Preservation Plan for the Adkins Parcel at Fort Lowell Park November 2009 Stakeholders 317 North Court Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 Tel: 520.882.6310 Fax: 520.882.0725 Pima County Board of Supervisors Richard Elías, Chairman, Supervisor, District 5 Ann Day, Supervisor, District 1 Ramón Valadez, Supervisor, District 2 Sharon Bronson, Supervisor, District 3 Raymond J. Carroll, Supervisor, District 4 Poster Frost Associates Architects/Planners/Project Manager Pima County Staff C.H. Huckelberry, Pima County Administrator SAGE Landscape Architecture and Environmental Landscape Architecture and Environmental Wood, Patel and Associates Civil and Hydrology Pima County Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Office Desert Archaeology, Inc. Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology ConsultEcon Economic/Marketing/Business Crocker Ltd. Adobe Conservation TLCP Structural Inc. Structural Engineers Bruce Hilpert Interpretation Burns Wald-Hopkins Shambach Architects Consulting Architects John Welch Tribal Liaison Compusult, Inc. Cost Estimating Linda Mayro, Cultural Resources Manager Loy Neff, Program Coordinator Simon Herbert, Program Coordinator City of Tucson Mayor and Council Bob Walkup, Mayor Mike Letcher, City Manager Regina Romero, Ward One Rodney Glassman, Ward Two Karin Uhlich, Ward Three Shirley Scott, Ward Four Steve Leal, Ward Five Nina J. Trasoff, Ward Six Preservation Plan for the Adkins Parcel at Fort Lowell Park (A Companion to the Fort Lowell Park Master Plan) November 2009 Prepared under contract to: Pima County Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Office Pima County Public Works Center 201 N. Stone Avenue, 6th Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 Tel: 520.740.6684 Fax: 520.243.1610 Project Team and Stakeholders Project Team City of Tucson Staff Jim Conroy, Parks and Recreation, East District Midge Irwin, Parks and Recreation, East District Jonathan Mabry, Historic Preservation Officer Lynne Birkinbine, Environmental Manager Fort Lowell Restoration Advisory Committee Members Larry Hecker, Chair Elaine Hill Frank McClure Anne Woosley Peggy Sackheim Patsy Waterfall David Yubeta i Table of Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................................................iii Introduction .................................................................................................................................1 Overview .............................................................................................................................1 Historical Summary ............................................................................................................2 Historical Timeline ..............................................................................................................3 Historical Overlay ...............................................................................................................4 Fort Lowell Park Master Plan – Final Concept Plan ...........................................................5 Existing Conditions- Adkins Parcel .....................................................................................6 Master Plan Detail – Adkins Parcel ....................................................................................7 Adkins Parcel – Phase 1 Detail ..........................................................................................8 Historic Treatments .....................................................................................................................9 Treatments ..........................................................................................................................9 Interpretation ....................................................................................................................10 Management ...............................................................................................................................11 Guiding Principles .............................................................................................................11 Schedule ...........................................................................................................................12 Business Plan ...................................................................................................................13 Capital Costs ....................................................................................................................14 Table of Contents Analysis and Drawings .............................................................................................................15 Fort Lowell Resources ......................................................................................................15 Partial Adkins Parcel Site Plan (Existing) ..........................................................................16 Partial Adkins Parcel Site Plan (Proposed) ......................................................................17 Officer’s Quarters #1 ........................................................................................................18 Officer’s Quarters #2 ........................................................................................................25 Officer’s Quarters #3 ........................................................................................................36 Adkins-Era Resources ......................................................................................................52 Landscape and Site Features ...........................................................................................54 References .................................................................................................................................55 Appendices ................................................................................................................................56 Appendix A - Assessment by Crocker Ltd. ........................................................................56 Appendix B - Detailed Cost Estimate ...............................................................................60 ii 1. View of Officer’s Quarters #1, #2, and #3 22. Interpretive “ghosting” at Franklin Court in 41. Officer’s Quarters #2 & Kitchen looking NW. (PFA) with proposed treatments and ghosting. (PFA)..cover Philadelphia.............................................................10 ................................................................................25 42. Officer’s Quarters #2 northeast corner. (PFA).........25 2. Cottonwood Lane, looking east about 1889. Note 23. Fort Lowell Park Master Plan - Proposed Ghosting porches on Officer’s Quarters. (AHS)................cover of Officer’s Quarters #6 and 7 for Picnic Ramada. 43. Officer’s Quarters #2 southeast corner. (PFA)........25 (PFA).......................................................................10 3. Fort Lowell, Parade Ground looking south. (AHS)..... 44. Officer’s Quarters #2 Kitchen, south wall. (PFA)....25 ...........................................................................cover 24. Protective roof over Fort Lowell Hospital ruins. (PFA) ................................................................................10 45. Officer’s Quarters #3 looking southwest from 4. HABS documentation of Officer’s Quarters #3, 1940. Cottonwood Lane. (PFA)........................................36 (NPS modified by PFA)......................................cover 25. Santa Barbara Presidio showing footprint of building in pavement............................................................10 46. Officer’s Quarters #3, looking northwest. (PFA)......36 5. Adkins Parcel (in red) shown within the boundary of Fort Lowell Park. (PFA)............................................1 26. NPS-28 Management Model. (NPS).......................11 47. Officer’s Quarters #3, north elevation. (PFA)..........36 67. Knob & tube wiring. (BWS).....................................41 68. Sink in southwest corner. (PFA)............................. 41 69. Adkins-era resources looking northeast. (PFA)......52 70. 1940s aerial photo of Adkins Buildings from the Magee Collection held at the Arizona Historic Society. RC Magor residence is located at lower left portion of image. Adkins Residence, prior to circa 1950 addition, is visible in the center of the photograph. Officer’s Quarters #1 visible at lower right. The reconstructed commissary buildings are located in the upper left portion of the image. (AHS) ................................................................................52 6. The 1876 map of Fort Lowell, redrawn by Don 27. On-Site Management Meeting with multiple 48. Fort Lowell Officer’s Row, around 1904, with Bufkin.(AHS).............................................................2 departments and disciplines represented. (PFA)....11 Officer’s Quarters #3 and its wooden addition. (AHS) 71. Adkins Residence looking northeast. (PFA)............53 ................................................................................36 72. Water damage at roof eave. (PFA).........................53 7. Pithouse village. (DAI)..............................................3 28. La Reunión de el Fuerte site tour. (PFA).................11 49. Drainage swale to the east of the building. (PFA)...37 73. Water Tower with damaged steel brace. (PFA).......53 8. Officer’s Row around 1904 with Officer’s Quarters 29. Applying mud-plaster rendering wash to Officer’s #1 in the foreground. (AHS)......................................3 Quarters #2, east wall, February 2009. (PFA).........11 50. West wall after removal of the contrapared.(PFA)..37 74. Windmill Base showing rusted structure. (PFA)......53 9. Adkins Residence looking northeast. (PFA).............3 30. Hands-on maintenance workshop, 2009. (PFA).....11 51. East Elevation. (BWS)............................................37 75. Fabrication Shed looking northwest. (PFA).............53 10. Timeline of Tucson Valley and Fort Lowell Park. 31. Schedule for Adkins Parcel Implementation with 52. North wall showing Fort-era door at center. (BWS) (PFA)........................................................................3 Future Master Plan Phases Shown. (PFA).............12 ................................................................................37 76. Interior bracing at Steel Fabrication Shed. (PFA) ................................................................................53 11. Fort Lowell-era buildings overlain on modern aerial 32. Phase 1 staffing at Fort Lowell Park. Taken from Fort 53. Original window to be restored. (BWS)...................38 77. Ferocactus wislizeni near Officer’s Quarters. (PFA) photograph. (DAI).....................................................4 Lowell Park Master Plan Final Report. (CE)...........13 ................................................................................54 54. View of the ceiling showing wood beams. (PFA)....38 12. Fort Lowell Park Master Plan - Final Concept. (PFA/ 33. From left to right, OQ#3, #2, and #1 showing SAGE)......................................................................5 proposed treatments, including ghosting on #2 and 55. Roof prior to installation of temporary roof. (BWS).38 78. Fort Lowell Hospital, looking east, circa 1889. (AHS) ................................................................................54 #1. (PFA).................................................................15 13. Adkins Parcel - Existing Conditions. (PFA)...............6 56. Existing Canales at east wall. (PFA).......................38 79. Cottonwood Lane, looking west, circa 1889. (AHS) 34. View from Parade Ground looking southeast across ................................................................................54 14. Master Plan Detail - Adkins Parcel. (PFA/SAGE).....7 57. Northeast chimney prior to de-construction. Cottonwood Lane towards Officer’s Quarters #3. (BWS).....................................................................39 Picket fence will be reconstructed during 80. Proposed HAWK signal at Craycroft Rd. (SAGE)...54 15. Adkins Parcel - Phase 1 Detail (PFA).......................8 implementation of the Master Plan. Note: Image was 58. Original Firebrick. (BWS)........................................39 produced during the master planning process 16. Fort Lowell Hospital, with its protective roof is an and does not accurately depict the final design for example of preservation. (PFA)................................9 59. Fort-era plaster with later paint finish. (PFA)...........39 the area behind Officer’s Quarters #2 or the area Image Sources / Photography Credits east of Craycroft Road.(PFA)..................................15 17. The Commissary Apartments were developed in 60. Historic interior door at northwest room. (BWS).....39 AHS Arizona Historical Society the 1930s and 40s before the Secretary of the 35. Officer’s Quarters #1 looking southwest from Interior’s Standards were developed. The approach Cottonwood Lane. (PFA)........................................18 61. Original wood floor. (BWS).....................................40 BWS BWS Architects mixed restoration and reconstruction with the artistic ConsultEcon, Inc. license of the builder. (PFA)......................................9 36. Officer’s Quarters #1 looking west. (PFA)...............18 62. Exposed saguaro ribs above plaster ceiling. (PFA) CE ................................................................................40 DAI Desert Archaeology, Inc. 18. The Fort Lowell Museum, built in 1963, is an 37. Sacrificial mud cap on historic adobe wall. (PFA)...18 63. Original wood base. (BWS)....................................40 example of reconstruction. (PFA).............................9 NPS National Park Service 38. Officer’s Quarters #1 looking south. (PFA).............18 64. 20th Century bead board cabinets. (BWS).............40 PFA 19. Officer’s Quarters #1. (PFA).....................................9 Poster Frost Associates 39. Officer’s Quarters #1 looking northwest. (PFA).......18 65. Existing ceiling cavity without insulation. (BWS).....41 SAGE SAGE Landscape Architecture and 20. Officer’s Quarters #2. (PFA).....................................9 Environmental 40. Officer’s Quarters #2 looking southwest from 21. Officer’s Quarters #3. (PFA).....................................9 Cottonwood Lane. (PFA)........................................25 66. Historic fireplace. (BWS).........................................41 List of Figures List of Figures iii Overview ● Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property’s form as it has evolved over time. ● Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property’s historic character. ● Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods. ● Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes. The Adkins Parcel Preservation Plan (Preservation Plan) is a companion document to the Fort Lowell Park Master Plan (Master Plan). The approved Master Plan provides guidance on the future of Fort Lowell Park’s (Park) entire 70 acres, including the Adkins Parcel. The Preservation Plan develops the broad principles outlined in the Master Plan into a set of specific recommendations pertaining solely to the 5.2 acre Adkins Parcel. The Preservation Plan is referred to as a Restoration Plan in the 2004 Pima County Bond Agreement. The title of this document has been changed to the Preservation Plan because preservation is a more accurate and precise definition for the treatment of the Adkins Parcel. Available funding, remaining from the 2004 Pima County Bonds, for implementation of the Preservation Plan is approximately 1.2 million dollars. This remaining money will be used to preserve and protect fragile Fort-Period resources, including Officer’s Quarters #1, 2 and 3. If funding for additional items is available, it will be spent on the rehabilitation of the site, including the reestablishment of Cottonwood Lane and the replanting of cottonwood trees around the Parade Ground. Interpretive panels and displays may also be included in this phase of the project. Furthermore, the Preservation Plan represents a significant project milestone, and signals the transition from preservation planning activities to construction and public enjoyment of the site. Over the next two years, it is anticipated that the Adkins Parcel will become an integral component of Fort Lowell Park and the broader City of Tucson Park’s system. At the conclusion of Phase 1, the site will be clean and safe for visitors. All hazardous materials will have been removed, the buildings will be secured, and a management structure will be in place to allow for visitation to the site. Project Background: The Adkins Parcel, a 5.2 acre parcel with significant resources dating to the Fort Lowell Period, is located at the southwest corner of Craycroft and Fort Lowell Roads and lies within the local Fort Lowell Historic District Overlay Zone. On May 18, 2004, the citizens of Pima County voted to allocate bond funding for the acquisition, planning, design and construction of historic resources on the Adkins Parcel. Using this funding and a land swap, the City of Tucson acquired the property in 2006. The Adkins Parcel is named for the Adkins Family who maintained ownership of this portion of historic Fort Lowell from 1928 to 2006. Importantly, the Adkins Parcel includes extant remains of three original Officer’s Quarters constructed in the mid 1870s. In addition to providing stewardship of the three Officer’s Quarters, the Adkins Family constructed a number of buildings and structures on the site, including a residence and steel fabrication shed. A more complete overview of the history of the Adkins Parcel can be found in Desert Archaeology’s Cultural Resource Assessment for Fort Lowell Adkins Steel Property within Historic Fort Lowell. Since acquiring the site, the City and County have cooperated on site and environmental clean-up and the emergency stabilization of the three Officer’s Quarters. Building Condition Assessment Reports were completed for the Officer’s Quarters and the Adkins Residence. Purchase of the Adkins Parcel was the last of several acquisitions completed by the City of Tucson over the past two decades to re-unite the parcels formerly occupied by Fort Lowell. In 1985, the City of Tucson acquired the Donaldson-Hardy parcel at the north side of the Park that includes the remains of the Fort-era Cavalry Corrals. In 2002, the Commissary Apartments, located at the northwest corner of Fort Lowell and Craycroft Roads, were acquired. The Commissary Apartments were created on the foundations of the Fort-era Commissary by the Bolsius Family in the 1930s and 40s. With the acquisition of the Adkins Parcel a comprehensive Master Plan for all these parcels and the existing Fort Lowell Park was needed The Fort Lowell Park Master Plan commenced in June 2008. Over the course of a year, the plan was developed through an involved public process that included three public meetings, numerous meetings with local recreational and historical groups and consultation with Native American Tribes. The Fort Lowell Restoration Advisory Committee was established to provide oversight to the process and to make a final recommendation on the Master Plan and Preservation Plan. Introduction The Adkins Parcel at Fort Lowell Park contains the best preserved building as well as many ruins and subsurface features dating to Fort Lowell (18731891). Officer’s Quarters #3, still largely intact from its Fort-Era incarnation, is among the most significant local buildings remaining from the end of the 19th Century. Over the past two years, a comprehensive Master Plan has been developed for Fort Lowell Park, including the Adkins Parcel. This Master Plan emphasizes the importance of Fort Lowell and places a high priority on making this local and national story more visible on the site. Through implementation of the Master Plan, visitors to Fort Lowell Park will have the opportunity to better understand the important role the United States Military played in the history of this region. According to the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Guide to Historic Preservation, a Preservation Plan is a document that “describes how the property can be stabilized, preserved, used, and interpreted by means of schematic plans, elevations, and text. The plan summarizes all of the decisions made regarding the property’s treatment, along with a recommended schedule and budget for further investigation and the actual work.” The Adkins Parcel Preservation Plan summarizes the decisions made during the Master Plan for the resources on the Adkins Parcel. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Properties have been used to inform the planning processes for the historic resources on the Adkins Parcel. During design and construction, the Standards will be used to develop the specific treatments recommended by this Preservation Plan. In brief, the four standards can be summarized as follows: 1 Figure 5: Adkins Parcel (in red) shown within the boundary of Fort Lowell Park. Historical Summary ● ● ● ● ● Paleoindian Period (11,500? -7500 B.C.) Archaic Period (7500-2100 B.C.) Early Agricultural Period (2100 B.C.-A.D. 50) Early Ceramic Period (A.D. 50-500) Hohokam Sequence [the first period of human occupation of this Fort Lowell site] (A.D. 5001450) ● Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1450-1697) ● Spanish and Mexican Periods (A.D. 1697-1856) ● and the American Period (1856-Present). Highlights of the history of Fort Lowell are included below. Following the written description is a more detailed timeline of the Tucson Valley and Fort Lowell. Prehistoric archaeological resources were first noted at Fort Lowell in 1884 by Adolf Bandelier (Gregonis 1997:viii). An archaeological excavation was conducted between 1976 and 1978 by the Arizona State Museum. The 1976-1978 excavations took place on the eastern side of the park near the pecan grove; 36 features were documented including nine pit structures, “caliche borrow pits, possible storage pits, a work area, roasting pits, a cemeteryoffertory area, and enigmatic groups of postholes” (Gregonis 1997:11). The features dated from about A.D. 650 to A.D. 1300, and indicate the occupation was both lengthy and intensive. This period includes the Snaketown phase, the early Cañada del Oro phase, the Rillito phase, the Late Rincon phase, and the Tanque Verde phase. Artifacts and/or pithouses from all these phases , were found scattered throughout the Fort Lowell Park area. the camp be relocated along the Rillito, at a point along the creek 6 miles northeast of Tucson. In March 1873, the troops were relocated, initially living in canvas tents (Peterson 1976). At completion, the Fort was centered around a large parade ground with a flagstaff in its center south side. The seven officer’s quarters were located along the southern edge with a double row of cottonwood trees along their front, known as Officer’s Row. The commanding officer’s quarters was in the center, with three officer’s quarters on each side. Adobe walls enclosed the backyards of each of the houses, and a picket fence framed their front (Peterson 1976:13). A map drafted in 1876 shows the layout of the post (Figure 6). The original buildings at the Fort had adobe brick walls. Pine beams brought from the Santa Catalina Mountains were laid across the tops of the walls. Over these beams, saguaro ribs were positioned, and earth was packed on top. During the rainy seasons of 1876, 1877, and 1878 the roofs leaked, and earth and mud fell into the rooms (Weaver 1947:73). Tin roofs were not installed until sometime after mid-1879. Porches and screen doors were added in 1882; the milled lumber and other materials required were easier to transport after the 1880 railroad arrival in Tucson. Overall, little money was spent for maintenance, repair, and new construction at the fort (Peterson 1976:10). Post-Fort Lowell Era: The removal of soldiers from the fort probably led to the systematic salvaging of furniture, ordinance, and other useful items by the United States military. Some of the building materials were apparently stripped from structures and taken to Fort Yuma for reuse (David Faust, personal communication 2007). In 1896, the Arizona Daily Citizen reported that the Department of the Interior, General Land Office, had authorized the sale of buildings and the land. An auction was held on 18 November 1896, and many of the buildings were sold. The auction raised a total of $1,080. The purchasers stripped the windows, doors, and their frames; beams, tin roofing, and wood flooring. Many items were later incorporated into homes built in Camp Lowell and Fort Lowell downtown Tucson (Fort Lowell ephemeral file, AHS). Camp Lowell was initially established by the U.S. Afterwards, some buildings became the residences Army in the downtown portion of Tucson in 1856. of local Mexican-American families, although little For various reasons, commanders recommended that is known about these individuals. Other buildings Figure 6: The 1876 map of Fort Lowell, redrawn by Don Bufkin. decayed due to neglect and vandalism. Sanatorium Period and Other Uses The early 1900s also saw the opening of at least three sanitariums in and around Fort Lowell. Dollie Cate operated one on the south side of Fort Lowell Road beginning in 1908 (Thiel et al. 2008), taking care of tubercular patients in Officers Quarters 1, 2, and 3. Dollie Cate was born in 1871 in Tennessee and had moved to Tucson with her husband Dixie in search for a cure for his tuberculosis. Unfortunately, he died in 1908. Mrs. Cate’s sold her sanitarium to Harvey and Fronia Adkins in February 1928. The Adkins had moved to Tucson to try to cure their daughter Minerva’s tuberculosis, but like Dixie Cate, Minerva Adkins died from the disease in 1927 (Thiel et al. 2008). The Adkins operated a rest home in the Officers Quarters into the 1940s. In the 1930s son Marion Adkins started the Adkins Trucking and Steel Manufacturing Company. The family built two small adobe homes, a concrete-clad manufacturing barn, a windmill, and several other buildings on the property. Steel tank production lasted up into the 2000s (Thiel et al. 2008). Figure 11 shows the relationship between Historic Fort Lowell and existing development in and around Fort Lowell Park. Introduction The Tucson Valley is the historical context of the current site of Fort Lowell Park. While it is true that this particular stretch of riparian eco-system along the western bank of the Pantano Wash (at its confluence with the Tanque Verde Wash to form the Rillito) has relatively recent inhabitation, the valley context of Fort Lowell Park itself has been occupied by a wide range of people, over a long period of time, evolving through a series of historical periods: 2 1780 1800 1820 Figure 10: Timeline of Tucson Valley and Fort Lowell Park. 1840 1860 1880 SPANISH, MEXICAN AND AMERICAN PERIODS TIMELINE OF TUCSON VALLEY AND FORT LOWELL PARK 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Introduction City of Tucson Trades for Adkins Property 2006 Pima County Cultural Resources Bonds 2004 1000 AD City of Tucson Buys Quartermaster/Commissary Property 2002 City of Tucson Buys Hardy & Donaldson Property 1985 City of Tucson Buys Park from Pima County 1984 Fort Lowell Neighborhood Listed on National Register 1978 0 Hardy Family Buys House from Donaldson Family 1978 Additional Recreation Facilities Built 1975 Pima County Buys 20 Acres of Land 1975 City of Tucson Buys 3 Acres from Boy Scouts 1972 Major Recreation Improvements to Park 1970 Swimming Pool and Bath House Built in Park 1967 1000 BC Preservationists Build Reconstructed Officers Quarters 1963 American Period (1856-Present) (A.D. 1697-1856) Spanish and Mexican Periods (A.D. 1450-1697) Protohistoric Period (A.D. 500-1450) Hohokam Sequence (A.D. 50-500) Early Ceramic Period Quarters #1 in the foreground. Pima County Buys Fort Lowell from Boy Scouts 1957 (2100 B.C.-A.D. 50) Early Agricultural Period (7500 - 2100 BC) Archaic Period HISTORICAL TIMELINES, FORT LOWELL PARK AND TUCSON VALLEY Figure 7: Pithouse village. Figure 8: Officer’s Row around 1904 with Officer’s Boy Scouts Build Roof over Hospital 1953 "Adkins Rest Ranch" Sanatorium Closes 1950 Donaldson Family Buys Land East of Craycroft 1947 Boy Scouts Purchase Fort Lowell 1945 Bolsius Family Rehabilitates the Commissary 1940's UA/ Arizona State Museum Withdraws from Site 1941 2000 BC Bolsius Family Rehabilitates the Pie Allen Store 1930's Adkins Family Opens Steel Production 1934 UA/Arizona State Museum Begins Work on Site 1930's Adkins Family Buys Land from Dollie Cate 1928 3000 BC Chamber of Commerce Posts Historical Sign in Park 1918 Nellie Swan Sanatorium North of Fort Lowell Road 1916 Boy Scouts First Use Fort Lowell 1912 4000 BC Dollie Cate Sanatorium South of Fort Lowell Road 1908 Sale of Buildings and Land Authorized, Salvage Begins 1896 Fort Lowell Abandoned BY US Army 1891 5000 BC Surrender of Geronimo 1886 6000 BC Fort Lowell Established at Current Site 1873 Gadsden Purchase 1854. Camp Lowell Established 1856 7000 BC Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Ends US-México War 1848 San Augustin Mission Abandoned 1831 8000 BC Mexican Independence from Spain 1821 9000 BC San Xavier del Bac Church completed 1797 El Presidio de Tucson Built 1776 San Agustín Mission Constructed 1773 Historical Timeline Figure 9: Adkins Residence looking northeast. 2000 AD PRE-HISTORIC AND HISTORIC PERIODS TIMELINE OF TUCSON VALLEY AND FORT LOWELL PARK 3 Historical Overlay Key to Historic Fort Lowell Buildings: Hay Ya rd Corral r a b c d e f g h i k l Fort Lowell Historic District s w Corral i k p Guard House n u i f u u Infantry Kitchen d Storehouse u Infantry Quarters u u m Parade Ground l c v c v c v v i u g Hospital b c v b c b b c v Circa Late 1880s v c Fort Lowell Park Cultural Resources Assessment CRAYCROFT ROAD v c Well h Officer' s/Cotto nwood Row b a b b d Fort Lowell Park Officers Quarters/Kitchens b Unidentified Structures 1940's? o Wash Pantan Bake House v Bake House Guard House Q.M. & Commissary Offices Post Trader's Store Q.M. Corral Cavalry Corral Telegraph Office Laundresses Quarters Privies Blacksmith Shop Introduction FORT LOWELL ROAD v i e o t m n o p r s t u v w Project Area v Band Quarters Commanding Officer's Quarters Officer's Quarters Officer's Kitchens Infantry Company's Quarters Cavalry Band Quarters Cavalry Company's Quarters Hospital Hospital Kitchens Company Kitchens Q.M. & Commissary Storehouses Adjutant's Office Tucson, Pima County, Arizona Fort Lowell and Extant Historic Ruins Showing Modern Orthophotography N True Key Historic Fort Lowell Building Meters Historic Fort Lowell Adobe Wall GLENN STREET 0 Extant Historic Building/Ruin Feet 80 0 AZ State Plane Central, NAD 83 (HARN), NAVD 88 (GEOID 03), Metric Figure 11: Fort Lowell-era buildings overlain on modern aerial photograph. Desert Archaeology, Inc. 2009 Basemap compiled from PCLIS data, AHS archival sources, and photogrametry 320 4 Fort Lowell Park Master Plan - Final Concept Plan Craycroft Road A Preserve Officer’s Quarters #1 Ruins and add ghosting. B Protect Officer’s Quarters #2 and Kitchen Ruins with a protective roof that defines original volumes. C Rehabilitate Officer’s Quarter #3 to interpret a late Fort- Era Building, circa mid 1880s. Interpretive ghosting or reconstruction of #3 kitchen and privy, if further investigation determines its former existence. D Interpretive ghosting of Officer’s Quarters #6 and #7 for use as picnic ramada. At 1963 reconstruction, use footprint to indicate the correct location for OQ #5. E Preserve Fort Lowell Hospital walls as a stabilized ruin with 1950s protective roof. Cap walls not included under the existing protective roof. Use interpretive ghosting to reveal the full footprint of the hospital. K R J * A 12 KK I A 11 F Interpretive ghosting of two Infantry Company Quarters. No functional use proposed. G Contemporary building, at the location of a Fort-Era building, to serve as public restrooms and storage. H Interpretive ghosting of Cavalry Company Quarters. Use as a picnic ramada, shade structure and for special events. I Re-use Hardy - Donaldson House for community use and meeting space. Use adobe cottage as support space for the Community Garden. J Raised-bed Community Garden. K Stabilize and preserve Cavalry Corrals ruins. Remove protective roof to mitigate visual impact. Commissary Apartments – Transition from residential to public cultural uses. Uses may included interpretive exhibits, gift shop and limited food service. Existing zoning allows a maximum of two residential units. M Contemporary building, at the location of the FortEra Adjutant’s Office, with new self-guided exhibits, park restrooms, office and storage. N Cottonwood Lane – Transition existing misaligned rows to the correct location with selective removal and replanting. Extend Cottonwood Lane across Craycroft Road and along the east and west edges of the parade ground. Reconstruct picket fence based on documentation. L H MM LL W BB F Z Z O * X F A G 36 Y Z * * S * N A B E S A N C P R S Potential Location for existing Chief Trumpeter Statue. T Expand Fort Lowell Park Pool Building, including new bathhouse at south end of pool. Include new concession area to serve all park functions. Renovate existing pool building. OO GG A HH A FF 110 Spaces D * Adkins Residence to be stabilized to allow for future decision once Master Plan is partially implemented. Preserve 1963 reconstructed Officer’s Quarters and Kitchen. Maintain existing museum use until a future new museum is constructed on the site. May be reused by preservation groups following completion of a new museum. “Hawk” Crossing at Craycroft Road. Crosswalk with push-button activated signal at the Cottonwood Lane alignment. Potential location for proposed Apache Bronze Statue. - D G *T PP JJ U NN U EE DD V Re-use existing maintenance building for environmental education center and sustainability demonstration area for conservation groups like Tucson Audubon Society. W Hohokam Pit House Village Re-Creation and NN DD Maintenance Shed and limited materials storage adjacent to reclaimed water site. Interpretive Area. Consider “mock-dig” area. Native American and Environmental History “Gateway Portal.” Refresh existing Hardy site interpretive area with new exhibits that introduce visitors to natural areas along the Pantano wash. Y Play areas. X CC EE Z S Glenn Street North ° Figure 12: Fort Lowell Park Master Plan - Final Concept. 0 50’100’ 200’ Scale A 100 Spaces Fitness area and equipment. AA New Fort Lowell Museum at Phase 3. Building may contain food service and activities for all Park visitors. BB Existing pond with new water conservation features and additional landscape. CC Championship baseball diamond. DD Multi-purpose soccer and football fields. EE Tee-ball / Little League Fields. 4 Existing fields to remain. Skinned infields will continue to be overseeded in October for use during F.L. Shoot-Out. FF Existing Tennis Courts and Tennis Building to remain. Lighting to be improved. Adjacent racquetball courts to be removed. GG Pool / tennis viewing area. Provide shaded bleacher seating for viewing tennis and swimming. Introduction Q Q - 195 Spaces - P V Y AA M O ash no W Panta II Fort Lowell Road Project Planning Boundary L HH Preserve and enhance existing pecan grove. II Craycroft and Fort Lowell Road Intersection. Provide north-bound left turn lane from Craycroft to Fort Lowell. Eliminate south-bound merge lane from Fort Lowell Road to Craycroft Road. JJ Multi-use recreational path. KK Preserve as open space / archaeological preserve. LL Interpretive ghosting of Bake House. MM Interpretive ghosting / footprint of Guard House. NN Storage for recreational sports uses. OO New entry plaza at pool. PP New Allée of trees for use during special events such as the Fort Lowell Soccer Shootout. Total Parking = 464 Spaces 5 Existing Conditions - Adkins Parcel 1 Fort Lowell Road 12 14 12 4 1a 13 6 2 5 CITY FENCE IS ON ADJACENT OWNER’S PROPERTY 8 13 7 10 10 Craycroft Road 9 12 2 1 1a 13 ° 50’ 100’ 200’ Adkins Parcel Scale Figure 13: Adkins Parcel - Existing Conditions. Keyplan PRESERVE / NO GHOSTING PRESERVE / ADD GHOSTING PRESERVE / ADD GHOSTING 3 OFFICER'S QUARTERS #3 REHABILITATE TO MID-1880s FORT PERIOD 4 FORT-ERA GUARD HOUSE (RUINS) PRESERVE 5 ADKINS RESIDENCE STABILIZE FOR FUTURE DECISION 6 ADKINS STEEL FABRICATION SHED DOCUMENT AND REMOVE 7 RC MAGOR RESIDENCE (RUINS) DOCUMENT AND REMOVE 8 ADKINS-ERA WATER TOWER STABILIZE FOR FUTURE DECISION 9 ADKINS-ERA WINDMILL BASE DOCUMENT AND REMOVE 10 ADKINS-ERA CONCRETE SLAB DOCUMENT AND REMOVE 11 EARLY 20TH C. CONC. San Francisco Blvd. PRESERVE / ADD GHOSTING OQ #2 KITCHEN (PARTIAL RUINS) 3 2a TREATMENT 2a 11 0 OFFICER'S QUARTERS #1 (RUINS) OFFICER'S QUARTERS #1 KITCHEN (RUINS) OFFICER'S QUARTERS #2 (PARTIAL RUINS) 10 13 North RESOURCE WATER TANK DOCUMENT AND REMOVE 12 ENTRY GATE IN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN IN USE INDEFINATELY 13 EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE TO REMAIN IN USE INDEFINATELY 14 ASPHALT SLAB REMOVE Introduction KEY Portions of the three western-most original Officer’s Quarters remain on the Adkins Parcel. There are also two buildings and a number of site structures and objects from the Adkins Period. Underlying these later occupations are the prehistorical archaeological remains of the Hohokam. The Adkins Parcel contains the best preserved Officer’s Quarters, including largely intact Officer’s Quarters #3 and partial ruins of Officer’s Quarters #2 and 1. Officer’s Quarters #2 also has a portion of its kitchen building still intact. Located at the northeast corner of the parcel, the Adkins Residence is a small vernacular bungalow constructed around 1934. It was the main residence for the Adkins Family from the 1934 to 2006. The building consists of an adobe core with a two room concrete block addition, added around 1950. The building features a low-slope red clay tile roof. South of the residence are the Adkin’s Era Water Tower and Windmill Base. West of the Adkins Residence is the Adkins Steel Fabrication Shed, constructed about 1950. This structure is an innovative, site-built, rectangular structure measuring 36 feet x 60 feet. In close proximity of the shed are a number of concrete slabs used by the Adkins in the manufacturing of steel water tanks. The west side of the parcel is mostly vacant, with the exception of the ruins of a former RC Magor residence and some asphalt paving in the far northwest corner. The Adkins Parcel contains mostly native vegetation including mesquite, creosote, acacia sp., prickly pear, barrel cactus, cholla and saguaros. A pomegranate, pecan, and lemon tree are also present on the Adkins Parcel. The site is entirely fenced and temporary security lighting has been installed. A neighborhood resident walks the site daily to provide additional oversight. 6 Master Plan Overview - Adkins Parcel Fort Lowell Road 6 14 5 A 4 12 7 11 13 Craycroft Road * 9 8 1 10 2 3 San Francisco Blvd. North ° 0 50’ 100’ Scale Figure 14: Master Plan Detail - Adkins Parcel. 200’ 11 The Adkins Parcel is a key component of the alignment chosen for the Fort Lowell Master Plan due to the important historic resources Museum and Cottonwood Lane when they were and its location at the western side of the former Fort. reconstructed in the early 1960s. The picket Many important Fort Lowell buildings and features fence (#9) between Cottonwood Lane and the were originally located on the Adkins Parcel. The Parade Ground will also be reconstructed. southwest corner of the Parade Ground and several ● Cottonwood Lane is the primary pedestrian of the buildings arranged along the western and route linking the Adkins Parcel with the portions southern edges of the Parade Ground were present of Fort Lowell Park east of Craycroft Road. A within the boundary of the Adkins Parcel. push-button activated HAWK signal is Revealing the spatial organization of Fort Lowell proposed for the Cottonwood Lane alignment at is a primary principle of the overall Master Plan. On Craycroft Road (#10). A landscape median the Adkins Parcel, this principle is applied in several containing two cottonwood trees is also ways: included at Craycroft. ● The Parade Ground (#11) is the other feature ● The remains of three original Officers Quarters that will visually connect and unify the Adkins (#1,2,3 on plan), at the southern edge of the Parcel with the portions of Fort Lowell Park east former Parade Ground, are preserved. of Craycroft Road. The Parade Ground east of Restoration and interpretive “ghosting” will be Craycroft will continue to function as a multi used to re-create the historic scale and feel of use area including limited use by tee-ball groups this area. and soccer teams. The Parade Ground at the ● A contemporary building (#4) will be Adkins Parcel will be used less intensively and constructed at the location of the Adjutant’s informally. The surface material on the east side Office. This building will be a primary point-of will remain turf while the surface on the Adkins contact for visitors arriving at the Adkins Parcel Parcel may be turf or native , drought-tolerant and contain self-guided exhibit space explaining grasses. all eras of history on the site, restrooms, an office and storage. Currently, no surface remains A new parking lot (#12) is proposed for the of this building are exposed. western edge of the Adkins Parcel. This parking lot ● Further to the north, the former Bake House will be accessed from Fort Lowell Road and will be (#5) and Guard House (#6) will be re-created screened from adjacent parcels to the west and south using interpretive ghosting to define the with native vegetation (#13). buildings at the western edge of the Parade Located in the middle of the Parade Ground, the Ground. Surface and subsurface remains of Adkins Residence, will be preserved until more of these two structures have previously been the Fort-Era buildings and features are reestablished recorded. in their historic locations. Once the spatial definition ● Cottonwood trees (#7) around large portions of of the Parade ground is reestablished, the Adkins the Parade Ground, an important characterResidence will be reevaluated to determine if its defining feature, will be restored. On the Adkins presence is intrusive. Parcel, cottonwood trees will be replanted at the western and southern sides of the Parade Ground. On the southern side, a double row of cottonwoods will be replanted to create “Cottonwood Lane,” (#8) a shady allée that separated the Officer’s Quarters from the Parade Ground. The reestablishment of Cottonwood. Lane on the Adkins Parcel will follow the historic alignment rather than the more northern Introduction Master Plan Detail - Adkins Parcel 7 Adkins Parcel - Phase 1 Detail KEYNOTES 1 Fort Lowell Road 6 14 1a 4 8 11 6 7 Craycroft Road 5 9 2 1a 2a 5 6 6 San Francisco Blvd. 7 8 North ° 0 50’ 100’ Scale Figure 15: Adkins Parcel - Phase 1 Detail INCREASE DENSITY OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER. OFFICER’S QUARTERS #1 KITCHEN (RUINS) STABILIZE EXISTING ADOBE WALLS AND PROVIDE SACRIFICIAL MUD CAP. 12 EXISTING FORT LOWELL MUSEUM TO REMAIN. 13 EXISTING COMMISSARY APARTMENTS TO REMAIN. 14 STONES FROM FORT LOWELL GUARDHOUSE TO BE PRESERVED. OFFICER’S QUARTERS #2 KITCHEN (PARTIAL RUINS) PROVIDE NEW GHOSTING TO DEFINE THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT AND VOLUME. STABILIZE EXISTING ADOBE WALLS USING NEW GHOSTED STRUCTURE FOR SUPPORT AND PROTECTION. 4 12 11 2a 3 11 NEW FENCING AT SOUTHERN ROW OF COTTONWOODS TO SECURE THREE OFFICER’S QUARTERS. OFFICER’S QUARTERS #2 (PARTIAL RUINS) PROVIDE NEW GHOSTING TO DEFINE THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT AND VOLUME. STABILIZE EXISTING ADOBE WALLS USING NEW GHOSTED STRUCTURE FOR SUPPORT AND PROTECTION. 3 1 10 2 8 10 OFFICER’S QUARTERS #1 (RUINS) PROVIDE NEW GHOSTING TO DEFINE THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT AND VOLUME. STABILIZE EXISTING ADOBE WALLS AND PROVIDE SACRIFICIAL MUD CAP. 200’ 9 OFFICER’S QUARTERS #3 - REHABILITATE BUILDING TO MID-1880S FORT PERIOD. ADKINS RESIDENCE - STABILIZE AND PROTECT UNTIL DETERMINATION IS MADE CONCERNING RE-USE. ADKINS-ERA WATER TOWER STABILIZE AND PROTECT UNTIL DETERMINATION IS MADE CONCERNING RE-USE. EXISTING FENCE AT PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN. RELOCATE FENCE ON WEST SIDE TO CORRECT LOCATION. This detail plan for the Adkins Parcel represents the items considered priorities for completion during Phase 1. Some of these items may be deferred to a future phase if the current level of funding is not adequate. The preservation, rehabilitation, and interpretation of Officer’s Quarters #1, #2, and 3 are considered the highest priorities. Other priorities are protection of the Adkins Residence to allow a future determination of its long-term viability and the replanting of cottonwood trees at the perimeter of the Parade Ground. An important element to incorporate early in the implementation of the Master Plan is the HAWK crossing at Craycroft Road. The HAWK provides a safe place to cross Craycroft Road within the boundaries of Fort Lowell Park. A safe and convenient crossing encourages visitors to visit the resources on both sides of Craycroft Road. Introduction 13 RELOCATE FENCE TO PROPERTY LINE ALONG THIS SIDE OF PROPERTY. PLANT NEW COTTONWOODS ALONG THE SOUTH AND WEST SIDE OF THE HISTORIC PARADE GROUND. NEW HAWK CROSSING AND LANDSCAPE MEDIAN WITH COTTONWOOD TREES. (ALT. FUNDING SOURCE REQUIRED.) 8 Treatments The additional capital and management costs associated with a restored building also influenced the final recommendation. Preservation became the preferred treatment once future use, capital cost, management, and interpretive value (stories) were also considered. 1 Uses: The balance between recreation uses Ultimately, the treatments selected for the and history three Officer’s Quarters are based on a strategy to 2 Stories: The eras of history that will be maximize the interpretive value of the three Officer’s represented Quarters, as a whole, rather than as individual 3 Treatments: The preservation approach(es) elements; that the way to best reveal one of the to be used (Preservation, Rehabilitation, most powerful narratives on the Adkins Parcel, the Restoration, Reconstruction.) varying condition of the three Officer’s Quarters, is to 4 Circulation: The treatment of Craycroft Rd. preserve the buildings and ruins, rather than unifying Figure 19: Officer’s Quarters #1. Figure 16: Fort Lowell Hospital, with its protective roof is 5 Landscape: The approach to the landscape them through restoration. The contrasting condition an example of preservation. 6 Management: Organizational structures and of the resources lends itself to a dynamic experience costs where visitors will see how fire, weather and time 7 Capital Investment: Capital costs have impacted fragile resources. More detailed information on the specific Officer’s Quarters #2 provides a good example treatments selected is included in the Analysis and of how the decision-making process worked. Drawings Section. During preliminary versions of the Master Plan, both preservation and restoration treatments were proposed. A key point to keep in mind when considering various treatments is that preservation and rehabilitation are generally favored over restoration and reconstruction because those approaches maintain and honor the existing historic material (fabric) and do not involve the addition of Figure 20: Officer’s Quarters #2. Figure 17: The Commissary Apartments were features that could be considered speculative. developed in the 1930s and 40s before the Secretary A restoration treatment for OQ#2 would have of the Interior’s Standards were created. The approach required rebuilding portions of the building, mixed restoration and reconstruction with the artistic including adobe walls, roof framing and wood license of the builder. doors and windows damaged during the fire in the early 1970s. The documentary evidence required to construct these missing features is available in FortEra Army correspondence and Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documents dating to the late 1930s. Furthermore, OQ#3 still exists and can be used to reconstruct missing features. Given the amount of information available, restoration could be considered a valid preservation treatment for OQ#2. The relationship of the seven variables further directed the recommended treatment for OQ#2. Since no programmatic need for exhibit or usable space was identified during the planning process, there was not a large demand for a restored building. Figure 18: The Fort Lowell Museum, built in 1963, is an Figure 21: Officer’s Quarters #3. example of reconstruction. Historic Treatments The Master Plan process examined a number of variables, including historic treatments, for the buildings on the Adkins Parcel. These seven variables were analyzed to arrive at the final recommendations included in the Master Plan. 9 Interpretation Figure 22: Interpretive “ghosting” at Franklin Court in Philadelphia. Figure 24: Protective roof over Fort Lowell Hospital ruins. Figure 23: Fort Lowell Park Master Plan - Proposed Ghosting of Officer’s Quarters #6 and 7 for Picnic Ramada. a three-dimensional outline of a building, such as for the location of Officer’s Quarters #4 located in the middle of Craycroft Road, a “footprint” of the building’s outline will be created. At Craycroft Road, the outline of Officer’s Quarters #4 will be indicated through a change in the color and / or texture of the pavement. This technique was successfully used at the Santa Barbara Presidio. This technique could be used to create a more immediate predecessor to full “ghosting” at an earlier phase of implementation. Figure 25: Santa Barbara Presidio showing footprint of building in pavement. Preservation and management of the site should carefully consider one of the primary goals of the Master Plan, the reveal all of the stories at Fort Lowell Park. Beginning with the site’s natural history and continuing with the use of the site by the prehistoric Hohokam, United States Army and pioneering Cate and Adkins families, the Adkins Parcel has many stories to tell. The fragile and fleeting nature of the stories, as revealed in both the physical remains and human and cultural memories and interactions of the former inhabitants need to be considered during implementation of the Master Plan. A comprehensive interpretive plan for the Adkins Parcel and Fort Lowell Park is likely several years away. In the meantime, a process for collecting stories and artifacts should be established. The key elements worthy of collecting include: ● Prepare a more detailed history of the Adkins Family and their sanatorium and steel water tank businesses through oral history and historical research. This is of particularly importance given the removal of many of the Adkins’ buildings and industrial structures. ● Salvage and reuse Adkins’ era building and site elements for use in exhibits and during implementation of the Master Plan. In the spirit of the Adkins resourcefulness, elements of the steel fabrication shed could be re-used in site elements, like signage and other site features. ● Since acquisition in 2006, the City and County have documented the preservation and environmental clean-up activities that have taken place on site through photography and video recordings. This valuable information should be incorporated into future exhibits, to provide a richer and deeper visitor experience. A policy of documenting the clean up and preservation activities on site, no matter how mundane, should be continued. Given the lack of information on the mis-alignment of the 1963 reconstructed Officer’s Quarters, it is important to leave a record of activity for future planning and interpretation. Historic Treatments A primary objective of the management of the Adkins Parcel is to provide meaningful interpretation to visitors. While interpretation takes many forms, Freeman Tilden’s definition captures the essence of the process. He defines interpretation as “an educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information” (Tilden, 8). Fort Lowell Park already contains many excellent interpretive features, including the Fort Lowell Museum, interpretive signs placed around the Parade Ground, and the Hohokam interpretive area that will be expanded upon during implementation of the Master Plan. Museum exhibits, interpretive site signage and docent-led tours will all add value to the experience of visiting the Adkins Parcel. A unique aspect of the Master Plan is the use of interpretive “ghosting” to delineate the outline of a missing or partially missing building. This technique has been used effectively at Franklin Court in Philadelphia to create a spatial experience for Ben Franklin’s former residence. At Fort Lowell Park, there is currently little experiential understanding of how Fort Lowell was spatially organized; much of the historic fabric has been lost or has been heavily impacted by development and transportation corridors. The use of interpretive ghosting supports one of the primary goals of the Master Plan: To tell all stories but give priority to the Fort era. Define the spatial character of the Fort. At Fort Lowell Park, interpretive ghosting will be used to define the volume of buildings located historically along the edges of the Parade Ground. In turn, these ghosted structures will reinforce the Parade Ground as the primary organized space at Fort Lowell. The definition of the Parade Ground is especially important in a military setting of ceremony and uniformity. Furthermore, at Officer’s Quarters #2, ghosting will be used to both define the volume of the original building and protect the remaining adobe walls. Unlike the protective roof built in the 1950s above the Hospital Ruins, the ghosted roof on Officer’s Quarters #2 will be visually compatible with the historic volume of the building form. At locations where it is not feasible to construct 10 Guiding Principles Integrated, Team Approach Due to the fragile resources and multiple use of the site, the expertise of a variety of disciplines is critical Figure 26: NPS-28 Management Model to the successful stewardship and management of the site. Department managers, recreation staff and maintenance personnel, among others, should all play significant role in how the resources are managed and maintained. The cooperative planning process demonstrate by the City and County through site acquisition, environmental clean-up and preservation planning is a positive example of how various experts can work together. Community Outreach and Education One of the wonderful things about Fort Lowell Park is that visitors can get up-close to resources that have local and national significance. This is both an asset and potential problem as visitors will have Figure 27: On-Site Management Meeting with multiple the opportunity to learn from this experience, but departments and disciplines represented. may have a detrimental impact if too much access is granted. Irreversible harm to historic adobe fabric can be caused by people climbing over and through the ruins and people carving their names in the walls. Additionally, fragments of prehistoric potsherds are ubiquitous on the site. Fort Lowell Park should continue to offer educational programs to increase the public’s understanding and appreciation for the irreplaceable resources at Fort Lowell Park. Existing events including La Reunion de el Fuerte and the Old Fort Lowell Neighborhood Association Lecture Series are well-established public events that help connect the public with the neighborhoods unique natural and Figure 28: La Reunión de el Fuerte site tour. cultural history. In the past, these events have drawn from both the local neighborhood and other areas of the city. On-going efforts by the Santa Cruz Valley Heritage Alliance to make Fort Lowell Park a part of an array of other historic attractions in Southern Arizona should be continued. manage and maintain the historic resources on the Adkins Parcel and at other City-owned historic properties. In recent years, there have been a number of comprehensive documents prepared by the National Park Service to address maintenance of historic properties. The Maintenance Guides for the Treatment of Historic Properties at Petrified Forest Cyclical Maintenance National Park is a useful example that showcases Park maintenance staff members are the first line techniques for assessing and evaluating historic of defense in identifying and managing problems properties while conducting routine maintenance. with historic structures. Because maintenance staff will be in contact with the resources most frequently, they need to have a good understanding of historic properties and building materials to help identify potential problems. It should not be expected that the City will develop the in-house expertise to complete all the repairs on the historic adobe buildings and ruins within the Park. Many of the tasks are highly specialized and require the knowledge of experts who specialize in earthen buildings. What is important is for City Staff to recognize minor issues before they become major problems. This identification should be a part of a cyclical maintenance plan where regularly scheduled observation and maintenance is performed. If repairs are attempted, they should be performed after proper training, as incompatible repairs can cause unintended damage to a historic building. For example, concrete contrapareds installed in the 20th century to repair erosion at the base of adobe walls often caused additional damage to those areas by trapping moisture in the wall. Figure 29: Applying mud-plaster rendering wash to A good way to build skills and familiarity with Officer’s Quarters #2, east wall, February 2009. historic buildings and materials is through handson trainings provided by local preservation experts. In February of 2009, David Yubeta, an adobe specialist with the National Park Service, taught a five day adobe workshop attended by management and maintenance staff from the City and County. This introductory workshop was meant to expose City and County staff to the unique properties and maintenance requirements of adobe. This workshop was enthusiastically received; additional workshops should be considered to expand the knowledge and skills of City and County staff. In the future, a hands-on maintenance manual should be created that can be used by City staff to Figure 30: Hands-on maintenance workshop, 2009. Management The Adkins Parcel contains sensitive historic and prehistoric resources that require specialized management strategies. The City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Department, as the lead agency responsible for the Adkins Parcel and Fort Lowell Park, should develop practices that will facilitate management of this complex site. Other agencies, such as the National Park Service (NPS) have useful management models that could provide guidance when developing new approaches. NPS’s Cultural Resource Management Guidelines (NPS-28) contains a thorough approach to resource management based on integrating research, planning and stewardship. 11 Over the next two years, a great deal of activity is proposed for the Adkins Parcel. The Preservation Plan will be implemented using remaining 2004 Pima County Bond Funds. This amount is currently projected to be approximately $1.2 million dollars. Prior to implementation of the Preservation Plan, The City of Tucson will complete environmental remediation of the site. The remediation is required because much of the soil was contaminated during the former industrial use of the site. The City received a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to complete the remediation. Over the next few months, a project workplan will be developed by the City’s Environmental Services Department. Because it is likely that prehistoric and historic archaeological artifacts will be encountered during the remediation, a Treatment Plan for mitigating the impacts on these resources will also be developed. While the environmental clean-up is a distinct and separate project from the Preservation Plan, there are benefits to including selected elements of the Preservation Plan in this earlier work. Removal of the selected elements prior to environmental cleanup will allow for a one-time, complete remediation of the site. Otherwise, it is possible that additional environmental clean-up will be required at a future date and that could be a cost and inconvenience that would have to be planned for. It would be beneficial to remove the following items in conjunction with the City of Tucson’s environmental remediation project. Quarter ● Document and remove the Adkins Steel Fabrication Shed. Consider salvaging portions of the steel fabrication shed for reuse and for use in future interpretation / site amenities. ● Document and remove miscellaneous Adkins-era concrete slabs and the roller trench. ● Document and remove the round concrete water tower adjacent to Officer’s Quarters #1. ● Document and Remove the Adkins Period Windmill Base. The Water Tower appears to be in good condition and could be protected in-place if it does not need to be removed to complete the environmental clean-up. Store and protect portions of the windmill base that could be returned to the site if the Adkins Residence is eventually preserved and re-used. The Master Plan suggests revisiting the decision on the Adkins residence once the Master Plan is partially implemented, in approximately 3- 5 years. completion of Phase 1 of the Master Plan. Implementation of the Preservation Plan at the Adkins Parcel is considered Phase 1 of the approved Master Plan. The design phase for this work, which will conclude with a set of construction documents, is scheduled to begin immediately after final approval of the Master Plan and Preservation Plan by the City of Tucson Mayor and Council and Pima County Board of Supervisors. The design phase will begin in late 2009 with a bid set complete by the middle of 2010. Construction on the Adkins Parcel can begin once the City of Tucson’s environmental remediation is complete. It is expected that the remediation will be complete by the middle of 2010. Bidding and construction is expected to take one year. Public access to the Adkins Parcel could occur by the middle of 2011. Completion of the Master Plan, including those elements of the Preservation Plan not completed during Phase 1, are currently unfunded. Fort Lowell Park is currently on a short list of projects being considered for inclusion in a future Pima County Bond election. This election could occur in November 2010. A successful 2010 Bond Election could allow for additional elements of the Master Plan to be If funding is available, the removal of the RC implemented in 2012. Other sources of funding will Magor House, partially collapsed at the western need to be leveraged to complete the Master Plan. side of the Adkins Parcel, should also be completed. The RC Magor House is an unsafe building that presents multiple risks to visitors including bees and environmental hazards. Completion of all of these items helps prepare the site for public use following 2009 4 2010 1 2 2011 3 4 1 2 2012 3 4 1 2 2013 3 4 Preservation and Management Plan for the Adkins Parcel Environmental Clean-Up by City of Tucson Phase 1- Adkins Parcel Preservation Using 2004 Pima County Bonds Future Phases (Currently Unfunded) 1 Environmental Clean-up (Include buildings and site features slated for removal, if feasible) Design Construction Bidding Nov. 2010 Possible PC Bond Election Figure 31: Schedule for Adkins Parcel Implementation with Future Master Plan Phases Shown. 2 3 Master Plan and Business Plan Reviewed and Updated 4 Management Schedule Phase 1 Opening Potential Construction at Future Phases Potential Future Phase Opening 12 The Business Plan for Fort Lowell Park Master Plan has been completed by the economic and heritage tourism specialists, ConsultEcon, Inc. The Business Plan estimates the impact of the proposed Master Plan on the cost to operate and maintain the site. Their report is included in the Final Report for the Master Plan. The Preservation Plan for the Adkins Parcel is included as Phase 1 of the Business Plan Excerpts from the Business Plan are included in this document. The Adkins Parcel grounds will be maintained by existing park maintenance staff. The grounds will require regular maintenance to include: trash/litter removal, grass/turf watering and cutting, and other plant pruning and watering as required by the types of landscape. The Adkins Parcel historic and cultural resources will be maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department. After restoration is completed, building interiors and exteriors will need to be inspected on a regular basis to check for cracks, sags, bulges and other damage. The historic adobe structures require specialized knowledge of and familiarity with adobe maintenance. Therefore, it is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Department contract with specialists in to provide ongoing maintenance of adobe structures. Inspections by staff should occur regularly. Building access will be limited to special events conducted by the Parks and Recreation Department and its partners, including the Arizona Historical Society, Old Fort Lowell Neighborhood Association and the Fort Lowell Historic Zone Advisory Board. Special events could include: Table 5 Phase 1 Staff Profile due to better physical connections, new parking Annual Number of Number of lot on-site, and expanded and integrated heritage Salaries Full Time Part Time Salary (FTE) Positions Positions Budget interpretation throughout Fort Lowell Park. This Personnel Schedule 1/ increased level of usage will require more frequent Heritage Heritage Program Coordinator 40,321 1 20,160 structural and landscape maintenance to the Adkins Heritage Educator/Volunteer Coordinator 40,321 0 Parcel. Concessions Worker 15,371 0 At the completion of Phase 1, a modest increase to the overall Fort Lowell Park Budget (entire 70 acres) Maintenance Groundskeeper/Custodian 30,802 1 1 46,203 is expected. Currently, it costs the City of Tucson 1 2 $66,363 $293,000 dollars to operate Fort Lowell Park. Once Subtotal Salaries the Adkins Parcel is brought on-line, the total cost to Taxes, Insurance and Benefits Pension 12.71% of Salary $8,435 operate the Park increases to $334,069. FICA 7.65% of Salary $5,077 The Business Plan assumes that the City of Industrial Insurance 1.84% of Salary $1,221 Tucson Parks and Recreation Department will Group Insurance $7,220 per Employee $21,660 Unemployment Insurance $25 per Employee $75 continue to maintain Fort Lowell Park and the numerous recreational components both existing and Subtotal Taxes, Insurance and Benefits $36,468 proposed for the site. Additionally, City of Tucson Total Salaries, Taxes, Insurance and Benefits $102,831 Parks and Recreation is assumed to take a more 3/ Total Full-Time Equivalent Employees 2.00 active role in providing heritage programming at Fort Lowell Park and other City-owned historical NOTE: Does not include costs associates with Aquatics, Tennis Center, Commissary Residences. and cultural properties. The City will be assisted in 1/ All positions assumed to be civil service employees of City of Tucson. Salaries based on midpoint of salary these efforts by the Arizona Historical Society who range for positions in City of Tucson Compensation Plan, available at Taxes, insurance and beneifts from Tucson despite severe budget cutbacks in 2008 and 2009 http://www.tucsonaz.gov/compensation/comp_plan_11-02-06.pdf. Parks and Recreation Department. is assumed to continue to operate the existing Fort 2/ Part-time employees at 50% of full-time employees. Lowell Museum and the proposed final-phase new Source: City of Tucson and ConsultEcon, Inc. museum. A new half-time city position for a Heritage Figure 32: Phase 1 staffing at Fort Lowell Park. Taken Program Coordinator is proposed for Phase 1. The from Fort Lowell Park Master Plan Final Report. following table provides an overview of the impact of the this new part-time position on the current park staffing. No increase in maintenance personnel is proposed for Phase 1. ● Building tours to school and other groups ● Living history and other related demonstrations ● Temporary historical exhibits during other events, such as La Reunión de El Fuerte / Fort Lowell Day Celebration and the Fort Lowell Shootout As subsequent phases of the Master Plan are completed, the use of the Adkins Parcel will intensify 10 Management Business Plan 13 This summary of the Capital Costs for the Adkins Parcel includes information about three discreet efforts: 1. Demolition of items that would best be removed in conjunction with the environmental remediation of the site. 2. Priority preservation and rehabilitation items on the Adkins Parcel and 3. A new pedestrian activated “HAWK” Crossing at Craycroft Road. Remaining 2004 Pima County Bond Funds can be only used for the items listed under #2, the Preservation and Rehabilitation of the Adkins Parcel. There is currently no dedicated funding source for #1, the removal of site items and #3 the new HAWK crossing. All Items include the following markups: Estimating Contingency (15%), General Conditions (15%), Contractor Fee (6%), Bonds & Insurance (3%) and Tax (5.27%). Total Markups = 52% Escalation is based on current Engineering News Record rate of .8% per year. Hazardous Material or Asbestos Abatement is Excluded. More detailed break-downs of the cost estimates are included in the Appendices. Phase 1 - Adkins Parcel Priorities (2004 Pima County Bond Funding) Item Total Officer’s Quarters #3 $537,200 Officer’s Quarteres #2 Ruins $243,100 Officer’s Quarters #1 Ruins $125,900 Stabilize Adkins Residence and Water Tower $ 47,800 Adkins Site Work $ 59,100 Miscellaneous Site and Electrical Work $ 70,000 Adkins Parcel Parking Lot $ 58,000 Interpretive Signage $ 25,000 Demolition Prior to Phase 1 (No Dedicated Funding Source) Total Remove Adkins Steel Fabrication Shed $19,646 Remove Adkins-era Roller Trench Slab $ 1,923 Remove Adkins-era Roller Trench $ 9,466 Remove 4” Slab-on-grade $ 2,917 Remove RC Magor House $14,592 Remove Windmill Tower Base $ 3,344 Phase 1 - HAWK Crossing (No Dedicated Funding Source) Total Remove Concrete Silo $ 3,800 HAWK Crossing at Cottonwood Lane $ 91,200 Total Building and Site Costs $55,700 Landscape Median $ 11,400 Escalation to January 2010 @ .20% $ Colored Concrete Crosswalk $ 38,000 55,812 Total Site Costs $140,600 Total Building and Site Costs Total Demolition Prior to Phase 1 with Escalation $ 112 Escalation to January 2011 @ 1.01% Total Phase 1 Adkins Parcel Priorities with Escalation Escalation to July 2010 @ .67% Total Phase 1 HAWK Crossing $1,166,100 $ 11,719 $1,177,819 $ 942 $141,542 Management Capital Costs 14 Officer’s Quarters #1, #2, and #3 are the best preserved Fort Lowell resources on the Adkins Parcel. A small area of stones remains from the Guardhouse near Fort Lowell Road. Subsurface remains of the Bake House were encountered during the removal of an underground tank in 2007. Taken as a whole, the three Officer’s Quarters will present a unique experience to the visitor. The varying condition of the three buildings is an interpretive opportunity to see the impact of time on the transient nature of adobe. The decay of Officer’s Quarters #1 and #2 will be “frozen” beneath a ghosted steel structure that reveals how a fully realized building would appear. The ghosting will complement the preservation and rehabilitation of Officer’s Quarters #3, an almost fully intact Officer’s Quarters with most of its Fort-era features. Looking northwest along Cottonwood Lane, the three Officer’s Quarters will appear unified in volume and scale, providing an order and regularity to Fort Lowell Park. Officer’s Quarters #3 will be experienced as a late 19th Century building, providing the visitor a glimpse into how an Officer and his family lived. It is anticipated that Officer’s Quarters #3 will be open periodically for docent-led tours. The building will not be mechanically heated and cooled to further exhibit how a thick-walled adobe helps to mitigate the diurnal temperature swings of the desert. Many of the interior features, including wood floors, fireplaces, wood trim, and plaster ceilings and walls appear to date to the mid 1880s. These features will be preserved. A number of doors and windows dating to the Fort-era exist will be restored. Features that were added in the early 20th Century, including built-in cabinets, interior and exterior concrete slabs, and exterior porches, will be documented and removed. Features that no longer exist will be reconstructed based on available documentation. The most significant feature that will be reconstructed is the porch that is shown in images dating to the final decade of the Fort. The porches are believed to have been added by the mid 1880s. Unfortunately, there are no pictures showing the south wall of the Officer’s Quarters to provide information on the presence of a porch on all four sides. Archaeologist Al Johnson determined that a ramada linked Officer’s Quarters #5 with its kitchen building when conducting investigations in 1960. Additional research will need to be conducted during the design phase to collaborate the exact details of the Fort-era porches. Officer’s Quarters #2 was modified for use as a sanatorium rest-home in the early 20th Century. In the early 1970s, a fire caused significant damage to the wood elements on the building, exposing the adobe walls to prolonged damage over the past three decades. Even with these changes, the outline of an original Fort-era building remains. Furthermore, portions of Officer’s Quarters #2 Kitchen remain intact, providing a good indication of the relationship between the main building and ancillary kitchen. As noted above, the detail of how the two buildings were connected is unclear as historic documents and previous site drawings and models are inconclusive. Officer’s Quarters #1 offers visitors an opportunity to see the effects of time on adobe. This building, appearing greatly modified from its Fortera appearance, as an outbuilding or stable, in a 1940s aerial image, contains a few segments of adobe walls surrounded by significant adobe melt. Cyclical maintenance should be applied to the remaining adobe walls to preserve them as a ruin. Sacrificial mud caps and the repair of basal coving to prevent collapse will be required to preserve the walls. As the western-most building, the placement of Officer’s Quarters #1 anchors the southwest corner of the site. To give this location the “weight” it needs to anchor the corner, a steel ghosted structure will be placed over the remaining walls to illustrate the original footprint and volume of the building. The lower wrap-around porch will also be constructed. The ghosting on Officer’s Quarters #1 will be visually consistent with the ghosting employed on Officer’s Quarters #2. The major difference will be that Officer’s Quarters #2 will have a solid roof and Officer’s Quarters #1 will be open on top. The lower porches at both structures will be the same perforated metal. Visitors will be able to walk around the outside of Officer’s Quarters #1 and #2. If additional protection of the fragile adobe walls is required, ocotillo fencing could be placed at the exterior of the ghosted porches to secure the ruins. This treatment is consistent with the ocotillo fencing shown in historical photographs. Figure 33: From left to right, OQ#3, #2, and #1 showing proposed treatments, including ghosting on #2 and #1. Analysis and Drawings Fort Lowell Resources Figure 34: View from Parade Ground looking southeast across Cottonwood Lane towards Officer’s Quarters #3. Picket fence will be reconstructed during implementation of the Master Plan. Note: Image was produced during the master planning process and does not accurately depict the final design for the area behind Officer’s Quarters #2 or the area east of Craycroft Road. 15 16 Analysis and Drawings 17 Analysis and Drawings Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #1 Figure 35: Officer’s Quarters #1 looking southwest from Cottonwood Lane. 18 Figure 36: Officer’s Quarters #1 looking west. Figure 37: Sacrificial mud cap on historic adobe wall. Figure 38: Officer’s Quarters #1 looking south. Figure 39: Officer’s Quarters #1 looking northwest. Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #1 19 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #1 20 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #1 21 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #1 22 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #1 23 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #1 24 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #2 Figure 40: Officer’s Quarters #2 looking southwest from Cottonwood Lane. 25 Figure 41: Officer’s Quarters #2 & Kitchen looking NW. Figure 42: Officer’s Quarters #2 northeast corner. Figure 43: Officer’s Quarters #2 southeast corner. Figure 44: Officer’s Quarters #2 Kitchen, south wall. Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #2 26 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #2 27 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #2 28 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #2 29 NOTE: THE EXTERIOR FINISH ON THE EXISTING ADOBE WALLS HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED. THE FINISH WILL BE DETERMINED DURING THE DESIGN PHASE. AN EXPERIMENTAL MUD PLASTER COATING (SEE FIGURE 29) WAS INSTALLED ON THE EAST WALL OF THE KITCHEN BUILDING IN FEBRUARY 2009 AS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE POSSIBLE FINISH. A MUD PLASTER FINISH WOULD COMPLETELY COVER THE PROPOSED POLYESTER WEBBING. THE MUD PLASTER WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION TO THE ADOBE WALLS, BUT REQUIRE PERIODIC MAINTENANCE APPROXIMATELY EVERY 5- 7 YEARS. THE MUD PLASTER CHANGES THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE RUIN AND WOULD IMPACT THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE BY NOT ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES TO BE AS APPARENT. Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #2 30 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #2 31 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #2 32 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #2 33 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #2 34 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #2 35 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 Figure 45: Officer’s Quarters #3 looking southwest from Cottonwood Lane. 36 Figure 46: Officer’s Quarters #3, looking northwest. Figure 47: Officer’s Quarters #3, north elevation. Figure 48: Fort Lowell Officer’s Row, around 1904, with Officer’s Quarters #3 and its wooden addition. Site Foundation Figure 49: Drainage swale to the east of the building. Figure 50: West wall after removal of the contrapared. Existing: The back-of-curb line along Craycroft Road is higher than Officer’s Quarter’s # 3 causing water to drain towards the east wall of the building. A drainage swale was created in 2007 to capture this runoff and evacuate it away from the building. Water drains in two swales, starting at a high point at the southeast corner of he building. One swale carries water north, parallel to the east side of the building, and discharges this water north of the building. The second swale runs parallel to the south side of the building. The water discharges towards the northwest. Additional runoff is conveyed by a swale created between the south side of Officer’s Quarters #2 and the north elevation of Officer’s Quarters #2 Kitchen. The natural flow of water at the Adkins Parcel is from southeast to northwest. Existing: The buildings at Fort Lowell were constructed without foundations. According to an archaeological report prepared by Johnson in 1960, 4 to 5 courses of adobe, the same thickness of the wall above, were laid in shallow trenches on top of the local caliche subsurface. In the 20th century, concrete contra-pared and cement-based parging was applied to the walls at the ground level to presumably stop deterioration. These non-pervious treatments have contributed to basal erosion. The condition of subsurface adobes has not been evaluated. The most notable area of subsidence is at the northeast corner of the building where moisture has caused the wall to settle. Proposed: A comprehensive grading and drainage plan for the entire Adkins Parcel will be developed during project implementation. Water harvesting opportunities should be pursued to enhance the landscape. A foundation drainage system is proposed for the Officer’s Quarters #2 and #3 to alleviate the moisture around the building. Exterior Walls Figure 51: East Elevation Existing: Exterior walls are constructed of unfired adobe brick with a dimension of 20” x 12” x 4”. Adobe bricks were laid crosswise at exterior walls to give the walls a 20” thickness. Exterior walls do not appear to have been plastered during the Fort Period. Plaster was likely added in the early decades of the 20th Century during the Sanatorium Period. Exterior adobe walls are in fair condition. The northeast corner has separated and subsided presumably due to moisture being held in the soil on the east side of the building. As a whole, the east wall suffers from basal coving as a result of moisture that has wicked into the adobe and is trapped by the impervious cement stucco. Deterioration is also present around window Proposed: openings and below scuppers on both the east and Areas of the foundation walls that have settled west walls. Large cracks are visible on the north wall, will need to be repaired. Two options have been possibly as a result of the movement in the northeast recommended: Option one is to stabilize the existing corner. walls using low impact “adobe cages” per the design of architectural conservators, Crocker, Ltd. The other Proposed: option is to over-excavate and compact the soil before The removal of the existing plaster will be rebuilding the walls. A foundation drain is proposed necessary to completely evaluate the condition of the to be installed at the outside edge of the reconstructed adobe walls. A combination of mud leveling coats wrap-around porch. and partial and full adobe blocks will be required, depending upon the depth of the adobe to be repaired. Although no exterior plaster was present on the building during the Fort Period, it is desirable from a maintenance and security standpoint. New mud plaster leveling and finish coats, tested for adhesion and resistance to cracking, will be used. Exterior Doors Figure 52: North wall showing Fort-era door at center. Existing: It is probable that main entry door on north side of building dates to the Fort Period as it appears in the 1904 photo of Officer’s Row. This door is also well documented in the HABS drawings. Doors are 4-panel, wood. The door opening leading into Bedroom 1 at the northeast corner was added during the early 20th Century. It appears to have been a window during Fort Period. The door in this 20th century opening does appear to date to the Fort-era, however. The exterior door at Bedroom 2 is also original, but in very poor condition. The exterior doors at the Dining Room and Kitchen are 5-panel doors that appear to have been added during the early 20th Century. Proposed: Restore remaining Fort-era doors. Reconstruct new doors to replace non Fort-era doors, based on extant material and HABS documentation. Frosted glass detail shown on HABS drawings should be restored on the north door. Salvage any existing historic hardware and reuse, if possible. New hardware should be customized to match Fort-era hardware. The following pages summarize the treatments for the different building components at Officer’s Quarters #3. More information, including an assessment by Crocker Ltd., is included in the Appendix. Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 37 Exterior Windows Roof Framing Roofing Figure 53: Original window to be restored. Figure 54: View of the ceiling showing wood beams. Figure 55: Roof prior to installation of temporary roof. Existing: By all appearances, many of the existing windows date to the Fort-era. The windows are well documented in the HABS drawings and are in good to fair condition. The windows are double-hung, 6 over 6 with wood sashes and frames. Counterbalances within the jamb are on braided cords. The glass is clear. Window condition varies, with a window in the Living Room nearly intact. Other windows have broken and replacement sashes and muntins that will need to be repaired. The two windows on the east wall have a slightly different frame profile. These two windows appear to have been replaced at an unknown date. Existing: Existing roof framing consists of several layers of framing members over original Fort-era framing. The original framing system consisted of 3” x 9” rough sawn beams at 16” O.C. These beams run from east to west and appear to bear on the interior walls at the Dining Room and Zaquan. Some of the 3” x 9” framing members are visible at exposed areas of ceiling. At the exterior bearing walls, where much of the ceiling has come loose, the beams are badly damaged and will need to be repaired. Furthermore, There is no connection between the beams and adobe walls. During the first decade of existence, the roof was dirt supported by saguaro ribs. Below the ceiling was mantas (cloth) to collect any dirt that came loose. Later framing consists of 3” x 4” wood members placed perpendicular to the original farming. 1” x 6” was placed on top of the later framing. The date of this later framing is from the 20th Century. Existing: The early Fort-era roof consisted of dirt on saguaro ribs. After problems with leaking, tin was installed over the dirt roofs. Later layers of framing and roofing were added throughout the 20th Century. In 2007, a temporary roof was placed over the entire building that consists of an asphalt emulsion seal coat, a layer of yellow fiberglass fabric and another emulsion coat. Proposed: Repair the existing wood windows to working condition. Historic material should be preserved whenever possible. Where window frames have to be removed to repair adjacent adobe walls or lintels, the frames should be documented, removed and reinstalled. The two window frames and sashes for the Proposed: The existing roofing material will need to be windows on the east wall will need to be replicated to removed to access the roof framing below. Where match an original Fort-era window. beam ends are decayed, new wood sections will be spliced to the solid ends of existing beams using new glass fiber rods. Wood that is structurally nonthreatened may be repaired with epoxy. Beams will be attached to the exterior adobe walls. Polyester webbing is one approach being considered. Eaves/ Gutters/ Downspouts Figure 56: Existing canales at east wall. Existing: The upper roof drains to the east and west parapets where there are 4 canales near the top of each wall. The canales have been problematic, especially above the window at the northwest corner where the adobe and wood lintel above the window are severely deteriorated and supported with bracing. Although the 1904 shows one remaining canale on the west side of the building, the existing canales do not appear to be from the Fort Period. Fort-era photographs show extensions from the canales to the Proposed: The entire roof is proposed to be rebuilt, starting edge of the wrap-around porch. from the original framing. Since the new roof will be hidden from view, insulation may be added on top of Proposed: New canales and leaders from the canales to the the existing roof. A new built-up or membrane roof edge of the lower roof will be reconstructed based on will be installed over the entire building. historic documentation. The discharge of water will be coordinated with new drains placed at the edge of the porch. Passive water harvesting strategies should be utilized to direct rainwater towards planting areas and away from foundations. Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3, Continued 38 Chimneys Fireplaces Interior Walls Interior Doors Figure 57: Northeast chimney prior to de-construction. Figure 58: Original Firebrick. Figure 59: Fort-era plaster with later paint finish. Figure 60: Historic interior door at northwest room. Existing: Due to their fragile condition, four chimneys were documented then de-constructed in 2007. Chimneys were constructed of local, smooth-faced red brick measuring 8-3/8” x 2-3/8” x 4”. Three chimneys, including the chimney in the Kitchen, appear on the 1904 photograph. The chimney in Bedroom 2 is not visible in the photograph. Existing: The three fireplaces are in fair to poor condition. None of the fireplaces have been tested to determine if they are functional. The fireplace at the northeast corner is part of the exterior wall that has separated from the building. This fireplace will likely need to be completely rebuilt. The other two fireplaces, depending upon how adjacent walls are repaired, can be preserved and repaired. A modern flue should be installed for any fireplaces that will be operational. The firebrick is stamped TCARR, a product that was imported from England between 1827-1918. The 1940 HABS drawings includes detailed drawings of the fireplaces in the northwest and northeast rooms. Existing: The interior walls are adobe with two coats of plaster. The base coat consists of mud plaster and the finish coat is lime plaster. According to historic documentation this plaster likely dates to the mid 1880s. The plaster appears to have been painted in many locations. The exact chronology of existing finishes will be determined during the design phase. Interior walls do not appear connected to the exterior walls allowing differential movement between the interior and exterior walls to occur. This movement has caused some cracking of the interior plaster. Existing: Interior doors are stile and rail wood doors. The doors appear to date to the Fort-era. Not all opening currently have doors; it’s possible that doors being stored in the Dining Room are original doors that can be re-hung. Most of the hardware on the doors has been replaced, although several sets of original hinges remain. According to the HABS drawings, the door between Dining Room and Bedroom #2 was removed and remodeled as a china cabinet around 1909 or 1910. Proposed: The chimneys will be reconstructed with the bricks salvaged during the deconstruction. Additional bricks will be needed to reconstruct the four chimneys. The new bricks should match the historic bricks in size, color and texture. A modern flue liner should be utilized at fireplaces that will be operational. Proposed: The three fireplaces will be preserved and restored based on physical evidence and HABS documentation. It is desirable to make at least one fireplace fully functional for use in interpretation and for special events. Fireplaces that have to be reconstructed, should be completely documented during the de-construction process, with materials salvaged and reused whenever possible. Proposed: The goal is to preserve the existing plaster wherever possible. Preserving the plaster helps to maintain the building’s high level of integrity. Plaster that is firmly attached to the adobe walls should be preserved. Loose plaster should be removed and replaced with a new base coat of mud plaster and a finish coat of lime plaster. Loose paint should be removed without damaging the lime plaster below. Additional research and design is required to determine the age of the paint and if it should be removed in its entirety. Proposed: Original wood doors and original hardware will be preserved. Doors being stored in the Dining Room will be re-hung in their original openings. The china cabinet between the Dining Room and Bedroom #2 will be removed and a new door, to match the historic style will be installed. Historic hardware should be utilized to re-create the look and feel of the Fort-era interiors. Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3, Continued 39 Flooring Ceilings Interior Wood Trim Built-In Features Figure 61: Original wood floor. Figure 62: Exposed saguaro ribs above plaster ceiling. Figure 63: Original wood base. Figure 64: 20th Century bead board cabinets. Existing: Following initial construction, the floors were earthen with a good amount of sand and gravel. In 1882, wood floors were installed. 2” x 6” sleepers were installed directly on the ground with redwood boards placed perpendicular to the sleepers. The 1940 HABS drawings note that floors were pine, not redwood. Since the floors appear to date to the Fort-era, more analysis is needed to determine if all the floors are original and if the floors are pine or redwood. The wood floors have been covered with particleboard and vinyl flooring in the Kitchen and Pantry. The wood floors are in fair to good condition with most of the decay occurring in areas where water has entered the building. The wood floors in the northeast and northwest rooms were replaced with colored concrete slabs. This change appears to have occurred around the same time as the HABS documentation. Existing: The ceilings of buildings constructed at Fort Lowell were originally manta cloth hung below the structural wood beams. The manta cloth was designed to catch any material that fell through the saguaro ribs that created a “ceiling” between the wood beams and the earth placed on the roof. Plastered ceilings were added, along with tin roofs, because the original earthen roofs proofed to be problematic. Ceiling heights vary. The date of the ceilings appears to have been the mid to late 1880s; additional research will be completed during the design phase to confirm. Ceiling are in fair condition with the ceilings adjacent to the exterior walls more severely damaged due to excessive water damage. Existing: Flat pine and redwood trim measuring 4-1/4” typical is installed around all windows and doors. There is also a picture rail at the Dining Room and Bedroom #1. The date of the trim is unknown, but presumably dates to the Fort-era. The trim is in fair to good condition. Existing: According to the HABS documents, a number of built-in features, constructed from beadboard, were added in 1909 or 1910. These features include cabinets in the Kitchen and a china cabinet in the doorway between the Dining Room and Bedroom #2. The wainscot at the exterior door at Bedroom #1 is constructed of the same beadboard and was likely installed at the same time. Proposed: Concrete floors will be removed and replaced with new wood floors. Where wood floors are severely damaged, they will be replaced. Floors that are minimally damaged should be preserved and a wood restoration system will be applied to protect the floors. If an accessible path through the building is desired, the floors will need to have transitions from the northern room to the southern rooms. The is currently a 2-3 inch change in elevation. Since the rooms are accessible from the exterior, the need to create interior accessibility may not be required. Proposed: Wherever possible, existing plaster ceilings should remain. Damaged ceilings should be repaired with new lath and plaster. Because the roof cavity will be de-constructed from above, it may be possible to make the necessary structural repairs without disturbing the existing ceilings.... A “truth window” should be installed to be used during interpretation of the building. The “truth window” will allow the visitor to understand the construction system used in the building by displaying the saguaro ribs and wood beams. Proposed: The existing wood trim will be preserved. Any severely damaged areas will be replaced with in-kind material. Wood trim that is minimally damaged will be restored using a wood restoration system. Any wood trim that has to be removed to complete other repairs should be labeled and reinstalled. Existing finishes will be analyzed to determine the finish during the Fort-era. Proposed: Features added following the abandonment of the Fort, including any built-in features from the early 20th Century, will be removed. This includes all built-in beadboard cabinets. Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3, Continued 40 Insulation and Weather-stripping Mechanical (HVAC) Electrical / Lighting / Special Systems Figure 65: Existing ceiling cavity without insulation. Figure 66: Historic fireplace. Figure 67: Knob & tube wiring. Existing: No insulation currently exists in the roof cavity. When originally constructed, the earthen roof helped to temper the inside environment. The high ceilings also helped to moderate indoor temperatures. It is not clear if any of the original earthen material has been retained above the saguaro ribs. De-construction of the existing roof and loose beams placed on top will allow a more thorough evaluation of the composition of the existing roof cavity. Existing: The building most recently contained throughthe-wall swamp coolers and wood-burning fireplaces and stoves. These features, with the exception of the original fireplaces, have been removed. Existing: The building features knob and tube wiring dating from the Cate period, circa 1910. Some additional wiring, without conduit, was added after the knob and tube. The power in the building is currently turned-off. Proposed: No modern heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system is proposed for the building. Visitors will be able to experience how early settlers used climatically appropriate design strategies Proposed: for mitigating the harsh conditions. Thick walls with Tapered roof insulation should be added to create good thermal mass, high ceilings, fireplaces, and a thermal barrier at the roof. Since the building will porches are examples of the techniques used before likely not be mechanically conditioned, circulation the advent of mechanical heating and cooling. will be done passively. Small gaps in the exterior envelope will help alleviate the build-up of heat on this interior. Plumbing Figure 68: Sink in southwest corner. Existing: The existing bathroom is in an adobe addition at the southwest corner of the building. This addition appears as a wooden addition in a photograph dating to 1904. The date it was converted to an adobe structure is unknown. The existing Kitchen has a sink and water heater. Gas service enters the building on east side and crosses to the water heater located in Proposed: Existing knob and tube wiring will be removed. the Kitchen. Because the windows will be well shaded by the reconstructed porches, there will be a need for Proposed: Since the plumbing was added following the auxiliary light source. A lighting system that is of minimal impact should be considered for use during Fort-era, all plumbing fixtures and piping will be tours and special events. The concept would be to removed from the building. Removing all water provide adequate lighting that is so well disguised from the building will alleviate a major threat to the as to be unnoticeable to the visitor. New outdoor building, the opportunity for a water pipe to rupture lighting for security and to accentuate the building and saturate the adobe walls. should also be considered. Electrical receptacles for use during tours or special events should also be considered. Like the lighting, the receptacles should be designed to fit seamlessly with the interior. Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3, Continued 41 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 42 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 43 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 44 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 45 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 46 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 47 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 48 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 49 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 50 Analysis and Drawings Officer’s Quarters #3 51 Adkins-Era Resources how intrusive the Adkins Residence will be to the experience. The Adkins Water Tower will also be stabilized and preserved until a future date to allow for reassessment. The Windmill Base will need to be removed to allow for remediation of an existing well. The steel structure is thoroughly rusted and should be carefully documented prior to removal. Other Adkins-era site features, including a number of poured-in-place concrete features, should be documented prior to removal. Figure 69: Adkins-era resources looking northeast. Figure 70: 1940s aerial photo of Adkins Buildings from the Magee Collection held at the Arizona Historic Society. RC Magor residence is located at lower left portion of image. Adkins Residence, prior to circa 1950 addition, is visible in the center of the photograph. Officer’s Quarters #1 visible at lower right. The reconstructed commissary buildings are located in the upper left portion of the image. Analysis and Drawings In 1926, the Adkins Family moved to Tucson from Illinois to bring their daughter, Dicey, to a local tuberculosis sanatorium. While living at Cate’s Rest Ranch, Dicey died from tuberculosis. Harvey and Fronia Adkins purchased the Cate’s property in February 1928. The Adkins operated the “Adkins Rest Home” on the property through the 1930s and 40s. The family also operated other businesses on the site including the Adkins Trucking and Steel Manufacturing business, began in 1934. In the 1940s and 50s, the company was building steel buildings and tanks. From the 1950s until 2006, Adkins Steel Manufacturing concentrated on the fabrication of steel water tanks. During their presence on the site, the Adkins constructed their residence, the fabrication shed, a water tower and windmill and several outbuildings and a variety of cast-in-place concrete elements. The Master Planning process carefully considered the contribution of the Adkins Family to the site and neighborhood during their 78 years of occupation. While the Adkins story is an important local story, the Fort Lowell Period was selected as the primary interpretive theme due to its national significance. The desire to represent the Fort-era site layout in an unambiguous and clear manner requires the removal of Adkins-era resources, especially where they are in conflict with the interpretation of Fort-era resources. The Steel Fabrication Shed, for example, is located at the edge of the Parade Ground and possibly above the location of the Fort Lowell Bake House. The location and scale of the shed would cause some difficulty in properly understanding the relationship of the Parade Ground to its surrounding buildings. The Steel Fabrication Shed was determined to need costly structural repairs to make it safe for public use. If possible, elements of the Steel Fabrication Shed should be salvaged for possible reuse on site or in the construction of interpretive exhibits. The Adkins Residence is located in Parade Ground. It was determined that the Adkins Residence should be stabilized and preserved in place until more of the interpretive elements used to recreate the spatial order of the Parade Ground are constructed. Once the interpretive ghosting and cottonwood trees are in position along the western edge of the Parade Ground, a determination can be made on 52 Adkins Residence Adkins Water Tower Adkins Windmill Base Figure 71: Adkins Residence looking northeast. Figure 75: Fabrication Shed looking northwest. Figure 73: Water Tower with damaged steel brace. Figure 74: Windmill Base showing rusted structure. Figure 72: Water damage at roof eave. The Adkins Residence will be stabilized to allow for a future decision concerning its long term viability. Several critical deficiencies exist that need to be addressed to prevent additional damage. At the eaves, metal flashing should be installed under the existing roofing tile to prevent water from entering the walls. Moisture entering the wall is responsible for much of the coving that has occurred at the base of walls. The severe deterioration at the west wall should be repaired to prevent the wall from collapsing. All openings in the building should be sealed to prevent vermin and wildlife from entering the building. Site stewardship should include periodic assessment of the Adkins Residence to ensure that the condition of the building does not decline any further. Adkins Steel Fabrication Shed Figure 76: Interior bracing at Steel Fabrication Shed. The Adkins Water Tower will be stabilized, in-place, to allow for a future decision following partial implementation of the Master Plan. While no structural analysis has been performed on the Water Tower, it appears to be in good condition. The major deficiencies are a broken support strut at the southwest corner of the base and the peeling away of the roof allowing birds to access the interior. The broken support strut should be braced by attaching a temporary “splint” the full length of the broken strut. Openings at the top of the Water Tower should be sealed to prevent birds from inhabiting the interior of the Water Tower. The Adkins Windmill Base will be documented and removed during environmental remediation of the site. Closure of the well beneath the Windmill Base requires removal of the structure. Furthermore, the Windmill Base is in poor condition with many of the steel pipes rusted through. The Windmill Base should be completely documented, including measured drawings, to allow for accurate interpretation. If the Adkins Residence is re-used and interpreted, the reconstruction of the Windmill Base should be considered. The Adkins Steel Fabrication Shed will be documented and removed as part of the implementation of the Master Plan. The shed is in fair condition. The decision to remove the shed was based on the cost to make the building safe for re-use. The building’s structural elements are undersized and inadequately connected to meet current building codes. The location of the Steel Fabrication Shed is in conflict with the Fort-era buildings and landscape that will be interpreted and re-created at the western edge of the Parade Ground. Elements of the Steel Fabrication Shed should be salvaged and considered for re-use in interpretive or other site features. Among the items that would be desirable to salvage are the concrete filled steel columns, lightweight concrete wall panels, and steel roof trusses. Analysis and Drawings Adkins-Era Resources 53 The landscape on the Adkins Parcel has gone through a number of changes throughout its history of use. The area was once dominated by creosote and other native shrubs that are typical to largely undisturbed areas of the lower Sonoran Desert region such as prickly pear, catclaw, saguaro, palo verde and mesquite. Once the military moved onto the site in the late 19th century, the landscape transitioned to one that was more open and functional. The parade ground was the site of regular military routines and drills that required the elimination of large trees and shrubs to support the active uses. Historical photos from the Fort era document that the Adkins Parcel site was mostly bare ground with scattered native Figure 77: Ferocactus wislizeni near Officer’s Quarters. grasses, shrubs and trees towards the perimeter of the parade ground. Photos also indicate a picket fence (Figure 78) that lined the southern edge of the parade ground and the area to the west of the hospital. The fence was located in direct association with the dominant landscape element of the Fort which was the introduced double row of cottonwood trees (Figure 79) that lined the Officer’s Quarters and provided cooling shade for the soldiers stationed there. The Officer’s Quarters were also home to a number of small kitchen gardens that supported vegetables and herbs used for cooking. Once the military abandoned the site at the turn of the century, the cottonwoods were cut down for use as firewood Figure 78: Fort Lowell Hospital, looking east, circa 1889. and the surrounding native vegetation slowly reestablished itself on the former parade ground area. The landscape of the Adkins parcel continued to develop over time as the site changed from having a dominant military presence to the residential character of the Adkins-era. The Adkins-era brought with it a number of introduced shade and fruit tree plantings to the landscape. Some of the plants introduced during the Adkins era are still present today and include a small lemon tree that is planted near Officer’s Quarters #3 and several pomegranate trees located near the Adkins residence. A pecan tree is also located near the Adkins residence towards the Fort Lowell and Craycroft Road intersection. Research of similar residential areas from the same era indicates that other plantings were likely introduced throughout the site’s years as a sanatorium, residence, and steel fabrication center although no Adkins-era plants other than the lemon tree, pomegranates and pecan tree remain on-site. The existing Adkins-era plants are currently suffering from drought and are in a state of decline but are significant in the fact that they are the original specimens that once supported the use of the property. Since the remaining Adkins-era specimens are significant to the historic landscape and are in rapid decline, immediate intervention is recommended. Irrigation must be provided to these remnant plant materials in order for them to survive. It should be noted that these plants are located in the area that was historically the site of the Fort Lowell parade ground which was largely void of vegetation except for plantings along its perimeter and Cottonwood Lane. Figure 79: Cottonwood Lane, looking west, circa 1889. Depending on the interpretive strategies that take place on-site, it may ultimately become necessary to remove the lemon tree, pomegranates and pecan tree in order to accurately interpret the Fort era landscape. A decision on the long-term viability of keeping the Adkins-era planting will be made at a future date. Cottonwood Lane and the associated fencing are recommended to be re-introduced to the site as they were dominant features of the Fort period landscape. The existing native desert vegetation that is on-site should largely remain in place except for within the footprint of the parade ground and immediately surrounding the officer’s quarters. This will create a central activity area surrounded by a mix of creosote, Figure 80: Proposed HAWK signal at Craycroft Rd. cholla, barrel cactus, prickly pear, acacia and mesquite which is reminiscent of how the area looked during the Fort era. The kitchen gardens should also be reestablished to give an accurate representation of how the landscape supported the uses of the site. The proposed pedestrian “HAWK” crossing at Craycroft Road is an important item to be included with the Preservation Plan. The HAWK provides a safe place to cross Craycroft Road within the boundaries of Fort Lowell Park. The funding for the HAWK crossing is not included in the 2004 Pima County Bond Funding. Analysis and Drawings Landscape and Site Features 54 References Burns Wald-Hopkins Architects. Adkins Residence, Adkins Steel Parcel, Building Condition Assessment Report. Tucson, Arizona, February 2008. Burns Wald-Hopkins Architects. Officer’s Quarters No. 1, 2 &3, Adkins Steel Parcel, Building Condition Assessment Report. Tucson, Arizona, February 2008. Cornerstones Community Partnerships. Adobe Conservation: A Preservation Handbook. Santa Fe: Sunstone Press, 2006. Gorski, Andrew and Michael Lovato. Maintenance Guides for the Treatment of Historic Properties, Petrified Forest National Park. Tucson, Arizona. National Park Service Desert Southwest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit / The University of Arizona Preservation Studies College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, June 2005. Available on-line at http://www.nps.gov/pefo/parkmgmt/upload/ PEFO_Maintenance_Guides_2005.pdf Johnson, Alfred E. Archaeological Investigations at Fort Lowell. Ms. on file, Arizona State Museum Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1960. National Park Service. NPS-28 Cultural Resource Management Guidelines. Available on-line at www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nps28/28contents.htm Poster Frost Associates. Fort Lowell Park Master Plan Background Report. Tucson, Arizona, May 2009. Poster Frost Associates. Fort Lowell Park Master Plan Final Report. Tucson, Arizona, September 2009. Thiel, J. Homer. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Fort Lowell Park, the Donaldson/Hardy Property, and the Quartermaster and Commissary Storehouse Property within Historic Fort Lowell. Tucson, Pima County. Arizona. Technical Report No. 2009-02. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, 2009. Thiel, J. Homer, M. L. Brack, and Tyler S. Theriot. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Fort Lowell- Adkins Steel Property within Historic Fort Lowell, Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. Technical Report No. 2008-08. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, 2008. Tilden, Freeman. Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1957. Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995. References The American Institute of Architects Historic Resources Committee. Guide to Historic Preservation. Washington, DC. American Institute of Architects, 2001. Available on-line at http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aias075381.pdf 55 Ft. Lowell Restoration Plan Edward Crocker, May 2009 Goals 1. Provide a plan for stabilization and restoration with a 50 year life 2. Restore to the period of significance as outlined by Poster Frost 3. Provide “truth” windows into other periods Officer’s Quarters No. 3 Demo Annex Removal of the roof and walls should occur with hand labor and hand tools only. Whole adobes to be set aside and protected. Slab is to be saw cut into three or four pieces and removed. Hydraulic and pneumatic hammers are not to be used. Estimated cost of removal: $1,600. Stabilize Fireplaces in East Wall The fireplaces in Bedrooms 1 and 2 are to be underpinned according to the following scope of work: Excavate to the bottom of the wall or footing on the north and east sides; supply and install four A.B. Chance® SS5x8 helical piers to a depth and torque necessary to support the anticipated loads with a safety factor of 2:1; supply and install four low profile A.B. Chance® load transfer brackets; supply and install four, 6x8x½-inch galvanized angle iron supports, five feet long with the pier located at the centerline and the eight-inch wide flange under the wall/footing; transfer load from the collapsed soils to the piers; backfill, compact and grade. Unit cost is $1,980, for a subtotal of $3,960 per fireplace and an estimated total this item of $7,920. Underpinning the fireplace in BR 2 will require removal/replacement of the floor along the south wall of BR 1, incurring an estimated additional expense of $1,440. An illustrated overview of the “Adobe Cage” method developed by Crocker Ltd. for stabilizing earthen walls is included at the end of this Appendix. Alternate for fireplace in BR 1: Shore roof; demo existing fireplace; over-excavate to a depth of four feet and replace with engineered fill, compacted to 95% in six-inch lifts; rebuild fireplace using salvaged adobe and firebrick. Estimated cost this alternate: $9,300. Stabilize East Wall Remove built-up soil on east side to floor level; remove wood floors adjacent to the walls; fabricate “adobe cages” to accommodate the wall length and openings with no cage being longer than four feet; infill voids with lime-rich mud; fill cages with lime-rich mud; tilt into place and through-bolt, capturing the wall on both sides as illustrated in the accompanying photo narrative. Cages are to turn the corner at the SE for a minimum of three feet and are to be welded or bolted together at both the inside and outside corners. Length of wall to be caged is approximately 42 feet. Estimated cost per linear foot: $250 for a total this item of $10,500. Alternate: Remove adobes in three- to four-foot sections; over-excavate to 16 inches below grade; install and hand compact engineered fill to 90% in six-inch lifts; rebuild adobe walls and dry pack joint between the old and the new. Estimated cost this item: $16,500. CAUTIONARY NOTE: The alternate presents much higher risk of partial or total collapse of the wall, and will require approximately four times the man hours that caging will. Demo Cabinetry in Kitchen and Pantry, Stabilize Walls Remove all cabinetry in kitchen and return to owner. Stabilize and rebuild adobe wall where cabinetry is presently supporting; remove vestiges of plumbing and electrical systems; patch and repair holes; apply leveling coat of mud plaster as required and leave all walls finish ready. Estimated cost this item: $4,200. Grading and Drainage, Including a Basal Wall Geodrain Excavate to the bottom of the footing, or to a minimum of eight inches below the bottom of the lowest course of adobes, along the full length of the four walls, estimated at 166 feet; strike a line at final grade and cut and remove the plaster down to the substrate; supply and install MiraDrain 6000®, attached to the wall at the top with a 5/8-inch plaster stop; terminate at the bottom by inserting the membrane into a continuously-slotted pipe with a cleanout at each corner; grade to drain to a drywell to the north; embed the bottom eight to 12 inches in ¾-inch river rock, capped with a non-woven polypropylene geotextile; backfill and compact using engineered fill; grade to drain at the surface. Estimated cost per linear foot: $175 for a total this item of $29,050. Alternate: Install a continuous strip of MiraDrain 6000® four inches inside of the leading edge of the veranda deck. MiraDrain® to extend from one inch below the surface to 16 inches below grade. Approximate length is 205 feet. Estimated cost per linear foot: $25 for a total this item of $5,125. CAUTIONARY NOTE: This alternate assumes that the building will not be exposed to surface runoff in the form of floodwater or from broken utilities. The alternate will provide only a minor line of defense. this item of $4,400. Damaged and destroyed adobe at a depth from three to six inches will require replacement with adobe batts. Estimated cost per face foot: $19. Allowance: 200 square feet for a total this item of $3,800. Damaged and destroyed adobe deeper than six inches from the vertical plane will require replacement with full or partial adobes. Estimated cost per face foot: $29. Allowance: 100 square feet for a total this item of $2,900. Strip Existing Plaster Saw cut existing plaster at four feet O.C.; strip from top down and dispose. Area to be stripped is approximately 255 square yards. Estimated cost per yard including hauling and disposal fees: $15 for a total this item of $3,825. Demo / Replace Veranda Demo existing verandas on north and south salvaging materials as possible. Estimated cost this item: $2,640. Replicate veranda on all four sides: provide a leveling coat of mud at site of ledger on all four sides; attach treated 2x6-inch ledger by through-bolting to the inside with 5/8-inch galvanized all-thread with washers 16 inches O.C.; inside to be washered at each location using a six-inch square of .244 HC wire, #3 gauge, ¾-inch opening (materials screening mesh) with 1½-inch galvanized washer and low profile nut to be plastered over; spot footings at column locations to be A. B. Chance® SS5x12 helical piers set to seven feet (assuming minimum of 500 ft/lbs torque or refusal) and fitted with adjustable hardware for connection to the columns; joist framing to be pressure treated; deck and purlins to be untreated rough sawn lumber; roof to be 22 gauge, 7/8-inch corrugated cold rolled steel. Approximate square footage is 1,537 at $76/square foot, for an estimated total this item of $116,812. Alternate: Helical piers are preferable because of reversibility and because they obviate the need for archeology. The 28 piers needed total $21,000. Cast spot footings 12 inches in diameter and 24 inches deep with attachment hardware can be substituted for an estimated $10,080, bringing the total this item to $105,892. Wall Repairs Adobe in the vertical plane of the wall that is damaged or destroyed to a depth of no more than three inches can be repaired with mud leveling coats and, if needed, unfired tile rajuela. Estimated cost per face foot: $11. Allowance: 400 square feet for a total Exterior Mud Leveling Coat Mask all woodwork with 6-mil plastic; using a pump in a barrel of lime water (½ shovel Type S hydrated lime in 50 gallons clean water), completely douse the walls repeatedly to remove all loose material; apply a mud leveling coat to achieve military appearance, Parapet Cap – Copper Assuming removal of the existing concrete cap and re-establishment of an adobe parapet, supply and install a continuous copper cap with a ¾-inch drip lip over the finished vertical plane of the walls and a three-inch drip lip over the roof. Approximate length of all parapets is 166 feet. Each section to be no longer than four feet and to overlap four inches at each joint to accommodate expansion and contraction. Joints are not to be soldered. At each overlap, apply a two-inch-wide strip of butyl tape before screwing the joints together. Cap to be attached to adobe using three-inch brass deck screws. Estimated cost per foot: $200 for a total this item of $33,200. Alternate: Replace copper with galvanized steel. Estimated cost per foot, installed: $65 for a total this item of $10,790. Appendix A Assessment from Crocker Ltd. 56 straight and plumb. Leveling coat mix to be maximum 18% clay by volume, 1% silt, balance aggregate. Aggregate is to be crushed, not rounded, and roughly equally distributed in a range of sizes from No. 8 masonry sand to 3/8-inch gravel. Add 1/8 cup (dry volume) Type S hydrated lime to five gallons of water for mixing. Chopped straw will enhance the durability but may not be appropriate historically. 255 square yards at $42/yard for an estimated cost this item of $10,710. NOTE: It is essential that test panels be applied beforehand to verify that the mix has the proper characteristics of adhesion and resistance to cracking. Mud Plaster Finish Coat Mud to be new local material; do not recycle from the base of walls. Mix to be maximum 18% clay by volume, 1% silt, balance aggregate. Aggregate is to be crushed, not rounded, and roughly equally distributed in a range of sizes from No. 8 masonry sand to ¼-inch gravel. Add 1/8 cup (dry volume) Type S hydrated lime to five gallons of water for mixing. Chopped straw will enhance the durability but may not be appropriate historically. 255 square yards at $15/yard for an estimated cost this item of $3,825. Restore Fireboxes Use historic bricks. Estimated cost: $1,500 each, for a total of $4,500. Cap chimneys Use rigid insulation cut to fit flue and seal with galvanized metal caps. Estimated cost: $500 each, for a total of $1,500. Restore Windows / Doors Allow $2,280 each for seven windows: $15,960. Allow $1,440 each for six doors: $8,640. Front door and operating glazing: $3,000. Replicate window at northeast Estimated cost $3,000. Move door to southcenter Estimated cost $1,680. Roof and Beams Strip existing roof. Estimated cost including disposal fees: $2,000. Splice beams as needed (see specifications, attached). Estimated cost: $850/each. Allowance: 12 units, for a total this item of $10,200. Tie the beams to the bearing walls by running a two-inch, 12,000 lb. test polyester webbing over the beam inside the vertical plane, then down six courses of adobe, through the wall and back up the exterior, through the wall and over the top of the beam. Pull the strap tight and screw to the beam using three-inch brass deck screws and fender washers. Grommet holes to be melted into the strapping at the screw points. Estimated cost per unit: $240 in 80 locations for a total this item of $19,200. Removal of Slab Floors Do not use vibratory (hydraulic or pneumatic) demolition equipment. Saw cut the floors in the Epoxy (Abatron ® ) Repairs living room and BR 1 on a 30-inch grid; remove and Wooden elements that show structurally nondispose of debris. 494 square feet at $12/foot for an threatening levels of deterioration due to rot, fungi or estimated cost this item of $5,928. wood eating insects should be scraped or chiseled to solid wood and repaired using Abatron WoodEpox® Replace Floors or equivalent. Estimated cost per board foot: $36. Excavate trenches at eight inches wide and Allowance: 100 board feet for a total this item of four inches deep, 24 inches O.C.; fill trenches with $3,600. Borate treatment for all embedded wood: 3/8- inch rounded river rock; lay 4x4-inch pressure Estimated cost per board foot: $15. Allowance: 500 treated sleepers on the gravel, holding back from the board feet for a total this item of $7,500. Replace vertical plane of the walls by three inches to permit saguaro latillas; cover with petate mat or other air circulation; deck with 5/8-inch plywood. Finish appropriate material to hide insulation from floor to be soft pine nailed to the sub-floor with cut beneath: Estimated cost: $30/square foot. Quantity nails. Install two vents per room. Estimated cost per to be determined. Insulation and re-roof estimate by square foot: $25. Quantity to be determined. others. Capture Walls Ceiling Strap walls per attached diagram with two-inch, Strip existing ceiling. Estimated cost: $6/square foot, including disposal. At 1,326 square feet, total 12,000 lb. test polyester webbing. Strapping to begin at steel column and be attached via buckling or this item is $7,956. clamping devices; strapping to be run at lintel and sill heights to provide attachment (particularly at Patch / Repair Interior Walls Approximately 430 square yards, with mud and lintel height) to embedded wood; pull the strap tight lime wash. Estimated cost: $36/square yard for a using a come-along or freight tie-down device; attach strapping by melting a grommet hole using a hot nail total this item of $15,480. or wire; screw to embedded wood using three-inch brass deck screws and fender washers at six inches Officer’s Quarters No. 2 O.C., and to the adobe walls at 16 inches O.C.; holes We propose that the ghosting scheme offers to be alternating in upper and lower thirds of strap. several advantages for the material conservation of Approximately 440 linear feet of strapping at $27/ the structure, as well as being a sound interpretive foot for an estimated total this item of $11,880. Where tool. The proposed roof will offer the best protection required, on the east portion of the south wall for possible for the adobe walls and the steel columns example, add 2x6x10-foot vertical stiles to capture can be placed in such a way as to serve as bracing for unstable areas (see diagram). Apply a mud leveling a strapping system. coat prior to installation to avoid point loads on high spots. Estimated cost per unit: $250. Allowance: 2 Demo Concrete Annex on West stiles for a total this item of $500. Do not use vibratory equipment. Saw cut the walls into manageable sections, remove and dispose Level Out Walls at Parapet of debris. Estimated cost: $2,500. Eliminate the crenellated appearance by infilling with adobes and adobe batts. Estimated cost per linear Demo Contrapared on East and North foot, $66 for an estimated 20 linear feet: $1,320. Do not use vibratory equipment. Saw cut the grade beam into manageable sections, remove and Wall Repairs dispose of debris. Estimated cost: $3,400. There are a number of areas in the walls that should be stabilized. Adobe in the vertical plane of Repair Base of Wall the wall that is damaged or destroyed to a depth of (see below) no more than three inches can be repaired with mud leveling coats and, if needed, unfired tile rajuela. Install Columns Estimated cost per face foot: $11. Allowance: 200 Pricing by others. square feet for a total this item of $2,200. Damaged and destroyed adobe at a depth from three to six Infill East Wall inches will require replacement with adobe batts. As part of the plan to stabilize the wall, remove Estimated cost per face foot: $19. Allowance: 100 the scabbed-in lintel and replace with appropriate square feet for a total this item of $1,900. Damaged rough beams to match existing; infill with adobe. and destroyed adobe deeper than six inches from the Beam replacement estimated cost: $750. Adobe infill vertical plane will require replacement with full or estimated at $22/face foot for approximately 60 face partial adobes. Estimated cost per face foot: $29. feet: $1,320. Allowance: 50 square feet for a total this item of $1,450. Infill West Wall Replace lintel over window. Estimated cost: Grading and Drainage $600. Adobe infill estimated at $22/face foot for Excavate to the bottom of the footing, or at a approximately 32 face feet: $704. Appendix A Crocker Ltd., Continued 57 Crocker Ltd., Continued Proposal to “capture the walls” on Officer’s Quarters #2 using polyester webbing. This strategy is one option being considered to stabilize the walls. This design was completed before the lower porch ghosting was added. Since the lower porch ghosting will help to stabilize the walls, the polyester webbing may not be needed or may be reduced in scope. North 0 1’2’ 4’ 8’ North South ° Columns Upper Strap Lower Strap 2 x 6 Stiles Bollard Appendix A West 58 East minimum to eight inches below the bottom of the lowest course of adobes, along the full length of the four exterior walls (estimated at 166 linear feet); strike a line at final grade and cut and remove the plaster down to the substrate; supply and install MiraDrain 6000®, attached to the wall at the top with a 5/8-inch plaster stop; embed the bottom four inches in ¾-inch river rock, capped with a non-woven polypropylene geotextile; backfill and compact using engineered fill; grade to drain at the surface. Estimated cost per linear foot: $55 for a total this item of $9,130. Protective Coating We propose that the majority of this structure be left as-is to illustrate the “skeleton” of the building next door, Officer’s Quarters No. 3. However, in order to lengthen the maintenance cycle we recommend that the south and west exterior walls be rendered with a mud leveling coat. Using a pump in a barrel of lime water (½ shovel Type S hydrated lime in 50 gallons clean water), completely douse the walls repeatedly to remove all loose material; apply mud leveling coat to achieve military appearance, straight and plumb. Leveling coat mix to be maximum 18% clay by volume, 1% silt, balance aggregate. Aggregate is to be crushed, not rounded, and roughly equally distributed in a range of sizes from No. 8 masonry sand to 3/8-inch gravel. Add 1/8 cup (dry volume) Type S hydrated lime to five gallons of water for mixing. Chopped straw will enhance the durability but may not be appropriate historically. Approximately 80 square yards at $42/yard for an estimated total this item of $3,360. NOTE: It is essential that test panels be applied beforehand to verify that the mix has the proper characteristics of adhesion and resistance to cracking. four exterior walls (estimated at 101 linear feet); strike a line at final grade and cut and remove the plaster down to the substrate; supply and install MiraDrain 6000®, attached to the wall at the top with a 5/8-inch plaster stop; embed the bottom four inches in ¾-inch river rock, capped with a non-woven polypropylene geotextile; backfill and compact using engineered fill; grade to drain at the surface. Estimated cost per linear foot: $55 for a total this item of $5,555. Protective Coating An exterior mud render will offer a great deal of protection, particularly on the windward exposures. We propose that all four exterior walls be treated and that the interior walls remain as they are. Using a pump in a barrel of lime water (½ shovel Type S hydrated lime in 50 gallons clean water), completely douse the walls repeatedly to remove all loose material; apply mud leveling coat to achieve military appearance, straight and plumb. Leveling coat mix to be maximum 18% clay by volume, 1% silt, balance aggregate. Aggregate is to be crushed, not rounded and roughly equally distributed in a range of sizes from No. 8 masonry sand to 3/8-inch gravel. Add 1/8 cup (dry volume) Type S hydrated lime to five gallons of water for mixing. Chopped straw will enhance the durability but may not be appropriate historically. Approximately 202 square yards at $42/yard for an estimated total this item of $8,484. NOTE: It is essential that test panels be applied beforehand to verify that the mix has the proper characteristics of adhesion and resistance to cracking. The “Adobe Cage” method, developed by Crocker, Ltd., for stabilizing earthen walls for a failing building in Arroyo Seco, New Mexico. The hard plaster is cut and removed, revealing the damaged wall beneath. A lime-rich mud is cast onto the damaged wall without removal and replacement of adobe. Mud is cast onto the steel “cage,” a frame that is one inch thick and fabricated on site to fit the building’s pathologies. Once in place, holes are drilled through the wall to match up with the cage on the opposite side. Allthread through-bolts are used to draw the two cages together and sandwich the damaged wall. Kitchen at Officer’s Quarters No. 2 The ghosting plan with a protective roof leaves only the wall bases and outside vertical planes to be conserved. Grading and Drainage Excavate to the bottom of the footing, or at a minimum to eight inches below the bottom of the lowest course of adobes, along the full length of the The cages are left essentially flush with the vertical plane of the walls and can be plastered over without the use of lath. Appendix A Crocker Ltd., Continued 59 Detailed Cost Estimate Units 2,350 Sqft 1,100 Sqft 265 Cuft 1,669 Sqft 1,600 Sqft 1 Each 1 Each Unit Cost $ 5.50 $ 1.15 $23.50 $ 1.15 $ 6.00 $2,200 $2,500 Mark-up $6,721 $ 658 $3,238 $ 998 $4,992 $1,144 $1,300 Total $19,646 $ 1,923 $ 9,466 $ 2,917 $14,592 $ 3,344 $ 3,800 $55,688 Phase 1 - Officer’s Quarters #3 Item Rehabilitate Building (Est. by Crocker Ltd.) Security System & Electrical Service Interior Finishes Tapered Roof Insulation Re-roof Custom Canale & Leader Plaster Ceiling Phase 1 - Stabilize Adkins Residence & Water Tower Units 1 Each 1,750 Sqft 1,750 Sqft 1,550 Sqft 1,550 Sqft 8 Each 800 Sqft Unit Cost $308,655 $ 6.50 $ 10.00 $ 2.30 $ 2.55 $ 225 $ 8.25 Mark-up $160,500 $5,915 $9,100 $ 1,854 $ 2,055 $ 936 $3,432 Phase 1 - Officer’s Quarters #2 and Kitchen Ruins Item Units Steel Roof Structure 1,710 Sqft Steel Roof Deck 1,710 Sqft Linear Skylight 2 Each Stabilize Adobe Walls (Est. by Crocker Ltd.) 1 Each Porch Roof 1,710 Sqft Kitchen Roof Structure 590 Sqft Kitchen Roof Deck 590 Sqft Unit Cost $25.00 $ 5.00 $850 $55,053 $20.00 $25.00 $ 5.00 Mark-up $22,230 $ 4,446 $ 884 $28,628 $17,784 $ 7,670 $ 1,534 Phase 1 - Officer’s Quarters #1 Ruins Item Mud Cap Adobe Repair Grade Away from Building Steel Ghosting Porch Roof Units 200 Lnft 1 Each 1,000 Sqft 1,710 Sqft 1,580 Sqft Unit Cost $25.00 $3,000 $ 0.50 $25.00 $20.00 Mark-up $2,600 $1,560 $ 260 $22,230 $16,432 Total $469,155 $17,290 $26,600 $ 5,419 $ 6,008 $ 2,736 $10,032 Item Patch Roof, Flashing & Shoring Stabilize Water Tower Units 1 Each 1 Each Unit Cost $30,450 $ 1,000 Mark-up $15,834 $ 520 Total $46,284 $ 1,520 $47,804 Phase 1 - Adkins Site Work Item Units Unit Cost Mark-up Adkins 6’ CL Site Fencing 1,200 Lnft $10.00 $6,240 $537,240 Adkins 4’ Picket Fencing 250 Lnft $20.00 $2,600 New Cottonwood Trees 30 Each $600 $9,360 Site Grading 1 Each $2,500 $1,300 Total Irrigate Adkins-era Trees 3 Each 450 $ 702 $64,980 $12,996 $2,584 $83,681 Phase 1 - Adkins Parcel Parking Lot $51,984 Units Unit Cost Mark-up $22,420 Item Adkins Stabilized Parking 26,000 Sqft $0.65 $8,788 $ 4,484 Adkins Parking Lot Landscaping 1 Each $7,000 $3,640 Adkins Parking Lighting 1 Each $3,300 $1,716 $243,128 Adkins Striping 1 Each $750 $ 390 Adkins Curb 850 Lnft $12.00 $ 5,304 Total $18,240 $ 7,600 $27,360 $ 3,800 $ 2,052 Total $7,600 $4,560 $ 760 $64,980 $48,032 $57,988 $125,932 $59,052 Total $25,688 $10,640 $ 5,016 $ 1,140 $15,504 Appendix B Demolition Prior to Phase 1 Item Remove Adkins Steel Fabrication Shed Remove Adkins-era Roller Trench Slab Remove Adkins-era Roller Trench Remove 4” Slab-on-grade Remove RC Magor House Remove Windmill Tower Base Remove Concrete Silo 60