Busting out water cisterns from the basement Rosslyn’s basement sounds sort of therapeutic. Like those design shows where they invite homeowners to participate in demolition, crashing through existing conditions in order to exert their own will, beginning to transform their ideas into reality by obliterating the old, the worn out, the dated, the failing or failed, the existing conditions.
And, to be honest, there is something cathartic about demo. It’s an extreme example of asserting agency. Taking ownership. Doing my undoing. Building up by tearing down…
In fact, the very concept of demolition is a little bit like a temper tantrum. A little mindless. A little out of control. More than a little violent. And generally super destructive.
Although we talk about demo on our job sites, more often than not what we’re actually doing is deconstructing. (I think I’ve talked about the difference between demolition and deconstruction elsewhere, but if not, I’ll make a mental note to review it soon.)  Demolition (a.k.a. demo) is pretty well summed up in the paragraph above. But deconstruction is mindful and intentional, endeavoring to disassemble rather than destroy. The value of construction is at least two fold. On the one hand, intentionally, attentively, curiously, studiously deconstructing allows for learning. If reassembly or repair or integration with existing conditions are important, then learning how the original was fabricated is essential. And deconstructing, rather than demolishing, allows for reuse. Both of these reasons compel us 
This is no less true for stonework/ masonry than it is for woodwork. The photographs in today’s post chronicle a process — arguably less efficient and more drawn out than normal — of dismantling the old stone cisterns inside of the basement. This locally quarried Chazy and Trenton Limestone will be repurposed in the stonework (walls, terracing, and steps) surrounding the deck later in our rehab. So at this stage, the objective is cautious disassembly.
And, remember, in a project like this, there’s no instruction manual. There’s no knowledge of the condition of the foundation, so every step of the way is cautious. Every step of the way is an attempt to be understand the as built conditions. What has successfully endured test of time? What needs to be re-engineered?
In the photograph above, you can probably detect many generations of masonry builds and rebuilds. In a two century old building, changes are inevitable (and often fascinating). Note the integration of a cistern — apparent because of the white plaster that was used to parse the interior of the cistern,  not unlike a similar practice used with swimming pools — into colossal underpinnings of the fireplace. It’s stuff to be sure when the systems were added and/or modified. But a reminder from yesterday‘s post helps illuminate the challenge(s) we were addressing.
So long as there was water in the cistern, gravity ensured this handy delivery system for water in the 1800s… [And, as luck would have it,] the exterior cistern that filled the indoor “well” hole in our future wine cellar was only one of our water problems… [There were] two additional gravity fed cisterns [in our future gym / fitness room]. Although these indoor water storage tanks constructed of stone and lined with plaster (white still visible in some of the photographs) had largely been broken up prior to our ownership… [plenty of stonework — both deconstruction and construction — were necessary.] (Source: Boggy Basement 2006)
I will close this post with a look at the foundation wall on the westernmost end of our home. Consider the stonework at the corner, and note that the two planes are not integrated. One wall is built up against the other. (The first photograph in this post shows the same corner from a different angle.) Do you detect any other differences between the two stone foundation walls, such as the masonry style and/or condition of the stones?
More soon…
What do you think?