There's a picture of a box with a bunch of playing cards on top of it, then a picture of a building that has one. I found it insufficient and thought others might too.
Cool project! My folks get Cliff Swallows nesting under the eaves above their door in central Texas and they make a huge mess. I wish we could encourage them to nest on the side of the house with some bespoke bricks, but they enjoy the doorway.
We had chimney swifts growing up. They were bastards who built nests that would just absolutely clog the chimney. But it was neat to watch them circle and drop into the chimney by the dozens right before dark.
One of my best memories is my grandfather cussing loudly down the chimney in the fall as he cleaned out their nests. It just echoed through the house from the stove.
In the US bird populations are down 30% since the 70s (with many species seeing much more significant declines) and you see similar trends in many other countries. You'll probably see a lot more of these sorts of conservation efforts as people start to realize how dire things are ecologically.
I also know the numbers are similarly dire across the animal kingdom. At least birds aren't doing as poorly as amphibians where 40% of species are threatened (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10567568/)
I live close to the most populous city in Scotland (Glasgow), and even only 6mile (10km) out of the city there is extensive greenery. Rats and mice are very uncommon here. They are rarely seen in the city, and I live close to very large fields and open countryside.
1. These bricks are normally installed close to the roof, under the guttering.
2. If anything, the main rodent of concern would be squirrels...but they will nest in the gutters anyway so having a sealed metal box with a very small opening is likely better anyway.
Rats and mice are ridiculously common in central Glasgow, its plagued the city for years to the point many argue its a public health crisis. While sure the suburbs might be better, I've never once seen someone describe Glasgow and rats being uncommon in the same sentence. I literally can't visit Glasgow without seeing an enormous rat in the street 5 minutes after arriving.
There are loads of nice things I will say about Glasgow - I lived there for decades. Being low on the rat count is not one of them. The local politicians constantly talk about the rat plague too.
I live in rural Fife - effectively in the middle of a farm. We get mice in the house in October or so when it starts getting colder - never seen a rat here. Oddly I've never seen a fox here although I used to see them all the time when we lived in central Edinburgh.
I fail to see how ordinary brick can accommodate bird nest inside, it's way too small and the brick in the article is way too big, seem almost like double depth, so how can this be used actually without disrupting design?
The bricks extend into the cavity region behind the brickwork. Here, pretty much all homes have a gap between the brickwork and the structure to prevent moisture transfer (although in recent-ish history firms have done cavity insulation, which often has negative consequences as done poorly can result in quite extensive damp and mold).
I would think the cavity will be filled with insulation and if you remove it and install there this empty brick you will be leaking heat through this place which will be significantly coolder/noisier.
The article image showed it install high on the wall, in what would be the attic. And there are alternate designs that are normal depth, but multiple bricks tall and wide.
The problem is not the brick price, but extra regulations, controls that they are followed etc, plus the fact that now instead of say 10000 identical bricks for one house you need 9999 ones + one different.
I simply think the priority should be more house building as people struggle to find places to live, and this measure will not help (the effect will probably be small I don't know)
1. Why focus on Swifts as opposed to any other species in decline? They state that they are "iconic", so maybe that's the answer? Are they more "iconic" than any other specifies in Scotland?
2. Why are these bricks the best solution? Why not take that money that would be spent on bricks and instead preserve land, or just build them dedicated houses elsewhere?
3. Why does this need to be done via government mandate versus voluntarily asking people to build Swift housing in existing buildings or land?
I'm worried that this is a government policy with great intentions that will result in economic costs with unmeasured benefits and bureaucratic bloat. Hopefully I am proven wrong!
> 1. Why focus on Swifts as opposed to any other species in decline? They state that they are "iconic", so maybe that's the answer? Are they more "iconic" than any other specifies in Scotland?
They are a red-listed species whose population in the UK has declined by two thirds in 30 years. They are also a species for which there's an obvious measure that can be taken to reverse one of the changes which we know has happened over that time (improved building standards reducing the availability of nesting spaces).
If we can't take simple steps to protect swifts I don't think there's much chance that we'll protect anything. Conservation wise, this is really low hanging fruit.
> 2. Why are these bricks the best solution? Why not take that money that would be spent on bricks and instead preserve land, or just build them dedicated houses elsewhere?
Swifts are extremely site-loyal. You can't just hope that they will move elsewhere. Before buildings they nested in caves and tree cavities. Caves in particular don't move from year to year, so as a result the birds have a strong preference to return to the exact same location where they themselves were born and are slow to colonize other places.
Also your suggestions sound extremely expensive compared to this plan. Swift bricks cost like 30GBP retail. Yes, that's a lot more than the normal house brick they replace, but it's trivial compared to the other costs of building a house.
> 3. Why does this need to be done via government mandate versus voluntarily asking people to build Swift housing in existing buildings or land?
That's more or less the current situation in England, and perhaps unsurprisingly it's extremely rare for developers to actually install swift bricks. Indeed it's relatively uncommon for developers to actually follow through on their existing legally mandated ecological commitments [1].
Making something mandatory everywhere is also cheaper than making it only required in certain places: it eliminates all the bureaucracy around deciding whether this or that development is in the right area, and makes it extremely easy to follow and enforce the rules.
Now it is possible that the lack of nest sites isn't the dominant factor in the decline of swifts. For example it could also be related to the decline in flying insects, or changing weather patterns induced by climate change. We aren't really sure [2], however from that study: "it would be precautionary for conservation efforts to continue to focus on ensuring that safe and productive nesting sites are in sufficient supply", and we also know that the swift bricks will be used by many other bird species as well as swifts.
The article focuses on swifts because it's about swift bricks, a cheap and practical answer to helping the declining swift population.
But don't worry, there are plenty of other initiatives elsewhere across Scotland and the UK helping other species of birds, seeing as you're clearly interested in this subject.
If there were tax incentives for this instead of it being mandatory I'd support it wholeheartedly, but the idea of people being forced to directly attract and accommodate animals to/on their property under threat of punishment is unnerving to me. It's a completely different thing to being made to leave an existing den or nest alone.
I think it would be fun for wildlife to have their own barrister to bring lawsuits against people like you for destroying what was otherwise their native grounds before us meat viruses spread wanton destruction everywhere. The fact is you can't leave 'existing' alone, there is none. In countries like the UK the place has been completely and totally terraformed by people.
As I found the article did a poor job of demonstrating what a swift brick is, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_brick
I opened the article without a clue about what they were. Within my first 5-10 s on it I knew what they were.
Literally right below the title:
> bricks that provide nesting for swifts and other endangered birds
And a picture.
It has two very clear pictures at the top...?
There's a picture of a box with a bunch of playing cards on top of it, then a picture of a building that has one. I found it insufficient and thought others might too.
There's a picture of the brick, you mean.
That was not clear to me. Dunno why people are making such a big deal out of "if you want more info, go here."
Cool project! My folks get Cliff Swallows nesting under the eaves above their door in central Texas and they make a huge mess. I wish we could encourage them to nest on the side of the house with some bespoke bricks, but they enjoy the doorway.
We had chimney swifts growing up. They were bastards who built nests that would just absolutely clog the chimney. But it was neat to watch them circle and drop into the chimney by the dozens right before dark.
One of my best memories is my grandfather cussing loudly down the chimney in the fall as he cleaned out their nests. It just echoed through the house from the stove.
In the US bird populations are down 30% since the 70s (with many species seeing much more significant declines) and you see similar trends in many other countries. You'll probably see a lot more of these sorts of conservation efforts as people start to realize how dire things are ecologically.
Source for decline number: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aaw1313
I also know the numbers are similarly dire across the animal kingdom. At least birds aren't doing as poorly as amphibians where 40% of species are threatened (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10567568/)
Do they not have mice and rats there? This looks like a place those creatures would nest long before a bird got to it.
I live close to the most populous city in Scotland (Glasgow), and even only 6mile (10km) out of the city there is extensive greenery. Rats and mice are very uncommon here. They are rarely seen in the city, and I live close to very large fields and open countryside.
1. These bricks are normally installed close to the roof, under the guttering. 2. If anything, the main rodent of concern would be squirrels...but they will nest in the gutters anyway so having a sealed metal box with a very small opening is likely better anyway.
> They are rarely seen in the city
Rats and mice are ridiculously common in central Glasgow, its plagued the city for years to the point many argue its a public health crisis. While sure the suburbs might be better, I've never once seen someone describe Glasgow and rats being uncommon in the same sentence. I literally can't visit Glasgow without seeing an enormous rat in the street 5 minutes after arriving.
There are loads of nice things I will say about Glasgow - I lived there for decades. Being low on the rat count is not one of them. The local politicians constantly talk about the rat plague too.
> https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/rats-plague-...
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-66732675
> https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/glasgow-rat-...
> https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/probe-finds...
I live in rural Fife - effectively in the middle of a farm. We get mice in the house in October or so when it starts getting colder - never seen a rat here. Oddly I've never seen a fox here although I used to see them all the time when we lived in central Edinburgh.
Not at the top of a wall, no.
I’ve seen them scale brick walls at my house.
Can mice scale vertical walls?
Yes, they can easily climb rough brick walls. A youtube search will provide many examples.
Vertical walls made of brick? Yes. I’ve seen it at my own house.
It's weird to see starlings listed as endangered. We seem to have no shortage of the darn things in the US.
"Starlings declined by 57% between 1995 and 2023 and they now feature on the Red List of birds of high conservation concern."
https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/starling
I fail to see how ordinary brick can accommodate bird nest inside, it's way too small and the brick in the article is way too big, seem almost like double depth, so how can this be used actually without disrupting design?
The bricks extend into the cavity region behind the brickwork. Here, pretty much all homes have a gap between the brickwork and the structure to prevent moisture transfer (although in recent-ish history firms have done cavity insulation, which often has negative consequences as done poorly can result in quite extensive damp and mold).
I would think the cavity will be filled with insulation and if you remove it and install there this empty brick you will be leaking heat through this place which will be significantly coolder/noisier.
Swift bricks are a fully enclosed unit (other than the hole on the outside)
The article image showed it install high on the wall, in what would be the attic. And there are alternate designs that are normal depth, but multiple bricks tall and wide.
Are these Swift 6.3 bricks, or legacy ones?
In the ideal world that would be a good idea, but in the real world with severe housing shortages, not enough house building it is not in my opinion
The brick is £35 each according to the article. That's practically nothing compared to the total cost of a modern house.
The problem is not the brick price, but extra regulations, controls that they are followed etc, plus the fact that now instead of say 10000 identical bricks for one house you need 9999 ones + one different. I simply think the priority should be more house building as people struggle to find places to live, and this measure will not help (the effect will probably be small I don't know)
it costs nothing and hinders nothing, yet provides a benefit, so I don't see how it couldn't be a good idea. it has no impact on housing in any way
How will requiring a £35 brick in a new building cause further problems with the severe housing shortage?
I am frustrated by this article.
1. Why focus on Swifts as opposed to any other species in decline? They state that they are "iconic", so maybe that's the answer? Are they more "iconic" than any other specifies in Scotland?
2. Why are these bricks the best solution? Why not take that money that would be spent on bricks and instead preserve land, or just build them dedicated houses elsewhere?
3. Why does this need to be done via government mandate versus voluntarily asking people to build Swift housing in existing buildings or land?
I'm worried that this is a government policy with great intentions that will result in economic costs with unmeasured benefits and bureaucratic bloat. Hopefully I am proven wrong!
> 1. Why focus on Swifts as opposed to any other species in decline? They state that they are "iconic", so maybe that's the answer? Are they more "iconic" than any other specifies in Scotland?
They are a red-listed species whose population in the UK has declined by two thirds in 30 years. They are also a species for which there's an obvious measure that can be taken to reverse one of the changes which we know has happened over that time (improved building standards reducing the availability of nesting spaces).
If we can't take simple steps to protect swifts I don't think there's much chance that we'll protect anything. Conservation wise, this is really low hanging fruit.
> 2. Why are these bricks the best solution? Why not take that money that would be spent on bricks and instead preserve land, or just build them dedicated houses elsewhere?
Swifts are extremely site-loyal. You can't just hope that they will move elsewhere. Before buildings they nested in caves and tree cavities. Caves in particular don't move from year to year, so as a result the birds have a strong preference to return to the exact same location where they themselves were born and are slow to colonize other places.
Also your suggestions sound extremely expensive compared to this plan. Swift bricks cost like 30GBP retail. Yes, that's a lot more than the normal house brick they replace, but it's trivial compared to the other costs of building a house.
> 3. Why does this need to be done via government mandate versus voluntarily asking people to build Swift housing in existing buildings or land?
That's more or less the current situation in England, and perhaps unsurprisingly it's extremely rare for developers to actually install swift bricks. Indeed it's relatively uncommon for developers to actually follow through on their existing legally mandated ecological commitments [1].
Making something mandatory everywhere is also cheaper than making it only required in certain places: it eliminates all the bureaucracy around deciding whether this or that development is in the right area, and makes it extremely easy to follow and enforce the rules.
Now it is possible that the lack of nest sites isn't the dominant factor in the decline of swifts. For example it could also be related to the decline in flying insects, or changing weather patterns induced by climate change. We aren't really sure [2], however from that study: "it would be precautionary for conservation efforts to continue to focus on ensuring that safe and productive nesting sites are in sufficient supply", and we also know that the swift bricks will be used by many other bird species as well as swifts.
[1] https://wildjustice.org.uk/lost-nature-report/ [2] https://www.bto.org/our-work/science/publications/papers/dem...
The article focuses on swifts because it's about swift bricks, a cheap and practical answer to helping the declining swift population.
But don't worry, there are plenty of other initiatives elsewhere across Scotland and the UK helping other species of birds, seeing as you're clearly interested in this subject.
If there were tax incentives for this instead of it being mandatory I'd support it wholeheartedly, but the idea of people being forced to directly attract and accommodate animals to/on their property under threat of punishment is unnerving to me. It's a completely different thing to being made to leave an existing den or nest alone.
I think it would be fun for wildlife to have their own barrister to bring lawsuits against people like you for destroying what was otherwise their native grounds before us meat viruses spread wanton destruction everywhere. The fact is you can't leave 'existing' alone, there is none. In countries like the UK the place has been completely and totally terraformed by people.