CIP A 2003 XIX th International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey
684
The entire heritage record shared the same coordinate system,
allowing different elements to be combined for study. Heights
of interior and exterior elevations could be compared and
different floor and roof plans could be overlaid for analysis.
This also assisted the documentation process and quality review
by comparing common elements of the drawing set. For
example, loopholes, doors and windows of both floor plans and
elevations could be combined and then compared to see if they
were in-line. This was one tool to help determine if the final
product met the precision specified for the project deliverable.
5. WHERE VALUE LIES
Feedback was sought from different conservation team
information users regarding the usefulness of the heritage
record. From the conservation architect’s point of view, prior to
the completion of the heritage record, there was never a check
or confirmation of the original drawings of the fort. In the past,
the original drawings were traced and manipulated as working
drawings for major interventions. It was often not clear if
specific original drawings accurately represented what was
built, or if it was a conceptual drawing. Various information
users can feel confident that they have a heritage record in hand
that reflects the state of the fort as it stands today.
Dimensions obtained from the heritage record were also
compared to the written record of the construction of the fort,
helping to identify the configuration of the fort in different eras.
Also the roof plan provided a base drawing for the architects,
engineers and historians to graphically represent the different
eras of the fort (1862, 1864,1878 and 1938) (Fig. 5). These
documents where then used to convey information to the client.
1878
"V - /
barbette emplacements
removed
board and batten removed
Fig. 5: Roof plans showing the different eras of the fort
■
% v
A ■ ■
./ .
>
Historic photos where also compared to the heritage record to
identify the different eras shown in fig.6. The 1910 photo was
rectified and compared to the 2002 heritage record. With this
exercise, it was determined that the roof was previously at a
higher level. During the renovation of 1938, the roof was
lowered, possibly to provide drainage.
Fig. 6: Historic photo compared to heritage record
