ABSTRACT
The English terraced house is symbolic of dense urban fabric and originates from a time when housing development responded to the pressures of industri-alization. After decades of efforts to rationalize the urban form under moder-nism and the functional city, sustainability goals have reintroduced densifica-tion as the current agenda, resulting in a revival of the terraced-house typology.
This article responds to the thematic approach of “past in present” in the call for papers, assessing the historical dimensions of structure and configura-tion in terraced housing within the built environment, and it considers the future provided for them in new developments. The objectives of the article are twofold: firstly, to investigate the context and development as well as the underlying configurational and spatial logic of the traditional English terra-ced house type; and secondly, to undertake a case study and morphological characterization of two British examples of development projects in London and Bristol from two different centuries, Westbourne Terrace, Paddington, London, and the Paintworks, Bath Road, Bristol. These projects are housing hybrids in which the terraced house type forms part of a composite plan and layout, and they represent a reinvention of the typology. The case studies provide an empirical basis for reflection and examination, asking how a structural understanding of the typology can inform the ongoing reappraisal of the terraced house in the United Kingdom and potentially other countries.
KEYWORDS
the British terraced house, development and context, morphological charac-terization, nineteenth century, urban form, urban block
INTRODUCTION
The English terraced house is symbolic of dense urban fabric and origina-tes from a time when housing development responded to the pressures of industrialization. Whilst dense blocks of flats for the lower classes formed the response to the Industrial Revolution during the rapid growth of towns on the continent, in England—even in the most urban industrial regions—
working-class families lived in small houses.1
Since the Industrial Revolution, the terraced house has been the dominant house type in a British urban context. ‘Standardisation of plan’ and ‘building process’ have been two of the main reasons for the durability of this type.2 Many houses in London and other cities were, from the late seventeenth century, built speculatively in the assumption that they would sell for the best price when finished.
The need for urban density is another reason for their permanence, given the high densities achieved by a range of variations on the terraced-house theme.
The speculative method produced an enormous number of dwellings within a short time frame and forged the building industry in Britain ahead of its European counterparts in terms of production, the continent where the stan-dardization required to increase outputs sufficiently took place later.
In the early twentieth century, the Garden City ideal drawn from the ideas of planners such as Raymond Unwin emerged as the model for addressing the slum conditions of Britain’s industrial cities, producing low-density and satellite suburbs.3 Following World War I, this turned into the revisionist approach of modernism and the functional city, typified by the urban block in the Unite d’habitation pioneered by Le Corbusier and CIAM (Internatio-nal Congresses of Modern Architecture), providing a new housing type. This was facilitated by developments in construction allowing buildings of incre-asing scale.4 During the modernist period, planners and architects condem-ned much of the Victorian and Edwardian housing as slums, seeking to clear and replace them with dense blocks and high-rise flats.
From the 1970s onward, following a strong reaction to the issues resulting from post-war housing, the terraced and semi-detached house saw a gradual revival, resulting in housing developments in a range of dwelling types.5 This article responds to the thematic approach to “past in present” in the call for papers, addressing the following research question:
How can the configurational transformation of terraced housing with mews inform future urban housing developments?
The article aims to assess the historical dimensions and transformation of the structure and configuration of the terraced house with mews and to look at the future provided for them in new developments. The objectives of the artic-le are twofold: firstly, to investigate the context and development as well as the underlying configurational and spatial logic of the traditional English terraced house type, approached through the morphological development and physi-cal role of type within the urban environment; and secondly, to undertake a case study and morphological characterization of two British developments in London and Bristol from two different centuries, Westbourne Terrace, Paddington, London, and the Paintworks, Bath Road, Bristol. These projects are housing hybrids, in which the terraced house type forms part of a compo-site plan and layout, and they represent a reinvention of the typology. The case studies provide an empirical basis for reflection and examination, asking how a structural understanding of the typology can inform the ongoing renewal of the terraced house in the United Kingdom and potentially in other countries.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE AND METHOD
This article employs background research, literature review, and historical mapping, investigation of historical development and contextual relations-hips, to establish a morphological framework for assessing the urban block of terraced houses with mews.
Urban Morphology: Fundamental Elements and Analytical Approaches The field of urban morphology is an international interdisciplinary field of research, which studies the city as human habitat through the physical urban environment. Urban morphologists focus on the tangible results of social and economic forces; they study the outcomes of ideas and intentions as they take shape on the ground.
Three main principles in morphological analysis are form, scale, and time.
Firstly, three fundamental elements determine form: buildings and their related open spaces, plot or lot, and streets. Secondly, form is readable at different levels of scale comprising four common levels: the building/lot, the street/block, the city, and the region. Finally, urban form can only be under-stood temporally in terms of time since the elements of which it is comprised undergo continuous transformation and replacement.6
The field of urban morphology originally comprised three distinct schools of thought, the Italian, the English, and the French schools, which emerged and developed through decades of research.7 These schools comprised scho-lars from different professional fields, broadly: geography (English), archi-tecture (Italian), and urbanism (French). In addition, there were individual researchers from a variety of other countries contributing to the field. The International Seminar on Urban Form (ISUF), founded in 1994, aimed to bring together the different schools and to provide a basis for an interdiscipli-nary field and establish common theoretical foundations. Today, four broad strands define the different approaches to the field: typo-morphological, configurational, historico-geographical, and spatial analytical. Each focuses on slightly different aspects of urban form using different methods and tools for understanding and analysis.8
Generic Structure Diagram: An Analytical Approach to the Principles of Form and Scale
The landscape architect and urban designer Karl Kropf undertakes a detailed critical analysis of the definitions of different principles of urban form in his article ‘Ambiguity in the Definition of Built Form’.9 He reports on a variety of research into the structural aspect of the compositional hierarchy as a basis for identifying a common foundation for analysis, comparison, and synthe-sis. He examines seminal works within the typo-morphological and histo-rico-geographical research (i.e. Conzen, Caniggia, and Maffei), concluding that the concept of compositional hierarchy has been most fully developed in these two strands. Kropf focuses on the hierarchical relationship between buildings, plots, and streets and their overlapping aspects and elements.
Comparing different sources, he highlights ambiguities in the compositional hierarchy of the generic structure of built form, one of which is the urban block, and suggests a systematic approach for discussing these.
His synthesis establishes a common foundation and introduces the generic structure diagram, which shows relations between micro-elements of mate-rials and structures and macro-elements of streets and urban tissues.10 This diagram shows relationships that connect the parts with the whole in the vertical cross-section, from below by the domain of its potential parts and from above by the position of the element as a part in composition. This includes relations between the building and plot, between plot series and the block, and between the block and the urban tissue. Additionally, a horizon-tal cross-section shows relationships that connect part-to-part on the same
level of scale, including relations between solid and void, rooms and spaces, plot and neighbouring plots, and plot and street. The diagram helps present elements and forms as patterns of relationships in a range of different ways.
Within the structure of the diagram, elements are defined in three ways: in terms of position within hierarchy, outline as an object, and internal structu-re as an arrangement of parts.11 The diagram provides a basis for integration and illustrates complementary relationships between different approaches to urban morphology and available methods for studying and analysing various elements. The structure diagram defines relevant structural components and spatial and configurational relationships in built form. It also demonstrates the interdependency of the various scales and provides analytical answers to the two first principles of morphological analysis, form and scale.
Analysis of the configurational transformation of terraced housing with mews requires assessment of the layer of voids, within Kropf’s diagram, that form the open spaces of the urban built environment. These voids have gene-rally been examined through the configurational approach of morphological research using methods such as graph analysis, j-graphs, axial line analysis, and isovists.12 The layer comprises a horizontal cross-section through the voids, revealing a part-to-part relation, which highlights topics such as terri-torial depth,13 spatial interaction, and boundary analysis, for example that of the building-street interface. This cross-section forms part of micro-morp-hological investigations.14 A vertical cross-section through the diagram shows the part-to-whole relationship, demonstrating the typo-morphologi-cal approach, with the voids at the lower level incorporated into the “solids”
above. The diagram unites the two approaches, which complement each other and provide a broader view than on their own.15
Development and Context: Time as an Important Principle
Time is the third principle in morphological analysis, and it is vital in reflec-ting histories and informing future development. In this, cultural and econo-mic factors as well as context and development processes tell us something about the urban form’s ability to undergo continuous transformation and replacement. The durability of the terraced house over several phases reveals it as an interesting physical form for investigation. The development and adaptation processes it has undergone result from the type of development, the needs of the inhabitants, and policy and regulation within the time frame of the building and block. While this article is only able to touch upon these aspects lightly, the discussion will link the principles together and reflect on potential future investigations relevant for directing interesting futures.
Generic Structure Diagram of the Urban Block of Terraces
In the generic structure diagram, Kropf shows the position of the route or street space and its relationship to plot series. He addresses the primary front access point of a building to establish the hierarchical components that form the street. Kropf emphasizes a range of ambiguities connected to the street block, relating to the generative process of the streets in which the block is a by-product of that process. Different blocks are discussed in terms of how they address and form the street, from the simplest block without ambigui-ties of access to more complex blocks including multiple accesses from more than one side.16 He considers the block as occupying the same level as plot series in the generic structure, but as a resultant form with contributing parts (plot series), contributing forms (mutually connected streets), and a source form (urban tissue).17 However, this conceptualization of the generic structu-re diagram cannot solely work as a means of understanding the configuration and spatial logic of the urban block of terraces.
A more specific structure diagram, depicting the resultant form of the block, can address the transformation of the character of the mews street and the building processes in this article. The relationships of the block, both inter-nally and exterinter-nally, are of vital importance for the discussion and are shown in Figure 1 (below) as an expanded diagram, inspired by Kropf, which provi-des a framework for understanding the configurational and spatial logic of the terraced house in relation to the urban block and tissue (Figure 1).
The bottom layer shows relations between different voids and rooms in the hierarchy. Between the spaces, there are boundaries that characterize and include different aspects of access, interface, and relations. Looking at the
Figure 1 Structure diagram of the urban block of terraces (source: author, inspired by Kropf [2014])
terraced house, the defined spaces of a yard/garden and an alley/backstreet are included in the developed diagram. These voids were vital to the functi-oning of the terraced house. The yard provided a service area and practical space, typically for washing facilities and toilet, and the alley provided access for night soil (human-waste) collection. Similarly, the mews street provided access to the back stable of the terrace and often lay behind gates and arches, allowing service use only. Rooms establish buildings that relate to two modes of access: the presentable front access for guests and inhabitants; and the narrow alley. The buildings and rooms are part of an individual plot within plot series, producing a composition or aggregate of plots.18 The plot and plot series, together with the inner street (alley/mews), define the urban block, bound by street lines. As stated, Kropf’s original diagram does not place the urban block as a separate level in the hierarchy, preventing a visual distinc-tion between the block and plot series in terraced house developments. This is important because this distinction can produce very different outcomes when looking at building processes. In some cases, the plot series coincides with the urban block. This happens when a developer is in control of the enti-re block—making the project likely to be built as an a priori form. In other cases the plot series are separate from the urban block, for example when groups of developers buy sections of the urban block for development. In the latter case, the urban-block is more of a system of processes rather than an a priori form.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH: THE TERRACED HOUSE WITH MEWS The basic definition, or architectural intention, of a terrace from the eigh-teenth century onwards is thus to bind together a row of houses as tightly as possible, to give an impression, an illusion, of unity.19
The terraced house originated in medieval times with surviving examples like the rows of Chester or the Vicars’ Close at Wells Cathedral. The terrace in its current form dates to the late seventeenth century.20 The massive number of buildings constructed in this urban type results from the enormous increa-se in urban population in England and Wales during the Industrial Revolu-tion, which between 1801 and 1911 grew from 9 to 36 million, and in total houses from 1.6 to 7.6 million. Cheap land, plenty of capital, and the deve-lopment of an independent and resourceful building industry provided for the growth of population, with speculative development meeting demands.21 The basic plan and configuration of the terraced house is the same for larger
and smaller houses; two rooms on each floor, one front and one back, with the entrance and staircase placed to one side. It includes a yard at the back and access to an alley for service use. Within this simple basic plan, there are variables in size and accommodation, light and sanitary provisions. Of these, the following are significant: depth, height, access arrangements, staircase position, basements, and back extensions.
The method of producing the terraced house was a strictly cumulative method of creating form, through a speculative building process where the standard sizes of the building, when put together, define the urban block. A range of standards and types were developed during this period which regu-lated dimensions and quality of the material of each portion of the building.
In addition, ‘units of intervention’ connected developers with each other, enabling cooperation over issues such as project planning, financing, or site supervision for the house (by class), the row, the groups of rows, and the estate.22 The speculators were often the estate owners, or someone who had bought or leased out the land from one or more established families. Roads were laid out, sewers dug, and the plots were parcelled out for sale to indi-vidual builders. If there was no single large estate, then smaller landowners often collaborated on the layout of streets and the allocation of functions. The first speculative developments helped to define and shape the form of later developments.
THE URBAN BLOCK OF TERRACES:PLOTS INTERLINKED WITH STREETS
The urban block is not an architectural form, but a group of independent building plots. It has a proper meaning only when it is in a dialectical relationship with the road network.23
Because the development of terraced housing forms a cumulative method in producing urban form, its streets, and urban tissue, the process of develop-ment has been vital in determining the physical outcome on the ground. In the book Urban Form: The Death and Life of the Urban Block, Philippe Pane-rai et al. focus on investigating the urban tissue as an approach to understan-ding complex relationships between plot and built form, between streets and buildings, and forms and design practice. They connect the production of the urban block closely to interdependent but distinctive plots. These provide the basis for a construction-process, with a fixed legal and real-estate framework,
which determines the evolution of buildings and the types of use by the inha-bitants. They emphasize that the thinking of the block as a whole is missing the point, reducing it to a homogeneous built-up area surrounding an empty centre. They stress the risks of taking up such a reductive way of thinking as showing only the outward appearance of urbanity without the conditions which allow this to happen. The urban block is not an a priori form, but a developing system capable of organizing parts of the urban territory.
The dialectical relationship between street and built plots creates the tiss-ue and it is in the continuation of this relationship — capable of modifica-tion, extension and the substitution of buildings — where reside the capa-city of the capa-city to adapt to the demograp, economic and cultural changes that mark its evolution.24
The street blocks “are the areas within the town plan unoccupied by streets
The street blocks “are the areas within the town plan unoccupied by streets