Here is another (of many) reasons I like the look of the facade treatment on this building. The builders are now putting up high quality metal panels - it think called rain screens - on the entire surface over the exposed concrete core.
I also read somewhere they may even be PV panels which seems to be some sort of high quality - and perhaps highly attractive - feature.
As a stark comparison to a similar condition; take a Iook at 450 11th Avenue (linked below) and see an example of how poorly this raw concrete wall could have been done.
The developers here at 262 Fifth Ave did not VE this exposed concrete wall by covering the entire surface with what looks like some sort of waterproof black paint; which is exactly what was done at 450 11th Avenue. (see link to 450 11th Ave.)
They are not being installed yet, that is a test piece that was put up temporarily months if not several years ago at this point. A rainscreen cannot be installed ontop of bare concrete, it needs to be waterproofed first.
I already mentioned this in the post where I shared this image.
A noncomparison because the conditions are not similar at all. A building will be built abutting the 2 lot line walls that 450 11th Ave has, there is nothing done poorly in using an EIFS system, because thereâs 0 reason to spend money on a lot line wall that will be covered in the future by the party wall of an adjacent building, hundreds of projects around NY employee EIFS systems.
It was not VEâed because it was not a similar condition and neither is the instance at 450 11th Ave VEâing anything. Youâve clearly looked past the fact that this tower is being entirely covered in actual black waterproofing whereas the waterproofing at 450 11th Ave was bright blue. It is not exactly what was done there.
I donât really think the use of spitball here is being used as itâs being intended (there was no need to provide the definition for the word, it seems insulting.) There were no proposal of ideas being made, so I wouldnât quite say many people are spitballing here.
There are a great deal of people here who are very knowledgeable on a vast variety of subject, varying from photography (an enormously large part of this community who always provide us with many great updates or just photos in general), construction, architecture, engineering, real estate/development, and many other different subjects. I donât really consider making assumptions or comparisons as spitballing (in this context anyways).
A lot of information is always readily available on many projects here, thatâs why I question the need to make assumptions about other projects or compare âxâ projects to âxâ project (etc) when the information is there that provides the necessity to or to not make comparisons between different projects.
If something is actually an unknown then it makes sense to make assumptions or inquiries about said something of which occurs many times on these forums in general simply because information is sparse. But why make assumptions if something is know? Food for thought
Did not mean to insult you; only saying that I (and many other posters) will always be making random, and often inaccurate, comments. I think all input is good; all âfood for thoughâ .
It always good to hear your take: sorry if you were insulted.
I think my general idea was to point out that the developer at 262 could have chosen a much cheeper option for that exposed concrete core section. I see many examples where this cheeper process is done even when the exposed concrete is NOT on a lot line: that would be a case that would probable be called a VE (cost saving) measure.
This is sort of the random thought that came to mind when seeing those nice looking PV panels being put on at 262 Fifth Avenue. I appreciate that the developer is using panels like âcrinkled metalâ and PV panels. My comment are not always well researched or thought through; so I think the term âspitballingâ may be the right term. Maybe ârandom observationâ or âwild guessingâ is a better way the phrase the process.
Itâs all good. All input, is good input IMHOâŚcheers.
I appreciate this comment and inquiries do bring about good conversations that help everyone in the long term.
In regards to this, using an EIFS system over a rainscreen is actually not cheaper, EIFS normally costs more to install but is cheaper in the long run because of the many advantages it has over using a traditional rainscreen.
In regards to what would be considered VE, choosing siding opts wouldnât really be considered VE. The application of EIFS at 450 11th Ave was probably done so more because, since EIFS doesnt really require that much maintenance, as the walls will eventually be covered it made more sense to use EIFS over the much larger surface area.
The decision to use a rainscreen here at 262 was more so made because of the decision to implement the PV panels somehow into the facade, this actually may prove to be a more costly choice as PVs need to be frequently maintained and may not generate enough return to have justified using them in the first place. The area needed to cover is also just much smaller than the amount of EIFS that was installed at 450.
The main ârevealâ I would like to see at this point has to do with that concrete core running up the entire height of the building. I assumed it was those grey panels in the photo posted above: turns out that only a mock-up.
That may not be the finish they use; but we will know for sure at a later date.
I am betting that the âmock-upâ we see is in fact what will be eventually used on that exposed concrete surface.
I say that because; if the developers went as far as putting the mock-up in place - it is the most likely contender to be the final choice.
Lets see - at a later date - if my prediction/guess is correct.
I am prepared to make a modest wager on that claim: any takers?
and inquiries do bring about good conversations that help everyone in the long term.
