Search London

  • Latest blog entries

    RSS
  • Stalking Fashion at Christie's

    Mostly, shopping is a dangerous pursuit that should be practised only by the intrepid and the rich. That’s why there are fashion magazines: so women can look at clothes without danger to their wallets. But there is one other, arguably more satisfying way to do this: visit an auction of dresses, and forget (or refuse) to register.
    In Christie's, last Thursday, the premium items under the hammer were a selection of fashion guru and Vogue creative consultant Anna Piaggi’s clothes, many of them made doubly delectable to the fashionista via appearances in ‘Karl Lagerfeld’s Sketchbook: An Illustrated Fashion Journal of Anna Piaggi’. If I had had  a couple of grand, or even a registered paddle and a functioning credit card, a Chanel cocktail dress (1920s, so designed by Coco herself) or a Lanvin ice-grey two-piece suit could have been mine. Actually, Piaggi and I have different styles as well as different budgets, and it turned out to be the preposterously extensive selection of dresses that belonged to Anne Moen Bullitt that really tempted me. (It is possible to try items on, but like registering, that has to be done before the actual sale, since most of the clothes are only seen on screen during the auction. This, plus the cheerily lit room and the smart, efficient auctioneer who evinced no particular excitement in all these haute couture names, made the whole experience curiously serious, for a sale of prettily cut bits of material). Bullitt, whose stay in Madrid as wife of a dignitary in the American Embassy proved a boon both to her wardrobe and to the coffers of Cristobal Balenciaga, who had ateliers in the city at that time. But Anne was generous with her favours. A cherry red Lanvin dress, reserve price £500-£800, nearly made me cry with longing; and when it went for a mere £380, I admit I did actually tear up. Somehow it was easier to wave goodbye to a glorious silk taffeta black puffball dress with white polka dots and a dinky white belt, by Eisa (the Balenciaga atelier), because I am more used to denying myself £3200 dresses than those in three figures (although I’m quite used to that, too).The auction had begun with some really old pieces, which were impenetrable to me without a lot of reading, but once you reach the 20th century, you can tell a lot about a person from their wardrobe – more, perhaps, than the wearer realises. For instance, it came as no surprise to find that Bullitt, a woman who owned at least seven black cocktail dresses and countless grey suits, had managed to get through four husbands – although I’m not sure what the Christian Dior pink and lilac mink bedspread, which went for £3500, or the mink coat patchworked with symbols of the EU (£2500) say about the late Count Palmieri. Interestingly, despite facilities for online bidders and lots of employees with spendthrift jetsetters on mobiles jammed to their ears, several of Piaggi’s pieces didn’t sell, including the three items by the great early 20th-century designer Paul Poiret that I would have bought, given half a chance. There are fashions in designers, as in everything else, and Poiret, unlike Chanel and Balenciaga, is out of favour at present. Live by the sword, die by the sword…
  • Pick of the week: the best of this week's London blogs

    This incredible newish blog looks at a different London song every day. Today, it's 'The Battle Of All Saints Road' by B.A.D. Bookmark now.

    I liked James Ward's reminiscing as he revisited the old family home at Worcester Park. 'And while engaging in self-indulgent nostalgia is fun in and of itself, the thing I am really trying to get my head around is the idea that everywhere contains these stories. Every house you walk past in the street has hundreds of stories to tell. Every bus stop, every table in a cafe, every fork, every knife.'

    Big Smoke alumni Stephen Emms has posted the penultimate entry in his excellent ongoing London weekly serial, Happiness Is An Option.

    Spitalfields Life waxes lyrical about the first mince pies of the season.

  • A ‘common little London house’

    We moved house last month. This was partly to get away from the guy who lived in the basement, a Booker-nominated novelists with carefully nurtured and oh-so-artistic neuroses that would manifest themselves in a series of particularly unpleasant ways. And it was partly because we had the opportunity to move into a real house, one with its own entrance and internal staircase, the sort of house your parents live in and a defining moment in my London life, exemplifying the transition into adulthood.

    ‘This is a real London house,’ my Mum said when she saw it. At first I thought she was just being nice because she knows the way to my heart, but it turns out that she was quite right – it is a real London house, measurably as much as spiritually.

    In ‘London: The Unique City’, his classic book about London design and architecture, Steen Eiler Rasmussen writes about houses just like mine: ‘From railroads intersecting the suburbs of London we see interminable rows of these swarthy little houses with all their protruding little kitchen-wings.' He includes a picture and plan of one of these houses, reproduced above. It looks a lot like mine.

    There is a reason for this 'interminable' consistency in London housing, and like most things in the country, it is to do with class. Rasmussen tells us that in London, because the class system ensured people of the same social strata would invariably live alongside each other and away from people of different classes, it is ‘possible to standardise domestic houses: as people living in the same street have the same requirements all the houses can be absolutely uniform.’

    But this is what intrigues me about my street – all the houses aren’t uniform. At one end there are grand five storey double-fronted detached houses, which would have been for the very rich and at the other there are two-storey workmen's terraces, with every possible permutation in between. In fact, it is entirely atypical of Rasmussen's standardised London street, because here there would have been unavoidable mixing of the different social classes.

    From somewhere, I’d picked up the notion that this curious mix was because the street was originally constructed by Victorian building companies as a way of showcasing their different house designs during London's rapid expansion in the middle of the nineteenth century: developers would then come down and look at a range of different types of houses – three-storey semi-detached, four-storey terraces – and choose which one they wanted when constructing new streets in the growing suburbs.

    Sadly, it seems I made this up. When I put my theory to somebody at the local historical society, they told me: ‘This is the first I’ve heard of a suggestion that these houses were built as exemplars of different housing styles. The street was built over quite a long period and differences in style are probably because of changing markets. The largest houses were built first – at the end of the 1850s, early 1860s. They were designed for the middle classes with living in servants. In the later 1860s, after the coming of the railway to Herne Hill, the area began to attract the skilled working classes. This was the market for which the later and smaller houses were designed.’

    Oh well, it was a nice idea.

    Incredibly, Rasmussen also knew the exact width of of my new house - 16 foot 6 inches. He writes, ‘the common little house is only sixteen feet six inches broad. It has probably been the ordinary size of a site since the Middle Ages… but it is difficult to get information as to how typical houses were built in former days.’ After reading this, I went home and measured the front of my house and he was right. Now everywhere I look in London, from Brixton to Holloway, I see 16 foot 6 inch house fronts. Try it for yourself.

    So why is this? For an answer, I turned to English Heritage’s new photographic collection ‘Lost London’, in which Philip Davies explains why London’s houses of a certain era are all exactly the same size. He writes of ‘a secret ingredient which conferred an innate harmony on the city, and which influenced everything from the layout of an entire neighbourhood to the size of a window pane – the Imperial system of measures.’

    Davies’s continues. ‘Neighbourhoods were laid out by surveyors who used acres, furlongs, rods and chains – measurements which had been in common usage for marking out arable land since the ninth century. An acre was the length of a furlong (660ft) and its width was one chain (66ft). For shorter lengths a perch, a pole or a rod were used. There were four rods to one chain and a London workman’s house had a frontage of one rod – 16 ft 6 in – so entire districts were created based on endogenous proportional relationships.’

    For those who find London’s overall sense of scale overwhelming, this internal and very visible consistency might at least provide some comfort.

    My favourite thing about my new house, though, is not the comforting sense of conformity it provides, but the small metal-covered hole it has on the doorstep. This is a coal hole. Rasmussen says, ‘Through little round covers the coal can be shot into the vault, so that the coal dust is not brought into the house.’ I had never noticed London’s coal holes until I was introduced to one – not literally – by Matt Brown of Londonist, and I’ve since discovered there is a rich source of coal hole coverage out there on the internet – check out Faded London or Jane’s London for extensive examples. Aren't they cute? Now I really do have London on my doorstep.

Advertisement

London links