1. Readers should be aware of an important distinction between the substance and approach used by those who study vernacular and folk architecture and those who would call themselves architectural historians. Architectural historians have traditionally been concerned primarily withgreatbuildings: churches, public buildings, and the houses of the elite. And, while attention focuses on the singularity of such buildings, they are generally referenced in relation to well defined and international period classes, e.g. Georgian, Greek Revival, Romanesque neo-gothic, etc. Vernacular or folk architecture is concerned with more prosaic buildings—domestic houses, barns, and other utilitarian structures, buildings whose form is determined more by function and tradition than by art and intellect. Vernacular architectural historians are concerned to reference buildings in relation to a specific cultural group or region and have developed class labels quite distinct from those of architectural historians.
2. Examples of this work for Canada include: Peter Ennals and Deryck Holdsworth, “Vernacular Architecture and the Cultural Landscape of the Maritime Provinces—A Reconnaisance,”Acadiensis, 10 (Spring, 1981) pp. 86–106; Peter Ennals, “Nineteenth Century Barns in Southern Ontario,”Canadian Geographer16 (Fall, 1972) pp. 257–270; Deryck Holdsworth, “House and Home in Vancouver: Images of West Coast Urbanism, 1886 1929,” in G.A. Stelter and A.F.J. Artibise, eds.The Canadian City: Essays in Urban History(Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977), pp. 186–211; David B. Mills, “The Development of Folk Architecture in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland,” in John J. Mannion, ed.The Peopling of Newfoundland(St. John's: Memorial University, 1977), pp. 77–101; John Lehr,Ukrainian Vernacular Architecture in Alberta(Edmonton: Historical Resource Division, Alberta Culture, 1976): John J. Mannion,Irish Settlement in Eastern Canada: A Study in Cultural Transfer and Adaptation(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974); Georges Gauthier-Larouche,Evolution de la maison rurale traditionelle dons la région de Québec(Québec: Ministère des Affaires culturelles, 1974); Robert-Lionel Séguin.Les granges du Québec du XVIIeau XIXesiècle(Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, 1963).
3. See, for example Deryck Holdsworth, “Regional Distinctiveness in an Industrial Age: Some California Influences on British Columbia Housing,” in this issue ofThe American Review of Canadian Studies.
4. The typology used here is that described in Ennals and Holdsworth,op. cit. It is crude classification to be sure, and one could with extensive field recording develop a more refined set of classes and subclasses. However, recent work points to the fallacy of elaborate encompassing classifications, noting that many buildings have undergone radical surgery since first construction, e.g. addition or deletion of storeys, major stylistic revisions, etc. (Gerald Pocious, “Evolution, Devolution and Architectural Typology: Alterations of Vernacular House Forms on the Southern Shore of Newfoundland,” unpublished paper read at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Geographers, Corner Brook, Nfld., August, 1981). A useful visual survey of surviving houses in this region is provided by the series of volumes published by the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia:Founded Upon a Rock(Halifax, 1971);South Shore(Halifax, 1971);Seasoned Timbers(Halifax, 1974);Lakes, Salt Marshes and the Narrow Green Strip(Halifax, 1979).
5. See Mary Mix Foley,The American House(New York: Harper and Row, 1980), p. 30; there were also half houses. To confuse the issue of terminology there is also an earlier system of modular references applied to the Cape Cod, viz. house (half house); house and a half (three quarter house); double house (house). The logic of this system derives from the probable evolutionary history of the house which began as a single room with an end chimney bay which was called as a “house.” See Ernest Allen Connolly, “The Cape Cod House: An Introductory Study,”Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 19 (Spring, 1960), pp. 47–56.