|
In a message dated 3/15/2005 10:37:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. I'd like some further discussion if possible on this one. Here's the
deal. This isn't a quickie re-roof proposal. The building is a huge
Richardsonian Romanesque monster in the center of town-- used to be one of the
state government buildings (courthouse I think) later became the Post Office
(now known as the Old Old Post Office) currently inhabited by a well-heeled
law firm. The proposal was from an architectural firm I haven't worked with
previously, but was professionally presented, and they seemed to know the
terrain. (I'll explain that comment presently) Who are they, and where
(and how old) is the building?
So the proposal is to remove the entire (clay tile) roof, repair any
structural and underlayment issues, and rehang the existing clay tile.
Sounds like a good plan to me. The tiles are an unusual
shape, an older European variant, from what the architectural firm has said,
so they are proposing to utilize a similar tile as a replacement tile on the
roof. They will use the old tile on as many faces of the roof as they can tile
with the existing/remaining tile after the repairs, and use new tile on a face
or faces as necessary. Unused old tile, and extra new, should all be
SECURELY stockpiled for future repairs. If I were writing the
thing myself, that is probably the conclusion I would reach. They are doing
the flashing in a terne coated metal-- I think it is aluminum, but I can't
remember off the top of my head. Would be inclined to avoid aluminum
unless all fasteners are going to be aluminum, which is probably a mistake in
itself. Would have them use lead coated copper if it's available, or
maybe even plain lead (if THAT's available) .All in all it was a
thoughtful presentation, and a clever way to retain as much historic fabric as
possible. Hard to argue with that. MIGHT have
them look into getting replacement tiles made to match the originals, and
having the owner keep the tile molds.
So this is why the water-proofing question bothered me. It is a very high
quality proposal, and a huge job. I don't have the impression that it is a
quick and dirty job at all. I researched the silane waterproofing materials,
and most of them said that the coating was breatheable, so there
shouldn't be any damage done to the parapet as a result of the application, in
terms of water retention and freeze/thaw issues. Seems to me, the
a-penis-is-like-a-thumb man, that breatheable is nice, but it seems to me
there's a chance of it breathing the wrong way.
I was reviewing the Preservatio Brief on water-proofing treatments, and
while they pretty much say to avoid waterproofing materials, there is a
comment that they can be useful for areas that are exposed to extreme or
unsual weather conditions, as in the case of the parapet roof here. I
say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it.
I questioned the architect on the waterproofing pretty
thoroughly, and his response was that the rest of the building had been
waterproofed, and the parapet has been a continuing problem. Furthermore, he
mentioned that the interior face of the parapet seemed to be very
wet in contrast to the exterior sides of the parapet that had
been waterproofed in previous work. This means that for some asshole
reason, the water is getting IN the other sides (or the top) of the
wall and pissing OUT through this side. If you seal this side of
the wall, the water is going to run down into the building (it may be
already). You need to stop the penetration in the first place, not seal
it in after it gets in. The architect should do probes and tests in this
area to find out where the water's coming from and how far it's now getting
before committing to a repair method. Otherwise the contractor
will do it per contract, get paid for doing it per contract and
everybody will sue the shit out of each other. Then somebody else will get
paid to demolish and rebuild it ALL when it turns out there's some
problem that nobody understood, or at best the architect will have to
write a BIG change order and the contractor will shove the price up
the owner's ass, and everybody will sue the shit out of each other. On
the other hand, either of these possibilities (involving lawsuits) will
provide work for my firm.
Thanks for comments-- I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want an opinion,
so if you have any further thoughts after reading this, let me have 'em.
Heh heh heh. What questions should I be asking? See
above. Note also previous comments re: guarantees on spray-on
coatings. Tell them to do a proper investigation, preferably using
][<en in his PreConLogStrat configuration.
-Heidi Ralph
|
