1. Potts W.E. ‘Notes on the Construction of Modern Industrial Buildings’,Journal of the Textile Institute, 5 (1914), 363–74. Taking his cue from this, the present author referred to this type of flooring as ‘reinforced concrete’ in his study of the architects Stott & Sons, although he did state that this was also known as concrete filler-joist flooring (Holden, R.N.Stott & Sons: Architects of the Lancashire Cotton Mill(Lancaster: Carnegie Publishing, 1998), 70–8). Although one reviewer took the author to task for using the term ‘reinforced concrete’, other writers on structural engineering do treat filler-joist floors as a form of reinforcing (Chrimes, M., Review of Holden,Stott & Sons,Transactions of the Newcomen Society, 70:1 (1998–9), 148–50; Hurst, L. ‘Concrete and the Structural Use of Cements in England before 1890’, in Sutherland, J., D. Humm and M. Chrimes (eds),Historic Concrete: Background to Appraisal(London: Thomas Telford, 2001), 55–9; Swailes, T. and J. Marsh,Structural Appraisal of Iron-Framed Textile Mills(London: Thomas Telford, 1998), 21–3).
2. The English Heritage Listing citation for Falcon Mill states ‘Reputed to be one of the first mills to be equipped with concrete filler joist floors [.]’. Elsewhere this has been turned into ‘concrete joists’: Jones, E.Industrial Architecture in Britain, 1750–1939(London: B.T. Batsford, 1985), 183.
3. Imperial units are used here because these buildings were designed in imperial units and can only be understood if these same units are used. Metric equivalents, rounded to two decimal places, are given the first time a dimension is mentioned in the text. Any attempt to describe these buildings solely in metric units, as is regrettably the case in work done by professional archaeology units, is considered by the author to be merely confusing.
4. British Patent 10047, 10/2/1844, Henry Hawes Fox.