11ant
2025-10-19 21:00:33
- #1
I still don’t see a photo of a botched shell construction, nor the concept of joint filling. That may be the case with some bricklayers, but not with everyone. The concept of stone cutting still exists. [...]
Because Madame, that is me, chose different sill heights for the windows on the design side, as well as a staggered roof with two different slopes. [...] Nowadays, for example, one can also build well with aerated concrete
You didn’t understand it (which is not bad for a hobby planner, but the case is different with an architect). Yes, you can see a flawed shell construction even before the bricklayers have started, namely on the plan. Poor workmanship pockets are not caused by unmotivated or not quite alcohol-free bricklayers, but are caused at the planning stage. Stone cutting cannot cure the problem. Any truncation of the interlocking area leads to joint filling; and a saw-friendly material hardness does not change that. Cuts parallel (or also diagonal) to the bed joints are unproblematic.
Let’s take concrete wall section lengths from the local plans: 106.5 / 409.5 / 308.5 / 113.5 are a. four stones (three vertical joints) and 6.5 cm, b. 16 stones (15 vertical joints) and 9.5 cm, c. 12 stones (eleven vertical joints) plus 8.5 cm as well as d. four stones (three vertical joints) and 13.5 cm. In example B, the bricklayer begins the first / third / fifth ... layer with the first, last, second, penultimate, third, antepenultimate etc. stone; between the eighth and the eighth-last stone a gap of 9.5 cm yawns. Here he now saws a stone of 8.5 cm, which he places against the eighth stone and closes towards the eighth-last stone with a mortar joint, which is not foreseen in the interlocking masonry system. As a retrained watchmaker, he could also divide 9.5 cm by fifteen vertical joints and place each stone with 6⅓ millimeters of space (visually inconspicuous because it is below the amplitude of the interlocking). Honestly: this does not occur in practice. The disturbance of the rhythm and the overlap measure by about a fifth of a stone is here dozens of times more likely. Who botched it: the contractor who simply lets bricklayers build instead of retrained watchmakers, or perhaps rather the planning artist living in the ivory tower?
The standard dimensions (in the example 111.5 / 411.5 / 311.5 / 111.5) would have deviated by 5 cm / 2 cm / 3 cm / 2 cm and all be realizable with standard and special stones, without leaving the dry (here: header-) bond. Homogeneous, clean. The artistic nonconformist path brings no added value whatsoever to compensate for its complications. Ignorance without advantage.
I have no idea what you are reading into this word. “Special dimension” simply means “not a standard dimension” – for whatever reasons the non-standard is chosen.
Whether special or fantasy dimensions – one might think everyone means the same thing
No. A non-standard dimension with a reasonable cause (weighing goods between standard and exception reason) is a special dimension, and without a reasonable cause it is a fantasy dimension (pure folly).
I state: There is a plot of land that the client does not like as it is now, because it has a slope, and the client would just like it flat. The architect consistently implements this in his design. That is his task. We were not present for the advisory discussions about this.
Make the earth “subjugated” – not “a victim.” “Me me me – after me the flood” / L'État, c’est moi. If in hillside locations everyone only thinks of themselves, one can make entire landscapes shaped by many building plots into rice terraces. If you had filled your plot flat up to its summit height, your village around it would lie in darkness. There is a reason why building law sets limits above which even “harmless sandbox games” count as independent buildings.