Against the Brick
A lot of good things have happened in Washington, DC in recent years and I think the policies pursued by the Williams and Fenty administration have mostly been worth supporting. One important exception has been a tendency to replace ordinary drab sidewalks built out of concrete slabs with nice-looking but impractical brick sidewalks. The day after a sidewalk’s been redone as bricks, it looks great. But after that, all kinds of troubles emerge. Rob Goodspeed left DC for the Boston area, which is inflicted by a plague of brick sidewalks, and remarks:
I was in Harvard Square one evening last fall when I light rain began falling. A girl dashed out of a convenience store doorway, hurrying for an unknown reason. Turning the corner she abruptly slipped and fell on the brick sidewalk. No quicker than she had fallen she jumped up, unhurt, to continue on her way. Yesterday in Downtown Crossing, a man using crutches slipped on wet and snowy brick just as I left my office. These incident are repeated thousands of times in Boston and around the nation, at times resulting in injury. Sidewalk slips are commonplace, yet illustrates the complex ethics of contemporary urban planning. The material that contributed to these falls, brick, has many well-known flaws including a low friction coefficient when wet. However in the convoluted calculus of sidewalk materials, the grip of material surface inevitably falls behind a host of other factors.
From the point of view of pedestrians, there’s not much to like about brick sidewalks. When wet they’re often slippery. Bricks easily become uneven or loose due to tree roots or uneven soil, complicating shoveling and leading to tripping. The uneven surface can be treacherous for bikers, strollers, or the impaired. Some even point out they can easily become projectiles in the hands of miscreants. Yet brick remains a common material throughout many cities. Boston’s tourist meccas, Faneuil Hall’s plazas, Downtown Crossing’s streets, and even the Freedom Trail itself are made from brick. In Washington, D.C., miles of new brick sidewalks have been installed in the past few years in some of the city’s busiest pedestrian corridors.
The madness must end. I’m not sure what’s behind this brick craze. In Boston, the general idea seems to be that everything ought to look old, so I guess dangerous, slippery, slanted and broken brick sidewalks fit the bill. In DC? I dunno. Has big brick somehow seized control of local governments? Apparently this is all especially hard on the disabled.
64 Responses to “Against the Brick”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 4th, 2009 at 8:52 am
I’m sure the object is to give sidewalks a less, umm, pedestrian look. But surely there are other, better ways to do this. Can concrete be tinted in different shades of brick coloring, for instance?
In addition to the drawbacks you mention, installing brick sidewalks has to be a good deal more expensive than concrete, since someone’s got to place each brick by hand.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:15 am
I’m not sure what’s behind this brick craze.
I had this crazy idea. I googled “Brick sidewalks” And found this handy page:
http://www.oldlouisville.com/circa1900/brick-sidewalk.htm
I’m not saying Rob Goodspeed’s points aren’t good ones. But it’s not so hard to see (or look up) the pros and cons of both concrete and brick.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Well, it’s not as though concrete isn’t labor intensive, but it’s probably still cheaper to install. I suspect, though, that it’s easier and cheaper to *repair* a brick sidewalk, and I think brick has a longer usable life.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Arlington, VA commonly uses interlocking concrete pavers for sidewalk projects,which are far less slippery when wet. DC also commonly uses 2×3 “London pavers” in the downtown. The benefit of brick–or brick-like pavers–is when repairs have to be made. Patches in concrete sidewalks commonly fail to match the original material, because the original aggregate cannot be matched, etc.
I think the use of brick is more common in designated historic districts, where streetscape standards mandate its use.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:31 am
I went to college in a town with ample brick (East Side of Providence) and getting home from parties without a twisted ankle was a local sport, and a good reason to have a designated sober walker with you.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Similarly, Metro stations continue to be built with those slippery red hexagonal tiles on the floor. Isn’t it possible to find tiles that look about the same but don’t turn into something like an ice rink every time it rains or snows? I’m surprised there haven’t been enough lawsuits to kill this idea.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I was going to mention many of AGT points, but he already did. The rainwater issue and ease of repairing pipes etc. seem especially impt. practical considerations. Also, they do look nice. Just saying.
One problem with the way DC does it though, is that the people putting in the brick never put in enough sand. I lived in Germany for a long time and didn’t have nearly as many problems with cobblestone in various cities because the people putting in the stone put in enough sand to pack it snugly together. This kept the sidewalk in better shape for longer.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:37 am
All bricks are not the same. There is no reason why bricks cannot be made with a high-friction, high-grip surface, so any problems are down to poor specification by the designer – outside my house, the parking area is made of block paviors and when wet they give far better grip than the concrete slabs that lead up to my fromt door.
One additional advantage of using pavior blocks over concrete slabs is that pavior blocks can be used to create a permeable surface so that there is less surface runoff – a big problem as more and more urban areas are covered with pavement.
BTW, I know that global climate change is reducing the amount of frost heave but bricks are far less susceptible to frost heave than concrete, quite an important consideration in many parts of the US.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:38 am
…Same in Oxford, UK. Wander through the nightclub-heavy area on the west side of town some weekend night, and you’ll see a sea of unsteady, heel-wearing girls clutching on to each other for dear life as they navigate the (narrow) brick sidewalks. It was probably the first thing I noticed after I started studying here.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Bricks? The only rational response to bricks is cruise missles.
It’s the only thing urban planners understand.
Just ask the Israelis.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Here in Ann Arbor, they redid several crosswalks last summer to make them seem to be brick. The process involved resurfacing the road with normal black asphalt then scoring, painting, and baking. The result looks like red brick to the casual eye, but gives very good traction to pedestrians.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:01 am
the parking area is made of block paviors
I’m converted! From now on let it be known that I have accepted Brick as my personal pavior.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:18 am
When I lived in Russia I visited the nice southernly city of Rostov-on-Don. Many of the sidewalks were being re-done in brick. This isn’t very common for Russia so I asked about it. I was told that the Mayor was the main owner of the brick factory. I don’t know if that was true but it certainly seemed plausible.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I think in and around Boston, it’s important to local officials to make travel as dangerous and inconvenient for pedestrians as it is for drivers and bike riders.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Bricks punish the clumsy, all right. On the other hand, go to Italy or the Czech Republic or a similar country sometime, with friggin’ cobblestones and women all in 6 inch heels charging around like Prussian colonels. And they never fall down….
January 4th, 2009 at 10:22 am
In Dallas, the city has bricks laid at intersections of roads. that look like sidewalks in the asphalt. The only advantage that I can figure from this is that you can hear the cars crossing the bricks and isn’t that a wonderful sound?
January 4th, 2009 at 10:31 am
I’m sure the Palestinians are at fault. God damn lemmings.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Stampcrete faux bricks. Ann Arbor is smart.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:48 am
In Chicago, in some places they went to the trouble of putting in these fake brick sections at intersection crosswalks — in the road, not the sidewalk. They used stencils to etch a bricklike pattern of grooves in the asphalt itself and then painted it red, so it looks (a little bit) like a brick crosswalk. Classy!
January 4th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I just dislike the layer of sand that they leave behind when they’re finished. We’ve been tracking sand into the house for weeks now.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:40 am
The Netherlands is almost entirely brick-paved and I’ve never seen a single brick out of place! Their sidewalks are all impeccable. It doesn’t bother the women in heels or bicyclists, either.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Brown alum, how do you like the cobblestone at Waterplace Park? I cannot walk from the train station to Kennedy Plaza without rolling my ankle
January 4th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
As far as the bricks being slippery when wet. Shoe design plays a large part in this. It took me years of slipping and falling to realize this.
Soles of shoes made from Polyurethane, best known with the brand name Vibram, are awesome. You won’t slip on bricks even when wet. Soles of shoes made from something else(I presume rubber) are slippery on wet surfaces. Polyurethane costs more, so it’s the cheaper shoes which tend to be slippery.
Anyway, it’s just something to watch for when buying shoes. I will no longer buy any shoes made by Rockport because they are always slippery. Ecco on the other hand are awesome. Cole Haan, Nike’s dress shoe brand tends to use a lot of Vibram soles. Merrell and some of the other outdoors shoe makers can be found with Vibram.
I have a pair of Keen shoes right now, and they suck… very slippery. Won’t buy that brand again.
The worst was the $20 pair of shoes I bought which were sold as being for swimming…. intended to be wet, etc. Slippery as hell. Bought a $40 pair of Speedo shoes for the same purpose and they were great.
My first lesson with this was when I was 15 working as a dishwasher at Pizza Hut. Restaurants use brick for floors as it’s durable and easy to keep clean. It’s also slippery when wearing the wrong shoes. After slipping a lot, I finally bought a pair of work shoes with the right type of sole and they were awesome.
I really wish more care and attention was paid to this by the shoe makers and more knowledge was passed on to consumers explaining the benefits of different technologies for shoes.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Brick sidewalks eliminate the need for “No Skateboarding” signs.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
The production of concrete is a big source of CO2 in the atmosphere. Is brick production more eco-friendly?
January 4th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Here in Ann Arbor, they redid several crosswalks last summer to make them seem to be brick.
A lot of this is done in order to help the visually impaired– modern crosswalks are now specified to appear as distinctly different from the rest of the road as possible.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I think one needs to be careful here with terminology. The common red ceramic brick paver blocks in the US for decorative pathways don’t always seem to be the best choice of materials. But the concrete Betonstein commonly used in countries like Germany and the Netherlands are quite good for building sidewalks, bike paths, and the like for all of the reasons AGT cites above, plus they have the same grip as concrete since they are concrete. I think the what blowback mentioned is key: not all bricks are the same, nor are all
January 4th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
… brick roads built in the same way.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Yes, we’ve got a lot of that red brick crap in downtown San Francisco, too. And, yes, it’s slippery when wet, depending on your shoes.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
All of the concrete->brick renovations I’ve seen in Baltimore have been done with concrete pavers and not traditional, slippery brick. We’ve got some problems with old brick sidewalks buckling here and there, but I think it’s no worse than cracked concrete sidewalks. The brick’s more expensive to install, but it’s easier and less intrusive to fix. No clue which lasts longer; it’s more about evolution of the underlying surface, root growth, etc than the paving material I’d imagine.
The urban legend (I think) when I was in college in Champaign-Urbana, IL was that the brick roads in Urbana had to remain that way because the bricklayers union’s contract said they wouldn’t continue to repair brick surfaces if any existing ones were replaced with another surface. No clue how true that was, but it’s amusing regardless.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
As far as aesthetics go, I could care less about sidewalks (I like the intersection crosswalk modifications though… seen various versions of that with glass incorporated into the surface, textured paint, brick, etc). I reserve my loathing for the prefab concrete edifices that are carved and painted to mimic brick that are currently going up on virtually ever college and medical campus in the country. Totally hideous; especially after the fake white painted mortar fades to the same color as the brick.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
another factor in favor of blocks (e.g. betonstein) over poured concrete is the matter of trees.
trees in a city are likely to have to grow next to pavement, as e.g. on a parkway (i.e. the grass strip between car traffic and foot traffic).
when tree roots grow under poured cement, they heave up big sheets of it and eventually crack it in the middle. it’s hard on the tree, and it means a big section of cement has to be repoured.
when trees grow under some laid blocks, they heave up the blocks immediately over them. it doesn’t harm the tree as much, and the damage to the walking surface is limited to a few blocks.
so it’s another ease of repair issue.
but remember: you want nice cities, you have *got* to plan for trees.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Aesthetics should count for something, for goodness sake. How about more textured brick?
January 4th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
One last quibble, the Freedom Trail isn’t entirely brick, and it’s a good example of why brick (or any sectioned paver instead of a single surface) can be more functional than the alternative of large concrete slabs – http://www.kybostongrad.com/images/FreedomTrailOnTremont.jpg
You can incorporate long-lasting information into textured surfaces — the path of the Freedom Trail, the presence of a crosswalk, etc — that’ll outlast paint on a concrete or asphalt surface.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I also went to Brown, and the brick sidewalks there are a real problem, especially because Providence is a hilly place. I once fell and slid downhill over 50 feet, until the sidewalk turned to concrete.
However, there’s a lot to be said for taking the psychology associated with building materials into account, in addition to physical properties. There’s some evidence that brick crosswalks on asphault streets are safer, because they are more visible to drivers, and feel different when driven on. As a result, drivers tend to respect brick crosswalks more than painted crosswalks.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Let’s hear it for blogging about sidewalk and driveway materials. Many subdivisions have very specific rules about surface material, almost always determined by aesthetic quality and never taking into account what is best for, you know, people to walk on and plants to live under.
Here is a fine solution:
http://www.rubbersidewalks.com/
January 4th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Bricks are attractive, in the aesthetic sense, in a number of ways. They allow for a greater variety of patterns and designs; the color and texture of bricks are superior to begin with, and do not look exponentially crappier with each passing month; they don’t stain; they complement attractive buildings and parks better; bricks are more visibly absorbing.
This is not the end of the list of aesthetic pros, and the practical pros are many. (No one seems to be have mentioned – falling on cement versus falling on bricks. Ouch.) But the aesthetic pros should be enough. What’s the point of progressives worrying about how to cram people into arcologies and reduce their carbon footprints and commute times and car ownership if urbanites can’t fall in love with their cities? A concrete canyon is as depressing as a strip mall.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
@ 14. amos
Absolutely right!!
Seriously – in Boston’s Back Bay, a historical and btw VERY expensive neighborhood, most of the (old and heaved-up) brick sidewalks are impassible for wheelchairs, powered or manual, and nearly so for people on crutches. Not great for pushing a baby stroller, either.
From a safety perspective, it is very scary to see a disabled individual motoring down the street in a wheelchair because the chair can’t negotiate the sidewalks.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
From the environmental standpoint, I believe bricks are much less energy-intensive to produce and lay than concrete or asphalt.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Bricks, or paving stones require a perfectly installed support which is flat, compacted and long lasting. Unfortunately, sidewalks are not installed with close supervision of highly skilled workers. The fact that water is encouraged to penetrate the surface means that freezing weather will soon disrupt the support.
When a paver goes missing or needs replacement, it will be more difficult to track down the correct replacement.
Hard to install, hard to maintain.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Should be noted: brick sidewalks in DC are a policy of DDOT, not the Historic Preservation Office. HPO could care less about brick sidewalks. DDOT’s policy is that any sidewalks that need to be replaced in Capitol Hill will be done in brick.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I once spent an entire summer in Cambridge barefoot. Try that on concrete. Not that enabling this kind of behavior should be a public policy imperative.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Another note on Vibram soles is that they’re great for your back. My whole family has back problems, and we’ve found through trial and error that, without question, Vibram soles are second to none in preventing our lower back pain. They’re the only soles we wear now. Never paid much attention to their increased coefficient of friction, though.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Also, as another Brown alum, I don’t know if the issues with Providence’s brick sidewalks are attributable to brick sidewalks per se or simply the terrible mismanagement of Providence as a city. Even the concrete sidewalks are uneven, cracked, and easy to trip on (especially on Waterman, walking from Thayer towards Faunce). Providence doesn’t even shovel and/or salt sidewalks when it snows, leading to inch-thick permafrost on large stretches of sidewalk for much of winter.
Recently, the powers that be on whatever Providence city council decided that it would be a good idea to add these incredibly tacky patterns to the Thayer St. crosswalks. Setting aside the hideous design, the project’s planning was laughably poor. Apparently the patterns could be set into the asphalt at temperatures of >60 degrees…and they started the project in late September or October (I forget which, but it was at the tail end of no-jacket season). The result was that most crosswalks were only partly complete until spring. I don’t think Providence’s brick sidewalk problems are generalizable to a halfway competent city.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Given the tendency for pristine concrete to be dug the fuck up within months for utility repair, pavers have certain advantages. But they need to be done properly and maintained with clue in order to work. It’s fair to say that a lot of city pols (or even city managers) don’t have that sort of clue.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Brick sidewalks are pretty, but not a good idea. I live in a town near Washington, D.C. that prides itself on having brick sidewalks in its older, Victorian-style neighborhoods. The neighborhoods have a lot of trees. The bricks must be pulled up every few years, the underlying ground graded and leveled with sand, and the bricks replaced or new ones installed. Only a few companies know how to do this properly.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Quick fun fact about the Freedom Trail:
If you took all the bricks used in the Freedom Trail, and laid them end-to-end in two rows, the resulting line of bricks would be *exactly* as long as the Freedom Trail.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Concrete is not what it was in the days of the Roman Empire when it was allowed to cure for 6 mos. or more.
I understand that recent buildings with foundations of modern concrete are in danger of sinking/disintegrating there while the old ones are all right.
You can certainly break your neck on a cracked concrete sidewalk.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Market Street in San Francisco was bricked and rebricked for years in the 70s and 80s. I think it was about keeping the brick layers working.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Our company distributes brick, and my (admittedly biased) opinion is that all the advantages of brick cited above (maintenance/repair, environmental considerations, durability) are correct. Certainly some brick can be hazardous to walk on, but not all. It depends on what product is specified and how it is installed.
We distribute for a manufacturer specializing in brick pavers, whose products have been installed in many urban environments. Their brick pavers test favorably for slip-resistance:
“Whitacre Greer dry-pressed, fired-clay brick pavers in smooth and textured finishes have slip resistances that exceed recommended values. The coefficient of friction of the standard smooth paver averaged .95 dry and .84 wet in recent testing. The coeffiecient of friction of Whitacre Greer’s textured finish averaged 1.13 dry and .97 wet.”
You can read more here:
http://www.wgpaver.com/blog/22
As an example, I found a Florida DOT document requiring a dry coefficient of friction of 0.8 and a wet coefficient of friction of 0.65.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/Specificationsoffice/Implemented/WorkBooks/History/Jan08/Files/5270000.fhwa.pdf
Proper construction details and installation will avoid some of the other problems cited (uneven sidewalks, loose bricks, etc.). Installing a brick sidewalk that remains flat and level under normal conditions requires more skill and attention to detail than doing so with concrete. But a brick sidewalk using an appropriate product and which is properly installed can be as safe and stable as concrete, and should be considerably less expensive over the life of the sidewalk.
As with so many things, it’s not as simple as saying that brick sidewalks must go. A better call-to-action would be to suggest that cities establish standards providing for safety and durability while continuing to permit an aesthetically superior product to be used.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Advantage, brick.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:43 am
As usual, the perspective of people with disabilities, in this case the 1.5 million or so people who use wheelchairs, plus all those who use canes or are mobility impaired, has been left out of this discussion. In Boston there’s been an ongoing fight between disability groups and the city over brick sidewalks. I suppose that if brick is installed and maintained perfectly, it’s not a problem for people who use wheelchairs and canes, but in the real world the brick is so bad that even people without a disability often trip and fall on it. I love the look of brick, but the next time you see a brick sidewalk, imagine someone in a walker trying to negotiate it. Shouldn’t we build sidewalks for everyone?
January 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I think that almost every pro-concrete opinion here is colored by having encountered ill-maintained brick sidewalks that are, on average, far older than ill-maintained concrete sidewalks.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Why is it that old is bad? I think our forefathers were on to a lot of things that we dont get, such as creating places that have charm and character. We build non-places that are homogenous, boring and could be anywhere. One cool thing about Boston is that when you are there you know where you are while with many many modern cities if you are led there blind-folded, you would have no idea.
Yes maybe a brick sidewalk will make you watch more carefully and maybe the roots of the very old tree line boulevard will crack and break up the walkways, but I personally would rather walk down that street then many many boring ones. I think most people would as the market values attest to what people value.
love the brick sidewalks.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Does anyone know of any products out there that could be applied to old slippery brick that would give is more traction? My neighbor is 80 and whenever it is wet she is at increased risk of falling.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:14 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 am
levitraGreat site. Good info
March 11th, 2009 at 4:22 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:02 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:07 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Nice post. Thanks for sharing these tips.