While this type of wall mainly exists in England and the Netherlands, it is amusing how the English Wikipedia's main arguments are about saving bricks and possible military advantages, while the Dutch Wikipedia tell these walls are meant to protect fruit from weather conditions. The fruit would typically be planted at the south side. One of the ideas is that the bricks both protect against wind and keep giving some warmth after the sun has disappeared.
Does the shape of the wall affect either of these uses? Otherwise, wouldn't it be off-topic to start listing general facts about walls for agriculture?
During that little ice age mentioned elsewhere in these comments, that area right along the wall was your agricultural area so they came up with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espalier
If the tree is going to be pinned to the wall (as opposed to being free-standing and surrounded by the wall), I don't really understand how making it curved helps with absorbing heat or shielding from weather.
Slightly tangential, but having lived mostly in bare concrete jungles, there's something so aesthetically pleasing about green things growing on a backdrop of bricks or wood.
It's also funny that the words crinkle and crankle derive from Old English and are obvious cognate of Dutch _kronkel_. But the Dutch engineers didn't call it a kronkelmuur?
The dutch wikipedia page mentions their use to protect fruit trees from the wind and add sun reflection. You run the wall east-west and place the fruit trees in southern bends of the wall.
I believe the oldest exterior wall of the St. Louis Zoo (on the north side, along where the 1904 World's Fair bird cage was relocated) was modeled after this style. I think it's more than one brick thick, though, so it probably wasn't done that way to save on brick, just to echo the style.
I wonder if in modern times, now that labor is so much more expensive than bricks, it would still be economical. Building a brick wall costs (here in Western Europe) around e40/m2 in labor, and e25 in material for a cheap brick. So building this crinkle crankle style would only have to add about 50% in building time. I think building this is much slower than that though - I don't even know how I'd go about it, other than with a laser level, which would be really inconvenient (compared to using a string like is normally done). Then again, it would be inconvenient and frustrating, but would it be slow ?
In those times, most would be happy a wall looked straight, and vertical enough to not fall. Also, a circular wooden object (a spool, wagon wheels, ...) could help to maintain the forms. The Dutch Wikipedia mentions many variants formed from straight segments. Probably the labor cost would have been about the same, and workers happier because of the variation involved.
In Central Europe, houses are still commonly built from brick at a structural level. (This includes multi-storey apartment blocks, commonly with some sections implemented as cantilevered reinforced concrete - the block I live in is such an example.) It's rare to encounter a building here where bricks also form the facade however.
Which aspect does your question relate to? The rest of your post is about aesthetics, so if a brick facade is what you're after, they are still very common in the UK, although much of that is old housing stock.
My parents built their house with a brick facade in the 1980s with then-state-of-the-art insulation. (in Central Europe) There is a layer of (large) structural bricks (similar to [1]), followed by various elements of insulation, followed by smaller face bricks to form the visible exterior. (something like [2]) I suspect this was and is somewhat more expensive than simply plastering over the outermost insulation layer. The double shell makes re-insulating with more modern materials prohibitively impractical. (Although the thermal properties of the house in question have held up pretty well.)
On old houses, any visible bricks would have been structural, with effectively no insulation. So I'd imagine that's why it's no longer common.
They are in the UK. It is very common to have a decorative weatherproof facade of brick, with a cavity (often filled with insulation) between the bricks and an inside skin of insulating block, or more often now, a prefab timber frame.
They are. In my area of southern Ontario, I estimate that >80% of houses have a brick facade. Note that nearly all houses here are stick-framed. It's very common for visitors to comment on this, because it seems very specific to this part of the country.
I don't know of any structural brick houses here though.
Brick facades cost more up front, but they require zero maintenance and are very durable.
Wood is better for weather as it is flexible to allow expanding and shrinking. When you have such a hard material, such as brick, in a climate that changes from extreme hot & cold the bricks will crack and break due to stress from expanding and shrinking.
I suspect because cinder block or ICF is just so much more economical and you can make it look like anything you want (brick will always be brick). Plenty of wood framed but that’s purely cost.
Reminds me a bit of Andy Goldsworthy's "Storm King Wall" (one of his few permanent art works.) Not that he was doing it to save stones, or protect fruit trees. That shape is just a common part of his art:
If we take the meaning of a "crinkle crankle structure" to be something like an "economically self-supporting structure", then it's justifiable by definition. The question then becomes: What, in the realm of software engineering, fits this description?
If crinkle-crankle walls protect fruit, then I suppose the analogous software might run on some Apple device that's unnecessarily expensive, technically lagging, and probably beautiful. Hard to justify economically, but still attractive.
I grew up in Suffolk, where I knew of several examples, and I never realised that they were a particularly Suffolk-specific thing: according to the article, twice as many in the county as the rest of the UK. I would be interested to know why.
In modern standards a straight wall is much easier to build because you can just measure once for each row and stretch a string to match the bricks against. A curved wall requires a level placed against every brick to make sure you are still going straight up. I expect older walls actually trusted the mason's skill without going through all that. The Wiki photo certainly looks true.
I had seen the results of that accident, but was amazed by the video at all the people saying that the area is a magnet for such accidents, and that the brick wall itself had been hit many times.
I mostly walk and bike in the city, but that whole neighborhood has wide, straight, clearly-marked roads. It's like you're out in the suburbs. If people have trouble there, how do they deal with some actually-confusing intersections, like Newton Corner, Inman square, or Columbia Road in Dorchester?
But I don't think it'd work well where I'm from. We have straight property lines, so you'd either have to convince your neighbor to go along with it or put it all on your side (leaving areas of grass over the fence where you couldn't mow it.)
My first thought was the irregular shape of the walls affects the way automobile noises echo off of it, potentially contrubuting to slightly quieter streets.
A ha-ha is (typically?) a retaining wall, so I wouldn't expect the mechanical advantages to apply in the same way. I imagine it would also complicate the excavation/infill.
I don't think so. I don't think you need anywhere near a 45 degree angle, and making the wall double thick won't really solve the fall over problem in the first place.
I don't think you'd get the protection from lateral forces on the straight sections. Just a little bit of curve transfers the cross force down the whole curve.
The gist is, if i push on a brick in the middle of a flat part, the force has to be resisted by the width of the single brick. but if i push on any part of the curve, that's got to lift the adjacent next level up bricks as well, which in turn have to lift the next level, and on and on.
It's been a long, long time since i studied static forces though.
