I administer a site with several dozen architectural fragments
(accessioned) and a few historic buildings (not accessioned), one of which
is a designated historic building.  The buildings were never accessioned
because it allows more freedom when repairs or modifications have to be
done, or even (gasp!) demolition.  And yes, it has happened.
Unfortunately, the non-desigated buildings don't have the same degree of
protection as the fragments and the designated building, so quite often,
the choice to repair or to demolish has been one of which option costs
less.

The fragments and designated building have to be treated in an entirely
different manner.  Generally, repairs and conservation treatments are
conducted through a specialized tender process, and by people who
specialize in such things (though not always, to my great dismay), while
the other buildings are given the once-over by whichever contractor came in
with the lowest bid.

While the accessioned fragments differ from the buildings only in size and
completeness, there is little logic to why things are done this way.  But
that's the way it is, like it or not.  If I had my druthers, they would all
be accessioned.

Alex Avdichuk
City of Toronto
Arts, Culture and Heritage Services
[log in to unmask]




Have any historic house museums or museums with historic structures
accessioned the actual structure?  Please discuss the rationale for
accessioning or not accessioning the structure.  What are the pros and
cons? Has anyone encountered problems with this process?  Thank you.
Wendy Wiener
Curatorial Assistant
The Octagon, The Museum of the American Architectural Foundation
Washington, DC
[log in to unmask]