I'm amazed that this didn't happen sooner. I haven't been by the building in the last year and a half, at least, but the last time I saw it, it looked roughly like this:
image courtesy of CFBSr on flickr
Does this look like a building that was built to last, or to be sustainable, to you? To me, it looks like it's starting to biodegrade, even though I'm pretty sure EIFS isn't biodegradable...
A few years ago my parents were considering building a house in the Cincinnati area, and using EIFS as a cladding material. A quick drive past DAAP quickly dissuaded them of that idea.
I like DAAP and I'm hoping to be an M.Arch. student there next year, but I've never been a fan of Eisenman's Aronoff Center. IMO, it epitomizes everything that's wrong with ego-driven starchitecture. Fortunately, the university seems to have learned from the mistakes made at DAAP, and the newer starchitect-designed buildings on campus seem far more successful. Too bad that DAAP had to be the guinea pig with the campus master plan.
One almost wonders how Eisenmann hasn't been run outta Starchitecttown tied backwards to a horse for this project.
I guess one of the great things about parametric modeling is it will allow us to decide that things built this way probably *shouldn't* be, before we go and spend all that money, time, and resources making the experiment exist.
Do you think that if parametricism* had been available, that Eisenmann would have used it as a tool and/or even considered changing things as a result of what it told him?
And Orochi makes a good point: asking design students to learn in a building that is the antithesis of a lasting design is embarrassing. You can't even fall back on the argument that it looks neat anymore, as it does not.
*Disclaimer: I am still a bit fuzzy on the concept of this parametric design stuff but trying to remain open-minded.
my understanding has been that eifs simply is a poor material/system. the problem lays with the system not peter. unless you are all suggesting that the building is horrible irrespective of the cladding?
i recall reading articles saying lots of architects were burned by EIFS and they were not of the star variety.
so is this about peter or is it another issue and we are simply sticking it to pete because we like to kill our leaders?
Having visited the building but not studied in it, I found more problems with the design than simply the use of EIFS (which, knowing how these decisions are usually made, I usually attribute more to client / contractor than to architect, although the architect should (hopefully) have at least tried his darnedest to educate the client on the material's major deficiencies). From the observer's standpoint, it seemed to me like the building's (intentionally) frustrating and segmenting design might get in the way of collaborative learning in the college -- I've always wondered if that fleeting, visitor's impression was actually true for those who studied there. Anyone who studied there have some thoughts?
Although I will say, at this day and age, we are all fully aware of EIFS' deficiencies, and we owe it to our clients to put our feet down on the subject; and if they are implacable, and keep coming back to cost concerns (because let's face it, why else would a client want EIFS), then we need to find a way to make some other facade material just as cost-effective, or cut the cost of something else in the design in order to allow for an appropriate cladding material. I mean at this point there's really no excuse for spec'ing the stuff. We know it doesn't hold up, period.
It's funny, because in the context of its peers on the campus, that building seems all the more ill-designed. The Tschumi by the stadium is a little gem -- if seemingly under-programmed...
Whether to blame Eisenman or the contractor: I don't think it's an either/or question.
IIRC, Pete intended for the building to be clad in some sort of ceramic tile system, but since the budget was blown with his overly-complex geometry, the ceramic tile got value-engineered into EIFS. And although the EIFS system has clearly failed on its own (and would have likely done so even if the building were a simple rectangular box), I'm sure the building's geometry is a contributing factor to the water infiltration issues.
Aronoff's greatest strength is in the organization and progression of its interior spaces, particularly the grand stair that ties together the college and provides a multitude of informal pin-up/meeting spaces, and for the cafe space that serves as a central gathering area for the whole college:
But lots of great buildings have well-designed monumental stairs and gathering spaces, and I think these elements could have been incorporated into a well-designed DAAP building without all of Eisenman's trademark disjointed shapes, cheap materials, and shoddy workmanship.
EIFS as a material is not bad as long as you detail it as the manufacturer tells you, and you have a specification which does the same and a contractor builds it accordingly. It is just like wood, if you design it as intended, specify it as intended, and the contractor builds it as intended, there shouldn't be a problem. The biggest problem is that one of the many components along the way is forgotten. I think the companies have developed a better understanding of the material, architects are looking closer at the recommended details, and contractors are following those details in the method of construction. So it is less likely that there will be as many failures in the future.
I'm interested in using this material for the energy efficiency. I have a international style one story brick building with an aluminum curtainwall with single pane glass. I'm thinking about covering the brick with EIFS, thus creating a larger insulated thermal mass within the structure and replacing alot of the Aluminum Curtain Wall system with a more state of the art thermal broken aluminum curtain wall at the facades where it it can capture the winter sun and shade it during the summer. This inturn taking a building which sucks up cold in the winter and is hot in the summer and making it a much more temperate building.
A Brick is a Brick....and covering it hurts me a little, but when I start thinking about all the fricking energy escaping this building I think....yup we need to make a thermos bottle out of this building cause it is owned by a non-profit and well wasting energy means less clients served.
It cracks me up that it's always called the "grand stair" when it's a few risers, a plateau, a few more risers, creating an overall tepid ascension, and all covered in stained and frayed grey industrial carpeting. Nothing "grand" about it - however, it *is* a really cool place to hang out, despite the misnomer. Spatially it's quite wonderful (though a bit more natural light would be welcome).
snook, can you do the insulation on the inside, and leave the brick outside and exposed? One of my beefs with EIFS is that it has made all our buildings fat. It's a material that lends itself to the illusion of thickness, with little ability to do refined details. So everything made with it tends to be brutish and puffy. I think used in a simple plane it can *look* OK, and maybe, as you say, snook, when well-installed it can be made to last longer, but I still see it, between the manufacturing of the foam and the history of short-term life, as an environmental nightmare.
jump, I think LiG hit the biggest problem with Eisenman's design: it's so overly complicated that the construction costs were ridiculous, so in addition to the low-bid contractor having to try something new, the materials s/he was building with were crap. Inexperience+cheap materials = ugly, IMO.
liberty....The brick is a shitty looking brick.... and well the insulation on the exterior provides for the much needed thermal break between the interior and exterior....so by adding the insulation to the exterior you are creating a bigger heat sink(Mass) in the building inside the insulation, so your not looking at as exteme temp swings. Once the masonry is warmed in the winter it tends to stay warm if insulated from the outside. Insulating from the inside only creates and R-10. You also have to then adjust every fricking electrical outlet on the exterior wall, by most likely adding pig-tails which is a pain in the arshe. I also think it would most likely lead to problems down the road no matter how good the electrical contractor is.
i don't know if the brick is an important element from the inside but before you cover the brick on the outside consider furring strips (you might even need studs depending on the R-value you are trying to achieve) with insulation on the inside.
1. 3-dimensional blocks on line
2. Curves are introduced; the blocks are related to the curve
3. Overlapping between the blocks
4. Tilt/Twist x-y overlapping
5. Torsion, phase shift between two grids, extrusion and torsion, blocks become solids
6. Dual movement, torsion of grids
7. Solids are copied in the x-y plane, two series; torqued solids (ts) and torqued traces (tt)
8. Solids are elevated relative to context, two series shift in x-y plan
9. The overlapping of ts and tt creates space (rooms, atrium); the chevron geometry diffuses ts and tt
10. The structural grid becomes the phases of the torqued solids
11. The spatial planning is done from the inside relative to program; change in reference system, from the reference grid to a system of longitude, latitude and altitude
12. Adjusting transformations of form
And how does any of that make for a good building? Seriously.
I appreciate the place of theory in architecture, so long as it's a means to an end -- and that end should be, at minimum, architecture that fulfills certain basic technical functions (like, you know, keeping the rain out) and that hopefully makes a positive contribution to its physical and social context.
When theory becomes an end in itself, and the built environment (invariably built with other peoples' resources) is merely an inconsequential by-product of that theoretical process, the discipline of architecture loses its relevance to society, and people like me start to take potshots at people like Eisenman.
I hate to sound anti-intellectual, and maybe this stuff will all make perfect sense to me once I've taken a few theory classes in grad school, but for now, color me very skeptical. Perhaps even a bit cynical.
oops. i had to put my response away for a little while and by the time i posted it liberty had the same thought and snook had a response to said thought.
what's the life cycle of eifs? twenty-five years tops? it's not an appropriate cladding for a public institutional building. fine for strip malls, not for a school of architecture.
gin, was the original cladding supposed to be panels? that surprises me. i think eisenman likes being a little contrary and wanted to use eifs because it was unorthodox and gives him his smooth forms similar to the wexner convention center (he's pomo like that). i don't know this for a fact, but just my reading of eisenman.
I'm not exactly sure what sort of cladding system was originally intended for the building. It may have been some sort of panel system, or it may have been field-applied tiles on a setting bed just like you'd see in a bathroom.
Unfortunately, I can't remember where I learned about the cladding... May have been something I read, or something I heard through the grapevine while talking to a DAAP person at some point.
snook... if you are shooting for maximizing heating gains, look at the possiblility of wrapping the building in glass.
the brick becomes a trombe wall of sorts.
the airspace between the glass and brick can be used to pre-heat air
in the summer, vents at top and bottom of assembly suck out hot air.
with the right team doing dynamic simulations, you might be able to get down to a really dumbed down glazing system as well.
it's win-win... the glazing will keep the brick exposed, plus you don't have to consume massive quantities of BTUs for the rigid insulation in the EIFS.
Aw, holz, you just continue to rock. I love that idea.
I have also heard the DAAP was supposed to be glazed ceramic tiles, and the EIFS was selected as a less expensive alternative. I'm pretty sure i heard this from Eisenman, in an interview.
To be fair, I really like the Wexner, which is from the same-ish era, and also having aging problems - I just like it better.
that is very nice holz.box. wouldn't it be more expensive by several factors?
LIG i gotta agree the theories of greg and pete and similar did not exactly lead to architectural gold, but am glad they went through the effort. There is absolutely something to be learned from their work and not all of it of the negative don't do it this way type.
Theory is based on premise of failure, by definition. So am not sure why it is so bothersome to some folks. That the institutions did not get what they expected would be disingenuous at best. Not a chance they did not know what the building would be. Really, anyone who has worked on institutional projects knows the hoops architects go through on this kind of work - it is impossible for me to believe anyone had their eyes closed.
The EIFS thing is a different problem, one that probably would have been resolved by using a better material.
That said, the photos do not paint a good picture of that particular building. it looks seriously horrid in its planning and those stairs feel like a terrible shopping mall. ugh. To be honest it looks very "american" to me, just as Holz's example looks particularly "german". Somehow it is hard for me to imagine peter doing anything else in that setting....and especially at that time.
Orochi, the double rails are NOT, in fact, handicapped ramps - they are more stairs. Handicapped accessibility in the stepped area is achieved through a bridge off of another platform that leads ultimately to a couple of different elevators.
18x32, the HDR effect may be slightly distorting the look of the real building but it captures precisely how the building looks in my memory, which is like crap.
And I didn't necessarily mean for the thread to be a reflection on EIFS or on Eisenmann, although all points must be considered when you try to assess the long-term success of the building.
Please also note that my perspective is as a student who basically lived in that building for 6 years; I was in the first freshman class that spent their whole undergrad education there; and I gave tours of the building twice a week for four years. My perspective spans from when I was a 17-year-old freshman enamored with the new-ness and other-worldly quality of the building, to later, a 23-year-old 6th-year student jaded by what I had learned and more realistic about its longevity. Through THAT prism, I thought, as I still do, that the building was formally quite interesting. I can almost recite for you the narrative I gave to prospective students and their wide-eyed parents as I led them through the "blue" hallways, which marked a transition from the "old" buildings to the "new addition".
And this is a good time to bring up the fact that the programming and requirements of this project were no easy task. The Eisenmann design is actually an addition that joined three existing mid-century studio buildings together under one roof, while also adding program space. So I have to admit that I thought Eisenmann's solutions to the difficulties of the program, while a little too much on the pastel side, were nevertheless challenging and engaging.
THAT SAID, I do think a lot of what was done could have been done with much better materials at an equal cost, resulting in a more maintainable building. I can't speak to whether or not Eisenmann's design or even the EIFS had anything to do with what's happening in the lawsuit, but both of these factors certainly did NOT lend themselves to a long-lasting building.
Eisenmann himself basically agreed with this statement when he came back for the building's 10-year anniversary to lecture in 2006. He said, "it's nice to see this building still standing after 10 years, some of my other buildings aren't".
So the most potentially important social point of the building was not actually easily accessible? Man, that makes my point stick even harder.
Sorry for bad mouthing the building and equating it to one giant educational snuggie.
My alma mater had gross architectural tastes with a few leaky roofs and some poor "trying-to-boost-national-image-additions-that-horribly-backfired." Let me see if I can pull up an image.
i'm not saying EIFS isn't cheaper or less efficient. EIFS over masonry is standard throughout much of europe. and a fairly straightforward retrofit.
but with brick behind the EIFS, the thermal lag snook's looking to gain won't be there. especially with how he's described existing conditions...
the solar energy won't be passing through the EIFS and absorbed by the masonry. the insulation is keeping the warm temps inside from migrating outside and it's not warm enough inside for the brick to soak up excessive energy.
my suggestion would probably be slightly more expensive installation... but if correctly modeled, and then detailed as simple, redundant and easy to install, through the long term, could potentially be more effective at reducing heating/cooling costs - at least in my experience. especially if using for preheat in winter.
i'll see if i can find some diagrams to better explain this.
Orochi one of the malls around here wanted to add on, wanted it to have a "downtown" feel, so every building looks like your picture above, 5 stories-ish with "the mall" on the first floor, you have to walk outside to get to another store, parking ramps and offices above. And every fucking building is painted a different color.
Back to this DAAP thing.
I could only find a couple other photos of this DAAP building, and from the few pictures I've seen, I don't like it, though I will say it does look better on the inside. I take that back, I just looked at the pics again, it is bad on the inside, too, except I don't see as much pink. I think pomo kinda stuff like this is shit designed by the lazy. Don't paint your building weird fucking colors, morons, its not "interesting". Don't jumble shit on the facade up because of some weird system you have. I don't care how complex your organizational system is, if it looks like facade-barf I'm not interested.
"Yo intern, throw this elevation up on the dart board and figure out where the fucking windows go, bro. I'm gonna be busy for awhile with this paint by numbers book, k?"
in regards to accesibility, as it opened in 1996, it falls under ada legislation; therefore if it is not accessible you can file a doj lawsuit, but somehow i very much doubt the building is not accessible, and saying that is really just trying to find another way of saying, "i don't like it." which is fine, but then just say,"i don't like it."
just because a building leaks or isn't aging well doesn't mean that its not good architecture. i'd rather have this than 99 percent of what gets built.
snook, holz's suggestion is a good one. Holz are you looking for a diagram of a trombe wall? Like this?
ARE there installations where EIFS is used successfully and it is maintainable? I got the impression that it shouldn't be used anywhere there is a lot of moisture... so pretty much everywhere.
I have designed projects with trombe walls and well in this application it isn't a realistic solution. I think it is more reasonable to look at this at the ole thermos bottle design. Alot of Mass at the interior, with controled daylighting which is controled by exterior louvers and overhangs and a tight exterior skin. I think it will be the most economic solution.
lb- the term comes from a friend of mine who uses the term light-barf to describe people who just throw up christmas lights on whatever tree/bush/whatever happens to be in their yard.
And Milwaukee is quite an interesting city (for Wisconsin), although trying to park your car in it is ridiculous, especially since my building doesn't have a parking lot. Also the central city (say 1st St to 60th St) is pretty ghetto. But the 30 blocks or so from 1st St to Lake Michigan are nice.
thanks emily. nice to hear a more balanced opinion on the project for a change.
holz.box. yeah i know the system. i was imagining something more like the example in your pdf which i know is expensive. i did a police station that had something like it in early versions and was removed after kost kontrol. we ended up doing something rather tedious in end.
it was originally a horrible system, possibly because of the lack of ventilation at the top, but the building itself is still one of the best i have ever been in. it is minimalist/modernist so the interior spaces are hyper clear and easy to use. much smaller than peter's project so not a real comparison, mind.
however, it is safe to say this building failed miserably as far as its building envelope is concerned. and it is rather conservative by todays standards (possibly radical in the 1950's). strangely, no one gets as upset over this as over pete's thing, which is why i can't help but think that much of the complaining is disingenuous.
all buildings have problems just we don't take as much pleasure when less obviously unusual buildings fail...
i guess you could use a perf metal in between for shading, but i don't really see the point.
it's really just a twin wall, with one wall having mass, the other glazed.
from out to in:
glazing
air cavity
solid construction (brick, wood, conc., cmu)
another nice benefit is acoustic reduction
i sent you some examples a few months ago, i can resend if desired.
thinking of it closer to a trombe wall is probably more accurate. but instead of the trombe wall having operable vents, the glazing has vents. and an inlet from the cavity for heated air to be sent to mech system, or rock storage, etc.
The problem with this building was that something novel was attempted and failed horribly.
Semiotics deals with "programmatic" issues. My point previously still stands. A large portion of this building has accessibility issues.
I personally hate ADA compliance. I think it stifles creativity. However, I think ADA compliance plays a lesser role in architecture when it comes to private commercial and residential buildings. Given this idea, the only people who can skirt accessibility issues are the exact parties.
While his building may have been "gloriously" designed from an architectural and (and by extent) planning issue... this is one building that should have not followed by the rules of conforming to place and landscape. Ideally, all general floors should be wheelchair accessible.
This building fails that test. Sure, it would be insensitive to terraform the entire site so that it falls well below the 10 degree incline that is the general rule of ADA accesibility.
So, no, it doesn't meet semiotic ideology because this building creates a division between people-- those who can brave stairs and those who can't.
The problem with this building was that something completely new was tried and ultimately failed.
And that goes back to jump... this isn't tastemaking... this is the fact that someone tried something outside of convention and failed. The reason buildings by unnamed architects don't get the same publicity on their failures is that so few of them challenge their practice.
He made that challenge. He failed at his own game.
The same argument could be made about strata. If gehry had designed his building so that each over hanging window had a 45 degree pitch roof above it... would his design been so groundbreaking? Would he not be getting sued now?
holz, we were told it was designed by a pupil of mies, and i believe it since it resembles crown hall so much.
the skin failed within years of its completion too as far as i recall, only they let it get to the point where replacing the facade just had to be done. the skin was an experiment of sorts, so it was not unexpected that it didn't work but then there was no money to redo the job properly...kind of thing.
about police station no i would never show it to anyone even friends. it was a great experience but the architecture itself was not so great. nothing i would put my name on, obnoxious as that sounds.
orochi i am not sure why you think semiotics has anything to do with program. it can do, but is not a requirement. in any case i am not sure you have the issue correctly to begin with. didn't emily say there is a ramp in the plans but you can't see it in the photos?
as far as i understand the building the innovation is in the process of design itself, the resulting decoration of the facade, and the way the interior spaces overlap, but not the materiality of the thing. i've never had the impression peter really worried over such things...very likely i am wrong. perhaps someone here knows?
there is a building here in tokyo by peter esienman that is built quite well - from the same period and with the same pink and blue/green (whatever color that is) and the juxtaposed surfaces. it is fine. boring perhaps because the interior space and the skin have little to do with one another - really just a matter of graphic design in a lot of ways - but not a technical failure.
which again this makes me think the skin issue is about the cheap material and the contractor and not the design...which is innovative for other reasons than material selection. aren't we cutting pete too quickly?
i've visited this building a bunch of times and - as a strong advocate of accessible design strategies and someone who's worked a lot trying to bring them to difficult situations - i don't remember any areas that aren't accessible in some way.
maybe not in ways that are as easy or convenient as i'd like, but accessible nonetheless. maybe there are some lesser-used non-public spaces that i haven't visited that have issues.
ada-compliance is really typically a minimum anyway: ada would not require that every space be accessible, only that anyone with a disability could get access to a space where equal educational opportunities could be provided. there is a certain institutional burden to make that happen if the facility has limitations.
given that the project was a weaving together of multiple buildings at multiple floor elevations, i'd be surprised if there are NOT some spaces that couldn't be brought into compliance.
orochi, i've heard your "I personally hate ADA compliance. I think it stifles creativity." over and over again and it just makes me angry. good designers often describe how they thrive on limitations, that more design criteria help them focus what they're doing and make it more rigorous. if you think beyond ADA-compliance and consider making truly 'universal design', you can frame it as exactly that kind of good design challenge.
in my mind, creative or not, non-accessible architecture is BAD design. and not because of regs or goody-goody intentions but because it goes against why we're in architecture in the first place - our selfish reasons. if you ever thought you would want to design buildings that would make people happy, make them marvel at your skill and creativity - if you wanted to make a truly special piece of architectural design, why then would you make it one that excluded and, naturally, pissed off one whole segment of the population?
if daap doesn't meet ADA, shame on eisenman, sure. but also on (wasn't it?) trott & bean, the architects of record; the code officials who reviewed it, the client, the building inspector, and anyone else involved in letting it not meet what in most places is now not just a civil law but right there in the building code.
[/soap box]
the building's skin failure is an unfortunate result of circumstances. you design a building, it's too expensive, you try to rescue the design you've so painstakingly developed and have to make some material sacrifices in order to get it built. you're dependent on the skills of another architecture firm in realizing the complicated - and now compromised - thing that you've made. you're dependent on the skills of a contractor and a myriad other folks. what we do is compromise. what we build will never be the ideal we envision.
though i'm a firm believer that the translation from ideal to real is the best part of the challenge and value of what we do, other architects - probably including eisenman - are not of the same opinion, don't have the same interest. for them it's in the conception, not the realization - which is just a byproduct. this building is maybe the victim of that kind of value-judgment.
Even with the "cost-cutting" facade of EIFS, the building did go several millions of dollars over-budget, from what I recall.
Also, in the picture way above with the stairs, the platform that the photographer is standing on is accessible, and the furthest platform from the viewer is accessible, but the one in between is not. Just for clarification.
Jan 10, 10 5:55 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
DAAP looks like it's falling down ... and it might be
I apologize if this was covered in the News section, as it's several weeks old, I may have missed it.
Acclaimed DAAP building leaks; University of Cincinnati sues contractors
I'm amazed that this didn't happen sooner. I haven't been by the building in the last year and a half, at least, but the last time I saw it, it looked roughly like this:
image courtesy of CFBSr on flickr
Does this look like a building that was built to last, or to be sustainable, to you? To me, it looks like it's starting to biodegrade, even though I'm pretty sure EIFS isn't biodegradable...
It's actually holding up pretty well for an Eisenman building.
I couldn't imagine forcing students to go to school in a building like that.
It is embarrassing.
Like having a mother show up to soccer practice in a snuggie embarassing.
A few years ago my parents were considering building a house in the Cincinnati area, and using EIFS as a cladding material. A quick drive past DAAP quickly dissuaded them of that idea.
I like DAAP and I'm hoping to be an M.Arch. student there next year, but I've never been a fan of Eisenman's Aronoff Center. IMO, it epitomizes everything that's wrong with ego-driven starchitecture. Fortunately, the university seems to have learned from the mistakes made at DAAP, and the newer starchitect-designed buildings on campus seem far more successful. Too bad that DAAP had to be the guinea pig with the campus master plan.
One almost wonders how Eisenmann hasn't been run outta Starchitecttown tied backwards to a horse for this project.
I guess one of the great things about parametric modeling is it will allow us to decide that things built this way probably *shouldn't* be, before we go and spend all that money, time, and resources making the experiment exist.
Do you think that if parametricism* had been available, that Eisenmann would have used it as a tool and/or even considered changing things as a result of what it told him?
And Orochi makes a good point: asking design students to learn in a building that is the antithesis of a lasting design is embarrassing. You can't even fall back on the argument that it looks neat anymore, as it does not.
*Disclaimer: I am still a bit fuzzy on the concept of this parametric design stuff but trying to remain open-minded.
my understanding has been that eifs simply is a poor material/system. the problem lays with the system not peter. unless you are all suggesting that the building is horrible irrespective of the cladding?
i recall reading articles saying lots of architects were burned by EIFS and they were not of the star variety.
so is this about peter or is it another issue and we are simply sticking it to pete because we like to kill our leaders?
Having visited the building but not studied in it, I found more problems with the design than simply the use of EIFS (which, knowing how these decisions are usually made, I usually attribute more to client / contractor than to architect, although the architect should (hopefully) have at least tried his darnedest to educate the client on the material's major deficiencies). From the observer's standpoint, it seemed to me like the building's (intentionally) frustrating and segmenting design might get in the way of collaborative learning in the college -- I've always wondered if that fleeting, visitor's impression was actually true for those who studied there. Anyone who studied there have some thoughts?
Although I will say, at this day and age, we are all fully aware of EIFS' deficiencies, and we owe it to our clients to put our feet down on the subject; and if they are implacable, and keep coming back to cost concerns (because let's face it, why else would a client want EIFS), then we need to find a way to make some other facade material just as cost-effective, or cut the cost of something else in the design in order to allow for an appropriate cladding material. I mean at this point there's really no excuse for spec'ing the stuff. We know it doesn't hold up, period.
It's funny, because in the context of its peers on the campus, that building seems all the more ill-designed. The Tschumi by the stadium is a little gem -- if seemingly under-programmed...
Whether to blame Eisenman or the contractor: I don't think it's an either/or question.
IIRC, Pete intended for the building to be clad in some sort of ceramic tile system, but since the budget was blown with his overly-complex geometry, the ceramic tile got value-engineered into EIFS. And although the EIFS system has clearly failed on its own (and would have likely done so even if the building were a simple rectangular box), I'm sure the building's geometry is a contributing factor to the water infiltration issues.
Aronoff's greatest strength is in the organization and progression of its interior spaces, particularly the grand stair that ties together the college and provides a multitude of informal pin-up/meeting spaces, and for the cafe space that serves as a central gathering area for the whole college:
But lots of great buildings have well-designed monumental stairs and gathering spaces, and I think these elements could have been incorporated into a well-designed DAAP building without all of Eisenman's trademark disjointed shapes, cheap materials, and shoddy workmanship.
EIFS as a material is not bad as long as you detail it as the manufacturer tells you, and you have a specification which does the same and a contractor builds it accordingly. It is just like wood, if you design it as intended, specify it as intended, and the contractor builds it as intended, there shouldn't be a problem. The biggest problem is that one of the many components along the way is forgotten. I think the companies have developed a better understanding of the material, architects are looking closer at the recommended details, and contractors are following those details in the method of construction. So it is less likely that there will be as many failures in the future.
I'm interested in using this material for the energy efficiency. I have a international style one story brick building with an aluminum curtainwall with single pane glass. I'm thinking about covering the brick with EIFS, thus creating a larger insulated thermal mass within the structure and replacing alot of the Aluminum Curtain Wall system with a more state of the art thermal broken aluminum curtain wall at the facades where it it can capture the winter sun and shade it during the summer. This inturn taking a building which sucks up cold in the winter and is hot in the summer and making it a much more temperate building.
A Brick is a Brick....and covering it hurts me a little, but when I start thinking about all the fricking energy escaping this building I think....yup we need to make a thermos bottle out of this building cause it is owned by a non-profit and well wasting energy means less clients served.
You think I'm nuts?
It cracks me up that it's always called the "grand stair" when it's a few risers, a plateau, a few more risers, creating an overall tepid ascension, and all covered in stained and frayed grey industrial carpeting. Nothing "grand" about it - however, it *is* a really cool place to hang out, despite the misnomer. Spatially it's quite wonderful (though a bit more natural light would be welcome).
snook, can you do the insulation on the inside, and leave the brick outside and exposed? One of my beefs with EIFS is that it has made all our buildings fat. It's a material that lends itself to the illusion of thickness, with little ability to do refined details. So everything made with it tends to be brutish and puffy. I think used in a simple plane it can *look* OK, and maybe, as you say, snook, when well-installed it can be made to last longer, but I still see it, between the manufacturing of the foam and the history of short-term life, as an environmental nightmare.
jump, I think LiG hit the biggest problem with Eisenman's design: it's so overly complicated that the construction costs were ridiculous, so in addition to the low-bid contractor having to try something new, the materials s/he was building with were crap. Inexperience+cheap materials = ugly, IMO.
liberty....The brick is a shitty looking brick.... and well the insulation on the exterior provides for the much needed thermal break between the interior and exterior....so by adding the insulation to the exterior you are creating a bigger heat sink(Mass) in the building inside the insulation, so your not looking at as exteme temp swings. Once the masonry is warmed in the winter it tends to stay warm if insulated from the outside. Insulating from the inside only creates and R-10. You also have to then adjust every fricking electrical outlet on the exterior wall, by most likely adding pig-tails which is a pain in the arshe. I also think it would most likely lead to problems down the road no matter how good the electrical contractor is.
snook,
i don't know if the brick is an important element from the inside but before you cover the brick on the outside consider furring strips (you might even need studs depending on the R-value you are trying to achieve) with insulation on the inside.
2. Curves are introduced; the blocks are related to the curve
3. Overlapping between the blocks
4. Tilt/Twist x-y overlapping
5. Torsion, phase shift between two grids, extrusion and torsion, blocks become solids
6. Dual movement, torsion of grids
7. Solids are copied in the x-y plane, two series; torqued solids (ts) and torqued traces (tt)
8. Solids are elevated relative to context, two series shift in x-y plan
9. The overlapping of ts and tt creates space (rooms, atrium); the chevron geometry diffuses ts and tt
10. The structural grid becomes the phases of the torqued solids
11. The spatial planning is done from the inside relative to program; change in reference system, from the reference grid to a system of longitude, latitude and altitude
12. Adjusting transformations of form
And how does any of that make for a good building? Seriously.
I appreciate the place of theory in architecture, so long as it's a means to an end -- and that end should be, at minimum, architecture that fulfills certain basic technical functions (like, you know, keeping the rain out) and that hopefully makes a positive contribution to its physical and social context.
When theory becomes an end in itself, and the built environment (invariably built with other peoples' resources) is merely an inconsequential by-product of that theoretical process, the discipline of architecture loses its relevance to society, and people like me start to take potshots at people like Eisenman.
I hate to sound anti-intellectual, and maybe this stuff will all make perfect sense to me once I've taken a few theory classes in grad school, but for now, color me very skeptical. Perhaps even a bit cynical.
oops. i had to put my response away for a little while and by the time i posted it liberty had the same thought and snook had a response to said thought.
what's the life cycle of eifs? twenty-five years tops? it's not an appropriate cladding for a public institutional building. fine for strip malls, not for a school of architecture.
gin, was the original cladding supposed to be panels? that surprises me. i think eisenman likes being a little contrary and wanted to use eifs because it was unorthodox and gives him his smooth forms similar to the wexner convention center (he's pomo like that). i don't know this for a fact, but just my reading of eisenman.
I'm not exactly sure what sort of cladding system was originally intended for the building. It may have been some sort of panel system, or it may have been field-applied tiles on a setting bed just like you'd see in a bathroom.
Unfortunately, I can't remember where I learned about the cladding... May have been something I read, or something I heard through the grapevine while talking to a DAAP person at some point.
I take it handicapped people don't go to DAAP? *snicker*
Actually... no, wait, that's a BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
I mean if you want to call this things "glorious," it sure looks like it missed the first cue (accessibility) for a public institutional building.
I'm saying this while fully realizing the double rails are the handicapped ramps... but they look so "added-on."
snook... if you are shooting for maximizing heating gains, look at the possiblility of wrapping the building in glass.
the brick becomes a trombe wall of sorts.
the airspace between the glass and brick can be used to pre-heat air
in the summer, vents at top and bottom of assembly suck out hot air.
with the right team doing dynamic simulations, you might be able to get down to a really dumbed down glazing system as well.
it's win-win... the glazing will keep the brick exposed, plus you don't have to consume massive quantities of BTUs for the rigid insulation in the EIFS.
for reference, see h&dem's SUVA in basel.
Aw, holz, you just continue to rock. I love that idea.
I have also heard the DAAP was supposed to be glazed ceramic tiles, and the EIFS was selected as a less expensive alternative. I'm pretty sure i heard this from Eisenman, in an interview.
To be fair, I really like the Wexner, which is from the same-ish era, and also having aging problems - I just like it better.
i take paypal and personal checks, LB.
frankly, i like the idea, too. proposed on a few projects, but clients balked, unfortunately. maybe snook can have more luck.
another nice example is baumschlager + eberle's oeko-hauptschule maeder
that is very nice holz.box. wouldn't it be more expensive by several factors?
LIG i gotta agree the theories of greg and pete and similar did not exactly lead to architectural gold, but am glad they went through the effort. There is absolutely something to be learned from their work and not all of it of the negative don't do it this way type.
Theory is based on premise of failure, by definition. So am not sure why it is so bothersome to some folks. That the institutions did not get what they expected would be disingenuous at best. Not a chance they did not know what the building would be. Really, anyone who has worked on institutional projects knows the hoops architects go through on this kind of work - it is impossible for me to believe anyone had their eyes closed.
The EIFS thing is a different problem, one that probably would have been resolved by using a better material.
That said, the photos do not paint a good picture of that particular building. it looks seriously horrid in its planning and those stairs feel like a terrible shopping mall. ugh. To be honest it looks very "american" to me, just as Holz's example looks particularly "german". Somehow it is hard for me to imagine peter doing anything else in that setting....and especially at that time.
A couple of clarifications:
Orochi, the double rails are NOT, in fact, handicapped ramps - they are more stairs. Handicapped accessibility in the stepped area is achieved through a bridge off of another platform that leads ultimately to a couple of different elevators.
18x32, the HDR effect may be slightly distorting the look of the real building but it captures precisely how the building looks in my memory, which is like crap.
And I didn't necessarily mean for the thread to be a reflection on EIFS or on Eisenmann, although all points must be considered when you try to assess the long-term success of the building.
Please also note that my perspective is as a student who basically lived in that building for 6 years; I was in the first freshman class that spent their whole undergrad education there; and I gave tours of the building twice a week for four years. My perspective spans from when I was a 17-year-old freshman enamored with the new-ness and other-worldly quality of the building, to later, a 23-year-old 6th-year student jaded by what I had learned and more realistic about its longevity. Through THAT prism, I thought, as I still do, that the building was formally quite interesting. I can almost recite for you the narrative I gave to prospective students and their wide-eyed parents as I led them through the "blue" hallways, which marked a transition from the "old" buildings to the "new addition".
And this is a good time to bring up the fact that the programming and requirements of this project were no easy task. The Eisenmann design is actually an addition that joined three existing mid-century studio buildings together under one roof, while also adding program space. So I have to admit that I thought Eisenmann's solutions to the difficulties of the program, while a little too much on the pastel side, were nevertheless challenging and engaging.
THAT SAID, I do think a lot of what was done could have been done with much better materials at an equal cost, resulting in a more maintainable building. I can't speak to whether or not Eisenmann's design or even the EIFS had anything to do with what's happening in the lawsuit, but both of these factors certainly did NOT lend themselves to a long-lasting building.
Eisenmann himself basically agreed with this statement when he came back for the building's 10-year anniversary to lecture in 2006. He said, "it's nice to see this building still standing after 10 years, some of my other buildings aren't".
So, there's THAT, too...
So the most potentially important social point of the building was not actually easily accessible? Man, that makes my point stick even harder.
Sorry for bad mouthing the building and equating it to one giant educational snuggie.
My alma mater had gross architectural tastes with a few leaky roofs and some poor "trying-to-boost-national-image-additions-that-horribly-backfired." Let me see if I can pull up an image.
oh yeah! The building on the right (orangeish, reddish, pink) is actually a parking garage.
Why yes... that is the second Barnes and Noble we... they... have on campus.
</threadjack>
It's OK, I actually like snuggies, LOL.
jump,
i'm not saying EIFS isn't cheaper or less efficient. EIFS over masonry is standard throughout much of europe. and a fairly straightforward retrofit.
but with brick behind the EIFS, the thermal lag snook's looking to gain won't be there. especially with how he's described existing conditions...
the solar energy won't be passing through the EIFS and absorbed by the masonry. the insulation is keeping the warm temps inside from migrating outside and it's not warm enough inside for the brick to soak up excessive energy.
my suggestion would probably be slightly more expensive installation... but if correctly modeled, and then detailed as simple, redundant and easy to install, through the long term, could potentially be more effective at reducing heating/cooling costs - at least in my experience. especially if using for preheat in winter.
i'll see if i can find some diagrams to better explain this.
Orochi one of the malls around here wanted to add on, wanted it to have a "downtown" feel, so every building looks like your picture above, 5 stories-ish with "the mall" on the first floor, you have to walk outside to get to another store, parking ramps and offices above. And every fucking building is painted a different color.
Back to this DAAP thing.
I could only find a couple other photos of this DAAP building, and from the few pictures I've seen, I don't like it, though I will say it does look better on the inside. I take that back, I just looked at the pics again, it is bad on the inside, too, except I don't see as much pink. I think pomo kinda stuff like this is shit designed by the lazy. Don't paint your building weird fucking colors, morons, its not "interesting". Don't jumble shit on the facade up because of some weird system you have. I don't care how complex your organizational system is, if it looks like facade-barf I'm not interested.
"Yo intern, throw this elevation up on the dart board and figure out where the fucking windows go, bro. I'm gonna be busy for awhile with this paint by numbers book, k?"
"Facade-barf" is a very useful term - thanks for that, Milwaukee.
(BTW, total threadjack: are you from/do you live in Milwaukee? I visited it in October and think it's such a cool little metropolis!)
in regards to accesibility, as it opened in 1996, it falls under ada legislation; therefore if it is not accessible you can file a doj lawsuit, but somehow i very much doubt the building is not accessible, and saying that is really just trying to find another way of saying, "i don't like it." which is fine, but then just say,"i don't like it."
just because a building leaks or isn't aging well doesn't mean that its not good architecture. i'd rather have this than 99 percent of what gets built.
snook, holz's suggestion is a good one. Holz are you looking for a diagram of a trombe wall? Like this?
ARE there installations where EIFS is used successfully and it is maintainable? I got the impression that it shouldn't be used anywhere there is a lot of moisture... so pretty much everywhere.
Emily
I have designed projects with trombe walls and well in this application it isn't a realistic solution. I think it is more reasonable to look at this at the ole thermos bottle design. Alot of Mass at the interior, with controled daylighting which is controled by exterior louvers and overhangs and a tight exterior skin. I think it will be the most economic solution.
no, i was looking for a diagram showing temperature flow through different wall systems to better illustrate what i was (poorly) describing.
though i wouldn't detail it as a trombe wall, in principle it's pretty much the same.
i would just have vents at the bottom and top of the glazed wall for seasonal variation (and easier constructability)
here's a bad (german diagram describing the system
and here's a sketchy detail showing the system i'm talking about.
in the summer, instead of venting the hot air out, you capture the preheated air, significantly reducing heating loads.
snook - just how much mass is actually in the interior? is it brick on CMU? or brick over metal studs?
lb- the term comes from a friend of mine who uses the term light-barf to describe people who just throw up christmas lights on whatever tree/bush/whatever happens to be in their yard.
And Milwaukee is quite an interesting city (for Wisconsin), although trying to park your car in it is ridiculous, especially since my building doesn't have a parking lot. Also the central city (say 1st St to 60th St) is pretty ghetto. But the 30 blocks or so from 1st St to Lake Michigan are nice.
ah the taste police and their colorful jargon ;-)
thanks emily. nice to hear a more balanced opinion on the project for a change.
holz.box. yeah i know the system. i was imagining something more like the example in your pdf which i know is expensive. i did a police station that had something like it in early versions and was removed after kost kontrol. we ended up doing something rather tedious in end.
actually,my architecture school in canada has a slightly similar glass system but without the thermal mass behind it.
it was originally a horrible system, possibly because of the lack of ventilation at the top, but the building itself is still one of the best i have ever been in. it is minimalist/modernist so the interior spaces are hyper clear and easy to use. much smaller than peter's project so not a real comparison, mind.
however, it is safe to say this building failed miserably as far as its building envelope is concerned. and it is rather conservative by todays standards (possibly radical in the 1950's). strangely, no one gets as upset over this as over pete's thing, which is why i can't help but think that much of the complaining is disingenuous.
all buildings have problems just we don't take as much pleasure when less obviously unusual buildings fail...
oops, that should read
in the winter, you capture the preheated air...
jump, if you've got some more info on that police station, i'd be interested in checking it out.
interesting read, but i wasn't able to discern who the original architect was?
i think it's easier to be appalled that a 13 yo building by a self-proclaimed starchitect is failing, v. a 50 y building designed by lesser-knowns.
holz, so it's like a breathing wall then?
Am I getting close? LOL
We'll figure this thing out eventually!
ha. i've never heard of a breathing wall...
i guess you could use a perf metal in between for shading, but i don't really see the point.
it's really just a twin wall, with one wall having mass, the other glazed.
from out to in:
glazing
air cavity
solid construction (brick, wood, conc., cmu)
another nice benefit is acoustic reduction
i sent you some examples a few months ago, i can resend if desired.
thinking of it closer to a trombe wall is probably more accurate. but instead of the trombe wall having operable vents, the glazing has vents. and an inlet from the cavity for heated air to be sent to mech system, or rock storage, etc.
18x32...
I respectfully disagree.
The problem with this building was that something novel was attempted and failed horribly.
Semiotics deals with "programmatic" issues. My point previously still stands. A large portion of this building has accessibility issues.
I personally hate ADA compliance. I think it stifles creativity. However, I think ADA compliance plays a lesser role in architecture when it comes to private commercial and residential buildings. Given this idea, the only people who can skirt accessibility issues are the exact parties.
While his building may have been "gloriously" designed from an architectural and (and by extent) planning issue... this is one building that should have not followed by the rules of conforming to place and landscape. Ideally, all general floors should be wheelchair accessible.
This building fails that test. Sure, it would be insensitive to terraform the entire site so that it falls well below the 10 degree incline that is the general rule of ADA accesibility.
So, no, it doesn't meet semiotic ideology because this building creates a division between people-- those who can brave stairs and those who can't.
The problem with this building was that something completely new was tried and ultimately failed.
And that goes back to jump... this isn't tastemaking... this is the fact that someone tried something outside of convention and failed. The reason buildings by unnamed architects don't get the same publicity on their failures is that so few of them challenge their practice.
He made that challenge. He failed at his own game.
The same argument could be made about strata. If gehry had designed his building so that each over hanging window had a 45 degree pitch roof above it... would his design been so groundbreaking? Would he not be getting sued now?
holz, we were told it was designed by a pupil of mies, and i believe it since it resembles crown hall so much.
the skin failed within years of its completion too as far as i recall, only they let it get to the point where replacing the facade just had to be done. the skin was an experiment of sorts, so it was not unexpected that it didn't work but then there was no money to redo the job properly...kind of thing.
about police station no i would never show it to anyone even friends. it was a great experience but the architecture itself was not so great. nothing i would put my name on, obnoxious as that sounds.
orochi i am not sure why you think semiotics has anything to do with program. it can do, but is not a requirement. in any case i am not sure you have the issue correctly to begin with. didn't emily say there is a ramp in the plans but you can't see it in the photos?
as far as i understand the building the innovation is in the process of design itself, the resulting decoration of the facade, and the way the interior spaces overlap, but not the materiality of the thing. i've never had the impression peter really worried over such things...very likely i am wrong. perhaps someone here knows?
there is a building here in tokyo by peter esienman that is built quite well - from the same period and with the same pink and blue/green (whatever color that is) and the juxtaposed surfaces. it is fine. boring perhaps because the interior space and the skin have little to do with one another - really just a matter of graphic design in a lot of ways - but not a technical failure.
which again this makes me think the skin issue is about the cheap material and the contractor and not the design...which is innovative for other reasons than material selection. aren't we cutting pete too quickly?
i've visited this building a bunch of times and - as a strong advocate of accessible design strategies and someone who's worked a lot trying to bring them to difficult situations - i don't remember any areas that aren't accessible in some way.
maybe not in ways that are as easy or convenient as i'd like, but accessible nonetheless. maybe there are some lesser-used non-public spaces that i haven't visited that have issues.
ada-compliance is really typically a minimum anyway: ada would not require that every space be accessible, only that anyone with a disability could get access to a space where equal educational opportunities could be provided. there is a certain institutional burden to make that happen if the facility has limitations.
given that the project was a weaving together of multiple buildings at multiple floor elevations, i'd be surprised if there are NOT some spaces that couldn't be brought into compliance.
orochi, i've heard your "I personally hate ADA compliance. I think it stifles creativity." over and over again and it just makes me angry. good designers often describe how they thrive on limitations, that more design criteria help them focus what they're doing and make it more rigorous. if you think beyond ADA-compliance and consider making truly 'universal design', you can frame it as exactly that kind of good design challenge.
in my mind, creative or not, non-accessible architecture is BAD design. and not because of regs or goody-goody intentions but because it goes against why we're in architecture in the first place - our selfish reasons. if you ever thought you would want to design buildings that would make people happy, make them marvel at your skill and creativity - if you wanted to make a truly special piece of architectural design, why then would you make it one that excluded and, naturally, pissed off one whole segment of the population?
if daap doesn't meet ADA, shame on eisenman, sure. but also on (wasn't it?) trott & bean, the architects of record; the code officials who reviewed it, the client, the building inspector, and anyone else involved in letting it not meet what in most places is now not just a civil law but right there in the building code.
[/soap box]
the building's skin failure is an unfortunate result of circumstances. you design a building, it's too expensive, you try to rescue the design you've so painstakingly developed and have to make some material sacrifices in order to get it built. you're dependent on the skills of another architecture firm in realizing the complicated - and now compromised - thing that you've made. you're dependent on the skills of a contractor and a myriad other folks. what we do is compromise. what we build will never be the ideal we envision.
though i'm a firm believer that the translation from ideal to real is the best part of the challenge and value of what we do, other architects - probably including eisenman - are not of the same opinion, don't have the same interest. for them it's in the conception, not the realization - which is just a byproduct. this building is maybe the victim of that kind of value-judgment.
Even with the "cost-cutting" facade of EIFS, the building did go several millions of dollars over-budget, from what I recall.
Also, in the picture way above with the stairs, the platform that the photographer is standing on is accessible, and the furthest platform from the viewer is accessible, but the one in between is not. Just for clarification.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.