Conzen MRG_Alnwick Northumberland a Study in Town-Plan Analysis

Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-Plan Analysis Author(s): M. R. G. Conzen Source: Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), No. 27 (1960), pp. iii+ixxi+1+3-122 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/621094 . Accessed: 14/04/2011 23:08 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers).

http://www.jstor.org

THE

INSTITUTE

OF

BRITISH

PUBLICATION

GEOGRAPHERS NO.

27

ALNWICK,

NORTHUMBER A STUDY TOWN-PLAN

IN ANALYSIS

M. R. G. CONZEN,M.A. Senior Lecturer in Geography, King's College, in the Universityof Durham, Newcastle upon Tyne

LONDON ORGE

PHILIP

& SON,

LTD.9

32

FLEET

1960 Printed in Great Britain

STREET,

E.C.4

CONTENTS Page LISTOFFIGURES

.

LISTOFTABLES

.

LIST OF PLATES

.

.

.

.

PREFACE

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

. .

PART I. PROBLEMS OF TOWN-PLAN

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

xi xi

.

.

.

.

.

.

. ANALYSIS

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

xi

1 3

Chapter 1. The Aim and Scope in Town-Plan Analysis

.

3

.

.

6

.

.

.

. Chapter 3. The General Pattern of Growth . . . . 4. Alnwick Chapter Anglian Situation and Anglian Roads . Site and Settlement Form Chapter 5. Medieval and Early Modern Alnwick . . . Situation and Site . . Alnwick Castle . . . Bailiffgate .

.

. . . . . . . .

11 11 13 13 16 20 20 21 21

Chapter 2. The Method of Town-Plan Analysis PART II. THE GROWTH OF ALNWICK'S BUILT-UP AREA

.

. .

. .

The Economic Development of the Manorial .

23

The Town Plan of the Early Manorial Borough

25

Borough .

Market Colonization The Borough Extension The Town-Wall . .. . Walkergate . . Early Accretions . Canongate . The Fields of Alnwick

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

. . .

. .

. . . .

.

.

.

.

Chapter 6. Later Georgian and Early Victorian Alnwick Economic and Social Development

.

. . . . . . .

.

49

.

49

The Structure and Expansion of the Built-up

Chapter 7.

. . . Area in General . . Fringe-Belt Development . The Repletion of the Old Town . . . Arterial Ribbons . . . . . Layouts . Mid- and Late Victorian Alnwick Alnwick as a Rural Service Centre Repletion and Replacement in the Old . . Fringe-Belt Development

ix

. . . . . . . . . . . . Town . . . .

34 38 39 41 43 44 46

52 56 65 69 71 75 75 76 80

CONTENTS

The New Residential Accretions in General .

Chapter 8.

82

.

85

Road Ribbons and Dispersed Development .

87

.

New Layouts

.

.

.

.

.

89

Economic Function and Social Requirements The Rate and General Mode of Recent Growth

89 90

. . .

92 97 105

Modern Alnwick

.

.

.

Modern Changes in the Old Town. . . Residential Plan-Units . Outer Fringe-Belt Development PARTIII. THE EXISTING TOWNPLANOFALNWICK

.

. .

.

108

. 108 . . . Chapter 9. Typesof Plan-Units . 108 . . The AncientBoroughPlan . OtherTraditionalPlan Types within the Old . . . . . .109 Town . . . 110 . . The InnerFringeBelt . . . 111 The TraditionalArterialRibbons . . 111 Modern Plan-Units within the Old Town Late Georgian and Early Victorian Residential .

Accretions

.

.

.

.

.

112

Mid- and Late Victorian Residential Accretions 112 Modern Residential Accretions . . Composite Ribbons

.

.

.

.

. .

113 113

. 114 The Intermediateand Outer Fringe Belts 10. The Geographical Structure of Alnwick's Town Chapter Plan

CONCLUSION

.

.

. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

x

.

.

.

116

.

119

.

120

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. ALNWICK:GROWTH OFBUILT-UPAREA 2.

THE SITUATIONOF ANGLIAN ALNWICK

.

.

.

Page 11

.

.

.

14

3. THESITEOFMODERNALNWICK 4.

THE SITEOF OLD ALNWICK

5.

MEDIEVAL ALNWICK

6.

HOLDINGS

7.

CANONGATE

8.

BONDGATE WITHOUT

. facing 17 26

27

... IN THE CENTRAL TRIANGLE OF ALNWICK, AND WALKERGATE

1567

35 42

.

AND UPPER

.

CLAYPORT STREET

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

THE FIELDS OFALNWICK ALNWICK:OLD TOWNANDINNERFRINGEBELTIN 1774 ALNWICK:OLD TOWNANDINNERFRINGEBELTin 1827 ALNWICK:OLD TOWNANDINNERFRINGEBELTIN 1851 THEURBANFRINGEBELTSOFALNWICK TEASDALE'S YARD (FENKLESTREET),1774-1956 .. . EARLIER DEVELOPMENT . UNITSIN ALNWICK. ALNWICK:OLD TOWNANDINNERFRINGEBELTIN 1897 ALNWICK:OLD TOWNANDINNERFRINGEBELTIN 1921 ALNWICK:OLD TOWNANDINNERFRINGEBELTIN 1956 . MODERNDEVELOPMENT UNITSIN ALNWICK

20.

ALNWICK: TYPESOF PLAN-UNITS

.

.

21.

OFALNWICK THEPLAN-DIVISIONS

.

.

.45

. facing 46

.

. . . .

.

. .

facing 117

.

.

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

. . .

57 60 . 62 . facing 64 68 . . . 72 . 76 . . . 79 . 93 . . 101

. .

.

109

facing

..

LIST OF TABLES Table

Page

I. BURGAGE

FRONTAGES IN THE OLDEST PART OF THE MEDIEVAL BOROUGH

.

.

.

.

OUTSIDE DEVELOPMENT II. RESIDENTIAL THEOLD TOWN,C. 1750-1956 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THE OLD TOWN,

III.

33

53

c. 1750-1851

54

.

IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.

INCIDENCE OFRESIDENTIAL GROSS DENSITIES THEOLDTOWN,c. 1750-1956 . OUTSIDE . RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THEOLD TOWN,1851-75 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THEOLD TOWN, 1875-97 . . RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THEOLD TOWN, 1897-1914 . . . GROWTHOFTHEBUILT-UPAREA,1827-1956 . . . . IN TEASDALE'S . IX. BUILDINGCOVERAGE . YARD, 1774-1956 X. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THEOLD TOWN,1918-39 . XI. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THEOLD TOWN, 1945-56 XII. COUNCILHOUSING, 1897-1956 . . . .? .

. . . .

.

55 83 84 85 90 92 98 99 100

LIST OF PLATES Plate I. THEOLD TOWNFROMTHESOUTH-WEST . II.

.

.

.

THE CASTLE AND PART OF THE OLD TOWN FROM THE NORTH-WEST

III. THEOLD TOWNFROMTHESOUTH-WEST IN 1930 . IV. PARTOFOUTERALNWICKFROMTHESOUTH-WEST IN 1926 xi

.

.

. .

20 " facing

.

.

.

.

.

facing

. .

. .

. .

facing 36 facing 37

21

PREFACE THEstudy presented in the following pages is an attempt to fill a gap in urban morphology. It is prompted by the problems of how the plan of an oldestablished town has acquired its geographical complexity, what concepts can be deduced from such an inquiryto help in the analysis of town plans in general, and what contributionthe developmentof a plan makes to the regionalstructure of a town. In many respectsthese questions have been but imperfectlyanswered hitherto, and the deficiency became apparent during a local study of Alnwick and gave rise to this investigation of fundamental aspects. The author has benefited much from the kindness of various persons who gave him access to relevant material or assisted in other ways. Mr. A. H. Robson, formerly Senior Geography Master at the Duke's School, Alnwick, was most helpful in securing access to important source material. His Grace the Duke of Northumberland kindly permitted perusal of the valuable maps and manorial surveys in the Muniment Room of Alnwick Castle, and Mr. D. Graham's readiness to assist in every way rendered the work of searching profitable and pleasurable. Mr. G. Beaty, Town Surveyor of Alnwick, with unfailing kindness made his local knowledge and the topographicalmaterial in his office available. Professor H. J. Fleure made many helpful suggestions, and Professor A. E. Smailes undertook the arduous task of reading the text. The author is especially indebted to Dr. C. I. C. Bosanquet, Rector of King's College, in the University of Durham, Newcastle upon Tyne, whose personal interestin the work has been of the greatestimportance.ProfessorG. H. J. Daysh also gave much encouragement. Special thanks are due to the author's wife whose devotion and patience helped to produce this monograph. Finally, the author wishes to express his sincere thanks for the financial assistance towards the cost of publication given by the Institute of British Geographers,the Sir James Knott Trust, His Grace the Duke of Northumberland, Dr. C. I. C. Bosanquet and Mr. William Robertson. The investigation was carried out with the help of a grant from King's College, in the University of Durham, Newcastle upon Tyne.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PARTor the whole of the outlines in Figures 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are based on the OrdnanceSurvey with the sanction of the Controllerof H.M. StationeryOffice.Plate I is reproducedby permissionof Turners(Photography), Ltd., Newcastle upon Tyne, and Plates II, III and IV by permission of Aerofilms and Aero Pictorial, Ltd. October 1960

M. R. G. C. 1

PART I PROBLEMS OF TOWN-PLAN ANALYSIS CHAPTERI

THE AIM AND SCOPE IN TOWN-PLAN ANALYSIS the geographicalcharacterof a town is determinedby economic FUNCTIONALLY and social significancewithin some regional context, no matter whether we are considering a 'central place' with service functions towards a contiguous 'urban field' or a specialized town. Morphologically it finds expression in the physiognomy or townscape,which is a combination of town plan, pattern of building forms, and pattern of urban land use. All these aspects have been the subject of geographical investigation. The town plan has attracted attention as a subject where the interests of the geographerand others such as historians, archaeologistsand town planners converge. In particular it has long been customary to view plans in terms of their development and a broad genealogy of town plans has been recognized. Yet this familiar aspect of urban morphology has remained strangely deficient in its depth of treatment, largely through neglect of significant plan detail, particularlyon the part of the geographerwhose chorological viewpoint should enable him to make a substantial contribution. Similar criticism applies to other morphological aspects. As a result our geographical comprehension of townscapes is hampered by the lack of a theoretical basis yielding concepts of general application. The present situation in urban morphology has been the subject of discussion recently, and it is sufficienthere to reiteratethat much geographicalwork in this field has been unduly influencedin its purpose and treatmentby the specific approaches of the architect, the economic historian, and others interested in towns. Proceeding from this general criticism A. E. Smailes emphasizes the importance of buildings in the townscape and the resulting need for field-work against a preoccupation on the part of some geographerswith the study of town maps only. He suggests a method of analysing the townscape by field observation of broad recurrent morphological characteristics susceptible to rapid survey and with some emphasis on buildings. The desire to take stock of the townscape for the purpose of a broad provisional basis for the morphological comparison of towns is understandable. It is also true that much more work needs to be done on urban buildings and the whole urban fabric, though in Europe this criticism applies to research in this country more than on the Continent.2 Yet systematic geographical knowledge of the structure of town plans is far from adequate and its promotion seems quite as necessaryas that of other morphological aspects of towns. In the present situation this does call for 3

4

THE AIM AND SCOPE IN TOWN-PLAN ANALYSIS

some specializationof effort for the purpose of producingthe necessarygroundwork. Plan, building fabric and land utilization are, of course, interdependent in the geographical reality of the townscape, and their treatment separately can only be a matter of emphasis and not of sharp systematic division. It is possible, however, to claim priority for the town plan on the grounds that it forms the inescapableframeworkfor the other man-madefeatures and provides the physical link between these on the one hand and the physical site as well as the town's past existence on the other. This study, then, is concerned with geographicalanalysis of the town plan. By investigating a specific case which promises results of general significance, and by adopting an evolutionary viewpoint, it seeks to establish some basic concepts applicable to recurrentphenomena in urban morphology and to lead to an explanation of the arrangementand diversityof an urban area in terms of plan types and resulting geographicaldivisions. A small service centre like Alnwick cannot be expected to show all the phenomena that characterizethe morphology of town plans, and no claim to completeness is made in this respect. Nevertheless, its modest size and simple structuremake it the more suitablefor the establishmentof some basic principles and promise to exhibit some morphological phenomena of general significance as well as those peculiar to itself. It may be expected to yield a number of concepts applicable beyond the hundredsof small Englishmarket towns to English urban settlements in general and to those in other countries. Some of these cover familiar phenomena, others bring to light new ones. New concepts inevitably involve new terminology and this will be developed as the analysis of Alnwick's plan proceeds. It may also necessitate the redefinition of some familiar but loosely used terms. In this connection it is fundamentalto establish what we mean by a 'town plan'. It is necessary to take a more comprehensiveview of this term taking account of relevant geographicaldetail. In the past many studies of plans have been restrictedto the considerationof the streetsor street spaces only, a method which has its roots largely in an earlier architecturalpreoccupation with the contrast between 'voids' and 'solids' and its aesthetic implications. The internal structure of street-blocks has generally been ignored as if this were not geographically relevant. Moreover, a certain crudeness of evolutionary approach took account merely of the broad stages of outward growth and missed the variety of phenomena that they cover, as well as the significantmodern changes inside the street-blocks of already established plan components, notably the traditional ones in town centres. In this investigation it is taken as axiomatic that the townplan includesall features of the built-uparea shown on the 1/2500 OrdnanceSurveyPlans. This comprises the geographicalarrangementof the urban built-up area in its full morphological detail and diversity, bringing the plan into intimate relation with the aspects of building fabric and of land use. A townplan can be defined, therefore, as the topographical arrangementof an urban built-up area

THE AIM AND SCOPE IN TOWN-PLAN ANALYSIS

5

in all its man-made features. It contains three distinct complexes of plan elements: (i) streets and their arrangementin a street-system; (ii) plots and their aggregation in street-blocks;and (iii) buildings or, more precisely, their block-plans. The term street here refers to the open space bounded by street-linesand reserved for the use of surface traffic of whatever kind. The arrangementof these contiguous and interdependentspaces within an urban area, when viewed separately from the other elements of the town plan, may be called the streetsystem. The areas within the town plan unoccupied by streets and bounded wholly or in part by street-lines are the street-blocks. Each street-block represents a group of contiguous land parcels or else a single land parcel. Each parcel is essentially a unit of land use; it is physically defined by boundaries on or above ground and may be called a plot, whatever its size. The arrangementof contiguous plots is evident from the plot boundariesand, when consideredseparately from other elements of the town plan, may be called the plot pattern. Figures 5, 7, 8, 15 and 19 show contrasting examples, illustratingthat street-blockscan differ widely in their plot patterns, a fact which represents one of their most important geographical characteristics. A row of plots, placed contiguously along the same street-line, each with its own frontage, forms a plot series. The block-planof a building is the area occupied by a building and defined on the ground by the lines of its containing walls. It is an essential element of the town plan, loosely referredto as the 'building'. Examination of the town plan shows that the three element complexes of streets, plots and buildings enter into individualized combinations in different areas of the town. Each combination derives uniqueness from its site circumstancesand establishesa measureof morphologicalhomogeneity or unity in some or all respects over its area. It represents a plan-unit, distinct from its neighbours. Finally, it is important to realize that town plans originate, develop, and function within a physical and human context without which they remain incomprehensible. Therefore, plan analysis properly includes the evaluation of physical conditions of site and situation as well as of relevant economic and social development. The latter, indeed, provides the backgroundfor the interdependence of plan, building fabric, and land use, and the bridge between the morphological and the functional approaches in urban geography. REFERENCES E. A. 'Some reflections on the geographicaldescriptionand analysis of townscapes', SMAILES, 1 Transactionsand Papers, 1955, Instituteof BritishGeographers,21 (1955), 99-115. A complete list of referencesused in this study will be found at the end of the book. 2 Cf. W. GEISLER, Die deutscheStadt (1924) and H. Louis, Die geographischeGliederungvon Gross-Berlin(1936),to nameonly two of the earlierstudies. For otherreferences,see R. E. DICKINSON, The West Europeancity (1951), and P. SCHjLLER, 'Aufgaben und Probleme der Stadgeographie', Erdkunde,7 (1953), 168-9. B

CHAPTER2

THE METHOD OF TOWN-PLAN ANALYSIS

HAVING definedthe purpose of plan analysis and its scope in terms of the town plan, it is necessary to consider the appropriate general approach or method to be followed. Inevitably,this depends on the materialobject of investigation and its intrinsic nature. A cursory glance at the arrangementof the built-up area of Alnwick as seen from an aircraft or as representedon the 1/2500 Ordnance map gives a visual experience which can be repeated in the case of the great majority of towns: a pattern of streets, plot boundaries, and buildings of bewildering complexity. Parts of it are shown in Figures 7, 8, 15, 18 and 19, and the whole is summarized in morphological terms in Figure 20. Here and there a dominating theme is evident, expressedperhaps by the street-system,as in the great triangleof streetsin the centreof the town, or by the repetitionof standardized buildings,as in the earlierhousing estates. Such local dominanceestablishes some unity within a very limited area. Its repeated manifestation gives a vague impression of broad similaritiesbetween differentparts of Alnwick as well as of contrasts such as that between the Old Town and the newer residentialdistricts. On the other hand, irregularityin the arrangementof broad traits as much as of detail, and diversity in the admixtureof elements, not only render the built-upthe cultural area strictlyunique but defy explanationfrom the plan as it stands, even when thea town is w site is taken into account. its town pla The reason for this is that a town, like any other object of geographical investigation, is subject to change. Towns have a life history. Their development, together with the cultural history of the region in which they lie, is written deeply into the outline and fabric of their built-up areas. When one period has achieved the manifestation of its own requirementsin the urban pattern of land use, streets, plots and buildings, another supersedes it in turn, and the built-up area, in its functional organization as well as in its townscape, becomes the accumulatedrecord of the town's development.' In some respects,however, it is an incomplete and confused record since the features created in one period are subjected to change in another in varying degree. The pattern of land use is the most changeable complex, responding relativelyquickly to new impulses such as the establishmentof a new main road, bridge or railway station and so tending to efface in part at least the land use of Process o previous periods. In this process, however, the plan and fabric of the town, representingas change, they do the static investment of past labour and capital, offer great resistanceto adaptatio change. New functions in an older area do not necessarilygive rise to new forms. replacem Adaptation ratherthan replacementof the existing fabric is more likely to occur over the greater part of a built-up area established in a previous period. Old 6

THE METHOD OF TOWN-PLAN ANALYSIS

7

buildings are liable to be replaced by new ones in larger numbers only in the centres of sizeable towns, where economic pressuresovercome the obsolescence of inheritedforms and lead to replacementon a larger scale. Any new period is likely to be exclusively representedby its own new buildings only in those outer parts that are its contemporaryaccretions. In the centre the introduction of new forms is usually incomplete and tardy. If, then, land use and building fabric differ significantlyin this respect, the town plan does even more so and is the most conservative morphological complex. Though numerous new buildings may appear in the centre of a town, most of their block-plans conform to their respective plots even if these are centuries old. This is due partly to the closed development of rows on the street-line, the usual building arrangementin central areas, partly to the longstanding concentrationof economic activities here. Even where plots have been altered (and few central areas escape this form of change entirely), the plot pattern as a whole is full of residual features from earlier periods and may in fact appear unaltered in all its essential characteristics. The street, however, is the most refractory element of the town plan. New thoroughfares in central areas of the 'Corporation Street' or 'City Road' type are rare and restrictedin extent, and changes affecting the street-system are generally confined to the detail of street-lines and even then are slow to appear. In the outer districts of a town, of course, each period is free to add examples of its own type of layout. The older, generally more central, parts of the townscape, then, are subjectto changes of varyingintensity and morphological aspects within already established plan-units, while the outer areas form successive accretions of new plan-units. From this comparison of land use, building fabric, and town plan, the last emerges as the complex that contains the fullest record of the town's physical development because it produces the most complete collection of residual features. An evolutionary approach, tracing existing forms back to the underlying formative processes and interpreting them accordingly, would seem to provide the rational method of analysis. The processes are those of economic and social development, and this changes in its intensity as well as in its material and spiritualforms, thus allowing recognition of distinct cultural periods. Regions vary in the sequence and contents of the culturalperiods that affect them, and this holds good for towns. Each period leaves its distinctive material residues in the landscape and for the purpose of geographical analysis can be viewed as a morphologicalperiod. In a townscape any particularperiod expresses itself in the town plan as well as in the fabric of buildings. Generally the newer plan-units in more peripheral situations show homogeneity because of the contemporaneousnature of streets, plots and buildings. With the exception of the prehistoric and Roman eras, the major morphological periods in the case of Alnwick are those applicableto the rest of England.' However, uncertainties in the earlier topographical and historical evidence, as

8

THE METHOD OF TOWN-PLAN ANALYSIS

well as the incidence of modern cartographicsources, make it expedient for the purpose of our analysis to adopt certain contractionsand subdivisionsas shown in the following table: The MorphologicalPeriods of Alnwick Anglian (c. seventh century? - c. 1070) Norman to Early Georgian (c. 1070 - c. 1750) Later Georgian and Early Victorian (c. 1750-1851) Mid- and Late Victorian (1851-1914) (a) Mid-Victorian(1851-75) (b) Late Victorian (1875-97) (c) Edwardian(1897-1914) (5) Modern (post-1918) (a) Inter-war(1918-39) (b) Post-war (post-1945) (1) (2) (3) (4)

Alnwick began its existence relatively late in the Anglian period of Northumberland,possibly some time in the seventh century. The Norman period of Alnwick began after the Wasting of the North in 1069-70,"though a Norman castle may not have been built here until the beginning of the twelfth century.' The long intervalfrom then until the middle of the eighteenth century comprises more than one cultural epoch, but insufficiencies in the cartographicalrecord of Alnwick make it virtually impossible to subdivide this long span for morphological purposes, although the origin of five of the eight traditional plan-units of the Old Town can be arranged in a relative time-sequence. Evidence of domestic architecturein the town is very slight and does not allow precise dating, nor do the manorial surveys of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, in spite of the maps contained in that of 1622-24.5 Indeed, when it is firstpresentedin these detailedrecords,the Old Town appears already complete. In other respects, however, these manorial surveys, kept at Alnwick Castle, are invaluable in providing a bridge of evidence between the growth of the Old Town in the Middle Ages and the appearanceof its residual features on the first large-scaleplan of the town in the eighteenth century. It is not until shortly after the middle of the eighteenth century that the cartographical record of Alnwick begins to show significant changes in the town plan. Though small at first, they dominate development during the first half of the nineteenthcentury, before the arrivalof the railway. This allows the years from c. 1750 to 1851 to be distinguished as a separate morphological period. Henceforth new additions to the town plan correspond closely with contemporary architectural house-types, and it is possible to adopt period names of more specific cultural and architecturalconnotation. The lumping together of 'Later Georgian' and 'Early Victorian' seems justified both because of the homogeneous character and continuity of plan development between 1750 and 1850 and because of the quasi-Georgian character of much of the

THE METHOD OF TOWN-PLAN ANALYSIS

9

Early Victorian building, which reflects a certain time-lag in building fashions reaching the North of England. The advent of the railway in 1850 marks the beginning of a major new period. In Alnwick this Mid- and Late Victorian period brought intensive congestion in the centre and additional peripheralhousing of particulartypes. By these indices the period lasts until the beginning of the First World War. Certain formative factors in the development of housing, however, enable the whole span from 1850 to 1914 to be subdivided into Mid-Victorian, Late Victorian, and Edwardianperiods. They are the Public Health Act of 1875 as well as contemporaryArtisans' and Labourers'Dwellings Acts, and the notions of more open development propagated in connection with the garden city idea at the end of the nineteenth century. The last major period is characterizedby similar factors and begins with the end of the First World War. It can be conveniently divided into two minor periods by the hiatus of the Second World War. Finally, implementation of the evolutionary approach6 depends on the objective of this study and on the nature of the town plan that is being investigated. The formative processes underlying areal phenomena must be demonstrated if concepts of general significanceare to be produced. This requiresthe freedom to investigate time-sequence as much as spatial arrangement,particularly where successivechanges of differentcharacterhave affectedthe same area but with varying results, as is the case with the Old Town. Contemporaneityof features more or less widely separated in area within Alnwick's townscape suggests the method of successive geographicalcross-sections. So does the fact that the present townscape is the accumulatedrecord of distinct morphological periods. The complexity of the actual plan structure militates against the method of starting from the present and working backwards in explanation of residual features. It seems more rational, therefore, to proceed broadly by cross-sectionsin time, taking account of the economic and social backgroundof each period,' to emphasize processes where this seems essential for an understanding of forms, and, finally, to examine the town plan in terms of the development that has been investigated. The ultimate criterion whether or not such a study is geographical is provided not by its methods but by its purpose: the explanation of the town plan as we find it today. REFERENCES The developmentand physicalgrowth of towns is one of the earliestsubjectsto commandthe 'Some types of cities in temperate attention of investigatorsin urban geography. Cf. H. J. FLEURE, Europe', GeographicalReview, 10 (1920), 357-74; 'City morphology in Europe',Proceedingsof the Royal Institutionof GreatBritain,27 (1931); and 'The historiccity in westernand CentralEurope', 'Der gegenwartigeStand der Bulletinof John RylandsLibrary,Manchester,20 (1936). H. D6RRIES, Stadtgeographie',PetermannsMitteilungenErg. H., 209 (1930), 315-18, 320-1. R. E. DICKINSON, op. Fondementsde la gdographiehumaine,iii (1952), 214-17. A. E. cit., 279-509, 559-64. M. SORRE, towns The 157-60. P. 162-6. (1953), 7-40, 68-134, SMAILES, geographyof SCHiLLER, op. cit., Thespiritandpurposeof geography(1951), 88. 2 Cf. S. W. WOOLDRIDGEand W. G. EAST, 1

10

THE METHODOF TOWN-PLAN ANALYSIS

3 Cf. W. S. ANGUS, 'Anglo-Saxon and medieval settlement',Scientific survey of North-eastern England (1949), 72. 4 G. TATE, The History of the Borough, Castle and Barony of Alnwick, vol. i (1866), 51.

5 For a chronologicallist of topographicalsources,cf. the list of 'Alnwick(maps and surveys)' on pp. 121-2. 6 Cf. R. HARTSHORNE, Thenatureof geography(3rd ed. 1949), xxxiv-ix, 175-88. H. C. DARBY, 'On the relations of geography and history', Transactions and Papers, 1953, Institute of British

Geographers,19 (1953), 1-11. for this aspect G. M. TREVELYAN, English social history(1944). 7 Cf.

PART II THE GROWTH OF ALNWICK'S BUILT-UP AREA CHAPTER 3 THE GENERAL PATTERN OF GROWTH BEFOREinvestigating the detail of plan development in the different morpho-

logical periods, a brief introduction to the broad pattern of growth will be helpful (Fig. 1). The heavy symbols that denote plan-units originating in various periods before 1620form a contiguous and relativelycompact area. This covers ALNWICK-GROWTH OF BUILT-UPAREA DEVELOPMENT TRIANGLE ON THECENTRAL

ROUTEWAYS ANGUAN l

A -

CONJECTUREDANCLIANNUCLEUS

TO 1620 OTHERROADSIf DEVELOPMENT

CASTLE, MEDIEVAL BAILIFFCATE EARLIERMEDIEVALBOROUGH

b TO 1774 ROADS DEVELOPMENT 1b20 TO 1775 DO* 1851I

--

D O 1852 TO 1897 O EXTENSION SMEDIEVAL BOROUGH TO OPEN LAND LATER 0 D" D 898 TO 918 REVERTING D 1919 TO 1939 CK ABBEY CANONCATE C, Do DIP REVERIINGTO OPEN LAND LATER 1q40 TO I95b r, nAREA TO MEDIEVALBOROUGH 1 REVERTING OF EARLIER

1918 TO Da 1898

d.0

0 000000 SALNW

TO DEVELOPMENT

d

ADJOINING

1620

OPEN LAND LATER

-

1/-; .

' '.

,J

Af2

-? 0.0%l .

" :::" ,,,.•!:

0

.

,-

:.

-,',_

7-

! ~

0 II 1/

o

0 So 100 500200 V_Ne _____

Ir

_

_

______________

_____

FIGURE 1

the centre of Alnwick and reaches northward nearly as far as the river Aln. From it two short, squat prongs project along the south-eastern and southwestern arterial roads. The whole of this area forms the kernel or Old Town," its plan dominated by traditional features, and notably by the long-established street-system. Being a compositekernel,it is made up of no less than nine different major plan-units. Six of them are certainly medieval in origin, and one of 11

12

THE GENERALPATTERN OF GROWTH

them contains the conjectured Anglian nucleus. The other three, i.e. the two southern arterialprongs and the developmenton the CentralTriangle,may have originated in the Middle Ages and were certainly established by 1620. Additions to the Old Town form the Accretions,2 their plan-units dominated by non-traditionalfeatures.They are arrangedas a very irregular,broad, and in many places discontinuous zone round the kernel on its west, south and east sides, but not on the north-west, north and north-east. This broad belt is traversed on all sides by distinctly older roads that radiate from the Old Town and its arterials. Within these accretions the development between 1620 and 1851 occupies an equally broken and irregularinner zone. Its various more or less distinct areas are all associated either with old arterialroads and field lanes or with the ring road that surroundsmuch of the Old Town, separatingthe latter from the remainderof the Outer Accretions. The development between 1852 and 1918 has been largely confined to the south and east, its individual blocks of land tending to form rather larger units than those of previous accretions and lying in groups more isolated from each other. Again they are in contact with old roads, though in one case on the south-east side between Wagonway Road and South Road a unit has generated its own contemporaneous street-system.3 The accretions belonging to the period from 1919 to 1956 form an outer zone, still more discontinuous than those of the previous period, but now representedon the west side of the town. Individualunits tend to be very large and form two markedly concentrated groups, one in the west about Howling Lane and the other to the south and south-east of SwansfieldPark Road. The tendency to be patterned with contemporaneousinternal roads is strong in the units of this period except where they have incorporatedolder roads. This general picture of growth already shows some broad dissimilarities between the various parts of Alnwick's built-up area. They are matched by important structuraldifferencesand, together with these, will form the subject of investigation in the following chapters. REFERENCES 1 2

Cf. SMAILES,op. cit., 108-12. Cf. SMAILES,op. cit., 92, 113, 125.

cf. Chapter 6, pp. 52-6. 3

For a furtherdiscussionof the Old Town and its accretions,

Figure 3, of the site of modern Alnwick, contains a street-planand some additional topographicalnames.

CHAPTER4

ANGLIAN ALNWICK Situation and Anglian Roads THEname Alnwick puts the origin of a settlement on the site into a fairly late stage of Anglian colonization, perhaps after A.D.600. The other place-namesof mid-Northumberlandand the evidence of local history give a clue to Alnwick's situation and relative importance at that time (Fig. 2).1 Earlier,Lesbury seems to have been the major settlementin the lower basin of the Aln, and as late as the twelfth century Alnwick and Denwick were both ecclesiasticallydependent upon Lesbury.2 Trackwaysof minor importance will have connected the last place with the -ingham villages in the upper basin of the Aln before Alnwick and Denwick were founded in the intermediate stretch of wild country. It is possible that the forking of these roads and the layout of the original Anglian village at Alnwick are discernible in the present town plan, although the establishment of the great Norman castle and changes in the system of major routeways probably interferedwith such earlier features. The single trackwayfrom Lesburycould reach the Alnwick area on the line of the present Alnmouth Road using the dry stretches of sandy glacial drift. Instead of continuing along the tract of similar sands at Denwick, it could cross the Aln half-way at a convenient point in a more open stretch of the valley. The antiquity of this road is suggested by its appearanceas a main road on Mayson's Map of 16223 with much the same alignment as today. On geological grounds the most likely place for its major fork would be the present town centre because it is about this locality that the rock outcrops that form the Alnwick Ridge come nearest to the Alnwick sheet of sandy drift (Fig. 3).4 This enabled the three westward branches to Eglingham, Whittingham and Edlingham to reach their separate objectives by following the firm dry ground of solid rocks and glacial sands. The route north-west to Eglingham could traverse the sands at Alnwick and farther north-west the Fell Sandstone on the flanks of Brizlee Hill. The routes to Whittinghamand Edlinghamcould jointly use the Alnwick Ridge in a south-westwarddirection, forking only where the solid outcrop gave way to the boulder clay of Alnwick Moor. Indeed, all three routes are shown on Mayson's Moor Map of 1622 as main roads in corresponding position. The road from Eglingham approached Alnwick by Bassington, East Brizlee, Stony Peth and Ratten Row on the north-west side of the town. It appears as the only highway to Eglingham on Armstrong's Map of Northumberlandof 1769 and as late as 1824 existed as a 'bridleroad'- before the extension and re-designof Hulne Park had obliterated this ancient right of way altogether. The combined route from Whittinghamand EdlinghamapproachedClayport Bank on the south-west side 13

14

ANGLIAN ALNWICK

THE SITUATIONOF ANGLIAN ALNWICK % o 0 0 0 00 A ALNWICK O O BI BIRLING O 0 CH CHILLINGHAM 0

\

ED EDLINGHAM

S* S0

EG EGLINGHAM

O

0

*1

DENWICK

D

O

O

E0

EL ELLINGHAM

O

.

L ESBURY

OL

RO ROTHBURY S.."..

wARKWORTH

.,

40•.... WH

0

o

•

W.

75

O O:

0 O%

0w'-"OW

00

IIH WHITTINGHAM

" 0"

O = O

o

3

O

O 0

0

2

0

*

- NAMES PLACE ENDINGIN -ING AND -INGHAM ANGLIAN EARLY

*

ANGLIAN PLACE - NAMES OF THE SECOND SETTLEMENT PHASE COMPOSED OF PERSONAL NAMES AND SUFFIXES -BURY, - BOTTLE, -TON, -WICK, -WORTH D? OF LATER ROYAL BOROUGHS LATE ANGLIAN AND SCANDINAVIAN PLACE- NAMES DESCRIBING TOPOG. FEATURES D? OF MINOR SETTLEMENTS WITHIN ALNWICK AND DENWICK PARISHES ROMAN ROAD (DEVIL'S CAUSEWAY) TRACKWAYS FROM LESBURY TO EARLY ANGLIAN SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST OF ALNWICK AND DENWICK PRESENT PARISH BOUNDARIES EXTENT OF SANDY GLACIAL DRIFT FEET LAND ABOVE 800 LAND BETW. 400 AND 800 AT ALNWICKAND DENWICK FEET

a 0 o --40..ca ........ 2

/•-

2 FIGURE

ANGLIAN ALNWICK

15

of the town across the Moor past the old quarries,being then sited much nearer the crest of the Alnwick Ridge than the present Rothbury Road. The junction of these roads with the ancient route from Lesbury may be detected in the plan of central Alnwick. No one looking at the latter can fail to be impressed by the broad and simple theme of this road fork, with Bondgate pointing to the north-west and Market Street/Clayport Streetto the south-west. In approachingthis fork by the line of the present South Road and Bondgate, the road from Lesbury could keep to the ledge of relatively level ground about and just below the 200-foot contour. This provided convenient crossings of the five drainage lines on the north-east slope of the Alnwick Ridge from the Aller Burn in the east to the Wash Burn or Canongate Burn in the west. It allowed the Anglian route to Eglingham to continue via Bondgate and the south-east stretch of Narrowgate. Beyond the Bow Burn the Anglian road system clearly appears to have been disrupted by great changes that followed the building of the Norman castle, the construction of the Great North Road, and the successiveenclosures of Hulne Park centurieslater. Yet the road fork of central Alnwick is there to suggest that the Anglian route to Eglingham did continue north-west immediately beyond the Bow Burn. Here a ledge of level ground has the same relation to the supposed Anglian routeway as two similar featuresin Bondgate (Fig. 4).6 The next objective of the Eglingham road would be the line of Ratten Row. There is definite evidence that considerable changes have taken place before 1567 in the street-block between Bailiffgate and Pottergate. In Clarkson's Survey of that year, the traditionalholdings or burgagesoccupying the west side of Narrowgate just north of Pottergate are all reported in a contemporary marginalnote as having in ancient times formed one common way to the church enabling strangers to come into Alnwick town by Walkergate and past the church, thus avoiding entry into Bailiffgatewhich was not part of the town but under the direct administrationof the castle.' The northernholding in fact was still recorded as the 'churchwaye'enclosed by the building of the late medieval town-wall between Narrowgate and the present Northumberland Street. The same holding appears in the Northumberland Survey of 1586 as 'a toft late a Comon way called the Church way als Alyene Lane'.8 Mayson's Survey of 1622-24 has an identical entry. Its map shows the unenclosed remnants of the old road traversingthe street-blockhalf-way between the corner of Bailiffgate and the present NorthumberlandStreet in the direction of the Bow Burn crossing in Narrowgate (Fig. 5 and outlines of 1620 in Fig. 9). On Wilkin's Map of 1774 this vestigial feature is shortened,but is none the less evident. In addition Mayson's Map, while representingthe south side of Bailiffgate and the north side of Pottergate as fully built-up, shows no houses on the intermediatestretch of Narrowgate. The east end of Ratten Row has a trumpet-shapedwidening, as if to indicate a large wayside waste or an ancient drove road. The position and configuration of a close (Salisbury Lands) immediately to the east, occupying the ground between the top of Canongate and the present vicarage, is such as to

16

ANGLIANALNWICK

suggest that this parcel had been taken from the road or roadside waste. The abrupt change of direction shown by Narrowgate at the Bow Burn crossing appears to be a later feature. On the other side Pottergate (earlier Barresdale Street)seems always to have formed a purelylocal road giving access to Howling Lane and the adjoining fields of Barresdale.9 The cartographic evidence in Mayson's Survey supports this, and the configurationof the land in and west of Pottergate also suggests that any road with a more distant aim would go round the northern flank rather than directly over the hill ('Watts knowe' = Watch Know, Lookout Hill; Figs. 3 and 9). All this evidence points to the Anglian routeway running north-westwardfrom the Bow Burn,joining the present line of Ratten Row, and continuing along the Stony Peth in Hulne Park. The combined line of the Anglian routes to Edlingham and Whittingham forked from the Eglingham road in Bondgate and ran along Market Street, thereby avoiding the steep rise immediately to the south. It continued via Clayport Street to Clayport Bank and so across Alnwick Moor (Figs. 3 and 4). The smooth informal outline and the width of Market Street, Clayport Street and Clayport Bank certainly suggest a feature of great antiquity in the town plan, again faithfully portrayed on Mayson's Map. On Mayson's Moor Map the ancient road is shown continuing south-westwardby ascendingthe Alnwick Ridge past St. Thomas's Farm and via Bank Top. From this discussion the great road fork in the centre of Alnwick with its eastward trunk and its two diverging branches westward emerges as the most ancient feature of the present town plan and as one probably older than the Anglian vill. As such it representsan inheritedoutline. Site and SettlementForm In the absence of both historical and archaeologicalevidence, the location of the Anglian vill presents a tantalizing problem, and the topographical evidence is sufficientlyambiguous to admit of at least two differenthypotheses. The site of the earlier village is broadly but not closely circumscribedby geology and relief on the south bank of the Aln (Figs. 2 and 3). Here the Alnwick sheet of fairly thick sandy drift overlies the boulder clay, giving a site of a type commonly favoured by Anglo-Saxon settlers as it meant easier clearing, well-drainedbuilding ground, and the certaintyof local water supply. A possible site for the original village might be one close to the church on the broad spur of relativelylevel land now occupied by Bailiffgateand including perhaps the area of the present castle, for the case of a Norman castle displacing parts of an earlier settlement is not uncommon (Fig. 4). In 1147, the date of its first mention, the present parish church at the westernend of Bailiffgatewas the 'capella de Alnewic', belonging to Lesburychurchand, like this, formingpart of the endowment of the newly founded Alnwick Abbey across the river.1o It may or may not occupy the site of its Anglian predecessor. At all events its site is completely contiguous to the territory belonging to Bailiffgate which right up to

T

'IT

THE

I

/

~.u,

.I1

L

jj

"

SAL5 .

.

......

..i ..-1....1c

: .....

,

I 7.

.N-.

.....---

.C...5 .6

....

.

. ..4

..

I BOULDER CLA

CARBONIFE ", :*:*:*:* ANGLIANROU STREETS: I AUGUR FLATS PA 2 AYDON CRES

i?Ntf3

BRIDGESTRE

.

GREY PLACE 5 LISBURN STRE T

.

GLISBURN

.

Av. "-' '.:''.

'

.

.

TERRACE

......~

?.

.;..."

HO./ ORBATT.

"" "

.

s

. .

"

~

"".'."

.

I U::: 3.. . . . . .....5 LU. .., :

A ....I;.. .. ..HOE.aA

. .. ...

..i

. 0..... ~ ;-?

II ,•'." 0.

N.."

AB. .

PiP.a~r

8MARKETSTRE 9-9 NARROWGAT

.'...

..•'.' ?

'•:•

'FIGURE3.~

ALLUVIUM SANDY GLACI

7 MARKETPLAC

. '-"2ALWYNSIDE .:.... . .F. ..........:.:..

...T

.IR~

.

..

oTl.o~

S,

0

bIUhRA

SITE

. 25-FT.CONTO ,"----COU -*- STREAM

??~?o:I'~

:f:%

t?

..0

: -TT. : : :

?,:::::::

ANGLIAN ALNWICK

17

the early nineteenth century was under the direct jurisdiction of the castle and so quite distinct from the walled town and its fields. In all the manorial surveys of Alnwick it included the Salisbury Lands and the adjacent parts of Ratten Row, thus separatingthe church and churchyardcompletely from the borough. If the original village occupied the site of Bailiffgateit would lie at the northern edge of the sandy drift, fully conforming to its Anglian name but lying rather excentricallyand less conveniently in relation to its ancient open fields. These, to judge by the field-nameson Mayson's Map, occupied largely the lighter soils of the sandy drift but overlappedthe boulder clay and sandstonesto the east and south-west (Fig. 3). However, the area about the present market-placeoffers another solution (Fig. 1). Though this alternativeseparatesthe site from the church and does not give us quite so clearlya 'wicby the Aln', it is supportedby a number of considerations. We have seen that the original village probably belongs to the latest expansion phase of Anglian settlement. W. Page showed long ago that whereasthe villagesof theearlyAnglo-Saxonperiodhadno intimateassociationwithanyroads, those of the expansion phase during the later Anglo-Saxon and Danish period often evinced such close relation in the very structure of their layouts. This might be simply that of a streetlined with homesteads on either side or otherwise influenced directly by existing road outlines." It implies that with the gradual consolidation of political and economic life in Anglo-Saxon England the earlier hazards of a roadside location were increasinglyoffset by its economic advantages. Siting within the road fork in the case of Alnwick would accordwell with this view. Moreover, it would offer a relatively level site in otherwise fairly strong relief, as spacious as that at Bailiffgate, and more conveniently supplied with water. It would also be better placed in relation to the whole of its openfield system. On balance, the ancient road fork appears to be the more likely site. But wherever its initial site lay, it is tempting to speculate on the actual layout of the vill and to compare it with the traditional village forms of North-east England. The broadened street of Bailiffgate and the great, almost equilateraltriangleformed in the centre of the ancient road fork by the addition of Fenkle Street suggest two variants of what was probably once the most common type: the green-village.12 This type has been the subject of investigation by H. Thorpe, who comes to no firm conclusion on its origins.'1 The evidence is indeed perplexing. Green-villages are regularly associated with Anglo-Saxon place-names, and some of the morphological sub-types such as the large, squat triangulargreens look archaicin shape. But 'street-greens',as at Trimdon (Co. Durham), are strikingly similar to the highly organized greenvillages of the East German colonization of the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies. One cannot help suspectingthat, in view of the great varietyof observableforms, the comprehensiveterm 'green-village'combines types of very different origin even within this country. If the present form of Bailiffgate was not to be regarded as the product of post-Anglian changes it might be interpreted as

18

ANGLIAN ALNWICK

preservingthe shape of a narrow street-green. It is more likely that the triangle formed by Bondgate, Market Street and Fenkle Street was an early greenvillage, i.e. one grafted on to the pre-existingroutewayjunction. In layout and name Fenkle ('angle')'"Street appears as an addition to the original fork, albeit an early one. That the whole of this triangle,to be called the CentralTrianglein this study, must have been originally one open space and that the small streetblocks within it are a more recent development will be shown later. On this central site, then, it appears likely that there was once a green-villagewith a fairly large triangular green of somewhat archaic outline traversed in its southern part by a watercoursethat appears on plans as late as 1726 and 1850.6 Like many similar green-villages in Northumberland it suited a pastoral economy needing protection for its stock at night, originally from wild beasts and later from border raiders. Conveniently situated on a routeway junction, such a community may have needed only a slight stimulus to develop into something more than a peasant village.

REFERENCES ' A. MAWER, Theplace-namesof Northumberland and Durham(1920), 5: Alnwick = homestead or wic (dwelling-place,village)by the Aln. S. W. WOOLDRIDGE, 'TheAnglo-Saxonsettlement',Figure 16 and p. 120, in H. C. DARBY,An historicalgeographyof EnglandbeforeA.D. 1800 (1936). R. G. & J. N. L. MYRES, COLLINGWOOD RomanBritain and the Englishsettlements(1936), 420. F. M. COUNTY HISTORY STENTON, COMMITTEE, Anglo-SaxonEngland(1947), 74, 76. NORTHUMBERLAND vol. vii (1904), 14; vol. xiv (1935), 361-483. History of Northumberland, 2 MAWER, cit., 133-4: op. Lesbury= Leech'sburhor fortifiedplace. Historyof Northumberland, vol. ii (1895), 438-9. TATE,op. cit., vol. i, 38. 3 This, togetherwith Mayson's Moor Map in The exemplification of Mayson'sSurvey,1622-24. Cf. the referenceson p. 121. 4 In Figure 3, the contours are those of the 1/25,000 O.S. provisionaledition, sheets 46/11 and 46/21. The geology shownis that of the 6-inchGeologicalSurveyof EnglandandWales,Northumberand others, landN.S. sheet N XXXV. N.W. For the geology of the Alnwickareacf. also CARRUTHERS Thegeology of the Alnwickdistrict,Memoirof the Geological Surveyof Englandand Wales, sheet 6 & R. GREEN, D. A. ROBSON A guide to thegeology of the districtaround (1930)98-9. T. S. WESTOLL, Alnwick(1955). 5 A map of a projected turnpikeroadfrom Haggerstonblacksmith'sshop to Alnwick, etc. by N. WEATHERLY, surveyor(1824). 6 In Figure4, the 25-foot contoursarethose of the 1/25,000 0.S. provisionaledition,sheets46/11. The 5-foot contours have been obtained by interpolation from the spot levels of the 10foot (1/528) O.S. seriesof Alnwick(1866), sheets 1-8, adjustedas far as possible to currentO.D. and by field observation. The reconstructionof old watercoursesis based on perusal of the following maps: Map of part of the Townof Alnwick,1726; A plan of the Townand the Castle of Alnwick,etc. 1760; Plan of the Townand Castle of Alnwickby TH. WILKIN, 1774; Plan of the by I. THOMPSON, watercoursewhichsuppliesAlnwickCastlewithwaterby TH.WILKIN, 1785;Groundplan andprofileof levels, etc. by R. TATE,1815; and a map of Alnwick showing lines of drainage,in R. RAWLINSON, Reportto the GeneralBoardof Health, 1850. 7 Clarkson'sSurvey,1567, fol. 43. 8 1586, fol. 26. Surveyof Northumberland, 9TATE,op. cit., vol. ii (1868-9), 366, 370-1. 10 TATE, op. cit., vol. ii, 105. 1xW. PAGE,'The origin and forms of Hertfordshiretowns and villages',Archaeologia,69 (191718), 49.

ANGLIAN ALNWICK

19

12 M. R. G. CONZEN,'Modern settlement'in Scientific survey of North-eastern England (1949), 77-8, and separatedistributionmap.

13 H. THORPE, 'The green villages of County Durham', Transactions and Papers, 1949, Institute of

British Geographers, 15 (1949), 179-80; 'Some aspects of rural settlement in County Durham', Geography, 35 (1950), 250. 14 R. O. HESLOP, Northumberland words (1892),vol. i, 281; J. WRIGHT, The English dialect dictionary (n.d.), vol. ii, 334; TATE,op. cit., vol. ii, 366.

5 CHAPTER MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK Situation and Site IN North-east England the Norman Conquest meant a considerablereorientation in regional relations. Anglian Northumberlandhad been the heart of the Bernician kingdom with its early capital at Bamburgh, but its different parts, even with such improvement in land communications as the later Anglian period achieved, must have enjoyed complete economic and a considerable measure of administrativeautonomy. Norman Northumberland on the other hand was the border march of a very much larger kingdom with its centre in the distant south, and lay on a continually contested frontier. The elaborate mechanismof militarydefence so characteristicof the highly organizedNorman r6gimewas superimposedon Anglian Northumberlandand gave it new strategic lines like the Great North Road capable of carryingelaborate armies with their trains, and a system of great border castles securingthose lines. The distance of Northumberlandfrom the south necessitated the delegation of military power from king to chief vassal and so gave it border barons and some peculiaritiesof social and political life that are reflectedin its settlement geography. Alnwick, situated midway between Newcastle and Berwick on the great lowland routeway of Northumberland where it crosses one of the transverse river lines, was fully affected by these changes and rapidly became a major point in the strategic defence system of the Border. As an important resting point on the new strategicline of the Great North Road, it combined an excellent regional situation with a suitable site for a fortress at the north-easternend of the Alnwick Ridge. Here the long northwardslope of the ridge is interrupted conveniently by a ledge of more level ground at and above 180 feet, and is also dissected by five streams so as to form a series of spurs (Fig. 4). Among these, that formed by the erosion of the Bow Burn offered all the advantages needed for the siting of an important castle. Relatively level on top, it was bounded by steep slopes on three sides and lay sufficientlynear the riverto bring the crossing point of the great highwaywithin the range of fire from the new fortress. During the Middle Ages and until 1770 the only medieval bridge stood some thirty yards downstream from the present Lion Bridge and so a little nearer to the castle (Figs. 1 and 5).1 The new Great North Road was made to climb the northwardslope of the spur as a steep approach road (Northumbrian'peth'2), steep enough to break the force of the enemy's onrush but not too steep for the freight transport of those days. In addition, the existence of an agricultural community in the immediate neighbourhood, if of no decisive advantage, must at least have been convenient for the castle garrison. 20

to IN .. NNo %.?

swim nag 4d MOM alga EWE a . ...... ... imp:

PR

Aq ... ....................

........ ..

W...

. ........ ......................

ug

-x?

WIER

. M

IX.

-OW, 7M

.

.

.

.

Py!

V.-

.

49

.. ....

JU 4A=

MNI

VONPRE

.

X?

mom Ai:

limp ON

WASIS

.............

Roo EMW

Hot PLATE

I-

THE OLD TOWN FROM THE SOUTH-WEST

CentralTriangle with market concretions and Assembly Rooms towards right. Deep-burgageseries with three Fenkle Streetsub-typein foreground:urbanfallow and augmentativeredevelopment.InnerFringeBelt in left botto half of picture.

:C:

WO:

man:

hal , -;i::M,

- YEl'

~

~

:-:::Or

At

at"::

-?1-

~H~i-

a.4A

-.w

J-; ?:.

I

?::-

-.116MV,..", W%.':: S

?8~C:41e~ - -?-~~MO ?B~' ~ aPP

:ONism, :I to ..........

Ao::~: :::-:............. 01" 1-

i

......... ;::::rZ --Rrl

ss,

, . - .,

?

Wit lit:

loll::::siWIN :::::.00 :::AM,; ::NNW:, _-: :tow

i

?~)*:~li

ORION`

tsia-lm:?:ii~~i::

Vic:

EN:j

i ~i i~i i-i ~

-

:'

'r

r.2

iiiiiElm S~~Ls

~

~WS': I~~~i~'i/:i-ij- - : i-

A PLATE

11 -

THE CASTLE AND PART OF THE OLD TOWN FROM THE NORTH-WEST

Inner FringeBelt with Hunter's Croft (bottom left), Castle complex, Castle Grounds, and Bondgate Tow suburbiumin foreground.Deep-burgageseries (Bondgatesub-type)on right.

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

21

Alnwick Castle The Norman castle ante-dated the medieval borough of Alnwick, though not, of course, the Anglian village, and in that sense only can it be regardedas Alnwick's pre-urban nucleus. Structural evidence indicates that the Norman Castle already had much the same general outline as the present one with its keep and two baileys, except that the keep then abutted north directly on the outside ground (Fig. 5).3 It was one of the largest Norman castles of the Border and the natural advantages of its site were enhanced by artificial earthworks, especially at the east end, to accommodate so large a structureand give it an unassailable perimeter. But the general shape of the castle layout conforms roughly with the wedge shape of the spur on which it was placed. From the broad base of its west wall, which dominated the nearby highway and contained the main gate ultimately secured by a strong barbican, the layout tapered towards its apex in the Ravine Tower (Records Tower) at the east end of the spur. As the head of a barony it doubtless housed a relatively large population with administrativeand domestic functions. But it must also have had a large garrison, at least when it was built by the Vescis in the late eleventh or early twelfth century and was then known as a munitissimumcastellum,or again when it was almost completely rebuilt by Henry de Percy in the early fourteenth century. About that time the constable of Alnwick Castle had to maintain a regular garrison of 40 men-at-armsand 40 hobblers (light cavalry men), though in 1315 the castle garrison amounted to over 3000 men-at-armsbesides the hobblers.4 In spite of its structuralchanges in modern times Alnwick Castle remainstoday as one of the two most impressive historic features in the existing plan of the town (Fig. 18). Bailiffgate In times of actual warfare,when the castle became the rallyingpoint for the feudal armiesfrom the territoryof the barony, the numberof soldieryassembled here would be considerably greater than could be accommodated in the castle. The same applied on occasions when retainers and tenants of the barony attended the baronial court. Extra quartershad then to be found near the castle gate, and there is historical evidence to show that they were in Bailiffgate. Clarkson'sSurveynot only states this in generalbut lists two groups of holdings within Bailiffgate that had once formed the lodgings of some of the larger retainers when renderingservice at the castle (Fig. 5).5 One of them, known as 'in auncyent tyme mydletons lodginges', comprised three holdings at the east end of Bailiffgate (M in Fig. 5). The other group consisted of four holdings (tenementa) known as 'hiltones lodginges' that occupied the western half of Bailiffgate north side (H in Fig. 5). The occurrenceof these 'lodgings' in two different parts of Bailiffgate suggests that in the Middle Ages this street was largely, if not wholly, occupied by militia or by people assembled for administrative purposes. It is significantthat in the same survey none of these holdings C

22

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

paid any rents to the town reeve (praepositusburgi). Further, all the other ancient holdings within the Bailiffgate area also carried the designation tenementumin contrast to the normal burgage (burgagium)of the town and paid their rents to the castle reeve (praepositus castri), thereby emphasizingthe separateness of Bailiffgatefrom the town previously mentioned. Thus, the evidence suggests that Bailiffgatewas a settlement separatefrom the town, closely related to the castle and its military and administrativefunctions, and under the immediate jurisdiction of the baron or his ministerial. The nearbyparish church, besides forming a protectivefeatureon its spur site at the west end of Bailiffgate, as did the castle on a grander scale at its east end, may have had closer connections with this militarysettlementif its dedication to St. Michael can be taken as an indication. All this agreeswith the statementsof G. Tate, who explains the name Bailiffgate(pronounced'Belleygate')as meaning 'bailey-gate',indicating a kind of additional bailey to the castle which together with Ratten Row was used as a training ground for the hobblers. It is not contradicted by the earlier cartographicand the topographical evidence.6 On Mayson's Map the area of northern Narrowgate, although divided into stripshaped plots, has no buildings and so lets Bailiffgate appear as a separate nucleus. This may indicate no more than an incidental state as the result of a fire or even a border raid some fifty or sixty years earlier,since the plots occupying the site of Hilton's Lodgings in Bailiffgateand some other streetfrontagesin Alnwick, which one might have expected to be built up, are also shown void of buildings. The present topographical evidence clearly presents a broad street widening towards the castle gate with row development on either side and a pattern of fairly short strip-plots behind each street front. As with the very different strip-plots of central Alnwick analysed later, the present Bailiffgate plots are without doubt identifiableas the holdings (tenementa)listed in Clarkson's Survey, 1567, and are more than likely to representmedieval units of land tenure. Tate's statement that in the eighteenth century a cross stood in the Castle Square at the east end of Bailiffgate and that a market for country produce was held there, may indicate a survival of medieval market activities.7 Practically all the features discussed here in connection with the Bailiffgate settlement show affinities to the medieval suburbiumof feudal Europe, that early type of unwalled settlementunder the gate of a fortress(sub urbe)or other pre-urbannucleus." This supports the suggestion that in its general featuresthe presentlayout of Bailiffgatemay be Norman ratherthan a residualplan element from Anglian times. If so, it was cleverly sited on fairly level ground near the castle, and in direct communication with two routeways. The older of these came from Eglingham, the new Barony of Wooler, and the Tweed frontier at Wark and Norham. The new one came from Berwick,went past the castle gate, and, after a staggerin front of it (probablya later featureoccasionedby the need to find room for additional plots on the east side of Narrowgateand Bailiffgate), went down the slope to join the old route from Edlingham at the Bow Burn crossing. Today the layout of Bailiffgate,with its broad street space and its two

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

23

series of tenementplots, surviveswith relativelyfewer changes than those of any other medieval plan-unit in the town. The Economic Developmentof the Manorial Borough As stated above, the creation of the Borough of Alnwick seems unlikely to have broken the topographical continuity of development on the site. The first known charter,grantedby William de Vesci, Lord of the Barony of Alnwick, to 'my burgesses of Alnewic' some time between 1157 and 1185 is brief and gives no hint of the institution of a new site or layout for the town, and the same applies to subsequent charters.9 It is thus very doubtful whether the former Anglian vill was at all extensivelyrefashionedwhen raised to the status of what was after all only a manorial borough. More likely, it grew gradually into a town once the Norman castle had been built there as the seat of one of the great Border baronies in the north. We have seen that the Central Triangle of Alnwick suggests both the site as well as the form of the earlier village. If this view is correct, such original plan could be adapted to its new function as an inherited outline without any changes. The villeinsof the former village could become burgesseson the spot, their tofts and crofts becoming burgages. Indeed, if those green-villages of North-east England which at some time or other in the Middle Ages functioned as markets could be proved to have received their present layout in Anglian days, they would provide many parallel cases. The historical evidence collected by Tate shows that the advantages of Alnwick's situation soon proved to be economic as well as strategic,in spite of the hazards of border warfarewhich more than once resulted in the destruction of the town. The presence of the castle would tend to stimulate economic activities beyond those of a mere peasant community. Not that the medieval town was ever divorced from agriculture. Two inquisitions of 1289 reveal the presence of twenty 'bondmen' in Alnwick, i.e. peasants holding their land on bondage tenure, and according to Tate giving Bondgate its name.'0 Further, there were seven cotmen, and the free tenants and burgesses also engaged in farming. Moreover, the large castle as well as the attached Bailiffgatesuburbium must early have attracted craftsmen who would find there a ready market for their products and services. In view of the special functions of Bailiffgatemost of them were probably established round the triangular green of the ancient road junction, which gave more room for the development of a market than Bailiffgate, with its military activities. The lord of the manor from whom the inhabitantsreceivedtheir right of burgagetenurein the twelfth centuryprobably encouraged this geographical separation of functions as he stood to gain by it administrativelyand financially.Unfortunately, the gradual process by which the earliersettlementgrew into a town is virtually unrecorded,but its results by the end of the thirteenth century and in the first half of the fourteenth century are clear enough. The mention of two wine-merchants in 1181 reflects the

24

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

process of specializationin trading. About a hundredyears later, referenceto a fuller or walker in a deed of conveyance, and the mention of a forge or iron foundry, would seem to indicate an increasing variety of industries, and in a judicial inquiry at the same time the market and fair are mentioned as institutions of 'immemorialusage'." In the meantime, William de Vesci's charter had granted the right of burgage tenure to the people of Alnwick in accordancewith the customs of Newcastle, and subsequent chartersof the thirteenthcenturyconfirmedthe liberties of the manorial borough and added to the corporate propertyand privileges of the burgesses. Finally, grantsusually forming part of the royal prerogativewere given: the market and fair were confirmedby EdwardI to the lord of the manor in 1297, and pontage (bridgetolls) was grantedby EdwardIII to the burgessesin 1377.12 This last charter suggests a considerable volume of trade as the tolls specified in it are assumed to yield sufficientincome in the space of three years to cover the cost of repairingthe bridgeextensivelyand of paving the streets. By giving a detailed specificationof tolls, it also demonstratesthe great variety of commodities coming into and out of Alnwick. They included corn, livestock, skins, textiles, a variety of raw materials, especially those used in tanning and dyeing, timber and other constructional materials, and a great variety of provisions and miscellaneous merchandise. It is apparent that the division of labour in industrial production within the medieval system of craft gilds was well representedat Alnwick, though detailed records of the gilds exist only for the Tudor period and later. Moreover, the trade of the town with more distant areas was considerableand reflectedthe economic characterof the region. Corn and other provisions were generallyimported, and the produce of cattle rearing, notably skins and hides, formed the chief export trade, much of which was alreadyleaving throughthe port of Alnmouth. The ancientroad to Lesburythus came to be known as the Alnmouth Road.'" In the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturiesinformationfrom the gild records of the borough is more extensive. The trade of the town was then considerable, and among the ten incorporatedcompanies that of the merchantswas the most important. Tanning, the chief industryin Alnwick, was based on a major local product and by the mid-seventeenthcenturythere were no less than twenty-two tanneries in the town. For all the variety of economic activities, the town was small by modern standards and grew only slowly until the Agricultural Revolution and the improvementof transporteffected some change in the surroundingcountryside. Although the town's population about 1550 is estimated to have been little more than two thousand it was an importantregional centre, as was reflectedin its social life, and many of the country gentry of the district had town-houses in Alnwick and frequentlyresided there.'1 From this picture of economic development and from the general circumstances of its position in the Border Marches it may be concluded that topographicallythe medieval and early modern borough of Alnwick experienceda

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

25

slowandmoderategrowthfroma nucleuswhichwasalreadyfairlyliberallylaid out at the outset. TheTownPlan of theEarlyManorialBorough The extentand natureof the medievalplan and its developmentform an interestingsubjectfor cartographicalanalysissince the nucleus,though still recognizablein the presenttownscapeas a majorresidualfeatureof the Middle Ages, has not remainedunaffectedby subsequentchanges. Essentialtools in such an investigation,apart from the OrdnanceSurveyPlans, are Wilkin's Map of 1774and the manorialandboroughsurveysfromClarkson'sSurveyof 1567to that of 1774. They establisha link with medievaltimesby allowinga correlationof the presentpropertyboundarieswiththe units of landtenurein the Tudorperiod.In a town like Alnwick,the majorityof thesemay at leastbe regardedas preservingthe medievalpatternin modifiedform,even if they do not go backto the MiddleAgesin everydetail. In all the surveystheseunitsare knownindividuallyas burgage(burgagium), i.e. theurbanplot heldby a burgess. It containedhis house,yardand 'garth',andwas chargedwitha fixedrentas a contributionto the communalboroughtax orfirma burgiof the town, as the firstboroughentryin Clarkson'sSurveyexpresslystates.'" The topographicaldevelopmentof existingplots can be tracedas farback as 1851with the aid of the variouslarge-scaleplans of the OrdnanceSurvey. Thus a directcorrelationis possiblebetweenthe modernplot boundariesand the burgageboundariesof 1774,thanksto the largescaleand carefulexecution of Wilkin'sMap, Wood'sMap of 1827providinga usefulintermediatecheck. This takes the analysisback to a time when the predominantforms of interferencewiththe shapesand sizesof the ancientlyestablishedburgageunitshad been those of the amalgamationof neighbouringburgages,or the mediation, i.e. halvingof a burgageinto two moieties,or occasionallyeven a quartering. From 1774backwardsthe variousboroughsurveysallow a correlationof the burgagesof 1774with those of 1567by the threefoldcheckof holder'snames, rentals and the topographicalsequenceemployedin the recordingof the differentsurveys. In additionMayson'sSurveyhas his map of Alnwickand givesthe areasof all holdings,thoughthis checkis not alwayseasyto applyas the areasaregiven'byestimacion'andin anycasehaveno constantquantitative relationto the more importantfrontages. Nevertheless,save for recognizable instancesof amalgamation andmediation,thereis remarkablecontinuityin the of the identity overwhelming majorityof burgagesas ownershipunitsrevealed by this evidencestretchingovermorethan200 years. It makesthe assumption that,in its generalfeatures,the burgagepatternof 1567insidethewalledtownis essentiallythat of the MiddleAges more reasonablethan it might otherwise appear. By plotting the burgage boundaries of 1774 on a modern plan, those that still form elements of the existing townscape can be distinguishedfrom those that

26

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

THE SITE OF OLD ALNWICK A

25-FT. CONTOURS 5-FT.

CONTOURS

FORMER RIVER ALN STREAMCOURSES

--I

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

BOW BURN

C

WASH(CANONG.) BURN GREENWELL

G

ANGLIAN ROUTEWAYS 10 KING'S ARMS YARD CASTLE ST. MICHAEL'S CH. II MONKHOUSE TERRACE 12 POTTERGATEPLACE STONE WELL 13 QUEEN'S HEAD YARD ST. MICHAEL'S PANT BARNDALECOTTAGE 14 ROXBRO PLACE 15 THREE TUNS YARD CHAPEL LANE 16 WAGONWAY ROAD CORRECTION HO. LA. 17 WHITE HART YARD DODD'S LANE HOTSPUR STREET SCALE

0

ALLER BURN

B

OF

FEET

500

1000

E...... TON0.

.............. r

FIGURE4

4

27

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

MEDIEVAL ALNWICK SITE OF LATE MEDIEVAL TOWN-WALL: E .m

/

/rt

.........

I,, ZI S 1 IsI.

I

I, ,

1

-

RESIDUAL OBLITERATED CONJECTURAL BOUNDARIES WITHIN CENTRAL TRIANGLE

IN BAILIFFGATE: OBLITERATED

RESIDUAL

/ /I j;

I

/

IMENTIONED

BOUNDARIES

BURGAGE BOUNDARIES:

TENEMENT BOUNDARIES

III/

II I

REPRESENTED BY EXISTING NOT SO REPRESENTED

ANCIENT

LODGINGS FEUDATORY 1567 1N

K•

"

00-

C

CAPE'

N

.

?" AL.NW.

T)D4 E

f/

SL

TOWER IB BON.ATE=.

~~

.

T

~?c1

A?

ON

MAYSON'S

POTTERGATE

I

\

0\

MAP,1622

I

'

I

X

STONE

X

' '-"

,

S

I

WELL

i

t

/

SALISBURY LANDS "CONFLUENCE

OF

8OW BURN TRIBUTARIES ROADS

AND

CLOSES

ON

WEST

...A.T

SIDE

OF

BAILIFFGATE

SCALE

*t****

,

I

,,-

TOWER

(REBUILT IN 1767)

SL

•

!p-

IDDLETON'S M

TOWER GATE POTTERGATE TOWER

*

CONJECTURAL ANGLIAN

ROUTE TO EGLINGHAM

I

I

FIGURE5

OF

FEET

28

MEDIEVALAND EARLY MODERNALNWICK

have vanished. Previous amalgamations and divisions that appear from a comparison of the different surveys can be allowed for to come as near to the original pattern as possible. The resulting picture is notable in showing the relativelylarge number of residualfeatures that survive in the present plan, and this is doubtless a common feature of smaller market towns (Fig. 5). Beyond this, however, the reconstructed burgage pattern can be used to follow the growth and changes of the medieval plan. In Figure 5 it appearsnot as a single unitary pattern but as a compound pattern, in which the line of the Bow Burn and the streets defining the limits of the Central Triangle are the 'seams' separatingthree differentparts (cf. also Fig. 1). The largest unit lies to the south-east of the Bow Burn and surrounds,but does not occupy, the interior of the CentralTriangle. It forms a roughly circularor oval area and shows the distinctive arrangementof the original burgages of the borough in the three blocks fronting the Central Triangle and the adjoining main streets. The individual burgages generally form rather long narrow strip-plotslaid roughly at right-angles to the street-line and parallel to each other. They tend to be oblongs but are often locally deformed in adaptation to site conditions. A characteristicallyinformal, lamellate layout results and when it is duplicated on either side of the same street, as in the eastern stretch of Bondgate, the whole presents a herringbone pattern. Although the name 'High Street' does not occur in the old part of Alnwick, what has just been describedis so typical of the medieval main streets, or the widened 'street-market'variantsfound in most of our market towns, that this plan-unit may well be termed the high-streetlayout. In the case of Alnwick, however, a high degree of individualityis imparted by the peculiar arrangementof major trafficstreetsround the CentralTriangle,the whole of the latter forming the early market-placeas we shall see. It amounts to a special type within the generalclass based perhapson its suggestedorigin from a pre-urban settlement, i.e. a village. Possibly the informality of the burgage shapes also indicates a particular, presumably early, type and is markedly differentfrom the more disciplinedlayouts of later towns such as those founded by Edward I. Some further characteristicsof this pattern are apparent. Each of the two larger street-blocks,to the north and south of the CentralTrianglerespectively, consists of a single plot series of burgagesreaching a considerabledepth (up to 475 feet in the southernblock and up to over 580 feet in the northernone). The western block is somewhat similar,but the sharpercurve between Fenkle Street and Narrowgateand the angle between Fenkle Streetand ClayportStreetmodify the simpler arrangement. This results in a partial break in the former case, affecting only the rear parts of burgages, and a complete break in the latter, giving rise to a separate plot series on Clayport Street. The relative plot sizes here show clearly that the Fenkle Streetfrontage was more importantthan that on ClayportStreet,thus obtaining the largerburgages. In other words, frontage to the Central Triangle or the original market was of greater economic value than frontage to one of the main streets. Possibly the shallower series on

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

29

Clayport Street indicates also derivation from two originally larger burgages fronting Fenkle Street and remaining as two small residual plots at the corner of Fenkle Street and Clayport Street after partition. A little farther west, the tributaryrunnel to the Bow Burn marks another dicontinuity between what are in fact two plot series on Clayport Street, the more westerly one resemblingthe majority of burgages in plot depth. What has been discussed so far leaves little doubt that the high-streetlayout of Alnwick represents the plan of the original borough. In its primitive but highly efficient, large-featuredlayout, in its economical concentration round a market-place of some 41 acres, and even in the general arrangement of its burgages, it may preserve the trace of an earlier green-village. In its skilful adaptation to natural features it exhibits a topographicalindividualizationof a plan type that is altogether characteristicallymedieval. The street-systemof this central plan-unit is essentially simple when considered against the general background of street differentiationin the medieval towns of Europe.'" In larger towns, or in towns deliberatelyplanned like the true bastides of south-westernFrance, the colonial towns of eastern Germany, or EdwardI's boroughs in Wales, it is generallynot difficultto distinguishthree functional types of streets, though frequently they are combined in varying degrees. Major traffic streets (Verkehrsstrassen, carrieres at Montpazier) connecting the restrictedpoints of exit from the walled town commonly had the greatest width. Residentialstreets (Wohnstrassen),carryingtraffic to and from adjoining residentialplots only, were often narrower. Occupationroads (Wirtschaftsstrassen),providing subsidiary access, were the narrowest type. In the earliestplan-unit of Alnwick there is virtuallyonly one type of street. From the corners of the triangular market in the middle three major traffic streetsrun to the three exits of this earliertown. They were true main streets in the medieval sense of carrying major traffic as well as combining commercial, industrialand residentialfunctions in the associated burgages. The effectiveness of concentrationin the plan is brought out by the absence of residentialstreets. There was no need for them since literally every burgess had already obtained traffic-streetlocation and every other burgess market location. Occupation roads, if they existed in the earliest borough, must have been restrictedto the two lanes providingaccess from the centreto additional sourcesof water supply: Stonewell Lane on the west side of Fenkle Street and Greenwell Lane on the north side of Bondgate Within. Bearing in mind the technical requirementsof medieval passenger and freight transport, it is difficult to imagine a more concentrated,economical and purposefullayout or a more generous one for the accommodation of over 100 burgessesand other householders. Today, in spite of the vicissitudes of many centuries and the more violent changes affecting some of the ancient burgages in recent years, the layout of the early borough, incorporating the inherited outlines of the distant Anglian period, survives as the most impressive traditional plan-unit apart from Alnwick (Fig. 18).

Castle

30

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

In the main, the ancient limits of this unit seem fairly clearly indicated the Bow Burn in the north and north-west, an obvious defensive line, by and by Green Batt in the south. Here the siting of the perimeter apparently combined the economic advantages of large burgage depths with those of a reasonably defensive position on the relatively flat shelf formed by the slope of Alnwick Ridge before its steep descent to Market Street (cf. Figs. 4 and 5). Regarding the Bow Burn line as an early borough perimeter, Mayson's Map shows a town gate, albeit a less elaborate one than those indicated as the Clayport and Bondgate Towers, placed astride Narrowgate in exactly the place where one would expect to find a gate if the Bow Burn formed the town ditch. The way the three names 'Clay-port', 'Bond-Gate' and 'Potte-gate' are written against the three respective gate towers on the map makes it uncertain whether 'Potte-gate' is meant to refer to the actual town gate or to northern Narrowgate, i.e. the street space into which it has been written. If the latter, it is certainlyat variancewith the burgagelist of the same surveywhich uses 'Pottergate' for the present street of that name. To confuse the issue further, the map shows no gate towers on the sites of either the present Pottergate Tower or the supposed Narrowgate Tower. Tate records no documentary evidence of Narrowgate Tower but only of a PottergateTower on the site of the presentone from 1630 onwards. According to one of his notes elsewhere, he cannot have seen the copy of Mayson's Survey now in Alnwick Castle and thereforehad no knowledge of its maps." In view of the general accuracy of detail shown on Mayson's Map it seems unlikely that Robert Norton, its surveyor, can have made a major mistake in respect of what must have appeared to him as a prominent public structureworthy of pictorial record along with the other two gate towers. The existence of such a building, moreover, may well be responsible for the adjoining stream being called the Bow Burn. The record of Mayson's Map then corroborates the conclusion already drawn from examination of the ancient burgage pattern that the Bow Burn marks an earlier borough limit on the north-west side. In the south-west the original limits seem more uncertain. The short plot series of four deep burgages on the north side of Clayport Street and their separation from the market burgages by the possibly marshy area marked by the confluence of the Bow Burn with its little tributary (X) seems to suggest a later addition. If anything, this would bring the original Clayport exit of the borough to a slightlymore defensiveposition and might have been matched by a similar extension of burgages on the opposite side of Clayport Street. It might also explain the curious deviation of the Clayport tributaryto the Bow Burn as artificiallyeffected to form an additional length of town ditch for the original borough. The confluence area is shown on Mayson's Map as what looks like a pond, and Stonewell Lane provides direct access to it from the market. By 1760

some sheds or other outbuildings had appearedround it, and by 1774 the pond had disappeared altogether, giving way to a tanyard. The available evidence

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

31

does not allow one to assert firmly that the upper part of 'Clayport infra',"1 i.e. of Lower Clayport Street within the gate, was in fact an extension to the original borough. The only other uncertaintyabout the early limits of the borough concerns the north-east side, i.e. the area to the north-west of AllerburnLane. Here the tails of the Bondgate burgagesjut out in a rectangularpattern which does not accord with the smooth line of the perimeter elsewhere or with its general tendency to adapt itself to the defensivepossibilities of relief. This arrangement either represents a later extension of otherwise old burgages or indicates that the medieval town-wall was never built on this side of the borough. In the former case the earlier borough boundary probably ran from Bondgate Tower with the burgage 'grain' north-north-east for some 250 feet or so and then curvedin a north-westwarddirectionto follow the westernflank of the Allerburn Lane valley and so join the perimeterline of the Bow Burn. Apart from the actual street spaces the constituent elements, the 'cells' as it were of the high-streetlayout, are the burgagesthat are fairly evenly distributed over the three street-blocksunder discussion. They are generallylarge and very elongated representinga distinct type of deep burgagerarely less than 250 feet in depth, their elongationor ratio of depth to width being generallygreaterthan 6 :1. There is, however, a wide range of sizes, indicatingthat there was probably no standardizationof these plots here in terms of area. In any case, standardization of their frontages would be more important in the plan as such to allow the accommodation of a maximum number of burgages on a minimum of available total street front. This was desirable economically to provide the largest number of burgesses with main-street location and as defenders of the borough perimeterin times of danger. The question arises whether there is any evidence to show such frontage standardizationand what could have controlled the measurements associated with it. If the borough plan originated in an earlier green-village, the original tofts and crofts could have determined the standard. Alternatively, or in supplementationof this, the buildings may have provided it. It is not known whether originally the houses forming the plot dominants of these burgages occupied the plot heads at the street-linein closed formation. However, the discipline of direct, frontal-row development including farmsteadsis generallyobservablein the existing green-villagesof North-east England, and suggests that this might have been the case in an original village as much as in the medieval town. At all events Mayson's Map shows it fully establishedby the early seventeenth century and, if not an original feature, it is likely to have been a medieval one. It presents the familiar picture of traditionalburgages, as of strip-plots generally. The greater intrinsic value of the actual frontage normally imparts a tadpole structureto each plot. The plot head at the front contains the plot dominantor main building, housing the essential part of the land use of the plot, together with its yard. The plot tail, generally the larger part in the case of burgages, is occupied by the 'garth' or garden and often

32

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

accommodatessubsidiarybuildings or plot accessories. The burgagescommonly have no front-gardens,i.e. the street-lineand the actual or geographicalbuilding line, as distinct from that postulated by town planners, coincide. The plan of Teasdale's Yard in 1774 (Fig. 14) illustratesthe arrangement. Plot dominants occupy the full frontage and so form rows or serriedlines of diverse buildings along the sides of the street, which represents one form of closed building developmentcommon to the kernels of historic towns (Fig. 10). This means that the dimensions of earlierhouses might have influencedthe standardizationof frontages in Alnwick with its narrow burgages at least as much as in the case of some later planned medieval towns for which a direct relation between frontage and house has been proved.'l Earlier building construction, even in districtswhere stone was the principalwall material,depended widely on the use of timber as a skeleton. This not only carried the roof but determinedlargely the organization of internal space on the principle of 'bays', i.e. the spaces between differentpairs of 'crucks'. Although these bays were not necessarilyof standard size, the ordinary agriculturalunit known as the rod or pole was used in setting out the building plan on the site. Though nominally 16 feet, architecturalevidence in England about A.D. 1200 suggests a pole of 18 feet length.20 In any case there may have been regional variations. Any standards of frontages originating in this way might be looked for on Wilkin's Map on the assumption that until then the changes affecting the presumed standardburgages of the original borough were mostly those of amalgamation, mediation and quartering. Subdivision of burgages must have been effected usually, if not always, by splitting them longitudinally into moieties, quarter burgages,or whateverwas the requireddivision. As time went on the term 'burgage' came to be applied indiscriminatelyto the full units as well as to the fractionalplots. Longitudinaldivision is proved by Wilkin's Map, which shows the traditional lamellate pattern with hardly any interferencefrom transverse divisions. Subdivisions of burgagesmust generallyhave been reflecteddirectly in the measurements of frontages. Halving or mediation, either singly or in repetition, was usual. Thus the existence of an original standard frontage would be indicated in the later plan not only by direct representationof the unit and its multiples but also by the occurrence of such fractional values as -,, -,

It

1 , etc., the result of a prolonged process of regroupingof contiguousproperties. When applying these considerationsto the evidence of 1774, the main difficulty is to obtain accuratemeasurementswithin a foot on the MS. original of Wilkin's Map. A check by measurementson the 1/528 Ordnancemap proves to be less useful as the building developmentbetween 1774and 1851had areadyinterfered too much with the frontages, although it generally left the burgage boundaries behind the plot dominants unaltered. When measuring the frontages on Wilkin's Map, therefore, a margin of error of 1 foot has been allowed wherever measurements deviate from either units or multiples of those dimensions which are most frequently found. The following table records the measurements and groups them into:

33

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

(1) Those related to the most frequently occurring measurement (a = 28 feet). (2) Those related to the next most frequent measurement (b = 32 feet). (3) Those showing no such relation. The evidence is interesting. Nearly half the intramural burgages in the oldest part of the borough appear to be related to a unit measurementof 28 feet. The TABLEI in Oldest Part of the Medieval Borough the Burgage Frontages Frontage type

Measurement in feet

?a la a lia 1a la 2a

14 21 28 35 42 49 56

lb xb b 1?b 2b

16 24 32 40 64

Not classified TOTALS

26 30 37 45

Street blocks

Number S.

N.E.

W.

-

3 1 5 5 3 3

-

2 2 1 4

-

4 1 3 2 1

3 4 17 8 9 8 1

2.75 3.67 15.60 7.34 8.25 7.34 0.92

4 5 3 2

3 10 13 9 2

2.75' 9.17 11.93 33.94 8.25 1.84

2 2

2 2 5 1

6 4 8 4

5.51 3.67 20.19 7.3420.19 3.67

35

35

109

100.00 100.00

3 8 2 3 3 -

1 4 7 2

-

2 2 1 1

39

Per cent of total

2 -

45.87

latter is actually representedby about one-thirdof the burgagesin this 'a' group, including the burgage marked '1' in Figure 5, and shown in greater detail as 'Teasdale's Yard' in Figure 14. Another third is similarly related to a unit of 32 feet, which again accounts for one-third of the burgagesin the 'b' group. In view of the difficultiesof correct measurementon Wilkin's Map it is quite possible that some at least of the burgages not classifiable under groups 'a' or 'b' may nevertheless belong to them. Further, if one remembers that earlier medieval 'standardization' for a variety of reasons was unlikely to require modern precision, the separationof group 'a' from group 'b' might be somewhat unreal and might indicate only the extreme values of a generally acknowledged but in practice loosely defined intermediate system. The evidence indicates then that in Alnwick 28-32 feet was the original standardof burgagefrontage, a

34

MEDIEVAL ANDEARLY MODERN ALNWICK

measurementnot infrequentlyfound in medieval towns. The smallest measurements recorded in Alnwick, 14 feet and 16 feet, are the halves of the two prominent units. They representthe common lower limit of 'bay' widths in earlier construction. A standardfrontage of 28-32 feet thereforeseems to imply that a row house occupying the head of a standardburgage normally formed a building unit of two structuralbays. That traditional building methods were in use in Alnwick for a long time, probably right up to the early Georgian period, may be inferred from Tate's statement that during the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the houses of Alnwick were generallylow and small singlestorey thatched buildings.21 The prevailinghouse depth of 18-20feet on Wilkin's Map indicatesthe traditionalblock-plan of the smaller'eaves house', i.e. a small row house fronting the street with its eaves instead of its gable. It suggests that even in the middle of the Georgian period the majority of houses were of an earliertraditionaltype. Market Colonization Within its Central Triangle the oldest borough encloses four street-blocks which are so different from it in their shapes and plot pattern as to form a distinct plan-unit suggesting a differentorigin (Figs. 1, 4, 5 and 6). The blocks are much smaller than those of the surroundinghigh-street layout, their dissimilar shapes are irregular and angular, and yet their arrangement is not entirely haphazard. They are in fact placed so as to leave a roughly oblong market square between themselves and a fairly wide street space round the perimeterof their own group, thus outlining rather than obscuring the Central Triangle. Their plot pattern shows a mosaic of rather small, generally squat, rectilinearplots, very differentfrom the lamellate arrangementof the surrounding plan-unit. It has been maintained above that these four blocks are not part of the original borough plan, and there is historical evidence to support this and help to explain the topographical characteristics. Figure 6 records the relevant evidence in Clarkson'sSurveywithin the plot boundaries of 1774, allowing for the addition of such earlier subdivisions as emerge from a study of the previous borough surveys. These boundaries form a less definitepattern than that of the present time and suggest an intermediate stage of development. In the western block subdivision into well-definedplots is complete. In the block between Paikes Street (formerly Paykes Hole) and Market Passage plot definition exists only on the street fronts, while the eastern block is even less consolidated. The three blocks appear to reflect different stages in a process of crystallization. Doubtless the whole pattern is more mature than that of the Middle Ages, or indeed that of 1567, especially in the westernblock. The street-linesof the blocks may approximateto those of 1567, but the plots themselves, because of the peculiar nature of their origin, and unlike the burgages of the high-street layout, can be regarded only as topographical 'loci', not as actual outlines of the data of Clarkson's Survey. Even

35

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

A. GENERAL PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS

{-

0

S100

IOOFT.

HOLDINGSIN THE CENTRAL TRIANGLE OF ALNWICK, 1567 A. GENERAL

S 5E:

r

C

B. TENURIAL SP

2

i Lw A X6 SL

2*3 MARKET

DESIGNATION:

NORMAL RENT, PAID TO BOROUGH SMALL RENT, D? (4d) VERY SMALL RENT, D0 (2d) NO RENT, D? RENT PAID TO CASTLE REEVE

1

\"

7 SCRET REE :D

.

I SMITHY 2 BERE HOUSES 3 SHOPS, FORMERLY A CHAPEL 4 CORPUS CHRISTI HOUSE

MAE CROJE

B. TENURIAL DESGNATION

P

SMARK

CRO

MEC

5 LITTLE HOUSE ON THE LORD'S WASTE IN IS56 6 BAKEHOUSE 7 BUTCHER'S SHAMBLES IN 1774

loo

6

2 E

jjj E

OS.

FIGURE 6

REEVE

C. RENTALS

0

100 FT.

100

M sMARKT

EST'

C. RENTALS: 6I

MA

CHARACTERISTICS:

BURGACE 'TENEMENT OR BURGAGE' SMALL HOUSE HOUSE,OR SHOPS WASTE, OR WASTE BURGAGE HOUSE HELD BURCAGE,OR TITULO IGNOTUM 'QUO 'RENTED AT HIS LORDSHIP'S PLEASURE'

M

*

PROPERTY

PUBLIC UTILITIES FORMERLY PUBLIC UTILITIES HIGHWAY OR LORD'S BUILT ON OUEEN'S WASTE NEW IMPROVEMENT

MARKET

o

loo FT.

36

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

so, this 'localization' is quite adequate for our purpose as both the street-blocks and the plots are small. Figure 6 shows those featuresfrom Clarkson'sSurveythat are concentrated within the Central Triangle. In the first place, there are certain public utilities (Map A in Fig. 6) which in the medieval manorial borough were usually held by the lord of the manor but served the community. They were generally sited on a central public open space such as the village green or the market. In Alnwick there were the bakehouse (No. 6), the 'bere Houses' (Nos. 2), and a building called 'Corpus Christi House' (No. 4). Three shops on the north side of the Market Place are mentioned as having formerly been a chapel (No. 3). Premises recorded as having been built on the Queen's highway or the lord's waste indicate the former open space more clearly. They are virtually confined to the Central Triangle. Among them No. I is mentioned in Mayson's Survey as erected originally as a smithy. The other three examples are 'small houses' and a shop. Buildings recently erected on public ground appear also as 'new improvement' (Novuiimpromt),an entry entirely restrictedto the area mapped in Figure 6. Furtherhints as to the original state of the CentralTrianglecan be obtained from the tenurialdesignations(Map B in Fig. 6). The majority of tenurialunits in this area are actually designated'burgage'(burgagium),but it is manifest that these holdings were very different from the deep burgages of the ancient highstreet layout. By Tudor times the term 'burgage', referring to an individual holding within the walled borough, had lost some of its original precision. It had become a generic term for any holding for which rent was paid to the borough reeve, regardlessof its origin, provided it had become establishedlong enough on its site. But these small properties, some of them still recorded as 'new improvements'in 1567, did not automaticallybecome 'burgages'. At any rate some had not done so at the time of Clarkson's Survey,but appearedas 'a house' or more significantlyas 'a small house', 'a shop' or just 'a waste'. Shops in particularare well known as agents in the colonization of medieval marketplaces by permanent houses. The usual development leads from the initial temporarystall (selda)to the more permanentshop structure(shopa)and finally to the house, or what in Alnwick had become a 'burgage' on the Central Triangle by 1567. That these burgages were of dubious tenurial origin is indicated by the not infrequent remark in Clarkson's Survey that the title by which a certain property is held is unknown (quo titulo ignotum est). This formula is virtually restricted to properties in the western street-block of the Central Triangle. One property in the eastern street-blockis rendered 'a tenement or burgage' (vniutent sie by). This suggests a transitional stage between holdings established on the waste, and thereforedirectly answerableto the lord of the manor like the normal tenement,and the burgageanswerableonly through the firma burgi. Two of the holdings not designated burgages are recorded as 'rented at his Lordship'spleasure'. The distribution of all these tenurial designations is significant. So-called

.......... ..... .....

MOMS, I ..its:

'im

-.a

!p0%

..........

V-71:

W,

zi?'F?-'

x m

...... .. W."

17

.

... . .... ........... A"O

.

.

. .

.

.

E

.... .....

a M:i.......... .MS ....... .. MA, X1.

0ii

i

q:.W. gl:

4

-im Kit Aug, 3?;\.-k-2> ma m

m. .

V. IN .. ...

i

.

PLATE III -

j6p 4 Ol -jFi x -"M i"4-p vA

. ... w

PIP go I

iw

wo

M

Ki

THE OLD TOWN FROM THE SOUTH-WEST IN 1930

Traditionalarterialribbon of Upper ClayportStreet on right, with three deep-burgageseries behind it surrou Fringe Belt in backgroundand on left, continuing to right with row houses alongDispensaryStreet and Tower L in foreground.

. .. .

: M'F

...... a ..M ll?? ...... g "k'i W. ......... .... ?n MR:: -20.v'?z:' ....... ...

:X :

X

m

4"OHNIT1?0WW $R'xMx:: -zx

...

xv

..

xi?:

... ... M.

..

m -

WI

am

.

ew: . u . .. . ..

..

UP">2

x

M.

..

W.%M

"

"M

n

A.M

a

.

.

p .

10"

v4 .

d

2.

x

mw?

R.7

Ov

w

;M?l ?M' i. i..S 'N. -?zg

U.S.

.

x

i*r

RU

a?o W

... ... .... W: Mv imm:

-X wi: Z;;

ag

:n

.X, .......... ......... 0: . ........ .... :94 X P ?X?A 60,

Alh? M PLATE IV -

U.

PART OF OUTER ALNWICK FROM THE SOUTH-WEST IN 1926

From front to back: unconsolidatedOuterFringe Belt, modern residentialaccretionsof St. George's Crescen Victorianresidentialaccretions,IntermediateFringeBelt about Alnwick Station and beyond

MEDIEVALAND EARLY MODERNALNWICK

37

burgagespredominatein the westernstreet-blockbut towardsthe east giveway increasinglyto designationsgenerallyindicatingmorerecenttypesof establishment. Thispointsto a parallelto the degreesof plot consolidationindicatedby the boundarieson Wilkin'sMap. Evidentlythe colonizationof the Central Trianglewithhousesproceededgenerallyfromthe westandnorth-westtowards the presentMarketPlace and the south-east. It was perhapsretardedin the angleinsidethe ancientroad fork at the east end of the old marketand on a levelwiththe mainroadfromthe eastby the heaviertrafficthere. Theevidence certainlysuggestsa protractedpiecemealprogresswhich did not reach completionby 1567or evenby 1774. Two instancesillustratethis. The NorthumberlandSurveyof 1586records'a little house lately buildedvpon the Lords Wast and the Queensstreet'characteristically without specifyingany rent.22 This new encroachmenton the highwayandperhapsGreenwellLane(No. 5 in Fig. 6) is mentionednowherein Clarkson'sSurveyand must have originated, therefore,between1567 and 1586. Althoughthe Butchers'Shamblesexisted before1715and are almostcertainlyof medievalorigin,theirrepeatedrebuilding has changedthe size and outlineof the street-blockwhichthey represent. The outlineshownin Figure6 (No. 7) is thatof the buildingandplot erectedby the lord of the manorin 1764. As late as 1826,the blockwasentirelyrebuiltas the 'AssemblyRooms'and considerablyenlargedso that the modernMarket Streetwascompletelyseparatedfromthe MarketPlace. If, therefore,the whole plan-unitwithinthe CentralTrianglecontinuedto developuntilrecenttimes, Mayson'sMap on the other hand shows it alreadyestablishedin its general extent,witha numberof shortrowsof housesparallelor at rightanglesto each other. The impressionis not unlikethat of the stall arrangement on a marketplace. To returnto the evidenceof Clarkson'sSurvey,the half-yearlyrentalsgive additionalmaterialthat supportsthe other evidence(Map C in Fig. 6). The normalrentsfor the ancientburgageswithinthe walledtown payableto the boroughreeverangefrom7d. to 12d.,but most are 8d. or 9d. Theyapplyalso to twenty-oneof the fifty-fourholdingsunderdiscussion.The remaindershow anomaliesthat are very rare among the ancientburgagesof the high-street layout. Theirboroughrentalsare eithersmall (between2d. and 4d.) or altogethernon-existent.Thisreflectsthe initialsmallnessof the propertiesor their incidentaloriginwhichtends to leave them both withouta properrecordof rents and withouta knowntitle. Thus no rents are paid in some cases (nihil quianullain rotulismentio).Someof theseholdingsshowa moredirectrelation to the lord of the manorby payingrentto the castlereeve. In the case of the 'bereHouses'(Nos. 2) this is not surprising,but in the othercasesit suggests buildingon the lord'swaste. The topographicaland the historicalevidencethenpoint to the important conclusion- independentof any hypothesisabouta precedinggreen-village -

that the great Central Triangle of Alnwick was originally a large open space. This was doubtless the ancient market-placeof this border town. In size it may D

MEDIEVALAND EARLY MODERNALNWICK 38 reflectthe requirementsof an earlieragriculturalcommunityon this site, and certainlythose of a regionalcentresuitablyequippedwith space for a large stock market. Certainbuildingsof publicuse madetheirappearanceearlyin this market-place.During the later centuriesof borderwarfare,when the boroughhadbecomea walledtownwitha morefullydevelopedurbancharacter, the restrictedspace within the walls appearsto have put a premiumon the centrallocationof properties.Notwithstandingthe extensionof the built-up area,the increasingpressureon availableopenspaceat thecentreresultedin the gradualfilling-upof the ancienttriangularmarket-place. Thisparticulartypeof secondarygrowthon an alreadyestablishedmarketplace is commonin medievaltowns, especiallythose that were walled. The processmaybe calledmarketcolonization.It impliesan internaladditionto the street-planin thefull sense(i.e. one resultingin the formationof newstreetsand street-blockson the old market-place, and withina previouslydevelopedstreetsystem). The generalnatureand resultof marketcolonizationarewell exhibitedin Alnwick. The centralstreet-blocksdevelopedspontaneouslyfrommoreor less isolatedsmallbuildings,shopsandstallsby slowcoalescenceinto close-grained, compactblocks distinguishableas marketconcretionsfrom the surrounding older street-blocks.Todaytheiraveragebuildingcoverage(i.e. the amountof plot areacoveredby buildingsand expressedas a percentageof the total plot area)rangesfrom85 to 100. Their arrangementcreates a well-definedplan-unitwith small internal streetsservingtodayas occupationroadsor at most as minorshoppingstreets. The wholecomplexof marketconcretionshad to fit into a pre-existingoutline as its morphological frame. It tendedto mouldits overallshapein responseto on the site, therebygivingan instanceof morphorequirements pre-established of this type of plan-unit.This meantfirstthe characteristic logicalconformity of a preservation compactopen areain the middleas a residualmarket-place, thoughits shrinkageinevitablybroughtabout a measureof dispersionof the marketfunction about the CentralTrianglewith attendantspecialization." It also meant the preservationof unimpededfrontageaccess to the ancient burgagesround the triangle,and the fixationof this perimeteras a seriesof Fenkle Street, relativelybroad double-sidedstreets (Bondgate-Narrowgate, MarketStreet)to serveestablishedneedsand rightsof circulation.

TheBoroughExtension The marketconcretionsof the CentralTrianglein Alnwick developed with the highslowlyover a long periodand, so far frombeingcontemporary streetlayoutof the earlierboroughsurrounding them,werein partat leastpostmedieval.Figure5 indicates,however,that therewas in fact anotheraddition to the earlierboroughwhichwas includedin the areasurroundedby the latemedieval town-wall (cf. also Fig. 1). It comprises the Pottergate (Barresdale

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

39

Street)2"and Narrowgate district beyond the Bow Burn and is an early example of a peripheral accretion. Possibly the intramural burgages near the former Clayport Tower belonged to it. The siting of this Pottergate accretion is explained by the fact that of all the three arterialexits from the earlier borough the north-west one offered the most sheltered position between the town and the Bailiffgate suburbium. By incorporatingit within the town-wall, moreover, the obsolete defensive line of the Bow Burn could be exchanged for the more satisfactory line along the present Dispensary Street and Northumberland Street. The new accretion shows marked differencesas well as some similaritiesto the plan of the earlier borough. In it only Narrowgate preservesthe informal curving lines of the older street-plan, whereas Barresdale Street is notably straight even though it ascends a fairly steep slope. Clarkson's Survey records the whole quarter as occupied by burgages and other holdings but, as seen earlier, the process of filling up the Narrowgate end and therebyenclosing the old 'Alien Lane' was only just nearing completion in Elizabethandays. The plot pattern of the Pottergate area supports this general impression. It is markedly asymmetrical, and somewhat different in this respect from the high-street layout of the earlier town. Burgages resemblingthose of the latter in size and general shape form a plot series along the south side of Barresdale Street and seem to represent burgages in the original sense of the term. They differ from the presumably earlier borough burgages to the east only in the greater rectilinearity of their shapes, which accords with their contourwise arrangementand has enabled some of them, in spite of their narrowness, to accommodatetwo rope-walksin the nineteenthcenturyas well as a long straight row of cottages. The only informal element is introduced by the morphological frame of the Bow Burn and affects more particularlythe easternmostburgage which lay right alongside the brook. On the north side of BarresdaleStreet, the holdings are rather squat and comparable to the tenement plots in Bailiffgate, except for the more elongated plots on Narrowgate. All of them, except two on the east side of the latter street, were recorded as burgagesin 1567, but three of the smallest at the corner of the two streets were given as subdivisions of a former burgage. This must have had its house and main frontage on Narrowgate rather than Barresdale Street," thereby emphasizing the importance of Narrowgateas a thoroughfare. Towards the north-west,within the angle of the late-medieval town-wall, the plot pattern appears immature in that land divisions on the site of the ancient highway remained large. The Town-Wall The late-medievaltown-wall, enclosing the high-streetlayout as well as the Pottergate area, has been mentioned repeatedly. Much of its site still forms an important residual feature in the present town plan, although the fabric has long disappeared except for the impressive pile of Bondgate Tower.

40

MEDIEVALAND EARLY MODERNALNWICK

The licencefor fortifyingthe town was grantedonly in the firsthalf of the fifteenthcenturyand the town-wallwas completed,at least on the north-west, west and south sides, in the secondhalf.26 The unusuallylate datemay be as muchtheresultof theinabilityof thetownto payfortheworkas of the sharpening of Anglo-Scottishtensionsin the immediatepre-Tudorperiod. The gates were BondgateTower, Clayport,PottergateTower and, accordingto Tate, NarrowgateTower (Fig. 5). Tate producesno documentaryevidenceof the last-named,and Mayson'sMap is somewhatat variancewith his statements. Nevertheless,in view of the documentaryevidence for the post-medieval datafor the northPottergateTowerandthe structuralas well as documentary westcornerof the wall, the site of the town-wallson the north-westside of the boroughas shownin Fig. 5 may be acceptedat least as a laterversionof the fortification.2' The wall seemsto have servedits purposefor about a century, whenthe unionbetweenEnglandand Scotlandmadeit superfluous.Its decay and partialdismantlingfor buildingpurposesmust have begun earlier. Although Thoresby,travellingthroughAlnwickin 1681, still noticed the 'old wall',28thereis no sign of it on the earliermap in Mayson'sSurvey. Bondgate Tower,ClayportTowerand the 'Pottergate'by the Bow Burnare in fact the onlypartsof the defensiveworksshown. Tate'sPottergateTowerandNarrowgateTowerareconspicuouslyabsentfromthismap. Yet portionsof the wallat Street the north-westcomer on the east side of the presentNorthumberland existedin Tate'stime,andfromwhatfollowsit appearsthatin 1624as wellas in 1774 the town-walland its remainswere treatedcartographically simply as even to have been That the wall seems lines. extensively decayed boundary before1603is suggestedby the fact that in most casesits siteson eitherside of the main gates were apparentlyheld as burgagesin privateoccupation. The fate of the town gatesvaried. NarrowgateTower,if everbuilt as a gatehouse, seemsto havedisappeared first,as thereis no recordof it. The only sitefeature indicativeof the ancientboundarybetweenthe boroughand Bailiffgatehereis the existingslight staggerin the street-lineon the west side of Narrowgate, firstrecordedproperlyon Wilkin'sMap. A PottergateTowerstood on the site of the presentone in 1630whenit cameinto the possessionof the town. "The existingstructurewas built in 1767-78.ClayportTowerwas removedin 1804. however,standstoday as the only remainsof the medieval BondgateTower,"9 fortification. its relativelyshortperiodof use, the town-wallpersisted Notwithstanding for a sufficientlylong timeto markthe urbanfringeof the Old Town,to leave

importantresidual featuresin Alnwick's plan, and to exert some morphological influence beyond that. It divides the great central area of traditional burgage patterns frcm the surrounding areas which have plot patterns generally characteristic of subsequent accretions. Moreover, its site has become the fixation line for a number of peripheralstreets that now form a ring-like system round most of the old borough. The oldest of these consequent streets are the contiguous lines of Hotspur

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

41

Street, Green Batt and Tower Lane. They are first recordedon Mayson's Map, where the eastern part of Green Batt is shown as an open space over 100 feet wide. In the Middle Ages it had been public ground used for the practice of archery.0?Its partial enclosure and the consequent narrowingof the street space to its present dimensions did not begin until the middle of the eighteenth century. After that it provided the space for a number of land-use units with public functions. On Wilkin's Map Hotspur Street is an occupation road leading to Green Batt, while Tower Lane is little more than a footpath crossing obliquely the burgage established here over the site of the town-wall and ditch. Mayson's Map shows neither Dispensary Street nor Northumberland Street. These developed gradually as footpaths, and later as streets, on the site of the town ditch, but from Pottergate southward the site of Dispensary Street was early known as the Arrowbutts, indicating another open space used for archery.31 On the north side of the borough, between Narrowgate and Bondgate Tower, there is no trace of a town-wall, and it is doubtful whether a wall ever existed here, for the castle would probably afford sufficient protection. The O.S. Plans of 1851 and 1864 show the former site of the town-wall on other sides of the borough but not here. The 'probable site' of the wall shown on the O.S. 1/2500 Plans of 1921 along Bondgate is obviously absurd and is supported neither by any historical or archaeological evidence nor, one feels, by anything known of medievaltown plans in general. As the borough appearsto have found it difficultto finance the building of the walls,"3it seems reasonable to assume that no wall was constructedalong the castle moat in the Bow Burnvalley. The gap between the latter and Bondgate Tower, however, is less easily explained, as the greaterdistance from the castle and the surface configurationhere certainly seem to require a wall. If the rear of the ancient burgageswas extended in this part to form the pattern shown on both Wilkin's Map and Mayson's Map, it could be assumed that the wall, when coming into private ownership, was here used as a quarry of dressed building stone. The disappearance of the line marking the old peripheryof the borough could be the more easily understood as there was here no occasion for footpaths or open spaces along the town ditch, since all the land to the north belonged to the demesne and was already shown fully enclosed on Mayson's Map. At all events no traces of structural remains appear to have been found during the continuous gardeningoperations on this site since the middle of last century.33 Walkergate Beyond its town-wall the medieval borough had one built-up area which, though physically detached, was functionally an integral part of it. This was Walkergate(Figs. 5 and 7; also Fig. 1), where the fullers or walkers settled near the river."'The evidence of Mayson's Map and the remains of the late medieval Chantryof St. Mary suggest that the present street occupies much the same site

42 MEDIEVALAND EARLY MODERNALNWICK as its medievalpredecessor,though the actual street space may have been of width. On Mayson'sMapthe streetis subjectto a modernstandardization built-upon both sides,withplots somewhatsimilarto thosein Bailiffgate,and this agreeswith the evidencein Clarkson'sSurveywhich dividesboth street frontagesinto burgageseries. But laterchanges,mainlydemolition,enclosure and associateddepopulation,were so great that alreadyon Wilkin'sMap a CANONGATE AND WALKERGATE A//ClINTmT

CANO#- CATE

SCALE OFFEET

'\

WA

MID-. .

MO"E. "ANDLATErVITORIAN

MODERN

........

COURSE

A1 OFRIVER-ALN

-

ANCIENT FOD - -

-

-

-

MID

AND

LATE

VICTORIAN

-

8TH CENTURY COURSE OF

VE

ALN

MODERN

ANCIENT BRIDGE AND ROAD SPACES

OPEN FRONTAGES, FORMERLY BUILT-UP

7 FIGURE

reconstructionof the supposedmedievalburgageplots is achievedonly with difficulty and is necessarily incomplete. All that can be said with reasonable

certaintyis that the easternhalf of the northside towardsthe rivermusthave was beenthemainareaoccupiedby the fullers. Hereconvenientwater-frontage a followed for river then rear end of each the obtainedat the southerly plot, course throughWalkergateHaugh and was artificiallybraidedto bring the

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

43

water against the rear ends of the plots, as is shown on Mayson's Map and on Thompson's Map of 1760. But here again, subsequentchanges, occasioned by the extensions and improvements of the Duke's parkland, have been great. Altogether, the Walkergate area, although it still contains the remains of the Chantryof St. Mary, is today a districthardly dominatedby residualfeaturesof the Middle Ages. Early Accretions How far medieval Alnwick had any built-up areas outside its gates on the two southern main roads is not clear from historical evidence, though the mention of a burgagein Bondgate 'beyond the tower' in 1483 suggeststhat some dwellings did occur in such position.35 Clarkson'sSurveylists a great numberof 'burgages'which from comparison with subsequent surveys and Wilkin's Map must have occupied both sides of Bondgate 'Without' from Bondgate Tower to Denwick Lane, and similarlyboth sides of Upper Clayport Streetfrom Clayport Tower to the present junction of Clayport Street and Lisburn Terrace (Figs. 1 and 8).36 Intermixed with them were a smaller number of tenements, usually styled 'toft and croft'. Similarly, the northern stretch of Howling Lane just outside Pottergate Tower had a number of burgages on each side of the road.3~ In addition, there were tenements in the fields near Bondgate, but the survey specificallyrefers to their dwellings as abandoned by their holders in favour of houses within the borough.38 Finally, Clayport Bank as far as the present St. Thomas's Farm contained burgageswhich seem to have been all waste and converted into 'riggs' of land (selio).39 Of all these extramuralareas only about half the length of Bondgate Without and a similar stretch on Clayport Street are shown as occupied by buildings and their crofts on Mayson's Map (Fig. 1). The general impression gained from this evidence is that residential occupation of these areasmust have fluctuateda great deal in the period before the seventeenth century. The conditions of borderwarfareand the frequenteconomic difficulties of the town could easily account for this. The restricted extent of built-up frontages shown on Mayson's Map for these roads is certainly in marked contrast to the relevant distributionimplied by the incidence of 'burgages'and 'tofts and crofts' in Clarkson's Survey. It suggests that these terms refer to an earlier, presumablylate-medievalcondition, and even then not all the parcels of land so named were necessarilyoccupied by inhabited buildings at the same time. The extent of houses shown on Mayson's Map was to remain much the same for about another 150 years, except that the frontages of Bondgate Without were graduallyand partly filled with houses up to the junction with Denwick Lane as shown on Thompson's Map of 1760 and Wilkin's Map of 1774. The uncertainty in the interpretation of the earlier evidence also attends any attempt at reconstruction of the old plot boundaries with one exception. The empty burgages and other plots are shown clearly enough on Mayson's Map and there can be little doubt that the existing plot pattern on the north side

44

MEDIEVALAND EARLY MODERNALNWICK

of UpperClayportStreetpreservesthe originalburgageseriesat least as well as the plot boundariesof the old boroughdo in the case of theirs(Fig. 8). Even the existingcoincidenceof street-lineand building-linemaybe regardedat least as latemedieval.Here,then,we havethe earliestformof one of the mostcommon types of plan-unitsresultingfrom peripheralexpansionin towns: the arterialribbon. On the south side of the sameroadreconstruction,thoughnot as easy, is still possiblewith the help of the first O.S. plans. Subsequentdevelopments, however,have effacedthe old plot boundariesexcept for the small area of traditionalcottagesto the west of MonkhouseTerrace. In the case of BondgateWithoutthe task is made more difficultby the original irregularityof the pattern, as well as by considerablechanges in individualplots. Nevertheless,some existingplot boundarieshere correspond to those shownon Mayson'sMap. Finally, a reconstructionof plot boundariesto the west of Pottergate Toweris impossible.Mayson'sMap alreadylacks the necessaryinformation, andthepresentlandscapecontainsno residuefromtheseearliertimesexceptthe streetspaceof HowlingLane. Canongate The onlybuilt-upareaof the MiddleAgeswhichremainsto be discussedis Canongate,ancientlyforminga settlementseparatefrom Alnwickand Bailiffgate(Figs. 1, 3 and7)."oIt was a manorbelongingto AlnwickAbbey,separated fromit by the Aln. The closetopographicalrelationnormallyfoundbetweena pre-urbannucleussuch as a castle or monasteryand the tradingsettlement positionwasthereforeabsent. Canongate developingunderits gatein suburbium the of street the (the Canons)grewalong roadfromthe Abbeyto St. Michael's Churchand Alnwick. The ford acrossthe Aln lay at some distancefrom the monasteryin a northwardmeanderloop. The physicalseparationof the little manorialmarketsettlementfromits abbeymayhavebeendictatedas muchby that the southside of the river,withits risingslope this as by the circumstance towardsAlnwickandthe regionalrouteways,gavemoreroomfor development. Growthduringthe MiddleAges was verymodestand was no doubthampered by the rise of Alnwick. Though separategilds developedin Canongate,its marketremainedsmalland appearsto havehad no formativeinfluenceon the earlierplan otherthan a smallwideningof the singlestreetnearthe river. At the time of the Dissolution of Monasteriesthe manor containedthirty-six burgages, besides two copyholds. The reconstruction of their boundaries, as

indeedof the full medievalplan, is not easy (Fig. 7). Mayson'sMap, being chieflyconcernedwithAlnwick,showsCanongatesimplyas a singlelongrow of houses on the east side of the street without any plot pattern whatever. The latter appears first on Thompson's Map, and more reliably on Wilkin's Map. By that time both sides of the street were built up with cottages in row formation

45

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

BONDGATEWITHOUTAND UPPERCLAYPORT STREET . ..

...

-

......

' .% I

.

**

0*

*. .

-

....*.

I

CLIVE TERRACE

; o.*.*0

-

4e

.

.

"

00

Z

GROVE TERRACE

3

VICTORIAPLACE

4

FISH. TACKLE FACTORY

15"

MEETING HOUSE(1774), MIL.DER (1827), CINEMA (19.5)

t6

METHODIST CHAPEL

0"0

S..

N0

8

%

ALLISONPLACE

EXISTING ROADS

AND PLOT BOUNDARIES:

" ONAE

PRE-GEORGIAN 0

GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN

HID-AND

LATE VICTORIAN

MODERN

EXISTING BUILDING FRONTAGES

-,, r -irt

I-*Q\

WAYSIDEGREEN

SCALE 0 =:4 i,

[

OF FEET 500 1

FIGURE 8

I

1000 J

, t

,

46

MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN ALNWICK

and the patternhad alreadysufferedconsiderablealterations. However, part of the east side showing plots comparablein characterto the burgagesin Clayport Street outside Clayport Tower survives as the medieval residue of Canongate though its building arrangement has changed in some cases. Elsewhere in Canongate amalgamation had proceeded far in the eighteenth century. The remaining strip-plots on the west side of the street are so straight on Wilkin's Map as to suggest either that the west side was altogether of recent development, which would agree with Mayson's Map, or that it had been subject to an extensive refashioning of plots. The Fields of Alnwick Beyond the built-up area of medieval and early modern Alnwick lay the open countryside, containing the borough fields with their field lanes and the ancient common land of Aydon Forest or Alnwick Moor, as well as the lord's demesne. The medievalfield system of the town is of interestin its own right and together with the field systems of Northumberlandin generaldeservesa separate investigation. For the purpose of this study it is sufficient to note only the conditions of ownership and enclosure in so far as they influenced the further expansion of Alnwick's built-up area. Mayson's Map shows the traditional system already modified (Fig. 9). About half of the fields were then enclosed. Over the remainderthe map indicates a pattern of furlongs and rigs in which the lord of the manor had his strips intermingled with those of the burgesses and tenants. This open-field area lay to the south-eastof the town, betweenthe riverand the southernboundary of the manor, and mainly on the sandy drift. Most of the boulder clay towards the eastern extremity of the manor already showed fairly large closes (cf. Figs. 9 and 3). The main areas of enclosed fields lay to the south of the town, chiefly on boulder clay and on the sandstone, whinstone and limestone of the Alnwick Ridge, and on the boulder clay and the sandy drift to the west of the town. The largest enclosures in fact were located in this area and comprised demesne lands and lands that had earlier belonged to Alnwick Abbey.41 Already in 1624 enclosed demesne land dominated the picture to the north and west of the town, and in the south-east at a little distance from Bondgate Without, whereasthe south-west and, even nearerto the old borough, the south was all enclosed land in the hands of freeholders. This situation persisted in subsequent periods and meant that in the earlier stages of modern growth the town found it easiest to expand southward. As Tate noted, the land of owners willing to sell for building purposes, particularly the smaller enclosures, lay

mainlyon this side.42

Figure 9 shows the development of the field pattern43as well as those elements that have survived as residues in the present plan. From a comparison with Figures 1 and 21 a fact of general significance emerges. At successive stages the field pattern surroundingthe Old Town appearsas a formative factor

FIGURE9-The

fields of Alnwick.

1 Boundariesfrom before 1620, not now existing Existingboundaries,dating from the period: 2 before 1620 3 1620-1760 4 1760-1866 5 1866-1897 6 after 1897 Land held in intermixedstrips by the lord of the manor and other holdersin 1620, thereafterheld in closes by: 7 the lord of the manor in 1760 and 1846 the lord of the manor in 1760, and various owners in 1846 8 9 various ownersin 1760, and the lord of the manor in 1846 10 various ownersin 1760 and 1846 Land held in closes by: 11 the lord of the manor in 1620, 1760 and 1846 the lord of the manor in 1620 and 1760, and other ownersin 1846 12 13 the lord of the manor in 1620, and other ownersin 1760 and 1846 14 various owners in 1620, and the lord of the manor in 1760 and 1846 15 various owners in 1620 and 1760, and the lord of the manor in 1846 16 various owners in 1620 and 1846, and the lord of the manor in 1760 17 holders other than the lord of the manor since before 1620 18 holders other than the lord of the manor since before 1620, but held by PrideauxSelby, Esq. in 1846

THE

FIEL

--

,;4

I

•

1 CASTL FCLOSE I

E\O

%:L:AR

A

NoA.TM

.

.....•

SO

NORTHERMOS

I

II

-

Vs

12

._i \SNN

\

?

S 5

S

MSIDE0

TH .

F

- ---THOMAS ............

--• .... .

I . L. .?W

?. ?.

S?

0

OON

.

.E.I

.

_ .-

: ----"

7

.

.

.

..O//.. ./ .

...\. .LL

". ...ORTHERMO COLUMNHILL

.

... STO'MIE .

'.

.

HILL LA.

"

LACKLEY-CLOS SUTH CLOS MLANDDIN

STEAD

'

1NEWDAIL

IS

C ZWPJ

EL

"IELDS 0

ALNWICK

OF 13

7

8

AT NAMES DIFFERENT DATES T 14 FIELD

-

SHOWN THUS :-

15s

S9

1620

GOOSE

FLAT

16

1760- (CROSS FLATS)

II

17

1846 - wesr CROFT

12

18

7 10 i o

OF

SCALE 500

0

FEET 1500

I000

I•

I.

2000

I

I

6

ESLEYSIDE HAVR

,,

BANK SN,

A

-ICLOSE

NG

SIDE/

////I, /

/

X.4 "A

"/

E,

/

IC

; ,R

/WIE/

/00

LO

•NGNl AT.?? //,,////•c~

VY

IE

'%f

D//DE"/

Z ' 00

7<.r/1 E?EAS

or

YIN

--

.V

/ /I / LA ? /LEY /e ,-/-"•,W

,4LL ;AN

tN

/i"

+-Nor///

I?(V

7-E

S?

/k~~~~~ / I?~~/4l~iE / /

/- 7

'WINDES

G

Kj

-- -

RIST

-,Bo~

L

MES?

-e

HOR

0

~TA

LE

'F

FIGURE9

MEDIEVALAND EARLY MODERNALNWICK

47

in the evolution of the street-plan. It serves as a guiding framework for subsequent development,determiningthe topographicaldetail of later plan features. Its field lanes tend to become minor traffic streets or major dwelling streets of new built-up areas, and its field boundaries to define the actual limits of later plan-units. In short, the field pattern serves as a morphological frame for subsequent urban growth, a common phenomenon in urban geography."4 REFERENCES

xThe position of the medievalbridgehas been plotted on the basis of Mayson'sMap, 1622, and

Thompson's Map, 1760. 2 MAWER,op. cit., 237. 3 4

The medievalcastle in Figure 5 is based on TATE,op. cit., vol. i, plate iv, fig. 2, and 85-6, 253. TATE, op. cit., vol. i, 84, 117-18, 134.

5 Clarkson's Survey, 1567, fols. 43, 44, 46. TATE, op. cit., vol. i, 135.

6

7 8

Ibid., vol. i, 448; vol. ii, 366.

R. E. DICKINSON, op. cit., 345, 360, 369, 404. E. J. SIEDLER,Miirkischer Stiidtebau im Mittelalter (1914), 12. Cf. also E. ENNEN,Friihgeschichte der europdischen Stadt (1953), 124. 9 TATE, op. cit., vol.

10

Ibid., vol. i, 87.

i, app. i.

14

Ibid., vol. i, 86, 93, 149. Ibid., app. iii and iv. Ibid., vol. i, 249-50, 312, 319; vol. ii, 321-49. Ibid., vol. i, 245, 247.

15

Clarkson's Survey, 1567, fol. 24. For the meaning of burgagium vide J. TAIT, The medieval

11 12 13

Englishborough(1936), 99, n. 7, 106-7; forfirma burgi,ibid., chaptervii. 16 Street differentiationlike many other details of medieval urban morphology received -arly attentionfrom investigatorson the Continent. The latterevolved the first terminologyof functional street types, especiallyin the area of medieval German colonization which provided a particularly good field of observation in this respect. Cf. CH. KLAIBER,Die Grundrissbildungder deutschen Stadt im Mittelalter (1912), 49-52; SIEDLER, op. cit., 46-56; DICKINSON, op. cit., 316, 479. 17 TATE, op. cit., vol. ii, 71 f.n., 286-7. 18 So called in the Survey of Northumberland, 1586, fol. 37.

19 SIEDLER, op. cit., 60, cites the cases of Soldin and Sprembergin easternGermany. Examplesof comparablefrontagesoccurin Sauveterrede Guienneand Valenced'Agen. Cf. T. F. TOUT,Medieval townplanning(1934), 20. For the best known example (Bern), cf. H. STRAHM, 'Der zahringische

Griindungsplan der Stadt Bern', Archiv des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Bern, 39 (1948), 361ff. 20 HUGH BRAUN, An introduction to English medieval architecture (1951), 70-1. 21 TATE, op. cit., vol. i, 245. 22 Survey of Northumberland, 1586, fol. 26. 23 TATE, op. cit., vol. i, 450-2.

24 Before the survey of 1586 Pottergatebore the name BarresdaleStreet, because it led along 'Hooling Lane' (1677) to the 'Burndales'(Mayson's Survey, 1624) or 'Barresdale',the area now occupied by BarndaleRiggs, BarndaleHouse and BarndaleCottage. Cf. TATE,op. cit., vol. ii, 366. 25 26

Clarkson's Survey, 1567, fol. 42.

TATE,op. cit., vol. i, 236-44, app. iv; vol. ii, app. vii.

Cf. also Clarkson's Survey, 1567, fol. 44. TATE,op. cit., vol. i, 244. Now popularly, though erroneously, referred to as Hotspur Tower. Cf. TATE, op. cit., vol. i, 241. 30 Ibid., vol. ii, 283. 31 Ibid., vol. ii, 283. 27

28 29

Ibid., vol. ii, app. vii. Informationkindly suppliedby the Duke of Northumberland'shead gardener. "4 TATE, op. cit., vol. i, 101, 245; vol. ii, 366.

32

33

48

MEDIEVALAND EARLY MODERNALNWICK 31Ibid., vol. i, 245.

36

Clarkson's Survey, 1567, fols. 13, 14, 30-2, 35-8. 37Ibid., fols. 40-5. 38 Ibid., fols. 19-21.

39Ibid., fols. 36-7. TATE, op. cit., vol. i, 245, 337, 449; vol. ii, 367-8. 41 Ibid., vol. ii, 391. 42 Ibid., vol. ii, 369. 40

43 44

Based on Mayson's Map, 1624, Thompson's Map, 1760, and the Tithe Map, 1846.

The case of Nottingham, representativeof many others, is illustratedin W. G.

HOSKINS,

The

A century of Nottingham history, making of the English landscape (1955), 216-23, after J. D. CHAMBERS, 1851-1951, and Modern Nottingham in the making (1945).

CHAPTER 6 LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK Economicand Social Development A COMPARISON of Mayson's Map with those of Thompson and Wilkin shows that the physical growth of Alnwick from 1625 to 1775 was almost negligible. It was practically confined to a consolidation of the two arterial ribbons, a filling up of the western end of Bailiffgate North Row, and the addition of Canongate West Row. The picture is one of relative stagnation. Yet the economic life of the town, like that of the countryside around it, functioned normally, and benefited from the cessation of border warfare and the advent of greater public security. Coupled with this were the improvements made partly by the governing body of the town (the four chamberlainsand the Fourand-Twenty or Common Council), and partly by the Dukes of Northumberland. But before agriculturalimprovement was fully under way and its force could be felt in the Northumbrian countryside, the economic resources of the region set a limit to the further development of its market town. Alnwick was too far away from the coalfieldto come within the orbit of the industrialdevelopment there. On the other hand, the advent of the turnpike roads enhanced Alnwick's situation as a major stage on the Great North Road, at its junction with the Hexham-Alnmouth Turnpike. The choice of Alnwick Castle by the first Duke of Northumberlandas his residence was also of economic benefit to the town in various ways, though the Duke's presence involved him in a protracted strugglewith the corporationconcerningthe manorial rights in Alnwick Moor. Up to c. 1775 changes in the fabric of the town had been moderate, but the period between then and 1851 saw much building. It took the form of more extensive replacementswithin the old built-up area as well as of new plan-units on the outskirts, and it reflectedthe quickening pace of economic development (Figs. 1, 10-13). The population of Alnwick parish increased from less than 5000 in 1801 to nearly 6000 in 1821 and more than 7000 in 1851, of whom 6400 resided in Alnwick with Canongate townships. The developmentof agriculture and of communications was responsible. The new turnpike roads revivified places like Alnwick.' The Great North Road had already been a post-road in the seventeenth century and became a turnpike road in 1741. The road from Hexham to Alnmouth via Rothbury and Alnwick was turnpiked in 1753-54and the route from Alnwick to Haggerston via Canongate and Eglingham during the years 1824-26. The records of the various gilds in Alnwick bear witness to the continued diversity of economic activities. The meeting-place of some of these incorporated trades was for some time in Clayport Tower until the new Town Hall was erected in the Market." Among the ten companies the merchantswere still 49

50

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

the most important, followed by the tanners, which indicated the traditional importance of the leather trade. Early in the nineteenth centuryfour breweries were producing on a large scale.3 The increasingtraffic passing through the town on the new turnpikeroads brought good business to a number of inns. In Bondgate the White Swan (Figs. 10, 11, 12) was the largest of all, having then alreadyincreasedits frontage by the amalgamation of two of the ancient burgages. It was the post-stage of the town. In Fenkle Streetwere other hostelries,the Angel and the Griffin(now Nag's Head). Bondgate Without, Narrowgate and Bailiffgate had other hostelries.4

As a service centre, however, Alnwick was not of high rank.5 Though in 1822 still nominally a county town with a monthly county-court,it had to share the Quarter Sessions with Newcastle, Morpeth and Hexham and enjoyed none of the distinctions and privileges of a county town. It merely provided the venue for the election of Members of Parliament and of the county coroners. It had no banking-housesof its own. On the other hand it was an established local market town with large cattle markets. The moderatebut increasingmeasureof prosperitybroughtabout a number of improvements, partly expressing the social life and cultural aspirations of the community in the manner of the period, partly calculated to increase the material well-being of the town as a whole. In the aggregate their effect on Alnwick's townscape was considerable. Among the institutions gaining gradually more importance were schools supported by the town or by private charity.6 Between 1630 and 1854 half a dozen schools of general importance were founded in the town. The first mention of a workhouse in 1785 and subsequentprovisions for its accommodation in new buildings shows the effort to meet social needs in another direction, especially with the reorganization of poor relief in the new Poor-Law Unions after 1834.' Similarly,Alnwick saw the institution of a new Correction House (1807), a Court-House (1856), and a Dispensary, the later Alnwick Infirmary,founded in 1815.* The increase of workmen in Alnwick's industries is indicated indirectly and the social efforts to improve their opportunities directly by two foundations: the Savings Bank establishedin 1816, and the Mechanics Institute inauguratedin 1824.9 In the same period the Alnwick Theatre was built. The religious life of the period with its sectarianismwas representedby the building of fourteen chapels, of which about half a dozen survive today.'x Finally, the third Duke of Northumberlandbuilt the large St. Paul's Churchto the south of Green Batt in 1846.11 Among the physical improvements effected during the Late Georgian period were the erection of a gasworks (1825), the improvement of the water supply,12 and the paving of the main streets.'"

A new town hall was built in 1736, after the old 'bere Houses' were pulled down and a suitable central site thus provided. Among other property rebuilt or

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

51

newly erected by the chamberlains of the town was the Pottergate Tower (1767-68) and the new fire-engine house (1811)." The replacement of the Shambles by the Dukes of Northumberland in 1764 and again in 1826 as the new 'Assembly Rooms' has already been noted. The Assembly Rooms indicate something of the importanceof Alnwick as a social centre for the county gentry in the eighteenth century. This was also reflectedin an appreciableamount of rebuilding,replacingearliermore humble dwellings with new town houses. Bailiffgate House and Bondgate Hall (rebuilt c. 1810)'~are more notable examples. Whereas the changes so far discussed were more directly and organically connected with the life of the market town, others affected the town plan of Alnwick in quite a different way. The first Duke of Northumberland made Alnwick Castle his chief residence"6and carriedout considerablerenovation and extension of the castle between 1766 and 1769, though the general features of its medieval layout were preserved. Furthermore,the Duke embarked on an ambitious scheme of park developmentin the neighbourhood of Alnwick, so as to provide a fit and proper setting for the residenceof a great peer in accordance with the landscapingfashion of the time. The scarplandcountry round Alnwick with its magnificent views to the Cheviots, to Scotland, and to the sea gave excellent scope, especially in and about the gorge stretch of the Aln valley, and was soon to become a newly created Hulne Park. In Lancelot Brown, himself a Northumbrian,the Duke found one of the foremost designersin the new style who put the new ideas into practice on his estate. The work went on from the middle of the eighteenth century to the Duke's death in 1786 and was continued by his successors until after the middle of the nineteenth century.'7 These activities affected the physical growth of Alnwick in three ways. First, they consolidated the land held by the Percy family on the north side of the town and extended it over most of the area of Canongate, Walkergate,Bailiffgate, the rear of the ancient burgages on the north side of Bondgate, and virtually all the land on the north side of Bondgate Without as well as the present Denwick Lane (Fig. 9). This resulted in great changes within the builtup area of these parts and stopped the expansion of the town in that direction (Fig. 1). Secondly, they involved important alterations in the road system on the whole north side of Alnwick, aided by successive river floods which destroyed the old bridgesand led to their rebuildingon new sites. Thirdly,Alnwick was deprived of the economic advantage of a situation on a main railway line, since the efforts of the third Duke to keep the Newcastle and Berwickline away from his parklands caused the line to be sited three miles to the east in 1847. The town was connected with it only by a branch line (1850) reaching as far as the south-easterntip of the built-up area.'" The old road to Denwick from Bondgate Tower via Allerburn Lane past Barnardsideto the present Denwick Lane (Figs. 1 and 9) was closed and replaced by the present one along Fisher Lane and the old cattle drove following the Aller Burn northward.'"The existing Denwick Bridge was built at the same

52

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

time. The other major road deviation concerned the ancient Eglingham Road. Canongate Manor had been bought by the first Duke in 1765 and nearly all the remainderof the original possessions of Alnwick Abbey in the district came to the Percy family before the middle of the nineteenth century.20The resulting gradual enclosure of Canongate Common was matched by the restrictionof the old drove-road of Ratten Row until the ancient Eglingham Road was finally closed by Act of Parliamentin 1826. The third Duke contributedlargely to the new Eglingham turnpike road, which branched from the middle of Canongate on its west side where a number of burgageshad been pulled down, crossed the new Canongate Bridge over the Aln (Fig. 7) and, passing close by the site of Alnwick Abbey, ascended the plateau in a northerly direction to avoid the depth of the Aln gorge. The Great North Road experiencedonly a small deviation from its medievalline, occasioned by a flood in 1770when the ancient bridge below the castle was destroyed and was entirely rebuilt three years later some 100 feet or so higher up the river as the present Lion Bridge.21 It came, therefore, more in line with the Peth (Fig. 7). Besides these changes, the open space immediately around the castle was enlarged by truncation of the ancient burgages on the north side of Bondgate (Figs. 5 and 11, also 1 and 9). The area gained in this way was embanked and planted so as to screen it from outside view and to provide a landscape setting on this side. To the north of Bondgate Without the area of the Goose Knows, also acquiredfrom various owners, was laid out as a large formal gardenduring the course of the nineteenth century. Similarly, many of the old burgages in the Walkergate area were incorporated in the park grounds and their houses pulled down (Figs. 7 and 9). The Structureand Expansionof the Built-upArea in General In the development of Alnwick's town plan the changes just described caused a certainatrophy of the built-up area in its northernextremity,notably in Canongate and Walkergate, and a permanent exclusion of land here from the normal operation of the propertymarket. In the west and south-west the West Demesne, most of St. Thomas's Field, and the Swansfieldestate, all backed by the ancient common of Alnwick Moor, imposed conditions almost as stringent. The distribution of landownershipsin 1760 and 1846 gives some idea of the position round Alnwick (Fig. 9). By about 1825, when the expansion of the town began, the greater degree of subdivision of ownerships on the south side provided virtually the only outlet for Alnwick's growth in terms of smaller houses and complete layouts, whereas a stationary and indeed recessive town fringe was established on the north side from Denwick Lane to the West Desmesne (Figs. 1 and 9). This excentricdevelopmentis a feature of Alnwick's growth that has lasted till modern times, modified only partly by recent extensions in the west and east. During the Georgian period only the erection of larger houses around the

53

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

Old Town was less affected by this rule. In the immediateenvirons of Alnwick, often in more or less direct contact with the fringe of its built-up area, a number of larger residences were built on desirable open sites within their own ornamental grounds. They bore witness to the presence of prosperous tradesmen and influentialpeople who owned land in various parts on the outskirts or else were able to obtain more favourablesites from largerlandowners. Of these new residences, Swansfield House in the south-west was the earliest, recorded already on Armstrong'sMap of 1769. The expansion of the town during the Later Georgian and Early Victorian period was the first substantialdevelopment outside the Old Town and calls for a general appraisal of plan structureand forms of growth. The contrast between composite kernel and accretionshas been mentioned previously. The seven constituent plan-units of the Old Town established before 1620were affecteddifferentiallyby processes of filling up and of substitution withifi a frameworkof traditional outlines, except in the north, where they suffered actual contraction. On the other hand, the accretionsrepresentsuccessive new additions to the built-up area and are plan-units of new type. In some respect they had their forerunnersin the two arterialribbons of the pre-Georgianperiod. In terms of land use they were of mixed character,including some industries,public utilities and community buildings. Residences, however, predominated in area as well as in the number of individualplots, and provide the most significantbasis for a quantitative comparison over successive periods. TABLEII Residential Development outside the Old Town, c. 1750-1956 Area

Houses Period

Number

c. 1750-1851

155

1851-1875 1875-1897 1897-1914

Acreage

% of total

Average gross density*

9.26

36.49

17.46

4.3

47 110 192

2.82 6.56 11.50

10.98 15.19 37.82

5.27 7.28 18.08

4.3 7.2 5.1

1918-1939 1945-1956

655 514

39.15 30.71

56.55 51.76

27.13 24.78

11.6 9.9

c. 1750-1956

1673

100.00

208.79

100.00

8.0

% of total

* Residential roads. areaincluding of housesperacreof built-up grossdensity= number Table II illustrates the development of the last two hundred years and its steadily increasingrate. Relevant factors are the modest growth of population E

54

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

during the AgriculturalRevolution and the steady filling-upof the old borough area. The low averagegross density for the first hundredyears is partly due to a characteristicprominence of large houses in their own grounds, but it conceals great contrasts in building development. Table III shows these in terms of individualplan-units and together with similar tables for the later periods provides a basis for the quantitativestudy of residentialaccretions. TABLEIII Residential Development outside the Old Town, c. 1750-1851 Ref. to Fig. 21

Area (Plan-unit)

Pts. 27

HotspurStreet- Hotspur

Pt. 40

Croft Place (pt.)

Pts.41

Pt. 35 Pt. 35 38 Pt. 37 31 Pt. 23 98 Pt. 23 Pt. 26 Pt. 52 101 56 62 129

P1.(pt.)

Date

Number of houses

Howick Street (N. side) (Fig. 15f) South Street(Fig. 15a) PercyT.- PrudhoeStreet West (pt.) Grosvenor T. - Clive T. DispensaryCottage BelvedereT. (Fig. 15h) Barndale House and Cottage GreenbattCottage Clive House and Cottage* Alnbank-Freelands Bellevue* Croft House* SwansfieldHouse* (Fig. 15g)

Gross density

1774-1851

34

0.95

35.7

1827-1851

5

0.14

35.7

1827-1851

37

1827-1851

27

1.57

11

1.60

13

Howick Street(S. side, pt.) (Fig. 15f)

Acreage

1827-1851 1774-1851 1774-1827

1

66.3

36 12 23.1% 13J

1.49

.3

11.3

24.8

17.1 6.9

L 5.55

1.80 15.1% 2.15J

6.7 6.1

1774-1827 1827-1851

1 5

0.30' 1.63

3.3 3.1

1774-1851 1827-1851 1774-1851 1827-1851 1774-1827 1774-1827

2 1 2 16 2 10 1 1

1.37 0.77 26.79 51.83 7367 5.13 73.6% 4.23 4.61

1.5 1.3 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.2

pre-1769

1

6.92

0.1

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT c.1750-1851 100% 4.3 155)100% 36.49) In Tables III, V, VI, VII, X and XI the readeris referredto Figure21 for the location of planunits and to Figures 15 and 19 for specimenplans. * In the case of large houses, subsidiary dwellingssuch as gate lodges, coachmen'shouses, etc., have been disregardedfor the purpose of densitycalculation.

To allow the density features of Late Georgian development to be seen against the backgroundof Alnwick's subsequentexpansions, Table IV gives the comparison with later periods for which separate development tables are produced in later chapters. On the basis of gross densities residentialdevelopment can be conventionally divided into groups and classes by certain density limits at which the

55

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

TABLE IV

Incidence of Residential Gross Densities outside the Old Town, c. 1750-1956 Gross density Groups Classes

c. 1750-1851 (Table III)

1851-1875 1875-1897 1897-1914 1918-1939 1945-1956 (Table V) (Table VI) (Table VII) (Table X) (Table XI)

Limits

XI D

41.5 --40-

X

35.7 twice -30-

IX C

24.8

28.5

25.0 twice

20.8

19.2 18.0

22-

--

___

19.8

VIII

-

. .-

17.1

16-

__ --_-____

15.7

15.1 13.7 13.3

-12-

17.6 __

14.3 VII

____

14.7 14.5 14.4 14.2 12.8 12.4 12.0

14.1 12.9

-_

11.1 B

10.7 10.5 VI 9.1

9.0

10.2 9.4 8.5

11.4 10.7 twice 10.6 10.0 9.8 8.0 twice

-86.9 6.7 6.1

6.7 6.1

V

5.1 4.8 4.5

5.3 5.0

7.4 6.1 5.5 5.1 4.6 4.2

"--4--. IV

3.8 3.6

3.3 3.1

3.0 2.1

2.1

3.6 3.2 twice 3.1 2.4

____*-2-

1.5 1.3 1.1

III A

1.8

1.5 1.2 twice

______*-1-.

0.9

II

0.5

0.8 0.6

0.2

0.2

-0.5I

0.4 0.2 twice 0.1

0.3

56

LATER GEORGIANAND EARLY VICTORIANALNWICK

development tends to change its general characteras well as its morphological features. The groups are: A - Low densities B - Medium densities C - High densities D - Very high densities They can be subdividedinto classes I-XI as shown in Table IV. Two prominent traits of Georgian development are its great range of densities and the complete lack of representativesin classes VI and VII, i.e. the medium densities around the modem standardlimit of twelve houses per acre. Both features in fact emphasize the contrasting picture which opposes the low densities of the larger country houses and the lower medium densities of 'respectable'residential development on the edge of the town to the high and very high densities of artisans' and labourers' dwellings. The gulf is explained by the great disparity of income levels in Georgian society and by the total absence of public control over the design and layout of working-classhousing. The limited extent of high-densityhousing shown in Table III is due to the very modest industrial development of Alnwick during this period and to the fact that simultaneously with the expansion at the edge of the built-up area, artisan housing increased inside the Old Town. This draws attention to the diversity of growth occurring in the differentparts of Alnwick which will now be considered in turn. Fringe-beltDevelopment Wilkin's Map of 1774 and the contemporary manorial surveys show the plan of the old borough at a stage of its developmentlittle differentfrom that in the late Middle Ages (Fig. 10). A relatively recent right of way, the 'Church Path' following the line of the former town-wall from Clayport to the church, and some replacementof older cottages in the centre by larger Georgian town houses, are obvious changes. A more significant development, however, is shown in the case of some burgages, the tail-ends of which have been cut off to form new derivativeplots with their own dominants, generally smaller than the residual parent plots. They may be distinguishedas tail-endplots and adjoin the ChurchPath, Tower Lane and Green Batt. In other words, a new colonization of burgagegarths has begun at those tail-endswherean access lane to give separatefrontagesis already available. Together with other new plots on or adjoiningthe same right of way they represent a characteristicallyvaried assortment of land-use units. These are typical late-comersin the town plan, either houses - often small - occupied by people who hold no ancient burgages, or new institutions, or indeed industrial land occupied by activitiesthat need more space than is availablein a more central position.

57

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

ALNWICKOLD TOWNAND INNERFRINGEBELTIN 1774 0

p

0 0

0

0

SCALE OF FEET

0MICHAEL 0 GQ(O(D00Q0000 i

CHURCH0

0

0 0(00

,

500

0o0

0

MICHAEL0

S

0

O

O

0

0

000 00000

0

0

0

0

O

0

00

0 0

0

0 0

S0

LITTLEPOTTERGA

CLOJE AIAS

CASTL

TOWER TOWERE SCHOOL

SALLESBURY LAND (FORMERLY SO CALLED

9 SCHOOL SMEETING-HOUSE

HOUSE

4

. TON1

r4

12 13

4

TOW

9

E

G g

BUILDINGS

REEN

GA?DE

OF

TRADITIONAL

Barr

r

SITING

FIGURE10

AND/OR

BLOCK

PLAN

0o

Do

THE SOUAR TOWER LANE

a

0

0

0

PERIPHERAL OPEN % SPACES 4

** .

0

:.

(0 POT TRGATE

0 0

HALL

58

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

An essential accompaniment of this process is the gradual transformation of the continuous open space outside the line of the town-wall into a ring road. This becomes the 'locus', the backbone for the new plot development. Green Batt, Tower Lane and the later Hotspur Street existed as roads in 1624. Soon after, the stretchbetween St. Michael's Churchand Clayportdeveloped into the 'Church Path'. It is shown on Wilkin's Map running through only partially enclosed waste, but a plan of 181522 shows the stretchbetweenthe Bow Burn and Pottergate Tower fully defined by enclosed land as the 'Back Lane', and the whole length appears as a road on Wood's Plan of 1827. Similarly,Northumberland Street began as part of the Church Path but had become a properroad by the time of the first Ordnance Survey Plans of 1851. Only in the short stretch between NorthumberlandStreet and Narrowgate along the back fence of the tenement plots in Bailiffgate did the ancient town-wall not become an active fixation line with its consequentroad. The growth of the Narrowgate burgages here before 1567 had alreadyprecludedthe development which might otherwise have been expected. On Wood's Map of 1827, the process associated with this fixation line is seen taken a stage further. It is intensifiedand affects the fringe of the medieval town more generally (Fig. 11). Industrialsites have increased in number, their distribution still emphasizing their earlier concentration about the old confluence site of the Bow Burn or Stonewell area. Here even tail-end plots of some Fenkle Street burgages are affected because of the medieval layout and its resulting system of occupation lanes. Elsewherealong this fixation line institutional buildings have become numerous as have houses. The Ordnance Survey Plans of 1851 show a still furtherstage (Fig. 12). On the borough side of the fixation line development has now practically reached saturation, but on the other side are a numberof new accretionsin the form of institutions and large houses. Thus, a belt-like distribution of land-use units which for one reason or another seek peripherallocation has appeared. It presents a distinctive group, including certain industries,institutions, community services, small houses, and further out isolated larger houses as well as open spaces. They are all topographically associated with town fringes, especially those of longer duration and sharper definition such as old lines of fortification. This phenomenon, of which Alnwick by 1851 furnished a small and not yet consolidated example, is frequently met in urban morphology where towns show more or less annular growth from a compact centre. It was first defined by H. Louis as the urban fringe belt (Stadtrandzone)23and, although geographicallymore prominent in the pattern of urban land use, it is of equal importancein town-plan structure. The example of Alnwick, however, enables us to take the concept of the fringe belt a stage further by recognizing two differentparts separatedby the fixation line, in this case the line of the former town-wall and its consequent streets. On the borough side, the intramural fringe zone or for short the intramuralis associated with secondary building development on tail-end plots within an

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

59

already established plan-unit. A generally smaller, more compact plan 'grain' depending on the pre-existing burgage pattern as its frame is a distinctive feature here. The extramural, on the other hand, has developed by way of accretion with greater freedom of space in the wider frame of an earlier field pattern. It differsfrom its intramuralcounterpartin the generallylarger size of plots and more open arrangement. The whole fringe belt appears then as a continuous contact zone between the area of filling-up or repletioninside the borough and the area of accretionoutside. It belongs to both, divided morphologically but united functionally by its fixation line on which the plots are orientated for their major access and which has ensured its extent as an unbroken ring zone. It may be called a closedfringe belt, and as a geographical unit of Alnwick it forms the InnerFringe Belt. From the beginning, the extramural also encircled the Old Town on the north side although the town-wall was absent. Here Alnwick Castle and its grounds are, of course, much the largest and most dominant fringe feature. During the Georgian period the park increased at the expense of the old borough and by 1851extendedround the north-eastside along the old Allerburn Lane within a few yards of Bondgate Tower and Bondgate Without. In the north-west St. Michael's Church and its churchyardrepresentsanother ancient unit of the extramural. Here the physical separateness of Canongate and Walkergatefrom the rest of the town has always been evident. Already before 1850 the new gasworks consolidated the Inner Fringe Belt as a zone separating Canongate and Bailiffgate. Between the church and the Peth near the castle the closes bounding the Bailiffgatearea on its north side, and recordedin all the manorial surveys as Hunter's Croft, came into the possession of the Dukes of Northumberlandduring the eighteenth century. They have been preservedand complete the extramuralof the town on this side. One phenomenon connected with the extramuralis of special interest. In the south the Howick Street area is a complete plan-unit that does not form part of the fringe belt. Yet in its northernpart, which developed between 1827 and 1851, it shows traits that differfrom those of the rest of the unit and can be explained only as fringe-belt features (Figs. 12 and 15f). The part nearest to Green Batt is dominated by rather large plots. These represent an early nineteenth-centurytannery(1 in Fig. 15f) and Grove Cottage (2) both of which antedate the Howick Street plan-unit, a coach factory (3) and immediately to the east of it the Mechanics Institute, both of which formed part and parcel of the developing plan-unit. Otherwise it was mainly residential. Clearly, the location of the factory and the institute was conditioned by the fact that this was then part of the town fringe and near Green Batt, the most convenient general line of access from the more populated parts of the town. As the Howick Street plan-unit began to develop in the north it produced spontaneously these new fringe-belt features. Smaller ones, more organically connected with the predominant housing, followed in the direction of Lisburn Street but beyond that the fringe-belt influence petered out and the plan-unit became exclusively

60

LATER GEORGIANAND EARLY VICTORIANALNWICK

F

______________

--__

ALNWICKOLD TOWNAND INNERFRINGEBELTIN 1827 O o GACS

WORKST

0~QL0 -0 o

SMicHA

1

CHURCH

O

O

0 ?.

0O

O

0

REDLI o

O

O

O

O

O

O

500

00

0 0

O 0O 0 0

*

O0

0

ALNWICK

COTCH

CASTLE .,

0000 QO

"'

0000

.0

COTTAGEO

O

O

OO

DISPENSARY

0

0

0 0

0

O 0

0 O0 OO

SO

HURCH POTTERGATE

0

O

00 0O 0o 0 0 0 "00 o 0 . o 0 0

0 -

0

O

00 O O

O

O

R.C.CHAPE

SCALE OF FEET

O

0

C)O

O

0

O

0O 00

.

OCOTTAGE0.0

SEASTER

S• •RENWELNGS

RAFF

1774

827

TNE4ER1 ,

AND

INSTITUTIONAL

FIXATION LINE OF INNER

RINE

PERIPHERAL OPEN SPACES CRETED

SECESSION ,SCHOOLCEOFT CHAPEL BUILDINGS AND THEIR ACCESSORIES

HOUSE

BELT

BETWEEN 1774AND

1827

DWELLINGHOUSES WITH OR WITHOUT SHOPS AND THEIR ACCESSORIES

LANTE ST. THICHAELS

WITHOUT A BONDELLATE

(--

AND

BuI G00s ERECTE BEFORE 774

) COPUNITY

B CANONGATE C HOTSPUR PLACE

.

ERECTED BETWEEN 1774 AND 1827

BUILDINGS DEOLISHED BETWEEN29

R RDLE

(c)

PIECE

CROWN YARD

K UNION

COURT

L WHITE

HART YARD

INTRA- AND EXTRAMURALLIMITS OP INNER PRINCE BELT B TOWER LANE E CORRECTION HOUSE YARD

H KING'S ARMS YARD J UEENS HEAD YARD

JQUEEN'S YARD HEAD HOUSE YARD FCORRECTION PLACE CHOTSPUR F

FIGURE 11

O

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

61

residential. This interpenetration of the belt and an adjoining accretionary plan-unit is a kind of fringe-belt aureolesomewhat reminiscentof the geologist's contact aureole. A major aspect of the extramuralconcerns fringe-belt components which originated in the surroundingcountryside at such a distance from the fixation line that they lost direct topographical contact with the latter more or less. Although morphographically this dispersed urban developmentrepresents a separateform of accretionarygrowth which does not contributeto the 'closure' of the Inner Fringe Belt, it belongs to it functionally as well as in location. It can be distinguished as the discontinuous outer or distal extramuralfrom the more continuous inner or proximal extramural. The distinction is significant as these two parts were affectedquite differentlyby the subsequentgrowth of the town. The original fringe belt thus displays a kind of asymmetric structure. A close 'backbone'composed of intramuraland proximal extramuralhas attached to it unilaterallya much broader and less defined dispersion zone representing the distal extramural. Figure 13 shows this peculiar arrangementas it applied to the Inner Fringe Belt until the middle of the nineteenth century. Fringe-belt development within the distal extramuralconsisted of isolated plots or groups of plots distributed over the surrounding countryside and colonized generally by some form of land use other than agriculture. Some of these were to be reached by, or even engulfed in, the later expansion of the town. A prerequisite of their emergence was the continued enclosure of the open fields to the south-east of the town and their transfer to private owners. This process is already noticeable on Mayson's Map of 1624, but appears completed on Thompson's Map of 1760, when the whole area was in closes belonging to differentpersons, the new field boundaries following those of the ancient furlongs only in part and forming the general frame for development (Fig. 9). At that time buildings dispersed among these closes were very few (Fig. 13) and included such diverse units as a farm, a turnpike cottage and a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

FIGURE11--Alnwick 14 Inns: 15 Anchor. 16 Angel. Black Swan. Blue Bell. Crown. 17 George and Dragon. 18 Grey's. 19 Half Moon. 20 King's Arms. Nag's Head. Queen's Head. 21 Star. Three Tuns.

Old Town and Inner Fringe Belt in 1827. Turk's Head. White Hart. White Swan. Chapels: Bethel Chapel. Methodist Chapel. Sion Chapel. Unitarian Chapel. Public Premises: Shambles and Assembly Rooms.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Bondgate Tower. Dispensary. Engine House. Freemen's Rigg. House of Correction. Pinfold. Poor House. Stone Well. Town Hall.

Industries: 31 Breweries. 32 Carrier's Warehouse. 33 Tanneries.

62

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

ALNWICKOLD TOWNAND INNERFRINGEBELTIN 1851 0 0 0Q 0000 0 0 0

S00 GAS WORKS

-o 0?

oo

o(D RH

CHURCH

O

0

CL 0

00

0

06

0

0

00

. R

sa

450

0

0

O 0

0

CH.

0 O

O

8.

.

O0

0

0?0 0 0

00 0 0

O

0

SCHOOL INFANT

0

0o

0

0

00

00000

(D

Q 0

BARNALE SCHOOL

0

REENWELLLA

(c

ub BARNDALE

BW 3

D T DISPENSAR HOUSE INFIRUTMARYHT COTTA

BA

O

I

A\US

m

THE HIGH BREWERY

z....13.

HORSE MARKET9

EFORE 1827

LPNSPAESRETED

*

1090

FIXATION LINE OF INNER FRINGE ELT BEWEEN ILDINGS ERECTED

EBU ••

AND 1851

1827

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BULITDINGS AND THEIR ACCESSORIES ACCESSORIES BUILDINGS AND THEIR CODMUNITY AND INSTITUTIONAL L ROXBURGH PLACE H OORE'S YARD E TOWER LANE DWELLINGHOUSES WITH OR WITHOUT SHOPS AND THEIR ACCESSORIES (c) C H PR DEHOLISHEYD ETWEEN 1827 ANE 1851 LAC UILDINGS

(M) SCANONGATE

(b)

A BONDGATEWITHOUT

C

HOTSPUR

PLACE

ST.MICHAEL'

IF

CORRECTION

HOUSE

LANE

YARD

GKINGSAR

J

OLD

K

0S YARD

CHAPEL

FIGURE12

LANE

M

O VICTORIA PLACE A

UEENSCHEADUYARD N UNIONCOURT

TEASDALE'S

YARD

0

00 0 0 0 o o o 00000

0o0o

0T0

SCHOOL 0

0

ALNWICK CASTLE 0 0

o0oTOWEROA

0

O0 O

0 0

0OOOO.

0

O0 O

0

.0

PARSONAGE0

o

o

O

O

.*0

oRR

oAANDALE

0

0

00

o

o O

OF FEET

JCALE

0

P

WHITE

HART

YARD

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

63

large residence. The latter, Swansfield House, was the first Georgian countryseat of Alnwick, taking its name from the ancient close in which it was erected. It exhibits all the typical features of a Georgian country mansion (Fig. 15g). During the first half of the nineteenth century, increased agricultural prosperityand the improvementof transportadded considerablyto the number and variety of houses scattered around Alnwick. Apart from some farm cottages, there were substantial Late Georgian residenceswith less private open space about them than Swansfield House. Even so the residential density of these properties was rarely more than 0.5 and their building coverage, i.e. the percentage of plot area covered by buildings, generally below 3.5. Functionally, these residences in open country were parts of the urban fringe belt: houses of prosperous owners who sought the outskirts in order to have spacious rural surroundingsand at the same time convenient access to the town. Indeed, all of them had more or less direct road connections with the Old Town, though only Croft House by means of its own long drive communicated with the fixation line of the fringe belt where its lodge was built in the romantic style of Georgian 'Gothick' revivalism. Somewhat less spaciously laid out are houses of the same period such as Barndale Cottage on Howling Lane and Spring Gardens on South Road. The latter in fact was really an agricultural residence in the midst of its nursery grounds forming a large plot as part of the ancient furlong of Blindwell Flat. Distinct from all these dispersed dwellings was the Late Georgian Belvedere Terrace. As a row of unified design, i.e. a terrace in the technical sense, it consisted of five houses laid out with a pattern of correspondingstrip-plots in open country on part of yet another old furlong, the Goose Flat (Fig. 15h). FIGURE12-Alnwick 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Inns: Anchor. Angel. Blue Bell. Clayport Tower. Crown and Glove. Fleece. Freemen's Arms. George. Globe. Green Dragon. Grey's. Half Moon. King's Arms. Masons Arms. Nag's Head. Queen's Head. Star. Three Tuns. Turk's Head. White Hart.

- Old Town and Inner Fringe Belt in 1851. Chapels: 21 Bethel Chapel. 22 United Presbyterian Chapel. 23 Sion Meeting House. 24 Union Presbyterian Church. 25 Unitarian Chapel. 26 Wesleyan Methodist Chapel.

27 28 29 30 31 32

Public and Commercial Premises: Assembly Rooms and Shambles. Bondgate Tower. Correction House. Court House. Engine House. Industrial School.

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Lambton & Co.'s Bank. Library. Mechanics Institute. Militia Depot. Post Office. Savings Bank. Stone Well. Town Hall.

41 42 43 44

Industries: Breweries. Coach Factories. Maltsters. Tanneries and Skinneries.

45 46 47 48

Other Premises: Bailiffgate House. Croft House Lodge. Grove Cottage. Riding School.

64

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

With the houses and their yards backing on to a service alley or mews forming the boundary of the whole land-use unit so that the garden spaces are strictly between the houses and the road at the front, the arrangementof this group representsa distinct and familiar variant of the Georgian terrace. The residential gross density here was 3.1, the building coverage 13.5. Apart from Alnwick Moor and Hulne Park, which as permanent open spaces are in a way distal fringe features, the remainingdisperseddevelopment up to the middle of the nineteenth century were new institutions: the Union Workhouse (1841), once larger than its present residue, and the first railway station (1849). The site of the workhouse was carved out of the ancient close of South Field or Hall Flat, a part of the demesne lands. Its shape was conditioned by the configuration of the north end of that field following the head valley of the Aller Burn though its boundaries coincided with those of the old close only along the frontage of Wagonway Road, an ancient field lane already accuratelyshown on Mayson's Map of 1624. This road received its name from a wagonway which ran parallel to it on its east side and served to transportcoal from Shilbottle Colliery to Alnwick till supersededby the railway. The railway station with its sidings, being a branch terminus, could be brought relatively near to the town by siting it in the angle between South Road and Wagonway Road on land allowing for moderate expansion, some of it again demesne land. Both the workhouse and the railwaystation came very close to the built-up area of the Bondgate ribbon and are clearly land-use units with fringe-belt location, as is the open space round the Percy Tenantry Column of 1816 which was erected on the old close of Cooper Hill. Moreover, the Tithe Map of 1846 and the OrdnanceSurvey of 1851 show other typical fringe features,in the form of nurserygrounds and allotment gardens. If one adds all these units to the earlier outliers of the Inner Fringe Belt such as Clive House, Bellevue and Croft House, the whole broken zone of the distal extramural round the south side of the town looks in location and admixture of land-use types like an emergingnew fringe belt of the EarlyVictorian period. It owed this characterpartly to its more distant position, which allowed undeveloped fields and accretions of a very differentkind to intervene between it and the Inner Fringe Belt. These accretions were much more compact and organized plan-units, extensions of the town practicallyvoid of fringe features. The new fringe belt can also be identified as a growing zone combining new components and earlier ones. The latter had formed the distal extramural of the Inner Belt in the Late Georgian period, but they were now appropriatedby the new or IntermediateFringe Belt. They were translatedfrom the one to the other without changing their site. Croft House illustrates the mechanism of fringe-belt translation. Beginning as a distal prong of the Inner Fringe Belt, it became contiguous and indeed internalto the IntermediateBelt, and in modern tim es has been cut off from the Inner Belt and from its former lodge by the building development on Prudhoe Street.

1

///

AOTM

#l#,/,IF

0o0o0o0

S!

/

0

..

00o0

f//.....

IFWF

..

o

0

0 OP

0/0

:

STAT.H

5-:.7

0

0

0

0HOPE

o

0

0

F"WORK

HO,

0

0 0

OOe

G

OTS

N

. .

.2OL

.

.

500

,

SCALE

>

...........

E" U""Wl MART

so""

CP//HILLCREST

R***/

. K//0

PER?Y

OUTER FRINGE BELT

ROFII

N

E OR

TRANSL. ABSORB. FRINGE- BELT

FRIN

FRINGE-BELT PLOTS

TRANSL.OR ABSORB. -

OF

ALLERBR

FE T

EDE

I000

-

I

..

2000 _,

OADO

10SW

"

•#

DPSiO

.....

NDU 0NUOO/RO ...................

.ST

ALLOTM.

LEEKSFIELD

--o.

,1R..C./EPO 0,0

/

1500

:

TO17741774-1827 1827- 1 185111851

URBANFRINGE BEL IPRESERVED PLOTS

OTROOPDEPO -""COT"""TA"" 8.......

.-

.8

34ALLERBU

OEST

.'~i iii!!

PROPOSEDIUE

i

::..---.BUILT

FRINGE BELT

FRINGEBELT

HOSPDUNDER AT 0 000 0 ,DUKE0'S 0 0 SCHOOL0 'TALACE. ALLOTM O-4OIeDI

H

LV'HO.

2"0

//I F//00I PARGROUND ////WANSIEL 00

11I1

.:.:.PA

HO.

SWANSFIELD

/iIALN~CK#

I IF /.d1/11IF11I

•/////I//////////, ///1///11/1/•

I

/e

"INTERMEDIATE

CARDETEHUTSH

"

0

ED I FIFIFI, // // // //0//

AYO

000oooo 0 0

2/1// //0/0

/

0

0

...

........FRINGE-BELT

}......

o/PROPOSED0 PLOTS0 UCHESSS SCHOOL

0

,/,,,/,,,,,.,...-,w/ooo

0I//1

I ///I IN.C.C

FARM

THOMAS'S

?.."IO

... .o ..

0

0leo00 0o0oo 00

0

GATE

N CANONINNER

PROPOSEDSCHOO oo2

0///

0oo

.

TT~EN ROW

/

CRICKET GROUND

S/

f0

///~" PAK/.ALLOT TM.l

ll////l

i / /HUN

/

/

-eTHE 111IleUP

TH7,77-1I-E--""7""'"

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

65

Both belts were to show important morphological differencesthat become apparent in their subsequent growth. The Repletionof the Old Town Although the partial filling-up of the ancient burgages with new buildings originated entirely as fringe-belt development on tail-end plots, it remained by no means confined to the intramural. By 1827 the process is seen to be well under way further inside the borough, though with different intensity in the three street-blocks surrounding the Central Triangle (Fig. 11). In the block between Bondgate and the Castle Grounds the stimulus of a 'back lane' and generally of accessibilityto the outside was missing. The only additional buildings here appearto be a few back-to-backhouses in the yards to the north-west and on Greenwell Lane. On the west side of the town in the three blocks separatedby Bailiffgateand Pottergate internal filling-up, apart from fringe-beltadditions, showed a similar stage and complexion. Back-to-back houses and the plot accessories of inn yards - natural enough in the heyday of the stage coach - predominatedin the rear of the few burgages affected by this development. In contrast to all these blocks, the southern street-block showed much more rear colonization by plot dominants, with the corollary of greater subdivision of the original burgages.In most cases this involved multiple transverse division to such an extent that the residual parent plot at the burgagehead was little, if at all, larger than the row of derivative plots behind it. This in turn resulted in many of the 'yards' becoming recognizedpublic rights of way and in one case virtually a road between the main streets on the north and Green Batt on the south. The new medialplots, i.e. derivativeplots developingin the middle of each burgage between the burgage head and the tail-end, were generally much smallerthan the originalparent burgages. They needed these longitudinal lines of communication since they had no other access to either the main street or Green Batt. They are, therefore, quite distinct from the tail-end plots fronting Green Batt and belonging to the Inner Fringe Belt, and the difference is clearly shown by the orientation of the respectiveplot dominants, the houses of the tail-end plots always facing the ring road of the Inner Fringe Belt while the houses on medial plots invariably face the internal right of way or 'yard'. This development, foreshadowed on Wilkin's Map, created a whole series of footpaths. They did not represent an addition to the street-systemproper, as they did not generally develop into streets suitable for all kinds of traffic. The residual townscape in this quarter today shows all stages of development from a narrow, virtually unmade footpath to a fully surfaced street with roadway, kerb and at least one pavement. In no case, not even that of St. Michael's Lane, was there any formation of new separate street-blockssuch as had been associated with the market colonization, because each right of way reached the main road only by an archway under the old burgage dominant. At most, such

66 LATER GEORGIANAND EARLY VICTORIANALNWICK a systemof internalfootpathsand lanes may be calleda pseudo-street system. Theserightsof waywerenecessaryconcomitantsof the internalcolonizationof individualor amalgamatedburgagesby new land-useunits, since this growth occurredseparatelywithin each unit of landownership. The advantageous positionof the southernstreet-blockbetweenthe mainstreetson the northand Green Batt on the south promotedthis form of developmentby individual owners.In additionto thenewcomersin thesouthernfringebelt,then,therewere othersfartherinsidethe block, amongthemno less thanfour Nonconformist chapelsas well as the new Houseof Correctionandsomeback-to-backhouses. Theprocessjust describedmaybe calledrepletionandis of generalmorphologicalimportancein old towns. In Alnwickit clearlyis not restrictedto the intramuralzone of the InnerFringeBelt. A pre-existingplan, in this case a medievalonewitha traditionalburgagepattern,becomestheframefor a process of filling-upwhichdoes not add a new street-planbut followsthe 'grain'of an alreadyestablishedplan-unitwithout disturbingthe generalfeaturesof its organizationor pattern. Among its chief traitsare derivativeplots with new plot dominants,fitting into the pattern of parent plots. Such repletionis distinctfrom both the marketconcretionsdiscussedearlierand the external accretionsof the town. TheOrdnanceSurveyMapof 1851showsthisdevelopment somewhatintensified(Fig. 12). In thesouthernstreet-block, anotherchurchandthe SavingsBank, togetherwith furtherback-to-backhouses and other cottages,increasedthe congestion. Some of the repletion,however,was relateddirectlyto Green Batt, contributingtherebyto the consolidationof the InnerFringeBelt. The new houses frontingGreen Batt were ratherlargerthan the cottagesin the 'yards',thusemphasizingthe differencein characterbetweeninternalandfringebelt repletion. Similardevelopmentsare observablein the westernstreet-blockbehind Fenkle Street. Here the same intensityof repletioncharacterizedPottergate Place as well as Union Courtand the nearbyTeasdale'sYard, with a varied assortmentof cottages, back-to-backhouses, workshops,etc. Accordingly, PottergatePlace and Union Courtbecameinternalrightsof way joining the earlierlane systemof the Stonewellarea. Repletionalso occurredin the smallblocksroundthe market. Duringthe firsthalf of the nineteenthcenturytheybecamecompletelyconsolidatedin their plot pattern,so thatby 1851all plot boundariesweredefinedby wallsor fences. The buildingcoverageon the averagewas then well over 85 per cent owingto the additionof shedsand outhousesin the rear,the plots beingtoo small to accommodateadditionaldwellingsor otherdominants. In contrast,repletionin the old boroughwas generallyassociatedwiththe erection of back-to-backhouses. It produceda common phenomenonin Englishurbanmorphology:the slumsof smallertowns,less obtrusiveperhaps than those of Glasgowor Birminghamand easily overlookedby the casual visitor,but neverthelessa realproblem.

LATER GEORGIANAND EARLY VICTORIANALNWICK

67

As a general feature of the small to medium-sizedmarket town they are of considerable importance and warrant closer investigation. Teasdale's Yard in Fenkle Street, West Row, will serve as a representativeexample (Fig. 14). It attracted the particular attention of Rawlinson who, in his Report to the General Board of Health in 1849, recorded no less than seventeen cases of cholera within this burgage,five of them fatal, and mapped its building arrangement and utilization.24 In 1774 the burgage belonged to George Selby, a well-known attorney and 2 respectedmember of an importantAlnwick family, and showed the traditional medieval arrangementof a long strip-plot. The burgage head was occupied by a dwelling-house as plot dominant and a yard with some plot accessories. Behind it, a furtheryard and a long 'garth' or garden unencumberedby buildings formed the burgagetail. The whole was definedby fences or walls and had a building coverage of 14.7. The dwelling-house was of simple traditional oblong plan and with its neighbourson adjoining burgagesformed a row. The burgage on its north side had much the same appearance,but the neighbouring plot to the south was exceptional in that it comprised an inn and therefore contained many more plot accessories, the inn 'yard' spreading over the whole garth. By 1827 the burgage had come into the ownership of a Mr. Teasdale."2 By that time, its building developmenthad doubled since 1774 and now reached a coverage of 34.8. It seems to have contained already some of the back-to-back houses which were such a notorious feature through most of the plot's subsequent history. By 1849 the developmenthad almost doubled again comparedwith that of 1829 and with a coverage of 62.9 left no open space except a very narrow alley and yard."' Much of this repletion was effected by the earliest back-to-back houses. They were one or two storeys high and were built as single rows with their back walls on the burgage boundary and therefore generally had no windows on that side. Each room was let as a separate tenement, occupied at night by from eight to twenty people on a floor-space of from 100 to 250 sq. feet.2 Rawlinson's report does not give details about the tenants of the backto-back houses in Teasdale's Yard. His information about Moore's Yard off Pottergatein the same street-blocksuggests,however, that the suddenincreasein the number of back-to-back houses in the yards of Alnwick was largely associated with the immigration of people from the Irish countrysidethen ravaged by the potato famine. These tenants were all paupers 'largely engaged in bone and rag collecting'. In two cases marked '1' and '2' on the '1849' plan of Figure 14, the upper storeys of the back-to-back houses were used for the purposes of a Ragged School. For the rest burgage repletion had resulted in a congested jumble of back-to-back houses, workshops, middens, and minor accessories. The trades tended to occupy the rear portions of the burgage, being orientated towards the backgate and so to the nearby fringe belt. It is to be noted that in this example the derivative plots have shrunk to become

68

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

TEASDALE'SYARD (FENKLE STREET)1774-1956 MR. GEO. SELBY

_j

ATTOR.

177 MR.

wl-._----SAW PIT

TEASDALE

C ---

u_ 18I49 TEADA

_

E YARD aLu

1964

(TEASDALE'S

1921

'S

S(TEASDALE

YARD)

1956L. 10

SCALE OF FEET 100

O0

BR C

DW

BREWERY

OR

CH COACH-HOUSe CM CW

DWELLING OF TWO

COALHOUSES CANDLEMAKER'S WORKSHOP CARYWRIGHT'S WORKSHOP

$HOPI

S

STABLE,WITH

LOFT OVER

SM

SMITHY

PRIVY PUBLIC HOUSE

TE W L

SINGLE - ROOM TENEMENT

P PH

SHOP AND OFFICE, WITH DWELLING OVER

E

0

PIGGERY

GROCER'S

GROUND-FLOOR

WORKSHOPS

PI

3

CR

DWELLINCS AND

MORE ROOMS

200

WASH- HOUSEWITH

SCHOOL OVER -

LUMBER- HOUSE

BUILDING USES IN 1849:

OUT-HOUSES

LIMIT OFTWO-STOREY BUILOGS.

COVERED

MIDDENS

PASSAGES

FIGURE14

LATER GEORGIANAND EARLY VICTORIANALNWICK

69

individualbuildingsonly. Theydo not carveup the parentburgagecompletely, but leave a 'yard'space which formstheir undividedline of accessand may sometimesaccommodatefunctionssubsidiaryto those carriedon in adjoining buildings. found The buildingtypes,kinds of buildinguse and generalarrangement here by Rawlinsonrepresenta fairly commonform of burgagerepletionin Englishmarkettowns at that time, and they applyto the street-blocksto the west and to the north-eastof the CentralTriangle. However,a prominent additionalfeatureof repletionin the MarketStreet/GreenBatt block--the appearanceof public buildings, mainly Nonconformistchapels--is only partlyandratherpoorlyrepresentedin Teasdale'sYardby the RaggedSchool. Figure 14 shows that the slumgrowthof Teasdale'sYardhad beencompleted by 1849. Besidesrepletion,replacementof old buildingsaffectedmany parts of the Old Town in the period from 1776to 1851 (Figs. 10, 11, 12)."9It was very markedin the Bailiffgatearea,understronginfluencefromthe castle. Insidethe old boroughWilkin'sMap alreadyshows a numberof large new houses in Fenkle Street, Narrowgateand on the west side of Market Place. Public buildings,as well as the chief coachinginns, were replaced. Some ancient houses,however,wereonlyslightlyrefashionedby the additionof newGeorgian was so facades.3oAt the northernend of CanongateLateGeorgianreplacement extensivethat it resultedin the completeobliterationof the earlierplot pattern and thereforeamountedto redevelopment (Fig. 7). In adaptingitselfto the prewith minor existingstreet-system only changesof street-lineand withoutthe creationof newstreets,it presentsthe distinctivetypeof adaptiveredevelopment. Arterial Ribbons

In viewof the unusualconditionsof ownershipon the wholenorthside of Alnwickthe only main roads whichshowedreal ribbondevelopmentoutside the towngatesin 1774wereClayportStreetand BondgateWithout(Fig. 8). In both cases it was a distincttype of plan-unitbest characterized as the double ribbon,with a series of plots and their buildings on each side of the road. But

whilethe Clayportribbonpreservedan olderburgagepatternwith long stripplotsandhadthecompactnessof rowdevelopmentobservablein the OldTown, the Bondgate ribbon had lost that aspect in its western half. In 1774 its plots,

thoughroughlyrectangular,wererathersquat. A more chequeredhistoryof individualownershipseemedto be indicatedby the factthat someparcelswere obviouslyderivativeplots from largerparentplots. This impartedan irregularitywhichmust have been increasedby the influenceof the Duke as landowner,for he tendedto sterilizecertainfrontageson the north side against

building, apparentlywith the intention of extending his grounds in this direction in order to create a new south-eastern approach to the castle." There were other appreciablegaps in the building development of each side. These initial F

70

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

differencesbetween the Clayport and Bondgate ribbons, combined with other formative factors, in due course led to interestingmorphological results. Although Clayport Street was part of the turnpike road to Rothbury and Hexham, it had not the same importance as the busy Great North Road. In Later Georgian days it tended to develop as a more homogeneous residential area on its outskirts,especiallyas the very wide road space with its green and an appreciableelevation above the general level of the town added to its amenities. As the actual roadway kept to the south side of Clayport Street, new buildings extended the ribbon behind the green on the north side of the road. Here two residential Regency terracesformed new accretions(1 and 2 in Fig. 8). Beyond them to the west Clive House representedthe fringe-beltend of these Late Georgian additions. In the mid-nineteenthcentury, then, the Clayport ribbon consisted of two contiguous parts. An older double-sidedstretchnearerto the Old Town had homogeneous cottage rows within a burgage pattern only slightly disturbed on the south side by interposition of a back-lane between the yards and the garths. A more recent single-sidedribbon on the north side of Clayport Street attained relative morphological homogeneity by its terrace development and its residentialnature (cf. also Figs. 11 and 12). Unlike the Clayportribbon, that of Bondgate Without showed no outward extension in Late Georgian and Early Victorian days but a certain measure of consolidation. The irregularstructureof the ribbon was underlinedalready in 1774 by the very broken nature of the two street-lines,plots with front-gardens being intermixedwith those which had none, a featureof the ribbon to this day. Irregularitywas gradually increased by the heterogeneityof land and building uses attractedhere, for BondgateWithout formed part of the Great North Road and became also the direct link between the town and its new railway station. The diversity of landownership further emphasized the feature. Even the advance of the Dukes of Northumberlandtowards the north front of Bondgate Without made little difference,as it came when some of that front had already been developed and never led to complete possession of the whole of the north side. The extension of the Castle Gardens in this area merely increased the irregularityof the plot pattern by causing an extremely broken alignment of the back fence. This contrasted with the relatively straight back fence of the burgages and plots on the south side of Bondgate Without. Here the old more or less strip-shapedcloses shown in this area on Mayson's Map of 1624 (Fig. 9), had been divided by 1774 into a sufficientlydeep, though still immature, plot series fronting Bondgate Without and the remainderof the closes to the south. For the most part the latter continuedin agriculturaluse long afterthe Bondgate series had adopted a more urban complexion."32Their fragmentationof ownership""and lack of access to existingroads soon caused the developingback fence of Bondgate Without to become an occupation road, the later Dovecot Lane. Among the buildings attractedto Bondgate Without were a Nonconformist meeting-house, later replaced by the Militia Depot, two inns, and Bondgate Hall, redeveloped in 1810. The remainder of the Bondgate ribbon was largely

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

71

occupied by rows of dwelling-houses. Two of the Duke's plots on the north side remained unbuilt until after the middle of the nineteenth century, but the importance of Bondgate Without already caused some repletive plot development before 1850. Allison Place, built before 1827, represented the better residential variant, while Victoria Place was an example of yard repletion by early back-to-back houses. The only other instance of ribbon development, contiguous with the Inner Fringe Belt but taking place entirelyin Later Georgian and EarlyVictorian days on previously agriculturalland, was a single-sidedribbon on the east side of the ancient field-lane leading southward from Green Batt (now Percy Terrace). The morphological frame was supplied by the road and the Easter Piece, a field already enclosed in 1624, but the ribbon developed only on its west side in piecemeal fashion under different ownerships (Fig. 9). The plot pattern is characteristicof the earlier forms of speculative residential development, with relatively shallow rectangularblocks and small terracesin open formation.

Layouts The southernend of the Percy Terraceribbon alreadyincludesin embryonic form a distinct type of accretionary growth which is very different from the arterialribbons or from fringe-beltunits (Fig. 15a). At the southern end of the Easter Piece a rather deeper parcel of land was available for building, capable of containing more plots of comparable size than could be accommodated on its existing road frontage. It was therefore developed as a single new plan-unit for the accommodation of ten houses and their plots, mostly in small terraces. The required additional road access was provided by South Street, a short culde-sac opening up the interior of the whole parcel and functioning solely as a minor residential street with no trafficother than that to adjoiningplots. Such a purposeful arrangement or design of buildings, plots, and associated new roads opening up back land is fundamentally different from a ribbon that develops spontaneously along an already existing road without unified design. It constitutes a layout in the technical sense of the town-planner and ushers in the long sequence of residential layouts which have increasingly dominated modern accretions. The South Street layout was small enough to remain entirely orientatedon Percy Terraceand looks almost like a part of that ribbon. Yet morphologically it is far more independent than Belvedere Terrace, for example (Fig. 15h). In general, layouts form rather larger plan-units: essential additions to an urban built-up area distinct from fringe-belt accretions by virtue of their inherent organization and tendency towards compactness. The best example before 1850 is that of the Howick Street/LisburnStreet area in the south (Fig. 15f). Its frame was provided by the Wester Piece, a close appearing on Mayson's Map of 1624 and as a separate ownership unit on subsequent plans (Fig. 9),

72

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

EARLIER DEVELOPMENT UNITSIN ALNWICK b

'po1

OUS

O

O

h

pII

8

(2A(

,, -

-

. .

A

X

C 3 A:Y

-1

?f

..

L

a

CL

AK

a

Ia

I

VI

-=

,=

vmCL t.-

-

Es Ge~

~~~ V15Y

I

Y4~ ~ t

m

hC

c

cx

-.

I

S CAEWASFIFELD

CL/

&,aiO

~j

A.A-WANSIEL I VE7 \,cE HOUSE

N

tf TERRAC

II

|

0oo.

HOUSE

ELVEDERE TERRACE

I'

FIGURE15

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ALNWICK

73

slightly refashioned in its boundaries by 1827 when Grove Cottage (2 in Fig. 15f) and the adjoiningtannery at the north end of the close (1) had already been absorbedby the Inner Fringe Belt. The Wester Piece was developed for building graduallyfrom c. 1830 onwards, beginning in the north, with more than half the area built up by 1850, the whole plan-unit being completed in the south in the early 1880s. The plan has Late Regency and Early Victorian features, with straight streets in rectangulararrangement,standardized,generally small plots, and in some cases back-alleys, the whole built up with terrace houses in closed formation on the street-line or behind shallow front-gardens. Small industries and institutional buildings in the northern part associated with the Inner Fringe Belt increased the already high building coverage considerably (70.6). To the south, however, the unit became entirely residential in Mid-Victorian days, with a building coverage of 57. As a typical feature of these earlierlayouts its 'topographical behaviour' is fairly independent, Howick Street running up the steep northern slope of the Alnwick Ridge without much consideration for wheeled traffic(Fig. 4). East of Green Batt, the Hotspur Place area forms a similar but simpler layout intermediate in size between those at South Street and Howick Street, with a maximum building coverage of 84.2 (Fig. 12).

REFERENCES 468. vol. Ordnance Survey map of XVII century England. A. ARMTATE, cit., i, 463, 465, 1 op. & SON, A map of the County of Northumberland, etc., 1769. C. & J. GREENWOOD, STRONG Map of the A map of a projected turnpike roadfrom HagCounty of Northumberland, etc., 1828. N. WEATHERLY, gerston blacksmith's shop to Alnwick, etc., 1824. 2 TATE, op. cit., vol. i, 243. 3 W. DAVISON,A descriptive and historical view of Alnwick, etc. (2nd ed., 1822), 245. 4 TATE,op. cit., vol. ii, 365-6. 5 DAVISON,op. cit., 240-6. 8 TATE, op. cit., vol. ii, 70-101, 221-4. DAVISON,op. cit., 236. 7 TATE,op. cit., vol. ii, 227-9. 8 Ibid., vol. i, 471; vol. ii, 219-20. 9 Ibid., vol. ii, 207, 218. 10 Ibid., 162-206. 11Ibid., 153. 12 Ibid., vol. i, 468-71; vol. ii, 224. 13 Ibid., vol. i, 448; but cf. W. DAVISON, op. cit., 189, for critical comment. 14 TATE, op. cit., vol. ii, 284-8. 15

Ibid., 400.

Ibid., vol. i, 353-8. 17 Ibid., 358, 364-7. D. STROUD,Capability Brown (1950), 140-1, 160. Is W. W. TOMLINSON, The North-Eastern Railway (1914), 483, 507. 19 TATE,op. cit., vol. i, 462. 20 Ibid., vol. ii, 368. 21 Ibid., vol. i, 462. Cf. also Thompson's Map, 1760 showing the old bridge and Wilkin's Map 1774, showing the 'New Bridge'. 22 R. TATE,Groundplan andprofile of levels, etc., 1815. 23 H. Louis, op. cit., 147. 24 R. RAWLINSON, op. cit., 28, and plan of Teasdale's Yard (scale 1 : 240). 16

74

LATER GEORGIAN AND EARLIER VICTORIAN ALNWICK

25 TATE, Op. cit., vol. ii, 412. Foulterrierto Alnwick(Terrierto Wilkin'sMap, 1774),plot No. 156 in 'Finkle StreetWestside.' 26 WOOD'SPlan of Alnwick (1829). 27 RAWLINSON, op. cit., plan of Teasdale'sYard. 28 Ibid., 22, giving particularsof Moore's Yard which are comparableto those of Teasdale's Yard. 29 W. DAVISON, op. cit., 188, says of Alnwick that it was on the whole well built, that the houses wereconstructedmostly of freestoneand had 'a noble appearance',and that the thatchedhouses were rapidlydisappearingand givingplace to others 'whichapproachto elegance'. 30 E.g. the 'Red House' in Narrowgate,now Messrs.Forster & Son. 3xIn Figure 8: 5, 6, 7, the plot to the south-eastof the latter, 9 and the plot immediatelyto the north-westof that. Cf. Figure 9. 32 'NurseryGrounds'in fringe-beltlocation are shown on the OrdnanceSurvey1/528 (1851 and 1866), Sheets 6 and 8.

-- J. ROBERTSON, A plan of that part of Stony Hills, etc. belonging to Madm. Elizabeth Grey, 1732; Thompson's Map, 1760; Wood's Map, 1827.

CHAPTER 7 MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK Alnwick as a Rural Service Centre HELPED in a small way by the construction of the railway line (1887) to Wooler and Coldstream,' Alnwick consolidated its position as a small market and service centre in the Victorian period, and it had few industries needing larger premises than the traditional workshop.2 Among these were brewing, tanning, coach-building and an iron foundry. From 1872 onwards, the manufacture of fishing tackle, peculiarly connected with the name of the town, developed steadily from small beginnings, till it has come to claim a world market with its high-class products. The market function of Alnwick was emphasized in the erection of a corn exchange in 1862,- and an auction mart in 1880 near the railway station. If Alnwick attracted no major industries, it did accumulate some service industries, such as new and larger gasworks4 and abattoirs. The establishment of the Local Board of Health in 1851 inaugurated development of Local Government institutions, the new offices of the Local Authority being built in 1877.5 A new court-house had been erected in 1856,6 and a new cemetery was laid out at the same time and enlarged repeatedly.7 Schools increased considerably in size and number towards the end of the nineteenth century. Public baths, a drill hall and hospitals were other institutions added before the First World War. The modest increasein industriesand the provision of new utility and social services, some of them of regional importance, brought about some slight increase in population, but in 1911 the total was still only seven thousand. The advent of Public Health legislation made many of the existing workingclass dwellings obsolete. It was mainly responsible for the appearance of new types of houses and plan-units, especially through the Public Health Act of 1875 which resultedin the enormous spread of the 'tunnel-back'house in terrace formation along what has become known as 'bye-law streets'. In this way, the built-up area of Alnwick was increased appreciably by a number of small housing schemes. At the other end of the social scale, the prosperityof the town found expression in a fair number of larger residences, standing in their own grounds, especially to the east and south-east. The effects of these economic and social improvementsare expressedin the town plan of Alnwick in four different forms. The Old Town continued to experience repletive growth on the ancient burgages, accompanied by some replacements. Fringe-belt development increased at its periphery and beyond it on the margin of the Early Victorian town. Adjoining open land to the south and south-east was available for accretions in the shape of layouts and ribbons. Elsewhere the open country became subject to a continuation of dispersed

75

76

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

ALNWICK-OLD TOWNAND INNERFRINGEBELTIN 1897

0 ol

AS WORKS WORK OLDGAS

0~••0

000

OO

0

O0CHAEL00

00 0

O*

0

0 O

0

0

O

0

o

500

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 ALNWICK

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 O

0

0

0 CASTLE

0

o

01o 0

0

0

0

0

0

00

0

0000 O

CREEN

MIL

CORN

O

hI

MAR

OAC T

R

O

" ,'O

O

.

OUT FOUNDRY

0 0

O

OO

O

o0

0 0 0

000 0

OROUH A A HOHOO O O

0.

1

0.00

N

(OO

o

0

000000

.

ooo

0

0

000000000

....0BILIG ERECD. 0 LE

FIXAIO

00 ..U

o

0

0

44Oa7,

VCARAGE

00

,

o 00

0

HEH.

O

000

HOUSE

o 000

0

S

S

o"

o

o

O

O

M0C_0

CALE OF FEEToo

o 0o0

7

O

T S REET

SLAGHTER HOUSES . . 0ALLOTMENTSO.

jO P

R

E AND

VANTMRA

S) A

-4bON0ADUKEO

*

SHOTSPU PLACE

cE D

SP NG

L

FIXATION

AURIA

YTcI BUIDINGS

LINE

BLACK TEDBELDOE 1851

ERECTED

OF

LLIM

INN

BEFORE

INNER BELT FRINGE I ASSEMBLMUNITY HAND INSTITUTIONAL

RN

EI

E

1851

AND THEIR S ACCESSORIESUNY 8 BOUILDNG

FISHING ACKE FAC

ORET WITH AND THEIR HOUT 2(c)DWELLINGHOUSES oSHOPS CE(8) ACCESSORIESo(8 ) 9 Y

FIGURE16

9)

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

77

development in the shape of relatively large plot units, generally in association with existing roads. Repletionand Replacementin the Old Town The example of Teasdale's Yard shows how those burgages in the Old Town which had reached saturationpoint in their building development by the middle of the nineteenth century experienced very little change in Mid- and Late Victorian days. Most burgagesreached their maximum in this period, but it would be wrong to assume that the general causes underlying the process affected all of them uniformly (Figs. 16 and 17). The pseudo-burgagesof the market area, and a few of the ancient deep burgages, had already been fully built up by 1851. For the great majority of the larger burgagesthe maximum of building congestion, though Victorian, varied greatlyaccordingto the individual circumstancesof each site. Among these, size and position were most important. Small plots such as the pseudo-burgagesof the eastern market area or some old derivativeplots elsewherereached a building coverage of as much as 90. Larger burgages generally tended to be less congested. Of the three series surroundingthe Central Triangle, that in the north-east, lacking the accessory stimulus of a back-lane and built-up land beyond, showed the largest amount of open ground, generally on the burgagetails. In the absence of derivativeplots, the climax of building coverage in this area was usually effected by the addition of plot accessories connected with an established building use in the plot dominant at the burgage head. A representativeexample is provided by the rear extensions of the White Swan Hotel. The southern burgage series, on the other hand, backed by Green Batt and lying more in the direction of further urban growth, became more heavily and evenly saturatedto show congestion similar to that of Teasdale's Yard. Extensive subdivision into derivative plots, with its resultant heterogeneity of building uses and shapes, was the rule in this area. The Victorian climax was reached here largely by the addition of industrial or commercial buildings, either independently on medial plots or in conjunction with frontage uses on Market Street. The Corn Exchangein the easternhalf of the block is a notable example of the first kind, the Baths in the western half of the second. The western street-block, with a system of back-lanes more recently and less advantageouslydeveloped round the west end of Stonewell Lane, was intermediate in the character of its Victorian repletion. The burgage series along Clayport Street experiencedconsiderable back-yard colonization with back-toback houses and outhouses and showed congestion similarto that of the adjoining Teasdale's Yard and Angel Inn Yard, and the building coverage of some burgagesreached 65 per cent. Farthernorth the Drill Hall was an accessory to the plot dominant in Fenkle Street, the H.Q. of the NorthumberlandFusiliers. Otherwise the burgages fronting Fenkle Street retained their garths as open spaces. Only one burgage immediately north of the Drill Hall reached a building

78

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

coverage of 63.6 per cent in 1886-87 owing to yard colonization by dwellinghouses of a layout which only just managed to comply with the new building bye-laws after 1875. In the street-block on the north side of Pottergate some repletion took place, but on the north side of Bailiffgatethere was practicallyno extra building throughout the Victorian period, and in the Walkergate/Canongatearea there was some clearance. In Walkergate, where considerable demolition had occurredearlier, further clearancewas slight and piecemeal. In Canongate, on the other hand, the old abbey borough with its two rows of cottages was largely demolished after 1866, together with the old gasworks. In its place adaptive redevelopmentoccurredfrom 1885 to 1909 at the southernend near the church, with the building of some dwelling-houses designed in an improved estate fashion for the Duke of Northumberland. It showed more intricateblock-plans on small plots in open formation as a mixture of detached, semi-detached,and terrace houses. Differences in the repletive growth of the arterialribbons during the Midand Late Victorian period were due to the differentposition of Clayport Street and Bondgate Without as well as to differencesin plot structure(Fig. 8). In the Clayport ribbon, repletion was on the whole moderate. In Bondgate Without, growth was not only relatively larger but more varied morphologically and affected a number of plot dominants. On the south side, Hardy's gun and fishing-tacklefactory was completelyrebuilt in 1889, and in the three subsequent decades the works expanded greatly at the back spreadingultimately over the rear parts of no less than four adjoiningplots. This is, therefore, an interesting case of a land-use unit fixed to its rather limited site by replacementat the front, a circumstancenaturalenough in this particulartype of industry. Subsequently, it overcame site resistance by repletiveabsorption. The plot east of Bondgate Hall also experiencedreplacement,resulting in a change of position of the plot dominant, a dwelling-house,from its frontal row position to a detached one in the middle of the plot in 1904. On the north side of Bondgate Without, frontage developmenthad been incomplete in early Victoriandays, two intermediateplots having been left undeveloped by the Duke of Northumberland. They received their first plot dominants between 1866 and 1883, a Methodist chapel and an adjoining detached house in the one case and a pair of 'tunnel-back'houses in the other. This developmentdiffersfrom repletion in that it does not take place on already developed plots as a further internal filling-up. It represents independent but retardedgrowth associated with unbuilt land left in an otherwise built-up plan-unit which it completes, and may be called complementarybuilding development. It often creates a sharp architecturalcontrast or incongruencein the street-frontin which it occurs. In the older town Victorian and Edwardianreplacementof plot dominants on the street-fronts was not extensive and left little mark on the town plan. It was restricted to a few cases in which Georgian row houses were substituted by new commercial building types with a larger block-plan, sometimes entailing

79

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

OLD TOWNAND INNERFRINGEBELTIN 1921 ALNWICKS0

0 0000 LO o SrMaciAELS SCHURCH 0

0

0

0

0 0Y

0o 0 0 00000 0o 0

O

: L_

0

0 0

0 O 0 0 0 0 O0

o

0

0 0O O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 000000 *O

8

a

0

0

CASt

0.:

O

O

00 o

0 .0 0

0

0

0

OF FEET 500

SCALE

0

0

0 0

O

O0

0

0

0

O

o 0

0

O 0

O

0

0

. 0.0 0

a*.*.0 P S. s-C

0 0T

AL

=

S0

RT:

r

:icA 0000 OO0

0

0

0O

00000000 0 CASTLE 0 O0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 O 0 O 0O O 0 0O 0 0 0 0O

0 0 0o0 0 0

.o

O..

.

.o

T

00

0

0

0

0 O

o

0

:

0

0

00 0

.

(C)

0

.

?00

o

0 0

0

0.e_*0 0 000

0o-

0

00000

0000

(b)

(c)

SZ BUILDINGSERECTEDBEFORE1897

•Li

I

1897 AND 1921 ERECTEDBETWEEN BUILDINGS BUILDINGS AND

THEIR ACCESSORIES

(0)

COMMERCIALAND

INDUSTRIAL

(b)

COMMUNITY AND

INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS

(c)

OWELLINGHOUSES WITH OR WITHOUT SHOPS AND THEIR ACCESSORIES b DEMOLISHED BETWEEN 1897 AND 1921 SUILDINGS

....

AND

THEIR ACCESSORIES

FIXATION LINE OF INNER FRINGE BELT

OPEN SPACESCREATEDBEFORE1897 PERIPHERAL OPEN SPACESCREATEDBETWEEN1897 AND 1921 PERIPHERAL -..

INTRA- AND EXTRAMURALLIMITS OF INNER FRINGE BELT

I 2

ANGEL YARD

4

BONDGATE WITHOUT

7

MOORE'S YARD

ASSEMBLY HALL

33

BATHSBATHS

5 66

CORN EXCHANGE FACTORY FACTORY FIFISHING SHING TACK(TACKLE LE

8 99

TEASDALE'$ YARD COURT UNIUNJON ON COURT

FIGURE17

80

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

further amalgamation of burgages. In Pottergate, however, the old Presbyterian church was replaced by a very much larger successor in 1894 and an accessory church hall. More prominent was the extensive replacement and refashioning of structures in and around the castle about the middle of the nineteenthcentury as a result of the great rebuildingscheme of the fourth Duke of Northumberland. This changed the block-plan of buildings considerablyon the west side of the ancient keep as well as to the south-west and south of the castle walls." Fringe-BeltDevelopment Since the pre-Victorianmargin of the Old Town coincided with that of the Victorian period in some places and offeredstill unbuilt sites, its development in fringe-belt fashion continued. Along the fixation line of the Inner Fringe Belt changes brought additional small houses as well as new public buildings. In the south-west the building line of Tower Lane was improved in 1867 and recolonized with row houses in the years 1877-83, transformingthe 'lane' into a street. On the west side of Dispensary Street, however, the old fringe belt was extended by larger plots. The greater outward expansion of the fringe belt on this side, linking Barndale House with the proximal extramural, was made possible by unified land ownership, the Duke owning most of the land by 1846 (Fig. 9) and releasingit for public purposes. The field between BarndaleHouse and the bowling green was now completely encircledby fringe-beltelements but has remained in agricultural use as residual land of the 'Bamdale Riggs'. Farther south the group of industrial plots in the Stonewell area increased in extent as well as in building coverage. Here the back-lanescommunicatingwith DispensaryStreetattractedsome large buildingunits on tail-endplots, including an iron foundry and the Assembly Hall (1886), thus consolidating the peculiar inward extension of the intramuralinitiated in the previous period. It has been shown earlier that the workhouse and the railway station had fringe location in respect of the Bondgate ribbon and formed in fact part of a new, though less well defined, IntermediateFringe Belt (Fig. 13). This feature was enlarged in the 1880s by extensions to the railway terminus, the advent of the auction mart, the laying-out of a public park about the Percy Tenantry Column, and the building of the new infirmary(1906). Across Denwick Lane the Duke's park with its new elaboratelayout mergedthe new Intermediatewith the earlierInner Belt. To the south of the town some undeveloped closes, once part of Alnwick's ancient South Field, were available for a westwardextension of the former. Accordinglybelt colonization, earlierinitiated with Croft House, proceeded in 1900 with the erection of the new Duke's School. Beyond it, the new allotments on Dunder Hill formed a further component of this zone. The belt continued westward by appropriating units of the former distal extramural, i.e. Bellevue and Clive House. Between the various components of the zone parcels of agricultural land remained here and there.

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

81

Beyond this IntermediateFringe Belt of mainly Victorian provenance, and separated from it largely by intervening residential areas, the railway line to Alnmouth, the new cemetery and the new gasworks inaugurated an Outer Fringe Belt. Today this still marks the limit of the built-up area in the southeast. It was largely conditioned by the railway lines, lying in the constricted angle between them and therefore on land less suitable for residential development, yet with satisfactoryroad access. The morphological frame was provided mainly by the railway, the main road, and the boundariesof closes derivedfrom ancient furlongs. To the north of the Alnmouth railway between Alnmouth Road and Newcastle Road, the Grove Nursery Grounds (Royal Oak Nursery), now cut off from the IntermediateBelt by newer development and so translated to the Outer Belt, marked the north-easternend of the latter. About the turn of the centurythe belt was consolidated by the addition of a laundryand a sawmill on Newcastle Road. On Wagonway Road the fever hospital formed a westward extension. Besides such residentialproperty as had been translatedfrom the old distal extramural, the Intermediate and Outer Fringe Belts incorporated some new large residenceson the east side of the town. Since most of these were ultimately absorbed into accretions of normal residentialratherthan fringe-beltcharacter, they will be discussed later under Road Ribbons and Dispersed Development. Already, similaritiesas well as important differencescan be noted between the Inner Fringe Belt and the two outer belts. They become even clearerin the light of post-Victorian development. A common trait, however, is the general sequence of their development. Each began with the town fringe as it was at some definite,even if very short, period and grewin its characteristicfashion over several subsequent periods, notwithstanding the outward shift of the town fringe. It is as if such a belt, once established, created its own environmentand imposed its own conditions of furtherdevelopment on its area in terms of shape and size of plots, types of land use, and degree of opening-up by streets. Further, all the belts shared the steady tendency towards gradual consolidation from a broken zone to a compact one. This enables us to distinguish initial, mature and final stages, indicated by the relative amount of agricultural residual,i.e. farmland surroundedby developing built-up areas. By about 1910 the Inner Fringe Belt had virtuallyreached the final stage of complete compactness, whereas the Intermediate Belt was still too disrupted by fields to have attained full maturity, and the Outer Belt was clearly in its initial stage. Another common feature is the way in which each belt tends to lose its more distal components duringthe furthergrowth of the built-up area, either by translationto a succeeding belt or by absorptioninto accretions of a different character. But there are also differences. The Inner Belt originated from a definite fixation line which had formed the physical boundary of the built-up area for some centuries and at one time was representedstructurallyon the ground by the town-wall and its gates. This not only involved a close relation of the belt

82

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

to the original built-up area, the fixation line being in direct contact with burgages everywhere, but also resulted in a marked, if incomplete, ring of consequentstreets. It establisheda closedfringe belt, with its lengthwise division into two parallel but structurally different zones, the close-grained repletive intramural and the more open-grained accretionary extramural. The implied asymmetry of this arrangementwas emphasized by the existence of the distal extramuraluntil this became subject to piecemeal translationto other belts. In contrastto this, the younger Intermediateand Outer Fringe Belts showed neither fixation lines nor division into repletive and accretionaryzones. From the beginning they were more loosely related topographically to the actual fringe of the contemporary built-up area and they were more discontinuous. Many of the newer types of land use with fringe characteristicsmight develop anywhere on peripheral open land provided it was within short transport distancefromthetown. Infact someof thesewerepurposelysitedto keepthemaway from built-up areas, e.g. the larger residences, workhouse, cemetery and fever hospital. In the initial stage of belt development here agricultural land was naturally prominent. Survivingin residual form in later stages it increased the general looseness of belt structure. This and the large size of most of the component land-use units greatly impeded the development of a closely knit streetsystem within each belt, accessible from and traversablein all directions. The only efficientroads were in fact the pre-existingarterialsand field lanes running out from the Old Town and therefore sited transverselyto the belts with large gaps between them, quite unlike the ring road of the Inner Belt. It will be seen later how these morphological differencesbetween Inner and Outer Fringe Belts affected the geography of Alnwick's growing built-up area. The New ResidentialAccretionsin General Functionally the fringe belts represented a mixture of land uses, but the bulk of accretionary growth in the Victorian and Edwardian era consisted of varied residential development. Its broad quantitativetraits can be compared with those of other periods in Table II. Between 1851and 1914,349 houses were built, that is about one-fifth of all houses erected outside the Old Town since the Mid-Georgian period, as compared with less than 10 per cent during the previous hundred years. In just over sixty years this growth covered about 64 acres or one-third of the total area as against one-sixth during the preceding hundredyears. Withinthe time span 1851-1914the pace quickenedin each of the three sub-periods,the number of houses jumping roughly from 3 to 7 and then 12 per cent and the acreage similarlyfrom 5 to 7 and 18 per cent. But whereas the averagegross density was the same in Mid-Victorianas in Georgian development, i.e. 4.3, it increased to 7.2 in Late Victorian times and fell to 5.1 in the Edwardianperiod. This indicates structural differences brought out further in Tables V, VI and VII in conjunction with Table IV.

83

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

In the Mid-Victorian period (Table V) the growth of high-density artisan housing continued in the southern part of the Howick Street area, accounting for 83 per cent of houses built. Only 18 per cent of the total area was thus occupied and a few houses with large plots actually covered about 80 per cent of the additional area. The social contrast then was still pronounced, but for the first time medium gross densities appear with a small number of houses on the south side of the town (11.1 and 10.5) which lie more truly in the middle of the whole density scale. The Late Victorian period (Table VI) shows a considerable absolute, though no relative, increase in working-class housing with high densities. It was conditioned by the minimum standards of space required by the Public Health Act of 1875 and reflected the changes generally characteristicof the period. Hotspur Place East appears with an unusually high gross density, due TABLEV Residential Development outside the Old Town, 1851-75 Acreage

Gross density

1.9718.0%

19.8

2 4 2J8.5%

0.18 0.19

11.1 10.5

1 1 4 8.5%0

0.561 1.09 [8.64 r78.7

Area (Plan-unit)

Date

Howick St. (pt.) and Howick St. S.W. (Fig. 15f)

1851-72

39 83%

Pt. 40 Pt. 37

Croft Place (part) Percy T.-Prudhoe St. W.

1851-64 1851-75

Pt. 43 Pt. 105 74"

Prudhoe St. East (pt.) Alnmouth Rd. East (pt.) Allerburn House, Ravensmede

Ref. to Fig. 21 Pt.

35 36 J

102f

(Fig. 19e) TOTAL DEVELOPMENT

1865 1874

1862-70 1851-75

Number of houses

2

47}100%

0.37 3.3%

6.99J 10.98}100%

1.8 0.9 00

0.3 4.3

possibly to subsequent site changes effected by the repletive absorption on the part of Hardy's factory and discussed earlier. The Bridge Street area is more representativein its gross density as well as in its number of houses. It is the first example in Alnwick of the activity of large-scalehousing agencies, in this case the Duke of Northumberland. Together with Hotspur Place East and the Gasworks Cottages it more than doubled the working-classhousing with high densities, although with 3.9 acres it occupied little more than one quarterof the additional area. Low-density development contributed eight houses on 9.79 acres, or nearly two-thirds of the additional area. All these buildings were large residences on the east side of Alnwick. A distinctive new feature of Late Victorian housing outside the Old Town was the wide spread over the medium densities. It reflectsthe arrivalin small numbersof a variety of new professional and other service occupations when Alnwick developed as a Victorian service centre.

84

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

The broad picture of a wide spread of density classes is retained in the residential accretions of the Edwardianperiod (Table VII). With eighty-three houses or 43.2 per cent each, however, the high- and medium-densitygroups now share equally in the absolute increase in new residential accommodation though the medium-densitydevelopmentcovers rathermore than twice the area occupied by high-density housing. The latter was now largely effected by housing agencies such as the Alnwick Workmen's Building Association, the newly formed Alnwick U.D.C., operating under the new Housing Act of 1890, and the North-EasternRailway Company. In three cases, i.e. King Street, part TABLEVI Residential Development outside the Old Town, 1875-97 Ref. to Fig. 21

Area (Plan-unit)

Housing agency

Date

Number of houses

1894 1883

17 4

42 Pt. 111

Hotspur Pl. E. Gasworks Cottages

Pt.95}

Bridge St. (Fig. 15b)

Pt. 37

Prudhoe St. W.

1881

3

1886

1

97 Pt. 80 Pt. 40

(Fig. 15f) Bondgate Without (Fig. 8) Aydon Gardens The Manse Croft Place

1875-97 1889 1875-83 1895

2 3 1 1

Pt. 105 103

(Fig. 15e) Alnmouth Rd. E. West Acres (Fig. 19e)

1875-96 1881 1875-97

6 1 1

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT

1875-97

Pt. 36 HowickSt. S.W. Pt.

V

D.o.N'd. 1884-97

91

70 82.7%

Acreage

3.90

41.5 28.5

3.35f25.7%

20.8

0.41 0.14

15.7

0.19] 0.07 11 10.0%

8 7.3%

110)100%

Gross density

0.22 0.59 0.21 0.22 2.88 1.94 4.97 15.19)

14.3 1.50 9.9%

9.79 64.4 %

100

9.1 5.1 4.8 4.5 2.1 0.5 0.2

7.2

of the Bridge Street/Duke Street area and a small part of SwansfieldPark Road North-East the peculiar North-Britishvariant of the small 'tunnel-back'house, the tunnel-backflat, was adopted. This accommodated two dwellings or 'flats' in each house instead of one. The considerable relative increase in mediumdensity housing continued and emphasized the trend already observed in the Victorian service centre. Low-density accommodation increased absolutely as well as relatively, representing 13.6 per cent of the additional accommodation on two-thirds of the additional area. It indicates the residential needs of the few manufacturersand other prosperous people who built the large houses on the east side of Alnwick with gross densitiesbelow 2. Togetherwith the increased

85

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

medium-density housing it was responsible for lowering the average gross density during the Edwardian period. New Layouts The preceding analysis indicates the general importance and variety of residential accretions during the period 1851-1914. Their morphological TABLEVII Residential Development outside the Old Town, 1897-1914 Ref. to Fig. 21

Housing agency

Date

Number of houses

Acreage

Gross density

A.W.B.A.

1897 1907 1897-1902 1898

31) 5 L83 36 r43.2% 11J

1.24) 0.20 L 3.93 1.88 10.4% 0.61J

25.0 25.0 19.2 18.0

1898-1907 1904-1909

5 29

0.33" 2.11

15.1 13.7

1899-1903 1912

83 15 43.2% 10

1.13 1.11 4.36 0.20

5.3 5.0

Area (Plan-unit)

93 Pt. 55 34 90

Queen Street Lisburn Ter. S. King St. (Fig. 15c) Seaview Ter.

Pt. 95 44 Pt. 95 941I 88

Bridge St. (Fig. 15b) Stott Street Swansfield Pk. Rd. N.E. Augur Flats

Pt. 37

(Fig. 15d) Prudhoe St. W.

1897-1911 1907

23 1

Prudhoe St. E. W. Green Batt Extramural Sawmill Cott. C. Alnmouth Rd. (Fig. 15e) The Close Ravenslaw Alnmouth Rd. E. Hillcrest

1898-1911

9'

2.37'

3.8

1903 1902

2 2

0.56 0.94

3.6 2.1

1897-1901 1897-1908 1897-1914 1897-1906 1903

4 2 3 3 1

24.65 3.47 >65.2% 1.73 3.63 5.47 6.48

1.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.2

TOTALDEVELOPMENT

1897-1914

192

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT

1851-1914

349

A.U.D.C. N.E.R.

D.o.N'd.

Pk.Rd. Pt. 81 Swansfield Pt. 43 25 115 Pt. 104 Pt. 104 99 Pt. 105 72

D.o.N'd.

26 13.6%

100%

37.82 63.99

9.24 24.4%

100%

13.3 9.0

5.1 5.5

expression in Alnwick's street-planremains to be examined. As in the case of the Georgian period, there are three groups of plan-units: layouts, ribbons, and dispersed houses. Among these, the layouts accommodated the majority of new houses and in that sense gained in relative significance(Fig. 15 in conjunction with Tables V-VII). Firstly, the existing layouts of the Howick Street area and the Hotspur Place area continued to grow during the Mid-Victorian period. The parts developed immediately before and, more so, after the passing of the Public G

86

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

Health Act of 1875 can be recognized by the characteristic block-plans of tunnel-back houses or flats, forming terraces with serrated backs due to the appearance of scullery wings. They are accommodated in a pattern of small standardizedplots with tiny front-gardensas at 'a' in Figure 15f and in Hotspur Place in Figure 16. Gross densities for these particular terraces are 21.0 and 37.9 respectively, their building coverages 75.1 and 63.8. At the same time similar accretions occupied the remainderof Prudhoe Street West to the south of St. Paul's Church(37 in Fig. 21). The major part of this type of growth, however, occurred on Wagonway Road immediately south of the railway station where a roughly triangularsite, the residual of Cross Flats (Fig. 9), was developed by the Duke from 1884 on for workmen's cottages as a complete layout of 'bye-law' streets and tunnelback terraces with front-gardens,backyardsand service alleys. It was centred on Duke Street and Bridge Street (Fig. 15b and 95 in Fig. 21). Gross densities here averaged20.8 but ranged from 14.8 to 24.9, the buildingcoverages averaging 62.1 and ranging from 56.5 to 71.6. In other words, quantitativecharacteristics of the Late Victorianlayout with small houses remaincomparableto those of the Early Victorian period (cf. Table III and p. 73) though density maxima have decreased. A few years later the Queen Streetarea, a little to the south, was also developed as one unit by the Alnwick Workmen's Building Association with terraces of somewhat simpler outline, with straight backs and no frontgardens, at a gross density of 25.0 (93 in Fig. 21). Its frame was the Furlongs Close. The gross density in this type is approximately25.0; building coverage averages 67.0 but ranges from 48.1 to 80.0 because of the smallness of plots where the addition of tiny front-gardensor of outbuildings causes appreciable differences. Almost simultaneously a third layout for workmen's houses was built on the south-west side of the town by the Local Authority as a housing scheme under the new Housing Act of 1890 and formed the King Street area. This is also a layout of bye-law type, with tunnel-back flats without frontgardens at a gross density of 19.2 and a building coverage of 81 (Fig. 15c and 34 in Fig. 21). It occupied the crofts of the yards immediatelyto the north which fronted Clayport Street and became subjectto slum clearancelater. Soon afterwards the Stott Street area on the north-west side of the workhouse was built up with tunnel-backhouses of a better kind on slightly largerplots, with frontgardens and bay windows, at a gross density of 13.7 and a building coverage of 42.6 (44 in Fig. 21). A little before that, SeaviewTerrace,a bye-law terracebuilt for railwaymenat a density of 18 and a building coverage of 28.8, had appeared among the fields south of the Queen Street area near Wagonway Road. With its detachedfront-gardensand without a properlymade-uproad it is reminiscent of the arrangementin some mining villages of Northumberlandbut can hardly be regardedas a plan-unit in the full sense (90 in Fig. 21). Finally, in 1912 the Duke built the cottages at Augur Flats, to the east of the Queen Streetarea,in an unusually free and generous layout of relativelylow density (9.0) and very low building coverage (9.7). It had terraced single-storey cottages for old people

MID- AND LATE VICTORIAN ALNWICK

87

facing a private open space and was clearly influenced in design by contemporary planning ideas (88 in Fig. 21). Its name was derived from Agger Flats, an earlier field-name of the site. The Victorian layouts formed independentunits, inserted into the frame of existing roads and field boundariesbut not forming integral parts of any unified scheme or road pattern that could have ensured a harmonious growth of the street-plan. This fragmentation of the growing built-up area, typical of all Victorian accretions,"generallycaused the abruptterminationof relativelyshort streets by cross-streets. It introduced a characteristic angularity of plan, emphasizedby the monotonous cellularstructureof standardplots with standard houses of the bye-law type arrangedin terraces. The mechanicalimpressionis increased by the strong parallelismimparted by standard street-widthsand the back-alleysrequired by the bye-laws to provide secondary access to individual plots. The Victorian period in fact became the great era of occupation roads, a development already foreshadowed in the Howick Street layout (Fig. 15f). The bye-law layout was perfectly suited to the conditions of speculativedevelopment for maximumreturns and of fragmentedlandownershipsuch as obtained on the south and south-east side of Alnwick. Since its straight streets had to be fitted into the existing pattern of land parcels, they tended to take little account of relief, some streets running more or less straight uphill. The need to open up new building land, however, promoted the deliberate siting of two co-ordinating roads on the south side of the town irrespectiveof any multiplicity of ownerships. The process had begun prior to 1851, when the western stretch of Prudhoe Street south of St. Paul's Church was laid out in continuation of Lisburn Street, the two roads being conceived as part of a future connection between Upper Clayport Street and South Road. Completion eastward was long retarded, partly by the existence of the glebe land of Croft House and partly by the fragmented ownership of the ancient Bondgate Crofts around it. The final plan for the siting of Prudhoe Street in this area was approved only in 1898, after which date the land was gradually colonized by residential buildings, the process having been completed only quite recently (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 9, 43 in Fig. 21). Farther south, beyond the Intermediate Fringe Belt, a roughly parallel connection between the ancient frame features of the Dunterns and Wagonway Road was needed as soon as this land was wanted for building purposes. Accordingly, SwansfieldPark Road was proposed in 1892, the southernedge of the previously developed Bridge Street/Duke Street layout already conforming with the new line. By 1897 the new road had come into existence and parcellation of its frontages for building purposes was then proceeding in its eastern stretch (Fig. 1, Fig. 3). Road Ribbonsand Dispersed Development The Mid- and Late Victorian developmentof largerresidencesmainly took the form of one irregulardouble ribbon along Alnmouth Road. The eastern

88

MID- AND LATE VICTORIANALNWICK

area of open country beyond Denwick Lane and the railway was already becoming a desirableresidential area in Late Georgian and Early Victorian days. At that time BelvedereTerrace, Alnbank and Freelands (98 and 101 in Fig. 21) were sited on the flat gravel ridge overlooking a pleasant countryside to the north and south in a characteristic fringe-belt context (Fig. 3). This trend continued throughoutthe Victorian era (Fig. 1). Alnmouth Road acted here as virtually the only formative frame feature, since the fences of the new plots rarely conformed to existing field boundaries. The plots were fairly large, sometimes strip-shaped, sometimes squat. All accommodated the large detached and semi-detached houses typical of the Victorian and Edwardian period. The average depth of plots was 250-270 feet, the average gross density in the strip-plots 5.93, and their average building coverage 6.9 (Fig. 15e). On the north side, however, the more dispersedsiting of largehouses with very deep plots, introduced in the previous period by Alnbank and Freelands, was continued to the east of the latter. Here Ravensmedeand West Acres were built in the 1870swith gross densities of 0.3 and 0.2 and building coveragesof 2.9 and 2.2 respectively (Fig. 19e). To the north Allerburn House (1862) and Hillcrest (1903) representedcomparable properties (74 and 72 in Fig. 21). Between South Road and the railway, residentialdevelopment in a ribbon of open formation and somewhat smallerplots, inauguratedearlierby Belvedere Terraceand with plot densitiesrangingfrom 0.8 to 5.1, filled the whole block by the end of the Edwardianperiod (97 and 99 in Fig. 21). The only other instance of a Victorian road ribbon occurred in the south along the newly constructed Swansfield Park Road from 1897 onwards. In twelve years practically the whole of its north side was colonized by a single ribbon of standardized strip plots averaging 5.3 in gross density and 15.7 in building coverage. Its pattern bore no relation to existing field boundaries (Fig. 15d; 81 in Fig. 21). This residentialribbonaccommodated mostly semidetached and detached houses of medium size. REFERENCES W. W. TOMLINSON, cit., 690. op. 2 Cf. the cartographicevidence on the OrdnanceSurvey1/528, ed. 1865, sheets 1-8; Ordnance ed. 1897, sheetsXXXII. 9, XXXII. 13; ed. 1923,sheetsXXXV. 1, XXXV. 2, XXXV. 6. 1/2500, Survey 3TATE, cit., vol. i, 452. op. 4 Ibid., vol. ii, 224. ' This and other information given in this chapterhas been obtainedfrom early buildingplans kept at the Surveyor'sOffice,Alnwick U.D.C., and made accessibleto the writerby the kindnessof Mr. G. Beaty. 6 TATE, op. cit., vol. i, 471. 7 Ibid., vol. ii, 361. 8 TATE,op. cit., vol. i, 367. Cf. the contemporarylithographedplans of Alnwick Castle in the MunimentRoom of the castle. 9 Cf. HosKINS, op. cit., 222. 1

CHAPTER 8

MODERN ALNWICK EconomicFunctionand Social Requirements SINCEthe Edwardian period Alnwick's function as a market town for the surroundingfarmingregion has changed little. No importantindustryhas been added, but the characteras a service centre of true town status for a wider rural area has been emphasized by the presence of all the modern services and activities that may be expected in such a place. With the rise of the general standard of living and of social welfare, and with the increasingcomplexity of local and central government functions, these services have become more varied than they were in Victorian days.' There are today in Alnwick five banks and a branchof Woolworth's besides the livestock marketand other shops and professional services. Among a variety of community servicesAlnwick offers grammarschools, a hospital, a maternity home, two cinemas and a weekly newspaper. It is a sub-regionalbus centre. It has a head post office and telephone exchange and is the seat of district offices for a range of central government departments, including an employment exchange and an inland revenue office. It also has local area offices of several branches of the County Council administrationas well as the offices of a Rural District Council, and Alnwick itself is an Urban District. Some of these services, as well as others cateringfor the daily social needs of the urban community,have required new or additional building accommodation and land. This applies especially to the local schools. Others, however, are in need of better accommodation. Alnwick's industrieswork generallywith a small labour force. Some, like printing, a laundry, a creamery,a sawmill and a numberof commercial garages and builders'yards, are service industries. Others,like brewingand engineering, have remained in Alnwick from earlier periods. The only industry not connected with the service centre and market town as such is the manufacture of fishing tackle carried on by two firms. In accordancewith this economic background, the population of Alnwick has increased only slightly during the modern period. After the First World War in fact it decreased in conformity with the general drift from country and country town to the larger urban centres, and has shown a moderate increase only recently. At the last census, in 1951, it was recorded as 7365 within the Urban District. Modern changes in public transport have had an important influence on Alnwick as a service centre. The railway has been largely eclipsed by road passengertransport,the more so as the town does not lie on a main line and the Alnwick-Coldstream line, which formerly connected it with its western and north-westernhinterland,has been closed and dismantledrecently. Conversely, 89

90

MODERNALNWICK

local and regional bus serviceshave increased considerably. Since Alnwick lies on the Great North Road, the frequent long-distance services from Newcastle to Edinburghpass through it. It is also the starting-pointfor eight local bus services, and is, therefore, a major bus centre in North Northumberland. The Rate and GeneralMode of Recent Growth Although the total population has changed little since the First World War, changes in the town plan have been considerable. Among all the aspects of a general rise in living standardsthat of housing has had the most direct and TABLEVIII Growth of the Built-up Area, 1827-1956 (in acres) Town*

Old

in 1827 -

Residential

and

Industrial

1897-1914

20.18

26.17

37.82

56.55+:

51.76+

4.82

2.87

15.39

0.70

12.24

3.63

10.96

-

TOTAL ADDITIONTOTAL

BUILT-UP

AREA

9 .86

Post-1945

1851-97

Institutional Commercial

1918-39

1827-51

28.63

128.49

53.7

40.0

162.83

t

216.60

0.27

2.20

0.56 59.45

64.27

272.13+

333.571

* As shown on Wood's Map (1827), i.e. including the then built-up areas of Walkergateand Canongate. Lack of evidence renderssubdivisionby land-usecategoriesimpossible. t The apparentdeficiencyof 5.66 acres in this total is due to the clearanceof part of Canongate and Walkergate,only part of the affectedarea being redevelopedby the Duke of Northumberland before 1897. Though all new houses and their plots are taken into account in the figures of residential for the last two periods, some of them actuallyformed the two residentialestates colonizing + growth the parent plots previouslyoccupied only by large Victorianresidences,i.e. West Acres (1936) and Ravensmede(1948)and thus did not strictlyincreasethe built-uparea. Hence the apparentdeficiencies of 3.92 and 2.83 acresin the totals of the respectiveperiods.

profound influence on town plans and is of greatest importance to the urban geographer. This class of land use, more than any other, has contributedto the spectacularextension of built-up areas since the First World War. A comparison of the residential areas developed in Alnwick since 1918 with those of previous periods and with other land-use categories outside the Old Town indicates the relative significance of the phenomenon (Table VIII). Of the formative factors underlying this process of residential expansion two are directly interrelated:the raised standardsof housing requiredby public health and housing legislation and the ideals of the garden-city movement. Both required much more space about each individual dwelling than had been common earlier. Thus gross densities of twenty houses to the acre for the Duke

MODERN ALNWICK

91

Street area and the King Street area (Fig. 15b and c) contrastwith the maximum gross density of twelve houses to the acre generally permitted since 1918 (Fig. 19). In other words, the family unit now occupied nearly twice the gross area formerly available. The contrast is much greaterwhen the considerably larger average size of the Victorian family is taken into account as well as the much more cramped conditions of those back-to-back houses which have been discussed earlier as an important feature of repletive burgage development. A third formative factor of importance is modern road transport which helped to make this urban sprawl over hitherto open land appear natural and acceptable. At the same time, the new housing standards as determined by law, the chronic shortage of modern houses for the lower income groups, and the resulting Housing Acts brought local authorities into the field. They hastened the long process of slum clearancewhich had begun somewhat feebly at the end of the Victorian period, and much of the centrally housed working-class population was transferredto the outskirts of towns. In this way the housing authority became the major agent in the modern expansion of the built-up area. Each of its new additions formed a unit with a rather larger number of houses than has been commonly the case with the local builder,though privatedevelopment has also been of importance in Alnwick. As the major element in Alnwick's modern accretions, this residential development will be discussed in greater detail later. Cleared slum areas, presenting temporary waste land in the centre of Alnwick, appeared as the morphologicalcorrelative of peripheral municipal housing estates. They now cover approximatelyfour acres, and are still expanding. They are intended to be used mainly for non-residentialpurposes and their entry into a 'redevelopmentcycle' is, therefore, only a matter of time. Another 1L acres, however, have already been redeveloped, mainly with dwellings. Compared with housing, the increase in land used for non-residential purposes in Alnwick has been slight. The rate of increase of commerciallyand industrially occupied land has actually declined since 1940, and the relatively higher figure for institutional land is accounted for by school building. The modern changes in Alnwick's town plan have been of three different kinds. In the Old Town there has been simultaneouslyburgage repletion, slum clearance and some replacement. Outside fringe-belt development has continued. But much the more impressive part of accretionarygrowth has taken the form of a variety of developmentunits, extendingthe built-up area, not only to the south and east of the town as in former periods but also to the west. The accretions are no longer as compact as they were in early Victorian times, the outer built-up areas now being interspersedwith unbuilt land as a result of associated fringe-belt development. It imparts to the growing town plan a looseness and irregularityof structureand outline which poses special problems of morphological analysis and subdivision. As a result of this recent spread the houses on the outskirtsnow lie at an average of three-quartersto one mile from the Market Place.

92

MODERNALNWICK

Modern Changesin the Old Town2 Since 1918, the most important change in the centre of Alnwick has been slum clearance, followed in some cases by redevelopment. To understandthe significanceof this new process, it is necessaryto returnto Teasdale'sYard as a typical exampleof an ancientburgagewhich, afterrepletionduringthe Victorian period, became subject to slum clearance. Its earlier development has already been discussed. The plans of 1864 and 1921 indicate a very slight increase in building development since 1849 without altering its character (Fig. 14). But after 1921 the burgage experienced a sudden and radical change. In 1937 Teasdale's Yard together with most of the properties between it and Clayport Street, including the adjoiningAngel Yard and Union Court, became subjectto slum clearance (cf. Figs. 17 and 18). The back-to-backhouses and virtually all the workshops and outhouses of the yard, some of them already derelict, were demolished, and the amount of land covered by buildingsdropped almost to the level of 1774 (Plan of 1956 in Fig. 14). Moreover, most of the burgage boundaries, formerly defined by walls or fences, disappeared,the whole clearance area being treated as one unit. The history of Teasdale's Yard recorded in Figure 14 thus shows four distinct phases best demonstratedin terms of building coverage: TABLE IX

BuildingCoveragein Teasdale'sYard,1774-1956 1774

1827

1849

1864

1921

1956

14.7

34.8

62.9

65.2

65.2

19.3

The initial stage showing the area of the burgageas virgin land is lost in the Anglian period. An intermediate stage is recorded for 1774, but is doubtless broadly characteristicof most of the Middle Ages. It may be taken as illustrating the first or institutivephase during which the burgage and its traditional structure became established as a plot with its own identity. Then follows a repletivephase of more or less continuous increase duringthe major part of the Industrial Revolution when building coverage is increased from one-seventh to almost two-thirds of the total burgage area. It is succeeded by a climaxphase, with relative saturation and coincident with the consolidation period of the Industrial Revolution. Finally, there is a more or less abrupt recessivephase caused by a general revaluation of existing building types and building uses. This is due partly to economic changes resulting in the decline of certain of the older trades and small-scalemanufactures,and partly to social changes such as those connected with the rise of living standards. These are reflected in the requirementsof modern housing legislation as well as in the increase of all kinds of community services. The effect of these social factors is to devalue the

93

MODERN ALNWICK

ALNWICKOLD TOWNAND INNERFRINGEBELTIN 1956 0 O 0 00 0 O O O 0 O O 0 0 OO

00

7,A

0

O O

OO

O

C

0 0 O0

O

O

O

O 0

O

SA . -4o ..

E

O

F0

o O O

0 00

0 0

0

cAsrT

0 DE

o 0

0 0 0 0

0

0

0

o0

0

A.

0 0: B DIN S 0 OA 0 SBUILDG 0 0 0 00

0

00

O O 00 O 000000

.0

S0

.0..

0

00

O O

OF FEET

SCALE 0

0o

0O 0 O

000

O

0

0 0

0

0

0

000000 92 AD 0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0.

0.

0

0 0

10 0

0

"'

0.

NT

ETAU0

Us

O

MD

FRE

o A

C

D

AANGEL

o o o

O

O

o

Y

o

C

O

0

0

0

o

0

0

0

0

BEFORE1921 INGS ERECTED EE D 2AN9KE 5 6

••

N15 EWEN RCTD BULDNS AND THEIRACCESSORIE BUILDING INDU5TRAL ND COMMERCIAL HEI ACESSRIE LBILDNGSAND INTITUION AN OMMNIT (b) T THIR WIHO SOPSAN CCSSOIE O (c)DWELIGHOSESWIH 192 BEWEEN SIESDEMOISHE CEARD OHERTHANON BUIDINS, L _, (URBAN FALLOW SITE CLEARED = FIN BEL FINGE ER INE FIXA ION 19

AND195

(0)

(,b)

lc)

FORMR 6YRDS ARD UNON OUR CORECIONHOUS DPOTERGAE PACE YAD -FTAM'S C MOORE

AANGEL YARD

YARS FORMER

E

YARD

CLEARED SITES (URBAN FALLOW)

CORRECTION

-

-

** ""0-

HOUSE

YARD

POTTERATE

ROXBURGH

PLACE

F

FIXATION LINE OF INNER FRINGESELT OPEN SPACES CREATED BEFORE 192l PERIPHERAL INTRA--AND

EXTRAMURAL

LIMITS

OF

INNER

FIGURE18

FRINGE

,L

PLACE

STAMP

YARD

TEASALE

C

H

UNION

ARD

COURT

94

MODERN ALNWICK

existing building fabric as well as to render obsolete the excessive land-use parcellation in the old burgage yards. It promotes the clearance of these areas in larger units, with consequent radical changes in the townscape. In the final stage of this process the building coverage falls approximatelyto that of the initial stage or may even be nil if the plot dominants at the streetfront have also become subject to obsolescence and the general devaluation. Burgages thus affected become partly or wholly waste land, but only temporarilyso. Sooner or later socio-economic revaluation of the site within its urban setting attracts new forms of land use, such as those resulting in centralredevelopmentschemes or in public open spaces. In a different context of rural land use in western Germany W. Hartke has likened such temporarilywaste land to the fallow in agriculturalrotation. He calls it social fallow (Sozialbrache) because the temporary cessation of its use is the result of socio-economic changes involving an eventual revaluation of the land in terms of land use.3 In this general sense Hartke's concept can be applied to slum clearance, and the waste land affected may then be called urbanfallow. We see now that the development demonstratedin the case of Teasdale's Yard is clearly cyclic. Produced by factors operative over the country as a whole and, therefore, affecting ancient burgages widely, it representsa general phenomenon in English urban morphology and may be recognized as the burgagecycle. Its final stage is markedby the state of urbanfallow accompanied by the complete or partial obliteration of the original burgage units and their buildings. This effacement of traditional plan features represents a major morphological change and terminatesthe burgage cycle. At the same time the urban fallow forms the initial stage of a succeeding redevelopmentcycle, being a necessary prerequisitefor effective investment of new capital in the site. The lamellate pattern of strip burgages, already modified by amalgamation, is generally too fine-grainedto allow redevelopment in accordance with modern building and planning standards. At the same time the central position of these areas allows them to retain their economic or social potential. Under modern conditions the discrepancy is resolved by the pooling of plots followed by wholesale clearance, usually by compulsory purchase on the part of the local authority. All this commonly affects the burgage tails and their repletive building fabric. But it may also include the plot dominants on the burgage heads if these are too outmoded or if the social revaluationof the area entails an important functional change. Figure 18 shows the Old Town alreadywidely affectedby the processesjust discussed. Altogether nine sites have become subject to slum clearance and nearly all are at present in differentstages of development. Two of the more prominent sites are situated in the Market Street/Green Batt Area. They have been cleared since 1953 and are already of appreciable size, yet their irregular boundaries suggest a state of immaturity. They represent the first two instalments of the complete clearance of internal back land in this street-block, in preparation for a proposed central redevelopment scheme.

MODERN ALNWICK

95

On four other smaller sites, clearance is more or less complete. Among these Pottergate Place presents greater difficultiesto redevelopmentbecause of its general shape, the high retaining wall at the back in substitution of the original western slope of the Bow Burn valley, and thus its limited accessibility in conjunction with its very marked back-land position (cf. Fig. 4)4. Finally, there are three sites showing different types and stages of redevelopment. The largest, some two acres in extent, lies on the north side of Clayport Street. With its generally smaller burgages(cf. Fig. 5) and its remoter position, it became one of the most crowded parts of the town during the nineteenth century (Union Court). No less than twenty-seven fatal cases of cholera were recordedhere in 1849, and it had been scheduledfor improvement already in Late Victorian days. Its burgage cycle has been illustrated by the example of Teasdale'sYard. Today the westernpart of the whole site has been partially redeveloped for commercial purposes, but most remains waste land available to accommodate a future bus station. On the second clearance site south of Clayport Street redevelopment occurred in a 'split' cycle. The back, facing the King Street area, reached maturity in a single phase when Monkhouse Terrace was built in 1924, while the Clayport front has reached only an intermediatestage with the erection of a temporaryfire-station. The interior of the site is still waste. While these two areas do not present new streets and are, therefore, examples of purely adaptive redevelopment,the third area, about li acres between Pottergate and the Drill Hall, is different. It was clearedin 1938, including the notorious Moore's Yard on its west side. Soon after the Second World War it was redeveloped for housing by the Duke and the town council, who erected the Memorial Cottages and the Bowburn Cottages for old people, the whole forming a layout with a new internal road and open spaces. This is, therefore,the only cleared site in Alnwick associated with the addition of a new street, thus providing an example of augmentativeredevelopmentdistinct from the adaptive forms mentioned earlier. Among the sites subjectto slum clearance since 1918, it is also the only one which has completed the institutive phase of its redevelopment cycle. It presents, therefore, a parallel to the rather earlier cases of Georgian and Edwardianredevelopmentin Canongate. Slum clearancehas thus affecteddifferentparts of the Old Town in different ways. It may usefully be considered together with the morphological processes of repletion as well as replacement in the Old Town. Keeping in mind the processes in retrospect (Figs. 10, 11, 12, 16 and 17), the diversity of their geographical result in terms of the existing town plan will become clear (Fig. 18). Characteristically,clearance first affected those burgages of the ancient borough that had a peripheral situation away from the market area. This applies notably to the Stonewell street-block near the Bow Burn and Clayport Tower where the ancient plots had contained small houses and cramped premises for some time. On the other hand, the burgage series occupied by Fenkle StreetWest Row has escaped similarchanges except at its northernand southern extremities. Indeed, its centre has continued with repletive development and

96

MODERN ALNWICK

replacementon a scale not found elsewherewithin the Old Town except on the north side of Bondgate Without. Judgingby the evidence of 1774, the centre of Fenkle Street West Row began early with markedreplacementof dominants on large plots resultingfrom burgageamalgamation. Situatedon the higher side of the CentralTriangle,away from the two thoroughfaresand yet centrallyplaced, it may have been the more 'exclusive' side at that time and later. Spaciousness characterizedboth plots and plot dominants, which housed coaching inns and hotels, a bank and the post office. In spite of vigorous tail-end repletion of a very differentkind in the Stonewell area, the parent plots kept their generally unencumbered state until increasing pressure of claims on these central sites caused a 'rebound'. The new post office and telephone exchange, replacing several plot dominants, express this functionally conditioned change in the plan. Elsewhere the traditional plot dominants of central Alnwick, mostly Late Georgian in character,remainintact except for an occasional new facade or new shop. This means that the ancient road fork and Central Triangle with its associated plot dominants today preserve the traditional street spaces of Alnwick. The whole in fact represents the most important urban residue, besides the castle and St. Michael's Parish Church. Its judicious preservationin the context of all other claims constitutes an importantplanning problem of the town. On the other hand, the congested townscape behind the front rows of plot dominants, though of great interest to the historical geographer, cannot claim the same intrinsic value as a physical environment for present-day living and working and is bound to disappear in time. The Market Street/Green Batt area with its steadily extending cleared sites provides an interesting but complicated case. At present most of the burgagesbetween St. Michael's Lane and the Corn Exchange are waste in their interior between the frontal plot dominants on MarketStreetand the tail-endplots with their own dominantson Green Batt. Elsewhere, back buildings in a partial or complete stage of dilapidation are irregularly distributed among buildings in full use, often medial plot dominants. Indeed, on some burgages at the west and east ends there has been repletive development since the First World War. The Market Street/Green Batt area, then, represents a street-block offering differentialresistance to the completion of its burgage cycle because of the great diversityin its plot pattern and associated buildings. This in turn reflects the long history of repletion in this block, itself a direct consequence of its position in the earliertown plan. The contrast with Bondgate (Within) North Side is striking. Here repletion, already comparatively slight during the Victorian period, has been virtually absent since 1918 and so has slum clearance, leaving many of the burgages intact or in the earlier stages of their repletive phase. No morphological change has taken place in the Market area since 1918, other than an occasional change in the use of shops and business premises. In the Bailiffgate area modern changes are moderate and entirely repletive in

MODERN ALNWICK

97

character amounting to the conversion of a back-yardinto a covered commercial garage and the addition of accessories to the Duchess's School and the Roman Catholic Convent. The two oldest ribbons of the town show more considerable additions (Fig. 8). In the Clayport ribbon the development of the old burgages on the south side and their site successors has already been described. The shadow of obsolescence has fallen on that of the opposite side where slum clearance has already affected Stamp's Yard (cf. Fig. 18). The Bondgate ribbon shows important changes, the cinema and an adjoining house representing replacements and the commercial garage repletive development. ResidentialPlan-Units As seen earlier, peripheral accretions since 1918, like those of the Later Victorian period, were mainly residential but much more extensive. The new residential area amounted to about 108 acres and contained 1169 houses, as compared with 349 houses on 64 acres added during the period 1851-1914. Table II (p. 53) shows that during the three major periods of growth after 1750 the number of houses has increased roughly in the ratio 1 : 2: 7. If one allows for the unequal lengths of the three periods, however, the relative rate of increasehas been acceleratedin the ratio 1 : 4 : 23. This acceleration is paralleled by that within the modern period, the relative rate of incresse between 1918-39 and 1945-56 following roughly the ratio 1 : 1. The increase in acreage is somewhat different, the respective ratios being roughly 1 : 2 : 3, 1 :3 :9 and 1 : 2. In other words, relative increase in acreage has been much slower owing to the decreasingshare of large residencesin modern development. ConverselyTable II shows an increase in average gross densities though within the modern period there has been a lowering due to improved design of housing layouts. In this general picture the accretionaryresidential development of the modern period appears as one serving the broad mass of the population much more than that of former periods and being subject to steadily improving general housing standards. The incidence of residential gross densities by individual street plan-units points in the same direction (Table IV, p. 55). High densities have virtually disappearedand low densities are concentratedin Class IV, i.e. between the values 2 and 4. In other words the great spread in densities so characteristic of the Georgian and Victorian periods has been eliminated. Medium densities now dominate and there is a characteristicrecent shift of emphasis from the higher to the lower medium densities. During the inter-warperiod (Table X) nearlyhalf the numberof new houses on the outskirts of the town occurred in plan-units of the higher medium densities on about two-fifths of the new residentialacreage. This representsthe standardtype of developmentfor the period, with compact layouts and ribbons, two-thirds of it being council housing. Another quarter of the new houses on less than one-third of the additional acreage falls within the central class (VI)

98

MODERN ALNWICK

of the medium-densitygroup. This is a slightly more spacious type of development, though more than half is representedby council housing of the standard type and obtains its low gross density only by the inclusion of internallyplaced allotment gardens. The low medium densities are representedby about 7 per cent of the new houses on one-seventh of the additional acreage. They are restricted to cases where the morphological frame presented special conditions enforcing a relatively lower density than would have occurred otherwise. The amount of low-density development is negligible. Unusual even for the interTABLEX Residential Development outside the Old Town, 1918-39 Ref. to Fig. 21 78

Area (Plan-unit)

Council housing

Date

Oak St.-Beech St. (Fig. 19c)

+

1937

77 1 St. Thomas's Crescent 87 Aydon Crescent York Cr.-York Rd. S. side 89 91 Augur Ter. W. Pt. 83 Greensfield Ave. E. York Rd. N. side 86 79 Clayport Gdns. Pt. 85 Pt. 85

Lindisfarne Rd. (Fig. 19f) St. George's Cr. (Fig. 19f)

Pt. 81 Pt. 81

The Dunterns Swansfield Pk. Rd. S.W. side

133

Police Houses N. West Acres (Fig. 19e) Shepherd's Rest

116)17.7%

Acreage

17.6

+

72" 18 51 313 26 47.8 42 19 85

4.88 1.24 3.55 1.83 3.28 1.57 7.08

+

1925 1922-24

34 94

3.18 9.20

1938-39 1922-36

31

+

*

_......

1938 1936 1924

174 26.6%

15

Gross density

6.56}11.67o

1937 1936 1926-30 1926 1939 1926 1936

______________ __________________________________________________ _______________________I

Pt. 60 103

Number of houses

3.30

23.43 41.2o

44 31.0%

14.7 14.5 14.4 14.2 12.8 12.4 12.0 10.7 10.2 9.4

1.76f

8.5

1.041 7.79 6.75J 13.8%

6.7 6.1

2.4%

3.0

.___________

7 48 41f 7.3% 4

0.6%

1.33)

4

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT1918-40 655100% 56.55 100%11.6 *

Housing providedby NorthumberlandCounty Council.

war period is the occurrence of high-density development which, as council housing, supplied no less than about one-sixth of the new houses on one-ninth of the additional acreage. Altogether, council housing accounted for 418 houses or 64 per cent of the new residentialdevelopment. In the post-war period (Table XI) the medium densitieshold the field more exclusively owing to the disappearanceof high density development. Within them the higher density class accounts for a fifth of the new houses on 15 per cent of the additional area, but the bulk (71 per cent) lies in the medium class of

99

MODERN ALNWICK

8-12 houses per acre covering more than two-thirds of the additional acreage. Between them these two classes contain all the council housing outside the Old Town, amounting to 448 or 87 per cent of the new houses. In comparison the residentialdevelopment at lower medium densities, mostly private, is small, and TABLEXI Residential Development outside the Old Town, 1945-56 Ref. to Fig. 21 84 Pt. 83 76 Pt. 82

Number of houses

Council housing

Date

New Wagonway Rd. Estate (Fig. 19g) Greensfield Ave. W.

+ -

1956 1953

64 42J

+

1947

150'

13.06-

11.4

1950-53

22

2.05

10.7

+ +

1953 1946

68 50

+ + + *

1953 1948 1952 1953

4 28 42 2

0.40 2.86 5.27 0.25

10.0 9.8 8.0 8.0

*

1956 1952

2' 11

0.27' 1.81

7.4 6.1

102 46 Pt. 60

Barresdale Blakelaw Rd. W. (Fig. 19d) Windsor Gardens (Fig. 19b) Augur Ter. E. (Fig. 19h) Houses S. of Council House Ravensmede (Fig. 19e) Alwynside (Fig. 19a) Police Houses S.

Pt. 85 118

Victoria Crescent Firemen's Houses

Pt. 82

BlakelawRd. E.

Pt. 80 43 Pt. 80

(Fig. 19d) Dunterns North Prudhoe St. E. Dunterns South

1953-55 1950-55 1952-54 1955

14 2 4 1

Pt. 55

Lisburn Ter. S.

1953

1

39

Bungalows nr.

45 92 65

Gross density

Area (Plan-unit)

Pt. 100

Duke's School Alnmouth Rd. W.

1952 1952

2 1

Pt. 100

Alnmouth Rd. W.

1952

2

105 Pt. 104

Alnmouth Rd. E. C. Alnmouth Rd.

1955 1954

1 1

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT

1946-56

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT

1918-56

*

514 1169

106 20.6%

366 71.2%

34 6.6

Acreage 7.78 4.54 15.1% 3.24J

6.35 .70

2.54 0.39 0.87 0.24

34.9 67.5Y

6.12 ,1.8%

0.288 .6

0.62 0.31

0.65

51.76 108.31

10.7 10.6

5.5 5.1 4.6 4.2 3.6

2.92 5.6

3.2 3.2

3.1 2.4 1.5

0.41 0.65 ) 100%

14.1 12.9

100%

9.9 10.8

Housing providedby NorthumberlandCounty Council.

low-density developmentis negligible as regardsthe numberof houses involved. A prominent feature of modern residential development, then, is the increasing share taken by the local authority as a housing agency, indicating a trend initiated by the Housing Act of 1890 and intensified continuously since then. Table XII shows this for the period from 1897 to 1956.

100

MODERN ALNWICK

Allowing for the differentlengths of the three periods involved the relative rate of the provision of council houses has been acceleratedroughly in the ratio 1 :9 :21 and that of the requisite land in the ratio 1 : 13 :37. The divergence in these ratios indicates the marked decrease in gross densities. These figures speak eloquently of the great influencewhich local authoritieshave on the urban morphology of the English market town. On the whole, residential accretions since 1918 consist either of layouts in the form of municipal or privatehousing estates or of simpleresidentialribbons. In a few cases houses occupy small previously undeveloped plots singly or in very small groups. This complementarybuildingdevelopmentis noticeable on TABLEXII Council Housing, 1897-1956 Period

% of total housing

1897-1914 1918-1939 1945-1956

18.7 63.6 86.9

36 418 448

TOTAL

66.1

902

Number of houses 4.0% 46.3% 49.7% 100%

Acreage

Gross density

1.88 31.27 40.42

2.6% 42.5% 54.9%

19.2 13.4 11.1

73.57

100%

12.3

the more recent eastern stretch of Prudhoe Street where the road, running transversely across the 'grain' of the ancient Bondgate Crofts and so cutting them up into smaller units, has combined with the traditional multiplicity of ownerships in this area and the retardation caused by the former extent of glebe land to create conditions peculiarly favourable for this type of growth (43 in Fig. 21; cf. Figs. 1 and 9). The housing estate or residentiallayout is a plan-unit large enough to contain a system of new internal roads. In Alnwick these are generally designed exclusively as residential streets since distance from the town centre is rarely more than 3 mile and there is no need for a local shopping centre. The individual housing estate is not traversed by any pre-existing roads, though these commonly run along one side and gather the trafficfrom the adjoining housing areas. The housing estates are designed to feed their own trafficinto these preexisting roads which thus form functionally an important part of the morphological frame for the new accretions. In Alnwick such roads are Howling Lane, Wagonway Road and its southern continuation, and Swansfield Park Road, while Alnmouth Road, though a major trafficroad, serves the estates at West Acres in a similar way. The rest of the frame is largely supplied by pre-existing field boundaries, and as each field is unique, the layout of internal residential streets is correspondingly so. Thus residential layouts show morphological conformitycomparableto that of the market concretionsof the CentralTriangle. Good examples are provided by Figure 19a, h, e, and b. Such estates, then,

101

MODERNALNWICK

UNITSIN ALNWICK MODERNDEVELOPMENT

SCALEOF FEET

Eoo

KEY TO MAP e' PRE-VICTORIAN ROADS AND BOUNDARIES ...*

b

MID-

AND LATE VICTORIAN

ROADS

AND

BOUNDARIES

MODERNROADS AND BOUNDARIES

Z:f

r

MID- AND LATE VICTORIANDETACHEDHOUSES OF THE INTER-WARPERIOD

-HOUSES

HOUSESPOST-WAR

•

d

e SEC.

Mo 0

SCHOOL O

f

h

ztr

SALLOTMEmrrj

cI

zo

FIGURE 19

H

e

102

MODERNALNWICK

even when containing nothing but semi-detachedhouses, have individuality as plan-units. We may examine their plan characteristicsfurther in conjunction with the quantitativedata of Tables X and XI. Among the pre-warlayouts the plan-unit with the highest density (17.6) and a building coverage of 29.5 is the Oak Street/ Beech Street area (Fig. 19c). It representsan unorthodox and now no longer favoured essay in the rehousing of population from slum clearance areas. It is an attempt to provide a healthierenvironment,but one which should be as near as possible to the conditions to which the rehoused population had been accustomed. Hence the smallness of garden plots and the emphasis on terrace blocks with up to eight houses, but without access tunnels from the front and therefore with separate back-lanes providing rear access to walled back-yards, an unusual feature in housing estates after 1918. A more open variant is representedby the York Road area (89 in Fig. 21) which mixes terrace blocks with pairs of semi-detached houses. On the whole, however, semi-detached houses with gardens became the general rule for municipal housing in Alnwick until 1939 since they tended to be regarded as complying best with the new housing standards created by legislation after the First World War. The pre1939 characterof these plan-units is easily recognized by the generally slightly higher densities (above 12) and the more mechanical arrangementof houses. This entails straight building lines, a general use of 'through' roads, and an absence of internal open spaces and culs-de-sac, all characteristicstending to create the more monotonous townscape of 'suburbia'. Thus, even with low building coverages, as in the case of St. George's Crescent (14.3), the grouping of houses near the street gives an appearance of crowding. Culs-de-sac occur generally in this generation of layouts only as accidental'boundaryculs-de-sac' as in the cases of LindisfarneRoad (Fig. 19f) and West Acres (Fig. 19e), without architecturaltreatment. Since 1945, however, the plan features of housing estates in Alnwick have changed notably. Their gross densities are generally below twelve.' The earliest post-war estate is at Augur Terrace (East), characteristicin its restriction to completely detached standard dwellings. This points to its nature as emergency housing in the form of prefabricated detached bungalows at a density of 10.6 but with the rather high building coverage of 26.7 (Fig. 19h). The Barresdalearea shows the return to semi-detached houses and 'through' roads, but already with broken building lines to create architecturalinterest in the townscape (76 in Fig. 21). The Ravensmede Estate goes a step further in architectural design. It introduces the true cul-de-sac, closed at the end by houses, and a more conscious grouping of buildings at the relatively low density of 9.8 and the fairly high building coverage of 20.8. The latter is conditioned partly by the generouslydimensionedroad with its open-space features (Fig. 19e). The last stage in this post-war developmentis representedby Windsor Gardens and Alwynside which combine the manipulation of house groups and broken building lines with the introduction of internal open spaces (Fig.

MODERN ALNWICK

103

19b and a). This results in frequently lower gross densities (8.0 at Alwynside) and in a variation of the cul-de-sac motif. It gives a general freedom and openness of arrangementemphasizedby lower building coverages (Windsor Gardens 18.5, Alwynside 18.9) and represents modern ideas of residential design more adequately than the estates built before 1939. It is calculated to create a more human and intimate townscape, notably when coupled with the preservationof mature trees or the grouped planting of new ones. The latest layout in the modern style is situated on South Wagonway and introduces a combination of terrace blocks, semi-detachedhouses and terraced bungalows, the latter on the east side of South Wagonway (Fig. 19g). The shallow sites here result in relatively high values of gross density (14.1) and building coverage (23.7). The local authority generally provides housing in the form of estates in order to erect dwellings in quantity and to keep the additional built-up areas compact. The private builder, especially between the two world wars, has tended to develop building land also in the form of single or double ribbons along existing roads. It seemed economically advantageous,especiallyin piecemeal development, to have a ready-made road available, and it often already contained the necessary utility services. Generally these very simple plan-units of the inter-war period are exclusively residential and in a small town like Alnwick tend to be filled with the same type of house. They can be distinguished as residential ribbons from the complex arterial ribbons such as Bondgate Without. Since they develop on the frontages of existing roads runningout into the open country, they impair the traffic efficiency of these roads. They also detract from visual amenities of the countryside and their further development has been made virtually impossible under present planning administration. In Alnwick, however, residential ribbons occur generally on minor traffic and residentialstreets when backed or faced by large school plots as in several cases on the south side. It is a form largely conditioned by associated fringe-belt development. House types include semi-detachedand detached houses as well as bungalows. Where gross densities are between 8 and 14 the plots are often so narrow that the addition of private garages may completely close a series of pairs of semi-detachedhouses. The west side of Blakelaw Road (Fig. 19d) with a gross density of 10.7 and the very high building coverage of 33.7 illustratesthis and contrasts with the east side of the same road where site conditions have enforced low values in gross density (5.5) and building coverage (15.4). From this discussion modern residential development emerges as generally very differentin quantitativetraits from that of the Late Victorian and Edwardian period. Its lower densities, usually below fifteen, and its lower building coverages, rarely above twenty-five, contrast with those of the earlier period when small houses were packed much more closely, with building coverages generally above fifty. Together, housing estates and residential ribbons form the more substantial of Alnwick's peripheral accretions since 1918 (Figs. 1 and 20): an interruptedand in parts very loosely knit zone. To the north-west of Clayport

104

MODERNALNWICK

Street, this zone consists almost entirely of six municipal housing estates representingthe complete sequence of designs from the inter-warperiod to 1956 (45, 46, 76, 77, 78 and 79 in Fig. 21). Their morphological frame is provided by field boundariesdating from the late eighteenthor early nineteenthcentury, and by Howling Lane which representsthe minor trafficstreet here. Without exception their street-systems are conditioned by this frame and provide excellent examples of morphological conformity. On the south side of the town, the modern accretions form a somewhat larger and more diversifiedcomplex that falls into two parts. In the eastern the theme of compact units, characteristicof the Wagonway Road area already in Victorian days, has been maintained, albeit in terms of modern bye-law and planning requirements. Owing to the configuration of the pre-1914 built-up area the new housing estates in this locality sometimes show complementary position and for that reason tend to be small (Figs. 20 and 21). The earlier building development here, together with the railway line to Wooler, ancient field boundariesof generallysmall closes, and Wagonway Road, have formed a more stringent morphological frame. The commonest building and plot unit is the semi-detachedhouse typical of the inter-warperiod. The western part of the southern zone contrasts strongly with the rest because of its exclusive use of the residential ribbon in close association with large and open school plots. Growth in this area has been dominated by fringebelt development since Late Victorian days. A notable detail is the recurrent intercalation of contiguous private garages between adjoining pairs of semidetached houses (Fig. 19d). Farther north, in and near to the Intermediate Fringe Belt, modern development has been largely complementary, especially in and around the eastern part of Prudhoe Street. Here all the residual open plots of the ancient Bondgate Crofts are now built up or are open spaces with a typical urban land use (39, 43 and 60 in Fig. 21). To the east, modern development has also taken the form of housing estates. Of the two estate layouts in this area, that of West Acres shows the normal features of private development during the inter-warperiod, while that of Ravensmedehas been explained earlieras a post-war composition (Fig. 19e). The most remarkablefeatureof these two estates, however, is that they represent a peculiarform of modern repletivegrowth, having filled up the plots of the two Victorian dominants from which they take their names. The phenomenon is recurrentin British urban morphology. The two large Victorian houses, proving too cumbersomeand uneconomic as private residences,were abandoned as such, and their well-wooded land became available for housing development. The old dominants themselves, being structurally sound, survived on their restricted parent plots, as they could be converted into flats, a characteristic modification of building use. With their setting of mature trees they have influenced the new layouts of which they now form integral parts as typical residual dominants. Thus the two estates present a distinct type of modern accretionarygrowth, the repletivelayout.

MODERN ALNWICK

105

Outer Fringe-Belt Development Simultaneously with the growth of residential accretions the two outer fringe belts of Alnwick have developed further and extended their area since 1918 (Fig. 13). Under modern conditions, however, peripheral housing has grown more continuously and less compactly. In some places housing areas have transgressed and modified the fringe belts before the latter were consolidated, e.g. the western housing estates in the case of the IntermediateBelt and GreensfieldAvenue in the case of the Outer. Their growth has no longer taken place compactly behind a simple advancing front but has tended to leapfrog residual open land. This happened especially if such land had been encumberedby adjoining belt developmentand thus retainedno effectivefrontage to a pre-existingradial road from the town or was subjectto other impediments retarding its development. Hence the continued existence of agricultural residuals east and north-east of the infirmary,east of the Duke's School, and to the south and west of Bellevue. Thus therehas been more continuous interplay between the outward advance of residential accretions and the growth of the Intermediateand Outer Fringe Belts. Nevertheless, typical fringe-beltelements like new allotments, new schools, and other institutions have continued to be located in relativelyperipheralposition on open farm land. The schools, moreover, naturallytend to follow the expansion of residentialareas. As a result, the looseness of relation between the actual fringe of the built-up area and its corresponding fringe belt, already noticeable to a degree in early Victorian times, has become much more marked recently. One can observe continued 'belt' development on previously open land of the Intermediate and Outer Fringe Belts as well as an increasing zonal interpenetrationbetween these two belts on the one hand and the residential accretions with which they are associated on the other. This imparts an irregularity of general layout and land-use pattern to the modem built-up area which is difficult to understand until one recognizes its evolutionary significance in terms of the fringe-belt concept. The IntermediateBelt has grown differentiallyin its various parts. In the east, physical growth has been weak and the belt remains disjointed, but functional changes have been considerable. In its southern stretch the belt has reached an advanced stage of consolidation, though patches of farmlandsurvive and some plots have been colonized by residential accretions. In the western stretch the belt is again more disjointed and still very incomplete. Here the history of large landownershipshas conditioned the steady growth of housing estates since 1936 as well as the long survival of farmland and its ultimate reservationfor institutionalpurposes. The IntermediateBelt, then, is seen to be approaching maturity. One of its most marked evolutionary characteristicsis the large number of units alienated, chiefly by absorption on the part of advancing residential accretions. Figure 13 shows these wherever the town has extended its built-up area at different periods. It helps to emphasize the fact

106

MODERNALNWICK

that the loss of component plots or fringe-belt alienationoccurs in two distinct ways: by belt translation and by accretionaryabsorption. The Outer Fringe Belt, though really applying only to the southern margin of the town, is now nearly as extensive. Its consolidation is most advanced in and about the angle of the two railway lines, which are themselves typical fringe-beltfeatures with their embankmentsand cuttings. Colonization within the angle shows a representative assortment of industries, public utilities, associated small houses, and open spaces. It gives an unmistakable fringe-belt appearanceto Alnwick's 'gateway' from the south, easily observed by road or rail. Farther west follows a sector of mutual interpenetrationwith residential accretions. In the main this is an area of large school sites. Here the new SecondaryModern School is alreadythe most strikingfeature of the developing townscape. Farther west again the Outer Fringe Belt loses some of its intrinsic character as it includes the contiguous areas of SwansfieldPark and Alnwick Moor. The latter could be regardedwith equaljustificationas ordinarycountryside. Nevertheless, it is also a long-establishedopen space that sets a definite limit to the town's growth on this side, and its peculiar swarm of Freemen's cottages forms a distinctive, if somewhat extenuated, fringe-belt feature. Swansfield House and its park are now a part of the Outer Belt by virtue of their topographicalposition. Having begun as one of the earliest distal units of the first - now Inner - Fringe Belt, this residencebecame subsequentlypart of the Intermediate Belt when that gained its own identity in the middle of the nineteenth century. It has, therefore, experiencedfringe-belttranslation twice. On the basis of all these developments,the morphology of the three fringe belts of Alnwick can be finally contrasted. The Inner Belt was the earliest and originatedfrom a fixation line which had markedthe stationarytown fringe for some time and developed into a consequent ring road. It was also the first belt to be completed and shows modern growth only in some replacements and a modest amount of repletive development. Along its fixation line it has been continuous from the start and today forms a fairly compact zone with a closegrained intramural and a coarser proximal extramural. Even in the latter, however, the plot size is generally smaller than in the other belts, except of course in the north, where the castle and the grounds of the Dukes of Northumberland have presented very special conditions from an early time. From the beginningthere was also a distal extramural,placed disjointedlyin the surrounding countryside. In this directionthe belt gained enormous width, but inevitably at the expense of definitionand identity. As the town has developed further,the whole of this distal part has been alienated, partly by fringe-belt translation through the emergence of younger belts, partly by accretionary absorption. What remains is a well-defined closedfringe belt. It contrasts with the Intermediate and Outer Belts, which originatedmuch later and without referenceto a fixation line. Far from beginning as continuous zones, they have been effectively prevented from becoming such by the simultaneous piecemeal expansion of residential accretions and they are today broken or open fringe

MODERN ALNWICK

107

belts. They have attained their present belt-like extent only recently, usually by the addition of very large plots that distinguishthem from the Inner Belt. Some of these units have been inherited by fringe-belt translation, others have been newly formed, often under site conditions created in an earlier fringe-belt context. The development of these plots is the morphological expression of functional changes, i.e. the advent of new social and utility services and their location in regional service centres. Some of these new types of land-use units include considerable open spaces. They weaken the built-up character of the belts, which are after all a form of urban accretion, by lowering their average building coverage over considerableareas. They also impede passage across the belts, their very size causing an appreciablelowering of street density, i.e. the average street length per acre of area occupied by urban land uses. Open fringe belts, therefore, have the effect of loosening the plan structure of all urban accretions in conditions of mutual interpenetration.

REFERENCES servicecentres,cf. A. E. SMAILES, 'The urban

1 For the criteriadeterminingthe classificationof

hierarchy of England and Wales', Geography, 29 (1944), 41-51. R. E. DICKINSON,City, region and regionalism (1947), 45-51; H. E. BRACEY,Social provision in rural Wiltshire (1952); H. E. BRACEY,

'Townsas ruralservicecentres,etc.', TransactionsandPapers,1953,Instituteof British Geographers, 19 (1953), 95-105;F. H. W. GREEN, 'Urbanhinterlandsin Englandand Wales', Geographical Journal, 116(1950), 64-88. 2 For some of the data used in this and the following sub-sectionsthe authoris greatlyindebted to Mr. G. Beaty.

3 W. HARTKE, 'Die soziale Differenzierung der Agrarlandschaft im Rhein-Main-Gebiet', Erdkunde, 7 (1953), 13-22; W. HARTKE,'Die Sozialbrache als Phainomen der geographischen Differenzierung der Landschaft', Erdkunde, 10 (1956), 257-69. 4 Since this was written, there has been further slum clearance, especially in the Market Street /Green Batt area and in Upper Clayport Street (north side).

PART III THE EXISTING TOWN PLAN OF ALNWICK CHAPTER9

TYPES OF PLAN-UNITS IN the preceding analysis the physical growth of Alnwick has been followed in major stages from Anglian times to the present day. Thus the characteristics of individual components of the present town plan have become explicable in referenceto their periods and modes of development. On this basis the plan as a whole can be examined in terms of morphogenetictypes of plan-units as well as of resulting geographical structure. Figure 20 shows the distribution of types of plan-units, and its key of symbolsindicatingthirteenmajor and forty-ninesub-typesgives a generalidea of the morphological complexity of this small market town., The AncientBoroughPlan The first and oldest major plan type is representedby the ancient borough with the three deep-burgageseries round its former triangular market, its (i), three arterialsleading outward from the corners of the latter, and its medieval extension of Pottergate. As suggested earlier, the deep burgages put this planunit into the generalclass of medieval High Street layouts. The peculiararchaic street-systemwith its large Central Triangle appears to present a special type within this class which might be introduced provisionally as the Alnwick type. Whereasthis layout remainsvirtuallyunalteredin its street-system,its area of constituent burgage series has been influencedby the burgage cycle and the evolution of the Inner Fringe Belt. Consequently it has suffered the triple metamorphosis of replacementsat the burgage heads, repletion in the burgage tails, and reduction in area by tail truncation and slum clearance. Each of the three main series has been affected differently by these changes and so constitutes a separate sub-type of plan, the average state of its burgagesproviding the general criterion for classification. On the north-east side of the Central Trianglethereis the Bondgatesub-type(1), a deep-burgageseriesalreadytruncated but in a relatively early stage of the burgage cycle. To the south the Market Street sub-type(2) is a deep-burgageseries more strongly truncated by fringebelt develoFmentand affectedconsiderablyby the burgagecycle. Most parts of the series have reached a mature stage of repletion characteristicof the climax phase, while some have already run through the recessive phase and are now severely reduced in area, with an increase in urban fallow. To the west the Fenkle Street sub-type (3) presents a series of the same complexion but more 108

.

. 0

0

* "

0

00000ALNWICKK 0?

o** ?

o.o

.

)?=00

**1

'

'

'

o(i

*

*

*,

'

* * , *ee *,

.

,

II6

////////

e

.

.

.

?

?

?

2

,,mi

r

?

_

?

+

"

04

0

0

*

0 +.4

.

*

/

/

*

*

* *

O *

*

*•SS/S* *

*

?*

*?* *

*

* *

*

*

* *

*

* * * * * * *

*

*0** O

*?* *

**

*

**

*

*0

0*

*?

RH

*?

*

* 0 0

* 0

*

SCALE

FIGURE20

OF 1 00

*

0

FEET

.1500

20.00.

0 -

*

0

0

0

0

0

So

* **0

* 0

0

0

*

.

v

*

38 200*0

*

* HI

41**

0

0- 0?

*o

?I

*0

*

**

F

500 * *

I.

i)r

1*r**,

*

50

100

i

*

*

*

*

FEE SCALE *

.

* *

1~

*

.

.

o.

o

.

*

i,

I

?

['

8

K - TYPES OF PLAN - UNITS ii) 9• 6

(Vi )

L

(xD)

(a)(b)

123

7. . 8

x4

~

230

."2 (vii 18

43

24 25

33-46

26

27

34

1 1,1

14

38, 39, 40, 26,41

0

O * * ?

* *

44 45

0j47

48

31W 36

??

fj

31 32

19

\26

42

29

212

16

17.....

e

IZ(xii )

101521 5

)

)

W(x

49

20--Alnwick-Typesof plan-units. FIGURE (i) 1 2 3 4 5

Medieval High Street Layout, with triangularmarket (Alnwick Type). Deep-Burgage series, Bondgate sub-type. Deep-Burgage series, Market Street sub-type. Deep-Burgage series, Fenkle Street sub-type. Market concretions. Shallow-Burgageseries.

(ii) Medieval 'Suburbium'. (iii) Simple High Street Layout. 6 Deep-Burgage series, Canongate sub-type. (iv) ExtramuralBorough Street, with special siting. (v) 7 8 9 10 11

Closed Fringe Belt, with consequentring-road. Castle complex (modified pre-urban nucleus). Castle Grounds. Intramura. Extramuralwith high building coverage. Extramuralwith low building coverage.

(vi) 12 13 14

TraditionalArterial Ribbons. Traditional plot series, largely unaltered. Traditional plot series, truncated and residual. Complex double ribbon on traditional basis.

(vii) Later Alterationsof Old Town. 15 Urban fallow (cleared sites). 16 Adaptive redevelopment. 17 Augmentative redevelopment. (viii) Pre-VictorianFrame Roads. (ix) Late Georgianand Early VictorianResidentialAccretions. 18 Rudimentary layout, with early cul-de-sac. 19 Developed rectilinearlayout. (x) Mid- and Late VictorianResidential Accretions. 20 Bye-law layout, with 'through' houses. 21 Bye-law layout, with 'tunnel-back'houses. 22 Bye-law layout, with 'tunnel-back'houses and front-gardens. 23 Bye-law layout, with detached front-gardens. 24 Bye-law layout, with 'tunnel backs' on medium-density plots. 25 Improved terrace layout with low building coverage. 26 Single and double ribbon with large (detached or semi-detached)houses. 27 Complementaryplot development, with modern completion. (xi) 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 (xii) 38 39 26 40 41 (xiii) 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Modern ResidentialAccretions. High-density layout, with back-lanes. High-density layout, with mixed house types. Old-style layout, with semi-detachedhouses. Old-style layout, as repletive development. Post-war emergency housing estate. Old-style layout, with staggered building lines. New-style layout, with mixed house types. New-style layout, as repletive development. Double ribbon with uniform building line. Single ribbon with staggered building line. CompositeRibbons withoutTraditionalPlots. Late Georgian and Early Victorian terrace component. Late Georgian and Early Victorian component with detached houses. Mid- and Late Victorian component with large houses (see (x) 26). Mid- and Late Victorian component with medium-sizedhouses. Modern component with uniform building line. Intermediate(a) and Outer (b) Fringe Belts. Industries and public utilities. Public institutions and services. Residential plots with small or medium-sized houses. Residential plots with large houses. Open spaces (including Alnwick Moor). Allotments and nurseries. Land reserved for public institutions and services. Land reserved for industries.

(xiv) Farmsteadsand Other AgriculturalBuildings.

TYPES OF PLAN-UNITS

109

extensivelytruncatedby fringe-beltdevelopmentor effacedby the completion of the burgage cycle. Its chief trait, therefore, is its reduction in area to a truly residual form with jagged outline. The deep-burgageseries on the south side of Pottergate, though genetically somewhat different, is so much like the Fenkle Street series in its present reduced state that it may be put under the same subtype. Within the Central Triangle the Market concretions (4) present a very differentpattern, arising from their origin as later building colonization on the original market-place. As such they may be regardedas a frequent,though not invariable, adjunct of High Street layouts. A close-grained pattern of small squat plots arranged in tiny conformal street-blocks and a building coverage varying from 91.2 to 100 are its chief features. Finally, there is the Shallow-Burgageseries (5) on the north side of Pottergate and its junction with Narrowgate, distinct from the deep-burgageseries of the borough core and most likely late medieval and early post-medieval. It has also been subject to replacement, repletion and slum clearance, though on a much more moderate scale.

Other TraditionalPlan Types withinthe Old Town The widened street space of Bailiffgate with its two shallow plot series forms the medieval 'suburbium'(ii) having once served special feudal and militarypurposes. Its pattern of shallow 'tenement'plots has remainedvirtually unaltered, truncation being quite absent. Moderate replacementand repletion are other characteristicsand render the Bailiffgate area distinct as a compact and hcmogeneous unit. To the north-west of Bailiffgatethe street space of Canongate preservesthe memory of another medieval borough with a High Street layout but of the more common simple pattern (iii). A single street, sometimes widened to serve its double function of accommodating market activities as well as through traffic, is lined on either side with a series of deep burgages. Canongate, however, is now bereft of nearly all its ancient burgagesand in its northernpart is no longer a public highway. Only the middle of its east side retains a Deep-Burgageseries in residual form but distinguishablefrom Fenkle Street as the Canongatesubtype (6) because of the absence of truncation and repletion, and the very small amount of replacement. To the north of Bailiffgate the street space of Walkergate is the modem successor of a medieval Extramural Borough Street with special siting (iv). Once endowed with its burgages occupied by the fullers, it is now more thoroughly deprivedof its ancientplot patternthan the neighbouringCanongate. Therefore,the street space and one or two traditional plot dominants remainas virtually the only residual features, the remainder of the plan consisting of a rather irregularplot pattern of more recent age.

110

TYPES OF PLAN-UNITS

The Inner Fringe Belt The Inner Fringe Belt with its ancient fixation line and consequent ring road represents a separate major plan type, forming an uninterrupted zone round the Ancient Borough and Bailiffgate, i.e. a Closed Fringe Belt (v). It shows great irregularityin structureand outline because of its peculiar mode of evolution. It owes its individualityas a plan type as well as its areal coherence to the grouping of its plots and their dominants along the consequent ring road, and to the contrast it provides with the more homogeneous plan types on either side. Indeed, heterogeneityis one of its main features, notably as regards plot sizes and types as well as their grouping. This enables several sub-types to be distinguished. To the north-east of the Ancient Borough where the fixation line is absent there is the Castle complex (7), essentially a medievalpre-urbannucleusin the qualified sense appropriate to the case of Alnwick. Its plan consists of a Norman castle with later modifications and considerable additions which have extended the area covered by this sub-type south-westwardas far as Narrowgate. Even in its modern form, however, the original arrangementof a keep and two outer wards is still recognizable. Outside the castle, the private open space of the Castle Grounds(8) forms another sub-type. Traditionallyassociatedwith the pre-urbannucleus, it varies in plan featuresfrom the plain pasture of Barneysidenorth and east of the castle to the ornamental Castle Gardens in the south-east. The latter are at present subjectedto a great change in function as a forestrynurserywhich in due course may have morphological results. On the other sides of the Ancient Borough the fixation line and its consequent ring road separate further sub-types. The Intramural(9) is generally close-grainedowing most of its area to the tail truncation of ancient burgages. Small dwelling-houses form the majority of plot dominants on the derivative plots, though industrial and institutional types are also well represented. Outside the ring road the Inner Fringe Belt presentstwo sub-typesdistinguishedby the relative amount of buildings. The Extramuralwith high buildingcoverage (10) comprises groups of industrialand commercialplots or small houses in the west, south and east. The western,exclusivelyindustrialgroup owes its type and location to the preceding industrial specialization of the adjoining intramural. The southern group emerged as a fringe-belt aureole during the growth of the Howick Street layout. Plots vary from medium sizes for industrialpurposes to small and smallest sizes for dwelling-houses. The Extramuralwith low building coverage(11) on the other hand has medium and large-sizedplots with institutional buildings or large houses as plot dominants or open spaces without buildings such as those to the north of Bailiffgate.

TYPES OF PLAN-UNITS

111

The TraditionalArterial Ribbons The TraditionalArterial Ribbons (vi) preserve the original arterial street spaces substantiallythough with varying modification of the street-lines. Their associated double series of plots have been affected differentially by later alterations giving rise to three sub-types. The first two belong to the same double ribbon of Upper Clayport Street. Here one side consists of a Traditionalplot series (12) only slightly altered by slum clearance and tail truncation in the case of one plot. The other side presents the same type of series but severely reduced to a residual form (13) by slum clearance which has shortened the series and by tail truncation which has left only the ancient plot heads. Bondgate Without presents an altogetherdifferentpicture. Here the whole double ribbon forms a single sub-type,the Complexdoubleribbon(14). Though traditional plot lines are preserved in fair numbers, the broken street-lines, as well as the varying shapes and sizes of plots, indicate considerable change and genetic complexity. Few, if any, plots are very old in their present form. Parent plots, derivativeplots, diminished and augmentedplots are all discerniblein the present boundary pattern. Moreover, replacement and repletion have been taking place for some time, but have affected the area very unevenly, repletive absorption being a significant,if localized, feature. A few plots have been only slowly occupied by buildings for special reasons, thus experiencinglate complementary development. There is certainly a striking morphological contrast between Upper Clayport Street and Bondgate Without. The relatively static and in parts even recessive situation in the former has tended to preserve traditional features more intact or at least in recognizable form. The busy thoroughfare of the latter, forming part of the Great North Road between the centre of Alnwick and the railway station, presents a bewilderingvariety of street-lineadjustments,plot shapes, building shapes and sizes as well as building coverage. ModernPlan-Units withinthe Old Town With the exception of the Inner Fringe Belt and the market concretions the plan types described so far may be called traditional in as much as they are all based on a street-systemoriginating in the Middle Ages and associated with a more or less contemporaryplot pattern, usually one of burgages. The growth of the market concretions and of the intramural of the Inner Fringe Belt represented the first type of alteration in this traditionalplan. Both conform to their morphological frame and in this respect differ from those Later Alterations (vii) that have been associated with the completion of the burgage cycle in various parts of the Old Town. Where the cycle has only just been completed the Urbanfallow (15) of slum-cleared sites representstemporaryvoids in the plan. This occurs in the Ancient Borough, where it reaches its maximum extent, in the Inner Fringe Belt and in the Clayport Arterial Ribbon.

112

TYPES OF PLAN-UNITS

In several cases, however, the urban fallow has been substitutedalready by redevelopment in two forms: Adaptive redevelopment(16) which dominates outside the Ancient Borough and Augmentativeredevelopment(17). Late Georgianand Early VictorianResidentialAccretions The plan types discussed so far have been subject to more or less sustained processes of internal change or are altogetherproducts of such processes. With but two exceptions the peripheral accretions outside the Old Town have developed on a much simpler principle, involving straightforwardgrowth by areal expansion but little if any internalchange. Internal variety is found only in composite roadside ribbons and fringe belts, which are best treated as separatemajor plan types even though the components of roadside ribbons form clear period sub-types. In both cases development has extended over more than one morphological period. The relative siting of the accretionshas been largelyguided by arterialroads and field lanes that existed before the Victorian, and in most cases before the Georgian, era. As a whole, therefore, these Pre-VictorianFrame Roads (viii) constitute independentelements in the present town plan, although functionally as well as morphologicallyindividual stretchesand/or their frontageshave been incorporated in piecemeal fashion into adjoining plan-units. The Late Georgianand Early VictorianResidentialAccretions (ix) are the first major group of accretionary plan types. The Rudimentarylayout (18) exemplifiedby the small cul-de-sac of South Street (Fig. 15a) is the earliest subtype, and contrasts with the Developed rectilinearlayout (19) which comprises a more complete street-systemand continues its growth into the Late Victorian period (Fig. 15f). Mid- and Late VictorianResidentialAccretions Among the Mid- and Late VictorianResidentialAccretions(x) the following sub-types have been recognized: the Bye-law layout with 'through' houses (20) exemplified by East Parade (Fig. 15b); the Bye-law layout with 'tunnel-back'houses on the street-line (21) such as King Street (Fig. 15c); the Bye-law layout with 'tunnel-back'houses behindfront-gardens(22) such as Duke Street and Bridge Street (Fig. 15b); the Bye-law terrace with detachedfront-gardens (23) on the principle of some northern mining villages; the Bye-law layout with 'tunnel-back'houses on medium-densityplots (24), basically similar to the development in Bridge Street but with more generous plots; the Improved terrace layout with low building coverage (25); and

TYPES OF PLAN-UNITS

113

the Single or double ribbon with large houses (26) as on the south side of Alnmouth Road (Fig. 15e). Special site circumstancesin the Prudhoe Street area (39 and 43 on Fig. 21) have produced a type of development which is neither layout nor ribbon, but the filling-in of small pieces of land that had been retarded in their building development. It may be characterizedas Complementary plot development(27). ModernResidentialAccretions Modern Residential Accretions (xi) account for the largest area and the greatest number of plan sub-types. The High-density layout with back-lanes (28) representedby the single example of the Oak Street/Beech Street area (Fig. 19c) has already been discussed as a special case. The High-density layout of mixed terraces and semi-detached houses (29), as found in the York Road area, is fairly closely related in morphological characteristics. The majority of pre-war housing estates, however, belong to the Old-style layout with semidetachedhouses (30) characterizedby uniform building lines and little attempt at an architecturalgrouping (Fig. 19f). The peculiar site of the West Acres estate with its residual plot dominant warrantsseparaterecognition of the Oldstyle layout with mixed house types in repletivedevelopment(31). Plan sub-types of the post-war period begin with the Post-war emergency housing estate (32), of which Augur Terrace East with its prefabricated bungalows is the only example in Alnwick (Fig. 19h). The post-war estate at Barresdale (76 in Fig. 21), though of pre-war character, shows an attempt at grouping by breaking the building lines. It may be distinguished as the Oldstyle layout of semi-detachedhouses with staggered building lines (33). The majorityof post-war estates, however, are arrangedin the new style with culs-desac conceived as an architecturalcomposition, often with a central open space, and with varied and more carefully grouped houses (Fig. 19a, b and g). They form the New-style layout of mixed house types (34). Again the special site circumstances at Ravensmede (Fig. 19e) have resulted in a variant, the Newstyle layout of mixed house types in repletivedevelopment(35). Modern accretions in Alnwick occur also as ribbons. Two forms are entirely of recent origin and so homogeneous in their elements that they constitute full plan-units. They are the Double ribbon with uniformbuilding line (36) (Fig. 19d) and the Single ribbon with staggered building line (37; No. 80 in Fig. 21). CompositeRibbons Among the post-medieval accretions of heterogeneous structure the CompositeRibbons without TraditionalPlots (xii) form residential plan types. They differ from layouts and simple ribbons not only in structure but also in having developed over more than one morphological period. They appear as

114

TYPESOFPLAN-UNITS

single plan types in Figure 20, but the various period components have also been indicated (38, 39, 26, 40 and 41). The Intermediateand OuterFringe Belts In terms of plan morphology the Intermediate(xiii (a)) and the OuterFringe Belts (xiii (b)) contrast strongly with other units, much more so than the Inner Fringe Belt since they lack its areal coherenceand are more coarse-grained. The mixture of functions they represent is thus rendered prominent in the plan, and the different functions become the most convenient criterion of morphological classification. In Alnwick their usually large land-use units do not fall into recognizableplan-units of recurrentpattern and general significance. Even where smaller plots with the same function are grouped together, as in the case of the industrial and commercial sites on South Road (111, 114 and 116 in Fig. 21), this produces no plan-unit that could be characterizedmore significantly than in terms of function. The components of the two outer fringe belts are hardly plan types in the normal sense, especially as they consist often of a single but large plot. In Figure 20 they are defined by function, either in single plots or in groups of plots. Industries and public utilities (42) occupy plots varying in shape and ranging in size from 0.41 to 7.23 acres. They tend to be grouped about the railway station on Wagonway Road and within the angle of railway lines on South Road. Buildings and their arrangementdiffer greatly from one unit to another, most plots having several buildings, but relativelylarge units of simple rectangularshape are prominent. The building coverage varies considerably. A special fringe featureis provided by the two railwaylines in the south-east which run largely on embankments. The Wooler line is now dismantled but its embankmentstill limits the southwardextension of the built-up area. Public institutionsand services (43) also differ considerablyin plot size and character. Alnwick Infirmary(70 in Fig. 21) occupies a site of 0.7 acre with virtually only one building at a building coverage of 28.5. On the other hand the Duke's School (58 in Fig. 21) lies on a plot of 10.8 acres with a building coverage of 3. The newly enlargedAlnwick SecondaryModern School (123 on Fig. 21) with a greater spread of building blocks in a modern design has a plot of 11.54 acres with a building coverage of 9.79. These schools with their large private open spaces more than any other land-use units have helped to give Alnwick's accretions their open structure. Residentialplots with small or medium-sizedhouses (44) tend to occur in small groups in a few places within the two outer fringe belts. They may be complementaryto public services or representunattached residential development. Residentialplots with large houses (45), usually with more or less extensive ornamental grounds, have sprung up on the urban fringe in the countryside throughout the eighteenthand nineteenthcenturies. Some became the nuclei of

TYPES OF PLAN-UNITS

115

composite ribbons or repletive layouts and were absorbed by these newer planunits, but a few retained true fringe-belt characteristics(56, 62, 72, 74, and 129 on Fig. 21). Open spaces (46) are a frequent feature of fringe belts and vary greatly in size, functional nature, circumstancesof location, and internal arrangement Allotmentsand nurseries(47) are closely associated with urban fringe belts. Alnwick the tradition of allotments in proximity to the town has been In sustained by the Dukes of Northumberland since 18472 and nurseries on the well-drainedlight soils to the south-east of the town have been recordedon maps of Alnwick since 1827.3 Some agriculturalland on the fringe has alreadybeen earmarkedfor urban uses, and some is in interim development. Land reservedfor institutions(48) (nearly all for schools) lies entirely to the west and south-west side of the town. Land reservedfor industries(49) is confined to one large block of land in the south-east (112 in Fig. 21). Other land also retains its agricultural use though now hemmed in by urban land. Particularlyassociated with the fringe belts, in part even with the inner one, it breaksup the built-up area and accounts for the areal discontinuity so common in the accretionsof smallermarket towns. Finally, Farmsteadsand other AgriculturalBuilding Development(xiv) are shown in Figure 20 if they are in contact with the built-up area or lie within one of the fringe belts. REFERENCES this and Roman Arabicnumbers, referto thekey unlessstatedotherwise, chapter 1Throughout of Figure20. ForthisandthenextChapter,see alsothephotographs includedin thisvolume. 2 RAWLINSON, op. cit., 50. 3Cf. Wood'sMap,1827,the TitheMap,1846,and the Ordnance SurveyPlansof 1851,1864, 1897and 1921.

CHAPTER10

THE GEOGRAPHICAL STRUCTURE OF ALNWICK'S TOWN PLAN of Figures 20 and 21 shows how morphogenetictypes of plan-units COMPARISON combine variously to form individual areas and so make up a geographical structure of morphogenetic plan-divisions. Theoretically this structure has significanceonly in respect of the single morphological aspect of the townplan in accordancewith the purpose of this study, and should not be confused with a general regional division of Alnwick. The latter would involve fuller consideration of land and building uses as well as building types. In passing it may be noted, however, that actually the divisions of Alnwick's town plan do often coincide with urban regions of general significance. In small towns the topographical discrepancybetween the establishedplan and fabric on the one hand and new uses invading and adaptingit on the other does not occur on nearly the same scale as in the inner integuments of larger towns.' The plan-divisions of Alnwick group themselves into four orders. Those of the lowest order are marked in Figure 21 by Arabic numerals and can be readily distinguished as plan-type units. The identificationof divisions of the third order, markedby small letters, is also relatively easy as they are generally groups of type units, sometimes representing type units of higher order. But these groups are occasionally discontinuous, forming 'regional' units only in the sense of accretionaryzones, as in the case of the subdivisions within each fringe belt. The divisions of the second order, marked by Roman numerals, present greater difficulties,at least in the outer accretions, because of the tendency of the fringe belts to disrupt and interpenetrateother built-up areas. Nevertheless, criteria of relative internal homogeneity in terms of plan morphology definitely distinguish the fringe belts from the kernel and the residential accretions. The divisions of the second order are also functionally distinct and in that respect group themselves into a core and integumentsin Smailes' sense." The two divisions of the first order, denoted by capital letters in the legend of Figure 21 only, are comparativelystraightforwardas they presentthe familiar contrast between old kernel and new accretions. It may be added that, contraryto what might be expected, unit boundaries occasionally run along the middle of a road, especially if the road pre-dates the adjacentplots and houses as the older frame roads do in the outer accretions of the town. A first broad division of the street-planis that into the Old Town and Inner Fringe Belt (A), where traditional lineaments have made a major contribution, 116

X34 IXx

PLAN

THE

C

13

-4

BOUNDARY O

Ild

47

PLAN DIVISIC

-

IXxs34

iiif23

PLAN

22

DIVISI

48

PLANDIVIS

q23

Vlk

1llf

II IIV 132

22

.9*5922

I.w.:

24418

84

3 e 27

.?5 i l l 2

3 12

"38*l

2275

l.

•"*

??7b ??r? ?

.. . .* 22 4I ,

IXi

129

"*4

II

V

I0*

,0 Il s*-

57 2

?

12.

IXw 27

FIGURE21

125

124

..

IXw•

120

\I DIVISIONS

OF

ALNWICK

DARYOF OLD TOWN& INNERFRINGEBELT

(A)

DIVISIONS OFSECOND ORDER (I -

IX)

DIVISIONS OF THIRDORDER (a

x )

( - 134)

DIVISIONS OF FOURTH ORDER

75

F•

OLD TOWN

L:.II

INTERMEDIATE ALNWICK

OUTER ALNWICK

V110oL::' 74

V110o73

OFFEET SCALE

500

0

1O00 1500 2000

Vil 72

V10 IIV

c9.

11 /u

S107 108

119

_107

I.O

IIa

117

14

I

111

1Xv 113

'

l

. .104 ..

...I04 . .

b

.. .

.Villu 105.

A. Old Town and Inner Fringe I. Ancient Borough and Bai (a) Ancient Borough. 1 Central Triangle. 2 Bondgate North Side 3 Market Street South 4 Correction House Cl Area. 5 Fenkle Street West S 6 Clayport ClearanceA 7 Bird-and-Bush Red ment. 8 Memorial Cottages Redevelopment. 9 Pottergate South Sidc 10 Pottergate Row Cl Area. 11 Pottergate/Narrowga North Side. 12 Pottergate Clearance (b) Bailiffgate II. Canongate/Walkergate. (c) Canongate. 13 Canongate North. 14 Central Canongate. 15 Canongate South. (d) Walkergate. III. Inner Fringe Belt. (e) Intramural. 16 Northumberland Stre Intramural. 17 Dispensary Street Int mural.

18 Dispensary Street C1 Area.

19 Green Batt Intramur 20 Roxburgh Place Cl Area. (f) Extramural. 21 Alnwick Castle. 22 Castle Grounds. 23 North-Western Extr 24 Western Industrial A 25 Western Green Batt mural. 26 Eastern Green Batt mural. 27 Hotspur Street Extr 28 Hotspur Street Clear Area. IV. Upper Clayport Street. (g) Upper Clayport North 29 Upper Clayport No] Side. 30 Stamp's Yard Cleara Area. 31 Grosvenor Terrace/C Terrace. (h) Upper Clayport South 32 Upper Clayport Sout Side. 33 Fire Station/Monkhc Terrace. V. Bondgate Without.

B. Outer Accretions. VI. IntermediateAlnwick. (i) Lisburn Street/Prudhoe 34 King Street.

21-The plan divisionsof Alnwick. FIGURE nner Fringe Belt. igh and Bailiffgate. rough. riangle. North Side. treet South Side. n House Clearance -reetWest Side. Clearance Area. -Bush Redevelop1 Cottages lopment. e South Side. e Row Clearance e/Narrowgate Side. e Clearance Area. 'alkergate. te North. ?anongate. te South. Belt. berland Street ural. ry Street Intrary Street Clearance ttt Intramural.

h Place Clearance Castle. rounds. estern Extramural. IndustrialArea. Green Batt ExtraGreen Batt ExtraStreet Extramural. Street Clearance ?ortStreet. yport North Side. layport North-East Yard Clearance )r Terrace/Clive yport South Side. layport South-West ion/Monkhouse thout. Alnwick. eet/Prudhoe Street. .et.

35 Howick Street. 36 Howick Street South-West Side. 37 Percy Terrace/Prudhoe Street West. 38 South Street. 39 Bungalows near Duke's School. 40 Croft Place. 41 Hotspur Place. 42 Hotspur Place South-East. 43 Prudhoe Street East. 44 Stott Street. (j) Lower Howling Lane. 45 Windsor Gardens. 46 Alwynside. VII. Intermediate Fringe Belt. (k) West Demesne Belt. 47 Canongate Allotments. 48 West Demesne Agricultural Residual. 49 Ratten Row Allotments. 50 Alnwick Cricket Ground. 51 Stamps Close Agricultural Residual. (1) Upper Clayport Belt. 52 Clive Nurseries. 53 Lisburn Terrace North Side. 54 Cadet Huts Site. 55 Lisburn Terrace South Side. (m) Southern Intermediate Belt. 56 Bellevue. 57 Dunder Hill Allotments. 58 Duke's School. 59 New Infant School. 60 Policemen's Houses. 61 Police Station and Court House. 62 Croft House. 63 Prudhoe Street Tennis Courts. (n) Wagonway Road Belt. 64 Auction Mart. 65 Houses South of Council House. 66 Council House Complex. 67 Alnwick Creamery. 68 Alnwick Station. (o) Allerburn Belt. 69 Tenantry Column Grounds. 70 Alnwick Infirmary. 71 Spring Gardens. 72 Hillcrest. 73 Allerburn. 74 Allerburn House. 75 Leeks Field Allotments. VIII. Outer Alnwick. (p) Upper Howling Lane. 76 Barresdale. 77 St. Thomas's Crescent. 78 Oak Street/Beech Street. 79 Clayport Gardens. (q) Southern Alnwick. 80 The Dunterns. 81 Swansfield Park Road. 82 Blakelaw Road. 83 GreensfieldAvenue.

84 New Wagonway Road Estate. (r) Wagonway Road South. 85 St. George's Crescent. 86 York Road North Side. 87 Aydon Crescent. 88 Augur Flats. 89 York Crescent/York Road South Side. 90 Sea View Terrace. 91 Augur Terrace West. 92 Augur Terrace East. (s) Wagonway Road North. 93 Queen Street. 94 Swansfield Park Road North-East. 95 Bridge Street/Duke Street. 96 East Parade. (t) Belvedere/Ravenslaw. 97 Aydon Gardens. 98 Belvedere Terrace. 99 Ravenslaw. (u) Alnmouth Road. 100 Alnmouth Road West. 101 Alnbank/Freelands. 102 Ravensmede. 103 West Acres. 104 Central Alnmouth Road. 105 Alnmouth Road East. IX. Outer Fringe Belt. (v) Newcastle Road Belt. 106 Windy Edge Farm. 107 Royal Oak. 108 Royal Oak Nurseries. 109 N.C.C. and Esso Depots. 110 Alnmouth Line Embankment. 111 Alnwick Gasworks and Laundry. 112 Stanley Flats Agricultural Residual. 113 Alnwick Cemetery. 114 Alnwick Saw Mill. 115 Sawmill Cottages. 116 A.R.D.C., Shell and Agricultural Machinery Depots. 117 Site of new Fire Station. 118 Firemen's Houses. 119 Wooler Line Embankment. (w) Southern Outer Belt. 120 South Wagonway Allotments. 121 Alnwick Football Ground. 122 Old Fever Hospital. 123 Alnwick Secondary Modern School. 124 Blakelaw Reservoir. 125 Broad Close Agricultural Residual. (x) Western Outer Belt. 126 Hope House. 127 Camphill Cottage. 128 Swansfield Park. 129 Swansfield House. 130 Sawnsfield West. 131 St. Thomas's Farm. 132 Alnwick Moor. 133 Shepherd's Rest. 134 Hulne Park.

GEOGRAPHICALSTRUCTUREOF ALNWICK'S TOWN PLAN

117

and the Outer Accretions (B), where modern lineaments determine the plan characterin spite of the influence of older frame features. The Old Town forms genetically the 'kernel' and functionally the 'core', though it lies excentricallyin relation to the later accretions. Its northernpart still reaches the outer limit of the built-up area. But here a section of it (II) is also of a purely residential characterand does not form part of the functional core. Apart from the Inner Fringe Belt (III) and the two Traditional Arterial Ribbons (IV, V), the subdivisions of the Old Town lie side by side rather than in concentric zones. This is in accordancewith their medieval genesis whereby each division representeda separatecommunity, distinct in functional character and, therefore, with its own site requirements. Only the Inner Fringe Belt and the Arterial Ribbons initiated the theme of concentric zonal arrangementand that, of course, only after the medieval kernel had been clearly defined by the line of the town-wall. The two ribbons representthe first accretionarygrowth, the extramuralof the Inner Fringe Belt (III(f)) following later. This makes the Inner Fringe Belt a transitional zone between the Old Town and the Outer Accretions as explained previously. But the fact that it is a morphological division in its own right, unified about its ancient fixation line and dominated by this as well as by the abundant traditional traits of its intramural,renders it expedient to group this belt with the Old Town. In contrast, the Outer Accretions fall more readily into four roughly concentric zones: two mainly residential zones form Intermediate (VI) and Outer Alnwick (VIII) and are more or less separatedby the IntermediateFringe Belt (VII) and surroundedby the Outer Fringe Belt (IX). This arrangement,however, does not mean that the whole of IntermediateAlnwick is older than Outer Alnwick, because the factors involved in the growth of these two zones have been complex and their combination has varied. Thus the development of Lower Howling Lane (VI(j)) within IntermediateAlnwick is more recent than much of Outer Alnwick on the same side because of the retardation caused locally by conditions of ownership. Conversely, much of the eastern half of Outer Alnwick, though about a mile from the centre of the town, is relatively old, since land was made available for building earlier. Conditions of ownership have also influenced the configuration and specific morphological characterof differentparts of these zones. In combination with relief they account for the great gap in Outer Alnwick about Swansfield House (129) and Bellevue (56). Combined with the already established fringe-belt features of the railway station (68), the former workhouse (66) and the cattle mart (64), they are responsible for the Victorian development of Wagonway Road North (s) and therefore for the compactness of this area. This contrasts markedly with Wagonway Road South (r), and even more strongly with SouthernAlnwick (q), which could be called 'Ribbon Alnwick' as a result of the remarkable degree of interpenetration of the larger schools, which are special fringe features. The concentration of industrial sites in the I

118

GEOGRAPHICAL STRUCTURE OF ALNWICK'S TOWN PLAN

south-easternpart of the OuterFringeBelt, initiatedby the location of the presentgasworks(111) and the sawmill(114), and aided by the presenceof the mainroadandthe railway,is also notable. If, then, the four divisionsof the OuterAccretionsshow great internal complexityin formas well as age, neverthelessthey attaina measureof coherence becausethe mechanismof fringe-beltdevelopmenthas causedthem to formzones. REFERENCES Thegeographyof towns,92. Cf. SMAILES, 12 SMAILES, op. cit., 90-5.

CONCLUSION THISinvestigation is an attempt to explain the present structureof a town plan by examining its development. The complexity of the existing street-system, plot pattern and building arrangement poses a difficult methodological problem. Instead of working backwards from the present confused picture our morphological analysis has followed the growth of the plan. In this way it has been possible to obtain a clearer conception of how the plan has become the cumulative result of a diverse process kept going by successive functional impulses within the broad scheme of morphologicalperiods. In terms of plan lineaments this accumulation clearly is not to be understood as a simple superposition. Morphological frames have been respected in varying degree from one period to another and in differentlocalities and have persisted or suffered accordingly. Moreover, if some changes have been merely cumulative, others have rather been cyclic. On the one hand, simple, seemingly static additions to the town plan, like most of the more recent residential layouts, can be readily recognized. On the other hand, the cyclic forms are more evasive, and only by following the morphological processes themselves can the diversity of features be understood. The scope of this study has been deliberately restricted in two respects. Limitation to a single major aspect, the town plan, has produced some fundamental, if specialized, concepts. These can claim significancein morphological analysis well beyond the case investigatedhere and should help to form a basis for comparative studies. Limitation to a single town has served to develop these concepts in a clearer and simpler context with due regard to plan detail, though inevitably it has limited their choice to some extent. It has also provided an example of the structure of a town plan in terms of morphogenetic units and of plan divisions based on the latter. The theory of plan analysis developed here opens a wide field of research in two directions. In the first place it needs to be connected with a full investigation of the associated patterns of land use and building types in order to produce a complete interpretation of the townscape. Secondly, it should be extended to cover differentfunctionaltypes of towns, as well as towns of different culture areas. Although Alnwick is only a small town, in accordancewith its function as a rural service centre, its long history has renderedthe physical arrangementof its built-up area more interesting and productive morphologically than its highly individual and partly confused plan might lead one to suspect at first. It serves to demonstratethat town-plan analysis on evolutionarylines, though it emphasizes only one major aspect, is essential in urban morphology and that a great deal of work remains to be done. 119

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Geology

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ENGLAND &

WALES,

6-inch

Northumberland

New

Series,

sheet

N XXXV. N. W. (1929). SURVEYOFENGLAND& WALES, 1-inch New Series, sheet 6 (Solid edition, 1930; Drift GEOLOGICAL edition, 1930). G. A. BURNETT& W. ANDERSON,The geology of the Alnwick district. R. G. CARRUTHERS, Geological Survey of England and Wales, Memoirs, New Series, sheet 6 (1930). D. A. ROBSON& R. GREEN,'A guide to the geology of the district around Alnwick, T. S. WESTOLL, Northumberland', Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society, 30 (1955), 61-100. Historical Geography and History & J. N. L. MYRES, Roman Britain and the English settlements (1937). R. G. COLLINGWOOD H. C. DARBY(ed.), An historical geography of England before A.D. 1800 (1936). H. C. DARBY,'On the relations of geography and history', Transactions and Papers, 1953, Institute

of BritishGeographers,19 (1953), 1-11.

E. ENNEN,Friihgeschichte der europdischen Stadt (Bonn, 1953). The nature of geography (4th printing, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1951). R. HARTSHORNE, W. G. HOSKINS,The making of the English landscape (1955). Sir FRANKSTENTON, Anglo-Saxon England (2nd edition, 1947). D. STROUD,Capability Brown (1950). J. TAIT,The medieval English borough (1936). The North-Eastern Railway (1914). W. W. TOMLINSON, G. M. TREVELYAN, English social history (1944). & W. G. EAST,The spirit andpurpose ofgeography (1951). S. W. WOOLDRIDGE ORDNANCE SURVEY,O.S. Map of XVII Century England (1/1 M) (1930). Urban Geography H. E. BRACEY,Social provision in rural Wiltshire (1952).

H. E. BRACEY, 'Towns as rural service centres; an index of centralitywith special referenceto

H. R. R. H.

Somerset', Transactions and Papers, 1953, Institute of British Geographers, 19 (1953), 95-105. BRAUN,An introduction to English medieval architecture (1951). E. DICKINSON,City, region and regionalism (1947). E. DICKINSON,The West European city (1951). DbRRIES,'Der gegenwartige Stand der Stadtgeographie', Petermanns Mitteilungen, Ergdnzungs-

heft, 209 (1930), 310-25.

H. J. FLEURE,'Some types of cities in temperate Europe', Geographical Review, 10 (1920), 357-74. H. J. FLEURE,'City morphology in Europe', Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain,

27 (1931), 145-55.

H. J. FLEURE,'The historic city in Western and Central Europe', Bulletin of the John Rylands

Library,20 (1936), no. 2.

H. J. FLEURE,A natural history of man in Britain (1951). Die deutsche Stadt. Forschungen zur Deutschen Landes-und Volkskunde,22, 5 (Stuttgart, W. GEISLER,

1924).

F. H. W. GREEN,'Urban hinterlands in England and Wales', Geographical Journal, 116 (1950),

64-88.

W. HARTKE,'Die soziale Differenzierung der Agrarlandschaft im Rhein-Main-Gebiet', Erdkunde, 7 (1953), 13-22. W. HARTKE,'Die Sozialbrache als Phanomen der geographischen Differenzierung der Landschaft', Erdkunde, 10 (1956), 257-69. CH. KLAIBER, Die Grundrissbildungder deutschen Stadt im Mittelalter, unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Schwiibischen Lande. Beitrdige zur Bauwissenschaft, Heft 20 (Berlin, 1912).

H. Louis, 'Die geographischeGliederungvon Gross-Berlin',Ldnderkundliche Forschung(KrebsFestschrift,Stuttgart,1936), 146-71. 120

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

121

W. PAGE,'The origin and forms of Hertfordshiretowns and villages',Archaeologia,69 (1917-18), 47-60.

P. SCHiLLER, 'Aufgabenund Problemeder Stadtgeographie',Erdkunde,7 (1953), 161-84.

E. A. A. A.

J. SIEDLER, Miirkischer Sttidtebau im Mittelalter (Berlin, 1914). 'The urban hierarchy of England and Wales', Geography, 29 (1944), 41-51. E. SMAILES, E. SMAILES, The geography of towns (1953). E. SMAILES,'Some reflections on the geographical description and analysis of townscapes', Transactions and Papers, 1955, Institute of British Geographers, 21 (1955), 99-115. M. SORRE,Lesfondements de la gdographie humaine (Paris, 2nd ed., 1947-52), vol. iii. H. STRAHM,'Der zaihringische Grtindungsplan der Stadt Bern', Archiv des Historischen Vereins des Kantons Bern, 39 (1948), 361 ff. T. F. TOUT,Mediaeval town planning (1934).

North-eastern England W. S. ANGUS,'Anglo-Saxon and medieval settlement', Scientific survey of North-eastern England, British Association for the Advancement of Science, Newcastle upon Tyne (1949), 69-74. M. R. G. CONZEN,'Modern settlement', Scientific survey of North-eastern England, British Association for the Advancement of Science, Newcastle upon Tyne (1949), 75-83 and separate distribution map. R. O. HESLOP,Northumberland words (1892-4). A. MAWER,The place-names of Northumberland and Durham (1920). H. THORPE,'Some aspects of rural settlement in County Durham', Geography, 35 (1950), 244-55. H. THORPE,'The green villages of County Durham', Transactions and Papers, 1949, Institute of British Geographers, 15 (1949), 153-80. J. WRIGHT,The English dialect dictionary (n.d.). Alnwick W. DAVISON,A descriptive and historical view of Alnwick, the county town of Northumberland etc. (2nd ed., 1822). NORTHUMBERLANDCOUNTY HISTORY COMMITTEE,A history of Northumberland. Newcastle upon Tyne/London. vol. ii (1895), vol. vii (1904), vol. xiv (1935). R. RAWLINSON, Report to the General Board of Health, on a preliminary enquiry into the sewerage, drainage, and supply of water, and the sanitary condition of the inhabitants of the townships of Alnwick and Canongate in the County of Northumberland (1850). G. TATE,The history of the Borough, Castle, and Barony of Alnwick. 2 volumes (1866-9). Alnwick (maps and surveys in chronological order) A description and survey of divers of the possessions of the Right Honbie the Earl of G. CLARKSON, Northumberland in the County of Northumberland etc., 1566 (1567). Part I: The Castle, De-

mainesand Boroughof Alnwick(MS., AlnwickCastle,MunimentRoom: A.I.l.a.). Referredto

as Clarkson's Survey. THESURVEYOFNORTHUMBERLAND, 1586 (MS., Alnwick Castle, MunimentRoom: A.II.l.). F., WM. G. & B. MAYSON,The exemplification of Mayson's Survey being a general survey and terrier of the possessions of the Right Honbte Henry Earl of Northumberland taken by commissioners in that behalf appointed by the said earl's commission bearing the date 24th day of June 1622 (1622-4). vol. i: The Barony of Alnwick viz. the Manor of Alnwick, with Rugley, Sneephouse,

etc. - Pars Prima. (MS. Alnwick Castle, Muniment Room: A.V.1.). This contains a map

showing the town and its fields in two sheets on the scale of 1/3,960 (referred to as Mayson's Map) and another showing Alnwick Moor on the scale of 1/10,296 (referred to as Mayson's Moor Map). Map of part of the Town of Alnwick 1726, containing the design of Mr. Weatherburn's building in

the Horse Market(1726) (MS., Alnwick Castle, MunimentRoom: 0.1.3.).

J. ROBERTSON, A plan of that part of Stony Hills etc. belonging to Madm Elizabeth Grey. 1732. Scale 1/19,800 (MS., Alnwick Castle, Muniment Room: 0.1.48.). A plan of the Town and the Castle of Alnwick and of the demesnes, with divers other I. THOMPSON, lands near the said town in the County of Northumberland (1760). Accompanied by: A terrier or ffield book, 1760. Scale c.1/3,233 (MS., Alnwick Castle, Muniment Room: 0.1.7.). A. ARMSTRONG & SON, A map of the County of Northumberland etc. (1769). Scale 1/63,360.

122

SELECTEDBIBLIOGRAPHY

Survey of the Borough of"Atnwick, 1774. Extracted from different surveys (MS., Alnwick Castle,

MunimentRoom: A.VII.18.).

TH. WILKIN, Plan of the Town and Castle of Alnwick (1774). Accompaniedby: Foul terrier to

Alhwick.Scale c.1/1,179 (MS., Alnwick Castle, MunimentRoom: O.I.9b). Referred to as Wilkin's Map.

TH. WILKIN, Plan of the water course which supplies Alnwick Castle with water (1785). Scale 1/792

(MS., Alnwick Castle, MunimentRoom: O.I.10.).

R. TATE,Groundplan andprofile of levels taken from the fountain near the Back Lane in Alnwick to the water tower in the castle thereof, etc. (February 1815). Scale 1/600 (MS., Alnwick Castle, Muniment Room: 0.1.19.). N. WEATIERLY, A nmapof a projected turnpike road from Haggerston blacksmith's shop to Alnwick through Holburn, Chatton and Eglinghanm,in the counties of Durham and Northumberland (1824). Scale 1/31,680. J. WOOD,Plan of the Town and Borotigh of Alnwick, from actual survey (1827). Scale c. 1/2,412

(MS., Alnwick Castle, MunimentRoom: O.I.26.). Referredto as Wood'sMap.

C. & J. GREENWOOD Map of the County of Northumberland,from an actual survey made in the years 1827 and 1828 (1828). Scale 1/63,360. Alnwick Township (Tithe Map), with terrier (1846). Scale 1/3,168 (MS., Alnwick Castle, Surveyor's

Oflice). Plan of Alnwick,sheets 1-8. Surveyed1851. Scale 1/528. (Southampton,1853). ORDNANCE SURVEY, ORDNANCE SURVEY, Town of Alnwick, sheets 1, 2 & 3. Surveyed1851. Scale 1/2,640 (Southampton,

1853).

ORDNANCE SURVEY, Alnwick,sheets 1-8. Surveyed1864. Scale 1/528 (Southampton,1866). ORDNANCESURVEY,25-inch County Series of Northumberland, Old Series, sheets XXXI.12, and 16; XXXII.9, and 13. Surveyed 1864. Scale 1/2,500 (Southampton, 1866). ORDNANCE SURVEY,25-inch County Series of Northumberland, Old Series. sheets XXXII.9 and 13. Scale 1/2,500. (Southampton, 1897.) ORDNANCE SURVEY,25-inch County Series of Northumberland, New Series, sheets XXXV.1, 2 and 6. Surveyed 1921. Scale 1/2,500. (Southampton, 1923.) ORDNANCESURVEY,1/25,000 Series, Provisional edition, sheets 46/11 and 46/21 (Chessington, c. 1950). Building Plans, deposited in the Town Surveyor's Office, Alnwick U.D.C. Intermittently since

c. 1875,and completesince the end of the FirstWorldWar.

M. R. G. CONZEN,Survey of existing building types in Alnwick (1956). MS.