“Imitation Stone” versus “Natural Concrete”
“Imitation Stone” versus “Natural Concrete” – The relationship between architectural style and the manufacture of concrete blocks.
During the history of the Boyd Brothers Company, three main types of concrete blocks were produced. The first type in production was the “imitation stone” block which, as the name suggests, was intended to resemble natural stone. The second type was the “exposed aggregate” block which featured granules of aggregate “exposed” on its facing side. The third type was the standard smooth-faced concrete block. The successive popularity of each of the different types of blocks is indicative of two important points: the degree or public acceptance of concrete blocks as a suitable building material; and the relationship between concrete block types and certain architectural styles.
As a new building material, concrete blocks were subject to a great deal of scrutiny at the turn of the century. Consequently, early concrete block manufacturers took a conservative approach toward the type of blocks which they marketed. Most manufacturers chose to produce blocks that had the appearance of natural stone, and concrete block-making machines of the time were designed to produce mainly “rock-face” blocks. The importance of the imitative nature of concrete blocks at the turn of the century is illustrated by an advertisement for the Jarvis Concrete Block Machine Company. The ad states: “A properly made concrete stone should have all the appearance of natural stone …”[1] Ann Gillespie, in her study of the early development of concrete blocks, explains that a link existed between public acceptance and the evolution of the “imitation stone” block into a block that was unmistakably concrete:
The decline of artificial stone (“imitation stone”] paralleled a growing acceptance of concrete as an architectural material in its own right. This is discernible In the gradual replacement of the concrete block with an imitation stone face by one with a plain face and an exposed aggregate finish, and also in the rejection of the idea that the artistic block should have the appearance of stone ashlar. [2]
As Gillespie has noted, the emergence of the “exposed aggregate” block seems to mark the public’s acceptance of the concrete block as a material in its own right. To support this point, it is important to note that there was a gradual but definite shift away from the use of the “imitation stone” blocks, accompanied by a rise in popularity of plain and “exposed aggregate” concrete blocks, in the Boyd houses by the 1920s. In fact, the change in block types became so prevalent that it serves as a fairly dependable indicator of age when studying Boyd block buildings.
The second point regarding the importance of block types is in relation to architectural style. At the turn of the century, architecture continued to echo the styles of the previous decades — styles such as Queen Anne, Georgian, and Gothic Revival. These styles demanded a certain “traditional” aesthetic appearance which concrete blocks did not appear to satisfy. To fulfill the conservative requirements of these older architectural styles, concrete manufacturers had to produce a type of block that looked like an “authentic” material such as natural stone.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, new architectural styles began to emerge in North America. These styles, such as the Prairie, Craftsman, and Bungalow, had cleaner lines and less ornamentation than their predecessors. The new styles invited the smooth, clean surfaces that were offered by concrete blocks and other “technological” materials. Clifford E. Clark Jr. comments on the connection between the use of concrete, and the emerging styles of the early twentieth century:
The link between simplicity and functionality could also be seen in the architects’ approach to new building materials such as cement blocks and reinforced concrete. The early articles on cement construction and concrete blocks in the professional journals emphasized the plasticity of the material and its strength, but lamented the lack of “art” in its use…. The growing concern for simplicity and functionality soon reversed this criticism. Simple and functional structures, by the new definition, were obviously beautiful. By 1906 architects had stopped criticizing concrete blocks and were now praising them.[3]
Footnotes:
1. Ann Gillespie. “Early Development of the Artistic Concrete Block”,
APT Bulletin, Vol. XI, No. 2 (1979), p. 32. Advertisement of the Jarvis block-making machine.
2. ibid, p.42.
3. Clifford Edward Clark, Jr. The American Family Home. 1800-1960., p.147.
Return to the main page