Historical and esthetical properties of the building
Its authenticity
Constructive and structural status
Its status of availability to all sections and dimensions
Possible dimensions and scope of restoration application to
be made
Data expected from the result of survey
Budget estimated for this work
Evaluation made in respect to the preservation economy
Status and priorities of the building with respect to
conservation risks.
The basic principle of architectural conservation and restoration
today is the preservation of the authenticity of the buildings.
Thus what is important is not reconstructing the building but to
preserve it.
Architectural preservation and restoration is a process. The
works related to survey and documentation are one of the
repeatable methods in this process when needed. Therefore it is
one of the tools used in order to achieve the final purpose,
namely treatment of the patient.
Conservation and restoration works are a process lasting until
the completion of restoration application starting from survey.
In general, it is a process where an Architect specialized in
Preservation and restoration should direct and manage. Every
phase of this process should be supervised and guided by this
manager.
In this context, all types of studies such as surveying, static
analysis, historical research, restitution works, material analyses
etc. should not be implemented independently by the
occupational groups that will carry on these works except
general control and management. In order for all of
these works yield the desired result, they should be
implemented under a single management which is very
important in respect to the process of Architectural
Conseravation and restoration.
In our day, the Architectural heritage became diversified and
increased in number; thus the act of preservation has become
even more difficult, with the cost increased its form has begun
to change. Although the extensive restorations still continue, as
it has been mentioned clearly in article 4 of Venice Charter ,
preservation act should be continuous in the form of a simple
repair. This method both decreases the costs of a complete and
extensive intervention and also sometimes makes it
unnecessary.
methods and techniques. However, local realities of the
application area, its difficulties and limits sometimes don’t let
us use the most developed technique and method. In all cases,
whether it has limits or not, the selection of method and
technique should be made with methods going farther than
intuitiveness. In addition from the simplest to the most
developed one, the method, techniques and tools should be used
together in many applications. A photometric façade survey
may be mixed with a manual plan survey. In these days when
the architects and engineers seem to have forgotten how to draw
by hand on paper, I think that we shouldn’t throw away our
steel- meters and pencils and follow the physicians who have re
discovered use of plants in the treatment of some diseases.
Table 1
In this table, a simple questioning method has been suggested in
order to determine the method and technique related to
architectural survey of the building. This method has been tried
to build on criteria that are different for each building and that
might guide for the principles of the restoration intervention to
be made.
In the table formed with this purpose, it is suggested that a
selection could be made from the most simple, nearly primitive
tools-devices and methods (0 points) to the utterly developed
and complex tool-devices (high points). Here:
Criteria is accepted as “Structural Status” and it is assumed
that high technology must be used according to the status
of deterioration of the building.
Criteria is accepted as “Accessibility to Sections of
Survey” and it is assumed that high technology must be
used in order to handle the difficulties in the survey of the
building.
3. Criteria is accepted as “Risk Status” and it is assumed that
high and speedy technology must be used due to the
existence of factors that threatens the building and may
cause its destruction.
4. Criteria is accepted as “Budget” separated for the
preservation of the building and it is assumed that high
budgets require high technology and complex methods.
5. Criteria is accepted as “Authenticity Status” of the building
and it is assumed that surveying and evaluation would be
made with easy and simple methods and techniques in
buildings preserved at its original state.
6. Criteria is accepted as “Scope of Restoration Suggested”
and it is assumed that complete restoration applications
should be made with surveys that are made with detailed
and developed technology and that maintenance works
may not require extensive surveys.
7. Criteria is accepted as “Purpose of Survey” and it is
assumed that on the line starting with publication-
introduction activities (0 points) and going to re
construction of the building (4 points), the last one requires
high technology.
Criteria is accepted as “Structural Status” and it is assumed
that for a building at a good condition, survey can be made
with easy and simple methods but for a building at a bad
condition or in ruins, high technology and methods are
required.
As a result in this table of rating, it is suggested that high points
require developed methods and techniques but low points
require simple methods and technology. As it might be seen,
definite limits are not suggested here when passing from one
method to the other; the reason for this is that architectural
survey studies always require mixed usage of various
techniques and approaches under the creativity of the applicator.
