20043_War Memorial Stadium_Additional Documentation -2003-2015

BROWNFIELD APPLICATION
WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM, GREENSBORO NC
NC A&T STATE UNIVERSITY
Additional Information
TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS AND DATA .................................................................................................................................
1. SUTTON KENNERLY ASSOCIATES, FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT, 2003 ................................... 2-48
2. WALTER ROBBS CALLAHAN PIERCE, POTENTIAL CONFIGURATIONS, 2010 ..................................... 49-54
3. SUTTON KENNERLY ASSOCIATES, PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT, 2014 ... 55-239
4. STATE CONSTRUCTION OFFICE, SITE INSPECTION REPORT. 2015 ................................................ 240-249

NOTE: THE APPLICATION FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IS CONTAINED IN APPENDIX
F OF THE SUTTON KENNERLY ASSOCIATES PRESERVATION PLAN AND REPORT.

Preservation Plan and Conditions Assessment
for
WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM
Greensboro, North Carolina

The City of Greensboro, North Carolina
August 2014

World War Memorial Stadium circa 1929

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

2 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Preservation Plan and Conditions Assessment
for
WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM
Greensboro, North Carolina

For

The City of Greensboro
Department of Parks and Recreation
300 West Washington Street
Greensboro, NC 27401

©Copyright 2014
SKA Consulting Engineers, Inc.
300 Pomona Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407
336-855-0993

Teague Freyaldenhoven Freyaldenhoven Architects & Planners, LLP
300 N. Greene Street
Greensboro, NC 27401
336-273-0101

The study has been financed in part with federal funds from the
National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior.

However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U. S.
Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendations from the U. S. Department of the Interior.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

4 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Table of Contents
Part 1- Executive Summary
I. Statement of Purpose
II. Report Objectives
Part 2- Preservation Plan
I. Introduction
II. Nomenclature
III. Outline Building History
IV. Architectural Form and Design
V. Period of Historic Interpretation for Preservation and Rehabilitation
VI. Preservation Treatment Plan
Part 3- Space Needs Analysis and Building Code Compliant
Area 1- Site and Entry/Exit Points
Area 2- Seating Deck and Field Level Walkways
Area 3- Public Concourses
Area 4- Team and Umpire Areas
Part 4- Structural Condition Assessment and Evaluation
I. Introduction and Background Information
II. Scope of work and Objectives of 2014 Study
III. Structural Engineer’s Executive Summary
IV. Results of Visual Condition Assessment and Evaluation of Selected Structural and Non-Structural Components
V. Discussion of Durability of Reinforced Concrete
VI. Outline on General Scope of Work for Repairs and Restoration
VII. Photographs
Appendix A- Preservation Treatment Drawings
Drawing 1- Preservation Treatment Drawing, Lower Level
Drawing 2- Preservation Treatment Drawing, Seating Deck

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

5 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Table of Contents (Continued)
Appendix B- Conceptual Rehabilitation Drawings
Drawing 3- Conceptual Removal Plan, Lower Level
Drawing 4- Conceptual Removal Plan, Seating Deck
Drawing 5- Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan, Lower Level
Drawing 6- Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan, Seating Deck
Drawing 7- Conceptual Rehabilitation Section
Appendix C- Conceptual Structural Repair Drawings
D2.1 Overall Plan-Repair Condition
S4.0 Exterior Elevations
S5.1 Section
S6.1 Details
Appendix D- The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco
Appendix E – The Preservation of Historic Concrete
Appendix F – The National Register of Historic Places
Appendix G – Opinion of Probable Costs

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

6 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial Stadium 2014
Part 1- Executive Summary
I. Statement of Purpose

World War Memorial Stadium (WWMS), was
built in 1926 as an outdoor sports venue and
gifted to the City of Greensboro by the
American Legion. In addition to being a
stadium, WWMS serves as a memorial
dedicated to the Veterans who lost their lives
fighting in what is now known as World War I.

Constructed primarily of reinforced concrete in
a simple neo-classical style with an inverted “J”
shaped grandstand, WWMS stadium has an
existing estimated capacity of 8,500 people. In its earliest years, WWMS stadium’s, primary function
was to serve local amateur school athletics teams in track and field, football and baseball competitions.
North Carolina A&T State University’s semi-professional football club first used WWMS for games as
early as 1927. In 1930, WWMS was renovated with lights and a steel grandstand canopy in order to
serve as the home field to Greensboro’s professional minor league baseball team; a role it would
continue to maintain on and off until Newbridge Bank Ballpark opened in 2004. At the time of its closing
to professional baseball, WWMS was believed to be the oldest minor league ballpark still in use in the
country.

Over the course of 7 decades, WWMS has undergone a series of upgrades, re-configurations and
renovations. However the original fabric of the historic stadium has never been altered significantly
from the 1926 design making it unique from other buildings of its type. At the time of initial
development for the new Downtown Baseball Park, several interested parties felt that due to the
historical and cultural significance of WWMS to the City and the Aycock Historic District, the structure
would meet eligibility requirements for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Subsequently,
the property was successfully nominated and listed by the National Register of Historic Places in 2001.
This listing now compels the City of Greensboro to look thoughtfully at WWMS not only as a public
facility but also as a significant historic resource. The City of Greensboro has taken an active role in
working with the Engineer/ Architect team as well as the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office to review and recommend preservation treatments in order to best maintain the facility as well as
its listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

WWMS is again being considered for restoration and rehabilitation to become the permanent home for
baseball by North Carolina A&T State University. In order to fully accomplish this goal, a comprehensive
planning document has been commissioned by the City of Greensboro with the help of funding provided
by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office and the US National Park Service. The original
goal of this study was to provide an assessment of conditions and to provide preliminary
recommendations to rehabilitate WWMS into a modern facility that is also sympathetic to the

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

7 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
historically significant role it has played in the community for nearly 90 years. After a series of meetings
and conversations, the City of Greensboro, North Carolina A&T, and the Engineer/ Architect team have
determined that this report shall be completed with following primary objectives.

1. Determine the Overall physical condition of WWMS by completing a thorough assessment of all
structural components, exterior walls, plumbing mechanical and electrical building systems, fire/ life
safety and building code compliance. Once evaluation is complete, provide repair recommendations
in accordance with proper historic preservation techniques.
2. Determine those components of the stadium that have the greatest Historical Significance and
Establish a Period of Historic Interpretation/Period of Restoration for WWMS. Utilizing the
established Period of Restoration, compile a preservation plan assigning all building components an
appropriate preservation treatment; restoration, preservation, rehabilitation, renovation and
selective removal.
3. Complete a facility needs assessment for a rehabilitation of WWMS into a 1500 seat college
baseball facility for North Carolina A&T State University.
4. Complete a Preliminary Opinion of Probable costs for the conceptual scope of work listed in the
objectives listed above.

Based on our historical research and study of the original facility design, we have determined that an
appropriate period of historic interpretation/restoration should be the years of 1926-1929. Establishing
this date allows the proper preservation of the most significant architectural elements including the
original seating deck, entry portals, arches and towers to resemble the originally designed amateur
sports venue. Much of the original exterior walls, arches and towers will be restored and preserved
while most of the deteriorated concrete seating deck and underutilized areas under the seating will be
rehabilitated. Some of the seating deck areas will be rehabilitated by converting the seating area from
concrete to earth berm lawn seating. Because the existing steel canopy was installed after the period of
restoration, we are proposing a full removal of this structure along with all other non-historic buildings

Physically, WWMS’s structural system is in poor condition and in desperate need of repair. Significant
removal, repair and/or replacement of much of the concrete components will be required to properly
preserve the original appearance. In addition to deteriorated structural systems, much of the under
deck plumbing mechanical and electrical systems at WWMS are out of date and not compliant with
current building codes requiring removal and replacement with new code complaint systems

The facility space needs assessment completed in this study has determined that the existing structure
could adequately accommodate a modern, code compliant 1500 seat baseball facility with
accompanying public restrooms, concessions, and player/umpire areas adequate for use by North
Carolina A&T State University. The lawn seating areas mentioned above would provide additional
seating that shall be considered as a future amenity and not part of this study. A successful project will
require significant reductions in seating capacity along with complete upgrades to all building
components, life safety and handicapped accessible features. These efforts are necessary to facilitate
acquisition by North Carolina A&T State University and the North Carolina State Construction Office.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

8 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
To achieve the work outlined above we have completed a preliminary Opinion of Probable Costs and
estimate the total construction cost to be in the range of $4.7 to 5.3 million dollars
This Engineer/ Architect consulting team led by SKA Consulting Engineers and Preservation Architects,
TFF Architects & Planners, LLP understands the architectural and cultural significance of WWMS and we
present this Preservation Plan and Conditions Assessment for your consideration. We feel that proper
preservation planning of our historic structures results in successful community-engaged projects that
look optimistically forward to the future while at the same time being respectful of the past.

Submitted August 2014

SKA Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Conrad B. Ehrhardt, PE Robert Kennerly, Sr., PE David G. Tepke, PE
Senior Structural Engineer Senior Structural Engineer Structural Engineer

TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP
Virginia S. Freyaldenhoven, AIA Mark A. Ethun, AIA
Principal Architect Preservation Architect

Project Team and Stakeholders
Butch Schumate, City of Greensboro Engineering and Inspections Department
Stefan-leih Geary, City of Greensboro Planning Department
Ednasha McCray, City of Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department
Andy Perkins, North Carolina A&T State University
Chuck Dixon, North Carolina A&T State University
Mitch Wilds, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
Michelle McCabe, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office

Greensboro City Council
Mayor Nancy Vaughn
Yvonne Johnson, Mayor Pro tem
Marikay Abuzuaiter
Mike Barber
Sharon Hightower
Jamal Fox
Zack Matheny
Nancy Hoffmann
Tony Wilkins

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

9 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

II. Report Objectives
Since its construction in 1926, WWMS has been owned and operated by the City of Greensboro, North
Carolina. The facility has always been in use by either an amateur or professional sports team and the
management of the stadium has been administered through the City’s Parks and Recreation
Department.
North Carolina A&T State University (NC A&T) has been the primary building occupant since 2004 and it
is their intention to obtain state ownership of the stadium from the City of Greensboro thus making it a
part of their campus physical plant. However, prior to transferring ownership of the facility, a Phase I
structural assessment and this Phase II preservation plan are being undertaken by the City of
Greensboro to accomplish 4 primary objectives:
1. Determine the Overall physical condition of WWMS. This includes the structural system, Plumbing,
Mechanical, and Electrical systems, Building Code Compliance for fire/life safety and Compliance with
the North Carolina Accessibility Code.
2. Determine those components of the stadium that have the greatest Historical Significance and
Establish a Period of Historic Interpretation/Period of Restoration for WWMS.
3. Undergo a space needs analysis and an initial code compliance review
for a comprehensive rehabilitation to serve as the home baseball park
for NC A&T. Provide a conceptual building design responding to the
space needs assessment that includes basic preservation treatments
and necessary infrastructure repairs/replacements to achieve code
compliance.
4. Develop a conceptual plan to complete the required work and to
establish a preliminary opinion of probable construction costs based
upon the concept design and preservation plan.
A brief summary of each of these objectives is listed below and discussed
in greater detail in the subsequent sections of this this document.
Objective 1: Physical Condition
Based on our observations made over a number of site visits, the WWMS has been determined to be in
Fair to Poor Condition. Decades of deferred maintenance as well as no significant upgrades to the
infrastructure have resulted in a facility that is in a severely diminished state of utility. Below is a
condensed list of items based on the standard conventions of condition assessment; “Good”, “Fair” and
“Poor”. A detailed description of WWMS’s physical condition is included in the Conditions Assessment
portion of this document.
1. We do not believe there are any elements within WWMS that are to be considered in “Good”
condition.
Griffin panel detail at World
War Memorial Stadium, 2014.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

10 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial Stadium, circa 1929. This photo is the basis for the period
of significance for restoration

2. The following is a list of items that are observed to be fair condition:
a. The Ball Field playing surface and the associated fences/ walls
b. Stadium Lighting
c. Outfield Scoreboard
d. Parking and Sidewalk areas directly to the west of the main entry gate.

3. The following is a list of items that are observed to be poor condition and/or are non-compliant with
current building codes at the time this report was assembled.
a. The Entire Reinforced Concrete seating platform Structure (See Phase I report)
b. The Decorative Stucco Exterior walls and memorial structure.
c. The Steel Grandstand Canopy
d. All seating in the main grandstands including safety devices such as guardrails at entries and
exits
e. All Public Restrooms due to their non-compliance with current Accessibility Codes
f. All concessions areas due to their non-conformance with current health codes
g. Home and Visitor clubhouses as well as Umpire facilities
h. All Plumbing Mechanical and Electrical Systems.
j. All parking areas directly to the south of the right field foul pole and extending east towards
center field.

Objective 2: Period of Historic Interpretation and Preservation Treatments
Based on our research and
analysis of WWMS, we believe
there is a significant amount of
historical fabric that should
remain within the ball park and is
therefore worthy of historic
preservation. As a building listed
on the National Register of
Historic Places, recognizing these
elements and undergoing the
proper historic preservation
measures will ensure that the
facility remains listed after
rehabilitations are complete.
Equally important to identifying historic fabric is determining a period of historic interpretation for the
structure. A period of interpretation is a historic date or era that guides all decisions related to the
proper preservation treatments to be undertaken. One may not always assume that a building or site
will be preserved back to the date of original construction. Often times a buildings “history” comes at a
later time based on a modification, significant event or some other milestone.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

11 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
For WWMS we propose that the period of historic interpretation should be established with a date
range of 1926-1929 for the following reasons:
1. We believe that the style, purity of form and simple classical architecture of the original
stadium is best realized when those elements added to WWMS after 1930 are removed from
the original structure. The original inverted “J” shape of the seating bowl and the presence of
the monumental towers have been obscured by the canopy and press box when these later
alterations were complete. Furthermore, the later additions have altered the originally
intended axial symmetry that is similar to many memorial stadiums built during the same time
period
2. This period of Interpretation falls within the date that NC A&T first started using WWMS for
athletic facilities. This is a significant date for the University as it relates directly to the early
establishment of an organized athletics program. If restored/ rehabilitated to this period
significance NC A&T will be able to tell alumni and donors that this was what the stadium would
have looked like when the first football game was played here in 1927
3. From 1926-1930 WWMS operated as a stadium owned by a public entity for amateur sporting
events. From 1930 to 2004 the facility was primarily a professional baseball park. Since NC A&T
will again be using WWMS primarily for local amateur sporting events we believe all
restoration/rehabilitation should be undertaken to retain the building’s original historic use.
Based on the existing physical conditions completed in the Phase I Conditions Assessment, and the
proposed period of historic interpretation, we recommend the following preservation treatments for
WWMS:
1. Preservation/ Restoration: The proper retention and careful restoration of most or all of the original
components, features, materials from the period of significance in Accordance with The Secretary of the
Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be as follows:
a. The Original 1926 monumental pylons (towers), flagpoles and entry arches that face
Yanceyville Street. The Pylons and arches shall be restored to their historic condition. In addition
we feel that the original design intent by which the pylons and flag poles should prominent and
visible from both the interior and the exterior of WWMS.
b. The Original 1926 exterior walls that form the Inverted “J” shaped on the West and North
Elevations of the Structure. The Exterior masonry concrete and stucco walls shall be restored to
their original condition including the re-installation of the original cast iron windows clearly
present in 1926 era photos. As restored, the exterior views of the stadium from Lindsay and
Yanceyville Streets will be consistent with the exterior during the period of significance.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

12 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial Stadium, 2014. The ground level entry
portal with pylons and triumphal arches is the most distinctive
architectural feature of the stadium.
c. The original ground level entrance
portals and the primary arched entrance
between the pylons directly out to the
ball field. Future designs and planning will
be undertaken so as to preserve the
original view and materials from the entry
points directly onto the field as this is a
very distinctive feature of WWMS.
d. Ball Field arrangement and Layout.
Ideally the orientation of the diamond and
the outfield walls should be re-aligned to
restore WWMS’s playing field to the
period of significance. Originally home
plate and second base would have been
aligned with the main Yanceyville street
entrance. However, that arrangement
would not be permitted under current
NCAA regulations due to the short distance
from home plate to the left field foul pole
and home run wall. Compliance would
require that a very tall wall (similar to
Boston’s Fenway Park) would need to be
built to accommodate the required home
run distance and would detract from the
original form of the ball park. Therefore we feel that the current rotated configuration is the
best option for WWMS.
2. Rehabilitation: The proper selective removal and careful replacement of any historic components,
features, materials and shall be compatible with those items to be preserved. All items to be
rehabilitated shall be carefully designed and integrated into the structure so as to not have an adverse
effect on the period of significance. Those items are as follows:
a. All Parking areas, site entries and amenities associated with arrival to WWMS: Historic
photography indicated that the area surrounding the site had very little improvements during
the period of significance. We believe that a thorough rehabilitation of the parking lots,
sidewalks and stadium entry points may be rehabilitated but done in such a way that maintains
the simplicity and austerity that categorizes ball barks of this era.
b. All concourse circulation below the seating decks: A proper rehabilitation and selective
preservation must be undertaken to modernize the existing concourse area to meet current ADA
accessibility standards, and building code regulations. Rehabilitation to the concourse shall
include changing the slope and grading and several surfaces in order to provide barrier free
design not currently achieved.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

13 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial Stadium, circa 2010. The existing grandstand seating is
varied a collection of original benches and seats acquired from other
ballparks, including most recently Fulton County Stadium(extant) in Atlanta,
GA
Rehabilitation shall be undertaken in such a way that the look and feel of the original walkways
will be preserved in conjunction with providing amenities that are modern and up to date. All
rehabilitation work in these areas will include the complete removal and replacement of new
plumbing, mechanical and electrical systems that are compliant with current building codes yet
compliment the historic look and feel of the historic structure.
c. All Stadium Seating and the Concrete Seating Deck. Repairing and replacing the
damaged/deteriorated concrete seating deck to be exactly like the original is impractical and
would not conform to current structural building codes. In addition, NC A&T does not require all
of the original seating area to be rehabilitated in concrete with bleachers. Therefore we propose
the following treatments:
1. Rehabilitate the primary seating area (approximately 1500 seats) directly behind
home plate and up the first base line with new concrete structure and/or structural
repairs. The rehabilitated concrete deck shall match the materials and slope of the
original deck exactly. Upon completion of repairs, the seating deck shall be protected
with a modern concrete coating system similar to those systems used to protect parking
deck surfaces in order
to prevent future
deterioration.
2. Remove all other
concrete seating decks
outside this 1500 seat
area and replace the
concrete with a filled
earth berm that will
match the slope of the
historic concrete
seating deck exactly.
Doing so will preserve
the original form of
the seating bowl but
will be doing so with
a different material
than the original concrete. When complete, these areas will be used as lawn seating and
will be located along the Third base/ left field grandstand as well as a small portion.
3. Replace all non-historic seating in the rehabilitated 1500 seat area with new coated
aluminum seating systems that replicate historic painted wood bleachers.
4. Replace and install new railings at walkways, entrances, etc. with code compliant
components that replicate historic railing systems.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

14 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
3. Renovation: The proper selective removal and careful replacement of any non-historic or non-
compliant building components, features, or materials with new in order to achieve a greater level of
utility or enhanced code compliance. Renovation areas are typically support/ utility spaces and would
not require a design that is compatible with the period of significance. Items that shall be considered for
renovation are as follows:
a. Home and Visitor Clubhouses (Including all HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems)
b. Umpire Areas
c. Offices, Storage, Custodial and other support spaces
d. Public Restrooms
e. Concession Areas

4. Selective Removal: The proper selective removal and disposal of any non-historic components,
features, or materials that detract from the structures designated period of significance. Removal items
that shall be considered for this project are as follows:
a. 1930’s Steel Canopy Addition*
b. All non-historic accessory buildings or other structures around the facility.
c. All press boxes built on top of the existing seating deck outside the period of significance

*The conditions assessment compiled by SKA Engineers does provide potential options
for retaining and restoring the steel canopy structure however, preservation of such
would exist outside the established period of Interpretation.

Objective 3: Space needs Assessment, Code Compliance Check and Concept Design
1. Space Needs Analysis: A space needs analysis was completed for WWMS based on NC A&T’s
desired goal to provide the Athletic Department with a baseball venue that can host baseball
games with an anticipated seating capacity of 1500 patrons. It is our opinion that once WWMS
is rehabilitated, it can provide the University and the Community a baseball experience that is
modern, convenient, accessible and still will retain the ambiance of the desired period of
significance.
A detailed breakdown of the space needs is included in Part 3 of this report
2. Code Compliance Check: An important component to a successful rehabilitation project will
be conceptual code compliance with the 2012 North Carolina Building code. Code compliance
will be essential to acceptance by the North Carolina Office of State Construction (SCO). Until
detailed schematic design is complete and further existing conditions surveys confirm existing
conditions
As an outdoor sporting venue WWMS stadium is classified as an A-5 Assembly Occupancy.
Despite its age, most of the basic components of the seating areas, walkways and exits are
either code compliant or can be made code compliant with minimal alteration to the existing

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

15 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
structure. However, all of the support spaces, public restrooms, concourse areas are currently
not code compliant and must be upgraded before SCO acceptance. Despite these non-compliant
items we feel that the structure, in its present condition meet code compliance following a
comprehensive rehabilitation.
A detailed Code Summary is included in Part 3 of this Report.
3. Conceptual Design and Rehabilitation Plans
Refer to Appendix A in this document for Conceptual Rehabilitation Plans.

Objective 4: Preliminary Opinion of Probable costs
Refer to Part 4 in this document for more detailed cost data.

Opinion of Probable Costs by Scope of Work*
OPTION A
Phase I – Preservation and Stabilization: $3,220,000
Phase II – Renovation and Amenities: $2,055,000
Total of Phases I and II: $5,275,000

OPTION B
Limited Phase I - Grids 5 thru 20 only – Preservation and Stabilization: $3,033,000
(with partial removal of existing stucco on Tower and Archways)
Limited Phase II – Grids 5 thru 20 only - Renovation and Amenities: $1,650,000
Total of Limited Phases I and II: $4,683,000

*Note: The above preliminary opinions of probable cost are based on the drawings and documents provided in the Phase
1 and Phase 2 reports. All probable costs shall be assumed to use construction cost data compiled for the year 2014 .
This is not an estimate or a final budget and may not include all owner costs as all “Other Project Costs” are assumed
percentages of the construction costs that are used as allowances. Note that there is no allowance for inflation, interest,
or other legal fees in these preliminary projections. This is to serve only as a planning tool in order to provide an “order of
magnitude of project costs.”

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

16 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Part 2 - Preservation Plan
I. Introduction
Preservation planning is a process by which the general and specific needs of a cultural resource are
determined, priorities are established, and strategies for implementation are identified. Its primary goal
is to define a realistic course of action based on established parameters that will allow an institution to
set its present and future preservation agendas. In addition, it identifies the actions an institution will
take and those it probably will never take so that resources can be allocated appropriately. In the case
WWMS there are 3 primary working parameters that shall serve as the basis for the development of the
preservation plan
First, WWMS is listed on the National Register of Historic Places which deems it necessary to comply
with the Secretary if the Interior’s Standards as it relates to all technical work that may involve
preservation, restoration or rehabilitation. A preservation plan for a National Register listed building or
site should exist in order to build a consensus with local and state preservation agencies to ensure the
listing will be maintained post-restoration and the treatments that are completed follow established
preservation procedures.
Second, WWMS has been dedicated as a War Memorial in perpetuity and we are compelled to maintain
this important designation now and in the future. At the stadium's dedication in 1926, Greensboro
Mayor Edwin Jeffress said, "The soldier boys said they wanted no hollow granite, no useless monument
to decorate our street corners, even no statuary or brass to remind us of those who have passed along
after doing life’s full duty. But they wanted something that would be useful; that would help develop
mind and body; that would in this way be a perpetual memorial to those who have passed." Equally
important is WWMS’s historic role as a baseball facility. Perhaps no other American sport has more
nostalgia and reverence for the past as baseball. In order to maintain these two vital links to the past we
must continue to keep them in mind for future planning.
Third, WWMS as an important cultural resource and its current and future value to the community at
large should always be considered. It is here therefore, one should take into consideration that the past
is not always helpful to sustaining cultural resources, particularly buildings. It may be the reason a site
gets listed in the National Register in the first place as well as being the basis for treatment and
rehabilitation plans. Additionally our memories, respect for our ancestors, and nostalgia compel many to
join the cause for historic preservation. However, a historic building’s past is often irrelevant when it
comes to its long term sustainability. We often need to stop trying to convince people that a building
should be saved because it was important in the past and spend more time helping owners and
community leaders to define new roles for their buildings now and into the future. Helping property
owners and the public think about historic buildings as “legacy assets” reframes the conversation from
the start. Preservationists know that historic resources have intrinsic value, but the reality is, if that the
building we are trying to save doesn’t have a role to play or a good job to perform in a future reuse
strategy, its state of utility is likely to diminish quickly and return it to a cycle of underutilization and
obsolescence.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

17 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
So as we move forward in the development of a preservation plan for WWMS, our goal shall be to
balance the three ideals of appropriate physical treatment, respect for the past and sustainability for the
future in all aspects of the decision making process.
II. Nomenclature
Proper use of terminology as it relates to preservation is an essential component to planning activities.
Incorrect or misleading use of terminology can often times communicate the wrong message to building
owners, designers, preservation officers and the general public. It is therefore paramount to set forth
the correct nomenclature in order to properly convey the intentions of the preservation team and the
goals of the preservation plan for the historic resource.
Additionally, experience has taught us that there is often no single comprehensive word to describe a
preservation treatment for a historic resource. Often times there are as many as 5 different treatments
within a single property. To account for this variance we present here the following nomenclature that
will serve as the basis for our plan.
Note: some definitions are excerpted from the National Park Service’s website
1. Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing
form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect
and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic
materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions
are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is
appropriate within a preservation project.
2. Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character
of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from
other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The
limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required
work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.
3. Rehabilitation: is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property
through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its
historical, cultural, or architectural values.
5. Renovation is defined as the act or process of removing and constructing spaces, features or
structures within a historic property with entirely new components as if to appear completely new.
Retention of some historical components may occur but complete modernization is typically the primary
objective in renovation projects. When renovations border other preservation treatments, designs must
clearly differentiate those items which are new from those that are historic without adverse effects to
the latter.
6. Selective Removal: is defined as the act or process of carefully removing non-historic materials,
finishes, assemblies or structures as an aid to preservation, restoration or rehabilitation. Unlike

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

18 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial Stadium, circa 1926. It is believed that this photo was taken on the dedication for the stadium. Note
that there are no sidewalks or other site developments in front of the entrance.
demolition, selective removal minimizes the unnecessary removal and discarding of items and places a
strong emphasis on retention of historic fabric. Retention may occur in-situ or through careful
disassembly, cataloging and storage at another location so that items may be protected and re-
assembled in the future.

III. Outline Building History
Detailed building history is typically not included within a preservation plan but rather provided in a
comprehensive Historic Structure Report. However, we feel that it is impossible to tell the entire story a
historic resource without, at the very least, a basic history of the building, its significant historic
precedents, its various uses, as well as its recent past. So we have included this condensed building
timeline as a reference document so that application of preservation treatments can be connected to a
particular era of WWMS’s overall history.

a. Time Line History
1925- Local American Legion Post decides to build a monument that should be useful to the
citizens of North Carolina and Greensboro. Building was not originally intended to be a baseball
park

1925- Original plan was to be a stadium to seat 25,000 and was quickly deemed too expensive
and too ambitious. Original form as designed by Greensboro Architects Barton and White was to

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

19 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial Stadium, circa 2008. WWMS has appeared in 2
feature length films. As seen here WWMS is being “portrayed” as a
1920’s football stadium in the Movie “Leatherheads”, directed by
George Clooney.
be a “horseshoe” configuration with the primary sport to be American Football. Designs were
scaled back to existing inverted “J” shape with the opportunity to expand in the future

1926- Stadium opens on Armistice Day 1926 with a finished seating capacity about 8,500

1926-1930 Early years served as a local football and track stadium. Summer amateur leagues
played baseball on the field.
Home plate and second base were
aligned with the main entry which
made for a very short left field foul
line and an immense left and right
field foul areas. Professional
Baseball is still played at Cone Park

1927- NC A&T State University’s
semi-professional team uses field
for Football for the first time and
would continue to play football
games at WWMS through 1980.

1930- WWMS is retrofitted with
a steel truss covered seating and
lights. The monumental entry
towers were in-filled with a press box and permanent dugouts were constructed into the field
walls. It is believed that the field was rotated off axis at this time aligning the left field foul pole
with far Northeast corner of the long grandstands. Use of Cone park ceased and the
Greensboro Patriots (St. Louis Cardinals Affiliate) moved operations into the renovated stadium

1935- Greensboro Patriots leave and move to Asheville to become the “Tourists”

1941- 1942 Home to the Patriot League Greensboro Red Sox

1943-1945 No professional men’s baseball played due to World War II

1946-1968 WWMS is home to various teams in the Carolina league.

1978-1984 Minor League baseball returns to WWMS. Several Upgrades to the stadium to meet
more stringent minor league guidelines. Upgrades include
1. Constructed walkways at field level in front of seating deck
2. Press Box was re-built behind home plate and the area behind the original towers was
converted to a “V.I.P” space
3. Updated seating, concessions and restrooms under seating deck and outside stadium

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

20 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial Stadium, circa 2008. Despite several alterations to WWMS, the distinctive inverted “J”
and entry towers are still present from the original 1926 design. The field was rotated off center early in the
stadium’s history in order to increase the field depth along the left field foul line.

4. Moved Dugouts closer to the field
5. Improved Home and Visitor clubhouses
1987 Exterior of stadium was featured in the “Road Trip” scene in the movie Bull Durham
1990 Various upgrades to concessions including wood concession area in far left field.
2004- Present Exclusive home ballpark for North Carolina A&T. Several advertisements and
displays have been removed from the outfield walls.
2008 Exterior of stadium was again featured in the movie Leatherheads. For this movie, the
stadium was portrayed as a football venue.
2012- Left field concessions area is removed restoring conditions of the original seating area.

IV. Architectural Form and Design
The form of WWMS as designed and constructed originally in 1926 is best characterized as a “Parade
Ground” style stadium characterized by the following architectural features:

1. Symmetrical shape (although never fully realized) seating bowl with proportions
adequate to serve track and field sports.
2. A clearly defined entry portal with highly stylized architectural features. Classically
designed pylons, towers or colonnades visible from both the interior and the exterior of the
stadium introduce a strong architectural influence to the structure.
3. A strong axial component to layout and configuration of the stadium elements. Again,
this was never fully realized but the intent was that the playing field and track surfaces were

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

21 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Doughboy Memorial Stadium, Ft. Benning Georgia, 1925. A good precedent
example of a small World War I memorial stadium built at the time as WWMS
in Greensboro. Note the use of entry arches and towers as a defining
architectural feature that can be viewed from the interior and exterior.
to be centered upon a horseshoe stadium configuration. Teams would enter through the
main portal and onto the field.
4. The field Level is at or near the same level as the street. This would allow for full military
parades, marching bands, and teams to enter “triumphally” onto the field directly from the
street through the main arches. This stadium form was also very popular for events such as
automobile races, equestrian shows because cars or horse can enter directly onto the field
from street level. This type stadium form differs from “bowl” shaped stadiums that are dug
or carved into flat land or from hills making events such as a parade marching formation or
automobile race difficult to conduct.
b. Style and Precedent
WWMS can best be characterized architecturally as a simplified classical style. The rise of neo-
classicism starting at the turn of the century and continuing until the great depression is often
referred to as the “gilded age” or American architecture. The era represented the rise of
America’s first generation of
domestically trained architects
and engineers. Most all
architectural training in America
was in the Ecole Des Beaux Arts
method which educated
architects in the elements of
classicism. Greensboro
architect Harry Barton was
trained in this manner and many
of his buildings around North
Carolina display his knowledge
of classicism.
Classical architecture is an
obvious choice for civic
stadiums and war memorials
as its connection to the civilizations of Rome and Greece in many ways served as the basis of
American democracy. The oval or horseshoe stadium form originates in ancient Greece and Rome
and their engineering serves as the basis of design in early 20th century stadium structures utilizing
similar structural design elements including concrete and masonry. Likewise, the triumphal arch
and pylon form are equally important to war monuments as it was these arches in ancient Rome
that soldiers would pass through marking their symbolic transformation from warrior back to
civilian life.
The precedent of WWMS can be theorized into to two primary cultural movements present in the
mid-1920’s. First is the cultural significance of Stadia and other athletic facilities as War
memorials. The veterans group, American Legion, was instrumental in promoting memorials that
would have a lasting use to their communities most importantly being and aid to assist in the

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

22 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, built 1923. A pre-
eminent example of a mid-1920’s memorial stadium. Note the
similar use of simplified classical architecture. This stadium was
published nationally and most likely served as a precedent for
the Greensboro American Legion Post as they commenced
planning for WWMS.
physical fitness and health of youth so
that the future generations may be
ready to step up and fight. War
memorial projects that Legion posts
were designed and completing during
this time period were frequently
published in their membership
periodicals and would have certainly
contained several other similar
structures built before the start of
planning for WWMS. Several similar
venues were constructed and widely
published before or at the same time
WWMS was being planned.
A few of stadia displaying the similar
architectural features and forms most
certainly provided precedent for
WWMS
1. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum- Completed 1923
2. Soldier Field- Chicago, IL-Completed 1924.
3. Doughboy Memorial Stadium- Ft. Benning, GA- completed 1925
4. Memorial Stadium, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL - Completed 1925
In each of these precedent facilities, the same architectural features as WWMS are expressed:
symmetry, purity of form, use of towers, triumphal arches or other classical architectural
feature visible from the interior and exterior, and in many cases a ground level entry or other
type of formal entry onto the stadium field reminiscent of a parade ground facility.
The second cultural precedent is the strong paradigm of the athletic playing field to the battlefield
persisted particularly in track and field and American Football. Other similar events that fall into
this pattern include use of civic venues for paramilitary events such as marching bands, flag corps,
scout jamborees, ROTC, etc. gained mass popularity during the 1910’s through the 1920’s. The
1924 Summer Olympics in Paris was widely publicized in the United States for their dominance in
athletic competitions. The success of the Olympics coupled with the profound popularity of
baseball and boxing saw an exponential rise in sports entertainment throughout the 1920’s as
America became evolved into a middle class society with more people than ever before with free
time on the weekends and spare cash to spend.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

23 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial Stadium, circa 1929. This photo was taken just prior to the renovations in
1930 that converted WWMS for use as a minor league ball park. Not the field orientation aligns
with the main entry portal and what appears to be a decorative plaza in front of the arches.
c. Later Renovations
Starting in 1930 and continuing on until the 1990’s several renovations and additions occurred
that detract from the original 1926 architectural design and form of WWMS, and they are as
follows:
1. The addition of a roof structure and infilling for the 1930’s press box has almost fully obscured
the architectural significance of the pylons and flag poles that were originally designed to be
viewed from both the interior and the exterior. This we feel the expression of the pylon and the
flag poles is the most significant architectural feature of the structure and efforts to restore this
feature should be undertaken.
2. The canopy structure as well as the press box completed in the 1970’s obstructs the
geometrically pure form of the inverted “J” seating bowl.
3. Infilling the historic windows on the exterior stadium walls have been done in a way that
detracts from the original architectural expression
4. Several Auxiliary structures, most notably, a non-historic concession area along the left field
foul line detracts from the historic ball park appearance and aesthetic. This structure has recently
been removed by the City of Greensboro, however there is another located along the right field
foul line that should also be removed. 5. Concessions areas within the concourse areas under the
grandstand seating deck behind home plate. These concessions areas are constructed with non-
historic materials and aluminum doors that are not accurate to the original construction date of
the stadium.
5. Multi-colored seats detract from the seating deck area that would have originally been simple
wood bleachers left natural or painted a single color.
V. Period of Historic Interpretation for Preservation and Rehabilitation
Based on our study of the
1925-1926 Henry Barton
Stadium design, similar
precedents projects, the
later renovations and the
current Future by NC A&T
we feel that the period of
significance for WWMS
should be the date of the
facility’s original date of
construction up until
those initial conversions
into a professional
baseball park. Therefore

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

24 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
we propose a period of significance of 1926-1929. As stated in the Executive summary we feel there are
three primary goals that assist in establishing this date and they are as follows:
1. We believe that the style, purity of form and simple classical architecture of the original
stadium is best realized when those elements added to WWMS after 1930 are removed from
the original structure. The original inverted “J” shape of the seating bowl and the presence of
the symmetrically placed monumental towers have been lost when these later alterations were
complete.
2. This period of Interpretation falls within the date that NC A&T first started using WWMS for
athletic facilities. This is a significant date for the University as it relates directly to the early
establishment of an organized athletics program. If restored/ rehabilitated to this period
significance NC A&T will be able to tell alumni and donors that this was what the stadium would
have looked like when the first football game was played here in 1927
3. From 1926-1930 WWMS operated as a stadium owned by a public entity for amateur sporting
events. From 1930 to 2004 the facility was primarily a professional baseball park. Since NC A&T
will again be using WWMS primarily for local amateur sporting events we believe all
restoration/rehabilitation should be undertaken to retain the building’s original historic use.

VI. Preservation Treatment Plan
In order to establish a preservation treatment plan for any historic resource, we feel it is necessary to
employ a 4-step methodology that aids in identification of historic significance and application of treatments
to both the context and architecture of that resource. For WWMS we provide this methodology below as
well as preservation treatment conceptual drawings located in Appendix A of this report.
• Step 1: Identify the historically significant role of the Historic Resource in the Community
• A War Memorial
• A significant piece of Civic Architecture
• A public facility for the Betterment of the community
• Role in the History of Professional Baseball
• Role in the development of Collegiate Athletics at NC A&T

• Step 2: Identify those Architectural Features that best exemplify its role as a historical resource and
Preserve/ Restore those Features to the greatest extent possible
• Triumphal Arches/ Front Entry with direct site lines to the playing field from Yanceyville street
• The original concrete, masonry and stucco finishes that comprise the structure, the exterior
walls, the seating deck and the vomitories and concourses
• The central pylons and flagpoles that are intended to be viewed from the interior and exterior
• Exterior Curved wall that forms the street view of the entire stadium
• The form of the seating bowl from the interior.
• The Baseball field, diamond, dugouts, etc.. Maintain facility as a baseball park or other athletics
facility intended for amateur sports.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

25 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

• Step 3: Identify those Architectural Features that are of secondary importance and Rehabilitate those
features with respect to the original architecture/form
• Seating Deck surfaces and substructure
• Spaces under the seating deck including the concourse circulation areas
• Parking Areas

• Step 4: Identify those Architectural Features that are non-historic, are outside the period of
significance or detract from the original architecture and remove those elements and restore those
features effected by their removal. Areas that are non-historic shall also be considered for
renovation if they do not detract from the historic areas once renovations are complete.
• Steel covered canopy over seating
• Existing auxiliary structures/ sheds/ clubhouse, etc.
• Press Box Structures located on seating deck and between the pylons.
• Locker Rooms, public restrooms offices, concessions, storage areas,

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

26 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Part 3- Space Needs Analysis and Building Code Compliance

The completion of a space needs analysis for an existing historic resource goes beyond what would be prepared
if considering a program for a new building. Not only do the needs of the users need to be considered, the
needs of the historic resource should always be taken into account in order to ensure that proper historic
preservation procedures are maintained. In addition, if items of historical significance are to remain, we must
ensure that these items are first, able to be adapted to meet the space needs and second, can be adapted to
comply with current building codes.

For WWMS we have divided the facility into 4 major components for purposes of facility needs planning:
1. Site and entry points into WWMS
2. The seating deck area including all field level walkways
3. Public concourse areas including: Restrooms, concessions areas, and circulation areas under the
seating deck.
4. Team/ Umpire areas including: Home and Visitor Clubhouses, umpire areas, offices, ticket areas.

Within each of these components we have:
1. Studied those existing features and components that will require work
2. Developed, as required, space needs, occupancy counts, and conceptual materials designations
3. Determined the preservation treatment for each components that is most appropriate based on our
preservation plan
4. Verified conceptual recommendations to achieve building code compliance
For purposes of this report, at the Conceptual/ Planning Phase, we have had to make several assumptions that
are subject to change as further study will be required to complete a full design and construction project.
1. This study assumes that this facility will be used primarily by North Carolina A&T State University for a
1500 seat baseball stadium. Existing seating areas not part of the 1500 seating arrangement are not
being considered at his time.
2. All code compliance is being reviewed under the 2012 North Carolina Commercial Building Code. Code
compliance is theoretical and conceptual and will require significant study during subsequent phases of
a design and construction project. It is anticipated that there will be a 2015 revision to the NC
Commercial Building Code. If design does not commence before adoption of the new codes this time
additional study will be required. In addition to compliance with current building codes, all future work
may be afforded certain latitude and interpretation due to its historic designation.
3. The North Carolina Office of State Construction (SCO) was not contacted as part of this study. Once
the study is complete, we recommend that the final document be reviewed with SCO to confirm if any
other additional compliance measure will be required.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

27 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial Stadium, 2014. Bronze Plaques
flank the entry arches and list all of the local soldiers who
died in World War I.
Based on the Facility Needs Assessment that follows and the assumptions provided above, we have also
completed conceptual rehabilitation drawings located in Appendix B of this report. Exterior cladding,
materials and structure preservation recommendations is included in the Conditions Assessment.
Area 1- Site and Entry/Exit Points
Conceptual Stadium Occupancy:
Patrons 1500 persons
Baseball Teams: 75 Persons
Workers, Support, Etc 25 Persons
Total 1600 persons
Exit/ Entry Points Building Code Requirements:
1. Per Table 1021.1, 4 Exits are required based on the Conceptual Stadium Occupancy.
Comments: 4 exits may be
achieved based on current
stadium layout. This
includes 3 portal entry
points in addition to a
ground level entry/ exit at
the southwest right field
foul pole
2. Required Total Exit Egress Width:
Per 1005.1 1600 Occupants x .3
inches per occupant = 480 Inches or
40 Feet
Comments: Based on
current Designs there
appears to be 55 to 60 feet
of egress width.
3. Per 1105.1 60% of all entries
must be accessible.
Comments: Based on
current Designs all entry
and exit points can achieve accessibility
4. Per Table 1106.1 Required Handicapped parking spaces required: 26 Spaces
Comments: There is enough existing parking area to properly accommodate
this amount of handicapped parking spaces
5. The accessible routes from handicapped parking to Entry/ Arrival Points shall be
accessible by compliant surfaces with slope no greater than 1 unit for every 20 units or
with complaint ramps with slope no greater than 1 unit for every 12 units
Comments: Additional ramp and slope studies will need to be completed by a
civil engineer to confirm that all entry and exit points meet accessibility
standards.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

28 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial Stadium, 2014. Creating an enhanced entry and exit
sequence along the right field line (shown here) at WWMS will provide a better
connection to the North Carolina A&T Campus and future development along
the Lindsay Street corridor
6. Entry/ Exit Gates: 1008.2.1 Stadiums. Panic hardware is not required on gates
surrounding stadiums where such gates are under constant immediate supervision
while the public is present, and where safe dispersal areas based on 3 square feet per
occupant are located between the fence and enclosed space. Such required safe
dispersal areas shall not be
located less than 50 feet.
Comments: Panic hardware on all entry/exit gates are recommended if gates
will not be supervised at all times during games.

Site- Exit/ Entry Points Other Requirements and Recommendations
1. Each Entry and Exit point at WWMS should be restored and/or rehabilitated to their
original 1926 condition. The existing gates at the main entry should be removed and
replaced with new gates compliant with the current building codes. All gates should be
designed to have a historic appearance compatible with the building exterior. As stated
above, we recommend that gates should be equipped with panic devices.
2. Each entry point should be clearly indicated with proper signage and
safety/emergency lighting in order to endure safe ingress and egress. We recommend
that signage and lighting be designed to have a historic appearance.
3. A rehabilitated
primary entry site
area should be
designed to
provide an
enhanced stadium
entry experience.
There are 26
required parking
spaces that should
be incorporated
into this design
along with the
possibility of
constructing an
entry plaza.
Connectivity to the
other 3 entry/exit
gates should be
completed with new or improved sidewalks.
4. Rehabilitate all existing parking areas with new surfacing and striping as required in
order to achieve the required accessible parking spaces. Parking areas should designed

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

29 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
to enhance the streetscape along Lindsay and Yanceyville Streets, improve storm water
management issues and provide opportunities for enhanced utilization such as farmer’s
markets, football tailgating and other university public events.
5. Construct new ticket booth structures as required at site entry/exit points of similar
architecture as shown in historic photographs.
6. Remove the existing concrete auxiliary structure at the right field foul pole. Consider
future improvements at right field foul pole entrance including additional amenities
areas. This entry exit point should be considered as part of the comprehensive campus
planning efforts along the Lindsay Street Corridor.
7. Provide a designated player entrance with a team bus loading and unloading area.
Bus parking may be achieved at a different location on the site.
8. All landscaping work between the parking areas and the stadium exterior walls should
be minimal in order to maintain the period of significance. Minimal landscaping should
be used to screen mechanical equipment and as a means to improve the streetscape at
Yanceyville Street entrances.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

30 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial Stadium, circa 2002. The left field seating deck
in use for a Greensboro Bats game. As configured here, WWMS
could seat up to 7,500 people. However, the poor condition of the
deck coupled with little need for this much seating for college
baseball is motivating the planning for a reduction to a 1500 seat
stadium
Area 2- Seating Deck and Field Level Walkways
Proposed Seating Deck Occupancy:
Patrons 1500 persons
Workers, Support, Etc 10 Persons
Total 1510 persons

Seating Deck Occupancy type: A-5- Assembly uses intended for participation in or viewing outdoor
activities
Seating Deck and Field Level Walkway Building Code Requirements:
1. Per Table1108.2.2.1 Handicapped Viewing areas are required in stadiums. For a
stadium capacity of 1500 patrons WWMS is required to have: 6+(1500/150) = 16 spaces
Comments: Handicapped viewing areas must be placed along an accessible
route.
2. Each handicapped
seating area shall have a
clear area of 30” x 48” and
per 1108.2.3 be equipped
with at least one
companion seat for each
space provided.
Comments:
Handicapped
viewing areas
should
accommodate 16-
30” x 48” spaces
plus 8 additional
30” x 48” spaces
for companions.
Companion
seating can be accommodated with either a bench or folding chairs.
3. Per 1108.2.2.4 At least one wheel-chair space shall be provided in team or player
seating areas serving areas of sport activity.
Comments: An accessible route and seating space shall be provided to each
baseball dugout.
4. 1108.2.6 Lawn seating. Lawn seating areas and exterior overflow seating areas,
where fixed seats are not provided, shall connect to an accessible route
. Comments: If lawn seating is incorporated into the design, then the route
leading to those areas shall be accessible. This will require additional
clarification from SCO.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

31 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

5. 1004.7 Fixed seating. For areas having fixed seats and aisles, the occupant load shall
be determined by the number of fixed seats installed therein. The occupant load for
areas in which
fixed seating is not installed, such as waiting spaces and wheel- chair spaces, shall be
determined in accordance with Section 1004.1.1 and added to the number of fixed
seats. For areas having fixed seating without dividing arms, the occupant load shall not
be less than the number of seats based on one person for each 18 inches of seating
length.
Comments: Based on this ratio of seat width, WWMS will need to have 2,250
linear feet of bench style seating to accommodate 1500 patrons. The
proposed seating deck area to be preserved is approximately 3,750 linear feet
with an approximate capacity of 2,500 patrons. It is unlikely that SCO will
allow a posted occupancy count, therefore seating reductions will need to be
made. We suggest the following reductions to achieve 2,250 linear feet of
seating:
1. Eliminate the top 4 rows of seating. This will reduce the seating
length by about 840 linear feet. If the top 4 rows are eliminated, the
seating deck can remain however a railing will most likely need to be
installed to prevent this area from being an occupied assembly space.
2. Widen Aisles approximately 2 feet. This will reduce the seating
length by about 160 linear feet. Since the seating deck is shallow
enough to not require intermediate steps between the rows, this
change is a simple way to reduce seating capacity and increase
circulation throughout the stadium.
3. Eliminate the bottom 3 rows of seating to accommodate the
required wheel chair seating and companion seating. This will reduce
the seating length by about 500 linear feet. Placing the accessible
seating in this area is the best solution for both capacity reduction and
meeting accessibility requirements.

**NOTE** The computations provided in this study are preliminary
and should be studied in detail as part of a design and construction
project.

6. 1028.7 Travel distance- open-air seating exception 2: The travel distance from each
seat
to the building exterior shall not exceed 400 feet. The travel distance shall not be limited
in facilities of Type I or II construction.
Comments: All Seating areas at WWMS have a travel distance less than 400
feet.

7. 1028.8 Common path of egress travel. The common path of egress travel shall not
exceed 30 feet (9144 mm) from any seat to a point where an occupant has a choice of
two paths of egress travel to two exits

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

32 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Comments: All Seating rows at WWMS have an aisle at both ends and at no
location is the length of a row between aisles more than 60 linear feet.

8. 1028.13 Handrails. Aisle stairs shall be provided with handrails located either at the
side or within the aisle width
Comments: Since there will be significant revisions/ reductions to the seating
deck area to achieve a capacity of 1500 patrons, code compliant aisle railings
not currently in place will need to be installed. Below are the additional railing
requirements:
1. Where there is seating on both sides of the aisle, the handrails shall
be discontinuous with gaps or breaks at intervals not exceeding five
rows to facilitate access to seating and to permit crossing from one
side of the aisle to the other
2. Where handrails are provided in the middle of aisle stairs, there
shall be an additional intermediate handrail located approximately 12
inches below the main handrail

9. 1028.14.2 Sightline-constrained guard heights. Unless subject to the requirements of
Section 1028.14.3, a fascia or railing system in accordance with the guard requirements
of Section 1013 and having a minimum height of 26 inches shall be provided where the
floor or footboard elevation is more than 30 inches above the floor or grade below and
the fascia or railing would otherwise interfere with the sightlines of immediately
adjacent seating.
Comments: The locations where this occurs are minimal and are mostly
contained to the seating areas directly adjacent to the vomitory portals. The
side and top walls of the vomitory are not tall enough to comply with the
current standards listed above. To correct this, a common retrofit should be
done involving the installation of a supplemental railing on top of the existing
concrete wall

Seating Deck and Field Level Walkways- Other Requirements and Recommendations
1. All existing seating on the seating deck should be removed and discarded. Proper repairs and
replacement of the seating deck shall be made based on the conditions assessment by SKA
Consulting engineers. Once complete a top protective coating should be installed to preserve
the existing and new structure.

2. New Aluminum bleacher system shall be installed on the repaired concrete seating deck. The
new bleacher system should have powder coated aluminum bleachers to replicate the look of
the historic painted wood bleachers. Each bleacher will have aluminum seating backs for
increased comfort.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

33 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Lawn Seating has again become a popular choice for ball parks of all
sizes. Note that the slope of the lawn area is the same as the
concrete seating deck. This is a simple way to make the stadium
larger without the expense of a concrete structure.
3. All site walls and vomitory walls should be cleaned, repaired/ replaced and re-coated with a
protective coating similar to the seating deck. The paints and coating should be pigmented to
closely match the original concrete color of WWMS

4. All new railings and guards installed at WWMS should be carefully designed to have a historic
appearance. There are several companies who specialize in the manufacture of railing systems
that are appropriate to the period of significance.

5. The field level walkway at WWMS
should be rehabilitated as required to
accommodate the new accessible
seating areas. In addition, it is
recommended that wider areas of
this walkway be considered for in-
park concessions, press seating and
public address announcement.
Further study of these individual
needs will be required as part of a
design and construction project.

6. As stated earlier, we recommend
the removal of the 1930 steel
canopy and both press boxes in
order to restore the appearance of WWMS back to the period of 1926-1929. Once complete
this will improve site lines and make the pylons and flag poles a very prominent component of
the stadium. We recommend that after removal of the press boxes the area between the
pylons be considered for a special area of interest to be determined.

7. As stated in the occupancy requirements, the seating area/ grandstand along the left field line
all the way to the foul pole is not required for the facility needs of NC A&T. We recommend that
this seating area with the exception of the portals and the walls be removed and the area
contained within this zone be in filled with natural earth berms that replicate the slope and form
of the original seating deck. Initially, this area will be closed to the public. However, in the
future the earth berms may become a lawn seating area. Lawn seating areas are very popular in
smaller ball parks because they allow for more seating options and accommodate families. It
should be noted here that when the lawn seating becomes available, increased stadium
capacity, additional patron amenities (restrooms), ingress and egress and accessibility will all
need to be conserved for the lawn seating area. As currently proposed, the existing facilities will
not accommodate the lawn seating.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

34 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Signage appropriate to the period of significance should be
incorporated into rehabilitation designs for WWMS. In this
example, the sign uses traditional fonts and colors along with a
historic graphic frame and is applied directly to the building wall
without back lighting or electronics.
8 . The seating deck area and walkways
should be upfit with a new way finding
signage, aisle/row designations, exit
signs and perhaps other graphics
enhancements. Because WWMS is a
historic property we feel that the
graphics should be minimal and any
signage that is installed should be
appropriate to the 1926-1929 period of
significance. Introduction of bright
colors, LED displays, large graphic
banners or other “modern” treatments
applied directly to the historic concrete
seating structure should be avoided.
Installation of flag poles on the historic
exterior wall signifying Southern
Conference baseball teams and/or flags signifying NC A&T baseball championships would teams
would be an example of a proper rehabilitation method that is appropriate to the period of
significance.

Product advertisements, if any, should be limited to the outfield “home run” walls as this would
be the historically accurate location for such graphics

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

35 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
World War Memorial stadium, south concourse, 2014. Various renovations and
upgrades to infrastructure have created concourses that are dark, non-compliant
and aesthetically undesirable. We propose removing the interior non-historic walls
and concessions doors (seen here) in order to open the space up as it would have
been in 1926.
Area 3- Public Concourses
Proposed Use:
The public concourse areas
are defined as those areas for
patron use located below the
rehabilitated 1500 seat
seating deck. The items to be
included within this Area
include:
1. Public Restrooms and
Family Restrooms to
accommodate 1500 patrons
2. Circulation/ Egress
Corridors
3. Primary Arched Entry
Portal
4. Concessions

Public Concourse Building
Code Requirements:
1. Occupancy Type: Accessory/ Circulation to accommodate the A-5 Occupancy at seating deck.
We anticipate that based on construction type and all occupied areas under the seating deck
portion of the stadium will require an approved automatic sprinkler system.

2. Plumbing Fixture Calculations- 2012 North Carolina Plumbing Code Table 403.1

Requirements for Female Patrons, A-5
Minimum Water Closets: 1 per 75 for first 1500: 751/75 = 11 Water Closets/
Urinals
Minimum Lavatories: 1 per 250: 751/250 = 4 Lavatories

Requirements for Female Patrons, A-5
Minimum Water Closets: 1 per 40 for first 1520: 751/40 = 19 Water Closets/
Urinals
Minimum Lavatories: 1 per 200: 751/200 = 4 Lavatories

Required Drinking Fountains: 2 “hi-lo ADA accessible fixture”

Comments: IBC Minimum requirements for plumbing fixtures in arenas and stadiums
do not always accurately accommodate the specific event as well as accurate gender

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

36 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
proportions at the event. For WWMS which will be used primarily as a baseball
facility, we propose the following increased plumbing fixtures based on the sport
(baseball) and the gender distribution (predominantly male)

Men
Toilets: 1 toilet for every 2 urinals = 5 Toilets
Urinals: 1 Urinal for every 90 people = 9 Urinals
Lavatories: 1 Lavatory for every 125 People = 6 lavatories

Women
Toilets: 1 Toilet for every 40 people = 19 Toilets
Lavatories: 1 Lavatory for every 125 People = 6 lavatories

3. Family Toilets: 1109.2.1 Family or assisted-use toilet and bathing rooms. In assembly
and mercantile occupancies, an accessible family or assisted-use toilet room shall be
provided where an aggregate of six or more male and female water closets is required.
Family restrooms shall have one water closet and one lavatory.
Comments: Aggregate fixture counts for WWMS far exceed 6 so a family
restroom is required.

4. Concourse Circulation Requirements:
a. 1003.2 Ceiling height. The means of egress shall have a ceiling height of not
less than 7 feet 6 inches (2286 mm).
Comments: At many locations in the concourse there are concrete structural
members that go below 7’-6”. These will be considered protruding objects. At
many locations there are also conduits and wiring that extend below the 7’-6”
height requirement. To achieve compliance these will need to be relocated.

b. 1003.3.1 Headroom. Protruding objects are permitted to extend below the
minimum ceiling height required by Section 1003.2 provided a minimum
headroom of 80 inches
shall be provided for any walking surface, including walks, corridors, aisles and
passageways. Not more than 50 percent of the ceiling area of a means of
egress shall be reduced in height by protruding objects.

c. A barrier in a means of egress shall be provided where the vertical clearance
is less than 80 inches high. The leading edge of such a barrier shall be located 27
inches maximum above the floor.
Comments: At any location where the structure goes below 6’-8”, a barrier will
need to be constructed to a point where 6’-8” tall will be achieved

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

37 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
D. Accessible means of egress. Per Section 1007, a means of egress and all
points connecting to the means of egress shall be accessible.

Public Concourse Building Program Requirements:
1. Men’s Restroom to Serve 751 male patrons
a. Proposed Area: 375 Square Feet
b. Fixtures: 3 Toilets, 1 ADA Toilet, 1 Ambulatory Toilet, 9 Urinals, 6
Lavatories
c. Preservation Treatment: Renovation. Note: wall shared between
restrooms and concourse shall be a wall built to replicate the historic
concourses.
d. Energy Requirements: Perimeter Walls and Ceilings shall be insulated
per the 2012 NC Energy Code. These will be considered interior spaces
e. Plumbing Requirements: All new plumbing fixtures to comply with
the NC Plumbing code. Note: We recommend manual trap primers in
all area drains within restrooms due to limited use in the off season
f. Mechanical Requirements: All new Mechanical HVAC and exhaust
fans designed in accordance with the 2012 NC Mechanical code.
g. Electrical Requirements: All new electrical systems and lighting in
accordance with the 2012 NC Electrical Code.
h. Finishes
1. Walls- CMU or brick masonry painted or with glazed finish
2. Ceilings- Moisture Resistant Gypsum board and paint
3. Floors- New polished concrete
4. Doors- Extra Heavy Duty Insulated Hollow Metal- Painted
5. Toilet Partitions- Phenolic resin, plastic, solid surface or stone.
6. Accessories- Stainless Steel
j. Fixtures
1. Toilets- Wall Hung Flash Valve commercial toilets
2. Urinals- Wall Hung low volume or flushless style
3. Lavatories- Wall Hung
k. Furnishings/ Equipment
1. Mechanical System- Independent Mini-split Heating and
cooling unit.
2. Exhaust- ducted mechanical exhaust. Note- Exhaust ducts
shall not extend through exterior walls.
3. Trash Cans

2. Women’s Restroom to Serve 751 female patrons
a. Proposed Area: 740 Square Feet
b. Fixtures: 16 Toilets, 2 ADA Toilets , 2 Ambulatory Toilets, 6
Lavatories

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

38 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
c. Preservation Treatment: Renovation. Note: wall shared between
restrooms and concourse shall be a wall built to replicate the historic
concourses.
d. Energy Requirements: Perimeter Walls and Ceilings shall be insulated
per the 2012 NC Energy Code. These will be considered interior spaces
e. Plumbing Requirements: All new plumbing fixtures to comply with
the NC Plumbing code. Note: We recommend manual trap primers in
all area drains within restrooms due to limited use in the off season
f. Mechanical Requirements: All new Mechanical HVAC and exhaust
fans designed in accordance with the 2012 NC Mechanical code.
g. Electrical Requirements: All new electrical systems and lighting in
accordance with the 2012 NC Electrical Code.
h. Finishes
1. Walls- CMU or brick masonry painted or with glazed finish
2. Ceilings- Moisture Resistant Gypsum board and paint
3. Floors- New polished concrete
4. Doors- Extra Heavy Duty Insulated Hollow Metal- Painted
5. Toilet Partitions- Phenolic resin, plastic, solid surface or stone.
6. Accessories- Stainless Steel
j. Fixtures
1. Toilets- Wall Hung Flash Valve commercial toilets
2. Lavatories- Wall Hung
k. Furnishings/ Equipment
1. Mechanical System- Independent Mini-split Heating and
cooling unit.
2. Exhaust- ducted mechanical exhaust. Note- Exhaust ducts
shall not extend through exterior walls
3. Trash Cans

3. Family Restroom
a. Proposed Area: 65 Square Feet
b. Fixtures: 1 ADA Toilet, 1 Lavatory
c. Preservation Treatment: Renovation.
d. Energy Requirements: Perimeter Walls and Ceilings shall be insulated
per the 2012 NC Energy Code. These will be considered interior spaces
e. Plumbing Requirements: All new plumbing fixtures to comply with
the NC Plumbing code. Note: We recommend manual trap primers in
all area drains within restrooms due to limited use in the off season
f. Mechanical Requirements: All new Mechanical HVAC and exhaust
fans designed in accordance with the 2012 NC Mechanical code.
g. Electrical Requirements: All new electrical systems and lighting in
accordance with the 2012 NC Electrical Code.
h. Finishes

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

39 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
1. Walls- CMU or brick masonry painted or with glazed finish
2. Ceilings- Moisture Resistant Gypsum board and paint
3. Floors- New polished concrete
4. Doors- Extra Heavy Duty Insulated Hollow Metal- Painted
5. Toilet Partitions- Phenolic resin, plastic, solid surface or stone.
6. Accessories- Stainless Steel
j. Fixtures
1. Toilets- Wall Hung Flash Valve commercial toilets
2. Lavatories- Wall Hung
3. Baby Changing Station
k. Furnishings/ Equipment
1. Mechanical System- Independent Mini-split heating and
cooling unit.
2. Exhaust- ducted mechanical exhaust. Note- Exhaust ducts
shall not extend through exterior walls
3. Provide a seat or bench for baby nursing or other family
related needs
4. Trash Can
4. Custodial Closet
a. Proposed Area: 50 Square Feet
b. Fixtures: Janitorial Sink
c. Preservation Treatment: Renovation. Note: wall shared between
restrooms and concourse shall be a wall built to replicate the historic
concourses.
d. Energy Requirements: Perimeter Walls and Ceilings shall be insulated
per the 2012 NC Energy Code. These will be considered interior spaces
e. Plumbing Requirements: All new plumbing fixtures to comply with
the NC Plumbing code. Note: We recommend manual trap primers in
all drains within custodial closets due to limited use in the off season
f. Mechanical Requirements: All new Mechanical HVAC and exhaust
fans designed in accordance with the 2012 NC Mechanical code.
g. Electrical Requirements: All new electrical systems and lighting in
accordance with the 2012 NC Electrical Code.
h. Finishes
1. Walls- CMU or brick masonry painted or with glazed finish
2. Ceilings- Moisture Resistant Gypsum board and paint
3. Floors- New polished concrete
4. Doors- Extra Heavy Duty Insulated Hollow Metal- Painted
5. Accessories- Stainless Steel
j. Fixtures
1. Janitorial Sink- Floor Mounted terrazzo or concrete
k. Furnishings/ Equipment

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

40 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
1. Mechanical System- Independent Mini-split heating and
cooling unit.
2. Exhaust- ducted mechanical exhaust. Note- Exhaust ducts
shall not extend through exterior walls
3. Provide electrical connections for floor cleaning machine
4. Provide shelving for custodial supplies

4. Memorial Entrance
a. Area 1550 Square Feet
b. Fixtures: 2 ADA Accessible Drinking Fountains
c. Preservation Treatment: Preservation/ Restoration
d. Energy Requirements: N/A. This area shall be considered an outdoor
space
e. Plumbing Requirements: All new plumbing fixtures to comply with
the NC Plumbing code.
f. Mechanical Requirements: N/A
g. Electrical Requirements: All new electrical systems and lighting in
accordance with the 2012 NC Electrical Code.
h. Finishes
1. Walls- Brick masonry painted and exposed concrete
2. Ceilings- Exposed Structure. Wiring piping and conduits shall
be visibly minimized
3. Floors- New brushed concrete. If existing floors remain, they
shall be painted with a coating resembling the original concrete
4. Doors- Extra Heavy Duty Insulated Hollow Metal- Painted
5. Gates: Iron gates painted.
j. Fixtures
1. Drinking Fountains- extra heavy duty commercial grade
fixtures.
2. Lighting: Fixtures in this area should be historic style fixtures
that would be compatible with the period of significance.
Conduits to lighting would be exposed.
k. Furnishings/ Equipment
1. Provide painted metal railings at low head height locations
2. Provide 2 benches
3. Provide Electrical rough-ins for future historical displays
4. Provide Information Display boards
5. Trash Cans and Recycling Bins
6. Game Score Card and Pencil Holder
7. Way finding Signage
8. Security/ Information stand
9. Speaker Connections to Public Address system

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

41 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
5. Concourses
a. Area 190 Square Feet
b. Fixtures: Hand Wash Sink
c. Preservation Treatment: Rehabilitation
d. Energy Requirements: N/A. This area shall be considered an outdoor
space
e. Plumbing Requirements: N/A
f. Mechanical Requirements: N/A
g. Electrical Requirements: All new electrical systems and lighting in
accordance with the 2012 NC Electrical Code.
h. Finishes
1. Walls- Brick masonry painted and exposed concrete
2. Ceilings- Exposed Structure. Wiring piping and conduits shall
be visibly minimized
3. Floors- New brushed concrete. If existing floors remain, they
shall be painted with a coating resembling the original concrete
4. Doors- Extra Heavy Duty Insulated Hollow Metal- Painted
5. Gates: Iron gates painted.
j. Fixtures
1. Fixtures in this area should be historic style fixtures that
would be compatible with the period of significance. Conduits
to lighting would be exposed.
k. Furnishings/ Equipment
1. Provide painted metal railings at low head height locations
2. Provide Information Display boards for home and visiting
teams
3. Trash Cans and Recycling Bins
4. Way finding Signage
5. Speaker Connections to Public Address system
6. Concessions Room
a. Area 190 Square Feet
b. Fixtures: Hand Wash Sink
d. Energy Requirements: Perimeter Walls and Ceilings shall be insulated
per the 2012 NC Energy Code. These will be considered interior spaces
e. Plumbing Requirements: All new plumbing fixtures to comply with
the NC Plumbing code. Note: We recommend manual trap primers in
all drains within this area due to limited use in the off season
f. Mechanical Requirements: All new Mechanical HVAC and exhaust
fans designed in accordance with the 2012 NC Mechanical code.
g. Electrical Requirements: All new electrical systems and lighting in
accordance with the 2012 NC Electrical Code.
h. Finishes
1. Walls- Brick masonry painted and exposed concrete

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

42 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Portable food service Kiosks like one’s seen here have become a popular
alternative to portal style concessions area. Portable Kiosks would work well
at WWMS, allowing the point of sale to be located at various locations
depending on the size and type of event.
2. Ceilings- Food service approved coated ceiling tiles
3. Floors- Quarry tile
4. Doors- Extra Heavy Duty Insulated Hollow Metal- Painted
5. Gates:
6. Counters- Stainless Steel
j. Fixtures
1. Fixtures in this area should be the type that will comply with
current health codes
k. Furnishings/ Equipment
1. All food service equipment shall be planned for specific needs
of users. It is anticipated that food to be sold will be mainly pre-
packaged and minimally stored and prepared on site.

7. Concessions Kiosk/ Vending Areas
a. Concessions
Kiosk Areas will
be provided in
various outdoor
areas of WWMS.
These locations
will be a place
where a
temporary or
semi-permanent
point of sale will
be located.
Kiosks may be
located in the
concourse
areas or on the
field level
walkways in
the seating
area and could provide any of the following items:
1. Merchandise (hats t-shirts, etc.)
2. Vending/ Drink Machines
3. Pre-Packaged Food or Food that requires minimal preparation (ice
cream/ popcorn)
4. Fundraising sales
5. Publicity/ Promotions/ Public information tables.
b. Area: 60-100 Square Feet
c. Quantity: 10 dispersed throughout the stadium
d. Fixtures: Hand Wash Sink

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

43 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Banner signage, as seen in New Bridge Bank
Ballpark, is simple and incorporates a historical
component into the concourse. Similar treatments
should be considered at WWMS.
e. Energy Requirements: N/A
f. Plumbing Requirements: N/A
g. Mechanical Requirements: N/A
h. Electrical Requirements: All new electrical systems and lighting in accordance
with the 2012 NC Electrical Code.
` j. Finishes/design: Individual Kiosk designs may vary but all should comply with
health department regulations for applicable food safety requirements and ADA
requirements for accessibility.
h. Fixtures: At each concourse location provide ceiling mounted lighting
k. Furnishings/ Equipment
1. Provide painted metal railings at low head height locations to define
kiosk area
2. Provide Trash Cans and Recycling Bins adjacent to kiosks
3. Provide electrical connections for specific equipment. Provide
properly sized electrical wiring and circuitry to accommodate for several
different types of equipment.

Concourses and Public Areas- Other Requirements and Recommendations
1 . The concourse and historic entry area
should be upfit with a new way finding
signage. Because WWMS is a historic
property we feel that the graphics should
be minimal and any signage that is
installed should be appropriately
designed to the 1926-1929 period of
significance. Introduction of bright
colors, LED displays, large graphic
banners or other “modern” treatments
applied directly to the historic walls
should be avoided.

2. Because the structure in the concourse
area is very low in many areas, a method
for creating the proper safety barriers
will be essential. Simple painted pipe
railings or some other decorative metal
barrier compliant with current regulation
will be most appropriate.
3. We believe the concourses and entry areas will be much more spacious and open
feeling if all of the non-historic concessions walls and gates are removed and opened
back up again as they would have been originally. In each of the structural bays could
be a small vending/kiosk area, have trash cans and benches or have some other amenity
installed for the benefit of the patrons.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

44 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
4. The new restrooms and clubhouses areas adjacent to the concourses and entries
should be designed and constructed to allow all PME systems to be run above the
roof/ceiling and not in the concourse itself. The concourse and memorial entrance
should have very minimal amounts of exposed conduit as this detracts from the space
and is not compatible with the period of significance.
5. The concourse floor level will need to be renovated and changed to meet accessibility
requirements. Simply raising of lowering the floor in the concourse or adjacent spaces
may be appropriate. However additional study of structure heights, footing depths and
headroom issues need to be confirmed in greater detail.
6. Planning for a historical display at the memorial entry should be considered for future
work. Many people who visit a historic venue such as this are interested in its history
and this would be the perfect location.
7. All work done to the seating deck should be completed in a way that best preserves
the underside of the deck as well; particularly in the concourse and memorial entry
areas.
8. All restrooms and related facilities for patrons that are to be renovated will be done
so in a way that makes them efficient, economical, and easy maintain. All finishes and
furnishings and equipment shall be “modern” or “contemporary” to typical commercial
interiors.
9. Concessions and Vending requirements will need much more study to determine if
the programmed space is adequate as shown. The inclusion of the lawn seating in the
future may require additional restrooms, concessions and other patron amenities not
included in this report.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

45 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
WWMS- NC A&T batting practice circa
2012. Team and umpire amenities are
important it is the players, coaches and
umpires who use WWMS more than
anyone else.
Area 4- Team and Umpire Areas

1. Home Clubhouse
a. Proposed Area: 1000 Square Feet including
1. Locker room for 30 players: 400SF
2. Showers and Toilets: 250 SF
3. Training/ Taping area: 200 SF
4. Managers/ Coaches office: 150 SF
b. Fixtures: 3 Standard Showers, 1 ADA Shower, 1 ADA Toilet, 2 urinals,
2 lavatories
c. Preservation Treatment: Renovation.
d. Energy Requirements: Perimeter Walls and Ceilings shall be insulated
per the 2012 NC Energy Code. These will be considered interior spaces
e. Plumbing Requirements: All new plumbing fixtures to comply with
the NC Plumbing code. Note: We recommend manual trap primers in
all area drains within restrooms due to limited use in the off season
f. Mechanical Requirements: All new Mechanical HVAC and exhaust
fans designed in accordance with the 2012 NC Mechanical code.
g. Electrical Requirements: All new electrical systems and lighting
h. Finishes
1. Walls- CMU or brick masonry painted or with glazed finish
2. Ceilings- Moisture Resistant Gypsum board and paint
3. Floors- New polished concrete, tile, polypropylene fiber
carpet tiles
4. Doors- Extra Heavy Duty Insulated Hollow Metal- Painted
5. Toilet Partitions- Phenolic resin, plastic, solid surface or stone.
6. Accessories- Stainless Steel
j. Fixtures

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

46 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
1. Toilets- Wall Hung Flash Valve commercial toilets
2. Lavatories- Wall Hung
3. Showers: Tile Floors
4. Hand wash sink in training room
k. Furnishings/ Equipment
1. Mechanical System- Independent Mini-split Heating and
cooling unit.
2. Exhaust- ducted mechanical exhaust. Note- Exhaust ducts
shall not extend through exterior walls
3. Wood Lockers. Note: Existing lockers may be re-used
4. Training Table and Shelves for supplies
5. Equipment storage shelving (Office).
6. Internet/ Voice/ Data Connections and WiFi router
7. Seats or benches in front of every locker
8. Drink Vending Machine/Refrigerator and/or water cooler
9. Ice Machine
10 Ceiling/ Wall mounted Television (connection)
11. Table and Chairs for 8 (coaches office).
12. Soap and Shampoo dispensers in showers
13. Hand/ Hair Dryers
2. Visitors’ Clubhouse
a. Proposed Area: 725 Square Feet including
1. Locker room for 28 players: 375 SF
2. Showers and Toilets: 225 SF
3. Training/ Taping area: 125 SF
b. Fixtures: 3 Standard Showers, 1 ADA Shower, 1 ADA Toilet, 2 urinals,
2 lavatories
c. Preservation Treatment: Renovation.
Note: wall shared between restrooms and concourse shall be a
wall built to replicate the historic concourses.
d. Energy Requirements: Perimeter Walls and Ceilings shall be insulated
per the 2012 NC Energy Code. These will be considered interior spaces
e. Plumbing Requirements: All new plumbing fixtures to comply with
the NC Plumbing code. Note: We recommend manual trap primers in
all area drains within restrooms due to limited use in the off season
f. Mechanical Requirements: All new Mechanical HVAC and exhaust
fans designed in accordance with the 2012 NC Mechanical code.
g. Electrical Requirements: All new electrical systems and lighting in
accordance with the 2012 NC Electrical Code.
h. Finishes
1. Walls- CMU painted or with glazed finish, Tile in Showers
2. Ceilings- Moisture Resistant Gypsum board and paint

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

47 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
3. Floors- New polished concrete, tile, polypropylene fiber
carpet tiles
4. Doors- Extra Heavy Duty Insulated Hollow Metal- Painted
5. Toilet Partitions- Phenolic resin, plastic, solid surface or stone.
6. Accessories- Stainless Steel
j. Fixtures
1. Toilets- Wall Hung Flash Valve commercial toilets
2. Lavatories- Wall Hung
3. Showers: Tile Floors
4. Hand wash sink in training room
k. Furnishings/ Equipment
1. Mechanical System- Independent Mini-split Heating and
cooling unit.
2. Exhaust- ducted mechanical exhaust. Note- Exhaust ducts
shall not extend through exterior walls
3. Wood Lockers
4. Training Table
5. Internet/ Voice/ Data Connections and WiFi router
7. Seats or benches in front of every locker
8. Drink Vending Machine/Refrigerator and/or water cooler.
9. Soap and Shampoo dispensers in showers
10. Hand/ Hair Dryers
3. Umpires’ Area
a. Proposed Area: 250 Square Feet including
1. Locker room/Lounge for 4 Umpires: 130 SF
2. Showers and Toilets: 120 SF
b. Fixtures: 1 ADA Shower, 1 ADA Toilet, 1 lavatory
c. Preservation Treatment: Renovation.
d. Energy Requirements: Perimeter Walls and Ceilings shall be insulated
per the 2012 NC Energy Code. These will be considered interior spaces
e. Plumbing Requirements: All new plumbing fixtures to comply with
the NC Plumbing code. Note: We recommend manual trap primers in
all area drains within restrooms due to limited use in the off season
f. Mechanical Requirements: All new Mechanical HVAC and exhaust
fans designed in accordance with the 2012 NC Mechanical code.
g. Electrical Requirements: All new electrical systems and lighting in
accordance with the 2012 NC Electrical Code.
h. Finishes
1. Walls- CMU or brick masonry painted or with glazed finish,
Tile in Showers
2. Ceilings- Vinyl Coated Acoustic Ceiling Tile
3. Floors- New polished concrete, tile, polypropylene fiber
carpet tiles

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

48 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
4. Doors- Extra Heavy Duty Insulated Hollow Metal- Painted
5. Toilet Partitions- Phenolic resin, plastic, solid surface or stone.
6. Accessories- Stainless Steel
j. Fixtures
1. Toilets- Wall Hung Flash Valve commercial toilets
2. Lavatories- Wall Hung
3. Showers: Tile Floors
4. Hand wash sink in training room
k. Furnishings/ Equipment
1. Mechanical System- Independent Mini-split Heating and
cooling unit.
2. Exhaust- ducted mechanical exhaust. Note- Exhaust ducts
shall not extend through exterior walls
3. 4 Wood Lockers
4. Table and 4 chairs
5. Internet/ Voice/ Data Connections and WiFi router
8. Mini Refrigerator and/or water cooler.
9. Soap and Shampoo dispensers in showers
10. Hand/ Hair Dryers

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

49 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Part 4- Structural Conditions Assessment and Evaluation

I. Introduction and Background Information

The War Memorial Stadium located in Greensboro, North Carolina was reportedly constructed in 1926. The
structural framing system for the elevated seating sections are constructed with cast-in-place, reinforced
concrete raker beams and stepped, reinforced concrete seating treads and risers. The concrete raker beams
that support the stepped concrete seating treads and risers are supported on cast-in-place, reinforced concrete
columns. The type of foundation system supporting the columns was not determined. The vomitory walls and
guardrail walls are constructed with cast-in-place, reinforced concrete. There are sections of on grade, cast-in-
place concrete seating treads and risers located adjacent to the bottom row of elevated concrete seating treads
and risers.

The exterior façade and towers adjacent to each side of the façade at the main front entrance are constructed
with cast-in-place, reinforced concrete walls, columns, beams and slabs. There is a direct applied portland
cement stucco veneer on the exterior surfaces of the cast-in-place concrete at the front and side of this façade.

The exterior façade adjacent to each side of the façade at the main entrance and towers is comprised of cast-in-
place, reinforced concrete columns, spandrel beams, upset guardrail walls and on grade foundation walls. There
are masonry infill walls constructed between the sides of the concrete columns, bottom of the spandrel beams,
and top of the grade wall. There is a bonded, direct applied stucco veneer on the exterior surfaces of the
masonry infill walls. There is a coating system applied on the exterior surfaces of the structural concrete
members and stucco veneer on the exterior façade adjacent to each side of the façade at the main entrance.

According to historical photographs provided, the roof canopy structure constructed over a partial area of the
elevated seating area back of the main entrance façade was not part of the original construction in 1926. The
roof canopy structure was reportedly constructed around 1931. The structural system for the roof canopy is
comprised of a timber roof deck supported on structural steel purlins. The structural steel purlins are supported
by structural steel trusses, beams and columns. The steel base plates on the structural steel columns that
support the roof canopy structure bear directly on top of the concrete seating treads and raker beams and
columns directly below. These base plates are anchored to the top of the concrete slabs and structural beams
with anchor bolts. The anchor bolts extend through the treads of the seating slabs and are connected to the
sides of the columns that support the concrete raker beams.

In 2003, SKA was authorized by the City of Greensboro (COG) to perform a visual condition assessment and
evaluation of selected components of the existing structure. In June 2003, SKA submitted a report to the COG
on the results of the visual condition assessment and evaluation of selected components of this War Memorial
Stadium. The primary objectives of this visual condition assessment and evaluation were:

1. Identify potential areas of structural deficiencies, safety issues and concerns and submit our opinions on
address their effects on the effective service life and use of this structure.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

50 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
2. Develop an outline of a general scope of work for a comprehensive condition assessment and evaluation of
any potential issues and concerns identified in the visual condition assessment and evaluation that warrant
further study.

3. Submit an engineering opinion on the overall condition, safety issues and estimated useful service life of this
facility.

In 2008, SKA was authorized by the COG to perform a more comprehensive condition assessment and
evaluation of selected components and areas of this existing stadium. A report on the results of this more
comprehensive condition assessment and evaluation of selected components of the existing War Memorial
Stadium was submitted in June of 2008. This report included the results of:
1. A comprehensive visual condition assessment and evaluation of selected components and sections of the
existing structural concrete members with estimates and opinions of the magnitude and extent of distress
and deterioration identified.

2. Compressive strength tests on core samples extracted from the existing structural concrete members at
representative areas.

3. Microscopic examination and analysis of core samples of concrete extracted from the existing concrete
members at representative areas.

4. Tests to determine the depth of carbonation of the concrete.

5. Tests on powder samples extracted from the existing concrete for chlorides content.

6. Estimates of concrete cover over embedded reinforcing steel in the concrete based upon tests and invasive
test cuts.

7. Excavation of soil around the base of several concrete columns to observe concealed conditions.

8. Visual condition and audible survey and invasive test cuts at direct applied stucco veneer on exterior
surfaces or concrete façade at main entrance.

9. Visual condition survey of exposed surfaces of structural members on underside of existing roof structure
from the ground level.

10. Development of an outline or a general scope of work for the repair/replacement of selected structural and
non-structural components that would bring the structure into compliance with the requirements of the
current code.

In July through October 2012, the COG authorized students and faculty from North Carolina A&T State
University to conduct a pilot assessment of two (2) areas of the stadium. This assessment included the use of
Ground Penetration Radar and a seismic property analyzer. These assessments were located at the left face of
the left tower at the front entrance façade and a section of the elevated seating slabs and support structure for
the seating slabs. The results of this limited pilot assessment by the students and faculty at North Carolina A&T
confirmed the results of SKA’s condition assessment and evaluation of these areas in 2008.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

51 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
The results of the SKA condition assessment and evaluation of this facility in 2008 determined:
1. Exterior Façade The exposed aggregate direct applied stucco finish on the exterior façade at the front
entrance is delaminated, cracked and spalled in several areas, most prominently on the left tower. Test cuts
revealed that delaminations have occurred in the parent concrete and at bond lines between the stucco and
parent concrete and pose potential safety issues from spalling and falling concrete. This distress appears to
be a result of freezing and thawing of water in the parent concrete and stucco exacerbated by water
infiltration through cracks.

2. Stadium Seating Slabs: Samples extracted from the stadium seating slabs revealed carbonation and
significant levels of chlorides at depths consistent with the observed and measured level of reinforcing steel
throughout the structure. Either carbonation or high levels of chlorides or both can create corrosive
environments for reinforcing steel embedded in the concrete, provided that sufficient oxygen and moisture is
available to sustain corrosion.

a. Stadium Seating Slab – Top: At widespread areas of spalled and delaminated concrete, there is little to
no cover and visibly corroding reinforcing steel bars were observed at the surface, but to a lesser degree
than observed below the slab. Many holes and patches from previously removed and/or replaced
fixtures and spalls were observed in the slab surfaces. Aged sealants and patch repairs associated with
joints and cracks were observed. There are widespread areas of scaling on the surfaces of the treads.

b. Stadium Seating Slab – Underneath: The underside of the stadium seating slabs has widespread areas of
reduced or minimal concrete cover of reinforcing steel on the underside with cracking, delaminations and
spalling of the concrete cover resulting from reinforcing steel corrosion. Some bars were observed to
have significantly reduced cross-sectional areas from corrosion. At several cracked or delaminated areas
the impending spalls pose a safety concern from overhead falling hazards, especially in the restrooms
and shower room areas. At many locations, a cementitious bonded overlay had been applied on the
exposed surfaces on the underside of the seating slabs and sides and bottom of the raker beams.

3. Raker Beams: The sides and bottom of the raker beams appeared mostly in serviceable condition; however
there were several areas identified with low cover over corroding reinforcing steel and ties. Additionally, a
limited number of observed transitional areas between the raker beams and columns exhibited reinforcing
steel corrosion and associated spalling of the concrete cover.

4. Columns: Several concrete columns exhibited spalling near their bases from reinforcing steel corrosion.
These areas were primarily identified in the rooms adjacent to the walkway on the field side.

5. Open Roof Structure: Although only observed from the seating slabs, the exposed surfaces on the underside
appear serviceable; however, the coating system on the steel is peeling and flaking. Lead was found in a
sample of paint extracted from a lower portion of the truss. Any repairs may have to address the safe
removal and replacement of the coating system as per local, state and federal regulations. During
investigation of the column anchorages, severe corrosion was observed on the anchor bolts that secured the
steel base plate to the structural concrete raker beams that significantly reduced the wind uplift capacity of
the roof structure.

6. Infill Walls: Infill masonry walls are not structural, but are exhibiting large scale differential settlement of the
foundation system. It is unknown if the walls are still settling.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

52 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

53 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
II. Scope of Work and Objectives of 2014 Study

In 2014, SKA was authorized by the COG to re-examine and evaluate selected components of the existing
structural system in this stadium, that, based on the results of the 2008 condition assessment and evaluation
and subsequent information provided by COG, could be satisfactorily repaired, strengthened and brought to the
standards requested by COG and meet the intent of the life safety and durability requirements of the current
North Carolina State Building Code (NCSBC).
In April of 2014, SKA submitted a proposed scope of work to the COG for these additional engineering studies
and evaluation of selected components and the development of an outline of a conceptual scope of work that
would satisfactorily repair and/or replace selected structural and non-structural components of the existing War
Memorial Stadium and bring this facility to acceptable, code compliant standards. The primary objectives of
these additional engineering studies and the development of an outline of a conceptual scope of work were to:
1. Bring this existing facility to standards that are acceptable to the COG and that meet the intent of the live
safety and durability requirements of the current NCSBC.

2. To develop an outline of a general scope of work that would restore this facility to acceptable, code
compliant standards and extend its useful service life.

3. To develop a conceptual scope of work that would restore this facility to standards required by the State
Historic Preservation Office and US National Park Service for a historically significant structure.

In meetings with the COG, SKA was informed that the COG would like to repair, restore, remove and/or replace
the following areas of this existing facility to meet the intent of the life safety and durability requirements of the
current NC Building Code, standards acceptable to COG and standards required by the State Historic
Preservation Office for the restoration of a historically, significant structure. The COG informed SKA that they
would like to repair and restore the following areas:
1. Two (2) towers and exterior façade between the towers at the main entrance.

2. The existing exterior masonry in fill walls with a stucco veneer and the structural concrete frames around
these walls that are adjacent to each side of the two (2) existing towers at the main entrance.

3. Develop options to both remove and not replace the existing roof canopy structure, or to repair and
strengthen the existing roof canopy structure to code compliant standards.

4. Removal of the existing distressed and deteriorated cast-in-place reinforced concrete seating treads and
risers and replace with new seating treads and risers that meet the requirements of the current NCSBC.

5. Develop a general scope of work to repair and strengthen the existing concrete raker beams and columns or
to remove the existing raker beams and columns and construct new raker beams and columns.

6. Develop an outline of the scope of work required for the removal of existing elevated seating sections and
raker beams on each side of the existing seating sections that are located back of the entrance façade and
exterior walls adjacent to the entrance façade that are to be restored and install a lateral bracing system to
laterally support the existing exterior concrete frames and masonry infill walls.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

54 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
7. Develop a general scope of work to repair and restore the concrete columns, spandrel beams and upset
guardrail walls located adjacent to the elevated seating slabs and raker beams that will be removed and not
replaced.

Based on the results of the condition assessment in 2008 and 2014, develop an outline of the general scope of
work to repair and restore areas of this existing stadium that the COG wants to retain to standards required by
the current building code, standards required by the COG and standards required by the State Historic
Preservation Offices for the restoration of historically significant structures. The following is an outline of the
original scope of work proposed to meet these requirements:
1. Perform a visual condition survey of the current condition of the exposed surfaces of existing cast-in-place
concrete raker beams and columns and concrete members on the exterior façade in the areas that COG
wants to retain that can be satisfactorily repaired. These components are the existing concrete raker beams
and columns, concrete towers and façade between the towers at the main entrance, exterior masonry infill
walls and concrete frames around these walls that are located adjacent to each side of the main entrance
and exterior masonry infill walls and concrete frames back of seating sections that will be removed and not
replaced.

2. Develop an outline of a general scope of work to restore the exterior walls adjacent to each side of the front
entrance façade to acceptable standards.

3. Develop conceptual requirements for constructing a lateral bracing system for the exterior masonry infill
walls and concrete frames located back of the elevated concrete seating sections that will be removed and
not replaced.

4. Develop an outline of a general scope of work to repair and restore to acceptable standards the distressed
and delaminated surfaces of the exterior stucco veneer on the existing concrete towers and façade between
the towers at the front entrance and the tops of the two (2) towers that support the flag pole.

5. Develop a conceptual scope of work for constructing a temporary support and lateral bracing system for the
existing steel columns that support the existing canopy roof if it is decided to retain the existing roof canopy
structure. The conceptual study for the temporary support and lateral bracing system for the existing roof
structure will consider two options.

a. The first option is based on the existing concrete seating treads and risers between each side of the
existing concrete raker beams being completely removed and replaced with new seating treads and
risers. The raker beams and columns that support the seating treads and risers that are removed will be
repaired and strengthened.

b. The second option is based on the existing concrete seating slabs and concrete raker beams and
columns that support the raker beams and steel columns that support the roof canopy being completely
removed. This option will require a temporary system for the existing roof canopy columns that can
support both gravity and live loads and lateral wind loads at the base of the existing steel columns if the
roof structure is retained.

6. Develop an outline of a general scope of work to repair and bring the roof canopy to acceptable standards,
or to remove and not replace the existing roof canopy. The scope of work for a third option would be to
remove and replace the existing roof canopy with a new roof canopy structure.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

55 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

7. Develop an outline of a general scope of work for the removal of components of the structural and non-
structural members of this existing facility that will not be retained.

8. Develop conceptual systems to replace the existing seating slabs that will be removed.

9. Assist TFF Architects & Planners, LLP in developing an outline of a scope of work to restore areas of this
facility to standards that meet the requirements for historical structures and proposed future uses of spaces
below and adjacent to the elevated seating sections that will be repaired or replaced.

10. Develop a broad range, preliminary estimate of the probable construction cost of the conceptual scope of
work developed to repair and restore this structure to standards required by the current codes and by the
COG that meet the requirements the agencies have set for restoring historical structures.

11. Prepare a final draft of a report for review with the COG with an outline of the general scope of work
required to bring this facility to meet the intent of the standards of the NCSBC, the requirements for
restoration of historical structures, and the requirements of the COG.
12. Incorporate any comments and requirements requested by the COG and State Historic Preservation Office in
a final report. The final report will include an outline of a general scope of work and schematic drawings of
the proposed scope of work to repair and restore segments of this facility that the COG would like to retain
and bring to acceptable standards and the requirements for the restoration of the historical structures and
the broad range estimate of the probable cost.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

56 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
III. Structural Engineer’s Executive Summary

SKA submitted a report on the results of a visual condition assessment and evaluation of the existing structural
system for the War Memorial Stadium in Greensboro, NC in 2003. In 2008, SKA performed a comprehensive
condition assessment and evaluation of the existing exterior façade and structural framing for the elevated
reinforced concrete seating sections. The condition assessment and evaluation in 2008 included tests on core
samples extracted from the existing concrete members, microscopic tests on core samples, tests for depth of
carbonation of the concrete, measurements of concrete cover over reinforcing and tests for chloride content in
the concrete. The condition assessment in 2008 also included invasive test cuts and audible surveys on the two
(2) towers and façade between the towers to detect potential delaminations at the areas sounded.
In 2014, SKA was authorized, by the COG, to visually examine and evaluate the current condition of structural
members at this stadium that the COG wanted to retain, that, based upon the results of the condition
assessment in 2008 and 2014, could be satisfactorily repaired and brought to acceptable code compliant
standards. This scope of work authorized by the COG for this evaluation also included the development of
conceptual measures to repair and restore and/or to remove and replace components of this facility that the
COG would like to retain to acceptable code compliant and broad range estimates of the probable cost of the
measures required to restore the structural members in the area that the COG wants to retain.
The results of the visual examination and evaluation of the existing structural framing members and exterior
façade back of the elevated seating and exterior façade at the main entrance in 2014 found that there was some
additional distress and deterioration of the structural members and exterior façade that, in 2008, were found to
be repairable. The extent of this distress and deterioration though was not significantly greater.
Concrete used in the 1920’s was of a lower quality and compressive strength than concrete used today. Most
notably, concrete used in the 1920’s did not contain purposeful additions of air-entraining admixtures that were
developed in the 1930s to provide resistance to distress from freezing and thawing cycles of water when the
concrete was critically saturated. Concrete samples from the slabs extracted and tested during the 2008
assessment confirmed the lack of entrained air at those locations, and by extension, almost assuredly at other
locations. Compressive strengths on core samples extracted from the existing concrete members were
approximately one-half of the compressive strength required by the current codes for concrete exposed to an
exterior environment in this area.
This report outlines the results of a condition assessment and evaluation of the current condition of selected
components of the existing structures that the COG want to retain and based upon the condition assessment in
2008 and 2014 can be repaired and restored to acceptable, code compliant standards. The report also includes
broad range estimates of the probable cost of these repairs. Options are provided that address a proposed
scope of work for repairing and restoring the exterior façade, roof canopy, seating slabs, vomitory and guardrail
walls, raker beams and columns. This Executive Summary provides a brief synopsis.
Exterior Façade at Entrance
The exterior façade at the main entrance, including the towers and archways between the towers have
delaminations and loose concrete that are a current overhead falling safety hazards. Measures should be
taken immediately to make the areas around these towers and entrance façade safe. Corrosion stains and

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

57 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
delaminations were identified at flag pole bases at the tops of towers. The integrity of the flagpole anchorage
system is unknown. SKA recommends that the flagpole anchorages be evaluated. Pedestrians should be
restricted from this area until this condition can be further reviewed, the flagpoles removed, or measures to
assure that the existing anchors are safe are completed.
The visual and audible delamination survey revealed a significant number of cracks and delaminations. It is
estimated that 20 to 30 percent or more of the exposed bonded stucco on the façade (and portions of the
underlying substrate concrete) will require removal and replacement. Cracked and delaminated areas should be
repaired to acceptable standards. A breathable, penetrating sealer should be considered to reduce water
intrusion to areas that are repaired and the inherently non-durable concrete substrate that were not repaired.
Areas that currently are believed to be sound can, with continued exposure to the exterior, become
delaminated. Larger portions or the entire exposed topping on the façade could be removed and replaced at
this time, if it is desired to minimize future repairs, or, if conditions reveal that additional distress is present.
Exterior Façade Adjacent to the Main Entrance
The exposed surfaces of the existing concrete columns, spandrel beams, foundation grade walls and upset
guardrail walls that comprise the façade extending from each side of the main entrance generally appear to be
in fair condition. If conditions on the concealed, inside surfaces of existing concrete members in the portion of
the exterior façade are confirmed to be satisfactory, these structural concrete members could be satisfactorily
repaired and their useful service-life extended.
Concrete Seating Treads and Risers, Raker Beams and Columns
One or more areas on the underside of the concrete seating slabs and raker beams at the main entrance
hallway were cracking and the concrete cover over the steel appeared to be delaminating. These areas pose
overhead falling hazards. Measures should be taken to immediately make conditions safe by removing the
cracked and delaminated concrete cover and, if these areas are not restricted for use, safety netting installed
until more permanent measures are taken.
Inadequate concrete cover over the reinforcing steel in the seating treads and risers and the use of a low
compressive strength concrete mix which is normally more permeable to water absorption has led to
widespread and extensive corrosion of the reinforcing steel in these members. At many locations, the
reinforcing steel had lost a significant amount of the original sound metal. Standards for the repair of concrete
members where the reinforcing steel has corroded, requires the removal of the concrete from around the entire
perimeter of the corroded steel. For these thin members, the removal of the concrete from around the
perimeter will remove the entire depth or width of the member. For these reasons, the concrete seating tread
and risers in this facility cannot be satisfactorily repaired. Replacement is the only option.
The existing reinforced concrete raker beams that are constructed monolithically with the concrete seating
treads and risers have not experienced significant distress and corrosion of the reinforcing steel. Areas that
were examined where the concrete cover over corroded steel had occurred were small and not widespread.
Based on our evaluation of these members, it is our opinion that they can be satisfactorily repaired and
strengthened to meet the current requirements of the ACI Building Code by satisfactorily repairing the spalls and
enclosing the beam with a bonded reinforced concrete overlay.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

58 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Temporary bracing may be required during repair when seating slabs are removed. If it is demonstrated that it
is more feasible to replace raker beams rather than repairing them, they could be replaced with either a cast-in-
place concrete system or structural steel system. Vomitory and guardrail walls could either be repaired or
replaced depending on costs and feasibility.
Columns can be satisfactorily repaired by encasing the entire perimeter with a reinforced concrete overlay
bonded to sound surfaces of the original concrete. The type of existing foundations will have to be determined
and evaluated to confirm that additional loads from repairs or new seating slabs and occupancy requirements
can be supported by the current system.
Vomitory and Guardrail Walls
Reinforced concrete vomitory and guardrail walls generally appear to be in fair condition and can be
satisfactorily repaired. The concrete vomitory and guardrail walls are constructed contiguously with the
concrete seating tread and risers. When the existing concrete seating slabs are removed and replaced with new
seating slabs, provisions for a temporary support and a temporary lateral bracing will be required for these
walls. In our opinion, the removal and replacement of the vomitory walls with new concrete walls meeting the
durability requirements of the current Building Code could be more economical and feasible and provide a
longer service life for these walls than installing temporary shoring, repairing and applying a water repellent
coating system on the existing concrete vomitory walls.
Roof Canopy Structure and Press Box
The roof canopy structure is comprised of a tongue and groove or wood spline timber deck and roofing
membrane, supported by structural steel purlins and beams, and steel trusses. There are four (4) steel columns
that bear directly in top of the concrete seating slab over raker beams below at the end of the canopy adjacent
to the field. The roof canopy was reportedly added in 1931. It is unknown if dead, live and wind loads
associated with the roof canopy that are supported by the original columns and foundation were considered
when the addition was constructed. During the 2008 assessment, severely corroded anchor bolts were
identified at the column bases adjacent to the playing field that were subsequently repaired. Lead was
identified in the paint applied on the structural steel.
Although there are no obvious deformations or deflections of the roof canopy observed during this condition
assessment, a closer visual inspection from a lift would be required to determine if there is any significant
corrosion or distress. If it is decided to retain the roof structure, a close visual examination should be made of
the existing structure. A structural analysis should also be made to verify whether or not the roof structure and
supporting columns and foundations meet the current requirements of the NCSBC.
Several options could be entertained regarding the roof structure, including complete removal, retaining with
repair, and replacement with new. Regardless of the choice, lead abatement may be required (due to the
condition of the paint). Retaining the roof structure, if desired, would include: need for temporary support
while the repair and/or replacement of the seating slabs, beams and columns are addressed. Restoration of the
press box, and installation of new electrical systems will be required if the roof structure is maintained. Removal
and replacement with a new roof structure would require demolition, design of a new roof system, construction
of a new press box and electrical systems.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

59 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
IV. Results of Visual Condition Assessment and Evaluation of Selected Structural and Non-Structural Components

A. Exterior Façade at Entrance

1. Description

The façade at the main entrance for this stadium is comprised of two reinforced concrete towers with three
connected reinforced concrete arched entrances between the two towers. A cementitious architectural
topping with exposed aggregate is bonded to the surfaces of the base concrete. This bonded concrete
topping includes multiple layers of cementitious material (as observed during the 2008 assessment). The
embedded, exposed aggregate in the exterior surface is typically about 1/8 to 3/16 inches.

The total thickness of the bonded topping (as observed in representative test cut excavations during the
2008 assessment) varies from approximately 3/4" inch to 1 inch. This includes an intermediate coat and
architectural top coat of nominally equivalent thicknesses. The top of the towers have a stepped
architectural feature with flag poles anchored to the concrete at the each tower.

Accessible exterior areas of the façade at the towers and arches were visually reviewed from ground and
from a lift provided by others during the middle of June 2014. This review included the inside face of the
arch entry and accessible portions of the façade facing the stands, but did not include portions of the façade
concealed at the interior adjacent to the elevated seats.

An audible delamination survey to detect debonded material or material with cracking subparallel to the
surface, was conducted using a hammer and rotary percussion tool at accessible locations. In general, the
audible survey was conducted at all of the visually reviewed areas except for some locations at the tops of
the towers where access was not possible with the lift.

2. Results of Visual Observation

Map cracking was observed on the surfaces of the architectural topping. Though map type cracking is
characteristic in many areas on both towers and the central arch entranceway and can be considered typical
of most of the areas, it appears to be more prevalent on the northern tower when compared to the
southern tower and more prevalent on the northern portion of the arched entranceway when compared to
the southern portion of the entranceway. Observed surface crack widths ranged from hairline to greater
than 1/16 inch with much of the cracking appearing to be on the order of about 5 to 15 mils (0.005 to 0.015
inches). Efflorescence and water staining, suggesting water movement, was observed on the surface and in
cracks, particularly at the north east face (face adjacent to the seating slabs) and northwest face (side face
on exterior of the stadium) of the north tower (left tower when looking from outside). Many, but not all of
the observed cracks at the stepped upper portions of both towers had been previously sealed. A gutter was
on the roof that had apparently been installed to redirect water from flowing to the north tower.

Some sections of architectural topping, and in some cases part of the substrate concrete with it, have
spalled (detached from the structure). This is most prevalent on the north tower, but some spalling was also

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

60 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
observed in the arched entranceways and south tower. Corrosion of embedded steel was observed at a
subset of the spalls.

Wide cracking and distress was observed at areas on the stepped upper portions of the towers. Corrosion
stains and cracking were observed on the concrete at the flag poles bases where they were supported and
anchored to the top of the towers.

3. Results of Audible Survey

The audible survey in 2014 revealed multiple areas with delaminations. This included half or more on the
northwest face of the north tower and nearly all of the accessible exposed areas on the north east side of
the north tower above the level of the seating slabs. Delaminations were also identified at a number of
locations on the southwest (main) face of the north tower, the central archways and the upper stepped
portions of the towers, including some areas near the flagpole anchorages). Though present, delaminations
on the south tower were less extensive. Delaminations ranged in size from less than 1/4 square foot to
greater than 100 square feet. Some areas, including a 20 to 40 square foot area on the south tower, with
wide cracks did not appear to be fully delaminated, but had questionable characteristics indicating some
compromised bond of the topping to the concrete substrate.
Based on the results of this audible survey, it is estimated that about 20 to 30 percent of the accessible
surface area of the main entrance arches and towers is either currently delaminated or currently cracked
and spalled. This is comparable, but somewhat higher than the 5 to 15 percent estimate made during the
2008 assessment that was based on a reduced area that was tested
4. Evaluation of Observations and Audible Survey

Delaminations were detected at the towers and central archway entrances at overhead areas that are
currently an overhead spalling hazard. Delaminated or debonded material can detach from the substrate
and fall, potentially injuring or killing pedestrians. Loose material should be removed or secured,
protective structures or netting should be erected and/or areas around the towers and central archways
should be closed to pedestrians. Several delaminations were identified at the arch entrance areas,
including the south arch that functions as the main entranceway into the building. Delaminations were
also observed at other entrance arches adjacent to the north and south towers.
Corrosion stains and delaminations were detected at the tops of the façades, near the flag pole anchorage
points. The structural integrity of the flagpole anchorage is unknown. It is possible that anchorages may
be currently unsafe. SKA recommends that the flagpole anchorages be evaluated or pedestrians be
restricted from the area until this condition can be further reviewed or the flagpoles removed.
The characteristics of delaminations and spalls were evaluated during the 2008 assessment. That
assessment revealed that failure planes sub-parallel to the surface (collectively referred to as delaminations
for the purposes of the audible survey) sometimes occurred at the bond-line between the topping and the
base (parent) substrate concrete and sometimes within the substrate concrete. Disbondment or reduced
bond at the bond-line is often associated with poor surface preparation during installation, inadequate
placement procedures, adverse environmental conditions during or shortly after construction, differential

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

61 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
shrinkage, or inappropriate materials. This type of distress is likely more prevalent at the arch portions,
though this has not been verified at typical delaminations identified in those areas.
The base concrete is not air-entrained and has limited inherent resistance to distress from freezing and
thawing cycles when critically saturated (refer to the 2008 report for additional discussion). Therefore,
exposure to moisture prior to freezing has compromised the base concrete in some areas. It is possible that
other materials-related distress issues are contributing, but this has not been confirmed. This type of
distress is highly prevalent on the north tower where there is visual evidence of heavy exposure to moisture
on the faces of the tower. Thus, repair of the area must not only include removal of the topping material,
but the distressed or otherwise compromised base material as well to get to a sound concrete substrate.
Additionally, any repair and preservation measures must include provisions to protect the finish material
from water absorption. Clear, penetrating, breathable water repellant sealers can provide a level of
protection. Even with repair of areas currently deteriorated and provisions to aid in re-directing water and
reducing absorption into the concrete and topping, additional delaminated areas could occur in the future
where base concrete has become partially compromised at this time, but not so distressed as to lead to
delamination.
Surface map cracking is relatively typical of the architectural façade at the towers and arch entryways.
Much of the cracking appears to be about 5 to 15 mils in depth. Cracking of this nature is typically
associated with the restraint of drying or thermal shrinkage of the finish topping. Larger cracks and,
potentially, some of the smaller cracks could also be from stresses imparted due to delamination or
disbondment of the topping or substrate concrete. Cracking less than about 7 to 10 mils is typically not
detrimental to vertical concrete members, provided that they are otherwise sound, durable and protected
from moisture. Larger cracks should be sealed to reduce water intrusion. Installation of a clear, penetrating
sealer on the surface may provide some additional benefit for reducing water absorption in existing narrow
cracks by wetting out the surfaces of the cracks.
5. Conclusions

A substantial portion of the Architectural finish cementitious topping on the façade is currently debonded or
delaminated. This will have to be addressed in the repair and restoration. It is possible that additional areas
have partially compromised bond or are partially delaminated (small sub-parallel cracks). It should be
expected that additional material will debond in the future. It is imperative that any repair and preservation
methods include measures to divert water flow and reduce absorption into the wall systems to reduce the
risk of future delaminations. Delaminations pose a safety hazard for pedestrians. It is estimated that at
least 20 to 30 percent of the exposed surface (or possibly more) may have to be removed and replaced at
this time to address current delaminations and heavily cracked concrete and to achieve convenient
appropriate patch geometries for aesthetics and function. Large cracks in areas to remain should be
addressed and a clear, penetrating water repellant sealer should be considered for reducing water
absorption. Hidden areas, or areas with compromised bond detected during the repairs may require that
additional material be removed and replaced.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

62 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
B. Exterior Façade Adjacent to the Main Entrance

1. General Description

The exterior façade adjacent to each side of the façade at the main entrance is constructed with cast-in-
place, reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill walls. The frames are comprised of spandrel/guardrail
beams, foundation grade walls and columns. The upset guardrail walls located back of the upper top row of
seating are constructed contiguously with the spandrel beams. Structural steel columns that support the
one end of the roof canopy structure, are located directly back of the inside face of the upset guardrail walls.
The base plates for the steel columns that support the roof canopy bear directly on the top of the concrete
seating treads and raker beams and columns directly below.

There are brick masonry infill walls constructed between the concrete columns, and the top and bottom of
the spandrel beams and foundation grade walls. There is a direct applied portland cement stucco veneer on
the exterior surfaces of these brick masonry infill walls. These infill walls with a stucco veneer are
constructed directly against the surfaces of the concrete spandrel beams and columns. It was not
determined whether or not the masonry in these infill walls was mechanically connected to the columns and
beams. There is a coating system applied on the exterior surfaces of the concrete members and stucco
veneer. The outside face of the stucco veneer is offset approximately 2 inches back of the exterior face of
the concrete columns and spandrel beams.

There are currently masonry infill walls in openings where there were windows in these exterior walls in the
original construction.

2. Condition Assessment

A visual condition survey of the exposed surfaces of the exterior façade directly adjacent to each side of the
façade at the main entrance was performed from the ground level and seating treads at the top. The results
of this visual condition survey did not observe any significant distress and deterioration on the exposed,
exterior surfaces of the columns, spandrel beams, guardrail walls, foundation grade walls and stucco veneer.
There was minor crazing and cracking of the coating system on the exposed surfaces of the concrete
columns and spandrel/guardrails walls at some locations. The exposed surfaces of the direct applied stucco
on the exterior brick masonry walls generally appeared to be satisfactory. At the locations visually
examined, the stucco veneer appeared to be well bonded to the surfaces of the masonry. A coating system
had been applied on the exposed exterior surfaces of the concrete columns, spandrel beams, guardrail walls
and stucco veneer. It was not determined if this coating system was part of the original construction or was
applied later.
The exterior surfaces of the concrete members and exterior masonry infill walls with the stucco veneer were
concealed by the coating system. The coating system on the concrete columns and spandrel beams and
direct applied stucco on the exterior surfaces of the masonry walls has provided additional cover and
protection for the embedded reinforcing steel, structural concrete beams, columns and guardrail wall.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

63 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Based on the requirements of the Building Codes and Industry Standards that were current when these
reinforced concrete structures were constructed around 1926 and the results of compressive strength tests
and microscopic examination of core samples and carbonation tests made on samples of concrete extracted
from the existing structure at other areas in 2008, it is very likely that the compressive strengths of the
concrete mix used to construct the columns, spandrel/guardrail beam and grade walls in this exterior façade
do not meet the durability and compressive strength requirements of the current NCSBC and ACI 318 for
concrete exposed to an exterior environment in Greensboro, NC. Since the benefits of air entrainment in
concrete were unknown in 1926 and air entrainment admixtures had not been developed, the concrete mix
used for this structure was not intentionally air entrained. Air entrainment of concrete exposed to an
exterior environment is required by the current ACI Code. The current ACI Building Code also requires a
minimum 28 day compressive strength of 4500 psi for concrete exposed to an exterior environment. It is
also likely that the depth of carbonation of the concrete in the concrete member may have reached the level
of the reinforcing steel at some locations
There was no visual evidence of any significant distress and displacement of the brick masonry infill walls
with the direct applied stucco veneer that would suggest that there had been differential settlement of the
foundation system supporting these infill walls. At a few locations, where the inside surfaces of these
exterior concrete beams and columns were accessible, minor spalling and cracking of the concrete cover
over the reinforcing steel in the concrete columns and beams was observed. The extent and magnitude of
the spalling at these locations did not, though, appear to be widespread and severe. Based on the age and
exposure and compressive strength of the concrete mixture and concrete cover over reinforcing steel at
other areas of that structure, it is likely that there is some corrosion activity of the reinforcing steel in these
members.
3. Evaluation of Condition Assessment

The exposed surfaces of the existing concrete columns, spandrel beams, grade walls and upset guardrail
walls on the exterior façade generally appear to be in fair condition. There was no visual evidence of any
significant cracking and spalling of the concrete cover over reinforcing steel on the exposed exterior surfaces
of the members that were visually examined. Based on the conditions visually observed, it is our opinion
the existing concrete members could be satisfactorily repaired and restored to meet the intent of the
requirements of the current NCSBC and ACI 318. Considering the age of this structure and its exposure to an
exterior environment, some distress and deterioration of the concrete cover from corrosion of reinforcing
steel is likely and should be expected to have occurred on the concrete members in this façade. However,
based on a visual examination of the accessible surfaces, there does not appear to be any widespread area
of significant distress and corrosion of reinforcing steel.

Based upon a visual examination of these exposed surfaces, it appears that the extent of any corrosion
activity of the reinforcing steel and distress in the concrete cover over the steel is not so severe that these
members cannot be satisfactorily repaired and brought to standards that meet the intent of the current
requirements of the NCSBC.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

64 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
C. Concrete Seating Treads and Risers

1. Description

The seating treads and risers are constructed with cast-in-place, reinforced concrete. The seating treads and
risers are constructed monolithically with the concrete raker beams. The vertical height of the seating risers
varies from approximately 7-inches up to 12-inches. The width of the seating treads is typically
approximately 2'-4". The field measured thickness of the treads varies from 2 ½ to 4 inches. The risers are
constructed monolithically with the treads. The treads span between the risers and the risers span between
the concrete raker beams.

2. Condition Assessment

a. The results of a condition assessment of the seating treads and risers performed by SKA in 2008 on the
exposed underside of the concrete seating treads and risers identified widespread distress,
deterioration and delamination of the concrete cover over corroded reinforcing steel on the underside
of the seating treads and risers. The 2008 report identified the primary cause of the distress and spalling
to be the result of corrosion of the reinforcing steel. There was also less concrete cover over the
embedded reinforcing steel at many locations than was required by the Building Code that was current
when this facility was constructed or the current code. The reinforcing steel exposed at many locations
was severely corroded. There were locations where the cross-sectional area of sound metal in the
reinforcing steel had been significantly reduced by corrosion of the steel. There were also locations
where electrical conduit embedded in the bottom of the concrete risers was exposed and corroded. The
primary cause of the spalling and delamination of the concrete cover and corrosion of the reinforcing
steel was inadequate concrete cover over the steel, chlorides in the concrete and carbonation of the
concrete cover over the reinforcing steel. The use of the concrete mix with significantly lower
compressive strengths that were more permeable also contributed to the causes of the corrosion of the
reinforcing steel. There were many areas on the underside of the seating treads and risers where a
cementitious repair mortar had been applied on the surfaces on the sides and bottom of the seating
treads and risers as well as the raker beams. It is our understanding that this cementitious repair
mortar was applied by the COG in the 1980’s to repair areas where the concrete cover over corroding
steel was cracked and delaminated. This bonded repair mortar has apparently provided additional
coverage and protection of the steel in the bottom of these seating treads and risers. However some
cracking and delaminations were detected in many areas where the bonded cementitious overlay had
been applied during the 2014 review.

b. The results of a condition assessment of the top exposed surfaces of the seating treads and risers in
2008 identified widespread areas where there was scaling and delamination of the concrete and spalling
of the concrete cover over corroded reinforcing steel. The areas with more significant scaling of the
concrete on the surfaces were located outside of the existing roof canopy structure where there is more
exposure to rainwater. There was also random cracking observed at many locations.

3. Evaluation of Condition Assessment

a. The depth of carbonation of the concrete, lack of adequate concrete cover, and quality of the concrete
cover has resulted in widespread and extensive spalling, cracking and delamination of the concrete
cover over reinforcing steel and corrosion and loss of sound metal in the reinforcing steel, to the extent

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

65 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
that the thin sections of the cast-in-place concrete in the seating treads and risers cannot be feasibly
repaired and brought to the minimum safety and durability standards required by the current NCSBC.

b. In summary, the results of tests and microscopic examinations of samples of concrete extracted from
the concrete mixture used to construct the raker beams in 1926 found that the concrete mixture was
not an air entrained mix and the comprehensive strengths of the concrete determined by test core
samples extracted from the concrete also did not meet the strength requirement of the current code.
Also, it was found that the concrete cover over the steel was carbonated. Based on these conditions, it
was determined that these seating sections could not be satisfactorily repaired to acceptable standards.

D. Concrete Raker Beams and Columns

1. Description

The existing cast-in-place, reinforced concrete raker beams and columns are constructed monolithically with
the cast-in-place, reinforced concrete seating slabs. The raker beams are typically 10-inches wide and
approximately 20 inches deep. The top of the raker beams are stepped to match the profile of the concrete
seating treads and risers. The reinforced concrete columns that support the raker beams are typically 14
inches wide by 16 inches deep.

There are sixteen (16) sloped concrete raker beams directly back of and adjoining the concrete structures at
the main entrance façade and the exterior concrete frames with masonry infill walls adjacent to each side of
the entrance façade. Each raker beam is supported by four (4) reinforced concrete columns. The columns
supporting the raker beams are typically spaced at approximately 18'-6" o.c. The raker beams on each side
of the main entrance are typically spaced at approximately 15'-6" o.c. The raker beams directly adjacent to
the back of the main entrance façade are spaced approximately at 17'-4", 14'-6" and 17'-4" and are
approximately 12” wide.

2. Condition Assessment

A visual condition assessment and evaluation and tests were performed on representative locations of the
existing concrete raker beams and columns in 2008. Core samples were removed for compressive strength
tests. Core samples were also removed for microscopic examinations and tests to determine the depth of
carbonation of the concrete and the presence of any chloride in the concrete.

The results of the tests and microscopic examination of the core samples extracted from the concrete found
that the concrete mixture did not meet the strength and durability requirements of the current Building
Code for concrete exposed to an exterior environment in this area. These tests found that the concrete
cover over the reinforcing steel was carbonated. At several locations tested, the depth of carbonation had
reached the level of the reinforcing steel.

In June and July of 2014, SKA performed a comprehensive, visual examination and condition assessment on
both sides and the bottom of each of the sixteen (16) raker beams that were accessible. An audible survey

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

66 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
was also performed on the exposed surfaces of the sides and bottom of raker beams that were accessible
from the ground level and on the raker beams back of the main entrance.

The results of the visual condition and audible survey and condition assessment of the exposed sides and
bottom of each of the sixteen (16) raker beams back of the main entrance and adjoining exterior façade
found that the general overall condition of these members was fair. At many locations a cementitious parge
coat of mortar had been applied on the sides and bottom of the concrete raker beams. There were some
locations where the partial surfaces of the existing reinforcing steel in both the raker beam and columns
were exposed. The exposed surfaces of the reinforcing steel at these locations were corroded. There were
also a number of locations where the concrete cover over the reinforcing steel was cracked and spalled,
leaving exposed surfaces of reinforcing steel that were corroded. The extent of corrosion and loss of gross
sectional area of the reinforcing steel in the raker beams at the locations where the steel was exposed did
not appear to be significant. Delamination and spalling of concrete cover over reinforcing steel was
observed at several columns. This distress was found primarily near the base of the columns, near the
concrete slab on grade.

The sides and bottom of the raker beams exposed in the lobby adjacent to the main entrance and the
corridors on each side of the main entrance had a cementitious parge coat applied on these surfaces. This
parge coat was not part of the original construction. It was applied by the COG in the 1980’s to repair spalls
and to provide additional cover and protection of the reinforcing steel.

The magnitude and extent of any corrosion of the reinforcing steel in the concrete raker beams that had
occurred prior to applying a cementitious parge coat of material on the surfaces on each side and bottom of
the raker beam is unknown. There is currently some cracking in the bonded cementitious overlay on the
sides and bottom of these beams at several locations. This cracking suggests that there is some ongoing
corrosion activity of the reinforcing steel in these members. Cracks will eventually lead to delamination and
falling of large pieces of concrete.

At the raker beams where the cementitious overlay was applied, the cementitious overlay would have to be
removed in order to visually examine and evaluate the conditions of the concrete concealed by the
cementitious parge coat. Since the reason for applying the bonded cementitious overlay was to repair spalls
and delaminations caused by the corrosion of the embedded reinforcing steel, removal of this overlay, in
our opinion, would not be required to confirm that there was corrosion of the reinforcing steel and cracking
and delamination of the concrete cover over the steel when this bonded cementitious overlay was applied.
Removal though is required for any satisfactorily measures to repair these members and extend their
service life.

3. Evaluation of Condition Assessment

There were a number of localized areas found on the sides and bottom of the concrete raker beams where
the concrete cover over the reinforcing steel had cracked and spalled, exposing corroded reinforcing steel.
These localized areas of spalls and delamination were not widespread. There were several locations where
the stirrups in the concrete raker beams had minimal, if any, concrete cover and protection. At the areas

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

67 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
where spalls and delamination of the concrete cover over reinforcing steel were visually examined, there
was no visual evidence of any significant loss of sound metal of the reinforcing steel.

The bottom and sides of these concrete raker beams are covered and protected from direct rainfall and
water by the concrete seating treads and risers constructed monolithically with the top of the concrete
raker beams. This has minimized the exposure of these surfaces to water absorption which has reduced the
risk and rate of corrosion.

Based on the results of the condition assessment of these members in 2008, and a visual examination and
audible soundings of accessible surface on the bottom and sides of these raker beams, there appears to
have been minimal additional distress and corrosion of the reinforcing steel since these members were
visually examined in 2008.

Based on our observations and evaluation of the current magnitude of distress and corrosion of reinforcing
steel, it is our opinion that the sides and bottoms of these raker beams can be satisfactorily repaired and
restored to meet the intent of the strength and durability requirements of the current ACI Building Code.

The top of these concrete raker beams are constructed contiguously with the concrete seating treads and
risers. This has provided some additional concrete cover over the top reinforcing steel in the raker beams.
As noted, the concrete seating treads and risers constructed monolithically with the top of the raker beams
have experienced significant distress, deterioration and loss of sound metal in the reinforcing steel, and
cannot be satisfactorily repaired. Restoration of the seating treads and risers will require complete removal
and replacement.

When the existing concrete seating treads and risers are removed and replaced with new precast as cast-in-
place seating treads and risers, a significant amount of the concrete will have to be removed from the top of
the existing raker beams. This removal will exposed any reinforcing steel in the top of these beams that has
experienced significant corrosion and loss of sound metal. Since the reinforcing steel in the top of these
raker beams had additional concrete cover over most of the steel in the top of the raker beams, any
significant area where there is corrosion of the top steel should, in our opinion, should be minimal and
repairable. The concrete in the top of these existing raker beams that has to be removed to construct new
precast or cast-in-place seating treads and risers should also remove the majority of any distressed concrete
in the top of these raker beams. Sections that are removed can be satisfactorily replaced to acceptable code
compliant standards when the new precast or cast-in-place seating sections are constructed.

There were a number of columns supporting the raker beams where the concrete cover over the reinforcing
steel had cracked and spalled, exposing corroded steel. These locations were primarily near the bottom of
the columns near the concrete slab on grade. At the locations where hand excavations were made
attempting to expose the top of the existing foundation system, the foundation system was not exposed. It
is apparent that the foundation system at this location and likely at other locations as several feet below the
grade and concrete slabs. The conditions of the concrete columns that extended below the grade and were
enclosed with a soil fill are unknown. Any corrective measures on the columns will require excavation of the
soil fill around the columns and repair, the full height of these columns. These columns can, in our opinion,

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

68 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
be satisfactorily repaired and strengthened by encasing the perimeter of the full height of the column with a
code compliant concrete mix and new reinforcing steel.

E. Vomitory and Guardrail Walls

1. Description

The existing vomitory and guardrail walls are constructed with cast-in-place, reinforced concrete. The
vomitory and guardrail walls are constructed monolithically with both the elevated and on-grade concrete
seating treads and risers. The guardrail walls are located directly back of the last upper row of seating
adjacent to the exterior façade.
Guardrail walls are also located above at the openings between the ends of vomitory walls. There are three
(3) vomitories that are within or adjacent to the seating sections that the COG wants to retain. These
vomitories provide access to the elevated and on-grade seating sections that will be repaired/replaced.
2. Condition Assessment

The results of a visual condition assessment and evaluation of the existing vomitory and guardrail walls
performed by SKA in 2008 and 2014 identified the following:
a. Localized areas of spalling of the concrete cover over reinforcing steel.

b. Minor, random cracking on the exposed surfaces of the concrete.

c. Minor scaling and pitting on the exposed surfaces of the concrete.

d. Inadequate concrete cover over reinforcing steel at some locations.

e. There was no visible evidence of distress from differential settlement of the existing foundation system
supporting the concrete vomitory walls. There was, though, significant visual distress and displacement
observed in the masonry infill walls adjoining these concrete vomitory walls. This suggests that the
foundation system supporting the masonry infill walls, if any, is not the same foundation system
supporting the concrete raker beams and vomitory walls.

f. There were no core samples extracted from the vomitory and guardrail walls for tests and microscopic
examination. These walls were constructed monolithically with the cast-in-place concrete seating slabs,
raker beams and columns where core samples were extracted. The results of tests and microscopic
examination on samples extracted from the raker beams found that the concrete mix was not air
entrained and that the compressive strengths of the concrete mix was significantly less than required by
the current Building Codes. It is very likely that the concrete mixture placed in this vomitory wall was
the same mix and was not air entrained and does not meet the strength and durability requirements of
the current ACI Building Code for structures exposed to an exterior environment in this area.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

69 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
3. Evaluation of Condition Assessment

The condition of the surfaces of the vomitory and guardrail walls that were exposed generally appears to be
fair. The minor distress and deteriorated conditions observed at localized areas can, in our opinion, be
satisfactorily repaired. If these members are repaired, in order to bring them members into compliance
with the intent of the durability requirements of the current NCSBC, a water repellent coating system that
would significantly reduce or eliminate the risk of water absorption into the concrete and distress from
cycles of freezing and thawing of moisture in the concrete should be applied and maintained after any
repairs to the surfaces are satisfactorily completed.

The concrete vomitory and guardrail walls are constructed contiguously with the concrete seating tread and
risers. When the existing concrete seating slabs are removed and replaced with new seating slabs,
provisions for a temporary support and a temporary lateral bracing will be required for these walls. If these
are to be retained, in our opinion, the removal and replacement of the vomitory walls with new walls
meeting the durability and compressive strength requirements of the current NCSBC would be more
economical and feasible and provide a longer service life than installing temporary shoring, repairing and
applying a water repellent coating system on the existing concrete vomitory walls.

F. Roof Canopy Structure and Press Box

1. Description

The roof canopy structure is located over a partial section of the elevated seating. This roof canopy
structure is directly back of the façade at the main entrance and the exterior concrete beams and columns
with masonry infill walls at the front of the stadium that are adjacent to each side of the façade at the main
entrance.

Photographs provided show that the roof canopy structure was not part of the original 1926 construction.
The roof canopy was reportedly constructed in 1931, five years after the construction of the stadium in
1926. An undated photograph, that was made available, shows the front façade of the stadium with no roof
canopy structure over the seating bowl.

The roof canopy structure is comprised of a tongue and groove or wood spline timber deck, roofing
membrane, structural steel purlins and beams, and structural steel trusses and steel columns. There are
four (4) steel columns located in the seating bowl that support one end of cantilevered steel trusses. These
columns are located directly over concrete columns that support concrete raker beams. The base plates for
these columns bear directly on the top of the concrete seating treads. There are steel columns that support
the steel trusses directly back of the guardrail walls. These steel columns bear directly on top of the
concrete seating slabs with the raker beams and concrete columns located directly below.

There was insufficient information on the documents available to determine whether or not the concrete
raker beams and columns and foundation system below the steel columns that support the roof canopy that
was designed and constructed in 1926 were designed to support the additional gravity and live load of the

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

70 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
roof canopy structure, as well as the lateral wind and uplift loads at the bottom of the steel columns that
support the canopy roof. Although an analysis was not made to evaluate the adequacy of this roof canopy
to solely resist the requirements of the current Building Code for wind uplifts, based on our experience with
similar structures, the adequacy of the anchorage assembly at the base of these columns to resist the
current wind uplift requirements appears to be marginal.

2. Condition Assessment

A cursory visual examination was performed of the exposed surfaces on the underside of the wood deck and
the exposed surfaces of the structural steel members in the roof canopy structure. This visual examination
was made from the top of the existing concrete seating sections.

The results of this visual examination did not detect any areas with significant and/or abnormal deflection
and deformation of the exposed structural members. There was minor corrosion observed on the surfaces
of the steel members at a number of locations. More substantial corrosion distress was observed at column
bases, including full cross-sectional loss through a portion of web at several columns. Reports submitted to
the COG in 2008 brought to their attention that there was severe corrosion and loss of sound metal on the
anchor bolts that connected the steel base plates at the column bases to the supporting raker beams and
columns. The COG has installed new anchor bolts to replace the original anchor bolts at these locations.

A sample of the paint on the structural steel members was removed and submitted for a chemical analysis.
This sample tested positive for lead.

In order to determine whether or not there has been any significant distress and deterioration of the
members in the roof structure, a close visual examination from a lift would be required. If the decision is
made to retain and repair the existing roof structure to standard required by the current NCSBC, a more
comprehensive visual condition survey should be made and a structural analysis should also be performed
to verify that the roof structure and columns and foundation system supporting the roof structure meet the
requirements of the current NCSBC for gravity live and wind loads.

G. Exterior Façade Adjacent to Existing Elevated Seating Sections that will be Removed

1. Description

The existing structural system that supports the elevated structural system for the seats that will be
removed is very similar to the structural system or the seats that the COG wants to retain. This structural
system is comprised of cast-in-place reinforced concrete seating slabs, raker beams, columns and walls.

The exterior façade directly back of these elevated seating slabs is comprised of cast-in-place, reinforced
concrete columns, spandrel beams and upset guardrail walls. There are concrete corbels constructed
monolithically with the outside face of the columns that were apparently intended for future expansion of
the seating section.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

71 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
There are masonry infill walls between the concrete columns and the bottom of the concrete spandrel and
guardrail walls at the top of the seating. These walls are constructed with several types of masonry. There
appears to have been modifications made to these walls from the original construction.

2. Condition Assessment

A limited visual condition assessment and evaluation was made of the exposed surfaces of the structural
concrete members in the exterior façade located directly back of the elevated concrete raker beams that
support the concrete seating treads and risers. This limited visual condition assessment did not include a
detail and comprehensive visual examination of each of the concrete members in the exterior façade,
compressive strength tests and microscopic examination of core samples extracted from the construction
tests to determine the depth of carbonation of magnitude of any chlorides. Since the COG intends to
remove and not replace the cast-in-place, reinforced concrete structural members that support the concrete
seating treads and risers, a visual condition assessment and evaluation of the structural system back of the
exterior façade were not made in 2014.

The results of the limited visual condition assessment and evaluation of the exposed surfaces of the
members in this exterior façade in 2008 and 2014 identified a number of areas where there was localized
spalls and delamination of the concrete cover over corroded reinforcing steel. The extent of the spalling and
delamination at the location visually examined was not extensive and widespread. There were only a few
locations in the inside of the exterior façade when the surface of the concrete was accessible. There was
not significant spalling and delamination of the concrete cover over corroded steel in the limited number of
areas that were visually examined.

The masonry infill walls between the concrete columns and spandrel beams generally appeared to be in fair
condition. There was no significant visual evidence of distress or displacement.

3. Evaluation

Based upon the results of a visual condition assessment and evaluation of the exposed surfaces of the cast-
in-place reinforced concrete members in this exterior façade, it is our opinion that these members can be
repaired and restored to acceptable standards.

The COG has informed SKA that they would like to retain and restore the exterior façade to acceptable
standards and remove the elevated structural beams, columns and seating treads and riser back of the
exterior façade. The COG would like to construct earth berms back of the exterior façade for on grade
seating.

The existing exterior façade and masonry infill walls will not resist the code design lateral wind loads applied
on the exterior façade when the elevated seating structure is removed. The existing masonry infill walls will
also not safely resist the lateral pressures from an earth fill placed against the existing masonry walls and un-
braced exterior concrete frames.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

72 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
In order for the exterior façade to safely resist the lateral wind pressure required by the code as well as the
lateral pressure from a soil fill placed against the inside face of the exterior walls and facades the exterior
concrete frame will have to be strengthened and the masonry infill walls removed and replaced with
reinforced masonry infill walls.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

73 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
V. Discussion on Durability of Reinforced Concrete

The durability of a reinforced concrete structure is defined as the ability of the concrete to resist weathering
action, chemical attack, distress associated with corrosion of reinforcing steel and other constituents of service.
A concrete mixture used in a reinforced concrete structure that is exposed to an exterior environment in cold,
freezing temperatures should be relatively impermeable and intentionally entrained with air. Permeability is the
ability of concrete to resist penetration of water and other substances. Concrete mixtures with reduced
permeability are generally more resistant to freeze/thaw cycles of water in the pore structure. Concrete
mixtures that are less permeable also are more resistant to carbonation of the hardened concrete cover over
reinforcing steel and generally provide better protection of the reinforcing steel.
The resistance of hardened concrete from internal pressures produced by water in the root structure as it
expands during freezing is significantly improved by the use of intentionally entrained air in a concrete mixture.
Entrained air voids act as empty chambers in the paste where migrating water that is expanding during freezing
can enter, thereby relieving the internal pressure that could be generated as water freezes and expands. Upon
thawing, most of the water returns to the root structure as a result of capillary action and pressure from
compressed air in the entrained air lines.
The current NCSBC and ACI 318 requires for a reinforced concrete structure that is exposed to an exterior
environment and temperatures that are below freezing to have a concrete mixture that is intentionally
entrained with air and that has a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 4500 psi.
The standard regulations and building code published by the American Concrete Institute for reinforced
concrete structures that was current when this stadium was constructed in 1926 did not require a concrete
mixture that was intentionally entrained with air or that had the minimum compressive strength required by the
current NCSBC for concrete structures exposed to an exterior environment. In fact, in 1926, the benefits of
entrained air were unknown and admixtures that intentionally entrained air in concrete were not available. In
1926, the compressive strengths of a concrete mixture were generally based on proportions of cement to
aggregate and not water cement ratios. Published values of compressive strengths in the code that were
current in 1926 were based on proportion of cement to aggregate. They varied from 1300 psi to a maximum of
3000 psi.
The results of compressive strength tests on core samples extracted from the hardened concrete estimated that
the compressive strength of the concrete mixture in this stadium was approximately 2000 psi. This is less than
one-half the 28 day compressive strength required by the current NCSBC and ACI 318 for concrete exposed to an
exterior environment and cycles of freezing and thawing of water in the root structure.
The results of microscopic examination of core samples extracted from the hardened concrete also confirmed
that the concrete mix was not intentionally entrained with air.
The current NCSBC and ACI 318 have specific requirements for a concrete mixture exposed to an exterior
environment in cold climate that address durability. In order for repairs of this existing structure to be
successful and extend the useful service life, measures that address the durability should be considered.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

74 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
The results of tests on core samples extracted from the existing structural concrete in 2008 found that the depth
of carbonation of the concrete was significant. In some samples, the carbonation front had reached the level of
the steel.
Carbonation occurs when carbon dioxide in the atmosphere penetrates into the concrete and reacts with the
products of cement hydration. This reaction reduces the alkalinity of the concrete. When the depth of
carbonation reaches the level of the reinforcing steel, the protective, passivating layer around the steel becomes
unstable and the steel begins to corrode.
Carbonation occurs more rapidly in concrete mixes with higher water cement ratios. Compressive strength tests
and microscopic examination of concrete samples extracted from the original concrete indicate that the
concrete mix used in this structure had a higher water cement ratio and significantly lower compressive strength
than concrete mixtures meeting the durability requirements of the current ACI Code and NCSBC.
Carbonation also occurs more rapidly in concrete with relative humidity levels around 50%. Relative humidities
in this area during the summer months are normally higher than 50%.
The ACI Building Code for Concrete Structures that was current when this stadium was constructed required that
reinforcing steel in columns and girders be protected with a minimum thickness of concrete cover of 2 inches
and that the reinforcing steel in beams and walls be protected with a minimum thickness of concrete cover of 1
½ inch. These cover requirements are generally consistent with the requirements of the current ACI Building
Code.
The results of a visual condition survey of the existing concrete members found widespread locations where the
concrete cover over reinforcing steel was less than the cover required by building code that was current when
this structure was constructed or the current building code. At some locations, surfaces of the reinforcing bars
at the form face of the concrete members were exposed.
Corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete structures occurs more rapidly when there is insufficient concrete
cover over the steel and the concrete cover is less dense and more permeable. These conditions exist
throughout this existing reinforced concrete structure.
In order for existing reinforced concrete members in structures that are exposed to an exterior environment to
be satisfactorily repaired and to meet the intent of the durability requirements of the current ACI Building Code,
the following measures should be considered:
a. Repair distressed and deteriorated areas in all the concrete members that are repairable.

b. Provide a protective encasement by overcladding the existing members with a durable, air entrained
concrete mix that is bonded to the existing concrete around the perimeter of the existing structural
members that meets the durability and strength requirements of the current Building Code.

c. Design and construct the bonded encasement to strengthen the existing concrete members.

In addition, the following measures could be considered:

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

75 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
a. Divert direct moisture and provide a coating system that significantly minimizes water absorption in the
concrete members.

b. Concrete members that cannot be encased in a durable bonded overlay that meets the durability
requirements of the Building Code should be protected with a breathable, water repellent coating system
that minimizes water absorption into the concrete members.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

76 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
VI. Outline on General Scope of Work for Repairs and Restoration

The following is an outline of a general scope of work recommended for the repairs and strengthening of the
existing structural and non-structural members that will restore this facility to the standards required by the
current Building Code and meet the intent of the requirements of COG and Historical Society.

A. Existing Concrete Seating Slabs, Raker Beams and Columns

Option 1 – Repair and Strengthening

1. Remove the existing concrete seating slabs between the vertical face of each side of each existing raker
beam. Remove sections of the existing concrete seating treads and risers that are monolithic with the top of
each concrete raker beam. Remove the existing vomitory walls. Remove the existing concrete guardrail
walls.

2. Expose and identify the type of the existing foundation system and evaluate the adequacy of the existing
foundation system to support any additional loads of materials used to repair and strengthen the existing
raker beams and columns, new seating treads and risers, and the live and wind loads required by the current
NCSBC for bleacher type seats.

3. Perform a comprehensive visual and audible survey of the top, sides and bottom of each concrete raker
beam. Remove distressed and delaminated areas of concrete cover over corroded reinforcing steel.
Prepare and clean surfaces of existing and excavated concrete and reinforcing steel with a dry abrasive
blast.

4. Expose the full length of the column from the top of the foundation system to the raker beam. Perform a
comprehensive visual and audible survey of the surfaces of each column supporting the raker beams.
Remove cracked, distressed and delaminated sections of concrete. Prepare and clean surfaces of existing
and excavated concrete and exposed reinforcing steel with a dry abrasive blast.

5. Install galvanic anodes at interface of original and new concrete encasement at raker beams and columns.

6. Place new reinforcing steel and formwork around each side and the bottom of each raker beam and around
the perimeter of each column. Design the concrete encasement and new reinforcing steel to support the
entire dead and live load on the seating structure that is replaced.

7. Construct formwork on the bottom and each side of each existing raker beam and all four (4) sides of each
existing column.

8. Place a low shrinkage, bonded concrete mixture that meets the durability and strength requirements of the
current NCSBC and ACI Code that is bonded to the prepared surfaces of the existing raker beams and
columns.

9. Construct a new lateral bracing system between existing and strengthened concrete columns that is located
directly below the new precast concrete seating slabs that will satisfactorily brace the raker beams and
columns.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

77 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
10. Construct new cast-in-place vomitory walls and guardrail walls.

11. Install new precast concrete seating treads and risers.

Option 2 – Remove and Replace with New Seating Slabs, Raker Beams and Columns
This option is applicable if it is determined that it is more feasible to remove and replace rather than repair and
strengthen the existing raker beams and columns.
1. Completely remove the existing seating slabs, vomitory walls, raker beams and columns, except the columns
adjacent to the façades at the main entrance and the concrete columns at the exterior walls located directly
adjacent to each side of the façade at the main entrance.

2. Expose the existing foundation system and verify its adequacy to support any additional dead load of the
new structural system and the live and wind load required by the current NCSBC for bleacher type seating.

3. Construct new cast-in-place columns on the existing foundation system.

4. Construct new cast-in-place concrete raker beams.

5. Construct new precast concrete seating slabs and bracing members for concrete frames.

6. Construct new vomitory walls, guardrails walls and lateral bracing members.

Option 3 – Remove and Replace with New Seating Sections, Structural Steel Raker Beams and Columns

This option is applicable if it is determined that it is more feasible to remove and replaced the existing concrete
raker beams and columns with structural steel raker beams and columns.

1. Remove the existing seating slabs, vomitory walls, guardrail walls, raker beams and columns, except the
columns in the façades at the main entrance and the concrete columns at the exterior walls directly adjacent
to the façade at the main entrance.

2. Expose the existing foundation system and verify it’s adequacy to support the dead load of a new structural
system and the live and wind loads required by the current NCSBC for bleacher type seating.

3. Construct new structural steel raker beams and columns on the existing foundation system.

4. Construct new precast concrete seating members supported by the new steel raker beams.

5. Construct new concrete vomitory walls, guardrail walls and lateral bracing members for raker beams.

B. Exterior Façade and Structure Adjacent to Main Entrance

Option #1
1. Remove the existing masonry infill walls with the direct applied stucco veneer.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

78 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

2. Remove the existing concrete spandrel beam and upset guardrail walls that span between the exterior
concrete columns.

3. Perform a comprehensive condition assessment and evaluation of the existing concrete columns and
concrete grade walls between the columns. Remove distressed and delaminated areas of concrete cover
over reinforcing steel. Prepare and clean existing and excavated surfaces of the concrete columns with a dry
abrasive blast.

4. Install galvanic anodes at the interface between the original concrete and repair concrete at excavated
areas.

5. Place new vertical reinforcing and ties around the perimeter of each existing column. Construct formwork
around the new reinforcing steel and place a low shrinkage concrete mix into the forms. Design reinforced
concrete encasement to support the dead load and live load required by the current Building Code.

6. Construction formwork and place new reinforcing steel for new concrete spandrel beams and guardrail walls
to replace the original concrete spandrel beams and guardrail walls.

7. Replace existing masonry infill walls that were removed with new concrete masonry block walls with a direct
applied stucco veneer.

8. Install new windows similar to the original windows in the opening in the new masonry infill walls.

9. Apply an elastomeric coating system on the exterior surface of the concrete members and direct applied
stucco veneer.

Option #2
1. Remove section of the existing masonry infill walls with the direct applied stucco veneer as required to
access and repair the existing concrete column.

2. Perform a detailed visual and audible survey on the surfaces of the existing concrete columns, spandrel
beams and upset guardrail walls.

3. Remove distressed and delaminated areas of concrete cover over corroded reinforcing steel in the columns,
spandrel beams and guardrail walls. Clean the excavated surface of the concrete and reinforcing steel with
a dry abrasive blast.

4. Install galvanic anodes in all the repair areas.

5. Place a compatible repair mortar in all the repair areas.

6. Clean and prepare the surfaces of the original concrete and the repairs with a dry abrasive blast.

7. Install stainless steel metal lath around the perimeter of the existing columns, spandrel beams, and guardrail
walls that were repaired. Connect the stainless steel lath to the surface of the existing and repaired
concrete with stainless steel pins. Place a consolidated 5/8” portland cement stucco mix.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

79 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
8. Replace sections of the masonry infill walls with the direct applied stucco veneer that was removed with
new concrete masonry block with a direct applied stucco veneer.

9. Apply an elastomeric coating on the surface of the stucco veneer.

C. Façade at Main Entrance

Option #1
1. Perform a detailed audible and visual condition survey and examination of the exterior surface of the direct
applied stucco veneer on the two (2) concrete towers and the arched façade between the two (2) towers.

2. Remove the existing direct applied stucco veneer at areas where the audible and visual condition survey
determines that the existing stucco is delaminated and cracked.

3. Remove any unsound substrate materials back of the direct applied stucco that were removed where the
concrete substrate material is distressed, cracked and delaminated.

4. Repair areas back of the direct applied stucco that was removed where the concrete substrate was cracked
and delaminated.

5. Clean excavated surfaces with a dry abrasive blast.

6. Install a stainless steel metal lath on the excavated surfaces. Connect the stainless steel metal lath to the
concrete substrate with stainless steel pins.

7. Place and consolidate a new portland cement stucco with a gap graded course aggregate that closely
matches the size, shape, type and distribution of the existing course aggregate. Mockups of the new direct
applied stucco with a gap graded course aggregate shall be made and approved prior to beginning the
placement of the stucco mix on the areas being repaired.

8. As soon as the stucco mix hardens, was the surface with a mild acid that removes the portland cement
stucco from the surface and cleaves the coarse aggregate exposed. As soon as the coarse aggregate is
exposed, wash the surface with clean water.

9. Apply a clear, penetrating water repellent coating to the exposed surfaces that were replaced with a new
stucco and the original surfaces.

Option #2
1. Remove all the direct applied portland cement stucco with the exposed, gap graded coarse aggregate.
Remove in a manner that will not damage sound substrate materials.

2. Remove any unsound substrate materials back of the direct applied stucco that was removed where the
concrete substrate materials are cracked or disturbed.

3. Clean the excavated surface with a dry abrasive blast.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

80 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
4. Install a stainless steel metal lath on the excavated surfaces. Connect the stainless steel metal lath to sound
substrate surfaces with stainless steel pins.

5. Place and consolidate a new Portland cement stucco with a gap graded aggregate that closely matches the
size, shape, type and distribution of the course aggregate in the stucco mix that was removed. Make
mockups of the proposed stucco mix with the gap graded course aggregate prior to beginning the work for
approval.

6. As soon as the stucco mix hardens, wash the surfaces with a mild acid that will remove the portland cement
mix from the surface, leaving the gap graded coarse aggregate exposed.

7. Apply a clear, penetrating water repellent coating onto the exposed surfaces of the new gap graded stucco
mix.

D. Exterior Façade Adjacent to Existing Seats that will be Removed

1. Remove the existing concrete seating treads and risers and the concrete raker beams that support the
seating treads and risers. Remove the existing concrete columns and walls adjacent to the playing field. Do
not remove or damage the existing concrete columns, spandrel beams, and upset guardrails walls in the
exterior façade.

2. Remove the existing masonry infill walls that are located between the existing concrete members in the
exterior façade.

3. Perform a detailed, comprehensive, visual and audible survey of the existing concrete columns, spandrel
beams and upset guardrail beams in the exterior façade that will be restored.

4. Remove distressed and delaminate concrete and repair these areas in accordance with standards published
by the ACI and ICRI.

5. Determine and evaluate the existing foundation system supporting the columns and masonry infill walls in
the exterior façade. Modify and strengthen as required to support new reinforced concrete counterforts
adjacent to the inside face of each existing concrete column.

6. Construct new reinforced concrete counterfort walls adjacent to the inside face of each existing concrete
column. Connect new concrete counterfort walls to the inside face of the existing concrete columns that
were repaired.

7. Clean and prepare surfaces of existing concrete columns, spandrel beams and upset guardrails walls with a
dry abrasive blast. Apply a migrating corrosion inhibitor to the clean and prepared surfaces.

8. Wrap clean and prepared surfaces of existing concrete columns, spandrel beams and upset guardrail beams
with an expanded metal lath. Mechanically connect the metal lath to the existing concrete surfaces.

9. Apply a two (2) coat portland cement stucco veneer onto the exposed surface of the concrete columns,
spandrel beam and upset guardrail beam.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

81 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
10. Construct reinforced concrete masonry block infill walls between the repaired concrete columns and
spandrel beams. Mechanically connect the reinforced masonry infill walls to the existing repaired concrete
columns and spandrel beams.

11. Apply a direct applied portland cement stucco veneer onto the exterior surface of the reinforced concrete
masonry block infill walls.

12. Waterproof the inside surface of the concrete masonry block infill walls.

13. Construct each of the beams against the reinforced concrete masonry block infill walls, the existing concrete
spandrel and around the new concrete counterforts.

E. Existing Roof Canopy Structure

The following is an outline of a general conceptual scope of work developed for three (3) options addressing the
existing roof canopy structure over a partial section of the existing seats.
Option #1 – Remove and Not Replace the Exterior Roof Canopy Structure
1. Remove existing roofing membrane, wood decking, electrical fixtures, conduit, screens, etc.

2. Remove the existing structural steel purlins, beams, columns, base plates, bracing members, etc. Abate lead
paint on structural steel members.

3. Remove existing press box structure, roof, walls and floors.

4. Abate lead paint in accordance with the requirements for abating lead.

Option #2 – Repair Existing Roof Canopy Structure
1. Construct a temporary structural system to support the gravity, live and wind loads at the bottom of the
existing steel columns supporting the existing roof canopy structure.

2. Abate lead paint on existing structural steel members.

3. Examine surfaces of existing steel after abatement of lead paint and repair/strengthen any member and
member connections damaged by corrosion.

4. Clean existing steel members with a dry abrasive blast and apply a corrosive protective coating system.

5. Perform a structural load study on typical structural members to verify the adequacy of the as built existing
roof canopy structure columns and foundation system to support gravity, live and wind loads required by
the current building code.

6. Strengthen/replace existing base plates and anchors at columns as required to resist the lateral and wind
uplift loads required by the current building code.

7. Perform a condition assessment of the existing roofing membrane.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

82 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

8. Visually examine existing wood roof deck. Repair/replace any members that have experienced decay and
clean and paint exposed surfaces.

9. Repair and restore the existing press box.

10. Install new lighting fixtures and electrical system.

Option #3 – Remove and Replace Existing Roof Canopy with a New Roof Canopy Structure
1. Remove the existing roofing membrane, wood decking, electrical fixtures and conduit, screens, etc.

2. Remove the existing structural steel purlins, beams, columns, base plates, bracing members, etc. Abate lead
paint on existing structural members.

3. Remove existing press box.

4. Design and construct a new roof canopy structure. The new canopy roof structure could be extended to
cover all the seats back of the front walls directly adjacent to the main entrance.

5. Construct new press box.

6. New lighting, electrical and sound system.

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

83 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
VII. Photographs

Overview

Exterior Façade Adjacent to Main Entrance

Exterior Façade at Main Entrance

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

84 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Façade

North Tower of Exterior Façade

Base of North Tower

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

85 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Exposed Aggregate Finish on Entrance Façade

Spalled Concrete Cover over Corroded Reinforcing

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

86 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Spalled and Delaminate Stucco with Exposed Aggregate Fins

Top of Tower

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

87 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Distress and Delamination of Stucco on Tower

Distress and Delamination of Stucco at Top of Tower

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

88 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Distress and Delamination of Sloped Surface at Tower

Cracking and Distress of Stucco at Main Entry Column

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

89 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Spalling of Concrete and Reinforcing Steel at Arch

Distress and Cracking of Stucco at Top of Tower

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

90 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

91 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Concrete

Concrete Seating Slabs and Raker Beams - Main Entrance

Spalled Concrete over Corroded Reinforcing Steel

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

92 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Spalled Concrete over Corroded Reinforcing

Exposed Reinforcing Steel in Raker Beam

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

93 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Spalled Concrete and Corroded Steel – Seating Slab

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

94 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Concrete Columns 2008

Corroded Steel in Haunch at Raker Beam

Spalled Concrete over Corroded Steel in Column

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

95 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Cracking and Spalled Concrete and Corroded Steel in Column

Spalled Concrete and Corroded Reinforcing

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

96 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Spalled Concrete and Corroded Reinforcing

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

97 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT
Canopy

Underside of Roof Canopy

Roof Canopy above Press Box

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

98 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Corrosion of Steel Column Supporting Roof Canopy

Corrosion of Steel Connection

Appendix A – Preservation Treatment Drawings
for
Preservation Plan and Conditions Assessment
for
WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM
Greensboro, North Carolina

The City of Greensboro, North Carolina
August 2014

World War Memorial Stadium circa 1929
PLAN LEGEND REMOVE STRUCTURE AND REHABILITATE SEATING AREA WITH EARTH BERMSPRESERVE AND RESTORE EXISTING ENRTY PORTALS TO 1926-1929 REHABILITATE EXISTING CONCOURSE AREASPRESERVE AND RESTORE EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS TO 1926-1929 RENOVATE EXISTING SERVICE AND TEAM AREAS REMOVE EXISTING NON-HISTORIC STRUCTUREREHABILITATE/ RECONSTRUCT NEW ENTRY AND EXIT PORTAL PRESERVE/ MAINTAIN ALL BALLFIELD AREAS REHABILITATE SITE AND LANDSCAPE AREAS NO TREATMENT ASSIGNEDREMOVE ENTIRE SEATING DECK STRUCTUREPRESERVE AND REHABILITATE FIELD LEVEL CONCRETE AREAS
PLAN LEGEND REMOVE STRUCTURE AND REHABILITATE SEATING AREA WITH EARTH BERMSPRESERVE AND RESTORE EXISTING ENRTY PORTALS TO 1926-1929 REHABILITATE EXISTING SEATING DECK AND GRANDSTAND SEATINGPRESERVE AND RESTORE EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS TO 1926-1929 REMOVE EXISTING NON-HISTORIC STRUCTUREREHABILITATE FIELD LEVEL AMMENITIES AREAS PRESERVE/ MAINTAIN ALL BALLFIELD AREAS REHABILITATE SITE AND LANDSCAPE AREASREHABILITATE FIELD LEVEL WALKWAYSPRESERVE AND RESTORE EXISTING FIELD LEVEL WALLS REMOVE EXISTING STEEL CANOPY STRUCTURE REMOVE STRUCTURE AND EXTERIOR WALLSREMOVE FIELD LEVEL WALL PRESERVE AND REHABILITATE FIELD LEVEL CONCRETE AREAS

Appendix B – Conceptual Rehabilitation Drawings
for
Preservation Plan and Conditions Assessment
for
WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM
Greensboro, North Carolina

The City of Greensboro, North Carolina
August 2014

World War Memorial Stadium circa 1929
PLAN LEGEND
REMOVE ALL SEATING AND DECK
CONCRETE AS REQUIRED FOR
REHABILITATION
REMOVE ALL SEATING AND ENTIRE
CONCRETE DECK FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF EARTH BERMS
REMOVE ENTIRE NON-HISTORIC
STRUCTURE
REMOVE ENTIRE DECK AND SEATING.
EXCAVATE TO FIELD LEVEL FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESSIBLESEATING AREA
REMOVE FIELD LEVEL CONCRETE ONLY
AS REQUIRED
REMOVE ENTIRE CANOPY STRUCTURE
ABOVE
REMOVE FIELD LEVEL WALL FOR AISLE
WIDENING
PRESS BOX
PRESS

B
O
X
STOR
A
G
E
P
R
E
S
S

B
O
X
T
O

E
X
I
T

A
T

L
I
N
D
S
A
Y

S
T
.
MA
N
A
G
E
R
'
S
OF
F
I
C
E
TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
HO
M
E

CL
U
B
H
O
U
S
E
TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
VI
S
I
T
O
R
S
'
CL
U
B
H
O
U
S
E
ME
M
O
R
I
A
L
EN
T
R
A
N
C
E
UM
P
I
R
E

LO
U
N
G
E
RE
S
T
R
O
O
M
FA
M
I
L
Y
CU
S
T
.
MEN'S
EL
E
C
.
WOMEN'S RESTROOM CONCESSIONS
SO
U
T
H
CO
N
C
O
U
R
S
E
SO
U
T
H

MA
I
N

G
A
T
E
NORTH MAIN GATENORTHCONCOURSE
HO
M
E

DU
G
O
U
T
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
FI
E
L
D
LE
V
E
L
CO
N
C
O
U
R
S
E
FUTURE CONCOURSE
T
O

E
X
I
T
T O E X I T
T O E X I TPLAN LEGEND RESTORED/PRESERVED ENTRY PORTALS RENOVATED TEAM AND UMPIRE AREASNEW/RESTORED WINDOW IN EXTERIOR WALL RESTORED EXTERIOR WALLS RESTORED ENTRY/ EXIT PORTAL AND SIDEWALK TO PARKING PUBLIC RESTROOMS, CONCESSIONS AND MISC.NEW GATE/RAIL NOTE:ALL WALLS IN CONCOURSE ARE NEW UNOCCUPIED/UNEXCAVATED AREA REHABILITATED CONCOURSES
34
0
34
0
340 340
35
0
35
0
35
0
35
0
40 40 40
40 40 40
40 40 40
ME
M
O
R
I
A
L

P
L
A
Z
A
T
O

E
X
I
T
T O E X I T
T O E X I TPLAN LEGEND NEW ALUMINUM BLEACHERS ON REHABILITATED SEATING DECK FUTURE LAWN SEATING AREA (UNOCCUPIED)NEW SUPPLEMENTAL GUARDRAIL AT VOMITORY NEW AISLE HANDRAIL RESTORED MEMORIAL PLAZANEW GATE/RAIL NEW/REBUILT SITE WALL UNOCCUPIED SEATING DECKWHEELCHAIR ACCESIBLE SEATING AREA
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G

D
O
U
G
O
U
T
FUTURE CONCOURSE
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T

S
T
O
R
A
G
E
FI
E
L
D
LE
V
E
L
CO
N
C
O
U
R
S
E
T
O

E
X
I
T

A
T

L
I
N
D
S
A
Y

S
T
.
UN
O
C
C
U
P
I
E
D
AR
E
A
C0
N
C
O
U
R
S
E
HOME CLUBHOUSEHVACUNIT
KI
O
S
K
CO
N
C
E
S
S
I
O
N
S
6'
-
8
"
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.4.5.
6.
7.
7.
7.8.
8.
9.
9.9.10.11.12.13.
2.
3.
14
.
15
.
9'-6"
SE
C
T
I
O
N

N
O
T
E
S
NE
W

R
A
I
L
I
N
G
NE
W

R
A
I
L
I
N
G

A
T

A
I
S
L
E
S
NE
W

B
L
E
A
C
H
E
R
S

O
N

N
E
W

S
E
A
T
I
N
G

D
E
C
K
1.2.3.
UN
U
S
E
D

S
E
A
T
I
N
G

D
E
C
K
4.
NE
W

F
L
A
G
P
O
L
E
S

A
T

W
A
L
L
5.
AD
A

A
C
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E

S
E
A
T
I
N
G

A
R
E
A
6.
RE
P
A
I
R
E
D

C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E

S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
7.
RE
P
L
I
C
A

H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C

C
O
N
C
O
U
R
S
E

L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
8.
FI
R
E

S
P
R
I
N
K
L
E
R

P
I
P
I
N
G
9.
NE
W

P
L
U
M
B
I
N
G

A
N
D

E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L

C
O
N
D
U
I
T
S
10
.
NE
W

H
V
A
C

U
N
I
T

A
B
O
V
E

R
O
O
F
/
C
E
I
L
I
N
G
11
.
NE
W

F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D

A
R
E
A
S
.

C
M
U

W
A
L
L
S

A
N
D

G
Y
P
S
U
M
\
BO
A
R
D

C
E
I
L
I
N
G
S
.

M
E
M
B
R
A
N
E

R
O
O
F

A
B
O
V
E

C
E
I
L
I
N
G
12
.
13
.
RE
S
T
O
R
E
D
/

N
E
W

W
I
N
D
O
W
S
14
.
WA
R
N
I
N
G

R
A
I
L
I
N
G
S

A
T

L
O
W

R
A
K
E
R

B
E
A
M
S
15
.
CO
N
C
O
U
R
S
E

B
A
N
N
E
R

S
I
G
N
A
G
E

Appendix C – Conceptual Structural Repair Drawings
for
Preservation Plan and Conditions Assessment
for
WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM
Greensboro, North Carolina

The City of Greensboro, North Carolina
August 2014

World War Memorial Stadium circa 1929
TYP.
TYP.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
44
45
46
47
48
49
39
40
41
42
43
29
30
31
50
R-A R-B R-C
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
Dwg.#
PARTIAL PLAN
REPAIR CONDITION
1/16" = 1'-0"
140266-D2001.DWG
NEW WALL, SEE
OTHER DRAWINGS
NEW WALL, SEE
OTHER DRAWINGS
NEW WALL, SEE
OTHER DRAWINGS
NEW WALL, SEE
OTHER DRAWINGS
NEW WALL, SEE
OTHER DRAWINGS
REMOVE THIS
EXISTING STRUCTURE
TYP.
4 & 8
4 & 8
4 & 8
4 & 8
4 & 8 4 & 8 4 & 8
4 & 8
4 & 8
4 & 8
4 & 8
TYP.
MAT
C
H
L
I
N
E
MAT
C
H
L
I
N
E
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
R-D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12 13
27
R-A
R-B
R-C
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
Dwg.#
PARTIAL PLAN
REPAIR CONDITION
1/16" = 1'-0"
140266-D2001.DWG
REMOVE SHADED AREA OF
STRUCTURE AND SEAT
EXCEPT FOR EXTERIOR
CONCRETE COLUMNS AND
GUARD RAIL WALL
REMOVE SHADED AREA OF
STRUCTURE AND SEAT
EXCEPT FOR EXTERIOR
CONCRETE COLUMNS AND
GUARD RAIL WALL
ENTRANCE FACADE
F A C A D E A D J A C E N T T O E NT R A N C E FACADE ADJACENT TO ENTRANCE
EXISTING STEEL
CANOPY TO BE
REMOVED (ABOVE)
REMOVE EXISTING
WALL BETWEEN
GRIDS 4 & 5
NEW WALL, SEE
OTHER DRAWINGS
NEW WALL, SEE
OTHER DRAWINGS
NEW WALL, SEE
OTHER DRAWINGS
NEW WALL, SEE
OTHER DRAWINGS
NEW REPLACEMENT
LOW WALL, SEE
OTHER DRAWINGS
OV
E
R
A
L
L

P
L
A
N

-

R
E
P
A
I
R

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
Designed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Date:
----
APJ
----
__-__-__
D2.1PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
:

N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Wa
r

M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l

S
t
a
d
i
u
m

S
t
u
d
y

&

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
FO
R
---
---
-
Dwg.#

KEY PLAN
NO SCALE
140266-G2010.DWG
D2.1
1
D2.1
2
MEMORIALWORLD WAR STADIUM
456789101112131420191817161521
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
2 S4
.
0 5 S4
.
0 7 S4
.
0 4 S4
.
0
Dwg.#
EXTERIOR WALL ELEVATION
MAIN ENTRANCE SEGMENT
3/32" = 1'-0"
140266-S4001-A.DWGS4.0
1
MASONRY INFILL WALL
WITH STUCCO VENEER
EXISITNG TOWERS WITH
STUCCO VENEER
ENTRANCE FACADE
BETWEEN TOWERS
ORIGINAL WINDOW OPENING
FILLED WITH MASONRY
EXISTING CONCRETE
SPANDREL BEAM WITH
UPSET GUARDRAIL WALL
EXISIT. CONC. COLUMN
WITH COATING
EXISTING CANOPY AND
STEEL COLUMNS TO BE
REMOVED (BEYOND)
EXISTING CANOPY AND
STEEL COLUMNS TO BE
REMOVED (BEYOND)
12345
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
4 S4
.
0
Dwg.#
EXTERIOR WALL ELEVATION
SOUTH SEGMENT
3/32" = 1'-0"
140266-S4001-A.DWGS4.0
3
EXISTING BUILDING TO
REMAIN FOR FUTURE USE
20212223242526272829303132
15'-6"15'-6"15'-4"15'-6"
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
OPEN
2 S4
.
0
Dwg.#
EXTERIOR WALL ELEVATION
NORTH SEGMENT 2
3/32" = 1'-0"
140266-S4001-A.DWGS4.0
6
EXISIT. CONC. COLUMN TO BE
REPAIRED AND CONECTED TO NEW
COUNTERFORT WALL
EXISTING UPSET GUARDRAIL
WALL AND SPANDREL BEAM
TO BE REPAIRED
EXISTING MASONRY INFILL WALL TO
BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH
NEW REINFORCED CONCRETE
MASONRY BRICK WALL
44454647484950 33
12'-6"
343536
12'-6"12'-6"12'-6"
MENWOMEN
37383940
12'-8"12'-0"12'-6"13'-5"
414243
12'-6"12'-6"12'-6"12'-0"12'-6"12'-6"12'-6"13'-0"12'-6"12'-41316"
OPEN OPEN
OPENOPENOPEN
Dwg.#
EXTERIOR WALL ELEVATION
NORTH SEGMENT 1
3/32" = 1'-0"
140266-S4001-A.DWGS4.0
8
Dwg.#
NORTH TOWER
NORTH WALL ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"
140266-S4001.DWGS4.0
5
Dwg.#
EXTERIOR WALL ELEVATION
NORTH SEGMENT
3/32" = 1'-0"
140266-S4001.DWGS4.0
2
Dwg.#
SOUTH TOWER
SOUTH WALL ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"
140266-S4001.DWGS4.0
5
Dwg.#
EXTERIOR WALL ELEVATION
SOUTH SEGMENT
3/32" = 1'-0"
140266-S4001.DWGS4.0
2
EX
T
E
R
I
O
R

E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
Designed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Date:
----
APJ
----
__-__-__
S4.0PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
:

N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Wa
r

M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l

S
t
a
d
i
u
m

S
t
u
d
y

&

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
FO
R
---
---
-
Dwg.#

KEY PLAN
NO SCALE
140266-G2010.DWG
8 S 4 .0
6S
4.0
ELEV.1
S4.0
3 S 4 .0
S2.1
1
S2.2
1
S2.3
1
S2.3
2
SE
C
T
I
O
N
Designed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Date:
---
RRJ
---
__-__-__
S5.1PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
:

N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Wa
r

M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l

S
t
a
d
i
u
m

S
t
u
d
y

&

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
FO
R
---
---
-
COL COL COL
18'-8"±18'-8"±
CL CL CL
STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMNS
SUPPORTING ROOF CANOPY
TO BE REMOVED
CONCRETE SEATING
TREADS AND RISERS
14"x16" COLUMNS. SEE REPORT
FOR REPAIR OPTIONS.
EXISTING 8" BRICK
WALLS TO BE REMOVED
CONCRETE SLAB
ON GRADE TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING CONC. RAKER BEAMS.
SEE OPTIONS FOR REPAIRS
MASONRY INFILL WALLS
WITH STUCCO VENEER
COL
18'-6"±
CL
SOIL FILL
ON GRADE SLAB
EXISTING CONC. COL.
EXISTING CONC. COL.
EXISTING CONC. RAKER BEAMS.
SEE OPTIONS FOR REPAIR
EXISTING CONC. COL.
EXISTING CONCRETE SEATING
TREADS AND RISERS
STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMNS
SUPPORTING ROOF CANOPY
TO BE REMOVED
Dwg.#

ELEVATION OF EXISTING TYPICAL RAKER BEAMS AND COLUMNS TO BE REPAIRED
1/4" = 1'-0"
140266-S7001.DWGS5.1
1
EXISTING CONC. WALL
TO BE REPAIRED OR
REPLACED
EXISTING STRUCTURAL STEEL ROOF CANOPY TO BE REMOVED
SEE REPORT FOR OPTIONS
FOR REPLACEMENT WITH
PRECAST CONC. MEMBERS
NOTE:
TYPE OF FOUNDATION
SYSTEM IS UNKNOWN.
EXISTING GUARDRAIL WALL
EXISTING SPANDREL BEAM
EXTERIOR CONC. GRADE WALL
REMOVE AND
REPLACE EXISTING
ON-GRADE SEATS
COL COL
CL CL
EXISTING ELEVATED
CONCRETE SEATING TREADSAND RISERS TO BE REMOVED
REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE
SLAB ON GRADE
COL
CL
SOIL FILL
EXISTING CONC. COLUMNS
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING CONC. RAKER
BEAMS TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING CONC. COL.
TO BE REPAIRED
Dwg.#

ELEVATION OF EXISTING RAKER BEAMS AND SEATING SLABS TO BE REMOVED
1/4" = 1'-0"
140266-S7002.DWGS5.1
2
NEW 12" REINFORCED CONCRETE
MASONRY BLOCK INFILL WALL
4'-0"
1'-6"
EXISTING CONCRETE SEATING
TREADS AND RISERS TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING UPPER CONCRETE
GUARDRAIL WALL TO BE REPAIRED
EXISTING CONC. SPANDREL
BEAM TO BE REPAIRED
EXISTING CONC. RAKER
BEAM TO BE REMOVED
NEW 12" WIDE CONCRETE
COUNTERFORT WALL AT EACH
EXISTING COLUMN.
REMOVE EXISTING CONC.
SEATING SLAB ON GRADE
REMOVE EXISTING
CONC. RAIL WALL
±18'-0"±18'-0"
SOIL FILL
APPLY NEW WATERPROOFING TO NEW
AND EXISTING WALLS AS REQUIRED
DE
T
A
I
L
S
Designed By:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Date:
---
RRJ
---
__-__-__
S6.1PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
:

N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Wa
r

M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l

S
t
a
d
i
u
m

S
t
u
d
y

&

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
FO
R
---
---
-
NEW CONC. ENCASEMENT
ON EACH SIDE OF OVEREXISTING HAUNCH
NEW CONC. ENCASEMENT
ON BOTTOM OF BEAM
CL EXISTING COLUMN
NEW CONC. ENCASEMENT
OVER EXISTING HAUNCH
EXISTING 14"x16" CONC. COLUMN
NEW VERTICAL REINFORCING
3"8"3"8"
NEW CONCRETE ENCASEMENT
AROUND EXISTING CONCRETE
COLUMN.
NEW COLUMN TIES
SEE NOTES FOR SURFACE
PREPARATION AND CLEANING
OF SURFACE OF EXISTING
CONC. COLUMN AND BEAMS.
FOR CONNECTIONS OF
P.C. SEATING SECTIONS,
SEE OTHER DETAILS
REMOVE SECTION OF CONC. FROM TOP
OF EXISTING CONC. RAKER BEAMS FOR
NEW PRECAST CONC. SEATS.
NEW PRECAST CONCRETE SEATS.
Dwg.#
REPAIRED EXISTING RAKER BEAM
TYPICAL DETAIL - OPTION 1
1" = 1'-0"
140266-S6001.DWG
NEW LATERAL CONC.
BRACING BEAM
NEW 14"x20" CONC. RAKER BEAM
CL EXISTING AND NEW CONC. COLUMN
NEW VERTICAL REINFORCING
NEW 14"x16" CONCRETE COLUMN.
NEW COLUMN TIES
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE
RAKER BEAM AND COLUMN
NEW PRECAST CONCRETE SEATS.
2'-4"2'-4"
EXISTING STEEL COLUMN SUPPORTING
ROOF CANOPY. PROVIDE TEMPORARY
SUPPORT FOR GRAVITY LOADS AND
LATERAL SUPPORT FOR WIND LOAD.
Dwg.#
REPLACED EXISTING RAKER BEAM
TYPICAL DETAIL - OPTION 2
1" = 1'-0"
140266-S6002.DWG
NEW LATERAL BRACING BEAM
NEW W18 STEEL RAKER BEAM
CL EXISTING AND NEW COLUMN
NEW W12 STEEL COLUMN
NEW PRECAST
CONCRETE SEATS.
Dwg.#
REPLACED EXISTING RAKER BEAM
TYPICAL DETAIL - OPTION 3
1" = 1'-0"
140266-S6003.DWG
2'-4"2'-4"
EXISTING STEEL COLUMN SUPPORTING
ROOF CANOPY. PROVIDE TEMPORARY
SUPPORT FOR GRAVITY LOADS AND
LATERAL SUPPORT FOR WIND LOAD.
NEW STEEL SEAT TO
SUPPORT EXISTING COLUMN.
STEEL SEAT FOR P.C. UNITS
38" STIFF. PLATES
5"38"5"38"
CL RAKER BEAM
CAST IN PLACE
BONDED OVERLAYPRECAST CONCRETE
SEAT SLAB
(2) #5 EACH ANGLE 3x3.
SHOP WELD
EXISTING CONC. RAKER BEAM
CAST IN PLACE CONC.
ENCASEMENT
NOTES:
1. SOUND BEAM SURFACES
AND REMOVE ANY
DELAMINATED AREAS.
2. CUT AND REMOVE
DELAMINATED CONCRETE
FROM SURFACES OF
EXIST. BEAM.
3. CLEAN SURFACES WITH A
DRY ABRASIVE BLAST TO
A CSP-8 PROFILE.
3"5"3"5"
(4) #7 BOTT.
EXISTING 14" WIDE
CONC. COLUMN
CONCRETE JACKET
ENCASING EXIST. COL.
#4 TIES AT 1'-4"
REMOVE SECTION OF
CONC. FROM TOP OF
EXIST. RAKER BEAM AND
REPLACE AFTER
PRECAST SEAT SLABS
ARE INSTALLED.
ANGLE 3"x3"x14"x0'-6" GALV.EACH SIDE. LOCATE BELOW
STEM OF P.C. SEATS.
Dwg.#

SECTION THROUGH RAKER BEAM - OPTION 1
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
140266-S6004.DWG
CL EXIST. AND NEW
CONC. SEAT FRAMINGPRECAST CONCRETE
SEAT SLABS BEYOND
7"7"
Dwg.#

SECTION THROUGH RAKER BEAM - OPTION 2
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
140266-S6005.DWG
PRECAST CONCRETE
SEAT SLABS
TOP OF STEP AT
RAKER BEAM
12"x16" CAST IN PLACE
CONC. BEAM AT EACH
COLUMN.
NEW 14"x20" CAST IN
PLACE CONC. RAKER
BEAM
TOP AND BOTT. OF
BEAM SLOPE
NEW 14"x16" CAST IN
PLACE CONC. COLUMN
38"x4"x5" BEARINGPAD TYP.
ANGLE 5"x3"x14"x0'-6"WITH (2) #3x1'-4" AT
EACH SEAT SUPPORT.
Dwg.#

SECTION THROUGH RAKER BEAM - OPTION 3
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
140266-S6006.DWG
CL EXIST. AND NEW
RAKER BEAM
PRECAST CONCRETE
SEAT SLABS BEYOND
PRECAST CONCRETESEAT SLABS
NEW W12 STEEL COL
SEAT FOR P.C. CONC. SEATS NEW W12 BRACING
BEAM
NEW W18 STEEL RAKER
BEAM
Dwg.#

SECTION THROUGH RAKER BEAM
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
140266-S6007.DWG
CL RAKER BEAM
NEW PRECAST CONCRETE
SEATING SECTION
EXISTING BEAM STIRRUPS
3"5"3"5"
(4) #7 BOTT. BARS
EXISTING 14"x16"
CONC. COLUMN
NEW CONCRETE
ENCASEMENT
EXISTING BOTT. BARS
ADDED TOP BARS
OVER COLUMN
(2) #7 TOP CONT.REMOVE A MIN. OF 2"
OF EXIST. CONC. FROM
STEPS IN TOP OF
EXIST. RAKER BEAM
EXISTING CONC.
RAKER BEAM
CLEAN SIDES AND
BOTT. OF EXIST. CONC.RAKER BEAM WITH A
DRY ABRASIVE BLAST
TO A CSP.5 PROFILE
Dwg.#

PLAN DETAIL THROUGH COLUMN
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
140266-S6008.DWG
CL EXIST. COL.
112" CL. TYP.
3"7"
EXISTING 14"x16"
CONC. COLUMN
(8)-#6 VERT.
#3 TIES AT 12" O/C
EXISTING COL. REINF
SEE NOTES FOR
REQUIREMENTS FOR
SPALLS AND CORRODEDREINF. IN EXIST. CONC. COL.
SEE ENLARGED PLAN
DETAIL FOR TIES ATINTERMEDIATE BARS
SEE NOTES FOR SURFACE
PREPARATION AND CLEANING
OF COLUMN SURFACES
NEW CONC. ENCASEMENT
AROUND EXIST. CONC. COL.
EXIST. BEAM ABOVE
112"38"118"
3"3"
INSTALL #3 INTO 38"Ø HOLE
DRILLED INTO EXIST. CONC.
WITH EPOXY
EMBEDDED #3 INTO HOLES
DRILLED INTO EXIST. CONC. COL.
WITH AN EPOXY ADHESIVE
#3@12" O/C W/ 90° HOOK
#6 BAR VERT.
OUTSIDE FACE OF EXIST. COL.
OUTSIDE FACE OF NEW CONC.
ENCASEMENT AROUND EXIST.
CONC. COL.
#3 COL. TIES
ENLARGED PLAN DETAIL
4"2'-4"
REMOVE SECTION OF CONC. FROMTOP OF EXIST. RAKER BEAM AND
REPLACE WITH NEW CONC.
4"
PRECAST CONC. SEATING SLAB
Dwg.#

RAKER BEAM DETAIL - OPTION 1
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
140266-S6009.DWG
EXIST. TOP BARS IN 10"
WIDE BEAM. IF EXPOSED,
DO NOT CUT OR DAMAGE
(4)-#7 ADDED BARS IN
CONC. ENCASEMENT
BOTT. OF NEW CONC.
ENCASEMENT
BOTT. OF EXIST.
CONC. RAKER BEAM
NEW (4)-#7 STEEL BARS
EXIST. BOTT.
BARS

Appendix D – The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco
for
Preservation Plan and Conditions Assessment
for
WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM
Greensboro, North Carolina

The City of Greensboro, North Carolina
August 2014

World War Memorial Stadium circa 1929
PRESERVATION
~BRIEFS
The Preservation and Repair of
Historic Stucco
Anne Grimmer
u.s. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Preservation Assistance Division
The term "stuccd' is used here to describe a type of
exterior plaster applied as a two-or-three part coating
directly onto masonry, or applied over wood or metal
lath to a log or wood frame structure. Stucco is found
in many forms on historic structures throughout the
United States. It is so common, in fact, that it fre-
quently goes unnoticed, and is often disguised or used
to imitate another material. Historic stucco is also
sometimes incorrectly viewed as a sacrificial coating,
and consequently removed to reveal stone, brick or
logs that historically were never intended to be ex-
posed. Age and lack of maintenance hasten the deterio-
ration of many historic stucco buildings. Like most
historic building materials, stucco is at the mercy of the
elements, and even though it is a protective coating, it
is particularly susceptible to water damage.
Stucco is a material of deceptive simplicity: in most
cases its repair should not be undertaken by a property
owner unfamiliar with the art of plastering. Successful
stucco repair requires the skill and experience of a pro-
fessional plasterer. Therefore, this Brief has been pre-
pared to provide background information on the nature
and components of traditional stucco, as well as offer
guidance on proper maintenance and repairs. The Brief
will outline the requirements for stucco repair, and,
when necessary, replacement. Although several stucco
mixes representative of different periods are provided
here for reference, this Brief does not include specifica-
tions for carrying out repair projects. Each project is
unique, with its own set of problems that require indi-
vidual solutions.
Historical Background
Stucco has been used since ancient times. Still widely
used throughout the world, it is one of the most com-
mon of traditional building materials (Fig. 1). Up until
Fig. 1. These two houses in a residential section of Winchester, Virginia, illustrate the continuing popularity of stucco (a) from this
early 19th century, Federal style house on the left, (b) to the English Cotswold style cottage that was built across the street in the
1930's. Photos: Anne Grimmer.
the late 1800's, stucco, like mortar, was primarily Iime-
based, but the popularization of portland cement
changed the composition of stucco, as well as mortar,
to a harder material. Historically, the term "plaster" has
often been interchangeable with "stucco"; the term is
still favored by many, particularly when referring to the
traditional lime-based coating. By the nineteenth cen-
tury "stucco," although originally denoting fine interior
ornamental plasterwork, had gained wide acceptance
in the United States to describe exterior plastering.
"Render" and "rendering" are also terms used to de-
scribe stucco, especially in Great Britain. Other historic
treatments and coatings related to stucco in that they
consist at least in part of a similarly plastic or malleable
material include: parging and pargeting, wattle and
daub, "cob" or chalk mud, pise de terre, rammed
earth, briquete entre poteaux or bousillage, half-
timbering, and adobe. All of these are regional varia-
tions on traditional mixtures of mud, clay, lime, chalk,
cement, gravel or straw. Many are still used today.
The Stucco Tradition in the United States
Stucco is primarily used on residential buildings and
relatively small-scale commercial structures. Some of
the earliest stucco buildings in the United States in-
clude examples of the Federal, Greek and Gothic Re-
vival styles of the eighteenth and the nineteenth
centuries that emulated European architectural fash-
ions. Benjamin Henry Latrobe, appointed by Thomas
Jefferson as Surveyor of Public Buildings of the United
States in 1803, was responsible for the design of a num-
ber of important stucco buildings, including St. John's
Church (1816), in Washington, D.C. (Fig. 2). Nearly
half a century later Andrew Jackson Downing also ad-
vocated the use of stucco in his influential book The
Architecture of Country Houses, published in 1850. In
Downing's opinion, stucco was superior in many re-
spects to plain brick or stone because it was cheaper,
warmer and dryer, and could be "agreeably" tinted. As
a result of his advice, stuccoed Italianate style urban
and suburban villas proliferated in many parts of the
country during the third quarter of the nineteenth
century.
Revival Styles Promote Use of Stucco
The introduction of the many revival styles of architec-
ture around the turn of the twentieth century, com-
bined with the improvement and increased availability
of portland cement resulted in a "craze" for stucco as a
building material in the United States. Beginning about
1890 and gaining momentum into the 1930's and 1940's,
stucco was associated with certain historic architectural
styles, including: Prairie; Art Deco, and Art Moderne;
Spanish Colonial, Mission, Pueblo, Mediterranean,
English Cotswold Cottage, and Tudor Revival styles; as
well as the ubiquitous bungalow and "four-square"
house (Fig. 3). The fad for Spanish Colonial Revival,
and other variations on this theme, was especially im-
portant in furthering stucco as a building material in
the United States during this period, since stucco
clearly looked like adobe (Fig. 4).
2
Fig. 2. St. John's Church, Washington, D. c., constructed of
brick and stuccoed immediately upon completion in 1816,
reflects the influence of European, and specifically English,
architectural styles. Photo: Russell Jones, HABS Collection.
Fig. 3. The William Gray and Edna S. Purcell House,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, was designed in 1913 by the
architects Purcell and Elmslie in the Prairie style. Stuccoed
in a salmon-pink, sand (float) finish, it is unusual in that it
featured a 3-color geometric frieze stencilled below the eaves of
the 2nd story. The Minneapolis Institute of Art has removed
the cream-colored paint added at a later date, and restored the
original color and texture of the stucco. Photo: Courtesy
MacDonald and Mack Partnership.
Although stucco buildings were especially prevalent in
California, the Southwest and Florida, ostensibly be-
cause of their Spanish heritage, this period also
spawned stucco-coated, revival-style buildings all over
the United States and Canada. The popularity of stucco
as a cheap, and readily available material meant that by
the 1920's, it was used for an increasing variety of
building types. Resort hotels, apartment buildings,
private mansions and movie theaters, railroad stations,
and even gas stations and tourist courts took advantage
Fig. 4. The elaborate Spanish Colonial Revival style of this
building designed by Bertram Goodhue for the 1915 Panama
California Exposition held in San Diego's Balboa Park
emphasizes the sculptural possibilities of stucco. Photo: C. W
Snell, National Historic Landmark Files .
of the "romance" of period styles, and adopted the
stucco construction that had become synonymous with
these styles (Fig. 5).
A Practical Building Material
Stucco has traditionally been popular for a variety of
reasons. It was an inexpensive material that could sim-
ulate finely dressed stonework, especially when
"scored" or "lined" in the European tradition. A stucco
coating over a less finished and less costly substrate
such as rubblestone, fieldstone, brick, log or wood
frame, gave the building the appearance of being a
more expensive and important structure. As a weather-
repellent coating, stucco protected the building from
wind and rain penetration, and also offered a certain
amount of fire protection. While stucco was usually
applied during construction as part of the building
design, particularly over rubblestone or fieldstone, in
some instances it was added later to protect the struc-
ture, or when a rise in the owner's social status de-
manded a comparable rise in his standard of living.
Composition of Historic Stucco
Before the mid-to-Iate nineteenth century, stucco con-
sisted primarily of hydrated or slaked lime, water and
sand, with straw or animal hair included as a binder.
Natural cements were frequently used in stucco mixes
after their discovery in the United States during the
1820's. Portland cement was first manufactured in the
United States in 1871, and it gradually replaced natural
cement. After about 1900, most stucco was composed
primarily of portland cement, mixed with some lime.
With the addition of portland cement, stucco became
even more versatile and durable. No longer used just
as a coating for a substantial material like masonry or
log, stucco could now be applied over wood or metal
lath attached to a light wood frame. With this increased
strength, stucco ceased to be just a veneer and became
a more integral part of the building structure.
Fig. 5. During the 19th and 20th centuries stucco has been a popular material not only for residential, but also for commercial
buildings in the Spanish style. Two such examples are (a) the 1851 Ernest Hemingway House, Key West, Florida, built of stuccoed
limestone in a Spanish Caribbean style; and (b) the Santa Fe Depot (Union Station), San Diego, California, designed by the
architects Bakewell and Brown in 1914 in a Spanish Colonial Revival style, and constructed of stucco over brick and hollow tile.
Photos: (a) J.F. Brooks, HABS Collection, (b) Marvin Rand, HABS Collection.
3
Today, gypsum, which is hydrated calcium sulfate or
sulfate of lime, has to a great extent replaced lime.
Gypsum is preferred because it hardens faster and has
less shrinkage than lime. Lime is generally used only
in the finish coat in contemporary stucco work.
The composition of stucco depended on local custom
and available materials. Stucco often contained sub-
stantial amounts of mud or clay, marble or brick dust,
or even sawdust, and an array of additives ranging
from animal blood or urine, to eggs, keratin or gluesize
(animal hooves and horns), varnish, wheat paste,
sugar, salt, sodium silicate, alum, tallow, linseed oil,
beeswax, and wine, beer, or rye whiskey. Waxes, fats
and oils were included to introduce water-repellent
properties, sugary materials reduced the amount of
water needed and slowed down the setting time, and
alcohol acted as an air entrainer. All of these additives
contributed to the strength and durability of the stucco.
The appearance of much stucco was determined by the
color of the sand-or sometimes burnt clay, used in the
mix, but often stucco was also tinted with natural pig-
ments, or the surface whitewashed or colorwashed
after stuccoing was completed. Brick dust could pro-
vide color, and other coloring materials that were not
affected by lime, mostly mineral pigments, could be
added to the mix for the final finish coat. Stucco was
also marbled or marbleized-stained to look like stone
by diluting oil of vitriol (sulfuric acid) with water, and
mixing this with a yellow ochre, or another color (Fig.
6). As the twentieth century progressed, manufactured
or synthetic pigments were added at the factory to
some prepared stucco mixes.
Methods of Application
Stucco is applied directly, without lath, to masonry
substrates such as brick, stone, concrete or hollow tile
(Fig. 7). But on wood structures, stucco, like its interior
counterpart plaster, must be applied over lath in order
to obtain an adequate key to hold the stucco. Thus,
when applied over a log structure, stucco is laid on
horizontal wood lath that has been nailed on vertical
wood furring strips attached to the logs (Fig. 8). If it is
applied over a wood frame structure, stucco may be
applied to wood or metal lath nailed directly to the
wood frame; it may also be placed on lath that has
been attached to furring strips. The furring strips are
themselves laid over building paper covering the wood
sheathing (Fig. 9). Wood lath was gradually super-
seded by expanded metal lath introduced in the
late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century. When
stuccoing over a stone or brick substrate, it was cus-
tomary to cut back or rake out the mortar joints if they
were not already recessed by natural weathering or
Fig. 6. Arlington House, Arlington, Virginia, was built between 1802-1818 of brick covered with stucco. It was designed by George
Hadfield for George Washington Parke Custis, grandson of Martha Washington, and was later the home of Robert E. Lee. This
photograph taken on June 28, 1864, by Captain Andrew f. Russell, a U. S. Signal Corps photographer, shows the stucco after it had
been marbleized during the 1850's. Yellow ochre and burnt umber pigments were combined to imitate Sienna marble, and the stucco,
with the exception of the roughcast foundation, was scored to heighten the illusion of stone. Photo: National Archives, Arlington
House Collection, National Park Service.
4
Fig. 7. Patches of stucco have fallen off this derelict 19th
century structure exposing the rough-cut local stone
substrate. The missing wood entablature on the side and the
rough wood lintel now exposed above a second-floor window,
offer clues that the building was stuccoed originally. Photo:
National Park Service Files.
Fig. 8. Removal of deteriorated stucco in preparation for
stucco repair on this late-18th century log house in
Middleway, West Virginia, reveals that the stucco was
applied to hand-riven wood lath nailed over vertical wood
strips attached to the logs. Photo : Anne Grimmer.
Fig. 9. This cutaway drawing shows the method of
attachment for stucco commonly used on wood frame or
balloon frame structures from the late-19th to the 20th
century. Drawing: Brian Conway, "Illinois Preservation
Series Number 2: Stucco. "
erosion, and sometimes the bricks themselves were
gouged to provide a key for the stucco. This helped
provide the necessary bond for the stucco to remain
attached to the masonry, much like the key provided
by wood or metal lath on frame buildings.
Like interior wall plaster, stucco has traditionally been
applied as a multiple-layer process, sometimes con-
sisting of two coats, but more commonly as three.
Whether applied directly to a masonry substrate or
onto wood or metal lath, this consists of a first
"scratch" or "pricking-up" coat, followed by a second
scratch coat, sometimes referred to as a "floating" or
"brown" coat, followed finally by the "finishing" coat.
Up until the late-nineteenth century, the first and the
second coats were of much the same composition, gen-
erally consisting of lime, or natural cement, sand, per-
haps clay, and one or more of the additives previously
mentioned. Straw or animal hair was usually added to
the first coat as a binder. The third, or finishing coat,
consisted primarily of a very fine mesh grade of lime
and sand, and sometimes pigment. As already noted,
after the 1820's, natural cement was also a common
ingredient in stucco until it was replaced by portland
cement.
5
A B
---I ~
-
c o
Fig. 10. (a) Tudor Place, Washington, D.C. (1805-1816), was designed by Dr. William Thornton. Like its contemporary, Arlington
House, it is stuccoed and scored, with a roughcast base, but here the stucco is a monochromatic sandstone color tinted by sand and
mineral pigments (b). Although the original stucco was replaced in the early-20th century with a portland cement-based stucco, the
family, who retained ownership until 1984 when the house was opened to the public, left explicit instructions for future stucco
repairs. The mix recommended for repairing hairline cracks (c), consists of sharp sand, cement and lime, burnt umber, burnt sienna,
and a small amount of raw sienna. Preparation of numerous test samples, the size of "a thick griddle cake," will be necessary to
match the stucco color, and when the exact color has been achieved, the mixture is to be diluted to the "consistency of cream,"
brushed on the wall and rubbed into the cracks with a rubber sponge or float . Note the dark color visible under the eaves intended to
replicate the stronger color of the originallimewashed stucco (d). Photos: Anne Grimmer.
6
Both masonry and wood lath must be kept wet or
damp to ensure a good bond with the stucco. Wetting
these materials helps to prevent them from pulling
moisture out of the stucco too rapidly, which results in
cracking, loss of bond, and generally poor quality
stuccowork.
Traditional Stucco Finishes
Until the early-twentieth century when a variety of
novelty finishes or textures were introduced, the last
coat of stucco was commonly given a smooth, troweled
finish, and then scored or lined in imitation of ashlar.
The illusion of masonry joints was sometimes en-
hanced by a thin line of white lime putty, graphite, or
some other pigment. Some nineteenth century build-
ings feature a water table or raised foundation of
rough-cast stucco that differentiates it from the stucco
surface above, which is smooth and scored (Fig. 10).
Other novelty or textured finishes associated with the
"period" or revival styles of the early-twentieth century
include: the English cottage finish, adobe and Spanish,
pebble-dashed or dry-dash surface, fan and sponge
texture, reticulated and vermiculated, roughcast (or wet
dash), and sgraffito (Fig. 11).
Repairing Deteriorated Stucco
Regular Maintenance
Although A. J. Downing alluded to stuccoed houses in
Pennsylvania that had survived for over a century in
relatively good condition, historic stucco is inherently
not a particularly permanent or long-lasting building
material. Regular maintenance is required to keep it in
good condition. Unfortunately, many older or historic
buildings are not always accorded this kind of care.
Because building owners knew stucco to be a protect-
ive, but also somewhat fragile coating, they employed a
variety of means to prolong its usefulness. The most
common treatment was to whitewash stucco, often
annually. The lime in the whitewash offered protection
and stability and helped to harden the stucco. Most
importantly, it filled hairline cracks before they could
develop into larger cracks and let in moisture. To im-
prove water repellency, stucco buildings were also
sometimes coated with paraffin, another type of wax,
or other stucco-like coatings, such as oil mastics.
Assessing Damage
Most stucco deterioration is the result of water infiltra-
tion into the building structure, either through the
roof, around chimneys, window and door openings, or
excessive ground water or moisture penetrating
through, or splashing up from the foundation. Poten-
tial causes of deterioration include: ground settlement,
lintel and door frame settlement, inadequate or leaking
gutters and downspouts, intrusive vegetation, moisture
migration within walls due to interior condensation
and humidity, vapor drive problems caused by furnace,
bathroom and kitchen vents, and rising damp resulting
from excessive ground water and poor drainage around
the foundation. Water infiltration will cause wood lath
to rot, and metal lath and nails to rust, which eventu-
Fig. 11. The Hotel Washington, Washington, D. C.
(1916-1917), is notable for its decorative sgraffito surfaces.
Stucco panels under the comice and around the windows
feature classical designs created by artists who incised the
patterns in the outer layer of red-colored stucco while still
soft, thereby exposing a stucco undercoat of a contrasting
color. Photo: Kaye Ellen Sill1onson.
ally will cause stucco to lose its bond and pull away
from its substrate.
After the cause of deterioration has been identified,
any necessary repairs to the building should be made
first before repairing the stucco. Such work is likely to
include repairs designed to keep excessive water away
from the stucco, such as roof, gutter, downspout and
flashing repairs, improving drainage, and redirecting
rainwater runoff and splash-back away from the build-
ing. Horizontal areas such as the tops of parapet walls
or chimneys are particularly vulnerable to water infil-
tration, and may require modifications to their original
design, such as the addition of flashing to correct the
problem.
Previous repairs inexpertly carried out may have
caused additional deterioration, particularly if executed
in portland cement, which tends to be very rigid, and
therefore incompatible with early, mostly soft lime-
based stucco that is more "flexible ." [ncompatible
7
repairs, external vibration caused by traffic or con-
struction, or building settlement can also result in
cracks which permit the entrance of water and cause
the stucco to fail (Fig. 12).
Before beginning any stucco repair, an assessment of
the stucco should be undertaken to determine the ex-
tent of the damage, and how much must be replaced
or repaired. Testing should be carried out systemati-
cally on all elevations of the building to determine the
overall condition of the stucco. Some areas in need of
repair will be clearly evidenced by missing sections of
stucco or stucco layers. Bulging or cracked areas are
obvious places to begin. Unsound, punky or soft areas
that have lost their key will echo with a hollow sound
when tapped gently with a wooden or acrylic hammer
or mallet.
Identifying the Stucco Type
Analysis of the historic stucco will provide useful infor-
mation on its primary ingredients and their propor-
tions, and will help to ensure that the new replacement
stucco will duplicate the old in strength, composition,
color and texture as closely as possible. However, un-
less authentic, period restoration is required, it may not
be worthwhile, nor in many instances possible, to at-
tempt to duplicate all of the ingredients (particularly
some of the additives), in creating the new stucco mor-
tar. Some items are no longer available, and others,
notably sand and lime-the major components of tradi-
tional stucco-have changed radically over time. For
example, most sand used in contemporary masonry
work is manufactured sand, because river sand, which
was used historically, is difficult to obtain today in
many parts of the country. The physical and visual
qualities of manufactured sand versus river sand, are
quite different, and this affects the way stucco works,
as well as the way it looks. The same is true of lime,
which is frequently replaced by gypsum in modern
stucco mixes. And even if identification of all the items
in the historic stucco mix were possible, the analysis
would still not reveal how the original stucco was
mixed and applied.
There are, however, simple tests that can be carried out
on a small piece of stucco to determine its basic make-
up. A dilute solution of hydrochloric (muriatic) acid
will dissolve lime-based stucco, but not portland ce-
ment. Although the use of portland cement became
common after 1900, there are no precise cut-off dates,
'as stuccoing practices varied among individual plaster-
ers, and from region to region. Some plasterers began
using portland cement in the 1880's, but others may
have continued to favor lime stucco well into the early-
twentieth century. While it is safe to assume that a
late-eighteenth or early-nineteenth century stucco is
lime-based, late-nineteenth or early-twentieth century
Fig. 12. (a) Water intrusion caused by rusting metal, or (b) plant growth left unattended will gradually enlarge these cracks,
resulting in spalling, and eventually requiring extensive repair of the stucco. Photos: National Park Service Files.
8
-
Fig. 13. (a) In preparation for repainting, hairline cracks on this Mediterranean style stucco apartment building were filled with a
commercial caulking compound; (b) dirt is attracted and adheres to the texture of the caulked areas, and a year after painting, these
inappropriate repairs are highly obvious. Photos: Anne Grimmer.
stucco may be based on either lime or portland cement.
Another important factor to take into consideration is
that an early lime-stucco building is likely to have been
repaired many times over the ensuing years, and it is
probable that at least some of these patches consist of
portland cement.
Planning the Repair
Once the extent of damage has been determined, a
number of repair options may be considered. Small
hairline cracks usually are not serious and may be
sealed with a thin slurry coat consisting of the finish
coat ingredients, or even with a coat of paint or white-
wash. Commercially available caulking compounds are
not suitable materials for patching hairline cracks. Be-
cause their consistency and texture is unlike that of
stucco, they tend to weather differently, and attract
more dirt; as a result, repairs made with caulking com-
pounds may be highly visible, and unsightly (Fig. 13).
Larger cracks will have to be cut out in preparation for
more extensive repair. Most stucco repairs will require
the skill and expertise of a professional plasterer (Fig.
14).
In the interest of saving or preserving as much as pos-
sible of the historic stucco, patching rather than whole-
sale replacement is preferable. When repairing heavily
textured surfaces, it is not usually necessary to replace
an entire wall section, as the textured finish, if well-
executed, tends to conceal patches, and helps them to
blend in with the existing stucco. However, because of
the nature of smooth-finished stucco, patching a num-
ber of small areas scattered over one elevation may not
be a successful repair approach unless the stucco has
been previously painted, or is to be painted following
the repair work. On unpainted stucco such patches are
hard to conceal, because they may not match exactly or
blend in with the rest of the historic stucco surface. For
Fig. 14. This poorly executed patch is not the work of a
professional plasterer. While it may serve to keep out water, it
does not match the original surface, and is not an appropriate
repair for historic stucco. Photo: Betsy Chittenden.
this reason it is recommended, if possible, that stucco
repair be carried out in a contained or well-defined
area, or if the stucco is scored, the repair patch should
be "squared-off" in such a way as to follow existing
scoring. In some cases, especially in a highly visible
location, it may be preferable to restucco an entire wall
section or feature. In this way, any differences between
the patched area and the historic surface will not be so
readily apparent.
Repair of historic stucco generally follows most of the
same principles used in plaster repair. First, all deterio-
rated, severely cracked and loose stucco should be re-
moved down to the lath (assuming that the lath is
securely attached to the substrate), or down to the ma-
sonry if the stucco is directly applied to a masonry
substrate. A clean surface is necessary to obtain a good
9
bond bet\'veen the stucco and substrate. The areas to be
patched should be cleaned of all debris with a bristle
brush, and all plant growth, dirt, loose paint, oil or
grease should be removed (Fig. 15). If necessary, brick
or stone mortar joints should then be raked out to a
depth of approximately 5/8" to ensure a good bond
between the substrate and the new stucco.
To obtain a neat repair, the area to be patched should
be squared-off with a butt joint, using a cold chisel, a
hatchet, a diamond blade saw, or a masonry bit. Some-
times it may be preferable to leave the area to be
patched in an irregular shape which may result in a
less conspicuous patch. Proper preparation of the area
to be patched requires very sharp tools, and extreme
caution on the part of the plasterer not to break keys of
surrounding good stucco by "over-sounding" when
removing deteriorated stucco. To ensure a firm bond,
the ne~ patch must not overlap the old stucco. If the
stucco has lost its bond or key from wood lath, or the
lath has deteriorated or come loose from the substrate,
a decision must be made whether to try to reattach the
old lath, to replace deteriorated lath with new wood
lath, or to leave the historic wood lath in place and
supplement it with modern expanded metal lath. Un-
less authenticity is important, it is generally preferable
(and easier) to nail new metal lath over the old wood
lath to support the patch. Metal lath that is no longer
securely fastened to the substrate may be removed and
replaced in kind, or left in place, and supplemented
with new wire lath.
When repairing lime-based stucco applied directly to
masonry, the new stucco should be applied in the same
manner, directly onto the stone or brick. The stucco
will bond onto the masonry itself without the addition
of lath because of the irregularities in the masonry or
those of its mortar joints, or because its surface has
been scratched, scored or otherwise roughened to pro-
vide an additional key. Cutting out the old stucco at a
diagonal angle may also help secure the bond between
the new and the old stucco. For the most part it is not
advisable to insert metal lath when restuccoing historic
masonry in sound condition, as it can hasten deteriora-
tion of the repair work. Not only will attaching the lath
damage the masonry, but the slightest moisture pene-
tration can cause metal lath to rust. This will cause
metal to expand, eventually resulting in spalling of the
stucco, and possibly the masonry substrate too.
If the area to be patched is properly cleaned and pre-
pared, a bonding agent is usually not necessary. How-
ever, a bonding agent may be useful when repairing
hairline cracks, or when dealing with substrates that do
not offer a good bonding surface. These may include
dense stone or brick, previously painted or stuccoed
Fig. 15. (a) After reattaching any loose wood lath to the furring. strips underneath, the a:ea to be patched has been cleaned, the lath
thoroughly wetted, and (b) the first coat of stucco has been applzed and scratched to provide a key to hold the second layer of stucco.
Photos: Betsy Chittenden.
10
masonry, or spalling brick substrates. A good mechani-
cal bond is always preferable to reliance on bonding
agents. Bonding agents should not be used on a wall
that is likely to remain damp or where large amounts
of salts are present. Many bonding agents do not sur-
vive well under such conditions, and their use could
jeopardize the longevity of the stucco repair.
A stucco mix compatible with the historic stucco
should be selected after analyzing the existing stucco. It
can be adapted from a standard traditional mix of the
period, or based on one of the mixes included here.
Stucco consisting mostly of portland cement generally
will not be physically compatible with the softer, more
flexible lime-rich historic stuccos used throughout the
eighteenth and much of the nineteenth centuries. The
differing expansion and contraction rates of lime stucco
and portland cement stucco will normally cause the
stucco to crack. Choosing a stucco mix that is durable
and compatible with the historic stucco on the building
is likely to involve considerable trial and error, and
probably will require a number of test samples, and
even more if it is necessary to match the color. It is
best to let the stucco test samples weather as long as
possible-ideally one year, or at least through a change
of seasons, in order to study the durability of the mix
and its compatibility with the existing stucco, as well as
the weathering of the tint if the building will not be
painted and'color match is an important factor. If the
test samples are not executed on the building, they
should be placed next to the stucco remaining on the
building to compare the color, texture and composition
of the samples with the original. The number and
thickness of stucco coats used in the repair should also
match the original.
After thoroughly dampening the masonry or wood
lath, the first, scratch coat should be applied to the
masonry substrate, or wood or metal lath, in a thick-
ness that corresponds to the original if extant, or gener-
ally about 1/4" to 3/8" . The scratch coat should be
scratched or cross-hatched with a comb to provide a
key to hold the second coat. It usually takes 24-72
hours, and longer in cold weather, for each coat to dry
before the next coat can be applied. The second coat
should be about the same thickness as the first, and
the total thickness of the first two coats should gener-
ally not exceed about 5/8". This second or leveling coat
should be roughened using a wood float with a nail
protruding to provide a key for the final or finish coat.
The finish coat, about 1/4" thick, is applied after the
previous coat has initially set. If this is not feasible, the
base coat should be thoroughly dampened when the
finish coat is applied later. The finish coat should be
worked to match the texture of the original stucco (Fig.
16).
Colors and Tints for Historic Stucco Repair
The color of most early stucco was supplied by the
aggregate included in the mix-usually the sand.
Sometimes natural pigments were added to the mix,
and eighteenth and nineteenth-century scored stucco
was often marbleized or painted in imitation of marble
or granite. Stucco was also frequently coated with
whitewash or a colorwash. This tradition later evolved
into the use of paint, its popularity depending on the
vagaries of fashion as much as a means of concealing
repairs. Because most of the early colors were derived
from nature, the resultant stucco tints tended to be
mostly earth-toned. This was true until the advent of
brightly colored stucco in the early decades of the
twentieth century. This was the so-called "Jazz Plaster"
developed by O.A. Malone, the "man who put color
into California," and who founded the California
Stucco Products Corporation in 1927. California Stucco
was revolutionary for its time as the first stucco/plaster
to contain colored pigment in its pre-packaged factory
mix.
When patching or repairing a historic stucco surface
known to have been tinted, it may be possible to deter-
mine through visual or microscopic analysis whether
the source of the coloring is sand, cement or pigment.
Although some pigments or aggregates used tradition-
ally may no longer be available, a sufficiently close
color-match can generally be approximated using sand,
natural or mineral pigments, or a combination of these.
Obtaining such a match will require testing and com-
paring the color of dried test samples with the original.
Successfully combining pigments in the dry stucco mix
prepared for the finish coat requires considerable skill.
The amount of pigment must be carefully measured for
each batch of stucco. Overworking the mix can make
the pigment separate from the lime. Changing the
amount of water added to the mix, or using water to
apply the tinted finish coat, will also affect the color of
the stucco when it dries.
Generally, the color obtained by hand-mixing these
ingredients will provide a sufficiently close match to
cover an entire wall or an area distinct enough from the
rest of the structure that the color differences will not
be obvious. However, it may not work for small
patches conspicuously located on a primary elevation,
where color differences will be especially noticeable. In
these instances, it may be necessary to conceal the
repairs by painting the entire patched elevation, or
even the whole building.
Many stucco buildings have been painted over the
years and will require repainting after the stucco re-
pairs have been made. Limewash or cement-based
paint, latex paint, or oil-based paint are appropriate
coatings for stucco buildings. The most important fac-
tor to consider when repainting a previously painted or
coated surface is that the new paint be compatible with
any coating already on the surface. In preparation for
repainting, all loose or peeling paint or other coating
material not firmly adhered to the stucco must be re-
moved by hand-scraping or natural bristle brushes. The
surface should then be cleaned.
Cement-based paints, most of which today contain
some portland cement and are really a type of lime-
wash, have traditionally been used on stucco buildings.
The ingredients were easily obtainable. Furthermore,
the lime in such paints actually bonded or joined with
the stucco and provided a very durable coating. In
many regions, whitewash was applied annually during
spring cleaning. Modern, commercially available pre-
mixed masonry and mineral-based paints may also be
used on historic stucco buildings.
11
Fig. A Fig . B
..
Fig. C Fig. 0
Fig. 16. (a) In preparation for stucco repair, this plasterer is mixing the dry materials in a mortar box with a mortar hoe (note the 2
holes in the blade), pulling it through the box using short choppy strokes. After the dry materials are thoroughly combined, water
is added and mixed with them using the same choppy, but gradually lengthening stokes, making sure that the hoe cuts completely
through the mix to the bottom of the box. (b) The deteriorated stucco has been cut away, and new metal lath has been nailed to the
clapboarding in the area to be patched. (Although originally clapboarded when built in the 19th century, the house was stuccoed
around the turn-of-the-century on metal lath nailed over the clapboard.) (c) The first, scratch coat and the second coat have been
applied here, and await the spatterdash or rough-cast finish of the final coat (d) which was accomplished by the plasterer using a
whisk broom to throw the stucco mortar against the wall surface. This well-executed patch is barely discernable, and lacks only a
coat of paint to make it blend completely with the rest of the painted wall surface. Photos: Anne Grimmer.
12
If the structure must be painted for the first time to
conceal repairs, almost any of these coatings may be
acceptable depending on the situation. Latex paint, for
example, may be applied to slightly damp walls or
where there is an excess of moisture, but latex paint
will not stick to chalky or powdery areas. Oil-based, or
alkyd paints must be applied only to dry walls; new
stucco must cure up to a year before it can be painted
with oil-based paint.
Contemporary Stucco Products
There are many contemporary stucco products on the
market today. Many of them are not compatible, either
physically or visually, with historic stucco buildings.
Such products should be considered for use only after
consulting with a historic masonry specialist. However,
some of these prepackaged tinted stucco coatings may
be suitable for use on stucco buildings dating from the
late-nineteenth or early-twentieth century, as long as
the color and texture are appropriate for the period and
style of the building. While some masonry contractors
may, as a matter of course, suggest that a water-
repellent coating be applied after repairing old stucco,
in most cases this should not be necessary, since color-
washes and paints serve the same purpose, and stucco
itself is a protective coating.
Cleaning Historic Stucco Surfaces
Historic stucco buildings often exhibit multiple layers of
paint or limewash. Although some stucco surfaces may
be cleaned by water washing, the relative success of
this procedure depends on two factors: the surface
texture of the stucco, and the type of dirt to be re-
moved. If simply removing airborne dirt, smooth un-
painted stucco, and heavily-textured painted stucco
may sometimes be cleaned using a low-pressure water
wash, supplemented by scrubbing with soft natural
bristle brushes, and possibly non-ionic detergents.
Organic plant material, such as algae and mold, and
metallic stains may be removed from stucco using poul-
tices and appropriate solvents. Although these same
methods may be employed to clean unpainted rough-
cast, pebble-dash, or any stucco surface featuring ex-
posed aggregate, due to the surface irregularities, it
may be difficult to remove dirt, without also removing
portions of the decorative textured surface. Difficulty in
cleaning these surfaces may explain why so many of
these textured surfaces have been painted.
When Total Replacement is Necessary
Complete replacement of the historic stucco with new
stucco of either a traditional or modern mix will proba-
bly be necessary only in cases of extreme deterioration-
that is, a loss of bond on over 40-50 per cent of the
stucco surface. Another reason for total removal might
be that the physical and visual integrity of the historic
stucco has been so compromised by prior incompatible
and ill-conceived repairs that patching would not be
successful.
When stucco no longer exists on a building there is
more flexibility in choosing a suitable mix for the re-
placement. Since compatibility of old and new stucco
will not be an issue, the most important factors to con-
sider are durability, color, texture and finish . Depend-
ing on the construction and substrate of the building,
in some instances it may be acceptable to use a rela-
tively strong cement-based stucco mortar. This is cer-
tainly true for many late-nineteenth and early-twentieth
century buildings, and may even be appropriate to use
on some stone substrates even if the original mortar
would have been weaker, as long as the historic visual
qualities noted above have been replicated. Generally,
the best principle to follow for a masonry building is
that the stucco mix, whether for repair or replacement
of historic stucco, should be somewhat weaker than the
masonry to which it is to be applied in order not to
damage the substrate.
General Guidance for Historic Stucco Repair
A skilled professional plasterer will be familiar
with the properties of materials involved in stucco
repair and will be able to avoid some of the pit-
falls that would hinder someone less experienced.
General suggestions for successful stucco repair
parallel those involving restoration and repair of
historic mortar or plaster. In addition, the follow-
ing principles are important to remember:
• Mix only as much stucco as can be used in one
and one-half to two hours. This will depend on
the weather (mortar will harden faster under hot
and dry, or sunny conditions); and experience is
likely to be the best guidance. Any remaining
mortar should be discarded; it should not be
retempered.
• Stucco mortar should not be over-mixed. (Hand
mix for 10-15 minutes after adding water, or ma-
chine mix for 3-4 minutes after all ingredients are
in mixer.) Over-mixing can cause crazing and
discoloration, especially in tinted mortars. Over-
mixing will also tend to make the mortar set too
fast, which will result in cracking and poor bond-
ing or keying to the lath or masonry substrate.
• Wood lath or a masonry substrate, but not metal
lath, must be thoroughly wetted before applying
stucco patches so that it does not draw moisture
out of the stucco too rapidly. To a certain extent,
bonding agents also serve this same purpose.
Wetting the substrate helps retard drying.
• To prevent cracking, it is imperative that stucco
not dry too fast. Therefore, the area to be stuc-
coed should be shaded, or even covered if possi-
ble, particularly in hot weather. It is also a good
idea in hot weather to keep the newly stuccoed
area damp, at approximately 90 per cent humidity,
for a period of 48 to 72 hours.
• Stucco repairs, like most other exterior masonry
work, should not be undertaken in cold weather
(below 40 degrees fahrenheit, and preferably
warmer), or if there is danger of frost.
13
14
Historic Stucco Textures
Most of the oldest stucco in the U.S. dating prior to
the late-nineteenth century, will generally have a
smooth, troweled finish (sometimes called a sand or
float finish), possibly scored to resemble ashlar ma-
sonry units. Scoring may be incised to simulate ma-
sonry joints, the scored lines may be emphasized by
black or white penciling, or the lines may simply be
drawn or painted on the surface of the stucco. In
some regions, at least as early as the first decades of
the nineteenth century, it was not uncommon to use
a roughcast finish on the foundation or base of an
otherwise smooth-surfaced building (Fig. a). Rough-
cast was also used as all overall stucco finish for
some outbuildings, and other less important types
of structures.
A wide variety of decorative surface textures may be
found on revival style stucco buildings, particularly
residential architecture. These styles evolved in the
late-nineteenth century and peaked in popularity in
the early decades of the twentieth century. Frank
Lloyd Wright favored a smooth finish stucco, which
was imitated on much of the Prairie style architec-
ture inspired by his work. Some of the more pictur-
esque surface textures include: English Cottage or
English Cotswold finish; sponge finish (Fig. b); fan
texture; adobe finish (Fig. c), and Spanish or Italian
---
Fig. A Fig. B
Fig. 0 Fig. E
finish. Many of these finishes and countless other
regional and personalized variations on them are
still in use.
The most common early-twentieth century stucco
finishes are often found on bungalow-style houses,
and include: spatter or spatterdash (sometimes
called roughcast, harling, or wetdash), and pebble-
dash or drydash. The spatterdash finish is applied
by throwing the stucco mortar against the wall using
a whisk broom or a stiff fiber brush, and it requires
considerable skill on the part of the plasterer to
achieve a consistently rough wall surface. The mor-
tar used to obtain this texture is usually composed
simply of a regular sand, lime, and cement mortar,
although it may sometimes contain small pebbles or
crushed stone aggregate, which replaces one-half
the normal sand content. The pebbledash or dry-
dash finish is accomplished manually by the plas-
terer throwing or "dashing" dry pebbles (about 1/8"
to 1/4" in size), onto a coat of stucco freshly applied
by another plasterer. The pebbles must be thrown at
the wall with a scoop with sufficient force and skill
that they will stick to the stuccoed wall. A more
even or uniform surface can be achieved by patting
the stones down with a wooden float. This finish
may also be created using a texturing machine (Figs.
d-f illustrate 3 versions of this finish. Photos:
National Park Service Files).
Fig. C
Fig. F
Summary
Stucco on historic buildings is especially vulnerable not
only to the wear of time and exposure to the elements,
but also at the hands of well-intentioned "restorers;'
who may want to remove stucco from eighteenth and
nineteenth century structures, to expose what they
believe to be the original or more "historic" brick,
stone or log underneath. Historic stucco is a character-
defining feature and should be considered an impor-
tant historic building material, significant in its own
right. While many eighteenth and nineteenth century
buildings were stuccoed at the time of construction,
others were stuccoed later for reasons of fashion or
practicality. As such, it is likely that this stucco has
acquired significance over time, as part of the history
and evolution of a building. Thus, even later, non-
historic stucco should be retained in most instances;
and similar logic dictates that new stucco should not be
applied to a historic building that was not stuccoed
previously. When repairing historic stucco, the new
stucco should duplicate the old as closely as possible in
strength, composition, color and texture.
Mixes for Repair of Historic Stucco
Historic stucco mixes varied a great deal region-
ally, depending as they did on the availability of
local materials. There are probably almost as
many mixes that can be used for repair of historic
stucco as there are historic stucco buildings. For
this reason it is recommended that at least a rudi-
mentary analysis of the existing historic stucco be
carried out in order to determine its general pro-
portions and primary ingredients. However, if
this is not possible, or if test results are inconclu-
sive, the following mixes are provided as refer-
ence. Many of the publications listed under
"Selected Reading" include a variety of stucco
mixes and should also be consulted for additional
guidance.
Materials Specifications should conform to those
contained in Preservation Briefs 2: Repainting Mortar
Joints in Historic Brick Buildings, and are as follows:
• Lime should conform to ASTM C-207, Type S,
Hydrated Lime for Masonry Purpos~s.
• Sand should conform to ASTM C-144 to assure
proper gradation and freedom from impurities.
Sand, or other type of aggregate, should match
the original as closely as possible.
• Cement should conform to ASTM C-lS0, Type
II (white, non-staining), portland cement.
• Water should be fresh, clean and potable.
• If hair or fiber is used, it should be goat or cattle
hair, or pure manilla fiber of good quality, 1/2"
to 2" in length, clean, and free of dust, dirt, oil,
grease or other impurities.
• Rules to remember: More lime will make the
mixture more plastic, but stucco mortar with a
very large proportion of lime to sand is more
likely to crack because of greater shrinkage; it is
also weaker and slower to set. More sand or
aggregate, will minimize shrinkage, but make
the mixture harder to trowel smooth, and will
weaken the mortar.
Soft Lime Stucco (suitable for application to
buildings dating from 1700-1850)
A.f. Downing's Recipe for 50ft Lime Stucco
1 part lime
2 parts sand
(A.J. Downing, "The Architecture of Country Houses," 1850)
Vieux Carre Masonnj Maintenance Guidelines
Base Coats (2):
1 part by volume hydrated lime
3 parts by volume aggregate [sand]-size to match original
6 pounds/cubic yards hair or fiber
Water to form a workable mix.
Finish Coat:
1 part by volume hydrated lime
3 parts aggregate [sand]-size to match original
Water to form a workable mix.
Note: No portland cement is recommended in this mix, but if
it is needed to increase the workability of the mix and to de-
crease the setting time, the amount of portland cement added
should never exceed 1 part to 12 parts lime and sand.
("Vieux Carre Masonry Maintenance Guidelines;' June, 1980.)
"Materials for 50ft Brick Mortar and for 50ft Stucco"
5 gallons hydrated lime
10 gallons sand
1 quart white, non-staining portland cement (1 cup only for
pointing)
Water to form a workable mix.
(Koch and Wilson, Architects, New Orleans, Louisiana, Febru-
ary, 1980)
Mix f9r Repair of Traditional Natural Cement or Hy-draulic LIme Stucco
part by volume hydrated lime
2 parts by volume white portland cement
3 parts by volume fine mason's sand
If hydrauliC lime is available, it may be used instead of lime-
cement blends.
("Conservation Techniques for the Repair of Historical Orna-
mental Exterior Stucco, January, 1990)
Early-twentieth century Portland Cement Stucco
1 part portland cement
21/2 parts sand
Hydrated lime = to not more than 15% of the cement's vol-
ume
Water to form a workable mix.
The same basic mix was used for all coats, but the finish coat
generally contained more lime than the undercoats. ("lIIinois
Preservation Series No.2: Stucco," January, 1980)
American Portland Cement Stucco Specifications
(c. 1929)
Base Coats:
5 pounds, dry, hydrated lime
1 bag portland cement (94 lbs.)
Not less than 3 cubic feet (3 bags) sand (passed through a IR
screen)
Water to make a workable mix.
Finish Coat:
Use WHITE portland cement in the mix in the same propor-
tions as above.
To color the stucco add not more than 10 pounds pigment for
each bag of cement contained in the mix.
15
Selected Reading
Ashurst, john, and Nicola Ashurst. Practical Building Conservatioll,
[IISlisli Heritas" Tecllllical Halld/1ook, Volullle 3. Mortars, Plasters and
l~elld('Ys. New York: Halsted Press, 1988.
Conway, Brian D. Illinois Preservatiol1 Series Number 2: Stucco.
Springfield, IL: lIIinois Department of Conservation, Division of
Historic Sites, 1980.
Grimmer, Anne E. Keeping it Cleal1: Removil1g Exterior Dirt, Pail1t,
Staills alld Graffiti from Historic Masol1nj Buildil1gs. Washington,
D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988.
Hodgson, Frederick T. Plaster al1d Plasteril1g. Mortars al1d Cements, How
to Make, ulld How to Use ... with An Illustrated Glossary of Terms.
New York: The Industrial Publication Company, 1901.
johnson, leRoy, jr. (editor). Handbook of Maintenance Techniques for
Buildillg Conservation in the Strand Historic District, Galveston, Texas.
(Revised edition originally published in 1980 as Preservation
Maintenance Handbook, prepared by Michael Emrick, AlA, for the
Galveston Historical Foundation.) Austin, TX: Texas Historical
Commission, 1984.
jowers, Walter. "Bungalow Building Materials: How to Repair
Stucco." The Old-House Jou mal. Vol. XIII, No.4 (May 1985), pp.
80-83.
MacDonald, Marylee. Preservation Briefs 21: Repairing Historic Flat
Plaster-Walls and Ceilings. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1989.
Mack, Robert c., AlA, de Teel Patterson Tiller, and James S. Askins.
Preservation Briefs 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Brick
Buildings. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1980.
McKee, Harley J., FAIA. Introduction to Early American Masonry-Stone,
Brick, Mortar alld Plaster. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for
Historic Preservation and Columbia University, 1973.
Matero, Frank G., Mary Hardy, Antonio Rava and Joel Snodgrass.
Conservation Techniques for the Repair of Historical Ornamental Exterior
Stucco. (With a Case Study for the Repair of the Cabildo Pedimental
Sculpture). Report prepared for the Division of Historic
Preservation, Office of Cultural Development, Louisiana
Department of Culture, Recreation and Development by The
Center for Preservation Research, Columbia UniverSity, New York.
january 1990.
16
Portland Cement Plaster (Stucco) Manual. Skokie, IL: Portland Cement
Association, 1980.
Van Den Branden, E, and Thomas L. Hartsell. Plastering Skills.
Second edition. Homewood, IL: American Technical Publishers,
Inc., 1984.
Vieux Carre Masonry Maintenance Guidelines. Revised from the initial
report prepared by Mary L. Oehrlein in 1977. New Orleans, LA:
Vieux Carre Commission, 1980.
Whitewash & Coldwater Paints. Bulletin No. 304-G. Washington, D.C.:
National Lime Association, 1955.
Worsham, Gibson. "Exterior Plaster Restoration at the Lord Morton
House, Lexington, Kentucky." Association for Preservation Technology
Bulletin. Vol. XIII, No.4 (1981), pp. 27-33.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the technical expertise contributed to the
preparation of this publication by Gilbert Wolf, National Plastering Industries;
Walter Jowers; Brian Conway, Michigan Bureau of History; and master
plasterer, Lawrence Ring, Sr. In addition, invaluable comments were provided
by Michael Auer, Charles Fisher, Lauren Meier, Sharon Park, and Kay Weeks,
professional staff of the Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park
Service; professional staff of the Cultural Resources program, Mid-Atlantic
Regional Office, National Park Service; and S. Elizabeth Sasser of the
Williamsport Preservation Training Center, National Park Service.
This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the
Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic
properties. Comments on the usefulness of this publication may be directed to
H. Ward Jandl, Chief, Technical Preservation Services Branch, Preservation
Assistance Division, National Park Service, P.o. Box 37127, Washington, D.C.
20013-7127. This publication is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without
penalty. Normal procedures for credit to the author and the National Park
Service are appreciated.
October 1990
Cover Photograph: St. James Church, Goose Creek, Berkeley
County, South Carolina (1713-1719), is constructed of brick
covered with stucco. Although much restored, it is notable
for its ornamental stucco detailing, including rusticated
quoins, cherub head "keystones" above the windows, flaming
hearts, and a pelican in piety-symbol of the sacrament, in
the pediment over the front door. Photo: Gary Hume.

Appendix E – The Preservation of Historic Concrete
for
Preservation Plan and Conditions Assessment
for
WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM
Greensboro, North Carolina

The City of Greensboro, North Carolina
August 2014

World War Memorial Stadium circa 1929
15 PRESERVATION
BRIEFS
Preservation of Historic Concrete
Paul Gaudette and Deborah Slaton
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Introduction to Historic Concrete
Concrete is an extraordinarily versatile building material
used for utilitarian, ornamental, and monumental
structures since ancient times. Composed of a mixture
of sand, gravel, crushed stone, or other coarse material,
bound together with lime or cement, concrete undergoes
a chemical reaction and hardens when water is added.
Inserting reinforcement adds tensile strength to
structural concrete elements. The use of reinforcement
contributes significantly to the range and size of
building and structure types that can be constructed
with concrete.
While early twentieth century proponents of modern
concrete often considered it to be permanent, it is,
like all materials, subject to deterioration. This Brief
provides an overview of the history of concrete and
its popularization in the United States, surveys the
principal causes and modes of concrete deterioration,
and outlines approaches to repair and protection that
are appropriate to historic concrete. In the context of this
Brief, historic concrete is considered to be concrete used
in construction of structures of historical, architectural,
or engineering interest, whether those structures are old
or relatively new.
Brief History of Use and Manufacture
The ancient Romans found that a mixture of lime putty
and pozzolana, a fine volcanic ash, would harden
under water. The resulting hydraulic cement became
a major feature of Roman building practice, and was
used in many buildings and engineering projects
such as bridges and aqueducts. Concrete technology
was kept alive during the Middle Ages in Spain and
Africa. The Spanish introduced a form of concrete to
the New World in the first decades of the sixteenth
century, referred to as "tapia" or "tabby." This material,
a mixture of lime, sand, and shell or stone aggregate
mixed with water, was placed between wooden forms,
tamped, and allowed to dry in successive layers. Tabby
was later used by the English settlers in the coastal
southeastern United States.
The early history of concrete was fragmented,
with developments in materials and construction
techniques occurring on different continents and in
various countries. In the United States, concrete was
slow in achieving widespread acceptance in building
construction and did not begin to gain popularity until
the late nineteenth century. It was more readily accepted
for use in transportation and infrastructure systems.
The Erie Canal in New York is an example of the
early use of concrete in transportation in the United
States. The natural hydraulic cement used in the canal
construction was processed from a deposit of limestone
found in 1818 near Chittenango, southeast of Syracuse.
The use of concrete in residential construction was
Figure 1. The Sebastopol House in Seguin, Texas, is an 1856 Greek
Revival-style house constructed of lime concrete. Lime concrete
or "limecrete" was a popular construction material, as it could be
made inexpensively from local materials. By 1900, the town had
approximately ninety limecrete structures, twenty of which remain.
Photo: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
1
2
Figure 2. Chatterton House was the home of the post trader at Fort
Fred Steel in Wyoming, one of several forts established in the 1860s
to protect the Union Pacific Railroad. The walls of the post trader's
house were built using stone aggregate and lime, without cement.
The use of this material presents special preservation challenges.
publicized in the second edition of Orson S. Fowler's A
Home for All (1853) which described the advantages of
"gravel wall" construction to a wide audience. The town
of Seguin, Texas, thirty-five miles east of San Antonio,
already had a number of concrete buildings by the 1850s
and came to be called "The Mother of Concrete Cities,"
with approximately ninety concrete buildings made
from local "lime water" and gravel (Fig. 1).
Impressed by the economic advantages of poured gravel
wall or "lime-grout" construction, the Quartermaster
General's Office of the War Department embarked on a
campaign to improve the quality of building for frontier
military posts. As a result, lime-grout structures were
constructed at several western posts soon after the Civil
War, including Fort Fred Steele and Fort Laramie, both
in Wyoming (Fig. 2). By the 1880s, sufficient experience
had been gained with unreinforced concrete to permit
construction of much larger buildings. A notable
example from this period is the Ponce de Leon Hotel in
St. Augustine, Florida.
Figure 3. The Lincoln Highway Association promoted construction of
a high quality continuous hard surface roadway across the country.
The Boys Scouts of America installed concrete road markers along the
Lincoln Highway in 1928.
Extensive construction in concrete also occurred through
the system of coastal fortifications commissioned by the
federal government in the 1890s for the Atlantic, Pacific,
and Gulf coasts. Unlike most concrete construction
to that time, the special requirements of coastal
fortifications called for concrete walls as much as 20 feet
thick, often at sites that were difficult to access. Major
structures in the coastal defenses of the 1890s were built
of mass concrete with no internal reinforcing, a practice
that was replaced by the use of reinforcing bars in
fortifications constructed after about 1905.
The use of reinforced concrete in the United States dates
from 1860, when S.T. Fowler obtained a patent for a
reinforced concrete wall. In the early 1870s, William E.
Ward built his own house in Port Chester, New York,
using concrete reinforced with iron rods for all structural
elements. Despite these developments, such construction
remained a novelty until after 1880, when innovations
introduced by Ernest L. Ransome made the use of
reinforced concrete more practicable. Ransome made
many contributions to the development of concrete
construction technology, including the use of twisted
reinforcing bars to improve bond between the concrete
and the steel, which he patented in 1884. Two years later,
Ransome introduced the rotary kiln to United States
cement production. The new kiln had greater capacity
and burned more thoroughly and uniformly, allowing
development of a less expensive, more uniform, and
more reliable manufactured cement. Improvements in
concrete production initiated by Ransom led to a much
greater acceptance of concrete after 1900.
The Lincoln Highway Association, incorporated in
1913, promoted the use of concrete in construction of a
coast-to-coast roadway system. The goal of the Lincoln
Highway Association and highway advocate Henry
B. Joy was to educate the country in the need for good
roads made of concrete, with an improved Lincoln
Figure 4. The highly ornamental concrete panels on the exterior
facade of the Baha'i House of Worship in Wilmette, Illinois, illustrate
the work of fabricator John J. Earley, known as "the man who made
concrete beautiful. "
Figure 5. Following World War II, architects and engineers took
advantage of improvements in concrete production, quality control,
and advances in precast concrete to design structures such as the Police
Headquarters building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, constructed in
1961. Photo: Courtesy of the Philadelphia Police Department.
Highway as an example. Concrete "seedling miles"
were constructed in remote areas to emphasize the
superiority of concrete over unimproved dirt. The
Association believed that as people learned about
concrete, they would press the government to construct
good roads throughout their states. Americans'
enthusiasm for good roads led to the involvement
of the federal government in road-building and the
creation of numbered U.S. routes in the 1920s (Fig. 3).
During the early twentieth century, Ernest Ransome
in Beverly, Massachusetts, Albert Kahn in Detroit, and
Richard E. Schmidt in Chicago, promoted concrete
for use in "Factory Style" utilitarian buildings with
an exposed concrete frame infilled with expanses
of glass. Thomas Edison's cast-in-place reinforced
concrete homes in Union Township, New Jersey
(1908), proclaimed a similarly functional emphasis
in residential construction. From the 1920s onward,
concrete began to be used with spectacular design
results: examples include John J. Earley's Meridian
Hill Park in Washington, D.C.; Louis Bourgeois'
exuberant, graceful Baha'i Temple in Wilmette, Illinois
(1920-1953), for which Earley fabricated the concrete
(Fig. 4); and Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater
near Bear Run, Pennsylvania (1934). Continuing
improvements in quality control and development
of innovative fabrication processes, such as the
Shockbeton method for precast concrete, provided
increasing opportunities for architects and engineers.
Wright's Guggenheim Museum in New York City
(1959); Geddes Brecher Qualls & Cunningham'S Police
Headquarters building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(1961); and Eero Saarinen's soaring terminal building at
Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C.,
and the TWA terminal at Kennedy Airport in New
York (1962), exemplify the masterful use of concrete
achieved in the modern era (Fig. 5).
Figure 6. The Bailey Magnet School in Jackson, Mississippi, was
designed as the Jackson Junior High School by the firm of N. W.
Overstreet & Town in 1936. The streamlined building exemplifies the
applicability of concrete to creating a modern architectural aesthetic.
Photo: Bill Burris, Burris/Wagnon Architects, P.A.
Figure 7. Detailed bas reliefs as well as sculptures, such as this lion at
the Bailey Magnet School, could be used as ornamentation on concrete
buildings. Sculptural concrete elements were typically cast in molds.
Throughout the twentieth century, a wide range of
architectural and engineering structures were built using
concrete as a practical and cost-effective choice-and
concrete also became valued for its aesthetic qualities.
Cast in place and precast concrete were readily adapted
to the Streamlined Moderne style, as exemplified by the
Bailey Magnet School in Jackson, Mississippi, designed
as the Jackson Junior High School by N.W. Overstreet
& Town in 1936 (Figs. 6 and 7). The school is one of
many concrete buildings designed and constructed
under the auspices of the Public Works Administration.
Recreational structures and landscape features also
utilized the structural range and unique character of
exposed concrete to advantage, as seen in Chicago'S
Lincoln Park Chess Pavilion, designed by Morris
Webster in 1956 (Fig. 8), and the Ira C. Keller Fountain
in Portland Oregon, designed by Lawrence Halprin in
1969 (Fig. 9). Concrete was also popular for building
interiors, with ornamental features and exposed
structural elements recognized as part of the design
aesthetic (See Figs. 10 and 11 in sidebar).
3
4
Historic Interiors
The expanded use of concrete provided new opportunities to
create dramatic spaces and ornate architectural detail on the
interiors of buildings, at a significant cost savings over traditional
construction practices. The architectural design of the Berkeley
City Club in Berkeley, California, expressed Moorish and Gothic
elements in concrete on the interior of the building (Fig. 10). Used
as a woman's social club, the building was designed by noted
California architect Julia Morgan and constructed in 1929. The
vaulted ceilings, columns, and ornamental capitals of the lobby
and the ornamental arches and beamed ceiling of the "plunge" are
all constructed of concrete.
Figure 10. The Berkeley City Club has significant interior spaces alld features of
concrete construction, including the lobby and pool. Photos: Una Gilmartin (left)
and Brian Kehoe (right), Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Illc.
The historic character of a building's interior can also be conveyed
in a more utilitarian manner in terms of concrete features and
finishes (Fig. 11). The exposed concrete structure-columns,
capitals, and drop panels-is an integral part of the character
of this old commercial building in Minneapolis. In concrete
warehouse and factory buildings of the early twentieth century,
exposed concrete columns and formboard finish concrete slab
ceilings are common features as seen in this warehouse, now
converted for use as a parking garage and shops.
Figure 11. Whether in a circa 1925 office (left) or in a parking garage
and retail facility (right), exposed concrete structures help characterize
these building interiors. Photo: Minnesota Historical Society (left).
Concrete Characteristics
Concrete is composed of fine (sand) and
coarse (crushed stone or gravel) aggregates
and paste made of portland cement and water.
The predominant material in terms of bulk is
the aggregate. Portland cement is the binder
most commonly used in modern concrete. It
is commercially manufactured by blending
limestone or chalk with clays that contain
alumina, silica, lime, iron oxide and magnesia,
and heating the compounds together to high
temperatures. The hydration process that
occurs between the portland cement and water
results in formation of an alkali paste that
surrounds and binds the aggregate together as
a solid mass.
The quality of the concrete is dependent on
the ratio of water to the binder; binder content;
sound, durable, and well-graded aggregates;
compaction during placement; and proper
curing. The amount of water used in the mix
affects the concrete permeability and strength.
The use of excess water beyond that required
in the hydration process results in more
permeable concrete, which is more susceptible
to weathering and deterioration. Admixtures
are commonly added to concrete to adjust
concrete properties such as setting or hardening
time, requirements for water, workability, and
other characteristics. For example, the advent
of air entraining agents in the 1930s provided
enhanced durability for concrete.
During the twentieth century, there was
a steady rise in the strength of ordinary
concrete as chemical processes became better
understood and quality control measures
improved. In addition, the need to protect
embedded reinforcement against corrosion
was acknowledged. Requirements for concrete
cover over reinforcing steel, increased cement
content, decreased water-cement ratio, and air
entrainment all contributed to greater concrete
strength and improved durability.
Mechanisms and Modes of
Deterioration
Causes of Deterioration
Concrete deterioration occurs primarily because
of corrosion of the embedded steel, degradation
of the concrete itself, use of improper techniques
or materials in construction, or structural
problems. The causes of concrete deterioration
must be understood in order to select an
appropriate repair and protection system.
While reinforcing steel has played a pivotal role in
expanding the applications of concrete in twentieth
century architecture, corrosion of this steel has also
caused deterioration in many historic structures.
Reinforcing steel embedded in the concrete is normally
surrounded by a passivating
oxide layer that, when present,
protects the steel from corrosion
and aids in bonding the
steel and concrete. When the
concrete's normal alkaline
environment (above a pH
of 10) is compromised and
the steel is exposed to water,
water vapor, or high relative
humidity, corrosion of the
Lack of proper maintenance of building elements
such as roofs and drainage systems can contribute to
water-related deterioration of the adjacent concrete,
particularly when concrete is saturated with water
and then exposed to freezing temperatures. As water
within the concrete freezes, it
expands and exerts forces on
the adjacent concrete. Repeated
freezing and thawing can result
in the concrete cracking and
delaminating. Such damage
appears as surface degradation,
including severe scaling and
micro-cracking that extends
into the concrete. The condition
is most often observed near
steel reinforcing takes place. A
reduction in alkalinity results
from carbonation, a process that
occurs when the carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere reacts with
calcium hydroxide and moisture
in the concrete. Carbonation
starts at the concrete's exposed
surface but may extend to the
reinforcing steel over time.
When carbonation reaches
Figure 8. The Chess Pavilion in Chicago'S Lincoln Park
was designed by architect Morris Webster and constructed
in 1956. The pavilion is a distinctive landscape feature,
with its reinforced concrete cantilevered slab that provides
cover for chess players.
the surface of the concrete but
can also eventually occur deep
within the concrete. This type
of deterioration is usually most
severe at joints, architectural
details, and other areas with
more surface exposure to
weather. In the second half of
the twentieth century, concrete
has utilized entrained air (the
incorporation of microscopic
air bubbles) to provide
enhanced protection against
damage due to cyclic freezing
of saturated concrete.
the metal reinforcement, the
concrete no longer protects the
steel from corrosion.
Corrosion of embedded
reinforcing steel may be
initiated and accelerated if
calcium chloride was added to
the concrete as a set accelerator
during original construction
to promote more rapid curing.
It may also take place if the
concrete is later exposed to
deicing salts, as may occur
during the winter in northern
climates. Seawater or other
marine environments can
Figure 9. The Ira C. Keller Fountain in Portland, Oregon,
was designed by Lawrence Halprin and constructed in
1969. The fountain is constructed primarily of concrete
pillars with formboard textures and surrounding elements,
patterned with geometric lines, which facilitate the path
The use of certain aggregates
can also result in deterioration
of the concrete. Alkali-
aggregate reactions-in some
cases alkali-silica reaction
(ASR)-occur when alkalis
normally present in cement
react with certain aggregates,
leading to the development of
an expansive crystalline gel.
When this gel is exposed to
moisture, it expands and causes of water. Photo: Anita Washko, Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc. cracking of the aggregate and
concrete matrix. Deleterious also provide large amounts
of chloride, either from
inadequately washed original aggregate or from
exposure of the concrete to seawater.
Corrosion-related damage to reinforced concrete is
the result of rust, a product of the corrosion process of
steel, which expands and thus requires more space in
the concrete than the steel did at the time of installation.
This change in volume of the steel results in expansive
forces, which cause cracking and spalling of the
adjacent concrete (Fig. 12). Other signs of corrosion of
embedded steel include delamination of the concrete
(planar separations parallel to the surface) and rust
staining (often a precursor to spalling) on the concrete
near the steel.
aggregates are typically found only in certain areas of
the country and can be detected through analysis by an
experienced petrographer. Low-alkali cements as well
as fly ash are used today in new construction to prevent
such reactions where this problem may occur.
Problems Specifically Encountered with
Historic Concrete
Materials and workmanship used in the construction
of historic concrete structures, particularly those built
before the First World War, sometimes present potential
sources of problems. For example, where the aggregate
consisted of cinder from burned coal or crushed brick,
5
6
Figure 12. The concrete lighthouse at the Kilauea Point
Light Station, Kilauea, Kauai, Hawaii, was constructed
circa 1913. The concrete, which was a good quality, high
strength mix for its day, is in good condition after almost
one hundred years in service. Deterioration in the form of
spalling related to corrosion of embedded reinforcing steel
has occurred primarily in areas of higher ornamentation
such as projecting bands and brackets (see close-up photo).
the concrete tends to be weak and porous
because these aggregates absorb water. Some of
these aggregates can be extremely susceptible
to deterioration when exposed to moisture
and cyclic freezing and thawing. Concrete
was sometimes compromised by inclusion of
seawater or beach sand that was not thoroughly
washed with fresh water, a condition more
common with coastal fortifications built prior to
1900. The sodium chloride present in seawater
and beach sand accelerates the rate of corrosion
of the reinforced concrete.
Another problem encountered with historic
concrete is related to poor consolidation of the
concrete during its placement in forms, or in molds in the case
of precasting. This problem is especially prevalent in highly
ornamental units. Early twentieth century concrete was often
tamped or rodded into place, similar to techniques used in
forming cast stone. Poorly consolidated concrete often contains
voids (lfbugholes" or "honeycombs"), which can reduce the
protective concrete cover over the embedded reinforcing
bars, entrap water, and, if sufficiently large and strategically
numerous, reduce localized concrete strength. Vibration
technology has improved over time and flowability agents are
also used today to address this problem.
A common type of deterioration observed in concrete is the
effect of weathering from exposure to wind, rain, snow, and
salt water or spray. Weathering appears as erosion of the
cement paste, a condition more prevalent in northern regions
where precipitation can be highly acidic. This results in the
exposure of the aggregate particles on the exposed concrete
surface. Variations may occur in the aggregate exposure due
to differential erosion or dissolution of exposed cement paste.
Erosion can also be caused by the mechanical action of water
channeled over concrete, such as by the lack of drip grooves in
belt courses and sills, and by inadequate drainage. In addition,
high-pressure water when used for cleaning can also erode the
concrete surface.
In concrete structures built prior to the First World War,
concrete was often placed into forms in relatively short
vertical lifts due to limitations in lifting and pouring
techniques available at the time. Joints between different
concrete placements (often termed cold joints or lift lines) may
sometimes be considered an important part of the character of
a concrete element (Fig. 13). However, wide joints may permit
water to infiltrate the concrete, resulting in more rapid paste
erosion or freeze-thaw deterioration of adjacent concrete in
cold climates.
In the early twentieth century, concrete was sometimes placed
in several layers parallel to the exterior surface. A base concrete
was first created with form work and then a more cement rich
mortar layer was applied to the exposed vertical face of the
Figure 13. Fort Casey on Admiralty Head, Fort Casey, Washington, was
constructed in 1898. The lift lines from placement of concrete are clearly
visible on the exterior walls and characterize the finished appearance.
base concrete. The higher cement content in the facing
concrete provided a more water-resistant outer layer
and finished surface. The application of a cement-rich
top layer, referred to in some early concrete publications
as "waterproofing," was also used on top surfaces of
concrete walls, or as the top layer in sidewalks. With this
type of concrete construction, deterioration can occur
over time as a result of debonding between layers, and
can proceed very rapidly once the protective cement-rich
layer begins to break down.
It is common for historic concrete to have a highly
variable appearance, including color and finish texture.
Different levels of aggregate exposure due to paste
erosion are often found in exposed aggregate concrete.
This variability in the appearance of historic concrete
increases the level of difficulty in assessing and repairing
weathered concrete.
Signs of Distress and Deterioration
Characteristic signs of failure in concrete include
cracking, spalling, staining, and deflection. Cracking
occurs in most concrete but will vary in depth, width,
direction, pattern, and location, and can be either active
or dormant (inactive). Active cracks can widen, deepen,
or migrate through the concrete, while dormant cracks
remain relatively unchanged in size. Some dormant
cracks, such as those caused by early age shrinkage of
the concrete during curing, are not a structural concern
but when left unrepaired, can provide convenient
channels for moisture penetration and subsequent
damage. Random surface cracks, also called map cracks
due to their resemblance to lines on a map, are usually
related to early-age shrinkage but may also indicate
other types of deterioration such as alkali-silica reaction.
Structural cracks can be caused by temporary or
continued overloads, uneven foundation settling, seismic
forces, or original design inadequacies. Structural cracks
are active if excessive loads are applied to a structure, if
the overload is continuing, or if settlement is ongoing.
These cracks are dormant if the temporary overloads
have been removed or if differential settlement has
stabilized. Thermally-induced cracks result from
stresses produced by the expansion and contraction
of the concrete during temperature changes. These
cracks frequently occur at the ends or re-entrant corners
of older concrete structures that were built without
expansion joints to relieve such stress.
Spalling (the loss of surface material) is often associated
with freezing and thawing as well as cracking and
delamination of the concrete cover over embedded
reinforcing steel. Spalling occurs when reinforcing
bars corrode and the corrosion by-products expand,
creating high stresses on the adjacent concrete, which
cracks and is displaced. Spalling can also occur when
water absorbed by the concrete freezes and thaws (Fig.
14). In addition, surface spalling or scaling may result
from the improper finishing, forming, or other surface
Figures 14. Layers of architectural concrete that have debonded
(spaUed) from the surface were removed from a historic water tank
during the investigation performed to assess existing conditions.
Photos: Anita Washko, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
phenomena when water-rich cement paste (laitance)
rises to the surface. The resulting weak material is
vulnerable to spalling of thin layers, or scaling. In some
cases, spalling of the concrete can diminish the load-
carrying capacity of the structure.
Deflection is the bending or sagging of structural beams,
joists, or slabs, and can be an indication of deficiencies in
the strength and structural soundness of concrete. This
condition can be produced by overloading, corrosion
of embedded reinforcing, or inadequate design or
construction, such as use of low-strength concrete or
undersized reinforcing bars.
Staining of the concrete surface can be related to soiling
from atmospheric pollutants or other contaminants,
dirt accumulation, and the presence of organic growth.
However, stains can also indicate more serious
underlying problems, such as corrosion of embedded
reinforcing steel, improper previous surface treatments,
alkali-aggregate reaction, or efflorescence, the deposition
of soluble salts on the surface of the concrete as a result
of water migration (Fig. 15).
7
8
Planning for Concrete Preservation
The significance of a historic concrete building or
structure-including whether it is important for its
architectural or engineering design, for its materials
and construction techniques, or both-guides decision
making about repair and, if needed, replacement
methods. Determining the causes of deterioration is also
central to the development of a conservation and repair
plan. With historic concrete buildings, one of the more
difficult challenges is allowing for sufficient time during
the planning phase to analyze the concrete, develop
mixes, and provide time for adequate aging of mock-ups
for matching to the original concrete.
An understanding of the original construction
techniques (cement characteristics, mix design, original
intent of assembly, type of placement, precast versus
cast in place, etc.) and previous repair work performed
on the concrete is important in determining causes
of existing deterioration and the susceptibility of the
structure to potential other types of deterioration.
For example, concrete placed in short lifts (individual
concrete placements) or constructed in precast segments
will have numerous joints that can provide entry points
for water infiltration. Inappropriate prior repairs, such
as installation of patches using an incompatible material,
can affect the future performance of the concrete. Such
prior repairs may require corrective work.
As with other preservation projects, three primary
approaches are usually considered for historic concrete
structures: maintenance, repair, or replacement.
Maintenance and repair best achieve the preservation
goal of minimal intervention and the greatest retention
of existing historic fabric. However, where elements of
the building are severely deteriorated or where inherent
problems with the material lead to ongoing failures,
replacement may be necessary.
During planning, information is gathered through
research, visual survey, inspection openings, and
laboratory studies. The material should then be
reviewed by professionals experienced in concrete
deterioration to help evaluate the nature and causes of
the concrete problems, to assess both the short-term and
long-term effects of the deterioration, and to formulate
proper repair approaches.
Condition Assessment
A condition assessment of a concrete building or
structure should begin with a review of all available
documents related to original construction and prior
repairs. While plans and specifications for older
concrete buildings are not always available, they can
be an invaluable resource and every attempt should be
made to find them. They may provide information on
the composition of the concrete mix or on the type and
location of reinforcing bars. If available, documents
related to past repairs should also be reviewed to
Figure 15. Evidence of
moisture movement through
concrete is apparent
in the form of mineral
deposits on the concrete
surface. Cyclic freezing
and thawing of entrapped
moisture, and corrosion of
embedded reinforcement,
have also contributed to
deterioration of the concrete
column on this fence at
Crocker Field in Fitchburg,
Massachusetts, designed by
the Olmsted Brothers.
understand how the repairs were made and to help
evaluate their anticipated performance and service life.
Archival photographs can also provide a valuable source
of information about original construction.
A visual condition survey will help identify and
evaluate the extent, types, and patterns of distress
and deterioration. The American Concrete Institute
offers several useful guides on how to perform a visual
condition survey of concrete. Generally, the condition
assessment begins with an overall visual survey,
followed by a close-up investigation of representative
areas to obtain more detailed information about modes
of deterioration.
A number of nondestructive testing methods can be
used in the field to evaluate concealed conditions. Basic
techniques include sounding with a hand-held hammer
(or for horizontal surfaces, a chain) to help identify areas
of delamination. More sophisticated techniques include
impact-echo testing (Fig. 16), ground penetrating radar,
pulse velocity, and other methods that characterize
concrete thickness and locate voids or delaminations.
Magnetic detection instruments are used to locate
embedded reinforcing steel and can be calibrated to
identify the size and depth of reinforcement. Corrosion
measurements can be taken using copper-copper
sulfate half-cell tests or linear polarization techniques to
determine the probability or rate of active corrosion of
the reinforcing steel.
To further evaluate the condition of the concrete,
samples may be removed for laboratory study to
determine material components and composition,
and causes of deterioration. Samples need to be
representative of existing conditions but should be taken
from unobtrusive locations. Laboratory studies of the
concrete may include petrographic evaluation following
ASTM C856, Practice for Petrographic Examination
of Hardened Concrete. Petrographic examination,
consisting of microscopical studies performed by a
geologist specializing in the evaluation of construction
materials, is performed to determine air content, water-
cement ratio, cement content, and general aggregate
characteristics. Laboratory studies can also include
chemical analyses to determine chloride content, sulfate
content, and alkali levels of the concrete; identification
of deleterious aggregates; and determination of depth
of carbonation. Compressive strength studies can
be conducted to evaluate the strength of the existing
concrete and provide information for repair work. The
laboratory studies provide a general identification of
the original concrete's components and aggregates,
and evidence of damage due to various mechanisms
including cyclic freezing and thawing, alkali-aggregate
reactivity, or sulfate attack. Information gathered
through laboratory studies can also be used to help
develop a mix design for the repair concrete.
Cleaning
As with other historic structures, concrete structures are
cleaned for several reasons: to improve the appearance
of the concrete, as a cyclical maintenance measure, or
in preparation for repairs. Consideration should first be
given to whether the historic concrete structure needs to
be cleaned at all. If cleaning is required, then the gentlest
system that will be effective should be selected.
Three primary methods are used for cleaning concrete:
water methods, abrasive surface treatments, and
chemical surface treatments. Low-pressure water (less
than 200 psi) or steam cleaning can effectively remove
surface soiling from sound concrete; however, care is
required on fragile or deteriorated surfaces. In addition,
water and steam methods are typically not effective in
removing staining or severe soiling. Power washing
with high-pressure water is sometimes used to clean or
remove coatings from sound, high-strength concrete, but
high-pressure water washing is generally damaging to
and not appropriate for concrete on historic structures.
When used with proper controls and at very low
pressures (typically 35 to 75 psi), microabrasive
Figure 16. Impact echo testing is performed on a concrete structural
slab to help determine depth of deterioration. In this method, a short
pulse of energy is introduced into the structure and a transducer
mounted on the impacted surface of the structure receives the
reflected input waves or echoes. These waves are analyzed to help
identify flaws and deterioration within the concrete.
surface treatments using very fine particulates, such
as dolomitic limestone powder, can sometimes clean
effectively. However, micro abrasive cleaning may alter
the texture and surface reflectivity of concrete. Some
concrete can be damaged even by fine particulates
applied at very low pressures.
Chemical surface treatments can clean effectively
but may also alter the appearance of the concrete by
bleaching the concrete, removing the paste, etching
the aggregate, or otherwise altering the surface.
Detergent cleaners or mild, diluted acid cleaners may
be appropriate for removal of staining or severe soiling.
Cleaning products that contain strong acids such as
hydrochloric (muriatic) or hydrofluoric acid, which will
damage concrete and are harmful to persons, animals,
site features, and the environment, should not be used.
For any cleaning process, trial samples should be
performed prior to full-scale implementation. The
intent of the cleaning program should not be to return
the structure to a like new appearance. Concrete can
age gracefully, and as long as soiling is not severe or
deleterious, many structures can still be appreciated
without extensive cleaning.
Methods of Maintenance and Repair
The maintenance of historic concrete often is thought of
in terms of appropriate cleaning to remove unattractive
dirt or soiling materials. However, the implementation
of an overall maintenance plan for a historic structure is
the most effective way to help protect historic concrete.
For examples, the lack of maintenance to roofs and
drainage systems can promote water related damage
to adjacent concrete features. The repeated use of
deicing salts in winter climates can pit the surface of old
concrete and also may promote decay in embedded steel
reinforcements. Inadequate protection of concrete walls
adjacent to driveways and parking areas can result in the
need for repair work later on.
The maintenance of historic concrete involves the regular
inspection of concrete to establish baseline conditions
and identify needed repairs. Inspection tasks involve
monitoring protection systems, including sealant joints,
expansion joints, and protective coatings; reviewing
existing conditions for development of distress such as
cracking and delaminations; documenting conditions
observed; and developing and implementing a cyclical
repair program.
Sealants are an important part of maintenance of historic
concrete structures. Elastomeric sealants, which have
replaced traditional oil-resin based caulks for many
applications, are used to seal cracks and joints to keep
out moisture and reduce air infiltration. Sealants are
commonly used at windows and door perimeters,
at interfaces between concrete and other materials,
and at attachments to or through walls or roofs, such
as with lamps, signs, or exterior plumbing fixtures.
9
10
Figure 17. (a) The 63rd Street Beach House was constructed on the shoreline of Chicago in 1919. The highly exposed aggregate concrete of the
exterior walls of the beach house was used for many buildings in the Chicago parks as an alternative to more expensive stone construction. Photo:
Leslie Schwartz Photography. (b) Concrete deterioration included cracking, spalling, and delamination caused by corrosion of embedded reinforcing
steel and concrete damage due to cyclic freezing and thawing. (c) Various sizes and types of aggregates were reviewed for matching to the original
concrete materials. (d) Mock-ups of the concrete repair mix were prepared for comparison to the original concrete. Considerations included aggregate
type and size, cement color, proportions, aggregate exposure, and surface finish. (e) The craftsman finished the surface to replicate the original
appearance in a mock-up on the structure. Here, he used a nylon bristle brush to remove loose paste and expose the aggregate, creating a variable
surface to match the adjacent original concrete.
Where used for crack repairs on historic facades, the
finished appearance of the sealant application must
be considered, as it may be visually intrusive. In some
cases, sand can be broadcast onto the surface of the
sealant to help conceal the repair.
Urethane and polyurethane sealants are often used to
seal joints and cracks in concrete structures, paving,
and walkways; these sealants provide a service life of
up to ten years. High-performance silicone sealants
also are often used with concrete, as they provide a
range of movement capabilities and a service life of
twenty years or more. Some silicone sealants may stain
adjacent materials, which may be a problem with more
porous concrete, and may also tend to accumulate
dust and dirt. The effectiveness of sealants for sealing
joints and cracks depends on numerous factors
including proper surface preparation and application.
Sealants should be examined as part of routine
maintenance inspections, as these materials deteriorate
faster than their substrates and must be replaced
periodically as a part of cyclical maintenance.
Repair of historic concrete may be required to
address deterioration because the original design and
construction did not provide for long-term durability,
or to facilitate a change in use of the structure.
Examples include increasing concrete cover to protect
reinforcing steel and reducing water infiltration into the
structure by repair of joints. Any such improvements
must be thoroughly evaluated for compatibility with
the original design and appearance. Care is required in
all aspects of historic concrete repair, including surface
preparation; installation of form work; development
of the concrete mix design; and concrete placement,
consolidation, and curing.
An appropriate repair program addresses existing
distress and reduces the rate of future deterioration,
which in many cases involves moisture-related issues.
The repair program should incorporate materials and
methods that are sympathetic to the existing materials
in character and appearance, and which provide good
long-term performance. In addition, repair materials
should age and weather similarly to the original
materials. In order to best achieve these goals, concrete
repair projects should be divided into three phases:
development of trial repair procedures, trial repairs and
evaluation, and production repair work.
For any concrete repair project, the process of investigation,
laboratory analysis, trial samples, mock-ups, and full-scale
repairs allows ongoing refinement of the repair work as
well as implementation of quality-control measures. The
trial repair process provides an opportunity for the owner,
architect, engineer, and contractor to evaluate the concrete
mix design and the installation and finishing techniques for
the repairs from both technical and aesthetic standpoints.
The final repair materials and procedures should match
the original concrete in appearance while meeting the
established criteria for durability. Information gathered
through trial repairs and mock-ups is invaluable in refining
the construction documents prior to the start of the overall
repair project (Fig. 17).
Surface Preparation
In undertaking surface preparation for historic concrete
repair, care must be taken to limit removal of existing
material while still providing an appropriate substrate for
repairs. This is particularly important where ornamentation
and fine details are involved. Preparation for localized
repairs usually begins with removal of the loose concrete
to determine the general extent of the repair, followed by
saw-cutting the perimeter of the repair area. The repair area
should extend beyond the area of concrete deterioration
to a sufficient extent to provide a sound substrate. When
repairing concrete with an exposed aggregate or other
special surface texture, a sawcut edge may be too visually
evident. To hide the repair edge, techniques such as lightly
hand-chipping the edge of the patch may be used to
conceal the joint between the original concrete and the new
repair material. The depth to which the concrete needs to
be removed may be difficult to determine without invasive
probing in the repair area. Removal of concrete should
typically extend beyond the level of the reinforcing steel, if
present, so that the patch encapsulates the reinforcing steel,
which provides mechanical attachment for the repair.
If the concrete was originally of lower strength and quality,
the assessment of present soundness is more difficult.
Deteriorated and unsound concrete is typically removed
using pneumatic chipping hammers. Removal of concrete
in historic structures is better controlled by using smaller
chipping hammers or hand tools. The area of the concrete
to be repaired and the exposed reinforcing steel are
then cleaned, usually by careful sandblast and air blast
procedures applied only within the repair area. Adjacent
original concrete surfaces should be protected during this
work. In some cases, project constraints such as dust control
may limit the ability to thoroughly clean the concrete and
steel. For example, it may be necessary to use needle scaling
(a small pneumatic impact device) and wire brushing
instead of sandblasting.
Supplemental steel may be needed when existing
reinforcing steel is severely deteriorated, or if reinforcing
steel is not present in repair areas. Exposed existing
reinforcing and other embedded steel elements can be
cleaned, primed, and painted with a corrosion-inhibiting
coating. The patching material should be reinforced
and mechanically attached to the existing concrete.
Reinforcement materials used in repairs most often
include mild steel, epoxy-coated steel, or stainless steel,
depending on existing conditions.
Formwork and Molds
Special formwork is needed to recreate ornamental
concrete features -which may be complex, in high
relief, or architecturally detailed-and to provide special
surface finishes such as wood form board textures.
Construction of the formwork itself requires particular
skill and craftsmanship. Reusable forms can be used for
concrete ornamentation that is repeated across a building
facade, or precast concrete elements may be used to
replace missing or unrepairable architectural features.
Formwork for ornamental concrete is often created using
a four-step process: a casting of the original concrete is
taken; a plaster replica of the unit is prepared; a mold or
form is made from the plaster replica; and a new concrete
unit is cast. Custom formwork and molds are often the
work of specialty companies, such as precasters and cast
stone fabricators.
The process of forming architectural features or special
surface textures is particularly challenging if early age
stripping (removal of formwork early in the concrete
curing process) is needed to perform surface treatment
on the concrete. Timing for formwork removal is related
to strength gain, which in turn is partly dependent on
temperature and weather conditions. Early age removal of
formwork in highly detailed concrete can lead to damage
of the new concrete that has not yet gained sufficient
strength through curing.
Selection of Repair Materials and Mix Design
Selection and design of proper repair materials is a
critical component of the repair project. This process
requires evaluation of the performance, characteristics,
and limitations of the repair materials, and may involve
laboratory testing of proposed materials and trial repairs.
The materials should be selected to address the specific
type of repair required and to be compatible with special
characteristics of the original concrete. Some modern
repair materials are designed to have a high compressive
strength and to be impermeable. Even though inherently
durable, these newer materials may not be appropriate for
use in repairing a low strength historic concrete.
The concrete's durability, or resistance to deterioration,
and the materials and methods selected for repair
depend on its composition, design, and quality of
workmanship. In most cases, a mix design for durable
replacement concrete should use materials similar to
those of the original concrete mix. Prepackaged materials
are often not appropriate for repair of historic concrete.
The concrete patching material can be air entrained or
polymer-modified if subject to exterior exposure, and
should incorporate an appropriate selection of aggregate
and cement type, and proper water content and water
11
12
• • I '{\ I ., •
• , -II t, . \ ',~,' j ,~ ;.\ '\ -.:
\: .... ·~·~I"I ·I "'".",'. , .. " . ..r.,,. ,T, . " I.... • •. ~ •. .. ~ • -: • \ I·, ... ~ t' I'!, ' ;. ' "w --. I '.' . I, .',: "i '" 1 ~ ) .'
'. j I I -• , , I b .•
Figure 18. (a) Exposed aggregate precast concrete is
sounded with a hammer to detect areas of deterioration.
Corrosion of the exposed reinforcing steel bar has led to
spalling of the adjacent concrete. (b) Samples of aggregate
considered for use in repair concrete are compared to the
original concrete materials in terms of size, color, texture,
and reflectance. (c) Various sample panels are made using
the selected concrete repair mix design for comparison to
the original concrete on the building, and the mix design is
adjusted based on review of the samples. (d) After removal
of the spall, the concrete surface is prepared for installation
of a formed patch. (e) Prior to placement of the concrete,
a retarding agent is brush-applied to the inside face of the
formwork to slow curing at the surface. After the concrete
is partially cured, the forms are removed and the surface
of the concrete is rubbed to remove some of the paste and
expose the aggregate to match the original concrete.
to cement ratio. Some admixtures, including polymer modifiers,
may change the appearance of the concrete mix. Design of the
concrete patching material should address characteristics required
for durability, workability, strength gain, compressive strength,
and other performance attributes. During installation of the
repair, skilled workmanship is required to ensure proper mixing
procedures, placement, consolidation, and curing.
Matching and Repair Techniques for Historic Concrete
Repair measures should be selected that retain as much of the
original material as possible, while providing for removal of an
adequate amount of deteriorated concrete to provide a sound
substrate for a durable repair. The installed repair must visually
match the existing concrete as closely as possible and should be
similar in other aspects such as compressive strength, permeability,
and other characteristics important in the mix design of the
concrete (Fig. 18).
Understanding the original construction techniques often provides
opportunities in the design of repairs. For example, joints between
the new and old concrete can be hidden in changes in surface
profile and cold joints. The required patching mix for the concrete
to be used in the repair will likely need to be specially designed
to replicate the appearance of the adjacent historic concrete. A
high level of craftsmanship is required for finishing of historic
concrete, in particular to create the sometimes inconsistent finish
and variation in the original concrete in contrast to the more even
appearance required for most non-historic repairs.
To match the various characteristics of the original concrete, trial
mixes should be developed. These mixes need to take into account
the types and colors of aggregates and paste present in the original
concrete. Different mixes may be needed because of variations
in the appearance and composition of the historic concrete. The
trials should utilize different forming and finishing techniques
to achieve the best possible match to the original concrete. Initial
trials should first take place on site but off the structure. The mix
designs providing the best match are then installed as trial repairs
on the structure, and assessed after they have cured.
Achieving compatibility between repair work and original
concrete may be difficult, especially given the variability often
present in historic concrete materials and finishes. Formed rather
than trowel-applied patch repairs are recommended for durability,
as forming permits better ranges of mix ingredients (such as coarse
aggregates) and improved consolidation as compared to trowel-
applied repairs. Parge coatings usually are not recommended
as they do not provide as durable repair as formed concrete.
However, in some cases parge coatings may be appropriate to
match an original parged surface treatment Proper placement
and finishing of the repair are important to obtain a match with
the original concrete. To minimize problems associated with rapid
curing of concrete, such as surface cracking, it is important to use
proper curing methods and to allow for sufficient time.
Hairline cracks that show no sign of increasing in size may often
be left unrepaired. The width of the crack and the amount of
movement usually limits the selection of crack repair techniques
that are available. Although it is difficult to determine whether
cracks are moving or non-moving, and therefore most cracks
should be assumed to be moving, it is possible to repair
non-moving cracks by installation of a cementitious
repair mortar matching the adjacent concrete. It is
generally desirable not to widen cracks prior to the mortar
application. Repair mortar containing sand in the mix may
be used for wider cracks; unsanded repair mortar may be
used for narrower cracks.
When it is desirable to re-establish the structural integrity
of a concrete structure involving dormant cracks, epoxy
injection repair has proven to be an effective procedure.
Such a repair is made by first sealing the crack on both sides
of a wall or structural member with epoxy, polyester, wax,
tape, or cement slurry, and then injecting epoxy through
small holes or ports drilled in the concrete. Once the epoxy
in the crack has hardened, the surface sealing material
may be removed; however, this type of repair is usually
quite apparent. Although it may be possible to inject epoxy
without leaving noticeable residue, this process is difficult
and, in general, the use of epoxy repairs in visible areas of
concrete on historic structures is not recommended.
Active structural cracks (which move as loads are
added or removed) and thermal cracks (which move as
temperatures fluctuate) must be repaired in a manner that
will accommodate the anticipated movement. In some more
extreme cases, expansion joints may have to be introduced
before crack repairs are undertaken. Active cracks may
be filled with sealants that will adhere to the sides of
the cracks and will compress or expand during crack
movement. The design, detailing, and execution of sealant
repairs require considerable attention, or they will detract
from the appearance of the historic building. The routing
and cleaning of a crack, and installation of an elastomeric
sealant to prevent water penetration, is used to address
cracks where movement is anticipated. However, unless
located in a concealed area of the concrete, this technique
is often not acceptable for historic structures because the
repair will be visually intrusive (Fig. 19). Other approaches,
such as installation of a cementitious crack repair, may need
to be considered even though this type of repair may be less
effective or have a shorter service life than a sealant repair.
Replacement
If specific components of historic concrete structures are
beyond repair, replacement components can be cast to
match historic ones. Replacement of original concrete
should be carefully considered and viewed as a method of
last resort. In some cases, such as for repeated ornamental
units, it may be more cost-effective to fabricate precast
concrete units to replace missing elements. The forms
created for precast or cast-in-place units can then be used
again during future repair projects.
Careful mix formulation, placement, and finishing are
required to ensure that replacement concrete units will
match the historic concrete. There is often a tendency to
make replacement concrete more consistent in appearance
than the original concrete. The consistency can be in
stark contrast with the variability of the original concrete
Figure 19. A high-speed grinder ia used to widen a crack in
preparation for installation of a sealant. This process is called
"routing." After the crack is prepared, the sealant is installed to
prevent moisture infiltration through the crack. Although sealant
repairs can provide a durable, watertight repair for moving cracks,
they tend to be very visible.
due to original construction techniques, architectural
design, or differential exposure to weather. Trial repairs
and mock-ups are used to evaluate the proposed
replacement concrete work and to refine construction
techniques (Fig 20).
Protection Systems
Coatings and Penetrating Sealers. Protection systems
such as a penetrating sealers or film forming coating
are often used with non-historic structures to protect
the concrete and increase the length of the service life
of concrete repairs. However, film-forming coatings
are often inappropriate for use on a historic structure,
unless the structure was coated historically. Film-
forming coatings will often change the color and
appearance of a surface, and higher build coatings can
also mask architectural finishes and ornamental details.
For example, the application of a coating on concrete
having a formboard finish may hide the wood texture
of the surface. Pigmented film-forming coatings are
also typically not appropriate for use over exposed
aggregate concrete, where the uncoated exposed surface
contributes significantly to the historic character of
13
14
Figure 20. (a) The Jefferson Davis Memorial in Fairview, Kentucky,
constructed from 1917-1924, is 351 feet tall and constructed of
unreinforced concrete. The walls of the memorial are 8 feet thick at the
base and 2 feet thick at the top of the wall. Access to the monument
for investigation was provided by rappelling techniques, while ground
supported and suspended scaffolding was used to access the exterior during
repairs. (b) The concrete was severely deteriorated at isolated locations, with
spalling and damage from cyclic freezing and thawing of entrapped water.
In addition, previous repairs were at the end of their service life and removal
of deteriorated concrete and failed previous repairs was required. Light
duty chipping hammers were used to avoid damage to adjacent material
when removing deteriorated concrete to the level of sound concrete. (c)
Field samples were performed to match the color, finish, and texture of the
original concrete. A challenge in matching of historic concrete is achieving
variability of appearance. (d) The completed surface after repairs exhibits
intentional variability of the concrete surface to match the appearance of
the original concrete. Some formwork imperfections that would normally be
removed by finishing were intentionally left in place, to replicate the highly
variable finish of the original concrete. (e) The Jefferson Davis Memorial
after completion of repairs in 2004. Photo e: Joseph Lenzi, Senler, Campbell
& Associates, Inc.
concrete. In cases where the color of a substrate needs to
be changed, such as to modify the appearance of existing
repairs, an alternative to pigmented film-forming coatings is
the use of pigmented stains.
Many proprietary clear, penetrating sealers are currently
available to protect concrete substrates. These products
render fine cracks and pores within the concrete
hydrophobic; however, they do not bridge or fill cracks.
Clear sealers may change the appearance of the concrete in
that treated areas become more visible after rain in contrast
to the more absorptive areas of original concrete. Once
applied, penetrating sealers cannot be effectively removed
and are therefore considered irreversible. They should
not be used on historic concrete without thorough prior
consideration. However, clear penetrating sealers provide
an important means of protection for historic concrete that
is not of good quality and can help to avoid more extensive
future repairs or replacement. Thus they are sometimes
appropriate for use on historic concrete. Once applied, these
sealers will require periodic re-application.
Waterproofing membranes are systems used to protect
concrete surfaces such as roofs, terraces, plazas, or balconies,
as well as surfaces below grade. Systems range from coal
tar pitch membranes used on older buildings, to asphalt or
urethane-based systems. On historic buildings, membrane
systems are typically used only on surfaces that were
originally protected by a similar system and surfaces that are
not visible from grade. Waterproofing membranes may be
covered by roofing, paving, or other architectural finishes.
Laboratory and field testing is recommended prior to
application of a protection system or treatment on any
concrete structure; testing is even more critical for historic
structures because many such treatments are not reversible.
As with other repairs, trial samples are important to
evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment and to determine
whether it will harm the concrete or affect its appearance.
Cathodic Protection. Corrosion is an electrochemical
process in which electrons flow between cathodic (positively
charged) and anodic (negatively charged) areas on a
metal surface; corrosion occurs at the anodes. Cathodic
protection is a technique used to control the corrosion of
metal by making the whole metal surface the cathode of
an electrochemical cell. This technique is used to protect
metal structures from corrosion and is also sometimes
used to protect steel reinforcement embedded in concrete.
For reiniorced concrete, cathodic protection is typically
accomplished by connecting an auxiliary anode to the
reiniorcing so that the entire reiniorcing bar becomes a
cathode. In sacrificial anode (passive) systems, current flows
naturally by galvanic action between the less noble anode
(such as zinc) and the cathode. In impressed-current (active)
systems, current is impressed between an inert anode
(such as titanium) and the cathode. Cathodic protection is
intended to reduce the rate of corrosion of embedded steel
in concrete, which in turn reduces overall deterioration.
Protecting embedded steel from corrosion helps to prevent
concrete cracking and spalling.
Impressed-current cathodic protection is the most
effective means of mitigating steel corrosion and has
been used in practical structural applications since the
1970s. However, impressed-current cathodic protection
systems are typically the most costly to install and
require substantial ongoing monitoring, adjustment,
and maintenance to ensure a proper voltage output
(protection current) over time. Sacrificial anode cathodic
protection dates back to the 1800s, when the hulls of
ships were protected using this technology. Today
many industries utilize the concept of sacrificial anode
cathodic protection for the protection of steel exposed
to corrosive environments. It is less costly than an
impressed-current system, but is somewhat less effective
and requires reapplication of the anode when it becomes
depleted.
Re-alkalization. Another technique currently available
to protect concrete is realkalization, which is a process
to restore the alkalinity of carbonated concrete. The
treatment involves soaking the concrete with an alkaline
solution, in some cases forcing it into the concrete to
the level of the reiniorcing steel by passage of direct
current. These actions increase the alkalinity of the
concrete around the reiniorcement, thus restoring the
protective alkaline environment for the reiniorcement.
Like impressed-current cathodic protection methods, it
is costly. Other corrosion methods are also available but
have a somewhat shorter history of use.
Careful evaluation of existing conditions, the causes and
nature of distress, and environmental factors is essential
before a protection method is selected and implemented.
Not every protection system will be effective on each
structure. In addition, the level of intrusion caused by
the protection system must be carefully evaluated before
it is used on a historic concrete structure.
Summary
In the United States, concrete has been a popular
construction material since the late nineteenth century
and recently has gained greater recognition as a historic
material. Preservation of historic concrete requires a
thorough understanding of the causes and types of
deterioration, as well as of repair and replacement
materials and methods. It is important that adequate
time is allotted during the planning phase of a project
to provide for trial repairs and mock-ups in order
to evaluate the effectiveness and aesthetics of the
repairs. Careful design is essential and, as with other
preservation efforts, the skill of those performing
the work is critical to the success of the repairs. The
successful repair of many historic concrete structures
in recent years demonstrates that the techniques and
materials now available can extend the life of such
structures and help ensure their preservation.
15
16
Selected Reading
American Concrete Institute. Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service. ACI Committee 201, ACI 201.1R-92.
American Concrete Institute. Guide to Evaluation of Concrete Structures before Rehabilitation. ACI Committee 364, ACI 364.1R-07.
American Concrete Institute. Concrete Repair Guide. ACI Committee 546, ACI 546R-04.
American Concrete Institute. Guide for Evaluation of Existing Concrete Buildings. ACI Committee 437, ACI 437R-03.
Childe, H.L. Manufacture and Uses of Concrete Products and Cast Stone. London: Concrete Publications Limited, 1930.
Collins, Peter. Concrete: The Vision of a New Architecture. New York, New York: Faber and Faber, 1959.
Cowden, Adrienne B., compo Historic Concrete: An Annotated Bibliography. Washington, D.C: National Park Service, 1993.
Komandant, August E. Contemporary Concrete Structures. New York, New York: McGraw Hill, 1972.
Erlemann, Gustav G. "Steel Reinforcing Bar Specification in Old Structures." Concrete International, April 1999, 49-50.
Federal Highway Administration. Guide to Nondestructive Testing of Concrete. FHWA Publication Number FHWA-SA-97-105.
Gaudette, Paul E. "Special Considerations in Repair of Historic Concrete." Concrete Repair Bulletin, January/February 2000,12-13.
Jester, Thomas C, ed. Twentieth CentunJ Building Materials. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
Johnson, Arne P., and Seung Kyoung Lee. "Protection Methods for Historic Concrete at Soldier Field." Preserve and Play: Preserving
Historic Recreation and Entertainment Sites. Washington, D.C: Historic Preservation Education Foundation, National Council for
Preservation Education, and National Park Service, 2006.
Macdonald, Susan, ed. Concrete: Building Pathology. Osney Mead, Oxford, u.K.: Blackwell Science, 2003.
McGovern, Martin S. "A Clear View of Sealers." Concrete Construction, January 2000, 53-58.
Morton, W. Brown III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, H. Ward Jandl, and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C: National Park Service, 1983, reprinted 1997.
"Repairing Cracks." Concrete Repair Digest, August/September 1992, 160-164. Condensed from ACI document 224.1R-93.
Slaton, Deborah. "Cleaning Historic Concrete." Concrete Repair Bulletin, January/February 2000,14-15.
Acknowledgements
Paul Gaudette is an engineer with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., in Chicago, Illinois. Deborah Slaton is an architectural
conservator with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., in Northbrook, Illinois. All photographs by Paul Gaudette unless otherwise
stated. Front cover image: Kyle Normandin, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
The authors wish to thank William Bing Coney; author of the first edition of this preservation brief, who served as a peer reviewer
for the current edition. In addition, the authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the following individuals as peer reviewers
of this brief: Arne Johnson and Una Gilmartin, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.; Robert Joyce, Quality Restorations, Inc.; Susan
Macdonald, New South Wales Heritage Office; Miles T. Murray; Restruction Corporation; and Jack Pyburn, OJP/Architect, Inc. Anne
E. Grimmer, Chad Randl, and former staff Sharon C Park, FAIA, of the Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, offered
valuable comments during development of the brief. Charles E. Fisher of the National Park Service was the technical editor for this
publication project.
This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary
of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic properties. Comments about this publication should
be addressed to: Charles E. Fisher, Technical Preservation Publications Program Manager, Technical Preservation Services-2255,
National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. This publication is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without
penalty. Normal procedures for credit to the authors and the National Park Service should be provided. The photographs used in
this publication may not be used to illustrate other publications without permission of the owners. For more information about the
programs of the National Park Service's Technical Preservation Services see our website at http://www.nps.govlhistorylhps/tps.htm
ISBN: 978-0-16-078946-5
U.S. Government Printing Office Stock Number: 024-005-01253-2 2007

Appendix F – The National Register of Historic Places
for
Preservation Plan and Conditions Assessment
for
WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM
Greensboro, North Carolina

The City of Greensboro, North Carolina
August 2014

World War Memorial Stadium circa 1929
NPS Form 10-900
(Oct. 1990)
OMB No. 10024·0018
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the
National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or
by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions,
architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional
entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.
World War Memorial Stadium historic name ______________________________________ _
other names/site number _________________________________ _
510 Yanceyville Street N/A street & number ___________________________ ~ ~ not for publication
Greensboro N/A city or town ________________________________ _ ~ vicinity
state North Carolina code ~ county _G_u_l_' _l_f_o_r_d _____ _ d 081 . d 27405 co e ___ ZiP co e ___ _
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this KXnomination
~ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property
~ meets ~ does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant
~ nationally []j statewide ~ locally. (~ See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
. ialmUe 0 te
na Department of Cultural Resources
State of Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property ~ meets ~ does not meet the National Register criteria. (~ See continuation sheet for additional
comments.)
Signature of certifying oHicialmtle
State or Federal agency and bureau
I hereby certify that the property is:
~ entered in the National Register.
~ See continuation sheet.
~ determined eligible for the
National Register
~ See continuation sheet.
~ determined not eligible for the
National Register.
~ removed from the National
Register.
~ other, (explain:) _____ _
Date
Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
~d War M9Hlorial Stadium Name of Property
(Check as many boxes as apply)
o private ~building(s)
U public-local o district o public-State o site
o public-Federal o structure o object
Name of related multiple property
(Enter liN/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.)
Historic· Functions
(Enter categories from instructions)
OTHER/World War I Memoria]
RECREATION AND CULTURE/Sports facility
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from instructions)
Narrative
Guilford County, North Carolina
County and State
Number within
(Do not include previously listed resources count.)
Contributing Noncontributing
buildings
sites
2 structures
objects
Total
Number resources listed
-0-'
Current Functions
(Enter categories from instructions)
OTHER/World War I Memorial
RECREATION AND CULTURE/Sports facility
Materials
(Enter categories from instructions)
foundation ___ .u.c ..... o..wp ..... c ...... r..J;e;..Jtb.-1e;;;..-___________ _
walls _____ -"'C'-"o~n....,c"-'r"'-e""--"'.t-"'e ___________ _
St11CCO
roof _____ ~A~s4p~b~a~1~t~ ___________ _
other ______ ~W~o~o~d~ ______________ __
Iron
(Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)
See continuation sheet
World War Memorial Stadium
Name of Property
Re,cister Criteria
"x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property
National Register listing.)
[KJ A Property is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history.
U B Property is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.
fXJ C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses
high artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.
o 0 Property has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations
(Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.)
Property is:
o A owned by a religious institution or used for
religious purposes.
o B removed from its original location.
DCa birthplace or grave.
o 0 a cemetery.
U E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
xx F a commemorative property.
o G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance
within the past 50 years.
Narrative Statement of Significance
(Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)
Bibilography
Guilford County, North Carolina
County and Stale
(Enter from instructions)
Archi tecture
Entertainment/Recreation
Politics/Government
Social His tory
Period of "':Dr."UlfD""~.",II"""'"
__ 192_6_-___ 1--L9--L5l...LO _____________ _
Significant Dates
1926
1930
Significant Person
(Complete if Criterion B is marked above)
Cultural Affiliation
N/A
Architect/Builder
White, Leonard, Jr.--architect
Barton, Harry--architect
Carolina Contracting Company--builder
(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing Ihis form on one or more continuation sheets.)
Previous documentation on file (NPS):
o preliminary determination of individual listing (36
CFR 67) has been requested o previously listed in the National Register o previously determined eligible by the National
Register
[J designated a National Historic Landmark o recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
# --------~--~-
recorded by Historic American Engineering
Record # ________ _
1UI ... ,..,..,.·".,.u location of additional data:
~ State Historic Preservation Office
o Other State agency o Federal agency
Local government o University o Other
Name of repository:
World War Memorial Stadium
Name of Property
Guilford County, North Carolina
10. Data
li.t"irrC~II!'1IC of IQ!r,,,,,n,ofl'"t·u __ A_p_p_r_o_x_i_IIl_a_t_e_l_y __ 14 __ a_c_r_e_s __
UTM References
(Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet.)
16 10 ,9 19 ,I ,5
Easting
16 11 P 12 ,9 ,5
Verbal Boundary
13,919,315,5,01
Northing
13 ,9 19 ,315 ,2 ,5 I
(Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.)
Justification
(Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.)
County and State
3 llJZJ 1611,012171°1 131919131°14151
Zone Easting Northing
4 llJZJ 161°191819,0/ 13 ,91 9 ,31 0 ,6,0/
D See continuation sheet
Davyd Foard Hood name/title _______________________________________ _
organization ________________________ _ date 28 April 2000
6907 Old Shelby Road 704/462 4331 street & number ____________________ telephone _____ -_______ _
Vale city or town ____________________ _ N.C. 28168 state ______ zip code ______ _
Continuation Sheets
A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources.
Photographs
Representative black and white Dh~ot(Jlarc:!lDt.s of the property.
Additional items
(Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
The City of Greensboro, The Honorable Carolyn Allen, Mayor name ___________________________________________ _
street & number __ P_o_s_t_O_f_f_l_o _ce_B_o_x_3_1_3_6 ________ _ telephone ___________ _
city or town ____ G_r_e_e_n_s_b_o_r_o ____________ _ state __ N_C ___ zip code 27402-3136
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate
properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain
a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including time for reviewing
instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect
of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Projects (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Section number: 7 Page 1
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
The World War Memorial Stadium, designed by Leonard White, Jr., and Harry Barton and
erected by the Carolina Contracting Company, is an imposing Modem Classical masonry athletic
facility which was built in 1926 and dedicated on Armistice Day of that year. The building
occupies a fourteen-acre site, donated by the Cone family, in the cityscape of Greensboro and
stands about nine blocks northeast of the crossing of Elm and Market Streets, the city's principal
north/south and east/west streets, respectively. The stadium stands in an area that in the 1920s
was nearly entirely residential, with fashionable Summit Avenue to the northwest and somewhat
lower-income housing, also developed by the Cone family's Summit Avenue Development
Company, to the northeast and southeast. During the last-third of the twentieth century, Summit
Avenue virtually ceased to be a residential street and is now a commercial artery; the area
immediately surrounding the stadium has seen less decline in residential fabric but a general
transition to mixed uses. The lot on which the stadium stands is a six -sided polygon. The
southwest front of the lot is bound by Yanceyville Street which intersects with Lindsay Street at
the extreme south comer of the lot; Lindsay Street forms the long southeast boundary of the
property. The two-sided, angular northeast boundary of the stadium tract is defined by Boyd and
Dewey Streets for nearly equal distances. The five aforementioned boundaries are all straight
lines; however, the lot's northwest boundary is in the shape of a gentle arc carrying from Dewey
Street and toward Yanceyville Street and along the rear lot lines of houses facing onto the
parallel path of Park Avenue. (This curved boundary line alters course as it approaches
Yanceyville Street to eliminate inclusion of some city-owned and other noncontributing service
buildings that were erected over and inside the boundary of the Cone family's 1926 gift.) The
Sun1mit Avenue Historic District (NR, 1993) abuts the stadium property on the northwest side.
Muddy Creek flows through the southeast edge of the stadium lot, in a path generally parallel
with Lindsay Street, and underground in a culvert for most of its course except for a short
stretch; the underground and visible portions are the reverse of their demarcation on the enclosed
tax map.
Architectural Background and Physical Development
The stadium, its improvements, and its landscape all reflect the facility's long use as a municipal
athletic field and minor league baseball park. The essential masonry fabric of the stadium,
standing today largely as it did in 1926, follows a reverse "J" in plan and represents about one-
third of the proposed original stadium, a V-shaped facility that would have seated 25,000. The
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number: 7
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 2
northeast ends of the parallel sides of the "U" were never extended to their full length, despite
the optimism of its sponsors at the time; features positioned along the back edges of some lower
tiers of open seating and designed to receive structural steel for upper tiers remain visible and
unused. The first changes in the appearance of the stadium came in 1930 when the minor league
Greensboro Patriots occupied it as their home field; the elevated roof was added over the center
tiers of seating, a press box, and dugouts were added for the 24 April 1930 opening game, and
lights were installed that summer. The surprisingly intact fabric of the stadium indicates little
physical change in its appearance and facilities from 1930 until the later 1970s; during these
years the stadium was used by local high school, college, and community teams and as a minor-
league ballpark for periods (1930-1934, 1941-1968).
The arrival of the Greensboro Hornets (now the Bats) in 1978 initiated a series of additions to the
facility which made it more agreeable for players and more comfortable for spectators. Most of
these were relatively low-cost and altogether utilitarian in appearance and materials except for
the steel-frame light towers (#7). The two freestanding wood ticket kiosks (#2-3) at the front of
the stadium were added in the 1970s as were food concession areas overlooking the field. The
dugouts were rebuilt about 1978-1979. The 1930 press box (behind the entrance portal) was
converted to a VIP suite in the late 1980s and a new press box built behind seating to the west
where it remains today after some reworking in 1992. A one-story cement block dressing room
for visiting teams was added onto the end of the southeast stands in the mid-1980s. (A
freestanding kitchen was built about 1990; it stands on adjoining city-owned property which is
not included in this nomination.) In 1993 a section of wood frame seating and a bar called the
"Grand Stand" was added onto and over the end of the northwest stands, and a picnic area
containing about two dozen tables was located to the north. A smaller wood bar called the
"Baby Grand" was simply added in the upper comer of the southeast stands.
During the last two decades of the twentieth century some repositioning of offices and facilities
occurred within the original spaces enclosed under the stands. The only significant visible
alterations effected by these reallocated functions was the infill of windows centered in the
symmetrical bays of the stadium walls flanking the entrance portal. Some of the openings were
infilled with brick and stuccoed/painted over and at others the brick is visible. During the
course of this infilling, in several instances brick was added on the outside of the opening only,
leaving the original casement windows and transoms intact and visible inside. Metal ventilators
and air conditioners are set in some of these former openings, and these, too, are of different
dates. During its long life and active use, a period of nearly three-quarters of a century, the
essential fabric of the stadium has survived intact, if slightly worn-looking at its edges. The
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Section number: 7 Page 3
relative low-cost improvements for player and spectator comfort over the last three decades have
been made over, around, and at the edges of the original 1926 fabric, and they could be removed
and replaced in better materials should funding be secured for a restoration and rehabilitation of
the stadium.
The landscape development of the stadium lot is simple and informal, and whatever Mr.
Cridland, the original landscape architect, might have installed is long lost. Today a cement-
paved parking lot carries fully across the Yanceyville Street front of the stadium. The effect of
so much cement is partially mitigated by paired Bradford pear trees planted to either side of the
portal and enclosed with barberry hedging. In the south comer of the lot the cement paving gives
way to a larger gravel-covered, generally rectangular parking lot along the Lindsay Street
boundary; it extends back to the grouped, fenced tennis courts standing along the rear Dewey
Street boundary. The only other landscape feature outside the stadium is a cement walk, lined
with Bradford pear trees which carries from the "Grand Stand" picnic area around and behind the
backfield fencing to the tennis courts. The polygonal playing field has a smooth dense grass
cover with a border of reddish gravel.
Note: The main grandstand, the southeast and northwest stands, their later twentieth century
extensions, and the fencing are linked together and form a single entity which will be described
herein as one contributing building. In the last quarter of the twentieth century a group of small
unobtrusive buildings (#2-5) was added on the grounds and they will be described herein as
noncontributing buildings. The stadium and the playing field are illuminated by a series of lights
mounted on eight tall metal towers and two secondary poles. They (#7) constitute a single
noncontributing resource as does the group of fenced tennis courts (#6) along the Dewey Street
boundary of the stadium lot.
Description
1. World War Memorial Stadium
1926
Contributing building
The World War Memorial Stadium is an imposing sand-finished cement and brick masonry
athletic facility consisting of a grandstand, being a reverse "J" in plan, which embraces a
baseball playing field enclosed on the northeast and southeast sides with backfield billboard and
security fencing of wood frame and plywood, cement block, and woven wire in an informal
manner.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number: 7
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 4
The stadium grandstand, forming the arc-shaped bowl of the reverse "J," is a symmetrical
masonry building dominated by the classical portal facing southwest to Yanceyville Street. The
portal is comprised of tall, square-in-plan pylons, with stepped tops supporting flag poles, which
flank the entrance. The entrance has the form of a classical triumphal arch with paired five sided
pilasters and two octagonal piers supporting the three arched openings which are shaded by
canvas awnings. Terracotta eagles in the form of rectangular plaques are positioned above the
piers and below a frieze which carries across the top of the bays and links the pylons. The three
recessed panels in the frieze bear the name "WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM" in bronze
letters; bronze laurel wreaths are mounted in the frieze in positions above the eagle plaques. The
front southwest faces of the pylons have surface treatments at three levels. At the base of each
pylon classical masonry tablets are mounted with rectangular bronze plaques on which are
inscribed the names of eighty Guilford County men who died in the World War. These tables
are flanked by bronze wreath and palm-leaf ornaments. Paired bronze baseball bats and balls are
placed in the near center of the pylon faces. The upper faces of the pylons gradually recess
inside self frames and hold trios of tall narrow window openings. The exposed outer sides of the
pylons have window openings in positions corresponding with the favade tablets which hold
paired eight-pane metal casement windows below four-pane transonlS. The tops of these sides
are finished in the same fashion as the upper front.
The portal is flanked by tall side walls, forming the back of the stadium grandstand, which
extend for five-and-one-halfbays to each side; the half bays abut the pylons on each side. These
bays are simply finished with paired recessed panels per bay. The large, square lower panels
were centered with window openings which have since been infilled with brick or masonry.
Corresponding panels in the frieze above alternate with shield-shaped ornaments. The elevations
of the stadium extending beyond the above-described symmetrical composition are asymmetrical
in appearance and reflect the plan and form of the reverse "J." On the southeast side the
additional stadium seating, built to only one-half the depth of the bays flanking the pylons,
extends for three bays beyond a bay-width walkway which has been infilled. The faces of these
three bays have recessed panels holding centered openings which have been infilled with
masonry. Board and plywood walling carries across the top of this recessed section. A one-story
hip-roof cement-block dressing room with blind walls stands at the northeast end of the seating,
and its southeast elevation continues as a cement block security wall down the southeast side of
the playing field to where it abuts the backfield wall.
The northwest stand of seating, also erected only one-half the depth of the main grandstand,
forms the long stem of the reverse "J" and is about five times (twenty-plus bays) the length of the
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number: 7
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 5
southeast stands and includes three passageways providing access to the stands. These passages
open off a fenced cement paved service area, behind the northwest stands (where the kitchen and
a smaller frame concession stand are located). The area under the multiple bays nearest the main
grandstand was originally enclosed and provided visiting team dressing room, restroom, and
service areas. They house related functions today. The area under the remaining bays appears to
have originally been open and sections of it were enclosed at varying times with masonry (brick
or cement block) to provide office, restroom, storage, service, and related spaces. The "Grand
Stand," forming the northeast end of the northwest stands, is an open, unpainted frame two-part
angled span of informal boxes, deck seating, and an angle-shaped bar protected by a shed roof.
A wood deck ramp extends north off the "Grand Stand" to a picnic area with some twenty-five
tables partially enclosed by a wood picket fence. A cement walk, lined with Bradford pear trees
loops broadly from the picnic area behind the backfield fencing to a restroom building (#4) and a
series of fenced, paved tennis courts (#6) positioned at the northeast boundary of the stadium lot
along Dewey Street.
At the front of the stadium the three arched openings give into a rectangular lobby with a stepped
ceiling reflecting the tiered seating of the grandstand. A passage to the stands and field is on
direct axis with the center arch while curving corridors lead off the sides to the southeast and
northwest. The cement and exposed brick surfaces of the lobby, the passage, and corridors are
painted. The Bats gift shop and their dressing rooms are located along the southeast corridor
which terminates with a passage from the dressing room onto the field. On the northwest side of
the lobby and along the northwest corridor are located the Bats team offices, a women's
restroom, and food concession booths. The finishes of these spaces are mostly utilitarian and
modem, dating to the last decades of the twentieth century, when some of the areas were put to
different uses; however, a number of original doors, windows, and other significant features
survive to indicate the original appearance which, when new in 1926, was very plain and simply
fashioned.
The design and appearance of the main covered grandstand and the uncovered southeast and
northwest stands is quite simple. Passageways, including the one on axis with the center
entrance bay, provide access from the two corridors and the ground level exterior on the
northwest (behind the stem of the reverse "J") to the stands. Simple inset masonry staircases link
these passages with the tiered sections of seating which ascend from the front to the back. When
the stadium was dedicated in 1926, the seating consisted of wood benches mounted on iron
brackets; important sections of this original seating type survive in the rear third of the stadium;
however, the wood slats have been replaced with metal on the original iron brackets. Most of the
N PS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number: 7
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 6
seating in the front two-thirds of the stadium has been replaced during the last three decades of
the twentieth century with modem seats reused here from other facilities including the
Greensboro Coliseum, after it was reseated in the mid 1990s, and stadiums in New York and
Philadelphia (via Spartanburg). Some individual seating, installed in the grandstand after 1926,
was relocated to the "Grand Stand" when it was built. The seating in the main grandstand behind
the portal and the fully-developed area to the northwest is covered by the 1930 metal frame roof
supported by slender metal piers. This asymmetrical arrangement reflects the off-axis
positioning of home plate and the playing field that was necessary to provide the
appropriate/required distances from baselines to the backfield. Behind the portal the stadium's
original press box was refashioned as a VIP suite. The new 1980s press box is located at the rear
of the northwest stands. The area immediately in front of the stands, between them and the
woven metal fence enclosing the playing field, is cement-paved and used by spectators for access
between sections of seating and to reach concession areas including one, named "Joanne's
Dugout," which is immediately behind one of two simple modem dugouts inset in the fence
enclosing the field.
The grass-covered playing field of the World War Memorial Stadium is generally oval in shape,
defined by the arc of the grandstand on the southwest, the straight line of the northwest stands on
the northwest, a corresponding arc on the northeast, and an irregular boundary on the southeast
caused by the necessary projection of the right field line. The field is enclosed on the northeast
and southeast with wood frame advertising billboards. Because of the reverse "J" shape of the
stands, originally conceived for football and track events and amateur/scholastic baseball, the
home plate is not (and cannot be) on axis with the center of the stadium, but it is located slightly
to the north. The left field line, from home plate through third base to the wall at the end of the
northwest stands, is 327 feet. Center field is 401 feet. The right field line, from home plate
through first base and to the angular projection in the southeast wall, is 327 feet. The playing
field was laser-graded and replanted with grass for the opening home game of the Greensboro
Bats' 2000 season on 6 April. Home plate, the base paths, the infield, and the perimeter of the
playing field are covered with packed red clay.
Modem Support Facilities
These simple free standing buildings were erected in the last decades of the twentieth century for
spectator convenience. While all of them are noncontributing, they are unobtrusive and do not
affect the integrity of the stadium.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Section number: 7
2. South Ticket Kiosk
ca. 1979
Noncontributing building
Page 7
This small simple frame building is one of a pair standing on brick foundations on cement pads,
sheathed with exterior wood paneling, and covered with shed roofs. This one, standing to the
right (south) of the portal, has an opening protected by plexiglass on its southwest front and a
door on the rear for worker access.
3. West Ticket Kiosk
ca. 1979
Noncontributing building
This ticket booth is located in a pendant position to the above booth and to the west side of the
portal. It is identical in appearance except that the opening on its front is protected by a woven
wire screen.
4. Restroom Pavilion
ca. 1975-1990
Noncontributing building
This rectangular frame and masonry building is covered with a side-gable asphalt shingle roof
and was erected principally for the convenience of those using the adjoining tennis courts.
5. Maintenance Building
ca. 1975
Noncontributing building
This rectangular building, covered with a side-gable asphalt shingle roof, and the adjoining
fenced yard, is used by the grounds crew as a rest and recreational area during the baseball
season when they have to be on site for extended hours.
6. Tennis Courts
ca. 1975-1985
Noncontributing structures
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Section number: 7 Page 8
This small group of fenced and paved tennis courts was erected by the parks and recreation
departlnent of Greensboro at the extreme northeast edge of the stadium lot at its boundary along
Dewey Street.
7. Light Towers
ca. 1978-1985
Noncontributing structure
The playing field is illuminated at night by a group of eight principal light towers and two
secondary towers. The eight principal towers are metal frame and rise from poured cement
bases. The light boards have four rows with seven lights in each row. The secondary light
standards have two rows with eight lights each with two in a third row at their base.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number:
SUMMARY
8
OMB No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 9
The Greensboro World War Memorial Stadium, an imposing Modern Classical building
dedicated on Armistice Day 1926, holds unusual significance in the history of Greensboro,
Guilford County, and the state of North Carolina. It satisfies National Register Criteria A and C
and holds statewide significance in the areas of architecture, entertainmentirecreation,
politics/government, and social history, as a unique embodiment of civic sympathy and
responsibility, respectively, for those citizens of Guilford County who gave their lives during
World War I and for its sons (and daughters) who would participate in athletic contests in the
stadium for a period now approaching three-quarters of a century. Criteria Consideration F is
superseded by the historical significance of the stadium. It stands today as the largest and
costliest such memorial erected by a community in North Carolina honoring those who died in
the World War. While a memorial honoring the sons of Guilford County who died in the war had
been espoused by civic leaders and members of the Harry K. Burtner Post #53 of the American
Legion from the close of the war, it was not until fall 1921 that the American Legion post voted
to support a memorial in the form of an athletic facility that could be used by local public
schools, colleges, and amateur sports associations. However noble the proposal, the effort
stalled until 1925: on 12 February the North Carolina Legislature authorized the creation of the
Greensboro World War Memorial Commission; and nine months later a large and influential
group of three hundred citizens staged a three-day drive which raised some $105,000 by its close
on Armistice Day (11 November). The stadium, originally ambitiously designed in the shape of a
"U" by Greensboro architects Leonard White, Jr. and Harry Barton, would have seated 25,000.
Even with the appropriation of $50,000 by the city of Greensboro that project was beyond reach,
and in 1926 the Carolina Contracting Company erected a portion of the design, essentially a
reverse "J" in shape, which would seat approximately 8,500. That facility, with its handsome
classical entrance flanked by pylons bearing bronze tablets inscribed with the names of eighty
fallen heroes, was dedicated on Armistice Day 1926. The use of the stadium as an athletic
facility, inaugurated that afternoon by a football game between Guilford and High Point
Colleges, has continued to the present. Beginning in 1930 the stadium became the home field of
the Greensboro Patriots, an affiliate of the St. Louis Cardinals, and it survives as the oldest
minor-league ball park in North Carolina (and possibly the nation). Except for several years in
the late 1930s, the stadium continued to be used for minor league baseball until 1968. The
stadium's period of significance begins in 1926 and ends in 1950 because it has not been shown
that the property has the exceptional significance required to extend the period to within the last
fifty years.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number: 8
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 10
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, ARCHITECTURE, ENTERTAINMENTIRECREATION,
POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT, AND SOCIAL HISTORY CONTEXTS
The tremendous loss of life experienced in the World War--subsequently and hereinafter called
World War I--occasioned many forms of remembrance and commemoration. The Tomb of the
Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery, completed in 1931, is the best known of a
series of monuments and memorials erected throughout the United States, which suffered
casualties of307,092 persons including 81,553 deaths. Built memorials were of two principal
types: either a commemorative memorial, like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, which was
monumental in form and setting and embellished with sculptural enrichments; or architectural,
being a public building such as a library, auditorium, or stadium erected in memory of those who
had died and for the use of the citizenry. Some 86,457 North Carolina men and women served in
World War I; of that number 2,927 service people were from Guilford County, with about 1,400
of that total being citizens of Greensboro (Arnett, 320). Henry K. Burtner (death date
unconfirmed) became the first of at least 138 persons from Guilford County who died in the war.
In 1919 his death was memorialized in Greensboro through the organization of the Henry 1(.
Burtner Post #53 of the American Legion, one of the first posts organized in North Carolina
under the auspices of the national organization chartered by Congress in September 1919.
Through the course of the early 1920s, members of the Henry K. Burtner Post championed the
erection of a memorial; their efforts and those of others active in the fund raising campaign in the
fall of 1925 saw success in the dedication of the World War Memorial Stadium on Armistice
Day (November 11) in 1926.1
A memorial to Guilford's fallen sons became a topic of conversations among private individuals
and in the meetings of various civic organizations in Greensboro as soon as the war ended.
However, it was not until ~ 7 October 1921 that the members of the Henry K. Burtner Post met
expressly for the purpose of discussing a memorial and what form it should take. J. F. Stevens
and McDaniel Lewis advocated an athletic field, and Mr. Stevens made a motion to that effect
which was passed by the post (Greensboro Record, 16 November 1940). For reasons that are not
now clear, the proposal lagged until 1925. In retrospect this delay appears inexplicable given the
tenor of the times and the fact that scions of at least two of Greensboro's most prominent
families died during the war in 1918.2
Plans for the World War memorial advanced quickly in 1925. On 12 February 1925 "An Act to
Authorize the City of Greensboro to Hold and Own Property for a Memorial Park, and to
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number: 8
OMB No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 11
Provide for the Control and Management of Same" was passed in the North Carolina Legislature.
The act also named members of the Greensboro World War Memorial Commission to hold
office until their successors were elected: Herman Cone; Allen T. Preyer; Alfred Moore Scales;
John N. Wilson; and Mrs. Harry R. Bush. The wording of the act suggests that the site of the
memorial had been determined, although the property would not actually be conveyed to the city
of Greensboro until May 1926. The design of this important new civic building was a
commission with sure appeal to members of the Greensboro architectural profession, including
Harry Barton, Wells L. Brewer, Charles C. Hartmann, Raleigh James Hughes, and Christopher
Gadsen Sayre. The honor, however, went to members of the profession with an inside track.
Leonard White, Jr., a veteran of the World War and member of the Henry K. Burtner Post, was
an associate architect in the office of Harry Barton. Messrs. Barton and White received the
commission for the building and appear to have resolved the general design scheme during the
fall of 1925. Both their names appear on the presentation drawing which was sent to the editor
of the American Legion Weekly on 5 December for pUblication. The extent to which the design
reflected ideas earlier put forth by landscape architect Robert B. Cridland, who had been
engaged by the American Legion in the early 1920s, is not known; Cridland continued his
involvement with the project and prepared a landscape plan for the facility. Meanwhile, a highly
organized fund-raising campaign opened in Greensboro on Monday, 9 November, with some 300
volunteers seeking donations from citizens, businesses, and the Guilford County schoolchildren.
By the close of the drive, on Armistice Day (11 November), some $105,000 had been pledged.
The final working drawings for the World War Memorial Stadium were probably completed in
the winter of 1926 as the financial details of the building'S construction were being resolved.
The city of Greensboro committed an additional $50,000 to the project. On 17 May 1926 the
Summit Avenue Building Company, through its president Herman Cone, conveyed the fourteen-
acre site of the memorial stadium to the city of Greensboro (Guilford County Deeds, 517/580-
581). The contract for the building was awarded to the Carolina Contracting Company of
Greensboro, whose office was located in the city's Jefferson Standard Building on the floor
above that of the architects. '
Construction on the stadium is said to have begun in April, before the property was formally
conveyed to the city. The stadium design was in the form of a "U" with the entrance, offices,
and guest and player facilities located in and adjoining a handsome arched portal, flanked by
pylons, at the base of the "U." The long sides of the "U" provided stepped banks of seating
overlooking the elongated oval field which was well suited for football and tract events;
however, its principal use came to be for baseball. The original design provided seating for
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number: 8
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 12
25,000; the population of Greensboro in 1920 was 34,163 and that of Guilford County was
45,109. The stadium sponsors and city fathers quickly realized the plan was too ambitious. How
the decision on how much of the building to erect was reached is now unknown; however, the
costs and funds at hand were surely the principal factors affecting the decision. In the end, the
decision was made to erect the entrance portal and to erect permanent seating for some 8,500
persons; the building readied for dedication on Armistice Day 1926 was in the form of a reverse
"J." Provision was also made for portable bleacher seating for about 4,000 more. While there
have been some improvements to the facility, principally the addition of a canopy, improvements
to the dressing rooms, and the erection of a press box and dugouts in 1930 for the benefit of the
Greensboro Patriots baseball team, the World War Memorial Stadium survives essentially as
completed in the fall of 1926.
The dedication of the World War Memorial Stadium on Armistice Day (Thursday, 11
November) 1926 was much heralded in the Greensboro Daily News. Long articles published on
10-11 November celebrated the completion of the building and outlined the program of the
dedicatory ceremonies. The front page article in the Friday edition of the Greensboro Daily
News provided lavish coverage of the dedication. The ceremonies began at 10:30 a.m. at the
entrance portal with the dedication and unveiling of the two bronze plaques, mounted on the
faces of the pylons, which bore the names of eighty men who had died in the war. (Even before
the building was dedicated, the total number of local deaths in the World War increased;
however, the additional names were never added on plaques or visibly placed on the building.)
The assembly then moved inside the stadium, took seats, and listened to speeches by Mayor
Edwin B. Jeffress, president of the stadium commission, on the history of the stadium, and
Alfred Lee Bulwinkle (1883-1950), Congressman for the state's Tenth District and a veteran of
the world war. The athletic field was christened at 2:30 p.m. in a football game between teams
from two of the county's colleges; High Point College defeated Guilford College by a score of7
to 3.
When the World War Memorial Stadium was dedicated in 1926 it became the first major
memorial in North Carolina dedicated to those "who made the supreme sacrifice in the World
War" and it placed in service a building which has remained central in the civic and athletic life
of the city to the present. As events came to prove, it survives as one of the two impressive
memorials erected in the state to those who died in World War 1. On 23 January 1919 the North
Carolina Legislature had enacted a bill to "Appoint a North Carolina Memorial Building
Commission and to Provide for the Erection of a Suitable Memorial Building in Honor and to the
Memory of all North Carolina Citizens Who Gave Their Lives, Services, or Property to the End
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number: 8
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 13
that the War with Germany and Her Allies Might Be Won." That twelve-member commission,
headed by the governor, did not succeed in raising the money for a memorial building; however,
its adjunct responsibility to collect records relating to the war and the services of North Carolina
was fulfilled in part by a "Collector of War Records" established by the North Carolina
Historical Commission and the acquisition of artifacts by the Hall of History (now the Museum
of History).
Four years after the dedication of the Greensboro memorial, Raleigh's municipal building and
auditorium was destroyed in a fire on 24 October 1930. When the decision was made to rebuild
the auditorium, it was also to be erected as a memorial to the war dead of Raleigh, but with no
specific reference to a particular war. The Raleigh Memorial Auditorium, a Classical Revival-
style limestone-sheathed building, was dedicated on 19 January 1932. In 1919 a committee at
North Carolina State College had been appointed also to arrange for a memorial honoring its
thirty-three students who had died in the world war. That project also languished, largely
because of inadequate funding, until the mid-1930s when Works Progress Administration funds
were appropriated for the construction of Memorial Tower in a prominent location near the
Hillsborough Street edge of the campus. Designed by William Henry Deacy, the Mt. Airy
granite bell tower was completed in 1937. In the years following the close of W orId War II, in
which more than 7,000 North Carolinians lost their lives, memorials were raised in counties
throughout the state to those who had died in both wars. These mostly took the form of bronze
tablets mounted on the walls of court houses or monuments on their grounds.
While the Memorial Tower on the campus of North Carolina State University continues to be a
handsome landmark in the capital, the W orId War Memorial Stadium in Greensboro continues to
serve the larger purpose for which it was erected. Standing inside the stadium on Armistice Day
1926, Mr. Jeffress, mayor of Greensboro, concluded his speech with a focus on the promise the
stadium held for the citizens of Greensboro and Guilford County.
And so the stadium has been built by children's and widows' wives' and rich men's
wealth. It is here for the use of the coming generations; the soldier boys said they wanted
no hollow of granite, no useless monument to decorate our street comers, even no
statuary or brass to remind us of those who have passed along after doing life's full duty,
but they wanted something that would be useful; that would help develop mind and body;
that would in this way be a perpetual memorial to those who have passed ... , that those
of us who follow after should use our best efforts to make ourselves physically fit to
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number: 8
OMB No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 14
answer any emergency; ... ; and when the call to duty comes, answer with a clear, strong
voice, "We are ready to do our bit" (Greensboro Record, 16 November 1940)."
In 1926 good athletic facilities, particularly playing fields, for the city and county's high school
students were much needed. In 1922-1923 when the city built four new graded schools,
including the Charles B. Aycock School near the stadium site and off Summit Avenue, their
modem plants included gymnasiums and dressing rooms; however, the provisions for outdoor
sports were few and increasingly inadequate as the city's population increased. Those four
graded school buildings were advanced for their time, and an early municipal expression of the
statewide school consolidation movement; however, educational innovation moved rapidly in the
1920s. In 1929 when Greensboro erected new separate high schools for its white and black
citizens, Greensboro (now Grimsley) and James B. Dudley High Schools, respectively, their
physical plants provided larger offerings, particularly for the sciences and athletics (Brown, 76).
The football game played between High Point and Guilford· Colleges as a part of the dedicatory
ceremonies inaugurated the stadium as a site for collegiate athletics; from that day to the present
the World War Memorial Stadium has fulfilled the role of an athletic facility envisioned by its
supporters and articulated by Mr. Jeffress. In the fall of 1926 the Greensboro Chamber of
Commerce circulated an attractive four-page brochure encouraging the use of the facility which
it described as "North Carolina's Amateur Sports Center." For its first four years the stadium
served as the site of local high school, collegiate, community, and American-Legion-associated
amateur sports events; these were coordinated under the Stadium Games Committee first, long-
chaired by J. D. Wilkins. In 1930 the Stadium Commission entered into an agreement with the
St. Louis Cardinals whereby the stadium became the home field of its minor-league affiliate
team, the Greensboro Patriots; from 1908 to 1930, the Patriots had played at the city's Cone Park
under a series of league associations.
The decision to accommodate the Greensboro Patriots in the stadium, and the continued,
although sometimes interrupted, use of the stadium as a minor-league baseball park, has earned it
an important distinction and significance in the history of sports in Greensboro, North Carolina,
and the nation. The World War Memorial Stadium is believed to be the oldest active minor-
league stadium in the United States. This supposition, advanced locally and by the office of the
Greensboro Bats, the current resident minor-league team, has not been researched for this
nomination; however, the stadium is certainly the oldest intact minor-league stadium in North
Carolina. The stadium is included in Fodor's Ballpark Vacations published in 1997. A stadium
built in 1924 in Asheville was partially destroyed by fire in 1934 and rebuilt; the K.inston
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number: 8
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 15
Stadium, built in 1949, is the next oldest stadium in North Carolina. The Greensboro Patriots
played in World War Memorial Stadium into 1934; after a six-year break from 1935 to 1940,
minor-league baseball returned to the stadium and teams played here under a succession of
names and affiliations until 1968. A second, ten-year absence of minor-league baseball existed
until 1978 when a team in Shelby was acquired, moved to Greensboro and renamed the
Greensboro Hornets. In 1994 the Hornets were renamed the Greensboro Bats, and the Bats, an
affiliate of the New York Yankees, continue to use World War Memorial Stadium as their home
field. The larger community use of the stadium also continues to the present; the baseball team
of North Carolina A & T State University plays its home games in World War Memorial
Stadium.
While the stadium has remained in use to the present, investment in its maintenance and repairs
have not kept apace of general upkeep or the extensive mechanical systems updating that it
requires to continue in use as a viable facility. The future use of the building is also threatened
by the possible, long-sought construction of a new state-of-the-art facility advocated by the
management of the Greensboro Bats and some local sports enthusiasts. Other leaders in
Greensboro, including the Charles B. Aycock Neighborhood Association which sponsored this
nomination, are advocating a new life for the stadium through rehabilitation, restoring its fabric
and improving its facilities so that it might again, in new circumstances, live up to its 1925
description as "North Carolina's Amateur Sports Center." In 1940 J. D. Wilkins, who had been a
leader in the fall 1925 fund drive and who retained an active role in the operation of the stadium
for many years, wrote a sketch of the stadium published in the Greensboro Record on 16
November. Couched in the narrative outlining the building's history and operation up to 1940,
he expressed a poignant regret, "It is not with pride that we recall delay in getting the proj ect
under way." Perhaps a parallel feeling, experienced by many now, sixty years later, will
galvanize Greensboro citizens to renew and restore the World War Memorial Stadium in honor
of those who died near the beginning of the twentieth century and those who excelled here in the
years afterward to the present.
Endnotes
1. Published sources, including books and newspaper articles, used in the preparation of this
nomination are included in the bibliography and where appropriate noted internally in the
text.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number: 8
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Page 16
2. Edward Latham (1894-1918) was the son of James Edwin Latham (1866-1946), a prominent
cotton broker and capitalist, and his wife Maude Moore Latham (1871-1951): Mrs. Latham
would become the principal donor for the restoration of Tryon Palace in New Bern, and her
philanthropy would be continued by her daughter, May Gordon Latham Kellenberger (1893-
1978), who became her parents' heir after the death of her only sibling. Alfred Moore Scales
IV (1898-1918) was the son of Alfred Moore Scales (1870-1940), a principal developer of
Greensboro's Irving Park (NR, 1995), the city's premiere residential suburban park, (and
Hamilton Lakes,) and Bessie Taylor Scales (1870-1912); he was the grandson of North
Carolina Governor Alfred Moore Scales (1827-1892) and the great-grandson of John A.
Taylor whose marble-fronted house remains one of the finest residences ever built in
Wilmington.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Section number: 9 Page 17
Bibliography
Bruce Adams and Margaret Engel. Fodor's Ballpark Vacations. New York: Fodor's Travel
Publications, Inc., 1997.
Arnett, Ethel Stephens. Greensboro. North Carolina: The County Seat of Guilford. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1975.
Brown, Marvin. Greensboro: An Architectural Record. Greensboro: Preservation Greensboro,
Inc., 1995.
Greensboro Daily News: 8 November 1925, 10-12, 18 November 1926; 10 February 1956; 18
March 1966.
Greensboro Historical Museum Files and Collections, Greensboro, North Carolina.
Greensboro News & Record: 21 January 1970; 18 December 1994; 25 January, 7 February
1999.
Greensboro Record: 16 November 1940; 13,26 February 1941.
"The Greensboro World War Memorial Stadium." Greensboro: Greensboro Chamber of
Commerce, 1926.
Guilford County Deeds, Office of the Register of Deeds, Guilford County Court House,
Greensboro, North Carolina.
Public Laws of North Carolina, 1919, c. 3.
Public Laws of North Carolina, 1921, c. 31.
George Stevenson, letter to author, 14 April 2000.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
Section number:
Geographical Data
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
10 Page 18
Verbal Boundary Description: The property included in this nomination is delineated by the bold
line on the accompanying copy of the northern portion of Guilford County Tax Map, sheet 46.
The nominated property is described in the deed of conveyance, dated 17 May 1926, and
recorded in Guilford County Deed Book 517, pages 580-581, except for the west comer of that
parcel where a group of city-owned and noncontributing service buildings stand astride the
boundary. The bold line on the accompanying map encompasses the vast majority of the parcel
described in the deed (identified in the Guilford County tax mapping system as 00-00-0046-0-
0001-00-016), but it excludes the strip of land containing the service buildings along the
nOlihwest edge of the 1926 boundary.
Boundary Justification: The property included in this nomination is the parcel conveyed as a gift
by the Summit Avenue Building Company to the City of Greensboro on 17 May 1926, except for
a small rectangular area at the parcel's west comer where a group of city-owned and
noncontributing service buildings have been erected astride and without respect for the 1926
boundary. Otherwise, the boundary of the parcel has remained intact to the present, and the
approximately fourteen-acre tract serves as the site and setting of the World War Memorial
Stadium. The parcel is outlined in pencil on the enclosed Guilford County Tax Map, Sheet no.
46.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
OMS No. 1024-0018
World War Memorial Stadium, Guilford County, North Carolina
Section number: Photos Page 19
Photographic Schedule
1. Name of property: World War Memorial Stadium
2. Location: Guilford County, North Carolina
3. Name of photographer: Davyd Foard Hood
4. Date of photographs: 9 February 1999
5. Location of original negatives: Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, N. C.
Photographs
A. Overall view looking east from a position on the southwest side of Yanceyville Street.
B. Portal on the southwest fac;ade, looking northeast.
C. Playing field, looking east.
D. Grandstand seating with VIP suite, looking west/northwest.
E. Grandstand seating and roof, looking southwest.
F. View of the northwest stands, looking north with press box on the left and "Grand Stand" on
the near right.
G. Lobby immediatley inside the portal, looking north with opening on the northwest corridor in
the center and main axial passage to the grandstand and field on right.
H. Interior, looking northeast from lobby into northwest corridor.

Appendix G – Opinion of Probable Costs
for
Preservation Plan and Conditions Assessment
for
WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM
Greensboro, North Carolina

The City of Greensboro, North Carolina
August 2014

World War Memorial Stadium circa 1929

SKA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
TFF ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, LLP

1 WORLD WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM- PRESERVATION PLAN AND CONDITIONS ASESSMENT

Appendix G - Opinion of Probable Costs
An Opinion of Probable Costs has been prepared based on the results of the current condition review completed by SKA,
schematic design options to address stabilization requirements and the proposed amenities to restore functionality to
the stadium. The Opinion of Probable Cost has been divided, for convenience, into two categories – Stabilization and
Amenities.

Stabilization generally includes the required demolition of select components, required temporary bracing of remaining
elements, replacement and/or preservation of historically significant components, replacement and/or strengthening of
critical structural components, and basic temporary securement of the facility in a safe condition.

Amenities include those basic items necessary for the facility to be functional as a sports/event venue, such as, bench
seating for 1500 persons, interior signage, locker rooms, public restrooms, support spaces (umpires and grounds offices,
etc.), seating and accessible routing to meet ADA Requirements and concessions space. Electrical, Mechanical and
Plumbing as required to service these amenities are included in the current probable cost estimates. No revisions to the
field lighting are included in the current probable cost estimates.

In summary, the Opinion of Probable Costs is as follows:
OPTION A
Phase I – Preservation and Stabilization: $3,220,000
Phase II – Renovation and Amenities: $2,055,000
Total of Phases I and II: $5,275,000

OPTION B
Limited Phase I - Grids 5 thru 20 only – Preservation and Stabilization: $3,033,000
(with partial removal of existing stucco on Tower and Archways)
Limited Phase II – Grids 5 thru 20 only - Renovation and Amenities: $1,650,000
Total of Limited Phases I and II: $4,683,000

*See following attached summary information for specifics.
08/15/2014 WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - PHASE 1 Page 1
CAPITAL BUILDING CONSULTANTS
11040 OLD US HIGHWAY 52
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27107
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST
PROJECT: WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - 1 BUILDING SPACE: 1 S.F.
PHASE I ARCH. FIRM: SKA CONSULTING ENG.
GREENSBORO, NC CONTACT: BRAD EHRHARDT, PE
ESTIMATOR: EJB ESTIMATE NO: 0-536-14
JOB DESCRIPTION: SCHEMATIC-STABILIZATION
UNIT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM/COMPONENT SPECIFICATION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST COST/SF % OF JOB
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS
PROJ. PERSONNEL PROJ. MNGR./FIELD SUPT. ETC., 48 WKS 1,500 $72,000 $72,000 2.24%
PROJ. LABOR DAILY CLEAN-UP/GEN. LABOR 420 CHRS 55 $23,100 $23,100 0.72%
PROJ. MATERIAL MISC. SUPPLIES 1 LS 1,500 $1,500 $1,500 0.05%
PROJ. TRANSPORTATION PU TRK/DUMP/FUEL/ETC.12 MO 1,500 $18,000 $18,000 0.56%
CONSTRUCTION AIDS OSHA 1 LS 15,000 $15,000 $15,000 0.47%
TEMP UTILITIES WATER/POWER/PHONE, ETC.1 LS 2,500 $2,500 $2,500 0.08%
PROJECT CONDITIONS TRASH REMOVAL/DUMP FEES 1 LS 50,000 $50,000 $50,000 1.55%
EQUIPMENT SMALL TOOLS/SCAFFOLDS/RENTALS 1 LS 20,000 $20,000 $20,000 0.62%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$202,100 $202,100 6.28%
B. SITE CONDITIONS
EARTH WORK GEN GRADING/BACKFILL/RESEED 1 ALLOW 100,000 $100,000 100,000 3.11%
SITE SPECIALTIES DRAINAGE SYSTEM @ EARTH BERMS 1 ALLOW 25,000 $25,000 25,000 0.78%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$125,000 125,000 3.88%
C. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE
a. RAILS/BEAMS CIP REINF. CONC.55 CY 975 $53,625 $53,625 1.67%
a. SEATS/RISERS CIP REINF. CONC.125 CY 1000 $125,000 $125,000 3.88%
a. VOMITORY WALLS CIP REINF. CONC.63 CY 780 $49,140 $49,140 1.53%
a. WALLS CIP" KNEE 52 CY 700 $36,400 $36,400 1.13%
a. SEATS/RISERS PRECAST 16531 SF 9.50 $157,045 $157,045 4.88%
a. CONCRETE REPAIR (RB) REINF/CONC/ENCASEMENT, ETC. 5744 CSF 25 $143,600 $143,600 4.46%
a. CONCRETE REPAIR (COLS) REINF/CONC/ENCASEMENT, ETC. 470 CSF 30 $14,100 $14,100 0.44%
b. WALLS CIP" COUNTERFORT 81 CY 795 $64,395 $64,395 2.00%
b. WALLS CIP" SIDE 26 CY 780 $20,280 $20,280 0.63%
b. WALLS CIP" VOMITORY 28 CY 780 $21,840 $21,840 0.68%
b. WALLS CIP KNEE 78 CY 700 $54,600 $54,600 1.70%
b. REFURBISH SURFACES PATCH & SEAL SPOILED CONC. SURFACES 3852 SF 10 $38,520 $38,520 1.20%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$778,545 $778,545 24.17%
E. EXTERIOR WALLS
a. MASONRY REINF./CMU W/STUCCO 2640 SF 35 $92,400 $92,400 2.87%
a. STUCCO MECH. FASTENED SYSTEM 3960 SF 45 $178,200 $178,200 5.53%
a. MASONRY RESTORATION 3960 SF 6.50 $25,740 $25,740 0.80%
b. MASONRY REINF./CMU W/WATER REP. 5004 SF 20 $100,080 $100,080 3.11%
b. MASONRY REINF./CMU/STUCCO 1650 SF 45 $74,250 $74,250 2.31%
b. WATERPROOFING MASTIC/DRAIN BOARD/PIERS, ETC. 4870 SF 6 $29,220 $29,220 0.91%
b. SHORING TEMPORARY 8150 SF 3 $24,450 $24,450 0.76%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$524,340 $524,340 16.28%
08/15/2014 WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - PHASE 1 Page 2
UNIT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM/COMPONENT SPECIFICATION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST COST/SF % OF JOB
Y. SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
a. DEMOLITION CONC. SEATING/RISERS 1654 SF 20 $33,080 33,080 1.03%
a. DEMOLITION CONC. GUARD RAIL/SPANDREL BEAM 1155 SF 15 $17,325 17,325 0.54%
a. DEMOLITION VOMITORY WALLS 1100 CF 15 $16,500 16,500 0.51%
a. DEMOLITION CONC. SOG 13453 SF 2 $26,906 $26,906 0.84%
a. DEMOLITION REMOVE STUCCO FINISH 3960 SF 1.50 $5,940 $5,940 0.18%
a. DEMOLITION MASONRY INFILL 3060 CF 8 $24,480 24,480 0.76%
a. DEMOLITION CIP SEATING/RSRS/KNEEWALLS, ETC. 1130 SF 5 $5,650 5,650 0.18%
a. DEMOLITION REMOVE CANOPY 8765 SF 2.50 $21,913 $21,913 0.68%
a. DEMOLITION INTERIOR INFASTRUCTURE 13400 SF 1.50 $20,100 $20,100 0.62%
a. DEMOLITION TOWER ROOFS & ACCESSORIES 1 LS 3,500 $3,500 $3,500 0.11%
a. DEMOLITION RMV/DISPOSE METAL SEATING 1 LS 15,000 $15,000 $15,000 0.47%
a. SPECIALTIES NEW "PERIOD" TYPE WINDOW 360 SF 125 $45,000 $45,000 1.40%
a. SPECIALTIES REWORK ENTRIES & ACCENTS 1 LS 25,000 $25,000 $25,000 0.78%
a. SPECIALTIES REWORK "TIERED" TOWER CAPS 1 LS 20,000 $20,000 $20,000 0.62%
a. SPECIALTIES NEW FLAG POLE ASSEMBLIES 1 LS 5,000 $5,000 $5,000 0.16%
a. SPECIALTIES RMV/REFURBISH EXT. SIGNAGE 1 LS 10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.31%
a. SPECIALTIES FENCING & GATES 1 LS 35,000 $35,000 $35,000 1.09%
a. SPECIALTIES MISC. PAINT & FINISHES 1 LS 15,000 $15,000 $15,000 0.47%
b. DEMOLITION EXISTING STRUCTURE 923 SF 15 $13,845 13,845 0.43%
b. DEMOLITION MASONRY INFILL 4318 CF 8 $34,544 34,544 1.07%
b. DEMOLITION CONC. STNG./RSRS./RAKER BEAMS 20994 SF 5 $104,970 104,970 3.26%
b. DEMOLITION CONC. RAILS 1120 SF 15 $16,800 16,800 0.52%
b. DEMOLITION CONC. SOG 13950 SF 2 $27,900 27,900 0.87%
b. DEMOLITION CMU @ VOMITORY WALLS 1656 CF 8 $13,248 13,248 0.41%
b. DEMOLITION INTERIOR INFASTRUCTURE 13900 SF 3.50 $48,650 $48,650 1.51%
b. SPECIALTIES FENCING & GATES 1 LS 45,000 $45,000 $45,000 1.40%
b. SPECIALTIES MISC. PAINT & FINISHES 1 LS 20,000 $20,000 $20,000 0.62%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$670,351 670,351 20.82%
BUILDING SUBTOTAL $2,300,335 $2,300,335 71.43%
BONDS/PERMITS/FEES/INS/ETC. 5 %$115,017 $115,017 3.57%
CONTRACTORS OVERHEAD 5 %$115,017 $115,017 3.57%
CONTRACTORS FEE 10 %$230,034 $230,034 7.14%
CONTINGENCY 20 %$460,067 $460,067 14.29%

ESTIMATED CURRENT DAY BUILDING COST $3,220,469 $3,220,469 100.00%
08/15/2014 WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - PHASE 11 Page 1
CAPITAL BUILDING CONSULTANTS
11040 OLD US HIGHWAY 52
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27107
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST
PROJECT: WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - 2 BUILDING SPACE: 13,195 S.F.
PHASE II ARCH. FIRM: SKA CONSULTING ENG.
GREENSBORO, NC CONTACT: BRAD EHRHARDT, PE
ESTIMATOR: EJB ESTIMATE NO: 0-536-14
JOB DESCRIPTION: SCHEMATIC-RENOVATIONS
UNIT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM/COMPONENT SPECIFICATION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST COST/SF % OF JOB
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS
PROJ. PERSONNEL PROJ. MNGR./FIELD SUPT. ETC., 32 WKS 1,500 $48,000 $3.64 2.34%
PROJ. LABOR DAILY CLEAN-UP/GEN. LABOR 380 CHRS 55 $20,900 $1.58 1.02%
PROJ. MATERIAL MISC. SUPPLIES 1 LS 1,500 $1,500 $0.11 0.07%
PROJ. TRANSPORTATION PU TRK/DUMP/FUEL/ETC.8 MO 1,500 $12,000 $0.91 0.58%
CONSTRUCTION AIDS OSHA 1 LS 15,000 $15,000 $1.14 0.73%
TEMP UTILITIES WATER/POWER/PHONE, ETC.1 LS 2,500 $2,500 $0.19 0.12%
PROJECT CONDITIONS TRASH REMOVAL/DUMP FEES 1 LS 75,000 $75,000 $5.68 3.65%
EQUIPMENT SMALL TOOLS/SCAFFOLDS/RENTALS 1 LS 20,000 $20,000 $1.52 0.97%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$194,900 $14.77 9.49%
B. SITE CONDITIONS
WALL FOOTINGS CONC/RBR/EXCVT/BKFILL 88 CY 325 $28,600 $2.17 1.39%
SLAB ON GRADE CONC/WWF/VB/STONE, SP, ETC. 13195 SF 5.25 $69,274 $5.25 3.37%
FOUNDATION WALLS CMU/REINF/CONC/ETC.2214 FSF 11.50 $25,461 $1.93 1.24%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$123,335 $9.35 6.00%
C. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
$0 $0.00 0.00%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$0 $0.00 0.00%
D. ROOFING SYSTEM
$0 $0.00 0.00%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$0 $0.00 0.00%
E. EXTERIOR WALL
$0 $0.00 0.00%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$0 $0.00 0.00%
08/15/2014 WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - PHASE 11 Page 2
UNIT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM/COMPONENT SPECIFICATION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST COST/SF % OF JOB
F. EXTERIOR DOORS & OPENINGS
ENTRY DOORS MTL. FRAME/MTL. DOOR/HARDWARE 16 EA 850 $13,600 $1.03 0.66%
PASS WINDOWS TICKETING BOOTHS 1 ALLOW 4,000 $4,000 $0.30 0.19%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$17,600 $1.33 0.86%
G. INTERIOR DOORS & OPENINGS
$0 $0.00 0.00%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$0 $0.00 0.00%
H. INTERIOR PARTITIONS
MASONRY CMU/REINF/ETC.19850 FSF 5.50 $109,175 $8.27 5.31%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$109,175 $8.27 5.31%
I. WALL FINISHES
PAINTING WALLS/DRS/FRMS, ETC.13195 SF 3.50 $46,183 $3.50 2.25%
SPECIAL FINISHES SHOWER UNITS 8 EA 2000 $16,000 $1.21 0.78%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$62,183 $4.71 3.03%
J. FLOOR FINISHES & BASE
SOFT FINISH TILE/BASE, ETC.4214 SF 4.50 $18,963 $1.44 0.92%
SPECIAL SURFACES SEALED/STAINED CONCRETE/BASE 8991 SF 2 $17,982 $1.36 0.88%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$36,945 $2.80 1.80%
K. CEILINGS & SOFFITS
HARD CEILINGS GYP/MTL. FRAMING/WP SYSTEM, ETC. 4214 SF 12.00 $50,568 $3.83 2.46%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$50,568 $3.83 2.46%
M. ACCCESSORIES & SPECIALTIES
TOILET ACCESSORIES HC/PT/TP/WASTE, ETC.1 LS 16,000 $16,000 $1.21 0.78%
TOILET PARTITIONS STALLS/SCREENS/ETC.1 LS 32,500 $32,500 $2.46 1.58%
INTERIOR SPECIALTIES SIGNAGE 1 ALLOW 25,000 $25,000 $1.89 1.22%
INTERIOR SPECIALTIES FIRE EXT./CABINETS 1 EA 375 $375 $0.03 0.02%
INTERIOR SPECIALTIES LOCKERS 60 EA 150 $9,000 $0.68 0.44%
INTERIOR SPECIALTIES LOCKER ROOM BENCHES 1 LS 5,000 $5,000 $0.38 0.24%
INTERIOR SPECIALTIES INTERIOR RAILINGS 1 ALLOW 25,000 $25,000 $1.89 1.22%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$112,875 $8.55 5.49%
N. FIXED EQUIPMENT
SEATING STADIUM BENCH SEATING 1500 EA 125 $187,500 $14.21 9.12%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$187,500 $14.21 9.12%
08/15/2014 WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - PHASE 11 Page 3
UNIT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM/COMPONENT SPECIFICATION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST COST/SF % OF JOB
O. CASE & MILLWORK
CABINETS & COUNTERS CONCESSION & TICKETING AREA 1 ALLOW 35,000 $35,000 $2.65 1.70%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$35,000 $2.65 1.70%
P. LOOSE EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS
$0 $0.00 0.00%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$0 $0.00 0.00%
Q. MECHANICAL CONVEYANCES
$0 $0.00 0.00%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$0 $0.00 0.00%
T. PLUMBING
PLUMBING WST/SPLY/FXTR/PIPE/ETC.72 EA 2,500 $180,000 $13.64 8.76%
PLUMBING SHOWER UNITS 8 EA 3,500 $28,000 $2.12 1.36%
DOMESTIC WATER/SEWER WATER HEATERS 2 EA 2,000 $4,000 $0.30 0.19%
DOMESTIC WATER/SEWER WATER COOLERS 3 EA 1,500 $4,500 $0.00 0.22%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$216,500 $16.07 10.54%
U. FIRE PROTECTION
SPRINKLERS PRE-ACTION SYSTEM 13195 SF 5 $65,975 $5.00 3.21%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$65,975 $5.00 3.21%
V. HVAC
HEAT & AIR EQUIP/PIPING/DUCT WORK 4214 SF 15.00 $63,210 $4.79 3.08%
VENTILATION FANS/DUCT/GRILLS/CONTROLS, ETC. 8991 SF 5.00 $44,955 $3.41 2.19%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$108,165 $8.20 5.26%
W. ELECTRIC POWER
SERVICE/DISTRIBUTION WIRING/OUTLET/LIGHT FIXTURES, ETC. 4214 SF 12.50 $52,675 $3.99 2.56%
SERVICE/DISTRIBUTION WIRING/OUTLET/LIGHT FIXTURES, ETC. 8991 SF 6.00 $53,946 $4.09 2.63%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$106,621 $8.08 5.19%
X. SPECIAL SYSTEMS
$0 $0.00 0.00%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$0 $0.00 0.00%
Y. SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
$0 $0.00 0.00%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$0 $0.00 0.00%
08/15/2014 WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - PHASE 11 Page 4
UNIT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM/COMPONENT SPECIFICATION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST COST/SF % OF JOB
Z. EXTERIOR WORK
SITE IMPROVEMENTS GEN. GRADING/FIND GRADING, ETC. 1 LS 5000 $5,000 $0.38 0.24%
SITE IMPROVEMENTS EXT. CONCRETE WALKS 895 SF 6.00 $5,370 $0.41 0.26%
SITE SPECIALTIES LANDSCAPE & SEEDING 1 ALLOW 5000 $5,000 $0.38 0.24%
SITE SPECIALATIES FENCING & GATES 1 LS 25000 $25,000 $1.89 1.22%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$40,370 $3.06 1.96%
BUILDING SUBTOTAL $1,467,711 $88.13 71.43%
BONDS/PERMITS/FEES/INS./ETC. 5 %$73,386 $5.56 3.57%
CONTRACTORS OVERHEAD 5 %$73,386 $5.56 3.57%
CONTRACTORS FEE 10 %$146,771 $11.12 7.14%
CONTINGENCY 20 %$293,542 $22.25 14.29%

ESTIMATED CURRENT DAY BUILDING COST $2,054,796 $132.62 100.00%

300 Pomona Drive
Greensboro, NC
27407-1620

P: 336.855.0993
F: 336.855.6066

www.skaeng.com

Groups

Structural

Mechanical
Electrical
Plumbing
Fire Protection

Building Solutions
Roofing
Waterproofing

Locations

Greensboro, NC

Asheville, NC

Charlotte, NC

Wilmington, NC

Birmingham, AL
MEMORANDUM

To: Butch Shumate [e-mail]

From: Robert G. Kennerly, Sr., P.E. [e-mail]

Date: September 12, 2014

Re: Estimate of Probable Cost
War Memorial Stadium – City of Greensboro
Preservation Plan and Condition Assessments
SKA Project No. 140266.0

The original estimate of probable cost prepared for SKA by Capital Building Consultants
included the removal of all the bonded and un-bonded direct applied stucco finish from the cast-
in-place towers and façade between the towers at the main entrance. Capital Building
Consultants’ estimate of probable cost for this phase of the work was approximately $184,000.00.

Assuming that only 30% of the total area of the direct applied stucco on the two (2) towers and
façade between the two (2) towers is removed and replaced, this would reduce the cost of this
phase of the work by approximately $125,000.00

Based upon the cost of furnishing and installing special debris netting on a project of SKA’s at
UNC-G, the estimated probable cost of furnishing and installing debris netting only under the
existing concrete seating slabs in the main lobby adjacent to the main entrance façade will be
approximately $29,000.00

The net reduction on the approximately $1.6M estimate of the probable cost for the repairs and
restoration of the two (2) towers and façade between the two (2) towers and the exterior walls
adjacent to the two (2) towers will be approximately $96,000.00 ($125,000 - $29,000).

cc: SKA - File

09/09/2014 WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - 1-A Page 1
CAPITAL BUILDING CONSULTANTS
11040 OLD US HIGHWAY 52
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27107
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST
PROJECT: WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - 1-A BUILDING SPACE: 13,195 S.F.
GREENSBORO, NC ARCH. FIRM: SKA CONSULTING ENG.
ESTIMATOR: EJB CONTACT: BRAD EHRHARDT, PE
JOB DESCRIPTION: SCHEMATIC-STABILIZATION ESTIMATE NO: 0-536-14
MAIN ENTRY FACADE, COLS. 5-20
REFURBISH STRUCT & SEATING COLS. 5-20
UNIT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM/COMPONENT SPECIFICATION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST COST/SF % OF JOB
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS
PROJ. PERSONNEL PROJ. MNGR./FIELD SUPT. ETC., 24 WKS 1,500 $36,000 $2.73 1.15%
PROJ. LABOR DAILY CLEAN-UP/GEN. LABOR 480 CHRS 55 $26,400 $2.00 0.84%
PROJ. MATERIAL MISC. SUPPLIES 1 LS 1,500 $1,500 $0.11 0.05%
PROJ. TRANSPORTATION PU TRK/DUMP/FUEL/ETC.6 MO 1,500 $9,000 $0.68 0.29%
CONSTRUCTION AIDS OSHA 1 LS 10,000 $10,000 $0.76 0.32%
TEMP UTILITIES WATER/POWER/PHONE, ETC.1 LS 2,500 $2,500 $0.19 0.08%
PROJECT CONDITIONS TRASH REMOVAL/DUMP FEES 1 LS 75,000 $75,000 $5.68 2.40%
EQUIPMENT SMALL TOOLS/SCAFFOLDS/RENTALS 1 LS 20,000 $20,000 $1.52 0.64%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$180,400 $13.67 5.77%
B. SITE CONDITIONS
SECURITY TEMPORARY FENCING 1 LS 7,500 $7,500 $0.57 0.24%
SAFETY METAL GUARD RAIL 280 LF 150 $42,000 $3.18 1.34%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$49,500 $3.75 1.58%
C. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE
a. RAILS/BEAMS CIP REINF. CONC.105 CY 2000 $210,000 $15.92 6.71%
a. CONCRETE REPAIR (COLS) REINF/CONC/ENCASEMENT, ETC. 1920 CSF 35 $67,200 $5.09 2.15%
a. REFURBISH SURFACES PATCH & SEAL SPOILED CONC. SURFACES 2360 SF 20 $47,200 $3.58 1.51%
a. SEAT/RISERS CIP REINF. CONC.185 CY 1000 $185,000 $14.02 5.91%
a. VOMITORY WALLS CIP REINF. CONC.63 SF 780 $49,140 $3.72 1.57%
a. WALLS CIP" KNEE 52 CY 700 $36,400 $2.76 1.16%
a. SEATS/RISERS PRECAST 16531 SF 9.5 $157,045 $11.90 5.02%
a. CONCRETE REPAIR (RB) REINF/CONC/ENCASEMENT, ETC. 5744 CSF 25 $143,600 $10.88 4.59%
a. CONCRETE REPAIR (COLS) REINF/CONC/ENCASEMENT, ETC. 470 CSF 30 $14,100 $1.07 0.45%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$909,685 $68.94 29.07%
E. EXTERIOR WALLS
a. STUCCO MECH. FASTENED SYSTEM 5920 SF 45 $266,400 $20.19 8.51%
a. MASONRY REINF./CMU/STUCCO 2436 SF 35 $85,260 $6.46 2.72%
a. SHORING TEMPORARY 1 LS 25,000 $25,000 $1.89 0.80%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$376,660 $28.55 12.04%
N. FIXED EQUIPMENT
SEATING STADIUM BENCH SEATING 1500 EA 125 $187,500 $14.21 5.99%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$187,500 $14.21 5.99%
09/09/2014 WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - 1-A Page 2
UNIT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM/COMPONENT SPECIFICATION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST COST/SF % OF JOB
Y. SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

a. DEMOLITION CONC. GUARD RAIL/SPANDREL BEAM 1155 SF 15 $17,325 $1.31 0.55%
a. DEMOLITION CONC. SEATING/RISERS 3304 SF 20 $66,080 $5.01 2.11%
a. DEMOLITION REMOVE STUCCO FINISH 5920 SF 1.50 $8,880 $0.67 0.28%
a. DEMOLITION MASONRY INFILL 3060 CF 8 $24,480 $1.86 0.78%
a. DEMOLITION REMOVE CANOPY 8765 SF 2.50 $21,913 $1.66 0.70%
a. DEMOLITION TOWER ROOFS & ACCESSORIES 1 LS 7,000 $7,000 $0.53 0.22%
a. DEMOLITION VOMITORY WALLS 1100 CF 15 $16,500 $1.25 0.53%
a. SPECIALTIES NEW "PERIOD" TYPE WINDOW 225 SF 125 $28,125 $2.13 0.90%
a. SPECIALTIES REWORK ENTRIES & ACCENTS 1 LS 35,000 $35,000 $2.65 1.12%
a. SPECIALTIES REWORK "TIERED" TOWER CAPS 1 LS 30,000 $30,000 $2.27 0.96%
a. SPECIALTIES NEW FLAG POLE ASSEMBLIES 1 LS 7,000 $7,000 $0.53 0.22%
a. SPECIALTIES RMV/REFURBISH EXT. SIGNAGE 1 ALLOW 15,000 $15,000 $1.14 0.48%
a. SPECIALTIES FENCING & GATES 1 LS 15,000 $15,000 $1.14 0.48%
a. SPECIALTIES MISC. PAINT & FINISHES 1 LS 15,000 $15,000 $1.14 0.48%
a. DEMOLITION CONC. STNG/RSRS/RAKER BEAMS 20994 SF 5 $104,970 $7.96 3.35%
a. DEMOLITION CONC. RAILS 1120 SF 15 $16,800 $1.27 0.54%
a. DEMOLITION CMU @ VOMITORY WALLS 1656 CF 8 $13,248 $1.00 0.42%
a. DEMOLITION INTERIOR INFASTRUCTURE 13900 SF 3.50 $48,650 $3.69 1.55%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$490,971 $37.21 15.69%
Z. EXTERIOR WORK
SITE IMPROVEMENTS GEN. GRADING/FINE GRADING, ETC. 1 LS 5,000 $5,000 $0.06 0.16%
SITE IMPROVEMENTS EXT. CONCRETE WALKS 895 SF 6 $5,370 $0.06 0.17%
SITE SPECIALTIES LANDSCAPE & SEEDING 1 ALLOW 5,000 $5,000 $0.06 0.16%
SITE SPECIALTIES FENCHBING & GATES 1 LS 25,000 $25,000 $1.00 0.80%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$40,370 $1.18 1.29%
BUILDING SUBTOTAL $2,235,085 $167.51 71.43%
BONDS/PERMITS/FEES/INS/ETC. 5 %$111,754 $8.47 3.57%
CONTRACTORS OVERHEAD 5 %$111,754 $8.47 3.57%
CONTRACTORS FEE 10 %$223,509 $16.94 7.14%
CONTINGENCY 20 %$447,017 $33.88 14.29%

ESTIMATED CURRENT DAY BUILDING COST $3,129,119 $235.27 100.00%
09/09/2014 WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - PHASE 2-A Page 1
CAPITAL BUILDING CONSULTANTS
11040 OLD US HIGHWAY 52
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27107
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST
PROJECT: WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - 2-A BUILDING SPACE: 13,195 S.F.
GREENSBORO, N C ARCH. FIRM: SKA CONSULTING ENG.
ESTIMATOR: EJB CONTACT: BRAD EHRHARDT, PE
JOB DESCRIPTION: SCHEMATIC-RENOVATIONS ESTIMATE NO: 0-536-14
COLUMNS 5-20
UNIT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM/COMPONENT SPECIFICATION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST COST/SF % OF JOB
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS
PROJ. PERSONNEL PROJ. MNGR./FIELD SUPT. ETC., 32 WKS 1,500 $48,000 $3.64 2.91%
PROJ. LABOR DAILY CLEAN-UP/GEN. LABOR 380 CHRS 55 $20,900 $1.58 1.27%
PROJ. MATERIAL MISC. SUPPLIES 1 LS 1,500 $1,500 $0.11 0.09%
PROJ. TRANSPORTATION PU TRK/DUMP/FUEL/ETC.8 MO 1,500 $12,000 $0.91 0.73%
CONSTRUCTION AIDS OSHA 1 LS 15,000 $15,000 $1.14 0.91%
TEMP UTILITIES WATER/POWER/PHONE, ETC.1 LS 2,500 $2,500 $0.19 0.15%
PROJECT CONDITIONS TRASH REMOVAL/DUMP FEES 1 LS 25,000 $25,000 $1.89 1.51%
EQUIPMENT SMALL TOOLS/SCAFFOLDS/RENTALS 1 LS 10,000 $10,000 $0.76 0.61%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$134,900 $10.22 8.17%
B. SITE CONDITIONS
WALL FOOTINGS CONC/RBR/EXCVT/BKFILL 88 CY 325 $28,600 $2.17 1.73%
SLAB ON GRADE CONC/WWF/VB/STONE, SP, ETC. 13195 SF 5.25 $69,274 $5.25 4.19%
FOUNDATION WALLS CMU/REINF/CONC/ETC.2214 FSF 11.50 $25,461 $1.93 1.54%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$123,335 $9.35 7.47%
F. EXTERIOR DOORS & OPENINGS
PASS WINDOWS TICKETING BOOTHS 1 ALLOW 4,000 $4,000 $0.30 0.24%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$4,000 $0.30 0.24%
G. INTERIOR DOORS & OPENINGS
ENTRY DOORS MTL. FRAME/MTL. DOOR/HARDWARE 16 EA 850 $13,600 $1.03 0.82%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$13,600 $1.03 0.82%
H. INTERIOR PARTITIONS
MASONRY CMU/REINF/ETC.19850 FSF 5.50 $109,175 $8.27 6.61%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$109,175 $8.27 6.61%
I. WALL FINISHES
PAINTING WALLS/DRS/FRMS, ETC.13195 SF 3.50 $46,183 $3.50 2.80%
SPECIAL FINISHES SHOWER UNITS 8 EA 2000 $16,000 $1.21 0.97%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$62,183 $4.71 3.76%
J. FLOOR FINISHES & BASE
SOFT FINISH TILE/BASE, ETC.4214 SF 4.50 $18,963 $1.44 1.15%
SPECIAL SURFACES SEALED/STAINED CONCRETE/BASE 8991 SF 2 $17,982 $1.36 1.09%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$36,945 $2.80 2.24%
09/09/2014 WAR MEMORIAL STADIUM - PHASE 2-A Page 2
UNIT SYSTEMS
SYSTEM/COMPONENT SPECIFICATION QUANTITY UNIT COST COST COST/SF % OF JOB
K. CEILINGS & SOFFITS
HARD CEILINGS GYP/MTL. FRAMING/WP SYSTEM, ETC. 4214 SF 12.00 $50,568 $3.83 3.06%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$50,568 $3.83 3.06%
M. ACCCESSORIES & SPECIALTIES
TOILET ACCESSORIES HC/PT/TP/WASTE, ETC.1 LS 16,000 $16,000 $1.21 0.97%
TOILET PARTITIONS STALLS/SCREENS/ETC.1 LS 32,500 $32,500 $2.46 1.97%
INTERIOR SPECIALTIES SIGNAGE 1 ALLOW 25,000 $25,000 $1.89 1.51%
INTERIOR SPECIALTIES FIRE EXT./CABINETS 1 EA 375 $375 $0.03 0.02%
INTERIOR SPECIALTIES LOCKERS 60 EA 150 $9,000 $0.68 0.54%
INTERIOR SPECIALTIES LOCKER ROOM BENCHES 1 LS 5,000 $5,000 $0.38 0.30%
INTERIOR SPECIALTIES INTERIOR RAILINGS 1 ALLOW 25,000 $25,000 $1.89 1.51%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$112,875 $8.55 6.83%
O. CASE & MILLWORK
CABINETS & COUNTERS CONCESSION & TICKETING AREA 1 ALLOW 35,000 $35,000 $2.65 2.12%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$35,000 $2.65 2.12%
T. PLUMBING
PLUMBING WST/SPLY/FXTR/PIPE/ETC.72 EA 2,500 $180,000 $13.64 10.90%
PLUMBING SHOWER UNITS 8 EA 3,500 $28,000 $2.12 1.70%
DOMESTIC WATER/SEWER WATER HEATERS 2 EA 2,000 $4,000 $0.30 0.24%
DOMESTIC WATER/SEWER WATER COOLERS 3 EA 1,500 $4,500 $0.00 0.27%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$216,500 $16.07 13.11%
U. FIRE PROTECTION
SPRINKLERS PRE-ACTION SYSTEM 13195 SF 5.00 $65,975 $5.00 3.99%
$0 $0.00 0.00%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$65,975 $5.00 3.99%
V. HVAC
HEAT & AIR EQUIP/PIPING/DUCT WORK 4214 SF 15.00 $63,210 $4.79 3.83%
VENTILATION FANS/DUCT/GRILLS/CONTROLS, ETC. 8991 SF 5.00 $44,955 $3.41 2.72%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$108,165 $8.20 6.55%
W. ELECTRIC POWER
SERVICE/DISTRIBUTION WIRING/OUTLET/LIGHT FIXTURES, ETC. 4214 SF 12.50 $52,675 $3.99 3.19%
SERVICE/DISTRIBUTION WIRING/OUTLET/LIGHT FIXTURES, ETC. 8991 SF 6.00 $53,946 $4.09 3.27%
-------------------------------- ---------------
$106,621 $8.08 6.45%
BUILDING SUBTOTAL $1,179,841 $80.52 71.43%
BONDS/PERMITS/FEES/INS./ETC. 5 %$58,992 $4.47 3.57%
CONTRACTORS OVERHEAD 5 %$58,992 $4.47 3.57%
CONTRACTORS FEE 10 %$117,984 $8.94 7.14%
CONTINGENCY 20 %$235,968 $17.88 14.29%

ESTIMATED CURRENT DAY BUILDING COST $1,651,778 $116.29 100.00%

North Carolina
Department of Administration

Pat McCrory, Governor State Construction Office Bill Daughtridge, Jr., Secretary
Mailing Address: Telephone [phone] Location: 1307 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] N. Wilmington St. Suite 450
Raleigh, NC 27699-1307 State Courier #56-02-01 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

August 19, 2015

War Memorial Stadium
510 Yanceyville Street
Greensboro, NC 27405
SCO Site Inspection Report
North Carolina A&T University is contemplating the acquisition of the World War Memorial Stadium, constructed in 1926 in Greensboro and currently used as the home field of the NC A&T Baseball Team. This SCO site inspection and report was requested by the State Property Office in accordance with §143-341(4)(d).

SCO Assessment Team
Steven B. Sandifer– SCO Project Monitor – Building & Grounds
Tim Langford, PE– SCO Engineer – Structural Engineer Leonard Thagard, PE – SCO Engineer – Mechanical Systems
David Bell, PE – SCO Engineer – Electrical & Fire Alarm system

Scope: This report is limited to the requirements of §143-341(4)(d) and is not meant to duplicate other
detailed analysis and reports conducted by SKA Consulting Engineers in partnership with Teague
Freyaldenhoven Freyaldenhoven Architects & Planners, LLP dated August 15, 2014 and ECS, Ltd. dated July 23, 2001 and updated May 3, 2007. SCO does not disagree with any of the technical findings of those reports,
however our estimate of Facility Condition Repairs does appear higher than those presented by other parties.
Our costs are based upon recent experience with State Construction Projects and have historically proved more accurate upon the actual completion and acceptance of the work.

A. Grounds & Parking
The War Memorial Stadium Grounds are approximately 14 acres. During the time of our assessment not all property boundaries were clearly defined. A professional property survey is required to confirm property boundaries, identify encroachments and easement issues. According to Guilford County GIS multiple
encroachments are visible from three or more structures and approximately sixty percent of this property is located in the Flood Plane Zone designation AE. War Memorial Stadium Property contains numerous
monitoring wells located on the property (Photo 1). The purpose of the monitoring wells was undetermined at
the time of our assessment. Information provided by NCA&T after the assessment indicated the site includes soil and groundwater contaminated with petroleum products. The recommendations and cost estimates do not
include remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater. Further investigation should be conducted and NC
DENR should be contacted to determine if they agree with the findings of the May 3, 2007 Environmental Report prepared by ECS, Ltd.,and in particular the statement: “It is the opinion of ECS that natural attenuation
is an effective means of remediation for the contaminants at this site.”

The parking areas consist of two parking lots. Parking Lot 1 consist of asphalt and concrete. Parking 2 consist of asphalt paving. Parking Lots 1 and 2 both contain moderate cracking and weathering deterioration and
should be replaced. It is recommended that the existing asphalt surface be removed and recycled. Parking
Lots 1 and 2 should be repaved with Asphalt or alternate surface suitable for traffic conditions. Upon completion of repaving, the lot should be restriped. Approximately 8 acres of War Memorial Grounds are
designated as Flood Plain Zone AE. Special enhancements required for storm water management may be required. Lots 1 and 2 do not appear to exhibit any severe drainage concerns despite their location in the flood plain.

The side walk areas around the parking lots, site and concourse areas will require a combination of restoration and replacement. Overall, the side walk surrounding the stadium and grounds appears to be in fair condition.
Due to the vast scale of the site there are large quantities of side walk that will require removal and replacement.
*Note: Additional environmental survey work be done to further identify sub-surface conditions of the aforementioned areas. Estimated costs of parking lot repairs do not include removal and remediation of sub-
surface unsuitable conditions which are substantial if encountered while replacing paving material or soil
contamination issues.
A-1 Repave Parking Areas and Drives
Estimated Cost: $ 302,800
Priority: 0 Year

A-2 Replace Restore Sidewalks
Estimated Cost: $ 165,000
Priority: 0 Year

B. Maintenance Building (Photo 2).

This 925 square feet single level rectilinear wood framed structure with an asphalt shingle roof should be
removed and replaced with a similar structure. It was designed and constructed approximately in 1975 and is used currently utilized as storage and recreation for grounds keepers. The Maintenance Building is not located in a designated flood area.

B-1 Replacement Cost
Estimated Cost: $ 160,000
Priority: 0 Year

C. Metal Storage Buildings
War Memorial Stadium has two open air metal storage buildings. The buildings are not fastened on a
permeant foundation. The buildings are used for dry storage and have no power or mechanical systems. The
structures should be removed from the site.

C-1 Removal Cost
Estimated Cost: $ 1,000
Priority: 0 Year

D. Abandoned Men’s and Women’s Restrooms (Photo 3)

War Memorial Stadium contains one 750 square foot concrete masonry unit structure which is beyond repair. It
is recommend should this structure be demolished and removed immediately. The requirement to replace this structure with an ADA access compliant bathroom at this location is questionable. The Restroom Building is
not located in a designated flood area.

D-1 Demolish and Replace
Estimated Cost: $200,000
Priority: 0 Year

E. Concession Building (Photo 4) War Memorial Stadium has one 660 square foot single story concession building.
It is recommended that the existing concession building be replaced with new code compliant facilities. The existing Concessions Building is located in designated flood zone AE.

E-1 Demolish and Replace
Estimated Cost: $ 200,000
Priority: 0 Year

F. Tennis Courts & Restroom Structure (Photo 5)

War Memorial Stadium has (9) tennis courts and a single level CMU restroom building with a standing seam metal roof to serve the tennis courts. Complete access to the restroom building was not available- at the time
of the assessment. The exterior and restrooms appear to be in good condition. The existing tennis court
surfaces are in disrepair and need to be replaced. The restroom structure is approximately fifteen years old and appears to be ADA compliant.

F-1. Renovate 5 Tennis Courts
Estimated Cost: $ 500,000
Priority: 0 Year

Note: The tennis court restroom doesn’t contain a sprinkler system.
G. Stadium Structure (Photo 6)
The stadium seating bowl is a poured in place-concrete structure dating back to 1920’s. Based on the previous
studies and tests conducted of the material properties of the concrete and steel reinforcing materials used in
constructing the stadium are not stable and will require replacement.
Overall the stadium is in poor condition with repair required immediately to stabilize the reinforced concrete
seating structure and substructure. These deficiencies were located within walls bordering the track, ADA seating areas and concrete steps. Exit locations and sizes, riser heights, signage, lighting, Mechanical,
Electrical & Fire Protections systems are all noted as not compliant to current building codes.
War Memorial Stadium undergo a complete building renovation, to include hazardous material abatement,
demolition, repair and refurbishing to numerous components throughout the entire structure. Demolition should
occur to all three Wood framed Press Boxes in the Grand Stands. To stabilize the structure, extensive repairs should take place to seating bowl decking and substructure. ADA compliant access, exiting, lighting, seating,
rail systems and fall protection are to be included in the renovation. It is recommended that new irrigation and storm drainage systems be installed for the field and site. Complete building renovations should include new Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical & Fire Protections systems. The Stadium Structure is located in designated
flood zone AE. Consideration shall be given to design and construction that will require flood proofing or elevation above the flood zone.

G-1. Renovate and Rehabilitate Stadium.
Estimated Cost: $ 11,650,000
Priority: 0 Year
ITEM NO. 0-YEAR COSTS 1-YEAR COSTS 3-YEAR COST
A-1 $303,000
A-2 $165,000
B-1 $160,000
C-1 $2,000
D-1 $200,000
E-1 $200,000
F-1 $500,000
G-1 $11,650,000

TOTAL $ 13,180,000
TOTAL OF ALL COSTS ABOVE: $ 13,180,000
Costs shown do not include necessary amounts for contingencies, design fees, and escalation.
(Photo 1) Monitoring Wells Typical
(Photo 2) Maintenance Building

(Photo 3) Abandoned Bathrooms

Photo 4 Concession Building

(Photo 5) Tennis Courts

(Photo 6) Stadium

8/11/2015
SYSTEMS
GROUP
SYSTEMS
SUB
GROUP
TYPE DESCRIPTION
MASTER
FORMAT
DIVISION
COST Unit QUANTITY TOTAL COST

metal Replace Standing Seam Metal Roof 07 61 13 $15.00 SF
shingle Replace Composition Shingle Roof
Including Minor Deck Repair 07 31 13 $8.00 SF
asphalt
Replace Asphalt Built Up Roof
Including Minor Deck Repair and
Insulation
07 55 51 $12.00 SF
bitumen
Replace Modified Bitumen Roof
Including Minor Deck Repair and
Insulation
07 55 52 $12.00 SF
Replace Single Ply Roof - Ballasted
Including Minor Deck Repair and
Insulation
07 55 53 $10.00 SF
Replace Single Ply Roof - Adhered
Including Minor Deck Repair and
Insulation
07 55 53 $10.00 SF
Refurbish Slate Shingle Roof, replace
damaged tiles.07 31 26 $20.00 SF
Remove, recycle existing slate and
replace felt, valley tin.07 31 26 $75.00 SF
Install Single Point Roof Anchor Fall
Protection 07 72 00 $900.00 EA

aluminum Replace with aluminum 07 71 23 $5.00 lf
Steel,
galvanized, 4"Per lf of gutter run 07 71 23 $10.00 lf
copper Per lf of gutter run 07 71 23 $25.00 lf
Demolish and rebuild Equipment
curb 07 71 23 $2,000.00 ea.

Roof Study 02 25 29 $5,000.00 Building

Aluminum Storefront Single Door
Assembly 08 12 16 $6,000 EA
Aluminum Storefront Double Door
Assembly 08 13 16 $8,600 EA
Hollow Metal Single Door w/Frame 08 13 13 $2,000 EA
Hollow Metal Double Door w/Frame 08 13 13 $3,500 EA
Replace Sliding garage door, 8' x 12'
Res.08 36 00 $8,000 EA
Replace Roll up garage door, 12' x 12'
Comm.08 34 18 $12,000 EA
Stucco Removal/Repair 04 05 13 $35.00 SF 15000 $525,000
Paint 09 91 13 $3.00 SF
Strip Out and Recaulk Panel Joints 07 95 13 $7.00 LF
Rusty lintel - Sandblast and repaint 04 05 23 $1,500.00 EA

Pressure wash and seal masonry wall 09 01 70 $5.00 SF
Store Front Replace Aluminum Store Front 08 41 13 $80.00 SF
Metal Tube Framing w/Double
Glazing 08 51 13 $55.00 SF
Institutional Grade Operable Tube
Framing w/Double Glazing 08 51 13 $90.00 SF
Lead Paint Abatement - Bagged and
Disposed Off Site, Typ. 3'x5'02 83 19 $200.00 EA
Metal Clad Operable w/Double
Glazing 08 52 13 $70.00 SF
Wood Painted Wood Operable w/Double
Glazing 08 52 00 $65.00 SF
Correctional
Grade Replace steel and mesh window 08 56 63 $140.00 SF
Metal
Equipment
Curbs
Exterior Closure
Exterior
Exterior Doors
Large Vehicle
Door
Exterior Walls
Windows
GENERAL SYSTEMS COST DATA
Roof
Roof Material
single-ply
Slate
Gutters &
Downspouts
C:\Users\ssandifer\Desktop\WarMemorialCBRFCAPCostEstimate.xls/WarMemorialCBRFCAPCostEstimate.xls/General 1 of 4
8/11/2015

Basement
Exterior Wall
Foundation foundation
face sf
Renew Perimeter Foundation
Waterproofing and Drain System 07 10 00 $40.00 SF
Break-up, remove and replace 03 05 00 $16.00 SF

Gravel Base, 4" drain tile, gravel and
top soil back-fill 07 10 00 $350.00 SF

Structural Study (General)02 22 00 $6,000.00 OCCUR.

Kerf cut and patch concrete cracks
with epoxy 03 63 00 $170.00 CF
See Structural Studies

wood /Steel Replace existing Stairway, modular
stairs, 4'-w per flight, Typ. 12 risers 05 51 00 $605.00 Riser
Concrete
/Masonry
Replace existing Stairway, modular
stairs, 4' w per flight, Typ. 12 risers 03 30 53 $550.00 Riser
Rails 1 1/2" Round steel pipe 05 52 00 $30.00 lf
Surface Replace treads and risers 05 55 13 $10.00 SF
Exit Enclosure Extend Stair Exit Enclosure to
Exterior of Building 08 40 00 $50,000 stairway
See Parking Slab cost
See Structural Studies
See Structural Studies

See Structural studies

hardware Replace Door Hardware w/Lever
Type 08 78 00 $500.00 EA
signage Door Identification Signs 10 14 00 $85.00 EA
opener Install Door Opener - Existing Door 08 78 00 $2,500.00 EA
stair Stair Handrails - Install or Modify 10 28 13 $35.00 LF

single Construct New Single Use Toilet - No
Adjacent Plumbing 10 21 13 $310.00 SF
multi Major Toilet Room Expansion /
Modification 10 21 13 $220.00 SF
Other
Misc.ADA Study (Multi-buildings)02 22 00 $1,000.00 Building
Accessibility
Doors
Handrails
Toilets
Site Utilities
Super-structure
Floors and
Ceilings
(structural)
Stairs
Slab
Columns
Sub-structure
Basement
Floor
Drainage
Access
Studies
Exterior Closure
C:\Users\ssandifer\Desktop\WarMemorialCBRFCAPCostEstimate.xls/WarMemorialCBRFCAPCostEstimate.xls/General 2 of 4
8/11/2015

Install Hydraulic Elevator in Existing
Building - 3 Stops 14 24 23 $300,000 EA
Refurbish Hydraulic Elevator - 3
Stops 14 24 23 $220,000 EA
Install Traction Elevator in Existing
Building -3 Stops 14 21 23 $400,000 EA
Renovate Traction Elevator - 5 Stops 14 21 23 $300,000 EA
Addition Add Elevator Tower to Existing
Building Including Exit Stairs 14 20 00 $50,000 floor
Chair lift
(pool)ADA-Pool Access Lift-Aluminum 14 41 00 $20,000.00 EA

Vinyl Asbestos
Tile & Mastic Remove all VAT & Mastic 02 82 13 $4.00 sf 10000 $40,000
Spray on
Fireproofing Remove all fireproofing $25.00 sf
Surfacing
Material Acoustical Ceilng Texture $10.00 sf
Pipe Insulation $25.00 lf
Boiler
Insulation $25.00 sf
Designer for Abatement ($1250 min.)
8% of abatement cost 4 32 00 8.00%abatement design $3,200
Air Monitoring Technician 8 hr shift -$375.00 day
Air Monitoring Technician 8 hr
weekend work -$450.00 day
Lead
Abatement Remove Lead paint 02 83 00 $10.00 sf 40000 $400,000

Paint Repaint Walls - Primer and 1 Coat 09 91 23 $2.00 SF
Tile Replace Ceramic Wall Tile 09 30 13 $10.00 SF
Partitions
Replace wood stud partitions with
metal stud 5/8 GWB, both sides,
Nom. 8' H.
09 29 10 $35.00 SF

Carpet Replace Carpet 09 68 00 $45.00 SY
Tile Replace Ceramic Tile 09 30 13 $16.00 SF
VCT Replace Resilient Floor Tile (VCT)09 65 00 $5.00 SF
Wood Sand and Refinish Hardwood Floors 09 64 29 $5.00 SF
Terrazzo Terrazzo Repair and Refinish 09 66 00 $15.00 SF
Kitchen floors Remove and Replace Quarry tile
(Institutional)09 30 16 $65.00 SF
Shower Pans Demolish floor, install new pan and
tile floor 09 30 00 $10,000.00 EA

Hollow Core Replace Door with solid core, 3' x 7'
in existing frame 08 14 16 $800.00 EA

Auditorium Auditorium
Seating Replace existing Auditorium Seating 12 61 00 $500.00 seat
Gyp Repaint Hard Ceiling 09 29 10 $3.00 SF
Existing Spline Demo and Replace with Acoustical
Tile Ceiling Including Suspension 09 53 00 $5.00 SF
ACT Replace Acoustical Tile Ceiling Tiles -
Keep Suspension Grid 09 53 00 $3.00 SF

Abatement
Asbestos
Abatement
Demolition
Interior
Walls
Floors
Interior
Doors
Ceilings
If fire proofing is removed it needs to be replaced
Conveying
Systems
Elevators
Designer
Hydraulic
Elevators
Traction
Elevators
C:\Users\ssandifer\Desktop\WarMemorialCBRFCAPCostEstimate.xls/WarMemorialCBRFCAPCostEstimate.xls/General 3 of 4
8/11/2015

Concrete Ramp w/curb rails both
sides (Typ. 5' x 5' section)03 31 05 $500.00 EA
Remove and Replace Concrete
Sidewalk (4' wide, Broom Finish)03 31 05 $11.00 SF 15000 $165,000
Asphalt Sidewalk with base 32 12 16 $10.00 SF
Pavers Masonry Pavers laid on sand bed (no
traffic)32 06 03 $12.00 SF

Apply Asphalt Surface Sealant 32 01 13 $1.50 SY
Mill Top Layer and Replace with
Renewed Asphalt 32 01 16 $12.00 SY
Completely Rebuild Road / Lot - 2-
inch Asphalt and 6-inch Stone
Subgrade
32 12 $25.00 SY 12112 $302,800
Concrete Pad Parking Pad-4", 3000psi 03 31 05 $12.00 SF
Gravel Lot Minimum Grading, 3/4" stone 32 11 23 $8.00 CY
Power Wash 09 01 70 $5.00 SF
Remove deteriorated and re-caulk
deck joints 07 95 13 $9.00 LF

Cut and patch concrete, topping slab
(Typ. 1-1/2" to 2")03 53 00 $16.00 SF

Remove and Replace Standard Curb
and Gutter 32 16 13 $30.00 LF
Install New Standard Curb and Gutter 32 16 13 $25.00 LF
Other

Exterior
Wash base Demolish and Replace
Fountain Decorative 22 52 33 $35,000.00 EA
Bridges Pedestrian(8' wide, up to 150' l)32 34 20 $125.00 LF
Tunnels concrete lined, 8' wide x 50'33 05 16 $100,000.00 EA
chain link 5' H with top and bottom rail, with
gate-add $250 per 3' gate 32 31 13 $13.00 LF
Security 8'-high 32 31 13 $28.00 LF
Wood 5' high 32 31 29 $18.00 LF

Retaining
Walls Masonry Concrete 6" thick x 6' h with tie backs 33 32 13 $150.00 LF
Pierced brick pierced brick (single wythe), 6' h 32 25 16 $100.00 LF
metal 8' h-Typical Equipment Screening 32 25 16 $150.00 LF

Tennis Regulation-surface with fencing 32 18 23 $100,000.00 EA 5 $500,000
Tennis Repair deteriorated surface, new
stripping 32 18 23 $50.00 SF
Track Repair deteriorated surface, new
stripping 32 18 23 $52.00 SF

$1,936,000
Contingency 5%$96,800
Design Fee 10%$203,280
$2,236,100
Parking Deck
General Construction Sub-
Total
TOTAL
Fencing
Screen walls
Court
Curb and
Gutter
Concrete
Exterior Site
Sidewalks
Concrete
Parking
Pavement -
Street and Lots
C:\Users\ssandifer\Desktop\WarMemorialCBRFCAPCostEstimate.xls/WarMemorialCBRFCAPCostEstimate.xls/General 4 of 4