Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 39. (1986)
Archive Buildings and the Conservation of Archival Material. An Expert Meeting, held in Vienna, Austria October 30 - November 1, 1985 - STEWART, William J.: Summary of Discussions
262 William J. Stewart United States makes it increasingly difficult to get funds for new buildings. So I predict we will see more readaptation in the future. Buchmann: If an archivist has a choice, to have an old building or a new one, what is your advice? Would you in general recommend that an older building is preferable? Stewart: There are many factors. I think a small archival establishment can use or readapt the building in a way that a larger archival establishment cannot. I suppose, ideally, all of us would prefer a new building. In many cases this is not possible, however. In state and local archives in the United States construction money is not always available, so they make do and do very well when they make the effort. You cannot have a structure foisted off on you. You must select the building because many structures are not adaptable for archival purposes. Renovation demands more work and more ingenuity. One of the problems in the United States is if you renovate a structure you must meet the new energy and handicap codes. That can bring an unpleasant surprise in terms of cost. Duchein: Perhaps I am in the position to add something to the discussion, whether it is better to have a new building or adapt an old one. In France we have both. In the last five to ten years we have been witnessing a growing impulse in France to reuse old buildings. Since the decision rests with the local authorities there is a freedom of choice. Quite often, when local authorities are enamoured of an old building I have to intervene and make them focus on the cost and technical difficulties. That happens because the structure is not suited to renovation. Then I must say no. But in certain cases the arguments of the local authorities are really strong. Here are two examples. One is at Amiens in the Department of the Somme. It is a seminary, built in the 19th century, a substantial brick building with a minimum of internal walls. It had no historical status, thus we had a free hand, more or less, in carrying out renovation. There was no special risk of humidity. Thus we accepted the building. Readaptation worked because the facility was stable, without structural faults or serious interior impediments. The second example was a former hospital in Agen, Department of Lot et Garonne. Again, this was a structure without too many interior impediments. About all we had to do in this case was reinforce the floors. On the other hand, when local authorities want to use private homes or historical chateaus we usually say no because renovation costs are too great. I quite agree with Mr Stewart that it is certainly easier to use an old building for a small repository than for a large one. When you have a small repository you do not need extensive and commodious open areas nor is the adaptation of space for reading rooms, laboratories, etc. difficult to manage. Besides the need for lots of unencumbered space, large repositories, such as a national archives building, have complex requirements in terms of spatial relationships, security and safety systems, and housing for sophisticated technical equipment.
