This article investigates the spatial articulation of architecture and home through the exploration of current domestic experiences in Basil Spence’s Claremont Court housing scheme (1959-1962), Edinburgh. How architecture and home are both idealized and lived is the backdrop for a discussion that draws on the concept of “model home,” or physical representation of a domestic ideal. The article reads Claremont Court as an architectural prototype of the modern domestic ideal, before exploring its reception by five of its households through the use of visual methods and semistructured interviews. Receiving the model home involves negotiating between ideal and lived homes. Building on this idea, the article contributes with a focus on the spatiality of such reception, showing how it is modulated according to the architectural affordances that the “model home” represents. The article expands on scholarship on architecture and home with empirical evidence that argues the reciprocal spatiality of home.
AllanG.CrowG. (1989). Introduction. In AllanG.CrowG. (Eds.), Home and family. Creating the domestic sphere (pp. 1-13). London, England: MacMillan.
2.
AttfieldJ. (1989a). Inside Pram Town: A case study of Harlow House Interiors, 1951-61. In AttfieldJ.KirkhamP. (Eds.) A view from the interior. Women and design (pp. 215-238). London, England: Women’s Press.
3.
AttfieldJ. (1989b). Bringing modernity home: Open plan in the British domestic interior. In CieraadI. (Ed.), At home: An anthropology of domestic space (pp. 73-82). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
4.
AttfieldJ. (2000). Wild things. The material culture of everyday life. Oxford, England: Berg.
5.
AttfieldJ. (2002). Moving home: Changing attitudes to residence and identity. Journal of Architecture, 7, 249-262. doi:10.1080/13602360210155447
6.
BluntA. (2008). The “skyscraper settlement”: Home and residence at Christodora House. Environment and Planning A, 40, 550-571. doi:10.1068/a3976
BrindleyT. (1999). The modern house in England: An architecture of exclusion. In ChapmanT.HockneyJ. (Eds.), Ideal homes? Social change and domestic life (pp. 30-43). London, England: Routledge.
9.
BurnettJ. (1978). A social history of housing 1815-1970. London, England: David & Charles.
10.
BuschA. (1999). Geography of home: Writings on where we live. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.
11.
ChapmanD. (1998). The home and social status. London, England: Routledge. (Original work published 1955)
12.
ChapmanT. (1999). Stage sets for ideal lives: Images of home in contemporary show homes. In ChapmanT.HockneyJ. (Eds.), Ideal homes? Social change and domestic life (pp. 44-58). London, England: Routledge.
13.
CieraadI. (2002). Out of my kitchen! Architecture, gender and domestic efficiency. Journal of Architecture, 7, 263-279. doi:10.1080/13602360210155456
14.
ClarkH.CarnegieE. (2003). She was aye workin’. Memories of tenement women in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Oxford, England: White Cockade.
15.
ClarkeA. J. (2001). The aesthetics of social aspiration. In MillerD. (Ed.), Home possessions: Material culture behind closed doors (pp. 23-45). Oxford, England: Berg.
16.
CooperC. (2006). House as a mirror of self: Exploring the deeper meaning of home. Berwick, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Nicholas-Hays. (Original work published 1995)
17.
Costa-SantosS.BertolinoN.HicksS.MayV.LewisC. (2017). Place-making theory behind Claremont Court. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Science Index, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, 3(1), 692.
18.
CrowG. (1989). The post-war development of the modern domestic ideal. In AllanG.CrowG. (Eds.), Home and family. Creating the domestic sphere (pp. 14-32). London, England: MacMillan.
19.
CurtisW. (1982). Modern architecture since 1900. Oxford, England: Phaidon.
20.
DarkeJ. (1996). The Englishwoman’s castle, or, don’t you just love being in control? In BoothC.DarkeJ.YeandleS. (Eds.), Changing places: Women’s lives in the city (pp. 61-71). London, England: Paul Chapman.
21.
Department of Health for Scotland. (1956). Scottish housing handbook: Part 3. House design. Edinburgh, England: HMSO.
22.
DonahoeJ.ToadvineT. (2011). The place of home. Environmental Philosophy, 8(1), 25-40.
23.
DoveyK. (1994). Dreams on display: Suburban ideology in the model home. In FerberS.HealyC.McAuliffeC. (Eds.), Beats of Suburbia: Reinterpreting cultures in Australian suburbs (pp. 127-147). Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Melbourne University Press.
24.
DowlingR. (2008). Accommodating open plan: Children, clutter and containment in suburban houses in Sydney, Australia. Environment and Planning A, 40, 536-549. doi:10.1068/a39320
25.
FaleyJ. (1990). Up oor close: Memories of domestic life in Glasgow tenements, 1910-1945. Oxon, England: White Cockade.
26.
FortyA. (1975). The electric home. A case study of the domestic revolution of the inter-war years. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
27.
FortyA. (1986). Objects of desire. Design and society 1750-1980. London, England: Thames & Hudson.
28.
FreemanJ. (2004). The making of the modern kitchen. A cultural history. Oxford, England: Berg.
29.
GalbraithJ. K. (1969). The affluent society. London, England: Hamilton.
30.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London, England: Penguin Books.
31.
Gorman-MurrayA. (2007). New perspectives on the public power and political significance of home. Australian Geographer, 38, 133-143. doi:10.1080/00049180601175907
32.
GrayP. G.RusselR. (1962). The housing situation in 1960. An inquiry covering England & Wales carried out for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. London, England: HMSO.
33.
HandM.ShoveE. (2004). Orchestrating concepts: Kitchen dynamics and regime change in Good Housekeeping and Ideal Home. Home Cultures, 1, 235-256. doi:10.2752/174063104778053464
34.
HandM.ShoveE.SouthertonD. (2007). Home extensions in the United Kingdom: Space, time and practice. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25, 668-681. doi:10.1068/d413t
35.
HarrisS. (1997). Everyday architecture. In HarrisS.BerkeD. (Eds.), Architecture of the everyday (pp. 1-8). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.
36.
HepworthM. (1999). Privacy, security and respectability: The ideal Victorian home. In ChapmanT.HockeyJ. (Eds.), Ideal homes? Social change and domestic life (pp. 17-29). London, England: Routledge.
37.
JacobsJ. M.CairnsS. (2008). The modern touch: Interior design and modernisation in post-independence Singapore. Environment and Planning A, 40, 572-595. doi:10.1068/a39123
38.
JeremiahD. (2000). Architecture and design for the family in Britain 1900-70. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
39.
JerramL. (2006). Kitchen sink dramas: Women, modernity and space in Weimar Germany. Cultural Geographies, 13, 538-556. doi:10.1191/1474474006cgj374oa
40.
JohnsonJ. C. (2006). Browsing the modern kitchen—A feast of gender, place and culture (Part 1). Gender, Place & Culture, 13, 123-132. doi:10.1080/09663690600573601
41.
KentS. (1990). Domestic architecture and the use of space. An interdisciplinary cross-cultural study. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
42.
KusenbachM. (2003). Street phenomenology. The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4, 455-485. doi:10.1177/146613810343007
43.
LangR. (1985). The dwelling door: Towards a phenomenology of transition. In SeamonD.MugerauerR. (Eds.), Dwelling, place and environment: Towards a phenomenology of person and world (pp. 201-213). Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.
44.
LanghamerC. (2005). The meanings of home in post-war Britain. Journal of Contemporary History, 40, 341-362. doi:10.1177/002200940505.1556
45.
LaumannE. O.HouseJ. (1972). Living room styles and social attributes: Patterning of material artefacts in an urban community. In LaumannE. O.SiegelP. M.HodgesR. W. (Eds.), The logic of social hierarchies (pp. 189-203). Chicago, IL: Markham.
46.
LefebvreH. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
47.
LlewellynM. (2004a). Designed by women and designing women: Gender, planning and the geographies of the kitchen in Britain 1917-1946. Cultural Geographies, 11, 42-60. doi:10.1191/1474474003eu292oa
48.
LlewellynM. (2004b). “Urban village” or “white house”: Envisioned spaces, experienced places, and everyday life at Kensal House, London in the 1930s. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22, 229-249. doi:10.1068/d342t
49.
LloydJ.JohnsonL. (2004). Dream stuff: The postwar home and the Australian housewife, 1940-60. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22, 251-272. doi:10.1068/d422
50.
Local Government Board & Secretary of State for Scotland. (1918). Tudor Walters Report. London, England: HMSO.
51.
MadiganR.MunroM. (1999). “The more we are together”: Domestic space, gender and privacy. In ChapmanT.HockeyJ. (Eds.), Ideal homes? Social change and domestic life (pp. 61-72). London, England: Routledge.
52.
MarkusTh. A.CameronD. (2002). The words between the spaces. Buildings and language. London, England: Routledge.
53.
Matrix. (1984). Making space: Women and the man-made environment. London, England: Pluto.
54.
MeahA. (2016). Extending the contested spaces of the modern kitchen. Geography Compass, 10(2), 41-45. doi:10.1111/gec3.12252
55.
MillerD. (2001a). Behind closed doors. In MillerD. (Ed.), Home possessions: Material culture behind closed doors (pp. 1-19). Oxford, England: Berg.
56.
MillerD. (2001b). Possessions. In MillerD. (Ed.), Home possessions: Material culture behind closed doors (pp. 107-121). Oxford, England: Berg.
57.
MillerD. (2002). Accommodating. In PainterC. (Ed.), Contemporary art and the home (pp. 115-130). Oxford, England: Berg.
58.
Ministry of Health. (1944). Ministry of health housing manual. London, England: HMSO.
59.
Ministry of Health & Ministry of Works. (1949). Housing manual. London, England: HMSO.
60.
Ministry of Housing & Local Government. (1961). Homes for today and tomorrow (known as Parker Morris report). London, England: HMSO.
61.
MoneyA. (2007). Material culture and the living room. The appropriation and use of goods in everyday life. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7, 355-377. doi:10.1177/1469540507081630
62.
MorganD. H. J. (1985). The family, politics and social theory. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
63.
MorleyD. (2000). Home territories: Media, mobility and identity. London, England: Routledge.
64.
MunroR. (2013). The disposal of place: Facing modernity in the kitchen-diner. In EvansD.CampbellH.MurcottA. (Eds.), Waste matters. New perspectives on food and society (pp. 212-231). Oxford, England: Wiley.
65.
MunroM.MadiganR. (1999). Negotiating space in the family home. In CieraadI. (Ed.), At home: An anthropology of domestic space (pp.107-117). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
66.
MurdochO. (1986). What your home says about you. Good Housekeeping, October, 88-91.
67.
MuthesiusS. (1982). The English terraced house. London, England: Yale University Press.
68.
PartingtonA. (1995). The designer housewife in the 1950s. In AttfieldJ.KirkhamP. (Eds.), A view from the interior. Women and design (pp. 206-214). London, England: Women’s Press.
69.
PinkS.Leder MackleyK. (2014). Re-enactment methodologies for everyday life research: Art therapy insights for video ethnography. Visual Studies, 29, 146-154. doi:10.1080/1472586X.2014.887266
70.
RapoportA. (1982). The meaning of the built environment. A nonverbal communication approach. London, England: Sage.
71.
RavetzA. (1974). Model estate. Planned housing at Quarry Hills, Leeds. London, England: Croom Helm & Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust.
72.
RavetzA.TurkingtonR. (1995). The place of home. English domestic environments, 1914-2000. London, England: E&FN Spon.
73.
ReimerS.LeslieD. (2004). Identity, consumption and the home. Home Cultures, 1, 187-210. doi:10.2752/174063104778053536
74.
RigginsS. H. (1994). Fieldwork in the living room: An auto-ethnographic essay. In RigginsS. H. (Ed.), The socialness of things (pp. 101-148). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
75.
RoganP. (1997). Rehousing the capital: The crusade against Edinburgh’s slums. In GlendinningM. (Ed.), Rebuilding Scotland: The post-war vision, 1945-75 (pp. 66-75). Edinburgh, England: Tuckwell Press.
76.
RosserC.HarrisC. C. (1965). The family and social change. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
77.
RybczynskiW. (1986). Home: A short history of an idea. London, England: Heinemann.
78.
SeamonD. (2013). Phenomenology and uncanny homecoming. In BoscaljonD. (Ed.), Resisting the place of belonging: Uncanny homecomings in religion, narrative and the arts (pp. 155-170). Farnham, England: Ashgate.
79.
SeamonD. (2014). Place attachment and phenomenology. The synergistic dynamism of place. In ManzoL. C.Devine-WrightP. (Eds.), Place attachment. Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 11-22). Oxon, England: Routledge.
80.
ShieldsR. (1999). Lefebvre, love and struggle: Spatial dialectics. London, England: Routledge.
81.
ShieldsR. (2002). A resume of everyday life. Space and Culture, 5, 4-8.
82.
SparkeP. (1995). As long as it’s pink: The sexual politics of taste. London, England: Pandora.
83.
StuenkelC. P. (2005). A strategy for working families: High-level commodification of household services. In SchneiderB.WhiteL. J. (Eds.), Being together, working apart: Dual-career families and the work-life balance (pp. 252-272). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
84.
TomlinsonA. (Ed). (1989). Consumption, identity and style. London, England: Comedia.
85.
TuanY. F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes and values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
86.
WoodhamJ. M. (2004). Design and everyday life at the Britain Can Make It exhibition, 1946: “Stripes, spots, white wood and homespun versus chintzy armchairs and iron bedsteads with brass knobs.”Journal of Architecture, 9, 463-476. doi:10.1080/1360236042000320323
87.
WoodwardI. (2001). Domestic objects and the taste epiphany. Journal of Material Culture, 6, 115-136. doi:10.1177/135918350100600201
88.
WorsdallF. (1989). The Glasgow tenement. A way of life. A social, historical and architectural study. Edinburgh, Scotland: Chambers.
89.
WrightG. (1991). Prescribing the model home. Social Research, 58, 213-225.
90.
ZweigF. (1961). The worker in an affluent society. London, England: Heinemann.
