In a message dated 3/22/99 10:39:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

> would you at least agree that the snake oil manufacturers as well as the
traveling salesmen have some liability?

There are instances in which the material is inappropriate, poorly designed,
and heavily promoted by manufacturers and designers. There are instances in
which it is possibly appropriate. I'm not against EIFS (SP?). I enjoy using
foam in all sorts of neat places. I am interested in 1) the widespread
problems reported, 2) the phenomena of using non-durable materials in high-
traffic areas, 3) the idea of throw-away architecture in a closed ecology
being good, 4) faux materials in historic contexts, and 5) the quantity of
chatter on the topic.

The question I have as to appropriate use of EIFS is over the problem of
sealant application between panels. General practice is to coat the panel and
then to apply the sealant. Problems are when the coating fails, possibly due
to trapped moisture, possibly not, and the sealant is adhered to the coating.
Or, the sealant reaches a maximum span of service and needs to be replaced,
which can be as short as five years, depending on a variety of factors. Proper
application of a sealant, though I admit rarely adhered to either by design
professionals or waterproofers, is to remove ALL traces of the previous
sealant prior to resealing. This is important particulalry where the sealant
of one manufacturer is being applied to that of another manufacturer, or there
is incompatibility in the types of sealants. I'm not clear on how you would
effectively remove sealant from EIFS without doing damage. Any suggestions?

Ken Follett