how did the bungalow represent power and wealth?
Answers
Answer:
ʏᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ғɪɴᴅ ᴏᴜᴛ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴀɴsᴡᴇʀ ғʀᴏᴍ ᴛʜɪs ᴘᴀʀᴀɢʀᴀᴘʜ ᴇxᴘᴇʀᴛ
It is not surprising, therefore, that at the turn of the century, a whole ideology and symbolism developed round the bungalow. Because it was, by definition, separate, simply built and "away from the madding crowd", a place to spend the weekend, it came to symbolise alternative, unconventional life styles and "the simple life" - the word "Bohemianism" constantly springs up. And because it was simple, unimposing and on one floor, it appealed to people with socialist tendencies. To Gustav Stickley in the United States, a disciple of Morris and Ruskin, it also embodied three main principles of his "Arts and Crafts" architectural philosophy: it was simple, craftsmanlike and was literally "close to Nature".
In the United States, the bungalow became an outstanding success. Introduced for suburban use from about 1905, it was a cheap, timber-built, individual and "artistic" dwelling providing - especially in California - many people moving from the dense cities of the east with their first suburban home. Hundreds of bungalow plan books were published and, until it went out of fashion in the later twenties, it was enormously popular. From then, it graduated into the ranch-house. Its popularity was also due to its rationalisation of space and simplification in plan. By the turn of the century, the commercialisation of domestic activities by laundries, bakeries, prepared foods and canning firms was taking many processes out of the home. Servants disappeared and the space-saving "progressive" and democratic bungalow came in.
Architectural historians ponder about "the influence of the bungalow" on Frank Lloyd Wright or Californian architects Greene and Greene or even, whether the latter "introduced" it. It is rather that the same forces produced them all: the surplus capital generated by industrialisation, technological developments in transport and construction, cultural beliefs in private property and family-centredness, and a free market in housing and land which led to the "sprawling suburb". The relevance of the latter is best seen in comparison to the cities of the Soviet Union or East Germany where state planning and publically-owned housing result in a profusion of multi-storey flats.
The inter-war years in England saw an enormous growth in the number of small, inexpensive bungalows. Extensive sub-urbanisation resulted from investment in building, with cheap mortgages and new building societies, the growth of car and motorbus transport, electrification and a continuing fall in land prices as the country increasingly depended on overseas food. These and other factors combined with the disappearance of servants, small families and the fragmentation of kin to account for its popularity. For a few brief years, many people had the chance to acquire (sometimes to build) their own bungalow in the country, an aspiration they adopted from the upper class. Yet it was just this democratisation of the countryside which was attacked by powerful professional and landed interests. The Town and Country Planning Act of 1932 and more stringent legislation after the war reinforced professional and class control over the location and appearance of building. Instead of the cheap bungalow and suburban spread typical of North America and Australia, there were planning controls and council tower blocks.
For some, the opprobrium attached to the term during these years lingers on, despite the fact that the bungalow is now, with the detached, semi-detached and terraced house, and the purpose-built and converted flat, one of the six main dwelling types recognised by government surveys and building societies. And after the detached house, it is also, on average, the most expensive to buy. As in most urban-industrial nations of North America and Western Europe the largest cities now lose in population as people move to outer suburbs or smaller towns in a process of "counter-urbanisation". And many retire to the coast. As the rented terrace and row house were typical of nineteenth-century urbanisation so, with increasing home ownership in the capitalist countries of the world, perhaps the detached house and bungalow will become typical of the twenty-first. As a single-storey dwelling, the bungalow has a lot to say about the development of modern architecture and in name and form,
Explanation: