Ignoring a mistake in your work can tempt disaster. But if you fix it you might... More
Studies detail the cost savings achieved by using IAPMO's Water Demand Calculator... More
In construction, a good insurance broker may be more valuable than a lawyer. More
Lack of a kick-out and a weep screed deliver a one-two punch to an entire wall. More
A case study on who's responsible - owner, supplier, or installer? - when there's... More
It’s time to end deck design, construction, and inspection headaches. More
Join us at the Hanley Wood IBS booth for two critical conversations concerning... More
On today's Build Show, Matt provides an interesting comparison of two stucco projects: One is an art-deco house from 1938 that is not too different than a lot of the modern houses being built today. When Matt comes to the job, the traditional 3/4-inch stucco was in relatively good shape for a house that's 80 years old. The other project was the rehab of a building that was less than 20 years old that had a lot of the same features namely flat roofs and no overhang. The exterior on both buildings is getting soaked with every rain storm. But the newer building was an utter failure: It had completely rotten sheathing all the way down to the studs in many locations, and tons of damage that required the entire exterior to be stripped to the sheathing, a lot of that sheathing needed to be replaced, and entire structure reclad. What are the difference between the two projects? Why did one fail and the other perform as we would like, and for as long, as our work should? Matt Risinger provides some answers.Be sure to subscribe to Matt's Youtube channel to watch the Build Show every Friday. More
