matero st louis cemtery no 1 power point presentation
Upload: united-states-national-committee-of-the-international-council-on-monuments-and-sites
Post on 30-May-2018
217 views
TRANSCRIPT
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 1/23
Before and After:
The Fo res igh t and H inds igh t o f Su r vey and I n t e r ven t i on
a t S t . Lou is Cemete ry No . 1 in New Or leans , LA .
Frank G. Matero, John Hinchman and Lindsay Hannah
School of Design, Univer ty of Pennsylvania
www.conlab.org
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 2/23
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 3/23
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 4/23
INTEREST
PROTECTION
PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT
INTERVENTION
VALUE
SOURCE: Values and Heritage Conservation
Research ReportThe Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 5/23
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 6/23
LOCAL PLANNING
AUTHORITIES THAT
MAINTAIN BUILDINGS
AT RISK REGISTERS
Yes
No
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF
GRADE I AND II* LISTED
BUILDING AT RISK ENTRIES
Historic buildings are an integral part of our history and contribute to our national and regional character and distinctiveness.They areso valuable, yet often so vulnerable. Once lost, they cannot bereplaced.We have a responsibility to preserve these importantbuildings as part of our cultural heritage not only for ourselves,but for future generations.
While the planning system provides protection to preventunsympathetic change to listed buildings, greater loss of historic and architectural fabriccan occur if they are neglected and allowed to decay. Preventing the effects of insidiousdecay and dereliction requires proactive action by all those responsible for and involvedin caring for the historic environment.
Heritage at Risk began with buildings. English Heritage first started work on developinga methodology to identify and categorise buildings at risk in the 1980s and carr ied out
the first sample survey to assess the degree to which they were threatened by neglect.
The term ‘listed building’ is used to describe a building(or structure) that has been designated as being of ‘special architectural or historic interest’.The older andrarer a building is, the more likely it is to be listed.Buildings less than 30 years old are listed only if they areof outstanding quality and under threat. Listed buildingsare graded I, II* and II. Grade I and II* are particularly
important buildings and account for 8% of all listedbuildings.The remaining 92% are of special interestand are listed grade II.
The English Heritage Buildings at Risk register was firstpublished in 1998 and recorded grade I and II* listedbuilding entries at risk through neglect and decay or functional redundancy (or vulnerable to becoming so).Grade I and II* buildings comprise 8% of the totalnumber of listed building entries and are of outstandingnational importance.The 1999 register was taken as the
national baseline, against which change and progress ismeasured and since then, significant progress has beenmade. Of the buildings on the 1999 baseline register,
WHY DO BUILDINGS BECOME AT RISK?
Each case is unique, but there are some recurring reasons why buildings end up at risk:
FUNCTIONAL
REDUNDANCY
A building may no longer be suited to the purposefor which it was originally designed. Changes in
technology, economicpatterns, demography, tasteand government policies canlead to buildings becomingfunctionally redundant – for example some older hospitals, schools, churches,factories, mills, farm andgovernment buildings, aswell as vacant and under-used upper floors of highstreet shops. Once abuilding is vacant and leftunsecured without regular maintenance, it candeteriorate very quickly.
LOCATION
A building might be blightedby its surroundings, whichmay have changed over
time through a change in the economy of an area, the abandonment of industry or as a result of insensitivedevelopment, redevelopmentor road schemes. Reuseor change of ownershipcan also be difficult wherea building lies within thecurtilage of a larger buildingand where access canbe a problem.
ECONOMIC
Economic factors comeinto play in cases where thecost of repair is greater than
the value of the building.This can occur when astructure such as a bridge,memorial or ornamentalbuilding, does not havebeneficial use which willgenerate an income tosustain it. It can also arisewhen the owner lacks themeans to keep the buildingin good repair. Sometimesbuildings are bought for aninflated price, without thecost of repair being takenfully into consideration, or on the mistaken assumption
that permission will begranted for an extension,change of use or for additional buildings.
OWNERSHIP
Uncertain ownership canseriously impair the reuseof a building; around thecountry there is still asignificant number of listedproperties whose titlesare either unregistered or unclear. There are also caseswhere an owner wilfully neglects and refuses torepair or sell a buildingat a reasonable price.
HERITAGE ATRISK 2008 11
‘‘’’
condition of monuments have also been identified at astrategic level, as have practical management needs at
the level of individual sites. What actions are being, or can be, taken to improve the management of scheduledmonuments in order to reduce their vulnerability to risk?
Prioritisation. With large numbers of sites at risk,identifying clear priorities for management action, evenwithin the ‘high risk’ category, is important for EnglishHeritage, for other organisations and for owners andland managers. Our regional teams are already workingwith a range of partners to identify which cases requiremost urgent action.
Information and advice. Provision of information andadvice is crucial.This includes simple information on thelocation and extent of sites, which may not be readily visible to land managers, and more detailed advice on thebest approaches to improving the condition of sites.TheEnglish Heritage National Monuments Record and localauthority Historic Environment Records have increased
the information available to land managers and we are
SCHEDULEDMONUMENTS
AT RISK,BY REGION
High risk
Medium risk
Low risk
continuing to develop their services. English Heritage alsoprovides on-line advice to the owners and managers of sites via the Historic Environment Local Managementweb site www.helm.org.uk ; through its HistoricEnvironment Field Advisers or through the network of local authority Historic Environment Countryside
Advisers that we have co-sponsored with selected localauthority partners.
Partnership. English Heritage cannot deliver the actionsrequired alone.We particularly require the co-operationof major institutional landowners and those organisationscapable of influencing future land management. For example, we work closely with the Forestry Commissionand the Ministry of Defence, both of which haveexemplary records of managing the monuments on their estate; with the National Parks and Areas of OutstandingNatural Beauty of England, to ensure that themanagement of scheduled monuments is incorporatedin their statutory management plans; and with Defra andNatural England to ensure that archaeological concernsare adequately reflected in agri-environment schemes.
If historic buildings matter to acivilised society – as they surely
do – then they have to be lookedafter. One of the greatest enemiesof old and beautiful buildings is
neglect. English Heritage’s Buildingsat Risk register, and now Heritageat Risk, is a vital weapon against
this, exposing the victims of neglectand the dangers they face, andso helping to find new ownersor new uses for the historicbuildings that matter to us all.
GAVIN STAMP ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Scheduled monuments are our most valued archaeological sitesand landscapes, designated because they are of national importance.They include prehistoric burial mounds, stone circles and hillforts,Roman towns and villas, medieval settlements, castles and abbeysand the structures of our more recent industrial and military past.
Together they are a unique inheritance that tells the story of many generations of human endeavour and, indeed, they provide the
only record for millennia during which we have no written history.These evocativemonuments also create a unique sense of time and place in the landscape, adding greatly to the distinctiveness of both our towns and our countryside.
Although protected by law, scheduled monuments are still at risk from a wide rangeof processes. Like listed buildings and registered landscapes, they are vulnerable todevelopment. In addition, they are exposed to several intense pressures beyond thereach of the planning system.These include agricultural intensification, forestry and wholly natural forces, such as coastal erosion. It is the pressures which are not controlled by theplanning process which pose the greatest threat to the majority of scheduled monuments.
In 1998 English Heritage published the Monuments atRisk Survey,which examined a 5% sample of England’sdesignated and undesignated archaeological sites anddemonstrated that, since 1945, an average of onearchaeological site has been destroyed every day.The next step was to systematically review all of England’s 19,709 scheduled monuments, beginningwith a pilot study in East Midlands Region.
The full national survey has now been completed andhad two aims: firstly to assess the condition, amenity value and surroundings of every monument and theextent to which it is at risk, and secondly to establishpriorities for action. Its headline findings are that 21% of monuments are at high risk, that a further 33% are atmedium risk, and that there is therefore an urgent needfor action before our heritage is irreparably damaged.
21%OF MONUMENTS ARE AT
HIGH RISK, A FURTHER
33% ARE AT MEDIUM RISK.
THERE IS AN URGENT NEED
FOR ACTION.
From this research it is clear that scheduledmonuments are significantly more likely to be identifiedas being at risk than designated buildings or landscapes.
Why should this be?The explanation is both environmental and economic.
The majority of scheduled monuments are archaeologicalsites, the continued preservation of which depends on
the character of their overlying and surrounding land use.A significant proportion occurs in environments where
the land-use is simply not compatible with their continued survival without positive management action.
In economic terms there are also significant differencesbetween buildings and monuments. Buildings generally have some economic value to their owners, particularly when capable of adaptive reuse. In contrast, although our scheduled monuments are fundamental to the history and sense-of-place of their locality (and thereforecontribute to the wider economy by encouraging
tourism and inward investment) they are of little directeconomic benefit to those who own them and, as aresult, they often suffer from neglect.
THE WAY FORWARD
When damaged or lost, scheduled monuments cannotbe replaced: urgent action is required if we are topass them on to future generations in good condition.Paradoxically, while monuments top the list of heritageassets at risk, the amount of effort needed to ensure
their survival for the future is often minimal andinexpensive – removing brambles, re-routing a footpathor protecting against burrowing rabbits are often all that is required.
In some cases, the risks to scheduled monuments canbe reduced simply by good land management, or by well-informed planning policies and decisions that takefull account of the national importance of historic sites.However, some monuments do require significantresources in order to stabilise their condition, to carry out repairs, or to change the way in which the landon and around the monument is used. In all casesclose co-operation with owners and land managersis essential if progress is to be made.
For the first time, the priorities for improvedmanagement of scheduled monuments have beenidentified nationally.The major sources of risk to the
HERITAGEATRISK 2008 17
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 7/23
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 8/23
Legend
NYSPTILE CONDITION
CONDITION
Complete Replacement
Poor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Good
No Data
An initial overall condition assessment was carried out using a10 point likert scale ranging from poor to good. The assessmentwas carried out by one individual to ensure consistency and thevalues assigned were based on a single overall assessment and not
broken into multiple values that were calculated to arrive at a final number.
THE GREAT TEXACO ROAD MAP
Correlation Among Cavate Dimension and Total Condition Score
Legend
High Condition Score
Medium Condition Score
Low Condition Score
Small Cavate Openings
Medium Cavate Opening
Large Cavate Openings
Large Cavate, High Condition
Cavate MJ092Large Opening Dimensions, High Condition Score
Cavate MJ095Large Opening Dimension, High Condition Score
Plan View of Cavate Group M
ME044
MG068
MJ087
MJ092
MJ095
MJ099
MQ150
MQ160
0 10 20 30 405Meters
Cavate Opening Dimension per Condition Category
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
High Medium Low
Condition Score Categories
%
W i t h i n C o n d i t i o n
C a t e g o r y
Large CavateDimension
MediumCavateDimension
SmallCavateDimension
Most of the cavates in the High Conditiongroup have large opening dimensions. Manycavates with small opening dimensions fall
within the low condition category.
APPENDIX C, Layout 12
132
1 0 6
CONDITIONS LEGEND
i
i
ii
iit
i
i
t
ii
Joint
eterioratedJoint
iiit i
ti
iii
iiiii
i
ii
ii
i i
ii t
iii i
ntrinsicMetallicStaining
xtrinsicMetallicStaining
iiii
i
34
5 0 5 10 Feet
Gradient Representation of Greatest Threat
The Architectural Conservation Laboratory - University of Pennsylvania - 2001
DRAYTON
HALL
Plaster Limit
Joists
Lowest Threat
Greatest Threat
Potential Threat
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 9/23
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 10/23
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 11/23
GraduateProgram in Hi storic Preservation
DeadSpace:DefiningtheNewOrleans CreoleCemetery
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 12/23
GraduateProgram in Hi storic PreservationGraduateSchool of FineAr ts, University of Pennsylvania
Ver. 07/02
TOMB AND MARKER SURVEY
Site: St. Louis 1Cemetery DateFounded: 1789
Street Address: Block bounded by Basin, St. Louis, Conti and Tremé Stre ets
Parish:
Orleans
County: City: New Orleans State: Louisiana- LA
UTM Coordinates: Zone: 15 Easting: 782 200 Northing: 3317450 Owner : Arch diocese of New Orl eans, Roman Catholi c Church Contact: Michael Boudreaux Surveyor(s): Date:Weather : Temperature:_______ Humidi ty: _____ Sunny Rain/snow/fog Overcast
Sunny & windy Rain/snow/fog & windy Overcast & windy
I. IDENTIFICATIONTHNOC: PNTHNOC: ArchdioceseNo.: GIN:Street/Alley Name:
Tomb Name(s):First Burial Date: Last Burial Date:
Military Marker: Biographical Info:
II. ENVIRONMENT (Check appropriatefields.) Orientation : N S E W NW NE SW SE UnknownContext: Isolated (3+ ft) Contiguous (0-3 ft)
Ground: Paved (check all that apply): Shell Stone Brick Asphalt Concrete Other
Unpaved (check all that apply): Soil Vegetation Grass Other: _________________
Precinct:
Enclosure: Curb Wall Fence Chain Other N/AProximity to Path: Adjacent (0-1 ft) Close(1-5 ft) Distant (5+ ft)Path Type: Stone Brick Concrete Asphalt Shell Soi l Grass Other
Proximity to Drain: Adjacent (0-5 ft) Close(5-10 ft) Distant (10+ ft)GradeSlope: Positive Negative Cross-slope NoneAlignment : Normal Sunken Ti lted Fall enFurniture: Bench Scul pture Container/Vase Plaque I mmortelle None
III . DESCRIPTION (Check appropriatefields.)
Tomb TypeModified
Wall/B lock Vault Pediment Tomb Mausoleum TumulusParapet Platform Sarcophagus Step Unknown
MarkerType
Modified
Simple(check all that apply): Headstone/footstone Stele Plaque Other
Compound (check all that apply): Table Basal Pedestal Column Obelisk Other
Pyramid Die
Dead Space: Defining the New Orleans Creole Cemetery
Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania
02/02 Ver. - 1
TOMB AND MARKER SURVEY MANUAL
Site Definition:The official name of the burial ground or cemetery being surveyed.Method: As recorded in official documents. The full name, no abbreviations.
Date Founded Definition:The date when the site was established.Method: Month, day, year (Ex.: mm-dd-yyyy; 03-03-1784).
Street Address Definition:The address or site location.Method: The full address, no abbreviations.
Parish Definition: The name of the parish in which the cemetery is located. “County” may be
substituted for “Parish” in other locations.Method: The full name of the parish, no abbreviations.
County Definition:The name of the county the cemetery is located if it is not run by a "Parish."Method: The full name of the county, no abbreviations.
City Definition:The name of the city in which the cemetery lies. Method: The full name of the city, no abbreviations.
State Definition:The name of the state in which the cemetery lies. Method: The full name of the state and the two-letter postal code abbreviation. Ex.:
Louisiana—LA.
UTM Coordinates Definition: A set of coordinates (easting and northing) that indicates a unique location
according to the Universal Transmercator Grid appearing on maps of the UnitedStates Geological Survey (USGS).
Method: Indicate the centermost coordinate within the cemetery boundary (Zone,Easting, Northing).
Owner Definition: The name of the individual, organization, or polity that holds the deed to the
cemetery’s ground
Method: Full name, no abbreviations.
St. Louis 1 Cemetery - 2001/02 Survey Summary Data
University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Fine Arts
PNTHNOC
1
GEO10V-1
Street AlleyNo.1R
ID NameFerrier
First Date1893
Last 1993
Military Mkr None
NoComment
Biographical
NoInfo
Current StatusExistsfrom1981
Orient SE
Context Contiguous
Path Prox.Adjacent (0-1ft.)
Path Material Asphalt
Drain Prox.Distant(10+ ft.)
GradeNone
Alignment Normal
Tomb TypeSimple Platform
Marker? RepresentationFamily
AlterationsNew/Rebuilt
Perp. Care
IntermentsInactive
Color No Info Height Ft In 7 2General CommentsObvious rebuild
Can'tTell
Brick
Gray
Few
3 3 N/A
3 3 N/A
3 0
3 N/A
2 2
3 0
Primary Structure
Roof
Stucco
Surface Finish
Tablet System
Ornament
AdditionAlteration Material Condition Material Integrity Formal Integrity
ARCHDIOC: ANo1R1
PNTHNOC
2
GEO
9V-1
Street
AlleyNo.1R
ID Name
Dalberni/Clavin/Pecora
First Date
1921
Last
1972
Military Mkr WWI
Clement A. Pecora -Bronze militarymarker in cement in front of tomb.
Biographical NoInfo
Current StatusExistsfrom1981
Orient SE
Context Contiguous
Path Prox.Close((1-5 ft.)
Path Material Asphalt
Drain Prox.Distant(10+ ft.)
GradeNone
Alignment Normal
Tomb Type
Simple Parapet
Marker? RepresentationFamily
AlterationsNone
Perp. Care
IntermentsInactive
Color No Info Height Ft In 5 4General Comments
Cornicealtered--stuccoedover
Brick
Brick
Tan/Gray
Few
3 3 3
3 3 2
3 3
2 0
N/A N/A
2 1
Primary Structure
Roof
Stucco
Surface Finish
Tablet System
Ornament
AdditionAlteration Material Condition Material Integrity Formal Integrity
ARCHDIOC: ANo1R2
14-Apr-02 Page 1 of 367
TOMB and MARKER METALWORK SURVEY - PNTHNOC 2
Sections I and VII from the 3/2001 Site Survey plus 10/2001 Metalwork Survey
P NT HN OC : 2 T HN OC : 002 ARCHDIOC: ANo 1R2 GIN: 9V-1
Street: Alley No.1R IDName: Dalberni/Clavin/Pecora
First Date: 1921 Last Date: 1972Military Marker:WWI
CurrentStatus: Exists from 1981
Comments: Clement A. Pecora - Bronze military marker in cement infront of tomb.
Biographical: No Info
ProgComment: No Comment
SiteName: St . Louis 1 Cemetery Date Founded: 1789
Street Address: Block bounded by Basin, St. Louis, Conti and Tremè Streets
Parish or County Orleans State: Louisiana
TOMB AND MARKER SURVEY
UTM Coordinates: 15Zone: Easting: 782 200 Northing: 331 7450
Site Owner: Archdiocese of New Orleans, Roman Catholic Church Contact: Michael Boudreaux
City: New Orleans
I. IDENTIFICATION
Tomb:
N/A
Tablet Pin missing
VII. Metals
Anchors:
Comp.Encl:
N/A
PartialEncl:
2
Door:
N/A
Ornament:
N/A
Sculpture:
N/A
Accessories:
N/A
Plaque:
N/A
Tomb:
N/A
Tablet:
0
No Metal on Tomb PNTHNOC: 2
IsthereaMetalEnclosure?
If not,Is thereevidenceof one?
Are thereMetalOrnaments?
Ifnot,Is thereevidence?
Ratings:0 =Sign/Total Deterioration, 3 = Good
Page 1 of 350 Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 13/23
St. Louis Cemeteries
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 14/23
ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 12001 / 2002 SURVEY SUMMARY DATAUNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 15/23
D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
B C
14
15
16
17
18
19
10
11
12
13
1A
Legend
9L Tombs
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS
EmergencyStabilized
EmergencyDocumente
1 7 7
D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
B C
14
15
16
17
18
19
10
11
12
13
1A
Tombs Rated Highfor Material Integrityand Poor in Condition
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS
1 7 9
ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 1. NEW ORLEANS, LA. SAVE AMERICAʼS TREASURES PRESERVATION PROJECT 2002-3 ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 1. NEW ORLEANS, LA. SAVE AMERICAʼS TREASURES PRESERVATION PROJECT 2002-3
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 16/23
19
ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 1SAT PRESERVATION PROJECT: TREATMENT SUMMARY
THNOC TOMB NUMBER: 60
ARCHDIOCESE TOMB NUMBER: BA 1
TREATMENT/REPAIRS PERFORMED BY: H. Knight, R. Osborne
DATES: 2/02-8/02
BEFORE PHOTOS: BW1:21-25; C1:22-24; C2:1
AFTER PHOTOS: BW13:16-19; C42:9-11
SUMMARY OF PRE-TREATMENT CONDITIONS:Tomb was in poor condition. NE corner was missing bricks.
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT:
The entire tomb was cleaned of dirt, vegetation, and loose material. Existing brick and newly purchased salvagedbrick were dry-laid in original construction pattern. Mason laid brick using a hydraulic lime based mortar.Mortar joints were filled flush with brick because it is uncertain when the tomb might receive stucco.
Tomb 60, NW Elevation, before. Tomb 60, NW Elevation, after stabilization.
33
ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 1SAT PRESERVATION PROJECT: TREATMENT SUMMARY
THNOC TOMB NUMBER: 166
ARCHDIOCESE TOMB NUMBER: SLS 12
TREATMENT/REPAIRS PERFORMED BY: H. Knight
DATES: 3/12/02, 5/8/02,5/19/02
BEFORE PHOTOS: BW2: 14-15; C2: 25-26
AFTER PHOTOS: BW14:1-2; C43:7-8
SUMMARY OF PRE-TREATMENT CONDITIONS:Tomb was in poor condition. Roof was missing bricks. SE marble jam was missing. Upper one-fourth of marble plaque was missing. Stucco was missing on all facades and step.
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT:
This tomb was only partially stabilized. The entire tomb was cleaned of dirt, vegetation, and loose material.Portland cement on S ridge, NW corner and rear flagstone was removed. Existing brick and newly purchasedsalvaged brick were dry-laid in original construction pattern.
Tomb 166, Roof, before. Tomb 166, Roof, after partial stabilization.
Cemetery Assessment Report 9 Cemetery Assessment Report 8
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 17/23
St. Louis Cemetery No. 2
Top left: Society tomb in Block #3 with a damaged roof.
Top right: The roong materials from the tomb scattered
throughout the site.
Bottom left: Speed Limit sign from the neighboring I-10
overpass now laying in the cemetery.
St. Louis Cemetery No. 2:
Clockwise from top right
1: Multiple oodlines disfgure a tomb.
2: Displaced ironwork.
3: Displaced tablet.
4: Discoloration and accelerated decay on an enclosure.
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 18/23
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 19/23
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 20/23
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 21/23
8/14/2019 Matero St Louis Cemtery No 1 Power Point Presentation
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matero-st-louis-cemtery-no-1-power-point-presentation 22/23