The Asylum Layout Explained

[Lost Explorer]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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."

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]

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...

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?

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]

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]

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

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]

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

 

[krela]

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]

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

google is your friend.