Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

DerbyBorn submitted this idea :
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

I have not seen that all that much, but where I have seen it, it has
usually been because the house is built on a hill side.

On 14/03/2019 18:51, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

Are we talking of Victorian style houses?

In which case the rear room would have been the kitchen diner with a
open fire, and what is now the kitchen would have been a scullery. Being
wet, it would have been lower than the rest of the house.

On 14/03/2019 18:51, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction


I take it by "lower" you mean "lower ceilings". And I've been led to
believe that results from the "back additions" being (a) not visible
from the road and (b) not where visitors were entertained. Hence it
would have been a waste to build them with high ceilings.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 14/03/2019 19:00, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/03/2019 18:51, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

Are we talking of Victorian style houses?

In which case the rear room would have been the kitchen diner with a
open fire, and what is now the kitchen would have been a scullery. Being
wet, it would have been lower than the rest of the house.


Yes, the main body of the house would be suspended wooden floors. IME
the back room would be the main living room, the front room kept for
best (unused most of the time!), and the kitchen/scullery a step down
onto brick or quarry tile on earth. If there was a floor above that, it
would have lower ceilings than the rest of the upper floor.

I don't know why, but much of the old Victorian housing in Reading is
like that.

51.455429° -0.944911° in Google Earth for example, some with a first
floor, some without.

Cheers
--
Clive

In article 6,
DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

Saves bricks and materials. The rear addition usually has lower ceilings.

--
*Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
says...

I take it by "lower" you mean "lower ceilings". And I've been led to
believe that results from the "back additions" being (a) not visible
from the road and (b) not where visitors were entertained. Hence it
would have been a waste to build them with high ceilings.

Not in the house I grew up in. There was a deep step down into
the scullery and the doorway to the room above was where the
staircase turned through 180°.

You went along the landing to the rear of the house, then down
one step to a square intermediate landing with the door to the
back room facing you. There was another step down through the
doorway.

To continue descending you turned, in our case left, onto the
staircase that turned though 90° in three or four steps then
straight down to the hallway below.

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 14/03/2019 19:06, Robin wrote:
On 14/03/2019 18:51, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction


I take it by "lower" you mean "lower ceilings".Â* And I've been led to
believe that results from the "back additions" being (a) not visible
from the road and (b) not where visitors were entertained.Â* Hence it
would have been a waste to build them with high ceilings.

From the ones that I have seen, the floors are solid and lower down,
with a step into the kitchen, while the rest of the house has suspended
floors. Often there is a cellar under the main house, but not under the
original build "extension".

SteveW

"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.236...
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

The kitchen scullery had a tiled or bare concrete floor
as it was subject to wet. The base of the adjacent dining
living room and the front room for that matter were at the
same level but with the floorboards took them up a level.
The room above the scullery had a sloping roof - sloping
to one side or the other and lower than the main roof
which limited the ceiling height.

michael adams

....

On 14/03/2019 20:01, Steve Walker wrote:
On 14/03/2019 19:06, Robin wrote:
On 14/03/2019 18:51, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or
was it
to so with roof construction


I take it by "lower" you mean "lower ceilings".Â* And I've been led to
believe that results from the "back additions" being (a) not visible
from the road and (b) not where visitors were entertained.Â* Hence it
would have been a waste to build them with high ceilings.

From the ones that I have seen, the floors are solid and lower down,
with a step into the kitchen, while the rest of the house has suspended
floors. Often there is a cellar under the main house, but not under the
original build "extension".


I recognise that as common in Georgian houses (where the kitchen was the
servants' domain to be kept apart from the main house) but not in the
far more common terraces of Victorian houses for workers.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 14/03/2019 18:51, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

What they all said, but it is also commonly related to the lie of the
land. In my first house (cul de sac of terraced, late victorian) the
road line ran along the ridge so that for houses on both sides the
ground fell away from front to rear. The front rooms had suspended
floors and high ceilings and was two stories (and two rooms deep), the
third set of rooms was three stories but staggered about 4 feet down
from the middle ones (or 4 feet up to the top back bedroom, which had
sloping ceilings).

On Thursday, 14 March 2019 18:51:13 UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

Good answers to this.

I also find the stair-related features interesting in these type of houses. Where you have high ceilings in the main part of the house and then the "tunnel" to the kitchen at the height of the stair-case dogleg (often only at door height).

Also sometimes the back offshoot second floor rooms (e.g. bathroom) are at the height of the staircase dogleg, and then a few more steps up to the landing. Where the offshoot has been added there was often originally a nice big window at the back of the house that was turned into a door when the offshoot was added.

It all comes down to shoehorning stuff into the relatively small footprint available for housing in this Green Land.

I like the Victorian house some family friends lived in. Under the stairs was to be found not the descending steps to a cellar, but another parallel staircase going up to some hidden servant rooms at a lower level than the main house.

Simon.

On 14/03/2019 18:51, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction



For town houses with a lower ground floor below street level at the
front and at garden level at the back, the street level was built up
from soil removed to level the site. so the back is probably a little
lower than the original 'green field' ground level and the front door
reaches the built up bank that forms the roadway via a bridge to the
retaining wall for the roadway which usually incorporates a coal cellar.

For many 18/19th C terraces the Kitchen/back bedroom was an addition and
is accessed from the half landing of the original stairway. So it tends
to be halfway between the front floor levels.


--
djc

(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

sm_jamieson Wrote in message:
On Thursday, 14 March 2019 18:51:13 UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

Good answers to this.

I also find the stair-related features interesting in these type of houses. Where you have high ceilings in the main part of the house and then the "tunnel" to the kitchen at the height of the stair-case dogleg (often only at door height).

Also sometimes the back offshoot second floor rooms (e.g. bathroom) are at the height of the staircase dogleg, and then a few more steps up to the landing. Where the offshoot has been added there was often originally a nice big window at the back of the house that was turned into a door when the offshoot was added.

It all comes down to shoehorning stuff into the relatively small footprint available for housing in this Green Land.

I like the Victorian house some family friends lived in. Under the stairs was to be found not the descending steps to a cellar, but another parallel staircase going up to some hidden servant rooms at a lower level than the main house.

Simon.


?Going up to a lower level?
Do you mean "out the back" in less lofty accomodation?
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 14/03/2019 20:18, Robin wrote:
On 14/03/2019 20:01, Steve Walker wrote:
On 14/03/2019 19:06, Robin wrote:
On 14/03/2019 18:51, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or
was it
to so with roof construction


I take it by "lower" you mean "lower ceilings".Â* And I've been led to
believe that results from the "back additions" being (a) not visible
from the road and (b) not where visitors were entertained.Â* Hence it
would have been a waste to build them with high ceilings.

Â*From the ones that I have seen, the floors are solid and lower down,
with a step into the kitchen, while the rest of the house has
suspended floors. Often there is a cellar under the main house, but
not under the original build "extension".


I recognise that as common in Georgian houses (where the kitchen was the
servants' domain to be kept apart from the main house) but not in the
far more common terraces of Victorian houses for workers.

Common around here, but just normal terraces not designed for servants -
even the small, workers' ones.

Just a couple of examples.

https://tinyurl.com/y2yfr8sw

2nd house used to belong to my mother's parents.

https://tinyurl.com/y5n6or3p

No. 9 used to belong to my father's parents.

SteveW

DerbyBorn wrote:

Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

There are variations on this but
with the two I own in London on level ground
there is step down to the rear kitchen and back room
which are on solid ground
the rear of the house above is 3 floors
the front with a cellar underneath is 2 floors
and the roof line is level front to back more rooms in what is from the front a small looking house
4 bed 3 recp, kitchen +box room before you convert the attic and dig out the basement

--

On Thursday, 14 March 2019 18:51:13 UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

It's to do with natural daylight.
Terrace houses only have windows front and rear.
To illuminate them, windows had to be tall so ceilings also have to be high.
Less important in kitchens.
Even more so in "back to back" houses.

You also find this in buildings with very large rooms. Eg"Stately homes".

All to do with there being only very limited artificial lighting.

Mine is not like that, you are generalising. I mean some are built on hills,
and others have had internal modifications done over the years. It very much
depends on when it was built.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.236...
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

There are some in Redhil where the small box room upstairs has a wall that
has an angled bit near the floor over the stairwell to allow taller people
to climb the stairs without knocking themselves out. For the want of a few
more inches in depth, this would not be required. Mine has this done on
ceilings near the eaves to allow the roof to come down almost to the top of
the windows upstairs, then there are corner fireplaces huge chimney breasts
in two rooms like mine taking up a lot of space, and so on. The building of
houses seems sometimes to defy logic, but it obviously made sense at the
time!
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
...
DerbyBorn submitted this idea :
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

I have not seen that all that much, but where I have seen it, it has
usually been because the house is built on a hill side.

Brian Gaff formulated on Friday :
There are some in Redhil where the small box room upstairs has a wall that
has an angled bit near the floor over the stairwell to allow taller people to
climb the stairs without knocking themselves out. For the want of a few more
inches in depth, this would not be required.

My semi has the small bedroom over the stair. It has a cupboard space
in that bedroom above the stair, the base of which is a few feet up
from the bedroom floor. That to allow for extra stair headroom.

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:51:10 GMT
DerbyBorn wrote:

Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at
a lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or
was it to so with roof construction

Solid floor for the kitchen and suspended timber floor for the rest of
the house? Possibly to give the kitchen range somewhere solid and
fireproof to sit on?

On 14/03/2019 20:01, Steve Walker wrote:
On 14/03/2019 19:06, Robin wrote:
On 14/03/2019 18:51, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or
was it
to so with roof construction


I take it by "lower" you mean "lower ceilings".Â* And I've been led to
believe that results from the "back additions" being (a) not visible
from the road and (b) not where visitors were entertained.Â* Hence it
would have been a waste to build them with high ceilings.

From the ones that I have seen, the floors are solid and lower down,
with a step into the kitchen, while the rest of the house has suspended
floors. Often there is a cellar under the main house, but not under the
original build "extension".


It's not uncommon around here (Yorkshire) for the front half of the
house to have a suspended floor (sometimes with a cellar) and the back
half of the house to be a concrete floor. And then the step down to the
kitchen at the rear.


--
Adam

In message , ARW
writes
It's not uncommon around here (Yorkshire) for the front half of the
house to have a suspended floor (sometimes with a cellar) and the back
half of the house to be a concrete floor. And then the step down to the
kitchen at the rear.

This house, Victorian detached c1880, Aberdeenshire, has 4 steps up to
the front door outside, then the public (reception) rooms on that level.
Three steps down to a corridor which runs to the kitchen at the rear
(wooden floor, with granite where the range was). One step down to the
scullery behind the kitchen. Solid floor.

Stairs from the front lead up, ten steps to a half landing, turn 180
degrees, then a further ten steps up to the first floor bedrooms.
However, from the half landing a short corridor leads to bathroom,
airing cupboard and two rear bedrooms over the kitchen and scullery,
with a further (steep) staircase from the back room down to the
scullery. Presumably the maid's quarters.

--
Graeme

Rob Morley Wrote in message:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:51:10 GMT
DerbyBorn wrote:

Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at
a lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or
was it to so with roof construction

Solid floor for the kitchen and suspended timber floor for the rest of
the house? Possibly to give the kitchen range somewhere solid and
fireproof to sit on?



and easier to mop out/make a mess in.
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
Rob Morley Wrote in message:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:51:10 GMT
DerbyBorn wrote:

Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at
a lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or
was it to so with roof construction

Solid floor for the kitchen and suspended timber floor for the rest of
the house? Possibly to give the kitchen range somewhere solid and
fireproof to sit on?



and easier to mop out/make a mess in.

In my Victorian house, the kitchen range was in the kitchen, with a
suspended wood floor. At the end of the rear extension there was a
scullery, with a concrete floor. That room not big enough for a range.

--
*I have a degree in liberal arts -- do you want fries with that

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 10:38:05 PM UTC, JimK wrote:
sm_jamieson Wrote in message:
On Thursday, 14 March 2019 18:51:13 UTC, DerbyBorn wrote:
Why is the bit that usually has the kitchen and small back bedroom at a
lower level than the rest of the house? Was it just cost saving or was it
to so with roof construction

Good answers to this.

I also find the stair-related features interesting in these type of houses. Where you have high ceilings in the main part of the house and then the "tunnel" to the kitchen at the height of the stair-case dogleg (often only at door height).

Also sometimes the back offshoot second floor rooms (e.g. bathroom) are at the height of the staircase dogleg, and then a few more steps up to the landing. Where the offshoot has been added there was often originally a nice big window at the back of the house that was turned into a door when the offshoot was added.

It all comes down to shoehorning stuff into the relatively small footprint available for housing in this Green Land.

I like the Victorian house some family friends lived in. Under the stairs was to be found not the descending steps to a cellar, but another parallel staircase going up to some hidden servant rooms at a lower level than the main house.

Simon.


?Going up to a lower level?
Do you mean "out the back" in less lofty accomodation?
--

Ah, I should have said "at a lower level than the main house 1st floor". I don't know what was underneath the servant rooms - probably some kind of lower ground floor rooms.

Simon.

In article ,
sm_jamieson wrote:
Ah, I should have said "at a lower level than the main house 1st floor".
I don't know what was underneath the servant rooms - probably some kind
of lower ground floor rooms.

In my house, judging by the remains of bell circuits, the servant's room
was the attic.

--
*It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/03/2019 15:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
sm_jamieson wrote:
Ah, I should have said "at a lower level than the main house 1st floor".
I don't know what was underneath the servant rooms - probably some kind
of lower ground floor rooms.

In my house, judging by the remains of bell circuits, the servant's room
was the attic.

They work in the basement and sleep in the attic. The Family might want
something in the middle of the night.

--
Max Demian

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/03/2019 15:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
sm_jamieson wrote:
Ah, I should have said "at a lower level than the main house 1st floor".
I don't know what was underneath the servant rooms - probably some kind
of lower ground floor rooms.

In my house, judging by the remains of bell circuits, the servant's room
was the attic.

They work in the basement and sleep in the attic. The Family might want
something in the middle of the night.

So what did those skivvys do about bathing ? Have a bath
somewhere else once a year, whether they needed it or not ?

Mate of mine spent some years in China teaching them
english. They had public bath houses and still do even now.

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 06:01:02 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


Mate of mine spent some years in China teaching them
english. They had public bath houses and still do even now.

****, you HAD to **** also in this thread, eh, you senile pest?

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On 18/03/2019 19:01, Rod Speed wrote:


"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/03/2019 15:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* sm_jamieson wrote:
Ah, I should have said "at a lower level than the main house 1st
floor".
I don't know what was underneath the servant rooms - probably some kind
of lower ground floor rooms.

In my house, judging by the remains of bell circuits, the servant's room
was the attic.

They work in the basement and sleep in the attic. The Family might
want something in the middle of the night.

So what did those skivvys do about bathing ?Â* Have a bath
somewhere else once a year, whether they needed it or not ?

Tin bath in the kitchen. Family tin bath in their bedrooms, filled with
water lugged upstairs by the staff.

--
Max Demian

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
On 18/03/2019 15:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
sm_jamieson wrote:
Ah, I should have said "at a lower level than the main house 1st
floor". I don't know what was underneath the servant rooms - probably
some kind of lower ground floor rooms.

In my house, judging by the remains of bell circuits, the servant's
room was the attic.

They work in the basement and sleep in the attic. The Family might want
something in the middle of the night.

No basement here. Did wonder how having live in 'help' would work on this
sort of house.

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/03/2019 15:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
On 18/03/2019 15:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
sm_jamieson wrote:
Ah, I should have said "at a lower level than the main house 1st
floor". I don't know what was underneath the servant rooms - probably
some kind of lower ground floor rooms.

In my house, judging by the remains of bell circuits, the servant's
room was the attic.

They work in the basement and sleep in the attic. The Family might want
something in the middle of the night.

No basement here. Did wonder how having live in 'help' would work on this
sort of house.

They would work in the kitchen and scullery (if there is one). They
might just help the lady of the house cook and also serve the meals to
the family, but eat in the kitchen.

--
Max Demian