If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by RicodJour on June 4, 2006, 5:37 pm
Kris Krieger wrote:
> >
> > Kris Krieger wrote:
> >> > Kris Krieger wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd seen some HGTV show where the people wanted to redo the tacky
> >> >> front of a house for which they'd paid somehting over $400K.
> >> >>
> >> >> The job was easier then they'd expected because the huge front
> >> >> columns/"portico" thing was stucco-coated *FOAM*.
> >> >>
> >> >> I was utterly appalled.
> >> >
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> A 2-story portico (on a high-proiced "luxury house) made of what looked
> >> like florist's foam?
> >>
> >> If I have to explain it, then no explanation would be of any use.
> >
> > If you're commenting on the design, I can't assess the situation from
> > your twenty words. If you're commenting on the construction technique,
> > you need to get out more. It's called EIFS or an acrylic stucco
> > system, and it is as good a system as any other as long as the
> > installer knows what they are doing.
>
> I know what acrylic stucco is. It was created to adapt to climates, such
> as Southern California's, whcih experience wide temperature fluctuations
> over short periods of time (such as going into the 40's at night and the
> upper 90's in the afternoon). It was OTOH quite problematic in the cool
> rainy climate of Vancouver. I've personally seen (and lived in) both.
>
> The stucco, acrylic or otherwise, was, however, not the issue. The OP's
> statement is quoted right at the top. The issue, as indicated by the OP's
> aasterisks and caps, was the foam used to make the underlying structure.
You wrote the part about the foam, so why are you referring to the OP?
There are numerous examples of foam products used in construction that
present no longevity problems if installed as specified. Do you have
issues with polyurethane sprayed insulation, Dow blue board, rafter
mates, Wedi board, etc.? You shouldn't - they're good products.
Categorically classifying a product or process because it involves foam
is misleading. As I mentioned earlier, if there are any issues it's
due to the installation, not the foam itself. It's no different than
seeing rotted wood siding and blaming the wood, instead of either poor
installation or lack of maintenance.
R
|
 
| |
Posted by Kris Krieger on June 5, 2006, 2:03 am
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>> >
>> > Kris Krieger wrote:
>> >> > Kris Krieger wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd seen some HGTV show where the people wanted to redo the
>> >> >> tacky front of a house for which they'd paid somehting over
>> >> >> $400K.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The job was easier then they'd expected because the huge front
>> >> >> columns/"portico" thing was stucco-coated *FOAM*.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I was utterly appalled.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why?
>> >>
>> >> A 2-story portico (on a high-proiced "luxury house) made of what
>> >> looked like florist's foam?
>> >>
>> >> If I have to explain it, then no explanation would be of any use.
>> >
>> > If you're commenting on the design, I can't assess the situation
>> > from your twenty words. If you're commenting on the construction
>> > technique, you need to get out more. It's called EIFS or an
>> > acrylic stucco system, and it is as good a system as any other as
>> > long as the installer knows what they are doing.
>>
>> I know what acrylic stucco is. It was created to adapt to climates,
>> such as Southern California's, whcih experience wide temperature
>> fluctuations over short periods of time (such as going into the 40's
>> at night and the upper 90's in the afternoon). It was OTOH quite
>> problematic in the cool rainy climate of Vancouver. I've personally
>> seen (and lived in) both.
>>
>> The stucco, acrylic or otherwise, was, however, not the issue. The
>> OP's statement is quoted right at the top. The issue, as indicated
>> by the OP's aasterisks and caps, was the foam used to make the
>> underlying structure.
>
> You wrote the part about the foam, so why are you referring to the OP?
Because I thought the OP mentioned it first. Earthlink has dropped the
original post so I can't refer back to it. So sue me.
> There are numerous examples of foam products used in construction that
> present no longevity problems if installed as specified. Do you have
> issues with polyurethane sprayed insulation, Dow blue board, rafter
> mates, Wedi board, etc.? You shouldn't - they're good products.
I mentioned something specific. Those other items were not part of what I
mentioned.
> Categorically classifying a product or process because it involves
> foam is misleading. As I mentioned earlier, if there are any issues
> it's due to the installation, not the foam itself. It's no different
> than seeing rotted wood siding and blaming the wood, instead of either
> poor installation or lack of maintenance.
>
> R
Some foam is cheap junk. Some is long lasting. A lot fo stuff used in
construction is fine, but a lot is crap - it depends upon who's involved in
erecting the structure(s). I've seen a lot of junk. If that's not part of
your experience, then good for you. But I'm not going to pretend I haven't
seen or learned what I have merely because you don't want to acknowledge
those things. The plain and simple fact is that a great deal of what is
produced for the middle class does cut corners, and there is a lot of
shoddy stuff out there.
Now, maybe all your clients can afford Million-Dollar-+ properties, and
maybe you don't have to expose yourself to the things that us mere lowly
peons can afford, and if that's true, hey, you're lucky, that's peachy, and
count your blessings. But I've looked, from a mere lowly peon consumer's
POV, at a bloody hell of a lot of stuff in the past quarter century, from
coast to coast and in both the US and Canada, and sorry, but I *have* seen
a lot of junk, and a lot of neighborhoods that look run-down and seedy
after only a couple years because inferior materials and methods were used
in their construction. Money is taken away from practical, and even
important, things, and applied to cheesy stick-on geegaws and poorly-done
indents and whatnot in the mass, as a supposedly "decorative" substitute
for actual design. Again, I don't claim to speak for your expereince or
for the expereince of wealthy clients - just that this is common in things
meant for us lowly, inferior peons. Unfortunately, there are also a bloody
hell of a lot more of us, than there are of wealthy people who also have
good taste. The end result is that you end up with *vast* suburban
wastelands - I recall driving out west from Pasadena, and seeing the floor
of the desert valley (where San Bernadino is located) and seeing huge
swaths of ugly, crowded, energy-wasting, cheesy, cookie-cutter bedroom-
community houses, with yards so tiny that there was no room for so much as
a modest shade tree. It was IMO nightmarish. But it was all that a lot fo
poeple, who worked way the heck over in LA, could afford - even decent
rentals in the cities are beyond the reach of many working people. Even if
there are "some" affordable properties, there aren't nearly enough for all
the people who need places to live. Which in turn means that developers
have a pretty much captive audience. So if they feel like saving $$ and
tacking of porticos or so on made of styrofoam, they know they can get away
with it.
Now, if you don't have to expose yourself to areas like that, that's great
for you. But they do exist, and there is a lot of cheese, and a lot of
inferior stuff in those areas.
You had mentioned I should ask Don about acrylic stucco - no need, as I'm
familiar with that item; I do recall, however, that Don has mentioned
observations similar to mine, except in even some areas in which I couldn't
afford to reside.
And it is a fact that there are elements that are no longer structural, and
no longer made of durable, long-lasting materials. Sorry, but styrofoam is
not a structural or long-lived material.
Now, it's patently obvious that using better materials would mean smaller
square-footage, if a developer's profits, and the buyer's prices, are going
to remain the same - it's a trade-off situation. For myself, I'd *prefer*
my home to be smaller but sturdier, however, one has to have land in order
to build, and there is not much land *available* (meaning, for sale) that
has nbo been bought be developers - and developers only allow their own
houses to be built in their developments. So, as a buyer, one also has to
make trade-offs, especially if one or more household members has to
commute.
At any rate, it's of course your right to take exception to something (or
everything) I say, but by the same token, it's my right to not lie and say
I haven't seen what I've seen. And, if a material is described even by a
builder as only "foam", as was the case in the TV show I'd mentioned, then
I'm just saying what they said - not condemning (or extolling) all foams
for all purposes.
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on June 4, 2006, 4:56 pm
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>> If you're commenting on the design, I can't assess the situation from
>> your twenty words. If you're commenting on the construction
>> technique, you need to get out more. It's called EIFS or an acrylic
>> stucco system, and it is as good a system as any other as long as the
>> installer knows what they are doing.
>>
>> Ask Don. I'd hazard a guess that at least 50% of the buildings he
>> designed in his previous life had some acrylic stucco detailing.
>
>
> Its almost a requirement that at least 1 small decorative (stick-on)
> element be installed on the front of every house built in Cape Coral.
>
> I'm not the best person to be asking about this stuff as I have seen
> waaaay more than my share.
>
> Stucco over plywood,
As per the OP's post, plywood would have been an inprovement...
> fake arches, inappropriate goofiness and a
> general tawdry *feeling* is all lumped together in my assessment of
> cheap design these days.
>
> In the beginning the stick-on stuff had its appeal, now everybody has
> it. yawn
I've never been a fan of it, because so many of the geegaws are not good-
quality materials. I realize that some people like, for example, Victorian
as an overall style. I don't personally care for it, but I *have* seen it
done well, so that the house looks "of a piece", like the different
elements belong together, *AND* are made out of materials that won't look
crappy after a very few years.
The design is one issue, but the materials also play a part - I've seen far
too many neighborhoods, across the continent over the past 30 years, that
are not even 5 years old, but wherein the houses already look worn-out and
seedy, because the cheap materials had so little durability.
The above is one of the very specific reasons I insisted upon buying a
place in a neighborhood in which all the homes had at least the first
storeys fully bricked (with full-brick fronts), and at least Hardy-Plank
for any siding and soffits. Sure, we *could* have gotten a place for a lot
cheaper, if we wanted to live in an area where all the siding was wood, but
we've observed the results on wood siding of the elements, and lack of
upkeep. Similarly, while I was in Massachusetts, I saw examples of
Colonial that were at least well-thought-out and built from quality,
durable materials - and the all-too-common stuff that was just sloppy half-
arsed "design", cheap materials, and crummy construction.
What it is, is a matter of up-front cost, versus long-term cost. Something
that looks like a large up-front cost now, is very often *significantly*
less expensive than the long-term costs that add up.
So, where you mention proce versus quality below - it's very possible that
the person didn't just look at price, but rather, at *cost*. Most people
don't do that any more, from what I can tell.
> There's a real nice 2 story house down the road from me that doesn't
> have any of the fakeness to it that is so common these days.
> From 100 feet away I can tell that the house was designed and built
> properly and the owner was more concerned with quality than price.
> One of these days I'm going to knock on the door and tell the owner
> that.
|
|
Posted by RicodJour on May 30, 2006, 7:29 pm
Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> I'd seen some HGTV show where the people wanted to redo the tacky front of
> a house for which they'd paid somehting over $400K.
>
> The job was easier then they'd expected because the huge front
> columns/"portico" thing was stucco-coated *FOAM*.
>
> I was utterly appalled.
Why?
R
|
|
Posted by eds on May 27, 2006, 11:27 am
> "eds"> wrote
> I bent a 10" steel tube from brick column to brick column
>> across the entrance and exit.
>
>
> I'm envisioning a bare chested eds standing there holding a big steel pipe
> over his head with both hands grimacing and putting all his effort into
> bending it into the perfect arch.
>
LOL.
Not since my chest slipped down to my belly about 1967;-))
EDS
|
Page 3 of 3 << first < 1 2 3
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Ironwork and details of Russian Baroque | February 18, 2007, 7:30 pm |
| New window | December 15, 2007, 1:27 am |
| Window Styles | May 22, 2007, 2:14 pm |
| Interior window - is that allowed? | October 9, 2007, 1:09 am |
| Design Ideas | May 15, 2007, 2:29 am |
| new home ideas | August 24, 2007, 1:43 pm |
| Re: new home ideas | September 4, 2007, 11:54 pm |
| 20 Great Ideas | March 12, 2008, 3:30 pm |
| Interior Design: Television in front of a window: Is it okay? | December 26, 2007, 11:51 am |
| input on a few ideas for new home | July 15, 2007, 7:10 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap