Page images
PDF
EPUB

upon the frontages they should in that case refund to the highway authority the first cost of the street making.

As to difficulty No. 2. In this case the powers of the Public Health Act are evidently being used for the private advantage of the owners of the land on the north side. The highway authorities are not entirely to blame, for if they are to make this street no other course is open to them than to give notice under the Public Health Act, 1875, which provides that the cost of making new streets shall be charged on the frontagers thereto.

I am of opinion that in all cases power should be given to highway authorities to charge, and they should be required to charge, the cost of constructing new streets upon the parties who undertook to make them when they were first laid out, or whoever may have accepted the respon sibility, and especially in a case like the one mentioned, they should have power to charge, and be required to charge, the cost of the street on the owner in whose interest it is constructed.

As to difficulty No. 3. I think that in addition to the general plans and sections of streets made when an estate is set out there should be. with every building plan, a large scale drawing showing the materials and levels to be adopted in the part of the street fronting to any particular building.

It should then be the duty of the highway authority to see that the curb-stones and causeway are properly and permanently laid in accordance with the plans and sections first sent in. That being done, the authority should accept the causeway as permanently made and not have power to require the same to be reconstructed (except at public cost) any more than they have power to require a building once properly finished to be altered. This plan would give a permanent footway to every building frontage that is occupied.

My justification for this is that immediately a new building is erected it is as a rule occupied and pays its full share of all rates and taxes, including the highway rate, and the owner is therefore entitled to have any permanent street work that is done taken off his hands.

The carriage-way might be left to be done at the proper time, all at once, under notice in the usual way.

As to the construction of streets, I think it most unfair to have all streets made at equal expense. There should be a differential plan for the construction as there is for the widths, according to surroundings and circumstances.

If I have succeeded in drawing attention to some of the difficulties of setting out and constructing new streets, I shall be asked, "What has all that to do with the Yorkshire Committee of The Surveyors' Institution?" My reply is that we as surveyors and property agents are, by our every-day practice, drawn into close connection with these matters, and have many opportunities of protesting against the inconvenience and often injustice meted out to small property owners. And further, as The Surveyors' Institution is now recognised by Parliament, I wish to suggest that it is the duty of the Institution to give attention to the alterations, and, as some Members of Parliament say, amendments, made from time to time in

Local Government procedure, and we should use our influence in obtaining clauses in any general Act that would tend to remedy some of the defects I have endeavoured to remind you of. I hold that, after all, the speculator, or the speculative builder, or small property owner--call him what you like-is the man who extends our towns and provides homes for the bulk of the people of the country, and in these days of associations I consider that it is our duty under our charter to do everything which in us lies to promote the good government of the country in our special circle of practice.

SELECTED PAPER READ AT A JUNIOR MEETING.

The Measurement of Stonework.

Read by N. T. COWIN (Professional Associate), at a Junior Meeting of THE SURVEYORS' INSTITUTION, on Monday, 16th November, 1896. THIS is one of the most difficult branches of the quantity surveyor's work; difficult because so few have the opportunity of gaining that practical knowledge of the working of stone which is indispensable to its accurate measurement. It is chiefly owing to the want of knowledge as to the way a stone should be worked, that various opinions exist as to the best method of measuring it both in taking the dimensions for the stone and also for the labor.

There are two methods of measuring stonework. One is to take the cubical contents of each stone and then what are known as the "labors" upon it; the other is to include in the measurement of the stone for all labors ; the work being separated under different heads according to the nature of the labor as "stone and all labor in weathered string course," "ditto circular," "ditto molded."

I say there are two methods, but I have met with a third, which was applied to work for a large mansion. The whole of the stone in this case was measured by the foot cube and described as "stone and all labor in molded dressings," this being followed by a host of items of "extra labours" (measured by the foot run and numbered), such as "extra labor forming dentils (giving size and projection) in cornice," "extra labor forming raised molded panels" (giving size). This method seems to me utterly incorrect, although adopted by a surveyor with a large practice. How is it possible to ascertain in some cases at a glance, or even after careful consideration whether to take an item of "extra labor" on a particular piece of stone, and further how is the correct value of this item of "extra labor" to be obtained.

The method of "stone including labor," which I have already described is the one most favoured by surveyors, because a great deal of time and trouble is saved by its adoption. It is, however, only excusable when there is a small quantity of stonework in the building or when the

[ocr errors]

work is to be estimated by country builders who would only be confused, were the "labors" taken out in detail.

:

The reason given to justify the measurement of stonework in all cases inclusive of labour is that builders, when pricing, pass over the items of labor only and put a price on the cube stone that they consider will pay for the labor of working it. This is true enough but that the labor items are of great assistance to a builder when pricing is unquestionable. A proof of this is furnished in a case I heard of some time ago where a large firm of London builders claimed for an increase on their price for the stonework to a particular building, because they had been misled as to the character of the work through the labors not being taken out in detail. The claim, though disallowed, was perfectly justifiable, the work being of an elaborate description.

Before considering the measurement of stonework with the labors taken separately, it will be well to enumerate those rules which apply generally.

Stone over 3 inches in thickness is, with few exceptions, measured by the foot cube; that under 3 inches in thickness by the foot super, and described as stone measured net and allow for waste, setting in mortar or cement, as the case may be, hoisting to the required position, casing, and cleaning down at completion." The height of the hoisting should be stated when exceeding 30 feet from the ground. Stones over 6 feet long or containing more than 30 cubic feet must be kept separate from the ordinary work. The dimensions of each stone should be taken as that of the smallest rectangular block required when worked, making no allowance for waste in sawing. This rule does not apply, however, if two stones can be sawn out of one, as in spandril steps, feather-edge copings and blocking-courses; for these the average thickness or width should be taken and an allowance made of half an inch for waste in sawing. The fact that "and allow for waste" is put in the description of the cube stone in the bill does not affect the allowance on these items. The additional sawing required to convert feather-edge stones to that required to convert square ones must necessarily entail more waste, and this would be lost sight of if no allowance were made, for all cube stone in block is billed under one heading, and the waste to be allowed for is reckoned when pricing as that which would occur were all the stones sawn square before being worked. Voussoirs of arches should be measured in the same way as the items just mentioned, but they are customarily taken as square stones.

Having taken the cubical contents of the stone, the labors on the various faces are measured, starting with the beds and joints.

"Labors" should be measured per foot super, if in broad surfaces, per foot run, if in narrow surfaces (3 inches girth or width and under), and per number if in very small quantities.

The labor "plain bed or joint" is that required to render the stone perfectly square for setting against other work and is customarily measured on two sides of the stone only instead of on all four sides as worked. Thus the dimensions for "bed and joint" to any stone would be the

length plus the depth or thickness by the width. It will be clear that only one joint being measured to each stone where two beds and two joints occur, the quantity measured is half that actually executed, hence the labor taken for each side can only be considered as equal to half bed or half joint. Beds and joints should be taken to every block of stone except in cases where the stone is not of rectangular form before being worked, as in spandril steps, feather-edge coping, &c. In these cases half beds or half joints are taken where they occur.

Should the beds or joints be sunk below the surface of the stone as in voussoirs of arches or rebates in jambs for door frames, the extra labor involved is allowed for by measuring each face so treated and describing the work as "sunk joint" or "sunk joint circular" as the case may be.

A description of labor termed "half-sawing" is taken to those faces upon which there is no other labor, as all other labors are understood to include "half-sawing." The back of the stone, if coming against brickwork and not left rough as usual, should be measured as "half-sawing."

"Rough sunk work" should be taken wherever any rough sinking is required, as in notching a pier stone round an iron stanchion or column.

Apart from the labors already mentioned, the various labors executed on stonework may be classed under three distinct heads, viz., plain, sunk, and molded work. These labors are measured as seen on the finished faces; in the case of sunk and molded work the dimensions are the length by the net girth.

"Plain work" is taken to all faces of the stone which will be seen after setting, except those portions otherwise worked and described as "plain work rubbed " or " tooled," as may be specified.

When the surface is curved one way as to the inner or outer edge of a circular curb it is called "plain work circular," when curved two ways as to the internal or external surface of a dome " plain work circular, circular." The only way of arriving at the correct quantity in the latter case is to take the item in one dimension, and not to take it on each stone when dealing with the other labors.

[ocr errors]

Sunk work" is taken for the labor in forming rebates, weatherings, chases, &c.; if the rebating, &c., is on a curved surface, it is called "sunk work circular." Sunk work to the faces of a diminished pilaster is usually kept separate. If the pilaster has an entasis, a further separation is necessary, the item being described as "sunk work to swelled and diminished pilaster shaft." The same remarks will apply to a diminished column, the "sunk work" in this case, of course, being described as "circular." The "face labor" to a diminished column with entasis is sometimes taken assunk work circular circular."

An unaccountable distinction is made by some surveyors between "plain work” to convex and that to concave surfaces; the former being described as "plain work circular," and the latter as "sunk work circular." The only reason I can see for this is, that it may possibly be necessary to cut away more stone to form a concave surface than a convex one, but, even if this is so, would this difference be worth taking into consideration? To separate labors of such equal values as these appear to

M

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

"Molded work" is taken for the labor in forming moldings, and is usually separated if Gothic, or if in tracery. In the measurement of moldings is short lengths, or in tracery the lengths should be taken to the extremities of the mitres or intersections.

All sunk and molded work is kept separate if "in short lengths" (not exceeding 6 inches) or "stopped."

The term "stopped " is attached to the various items of labor in sunk and molded work if the sinking or molding does not extend the full length or breadth of the stone. The intersection of sinkings or moldings with vertical or oblique surfaces are called "stops," these being numbered, stating the girth of the sinking or molding, as well as the work being described as "stopped."

Mitres to sunk and molded work are measured in the same way as stops.

[ocr errors]

Whenever "plain work occurs on those faces of a stone which have previously been measured as "bed and joint," it is necessary to take the same dimensions as the "plain work" for a deduction of "half-bed" or "half-joint." But whenever sunk and molded work occurs on these faces, no deduction is made, as the "beds and joints" would in all cases be worked before the sinkings or moldings were run.

It is simpler, and therefore more conducive to accuracy, to consider in measurement that the finished work includes all preparatory labor of every description. Although this plan is adopted generally, it is not in all cases so strictly adhered to as it should be; for instance, it is customary to take "plain work on both faces of stone in tracery heads, and "rough sunk work" where the finished work in moldings and sinkings is at a greater average depth from the face of the stone than 3 inches.

[ocr errors]

Stone in ashlar, hearths, steps, copings, finials, balusters, and similar work, is usually measured as including all labor per foot super, foot run or number. These items are well adapted for this method of measurement; the exact quantity and nature of the labor on them being easily ascertained, their valuation need not be a matter of guesswork, as must necessarily be the case where stone, including all labor, is measured by the foot cube.

Ashlar is described as including all beds and joints, bond stones, and rubbed or tooled face as required, and is measured net, i.e., no allowance is made for extra stone in bonding at internal angles, or for waste at rakes in spandrils. Any labors beyond those mentioned, as, for instance, raking and circular cutting, V grooves or rebates. to form rustications, should be taken separately.

All vertical joints of masonry are usually secured by joggles; these are numbered, giving the depth of the stone, and averaged before being billed. Wherever stones require to be connected together more firmly than by the ordinary joggle, a slate or copper cramp should be taken to each joint. A slate or copper dowel is also necessary to all joints in tracery and to bed joints of columns and mullious.

« EelmineJätka »