This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Ayona Datta From tenements to flats: gender, class and ‘modernisation’ in Bethnal Green Estate Article (Accepted version) (Refereed)
Aspects of enclosure and visual access in the square, which were hailed as important
physical markers of the persistence of family and children in the estate by Alisha and Susan,
were perceived by elderly Mrs Ellis as restrictive to the rituals of death, disease, and
emergencies. ‘The only thing is that the grounds down here. Ambulance can’t come in, fire
engine can’t come in, they blocked all the entrances and to me, I think that’s ridiculous. In B
block they gotta carry that person through there. Now, who wants to be on show like that?’ she
asked.
Architecture
They call this estate the model estate. Because we have people from other places and
other parts of London that are coming to see this. (Susan)
Susan’s pride in this ‘model’ estate was partly due to her own involvement in creating
new kinds of spaces and social relationships with the tenants and the management. It was also
due to the architectural qualities of safety, enclosure, and ‘family-friendliness’. This architectural
uniqueness in the way it reflected social hierarchies but was also shaped by them was articulated
by Victoria.
21
Oh, it’s [architecture] alright. I quite like it. People say, I heard someone say, ‘Oh, it
looks like a tenement’. It doesn’t look like a tenement does it? I like the bricks; they are
not all the same colour. You got the stripes and the bits around the windows. The ones
they built later are sort of like boxes.
For Victoria then, the architecture not only differentiated her social class from erstwhile
council tenants but was also a critique of post-war council housing which was ‘sort of like
boxes’. Yet, it was this larger setting that emphasised new social divisions for other participants.
This was a time when the council was demolishing tower blocks and allocating its tenants to
Registered Social Landlords such as Peabody Trust. There was a desire among the participants
for new-build houses; articulated from the visible contrasts between the Trust’s contemporary
architecture of terraced houses with gardens, and the multi-storey architecture of Bethnal Green
Estate.
Although this is modernised, it was built long time ago. I think its wrong planning. All
they do is washed the bricks outside, and they put double glazing on the windows to
make it look new. These are very old houses. (Charlene)
Well, look at across the road there. Peabody have got some beautiful townhouses there.
They got a lovely townhouse and nice big gardens at the back there, and what do we get?
Do we get offered them? No. We just get this junk. (Susan)
These narratives suggest how architecture can be produced and consumed, and adapted
and possessed from different subject positions. It also indicates the extent to which social agents
stake their claims to a space. For example, for Victoria, the architecture of the Estate was a
matter of pride while for Charlene it was embarrassing. Significantly, Susan’s narrative also
suggests how social agents can form an ambiguous relationship with architecture perceiving this
22
relationship to be negative or positive at different times and in different contexts. Her
involvement both in the production and consumption of the courtyard spaces emphasises the
ambiguity and the stakes that agents use to negotiate their relationship with domestic
architecture. As in the case of the interior layouts, the architecture of the communal spaces too
suggest how issues of generational differences and family orientation become discoursed as
agents use particular spaces to align themselves with it materiality.
Concluding Thoughts
This paper illustrates how the architecture of Bethnal Green Estate and its subsequent
modernisation was the site of powerful discourses of gender, family, and class divisions, which
shaped the nature of participants’ relationship with its architecture. It illustrates how notions of
family and community are created and implicated in the way participants construct meanings of
domesticity through the kitchens, front rooms, the layouts of self-contained flats, and the
communal areas. The ‘spatial stories’ (DeCerteau 1980) of the participants also indicate the
importance of memory in structuring spatial meanings. For example, elderly participants’
discourses of tenement living illustrate how spatial memory can separate a nostalgic past from a
‘modernised’ present influencing subjective interactions with architecture.
While the history of Bethnal Green Estate indicates a certain moral hegemony over its
tenants, its subsequent modernisation through tenant participation and Peabody Trust practices
has destabilised this understanding. The participation did not extend to all tenants, but
nevertheless suggests how the complex politics of gender, class, generation, and ethnicity are
produced by the ‘users’ of spaces both through spatial discourses and practices that occur within
architectural space. It indicates how spatial practices traditionally understood as specific to
23
gender, class, ethnic, or generational positions are used to illustrate the nature of difference that
should exist between different places such as the kitchen, front rooms, and communal areas.
These places were part of gendered histories and subjectivities experienced through
moments when subjects became conscious of occupying specific positions of gender, class,
ethnicity, and generation. These moments occurred when particular interactions with architecture
produced contradictions with spatial practice traditionally housed within these subjectivities.
These moments were also part of a notion of ‘spatial loss’ constructed by elderly participants,
whose geography of memories implied a dichotomous relationship between a ‘nostalgic’ past
and a ‘modernised’ present. Domesticity therefore, was defined by discourses of family;
community was defined by discourses of visual access and safety; and the position of women
was understood to be central to domesticity, which was perceived as ‘missing’ in the
modernisation of Bethnal Green Estate. The domestic architecture of Bethnal Green Estate was
therefore situated between those moments of spatial loss, production of domestic architecture
and the construction of subjectivities.
Significant here is how the tenants’ representative was able to create new kinds of spaces
(such as the children’s play areas) and hence new social relationships by negotiating between the
Trust’s management and tenants’ association. It implies how in critiquing and reshaping the
spaces of modernisation, the tenants did not just challenge the ‘conceived’ spaces of the Trust’s
architects but also the ‘lived’ spaces of their own making. A critical geography of Bethnal Green
Estate’s architecture reveals that it is impossible to separate spatial strategies of designers from
users since with the involvement of the tenants’ representative this distinction was blurred and
brought into question the production and consumption of place. Not only was the representative
able to ‘self-critique’ her own initiative but also to rethink the spatial meanings of different
24
places on the Estate and by extension the formation of new types of class divisions through
architectural representation.
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to the residents of Bethnal green estate who
participated in this study. I also wish to thank Eleanor Warwick, Rachel Leach, and Ena Eliot
from Peabody Trust who helped me with introductions and with information related to this study.
1 ‘Modernisation’ in this paper refers to the term often used by housing associations to indicate the refurbishment of social housing. This refurbishment may include some or all of the changes needed to bring up older housing close to the level of current building regulations standards. This might mean addition of extra insulation to external walls, increase in habitable spaces through reorganisation of internal walls, improvements in heating and sanitation, installation of double glazing, loft insulation and so on. 2 In using the term ‘gender’ in this context, I mean the subject’s conscious awareness of occupying a particular social position (ie woman) and its relationship to another position (ie man) often perceived as oppositional to each other. 3 This not to suggest that memories are always positive. It is in the way that even negative memories can be mobilised after the passage of time to represent a nostalgic ‘return’ to a steady positive state is an important aspect of spatial memory and its tensions with architectural manipulations. 4 For a detailed discussion of the role of Registered Social Landlords in UK social housing context refer to Malpass (2001).
References
Bastéa, E. (ed.) (2004) Memory and Architecture. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico
Press.
Blunt, A. (2003) Collective Memory and Productive Nostalgia: Anglo-Indian Homemaking in
McCluskieganj, Environment and Planning D 21: 717-738.
Booth, C. (1902) Life and Labour of the People in London: Blocks of Buildings Schools and
Immigration. London: Macmillan and Co Limited.
Burnett, J. (1978) A Social History of Housing 1815-1970. London: David & Charles.
25
Cieraad, I. (2002) ‘Out of my Kitchen’: Architecture, Gender and Domestic Efficiency, The
Journal of Architecture 7: 263-279.
Conor and Critchley (1984) Palaces for the Poor.
Cornes, J. (1905) Modern Housing in Town and Country. London: Batsford.
Csikszentmihalyi, M and Rochberg-Halton, E (1981) The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols
and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeCerteau, M. (1980) Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by Randall, S., Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Downing, F. (2003) Transcending Memory: Remembrance and the Design of Place, Design
Studies 24: 213-235.
Gieryn, T. F. (1999) What Buildings do. Chicago: Meetings of the American Sociological
Association in Chicago.
Greed, C (1994) Women and planning: Creating gendered realities. London: Routledge.
Hill, J. Ed. (1998) Occupying Architecture: Between the Architect and the User. London:
Routledge.
King, A. (2004) Spaces of Global Cultures: Architecture Urbanism Identity. New York and
London: Routledge.
Lees, L. (2001) Towards a Critical geography of Architecture: The case of an Ersatz Colosseum,
Ecumene 8(1): 51-86.
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Leslie, D and Reimer, S (2003) Gender, Modern Design and Home Consumption, Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 21(3): 293-316.
26
Llewellyn, M. (2004a) Designed by Women and Designing Women: Gender, Planning and
Geographies of the Kitchen in Britain 1917-1946, Cultural geographies 10: 42-60.
Llewellyn, M. (2004b) ‘Urban Village’ or ‘White House: Envisioned Spaces, Experienced
Places, and Everyday Life at Kensal House, London in the 1930s, Environment and
Planning D 22: 229-249.
London Metropolitan Archives (no date) Bethnal Green Records (1910-1948), Ref
ACC/3445/PT/07/007. London.
Malpass, P. (2001) The Restructuring of Social Rented Housing In Britain: Demunicipalization
And The Rise of ‘Registered Social Landlords’, European Journal of Housing Policy 1(1):
1-16.
Matrix. (1984). Making space: Women and the man-made environment. London and Sydney:
Pluto Press.
McCracken, G (1988) Culture and Consumption. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
Nasser, N. (2003) South Asian Ethnoscapes: The Changing Cultural Landscapes of British
Cities, Global Built Environment Review 3(2): 26-39.
Porter, R. (1994) London: A Social History. London: Penguin Books.
Sargin, G. A. (2004) Displaced memories, or the Architecture of Forgetting and Remembrance,
Environment and Planning D 22: 659-680.
Sparke, P. (2004) Studying the Modern Home, Journal of Architecture 9: 413-417.
Tarn, J.N. (1973) Five Percent Philanthropy: An Account of Housing in Urban Areas between
1840 and 1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.