This is my first thread here even though I have been a member since 2005, and I really wanted to contribute one. Since there are already so many threads covering so many different topics, it seems as though Chicago is pretty much covered on this forum. However, I thought this would be an OK idea for a thread, and I have yet to see someone start one on this specifically. At any rate, even if some of you think the idea blows at least you have some pictures to look at. Now with that said, on to the thread!

I am assuming most everyone here has heard the term "Chicago Brick" before (I am capitalizing it all to let everyone know that this is our brand and we own this shit). For those who haven't heard of it the first set of "data" for this study will showcase buildings that possess it in all of its glory. The second data set will showcase buildings that possess what I am calling the New Chicago Brick. Following the photos will be a brief section of musings on the subject. Anyway, on to the pics. Oh by the way all pictures taken by me and taken in Wicker Park/Bucktown.

Data set A:

Chicago Brick
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/7759/dsc02887xl1.jpg

Street-facing side of same building
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/386/dsc02888ip4.jpg

A street/alleyway comparison
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/6752/dsc02884fa8.jpg

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8453/dsc02885eh5.jpg

Collection of buildings on Wabansia
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/61/dsc02879dx3.jpg

A residential application
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9408/dsc02875yy8.jpg

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4571/dsc02876px2.jpg

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/397/dsc02877it2.jpg

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6815/dsc02890bg6.jpg

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/756/dsc02901zh2.jpg


And now the New Chicago Brick:

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3149/dsc02910pi9.jpg

Closer
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/9063/dsc02911oi1.jpg

old & new
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/865/dsc02903lw1.jpg

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7299/dsc02904ys5.jpg

Unabashed application
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8483/dsc02889pu4.jpg

Again, but a little better this time thanks to help from some good stuff
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/7074/dsc02897sh6.jpg

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/485/dsc02906ep6.jpg

Another, different example
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7610/dsc02907ik4.jpg

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2388/dsc02908dx0.jpg

Various residential applications of concrete masonry units

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8867/dsc02900gk0.jpg

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5985/dsc02899or7.jpg

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9089/dsc02898re9.jpg

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9089/dsc02898re9.jpg

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/8935/dsc02915ox4.jpg

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/424/dsc02914ag8.jpg

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3346/dsc02913uo2.jpg

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6091/dsc02912es4.jpg


So there is the visual data for you. So what are everyone's thoughts on the various materials used to cover the sides of buildings that are rarely seen (or rather are seen quite often but that don't face the street)?

Is this New Chicago Brick style acceptable due to the economic factors that contribute to the selection of construction materials? Or is real brick only marginally more expensive than concrete products and therefore it is yet another case of developers being cheap?

Besides the economic questions, what about the aesthetic study one could make out of these photos? Is real brick intrinsically pleasing to look at? Is concrete intrinsically displeasing to look at? Or is it more complex than that, involving a wide variety of factors including context (physical, historical, and otherwise), color, and texture that influences what aesthetic value we place on these materials?

I personally feel that old Chicago Brick is just plain pleasing to look at. It has a very old, urban look to it that I just enjoy, period. I find that a lot of buildings employing concrete as an analogous form of cheaper material for the sides of them are simply OK, and a lot of times I find these buildings (specifically the sections of them that are built with concrete forms) to be absolutely hideous. Rarely I have seen examples of buildings that manage to pull it off. So do you think concrete is intrinsically ugly as a material choice, or do you think it has at chance at aging and being a worthy successor to the original Chicago Brick?

Haha, very clever thread. I too enjoy the old brick look better. But at least they are sticking with brick for the most part.

Isn't that "Chicago" brick not legal to use in new construction projects?

The Chicago brick is awesome. Makes it look grittier and darker.
With the new brick it looks like some rich neighborhood.
I'd rather keep the old one if it where up to me.

cool thread.....

I'm a fan of the traditional bricks, but I think the newer stuff looks fine if it is employed tastefully...

Nice idea for a thread. I've always loved the old Chicago common brick.

So do you think concrete is intrinsically ugly as a material choice, or do you think it has at chance at aging and being a worthy successor to the original Chicago Brick?

that is the million dollar question. i want to see these newer CMU buildings 100 years into the future. might our great grandchildren be musing on the SSC of the 22nd century about "how wonderful all those old, early 21st centruy "Chicago Block" buildings are"?

masonry buildings tend to look better with age, they develop a patina over the decades that makes them feel right. when masonry buildings are brand new, they tend to look a little fake.

I would agree with you Steely, however, I am going to attempt to lay out some objective (using the term loosely) reasons why these new cinder block-layden buildings might not have any shot at aging well.

For one, brick overall just seems to be more...interesting. It has more visual depth, a "richer" color, and more apparent texture. These few details might contribute to its visual vibrancy over flat, monotonous cinder blocks.

On the other hand, one of the coolest things about old brick is that it has that weathered look, and it goes without saying that new building materials simply aren't going to have this characteristic until they, well, weather.

I guess my own personal conclusion would be that the new stuff will never really compare to the old stuff, even if they were to remain long enough to where their age difference becomes insignificant. That doesn't mean that there isn't still time for the new stuff to improve though, but it's going to have to come a long way I think.

Cool, so everyone agrees that the cinderblocks looks dull and boring.

The reason new bricks look different from old bricks isn't just because they're new, it's because they're made differently. The old methods of brick manufacturing are relatively expensive and very environmentally harmful. Bricks today have different composition and are fired for shorter times at lower temperatures, and the firing process itself is different. All these things tend to produce that uniform orange color and smooth texture.

^Thanks for the info. As far as aging is concerned I was mostly comparing "new Chicago brick" (as a metonym for cinder blocks mostly) with old Chicago brick (being actual brick). I understand that today's real bricks are made differently and of course look differently as a result. But thank you for the info, I had always wondered how modern brick compares to old brick in terms of the manufacturing techniques. Do you happen to know if it is generally more expensive to produce bricks now than say, fifty/sixty years ago (taking into account inflation and all that)?

Cool, so everyone agrees that the cinderblocks looks dull and boring.

nope, i don't agree with that. i'm withholding judgment for several decades. ask me again in 2040 if, god willing, i'm still kicking around.

nope, i don't agree with that. i'm withholding judgment for several decades. ask me again in 2040 if, god willing, i'm still kicking around.
Wow, I'll be 48.:)

You think these old bricks will one day be non existant?

Considering the quality of the materials and workmanship, I would be surprised if many of these newer buildings were still around in fifty years. Even if the concrete blocks hold up, the quality of wood used in the frames might severely compromise the buildings within thirty or forty years.

There are two different issues, CMUs and modern clay brick. I don't think either of them is all that appealing--too smooth and uniform in color for my tastes, and that's something that is unlikely to change with age. To see how the composition of the clay used in bricks affects their color, go to Pullman, which was (I hear) constructed primarily from Calumet clay. The brick is in incredibly vivid reds and browns--it almost looks like red sandstone.

The old bricks will be around a long time. When buildings are demolished in the city, the intact bricks are often salvaged and used for decorative purposes elsewhere. They are definitely valued aesthetically.

Here's a new twist - translucent concrete blocks - optic fibers embedded in the material :

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/concrete2.jpg
http://optics.org/cws/article/research/19184

^Wow now THAT is cool. Potentially too Vegas for my tastes, and likely prohibitively expensive for most applications, but still a neat idea none-the-less.

think how easy it would be to see people having sex behind their walls...

Is this New Chicago Brick style acceptable due to the economic factors that contribute to the selection of construction materials? Or is real brick only marginally more expensive than concrete products and therefore it is yet another case of developers being cheap?

A couple of factors are at play:
- The city almost requires masonry for new construction. Concrete block is the cheapest form of that going.
- New bricks are machine-fired, and not from the local clay which gives Chicago bricks their distinctive colors (pink, yellow).
- New bricks are not hand-laid; "brick veneer" is often assembled off site and put up in giant sheets.

Hence, beyond even the patina of age (the mottling, the worn corners), hand-fired brick has a richer texture, and hand-laid brick an even richer texture. The general reduction in texture is something pretty common to modern construction practices in general, though, and only now has become common across all materials. Compare an old solid-wood cabinet to its IKEA counterpart and you'll see a similar difference.

The new building next to me uses recycled Chicago brick on most of its facades, which was largely laid by hand (although with non-union labor, according to some folks picketing the site one day), and it does admittedly look pretty good.

^ What about recycled brick? Of course, even then one still has to factor in the labor costs of a hand lay.....

^ What about recycled brick? Of course, even then one still has to factor in the labor costs of a hand lay.....

And the labor costs of collecting the brick, which generally is done by just knocking down a wall and having guys sort through the rubble. I think the old mortar also has to be removed from the bricks, but I have no idea how that is done. My impression is that recycled brick is used much more for decorative purposes (walkways, fireplaces) than for exterior walls.

Paytonc is right about the loss of texture with contemporary building materials. Today's bricks look two-dimensional, and boring farmed pine does not look much better. A lot of this is due to the "perfection" of manufacturing processes, which paradoxically removes everything from the original technique that was attractive.

Those large concrete blocks look like shit. They should be banned from use in any residential buildings. except for use in the rear-facing, i.e., backyard-facing of the four elevations/

Just look at the crap that has been built in the past ten years. Oh, and in 100 years, will not gain an appreciation of the concrete block. Instead, people will say, "Why did they use those cheap, ugly blocks?"

Those large concrete blocks look like shit. They should be banned from use in any residential buildings. except for use in the rear-facing, i.e., backyard-facing of the four elevations/

Just look at the crap that has been built in the past ten years. Oh, and in 100 years, will not gain an appreciation of the concrete block. Instead, people will say, "Why did they use those cheap, ugly blocks?"

^ Still 100 times better than vinyl siding. Pics originally posted by Mabcle from Cleveland's Euclid Corridor project:

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4940/december07014oq7.jpg

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9854/december07015bb0.jpg

Vinyl siding is a good example of how materials do not necessarily look better with age. Neither nostalgia nor weathering can save a material like that, and I think it is going to be the same with CMUs for the most part.

And pointy roofs suck as well.

^ But at least you don't have to shovel snow of of 'em.

And the labor costs of collecting the brick, which generally is done by just knocking down a wall and having guys sort through the rubble. I think the old mortar also has to be removed from the bricks, but I have no idea how that is done. My impression is that recycled brick is used much more for decorative purposes (walkways, fireplaces) than for exterior walls.

I've always heard this brick refered to as "Chicago brick", and I found at least one company in Miami (of all places) that specializes in "importing" antique Chicago Brick. Their web page is www.chicagobrick.com, and this description is from their home page (I find it quite amusing):

Enhance the mood and ambiance of your home or business with authentic early century Brick from Chicago. All of the Bricks are imported from the Windy City and carry the style and sophistication of the early 1900's. The Bricks are chosen and arranged into specific patterns to match the color and the scheme of your establishment. Don't be fooled by imitation bricks or stamps, this is the real thing, Chicago Brick. Chicago Brick Unlimited Inc. is determined to provide every customer with complete satisfaction and we guarantee our product for life.

When you drive through the Chicago, you'll frequently run across instances of "brick mining", which I believe is the term commonly used. Essentially:

1. Knock down building into a big pile of rubble.
2. Hire casual laborers to "mine" the brick by:
3. Picking up each brick and using small tools to knock off the mortar.
4. Loading them onto palletts that then get wrapped in cardboard and wire strapping.
5. They go off somewhere on a big truck.

I'm not sure if the bricks are ready to be reused at that point or if they go through some further cleansing/sorting.