Finch Myers Memo

HOME

MORE INFORMATION

NEWS

FINCH DIALOGUE

FINCH LODGE HISTORY

ABOUT US

CONTACT US

Memo To: Council Camping Committee From: Joe Myers, Camping Committee Chair CC: Tim McCandless, Eric Brown Date: 5/15/2006 Subject: Cub Scout Camp and Finch Lodge At the March camping committee meeting, we brainstormed about the options for Finch Lodge and the new Cub Scout camp. We listed various pros and cons for 5 different options and added a 6th option. Since that meeting, our notes were shared at 5 other council meetings with additional input added. The updated "Finch Lodge Options" document is attached. In addition, John Stewart, the engineer from the national council, visited Camp Cowles again and spent several more hours examining Finch Lodge. He has some draft plans that he is going back and making further updates to. We expect revised proposals from him in the next 10-14 days. John had 3 key questions for us to consider in our evaluation:	OUR RESPONSE TO COUNCIL CAMPING COMMITTEE MEMO FROM JOE MYERS DATED 5/15/06
1. If we are going to renovate the lodge, what era do we renovate to? There have been significant changes to the building over the years. As an example, most people today think of the wood paneling inside, however, it is not original to the building. Open ceiling or not? If we go to a more original look, it would be dramatically different than what most people today think of! That may be good or bad.	WHAT ERA DO WE RENOVATE TO? Preservation authorities such as the US Department of the Interior, Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation all discourage choosing a particular era. This is only appropriate when a building is related to a particular event in history and its use is to commemorate that event. In most cases they recommend preserving the best of any remaining architectural features from all eras. They recommend uncovering and repairing important features but seldom recommend reconstructing features that are completely missing. In this particular case We think that the “ugly vinyl siding” needs to be removed and the 4” lap siding, board and batten gable accents, horizontal banding and the dormer windows need to be restored. Replacement windows should be similar in appearance to originals. On the front where there was originally only window screens the replacement windows should be simple in design to appear almost as screens when viewed from a distance. On the interior the final wall and ceiling covering might be some form of paneling maybe similar to what is there presently. We do believe that the ceiling in the main room should be open to show the four trusses. Other beams could be left exposed unless covering them is necessary to provide adequate insulation. This would provide a wall and ceiling treatment similar to that of the Camp Easton dining hall. Even if the massive trusses and beams were all hidden, they would still be there to carry valuable information to future generations This issue is really irrelevant to the main question - Preserve or Demolish.
2. We are not building a building to be used 2 to 3 years from now. Our goal is a building that will be here and in good repair through year-round, heavy-duty use 50 to 75 years from now with minimal maintenance required. Even if the current foundation and structure are sound, will they be sound 10, 15 or 25 years from now—particularly with the expanded use it will receive? (John believes that significant work will be required to shore up the foundation— whether it is sound now or not—to insure that it will be sound for 50 to 75 more years.) The only way to know will be to tear the building down to the foundation and structural supports then examine, test, strengthen and replace as necessary, and finally rebuild. Doing so will be very costly and very time consuming. If that is not done, then the entire renovation is a gamble and could be for naught and much more costly in the long run. Finally, if we tear down to the foundation and structural supports, why not just start over and same hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars?	2 to 3 years? Will they be sound 10, 15 or 20 years from now? Wooden, 200+ year old buildings currently get "year-round, heavy duty use" all along the Eastern Seaboard. In 50 to 75 years, a thoroughly and properly restored Finch would likely be just as sound as and a lot more appealing than a 2007 building would be, The 1923 Finch lodge would remain an amazing treasure which dates back to the era when camping began at Camp Cowles. A restored Finch Lodge would become more and more valuable as a wonderful advertisement for Camp Cowles and BSA. FOUNDATION AND STRUCTURAL ISSUES? It is expected that the wall covering would need to be removed and probably the floor stripped in order to rewire and insulate the building. This is not a difficult task. A qualified engineer needs to perform tests and make specific recommendations as to foundation and structural reinforcement. In the worst case we would need to raise the building and completely replace the foundation (it's been jacked up for repairs before). Any other structural reinforcement could be easily done. Remember, new buildings need foundations and structural framing as well. It can be costly even in a new building.
3. It’s likely that the existing structure and foundation will not support the additional weight that insulation, drywall, double-pane windows, sprinkler systems, new electrical systems, etc. will add to the building. The building was not designed with these requirements in mind and the additional weight of these items will be significant and will likely require significant upgrades to the foundation and structural supports.	Finch Lodge is sturdy post and beam construction. All wood framing between the posts is 16" on center (current code). Wood in the 1920's was better quality with fewer knot holes etc. and a 2X4 was closer to 2" X 4" than today's lumber. The foundation may need some work or even replacement but it is ridiculous to question the general structural strength if this building.
4. Finally, John cautions us to consider strongly the energy efficiency of the various options. Fuel and electric costs are rising dramatically every year. We know the situation with the current building. A renovated building will never be as efficient as a new building unless we tear down to the foundation and structural supports and rebuild.	ENERGY EFFICIENCY? Certainly any level of insulation can be added to the building after we open the walls and floor. The quality of windows, doors, kitchen equipment, heating and ventilation equipment, etc. would be same as in any new building. A proposal has been made to place a new addition to the building to house the kitchen, bathrooms, etc and use the historic structure as dining area. Under that plan the entire structure would be far more energy efficient than any new structure proposed. During cold weather, sections of the building could be separated and be heated only as needed. Hot water costs would be less and there would be far more natural lighting and ventilation.
5. 2 different contractors are of the opinion that to save the fireplaces, they need to be torn down and rebuilt. Because they have been neglected for so long, repairing them as is will provide a temporary solution and they will need regular repair.	FIREPLACES? We hope that the two contractors are masonry contractors with experience with large stone fireplaces. Did they examine the inside of the chimneys with a video camera? If that is the case, they should be able to give actual bids to do the job and we should put those in our plans. Even a total rebuild should not be hugely more expensive in the current building than in a new building.
John suggested the use of the enclosed chart to help us evaluate the options. Your input on those ratings is welcomed. We would like to receive any further input you have on both documents as this issue will be going to the executive board soon for their final decision on which option to pursue. Your input is needed to me or to Tim no later than June 15th. \\Scout\Users\tmccandl\Properties\Camp Cowles\Finch Lodge memo.doc 5/15/2006

Memo

To: Council Camping Committee

From: Joe Myers, Camping Committee Chair

CC: Tim McCandless, Eric Brown

Date: 5/15/2006

Subject: Cub Scout Camp and Finch Lodge

At the March camping committee meeting, we brainstormed about the options for Finch Lodge and the new Cub Scout camp. We listed various pros and cons for 5 different options and added a 6th option.

Since that meeting, our notes were shared at 5 other council meetings with additional input added. The updated "Finch Lodge Options" document is attached.

In addition, John Stewart, the engineer from the national council, visited Camp Cowles again and spent several more hours examining Finch Lodge. He has some draft plans that he is going back and making further updates to. We expect revised proposals from him in the next 10-14 days.

John had 3 key questions for us to consider in our evaluation:

OUR RESPONSE TO COUNCIL CAMPING COMMITTEE MEMO FROM JOE MYERS DATED 5/15/06

1. If we are going to renovate the lodge, what era do we renovate to? There have been significant changes to the building over the years. As an example, most people today think of the wood paneling inside, however, it is not original to the building. Open ceiling or not? If we go to a more original look, it would be dramatically different than what most people today think of! That may be good or bad.

WHAT ERA DO WE RENOVATE TO? Preservation authorities such as the US Department of the Interior, Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation all discourage choosing a particular era. This is only appropriate when a building is related to a particular event in history and its use is to commemorate that event. In most cases they recommend preserving the best of any remaining architectural features from all eras. They recommend uncovering and repairing important features but seldom recommend reconstructing features that are completely missing.

In this particular case We think that the “ugly vinyl siding” needs to be removed and the 4” lap siding, board and batten gable accents, horizontal banding and the dormer windows need to be restored. Replacement windows should be similar in appearance to originals. On the front where there was originally only window screens the replacement windows should be simple in design to appear almost as screens when viewed from a distance.

On the interior the final wall and ceiling covering might be some form of paneling maybe similar to what is there presently. We do believe that the ceiling in the main room should be open to show the four trusses. Other beams could be left exposed unless covering them is necessary to provide adequate insulation. This would provide a wall and ceiling treatment similar to that of the Camp Easton dining hall. Even if the massive trusses and beams were all hidden, they would still be there to carry valuable information to future generations This issue is really irrelevant to the main question - Preserve or Demolish.

2. We are not building a building to be used 2 to 3 years from now. Our goal is a building that will be here and in good repair through year-round, heavy-duty use 50 to 75 years from now with minimal maintenance required. Even if the current foundation and structure are sound, will they be sound 10, 15 or 25 years from now—particularly with the expanded use it will receive? (John believes that significant work will be required to shore up the foundation—

whether it is sound now or not—to insure that it will be sound for 50 to 75 more years.) The only way to know will be to tear the building down to the foundation and structural supports then examine, test, strengthen and replace as necessary, and finally rebuild. Doing so will be very costly and very time consuming. If that is not done, then the entire renovation is a gamble and could be for naught and much more costly in the long run. Finally, if we tear down to the foundation and structural supports, why not just start over and same hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars?

2 to 3 years? Will they be sound 10, 15 or 20 years from now? Wooden, 200+ year old buildings currently get "year-round, heavy duty use" all along the Eastern Seaboard. In 50 to 75 years, a thoroughly and properly restored Finch would likely be just as sound as and a lot more appealing than a 2007 building would be, The 1923 Finch lodge would remain an amazing treasure which dates back to the era when camping began at Camp Cowles. A restored Finch Lodge would become more and more valuable as a wonderful advertisement for Camp Cowles and BSA.

FOUNDATION AND STRUCTURAL ISSUES? It is expected that the wall covering would need to be removed and probably the floor stripped in order to rewire and insulate the building. This is not a difficult task. A qualified engineer needs to perform tests and make specific recommendations as to foundation and structural reinforcement. In the worst case we would need to raise the building and completely replace the foundation (it's been jacked up for repairs before). Any other structural reinforcement could be easily done.

Remember, new buildings need foundations and structural framing as well. It can be costly even in a new building.

3. It’s likely that the existing structure and foundation will not support the additional weight that insulation, drywall, double-pane windows, sprinkler systems, new electrical systems, etc. will add to the building. The building was not designed with these requirements in mind and the additional weight of these items will be significant and will likely require significant upgrades to the foundation and structural supports.

Finch Lodge is sturdy post and beam construction. All wood framing between the posts is 16" on center (current code). Wood in the 1920's was better quality with fewer knot holes etc. and a 2X4 was closer to 2" X 4" than today's lumber. The foundation may need some work or even replacement but it is ridiculous to question the general structural strength if this building.

4. Finally, John cautions us to consider strongly the energy efficiency of the various options. Fuel and electric costs are rising dramatically every year. We know the situation with the current building. A renovated building will never be as efficient as a new building unless we tear down to the foundation and structural supports and rebuild.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY? Certainly any level of insulation can be added to the building after we open the walls and floor. The quality of windows, doors, kitchen equipment, heating and ventilation equipment, etc. would be same as in any new building. A proposal has been made to place a new addition to the building to house the kitchen, bathrooms, etc and use the historic structure as dining area. Under that plan the entire structure would be far more energy efficient than any new structure proposed. During cold weather, sections of the building could be separated and be heated only as needed. Hot water costs would be less and there would be far more natural lighting and ventilation.

5. 2 different contractors are of the opinion that to save the fireplaces, they need to be torn down and rebuilt. Because they have been neglected for so long, repairing them as is will provide a temporary solution and they will need regular repair.

FIREPLACES? We hope that the two contractors are masonry contractors with experience with large stone fireplaces. Did they examine the inside of the chimneys with a video camera? If that is the case, they should be able to give actual bids to do the job and we should put those in our plans. Even a total rebuild should not be hugely more expensive in the current building than in a new building.

John suggested the use of the enclosed chart to help us evaluate the options. Your input on those ratings is welcomed.

We would like to receive any further input you have on both documents as this issue will be going to the executive board soon for their final decision on which option to pursue. Your input is needed to me or to Tim no later than June 15th.

\\Scout\Users\tmccandl\Properties\Camp Cowles\Finch Lodge memo.doc 5/15/2006