User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y
Subject: Bricklaying query.
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: (please include full headers)
X-Trace: 92679170c1366401d962f987347c70c046e06560e9c6614089 2c9470430d07b3
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:50:11 +0100
Message-Id:
Lines: 28
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com uk.d-i-y:556865

Uno Hoo! wrote:
The usual advice when building a garden wall from either bricks or
pre-formed concrete blocks is:
Dig the footings
Prepare concrete foundations
Have the first course of bricks/blocks below ground level.
Now that may be ok with cheap housebricks but these pre-formed concrete
'Bradstone' blocks are not that cheap and to have a whole course of a long
wall beneath the ground seems an awful waste.
I cannot see the logic of it either. Surely the bond between the bottom
course and the rough surface of the concrete footings will be as strong as
the bond between the first and second course of bricks/blocks? If that is
the case, what is served by having a complete lower course below ground
level?

I think for garden walls the point is that the garden (lawn etc) can
continue over the footings right up to the wall, thus avoiding the ugly
footings being visible.

If you don't mind the footings being visible then I think they can be
(there might be Building Regs requirements for frost protection as Andy
(Preece) said, but that would be for a building wall not a garden wall
IYSWIM), but if you're spending money on expensive blocks would you want
a length of concrete at the bottom spoiling it?

Owain