BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Gabriel Orgrease <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Yes, we set off an A-bomb but we are really sorry about it.
Date:
Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:44:24 -0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
[log in to unmask] wrote:

> What are the considerations in designing such a facade, with regard to 
> "rain-shedding"?  Or can you just blow it off?

I don't know the answer but... I have seen contemporary design that 
increased pigeon habitat to an extent that the arcade space was 
unuseable by humans. I have seen incredibly dumb detailing on flashings 
that indicate absolute zero knowledge or consideration of water. I have 
seen combinations and uses of materials in such a way that water 
penetration was assured from the get go. I have seen structures that by 
design do not allow any reasonable access for maintenance. I have heard 
of mechanical systems being in basements of buildings in flood prone 
areas, particularly notable for hospitals. My impression is that there 
is a great deal of design that tends to forget that structures exist in 
the real world. So, all in all, my surmise from an exposure to bad 
examples of design and minimal knowledge of good design (if there is 
good design then those of my kin would not be asked to fix it and we 
would likely not have much occasion to think or talk about it) would 
lead me to assume that volume of water running off the face of a 
building is not considered all too much in design. Getting water off 
from roofs, yes, off the face of the facade, no.

Though I have also seen curtain wall systems that were designed for the 
water to flow on the inside of the curtain wall... and I got to see this 
because the system was in hidden failure with all off the ferrous enamel 
panels rotting away... it had been designed for glass but in 
construction the glass panels were swapped out for ferrous enamel panels 
that now hold water on their bottom inner edge and slowly rot out to the 
esterior. In that case once the owners knew what they had they sold the 
building to a hotel developer.

In respect to developers - re: deconstruction/reconstruction of an 
historic interior their contemplating a lesser cost option to 
compliance, "Why can't we just do it for $100,000 then have an accident 
along the way?" Everyone was silent for a minute, then the conversation 
picked up where it had been left off before the comment.

We are doing an intensive in wooden box gutters this month - an early 
form of cornice. As per request of client we are using mahogany, marine 
grade adhesives, bituminous ice & water shield, and lead coated copper 
liners. All presumed upgrades of materials that would not have been used 
in the original.

][<

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2