Sustainability of modern exteriors

D

davem

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
2,266
Reaction score
43
Every time I see a new building clad with some new, exciting, innovative, etc material I think to myself "What is this going to look like in 50 years."

I was originally going to post this in the Gardner Museum thread, but the Stata Center, Mass Art tower, or even the BCEC are equally good examples. (Although the point I'm getting to holds truer to smaller buildings, such as the new apartments on Glenville Ave.)

Unlike masonry or wood, which have been around for all time, how are repairs and modifications going to be carried out 25, 50, 100 years in the future. You cant just hire a GC or run to Home Depot to grab a panel of perforated aluminum or the specialty designed hangers for it. Who knows if the company's are even going to be in existence in the future?

Forget about repointing brick, a lot of these claddings seem like integrated systems that are produced specifically for each project as a one-off product. What happens when you want to add a door or window, or reuse or adapt a space in the future.

The way that our old core buildings are able to be adapted to uses never foreseen by their designers is one of the greatest reasons a lot of old Boston architecture is able to be successful into the modern day (I don't like that there is a Chipotle in the old corner bookstore building, but its a great example of this classic adaptability). Is this going to be the same with these buildings, or have we completely entered a throwaway culture, where these innovative buildings will have to be torn down because they are so purposefully designed and clad in such diverse materials that they will not be able to be adapted to future use?
 
A lot of the half century old modernist glass curtain wall buildings in New York have or are being reclad recently...hard to imagine the hue proliferation of recent buildings built in this way getting the same treatment.

On the other hand, I imagine it's a total bitch to maintain a 200 year old wood colonial house, and the wood probably needs replacement fairly often (one of the reason people with old wooden houses of less significance have often opted for aluminum, I imagine). So it's not like this problem is totally new?
 
czsz said:
A lot of the half century old modernist glass curtain wall buildings in New York have or are being reclad recently...hard to imagine the hue proliferation of recent buildings built in this way getting the same treatment.

On the other hand, I imagine it's a total bitch to maintain a 200 year old wood colonial house, and the wood probably needs replacement fairly often (one of the reason people with old wooden houses of less significance have often opted for aluminum, I imagine). So it's not like this problem is totally new?
Click to expand...

On the second point, can I object? Wood needs maintenance which comes at a price many homeowners can't or won't pay. It will last if properly cared for though. Aluminum is just less labor intensive on an annual basis (though on a life-cycle/replacement I can't see how it's cheaper.)
 
^ Thanks for the clarification. Do you know if most of the colonial houses in New England still have their original wood? I feel like there must be termite issues or something that demand a recladding every once in awhile...
 
"The World Without Us" is a book that deals tangentially with this. One of the main takeaways from the book is that 100 years after humans are gone the only things left standing will be load bearing masonry.

The book is ok - a pretty quick read.
 
So basically the Ames building would be the tallest structure in New England again?
 
Yep. Unless there's a subway line underneath it that could collapse and take the Ames with it.
 
czsz said:
^ Thanks for the clarification. Do you know if most of the colonial houses in New England still have their original wood? I feel like there must be termite issues or something that demand a recladding every once in awhile...
Click to expand...

My house is nearing 100 years old and many around me are 120 years old (not as old as a vintage colonial), but all the framing is original in my house and others around me. My house is clad in painted white cedar shingles. A small amount of shingles get replaced incrementally when the house is painted every 7 years or so. However, I would bet I have mostly original shingles and window trim of course covered with many layers of paint. If painted or stained and maintained wood lasts a long time. My previous home was unfortunately clad in aluminum siding covering old stained cedar shingles. The siding was probably 25 years old and dented up quite a bit from storms etc.
 
Last edited:
My house is 97 years old and most of the skeleton, flooring, plaster, and lathe is original. It seems such construction is quite durable.
 
This is a quick statement summarizing years of thought on this subject:

The criteria for why we build the way we do today is so vastly different from the criteria from even 40 years ago is why not everything is simply built of wood, brick, or stone. Composite cladding materials are around because the job of keeping a building warm, dry, efficient, breathable, repairable, and flexible are now the qualities that the market (clients) demand today. The cladding is simply the shell so that we are not looking at mineral fiber insulation, and waterproofing all day long (which we now put on the outside of the building technically). Some of these material try VERY HARD to look like the buildings of old, at a high cost. Brick veneer. Stone veneer, Precast Concrete. All of these are done now for aesthetics and aesthetics alone.

I have to ask that we stop comparing commercial or institution grade building systems to home construction. The criteria imposed on these structures is too different to home to make a good comparison.

I will not belabor the point any further. If you want to hear more of my $.02 I will gladly continue it in a private message.
 
cca said:
This is a quick statement summarizing years of thought on this subject:

The criteria for why we build the way we do today is so vastly different from the criteria from even 40 years ago is why not everything is simply built of wood, brick, or stone. Composite cladding materials are around because the job of keeping a building warm, dry, efficient, breathable, repairable, and flexible are now the qualities that the market (clients) demand today. The cladding is simply the shell so that we are not looking at mineral fiber insulation, and waterproofing all day long (which we now put on the outside of the building technically). Some of these material try VERY HARD to look like the buildings of old, at a high cost. Brick veneer. Stone veneer, Precast Concrete. All of these are done now for aesthetics and aesthetics alone.

I have to ask that we stop comparing commercial or institution grade building systems to home construction. The criteria imposed on these structures is too different to home to make a good comparison.

I will not belabor the point any further. If you want to hear more of my $.02 I will gladly continue it in a private message.
Click to expand...

Commercial or Residential aside, what is your opinion on these new materials' ability to be modified, rehabilitated and cared for 50 - 100 years down the road, when the manufacturers are either out of business or no longer make the product?

My question is not so much the durability, but the ability to be conducive to reuse and modification when the buildings we are cladding now have outlived their designed purpose.
 
commuter guy said:
My house is nearing 100 years old and many around me are 120 years old (not as old as a vintage colonial), but all the framing is original in my house and others around me. My house is clad in painted white cedar shingles. A small amount of shingles get replaced incrementally when the house is painted every 7 years or so. However, I would bet I have mostly original shingles and window trim of course covered with many layers of paint. If painted or stained and maintained wood lasts a long time. My previous home was unfortunately clad in aluminum siding covering old stained cedar shingles. The siding was probably 25 years old and dented up quite a bit from storms etc.
Click to expand...

http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=131220&postcount=9

235 years old, all the framing, floors, roof sheathing, and hallway plaster/lathe are original. Some of the siding was existing under the 70s "renovation" vinyl siding. We replaced it with cedar, which as long as its maintained should last the remaining 165 year life expectancy of a timber framed dwelling, earthquakes aside.

Kind of off topic to my OP, but I enjoy showing off the house a bit, took enough blood and sweat out of me. OT: the timber framing system is extremely versatile, the house was built in three - four stages (the foundation appears to be older than the house, cut out for beams that don't exist in the walls). It was over the years converted from a single family to a three family and back, in addition to a commercial office I'm told.
 
Your work is something to be very proud of. I can see why you are passionate about why not every building is executed with such care and craft. Tis the way of the world however.

cca
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top