HOUSE-BUILDING WITH WASTES
Of the many problems of the day demanding prompt settlement, none,
perhaps, is so vital to the welfare of the community as the provision
of increased housing accommodation. The issue is by no means confined
to Great Britain; it is incidental more or less to every country. Such
a state of affairs is not surprising, seeing that building operations,
at least in the domestic sense, have been reduced to a condition of
comparative stagnation for five years. Even those countries which were
not drawn into the actual fighting arena have been unable to carry out
housing schemes to meet the needs of their growing populations owing,
primarily, to the dearth of the necessary materials and the enhanced
labour charges.
So far as Britain is concerned the outlook is decidedly disquieting.
It is estimated that at least 1,000,000 houses are required to meet
the needs of the population. As a first instalment it is proposed to
complete forthwith 300,000 houses, but, here again, experience is
proving it to be far easier to adumbrate such comprehensive schemes on
paper than to carry them into expeditious effect. Questions of cost
have arisen. This constitutes the vital factor, because obviously it is
folly to build houses for people who cannot afford to live in them. And
the limit in the upward tendency has by no means been attained.
The critical situation has been surveyed from every ostensible angle
without any practical solution being found. But have we not been
circumscribed in our attacks upon the problem? Have we not become so
deeply rutted in our ideas concerning everything pertaining to housing
as to be unable to regard the aspect from a totally new point of view?
Similar crises have developed in, and are constantly assailing, other
industries. Upon their occurrence they appear to be equally impossible
of successful adjustment, but, finally, as a result of attacking a
difficulty from quite a new angle and in a new way, it has been not
only subjugated satisfactorily, but a distinct improvement upon the
old method brought into operation at one and the same time. A new
line of thought and development, possessing greater and more economic
possibilities, has been opened up to the advantage of one and all. As
a rule one need never hesitate to abandon the existing for something
new, because the former is generally associated with some form of waste
which has become so heavy as to act as a drag. Directly this retarding
force is eliminated, or turned to account, a new era commences.
The contemporary situation in the building trade recalls the state
of affairs which arose in American agricultural circles as a result
of the outbreak of the Civil War. The drainage of man-power from the
land precipitated an extremely depressing outlook. Farmers protested
that the soil must run to seed from lack of labour to wield the tools.
But thinking men held a contrary opinion. Farming had been conducted
along lines which had been followed slavishly for centuries. Manual
labour had attained undisputed sway and to decisive disadvantage.
Why not dispense with hand labour and use machines? The suggestion
that mechanism could displace brawn upon the land provoked a good
deal of hostile criticism and humour. But the imaginative were not to
be dismayed by conservatism, prejudice, or ridicule. They continued
perseveringly along their particular lines of reasoning.
What was the result? McCormick introduced the self-binder which
revolutionized harvesting methods, while other brilliant minds
conceived equally striking time- and labour-saving appliances for other
agricultural duties. They not only solved the immediate crisis but
imparted quite a new prospect to agriculture the whole world over. It
is safe to assert that, but for the introduction of the self-binder,
one-half of the United States would still have remained as barren as
the wilderness from sheer lack of labour to cultivate it.
If such a complete revolution proved possible of attainment in such an
ancient, rutted, and indispensable industry as agriculture, surely
it is not hopeless to anticipate the fulfilment of a similar complete
transformation in the craft of house-building? So far as farming is
concerned there is every excuse for hesitating to depart from the
proved and trusty. A false step may wreak untold harm, but so far as
house-building is concerned no such calamity need be apprehended. A
mistake can speedily be rectified. It is safe to assert that there is
no other line of activity, especially in Great Britain, so closely
identified with the effete and wasteful as house-building. In so far as
constructional methods are concerned we have scarcely changed our ways
since bricks were first brought into use.
We must ruthlessly scrap the old, which has obtained for so long, in
favour of the new. Science is forcing the pace, and she will no more be
arrested by obsolete theories and arguments than the tides will be held
up by a child’s spade. Already she is asserting her power. Contemporary
methods are wickedly extravagant, and it is this absurd wastage which
is primarily responsible for enhanced costs. The ways of science are
inscrutable, but they are sure none the less: the first indications of
chafing at delay always assert themselves in the traditional becoming
too expensive to maintain. The pocket is the positive road to reform;
assail its contents, and the world commences to bestir itself. As the
farmer, raised in the old school, had to give way to the engineer,
so must our conceptions and ideas pertaining to providing houses for
the community undergo a complete change. The architect, his numerous
satellites, and the cumbrous rules and regulations which have been
framed to protect their vested interests must be jettisoned without a
thought of regret. The day has dawned when the engineer must assume the
responsibility for providing the people with residential accommodation,
and he will be assisted by a new force, including the chemist, which
will play a far more prominent part in this problem than many may be
disposed to imagine.
This is a utilitarian age. People desire houses to live in--not
to look at, although every one will readily agree that a certain
regard must be paid to external æsthetic considerations. The average
house-owner troubles his head very little over the outside appearance
of his domicile or the materials of which it is built, so long as the
interior offers him all he desires in regard to comfort and health.
Too long have we clung tenaciously to specific theories which are no
more adapted to this age than is the slave-oared galley to mercantile
traffic. They are destructive rather than constructive. For a time such
clock-arresting dogma and precepts hold sway, but sooner or later the
pendulum of progress gives such a vicious kick as to break down the
whole of the obstructions disputing advance, to assume rhythmic running
in a new channel to the advantage of one and all.
Science has the solution to the housing problem ready for immediate
application, but she must be allowed to pursue her progressive way
untrammelled. From what one might be able to assume, brick and stone
represent the only building materials at our command. But are they? In
other fields, where restraining forces are not allowed to secure the
upper hand, huge forward strides are being made and with a material we,
as a supposed commercial nation, have scarcely noticed.
I refer to concrete. We have only to turn to the engineering world
to see what has been achieved with this material in the construction
of bridges, tunnels, piers, harbours, breakwaters, warehouses,
lighthouses, and even ships. If we turn to the United States and
Germany we are able to see how we have lagged. In both those countries
enormous strides have been made and incidentally, in the prosecution of
this task, other magnificent conquests in the world of science and of
the industrial employment of waste are recorded. To-day the manufacture
of cement constitutes one of the twelve most important industries in
the United States, and the greater part of this material is made from
what a few years ago was accepted as sheer waste--residue from the
iron-works which, having no further ostensible use, was dumped in huge
piles to the disfigurement of the landscape. To-day this waste is being
turned into building material, having usurped the product originally
selected for this duty.
The reason why there should be such a deep-rooted antipathy to concrete
for house-building purposes in these islands is somewhat inscrutable.
Probably it is due to the experiments which were made many years
ago, and which owing to our limited knowledge were construed by the
quidnuncs into a failure. But because Brunel’s _Great Eastern_ did not
succeed we do not laugh at the mammoth steamship of to-day. Brunel’s
conception suffered merely from being premature. So were the first
attempts to use concrete in the house-building industry. During the
past few years we have acquired further knowledge which should enable
us to steer clear of the blunders of the past, but instead of grappling
with the problem along the lines which science is vividly blazing we
prefer to waste time in the idle discussion of quaint theories and
fantastic notions.
Many are the reasons why concrete should be employed. In the first
place it is difficult to excel for simplicity. It comprises essentially
two materials--cement, sand and rubble, the two last-named being
generically described as the aggregate. The term is wide in its
meaning, comprising virtually any and every inorganic material capable
of being crushed to a pre-determined size, and the character of which
may be as varied as the number of days in the year or more, while
recent investigation has indicated that even the conventional sand may
be eliminated, provided a sharp and gritty substitute in a similar
powdered form be forthcoming.
Think what this means and the many possibilities it opens up! In
the first place it enables material on site--waste--to be turned to
economic account, and the term waste in this instance is extremely
elastic. There is no need to disfigure the countryside with yawning
craters in the form of pits for the excavation of the special clay
suited to the making of bricks. Again we must not forget that by the
employment of the conventional building materials a demand is made upon
transport, which to-day is as acute as the scarcity of houses. With
concrete the only constituent calling for transport from a producing
point is cement, and this only involves the movement of one-seventh of
the load which would otherwise be involved were bricks to be used. In
other words, if seven tons of bricks were required to build a house it
would only be requisite to move one ton of cement to yield a similar
house in concrete--the other six tons of essential materials could be
acquired on the site. The avoidance of superfluous expenditure as well
as the economy in time and labour is obvious.
Our towns and cities are daily shedding tons of a specific form
of waste--ashes and clinker from electric generating stations,
water-works, gas-works, and refuse destructors. The contribution
naturally varies according to the population, but a small town burning
40 tons of refuse in its destructor may safely anticipate accumulating
clinker at the rate of 8 to 10 tons a day. The disposal of this residue
presents a problem in itself. A certain quantity can be absorbed in
connection with the sewage beds, road-making and other incidental
tasks, but, for the most part, it has to be dumped, merely because
it possesses no ostensible application. When one reflects upon the
activities of the factories in a manufacturing town and the daily
output of clinker and ash from these sources alone, it will be seen
that the civic clinker disposal problem is likely to assume enormous
dimensions, and to prove a costly issue in itself. Thousands of tons
are dispatched by road, rail and water from our towns and cities to be
jettisoned at suitable points where unsightliness does not count. The
authorities of New York City used to ship hundreds of tons daily 60
miles out to sea, while at Liverpool it had to be barged for 24 miles
to be thrown overboard into the Irish Sea at a cost of 2s. 6d.--60
cents--a ton! Many borough authorities will readily give away the
material to those who care to fetch it, so keen are they to be relieved
of this incubus. Yet, in every instance, the equivalent of sovereigns
are being shot upon the land, dumped into the sea, or given away as the
case may be.
Cannot a more economic use for this and kindred refuse be found? This
is the obvious question in this utilitarian age. Yet it is almost
superfluous to launch the inquiry. It can be turned into concrete:
could, and should, if we were sufficiently enterprising and astute,
as well as frugal in our habits, be turned into houses. Certain
attempts have been made towards the conversion of this residue into
constructional material such as kerb-stones for lining our pavements,
slabs to take the place of York flagstones and bricks for paving
purposes, the building of sheds and other insignificant structures, but
none represents a grim attempt to wrestle with the issue along bold and
comprehensive lines.
Some years ago, the city engineer of Liverpool, Mr. John A. Brodie,
M.Inst.C.E., one of our most enterprising city engineers, essayed a
bigger step forward. He was faced with the disposal of 50,000 tons
of clinker from the city destructors during the year. He made a bold
effort to turn it to economic account in the obvious directions--paving
and kerbing operations--but these channels absorbed only a round 20,000
tons, leaving some 30,000 tons to be shipped to sea to be dumped at a
total annual cost of nearly £4,000--$20,000. The city authorities had
resolved to carry out a tenement building scheme, and the city engineer
decided to provide them in concrete and to use the refuse from the
destructors as the aggregate, exacting tests having convinced him of
its suitability for this purpose.
The building, covering an area of 3,717 square feet, of which total
1,611 square feet are open space, is of three floors with four
tenements on each floor, finished off with a flat roof, surrounded by a
parapet for washing, drying, or playground purposes.
The construction of the building was carried out upon the section or
slab system. That is to say the walls, floors, ceilings, and other
parts, with all necessary openings, were moulded at the destructor
works, and set aside for a time to mature. Some of these slabs were of
imposing dimensions, ranging up to 16 feet in length by 13 feet wide,
14 inches thick and weighing 11 tons. Upon arrival at the site they
were slung into position and dovetailed into place, thus forming a
rigid structure.
As an indication of how modern thought may be hampered severely by
prevailing notions it may be stated that, as a result of his deductions
and experiments, the engineer decided that a thickness of 7 inches
for the walls would be adequate. But his decision was over-ruled. The
existing regulations insisted that brick walls should be 14 inches
thick and the concrete had to comply with these rules. The result
of this indefensible policy, for which misconception and lack of
knowledge were responsible, was to double the weight of the structure
and to inflate the cost of the buildings to an unnecessary degree. The
engineer computed that if construction were carried out upon the lines
he advocated the building could be completed, including the provision
of all necessary plant, for £1,230--$6,150. Enforced compliance with
obsolete rules inflated the cost to £4,072--$20,360. In other words the
ratepayers of Liverpool were compelled to spend £2,842--$14,210--more
than they need have done--a flagrant waste of money, material, time,
labour, and knowledge.
One objection which has been levelled against the concrete house is the
concrete floor. But to surmount this objection the Liverpool engineer
embedded wooden scantlings in the concrete, covered the surface of the
latter with a layer of pitch mixture applied hot, and then nailed down
¹⁄₄-inch floor-boards in the usual manner. In this way the so-called
defects of the concrete floor were completely overcome. The walls
were subjected to several experiments to determine the most suitable
internal finish, some being papered, others plastered, while in further
instances a simple coating of sanitary wash or lime was applied. It
was found, however, that for such buildings, distemper was the most
efficient finishing medium.
This experiment conclusively substantiated the claims advanced by the
engineer. It demonstrated the fact that concrete lends itself to rapid
construction, the Liverpool building, despite its size, being erected
and roofed within three months, notwithstanding frequent cessations
owing to inclement weather, and was ready for occupation within another
eleven weeks--say six months in all. It is safe to assume that had
brick been employed it could never have been finished in the time.
The advantages of concrete for such domiciles are obvious. The
structure is as near being fire-proof as it is possible to contrive.
It complies with every requirement of hygiene. It is substantial,
weather-proof, and sound-proof, while it improves with age. Concrete,
unlike the common grade of brick, does not deteriorate under the
influences of time and weather. The walls offer no refuge for vermin,
unless papered, and should a room become infected as a result of
contagious disease among the inmates, it can be promptly sterilized by
turning on a hose of boiling disinfectant and being scoured from top
to bottom. Rats and mice cannot secure a refuge, because the extreme
hardness of concrete taxes their gnawing powers to the superlative
degree.
The experience of Liverpool was adequate to drive home the fact that
concrete dwellings are not only able to provide the poorer classes
with a substantial home, complying in every respect with modern
requirements, but also indicated a profitable use for an otherwise
useless waste product. Were comprehensive schemes carried out upon
these lines the cost factor might be reduced to the absolute minimum
by recourse to standardization in the preparation of the slabs. As
a result of this initial experiment--the first of its character
in Great Britain--the Liverpool city engineer estimated that he
could erect future buildings of this type, in blocks of five, at
£1,700--$8,500--each, and that this would show a saving of 25 per cent.
over the cost which would be incurred if brick were used. But, and this
was an important factor, to achieve this end it would be incumbent to
allow the engineer to pursue his way unfettered by obsolete ideas,
fallacious notions, and antiquated rules and regulations.
Some years ago Edison precipitated a mild wave of excitement by the
perfection of a process for moulding houses complete in a solid block,
much along the lines followed by the housewife in the preparation of
jellies and other similar table dainties. He suggested the erection of
a mould to the design of the desired house, including both internal and
external artistic embellishments, and then to run the concrete into
the metal shell in liquid form and to allow it to set and harden. Then
the mould was to be demolished, leaving a solid monolithic-structure
from foundation to roof, and without a crack or a joint. The mould,
naturally, was built up in sections, which could be standardized and
interchanged, so that once a set of moulds had been acquired a house of
any desired dimensions might be erected. Of course, this demanded an
imposing array of moulds, entailing heavy initial capital expenditure.
Edison frankly admitted this to be the weak point in his scheme,
because the mould bill for the construction of a “poured” house, as it
was called, costing £240--$1,200--would be at least £5,000--$25,000.
Consequently the suggestion was impracticable, unless the builder were
given an imposing house-building scheme to complete, to enable him to
distribute his mould charges in such a manner over the houses as to
increase the actual building cost of each only by a trifling amount.
Edison’s conception aroused extreme interest in America and provoked
widespread ridicule in these islands. The “poured” house was regarded
in the same light as was the telephone upon its first appearance in
London. As the latter was declared to be merely a “scientific toy,”
so was the poured house described as nothing but a wild dream.
But, be it noted, antagonism and objection have been levelled from
the fickle standpoint of theory; we have no practical experiment to
guide us in our assault upon Edison’s idea. Instead of setting to
work to prove, or disprove, the practicability of the poured house
we wasted time in academic discussions concerning “sweating walls,”
condensation, coldness in winter, and to embark upon high-falutin
diatribes concerning the imperative necessity for such abstract demands
as “breathing bricks,” and other fantastic ideas which possibly are
of interest but do not advance the realization of the cheap house,
contribute to the solution of the housing question, or proffer a single
step towards the utilization of waste.
The Americans are more enlightened. A new idea is subjected to
practical test and discussed afterwards, not destructively, but in
the hope of being able to solve the defects which have manifested
themselves in the experiment with a view to establishing the commercial
success of the idea. While our house-building quidnuncs are leaving
no stone unturned to prevent poured houses becoming an established
practice, our engineers are setting to work in the American fashion,
and as a result we are building poured concrete ships and other
articles of utilitarian value. Possibly they are not poured in the
strict interpretation of the Edisonian term, but modified according to
experience which has been gathered.
In 1909 the International Congress on Tuberculosis assembled at
Washington D.C. To stimulate interest in a house built along such lines
as to comply with the searching requirements of perfect sanitation
and which would be particularly adapted for occupation by persons
suffering from tuberculosis, a reward was offered for the best model
of a germ-proof house. A young Washington architect-engineer attacked
the problem, submitted his conception for such a house, of the “poured”
type, and because it triumphed over all competitors, which clung to the
rutted line of thought, in the provision of light, air, and sanitation
features, carried off the prize.
In this design the cellar which, if damp, forms an ideal
breeding-ground for germs and disease, was eliminated. Floors, walls,
ceilings, cornices, bath--all were of cement poured into moulds. In
each room the floor was given a slightly sloping depression at one
corner and provided with a suitable outlet and trap. The idea was
obvious. The housewife on cleaning day did not raise impenetrable
clouds of dust to pollute the room. She simply removed her furniture,
together with all hangings, to be beaten in the open air. Then she
turned on a hose and flushed floor, walls, and ceilings, the water
escaping through the trap. No dust whatever was raised, and the
room was left dry, sweet, and clean. There were many other features
contributing to the general attractiveness of the scheme. The model
aroused more interest than any other at the Congress exhibition, but,
while one and all declared the house to possess every attractive
feature, it was regarded as merely a fantastic conception.
But, within the past eight years, more than one little “poured cement”
garden city has come into being in the United States. The first
commercialization of the germ-proof house was made near Washington. It
was run up and occupied within 30 days, and was conceded to be one of
the prettiest and most comfortable homes in the countryside, although
it cost only about £400--$2,000. To-day it is surrounded by many others.
The scheme has triumphed because the Washington architect-engineer,
instead of deriding Edison and dwelling upon the defects of the idea,
set out to overcome the problems involved, especially that identified
with the moulds. He has succeeded. Instead of demanding an initial
expenditure of £5,000--$25,000--upon this preliminary he has reduced
the mould expense down to £100--$500. This brings the idea within
the reach of commerce. He does not advocate a mould for the complete
house, but pursues what may be described as sectional-stage moulding.
Plates of steel are pressed into flanged sections 24 inches square.
These are clipped and wedged together to form a trough to hold the
liquid cement until it hardens. Above this row of plates is disposed a
second similar row, forming another trough upon the top of that which
has already been filled, and which is setting. When the lower trough
contents have hardened the lower array of plates is rolled over to form
another trough above the one in which the cement has been run, this
overlapping process, as the wall hardens, being continued until the top
has been reached. These plates also serve as forms for the moulding
of the floors and roof, and are additionally attractive because they
readily admit of the introduction of any desired artistic finish. It is
a system which lends itself to cheap and rapid construction, as events
have amply proved. That the “poured” germ-proof house, built in one
solid block, possesses distinct advantages over the building carried
out along orthodox lines is evident from the alacrity with which such
homes are purchased or occupied, a tendency which is just as pronounced
in this country as in the United States. This tends to demonstrate that
while the man-in-the-street knows nothing concerning the pros and cons
of building materials, he certainly does appreciate the overwhelming
advantages of concrete, which, be it noted, is the logical antidote to
jerry-building.
That the poured, one-piece house is not merely attractive because
of its relative cheapness is evidenced by the number of stately
homes which have been built in accordance with this principle upon
the other side of the Atlantic. Seeing that these homes have been
built to the order of, and are occupied by, those to whom cost is a
trifling consideration, it would certainly seem as if the so-called
defects of the poured house were more imaginary than real. I have seen
magnificent homes, ranging in cost from £5,000 to £25,000--$25,000 to
$125,000--built from foundation to roof upon the Edisonian idea. They
certainly would have been promptly demolished and rebuilt in other
material if the monolithic house possessed even the slightest sign of
any one of the many ills to which it is academically said to be exposed.
Industrial corporations in the United States, as in Britain, are faced
with problems concerning the housing of their employees. And they are
just as perplexing to solve. The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western
Railroad Company was concerned with the provision of homes for its
wage-earners in the vicinity of one of its mines. The question was
surveyed from every possible angle, and finally it was decided that the
only really attractive solution was the provision of a little garden
city of concrete houses, built upon the poured system. The authorities
concluded that in this way only would it be possible to provide
model sanitary homes, possessing every inducement, at an attractive
price, and the project was handed over to the architect-engineer
whose germ-proof house had aroused the interest of the International
Tuberculosis Congress two years previously.
The houses are built in pairs, thus being semi-detached. Each is of
two floors with flat roof, the accommodation comprising on the ground
floor living- and dining-rooms measuring 11 feet and 11 feet 6 inches by
12 feet 4 inches, respectively, large kitchen, pantry, and commodious
lobby with the projecting porch incidental to American homes. Upon
the first floor are two bedrooms measuring 11 feet 3 inches and 11
feet 6 inches by 12 feet 6 inches, a smaller room, and a porch which
may be used as an open-air sleeping chamber, if desired, or lounge,
with the usual offices. The houses are set out after the manner now
being followed in these islands, that is around the four sides of a
rectangle, facing a commodious green and flanked on the opposite side
by a deep green lawn. The roads skirt the village on all sides, the
highway approaches to the inner square being diagonally from each of
the four corners.
In carrying out the scheme the designer decided to utilize to the full
the available materials upon the spot. This was waste from the adjacent
mines, in the form of cinders, with hydrate of lime to give density and
weather-proofness. Speed in construction being a vital factor, a novel
system was introduced. A railway track was laid around the entire group
of 40 houses. The mixing plant was mounted upon one flat car which
was also equipped with an efficient apparatus to hoist the concrete.
Behind this was a second car carrying the cement, sand, and cinder. The
ingredients were shovelled into the mixer, work being continuous. The
train pulled up before the first pair of houses, the moulds forming
the trough of which were in position. The concrete was hoisted and
discharged into an elevated hopper on the vehicle from which a feed
pipe and spout was extended to the mould trough of the house-wall. The
concrete was run into the trough until it was filled, when the stream
was shut off, the feed pipe lifted, and the train moved on to the next
house, where the cycle of operations was repeated. By the time the
train had completed its circuit and had again reached the first house
the concrete previously poured had hardened sufficiently to permit the
moulds to be raised to form the succeeding trough, and so was ready to
receive another pouring of cement. It will be seen that construction
throughout the 40 houses was not only continuous but each supply of
concrete increased the height of the wall by about 24 inches, or
completed the flooring as the case might be. The building process was
not only exceedingly simple, being free from all complicated mechanism,
but involved the employment of the minimum of labour, which conduced
to extremely cheap erection. The re-setting of the moulds occasions in
this system no difficulty, inasmuch as being hinged they are merely
swung up and automatically fall into position to form the mould. The
work was commenced late in the year 1911 and was completed in the
spring of 1912, having to be suspended during the winter months, when,
of course, all building operations, irrespective of materials used, is
brought to a standstill.
The houses provided in this manner are not only attractive, but are
provided at a price bringing them readily within the reach of the
wage-earner. True, one objection might be levelled against such
standardization as it were, and that is the stereotyped design, but in
this instance this is possible of decided relief by resort to tree,
shrub, and flower embellishment in which individuality is given free
rein, and which effectively breaks up all tendency towards monotony.
But apart from extraneous treatment, the village cannot be described
as being more monotonous than our terrace system of providing homes
for the workers so common to our industrial centres, while even our
much-vaunted garden cities are freely criticized from the general
atmosphere of similarity.
However, it is cost of construction which constitutes the all-important
factor, and the poured house has demonstrated what can be done in
this instance. A similar cement city is under way for residential
purposes upon the outskirts of Chicago. The bungalow type of house is
being favoured here. In this instance cellar walls and first-story
walls, measuring some 30 by 40 feet, have been poured in four days.
The cost of construction has been exceptionally low, even for America
where higher wages and charges prevail, the cost of building a 6-inch
wall which in poured concrete is ample for either one-or two-story
buildings, having been brought down to 4d.--8 cents--per foot, which is
well below the cost of frame houses, admittedly the cheapest form of
construction in the United States.
The poured house or any other system of monolithic structure wrought
in concrete is freely assailed in these islands for being damp,
intolerably cold in winter, hot in summer, and the walls liable
to condensation. These are the popular objections raised against
the idea. But the experience of those who live in such homes in
America completely refutes such statements. The houses are declared
emphatically to be bone-dry, exceptionally warm in winter with a
freedom from draughts, cool in summer, and free from condensation. The
latter defect, it is pointed out, even if it should become manifest,
is not irremediable. The chemist can solve it quickly and cheaply. But
the great feature which makes irresistible appeal to those who dwell in
such homes is that they are always sweet and clean. Washing down walls,
ceilings and floors of a room at one and the same time with a garden
hose is something beyond the comprehension of British householders,
but they will scarcely deny its virtues, and, probably, wish heartily
that they were in a similar happy position, because nothing detracts
so seriously from the pleasures and comfort of the home as dust and
dinginess.
While we display an inexplicable hesitation to build a single house
upon the poured system to discover the character of the objections
which are said to obtain, thereby ignoring the precept that an ounce of
solid fact is worth a ton of theory, we are steadily moving towards the
concrete home, although the pioneers are being called upon to battle
fiercely against the organized forces of prejudice, conservatism,
and vested interests. In order to comply with national and other
traditions, so far as practicable, the brick system is being followed.
Machines have been devised whereby bricks, but wrought in concrete, are
speedily and cheaply produced.
The outstanding characteristic of the most approved of these appliances
is the ability to fashion brick-like masses of concrete of varying
sizes and dimensions. One of the most handy machines of this character
is the “Winget,” wherewith a wide variety of concrete formations may be
fashioned cheaply and expeditiously, and adapted to every conceivable
building requirement. This machine is noteworthy from the simplicity of
its design and operation, compactness, and high speed of working, as
well as imposing the minimum demand upon skilled labour. The concrete
is not run, but is shovelled into the mould and tamped down. When
charged the depression of a lever lifts the block, and in such a manner
as to permit its ready removal by two men armed with a carrying bar
fitted with forks which grip the under edges of the mass.
This machine has been extensively utilized in this country, and it
has proved highly efficient in working. It is excellently adapted
for the preparation of blocks or slabs from waste materials, such
as the clinker refuse from electric light generating stations,
dust-destructors, and other industrial establishments in general, as
well as such other residues as coke breeze, chalk, and rubble. High
speed of working, combined with the size of the block which may be
turned out therewith, enables it to consume such material at relatively
high speed. In a Midland town where aggregate of a waste character
was required for the fashioning of such blocks, the whole of the
daily accumulation of residue from the local electric light station,
averaging seven tons, had to be supplemented by supplies of similar
waste from private industrial establishments to keep the machine
working steadily throughout the day.
With such a machine practically any form of inorganic residue can
be put to useful constructional account. Its perfection is enabling
private authorities to exploit profitably dumps of refuse which have
long been eyesores in the locality for material to satisfy their own
building needs. One gas company, which formerly contracted in the usual
way for extensions to its buildings, generally in brick or stone, now
completes all such work with its own labour and with its own waste, its
one expenditure for material being the requisite cement. It encountered
pronounced difficulty in disposing of the coke breeze or dust; it
was virtually unmarketable. Conspicuous piles accumulated because it
was disdained as fuel. The company acquired a “Winget ” machine, and
by mixing the breeze with cement converted the useless refuse into
substantial building blocks. Those which it does not require for its
own building operations find a ready market. The outstanding fact,
however, is that all recent building extensions are carried out with
concrete blocks prepared upon the spot from material which the company
produces during the conduct of its business and which has always been
considered waste having no commercial value whatever.
To the municipality, faced with residue accumulating from the refuse
destructor, gas, and electric lighting installations, such a machine
is virtually indispensable. It offers a complete economic solution to
a perplexing problem. A certain amount of official building is always
necessary, and concrete blocks with clinker forming the aggregate
constitutes an ideal and inexpensive material. One great objection
often raised against the utilization of cinder and other similar
residue for this purpose is the dingy tone of the resultant block. But
this need not constitute a handicap. If used for the external walls of
cottages the concrete can be finished off in rough-cast, or may even
be plastered and painted. In many instances excellent reproductions of
half-timbered styles have been carried out in this material, and are
far more substantial than those wrought in the conventional brick.
But the chemist must be harnessed to the development, that is if the
most satisfactory results are to be obtained. It is the tendency
to ignore the chemist which has been responsible for much concrete
failure for homes in the past. It is imperative that clinker refuse be
analysed. If it be associated with fused glass it is useless for the
purpose, for the simple reason that the smooth surface of the glass
fails to afford the requisite gripping surface to the cement. Unless
care be displayed in this connection disintegration of the block will
set in, in which event the concrete will be condemned as a failure
when, as a matter of fact, it is the ignorance of the individual and
the presence of the glass which are responsible for collapse. Similarly
it is essential that the aggregate should be free from organic
material. This may be intensely dry when the mixing of the concrete
is taken in hand. But the organic material will absorb the moisture
after the manner of a sponge, continuing to do so until completely
saturated. As a result of this action the material necessarily expands,
and so will bring about the breakdown of the concrete. Therefore, if
full advantage be taken of the chemist specializing in constructional
material in the scientific preparation of concrete, as is done in
Germany and the United States, failures will be few and far between.
The authorities of our towns and cities are called upon to handle
5,300,000 tons of dust and rubble collected in the dust-bins of the
population during the year. In addition millions of tons of similar
refuse accumulate from the consumption of coal and coke by the
thousands of industrial establishments scattered over the country. How
much of this huge yield of waste is turned to industrial account? But
an insignificant fraction, as is proved by its commanding no market
value. Certain enterprising authorities, such as the City Fathers of
Glasgow, by taking a little trouble, are able to dispose of the whole
of their output of this residue and at a profitable figure. Surely what
can be done by one authority is capable of being achieved by others up
and down the country.
But clinker waste is not the only refuse adapted to building
operations. Concrete is something like paper--can be made virtually
from anything. There are few building sites which are not capable
of yielding something in this respect. This was demonstrated very
conclusively in the course of the development of an estate in Ireland.
The work was most comprehensive, involving the provision of factories,
workshops, farm buildings, and private residences. To prepare the
site it was necessary to remove a substantial hill. Instead of
excavating the obstacle, dumping and levelling the soil in the usual
manner, it was turned into a “Winget” machine to be converted into
concrete blocks, which were then utilized as the wherewithal for the
construction of the buildings. The result was conspicuously successful,
and it is doubtful whether the development scheme could have been
carried out so economically and inexpensively in any other way.
There are welcome signs of revived interest in the possibilities
of concrete for the building of our homes. In many parts of the
country there are enormous hillocks which at the moment are nothing
but eyesores. The pottery district may be cited as a case in point.
These disfiguring piles have hitherto been ignored, although the
localities are clamouring wildly for increased housing accommodation
to satisfy the demands of their citizens. Yet these heaps are really
potential mines of wealth. Associated with cement and deftly fashioned
they can be converted into concrete bricks, the waste constituting
ideal material for the aggregate, while, should we be sufficiently
enterprising to acknowledge the possibilities of the poured cement
house, their value is equally established. No city, town, or village
in these islands should suffer from a shortage of houses for its
peoples, and none need tarry for bricks. They have ample constructional
material at their very doors to build as many houses as they can
possibly desire. To turn these potential resources to account it is
only necessary to abandon our moth-eaten shibboleths, revise our laws
and regulations governing building operations, forget a good deal of
what we are supposed to have learned in the past, and turn to science
and engineering with a more enlightened spirit. By combining the artist
with the engineer and the chemist, and by admitting the utilitarian
possibilities of waste, all the difficulties assailing this country
at the present moment in regard to one of its greatest sociological
problems might be overcome, and the inhabitants of the British Isles
provided with drier, more comfortable, and more durable and artistic
homes than have ever been brought within their reach during the
centuries which have passed, and at a fraction of the cost which is now
held to be inevitable if brick is to be employed.