cookie273uk
master brummie
Last edited:
-
Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.
We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team -
HI folks the server that hosts the site completely died including the Hdd's and backups.
Luckily i create an offsite backup once a week! this has now been restored so we have lost a few days posts.
im still fixing things at the moment so bear with me and im still working on all images 90% are fine the others im working on now
we are now using a backup solution
Key Hill chapel before demolition
- Thread starter cookie273uk
- Start date
W
Wendy
Guest
Eric that is simply stunning thank you so much.
cookie273uk
master brummie
Polly No, never visited Key Hill cemetery, was away on holiday when Forum members visited last year, this particular painting was created from a Black and White pic provided by Wendy with suggested colours also provided by Wendy. Eric
pollypops
master brummie
I think I remember Wendys picture - the colours you have added seem perfect. I hope you can visit one day - Polly
cookie273uk
master brummie
Polly, if there is another Forum visit I will certainly put my name down, would have loved to have gone last visit but was in Malta at the time. Eric
Does anyone know when the chapel was demolished, please?
Shortie
master brummie
It was demolished in 1966. The reason given was that it was too costly to refurbish, so it had to be demolished. If the chapel had not been clad in concrete circa 1905, which caused deterioration to brickwork and sandstone cladding underneath, it might still be there, although knowing Birmingham City Council, I doubt. There was an apartment underneath, where the Chaplin lived, the office was there too, and a room which the chaplain used for a young person's club.
Shortie
Shortie
Many thanks for that and the additional info, Shortie. I paid many visits to Key Hill and Warstone Lane cemeteries when I lived in Lozells, and went there a couple of years ago for the first time in nearly 30 years.
I couldn't remember when the chapel went, but I remember going to Key Hill with my mom and dad in the early 60s and finding it fascinating, if a bit creepy. There was quite a steep slope leading up to the chapel which was laid with cobblestones. Every 2 feet or so there was a line of stones laid across that were raised about an inch above the rest; my dad explained that this was to prevent the horses' feet from slipping.
Pity about the Edwardian render but, as you say, knowing B'ham Council.....
Regards, Mohawk.
I couldn't remember when the chapel went, but I remember going to Key Hill with my mom and dad in the early 60s and finding it fascinating, if a bit creepy. There was quite a steep slope leading up to the chapel which was laid with cobblestones. Every 2 feet or so there was a line of stones laid across that were raised about an inch above the rest; my dad explained that this was to prevent the horses' feet from slipping.
Pity about the Edwardian render but, as you say, knowing B'ham Council.....
Regards, Mohawk.
Shortie
master brummie
Hi Mohawk I knew about the slope, but I did not know about the line of stones across - that does not show in photographs, or if it does, I had not noticed it. As far as horses slipping, I do not know if that is exactly true. I have seen two photographs of old funerals there - one in 1924, where the hearse is parked in Icknield Street, and the coffin is carried in from there - as you know it was not very far to go. The other photograph, in 1914, is that of Joseph Chamberlain's funeral, and again, the hearse (horse drawn) is parked in Icknield Street and the coffin carried into the chapel. I had presumed that this was the usual custom, as surely there would not have been sufficient room for the hearse and horses to turn round? I am open to suggestions, though, I have to say.
Shortie
Shortie
johndavies
master brummie
The lines of stones were perhaps in situ so the pallbearers could get an adequate footing when shouldering the coffin. Many of the residents were buried in lead lined coffins which were very heavy.
Hi Shortie,
It's certainly true that it was common practice to lay cobblestones in the way I described. My dad, as a coal merchant, had used horses and carts for many years. When I started work in 1970, I did so at a factory that had been built in 1910. A sloping path with blue cobblestones was laid in that fashion and the older hands also said that was the reason. I must say I was glad of it when I walked down there as the bricks had become very polished and looked slippery, even if they weren't! As you say, it wasn't much of a distance to the chapel, so perhaps the idea was to stop the bearers from slipping! It may be that my memory is at fault and there was such a path elsewhere in the cemetery (or just elsewhere!) and I am mistakenly conflating the two. The turning room would have been insufficient, I'm sure, had there not been a way to circuit the chapel itself. If the photos clearly don't show it, I'm obviously mistaken. I'd like to know for sure though, so If anyone can help.....
Regards, Mohawk.
It's certainly true that it was common practice to lay cobblestones in the way I described. My dad, as a coal merchant, had used horses and carts for many years. When I started work in 1970, I did so at a factory that had been built in 1910. A sloping path with blue cobblestones was laid in that fashion and the older hands also said that was the reason. I must say I was glad of it when I walked down there as the bricks had become very polished and looked slippery, even if they weren't! As you say, it wasn't much of a distance to the chapel, so perhaps the idea was to stop the bearers from slipping! It may be that my memory is at fault and there was such a path elsewhere in the cemetery (or just elsewhere!) and I am mistakenly conflating the two. The turning room would have been insufficient, I'm sure, had there not been a way to circuit the chapel itself. If the photos clearly don't show it, I'm obviously mistaken. I'd like to know for sure though, so If anyone can help.....
Regards, Mohawk.
W
Wendy
Guest
Interesting info on this thread I love to hear from people who actually remember the Chapel. I must have seen it as a child but sadly I don't remember it. I have seen raised stones in a line on cobbled streets where there is a hill in Wales they also appear on pavements. I would think this may have been for the safety of all who attended the funerals. I would think it would be very tricky in wet weather getting up that slope.
Shortie
master brummie
Hi Mohawk
Old photographs show no pathway round the chapel, and the chapel itself was quite large. The cemetery staff used to grow their own flowers and shrubs in the area behind. I have not got the photographs any more, but I will endeavour to obtain the ones I need to illustrate this - but it could take some time.
There was a pathway similar to how you describe leading up the hill towards Vyse Street, at the top of which there was a sundial - so you remember this? Photographs of the sundial and pathway exist, but although I have notes from the chaplain's daughter in law about the sundial, she does not explain exactly where it is, just near the side where the metro is now.
I remember the cobbled streets before they put tarmac over them (some still exist near Watery Lane), particularly Edmund Street. Made of granite, I think they were not only shiny, but slippery, too. I will email the holder of the photographs and see what I can do - they are very large and were taken before 1918, so may have difficulty scanning them.
Shortie
Old photographs show no pathway round the chapel, and the chapel itself was quite large. The cemetery staff used to grow their own flowers and shrubs in the area behind. I have not got the photographs any more, but I will endeavour to obtain the ones I need to illustrate this - but it could take some time.
There was a pathway similar to how you describe leading up the hill towards Vyse Street, at the top of which there was a sundial - so you remember this? Photographs of the sundial and pathway exist, but although I have notes from the chaplain's daughter in law about the sundial, she does not explain exactly where it is, just near the side where the metro is now.
I remember the cobbled streets before they put tarmac over them (some still exist near Watery Lane), particularly Edmund Street. Made of granite, I think they were not only shiny, but slippery, too. I will email the holder of the photographs and see what I can do - they are very large and were taken before 1918, so may have difficulty scanning them.
Shortie
Thanks, John. I see you have come up with the same idea, having posted while I was writing mine! I'd forgotten about the lead-linings; after all, Key Hill was mostly for the 'nobs', who could afford such refinements.
Regards, Mohawk.
Shortie
master brummie
Hi Mohawk
I forgot one point from your earlier email - re the concrete cladding. now I know Birmingham CC have done a lot of bad things (demolition of Library, stations, etc), but they were not responsible for cladding the chapel in concrete. The Cemetry was in private ownership until 1954, so it would have been the decision of the General Cemetry Company, as it then was. Concrete was considered to be the chapel's saviour, but concrete holds water and we all know what happened next - delamination of the sandstone and erosion of the brickwork. However, my personal feelings are that (and having seen photographs of the chapel just before demolition) it was not in a really bad way, but you remember the 1960's were a time of getting rid of the old and bringing in the new. Just progress, I am afraid, although I personally fail to see that as progress, it's just HORRENDOUS.
Shortie
I forgot one point from your earlier email - re the concrete cladding. now I know Birmingham CC have done a lot of bad things (demolition of Library, stations, etc), but they were not responsible for cladding the chapel in concrete. The Cemetry was in private ownership until 1954, so it would have been the decision of the General Cemetry Company, as it then was. Concrete was considered to be the chapel's saviour, but concrete holds water and we all know what happened next - delamination of the sandstone and erosion of the brickwork. However, my personal feelings are that (and having seen photographs of the chapel just before demolition) it was not in a really bad way, but you remember the 1960's were a time of getting rid of the old and bringing in the new. Just progress, I am afraid, although I personally fail to see that as progress, it's just HORRENDOUS.
Shortie
Thanks, Shortie.
It would be good to see any photos, and much appreciated. I can't remember a sundial, but of course that's not to say it's not subconsciously influencing the Mohawk memory!
For now, I'm going with the idea that there were raised lines, but for pedestrians' (and especially bearers') benefit.
I also remember the cobbles in Edmund St, I think they were some of the last to be obliterated, and still had tramlines embedded.
Regards, Mohawk
It would be good to see any photos, and much appreciated. I can't remember a sundial, but of course that's not to say it's not subconsciously influencing the Mohawk memory!
For now, I'm going with the idea that there were raised lines, but for pedestrians' (and especially bearers') benefit.
I also remember the cobbles in Edmund St, I think they were some of the last to be obliterated, and still had tramlines embedded.
Regards, Mohawk
Phil
Gone, but not forgotten.
These are some of the few photos I have of the cemetery. As can be seen from the drawing I think as it has been suggested that the funeral hearse would be parked in the street and the coffin carried by bearers into the Chapel.
The photo of the gated entrance does not show any cobbles at the time it was taken, so perhaps they were a later addition.
The other photo shows the chapel with its upper & lower rooms. It doesn't look in that good a condition there.
I would just mention that the first photo shown here (The Chapel) is from the collection of Mr Neville Hickman.
Phil
23/11/11. Please forgive me if I have placed the photos in the wrong order and I have failed to acknowledge the correct photo.
The photo of the gated entrance does not show any cobbles at the time it was taken, so perhaps they were a later addition.
The other photo shows the chapel with its upper & lower rooms. It doesn't look in that good a condition there.
I would just mention that the first photo shown here (The Chapel) is from the collection of Mr Neville Hickman.
Phil
23/11/11. Please forgive me if I have placed the photos in the wrong order and I have failed to acknowledge the correct photo.
Hi Shortie, In fact, I'd taken your cynicism about the council (which I largely share) to apply to whether the chapel would have been retained even if it hadn't been rendered, rather than the rendering operation itself.
I think it's only as I got older that I started to appreciate Victorian and Edwardian buildings. I recall many people in the 60s regarding such things as ugly and old-hat, many councillors among them, it seems! I know my mom was keen to have a lot of, shall we say, original features, removed from our terraced house (built in 1881) and when I started DIYing in the 70s, well, I don't want to say any more! Suffice to say, I wouldn't do the same things now.
Not to go too far off-thread, and not to be too hard on the council, I've just pulled out from my bookshelves a 55-page booklet issued by B'ham Council Library Service in 1992 called: In The Midst Of Life, A History Of The Burial Grounds Of Birmingham, by Joseph McKenna. No prizes for guessing what I'll be reading later.
Regards, Mohawk.
Thanks, Phil. Great photos, what an awful state the pillars are in. I may be biased, or just bunk-eyed, but that slope looks as if it is cobbled (compare with the stones laid at the gutterline), and the way the light is falling on the scene, there are distinct lines across. The cobbles would not have been added after the photos were taken as the front of a car (possibly a 60s model) can be made out on the left-hand side of the centre photo.
Regards, Mohawk
Regards, Mohawk
Phil
Gone, but not forgotten.
Hi Mohawk
I would not differ with you about the cobbles, because your eyes do not have to be all that good to be better than mine.
It looked to me as if there are a couple of lines of cobbles at the gutter then the pavement is tarmac with another two or three lines of cobbles at the gate threshold. Then the path looks like tarmac again to me only covered with grit as they do on the roads. Perhaps what you see and I don't is the shape of the cobbles beneath that.
Phil
I would not differ with you about the cobbles, because your eyes do not have to be all that good to be better than mine.
It looked to me as if there are a couple of lines of cobbles at the gutter then the pavement is tarmac with another two or three lines of cobbles at the gate threshold. Then the path looks like tarmac again to me only covered with grit as they do on the roads. Perhaps what you see and I don't is the shape of the cobbles beneath that.
Phil
Shortie
master brummie
Hi Mokawk
I also have that book, it is a great help when trying to find where people are buried. I bought mine years ago. I knew Joe Mckenna from when he worked in the Library, it's a pity he retired before I had a chance to say how useful the book was for the genealogist.
Now back to our other subject - the chapel was perched in Section O of the cemetery, which is to the left when standing at the gate looking in. Section O graves are continued just after the chapel, but there is a small path. This path, however, was only thin and went on top of graves - possibly pubic or common graves as they did not usually have headstones. I am saying this easily as I have grave plans in front of me as I type. The Chapel was situated with the (as you are facing it) front left hand corner touching the middle of grave No O411 and finished at No O525. There was no space for a hearse to move along the side of the chapel, the plan makes it quite clear. The graves are each 4' x 9' - the chapel was therefore approximately 58ft long - give or take a few inches or so. Running straight on from Section O is Section P - to the right of the chapel, and no space for path there, except one that goes over graves. I have scanned in a plan taken from a 1905 booklet of the cemetery, which shows the sections and the pathways. Just tried to attach plan, and I cannot - can anyone help? - I have saved it on my hard drive and for some reason I cannot find my hard drive from the 'insert image' icon.
Shortie
I also have that book, it is a great help when trying to find where people are buried. I bought mine years ago. I knew Joe Mckenna from when he worked in the Library, it's a pity he retired before I had a chance to say how useful the book was for the genealogist.
Now back to our other subject - the chapel was perched in Section O of the cemetery, which is to the left when standing at the gate looking in. Section O graves are continued just after the chapel, but there is a small path. This path, however, was only thin and went on top of graves - possibly pubic or common graves as they did not usually have headstones. I am saying this easily as I have grave plans in front of me as I type. The Chapel was situated with the (as you are facing it) front left hand corner touching the middle of grave No O411 and finished at No O525. There was no space for a hearse to move along the side of the chapel, the plan makes it quite clear. The graves are each 4' x 9' - the chapel was therefore approximately 58ft long - give or take a few inches or so. Running straight on from Section O is Section P - to the right of the chapel, and no space for path there, except one that goes over graves. I have scanned in a plan taken from a 1905 booklet of the cemetery, which shows the sections and the pathways. Just tried to attach plan, and I cannot - can anyone help? - I have saved it on my hard drive and for some reason I cannot find my hard drive from the 'insert image' icon.
Shortie
Shortie
master brummie
Hello Phil, the first photo you scanned in is one that still has copyright attached! It comes from a group I was given by a man who is still living, and I was expressly asked that if they were ever shown, they should have his name attached. When I handed these photos over to the new Chairman at Key Hill, he obviously ignored my request. The man concerned is Mr Neville Hickman, a former art teacher and brother of the late Douglas Hickman who was an architect. I do ask that you bear this in mind, for Mr Hickman's sake - although he would not, I am sure, be concerned that they are being shown. Mr Hickman and his brother were completely appalled at the fact that the chapel was being demolished. He gave me the sign from the office door, which I still have. You can see clearly that the chapel was not in a state requiring demolition, but it did need serious work. The roof was part glass, which you can see from the original plans - I am sure it must have been amazing inside.
The second photo was taken in 1954 by the Council. The pavement was never tarmac. It was cobbles until about 1870 when they were replaced by blue bricks which were there until quite late, then they were replaced by ordinary grey slabs which are what is there today. The man who 'invented' blue brick paving is buried at Key Hill, he was known as Thomas 'Blue Brick' Walker, and was a Councillor.
Shortie
The second photo was taken in 1954 by the Council. The pavement was never tarmac. It was cobbles until about 1870 when they were replaced by blue bricks which were there until quite late, then they were replaced by ordinary grey slabs which are what is there today. The man who 'invented' blue brick paving is buried at Key Hill, he was known as Thomas 'Blue Brick' Walker, and was a Councillor.
Shortie
Well, one thing's for sure; this thread may have been dormant for a few months, but the question I asked a few days ago about the closure date has breathed new life into it!
Taking the similarity of the colour of the cobbles in the street and the colour of the path into account, I can't see that the slope would be tarmac. I've been looking at the Friends of Warstone Lane and Key Hill Cemeteries website (fkwc.org), there's a slideshow of photos on there showing the path. This one looks much less like cobbles than Phil's and I can't make out any lines. I guess it's almost certain to have been cobbles originally as their use was commonplace, the question being the raised lines and my memory!
Thanks for additional info. Lucky you, Shortie, having the nameplate! I so wish I'd had the chance to go in, I'm sure you are right and that it was a sight to behold. Maybe we'll get lucky and someone will come up with a picture.
Regards, Mohawk.
Taking the similarity of the colour of the cobbles in the street and the colour of the path into account, I can't see that the slope would be tarmac. I've been looking at the Friends of Warstone Lane and Key Hill Cemeteries website (fkwc.org), there's a slideshow of photos on there showing the path. This one looks much less like cobbles than Phil's and I can't make out any lines. I guess it's almost certain to have been cobbles originally as their use was commonplace, the question being the raised lines and my memory!
Thanks for additional info. Lucky you, Shortie, having the nameplate! I so wish I'd had the chance to go in, I'm sure you are right and that it was a sight to behold. Maybe we'll get lucky and someone will come up with a picture.
Regards, Mohawk.
Shortie
master brummie
Well, Mohawk, the man who I believe holds the pics is not there at the moment, and I am out from 5pm tonight, but will try and do my best to sort something out for you. There will be an open day in September, and although the chapel is not there, perhaps you would like to go along because I am sure the photos will be on display.
Shortie
Shortie
Many thanks, Shortie. I greatly appreciate your efforts. I'll give some thought to the open day.
Regards, Mohawk.
Phil
Gone, but not forgotten.
Hi Shortie
To be honest, I knew nothing of this I'm sure I took the photo from a pictorial history book. I always try not to post photos from private collections although I may have copies in my own collection.
I will go along now and alter my post to acknowledge Mr Neville Hickman and if required I will remove the photo in question.
I do respect private copyright and in no way attribute what I am about to say to Mr Hickman, but I have this opinion that some of the older photos that are around today have just been claimed and copyrighted by people who have no right to them at all. I say this because I so often see the same photo in numerous different books by many different compilers.
Phil
To be honest, I knew nothing of this I'm sure I took the photo from a pictorial history book. I always try not to post photos from private collections although I may have copies in my own collection.
I will go along now and alter my post to acknowledge Mr Neville Hickman and if required I will remove the photo in question.
I do respect private copyright and in no way attribute what I am about to say to Mr Hickman, but I have this opinion that some of the older photos that are around today have just been claimed and copyrighted by people who have no right to them at all. I say this because I so often see the same photo in numerous different books by many different compilers.
Phil
pollypops
master brummie
pmc1947
I shouldn't worry about the photo - it is already on forum, on the Key Hill Cemetery thread https://forum.birminghamhistory.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4830&page=14 post #205
and it has been there since 2009 without any trouble occurring.
Regards
Polly
I shouldn't worry about the photo - it is already on forum, on the Key Hill Cemetery thread https://forum.birminghamhistory.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4830&page=14 post #205
and it has been there since 2009 without any trouble occurring.
Regards
Polly
