In a message dated 2/22/2014 5:20:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
It
is my opinion that buildings without cornices tend to suffer greater
deterioration of the masonry and walling in the upper portions of the walls;
particularly problems with dampness, and erosion of mortar. That said,
poorly constructed or maintained cornices can lead to their own share of
deterioration in the upper portions of walls.
Now that does have to be true, Less
water, less damage.
But ... is that actually why they were
installed? Did architects/owners say "yup, gotta get a cornice
here"? I doubt that - why else would 100% of buildings lack any
cornice whatsoever, not even a little burp, on the non-street
fronts? Same with 19th c rowhouses - big wooden cornice on front,
nothing on back. Then, too, Chrysler, Empire, Cities Service any tall
building - no cornices. Indeed let us state a hypothesis - the cornice
disappears when it is no longer perceptible from the street.
Also, at this time, no discussion whatsoever "oh,
golly, that William Van Alen, didn't put a cornice on the Chrysler, that's gonna
cost him!"
Sir, I think you are trying to turn my world ...
upside down!
Yrs. Top o' the
world.
--
**Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service**
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html