... is what the lads fixing our fence have discovered. They're putting in concrete posts and the bricks go down at least 2 feet. They weren't expecting that.
Is that 1960s over-engineering, or something more sinister ? The whole estate was orchards before.
Perhaps the soil level in the orchard was much lower before the estate was built, and has been made up with soil from the foundations of the new buildings.
WW2 bunker or air raid shelter?
+1. Surely it is not that common to make a foundation from bricks, more usual to have concrete footings.
depends on when it was built. Concrete didn't get into widespread use until the 20th Century
So it was a higher wall in the past ? It's only 18" higher than the level of the house though.
Quite possibly it is the remains of a walled garden.
At the first house we owned a neighbour had a brick retaining wall built which was about 4? to 5? at its tallest point. The builders simply used brick footings but the trench they dug went down about 2? to 18? below ground level. I recall them spending quite a long time hand digging into the clay and spending quite a lot of time getting the bottom of the trench level for the first course of bricks.
Richard
That would be the conventional way to do it >100 years ago, the depth of footings depending on local subsoil conditions. Were you living somewhere a bit backward?
A friend, whose house was on what was really a sand dune, had to dig down
6ft for an extension footings. That was probably about 40 years ago.
An inconvenient ash tree necessitated that I do he same during my millennial rebuild
With a digger it dint take long or cost much concrete
About 20 years ago, they demolished a derelict laundry behind our house and built four houses on it. As it happened, I was passing twice a day (down the side street they would front onto) for a coiple of weeks, and I was there while they were pouring the foundations (1 metre deep). I saw them still working late one day, and they told me that building control had just told them the ground was so wet, they now needed 2 metres. They were waiting for concrete lorries (on overtime) to arrive.
(Kentish clay)
*Back* in to widespread use. The ancient Brits managed to lose the recipe that the Romans left behind.
Is it fair to call the pozzolans used by the Romans and others, concrete, and vice-versa? The industry seems to differentiate them. The Romans didn't have the technology to make cement for concrete as it is made these days (calcining a clay-lime or clay-chalk mix at circa 1450C).
Yerrbut they built stuff with "A composition of stone chippings, sand, gravel, pebbles, etc., formed into a mass with cement" which is what the OED et al mean by "concrete". And it was a hydraulic cement too - unlike the lime mortars before (and after). Seems a bit harsh to differentiate against the Romans just 'cos they used pozzolans which make their concrete much more resistant to salt water than most modern stuff :)
Roman concrete featured pozzolanic mortar. Anyway Britons werent interested in stone/brick bulidings. Too frigging cold without UFH maintained by slaves
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.