The National Capital Region of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA/NCR) has identified 52 historic properties of 20th century construction amongst its federally-owned assets.  These properties range from those designed and constructed through competition for the Federal Government,  those designed and constructed by the Office of the Supervisory Architect of the Treasury, and those designed and constructed under the two major new construction programs of the 20th century--the Roosevelt Administration's New Deal accomplishments, and the Kennedy Administration's legacy. 

All of these properties were constructed with the intention of longevity, monumentality and symbolic stability.  These goals were underpinned by the types of documentation generated with each successive construction program, making up the Public Buildings Service record group at the National Archives.  And these goals tended to guide the design architects towards selecting construction products which had been proven to have longevity, with testing and warranties behind them. 

However, these fundamental attitudes did not insulate these properties from the problems faced when man-made materials need to be replicated.  Unlike natural materials, which occasionally become extinct due to ecological changes, man-made materials' extinction may be caused by changes in taste, new technology, or bankruptcy, to name a few.

For the past twenty years, the Public Buildings Service has attempted to maintain, repair and restore portions of these properties which require replication of their original materials.  The pre-World War II buildings used predominantly natural materials, whereas the post-World War II buildings were designed around some of the new man-made technology. 

Several obstacles stand in the way of man-made materials replication:  1) availability, 2) building construction code changes and American Disabilities Act compliance, and 3) contempt for "outdated" materials.  Matching the 20th century man-made materials used in the Public Buildings Service portfolio has proven time after time to be a nearly impossible task.  

Society's need for the latest, improved version of a product has caused the restoration of cork flooring in the Department of Commerce (1932) auditorium to be a difficult undertaking.  At the Department of Interior, (1935) the original innovative suspended ceiling lighting system has been replaced in the marketplace so many times that there is no product available that has any semblance of the original design. 

The U.S. Courthouse (1952) elevators had a precursor of formica used for the cab walls.  It was real wood with a very hard plastic coating applied through a manufacturing process.  The product had long gone out of production, but it was needed for car door replacement.  And the cab flooring, a vinyl asbestos tile, also needed replacement.  This same building's courtrooms' acoustical wall tile has become extinct, with many new technological changes designed into the replacement materials. 

In the 1968 headquarters building for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, designed by Marcel Breuer, a desire to "brighten up" the cafeteria led the concessionaire to paint the architectural concrete.  At the Hubert Humphrey Building, 1974, another Breuer building, the Department of Health and Human Services tenants wanted to replace their original teak elevator cabs with formica for ease of maintenance.  And replication of an unusually colored blue-gray quarry tile for the roofing of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Building caused great color matching difficulty during fabrication. 

The list of retention and replication issues for 20th c. materials in the GSA National Capital Region is almost endless because our properties were predominantly built during the 20th c. and have an inordinate number of demands placed upon them as headquarters properties for the federal government.  I will discuss several case studies to indicate the methodology we have used.

At the U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., several man-made materials have needed replication.  The building was designed and constructed between 1947-1952.  In the words of its architect, Louis Justement of Washington, D.C., "It is an example of contemporary trends relying on simplicity and architectural expression based on adaptation to function".  The building's legislation authorized the design and construction of a new Federal Courthouse building for the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia Judicial Circuit-a joint D.C./federally used building.

At the U.S. Courthouse, there was a desire to remove and replace the wood fibrous acoustic wall tiles in each of the courtrooms in the building.  It was important that the panels be replaced in a way that was both sensitive to the original design and would not compromise the courtrooms' acoustics.  An acoustical consultant was engaged in the project to assure the replacement material's functionality.  

There are 21 courtrooms in the building, divided into five types.  All but one of these courtrooms have their original wood fibrous acoustic wall panels on their rear walls.  These panels are 2 foot x 2 foot tectum panels that have been applied with a mastic.  That one courtroom which does not have tectum panels has an original fabric-covered fiberglass wall system on its rear wall.  The fabric covered wall system design is panelized to recall the extant modular panel design of the wood side walls.

The original drawings of the U.S. Courthouse indicate the architect's intention that all of the courtrooms were to receive a fabric covered acoustic rear wall.  Details and section cuts through each rear wall reference one detail that clearly indicates that a fabric covered fiberglass panel be used.  A wood batten grid with fabric covering which aligns with the wood paneling is the original design intent according to the extant drawings for the courtrooms. 

It is unclear why the tectum panels were installed.  They have good acoustic properties and are less expensive than fabric-covered fiberglass but such cost savings would have been more logically located in less important spaces than the courtrooms.  In addition, the tectum has become extremely soiled because of its tendency to act as a filter for the return air grille found in the center of each courtroom's rear wall which is covered with acoustic material.

A sample of the original fabric covering for the fiberglass panels was found in one of the courtrooms and was able to be used for matching purposes.  A lack of natural light entering the courtrooms eliminated any problems of surface fading.  It has a non-directional diamond pattern and is champagne colored.  Detailing of the new fabric covered fiberglass panels was designed like that of the original design, applying the fabric in the field, but using 1993 technology.

Three stock fabrics were found to be close to the original in color and had uniform, overall subtle patterns, with a diamond shape emphasized but slightly were more textural than the original material.  Since judges always participate in finish selections for their spaces, a ranking of the fabrics was created and offered.  Fourteen of the judges followed the first choice recommendation and seven chose the new second choice fabric.  All fabrics share in common the champagne color and a uniform, overall pattern. 

This process probably mimics some of the steps taken during the building's original construction.  However, this project held the judges within a tighter range of options, and thereby stayed closer to the original architect's design intent.

The 1993 elevator project was initiated to bring the cabs into compliance with ADA.  The project specifications called for cleaning the existing wall paneling with a mild, non-abrasive cleaner such as dish detergent, rinsed thoroughly, and waxed with furniture polish.  Neither sanding nor abrading the surface was recommended. 

All of the extant metal trim is brushed stainless steel, including the cabs' baseboards; handrails; control panels; auxiliary telephone and utility panels; entrance door surrounds; car location and direction indicators; and ceiling ventilators.  This project's specifications required that new control panels match the original metal.  I doubt that the exact formula for stainless steel was matched.  And numerous samples had to be submitted before the "brushed" finish was accepted as matching the original.  The 1952 "brushed" metal finish would now be called a "satin" finish.  It is closest to a No. 25 finish.

At some point in the past, the original car landing doors in the four public passenger cars were replaced with plastic laminate-faced doors.  This probably was designed and constructed because of scaring/defacing of the car doors.  However, this true plastic laminate does not match the color or graining design of the precursor laminated wood paneling of the cab walls.

The 1993 specifications required the elevator contractor to submit products for matching the original laminated wood paneling for the car doors.  However, after six submittals were rejected and the contractor argued that no product could be found to "match"/replicate the laminated wood paneling, it was decided to replace the car doors not in a wood paneling but in stainless steel, to match the original metalwork in the cabs.  This decision to replicate a different original material rather than introduce another man-made material was guided by the GSA's interest in following the original architect's intent.

With regard to the original floor tiles, the physical investigation of the cab flooring indicated that orange brown 12 inch x 12 inch "cork pattern" vinyl tile was found in elevator #6 and seemed to be the most worn floor surface located..  A 6 inch x 6 inch blue "marble pattern" vinyl tile was found in elevator cabs #11 and 13 but appeared to be a newer installation.  In addition, the historical architect believed that the orange-brown color was more consistent with the coloration of the cabs.  The orange-brown tile was almost an exact match to Armstrong Imperial Texture Excelon Tile No 51896 Paprika. 

The decision to replicate a material as closely as possible rather than ask a contemporary architect to choose a distinctly different material reflects my preference to match a material that is known to have been installed at some time rather than allow for replacement as intervention.  I prefer to follow the original architect's intent rather than walk the fine line between clear intervention and remuddling.

Marcel Breuer chose his architectural materials carefully, since the simplicity of their forms would provide the ornament to his buildings.  However, the architectural concrete used throughout the building, including the large first floor cafeteria, was viewed by the building occupants as dirty and depressing.  Rather than engage in cleaning this material, they chose to paint over it with white latex paint as a maintenance activity.  The results negated the original design.  Furthermore, additional changes created a pseudo-park setting indoors--complete with street lights, iron railings, and wooden planter boxes.  These actions were explicit desires for altering original 20th c. materials.  I believe a perceived lack of ease of maintenance caused the demise of this finish. 

We negotiated for the immediate removal of the paint along the architectural concrete window wall and the original exterior building entrance and its vestibule in the cafeteria.  After testing two Prosoco poulticing products--Enviro Strip #2 and Enviro Strip #3 (requires neutralization), --the areas described were very successfully stripped with Enviro Strip #3.  The cost was deemed to be prohibitive to strip all 16 painted columns.  We will have to wait for a future renovation to take that paint off.  In the meantime, a contract is being funded for chemical cleaning of all interior architectural concrete in order to restore it to its original appearance.

In the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, a building just twenty years old, there is a concern that if historic preservation guidelines are applied to this contemporary building, the federal tenants' ability to "update" their building to meet their new needs will be hampered.  There is an explicit desire to alter the original design, and new functional needs are believed to be sufficient justification for obviating the original materials as well. 

This building's public teak elevator cabs had darkened over the twenty years since their installation.  (The original finish was able to be seen in the Secretary's private elevator.)  The cabs also had a few scratches, particularly in the two elevator cabs serving the garage.  There was obviously a lack of appreciation for the teak wood, which is, twenty years later, now a prohibitively expensive natural material.  Replacement with formica had been designed and bid when this proposed change was brought to my attention by the Contracting Officer. 

GSA negotiated a design change with the successful bidder to rehabilitate the teak rather than replace it with formica.  However, the federal tenants do not support this attitude towards their building.  How can it be historic when only twenty years old?

It is difficult to create an appreciation for 20th c. materials.  Familiarity breeds contempt.  Furthermore, familiarity breeds a false sense of expertise regarding the replication of these "common" materials, when "matching" is the desired result.  To truly succeed at replacement and retention of 20th c. materials, an educational process must be undertaken for all involved.  Appreciation for a material and its inherent qualities must be accomplished before "matching" can occur.

Replication may be prohibitively expensive, so substituting a material that comes as close as possible to the original may be the most you can hope for.  Keeping the original architect's intentions at the forefront of the decision-making process will keep the assets from turning into liabilities.