Figure 8.7 – ‘Brilliant, cantankerous, secretive, always in ill-health, Robert Hooke was Curator of Experiments to the Royal Society, Professor of Geometry at Gresham College and already well known for the experiments which were later to bring him enduring fame’ (T. F. Reddaway, *The Rebuilding of London after the Great Fire*). Hooke’s plan has been lost, but a small drawing of a plan included in Doornick’s *View of the Fire* may be of his proposals. The regular gridiron structure contains a range of civic spaces and a spacious quay along the Thames.

Figure 8.11 – Sections through the three main types of building authorised by the Rebuilding Act of 1667. The four-storey type was to front the 'high and principal streets', the three-storey type was for the 'streets and lanes of note and the River Thames', and the two-storey version was for 'by-streets and lanes'.

40. The four Classes of London houses, from Simon, 1875; in late and simplified versions. The plans are those of the ground floors. Class I still has a first-floor drawing-room, Classes II-IV all have reception rooms on the ground floor. Class IV has no basement. Note that the first floor in Class I is now of the same height as the ground floor. Note also the differentiation of indoor and outdoor toilets; this particular positioning of the indoor toilets was soon to be outlawed.

Colour plate 7. London, Harrington Gardens, SW7, late 1880s. So as to facilitate access to the private gardens at the back, the front of the terrace, towards the street, contains as much as possible of the service part of the house. Thus the customary front/back contrast is here confused.

to this corridor. Sometimes the double-fronted house was used in situations where there was not enough depth for a regular two-room-deep house, and this very often applied to corner plots, where one shallow house of this type is attached to the side of a regular terraced house (plate 37). In London, a whole area of medium-sized double-fronted houses dating from the 1880s can be found around Hampton Road, Woodgrange Park, E7 (cf. plate 161); a city where this plan is as common as the regular plan is Plymouth (plate 47).

## Very large terraces

Amongst the most remarkable examples of our type are mansions with more than twenty rooms, but which are only 28 feet (8.50 m) wide. Within some of the grandest Regency terraces, such as Nash's Carlton House Terrace or Basevi's Belgrave Square, we find the occasional house which is more than 30 feet (9.14 m) wide and with more individuality in their plans. Those tightly packed palaces, however, with their multiplicity of large and small rooms, piled up in five or even six storeys on top of a basement, only appear in the 1850s and 60s in London, in Lancaster Gate² and in South Kensington around Princes Gate and Queens Gate (plate 43). Even these houses adhere to the regular plan: the entrance and stairway is at the side and there are basically two rooms on each floor. Only a few, like 31-57 Exhibition Road, South Kensington, show a version of an older type with a larger, top-lit staircase. At the back of some houses we find the curious feature of an enormously high chimney for the back extension, carried over to the main part of the house like a flying buttress; it prevents the kitchen smoke from blowing into the bedrooms (cf. plate 44).³

83

The plan: the regular type

41. The four Classes of London houses, from Elsam/Nicholson 1823-5. The plans and sections are not very consistent and nowhere can a description be found. For Class I (facing page, above) there is an elevation of the front facade, the mews and a section through the house widthwise as well as a plan of the basement (centre) and the ground floor. For Class II (right, above) there is the facade, the same kind of section, a section through the front wall and a plan of the ground floor. For Class III (facing page, below left) there is the facade, a section through the house depthwise and a plan of the ground floor, and for Class IV (facing page, below right), the facade and plans of the basement and ground floor. There are also the rules for the wall-thicknesses for the four classes (right, below), according to the 1774 Building Act.

43. (below). **London.** South Kensington, 'Albert Houses', 44-52 Queen's Gate, 1859-60, by Charles Aldin (builder) for J. Whatman (client-speculator) and C. J. Richardson (architect). A mansion, 8 m in width. Note the additional servants' staircase from ground to second floor, and the way the planner managed to place the boudoir (for the ladies) and the study (for the gentlemen) well away from the other reception rooms. The 'mezzanine' is drawn at the level of the landing between first and second floor. (The facade is not to the same scale.)

B=bedroom; D=dining-room; Dr=drawing-room; Dre=dressing-room; l'dr=larder; P=Parlour; K=kitchen; P'ty=pantry; Sc scullery.

BASEMENT

GROUND FLOOR

MEZZANINE

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR

ATTIC

FOURTH FLOOR

The Artizans, Labourers & General Dwellings Estate
at HORNSEY.

BY ROWLAND PLUMBE, ARCHITECT

First Class House

Ground Plan

First Floor Plan

Ground Plan

First Floor Plan

Third Class House

Ground Plan

First Floor Plan

Fourth Class House

Ground Plan

First Floor Plan

Fifth Class House

Ground Plan

First Floor Plan

Scale of Plan

F. Kell, Plaster-Maker, Castle St., Southwark.

Wynall House, Plaster-Maker's House.

54. London. Plans for houses in Noel Park, North London (1883), built by a company with some philanthropic aims. A few features, like the porches, cannot normally be found in speculative London suburban houses of that period, and the smallest type in this series, the non-hall-entranced version, is rare in London.

53 (facing page). The most frequent plan in the poorer parts of the towns in the south-east, the half-hall-entranced type, c. 1900: one has to go through the kitchen-living-room in order to get to the back of the house. Another important distinction from the medium-sized house is the one-storey bay window (London). (See also plate 50.)

55. London. Tregarvon Road, SW11, c. 1890. A split-level back, closely corresponding to the plan in plate 48D.

48. The development of the small to medium-sized house in London and the south-east

A: two storeys with basement and no back extension
(Islington Park Street, N1, c. 1820).

B: frequent in poorer areas
(Cordova Road, E3 c. 1870).

C: the late standard plan, the most common in the south-east
(Southend, c. 1900).

D: a split-level solution
(London, 1890s, see also plate
55).

E: the twentieth-century standard type: no basement, no back extension (Elmstead Road, Ilford, 1908, see plates 57, 58).

F: the dining-room in the back extension has access to the back garden (Cecil Road, N10, c. 1904).

exactly the same. Lancaster Terrace in Leicester of 1857 is an early example, with coupled two-storeyed back extensions. In Hull the fairly large terrace in Beverley Road (84 upwards) of about 1860 shows very large coupled back extensions, and squeezed into the yards between these extensions are smaller, coupled extensions, which presumably contained the sculleries. Thus each house has a share in two back extensions. Sometimes the extensions can stretch to a length of 70 feet (21.33 m).¹⁵ A further variation can be found in Plymouth, where almost all the generally largish, coupled extensions have hipped gables not only at the end, but also at their junction with the main part of the house, and thus leave space for the upper windows of that part.¹⁶ Lastly, we must mention the late nineteenth-century Railway Cottages in Parkeston Quay, Harwich, where one of the corners of the back extension is formed by a free-standing post around which the tenant can fit out part of the extension himself according to his own purposes. This, however, was probably rare and only possible in semi-benevolent Company housing, where employees would be trusted to make the best use of it. A more detailed variation is the treatment of the roof of the extension: smaller houses in provincial towns show a lean-to roof; in Norwich this mode was replaced by the more metropolitan and urban gabled roof between 1870 and 1890 (plates 51, 52). There is also a significant difference inside with these two kinds of roofs. In the former the back room is usually smaller, and always lower; the lean-to, indeed, strikes one as rather a rural feature, where often

PARTY AND EXTERNAL WALLS.

PARTY AND EXTERNAL WALLS.

London Published by T. Kely & Co. Printers, London.

LONDON PUBLISHED BY T. KELLY & CO., PRINTERS, LONDON.

## Timetable

Project conceived in 1978; construction for Schooner Cove started in May, 1980; scheduled for completion in December, 1981.

## Development Team

**Developer:** Collins Development Corporation; **Architect:** Yankee Planning, Dp H. Chung; 
**Builder:** Yankee Construction; **Sales:** Yankee Property.

## Info. Contact

Do H. Chung, Principal, Yankee Planning, 1445 East Putnam Avenue, Old Greenwich, Connecticut
06870. 203+637-4364.

Schooner Cove/Yankee Harbor--Site Plan

Schooner Cove/Yankee Harbor

# 114. HARBOR PLAZA, Wallace Street, Stamford, Connecticut

## Description

Harbor Plaza is located on an 18-acre parcel of waterfront land surrounded by the largest marina in the Northeast. Located close to downtown Stamford, the project features three 5-story buildings and marine facilities. The project concept is based on moderate density planning principles in its land use to correspond with the particular site. The developer and architect were committed to preserving the traditional warmth of New England waterfront. Respect for the waterfront site guided the placing of the buildings. This same respect dictated the design of such details as boardwalks, pedestrian connections along the arcade, lamp-posts and handrails. Office space accounts for 650,000 sq. ft. in the project and retail uses occupy an additional 30,000 sq. ft.

## Cost and Income

Cost: $68 million.
Income: Annual income--$8 million.

## Timetable

Project conceived in 1975; construction started in 1977; scheduled for completion in 1982.

## Development Team

Developer: Collins Development Company; Architect/Planner: Yankee Planning, Do H. Chung; Builder: Fusco-Amatruda; Engineer: Niko Engineering, Thune Engineering; Leasing Agent: Rostenberg-Doern Company; Management: Yankee Property.

## Info. Contact

Harbor Plaza

## Description

Lyon Farm is a 145-acre residential development with 191 condominium units including detached cluster homes, townhouses, and single-family detached lots sold separately. Units range in size from 1,296 sq. ft. to 2,100 sq. ft. The project makes a serious effort to recreate the farm village environment of colonial New England with clustered buildings and common areas available for use by all. Amenities include 3 swimming pools, 3 tennis courts, and 4 paddle tennis courts. The developer dedicated the 36-acre parcel used for a public park to the Town of Greenwich.

## Timetable

Project conceived in 1970; construction started in 1972; completed in 1977.

## Development Team

Developer: Collins Development Company; Architect: SMS Architects; Planner: Anthony M. Guzzardo and Associates; Management: Condominium Associates.

## Info. Contact

Do H. Chung, Principal, Yankee Planning, 1445 East Putnam Avenue, Old Greenwich, Connecticut 06830
203+637-4364.

Lyon Farm Site Plan

Lyon Farm

# 116. PALMER POINT, River Road, Cos Cob, Connecticut

## Description

Palmer Point is a residential mixed-use project located on a 5-acre site on Long Island Sound at the mouth of the Mianus River in Cos Cob, Connecticut. The site was most recently occupied by a non-marine-related business with many buildings in disrepair. Palmer Point is now being reclaimed to take full advantage of its waterfront location.

In addition to 74 condominium units, this high-density complex includes a 200-seat restaurant, marine-related commercial operations, and existing marina slips. The project is an expression of coastal New England traditions in its use of construction materials: brick, teak, cutstone, seasoned timber and sloping roof saltbox design.

# The Paragon

## Blackheath, London. Michael Searle, designer. 1795

The first planned suburbs may have been the 'new towns' that estate owners developed to cater to the desire of the prosperous merchants of George II's London to establish a foothold in the country. Still recognisable by the use of 'town' in their name – for example, Somers Town and Camden Town – these developments were usually built at densities which precluded a suburban image, often with crescents and circuses on the model of Bath.¹ Two of these developments, both designed by Michael Searle and both called the Paragon, though largely ignored by historians, are an extraordinary anticipation of elements of suburban scale usually said to commence with Nash's later work for the Prince Regent. Although the Paragon on New Kent Road in the East End is almost destroyed and only the Paragon in Blackheath survives, it is fitting, as Ian Nairn has observed, 'that the best of all London's surviving 18th century schemes should be by an estate surveyor rather than Adam or Chambers'.²

The existing Paragon, built in 1792 and restored after World War II by C Bernard Brown, consists of seven identical four-storey red brick units which, with their one-storey connectors, describe a gentle arc along one side of Blackheath Common. No element in the composition is emphasised, though a low lodge terminates the development at each end. A small park is formed between the public road and the development's private access-way, but the scale of the buildings which form the crescent is bold enough so that the Common seems very much its forecourt. At the rear, curved bay windows rise to the full height of each unit, grabbing for light and view and giving a more delicate effect along the private, shared garden.

Other developments around the edges of Blackheath Common suggest that the Paragon may well have struck its contemporaries as a worthy model.

### Notes

1. Sir John Summerson, *Georgian London, Pelican, Harmondsworth 1962, pp 269–283*.

2. *Nairn's London, Penguin, Harmondsworth 1966, p 184.*

1

2

3

4

1. Early view of the private access road

2. View across the common (ph: RAMS)

3. End pavilion at turn of the century

4. Rear facade and garden (ph: RAMS)