The Plague of EIFS

[flonicky]

Thank you for this thread. I've been suffering in silence as numerous houses in my neighbourhood have received the EIFS treatment. One house had numerous quirks on its facade from a past, bad renovation and when they reclad in EIFS, they simply "sculpted" over the quirks making them stand out even more. Last year, a building on Queen street had large sections of its relatively new EIFS covering removed to deal with large amounts of mould that had gathered around the windows. They cleaned it up, and stuck more EIFS on it!

It doesn't seem suitable for main streets at all because it punctures so easily. Any large swatch of EIFS on a main street usually has lots of holes. Our local LCBO has a bunch of dents and holes.

The stuff is like the insulbrick of the current era.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

The worst defacing I've seen is part tile, part stucco over a brick building. EIFS drive me nuts too, it should not be allowed without a heritage assessment first. Painting buildings is just as bad, in some cases it can destroy the brick making future restoration impossible.

 

[Eug]

The stuff is like the insulbrick of the current era.

I suspect this is unintentional, but your statement is amusingly ironic, considering that insulbrick is an old technology, something you'll find in homes much older than the 50-60s post-war bungalows.

Using the logic pushed in this thread, these homes' faces too should be preserved as heritage homes.

EIFS drive me nuts too, it should not be allowed without a heritage assessment first.

This is the type of sentiment which I find very disappointing. Basically you're advocating that any significant front reno needs a heritage assessment, which is almost as bad as the suggestion that all 50 year old buildings are heritage buildings. Somehow I'm not surprised though.

No kidding. Like, when I "sprung" the EIFS metaphor onto Eug in the Mayor Ford thread, I didn't realize that there'd be an anti-EIFS spinoff thread where Eug winds up being the cramped, constipated Joe-Blow-mediocre epitome of what the anti-EIFS argument is battling against...

Thanks. I appreciate you alerting me to this thread.

But isn't that the point - that oftentimes it is not properly installed, and it doesn't look fine after 5 years, much less 20. And this exception is why I also said the use of EIFS should be discouraged with exceptions.

So, I had a look around my neighbourhood tonight.

Most of the homes have pure brick exteriors. Perhaps 5% or so have EIFS. A few have wood siding for at least part of it, and I saw one which may have been vinyl.

I've been on the street for 6 years, and the EIFS homes that I know that have had the EIFS for that time look fine. I don't know how long they were there before I moved here, but nonetheless it's longer than 5 years. There are a few others that were only put in just in the last few years, but they look fine too of course.

Admittedly, I generally preferred brick, but for a couple of the homes I wasn't so fond of it. The ugliest was a garage that was converted to living space, so they removed the garage door and bricked it up. However, now it just looks like a garage with a bricked up garage door. They didn't make any attempt to merge in the new bricks (or whatever you call it). They just cut the new bricks to fit inside the existing brick structure. The brick isn't even quite the same colour either.

I'm sure you've seen this before for regular doorways and windows on other houses. Aesthetically I usually think it's poor, but most of the time it's less of a big deal because it's a side entrance or whatever. For this house though, it's a front facing garage door. Very jarring.

Would this home be suited for the EIFS treatment? Well, maybe not, but surely they could have done something much better with the brick without an enormous cost premium, considering it's only one wall of a garage.

P.S. In my look around I was reminded of one the things I hate the most: Boxy solarium-like glass enclosures around existing front entrances. I cannot recall having seen one that looks good when tacked onto an older home after the fact. Nonetheless, when I moved to Toronto, to my surprise, they are quite common all over Toronto. It's mostly in cheaper neighbourhoods, but also is present in some more well-to-do neighbourhoods (albeit usually on the cheaper homes).

 

[adma]

Ah, that Eug. Like a collector af Bateman prints rolling his eyes at neighbours' OCAD-going offspring.

http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Miscellaneous/ltmi_034.mp3

 

[thecharioteer]

From: http://florissant.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/the-big-deal-about-eifs


She said that EIFS is “weak and temporary” at best, and that “it’s kind of like spray-finished stucco on plywood and Styrofoam backing.”

“EIFS is a fake, smooth-or-textured, stucco-looking finish that costs developers a lot let than brick. That's why they prefer using it,” Geerling said. “Some EIFS is worse than others, but truly, EFIS is not a long-lasting, permanent material, as is brick (or even concrete block).”

Lum said the problems begin with the fact that people believe buildings can be made “waterproof,” but in reality, they cannot.

“Even when applied by professional caulking applicators, all caulk joints will eventually fail, even those caulk joints made under laboratory conditions,” Lum said. “No windows are fully waterproof—they are designed and manufactured to a water-resistant standard. Some water will always find a way in. When it can't get out, you have a problem.”

Unfortunately, he added, substandard installations are a big part of the problem too.

“The owner does not hire professionals in the first place and/or gets bad advice,” Lum said. “The original and replacement installations are an expense to the owner, and people condemn the material and builder.”

 

[thecharioteer]

Let's also remember that Toronto has a long history of stucco houses:

Stewart Street 1913:



And brick-painted houses:

Painting by Lawren Harris 1919:



Gerrard Street Village in the 60's:



Yorkville in the 70's:






Little Portugal today:

 

[LowPolygon]

....Using the logic pushed in this thread, these homes' faces too should be preserved as heritage homes....
....This is the type of sentiment which I find very disappointing.....
....Somehow I'm not surprised though....
....the EIFS homes that I know that have had the EIFS for that time look fine....
....There are a few others that were only put in just in the last few years, but they look fine too of course.....

you should probably pack it in, Eug. however, please feel free to start your own thread promoting the use of EIFS wherever possible.

The application of EIFS on heritage buildings should be banned, period - and any application under the guise of "facade improvement programs" should also be prohibited.
AoD

Using EIFS on heritage buildings is all theDeepend was talking about. From my perspective, suburbanites can use it on new construction all they want because their neighbourhoods are for the most part lost causes to begin with.

...for many of the older buildings that thedeepend is concerned about the brick is not just a facade, it is the structure. Older houses and brick buildings are actually brick buildings. They are not timber frame buildings clad in brick such as your typical brick structure built since the 1950's. There are however more and better services available now to refresh and rejuvinate brick including brick repair, historical mortar mix, and even brick staining (to match uneven mis-matched brick repairs).

Thank you for this thread. I've been suffering in silence as numerous houses in my neighbourhood have received the EIFS treatment. One house had numerous quirks on its facade from a past, bad renovation and when they reclad in EIFS, they simply "sculpted" over the quirks making them stand out even more. Last year, a building on Queen street had large sections of its relatively new EIFS covering removed to deal with large amounts of mould that had gathered around the windows. They cleaned it up, and stuck more EIFS on it!

It doesn't seem suitable for main streets at all because it punctures so easily. Any large swatch of EIFS on a main street usually has lots of holes. Our local LCBO has a bunch of dents and holes.

The stuff is like the insulbrick of the current era.

the aesthetic rape of the building at Dundas and Ontario is pretty much complete now. It's the same beige color it always is, too. They better at least paint it something else. I didn't have time for pics, but I'll get some tomorrow.

Sucks.

Is it easy to remove the stuff?

The real danger is the numerous side streets around town that are being ruined with this crap. It's like newbies don't like red or yellow brick--what's wrong with these ppl?!

No kidding. Like, when I "sprung" the EIFS metaphor onto Eug in the Mayor Ford thread, I didn't realize that there'd be an anti-EIFS spinoff thread where Eug winds up being the cramped, constipated Joe-Blow-mediocre epitome of what the anti-EIFS argument is battling against...

The worst defacing I've seen is part tile, part stucco over a brick building. EIFS drive me nuts too, it should not be allowed without a heritage assessment first. Painting buildings is just as bad, in some cases it can destroy the brick making future restoration impossible.

From: http://florissant.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/the-big-deal-about-eifs


She said that EIFS is “weak and temporary†at best, and that “it’s kind of like spray-finished stucco on plywood and Styrofoam backing.â€

“EIFS is a fake, smooth-or-textured, stucco-looking finish that costs developers a lot let than brick. That's why they prefer using it,†Geerling said. “Some EIFS is worse than others, but truly, EFIS is not a long-lasting, permanent material, as is brick (or even concrete block).â€

Lum said the problems begin with the fact that people believe buildings can be made “waterproof,†but in reality, they cannot.

“Even when applied by professional caulking applicators, all caulk joints will eventually fail, even those caulk joints made under laboratory conditions,†Lum said. “No windows are fully waterproof—they are designed and manufactured to a water-resistant standard. Some water will always find a way in. When it can't get out, you have a problem.â€

Unfortunately, he added, substandard installations are a big part of the problem too.

“The owner does not hire professionals in the first place and/or gets bad advice,†Lum said. “The original and replacement installations are an expense to the owner, and people condemn the materialand builder.â€

 

[spider]

EIFS fans,

Google "99 fenside drive, Toronto" and go to maps and streetview for a treat. 101 Fenside across the driveway was done at the same time, what were they thinking?

 

[LowPolygon]

Let's also remember that Toronto has a long history of stucco houses:

Stewart Street 1913:

real stucco can have such a beautiful look, and it often ages wonderfully. at this point, there aren't all that many of those original homes left in the city. there may be one around Huron St in Chinatown i think, and maybe in and around the worker's cottages on Richmond near Niagara...

 

[Anna]

I share the hatred of EIFS but I wanted to make a few comments:

...Then again red brick buildings may just be a particular cultural quirk of Northern European sensibilities.

Or a particular cultural quirk of Toronto.

Building the City, Brick by Beautiful Red Brick

"By 1912, 40 per cent of Ontario’s brick was made in 34 brickyards at and on the edges of Toronto with The Don Valley Brick Works leading with the production of over 43-million brick. The next largest plant produced 15 million". Brick Manufacture

I would call this 'red brick houses, as painted by Lawren Harris'

And brick-painted houses:

Painting by Lawren Harris 1919:

 

[Anna]

EIFS fans,

Google "99 fenside drive, Toronto" and go to maps and streetview for a treat. 101 Fenside across the driveway was done at the same time, what were they thinking?

The 'divided light' windows and brass-camed glass door add a nice touch, don't they?

 

[LowPolygon]

EIFS fans,

Google "99 fenside drive, Toronto" and go to maps and streetview for a treat. 101 Fenside across the driveway was done at the same time, what were they thinking?

did you mean these? in which case: "whoa". that green one belongs in the EIFS Hall of Horrors.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not to say that I am a big fan of painted bricks - but it is superior to EIFS in terms of aesthetics, particularly in how it preserves the texture. EIFS just falls flat in these cases. It's less of an issue where it is intended in the design of the building from the get go.

AoD

 

[LowPolygon]

Not to say that I am a big fan of painted bricks - but it is superior to EIFS in terms of aesthetics, particularly in how it preserves the texture. EIFS just falls flat in these cases. It's less of an issue where it is intended in the design of the building from the get go.

AoD

that is true. as much as one hates "Smart Centres" (sic), one can't imagine them being clad in anything else--mass market big-box consumerism and EIFS are just a natural fit...

 

[flonicky]

Like a collector (of) Bateman prints...

That should read Bateman "prints". They're not prints, they're posters sold as prints.

For me, one heart-breaking EIFS reclad is the small apartment building on the northwest corner of Bloor and Keele. It was originally a brown brick building with dark windows in one of the better late 60s/early 70s styles. It didn't stand out in a big way but it was very attractive and worked well in that spot. When the EIFS went on, a bunch of cheap, fakey historical detail was added and now the building looks like slum housing. The worst offense are the inappropriately centred 'keystones' that clash with the windows.