The Speculative Developers' Estates and the Semi.
The small semi became the ideal for speculative builders throughout the United Kingdom, and the vast majority of speculative houses built during the inter-war period were in this style. 'Very soon speculators began to avail themselves of many features of the Domestic Revival. Between the wars the quintessence of the speculative 'semi' contained many of those features, which stood for 'anti-spec' before 1900' (24). This was one of the secrets of its success as the new, cheap, speculatively built house contained many of the features of the more expensive, architect- designed houses, with which the working-classes were familiar and hoped to emulate. The domestic revival was characterised by its emphasis on crude-looking, half-timbered, tile-hung walls, and was more appropriate to the architect-designed house for the upper classes or the speculative house being sold at a price in excess of £1,500, than to the cheaper home being built for the working classes.
The private developers had no aims beyond making a profit by selling to the public, of whatever class - but particularly the working classes - houses of a type that attracted them. An example of the profit available if the right type of house could be created and sold to the working classes is shown by Taylor Woodrow Ltd. They reported profits of £54,116 for the year ending 31 October 1934, only three years after the creation of the company which built only small working class houses (25). Wimpey's were also especially active in the Middlesex suburbs 'and were said to have made a clear profit of £100 per house, partly due to buying up agricultural land cheaply' (26).
It is surprising that in spite of the voluminous literature on the housing question, it was not until the Second World War that any systematic survey was made of working-class opinion on this subject. The findings of the Dudley Report and of Mass Observation show that generally, designs of the council houses did not always incorporate features the future occupiers wanted, and that the speculative developer came closer to meeting the aspirations of the working-classes (27). The municipal estates were developed very rapidly and did not evolve as and when houses were sold, unlike the houses built by the speculative builders. The designs for municipal houses were conceived away from the site and the designers appeared unable to respond to changes which the site clerk of works might suggest or customer demand require (28). As an example of the speed at which the municipal houses were built, the Central Avenue estate in Hayes, Middlesex, comprising 2,500 homes, was built over a period of two years from 1925 (29). Only a mile away, the Grange Park estate built by Taylor Woodrow with 1,200 homes took three and a half years to build (30). At the Grange Park Estate most of the employees, and Frank Taylor the chairman of the company, worked on site and lived close by and changes could be made to the design and layout of a house or the fittings used with only the briefest of consultations. If a particular style of house was not selling or viewers commented that they did not like an aspect of the house, changes were made (31). During construction of the Canons Park estate, 'John Laing realised that some of the houses would be sunless; he had the whole layout redesigned in a week. Such speed was not only necessary to catch the market: more important, it kept down costs' (32). As the majority of the speculative builders used piece-work methods to construct the houses they were happy to accept any proposals from subcontractors to amend the specification so long as the cost was lower and the estate agents thought it would not affect their ability to sell the houses (33).
The large estates that the private builder and developers formed were more uniform in character than the garden suburbs. What could possibly justify, asked Louis Mumford, 'the formless, tasteless, mass suburb, a multitude of uniform, unidentifiable houses, lined up inflexibly at uniform distances, inhabited by people of the same class, the same income and the same age?' (34). This view was not an accurate reflection of what the speculative estates were nor how they were seen by their inhabitants. For one thing, the speculatively-built estates often abutted one and other, and it could easily be seen where the work of one developer ended and another began. The styles and types of houses were different. In addition, the individuals occupying the semi, which they had bought rather than rented from the local council, were so well accustomed to the property that they were aware of its individuality and its differences from adjoining houses. They were also free to make changes to their homes and gardens. The internal arrangements and the external treatment of the garden by the owner and the erection of a fence or planting a hedge added to the subtle differences already incorporated into the house by the builder. As far as fences and hedges were concerned the municipal estates all over the country were identified by the 'Three rows of galvanised steel wire fixed to 4"x3" tapered reinforced concrete posts' resulting from a specification drawn up by the Ministry of Health in 1919 (35). There was no such uniformity in the speculative estates. The estates of speculatively built houses were liked by the buyers because the developers had kept in touch with the people they served and listened to their needs. Their wishes were expressed in the architectural style which gradually evolved and produced the small speculative built semi of the 1930s. This became, in effect, the vernacular style of the time.
An estate of semis also formed 'a world peculiar to itself'' (36). If viewed as a pair of houses, the semi spoke clearly of uniformity, a closeness with others that would serve to bind people together. Yet at the same time it was detached from the other houses on the estate. The hipped roof construction, always tile covered, 'can tie a building down to the ground' (37). The gaps between the buildings emphasized the separation and detachment of each house from the surrounding houses. Christopher Isherwood spoke of:
Villas on vegetation like saxifrage on stone,
Isolated from each other like cases of fever (38).
Any external uniformity hid a remarkable range of differing layouts and varied internal uses, furnishings and decorations by the occupiers. Each occupier took pride in the fact that to him, his or her semi was unique; it was not the same as his or her neighbours and the manner in which it was used and decorated and furnished was different from other peoples'.
(24) S. Muthesius, The English Terraced House, (London, 1982), p. 250.
(25) From the Report and Accounts of Taylor Woodrow Ltd. From an analysis of their accounts the profit after head office expenses was in the order of £54.00 per house.
(26) Nuffield College Social Research Survey, C1/144. p 7
(27) Mass Observation, An Enquiry into Peoples Homes,(London, 1943)
(28) From a discussion in November 1991 between the writer and H. Loader a clerk of works who was employed by the L.C.C. and worked for a time during the 1930s on the Dagenham estate.
(29) C. Kelter, Hayes (Uxbridge, 1991), p. 37.
(30) A. Jenkins , On Site 1921-71 (London, 1971), p. 21.
(31) From conversations with Frank Taylor of Taylor Woodrow in June 1993.
(32) R. Coad, Laing (London, 1992), p. 107.
(33) From a conversations with the author and Frank Taylor in August 1993.
(34) L.Mumford, Speculative Housing 1918-39 (London, 1954), p. 250.
(35) M. Swenarton, Homes Fit for Heroes: The Political and Architecture of Early State Housing in Britain (London, 1981),p.138.
(36) J.Richards ,Castles on the Ground, (London, 1946), p.18.
(37) C. Day, Places of the Soul: Architecture and Environmental Design as a Healing Art (Frome, 1990), p. 117.
(38) W. Auden and C. Isherwood, The Dog beneath the Skin, (London, 1935), p.117.