Model Dwellings Companies (MDCs) were a group of private companies in Victorian Britain that sought to improve the housing conditions of the working classes by building new homes for them, at the same time receiving a competitive rate of return on any investment. The principle of philanthropic intention with capitalist return was given the label "five per cent philanthropy" [1].
The precursor to the aims of MDCs was the work of Edwin Chadwick and others in exposing the sanitary conditions of slums in large metropolitan areas. Once Chadwick's reforms had been implemented poverty remained rife in the overcrowded inner cities, and reformers had to look elsewhere for the solution to the problems of the working class. The publication of Engels' The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 and The Communist Manifesto, as well as fear of further uprisings such as that of the Chartists in 1848, increased concern for the welfare of the working class amongst the middle and upper classes. Out of this environment, various societies and companies were formed to meet the housing needs of the working classes. Improved accommodation was seen as a way of ameliorating overcrowding, as well as the moral and sanitary problems resulting from that.
The first of these companies was formed out of the Labourer's Friend Society, which in 1844 agreed to change its name and purpose towards building houses for labourers that might be adopted by others as a template [1]. Their first urban building project was completed in 1846 at Bagnigge Wells, Pentonville, designed by Henry Roberts [2].
Although the Society for Improving the Condition of the Labouring Classes (SICLC) had the Prince Consort as its first president and contributed to the Great Exhibition of 1851 [3], their block dwellings, in particular, were subject to criticism. The design of SICLC dwellings paid particular attention to sanitation and ventilation but was otherwise functional and utilitarian, and the resulting estate was seen as grim and unpleasant [1].
The Metropolitan Association for Improving the Dwellings of the Industrious Classes (MAIDIC) was formed in 1841, earlier than the SICLC, but spent several years acquiring capital to begin its building projects. These commenced after the company obtained a Royal Charter which established the Company on more commercial grounds, guaranteeing a minimum return of five per cent on investment [1]. This was outlined in the Company's resolution:
That an association be formed for the purpose of providing the labouring man with an increase of the comforts and conveniences of life, with full return to the capitalist [1].
The first MAIDIC blocks were completed in 1848, constituting twenty-one two room apartments and ninety three room apartments in Old St Pancras Road, again on an 'associated' model - that is, with shared amenities such as lavatories and kitchen. This type of large, block residence with shared facilities became the norm for model dwellings companies.
The MAIDIC was one of the largest MDCs and by 1900 housed over 6,000 people [4].
The Peabody Trust was founded after an unprecedented donation in 1862 of £150,000, by the American banker George Peabody for the good of the poor in London. A committee was set up to choose the most appropriate way to spend the money, and it was decided to build a number of block dwellings for the very poorest of the city. These apartments were of similar design to other companies, but rents were offered at lower levels, leading to complaints from other MDCs [5]. Tenancy in a Peabody Dwelling came with strict rules: rents had to be paid weekly and punctually, and many trades were not permitted to be carried on at the dwellings. There was also a night-time curfew and a set of moral standards to be adhered to [6].
The largest MDC working in central London was the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company (IIDC), founded by Sir Sydney Waterlow in 1863, which housed around 30,000 individuals by 1900 [4]. Its rigorous selection procedure, rules and financial regulations meant that the IIDC was one of the more financially successful of these firms [7] [8].
The Artizans' Company became one of the largest of the MDCs, concentrating on suburban, low-rise estates rather than the central, high-rise model of other companies. It was founded by a former labourer, William Austin, in 1867 and immediately set about building and selling model dwellings first in Battersea, then Salford, Gosport and elsewhere. Their first major contribution to the MDC movement came at Shaftesbury Park in Battersea, a large, suburban estate opened by Lord Shaftesbury in 1872 as a "workmen's city" for "clerks, artisans and labourers" [4]. Building continued at a larger estate in Kilburn, Queen's Park, then a still larger estate at Hornsey, Noel Park, and finally Leigham Court in Streatham. The company also diversified into block dwellings and other, more commercially-minded estates such as Pinnerwood Park near Harrow.
By 1900, the Artizans' Company provided dwellings for 42,000 people in over 6,400 residences [4]
Other MDCs of note include the Four Percent Dwellings Company and the East End Dwellings Company, and later the Guinness Trust, Lewis Trust and Sutton Trust.
Baroness Burdett-Coutts was a private philanthropist who gave to many and varied charitable endeavours. One of the most significant private inputs into the provision of working class housing was Columbia Square in Bethnal Green, a block estate completed in 1857. Architecturally, it was a precursor to the imposing Peabody Dwellings, having been designed by Peabody's architect, Henry Darbishire. The addition of a grand marketplace modelled on Saint Chapelle in Paris made the design distinct, but the project was seen overall as a failure, finally being demolished in 1960 [1].
The MDC movement was strongly supported by individuals like Lord Shaftesbury [9], who was president of the Artizan's Company for some time, for providing a plan to "completely alter for the better the domiciliary habits of the people of the metropolis" [10]. Others, such as Engels, criticised the movement as " Proudhonist," and a means of ensuring the longevity of capitalism through a process of embourgeoisement [11].
In the twentieth century and beyond, opinions over the MDC movements have tended towards two positions. The first, adopted by free market economists, asserts that the financial success of some of these companies shows that they could have been a significant help to the poor, if their operation was not interrupted by the arrival of social housing in the form of London County Council estates [12] [13]. Others argue that the failure of MDCs to meet the needs of the very poorest demonstrates that they were a stepping stone towards the inevitable necessity of state intervention to solve the housing crisis [1] [6] [14]. MDCs have been particularly criticised for failing to provide for the very poorest of society, concentrating on the labour aristocracy, the upper strata of the working classes [6] [4].
- Dennis, R. (1989) The Geography of Victorian Values: philanthropic housing in London, 1840-1900. Journal of Historical Geography15(1), pp.40-54
- Morris, S. (2001) Market solutions for social problems: working-class housing in nineteenth-century London. Economic History Review54(3), pp.525-54
- Stedman Jones, G. (1984) Outcast London: a study in the relationship between classes in Victorian society. London: Penguin
- Tarn, J.N. (1973) Five Per Cent Philanthropy. London: Cambridge University Press
- Wohl, A.S. (1977) The Eternal Slum: housing and social policy in Victorian London. London: Edward Arnold
- ^ a b c d e f g Tarn, J.N. (1973) Five Per Cent Philanthropy. London: CUP
- ^ Dictionary of Scottish Architects
- ^ National Archives acquisition IV/163
- ^ a b c d e Wohl, A.S. (1977) The eternal slum: housing and social policy in Victorian London. London: Edward Arnold
- ^ Dennis, R. (1989) The Geography of Victorian Values: philanthropic housing in London, 1840-1900. Journal of Historical Geography 15(1), pp.40-54
- ^ a b c Stedman Jones, G. (1984) Outcast London: a study in the relationship between classes in Victorian society. London: Penguin
- ^ National Archives acquisition LMA/4013
- ^ Tarn, J.N. (1968) The Improved Industrial Dwellings Company London:s.n.
- ^ National Archives acquisition IV/122
- ^ Welch, Caroline (2006) Noel Park: A Social and Architectural History. London: Haringey Council Libraries, Archives & Museum Services
- ^ Engels, F. The Housing Question, Der Volkstaat 26th June 1872
- ^ Morris, S. (2001) Market solutions for social problems: working-class housing in nineteenth-century London. Economic History Review 54(3), pp.525-54
- ^ Whelan, R. (2008) British social housing and the voluntary sector. Economic Affairs 28(2), pp.5-10
- ^ Gauldie, E. (1974) Cruel habitations: a history of working-class housing 1780-1918. London: Allen & Unwin
Model Dwellings Companies (MDCs) were a group of private companies in Victorian Britain that sought to improve the housing conditions of the working classes by building new homes for them, at the same time receiving a competitive rate of return on any investment. The principle of philanthropic intention with capitalist return was given the label "five per cent philanthropy" [1].
The precursor to the aims of MDCs was the work of Edwin Chadwick and others in exposing the sanitary conditions of slums in large metropolitan areas. Once Chadwick's reforms had been implemented poverty remained rife in the overcrowded inner cities, and reformers had to look elsewhere for the solution to the problems of the working class. The publication of Engels' The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 and The Communist Manifesto, as well as fear of further uprisings such as that of the Chartists in 1848, increased concern for the welfare of the working class amongst the middle and upper classes. Out of this environment, various societies and companies were formed to meet the housing needs of the working classes. Improved accommodation was seen as a way of ameliorating overcrowding, as well as the moral and sanitary problems resulting from that.
The first of these companies was formed out of the Labourer's Friend Society, which in 1844 agreed to change its name and purpose towards building houses for labourers that might be adopted by others as a template [1]. Their first urban building project was completed in 1846 at Bagnigge Wells, Pentonville, designed by Henry Roberts [2].
Although the Society for Improving the Condition of the Labouring Classes (SICLC) had the Prince Consort as its first president and contributed to the Great Exhibition of 1851 [3], their block dwellings, in particular, were subject to criticism. The design of SICLC dwellings paid particular attention to sanitation and ventilation but was otherwise functional and utilitarian, and the resulting estate was seen as grim and unpleasant [1].
The Metropolitan Association for Improving the Dwellings of the Industrious Classes (MAIDIC) was formed in 1841, earlier than the SICLC, but spent several years acquiring capital to begin its building projects. These commenced after the company obtained a Royal Charter which established the Company on more commercial grounds, guaranteeing a minimum return of five per cent on investment [1]. This was outlined in the Company's resolution:
That an association be formed for the purpose of providing the labouring man with an increase of the comforts and conveniences of life, with full return to the capitalist [1].
The first MAIDIC blocks were completed in 1848, constituting twenty-one two room apartments and ninety three room apartments in Old St Pancras Road, again on an 'associated' model - that is, with shared amenities such as lavatories and kitchen. This type of large, block residence with shared facilities became the norm for model dwellings companies.
The MAIDIC was one of the largest MDCs and by 1900 housed over 6,000 people [4].
The Peabody Trust was founded after an unprecedented donation in 1862 of £150,000, by the American banker George Peabody for the good of the poor in London. A committee was set up to choose the most appropriate way to spend the money, and it was decided to build a number of block dwellings for the very poorest of the city. These apartments were of similar design to other companies, but rents were offered at lower levels, leading to complaints from other MDCs [5]. Tenancy in a Peabody Dwelling came with strict rules: rents had to be paid weekly and punctually, and many trades were not permitted to be carried on at the dwellings. There was also a night-time curfew and a set of moral standards to be adhered to [6].
The largest MDC working in central London was the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company (IIDC), founded by Sir Sydney Waterlow in 1863, which housed around 30,000 individuals by 1900 [4]. Its rigorous selection procedure, rules and financial regulations meant that the IIDC was one of the more financially successful of these firms [7] [8].
The Artizans' Company became one of the largest of the MDCs, concentrating on suburban, low-rise estates rather than the central, high-rise model of other companies. It was founded by a former labourer, William Austin, in 1867 and immediately set about building and selling model dwellings first in Battersea, then Salford, Gosport and elsewhere. Their first major contribution to the MDC movement came at Shaftesbury Park in Battersea, a large, suburban estate opened by Lord Shaftesbury in 1872 as a "workmen's city" for "clerks, artisans and labourers" [4]. Building continued at a larger estate in Kilburn, Queen's Park, then a still larger estate at Hornsey, Noel Park, and finally Leigham Court in Streatham. The company also diversified into block dwellings and other, more commercially-minded estates such as Pinnerwood Park near Harrow.
By 1900, the Artizans' Company provided dwellings for 42,000 people in over 6,400 residences [4]
Other MDCs of note include the Four Percent Dwellings Company and the East End Dwellings Company, and later the Guinness Trust, Lewis Trust and Sutton Trust.
Baroness Burdett-Coutts was a private philanthropist who gave to many and varied charitable endeavours. One of the most significant private inputs into the provision of working class housing was Columbia Square in Bethnal Green, a block estate completed in 1857. Architecturally, it was a precursor to the imposing Peabody Dwellings, having been designed by Peabody's architect, Henry Darbishire. The addition of a grand marketplace modelled on Saint Chapelle in Paris made the design distinct, but the project was seen overall as a failure, finally being demolished in 1960 [1].
The MDC movement was strongly supported by individuals like Lord Shaftesbury [9], who was president of the Artizan's Company for some time, for providing a plan to "completely alter for the better the domiciliary habits of the people of the metropolis" [10]. Others, such as Engels, criticised the movement as " Proudhonist," and a means of ensuring the longevity of capitalism through a process of embourgeoisement [11].
In the twentieth century and beyond, opinions over the MDC movements have tended towards two positions. The first, adopted by free market economists, asserts that the financial success of some of these companies shows that they could have been a significant help to the poor, if their operation was not interrupted by the arrival of social housing in the form of London County Council estates [12] [13]. Others argue that the failure of MDCs to meet the needs of the very poorest demonstrates that they were a stepping stone towards the inevitable necessity of state intervention to solve the housing crisis [1] [6] [14]. MDCs have been particularly criticised for failing to provide for the very poorest of society, concentrating on the labour aristocracy, the upper strata of the working classes [6] [4].
- Dennis, R. (1989) The Geography of Victorian Values: philanthropic housing in London, 1840-1900. Journal of Historical Geography15(1), pp.40-54
- Morris, S. (2001) Market solutions for social problems: working-class housing in nineteenth-century London. Economic History Review54(3), pp.525-54
- Stedman Jones, G. (1984) Outcast London: a study in the relationship between classes in Victorian society. London: Penguin
- Tarn, J.N. (1973) Five Per Cent Philanthropy. London: Cambridge University Press
- Wohl, A.S. (1977) The Eternal Slum: housing and social policy in Victorian London. London: Edward Arnold
- ^ a b c d e f g Tarn, J.N. (1973) Five Per Cent Philanthropy. London: CUP
- ^ Dictionary of Scottish Architects
- ^ National Archives acquisition IV/163
- ^ a b c d e Wohl, A.S. (1977) The eternal slum: housing and social policy in Victorian London. London: Edward Arnold
- ^ Dennis, R. (1989) The Geography of Victorian Values: philanthropic housing in London, 1840-1900. Journal of Historical Geography 15(1), pp.40-54
- ^ a b c Stedman Jones, G. (1984) Outcast London: a study in the relationship between classes in Victorian society. London: Penguin
- ^ National Archives acquisition LMA/4013
- ^ Tarn, J.N. (1968) The Improved Industrial Dwellings Company London:s.n.
- ^ National Archives acquisition IV/122
- ^ Welch, Caroline (2006) Noel Park: A Social and Architectural History. London: Haringey Council Libraries, Archives & Museum Services
- ^ Engels, F. The Housing Question, Der Volkstaat 26th June 1872
- ^ Morris, S. (2001) Market solutions for social problems: working-class housing in nineteenth-century London. Economic History Review 54(3), pp.525-54
- ^ Whelan, R. (2008) British social housing and the voluntary sector. Economic Affairs 28(2), pp.5-10
- ^ Gauldie, E. (1974) Cruel habitations: a history of working-class housing 1780-1918. London: Allen & Unwin