Victorian Red brick?

[pieman]

I am about to start an extension to the rear of our Victorian Fen House, planning have specified that the brick should match as close as possible the existing. Asd you can imagine I am having a real problem finding a suitable brick. I had to take down an existing wall which as expected had a facing brick and a stock to the inside, the facing brick is similar in style to a modern engineering brick whick the perforations, inside they are a very vivid orange but the face is a red almost glazed appearance.
I have budget constraints, and do not want to use reclaimed, has anyone had a similar problem or can anyone offer any help..............please getting desperate now.
The only bricks I have found that come close are a Hanson brick called Victorian Multi Smooth or another called Chelmer Red. But the Hanson are smooth and have no texture, and being similar to an engineering would be a pain to lay this tiem of year due to the low absorbancy??

 

[Nemesis]

Thought this might be of interest...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2007/12/01/pbricks101.xml

 

[caliwag]

Perhaps try Furness brick (Cumbria)...stand at the 2006 Harrogate show, impressive.
http://www.furnessbrick.com

 

[Nemesis]

And for the anoraks amongst us:

http://www.cumbria-industries.org.uk/bricks.htm

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/134923

 

[biffvernon]

Why don't you want to use reclaims? You're more likely to get a match that way. And cheaper and more environmentally benign.

 

[middi]

I agree with Biff, if you can locate reclaims it would kill a few birds with one stone.

 

[biffvernon]

I didn't suggest throwing the bricks at birds.

 

[Flyfisher]

Whatever you eventually find, I would get confirmation from the planning authority that they meet the 'match as close as possible to existing' condition before going ahead with construction.


On a related point, in a previous thread about roof tiles the use of reclaimed tiles in order to obtain a good match was not regarded as good practice. Are bricks a different case?

 

[biffvernon]

Ah, that was the thread that contained this post:

Gareth, what do you suggest is done with heaps of old, but quite serviceable, pantiles if you don't want them put onto roofs. Crush them for hardcore or pile them on top of each other and call it Art?

I suggest they stay on the roofs of the buildings they're keeping dry at the moment.

That was ducking my question :wink:

but Gareth never quite got round to responding.

 

[Nemesis]

Probably wise.

Yes it's not considered really sound conservation to use reclaimed. It means a traditional building has been demolished and at times the provenance of the materials can be doubtful. Reclamation at times salves the consciences of those who give permissionfor/destroy historic buildings.

It can 'fudge' history and authenticity.

It can also mean architectural theft.

Buying new keeps traditional craft skills alive.

Yes I appreciate the grey areas, simply putting forward the viewpoint.

SALVO has this to say - there are things I could quibble with here also:

http://www.mondodesigno.com/salvo.html

and hundreds of thousands of historic unlisted buildings are demolished every year.

Those who believe that reclamation encourages demolition are even further down the track of complete insanity.

Hmmm.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2003/03/12/pnick09.xml

Interesting read.

 

[Flyfisher]

Buying new keeps traditional craft skills alive.

Having spent the last few months repairing my pantiled roof, complete with traditional hand-made pantiles, I'm not sure this particular traditional skill is useful anymore because most of my roof problems seem to have been caused by badly fitting tiles due, mainly, to the inevitable variation in the hand-made tiles.

Historically, such tiles could only have been made by hand but with modern machinery the same tiles can now be made to much tighter tolerances, resulting in a much superior roof covering, functionally at least.

I'm all in favour of keeping traditional skills alive where they have a definite advantage over modern methods, but when they result in an inferior end result it seems a bit odd, except in a 'museum' sense.

 

[Nemesis]

Buying new can mean that traditional types of building materials are kept in production, even if the methods change.

In certain instances the variations brought about by traditional production can be considered desirable though.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Ah, that was the thread that contained this post:

I suggest they stay on the roofs of the buildings they're keeping dry at the moment.

That was ducking my question :wink:

but Gareth never quite got round to responding.

Because I ducked the question. Though my answer was perfectly valid, in its own way.

With bricks, I can't say I've ever seen a reclaimed brick that didn't look like it had come from the outside bogs at a down at heel Victorian workhouse. They always seems to be randomly scattered with whitewash, blobs of mortar (and cement) and look like what they are - second hand (as opposed to "antique"). And I think the case for keeping trad craft skills alive applies somewhat more with bricks than it does with pantiles.

 

[biffvernon]

One of the great advantages of lime mortar is that it enables the bricks to be reused once the building is no longer wanted. Reuse is, of course, what one does in preference to recycle.
Reused bricks will not look new, they will have all the characteristics of, er, reused brick, but not, we hope, with any attached cement.

Here's a picture of a wall I knocked up last year with some mid-18th century bricks. If it looks like the outside of a bog, that's fine, since that's exactly what it is.

The bottom course of bricks is modern - just to ensure future archaeologists are not misled.

 

[Flyfisher]

And I think the case for keeping trad craft skills alive applies somewhat more with bricks than it does with pantiles.

I agree with that; a misshaped brick is unlikely to affect the functionality of the structure it's used in, but misshaped roof tiles can compromise the functioning of the roof, which is not helpful when trying to protect the underlying building.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

One of the great advantages of lime mortar is that it enables the bricks to be reused once the building is no longer wanted. Reuse is, of course, what one does in preference to recycle.
Reused bricks will not look new, they will have all the characteristics of, er, reused brick, but not, we hope, with any attached cement.

Here's a picture of a wall I knocked up last year with some mid-18th century bricks. If it looks like the outside of a bog, that's fine, since that's exactly what it is.

The bottom course of bricks is modern - just to ensure future archaeologists are not misled.

What that definitely doesn't look like, though, is a mid-18th century wall. If the intention was that it would, then the use of reclaims has done nothing to help. If that was not the intention, then why use mid-18th century bricks in the first place?

 

[Penners]

I can't say I've ever seen a reclaimed brick that didn't look like it had come from the outside bogs at a down at heel Victorian workhouse.

That statement is guaranteed to promote the sale of reclaimed bricks. "Down-at-heel-Victorian-workhouse-bog" is just the height of chic in South Kensington, nowadays.

 

[Nemesis]

I've just been subbing the latest edition of a conservation organisation's newsletter.

A brief taster from that:

Kensington Palace Hotel
Another day, another decent conservation area building is condemned by a bunch of local authority officers as the replacement is going to be so much better. In this case, the buildings in question form part of a 1870s terrace, typical of the area and eminently adaptable to any number of economically viable uses. However, starchitect David Chipperfield pulled a rabbit out of the hat with a design that wowed officers so much that they recommended to the planning committee that the terrace be pulled down and replaced with his startling design...

I haven't pics to post, just the text, but the before is here:

http://www.kensingtonhotellondon.co.uk/

and here's the architect:

http://tinyurl.com/yunqdo

 

[biffvernon]

What that definitely doesn't look like, though, is a mid-18th century wall. If the intention was that it would, then the use of reclaims has done nothing to help. If that was not the intention, then why use mid-18th century bricks in the first place?

No it is definitely not meant to look like a mid 18th century wall - I don't do repro! It's meant to look like an early 21st century wall, reusing 18th century bricks, which are beautiful and whose embedded energy was accounted for 250 years ago. They exist, they were made to last and made to reuse by mortaring with lime. Maybe in another 250 years they will be used a third time.

Behind the brick is several inches of 21st century oak shavings, then some willow hurdling, mud and straw, lime plaster and limewash. Similar methods and materials could have been used several hundreds of years ago. The exception is the Leylandii timber frame within, as this tree was only hybridised in the 19th century.

But Gareth, you haven't confronted the question, should those old bricks (or pantiles) have been crushed for hardcore instead?

 

[Nemesis]

What has happened to the buildings they have been 'salvaged' from?