These kinds of guidelines cite “sustainability,” but miss a larger point about housing in Minneapolis. While it’s true that some types of texture and massing look “cheaper” than others, there are legitimate questions about whether or not newer types of building materials — EIFS, metal cladding, and the like — are more climate friendly and affordable than other materials that seem more traditional. — MinnPost
EIFS (aka “synthetic stucco” or “Exterior Insulation Finishing Systems”) are but one material in the proposed bans put forth by city planning officials in Minneapolis recently in an attempt to formalize a set of 2014 guidelines.
EIFS capabilities have advanced beyond a widely-known early design flaw, namely their proneness to water infiltration, and could now be an inexpensive but vital weapon for builders in the effort to deliver housing rapidly to the city’s beleaguered market.
3 Comments
Looks like it's time fit me to write that piece I've been considering. Assholes.
Why did you hide this? Could it not be discerned that as an architect in Minneapolis, that the assholes I'm speaking of are the looney toons on the planning commission?
I actually like EIFS; careful, especially when assessing the value of a true engineered system with finish grade; in contrast the brake metal covering of rough cut phenolic-resin isn't too bad; the performance of EIFS is incredibly flexible, so, a little R+D can place EIFS designed above Artic grade ballistics.
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.