Union Street

[Vivienne14]

I think Union Street deserves a thread of its own simply on the basis that it was once a very attractive street. This is a drawing of #28 and #29 Union Street. It is a bold and elegant design by John Henry Chamberlain, built in 1857 as a shop and house. Mainly of white brick, but with coloured bricks for decoration and some Minton encaustic tiles. The front measured 50ft x 50 ft, depth of 95 ft. Each window measured 17 and 1/2 ft with a segmental arch designed to provide maximum display space. There were no wooden window dressings so it was regarded as fire-proof. I think it's a wonderful building, so uncharacteristic of the modern Union Street. Viv.

 

[mikejee]

The occupant in 1862 was Chamberlain & King, cabinet makers, carpet factors, upholsterers & general furnishing warehousmen. The Chamberlain in the firm was Joshua Chamberlain, so presumably they tried to keep everything in the family
mike

 

[BordesleyExile]

Good find, Viv.

 

[Vivienne14]

Thanks Mike for the information. Apparently the interior was similar to the exterior, so if it had a warehouse function that would make sense. Hi Bordesleyexile, yes I too love these drawings, so much detail given too. An added bonus is that it's in colour too.

Does anyone know if 28 & 29 Union Street would be where W H Smith's is (or was, and was also once C & A) ? Viv.

 

[Vivienne14]

How far removed are these two views of Union Street from the modern day view? I find it hard to believe it's the same place. Viv

First :

The Old Library at 24 Union Street built in 1797 and designed in stone by William Hollins.

 

[Vivienne14]

And secondly the Birmingham General Dispensary at 4 Union Street built in 1806, designed by William Hollins. The dispensary was in Union St until the 1920s.Viv

 

[Rupert]

What a great thread. Super photo's of a street that has not been explored much.
It's hard to identify the library building though. There is a crook in Unoin Street and the picture seems to be looking at it. If that is the case then the first building down would be Midland House...in 1890 anyway...and the vantage point woukl be from the corner of Union Passage; the bollard possibly indicates this. This being so, then the Library indicated on the 1890 survey would be out of the picture to the right. However, the third building on the right...with the rounded pillared front...seems to be similar to a building described as the old library elsewhere and may be the first one there. The library then moved to Temple Row and I believe and this was described elsewhere as the new library. Going on from there I seem to have read somewhere that a further move back to Union Street was made at which point I presume that the 1890 map location was used. So perhaps this is a sighting of the first library en. loco. One of the great pictures here.
Lots of wraught iron railings must have produced work for Bromford Mills.

 

[mikejee]

Rupert
The library in Union st was at no 24 in 1873, 1880 and 1890. In the first two years given it is described as the Old Birmingham library, but in 1890 as Birmingham library. I do not know if it was a new building when it moved back , but suspect not. A large scale 1890 map (below) shows it set back slightly and with a bow window and steps, presumably behind the railings in the photo. But remember that before about 1883 Corporation st had not been built. Below is also an outline ,map showing palns for corporation street, which show union st as slightly curved , as apparent in the photo. The photo would appear to be taken before corporation st from the end of little cherry st, where it joins union st and Cherry st
Mike

 

[Rupert]

The trouble is Mike, that I can't see Union Passage unless the opening in the curb is it...but there is a door covering that opening. Anyway perhaps the third building down is still in fact the building and Union Passage is beyond that. Otherwise the library is not on the picture. There is a 20 number on the top of the farest building beyond the pillared one. There is a small picture of the Old Library on Bill Dargues site that matches the columned building. It just seems to be too far down but perhaps not if considering before Corporation Street.

 

[mikejee]

Rupert
Have just realised I have a better copy of that picture (see below). It is 25 on the building after the library, not 20, and there is some text also, which confirms things (as long as it is cvorrect. Picture is c 1870. incidently the dorway on the far left of the picture , showing "Fire" is the Lancashire Fire & Life Insurrance Co. the directories of 1868 and 1872 do not list the building this side of the library as the Borough Treasurers Office, but the Birmingham Gas & Coke Co
Mike

 

[Vivienne14]

Thanks Mike and Rupert for the information. I've had a look at William West's "History, Topography and Directory of Warwickshire" of 1830 (albeit quite some time before the photo) and it describes the approach to Union St from Cherry Street as "continuing the line along Union-street, the Union Inn, a well conducted concern is worthy of note; next succeeds the Branch Bank of England, adjoining is the Birmingham or old library ......... the exterior chaste and classical, the interior airy and appropriate. Adjoining is the elegant building of the Birmingham Fire Office" On first reading I thought the building with "Fire" just in view must be the Fire Office he refers to, but surely that's the wrong side of Union Street? But then West's account is many years before the photo, so maybe it moved from the other side of Union St after1830. Viv.

 

[Rupert]

Well done indeed. So Union passage must be on the other side of number 25...just out of sight. So this would be pre-Corporation Street and the bollard would be on the corner of what was there before the same. As I said before...one of the great pictures on here. It seems like mid-day (just trying to interprete shadows) and no people about so perhaps cameras then had difficulty capturing movement. If there are other pictures to come and we can locate the ones already here, then maybe a streetscape can be re-created that has been lost for the longest time.
It's funny; we see companies these days as somewhat temporary and coming and going, but, by the look of it the same was happening then...it was just the same.

 

[Vivienne14]

For info. In 1830 an importing and wholesaler business called Harris Heely & Co occupied 24 Union Street, so the library cannot have been numbered as 24 at that time (see ad below - and what a variety of items they dealt in !). Also White's History & General Directory of 1849 gives the Birmingham Library address as 23 Union Street and the description given was " comprises a handsome stone building with circular portico. The reading room is circular, and is lighted by a dome lanthorn, resting on handsome Ionic pilars of porphyry". Viv.

 

[mikejee]

West's 1930 Warwickshire directory also lists the library as no 23. It , and th eposter above also shows that conglomerates are not just a modern thing. Harris Heeley are listed three times, for corals , enamels etc, as jewellers and as percussion cap manufacturers

 

[Vivienne14]

That's interesting Mike and Rupert. I've suspected (although never been certain about this), that they started out as separate arcades, maybe they were built at different times? Then joined up - just a hunch. I know the 'City' section was built around 1900/01, but wonder if the section exiting onto New Street was perhaps from a different date? From other discussions on the Forum, I know a large part of the arcade(s) would have been destroyed in WW2 - before the Big Top development. I've also wondered if the arcade that now runs on the other side of Union Passage, (between W H Smiths and what was once the Big Top Post Office), follows the footprint of the original arcade(s)? Viv.

 

[mikejee]

Don't know if this can help Viv. There seems little difference between the 1905(probably surveyed a year or so before that) & 1937 map, so any difference in ages would be before that. they are not exactly the same scale i'm afraid
mike

 

[Vivienne14]

That's very, very helpful Mike! Your series of maps makes it really clear how the arcades connected up together. And it's interesting how many branches there were. Like a shopping (hate to use the word) 'mall'. Looks like one branch of the triangular section disappeared when the Big Top Post Office was built. It also looks like the original path of the arcades is pretty much the same as the modern sections we see today. Although it's not confirmed, I feel that these arcades must have originally been developed over some time, then linked together, rather than created at the outset as one arcade. They would have done a good job in linking up Corporation St, New St and High St, with shoppers avoiding exposure to the elements! And there seems to have been a bit of 'Arcade-mania' going on too, what with the one cutting across Temple Row to Snow Hill, another near Fore Street off Corporation St, the Burlington and the Piccadilly Arcades, to name a few. But the best bit for me is the 'City' section that remains on Union St/Union Passage. It seems to have been nicely refurbed. My memory of it was of a very neglected area. So good to see it in better shape and giving us a glimpse of how it would have been 110 years ago.Thank you. Viv.

 

[ellbrown]

Think where Superdrug is they tried to make that building look in the style of Corporation Street. It's at Victoria House, 22 Union Street.

From Pevsner re: the Superdrug building:

Victoria House is of 1996 by Robert Seager Design, modified by Peter Hing & Jones; revived late C19 in terracotta and brick, not well done.

Wasn't most of Union Street lost to bombing in the Second World War? Where Big Top and Martineau Place are now.

 

[Shortie]

I hace recently been discussing this very same subject - demolition - with some friends and one remembers that the Council got rid of stuff they felt 'old fashioned' - which it was in reality. Victoriana after the war was something people did not really want to live with. It's only the recent generations that have decided it was foolish. Union Street had some wonderful Georgian buildings which the Victorians got rid of because they did not like them. They were too plan and bland for the Victorians - in other words 'old fashioned'. The same will continue for many years, I am fairly sure of that, as we don't like the 60's and 70's buildings now. Not much changes I am afraid.

 

[Vivienne14]

I also think we've come to value craftmanship too. So when you see a building that's obviously employed a range of highly skilled craftsmen such as the stone masons, engineers etc who developed Victorian buildings, they appear to have more aesthetic value. Modern buildings don't generally give the same impression (although many of the same skills are probably employed). Maybe there's also a big difference in the power that architects can wield nowadays. Whatever the reason, I'm still glad we have many buildings of various ages still to admire, including the occasional 'modern' building. But, unfortunately, there aren't many modern ones on Union Street that I'd want to recommend! Viv.

 

[Charlie]

People tend not to look enough when they're walking along Colmore Row, Great Charles Street, Newhall Hill, Margaret/Edmund Street area. The detail on some of those buildings is absolutely stunningly beautiful.

 

[Vivienne14]

Think where Superdrug is they tried to make that building look in the style of Corporation Street. It's at Victoria House, 22 Union Street.

From Pevsner re: the Superdrug building:


Wasn't most of Union Street lost to bombing in the Second World War? Where Big Top and Martineau Place are now.

This great Keith Berry 1969 view down Corporation St (towards New St) shows the Victorian building at the corner of Union St (i.e. behind the bus turning into Corporation St on the left) The right edge of Ell's first photo post #21 which just shows Victoria House joining City Arcade is, I think, where this grand Victorian building would have once stood. Must have been built when Corporation Street was cut through. Viv.

https://www.pbase.com/beppuu/image/71278540

 

[Vivienne14]

A little bit of colour to add to Union Street life. This extract (from Edwards: Personal recollections of Birmingham & Birmingham men 1891) describes the 1839 adventures of Mr Geach, Manager of the Birmingham & Midland Bank in Union Street. A local hero! Viv.

 

[Shortie]

A cracking find, Viv. Union Street in 1839 was a beautiful georgian street, hard to think of it being in the midst of a riot.

 

[Rupert]

I read this and can't help thinking that many of us (if back then) would probably be on the rioters side. We can see from here that, even up to the sixties, living conditions were pretty meager (back to backs). Back then it would have been even worse and trickle down from the goodies of 'the Empire' might well have been like the flow of even thicker treacle. A good find that Viv...it takes time I know. Well done.

 

[Wendy]

A lovely find Viv and well done to Mr Geach I do so enjoy reading these accounts.

 

[Vivienne14]

Birmingham & Midland Bank opened in Union St in 1836, towards the lower end of Union St. It was so successful that after 18 months it moved to bigger premises higher up Union St on the corner of Union St and Little Cherry St. The new premises also had a house for the manager, Charles Geach, for his private use. The business continued to expand at such a rate that a new purpose-built bank was built (by now known as 'Midland Bank') on the corner of Stephenson's Place and New St, completed in 1869. This building is still there today. Viv.

 

[Rupert]

Maybe you should post the last picture in 'The Birmingham Exchange Thread' Viv. I think that is what you had in mind.

 

[Vivienne14]

Yes Rupert realised what I'd done, now on the proper thread and amended post#38 above with the correct info. Just checking you're all awake!!! Viv.

 

[Radiorails]

One advantage of bus travel - especially double deck vehicles - does give the opportunity to look at many interesting buildings and the features that they possess. I do travel more often into towns by bus nowadays; it allows far more freedom from finding parking spaces and the time watching where time limits might be over stayed. Usually I drive the greater distance by car then take a bus the short remainder of the journey. This area has many interesting small towns and villages: places like Plymouth and Exeter I usually avoid if possible.

Reading the thread reminded me of my childhood when I mostly traveled by bus - always upstairs and at the front (if possible) - which allowed good views of buildings, other structures and a good views of various traders and manufacturies which were to be seen en route. Travelling into the City from the countryside usually gave a most interesting journey: farms, animals and other agricultural events were to be seen and these subsequently gave way to suburbia and then inner cityscapes. Foggy days were dismal in more than one respect. lol

I guess the price we pay for car use, if we are always the driver, is a lack of intimate knowledge of our surroundings.