Help understanding Victorian floor plan.
-
@calstock said:
....
http://archiseek.com/2010/1866-bignell-house-chesterton-oxfordshire/
......Best thing of course would be a visit to the property.Either this image or the floor plan above seems to be mirrored.
(Right now one only seems to match the other's mirrored version)
-
It doesn't appear there's much left of the Bignell House left to visit.
"Sadly, only the nursery wing, which was added to main house in 1892, remains today because the rest was demolished in 1953-54. "
-
Thanks for the input, everyone.
Calstock: Unfortunately I haven't found many images of the place, and moreover one of my chief concerns is in the outbuildings, and I've seen no-thing of them. And as Dave R says, the building no longer exists for a visit. Quite unfortunate.
Dave R: Thanks very much, Dave. I actually couldn't thank you enough. I've learnt a lot here just now, and I'm googling this since January.
So, does it indicate a door going to the well/cistern, from the dairy scullery?
And I imagine you're not familiar with the hooks in 4?Wo3Dan: It is indeed mirrored. It's fairly different as well. I've expanded it very much, changed the main entrance, added corridors, and a couple of other things. And the actual building looks very different to the Bignell house. But I didn't want to remove the things I'm asking about as I could be removing something important.
Thanks again, lads.
-
You may have already seen this in your travels, but I thought I'd add it for those contemplating the differences...
the floor plans from his book appear to match the image...
they are not 'flipped' and also don't show any 'hooks' outside the 'Butler's' room...
john
-
@driven said:
You may have already seen this in your travels, but I thought I'd add it for those contemplating the differences...
the floor plans from his book appear to match the image...
they are not 'flipped' and also don't show any 'hooks' outside the 'Butler's' room...[attachment=2:2grv657l]<!-- ia2 -->bignell_plan.jpg<!-- ia2 -->[/attachment:2grv657l][attachment=1:2grv657l]<!-- ia1 -->bignell_descript.jpg<!-- ia1 -->[/attachment:2grv657l][attachment=0:2grv657l]<!-- ia0 -->bignell_house.jpg<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:2grv657l]john
Who are you referring to when you say 'his' book? Mine? Mine is flipped and otherwise modified from the original floor plan. It's not Bignell house, it's just based on the floor plan. And both my map and the original do have 'hooks'. I just don't know what they're meant to be.
EDIT: I couldn't see the images you'd posted before, as I had an adblocker. Indeed, the original floor plan perfectly matches the image, but there are hooks the version I was using. I'll link it. Its page isn't numbered as it's a plate but it's in the sixties. There's what seem to be pencil marks elsewhere in the book. That couldn't be what the hooks are, could it?
-
I did Google the Architect the other day to look for other plans and I think he used the circular feature elsewhere. This may be a line of research for you - look for other plans by the Architect because they tend to repeat favoured features in other projects. The hope being the features are better detailed elsewhere.
-
@calstock said:
I did Google the Architect the other day to look for other plans and I think he used the circular feature elsewhere. This may be a line of research for you - look for other plans by the Architect because they tend to repeat favoured features in other projects. The hope being the features are better detailed elsewhere.
Thanks, Calstock. What did you find? I've not found much besides what's already in that book. He uses it again I think in the one I have attached here, in the scullery.
-
The round detail in the corner of the scullery in your latest image would be a copper. There's a fireplace to its left. The round one to the left of that might again be access to a well or cistern or it might be where kitchen waste gets dumped so it can be removed by the gardener from outside without being hauled through the house.
As for the "hooks" in your original question, I would be extremely surprised if a detail like a hook on a wall would be shown in a plan like that. More likely is that it is some artifact from the drawing.
-
Re: item 4
I've worked in many large houses of the period, in the area [filming], and the only item I can imagine being in that position, worthy of highlighting, would be 'servant bells' or an 'intercom'...
If such a device was installed or upgraded later than build date, then it may explain it being 'penciled' in.
Some of these contraptions are quite substantial, but 'could' be represented by a pair of speaker horns...
this is wild speculation, countered by the knowledge of there importance for the smooth running of any large household of the era...
john
-
EPD, sorry, I can't find the drawing I thought I'd spotted. DaveR has a good read on the plans. As an aside, isn't it surprising just how little of this large house is allocated to what we would call the living space, (dining room, drawing room, morning room, etc)..... Not that I have such rooms, (apart from dining and definitely not a boudoir !).
-
Gary, your remark about how much of the space in a house from this period is not "living" space is interesting. If you think about all the things that had to be done in the house that we would take for granted, you can see that you'd actually need more space for those things to occur. If you haven't seen it, Victorian Farm is an interesting watch to get a taste for the things that had to be done. There's also an older series called The Victorian Kitchen which start Ruth Mott. It takes place in a house similar to the house in question. If you can find it on YouTube, I expect you could glean a lot of details.
-
I remember watching the Ruth Mott Kitchen series when it was first run - great programme Dave.
-
It was, wasn't it. I liked Ruth a great deal. I also enjoyed the various farm videos even though they went through everything pretty quickly. Still some interesting info.
-
Thanks very much, everyone. It's fantastic that ye feel so inclined to help. I hope to return the favour to some other novices on this forum one day.
So, I've gone through the whole book and put together all the plans where I personally noticed this yoke we're discussing or something that could potentially be the same. I may have missed a couple but this is about as good as it'll get I imagine. (And I've apparently neglected to include the plan for Bignell House.) Am I correct in seeing doors going into whatever this thing is? If so, why is no-thing indicated on the outside for picking up the waste without entering the house as Dave R has suggested? That seemed the most likely suggestion to me but this bit is puzzling.
-
and 9. seem to be exactly the same as Bignell House, a rounded shape totally outsdide of any buildings but connected to one, usually a scullery.
-
is rounded but within square walls and it comes out of the scullery. I thought it was indoors in a different building but the fuel shed is where it goes and is really outdoors.
1., 4., 7., and 8. are irregularly shaped but I believe the same device is implied. 4. seems the only one of these that protrudes totally out of the building. Interestngly, in 1. and 7. the device in question is in the wash-house and not the scullery. Could it be a different device in that case?
-
and 6. are rather more oblong, and 5. rather curiosuly seems to be indoors and not adjacent to an external wall, whereas in line with the rest of them, 6. is at the outer wall and could be outside.
-
and 11. are different but near the end of this I wondered are they fulfilling the same function. I'm talking about the rectangular items against the outer walls. The first image has this as well in the scullery.
driven: I think it looks interesting and mysterious on the map so I'll keep it and do something with it. It's for a computer game, a horror one no less, so a bit of mystery is good.
Calstock: In a way it is surprising, but at the same time the rooms are quite big, and in addition to what Dave has said, the space required to do all these tasks is indicative of the number of people that needed to do them, hence the high number of bedrooms (some of which are for guests as well). And considering that these are generally homes and countryhouses for the wealthy, this was by no means standard for the majority. Many families had a single room for living, cooking, sleeping and any thing else that you'd like to do indoors.
Dave: never seen either programme but I'd love to. I should save the names for when I have time to watch something. I've read Margaret Powell's books on domestic service, and they were positively fascinating. Her accounts start from the 1920s but she often draws comparisons to Victorian living, and mentions what had improved, or occassionally grown worse.
-
-
I know what you mean EPD. My wife grew up in a 1650's farmhouse, (ex-inn we believe)and our previous property, (where we lived for 17 years) was a 1760's Cotswold stone cottage. Obviously modern amenities had all been added at some point, but it did give you a sense of the room sizes, ceiling heights, wall thicknesses, garden sizes, (the one thing that was considerably bigger), and other details apparent in an older property. We brought our current house when it was 18 months old - a complete change you can imagine !
-
Indeed, Calstock. That can certainly be some change. I'm doing a lot of research on this type of thing lately as I'm writing a novel about an 1870s Donegal farm girl that goes into service in a big mansion, as well as working on the computer game that this floor plan will be for. So, I'm finding out a lot and it's interesting. It's the sort of thing I never used to think about that much. I always liked it but hadn't really given much thought to the complexity of it.
-
I highly doubt that most American homes built today will be standing 400 years from now...
-
@krisidious said:
I highly doubt that most American homes built today will be standing 400 years from now...
Nor, for that matter, most of those being built anywhere else today.
-
Isn't that the truth. A fair few shoddy buildings being put up these days. As technology improves, cheaper ways of doing things come about, and a good half the time, cheaper won't last.
-
I know we're drifting off topic here, (and off Sketchup), but it is an interesting discussion.
Having lived in a 1760's Costwold stone cottage,it was certainly sturdy. We had some really bad gales one day when I lived there and on the way home there were roof tiles off all the buildings, trees blown down, vehicles tipped over, etc. I was dreading what I'd find when I got home, only to find it didn't suffer one jot !
Here's the thing though - we shouldn't have too much of a rose tinted view of these properties because although they are long-lasting, they're constantly damp, (despite all the usual modern day remedies), they end up twisted and leaning all over the place, (on account of no foundations and the crucial element of lime mortar, (which allows movement without cracking). What I'm saying is if a modern building had these defects, we'd probably call it a fail. I know that's not a fair comparison but then comparing modern and old properties isn't fair on some levels either.
We do tend to forget, (or take for granted), that new houses come with double glazing, central heating, fitted kitchens AND inside lavatories !! as standard, (to name a few).
Advertisement