Quote:
Originally Posted by r18tdi
Expensive, yes, but terracotta is quite robust and versatile. There are 100-plus-year-old examples across Chicago that have endured decades of extreme seasonal abuse with minimal to no maintenance issues. I understand the cost issue, but it's not a fair argument to dismissively suggest that terracotta wouldn't have worked in a building like this.
|
That's not true at all; numerous buildings with older terra cotta facades have maintenance issues.
I'm not shitting on terra cotta as a material; quite the contrary, it's really beautiful, both older examples as well as modern takes on it as a cladding material.
But, beyond that, you cannot ignore that terra cotta is heavier, does not meet or exceed current exterior cladding performance ratings that metal, high-strength performance spandrel glazing, or composite materials can offer. Granted, that's not true for all contemporary terra cotta cladding, like rainscreens. But you will never see that on a building with more than 20-30 stories. Why? Because even with light-weight terra cotta cladding, additional structural backing is needed because it can still be heavier than a variety of metal claddings.
Unless it's a very expensive supertall in Manhattan, that can command $500/sq ft or more which gives a developer incentive to 'spare no expense', terra cotta exterior cladding on a 75+ story building in Chicago is not a good idea.
Prev
Linear Mode
