# The Asylum Layout Explained



## Sectionate (Dec 9, 2009)

Ever looked on CountyAsylums.com or in people reports and wondered what a radial, corridor or pavillion plan are? I know I have, and there seens to be little explanation to what they are on the internet, unless you are god at visualising what peoples words are lol...Credit is due to Pete as he is the man that is in the know about all this and helped with some of the classifications - although I am sure he may comment on my choice 

Anyway,from what I gather, there are five main types: Initially catergorised by Sir Henry Burdett and then expanded by Hine at a later date.

*Radial Plan*
The Radial Plan saw the long wings of the Asylum radiate outwards from a central point, thus reflecting the style of prisons of that era. This style was considered inhumane even in its day due to the lack of natural light, circulation of air and space for airing courts. It was only really implemented in the south east and there were only two examples built.

*St Lawerences, Bodmin (original building)*






*Devon County Pauper Lunatic Asylum, Exeter*



*Corridor Plan*
The Corridor Plan was a long running style of Asylum layout primarily used between 1830 and 1890; they are laid out with the administration block at the centre of the site with the wards flanking it on either side. This allowed for the easy segregation of the sexes and it also aided in the ease of communication throughout the Asylum. This layout varies throughout its lifetime, some buildings such as Stone House has the wards based around the main corridor and followed a linear layout. Others such as St Johns, did not follow such a linear corridor and instead it spread around the central services.

*City of London Asylum, Stone House, Kent*





*St Johns Asylum, Lincoln*



*Pavilion Plan*
The Pavilion Plan saw the asylum laid out in a detached of semi-detached block formation. There were three main types of the pavilion layout, they were:

*Standard Pavilion*
The pavilion plan consisted of a long linear corridor extending either side of the administration block, the ward blocks were orientated perpendicular to the corridor and attached at their ends; the stores/water tower could located centrally or remotely. There were only a few of these examples built around the country, but Hellesdon Hospital & the Annexe at Lancaster Moor resemble how the layout would have looked.

*Hellesdon Hospital, Norwich*





*Lancaster Moore Annexe, Lancaster*



*Dual Pavilion*
The Dual Pavilion consisted of the administration and services blocks flanked by long corridors, which in turn were flanked by the ward blocks. This design was intended to make the segregation of difficult cases easy; however due to the large size it made their operation difficult.

*Whalley Asylum, Calderstones*





*St James Hospital, Portsmouth*



*Radial Pavilion*
This was a rare layout for an asylum, it was the intermediate between the Pavilion plan and the Echelon plan; it consisted of a semi-circular corridor with the blocks on the outside and the services in the middle. There were only two examples of this type of asylum built through the country.

*Cane Hill Hospital, Coulsdon*





*St Luke's, Whittington Hospital*



*Echelon Plan*
The Echelon plan superseded the Pavilion Plan around 1880; it rose in popularity due to the arrangement of the wards, offices and services which were all off of a large corridor. There were two main type:

*Broad Arrow*
This was the earlier form of the echelon plan, it consisted of all the services and wards being spread out across a large site. It was essentially a set up of the pavilion blocks interconnect with short corridors which came off a larger main corridor. There were only two examples of this layout being built, with only one reaching full completion, High Royds in Menston - which predates the layout at Claybury by three years.

*High Royds Hospital, Menston *



*Compact Arrow*
This was the plan that revolutionised the design and construction of asylums throughout the UK as it was the most practicable type; it led GT Hine to become the most accomplished of all the asylum architects. Its design kept the long corridors of the Broad Arrow plan, but the wards were moved closer to it, removing the shorter unnecessary corridors; the services were still central to the asylum site. It also gave the asylum a light and airy feel to it, which was important to the Mental Health regime. There were two types of the Compact Arrow plan, one where the wards where set away from the corridors as Pavilion type ward blocks. The other was where the wards were all conjoined, to form one large building - this allowed for staff to move very quickly through the buildings - the differences can be seen below. Later examples of the Compact Arrow plan also included villas on the outskirts of the asylum for epileptic and chronic cases; this led to the further development of the colony layout with open corridors. 

*Goodmayes Hospital, West Ham*





*Severalls Hospital, Colchester**



*Colony Plan*
The Colony Plan consists of the blocks being dispersed around the asylum without the traditional long corridor connecting them; the administration and services buildings were still placed at the centre of the complex; they weren't used for major asylums. Later complexes such as West Park in Epsom implemented a colony layout but with echelon principles. One such examples is St Ebbas, Epsom

*St Ebba's Colony, Epsom *



S8


----------



## Neosea (Dec 9, 2009)

Great stuff, thanks.


----------



## james.s (Dec 9, 2009)

Nicely done!


----------



## diehardlove (Dec 9, 2009)

all il say is wowwy wowwy wow,nice research and a nice bit of info
cheers mate


----------



## mookster (Dec 9, 2009)

cheers for that, an interesting read


----------



## Richard Davies (Dec 9, 2009)

What style is Rauceby? It's odd that the wards are sharply angled.


----------



## Sectionate (Dec 10, 2009)

It's a compact arrow layout, compare it to somewhere like Horton and there are massive similarities...


----------



## Krypton (Dec 10, 2009)

Ive never heard of Lancaster Moor? Whats its current situation?


----------



## night crawler (Dec 10, 2009)

Excellent stuff it's many years since I have walked the corridors of Fairmile but it ceranly looks as though it fals into the Pavillon plan. Never realsied there were so many different layout's


----------



## Lightbuoy (Dec 11, 2009)

Great effort -very informative 

Good to see Sevs get a mention too!


----------



## Richard Davies (Dec 11, 2009)

I've heard various terms for layouts but didn't know what they actually looked like, though some can be visualised.


----------



## krela (Dec 11, 2009)

Interesting, thanks.

Without wishing to sound like a pedant Bodmin and Exeter are most definitely not in the south east


----------



## Sectionate (Dec 11, 2009)

krela said:


> Interesting, thanks.
> 
> Without wishing to sound like a pedant Bodmin and Exeter are most definitely not in the south east



haha, I have been meaning to change this lol. Glad you like it :thumb


----------



## Parkus. (Dec 11, 2009)

I thought the names were canny self explanitory


----------



## Richard Davies (Dec 11, 2009)

A lot of American mental hospitals are discribed as Kirkbrides (from an architect, I presume), I'm not totally sure what counts as one, but they are often build in a zig zag formation.


----------



## Reaperman (Dec 12, 2009)

Krypton said:


> Ive never heard of Lancaster Moor? Whats its current situation?



Derelict still as far as I know, Its never been popular as an exploration site due to an effective security presence and modernised wards though it has been explored a few times.


----------



## Sectionate (Dec 12, 2009)

Reaperman said:


> Derelict still as far as I know, Its never been popular as an exploration site due to an effective security presence and modernised wards though it has been explored a few times.



Yeah, is well and truly locked down!


----------



## rjg_scotland (Dec 12, 2009)

I thought I was going completely mad when I saw this, it was extremely familiar! 

I've tracked it down though and see it was yourself that posted this elsewhere last year, so I must have read it there. 

Thanks for sharing here too.


----------



## Lone Explorer (Dec 12, 2009)

_Well put together. _


----------



## Sectionate (Dec 12, 2009)

^^Cheers




rjg_scotland said:


> I thought I was going completely mad when I saw this, it was extremely familiar!
> 
> I've tracked it down though and see it was yourself that posted this elsewhere last year, so I must have read it there.
> 
> Thanks for sharing here too.



Yeah, it has been on my website for a whille, and over on UEF as well...


----------



## Lost Explorer (Dec 12, 2009)

Interesting read! I don't suppose you ever really think about the planning needed when building these sites to make sure everything is easily accessible while remaining functional!


----------



## Simon (Dec 13, 2009)

Sectionate said:


> Anyway,from what I gather, there are five main types: Initially catergorised by Sir Henry Burdett and then expanded by Hine at a later date.



There have been many classification attempts. The first was by Charles Fowler (1846: Arrangement and Construction of Lunatic Asylums), followed by Sir Henry Burdett (1891: Hospitals and Asylums of the World) and G.T. Hine (1901: Asylums and Asylum Planning). Undoubtedly there have been others.

Burdett divided the existing asylums into four main groups: Irregular or Conglomerate, Corridor, Pavilion and Corridor-Pavilion. Hine, with the advantage of hindsight, mentioned that Burdett would've required new terms to classify the various buildings erected in the last decade of the nineteenth century. However, Burdett didn’t advance an “echelon” category himself even after criticising several “broad arrow” designs; I suspect he would’ve grouped them as “pavilion” or “corridor-pavilion.”

Hine side-stepped the whole issue by not explicitly developing any form of classification system. His reasoning (stated in his 1901 lecture) stemmed from the fact that many of the buildings had features of several different types: he cited Bexley as a development of the corridor, pavilion and villa types.

However, Hine did propose further classification types, albeit discretely. The Second County Asylum of Gloucestershire was described as "the pavilion system, the blocks being arranged in echelon... [it] was the first of this type erected in this country, and may be said to have originated the oblique or broad-arrow form of corridor, now so commonly adopted in asylum designs." In the same speech, he talked about the design of Hellingly: "The plan I adopted was a modification of the echelon type, the wards being approached from obtusely oblique corridors."

Therefore Hine saw "echelon" as a discrete type, even though it was simply a sub-genre of the pavilion system. He also, almost in passing, mentioned the villa system whilst discussing Bexley. But he didn't explicitly list his classifications which is a shame.

Dr. Jeremy Taylor (1991: Hospital and Asylum Architecture in England) states "The overall symmetry of the echelons of blocks, with their single-storey linking corridors, produce the oblique or "broad-arrow" plan by which this new type became known." The "broad-arrow" referred to the shape of the corridor network and allowed differentiation between other pavilion systems e.g. Cane Hill was described as "the pavilion type, the blocks radiating from the main corridor of horse-shoe form." 

However, I can find no reference in the contemporary literature to the "compact arrow"; I don’t believe either Hine or Burdett referred to it. In fact, Hine called his post-Claybury asylums “modifications of the echelon type” and didn’t offer any form of further description. Neither can I find any mention in Taylor’s book but he later writes (1994: SAVE: Mind Over Matter): “By the time of Hine’s review in 1901 he was able to show the further manipulation of the format into a more compact ‘arrow’ type layout (as at Claybury), while in some later asylums the buildings are all linked to a semi-circular corridor spine sweeping from side to side (as at Bexley or Horton).”

As a definition, it would appear Taylor’s “compact arrow” was reserved for echelon type asylums where the wards were clustered around an arrow-shaped corridor (such as Hellingly and Rauceby), whilst another classification was required for those with curved corridors (Bexley, Horton, Long Grove and Netherne). But, in his speech, Hine simply called them “modifications of the echelon type” and didn’t elaborate further.

I hope this shows how difficult the classification of the asylums is and that Burdett’s and Hine’s systems provide broad classifications, but both have their own problems. (Burdett’s is too limited and Hine is too vague). And, furthermore, modern terms (such as the somewhat ill-defined “compact arrow”) were not part of their categories.

Incidentally, I would welcome clarification of the "compact arrow" and where the term originated. I may have overlooked a reference in the literature but I can only find Taylor's description.

All the best,
Simon


----------



## Simon (Dec 13, 2009)

Richard Davies said:


> A lot of American mental hospitals are discribed as Kirkbrides (from an architect, I presume), I'm not totally sure what counts as one, but they are often build in a zig zag formation.



The Kirkbride design (named after Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride) would be classed a "corridor" asylum.

All the best,
Simon


----------



## Sectionate (Dec 13, 2009)

Simon said:


> There have been many classification attempts. The first was by Charles Fowler (1846: Arrangement and Construction of Lunatic Asylums), followed by Sir Henry Burdett (1891: Hospitals and Asylums of the World) and G.T. Hine (1901: Asylums and Asylum Planning). Undoubtedly there have been others.
> 
> Burdett divided the existing asylums into four main groups: Irregular or Conglomerate, Corridor, Pavilion and Corridor-Pavilion. Hine, with the advantage of hindsight, mentioned that Burdett would've required new terms to classify the various buildings erected in the last decade of the nineteenth century. However, Burdett didn’t advance an “echelon” category himself even after criticising several “broad arrow” designs; I suspect he would’ve grouped them as “pavilion” or “corridor-pavilion.”
> 
> ...



It is a tough one, but the Asylums after Calybury are so aften reffered to as the 'Compact Arrow' it made sense to write the explanation using this term, going any further than this would lead to us becoming bogged down in too many sub classifications and further consusion. Always nice to have another persons opinion however 

I should probably rewrite the first part about who started the classifications

As for the classification between Hellingly/Raucby and the later ones (Bexley et al) I would say from looking at them that it is ok to group them under the compact arrow banner. Not because of the corridor, but because of how the wards are main communication corridor are arranged around a central services area, leading to them flaking the services around outside of the services...


----------



## Simon (Dec 16, 2009)

Sectionate said:


> It is a tough one, but the Asylums after Calybury are so aften reffered to as the 'Compact Arrow' it made sense to write the explanation using this termp



This is why I have a problem with the term "compact arrow": it’s so vaguely defined. How would West Park be classified? It’s post-Claybury so merits a "compact arrow" classification under your scheme yet the main complex could be described as “broad arrow” (as it has long interconnecting corridors to the echelon wards) or even “villa” (as it’s a series of villas all arranged in echelon with interconnecting corridors). This reinforces Hine’s point where he suggests that classification is increasingly difficult because of the blurring of key features.



Sectionate said:


> As for the classification between Hellingly/Raucby and the later ones (Bexley et al) I would say from looking at them that it is ok to group them under the compact arrow banner.



Bexley was built between Rauceby and Hellingly. The designs didn’t follow the linear path you’re suggesting.
But I would like to see a much more rigorous definition of "compact arrow."



Sectionate said:


> Not because of the corridor, but because of how the wards are main communication corridor are arranged around a central services area, leading to them flaking the services around outside of the services..



I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. If the wards were the main communication corridor then that's the key characteristic of the "corridor" asylum.

All the best,
Simon


----------



## Sectionate (Dec 16, 2009)

Simon said:


> This is why I have a problem with the term "compact arrow": it’s so vaguely defined. How would West Park be classified? It’s post-Claybury so merits a "compact arrow" classification under your scheme yet the main complex could be described as “broad arrow” (as it has long interconnecting corridors to the echelon wards) or even “villa” (as it’s a series of villas all arranged in echelon with interconnecting corridors). This reinforces Hine’s point where he suggests that classification is increasingly difficult because of the blurring of key features.



You make a good point, but how I see the compact arrow formation is the arrangement of the central services in the middle of the site, a main corridor encircling that and then the wards arranged around the outside of the both of them. Allowing for every ward to access the services, main hall and kitchens very easily and allow the wards to have a undisturbed view of the countryside they were placed in. And as viewed from above, the formation resembles (vaguely I will admit) an arrow head...



Simon said:


> Bexley was built between Rauceby and Hellingly. The designs didn’t follow the linear path you’re suggesting.
> But I would like to see a much more rigorous definition of "compact arrow."



See above, Bexley followed the same ideal as Raucby with the services at the centre of the site and the warda arranged around the outside. So does Hellingly, maybe Hine wasn't able to make up his mind on how they should go, or the Committee of the county had their own idea - who knows?



Simon said:


> I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. If the wards were the main communication corridor then that's the key characteristic of the "corridor" asylum.



It should have read 

_Not because of the corridor, but because of how the wards *and the* main communication corridor are arranged around a central services area, leading to them flaking the services around outside of the services.._

The _biggest_ difference between the 'Compact arrow' arrangements and the ones it preceded is the move away from a long and linear corridor and a services that was typically at the rear of the site, to one where the services where in the centre, with the wards surrounding in on a semi-circular arrangement.

We could sit here and discuss the minor technical details of the differences between the hospitals built after the High Royds, Cane Hill and Claybury transition period. But from the way I see it, this would lead to a further confusion over how the buildings should be classified because we would end up descriping some places as an Echelon Form, with pavillion principles and a vaguely broad arrow formation. Yet, being able to group them under a banner that makes it easy for the casual viewer to understand, and the compact arrow, IMO, fits this rather well. Albeit, with a few minor discrepincies...

P.S.

West Park is a difficult one was because it was built some time after the mass spree that Hine headed at the turn of the century and tried to incorporate American ideas by having a series of Cottages that were self sufficient and segregated. But it still has the central services enclosed by a series of corridors, with the ward arranged around the outside.


----------



## Pete (Dec 19, 2009)

Simon said:


> The Kirkbride design (named after Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride) would be classed a "corridor" asylum.
> 
> All the best,
> Simon



In addition, I would suggest that the Kirkbride's plan is not so much a specific layout, but a combination of ideals for asylum design, promoted (initially) by kirkbride through his published works which heavily influenced construction of the state hospitals. Thomas Storey Kirkbride, like John Connolly in the UK was not an asylum architect but through their involvement in asylum treatment became heavily influential in improving design and construction.Kirkbride's model advised specific improvements in accessibility, aspect, classification, distribution, treatment which allowed a common form to be developed encompassing his proposals which was adapted accross numerous sites from the 1850's to 90's when the cottage plan took hold. 
A more in-depth appraisal of Kirkbride's work can be found here

Pete


----------



## Pete (Feb 22, 2010)

Simon said:


> There have been many classification attempts. The first was by Charles Fowler (1846: Arrangement and Construction of Lunatic Asylums), followed by Sir Henry Burdett (1891: Hospitals and Asylums of the World) and G.T. Hine (1901: Asylums and Asylum Planning). Undoubtedly there have been others.
> 
> Burdett divided the existing asylums into four main groups: Irregular or Conglomerate, Corridor, Pavilion and Corridor-Pavilion. Hine, with the advantage of hindsight, mentioned that Burdett would've required new terms to classify the various buildings erected in the last decade of the nineteenth century. However, Burdett didn’t advance an “echelon” category himself even after criticising several “broad arrow” designs; I suspect he would’ve grouped them as “pavilion” or “corridor-pavilion.”
> 
> ...



Apologies for my late reply to this thread, and my general absence from the forum of late.

It should be noted that each of the main classification attempts (Burdett, Hine, Taylor) build upon each other. Whilst Hine provides a discussion of asylum layout, Taylor has the benefit of retrospect in being able to chart the development of designs and put it into the context of the factors which infliuenced their development. I do not agree that each of the views constitute a different approach to classification but, moreover, a singular, continuous development of one. No doubt other thoughts existed during the time frame of their original development, but these do not appear to have been successfull in surviving to the current day. The architectural magazine, 'The Builder' was a very important contemporary influence, both to discussion of layout at the time, but also a record of the rationale and context in which it was developed. 'The Builder' archives probably provides the most important and extensive record we have of later asylum development and Taylor's work cites it heavily.

Burdett's classification system, does elicit some refinement. The term 'Irregular or Conglomerate' is rather an unfortunate miscellaneous category which could be better broken down into a couple of other better dfined groups. For instance 'hub' formed structures are not considered at all, these encompass such asylums where means of observation were available from a central point, such as radial forms (St.Lawrence, Bodmin) and cruciform arrangements at Stanley Royd, Littlemore and St. Bernard's. Also adaptive forms such as those developed from, or incorporating existing structures such as Forston house or St. Audry's, Melton. 

I have very little doubt that the 'Compact Arrow' term does stem from Jeremy Taylor's piece in 'Mind over Matter', but given the limited amount of interest and appraisal of the entire system of asylum layout until very recently, I do not feel it makes the term any less valid or appropriate in the absence of an alternative specific term. The key to the 'Compact arrow plan' lies in the arrangement of the ward blocks, and the common factors influencing their placement. In fact the term 'compact arrow' identifies precisely what makes these asylums different. The echelon arrangement is retained for good light, aspect and accessibility, the compact arrangement of positioning blocks closer together or linking them directly reduced land take significantly, allowing a larger number of blocks to be included and greater sub-classification to be made, compared to the broad arrow, something that radiating pavilion plans (such as at Cane Hill) attempted to achieve. The alignment of the blocks meant that although parts of each ward would be sited in proximity to its neighbour, that positioning of supporting services such as attendents rooms, boot rooms, dormitories and sculleries which did not require access of light or aspect could be placed in these areas leaving spaces where patients would spend most of the daytime optimally positioned. The compact formation also allowed closer adherence to a peripheral corridor, easing accessibility and the greater depth of the structure allowed space for lateral passages between the peripheral and the spine corridors in the centre service area making journeys between areas a much simpler affair for both parents and staff. I feel that this is quite a clear demarcation for this group of structures in comparison with other layouts. 

I agree that theoretically it is possible to further subdivide classiication of this form, although not particularly desirable as many differentiating features occuring variably between sites and regardless of time periods whilst the main factors remain constant. For instance certain sites have 'fused blocks' forming a continous range (Bexley, Carlton Hayes, Cefn Coed, etc.) whilst others are separate without becoming 'broadly' separate (Napsbury, Goodmayes, Winwick), however many sites occupy a middle ground comprising both forms in one complex (Mid Wales, Warlingham Park). Certain complexes anticipatingthe colony plan which could incorporate, to varying degrees, outlying admission hospitals, working and convalescent villas and feature open sided corridors within the main complex (Park Prewett, West Park, Severalls). Although clearly approaching colony designs, this latter form still allies more strongly with the preceding 'compact arrow' type, the principal complex retaining a compact, echelon formation linked by corridors, around which villa buildings are arranged. The colony plan typified a dispersed arrangement, with a 'cluster' of services, not unified as one structure, the site being predominantly linked by access roads (Barrow, Shenley, the Mental deficiency colonies)

I've looked at the variation between the 'arrow shaped' (the 'more compact arrow type') and semi-circular ('modified echelon') peripheral corridors and to be honest, there appears to be little significant variation in arrangement despite this altered format. The blocks remain closely linked or fused and land-take appears similar. The one notable difference is the size of the complex, typically significantly larger complexes (the LCC trio) where a sufficient stepping could be incorporated in arranging the ward blocks, whilst maintaining a compact form. A shallower half-ellipse or trapezoid signifies a smaller complex, where less depth was required for fewer blocks. Some of the smallest sites had no peripheral corridor at all (St. Mary's and Hollymoor), utilising spurs from the axial corridors and relying on access via adjoining wards - once again, little variation in the arrangement occurs.

I believe there is considerable concordance between the majority of the 'compact arrow' complexes, based significantly on the features mentioned above. and feel they constitute an easily recognisble group of structures when seen from above or on paper, perhaps more so than the corridor plan. 

Pete


----------



## melvinbmx (Feb 22, 2010)

Does anybody know what the Devon asylum in Exeter is like now? Converted? It looks amazing!!


----------



## krela (Feb 22, 2010)

melvinbmx said:


> Does anybody know what the Devon asylum in Exeter is like now? Converted? It looks amazing!!



What does that have to do with asylums layouts?


----------



## Sectionate (Feb 22, 2010)

melvinbmx said:


> Does anybody know what the Devon asylum in Exeter is like now? Converted? It looks amazing!!



google is your friend.


----------

