NBS Building

NBS Building enables you to write concise, technically accurate and up to date specifications for building projects.

Review: Frank W Macey, Specifications in detail, Donhead, 2009 (reprint of 1904 edition)

by John Gelder
NBS Content Development Manager

Macey's book is an early UK master specification system, of which NBS is but the latest iteration (A. Bartholomew's 1840 Specifications for practical architecture was perhaps the first). It offers over 500 pages of sample technical specifications for building work in Britain in 1904, organised by the trades of the day (26 of them – there are now over 300 in NBS), with standard clauses cross-referenced as appropriate rather than repeated (e.g. Tiler, 9: “Felt – See clause No. 8 under Slater”). The idea behind republishing is that such a book is still useful. There's no doubt in my mind that this is the case.

Master specification

Clearly Specifications in detail cannot be used as a master specification system for new buildings any more. Standards, almost non-existent at the time, are widespread now in project specifications (NBS cites nearly 3000). Regulations have changed beyond recognition (accessibility and energy efficiency were not regulated at the time, for example, and regulations are performance-based rather than prescriptive). Proprietary items are specified much more often than they were in 1904, when a much higher proportion of products were bespoke or 'natural'. Construction technologies have evolved so that much of Macey describes a lost world of products and systems, including bespoke slate baths (Plumber, 38) and porcelain electric switch cases with ivory handles (Electric lighting, 18).

However it can be mined for descriptions of systems, products and execution that could be used in project specifications today where an Edwardian result is wanted (e.g. in alterations and additions to an Edwardian building). For example, to reproduce a period baize door, the specifier could adapt the following clause:

CARPENTER, JOINER AND IRONMONGER

PANELLED DOORS

Baize doors. (251) – The door to study (or private office) to be 1 ¾ in. (1 ½ in. or 2 in.) wrought solid deal, four-panel, square-framed panelling, with 1 ¾ in. (1 ½ in. or 2 in.) wrought solid deal, flush both sides panels, covered over on both sides and edges with strong superfine green (red or blue) baize on a backing of thick brown paper, with a groove and slip joint on hanging style, and copper tacked on top and bottom rails. Form imitation panels on both sides, with brass-headed nails every 1 in. apart (or with brass beads).

The guidance tells us about some further technical alternatives, and where a baize door might be used (to exclude sound). Adapting such a clause today would mean replacing much of it with an annotated drawing (along the lines of Macey's little marginal sketches) – in Macey's day architects detailed relatively little: “[unlike Engineers] Architects do not usually supply many details with their Contract Drawings, consequently somewhat lengthy specifications are necessary” (p. x). A glance at contemporary architectural working drawings will demonstrate this point.

Project technical resource

Generally, when dealing with existing buildings, access to their production documentation (working drawings and project specifications) is very useful. They tell us what was intended to be built, at least, giving us a good idea of what we can expect to find (especially for concealed work). They are also useful for facility management purposes, enabling us to identify possible causes of failure, or to match existing construction for repairs, alterations and additions. They also help us identify original parts of a building (those that comply with the original documentation) and later work (those that don't).

Given the need for “lengthy specifications”, the project specification was relatively more important then than it is now, and so is similarly more important as a technical resource for conservation architects and others dealing with buildings up to this period.

Though Macey does not contain any project specifications (unlike T.L. Donaldson's work of 1859 – Handbook of Specifications – with 46 project specifications), it might be said to go one better, by providing clauses that were used in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of project specifications. So where the project specification does not survive, Macey may help.

Those dealing with buildings of the period might be able to check what was built against Macey, to see if Macey was used. For example, does the baize door match Macey's description (assuming this is unique to Macey)? If it does then one might assume that Macey was used for the descriptions of other parts of the building.

Alternatively, it might be possible to check if the original architect, if known, held a copy. Many did – the book went through 5 editions from 1898 to 1955. And not just for academic interest – the first edition apparently was criticised for not being current, indicating that purchasers wanted to use it as a master specification system, as Macey intended. The 1904 edition is supposed to have addressed this criticism, though currency was apparently a problem again for the 1955 edition. The effort required for – and the importance of – the maintenance of master specification systems is often underestimated (including by Lawrance Hurst in his 2009 introduction, available online)!

Also underestimated is the importance of master specification systems to experienced architects – they are not there just to help the novice (as Hurst, and Peter Swallow in his online review, suggest). Macey suggests (as does NBS) that architects should not recycle old project specifications for new projects (p. xvii) – architects taking this advice would turn to Macey as the source for all their project specifications, increasing its use. We can be sure that buildings were going to be built in accordance with its clauses, suitably adjusted for project-specificity. It was not going to be left on the shelf, to be referred to occasionally by novices as a mere text on construction. Other books dealt with that need.

Principles of specification

Lastly, Macey's introduction (General notes) briefly describes the principles of specification, my own area of interest. A couple of his suggestions have been noted already. Some I wouldn't agree with (e.g. his advice that the specification should include dimensions, such as wall thicknesses, already given on the drawings; or that a catch-all clause requiring "best quality" materials and workmanship be included at the start of the specification), and some I would.

For example, Macey reminds architects to take “great care and thought” when writing the draft specification, so it is as complete as possible. He also notes that it is usual for the QS “to make notes of any item omitted from the architect's Specification”, and suggests that the architect check that fair copies of the final specification are in agreement before they are sent out (p. xi). This infers that such care was not universal.

Plus ça change . . .

Reviewer

John Gelder is an architect and NBS Content development manager. He has written and lectured widely on historical, contemporary and future specification practice.

A short version of this article was published in CHS Newsletter 86, December 2009, p13.