Semi-detached houses in England

7/26/2019 Semi-detached houses in England

1/16

The Development of English Semi-detached

Dwellings During the Nineteenth Century

Pamela Lofthouse*

All of the listings of English semis sampled forthis paper contained detailed descriptions offabric, but negligible historical data. A simplesearch of English Heritages National Herit-age List online database in July 2012 revealedonly four listings for semi-detached. Anadvanced search for semi-detached, domes-tic, dwellings provided 1,931 listings whichalthough more encouraging, still seems tobe low given that England has over 7 million

semis (Department for Communities andLocal Government 2011).

Yet although most people consider semis tobe a twentieth century invention, and there-fore not worthy of attention by architecturalhistorians or heritage professionals, semisplayed a key role as rural cottages for the work-ing classes and suburban villas for the middleclasses during the nineteenth century and thiscultural value deserves to be recognised.

The English population doubled between1801 and 1851. There was also a huge shift ofpopulation from rural areas to the cities andtowns; the percentage living in rural areasdeclined from 80% in 1801 to less than 50%in 1851 and this trend continued for the restof the century. Together with rapid industrialexpansion, these factors had transformedboth rural and urban areas by the end of thenineteenth century.

During the eighteenth century the doc-trine of laissez-faireprevailed - the belief thatthere was no need for interference, especiallyby governments, in the structure of society(Morris nd). However, as the industrial revo-lution progressed much of the earlier hous-ing in cities and towns disappeared underdevelopments such as docks, roads and rail-ways, and a high proportion of that whichremained deteriorated rapidly through over-

crowding. As squalid industrial towns pro-liferated, the philosophy of laissez-fairewas

PIA Volume 22 (2012), 83-98 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.404

* [email protected]

Buildings in England are heritage listed if they are of special architecturalor historical interest, and based on the signicance, appropriate conservationpriorities can be determined.But to list, and then conserve, one must rstidentify, then research and assess. The problem is being able to recognise animportant example of a semi-detached house (semi) if it is neither very oldnor aesthetically appealing. The semi is the most common dwelling type inEngland, yet because it is typically suburban and ordinary, very little researchinto its origins and development has been carried out. As a result, semis areunder-represented in heritage listings. And once listed, it is dicult, if notimpossible, to set priorities for ongoing conservation work or adaptive reuse,without knowledge of the historical or social underpinnings of its signi-cance. Even those ordinary buildings which do not reach the thresholds forlisting risk being unnecessarily degraded, through demolition, decay or unsym-pathetic alterations, if there is no understanding of their stories or meanings,and no safeguards are built into the planning guidelines.


2/16

The Developement of English Semi-detached Dwellings During the XIX Century84

gradually replaced by a realisation that hous-ing reforms and some interventions wererequired for working class housing (Morrisnd). The ideal housing for artisans (skilledworkers) became something imposed on

them by well-meaning philanthropists anddesigners of model dwellings who linkedarchitecture, artisans and morality (Guillery2004, 298). Similarly, as the vernacular tradi-tions declined, the housing for rural tenantsbecame more standardised as pattern bookspromoted model cottages (Long 2002).

In contrast, the growing middle classes dur-ing the nineteenth century were able to graspthe opportunities for advancement created by

the industrial revolution, including the abil-ity to move out of the city centres and intothe surrounding suburbs. For them, housingbecame less uniform, with the developmentof fashionable new suburbs such as the pic-turesque styles of St Johns Wood and the laterdomestic revival styles of Bedford Park.

This paper traces the trajectory of the semiup and down the social spectrum during thenineteenth century.

Housing the Rural Working Classes

As a result of the parliamentary enclosuresof rural land, which occurred for around100 years after 1760, some people in openvillages continued to build their own dwell-ings, but most of the building was carriedout by the new estate owners in their closedvillages. The estate villages of the eighteenthcentury tended to reflect the formal land-scaping fashions of the time, but using thetraditional vernacular styles of their regions.With the spread of the pattern books,advances in building techniques and theavailability of new materials, the vernacularstyles were gradually replaced with stand-ardised, model cottage designs. The authorsof pattern books for labourers cottages alsosought to improve the morality and virtue ofthe labourer, by placing neo-classical archi-tecture (good architecture) into the land-

scape, to address the negative social impactsof enclosure (Maudlin 2010, 13). The fashion

for the picturesque gradually replaced theneo-classical and by the early nineteenthcentury a new estate village was expectedto conform to the picturesque ideals, ratherthan just be an element in the landscape.

The most economical form for the newestate cottages was the attached brick orstone dwelling, based on the form of theexisting farm buildings, many of which hadalready been converted to attached dwell-ings. The double farm cottage was built notbecause land was too scarce for detachedhouses, but as a means of reducing costs(there was a saving in materials by sharing awall) and keeping the houses warmer in win-

ter. It was said that this species of cottagecan be built cheaper than two single ones,and, in general, these double cottages arefound to be warmer and fully as comfortableas single ones (Smith 1834, 27).

Fig. 1: Estate cottages, constructed by the Earl ofLeicester for his labourers at Holkham,in Norfolk (HMSO 1842, 313).


3/16

The Developement of English Semi-detached Dwellings During the XIX Century 85

Fig. 2:A pair of labourers cottages. The cottages are shown in a picturesque setting (Hall 1825,Design No 5).


4/16


It was not only the pattern books whichinspired the picturesque rural cottage build-ers. The prominent architect John Nash(1752-1835), with his assistant George Rep-ton, in 1811 designed Blaise Hamlet, a group

of houses around a green, for retired employ-ees of Blaise Castle House. Unusually, eightof the cottages are detached, the additionalexpense and care for the tenants perhapsbeing justified because the owner was aQuaker philanthropist. The ninth building isa double cottage. Blaise Hamlet became anexemplar for the picturesque, although formany estate owners their new villages hadonly the minimum of picturesque styling

enough to satisfy fashionable tastes, butbuilt as cheaply as possible (Figure 1).

As the industrial revolution increasinglyimpacted on the working classes in the cit-ies, towns and rural areas, some concernedmiddle class citizens formed societies totry and improve the living conditions ofthe labouring class. A group known as theSociety for Improving the Condition of theLabouring Classeswas formed by Benjamin

Wills in 1825 (Curl 1983, 75) and the sameyear the Secretary to the Society, architectJohn Hall, published a book of designs forcottages and schools for the rural poor. Inthis book Hall notes that the objective ofthe Society was:

...an increase of comfort and happi-ness to the labouring classes:- an en-couragement towards the attainmentof a true independence, which, while

it makes them superior to idleness, in-temperance, and parochial relief, willtend to lessen their vices, and createa pleasurable observance of all theduties of society. In short, an induce-ment to preserve health by the exer-cise of cleanliness, delicacy, and indus-trious morality (Hall 1825, 7).

He added that For Delicacy:- There must bethree sleeping rooms, to enable the parents,

the boys, and the girls to sleep separate; anarrangement very little known at present.

These were ideals which picked up many ofthe concerns expressed earlier by the archi-tect John Wood the Younger in his patternbook of 1781. The designs in Halls bookwere mostly of pairs of pis (rammed earth)cottages, which for the period were remark-ably spacious (Figure 2). Adopting Woodsprinciple from more than 40 years before, hebelieved that it was:

best to build them in pairs, not onlyas respects economy, but for the pur-pose of vicinity, supplying neighboursto minister to each other in times ofsickness &c. &c. (Hall 1825, 8).

Hall went on to specify that each pair oflabourers cottages should be on 2.5 acres ofland, to allow for the growing of wheat, fruitand vegetables for consumption and sale.The book was targetted at the nobility and

gentry in the hope that they would improvethe lives of the labourers on their estates - it

Fig. 3:Pair of cottages, Shooters Hill, Kent, 1827.One of six pairs built by the LabourersFriend Society (Bardwell 1854, 13, 15).


5/16


was also calculated that the landowner wouldreceive a return of 7.5% on his capital.

Perhaps not surprisingly, only one schooland none of Halls ambitious cottage designswere built, and the Society folded. However

Wills and several other members in 1827formed the Labourers Friend Society whichthat year built six pairs of picturesque cot-tages at Shooters Hill in Kent (Bardwell 1854,10) (Figure 3).

One of the most influential books of dwell-ing designs was published in 1833 (withmany later editions) by John Claudius Lou-don, a prolific writer of architecture andgardening magazines and books. His Ency-

clopaedia of Cottage, Farm, and Villa Archi-tecture and Furniture provided designs in arange of fashionable architectural styles, forboth builders and owners (Figure 4). Contin-uing the progressive humanitarian agendacommenced by Wood and Hall, Loudonsprincipal interest in cottages was as devicesof social formation and agricultural produc-tion (Maudlin 2010, 19).

As the century progressed there was a

move away from the picturesque cottage,to a more functional cottage which coulduse mass produced materials such as bricksand slate. The double cottage form however,remained widespread.

Housing the Urban Working Classes

Philanthropic societies such as the LabourersFriend Society had a very limited impact onrural dwellings. Instead they focussed their

attention onto the urban working class. Someof the enormous population increase was anatural increase, but the major impact wasfrom rural workers moving to the towns andcities. This created a huge demand for housing.

City centres which had previously beeninhabited by a mix of the prosperous mid-dle class and the workers who supportedthem, became enclaves of the workingclasses as the middle classes moved to thesuburbs, their old houses were subdivided,

and the spaces around them were infilled.The labouring class mostly lived in cellars,tenements and lodging houses in subdividedbuildings, or in purpose-built dwellings suchas back-to-backs (in the north of England)and terraced houses. This created what themiddle classes soon called slums, a term firstused in 1812 (Guillery 2004, 290). Artisanscould afford slightly superior housing out-side the city centres, although building in

brick was expensive, resulting in rows androws of very small terraced dwellings. As thevernacular traditions waned, artisans hous-ing became uniform and monotonous, albeitnot as slum-like as the labourers housing.

Fig. 4: Pattern book design for semis (Loudon 1846, 170).


6/16


By 1830 the poverty and living conditionsof the growing urban underclass could nolonger be ignored. Welfare payments, if avail-able at all, were funded by local taxes in eachtown and there were increasing concerns

amongst the middle and upper classes thattheir taxes were encouraging the poor to belazy and workshy. A new Poor Law was intro-duced in 1834, which required the poor toenter a workhouse before they could receiveassistance. Working class discontent wasthreatening the status quo. Politicians fearedcivil unrest, and outbreaks of cholera andtyphoid also highlighted the health prob-lems resulting from substandard housing. In

1842 Edwin Chadwick reported to the PoorLaw Board on the sanitary conditions andplanning laws (if any) within towns and aRoyal Commission on the Health of Townsreported in 1845, noting in particular thepoor standard of terraced housing and back-to-backs. Gradually a program of govern-ment reforms in housing and public healthwas introduced. At the same time, philan-thropic attention turned from the housing

of rural labourers dispossessed by enclosureto the urban working classes. Their concernsextended to the moral hazards supposedlycaused by the substandard housing.

Various societies were founded during the1840s and 1850s as a result of Chadwicksreport and the Royal Commissions findings,including the Suffolk Society for Bettering theCondition of the Labouring Classes(1844), theHereford Cottage Association(1846) and theGeneral Society for Improving the Dwellings of

the Working Classes(1852) (Tarn 1973, 4, 24).Some of these groups did little more than dis-cuss issues; however in 1847 the BirkenheadDock Companybuilt some workmens modeldwellings two blocks of architect-designedtenements which were claimed to be thefirst of their type in England (Tarn 1973, 5).

The scope of the Labourers Friend Soci-ety expanded in 1844 when, as a result ofthe various reports on the housing condi-

tions of the urban working classes, it wasreconstituted as the Society for Improving the

Condition of the Labouring Classes, adoptingthe name of Wills earlier society. The newSociety had powerful backers and patrons,including Queen Victoria and Prince Albert,and its Honorary Architect was the highly

regarded Henry Roberts (The LabourersFriend, June 1844, 1). The Society embarkedon a program of raising funds from investorsto build model dwellings for urban workersto show the way in how workers shouldbe housed. There was also to be a return oninvestment for the backers. However, unlikesome later organisations, it was in effect aphilanthropic society, because its dividend,set at a maximum of 4%, was not an attrac-

tive investment at that time.All of the Societys published designs were

by Henry Roberts, as well as the designs forthe model dwellings which were actuallyconstructed.

The first model dwellings were com-menced in 1844 by the Society, but despitethe earlier designs by Hall, they were notsemis but two long rows of two storey ter-races and flats at Pentonville near BagniggeWells (Roberts 1853, 6). These were followedby model lodging houses for single men and,in 1850, a large tenement block for familiesin Bloomsbury. This illustrated the stark con-trast between the Societys ideal of a spacioussemi for a labourer, and the requirement for aphilanthropic society to house as many peo-ple as possible on limited land in the city, atan affordable rent. However, they continuedto aspire to semis as the ideal urban dwellingfor labourers. In 1850 the Society published

The Dwellings of the Labouring Classes, writ-ten by Henry Roberts. Although the Societysactual model dwellings were terraces andlarge tenement blocks in the city, Robertsbook of designs contained plans and eleva-tions for model houses adapted for towns aswell as agricultural and manufacturing dis-tricts (Figure 5). He included semis for bothtowns and rural areas.

On the ground of economy, as well as

for other reasons which it is unneces-sary to detail, the dwellings generally


7/16


are designed in pairs, care being tak-en to prevent, as far as possible, theinterface of adjoining families witheach other, by placing the entrancedoors at the opposite extremities ofthe cottages, whilst, by carrying upthe chimney-stack in the centre, thegreatest possible amount of warmth

is obtained from the flues (Roberts1853, 21).

Meanwhile a second influential society hadbeen incorporated by Royal Charter in 1845.The Metropolitan Association for Improvingthe Dwellings of the Industrious Classes wasfounded by Rev Henry Taylor, with the dual

aims of providing housing for the poor andgenerating a commercial return on invest-ment for the backers. Unlike the Societyfor Improving the Condition of the Labour-ing Classes which concentrated on provid-ing model dwellings for others to copy, thisorganisation had a commercial focus onactual development. Its Charter provided forlimited liability and a maximum dividend of5%, with any excess funds reinvested in the

business. It was the dual philanthropic andcommercial aspects which gave rise to the5% philanthropy tag for such groups (Tarn1973).

The Association mostly built tenementblocks for families, and lodging houses forsingle people. However, in 1854 the Associa-tion acquired five double cottages in QueensPlace, Dockhead (The Labourers Friend Society,10thAnnual Report) and in 1866 the Associa-

tion built Alexander Cottages, at Beckenhamin Kent, on land provided by the Duke of West-minster. This development initially comprised16 pairs of semis but two years later therewere 164 semis (Tarn 1973, 27). Despite theirsuccess (a return of 7%) the Association thenturned its focus back to the city and tenementblock buildings.

While the council house is widely assumedto be a product of the twentieth century,it actually had its origins fifty years before,

when it was becoming more obvious that nei-ther private enterprise nor the philanthropicsocieties could provide adequate housing forthe most disadvantaged sections of the com-munity. The Labouring Classes Lodging Act1851gave local councils the option to acquireor build lodging houses; it was one of the ear-liest attempts at government intervention inhousing. In 1866, following an outbreak ofcholera, the Sanitary Actdefined overcrowd-

ing as a nuisance. This Act applied to all typesof dwellings and enabled local councils across

Fig. 5:Double cottages with three bedrooms,

1850 (Roberts 1853, Design No 5).


8/16


England to deal with overcrowding, againwith negligible effect because there was stilla widespread view that poverty was created bythe poor themselves.

Nevertheless, the relationships between

disease, poverty, crime and slums were caus-ing an increasingly political problem for thegovernment. The Artisans and LabourersDwellings Act 1868 gave local authoritiesthe power to order the repair or demolitionof substandard dwellings, at the ownersexpense, although vested interests made itmostly impotent. The notable exception tothis lack of action on working class housingwas Liverpool Council, which in 1869 built St

Martins Cottages, four storey blocks of tene-ments (demolished in 1977) which the coun-cil claims in a plaque opposite the site to bethe first council houses in Europe.

By the turn of the century it had becomeclear that while semis were an appropriateand widely used dwelling type for labourersin rural areas where the cost of land was low,in urban areas only high density terraces and,increasingly, tenement blocks, could provide

the required returns on investment. Specu-lators continued to build terraces, often ofpoor quality, for artisans, and local authori-ties did not have the land on which to buildlow density housing such as semis. The idealof semis for the urban working classes couldnot be achieved. Labourers could barelyafford a tenement and the rare examplesof urban semis which were built could beafforded only by the wealthier artisans.

Model Villages

Although the model dwellings and patternbooks did little to influence the speculativebuilder to improve standards, there wereemployers who were inspired to improvethe conditions of their industrial workersby building new self-contained villages tohouse them. These model villages were setout with dwellings, roads, village squares,churches and other community facilities to

provide what the developer thought was anideal environment in which people could live

happy, healthy lives and therefore be moreproductive at work. Often based on an ide-alised medieval village (Barrett and Phillips1987, 92) with its supposedly superior senseof community and value systems, the new

villages were designed to be models of howpeople (especially the labouring class) shouldlive. Whilst sometimes being described asmodel villages, the new villages on the ruralestates were focussed mostly on the aesthet-ics of the village, rather than promoting howthe occupants of such a village should live(Darley 2007). Even when landowners didhave the welfare of their labourers in mind,their model dwellings were rarely part of a

planned village with other facilities.The motives of the industrialists were

broader than pure philanthropy. By ensur-ing that their workers were housed properly,they could engender loyalty and a more sta-ble workforce. They could also encouragewhat they saw as appropriate behaviourthrough rules and regulations governing thetenants of their villages. Most importantly,they could attract workers to factory sites

which in many cases were in remote ruralareas or on the fringes of towns.Several well-known industrial model vil-

lages were built around the woollen millsof West Yorkshire, by three related families.Colonel Edward Ackroyd built a model vil-lage between 1849 and 1853, adjacent tohis large textile mill at Copley, just southof Halifax. Although he used the services ofthe architect Sir George Gilbert Scott, themostly two-roomed dwellings were in three

long rows of 36 back-to-back terraces, withan area of allotments. In 1861 Ackroyd alsocommenced a model village for workers athis Ackroyden mill. Although containing noback-to-backs, this village had shorter ter-races surrounding a large open square.

Saltaire near Bradford, was developedadjacent to his alpaca mill by Sir Titus Saltbetween 1851 and 1861. The architects Fran-cis Lockwood and William Mawson chose a

high-density urban solution for the mill andits self-contained village, despite the avail-


9/16


ability of land. The dwelling type was deter-mined by the status of the occupants, basedon a survey carried out by Salt. Labourerswere housed in long grids of terraces (therewere no back-to-backs), while those such asoverseers with a slightly higher status had arow of larger terraced houses with gardens.Further up the scale were managers in shortterraces with gardens, and for those at the

top, five pairs of semis with gardens.The third pioneering model village devel-

oper in West Yorkshire was John Crossley,who was inspired by Ackroyd to create WestHill Park Estate at Crossley Mill near Halifaxin 1863. Like Ackroyden, the village con-tained a range of dwellings to match thestatus of its occupants. Each row of terracedhouses contained dwellings of a certain size,many of which had gardens. A Peoples Park

(designed by Joseph Paxton) was creatednearby with six pairs of large semis overlook-

ing its southern edge. This clearly indicatedthe superior status of the semis. The modelvillages adopted the urban dwelling hierar-chy, with semis only for the higher statusworkers, rather than the rural norm of dou-

ble cottages for even the lowest levels ofworker.

Other industries also created a demand forlarge numbers of workers cottages. The modelvillages around the cotton mills of Lancashirecame later than those of Yorkshires woollenmills, because the cotton prices had beendepressed by the American Civil War. As col-lieries expanded in scale with improvementsin technology during the second half of the

nineteenth century, housing in the form ofterraces was provided, but without the addi-tional features which would classify them asmodel villages. Semis in colliery housing wererare, with status being indicated by factorssuch as the length of the terraces.

Although providing a relatively high stand-ard of dwelling for workers, the early modelvillages were not architecturally sophisti-cated, and the industrialists themselves were

often actively involved in the layouts and thedesigns of the buildings. It was not until PortSunlight was developed near Liverpool forthe employees of Lever Bros that the involve-ment of architects became a key componentof model village design. Importantly, theincreased involvement of architects did notchange the hierarchy of dwelling types in thevillages. The mix of terraced houses for thelowest ranks, pairs of semis for the middlingranks and detached dwellings for the manag-

ers or foremen was maintained.Some model villages had already been built

in the vicinity of the Port Sunlight site. TheWilson brothers of Prices Patent Candle Fac-tory had built some short terraces, with openspace, front and rear gardens, allotments, aschool and a church at Bromborough Poolin 1854. There were two pairs of semis forthe managers. Although very austere, it wasone of the first house and garden model vil-

lages. Semis for the workers were added tothe mix (built on the sites of the allotment

Fig. 6: Semis at South View, BromboroughPool, built c1890 (Author 2011).

Fig. 7: Pairs of villas, Park Village East (Shep-herd 1828, 385).


10/16


gardens) between 1889 and 1891 (WirralBorough Council, 2007) (Figure 6).

The development of Port Sunlight modelvillage commenced in 1887. William Leverused architects William Owen and his son

Segar Owen and stated in 1888 that:

It is my and my brothers hope, someday, to build houses in which our work-people will be able to live and be com-fortable semi-detached houses withgardens back and front, in which theywill be able to know more about the sci-ence of life than they can in a back-to-back slum (cited in Darley 2007, 142).

Despite Levers initial preference, there wasinsufficient land for all the houses to besemis. However, even with a mix of short ter-races, semis and a few detached dwellingsfor managers, the density was low. In addi-tion, the layout minimised the number andlength of the streets. Both of these featureswere later embraced as principles of the gar-den city movement.

With Bourneville, George Cadbury was

less a philanthropist and more an economicrationalist than was Lever. His intention wasthat his village would net a return of 4% aftercosts, and unlike Port Sunlight, it was not builtexclusively for his employees. He had aspira-tions to provide a model village to encouragea social intermixture of all classes (Tarn 1973,159) and, as a Quaker, Cadbury was also keento promote moral improvement.

The Cadbury cocoa works moved to a newsite near Birmingham in 1879, and the vil-lage of Bournville commenced on a smallscale with a detached house for the managerand six pairs of semis, with large gardens, tohouse key workers. Bournville expanded sig-nificantly after 1895, mostly with semis andsome short terraces.

Bournville, unlike Port Sunlight, had verylittle attention paid to the layout of the build-ings within the village, and many of the earlysemis were of an urban design which ignored

their rural setting. Nevertheless both PortSunlight and Bournville provided inspiration

for the later garden cities. They were respon-sible for the cloaking of working class hous-ing in a middle class disguise and breakingdown the distinctions between housing forthe workers and housing for others (Darley

2007, 144,145). In addition, Cadbury fulfilledthe goals of the Society for Improving the Con-dition of the Labouring Classes by proving that:

a low density layout could be a prac-tical possibility even for the workingclasses, and unwittingly he openedthe flood gates to a new kind of sub-urbia (Tarn 1973, 161).

Housing the Middle Classes

Although the middle class had been ris-ing for centuries, it was still only 15% ofthe population in 1851. At the upper levelwere the industrialists and merchants, inthe middle the professionals and clerks, andat the lower end the tradesmen and shop-keepers. Members of the middle class wereaspirational, and sought to differentiatethemselves from the working classes. Mov-

ing out of the city centres, away from theworking class terraced housing areas, hadthe advantage of distance from the threatsto health inherent in overcrowded slumswith limited sanitation, and also ensuredthat middle class families were not influ-enced by the perceived poor morals andunacceptable behaviour of the workingclasses. The middle classes defined them-selves by strict cultural norms and values,

with a particular emphasis on family, andtheir dwellings were a very visible and pow-erful statement about status. The need forprivacy was an overarching middle classattribute; both it and the employment ofone or more servants were key characteris-tics which impacted on the size and form ofa nineteenth century middle class dwelling.

The middle class suburbs in smaller townsand cities were closer to the city centres, yetwere still clearly separated from working

class areas. Because land was cheaper in thesmaller towns, housing densities were lower


11/16


and the middle classes could often read-ily afford detached housing. For example,detached villas for the middle class startedappearing in villages such as Edensor in1839 (Darley 2007, 121). But for the larger

cities such as London, detached housing wasbeyond the reach of all but the wealthiest ofthe middle classes.

The initial response by speculative buildersto the need for distinctive and separate mid-dle class housing was to build estates of largeterraces in new suburbs. The fashionable pic-turesque styles were not readily applied tohigh density urban housing, but as countryestates and detached suburban villas began

to display forms which rejected order anduniformity, the Georgian terrace graduallybecame less popular, although terraces con-tinued to be fashionable in London, even forthe upper classes, long after they had fallenfrom favour elsewhere. A pair of suburbansemi-detached villas however, provided anideal canvas on which to display picturesquestyling and allowed for a garden setting in animitation of the rural landscape, although

the transference of lower class perceptionsalong with that dwelling type was avoidedby adapting the cottages for a middle classclientele. Even the term cottage becameinterchangeable with villa in the suburbs.

The architect George Dance the Younger(1741-1825) is credited with being the firstto use semi-detached villas in a design for asuburban London estate (Galinou 2010, 77).However, his Camden Estate plan of 1790was not built.

Planning for St Johns Wood (the EyreEstate) commenced in 1794. John Burnettstates that it was the first suburb to aban-don the terrace in favour of the suburbanvilla (Burnett 1986, 107). Further, MireilleGalinou (2010) claims that it was not onlythe worlds first planned villa estate but alsothe first garden suburb, predating that move-ment by 100 years.

The dwellings in the first master plan were

to be large numbers of semis (plus a fewdetached houses) on substantial plots, with

the whole estate set out in lines, squares,crescents and circles, and with a plannedinfrastructure such as roads and sewers. Unu-sually, status was denoted by the sizes of thegardens for each semi, rather than dwelling

type. The use of semis for the estate was adeliberate attempt to build a respectableneighbourhood which would embody themoral virtues of the natural, simple, villageway of life, as exemplified by the rural dou-ble cottage.

The master plan was revised several times,but retained the mix of mostly double houses.Building commenced in 1805 under archi-tect John Shaw. The developer Walpole Eyre

described his new estate as a cottage estateand although he then used the terms resi-dences and houses, the first dwellings to bebuilt on the estate were the Alpha Cottages,a mix of semis and detached houses (Galinou2010, 67). For many years the Eyre Estate con-tinued to be developed with some terraces,but mostly with semis and detached villas.

Suburban expansion gathered pace in1815, after the French wars. Most of the early

upper middle class estate development, suchas the prominent builder Thomas Cubittshousing in Belgravia, was based on large,high quality terraces surrounding land-scaped squares. However, from 1824 JohnNash designed two villa developments (ParkVillage East and Park Village West) alongthe sides of the new Regents Canal. Nashsurban villages comprised mostly classicalstuccoed pairs of villas which appeared tobe single houses (Figure 7). Nash was very

influential in making the semi-detached villasocially acceptable, as long as it retained theappearance of a single large villa, and was ina socially desirable location.

The building boom of the 1840s was char-acterised by the speculative builders creatingnew middle class semis. The various editionsof Loudons pattern book were influential inthe revival of styles such as half-timberingand latticed windows for these suburban

semis, and other architects soon developedpattern book designs to satisfy middle class


12/16


aspirations (Figure 8). The outcome of thespeculative building boom was that the semibecame widely available to the middle andlower middle classes, as the popularity of thesuburban middle class terraces waned.

The extension of the railway networkfacilitated the spread of the ad hoc middleclass suburbs, but planned estates for theupper middle class also took advantage ofthe improved access. The Bedford Park Estate

Fig. 8: Design for a pair of middle class villas (Blackburne 1867, Design No 28).


13/16


(1875-81) was developed beside TurnhamGreen railway station by Jonathan Carr anddesigned by several architects includingEdward Godwin and Maurice Adams. Morefamous was (Richard) Norman Shaw who was

the suburbs architect from 1877, adoptingthe Queen Anne style. The estate containedsome terraces and detached dwellings, butmost of the buildings were pairs of semis (forexample Figure 9). The houses were arrangedaround existing trees and roads; each dwell-ing was set back from the road and had itsown garden. The dwellings all had hot andcold water, inside toilets connected to sew-ers, and ground floor kitchens rather than

the usual basement kitchen. They were instark contrast to the speculative semis whichwere being built in the suburbs and townsat that time, which Shaw described as thesmall Victorian house with bad ornamentin stucco, its travesties of classical detail,

the deplorable legacy of John Nash and thespeculative builders of the thirties and for-ties of the nineteenth century (cited in Tarn1973, 156).

The new suburb received fulsome praise

from many quarters and its character madeit a prototype for the later garden cities andsuburbs. Walter Creese attributed its successto the cogent expression of the Englishdual requirement, the seeking of new imagesthrough the restoration of old values andthe beginning of the essentially modern andmiddle class search for some effective com-promise between street and home, dynamicand static, public and private, big scale and

little elements in the suburban picture(Creese 1966, 89).

Unfortunately, for some the novelty valueof Bedford Park soon palled and the experi-ment was not repeated for some decades.Suburbia continued to expand mostly in

Fig. 9: Semis designed by architect Maurice Adams at 12-14 Newton Grove, Bedford Park,

1880. The entrances are designed to enhance the appearance of the semis as one largevilla (The Bedford Park Society, nd).


14/16


rows of terraces. The architect M H BaillieScott voiced protests in the late 1890s. Hesaw only two alternatives, both unappealing the building of small unimaginative houseson identical plots or colonies of model cot-

tages where:

the earnestness and reality of theancient village is replaced by compla-cently picturesque semi-detached cot-tages which seem to constitute a sortof high-class suburbia. In attemptingto mimic larger houses they becomelittle villas and in their pretensionsfail utterly to succeed on any count.Art is underlined everywhere and eachof these miniature bijou residencesseems to pose and smirk in the con-scious appreciation of its own artisticqualities (cited in Darley 2007, 186).

Conclusions

Peter Guillery attempted to quantify thesizes of the various social classes in Londonat the end of the eighteenth century upper

income 2-3%, middling sort 16-21%, artisans25% and labourers 50%. He suggests that itwas immigration from rural areas during theprevious centuries which sowed the seed forthe rise of both Londons working trades andits middling sort, although he warns thatthere was considerable ambiguity and mobil-ity between the upper level artisans and thelower level middling sorts (Guillery 2004,11-13). John Burnett suggested that the mid-

dle classes formed 15% of the population in1851 (Burnett 1986, 14, 97). Nevertheless,despite the academic difficulties with strictdefinitions and measurements of social class,by the end of the nineteenth century termssuch as working classes, labourers andartisans had been enshrined in legislationand adopted by philanthropic societies andpattern book authors. Such terms clearlyimplied a lesser social status than the moreambiguous middle classes.

By the end of the nineteenth century theindustrialisation of England had caused

myriad social and environmental changesin urban and suburban areas, and enclosurehad changed the face of the rural landscapes.The typical urban terrace form was graduallyabandoned by the middle and upper classes

who moved to cottages or villas in the sub-urbs and when the byelaw terrace becamethe default dwelling type for the workingclasses, a terraced house of any size wasdeemed socially inferior. In larger cities suchas London, it was the semi which becamethe ideal compromise between density andcost, and which affordably satisfied the mid-dle class aspiration for separation from theworking classes.

Some attempts had been made to providemiddle class apartments in the centre of Lon-don as an alternative to suburban sprawl, butdespite this, the flat continued to be seen assuitable for the working classes only. So withdetached housing unaffordable for most, asemi was by default, and despite the criticisms,the middle class dwelling type of choice.

The detached upper class suburban villahad split into two during the eighteenth

century, although in the correct location andwith the right form and style, the architect-designed pairs remained socially desirablefor the upper middle class. When the middleclasses adopted the values of the rural vil-lage, including its double cottages, for theirsuburbs, this opened up opportunities forthe nineteenth century speculative buildersto provide double villas for the aspirationalmiddle and lower middle classes. In effect,semis had moved down the social scale from

the upper middle class to the rest of the mid-dle class. The urban artisans were providedwith terraces or tenements, while the labour-ing classes remained in the older housing,much of which had become slums.

In rural areas the middle classes were gen-erally able to afford detached housing, andthe labourers in their new estate villages wereprovided with semis, a trend reinforced bythe pattern book authors and social reform-

ers, and embraced by the villagers for whomattachment on one side of their dwellings was


15/16


well established. Terraces remained the pri-mary housing for some new villages (in par-ticular those whose owners cared little for phi-lanthropy) and most new industrial housing.

The class distinctions made manifest by

dwelling type were therefore very clear at theend of the nineteenth century. Although thesemi-detached form had followed very differ-ent paths up and down the social scales inthe city and the country, semis as villas werethe dwelling type of choice for the middleclasses in the suburbs and semis as doublecottages housed the working classes in thecountry. This set the scene for the garden citymovement and the post-war public housing

regime which arose from it. These twenti-eth century phenomena were at last able tomove the semi down to the urban workingclasses, thereby allowing the semi to becomethe most common dwelling type in England.

Despite the popularity of the semi, theprominent architectural historian John Sum-merson was of the opinion that:

The Italianate villa suffered the ul-timate humiliation by becoming

two houses rather than one (cited inGalinou 2010, 8).

John Ruskin lamented in 1878 that the occu-pants of suburbia were lodgers in thesedamp shells of brick, which one cannot saythey inhabit, nor call their houses butpacking cases in which they are temporar-ily stored, for bad use (cited in Barrett andPhillips 1987, 42). The author of the GreaterLondon Plan of 1944, Patrick Abercrombiesaid in 1939:

The individual house and the longterrace give way to the semi-detachedvilla, perhaps the least satisfactorybuilding unit in the world (cited inOliver et al1981, 76).

Helena Barrett and John Phillips were of theopinion that:

The idea that anyaspect of suburbia isworthy of closer inspection, let aloneits architecture or design, has nearly

always been considered unlikely; sub-urban life has traditionally been a tar-get for vilification, its architecture anobject of derision (Barrett and Phillips1988, 7).

These attitudes may help to explain whysemis are generally not considered to be her-itage unless they are old enough to qualify.Yet the architects and historians who are aptto dismiss the semi as a substandard prod-uct of the speculative builder are overlook-ing the contribution that many prominentarchitects made to the evolution of the semi,particularly during the nineteenth century.

Semis should be looked at without an overlyjudgemental eye; one must also look beyondfabric, especially if they are not architectur-ally sophisticated. They have stories to tellabout economic and social change, fashion,government legislation, new technologiesand most of all, about how people lived. Thesemi reflects the cultures it was built for. Assuch, semis deserve to be better understood,and hopefully as a result, better valued aspart of the built heritage of England.

References

The Bedford Park Society(nd) http://www.bedfordpark.org accessed 23 August 2011.

Bardwell, W1854 Healthy Homes and Howto Make Them. London: Dean and Son.

Barrett, H and J Phillips 1987 SuburbanStyle the British Home, 1840 1960.London: Macdonald Orbis.

Blackburne, E L (ed.) 1867 Suburban &

Rural Architecture. English & Foreign.Lon-don: James Hagger.

Burnett, J1986A Social History of Housing 1815 1985.London and New York: Methuen.

Curl, J S1983 The Life and Work of Henry Rob-erts 1803-1876, Architect. Sussex: Phillimore.

Creese, W L 1966 The Search for Environ-ment: the garden city, before and after. NewHaven: Yale UP.

Darley, G 2007 Villages of Vision A Study of

Strange Utopias. Nottingham: Five LeavesPublications.


16/16


Department for Communities and LocalGovernment 2011 English Housing Sur-vey: headline report 2010-11, http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1785484.pdf (accessed 9 March 2012).

Galinou, M 2010 Cottages and Villas: thebirth of the garden suburb. New Haven andLondon: Yale University Press.

Guillery, P 2004 The Small House in Eight-eenth Century London: a social and archi-tectural history. New Haven, Conn., Lon-don: Yale University Press.

Hall, J1825 Novel Designs for Cottages andSchools with Observations Thereon. Soci-ety for Improving the Condition of the

Labouring Classes.HMSO 1842 Report to Her Majestys Prin-

cipal Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment, from the Poor Law Commis-sioners, on an inquiry into the sanitarycondition of the labouring population ofGreat Britain.

Long, H 2002)Victorian Houses and their Details- the role of publications in their building anddecoration. Oxford:Architectural Press.

Loudon, J C 1846 An Encyclopaedia of Cot-tage, Farm, and Villa Architecture andFurniture. London: Longman, Rees, Orme,Brown, Green, & Longman.

Maudlin, D2010 Habitations of the Labourer:improvement, reform and the neoclassicalcottage in eighteenth century Britain inJournal of Design History, 23:1, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jdh/epp052

Morris, S (nd) Social Policy: From the Vic-torians to the Present Day, Session 5.London School of Economics and Polit-ical Science. http://fathom.lse.ac.uk/Semi-nars/21701744/21701744_session5.html

(accessed 2 November 2012).Oliver, P,Davis, Iand Bentley, I1981 Dun-

roamin: the suburban semi and its enemies.London: Pimlico.

Roberts, H1853 (Third Edition) The Dwellingsof the Labouring Classes, their Arrangementand Construction. Society for Improving theCondition of the Labouring Classes.

Shepherd, T1828 Metropolitan improvements; London in the nineteenth century: displayed

in a series of engravings... / by the most emi-nent artists; from original drawings... by Mr.Thos. H. Shepherd... ; With historical, topo-graphical, and critical illustrations, by JamesElmes London:Jones and Co.

Smith, G1834 Essay on the Construction ofCottages Suited for the Dwellings of theLabouring Classes. Glasgow: Blackie.

Tarn, J N 1973 Five Percent Philanthropy: Anaccount of housing in urban areas between1840 and 1914. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Wirral Borough Council 2007 Brombor-ough Pool Conservation Area Appraisaland Management Plan.

Wood, J (the Younger) 1781A Series of Plansfor Cottages or Habitations of the Labourer.

Documents

Semi-detached houses in England