Fri 3 Oct 2008
What a brick
As a card-carrying brickie it pains me to say this, but I believe that brick-built housing is dead. Deceased. No more. Gone to meet its maker.I have spent the summer re-pointing a brick cottage in Suffolk. A modest building when it was constructed around 1840, it is one of a rapidly-diminishing number of such historic buildings. Unprotected by listing or conservation area status, many similar houses in the area have been demolished – under that strange planning policy that won't allow any new dwellings on green-field sites in remote rural locations, but will happily allow them to be built on the sites of existing historic cottages.
Those cottages that have been spared this fate have often been otherwise spoiled, usually by being double-glazed, internally gutted, and externally rendered and painted pink, in a misguided attempt to recreate a mythical East Anglian architectural past. Sadly, this is a distortion of history. Those original pink buildings had wattle-and-daub walls coated with limewash mixed with pig's blood, not cement render brushed with masonry paint.
So I was determined that this particular cottage - my own home, as it happens - should be preserved in a manner which honoured the skill and craftsmanship of the men who built it. I have restored it carefully and painstakingly, cutting out and replacing spalled and damaged bricks, having special plinth bricks hand-made at a local brick works, and using lime mortar throughout. And as I have worked on it, I have uncovered some of the original brickies' foibles - the snapped headers, the unfilled perp joints, the frog-down brickwork. They were working in a location where the only water source was the local stream, so they could be forgiven for being sparing with the mortar. It has been a real labour of love.
But as I have worked my way around the cottage's four walls, retracing the trowel-work of the brickies who built it 170 years ago, I have had plenty of time for thought, and it has led me to realise that brick construction is no longer relevant in the 21st century. The current insulation requirements mean it is no longer possible to build a house like this, with solid nine-inch or 13-inch walls. The modern equivalent - the brick-and-block cavity wall - bears about as much relation to the old solid brick wall as a lap-top computer does to a roll of parchment.
The brick-and-block cavity wall - with its expanses of stretcher-bond brickwork, is boring, featureless and pointless. Structurally, it is suspect, with cavity insulation that might or might not keep the heat in, and might or might not allow rainwater to penetrate across to the inside. And wall ties that might or might not hold the whole thing together for a indeterminate period of time.
Let's face it, the only reason British homes are built with cavity walls is because they impart an impression of solid brickwork. The average British homeowner has no idea what his or her walls are made of. As long as there are bricks on view on the outside, they will think they are living in a brick house. This has long been realised by developers using timber-framed construction, who have always known the importance of an external brick veneer to give an impression of solidity.
So I propose an end to this kitsch notion that all new British homes must be built with face brickwork. If we want to build sustainably, and construct houses that are genuinely energy-efficient, then it is time to ditch the brick-and-block cavity wall, along with its bastard offspring, the brick-veneered timber-frame, and instead opt for a proper engineered solution.
That solution is solid walls built with high-density concrete blockwork, insulated on the outside. Structurally sound, indefinite longevity, no wall ties to corrode, no cavity insulation to break down or transmit moisture, and high thermal mass to make the most of varied and intermittent heating sources.
And if you want, you can even paint them pink.
Posted by Jeff Howell
in The Jeff Howell Column on Fri 3 Oct 2008
I agree that the brick-and-block cavity wall, complete with expanses of stretcher-bond brickwork is a little "boring and featureless", but perhaps that has more to do with the architectural design these days? Plus, not all housebuilders have the budget for fancy brickwork. Furthermore, one should not forget the rule of "Horses for Courses" (pardon the pun).
A brick 'veneer' on a timber frame is purely there out of preference - it doesn't need to be brick, as I'm sure I don't need to point out (ahem). The frame could be clad with timber, or it could be block and render. The brick skin is more to do with design and planning than anything else. For example, a timber clad home is unlikely to obtain planning approval if situated in a row of brick-built homes (whether 'solid' or not!). Similarly, a brick clad home is unlikely to obtain approval in an area of predominantly timber or rendered finished homes.
As for your views regarding solid concrete...well, quite frankly it's a ridiculous proposal! I appreciate the whole carbon emissions debate isn't for everyone, but concrete? Really? Come on! Isn't that a bit like saying to the NHS that we should all start smoking again like in the good old days because, after all, that's what we always USED to do? That's right: forget the gym, forget the odd walk in the countryside or that possibly drinking a bottle of wine every evening with dinner isn't really that good for you (even though we know we shouldn't do it).
Whilst we're at it, let's also forget about the fact that the industry has come on leaps and bounds over the past few decades and everything is now faster, easier, more efficient, and with the right archictect more appealing, and let's just live in a cave. We could even paint the outside pink.
Have your say and comment on this article