Winston Churchill Memorial Trust

TECHNOLOGIES FOR RE-LOCATING BUILDINGS

Dr James Moir, BA, Dip. Surv., IHBC: Fellow 53c of 2006

2

Contents Introduction p.3

A) When, Who & Where? p.3 B) How? Technologies for Re-locating Buildings p.5 C) Why? Understanding Why Buildings are Moved p.11 D) Applications of Structural Moving in the UK p.15 E) Outcomes of the Project p.17 F) Acknowledgements p.18

Appendices 1) Itineraries 2) Article in Structural Moving Magazine 3) Article in New York Times

Cover Illustration: House at Tappahanoock, Virginia, in transit – Expert House Movers (October 2006) This Page: Cribbing, H.D Snow’s yard at Fort Worth, Texas

3

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Introduction The stated aims of the fellowship were:

To investigate the technologies adopted by different countries for moving buildings This would be achieved by contacting experienced contractors and so identify 5 schemes to compare and contrast:

1. Large-scale re-location of masonry structure using skids/rollers 2. Smaller-scale re-location of timber structure using cranes/lorries/barges 3. Dismantling and re-erection of timber-framed structure 4. Dismantling and re-erection of masonry structure 5. Hybrid scheme involving partial disassembly.

Differences in methodology and technical approach would be captured and understood by filming and recording the entire process, including initial survey, recording, calculating loads, stresses etc., protecting the structure prior to move, preparing the new site, actual move and re-assembly. Further information would be gathered on techniques and 'before and after' changes to the buildings performance through interviews, archive research and visits to comparable sites. The knowledge and experience gained from the project would be used to establish whether opportunities existed to transfer or adapt these technologies - or even develop new engineering solutions – as a means of recycling buildings. Such an approach could help to inform sustainability agendas, particularly where climate and settlement changes have been threatening increasing numbers of buildings with destruction. Other outcomes might be: Establish advisory/project management role to the structural moving industry Act as an advocate where re-location of buildings had not been considered. Engage a TV/Film company in making a programme on the subject Research the history of moving buildings - a fascinating story yet to be told. This report falls into five sections:

A) When and Where?: organisational process, resume of milestones and outline itinerary

B) How?: methodologies adopted for re-locating buildings C) Why?: reasons for moving buildings D) Application in U.K. E) Project outcomes

A) When, Who and Where? In the event, the stated objectives were more than fulfilled. The three countries – Norway, USA and China were visited over 59 days, involving some 25,000 miles of travel. (See Appendix 1 for the Itineraries.) I met representatives from 17 moving firms, participated in two actual moves, and visited literally hundreds of moved buildings, at least 50 of which were in the process of being moved. The following illustrates examples of the five types of scheme:

4

1. Large-scale re-location of masonry

structure using skids/rollers Fig 1a: The Concert Hall, Shanghai (2003) Fig 1b: The Concert Hall, 2007 (Arrow indicates direction of move)

2. Smaller-scale re-location of timber structures using cranes/lorries/barges

Fig 2: House moved from Atlanta to Calhoun, Georgia Fig 3: House moved by Expert House Movers, Virginia

3. Dismantling and re-erection of timber-framed structure

Fig 4a. & b: Dachang Village, China (October 2007) 4. Dismantling and re-erection of masonry

structure

5. Hybrid scheme involving partial disassembly.

Fig 5: South Gate, Dachang Village. Numbered masonry. The tree was moved in one piece! (October 2007)

Fig 6: House in Florida cut vertically in half to preserve nearby tree! (October 2006)

B) How? Technologies for Re-Locating Buildings Two principal approaches to moving buildings were encountered in all three countries – moving structures by dismantling and subsequently re-erecting them, or moving structures as entities. Dismantling Dismantling of buildings was the most popular method in Norway, was probably a second choice in USA, but had only recently been practised in China. In Norway, by far the majority of buildings are of log construction, and this method of assembly also lends itself well to deconstruction. Log buildings will sometimes bear signs of being dismantled several times. Poor roads and difficult terrain also help account for dismantling being the preferred method. Timbers could be loaded onto carts that might be wheeled or fitted with skids for transportation over snow and ice. Fig 7: Kell Mathisen, Maihaugen Museum, indicating three different numbering

systems on K25, a re-erected mill building (July 2006) In USA, dismantling of buildings may have been practised most extensively in those areas settled by log cabin builders; the country’s long-standing espousal of timber-framing has also inevitably meant that structures have been taken down and re-assembled at other locations. Brick and stone structures have also been successfully re-located by employing this method. In China, the sheer scale of the Three Gorges Dam project and its destructive environmental impact was a prime reason why the Government had turned to dismantling as a means of preserving cultural relics. The difficult terrain flanking the Yangtse River was a key factor prohibiting the wholescale moving of buildings. Apart from this unique project, one individual in the antiques trade is known to dismantle buildings in Anhui Province and import them into Beijing.

Figs. 8a & 8b: Mr Wang’s sleek glass box in Beijing, in which he has re-erected three buildings dismantled and

moved from Anhui province (October 2007) It is true to say that dismantling is both a destructive method of moving buildings (because a high percentage of historic fabric is inevitably lost) but also potentially liberating in the sense that structural elements can be fully repaired – or altered, changed or omitted – to create a new space or structure. The dividing line between faithful reconstruction and creation of an essentially new structure incorporating re-used elements can be a thin one; dismantling as a means of preserving a structure can therefore either produce meticulously well-researched and painstakingly reconstructed exhibits, or poorly executed shams which do nothing to convey the spirit and character of the original building. In some cases, of course, dismantling may take place and, due to lack of funding or a site, subsequent re-erection fails to take place – the building is then ‘lost’.

6

Structural Moving Norway appears to have only recently espoused structural moving of buildings, although it is possible that log structures have been moved in the past whole, either on skids or possibly over the water. The technique used in Norway was not encountered in either the USA or China; essentially, cranes are used to lift the structure at four points; tall cranes could swing the structure over short distances; otherwise, structures were loaded onto flat bed lorries. The method appears to have been developed in Norway in the 1990s by two haulage firms, in response to the innovative requirement of the largest Open Air Museum in the country to fill its new exhibit area with C20th buildings, moved as single entities.

Fig 9: Dwelling House from Langes Gate 20, Lillehammer, being re-located to Maihaugen Museum

In the USA, the structural moving of buildings has a long and respectable history. Records survive of buildings being moved as far back as the C18th. Horses could pull small structures directly; horses in conjunction with capstans could winch much larger buildings from one site to another. In the Victorian era, the obsession with generating power led to effective mechanical solutions being applied to the moving of structures – stream trains in particular were harnessed to pull large buildings; railroad accessories such as Simplex jacks, rail tracks, bogeys and bridge-building equipment and steel wheels were diverted into the business of moving structures. In the early C20th, the development of the pneumatic tyre and emergence of the characteristic USA truck shifted the focus of the industry to the spacious and relatively uncluttered road system.

Figs 10 a,b,c: The development of ‘dollies’: exhibits at the Structural Moving Museum, Fort Worth,Texas (Oct. 2006)

7

The ‘typical’ structural mover in the USA will have, at the least,

a) motive power in the form of a truck

Fig 11a: Truck with oscillating cap, H.D Snow, Fort Worth Fig. 11b: In one of Ducky Johnson’s trucks

(October 2006) b) bearing structures in the shape of a set of steel ‘Ι’ beams threaded beneath floor platforms

Figs 12 a. & b: Sets of steels: Jimmy Hays, Biloxi, (above) & Tex Watson (Macon, Georgia) right

c) ‘dollies’ or sets of wheels to move the structures on

Figs 13a. & b: Dollies under building at Pensacola Beach, Florida (left) and Building ready to be moved,

Williamsburg (October 2006) d) lifting capacity (for both raising and lowering buildings) in the form of a set of jacks (in

all likelihood linked into a unified jacking system) with associated cribbing.

Figs 14 a. & b: Warren Davie (left) and Jeremy Patterson (right) using jacks and unified jacking systems to raise flood damaged buildings in New Orleans (October 2006)

8

Simple timber-framed buildings require little else to make them transferable; masonry or adobe buildings on the other hand require more advanced bracing, cradling and banding systems to prevent ‘bursts’ during a move.

Figs 15a & b: Masonry structures in Florida (left) and New Jersey (right) stiffened with angle irons and steel banding (October 2006)

The more advanced companies are experimenting with new technologies – although these tend to be imported into the USA – such as the Goldhofer or Scheuerle trailers, (essentially multiple dollies controlled by electronic steering mechanisms developed in Germany), or the lorry with elevating flat bed (imported from New Zealand) which can be raised and lowered so that structures can clear narrow fences, bridge parapets and the like. Figs 16a. & b: Chris Ellis (right in group) has imported these elevating trailers from New Zealand into the USA, here

seen in use near Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The flat bed is controlled by the driver from within the cab (right) Buildings are often moved long distances – the process is inevitably intense and complex – the building will have been prepared (severed from foundations/basement and raised; utilities disconnected, external skins of brickwork removed; loaded onto ‘platform’ of steels and dollies, curved timber fixed to roof of building to clear power lines, internal bracing fixed where required); routes have to be carefully planned to avoid obstacles, the relevant permits and licenses (for moving buildings by road, for attendance by a police escort, for temporarily moving utility lines etc) have to be acquired; insurance cover obtained. On the day, the relevant personnel (drivers, crew (who will be at the front of the lorry warning other road users and clearing obstacles such as mail boxes and road signs (Fig 17a. (right) and at the rear replacing them), police, utility

company representatives will be in attendance; single storey houses can be moved up to 50 m.p.h., so there is little room for error; loads will weave in and out of carriageways to avoid obstacles and traffic lights, temporary cribbing may be needed in ditches to allow a wide load to pass, crew members my be required on the roof to dislodge/avoid tree branches and utility lines. (Fig 17b. left). At the destination, the building has to manoeuvred (again either using jacks or rollers/skids) on to new foundations.

9

Structural movers in the States will often extend their expertise to other areas of heavy lifting and moving. In the New Orleans area, following the devastation caused by Katrina, a number of companies have been involved in jacking up buildings, re-siting them on their foundations or generally levelling or righting structures damaged by the force of the hurricane. (see Figs. 14 a. & b.) Structural moving companies will rise to the challenge of moving any large object – oil rigs, transformers, ships, locomotives, even giant models of elephants! Some companies do not confine themselves to roads – they will move objects by barge, and even occasionally by air.

Fig 18: ‘Lucy’ , the Margate Elephant. (New Jersey. Built in 1881 as a real-estate promotion gimmick, the 58’ high structure was moved to this site in 1970 and is now a Museum

There is, however, a clear hierarchy in the structural moving business; despite the impression conveyed by series such as Mega Movers, the re-location of massive structures is comparatively rare and only a handful of companies will have the capability to tender for such jobs; there are however many small to medium-size ‘family’ businesses who confine themselves to moving modest timber-framed structures within their locality. China, in contrast to the USA, has universally adopted hi-tech. ‘horizontal moving’ as a method of re-locating structures. Practised it is believed by some thirty companies located throughout the country, it involves pushing the structure using rollers or skids along manufactured reinforced concrete ‘tracks’ with jacks, usually linked by a PSL system. Computers are used to control the moving systems and monitor the behaviour of the building prior to, during and after transit.

Figs 19a & b: Jacks used to push the Concert Hall, Shaghai (left) and rollers left in place following move of former 1920’s bank, now a restaurant in Jinan (right)

10

It appears that a move undertaken by Abbey Pynford PLC in Warrington in 1983 was the inspiration for developing this system – this in turn had probably followed US precedents, where the approach has been used to transport buildings of considerable mass and scale over relatively short distances (eg Cape Hatteras Lighthouse). In China, as in so many other fields, the principles had at first been poached from another country, but have then been refined to such an extent that a move involving a 37 storey building which weighs some 150,000 tons is being contemplated by one firm in 2008. When compared to the USA, where businesses tend to be family enterprises and government involvement is largely seen as ‘red tape’ interference, the structural moving industry in China has clearly evolved as a result of a much tighter partnership between Government (who of course have a much closer involvement in procuring all major construction and engineering projects), universities (engineering faculties carry out surveys, structural calculations and monitoring and develop appropriate equipment) and business. (Shandong Jianzhu University for example undertakes all aspects of a move through its business subsiduary).

Fig. 20: With Professor Xu (left) and his senior engineer at the University. (October 2007) The Fellowship thus provided a unique opportunity to gain an intimate insight into three very different approaches to structural moving – lifting (Norway) pulling (USA) and pushing (China). These methodologies have led to different technologies being adapted and developed; some variations inevitably exist from company to company, but the overall consistency of approach in each of the three countries visited is remarkable.

11

C) Why? Understanding Why Buildings are Moved The Fellowship provided an excellent opportunity to understand not just the technologies used, but also to contrast the complex social, cultural, and economic forces which stamp the structural moving industries in each of the three countries with their own particular individuality. Technologically, in fact, there are few barriers to moving any building to anywhere in the world. However, the re-location of buildings has played different roles in different societies at different periods of time, because of the complex bundle of factors affecting each and every move. This arises from the duality inherent in a relocatable building – the fact that there must be a force (the ‘push’) encouraging its supply on the one hand, and on the other, a force (the ‘pull’) exerting an attraction to a new site. There are of course societies where only one side of the supply/demand equation will be in existence. Communities facing rapid decline (or change) might spew up many potential relocatable buildings because they have been abandoned, but if neighbouring communities are facing a similar plight, it is unlikely such buildings will cross the threshold and become desirable acquisitions. Equally, a society may be clamouring to acquire buildings from elsewhere, but if neighbours are prepared to resist any encroachment on their building stock then stalemate will occur. The scales therefore have to be weighted in favour of the ‘pull’ factor for actual relocations to take place – there has to be some sense of ‘added value’ once a building has been moved. This concerns the fundamental role that structural moving can play in re-ordering and rejuvenating societies by re-aligning processes which are out of kilter in an existing system. In China, for example, urban planning strategies appear to change so swiftly that structural moving offers a means of correcting mistakes that have been made in the planning process – e.g a building erected only a year ago is found to be in the way of a road. The economic and natural life of a building may therefore be two different things – economic ‘obsolescence’ will tend to occur before the building is physically redundant. Re-location of the structure offers a means of eking out the natural life of a building that is otherwise superfluous to requirements. In many cases, the building’s ‘purpose’ will be rejuvenated and even given a new meaning. All relocated buildings are therefore Janus like, in that their loss inevitably has an impact on their original site but also they acquire new values on their new site, altering the significance of the environment into which they are moved. Unravelling the connections between the old and new sites tells us a great deal about the wider social, political, economic and cultural norms of the society within which such relocations take place. In China, the Zhang Fei Temple (Fig 21: right) was re-located 30 kilometres upstream as part of the Three Gorges Dam project, where rising water levels have inundated important archaeological sites and displaced over a million people. Once an important focus as the centre of worship in a network of local deities, the intention of the government has been to transform it into a major tourist site, as a means of compensating for the loss of charm of this once magical river landscape. Disconnected from the important fengshui and folkore surrounding its original location, the temple has been re-configured so as to transform the hero it commemorates – General Zhang Fei – into an historical figure, a symbol of loyalty and courage and a model public servant, as opposed to a mysterious cult figure who attracted superstitious practises. The temple is now intended to be a rallying point and ‘memory-chest’ for the displaced local people.

12

This is but one example of an insight into the transformations that can occur when a building is re-located. This report is not the place to analyse the vast range of other ‘push’ and ‘pull’ characteristics, but the following resume briefly highlights the main trends and reasons encountered during the course of the Fellowship: Phase 1: Pre c.1750 Buildings were moved during this period mainly for pragmatic reasons, for example, where towns or villages declined, and new settlements flourished nearby. In Norway, farmsteads were re-ordered by shifting buildings into linear arrangements to accommodate agricultural improvements, or redundant dismantled timber frames and log constructions might be recycled into ‘new’ buildings designed to serve a more pressing need. Moves often took place to solve kinship/family anomalies - for example, where two siblings had to share an inheritance, one might receive the land, the other the building on it which could be moved to a new site. Similarly, buildings might be included as part of a dowry, taken by the bride to the new marital home. (In Norway, it was often the Stabbur or loft which was specified). Occasionally, buildings were moved as a result of more wide-ranging changes - the Reformation for example sealed the fate of many private chapels in Norway, some of which were moved and demoted to storage buildings on private estates. Phase 2: c1750-1850 This period witnessed three significant emerging trends. First, major landowners in Europe were in a position to carry out large landscaping projects on their estates; salvaged ‘rustic’ structures were sometimes introduced into parkland settings as eyecatchers or retreats. Secondly, pre-fabricated buildings began to be manufactured, a degree of demountability thus being built in at the initial construction phase. Such buildings were well-suited to the needs of migrating workforces engaged in mercurial activities such as mining and railroad construction. Population migration could take other forms – from one poor rural area to another, from countryside to town, or within urban areas. Again, buildings might accompany such shifts. At Maihaugen, instances were quoted of buildings being moved into Lillehammer after it was ‘founded’ in 1827. A third emerging trend was the accelerated rise of land values, particularly in rapidly growing urban areas. In the USA, buildings began to be shifted out to marginal areas because they were sitting on land that was more valuable without the structure; alternatively further development land might be freed up by shifting a building within an over-generous plot. Phase 3 1850-1900 Railroad construction continued apace, and the heavy engineering technologies developed for this industry were applied to the emerging structural moving market. Larger re-location projects – such as the 5,000 ton 6 storey Pelham hotel in Boston which was moved 13 feet 10 inched in 1869, became a possibility. Railroads themselves inevitably caused some settlements to decline, while others at a distance wanted to cash in on the opportunities they offered; buildings clustered closer to the tracks. The fruits of such heavy industry were celebrated at Trade Fairs and Special Exhibitions. These short-term events, fired by competitive, commercial and national pride, were perfect forums for showcasing products in ‘authentic’ settings, and many structures and ‘pavilions’ – which were often strange fusions of innovative construction wrapped up in a pseudo-vernacular style – escaped rapid redundancy by being re-located and re-used elsewhere. Some, for example, found their way into the Norsk Folkemuseum, the brainchild of King Oscar of Norway; he had taken populating estates with ‘rustic’ structures a step further by gathering examples of vernacular buildings and opening the resulting historic collection in 1880-81 to the public. This was the founding event of the Open Air Museum movement; Europe, the USA and more recently China have all since engaged in the practice of assembling buildings worthy of preservation into educational ‘parks’.

13

Phase 4 1900-1945 Some of the emerging wealthy elite in America in fact pushed this trend to its limit; returning from their ‘grand tours’ of Europe with chunks of Classical architecture; Hearst and Getty would be major sponsors of the structural moving industry in vying to create displays for their assembled treasures; whole buildings – monastic remains, tithe barns, hall houses – and many architectural fragments were shipped over to the States to re-appear in such settings as the Cloisters (New York) and Hearst Castle (California)

Fig 22: The Cloisters, Tryon Park, New York (October 2006) During this period, too, structural movers in the USA transferred to the rapidly growing road network, as pneumatic tyres and fossil fuel engines allowed heavy loads to be pulled overland. In 1919, all the buildings within a sixteen block area in Hibbing, Minnesota covering a newly-discovered vein of iron ore, were gradually moved to a new area on the outskirts of town. Phase 5 1945- The Second World War appears to have attracted many new entrants into the moving industry in the USA; framed barracks and other detritus of war offered rich pickings for those owning a winch truck and a set of steels. At the same time, the construction of the Interstate road system, rapidly implemented so as to facilitate the quick movement of troops and supplies across the country, also provided new routes along which buildings that stood in its path could be moved. The growth in numbers of movers eventually provided the critical mass for forming the International Association of Structural Movers. Despite its name, membership is largely confined to the States – none of those involved in the industry in both Norway and China is a member of the organisation. Yet these are countries where, increasingly, re-location work is being undertaken; they are testimony to an increasing global recognition that structure moving can provide solutions for ‘awkward’ buildings that would otherwise slip through the net. Infrastructure changes in these rapidly modernising countries result in buildings being moved because they are in the path of highways, railroads, reservoirs (e.g Three Gorges Dam), urban renewal or airport growth. One of the by-products of modernisation is an increase in leisure time. In Norway, individuals have bought up old structures, re-located them and used them as summer or winter retreats. Tourism enterprises have found that assembling historic buildings into pleasant ‘camps’ might give their destinations a marketing edge.

14

Consumer spending has increased and commercial advertising has to vie for customer attention. Undoubtedly one of the most surreal and bizarre examples of re-location for marketing purposes was when some authentic historic Norwegian log cabins appeared on the roof of the Printemps shop in Paris for the 1992 New Year celebrations.

Fig 23: Historic buildings, in store at the Norsk Folkmuseum in Oslo, were transported to Paris and re-erected on the

roof of the Printemps Shop, New Year 1992. Sport is another by-product of consumerism. A solution of what to do with buildings erected for a short-term event but whose life-span was clearly considerably greater was cleverly built into the planning stage of the Winter Olympics, held at Lillehammer in 1994. Over 300 cabins and two-storey houses were constructed with re-sale and re-location in mind once the event had finished. In China, an antique dealer in Beijing has been buying up redundant houses in Anhui province, and moving them to the capital where they have been re-erected in a sleek glass box; he hopes they will become reception buildings for Olympic Committees in 2008. International travel is a third feature of globalisation. The international transmigration of buildings, a trend kickstarted by American tycoons, has continued into the late C20th – log cabins from Norway, windmills from Denmark and even a courtyard house from China have travelled by sea and found new homes in the USA. Reciprocally, Norway has re-assembled examples of the American houses of emigrants. The Future The industry is changing. Aspirations to build ever larger and taller buildings poses greater challenges; the technological revolution in precision heavy and electronic engineering is providing a solution in the shape of finely orchestrated, computer controlled moves. Structural movers have long responded to natural disasters, but a feature of global warming will be increased coastal erosion, flooding, wind damage etc – the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina has recently generated a great deal of business on the Gulf Coast. The industry has always been into the business of recycling – now it has an opportunity to place itself at the centre of the sustainability agenda.

15

D) Applications in the UK In the UK, the same kinds of ‘push’ factors are encountered, and yet the ‘pull’ side of the equation rarely kicks in. Why is the re-location of a building rarely considered as a solution? There is only a single company – Abbey Pynford plc – who have the equipment and expertise to undertake such moves. This monopoly is itself a deterrent as there is no competitive tendering environment; potential projects are shelved because, in terms of price, the hurdle is always set a little bit too high. There are of course some real practical constraints in the UK. First, the road system bears no resemblance to the generous carriageways networked across the USA. Utilities throw up serious obstacles – low wires, traffic lights, permanent signage. Bridges tend to be low. Secondly, and perhaps most significantly, the majority of buildings in the UK are masonry structures– and for the past century most have been constructed on massive foundations with cavity walls – two skins that work well in compression but flimsy when the loadings are removed. Perhaps this apparent mass endows them with a sense of permanency that tends to ‘root’ these buildings. Certainly they are much heavier than the ubiquitous timber-framed structures encountered in the States – these are often set on simple point foundations or piles and have basements or semi-basements, allowing supporting steels to be threaded through the substructure relatively easily. Even where the foundation is more massive, it tends to take the form of a solid concrete slab, which itself will tend to have the strength and density to be lifted whole with the building. Even so, there are plenty of records of building moves in the UK in the past. And the re-siting of the ornate masonry Victorian chapel at Great Ormond Street Hospital only a few years ago is proof that such projects are possible. The real barrier appears to be more of a cultural one – an intellectual resistance to the concept that a building is no different to any other moveable object . This idea of the Englishman’s home being genuinely a castle - rooted to the land on which it was planted - was a cornerstone of the conservation philosophies of the early preservationist groups such as the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. The result has been that the Open Air Museum movement, which took much of the rest of Northern Europe by storm in the nineteenth century, did not trickle over into the UK until at least 50 years later – and then only in a half-hearted manner when every other conservation option had been exhausted. This ingrained opposition to the notion that buildings could have a more fluid and flexible lifespan has undoubtedly resulted in the loss of some key treasures; opportunities to recycle buildings which of course retain huge quantities of embodied energy have been missed. This is not to advocate that the UK should suddenly be invaded by gangs of structural movers with their dollies, jacks and steels, intent on re-configuring the built environment overnight. This is rather to analyse the UK environment in a more objective light, and instead focus on some key areas where the technologies developed in other countries could have applications in the UK. There would seem to be six fruitful areas:

a) coastal areas suffering from erosion – some projects have been undertaken in the past to move structures back from coastlines that have been eaten away. The Cape Hatteras Lighthouse move in the USA demonstrated what could be achieved in this field

b) buildings suffering from settlement due, for example, to clay shrinkage, could be jacked up and the opportunity to insert a basement or full new storey taken, instead of the type of expensive and piecemeal underpinning currently practised

c) buildings in flood plains could be re-located to avoid expensive insurance premiums or actual loss through water inundation.

d) jacking up of bridges – all the brick bridges built by Brunel on the historically significant Great Western Railway for example are threatened because of new European electrification standards.

e) as a means of providing brownfield sites to accommodate greater housing densities - structures already standing in the centre of large plots could be moved as a mechanism to release more development plots.

16

The first four areas are all intimately connected to the process of climate change and global warming. The fifth would help to address the real problem of shifting demographics and go some way to solving the apparently conflicting strategy of the government to build many new homes whilst promising to safeguard the environment. In all five respects, structural moving should be considered as a key option in any sustainability agenda. The above analysis acknowledges that there are severe constraints to undertaking the type of long-distance road moves characteristic of the USA and featured in series such as Mega Movers. The scope for moves or applications envisaged in the UK are much more closely aligned to the kind of work being undertaken in China – their approach of delivering buildings a short distance from their point of origin using carefully controlled, horizontal moving techniques would appear to be the most appealing and productive path to follow.

17

E) Outcomes of the Project The Fellowship has provided an extraordinarily beneficial platform from which to launch several initiatives.

1) A direct and tangible outcome will be a series of three articles in ‘Structural Mover’ – the official magazine of the International Association of Structural Movers. The first article on Norway has already appeared (see Appendix 2); those on the USA and China will be appearing in the next two issues

2) Whilst undertaking the Fellowship, I was contacted by Abigail Rayner of the Financial

Times. The article she wrote on the house moving industry is included at Appendix 3.

3) Before travelling to China, I arranged a meeting with Carlo Massarella, the producer of the Mega Movers series for Windfall Films Ltd. The programmes to date have focussed on moves in the USA; for the third series, Carlo wants to explore featuring moves being undertaken in the Far East. I have returned from China with the necessary introductions and two ideal projects to feature in a film, and aim to co-ordinate and script write the production.

4) I have gathered sufficient information to produce a book – to be titled ‘On the Move’ –

charting the evolution of the structural moving industry. This may also be linked to the Mega Movers series.

5) I have played a small part in extending and cementing ties in the industry by

introducing new members from Norway and China to the International Association of Structural Movers – two countries that were hitherto entirely unrepresented in the membership

The more intangible benefits of the Fellowship include: Providing an intimate yet global perspective on a fascinating industry – its history, evolution, and present day role Learning at first-hand how different technologies can be applied to moving structures Providing an unrivalled opportunity to meet a diverse group of highly motivated, dedicated and skilled practitioners and so creating a network of long-term contacts in the industry In a wider sense, the opportunity to travel and the discipline of organising the three trips has created a window to reflect on more fundamental personal issues and so focus on a more meaningful and productive life strategy. In short, the Fellowship has delivered exactly what it promised on the packet – the ‘chance of a lifetime’!

18

F) Acknowledgments I am hugely indebted to N. Eugene Brymer, Staff Executive of the IASM and Editor of ‘Structural Mover’. He turned the aims of the Fellowship into reality – the USA trip would simply not have happened without his hard work and dedication. He mapped out an achievable route, made the initial contacts, primed all the structural movers in advance of the visit and willingly supplied (and continues to supply) a whole host of supporting information. He also opened important doors into China. The industry is fortunate to have such a dedicated, professional and motivated co-ordinator. I would also like to thank: In Norway: At the Norsk Folkemuseum Mogens With, Conservation Architect - for a marvellous tour of the Museum and for organising the research opportunities and supplying so much useful information Alveva Talland - for extensive assistance with documentation, photos etc and pleasant tours of Norway’s museums Gein Hellard, Architect - for invaluable help with translation Tone Odden, Librarian Olav Aaras, Director At Maihaugeen, Lillehammer Kjell Marius Mathisen, Conservation Architect Guri Velure, Librarian And to Asbjorn Tysssen (Sunnfjord Museum); Jahn Bore Jahnsen (Valdres Museum) and Dag H. Saeverud (Voss Museum) for providing helpful information and advice. In USA: Jackie Black, for accommodation in Atlanta Howell B. Cochran and family of House Movers Inc. of Calhoun, Georgia Jack Davie, of Davie House Movers, Atlanta, Georgia Warren Davie & staff of Davie Shoring in New Orleans (thanks also for the excellent oysters!) Philip and Blaine DeVillier, DeVillier House Movers & Levelling, Eunice, Louisiana Chris Ellis, Alpha Specialised Movers Ltd (New Zealand) but working with Davie Shoring in New Orleans area David J.W. Floyd, Director, Louisiana Rural Life Museum, Baton Rouge Jimmy Hays of Hays Housing Moving Co., Mississippi (thanks also for the Hibachi meal) Charlie Johnson and all his staff (particularly Donald Barbee) of Ducky Johnson House Movers, Grand Ridge, Florida (thanks for the use of the magical ‘Shoddy Shack’) Carl Lounsbury and colleagues at Colonial Williamsburg Jerry Matyiko, Expert House Movers, Sharptown, Maryland Jim Matyiko, Expert House Movers, Virginia Beach Jeremy Patterson, Washington, IA (In New Orleans) Harold (H.D.) Snow, son Gary and staff of H.D. Snow and Son House Moving Inc., at Fort Worth, Texas (thanks for the steak!) Jay Thompson, Atlantic Structure Movers, Barnegat, New Jersey (thanks to Jay & Tina for a great meal in the best New Jersey seafood restaurant!) Tex Watson of Watson House Moving & Wrecking Co., Centerville, Georgia (& thanks for the meal and bed!) Fig 24: With Blaine Devillier nr Eunice

19

In China: Helen Huang, Beijing for interpretation, guiding, and research beyond the call of duty Sissi Jiang, Shanghai for interpretation, guiding and shopping abilities Mr Lan, Chief Executive of Evolution Building Shift Engineering Co. & his staff (thanks also for three delicious Chinese meals) Dr Dong Xiu Lin, formerly of Evolution Listening Lee, Chongqing for interpretation, guiding, and excellent bartering skills Professor Xu Xiandong & staff at Jinan University (also for a marvellous reception in Jinan’s biggest seafood restaurant) Ryan Skeie for arranging meetings with Dr Dong & Mr Lan Klaus Scholpp of Scholpp Engineering and Jerry Tu, one of his engineers, for carrying out initial research And to Robert Walker, Alice Zhang, Andrew Slevin and David Pitcher, all of RICS (China) for information and advice To Liz for critical support and encouragement and for sharing the magical Parkway To Mikes & Ruth for putting up with their Dad’s absences, but hopefully drawing inspiration – (so brave flying alone!) - from their trips to Norway and USA respectively. And of course thanks above all to the dedicated and helpful staff of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust without whom none of this would have happened.

Fig 25: With Staff from Evolution, Shanghai (October 2007) © James Moir (November 2007)

20

Appendix 1: Itineraries Norway 16.6.06 Flight to Oslo 17.6.06 Orientation, Oslo 18.6.06 Visited Norsk Open Air Museum 19.6.06 Met Mogens With, Guided tour of Open Air Museum 20.6.06 Archives, Norsk Folk Museum 21.6.06 Maihaugen Open Air Museum 22.6.06 Archives, Norsk Folk Museum. 23.6.06 Joined by son, Michael. Midsummer Festival at Norsk Folk Museum 24.6.06 Sightseeing, Hohenzollern and Hefte Collection (moved buildings) 25.6.06 University History Museum (AM) then Science and Technology Museum (PM.) Flight home. USA 28.9.06 Flight to New York, with daughter Ruth 29.9.06 Macy’s, Empire State, World Trade Centre site. Evening: AMC 25 (moved theatre, now cinema) 30.9.06 Central Park. Ladies Pavilion (moved structure), Statue of Liberty 1.10.06 The Cloisters, Tryon Park (Collection of moved European structures (AM.) then Richmond Town, Staten Island (Open Air Museum of moved buildings (PM.) 2.10.06 Shopping, NY, then to NY Airport for Ruth’s return flight 3.10.06 Flight to Dallas. Structural Moving Museum at H.D. Snow 4.10.06 On site with H.D. Snow, structural mover, preparing for move of small house. Drove to Baton Rouge 5.10.06 Davie Shoring, structural mover, New Orleans – visited yard and jobs; Jeremy Patterson, structural mover, jacking up houses 6.10.06 Blaine Devilliers, structural mover. Unloading new house at Lorran Park. Louisiana Rural Life Museum 7.10.06 Laura Plantation (moved wings of house and plantation cabins). To Biloxi 8.10.06 Met Jimmy Hays, structural mover. Tour of his jobs 9.10.06 Biloxi – Katrina devastation 10.10.06 Met Chris Ellis, structural mover (from New Zealand) – elevating trailer 11.10.06 Met Donald Barbee (Ducky Johnson structural mover) – Sites on Gulf Coast, Pensacola & Dauphin Island 12,10.06 Met Charlie Johnson (Ducky Johnson, structural mover) Grand Ridge, Florida 13.10.06 Participated in move with Ducky Johnson, structural movers 14.10.07 Landmark Park, Dothan (moved buildings), Florida Caverns State Park 15.10.07 Westville, Open Air Museum 16.10.07 Met Tex Watson, structural mover, Centerville, Georgia 17.10.07 Met Howell Cochran, structural mover, Atlanta, Georgia and Jack Davie, structural mover, on adjacent site 18.10.07 Participated in move with Howell Cochran and Jack Davie 19.10.07 Picked up Liz from Atlanta Airport 20.10.07 Stone Mountain Park, nr Atlanta (moved buildings) 21.10.07 Drive to Asheville, start of Blue Ridge 22.10.07 Blue Ridge Parkway 23.10.07 Blue Ridge then Williamsburg 24.10.07 Met Jim Matyiko, Expert House Movers. Met Carl Lounsbury, architectural historian, Williamsburg. 25.10.07 Visited Williamsburg, and house moved by Jim Matyiko at Tappahanoock 26.10.07 Met Jerry Matyiko, Expert House Movers, Sharptown 27.10.07 Met Jay Thompson, Atlantic Structure Movers, West Creek, New Jersey 28.10.07 Smithville (moved buildings). Princeton (moved University buildings) 29.10.07 New York 30.10.07 Flight home China 7.10.07 Flight to Beijing 8.10.07 Visited Forbidden City, Tian’an Men Square 9.10.07 Met Ryan Skeie, moving equipment. Visited 2008 Olympic site, Great Wall, Ming Tombs, Hutongs in Beijing 10.10.07 Met Mr Wang, mover of Anhui houses to Beijing 11.10.07 Met Professor Xu and colleagues at Jinan University; visited moved restaurant 12.10.07 Flight to Chongqing. 13.10.07 Hydrrofoil up Yangtse River to Yichang 14.10.07 Visited Three Gorges Dam, Phoenix Mountain (moved buildings) 15.10.07 River to Wushan. Visited Dachang (re-located village) 16.10.07 River to Yunyang. Visited Zhang Fei Temple (re-located temple) 17.10.07 Flight to Shanghai. Visited Urban Planning Museum. Met Ryan Skeie again 18.10.07 Met Dr Dong (Evolution) at Shanghai Concert Hall. Visited two other Evolution projects. Shanghai Museum. Met Mr Lan and Evolution staff for dinner 19.10.07 Visited Evolution Office. Then 3 projects being undertaken by Evolution 20.10.07 Visited Juijiao (moved temple), Thames Town. Dinner with Mr Lan of Evolution 21.10.07 Shopping. Visited French Quarter and Sun Yat Sens house 22.10.07 Flight home