Opinions...I can't help but like stone veneers. I've been using them often for some landscape projects...Just something about the aesthetic and ease of construction that seems appropriate for some projects and for most non-high end contractors. I just have a hard time not feeling like a shit head for using "dishonest" materials....a result of academic brainwashing maybe?
It's not dishonest if they're treated as stone. When stones are magically spanning really wide openings (hidden lintel), then it's a bit dishonest. Since very little exposed masonry is actually load bearing anymore, it's hard to call it dishonest, in general. I would prefer to be blatantly obvious that it is a veneer. But, I've yet to talk anyone into an exposed lintel.
I'd lean towards yes... esp if it's that compressed stone dust type of glued-on pieces I see in the 'burbs. My arm could be twisted in the other direction if you had a neat way to hang stone slabs on the exterior.
natural ledge cut stone...just for landscape walls...I usually only use it to match what's already on the house. Not talking about the faux stone...and yes I agree with the comment about spanning it and covering lintel....that looks super weird.
Ya... you need to define 'veneer'. Are you talking about manufactured stone? Hate those. (the material isn't horrible, it's really the installers are bad in this region since most are old EIFS guys or just stucco guys who slam it out).
I've been using 'real stone' veneers for a while now. Different cuts, shapes, materials, etc. Everything from several ton boulder sized and cut stone blocks, down to a stone tile (thin veneer systems). The guys that know real stone and work with the quarries are generally a higher skill level than lick&stick.
The biggy to know is the code differences; masonry can't be supported on wood. Hence the popularity of lick&stick. Our solution is stone face, which also fits in a thin veneer system and I can emulate the rest of the stone on the project as far as coursing, joints, stack, finishes, etc.
I often wonder if the issue with cultured stone is in the name. We all know it isn't stone, so why call it stone? I think I'm going to start calling it "sophisticated concrete" and see if it catches on. Anyone want to help?
Back on topic, I would call the material you describe as stone masonry veneer. I don't find it any more dishonest than using a wood veneer in doors, casework, or wall paneling. That is to say, I don't consider it dishonest. I consider it an economical use of material.
I don't think it's a matter of "dishonesty" -- it's more a matter of can you achieve a good look and the desired durability with the material in question. If so, then it's an honest application of a specific material.
"Technically speaking, a material is fake when it displays some but not all of the qualities of the material we take it to be...For all this, one cannot realistically suggest that buildings be of "all natural" material, the way Frank Lloyd Wright or the architects of the Arts and Crafts Movement might have wished. The forces of economics, the age-old desire of clients to have more precious materials and effects than they can afford (together with the ambitions of architects along these same lines), the existence of an enormous body of precedents that includes some of our most revered examples of fine architecture (Palladio's stucco/stone, for example) - all of these make an insistence on authenticity in materials somewhat quixotic. There are three ways "out".
The first to follow is the 1915 advice of Geoffrey Scott, who seemed to recognize the impending renewal of the problem's importance. He simply advised moderation and common sense, and would have been pleased with, say, Grand Central Terminal in New York. Like the majority of large Beaux Arts buildings, this framework of iron and steel was seamlessly clad in a stone veneer. Of considerable mass in itself however (unlike the three-quarter-inch thick granite facings we bolt from behind onto our office towers), the stone contains most of the structural and material exigencies that characterize solid masonry construction. Although the massiveness and materiality suggested by the classical form of the building as a whole is orders of magnitude greater than its actual mass, he would have found the building, as we surely do, "material enough".
I have no problem using natural stone veneers as long as the stone used is regionally appropriate, and they are applied and detailed in a way that conveys an understandable and appropriate structural/tectonic logic.
Good point about the joints, jla-x. My pet peeve is the over-use of the "dry stack" look. A two story tall column of dry stacked ledge stone just looks so unconvincing.
if concrete became too scarce or expensive to use as a surrogate for brick, what are replacement options?
does plastic become the new concrete to pose as brick? what will the conversation be then? plastic is okay as long as it's used tastefully. and it's the most economical option now. you can almost imagine it slowing dissolving like real brick did. you can even use a pigmented sealant as grout for a more honest representation.
The columns are sooo big to hold up nothing, and they overhang past the concrete porch slab.... honesty, dishonesty, I don't care, but make things look nice. If you want to stick the stuff on a 10' cantilever I'm fine with it, but a 1" overhang looks like a mistake.
I will say that your first example is more tectonically logical than the second.
I think Bendikt's quote is not so hot. The second image go do it posted describes how the lay man interprets a material to behave. The built object is really just a cartoon of stone.
Then I think of tschumi's folly where I read how the beams were thickened internally to mask the forces. Intentional fakery. But not tacky.
Regarding the tacky house go do it posted, there is always a market for $20 Prada bags and this house is made to store them in.
To address Everyday Intern's thought regarding the name:
I'd prefer it bear the label cultured stone. At least, then, there is honesty about what the material intends to be. This is far better than materials like EIFS, which are intended to look like a variety of other building materials, but do not bear that name. Cultured stone, at least, contains materials and qualities of the building material it represents. When I peck on a piece of cultured stone, I get a sound and feel similar to that of stone. If I peck on a stucco-textured EIFS wall, I get nothing but disappointment.
Dry stack cultured stone is fugly. There. I said it. It won't stick on the building. I enjoy nothing more than going to a Lowes and seeing the dry stack stone falling off the building. That's just the sort of inspiration I need for my next big building project.
In some of the homes built in the 1800s and early 1900s, especially in New England, the front of the house is faced in (real) stone and the sides and rear in wood siding.
Nothing wrong with stone veneers in my neck of the woods. Of course we always spec real stone, and work with quarries local to our projects. Frankly the only thing you're not getting when you have a real stone veneer are the structural peculiarities of using a natural material.
I think you mean fieldstone, not flagstone? Flagstone would be used for a patio or walkway as it is irregular shaped in length and width but uniform in thickness.
Not necessarily. A cheap one is those gabion baskets wall systems. I just don't like the look.
May 25, 16 5:33 pm ·
·
joseffischer
I like gabions, and have gotten to use one once. I haven't seen a lot of attention to the cage itself and making that more stylized. You're taking irregular shapes and applying a 2" or 4" square grid to them. I wonder if a more woven ovally look would be better.
Are stone veneers dishonest?
Opinions...I can't help but like stone veneers. I've been using them often for some landscape projects...Just something about the aesthetic and ease of construction that seems appropriate for some projects and for most non-high end contractors. I just have a hard time not feeling like a shit head for using "dishonest" materials....a result of academic brainwashing maybe?
Define "stone veneer" a little more specifically.
It's not dishonest if they're treated as stone. When stones are magically spanning really wide openings (hidden lintel), then it's a bit dishonest. Since very little exposed masonry is actually load bearing anymore, it's hard to call it dishonest, in general. I would prefer to be blatantly obvious that it is a veneer. But, I've yet to talk anyone into an exposed lintel.
I'd lean towards yes... esp if it's that compressed stone dust type of glued-on pieces I see in the 'burbs. My arm could be twisted in the other direction if you had a neat way to hang stone slabs on the exterior.
you have my permission to use stone veneers, be it lick and stick or manufactured masonry or synthetic stone or cast stone or whatever.
as the good senator suggests, it might look a bit weird if you use it in a way the stone it represents couldn't be used.
Not necessarily the above color...but you get the jist....Its a lot cheaper than stacking full pieces...especially when doing 2' thick walls...
First couple of projects I saw with that kind of stone veneer, I thought it looked pretty good. The more I see it though, the tackier it gets.
Does feel tacky to me at times...
Ya... you need to define 'veneer'. Are you talking about manufactured stone? Hate those. (the material isn't horrible, it's really the installers are bad in this region since most are old EIFS guys or just stucco guys who slam it out).
I've been using 'real stone' veneers for a while now. Different cuts, shapes, materials, etc. Everything from several ton boulder sized and cut stone blocks, down to a stone tile (thin veneer systems). The guys that know real stone and work with the quarries are generally a higher skill level than lick&stick.
The biggy to know is the code differences; masonry can't be supported on wood. Hence the popularity of lick&stick. Our solution is stone face, which also fits in a thin veneer system and I can emulate the rest of the stone on the project as far as coursing, joints, stack, finishes, etc.
Mightyaa, I'm talking about real stone, thick veneer. It's typically about 3-5" thick
yes - cultured stone is the devil
...
I often wonder if the issue with cultured stone is in the name. We all know it isn't stone, so why call it stone? I think I'm going to start calling it "sophisticated concrete" and see if it catches on. Anyone want to help?
Back on topic, I would call the material you describe as stone masonry veneer. I don't find it any more dishonest than using a wood veneer in doors, casework, or wall paneling. That is to say, I don't consider it dishonest. I consider it an economical use of material.
And of course the material looks way different depending on the joints...raked, flush, over grout...so skill of the mason is really important...
I don't think it's a matter of "dishonesty" -- it's more a matter of can you achieve a good look and the desired durability with the material in question. If so, then it's an honest application of a specific material.
Didn't the Greeks and Romans often use a marble veneer over a baser stone?
The only honest stone walls are those of our ancestors. Then we figured stuff out and made stuff like veneers. Honest plus smart.
course it is
"Technically speaking, a material is fake when it displays some but not all of the qualities of the material we take it to be...For all this, one cannot realistically suggest that buildings be of "all natural" material, the way Frank Lloyd Wright or the architects of the Arts and Crafts Movement might have wished. The forces of economics, the age-old desire of clients to have more precious materials and effects than they can afford (together with the ambitions of architects along these same lines), the existence of an enormous body of precedents that includes some of our most revered examples of fine architecture (Palladio's stucco/stone, for example) - all of these make an insistence on authenticity in materials somewhat quixotic. There are three ways "out".
The first to follow is the 1915 advice of Geoffrey Scott, who seemed to recognize the impending renewal of the problem's importance. He simply advised moderation and common sense, and would have been pleased with, say, Grand Central Terminal in New York. Like the majority of large Beaux Arts buildings, this framework of iron and steel was seamlessly clad in a stone veneer. Of considerable mass in itself however (unlike the three-quarter-inch thick granite facings we bolt from behind onto our office towers), the stone contains most of the structural and material exigencies that characterize solid masonry construction. Although the massiveness and materiality suggested by the classical form of the building as a whole is orders of magnitude greater than its actual mass, he would have found the building, as we surely do, "material enough".
Michael Bendikt, For An Architecture of Reality
I have no problem using natural stone veneers as long as the stone used is regionally appropriate, and they are applied and detailed in a way that conveys an understandable and appropriate structural/tectonic logic.
No need to feel guilt.
Donna, that was a perfect quote...
Good point about the joints, jla-x. My pet peeve is the over-use of the "dry stack" look. A two story tall column of dry stacked ledge stone just looks so unconvincing.
if concrete became too scarce or expensive to use as a surrogate for brick, what are replacement options?
does plastic become the new concrete to pose as brick? what will the conversation be then? plastic is okay as long as it's used tastefully. and it's the most economical option now. you can almost imagine it slowing dissolving like real brick did. you can even use a pigmented sealant as grout for a more honest representation.
what would mario botta do?
nice Donna, always good to go with Benedikt if talking about real materials, and very good points.
Here is my quick history of this scenario -
Nice graphic Olaf...
is it dishonest to pretend to be rich? is disney world dishonest?
and most important question - does it matter?
if it's tack, it does matter and you posts above jla-x, the one with columns, it does appear almost not believable if you knew, but most people don't.
This is honest:
This is is not:
The columns are sooo big to hold up nothing, and they overhang past the concrete porch slab.... honesty, dishonesty, I don't care, but make things look nice. If you want to stick the stuff on a 10' cantilever I'm fine with it, but a 1" overhang looks like a mistake.
I will say that your first example is more tectonically logical than the second.
I think Bendikt's quote is not so hot. The second image go do it posted describes how the lay man interprets a material to behave. The built object is really just a cartoon of stone.
Then I think of tschumi's folly where I read how the beams were thickened internally to mask the forces. Intentional fakery. But not tacky.
Regarding the tacky house go do it posted, there is always a market for $20 Prada bags and this house is made to store them in.
there is always a market for $20 Prada bags and this house is made to store them in.
this is a great definition of a Mcmansion. You need to send it to the urban dictionary.
I think my second example is designed for people that shop at Wal-Mart but tell everyone they shop at Target.
also jia-x asked about honesty not purity.
purity:
.
To address Everyday Intern's thought regarding the name:
I'd prefer it bear the label cultured stone. At least, then, there is honesty about what the material intends to be. This is far better than materials like EIFS, which are intended to look like a variety of other building materials, but do not bear that name. Cultured stone, at least, contains materials and qualities of the building material it represents. When I peck on a piece of cultured stone, I get a sound and feel similar to that of stone. If I peck on a stucco-textured EIFS wall, I get nothing but disappointment.
Dry stack cultured stone is fugly. There. I said it. It won't stick on the building. I enjoy nothing more than going to a Lowes and seeing the dry stack stone falling off the building. That's just the sort of inspiration I need for my next big building project.
Here's one of ours. The lower stones are real boulders and the stone panels are coped around them.
Wow, post more as it's completed please. Now I'm jealous.
nice!
Just talked a client out of doing go for its second picture. I think I did the world a great favor.
Thanks Mings! One client at a time!
In some of the homes built in the 1800s and early 1900s, especially in New England, the front of the house is faced in (real) stone and the sides and rear in wood siding.
Nothing wrong with stone veneers in my neck of the woods. Of course we always spec real stone, and work with quarries local to our projects. Frankly the only thing you're not getting when you have a real stone veneer are the structural peculiarities of using a natural material.
go do it that "honest" image is horrible. Clunky project, dumb stone veneer sandwiched between some dumb stucco looking lintels that are way too big.
inca stone right
spanish stone left - been downhill ever since
old foundations are often made of rubble, so why not come up a few more feet above grade.
Do you know any Incan's who can build that in a month or two? I can pay them in cacao.
It's completely doable to build all natural stone walls for landscape projects...dry stacked flagstone...just costs more...
one stone a year
jla-x,
I think you mean fieldstone, not flagstone? Flagstone would be used for a patio or walkway as it is irregular shaped in length and width but uniform in thickness.
"Honest" architecture is darn expensive.
The time modernism and mass production took over, honesty wasn't the goal anymore.
Read Kengo Kuma's "Material is Structure". You will find the answer there.
"Honest" architecture is darn expensive
Not necessarily. A cheap one is those gabion baskets wall systems. I just don't like the look.
I like gabions, and have gotten to use one once. I haven't seen a lot of attention to the cage itself and making that more stylized. You're taking irregular shapes and applying a 2" or 4" square grid to them. I wonder if a more woven ovally look would be better.
no its not take that back
2" behind the interior of the gabion on the exteiror of the real envelope wall that no one sees.
Ostia Antica
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.