I recall several older, otherwise non-descript brick-faced buildings in Appleton getting the 'stucco' treatment in the 1980s. The coating trapped moisture in the 80-100 YO porous bricks that were previously able to 'breathe', causing them to spall away within a few short years of the freeze-thaw-freeze-thaw thing that our climate is known for. The stucco was actually separating from the walls in some instances because of that. NOT GOOD.
Mike
I believe it refers to EIFS which includes a secondary moistures barrier (e.g., Sto EIFS Next). Rather than a singular barrier at the face, many newer systems wisely assume the possibility of moisture penetration through the exterior face (or joints) and therefore include, behind the face, a cavity or drainage plain and a liquid-applied moisture barrier. (Similar idea to brick or any other rain screen - assume water will get in somewhere and make a way for it to drain and to dry out...also ideally provide another good barrier somewhere behind.) These drainable EIFS systems are absolutely the way to go and are beginning to be advocated by building science (which has sometimes criticized EIFS in general). Nowadays too "special inspections" are sometimes required for EIFS to see that installation is proper.Originally posted by dalton
Agreed totally. It seems people mainly only accept EIFS as fake stucco or fake limestone/precast concrete, and indeed it is largely marketed in this way. I would say let EIFS be EIFS...whatever EIFS is...maybe that is yet to be invented. Personally, I might start with orange and with a very smooth monolithic planar appearance.
Two totally unrelated posts in response to two totally unrelated messages just HAVE to be combined?
Last edited by NHPlanner; 30 Nov 2006 at 3:04 PM.
Off-topic:
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
Moderator note:
You posted these posts sequentially, six minutes apart. Had other posts been interspersed between them, I would have left them alone.
Your edit button is effective for about 6 hours after a post. Please use it in situations where you realize there's something you forgot, or want to add, especially to a final post. Cyburbia does have rules against post-padding (which I do not think you were doing).
Okay?
I have seen
old ships sailing
like swans asleep
To me it does, yes - obviously. For ethical reasons. Someone else just HAS to step in and decide how my posts should be presented? They were two completely unrelated strains of the discussion entirely warranting separate messages.
Off-topic:
relax.
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
Off-topic:
We have moderated in this style for years, because it improves the readability of the site. If you have a problem with it, you can either do a more general response in one post, or you can choose not to post at all. We will continue to merge multiple posts together in the future, so get used to it or feel free to join other forums with more lax moderating.
Hey, I'm all for banishing painting on brick. It's no unnatural and unnecessary!
I hate the drivet as well -- awful and disappointing.
How do I know you are who you think you are?
Thanks so much for the attitude.
I believe that the presentation style did indeed affect things. Just because you cannot perceive the affect does not mean it does not exist. In any case, couldn't it be left to the author to decide? Is there no respect at all for the author (who in my case has clearly contributed to the topic with knowledge)? Do we have to continually fuss with posts like a meddling mother?Off-topic:
But the substance wasn't affected at all. You just have one less post in your count. No real ethical implications
relax.
One example I will mention of how merging the post worsened the post and the thread is this: in a thread if multiple topics are merged into one response, a future response will often sieze on one aspect only and then the responses after that will perpetuate only that dimension of the merged response. In a sense, one of the two pieces is likely to be lost. Now, if instead, the two posts are not merged but rather two very different subject areas within the thread are allowed separate posts by the same author, typically a more multi-dimensional converation will take place with a more sustained response to both aspects. It enriches the thread, in other words. But I suppose this is impossible or not at all valuable to the moderators?
Out of interest, what is the mechanism for soliciting input to enact changes to the rules? (Not that I am in violation of any rules of course)
Moderator note:
(Suburb Repairman)
Let's keep it on topic folks (Rule reference 2.4)... We're talking about Dry-vit here, not the forum rules or moderation style. To discuss forum rules, visit this thread.
Does anyone wonder why the criticism exists that planners are authoritarian, doctrinaire, rule-bound, paternalistic, and judgmental? Here we have someone suggesting a building material be banned...and I won't mention later developments of the thread because they are forbidden.
Last edited by NHPlanner; 05 Dec 2006 at 10:30 AM.
I prefer "opinionated".
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
That criticism exists if the development community assumes that planners are able to change rules, bend requirements, issue breaks, etc at the wave of our hands.
Understand that when we're given a code book to follow, we can't and are not allowed to adminstratively deviate from it. It is to ensure equity between development projects and provide for development which strives to reach the community's comprehensive goals.
I always ask what the developer's goals are with their project. IT sure would be nice if the developer would ask what the City's goals are. Maybe then, we could begin to understand each other better.
Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.
You neglected to mention the out-of-proportion windows they put in on the 1st floor, and the fake mullions in the windows. Though I suppose those would be two separate threads.
The large expanse of blank wall don't create a very good pedestrian-level experience. I think this was just a case of a very good dry-vit salesman.
The pics of the commercial areas of Baldwin Park make just an effective a case for at least limiting the use of dry-vit, IMO. Its proliferation for SO MUCH of the surfaces we see in new construction contributes to the overall blandening of the built environment.
Adrift in a sea of beige
Actually, those are the original size window openings that the building has always had on the 1st (ground floor). That space was probably a commercial or office space when originally developed, but eventually just became another residential unit.
I also dislike the fake mullions in the new windows. It's always so....plasticy.
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
Off-topic:
I mean... as long as we're stereotyping groups of people, right?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon and get me you twist of fate
I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
If you want to talk well then I'll relate
If you don't so what cause you don't scare me
Is that so? That is surprising. Those first-level window openings at the corners do look very odd and out-of-proportion (even for a building that is altogether odd and out-of-proportion anyway).
Doesn't look any worse than any other flat, undifferentiated surface.
One hears this often, does one? (Occasionally reality ought to matter in a discussion.)
Off-topic:
We're done now. If you want to start a post to complain, do it in the proper forum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon and get me you twist of fate
I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
If you want to talk well then I'll relate
If you don't so what cause you don't scare me
This is a really interesting point and part of why I sometimes don't have a problem with EIFS in new construction. Things change so quickly now that architecture is often no longer required to be at all "permanent". So EIFS fails in 10 or 20 years, so a metal building looks shabby in 20 years - who cares considering the owner/user wants a totally new and different configuration anyway or if a new "look" is considered better tomorrow than the looks of today? That idea of the masonry bearing wall Leon Krier or Dimitri Porphyrios building is essentially a romantic one with limited applicability to society and mainly pursued because of an internal agenda for architecture.This product really is only meant for application on buildings that are designed to be cheap and functionally obsolete in short order. Is that wrong? Do we want strip and big box to be sustainable? A prediction: There will be no EFIS strip mall historic districts in 2081.
Which is why are cities now look like complete crap. Designed for the 30 second attention span of Americans as they wiz by and not for the future. I feel people will start demanding better architecture, better places, better communities. Maybe I'm wrong, but recent trends are showing that people are beginning to lean towards that.
I'm sure glad builders of the early 20th Century didn't build with the values we are currently accepting. We'd have absolutely nothing of value if that logic was present prior suburbanization (and I'm not talking about 1st ring suburbs).
[QUOTEI feel people will start demanding better architecture, better places, better communities. Maybe I'm wrong, but recent trends are showing that people are beginning to lean towards that.][/QUOTE]
Especially true in light of LEED requirements, Green building, etc., that consider life-cycle costs, sustainability of materials, adaptability of the structure. All that old dry-vit is going to end up in landfills isn't it? It can't be recycled, to my knowledge. Of course it can be argued that old masonry buildings aren't so adaptable to change due to their heavy construction. Yeah, Koolhaas makes a pretty effective argument about the short life-spans of modern buildings, and the economics of that is hard to denay at the present time, but you can still find eccentric builders around the world, however isolated, making them the old way with real materials. Granted its mostly estates and country homes for the super-rich. I did a little work for a new estate house in the Princeton, NJ area that used real granite cladding and window surrounds. The bill for the stone alone was rumored to be $500K.
Adrift in a sea of beige
This wall was covered with Dryvit. I wish I had a before picture, it was part stucco, and part two different colors of brick. An addition that didn't match the original building. They tore down the building in front of this one and exposed this wall, so something had to be done. I groaned when they started the project, but I think it turned out OK compared to many other blank walls. The faux brick looks good from a distance, but kind of cheesy close up.
This Bear is not a planner, has no degree in planning or architecture, never heard of the term Dryvit until browsing this thread.....but I understand "perception".
cdub mentioned the short attention span of the average joe as he motors past. Right on the numbers.
That average joe looks at buildings like this as "just another old building". That quick drive by told him that somebody is trying to "fix up the neighborhood". Shallow thought process? Yes......but in that guy's mind he is perceiving that "remodeling" is taking place.
Bear
Occupy Cyburbia!
Your right, it definitely looks horrible, and it's not just the colors either. That sort of "stucco" does not belong on that otherwise beautiful building. Those doors don't either. Stucco is showing up too often though in Chicago and elsewhere as a substitute for proper masonry maintenance. . . although this solution is certainly not masonry free. I'm living in Utah right now.... there is way too much of that junk out here too, and I hate that it's invading my hometown.
In response to your comments concerning the unperceptive average Joe, the question then becomes who is architecture for? Is it an elite proposition, the province only of the relatively educated or perceptive or artistically inclined? Or rather is it for the common man? Or indeed is it for the purpose of educating and raising up the base, lowly common man in moralistic and paternalistic fashion (the social agenda of the Beaux Arts)? If indeed such “improvement” is a goal, what is the ethical foundation of teaching a particular univalent view (e.g., masonry bearing wall buildings from 1910 are “good” and steel framed buildings with extruded polystyrene are “bad”.)
I don’t necessarily disagree with your statement but do find it important to question any position within planning that is predicated on a criticism of the common man in a time when planning professes to be the advocate of the populace rather than of the privileged.
If average folks want drivet, and perhaps can only afford such things as drivet, and we then go on to ban drivet, are we being honest about our commitment to participative planning?
Quote
