So we all read the Grunter editorial responding to a concerned citizen who thought the dormer issue was a serious problem. I commented on it here. The Editor told us that it couldn’t be that important because if it were, it would have been taken care of by now. By that argument, it has just become less important because roof repair is not included in the latest laundry list of possible projects to spend $200,000 on.
So if it’s not critical, who decided that? We paid NCA architects $7,000 to advise us on phasing and priorities, what did they have to say? In an email to Dave Owen on Dec 6, Holly Grosvenor makes it clear:
There is a point where it does not make sense to do a portion of a task, when the result will in turn jeopardize the integrity of the building. For example, we could isolate that cost to selectively demolish and rebuild the large east dormer, but it becomes a much larger project when you realize that the work, no matter how careful, would break some of the surrounding slate shingles. This repair of the shingles often snowballs when it reveals what is underneath, leading to a larger area of re-roofing and larger cost. If you limit the money you can spend on that task, you may end up with a compromised roof for an extended period of time. And this compromise should be avoided because roofs are the most important element in the overall preservation of a building. For this reason, we do not recommend that you portion the work on the roof of the Town Hall.
So we’re not doing it because nobody knows what is going on there and they are reluctant to do anything on a limited budget. It’s our money folks. How do you want to spend it?