The bond between the stones

Water had gradually dissolved the mortar holding stones together within Province House’s interior walls. Legislative clerk Joey Jeffrey’s account on reopening day gives a useful starting point for reading the repair of this Charlottetown building. The neoclassical legislature, which held its first session in 1847, reopened on 24 October. An engineering assessment in February 2014 had identified a crumbling foundation and a risk of partial collapse. Behind the cleaned stone lay the task of restoring the building’s structural integrity.[1]

The loss of mortar moves conservation from the stone’s surface to the way the wall works. The decision I find valuable here is to address the relationship between materials that preserve a historic appearance and materials that keep a building standing. Jeffrey’s account of water infiltration offers a concrete mechanism for the damage. The building also had roof leaks and peeling plaster alongside foundation deterioration. Several connected building elements required repair; their problems need not all have originated in a single leak.[1]

The labour required at this scale took much longer than anticipated. When the building closed in 2015, repairs were expected to take three to five years. Pandemic disruption and supply problems were compounded by rising material prices and a shortage of skilled tradespeople. Jeffrey described the stonework as particularly demanding. Choosing whether to clean and retain a component or replace it also involves the people and time available to do the work. Conservation becomes a construction task carried through individual materials after the design decisions are made.[1]

Making room for work below

The basement offers a different scale at which to read the same project. Its floor was lowered by 1.5 metres to make room for staff facilities, lockers, file storage and a fully accessible washroom. Alongside the historic chamber, ordinary needs of the people working there have been reconsidered. The spatial interest lies in creating usable room within the existing building. Its ability to serve its occupants involves where people put their belongings and documents as well as the representative power of its rooms.[1]

A new elevator and upgraded plumbing, electrical, ventilation and fire-safety systems accompany that everyday use. Restored windows and heritage woodwork belong to the same undertaking. The building’s return can therefore be read both in retained materials and in the conditions for moving and working inside. An accessible washroom and elevator are concrete provisions for its users. These rooms and connections make the practical side of architectural conservation visible.[1]

There is a legible connection between the inside of the walls and the basement plan at Province House. Repairing the mortar supports the continuity of the structure; making room for staff supports the continuity of use. Both turn the decision to return to an existing building into physical work. The intention to conserve takes form in a binding material and a set of ordinary rooms. Those interventions behind the reopened door provide a tangible architectural measure of keeping a historic building in service.[1]