In 1932 the Piccadilly line was extended to Arnos Grove, then Southgate and Cockfosters. Although Palmers Green did not get an Underground station it did mean much more development in the surrounding area. By 1936 Palmers Green was fully built up.The only open spaces left shown on the source map were the parks. Southgate council had taken a decision to preserve some of the parks left in the area and as result even today Palmers Green has a high amount of parks.
Edmonton was from as far back as 1867 already more developed than Palmers Green and had a high number of houses build around a main road Fore Street. There was lots of traffic along Fore Street because it was the main road to Cambridge. There were also lots of inns where people could take a break from their journey and let their horses have a rest.In 1872 though this changed because Great Eastern Railway opened a direct line to Liverpool Street with a station at Silver Street. This had a dramatic effect on the area. Parliament had added a clause into the Company’s Act of 1864 obliging the Great Eastern Railway to offer a cheap workmen’s fare on the new line as far north as Enfield Town.This allowed basically working class people to move into the area. Between 1871 and 1881 the number of houses went from 2539 to 3887.
By 1894 the Ordinance Survey map shows that Edmonton had changed from a rural, genteel outer – London village to a more densely populated working class suburb. Houses and new roads were added to the Fore Street area. It was considered a poor but respectable area of mostly working class people, artisans and clerks, but there was overcrowding which caused some health problems.
By 1914 Edmonton was much more developed with new industries such as a gas works, shot gun factory and a timber yard and during the first World War an ammunitions factory was added. This meant that Edmonton became a military target for German bombing. The factories were destroyed but luckily residential areas were missed.The map of 1938 shows the completion of Edmonton to a fully built up suburban area with tighly packed housing crammed in at up to forty an acre.Trees were not much in evidence within the grid-iron street pattern.
Question 2
In 1867 as the source maps show Palmers Green was already far less developed than Edmonton. The main reason for this was because the landed gentry that lived there and owned the majority of the land wanted to preserve it. The fact that gentry lived there or in close proximity suggests that it was a respectable area. No gentry lived in Edmonton. This was an area where artisans and clerks lived along side some middle class people.
Two main factors impacted the development of Edmonton and Palmers Green into different types of residential area.Firstly the refusal of the wealthy landowners in Southgate and Winchmore Hill to sell their estates until the beginning of the 20th Century although Palmers Green had had a Great Northern Railway station since 1871 and the land therefore was very valuable.Secondly the arrival in Edmonton also in the 1870’s of the Great Eastern Railway with the stipulation by Parliament that cheap workmen’s fares had to be made available as far north as Enfield Town. This allowed the working classes the option of moving out into a semi-rural surrounding while still being able to afford to commute into the inner city factories and workshops.
When the rich landowners eventually sold up and moved out the type of housing constructed in Palmers Green also served to attract well to do middle classes. The new housing was all aimed at a solidly middle-class market with spacious four- bedroomed villas with leasehold prices at around 500-600 pounds. To buy a house in Edmonton during the same period would have cost 150-300 pounds. There was therefore an essential difference between the social class of the type of people who lived in Edmonton than in Palmers Green. The professional people who commuted to well paid jobs in London saw themselves as socially superior to their neighbours in Edmonton.This was reinforced by not only the expensive housing but also the general layout of the area with it’s green spaces and exclusive shops in the High Street. In Edmonton the cheap fares and lower quality housing had led to “not only the homeless people coming to live but many others deserted their one room in the crowded parts of London for a whole house” as observed by Alfred Palmer in his 1936 booklet “Old Edmonton”.
These social differences were highlighted in 1881 when Southgate, Winchmore hill and Palmers Green decided they wanted to breakaway from their eastern neighbour Edmonton and set up a separate authority. They wanted to control their essentially middle class areas away from the increasing working class population in Edmonton. They felt that association with Edmonton lowered the tone of the area. They also felt that money collected in rates would be spent mostly on resolving the health problems in Edmonton.
Question 3
The main social problems in the Orchard Street and Eaton Place areas of Edmonton during the middle of the 19th century were overcrowding, unemployment and unsanitary living conditions leading to severe health problems. The extract from the 1851 census shows 14 people living in No 3 and 15 in No 4 Orchard Street. With so many people living in one house and with lots of different age groups there must have been arguments. Most of the people living in the houses are unmarried and not all of them have jobs. The most common jobs were labourers which tells us that the people living in the house were working class. Most people living along Orchard Street were from England but there were also a few from Ireland. In one house in Eaton place there were seven people from Ireland which included three separate families. Most of the people living along Orchard street were unmarried with not many families. Some of those unemployed were children but not all of them. Some people as young as 15 had jobs.
There were also lots of cases of disease which included acute inflammatory, diarrhoea and malignant typhus. With overcrowding disease must have spread very quickly throughout the occupants living in the house. The number of people suffering from disease in Claremont street was 32 people with diarrhoea and other diseases. The main cause of these health problems was according to Source J the report to the general board of health 1850 that Claremont street had bad drainage and “cleanliness was not a priory”.
The people who owned the houses did little to make sure their houses were kept clean. The report says that ‘Ventilating and cleansing the dwellings of the poorer class are on the lowest scale’. And that ‘so much neglect on the part of the owners in making ordinary provisions for cleanliness on the part of the tenants’. Allowing so many people to live in their houses was also irresponsible on their part. Because of the inadequate water supply the tenants themselves rarely washed and this is also attracted disease. The rooms were also badly ventilated which would have allowed the disease to be spread rapidly.
Tenants also had to share beds with in one case up to six members of a family sleeping in one bed. This can not be healthy because the sheets I am sure were rarely washed and so were the tenants. The effects must have been not only physical but also mental because it must have been very clauastrophic to share a bed with five other people, every one needs to have their own space.
