Architectural records come in many different formats and are used by a variety of users for diverse reasons. The records share, however, some common characteristics--their awkward sizes, their fragile physical form and increasing electronic existence, and their ever increasing volume. Little has been written on the archival view of appraisal and selection criteria for architectural records. With this in mind, and with the belief that a documentation strategy would provide a useful beginning to set appraisal guidelines, the Working Conference on Establishing Principles for the Appraisal and Selection of Architectural Records was held in April 1994 at the Canadian Centre for Architecture. At the conference, archivists, curators, and users gathered to discuss the inherent principles and problems in the appraisal and selection of architectural records, and to propose an agenda for the future analysis of these issues and for the development of a model documentation strategy.

The appraisal of architectural records is complicated by the many existing interpretations of the purpose and function of architecture: which buildings, which architects, what other social, economic, and governmental influences, and which interpretations of the architecture are to be documented? In dealing with these questions--and with the massive growth rate of current records--the traditional approach to appraisal based on present and future research value is of little use. Documentation strategy is a relatively new approach to appraisal, and stresses a macro-appraisal and selection of the functions, activities, and record creators that need to be documented for posterity. The understanding of records in their overall context provided by macro-appraisal will ensure a more complete documentary record, but will require archivists to become actively involved in determining which records survive, not passively waiting to appraise and select those records which find the way to archival repositories on their own.

Documentation strategy is an analytical approach to archival appraisal that looks not at individual records, but at the overall universe in which such records exist. It recognizes the inherent problem of volume with modern records, and provides a way for records creators, custodians, and users to work together to create a plan for which documentation will be preserved. Since it was first introduced in 1984, documentation strategy has met with mixed reactions from the archival profession, and has received its most theoretical examination from the Canadian archival community. With a role in the worlds of both archival theory and archival practice, documentation strategy can be applied to the appraisal of architectural records with the development of broad goals for documenting architecture through the coordination of records creators, custodians, and users, and through the creation of institutional archives.

Architectural records are an essential resource for architectural historians. The archives of two architects, Bruce Goff and Louis I. Kahn, demonstrate the diversity of materials that document, both directly and indirectly, the architect's professional work and personal life. In addition, different parts of these records are important to different users, from historical, preservation, or legal standpoints, to name a few. There is no single archival principle that can be applied to appraisal and selection decisions, given the individuality of each architect or architectural firm. However, from the perspective of an architectural historian, the physical separation of the various materials making up the individual's or firm's archives should be avoided, as should deaccessioning.

Studies by the author of the history of the architecture and architects of Canadian post offices and of the Lincoln Memorial demonstrate the usefulness of architectural records. Because architectural design is not undertaken in isolation, the influences it and the architect receive from outside sources can be discovered through the review of a variety of architectural records. There is no single definition of what does or should make up an architectural collection. The historical value of such records for a variety of research purposes suggests that collections should be kept complete and intact to the extent possible, guaranteeing their availability for the many sorts of architectural record users.

The needs of preservation architects for archival architectural records are opposite the needs of historians. While the historian may be more interested in earlier drafts and design concepts for a building, most important to the preservationist is not what might have been, but what actually is. While it is usually not possible to retain all the architectural records for a building, it is possible to distinguish the types of records most useful to preservation architects. The various documents related to a building's construction are reviewed for their value to preservation architects.

Like historians, lawyers use architectural records as evidence, but their goal is not to interpret the past, but to prove it. The most important element architectural records provide to the defense of legal claims against architects and engineers is the dimension of time. Being able to determine a sequence of events relating to a claim is paramount when arguing whether an architect or engineer acted in a professional manner and exercised professional standards of care in the performance of work. Therefore, until the threat of litigation on a particular project or building is past (and it rarely ever is), the retention of all architectural records is safest. Then, in the event of litigation, using their own versions of selection, arrangement, and description, legal teams can work to re-create the events and circumstances of the past.

Architectural drawings are not synonymous with architectural archives, but they do constitute a significant part of architectural documentation. With many of the earliest architectural collections containing only books, the interpretation of the importance of architectural drawings has changed over the years. It has been shown, however, that the primary users of architectural archives are not architects looking for design ideas, but those conducting historical research. All forms of architectural records--books, journals, models, pictures, working drawings, and specifications, to name a few--provide different intellectual content to a researcher. Therefore, the elimination of working drawings from the archival architectural record would not eliminate duplication of content, but would substantially change the documentary record available.

As with records everywhere, more and more architectural records are being prepared in a digital format. Even though this format shift is taking place gradually due to the complex nature of programs used in architectural design, digital designs are quickly becoming the designs of record, especially those of three-dimensional models. The increased digital nature of architectural records, many of which are viewed as disposable by their creators, raises questions for archivists about the records' intellectual and artifactual values. In addition, archivists must deal with the vast amount of digital records, the instability of their storage media, and the short life span of most software and hardware products used to create architectural designs. Developing strategies to deal with these issues is essential to the survival of architectural records created in the late-twentieth century and by future generations.

The assessment of physical formats, condition, and preservation needs is an essential part of the appraisal of architectural records. The first step in the preservation appraisal process is to identify the physical process represented in an item. It is then necessary to determine whether it has intrinsic or artifactual value, and its informational value. In addition, because diazo prints and Vandyke negative prints are the architectural equivalents of brittle paper, it is also important to survey the condition of the materials in a collection. Finally, the size of the materials, which tend to be large in architectural records, and which will determine the storage spaces and conservation treatment spaces necessary to properly handle them, needs to be assessed. The preservation of architectural records has been complicated by the development of computer-aided design and other digital processes. It remains to be seen, however, whether digitization of architectural processes provides more solutions or problems to preservation concerns.

The voluminous archives of the Hennebique engineering firm, which was a pioneer in reinforced concrete construction, provides an example of processing procedures and priorities for architectural records. The completeness and heterogeneous nature of architectural records greatly influence processing time. It is necessary to balance the needs of both historians and archivists when processing records, and it is also necessary to preserve the records not just of significant buildings or architects, but of the ordinary architects, and the non-architects who influenced architectural works, in order to develop a fuller picture of the development of the landscapes in which we live.

The Northwest Architectural Archives was established in 1972 as a comprehensive regional repository to acquire and preserve architectural records of building and landscape architects, engineers, contractors, interior designers, and other professional organizations in architectural fields. The appraisal of records by the Northwest Architectural Archives is based in part on its comprehensive collections development strategy as well as criteria regarding the record creators, completeness, age, current and potential users, subject matter, and how such material fits with existing collections. Underlying most appraisal decisions is the expert knowledge of the curatorial staff regarding architectural records. Preservation and conservation actions are based on condition and value of the materials. The Northwest Architectural Archives' appraisal of the contents of the Minneapolis Plan Vault demonstrates some of the factors that influence appraisal decisions. However, architectural records have their own unique appraisal questions, many of which cannot be decided globally, but must be decided at the local level based on local user and research needs.

There are five fundamental problems with the appraisal of architectural records; they are dispersed, widely duplicated, voluminous, transitory, and vulnerable. There is no single solution to all of these problems so it is useful to look at appraisal guidelines that have been established by other repositories and by architectural firms. The potential for legal use is one of the key considerations architectural firms use when determining the retention or disposal of their records. New problems facing appraisal decisions are the rare preparation of as-built drawings and the increased use of computer-aided design. Ultimately, it is necessary to convince architects that they need to be responsible for their own records not just for practical purposes, but for cultural reasons as well. And all firms and repositories need to balance their appraisal decisions based on space, staff, preservation costs, and users.