Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Footnotes

  • Comment

1. Andrew Saint, Richard Norman Shaw. Yale University Press, 1976, p187

2. According to Shaw's son Robert who was no doubt expressing his father's opinion (Saint, p186)

3. The Architect and Building News, 6.8.1932, pp238-9

4. The Architect, 7.8.1875, p344

5. Nikolaus Pevsner, Pioneers of the Modern Movement (p64 of 1975 edition which was retitled Pioneers of Modernism)

6. Saint p186

7. The Architect and Building News, 6 August 1932 pp238-9

8. See the set of drawings in the BAL/RIBA Drawings Collection RAN/5/G/4

9. The Architectural Review, November 1952, p303

10. Drawings in BAL/RIBA Drawings Collection, RAN 5/G/2

11. The Architectural Review, April 1975, pp220-225

12. Andrew Saint in his Richard Norman Shaw points out the influential role that the plan of Chesters played in the development of the Arts and Crafts butterfly X-plan house during the next couple of decades (p 332). However, Peter Davey in his Arts and Crafts Architecture (p 71 of the 1980 edition) writes that an 'equally probable' influence on Prior was Hector Horeau's long demolished house of 1856 which stood in Avenue Road, St John's Wood, London, near Prior's house, which had two wings set at 45degrees to the central hexagonal portion of the house

13. BAL/RIBA Drawings Collection RAN 5/g/13

14. Peter Davey, Arts and Crafts Architecture, p73

15. John Ruskin, The Stones of Venice, 1853, Chapter Three, 'The Nature of Gothic', p161

16. The Architectural Review, April 1975, p221

17. Country Life, 6.11.1909 (The article is signed 'W' and is generally assumed to have been written by Lawrence Weaver.)

18. Country Life, 6.11.1909 p637

19. The Architectural Review, February 1901, p79

20. The Architectural Review, February 1906, pp70-82

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.