{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0180623973727422, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003284072249589491, 'mean_word_length': 5.316062176165803, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Unit System Revisited: Dual Domestic Planning and the Developmental Cycle of the Family

Abstract The 'unit system' has been widely adopted by architectural historians since the term was first used by Gresham and Hemp in their analysis (1942) of the domestic complex at Park in north-west Wales. The term describes rather than explains a striking arrangement of dual domestic planning where two dwellings are sited in close proximity, the secondary house sometimes set corner to corner with the principal house. This article explores some documentation relating to secondary houses and concludes that dual domestic planning should be understood in relation to the developmental cycle of the family, especially the residential problems posed by succession and inheritance. Provision for widows varied socially and geographically in England and Wales, but the most generous entitlement (as in north-west Wales) included separate housing. Dower-houses varied in scale but a distinctive building type can be identified. However, these ranges often had a dual function, becoming redefined as dower-houses or reverting to detached service ranges as different points in the developmental cycle of the family were reached.