• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

Architecture šŸ› Reason for banning Dryvit

mendelman

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
23,743
Points
72
The following images are just one example of why the use of dry-vit (EIFS, fake stucco) is insidious and harmful.

This a condo conversion of a 1920s small apartment building in my streetcar suburb of Chicago.
Oak_Park_121105_101.jpg


The building was built with a nice yellow tone finished brick on the street sides of the building from foundation to parapet with nice simple limestone banding and lintels for accent.

Well, the developer comes along and covers the perfectly good brick of the ground floor with dry-vit of a beige (puke) color. The next photos show the crime almost complete.

Oak_Park_121105_104.jpg


Oak_Park_121105_105.jpg


Oak_Park_121105_103.jpg


Oak_Park_121105_102.jpg


I don't know the specific reasoning for the dry-vit, but I can't think of any good reason to cover the wonderful, good condition brick, and why spend the extra money for it.
 
Am I the only one who doesnt think this looks all that bad??

Was this framed out first? Something we arent seeing underneath?
 
I don't think it looks bad. If I had my way we'd all ban vinyl siding. That's my own personal definition of ugly. Different strokes for different folks.
 
passdoubt said:
I don't think it looks bad. If I had my way we'd all ban vinyl siding. That's my own personal definition of ugly. Different strokes for different folks.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with the sentiments above. I think that the developer could have matched the colors of the EIFS with the brick better, but I think that it doesn't look too bad.
 
I agree about the vinyl siding (which is what is up on my house, but it came that way). The stuccoing does not look too bad on the building (minus the color issue) but I'd prefer the brick. It definitely should have remained brick because it just look like it had half of a facelift and ran out of money.
 
Jeff said:
Am I the only one who doesnt think this looks all that bad??

Was this framed out first? Something we arent seeing underneath?
Click to expand...
Nope....dry-vit foam board glued directly to face brick.

Effectively....the orginial finish of the brick and 80 years of patina have been destroyed in one fell, stupid move. To restore the brick in the future would be costly and never look as good.

Aesthetics aside...I just find it amazing that a developer would go to the extra cost of the dry-vit, when it was not necessary.
 
It doesn't look all that bad, but it also doesn't look all that good.

#1 reason for banning dry-vit. It is not a maintenance free exterior. It does require quite a bit up-keep every 2-5 years. In cold climates they are more likely to be victims of freeze/thaw disintegration. The surface tends to look or get dirty rather quick and the surface is really nothing more than a hard foam. It dents and cracks and chips rather easily.

All these things can be mitigated. Ownership of these dry-vit clad buildings too often assume the material is as durable as CMU or other masonary and neglect regular maintenance.

No exterior is maintenance free, but there are many that offer low maintenance...such as brick/masonary.

In all, the material holds a lot of promise in being affordable and virtually limitless in its application of design, color, and texture.
 
boiker said:
In all, the material holds a lot of promise in being affordable and virtually limitless in its application of design, color, and texture.
Click to expand...
Granted, but I don't like stucco-ish finishes in general.
 
[ot]
Fat Cat said:
The dog doesn't seem to thrilled with it.
Click to expand...
She was pretty tired from a long photo taking walk by the time we got to this building.[/ot]
BTW, there is not enough righteous indignation from yous....I am so disappointed.;)
 
Last edited:
Wait till some passing thug realizes he can leave imprints in it with a tire iron.:a:

I'm all for a material being itself -- e.g. not trying to resemble masonry (garden state brickface) or stucco (EIFS a/k/a dry-vit), but there's a long history of exactly that (cast-iron notably as a substitute for limestone).

I'm with mendelman: why cover perfectly good masonry with a synthetic material if there's no reason to do so?
 
mendelman said:
Nope....dry-vit foam board glued directly to face brick.

Effectively....the orginial finish of the brick and 80 years of patina have been destroyed in one fell, stupid move. To restore the brick in the future would be costly and never look as good.

Aesthetics aside...I just find it amazing that a developer would go to the extra cost of the dry-vit, when it was not necessary.
Click to expand...

It didn't bother me as much until I read that it was glued directly to the brick. That is just stupid stupid stupid. I, too, cannot understand why the developer would put a crappy synthetic over perfectly good brick.
 
The building I live in has been installing EIFS to reinforce the exterior. They are only putting it up on the walls that face away from the major streets to preserve the brick facade. It's taken months to get to the point where my side of the building is done. It looks a little like the outside of a Linens 'n Things now, but it feels very solid. The owner told me he thinks he'll get trememdous energy savings now that the leaky brick and mortar is all covered up.
 
Though I realize the original posting probably isn't meant to be taken literally, I find it odd to ban drivet or sto EIFS just because someone used it to cover up something else...unless you advocate also banning paint on the basis that paint is covering up brick on half the historic rowhouses out there.

I don't happen to think that the "after" pictures are really too bad. The color looks to me like limestone, which is believable for the base of a building. Not to mention the original building is somewhat homely anyway - odd proportions, awkward asymmetry, and what looks to me like a truly hideous brick color. This was probably a very pedestrian and sub-mediocre building for its time. We can't deify every single piece of garbage out there just because it is a little old.

My biggest problem with EIFS is durability, I suppose. Though it isn't quite literally just foam, as many maintain (there is a metal mesh that is somewhat tougher), it obviously isn't brick or for that matter CMU (which itself isn't great on an exterior). But it isn't much different or worse than most non-masonry exteriors of today (including aluminum curtainwall, corrugated metal siding, etc.) some of which are more pricey...and all of which need some maintenance. For most new construction, EIFS should last as long as the building's intended purpose or reason for being.

I wouldn't personally advocate doing permanent damage to the existing brick, however - and agree with the sentiment that that was probably a mistake though I don't know all the circumstances of this project.

Rob
 
Greenescapist said:
The building I live in has been installing EIFS to reinforce the exterior. They are only putting it up on the walls that face away from the major streets to preserve the brick facade. It's taken months to get to the point where my side of the building is done. It looks a little like the outside of a Linens 'n Things now, but it feels very solid. The owner told me he thinks he'll get trememdous energy savings now that the leaky brick and mortar is all covered up.
Click to expand...

Good example. They may be trying to cover blemishes in the old masonry that tuck pointing or other fixes would accentuate. It's not that bad, but its a 20 year fix at best.
 
I heard recently that insurance companies were not covering this kind of cladding anymore because of too many claims associated with it. It seems like it's easy to install improperly (like LP fake wood siding) and doesn't stand up well anyway.

Glued on a brick face seems to me to be an invitation for mold and rot. Unless it's installed perfectly there's going to be some interstices that will trap moisture and cause no end of problems. I wouldn't buy into a building with this sort of thing without a sizeable reserve for those nasty special assessments for repairs.
 
The material was developed for warehouses and the like--essentially temporary buildings (which would now presumably include new strip shopping centers). It has had a lot of problems with moisture. They now make reference to "water-managed EiFS," which I believe basically means "more carefully installed."

We don't approve it in historic districts except sometimes for mechanical penthouses.

Back in 2002, CVS skinned one of its local stores with it. They did it without a permit, and we decided to just let it go because it looked OK and was applied to a mid-twentieth-century, flat-fronted, one-story building, and the EIFS was all above the storefront glazing. A few months ago, CVS contacts me about "refreshing" this location. I take a look at the EIFS--again completely out of reach at least ten feet above the sidewalk grade--and it is all dinged. So, with what did they want to replace it? You guessed it, EIFS.
 
WOW talk about a lawyer's speciality -
EIFS Legal Network: http://www.stuccolaw.com/

I did not realize this siding type was that much of a problem.

Even the NAHB has some cautions: http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=293

unless a homeowner shows an undue level of diligence to ensure that all openings in the house remain properly sealed and caulked over the life of the house, problems with water intrusion are more likely to occur than with other types of cladding.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dalton said:
The material was developed for warehouses and the like--essentially temporary buildings (which would now presumably include new strip shopping centers). It has had a lot of problems with moisture. They now make reference to "water-managed EiFS," which I believe basically means "more carefully installed."
Click to expand...

That was part of my comment of it being a 20 year fix. 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. :)
This specific application apears to be "get pretty for the yuppy and get out" but I admit thats an unfounded observation.
 
I've seen EIFS applied in two different commercial situations.

1) Small business wants to "dress up" the look of the 1940s-1980s office. They want to do it on the cheap. EIFS it is.

2) Big time developer wants to develop a new shopping center, quick-serve restaurant, or stand alone box. They want a cheap exterior to reduce their amoritization peirod and flip the development for a quick profit. The development will serve a low-mod/ maybe mod-high income populace.

I hate it in the midwest because developers seem to think that they can only paint it beige and it can only be applied with a stucco finish. You can really do almost anything with it and paint it in virtually any way.
 
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
 
dalton said:
They now make reference to "water-managed EiFS," which I believe basically means "more carefully installed."
Click to expand...

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.

boiker said:
I hate it in the midwest because developers seem to think that they can only paint it beige and it can only be applied with a stucco finish. You can really do almost anything with it and paint it in virtually any way.
Click to expand...

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 a moderator:
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?
 
mendelman said:
[ot]
Does it really matter?[/ot]
Click to expand...

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.
 
[ot]
RSW said:
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.
Click to expand...
But the substance wasn't affected at all. You just have one less post in your count. No real ethical implications

relax. :)[/ot]
 
RSW said:
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.
Click to expand...
[OT]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. [/OT]
 
RSW said:
...I find it odd to ban drivet or sto EIFS just because someone used it to cover up something else...unless you advocate also banning paint on the basis that paint is covering up brick on half the historic rowhouses out there....
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm all for banishing painting on brick. It's no unnatural and unnecessary!
I hate the drivet as well -- awful and disappointing.:victory:
 
nerudite said:
[OT]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. [/OT]
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the attitude.

mendelman said:
[ot]
But the substance wasn't affected at all. You just have one less post in your count. No real ethical implications

relax. :)[/ot]
Click to expand...

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?

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.

OnNotice.jpg




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 a moderator:
RSW said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
boilerplater said:
You neglected to mention the out-of-proportion windows they put in on the 1st floor, and the fake mullions in the windows.
Click to expand...
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.:r:
 
[ot]
RSW said:
Does anyone wonder why the criticism exists that planners are authoritarian, doctrinaire, rule-bound, paternalistic, and judgmental?
Click to expand...

Does anyone wonder why the criticism exists that students are annoying, obnoxious, egocentric, impudent, and self-aggrandizing?

I mean... as long as we're stereotyping groups of people, right?[/ot]
 
mendelman said:
Actually, those are the original size window openings that the building has always had on the 1st (ground floor).
Click to expand...

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).
 
Mastiff said:
[ot]

Does anyone wonder why the criticism exists that students are annoying, obnoxious, egocentric, impudent, and self-aggrandizing?

I mean... as long as we're stereotyping groups of people, right?[/ot]
Click to expand...

One hears this often, does one? (Occasionally reality ought to matter in a discussion.)
 
[ot]
RSW said:
One hears this often, does one? (Occasionally reality ought to matter in a discussion.)
Click to expand...

I've heard it plenty... not that I needed to hear it. I was a student, twice, and have worked in several college towns. I don't need to hear it to know that many students have those wonderful qualities. Good luck changing my opinion with the way you've been speaking to the mods in here. Mods who, in my opinion, do an excellent job without being overly intrusive.

We're done now. If you want to start a post to complain, do it in the proper forum.[/ot]
 
Chet said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
RSW said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Rocs1.jpg

Rocs2.jpg

Rocs3.jpg

Rocs4.jpg
 
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
 
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.
 
Bear Up North said:
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
Click to expand...

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 ā€œimprovementā€ is a goal, what is the ethical foundation of teaching a particular univalent view (e.g., masonry bearing wall buildings from 1910 are ā€œgoodā€ and steel framed buildings with extruded polystyrene are ā€œbadā€.)

I donā€™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?
 
Back
Top