Although Building Regulations have changed over the years, much of the
basic structural parts are essentially the same - ie that walls and
foundations are adequate and safe for the loading.

So to prove that a wall or foundation will be safe, then could I just
point out a few properties from the early part of the century which
have been built a certain way and are still as sound today as when
built?

Why can't such an example be used as proof that a particular
construction method will be adequate and safe for then next 100 years
and thus comply with the Building Act?

dg

dg wrote:

"...Why can't such an example be used as proof that a particular
construction method will be adequate and safe for the next 100 years
and thus comply with the Building Act?"

I'm no expert on the topic, but isn't it all to do with changing
standards. You could try to argue that the standards to which a 100
year-old building was originally built are 'adequate', but they just
won't meet the current requirements. Take building insulation, for
example and think about what you got with a 100 year-old building
compared it with today's requirements.

I thinking purely structural, and basic construction methods

Some examples - extension foundations twice as wide and three times as
deep as the house being built on to, opening sizes and locations within
a wall, timber [oak] lintels. These are but a few.

dg

dg wrote:
Although Building Regulations have changed over the years, much of the
basic structural parts are essentially the same - ie that walls and
foundations are adequate and safe for the loading.

So to prove that a wall or foundation will be safe, then could I just
point out a few properties from the early part of the century which
have been built a certain way and are still as sound today as when
built?

Why can't such an example be used as proof that a particular
construction method will be adequate and safe for then next 100 years
and thus comply with the Building Act?

dg

Because it won't comply with today's building regulations.
I've worked on lots of houses where there are 3 courses of brick below
ground and no concrete (the houses were built straight up off the soil) and
the extensions we built had to have strip footings 3 feet deep and two feet
wide at the bottom, 8 inches of concrete and a cavity wall built up to DPC,
then the cavity filled with concrete prior to backfill.
Attempting to reason with them that the house has been there for 100 or 150
years will do no good at all, they can't make you change the footings for
the original buildings, just the ones that are going up now.

Why would it not comply?
Remember that the Approved Documents are just examples and not the only
way of meeting the requirements of the Building Regulations and
Building Act. Nowhere in the regulations does it state specific
dimensions

For example from Part A
"Loading
A1. (1) The building shall be constructed so that the combined dead,
imposed and wind loads are sustained and transmitted by it to the
ground -
(a) safely; and
(b) without causing such deflection or deformation of any part
of the building, or such movement of the ground, as will
impair the stability of any part of another building.

Thats the basics, and then we have the Approved Documents which give,
just one acceptable method of achieving this.

So if a building from constructed 100 years ago on shallow foundations
and with slender walls has conformed with the above statement (by
virtue of it not deflecting, deforming and is safe and stable), then
why can't a similar construction be accepted today as conforming to the
building regulations?

If it went to court, and the LA tried to prove that the construction
used did not meet the build regulations, then surely evidence of 1000s
of houses of similar construction to that used being perfectly stable
etc, would be proof enough that the construction method used met the
requirements of the building regulations?

dg

dg wrote:
Why would it not comply?
Remember that the Approved Documents are just examples and not the only
way of meeting the requirements of the Building Regulations and
Building Act. Nowhere in the regulations does it state specific
dimensions

For example from Part A
"Loading
A1. (1) The building shall be constructed so that the combined dead,
imposed and wind loads are sustained and transmitted by it to the
ground -
(a) safely; and
(b) without causing such deflection or deformation of any part
of the building, or such movement of the ground, as will
impair the stability of any part of another building.

Thats the basics, and then we have the Approved Documents which give,
just one acceptable method of achieving this.

So if a building from constructed 100 years ago on shallow foundations
and with slender walls has conformed with the above statement (by
virtue of it not deflecting, deforming and is safe and stable), then
why can't a similar construction be accepted today as conforming to the
building regulations?

If it went to court, and the LA tried to prove that the construction
used did not meet the build regulations, then surely evidence of 1000s
of houses of similar construction to that used being perfectly stable
etc, would be proof enough that the construction method used met the
requirements of the building regulations?

No, because they're often pig-ignorant pen-pushers with little
in the way of qualification or ability. Approve something for
which instructions and *pictures* are not available? Never!

Thats the basics, and then we have the Approved Documents which give,
just one acceptable method of achieving this.

Whilst the Approved Documents are indeed only one way of complying, that
doesn't mean they can be ignored. They will be interpreted as an indication
of the typical performance required, so your alternative solution must
provide similar performance, even if done in a completely different manner.

So if a building from constructed 100 years ago on shallow foundations
and with slender walls has conformed with the above statement (by
virtue of it not deflecting, deforming and is safe and stable), then
why can't a similar construction be accepted today as conforming to the
building regulations?

One reason is that the wall construction was very different, with lime
mortars and flexible materials used in order to mitigate the larger degree
of settlement that foundationless buildings had. If you built a modern wall
using cement, rigid insulation and gypsum plaster or boards, it would crack
to buggery in a couple of years (or even weeks/months). The old Victorian
buildings just settled in a different shape to that built, but the materials
flexed to suit.

Also, plenty of these buildings DID have serious subsidence problems. These
have now either been demolished (it's only the good ones still standing,
obviously!) or been underpinned (which is essential retrofitting the
foundations).

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
plenty of these buildings DID have serious subsidence problems. These
have now either been demolished (it's only the good ones still standing,
obviously!) or been underpinned (which is essential retrofitting the
foundations).

I wonder how many buildings have been destroyed due to defects
rather than to make way for something else, as a fraction of
the whole? Anyone any ideas?

Christian McArdle wrote:
CPB wrote, but the attributions were munged yet again:
I wonder how many buildings have been destroyed due to defects
rather than to make way for something else, as a fraction of
the whole? Anyone any ideas?

I'd guess quite few, really. But plenty have either been underpinned or
shifted to what would now be considered an unacceptable degree.

How many do you guess have been destroyed due to
defects? 10%? 20%? 50%? This is interesting. I
wonder whether NT will say anything... there
must be some information "out there" somewhere...

dg wrote:
Although Building Regulations have changed over the years, much of the
basic structural parts are essentially the same - ie that walls and
foundations are adequate and safe for the loading.

So to prove that a wall or foundation will be safe, then could I just
point out a few properties from the early part of the century which
have been built a certain way and are still as sound today as when
built?

No. Because merely stanoiding up there for 500 years is not ebnough.

The buildings today have to be built to take account of exceptional
loads, and be stiffer and more rigid than heretofore.

And ****ibly prrof against tree roots getting at the foundations.

Plenty of house still around built on a double course of bricks laid in
mud. Try getting THAT past your BCO !!!
:-)


Why can't such an example be used as proof that a particular
construction method will be adequate and safe for then next 100 years
and thus comply with the Building Act?


Because the building act is not about inability to fall down. Thats the
absolute MINIMUM requirement.It goes MUCH further.


dg

How many do you guess have been destroyed due to
defects? 10%? 20%? 50%? This is interesting. I
wonder whether NT will say anything... there
must be some information "out there" somewhere...

I never come across any. I suspect vanishingly few, really. I suspect that
most housing destroyed due to defects were more due to being horrible cheap
slum housing than because of lack of foundations. I've got nothing to back
this up, though.

Christian.

Owain wrote:
dg wrote:
Although Building Regulations have changed over the years, much of the
basic structural parts are essentially the same - ie that walls and
foundations are adequate and safe for the loading.
So to prove that a wall or foundation will be safe, then could I just
point out a few properties from the early part of the century which
have been built a certain way and are still as sound today as when
built?
Why can't such an example be used as proof that a particular
construction method will be adequate and safe for then next 100 years
and thus comply with the Building Act?

Because it isn't proof that a particular construction method will be
adequate and safe. It is merely evidence that that particular house has
stayed standing, not that all houses built with that technique are
structurally sound. They weren't; the unsound ones have fallen down or
been demolished, and those standing may have had extensive repair work.

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is not an example to follow.

However, if your structural engineer can show by calculation that
whatever you're proposing is no less safe than the Approved Documents
then the council should accept that as being complying with the Regs.
You can, for example, have a Tudor style oak post and beam house if you
want to.

Indeed. I almost DO have such a house.

Extensive oak and softwood frame. BUT they wanted it checked by
structural engineers, and it ended up bolted together in many
places...and with bits of hidden steel.


Owain

dg wrote:
Why would it not comply?
Remember that the Approved Documents are just examples and not the only
way of meeting the requirements of the Building Regulations and
Building Act. Nowhere in the regulations does it state specific
dimensions

For example from Part A
"Loading
A1. (1) The building shall be constructed so that the combined dead,
imposed and wind loads are sustained and transmitted by it to the
ground -
(a) safely; and
(b) without causing such deflection or deformation of any part
of the building, or such movement of the ground, as will
impair the stability of any part of another building.

Thats the basics, and then we have the Approved Documents which give,
just one acceptable method of achieving this.

So if a building from constructed 100 years ago on shallow foundations
and with slender walls has conformed with the above statement (by
virtue of it not deflecting, deforming and is safe and stable), then
why can't a similar construction be accepted today as conforming to the
building regulations?

The slender walls you might get away with, but the foundations not..the
issues with subsidence are key here.

IF you have an ideal structure, get a structural engineer to calculate
it and 'prove' to the BCO that its adequate. The BCO has his arse
covered, and will go along OK.

Its no use whining that the regulations are over fancy, and the BCO is
thick. Those are givens. You have to work with reality, not change it so
make your life easier. Changing reality is a very complex and labour
intensive process ;-)



If it went to court, and the LA tried to prove that the construction
used did not meet the build regulations, then surely evidence of 1000s
of houses of similar construction to that used being perfectly stable
etc, would be proof enough that the construction method used met the
requirements of the building regulations?


No. It would not.

Only a structural engineers report is of any real weight in such matters.

IF your structural engineer looks at a 500 year old house and finds that
'Yes, its strong enough and stiff enough to meet requirements, then all
well and good..if he comes back and says 'the only reason that house is
still standing is that massive brick chimney that was added in 1700, and
its stopped the whole house from slewing over, and unless you are
prepared to replicate that, your design will, too,' then you have a problem.


The devil is in the detail. 500 years ago floors that moved up and down
an inch were common. Today its unacceptable. And if you decide to mount
e.g. a 700 liter (3/4 tonne) hot water cylinder on them, downright
dangerous.

Modern houses have to be STIFF as well as strong. They are NOT the same
thing.

A block of polystyrene blue foam is stiff, but not strong, a car leaf
spring is strong, but not stiff.



dg

Chris Bacon wrote:
Christian McArdle wrote:
plenty of these buildings DID have serious subsidence problems. These
have now either been demolished (it's only the good ones still standing,
obviously!) or been underpinned (which is essential retrofitting the
foundations).

I wonder how many buildings have been destroyed due to defects
rather than to make way for something else, as a fraction of
the whole? Anyone any ideas?

Largely they collapsed or burnt. Wood rot is the biggest killer of
timber frames. After fire.

Old brick and stone houses either collapsed fairly quickly or were
equipped with ADEQUATE foundations. However its not uncommon to see
massive cracks running up such, due to subsidence and heave
anyway..particularly when e.g. 30 ton tricks now use the road alongside
etc etc.

Christian McArdle wrote:
How many do you guess have been destroyed due to
defects? 10%? 20%? 50%? This is interesting. I
wonder whether NT will say anything... there
must be some information "out there" somewhere...

I never come across any. I suspect vanishingly few, really. I suspect that
most housing destroyed due to defects were more due to being horrible cheap
slum housing than because of lack of foundations. I've got nothing to back
this up, though.

Christian.


Its rare to have a house actually fall down due to bad
foundations..however take the case of a property my niece bought last
year. Naff 70's extension, on it, that was literally falling away as a
willow tree sucked the clay dry..

Underpinning revealed almost no foundations at all, rotting wood lintels
over the windows )shown by cracking brickwork above' and inside a one
inch cap in the cracked plaster where the extension was leaning away,
rather than to, the house..

Such a house might well survive for many years, and prior to regulations
would have been patched and patched again, until someone decided to
knock it down and rebuild..the regulations ensure that modern houses
will nit be trashed at least for THAT reason.

My old house was zero foundations, and a rotten timber frame dictated
its total demise.

In its time it had had bits added on, various lean-tos added as main
living space by knocking through walls its main beams cut to add doors,
and re roofed from thatch to shingle and composition lightweight tiles -
the roof timbers where still original, were quarter pine poles,
broomsticks, or rotten through..no way to tile it.

Due to cutting structural trusses and also due to rot, the internal oak
frame was braced a bit with steel brackets..but there was alarming
spreading in the roof plates. Addition of concrete pathways meant that
water ran under the house not into the soil, and collected at the
chimney base which sucked it up like a sponge..


In short, it had been buggered beyond economic repair.

So we buggered it totally.

On 19 May 2006 12:55:36 +0200,it is alleged that Chris Bacon
spake thusly in uk.d-i-y:

Christian McArdle wrote:
CPB wrote, but the attributions were munged yet again:
I wonder how many buildings have been destroyed due to defects
rather than to make way for something else, as a fraction of
the whole? Anyone any ideas?

I'd guess quite few, really. But plenty have either been underpinned or
shifted to what would now be considered an unacceptable degree.

How many do you guess have been destroyed due to
defects? 10%? 20%? 50%? This is interesting. I
wonder whether NT will say anything... there
must be some information "out there" somewhere...

I would suspect insurance companies may be a good source. It does
depend on the area though, in this area (Southampton, flood plain,
clay soil), subsidance is a real problem and has caused several houses
to my personal knowledge to require demolition on safety grounds.

This usually happens after someone plants something that sucks the
water out (as in the example elsewhere in this thread of a 70s
extension and a willow tree). This can affect houses no matter what
the age though, if they're not on decent foundations.

--
"The most overlooked advantage of owning a computer is that if they foul up
there's no law against whacking them around a bit."
- Eric Porterfield.

The message
from Owain contains these words:

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is not an example to follow.

It's lasted a good deal better than many modern houses.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Christian McArdle:
One reason is that the wall construction was very different, with lime
mortars and flexible materials used in order to mitigate the larger degree
of settlement that foundationless buildings had.

Is it not more a case of settlement not mattering so much because lime
mortar was all they had?

If you built a modern wall
using cement, rigid insulation and gypsum plaster or boards, it would crack
to buggery in a couple of years (or even weeks/months). The old Victorian
buildings just settled in a different shape to that built, but the materials
flexed to suit.

Our Victorian semi seems to have settled quite a lot before the final
fit had even been done, judging by one upstairs doorway that is a good
inch lower on one side. The original architrave has just been cut to
fit a less than 90 degree corner on one side and the door is trimmed to
fit..

If this settlement had happenned later there would be a big gap at that
corner. We are blessed with brick walls upstairs, even where they
aren't built on top of brick downstairs, I presume (and hope) there are
some really big bits of timber under them somewhere! The result is a
somwhat bouncy house, even a 2 year old running around in one room
makes the floor shake in another.

But ours is one of a long row, none of which has fallen down yet, so
I'm not worried.

Andrew

How many do you guess have been destroyed due to
defects? 10%? 20%? 50%? This is interesting. I
wonder whether NT will say anything... there
must be some information "out there" somewhere...


Its an interesting question. I doubt there is any source that could
tell us, since such stats are not afaik collected. Insurance companies
will have information about more recent failure rates, which they
likely wont disclose, but a century ago most owners had no insurance
and the housing stock was quite different to todays.

Theres another question too, that of the relationship between design
defects and maintenance. Some houses are deisgned to survive long
periods of neglect (eg concrete block), and some can't survive even
short periods of neglect (eg plastered straw). When failure occurs,
what do you blame it on, lack of maintenance or the design?

I also expect a lot of recorded failures would be down to lack of
maintenance.

Then theres the fact that demolition is probably more often decided on
the basis of multiple factors. Undesirable location, undesirable
housing type, in need of a fair amount of work, none of which in itself
threatens the houses's survival, and economic factors such as
redevelopment prospects.

Personal experience doesnt tell a lot either. I've seen very few houses
in a state of collapse, but then I dont know how many houses I've seen,
nor how many of the ones I've seen have serious defects that werent
noticed in what is often very brief observation. Also whatever defects
I've seen are over much less years than the average life expectancy of
housing.

Another point that I think affects the whole picture is to do with the
state of the Victorian housing market. A sizeable section of Vic
housing is now almost entirely missing. There were whole areas of towns
where housing was shacks, sheds, and other low cost shells. Few of
these remain. Presumably there were also intermediate buildings, eg
brick or wood frame houses as we know them today, but built to very a
basic standard, very small and so on. Most of these are also gone, so
if we assess the housing left today, we miss part of the picture.

There is also the fact that construction standards of the past varied
fairly widely, so to assess the survival of a particular type of
building technique one would need to classify all the house types when
examining any data. For example in a road one may see 2 storey
buildings splitting apart next to others in sound condition. Size of
foundations, wall construction, and other details all make a
difference. We only have limited data for a lot of buildings, it is
common for no-one to know what type or size of foundations a building
has, or even if it has none.

So not only do we lack records, it is also difficult to classify
buildings according to one reason for demise, and difficult to classify
each building acccording to foundation depth and so on.

My daily waffle budget is all used up, so to put it another way, how
could we know.


NT

Is it not more a case of settlement not mattering so much because lime
mortar was all they had?

Well, whichever way. The effect is the same.

Our Victorian semi seems to have settled quite a lot before the final
fit had even been done, judging by one upstairs doorway that is a good
inch lower on one side. The original architrave has just been cut to
fit a less than 90 degree corner on one side and the door is trimmed to
fit..

My Edwardian terrace has a doorway or two like that, on the rear "extension"
bit. The BCO didn't mind us building a loft conversion on top without so
much as investigating the footings. Half the houses in our street have been
converted without problem, so they have our street down as not requiring
foundation investigation.

Christian.

In uk.legal Guy King wrote:
The message
from Owain contains these words:

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is not an example to follow.

It's lasted a good deal better than many modern houses.

Like most houses built a long time ago... if they are still standing it
is a good sign that they will continue standing for another hundred
years or so.

Modern constructions tend to be ephemeral. Witness 60s tower blocks
being knocked down these days whereas centuries old tenements in the Old
Town in Edinburgh are going strong.

More than anything as a complete waste of time and money was the
'millenium dome'... most past governments would have created something
lasting which would still be there in 400 years, not something based on
plastic which falls apart after a few years.

It sums up the current and recent governments. If a monument is going to
be built to mark the new millenium, why not build something that will
still be there for the next millenium! The Egyptians, Greeks and Romans
managed it. As did most of the cathedral builders in Mediaeval Europe
even if their constructions took many years or centuries to complete.

Who in a hundred years will even know about the 'Millenium Dome'
but will instead marvel at Koeln Cathedral and even climb the many
steps to hear the bells ring at first hand and then after their
ears have recovered wander into that marvellous bar Frueh am Dom
to enjoy several glasses of koelsch.

Axel

wrote in message
ups.com...
How many do you guess have been destroyed due to
defects? 10%? 20%? 50%? This is interesting. I
wonder whether NT will say anything... there
must be some information "out there" somewhere...


Its an interesting question. I doubt there is any source that could
tell us, since such stats are not afaik collected. Insurance companies
will have information about more recent failure rates, which they
likely wont disclose, but a century ago most owners had no insurance
and the housing stock was quite different to todays.

Theres another question too, that of the relationship between design
defects and maintenance. Some houses are deisgned to survive long
periods of neglect (eg concrete block), and some can't survive even
short periods of neglect (eg plastered straw). When failure occurs,
what do you blame it on, lack of maintenance or the design?

I also expect a lot of recorded failures would be down to lack of
maintenance.

Then theres the fact that demolition is probably more often decided on
the basis of multiple factors. Undesirable location, undesirable
housing type, in need of a fair amount of work, none of which in itself
threatens the houses's survival, and economic factors such as
redevelopment prospects.

Personal experience doesnt tell a lot either. I've seen very few houses
in a state of collapse, but then I dont know how many houses I've seen,
nor how many of the ones I've seen have serious defects that werent
noticed in what is often very brief observation. Also whatever defects
I've seen are over much less years than the average life expectancy of
housing.

Another point that I think affects the whole picture is to do with the
state of the Victorian housing market. A sizeable section of Vic
housing is now almost entirely missing. There were whole areas of towns
where housing was shacks, sheds, and other low cost shells. Few of
these remain. Presumably there were also intermediate buildings, eg
brick or wood frame houses as we know them today, but built to very a
basic standard, very small and so on. Most of these are also gone, so
if we assess the housing left today, we miss part of the picture.

There is also the fact that construction standards of the past varied
fairly widely, so to assess the survival of a particular type of
building technique one would need to classify all the house types when
examining any data. For example in a road one may see 2 storey
buildings splitting apart next to others in sound condition. Size of
foundations, wall construction, and other details all make a
difference. We only have limited data for a lot of buildings, it is
common for no-one to know what type or size of foundations a building
has, or even if it has none.

So not only do we lack records, it is also difficult to classify
buildings according to one reason for demise, and difficult to classify
each building acccording to foundation depth and so on.

My daily waffle budget is all used up, so to put it another way, how
could we know.


NT

BEGIN Back of envelope

Houses in UK in 1900 =7 million
House building rate 1900 - 1919 = 75000 per annum = 1.5 million
Houses in UK in 1919 = 8.5 million
Number of houses predating 1919 in current housing stock = 2.5 million
Therefore 6 million pre 1918 houses have gone, ie 76%

/END Back of envelope

Data from http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...9/rp99-111.pdf


Of course most ofd these houses will have gone through urban redevelopment,
rather than fallen down

Andy

wrote:

Another point that I think affects the whole picture is to do with the
state of the Victorian housing market. A sizeable section of Vic
housing is now almost entirely missing. There were whole areas of towns
where housing was shacks, sheds, and other low cost shells. Few of
these remain. Presumably there were also intermediate buildings, eg
brick or wood frame houses as we know them today, but built to very a
basic standard, very small and so on. Most of these are also gone, so
if we assess the housing left today, we miss part of the picture.

Worth remembering that in the past much property, particularly in
London, was built on 99 year building leases. Georgian and Victorian
terraces were only built to last so long


--
David Clark
http://www.publishing.ucl.ac.uk
$replyto = 'an.rnser.is.reqird'

wrote:
In uk.legal Guy King wrote:
The message
from Owain contains these words:

The Leaning Tower of Pisa is not an example to follow.

It's lasted a good deal better than many modern houses.

Like most houses built a long time ago... if they are still standing it
is a good sign that they will continue standing for another hundred
years or so.

Modern constructions tend to be ephemeral. Witness 60s tower blocks
being knocked down these days whereas centuries old tenements in the Old
Town in Edinburgh are going strong.

More than anything as a complete waste of time and money was the
'millenium dome'... most past governments would have created something
lasting which would still be there in 400 years, not something based on
plastic which falls apart after a few years.

It sums up the current and recent governments. If a monument is going to
be built to mark the new millenium, why not build something that will
still be there for the next millenium! The Egyptians, Greeks and Romans
managed it. As did most of the cathedral builders in Mediaeval Europe
even if their constructions took many years or centuries to complete.

Who in a hundred years will even know about the 'Millenium Dome'
but will instead marvel at Koeln Cathedral and even climb the many
steps to hear the bells ring at first hand and then after their
ears have recovered wander into that marvellous bar Frueh am Dom
to enjoy several glasses of koelsch.

Axel


Ah, Chichen Itza...

Andy McKenzie wrote:

BEGIN Back of envelope

Houses in UK in 1900 =7 million
House building rate 1900 - 1919 = 75000 per annum = 1.5 million
Houses in UK in 1919 = 8.5 million
Number of houses predating 1919 in current housing stock = 2.5 million
Therefore 6 million pre 1918 houses have gone, ie 76%

/END Back of envelope

Data from http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...9/rp99-111.pdf


Of course most ofd these houses will have gone through urban redevelopment,
rather than fallen down

Andy




Yup. I always had a gut feeling that a lot more houses than people
credit were destroyed...
I used to live on a fen just outside cambridge..I spent many happy hours
exploring it with my neighbour - a mad Irish biochemist. We found
several derelict houses..we asked our landlord what they were..and he
told us that prior to the thirties and the rise of mechanisation, about
200 people lived on the fen, and there were 5 pubs down 'our drove'

These were mainly timber framed, single brick foundation and chimney
wattle and daubed sort of things. Reed thatched, no water electricity or
toilets..or even more than a footpath by way of access..and liable to
flooding..


"I was going to push the ones you guys are living in over" he told us
"But this woman I rather fancied came along and said she could refurbish
them for renting..of course it cost double what she said, and wasn't
really worth it, but we had some fun ;-)"

Many and varied are the reasons for not demolishing properties.
That cottage had a septic tank, extension bathroom and toilet as a lean
to, and pumped artesian well water to drink. GREAT place.

The landlords farmhouse he had knocked down and rebuilt in the 50's
'because the old one was falling apart, and was damp cold and draughty,
and didn't have proper toilets and a bathroom'#

I knocked this house (or the house that this one replaces) down, on
purely economic grounds..the cost to rebuild was less than the cost of
repair to the specification I wanted.

An aquaintance in the heritage industry was sanguine 'most houses need a
makeover every 15 years, major repairs after 30, and a complete strip to
shell, make good and refurb every 60: If they don't get it, chances are
they won't last past ninety.

I am almost certain that my old house had not been touched structurally
in any serious way since 1900 or earlier. IT had been bodged and
patched..The old fen cottage was built I think in 1896..and had had
extensions added in the 60's and a major refurb..and it will last
another 50 years now I think


Why all this? simply to make the point that very few houses last 100
years without MAJOR work being carried out. If they are not interesting
and don't fit the needs of the time, its cheaper to push them over and
start again. They may at least make good hardcore.

Even significant houses like castles - built to withstand sieges - don't
last..Skara Brae is perhaps the oldest almost complete dwelling I have
seen...5000 years old? Maybe. http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/skarabrae/

Nearly as old as the Pyramids..and about the same age as Stonehenge

And somewhat older than the universe, if the creationists are to be
believed ;-)

Even if they don[t fall down,. chances are they will get covered up
...first by brush and mosses, then by other materials..including soil,
and then they usually collapse..

On Fri, 19 May 2006 14:37:53 GMT, a particular chimpanzee named
randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Modern constructions tend to be ephemeral. Witness 60s tower blocks
being knocked down these days whereas centuries old tenements in the Old
Town in Edinburgh are going strong.

Tower blocks are mostly being knocked down for reasons other than
structural failure. They have their physical problems (leaking
windows, poor insulation, etc), but the frame would probably last
centuries if looked after. In Liverpool, and probably many other
cities, these tower blocks were built on the cleared sites of old
Georgian and Victorian houses and tenements.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

On Fri, 19 May 2006 11:55:52 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named The
Natural Philosopher randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Plenty of house still around built on a double course of bricks laid in
mud. Try getting THAT past your BCO !!!
:-)

Or getting the NHBC to give you a warranty on it.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

On 18 May 2006 13:53:16 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named "dg"
randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Although Building Regulations have changed over the years, much of the
basic structural parts are essentially the same - ie that walls and
foundations are adequate and safe for the loading.

So to prove that a wall or foundation will be safe, then could I just
point out a few properties from the early part of the century which
have been built a certain way and are still as sound today as when
built?

Why can't such an example be used as proof that a particular
construction method will be adequate and safe for then next 100 years
and thus comply with the Building Act?

Changes in Regulations and guidance often come about due to failures.
Something happens, and the cry goes up, "we must do something"! Other
times change happens due to research and greater awareness of
potential problems.

WRT the walls, floors, roof structure, etc., there's no reason why you
can't follow the basic principle used in Victorian or Georgian
building, provided what you do meets modern-day requirements.

The reason why walls are no longer built in 9" solid brickwork is for
the reasons that cavities were introduced into walls in the first
place, to prevent damp penetration through solid masonry. This has
been later used as a place to fit insulation. You could have solid
walls with internal insulation and external render.

Much of the timber to build the floors and roofs of houses before the
industrial age was from local woodland, and was slow-growing, strong
softwood, if not hardwood, left to season. Much of the modern day
timber in your local builder's merchants is forced softwood, cut and
shipped before it's even dry.

Much of the skills used to build older properties are no longer there.
These days, a joiner is someone who nails trusses to a wall plate; a
plasterer is someone who tapes and skims joints in plasterboard. Do
plumbers still do lead flashings?

As a result of droughts and insurance claims, a whole industry has
grown up around making sure that foundations are dug to minimum depths
in clay soils and outside the influence of any shrinkage or heave
caused by trees. Who was there to sue 100 years ago when the house
you'd just built started settling due to shrinkage?

To compare buildings built over a century ago to virtually anything
you could build today is to compare apples and oranges. Also, two
wrongs don't make a right.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

In uk.legal Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006 14:37:53 GMT, a particular chimpanzee named
randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Modern constructions tend to be ephemeral. Witness 60s tower blocks
being knocked down these days whereas centuries old tenements in the Old
Town in Edinburgh are going strong.

Tower blocks are mostly being knocked down for reasons other than
structural failure. They have their physical problems (leaking
windows, poor insulation, etc), but the frame would probably last
centuries if looked after. In Liverpool, and probably many other
cities, these tower blocks were built on the cleared sites of old
Georgian and Victorian houses and tenements.

Which is another worrying problem. People's houses are being compulsory
purchased so that developer can move in and build wonderful skyrise
flats... can the original owners buy one... no... not because of any
legal restriction, but simply because the money from the purchase of
their original house will not allow them to buy a place anywhere, let
alone where they used to live.

It is basically a situation of 'I own this ground', '**** off I have
money and want to take your property, so hard luck'.

Axel

On Sat, 20 May 2006 12:53:37 GMT, wrote:



Which is another worrying problem. People's houses are being compulsory
purchased so that developer can move in and build wonderful skyrise
flats... can the original owners buy one... no... not because of any
legal restriction, but simply because the money from the purchase of
their original house will not allow them to buy a place anywhere, let
alone where they used to live.

It is basically a situation of 'I own this ground', '**** off I have
money and want to take your property, so hard luck'.

Or the Prescott iniative as is found here where a local council is
seeking to demolish 1500 houses....
http://tinyurl.com/j6fff

"Gresham ward councillor Ken Walker, a leading critic of the
demolition proposal, said the council's proposals were seriously
flawed.

He said if they were approved on Friday by Cllr Dave Budd, Executive
councillor for regeneration, as a basis for consultation he would seek
the issues to be called in under the council's scrutiny process.

He said: "If a resident with a house with a market value of £45,000
wanted to purchase a property for £80,000 I believe the funding
figures will be - Purchase price of new home £80,000, existing house
price £45000, home loss contribution £4,500, OHRAS payment £15,000
leaving a shortfall of £15,500 which would need to be found by the
home-owner."

"This is a so-called housing renewal scheme that will force residents
out of perfectly good sound property," said Cllr Walker."

Who in a hundred years will even know about the 'Millenium Dome'
but will instead marvel at Koeln Cathedral and even climb the many
steps to hear the bells ring at first hand and then after their
ears have recovered wander into that marvellous bar Frueh am Dom
to enjoy several glasses of koelsch.

Axel


Which they continue to bring until you say stop....

Mind you, they need to since they are so small...... :-)

I'm planning to go there on Tuesday.....

In message , Andy Hall
writes

Who in a hundred years will even know about the 'Millenium Dome'
but will instead marvel at Koeln Cathedral and even climb the many
steps to hear the bells ring at first hand and then after their
ears have recovered wander into that marvellous bar Frueh am Dom
to enjoy several glasses of koelsch.

Axel


Which they continue to bring until you say stop....

Mind you, they need to since they are so small...... :-)

I'm planning to go there on Tuesday.....


Wiiirklich?

In that case, I have a shopping list

Alles Klar ?

--
geoff

In uk.legal Andy Hall wrote:
Who in a hundred years will even know about the 'Millenium Dome'
but will instead marvel at Koeln Cathedral and even climb the many
steps to hear the bells ring at first hand and then after their
ears have recovered wander into that marvellous bar Frueh am Dom
to enjoy several glasses of koelsch.

Which they continue to bring until you say stop....

Mind you, they need to since they are so small...... :-)

I'm planning to go there on Tuesday.....

Good! Please post some photos or put them on a website somewhere.

"und fliesst der Rhein"... superb view from the top of the catheral in
Cologne... might I suggest taking a train trip down to Switzerland along
the Rhine.... such an interesting journey viewing the river and the
towers..

Axel

On Sun, 21 May 2006 16:21:28 +0100, wrote
(in article ):

In uk.legal Andy Hall wrote:
Who in a hundred years will even know about the 'Millenium Dome'
but will instead marvel at Koeln Cathedral and even climb the many
steps to hear the bells ring at first hand and then after their
ears have recovered wander into that marvellous bar Frueh am Dom
to enjoy several glasses of koelsch.

Which they continue to bring until you say stop....

Mind you, they need to since they are so small...... :-)

I'm planning to go there on Tuesday.....

Good! Please post some photos or put them on a website somewhere.

"und fliesst der Rhein"... superb view from the top of the catheral in
Cologne...

Genau...

might I suggest taking a train trip down to Switzerland along
the Rhine.... such an interesting journey viewing the river and the
towers..


I've done that many times - better than flying. I'm very impressed with
the ICE train - does 300kph between Koeln and Frankfurt AM. Smooth, Quiet,
Clean, On time.

I am really looking at this from a more fundamental viewpoint.

If we take foundations as an example, typically the BCOs in my area
want 600 wide and a 1000 depth. Even if all the similar properties in
all directions have foundations at 450 x 600 deep. OK, there may be
differing ground conditions, but what I am saying is .... if 500
houses around a particular job have absolutely no probelms with a
particular foundation width and depth, then why can't this be proof
enough that that particular foundation design can support a structure
of similar construction, size and loadings?

With openings, I can see numerous instances of openings near external
corners, and slender piers between openings, and these have been in
place for decades, with no distress tho the building. But if I want to
do something similar I have to prove this by [theoretical]
calculations. Why can't I prove this by actual demonstration of an
instance previously built and with no problems?

Computer models and scale models are constructed to test designs. So
why can't existing buildings be used as models to prove that a design
works (in a given set of circumstances) ?

dg

"dg" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am really looking at this from a more fundamental viewpoint.

If we take foundations as an example, typically the BCOs in my area
want 600 wide and a 1000 depth. Even if all the similar properties in
all directions have foundations at 450 x 600 deep. OK, there may be
differing ground conditions, but what I am saying is .... if 500
houses around a particular job have absolutely no probelms with a
particular foundation width and depth, then why can't this be proof
enough that that particular foundation design can support a structure
of similar construction, size and loadings?

With openings, I can see numerous instances of openings near external
corners, and slender piers between openings, and these have been in
place for decades, with no distress tho the building. But if I want to
do something similar I have to prove this by [theoretical]
calculations. Why can't I prove this by actual demonstration of an
instance previously built and with no problems?

Computer models and scale models are constructed to test designs. So
why can't existing buildings be used as models to prove that a design
works (in a given set of circumstances) ?

dg


How do you know the design has worked , how do you know that the building
has had no remedial works performed on that section
Are you aware construction techniques have changed so that roof weight
distribution is now different on many new buildings
(purling are no longer in general use domestically all the load is placed on
the wall plates now through trussed system roofing)

Well yes, it would be foolish to use a design which has obviously
failed as an example of how you want to build.

Its a moot argument but what I am saying is, if I can show the BCO 1,
10, or 100 housing estates where a particular design HAS stood the test
of time and I want to build THE SAME design, then why is required for
me to prove the design works by calculation etc, when it is obvious
that the design works by reference to the afore mentioned housing
estates?

Purlins are still common in extensions. And this is part of my argument
- that extensions are generally overspecified (structurally) in terms
of the house which they are attached to.

dg

dg wrote:
Well yes, it would be foolish to use a design which has obviously
failed as an example of how you want to build.


DG, please, please, *please* will you sort out your posting
method and *include context*!

On 21 May 2006 11:42:45 -0700, a particular chimpanzee named "dg"
randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

I am really looking at this from a more fundamental viewpoint.

If we take foundations as an example, typically the BCOs in my area
want 600 wide and a 1000 depth. Even if all the similar properties in
all directions have foundations at 450 x 600 deep. OK, there may be
differing ground conditions, but what I am saying is .... if 500
houses around a particular job have absolutely no probelms with a
particular foundation width and depth, then why can't this be proof
enough that that particular foundation design can support a structure
of similar construction, size and loadings?

With openings, I can see numerous instances of openings near external
corners, and slender piers between openings, and these have been in
place for decades, with no distress tho the building. But if I want to
do something similar I have to prove this by [theoretical]
calculations. Why can't I prove this by actual demonstration of an
instance previously built and with no problems?

Computer models and scale models are constructed to test designs. So
why can't existing buildings be used as models to prove that a design
works (in a given set of circumstances) ?

Buildings have to be robust enough to withstand all normal expected
loads and situations within its lifetime. The particular building you
may be referring to may not have encountered that particular set of
loads, or may have been close to the limit but not failed enough to
exhibit external signs.

A relatively simple set of rules needs to be developed to meet most
situations, i.e., a wall of a certain length and a certain height
needs to be a certain thickness and buttressed with other walls every
so often. Rules of thumb have been developed over the years as a
result of some practical experience and some calculation and
modelling. These ensure that any building built to this standard can
withstand most normal expected situations, without the need to
calculate it. Yes, this does mean that they are perhaps
over-engineered, but the option exists to prove that a lesser building
is adequate to meet minimum standards.

One can never be certain that one building exactly matches another
without destructive testing; exactly how wide are the foundations
under the most heavily loaded parts, what are they bearing onto, what
type of masonry was used in the piers, and what mortar was used?

It is common to use experience of an existing building when adapting
it (e.g., to say that the existing building shows no signs of
movement, and the adaptations proposed won't add loads and will
maintain restraint, etc), but it is dangerous to extrapolate that
experience of one building to another, or to say, anecdotally, that
building x has remained standing for 100 years, therefore we will
slavishly copy it.

As I've said before, the expectations of a building have changed
radically since those buildings you referred to were built. No longer
would a new house owner be willing to put up with penetrating damp,
sloping floors and cracked walls.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

Hugo Nebula wrote:
a particular chimpanzee named "dg" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

I am really looking at this from a more fundamental viewpoint.

If we take foundations as an example, typically the BCOs in my area
want 600 wide and a 1000 depth. Even if all the similar properties in
all directions have foundations at 450 x 600 deep. OK, there may be
differing ground conditions, but what I am saying is .... if 500
houses around a particular job have absolutely no probelms with a
particular foundation width and depth, then why can't this be proof
enough that that particular foundation design can support a structure
of similar construction, size and loadings?

With openings, I can see numerous instances of openings near external
corners, and slender piers between openings, and these have been in
place for decades, with no distress tho the building. But if I want to
do something similar I have to prove this by [theoretical]
calculations. Why can't I prove this by actual demonstration of an
instance previously built and with no problems?

Computer models and scale models are constructed to test designs. So
why can't existing buildings be used as models to prove that a design
works (in a given set of circumstances) ?

Buildings have to be robust enough to withstand all normal expected
loads and situations within its lifetime. The particular building you
may be referring to may not have encountered that particular set of
loads, or may have been close to the limit but not failed enough to
exhibit external signs.

Do you use T. Bliar's scriptwriter?


A relatively simple set of rules needs to be developed to meet most
situations, i.e., a wall of a certain length and a certain height
needs to be a certain thickness and buttressed with other walls every
so often. Rules of thumb have been developed over the years as a
result of some practical experience

Which is what DG is talking about.