A remarkable, though late, example of architecture stemming from the AEsthetic and Arts and Crafts Movements has been overlooked to the extent that it is not even mentioned in the relevant volume of Buildings of England.1 This complex of house and two studios at 92-96 Carlton Hill, St John's Wood, London, has the added interest for historians of sculpture that it was largely conceived by its owner, the sculptor Sir George Frampton, for his own use and that of his wife, the painter Christabel Frampton (nee Cockerell). It was designed in 1908, in the same year that Frampton received his knighthood, and was completed in 1910. This customized house and studio complex noteworthily departed from the exotic and historicist display exemplified in Lawrence Alma Tadema's Roman-style villa in nearby Grove End Road, or more famously in Leighton House. Its residential quarters, if not its workspaces, are noticeably more restrained than those of Frampton's previous residence at Queen's Road (now Queen's Grove), in another part of St John's Wood. What Frampton aimed at in his property was, he declared, 'not a so-called artistic house, but a house that an artist would like to live in'.2 As for the adjoining sculpture studio, it was a severely practical space, 'with no pretence of adornment'.3 Demonstratively rejecting the resplendent theatricality of the Victorian masters, the Carlton Hill buildings have much more in common with the houses and studios designed in the early 1900s by Joseph Maria Olbrich for the artists' colony in Darmstadt, though they remain very recognizably English.Viewed from the street, the complex is somewhat deceptive in its air of suburban normality, at least judging by standards set for us in the 1930s and later (figs. 1 and 2). The bay windows of the central block, with their multiplicity of mullions and glazing bars, produce a countrified, vernacular effect. The deep, unmodulated cornices of all three blocks, as well as the extensive overhang of the roofs, punctuated by flat-ended brackets, give a generous feeling of horizontality. At the same time, the plunging screen wall linking the central to the side blocks at first-floor level counters the predominant rectilin- earity. The smaller size of the subsidary block on the north-east side provides a slight element of asymmetry, hardly noticeable, since the house is generally approached from up or down hill. The overall effect is of imposing symmetry, lent a picturesque aspect by the sloping site. That anything so homogeneous was achieved may come as a surprise when we learn that the house and the block adjoining it to the south-west (the block on the other side, containing Frampton's studio was a totally new addition) were make-overs to already existing structures (fig. 3). The original house, with its free-standing stable block, had been built in 1873 by a pub architect, James Miller, for a publican named George Speedy, and had already had three owners by the time Frampton purchased it.4 The sculptor, on becoming its owner, was not prepared to settle for what was later described as 'a mid-Victorian suburban house of a commonplace and ugly type'.5 Miller's elevations were those of a Venetian renaissance palazzo, tamed and cut down to size, and hardly conformed to Frampton's idea of a home. For the practical implementation of his idea, he had the sense to bring in the already eminent architect Guy Dawber, at that time living close by. Dawber signed the drawings and was responsible for negotiations with the London County Council, but the building's exterior bears little resemblance to Dawber's other works. An article for The Studio of April 1910 proclaims that, for its owner, the building was 'the fulfillment of a long cherished plan of building for himself a residence in which he could embody his own ideas of construction and decoration'. For the author of this article, 92-96 Carlton Hill was Frampton's own brainchild, and nowhere in the quite considerable space given to describing it is the name of Dawber once mentioned, whereas it is stated that 'the new house shows naturally, in numberless details the impress of the mind of the original and gifted artist by whom it was projected'. …
Read full abstract