The Changing Kitchen & Changing role of Women

The Changing Kitchen & Changing role of Women - Evolution of Kitchen Design from 18th century till present

Garima Thakkar

Acknowledgement I wish to acknowledge, with thanks, everyone who has contributed in one way or another to the success of this thesis.

It may be impossible to mention all by name, nevertheless, let me mention but a few individuals who have brought this work to this point. Firstly I would like to, specially, thank the University of East London and my supervisor, Dr. Anastasia Karandinou for giving me this opportunity. I’d like to express my gratitude to her for the constant supervision of this thesis and for the time she spent in guiding me along to its completion. I would also thank Professor Sabina Berariu, for providing the encouragement and constructive criticism to this work. I am also grateful to Carl Callaghan Head of the Architecture and Visual Arts, who has directed me in many ways during the course of this study.

I would like to acknowledge my thanks to The British Library and the UEL Docklands Campus Library for providing me with all the resources and materials needed for my thesis study.

I equally wish to pass a vote of thanks to Ishita Pathak and Lasata Shrestha, my two colleagues and my close friends at the same time who have been a constant support in the completion of this thesis. The last but not the least, I would like to thank to my family for their love and support throughout my whole education.

List of Contents:

1. Introduction

2. History of European Kitchens and the changing relationship between Women and Kitchens

2.1 Middle Ages to 18th Century 2.2 19th Century 2.3 20th Century 2.4 21st Century

3. Case Studies 3.1 Isokon Building, London 3.2 Kitchenless City- Anna Puigjaner

4. Concept of Communal Kitchens and Design Proposal for Museum of London

5. Conclusion

References & Bibliography

1. Introduction: The word “kitchen” brings to one’s mind, a designated area where one can prepare and cook food, wash and store the utensils and to accommodate other activities which are associated with it. It is often the first place that comes to our minds when we consider the term “domesticity” and for many years women are the designated cooks of this domestic world. A domestic urban kitchen, on which this thesis is mostly about, is an important space in the home because of the significance in connection with food and eating in a household, together with the social economic lifestyles involved in such activities. According to Lawrence (1982), the kitchen, one can say, is one of the busiest areas for in a home. A hundred years ago, kitchen was mainly a utilitarian space, existing for food preparation or other activities relating to cooking. From the beginning of its existence, the kitchen has been influencing the social connections and family integration. Today, the kitchen is more than a room to prepare, cook and eat food. It’s a place where the members of the house happen to spend most of their time together, which tightens the family bounds and develops the social interaction amongst them.

According to Conran, “The kitchen mirrors more effectively than any other room in the house the great social changes that have taken place in the last hundred years. Kitchen design has altered dramatically and with the constant innovation of appliances and ever-changing styles.” (Conran, 1977) The function of the kitchen has been evolving persistently which is driven by a number of factors. The key one amongst them is the traditional spatial separation between eating and cooking which has been dissolved. Today, cooking is known to be a sociable leisure activity, where the one who’s the host actually does the preparation of food right in front of their guests with them being the helping hand. Designer Gschwendtner is of the opinion that, “Nowadays kitchens are quite open plan and people like to talk while someone else is cooking a preparing." (Fairs, 2010) The kitchens today are a culmination of elements from the past kitchens and it is worth to look back in time and see the antecedents of the modern kitchen. Therefore, in this thesis I’m going to discuss about how there’s a change in the function of kitchens and how these changes are driven by a number of factors. While the findings of the thesis will focus on the study of kitchen design from 18 th century till the present day and how in European countries cooking, today is, like middle ages, a sociable and communal affair which led to the emergence of Shared kitchens.

As per Glenn, “Throughout modern Euro-American history, many women have felt locked into food work. Historically, women were largely unable to shift the burden of this daily labour to male members of the household, although privileged white women could transfer hands-on labour to a racialized serving class.” (Glenn 1994). He says so because for many centuries, cooking has been seen as the domain of women. Due to this pre-established notion, women couldn’t shift the burden of all sorts of household works onto male members of their families. It was due to this connection between the women and cooking that role of men in the kitchen was considered to be far away from the imagery of “mother’s in the kitchen.” I am going to discuss how gradually cooking became masculinized and promoting men to consider it as an occupation in the professional field. Helen Watkins and Katy Bennett for Britain write that the kitchen is a place where modern patriarchal definitions of women were inscribed and new domestic technologies deployed over the twentieth century. They also document how the kitchen offered a space of safety, self-definition, expression and pleasure for women; as new migrants, cooks, renovators and housewives. As perceptions of domesticity have changed, homemakers are often burdened with the responsibility for maintaining a sense of domestic “tradition” in both gender roles and practical production, have coped with the changes in the kitchen.

2. History of European Kitchens and the changing relationship between Women and Kitchens: 2.1 Middle Ages to 18th Century: The history of the kitchen is fascinating and so are the social changes defining the new relationship between women and kitchen. The kitchen we know today is an imperative constituent of the contemporary life which was once considered to be the domain of women. According to Laudan, “The space where cooking took place was variously called a hall, a fire chamber, a buttery, or if it had multiple uses, the living or dwelling room.” (Laudan, 2017) Cooking in the earlier European communal societies was done within one great hall over an open fire. All manner of life pivoted around that central fire which was placed in the middle of a large communal room.

“It was not until the 1800’s that the early European houses had separate rooms with fixed functions like those of today: of eating, cooking, laundering, sleeping or even sanitation” (Belcher et al, 1972). In due course of time, the central great hall was sub-divided and the layouts of the homes were also changing. However, it was due to the introduction of the chimney, that the areas were separated.

2.2 19th Century: In the beginning of the 19th century, the stoves were stoked up by the use of wood. Later in the century, when the cast iron stoves were introduced, they became an indispensable part of the kitchens and proved to be a lot more fuel-efficient than the cooking done in fireplace. By 1850, cooking methodologies transformed and the fire was confined into an iron box. The current imagery of the kitchen began to take shape with the usage of gas which made kitchen even more practical and efficient place to cook. With time in this century, the kitchens became more appealing to work in but with lesser and almost no storage space, people avoided to entertain their guests in this area. According to Laudan, “The ‘kitchen’ – a term that derives from the Latin word coquina, and which in some areas had been used for the main cooking location since 1000 AD – had now become established, at least in cities, as a recognized and necessary part of a dwelling.” (Laudan, 2017) 19th century technological advancements aimed to reduce labour and time which had huge impacts on the smooth operation of the kitchen. One of the most fascinating of these being turnspit dog. (Fig. 1) “This was a dog that was specifically bred to run in what was basically a hamster wheel that spun a roasting wheel. This trend didn’t last for too long however, because other mechanisms that work similar to clocks were invented to keep the roasting wheel moving.” (Powell, 2005)

Figure 1: Dog acting as turnspit in an Inn in Newcastle Emlyn (Aquatint courtesy: Thomas Rowlandson)

This century saw a troupe of developments like the usage of coal then gas, introduction of cast iron stoves, electricity, and plumbed water. These were add on to the kitchen conveniences which aimed to ease the domestic work for the women along with changing the look of the kitchen. “Historically, European and American urban kitchens were often drab, dirty places, poorly ventilated and hidden from view. Towards the end of nineteenth century however, the kitchen became a central concern of modernism, attracting the attention of architects, domestic reformers, manufacturers, and utility providers” (Kinchin, 2011)

2.3 20th Century: From the beginning of twentieth century, the way women perceived their roles in the home was changing because of the new home technologies. This century developments aimed to resolve the issues of the past centuries with the introduction of cabinets by Hoosier manufacturing company. (Fig. 2) The storage which was no longer an issue now led to the seamless contemporary cabinets of today. In the 1920’s, with the creation of the tiny yet efficient Frankfurt Kitchen, ergonomic efficiency in the kitchen was seen to be improved. Frederick Winslow Taylor when designed the Frankfurt Kitchen (Fig. 3), he focussed mainly on the neat arrangement of all the things of the kitchen and for the availability of things within arm’s reach. Schütte-Lihotzky is the lady architects who worked on the design of the Frankfurt kitchen with Taylor and it is considered to be one of the earliest works by her. In her book The New Housekeeping: Efficiency Studies in Home Management in 1921, Christine Frederick quotes “women’s struggle for economic independence and personal development meant that the rationalization of housework was an absolute necessity.” Lihotzky was very well influenced by her saying and her primary goal while designing the Frankfurt kitchen was to reduce the burden of women’s labour in the home. (Kinchin, 2011)

Figure 2: Hoosier Cabinet (Picture courtesy: Kennedy Hardware)

Figure 3: View of a Frankfort Kitchen (Picture courtesy: Christos Vittoratos)

Kitchen design by a woman must have helped people change their opinions regarding cooking and cleaning as women’s work and also must have promoted the modernization of housing. Schütte-Lihotzky, in planning the design of the kitchen she conducted detailed time-motion studies and interviews with housewives and women’s groups.

Frankfurt kitchen definitely sounded similar to today’s standard kitchen practice but, the aim of the designer during this century was to improve the ergonomics of the kitchen and rationalising the kitchen work for the homemakers.

As perceptions of domesticity were changing, homemakers were often burdened with the responsibility for maintaining a sense of domestic “tradition” in both gender roles and practical production, which have coped with the changes in the kitchen. In short, the innovations of the 1920s and 1930s made the kitchen a less isolating space, and one that did not require a homemaker to separate herself from the family and guests. In her biography- Selling Mrs Consumer: Christine Frederick and the Rise of Household Efficiency, Christine Frederick gave her views regarding the gender roles which were squarely in the main stream after World War I. In her opinion: “The radical feminism that had sought to change the fundamental role of women lost ground in the twenties.” By staying at home, she believed that women could help their husbands recognize their full potential as there won’t be any separation of work spheres if they do so. In this way, women could seem to step out of the nineteenth century domestic sphere, but they would enter the public sphere only as their husband’s helpers. “She encouraged women to understand the business world, but not to join it independent of men. The domestic sphere, it seems is even now women’s exclusive responsibility. The ideology still obtains. Homemaking she argues should not be a “gender job.” If home economics was to be required of high school students, it should be required of male students too.” (Rutherford, 2003) As with time, when technical mutations like enclosed stove, gas and electrical power started giving a face to the modern kitchen, not only the physical yet, major social shifts were also noted in the status of women due to fall in the availability of servants, rising levels of economy amongst the public and updated household management regimes (Webber, 2000) For the kitchen of the 1930’s and 1940’s, the concept of the “fitted kitchen” proved to be a crucial transformation. It meant to have integrated appliances within the fitted cabinetry. This development during the mid20th century, gave a hand in creating a more purposeful, and logical layout of the interiors which in turn made the workflow within the space much easier. During this century, a lot many time and labour saving tools, with better kitchen designs were invented which turned the outlook of people towards the kitchen as a space.

“Many of these advancements were a bi-product of war efforts and technology. In this course of time the women, having a taste of working outside the home during World War II, returned after the war and desired better design in their kitchen. The manufacturing advancements and housing boom of post-World War II made a huge impact on the kitchen of today. There was an increased demand for kitchen technology and equipment.

Innovations in quiet ventilation hoods, shiny ovens with matching refrigerators, dishwashers and designed countertops inspired homeowners to tear down the walls that once hid the utilitarian kitchen.”(Reagan, 2015) “The kitchen was becoming quieter, cleaner, better organized and easier to work in. In essence, it was becoming a source of pride, and slowly becoming a place worthy of entertaining.” (Ramos, 2016) According to Wheeler, “Developments in Europe, the application of time and motion principles meant that every footstep to and from the fridge, stove, sink and cupboard was noted, timed and measured (Fig. 4) The use of rigorous observational analysis revealed that there were three major work centres within any kitchen plan- food storage, sink and cooking facilities. These three form a working triangle linked to secondary areas-working surfaces and general storage spaces. Ideally they should be positioned about 4–6 feet apart. The total walking distance between sink, stove and food preparation/storage centres should be no more than 20 feet. Codifying this ‘work triangle’ involved an efficient pattern of movement, appliance use and labour. This in turn revolutionised kitchen design and led to a limited set of layouts and the standardisation of bench heights and widths, cupboard configuration, appliance and service location.” (Wheeler, 1956).

Domestic space was gradually seen to record the changing relation between women and domestic work. However, during this kitchen seems to have been changing dramatically. “Supski suggests, and Bennett confirms in her ‘Kitchen drama: performance, patriarchy and power dynamics in a Dorset farmhouse kitchen’ the kitchen is also the place where gender roles are remade and subverted. As Bennett records as a participant observer, the importance of room layout, furniture configuration as well as who does what within this domestic space-be it food preparation, cooking, clearing up, child care, initiating and guiding work regimes or conversation-are all vital indicators of the ways in which patriarchal social dynamics are negotiated and played out.” (Johnson, 2006) The concept of domestic mobility and expansion continued to influence writers in the latter half of the twentieth century. With the already well-documented technological changes in the 1950s kitchen came a powerful new wave of isolation for homemakers. The years of 1960’s and 1970’s brought along the social changes which resulted into the improvised kitchen styles. With the regained interest in home cooking and newly found fascination of kitchen utensils along with the entertainment, brought life to the kitchen. Hence, it was registered that the kitchen was now the source for enhancing the culinary skills other than becoming the heart for the social activity. (Ramos, 2016)

Figure 4: Working Triangle and its positive impact. (Picture courtesy: Levene, 1978)

By the 1980’s, the idea of an open kitchen came into being where the newly invented appliances were the star of the kitchen. The concept of the kitchen as a mobile, multimodal, multivocal communal enterprise has continued into the present, but was amplified most dramatically by the boom in Internet use during the 1990s. The physical space of the kitchen comes to matter less and less (even as design features allowed the kitchen to mesh with the rest of the house) as women around the world participated and continue to participate, in communal online kitchens.

Few would deny that, despite technological advances such as the Internet and increasingly specialized formats in television, many popular and mass media portrayals of women remain problematic. A brief look at the history of gender criticism of the media indicates more endemic problems in many cultural representations of women. Walker’s concept of the domestic as “contested and negotiated” draws us into the one hotbed of the media’s gender stereotyping: the home, and more specifically the kitchen.

Given the current critical focus on the gender in contemporary film and television, and the newer, overlapping and less stereotypical kind of women, it might seem that turning to 1950s and 1960s magazines would be the primary way to study gender, sexism, feminism, and the home.

Hence if the 18th and 19th century kitchens evolved at an invincible rate, the advancements of 20th century turned out to be revolutionary for the domestic and professional world. It was when the industrial revolution had encouraged the new ways of improvising the economic and ergonomic efficiency which was a result of new inventions and the cheaper prices. It won’t be wrong to say that the kitchens of the Europe and America, saw majority of changes when Industrial revolution had spurred.

During 20th century, factories and manufacturing units believed in adapting labour and time saving methodologies and influence the same interest into kitchen design as well. Along with the production of materials from cotton to steel, even appliances to be used in the kitchen were produced for the mass. Cabinetry and storage units were now being produced in even more quantities and were sold in quite cheaper rates than earlier centuries.

“Women were increasingly freed from the kitchen by labour-saving devices, though gadgets didn’t always mean freedom. The 1950s was the heyday for domestic gadgets, but also ushered in a new era or repressive domestic roles for women. It was during the 1970s and 1980s that women began to truly free themselves from the role of running the kitchen.” (The Great British Kitchen: Complete Kitchen Era Guide, n.d.) A pattern that corresponds with the physical changes of the kitchen’s shape, space, and position within the home. Physically, kitchens have expanded spatially throughout the twentieth century. (Patterson, 1974)

2.4 21st Century: The 21st century kitchen is a culmination of elements from the past century. The attitude to kitchen works has changed, its role in tightening the family and social bounds was noticed. Functional changes in the kitchen area were initiated by unsatisfied users – housewives isolated in small kitchens, suffering from psychological and social discomfort.

“Ovens today are more time, health and energy efficient. The appliances are finally catching up with our fastpaced, demanding lifestyles. Speed ovens cut the time of cooking in half, which saves the amount of energy used during the cooking process. The kitchen doesn’t look like the kitchen, in the traditional sense. It’s now a clean space, with a full range of sleek appliances looking towards a sustainable future, plus there is a fashion for adopting and revamping styles from previous years. We now have extremely multipurpose kitchens and many people are removing the dining room to make way for an open plan kitchen. So extra seating areas like breakfast bars, kitchen tables, funky feature chairs, and workspaces with computers, are a must.” (Ramos, 2016)

The outlook of the society towards the kitchen works has now changed, the kitchens today seem to bring the family members together and has proved to improvise the social interaction which takes places while sitting there. It is said that the modern kitchen epitomizes and embodies its owner’s lifestyle and relationship of the home, the center around which the modern family revolves. It has come to articulate and at times, actively challenge societal relationships to food, technology, the domestic role of women. When reviewing the classic works of Hochschild and DeVault, the question arises: Just how different are things today? At first glance, the Western landscape of food and gender has clear markers of change. For one, it has become culturally acceptable for men to show interest in food beyond BBQ’ing some men are avid cooks (Sobal 2005; Szabo 2013: 623). At the same time as men seem to be more involved in the domestic kitchen, women cook less than they did in previous generations, especially as their formal labour participation has expanded and convenience food options have become readily available. The post-modern kitchen thereby is the centre of the house where members of the family not just prepare the food and eat together but with the technological advancements in vogue, it becomes a space which is beyond its usage as a space just for cooking.

3.

Case Studies: The notion of the kitchen was a fluid one, though, which varied in both how it was designed as a piece of the built environment and how it was used by residents. It was in this vein of critique that reformers began to look at how the kitchen could function within an urban environment. Although these reformers created multiple plans that had varied goals – some aimed to affect public health, others were concerned with the kitchen as a social space – organising the kitchen into a communal space was the common thread that linked them all together. As is clearly evident, the kitchen already was a very communal, multi-faceted space. The traditional distribution of house work continues in which women carry out far more domestic work than men (HETUS, 2001). The consequence is that the kitchen is mostly interpreted as the female place, whereas the garage or outside spaces are male places (Horelli, 1993). This is not the case with cohousing, in which the patriarchal patterns can be broken and the domestic chores shared between women and men (Horelli & Vepsä, 1994). The residents of cohouses also tend to use a variety of alternative temporalities that interact with spaces and places which in turn affect their gender identities (Jarvis, 2011). In this section I will be discussing the two case studies which will justify the above quoted arguments.

3.1 Isokon Building, London: New ideas have been taken up there with more enthusiasm, whether they relate to sociable kitchens or gender neutral spaces. One such example based on the modern communal living is the Isokon Building which is located on Lawn Road, Hampstead, London. The reinforced concrete building was built in the year 1934 by architect Wells Coates in collaboration with his Isokon furniture company co-founders Jack and Molly Pritchard. One can say that the building is basically a pioneering modern apartment block built in 1934 as “an experiment in new ways of urban living. When asked in an interview about the progressiveness in time of the Isokon building, Jack replied- “It’s a block of flats with communal service elements like cooking and cleaning was radical. But it was not a working class building – it was aimed at intellectual, working middle class people.” (Ker, n.d.)

Hence, promoting to create a distinct community in the central part of London was something Jack and Molly were aiming at. The building contains 36 flats (originally 32) where one can spot period furniture, directional lighting and a mock-up of a tiny Isokon kitchen (Fig. 6) in the preserved to give a pretty clear picture of how perfectly pocket-size the flats are. Services like shoe cleaning, laundry, bed-making and meal deliveries from the staff kitchen were provided when it was launched, but in 1937 this was reconfigured as hip restaurant and watering hole known as the Isobar (Fig. 7). (Ker, n.d.) The key emphasis in the design of these flats was on compact, thoughtfully fitted rooms. Kitchens were kept purposefully small as the original flats were serviced, with meals available to order from the communal Isokon kitchen on the ground floor.

This case study proves to be an example of how by adding the communal element to their Modernist building project, Coates in collaboration with Jack and Molly broke down the home typologies and aimed to change the mind set of people regarding sociable kitchens and the urban communal living. However, in my opinion this also uplifts the thought of gender neutral space by introducing to the people to the idea of one shared kitchen space. Hence, promoting the concept of ‘cooking is not the domain of just women but, even men should be equally sharing the domestic responsibilities of home’.

Figure 6: Mock-up Isokon Kitchen (Picture courtesy: https://48cdp72nsn98y4xzwvlsdhp1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/03/TDG-isokongallery-lo-20-768x1152.jpg)

Figure 6: Isobar, bar turned communal kitchen (Picture Courtesy: RIBA)

3.2 Kitchenless City- Anna Puigjaner: The kitchen since past so many centuries has the imagery of defying the idea of a home and the family where gender biased relationships are created within the domestic spheres. The act of removing the kitchen from the house seems to be infuriating yet fascinating. The generalized social refusal that this action often provokes us to understand the deep affection and assumptions that this domestic space arouses.

Barcelona-based architect Anna Puigjaner envisions the housing typology whereby she plans on eliminating the kitchen keeping in account the needs of its habitants. Her winning proposal, Kitchenless City: Architectural Systems for Social Welfare, works over the concept of previous housing typologies where they had collective kitchens and other shared amenities such as dining rooms, lounges and services areas.” Her project “Kitchenless” has received the Wheelwright Prize from Harvard University, along with an endowment of $100,000 for research on existing models of communal residences worldwide.” (Bestard, 2016) Puigjaner and her colleagues from MAIO firm work in a co-working space than a conventional architectural office with people of different organisations from other fields. They chose to turn it into a co working space during the crisis and invited other workers to join them to share the office space. In 2016 they could afford to be alone, but there wasn’t any compelling reason for them to do it. This, I believe could be one of the speculated theories behind promoting her award winning idea and proposal of the Kitchenless city. “She proposes to study exemplars of collective housing in Russia, Brazil, Sweden, China, Korea, and India, which reflect a variety of approaches to organizing and distributing domestic spaces. Noting that this housing type and notion of collective life were ‘deeply’ understood as a tool for social transformation,” she sees its relevance to today’s housing dilemmas and possible lessons for “renewed domestic proposals for the present.” (Bestard, 2016) In an interview with Arch Daily, when questioned about the concept of communal kitchens, she answered, “There are many types. The residences I studied from late nineteenth century New York had no kitchen or kitchenette but always had a common kitchen with a cook. During the twentieth century this model was politicized because the Russians began to copy it as a system of social housing and loaded it with political meaning. Suddenly a collective kitchen was associated with communism.

Now, when I say communal kitchen people imagine a shared kitchen space but at that time it was more like a domestic service with a cook. In a similar vein, multi-family housing also had built-in childcare, housekeeping or other facilities for daily life. In addition to this you had your kitchenette in case you wanted to cook for pleasure. When it became politicized, that system was immediately swapped out for housing as we know it today.” (Bestard, 2016) What Puigjaner was trying to articulate here is that a kitchen-less house focuses on communal residences worldwide.

She wanted the people to change their mentality regarding the notion of houses. She’d asked us to consider our houses for its usage and not contemplate it just for its square foot. Anna also said that if homes do not have a room designated as a kitchen, they’d have a kitchenette with appliances to cook if they wish to cook privately and for leisure at times. The proposal of “Kitchenless City” appears to me as one of the evolved versions of the notion of shared living. Also, it implies that the culture of “sharing” in the society is growing, be it sharing a space, responsibilities, work etcetera. Also, with the present day technological advances one can outgrow the thought of cooking being a gender specific job or gadgets reducing the workload for women. In fact, one can also say that these developments in the kitchen invite more men to work into the kitchens and share the domestic responsibilities with women.

4.

Concept of Communal Kitchens and Design Proposal for Museum of London: In order for cooking to be considered suitable for a man, a transformation had to occur. Gradually, to neutralize the concept of gender-less cooking, the idea of communal kitchens emerged. “The discourse created by historians of food and gender reveals the historically pervasive notion that men and women have “natural” roles to fulfill in a wellordered society, and that a woman’s proper “sphere” is in the home, and most especially the kitchen.” (Kerber, L, 1988) In the public eye, men were transformed into chefs while they cooked hot dogs on the outdoor grill or were the ones responsible for hosting the barbecues. With the new form of social cooking-eating, there has been a shift in the gendered division of labour for cooking in the kitchens. The communal kitchen was clearly seen as a space in which reformers could try to influence the behaviours and social lives of women. The Shared kitchens will promote the habit of collective cooking which fosters the experience of the food preparation and consumption beyond friends and family.

This section will discuss about one such communalised kitchen space used by the varied amount of people. It describes about the idea of using a derelict engine house as a communalised kitchen space.

Museum of London is moving from its current location to the site of the Smithfield market. The West Poultry Avenue will transform into the main entrance of the new museum. An old Engine House; a triangular brick building is standing derelict opposite to it, situated on the junction of Smithfield Street and West Smithfield street, opposite the West Poultry avenue. As our design project, we were expected to re-design that building and find it a new function and a new programme. Hence, I proposed a shared cooking space along with a kitchen garden as the new function for the derelict Engine House. (Fig. 5) The key function of the space is to provide people with an area where they can cook their own food. The kitchen garden for people would help them grow & use fresh vegetables while cooking. The space aims to increase social interaction via exchange of conversations over food. Breaking down the gender based pattern of ‘kitchen-chores is a women’s job’, proposing this function had a main aim of kitchen responsibilities being shared between men and women equally. Be it the people who work locally in the range of different sectors (local offices or businesses) or the visitors of the museum, anyone and everyone who is keen to grow and cook their own food in a hassle free manner can use this Shared cooking space.

While designing the Shared cooking space as the new function for Engine House, I was very explicit about the gender roles of the space. Being gender neutral and open for all this shared kitchen could provide individuals both men and women to group together and perform the gendered labour.

The concept for my design was to bring in the community together through that shared cooking space. The idea was to engage the people in every phase of the food chain i.e. to learn how to grow and then cultivate their own fruits and vegetables, to use the same in cooking their meals in the cooking space and also share the same with people using the shared cooking kitchen.

Figure 5: Sectional Elevation of my proposal of a Shared Cooking Space with Kitchen Garden for Engine House

The proposal of this new function of a shared cooking space for the derelict Engine house includes a free standing glass box which could create a dialogue between the existing brick walls. So that, there’s a link created between the outside and the inside. Also, the use of corten steel in my design was done so that it does justice to the color of existing red bricks. This function was chosen keeping in mind, the key activity of the Smithfield market which is all about food. The goal was to design a shared cooking space with a kitchen garden whereby a typically passive consumer would transform into an engaged & active participant.

Hence, shared kitchens proved to be a solution to the kitchen aspect of the ‘woman’s question’, reducing the burden of ‘kitchen work’ for women, in terms of both time and isolation, through planned communalisation. By communalising the kitchens, one could argue that it could end the isolation of those women who supposedly ‘knew no other life outside of the kitchen’.

5.

Conclusion:

The evolution of domestic kitchen is a constant process, and because of that fact it changes continuously.

The kitchen plays an integral role at the heart of most contemporary homes. Much more than simply a place to cook, these multipurpose spaces have become the hub around which the main social areas are arranged. The family is the smallest social group, within which the first relations are being built between household members. The milieu, an appearance and a spatial- functional arrangement of an apartment, can influence the intensity of these relations. Domestic kitchen is one of the fundamental areas, which affect the socialization process. In houses, where the kitchen area is not only a workplace, but also a space of being together, a very important task is social integration, and deepening relationships with family members and friends.

Earlier, the kitchens were considered woman’s territory and in this due course of time there has been a change in this thought. Christine Frederick quoted that “Women’s historic position in the domestic kitchen could be interpreted as a seat of power and thus a tool to shape their own--and others’--lives.” Hence, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that during the past century, the domestic kitchens were once stereotypically ‘feminine’. With time, the feminine and masculine balance of influence in the house, is now quite well resolved. The house is still a sanctuary, a fortress its ‘male’ element, but it is also a practical place with a feminine eye to efficiency. However, due to the gendered connotations associated with the kitchen, it happens to be a crucial site of contestation. Thus, with the integration of idea about the urban communal living and shared spaces the society has produced a more functional and equitable gendered lives.

“Rooms are changing sizes, adopting new roles and shedding old ones, as they have done through history, but now the kitchen is the focus. Its role is being expanded to encompass the functions of room associated with ‘public’ activities- the dining room, drawing room, sitting room and parlour- as well as including aspects of the nursery and ‘private’ rooms of the house-the study, and the softer, relaxing aspects of the sitting room- while still maintaining its pure kitchen functions of food preparation, storage and cooking. The kitchen is now a microcosm of the whole house.” (Grey, 1994) In addition to considering the kitchen as a unique site of gender, power and culture, it happens to be a place where work mingles with desire, pleasure, creativity, violence, safety and other people; and where domestic technologies, architects and designers create devices and spaces which shape gender. Whether this space is fixed and separated within the modern home, open and communal or one which has to be reassembled daily in the streets of the third-world cities, the kitchen reflects and is remade by social and spatial relations.

But what is in store for the future of kitchen design? While there is a long history within archaeology, anthropology and cultural heritage of considering domestic spaces, places within houses, especially kitchen, tend to be considered infrequently by the spatial disciplines of planning, architecture and geography. As years pass this space will evolve more. No one knows for sure what the next revolutionary innovation will be but it will be interesting to the next step in the history of kitchens.

References & Bibliography:

Belcher John C. and Vazquez- Calcerrada, 1972, A Cross-Cultural Approach to the Social Functions of Housing, Journal of Marriage and Family, November 1972, Volume 34, No. 4, Page:750-761.

Bestard, C. (August 2016). The "Kitchenless" House: A Concept for the 21st Century. Retrieved from: https://www.archdaily.com/793370/the-kitchenless-house-a-concept-for-the-21st-century as accessed on June 22, 2019 Brown Frank, E. (1986). Continuity and Change in the Urban House: Development in Domestic Space Organization in Seventeenth –Century London, July 1986, Volume 28, No. 3, Page: 558- 590.

Bullock Nicholas, (1988). First the Kitchen: Then the façade, Journal of Design History, 198, Volume 1, No.3/4, Page: 77-192.

Grey, J. (1994) The Art of Kitchen Design- Planning for comfort and Style Johnson, C. (2006). The emergence of Western/Modern Kitchen: Browsing the Modern Kitchen- a feast of gender, place and culture (Part –I). Retrieved from: The British Library Online Reading, as accessed on June 24, 2019 Ker, A. (n.d.)

The Secret History Of London’s Isokon Building.

Retrieved from: https://www.ignant.com/2016/04/04/the-secret-history-of-londons-isokon-building/ as accessed on June 24, 2019 Kinchin, J. (2011). Toward the Modern Kitchen- Counter Space: Design and Modern Kitchen. New York: Museum of Modern Art Laudan, R. (October 2017). Review of The Birth of the English Kitchen, 1600-1850. Retrieved from: https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/2180#t2 as accessed on June 20, 2019 Lawrence, J. (1982). Domestic Space and Society: A Cross: Cultural Study, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Volume 24, No. 1, Page: 104-130 Kerber, L. (Jun., 1988): 9-39 Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Women’s Place: The Rhetoric of Women’s History, The Journal of American History, Vol. 75, no. 1 Nyström M. (1994) Focus: Kitchen Design, A study of housing in Hanoi, Lund University, Lund.

Ramos, A. (March, 2016).

A Brief History of the Kitchen.

Retrieved https://www.johndesmond.com/blog/design/a-brief-history-of-the-kitchen/ as accessed on June 21, 2019

from:

Reiger, K. (1985) The Disenchantment of Home: Modernizing the Australian family 1880–1949 Melbourne: Oxford University Press Robben M. (1989). Habits of a Home: Spatial Hegemony and the Structuration of House and Society in Brazil, American Anthropologist, Volume 91, No. 3, Page: 570-588 Rutherford, J. (2003). Prologue. Selling Mrs.Consumer: Christine Frederick and the Rise of Household Efficiency.

Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press The Great British Kitchen: Complete Kitchen Era Guide. Retrieved from: http://www.jmibathrooms.co.uk/the-great-british-kitchen-complete-kitchen-era-guide/ as accessed on June 25, 2019

Webber, K. (2000). Embracing the new, in: Patrick Troy (Ed.) A History of European Housing in Australia, Page: 86– 106, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Wheeler, V. (1956). Plan, Equip and Decorate Kitchens, New York: Abelard-Schuman Westhoff, B, 1995, Stove images, Brandes & Apsel Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.