[Halifax] SoHo Square (1212 Hollis) | 24 m | 7 fl | Completed

[kph06]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Thanks for the close-up pictures. It looks like it is textured concrete as opposed to real brick inlaid on precast panels. Real brick inlaid on precast panels would look like this - http://www.missoulaconcrete.com/thin...aItem-iua0fxux

What surprises me is that some of the precast panels don't seem to line up.

I spent a summer working for a company that does precast, they typically set them all with the crane as close as they can to plumb. After they are all set they can be adjusted a few inches in and out, up and down, and side to side. Once they all line up they are permanently welded to the mounting bracket.

[portapetey]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Thanks for the close-up pictures. It looks like it is textured concrete as opposed to real brick inlaid on precast panels. Real brick inlaid on precast panels would look like this - http://www.missoulaconcrete.com/thin...aItem-iua0fxux

What surprises me is that some of the precast panels don't seem to line up.

Yikes. I stand corrected.

It's just brick-pattered concrete. And the panels don't even line up.

What a shame.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by kph06

I spent a summer working for a company that does precast, they typically set them all with the crane as close as they can to plumb. After they are all set they can be adjusted a few inches in and out, up and down, and side to side. Once they all line up they are permanently welded to the mounting bracket.

Thanks for the information. It is good to know that the panels can be adjusted to line up.

[IanWatson]

I'm really disappointed by this. There's nothing I hate more in architecture than inauthentic materials. Sure, you may able to get it to look similar to brick at the start, but it won't age the same as brick. The older the building gets, the tackier and tackier it'll look.

[mr.wheels]

Stained precast will always fade, stain and look shitty. What a missed opportunity. A true testiment for this cheap developer. Look at the Alt hotel stained precast. Ugly. Look at the stained precast on the Allison on Dutch village. Ugly. Brick and precast are ugly and inefficient, but to do this is ugly x 10.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Not to beat a dead horse, but stuff like this is why I complain a lot online about heritage buildings being torn down and replaced with cheap crap such as this building. It even makes it more frustrating to think that the building next door, previously a hotel from the 19th century, is going to be torn down and replaced with something that could likely be on par in quality with this.

My apologies, as I'm sure most are tired of reading my ramblings, but this and that hideous grey cladding that they are covering a lot of new buildings with, just add fuel to my fire.

[Keith P.]

Since the original buildings on this site burned down it was a blank canvas for developers and planners. If what is going up seems subpar then the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the HRM planning dept and the Council. The only thing they seem good for is generating voluminous amounts of strategies and plans at great cost that quickly get ignored, and keeping projects tied up for eons.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Since the original buildings on this site burned down it was a blank canvas for developers and planners. If what is going up seems subpar then the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the HRM planning dept and the Council. The only thing they seem good for is generating voluminous amounts of strategies and plans at great cost that quickly get ignored, and keeping projects tied up for eons.

To be exact, there was one similar old building that was torn down to make way for this project, but it had extensively renovated with an unattractive facade to accommodate the restaurants, so perhaps not a great loss.

Regardless, I agree that the city holds a large amount of responsibility for letting it happen, but the state of modern construction is such that ease and economy of building takes precedent over quality and style of materials. I'm not an expert, but it appears that getting developers to specify a certain quality of materials will be an uphill battle because the current standards for what is acceptable for average buildings appears to be so low.

[dkabalen]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

To be exact, there was one similar old building that was torn down to make way for this project, but it had extensively renovated with an unattractive facade to accommodate the restaurants, so perhaps not a great loss.

Regardless, I agree that the city holds a large amount of responsibility for letting it happen, but the state of modern construction is such that ease and economy of building takes precedent over quality and style of materials. I'm not an expert, but it appears that getting developers to specify a certain quality of materials will be an uphill battle because the current standards for what is acceptable for average buildings appears to be so low.

You do realize that the pre-cast being used is far more expensive than brick. A lot of builders are using the pre-cast on sites such as this, where there is limited space for staging. In order for brick to be put up, you would be looking at months and months of staging being required on a site where the fence is literally inches away from the structure. The pre-cast also has less risk of leaks and other things you see with brick. So it actually is a superior building product (as the price would indicate as well).

Also, the pre-cast can be put up in a week or so, rather than the months it takes brick. So there is that from a convenience perspective as well.

[OliverD]

So is it really more expensive than brick? I suppose the material cost may be higher but it sounds like the labor cost would be much, much lower.

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by dkabalen

You do realize that the pre-cast being used is far more expensive than brick. A lot of builders are using the pre-cast on sites such as this, where there is limited space for staging. In order for brick to be put up, you would be looking at months and months of staging being required on a site where the fence is literally inches away from the structure. The pre-cast also has less risk of leaks and other things you see with brick. So it actually is a superior building product (as the price would indicate as well).

Also, the pre-cast can be put up in a week or so, rather than the months it takes brick. So there is that from a convenience perspective as well.

All very good, but it doesn't get past the fact that it looks bad and will age poorly.

There are better quality options out there. If you can't use real brick, or a good quality facsimile, maybe don't even propose something that looks like brick?

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

All very good, but it doesn't get past the fact that it looks bad and will age poorly.

There are better quality options out there. If you can't use real brick, or a good quality facsimile, maybe don't even propose something that looks like brick?

Right. There are different types of precast out there and some are very very attractive. I always think of Abington House in NYC when I think of high quality precast (concrete with prelaid brick and windows) No one would complain if this was going up.

http://www.yimbynews.com/2013/06/con...-street-3.html

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by dkabalen

You do realize that the pre-cast being used is far more expensive than brick. A lot of builders are using the pre-cast on sites such as this, where there is limited space for staging. In order for brick to be put up, you would be looking at months and months of staging being required on a site where the fence is literally inches away from the structure. The pre-cast also has less risk of leaks and other things you see with brick. So it actually is a superior building product (as the price would indicate as well).

Also, the pre-cast can be put up in a week or so, rather than the months it takes brick. So there is that from a convenience perspective as well.

I don't work in the industry, so therefore am not familiar with the actual costs involved, but intuitively I would want to look at overall amortized cost (including installation labour and maintenance, overall project financing costs, turnaround on investment before it starts earning money at completion, etc.) before I concluded that it actually is the lower-cost option.

Not an expert, though, so I could be wrong. Pre-cast certainly doesn't scream 'premium materials' to me, though, as it actually looks quite cheap. IMHO.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't work in the industry, so therefore am not familiar with the actual costs involved, but intuitively I would want to look at overall amortized cost (including installation labour and maintenance, overall project financing costs, turnaround on investment before it starts earning money at completion, etc.) before I concluded that it actually is the lower-cost option.

Not an expert, though, so I could be wrong. Pre-cast certainly doesn't scream 'premium materials' to me, though, as it actually looks quite cheap. IMHO.

Yeah... the monolithic colour means that from a distance, this doesn't have the variation you'd expect in brick. Up close, there are construction joints mid-"brick" that clarify that it's fake.

Not a fan at this point. We'll see what happens after joints are aligned and the rest of the cladding goes on. Maybe it'll get better.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

I'm really disappointed by this. There's nothing I hate more in architecture than inauthentic materials. Sure, you may able to get it to look similar to brick at the start, but it won't age the same as brick. The older the building gets, the tackier and tackier it'll look.

yep. i saw these panels on the back of a truck one morning and cringed. then i saw them on the building, and ugh. its just red. and not a good red. real brick has variation that gives it character - not this.

once again, something that looked decent is renderings is let down by implementation.

fucking cheap developers.

[SDme]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

yep. i saw these panels on the back of a truck one morning and cringed. then i saw them on the building, and ugh. its just red. and not a good red. real brick has variation that gives it character - not this.

once again, something that looked decent is renderings is let down by implementation.

fucking cheap developers.

Hard to argue with you on that. I don't buy the argument that the developer spent more on a better product. Sure the material cost is more but it was purely done to save time. I also disagree with the fellow that said it is a superior wall traditional brick (rain screen). You have one layer of protection against the weather and are relying on caulking at the (misaligned) joints.

[dkabalen]

Originally Posted by SDme

Hard to argue with you on that. I don't buy the argument that the developer spent more on a better product. Sure the material cost is more but it was purely done to save time. I also disagree with the fellow that said it is a superior wall traditional brick (rain screen). You have one layer of protection against the weather and are relying on caulking at the (misaligned) joints.

Love how ppl who have never built anything totally disregard comments of those who have.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by dkabalen

Love how ppl who have never built anything totally disregard comments of those who have.

For those of us not in the know, can you give us rough cost figures of precast vs other materials (such as brick) for purchasing, installation (labour and equipment costs) and time needed to install? I think it would help those of us who "have never built anything" to better understand the point you are trying to make to us.

Muchly appreciated!

[dkabalen]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

For those of us not in the know, can you give us rough cost figures of precast vs other materials (such as brick) for purchasing, installation (labour and equipment costs) and time needed to install? I think it would help those of us who "have never built anything" to better understand the point you are trying to make to us.

Muchly appreciated!

I wouldn't know the exact cost for this particular project. However if you drive by the site, you can see that it was only 5 working days to install the complete precast on this site. No staging, no heating required. Again, on a tight site where space is limited it would be consideration.

Brick would require the staging, heating and time. . . Again you never know the exact period of time it would take, but think simple brick, you would be looking at a time period of at least 3 months to complete brick work.

At the same time, timeline is just one consideration, because in reality, the brick work on the outside wouldn't impact the interior work. If you went the brick route, you would be installing brick on a fully closed in building with windows and the veneer behind the brick. So it is not really a huge consideration when it comes to time. In theory, pre-cast takes longer to close the building in as you have to wait for the installation, size the windows, order them, and then wait for them to arrive and then install.

Price wise, using a basic, but quality brick, you are probably looking at pre-cast costing 25-30% more.

Hope this helps answer some questions and don't "quote" me on the price or process, but those are the difference that I am aware of.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by dkabalen

I wouldn't know the exact cost for this particular project. However if you drive by the site, you can see that it was only 5 working days to install the complete precast on this site. No staging, no heating required. Again, on a tight site where space is limited it would be consideration.

Brick would require the staging, heating and time. . . Again you never know the exact period of time it would take, but think simple brick, you would be looking at a time period of at least 3 months to complete brick work.

At the same time, timeline is just one consideration, because in reality, the brick work on the outside wouldn't impact the interior work. If you went the brick route, you would be installing brick on a fully closed in building with windows and the veneer behind the brick. So it is not really a huge consideration when it comes to time. In theory, pre-cast takes longer to close the building in as you have to wait for the installation, size the windows, order them, and then wait for them to arrive and then install.

Price wise, using a basic, but quality brick, you are probably looking at pre-cast costing 25-30% more.

Hope this helps answer some questions and don't "quote" me on the price or process, but those are the difference that I am aware of.

Thanks very much for the info!

Sounds like the labour for brick would offset the differences in materials cost somewhat, unless you included that in your cost estimate, but as you say there are also site considerations to take into account.

I now know more than I did when I woke up this morning. I appreciate your input.