Part 1

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.

THE MODEL VILLAGE AND ITS COTTAGES: BOURNVILLE.

[Illustration: PLATE I. BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES BOURNVILLE.]

THE MODEL VILLAGE AND ITS COTTAGES: BOURNVILLE

ILLUSTRATED BY FIFTY-SEVEN PLATES OF PLANS, VIEWS, AND DETAILS

BY W. ALEXANDER HARVEY Architect.

LONDON

B. T. BATSFORD, 94, HIGH HOLBORN NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 1906

DEDICATED TO

MR. & MRS. GEORGE CADBURY.

PREFACE.

In February, 1904, I was invited to read a paper on the subject of Cottage Homes before the London Architectural Association, when I took as the basis of my remarks the work executed from my designs at the Bournville Village. In adapting myself to the limits of such a paper, I found that, while much which was treated suffered considerably through inevitable compression, a great deal that I wished also to include had to be omitted. This suggested to me the idea, now realised in book form, of treating the subject more comprehensively, giving plans and views of actual examples of cottages, with measurements and costs, and amplifying and adding to my former notes and observations.

Even with the larger scope of a book, it is still felt that much has been left undone and unsaid, and it is frankly admitted that one man dealing with his own work can scarcely pretend to do full justice to the broad subject under notice; nevertheless, it is hoped that the plans and views of Bournville cottages, accompanied by descriptions and notes, may at least prove of value as suggestions for those interested in a matter now claiming very wide attention—that of the building of cottages which may fitly be called _homes_.

I am indebted to the Bournville Village Trust for their courtesy in allowing me to publish plans and particulars of the Estate cottages, as well as to the private owners of the few other cottages dealt with in these pages. I must also acknowledge my indebtedness to Mr. T. B. Rogers for his valuable assistance in the production of the book.

W. ALEXANDER HARVEY.

5, BENNETT’S HILL, BIRMINGHAM. _December, 1905._

CONTENTS.

PAGE

INTRODUCTION.—The housing problem of the future—the artisan-suburb. Remedies already suggested—municipalisation, etc. Experiments. The Home: its necessities and requirements—environment—fresh air—the garden—Beauty. The revival in domestic architecture and its application to cottage building. General 1

THE BOURNVILLE VILLAGE.—Its origin and its founder’s motive. The Bournville Village Trust. First and subsequent projects. A National scheme. Rents. Inhabitants. Buildings. Open spaces, etc. The village schools. Bournville’s claims 9

COTTAGES AT £135, WITH NOTES ON THE ECONOMIC BUILDING OF SMALL COTTAGES. Simplicity and regularity of planning. Arrangement of outbuildings. Height of rooms. Ornament. The true test of economy. Foundations. Stock articles. General 16

THE LAYING OUT OF GARDENS.—A Bournville garden. Paths. Bedding. Flowers. Fruit trees, etc. 23

BLOCKS, PAIRS & SINGLE COTTAGES.—Examples of Bournville cottages, with description, accommodation, materials, etc. Variations of the same plan. The long sloping roof, the large living room, and other features 25

GENERAL NOTES.—The bath—the sunk bath—the “Cabinet” bath—Cornes’ bath. The ingle nook. Chimneys. Windows—casement and sash. Bricks. Roof covering. Wall spaces—rough-cast—whitewash—half-timber, etc. 51

THE LAYING OUT OF A MODEL VILLAGE.—Regard of physical features. Advisory architect. The selection of centres. Roads. Street elevations. Service of natural advantages. Shopping. Factories. Plots of houses. Gardens. 61

LIST OF PLATES.

NOTE.—WHERE SEVERAL PLATES FOLLOW EACH OTHER, THE PAGE WHICH THE FIRST FACES IS REPEATED FOR EACH IN THIS LIST.

PLATE PAGE

I.—(FRONTISPIECE.) FOUR COTTAGES, THORN ROAD

II.—THE TRIANGLE 9

III.—SHOPS, MARY VALE ROAD 10

IV.—LINDEN ROAD 10

V.—THE OLD FARM INN 10

VI.—SYCAMORE ROAD 12

VII.—THE SCHOOLS (PERSPECTIVE SKETCH) 12

VIII.—CARVED STONE PANELS, THE SCHOOLS 12

IX.—RUSKIN HALL 14

X.—BOURNVILLE MEETING HOUSE 14

XI.—BOURNVILLE MEETING HOUSE (INTERIOR) 14

XII.—COTTAGES IN BLOCKS OF EIGHT (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 16

XIII.—COTTAGES IN BLOCKS OF EIGHT (PERSPECTIVE SKETCH) 16

XIV.—BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 25

XV.—BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES (VIEW) 26

XVI.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 28

XVII.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (VIEW) 28

XVIII.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 28

XIX.—THREE PAIRS OF COTTAGES (VIEW) 28

XX.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 30

XXI.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (VIEW) 32

XXII.—BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES (VIEW) 32

XXIII.—BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES (VIEW) 32

XXIV.—BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES (VIEW) 32

XXV.—BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES (VIEW) 32

XXVI.—BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES (DETAIL VIEW) 32

XXVII.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 33

XXVIII.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 34

XXIX.—BLOCK OF THREE COTTAGES (PLAN) 36

XXX.—BLOCK OF THREE COTTAGES (PERSPECTIVE SKETCH) 36

XXXI.—PAIR OF COTTAGES: SHALLOW SITE (VIEW) 38

XXXII.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (VIEW) 38

XXXIII.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (VIEW) 38

XXXIV.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 40

XXXV.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (VIEW) 40

XXXVI.—SINGLE COTTAGE (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 42

XXXVII.—SINGLE COTTAGE (VIEW) 42

XXXVIII.—SINGLE COTTAGE (VIEW) 42

XXXIX.—SINGLE COTTAGE (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 44

XL.—SINGLE COTTAGE (VIEW) 44

XLI.—STAIRCASE OF SINGLE COTTAGE 44

XLII.—DINING ROOM OF SINGLE COTTAGE 44

XLIII.—SINGLE COTTAGE (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 46

XLIV.—SINGLE COTTAGE (VIEW) 46

XLV.—PAIR OF THREE-STOREY COTTAGES (GROUND AND BEDROOM PLAN) 48

XLVI.—PAIR OF THREE-STOREY COTTAGES (ELEVATION AND ATTIC PLAN) 48

XLVII.—PAIR OF THREE-STOREY COTTAGES (VIEW) 48

XLVIII.—PAIR OF THREE-STOREY COTTAGES (VIEW) 48

XLIX.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (PLAN AND ELEVATION) 50

L.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (VIEW) 50

LI.—COTTAGE INGLE 50

LII.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (DETAIL VIEW) 50

LIII.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (VIEW) 50

LIV.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (VIEW OF BACK) 50

LV.—PAIR OF COTTAGES (PORCH) 50

LVI.—SINGLE COTTAGE (VIEW) 50

LVII.—SINGLE COTTAGE (PORCH) 50

OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS.

GARDEN PLAN 23

BLOCK OF THREE COTTAGES (ELEVATION) 27

BLOCK OF THREE COTTAGES (ELEVATION) 35

THE “CABINET” BATH 51

CORNES’ PATENT BATH 52

SMALL COTTAGE INGLE (ELEVATION AND PLAN) 54

THE MODEL VILLAGE: BOURNVILLE

INTRODUCTION.

In introducing the present work on “The Model Village and its Cottages,” it would be certainly out of place to discuss the housing problem; there is, nevertheless, an aspect of this question to which the attention of the reader should be briefly directed.

The housing problem is no longer one in which the poor in the congested districts of great towns are alone concerned. A far larger section of the people is affected,—a section which includes not only the labouring class, but also the skilled artisan, and even a class of the people still more prosperous. In the light of present sanitary and hygienic knowledge it is at last recognised that the housing conditions of the past will not suffice for the future. The difficulties besetting reform are necessarily very great, yet with the movement now afoot—not only in this country, but also on the Continent and in America—it is not unreasonable to expect that before long important changes will take place. Now that politicians and economists, as well as sanitarians, are identifying themselves with the movement, it is clear that if it is to result in lasting good, the attention of the _builders_ of these new homes for the people must also be engaged; and the field that thus presents itself to the efforts of the architect is a large one.

No better testimony to this need can be afforded than by the typical latter-day artisan-suburb, and it is indeed in this very suburb that the housing problem confronts us in what threatens to be in the future one of its worst aspects. Desolate row upon row of ugly and cramped villas, ever multiplying to meet the demands of a quickly increasing population, where no open spaces are reserved, where trees and other natural beauties are sacrificed to the desire to crowd upon the land as many dwellings as possible, and where gardens cannot be said to exist—such are the suburbs which threaten to engulf our cities. That they do not adequately meet the needs of the people is beyond all question.

The remedy most frequently suggested is that the people should themselves undertake and develop housing schemes collectively through the municipalities. It is pointed out that, if nothing is done, the municipalities will before long have a slum problem on the outskirts of the town to deal with, and it is urged that they should have greater power over the development of land in the extra-urban districts. It is recommended, again, that the authorities should exercise the powers they already possess. The Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, in their Report to the Government of 1904, insisted most strongly, it will be remembered, on the necessity for preventing the creation of these new slums. “The local authorities in contiguous areas which are in process of urbanisation,” it declares, “should co-operate with a view to securing proper building regulations, in furtherance of which end the making of building bye-laws, to be approved by the Local Government Board, should be made compulsory on both urban and rural authorities; attention should also be given to the preservation of open spaces, with abundance of light and air. By the use of judicious foresight and prudence the growth of squalid slums may be arrested, and districts which hereafter become urbanised may have at least some of the attributes of an ideal garden city.”

In the case of municipalities undertaking the development of land, emphasis should be laid upon the advisability of securing the services of experts both for the laying out of the land and for the designing of the houses, and in order to obtain variety in the latter it is recommended that the designs should be the work of several architects.

At present, as is well known, the rows of houses in what has been called the artisan-suburb are usually the work of the speculating builder, who buys land at a cheap rate and builds to create ground rents, often selling the houses at a bare profit, or even under cost. As the maintenance of the property does not fall upon himself, it is not surprising that the class of building erected should be that generally known as “jerry-built.”

Apart from these and other schemes suggested is the work of the Garden City Association in their experiment at Hitchin, and also the experiments at Port Sunlight, Bournville, and elsewhere, which have all given such a practical impetus to the movement. An encouraging sign of the times, too, is the commendable effort of the Trustees of Eton College, who, to prevent the development of the typical artisan-suburb on their extensive land at Hampstead, have formed a Trust to buy 240 acres for building purposes, the division of the land and the plans of the houses being required to meet certain specified conditions. In many suburbs, owing to the few houses of high rental, the rates are extremely high, and a heavy percentage is absorbed by the schools. One of the objects of the Garden Suburb, as it is called, is the amalgamation of all classes in the same district, the artisan and the well-to-do living in reasonable proximity to one another. With the abolition of the unsightly row the æsthetic objection at least to such an arrangement is removed, for in the interesting disposition of houses of varying sizes lies one of the secrets of beautiful village building, as is testified in so many well known old villages. In the new suburb it is hoped to provide cottages for workpeople with gardens of one tenth of an acre.

But whether land is developed privately or by public bodies, it is essential, in order to secure real reform, that the needs, domestic and social, of the people for whom the houses are provided should be intimately understood. What will have to be provided are _homes_, and it should be clearly recognised what constitutes the _home_ demanded by the large section of the community which the problem affects.

At the outset it may be noted that for half the year the occupants of these homes spend the hours of recreation out of doors, also that most of them prefer that opportunities for such recreation should be had within easy reach of the home itself. Though the public-houses and the numerous artificial pleasures provided in towns are sought by so many, the persistence of those who still cultivate the contracted and ill-favoured garden strip suggests a need of the greatest importance. This persistence, moreover, does not, it will be found, indicate a desire for exercise and fresh air alone, but a love for familiar surroundings. Among the lowest class this instinct may still be observed, and in court tenements it will be found that the doorstep takes the place of the garden strip. The fact is that the Englishman’s house is his castle, and though his castle be deprived of its “grounds,” the home instinct, so deeply rooted in the English character, will not be denied. Whether in the future this instinct should be fostered, or blunted as in the past, is a matter of elementary sociology. The inference, then, will be that the accommodation of the house is not the only matter with which we have to concern ourselves, but that the closest attention should also be devoted to the environment. Besides the provision of an ample garden, the environment itself must be healthy and pleasant. The influence of surroundings in exalting or depressing the mind, and thus affecting the life, is a matter not only for the theorist, but for the architect.

With the provision of a garden, the tenant himself may add to the beauty of his home, and at the same time enjoy fresh air and recreation. The cultivation of the soil is certainly the best antidote to the sedentary occupations of those working in large towns. A primitive instinct is indulged, the full value of which seems hardly yet to have been realised. Many believe, indeed, that with its encouragement the abuse of the social club and public-house will be materially lessened, and one of the greatest social evils of the time disappear. (The experience of Bournville certainly gives support to this conclusion, for nearly every householder there spends his leisure in gardening, and there is not a single licensed-house in the village.)

With regard to the house itself, so far as it contributes to a pleasant environment, it should be remembered that architectural beauty is not dependent upon the ornament introduced; on the contrary, the use of the latter rather tends to deprive the dwelling of its homeliness, and of this truth the jerry-built house, with its scroll-cut lintel and moulded brick string-course, affords only too frequent an illustration. The soul of beauty is harmony, which may co-exist with the veriest simplicity; and it is in the harmonious treatment of parts, and not in useless and sometimes costly decoration, that a dwelling gains that homely appearance which it should be our aim to realise.

The chief essentials in a home, then, are adequate accommodation—which must include a bath as a _sine quâ non_—a pleasing and harmonious appearance of exterior and environment, and the provision of an ample garden.

It is surely not a mere coincidence that at the present time, not only in England but in other countries, a movement is in progress side by side with that of housing reform which is of great significance—the revival in domestic architecture. At present this has manifested itself chiefly in recent examples of country houses and in residences of the larger cottage class. Though the influence has already revealed itself to some extent even in the smaller cottage-dwellings, and though many notable experiments have been made—most telling of all the splendid experiment at Garden City—it may be said that the effort on the part of the architect generally to satisfy the demands both of art and economy has yet to be made. The fact that it is cheaper to erect villas in long rows of a repeated and stereotyped design has doubtless largely discouraged such effort, but the prejudice of the artisan and others against the revival—for the revival was at first looked upon, perhaps, as an artistic craze—can scarcely now be regarded as an obstacle. If the needs of the people, as they have been conceived in the few preceding paragraphs, are to be satisfied, the two movements of housing reform and the revival in domestic architecture must certainly advance hand in hand. With adequate experiment it will probably be found, moreover, that the difficulty on the economic side has been exaggerated. On this account, in the examples of smaller cottage types here dealt with, attention has been specially paid to this aspect of the question, a pleasing appearance having been aimed at, with the employment of the least costly materials. An effort has also been made in a further stage to show how monotony may be avoided, even with a repetition of the same plan, by variety in combination and disposition.

Larger types of cottages are also included, and economy in design and cost of materials has here also been considered, as well as a pleasing effect aimed at. The plans given, with one exception, are of examples actually existing, so that what defects may be present can scarcely be disguised. The intention is that they should be regarded chiefly as suggestive, and it is frankly admitted that they are not only capable of modification, by which their cost may be reduced, but also of improvement. The work dealt with has been executed during the last ten years.

The method of including with the description of each cottage such notes and suggestions as have seemed worthy of mention, has been adopted as being more valuable than grouping these under separate heads, though a number of general observations on various features of cottage-building has also been added.

The photographs reproduced were taken by T. Lewis and by Harold Baker, both of Birmingham.

NOTE.—The cost is given of all cottages where the accommodation, materials, &c., are fully described, with the exception of one or two cases in which the cottages are owned privately. As most of the examples given have been built by the Bournville Village Trust, it should be noted that the figures stated include an addition to the net cost of 3¾ per cent. as builder’s profit.

[Illustration: PLATE II. THE TRIANGLE. BOURNVILLE.]

THE BOURNVILLE VILLAGE.

Although many articles have already appeared from time to time in newspaper and periodical respecting the Bournville Village, the following account of its founding and development will doubtless be of interest to the reader:—

In 1879 Messrs. Cadbury Brothers removed their works from Birmingham to the present site at Bournville, and twenty-four cottages were erected there for their workmen. This really formed the nucleus out of which in recent years the village has developed. It was in 1895 that Mr. George Cadbury, the senior member of the present firm, commenced the work of building a model village. One of the objects of the scheme was that of “alleviating the evils which arise from the insanitary and insufficient housing accommodation supplied to large numbers of the working classes, and of securing to workers in factories some of the advantages of outdoor village life, with opportunities for the natural and healthful occupation of cultivating the soil.” A simple and interesting statement of the motive behind the experiment was made by Mr. Cadbury himself at the Garden City Conference, held at Bournville in 1901. An intimate knowledge of the lives of Birmingham working-men, gained by an experience of some forty years, had shown him that the greatest drawback to their moral and physical progress was the lack of any healthful occupation for their leisure. Although many men took up carpentry and other crafts, such hobbies, he said, had proved insufficiently recreative, and in most cases the men soon tired of them. Realising this, he began to think of new means. His conclusion was that the only practical thing was to bring the factory worker out on to the land, that he might pursue the most natural and healthful of all recreations, that of gardening. It was impossible for working men to be healthy and have healthy children, when after being confined all day in factories they spent their evenings in an institute, club room, or public house. If it were necessary for their health, as it undoubtedly was, that they should get fresh air, it was equally to the advantage of their moral life that they should be brought into contact with Nature. There was an advantage, too, in bringing the working-man on to the land, for, instead of his losing money in the amusements usually sought in the towns, he saved it in his garden produce—a great consideration where the poorer class of workman was concerned. The average yield per garden in the 1901 tests at Bournville, after making allowance for all outgoings, proved to be 1_s._ 11_d._ each per week. Mr. Cadbury also thought that the increased consumption of fresh vegetable food, instead of animal food, was further desirable. It was touching, he thought, to see the interest and pleasure taken by town families when on coming into the country they saw seeds germinate and vegetables grown for the first time. Nor was the advantage of leaving the town for the country restricted to the workmen. Mr. Cadbury showed that the greater facilities there for obtaining land were also of advantage to the manufacturer whose business was increasing.

The Bournville idea was at first regarded as an impracticable one, even apart from the economic side of the question, but the realisation of the scheme has proved otherwise. The average garden space allotted to the Bournville cottages is 600 square yards, this being as much as most men can conveniently cultivate, and, almost without exception, the Bournville tenants are the most enthusiastic gardeners—a statement no one surely will traverse who has paid a visit to the village in the summer.

[Illustration: PLATE III. SHOPS, BOURNVILLE.]

[Illustration: PLATE IV. LINDEN ROAD, BOURNVILLE.]

[Illustration: PLATE V. THE OLD FARM INN, BOURNVILLE.]

While it was the first aim of the founder to provide dwellings for the factory worker which should have adequate accommodation and large gardens, it was not intended that at Bournville provision should be made alone for the poorer working class. It might be pointed out that one of the most prominent ideals in the scheme of the Garden Suburb Trust, already referred to, is “that all classes may live in kindly neighbourliness,” and the amalgamation of the factory-worker and the brain-worker in the same district is catered for as being expressly desirable. At Bournville there has always been a demand for houses both on the part of the skilled artisan and others, and this demand has been provided for from the first. Rents in the village range from _4s._ _6d._ a week, rates not included, to _12s._ a week; and there are also a few houses of a still larger class at higher rentals. Nor are the houses let to Messrs. Cadbury’s own workpeople exclusively, as the following figures will show—figures based on a private census taken during 1901, and here quoted from a booklet issued by the Village Trust:—

PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDERS WORKING IN—

Bournville 41·2 per cent. Villages within a mile of Bournville 18·6 „ Birmingham 40·2 „

OCCUPATIONS OF HOUSEHOLDERS—

Employed at indoor work in factories 50·7 per cent. Clerks and travellers 13·3 „ Mechanics, carpenters, bricklayers, and various occupations not admitting of exact classification 36·0 „

The village is four miles from Birmingham, and is easily accessible by cycle, rail, or electric car. The last come within easy distance of the village, workmen’s fares being _2d._ return.