A mere inkling of a thought or idea can enter into our consciousness and within seconds we can have access to millions of pages of documents, articles, literary works, academic papers and blogs on the very same subject which can help or hinder us in making a decision or to formulate an opinion.
So what did our ancestors have by way of reference for things that troubled or flummoxed them?
The Eighteenth Century in particular must, to those living in that period, have seemed to be a revolutionary era in information gathering and availability.
Literacy rates were improving beyond the privileged social classes, there were the beginnings of a more formal approach to general education and in 1755 Dr Johnson published his dictionary of the English Language. This comprehensive work brought 40,000 words into the perception of the nation along with 114,000 quotations.
Another social trend of that era was the migration of former rural dwellers to the towns and cities of Britain to take up work in the emerging industrial and commercial sectors as well as the demand for domestic staff to serve an increasingly affluent middle and upper class population.
This brought into play the need for suitable housing and the growth of professional and trade organisations including surveyors, builders, carpenters and bricklayers. There was a requirement for useful information for all persons involved in freehold or leasehold houses and buildings in order to establish a proper code for construction standards across all types of property. Some sort of legislation was well overdue and in 1774 this came about.
As with all things now it was no different in the 18th Century with a very Londoncentric outlook.
The densely-packed housing of the Capital created problems which could only be tackled communally. A house could block the light from its neighbours. Thin party walls and badly-sited privies (loos) and gutters were other nuisances. These issues were tackled in an ancient forerunner of what we call Building Regulations dated between 1189 and 1216.The greatest hazard was fire. After a major conflagration in 1212, thatched roofs were banned in London by the city's first mayor, Henry Fitzailwin. Complaints about building nuisances of an insanitary or other type could be brought by one neighbour against another. The Mayor and Aldermen settled such cases in a court called the Assize of Nuisance. Documents of their judgements survive from 1301 to 1431. In the deliberation of the cases they were advised by masons and carpenters appointed as Viewers, whose reports are preserved for 1509 to c.1554 and 1623 to 1691.
Other British cities gradually followed London's lead.
As early as 1391 Bristol had an appointed Official who inspected buildings for encroachments onto the street. Worcester's Ordinances of 1467 showed concern for the dangers of fire. Thatched houses and timber chimneys were not allowed within the town walls.Stone, brick and tile were safer materials within urban areas.
In a very forested country such as Britain timber-framing for all manner of buildings remained popular for centuries. As the population grew, space was at a premium within city walls. Storey was piled on storey. By the end of the Middle Ages tall, jettied timber houses overhung narrow streets in many a town and city.
It was this dependence on timber that exacerbated the Great Fire of London in 1666 responsible for destroying 80% of the city. That disaster led to the London Building Act of 1667, the first to provide for Surveyors to enforce its regulations.
It laid down that all houses were to be built in brick or stone. The number of storeys and width of walls were carefully specified. Streets should be wide enough to act as a fire break. This first Act applied to the walled City of London. Working outwards the Building Acts of 1707 and 1709 extended that control to the district of Westminster. It added a prohibition on timber cornices and required brick parapets to rise two and half feet above the garret floor.
So the comprehensive Building Act of 1774 covered the whole built-up area.
Its detailed set of regulations included amongst a myriad of details the stipulation that doors and windows should be recessed at least four inches from the front of the building.
The scope of the Act was that "every building already built or hereafter to be built on new or old foundations or on foundations partly new and partly old shall be distinguished by and divided into seven several rates or classes".
The first four were the most interesting.
A “First Rate” house was valued at over £850 and occupied more than 900 sq ft.
A “Second Rate” House was worth between £350 and £850 in ground rent and occupied 500-900 sq ft. These buildings faced notable streets, and the Thames.
A “Third Rate” House was smaller and worth around £150-£300. It occupied 350-500 square feet and faced principal streets.
Finally, a “Fourth Rate” House was valued at less than £150 per year in ground rent and occupied less than 350 square feet and would be found in minor streets.
Each “rate” was given a structural requirement for foundations and walls. But the real importance of this grading was setting the standard for speculative building. The limitation of size and value tended to create standards from which there was little or no variation.
The result of was the development of the London terrace, creating the simple elegant uniformity so admired today and reflected in the premium paid when purchasing a “Georgian” property. However, at the time it was loathed for stifling creativity. Benjamin Disraeli blamed the Act for "all those flat, dull spiritless streets all resembling each other, like a large family of plain children."
Incidentally, using a comparative value indices from 1774 to the present day indicates that a property of First Rate status as illustrated above would be worth about £10,260,000.
Not bad for something spiritless and plain, not bad indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment