These objections generally owe their force to the difficulty of assuring the inmates of a third-story their due amount of attention, and their fair share of out-door exercise, and of much indoor amusement, without entailing such trouble upon all parties concerned, that a frequent dereliction or negligence of duty is almost a necessary consequence.
Dr. Bucknill (‘Asylum Journal,’ vol. iii., 1857, p. 387, et seq.) has well argued against the erection of a third-story, on economical grounds; and remarks that “practically, in asylums built with a multiplicity of stories, the patients who live aloft, are, to a considerable extent, removed from the enjoyment of air and exercise, and the care and sympathy of their fellow-men. They are less visited by the asylum officers, and they less frequently and fully enjoy the blessings of out-door recreation and exercise. Those below will have many a half-hour’s run from which they are debarred; the half-hours of sunshine on rainy days, the half-hours following meals, and many of the scraps of time, which are idly, but not uselessly spent, in breathing the fresh air.”
The foregoing considerations are certainly sufficient to condemn the appropriation of a third story for the day and night uses of patients, according to the ‘ward-system’ in operation; but they have no weight when the floor is occupied only for sleeping. We must confess we cannot appreciate the chief objection of Dr. Bucknill (op. cit. pp. 388, 389,) to the use of a third floor for sleeping-rooms only, for we do not see the reason why “the use of a whole story for sleeping-rooms renders the single-room arrangement exceedingly inconvenient;” for surely, on the common plan of construction, a row of single rooms might extend the whole length of a third floor on one side of a corridor, equally well as on the floors beneath.
Without desiring to enter on the question of the relative merits of single-room and of dormitory accommodation, to examine which is the special object of the paper quoted, we may remark, that the addition of a third story, when the plan we have advocated is carried out, obviates the generally admitted objections to such a proceeding. The same arrangement of apartments may obtain in it as on the bedroom-floor below, and the proportion of single rooms to dormitories, viz. one-third of the whole sleeping accommodation to the former, insisted upon by Dr. Bucknill, can be readily supplied. Attention would only be required to allow in the plan sufficient day-room space on the ground-floor,—a requirement to be met without difficulty.
The existence of a third story is no necessary feature to an asylum constructed on the principle discussed, and we have adverted to it for the sole purpose of showing that the ordinary objections to it are invalid, when the arrangement and purposes of its accommodation are rendered conformable to the general principles of construction advocated in this chapter.
A hint from Dr. Bucknill’s excellent remarks on the advantage of being able to utilize spare half-hours must not be lost. Two flights of stairs, he well states, constitute a great obstacle to a frequent and ready access to the open air, and we are sure he would allow even one to be a considerable impediment to it; and, consequently, that an asylum with no stairs interposing between the patients and their pleasure-grounds would possess the advantage of facilitating their enjoyment of them.
These remarks on the advantages of the principle of construction we advise for adoption would admit of extension, but sufficient has been advanced, we trust, to make good our views. We have taken in hand to write a chapter on some principles in the construction of public asylums, but we must stop at the point we have now reached; for it would grow into a treatise, did we attempt to examine the many principles propounded, and entirely surpass the end and aim of this present work.
THE END.
PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS,
RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.