February 10: The Stratford Co. Insane Asylum Fire (1893)

[Image description: Newspaper clipping about the 1893 asylum fire near Dover NH, with the headlines "Cremated./Forty Crazed People Burned to Death./Insane Asylum at the County Farm Burned to Ground./Horrible Scenes Enacted in a Hell of Fire and Smoke./A Calamity Without Parallel Falls upon the County of Stratford." Found here.]

In the 1890s, states and counties in the US were locating asylums away from towns. It was justified as a more healthful location, with the opportunity for therapeutic and cost-effective agricultural labor; it was also popular as an "out of sight, out of mind" solution, given the general fear of people with mental illnesses. One consequence of this location choice was that the staff generally lived on the grounds of the asylum; another consequence was that, in the event of a disaster, there was no nearby community to come help.

Thus, the Stratford County (NH) Insane Asylum fire of 1893, on this date, a snowy winter night in New Hampshire. No one knew how it was set, but it began in the room of Mrs. Mary Lafontaine, a Canadian woman with a history of "melancholia." A watchman, Wilbur Chesley, alerted others and escaped along with the keeper William Driscoll, and Driscoll's wife and children. Of the more than forty inmates locked in their rooms in a large wooden building, only three or four survived the fire. (Of the hundred or so paupers in a workhouse on the same campus, all were saved, in part because they were quickly organized into a fire brigade.) The list of the dead in a newspaper report that week includes 26 women, 13 men.*

The New York Times headline appeared on page 5 the next day: "They Laughed at the Fire: Details of the Terrible Catastrophe at Dover. Forty-One Insane Patients, Unable to Save Themselves, Were Burned Alive--The Asylum Was an Old-Fashioned Frame Structure Unfit for their Occupancy." Opined the author of the article:

The fire conveys the sad lesson, patent to all, that the custom of isolating the county workhouse miles away from the town centre is something which cannot be longer tolerated in this enlightened age.

An investigation by the state board of health also noted rampant alcoholism and incompetence among the asylum staff, and the practice of furnishing matches to inmates who smoked (as Mrs. Lafontaine did), as further factors in the disastrous fire. The county asylums in New Hampshire were abolished in part because of the board's findings, and replaced with state-run asylums.

*The various new accounts don't have matching counts of the dead.

Simi Linton on disability and architecture

More on the subject; one of my local reading groups is discussing Simi Linton's My Body Politic next month, so I happened to run across this passage just after writing yesterday's post. Linton is describing the steps at Columbia University:

My earlier body had been trained to walk such steps and my eyes to appreciate their grandeur. I grew up thinking, although I'm sure I never said it out loud, that steps are either a pragmatic solution, a means to connect spaces of different heights, or they are an aesthetic element, added onto a design because it makes the building more beautiful. But now, with their function lost to me, their beauty began to fade, and I saw something I hadn't noted before--attitude. Steps, and particularly these steps at Columbia, seemed arrogant. The big buildings sitting up on top said, "The worthy can climb up to me, I will not kneel down and open my doors to those below me."... The design of steps forbids the wheelchair user, and the designer of these steps, deliberately or unwittingly, provided us only a solitary and difficult route to get where those steps took all others. (p. 57)

Who Belongs Where

Dirksen Bauman posted a link to this Washington Post feature story on the DS-Hum listserv--seemed like something worth sharing here, where geographers are thick on the ground.

The plans for Gallaudet's campus extension include interior and exterior spaces designed for visual communication--what does that mean? Among other features, they envision classrooms large enough for meetings to be conducted in a circle, rather than in rows of front-facing desks; choosing wall treatments and colors that won't distract or complicate ASL communications; ramped walkways (not just for wheeled access, but to allow better flow of signed conversations), curved and mirrored exterior walls that allow better visual warning of approaching cross-traffic than right-angled sidewalks and buildings.

The article is a reminder that the thoughtful design supports people across a wide array of disability categories. While the space needs of wheelchair users are perhaps most quickly noticed (if not always met appropriately or creatively), there are interesting, practical ways to configure buildings and outdoor environments for better use by people with sensory, cognitive, linguistic, neurological and psychological differences as well. And it's not about "special accommodations," it's about considering, from the start of any project, our preconceptions about who belongs where.

Good recent blog on related topics: David Gissen on "heroic architecture" (h/t to Jesse the K and Badgerbag for the link).

The Demonization of Elevators and their Users

We've tumbled down this staircase before, haven't we?

From today's Guardian, an article called "Can Architecture Make You Fat?":

The architect Will Alsop takes a stronger line: "If you really wanted to do something about it," he says, "you could take all the elevators out of all the buildings in London. Then people would be fit."

No, crowds would just look more fit because nobody with a disability that prevents stairclimbing (and that doesn't just mean wheelchair users) would be visible in public spaces anymore--not to mention some pregnant women, anyone pushing a stroller, etc. etc. Only the tidy fit people with no icky wheels, canes, crutches...hm. Just like the bad old days (which aren't even over yet, of course, by a long shot). Do "green" architects and their admirers really want to go back to that being the goal, rather a clear violation of civil rights laws? Is the social exclusion and stigmatization of a large segment of society such an easy option? Apparently for some, it is. Be afraid. And be visible, while you still can be.