NYC Law Department release
Independent mirror · updated as the City releases more · v1.2.6
← Document results/DEP Box 01/LANDMARK INFORMATION
Document / 12 pages

Dangers of abrasive cleaning to historic buildings, undated

Machine-extracted title · confidence 95%

Brief explaining risks of sandblasting and chemical treatments on historic building materials.

NYC-WTC_000093852–000093863

Folder label: “LANDMARK INFORMATION

Page image
Scanned page image, NYC-WTC_000093853
OCR text

OCR status: ok · source: pdftotext

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Preservation Brief 6: Dangers of Abrasive Cleaning to Historic Buildings Page 2 of 12

permanent damage to historic an abrasive cleaning method. Depending on the manner in which it is applied, water may soften the impact of the grit, but water that is fabric, such as this brick wall, Photo: NPS files, too highly pressurized can be very abrasive. There are basically two different methods which can be referred to as "wet grit," and it is important to differentiate between the two. One technique involves the addition of a stream of water to a regular sandblasting nozzle. This is done primarily to cut down dust, and has very little, if any, effect on reducing the aggressiveness, or cutting action of the grit particles. With the second technique, a very small amount of grit is added to a pressurized water stream. This method may be controlled by regulating the amount of grit fed into the water stream, as well as the pressure of the water.

Why Are Abrasive Cleaning Methods Used? Usually, an abrasive cleaning method is selected as an expeditious means of quickly removing years of dirt accumulation, unsightly stains, or deteriorating building fabric or finishes, such as stucco or paint.

The fact that sandblasting is one of the best known and most readily available building cleaning treatments is probably the major reason for its frequent use.

Many mid-19th century brick buildings were painted immediately or soon after completion to protect poor quality brick or to imitate another material, such as stone. Sometimes brick buildings were painted in an effort to produce what was considered a more harmonious relationship between a building and its natural surroundings. By the 1870s, brick buildings were often left unpainted as mechanization in the brick industry brought a cheaper pressed brick and fashion decreed a sudden preference for dark colors. However, it was still customary to paint brick of poorer quality for the additional protection the paint afforded.

it is a common Lutn century misconception tnat all nistoric masonry Brick molding next to the window buildings were initially unpainted. If the intent of a modern restoration has been severely abraded by sandblasting to remove paint. is to return a building to its original appearance, removal of the paint Photo: NPS files. not only may be historically inaccurate, but also harmful. Many older buildings were painted or stuccoed at some point to correct recurring maintenance problems caused by faulty construction techniques, to hide alterations, or in an attempt to solve moisture problems. If this is the case, removal of paint or stucco may cause these problems to reoccur.

Another reason for paint removal, particularly in rehabilitation projects, is to give the building a "new image" in response to contemporary design trends and to attract investors or tenants. Thus, it is necessary to consider the purpose of the intended cleaning. While it is clearly important to remove unsightly stains, heavy encrustations of dirt, peeling paint or other surface coatings, it may not be equally desirable to remove paint from a building which originally was painted. Many historic buildings which show only a slight amount of soil or discoloration are much better left as they are.

A thin layer of soil is more often protective of the building fabric than it is harmful, and seldom detracts from the building's architectural and/or historic character. Too thorough cleaning of a historic building may not only sacrifice some of the building's character, but also, misguided cleaning efforts can cause a great deal of damage to historic building fabric. Unless there are stains, graffiti or dirt and pollution deposits which are destroying the building fabric, it is generally preferable to do as little cleaning as possible, or to repaint where necessary. It is important to remember that a historic building does not have to look as if it were newly constructed to be an attractive or successful restoration or rehabilitation project.

http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/brief06.htrn 03/05/2002

NYC-WTC 000093853

OCR can misread numbers and units. Confirm readings against the page image before using them.

NYC-WTC_000093853Source: NYC Law Department, mirrored locally

Related records

Browse subjects →

Ranked by indexed similarity. Reasons describe shared subjects and filing context; check the source records.

Same-box records

Filed elsewhere

More like this page

Similar subjects in other documents. Similarity does not establish the same event, measurement or conclusion.

Page similarity is temporarily unavailable or this page has no indexed vector.

Buildings in this record

Machine-extracted building matches; verify each source. Buildings, never households.

Others also read

Readers open these alongside this record — through an Ask answer, the same folder, or indexed similarity. Not a claim they are about the same event.

Compare copies and versions →