Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | BP - Dwell time 5 minutes. |
Date: | Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:23:17 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Editor:
Why shouldn't I put my one cent's worth in on this one, too?
Actually I think our esteemed colleague, the Gentleman from BBBBBBB&B, AKA
Rev Jim is probably right, and said most of what I would've said, only better
and more succinctly.
I don't see that a cornice is going to offer much beyond very localized
protection for the upper part of the wall. However ... removal of a cornice
would very likely expose all sorts of non-finished conditions which were
never meant to be exposed to the elements; anybody rectal (or misguidedly
frugal) enough to remove a cornice would very likely do an equally bad repair
job, which would allow for water penetration into the wall from the top (by
omitting a coping, or doing a bad job of one) and from the front (stuccoing
over backup brick that had been hidden behind the cornice. Bad detailing in
either a repair or new construction is not unheard of, to say the least, so
there again leakage could be blamed on lack of a cornice.
As to The Right Honourable Gentleman's comments about Cornice Chickens, I can
personally attest to some piss-poor conditions--particularly in terra cotta,
which is in the running for shittiest material before EIFS-- revealed by
swingstage inspections, for which a lot of people owe Local Law 10 their
lives, and some of us our livelihoods.
So there.
I must remember to send one of my coachmen, or perhaps the valet, around to
have a look at those eroded colonettes on West 72nd Street to which you
recently referred.
Ralph
|
|
|