REPORT 2001 - 08

THE CHIMNEY STACKS OF THE KING'S BASTION BARRACKS:

POSSIBLE CUT-STONE CAPS AND REMOVAL OF THE MID-SLOPE STACKS

OF THE GOVERNOR'S WING

(1713-1758)

ERIC KRAUSE

KRAUSE HOUSE INFO-RESEARCH SOLUTIONS

JANUARY 15, 2001

[The original, corrected formatted version of this report exists at: EricKrauseReports/200108.WPD ]

(A) THE CASE FOR CUT-STONE CHIMNEY STACKS: RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) Does the historical record suggest a likely period for cut-stone chimney cap installations anywhere on the Main Barracks and two pavilions of the King's Bastion?

(A) The majority, if not all, of the exterior chimney stacks of the King's Bastion Barracks Complex were of brick (brique) construction until the installation (1731-1735) of the slate (ardoise) roof

(1) The bricks were produced locally, at Port Toulouse

(2) Most of the exterior brick stacks were rendered with a lime-mortar crépis or enduit which was not crépis a pierre apparente; However, some stacks were left with exposed bricks

(3) The exterior chimney caps (chapeaux) were of an unspecified material

(B) The exterior chimney stacks of the King's Bastion Barracks Complex were of flat-stone (pierre-platte) construction after the installation (1731-1735) of the slate roof and until at least 1745

(1) The flat-stone was obtained locally leagues from Louisbourg

(2) The exterior stacks were covered with a lime-mortar rendering (enduit)

(3) The exterior chimney caps were of an unspecified material

(4) The exterior chimney stacks were in good repair in 1744-1745

(5) There existed King's buildings with exterior stacks of rubble-stone or flat-stone with a lime-mortar rendering (crépis) and visible caps of cut-stone

(C) The exterior chimney stacks of the King's Bastion Barracks Complex were of an unspecified material after the siege of 1745 until 1758

(1) Most, if not all, of the exterior stacks were covered with a lime-mortar rendering (crépis a pierre apparente)

(2) Most, if not all, of the exterior chimney caps and withes (languettes) were of brick

(3) There existed King's buildings with exterior stacks of bricks

(4) There existed King's buildings with exterior stacks capped with cut-stone

(5) There existed King's buildings with exterior stacks of flat-stone

(B) THE TWO MID-SLOPE BARRACKS CHIMNEY STACKS LOCATED IN THE NORTH ROOF VALLEYS OF THE GOVERNOR'S PAVILION (SOUTH): RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) Had the two mid-slope, reconstructed chimneys next to the Governor's Pavilion, which sit directly in a weather-exposed, problem-prone location in the valley at the juncture between the roofs of the Governor's Pavilion and Main Barracks, been in fact re-positioned during the French period?

First of all, let us consider the placement of the reconstructed roof valley versus the location of the two chimney stacks. Originally, these stacks did not exist in a roof valley at all. Rather, according to the best period plans, they were configured like those presently reconstructed next to the Intendants' Pavilion (North). However, in 1731, the roof of the Governor's Pavilion (South) was raised. But by how much?

The perimeter walls were elevated by 6 pieds, and its roof by 4 pieds, or so R. L. Way, the General Consultant/Research Director, concluded in 1961, apparently deriving these precise figures from a scaling of ND-88 and a visually examination of plans like 1731-1 and 1733-7 [these two plans also proposed that the roof of the Intendant's Pavilion (North) be raised, this in contrast to 1734-3 and 1735-1 which show the correct situation]. Furthermore, Way concluded that, between 1731 and 1735, the ridge of the Main Barracks and Intendant's Pavilion (North) was also raised, but only by an additional 2 pieds [his evidence: perhaps a 1727 proposal to raise the ridge by 3 pieds when the roof was later slated, or another of 1728, to raise the cross walls by 3-4 pieds], so that the Governor's ridge now rested 10 pieds higher than that of the main Barracks.

At any rate, the 1960s valley design is traditional, though a maintenance headache when features like a chimney stack interfere with the smooth working of, or are too near to, its downward path. Given that in 1731 the roof was raised as reconstructed in the 1960s, what evidence is there that the two pre-existing chimney stacks remained or did not remain in place?

The French response in 1739 to two attic stacks which were placed at mid-slope, during or after the raising of the Governor's roof in 1731, but which quickly caused water problems within the building, was not only to remove them down to below roof level, but also, apparently, to leave their fireplaces in place but in-operative. One has to wonder - given here as but one example - why the stack flues were not then re-positioned and incorporated against the ridge stacks (where water penetration was not an existing problem) and new fireplaces constructed accordingly. After all, these were only servant quarters and an ideal room lay-out would not have been a consideration. Perhaps, however, here the cost of constructing new fireplaces, or even the fear of creating a new water problem may have ruled the day.

In the case of the two stacks in the north roof valleys, their removal and the resulting de-activation of operative fireplaces serving more than one floor level seemingly would not have been practical. However, please read on.

(2) If re-positioned, were the original stacks corbelled over to the other chimneys within the attic, so that their fireplaces would still have operated; were they rebuilt above the roof at a more maintenance-free location; or what?

This question raises the following conundrums, perhaps requiring a further comprehensive examination and resulting recommendation as to how to proceed better from Structural Design than from this report:

Surely the Governor's Pavilion's 1731 and 1733 project (c. 26,844 livres) and the Cazernes' related 1732-1733 project (c. 24,670 livres) had financial room not to have tolerated chimney stacks located in a roof valley if Engineer Verrier had anticipated a greater maintenance problem here than at the other ridge and mid-slope stack locations on the Barracks Complex. Yet it was this same engineer who must have authorized the construction of two mid-slope attic stacks which became so troublesome as to warrant their almost immediate - if not embarrassing - removal!

Equally obvious, Verrier would not have removed chimney stacks to produce non-operational fireplaces at several floor levels where assorted functions had depended upon them for some years now. Unless, of course, underway, or planned, were radical, but unspecified, alterations which would have converted the rooms to other, more appropriate uses!

Finally, most assuredly, if Verrier had been obliged to re-position the stacks, whether by corbelling them within the attic over to other ones, or even rebuilding them at another locations, such work would have been within the scope of an approved project. Yet, within the 1739 attic debate, where one might have expected a modest reference to it as a parallel, practical solution, none arose!