Rick/Werner, thanks for your comments. I changed the 'economical' EIFS banding that was intended to 'mimic' stone, to true cast stone. Additionally, I changed the exterior wall assembly to include insulation on the exterior of the wall cavity. I guess I was under the impression that we were still just going to use the 2007 IBC. Which I don't believe has the same provisions as the Mass. code for location of insulation, while I do agree that it is a better building practice, for the budgetless.
Additionally, as I mentioned in my comments on the original post. Part of my intent is to average the style of the existing back bay residential style with a modern approach to it. Which I believe allows the use of 'purely ornamental' features on the residential building. Not all (design dust)or ornamentation is bad... even if it serves no other purpose than the aesthetic.
Werner, I'll talk to Chris hopefully Wednesday in regards to the radiant cooling. If anything though... this system will allow me to 'decrease' the use of a conventional chiller which in my case still might remain a necessity.
2 comments:
Karrick... in my humble opinion I like the ornamentation that you are incorporating into the facade and I personally buy into the rationale. It is a very striking contrast to the bridge/educational portion of the building. Embracing the residential scale is a good idea. As far as the EIFS is concerned, it just seemed a bit out of place as a material selection, when you have a decent amount of cast stone already in the facade. I am a big fan of committing to one or the other. If budget would dictate EIFS, then it would all change to EIFS for me.
Anyway... just my 2 cents.
Karrick, Rick, we have a nice discussion going on the “right” material. Historically the architects always faked materials; we are currently working on turn of the century 6 story building red brick builing with stone banding, where the cornice originally was formed from copper over a wood frame. It then was painted to match the stone. In later renovations the copper was exposed and the brick parapet above clad with copper panels. This transformed the whole top into a hat. In the clean-up the historics wanted us to restore it back to the very original (cheat). So we did. I guess you could argue that the EIFS is doing the same; create a cheap stone-look-alike without breaking the bank. I can buy that, personally I don’t believe in Micky-Mouse architecture. To me elements should whenever possible serve an other purpose, than only satisfy the asthetics. Speaking of, I think the windows could use some help. They look rather dead and probably want to be either (inexpensive) double-hungs to stay with the “mimik the neigborhood” theme, or have some other operable feature.
Post a Comment