"Bruce" wrote in message news
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:52:14 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote on 04 September
2009 02:41:35 ...
What's this effect called?


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...8. 15,,3,4.76


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...,200.99,,3,2.6

I think London would look better if concrete structures such as the
Hammersmith flyover used this effect, but I don't know how expensive it
would be.

I think the Hammersmith Flyover is one of the best looking concrete
viaducts, and wouldn't be improved by that sort of treatment (and I
don't know what it's called).


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...JjAo2hmTbOlgpv
bw978fQ&cbp=12,41.4,,0,-3.45&ll=51.491057,-0.225048&spn=0,359.958801&z=15


The effect in Basil Jet's linked images is called "stucco" and it is a
style of rendering, not a concrete finish.

It's cut stone and has nothing to do with concrete at all.

The style is rustication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rustication_(architecture)



Nowadays stucco is formed
in cement render, but it was formerly done in lime render. It was
very extensively used in London to give cheaply-built brick and rubble
structures the external appearance of masonry. Much of London's
stucco incorporated horse hair to give it greater resistance to
cracking. Some modern cement renders include artificial fibres for
the same reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stucco

It is difficult, although not impossible, to finish concrete in this
way. You need specialist foam rubber moulds which do not come cheap
and you don't get many uses out of them before they break. Indeed, a
high proportion of foam rubber moulds have to be scrapped after their
first use, as it is difficult to strip them cleanly from the formed
concrete. This makes for a very expensive finish.

The Hammersmith Flyover was one of the first viaducts in the UK to be
built using a precast,


The supports of the Hammersmith flyover were cast on site using wooden
shuttering. Only the decking supporting the roadway used precast sections.

The preservation of the wooden texture of the shuttering as a design element
is a feature of much New Brutalist architecture. And first really came to national
prominence\notoriety in the UK with completion of the the National Theatre
Hayward Gallery complex on the South Bank,


michael adams





pre-stressed post-tensioned reinforced concrete
balanced cantilever method of construction. The prominent lines are
at the location of the joints between the concrete sections of bridge
superstructure. In order to avoid the appearance of uneven joints,
the designer wisely decided to make a feature of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammersmith_Flyover

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:39:21 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message news
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:52:14 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote on 04 September
2009 02:41:35 ...
What's this effect called?


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...8. 15,,3,4.76


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...,200.99,,3,2.6

I think London would look better if concrete structures such as the
Hammersmith flyover used this effect, but I don't know how expensive it
would be.

I think the Hammersmith Flyover is one of the best looking concrete
viaducts, and wouldn't be improved by that sort of treatment (and I
don't know what it's called).


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...JjAo2hmTbOlgpv
bw978fQ&cbp=12,41.4,,0,-3.45&ll=51.491057,-0.225048&spn=0,359.958801&z=15


The effect in Basil Jet's linked images is called "stucco" and it is a
style of rendering, not a concrete finish.

It's cut stone and has nothing to do with concrete at all.

The style is rustication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rustication_(architecture)


You must have much better eyesight than mine; that decorative feature
is very common as a finish to stucco, but if you are absolutely
certain ...


The supports of the Hammersmith flyover were cast on site using wooden
shuttering. Only the decking supporting the roadway used precast sections.


The piers (you can call them supports if you wish) were clearly cast
in-situ but the vast majority of the structure was precast,
pre-stressed post-tensioned reinforced concrete.


The preservation of the wooden texture of the shuttering as a design element
is a feature of much New Brutalist architecture. And first really came to national
prominence\notoriety in the UK with completion of the the National Theatre
Hayward Gallery complex on the South Bank


What's that I hear? Oh, it's the sound of an axe being ground. ;-)

"Bruce" wrote in message

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:39:21 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


The preservation of the wooden texture of the shuttering as a design
element
is a feature of much New Brutalist architecture. And first really
came to national prominence\notoriety in the UK with completion of
the the National Theatre
Hayward Gallery complex on the South Bank


What's that I hear? Oh, it's the sound of an axe being ground. ;-)

Well, FWIW, I thought that raw, rough finished concrete was hideous when
it first started to appear in the 1960s(?), and still do. Perhaps it
works in Arizona, but not in Britain's damp, cool climate.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:27:28 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
What's that I hear? Oh, it's the sound of an axe being ground. ;-)

Well, FWIW, I thought that raw, rough finished concrete was hideous when
it first started to appear in the 1960s(?), and still do. Perhaps it
works in Arizona, but not in Britain's damp, cool climate.

Depends where it is and how its maintained. The concrete parts of the
Barbican I think look quite nice.

B2003

wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:27:28 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
What's that I hear? Oh, it's the sound of an axe being ground. ;-)

Well, FWIW, I thought that raw, rough finished concrete was hideous
when it first started to appear in the 1960s(?), and still do.
Perhaps it works in Arizona, but not in Britain's damp, cool climate.

Depends where it is and how its maintained. The concrete parts of the
Barbican I think look quite nice.

Yes, they do look better, but still rather depressing on a grey day.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:01:25 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:27:28 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
What's that I hear? Oh, it's the sound of an axe being ground. ;-)

Well, FWIW, I thought that raw, rough finished concrete was hideous
when it first started to appear in the 1960s(?), and still do.
Perhaps it works in Arizona, but not in Britain's damp, cool climate.

Depends where it is and how its maintained. The concrete parts of the
Barbican I think look quite nice.

Yes, they do look better, but still rather depressing on a grey day.


If you want to see "board marked finish" (technical term) at its very
best, visit Bristol's Roman Catholic Cathedral, located in Clifton.
The interior features a lot of board marked white concrete, and most
people seem to like it.

Bruce wrote:
"Recliner" wrote:

Well, FWIW, I thought that raw, rough finished concrete was hideous
when it first started to appear in the 1960s(?), and still do.
Perhaps it works in Arizona, but not in Britain's damp, cool
climate.


If you want to see "board marked finish" (technical term) at its very
best, visit Bristol's Roman Catholic Cathedral, located in Clifton.
The interior features a lot of board marked white concrete, and most
people seem to like it.

Presumably the climate inside the cathedral isn't damp and cool.

"Bruce" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:39:21 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:52:14 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote on 04 September
2009 02:41:35 ...
What's this effect called?



http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...17&layer=c&cbl
l=51.511071,-0.107968&panoid=4ei3g9oz7njPRuf2h6AyBg&cbp=12,358. 15,,3,4.76



http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...=16&layer=c&cb
ll=51.510959,-0.111906&panoid=tub4InydM9YD-wxkYOGmeg&cbp=12,200.99,,3,2.6

I think London would look better if concrete structures such as the
Hammersmith flyover used this effect, but I don't know how expensive it
would be.

I think the Hammersmith Flyover is one of the best looking concrete
viaducts, and wouldn't be improved by that sort of treatment (and I
don't know what it's called).



http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...XJjAo2hmTbOlgp
v
bw978fQ&cbp=12,41.4,,0,-3.45&ll=51.491057,-0.225048&spn=0,359.958801&z=15


The effect in Basil Jet's linked images is called "stucco" and it is a
style of rendering, not a concrete finish.

It's cut stone and has nothing to do with concrete at all.

The style is rustication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rustication_(architecture)


You must have much better eyesight than mine; that decorative feature
is very common as a finish to stucco, but if you are absolutely
certain ...

....

The Victoria Embankment is faced entirely in grey granite. Both the
embankment itself and most of the buildings facing.

Even without the benefit of eyesight even a blind man could feel
the difference between granite and stucco.


....




The supports of the Hammersmith flyover were cast on site using wooden
shuttering. Only the decking supporting the roadway used precast sections.


The piers (you can call them supports if you wish) were clearly cast
in-situ but the vast majority of the structure was precast,
pre-stressed post-tensioned reinforced concrete.

....

The features being discussed, the outline of the shuttering formwork and the
grain of the wood are found solely in the supports. The OP was claiming this to
be a feature of the pre-cast sections when clearly it isn't.

....



The preservation of the wooden texture of the shuttering as a design element
is a feature of much New Brutalist architecture. And first really came to national
prominence\notoriety in the UK with completion of the the National Theatre
Hayward Gallery complex on the South Bank


What's that I hear? Oh, it's the sound of an axe being ground. ;-)


By Big-Ears and friends maybe. Not by me. An even better example of form-work vaulting
is to be found under the Edgware Road flyover.


michael adams

....

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 16:18:10 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

The Victoria Embankment is faced entirely in grey granite. Both the
embankment itself and most of the buildings facing.

Even without the benefit of eyesight even a blind man could feel
the difference between granite and stucco.


Given the very poor resolution of the Google image, and the fact that
my arms are not quite long enough to stretch from Buckinghamshire to
the Victoria Embankment to "feel the difference", I'll have to take
your word for it.

But anyone with good observation will know that there are a great many
buildings in London with stucco finishes which copy that style of
masonry. The whole idea of stucco - as practised very widely in
London - was to provide the appearance of fine masonry without the
attendant high cost.

"Bruce" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 16:18:10 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

The Victoria Embankment is faced entirely in grey granite. Both the
embankment itself and most of the buildings facing.

Even without the benefit of eyesight even a blind man could feel
the difference between granite and stucco.


Given the very poor resolution of the Google image, and the fact that
my arms are not quite long enough to stretch from Buckinghamshire to
the Victoria Embankment to "feel the difference", I'll have to take
your word for it.

But anyone with good observation will know that there are a great many
buildings in London with stucco finishes which copy that style of
masonry. The whole idea of stucco - as practised very widely in
London - was to provide the appearance of fine masonry without the
attendant high cost.

That's correct. Especially in areas such as Pimlico (Cubbit) and Regents
Park (Nash).

And all painted sparkling white.


michael adams

....