Cane Hill - Development over history?

Derelict Places

Help Support Derelict Places:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
W

Winchester

Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
296
Reaction score
5
Location
Reading
I've been discussing this on another forum, and thought that maybe some of the Cane Hill O'Philes might be able to help.

It was suggested that Cane Hill was once a 'Light, Airy Hospital', but further additions started blocking out light.

I'm only aware of the Nurses Block, The extension to Johnson/Jenner, and King/Keats/Keller as being major additions, as well as yard space around the chapel being taken up to use for consultation, xrays, patients library, and other record storage/administrative rooms.

On Simon's site, there is a passage accompanying a map supposedly dated 1883, which mentions how the triple storied wards were added between 1882 and 1888, perhaps at the same time as the rear extensions.

Is there any more information available on this?

Here is the map I refer to

mb3i.jpg
 
As far as I know the wards that have the tiled exterior half fronts are 1888 additions, but I will wait for a more informed opinion to confirm this :)

The facing direction of Cane Hill also had a lot to do with the light ingress and part of the reason as to why Cane Hill was denied listing status as its general direction did not allow maximum light into wards
 
Last edited:
Winchester said:
It was suggested that Cane Hill was once a 'Light, Airy Hospital', but further additions started blocking out light.
Click to expand...

Can you cite a reference for this statement? I don’t think Cane Hill merited this description; for example, GT Hine in 1901 sided with the officers who worked at Cane Hill as “one of the best of the large asylums hitherto erected” but felt the need to criticize Howell by mentioning how “some of the blocks are too close together and suffer in consequence from want of light and air.”

There is a different plan of Cane Hill which was originally published on Andrew Tierney’s “The One” website. It’s difficult to read but the planform of Cane Hill is readily recognised.

map.jpg

This undated plan probably shows Howell’s original design for Cane Hill which was for 1100-1200 patients. Notes along the back of the corridor network on both sides of the hospital refer to future extensions; on the female side it states “The buildings are about to be extended here for the accommodation of 900 additional patients”.

I believe Howell always intended extending the asylum and left room for future wards. So comparison of this plan with the “1882” plan shows the “new” wards. It is also worth noting how the extensions follow a completely different ward plan with clearly defined sanitation towers.

So, to answer your question, the extensions of 1888 were not squeezed between existing wards, thus blocking the air and light.

Interestingly I did stumble across a document where further extensions to Cane Hill were proposed, resulting in a 2500 bed hospital. This plan was not followed, but it would be interesting to see how an architect would’ve proposed doing this.

All the best,
Simon

PS What other forum is this being discussed on?
 
Thanks for the information and the map, which really help.

It is interesting to see the absence of several of the Male blocks that I'd assumed were part of the original structure. The Female side is much larger and I guess this represents the imbalance in gender between those committed in the late 19th century.

The suggestion about being light and airy was made by another user, but I don't know if it can be referenced from anywhere other than opinion. The other site is one of the various private ones.

Regarding further extensions to the current structure, I can't really see past creating a circular structure similar to Prestwych, or additional divisions like those constructed at Whittingham. I guess there would also have been logistical implications of adding additional ward blocks - Could the Hall and Chapel have coped with the extra demand?

Given the subsequent criticisms of Cane Hill, would you suggest that the lack of air and light is one of the reasons the radiating pavillion design wasn't favoured, with the Echelon being more common in the early 20th century?
 
I may have misread, and the jumped to conclusion, of something I read somewhere. Where though, I dunno...I had the wrong end of the stick in what I said yesterday lol

Possible confusion with the Hine buildings
 
Last edited:
Winchester said:
Regarding further extensions to the current structure, I can't really see past creating a circular structure similar to Prestwych, or additional divisions like those constructed at Whittingham. I guess there would also have been logistical implications of adding additional ward blocks - Could the Hall and Chapel have coped with the extra demand?
Click to expand...

Any further expansion of Cane Hill was limited by the Portnalls Road to the north west so extending the hospital in that direction was impossible. I suspect a future architect would've proposed building a collection of villas in the grounds. As you state, this would've stretched the resources of the hospital.

Winchester said:
Given the subsequent criticisms of Cane Hill, would you suggest that the lack of air and light is one of the reasons the radiating pavillion design wasn't favoured, with the Echelon being more common in the early 20th century?
Click to expand...
A radiating pavillion planform always suffers from lack of space, light and air as the buildings approach the centre hub. It was a difficult problem, and Howell attempted to solve it in a novel ambitious way.

But there was no-way to orientate all the wards to face south, the buildings did suffer for light and air as they merged together, and a doctor's rounds would've entailed much repeated walking from one end of a ward to another. The echelon plan solved these problems.

All the best,
Simon
 
lilli said:
........The facing direction of Cane Hill also had a lot to do with the light ingress and part of the reason as to why Cane Hill was denied listing status as its general direction did not allow maximum light into wards
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that the direction / ingress of light into a building was considered when determining if a building should be Listed? :confused: If this was the case, then buildings such as Castles, for example, would have real problems! ;) Buildings, as far as I understand, are granted Listed Building status, based upon their Architectural / Historical Importance. As Simon has said previously, Cane Hill was unique in being the only surviving Asylum laid out in the "Radiating Pavillion" plan, and this alone, should have meant it was worthy of retention. No suprise that the Developers used the age-old argument that the buildings were too far gone etc etc etc, but rather than the local Planning Dept. showing a bit of back-bone and standing-up to them, all that will be left is the Chapel, Water Tower, and Administration Building -token gestures in my opinion.
We are being encouraged to re-cycle & re-use. This ethic could surely have been applied to Cane Hill's buildings. Not only is a huge amount of energy consumption involved in tearing a place down, also there is the loss of what is called "Embodied Energy" (the existing buildings's original construction consumption with raw materials etc.) To just level the site, to me, seems to indicate a lack of imagination. Sure, some of the buildings were pretty far gone (fire damage, water ingress), but some of the buildings looked to be in far better condition. Not perfect, but probably still salvagable. I've been involved in restoration projects which have successfully rescued old buildings / structures, both in a practical sense, as well as being finacially viable. In my own opinion, the demolition of Cane Hill is an opportunity lost :(

Lb:jimlad:
 
Winchester said:
I've been discussing this on another forum, and thought that maybe some of the Cane Hill O'Philes might be able to help.

It was suggested that Cane Hill was once a 'Light, Airy Hospital', but further additions started blocking out light.

I'm only aware of the Nurses Block, The extension to Johnson/Jenner, and King/Keats/Keller as being major additions, as well as yard space around the chapel being taken up to use for consultation, xrays, patients library, and other record storage/administrative rooms.

On Simon's site, there is a passage accompanying a map supposedly dated 1883, which mentions how the triple storied wards were added between 1882 and 1888, perhaps at the same time as the rear extensions.

Is there any more information available on this?

Here is the map I refer to

mb3i.jpg
Click to expand...

Very interesting :) Hadn't noticed the extensions until now.

Cheers,

Lb:jimlad:
 
Simon said:
Can you cite a reference for this statement? I don’t think Cane Hill merited this description; for example, GT Hine in 1901 sided with the officers who worked at Cane Hill as “one of the best of the large asylums hitherto erected” but felt the need to criticize Howell by mentioning how “some of the blocks are too close together and suffer in consequence from want of light and air.”

There is a different plan of Cane Hill which was originally published on Andrew Tierney’s “The One” website. It’s difficult to read but the planform of Cane Hill is readily recognised.

map.jpg

This undated plan probably shows Howell’s original design for Cane Hill which was for 1100-1200 patients. Notes along the back of the corridor network on both sides of the hospital refer to future extensions; on the female side it states “The buildings are about to be extended here for the accommodation of 900 additional patients”.

I believe Howell always intended extending the asylum and left room for future wards. So comparison of this plan with the “1882” plan shows the “new” wards. It is also worth noting how the extensions follow a completely different ward plan with clearly defined sanitation towers.

So, to answer your question, the extensions of 1888 were not squeezed between existing wards, thus blocking the air and light.

Interestingly I did stumble across a document where further extensions to Cane Hill were proposed, resulting in a 2500 bed hospital. This plan was not followed, but it would be interesting to see how an architect would’ve proposed doing this.

All the best,
Simon

PS What other forum is this being discussed on?
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing this alternative Plan Simon -facinating to see a different Plan with how the Architect's had originally intended it to be built :)

Lb:jimlad:
 
Lightbuoy said:
I wasn't aware that the direction / ingress of light into a building was considered when determining if a building should be Listed? :confused: If this was the case, then buildings such as Castles, for example, would have real problems! ;) Buildings, as far as I understand, are granted Listed Building status, based upon their Architectural / Historical Importance. As Simon has said previously, Cane Hill was unique in being the only surviving Asylum laid out in the "Radiating Pavillion" plan, and this alone, should have meant it was worthy of retention. No suprise that the Developers used the age-old argument that the buildings were too far gone etc etc etc, but rather than the local Planning Dept. showing a bit of back-bone and standing-up to them, all that will be left is the Chapel, Water Tower, and Administration Building -token gestures in my opinion.
We are being encouraged to re-cycle & re-use. This ethic could surely have been applied to Cane Hill's buildings. Not only is a huge amount of energy consumption involved in tearing a place down, also there is the loss of what is called "Embodied Energy" (the existing buildings's original construction consumption with raw materials etc.) To just level the site, to me, seems to indicate a lack of imagination. Sure, some of the buildings were pretty far gone (fire damage, water ingress), but some of the buildings looked to be in far better condition. Not perfect, but probably still salvagable. I've been involved in restoration projects which have successfully rescued old buildings / structures, both in a practical sense, as well as being finacially viable. In my own opinion, the demolition of Cane Hill is an opportunity lost :(

Lb:jimlad:
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that normally orientation and aspect would not affect listing unless it inhibited the potential for reuse. Unfortunately when looking at the pavilion plan in a broader perspective it does have something of a bearing.

Historically, the pavilion plan was devised in response to spread of infection in hospitals based on the concepts of unimpeded flow of air and access of light into structures. Principally this was applied to hospitals and one of it's greatest early advocates was Florence Nightingale. In the London area, she and her contemporaries had an overriding influence in the set-up of the Metropolitan Asylums Board which initially had the disparate functions of providing accomodation for imbeciles/idiots/feebleminded persons and of the control of infectious disease both of which were poorly managed in the capital at that time. Given the attitudes of its founding influences, a pavilion plan was hardly unexpected when executing the imbecile asylums at Caterham and Leavesden Wood. In addition, given the ability for infectious disease to spread rapidly through people in close habitation, even though the structure was a mental hospital was predictably sensible.

These early pavilion asylums and their replica at Banstead were all intended for containment of patients of a chronic, intractable disposition, the therepeutic nature of good aspect was not considered necessary and the blocks were placed in serried ranks, just far enough apart to allow light and throughflow of air to prevent disease. Cane Hill being developed for an intentionally varied classification in population required a combination of both sanitation and aspect amongst other requirements hence the architects approach to the layout. The problem of congeston was to some extent alleviated by placing non- patient/storage areas in the more contracted parts of the plan and placing short pavilions for more chronic patients crossing the peripheral access corridor so as not to impede the aspect and light of the most acute wards. However these smaller wards (particularly Guy/Turner) still suffer themselves - although the dormitories are approriately placed in the central where light access is of little purpose at night, the day rooms are still subject to three storey neighbours on either side which is helped only slightly by the splaying of these blocks.

The comments made by Hine are therefore fair, and largely adressed by the later compact arrow plan.The sentiments have been unfortunately reflected in current thinking, as Simon mentioned, without the regard for the novel and unique approach developed by Howell at this site and its historiical perspective.

Pete
 
Simon said:
I believe Howell always intended extending the asylum and left room for future wards. So comparison of this plan with the “1882” plan shows the “new” wards. It is also worth noting how the extensions follow a completely different ward plan with clearly defined sanitation towers.
Click to expand...
Distinct sanitation towers were created by the addition of a passageway allowing cross ventilation by means of narrow windows on either side preventing malodours and infection entering the ward area. This was a gradual process and an informal distinction between early and mid-stage pavilion plan development.

Simon said:
Originally Posted by Winchester
Regarding further extensions to the current structure, I can't really see past creating a circular structure similar to Prestwych, or additional divisions like those constructed at Whittingham. I guess there would also have been logistical implications of adding additional ward blocks - Could the Hall and Chapel have coped with the extra demand?

Any further expansion of Cane Hill was limited by the Portnalls Road to the north west so extending the hospital in that direction was impossible. I suspect a future architect would've proposed building a collection of villas in the grounds. As you state, this would've stretched the resources of the hospital.Any further expansion of Cane Hill was limited by the Portnalls Road to the north west so extending the hospital in that direction was impossible. I suspect a future architect would've proposed building a collection of villas in the grounds. As you state, this would've stretched the resources of the hospital.
Click to expand...

Prestwich's oval annexe (Clifton House) only works by the virtue of the orientation of the wards on the north side facing into an open area sited on a distinct southward slope, such a tactic being usedin the placement of epileptic wards at compact arrow plan asylums amongst other later designs. The aspect is poor due to the blocks directly in front, but light access is still good. Clifton house was also not a pavilion plan block but a corridor derivative and it seems unlikely that an architect would employ such a regressive step at an already implemented pavilion plan structure.

As to potential for extension, i suspect this may have been most likely as a detached separate annexe to the unoccupied south western farmland or otherwise further pavilion blocks in series behind Kings and Wesley (although the position of the Nurses block and Zachary dorm exclude this). Any northward radiation would have not only poor aspect, but poor light ingress and would be almost certainly rejected by the Commissioner in Lunacy. A villa proposal would be unlikely WWI, and certainly before the turn of the century given the earliest colonies for mental illness in the British Isles were constructed after 1900 and 1932 in England itself.

Pete
 
Lightbuoy said:
Thanks for sharing this alternative Plan Simon -facinating to see a different Plan with how the Architect's had originally intended it to be built :)
Click to expand...

It's freely accessible on my website - you'll find it in the archive of Andrew Tierney's "The One" website (see the Cane Hill Project section).

Cane Hill was originally built for 1100-1200 patients in 1882 which is what this plan shows. When Cane Hill was transferred from Surrey Council to the newly formed London County Council in 1888 it was extended to the structure we know today. So, this plan wasn't an 'alternative' design - it was the plan of Cane Hill between 1882 and 1888.

(This is why I have a problem with the "1883" date on the more well known plan.)

All the best,
Simon
 
Pete said:
I'd imagine that normally orientation and aspect would not affect listing unless it inhibited the potential for reuse. Unfortunately when looking at the pavilion plan in a broader perspective it does have something of a bearing.

Historically, the pavilion plan was devised in response to spread of infection in hospitals based on the concepts of unimpeded flow of air and access of light into structures. Principally this was applied to hospitals and one of it's greatest early advocates was Florence Nightingale. In the London area, she and her contemporaries had an overriding influence in the set-up of the Metropolitan Asylums Board which initially had the disparate functions of providing accomodation for imbeciles/idiots/feebleminded persons and of the control of infectious disease both of which were poorly managed in the capital at that time. Given the attitudes of its founding influences, a pavilion plan was hardly unexpected when executing the imbecile asylums at Caterham and Leavesden Wood. In addition, given the ability for infectious disease to spread rapidly through people in close habitation, even though the structure was a mental hospital was predictably sensible.

These early pavilion asylums and their replica at Banstead were all intended for containment of patients of a chronic, intractable disposition, the therepeutic nature of good aspect was not considered necessary and the blocks were placed in serried ranks, just far enough apart to allow light and throughflow of air to prevent disease. Cane Hill being developed for an intentionally varied classification in population required a combination of both sanitation and aspect amongst other requirements hence the architects approach to the layout. The problem of congeston was to some extent alleviated by placing non- patient/storage areas in the more contracted parts of the plan and placing short pavilions for more chronic patients crossing the peripheral access corridor so as not to impede the aspect and light of the most acute wards. However these smaller wards (particularly Guy/Turner) still suffer themselves - although the dormitories are approriately placed in the central where light access is of little purpose at night, the day rooms are still subject to three storey neighbours on either side which is helped only slightly by the splaying of these blocks.

The comments made by Hine are therefore fair, and largely adressed by the later compact arrow plan.The sentiments have been unfortunately reflected in current thinking, as Simon mentioned, without the regard for the novel and unique approach developed by Howell at this site and its historiical perspective.

Pete
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. This information gives me more of an understanding as to the development / reasons about Cane Hill's layout now. Cheers!

Lb:jimlad:
 
Simon said:
It's freely accessible on my website - you'll find it in the archive of Andrew Tierney's "The One" website (see the Cane Hill Project section).

Cane Hill was originally built for 1100-1200 patients in 1882 which is what this plan shows. When Cane Hill was transferred from Surrey Council to the newly formed London County Council in 1888 it was extended to the structure we know today. So, this plan wasn't an 'alternative' design - it was the plan of Cane Hill between 1882 and 1888.

(This is why I have a problem with the "1883" date on the more well known plan.)

All the best,
Simon
Click to expand...

I see it now. Cheers for that Simon :)

Lb:jimlad:
 
does any one have a detailed map of the premiss with details of what was in which building the map at the top of the thread is good but when i try to enlarge to read the writting it just distorts.

does any one no what part of the buildings on the map have been demolished????
 
Please stop randomly spamming cane hill threads begging for information.

There's a huge amount of information about cane hill on the internet if you do your own research.
 
vix_aztek said:
does any one have a detailed map of the premiss with details of what was in which building the map at the top of the thread is good but when i try to enlarge to read the writting it just distorts.

does any one no what part of the buildings on the map have been demolished????
Click to expand...

I do, I was there a couple of evenings ago.

I can't really describe it, you'll have to go there yourself.
 

Similar threads

R
RAF Daws Hill Bunker, Bucks
Replies
2
Views
4K
RobbyJ
R
M
West Ham Asylum – Goodmayes Hospital – Ilford – 2014-2018 various visits
2
Replies
25
Views
17K
Lone Explorer
Lone Explorer
M
Jumping Jack Flash – UK Industry – 1700’s -2019
Replies
7
Views
13K
krela
krela
mersonwhoopie
Beacon Hill Fort, Jan 2012
Replies
19
Views
12K
mersonwhoopie
mersonwhoopie
Simon
Cane Hill 2007: Observing The Disintegration Of The Titanic
2
Replies
29
Views
13K
toxic frog
toxic frog

Latest posts

Back
Top