Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about houses that are built with what looks like big rocks cemented together maybe 50% rock, 50% cement or whatever keeps them together, as opposed to rock - as one material such as a limestone building?
Basically you are working a wrong principle. Any of the reasonable durable materials will last effectively forever if properly installed. Hundeds of year old stucco or brick or stone walls exist in Europe. There they are generally laid over masonry as opposed to lumber structures. Mexico also builds in such a style.
In the US all such finishes will likely last longer than the structure that supports them. Eventually felt papers fail or timber rots or people get bored with the home design. But properly maintained they have lives in the hundreds of years. I know of a couple of frame houses in the east built in the 17th century and still going strong.
Vinyl siding and such are different. Clearly life limited. After so many years though you simply replace it. Wood siding is similar though if well maintained and painted it will likely outlast the vinyl.
Basically then most of the listed techniques can last multiple life times. Past that do you care?
Which are the best construction material to use for a house exterior?
( wood,stucco, aluminum, vinyl,brick, limestone, other stone, cement block)
So that readers can easily use the results please describe by category that way this post can be helpful. A discussion of the pros and cons of each would also help. Thanks
I would actually vote for cementitious fiber board (Hardiplank is the most popular brand.) It looks great, lasts longer than wood and can certainly take more of beating than vinyl. The only reason I wouldn't say brick is that if you ever patch or repair- brick and stucco can be pains in the arse to get patching done properly. Its unfortunate that stucco has taken such a hit because of EIFS but as time passes it really is getting harder to get people who do a proper job with stucco.
The nice thing about vinyl is that it adds little weight and if it does rip off, you can tack it back up. But its really not to my taste and I've seen it fade unevenly. I also like the look of painted brick but many treat that as sacrilege in the south.
I would actually vote for cementitious fiber board (Hardiplank is the most popular brand.) It looks great, lasts longer than wood and can certainly take more of beating than vinyl. The only reason I wouldn't say brick is that if you ever patch or repair- brick and stucco can be pains in the arse to get patching done properly. Its unfortunate that stucco has taken such a hit because of EIFS but as time passes it really is getting harder to get people who do a proper job with stucco.
The nice thing about vinyl is that it adds little weight and if it does rip off, you can tack it back up. But its really not to my taste and I've seen it fade unevenly. I also like the look of painted brick but many treat that as sacrilege in the south.
I'm with you - Hardiplank. People I know who have it on their beach home in SC are the only ones to not suffer any damage when all the neighbors around them did during the last hurricane.
Stucco is just ugly. When houses here in the south have it they take longer to sell, people just don't like it.
My house on the ocean in Rockport is stucco and I've had it 11 years and its fine - still looks nice.
A poster named Cosmic on another thread said rock and rockwall are not energy efficient even though they seem so solid. He did say on huge churches they were sort of the opposite than they are with small buildings. He seemed to know his stuff but its still a bit confusing.
It really depends on whee you are and the purpose of the building.
Stucco is not a good option in wet cold places. Wood is not a good option in places with termites. Masonry ot stone is a bad option for earthquake prone areas.
Is our concern appearance, durability, strength?
Metal is generally going to hold up the best. But it is expensive. Also it can be prone to rust in ocean areas. Tilt up concrete has come a long way and now ca be made to look much like any other materials. it is very strong and durable, but I would not want it in earthquake prone locations and probably not in extreme flood prone (if the foundations get washed out I do not want 20 ton walls falling on me). It also can be hard to insulate.
New materials specifically panelized construction made of fused materials works incredibly well in some places. But, since it is not widely used, it is hard to find someone who knows how to do it well.
Wood framing is cheap and widely used so many people know how to do it well, however more than two stories (and certainly more than four) runs into all sorts of problems (shrinkage and compression) and of course wood is very flammable.
My least favorite is vinyl. Whether for siding or other parts. Among other things vinyl creates extremely toxic gasses when it burns. It also usually looks cheap and bland.
Stucco is immensely popular in the American southwest and you do not find many houses made of other things. However, in the Northeast, people see it as ugly, cheap and impractical. Yes there are stucco houses there, just as there are wood sided houses in California, but they are rare and not that popular in either location.)
Where I live there are about a dozen log houses. They are durable and, here, people love the look of them. Not the easiest things in the world to insulate and maintenance can be troublesome. I sure would not want one in earthquake territory.
They rarely build with stone anymore. It is too expensive and does not do well with settlement
Last edited by Coldjensens; 03-18-2019 at 07:30 AM..
Give me brick every time. I have scraped enough wood siding. I will do it again, but if I never did it again it would be none too soon. Stone can be pretty, but I don't see many attractive installations. Stucco leaves me cold. Plus in the city it just ends up stained from water runoff and air pollution.
Only thing you have to watch out is that a lot of outfits sell "brick" that's really concrete block stained to look like traditional brick. It's the same size, but you can tell because the bricklayers hardly even have to tap it to trim it to size whereas with real old hard brick you have to wail away on the brick to break it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
