Before and After:

T h e F o re s i g h t a n d H i n d s i g h t o f S u r v e y a n d I n t e r v e n t i o n
a t S t . Lo u i s C e m e t e r y N o . 1 i n N e w O r l e a n s , L A .
From Digital Survey
to Traditional Craft

St. Louis 1 Cemetery

Frank G. Matero, John Hinchman and Lindsay Hannah

School of Design, UniverVLty of Pennsylvania

www.conlab.org
 VALUE

INTEREST

PROTECTION

PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT

INTERVENTION

SOURCE: Values and Heritage Conservation

Research Report
The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles
 Historic buildings are an integral part of our history and contribute Scheduled monuments are our most valued archaeological sites
to our national and regional character and distinctiveness.They are and landscapes, designated because they are of national importance.
so valuable, yet often so vulnerable. Once lost, they cannot be They include prehistoric burial mounds, stone circles and hillforts,
replaced. We have a responsibility to preserve these important Roman towns and villas, medieval settlements, castles and abbeys
buildings as part of our cultural heritage not only for ourselves, and the structures of our more recent industrial and military past.
but for future generations. Together they are a unique inheritance that tells the story of many
While the planning system provides protection to prevent generations of human endeavour and, indeed, they provide the
unsympathetic change to listed buildings, greater loss of historic and architectural fabric only record for millennia during which we have no written history. These evocative
can occur if they are neglected and allowed to decay. Preventing the effects of insidious monuments also create a unique sense of time and place in the landscape, adding greatly
decay and dereliction requires proactive action by all those responsible for and involved to the distinctiveness of both our towns and our countryside.
in caring for the historic environment. Although protected by law, scheduled monuments are still at risk from a wide range
Heritage at Risk began with buildings. English Heritage first started work on developing of processes. Like listed buildings and registered landscapes, they are vulnerable to

‘
a methodology to identify and categorise buildings at risk in the 1980s and carried out development. In addition, they are exposed to several intense pressures beyond the
the first sample survey to assess the degree to which they were threatened by neglect. reach of the planning system.These include agricultural intensification, forestry and wholly
LOCAL PLANNING If historic
natural forces, such as coastal erosion. buildings
It is the pressures matter
which are to a by the
not controlled SCHEDULED
The term ‘listed building’ is used to describe a building The English Heritage Buildings at Risk register was first AUTHORITIES THAT planning process which pose the greatest threat to the majority of scheduled monuments.
civilised society – as they surely MONUMENTS
(or structure) that has been designated as being of
‘special architectural or historic interest’. The older and
published in 1998 and recorded grade I and II* listed
building entries at risk through neglect and decay or
MAINTAIN BUILDINGS do – then they
In 1998 English Heritage published the Monuments at
have to be looked
In economic terms there are also significant differences
AT RISK,
rarer a building is, the more likely it is to be listed.
Buildings less than 30 years old are listed only if they are
functional redundancy (or vulnerable to becoming so).
Grade I and II* buildings comprise 8% of the total
AT RISK REGISTERS Risk Survey, which examined a 5% after. One ofbetween
sample of England’s the buildings
greatest enemies
and monuments. Buildings generally BY REGION
designated and undesignated archaeological sites and have some economic value to their owners, particularly
of outstanding quality and under threat. Listed buildings
are graded I, II* and II. Grade I and II* are particularly
number of listed building entries and are of outstanding
national importance. The 1999 register was taken as the Yes of
demonstrated that, since 1945, an average oldof oneand beautiful
archaeological site has been destroyed every day.
when capable ofbuildings
adaptive reuse. In iscontrast, although our
scheduled monuments are fundamental to the history High risk
important buildings and account for 8% of all listed national baseline, against which change and progress is No The next step was to systematicallyneglect.
review all of English Heritage’s
and sense-of-place Buildings
of their locality (and therefore Medium risk
buildings. The remaining 92% are of special interest measured and since then, significant progress has been England’s 19,709 scheduled monuments, beginning contribute to the wider economy by encouraging Low risk
and are listed grade II. made. Of the buildings on the 1999 baseline register, with a pilot study in East Midlands at Risk register,
Region. tourismand now
and inward Heritage
investment) they are of little direct

at Risk,
The full national survey has now been completed and
had two aims: firstly to assess the condition, amenityis a vital weapon
result, they against
economic benefit to those who own them and, as a
often suffer from neglect.
WHY DO BUILDINGS BECOME AT RISK?
Each case is unique, but there are some recurring reasons why buildings end up at risk:
this,to exposing
value and surroundings of every monument and the
extent to which it is at risk, and secondly establish the victims of neglect
and the dangers
priorities for action. Its headline findings are that 21% of
they face, and
THE WAY FORWARD

’
FUNCTIONAL LOCATION ECONOMIC OWNERSHIP monuments are at high risk, that a further 33% are at When damaged or lost, scheduled monuments cannot
REDUNDANCY A building might be blighted
by its surroundings, which
Economic factors come
into play in cases where the
Uncertain ownership can
seriously impair the reuse
so
medium risk, and that there is therefore helping
an urgent
for action before our heritage is irreparably damaged.
need tobefind
replaced:new owners
urgent action is required if we are to
pass them on to future generations in good condition.
A building may no longer
or new uses Paradoxically,for the historic

be suited to the purpose
for which it was originally
designed. Changes in
technology, economic
patterns, demography, taste
and government policies can
lead to buildings becoming
functionally redundant –
for example some older
hospitals, schools, churches,
factories, mills, farm and
government buildings, as
well as vacant and under-
used upper floors of high
street shops. Once a
building is vacant and left
unsecured without regular
maintenance, it can
deteriorate very quickly.
may have changed over
time through a change in
the economy of an area,
the abandonment of industry
or as a result of insensitive
development, redevelopment
or road schemes. Reuse
or change of ownership
can also be difficult where
a building lies within the
curtilage of a larger building
and where access can
be a problem.
cost of repair is greater than
the value of the building.
This can occur when a
structure such as a bridge,
memorial or ornamental
building, does not have
beneficial use which will
generate an income to
sustain it. It can also arise
when the owner lacks the
means to keep the building
in good repair. Sometimes
buildings are bought for an
inflated price, without the
cost of repair being taken
fully into consideration, or
on the mistaken assumption
that permission will be
granted for an extension,
change of use or for
additional buildings.
21%
of a building; around the while monuments top the list of heritage
country there is still a assets at risk, the amount of effort needed to ensure
HIGH RISK, Abuildings thattheirmatter tofuture
usis often
all. minimal and
significant number of listed
OF MONUMENTS ARE AT
survival for the
properties whose titles FURTHER
inexpensive – removing brambles, re-routing a footpath
are either unregistered or 33% ARE AT MEDIUM RISK.
THERE IS ANGAVIN STAMPor protecting against burrowing
ARCHITECTURAL rabbits are often all
HISTORIAN
unclear. There are also cases URGENT NEED that is required.
where an owner wilfully FOR ACTION.
neglects and refuses to In some cases, the risks to scheduled monuments can
repair or sell a building be reduced simply by good land management, or by
at a reasonable price. From this research it is clear that scheduled well-informed planning policies and decisions that take
monuments are significantly more likely to be identified full account of the national importance of historic sites.
as being at risk than designated buildings or landscapes. However, some monuments do require significant
Why should this be? resources in order to stabilise their condition, to carry
The explanation is both environmental and economic. out repairs, or to change the way in which the land
The majority of scheduled monuments are archaeological on and around the monument is used. In all cases
sites, the continued preservation of which depends on close co-operation with owners and land managers
the character of their overlying and surrounding land use. is essential if progress is to be made.
A significant proportion occurs in environments where For the first time, the priorities for improved
the land-use is simply not compatible with their management of scheduled monuments have been
continued survival without positive management action. identified nationally.The major sources of risk to the

HERITAGE AT RISK 2008 17

HERITAGE AT RISK 2008 11

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF

GRADE I AND II* LISTED
BUILDING AT RISK ENTRIES
condition of monuments have also been identified at a
strategic 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 scheduled
monuments in order to reduce their vulnerability to risk?
Prioritisation. With large numbers of sites at risk,
identifying clear priorities for management action, even
within the ‘high risk’ category, is important for English
Heritage, for other organisations and for owners and
land managers. Our regional teams are already working
with a range of partners to identify which cases require
most urgent action.
Information and advice. Provision of information and
advice is crucial. This includes simple information on the
location and extent of sites, which may not be readily
visible to land managers, and more detailed advice on the
best approaches to improving the condition of sites.The
English Heritage National Monuments Record and local
authority Historic Environment Records have increased
the information available to land managers and we are
continuing to develop their services. English Heritage also
provides on-line advice to the owners and managers of
sites via the Historic Environment Local Management
web site www.helm.org.uk; through its Historic
Environment Field Advisers or through the network
of local authority Historic Environment Countryside
Advisers that we have co-sponsored with selected local
authority partners.
Partnership. English Heritage cannot deliver the actions
required alone. We particularly require the co-operation
of major institutional landowners and those organisations
capable of influencing future land management. For
example, we work closely with the Forestry Commission
and the Ministry of Defence, both of which have
exemplary records of managing the monuments on their
estate; with the National Parks and Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty of England, to ensure that the
management of scheduled monuments is incorporated
in their statutory management plans; and with Defra and
Natural England to ensure that archaeological concerns
are adequately reflected in agri-environment schemes.
 THE GREAT TEXACO ROAD MAP
APPENDIX C, Layout 12
Correlation Among Cavate Dimension and Total Condition Score

Plan View of Cavate Group M MQ160

ME044 MQ150

Legend

High Condition Score

MJ099
Medium Condition Score
MG068 MJ092

Low Condition Score

Small Cavate Openings

Medium Cavate Opening
MJ087 MJ095
Large Cavate Openings
Large Cavate, High Condition Meters
0 5 10 20 30 40

Cavate Opening Dimension per Condition Category

100%
% Within Condition

80% Large Cavate Dimension

Category

60%
Medium Cavate Dimension
Legend
40%
NYSP TILE CONDITION
20% Small Cavate Dimension
CONDITION
0%
High Medium Low Complete Replacement

Condition Score Categories Poor

1
2
Most of the cavates in the High Condition
group have large opening dimensions. Many 3
cavates with small opening dimensions fall Cavate MJ092 Cavate MJ095
within the low condition category. Large Opening Dimensions, High Condition Score Large Opening Dimension, High Condition Score 4
5
132 An initial overall condition assessment was carried out using a 6
10 point likert scale ranging from poor to good. The assessment 7
was carried out by one individual to ensure consistency and the
8
values assigned were based on a single overall assessment and not
broken into multiple values that were calculated to arrive at a final number. Good
No Data

Gradient Representation of Greatest Threat DRAYTON

':* 106
623+,$0,''/(%522.
HALL

.(55<-2+16721
CONDITIONS LEGEND
#!
Joint

6,7(5(&25',1*6800(5
($67(/(9$7,21
eteriorated Joint
"$&$
"$
$

'$7$,1387)$//
1257++$/)

/$85(1+(*(57<
&21',7,21$66(660(17
$$&
$

-2+1+2:$5'
-2+1*/$9$1
&)"$
$!

&ii!it-
! i#
$#t$)&
i!
i$!&i
$"%i"!
#i%i#&
#i!
i !%i"!
"%%

7 + (  *5 $' 8$7 (  35 2* 5$ 0  ,1 + ,6725 ,& 3 5 ( 6( 59$7 , 21  7 + (  6& + 2 2 / 2 )  ' (6 , * 1   8 1 , 9 ( 56 , 7 < 2 )  3 (1 16 </9$ 1, $
,1'(3(1'(1&(1$7,21$/+,6725,&$/3$5.

i
$
%%
!



i
$
$&$
!


$ 5 & + , 7 ( & 7 8 5 $ /  & 2 1 6 ( 5 9$7 , 2 1  / $ % 2 5 $7 2 5 <  $ 1 '  5 ( 6 ( $ 5 & +  & ( 1 7 ( 5

#"i!&i!
 i
i$
#!t
$& !&
"&i! 1$7,21$/3$5.6(59,&( Potential Threat
3+,/$'(/3+,$3$ Lowest Threat
, 1 ' ( 3 ( 1 ' ( 1 & (  1 $7 , 2 1 $ /  + , 6 7 2 5 , & $ /  3 $ 5 .   3 + , / $ ' ( / 3 + , $   3 $

&"!
$%%i!
&"!
'& !
&"!
# !t
&502)),&(
6321625('%<

" #"%i&
#i$
!&

ntrinsic Metallic Staining

xtrinsic Metallic Staining
"!!&$i!%i
&i!i!
i&$!$&

 
VHH&ROXPQRI
GUDZLQJ&$
!$'%&&i"!
LQVHW
"$ &i"!i%# !(

i!$
!'%i"!
6(&21'%$1.2)7+(81,7('67$7(6

-2+1+,1&+0$1$5&+,7(&785$/&216(59$7,21/$%25$725<83(11

&i(
!i
+%&
)5$1.0$7(52$5&+,7(&785$/&216(59$7,21/$%25$725<83(11

ii!
 !!t
&+$5/(6721(77,,1'(3(1'(1&(1$7,21$/+,6725,&$/3$5.

Greatest Threat

"i&i"!
$i!&&i"!

Joists
Plaster Limit

  


 

    &EET
 
352-(&7683(59,6256

5 0 5 10 Feet
352-(&70$1$*(5

 



The Architectural Conservation Laboratory - University of Pennsylvania - 2001

34
 Graduate Program in Historic Preservation Dead Space: Defining the New Orleans Creole Cemetery
Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania

TOMB AND MARKER SURVEY MANUAL

TOMB AND MARKER SURVEY
Site
Site: St. Louis 1 Cemetery Date Founded: 1789 Definition: The official name of the burial ground or cemetery being surveyed.
Method: As recorded in official documents. The full name, no abbreviations.
Street Address: Block bounded by Basin, St. Louis, Conti and Tremé Streets
Parish: County: City: New Orleans State: Louisiana- LA Date Founded
Orleans Definition: The date when the site was established.
UTM Coordinates: Zone: 15 Easting: 782 200 Northing: 331 7450 Method: Month, day, year (Ex.: mm-dd-yyyy; 03-03-1784).
Owner: Archdiocese of New Orleans, Roman Catholic Church
Street Address
Contact: Michael Boudreaux Definition: The address or site location.
Surveyor(s): Date: Method: The full address, no abbreviations.
Weather: Temperature:_______ Humidity: _____ Sunny Rain/snow/fog Overcast
Sunny & windy Rain/snow/fog & windy Overcast & windy Parish
Definition: The name of the parish in which the cemetery is located. “County” may be
I. IDENTIFICATION substituted for “Parish” in other locations.
THNOC: PNTHNOC: Archdiocese No.: GIN: Method: The full name of the parish, no abbreviations.
Street/Alley Name:
Tomb Name(s): County
First Burial Date: Last Burial Date: Definition: The name of the county the cemetery is located if it is not run by a "Parish."
Military Marker: Biographical Info: Method: The full name of the county, no abbreviations.

II. ENVIRONMENT (Check appropriate fields.) City

Orientation: N S E W NW NE SW SE Unknown Definition: The name of the city in which the cemetery lies.
Context: Isolated (3+ ft) Contiguous (0-3 ft) Method: The full name of the city, no abbreviations.
Precinct: Ground: Paved (check all that apply):
Shell Stone Brick Asphalt Concrete Other State
Unpaved (check all that apply): Definition: The name of the state in which the cemetery lies.
Soil Vegetation Grass Other: _________________ Method: The full name of the state and the two-letter postal code abbreviation. Ex.:
Enclosure: Curb Wall Fence Chain Other N/A Louisiana—LA.
Proximity to Path: Adjacent (0-1 ft) Close (1-5 ft) Distant (5+ ft)
Path Type: Stone Brick Concrete Asphalt Shell Soil Grass Other UTM Coordinates
Proximity to Drain: Adjacent (0-5 ft) Close (5-10 ft) Distant (10+ ft) Definition: A set of coordinates (easting and northing) that indicates a unique location
Grade Slope: Positive Negative Cross-slope None according to the Universal Transmercator Grid appearing on maps of the United
Alignment: Normal Sunken Tilted Fallen States Geological Survey (USGS).
Furniture: Bench Sculpture Container/Vase Plaque Immortelle None Method: Indicate the centermost coordinate within the cemetery boundary (Zone,
Easting, Northing).
III. DESCRIPTION (Check appropriate fields.)
Tomb Type Wall/Block Vault Pediment Tomb Mausoleum Tumulus Owner
Modified Parapet Platform Sarcophagus Step Unknown Definition: The name of the individual, organization, or polity that holds the deed to the
cemetery’s ground
Marker Simple (check all that apply):
Method: Full name, no abbreviations.
Type Headstone/footstone Stele Plaque Other
Modified Compound (check all that apply):
Table Basal Pedestal Column Obelisk Other
Pyramid Die

Ver. 07/02 02/02 Ver. - 1

St. Louis 1 Cemetery - 2001/02 Survey Summary Data TOMB and MARKER METALWORK SURVEY - PNTHNOC 2
University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Fine Arts Sections I and VII from the 3/2001 Site Survey plus 10/2001 Metalwork Survey
PNTHNOC GEO ID Name Street First Date Last
1 10V-1 Ferrier Alley No. 1R 1893 1993 TOMB AND MARKER SURVEY
Military Mkr Current Status Perp. Care Context Orient SiteName: St. Louis 1 Cemetery Date Founded: 1789
None Exists from 1981 Contiguous SE
Street Address: Block bounded by Basin, St. Louis, Conti and Tremè Streets
No Comment
Parish or County Orleans City: New Orleans State: Louisiana
UTM Coordinates: Zone: 15 Easting: 782 200 Northing: 331 7450
Biographical
No Info Site Owner: Archdiocese of New Orleans, Roman Catholic Church Contact: Michael Boudreaux

Path Prox. Path Material Drain Prox. Grade Alignment

Adjacent (0-1 ft.) Asphalt Distant (10+ ft.) None Normal
I. IDENTIFICATION
Marker? Representation Interments Alterations
Family Inactive New/Rebuilt PNTHNOC: 2 THNOC: 002 ARCHDIOC: ANo 1R2 GIN: 9V-1
Street: Alley No.1R IDName: Dalberni/Clavin/Pecora
Tomb Type General Comments Color No Info Height Ft In 7 2
Simple Platform Obvious rebuild Military Marker: WWI First Date: 1921 Last Date: 1972
Comments: Clement A. Pecora - Bronze military marker in cement in
ARCHDIOC: ANo 1R1
front of tomb.
Addition Alteration Material Condition Material Integrity Formal Integrity CurrentStatus: Exists from 1981
Primary Structure Can't Tell 3 3 N/A
ProgComment: No Comment
Roof Brick 3 3 N/A

Stucco Gray 3 0 Biographical: No Info

Surface Finish Few 3 N/A

Tablet System 3 0

Ornament 2 2 VII. Metals No Metal on Tomb PNTHNOC: 2

Is there a Metal If not, Is there Are there Metal If not, Is there

PNTHNOC GEO ID Name Street First Date Last Enclosure? evidence of one? Ornaments? evidence?
2 9V-1 Dalberni/Clavin/Pecora Alley No.1R 1921 1972 Ratings: 0 = Sign/Total Deterioration, 3 = Good
Military Mkr Current Status Perp. Care Context Orient Tomb: Comp. Encl: Partial Encl: Door: Ornament: Sculpture: Accessories: Plaque:
WWI Exists from 1981 Contiguous SE N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Clement A. Pecora - Bronze military marker in cement in front of tomb. Tomb: Tablet:
Anchors: N/A 0
Tablet Pin missing
Biographical
No Info

Path Prox. Path Material Drain Prox. Grade Alignment

Close ((1-5 ft.) Asphalt Distant (10+ ft.) None Normal

Marker? Representation Interments Alterations

Family Inactive None

Tomb Type General Comments Color No Info Height Ft In 5 4

Simple Parapet Cornice altered -- stuccoed over

ARCHDIOC: ANo 1R2

Addition Alteration Material Condition Material Integrity Formal Integrity

Primary Structure Brick 3 3 3

Roof Brick 3 3 2

Stucco Tan/Gray 3 3

Surface Finish Few 2 0

Tablet System 2 1

Ornament N/A N/A Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania Page 1 of 350
14-Apr-02 Page 1 of 367
St. Louis Cemeteries
 ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 1
2001 / 2002 SURVEY SUMMARY DATA
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS
1A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

179
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF FINE ARTS

17 Tombs Rated High
1A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X 18
for Material Integrity
and Poor in Condition
19
2

8
177

10

11

12

13

14

15
Legend
16
9L Tombs
17
Emergency
18 Stabilized
Emergency
19 Documented
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

ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 1 ST. LOUIS CEMETERY NO. 1

SAT PRESERVATION PROJECT: TREATMENT SUMMARY SAT PRESERVATION PROJECT: TREATMENT SUMMARY
THNOC TOMB NUMBER: 60 THNOC TOMB NUMBER: 166
ARCHDIOCESE TOMB NUMBER: BA 1 ARCHDIOCESE TOMB NUMBER: SLS 12
TREATMENT/REPAIRS PERFORMED BY: H. Knight, R. Osborne TREATMENT/REPAIRS PERFORMED BY: H. Knight
DATES: 2/02-8/02 DATES: 3/12/02, 5/8/02,5/19/02
BEFORE PHOTOS: BW1:21-25; C1:22-24; C2:1 BEFORE PHOTOS: BW2: 14-15; C2: 25-26
AFTER PHOTOS: BW13:16-19; C42:9-11 AFTER PHOTOS: BW14:1-2; C43:7-8

SUMMARY OF PRE-TREATMENT CONDITIONS: 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 salvaged
brick 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 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 purchased
salvaged brick were dry-laid in original construction pattern.

Tomb 60, NW Elevation, before. Tomb 60, NW Elevation, after stabilization. Tomb 166, Roof, before. Tomb 166, Roof, after partial stabilization.

19 33
Cemetery Assessment Report 9 Cemetery Assessment Report 8

St. Louis Cemetery No. 2:

Clockwise from top right
1: Multiple floodlines disfigure a tomb.
2: Displaced ironwork.
3: Displaced tablet.
4: Discoloration and accelerated decay on an enclosure.

St. Louis Cemetery No. 2

Top left: Society tomb in Block #3 with a damaged roof.
Top right: The roofing materials from the tomb scattered
throughout the site.
Bottom left: Speed Limit sign from the neighboring I-10
overpass now laying in the cemetery.
FI
N