This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

Volz, Kirsty (2017) Claiming domestic space: ’s interwar women architects and their labour saving devices. Lilith: a Feminist History Journal, 2017(23), pp. 105-117.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/114447/

c Australian Women’s History Network

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu- ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. http:// search.informit.com.au/ documentSummary;dn= 042103273078994;res=IELHSS

Claiming Domestic Space: Queensland’s interwar women architects and their labour saving devices

Abstract

The interwar period was a significant era for the entry of women into the profession of architecture. This emergence of women architects coincided with an increasing number of public discussions that considered how domestic architecture could be improved to enhance the efficiency of domestic work. Numerous commentators in Australian newspapers and journals proposed that the only way to achieve optimal conditions in housing was to encourage more women to become architects. It was argued that women were naturally skilled at domestic work and therefore understood these work processes better than male architects. This article argues that Queensland was progressive in its acceptance of women into the profession of architecture. Through a desire for a better standard of housing in a hot and humid climate, women created their own niche within the male dominated profession of architecture in which to improve the built environment. This was architecture by women that sought to improve the day‐to‐day lives of Queensland women through the employment of labour saving devices.

Introduction

From the mid to late 19th century there were a number of women’s movements in western countries that concentrated on improving the lives of women by developing new models for housing that provided more efficient means of performing domestic work. These advancements of domestic architecture have previously been documented in America, by Dolores Hayden and in the United Kingdom by Mark Llewellyn.1 In

1 Work on this movement has been documented by Dolores Hayden, The grand domestic revolution: A history of feminist designs for American homes, neighborhoods, and cities (MIT Press, 1982). And in the United Kingdom by Mark Llewellyn. ‘Designed by women and designing Hayden and Llewellyn’s work they discuss how women were applying principles of

Taylorism to the domestic sphere of work, but at the same time they were developed to emancipate women from the ‘round the clock’ hard labour of child care and domestic duties. This same position on developing houses with efficient methods for completing work at the core of domestic planning was also occurring in Australia, although very little has been written about this. Jennifer Craik wrote in her 1990 article, The Cultural

Politics of the Queensland House, ‘Efficiency was, of course, the outcome of the application of Taylorist principles to domestic practices.’2 In Australia the same desire for better housing was represented in a number of articles written by women published in Australian newspapers and journals arguing for more women to become architects as a means of developing efficient house planning via labour saving devices.

This paper will focus on Queensland, and specifically, how the state’s interwar women architects responded to the call for labour saving devices in houses. The first few articles that expressed the need for better housing and for women to become architects to solve the problems of Australian housing appeared in Queensland newspapers in the late 19th Century.3 This demand was instigated in tropical regions due to concerns around the additional strain of performing labour intensive domestic work in hot and humid climates.4 Queensland is also the focus of this paper as it is an important state in establishment of women to the profession of architecture. The

women: gender, planning and the geographies of the kitchen in Britain 1917‐1946.’ Cultural geographies 11, no. 1 (2004): 42‐60. 2 Jennifer Craik, ‘The cultural politics of the Queensland house.’ Continuum 3, no. 1 (1990): 188‐213. 3 Julie Willis also identified the first article of its kind in her paper, Willis, Julie. ‘Aptitude and Capacity: Published Views of the Australian Woman Architect.’ Architectural Theory Review 17, no. 2‐3 (2012): 317‐330. 4 Although there were no publications from the late 19th century that expressly talk about this, Raphael Cilento talks about failed attempts to populate tropical North Queensland and how the climate was especially difficult for women in Cilento, Raphael W. ‘The white man in the tropics.’ Service Publication 7 (1925) and conversations at town planning conferences including, Alexander Wilson, ‘Domestic Architecture for Tropical and Sub‐Tropical Australia’ in Second Australian Town Planning Conference and Exhibition 1918 Queensland Institute of Architects was the first in Australia to accept a membership application from a woman, Beatrice Hutton in 1916.5

Following the work of Dolores Hayden, Queensland’s interwar women architects were, arguably material feminists. Hayden described material feminists as those who maintained that, ‘women must control the socialisation of domestic work and childcare, attacked traditional conceptions of woman’s sphere economically, architecturally, and socially.’6 That is, they worked towards social change to subvert the status quo and this social change was enacted through architecture. In particular these architects were designing houses that prioritised labour saving devices in order to liberate women from the work associated with the house, freeing women to pursue interests outside of the home. As Jennifer Craik described, the presence of women in public life went hand in hand with changes in domestic life, especially with the increasing ease of work associated with the home. Craik wrote that, ‘while women's power in the home has declined in the shift from the role of manager to caretaker to servicer, this has occurred in a context in which women have been developing more active roles in non‐domestic life.’7

In the article that follows an overview of the newspaper articles in Queensland that called for more women to join the profession of architecture will be described. There will also be an overview of the women who sustained careers over a number of years and those who have been captured in the work of Donald Watson and Judith MacKay in their book A Directory of Queensland Architects to 1940.8 Information has also been gathered from the Queensland State Archives, journal and newspaper articles, along

5 Judith MacKay, ‘Designing women: pioneer architects.’ Journal of the Royal Historical Society of Queensland 20, no. 5 (2008): 169. 6 Delores Hayden, The grand domestic revolution: A history of feminist designs for American homes, neighborhoods, and cities 7 Jennifer Craik, ‘The cultural politics of the Queensland house.’ 8 Donald Watson and Judith McKay, A directory of Queensland architects to 1940 (The University of Queensland Library Press, 1984). with other primary resources. This article will not provide and an exhaustive list, there is still much research that needs to be completed and undoubtedly through this process more women would be identified. Ultimately, the article finds that Queensland was a progressive state in welcoming women to the male dominated profession of architecture. Queensland women were vocal in requesting better standards of housing to reduce labour intensive domestic work in the hot and humid tropics and subtropics and expressed the need for more women architects, who they felt would be better equipped to design suitable housing. Queensland’s early women architects responded to this and claimed professional territory by professing their abilities to design more efficient housing through labour saving devices.

A Positive Domestic Revolution

The call for women to engage in the profession of architecture in Australia came from various voices, but mostly from women who were not architects themselves. This was premised by the assumption that women were better equipped to design well functioning houses. These views were published in popular newspapers and magazines.

The value of women in domestic architecture was first mentioned in an article titled The

House in the Queensland Figaro in 18889, some 20 years before Australia would see its first female architect. In the article the author writes:

‘I am glad to see that it is proposed in London that there should be lady architects, as there

are already lady house‐decorators for let us hope, if a few of these reach Queensland, they

will give an impetus to their male competitors by planning something more satisfactory than

the domiciles we have at present.’10

9 Julie Willis also identifies this as the first article of its kind in her paper, Willis, Julie. ‘Aptitude and Capacity: Published Views of the Australian Woman Architect.’ Architectural Theory Review 17, no. 2‐3 (2012): 317‐330. 10 ‘The House,’ Queensland Figaro and Punch, 28 January 1888, 5&147 This article was the first of its kind to be found in an Australian newspaper.11 The article went on to say that:

‘There is little doubt that is Mrs. John Lane’s suggestion were seriously accepted, and women

duly qualified themselves as designers of houses, there would be set in a positive domestic

revolution which would ultimately bring about general comfort.’12

Nearly two decades later, another article appeared in 1905 in the Queenslander titled. ‘Women as Architects.’ This was the second occurrence of an article of this kind in

Australia and both of these early articles appeared in Queensland newspapers.13 The article proposed that:

‘If women took house planning in hand they would take comfort and the saving of labour into

consideration before anything. They would never put in needless windows, crooked stains,

or make square rooms where they were not absolutely compelled to do so; they would

certainly never make gaunt kitchens and squander space on huge areas. They would have a

place for every thing, they would design rooms for pretty effects, and everyone 'would see at

once that there had been a feminine finger in the architectural pie.’14

The attitudes expressed in these two articles would seem to be quite progressive, considering that it would be at least another 10 years before Australia, and indeed

Queensland, would see it’s first female architect, let alone a number of women architects. The article acknowledges there is still some way to go between the desire for women in architecture and women joining the profession, stating that, ‘But until women are able to demonstrate practically how a house should be built, it will never be possible

11 Julie Willis, ‘Aptitude and Capacity: Published Views of the Australian Woman Architect.’ 12 ‘The House,’ Queensland Figaro and Punch, 28 January 1888, 5&147 13 Julie Willis, ‘Aptitude and Capacity: Published Views of the Australian Woman Architect.’ 14 ‘Women as Architects’ Queenslander 1 July 1905, 7 to convince man that he does not know how to construct one for real comfort and economy of labour:’15

In the decades that followed this progressive attitude regressed with a number of articles placing limitations on the roles that women could play in the field of architecture. That while women knew about domestic planning, they would never be able to enjoy the role of a fully‐fledged architect. In an article titled, Women as

Architects’ Assistants – note the demotion from architect to architects’ assistant – that was published in the Bundaberg Mail and Burnett Advertiser in 1911, the author writes that:

‘It is not easy for a woman to make for herself an, independent career as a full‐fledged

architect. To many woman, with plenty of commonsense, and with a most practical eye for

domestic needs, the artistic sense of the architect is lacking, while the long and expensive

training, the physique, and the experience as well as the authority necessary to control all

kinds of work, are also handicaps.’16

The author elaborates, suggesting that women could be employed as architects’ assistants in offices, where they would advise the architects on how best to plan houses.17

Another article in the Bundaberg Mail published in 1923 titled, ‘Women as

Architects,’ suggested that domestic architecture in Australia would benefit from a

‘woman’s touch’ but at the same time placed limits on women’s capacity in the practice of architecture. The article suggested that women would be incapable of managing large and complex projects, arguing:

‘Architecture as a profession is quite as attractive to women as to men, but naturally women

are drawn to housing, interior decoration, garden design, and so on, rather than to the

15 ‘Women as Architects,’ Queenslander, 1 July 1905, 7 16 ‘Women as Architect’s Assistants’ Bundaberg Mail and Burnett Advertiser, 22 April 1911, 4 17 ‘Women as Architect’s Assistants’ Bundaberg Mail and Burnett Advertiser, 22 April 1911, 4 handling of large building schemes involving big contracts and complex constructional

problems.’18

Women architects, being superior at designing homes, were not then entering the profession of architecture, but extending on their existing skill set in the domestic sphere. This was a view that a few women architects knew would only harm their progress in the male dominated profession of architecture.

In an article published in the Telegraph in 1925, titled, ‘Women &

Architecture: a coming profession’ the poet, Alice Gore, challenges the notion that women are only suited to domestic architecture. Gore writes:

‘It is a mistake to think that women are only suited to domestic architecture. ‐ Mrs. P. D.

Phillips, of Melbourne, formerly Miss Lorna Lukin, of Brisbane, and a bachelor of architecture

at University, emphasized this in a recent interview… she pointed out that the branch

of the profession one adopted was largely decided by the talents and' inclination of the

individual, the question of sex being no determining factor whatsoever.’19

In this very well researched and articulate article, Gore challenged other perceived limitations placed on women architects. She interviewed Elina Mottram and Gore described how women experience no difficulty in supervising construction works on site:

‘It is often asked whether a woman architect can supervise her own work. It has been done

repeatedly in other countries, and is still being accomplished Miss Elina Mottram, the only

woman architect in Queensland to practise in an office of her own finds no difficulty at all in

connection with this branch of her profession:’20

One of the most influential critics of the notion that women designed better homes was Florence Taylor. She argued that this belief would place serious limitations on the

18 ‘Women as Architects,’ Bundaberg Mail, 5 September 1923, 2 19 Alice Gore, ‘Women & Architecture: a coming profession’ Telegraph, 3 January 1925, 13 20 Alice Gore, ‘Women & Architecture: a coming profession’ Telegraph, 3 January 1925, 13 careers of trained women architects. Taylor also, rather logically, argued that while women were studying, training and working in architecture, they had no time to be highly skilled in domestic duties. That in fact, once a woman had a degree in architecture her ability to design a house, based on her knowledge of housework, was no different to any of her male counterparts.21

In a 1930 article in the Brisbane Courier Mail titled, ‘The House that Jill Built: search for the ideal in the home,’ Miss Nellie Scanlan reported on a local home show and found the display of a house designed by women (the house that Jill built) very disappointing, she wrote, ‘And as I crept through the house that Jill built, I, for one am prepared to leave architecture to the men, if this is the best that women can do. It was a rabbit warren of little rooms and recesses. Elimination has become an obsession.’22 Whether

Queensland’s women architects felt they were superior at domestic architecture or not, at the very least, all of this discussion around women and designing homes provided them with a catalyst into the profession. As such, it started the conversation of women becoming architects.

Queensland’s Interwar women architects and their labour saving devices

Queensland’s early women architects were vocal in local media and gatherings about the specific skills they could bring to improve the condition of housing in

Queensland. They also demonstrated their abilities in residential design through their practice of architecture and this will be discussed through the limited remaining examples of houses that can be attributed to a few women architects. The architects introduced in this article are: Lily Addison and Beatrice Hutton who were articled in

21 Julie Willis. ‘Aptitude and Capacity: Published Views of the Australian Woman Architect.’ 22 ‘The House that Jill Built: search for the ideal in the home,’ Brisbane Courier, 3 May 1930, 21 architectural practices and promoted to senior roles during World War I; Dorothy

Brennan, Ursula Jones, Elina Mottram, Juanita Pye and Eunice Slaughter, who all completed the Diploma of Architecture at the Brisbane Central Technical College; and

Olive Cannan, Lorna Lukin and Nell McCredie who completed the Bachelor of architecture at the University of Sydney.

The interwar period saw Queensland’s first identifiable cohort of female architects.

As Julie Willis wrote, ‘Without a doubt, the entry of women into the profession in

Australia began in earnest from the 1920s in multiple locations.’23 The emergence of women in the profession in Queensland can be attributed to two main factors. The first circumstance was they were engaged or promoted in architectural offices throughout

World War I to fill in for architects serving overseas for the Australian Army. This provided an opportunity for a few women to gain experience in senior roles within architectural practices and then go on to enjoy long, sustained careers in architecture.

The other reason for the emergence of women architects at this time was the formalisation of architectural education through University and Technical college qualifications. In 1918 The University of Sydney established their Bachelor of

Architecture programme and the Brisbane Central Technical College, now the

Queensland University of Technology, commenced their Diploma of Architecture Course.

These two architecture programmes were the courses at which Queensland’s interwar women architects trained.

Prior to the establishment of courses in architecture, an entrance to the profession of architecture could only be attained through articles, which relied on practices being willing to employ female architects and few practices were open to this idea. The women who were able to find articled positions largely did so through familial contacts, and this opportunity was mostly only afforded to women of middle to upper class

23 Julie Willis. ‘Aptitude and Capacity: Published Views of the Australian Woman Architect.’ standing.24 Julie Willis and Bronwyn Hanna have done much to document the lives and work of Australia’s early women architects, especially in New South Wales and Victoria in their book titled, Australian Women Architects 1900 – 1950.25 Judith McKay was the first to identify Queensland’s early women architects and her work has been published in journal articles in 198826 and 200827.

The first institute of architects to accept an application from a female member,

Beatrice Hutton, who was the first woman member of the Queensland Institute of

Architects in 1916. 28 Florence Taylor, who is widely believed to be Australia’s first woman architect, had her initial applications in New South Wales for membership rejected until it was finally accepted in 1920.29 Judith Mackay has theorized that

Queensland’s advanced attitudes toward women in the profession were due to two prominent Queensland architects’ daughters taking up drafting and architecture, being

Juanita Pye, daughter of who has a prominent architect at the time, and Lily Addison, the daughter of high profile Queensland practitioner George (G.HM.) Addison.30 Despite the auspiciousness of the first woman architect, a history of women in architecture in Queensland has received limited attention. There are only three buildings on Queensland’s heritage register that were designed by women, two by Elina Mottram31 and one by Nell McCredie32.

24 Julie Willis and Bronwyn Hanna, Women architects in Australia, 1900‐1950 (Royal Australian Institute of Architects, 2001) 25 Willis and Hanna, Women architects in Australia, 1900‐1950 26 Judith MacKay ‘Queensland’s Early Women Architects,’ Transition (RMIT, Melbourne, 1988). 27 Judith MacKay. ‘Designing women: pioneer architects.’ Journal of the Royal Historical Society of Queensland 20, no. 5 (2008): 169. 28 Judith MacKay. ‘Designing women: pioneer architects.’ 29 Willis and Hanna, Women architects in Australia, 1900‐1950 30 Judith MacKay. ‘Designing women: pioneer architects.’ 31 Queensland Sate Heritage Register, Scott Street Flats by Elina Mottram https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/heritage‐register/detail/?id=601171 and Monkton House by Elina Mottram https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/heritage‐register/detail/?id=601170 32 Queensland State Heritage Register, Uanda House by Nell McCredie https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/heritage‐register/ The earliest known women architects in Queensland all had careers that started before the interwar period. Lily Addison worked in her Father’s practice, GHM Addison and Son, commencing her articles in 1906. Throughout the First World War Addison took on a role of responsibility while her brother served in the war. She worked until

1928, then retired and moved to Sydney.33 Very little has been written about Addison’s career to date, and as she worked within a private practice securing records of her employment and any projects that she may have worked on are difficult to locate.

A few years later, Dorothy (Dolly) Brennan started working for the Queensland State

Government’s Department of Public Works as a draftswoman in 1910. In 1920 Brennan gave evidence at an arbitration court arguing for equal pay for draftswomen, who were at that time paid significantly less to produce the same quality and volume of work as a draftsman.34 She was then retrenched from the public service in 1921, working briefly for a private practice, Evans, Deakin and Co., before returning to the public service in

1923 as an Architectural Assistant.35 Brennan trained at the Brisbane Central Technical

College attaining her Diploma of Architecture in 1923. Brennan won medals for her student work and for design competitions from the Queensland Institute of Architects.36

She also designed and supervised the construction of her parents’ home.37 Despite

Brennan’s long career in the public service and apparent skills and talents in architecture, she was never promoted to the position of architect, but remained an architectural assistant until she retired in 1944.38

Women architects occasionally gave lectures at the Brisbane Women’s Club, an institution that was formed in 1908. For example, there are two lectures that were given

33 Donald Watson, and Judith McKay. A Directory of Queensland architects to 1940, 124 34 ‘Public Service Claims in Arbitration Courts,’ Telegraph, 13 July 1920, 2 35 ‘Retrenchment in Works Department Numerous Dismissals’, Telegraph, 30 July 1921, 10 and Donald Watson, and Judith McKay. A Directory of Queensland architects to 1940, 26 36 Alice Gore, Women in Architecture: a coming profession 37 ‘What Women are Doing,’ Telegraph, 25 March 1933, 8 38 Judith MacKay, ‘Designing women: pioneer architects.’ by architects on residential design, one by Olive Cannan in 1928 and another by Dolly

Brennan in 1929. Brennan’s lecture covered a history of Queensland’s housing and then went on to talk about the, ‘modern home, which again shows foreign influences. Built‐in furniture, fittings, and labour saving devices received careful attention.’39 The term

‘labour saving devices’ is recurrent throughout the lectures given and articles written by these pioneering women in architecture. This is why I propose that these women were material feminists, not just in their pursuit of a male dominated profession, but that in becoming architects and designing houses, they could free women from the demands of domestic work. Enacting social change, enabling women to pursue professional or social conquests outside of the home.

Juanita Pye worked for the Queensland government’s Department of Public Works filling in for absent male architectural staff who were serving in the first world war. She then went on to study subjects that were available in architecture (before the diploma qualification was formalised) at the Brisbane Central Technical College between 1916 and 1918. She then relocated to Sydney around 1920 to work for Florence Taylor on her journal publication Building.40 She was the daughter of Thomas Pye, who was the

Queensland Government’s most senior architect in the early 20th century and carried significant influence within the Queensland Institute of Architects. It has been suggested that Thomas Pye, was sympathetic to plight of women in architecture due to his daughter’s own profession/involvement. Judith McKay argues, that this was the reason why Queensland was more progressive than other states in accepting women into the profession.41

Perhaps the most successful and under celebrated Australian woman architect is

Beatrice Hutton. Hutton was articled in 1913 to EM Hockings architects until 1916,

39 ‘Domestic Architecture,’ Brisbane Courier, 15 November 1929, 24 40 Donald Watson, and Judith McKay. A Directory of Queensland architects to 1940, 182 41 McKay, Judith. ‘Designing women: pioneer architects.’ when she became the first woman in Australia to be accepted as a member of Institute of

Architects. Throughout the First World War she stepped up into the role of chief draftsman in this practice. She then moved to Sydney where she worked for CW

Chambers and by 1930 she became a partner in that firm, CW Chambers and BM

Hutton.42 During this time she designed the Masonic Club in Sydney along with designs for Wool stores, apartment blocks as well as a number of houses.43 There is some evidence that she had a significant role in the design of the Masonic Club in Sydney, however the heritage register in New South Wales only attributed this building to her partner CW Chamber.44 Hutton’s lack of attribution in the design of this building is a pertinent example of the issue of authorship in architecture and demonstrates how women have been so often overlooked in architectural history. The complex nature of the authorship of buildings is one reason for the lack of representation of women in architectural history.45 While her career in architecture was substantial she did not attract a great deal of attention to her pioneering endeavours as a woman in architecture.

On the Queensland State Heritage Register there is one house, The Rudd Residence in (1923), which has been identified as possibly the work of Hutton. In the statement accompanying the house it describes how Hutton’s designs for houses were significant for their wide and timber detailing to shade the outside of the house. This would appear to be a climatic response to the hot and humid climate of

Rockhampton.46 In 1930 an article titled, ‘Woman Who Helped Plan Masonic Club’,

42 Donald Watson, and Judith McKay. A Directory of Queensland architects to 1940, 54 43 ‘Miss Beatrice Hutton Architect: success in Sydney,’ Morning Bulletin Rockhampton, 3 February 1930, 7 44 New South Wales Heritage Register, Community Building: Masonic Hall Including Interior, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2423976 45 Willis and Hanna, Women architects in Australia, 1900‐1950 46 Queensland Heritage Register, Rudd Residence https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/heritage/register/ featured in the Rockhampton Evening Times celebrating the appointment of Beatrice

Hutton as a director with CW Chambers’ practice. Here Hutton is described as:

‘A very modest woman with a strong, but feminine personality. Miss Hutton shows, by her,

neatly, silken clad ankles, that no woman needs to ape the man in order to' do 'a man's job.’47

Despite the article’s title and Hutton’s portfolio of public buildings and apartment blocks, it presents that Hutton is mostly interested in designing houses:

‘Great buildings, may be: the ambition of some architects', but Miss Hutton is mostly

interested in homes. When she is working on a plan of a house, the work is more to her than

a daily job — it is a hobby that fascinates.’48

Throughout the article she is quoted giving detailed and professional advice about the planning and design of internal spaces for homes.

The term hobby is of particular interest in this article. Given that architects only designed a very small percentage of houses at the time, was residential architecture not seen as a professional pursuit? It could be interpreted from this article that an amateur was seen as capable of designing a house. Therefore were women able to enter the profession as pseudo professionals, limited to the design of houses? This alone justified the reservation of some women architects to embrace the notion that they were somehow superior at designing houses. However, the women who accepted the correlation with domesticity were proposing to design them in a way that would liberate all women from physical and time demanding domestic chores via labour saving devices.

Another quiet achiever was Elina Mottram who completed her Diploma of

Architecture at the Brisbane Central Technical College in 1925. She then worked as a director of her own practice briefly in Brisbane and then in regional centres of

47 Woman Who Helped Plan Masonic Club Evening News, 1 February 1930, 12 48 Woman Who Helped Plan Masonic Club Evening News, 1 February 1930, 12 Queensland in Rockhampton and Longreach.49 Mottram’s career as a private practitioner was prolific, producing the designs for numerous buildings during the interwar period.50 Unlike many of her counterparts whose careers were cut short by either marriage or the Great Depression in the 1930s, Mottram maintained a steady flow of work through to the early 1940s. Throughout the Second World War she was hired by the US Army engineering office, and after the war became the first woman to be hired in the construction department of Queensland Railways. Here she designed the Eagle

Junction Train Station, in Brisbane. Mottram also taught architecture courses at the

BCTC.51 Two of her buildings are listed on the Queensland State Heritage Register including a block of flats at Kangaroo Point and a house in Corinda (both in Brisbane).52

She also designed the Longreach Town Hall and another block of flats in New Farm in

Brisbane along with a number of houses.53

In the citations accompanying Mottram’s houses on the Queensland State Heritage

Register, both have given significance to Mottram’s innovative design approach to internal storage and labour saving devices. The Scott Street Flats (1925), which were in themselves a very early example of purpose built flats in Brisbane, contained a number of advanced interior detailing for housing in Queensland. This included, ‘The amount of built‐in storage is a significant feature ‐ the kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms are all equipped with sensibly detailed, space efficient units.’54 As well as, ‘The two‐way drawers and narrow from maid's room to entry hall are features that allowed the residents to maintain their genteel lifestyles in the new domestic environment of a flat.’

49 Donald Watson, and Judith McKay. A Directory of Queensland architects to 1940, 101 50 Numerous Advertisements for tenders in the Brisbane Telegraph and Courier Mail in the 1920s 51 Donald Watson, and Judith McKay. A Directory of Queensland architects to 1940, 101 52 Queensland Heritage Register, Scott Street Flats by Elina Mottram https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/heritage‐register/detail/?id=601171 and Monkton House by Elina Mottram https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/heritage‐register/detail/?id=601170 53 ‘Plans for New Shire Hall Approved: Isisford Council,’ Morning Bulletin Rockhampton, 25 January 1939, 5 54 Queensland Heritage Register, Scott Street Flats by Elina Mottram https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/heritage‐register/detail/?id=601171 and Monkton House by Elina Mottram https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/heritage‐register/detail/?id=601170 Purpose built joinery and storage units were rarely included in housing the interwar period, which makes Mottram’s designs for housing historically significant. These same advanced features of interior detailing were found in Mottram’s Monkton house, where the statement on the heritage listing describes:

‘Early built‐in joinery cabinets are located throughout the house including a linen press

extending to the ceiling in the hallway, a former servery, cupboards and a pantry/broom

cupboard extending to the ceiling in the kitchen, a wardrobe with storage cupboards

extending to the ceiling in the main bedroom and a cupboard in the parlour.’55

While Mottram’s views weren’t published in newspapers, her contribution to improving domestic architecture in the interwar period is evident in the remaining identified houses that she designed.

In addition to these Queensland trained women, three others completed a Bachelor of Architecture at the University Sydney. Lorna Lukin graduated in 1922, Olive Cannan graduated in 1926 and Nell McCredie graduated in 1923. All three of these women gave public lectures, wrote articles and were quoted in newspapers and magazines on good design principles for domestic architecture. Perhaps the academic training at the

University of Sydney provided them with the capacity to continue researching after completing their studies and communicate their views in the media, or at least they felt it was important for the general public to know about good domestic architecture.56

Cannan only worked very briefly as a practicing architect before marrying and then leaving the workforce. However, in her short three years as an architect she travelled to the west coast of America to study Californian architecture and upon her return to

55 Queensland Heritage Register, Scott Street Flats by Elina Mottram https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/heritage‐register/detail/?id=601171 and Monkton House by Elina Mottram https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/heritage‐register/detail/?id=601170 56 The course at the University of Sydney was under the leadership of Professor Leslie Wilkinson who did feel that knowledge of architecture should be common to everyone, and this may be why these women were more likely to write and speak about architecture. This is discussed in the book, Wilkinson, D., P. Johnson, and G. Molnar. Leslie Wilkinson, A Practical Idealist (Valadon Publishing, 1982). Brisbane she gave public lectures on developing climatically appropriate housing for

Brisbane. Her lecture delivered in 1928 at the Brisbane Women’s Club covered ‘labour‐ saving devices in homes, and making homes attractive not only internally but externally.’57 In the lecture she elaborated on a Mediterranean approach to architecture, in particular Spanish Mission, as well as other features presented with:

‘A most interesting series of lantern slides was shown by the speaker, illustrating houses and

interiors, built‐in furniture, and the grouping of small five‐roomed cottages round a central

garden court…The kitchen was a place in which the central idea was the saving of work.’58

Conversations around efficiency and labour saving in the kitchen were of the zeitgeist in the interwar period. Not only by the women’s groups in America and the

United Kingdom as mentioned previously but also by architects in Western Europe.

Most famously in 1926 Austrian architect Margarete Schütte‐Lihotzky designed the

Frankfurt Kitchen for Enst May’s social housing project in Germany.59

Lorna Lukin was part of the first cohort to graduate from the University of Sydney’s architecture programme. Originally from Brisbane, she moved to Melbourne after getting married in 1923.60 She continued to practice architecture after having a family, which was seen as progressive at the time. She later commented in a Brisbane newspaper that there was no reason why women couldn’t continue to have professional lives after getting married or having children.61 Nell McCredie came to Queensland from

Sydney in 1925 after working for various firms in Sydney.62 Initially she worked in

Cairns before moving to Brisbane and commenced work in the State Advances

57 ‘Miss Olive Cannan, B.Arch Architect,’ Brisbane Courier, 17 February 1927, 20 58 ‘Brisbane Women’s Club,’ Brisbane Courier, 3 August 1928, 22 59 Mark Lewellyn, ‘Designed by women and designing women: gender, planning and the geographies of the kitchen in Britain 1917‐1946.’ 60 ‘Early women students: Lorna Lukin,’ http://sydney.edu.au/arms/archives/history/students_early_women_Lukin.shtml 61 Domestic Architecture, Mrs Philips Interviewed, Week Brisbane, 11 September 1925, 26 62 Nell McCredie Employment Statement, Department of Public Works, 1928, Queensland State Archives document: WOR/A Department of Public Works Administration series files Corporation for the Workers’ Dwelling Branch. 63 She also completed a number of private commissions, one of which, Uanda House, is listed on Queensland’s Heritage

Register.64 McCredie left the Workers’ Dwelling Branch in 1928 and returned to Sydney in 1932 where she continued to practice architecture alongside running a successful ceramics studio.65

In the Heritage listing for Uanda House, McCredie’s attention to detail in the design and layout of joinery for labour saving devices is described of as of major historical significance to the house. The citation describes that:

‘The kitchen had built‐in cupboards; the bathroom had a laundry chute connecting to a

cupboard in the laundry beneath the house; the lounge opened onto the entry hall through

four large glass paneled ; the lounge and main bedroom were wallpapered.’

In the figure one, the original drawings for Uanda House, the internal detailing is central to the design of the house not only in the floor plan, but through the inclusion of internal elevations describing joinery details. This includes the location and height of shelving. The discovery of a drawing for a building designed by a woman architect in

Australia in the interwar period is very rare and the ability to wholly attribute

McCredie’s authorship of Uanda House is a very valuable discovery to the history of

Australian architecture.

63 Nell McCredie Employment Statement, Department of Public Works, 1928, Queensland State Archives document: WOR/A Department of Public Works Administration series files 64 Queensland Heritage Register, Uanda House by Nell McCredie https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/heritage‐register/ 65 Kirsty Volz. ‘Women on the Heritage Register: the case of Nellie McCredie and Uanda House.’ Proceedings of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand: 30, Open 2 (2013): 543‐552. Figure one: McCredie’s drawings for Uanda House in the Brisbane suburb of Wilston. Access to drawing supplied by architect’s family.

Alongside McCredie at the Workers’ Dwelling Branch66 (WDB) were Eunice

Slaughter and Ursula Jones. Slaughter studied with Elina Mottram and graduated with a

Diploma of Architecture at the BCTC in 1925. She worked briefly for Lange Powell architects in Brisbane. 67 In 1925 she joined the WDB as a temporary draftsperson became permanent in 1926.68 McCredie and Slaughter were hired at the same time and the Department of Public Works celebrated the appointment of two draftswomen in the

WDB by placing an advertisement in the Courier Mail.69 Slaughter stayed with the WDB until 1937 when she retired due to marriage.70

Eunice Slaughter’s views on women in the profession of architecture demonstrated the camaraderie between women architecture in the interwar period. In ‘Architecture

66 The Worker’s Dwelling Branch was a government organization that provided loans to middle earning Queenslanders for the purposes of building new houses. These houses were architecturally designed. Judy Rechner has completed research into the work produced by this department Rechner, Judy. ‘Houses for Queenslanders of small means?: Workers' dwellings in old Coorparoo Shire, 1910‐40.’ (Master of Arts Thesis, University of Queensland, 1998). 67 Nell McCredie Employment Statement, Department of Public Works, 1928, Queensland State Archives document: WOR/A 1194 Department of Public Works Administration series files 68 Queensland State Archives: Queensland Public Service Blue Books 69 ‘Department of Works,’ Telegraph Brisbane, 3 September 1926, 5 70 Donald Watson and Judith McKay. A directory of Queensland architects to 1940, 178 for women as a profession’ Eunice Slaughter boasts about the success of her women colleagues in architecture and encourages more women to join the profession.71 She reiterates the importance of design for efficiency for domestic work, arguing for,

‘Labour‐saving ideas included placing the laundry under the same roof as the remainder of the house and the kitchen within easy distance of both the dining and bedrooms’72 At the conclusion of the article she enthusiastically supported the suitability of women for the profession of architecture. She wrote that, ‘I think architecture is a splendid profession for women and one for which they, possess a special aptitude.’73

Jones was employed as a building cadet in 1926 and gradually worked her way up the ranks within the WDB becoming an assistant draftswoman in 1931 and then a draftswoman in 1937.74 She graduated with the Diploma of Architecture from the BCTC in 1933. In 1939 Jones retired due to marriage.75 Even though McCredie, Slaughter and

Jones all possessed qualifications in architecture and were registered architects, they were only ever appointed as draftswomen. This may have been due to their job roles not requiring on site supervision of construction, but it most certainly placed limitations on their earning capacity. However, their work at WDB provided them with enough autonomy to develop their own approach to domestic architecture, something that both

Slaughter and McCredie were very proud of.

Women Architects in Queensland designed houses in both urban and rural settings, and worked in private practices, for government departments, as well as practice directors of architectural firms. The assertion that women were better at designing houses was problematic in that it dichotomised architecture into a female sphere for

71 ‘Architecture for women as a profession: Miss Eunice Slaughter’s views,’ Telegraph Brisbane, 2 July 1936, 16 72 ‘Architecture for women as a profession: Miss Eunice Slaughter’s views’ 73 ‘Architecture for women as a profession: Miss Eunice Slaughter’s views’ 74 Nell McCredie Employment Statement, Department of Public Works, 1928, Queensland State Archives document: WOR/A 1194 Department of Public Works Administration series files 75 Donald Watson and Judith McKay. A directory of Queensland architects to 1940, 89 houses and a male sphere for all other buildings. It represented women architects as separate to that of a fully‐fledged male architect who was capable of designing any building. The association between women and domesticity was also problematic due to the long history of women being oppressed within the home, as Jennifer Craik wrote,

‘the home is closely related to the construction of the contemporary position of women by confining women physically within the home, cutting them off from the outside world. An effect of this confinement is to construct a realm of domestic power which is distinct from, and subordinated to, other domains of power.’76 The work of Queensland’s interwar women architects, however, was not limited to residential work. They worked on commercial, public and civic buildings as well. Despite this, when these women were asked about their opinions of architecture in the public domain, they would always assert their preference for designing houses.

Conclusion

What is important to note here is that the domestic architecture created by women, is for women. In these instances, women are designing houses to make the lives of other women better. Further, the introduction of women to the profession of architecture has largely been instigated by women ‐or at least, this is how these early women in architecture are portrayed in the media. However, we know that architects such as

Beatrice Hutton and Elina Mottram were in fact designing buildings other than houses.

They were also designing public buildings such as halls, in Hutton’s case the Masonic

Hall (no less) in Sydney, multi‐residential and industrial buildings. So, was all of this discussion around women and their assumed natural ability design homes beneficial to their careers in architecture? Enabling them to carve out a niche within the male dominated profession of architecture, or did it restrict women to residential architecture and exclude them enjoying fully‐fledged careers in architecture?

76 Jennifer Craik, ‘The cultural politics of the Queensland house,’ 12 Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to these questions. However, it did undoubtedly side‐line women to a separate sphere of architecture to the work that men architects did, it dichotomised architecture into buildings that men designed and buildings that women designed. However, discussions around domestic architecture did open the door to talking about women in architecture in the interwar period and how they would fit into the profession. In some ways it created the need for women in the profession, not that it would be just a good idea to include women, but that in fact, women were needed in the profession of architecture to improve housing standards in

Australia. And I would also argue that all of this discussion around women and domestic design was aimed at improving the lives of women, both women architects and non‐ architects. Either by encouraging them into the profession of architecture or by improving women’s lives by liberating women from labour intensive domestic work.

Queensland’s interwar women architects were practicing at a time of significant change in Australian domesticity and the role that women played in managing the home.

Jennifer Craik summarises this shift as it, ‘gradually changed with the entry of women into the workforce; the loss of household staff; the emergence of the concept of home management and of the category of the housewife; new practices of child rearing; the coming of gas, electricity and plumbing; and the invention of labour saving devices. The kitchen was to become a specialised, customized laboratory for the display of efficiency.’77 The conversations in newspaper articles concerning housing and labour saving devices in Australia are a popular topic up until the late 1950s. Even today, in the

21st century, advertising for household products is primarily concerned with proving that it can minimise daily labour.

Some theorists have argued that this focus on labour saving devices only diminished the importance of women’s unpaid domestic labour and ultimately further undermined

77 Jennifer Craik, ‘The cultural politics of the Queensland house,’ 16 women’s position in society.78 Others have argued that reducing women’s unpaid domestic labour did nothing to alter women’s place in the home. Ann Curthoys wrote that, ‘the ideology of 'woman's place' ensured that labour saving devices did not secure the housewife's emancipation from the home.’79 While these are valid arguments, labour saving devices provided the platform from which early women architects in Queensland could launch their careers.

Queensland appears to have been progressive in its acceptance of women architects in comparison to institutes for architecture in other Australian states. The first published conversation about women becoming architects appears in Queensland newspapers. Additionally, the Queensland Institute of Architecture was the first to accept a woman as a member in Australia. In a 1925 newspaper interview, Lorna Lukin stated that opportunities for women architects in Queensland were much better than what she had found in Melbourne, ‘‘I understand,’ she said, ‘that in Queensland you are more fortunate in this respect than we are in the south. For women architects the ‘ice cannot be said to have been really broken in Melbourne.’’80 In the article, she also expresses the importance of labour saving devices in domestic architecture but that women architects should not feel as through their careers should be limited to designing houses.81

78 Jennifer Craik, ‘The cultural politics of the Queensland house,’ 11 79 Ann Curthoys, ‘Towards a feminist labour history.’ Labour History 29 (1975): 88‐95. 80 ‘Domestic Architecture, Mrs. Phillips Interviewed,’ Week Brisbane, 11 September 1925, 26 81 ‘Domestic Architecture, Mrs. Phillips Interviewed’