by Trevor Yorke
FIG 2.9: REGENCY SQUARE, BRIGHTON: It was the belief that sea water could cure or relieve ailments, either by bathing in it or drinking it, which drew crowds to the south coast and encouraged the building of streets and squares along the sea front, as with this example from the 1820s.
The benefits of bathing in sea water were also appreciated in the Regency period and small seaside resorts developed around the country, but no more so than at Brighton where elegant rendered terraces were built along streets and around squares fronting the sea.
PORTS, NAVY DOCKS AND ARMY BARRACKS
The increase in trade with Europe and especially the new colonies resulted in the development and expansion of ports. Liverpool, Whitehaven and Bristol all grew, with new docks and fashionable housing for those who had made their fortune from shipping. The Port of London also expanded, although only after the Thames had become so clogged with traffic that merchants threatened to move elsewhere. Smaller ports developed along rivers where improvements to navigation brought larger craft further inland to dock. The building of new ships for the merchant fleet led to development in towns like Sunderland and Scarborough and for the navy, which had to protect their routes, in centres at Portsmouth, Chatham and Plymouth.
FIG 2.10: LIVERPOOL: This important port grew in the 18th century as a result of trade from the American colonies, Asia and Ireland. Merchants and those involved with shipping built themselves classically styled terraces on the hill overlooking the docks.
A permanent standing army took shape in the 18th century, although it was much smaller than the navy. It was principally employed overseas until, with the threat of revolution in the air in the 1790s, new barracks were built to house a force to quell public dissent – this role was, however, largely taken over by the police force in the following century. Army buildings, accommodation and officers’ houses were built in many towns and cities, and factories and metal foundries that supplied weapons for both army and navy also resulted in urban expansion, especially in the Birmingham area.
FIG 2.11: STOURPORT BASIN, WORCESTERSHIRE: Towns also developed further inland around wharfs and docks as with this example on the River Severn, which became a busy canal junction. A new town was laid out with the houses on the far side of the basin built along a rigid grid pattern of straight roads, as is still evident today.
FIG 2.12: WEEDON BARRACKS, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE: Permanent barracks only began to be established with the threat from Napoleon and from radicals. This site was principally a depot for light arms but as it was at the geographic centre of England, pavilions were built to house the king in case of invasion. The lodge in the picture incorporated a portcullis (in the arch at the bottom) to cut off the canal, which ran into the site.
INDUSTRIAL TOWNS
The most notable urban growth, however, occurred in the new industrial centres in the Midlands and North as towns and cities were established or expanded many times over. The cotton industry in the Manchester area, clothing in Leeds and Halifax and metal working in Sheffield and the West Midlands were some of the more important examples. Smaller settlements also developed in rural areas around mining, iron production and quarrying, many expanding in scattered, unplanned forms where there was little control over the landlord, and only later, with infilling, becoming a more defined town or city.
FIG 2.13: CROMFORD, DERBYSHIRE: This row of terraced houses was built by Richard Arkwright in the 1780s and had living accommodation on the ground and first floors, and an open attic above for weaving with distinctive wide windows.
Rural Development
Despite the expansion of urban areas in this period, the complete transformation of rural communities at the same time could be far more dramatic and thorough. Many remote hamlets remained untouched in this age before railways and mass tourism and others that had been enclosed by agreement in previous centuries may have changed very little. But for vast swathes of the country, especially in the Midlands, the reform of agriculture, the reshaping of country houses, the spread of industry and the expanding transport network caused, in the worst examples, the complete removal of ancient communities.
TURNPIKE AND CANAL SETTLEMENTS
Many smaller settlements also benefited from the increased traffic on the main roads upon which they stood. Others may have been bypassed by new lengths of road constructed by the Turnpike Trust to shorten routes or avoid notorious obstacles or hills but, to avoid missing out on the lucrative trade, inns and buildings were established on the new stretch and a general drift of building away from the old centre to the new source of business often occurred.
With the arrival of canals in the late 18th century, workshops, wharfs, pubs and inns were built to maintain the structure and service the route and its workers. Houses were sited around these new centres, either in existing settlements or a short distance away, with building spreading down towards the activity around the canal.
PARLIAMENTARY ENCLOSURES
In this age of agricultural improvement the medieval arrangement of small-scale farms with scattered holdings in different fields was restrictive to new ideas and practices. Some areas had already been enclosed (the process of hedging or fencing off the land of individuals) by agreement. However, landlords of estates where this had not been possible now looked to friends in Parliament to pass acts forcing it upon their tenants. This reached a peak of activity in the late 18th and early 19th century, with previously large open fields and common land being divided up into regular sized compartments and new straight roads with wide verges (often mistaken for Roman roads) constructed between them.
FIG 2.14: Maps of a simplified imaginary estate and its village around the green before (left) and after (right) Parliamentary enclosure. In the left-hand example the five farmers (A–E) have their houses in the centre of the settlement as their land is dispersed in the large fields around. In the right-hand map, however, new farmhouses have been built out in their newly rearranged holdings, but farmer E has lost his land to his larger neighbours.
FIG 2.15: EDENSOR, DERBYSHIRE: This village was re-sited in the 1830s to keep it out of view of Chatsworth House. The new buildings were designed in an eclectic mix of styles more for the pleasure of the lord than his tenants.
This created more manageable and efficient farms that could meet the new urban demand for food. The tenants with the greatest amount of land could build new brick and stone farmhouses located in the centre of their holdings (their old houses back in the village were often subdivided up for cottages), which could be held on simplified leases of 7 to 21 years. Smallholders, however, often lost out, not only losing their land but also the common rights to graze livestock on village greens and wasteland, which were swallowed up in the reorganisation. A large part of the rural population became seasonal labourers or moved to the new industrial centres.
EMPARKMENT AND ESTATE VILLAGES
The relationship between the lord of the manor and his tenants had gradually changed over the centuries. The old manor house with its open door to villagers and visitors alike had become more remote, with firstly tall walls around it and then removal to a more private corner. In the 18th century many landowners sought to transform their piece of rural England into a romantic classical scene and the scattered hovels they could view from the house did not fit in. Rather than resite gtheir home, many preferred to remove the entire village to a completely new position out of sight. The process of emparkment often started with the enclosure of the estate, then new houses for the villagers were built, before the old buildings (many of which may have been simple timber framed cottages of limited life) were flattened. The old church was often the only building left standing close to the country house, perhaps with a fashionable classical makeover, so it was only a short walk for the lord of the manor on a Sunday. On paper this may seem to have benefited both parties, but as part of the reorganisation many landlords took the opportunity to remove unwanted villagers by only offering the new houses to the best tenants, and then on strict terms.
/>
FIG 2.16: NUNEHAM COURTENAY, OXFORDSHIRE: These cottages date from the 1760s when the village was re-sited along the new turnpike road, a mile from its old position next to the grand country house. Only the church remained and it was given a classical makeover to fit in with the new building.
Other estate villages that remained in place or had a partial removal were often rebuilt by wealthy landlords, less out of benevolence to their tenants and more to improve the approach to their own house to impress guests! (At Old Warden in Bedfordshire the tenants themselves had to dress up in period costume to complete the landlord’s picturesque view of the world.)
Types of Development
LANDLORDS AND BUILDERS
In the past, houses were generally erected for the tenant or landowner by a builder or by the owner himself. There were planned developments at least as far back as the 12th century and most towns and even villages have elements that may have originated thus, but nothing on the scale or with the permanency that emerged in London in the mid 17th century. These first speculative projects were laid out upon what were then open fields, with straight rows of new brick terraced housing.
Some of these new permanent structures were built by an emerging breed of small-scale speculators, often but not always builders. They would take the risk of building the house and having to find a purchaser or tenant for it afterwards in return for a low ground rent and a long-term lease, around 30–40 years. When the lease ran out, the buildings would revert back to the original landlord who could then increase the rent. These original terms meant that there was little incentive to build houses that would last longer than the length of the lease and poor quality construction was often the result. In response, the terms were increased so that by the mid 18th century 99 years was becoming the norm.
FIG 2.17: THE CRESCENT, BATH: This most famous of buildings in Bath was designed by John Wood the Younger in the 1770s. However, he commissioned a series of different builders to construct it and although they had to stick rigidly to his plan of the façade there are slight differences, as in the close up where the windows are not the same height.
The landlord would usually retain some control over the appearance of the street or estate and larger builders would often design the buildings and then subcontract the work out. What -ever the arrangement, it was common for only a small number of houses to be built at once by one builder; there were few firms large enough to take on the whole project until the 19th century. As a result most seemingly unified rows and crescents have slight differences to show where one builder finished and another started, or the same one at a later date.
STREETS AND ESTATES
Most new housing was erected upon geometrically designed layouts – squares, crescents, circles and in straight rows – the only meandering features usually coming from old roads or lanes that had been retained. There were few large-scale developments at first, the grandest projects being limited to one square or street at a time. The width of the roads in London and later in other cities was a reflection of the buildings along it, the taller and more expensive they were the wider the road (these proportions were enforced in London by Building Acts).
Most streets were poorly surfaced with no drainage and only in the best examples were there pavements to save pedestrians from the worst of the filth (foot-scrapers were an essential feature beside the door of most houses: see Fig 4.35). Later, larger terraces often had the road built up with the spoil from digging out the house foundations, leaving a basement below the street at the front but level with the garden on the original ground level at the rear. This also enabled the builder to provide storage under the pavement with coal chutes above for deliveries to be dropped down (see Fig 3.23).
By the early 19th century more ambitious schemes were undertaken, the most notable being Regents Street and Park by John Nash, which involved rebuilding a whole section of London’s West End with a new main thorough -fare terminating in a grand park surrounded by classical terraces and pavilions. Some of the first large building firms also emerged, like that of Thomas Cubitt, which grew to employ a thousand men and whose clients would include Queen Victoria.
FIG 2.18 BEDFORD SQUARE, LONDON: Many of the new streets or squares were named after the aristocratic owner of the land, whether or not he was directly involved in the development. Bedford Square was built in the 1770s for the Duke of Bedford.
FIG 2.19: REGENTS PARK, LONDON: One of the most ambitious schemes of the period was the rebuilding of part of the West End of London by John Nash for the Prince Regent (later George IV) with the construction of Regents Street and the Park. Grand, stucco-covered brick terraces were built along the main thoroughfare and around the new park.
By the early 19th century more ambitious schemes were undertaken, the most notable being Regents Street and Park by John Nash, which involved rebuilding a whole section of London’s West End with a new main thoroughfare terminating in a grand park surrounded by classical terraces and pavilions. Some of the first large building firms also emerged, like that of Thomas Cubitt, which grew to employ a thousand men and whose clients would include Queen Victoria.
CHAPTER 3
The Georgian and Regency House
FIG 3.1 CHANDOS STREET, LONDON: A street flanked by terraces laid out in the new suburbs of the West End of London in the late 18th century. Chandos House at the head of the road was built by Robert Adam in 1771 and faced with Craigleath stone from a quarry where he and his brother James had recently taken out a lease. Its restrained façade and delicate Neo Classical detailing on the portico and string courses are typical of his work.
It’s unlikely that when the king’s baker, Thomas Farrinor, extinguished his oven on the evening of 1st September 1666 he would have realised that some tiny smouldering embers he had neglected to put out would start a chain of events that would play a large part in changing the face of housing in this country. The fire that spread from his premises over the following three days engulfed some 13,000 properties and wiped out the heart of the old City of London. Fires were an accepted part of life in those days and most towns, cities and even villages were regularly affected. The scale of this event, however, was such that the following year the first of many Building Acts was passed to ensure it did not happen again. These controlled the materials used, the method of construction and began standardising the size and design of houses, which, although only applying to London at first, subsequently became good practice elsewhere.
FIG 3.2 BUCKINGHAM: A great fire swept through the small county town of Buckingham in 1725, destroying one in three houses. This late 18th century house was built after the devastation. The date of such events locally can help pinpoint the age of the houses subsequently rebuilt. Note also the bricked up windows on the top floor, which is often but not always due to an attempt to reduce the amount of window tax the owner had to pay.
These changes gave rise to the end of individualistic local forms of housing, vernacular architecture, which was shaped by local geology with a builder’s designs and methods passed down from father to son. Before examining the new materials and types of structure that dominated the Georgian period, it is worth briefly looking back at what came before – to put the new housing in context and particularly as some of it was still being built in these traditional styles during the 18th century.
Housing before 1700
During the Middle Ages houses were built by local craftsmen from locally available materials, and the majority were timber framed. Woodland was not the dark, foreboding place envisaged in Robin Hood or fairy tales, but was a well-managed commodity supplying timber for local building throughout the medieval, Tudor and Stuart periods. Earlier timber framed houses had thick members and wide spaces between; later the pieces were fitted more tightly in patterns or with close studded verticals, and by the 18th century those that were still built used thin, poorer quality wood, reflecting the low status of the owner and the lack of good supplies. The spaces between were usually infilled with wa
ttle and daub, an interlaced surface of thin sticks or strips of wood (wattle) covered with a varying mix of mud, straw and other materials (daub) and then painted in sometimes bold and regionally varying colours and even patterns (pargeting) in some parts of East Anglia. This infill was sometimes replaced at a later date with brick, often laid in a diagonal, herringbone pattern.
FIG 3.3: The great fire of London and other conflagrations around the country encouraged householders to insure their properties against fire. New insurance companies were formed and as there were no numbers or house names, fire marks or metal badges, as in this example from Bath, were fixed to the front of houses covered. Each company had its own fire brigade and they would rush to the scene and attempt to extinguish the blaze, or if it was the wrong company they might leave it to burn! They lasted into the 19th century when local fire brigades began to be formed.
In the Georgian period those who could not afford to completely rebuild could cover the exterior of their timber framed house with a new brick or stone façade. In the South East a popular alternative was to use horizontal timber boards, weatherboarding, or mathematical tiles, which hung off strips of wood laths like roof tiles to imitate brickwork.
