Agreed. Bricks aren’t great for construction. Not structural, poor R-value, a ton of labor.
Just have concrete poured or stick frame and a fake brick facade. Will probably last longer as well.
Seems like the wrong problem to solve.
Just have concrete poured or stick frame and a fake brick facade. Will probably last longer as well.
Seems like the wrong problem to solve.
They are structural (in terms of compression, but have low tensile strength which is probably why they aren't popular in North America)
They have a good R-value
They are easy to work with
We are building a house right now, and the cheapest, quickest and easiest part so far has been building the walls. We are using clay blocks[0] which are R-10. Compared to other tasks no specialised equipment is needed, it's literally just manual labour. When you get to a corner or window, they can easily be cut with an angle grinder or even by hand (for a rougher finish). The house is two floors and the exterior walls for each floor took less than a week to build. It's quicker (building forms takes a long time), cheaper, better insulating and better for the environment than monolithic concrete.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__T8PWnntkU - Not this exact product, but this was the best explanation I could find in English.
out of curiosity, why do the blocks need to be different in North America?
Brick houses also hold their value well.
No one cares about a brick facade.
Also why do you say bricks aren't structural? I assumed those 100 year old brick houses used bricks for structural support.
A single layer brick wall isn't structural.
My 92-year old house with single layer brick walls says otherwise. (And yes, it insulates badly, but it kept standing through a lot of storms.)
Not structural by current building standards. No doubt it is carrying a load today, bit you can't build a house that way anymore.