost of the new building
Perhaps ',only a third standard, involving modernization
and l -term 'structural renovation, i would be neces.
sary. l"lI:is desirable, of course, to limit as much as
possibilethe number of alternate standards to minimize
the number of investment situations that must be
quantified and compared.
3.' When the various renewal standards have
been specified, the costs of meeting these standards can
be estimated for each study property. Similarly, field
investigation would be used to produce estimates of the
differences between the new construction standard and
each of the various rehabilitation standards in terms of
maintenance costs and rent levels., Comparisons can
then be!made between immediate new construction and
all ofithe other possible investment situations as illus-
trated by (2) and (3). The most efficient investment
situation involving rehabilitation would be the situation
that is;'lowest in cost as compared with immediate new
construction. If none is lower, of course, immediate
clearance and new construction is indicated.


AREA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE For purposes of preliminary area analysis, perhaps
In order to apply the concepts developed here, the fol- only a, few representative structures might be studied.
lowing methodology is suggested in any given renewal This would be particularly appropriate if the structures
area: in the area are relatively homogeneous. Such a survey
1. As a first step, it must be determined that would' indicate whether the area should be generally
no major areawide changes in land uses or residential considered suitable for rehabilitation or redevelopment.
densities are desirable since, as already noted, rehabili-. If rehabilitation is decided upon as a general ap-
tation in such circumstances is infeasible virtually by proach, the formulation developed here could then be
definition. Such a determination should be made by used ir the detailed study of each individual structure.
considering the renewal area's place in the general plan In this way both the feasibility and the optimum stan-
of the entire city or metropolitan area. Due attention dard of rehabilitation would be determined for all the
should also be paid to the market forces at work. The structures in the area. In some cases, of course, dear-
rehabilitation feasibility analysis should be undertaken, ance might be indicated. However, in all cases, the
only if it has been determined that the area in question housing "cost-output" ratio would be maximized and
would and should remain residential at about the same the. best utilization of housing resources would be
density for the foreseeable future. achieved.
The brevity of our discussion of this problem belies,.
both its importance and its complexity. However, we'
may plead that, in one sense, such questions lie beyond
the scope of our analysis here. As stated initially, our' NOTS
X; A: ) Schaaf, Economic Aipectr of Urban Renewual. Theory,
interest in this study is in the housing stock and con-' Poli, ) d: Area Anlyi (Berkeley: Real Estate Research Pro-
struction resources. In effect, we are viewing residen-' gram, Institute of Business and Economic Research, University of
tial structures purely as capital assets with no regard, Calnif 'in a1960), chap. 2.
2 Lionel Needleman, The Economics of Housing (London:
to their position in space. This is not to deny that the Staples Prc.ss, 1965), pp. 200 ff.
location of the structures is an important element in. 3 The arithmetic of present value calculations is illustrated by
determining tir m t e t u, h r, he numerical illustration in the next section. '
determining their most efficient utilization, however It should be noted, however, that the previously mentioned
this is a separate problem. "scale" effects that may stem from renewal of a large contiguous
2. H ig did tt re iiin is a p- area would' be incorporated in the formulation in (2). With eibr
2. Having decided that rehabilitation is a pos- rehabilitation or redevelopment, larger increases in postrenewal
sible choice for at least some of the structures in thee rental values could occur as the area being improved increased in
size. I
area, the various renewal standards must be established 1 s The interest rate in our model represents the opportunity cost
and fully specified. The five used in our numerical 'of te capital resources used in the housing improvement that r-
*p .. .b o a n .o '- . ', 'sults from public policy. The long-term Treasury bond yield wi:h
example are indicative but others are no doubt possible. somd upward adjustment to reflect corporate income taxes is pro-b
The two limiting cases would ordinarily consist of ably the best approximation of this rate but there are many issues
m minvolvedm hci which cannot be examined within the space liai-l
minimum code compliance and new construction.. For tlions, of 'this article. For a good recent treatment of this question
example, the level of the latter might approximate' that and a reference source to much of the literature on the subject, see,
of public housing units and would include the cost WillmJ.Baumol, "On the Social Rae of Discount," American
Sl, Ercon,,mtf Rvzjew, LVIII (September 1968), 788-'802.
404 .,' '' : AP JOURNAL NOVEMBER 1969

'' ,' ,
\; .- : \^ i ... .






Letters to the Edito '

*. :. i i ', :," :

A. H. Schaaf's model for economic relative to, new building a'; as fol-
feasibility analysis of housing rehabil- lows: AA-S-4,000i 'AB'S-7,000;
itation strategies (November 1969. BA-S-5,000; BB-S-6,0pO,' The ob-
Journal) offers a useful tool for plan- vious strategy"'to', chose,., j'would
ners concerned with urban renewal, seem, would be AB. Brp i'A 'has a
By including the rent associated with life span of even twenty years; there
various standards of rehabilitation, it is no guarantee.' that at the 'end of
adds to the measures of cost an indi- that period, the renewal authority
cation of the relative levels of amen- will not, perhaps for social or politi-
ity provided. This constitutes a defi- cal reasons, or because\ of budgett
nite advance on Needleman's tech- constraints, implementB in stead of',
niquc and others previously used for A, thus converting an expected gain.
determining the optimal approach to of S7,000 to one of onl 4,o000. In
the renewal of residential neighbour- retrospect, B would have, bern a bet-
hoods. However, it seems to me that ter first stage approach, 'since it
the consideration of two additional would have.yielded higher returns if
aspects might add to the value of this followed either by A or by B. ;.


..1... 7" '/. *-
35-; *--i 6-c 7'/ '7/




2. The Effect of Rents
Surely it is essential that the social
goals of a renewal, project be given
priority in any examination of alter-
native rehabilitation approaches. An
agency that does not limit itself to
focussingg purely on the objective of
efficient utilisation of resources" will
take into account who are to be the
beneficiaries of these resources in
choosing its rehabilitation strategy.
This raises thequestion of the effect
of the rents of the rehabilitated prop-
erties on the 'existing or potential
population of the neighbourhood.
If the combination of rehabilita-
tion approaches chosen according to


model:they are: possible, the expectation of Professor Schaaf's model offers a
1. The Factor of Uncertainty implementing each approach should higher level of amenity than the pres-
Professor Schaaf's method aims at also be taken into account..,The im- ent residents can afford at market
determining an optimum combina- plementation of one aproch; for rents, they will have two options be-
tion of rehabilitation methods for a example, could have a significant ef-' fore them: ether to spend a higher
period of time equal to the expected fect on the likelihood of which ap-'" proportion of their income on rent,
life of a new building. Over such a proach would constitute the next and thus be house-poor; or to move
S time span, however, the factor of un- stage. Restatin the prevus out and be succeeded by a higher-
certainty cannot be ignored. Plan- ample, we can see (Table 1)'how a'. income group of people. This is a
ners' control over renewal policies' subjective assessment o 'the 'ondi-, posibilit a renewal authority must
which may be carried out ten, tional probabilities and consequent' consciously consider before making
twenty, or thirty years in the future changes in expected gains: (the prod- its decision. Though Professor Schaaf
is clearly very limited. This, if taken.- uct of the calculated gains andl he: mentions subsidy as an instrument of
into account, could conceivably af-' conditional probability of each strat- public policy, this would constitute
fect the choice of rehabilitation, egy) would influence the choice of an additional cost that could, in fact,
strategies. the optimal strategy. 'In each case, reverse the theoretical ranking of pre-
Let us assume, for example, that the authority, would be wise to apply.: ferred strategies arrived at by appli-
an authority has to choose between a "minimax" strategy, .thus in' Case 1 cation of this model.
possible combinations of (for 'sim- it would implement approach' B iq An operationally simple way of
plicity) two rehabilitation ap- stage I, but in Case 2, A would,be the including this social consideration in
preaches, A and B. Their net costs optimal first stage'approach. -" (:: : the framework of Professor Schaa's
S useful model minht be as follows: the


J:.''
I; ~I'


TABLE 1 Conditional Probabilities and Consequent Change in expected a ins

S. iltage I
A B
Probabil- Expected Probabil-, Expected' '
Stage II cities gains ities i gains, ,,
Case 1 *'"
A .5 2.000 .5 .' :' 2,500. ."'
B .5 3,500 .5 3,000
Case 2
A .8 3,200 .,2 1,000 ,
B .2 1,400 .8. 4,800;,


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR


' authority would first determine for
whom the housing under considera-
tion is designated and what is the
.,,maximum rent 'that these residents,
'in view of their ; socioeconomic
status, can be expected to pay. This
figure would be introduced in the
model as a constraining factor fixing
San upper limit to the rents for any
',rehabilitation orrebuilding standard.
The rent thus fixed in this model
would constitute the economic ex-
'pression of the renewing authority's
deliberate social goals.

SE. R. ALEXANDER
Berkeley, California


-




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs