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,
Figure 1: Exterior and interior reconstruction drawings of the original, medieval St John’s Hospital building. Not to scale.
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)
6
imported from is forme er seat of Ca aen in France e, but for thiis latest buillding he chosse4 local flint in solid wa all constructio on with Quarrr stone quoiined window ws and doors.. Nothing rem mains of the original roof, but it wass likely of tim mber queen post constru uction and co oated with either e clay pe eg tiles whicch were common in medieval Kent5 or th hatch. Though this building wa as the first of o its kind in Britain, It was w likely insspired by sim milar institutiions already in operation on o the contin nent. The Arrchitectural form itself iss probably derived from functional requirements r s, with the ch hapel at righ ht angles, as this was the e point where e the zones for each gen nder meet, rather r than in a symbolic move m to creatte a cruciforrm plan, or in mimesis off a specific precedent.(S p See appendix x 01,01 a-c)
St Nichola as’ Hospita al By 1090 Lanfranc had built b a secon nd institution n, more ambitious than the t first. The ese buildingss were sited about a mile further ou ut of the cityy than St Joh hn’s, at Harb bledown. Unlike St John’’s flint walls and tau plan, these were e a collection n of wattle and a daub hou uses grouped d around a ch hurch on a small rise. Th his was to form St Nicolas’ Leper Hospiital6, were Lanfranc L app pointed ‘skilfful, patient and a kindly w watchers’7 to serve the physical ne eeds of the sick s of Cante erbury. The choice c of a more m rural lo ocation was in part to allow the tena ants exposure to o fresh air, and a privacy, desirable du ue to the nature of theirr sickness, an nd in part to o ensure easyy access to the supposed dly medicinal waters of the t spring in the hospitall’s environs. (Hill. 1969) p.16 Sadly little e is known ab bout the orig ginal design of o St Nichola as’ as unlike St John’s no one of the in nstitution’s original fab bric remains. However we w can surmise from conttemporary buildings thatt they were likely to havve been hall houses h of tim mber cruck frrame with a central open n hearth, Figure 2: C Cutaway isometric of typical medieval potentiallyy with separa ate private rooms at the ends. English hall house This hospittal not only had h more sta aff than St Jo ohn’s, (those e at St John’s onlyy provided sp piritual supp port) but also o material prrovision for the tenantss was greate er. Lanfranc provided uniform hoods,, gowns, boots and mantles m to tenants presu umably to allow them to o conceal the e ravaging na ature of theiir disease. (H Hill. 1969) p..16
Note: Stone e footings to pre event rot, cruckk frame posts and ra afters with wattle and daub inffill
Again the institution was w provided with a large e estate to en nsure its perpetuity; a theme which differen ntiates the hospitals h from m later social houssing program mmes and hass allowed both St Nicolass’ and St John’s to continue c in operation o intto the presen nt day. (See appen ndix 02) Over the fo ollowing nine e centuries both b institutiions underwent several reconstructio r ons and refu urbishments, so neither of the original buildings rem main in use. However La anfranc had set s an example that over the years, many in Ca anterbury wo ould follow.
4 It is unknow wn who made th hese decision, Lanfranc L himse elf, or his assisttant-cum-archiitect Gundulf 5 For example see accountss of the excavatted medieval tile kilns at Addin ngton in westerrn Kent in Philp p. (1972) p.220 6 Likely name ed to commemo orate canonised d bishop of Myrra whose remain ns (now a relic)) had come to B Bari in 1087 (se ee Lyle. 2002) p.75 p 7 Quote from directions by Lanfranc L (see Hill. H 1969) p.16
7
The Hospital of St La awrence fo or Leprous Monks The next almshouse to be built in Canterbury C w the now dissolved Ho was ospital of Stt Lawrence fo or leprous monks. Thiis time found ded by Abbot Hugh of Trrottescliffe in n 1137. It is south of the e city on wha at is now called the Old Dovver Road. The T hospital was w to house e sixteen ma ale leprous monks, m of Hugh’s Abbey, St Augustine e’s or their ‘po oor parents or o relations’ along with sixteen s fema ale of the sa ame (includin ng a prioress) and a Ward den, Chaplain an nd Clerk. St Lawrence’s was also gra anted a large e estate, 21 acres in all, across Cante erbury, Sturry and Chislett, as well as a windmill and a other ag gricultural facilities adjoiining the com mpound. Even less iss known of the physical form f of thesse building ass, following the reductio on of cases of o leprosy ove er the fourtee enth Centuryy and the disssolution by the crown off St Lawrencce’s parent a abbey; St Aug gustine’s, th he now dilapid dated buildin ngs were sold to one Sir John Parrottt on May 26th 1557, and tthe buildingss where firstt convertted d into a mano or house and d later demo olished in 183 39, leaving only o a flint perimeter wa all of the orig ginal hospital8. Until U excavattion is comp pleted, any description d could only be e speculative e.9(See appen ndix 03 –thou ugh all that rem mains of the hospital is a partial secttion of perim meter wall).
Maynard and a Cotton n’s Hospitall The next building, thou ugh called a hospital, is really a forrerunner of later l centuriies’ almshouses. Unlike the previous thrree, Maynard d’s and Cotto on’s Hospital wa as built by a private indiividual. Therre is 10 some ambiguity over when w it was founded f , bu ut as Hill note es, Somner’ss Antiquities places it during the reign of Hen nry II (likely c.1180). Maynier the e rich (of wh hose name th he hospital’ss title is a co orruption) prrovided the initial i capito ol to construct a chapel and housing for three male,, and four fe emale, elderrly, poor mem mbers of the e clergy and a small esta ate to provide maintenan nce. In 1604 the e second nam mesake of the hospital; a Leonard Co otton, (a Merrchant, and one-time sheriff, ald derman and mayor m of the e city) set asside a benefacttion in his will to provide e accommodation for one e man, and two t widows of good, hone est behaviour and at leasst fifty yearss old. This compllex was far smaller than earlier hospitals; presumably p l little more than t a row off small houses, ava ailable for use by the po oor. Records state the possesssion a bell, chalice c candlesticks and
Figure 3: isom metric of the 17008 reconstructe ed Maynard and d Cotton’s Hospital. Note: the diminutive entrance to the chap pel, Flemish gable ends, and sepa arate accesses to the street. Not to scale.
8 St Nicolas’ hospital survivved this period as a it had shifted d its focus from m invalid treatme ent to the housing of the generally poor and aged, a ory it avoided th he risk of crown n dissolution. (S St John’s was a affiliated with St Gregory’s Prio ory, and because it was not affiliated with a prio own as the Prio ory of Black Fria iars, but it was a sufficiently distant associatioon that, as it waas also used byy the laity, It waas otherwise kno spared) 9 A preliminary excavation was w undertaken n by Canterburyy Archaeologica al Trust in late 2011, 2 as new ho ouses where to o be built on the e site, but the decisiion was taken to protect the majority m of the re emains in situ rather r than to atttempt a full exxcavation. The results r of the pa artial excavation arre yet to be pub blished in full. Preliminary P findings suggest a buttressed flintt building, with some cut stone e. 10 The ambig guity stems from m the fact that the t Almshouse’s records wherre burnt in the fire of London in n 1666, where they t were being g used as evide ence in a legal case.
8
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 StJohns, 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
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.
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.
9
level, room m size and sp pacial comple exity. The main m building g is a flint ho ouse, providing a hall bellow, with the e 15 chapel abo ove, lit by three large windows lookin ng onto the street s . The e twelve bed ds were situa ated in the undercroft, in a dormittory layout liike earlier hospitals and were primarily for the sshort term use of the poor passing on pilgrimages to Rome or St Thomas’ss grave. But by b the 16th Century, C und der the direction of archbishop p Whitgift, ap partments were w built witthin and hou uses behind the t hospital as homes for old men an nd women of the t city resp pectively. Th he street facade of this building b is ag gain of whole e flints, but the vaulted undercroft, and much of o the rest of o the interio or is partly of brick, plastered over a and in the ch hapel frescoe ed and partly of cut stone e blocks frequently forme ed into pointted arches sp pringing from m carved cap pitals. The ro oof structure iss again of tim mber with an n inventive arched a queen-strut roof in the chape el. (See Appe endix 05)
Jacob’s Hospital H (St James’s) Jacob’s hosspital was bu uilt in 1192 as a the first exclusively e fe emale hospittal16, just ou utside the citty at Winche eap. Very little is known abo out Jacobs’ architecture e apart from the fact tha at by 1546 th he foundation had come to be operate ed as an almsshouse for six women17, and possesse ed a hall and d chapel amo ong its buildings. Record ds of religious orrdinances ha anded down by the prior of Christ church, notatio ons on historric maps as well w as lette ers by Archbish hop Hubert (1160-1205) ( suggest thatt with the dyying out of le eprosy the fo oundation ha ad morphed gradually in nto a priory and conventt. The prioryy was passed over during g the dissoluttion but was confiscated by the crown and the foun ndation disso olved in 1550 0. The buildiings survived d until at lea ast 1800, butt houses werre built over the t site in th he early twentieth centu ury, preventiing any archa aeological sttudy. However records of the hospital stiill exemplifyy the level off communal participation n and facilitiies involved with hospita al life and architecturre in this perriod, with th he use of two o common bu uildings, desspite the low w tenancy of only 6 people in the housing g.
Poor Priests Hospita al The Poor Priests P Hospittal was like St S Thomas’ an a adaption of an existing bu uilding, and probably p for the same re easons. The first f part was built in n 1174 origin nally as a priivate house, but was bou ught c.1220 by William W de Gloucester G an nd put to use e as a home for poor and aged clergy. c The house was of flint with an open, rectangullar plan, broken only by a centra al fireplace, as in hall ho ouses. The priests perforrmed all of their acttivities in this single com mmunal space. A centuryy and a half later in 1373, a ho ouse for the master of th he hospital was w added onto its north-eastern edge as anotther rectang gular flint blo ock at right angle es to the orig ginal, this tim me enclosing g a solar for the t master’s fa amily and a basement b sto orey beneath. These buiildings were also built b of wholle local flintss and mortarr, which had d by this time becom me a commo on construction material for Canterbu ury’s parish churrches. The hospita al was dissollved during the t reformattion with the e th buildings fo ormally surre endered to crown, c on the 10 May 1575 and where put to use as a gaol g and eve entually a sch hool for poorr boys. We return later to look k at this building again, as a by 1727 itt was again in use as social housing, h beco oming the city’s first workhouse.
Figure 5: Isom metric of Poor Priest’s Hospita al. The post-1575 add dition housed kitchens, k a pantry, servant’s quarrters and a butttery. The maste er only occupied a so olar in the ‘mastter’s house, the e ground floor was in th he use of the ho ospital brotherss. Not to Scale
15 Interesting gly this chapel came c to be also o used as a sch hool for twenty boys in 1569, at a the request o of archbishop Mathew M Parker 16 Interesting gly this hospitall was founded by b a master Firm min, who was a doctor, potenttially implying th his was a very different institution from earlier le eper hospitals in i the city, whicch had virtually no medical faccilities, beyond good diet, gard den work and clean air to avoid d miasmic infecction. 17 It had bee en built to house e 25 leprous wo omen, presumably communallyy, which explain ns the decrease e in capacity, with w the Elizabetthan preference fo or separate acco ommodation.
10
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.
Figure 6: Isometric of Manwoods almshouses. Note: lack of chapel or hall. Not to scale
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.
11
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 Figure 7: Isometric of the Charity of John and Anne Smith. there is no separate hall or indeed any common facilities, Note: distinctive lack of communal facilities. Not to Scale 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.
12
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 Figure 8: Isometric of SO Folden and Henry W Parker’s proposed Workhouse, very similar to Marshall’s completed stone string courses and decorative window arches. The Canterbury workhouse in layout. published in the Illustrated London News. Note: fenced, rather than walled exercise yards building was on a far grander scale than anything seen and covered play spaces for children, indicative of Folden’s before, and clearly shows the 19th century predisposition attempt to produce a more humane workhouse for Canterbury, than those in use in the rest of Britain. 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.
13
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.
14