In a message dated 3/22/99 7:26:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> The owner expected a 10 year life.  We got 20.

Great point (and amazing that it lasted so long)! Some of the EIFS issues seem
to revolve around misconceptions of life expectancy, it seems. Clients
accustomed to traditional building materials and techniques want a life
expectancy equal to those, but not the cost. 18th and 19th century
expectations don't match very well with 20th century building materials meant
to satisfy different needs. Unfortunately, no matter how well EIFS is
installed, it was/is not meant to be "permanent" in the same sense that
earlier structures were. Litigation being a particularly American pastime, it
is no wonder that law suits are filed in cases like these, given the gap
between expectations and reality at the time jobs are spec'd.

Many architects seem to regard EIFS as a perfectly acceptable building
material, even with all its faults. It is certainly spec'd enough. Maybe there
needs to be greater education about "how long it will last" -- even in the
best of circumstances. Then angry clients and subsequent buyers won't be
looking for someone to sue when the material does what it does naturally.

Mary Krugman