274 Apuntes del Alcázar de Sevilla
E
nglish
version
2. ANALYSIS PRIOR TO THE INTERVENTION
When the Board of Trustees of the
Real Alcázar
formalised the com-
mission in the
Galería del Grutesco
with us, we were all thinking only
about an structural intervention which allowed for solving the dam-
age of the framework. Those metal beams from the beginning of the
20th century, which were replaced in 1991, showed a high degree of
oxidation and they had caused the closing of some parts of the cov-
ered
Galería
, due to the collapse. Actually, the section closed to the
public was the second one, which goes from the change of direction
to the southern end. In addition, water stains on ceiling and walls
were very pronounced in the covered section of the
Galería
open to
public but in the closed section the big size of the metal had broken
the wall rendering and bricks, causing collapse and a high risk for
people’s security and for the monument itself.
The rooftop terrace —the uncovered passage made by Vermondo
Resta—, closed to the public since the 20th century, was operating
as a “big channel” because a lot of systems were directed along the
interior side of the parapets from the gardens to the vicinity of the
Puerta de Marchena
and the
Estanque de Mercurio
’s northern view-
point. The recent positioning of ceramic tile floor has reduced the
elevation of those parapets and they are now 60 centimetres high,
causing insecurity when walking by the roof. That height of the floor
has led to the reinforcement of the gargoyles’ mouths, which were
used to drain off the rainwater from the rooftop terrace. All of them
are pointing to the Jardines del Retiro; that is, towards the side of the
rampart which Resta did not design as façade. Dirt was highly visible
in the gargoyle’s mouths, between the gargoyles and on the rooftop
terrace. That led to an unsuitable drainage of water. In fact, when
we analysed the walls’ water satins in the lower level, we realised
that their position tended to coincide with the gargoyles’ position
in the upper level.
Both viewpoints or derricks which close the
Estanque de Mercurio
and the
Puerta del Privilegio
also showed significant drainage prob-
lems, probably due to the poor condition of the gargoyles located in
their roofs —Figure 10—.
Regarding the structure, we differentiated three areas or kinds of
framework so as to write the project and carry out the intervention:
• The general structure of the Galería, made with metal beams
IPN-120 and solid brick hollow bricks. Thanks to José María
Cabeza’s publication and to the disposition of the ceramic floor,
we realised that it was fixed without disassembling the previous
floor. Then, when we started the demolition of the framework,
we proved the presence of the double floor and of a double brick
hollow brick.
• The structure of the southern end, whose rafters were replaced
in 1991 by prefabricated joists made of reinforced concrete.
• The structure of the towers, whose roofs were held by barrel
vaults —Figure 11—.
Finally, although our intervention did not include renovation
works, some small remainder of paintings were detected in some
of the derricks’ arches’ intrados which pointed to the gardens.
They were similar to those in the covered gallery’s arches, which
were differently damaged and at the first sight seemed to be from
different epochs.
3. METODOLOGY FOR INTERVENTION
In contrast to the traditional vision of a cultural investigative pro-
cess, primarily focused on the analysis and classification of the ob-
ject under investigation, culture is currently standing on a much
wider stage that is leading Heritage to the following level, leaving
behind the immutable process of identification and maintenance of
monuments. On the other hand, the idea of sustainability has also
been included in culture, resulting in the search of non-prejudicial
ways of commercialization or exploitation that allow a successful
management of Heritage, as it is increasingly happening in the
Real
Alcázar
.
As we were aware of this reality, the inclusion of these two factors
into our work was considered since the very moment we were en-
trusted with this request by the Board of Trustees, at least as part of
the process of reflection and development of the project. One of the
tools that meet these requirements is the Value Chain —figure 12—,
which has been used in the field of Archaeology since the nineties
and is applicable to any object of study concerning Heritage:
“Basically, the ‘Value Chain’ is a way of analyzing anything and its
aim is to improve the condition of the object by separating its com-
ponents, by x-raying what is believed to be interesting and by analyz-
ing the pros and cons, the strengths and weaknesses, identified in
every component”
18
.
It consists of six phases that are divided in to categories: “Investiga-
tion”, associated with the traditional process and obviously neces-
sary; and “Action”, which allows the collectivization and dissemi-
nation of the investigation. Both phases are adaptable and have to
make use of the other processes and be constantly checked. The six
phases are:
• Identification and custody
• Documentation and record
• Evaluation and significance
• Intervention and maintenance
• Dissemination and collectivization
• Impact and reflection
Clearly, our work is at the stage of “Intervention and Maintenance”.
However, we always wanted to offer a global vision of the whole
Value Chain from the beginning. During the making of decisions
or during the performance of the activity, this global vision could be
supported by Investigation phases as well as by the phases regarding
Action, as they make the Heritage sustainable in the end.
In the same way, once the historic study for the elaboration of the
project was made, we suggested to the Board of Trustees the recov-
ery of the uncovered passage of the
Galería del Grutesco
. We wanted
to carry out this recovery because of two different factors: the verifi-
cation of the fact that Resta originally conceived this gallery holding
two floors, one of them covered and the other one uncovered, as
Rodrigo Caro indicated in his chronical in 1634; and the confirma-
tion that it stayed unchanged for at least two centuries and a half,
known thanks to Van der Borcht’s plan and some engravings from
the eighteenth century. So, what started off as a structural interven-
tion became, as well, a project to recover the uncovered passage, tak-
ing into account all the implications coming from this regarding the
tidying up, adjustment of the accesses, lightening, safety, removal of
wirings, etc.
