In my sphere of activity we would call cast stone a faux material. 
Suggest "Fauxstormuddling." It is not really restoration as much as 
muddling and even at that it is a well respected art of fakery. 
Fauxstormuddling also has a certain Germanic anal tone to it as it if 
should be not only proper but forced on our environment if not also our 
cousins. Say it aloud a few times before dismissing it. [Walking at end 
of workday through Times Square-42nd Street subway station yesterday I 
swear the young lady vigorously pushing her pamphlet towards me was 
saying, "Sausage will return!" I did not hang around to find out what 
sort of religion that was.]

Regarding cast stone... I'm not sure how many years back (10?) the 
precast stone steps were made for the New Victory Theater to resemble 
brownstone. I remember the mnfg. complaining to me that the 'design' 
team had no idea of how precast stone performs. Expecting the material 
to do things that it cannot properly do. They were concerned at the 
thinness of the pieces for the treads and their being a bit on the long 
side. I understand now that the rebar is showing through in places. 
Considering it is a stairs salt may also be used in the winter and that 
is not particularly good for the concrete no matter how well it is 
manufactured. At the time that the staircase was put together it was a 
remarkable accomplishment for faux brownstone in precast concrete though 
it noticeably lacked the variegation of veining or the dimples of quartz 
occlusions.

What it causes me to compare is the wrongheadedness we see going on 
currently that leads to poor design decisions related to materials and 
the question that often comes up as to why our ancestors used brownstone 
(properly or improperly) if they knew that it was a poor building 
material. The problem as I see it is not with the materials, be they 
original or faux, they are going to perform however they will perform -- 
and thanks to our scientific and engineering intellects we can know a 
whole lot about that performance, but it is, as Sharpshooter 
demonstrates, people that are the problem.

][<


[log in to unmask] wrote:

> In a message dated 1/22/2007 8:26:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>     Are u sure the new/old stone ain't EIFS? And is not EIFS an
>     anagram in Draelian for KAKA?
>
> No, it's cast stone.  Which is an anagram for Stinky Cost.  Here is 
> the hiistory of interviews on this subject (after querying them as to 
> why they were covering up about 60 square feet of stonework and 
> installing new cast stone):
>  
> Interview 1, building manager:  "We're restoring the facade to its 
> original condition."
>  
> Interview 2, architect:    "We couldn't possibly afford to restore the 
> facade to its original condtion, it would cost half a million 
> dollars.  You have no idea of the Landmark process!"  (Work in 
> question is a 25 foot wide, one story storefront.)
>  
> Same interview, later:  "We're restoring it to its original condition."
>  
> Christopher
> -- 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 

--
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>