Explore Collections
You are here:
CollectionsOnline
/
Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12 (13)
Browse
Purpose
Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12 (13)
Notes
[SM D2/8/43] and [SM D2/8/37] Design A
[SM D2/8/42], [SM D2/8/41], [SM D2/8/35], [SM D2/8/33] and [SM D2/8/32] Design B
[SM D2/8/34] and [SM D2/8/36] Design C
[SM/D2/40], [SM D2/8/39] and [SM D2/8/38] Design D
[SM D2/8/13] Design E
SM D2/8/42], [SM D2/8/41], [SM D2/8/35], [SM D2/8/33] and [SM D2/8/32] made to a scale of one fifth of an inch to a foot, seem to make a set though, for example, the porte-cochere is only indicated on the ground floor plan ([SM D2/8/42]) and the sections are not finished.
The author of the first design is not known, nor is the client or location of Dance's varying schemes. A date of around 1811-12 is suggested by a slight design on the verso of one of Dance's drawings that relates to the Royal College of Surgeons. However, the similarities of plan and form between Dance's variant designs and those of the anonymous architect are clear. The latter's design is for a compact, six-part villa with a west/east orientation and with an office wing extending from the north side and a kitchen court beyond. The plan is straightforward, and the elevations are regular with seven blind windows on three facades. These might be taken as a sign of an inadequate architect unable to reconcile plan with elevation except that Dance does much the same thing with his design.
It is assumed that Dance was asked to improve on the unidentified architect's efforts, hence his several designs that all have the office wing on the right-hand side. Dance does not state the orientation on any of his 13 drawings but it is unlikely that he would have put the kitchen and laundry on the south rather than the north side of the house. Presumably he exchanged the fronts so that the entrance was now on the east side and the garden front on the west.
Keeping the six-part plan of the anonymous design, Dance improved it by the addition of a three-storey lantern tower that top-lit the inner hall and allowed a gallery on the bedroom floor giving better circulation. He replaced a portico with a porte-cochere, added bows to the centre of the back and front elevations, enlarged and improved the proportions of the three most important ground floor rooms, placed four wide steps in front of the screen to the entrance hall and added dressing rooms to some of the bedroom. Elevationally, Dance tried out various minimally Classical solutions. He kept the idea of large tripartite windows using them back and front and in some cases (as the plans and Design C show) for the upper floor too; four out of eight of these major windows, all on the same side of the house, are blind. Instead of the block-like house under a single roof of the anonymous designer, Dance models the elevations and roofline to give character and strength but seems to have been restricted by having to recast rather than invent from scratch.
[SM D2/8/42], [SM D2/8/41], [SM D2/8/35], [SM D2/8/33] and [SM D2/8/32] Design B
[SM D2/8/34] and [SM D2/8/36] Design C
[SM/D2/40], [SM D2/8/39] and [SM D2/8/38] Design D
[SM D2/8/13] Design E
SM D2/8/42], [SM D2/8/41], [SM D2/8/35], [SM D2/8/33] and [SM D2/8/32] made to a scale of one fifth of an inch to a foot, seem to make a set though, for example, the porte-cochere is only indicated on the ground floor plan ([SM D2/8/42]) and the sections are not finished.
The author of the first design is not known, nor is the client or location of Dance's varying schemes. A date of around 1811-12 is suggested by a slight design on the verso of one of Dance's drawings that relates to the Royal College of Surgeons. However, the similarities of plan and form between Dance's variant designs and those of the anonymous architect are clear. The latter's design is for a compact, six-part villa with a west/east orientation and with an office wing extending from the north side and a kitchen court beyond. The plan is straightforward, and the elevations are regular with seven blind windows on three facades. These might be taken as a sign of an inadequate architect unable to reconcile plan with elevation except that Dance does much the same thing with his design.
It is assumed that Dance was asked to improve on the unidentified architect's efforts, hence his several designs that all have the office wing on the right-hand side. Dance does not state the orientation on any of his 13 drawings but it is unlikely that he would have put the kitchen and laundry on the south rather than the north side of the house. Presumably he exchanged the fronts so that the entrance was now on the east side and the garden front on the west.
Keeping the six-part plan of the anonymous design, Dance improved it by the addition of a three-storey lantern tower that top-lit the inner hall and allowed a gallery on the bedroom floor giving better circulation. He replaced a portico with a porte-cochere, added bows to the centre of the back and front elevations, enlarged and improved the proportions of the three most important ground floor rooms, placed four wide steps in front of the screen to the entrance hall and added dressing rooms to some of the bedroom. Elevationally, Dance tried out various minimally Classical solutions. He kept the idea of large tripartite windows using them back and front and in some cases (as the plans and Design C show) for the upper floor too; four out of eight of these major windows, all on the same side of the house, are blind. Instead of the block-like house under a single roof of the anonymous designer, Dance models the elevations and roofline to give character and strength but seems to have been restricted by having to recast rather than invent from scratch.
Level
Group
Digitisation of the Drawings Collection has been made possible through the generosity of the Leon Levy Foundation
If you have any further information about this object, please contact us: drawings@soane.org.uk
Contents of Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12 (13)
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12
- Variant design for a six-part villa in a Classical style 78 by 81 feet based on a design by an unidentified architect, c.1811-12