architect's pet peeve no. 9 – fake masonry

Posted on by mgerwing

We have all seen this stuff, the clearly stuck-on fake brick and stone that has completely taken over the real masonry world.

lick'n'stick, with mitered corners no less

There are various levels of atrociousness with this stuff so let’s start by defining what we mean by masorny:

two wythes (at least) thick

LEVEL ONE: real bearing masonry. This is what masonry was 100 years ago. The stone or brick actually held up the weight of the roof and the structure above. It had to be thick, more so at the bottom, to bear the weight. The Monadonack Building in Chicago is many feet thick at the base, composed of multiple wythes (a wythe is a single row thickness of brick) of brick. When you seen header bricks they are not half-bricks, but stretchers turned 90 degrees and spanning over two wythes to tie them together. To bear the weight of even a simple roof, brick or stone had to be thicker than 4 inches (the width of a single wythe of brick).

veneer brick, with soldier course lintel; veneer stone, 4

LEVEL TWO: masonry veneer construction. For decades now the mode of construction when masonry is employed is most often as a thin (4″ – 6″ thick) veneer acting as an exterior finish material and covering the real structural support of the building, be that wood or metal studs or concrete block (commercial block construction is still often bearing – the block you see on the outside of the building is doing the structural work). This mode of masonry is what is most often used in residential construction and the masonry you see, although not holding up the building, is still stacked, stone upon stone, brick upon brick, supported on a concrete foundation. In some unfortunate cases the stone is not real – it is concrete formed units made to look like stone to reduce the cost of the material, but still bearing its own weight.

LEVEL THREE: thin veneer construction. I hesitate to call this masonry because in most instances the whole idea of this technique is to have material so thin, 1 1/2″ or so, that it does not need support from stacking the material up but rather is glued onto the wall. Each piece of fake stone or brick is simply glued to the wall often from the top down or in some strange random pattern that does not reflect gravity or any of the rules of traditional masonry. As this stuff is quite thin, as it turns an outside corner either the ridiculous skinny material is exposed or a fake corner has to be produced.

panels of ?

LEVEL FOUR: thin panel veneer construction. This is essentially paneling masquerading as masonry. These are thin panels of stone or brick, pre-assembled, with staggered side edges to hide the panel joints after installation. These panels are very lightweight and inexpensive and if installed with some care as to edges and joints, can, at a distance, fool almost everyone into thinking it is real LEVEL ONE or TWO masonry. Until the panel starts to peel off the wall at least. Usually the material on the panel is not brick or stone but plastic or resin composites.

THE PRODUCTS

Now that we have laid out the techniques of deception, expecially in LEVEL THREE and FOUR, let’s take a look at the quality of the product. Obviously in all cases if the product being used in made of the same stuff or in the same way as the original it is trying to duplicate there will be a much better chance of replicating its look and application. So, thin veneer brick that is actually cast and molded like brick, from the same clays, will be a much better fake than the vermiculite-pressed products. Same thing with stone – thin cut stone, from an actual quarry, will be far more successful than the dyed-concrete stuff (often known as “cultured stone”). Of course, in LEVEL FOUR, panels of “masonry”, none of this typically occurs.

so many pretty colors!! ...maybe too many.

THE INSTALLATION

I am all for using masonry, especially LEVEL TWO veneer masonry, in ways that do not try to replicate traditional bearing wall construction. Bricks can be laid up as straight-stacked or panelized, each “revealing” their roles as an exterior finish material, not a structurally bearing material. However, this is rarely done and most often the worst abuses of the fake masonry world occur when traditional masonry is desired but the execution, either in installation or a complete failure of the product, fails to understand what masonry is. What am I talking about here? Well, let’s have a little survey of installations that have no idea of what they are doing.

No real mason would ever let so many vertical joints align, especially in a dry-stack type of installation. These fake stone are clearly made in multi-stone units that are simply butted together – usually a sign of concrete faking it as stone. Awful, a product and installation failure.

so many fabulous choices!!

When the stuff is so thin it is glued on rather than stacked, there is no sense of gravity having any sway in this universe. And clearly the corners of this stuff ought to show that the material is maybe more than 2″ thick.

I don’t know what to say about this:

this may have some cool, deconstructivist intention, but I don't think so

Or this:

I think this is the Medieval Times look.

In conclusion: I am no fan of any use of LEVEL THREE of FOUR products or applications unless you are going to clearly apply them like wallpaper and have some fun with it. Hey, how about a brick chair? Or a stone door?

For the LEVEL TWO veneer masonry, let’s either use it in a traditional way – openings would have lintels or soldier courses, the masonry would never hang in the air – or let’s acknowledge its role as merely an exterior protective surface and detail it accordingly.

straight-stacked brick, clear non-structural, but true to its veneer construction

www.mgerwingarch.com

Advertisement

architect’s pet peeve no. 9 – fake masonry

Posted on by mgerwing

We have all seen this stuff, the clearly stuck-on fake brick and stone that has completely taken over the real masonry world.

lick'n'stick, with mitered corners no less

There are various levels of atrociousness with this stuff so let’s start by defining what we mean by masorny:

two wythes (at least) thick

LEVEL ONE: real bearing masonry. This is what masonry was 100 years ago. The stone or brick actually held up the weight of the roof and the structure above. It had to be thick, more so at the bottom, to bear the weight. The Monadonack Building in Chicago is many feet thick at the base, composed of multiple wythes (a wythe is a single row thickness of brick) of brick. When you seen header bricks they are not half-bricks, but stretchers turned 90 degrees and spanning over two wythes to tie them together. To bear the weight of even a simple roof, brick or stone had to be thicker than 4 inches (the width of a single wythe of brick).

veneer brick, with soldier course lintel; veneer stone, 4

LEVEL TWO: masonry veneer construction. For decades now the mode of construction when masonry is employed is most often as a thin (4″ – 6″ thick) veneer acting as an exterior finish material and covering the real structural support of the building, be that wood or metal studs or concrete block (commercial block construction is still often bearing – the block you see on the outside of the building is doing the structural work). This mode of masonry is what is most often used in residential construction and the masonry you see, although not holding up the building, is still stacked, stone upon stone, brick upon brick, supported on a concrete foundation. In some unfortunate cases the stone is not real – it is concrete formed units made to look like stone to reduce the cost of the material, but still bearing its own weight.

LEVEL THREE: thin veneer construction. I hesitate to call this masonry because in most instances the whole idea of this technique is to have material so thin, 1 1/2″ or so, that it does not need support from stacking the material up but rather is glued onto the wall. Each piece of fake stone or brick is simply glued to the wall often from the top down or in some strange random pattern that does not reflect gravity or any of the rules of traditional masonry. As this stuff is quite thin, as it turns an outside corner either the ridiculous skinny material is exposed or a fake corner has to be produced.

panels of ?

LEVEL FOUR: thin panel veneer construction. This is essentially paneling masquerading as masonry. These are thin panels of stone or brick, pre-assembled, with staggered side edges to hide the panel joints after installation. These panels are very lightweight and inexpensive and if installed with some care as to edges and joints, can, at a distance, fool almost everyone into thinking it is real LEVEL ONE or TWO masonry. Until the panel starts to peel off the wall at least. Usually the material on the panel is not brick or stone but plastic or resin composites.

THE PRODUCTS

Now that we have laid out the techniques of deception, expecially in LEVEL THREE and FOUR, let’s take a look at the quality of the product. Obviously in all cases if the product being used in made of the same stuff or in the same way as the original it is trying to duplicate there will be a much better chance of replicating its look and application. So, thin veneer brick that is actually cast and molded like brick, from the same clays, will be a much better fake than the vermiculite-pressed products. Same thing with stone – thin cut stone, from an actual quarry, will be far more successful than the dyed-concrete stuff (often known as “cultured stone”). Of course, in LEVEL FOUR, panels of “masonry”, none of this typically occurs.

so many pretty colors!! ...maybe too many.

THE INSTALLATION

I am all for using masonry, especially LEVEL TWO veneer masonry, in ways that do not try to replicate traditional bearing wall construction. Bricks can be laid up as straight-stacked or panelized, each “revealing” their roles as an exterior finish material, not a structurally bearing material. However, this is rarely done and most often the worst abuses of the fake masonry world occur when traditional masonry is desired but the execution, either in installation or a complete failure of the product, fails to understand what masonry is. What am I talking about here? Well, let’s have a little survey of installations that have no idea of what they are doing.

No real mason would ever let so many vertical joints align, especially in a dry-stack type of installation. These fake stone are clearly made in multi-stone units that are simply butted together – usually a sign of concrete faking it as stone. Awful, a product and installation failure.

so many fabulous choices!!

When the stuff is so thin it is glued on rather than stacked, there is no sense of gravity having any sway in this universe. And clearly the corners of this stuff ought to show that the material is maybe more than 2″ thick.

I don’t know what to say about this:

this may have some cool, deconstructivist intention, but I don't think so

Or this:

I think this is the Medieval Times look.

In conclusion: I am no fan of any use of LEVEL THREE of FOUR products or applications unless you are going to clearly apply them like wallpaper and have some fun with it. Hey, how about a brick chair? Or a stone door?

For the LEVEL TWO veneer masonry, let’s either use it in a traditional way – openings would have lintels or soldier courses, the masonry would never hang in the air – or let’s acknowledge its role as merely an exterior protective surface and detail it accordingly.

straight-stacked brick, clear non-structural, but true to its veneer construction

www.mgerwingarch.com

white church | red church

Posted on by mgerwing

We recently spent some time in south central Virginia, amid the sultry heat and humidity and the simple, often beautiful architecture of the rural South.  Amidst all the famous and historical Georgian style houses and institutional buildings, what struck me the most was the apparent material and formal typologies of the local churches.  Although certainly not all religious buildings follow these patterns, the vast majority of rural churches were firmly in either the all-red-brick or all-white camps. I will admit to not being familiar with either the fine distinctions among different Baptist dominations nor the history of white and African-American churches, but the temptation is to think that the material selection is driven more by economics than anything else. Looking closely at the form of these buildings it appears that these buildings are slow accumulations over time – a simple, gabled worship hall extended by the addition of later front porches and narthex and in some cases, brick cladding. Throughout this part of Virginia, the typical Georgian brick with white trim is the most revered, the style and materials of Jefferson’s Monticello, James River plantations and grand country houses.  The simple, white vernacular buildings are of a later date, post Civil War, and reflect maybe lesser economic means but also a much more sophisticated response to a hot, sunny, humid climate. What is most interesting may be that although there is a strong contrast of materials used in these buildings, the basic form of a gabled front with a gabled porch is identical. Whether on a busy road or deeply tucked into heavy, thick woods, the axial entry and center aisle seems to never vary. And I wouldn’t bother trying to open up a paint store here, maybe just a warehouse of 5-gal tubs of white paint would suffice.

www.mgerwingarch.com

white church | red church

Posted on by mgerwing

We recently spent some time in south central Virginia, amid the sultry heat and humidity and the simple, often beautiful architecture of the rural South.  Amidst all the famous and historical Georgian style houses and institutional buildings, what struck me the most was the apparent material and formal typologies of the local churches.  Although certainly not all religious buildings follow these patterns, the vast majority of rural churches were firmly in either the all-red-brick or all-white camps. I will admit to not being familiar with either the fine distinctions among different Baptist dominations nor the history of white and African-American churches, but the temptation is to think that the material selection is driven more by economics than anything else. Looking closely at the form of these buildings it appears that these buildings are slow accumulations over time – a simple, gabled worship hall extended by the addition of later front porches and narthex and in some cases, brick cladding. Throughout this part of Virginia, the typical Georgian brick with white trim is the most revered, the style and materials of Jefferson’s Monticello, James River plantations and grand country houses.  The simple, white vernacular buildings are of a later date, post Civil War, and reflect maybe lesser economic means but also a much more sophisticated response to a hot, sunny, humid climate. What is most interesting may be that although there is a strong contrast of materials used in these buildings, the basic form of a gabled front with a gabled porch is identical. Whether on a busy road or deeply tucked into heavy, thick woods, the axial entry and center aisle seems to never vary. And I wouldn’t bother trying to open up a paint store here, maybe just a warehouse of 5-gal tubs of white paint would suffice.

www.mgerwingarch.com

Boulder's Historic Districts – 16th Street

Posted on by mgerwing

Tucked against the north side of Baseline along 16th Street is a tiny historic district often overlooked.  Comprised of only 5 properties, it consists of a group of small masonry cottages surrounded by dense trees.

For the most part the houses are made of fairly traditional red brick masonry.  A few also have rustic, red clay tile roofs which, along with the brick, lend an overall dense and solid expression, strongly rooting the houses to their sites.   Like all the north-south streets in this area, the predominant slope makes the houses on the west side of the street sit up from the street.  As in the University Place district (to be profiled in a future post), a variety of terraced gardens and retaining walls resolve this grade difference between the sidewalk and house.  This slope also means that the small profile of the houses on the east side of the street contrast with the 2- or 1 1/2 story exposed at the eastern alley side.

As a whole, the little  district is a great laboratory of masonry techniques from the 1920’s.  Although in general most of the masonry is typical stretcher bond, there are some smaller examples of Flemish and English bonds.  And, in one house, a brickwork combined with stone that defies any category or style that I know of:

This is not some mason gone mad, but rather part of that strange, Romantic neo-medieval aesthetic movement of the 19th century championed by William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement.  (Morris is credited with founding the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, later to become the UK’s National Trust, an early forerunner of all historic preservation societies and efforts.)

I am not sure if these are actual clinker bricks, kiln rejects because of odd shapes or twists, but the coursing, or lack of, is certainly part of that tradition of using clinker bricks in often strange and fanciful patterns.  This randomness takes a lot of skill and time of a mason, increasingly rare around Colorado where laying brick is priced on a bricks/hour basis.

The 16th Street district is maybe a bit small to be rightly called a “district”, but as a collection of well-made, strongly interior and distinct houses, it is a great example of houses whose interior-exterior interface is clearly defined.  Only a few decades later, the continuity of interior and exterior spaces exercised in Usonian houses and all their ranch bastardizations made these small masonry houses seem more akin to their medieval ancestors.  These are like little castles, staunchly defended, with even that occasional turret thrown in for good measure.

www.mgerwingarch.com

Boulder’s Historic Districts – 16th Street

Posted on by mgerwing

Tucked against the north side of Baseline along 16th Street is a tiny historic district often overlooked.  Comprised of only 5 properties, it consists of a group of small masonry cottages surrounded by dense trees.

For the most part the houses are made of fairly traditional red brick masonry.  A few also have rustic, red clay tile roofs which, along with the brick, lend an overall dense and solid expression, strongly rooting the houses to their sites.   Like all the north-south streets in this area, the predominant slope makes the houses on the west side of the street sit up from the street.  As in the University Place district (to be profiled in a future post), a variety of terraced gardens and retaining walls resolve this grade difference between the sidewalk and house.  This slope also means that the small profile of the houses on the east side of the street contrast with the 2- or 1 1/2 story exposed at the eastern alley side.

As a whole, the little  district is a great laboratory of masonry techniques from the 1920’s.  Although in general most of the masonry is typical stretcher bond, there are some smaller examples of Flemish and English bonds.  And, in one house, a brickwork combined with stone that defies any category or style that I know of:

This is not some mason gone mad, but rather part of that strange, Romantic neo-medieval aesthetic movement of the 19th century championed by William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement.  (Morris is credited with founding the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, later to become the UK’s National Trust, an early forerunner of all historic preservation societies and efforts.)

I am not sure if these are actual clinker bricks, kiln rejects because of odd shapes or twists, but the coursing, or lack of, is certainly part of that tradition of using clinker bricks in often strange and fanciful patterns.  This randomness takes a lot of skill and time of a mason, increasingly rare around Colorado where laying brick is priced on a bricks/hour basis.

The 16th Street district is maybe a bit small to be rightly called a “district”, but as a collection of well-made, strongly interior and distinct houses, it is a great example of houses whose interior-exterior interface is clearly defined.  Only a few decades later, the continuity of interior and exterior spaces exercised in Usonian houses and all their ranch bastardizations made these small masonry houses seem more akin to their medieval ancestors.  These are like little castles, staunchly defended, with even that occasional turret thrown in for good measure.