Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album - Page 23

blackburnlad · 13-02-2011, 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retlaw

Take a look at the little section of the OS map I stuck on here the other night. The premises I marked with a red cross is the premises in the photo(s). Next count the individual properties from the corner of Peel St, where almost everyone agreed was the start of Whalley Rd. You have number 1 on the curved corner of Peel St, then 3, 5, 7, 9 (then there's a yard or something), then the last property on that block (number 11), cross Marquis St and you have the Slaters Arms at number 13.

Pubs changed names at times, sometimes even changed house number / premises number, but I'm convinced that the pub in the photo was number 13 Whalley Road when the photo was taken (not 21 and not 23).

There was a lot more property on Whalley Rd from the top of Peel St, to the junction with Marquis St. Peel St wasn't always as wide as that, and the numbers didn't jump the empty space, you refer to as a yard, empty plots which were intended for property, were included in the numbering system, when house numbering became compulsory in the late 1850's.
Your 1909 map may be right for that year, but thats all it is, right for that year.
There are many streets and roads in Accrington with gaps in the numbering system Warner St has been renumbered from top to bottom and bottom to top twice since 1860.

Retlaw.[/QUOTE]

By the way katex, you question the fact that house numbers could ever have been changed on Whalley Rd (your comment about letters and parcels whizzing here and there). Now I realise that Whalley Rd is a damn sight longer than Warner Street, but Warner Street is quite a length isn't it? Well in the comment above, the historian himself declares that Warner Street has been re-numbered twice.

I think the re-numbering of Whalley Road has something to do with the creation of Broadway in the early 1930's and I aim to get to the bottom of it.

I'll be back next weekend to see what else our Walter has come up with.

blackburnlad · 13-02-2011, 20:32

[QUOTE=katex;883197]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackburnlad

Agree there, Blackburnlad, and already mentioned this to Retlaw to see where an A.Westwell was registered in 1925.

Will go and verify this with camera, as neutral at the moment, but do trust Retlaw's word nevertheless.

Albert Westwell he was called, if that helps !

Busman747 · 13-02-2011, 22:37

Oops, what have I started?

I have very little knowledge regarding the history of Accrington but what I DO know is that the house that I live in is 110 years old and is No.125 - but when it was first built, it was 123.

As far as I know, there are no records to show exactly when this change occurred and for what reason but it happened!!

cashman · 13-02-2011, 22:43

yeh have started a very interesting argument busman, so ta.

Retlaw · 13-02-2011, 23:25

By the way katex, you question the fact that house numbers could ever have been changed on Whalley Rd (your comment about letters and parcels whizzing here and there). Now I realise that Whalley Rd is a damn sight longer than Warner Street, but Warner Street is quite a length isn't it? Well in the comment above, the historian himself declares that Warner Street has been re-numbered twice.

I think the re-numbering of Whalley Road has something to do with the creation of Broadway in the early 1930's and I aim to get to the bottom of it.

I'll be back next weekend to see what else our Walter has come up with.[/quote]

As for the renumbering of Whalley Rd, look at these photos.
One was taken in 1914, the other last week.
Nu 5 Whalley Rd.
Retlaw.

Retlaw · 13-02-2011, 23:37

[I think the re-numbering of Whalley Road has something to do with the creation of Broadway in the early 1930's and I aim to get to the bottom of it.

The only difference in the past 100 years is they demolished nu 21, Slater Arms, and erected two buildings in that vacant space, nu 15 & 17. If your going to quote Barretts or Kelly directories don't bother, only you believes in them.
Retlaw.

Retlaw · 14-02-2011, 00:56

More pictures of Whalley Rd.
Retlaw.

blackburnlad · 14-02-2011, 06:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retlaw

More pictures of Whalley Rd.
Retlaw.

Again Walter, these prove NOTHING. You have a photo that shows number 5 Whalley Rd back in 1914 (or whenever) and a modern day photo of number 5 Whalley Rd. yet there's nothing in those photos that identifies them as the same property (only the number is the same). Even if they are the same property, numbers 1,3,5 Whalley Rd may have been unaffected when they constructed Broadway, just as in the other direction of Broadway, the Hope & Anchor was unaffected.

Pretty pictures, but evidence that the Slaters was number 21 -23 back in 1930 (the approximate date of the original photo under discussion), I think not.

Even a humble Blackburnian like me can come up with old photos of Accy (Peel Street, Palace on the left)

blackburnlad · 14-02-2011, 07:08

[QUOTE=katex;883197]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackburnlad

Agree there, Blackburnlad, and already mentioned this to Retlaw to see where an A.Westwell was registered in 1925.

Will go and verify this with camera, as neutral at the moment, but do trust Retlaw's word nevertheless.

Just a thought katex, but like I have mentioned in another comment, the Barretts directories were only issued once every 3 - 4 years. So there is always the possibility that A. Westwell may have moved within those 3 years or so. So instead of looking for him in just the 1925 Burgess Roll, you would be better looking a couple of years either side of that too, plus having a look at the adjoining properties to see if they correspond with the 1925 Barrett's. I mean one thing we do know for certain, is that Marquis Street and (possibly) a few properties either side of it were imminently going to be demolished to create space for the construction of Broadway (opened in 1936, so construction probably started a few years earlier), so the people in those nearby properties would no doubt have been on the move. The photo of the derelict and abandoned Slater's Arms circa 1930 being an example of that.

blackburnlad · 14-02-2011, 09:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busman747

Oops, what have I started?

I have very little knowledge regarding the history of Accrington but what I DO know is that the house that I live in is 110 years old and is No.125 - but when it was first built, it was 123.

As far as I know, there are no records to show exactly when this change occurred and for what reason but it happened!!

Myself and Retlaw have very little knowledge of the history of Accrington either, so you're not alone

Interesting fact about your house !

cashman · 14-02-2011, 09:34

whoevers right the pics are great.

Gremlin · 14-02-2011, 11:19

This thread looks as though it will run as long as "The Archers" and no one is going to admit defeat.
I look forwards every day to logging on and reading the latest episode of the "Mysterious disappearing house numbers"

blackburnlad · 14-02-2011, 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gremlin

This thread looks as though it will run as long as "The Archers" and no one is going to admit defeat.
I look forwards every day to logging on and reading the latest episode of the "Mysterious disappearing house numbers"

I'll happily admit defeat Gremlin, when Retlaw gives me some definite evidence that the photo of the Slater's Arms was No 21-23 back in the late 20's / early 30's. So far he has been unable to do so. I'm sticking with my initial conclusion that it was No 13.

We've had illegible census returns that tell us nothing. We've been told that the Hope & Anchor was anything from No 19 - 31 Whalley Road (which kind of contradicts his claim that the Slater's was 21-23) and the latest, he has shown us some nice old photos of the general Peel St / Whalley Rd junction, which again tell us nothing apart from at one time, the Hope & Anchor had a big arrow suspended above it and it's name wrote across the sky.

blackburnlad · 14-02-2011, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

whoevers right the pics are great.

I'll agree with that, though the one of the shoe shop looks like it was taken by a child

Retlaw · 14-02-2011, 13:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackburnlad

I'll agree with that, though the one of the shoe shop looks like it was taken by a child

Your comment is even more childish. Looks like you are beginning to realise you have been wrong about the Slaters Arms being number 21 & the Hare & Hounds was 27/29. Keep taking the pills.
Retlaw.