|
|
||
|
Featured Project
|
||
|
Alexander T. Rankin - John Rankin House Fort Wayne, Indiana
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION AND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The building is roughly 25 ft x 40 ft and consists of two portions. The first part is a two-story brick building. The second is a one-story light frame structure, which is approximately 2 inches wider than the brick structure. This is evident at the junction of the two buildings. The joint at the two buildings on the North side of the structure is clean and flush. However, on the South side, the timber structure projects beyond the brick and the joint is not as clean. There is no disturbance in the foundation of the North wall, suggesting that this wall existed first. The North wall foundation steps down and becomes less regular below the timber structure.
The West, North, and South brick walls above cellar were also built in a single construction campaign. Based on the construction method, the East wall was never intended to be brick. The other three walls were built in a traditional masonry sequence and are toothed into one another, with clean edges where the East wall would have been tied in. The absence of evidence of a foundation wall at the East end of the brick structure reinforces the likelihood that the East wall was never intended to be constructed of brick. There is no continuous foundation at the East wall under the joists, the ends of which have been cut off and toenailed into the timber building. The photo to the right shows the discontinuous foundation wall. It is likely that the East end of the building had a temporary infill timber wall in place prior to the present timber structure being added on. However, it is unclear when or for what length of time a timber wall was in place.
The builders may have anticipated joining a timber structure to the brick structure from the beginning of its construction. The brick building was always intended to be larger than its original footprint, whether the addition was meant to be timber or otherwise. For some reason, though, the original plan for the building was never realized. The original owner may have run into financial hardship, or may have had to move more quickly than anticipated, requiring a more timely completion of the house.
The two buildings were cobbled together. The cricket at the roof is the only change in roof line of either building, which is a sign that they were joined hastily and expeditiously. If the structures were more carefully joined, there would be a different roof form that is more deliberately designed (insert diagrams). The current roof line was not labor intensive and would have taken a work crew of three approximately one week to complete. A more deliberate design would have taken a work crew of the same size 3-4 weeks to complete.
Further Investigation After an initial physical assessment of the Rankin House, there are some details that require further investigation. Although it is apparent from the construction method and the current physical evidence that the East wall of the brick structure was timber, the reason for this type of closure is unclear. Based mainly on physical evidence, it is difficult to assign dates to various events, other than in broad date ranges. The construction date of the brick structure, as well as the date the two buildings were joined, is not clear. It is also not determined whether or not Alexander Rankin lived on the site at the time the buildings were joined. The first extrinsic evidence that the house existed at its current dimension was an 1855 tax map, which states the house was owned by John Maier; Rankin had already moved out of the house by the time of this documentation showing the buildings already joined. Conclusion The Rankin House is a poor marriage of two buildings. Physical evidence confirms that the structures were joined expeditiously rather than deliberately. This evidence includes the roof configuration and the orientation of the timber structure in relation to the brick. It can also be concluded that the brick portion of the structure was built on the cellar and included a timber East wall. The timber house was built on another location and moved to the site. There are no signs of modifications specifically done to aide freedom seekers. The cellar already existed. The curious brick partition is more likely explained as a moisture barrier for the cistern located behind than as a false wall. The cupboards, which were questioned as a possible hiding place for freedom seekers, were enclosed in the late 19th century. Recommendations 1. Address roof junction of the two building portions. Provide a higher quality repair method and materials or modify roof to improve the current condition. 2. Address surface runoff issues, including ensuring the past problem at the southwest corner does not reoccur. 3. Inspect the building for structural signs of termite damage and fungal damage from water intrusion.
|
||
The
line where the two buildings were joined on the North side is clean and flush.
The foundation on this side of the building does not show signs of being
disturbed. The photo on the left shows the joint at the North side of the
building. On the South side of the building, where the two structures
join, the timber projects beyond brick. The joint between the buildings is not
as clean as on the North side. This can be seen in the photo of the South
joint, to the right.
The
cellar of the building was constructed at one time. With the exception of one
section of wall, the masonry is toothed in, which means that the walls were
built simultaneously in the traditional masonry building sequence. The
overturned cheek wall, seen in the photo to the left, at the south side of the
stair up to the covered hatch is a cold joint. The masonry of the North wall of
the stair recess is knitted in to its adjoining wall, however, suggesting that
the builders realized the need for a stairwell during construction and returned
the wall on this side. The wall on the South side of the stairwell was added at
a point in construction when it was no longer possible to knit it into the
cellar walls. 
The
timber portion of the structure was built elsewhere prior to the approximate
1840 construction date of the brick structure. It was brought to the site and
placed on an extension of the foundation of the brick structure at an unknown
date, but not later than 1855. The temporary timber wall was partially
demolished in order to join the two buildings. This joint is seen in its
current condition in the photo to the left. Although an addition was
intended from the start of construction of the brick building, it is clear that
the existing timber structure was not what the builder had in mind. The
orientation is awkward but was all the dimensions of the existing timber
structure would allow on the site. 
The
diagram on the left illustrates the existing orientation of buildings, with
ridge lines of the roofs perpendicular to one another. The property dimensions
did not allow the timber structure to be oriented in the other direction.
Joining two more deliberately chosen buildings would have allowed for an
orientation that the gabled ends of the buildings intersection, as shown to the
right.
The
existing roof line of the house is shown in the diagram to the left. Water
collects at the intersection of the two buildings due to the configuration of
the roof, causing water damage and timber rot. A roof design that was more
deliberate, like the one to the right, would have been a sign that joining the
two buildings was more calculated.
The
construction quality of the brick house has been compromised by the hasty
addition of the timber house and roof connection. It also appears that the
bricks may have been sandblasted, which shortens the material’s life-span. There
is significant termite and water damage, shown in photo, in the upper timbers of
the one-story structure where the two buildings come together.
The
odd brick partition wall, shown in the photo to the left, in the brick portion
of the structure is not original, nor is it load-bearing. The one-story wall is
not toothed in to adjacent brick walls and there are no joists bearing on it.
The addition of this wall most likely has to do with water. There is a cistern
located behind the wall, so the wall serves as a moisture barrier for the rest
of the structure. A timber partition used for the same purpose would have been
more susceptible to the moisture from the cistern.