The planning and design of 1930's branch libraries in the context of inter-war suburban development in Birmingham
by
Jane Bennett, B.A, Dip.lnd.Arch.
A Master's Dissertation, submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of tbe award of the Master of Arts degree of tbe Loughborough University of Technology
September 1994
Supervisor: Dr. R.P. Sturges, B.A., M.A., PhD., F.L.A., M.I.Inf.Sc. Department of Information and Library Studies
@ J. Bennett, 1994 Abstract
The background to public library development between the two World Wars provides an introduction to the quest1on of provision for the urban population migrat1ng to the newly developed housing estates of expanding city suburbs. Contemporary opinion, reports and literature serve to define the importance attr1buted to meeting library service requirements for the new suburban populations lacking any adequate community facil1ties. The object1ve was to provide serv1ces to suit the part1cular needs of suburban communit1es by the planning and design of library bu1ldings in line with suburban development. Planning was required to establish the most appropriate location, site, layout, architecture and interior des1gn of branch libraries for the suburbs.
Birm1ngham exemplifies the expanding municipal city of the 1nter-war period, erecting model branch libraries for 1ts developing suburban communities. The new housing, town-planning and transport schemes affected the progress of Greater Birm1ngham's suburban development, and consequently munic1pal planning policy for building branch l1braries. Branch library development in the south-eastern districts was particularly significant during the 1930's, where new communities were without library services. Case studies of Acocks Green and Yardley Wood branch libraries 1llustrate in detail both planning policy and building design in the context of local suburban development.
Subsequent developments in branch library build1ng, following the Second World War, emphas1se some of the changes occurr1ng in library policy and practice to meet new economic and social trends. Branch l1brary planning and des1gn developed according to those changes while also retaining some of the more valuable and 1nnovative ideas fo~mulated dur1ng the 1930's. '" Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge my superv1sor, Dr Paul Sturges, for h1s encouragement and guidance. Thanks are due to the Local Studies and History Department (Birm1ngham Reference L1brary), and I would also like to express my grateful apprec1at1on to the typist Peggy Bennett. CONTENTS PAGE NO.
Chapter 1 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 13
The planning and design of purpose-built municipal branch l1braries of the 1930's.
2.1 Planning policy
2.2 Bu1lding des1gn
Chapter 3 45
Suburban development in Birmingham during the inter-war years.
Chapter 4 61
The plann1ng and design of B1rmingham•s purpose-built suburban branch libraries of the 1930's, with particular reference to the south-east of the city and 1ncluding two case-studies.
Chapter 5 86
Conclusion
Bibliography 95 ILLUSTRATIONS
Figures:
1. Whiteinch Distr1ct L1brary. Source: BOARD OF EDUCATION PUBLIC LIBRARIES COMMITTEE. Report on Publ1c Libraries in England and Wales. Cmd. 1927, Appendix C, p. 335.
2. Greater Birm1ngham map. Source: BRIGGS, A. History of Birmingham, Vol. II, Borough and City, 1865-1938. 1952, p. 156.
3. Birmingham's Transport System, 1938. Source: BRIGGS, A. History of B1rmingha, Vol. II, Borough and City, 1865-1938. 1952, p. 253.
4. Birmingham Modern Industrial Pattern, 1938. Source: BRIGGS, A. History of B1rmingham, Vol. II, Borough and City, 1865-1938. 1952, p. 297.
5. The Green, Acocks Green, 1931. Birmingham Public Libraries postcards.
6. Acocks Green Village, 1932. Birmingham Public Libraries postcards.
7. Shirley Road (site of Acocks Green Library), 1928. Birmingham Public Libraries postcards.
8. Map showing sites reserved for branch libraries 1n south-eastern suburbs, 1931. Source: Detail taken from City of B1rmingham Housing Estates, 1931.
9. Acocks Green Branch Public Library, ground plan. Source: The Builder, 16 December 1932, 143 (4689), 1024.
10. Acocks Green Branch Public Library, Shirley Road frontage, 1932. Source: The Builder, 16 December 1932, 143, (4689), 1012.
11. Acocks Green Branch Public Library, entrance hall, 1932. Source: The Bu1lder, 16 December 1932, 143 (4689), 1012.
12. Acocks Green Branch Public Library, staff enclosure, 1932. Source: The Builder, 16 December 1932, 143 (4689), 1013.
13. Acocks Green Branch Public L1brary, lending library, 1932. Source: The Builder, 16 December 1932, 143 (4689), 1013.
14. Perry Common Branch Public Library, ground plan. Source: The L1brary World, 1934, 36, 84.
15. Kings Heath Public Library, 1905. Birmingham Public L1braries postcards. 16. Yardley Wood Branch Public L~brary, H~ghfield Road frontage, 1936. Source: SHARP, H.A. Branch librar~es. Modern problems and administration, 1938, facing page 113.
17. Yardley Wood Branch Public Library, ground plan. Source: Library Assoc~ation Record, 1937, 4(3), 112.
18. South Yardley Branch Publ~c Library, ground plan. Source: Library Association Record, 1939, 6(5), 218.
19. Birm~ngham Ward Boundaries and Library Locations. Source: 1991 Survey of Community Library Users: Information Team, Dept. Planning & Architecture, B~rmingham City Council.
20. Acocks Green Village and Branch Library. Jane Bennett, 1994.
21. Acocks Green Branch L~brary, staff enclosure. Jane Bennett, 1994.
22. Acocks Green Branch Library, radiat~ng stacks. Jane Bennett, 1994.
23. Acocks Green Branch L~brary, junior department. Jane Bennett, 1994.
24. Yardley Wood Branch Library, Highfield Road. Jane Bennett, 1994.
25. Yardley Wood Branch Library, new staff enclosure. Jane Bennett, 1994.
26. Yardley Wood Branch Library, lending department. Jane Bennett, 1994.
27. Yardley Wood Branch Library, childrens section. Jane Bennett, 1994. CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The public library service of Great Britain by the time of the
First World War was still, in pract1ce, directed mainly towards the needs of the urban work1ng class and not as yet providing an adequate serv1ce to the whole community. There was needed a new concept of libraries for all, in order for the service to become fully comprehensive. In order to partly achieve this aim, publ1c libraries required adequate resources, such as the abolition of the first rate limitation on municipal expenditure, the creation of larger and more eff1cient library authorit1es and the extension of the service to all areas both urban and rural.
The Public Libraries Act of 1919 to some extent achieved these ob]ect1ves, although improvement came slowly. It was not until 1926, that advances were made. Two major reports surveyed the position during the early 1920's. The Mitchell
Report (1) was prepared for the Carnegie Trust by its secretary J M Mitchell, who urged library co-operation, in anticipation of one of the major documents of public librarianship in 1927. In October 1924, the President of the
Board of Education, Mr C P Trevelyan, appo1nted a Departmental
Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir Frederic Kenyon,
to enquire into the adequacy of the library prov1sion already made under the Public Libraries Acts, and the means of extending and completing such provision throughout England and Wales, with regard being had to the relation of the libraries conducted under these Acts
1 to other Public Libraries and to the general system of national education. (2)
The Report was to prove an 1nfluential survey of the Public
L1brary Movement in Britain, both owing to the official
stand1ng of the Committee under the Board of Educat1on and the
members of the Committee including Kenyan who was Director and
Principal Librarian of the British Museum. The 1nfluence of
1ts conclus1ons and recommendations were to become abundantly
clear 1n the public l1brary scene of the 1930's. In general
the Kenyan Report was a sustained plea for local improvement
and voluntary co-operation among Library Authorities. The
Comm1ttee had observed and recorded that l1brary prov1sion was
continuing to grow, albeit slowly and that signif1cantly
branch organisation had continued to develop.
Branch development was at a v1rtual standstill during the
years immediately following the War. Nevertheless, as with
other library activ1ties branch l1brary building began to
revive in the mid-1920's and became 1ncreasingly important as
resources grew and the population spread from the old towns and city centres to the newly developing suburban housing estates. Cit1es like L1verpool, Nottingham and Leeds had erected new branches dur1ng the 1920's. Birmingham, however, already having a fully articulated branch system, was not to beg1n the next phase of extensive branch building to meet the needs of the outer suburbs, until 1928.
Good headway was therefore being made with the development of a branch service in the urban areas, and the differential
2 rating, making poss1ble more effective overall planning. The
Carnegie Trust, in spite of the fact it was now running down
1ts assistance to l1braries, made a special grant of £25,000
to ass1st provision for new housing estates.
Housing developments, combined with 1mproved transport
facilities were also therefore, a matter of concern to many
urban libraries. Large numbers of people no longer compelled
to live in the shadow of their workplaces, moved out to new
homes 1n the suburbs, often to new houses bu1lt amid green
fields. The old 1nner city branches became redundant, while
funds for building new ones further out was not always
forthcoming, since Carnegie grants were only made available to
the County authorities.
The weaknesses of the situat1on were demonstrated in a survey
conducted for the Library Association for 1936-37(3). The
Associations observers noted many large library authorities
such as in Birmingham struggling to prov1de a twentieth
century service. In the West Midlands region, the survey
registered the following under the head1ng Service Points:
The rapid growth of new housing areas at a distance from the civic centre of a town has set a new problem to towns which have in the past been served by a central library only, and the problem is no less acute in the larger towns where branches have already been establ1shed in populous suburbs. Birmingham is endeavouring to keep pace w1th the spread of the population by open1ng large branches on conveniently accessible sites and has already been able to dispense with one of 1ts oldest city branches owing to their outward movement of the population. (4)
Many of the urban l1brary services, freed of the tradit1on of the penny rate and over the worst of the post-war depression
3 were embarking upon ambitious schemes of modernisation, as
well as increased branch provision, w1th the 1ntroduction of
open-access, replacement or improvement of buildings and
better services for children. These ambitions were
temporar1ly subdued by the 1931-33 depression, as libraries
were forced to suspend plans for expansion. R D
Hilton-Smith, Deputy Librar1an of Hendon Public Libraries,
commented in 1934, that:
New districts had to do without branches, effete buildings in older districts remained effete, carefully conceived plans for development were scrapped or modif1ed and meanwh1le the pressure on existing libraries grew intense. (5)
Nevertheless, by the m1d-1930's libraries were beginning to
enjoy a prosperity in the form of a 45% increase in local
government expenditure on l1brar1es between 1933-1939 and the
modernisation schemes continued. 'Open-access', permitting
borrowers to bookshelves, made steady progress to become
standard practice 1n all new buildings (6), wh1le older
buildings required extensive reconstruction. The new
purpose-built branch l1braries were tending to follow a
uniform pattern, with the lending library as the central
feature, with the characteristic radiating stacks of the
period reflecting a continuing apprehension to open access.
Additional space needed for open-access and book displays was
found by reducing the amount of space allocated to reading
rooms and newsrooms, which owing to the general improvement in work1ng class housing were less necessary than previously.
Reading rooms were nevertheless retained for magazines and newspapers by public demand according to the Kenyan Report,
4 the Comm1ttee, rema1n1ng 1n favour, where the cost of upkeep
was not excessive (7).
In regard to 1ncreasing the range and var1ety of library
services, for readers of all ages, prov1s1on for children in
particular was becoming universal. The Kenyon Report
recommended that everything possible should be done to l1nk
the work in the school with that of the public library and
that every l1brary should provide a juvenile department for
young people between the ages of eleven and seventeen (8).
New branch libraries prov1ded a children's room or corner
where classes of school ch1ldren could visit for lessons and
book borrowing. Such provision was supported by story hours,
play-read1ngs, discussion groups, lectures, film shows and so
on.
The poss1bilities of increasing library extension activit1es might have assisted 1n widening the range of library use, but
few author1t1es had the resources or the inclination for the expans1on of this side of their work. The branch librarians were eager to co-operate in the more trad1tional types of extension activities when continued, but generally were less enthusiastic about the Kenyon Report's vision of the Publ1c
Library as the ''centre of the 1ntellectual life of the area which it serves'' (9).
Nevertheless, the Kenyon Report marked an important stage in
the transition from the concept of librar1es for the working classes to one of libraries for all. This occurred at
5 different times in different authorities, although the more
comprehensive the service, the sooner came the change.
Branch libraries which concentrated on lending and reading
room provision were generally more proletarian then the large
CLty libraries, although this was perhaps determined also by
the area the branch was serving. There, the Kenyon Committee
was keen to emphasLse that "the library has to serve not only
the earnest seekers after knowledge, but also those who are
gratifying an elementary curiosity and those who are seeking
relaxation and recreation ... '' (10)
The characterLstic of a branch lLbrary is that Lt serves one
particular small community. A branch mLght deal entirely
with one category of people only, if sited Ln either a vast
council estate or a wealthy suburb, serving the library needs
of one local community. Margaret L Harries in 1938 (11)
cited housLng as one of the particular social questions which
had a profound influence on publLc lLbraries, and the reading
habits of the people using them. A survey on book borrowing was carrLed out in Edinburgh during 1937 (12) which concluded
that most books went to new townships.
People were encouraged to read when they live in better houses ... a local authority when it improves houses, arouses in many people the desire for a better life altogether. (13)
It did not seem fantastic to assert that if the whole population had :
good-sLzed, clean houses in pleasant surroundLngs, many more would use the libraries and probably many more would probably want good literature. (14)
6 During the per1od following World War One there was an
increasing awareness of the effects of the developing new
towns and expanding suburban areas and the many related
difficulties and problems arising as a result of recent
housing and town planning legislation. John Burns, the
ex-Labour President of the Local Government Board, intended
the B1ll preceding the 1909 Housing and Town Planning Act ''to
secure the home healthy, the house beautiful, the town
pleasant, the city dignified, and the suburb salubrious" (15)
although it was only the latter which fell with1n the powers
of the eventual Act. Suburban development was the main
outcome. Municipal house building was conducted on a vast
scale and continued throughout the post-war years, as the
authorities addressed the pressing issue of housing conditions
in the poorer areas of large cities and slum clearance
schemes. Private enterprise was also developing large areas,
independent of any munic1pal undertakings with the consecutive growth of new industries, with factor1es and multiple retail
outlets, the housing of their employees drawn from outside
regions, had become a constant problem for both municipal authorities and private enterpr1se al1ke. As the population
migrated outward from the congested central areas to the
outskirts of the cities one solution to the problem came in
the large suburban housing developments. In large cities
like Birm1ngham and Manchester, these new housing estates were
developed only s1x miles from the centre, having transport
fac1lities linking the residential outer suburb with the town.
There was l1ttle attempt to co-ordinate housing with
industrial development and much of the suburban populat1on
7 commuted to the workplace. The worker who had migrated from one of the older 1ndustrial areas found a soc1al pattern quite different from the one left behind. The closeknit industr1al commun1ties of the slums were left for the low density housing schemes of suburbia, which lacked the famil1ar ne1ghbourliness and resulted in the disintegration of social life. It was an isolated, unnatural society, established on the edge of town in widely scattered districts.
Furthermore, 1n the outer suburbs, the new inhabitants as yet had few of the amen1ties to which they had been previously accustomed. Apart from the 1ncreased expense of rent and cost of transport to distant shopping centres, communal services and buildings such as public houses, churches, schools, meeting places and libraries were slow in coming.
While schools for children were provided fairly early, provision of libraries was often ''shelved indeterminately''
(16). The first social inst1tution to appear on estates was likely to be the publ1c house, closely followed by the provision of church or chapel, and as the estate grew to sufficient size a huge cinema would be erected. According to
K A L Roberts 1n 1937, Senior Assistant Librarian of Small
Heath Branch 1n Birmingham, it was "usually many years later before (you found) a properly equipped branch library on the site'' (17). This, in Robert's v1ew was a fair p1cture of the average modern housing estate, whether municipally built or the result of private enterprise. It was cons1dered essential therefore, for librarians ''to understand fully the social cond1tions existing on these estates and ... to
8 endeavour to counteract the bad planning in the social sense of these estates'' (18).
Nevertheless, community assoc1ations were often formed on estates and obtained a building from which various social activit1es could be controlled, including advice bureaux, adult education, drama, lectures, music, wireless discussion groups, womens' meet1ngs and so on. It was rare for the mun1c1pality to organise such an association or provide f1nanc1al assistance for the area, desp1te the 1925 Housing
Acts wh1ch empowered local authorities to provide centres.
However, Sheffield opened the f1rst mun1c1pal Commun1ty Centre in 1932, followed by Smethwick in 1935, and Birmingham a year later. On the whole, mun1cipal authorities rema1ned slow to contribute social amenities such as schools and libraries and where present, provided little correlation of service with each other or with community centres. In fact the more advanced library author1t1es entered the field of active mental recreations with music circles, play readings and d1scussion groups where a commun1ty centre was absent, or sometimes in conjunction w1th a centre's activities.
Nevertheless, the library pr1marily provided books, while the centre retained a better correlation of mental and physical recreat1ons.
Roberts far-sighted vis1on was for a vast social centre which would incorporate the library with publ1c hall, meeting rooms, film theatre, school rooms available by day for elementary education and at night for adult education workshops. This
9 centre would be sited within a one-mile radius of hous1ng or within reasonable access by public transport. This concept
''to give every resident in an estate a chance of leading a full life, a satisfactory life ... , provid1ng books to people who appreciate them" (19), re1terated the views expressed ten years previously in the Kenyon Report of the need for a centre for the intellectual life of the area. Roberts nevertheless, extended his vision further to a belief that any attempts at providing book stocks to residents in estates could do little because of the wasteful and futile d1stribution of other serv1ces. He concluded that where any new estate had to be dealt with, the people and conditions for which the library must provide, would therefore depend upon "the education of their whole being'' (20).
Accept1ng the social, adm1n1strative and f1nancial conditions of the period, the municipal authorities were faced with the potent1al for providing a standard of library service in the new suburbs, wh1ch had opportunities such as no other areas offered. Without the financial restrictions of the penny rate, under which until 1919 the authorities had suffered so long, with the improving public percept1on of municipal service and appreciation of its social value and the formation of a regional co-operative book serv1ce, the new suburbs appeared to have the opportunity for a high standard of l1brary service.
While some attention was already be1ng given to the best methods of solving new difficulties arising in the provision
10 of library facilities, it was the question of provis1on to su1t the needs of the new suburban community which was of particular importance for the municipalities. The effectiveness and extent of a library service for the suburbs would depend considerably on the cond1tions under which it operated, and without adequate facilities for modern1sation, an effective service would be unattainable. The process of establishing a new and improved library service to serve the large city suburbs required planning in terms of location and des1gn of build1ngs. Purpose-built branch libraries planned in accordance w1th the most current ideas of service and design would be necessary for the highest standard of utility.
11 References
1. Mitchell, J.M. The Public Library System of Great Britain and Ireland 1921-23: a report prepared for the Carnegie U.K. Trustees [Mitchell Report], 1924.
2. Board of Education, Public Libraries Committee. Report on Public Librar~es in England and Wales [Kenyan Report]. (Reprinted from Cmd. 2868, 1927), 1935, p. 8.
3. McColvin, L.R. ed. A survey of librar~es. Reports on a survey made by the Library Association during 1936-1937, 1938.
4. Ibid., p. 90.
5. Hilton-Smith, R.D. English libraries in the Depression. The Library Association Record, 1934, 1(12), 436.
6. [Kenyan Report], p. 68.
7. Ibid., p. 64.
8 . Ibid., p. 47.
9. Ibid., p. 39.
10. Ibid.
11. Harries, M.L. Libraries and society. L~brary Association Record, 1938, 5(9), 457-460.
12. Savage, E.A. The distribution of book borrow1ng in Edinburgh. In: Harries, M.L. Libraries and society. Library Association Record, 1938, 5(9), 458.
13. Ibid.
14. Harries, M.L. Libraries and society. Library Association Record, 1938, 5(9), 458.
15. Burns, John. 1908 Parliamentary Debates 4th series, Vol. 188, Col. 949. Quoted in: Punter, J. A history of aesthetic control: Part 1, 1909-1953. Town Planning Review, 1986, 57(4), 352.
16. Roberts, K.A.L. Libraries, housing estates and the education of the whole man. Library Association Record, 1937, 4(6), 358.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., p. 362.
20. Ibid.
12 CHAPTER 2
The planning and design of purpose-built municipal branch
libraries of the 1930's.
The new and significant problem emerging during the period
following the Kenyon Report's findings, between 1928 and 1930, concerned the provision of library facilit1es in the outer suburbs of the large cities. A sect1on of the Report itself was devoted to assessing provision for these areas, stating observations and guide-lines to influence future developments, particularly relating to branch libraries. The Report
Committee ma1ntained that while towns and cities were not al1ke in the1r physical layout, the extent and distr1but1on of population, and consequently the1r library resources, it was, nevertheless, a common feature of all that the area for which a central library could serve was limited. Beyond this area, branch l1braries, del1very stat1ons and travelling libraries might be required to meet the varying needs of the outlying distr1cts. In the opinion of the Committee, the branch library was the most important form of library extension, but warned aga1nst over-expansion and extravagance in the provision of an appropriate form of distributing centre, where endeavour1ng to "prov1de too many centres or pretent1ous buildings too costly to maintain" (1). The Committee observed the problem of attempting to establ1sh the unit of populat1on at which a new branch library became desirable, although conceded that there would be a considerable margin of innacuracy in the results of their survey. It was noted of
13 part1cular interest, however, those among the library
authorit1es selected, which had "had much exper1ence in
determ1n1ng the need for branch libraries'' (2). These
included Birmingham providing twenty-four separate l1brar1es,
for a population of 38,310 per library; Liverpool eighteen
for 44,608, and Manchester twenty-five for 29,212. It was
apparent that circumstances such as the size and irregular
distr1bution of population within the area made separate
branch libraries necessary particularly in the new suburbs.
Dur1ng 1928, J D Stewart, Chief Librarian of Bermondsey Publ1c
Librar1es, had noted active growth in the urban library
service, where new buildings were being erected, existing
systems extended and older systems revital1sed by new
buildings and reorganisation (3). The main reasons cited for
this expans1on were the recovery from war and the relaxation
of financial restr1ctions, pressure exerted by library
associations and other bodies of organised opinio~; but also
the fact that many of the older libraries had outgrown their
buildings and the original conception of their founders.
Methods had, therefore, been revised and buildings reorgan1sed
or extended and new librar1es designed to provide an adequate
service for the time. These trends would continue into the
1930's, ow1ng to the on-going development of the new centres of population, movements of industry and new public housing
schemes. The problems of providing adequate library
facilities for these new urban areas on the outskirts of
cit1es was therefore to dominate branch library development over this per1od, particularly in terms of planning policy and
14 building design.
2.1. Planning pol1cy
In the plann1ng for future branch l1brary development, some signif1cant views and observations were being put forward by those libraries who had acquired valuable knowledge and experience in this area. During 1930, G L Burton, Librarian of B1rmingham•s Central Lend1ng Library presented the view that as the population moved into the suburbs of cities, the real need for lending libraries in the city centres was pass1ng (4). He conceded that the future tendency would be towards more fully equ1pped district l1brar1es rather than the development of departments at the centre, as he believed the rapidly changing cities should have an influence on present-day library policy. As the outside districts were growing, and the need for library extension there also developed, the central department would become less patronised.
The more general pract1ce at that time was for a large central lending department with a series of minor branches which were still an integral part of the central lend1ng l1brary and not a separate development. The result was one large lending library at the centre w1th a series of delivery stations in the outly1ng districts. Burton's own recommendations
1ncorporated the development of a policy of extending the district l1brary system hav1ng a central library as the admin1strat1ve centre, wh1ch would serve as a 'reservoir' to outlying districts. The proposition was an aim towards
15 central lending library co-operat~on with all branch library
activities in these districts, allowing that the branch
library's primary function would be district lending, while
the central library holds the dual purpose of serving the city
centre and act~ng as supply centre for the whole system.
City Librarian of Dagenham, J G O'Leary, in 1932, also advocated the accepted convention of a central library with a number of branches, as the appropriate l~brary policy for the new urban area (5). He observed that the density of population in the new estates was considerably lower than in
the older areas of the city, which would require the organ~sation of a service that was "reasonably accessible to a population spread over a wide area'' (6).
Three years on, Edward Sydney, Borough Librarian of Leyton,
London, had developed some practical ~deas for plann~ng library services for a suburban population (7). 'Service points' or branch libraries, it was suggested should be
''established at focal centres approximately one mile apart ... according to local topography and density of populat~on" (8), but a survey of the area would reveal the most suitable situat~on for each point w~thout much d~fficulty. Since the average resident was thought to know little of another suburb in the same town, he would regard the branch as the ma~n library and not part of a system. The expectation therefore was for a much fuller service than was usual in a provinc~al branch library and so Sydney regarded the provision
"not in the light of a large central library and small branch,
16 but as a system of regional l1braries with facilit1es for
comprehensively modern services" (9).
In the plann1ng the location for the libraries, it was
recommended that the buildings should be sited "near the main
traffic routes, the main shopp1ng centre, and most used
railway station'' (10). It was further advised that before
establishing a new branch library near the boundary of a town,
some co-operation with the ne1ghbouring authority might be
formed to permit residents the use of the most convenient
service, which in turn should help to "cover the surrounding area in an eff1cient and econom1cal way to both authorities'' (11).
Sydney's view that a survey might reveal the most suitable
location for new branch libraries to serve the suburban population, was effect1vely realised by City L1brar1an of
Ed1nburgh, EA Savage during 1936 (12). The survey was conducted in order to discover which districts were being best served, by recording the distribution of book borrowing. The
1ntention was to demonstrate wh1ch l1braries the public were using by measuring book distribution and the incidence of borrowing in each district, irrespect1ve of the numbers of persons in these distr1cts. The f1ve main conclusions reached for the absolute dens1ty of each district were as follows:
1) Invariably, the area of greatest dens1ty from a branch library was on the landward not the townward side of the branch. (13)
Although a branch may be equ1pped to attract people from its
17 entire neighbourhood the heav1est borrow1ng was indicated almost wholly on the suburban side. The Population habitually travelled towards the city centre for service, rarely outward, while those in more central areas seldom
travelled to a branch. Even where a branch was located between the central and a branch further out, the incidence of borrowing from the 1ntermed1ate branch was heav1er by readers living between it and the centre. The usual method of taking a circular radius from the site of the branch to mark the area it serves was likely to be misleading. The actual boundary def1n1ng the ''areas of ut1l1ty'' (14), was qu1te often closer to a library where a canal or railway curtailed the movement of the population or conversely extended further over a district well serv1ced by a frequent bus or tra1n service.
These areas were irregular in shape and size, even though the boundaries st1ll fell close to a branch on the townward side, while to the other s1de stretched beyond, up to three or more miles.
2) A large branch serves a greater suburban area w1th more eff1ciency if it is in a sub-centre of shopping about half-way between the boundary and the heart of the C1 ty. ( 15)
Within reason, the larger the population on the landward side of a branch, the greater number of readers were using it, particularly when applied to the larger efficient branches.
The landward population preferred to use a branch providing a good serv1ce and plentiful bookstock. Therefore, such a branch about halfway between centre and boundary was cons1dered a more effective d1str1butor of books, both in its neighbourhood and in the large suburban area between it and
18 the boundary than one further out. This was particularly the case if the branch was close to a sub-centre of shopping at this half-way position.
3) A good library wh1ch is at the hub or near the junction of radial and c1rcumferential public transport is an effective d1str1but1ng agency; and the better and cheaper the transport the more effective the library. (16)
The survey proved that from the two larger branch librar1es, placed only one mile and a third apart, the citizens derived a better serv1ce, at the same cost, than from the twelve existing branches, because the bookstock was concentrated at two hubs of transport. The readers were attracted by the greater var1ety of choice 1n bookstock, wh1le the quick and cheap transport permitted ease of movement for the population and good accessibility to their library services. The survey confirmed, therefore, that:
4) If transport is good and cheap the larger the library, the greater is the area serviced. (17)
This it was stated should be remembered when suburban developments were be1ng planned, since the area of utility, even of a large branch was restricted by ineff1c1ent transport. Small librar1es only became necessary when larger libraries were not large enough or conveniently s1tuated.
An 1nteresting result of the survey demonstrated that:
5) The residents in a suburb which has a well found branch and is well served by transport use the library serv1ce more advantageously than residents in the centre. (18)
By this it was realised how the suburban reader took advantage of their position, permitting use of their branch as well as the central library.
19 Savage believed the Survey's conclusions to be appl1cable to any urban area with a common centre from which good and cheap
transportation radiated, and most particularly to the large provincial city undergoing suburban development.
L R McColvin, City Librar1an of Hampstead Public Library during 1937 developed the argument further by stating his own view that "the object of a branch is to make prov1sion for those who are not within easy access of the central library'' (19). In a properly planned system, he believed library use would involve a m1nimum of additional journeys and extra time spent travelling. He continued that branches should be sited where the public would normally converge for other reasons such as shopp1ng or for transportation, argu1ng that separate journeys to the l1brary should not be necessary.
The view was that the placing of branches should not be decided merely by distance between each branch, but in relat1on to the normal activity of people. Furthermore, topographical and geographical considerations would determine the number of branches in a city, depending more on convenience of access than merely the density or distribution of population. On the subject of size and number of branches
McColvin specified:
It is essential that there should be sufficient branches; 1t is nevertheless, undesirable to have too many. They diss1pate resources and 1ncrease expense. The more the branches, the smaller they must be and consequentialy the less comprehensive the services they offer and the smaller the stock. Unless convenience of access is definitely inferior, one large branch is much better than two small ones. (20)
Th1s contentious issue concerning service requirements for
20 branch libraries had been discussed by W Best-Harris of
Plymouth Public Libraries in 1936 in making "a plea for small branch libraries'' (21). His study of modern branch library policy had revealed extensive differences of opinion as to the requ1rements for branch library build1ngs in the suburbs.
The variations in the costs of building new branch l1braries at between £1,000 and £14,000 appeared to be due to insuff1cient knowledge of the needs of branches, and promoted two questions, even allowing for local condit1ons.
1) Which branches had been planned only after a logical decis1on as to the place they can play in a library system?
2) Which type of branch is best fitted to serve in such a system while combining the maximum service value with economy? (22)
To illustrate his view that small branches had a place in planning a library service, he cited two branches, one large and one small, in the same town at the same period, and each serving a council housing estate (23). Wh1le conced1ng that the £12,000 branch would ultimately serve a population of
30,000 people while the £1,400 branch already served its maximum, he argued that any branch serving more than 20,000 people, especially on a housing estate would lose a proportion of its potent1al readers owing to inaccessibility. Harris believed that more units of service allowed the population more convenient access to libraries, and would find and create more readers, thereby fulfilling the ''primary function of branch libraries'' (24). The large branch at a substantial capital cost of £12,000 provided lending library, read1ng room and childrens department, wh1le the small branch, cost1ng
£1,400 provided sim1lar services on a smaller scale in one
21 large room, the difference in services provided being one of extent, and capital outlay. While not condemning the use and necessity for large branch librar1es, Harris suggested that
there was a definite and permanent place for small branch
libraries.
In 1938, a handbook was published on branch l1braries by H A
Sharp, Deputy Librar1an of Croydon Public Libraries, which attempted to summar1se some of the developments 1n branch library policy (25). On the question of large versus small branches, Sharp commented upon the tendency "to place a library more or less upon everybody's doorstep" (26). He believed the policy to be sound commonsense in that each community should be entitled to their public library as much as any other amenities requ1red for a distr1ct.
Nevertheless, he warned against a library system which overloaded d1stricts with ''a mult1pl1c1ty of librar1es'' (27) each serving its own area. Citing Savage's view that the more efficient and economical policy would be a system of few large libraries rather than many small units. Sharp believed it to strike ''at the very root of some of the most cher1shed 1deas of branch provision" (28) which were formulated before the days of town planning and widely dispersed populations.
Nevertheless, Sharp recognised the difficulty in laying down rig1d guide-l1nes for the provision of branch libraries, whether amending old library systems or devising new ones, 1n towns and cit1es of varied size, configuration and administration. Significantly, he noted that of the
22 mun1cipal author1t1es attempt1ng to adopt new methods and principles of library service, only the larger provincial cities like Manchester, L1verpool, Glasgow and Birmingham had successfully provided a system of branches on a reasonable scale for meeting the needs of populations resettled in the outlying areas. However, the branch libraries in these major cities had qu1te often been established 1n haphazard manner, often as and when political influence and financial resources had combined to provide a particular ward or district with a branch library. The recurrent problem of providing library facilities in the new urban areas on the outskirts of cities and towns owing to the continued movement of population from the city centre to the new suburban estates would nonetheless occupy the municipal library planners throughout the 1930's.
2.2. Build1ng design
Library plann1ng and build1ng des1gn had assumed some considerable interest dur1ng the 1920's, owing to the universal development of the l1brary service and the need for varying types of accommodation to meet varying circumstances.
Reconstruct1on and reorganisat1on were dominant themes, particularly in branch library development. It had become apparent that the relative ineffic1ency of many municipal branch libraries was due not so much to indifference, or any deliberate refusal to improve the service, but merely to an absence of knowledge concerning modern methods and a resulting failure to visualise the serv1ces for wh1ch, with a modest rate, increase, the efficient library could provide for a
23 ~------
whole community.
Therefore, a number of publications during the late 1920's and
throughout the early to mid 1930's a1med to deal with the
subJect of library plann1ng and design, offering gu1dance to
librarian, architect and local authority. The Kenyon Report
(29) made its own contribution:
A point 1n connection with the library service, of which the importance is often overlooked with d1sastrous results, is the designing of the library building. Too often th1s 1s left to the discretion of the arch1tect; and even if he consults the local librarian, it is not every librarian who has had sufficient experience to be able to give him the gu1dance which he needs.
The planning of library bu1ldings 1s 1n fact, a matter involving highly expert knowledge. (30)
A separate append1x to the Report was prepared by those
members of the Committee who had had the fullest practical
exper1ence in the matter of planning of l1brary buildings.
The Report specified firstly that the site for the building
should if possible be near the main stream of traffic, but not
on it; large enough for future expansion and free from
surrounding buildings in order to admit natural lighting
through vent1lation and isolation as a protection from fire.
The Committee recommendations then moved on to the general
arrangement of the build1ng, most of which could be directly
applicable to the design of branch libraries. The layout, it
was stated "should take account of economy in administration,
espec1ally with regard to the superv1s1on of rooms, corr1dors
and entrances open to the public" (31). One main entrance
for public use was thought to be best while the departments
most used by the public should be as near the entrance as
24 possible to reduce traffic w1th1n the building.
Wall storage of books was dismissed as uneconomical of space, so the placing of book cases as an alternat1ve was considered
''the vital factor 1n library planning" (32). The standard1sat1on of shelving for books was also bel1eved to be of pr1mary importance in planning for a "greatly improved and more econom1cal building'' (33). The Report suggested standard1sed bookcases of un1form height to accommodate shelving in given units of length and width, wh1ch 1n turn would govern the position of pillars and other internal structures.
Supervision of all public rooms from a central pos1tion was believed to be desirable, particularly where, as in branch l1braries, where staff were few, in which case the staff enclosure could best be arranged for the lending department as a po1nt of control. The advantage of plac1ng all public rooms on one floor was obvious. In planning other accommodation a ch1ldren•s room was specifically recommended for branch libraries, while providing a separate womens room was 'questionable'. Ample accommodat1on was thought to be necessary allowing for storage, work and retiring rooms and other staff facilities. Wherever possible, structural solid walls were to be dispensed with and glazed partitions or screens incorporated to divide the adJacent rooms and vestibules, as another aid to effect1ve supervision. Also heating, lighting and ventilation was considered of importance
1n the overall planning of the library 1nterior, with special
25 care required to be taken in min1mising risk of fire and damp.
Heating pipes and radiators were not to interfere with fitt1ngs or obstruct or inconvenience the use of the build1ng.
Provision of good natural l1ght throughout the building was to be achieved by designing windows to extend nearly to the ceiling. Skylights, however, were to be avo1ded owing to the potent1al expense and trouble caused by leaking rainwater.
Ventilation in all public rooms called for special attention.
In their concluding recommendations, the Report's Comm1ttee gave examples of recent branch library planning, including an illustration of Whiteinch D1strict Library, Glasgow, ground floor plan (Fig 1). The plan served to demonstrate how the complete superv1sion of the three public rooms could be achieved. Supervis1on of public rooms, and in particular the lend1ng department of a library became of paramount importance with the adoption of the open-access system, in the majority of new purpose-built libraries, and in the reconstruction of some older buildings. The open-access system which admitted readers directly to the shelves without the need for application to staff for books, had not until the 1920's been generally adopted, accord1ng to the Report, desp1te 1ts introduction into urban libraries as far back as 1894. While open-access had not been readily adopted in older buildings, owing to the unsu1tability or cost of the necessary alterations, new purpose-built libraries were, with few exceptions being planned to g1ve a large measure of free access. Wh1le some drawbacks of the system were noted, such as the depreciation caused by handling and theft of stock, the
26 advantages for the public 1n enabling easy select1on of books far outweighed them and the Report recommended "the system should be universally adopted'' (34).
During 1927, W A Br1scoe, City L1brarian of Nottingham also published a work on library planning (35) which was:
... designed to assist not only architects and libraries, who have actualities to deal with but to be of service to local authorities where such are considering the question of provis1on of library buildings in the hope that it may further their aims. (36)
Its main purpose was to advise on the plann1ng and construction of new branch libraries as well as the extens1on and reconstruction of old ones, and provide practical information on matters of layout and equipment. In planning an open-access lend1ng library system, one of the primary considerations in the librarian's mind was, he believed, to be adequate superv1sion. Briscoe stated that:
Whether the set-out be on the radiating principle or on parallel lines, the staff must be able to oversee the book-shelves under their charge, and have v1sual control over all borrowers, or at least, give the impress1on that they have. (37)
He f1rmly believed that the rad1at1on of book stacks suggested
''an ideal formation for all purposes" (38) and ensured adequate supervision. This part1cular form of layout was to become characteristic of many branch lending libraries dur1ng the 1920's and 1930's.
In terms of overall layout of the branch l1brary building,
Briscoe specified the accepted and best plan was the placing
27 of the lending l1brary between the general reading room and the children's library. In this basic plan, the entrance to all departments was by direct access from the ma1n hall, which avo1ded the unnecessary passage of readers to each department, while the lending library was usually planned on a central line of access from the entrance hall.
Having established the most suitable plan for the new branch library, Briscoe gave due consideration to the matter of architecture and construction. In h1s v1ew:
The ideal combination in the construction of a library is an arch1tect who sees the librarian's viewpoint, a l1brarian who knows exactly what is wanted to ensure adequate public serv1ce and a public-spirited l1brary committee with vision and wisdom enough to give the experts a fair chance. (39)
The first problem for the architect would be to adapt his plans according to the s1te reserved for a new library and which might be of awkward shape and s1ze. The posit1on m1ght, therefore, also affect the overall des1gn of the building and the style of architecture adopted. Depending upon circumstance, the building could front onto a ma1n road and be built only a few yards back from the highway, whereas another might be sited a considerable distance from a thoroughfare surrounded by land on all s1des. Local cond1tions would govern procedure. To afford prominence to the new building in a particular district, it might require certain distinctive features to make its function clear to the users. The library should possess "a dist1nction of its own; suggesting that it 1s a public building, erected to attract
28 ,------
the publ1c'' (40).
James Duff Brown's Manual of Library Economy, in its fourth
ed1t1on by 1931, was considered "the leading British text-book
of librarianship and advanced l1brary pract1ce" (41). The
Kenyan Report was described in this edition as "a remarkable
vindicat1on of the general l1nes of teach1ng enunciated by
Brown" (42). Brown's manual, based on the syllabus of the
L1brary Association, was primarily dealing w1th municipal
library practice, and also devoted several sections to library
build1ng, in terms of architecture and locat1on. In this,
the manual revised by W C Berwick Sayers, continued in the
same vein as Briscoe:
If we could lay down one general ideal principle for library buildings, it would be that they must be d1st1nctively libraries; must be appropriate 1n appearance, and the interior plan must be the most convenient that can be devised both by readers and staff. (43)
For all librar1es, certa1n princ1ples as to s1te and
architecture were held in common. The law of convenience
applied 1n particular to libraries, and so the ideal s1te
would depend upon not merely the density of population and
transport fac1lities but on finding a position most conducive
to relative quiet, off ma1n streets and set well back from the
road. If a garden approach could be made, so much the
better! The main requirement for a site was spec1fied in the
manual as:
... space of sufficient size; aesthet1cally, to secure an appropriate approach to and setting off of the building; practically, to give adequate light and ventilation which cannot be secured when adjacent
29 bu1ldings abut on or overlook the site too closely, and to make the library as immune as possible from f1re. (44)
The architecture of the new library bu1ld1ng, according to the manual, ''should be in the style that 1s characteristic of the locality, be of local materials and preferably be designed by a local architect'' (45), or at least the best that could be d1scovered by competition and preferably be the most successful designer dealing with local styles. The suggested design procedure was for the prelim1nary plan to be drawn by the librarian, showing the nature of the accommodation, and position of rooms, with the architect making his own adaptations to the plan as appropriate. James Duff Brown preferred that an arch1tect w1th a known acquaintance w1th library planning should be chosen and design in accordance with the librarian's own sketch plan, and particularly remember1ng the desirability of adhering to local styles.
The manual laid down twenty-one rules for library plans which could be used by architectural assessors and librarians as a gu1de for the average building, and wh1ch were echoed by the
Kenyan Report. An additional po1nt made, however, was that
1nterior arrangements must take precedence over architectural features when the two clash. A new trend towards simpler, more funct1onal and more contemporary design, both internal and external was to begin during the early 1930's, with a move away from ''a worship of cl1che and historical style" (46).
E J Carter, Librarian to the Royal Institute of British
Architects, for many years had surveyed l1brary buildings for
The Year's Work in Librarianship, and was particularly
30 scornful of the borough engineers who had been entrusted with the design of many smaller town libraries before this time.
The per1od was, however beg1nning to see a movement away from purely aesthetic planning and architectural considerations to one based on library funct1ons and the use of the build1ng.
It was a development in line with the new spirit of design and architecture during the 1920's and 1930's in which the form of a structure follows its function.
In concluding, the ma1n points to be aimed at in library planning, the Manual reiterated the Kenyan Report's recommendations of good natural l1ght; conven1ent access and sufficient oversight of public rooms, preferably on one floor in branch libraries, but suggested roof-l1ghting, 1f necessary. In terms of accommodation, plans for branch l1braries differed in kind as well as in s1ze from central libraries, since branches should, according to the manual, be pr1marily lending l1brar1es w1th newsroom, magazine room and children's room but without an extensive reference collection.
For administration purposes, branches required only one or two workrooms, including librarian's office and file room, since the bulk of the organisational work was carried out in the central library. Nevertheless, staff requ1red k1tchen and storage space, as well as a common room. So while the principles of library planning were the same for both central l1brary and branch library, some modificat1ons were necessary according to the specific function of a branch, respecting such items as design of bookcases for open-access, width of gangways, use of natural light1ng and area of accommodation.
31 In 1931, James Ormerod, librarian at Derby Public L1brar1es, examined some new aspects of branch library plann1ng and building design (47). He noted that for twenty-five years there had been little change in the planning of branch library bu1ldings in Britain. New build1ngs had either been a small square or oblong in the case of smaller l1braries, or triangular, T-shaped, trefoil or of the butterfly des1gn for larger branches. The butterfly type which had originated in the Un1ted States, early this century, had a central semi-circular lending sect1on with radiat1ng stacks, with two reading rooms, one for adults and one for children on the
'wings'. All areas of the building could be supervised from the issue counter, espec1ally 1f radiating stacks and glazed partitions were used. Radiating stacks were most effectively utilised in a sem1-circular or fan-shaped lending department, but thought to be absurd in a square room as much valuable space was wasted. Nevertheless, th1s type of branch library design was believed to be very common in Brita1n since its introduct1on from Amer1ca, dur1ng the 1920's and 1930's.
Ormerod's advice to library designers was therefore to:
... use radiating stacks in a room with radi1; but 1n a rectangular room let the stacks follow naturally the l1nes of the walls, and widen the counter to give the necessary oversight. (48)
Until recently 1t had appeared that the butterfly type of branch would never be surpassed or that librarians had no des1re to 1mprove upon a design that appeared to work.
However, during the early 1930's a tendency to experiment with
32 new ideas of build1ng design emerged w1th variations on the trefoil pattern providing more interesting layouts, as at
Leeds new Harehills branch, where the corner lending library and two reading rooms connected at a central access point. A revolutionary octagonal design at Wolverhampton's Bushbury branch demonstrated a layout of small reading rooms, e1ther side of the entrance and book room with radiating stack to the rear. Ormerod believed that such a des1gn offered ''a strik1ng and welcome change in branch library des1gn (which was likely) to be tried in other towns for the new housing schemes r1s1ng 1n the suburbs'' (49).
The particular problems concerning the design of branch libraries were to be more fully addressed in a new Library
Association manual on small municipal libraries, first published in 1931 with a second edition in 1934 (50). This
'manual of modern method' was designed for the use of
Committees adm1nistering smaller municipal or branch libraries and was compiled by a special committee appointed by the
Council of the Library Association, and in consultation with the Carnegie Un1ted Kingdom Trustees. The editorial comm1ttee of this work included Ch1ef Librarians of the large provincial cities, such as Briscoe, of Nottingham and H M
Cashmore, City Librarian of Birmingham. The need for an up-to-date presentation of the special difficulties involved
1n the design of branch l1brar1es had emerged very clearly since the Kenyan Report. Therefore it was hoped that the manual would demonstrate that in future the small municipal l1brary would not be regarded as merely a small scale
33 imitation of a large city library but as a special type of institution designed to meet the specific financial and cultural needs of certain communities including those of the growing suburbs.
The manual considered the physical appearance and design of the branch building affected the success of the library by its ability to attract and retain readers while the guiding principle to be observed by both architect and librarian in the design of a library was that aesthetic cons1derations must always be secondary to practical ones. A practical library could nevertheless be aesthetically sat1sfying. Aesthetic effect, with only l1m1ted municipal funds:
... could be obtained by excellence of proport1on and d1gnified treatment of a simple style of architecture capable of express1ng 1n 1ts des1gn the purpose of the bU1lding. (51)
Library author1ties were invited to study plans, illustrations and descr1ptions of new and adapted buildings,
''embodying principles based on a closely-related criteria of economy and efficiency'' (52). It was believed that by learning from the exper1ence of improvements made in the design of other libraries, the planning of new libraries would be more successful. The general design or layout of the building, it was concluded, should therefore be prepared with due regard to economy in administration and in the control and supervision of public rooms by a limited staff. Plans should provide not only for a reasonable period ahead but anticipate any necessary extensions or adaptations for future requirements. In planning interiors •serv1ce' was the
34 dominating factor. The development ~n attitudes at th~s time towards the improvement of small munic~pal libraries would contribute to the revolution in design practice concerning any new branch library building and their interior organisation.
One of a series of subsequent l~brary manuals publ~shed for the Library Association during the 1930's was BM Headicar's
Manual of Library Organisation (53). Headicar was the only lecturer in library admin~strat~on in the U.K. at University
College London, and the pol~c~es advocated in his manual were accepted as reliable gu~des to library adm~n~strat~on at th~s t~me. For the organisation of a branch serving a city suburb, Headicar believed the amount of accommodation required would depend entirely on funds and local conditions but specified the minimum requirement should be lending department, general reading room and gu~de reference collection, to be most appropriate for the branch library.
The lending library, he suggested would be expected to increase both its stock and the number of ~ts users as t~me passed. Normally about twelve per cent of the population would register as borrowers and a minimum of three volumes per borrower needed to be allowed for. From a 40,000 population, therefore, approximately 5,000 borrowers might be expected, requ~ring a stock of at least 15,000 volumes. An open-access l~brary making full provision for adequate gangways and furniture and bookcases of not more than 7ft 6in high and allowing one square foot for every f~fteen volumes would require a room of approximately 40ft by 25ft. Local
35 c1rcumstances, he conceded, however, d1ffered enormously, making it almost impossible to provide any exact basic figures as to the size of rooms to be provided. Headicar made sim1lar calculations for reading rooms but concluded also that his suggest1ons could only be taken as a rough guide, in work1ng out plans. He added that provision of a lecture hall may be made 1n a branch library where the resident populat1on was mainly concentrated. However, this view was not widely shared by other librar1ans 1ncluding Ormerod, who bel1eved lecture rooms for branch libraries were an extravagance which should be replaced by study rooms. Ormerod, unlike Headicar, suggested that lectures were not sufficiently well attended in prov1nc1al branch libraries to warrant a separate room for the purpose.
Headicar nevertheless accepted the ax1om that the inter1or accommodation should be decided upon first of all and the location of rooms or departments determined even before the exterior was cons1dered. By this, therefore, it was intended that the librar1an should decide the ground plan of the library building, while the architect developed and simplif1ed the des1gn:
The library 1s surely intended to serve special purposes and should be designed accordingly, leaving it to the architect to rectify inconsistencies and so relate one part to another that the accepted idea functions properly, and then to clothe it with a suitable shell best fitted to bring results desired from the 1nternal arrangements. (54)
Internal arrangements as a matter for discuss1on by members of the library profession, were also considered in terms of
36 aesthet1c appeal as well as practical organisation. At the
55th Library Association Conference held in 1932 {SS), JP
Lamb, Ch1ef Librarian of Sheffield Publ1c L1braries, was welcom1ng evidence that the profession was moving towards the
1dea:
... that the public library and its contents form an organic whole, and that it is the librarians job to concern himself not only with literature, but also with his building, h1s public and his city. (56)
It was increasingly recognised that the greater number of potential book users would be using books for practical purposes on the terms that they should have reasonably comfortable and pleasant surroundings. The evidence for this appreciation of public expectation was seen in the str1king development in library architecture, part1cularly in more spacious planning and a movement towards the non-institutional building. Libraries planned on these lines, according to
Lamb, were proving, by the1r results, how attractive to the general public good books in cheerful places could be (57).
The 1deal was "to combine function and design" (58), with the librarian persuading the architect to des1gn a library which would work eff1ciently as a library and give pleasure and satisfaction to those concerned.
The design of library furniture, and decoration, prov1ding that practical requirements were satisfied, was also a matter for the architect, although the librar1an needed to consider certain principles of layout. In Lamb's opinion, a modern active lend1ng l1brary, with an intelligently selected book
37 stock did not require or justify massed stacks of shelving.
This was particularly applicable to the children's department where shelving could be broken into small groups. In the reading rooms, tables of varied size and style could give a desirable atmosphere, perhaps by combin1ng round and square tables. According to 'Small Municipal Libraries' (59) tables and chairs for junior departments should be of smaller dimensions than those for adults.
In the new purpose-built branch libraries, the design of lending library and Junior library departments were of primary importance. Sharp's practical handbook on branch libraries (60), adv1sed as much floor space as possible for chairs, tables and display stands in the lending department where the more spacious informality suggested, the better.
The children's department or room would need to be relatively large since the majority of the younger population of the c1t1es were likely to be living in the suburban districts, away from the centre. The design of a juvenile library needed special attention in order to be:
... light, airy, attractively decorated, with low book-cases, plenty of screens for picture poster displays, racks for book displays, a few nice pictures, comfortable chairs and tables of suitable heights for younger as well as for older children''. (61)
The provision of fac1lit1es for newspapers or magazines was considered less significant in new districts, s1nce they had become cheap enough to buy and were more likely to be read at home. Nevertheless, where a newsroom was included in the des1gn of the library, it needed to be as comfortable and
38 pleasant as the other rooms, with sloping stands provided and tables with chairs to sit and read.
Present day trends were moving towards informality and comfort, and were being reflected in the layout of branches.
Staff enclosures were arranged not only to prov1de ample space for staff and book issue services but also to be at conven1ent proximity to the main entrance, enabl1ng the publ1c to obtain helpful gu1dance on entering the library. New branch library buildings were designed to facilitate personal access to the stock of books or periodicals and the furniture was to be so arranged as to permit readers to make ready use of the contents of the shelves, albeit under effective supervision.
The library's departments were divided by the least possible number of permanent partitions as a further aid to supervision but also glazed screens were des1gned to perm1t additional penetration of light to the rooms. Book cases were used as natural divisions to read1ng areas 1n the l1brary, but could also facilitate any necessary alteration to the internal layout. Generally, however, once determined, a branch would rarely alter its shelf spacing. Wood as a mater1al for book stacks usually took preference over metal with designers of new branches at this time. A particularly common design was the bookcase with tilted lower shelves raised, lSin - 18in from the floor, with cupboards beneath to provide extra storage space. Floor surfaces were normally wood block, cork carpet, linoleum, or rubber patent compositions, all of which were thought to provide an attract1ve yet serv1ceable covering, and which would ensure durability, comfort and
39 silence.
L1onel McColv1n, Chief L1brarian of Hampstead Public
Libraries, in 1937, considered the essentials of good library premises to be "light, natural and artificial, comfort, space,
cleanliness, quiet and convenience" (62). However, he crit1c1zed some design features prevalent in branch l1brary buildings. He bel1eved that natural top-lighting was less satisfactory than ample windows extending up the walls, since
top-lit windows did not lend themselves to indirect art1ficial
1llumination and could overheat rooms in warm weather.
Artificial light, he stated, should be indirect and properly diffused and ought to be sufficient, where bookcases were not
too close together or too high, making point lighting unnecessary. McColvin also critic1sed the institutional atmosphere often created by uncomfortable, old-fashioned library furn1ture and fittings, such as the typical large and heavy tables and also, not only dark bookcases but also the
the more modern equally object1onable steel stacks. He commented that there was no reason why a library should not
look like any other room provided for human congregat1on and habitation; nor reason why its furniture should not be tasteful and of good des1gn.
McColvin stated his disapproval of the radial arrangement of stacks 1n open access librar1es as being wasteful of space and untidy in appearance. Nevertheless, radiating stacks, so long regarded as essent1al to security, persisted throughout the 1930's. By the latter part of the decade, however, an
40 alcove arrangement, leaving the centre of the floor free for display fittings, tables and seats became the tendency which
McColv1n himself had cons1dered more appropriate.
Many factors were now beg1nning to contribute to the brighter library interior. Decoration using plants, flowers, pictures, book displays, light colours for paintwork in place of the customary dull tones; along with the new floor1ng materials and increased window space were all adding to the attract1on for the l1brary user. E J Carter, by 1937, was prepared to admit that:
Libraries are now lighter, brighter places then they were and quite a good amount of progress has been made in shaking off the municipal glory 1dea and bringing l1brary design, particularly branch library design closer to the terms of ordinary l1v1ng and reading. (63)
Headicar, 1n consider1ng the increased importance and significance of interior attraction and comfort with freedom of movement and absence of restr1ct1on in branch l1brary building, made reference to "the model branch libraries" currently being designed and erected 1n the expanding c1ty suburbs and, particularly among the provinces, mentioned
Birmingham (64).
41 References
1. Board of Education, Public Libraries Committee. Report on Public Libraries in England and Wales [Kenyan Report]. (Reprinted from Cmd. 2868, 1927), 1935, p. 66.
2. Ibid., p. 67.
3. Stewart, J.D. Public libraries. Urban Libraries. Year's Work in Librarianship, 1928, 1, 70.
4. Burton, G.L. The future of the central lending department in big centres. Library Association Record, 1930, 257-262.
5. O'Leary, J.G. New towns and areas. Library Association Record, 1932, 56-58.
6. Ibid., p. 56.
7. Sydney, E. Service standards for a suburban population. Library Association Record, 1935, 2(9), 391-397.
8. Ibid., p. 393.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Savage, E.A. The d1stribut1on of book borrowing in Edinburgh. Library Association Record, 1938, 5(4), 150-156.
13. Ibid., p. 150.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., p. 151.
16. Ibid., p. 152.
17. Ibid., p. 154.
18. Ibid., p. 155.
19. McColvin, L.R. Libraries and the public, 1937, pp. 59-60.
20. Ibid., p. 60.
21. Best-Harris, W. A plea for small branch libraries. Library Association Record, 1936, 3(11), 552-554.
22. Ibid., p. 552.
23. Ibid., p. 553.
42 24. Ibid.
25. Sharp, H.A. Branch l~braries. Modern problems and administration, 1938.
26. Ibid., p. 19.
27. Ib~d., p. 20.
28. Ibid., p. 25.
29. Board of Education, Public Libraries Committee. Report on Public Libraries in England and Wales [Kenyan Report]. Cmd. 2868, 1927.
30. Ibid., p. 75.
31. Ibid., p. 332.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid., p. 69.
35. Briscoe, W.A. Library planning: A comp~lation designed to assist in the planning, equipment and development of new libraries and the reconstruction of old ones, 1927.
36. Ibid., p. 11.
37. Ibid., p. 84.
38. Ibid., p. 90.
39. Ibid., p. 17.
40. Ibid., p. 18.
41. Brown, J.D. Manual of library economy. Revised by W. c. Berwick Sayers. 4th ed. , 1931, p. v~i.
42. Ib~d., p. 9 .
43. Ibid., p. 100.
44. Ibid., p. 101.
45. Ibid., p. 102.
46. Carter, E.J. Library bu11dings. The Year's Work in Librarianship, 1930, 3, 111.
47. Ormerod, J. Branch librar1es. Library World, 1931, 33, 259-263.
48. Ibid., p. 259.
43 49. Ibid., p. 260.
50. Library Association. Small municipal librar2es: a manual of modern method, 2nd ed., 1934.
51. Ibid., p. 2 7.
52. Ibid., p. 29.
53. Headicar, B.M. A manual of library organisation, 1935.
54. Ibid., p. 70.
SS. Lamb, J.P. The 1nterior decoration of libraries. In: R. D. Hilton-Smith, ed. Library buildings: Their heating, light2ng and decoration, 1933, pp. 53-60.
56. Ibid., p. 53.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid.
59. Library Association. Small municipal librar2es: a manual of modern method, 2nd ed., 1934.
60. Sharp, H.A. Branch Librar2es. Modern problems and admin2stration, 1938.
61. Ibid., p. 45.
62. McColvin, L.R. L2braries and the public, 1937, p. 64.
63. Carter, E.J. Library buildings. The Year's Work in L2brar2anship, 1937, 10, 121-122.
64. Headicar, B.M. A manual of library organisation, 1935, p. 151.
44 CHAPTER 3
Suburban development in Birmingham during the inter-war years.
The First World War acted as a catalyst in English soc1al history to produce a new social environment. By delaying the provision of essential services like housing for the urban populations, the war left an extensive programme of arrears to be made up. Social processes were quickened by the urgency of problems caused as a result of the war. Consequently both central government and local author1ties were moved to take action.
Developments in Birm1ngham could only be clearly 1nterpreted
1n the context of national changes occurring at this time.
The sequence of change was most clearly illustrated by the new attitudes towards the housing problem. The reduction of bu1ld1ng during the war and the urgent demand owing to the aggravated problems of overcrowding needed to be tackled at a nat1onal level. Before the end of the war, a national committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Sir John
Tudor-Walters to consider the problem of rehous1ng the working classes (1). A series of 1mportant recommendations were made concerning minimum housing standards and the density of house building. In 1917, the Government issued an appeal to local authorit1es to build more houses, indicating that private enterprise would be unable to deal successfully and speedily with the accumulated arrears 1n house building. The
45 author1ties were subsequently offered substantial financial assistance to encourage new programmes for re-housing the work1ng classes. Provision of municipal hous1ng became a major responsib1lity for local authorities accepting the new pol1cy of hous1ng and plann1ng contained with1n the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1919. For the twenty years following, pressure increased to build sufficient housing to compensate for past deficiencies. The Act made Birmingham w1lling to consider large scale mun1cipal enterprise which would not have been undertaken before 1914. As a result of the Act of 1919, a Hous1ng and Estates Department was set up to arrange the planning and supervision of houses built by contractors for the Corporation and the management and maintenance of new estates. After 1922, a new sub-committee, the Public Works and Town Planning Committee were to become responsible for the programme of municipal building. By
1926, the city had built over 13,000 municipal houses, more than any other local authority in England (2). Birmingham had developed an impressive municipal housing scheme often in the face of serious practical difficulties. (Folded map).
However, the economic depress1on of 1931 accompanied by serious national and local economy cuts forced Birmingham City
Council to advocate a pol1cy of financ1al retrenchment to meet the economic crisis. Housing schemes were cut and social improvements came to a halt. Nevertheless, while the number of municipal houses diminished, the number of private enterprise houses built increased. The building rate of private enterprise houses trebled between 1930 and 1935,
46 increasing from one-quarter to six times the output. Between
1924 and 1931, the annual production of municipal houses had always been greater than the production of private enterprise houses, until the trend was reversed between 1932 and 1938.
The new demand for private enterpr1se houses at this time depended on a lowering of building costs, and the more favourable mortgage terms offered by bu1ld1ng societies for those at work with rising real wages. The economic depression had ended largely as a result of the pr1vate enterprise boom which would dominate the mid-thirties.
Building by private enterprise on the outskirts of the city proceeded at a rate of 7,000 houses annually (3). This was sufficient not merely to provide for the normal growth of the population, but substantially alleviated the overcrowded condit1ons of the older inner city areas.
Yet despite the high rate of private enterpr1se building there rema1ned a long list of applicants for Corporation houses in 1935 when a new wave of municipal house building began.
Wh1le private enterpr1se catered for the needs of the middle and lower m1ddle classes and the better paid artisans, houses for the lower income groups, d1splaced from the slum clearances, had not been adequately suppl1ed. Between 1935 and 1938, the C1ty Council accepted the implications of a housing policy for the poorest families in the city more comprehensively than previously. The Public Works Committee was instructed by the City Council to erect as many houses as possible, even without Government approval or financial assistance, keeping the costs of new houses to an absolute
47 minimum. By building small non-parlour type hous1ng rents could be maintained within the means of the new tenants. Good progress was therefore made in prov1d1ng tenants w1th vastly improved healthier accommodation compared with their previous back-to-back terraced homes 1n the city's overcrowded centre.
The building of large numbers of new houses on the outskirts of the c1ty was to become the most s1gnificant feature of
Birmingham's c1vic development during the inter-war years.
During this time, the city's development would be mainly directed away from the centre to the large areas of undeveloped land acquired in boundary extensions. The
Council's new approach towards the problems of the inner city slums was emerging w1th the bu1lding of houses on large tracts of land beyond the city centre where development could be controlled and directed according to new town plann1ng princ1ples. The city planners took the opportunity to adopt a spac1ous low dens1ty approach to its estates, setting a general standard of twelve houses per acre, or up to fifteen in some locations. Advantage was taken of natural landscape features in the layout of estates, built in complex geometr1c patterns of straight roads intermixed with circles and crescents. Blocks of houses were built in groups of two, four and six and set back from the road by about twenty feet or more; all had front and back gardens. Trees were planted along open grass verges, while spaces were reserved for future amenities to serve the developing municipal estates. The new outer areas were characterised by their openness and were to set high standards of building to a un1fied layout, particularly when compared with the old nineteenth century
48 ------
Central Wards of the Inner and Middle R~ng of the city. This
new suburban growth was therefore rap~dly altering the
character and appearance of Birmingham as well as the lives of
its citizens.
Building development had been haphazard in the centre of the
city with much of the n~neteenth century house building
occurring in waves of suburban expansion along the maJor
roads out of Birmingham. Local shopping centres, churches,
public houses and clubs were built around the main arteries
along which passengers and goods travelled, and catered for
the daily bus~ness of people living in the d~strict. These
main roads led out beyond the c~ty centre and Middle Ring to
the Outer Ring, much of wh~ch was developed after 1920. The
phases of Birmingham's growth could be traced along these
highways, reflecting the waves of m~grat~on and forms of urban
expansion. However, the Outer Ring of the city was not
easily defined, changing rapidly as the result of the double
influence of both the extensive intricate geometrical
municipal build~ng and the simpler linear private ribbon
development, extending ever outward.
As the city of the early twentieth century expanded into
suburbs, the major problems encountered were initially the
anachron~st~c structure of local government to meet the vast
new area of Greater Birmingham and subsequently to control the
d~rect~on of expansion itself by planning the growth. The
implementation of the Greater Birmingham scheme of 1911 was
the result (Fig 2), which incorporated the borough of Aston
49 Manor, urban districts of Erdington, Handsworth, Kings Norton and Northfield and the rural district of Yardley. All these areas fell within the physical area of the towns development, so that unified in one city, the absorption brought the total area of the city up to 43,600 acres. In 1928 areas to the north of the city at Perry Barr were 1ncorporated, and a year later, to the east, Sheldon brought the total acreage to
51,147 acres (4). This created a province three times the size of Glasgow and tw1ce the s1ze of Manchester or Liverpool
( 5) •
One of the f1rst results of the successful implementation of the Greater Birmingham scheme was the new impetus given to the town plann1ng movement. Social reformers 1n Birmingham had begun to appreciate that isolated and spasmodic growth was leading to unsatisfactory results, and therefore town planning was the answer (6). Hous1ng and town planning were intimately assoc1ated with each other, and conceived as parallel policies in the drive towards social improvement. A policy, to encourage the population displaced by slum clearance, to move out of the city centre to the new suburbs was adopted 1n line with current trends. Transport services, including tram and bus systems and road patterns were to be deliberately controlled, re-planned and upgraded, 1n order that city development could occur in the appropriate direction. Mun1cipal land ownership was advocated on a large scale, since the 1911 boundary extensions had brought large areas of undeveloped farm-land suitable for housing purposes, into the jurisdiction of the City Council.
50 In 1914 there were three schemes awa1t1ng development in the new outer districts of the c1ty, includ1ng the East Birmingham scheme, North Yardley Scheme and the South Birmingham
Scheme (7). The East Birmingham Scheme covered an industrial area traversed by three main railway lines, while the North
Yardley Scheme dealt with a completely rural area, isolated by its lack of good road communications with the rest of the city. The South Birmingham Scheme incorporated a mixed area, largely residential, but 1ncluding a northern industr1al zone, and factories in the south-west. The problems on the new outer districts to be encountered were the provision of better communications, both north and south; the straightening and w1den1ng of ex1sting roads; provision of ample open spaces; creation of new factory areas and part1cularly the development of working-class housing.
The work of the City's Town Planning Committee was to be the basis for much of the subsequent work that was required to solve these problems, although not all of their aims were to be fully real1sed. The main difficulties for the town planners and developers were derived from the location of new housing estates, being far removed from the civ1c centre. The growth of the suburbs during the inter-war period was dependent to a large extent upon good communications both between the suburbs and the city centre and from one suburb to another. The Public Works Committee had had the foresight to plan for future traff1c growth and made preparat1ons for improv1ng the city's road system. An Outer Ring Road was
51 1ncorporated into the var1ous town plann1ng schemes, before further building development prejudiced its route and width.
Nevertheless it was recognised by the planners that better main roads would have a significant influence on the ways 1n which housing and 1ndustry would develop.
The eight major arterial roads radiating from the city centre, together with four others leading off these were to be w1dened under the Publ1c Works Committee recommendations (8). The
C1ty Counc1l in 1918 approved and settled upon these basic strategies wh1ch would affect the patterns of suburban development across the city. During the 1920's and 1930's the plans were incorporated into the emerging town planning schemes; comb1ned to give the Public Works Committee the means to influence the future distribution of population, housing and industry. The need to provide the numbers of workers from the suburbs travelling to the central areas with transportation became vital as also did the need to encourage industrial growth by improved road systems. Several new road schemes would be undertaken, alongside the changing transport pattern, to meet new demands for general traff1c provision with more motor cars on the roads and also to facilitate the movement of the suburban population across the city, for work or le1sure.
The rapid rate of migration of the population from central areas to the suburbs meant that places of employment were often miles from the estates. The mun1cipal transport undertaking by 1938 (Fig 3) was the second largest in the
52 ------
country (9), having undergone rapid development to meet the
needs of the expanding city. The tram and bus network
covered a wider area and served a larger population than any
other outside London (10). However, the problem of providing
a frequent public transport service to the outer housing
estates with their low densities of population was not easily
solved, where journeys could be long and unprof1table over
some sections. Bus services had the advantage over trams of
greater flexibility, particularly 1n terms of route, l1nking
one suburb with another, and radiating across all parts of the
city. Nevertheless, trams continued to operate on newly
extended routes to the suburbs, despite being slower and less
econom1cal to run than buses.
The underlying principle of the City's transport system was to
operate as a whole, provid1ng services on all arterial roads
lead1ng from the city centre, l1nked together by means of
circular and inter-commun1cat1ng omnibus routes. There were
three complete circular routes, the Inner, the City and the
Outer Circle, twenty-five miles long, was opened in 1926 and
allowed for th1rty connections with other tramway and omnibus
routes, across the city suburbs and to the city centre.
The construction of the network of local transport services at
this time involved a set of new policy problems upon which the
whole economic and social life of the new suburban communit1es
depended. So difficult were some of the problems associated
with maintain1ng an eff1cient transport service, that some
critics suggested Housing Committees should consult with
53 Transport Committees before selecting appropr1ate sites for rehousing slum-clearance areas. In Birmingham it was clear that housing estates, when fully equipped with amenities of shops, schools and social centres would affect the efficiency of transport services. Transport could not be separated from the housing question.
During the 1930's another significant problem for the C1ty
Council relating to the question of housing policy for the suburbs concerned the welfare requirements of the new municipal estates. While estates had been developed with good roads, plenty of open spaces, low building densities, they lacked the fac1lities associated with the older inner city communities. Residents of the new suburban estates all journeyed to the densely packed centre of Birmingham by bus, tram or tra1n to secure the city amen1t1es. The central areas of Birmingham contained not only the civic centre and the largest shops but also the best places of entertainment, and facilities l1ke hospitals, clinics and the Central Lending
Library. Also many of the workplaces and factories where the people from the outer areas worked st1ll provided a link between new ways of home life 1n the modern houses of the suburbs and traditional ways of work in their old environments. Social life in the Outer Ring of Birmingham by its essential conditions differed from that of the old crowded city centre, where neighbourliness was less obv1ously fostered by a congenial environment and communal facilities were lacking on the new estates. While the centre continued to attract the city's suburban population for entertainment and
54 recreation, some of the newcomers to the estates initially
''wished themselves back in their old distr1cts'' (11).
Residents moving from close-knit commun1t1es with the usual amenities complained of being isolated. Although some fac1lit1es were prov1ded fairly early in the estates developments they were often insuff1cient to meet the needs of the large numbers of new residents. By the end of the 1930's the number of people l1ving in the outer suburban areas of the city had almost doubled from 299,482 1n 1921 to 571,500 in
1938, showing an increase of 90.8% (12), while the population of the central wards and Middle Ring showed a decline. While population on the whole had increased, a steady decentralisation of distribution was taking place. Conversely the sense of isolation and spaciousness was accentuated by the low density of population housed in the Outer R1ng. In 1938 a survey revealed that there were just fifteen people to every acre of land 1n the outer areas, set against sixty-two in the central areas (13). In March 1935, an article in the local press headed 'Souls for Suburbs' commented:
Though we in B1rmingham are very proud of the way our city has extended to great new suburbs, planned on spacious lines which make the old town seem very out-of-date, we are beginning to realise more and more that this development brings with it many problems almost unsuspected when when we embarked on the task of rehousing our people. Now the houses are there, we realise a great many other th1ngs are required... We not only require well-planned roads, transport services, shopping centres, schools for children, librar1es and many other amenities, but there must be facilities for communal l1fe. (14)
In 1932, when the population of the vast new Kingstanding council housing estate, north of Birmingham, was already about
30,000, a comparison was made locally between the communal
55 serv1ces offered by Kingstanding against Shrewsbury, an old town with a sim1lar population. Shrewsbury had thirty churches, fifteen church halls, f1ve other halls and two public l1braries, while Kingstanding had one church and one hall, and no library (15). Subsequently, the recognition of the need to build a •community' which was more than merely the hous1ng eventually led to the establishment of community halls and centres on new estates. In Kingstanding, a number of the new res1dents formed the Perrystanding Community Association which in 1932, acquired a community centre for Kingstanding.
A library was also opened two years later in 1934, to serve the large population occupying the extensive municipal and other housing estates in the district. The City Council was slow to accept responsibility for provision of community centres, but in November 1936, the first munic1pal community centre was opened on the Billesley Farm Estate in South
Birmingham, to serve the large new suburban population. By the end of 1938, the Council was taking pride in their attempts to make the larger housing estates "as far as possible self-contained communities" (16).
The growth of socially homogeneous estates had resulted in the breaking up of m1xed populations and separating them into one-class areas. Life on the outsk1rts was more expens1ve than in the central area of the city. In the suburban d1stricts, rents were generally h1gher, while transport costs and local retail pr1ces were also often steeper. Transport costs and long Journey times to the city centre of up to thirty minutes were acutely felt by those living on the
56 municipal estates who were as yet not owners of a motorcar.
The residents living on a main road or near a bus terminus had a distinct advantage. There was relatively little travelling across the city centre, as for most travellers, the centre was the terminus whether for work or le1sure. By 1938, the area surrounding the central core of the city was still the heart of B1rm1ngham•s 1ndustry (Fig 4). Nevertheless, some new industry had moved out from the h1ghly-rated and congested central districts to the outsk1rts. Some factories began to be located at a distance of three to f1ve m1les along main roads from the c1ty centre, where cheap land and increased floor space for expansion encouraged relocation. In many cases inter-war factory building in the outer areas, l1ke speculative house building in the form of ribbon development, was a natural overspill from adjacent d1stricts.
In terms of leisure, and social serv1ces, residents in the outer suburbs were also qu1te often st1ll compelled to travel towards the centre of the city for their shopping, entertainment, health services and library facilit1es.
Nevertheless, the growth of local amenities on the outskirts of the c1ty had begun to develop by the early 1930's with vast new suburban publ1c houses, cinemas and sports facilities offering some leisure time attraction to the otherwise
1solated estate dwellers. Other fac1lities and services followed with churches, schools and libraries fill1ng sites already reserved by the planners of the suburban housing estates. In 1941, the Bournv1lle Village Trust Study concluded that in their standard of convenience and services,
57 Birm1ngham's new mun1cipal estates had marked a big advance:
Their layout made provision for those services and amenities without which no aggregation of dwellings can be considered to constitute an organised social group. Thus sites were laid out for churches, schools, play1ng fields, libraries, baths and shopping centres. (17)
The pr1nc1ple feature of B1rm1ngham•s growth s1nce the First
World War had been a spectacular growth of the built-up area to the north, east and south of the c1ty. The outward expansion of building had submerged many of the older village centres, which prior to 1914 remained separated from
Birmingham. These d1stricts had been transformed from sem1-rural centres into almost uniformly built-up areas and slowly evolving suburban communities. The results of the act1vities of both the private or speculat1ve builders and of the Corporation of Birmingham were ev1dent in a wide belt of predominantly semi-detached housing, some two to three miles wide, extending clockwise from Kingstand1ng in the north, through Erdington, Ward End, Stechford, Yardley, Acocks Green,
Hall Green and Yardley Wood to Harborne and Quintan in West
B1rmingham. The rapid pace of outward growth provided numerous problems for the Town Planner as the structure of the c1ty became more complex. Nevertheless, chang1ng civic attitudes towards the provision of housing and related problems of transport and social amenities, had sufficiently altered for these services to be significantly improved for the new suburban population of the city by the 1930's.
Included among the City's improved social services, the Public
Libraries Comm1ttee responded to the urgent need for branch library provision in the outer suburbs with a ten year
58 development programme start1ng 1n 1928, only to be interrupted by the Second World War.
The drast1c changes which had occurred in the social life of the city follow1ng the 1914-18 war was therefore to have a pronounced effect on the work of Birmingham• Public Librar1es, particularly 1n the suburban districts.
59 References
1. House of Commons Command 919l(vii). Report of the Committee ... in connection with the provision of dwellings for the working classes. [The Tudor Walters Report], 1918.
2. Briggs, A. History of Birmingham, Vol.II, Borough and City 1865-1938, 1952, p. 232.
3. Bournville Village Trust. When we bu~ld again. A study based on research into conditions of living and working in Birmingham, 1941, p. 43.
4. Ibid., p. 22.
5. Briggs, A. History of Birmingham, Vol.II, Borough and City 1865-1938, 1952, p. 155.
6. Ib~d., p. 158.
7. Ibid., p. 162.
8. Birmingham City Council Development Department. Developing Birmingham 1889-1989: 100 years of city planning, 1989, p. 57.
9. Briggs, A. History of Birmingham, Vol.II, Borough and City 1865-1938, 1952, p. 248.
10. Birmingham City Council Development Department. Developing Birmingham 1889-1989: 100 years of city planning, 1989, p. 58.
11. Weoley Castle Review, No. 2, November 1932. In: Br1ggs, A. History of Birmingham, Vol.II, Borough and City 1865-1938, 1952, p. 307.
12. Bournville Village Trust. When we build again. A study based on research into cond~tions of living and working ~n Birmingham, 1941, p. 43.
13. Ibid., p. 45.
14. Birmingham Post, 29 March 1935. In: Birmingham newspaper cuttings. Housing, 1935, p. 11.
15. Briggs, A. H~story of Birmingham, Vol.II, Borough and City 1865-1938, 1952, p. 235.
16. Manzoni, H.J. The production of 50,000 council houses. In: Briggs, A. History of Birmingham, Vol.II, Borough and City 1865-1938, 1952, p. 308.
17. Bournville Village Trust. When we build again. A study based on research ~nto conditions of living and working in Birmingham, 1941, p. 29.
60 ------
CHAPTER 4
The planning and design of Birmingham's purpose-built suburban branch libraries of the 1930's, with particular reference to the south-east of the city and including two case-studies.
The history of the Public Libraries in Birmingham 1llustrated
a change-over from a policy of economy at all costs to a
pol1cy of c1vic enterprise. In 1850, the first permissive
Free Libraries and Museums Act was passed, but Birmingham
failed to find sufficient local support to implement its
provisions. It was not until 1860 that the Act was adopted,
and although a branch library was set up a year later on
Constitution Hill, it was 1865 before the first Central
L1brary was opened in Ratcliff Place. The Reference Library
was opened in 1866, and on the same occasion Deritend Branch
Library was also opened (1). In 1883 the Free Libraries and
Art Gallery Committee were separated and in the same year the
Birmingham Consol1dation Act removed the limit of the penny
rate. Six years later the Local Government Act of 1888
provided the Committee with an additional source of revenue
and work proceeded on the task of building branch libraries 1n
the city and middle d1strict suburbs (2). Five new branch
l1brar1es were established between 1892 and 1898, while the
six existing libraries were enlarged and in some cases
entirely re-built. Bloomsbury and Harborne were opened
during 1892, followed by the enlargement of Adderley Park and
opening of Spring H1ll and Small Heath the following year.
Balsall Heath was opened, and Gosta Green Library enlarged in
61 1896. Deritend was extended in 1898 (3). The Greater
Birmingham Extention Order of 1911, resulted in the transfer of libraries to the Birmingham author1ty including: Aston and
Aston Cross from Aston Manor Borough; Birchfield and
Handsworth from Handsworth U.D.C; Erdington from Erdington
U.D.C; Bartley Green, Kings Heath, Kings Norton, Northfield,
Rednal, Selly Oak and Stirchley, all from Kings Norton U.D.C.
The accession of these libraries to the Birmingham service increased the number of branches under the control of the
Libraries Committee from nine to twenty-one (4).
During the First World War, a call for economy in public expenditure resulted in the closing of four branch libraries, one of which, Adderley Park was never re-opened as a lend1ng library. When the war ended the Librar1es Comm1ttee were anxious to introduce open-access at all branch l1brar1es and make more adequate provision for young readers. Northf1eld's new l1brary, bu1lt after fire destroyed the 1906 building, was designed to allow borrowers direct access to book-shelves and was to be the first open access branch to be opened in 1914.
Erdington, Selly Oak, and St1rchley were altered, and improved accordingly, while separate children's rooms were also provided. The Committee were pleased with the success of these developments and by 1926 only six branches remained to be changed to open-access. The achievement of the open-access scheme was evident in the increased book issues during that same year, which numbered three and a quarter million. Nevertheless, acute depression in industry and unemployment by 1931, as well as direct access to book
62 selection, served to give an impetus to reading and book issues peaked in 1932 at a record total of 4,909,688.
Ironically, by 1934, when local trade and employment had shown apprec1able 1mprovement, the number of book issues fell by
300,000 compared with 1932 (5). An analysis of the issues of books from libraries near the city centre showed 1n each case a marked decl1ne, attributable to the movement of populat1on from the central wards to the new housing estates in the outer suburbs. The steady increase in the 1ssue of books in the suburbs was accompanied by a proportionate increase in the number of people holding borrower t1ckets for use 1n the branch libraries.
The f1rst new building erected spec1f1cally for library purposes since the 1890's was opened at Ward End in October
1928. Designed for the open-access system and prov1d1ng separate newspaper and magazine rooms as well as a children's room, the bu1lding was described as having "a spaciousness previously unknown in a Birmingham branch library" (6). A pol1cy of building large branches to serve the populations in newly developed areas was continued throughout the 1930's until the outbreak of war, w1th the erection of four more libraries. They were Acocks's Green opened in 1932, Perry
Common 1934, Yardley Wood 1936, and South Yardley 1939. All of these new buildings were designed by local architect Frank
J Osborne, F.R.I.B.A. 1n consultation with the Public
Libraries Committee who were appointed annually by the City
Council. The progress1ve character of the work of the
Public Libraries Comm1ttee was indicated by the building of
63 these five "commodious and well-appointed" (7) branch l:tbraries.
Three out of the four new branch libraries, built during the
1930's were planned and designed to serve the suburban population of the south-east of the city, which before the
1911 Greater Birmingham Scheme had been the Yardley Rural
District of Worcestersh:tre. The chang:tng urban landscape of this district provided Birmingham Library Committee with the fresh opportunity to plan branch library building in newly developed areas formerly lacking in library facilities (8).
Birm:tngham in 1911, not only acquired 6,000 acres of undeveloped land, but also a huge task of modernisation
:tncluding the provision of better communicat:tons, services and amenities such as libraries. Between 1911 and the start of the Second World War, the expanding population of the formerly rural Yardley almost trebled to 173,000 (9). The changes in the landscape would be greater than all prev:tous development in the district owing to both munic:tpal and private building, improvement of commun:tcations and amen:tt:tes, and the growth of industry. The Development Plans from 1909 for specif:ted divisions of land-use would produce clearly def:tned areas and confine industry to existing designated areas, the largest of which was at Tyseley and Hay M:tlls to the north-west of Acocks
Green. The 1918 South Birmingham Town Planning Scheme proposed the zon:tng of :tndustry separate from housing; new highways and improved old ones; preservation of trees and verges and development at a max:tmum of twelve houses to the acre. Development was rapid under city ownership and much of
64 the remain1ng farmlands of Yardley sold for housing. When
Birmingham Corporation acquired the area there were only a few small pockets of hous1ng. Between 1920 and 1939, 17,071 council houses were built in the former rural d1strict of
Yardley, occupying nearly 2,000 acres (10). Large areas west of the Stratford Road were acquired. The Fox Hollies Estate, south of Acocks Green, represented the h1gh point of the
City's housing development plan. This pr1ncipa1 municipal estate, begun in 1928, consisted of over 2,500 parlour and non-parlour type houses, w1th the Olton Boulevard dual carr1ageway running its length (11). The Gospel Farm Estate was also developed on the ninety-two acre site to provide an additional 2,065 houses (12). The smaller Bushmore Farm
Estate was built up, south of Gospel Farm between 1930 and
1932, while further north-west of Acocks Green, Tyseley Farm
Estate had also been developed. Planners concerned that the subsidy housing should not extend onto ex1st1ng ma1n roads, released plots to private developers to relieve the municipal uniformity of the council hous1ng estates. Dur1ng the 1920's and 1930's, private firms bu1lt semi-detached houses for rent or sale in the southern quarters from Formans Road to the city boundary in a widening arc between the Ma1n Stratford Road and the River Cole. Further private development bounded on the north by Sh1rley Road and the east by the Bushmore Farm counc1l estate, included seventy-five streets of new cul-de-sacs and main roads. This area was entirely residential except for the Robin Hood Works and two factories on Sarehole Road. Infilling also occurred at Acocks Green during the 1930's along the main Warwick Road which was lined
65 w1th new detached houses from Stockfield Road to Fl1nt Green
Road.
Acocks Green was one of eight separate centres which had made up the old Rural District of Yardley. Local government had
been 1nadequate to supply the growing population centres w1th all the essential services and amenities for the new resettled
suburban communities. The City Council was therefore confronted with the task of providing that wh1ch the Rural
District Council had lacked the resources to supply. The village of Acocks Green at the turn of the century had been w1thout most of the necessities of urban life, such as good
roads, an effective transport system or indeed a library. It was not until the hous1ng developments and road improvements of the 1920's that an increase in associated and required amenities occurred. The soc1al structure of Acocks Green would be radically altered by the development of the village into a city suburb.
Acocks Green village centre was developed around 'The Green'
(Fig 5), a triangular piece of land, which ultimately became the tram terminus. Electr1c trams were extended down the improved Warwick Road to the Village during 1922, and continued to operate until 1937 when the service was replaced by motor buses. The Outer Circle bus route included Acocks
Green in 1926, link1ng the suburbs between the village and intersecting with the radial highways to the city centre. As part of the road improvement schemes, during the 1930's a by-pass was planned to divert heavy traff1c from Acocks Green
66 ------
V1llage. The construction of the Olton Boulevard was begun
in 1929 but only completed between the Fox Hollies and Warwick
Road boundary, when the 1939 war interrupted work. Birmingham
Corporation also began its new improvement scheme for Acocks
Green V1llage at this time which included plann1ng a large
central square at the junction of Warwick Road, Shirley Road
and Westley Road and an island terminus for trams and buses
(Fig 6). The Westley Road was widened requiring a number of
old cottages to be demolished, and replaced by shops and the
Warwick Cinema in 1929. The old New Inn was demolished and a
new one built near the junct1on of Westley Road and Sh1rley
Road. Sh1rley Road was also reconstructed and widened with
the derelict farmhouses and cottages in the village being
demolished to leave a site vacant for the new library (Fig 7).
Dur1ng late 1931, building operations were well in advance for
Acocks Green l1brary situated facing the tram terminus, in
Shirley Road. The new branch library was 1deally located in
the modern residential suburb of Acocks Green, at
approximately four miles from B1rm1ngham city centre. It was
well positioned for access by main traffic routes, at the
Junction of both radial and circumferential public transport,
travelling from Warwick Road by tram, or along the Outer
Circle bus route. Acocks Green's busy railway stat1on was
also only a quarter of a mile distance from the village
shopping centre which attracted the local population for other
facilities as well as the library. Publ1c transport to the
suburban centre was also reasonably cheap and frequent. The
work on constructing the new branch library precluded any
progress w1th other proposed libraries in the south eastern
67 suburbs at that t1me, although s1tes had been allocated for
Yardley Wood and South Yardley, for areas either side of
Acocks Green (Fig 8). Previously the nearest library was at
Sparkhill, the converted old Yardley D1strict Council House in the Middle Ring area, two and a half miles from the city centre on the main Stratford Road.
The new purpose-built branch library for Acocks Green was finally opened on 14th June 1932 by the Lord Mayor of
Birm1ngham, Alderman J B Burman, after four years organ1sation and preparation for completion. The local press reported a comment made by the City Librarian, H M Cashmere, that the
Acocks Green Library "would be the best of all the branches controlled by the Public Libraries Committee" (13). He continued that for four years, a small staff had been continuously engaged 1n select1ng books, 1ndexing, preparing catalogues and labelling shelves for open-access. Selection of books by the public would be ''facil1tated by the brightness and openness of the build1ng'' (14). On the day of the opening ceremony the local press were out in force to report on the event . It was described as:
... the most up-to-date branch public l1brary in the city, spac1ous, light and excellently arranged ... The new residents of Acocks Green are the proud possessors of what is probably the finest suburban library in the M1dlands. (15)
A notable feature of the new library was said to be that it was the first in Birmingham in which practical ideas and plans put forward by the City Librarian and his staff had been extensively adopted by the architect, F J Osborne, whose
68 ------
design was the winning one in an open compet1tion. The
result was a very fine building wh1ch would "impress every
v1sitor by its effic1ent layout and beauty of construction''
( 16). Alderman C Lucas, Chairman of the Public Libraries
Committee, pres1d1ng at the meeting which followed, expressed
his view that the building was the largest branch l1brary ever
constructed in Birmingham and one of the largest in the
country. The plans for the new l1brary were drawn up
according to the needs of the library staff, affording ''plenty
of light, plenty of access and all that was wanted" (17). Its
l1ght and airy character was in great contrast to the older
libraries in Birmingham, which it far transcended. In
defending the £13,000 cost of the bright new building,
Alderman Lucas stressed that they had not been extravagant,
when compared with the gloomy 'monstrosity' of Spring Hill
Library, built in 1893. Cashmore also congratulated the
architect of the new l1brary for having produced such a
splend1d building which incorporated all that was required of
a modern library. The Birmingham Mail commented:
Everybody was impressed by its extremely light and commod1ous appearance and it was inevitable that the thoughts of many should have turned to the great changes wrought in the arch1tecture of public buildings dur1ng the past few years. What is termed the 'functional style' has been productive of much good. (18)
The corner site of the library, abutting the New Inn, affected
the design and plan of the bu1lding. The plan was restricted
to the form of an oblong extending lengthways from front to
rear. The facade of the library lent 1tself to a traditional
architectural style in relation to its straightforward plan
(Fig 9). Externally, the building was, therefore, designed
69 in a •modern' Georgian manner, in Sandstock bricks and
Grinshill stone, characteristic of local materials used (Fig
10). Both the architects, J P Osborne and Son, and the general build1ng contractor J E Williams were of Birmingham and had carried out previous work for the Birmingham
Corporation. The City Coat of Arms were emblazoned over the portico of the main publ1c entrance. The site being set a fair distance back from the road, also allowed for a garden approach to the entrance, lending more attraction to the appearance of the library for the visiting public. The one ma1n entrance hall (Fig 11) permitted d1rect access to all publ1c departments of the library on the ground floor. These
1ncluded, on either side of the hall, the newspaper room to the left, and the magazine room to the right on entering.
Oppos1te the entrance, was the access point for the lending departments for both adults and children. In addition there was a centrally positioned librarian's office on the ground floor, accessible from the lending departments and externally from a s1de entrance to the build1ng. On the first floor there were also filing rooms and accommodation for the staff.
A cycle shed in a yard to the rear of the building was provided for readers.
The layout of the interior was planned to accommodate the open-access system, w1th the question of complete supervision by the staff of all parts of all public departments being the ruling factor. Therefore, the upper portions of the partit1ons between public rooms consisted of glazed oak-framing, to allow all round supervision and also better
70
------' ------
illumination. Natural light from the w1ndows, although adequate through the large high windows on the facade and along one side of the library was not provided to the rear or along the side attached to the next door building. Therefore skylights were necessary to perm1t suff1cient natural top l1ghting to public areas. Artificial overhead lights were nevertheless also requ1red.
The staff enclosure (Fig 12) having the most central position for supervision of rooms and the passage of readers, also permitted the economy of administration considered to be so important for the small staff of a branch library. Borrowers returned books along the left hand side of the enclosure and took books out down the r1ght hand side, to encourage a manageable stream of traff1c in and out of the lending l1brary.
The main lending library (Fig 13) had shelf accommodation for over 20,000 volumes. On opening, the library already had a stock of 23,000 books w1th 4,000 included in the junior department (19). This was more than adequate provision for the 40,000 population of Acocks Green in 1932 (20). According to the Birmingham News, "the stock of books was larger than it had ever before been possible to accumulate for a new library in Birmingham'' (21). In terms of accommodation, Acocks Green was described as the best equipped of all the city's lend1ng libraries. A feature of the oak bookcases was the utilisation of the bottom shelf spaces as cupboards, so that the lowest books were about 18in from the floor. Book stacks
71 were placed radiating in an arc to the r1ght of the staff enclosure for a clear view to the shelves ahead and through
the glass partitions at the s1de. The 45ft X 55ft floor area was adequate to provide easy movement and viewing of books between the stacks. A quick reference collect1on was prov1ded in the magazine room.
The junior department on the left and to the rear of the building included a supply of reference books and was to be used as a comb1ned reading room and lend1ng l1brary. Issues from the latter were controlled from the same staff enclosure as for the adult lending library. The children's library was considered to be particularly pleasant and well equipped. The
Evening Despatch in November of 1932, commented that the juvenile section of Acocks Green library was one of the most popular in any library since one third of the total number of borrowers at Acocks Green were young people w1th the record for one evening at 1,250 (22). The department 1tself was described as:
... a joy to behold. It is light, airy and has a polished wooden floor on which comfortable chairs at small tables are arranged at intervals. (23)
The internal finish of the l1brary building was generally simple. The Builder magaz1ne, 1n a feature on Acocks Green library (24), noted that all materials requiring redecoration had been elim1nated up to a height of five feet. Panelling and joinery were of oak, in the public rooms, while terrazzo was used for dados and floors in the entrance hall. The remain1ng floors were of polished oak with sound-deadening
72 material underneath. Heating was by low pressure hot water
from a boiler in the basement to radiators 1n all rooms and anti-downdraught pipes in the lantern l1ghts. It was a
solidly built library.
E J Carter, writing in The Year's Work in Librarianship for
1932 gave some crit1cal but overall favourable comment on
Acocks Green library, describ1ng it as:
... hav1ng a most seductive quietness; the form is simple as befits a s1mple service and the plan log1cal, except for radiating stacks which will keep on surviving. The Librarian's quarters are not very ample, but presumably are all that are required and some of the furniture and woodwork 1s a bit ponderous, but this 1s a good library and looks it. (25)
The local population were certainly appreciative of their new
library, includ1ng the staff working there. Olive Price, a
l1brary assistant at Acocks Green between 1937 and 1945
recalled:
We considered ourselves lucky to work in this new show-piece of a library where the light, airy atmosphere contrasted sharply w1th older city l1braries. (26)
Cashmere, the City Librar1an, for some years lived in Acocks
Green, and was a regular visitor to the library, frequently
taking friends and colleagues to v1ew the City's 'show-piece' branch library when it first opened during the 1930's.
It was hoped, following the success of Acocks Green library,
that further new branch libraries would follow, when economic
conditions allowed. Birmingham's twenty-fifth branch was opened at Perry Common in September 1934 (27) to serve the
73 municipal and other housing estates established in that area and including Kingstanding. The major departure in the design of this library building was 1ts simple modern character, using mellow-toned bricks with a small amount of stonework at salient points. The ground plan, 1n part1cular, was designed to exploit a corner position at the junction of two roads (Fig 14). Architects, J P Osborne and Son, took the opportunity to construct a straightforward example of modern plann1ng, the key-notes of which were ample space and the efficient use of the site ava1lable to them. The usual departments 1ncluding magazine and newspaper rooms were present on the left of a small corner entrance hall, while immediately facing the entrance was the staff enclosure, through wh1ch were entered the main and jun1or lend1ng departments. On the first floor, oversight of all publ1c rooms was poss1ble from the Librarian's Office, over the entrance hall. To the rear of the building was the staff's private accommodation. Glazed partitions again allowed superv1s1on between public rooms. The cost of £13,591 for the building of a library holding a stock of 25,000 volumes was equal to Acocks Green and placed it in the league of the larger branches. Carter described Perry Common as "one of the pleasantest branch libraries built recently The plan is labour saving and gives chance for additions to be made eas1ly'' (28).
Nevertheless, the attentions of the Publ1c Librar1es Committee would return to the residents of the new urban Yardley d1str1ct during the latter half of the 1930's. The Comm1ttee
74 appreciated that the pre-annexation promises made to the
Yardley Rural D1strict for library provision had to be modif1ed to cater for the very different area making up the now ex1sting Yardley Wards. It had been partly fulfilled by the establ1shment of Sparkhill and Acocks Green l1brar1es, but there remained the hope that sites acquired at Yardley Wood and South Yardley would have libraries erected by the end of the decade so that the whole of the Yardley area would have adequate library provision (29).
During 1935, tenders were 1nvited for the erection of the new branch library at Yardley Wood. The site reserved between
School Road and Highfield Road was at the junction of two large munic1pal estates and active steps were be1ng taken to equip Yardley Wood, ''one of the most rapidly developing suburbs of Birmingham'' (30), with a branch public library.
The Corporation owned 6,000 houses within a mile of this site and the population had 1ncreased from about 3,500 to 40,000 since the war (31). The nearest existing public library was two miles away at Kings Heath, built 1n 1905.
Sale of land from 1913, had enabled the City to move into the
Swanshurst Quarter, the largest area of undeveloped country in
Yardley. 470 acres were bought for housing estates and between the wars, the farmhouses fell to mun1c1pal developers
(32). The Billesley Farm housing estate was developed between 1924 and 1925, represent1ng the City Council's earliest major building programme in the district with 2,442 houses on 374 acres of land (33). It formed a triangular
75 site, bordered by Yardley Wood Road, Ch1nn Brook and
Trittiford (sic) Roads, the latter two being newly bu1lt. The non-parlour type cottages 1n blocks of two, four and six were built along complex street patterns of cul-de-sacs and through roads. There was no centre or focal point to this municipal development, with no attempt to provide a village character.
Shops and amenities were usually peripheral. The only community focus for the estate residents was the local parish church, until 1936, when the first C1ty Council Community
Centre was established on the B1llesley Farm Estate.
Municipal housing development cont1nued in the area throughout the 1930's, alongside the continuous private building which extended down straight roads towards the residential district of Hall Green.
Road bu1ld1ng and improvement schemes were planned for Yardley
Wood throughout the period, including a 65ft wide road intended to extend from Highfield Road to Warw1ck Road. The
Highfield Road was intended to be a dual carriageway throughout with islanded intersections as was the Yardley Wood
Road. However, the road scheme was never completed. Although
H1ghfield Road was completed from Four Ways to the River Cole, the remainder was single carriageway. The bu1lding line along these roads was set back for houses and other buildings in anticipation of road-widening. The roads in the Yardley
Wood area were unsuitable for trams, however, and buses were relied upon for local public transport. The Outer Circle bus route cut through the area and across the radial bus routes.
76 It was on the intended extension of Highfield Road that the new branch library was to be sited. The building would be s1tuated at the Yardley Wood Road end of Highfield Road, and for access by publ1c transport, at the terminus of a bus route. Yardley Wood branch library was opened on December
30th 1936 by Lord Mayor Alderman Harold Roberts. Built upon the site of a main road, traversing the housing estates the library was therefore erected to serve the needs of a large and comparat1vely new population. While the site for the library was isolated and relatively quiet for users, it suffered the d1stinct d1sadvantage of not be1ng located in a sub-centre of shopping or at the focal point of other communal act1vities. It was also situated at a fair distance of four and a half miles from the city centre and only half a mile from the boundary. Therefore, not belonging to part of a
'village' centre meant local residents would need to make a spec1al journey to the library. Fortunately, public transport to the library was good both by bus and train with services runn1ng to Yardley Wood Station about a quarter of a m1le further along the Highfield Road. At the termination of their journey, the local population could expect an impressive l1brary service housed in a large new building, the total est1mated cost of wh1ch was £13,750 (34).
The build1ng was erected to the design of, and under the direct1on of Frank Osborne of the firm John Osborne and Son,
Architects, ''amid rural surroundings ... at the back of a farmyard'' (35). The ample area of the site allowed the architects more freedom in the design and planning of the
77 library building. In contrast with the trad1tional public library exterior of 1ts neighbour in Kings Heath (Fig 15),
Yardley Wood marked a further progression in branch library architecture and design. Externally the building (Fig 16), constructed by Birmingham building contractors, Percy W Cox was ''of a rational modern character'' (36), in mellow coloured stone-faced bricks, flush-pointed with Chipsham stone dressings. In front was a grass and stone-paved forecourt, surrounded by brick walls and wrought-iron railings. The library was positioned free from surrounding build1ngs and set well back from the road, perm1tting the maximum available natural lighting for the planning of the interior. Plans prepared by Osborne, had provided for a single-storey fan-shaped building which enabled light to enter into every room in the library and avoiding the necessity for excessive artificial lighting. The resulting ground plan for Yardley
Wood Library (Fig 17) was a var1ation on the butterfly-type design, using a staggered lay-out which incorporated the latest principles 1n library construct1on and practice.
According to Cashmore, the plan was designed to meet the requ1rements shown to be essential following the previous ten years experience gained in experimentation with several similar buildings. These requ1rements were "rapid serv1ce, perfect supervision and economy'' (37).
The building des1gn was, therefore, planned around a central staff enclosure, to which all borrowers returned their books and at wh1ch all out-going issues were checked. From this central focal point all parts of every room were under direct
78 supervision, while the enclosure 1tself was overlooked from
the Librarian's Office. This supervision was also made possible by the use of glazed partitions between rooms, which consisted of re-inforced leaded lights in steel framing.
A classical style porch, supporting a globe mot1f invited the visiting public through the main entrance to an imposing vestibule and large diamond-shaped hall. The entrance hall provided direct access to all l1brary accommodation, both for publ1c and staff. The arrangement of the 'butterfly' plan was such that the 'body' or centre of the l1brary was flanked by the four 'wings• of the various separate departments, which included Newspaper Room, Magazine Room, Junior Department and staff accommodation. To the left of the staff enclosure, the publ1c gained access to the main Lending Department and Junior
Department, while staff had additional access to the
Librar1an•s Office and beyond that, the filing room and staff rooms.
The main Lending Department, designed for the open-access system, formed the fan-shaped rear of the plan, and accommodated the rad1ating arc of book stacks. The radiating stacks projected in alignment with the supporting pillars, making an effect1ve use of space and collaboration between construction and function. The maximum diffusion of natural light in the Lending Department was achieved by the dramatic use of three levels of clerestory windows, staggered from the rear of the building to the front of the lending section, and also sky-lights over the areas between the rad1at1ng book
79 stacks.
The stock of books 1n the lending departments was larger than the average branch consisting, at time of opening, of 30,000 books for adults and 5,000 for children, but the rooms were sufficiently large to accommodate more book cases when the necess1ty arose. The low shelving stacks in the large Junior
Department ran around the length of the walls of the room leav1ng space for two rows of five wooden tables with chairs.
This room, as the other reading rooms, was also well illum1nated by tall windows to the ceiling and globe-shaped artificial light fitt1ngs, suspended from the ceil1ng.
Pictures also hung above the book shelves to brighten the appearance of the childrens room. Generally the internal finishings were of a permanent character, as in the other librar1es, with oak joinery and oak-panelled walls being used, to eliminate unnecessary disturbance caused by frequent redecoration of less permanent materials. In the basement, a heating chamber with a low pressure bo1ler heated the building by means of pipes and radiators.
The library demonstrated the best of modern fac1lities and design practice for the time. Lord Mayor Alderman Roberts was reported in the Birmingham Ma1l to have announced that of all the libraries in Birmingham, Yardley Wood "was probably the best of them all'' (38). E J Carter also contributed h1s opinion of the new branch library during 1937, stating that its design combined ''the usual units in an unusual way'' (39).
He continued:
80 ------
B1rm1ngham and their arch1tects have accumulated exper1ence in the design of branch libraries which makes the1r work worthy of attention. Centralized control is the dominating factor and to make assurance doubly sure, the l1brarian•s glass-walled cab1n 1s placed "1nside'' the plan where the Librarian can not only supervise his readers and be access1ble to them but can also supervise his staff at the issue desk. (40)
Another commentator on the plann1ng and design of municipal branch libraries at the time was public library architect E H
Ashburner, who wrote favourably of Yardley Wood, stating that it illustrated ''a logically thought out development of the radially arranged type of layout" (41). He also descr1bed the reading rooms as conveniently accessible from the street via the entrance hall and noted that the recessed arrangement of the outer wall l1ne allowed the maximum amount of light to be admitted to the interior of the build1ng. Ashburner, judged this purpose-built branch library, from the arch1tectural po1nt of v1ew, as a success 1n the utilisation of the buildings' unusual layout.
The fifth of the new purpose-built libraries to be erected w1th1n the last eleven years up to the Second World War, was
Birmingham's twenty-eighth branch opened at Yardley Road,
South Yardley on 15th March 1939. It's purpose was to serve the new suburban district of Yardley between the existing libraries at Ward End and Acocks Green. The South Yardley branch had similar accommodation to those at Acocks Green,
Perry Common and Yardley Wood, although by the end of the decade, the lending department had become the most 1mportant section of the branch library. This building was therefore
81 designed pr1marily to fulfil this function by supplying the
needs of the adults and juveniles with a large well-lighted
and a1ry lending department. The same principles of direct
supervision to the rad1ating stacks applied, with oversight made possible through glass partitions. Less importance was attributed to the smaller rooms for magazines and newspapers, either side of the entrance hall. No attempt was made to provide a general reference room since it was considered that
the Central L1brary was now the proper place for such a service.
The awkward plan of the library (Fig 18) was dictated by the available site on the junction with the main Coventry Road.
The layout of the accommodat1on was of a more conventional nature, having a central entrance to a square hall, from which access was poss1ble to all public rooms in the usual way.
Staff rooms and offices were less satisfactorily accommodated behind and to one s1de of the lend1ng departments. Externally
the building was of a simple character with decoration kept to a m1nimum, by arch1tect F J Osborne. At a cost of £13,743
(42), th1s build1ng would be the last of the larger permanent branch l1braries to be bu1lt in Birmingham until some years after the Second World War. It epitomised the development of
the branch library in large cities by the end of the 1930's, although there were early indications of a trend towards a more conservative, functionalist approach to branch library design for the suburbs.
82 References
1. Briggs, A. History of Birmingham, Vol.II. Borough and City 1865-1938, 1952, p. 111.
2. Ibid., p. 112.
3. Birmingham Public Libraries. Notes on the history of the Birmingham public libraries 1861-1961, 1962, p.8.
4. Ibid., p. 9.
5. Jones, J.T. History of the Corporation of Birm~ngham, Vol. V, Part II, 1915-1935, 1940, p. 486.
6. Ibid., p. 492.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Morris-Jones, J. The urbanisation of Yardley, 1968, p. 11.
10. Ibid.
11. McKenna, J. Acocks Green, [unpublished, not paginated].
12. Ibid.
13. Evening Despatch, 30 May 1932. In: Birmingham newspaper cuttings. Libraries, 4 July 1930 - 30 April 1934, p. 100.
14. Ibid.
15. Birm~ngham Ma~l, 14 June 1932. In: Birmingham newspaper cuttings. Libraries, 4 July 1930 - 30 April 1934.
16. Ibid.
17. Birm~ngham Despatch, 15 June 1932. In: Birmingham newspaper cuttings. Libraries, 4 July 1930 - 30 April 1934, p. 108.
18. Birmingham Ma~l, 18 June 1932. In: Birmingham newspaper cuttings. Libraries, 4 July 1930 - 30 April 1934, p. 113.
19. Notes and News. Birmingham: The Acocks Green Branch. The Library Association Record, 1932, p. 221.
20. B~rmingham News, 18 June 1932, In: Birmingham newspaper cuttings. Libraries, 4 July 1930 - 30 April 1934, p. 112.
21. Ibid.
83 22. Evening Despatch, 24 November 1932. In: Birmingham newspaper cuttings. Libraries, 4 July 1930 - 30 April 1934, p. 130.
23. Ibid.
24. Acocks Green Branch Publ1c Library. The Builder, December 16 1932, 143 (4689), 1024.
25. Carter, E.J. Library build1ngs; publ1c libraries in England. The Year's Work in Librarianship, 1932, 5, 92-93.
26. Wilmot, Frances. Around 4 O'clock. Memories of Sparkhill and Acocks Green, 1993, p. 131.
27. Notes and News. B1rm1ngham Public Libraries. Library Association Record, 1934, 1(10), 376.
28. Carter, E.J. Library buildings; British public librar1es, 1933-34. The Year's Work in Librarianship, 1934, 7, 107.
29. B1rmingham Post, 13 October 1933. In: Birmingham newspaper cuttings. Libraries, 4 July - 30 April 1934, p. 182.
30. Birmingham Gazette, 18 May 1935. In: Birmingham newspaper cuttings. Libraries, 1 May 1934- 5 November 1937, p. 93.
31. Ibid.
32. Morris-Jones, J. Swanshurst Quarter. An introduction to the historical geography of the south-western part of the manor and parish of Yardley in Worcestershire, 1979, p. 19.
33. Bird, V. Portrait of Birmingham, 2nd ed., 1974, p. 163.
34. Cashmore, H.M. Yardley Wood Branch Library. L~brary Association Record, 1937, 4(3), 114.
35. Evening Despatch, 31 August 1936. In: Birmingham newspaper cuttings. L~braries, 1 May 1934 - 5 November 1937, p. 161.
36. Cashmere, H.M. Yardley Wood Branch Library. Library Association Record, 1937, 4(3), 114.
37. Ibid., p. 113.
38. Birmingham Mail, 30 December 1936. In: Birm~ngham newspaper cuttings. Libraries, 1 May 1934 - 5 November 1937, p. 186.
39. Carter, E.J. Library buildings; Public libraries in England and Ireland. The Year's Work in Librarianship, 1937, 10, 130.
84 40. Ibid.
41. Ashburner, E.H. Modern public libraries. Their planning and design, 1946, p. 30.
42. Cashmore, H.M. South Yard1ey Branch L1brary. Library Association Record, 1939, 6(5), 219.
85 CHAPTER 5
Conclusion
Government restrictions on new building and capital expenditure, dur1ng the years following the Second World War, prevented any further progress with the Publ1c Library
Committee's plans for building branch libraries in the suburban areas of Birmingham which were still without library facilities. It had become almost impossible, at this time, to build a permanent branch library, similar to those erected during the 1930's for the rapidly expanding populations; a trend reflected throughout the country (1). Therefore, in order to provide a modified l1brary service in some of these areas, small collections of books were provided in part-t1me opening, temporary centres, quite often community centres on housing estates, as at Glebe Farm. Although not subst1tutes for full-time branch libraries, they were, nevertheless, preferred by the L1brary Committee to mobile librar1es. In
1956, the Committee decided wherever possible to establish temporary centres in new areas where a larger stock and more borrowers could be accommodated (2). This was a view supported by W C Berwick Sayers in the 1949 6th edition of
Brown's Manual of Library Economy, in which he commented that the building of temporary libraries at least allowed the correct site, size and character of service to be gauged before a permanent branch was built (3). The dec1sion for siting accommodation would need to be periodically reviewed however, owing to the on-going redevelopment 1n the city
86 suburbs and the bu1lding of new estates where housing density was st1ll comparatively low. In such estates it was often difficult to find a focal point where a permanent library could be conveniently sited and neither was it easy to find suitable accommodation for a temporary service.
Nevertheless, the building programme for permanent branch libraries was resumed 1n 1952, for s1tes already acquired before the 1939 war had interrupted progress. In 1950 the
City Development Plan was submitted to the Ministry of Hous1ng and local Government which included the provision of a number of new branch libraries. Pre-fabricated buildings were a simple solution where no library service existed in the new areas and on housing estates. The Glebe Farm branch was the first permanent post-war library to be opened in 1952 for the pre-war Glebe Farm housing estate, in East Birmingham and to the north of the South Yardley branch. Although a much less amb1t1ous small pre-fabr1cated building, it was designed by F
J Osborne to be capable of expansion if necessary. Conform1ng to austerity standards, then in force, the £7,750 library, accommodating 13,000 volumes (4), departed from traditional build1ng practice both in its pre-fabricated construct1on and use of materials such as pre-cast concrete. The basic library accommodation consisted of two public departments, adult and junior lending.
As a result of national controls, the trend for opening small branches with basic facilities led to a decline in the quality of l1brary building compared with the pre-war period. Few
87 post-war branches in the large cities provided the full range
of library services or extension activit~es (5). Branch
l~brar~es in the city suburbs rarely fulf~lled the role of
maintaining the cultural standards of the community they
served. Read~ng rooms were not provided on the same scale as
in the pre-war period, partly owing to building restrictions
on new libraries, but also s~nce newsrooms in particular were
less used after the war. L R McColvin, in his Report on The
Publ~c Library System of Great Britain 1942, commented that
newsrooms were "not a desirable provision ... in proportion to
their l~m~ted values, expensive to maintain (and) used by only
a very small section of the public" (6). This was born out
by the fact that in most new buildings, newsrooms had not been
provided or had been closed in existing libraries.
By the 1960's however, a new trend in branch library building
was emerging where some library authorities were initiating a
new policy of prov~ding larger branches complete w~th
reference collections and even rooms for lectures, meetings
and exhibitions. In 1956 Sheldon Branch Library was opened
to serve new housing estates built during the 1930's following
another boundary extension to the east of Yardley in 1931.
This large modern library accommodated 20,000 volumes in the
adult and junior lending libraries. Then during the early
1960's three new branches were built, including Tower Hill
Branch 1961, Hall Green 1962 and Kingstand~ng 1964 (7). The
significant departure with these libraries was the new emphasis on serving the commun~ty. Tower H~ll library was designed to be sited as part of a comprehensive scheme
88 1ncorporating flats, a bank and a shopping centre. Hall Green library, s1ted on the main arterial Stratford Road,
served the residential area between Yardley Wood and Acocks
Green Library to complete the library prov1sion for the
suburban development of the old Yardley Rural D1strict. The
accommodation in this new branch library included a
first-floor meeting room for lectures and exhibitions, apart
from the adult and Junior l1braries on the ground floor. The
Kingstanding branch prov1ded similar accommodation and library
facilities for a suburban commun1ty and adjoined a shopping centre.
In 1962, 1t was hoped that the Library Committee's Development
Plan for the next ten years would provide the city for the
first t1me with an adequate network of full-time branch
libraries, although 1t conceded that, in itself, such a
network could not solve the problem of how to provide even a
partial serv1ce to many of the city's huge housing estates
(8). B1rmingham, nevertheless, continued a policy of erecting large branch or 'district' libraries for suburban areas, which reflected the bel1ef that the library should be an integral part of the fabric of the community it served.
By 1964 a number of the early inner-city branches had closed due to a fall off in the number of users who had re-located to
the outer districts. Branch building was subsequently concentrated in the suburbs, to bring the total, located across Birm1ngham by 1994, to forty-one (Fig 19). The most
recent branch library for Birmingham's suburban population was opened in Apr1l 1994 at Druid's Heath, South Birmingham,
89 ------
approx1mately two miles south-west of the Yardley Wood branch.
The purpose-built £770,000 library replaced a pre-fabricated
building erected 1n 1975 and is situated close to a shopping
centre and youth centre (9). The new branch is referred to
by B1rmingham L1brary Serv1ces as a 'Community Library',
intended to be part of the community life, providing not only
books but mus1c activities and events for the local
population. All branch libraries in Birmingham are now
Community Librar1es, wh1ch form only part of the Community
Library Services for the City, as a whole.
With the opening of the new permanent library at Druids Heath,
the locations of branches in the south-eastern suburbs of the
c1ty are now fairly evenly distr1buted at about two miles
distance apart. Travell1ng north-east from Druids Heath to
Yardley Wood, through Hall Green, Acocks Green and South
Yardley, these areas now have a l1brary serving each of their
suburban commun1ties. Each branch in the d1strict was
designed to provide library services according to the
particular social needs of the community it was serving at the
time, however. The plann1ng of the library buildings was
therefore also dependent on current principles and practice
concerning provis1on of services. Nevertheless, the basic
role of the branch library, to bring l1brary serv1ces w1th1n
easy reach and convenient range of the population at large,
has not noticeably altered. The policies of library planning
established during the 1930's remains relevant today, even
allow1ng for factors such as 1ncreased public mobility by
motorcar and easier access to the local library. As the
90 populat1on of large c1t1es continues to migrate to the outlying d1str1cts, library services are compelled to follow in the pursuit of creating complete suburban commun1t1es.
The function of the branch library has perhaps altered over the decades from being primarily a book lending service to becom1ng also an information and reference service. The design of l1brary buildings has been modified according to broadening concepts of library service. Branch libraries, in particular, adopted new 1deas of design to produce more informality, comfort and convenience and by experimenting with new building methods and materials there was greater emphasis on space, light and flexibility in interior plann1ng. Some of these ideas had been conceived during the 1930's in the design of libraries like Acocks Green and Yardley Wood 1n
Birmingham. Indeed, 1t is interesting to observe that these two buildings have not required radical alteration since construct1on; Acocks Green in particular.
Acocks Green library now serves a resident populat1on of just over 24,000 (10) and is still well patronised by users living in and around the matured Acocks Green village (Fig 20). The
1nterior of the library retains much of its orig1nal furnishings and fittings, including the oak staff enclosure and glazed partit1ons (Fig 21). The rad1at1ng wooden book stacks of the lending department are still under direct supervision from the central 1ssue counter (Fig 22). The original Junior Department rema1ns intact, a corner of which reta1ns the low-level wall-shelving and wooden tables and
91 cha1rs for reading (Fig 23). A read1ng area for adults
remains in the magazines department, although a large section of this space now accommodates a special collection of railway books. The newspaper room has, however, been replaced by a commun1ty meeting room for var1ous activ1t1es includ1ng tea and refreshments! The most noticeable adaptation to the modern age is the introduction of information technology in the form of computer terminals at the enquiry po1nt, issue counter and within the L1brar1an's Office. Otherwise, Acocks
Green Library remains remarkably untouched by the passing of sixty-two years since opening and 1s a testimony to the very characteristic planning and design of a 1930's branch library build1ng.
The subsequent development of Yardley Wood Library since 1ts construction has been affected by other factors. During
1938, H A Sharp noted that the library was situated in an un-paved cul-de-sac, still awaiting the ''very wide and important road" expected to be made in front of the building
(11). However, the original road 1mprovement plan for the w1dening of Highf1eld Road 1nto a ma1n thoroughfare never came to fruition, and access today is only possible from the far end of the existing single carriageway, with no entry for motor vehicles at the Glastonbury Road end (Fig 24). Yardley
Wood, having a l1brary catchment of 14,690 residents (12) has the dual disadvantage of poor accessibility by road and being located in the middle of a housing estate away from other central communal activities.
92 Attempts to modern1se the l1brary 1nterior, to attract more
users, is apparent in a number of changes to public areas.
Opposite the entrance hall, a new central staff enclosure
(Fig 25) allows a more open view of the lending library ahead.
Nevertheless, the well-illuminated radiating book stacks and wall-shelving beneath the clerestory w1ndows of the Lending
Department are still 1n place along with the original wooden
read1ng tables and chairs (Fig 26). The most significant
change has occurred 1n the provision of childrens services, where the original Junior Department has been converted for
staff use, wh1le the old Magaz1ne Room now accommodates a
brighter, more cheerfully designed childrens section (Fig 27)
directly accessible from the Lending Department through the
former Librarian's Office. The Newspaper Room has also been
d1spensed with and available space taken over for alternat1ve
use, leaving the primary function of the library for lending
and information serv1ces and prov1s1on for children, but also offering community services.
As 'community libraries' for the 1990's, Acocks Green and
Yardley Wood have been adapted to suit the changing soc1al
hab1ts of the suburban districts they have served since the
1930's. Both branches have successfully continued to reach
their local commun1ties by prov1ding some new and add1tional
services and facilit1es, sometimes at the expense of others
accord1ng to demand. Nevertheless, the in1tial ach1evement of these innovative 'model' branch libraries, planned and
designed to meet the needs of Birmingham's develop1ng suburbs,
is still evident sixty years on.
93 References
1. Hendry, J.D. A social h~story of branch library development, 1974, p. 309.
2. Birmingham Public Libraries. Notes on the history of the Birmingham public libraries, 1861-1961, 1962, p. 14.
3. Berwick Sayers, w.c. Brown's Manual of Library Economy, 6th ed., 1949. In: Hendry, J.D. A social history of branch library development, 1974, p. 310.
4. Patrick, F.J. Glebe Farm Branch Library. Library Associat~on Record, 1952, 19(12), 398.
5. Chandler, G. Large municipal libraries: present trends and future development. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Library Association, 1956, 76.
6. McColvin, L.R. The public library system of great Brita~n. A report on its present condition with proposals for post-war re-organisat~on [McColvin Report], 1942, p. 68.
7. Birmingham Public Libraries. Notes on the history of Birmingham public libraries, 1861-1961, 1962, p. 13.
8. Ibid.
9. News. Library Association Record, 1994, 96(4), p. 175.
10. Birmingham City Council Library Services. 1991 Census. Community library catchment area information, 1993, p. 1.
11. Sharp, H.A. Branch l~braries: Modern problems and adm~nistration, 1938, p. 131.
12. Birmingham City Council Library Services. 1991 Census. Community library catchment area information, 1993, p. 1.
94 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acocks Green Branch Public Library. The Builder, December 16 1932, 143 (4689), 1024.
ASHBURNER, E.H. Modern public libraries. Their planning and design. London: Grafton and Go., 1946.
BEST-HARRIS, W. A plea for small branch librar~es. Library Association Record, 1936, 3(11), 552-554.
BIRD, V. Portrait of Birmingham. 2nd ed. London: Robert Hale & Go., 1974.
BIRMINGHAM CENTRAL REFERENCE LIBRARY. Birmingham newspaper cuttings. Housing, 1935.
BIRMINGHAM CENTRAL REFERENCE LIBRARY. Birmingham newspaper cuttings. Libraries, 4 July 1930 - 30 April 1934, 1 May 1934- 5 November 1937.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Developing Birm~ngham, 1889-1989: 100 years of city planning. Birmingham: Stud~o Press, 1989.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL LIBRARY SERVICES. 1991 Census. Community library catchment area information. B~rmingham: Pol~cy and Research, 1993.
BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC LIBRARIES. Notes on the history of Birm~ngham public libraries, 1861-1961. Birmingham: Birmingham Public Libraries, 1962.
BLACK, H.J. History of the Corporation of Birmingham. Vol. VI, Part II, 1936-1950. Birmingham: General Purposes Comm~ttee, 1957.
BOARD OF EDUCATION PUBLIC LIBRARIES COMMITTEE. Report on public libraries in England and Wales. Cmd. 2868. [Kenyan Report]. London: HMSO, 1927.
BOURNVILLE VILLAGE TRUST. When we build again. A study based on research into conditions of living and working in Birmingham. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1941.
BRANSON, N. & M. HEINEMANN. Britain in the nineteen thirties. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1971.
BRIGGS, A. History of Birmingham, Vol. II, Borough and City, 1865-1938. London: Oxford University Press, 1952.
BRISCOE, W.A. Library planning. A compilation designed to assist in the planning, equipment and development of new libraries and the reconstruction of old ones. London: Grafton & Go., 1927.
BROWN, J.D. Manual of library economy. Revised by W.C. Berwick Sayers, 4th ed. London: Grafton & Go., 1931.
95 BURTON, G.L. The future of the central lending department in big centres. Library Association Record, 1930, 257-262.
CARTER, E.J. Library bu1ldings. The Year's Work in Librarianship, 1930, 3, 110-133.
CARTER, E.J. Library buildings. The Year's Work in Librarianship, 1937, 10, 121-140.
CARTER, E.J. Library bu1ldings; Br1tish public libraries, 1933-1934. The Year's Work in librarianship, 1934, 7, 107.
CARTER, E.J. L1brary buildings; publ1c l1brar1es in England. The Year's Work in librarianship, 1932, 5, 84-103.
CARTER, E.J. Library buildings; publ1c l1brar1es in England. The Year's Work in librarianship, 1937, 10, 121-140
CASHMORE, H.M. South Yardley Branch Library. Library Associat2on Record, 1939, 6(5), 218-219.
CASHMORE, H.M. Yardley Wood Branch Library. Library Associat2on Record, 1937, 4(3), 112-114.
CHANDLER, G. Large municipal libraries: present trends and future developments. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Library Association, 1956, 76-77.
EDWARDS, A. The des2gn of suburbia. A study of environmental history. London: Pembridge, 1981.
ENSER, A.G.S. Branch library practice. London: Grafton, 1950.
HARRIES, M.L. Librar1es and soc1ety. Library Association Record, 1938, 5(9), 457-460.
HEADICAR, B.M. A manual of library organisation. London: Allen & Unwin and The Library Associat1on, 1935.
HENDRY, J.D. A social history of branch library development. Glasgow: Scottish Library Association, 1974.
HILTON-SMITH, R.D. English libraries in the Depression. Library Association Record, 1934, 1(12), 435-440.
HILTON-SMITH, R.D. ed. Library buildings. Their heating, lighting and decoration. Papers read at the 55th Annual Conference of the L2brary Association, 1932. London: The Library Association, 1933.
HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMAND 9191(vii). Report of the Committee ... in connection with the provision of dwellings for the working classes. [The Tudor Walters Report]. London: HMSO, 1918.
96 JONES, J.T. History of the Corporat1on of Birmingham. Vol. V, Part II, 1915-1935. Birm1ngham: General Purposes Committee, 1940.
KELLY, T. History of public libraries in Great Britain, 1845-1965. London: The Library Association, 1973.
KELLY, T. & E. KELLY. Books for the people. An illustrated history of the British public library. London: Andre Deutsch, 1977.
KINVIG, R.H. [et al], eds. Birmingham and its reg1onal setting. A scientific survey. Birmingham: S.R. Publ1shers, 1970.
LIBRARY ASSOCIATION. Small municipal libraries: a manual of modern method. 2nd ed. London: The L1brary Associat1on, 1934.
McCOLVIN, L.R. Libraries and the publ1c. London: Allen & Unwin, 1937.
McCOLVIN, L.R. The public library system of Great Britain. A report on its present condition with proposals for post-war re-organisation [McColvin Report]. London: The Library Association, 1942.
McCOLVIN, L.R, ed. A survey of libraries: Reports on a survey made by The Library Association during 1936-1937. London: The L1brary Associat1on, 1938.
McKENNA, J. Acocks Green. [B1rmingham Central Reference Library, Local Studies Department; unpublished].
MITCHELL, J.M. The public library system of Great Britain and Ireland, 1921-1923: a report prepared for the Carnegie U.K. Trustees [Mitchell Report]. Dunfirml1ne: Carneg1e U.K. Trust, 1924.
MORRIS-JONES, J. Acocks Green and all around. An 1ntroduction to the h1storical geography of the Greet and Broomhall Quarters of the manor of Yardley. [Unpublished], 1973.
MORRIS-JONES, J. Swanshurst Quarter. An introduction to the historical geography of the southwestern part of the manor and parish of Yardley 1n Worcestershire. [Unpublished], 1979.
MORRIS-JONES, J. The urbanisation of Yardley. [Unpublished], 1968.
MORTIMORE, A.D. Branch libraries. London: Andre Deutsch, 1966
MUNFORD, W.A. Penny rate: aspects of Brit1sh public library history. London: The Library Assoc1ation, 1951.
97 News. Library Association Record, 1994, 96(4), 175.
Notes and News. Birmingham: Acocks Green Branch. Library Assoc~ation Record, 1932, 221.
Notes and News. Birmingham public libraries. Library Association Record, 1934, 1(10), 376-378.
O'LEARY, J.G. Library provision in new housing estates. Library Assistant, 1936, 29, 139-144.
O'LEARY, J.G. New towns and areas. Library Association Record, 1932, 56-58.
ORMEROD, J. Branch l1braries. Library World, 1931, 33, 159-263.
PATRICK, F.J. Glebe Farm Branch Library, Birmingham. Library Association Record, 1952, 19(12), 398.
PUNTER, J. A history of aesthet1c control: Part 1, 1909-1953. The control of the external appearance of development in England and Wales. Town Planning Review, 1986, 57(4), 351-379.
ROACH, A. & S. McGREGOR. From green fields to suburb~a. An artist's view of 1930's Birmingham. Birm1ngham: B1rmingham City Counc1l, 1994.
ROBERTS, K.A.L. Libraries, housing estates and the education of the whole man. Library Association Record, 1937, 4(6), 357-362.
SAVAGE, E.A. The distribution of book borrow1ng 1n Edinburgh. Library Association Record, 1938, 5(4), 150-156.
SHARP, H.A. Branch libraries: modern problems and administration. London: Allen & Unwin, 1938.
STEWART, J.D. Public librar1es; urban l1braries. The Year's Work in librarianship, 1928, 1, 70-77.
SYDNEY, E. Service standards for a suburban population. Library Association Record, 1935, 2(9), 391-397.
THOMPSON, J. A History of the principles of librarianship. London: Bingley, 1977.
WILMOT, FRANCES. Around 4 O'clock. Memories of Sparkhill and Acocks Green. Studley: Brewin Books, 1993
98 . i '
I I J I ., j D D
\VIIITEINCII DISTRICT LIBRARY: GROUND FLOOR I The plan does not show the work room provided m this Library. It is situated over the main entrance and the stall enclosure, and from its wmdov. s complete supervision of the three public rooms of the Library Is obtained.
Fig 1 GREATER BIRMINGHAM / 11\1
-~.- -· t ---- BOU~~OMlY Or THE OLD CITY i _.....__._ LIMITS Or Tit( NEWLY-A.D0£0 OISfAICTS RAilWAYS WITil l'niNCif'lll STATIONS 0 I Z J r) PAOKS AND ((MfHRIES \.=;:;:,..;...= -~===-~~=---J ----~.f.:. ...•L::;fc._;O::;f_c'c_"c.l.:cl.:c> ______·------ Fig 2 BIRMINGHAM'S TI\ANSPORT SYSTEM, 1938 ;j I ,~ ...... --=------'" 0 ...... ~ ""''''' ~~· (> ... ~ .. , ("'("l•• nt>ttlll C""PO.. AIJ(>t< ~() Fig3 BIRMINGHAM MODERN INDUSTRIAL PATTERN +N + 0 =::.:: :::::: :::~::: :(:: ::::0 ; OISYIIICT I)(V{l0~tl> ,.""C;PAI.U llf'Ct 191'0 10000 • I""(TM•OO:::II: INOOJSfltiAI. bolliUCT Fig 4 ACOCKSGREfN VIllAGE 1937 BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC liBRARIES SHIRlEY ROAD (SITE OF ACOCKS GREEN LIBRARYI. 1928 BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC liBRARIES Figs 5 , 6 & 7 ______j 1-t!::l..b!:~T H HUMPHil l t ~ M. lun. C . t C I T Y COUI-JCIL HOU~t ~ G H A M. ~I MA.~CH 193 1. • SITES RESERVED FOR BRANCH LIBRARIES IN TRE SCUTH- EASTERN SUBURBS Fi g 8 ' ' 3 ,' \ ' __ , .../ t------, ·:·-r-, ' I I :-~~ -~([ J]J_jft -'~c~ !- - trr±:J ;b:rr:t NEWSP4PERS -=-·eMAG}q.Z· · -=- m · N· ·ES · · ·-=- - - . - · ~·. . ~ . - .·.·- ~~-tu -m ~ --t-· m I ( ~ ._1 I $ f.t 1 ~ l 32. 48 I I , A co c k 's C r·ecn Bt·anc h Prrhlic Library, Birming ha m . •\ l t·:s:;; u :; .. l ull '\ I'. OS IIIII< '\ t:, F.IL I. ll.A. , :\Nil l-::lON, Aruhilr:el::. Fie 9 Fig 10 E ~1' 1lA !W E II AI.I•. Fig 1 1 Fi g 12 Lt:~I)IS(l ] . J iliiAilY. Fig 13 FIJ.I~OO I'f \ ~J I) N!OR~ I () 0 ·~ OEP~RTM£NT .i\ 0 0 \ () 0 \ RaTO Perry Common Br anch Public Library, Birmi ngham. HESSRS . ,JO!IIi P . OS130RNE, F . R .I.B . .i\ ., Mm SON , Architects . Fig 14 PUBLIC LIBRARY, HI GH STREET, KINGS HEATH , 1905 BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC L IBRARIES Fi g 15 YAHDLEY tJOOD BRAI'ICII PUBLIC LI BRARY, 1936 Fig 16 CITY OF BIRM INGHAM PUBLI C BRAN CH LIBRARY _____, YARDLEY WOOD ./ ·c=i ·> '···----·-" HALL 'OPCCOU-<'T PLAN \) \) .J c ,. 0 0 JO,...., .. ,...,,.~ ..., , t tltii(. ..•• I CPI tt.~" -·-o .... ,... Fig 17 CITY OF BIRMINCifA M PV BLIC LIBQARY I I SOVTH YA RDLEY D . t- M?' d I I I I I I I I I __ I, .~ o .... • o • . o ...... "' __,_,,,c .. ~ YAROL(Y R 0 A 0 'S COt.. ... Olll l • ...... , ... G "~- Fig 18 1\ INI I Sour e o: I !191 Sur v ~ v ~ r C ommu n o I v l ohr no· v lJ s er ': l rtfo..--"olrott l'lcl~n, U rpl . Fig 19 Fig 20 Fig 21 Fi g 22 Fi g 23 Fi g 24 Fig 25 Fi g 26 Fig 27 .. ITY · OF BIRMINGHAM HOUSING ESTATES H t &.. ~ t &. T H H U M 0 H t.,. I C: ' ~ h.u t C t.. CO Ut.I C IL.HOU~t ~11-.Mit.I GH .J.M