The Howard Cottage Society
In 1911, with Ebenezer Howard as one of its founder directors, and Howard Pearsall as its first Chairman, it took over the work of Letchworth Cottages and Buildings, which had almost 200 cottages of its own, and designs for Rushby Mead which had already been commissioned. The brief for the project, its tight budget and its site were seen as resources for, and not a hindrance to design. On what was considered a somewhat featureless agricultural estate, elements such as trees, former field boundaries, the Pix Brook and its wooded valley were used creatively to give identity to the new development and enrich the detailed design of the blocks and groupings themselves. Planning By 1911 Parker and Unwin came to realise that the opportunity offered by such a prominent site as Rushby Mead demanded a stronger architectural treatment than had been outlined in the 1903 competition plan. Split between two sites, north and south of Hillshott, it was of sufficient size to have caused problems for normal speculative development. Much like Birds Rill it had "a depth too great to be developed entirely from the road frontage and too small to require a second road". Elsewhere a cross road might have been employed to
open up back land for more plots. However, Unwin wanted to show that the
use of the cul-de-sac was more than sufficient and, with the reduced road
costs, even made inclusion of communal facilities possible.
NORTH
RUSHBY MEAD - Plan of Development
He included a playground and allotments for the residents, which were situated to the rear of the cottages (similar to those provided on the neighbouring estates of Birds Hill and Pixmore Hill). The allotments seem to have worked well, but the playgrounds were soon to cause problems. The Society were to receive many letters from adjoining tenants who "Complained bitterly about damages to gardens". In November 1924, H.W.A. Thorogood. the then Secretary of the Howard Cottage Society, wrote of their impracticality: "The society has long since ceased to renew the swings etc. owing to the undesirable element ruthlessly breaking them down, these playgrounds were for the children under 12 years of age, but unless you have someone in charge it is impossible to keep Out the unwanted youth." The private owners who backed onto this playground situated between Hillshott and Rushby Walk were quick to highlight the nuisance caused to them. In a letter dated 18th July 1914, a Percy J. Cook cited loss of boarders to his tenants and suggested that "a number of Howard tenants are in favour of the ground being thrown into the gardens, and this would be undoubtedly the best solution". Indeed this was later to be the case. At the northernmost part of the scheme, just south of Birds Hill, Unwin has set back two blocks of cottages from the roadline, effectively placing the back gardens to the front. A third, smaller block is now given frontage to the street and a view to the park and over the gardens in front is secured. Unwin is able to develop a sense of enclosure and create what he terms as a PLACE, achieved primarily by manipulating the massing of the blocks, and the closing of any extended views along the street. The section of Rushby Mead between Hillshott and Pixmore Way is the more formal of the two sites of the scheme. A cul-de-sac is used again, this time to create a small symmetrical forecourt open to the street. Nearing the junction with Hillshott, rather than follow the meandering line of the road, the cottages form a square around it. Through breaks between the blocks each cottage has views out over Howard Park, yet a sense of enclosure remains. From the junction with Hillshott the view south is channelled between two blocks and is then effectively closed by a third. The middle two cottages of this block of four have gables introduced to the front elevation - one to look directly back along Rushby Mead, the other helps develop the "constantly varying street picture" of the passer-by so important to Unwin. Cottage Design From 1906 onward, Unwin had begun to devote much of his time towards the development of the Garden Suburb at Hampstead, and was drawn more and more into the role of planner. Whereas at Birds Hill and Pixmore Hill Parker and Unwin had complete architectural control, now much of the detailing was left to Courtenay Crickmer (1879-1971), Robert Bennett (1879-1956) and Wilson Bidwell (1877-1944), all of whom had spent some time in their Letchworth office. Bennett and Bidwell detailed the design of most of the cottages in Rushby Mead - eleven blocks Out of seventeen (Parker and Unwin completed four, Courtenay Crickmer two). All of the buildings are characterised by their simple, roughcast walls and rich, red clay tiled roofs, modelled with gables, dormers and chimneys. The careful control and subtle handling of the roofscape, the positioning of doors and windows, and general detailing has lead to what we would now recognise as a Letchworth vernacular. Against the background of the bye-law house, Parker and Unwin had for some time set about to secure the benefits of fresh air and sunlight and a desire to abolish the back yard, "shut in with walls and outbuildings...they are but wells of stagnant air, too often vitiated by decaying rubbish and drains", as Unwin was to note in 1902. The simple forms and masses of the cottages, without their back projections and outhouses became a consistent feature of these early groups. The tightness of the budget meant space within each cottage was at a premium. In previous cottage designs omission of an infrequently used parlour to focus scarce resources on the main living room often brought complaints from tenants. The situation highlights well the difficulties the architects faced in trying to balance the need for the raising of standards within strict cost limits, and the power of social convention, which in the case of Rushby Mead dictated inclusion of a 'front room'. Separate bathrooms were included where possible but again some cottages had to house their bathtubs in the scullery, another situation which was seen to be "grudged" by tenants in Letchworth generally. In 1913, Howard Pearsall noted that the "Various economies and improvements on old methods of building brought into use by the exercise of some originality have helped to reduce the cost as well as the maintenance charges of cottage property at Garden City". The hot water system used at Rushby Mead was one of these improvements. Not only was it cheap to install and run, but the strength of its design meant that it had a useful life of well over half a century. In their search for economy the architects were keen to make use of all such developments and, where possible to exclude what Barry Parker called "manufactured ornament and over decoration". There was a desire to include wardrobes, cupboards, and other fitted furniture, not just to further the design unity of cottages, rather as a means to reduce expenditure on furnishings and fittings by incoming tenants. Ebenezer Howard involved himself in some of the day-to-day running of the Society, speaking with residents about rent payment problems and general maintenance matters. Feedback about design problems was always directed back to the architects and was a very important part of the experimentation and development of ideas at Letchworth. Frederick Osborn was very much apart of this process, as he was to recall in 1967: "My business was building new houses and settling families in them, and as I collected the rents personally I got to know how they lived and what they liked, which wasn't always what the architects thought they ought to like. By today's standards the houses were terribly small, because we had to get rents down to five or six shillings a week. But they all had public services and baths, and gardens, and were within a few minutes of workplaces and shops - so they were well liked by most tenants. And being in close touch with them I was able to advise the architects how to improve each batch as we went along. Architects are mostly in the position of fathers who bolt, leaving the housing manager with the baby. So I had to act as a sort of marriage guidance councillor to architects". Howard Park, ringed by churches, shops, hotels, a community hall and other social centres, and a range of middle class housing, was a unique setting for the workers housing at Rushby Mead. The emphasis was very much on the creation of a neighbourhood or village unit and a mix of social classes, with schools, industry and shops all close at hand. It is perhaps only when we consider Rushby Mead in
this wider context that we can fully appreciate its value and the very
real way it attempted to fulfil the ideals of Ebenezer Howard and the Garden
City movement.
|
