-
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
Where is This? 180
- Thread starter Phil
- Start date
M
maxwell bullivant
Guest
Mike i can just make out the name J.W.Gill on the sign over the building. Does this help in pinning down things .
Take the front off the building ,widen the pavement, the hill at the side of the present building could be a modern introduction.
I think if you one looks on Google Street scene at the front of the Keating building it is unequivocal proof the the building has been modified from a building very much like The Peoples Hall
Take the front off the building ,widen the pavement, the hill at the side of the present building could be a modern introduction.
I think if you one looks on Google Street scene at the front of the Keating building it is unequivocal proof the the building has been modified from a building very much like The Peoples Hall
Last edited by a moderator:
M
maxwell bullivant
Guest
I think you have nailed it Lyn, well done. Max
Max & Lyn.
I attach section of Kellys for lower loveday st from 1944. It is going up the street on the east side from the end of Loveday st , and Gills is just before you get to Princip st . This is the same position as is shown in the 1845 directory for the Peoples Hall, and is where the featureless building with few windows is on Google , on the opposite side of Loveday St to the one which was thought to be similar. The slope of the road confirms it (unless there has been a lot of earthmoving since 1949). I have shown it on the c 1914 map in red (and marked the change from Loveday St to lower loveday St with a blue line , as it is not clear on any of the maps)
As to the building discussed earlier, if you look at the 1890 map at https://www.british-history.ac.uk/mapsheet.aspx?compid=55193&sheetid=10094&ox=1696&oy=2968&zm=1&czm=1&x=398&y=331. you will see that it is marked as St Chads R.C.School.
Mike
View attachment 48628
I attach section of Kellys for lower loveday st from 1944. It is going up the street on the east side from the end of Loveday st , and Gills is just before you get to Princip st . This is the same position as is shown in the 1845 directory for the Peoples Hall, and is where the featureless building with few windows is on Google , on the opposite side of Loveday St to the one which was thought to be similar. The slope of the road confirms it (unless there has been a lot of earthmoving since 1949). I have shown it on the c 1914 map in red (and marked the change from Loveday St to lower loveday St with a blue line , as it is not clear on any of the maps)
As to the building discussed earlier, if you look at the 1890 map at https://www.british-history.ac.uk/mapsheet.aspx?compid=55193&sheetid=10094&ox=1696&oy=2968&zm=1&czm=1&x=398&y=331. you will see that it is marked as St Chads R.C.School.
Mike
View attachment 48628
Well there you go and a wonderfull picture. Shorter by two spans and no columns but still a portico of sorts. It would have been a fine looking building in it's day and would have stood out from the one across the street that was part of my failed theory...no doubt about it. It stands at right angles to the way that I thought it would be and it has pleasing decoration. Such a pity that it was not successfull in it's intended purpose. The size of the building may have been curtailed but the quality of what was built seems to have been maintained. The faux collumns were a success IMO also the stone lower wall.
Darned hill anyways...who told them to build Brum on hills. I surrender...well done Astoness and all. Hmmm...back to Nechells Place.
Darned hill anyways...who told them to build Brum on hills. I surrender...well done Astoness and all. Hmmm...back to Nechells Place.
Tacitus
master brummie
Lyn
Well done! I bet that was a great surprise!!
I will attach another map (from 1880) at the bottom of this post - with added notes.
It doesn't add a great deal to what has already been posted but just adds a slightly different perspective.
It makes it quite clear that the KEATLEY building was originally the St Chad's R.C. school - or at least on the same spot.
I have confirmed that there are some other photographs in the CentralLibrary listed under Lower Loveday Street and Princip Street - so being the inquisitive (nosey??!!) person that I am I can't resist taking a quick look at those. There is just a slim chance that there is another picture of the building from another era.
In conclusion here is just another "food for thought". i.e. I wonder if the building ever was actually intended to look like the drawing which started this thread. The version with attached text suggests that the building is already complete and we know it didn't look like that. So I wonder if it is just artistic license taken to an extreme. I have come across similar examples where drawings of factories were used in adverts and quite modest buildings were made to look very grandiose. Never one quite as extreme as this - but it does make me wonder!!
View attachment 48633
T
Well done! I bet that was a great surprise!!
I will attach another map (from 1880) at the bottom of this post - with added notes.
It doesn't add a great deal to what has already been posted but just adds a slightly different perspective.
It makes it quite clear that the KEATLEY building was originally the St Chad's R.C. school - or at least on the same spot.
I have confirmed that there are some other photographs in the CentralLibrary listed under Lower Loveday Street and Princip Street - so being the inquisitive (nosey??!!) person that I am I can't resist taking a quick look at those. There is just a slim chance that there is another picture of the building from another era.
In conclusion here is just another "food for thought". i.e. I wonder if the building ever was actually intended to look like the drawing which started this thread. The version with attached text suggests that the building is already complete and we know it didn't look like that. So I wonder if it is just artistic license taken to an extreme. I have come across similar examples where drawings of factories were used in adverts and quite modest buildings were made to look very grandiose. Never one quite as extreme as this - but it does make me wonder!!
View attachment 48633
T
good eveing T i guess we may never know if the phils pic was the way it was intended to look unless maybe some more info is uncovered....wish i could have stayed longer at the library but against the time i had sorted out some family history and got see the hall pics the time had flown by and i was late for a 2 oclock appointment....i had to leg it accross town lol...anyhow look forward to seeing any new pics you may uncover...
cheers
lyn
cheers
lyn
Tacitus
master brummie
Lyn
Late night opening in the Archive Dept tomorrow so I will most likely take advantage of that.
One thing struck me as funny earlier. I think I have only been down Loveday Street about twice in the last 35 years. Now been there twice in two days!!
And another thing. Despite carrying the name People's Hall - I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of people passed by it during its life without a clue that it had its origins in the Chartist movement and the self-improvement of the working classes.
I didn't quote this yesterday - but there was a little comment (some may say cynical) at the end of that Notes & Queries article.
Regarding the failure of the building's original purpose it suggested that:
a. ordinary working men were traditionally not very good at organising their own self-improvement schemes.
b. when they tried to go it alone their "betters" generally took offence and would not even help with finance.
There may have been a degree of truth in that back in the early Victorian era.
T
Tacitus
master brummie
Here's a little challenge.
On the "triangular bit" of the roof there appears to be some writing. I think!!
Does anyone agree? Or is it just discolouration? If you agree can you make out what it says.
I thought I could see the letters OF and I wondered if it said People's Hall of Science. But I don't think it is that.
If no joy I will get the original out again tomorrow and have a look with a magnifying glass.
I suppose I am nit-picking now - but I do find these things interesting.
T
On the "triangular bit" of the roof there appears to be some writing. I think!!
Does anyone agree? Or is it just discolouration? If you agree can you make out what it says.
I thought I could see the letters OF and I wondered if it said People's Hall of Science. But I don't think it is that.
If no joy I will get the original out again tomorrow and have a look with a magnifying glass.
I suppose I am nit-picking now - but I do find these things interesting.
T
thanks for the quotes T...as you say there may be a degree of true in them...i cant say as i have ever had reason to walk that way even though i was born only a few mins walk from there...mind you it is around the gun quarter so i guess that would explain it..its a pity the hall was demolished..would rather look at that than what replaced it...good luck at the library if you go tomorrow...
lyn
lyn
john knight
signman
Well done Lyn,
I've lightened your photo and also done a negative of the sign part, whuich makes it a bit clearer.
I've lightened your photo and also done a negative of the sign part, whuich makes it a bit clearer.
M
maxwell bullivant
Guest
Gills were paper merchants. I wonder if one of our mobile members could see if the foundation stone is still there to be seen ? Max
Last edited by a moderator:
Tacitus
master brummie
Max
Unfortunately the whole building has now gone so no chance of finding the foundation stone. Maybe there is some photo out there somewhere that shows it??!!
I believe the building was only demolished in the last few (10?) years. That is so frustrating!
Lyn
I always like it when characters like that get accidentally get included in photos. I can't help wondering who she was, where she lived, where was she going etc. etc.
The baby in the pram might be a member of this forum! LOL
T
Unfortunately the whole building has now gone so no chance of finding the foundation stone. Maybe there is some photo out there somewhere that shows it??!!
I believe the building was only demolished in the last few (10?) years. That is so frustrating!
Lyn
I always like it when characters like that get accidentally get included in photos. I can't help wondering who she was, where she lived, where was she going etc. etc.
The baby in the pram might be a member of this forum! LOL
T
morning...T pity i did not have more time yesterday i may have been able to find out the demolition date of the hall....the lady with the two children may even be my rellies....i had some living round there at that time who had 2 youngsters...off to buy more paint soon...must press on with the decorating...
lyn
lyn
M
maxwell bullivant
Guest
So sorry , i have become confused , so Keatling building is not on the site of the The Peoples Hall For Science. I am now have a clear mind. Max
M
maxwell bullivant
Guest
I think Lyn has an advantage over us, her relatives pushing a pram near by, and im sure i can see her waving out of the top window. LOL
( That will get me a bang on the head ) Max
( That will get me a bang on the head ) Max
Peter Walker
gone but not forgotten
First of all, many thanks to Lyn for finding that super photo of the building in the Library yesterday. It was taken in 1949, just before the buses were diverted away from Loveday Street, after which I passed that corner less frequently. The picture means a lot to me, especially spending a few hours looking through what I have at home without finding anything at all. I must admit that I couldn’t recall it until I saw Lyn’s picture, but that is the place all right, and now I can remember it! There were quite a few elegant but decayed elegant buildings nearby, such as the old St Chad’s School opposite and the former Victoria Hall adjoining it, all later used for industry.
We can see that what was built was very different from the artist's impression posted earlier, which is obviously suspect because it shows both Princip and Loveday Street as being dead level, which the latter certainly isn’t. Tacitus has unearthed the newspaper contribution from 1899, stating that the original plans had to be altered, baths and other valuable requirements omitted and a wretched apology for what was intended erected in its stead.
My guess is that promoters realised they had to make compromises, and decided to build the ground floor as an industrial development taking access off Princip Street, with the People’s Hall occupying the upper floor/s taking access off Loveday Street up the hill and closer to the centre of town. Clearly the idea of impressive columns had given way to shallow pilasters round the main building, and although it remained five bays wide, it was only five bays long, rather than the seven bays originally shown in the drawing. I would even guess further that the promoters might have preferred to have a row columns along the façade to Loveday Street, to form a portico with the pediment a bay forward, but couldn’t afford that either.
It would be interesting to know a bit more about the setting up of the movement, which may be a bit complicated with its alleged Chartist connections.
I look forward to seeing any more pictures of, and learning anything more about, this fascinating building.
Thanks to everyone else for their contributions so far.
It is this kind of discussion which makes this Forum what it is – The BEST
Peter
We can see that what was built was very different from the artist's impression posted earlier, which is obviously suspect because it shows both Princip and Loveday Street as being dead level, which the latter certainly isn’t. Tacitus has unearthed the newspaper contribution from 1899, stating that the original plans had to be altered, baths and other valuable requirements omitted and a wretched apology for what was intended erected in its stead.
My guess is that promoters realised they had to make compromises, and decided to build the ground floor as an industrial development taking access off Princip Street, with the People’s Hall occupying the upper floor/s taking access off Loveday Street up the hill and closer to the centre of town. Clearly the idea of impressive columns had given way to shallow pilasters round the main building, and although it remained five bays wide, it was only five bays long, rather than the seven bays originally shown in the drawing. I would even guess further that the promoters might have preferred to have a row columns along the façade to Loveday Street, to form a portico with the pediment a bay forward, but couldn’t afford that either.
It would be interesting to know a bit more about the setting up of the movement, which may be a bit complicated with its alleged Chartist connections.
I look forward to seeing any more pictures of, and learning anything more about, this fascinating building.
Thanks to everyone else for their contributions so far.
It is this kind of discussion which makes this Forum what it is – The BEST
Peter
Tacitus
master brummie
Peter
Lovely choice of words - decayed elegance!
And thanks for reminding me of that word pilaster. I knew there was a word for those mock columns but couldn't for the life of me remember what it was.
Regarding the original group that set up the building it would not surprise me if there were adverts in the Gazette or Journal when they were trying to get people to contribute finance.
But that would mean combing through a couple of years of newspapers and then it might draw a blank.
Will bear it in mind though and try and have a go at some later date.
T
Lovely choice of words - decayed elegance!
And thanks for reminding me of that word pilaster. I knew there was a word for those mock columns but couldn't for the life of me remember what it was.
Regarding the original group that set up the building it would not surprise me if there were adverts in the Gazette or Journal when they were trying to get people to contribute finance.
But that would mean combing through a couple of years of newspapers and then it might draw a blank.
Will bear it in mind though and try and have a go at some later date.
T
W
Wendy
Guest
A fantastic thread Phil I enjoyed reading it. The columns or pilaster's (thanks for the new word to me Peter) were obviously the fashion of the time. This is a photo of Key Hill Cemetery Chapel just before it's demolition.
Tacitus
master brummie
Wendy
Can't claim to be an expert in architecture but I believe these are examples of the neo-Classical style i.e. copied from or inspired by classical Greek and Roman buildings.
All came about when the gentry started doing the Grand Tour which took in Greece and Italy.
The style remained popular into the Victorian era.
T
Can't claim to be an expert in architecture but I believe these are examples of the neo-Classical style i.e. copied from or inspired by classical Greek and Roman buildings.
All came about when the gentry started doing the Grand Tour which took in Greece and Italy.
The style remained popular into the Victorian era.
T
If you look closely at what might be the original concept drawing you will see that the columns along the side were always pillasters, never columns. Interior space would have been much reduced for total footprint otherwise. The front columns were removed though. I don't personally like the Greak/Gothic Revival style for various reasons but this building with it's pillasters (must try and remember that word) I think is a success and with its carved stone seems to have a lighter more pleasant appearance. Almost looks like a place that you might go in for a lager. Placing the building on a hill did not help matters.
Tacitus
master brummie
Rupert
That's very well spotted. I would never have noticed that.
So allowing for the lack of columns to the front, a bit of shortening, and a generous helping of artistic license the completed building is not so HUGELY different from the drawing.
I think we should all be applying for jobs on Time Team or somesuch.
T
alanfisher202
master brummie
Tacitus,
The building was demolished before 10 years ago
The company I work for ( ACE ENGRAVERS ) moved from 65 Livery Street (corner of Water Street) in 1973 to this site,if my memory serves me right we where the first to occupy the building after it was rebuilt.
Alan
The building was demolished before 10 years ago
The company I work for ( ACE ENGRAVERS ) moved from 65 Livery Street (corner of Water Street) in 1973 to this site,if my memory serves me right we where the first to occupy the building after it was rebuilt.
Alan
Tacitus
master brummie
Alan
Thanks for that.
It's got me a bit confused as i was talking to a guy last night who says he remembers the old building. I showed him Lyn's photo and he recognised it immediately. He said he thinks he took a photograph that he might still have.
I thought we were talking last 10 years or so. But seems now that I may have been at cross-purposes with him.
I'll double check when I see him. If he is able to find the photo I will of course post it here.
This jigsaw is coming together bit by bit.
As someone said previously - GREAT FUN!!
Thanks again.
T
Thanks for that.
It's got me a bit confused as i was talking to a guy last night who says he remembers the old building. I showed him Lyn's photo and he recognised it immediately. He said he thinks he took a photograph that he might still have.
I thought we were talking last 10 years or so. But seems now that I may have been at cross-purposes with him.
I'll double check when I see him. If he is able to find the photo I will of course post it here.
This jigsaw is coming together bit by bit.
As someone said previously - GREAT FUN!!
Thanks again.
T
hi T...that would be great if we had another photo of the hall...phil who started this thread is away for a few days...(thought he had been quiet) but just wait till he gets back and reads about all the detective work you have all been doing...brillient stuff...
lyn
lyn
john knight
signman
By a bit of jiggery poky I've superimposed the 2 images together, as you can see not much was kept of the original design.