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
264 William J. Stewart My final case is a bank building, a very large structure comprised of small rooms, all of which are filled with records. It is most impractical, archivists have to walk miles to produce the documents, consequently, production levels are below standard. Aesthetic considerations are all very well but the reuse of any building should be resisted aggressively if that use is functionally impractical. Kamba: Is it possible that one of the advantages of renovation is that you can occupy the building while you are adapting it? So perhaps you can avoid waiting during the construction phase because in the archives I visited in Italy I noticed they were being restored. Is this not an advantage? Car ass i: On one side it is an advantage. On the other, for the archivists to work in such an environment, to make the archive function while you are restoring it, is not a simple thing. Duchein: One salient point emerges from our discussions, there is no clear cut answer. In certain circumstances readaptation is not only the best but probably the only solution. In other instances it is better to have a new building. So it is not a matter of doctrine, rather, it is more often a matter of opportunity. My second point is that it is not possible to say with certitude that reuse is cheaper. Ms Harrach reports that in Hungary it is more expensive to raise a new facility. In my own experience I know of at least two cases where it was more expensive to adapt existing buildings. There were other considerations, however. The third point is that not all old buildings lend themselves to conversion. Before deciding to use a building be sure the structure is solid enough to bear the transformation. If you have to rebuild the walls, the roof, and the cellars, as well as the floor, then, for all practical purposes, you are constructing a new structure. The fourth concern - and this is perhaps the argument I find pivotal - is that under certain circumstances the use or reuse of a building which possesses architectural dignity will lend prestige to the occupying institution. The Archives Nationales in Paris is a splendid case in point. For many people, the Archives Nationales is better known for its architecture than for its holdings. Even if it were possible to move elsewhere, I believe the director of the French archives would prefer to remain where he is, in spite of the incommodities of the old building. And finally, what I have retained from this discussion is that today’s techniques allow us to better utilize old buildings than was possible in the past. We have recent examples in Turin, creating trenches around the building and reconstructing the roof. These are modern techniques which give very satisfactory results. So perhaps we should not be discouraged by past defective experiences because modem technology permits improved use of buildings. We now conclude session two.
