Un-exposing Brick?
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Last weekend I got a chance to tour the 810 South Spring Street building along with a couple of other buildings that are under conversion. Of course I took photos of what I saw, but one thing in particular really stood out about the 810 South Spring Street building. If you take a look at the photo above, you'll notice that they're framing over the exposed brick and closing in the high ceilings.
I've always enjoyed the look of exposed brick, especially in a historical loft conversion. It seems to me that covering up the brick and closing in the ceiling goes against the whole converted loft feel that people are looking for in Downtown these days, even if some of the units will be conventional apartments. Maybe I'm just young and naïve.
Scott on June 08, 2007, at 01:28PM – #1
I don't know if it is the case with this building, but I know in the case of the Douglas Building they were forced to make certain structural enhancements at the expense of the beautiful brick.
fridayinla on June 08, 2007, at 02:12PM – #2
That is a bit counter-intuitive. They must have a good reason for covering the brick. I can't think of one though...
Main St. Mike on June 08, 2007, at 03:50PM – #3
The likely reasons to cover up the brick are pretty straight-forward--furring out the walls with steel-studs and drywall gives you a cavity for all of the wiring and insulation. In the photo above, you can see the amount of flex cabling running in and out of the light-switch--if the brick was left exposed, all of this would have to be surface-fastened to the brick wall and (ideally) strung in place in a far less haphazard manner. For retrofitting residential electrical service into existing buildings of this type, it really comes down to whether you prefer to have a clean, white-walled interior, or a messier interior elevation with J-boxes, flex, and switches fastened directly to the existing brick wall.
There also is an energy conservation aspect to this as well. The brick being covered up is (I think, I haven't been in this particular building) the inner-face of the exterior masonry structure--as such, it's insulating value is almost nil. For a new building, the state's Title 24 energy-conservation code would generally require that the inside face of the exterior wall be insulated (even with just an air-space) to reduce heating and cooling loads and energy usage. Now, with existing buildings and adaptive re-use, there's a lot more flexibility in the code--for example, it looks like the owner and architect have kept the original factory-sash windows which are only slightly better insulation than Saran Wrap--but the common sense and economic incentives for energy-conservation are still applicable. It's possible, that the decision to keep the windows contributed to covering the brick--whether because of the code, or because of common sense, if the windows are going to continue to be such poor insulators, you can make up some of that defecit by making the walls better insulators.
As with all options in a renovation, I would guess that a number of factors led them to decide to cover the brick--some practical, some economic, and some aesthetic. I might have done it differently, but the logic behind the construction is altogether pretty sound.
Benjamin Pezzillo on June 09, 2007, at 09:38PM – #4
What I find interesting is that there is not more raw space being sold or rented "as is" for the owner or tenant to improve themselves.
From what I've been told, it was this type of conversion which really fueled the population of SoHo's development as an arts mecca after Dylan and the Bohemians popularized The Village.
Maybe blogdowntown will host some type of featured loft section showcasing some of the more inventive uses of large, formerly commercial space.
It would be the antithesis of the fake blog...