# 19th Century Architectural Drawing Techniques



## aj00148 (Nov 20, 2020)

I might ramble here so please forgive.

I believe many of us were drawn to to history because of a shared love of architecture. While I didn’t pursue it academically, I’ve been fascinated by the subject since I was very young. To me, architecture serves as an ideal, as monuments of economic strength, hope and determination. At its best, architecture can manifest deep spiritual yearning and amazement. At its worst, a building’s extravagance evokes nothing more than clinical materialism. 

Many here are familiar with the 1893 Chicago World Expo and the Devil in the White City (despite its inaccuracies, it’s a fun read). In the old forum, there were many threads on this period of architecture, which is the focus of much debate. At question are many factors; the speed of construction, how buildings were erected without the aid of modern machinery, the lack of plumbing/restrooms in these buildings, the lack of available engineering blueprints, how an inordinate amount of materials were transported, photography that often shows scaffolding around already completed structures, the buried windows, and most importantly, an inadequate historical explanation for why some buildings exist in the first place. 

I have wondered much about this and to me, this architectural question is the most obvious indication of a stolen history. Dissecting what actually happened is at the heart of the matter.

I found an interesting link to an article from 1986 by the American Institute for Conservation, it gives a nice overview of drawing techniques for 19th century architecture if anyone is interested:

Observations on the Materials and Techniques Used in 19th Century American Architectural Presentation Drawings


----------



## trismegistus (Nov 20, 2020)

Wish that article provided some examples of a building from the basic sketch/pitch phase through to the technical drawing performed by the draftsman. Perhaps something like that could be found in a book listed in the bibliography.

Either way, interesting read. Still obviously does not explain the points you brought up in the OP - the engineering capabilities, locating resources and sourcing the correct craftsman for the finished product. In theory, these drawings could have been completed after the building was already there, or the drawings could have just added a few of the remodeling touches they wanted to put on the structure to make it “their own.”


----------



## aj00148 (Nov 22, 2020)

I don’t know enough about engineering/mathematics but as we all know, buildings from this era are solidly built and can withstand disaster. I watched a video about this engineering disaster from 1995 in S. Korea Sampoong Department Store collapse - Wikipedia

This is just one example of what can happen when engineering is rushed. It came down to load testing, which basically the building’s top levels were not load tested and had inadequate column placement on the upper levels. And it was built atop a landfill. The same situation happened with Century III Mall. While it hasn’t collapsed, after 40 years cracks are forming because it was built on a former slag pit. The mall was deemed unsafe as a result. This doesn’t seem to happen with these older buildings, at least not often to my knowledge.

I agree with Trismegistus, the drawings could’ve been made after the fact. From a practical standpoint, I wish the engineering could be analyzed on these buildings to see how they were built, to understand how they were load tested and if it’s probable that a geological survey was done.

I’m going off the cuff here - but building a large structure requires analysis of soil for suitability and ground penetrating radar - did we have ground penetrating radar in the 1800s?
Or were they just going off a prayer and a dousing rod? 

For a building to withstand the test of time it requires a solid foundation with suitable soil, materials that withstand changes to climate, a means of controlling the indoor climate, and finally materials that are of a high quality.


----------



## trismegistus (Nov 22, 2020)

aj00148 said:


> I’m going off the cuff here - but building a large structure requires analysis of soil for suitability and ground penetrating radar - did we have ground penetrating radar in the 1800s?
> Or were they just going off a prayer and a dousing rod?
> 
> For a building to withstand the test of time it requires a solid foundation with suitable soil, materials that withstand changes to climate, a means of controlling the indoor climate, and finally materials that are of a high quality.



So many of the major metros in the US are built on swamplands that normally shouldn’t have that many structures on it.

It was so much of a problem that many had to be“lifted from the mud” as was previously discussed on the old SH. Chicago, NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, all of them built on swamps. This, of course, begs the question: why go through all the effort to make huge structures on top of swamp if you could just avoid it altogether by building elsewhere? Perhaps the idea that this civilization stole and/or built on top of the previous one, and these coordinates hold special properties.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 22, 2020)

May have mentioned this already but those who went before were much more skilled than those who design buildings today. I say this because today everything relies on computers and the accumulated knowledge of those who went before. Going back to my youth in the seventies and eighties I watched the era of so called 'over engineering' give way to the era of 'efficient use of materials#.
When I look at the support structures of buildings over a hundred years old it was clear they did not actually over engineer everything they just knew where it was needed and where it wasn't.
There is also a flair for the aesthetic in buildings from that time and before in all the materials used so the malleable iron and cast iron structures were ornate where they would be visible and plain where they wouldn't, the quality of the stone and brickwork/woodwork carried on in the same vein. In short beauty was as important as functionality and the third aspect to this building style/technique is longevity. 
They built to last and not only last but be easy to maintain and repair. Today we have the phenomenon of built in obsolescence with many structures being built to last a finite amount of time . Just along the road from me a school built in two parts in the 1930's was demolished five years ago and replaced with a 'modern design' which is efficient in every way shape and form but is only meant to last 25 years whereas its predecessors were still in fine fettle and over 80 years old. The local council fabricated a business case for demolition and replacement based entirely on a faked walk about assessment  and then locked the report away and it has never been put into the public domain despite this breaking their legal obligations.
As slight aside there.

If people can peer into archives in the physical world there will be books on architecture and specifically loading and structural requirements dating back into the 1800's. There may even be some that have been digitised by googlebooks or archive.org and available in digital form. These would reveal much that may answer the op questions and doubtless throw up light on all the 'official' history claims about various structures.


----------

