Gosh, well, I’m so glad you asked, because I have just the thing for you! A typology, even – archaeologists do love a good typology, but I suspect it’s the sort of word that might make most people’s eyes glaze over (hence why I waited until the second sentence to bring it up…). Anyhow. Typologies are pretty useful when it comes to analysing large sets of data, hence why one formed the core of my research into what houses in 19th century Christchurch looked like. Now, to be honest, I didn’t develop this typology myself: like any good academic, I took someone else’s and tweaked it to meet my own needs.
The typology I started with was that developed by Jeremy Salmond, author of Old New Zealand Houses 1800-1940 (if you’re interested in 19th century houses, I cannot recommend this book highly enough). Salmond’s book focuses on vernacular architecture – that is, the every day sort of houses that most people have lived in – and he divided houses into two types, cottages and villas, with lovely little sketches to illustrate the various subtypes. But there was one rather significant problem from my point of view: he didn’t actually define what distinguished the two types, except in the broadest terms: “‘Villa’ is used here to refer to later Victorian houses of more than four or five rooms, typically built in the suburbs, and after the 1870s often elaborately decorated. ‘Cottage’, on the other hand, refers to any simple smaller house of the period” (Salmond 1986: 154). Which was all a bit too vague for my purposes – I needed something nice and simple and, more importantly, objective to underly my analysis. Further, Salmond’s sketches indicate far greater differences between the two types. In fact, the sketches indicate a key difference between villas and cottages and what I would use as the key defining feature of my typology: roof form. All of Salmond’s cottage examples (bar one or two) had a gable roof, while all of his villas had a hipped roof. And those exceptions? Well, in my typology, they would be classified as villa. It’s notable that said cottages looked exactly like some of Salmond’s villas.
Within my two main types, I had two subtypes: standard and bay (for those with a protruding bay). Salmond identifies a lot more subtypes, based on roof form, presence or absence of bay, location of bay, shape of the bay and whether or not there was a veranda, amongst other things (Salmond 1986: 73-74, 168-173). For the purposes of my research, this created too many subtypes, and any meaningful analysis was rendered impossible (by way of illustration, Salmond worked out that there were some 6000 possible types of villas and 216 types of cottages; Salmond 1986: 74, 173).
So what did these types look like? Well, let’s dive in! As it were.
Standard cottages
Different types of standard cottages (after Salmond (1986: 73)).
This was the most basic type of house. In early Christchurch, these were one of the most common types of houses, and could be quite big. For example, one I recorded had 11 rooms. And a cellar. With central heating . Not even making that up. But, as time passed, these cottages become the preserve of those who could only just afford to build a house – or wanted to build very cheaply. No doubt because it was cheap to build, this form persisted until at least the early years of the 20th century. By the 1870s, this was a small working class house, typically single storey, with an average of five or six rooms and an average floor area of 61.6 square metres. In most cases, these houses did not have any built-in decorative features, either on the interior or the exterior – but see the particularly cute cottage below. These houses might have a villa or a cottage layout.
A late 1870s brick standard cottage, Scott Street. Image: K. Webb.
A rather decorative standard cottage from the Avon loop. Image: P. Mitchell.
Bay cottages
A little bit fancy: a selection of different types of bay cottages (after Salmond (1986: 74)).
These were built by people with working or middle class occupations, although the latter often built them as rental properties. Like the standard cottage, these were built in early Christchurch and continued to be built until at least the end of the 19th century. They usually had some modest form of external decoration, such as a moulded door or window surround, but little more than that. Most had either a bay window or a veranda, and some had both. Most had a villa layout, and ceiling roses were not uncommon, although any other form of built-in internal decoration was unusual. The average floor area was 83.8 square metres.
A semi-detached bay cottage from the central city. Image: K. Watson.
A central city bay cottage, showing some of the modest decoration these houses often had. Image: L. Tremlett.
Standard villa
A very normal sort of house in Christchurch: the standard villa (shown with variations on the hipped roof; after Salmond 1986: 168-173).
The most common type of house in my research, making up 50% of my sample, suggesting it was a pretty common type in Christchurch in the late 19th century. First appears in c.1875 (possibly a bit later than other cities in New Zealand). The average floor area was 114.5 square metres, and most had five or six rooms. It was also quite common for them to have eight, 10 or 12 rooms. They were generally one-storey, mostly detached and invariably symmetrical – which meant they all looked quite similar. They were predominantly built by people with working or middle class occupations. They were relatively plain on the exterior, although typically had a little bit more decoration than the average bay cottage, and ceiling roses were not uncommon. Few had bay windows and most had a villa layout.
A rare example of a single-storey semi-detached standard villa. Image: F. Bradley.
A two-storied standard villa. Image: L. Tremlett.
Bay villa
A little bit more fancy still: the bay villa (after Salmond 1986: 168-173).
These became common in Christchurch in c.1880 and were typically the preserve of people with middle or upper middle class occupations. Most were detached, single storey and asymmetrical (although they didn’t have to be – see the double bay villa, for example). Most had a bay window, most had a veranda and these houses usually had more external decoration that the average standard cottage, bay cottage or standard villa. They had from seven to 18 rooms, with an average floor area of 141.3 square metres. All had a villa layout. Inside, most had a hall arch, ceiling roses and ceiling cornices.
A very sweet bay villa, built on the outskirts of the central city by someone with an upper middle class occupation. Image: M. Hennessey.
A late 1880s bay villa, from Burwood. Image: C. Staniforth.
Of course, even the best of typologies can’t cover all the building forms, so my typology has the inevitable ‘other’ category, to catch those that just didn’t fit. And I should also note that this typology does not cover elite houses, such as these examples (and see also Jamie’s excellent recent blog posts about one particular elite house in Christchurch).
For me, this typology provided a useful way to organise and analyse my data, thus helping me better understand the nature and development of domestic architecture in 19th century Christchurch. In particular, it enabled me to analyse how house form changed over time, and to explore the relationship between occupational class and house form. I was able connect house types with specific periods and people and thus better understand why people the houses they did. It also allowed me to identify what was ‘normal’ for this particular place and time and thus, more importantly, what wasn’t – and who didn’t follow that normal pattern, because that is often where the most interesting stories lie.
K.atharine Watson
References
Salmond, J., 1986. Old New Zealand Houses 1800-1940. Reed, Auckland.