The Smith Campus Center at Harvard University after completion of restoration work.
Janie Airey The Smith Campus Center at Harvard University after completion of restoration work.

Harvard University, America’s oldest institution of higher learning, has a diverse set of buildings dating back to the 17th century. Yet at the dawn of the 21st century, a true physical hub where Harvard students, faculty, staff, visitors, and the Cambridge community at large could come together and feel at home had yet to be realized. In 2013, in pursuit of this goal, the university decided to repurpose the three floors of Harvard Square’s Holyoke Center into the new Smith Campus Center.

Josep Lluis Sert’s Holyoke Center in the 1960s shortly after construction.
Josep Lluis Sert’s Holyoke Center in the 1960s shortly after construction.

Designed in 1958 by Josep Lluis Sert, a Spanish architect who served as dean of Harvard’s Graduate School of Design and chairman of the Cambridge Planning Commission, the Holyoke Center reflects the principles of modern architecture established by Sert’s mentor, Le Corbusier. For its transformation into the new campus center, Harvard selected London-based Hopkins Architects as design architect; our firm, Boston-based Bruner/Cott Architects as executive architect; and Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates as landscape architect. The project called for the renovation of the first, second, and top floor of the 10-story, 100-foot-tall, city-block-square concrete building. The other seven stories, which included the university’s health services center remained occupied throughout design and construction.

The façade has two distinct textures, lightly exposed aggregate precast and board-marked, cast-in-place concrete.
Bruner/Cott Architects The façade has two distinct textures, lightly exposed aggregate precast and board-marked, cast-in-place concrete.

Façade study
One of Bruner/Cott’s roles was to restore the building’s façade. Our specialist subconsultant, Simpson, Gumpertz + Heger (SGH) conducted a study of its exposed concrete elements and single-glazed storefront enclosures. This included hand-sounding in selected spalled areas of cast-in-place and precast concrete. Based on the results in these 10-story sample locations, we predicted the likely extent of necessary repairs and concrete replacement.
Hopkins’ design team designated which façade portions should remain, which should be removed, and how the newly designed façade sections should relate to the original architecture. SGH surveyed all exterior concrete through binoculars from street level and roofs while Bruner/Cott catalogued deteriorated glazing and sealants. The resulting estimates of the number of proposed concrete repairs helped the university decide to limit concrete repairs to locations where detachment and spalling, PCB contamination, or water penetration endangered people or the building’s physical integrity.

Boston University's Law-Ed Building and George Sherman Union as seen from the BU Bridge over the Charles River in 1966.
Boston University Photography Boston University's Law-Ed Building and George Sherman Union as seen from the BU Bridge over the Charles River in 1966.

Bruner/Cott’s work on the façade was facilitated by a similar project with SGH at the Boston University (BU) School of Law Tower, the first structure in a concrete complex that Sert designed in 1959. At BU, we identified and replaced all the failing concrete, including exposed board-marked cast-in-place concrete and precast spandrels, mullions, and sills with architecturally significant textures. Completed in 2015, that project directly informed the repair work we did for the Smith Campus Center.

Thirty-seven different cleaning methods were tested on plain, board-marked, and precast surfaces for comparison.
Bruner/Cott Architects Thirty-seven different cleaning methods were tested on plain, board-marked, and precast surfaces for comparison.

Cleaning the surfaces
At Harvard, the building first had to be cleaned, and the right mixes of cement, lime, and aggregate determined, for each distinct architectural surface. Early in the design process, 37 different cleaning methods were tested on plain, board-marked, and precast surfaces for comparison. The low pressure dry-blast methods that initially seemed most effective created problems when the mixture was wind-blown onto the busy streets below. Water-borne cleaning techniques require the collection and disposal of their resulting wet waste because of potential PCB-contamination caused by early sealants leaching into the concrete, but create fewer conflicts with people on the streets below.

Ultimately, the most effective cleaning method for the main cast-in-place façade areas employed garnet sand and medium water pressures with an EPDM collection membrane on every scaffold platform, which then drained to tanks for disposal. At street level, some walls had a very smooth concrete surface compared to the rougher textures on upper stories. The imprint of the original birch plywood formwork is still visible on these walls after cleaning. For those sections, a mild chemical application with fiber brushes removed the worst soiling while leaving the original surface intact.

The concrete mix used to repair the cast-in-place surfaces emerged after 24 samples representing four cycles of cure were tested in-situ across three months.
Bruner/Cott Architects The concrete mix used to repair the cast-in-place surfaces emerged after 24 samples representing four cycles of cure were tested in-situ across three months.

Matching the old concrete
The number of trials for cleaning proceeded rapidly compared to the time required for concrete mixes to be placed and cured across several weeks for comparison to the existing surfaces. Even when clean, 60-year-old concrete does not look like it did when it was new. Carbonation slowly shifts its tonality from gray to tan, and the thin, brittle, cementitious laitance wears away to expose more particles of aggregate, further changing both texture and hue. Casting against smooth formwork surfaces creates textures that differ from troweled applications, making it difficult to replicate the original attributes of historic concrete façades, even with skilled workmanship and detailed specifications. It doesn’t help that most concrete facades have many changes in texture due to variations in placement where aggregates and paste settle differently within and against their original formwork—not to mention fifty years of exposure.

SGH and Bruner/Cott decided to begin sample trials at Harvard to match the building’s existing concrete based on the mix that fit best at our recent BU project. That mix emerged after 24 samples representing four cycles of cure were tested across three months. This was a good starting point, but it was far from a perfect match, so the cycle of test samples began anew for cast-in-place patch areas. The white and gray limestone aggregates for the precast sills and vertical panels turned out to be a closer match between the BU and Harvard buildings, partly because matching aggregate was visually dominant.

Workers cut away to sound concrete in a rectangular format, chipping to a uniform depth that allowed new concrete to be applied over existing rebar or mesh, coated steel with zinc-based paint, and inserted cathodic protection devices.
Bruner/Cott Architects Workers cut away to sound concrete in a rectangular format, chipping to a uniform depth that allowed new concrete to be applied over existing rebar or mesh, coated steel with zinc-based paint, and inserted cathodic protection devices.
This precast fin was cut-out full depth and then a cathodic protection device and reinforcing steel was installed prior to concreting.
Bruner/Cott Architects This precast fin was cut-out full depth and then a cathodic protection device and reinforcing steel was installed prior to concreting.

Repair
After cleaning and matching the mix, the final challenge was physical repair. The most frequent cause of spalling and fractures in concrete that is exposed to rain and freezing temperatures is too shallow rebar placement. Inadequate depth of cover causes cracks mechanically that admit water to increase carbonation, which reduces concrete’s alkalinity that protects steel against corrosion. The frequency of rebar locations with inadequate cover is greater in cast-in-place walls and exposed slabs than in more precisely fabricated precast pieces.

The center’s 3-inch-thick brise soleils and story-high mullions suffered more frequently from inadequate structural restraint than inadequate cover to steel. Deflection caused fractures that brought water into contact with reinforcement. These large, thin, precast elements did not suffer from poorly located steel mesh.

SGH sounded the entire façade by hand to identify hollow areas with incipient detachment. Workers cut away to sound concrete in a rectangular format, chipping to a uniform depth that allowed new concrete to be applied over existing rebar or mesh, coated steel with zinc-based paint, inserted cathodic protection devices, then replaced the cut-away concrete to visually match the original in both dry and wet conditions.

Matching the texture and color of the 60-year-old cast-in-place concrete with vertical board marks was challenging.
Bruner/Cott Architects Matching the texture and color of the 60-year-old cast-in-place concrete with vertical board marks was challenging.

Twenty five years ago, our firm’s extensive façade restoration of Harvard’s Peabody Terrace married student housing complex was one of the first projects to recognize the importance of treating patches visually as “Dutchmen,” in much the same way that rectangular pieces of new stone are inserted during the restoration of stone masonry. Clear rectangular cut-outs with narrow joints make slight variations in tonality or texture more visually acceptable while avoiding the feathering and smeared geometry that would result from simply chipping back to sound material. Spalls are one reason for employing this geometric replacement technique; poor past repairs are another. The depth of chipping required to allow effective thickness of concrete behind reinforcing steel and cathodic protection devices determines how much concrete to remove at individual locations. The depth of concrete cut-outs may vary widely in a single façade, and different thicknesses of new patches may cure to different tonalities. Stone restoration does not pose this problem.

Some spalling of the precast concrete was due to structural failure at anchors.
Bruner/Cott Architects Some spalling of the precast concrete was due to structural failure at anchors.
The white and gray limestone aggregates for the precast sills and vertical panels turned out to be a closer match, partly because matching aggregate was visually dominant.
Bruner/Cott Architects The white and gray limestone aggregates for the precast sills and vertical panels turned out to be a closer match, partly because matching aggregate was visually dominant.

Cracks are also a crucial aspect to address in concrete restoration. Patterns of board-marked façade textures were highly important to Sert’s architectural vision for exposed concrete. The building features slab edges that were downturned for apparent thickness and marked with the rough texture created by vertically oriented, sawn form-boards. The shadows cast by the rough texture made it difficult to see hairline cracks in early binocular surveys. When scaffolding made close examination possible, a larger number of hairline cracks became evident, even where hand-sounding indicated no detachment. Crack repairs remain the most visually distracting category of concrete restoration as they are usually long and roughly diagonal. Repair was accomplished by applying a penetrating liquid corrosion inhibitor then filling with dry-pack concrete mix or injected epoxy depending upon width (no enlargement by cutting). Finally, all the concrete was coated with a silane-siloxane water repellent to seal the material and slow carbonation.

Construction Noise
Noise is a key consideration in concrete projects. At BU, the construction site was relatively contained, but at Smith Campus Center, not only did we have to contend with Harvard Square’s busy streets but also had the additional challenge of cleaning and repairing the façade as the building’s upper floors remained fully occupied. The sound of the façade-cleaning pumps was loud, and the vibration and noise associated with chipping proved even more disturbing to the building’s occupants and to people nearby. This meant that cutting and chipping was restricted to times when the disturbance was least disruptive—weekends at Harvard, and nights at BU. The logistical implications of these restrictions for a construction manager can be profound, especially when coordinating the façade work with the schedule for interior rehabilitation. Assigning relative disruption ratings to the noises associated with different restoration activities can be helpful (for example, the shrill mechanical removal of old polyurethane sealants may actually be worse than cutting and chipping concrete). Pumps for water-borne sand cleaning also produce high-amplitude, high-frequency noise levels both inside and out.

Cutting and chipping was restricted to times when the disturbance was least disruptive.
Bruner/Cott Architects Cutting and chipping was restricted to times when the disturbance was least disruptive.

Building scale should also be considered relative to noise concerns. At over 96,000 square feet, the Smith Campus Center is a large building. The time required to complete façade repairs and restoration on buildings of this size can be several years. Inherent disruption should be factored into project planning from the earliest stage, especially during pre-construction cost estimates that include schedule assumptions about time restrictions for noisy work and consequential impacts on continuity of work for the trades of sealant removal and abatement, masonry, and glazing. During construction, complaints from occupants and neighbors can affect schedule and construction costs significantly.

Concrete architecture
Despite these challenges, mid-century modern architecture that features exposed monolithic concrete is a vital aspect of our built heritage, and it should be appreciated when combined with good architecture. During this period, concrete was celebrated as a splendid realization of the ethic of contemporary aesthetics. It allowed for expression of structure and surface finishes on both the interiors and exteriors of buildings, and was considered to be waterproof, physically continuous, and inert.

Architecture based on monolithic concrete was relatively short-lived as a movement, in part because of the public’s aversion to its non-traditional appearance and the growing realization that effective energy performance and moisture management necessitate separation between structure and cladding in a building envelope. The problems posed by the best examples of these buildings are not insurmountable however, and they deserve solutions consistent with their historic and aesthetic value. The recently completed concrete restoration at Harvard’s Smith Campus Center illustrates informed responses to the true challenges posed by this special category of concrete repair.