INVESTIGATING LOCAL HOUSING: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN CONTEXT Introduction This lecture considers the value of: 1. Using physical as well as documentary evidence in investigating aspects of local housing history. 2. Contextualising the research findings that arise through some form of comparison. Why use physical evidence? 1. Much exists to study, along with visual records of that demolished. W. G Hoskins has made the challenging remark: ‘The English landscape itself, to those who know how to read it aright, is the richest historical record we possess’ (Hoskins, p.14). 2. Physical remains can provide evidence that is (a) absent from the documentary record; (b) tests the reliability of the documentary record. 3. Of course, landscape features may have been significantly altered over time, so careful evaluation of the evidence they provide is needed. Why contextualise and how? 1. Contextualising local housing research findings helps in appreciating their significance – they may be unusual - and in explaining them. 2. Contextualising these findings can occur by: (a) referring to the secondary literature, including theory; (b) comparing examples in a locality over time; (c) making point-in-time comparisons between localities. House types selected To consider these ideas, three types of housing have been selected, drawing on examples from various parts of Britain. They are: 1. residential squares for the better-off - detaching the detached; 2. handloom weavers’ cottages - shedding new light on old windows; 3. nineteenth century working-class terraced houses - the great chimney pot mystery.
Residential squares for the better-off London examples Fig. 1. Bedford Square, Bloomsbury The square was erected in the 1770s. Field investigation reveals: 1. Building materials and walling technique – mostly brick laid in decorative Flemish bonding, with central bays in stucco (plaster); high degree of uniformity in type and size of house; architectural detail – classical revival; fire-place provision - number of chimney pots. 2. Railed private garden, oval in shape, with wide pavements providing open space. Documentary investigation of the square could involve: 1. Using census schedule and trade directory evidence to determine house usage and to assess its change over time. 2. Gaining inspiration from the secondary literature. For instance, assessing the social standing of the square’s inhabitants using John Burnett’s three-fold classification of middle-class families (Burnett, p.95): - great industrialists, bankers and merchants; - those in the professions, lesser-factory owners and senior clerks; - petty tradesmen, shopkeepers, nonconformist clergy. craftsmen/retailers.
Fig. 2. Cloudesley Square, Islington (mid-1820s) The square dates from the mid-1820s. In common with Bedford Square, uniform housing was provided. But Sir Charles Barry’s Holy Trinity church occupies the whole of the central area of the square. Examples outside London Fig. 3. Queen Square, Bristol. The square was finished in the late 1720s, but was partly rebuilt following destruction by fire during political rioting in 1831. Field investigation reveals the same type of details as the examples of London squares, but differences are evident: 1. There is a lack of uniformity in the square’s terraced housing. 2. Non-domestic land use in the square’s peripheral buildings emerges. The Custom
House, where taxes on imported goods were collected, was built on the north side. It is located behind the two large trees in the centre of the picture. Fig. 4. Winckley Square, Preston The square was mostly erected during the first half of the 19 th century. Field investigation reveals the same type of evidence as for other squares, but several detached houses are found. Those shown are on the south side of the square. Fig. 5. Winckley Square in the 1840s.
The 1840s six-inch OS map extract reveals that detached houses were built on all sides of the square. Others were added later in the south-east corner. The map also reveals that, unusually, central garden space was allocated to create private gardens. These belonged to the north-side and south-side houses. The red square marks the situation of the houses shown in Fig. 6 and the red line the direction in which the photograph was taken. Five-bay house shown on 1840s map. Three-bay infill house not shown on 1840s map. Note the pronounced quoins (corner stones). A recessed bay shows infilling that came later. The two adjoining bays in the five-bay house were added to the infill bay, thus creating two, three-bay houses. Fig. 6. The south-west corner of the square, looking south. Several of the Square’s detached houses have been converted into terraced houses through infilling, indicating the continuing popularity of the square as housing for better-off families. Matters arising Physical evidence derived from any particular residential square helps to reveal the
form it took and its functions. Contextualising enables comparison of house form and function to be made, raising questions about the varying means, circumstances and aspirations of those who developed them. ***** Handloom weavers’ cottages Upper-storey loomshops Fig.7. Paradise, Street, Macclesfield, Cheshire
Purpose built for silk handloom weaving around 1840, these cottages display the following characteristics: 1. They are single-fronted with three storeys. 2. They have rows of windows in the uppermost storey at both back and front, providing well-lit loomshops for silk handloom weavers. The windows have horizontal sliding sashes. 3. Two bedrooms were provided with two living rooms beneath. Fig. 8. Fournier Street, Spitalfields, London These houses were developed as high-quality residences during the early 18th century. Key features are: 1. Three-bay frontages, with keystones in the window arches and classical-style door surrounds. 2. Four storeys above a basement. 3. Lofts with glazed frontages for silk handloom weavers.
Fig. 9. Handloom weavers’ cottages at Outlane, near Huddersfield Probably dating from the early decades of the 19 th century, they were also specially built for handloom weavers. Points to note are: 1. The three-storey dwelling has long rows of windows in each level. 2. The two-storey dwellings have rows of windows in their upper storeys. 3. Questions arise as to how domestic and working space was organised, especially in the two-storey examples. What of sleeping arrangements, for example? Lower-storey loomshops Fig.10. Handloom weavers’ cottages at West View Place, Blackburn, Lancashire
These cottages were built in the early 19 th century by a terminating building society. Members made monthly subscriptions until all the houses were built, lots being drawn to determine the order in which completed houses were allocated. The houses were let by club members, who became the owners, to handloom weavers. Details to note are: 1. They comprise two-up, two-down dwellings with basements. 2. They have rows of basement windows at front and rear that project above ground floor level, so that steps to outer doors are required. 3. Cellar light wells, now filled, may well have been provided. Fig.11. Former handloom weavers’ cottages at Livesey, near Blackburn. Again dating from the early 19 th century, the main features of these cottages are: 1. They are two-storeys high and double-fronted. 2. They had loomshops lit with triple windows at the front and rear. 3. The loomshops were at groundfloor level. Identifying former handloom weavers’ cottages Former handloom weavers’ cottages can be difficult to identify because of alterations made to them. In the example shown in Figure 12, changes are easy to see. The central light of a triple window has been deepened and the window lights at either side have been blocked, though their sills and lintels have been left in position. More difficult to recognise is the weavers’ cottage shown in Figure 13. Originally, it was similar to those in Figures 11 and 12, but it has been divided into two cottages. The
Fig.12. Former handloom weavers’ cottage at Livesey, near Blackburn Fig. 13. Former handloom weavers’ cottage, Bog Height Road, Darwen
former loomshop can be identified by the two lintels and a sill, shown inside the white boxes, that were once part of a triple window arrangement. The two outer lights have been blocked, part of one making space for a doorway to be inserted. The central light has been deepened. Matters arising Physical evidence helps to identify former handloom weavers’ cottages for which no documentary evidence may exist. This consideration is important, for example, is assessing the extent to which handloom weavers’ colonies influenced the growth of both rural and urban settlement during the Industrial Revolution era. Contextualisation raises the question of why regional differences occurred in the design of handloom weavers’ cottages. The issue of animal versus vegetable fibres arises, the latter having to be woven in relatively humid conditions. So, too, does the difference they offered in accommodation standards. ***** Working-class houses Chimney pot provision Counting the numbers of chimney pots with which houses were provided is revealing in terms of the standards of comfort they offered. Thus, other things being equal, a two-up, two-down house with four chimney pots and hence, quite probably, four fireplaces, would have offered the prospect of greater comfort than a four-roomed house with one, two or three chimney pots. But more can be deduced from counting chimney pot numbers. Fig.14. Houses with four chimney pots, Chorley, Lancashire
Recommend
More recommend
