defect might have been remedied. Unfortunately, there was no space for a projecting porch, unless, of course, the façade were set back on either side to the width of the exit doorways, which treatment would, of course, have impaired the breadth and scale of the general composition. The interior is finely conceived, the proscenium being well placed between two splayed wall surfaces containing handsome windows encased in a framework of “Venetian” pattern. As is usual
in modern cinema design, there are no vertical supports obstructing the view of the proscenium, the rear portion of the parterre being bridged by framed girders sufficiently deep not only to support the balcony but to enclose a storey capable of accommodating the operating room for the films. The decoration has been lavished principally upon the ceiling, which shows a pattern of circular forms joined together by coloured bands which unite them to each other and to the boundaries of the composition. What is a little unsatisfactory in the interior is the junction of the gallery with the lateral wall surfaces, which appears to be somewhat haphazard. The seating accommodation is for nearly a thousand people. On the first floor, in addition to the manager’s office and generatorroom, there is a large hall which could be converted into a cafe. On the second floor there is a crush lounge. The decoration is in fibrous plaster, carried out in a colour scheme of blue, white, buff and bronze. The ventilation and heating are of the latest pattern. Two 30-in. fans are installed in the roof, the extracts being in the auditorium ceiling and under the balcony.
Messrs. Wm. Jackson, Langley, were the main contractors, the sub-contractors including: Messrs. The Birmingham Reinforced Concrete Steel Co. (balcony); Messrs. The Ketley Brick and Terra-cotta Co. (front elevation); Messrs. G. Greenstone (stained glass windows); Messrs. The Pavino Flooring Co. (floors and staircases); Messrs. Bryan’s Adamanta Co., Ltd. (fibrous plaster decorations); Messrs. W. & J. H. Oldaker (metal windows and wrought-iron work); Messrs. Thomas Ash & Co. (ventilation); Messrs. F. Evans (heating radiators); Messrs. Watson & Sons (electrical fittings); Messrs. G. T. Hyde & Son (gas fitters); Messrs. Binks & Co. (sanitary fittings); Messrs. Bayliss, Jones & Bayliss, Ltd. (iron escape staircase).
New ʼBus Depot at Harborne
This is obviously an important depot, which has been considered worthy of an architectural treatment. Messrs. Crouch, Butler & Savage, who are responsible for this design, have achieved an interesting composition, in which the main entrance for the ’buses has logically been made the principal feature. This doorway is admirably emphasised by a slight projection of the façade in the form of a square framework enclosing the entrance door and a large stone panel above and on either side, the whole being surmounted by a stone parapet. The stone quoins of the entrance portico are repeated at the lateral extremities of the building, which are further united to the central feature by means of a string course taking up the cills of the first floor windows and by a coping stone. This latter, however, appears to be a somewhat insufficient form of termination to the upper extremity of the long wings on either side of the entrance. The ground floor storey has an arcade with six large windows to each wing. The building has a certain dignity and spaciousness, and the Borough Corporation are to be congratulated upon making this attempt to endow a ’bus depot with its appropriate civic character. Messrs. Empire Stone Co., Ltd., executed all the stonework, staircases and granolithic paving. The construction of the flat roof and all suspended floors, covering an area of 1, 280 yards, was carried out by Messrs. Siegwart Fireproof Floor Co., Ltd.
Correspondence
Standard Sizes of Bricks
We have received from Mr. Nathaniel Lloyd a copy of the letter addressed by him to the Secretary of the Royal Institute of British Architects:
August 29, 1927.
The Secretary,
Royal Institute of British Architects,
9 Conduit Street, W. l.
Sir, — For some time it has been in my mind to write you with reference to the “Standard Sizes of Bricks” set out on pp. 604-6 of the R. I. B. A. Kalendar. These only deal with sizes, but my experience (and the experience of many others) is that, by implication, they actually set up bad standards in other respects.
The R. I. B. A. “Standard Sizes of Bricks” was settled 23 years ago (the addition made eight years ago applied only to thickness), and I do not think that any conference in which architects were included would now be content with such an incomplete definition for bricks. The most that can be said for ‘‘Standard Sizes’’ is that they apply only to common
bricks — usually unsuited to face work — but this is not stated.
In view of the increasing popularity of brick as a building material, both for face work and for internal work, I venture to suggest that the time is ripe for a more complete definition of what architects regard as “good bricks” for both purposes. This should
embrace form, texture and colour as applied to bricks for various purposes. Such a guide would certainly be helpful to the brick-making trade in endeavouring to meet architects’ requirements, and would seem calculated to advance materially that better standard of general building which we all desire.
I might continue by outlining the ground to be covered by the suggested new and more complete definition, but this would be better threshed out by any committee dealing with the matter, to which most of the points would naturally occur. — I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
Nathaniel Lloyd.
P. S. — A brickmaker put it thus: “We are ready to turn out the bricks if architects will settle what they want. ” In short, an authoritative lead is wanted.
Extracts from pages 604 to 606 of the R. I. B. A. Kalendar are appended.
The standard sizes of bricks, which have been agreed upon with various bodies, are as follows: —
1. The length of the brick should be double the width, plus the thickness of one vertical joint.
2. Brickwork should measure four courses of bricks and four joints to a foot. Joints should be ¼ inch
thick and an extra 1/16 inch, making 5/16 inch for the bed joints to cover irregularities in the bricks. This gives a standard length of 9¼ inches centre to centre of joints. The bricks, laid dry, to be measured in the following manner: —
(a) Eight stretchers laid square end and splay end in contact in a straight line to measure 72 inches.
(b) Eight headers laid side to side, frog upwards, in a straight line to measure 35 inches.
(c) Eight bricks, the first brick frog downwards, and then alternately frog to frog and back to back, to measure 21½ inches.
A margin of 1 inch less will be allowed as to (a), and ½ inch less as to (b) and (c). This is to apply to all classes of walling bricks, both machine and handmade.
in modern cinema design, there are no vertical supports obstructing the view of the proscenium, the rear portion of the parterre being bridged by framed girders sufficiently deep not only to support the balcony but to enclose a storey capable of accommodating the operating room for the films. The decoration has been lavished principally upon the ceiling, which shows a pattern of circular forms joined together by coloured bands which unite them to each other and to the boundaries of the composition. What is a little unsatisfactory in the interior is the junction of the gallery with the lateral wall surfaces, which appears to be somewhat haphazard. The seating accommodation is for nearly a thousand people. On the first floor, in addition to the manager’s office and generatorroom, there is a large hall which could be converted into a cafe. On the second floor there is a crush lounge. The decoration is in fibrous plaster, carried out in a colour scheme of blue, white, buff and bronze. The ventilation and heating are of the latest pattern. Two 30-in. fans are installed in the roof, the extracts being in the auditorium ceiling and under the balcony.
Messrs. Wm. Jackson, Langley, were the main contractors, the sub-contractors including: Messrs. The Birmingham Reinforced Concrete Steel Co. (balcony); Messrs. The Ketley Brick and Terra-cotta Co. (front elevation); Messrs. G. Greenstone (stained glass windows); Messrs. The Pavino Flooring Co. (floors and staircases); Messrs. Bryan’s Adamanta Co., Ltd. (fibrous plaster decorations); Messrs. W. & J. H. Oldaker (metal windows and wrought-iron work); Messrs. Thomas Ash & Co. (ventilation); Messrs. F. Evans (heating radiators); Messrs. Watson & Sons (electrical fittings); Messrs. G. T. Hyde & Son (gas fitters); Messrs. Binks & Co. (sanitary fittings); Messrs. Bayliss, Jones & Bayliss, Ltd. (iron escape staircase).
New ʼBus Depot at Harborne
This is obviously an important depot, which has been considered worthy of an architectural treatment. Messrs. Crouch, Butler & Savage, who are responsible for this design, have achieved an interesting composition, in which the main entrance for the ’buses has logically been made the principal feature. This doorway is admirably emphasised by a slight projection of the façade in the form of a square framework enclosing the entrance door and a large stone panel above and on either side, the whole being surmounted by a stone parapet. The stone quoins of the entrance portico are repeated at the lateral extremities of the building, which are further united to the central feature by means of a string course taking up the cills of the first floor windows and by a coping stone. This latter, however, appears to be a somewhat insufficient form of termination to the upper extremity of the long wings on either side of the entrance. The ground floor storey has an arcade with six large windows to each wing. The building has a certain dignity and spaciousness, and the Borough Corporation are to be congratulated upon making this attempt to endow a ’bus depot with its appropriate civic character. Messrs. Empire Stone Co., Ltd., executed all the stonework, staircases and granolithic paving. The construction of the flat roof and all suspended floors, covering an area of 1, 280 yards, was carried out by Messrs. Siegwart Fireproof Floor Co., Ltd.
Correspondence
Standard Sizes of Bricks
We have received from Mr. Nathaniel Lloyd a copy of the letter addressed by him to the Secretary of the Royal Institute of British Architects:
August 29, 1927.
The Secretary,
Royal Institute of British Architects,
9 Conduit Street, W. l.
Sir, — For some time it has been in my mind to write you with reference to the “Standard Sizes of Bricks” set out on pp. 604-6 of the R. I. B. A. Kalendar. These only deal with sizes, but my experience (and the experience of many others) is that, by implication, they actually set up bad standards in other respects.
The R. I. B. A. “Standard Sizes of Bricks” was settled 23 years ago (the addition made eight years ago applied only to thickness), and I do not think that any conference in which architects were included would now be content with such an incomplete definition for bricks. The most that can be said for ‘‘Standard Sizes’’ is that they apply only to common
bricks — usually unsuited to face work — but this is not stated.
In view of the increasing popularity of brick as a building material, both for face work and for internal work, I venture to suggest that the time is ripe for a more complete definition of what architects regard as “good bricks” for both purposes. This should
embrace form, texture and colour as applied to bricks for various purposes. Such a guide would certainly be helpful to the brick-making trade in endeavouring to meet architects’ requirements, and would seem calculated to advance materially that better standard of general building which we all desire.
I might continue by outlining the ground to be covered by the suggested new and more complete definition, but this would be better threshed out by any committee dealing with the matter, to which most of the points would naturally occur. — I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
Nathaniel Lloyd.
P. S. — A brickmaker put it thus: “We are ready to turn out the bricks if architects will settle what they want. ” In short, an authoritative lead is wanted.
Extracts from pages 604 to 606 of the R. I. B. A. Kalendar are appended.
The standard sizes of bricks, which have been agreed upon with various bodies, are as follows: —
1. The length of the brick should be double the width, plus the thickness of one vertical joint.
2. Brickwork should measure four courses of bricks and four joints to a foot. Joints should be ¼ inch
thick and an extra 1/16 inch, making 5/16 inch for the bed joints to cover irregularities in the bricks. This gives a standard length of 9¼ inches centre to centre of joints. The bricks, laid dry, to be measured in the following manner: —
(a) Eight stretchers laid square end and splay end in contact in a straight line to measure 72 inches.
(b) Eight headers laid side to side, frog upwards, in a straight line to measure 35 inches.
(c) Eight bricks, the first brick frog downwards, and then alternately frog to frog and back to back, to measure 21½ inches.
A margin of 1 inch less will be allowed as to (a), and ½ inch less as to (b) and (c). This is to apply to all classes of walling bricks, both machine and handmade.