Interesting features

[jason.p]

Can anyone explain these features we've come across in an old building we're doing some work on. Firstly a series of arches evenly spaced on the inside of a wall. There are six of them in a wall around 35ft long. There's definitely no sign of them on the outside, so they do not appear to be windows. It looks as though the area beneath them has been filled at some stage, the depth of the recess being about 4ins max. As far as we can gather one of the earlier uses of the building was a coach house with stabling and possibly groom's quarters. It's difficult to put an age on it, but at a guess the wall in question could be 1700s (The stonework has been made with soil). If these arches are purely decorative, doesn't it seem odd that they are in a building of this nature? A lot of work has gone into it for some reason.
The other feature is the timber inserts in the stonework. These are of random length and position, some low to the floor and others halfway up etc. These are usually around 4x2Ins, and have often rotted causing the stonework to collapse. At first it was thought they were to fix items of furniture to, but the positioning seems too random. We've come across these inserts in several old buildings, on one occasion on the outside, just a couple of feet up from ground level. These had rotted causing quite serious instability, and only found when the rendering had been removed. I've attempted to attach some photos to illustrate.
View attachment 1

 

[Ian Bond]

Hmmm. I've got a few pieces of timber built into my stone house too. Some are for obvious purposes, such as fixing places for door frames etc.

Others are like those in your picture, and built into the random rubble masonry of the inner wall leaves.

I think that I read something about this in one of Hugh Lander's books, and he claimed that these pieces of timber were inserted to help tie and strengthen this type of wall. However, they prove to be a menace for the reasons you stated - they sometimes rot and cause parts of the wall to fail. Not sure if this is correct, but it seems plausible.

Don't know about those fascinating stone arches. The only similar things I've seen are Relieving Arches above openings in the masonry for windows and doors. Unless these arches were designed to impart strength to the (relatively) poor quality masonry, I've no idea what they're for.

That's relatively poor quality, compared with dressed, regularly coursed masonry.

 

[Lime]

Cupboards.

 

[Moo]

Niches?

 

[Flyfisher]

I think that I read something about this in one of Hugh Lander's books, and he claimed that these pieces of timber were inserted to help tie and strengthen this type of wall. However, they prove to be a menace for the reasons you stated - they sometimes rot and cause parts of the wall to fail. Not sure if this is correct, but it seems plausible.

I've also heard the stabilising theory. We have a right old mixture of wall constructions and have found wood inserted in brick, chalk clunch and rubble walls. Fortunately, all our wood inserts - some very substantial - are oak and are in very good condition, so no problem with collapsing walls, which is more than can be said for some of our wooden lintels that have decayed. Luck of the draw I guess. Many of the wood inserts are old beams/rafters/joists etc as evidenced by previous mortice and tenon workings. Presumably they were reclaimed from other works or were just lying about when the walls were built.

As for the potential problems of the wood rotting and the walls subsequently collapsing, that is clearly a risk with such construction but I seriously doubt that it was a big consideration at the time. I imagine the builders would be quite happy for things to last 10 years (or until they were paid? No, that's unfair :wink: )and the owners probably with 30-40 years. They'd probably be amazed that things were still standing after a few hundred years!

 

[jason.p]

Niches?

Yes, Niches could well explain these arches, but being no deeper than 4ins, I wonder what would have been kept or displayed in them in this type of "outbuilding"

Cupboards.

Some of these inserts may well have been furniture fixtures, but the positioning of them doesn't quite fit, especially those found on the outside of a wall.
I tend to go with the structural integrity theories.

 

[Lime]

The feature shown in the picture is a common one of castles built in the 1200s and after.
In all of those it is a cupboard (a board to put cups on) recessed into the wall.

 

[Ian Bond]

This really is an interesting project that you're working on Jason.

It'd be good to see a few more pics as work progresses, if you get a chance.

I'm guessing that it's roofless, and all that's left is the walls. Hard to tell from the pics.

I'm being nosey now - but what's it going to be used for?

Ta

Ian

 

[jason.p]

This really is an interesting project that you're working on Jason.

It'd be good to see a few more pics as work progresses, if you get a chance.

I'm guessing that it's roofless, and all that's left is the walls. Hard to tell from the pics.

I'm being nosey now - but what's it going to be used for?

Ta

Ian

It wasn't completely roofless when we started, but the main trusses and purlins of one "wing" (it's "T" shaped) had failed leaving the roof in a very dangerous condition. Also a couple of arches had collapsed, leaving the stonework in a similarly dangerous condition. The roof was very carefully stripped (from the inside), and the arches and most of stonework demolished and rebuilt (as faithfully as possible with drawings and photos to go by).The main trusses and purlins will be repaired as far as practicable, as the brief is to keep as much of the original as possible, which leads to the inevitable dilemma of where to draw the line. Unfortunately, a fair bit of steel plating will be unavoidable, which goes against the grain (literally!!). This is however, under the watchful eye of CADW, so it will be up to them and the architect to make the awkward decisions.
As to it's proposed use, there is none. It is purely a preservation/conservation project. I've attached a picture of one of the arches. All this has now been rebuilt.

 

[Ian Bond]

Thanks for that Jason.

What do the experts at Cadw have to say about the building and its arches?

 

[Penners]

My first thought was the same as Moo's - niches. If this was the stable block for an important house, the stables could have been of very high quality. I know a "Big Hoose" in south-west Scotland whose old stable block was beautifully fitted out - teak wainscotting and dividers between the horses' boxes, decorative tiling with the horses' names picked out in constrasting tiles - it was all hugely opulent. So a series of decorative niches in a stable block is certainly not impossible.

As to the baulks of timber, I wonder whether they could have been "grounds" - pieces of timber set into the masonry where fittings are to be screwed to the wall.

 

[jason.p]

Thanks for that Jason.

What do the experts at Cadw have to say about the building and its arches?

Haven't had a chance to pick their brains yet. Waiting for another visit. They haven't been back since the job started about 4 weeks ago. If I get anything from them I'll let you know.

 

[jason.p]

Just had the best explanation yet for the arches from the architect. He thinks they were probably some form of hay rack for the horses. This would explain the number of them and the spacing. The timber inserts below would, in this case, be part of the construction. If anyone has come across anything similar anywhere, I would be very interested to see what the original set up would have looked like.

 

[Nemesis]

You probably need to read:

http://www.georgiangroup.org.uk/docs/pub/pub.php?id=7:27:349:0

I did think of that, but it depends really on spacing, height, etc etc.

 

[Penners]

"British" and "stable".

Two words that belong irrevocably together.

 

[Nemesis]

One of the finest I know is near us, at Chesters, Humshaugh.

http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=239985&resourceID=3

The picture doesn't really do it justice.

While driving past with a friend from the US she was bowled over by this magnificent house - when we told her this was 'just' the stables she was incredulous!

http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=239985&resourceID=5

This, note, is the Butler's Cottage:
http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=239986&resourceID=3

Grand enough for a servant, but the horses had a better architecture.

 

[Penners]

the horses had a better architecture.

Well, of course. Servants are easily replaced, but good horse....

 

[jason.p]

You probably need to read:

http://www.georgiangroup.org.uk/docs/pub/pub.php?id=7:27:349:0

I did think of that, but it depends really on spacing, height, etc etc.

Thanks Nemesis, looks like a useful book to have around. I'll have to see if the company budget will run to a copy :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

You probably need to read:

http://www.georgiangroup.org.uk/docs/pub/pub.php?id=7:27:349:0

I did think of that, but it depends really on spacing, height, etc etc.

Thanks Nemesis, looks like a useful book to have around. I'll have to see if the company budget will run to a copy :roll: :roll: :roll:

You can get it for c.£30 on *m*z*n

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-li...olp_1?ie=UTF8&s=gateway&qid=1206625069&sr=8-1

 

[Nemesis]

Beware though. Some of those are from the US.