• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Program for conservator analys...
 Conservator alternatives
 Vegetation analysis
 Historical people
 Cost evaluations and schedule
 Supplement to conservation...














Group Title: Maintenance survey of the historic Florida State Capitol
Title: Maintenance survey of the historic Florida State Capitol - appendices
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00102987/00003
 Material Information
Title: Maintenance survey of the historic Florida State Capitol - appendices
Physical Description: Archival
Language: English
Creator: Department of Architecture, University of Florida
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00102987
Volume ID: VID00003
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
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Title Page
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Introduction
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Program for conservator analysis
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Conservator alternatives
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        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
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
    Vegetation analysis
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    Historical people
        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
    Cost evaluations and schedule
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
    Supplement to conservation alternatives
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
        Page 328
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
        Page 339
        Page 340
        Page 341
        Page 342
        Page 343
        Page 344
        Page 345
        Page 346
        Page 347
        Page 348
        Page 349
        Page 350
        Page 351
Full Text

MAINTENANCE SURVEY
-OF THE
HISTORIC
LORIDA
1 .STATE
CAPITOL


Frn


PENDICES
N o o. 3
NQL3,- y


Iv .wI.. ~
~!J! !JJ~


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


Y ' *,';















CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES


EXISTING CAPITOL BUILDING
FLORIDA CAPITOL COMPLEX


DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
Division of Building Construction and Property Management
Tallahassee, Florida

EDWARD DURELL STONE AND REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS
ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS

FISHER and SHEPARD / ARCHITECTS and PLANNERS, Inc.
CONSULTANTS


January 1977

































CONTENTS























TABLE OF CONTENTS


INTRODUCTION


PROGRAM FOR CONSERVATION ANALYSIS
EXISTING 1975 COMPLEX


CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES
1923 CAPITOL
1902 CAPITOL
1845 CAPITOL (RECONSTRUCTION)
1845 FOUNDATION FABRIC


VEGETATION ANALYSIS


HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES


COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS AND SCHEDULE

































INTRODUCTION












INTRODUCTION


The Joint Venture of Edward Durell Stone and Reynolds, Smith
and Hills, Architects, Engineers, Planners, was contracted to
begin programming and planning studies for the Florida State
Capitol Expansion in early 1969. Various preliminary studies
were prepared to determine the proper requirements of this
expansion phase and alternate concepts were evaluated.

The final approved Master Plan Concept indicated an incremental
expansion program for the Capitol Complex. The pTan proposed
construction of the Legislative Office facilities to the
north and south of the existing Capitol Building. Because of
the need to physically connect the Phase I development to the
existing Capitol, the final building massing evolved a close
proximity of all three buildings. The ultimate development of
the Capitol Building in this phase and future expansion was
not within the defined scope of the initial phase. Early
approved recommendations concluded that the existing 1947
Capitol, in its present configuration and site coverage, would
not be considered in its entirity as an element in the final
Capitol plan. Various alternatives were debated; however, no
final course of development was authorized. The Joint Venture
understood that a separate study would be authorized to plan
the final configuration of the existing Capitol Building.

After the completion of the Phase I Legislative Offices, the
second phase expansion of the Capitol facilities was authori-
zed to begin. The Joint Venture developed a detail program
requirement which greatly expanded the earlier forecasts.
Alternative building masses were studied and presented to
provide the required facilities. The final recommendation
proposed an executive office tower flanked by additional legis-
lative facilities.

Because of existing site constraints on the north and south,
and the desire to maintain a large, open, landscaped area
fronting the Supreme Court to the west, the approved scheme
was sited in close proximity to the west of the Capitol. The
earlier concept, that the existing Capitol as presently config-
ured would not remain, was further endorsed.

Throughout the planning and construction of the Capitol Complex,
the determination of what historically relevant portion of the
Capitol would ultimately remain, had not been authorized for
study.

With the pending completion of the Phase II expansion, the time


























Page 2 INTRODUCTION


has come for the determination of a conservation alternative.
Through analysis of recorded material and discussion with
Conservation experts and agencies, the following alternatives
were considered for this report:

a. 1923 Capitol Restoration

b. 1902 Capitol Restoration

c. 1845 Capitol Reconstruction

d. 1845 Capitol Foundation Fabric Memorial

A historical analysis of these conservation alternatives has
been prepared by Mr. Herschel E. Shepard, A.I.A., Fisher &
Shepard, Architects and Planners, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida


























INTRODUCTI




WALLER MEMORIAL PARK

Waller Memorial Park, sited west of the New Capitol Complex and
fronting on the Supreme Court Building, has been planned as a
series of landscaped terraces. Pedestrian access.to the park
grounds has been provided off the three major thoroughfares
fronting on the Park.

Major site development includes water displays, sculpture courts
and flowering landscaping on bermed areas. The predominant
paving material will be brick with selected details in cast stone.







~~:i B ~1 5:
II ~f
j~~ g: 4; 31
5 :i p -~ t
a PI~
,. -.: s ~ ~
:! ~- 2 p c
i

% s - ~: ~
P

~ai
4

r~~$
%;-


Ii
i t

I~LLI


ih di












VI I
;L, ~
*,: ,;


-44
8 L .
' *



3a

3./h


.4'
,1'


S7. * fij


5Z
''";4j


(Ic I~' I





''L




iI
It,-~u

-.b


I 1


-..C


.1







2~
L


a~E


A~~S


,:i


I;;9~


;~-
C'-
.:
.;c- ,
































PROGRAM FOR CONSERVATION ANALYSIS












PROGRAM FOR CONSERVATION ANALYSIS



Building Program:

No final conclusions or program has been made for the ultimate
use of the restored Capitol building or fabric. It is assumed
that after or during the initial phase of implementation a sep-
arate analysis will be made to retrofit a program for use to the
selected solution. It has been concluded, however, that the
ultimate use of this facility is to serve the public. According-
ly, direct public access to the restored Capitol building is a
requirement.


Site Program:

The functional and spatial analysis of the site include the
following considerations:

1. Access and Egress: Preliminary planning has considered
identifying access points to the existing Capitol and the
Phase II east entrance. This includes circulation for
vehicles, pedestrian, fire, emergency and site services.
Vehicular access to the Phase II east entrance was to be
limited and all schemes were developed with this controlling
factor.

2. Parking: No provisions were made for surface parking on
site. Interim "holding areas" were considered necessary
along the east perimeter of the Phase II Capitol for
special state occasions.

3. Site Features: Criteria for site work was to include the
following:

a. Access to Capitol

b. Public Park Areas

c. Memorabilia and special displays

d. Comprehensive Planting Plan New and existing material

e. Site lighting

f. Street Formation (Monroe Street realignment)

Required access for fire department equipment was to be provided























Page 2 PROGRAM FOR CONSERVATION ANALYSIS


along the east perimeter of the Phase II Capitol.

4. Major elements considered during the preliminary planning
study will include:

a. Massing studies

b. Analysis of Exterior materials and Finishes

c. Evaluation of site development and constraints

d. Formulation of overall site material vocabulary

e. Analysis of comparitive cost planning


The final presentation of these alternatives consists of a
series of site plan drawings and models. The models will
contain interchangeable sectors to illustrate the alternatives
being considered.

All schemes considered include development with Monroe Street
realigned for improved traffic circulation.









r
E i
i
~
;`;
---


- ': i,,;C.I.".% .




I--
-- ~ ~ ~ ? ,J :.'-_-@ V
*E m.

\ :" i












: "








-i l











1976 EXISTING CAPITOL








p:-Isl


'35
* Is-v


~r


I


I-


-~r* r i


- -
j-.; -~ p-


1976 EXISTING CAPITOL


CUE=m


~ ~~~-.ai'


.Fa


~p~p~

r;


. -> "tafl-.


--~r
C:


~1


















.4-


fTA* -1'-ti' -li
7 r &.. r* *-
tv 4




da.J
~~~4F lajbjrc. w'.Sa


S-


..'*a f,*; t .*A -
L;'tr;^^s-t ^ z*-


.'- '7


'-a-R


t .. *.. 4 , t..' ''1 ,
. -, 0

9 46:- I


;J


IA


4,


...-


fl'.. ..































CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES














CONSERVATIC"! ALTERNATIVES
1923 RESTORATION


DEGREE OF CONSERVATION

Restoration to 1923 period incorporating original carriage path at
East Portico. West portico is to undergo a slight modification
moving it further in to a position close to the main structural
fabric of the 1923 Capitol in order to permit special vehicular
and emergency access to the Capitol Building.

Area of Site:

134,400 Sq. Ft. with Monroe Street unaltered -
265,400 Sq. Ft. with Monroe Street realignment

Building Coverage:

28,300 Sq. Ft.

Area Remaining for Site Development:

106,100 with Monroe Street realignment

Circulation:

Controlled access is provided to the east front of the New
Capitol building. By utilizing removable bollards along the
north and south walkways, emergency fire and and service
access is possible as required. Pedestrian circulation
throughout the site is uninhibited.

Vegetation Concept:

All existing live oaks and other healthy specimen trees are
to remain. Flowering trees bordering the site perimeter and
pedestrian walkways are planned to complete the planting plan
bordering the Senate and House building sites.

Site Features:

Site development.will be limited to perimeter treatment,
pavings and planting along pedestrian/vehicular access. Exist-
ing eastern portion of the site will remain virtually
unchanged.









K


1923 CAPITOL RESTORATION


I
i
i







-1,-
A







--..

Si :
r
' L -

~:;;-;~,~ ~ ~ :. 1 K':







...-


*r---1- i^


ii
I





E
i|




Igj


UI









1 -




Ou





















,

~...
,. I

~ .1....,
ar rru


'
I
;:i


1923 CAPITOL RESTORATION


WITH REROUTING OF MONROE STREET


0 m
_0J
mS


w
w
ui
cuwXj









a








01;
2g
4i




I


2[





0B
12i1
0.3 55








































I lk


r-


SI'


r~-.~ ETIC~~~f~


r--

. *- ** -*


. ,i
f Gfe *' I no


---- i VZT -




m.m -r. .-.' .
o.r g :j

r..-. .:

"1



^ a^ ^Ec .,6&^,--*.-y^ .. *,; _'

EESffl i;~iB'taggie~gsa~g~i-T^^^^^.-j ,_ -


1923 CAPITOL RESTORATION


e


* I .


r


-9
sl


-t


-At


'K


-. ..--,
^ 1


P;
Y












-r


Li


?r' .I---
/ 'I. '

i b.

-


F'


I.....
/1


,r;

..#"
r^4
#.,,; ,,. V, ,


Iy ~


1923 CAPITOL RESTORATION


luf Km T


"
c
liI
~
r
;
r
r
i
i
L


l ,lk"


'-''


AM64

















~W c-


A

.
::-;.: ; a::

i :'
r

B

















8r





I~













CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES
1902 RESTORATION



DEGREE OF CONSERVATION:

Restoration to the 1902 period incorporating identical East and West
Porticoes,

Area of Site:

134,400 with Monroe Street unaltered
269,400 with Monroe Street realignment

Building Coverage:

21,050 Sq. Ft.

Area Remaining for Site Development:

113,350 Sq. Ft.

Circulation:

Controlled access is provided to the east front of the New Capitol
building. Bollards at Monroe Street may be removed to allow
service and emergency circulation as required. Pedestrian
access is uninhibited.

Vegetation Concept:

All existing live oaks and other healthy specimen trees are to
remain. Flowering trees, bordering the site perimeter and
pedestrian walkways are planned to complete the planting plan
bordering the Senate and House building site.

Site Features:

To approach a more accurate reconstruction of the Capitol as it
existed in the period following the 1923 revisions, a larger
amount of lawn area has been introduced which will recreate the
original landscape features.

Materials:

The major materials for this scheme are identical with those of
the 1923 Alternative.














i 'i i
Si





1
-J--



.... ......
,^ .. U I




a1.
"' n

-. ------y



Se I 0,


_ S

---- --.-.-Jf h.-i uI


1902 CAPITOL RESTORATION















































71


L i .r:
L^S&.~-,- -:

------ -- ^ ^ *


'a.--
*2~: *-
.b r',~~


[I


1902 CAPITOL RESTORATION


WITH REROUTING OF MONROE STREET


II


.1

$L. -


Pii



5.1


m IL
ml|



1'11



-I





















wO
2U
Qu

sB Z
Xo






















UO





ULL


---------

-I
i

.i











S- 4


...


r r
s r.i7~~


S.7


F


aida~n2~e~a p ...ljar~r jLC.1*fl t.M


1902 CAPITOL RESTORATION


W9iL ":


Ii.
, II I


n~il.


k
i~&
t l





. . .


'v3
. 4


Ir


t 1

&i,
*. .*


am
jiI "-'s ^ c,a.
..'k~~~ /..^^i


~.
r~ps"- "..











t ~


*t~,~~
JV
P~


iT


-Jl


I -







1' --


V.- ~-- --


,I -


~-I '-


1902 CAPITOL RESTORATION


WITH REROUTING OF MONROE STREET


' s.


t E
P
r;
4~13~

II r

i~-a'lC~LBBB ~I~:~:

3-
t



















~--


6


I' ~8~3ia~P~
': i I.,;























"AL





-II

-C Al


It


V









H
'C'


j~;- ~- ~


,I? .:; ;~lr:;:;


rhG1L~










CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES
1845 RECONSTRUCTION



DEGREE OF CONSERVATION

Remove all existing construction from all periods after 1845 to the
present and, using the remaining structural fabric, reconstruct the
Capitol of 1845.

Area of Site:

134,400 Sq. Ft. with Monroe Street unaltered
269,400 Sq. Ft. with Monroe Street realignment

Building Coverage;

13,150 Sq. Ft.

Circulation:

Pedestrian circulation will be uninhibited throughout developed
site with interest being directed to the Monroe Street entrance
and to the north and south of the 1845 structure. Vehicular
circulation defined at Monroe Street with bollards that can be
removed will provide the necessary VIP, service and fire access
to the Capitol Building.

Vegetation Concept:

A major effort was made to incorporate within the plaza and its
paving all existing live oaks and other healthy specimen trees
in order to leave intact as much of the original landscape of
this historic site. In addition, the 1845 structure rests upon
a carpet of grass surrounded by formalized paving patterns of
precast concrete set among broad expanses of brick pavers.

Site Features:

To the east and west of the 1845 structure are displays of water
and lighting incorporated within sunken courtyards which contain
seating areas partially covered with a canopy of flowering trees.
In front of the 1845 Capitol and just off the Monroe Street facade
are two rectangular pools punctuated with tall fountains and
flanked with flowering trees. Flagpoles and banners again play
an important role in establishing this structure as a central
place of pedestrian interest and activity.

Materials:

Broad expanses of brick pavers are interspersed-with precast
concrete pavers which match the color of the 1845 Capitol
Building.














0
,\, / L- ; in
,-.-.., .. ,.- .. ,^ .-.- ", ,.* .







S "|-a







5-
I -


i' a
SI" -


1845 CAPITOL RECONSTRUCTION


l~i: ~~






I -
K
21>
3 j liz


-1


'~* il
,.-,.,. P











'7


l7 .;il l


1845 CAPITOL RECONSTRUCTION
WITH REROUTING OF MONROE STREET


+ +++ ++^ 4


, I


1


-1 a








UI
cI













2n
04














ill


u











I '


IrW~e~rJ w.Y


If-rn


AIx i_


1845 CAPITOL RECONSTRUCTION


LI1 aI


_.~~&199a~aa~B8aa~ws~_p#I~


Ir77










~r~': cA~
K


I4'!


V~~i;~1M4


I~m -






I
I Li
U
11


N-


I


-f
h A~~' ~


1845 CAPITOL RECONSTRUCTION

WITH REROUTING OF MONROE STREET


I


:h:41


q


I~n


!e~LCP~I1~;L~El~h~~P~.-~;~C~i~tb~j


~ld~i:':,~r~.~R~ePPar~l~;casclp~a~~


I'
L


,4






*.' .,. -.. + ,"


Innr.U ,


.L -


mlIjy


'9 ;, . '.; .;.-
:,+:-e.

16, "


rb-


.* :.. *. . -t ;.'? ,

.. " ," ,.-> ',. '"
'., ..'. ,.
4.. .- i '. *'


- ~-r-- ~rr -








ttL~~ (I


3V. .-


0X^< ,


-*' I










.r ,1 ' ', : .*. ..
























31-
4 .' ." : .' .

















,,-'.;- i.


rUW
'.4-. 1'F

-4
.4 A .~ *4-**4 A'
rJ 4


* N
* s~;.h.. . .4
.


up


*.- -h .1 r ., .. --'"
.'' .. 'j. ^.m ''. r




'ii, '




.. 1 .. . .. .T;. .4 : t *%
L t, .
L.'. ..-t .


4. ...' 'Yg*' .v.:-i.~-*'
..f*,.~. 4
*,'r ;,i


.4
'7
'II
41


* I,
41"


I.


i.


i1-:.1 li











CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES
1845 FOUNDATION FABRIC



DEGREE OF CONSERVATION:

Demolish all existing construction and restore site to initial
1845 foundation.

Area of Site:

134,400 Sq. Ft. with Monroe Stree unaltered
269,000 Sq. Ft. with Monroe Street realignment

Building Coverage:

0 Sq. Ft.

Area Remaining for Site Development:

134,400 with Monroe Street realignment

Circulation:

Pedestrian circulation uninhibited throughout developed site.
Vehicular circulation controlled at Monroe Street via bollards
which may be removed to provide VIP service and fire access to
the Capitol Building.

Vegetation Concept:

A major effort was made to incorporate within the plaza and its
paving all existing live oaks and other healthy specimen trees
in order to leave intact as much of the original landscape of
this historic site.

In addition, clusters of flowering trees encompass pedestrian
activity areas and provide a backdrop for all plaza activity.

Site Features:

An axial water display links the Senate and House buildings
culminating at the center of the main axis from Monroe Street
to the Capitol Building with a major fountain and lighting
display incorporated within the perimeters of the 1845
Foundation area. This in turn is sunken into the pavement of
the plaza to provide both aesthetic seating arrangements and to
reinforce this place as a focus of pedestrian activity. Flag
clusters to the east and west of the foundation memorial further
establish this as the center of pedestrian interest and activity.































Page 2 CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES


Materials:

The rudimentary foundation restored essentially to its 1845
outline is to be clad in precast concrete to provide visual con-
tinuity with the formalized precast paving patterns throughout
the rest of the developed site.








K'


I; K


1845 CAPITOL FOUNDATION


l i





*I
I . . ."
, ; , _., .. .- A --


















4.




29
i 0

__ ...b-- 3811-










: s -


1845 CAPITOL FOUNDATION
WITH REROUTING OF MONROE STREET


Itlri~i



















I- ,ar . -&-
1;i|


TV--


~


W -Nf-"












TT-


L~~~B~BRbb~BBg~


0 L


b


,..Ir-I


1845 CAPITOL FOUNDATION





r, '.., '* IT.'. .
ss ,^ a*".,jl. ; L-:. : "


-II


-i44 a m7"


@ -. ~.- : -s-'.l 1. "?
. ,4.. -


1845 CAPITOL FOUNDATION
WITH REROUTING OF MONROE STREET


I'


AI


'7-


II
L_-sia _


U
F
Li


~:~;_.~sl~%oRlo~#s~rr~sl~~


.,


,.~..


Mifx--i'kj *^Hrf^mb'W- -' *T- i- -^^f
^^.^.*;---"^
r^ -.''-'-' *'- :'ffiSltl''^rl^'''
^ssss ^S' ^is^
ss-ss *i' -- j&*t'BB5


, -
* .












U, i


.-'"


i-- ;


c ` =;

Irr; ~) ~ :~-~
-d. i - (
-~f.


~'.c'

'


L
I

~
~?~~'
C


f


''C


,,
I`T';~ -r ".. :L~:14~3ap













'4 I


1 1


' . .,


S1S



.', ii


Ii If-Is
.7. *-
.',,.%vkt -- -,' ,
-NO.
4. - -. .; 't.F-*-'
in Pa-r 441 *,.
C! h .' *- :r*r .-


"Illut.


* ,* .- ** *,b j '
". ... ,





' '


'4 .


S *" ',
. '* ,-


4 ~ 4 I


4. '4 .i *


*.* ad .J A '
*E""t'*-t'.".. ''-

_ -. ., . .'- .. ,. ,
.. r,. .. .,; .. :..; . ; = . .


I I
III

I '




I I
I :


~I


I Z T
^^A-*


'. '3:::'
.i ...
tZ.


10.0il
































VEGETATION ANALYSIS














EXISTING VEGETATION REPORT


All trees surveyed at the Florida Capitol are large, mature trees in
various stages of growth and/or deterioration. The oaks, which are
the predominant trees, are all very large with massive crowns and
very little sub-canopy foliage. The branching of the oaks starts
above 20 feet. All oaks are infested with Spanish Moss and this
appears to be affecting the growth of the trees.

The oaks along the street have all grown together to form one large
canopy. The removal of one'of these trees would leave a large hole
in the canopy and would cause the remaining trees to have a very
unnatural appearance.

All trees that are close in to the buildings have become one-sided
in growth and habit and, in most cases, the removal of the structure
would create difficult visual problems with the remaining trees.

The large Magnolia in front of the north wing is a beautiful speci-
men tree. It is currently spreading by drooping branches taking root
and suckering new shoots. This tree still has a full crown and would
be able to stand on its own visually without the structure. It could
be pruned and shaped into an outstanding specimen tree. It is
currently suffering from a scale infestation.

The majority of the smaller plant material is all very healthy. The
predominant species is Dogwood, with a few Holly trees and Sabal
Palms. These trees are also infested with Spanish Moss, but the
problem is readily solvable. All of the Dogwoods, with the exception
of the large one south of the entry road, could be moved with little
risk. The large Dogwood is a specimen and should be preserved.

The large trees to the west of the old building in what are now
courtyards are very crowded and the northernmost oak has been severely
pruned to allow for the new construction.

It would be our recommendation that this oak, since it has been so
drastically pruned and would require very extensive additional pruning
and shaping to be made visually comfortable in the space now remaining,
be removed completely and new planting added in its place.

The following list numbers the trees as shown on the plan, and indicates
the condition of the tree, and whether the tree is movable:














page two EXISTING VEGETATION REPORT


CONDITION


MOVABLE


Live Oak
Live Oak
Live Oak
Live Oak
Dogwood
Live Oak
Dogwood
Sabal Palm
Magnolia
Sabal Palm
Live Oak
Live Oak
Sabal Palm
Dogwood
American Holly
Dogwood
Live Oak
Live Oak
Live Oak
Dogwood
Live Oak
American Elm
Dogwood
Live Oak
Live Oak
Live Oak
Live Oak
American Holly
Evergreen
Dogwood


Large mature, healthy



12'-15' hgt., healthy
Large. mature, healthy
-12'-15' hgt.,healthy
14', healthy
Specimen, needs maintenance
14', healthy
Large mature, healthy
11 11 II
14', healthy
12'-15' hgt., healthy
10' overall, healthy
8'-10' hgt., healthy
Large one-sided
Large mature, healthy

12'-15' hgt., healthy
Large, one-sided
Large, potential specimen
Large, specimen
Young, healthy
Large mature, healthy
Large mature, crowded
11 11 II
18' hgt., healthy
Dead
15' hgt., healthy


Note: Trees indicated as not movable have been so classified
because of the tremendous expense required to move the
trees, the additional expense required for extended
maintenance protection and the great risk of fatality
in moving such large trees.


Trees indicated as movable are so classified assuming that no utilities
would have to be protected within the root ball, and the soil is stable
enough to be made into a ball.


TRFF


No



Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
NI
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Remove
Yes
Remove
Yes


TREE CONDITION

















Thf -
11I


I\


1 ''


\I


















































.0


I


i ~
































HISTORICAL PROFILE





















HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES


INTRODUCTION



This profile is a preliminary attempt to determine in terms of
historic preservation the significance of each of five conserva-
tion alternatives for the existing Florida State Capitol Building,
Tallahassee, Florida. The significance of each alternative is
measured against criteria established by the National Park Ser-
vice, U.S. Department of the Interior; The National Register of
Historic Places; and the American Institute of Architects.

The information and conclusions contained in this report must be
considered preliminary and restricted in scope for several reasons.
First, time limitations have not permitted thorough investigation
of known documentation or a thorough visual survey of the existing
Capitol. Secondly, the existing building is assumed to be struc-
turally sound although a structural analysis has not been made with
preservation in mind. Finally, it is assumed that reconstruction
and/or preservation will not be affected by restored or adaptive
uses not yet determined; thus each alternative is examined with
regard to exterior appearance and exterior relationships only. No
attempt is made to identify the original interior relationships of
each alternative.

The majority of documentation has been taken from the files of the
Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Department
of State, State of Florida. This consultant is solely responsible
for the selection and interpretation of the documentation.




























Page 2 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE 1345 CAPITOL FOUNDATIONS



The utilization of the 1845 foundations as an element in the design
of a forecourt is of concern to historic preservation because this
solution entails the deiiolition and complete loss of original con-
struction from later periods. Although the symbolic representation
or utilization of historic remains has been widely acclaimed by pre-
servationists, as at Coventry Cathedral and Benjamin Franklin's
Residence in Philadelphia, it is important to note that the original
fabric in those instances has been either severely damaged or would
require highly conjectural restoration. Should circumstances yet
undetermined require virtually complete demolition of existing con-
struction, the utilization of the 1845 foundations could be con-
sidered a viable alternative.













Page 3 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE CAPITOL IN 1845



1845 Configuration The building was apparently designed by a
"contractor". A select committee was "to determine upon the plan
of said building, with the consent of the contractor, and to make
such further allowances to the said contractor for the work he
has already performed, and for any change which may be made in the
plan of said building, which was read and laid on the table."
(Fla. Senate Journal, 1840, p. 47). Whether this person func-
tioned solely as a designer, as an architect, or as a person
responsible for both design and a part or all of actual construc-
tion is not clear. The Advertisement for Bids of 1839 notes that
plans and more detailed specifications were available from G. C.
English, Commissioner. Neither of these documents has been found
to date.

The work was not let to one general contractor. Instead, the
Advertisement for Bids of 1839 called for separate masonry and
carpentry proposals. Masonry work apparently included "cement",
or stucco, finishes. Carpentry apparently included all floor and
roof framing, finish flooring, windows, and slate roofing and
sheetmetalwork.

The Advertisement for Bids for "building the walls of, and en-
closing the Capitol at Tallahassee, Florida" appeared in the
Florida Herald, October 10, 1839. Unless noted otherwise, the
following information is taken from the Advertisement, which
called for a rectangular brick structure 150 feet 5 inches long,
52 feet 5 inches wide, and 3 stories high. The basement was con-
sidered the first story. Exterior walls were to diminish from
approximately 5 feet in thickness at the basement to approxi-
mately 17 inches in thickness at the third floor. The architrave
and frieze surrounding the building were to be formed by the
masonry. Interior partitions were to be of brick also, approxi-
mately 17 inches thick in the basement and 13 inches thick on the
floors above.

Doric porticos were'to be provided on both fronts, according to
the Auditor's Report in the Senate Journal, 1840. The 1839
Advertisement for Bids called for the column pedestals and capitals
to be of brick; the columns were to be fluted and tapered, pre-
sumably of brick. The entire entablature of each portico and its
pediments, and the projecting cornice of the body of the building
were to be of wood.












Page 4 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES


THE CAPITOL IN 1845


The 1839 Advertisement for Bids called for the brick to be covered
with cement. The 1840 Auditor's Report notes that the exterior was
"to be covered with. cement in imitation of granite." The struc-
ture is.described as a "plain, pretty building, of red stucco" in
an 1861 letter (Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 39, "Florida on
the Eve of the Civil War", p. 152). An 1874 photograph indicates
a dark stucco scored to imitate massive ashlar masonry.

Interior second and third floors were to be framed of heart pine
3 x 12's 16 inches on centers, except the larger spans in the two
"halls" were to utilize 3 x 14's; narrow heart pine flooring was
to be used throughout and "secret nailed" (blind nails, probably
indicating tongue and groove edges).

The main building and portico roofs were to be of trussed wood
"principal framing" at a 6 in 12 pitch ("the height of the roof
....to be 1:4 the span"). The description of the cornice indicates
the main building and porticos were to receive gabled ends, or
pediments, of wood. Roofing was to be slate, with lead or copper
flashings. The cornice was to contain a built-in copper gutter
seven inches wide and round copper conductors four inches in diameter.

Double-hung wood windows, complete with weights and pulleys, frames,
sash, and "suitable mouldings" were specified for all stories. Each
basement window was to contain sixteen 12 x 18 inch lights; all
others were to contain twenty-four 12 x 20 inch lights each.
Windows of the latter type are visible in an 1899 photograph;
louvered shutters cover the windows in an 1874 photograph, and
louvered shutters and sunshades partially cover the windows in an
1898 photograph. Shutters were not specified in the 1839 advertise-
ment, nor are they mentioned in later documents examined to date.

Contracts for a portion of the carpentry work and for masonry work,
with the exception of covering the exterior with cement, had been
let by 1840 (Senate Journal, 1840, Auditor's Report). Additional
contracts for plastering for unspecified interior work, and for
wooden materials in the north wing were let in 1842 (Fla. House
Journal, 1842, p. 251). The finish flooring, roof framing, windows,
cornice, slate roofing, and sheetmetalwork of the north wing, and
the roof framing, slate roofing, sheetmetalwork, entablatures, and
pediments of the porticos were not contracted until 1842 (Sentinel,
August 26, 1842). The building was essentially completed in 1844
(Florida House Journal, 1844, Appendix, p.3), and fully completed
by 1845.













Page 5 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE CAPITOL IN 1845



Although later photographs, documents and field evidence indicate
the basic configuration of the 1845 Capitol followed the 1839
Advertisement for Bids, certain design changes are known to have
been made during construction, and a considerable amount of de-
tailed information required for accurate reconstruction is not
known to exist.

Original Construction Remaining Major portions of the original
east and west exterior walls probably remain intact. The original
window openings, but not the windows, probably remain. The extent
of original north and south exterior walls, interior masonry walls,
and floor and roof framing remaining intact requires extensive
field investigation, although it is probable that significant por-
tions remain. However, all remaining original construction is
essentially structural and hidden from view. Present information
indicates all original millwork and finishes, including windows,
doors, wood trim, plaster, stucco, slate roofing, complete porti-
cos, steps, and pediments have been removed.

Relationship to New Construction The reconstructed 1845 Capitol
would be physically and visually separated from new construction.
An observer in close proximity, particularly when on the site,
would be able to appreciate the building as a freestanding sculp-
tural object in an open space, and to this degree the authenticity
of the original appearance would be maintained on all sides.
Nevertheless, the site would be "contained" on the south, west,
and north by new construction, and it would not be possible to
recapture the full extent of open space that originally surrounded
the 1845 building. Whether or not any features of original land-
scaping could be reconstructed is not known at this time.

As an observer moved from the immediate vicinity of the original
building, the original building would tend to disappear and be
overwhelmed by new construction in the background. The difference
in scale seriously affects the monumentality, and therefore the
historical authenticity of the original building when seen from
a distance.

Accuracy of Reconstruction Utilizing present information, recon-
struction could achieve an estimated fifty percent visual accuracy
on the exterior, at best. Reconstruction of the interior could not




























Page 6 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE CAPITOL IN 1845


be achieved with any degree of accuracy. It is significant that
the majority of available detailed documentary information des-
cribes work that was to be completed and not the actual finished
structure. For example, fluted columns were specified, but later
photographs indicate unfluted columns were constructed. Thus,
although the intent is known, the degree to which it was achieved
cannot be verified with a high degree of certainty, and reconstruc-
tion would be highly conjectural.













Page 7 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE CAPITOL IN 1902


1902 Configuration From 1845 to 1902 numerous repairs were
made to the original structure. Portions of the slate roof were
replaced with tin, water damage to offices and the Assembly Hall
was repaired, and certain landscaping was completed (Adjutant
General's Report, 1874, pp. 2 and 3). Extensive repairs to the
porticos, roof, doors, windows, fireplaces, and lightning rods
had been accomplished by 1879; extensive painting and landscaping
was also accomplished (Adjutant General's Report, 1879, pp. 3
and 4). The building was described as "painted a light color"
in 1882. (Barbour, Geo. M., Florida for Tourists, Invalids, and
Settlers, D. Appleton & Co., N.Y., 1882, p. 79). An 1898 photo-
graph indicates the building had been painted white, perhaps for
the first time. Further repairs to the patchwork roofing of tin
and slate were completed by 1889 (Adjutant General's Report, 1889,
p. 8). In 1891 an octagonal cupola was added in the center of the
roof (1892 photograph and memorandum from Dr. William Seale), and
reroofing, partitioning, and painting was accomplished (Weekly
Floridian, July 4, 1891).

A major enlargement of the Capitol was completed in 1902. Unless
noted otherwise, the following information is from the Senate
Journal, 1903, "Report of the Capitol Improvement Commission,"
April 4, 1903, pp. 89-92, and from a photograph in the DAHRM files
dated 1902.

Plans and specifications were prepared by an architect, F. P.
Milburn. Milburn is recognized today as an important southern
architect (Memorandum from Dr. William Seale). Competitive bids
were received on November 14, 1901, and the construction contract
award was let to J. E. Parrish, Lynchburg, Va. for $65,793.00. The
architect prepared separate plans and specifications for "a com-
plete steam heating apparatus"; competitive bids were received on
August 4, 1902, and the contract was let to E. J. Erbelding, Augusta,
Ga., for $4,471.00. On December 12, 1902, the completed building
was accepted by the Commission.

The plans and specifications prepared by Milburn have not been found,
although sketch elevations of the 1902 building are included in the
plans for the 1923 renovations prepared by H. J. Klutho. However,
major changes can be seen in a 1902 photograph and inferred from
Klutho's drawings. These included the construction of the dome and












Page 8 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE CAPITOL IN 1902


the addition of wings on the north and the south. An elaborate
Classic Revival cornice and roof balustrade were also added.
Apparently the original 1845 east portico, and presumably the
west portico, were left in place and repaired.

Detailed descriptions of the work accomplished are not available.
Klutho's drawings for the 1923 renovation indicate that some type
of false dome (now removed) was located in the third story ceiling
beneath the actual dome. Information presently available is in-
complete, but the false dome may also be mentioned in a 1911
appropriation request (Senate Journal, 1911, pp. 919 and 920).
The floor of the second floor may have contained a square opening
centered below the dome, thereby opening the vertical space in
the building from the second floor to the false dome in the third
floor ceiling. However, this feature may have been installed in
1923.

Superficial field investigation reveals that the major dome is
framed and sheathed in wood. The extent of structural modifica-
tion to 1845 construction required by the addition of the dome
is not known at this time. Exterior areas of the dome accessible
from the cupola are clad in copper; it is probable that the entire
dome is covered with this material. However, the cupola itself
(with the possible exception of the cupola roof, which may be
copper), the tower below the balustrade, and the tower base are
apparently clad in formed galvanized-iron sheetmetal. Visual
inspection indicates the cornice at the main roof and porticos
is also of galvanized-iron sheetmetal.

Appropriations for later repair work indicate that slate roofing
and copper eave gutters continued to be used in portions of the
main building roof (Senate Journal, 1911, p. 918). The type and
extent of roofing material used generally in the renovation is
unknown at present. However, slate roofing is visible on the roof
of the 1902 north.wing in a 1937 photograph, indicating the slate
roof of the 1845 building may have been repaired and extended
above the new wings in 1902. Later appropriations also reveal that
plaster continued to be used as a major interior finish until 1911
(Senate Journal, 1911, p. 919).

The new wings repeated and extended the window bay spacing, floor
heights, and probably structural materials of the earlier building,
although the latter has not been confirmed. Each new wing added














Page 9 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE CAPITOL IN 1902



four bays to the length of the building in the north-south
direction, and slightly less than one bay on the east and on the
west of the building, respectively. The gabled roofs of the
original wings were extended above the wings, turned for a short
distance east and west, and terminated in hips. Superficial in-
spection reveals framing and sheathing was of wood, similar to the
original building. New exterior walls were stuccoed, and a 1902
photograph indicates most surfaces were painted white. However,
the dome, the roof of the cupola, and perhaps the cornice appear
to be darker in color. Whether or not the copper of the dome was
left unpainted, given a finish of accelerated green oxidation, or
painted is not known at present.

The 1902 photograph of the east facade indicates the earlier wooden
steps may have been replaced with masonry during renovation. Also,
the many-paned windows visible in the 1899 photograph were replaced
by four-light double-hung windows visible throughout the entire
eastern facade. This photograph also reveals the State Seal of
Florida in the tynpanum of the east pediment. The Seal is appar-
ently made of painted, formed galvanized sheetmetal (Florida Times-
Union, April 20, 1971). The origin and designer of this work re-
main unknown.

1902 Construction Remaining The dome remains intact, although
rain conductors have been added with little regard for appearance.
The north and south wings remain intact on the exterior, except
where additional wings were attached to the extreme north and
south walls in 1937 and 1947. However, it is probable that major
portions of the north and south walls remain intact within the
later additions. The hipped roofs of the 1902 wings were not
altered in configuration during later construction, although a
superficial investigation indicates all slate roofing has been
replaced with asphalt shingles.

The east and west porticos were demolished during the 1923 re-
novation. Although not verified, the original columns, if of
masonry, would have been difficult to move and were probably
destroyed rather than relocated.

The extent of 1902 finishes remaining in the interior is not known
at the present time, although extensive field investigation and
















Page 10 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE CAPITOL IN 1902



careful review of the Klutho drawings for the 1923 renovations
should reveal this information. Information currently available
indicates that few 1902 finishes remain.

Relationship to New Construction The reconstructed and restored
1902 Capitol would be physically separate from new construction.
However, the volume of the structure fills the available space
not only in the north-south axis but, because of the dome, verti-
cally as well. The 1902 Capitol, therefore, cannot be visually
separated from new construction, and cannot be viewed as a free-
standing element in the type of spatial environment for which it
was originally designed.

However, the 1902 building would not be overwhelmed by new con-
struction in the background. The strong curvilinear shape of the
dome would remain prominent and in distinct contrast to the con-
struction beyond (as it does today), and the monumentality of the
building would be preserved from the southeast, east, northeast,
and west.

Accuracy of Reconstruction and Restoration Much of the original
fabric of the 1902 reconstruction remains in place on the building
exterior. Although not verified, it is probable that much of the
existing decorative cornice and many existing windows date from
this period and remain in place. Thus, the cornice, many windows,
and the dome can be accurately restored.

Photographic evidence of the appearance of the east portico after
the 1902 renovation is clear enough to allow relatively accurate
reconstruction. Unfortunately, photographic or other documentary
evidence has not been found for the western portico. Nevertheless,
it is probable that these exterior features could be reconstructed
with approximately eighty percent accuracy.

The degree of accuracy to which interiors can be reconstructed is
not known at present.













Page 11 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION AL1lRHATIVES


THE CAPITOL IN 1923



1923 Configuration In 1911 appropriations were requested to re-
pair the roof and to install metal ceilings in "the Senate Chamber
and the Legislative Room, a large hall and two passages leading
from the hall to the two chambers.....and also furnish the dome in
the large hall with an appropriate design...." (Senate Journal, 1911,
p.p. 918-920).Further research is required to determine if the work
was accomplished; however, metal ceilings are visible today in cer-
tain corridors. This is the only major work during the period 1902
to 1923 documented at this time.

I!. J. Klutho, a Jacksonville Architect, prepared construction docu-
ments for major alterations and additions completed in 1923. Klutho
is considered an important Florida Architect, and is receiving in-
creasing interest nationally. The detailed scope of work accomplished
is clearly indicated in the construction drawings, which have been
preserved. In addition, later additions and alterations have not
materially disturbed the work of this period. The interior decor
designed by Klutho remains substantially intact; apparently most of
the decor from earlier construction was removed during or prior to
this work.

Since the actual construction completed in 1923 remains, as well as
copies of the construction drawings, a general description of work
accomplished will suffice for this report. The original east and
west porticos were removed and the present east and west wings were
constructed. The east portico was reconstructed on the eastern end
of the new wing. The Great Seal of the State was apparently removed
from the original portico and relocated in the tympanum of the re-
constructed portico. A guidebook to Florida noted in 1937: "....the
interior was redesigned. The spacious lobby and corridors, the
marble stairs, the porticos and wide steps, as well as the house and
senate chambers were designed by H. J. Klutho. The west portico was
omitted to make way for the house chamber." (Florida: A Guide to the
Southernmost State: American Guide Series, Oxford University Press,
N.Y., 1937, p. 277.) Klutho followed the direction taken by Milburn
in the 1902 renovations by further extending the rhythm, scale, and
Classical Revival decor established in the 1845 building and modified
by Milburn.

1923 Construction Remaining A superficial examination of the existing
building reveals that work accomplished in 1923 remains substantially
intact. As noted above, much of the interior decor dates from this













Page 12 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE CAPITOL IN 1923



period. A number of subsequent modifications, such as the lowering
of ceilings, rerouting of mechanical, plumbing, and electrical sys-
tems, and the repair of finishes, have not caused serious damage to
the 1923 configuration or finishes.

The 1937 north wing and the 1947 south wing were extensions of ear-
lier wings constructed in 1902. Their construction did not modify
1923 construction.

Relationship to New Construction The relationship of the 1923
building to new construction is essentially the same as the 1902
building. However, the extension of the east wing strengthens the
visual mass of the building, and, like the dome, is a major element
in preventing the monumentality of the older structure from being
overwhelmed by new construction.

The relationship of the west wing to new construction is discussed
in the following paragraph.

Accuracy of Restoration Since original construction remains, vir-
tually complete accuracy is possible. Unlike work required to
recreate the 1845 and 1902 buildings, the work required to recon-
dition the 1923 building would be true restoration and not recon-
struction.

However, practical considerations resulting from the proximity of
new construction on the west side would surely result in the demoli-
tion of an undetermined amount of the 1923 west wing. This adaptive
modification would create new exterior and interior relationships
not intended or foreseen by Klutho, although most or all of the
modification could be achieved by reusing the original fabric of
1923 construction. The resulting changes in massing and proportions
would be major, and would materially affect the appearance of the
restored building from the west.

Since almost all historical authenticity of the west wing will be
lost by any modification of the scope required, the final configu-
ration of the modified west wing should be dictated by architectural
requirements of new construction. The 1923 building would benefit
greatly by maximum separation on the west from new construction;
presumably, the separation would benefit new construction also.
Therefore, maximum demolition of the west wing should be seriously





























Page 13 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE CAPITOL IN 1923



considered, up to but not including the marble staircase designed
by Klutho. The existing west portico, modified slightly, could be
reconstructed against the stairway or at an appropriate point fur-
ther west. Assuming the portico was reconstructed against the stair,
the resulting massing and relationship to the dome would be similar
to the 1902 Capitol. Although not historically authentic, a solution
of this type follows in principle a design precedent established in
1902.














Page 14 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE CAPITOL IN 1976



1976 Configuration A north wing was completed in 1937, and a
south wing, similar in exterior appearance to the 1937 north wing,
was completed in 1947. Both utilize concrete frames (Report from
the Joint Venture to Department of General Services, June 10, 1971,
p. 2.). The original fabric of both remains in existence.

Minor alterations have been made to the exteriors; the extent of
interior alterations requires further detailed investigation. The
original construction drawings for both wings have been preserved,
and a detailed description is therefore unnecessary. Construction
documents for the north wing were prepared by M. Leo Elliott, Tampa,
Florida, with Robert & Co., Inc., Consulting Architects, Atlanta,
Georgia. Construction documents for the south wing were prepared
by Hadley and Atkinson, 211 Taylor Arcade, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Both additions were conceived as extensions of existing construc-
tion. Following the earlier examples of Milburn and Klutho, the
fenestration and Classic Revival decor of earlier construction were
repeated. The balustrade on earlier construction is visible in a
1937 construction photograph, and is called for on the 1937 con-
struction drawings. It has since been removed.

The exterior appearance of the building today is essentially the
same as in 1947.

Relationship to New Construction The north, west, and south wings
of the existing building are in very close proximity to new con-
struction. New and old cannot be separated visually. The confine-
ment is so extreme that the existing building cannot be visualized
in its historic setting, and must be considered an integral part of
new construction.

The relationship of the wings to new construction is further dis-
cussed in the following paragraph.

Accuracy of Restoration Restoration of the 1976 Capitol would
consist of placing the present structure in first-rate condition.
Accuracy, therefore, would be one hundred percent, insofar as the
fabric of the building is concerned.

























Page 15 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

THE CAPITOL IN 1976



The proximity of new construction, however, severely affects the
historical exterior appearance of the existing building. As noted
above, the older structure has become a visual if not physical
part of new construction. From the standpoint of historic pre-
servation, new construction must be considered an extension of
the older structure. The present relationship is of necessity
unplanned, since no program for a restored or adaptive use of
the older structure has been determined. Thus the problem of
the proximity of the west wing to new construction, previously
discussed in the 1923 Capitol, remains a problem in the 1976
Capitol, and is greatly compounded by similar problems at the
north and south wings. There seems little likelihood that a
satisfactory aesthetic and practical solution can be found in
which the north and south wings are allowed to remain. If the
north and south wings are removed, of course, the building re-
turns to the 1923 configuration, and should be restored as
described elsewhere in this report.












Page 16 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

SUMMARY



The existing Florida State Capitol Building has continued to occupy
an important place in the history of the State since the original
building was completed in 1845. The State of Florida as we know it
today has evolved as a direct result of decisions made within the
chambers of this building. The significance of the building is
well documented elsewhere and need not be repeated here. It is
sufficient to state that it is of significant value to the citizens
of the State, and its preservation deserves serious consideration.

Historic preservation has been defined as a non-repetitive process
of preserving non-renewable resources. Once a historic building
is destroyed, the decision is final. The tactile reality of the
original structure is lost to us and all future generations. The
following observations are based upon this definition.

The existing 1976 Capitol in its entirety cannot be preserved and
its present use as the seat of state government cannot be maintained
since new construction is intended to house all legislative func-
tions and the proximity of the existing building to new construction
will not permit preservation that is practically or visually accep-
table. Preservation of the existing 1976 Capitol cannot be con-
sidered a viable alternative.

Utilization of the foundations or other structural elements of the
1845 Capitol in an open courtyard can be considered an alternative
if virtually total demolition of existing construction becomes a
necessity.

The 1845 Capitol requires extensive reconstruction since only the
original structural elements hidden from view remain in place. In
effect, a full scale conjectural model of the 1845 building would be
constructed with a marginal degree of accuracy. The 1845 Capitol
can be considered an alternative if extensive demolition and maximum
separation of existing and new construction become a necessity.

Much of the original fabric of the 1902 Capitol remains intact al-
though the east and west porticos were demolished during later
construction. From the exterior the building would not be over-
whelmed by new construction. Documentary material is limited but
exterior reconstruction could be accomplished with acceptable accu-
racy. The east and west wings including the marble stairs and all
existing interior decor would be removed and restoration of interior
finishes would probably be conjectural. The 1902 Capitol is an al-
ternative consisting of substantial restoration and reconstruction.
























Page 17 HISTORICAL PROFILE OF CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES

SUMMARY



Almost all of the fabric utilized in constructing the 1923 Capitol
remains in place, and documentary and photographic evidence survives
to effect accurate restoration. From the exterior the building would
not be overwhelmed by new construction. Although preservation would
require demolition of a major portion of the 1923 west wing, most of
the exterior and interior fabric of the building would be preserved.
The 1923 Capitol is an alternative consisting of a majority of res-
toration work and a lesser amount of reconstruction.









Herschel E. Shepard, AIA
January 21, 1977

































COST EVALUATIONS AND SCHEDULE













COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS


The purpose of this Comparative Cost Evaluation is to provide in a
limited time frame, a predesign budgetary level cost comparison of
the four alternatives for disposition of the Old Capitol considered
in this report. It must be recognized that these cost figures are
based upon the limited documents and information available, and
therefore necessarily involve professional judgment based upon ex-
perience in the cost estimating profession. Recognition must also
be made of the fact that restoration and/or reconstruction of his-
torical facilities is a highly sensitive and specialized effort as
compared to typical new construction. So that all who read and
observe the costs presented herein, the basis and approach for de-
termining the cost factors used are presented herein.

Detailed engineering investigations of the site in the form of
detailed surveys of utilities and other subsurface conditions have
not been authorized. Therefore, the cost impact that will result
due to relocation, capping, termination or other modification to
utilities cannot be determined at this time. In addition, certain
of the previous studies indicate a concern of the structural ade-
quacy of portions of the existing structure. Visual investigations
of a limited nature have been undertaken by Wayne H. Coloney which
indicate that the structure is, in.general, sound; however, detail
investigations have not been made, and therefore, no allowances
have been made herein for the costs of structural improvements that
nay be determined to be necessary (on the 1902 or 1923) when such
an investigation is made.

Further, due to the absence of a definitive program of future uses
of the restored Capitol, the study of these alternatives has neces-
sarily completely excluded the considerations of interior renova-
tions or restorations, and life safety or fire code requirements.

Recognition should also be made that upon implementation of any one
of the alternatives certain elements of the structure or portion
being demolished may have a salvage value of historical or monetary
nature. No attempt has been made herein to assess the impact of
these elements on the costs as they have not been identified.

Included as a variation within each alternative is the rerouting
of Monroe Street. No evaluations have been made in this study of
the costs of this rerouting or of the site development east of the
present curbline of Monroe Street. Such determinations would have
to be made when and if a decision is made to proceed with or to
Further investigate the feasibility of the rerouting.
















Page 2 COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS


Recognizing the qualifications set forth above, review of the four
alternatives reveal the general areas of work involved to be as
follows:

Demolition of selected portions or the entire structure.

Sitework of filling excavations, grading and drainage
of the surrounding area.

Park development of this surrounding area to include
paving, planters, pools, landscaping and irrigation
based on the Conceptual Studies prepared by Edward
Durell Stone herein.

Reconstruction of portions of the facade of the Old
Capitol in the 1923 and 1902 alternatives where sections
have been removed and the restoration and upgrading of
the other remaining exterior wall areas to bring the
appearance into the proper historical perspective, or

Reconstruction in total of the 1845 Capitol building
or 1845 foundations. In the alternative of the 1845
structure the basic cost for a complete three-story
structure has been included; however, consideration
has not been made of interior planning or mechanical
and electrical systems to meet specific program needs
or life safety and fire code requirements.

Within each of the above work areas, more specific consideration
and tasks were outlined that could be anticipated based upon the
available data and knowledge with appropriate unit costs assigned.
Areas of consideration included:

Demolition

Quantity of structure demolished
Degree of care and protection of remaining structure
Degree of care and protection of surrounding structure
and trees












Page 3 COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS


Restoration/Reconstruction

Quantity of wall area exposed by demolition requiring
reconstruction
Quantity and degree of wall area remaining requiring
restoration and improvement
Quantity and degree of roof, cornice, dome and other
features requiring restoration
Quantity of doors, windows and other elements to be
replaced by more historically accurate elements

Site Improvements

Area of fill in demolition areas
Areas of grading and adjustment of finished grades
Allowance for drainage
Allowance for tree protection

Park Development

Areas of paving, planters and courts
Areas of landscaped ground including plant material
and irrigation
Allowance for electrical and lighting

In some areas, lump sum dollar allowances are the only practical
method to establish budgets at this time; Such was done, however,
only where a more refined method was not apparent.

After arriving at the budget costs in this manner, a comparative
review was made to determine that the relative quantity and extent
of the work between alternatives was reasonable.

In addition, investigation was made of records of other major his-
torical restoration programs around the county such as:

California State Capitol
The Octagon, Washington, D. C. (American Institute of
Architects Headquarters Building)
Williamsburg, Virginia
Iowa State Capitol

In this investigation there was no pattern or norm and the unit costs
reported varied from as low as $150.00 per square foot to as high
as $300.00 plus per square foot. Each program was so significantly
different that the use of one or a group of unit costs that would be
appropriate for this proposed work was not possible.













Page 4 COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS


As a final element in the consideration, cost allowances, in terms
of gross percentile increases, were included to cover the following:

Construction cost escalation to meet the possible
schedule set out in this report
Survey and engineering consultant costs for structural
site and utility investigations
Historical consultant costs for investigation and
documentation of the construction to record and
photograph building details found to preserve for
history and to utilize in reconstruction plans
Design fees
Other administrative costs

As all of these costs are predicated on predesign figures and are
of a quite preliminary nature, appropriate contingencies are added
to insure safety in the overall figures. The contingencies, how-
ever, should not be taken to cover the costs of those elements
indicated earlier in this section as being excluded from this study.

Thus, a total program budget cost was determined for each of the
four alternatives. These budget costs are summarized individually
in Tables 1 through 4. Table 5 sets forth a comparison of all four
alternatives. Specific comments are appropriate on each alternative.

1845 Foundations

This alternative would contemplate the complete demolition of the
existing structure and removal of debris. This activity is rather
straightforward and should not present any severe difficulties. The
original foundation would be rebuilt. It is possible that in the
process of demolition, sufficient portions of the foundation may be
identified and retained. If this is not possible, consideration
could be given to reconstruction of the foundation using the original
masonry reclaimed during the demolition. The demolition costs allow
for this possibility.

The new park with brick and cast stone pavers, fountain, accent
lighting, and planting structures and landscaping would be developed
in and around the foundation.

This alternative obviously presents the least potential for problems
of unknown nature to develop in that the entire site is effectively
cleaned and the new development can move ahead unhampered.














Page 5 COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS


1845 Replica

This alternative would also contemplate the complete demolition of
the existing structure and debris removal. It is possible, here
also, that in the process of demolition, sufficient portions of the
existing 1845 structure can be found to iiake it prudent to retain
those portions. This opportunity should not be overlooked. If
such is possible, the portions should be protected during the demo-
lition of other portions. Additional amounts have been added to
the cost of demolition to cover this possibility.

Reconstruction of the 1845 structure would, as has been indicated,
be a replica with the degree of accuracy somewhat marginal for those
elements which have been destroyed in later additions.

The extent to which the reconstruction follows completely the original
construction has been evaluated and budget costs included to construct
a replica in appearance based upon the historical survey. Allowances
have not been made for salvage, recording and inventory of materials
from the demolition for reuse in the reconstruction. Rebuilding in
this manner would greatly increase the costs of both demolition and
reconstruction.

Development of the park would again follow in the remaining surrounding
area and would include brick and cast stone pavers, plant structures,
grassing and landscaping.

1902 Alternative

This alternative would require the demolition of the 1947, 1936 and
1923 additions, and the removal of the debris. The surrounding area
begins in this alternative to become somewhat constricted to work in
during the demolition. The protection of the 1902 structure that is
to remain would be extensive since demolition would take place on all
four sides of the structure. Protection of the new Legislative Office
Buildings and Phase II Capitol also become of greater significance
because of the constrained area.

Reconstruction would include both the East and West Porticos, and the
1902 north and south end walls.

Restoration of the existing 1902 facade would include the removal of
exterior stucco, and tuck pointing the brick. Applying waterproofing,













Page 6 COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS


stucco, new windows and doors constructed of material of the period;
restoration of soffit, cornice, gutters, dome and associate fabric
and new slate roofing would also be included.

Development of the park would, as in other schemes, follow including
brick and cast stone pavers, accent lighting and landscaping.

1923 Alternative

This alternative would require the demolition of the 1936 and 1947
structures along with a portion of the West Wing and debris removal.
This demolition would have to take place in extremely close quarters
and would have to be handled with extreme care to protect the exis-
ting 1923 Capitol structure as well as the new Legislative Office
Buildings and the new Phase II Capitol.

Reconstruction would include the West Portico closer to the center
of the building and the 1902 north and south end walls.

Restoration of the 1923 alternative would include the removal of
exterior stucco, and tuck pointing the brick. Applying waterproofing,
stucco, new windows and doors constructed of material of the period;
restoration of soffit, cornice, gutters, dome and associate fabric,
and slate and other roofing consistent with the period, would be in-
cluded.

Development of the park would, as in other schemes, follow including
brick and cast stone pavers, accent lighting, landscaping with grass,
plants, shrubs, and trees.

It should be noted that each alternative presents a slightly differ-
ent level of exterior development in the relative amounts of paved
or terrace areas versus landscaped ground. All budgets are based
upon the conditions shown in the Conceptual Site Plan shown herein.

Summary

The cost figures presented in the tables set forth in as much detail
as is possible at this time the projected budget costs and order of
magnitude of each of the alternatives studied. The engineering study
and survey of the subsurface utilities and site, along with the detail
structural and life safety/fire code analysis may well generate other
costs. The likelihood and impact will, of course, vary from one alter-
native to the next. We would anticipate that the effect would be:

















Page 7 COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS


1845 Foundations least likely to be impacted

1845 Structure next likely since the entire structure
is to be reconstructed

1923 and 1902 structures most likely since a major por-
tion of the existing structure will remain

Therefore, when the implementation of the selected alternative is
begun, it is important to recognize and appropriately allow the time
and funds for these investigative activities to be made in full measure.

The historical documentation of the existing structure prior to be-
ginning and during the demolition process, as each previous stage is
uncovered, to verify and/or confirm conditions, appearance and con-
struction must also be planned, not only for the record and future
generations but also to insure that the areas to be reconstructed
can be as accurate as possible.

Further, once an alternative has been selected, a determination must
also be made (in the case of all the alternatives except the 1845
Foundations) as to the use and function of the restored/reconstructed
structure. While this can be ignored at this stage in the study,
implementation may not be practical without determining what is to
happen to the spaces, finishes, mechanical and electrical systems
within the structure. This activity can occur during the same time
frame of the investigative activity mentioned above.

A logical approach, therefore, to the implementation, once an alter-
native is selected, would be a two-step program in which time and
funds are allotted for the above, during which time more detailed
and refined costs can be confirmed. The first step could also in-
clude the appropriate demolition costs which would be implemented
upon confirmation of the detail costs and investigations. The second
stage would provide the final design and construction documents and
capital outlay funds to complete construction of the development.
















COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS


TABLE 1


DEVELOP PARK WITH 1845 FOUNDATIONS


Demolition

Reconstruction of Foundations

Site Work and Drainage


Park Development

Contingencies


Total Estimated Project Cost


$ 765,000

94,000

283,000

1,122,000

538,000


$ 2,802,000


The above project costs include allowances for construction
cost escalation, survey and professional investigation fees,
design fees and administrative costs. Refer to report narrative.



The above project costs exclude the rerouting or redevelopment
of Monroe Street and- salvage value of any significant elements
of demolition. Refer to the report narrative.















COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS


TABLE 2


DEVELOP PARK AND RECONSTRUCTION OF 1845 REPLICA


Demolition


Reconstruction of 1845 Replica


Site Work and Drainage


Park Development

Contingencies


Total Estimated Project Cost


$ 746,000

3,024,000

276,000

1,060,000

1,287,000


$ 6,573,000


The above project costs include allowances for construction
cost escalation, survey and professional investigation fees,
design fees and administrative costs. Refer to report narrative.



The above project costs exclude the rerouting or redevelopment
of Monroe Street; sa-lvage value of any significant elements
of demolition and the costs of interior arrangements or sys-
tems. Refer to the report narrative.














COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS


TABLE 3


RESTORATION 1902, EXTERIOR FABRIC, FACADE
EAST AND WEST PORTICOS AND DEVELOP PARK


Demolition


Restoration of 1902

Site Work and Drainage

Park Development


Contingencies


Total Estimated Project Cost


$ 606,000

935,000

227,000

876,000
636,000


$ 3,280,000


The above project costs include allowances for construction
cost escalation, survey and professional investigation fees,
design fees and administrative costs. Refer to report narrative.



The above project costs exclude the rerouting or redevelopment
of Monroe Street; salvage value of any significant elements of
demolition; structural improvements that may be necessary; and
renovations or restorations of the interior of the structure.
Refer to the report narrative.














COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS


TABLE 4


RESTORATION 1923, EXTERIOR FABRIC, FACADE,
WEST PORTICO, AND DEVELOP PARK


Demolition

Restoration of 1923

Site Work and Drainage


Park Development

Contingencies


Total Estimated Project Cost


$ 500,000

934,000


197,000

768,000


578,000


$ 2,977,000


The above project costs include allowances for construction
cost escalation, survey and professional investigation fees,
design fees and administrative costs. Refer to report narrative.



The above project costs exclude the rerouting or redevelopment
of Monroe Street; salvage value of any significant elements of
demolition; structural improvements that may be necessary; and
renovations or restorations of the interior of the structure.
Refer to the report narrative.
















COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS

TABLE 5


SUMMARY OF COST


Development of Park with 1845 Foundations

Development of Park and Reconstruction 1845 Replica

Restoration of 1902 Exteriors Only and Develop Park

Restoration of 1923 Exteriors Only and Develop Park


$ 2,802,000

6,573,000

3,280,000

2,997,000


The above project costs include allowances for construction
cost escalation, survey and professional investigation fees,
design fees and administrative costs. Refer to report narrative.



The above project costs exclude the rerouting or redevelopment
of Monroe Street; salvage value of any significant elements of
demolition; structural improvements that may be necessary; and
renovations, restorations, arrangements and systems of the in-
terior of the structure. Refer to the report narrative.



















IINVESTIGATIONs


PHASE


r-TE IM-VE TI AT 10O1N
STIyjC-TUIRAL INVE.TI ,AT, C
I-lr-TOlcs L L-- Ccx --J TAI'IO IG
I lTEr Cr" FL-tZH H llt G
=IMMAL kesi.M I


wi
2 2



PHASE



a1 MOB 24 Moa.
SlI45C


CONSTRUCTION AND
RESTORATION PHASE


PROJECTED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE


I














SUPPLEMENT TO
CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES


EXISTING CAPITOL BUILDING
FLORIDA CAPITOL COMPLEX

INTERIOR COST EVALUATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
Division of Building Construction and Property Management
Tallahassee, Florida

DWARD DURELL STONE AND REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS
ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS

FISHER and SHEPARD / ARCHITECTS and PLANNERS, Inc.
CONSULTANTS


March 1977


































CONTENTS



























TABLE OF CONTENTS


- INTRODUCTION





- HISTORICAL PROFILE





- COMPARATIVE COST EVALUATIONS



































INTRODUCTION













INTRODUCTION


In November of 1976 the Joint Venture of Edward Durell Stone and
Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Architects-Engineers-Planners, was
commissioned by the Department of General Services to prepare a
study to determine the reasonable Conservation Alternatives of the
Existing Capitol Building. This was predicated on the need to make
a determination of what disposition would be made of the Existing
Capitol now that Phase II construction of the New Capitol Complex
was nearing completion.

This report was prepared and presented in January 1977 and set
forth four Alternatives for consideration:

o 1923 Capitol Restoration

o 1902 Capitol Restoration

o 1845 Capitol Reconstruction

o 1845 Capitol Foundation Fabric Memorial

In all cases these alternatives and cost considerations dealt with
exterior restoration/reconstruction efforts only since there was no
definitive program for the functional use of the restored/reconstruc-
ted building (1923, 1902 and 1845 structures).

Upon presentation it was generally felt that a realistic comparison
of Alternatives and subsequent determination as to a selected Alterna-
tive must take into consideration interior renovation, improvements
and/or restorations.

As a result, the Joint Venture was asked to prepare this Supplement
to project the comparative costs of various interior development
possibilities from the best information available at this time so that
the total costs could be analyzed in the decision making process.

The purpose of this supplemental study effort then is to set forth for
each of the Alternatives considered in the initial report, 1923 Restora-
tion, 1902 Restoration and 1845 Reconstruction, further predesign
budgetary level cost data for interior development of:

a. Authentic Restoration/Reconstruction

b. Adaptive use as offices utilizing essentially those
remaining spaces that exist today as offices with only
nominal improvements including fire code and between
occupancy type renovations.





















Page 2 INTRODUCTION


c. Adaptive use as offices with maximum utilization
as offices through increased floor areas and con-
sidering major renovations to the mechanical and
electrical systems.

In order to accomplish this effort, additional on-site investigation and
further research into the files of the Division of Archives, History
and Records Management to allow some conclusions to be made with re-
gard to the original finishes and conditions. This historical analysis
has been prepared by Mr. Herschel E. Shepard, A.I.A., Fisher & Shepard,
Architects and Planners, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida.

The Joint Venture wishes to express its appreciation for the cooperation
and invaluable information provided by Mr. Jack Boynton, Maintenance
Superintendent of Capitol Building, Department of General Services;
Prentiss Huddleston of Huddleston, Satterfield, Evans and Mauney who
kindly provided measured drawings of the existing building, thereby
greatly simplifying the complex task of on-site investigation. Finally,
Mr. Rodney Little, Historic Preservationist, Division of Archives, His-
tory and Records Management made the complete files and documentation
of the Division of Archives available to the Joint Venture, and continued
to contribute additional information as it became available during the
preparation of the original report and this Supplement.
The Joint Venture also wishes to acknowledge the assistance and effort
expended by the Florida Department of Transportation in developing and
estimating the Monroe Street Alternatives. Appendix I contains the FDOT
analysis of the rerouting (Alt. 1) and the underpass (Alt. 2).































HISTORICAL PROFILE














THE CAPITOL IN 1923


A. GENERAL

This profile extends the Historical Profile, dated January 1977, to
include interior reconstruction and restoration of the 1923 building.
Strict reconstruction and restoration is assumed; the intent is to
restore or reconstruct all spaces to their 1923 appearance. In the
Authentic version, no adaptive use is assumed, except that it is assumed
that the requirements of building codes will be satisfied, and that
electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems will be modernized in a
manner compatible with restoration.

The following information is tentative and subject to revision as re-
search continues.

B. INTERIOR PLAN OF 1923 building

1. GENERAL

The general 1923 building configuration is described in detail in
the Historical Profile, dated January 1977. 1923 changes which
increased usable square footage consisted of the addition of an
east and a west wing. The east wing housed the Senate Chamber on
the second floor and additional office space on the first and base-
ment floors. The west wing housed the House of Representatives
and additional office space on the first and basement floors. The
House and Senate Chambers added in 1902 construction were subdivided
into committee rooms. Except for balconies in the new House and
Senate Chambers, no mezzanines were constructed at this time.

Since the 1923 drawings exist, the description of interior planning
will be limited to significant changes made by Klutho.

2. BASEMENT

The 1902 basement configuration as modified circa 1911 was not
significantly changed by Klutho. Apparently, the Drainage Depart-
ment, the Treasurer, and the Comptroller retained areas assigned
earlier. The men's toilet remained unaltered, although the women's
toilet was eliminated when the Comptroller's office was expanded.
The earlier boiler room was converted into unassigned office space,
and a new vault was constructed in the Commissioner of Agriculture
offices. The central stair was removed from the lobby, and the
lobby was severely reduced in size by the addition of four storage
rooms, one in each corner.













Page 2 THE CAPITOL IN 1923


The basement of the 1923 east wing housed additional office space
for the Commissioner of Agriculture and the Comptroller, as well
as an office for the Tax Equalizer. In addition, a large, fire-
proof vault was constructed.

The basement of the 1923 west wing housed a new boiler room, the
office of the Geologist and several unassigned office spaces.
The new monumental marble staircase on the north side of the corri-
dor continued to the basement.

3. FIRST FLOOR

Klutho did not materially alter the arrangement of partitions re-
maining from the circa 1911 revision. However, the Attorney
General and the Department of Education were relocated in the new
west wing. The office suites of the Governor, Secretary of State,
the Treasurer, and Comptroller were expanded into the vacated
offices. A new vault was added in the expanded Secretary of State
offices, and a former office of the Attorney General suite was
occupied by a new men's room. The stair in the rotunda was re-
moved, and a new floor was extended over the opening. It is re-
markable that the earlier columns apparently installed by Milburn
to support the dome were removed and replaced by Klutho. The
earlier columns were not symmetrically placed on the north-south
axis and probably were changed for visual reasons. A stair with
restricted access to the basement floor was added in the Comp-
troller's office.

The 1923 east wing housed offices of the Commissioner of Agricul-
ture on the south and the Comptroller on the north.

The 1923 west wing housed offices of the Board of Control and the
Attorney General south of the corridor and the Department of
Education on the north. Monumental marble stairs were provided
north and south of the corridor adjacent to the 1902 middle section.
A ladies' restroom was also provided.

4. SECOND FLOOR

As on the first floor, Klutho did not extensively revise the par-
titioning that remained from the 1902 building as modified circa
1911. The 1902 Senate and House Chambers were partitioned into
committee rooms. A toilet, presumably for men, was eliminated in
order to provide access to the Senate balcony. However, this
toilet appears to have been replaced by a larger toilet room in
the south wing.













Page 3 THE CAPITOL IN 1923


The stair to the second floor in the central lobby was removed,
and an open well was provided beneath the lantern centered under
the dome.

The 1923 east wing housed the Senate Chamber, as well as an office
for the Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms. A balcony was located above
the latter offices.

The 1923 west wing housed the chamber for the House of Representa-
tives and offices for the Clerk, the Speaker, and the Sergeant-at-
Arms. A ladies' toilet and stairs to the balcony overlooking the
House of Representatives were also provided. The monumental marble
stairs terminated at the corridor in this wing.

C. DEMOLITION REQUIRED

The 1937 north wing and the 1947 south wing shall be demolished com-
pletely. The millwork and casework in the 1937 and 1947 Senate and
House Chambers shall be removed by the Contractor and stored as direc-
ted by the Owner. The millwork and casework shall not be used in the
reconstruction of the 1923 Chambers. Items such as the metal cornice
that may be used in restoring the 1923 building shall be salvaged.

The floor of the second floor between the freestanding columns shall
be removed, and the open well provided by Klutho shall be reconstruc-
ted. The present ceiling, protective covering, and screen above the
covering beneath the present dome shall be removed in order to receive
the reconstructed lantern above the second floor.

All existing floor coverings shall be removed, and all underlayment
material, if any, shall be removed. The 1-1/2 inch thick topping slab
on the basement floor shall be removed.

All acoustical tile suspended ceilings shall be removed.

All floor framing for the mezzanine in the north wing and for mezzanines
at the south end of the south wing shall be removed in addition to
mezzanine floor framing in the 1902 Senate and House Chambers.

The elevator in the south wing shall not be removed but shall be re-
tained as a service elevator and to serve the handicapped.

The 1923 west wing shall be demolished to a point west of the monumental
marble stairs. For purposes of this profile, demolition shall be limited
to the area occupied by the House of Representatives, although demolition
could extend approximately 28 feet further to the east, if necessary.












Page 4 THE CAPITOL IN 1923


Demolition shall include removal of the one-story mechanical equip-
ment building adjacent to the south side of the west wing.

Plumbing fixtures, plumbing brass and trim shall be removed unless
further investigation reveals original fixtures remain.

All mechanical equipment and ductwork shall be removed except for
that ductwork incorporated in the pressed metal ceilings installed
circa 1911.

Corridor lighting fixtures in the first floor shall not be removed
but shall be reused. The fluorescent cove lighting at the second
floor shall be removed. All other lighting fixtures shall be removed.

D. SCHEDULE OF FINISHES

1. FLOORS

a. Basement

The 1-1/2 inch cement topping throughout the basement noted
on Klutho's drawings shall be replaced with a new topping.

Office areas in the 1923 east and west wings were provided
with wooden floors on sleepers above concrete slabs. It is
probable that these floors remain in fair condition. Assume
the floors shall be sanded, stained and sealed with a pene-
trating sealer and lightly waxed.

b. First Floor

Klutho's drawings indicate the pine wooden floors of the 1902
building remained, except that the floors of the Governor's
suite were replaced with new oak. In addition, the floors
of the public corridors and the rotunda received "marbleloid"
flooring. "Marbleloid" is a trade name of a type of magnesite
flooring manufactured by the Marbleloid Company, Broadway and
34th Street, New York, N.Y., according to the Sweet's Engineer-
ing Catalog published in 1915. It is specifically described as
a magnesia-asbestos plastic composition flooring available in
all colors and applied in two coats, the total thickness of
which equals approximately one-half inch. For restoration pur-
poses, assume that the appearance of marbleloid can be dupli-
cated with sheet vinyl with a matte finish. This material may
remain in some areas of the building beneath present floor
finishes. Determination of color and exact appearance requires
further research.












Page 5 THE CAPITOL IN 1923


The floors of the 1923 east and west wings were of wood,
presumably to match flooring of the existing building. These
floors should be refinished as noted above. The corridors of
these wings also received marbleloid flooring and should be
restored as noted above.

Certain smaller areas received special flooring. The vaults
contained cement floors, and toilet rooms were tiled. Assume
these surfaces remain in good condition and require cleaning
only.

c. Second Floor

Second floor finishes were similar to first floor finishes,
including the House and Senate Chambers. Public corridors
received marbleloid flooring. The floor should be restored
as noted for the first floor.

2. BASEBOARDS

The number of different types of wooden baseboards are indicated
on Klutho's drawings. In some corridor areas, a 10 inch. high,
built-up unit was employed. In office areas, a 12 inch high,
built-up unit was employed, and in the Senate and House Chambers,
an elaborate design approximately 2 feet high was employed. It
is probable that baseboards remaining from 1902 and 1912 modifi-
cations were left in place.

A simple rectangular tile baseboard was used at tile wainscots in
new building corridors.

3. WAINSCOTS AND PANELING

a. Basement

Wainscots were not employed in the basement of the 1923 building.

b. First Floor

Klutho reused the wooden wainscots dating from 1902 in the
north and south corridors. However, wooden wainscots in the
area of the rotunda were removed and replaced with marble and
the marble extended throughout the corridors in the new east
and west wings. The marble wainscot was a nominal 6 feet in
height.

Apparently, wainscots, paneling and chair rails were not in-
stalled in private offices on this floor.













Page 6 THE CAPITOL IN 1923


The 1902 wooden wainscoting in the north and south wings was
replaced with marble at some time after 1923. The marble
matches Klutho's wainscot very well, and it should not be
removed during restoration.

c. Second Floor

Wainscoting at the second floor was similar to the first.
1902 wood wainscoting remained in the north and south corri-
dors, but was replaced at a later date, and Klutho installed
marble in the area of the rotunda and in the new east and
west wing corridors. The new Senate and House Chambers did
not receive wainscoting or paneling.

4. WALLS.

Klutho apparently extended wood lath and plaster wall systems em-
ployed in the 1902 and 1911 alterations as described elsewhere in
this report.

5. CEILINGS

Ceilings dating from 1902 and 1912 alterations were left in place
by Klutho. The pressed metal ceilings of the corridors, rotunda,
and lantern above the rotunda were left unchanged. New partitions
subdividing the 1902 House and Senate Chambers apparently terminated
hard against the pressed metal ceilings of those areas. However,
a suspended plaster ceiling above the House Chamber may have been
installed by Klutho at this time.

Ceilings above the new east and west wings were also of plaster.
Plaster cornices were provided in the new corridors and in the
areas beneath the rotunda. The ceilings of the Senate and House
Chambers are discussed in the following paragraph.

6. ORNAMENTAL PLASTER

Relatively simple ornamental plaster pilaster capitals, cornices
and ceiling coffers were provided above the Senate and House Cham-
bers. A new plaster cornice and column capitals were provided in
the rotunda at the first floor. A new plaster moulding was added
in the rotunda beneath the metal ceiling at the second floor.

Klutho retained the metal ceiling and lantern installed circa 1911
at the ceiling of the second floor. This work has since been re-
moved and a plaster coffered ceiling installed. The lantern and













Page 7 THE CAPITOL IN 1923


earlier ceiling configuration should be restored. However,
since the pattern of pressed metal is unknown as is the exact
design of the lantern, except for its profile, these areas
could be restored in plaster or other suitable material. If
the lantern was indeed conceived by Milburn, an investigation
of the South Carolina State Capitol dome might reveal his intent.

7. DOORS

Doors from the 1902 and 1911 alterations were apparently left
in place by Klutho. These doors are identified in the 1902
profile and should remain in place for 1923 restoration.

New doors installed by Klutho are clearly identified and detailed
on the 1923 drawings. In general, these doors were two panel,
and the upper panel in many was glazed with obscure glass.
Operable transoms were provided above all doors on the basement
and first floors.

The monumental entrance doors shown on Klutho's drawings appar-
ently remain in place today. However, monumental doors to the
Senate and House Chambers have been removed and should be re-
placed in accordance with the drawings.

8. PLUMBING FIXTURES

The restrooms indicated on Klutho's drawings have been altered
in varying degrees. If fixtures and plumbing brass are found
to remain in good operating condition, they should be retained.
However, for restoration purposes, all existing bathrooms should
be assumed to be updated and modernized as called for in the
1902 profile.

9. LIGHTING FIXTURES

The corridor lighting fixtures on the first floor may date from
1923. All other lighting fixtures have been removed and replaced.
The fluorescent cove light in the corridors of the second floor is
a recent addition and should be removed as part of restoration.

Klutho's drawings indicate that he retained fixtures in the earlier
parts of the building and provided new fixtures only in new con-
struction. Further research is required to establish the types
of fixtures actually used. All fixtures were incandescent, mounted
to ceilings and apparently pendant hung. Restoration should assume
this type of fixture is provided in all major areas.





























































GEOLOGIST

NOT ASSIGNED

BOILER ROOM

METER ROOM

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE

TAX EQUALIZER

FIREPROOF VAULT


1923 BASEMENT

FLOOR PLAN



8. COMPTROLLER

9. VAULT

0. NOT ASSIGNED

1. TREASURER (ACCESS FROM 1ST FLOOR)

2. STORAGE

3. CORRIDORS

4. COAL STORAGE


15. DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT

16. MARBLE STAIRCASE

17. EAST ENTRANCE

18. WEST ENTRANCE

M MEN'S REST ROOM

W. WOMEN'S REST ROOM























































1923 FIRST FLOOR

FLOOR PLAN


ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


BOARD OF CONTROL

VAULT

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE

COMPTROLLER


TREASURER

CLERK OF BOARD OF INSTITUTIONS

GOVERNOR'S SUITE

SECRETARY OF STATE

EAST PORTICO

WEST PORTICO


13. MARBLE STAIRCASE

14. ROTUNDA

M MEN'S REST ROOM

W WOMEN'S REST ROOM






















































1923 SECOND FLOOR

FLOOR PLAN


1. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

2. CLERK

3. SPEAKER

4. SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

5. STAIR TO BALCONY


6. CLERK

7. SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

8. SENATE

9. COMMITTEE ROOM

10. PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE


11. BALCONY ABOVE

12. MARBLE STAIRCASE

13. ROTUNDA

M MEN'S REST ROOM

W WOMEN'S REST ROOM














THE CAPITOL IN 1902


A. GENERAL

This profile extends the Historical Profile, dated January 1977,
to include interior reconstruction and restoration of the 1902
building. Strict reconstruction and restoration is assumed;
the intent is to restore or reconstruct all spaces to their 1902
appearance, with a few exceptions as noted. In the Authentic'version.
no adaptive use is assumed, except that it is assumed that tthe re-
quirements of building codes will be satisfied, and that electrical,
plumbing, and mechanical systems will be modernized in a manner
compatible with restoration.
The following information is tentative and subject to revision
as research continues.

B. INTERIOR PLAN OF 1902 BUILDING

1. GENERAL

The general 1902 building configuration is described in detail
in the Historical Profile, dated January 1977. 1902 changes
which increased usable square footage consisted of the addi-
tion of a north and a south wing housing the Senate and House
on the second floor and providing additional governmental
office space on the first and basement floors.

2. BASEMENT

The exact configuration of the basement cannot be determined
at this time. A number of notes indicating "no change" on
Klutho's 1923 drawings suggest the following arrangements.

The Commissioner of Agriculture may have occupied part or all
of the east side of the south half of the basement. The
Comptroller may have occupied not only the east side of the
north half but also maintained vaults in the west half of
Milburn's 1902 north wing.

The Drainage Department occupied the west half of Milburn's
south wing. From south to north, the west half of the base-
ment also contained the men's toilet, storage (?), lobby, a
vault serving the Treasurer on the floor above, steam heating




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