An enquiry into certain principles of architectural physiology / by D.O. Edwards.

  • Edwards, David Owen, 1801-1878.
Date:
[1866]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: An enquiry into certain principles of architectural physiology / by D.O. Edwards. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    10/16 (page 124)
    In such an unprecedented hive of human beings as London presents, every facility for cleanliness in person, clothes and habitation, should be supplied, not only in dwellings, but by such general establishments as baths and wash-houses, the erection of which is clearly within the municipal obligation of parishes. The accumulation of household dirt, and personal filth, is the result of the close agglomeration of the population in small spaces; it is produced by society, and society is bound to provide an adequate remedy. The sketch of a house, which an artistic friend, eminent in another branch of pictorial art, has condescended to make for me, and which is shown in the appendix, is intended to show the appearance which a habitation, constructed in the way I suggest, would present, llie vomitorium and the atmode are both represented, and shown not to be eyesores. A staircase of stone is supposed to ascend from the basement to the teiTace, and to be the general approach to all the apartments. It has been objected to the idea of the “ common ” staircase, so universally prevalent on the continent, that it is repulsive to the habits of our people. Tlie vanity of this objection is immediately shown, by the fact, that thousands upon thousands of persons, in London, do actually live in lodging houses, and use a common staircase, much narrower and more inconvenient than the one here proposed; and that these persons are of various ranks and means, a fact which brings the working people into proximity with the more opulent inhabitants, and places them within the compass of kindly counsel and sympathy. It has been said, and perhaps truly, that the single sentiment of charity, notwithstanding the example of Mr. Peabody, is not powerful enough to produce such an outlay of capital, as the erection of solid and durable houses of this class implies. The wretched system of building dwellings upon leasehold security, instead of freehold, is the cause that the architecture of these edifices is so unsatisfactory, most of these houses being built merely with a view to sale, and a quick return of the capital with interest. It is rarely that a man erects a house for himself on his own ground; and no man ever thinks of building houses upon a large scale as a patrimony for his family, as many noblemen in France, Spain and Italy do. Speculating builders, even at the Court end of London, erect showy rows of mansions, decorated with the ordinary architectural millinery, but deficient in scientific construction, and intended only to last a limited time. Great expense ■will never be incun’ed in the production of ephemeral structures, but when ample revenues are to be created for centuries, in the form of estates in houses, then large investments of capital would be devoted to the construction of mansions, and the best materials, with the most sldllful workmanship only, would be employed. If we look at the old cities on the Rhine, and in Belgium, and at many large Continental towns, we shall see that such investments are both safe and profitable. Our vicious system of building, in England, is so rooted in the habits of small capitalists, that it will, probably, require an act of the legislature to restrain it. And this interference will not be long delayed, when public opinion becomes conscious that policy, as well as philanthropy, suggests that it is desirable the homes of the poor should be improved. That society is not safe, where the majority of its members do not very obviously see what benefit accrues to them from its action. There are signs which indicate that contentment is not the master sentiment in the minds of our industrial classes. Handsome churches are erected, and gorgeous rituals are invented to attract them, but they still hold back. Museums and literary societies are formed for their edification, but these compete too feebly with the fascination of the gin palace; and the poor man has no pleasant sentiment associated with the word home, because, to him, it is cramped, dirty and unhealthy. Is it quite visionary to hope, that all the forces of this great English society, actuated by all the motives wliich press themselves upon our attention, arc strong enough to accomplish such a reform in our domestic architecture, us that the hearth and home of the poor man may become the abode of peace,