Masonry Magazine June 1980 Page. 7
The field of restoration and recycling is expanding rapidly because we no longer have a retarded mentality about our architectural heritage and because there are compelling economic reasons for rehabilitating existing structures. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 has given the same incentives to developers to do restoration work as they had in the past to do new construction. In fact, 35 percent, or more than a third, of the total dollars spent on construction today is spent on preservation maintenance, or reconstruction work. Recycling and preservation maintenance activity is one of the few bright spots in the construction industry today.
It is an established fact that rehabilitation projects are more labor-intensive and cost-effective than new construction. An analysis by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation of the projects funded under the Economic Development Act has shown that demolition and new construction work yields an average of only 70 jobs per $1 million spent, while that same million dollars spent on restoration and rehab work creates 109 jobs per $1 million spent. The difference is considerable. Restoration work results in more than half again as many jobs as new construction.
Not only does restoration on work yield more jobs, but for each dollar spent on new construction, 70 cents is spent on materials, and only 30 of that dollar goes for labor. However, in restoration work the reverse is true- only 25 cents is spent on materials and 75 cents of each dollar goes toward labor. Again, the difference is dramatic.
Preservation Field Expands
As a direct result of the increased activity in restoration and preservation maintenance, an ever larger percentage of the construction industry is entering the market for preservation work. Construction contractors and architects who are new to the field of architectural restoration may not be current with the new technology, materials, or procedures. They may have little understanding of the structures and materials they are working with, with the result that much of the work done is second-rate, or worse. And often irreparable damage results from awarding such jobs to architects and contractors who are not trained and who are not skilled in restoration work.
Eighty-five percent of the preservation maintenance work done in the United States is executed by contractors working directly with the owner, without an architect or preservation consultant. As a result, the need to have knowledgeable, well-trained craftsmen and contractors is especially important. It was for this reason that I felt a training program such as Restore, directed to the people in the building trades, would have a substantial impact on the quality of restoration work being done in the New York area.
To give you some idea of the impact that the Restore program has had in just three years time, on a weekly basis, I receive inquiries from architectural firms and owners of large institutions who want to know the names of mason contractors who have attended the Restore program so they can invite those contractors to bid on their work. These owners and architects understand the importance of having good mechanics and contractors who are familiar with new technology and methods of cleaning and repairing masonry.
This is very important because masonry is not indestructible. It can be abused.
Until recently, conventional thinking has been that the decision-making aspect of the preservation process was the private preserve of those holding degrees in architectural conservation, and that the contractor's role was continued on page 9