I am not talking about decorative bricks or using a steel interior. A real brick structue.
Assuming cost is NO factor could you build a skyscraper? If not how high before the brick would not hold or whatever.
Using Gothic style Cathedrals as a non-steel, masonry reference I would imagine you can go at least 404 feet per Salisbury Cathedral and probably higher.
http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/wiltshire/ipix/ipiximages/ipix2.html
IIRC the tallest brick structure in the US was an industrial chimney that has now been taken down. It was 335 feet tall.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~njhudson/enewark/ONT_chimney_work_1890.htm
The Cape Hatteras brick lighthouse is 208 feet tall
http://www.hatteras-nc.com/light/
I remember reading somewhere that the practical limit for a brick building is about 8 or 9 stories tall. Any taller, and the base of the building has to be made so thick that there’s no space inside for any rooms!
The Washington monument in Washington DC is 505 ft tall. It is stone which, I am just guessing, would be more resistant than brick and I also know it is one of the tallest, if not the tallest, stone structures.
Sailor, I have also heard that the Washington Monument is the tallest stone structure in the world.
“I remember reading somewhere that the practical limit for a brick building is about 8 or 9 stories tall.”
The north half of the 16-story Monadnock Building in Chicago is made of brick, and is allegedly the tallest masonry building ever built. (The south half was built later of steel-frame construction.)
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/burnham/burnham4.html
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/Chicago/c12.htm
“Any taller, and the base of the building has to be made so thick that there’s no space inside for any rooms!”
While the walls of the Monadnock Building are quite thick at the base – six feet thick, according to one of the above webpages – I can assure you that there are rooms, even rentable store space, on its ground floor.
Marxxx asked about a BRICK house, which is a whole other world from stone. Brick is much weaker than stone, and would be crushed by its weight long before stone would.
I know from some masonry work that I’ve had done that you can only go about 20 courses or so before you have to start installing metal lintels to support the weight above. 20 courses isn’t quite a story.
In much of the old Eastern Bloc nations, nearly all houses were unreinforced brick, due to restrictions on metal material production. This creates a fascinating contrast with the older materials of stone and timber-stucco/plaster.
But they are vulnerable to many new problems, primarily walls buckling outward as the foundations settle.
They are really thick at the bottom (I thought it was 12 feet) and they slowly get thinner, making for a real nice effect when you look straight up from the base.
A really good looking building with a great interior.
I asked this question as in the back of my mind I recall someone saying what Diceman said.
I just couldn’t find a site so I figured it was wrong.
But obviously it is floating out there somewhere right or wrong.
Also Chicago has some really beautiful brick buildings but they don’t seem to build them now.