contractor is, obviously, the better person to deal with any emergency or additional requirement which the carrying out of operations may disclose. The only alternative would be the employment of a competent clerk of the works to represent the architect, and upon the majority of alteration works this would be a needless and unjustifiable expense. The relations between architects and reputable firms of builders are usually such, too, that the builder will detail the measures he proposes to take to secure the building and ask the architect’s advice upon them.
A point in this symposium, made by Mr. Osmond Catlin, the Borough Surveyor of Lambeth, was that most of the old buildings in Central London, and some of the newer residential property, were of very poor construction. As regards the old property, we may take it that it was not designed to withstand the strain of modern conditions, particularly in its advanced years; but the latter part of Mr. Catlin’s dictum seems to require some explanation from someone. We can hardly imagine, with the stringent by-laws and supervision over construction now in force in the Metropolis, that poor construction is condoned or permitted. Possibly, however, he referred to the great era of suburban building of twenty or thirty years ago. On the danger of vibration, and its effect a considerable distance from the roads on which it originated, Mr. Catlin’s experience tallies with our own; and he is of opinion that some cure for vibration, either by better distribution of the weight in motor vehicles, or improved methods of road construction, would have to be found. The Borough Surveyor of Southwark, Mr. Arthur Harrison, found a cause for instability in buildings in the fact that the normal level of water in London soil had been lowered by from 1½ to 2 ft. during his lifetime. To deep well sinking, which has been mentioned in this connection, Mr. Harrison does not attribute responsibility. The deep wells draw from below the London clay, and great care is exercised in boring to keep the subsoil water out. Rather does he indicate pumping in excavations under existing buildings, or for new buildings, and notes that in a number of such cases, where pumping has been resorted to, sand was brought up as well as water. This goes to confirm the suggestion we made in these notes last week.
The disintegrating effects of vibration on old buildings, to which Sir John Simpson referred, seems to be receiving ample illustration in London. Within the past week an old house in Great Windmill Street and two in Palace Street, Westminster, have developed cracks or bulges, and dangerous structure notices have been served in respect of them. The District Surveyor of the latter district states, however, that in his district alone some 30 to 40 other buildings are also considered to be in a dangerous condition, and notices have been served upon the owners. Probably many old brick buildings might also be spilling particles of perished lime mortar out of their joints, but for the fact that the owners have had the joints raked out and repointed. It is a question, however, how far this caulking operation is really effective, for while repointing may temporarily prevent the egress of the disintegrated mortar, it can hardly restore the homogeneity or rigidity of the wall. And this raises several important problems. First, the effective life of brickwork, which must depend largely on the hardness and resistance of the brick and on the continued cohesion of the mortar. And arising out of this is the very important question of the exact function which the mortar fulfils in brickwork. Years ago, the student regarded mortar as a cementitious material required to stick the individual bricks together and combine them into a homogeneous structure. Modern scientific teaching discounts this, emphasising the view
that mortar is to be regarded as a bedding, taking up the inequalities of the brick. We must confess never to have been wholly convinced by the modern view, but, however correct it may be in theory, we fancy that the increasing vibration of city traffic must lead to some reconsideration in practice, probably to the use of a stronger cementitious material, like cement mortar, for the brickwork of important buildings. One cannot help feeling some qualms about the beautiful new structures built of thin brick with wide mortar joints, and wondering what their length of life will be under modern conditions.
The recent explosion of two large gasholders at a Manchester gasworks leads the Manchester Guardian to enquire why “a quarter teeming with human life should be deemed the ideal spot in which to house a potential mammoth bomb. ” We think our contemporary is hardly just in saying that “gasholders are put in densely congested areas, partly because the well-to-do dislike having the amenities of their chosen district disturbed by the gross offence to eye and nose that they offer, and partly because it is an obvious economy to carry gas as small a distance as possible. ” It is a more obvious economy to carry coal as small a distance as possible, and for that reason most gasworks will be found alongside, and with siding connec
tion to, railways. Nor are gasholders always absent from the more highly-rented areas of a town. We can call to mind two or three instances in Greater London where the reverse is the case. It is probably true to say that the well-to-do in most places avoid living near railways, and for that reason the cheaper rented property tends to develop in the neighbourhood of the railways and, incidentally, of the gasworks. There is no malicious ordering of these things. The majority of the gasworks were in place long before the houses in their vicinity. In many developing districts they are well outside the built-on area, but how long they will continue to be so it is, of course, impossible to say. And as gasworks are expensive plants to put down, and cannot easily be moved whenever it suits speculators to build up close to them, it follows that, sooner or later, they will be surrounded by house property, usually of the poorer class. We quite agree with our contemporary that gasholders are often found in “the wrong place, ’’ but the remedy, as we see it, is not an expensive pulling down of gasholders and their erection on the outskirts of cities. It is the proper town planning of cities and the adoption of zoning laws which would relegate all factories to a particular zone, and prevent houses from being built in such an area. As to the unsightly appearance of gasholders, most architects will be in full agreement, but we can hardly subscribe to the suggestion that they should be camouflaged. It is generally conceded, we think, that the simplest solution of an engineering problem usually turns out to be the best, æsthetically, and instances of attempts to make some engineering structure appear otherwise than it is, have rarely been acclaimed by people of artistic taste. Gasholders might, however, be painted in less obtrusive or unpleasant colours, or in colours that were calculated to harmonise better with their surroundings. We understand that the manager of the gasworks at a wellknown south coast resort did so far heed the advice of a well-known architect visitor that he replaced the staring red paint on his gasholders by a soft shade of green. The obtrusive bulk of a gasholder, and the fact that it rises and falls, rather limit the opportunities for improving appearances, but as the Manchester Guardian suggests camouflage, some enterprising gasworks company might try a little dazzlepainting so that, at a little distance, a gasholder could not readily be seen.
A point in this symposium, made by Mr. Osmond Catlin, the Borough Surveyor of Lambeth, was that most of the old buildings in Central London, and some of the newer residential property, were of very poor construction. As regards the old property, we may take it that it was not designed to withstand the strain of modern conditions, particularly in its advanced years; but the latter part of Mr. Catlin’s dictum seems to require some explanation from someone. We can hardly imagine, with the stringent by-laws and supervision over construction now in force in the Metropolis, that poor construction is condoned or permitted. Possibly, however, he referred to the great era of suburban building of twenty or thirty years ago. On the danger of vibration, and its effect a considerable distance from the roads on which it originated, Mr. Catlin’s experience tallies with our own; and he is of opinion that some cure for vibration, either by better distribution of the weight in motor vehicles, or improved methods of road construction, would have to be found. The Borough Surveyor of Southwark, Mr. Arthur Harrison, found a cause for instability in buildings in the fact that the normal level of water in London soil had been lowered by from 1½ to 2 ft. during his lifetime. To deep well sinking, which has been mentioned in this connection, Mr. Harrison does not attribute responsibility. The deep wells draw from below the London clay, and great care is exercised in boring to keep the subsoil water out. Rather does he indicate pumping in excavations under existing buildings, or for new buildings, and notes that in a number of such cases, where pumping has been resorted to, sand was brought up as well as water. This goes to confirm the suggestion we made in these notes last week.
The disintegrating effects of vibration on old buildings, to which Sir John Simpson referred, seems to be receiving ample illustration in London. Within the past week an old house in Great Windmill Street and two in Palace Street, Westminster, have developed cracks or bulges, and dangerous structure notices have been served in respect of them. The District Surveyor of the latter district states, however, that in his district alone some 30 to 40 other buildings are also considered to be in a dangerous condition, and notices have been served upon the owners. Probably many old brick buildings might also be spilling particles of perished lime mortar out of their joints, but for the fact that the owners have had the joints raked out and repointed. It is a question, however, how far this caulking operation is really effective, for while repointing may temporarily prevent the egress of the disintegrated mortar, it can hardly restore the homogeneity or rigidity of the wall. And this raises several important problems. First, the effective life of brickwork, which must depend largely on the hardness and resistance of the brick and on the continued cohesion of the mortar. And arising out of this is the very important question of the exact function which the mortar fulfils in brickwork. Years ago, the student regarded mortar as a cementitious material required to stick the individual bricks together and combine them into a homogeneous structure. Modern scientific teaching discounts this, emphasising the view
that mortar is to be regarded as a bedding, taking up the inequalities of the brick. We must confess never to have been wholly convinced by the modern view, but, however correct it may be in theory, we fancy that the increasing vibration of city traffic must lead to some reconsideration in practice, probably to the use of a stronger cementitious material, like cement mortar, for the brickwork of important buildings. One cannot help feeling some qualms about the beautiful new structures built of thin brick with wide mortar joints, and wondering what their length of life will be under modern conditions.
The recent explosion of two large gasholders at a Manchester gasworks leads the Manchester Guardian to enquire why “a quarter teeming with human life should be deemed the ideal spot in which to house a potential mammoth bomb. ” We think our contemporary is hardly just in saying that “gasholders are put in densely congested areas, partly because the well-to-do dislike having the amenities of their chosen district disturbed by the gross offence to eye and nose that they offer, and partly because it is an obvious economy to carry gas as small a distance as possible. ” It is a more obvious economy to carry coal as small a distance as possible, and for that reason most gasworks will be found alongside, and with siding connec
tion to, railways. Nor are gasholders always absent from the more highly-rented areas of a town. We can call to mind two or three instances in Greater London where the reverse is the case. It is probably true to say that the well-to-do in most places avoid living near railways, and for that reason the cheaper rented property tends to develop in the neighbourhood of the railways and, incidentally, of the gasworks. There is no malicious ordering of these things. The majority of the gasworks were in place long before the houses in their vicinity. In many developing districts they are well outside the built-on area, but how long they will continue to be so it is, of course, impossible to say. And as gasworks are expensive plants to put down, and cannot easily be moved whenever it suits speculators to build up close to them, it follows that, sooner or later, they will be surrounded by house property, usually of the poorer class. We quite agree with our contemporary that gasholders are often found in “the wrong place, ’’ but the remedy, as we see it, is not an expensive pulling down of gasholders and their erection on the outskirts of cities. It is the proper town planning of cities and the adoption of zoning laws which would relegate all factories to a particular zone, and prevent houses from being built in such an area. As to the unsightly appearance of gasholders, most architects will be in full agreement, but we can hardly subscribe to the suggestion that they should be camouflaged. It is generally conceded, we think, that the simplest solution of an engineering problem usually turns out to be the best, æsthetically, and instances of attempts to make some engineering structure appear otherwise than it is, have rarely been acclaimed by people of artistic taste. Gasholders might, however, be painted in less obtrusive or unpleasant colours, or in colours that were calculated to harmonise better with their surroundings. We understand that the manager of the gasworks at a wellknown south coast resort did so far heed the advice of a well-known architect visitor that he replaced the staring red paint on his gasholders by a soft shade of green. The obtrusive bulk of a gasholder, and the fact that it rises and falls, rather limit the opportunities for improving appearances, but as the Manchester Guardian suggests camouflage, some enterprising gasworks company might try a little dazzlepainting so that, at a little distance, a gasholder could not readily be seen.