6  

Figure 1: Exterior and interior reconstruction drawings of the original, medieval St John’s Hospital building. Not to scale.

The Architectural History of Pre-20th Century Social Housing in Canterbury The Medieval Origins of Social Housing in Canterbury St John the Baptist Hospital 

Before Lanfranc’s St John the Baptist Hospital was built in 1085, the destitute of Canterbury had been forced to turn to relatives, self-built slums or other inadequate options to meet their housing needs.

In 1085 Lanfranc had been the Norman Archbishop of Canterbury and primate of the Church of England for fifteen years. He had already completed construction of the church of St Etienne in Caen, rebuilt the nave and priory of Canterbury cathedral, as well as being a well reputed scholar, monk and administrator. (Hill. 1969) He now set about creating a new type of institution1. Outside the city walls, by the North gate, Lanfranc built a long dormitory block with a perpendicular chapel, forming a tau cross. In this block he made provision for the ‘clothing and keep’ of thirty male and thirty female ‘poor and infirm’ tenants2 as well as two reredorters a few metres to the north for their sanitary needs. These tenants paid no rent, and the institution was granted a large estate (including the land the University of Kent is now built upon) in order to guarantee its financial solvency into the future. Across the road Lanfranc built a church, dedicated to St Gregory to house ‘canons’ who would provide religious services to the tenants of the institution that he now named St John the Baptist Hospital, after the saint’s day on which he had been consecrated to the episcopate in 1070.

Unlike St. Gregory’s or the Christchurch priories, across and a few metres down the road respectively; the buildings are not arranged to form a cloister as was common for all medieval monastic buildings in Canterbury, marking this new lay building as different from those which performed an extremely similar function, but for the clergy. This theme is true for all of the hospitals in Canterbury, as is the use of cheaper materials3.

The buildings Lanfranc had already built around Canterbury were predominantly of cut stone,

                                                            1 Why Lanfranc chose to expend his time and resources on the support of the needy is naturally ambiguous. However apart from the

clear motive from a scriptural standpoint (for example: Leviticus 19:9-11, Proverbs 14:31 or James 1:27, in which Lanfranc would

doubtless have been well versed), to care for the poor, Hill also suggests it could be conqueror’s shame, due to the negative financial

impact the Norman conquest had precipitated for the native Saxon population. This would neatly explain why no such institution had been

built in Britain before 1085. 2 60 According to Eadmer, however D.I. Hill claims it housed 100 (Hill. 1969) p.7 3 That said, Eadmer describes the building as a palace, so it was not built as a utilitarian building. (Eadmer. c.1122)

  

 

imported fconstructiolikely of timKent5 or th

Though thioperation owith the chsymbolic m

St Nichola

By 1090 Laabout a mithese wereSt Nicolas’ physical neexposure toaccess to t

Sadly littleoriginal fabbeen hall hpotentially

This hospitJohn’s onlythe tenantsboots and mravaging na

Again the iperpetuitysocial housJohn’s to c(See appen

Over the foneither of many in Ca

                    4 It is unknow5 For exampl6 Likely name7 Quote from

rom is formeon with Quarmber queen hatch.

s building waon the continhapel at righ

move to creat

as’ Hospita

nfranc had ble further ou

e a collection Leper Hospi

eeds of the so fresh air, ahe supposed

e is known abbric remainshouses of timy with separa

tal not only hy provided sps was greatemantles to tature of thei

nstitution w; a theme wsing programcontinue in ondix 02)

ollowing ninethe original

anterbury wo

                      wn who made the see accountsed to commemo directions by L

er seat of Carr stone quoi post constru

as the first onent. The Ar

ht angles, as te a crucifor

al 

built a seconut of the cityn of wattle aital6, were Lsick of Canteand privacy, dly medicina

bout the orig. However w

mber cruck frate private r

had more stapiritual supper. Lanfranc enants presuir disease. (H

was provided hich differen

mmes and hasoperation int

e centuries b buildings remould follow.

                  hese decision, Ls of the excavatorate canonisedLanfranc (see H

aen in Franceined windowuction and co

of its kind in rchitectural this was therm plan, or i

nd institutiony than St Johand daub houLanfranc apperbury. The c desirable dul waters of t

ginal design owe can surmirame with a ooms at the

aff than St Joport) but also provided unumably to alHill. 1969) p.

with a largentiates the hs allowed boto the presen

both institutimain in use.

Lanfranc himseted medieval tild bishop of MyrHill. 1969) p.16

e, but for thiws and doors.oated with e

Britain, It wform itself is

e point wheren mimesis of

n, more ambhn’s, at Harbuses groupedpointed ‘skilfchoice of a mue to the nathe spring in

of St Nicholase from cont central open ends.

ohn’s, (thoseo material priform hoods,low them to.16

e estate to enhospitals fromth St Nicolasnt day.

ions underw However La

elf, or his assiste kilns at Addin

ra whose remain

is latest buil. Nothing remeither clay pe

was likely inss probably de the zones f a specific p

itious than tbledown. Und around a chful, patient amore rural loture of their the hospital

as’ as unlike temporary bn hearth,

e at St rovision for , gowns,

o conceal the

nsure its m later s’ and St

ent several ranfranc had s

tant-cum-archington in westerns (now a relic)

Figure 2: CEnglish hallNote: Stoneposts and ra

lding he chosmains of the eg tiles whic

spired by simerived from for each genprecedent.(S

the first. Thelike St John’hurch on a sand kindly wocation was ir sickness, anl’s environs.

St John’s nouildings that

e

reconstructioset an exam

itect Gundulf rn Kent in Philp) had come to B

Cutaway isomet house

e footings to preafters with watt

se4 local flin original rooch were com

milar instituti functional rnder meet, rSee appendix

ese buildings’s flint walls mall rise. Th

watchers’7 to n part to allnd in part to (Hill. 1969)

one of the int they were

ons and refuple that ove

p. (1972) p.220 Bari in 1087 (se

ric of typical m

event rot, cruckle and daub inf

t in solid waf, but it wasmon in med

ions already requirementsrather than ix 01,01 a-c)

s were sited and tau plahis was to fo serve the ow the tena

o ensure easy p.16

nstitution’s likely to hav

urbishments,r the years,

ee Lyle. 2002) p

7 

edieval

k frame fill

all s ieval

in s, n a

n, rm

ants y

ve

so

p.75

  

 

The Hosp

The next amonks. Thithe Old Dovor their ‘poChaplain anand Chislet

Even less isthe fourteenow dilapidconverttedhospital8. Uall that rem

Maynard a

The next breally a forUnlike the Hospital wasome ambias Hill noteduring the Maynier thetitle is a coconstruct aand four feclergy and

In 1604 theLeonard Cosheriff, alda benefactaccommodgood, honeold.

This complhospitals; phouses, avathe possess

                    8 St Nicolas’

and because

otherwise kno

spared) 9 A preliminabut the decisiexcavation ar10 The ambigused as evide

ital of St La

lmshouse to is time foundver Road. Toor parents ond Clerk. St t, as well as

s known of tenth Centurydated buildind into a manoUntil excavatmains of the

and Cotton

uilding, thourerunner of l previous thras built by aguity over wes, Somner’s reign of Hene rich (of whorruption) pra chapel andemale, elder a small esta

e second namotton, (a Merderman and mtion in his wiation for one

est behaviou

lex was far spresumably lailable for usion a bell, c

                      hospital surviv

it was not affili

own as the Prio

ry excavation wion was taken tre yet to be pubguity stems fromence in a legal

awrence fo

be built in Cded by Abbo

The hospital wor relations’ Lawrence’s a windmill a

he physical fy and the disngs were solor house andtion is comp hospital is a

n’s Hospital

ugh called a later centuriree, Maynard private indi

when it was fs Antiquitiesnry II (likely hose name throvided the i housing for

rly, poor memate to provid

mesake of thrchant, and mayor of thell to providee man, and tr and at leas

maller than little more tse by the pochalice cand

                  ved this period a

ated with a prio

ory of Black Fria

was undertakeno protect the mblished in full. Pm the fact that tcase.

or Leprous

Canterbury wt Hugh of Trwas to house along with s was also graand other ag

form of thesssolution by d to one Sir

d later demopleted, any da partial sect

l 

hospital, is ies’ almshoud’s and Cottoividual. Therfounded10, bu places it c.1180). he hospital’sinitial capito three male,mbers of thee maintenan

e hospital; aone-time e city) set ase two widows st fifty years

earlier than a row ofoor. Records lesticks and

as it had shifted

ory it avoided th

iars, but it was a

n by Canterburymajority of the rePreliminary findthe Almshouse’

Monks

was the now rottescliffe ine sixteen masixteen femaanted a largegricultural fa

se building asthe crown of John Parrott

olished in 183description ction of perim

ses. on’s re is ut

s ol to , e nce.

a

side

of s

f small state

d its focus from

he risk of crown

a sufficiently di

y Archaeologicaemains in situ rings suggest a s records wher

Figure 3: isomCotton’s HospiFlemish gable Not to scale.

dissolved Hon 1137. It is ale leprous male of the sae estate, 21 cilities adjoi

s, following f St Lawrenct on May 26t

39, leaving oould only be

meter wall).

m invalid treatme

n dissolution. (S

stant associatio

al Trust in late 2rather than to atbuttressed flint

re burnt in the f

metric of the 170tal. Note: the dends, and sepa

ospital of St south of themonks, of Huame (includinacres in all, ining the com

the reductioce’s parent ah 1557, and t

only a flint pe speculative

ent to the hous

St John’s was a

on that, as it wa

2011, as new hottempt a full ext building, with ire of London in

08 reconstructeiminutive entraarate accesses

t Lawrence foe city on whagh’s Abbey,

ng a prioress across Cantempound.

on of cases oabbey; St Augthe buildingserimeter wa

e.9(See appen

ing of the gene

affiliated with S

as also used by

ouses where toxcavation. The r

some cut stonen 1666, where t

ed Maynard andnce to the chapto the street.

or leprous at is now cal St Augustine) and a Warderbury, Stur

of leprosy ovegustine’s, ths where first

all of the origndix 03 –thou

rally poor and a

t Gregory’s Prio

y the laity, It wa

o be built on theresults of the pae. they were being

8 

d pel,

led e’s den, ry

er he t ginal ugh

aged,

ory,

as

e site, artial

g

  

9  

Figure 4: Simplified ground floor isometric of the hospital of St Thomas the Martyr, note the informal plan and frequent changes of level caused by this hospitals incremental growth into surrounding buildings. Back hall used originally as refectory.

vestments among its assets in 1546 suggesting the presence of a chapel, but little else is known about the architecture of the original buildings as they were destroyed during a great storm in 1703. However construction soon began on a replacement building and by 1708 the terrace which stands on the site today was in use.

This new terrace takes the basic form of Lanfranc’s original hospital, though much condensed. Living quarters are arranged in a row along the street edge and are bisected by a chapel on a perpendicular line about the centre of the block. Unlike at St John’s, private quarters are provided to each of the inhabitants, in the form of a bedroom-living room, each with separate access to the street. Cooking and outdoor sanitation facilities are provided communally to the rear of the property along with a small garden. The chapel (marked by a chimney like bell turret) is a small timber-panelled room, with a large window at the south end and pews facing each other, rather than down, the nave. This new building was entirely of brick with clay tiles and Flemish gable ends, reflecting the changing styles and technology of the times.

This hospital-cum-almshouse marks a departure from the overbearingly religious institutions of previous centuries; mastered by city aldermen and with no denominational specification for applicants. This is partly why the building takes such a novel form11, with its chapel played down in the composition, its entrance hardly more pronounced than those of the houses themselves. Similarly, whilst the T-form is reminiscent of St-Johns, here the building is approached from the accommodation side, rather than via the chapel. It is a great shame that no record of the original buildings survive as they may have offered an interesting case of a building in a greater state of transition between the two models12. (See appendix 04)

The Hospital of St. Thomas the Martyr 

The next establishment to be formed is the first adaption of an existing building. The hospital of St. Thomas the Martyr was founded by Edward Fitzodbold13 in a house on the east bridge over the Stour around 1190 as a response to the numbers of poor pilgrims who were flowing into Canterbury following the martyrdom of St. Thomas at the cathedral twenty years before.

The reason Fitzodbold opted for an adaption rather than a specialised building becomes clear in records of the financial issues the hospital underwent in its early days14. The same is true of later hospitals housed in adapted buildings, meaning that this decision was a cost saving measure more than a reflection of the particular suitability of the buildings themselves.

The house shared a party wall on both sides with other buildings, and over time the hospital grew into these adjacent houses, giving the hospital an informal plan with great variance in floor

                                                            11 Heavily influenced by The Charity of John and Anne Smith: See below 12 Another key novelty of Maynard & Cotton’s is the lack of agricultural facilities, even the relatively urban St. John’s had orchards and kitchen gardens within its walls, and St Lawrence’s is likely to have had a vineyards, let alone its windmill. This change is a reflection of the developing market economy and incipient urbanisation, as well as the fact that agricultural and garden work where believed to be therapeutic for the body, whereas Maynard & Cotton’s was built for people of already sound health. This argument should not be overstated though, as many contemporary almshouses in the rest of England continued to be built with accompanying agricultural facilities 13 Despite the private funding, the master-ship by a priest (continuing until today) marks this building as a hospital rather than an

almshouse.

14 Unlike all of the preceding hospitals, it is not clear St Thomas’ had any endowment at all, the hospital survived by charging it tenants, albeit at a low cost, its future was only made certain by a merge around 1203 with the equally young hospital of St Nicholas and St Katherine, and the inheritance of that institution’s founder, William Cockyn’s worldly goods.

  

 

level, roomchapel aboundercroftpassing on archbishopwomen of tundercroftand partly structure is

Jacob’s H

Jacob’s hosVery little be operatereligious orby Archbishgradually inthe crown built over thospital stiarchitecturthe housing

Poor Prie

The Poor Pexisting buwas built inc.1220 by Wand aged cThe house by a centraof their acthalf later ionto its noright anglemaster’s fawere also btime becomparish churThe hospitabuildings fowhere put We return again in us

                    15 Interesting16 Interestingfrom earlier lemiasmic infec17 It had beepreference fo

m size and spove, lit by th, in a dormit pilgrimages

p Whitgift, apthe city resp, and much o of cut stones again of tim

Hospital (St

spital was bu is known aboed as an almsrdinances hahop Hubert (nto a priory and the founthe site in thill exemplifyre in this perg.

sts Hospita

Priests Hospituilding, and pn 1174 originWilliam de Gclergy. was of flint al fireplace, tivities in thn 1373, a horth-eastern

es to the origamily and a bbuilt of wholme a commorches. al was dissolormally surre to use as a glater to looke as social h

                      gly this chapel cgly this hospitaleper hospitals iction. en built to houseor separate acco

pacial compleree large witory layout li to Rome or partments wpectively. Thof the rest o

e blocks freqmber with an

James’s)

uilt in 1192 aout Jacobs’ shouse for sianded down (1160-1205) and conventndation dissohe early twey the level ofriod, with th

al

tal was like Sprobably for nally as a priGloucester an

with an ope as in hall hois single com

ouse for the edge as anot

ginal, this timbasement stole local flints

on constructi

lved during tendered to cgaol and evek at this builhousing, beco

                  came to be alsol was founded bin the city, whic

e 25 leprous woommodation.

exity. The mndows lookinike earlier h St Thomas’s

were built withe street facof the interiouently formen inventive a

as the first earchitecturex women17, by the prior suggest thatt. The prioryolved in 1550ntieth centuf communal he use of two

St Thomas’ a the same reivate house, nd put to use

n, rectangulouses. The pmmunal spacmaster of thther rectangme enclosingorey beneats and mortaron material

the reformatcrown, on thentually a schding again, aoming the ci

o used as a schby a master Firmch had virtually

omen, presuma

main buildingng onto the sospitals and

s grave. But bthin and houade of this b

or is partly oed into pointarched quee

exclusively fee apart from and possesse of Christ cht with the dyy was passed0. The buildiury, preventiparticipationo common bu

an adaption easons. The f but was boue as a home

lar plan, broriests perfore. A century

he hospital wgular flint blog a solar for th. These buir, which had for Canterbu

tion with thee 10th May 1hool for pooras by 1727 itty’s first wo

hool for twenty min, who was ano medical fac

bly communally

g is a flint hostreet15. The were primaby the 16th C

uses behind tbuilding is agf brick, plasted arches spn-strut roof

emale hospit the fact thaed a hall andurch, notatio

ying out of le over duringings surviveding any archan and facilitiuildings, des

of an first part ught for poor

ken only rmed all y and a was added ock at the ildings d by this ury’s

e 575 and r boys. t was rkhouse.

boys in 1569, aa doctor, potentcilities, beyond

y, which explain

Figure 5: Isompost-1575 addservant’s quaroccupied a sofloor was in thScale

ouse, providie twelve bedrily for the s

Century, undthe hospital gain of wholetered over apringing fromin the chape

tal16, just ouat by 1546 thd chapel amoons on historeprosy the fog the dissolutd until at leaaeological sties involved spite the low

at the request otially implying thgood diet, gard

ns the decrease

metric of Poor dition housed krters and a buttolar in the ‘masthe use of the ho

ng a hall belds were situashort term uder the direcas homes foe flints, but and in the chm carved capel. (See Appe

utside the cithe foundatioong its buildric maps as woundation hation but was ast 1800, buttudy. Howev with hospita

w tenancy of

of archbishop Mhis was a very den work and cl

e in capacity, w

1

Priest’s Hospitakitchens, a panttery. The masteter’s house, theospital brothers

low, with theated in the se of the potion of r old men an the vaulted hapel frescoepitals. The roendix 05)

ty at Winchen had come ings. Recordwell as lettead morphed confiscatedt houses werer records oal life and only 6 peop

Mathew Parker different instituean air to avoid

with the Elizabet

0 

al. The ry,

er only e ground s. Not to

e

or

nd ed oof

eap. to ds of ers

by re f the

le in

tion d

than

  

11  

Figure 6: Isometric of Manwoods almshouses.Note: lack of chapel or hall. Not to scale

The Almshouse and Separation of Social Accommodation

Manwood Almshouses

It is not until the closing decades of the Tudor period before another new Almshouse is built in Canterbury; a 400 year gap that sees change of royal dynasty bringing with it the end of the middle ages along with numerous wars with the French and the Scots, strife in the church (which was about to boil over into civil war) and the Black Death epidemic18. All of which contributed to the lack of new building. (See time-line)

Amongst all of this, and after 17 years of pondering the issue, the lawyer Sir Roger Manwood began construction on a new type of almshouse. As Lord of Hackington he personally designed this almshouse to act more as a campus than a centralised unit, blurring the boundaries between the institution and the local community. In his design Manwood subtracted the refectory, chapel and all other common spaces from the now established model. Instead he made provision for the alms folk to use local buildings for these functions, eating communally in his own manor’s hall and using Hackington’s parish church, St Stephen’s, daily for services. A few metres from the church he laid out six almshouses in a row with separate internal circulation, living and cooking services, gardens behind and separate accesses onto the parish green. He did not dispense with institutional communality altogether however, as all of the houses are terraced under a single roof, originally with a long common porch along the front. All were to be built to identical design of red brick and at the western end of the block he planned a larger house for the parish clerk19, who beside his other local responsibilities would act as warden over the alms people.

The plans were enacted after Manwood’s death in 1592 and the houses have continued in their planned use into the present. All subsequent almshouses in the city correspond much more closely to this mutually separate and open model, than earlier communal and enclosed models, as we have already seen with Maynard and Cotton’s 1708 reconstruction which followed a century later. (See Appendix 07)

Jesus Hospital

Sir John Boys adopted both the mutual separation of accommodation, and the linking of hospital and town, in his 1595 Jesus Hospital.20 He provided the building with its own chapel, but also made arrangement for the house’s eighteen alms folk to attend St. Mary’s church and the Cathedral on Sundays. At the hospital Boys founded a school for twenty children, along with provision for their clothing and future apprenticeships. They where to be tutored by the warden of the hospital, in a purpose built room beneath the warden’s quarters, rather than in the chapel, as at St Thomas’s. The private quarters were generous21, each fitting (after the 1964 renovations) their own cooking, living, bathroom and bedroom facilities. The rooms were arranged in two storeys to define three sides of a court, which was enclosed on the road side by the school house and                                                             18 As well as the publishing of Chaucer’s famous Canterbury Tales 19 This building is now the Ye Olde Beverlye public house, responsibility over the buildings and alms folk now lying in the hands of trustees, and NHS carers rather than a warden. 20 Though called a hospital, this building is really an almshouse 21 He intended for two members of his family to live there, in the same conditions as everyone else.

  

12  

Figure 7: Isometric of the Charity of John and Anne Smith.Note: distinctive lack of communal facilities. Not to Scale

warden’s accommodation, until these spaces were demolished in 1935. The chapel entrance is prominently located in the central block that now faces the road, marked at roof level by a gable standing forward of the roof pitch. The buildings are all of red brick, with leaded casement windows and a clay tiled roof articulated with large chimneys stacks above the houses.

The Charity of John and Anne Smith

The Charity of John and Anne Smith, built in 1657, now across from the 1808 Canterbury gaol in Longport, is more akin to Manwood’s almshouses in scale than Jesus hospital; accommodating only ‘four brothers and four sisters born within manor of Barton’.

This almshouse is nearly identical to the later Maynard and Cotton’s Hospital, with the same Flemish gable ends, single storey layout, dormers at the rear and terraced plan. However this building holds no chapel, accommodates two fewer alms people, as well as having a line of exaggerated chimney stacks along the roof ridge and the fenestration along the front facade is arranged as a sequence of mirrored couples, rather than alternated window and door placement, as at Maynard and Cotton’s.

Hill asserts that the Smiths22 actively modelled their design on Manwood’s, on the other side of the city (Hill. 1969 p.40), and the influence is clear. Again an affinity is made with a local church, this time St. Pauls, in lieu of a separate chapel and

there is no separate hall or indeed any common facilities, other than the miniscule front yard23 making this the first social housing development in the history of the city to emulate exactly the use patterns of private dwellings, even foregoing the additional compulsory religious services that had been a condition of tenancy at every other almshouse until now. The only significant difference between this building and private housing being the stipends paid to the tenants and the freedom from payment of rent24. This is the first and last time Canterbury would see such a facility, until the council housing four centuries later.

                                                            22 Who built this house as a mark of thanks to God for giving them a son after many years of childless marriage 23 Since demolished to make way for a pavement 24 The foundation also provided sponsorship for many local children to undergo apprenticeships, but this action had no architectural implication.

  

13  

Figure 8: Isometric of SO Folden and Henry W Parker’sproposed Workhouse, very similar to Marshall’s completed Canterbury workhouse in layout. published in the Illustrated London News. Note: fenced, rather than walled exercise yards and covered play spaces for children, indicative of Folden’s attempt to produce a more humane workhouse for Canterbury, than those in use in the rest of Britain.

The Workhouse and State Provision of Housing for the Poor The workhouse, one of Canterbury’s shortest lived social housing institutions25, came to Canterbury in 1727 following an Act of Parliament.26 Due to the level of strictures demanded of tenants, they are, like Convents and Monasteries, not social housing in the traditional sense, but they mark the beginning of an important theme, vital for the understanding of housing over the Centuries that follow. That theme is the introduction of top down housing policy, based on national and international research. As such, the workhouses broke with all of the architectural trends that had been incrementally developed in Canterbury’s Almshouses and Hospitals.

The first Workhouse was a repurposing of the old Poor Priest’s Hospital building, and for the first time takes in young, able-bodied poor folk. As it opened itself to all of the poor in its fifteen parish constituency, with no significant changes made to the building, personal accommodation was necessarily very limited.

But by 1850 a new purpose built facility was made available on the southern periphery of the city, at Nunnery fields, following designs by architect Hezekiah Marshall. The building which had a capacity of 400, was organised around two courtyards, built of brick with cut stone string courses and decorative window arches. The building was on a far grander scale than anything seen before, and clearly shows the 19th century predisposition for symmetry and formality in plan and elevation. In terms of programme, accommodation reverted back to the form of dormitories, as in medieval hospitals27, and there are a few specialised spaces, the fenced yards for constrained exercise and some working spaces.

Conclusion Over the 19th Century the workhouse gradually transformed into a hospital in the modern sense, but it still provided accommodation for the aged, in the more medicalised context of a geriatric care unit. The 21st century saw this sold off as well, as Canterbury’s medical facilities were centralised on a site adjacent to what was once St Lawrence’s. The Nunnery fields building was redeveloped by Taylor Wimpey in 2004 now providing housing for people from a broader sample of the income spectrum. Following the decline of the workhouse and with the ‘homes fit for heroes’ campaign in 1919, the state began providing social housing in the form of council houses. These varied from semi detached houses at Reed Avenue in 1964, to small blocks of flats, terraces and detached houses as with the 113 house development in Hales Place, behind the Manwood almshouses in the 1970s. The council architecture continued on the theme of earlier social housing, by moving for even further privacy and separation between tenants, rather than                                                             25 Excepting only Harris’ and Byrch’s Almshouses (which for this reason are not mentioned in the essay body). the former providing accommodation in Wincheap for five poor families (another new typology) and Reverend Byrch’s for six needy women. Both closed in the early 19th Century and have now been demolished, the later standing empty across from what is now the City bus station for many years before replacement by an office block in the first half of 20th Century. It is very unusual for an almshouse to close after such a brief period in Canterbury, and it would be an interesting object for further study, to assess why these two fell so fast, when so many others survived and grew for so long. 26 Specifically: An Act for erecting a workhouse in the City of Canterbury for imploying and maintaining the poor there, and for better enlightening the Streets of the said City -1 Geo. 2 St. 2, 27 here this decision was for a differ taken a different reason. At the Hospitals, it had been a pragmatic necessity, at the workhouses it was to prevent conditions being too comfortable, and potentially encouraging idleness.

  

14  

attempting to form an institution. The buildings were also absolutely secular, attempting to emulate privately owned houses as much as possible, in use and plan, though all were built in the Scandinavian-influenced, utilitarian style of their time.

Many of these houses were then sold off into private hands following the right to buy scheme in 1980, the majority are privately let to tenants by landlords. Some still remain as true social housing, management being consolidated under East Kent Housing in 2005.

The city now ensures housing via affordable housing demands on developers and housing grants, meaning social housing can take any form28 rather than manifesting itself in specific architectures, a situation made possible by the rapid economic growth England has seen over the past two centuries.

This part of the Canterbury story is fairly typical, and as such the buildings built where more influenced by national and international case studies than the existing developments in Canterbury herself. However, nationally the role of the hospitals, and almshouses was, and continues to be a significant one, as evidenced by the Cooper (1900) and Vigden-Wilson (1924) almshouses which were built during the intermediate century and also, like so many others in Canterbury, continue to operate today. 

                                                            28 Apart from Care homes, which owe much to the lineage of almshouses, but here as well policy now tends more towards assistance grants for private centres rather than the design of specialised social housing facilities.