What is the problem with single-sealed facades?

[stake]

No, that's the modern way of reasoning.

It's obvious that a system based on everyone doing everything perfectly right, i.e. creating an almost hermetically perfect closed façade, otherwise you damage the underlying construction, is a flawed system. It's impossible to achieve in

I usually avoid analogies but: Why do you think we have balcony railings? It's just about making sure not to fall over the edge, and those who don't get it can only blame themselves. It's not the balcony builders' fault that people can't use them correctly...

Would it be a quality label that it's a modern way to reason? I don't really understand your reasoning and I especially don't agree with your conclusions.

 

[ToRy]

You assume wrong.

I know that people make mistakes, that it's a worthless system that can't be used because no one is capable of executing it without mistakes, however, is nonsense.

If you also try to mount a satellite dish or an awning, then it's your own fault; it's not the system's fault but the idiot who tries to mount a heavy metal piece onto something with the consistency of a cream puff.

Okay, I was wrong in my assumption, but the question remains: What world do you live in? The system wasn't good. As far as I understand, it is no longer used. If it had been an economically advantageous AND well-functioning system, wouldn't they have continued using it? No, saying that there was nothing wrong with the system and that people have themselves to blame for wanting to mount things on the facade that work perfectly well to mount on ALL other types of facades is simply wrong. I usually make it a point to respect that people have different opinions, but in this case, you are simply wrong.

 

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Would it be a quality mark that it is a modern way of reasoning?

Yes. It's called development. In the past, we didn't think like that, but stood more for your "the technology is perfect, so it must be the human that's at fault." That clearly didn't work, so we've developed our way of reasoning. Our new way works better.

It's not rocket-surgery to understand that a system requiring perfect execution goes poorly with an industry under increasing pressure for faster and cheaper execution. Building fraud and negligence in general (along with the scope and drivers thereof) are not exactly news, so developing a system that demands *greater* execution requirements resulting in *greater consequences* than existing systems and believing it will work is more than naively optimistic.

 

[isolde]

Now I think I learned something new. I had no idea that thin plaster is not a cement-based material. Is it something like acrylate as a binder in thin plaster?

Yes and no. There are three types of non-cement-based types of thin plaster. The cheapest is based on acrylic, and the two more expensive ones on silicate, respectively silicone resins (which should not be confused with bathroom silicone!) Silicone resin is made from silicon.

 

[Mikael_L]

...resp silicone resins (which should not be confused with bathroom silicone!) Silicone resin is made from silicon.

Yes exactly, it's a recipe for terminology confusion ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon
And silicon is called kisel in Swedish, so the Swedish wiki article is probably similar, but as usual not as comprehensive:
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisel


edit:
And silicone (silicone in English) contains silicon as an atomic component, hence the English name, which was then adapted into Swedish, we don't call it kiselon here in Sweden.
You can follow a link to that on the English wiki page. And then switch to the Swedish article if you wish.

 

[Mattias Jönsson]

I believe that a large part of the problem lies in the way many customers reason. Or as an NCC engineer said to me in connection with their big "crash" in Lund:
"If there had been as much status in the structure as in the bath and kitchen, this would never have happened. There is so much status there that customers forget the structure. What's important is to be able to boast about a nice bath and kitchen."

 

[isolde]

Here you can read a bit more about the soup:
[link]

And here is the "new" thing we are going to sell
http://www.sto.se/110617_SE-Isolerade_fasadsystem_-_StoTherm-StoTherm_Vario_D+.htm
Feel free to study the construction of the two-stage seal.

"The system is suitable both for new production and renovation, for example, for remedying damaged facades or energy upgrading to low-energy and passive houses."

 

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

I believe that a lot of the problem lies in the way many customers reason. Or as an NCC engineer said to me regarding their big "crash" in Lund:
"If there was as much status in the framework as in the bathroom and kitchen, this would never have happened. There's been so much status there that customers forget the framework. The important thing is to be able to boast about a stylish bathroom and kitchen."

I don't buy that reasoning here in Gothenburg at least. If you're building your own house after being on the plot queue, sure. But that's not how houses are built here (the plot queue is 30 years or so, and not much turnover). Here, more or less large areas are built by big developers, and if you want a house, it's whatever they want to build that applies. One of the first single-stage sealed debacles here was an area of about a hundred properties or so in Mölndal, and naturally, there was nothing to choose from.

So here, it's buying a pig in a poke, and if it doesn't suit you, you're welcome to shop elsewhere.

 

[Mattias Jönsson]

I don't buy that reasoning here in Gothenburg anyway. If you build your own house after being on the plot queue, sure. But that's not how houses are built here (the plot queue is 30 years or so with no real turnover). Here, more or less large areas are built by big developers, and if you want a house, it's what they want to build that applies. One of the first single-stage sealing debacles here was an area of about a hundred properties in Mölndal, and naturally, there was nothing to choose from.

So here it's buying a pig in a poke, and if it doesn't suit you, feel free to shop elsewhere.

Sure, considering how many areas are being developed, you might not have a choice. If you want a house, that is. But if more people (the majority) informed themselves and demanded certain construction techniques, companies would realize it's a competitive advantage to build with proven methods.

 

[Carl_Elvis]

I think a significant part of the problem lies in the way many customers reason. Or as an NCC engineer said to me in connection with their major "crash" in Lund:
"If the same level of status was attributed to the structure as to bathrooms and kitchens, this would never have happened. There's been so much focus on status in those areas that customers forget about the structure. The important thing is being able to brag about a nice bathroom and kitchen."

That's like if Volvo were to install poor seatbelts so people die in crashes over 50 km/h and then say that customers have only themselves to blame for not asking if the seatbelts were good, just caring about shiny paint and nice wheels.
No, these façades are simply terrible. The apartment building I lived in before (the architect even won an award) had such a façade and when there was driving rain, water simply trickled in through the windows and other penetrations in the walls.

@Stake: Are you trolling, or are you really that naive?

 

[stake]

Okay, I was wrong in my assumption, but the question remains: What world do you live in? The system wasn't good. As far as I understand, it is no longer used. If it had been an economically advantageous AND well-functioning system, wouldn't it still be in use? No, saying there was nothing wrong with the system and that people can only blame themselves for wanting to put things on the facade that work perfectly fine on ALL other types of facades is simply wrong. I usually am careful to respect different opinions, but in this case, you are simply wrong.

I live in a world where I tried to get a picture of the system discussed in the thread by studying facts. I wasn't interested in the mathematician's personal opinions, ball boy's experiences of ball games against the walls, or TV viewer's experiences with satellite dishes. If you have more personal questions, take them in pm.

And after having read Mikael_Ls's link briefly, the system indeed seems to be inadequate, but there were also pictures of cellplast exposed to rain, which I realize myself is probably not an advantage.

 

[Mattias Jönsson]

That's like if Volvo were to install poor seatbelts so people die in crashes over 50 km/h and then say it's the customers' own fault for not asking if the seatbelts were good, only caring about nice paint and fancy rims. No, these facades are simply awful. The apartment building I lived in previously (the architect had even won an award) had such a facade, and when there was driving rain, the water simply ran in through the windows and other penetrations in the walls.

We completely agree that it is a lousy system that should never have left the laboratory environment.

I conducted an entirely unscientific survey among colleagues who recently bought new houses, and almost all could answer what appliances, kitchen fittings, tiles, shower walls, downlights, wooden floors, etc., they have. None (!) could account for the framework. Someone even thought they had bought a stone house because it has a brick facade...

 

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

I live in a world where I tried to get a picture of the system discussed in the thread, by studying facts.

The fact is that the system cannot withstand any leakage from the outside. At all. It also cannot handle getting rid of moisture that has been built in.

Do you agree with that or not?

 

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

I did a completely unscientific survey among colleagues who recently bought new houses, and almost everyone could say what appliances, kitchen fittings, tiles, shower walls, downlights, wooden floors etc. they have. No one (!) could account for the framework. Someone even thought they had bought a stone house because it has a brick facade...

You do have a point there. But one must also remember the problems with information asymmetry. The seller/builder will always have a (more or less) significant advantage over the buyer. It's unrealistic to think that one can reach a situation where both are equal parties in the transaction. And since we have information asymmetry, something external must be in place to avoid market failure or the death spiral known as "The Lemon law of economics." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons). It's not at all unreasonable to place a (much) greater responsibility on the builder/seller in this situation.

P.S. I also get annoyed by people who say "stone house" when they mean "wooden house with a brick facade"

 

[pelpet]

There is indeed a lot to ponder in this mess. How can such a defective construction system be developed, type-approved, and then rolled out on a large scale? What is the point of having institutions like SP if they cannot handle such matters?