The Development of Housing in Scotland

Douglas Niven

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Topic: Social Sciences
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000384079
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

Originally published in 1979, this volume begins with an historical summary of housing development in Scotland. Scottish urban housing has always followed a unique and distinctive pattern from the rest of the UK, resembling more closely the flatted developments of Continental Europe. The book compares the policies and programmes of development in EU countries and Scandinavia. The problems caused by over-emphasis on public-sector housing in Scotland since the First World War are discussed. A break-down of the work carried out by housing societies and associations reveals little national or local support in Scotland, unlike in European or Scandinavian countries where such association have formed a vital element in their housing policies.

1 Historical Background

I

Social and economic conditions altered rapidly and dramatically in Scotland during the nineteenth century. The Industrial Revolution came early to the country; the pace and rate of change was faster, cruder and more concentrated over a smaller area than in England. Inadequate provision was made for housing expanding populations in newly created industrial areas; gross overcrowding was the sickening by-product of successful industrial expansion in Victorian Scotland. Acute social problems were created during this period which still cast a blight on Scottish life in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Other factors, apart from the effects of the Industrial Revolution, have had considerable bearing on the condition and nature of Scottish housing, and these must not be overlooked in any historical summary of housing in Scotland.

Agriculture still formed the basis of the Scottish economy at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Nearly three quarters of the population, which at that time was about a million people, gained their livelihood directly from the land, following methods of cultivation favoured since medieval times. Antiquated farming techniques, agricultural blight and a wholly unreliable climate led to recurring crop failures creating a fear of famine in many rural communities throughout Scotland.

During the previous century prolonged periods of political and religious strife had also created distress and uncertainty throughout the countryside. In these trying circumstances there was little incentive for country people to build substantial or permanent dwellings and this was reflected in the ‘farmtoun’ settlements, which were scattered around the countryside at the turn of the century. Houses within these settlements were described by a contemporary historian as ‘crudely constructed shelters of dry stone walling, built without mortar, with branches or rough spars for the roof and proofed against the elements with straw and turf’. The floors of the buildings were often bare earth, the windows were small, with little or no glazing and many had no chimney or proper fireplace. A typical settlement consisted of six or more such dwellings, each having its own kailyard, stackyard and midden; these were set in no particular order or pattern upon a treeless landscape. The surrounding land was divided into ‘run-rig’ or narrow strip fields and ground was set aside for common grazing.

Ownership of the land in Scotland had largely passed into Norman hands by the middle of the twelfth century; Normans found favour with Malcolm Canmore and also David I. Apart from owning most of the land, Normans held many of the chief offices in church and state. A Norman aristocracy was established, and rapidly introduced Norman habits, ideas and culture into Scotland. As a result, the old Scottish feudal system, which moderated the possession of land by ancient bonds of kinship and tribalism, was superseded by Norman feudalism which embodied a much more rigid form of land tenure. Under this system all land was held by the king; all occupiers of land became tenants of a lord, who in turn was a tenant of the king. The lord’s tenancy was hereditary; the extent of a man’s tenancy also determined his civil and political rights. The precedents created by this ancient feudal code, particularly in respect of land and property, still exert a strong influence on Scottish affairs; ownership of land is critical in all forms of development now, as it was when the pattern of land ownership was first established by the heirs of Malcolm Canmore. The creation of a feudal system based on the Anglo-Norman code, together with the imposition of strong government and the reform of the existing church enabled David I to ‘form a nation’ from many groups of disunited peoples throughout Scotland.

The king was also responsible for the formation of new townships in the countryside. These early essays in town planning were instituted to preserve the power of the crown, to promote social stability and to create points of economic expansion. Townships, created by royal decree, became known as ‘Royal Burghs’ to distinguish them from the later creations of the Lords of Scotland, which were simply known as ‘Burghs of Barony’. In the Royal Burghs, people were encouraged to establish settlements beside existing or newly formed fortifications. In return, they were granted privileges, which included the special right to trade abroad. The burghs also enjoyed considerable autonomy and even extended their controlling influences into the surrounding countryside.

By the end of the twelfth century more than twelve ‘Royal Burghs’ had been created. The Burghs of Ayr, Aberdeen, Dumfries, Inverness, Perth, were all formed at strategic crossing-points to large rivers. Edinburgh, St Andrews and Stirling were enlarged from existing townships which had been associated with ancient castles. Forres and Elgin in the north, Linlithgow in Lothian, Lanark in Clydesdale and Jedburgh and Peebles in the Borders were constructed beside newly formed defensive strong-points.

Most burghs originated with a single main street, usually known as the High Street or ‘Hie Gait’. Where the burgh was associated with a castle, the principal street was set axially to the fortification, and terminated at a main gateway or ‘Port’. Towards the middle of the street stood the town house or Tolbooth and the Market Cross, which symbolised the authority of the burgh. Some layouts also offered a secondary main street which ran parallel to the main street.

From the earliest times, each inhabitant had a ‘land’ or ‘tenement’ with a ‘frontage’, or house constructed in timber, to the main street or secondary street. The tenement stretched back in the form of a narrow strip terminating at the secondary street in the case of an inner holding, and at the town walls or dykes in the case of an outer building. The ‘lands’ closely resembled the narrow strip fields or ‘run-rigs’, which were commonly associated with the ‘farmtoun’ settlements of the period. On the ‘frontage’ a house was built of one, then later of two, three or four storeys, leaving the remainder of the site to be used for cultivation and other purposes.

With the increase in population and a restricted amount of building space within the burgh enclosure, other houses came to be erected on the ‘lands’ behind the ‘frontage’ house. A ‘pend’ or archway was formed under the frontage house, leading to a series of courts and closes, which in turn gave access to houses at the back. These properties became known as the ‘backlands’ of the burgh.

Many of the early burghs, which had been built initially in timber, were reconstructed in stone during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Several new Burghs of Barony were also erected by a number of enterprising noblemen along the Fifeshire coast to support a new fishing industry, or to handle an increasing trade in coal and salt with Dutch and Baltic ports. These little burghs, such as Culross and Crail, still provide fragmentary examples of an indigenous domestic architecture of rare quality.

It is thought that the first inhabitants of the new burghs were chosen from some of the more desirable elements in the ‘feudal pyramid’. These persons, once established, chose future burghers with considerable care, restricting access to the merchants and trades guilds by a lengthy period of graduating membership. A social ‘pecking order’ most certainly existed in the burghs at this time, but relationships between neighbours were closely interwoven, and many enjoyed the mutual respect of their fellows regardless of position or rank.

II

The first half of the eighteenth century brought few alterations to building development in Scotland. Edinburgh and Stirling were still the principal centres of population; both communities were still contained within the old town walls or fortifications. Development tended to rise upwards, in keeping with the tall narrow vertical style of contemporary towns in Northern Europe. Houses achieved an astonishing height of ten storeys in Edinburgh. Many were divided into flats at each storey height and connected to the street by a narrow and steep turnpike stairway. The ‘backlands’ were extensively built over by this time to meet the needs of an increasing population.

According to contemporary historians, social life in this community was both interesting and varied. Families of all ranks lived in the close proximity of the same tenement; peers, lords of session, clergy, doctors, shopkeepers and artisans lived at varying levels up the same access stair, while the watercaddy, sweep and chairman lodged in the cellars or the attics. Incomes were small, tastes were simple; the gap between rich and poor was not at this time decisively obvious. A highly mixed and diverse group of people had come together through economic necessity and mutual protection, to form a tightly packed community clustered along a ridge between the Castle and Holyrood Abbey.

It is significant that the wealthier citizens escaped from the problems created by high density, poor sanitation and the general squalor of the old burgh at the first opportunity. Examples set by London and other continental towns and a general raising of economic standards at home fostered a desire for improvement among the more enterprising burghers. At this time, a group of leading citizens decided to prepare a lengthy report on the physical condition of Edinburgh; in this they recommended, among other things, the construction of a ‘new town’ on a ridge to the north of the old burgh. It was suggested that the burgh council be made responsible for the over-all co-ordination of the project, and that a planning competition be held to determine a suitable plan for the first phase of development. This excellent proposal was sanctioned by the council and, in due course, a winner chosen from a small number of competitors.

The disarmingly simple layout plan by the winner, James Craig, is already too well known to warrant detailed description here; the execution of his plan by a series of famous and not so famous architects has also been well documented by others and, likewise, bears little repetition. What must be emphasised, however, was the tenacity of purpose displayed by the developers. In the face of many difficulties, their enlightened promotion of the project inspired both architects and builders to create one of the finest examples of Georgian domestic architecture in Europe.

The promoters of the new town may, or may not, have appreciated that the new development would have a profound effect on the closely knit social fabric of the old burgh. As the houses were completed, it became obvious that only the wealthy could afford to take up residence in the ‘new town’. A few houses were built to accommodate skilled tradesmen, but the number of these constructed was small in proportion to the rest. Therein, it may well be argued, lay the fundamental weakness of the ‘new town’ concept. The re-creation of the old community of the High Street in more congenial and decorous surroundings did not appear to concern the promoters. The burgh council might also have resisted the temptation to build on a grand scale, creating instead a new-town form in which the welfare of the community as a whole was considered and accommodated. But this was really too much to expect; the moving spirits of the age had their eyes set upon a grand design and chose instead to build a series of domestic monuments for a minority of the citizens of Edinburgh.

III

Between 1730 and 1830 a total change took place in the methods of husbandry employed in Scotland. The old run-rig and joint-tenancy system was discontinued and the enclosure of common land was ‘legally’ undertaken. ‘Farmtoun’ settlements were broken up and their ‘owners’ were discouraged from building houses, however temporary, in the countryside.

The first capitalist farmers emerged; marshes and bogs were drained and trees planted. A smaller proportion of the population occupied the land, but this group was now able to produce a surplus in farm products. The disposal of surplus crops and animals without sophisticated means of transportation obviously created problems. According to contemporary thinkers, the solution lay in the creation of village communities; a village would provide a point of consumption for the produce from the surrounding areas and also give employment to a proportion of persons displaced by the reorganisation of the land.

The idea of creating village communities was inspired by a curious amalgam of economic, social and aesthetic motives. Instinctively, local landowners realised that organised rural communities gave them greater control over local populations. Many of the new villages, especially those constructed after 1770, were well planned, soundly constructed and some are of lasting architectural value.

Early examples of these model village developments were situated at Crieff, laid out to a grid plan by the Duke of Perth from 1731 onwards, the village of Ormiston in East Lothian, created by John Cockburn about 1740, and much admired by contemporary writers, and Inveraray, reconstructed by the Duke of Argyll after 1742. The latter is a fine example of Scottish rural architecture and serves as a lasting memorial to aristocratic patronage. Of the others, Granton, Fochabers, Falkland and Kirkcudbright come most readily to mind. These planned villages were founded on an economic base of agriculture, fishing, rural industry or factory industry. Landowners often took great pains to attract industrialists to set up and to manage new industry in their newly formed communities. Almost all villages were built of stone which was sometimes rendered or whitewashed; most had roofs of tile or slate; many consisted of two storeys; some even had between three and five rooms to a dwelling. While some of these villages became thriving communities, others failed, especially those which were based on rural industry. This was due to technical innovation in adjoining towns, improved methods of transportation and shifting patterns of trade within the country.

Several factory villages were established between 1780 and 1800 in various parts of the country where water-power could be harnessed to drive machinery. These settlements differed from the traditionally planned village, in that the landowner no longer controlled the detailed development; this was left to an industrialist who had greater technical know-how and expertise in raising capital for industrial innovation.

A number of these industrialists made it their business to provide reasonable housing for their work people. A contemporary writer describes the Ballikinrain mill in Stirlingshire as surrounded by sturdy two-storey houses with slate roofs and laid out to a regular and neat plan. Deanston and Stanley in Perthshire, Catrine in Ayrshire were also well laid out and provided good housing accommodation for the work people. The most famous example of all, at New Lanark, was first developed by David Dale, a well-known Glasgow businessman, then later enlarged by his son-in-law, Robert Owen. The management of these communities — particularly the New Lana...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. Historical Background
• 2. Housing in Scotland, Housing in Europe
• 3. Housing in Scandinavia
• 4. Housing in the Public Sector
• 5. Priorities, Facts, Figures and Numbers
• 6. Housing in the Private Sector
• 7. Architects, Planners and Builders
• 8. Housing Societies and Associations
• 9. Possibilities for the Future
• Index