Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Scattered Homes


The picture has some conection with the time of rehoming the children of the Camberwell Workhouse Constanmce Road Now St Francis Road. It is possible that the att. picture is connected.


In June 1898, Camberwell set up London's first children's scattered homes following the scheme devised in Sheffield to house children in small family groups in ordinary urban houses. Camberwell initially rented two houses on Heaton Road, Peckham Lane, where around twenty children from "in-and-out" families were placed under the care of two foster mothers.


Five further homes were added in January 1899: two in Crystal Palace Road, one in Lordship Lane, and two in Melbourne Grove, Dulwich. By 1903, thirty-one scattered homes were in use. In 1908, the locations included: 18-20 Ashbourne Grove; 2-4 Barforth Road, Nunhead; 200-202 Barry Road; 1 Burnaston Terrace, Grove Vale; 59-63, 262, 272, 297-299 and 341-343 Crystal Palace Road; 14 Derwent Grove; 6, 24-26, 209, 263 and 267 Friern Road; 335 Lordship Lane; 29 Marsden Road; 1-3 and 9-11 Matham Grove; 71 Melbourne Grove; 1-4 Rye Road; Peckham; 197-199, 306, 322 and 326-8 Upland Road,

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> silverfox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Does the reflection in the middle window show

> the

> > gable end of a house at 90 degrees? It looks

> like

> > a Dutch Gable at a guess. Tintagel Rd looking

> up

> > Lordship Lane?

>

> No. It's clearly a Zeppelin, possibly on the way

> to Streatham, which would put the date a little

> later (1915/6?). There again, it might be not be

> unrelated to the stain running from the top of the

> picture. Sadly, colour photography having not been

> invented at the time, it's impossible to tell just

> by looking, but my money's on Bovril.


I accept I'm wrong about Tintagel Crescent (although the roof is correct).


If you look opposite 88 Lindsell Rd the facade of the houses matches the reflection in the middle window of the photo. Unfortunately the house is different. So, back to the drawing board.

As others have said, Underhill Road opposite Honor Oak Mansions almost certainly.


The slightly sunken roof detailing next to the chimney (if it's still there) and the shape of step up to the next house could identify the right house, but Google maps isn't really great for such fine comparisons!

Need more provenance or hard corroboration for nexus.


The brick-course ofset count to follow street gradient might exclude this identification or not.


Small/medium builders used pattern books. This photo could be anywhere in south east England or the midlands.


John K

I don't have a protractor with me, but if you look at the original photo, and assume that the people in it are standing upright (what would be at 90 degrees to a flat surface) - then you can work out the slope of the road (steepness of the hill) which should exclude many houses in SE England & Midlands (outwith the very fair point that the photo is directly identified as being in ED). The house (as those opposite Ryedale) is also facing correctly as regards the downward slope.

> A house in 1959 dont know where.


It is, as it says on the outside, in Cardiff. The photograph turns up in Jeremy Deller and Alan Kane's Folk Archive exhibition, entitled Paiinted House, Cardiff, Wales, 2001. A note says the tenant was airing a long-standing grievancve wih the the council. (Warmning: if you go to the British Council site hosting a replica of the whole exhibition - the pic's on the fourth floor - it gratuitously pre-downloads 40MB on you, including some videos.)

there used to be a house off the Wimbledon end of Worple Road where the resident had done something very similar - he was trying to publicise his diffrences with Merton Council

I used to walk past it on my way to the station 10 years ago. He died, it was all swept away, house was gentrified etc.

Does anyone remember it? I can't find any trace of it on t'internet

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There must have been some prior knowledge that led

> to the photo being filed as a house in ED so I

> tend to agree with Penguin that the photo is more

> likely to be where it says it is rather than not.


I wouldn't start from there.


Here's an example: http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external/Item&sp=Zdulwich&sp=234304&sp=X


If the URL does not work it is image 232211.


Jimbo1964 works with archived photos and can probably explain better than me the problems with image identification.


John K

Joom - good point. Plus they are very deliberately standing outside only one half of the house - if it had been one house then I would have expected the photographer (perhaps the father of the household?) to have included both sides of the house.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Having a BBQ (fingers crossed) in 2 weeks and need a small BBQ for veggie bits and any spare benches or garden tables and chairs to borrow to add to mine. Any going? Thanks in advance...
    • Oh dear, hope you are OK, I've had it three times and it was worse each time, but not a patch on many of those who got it before they vac' role out. Not commenting on the discussion as I got confused many days ago beyond the reminder that Corbyn would not compromise and the harm that could lead to him, the party and regards Brexit pre and post referendum the country.  Starmer goes too far the other way at times.  
    • I am  ill in bed with Covid. It's not that I "can't be bothered" to read things. I am feeling crap and don't have the mental  energy at the moment. I am not "brushing stuff aside and pleading ignorance." I am truthfully saying when I don't presently know enough about something to be able to comment. I have always been very careful to try to  differentiate between fact and opinion in both  my posts and other people's, and I am not clear what your point is. And I am certainly not trying to wind anybody up. This is a forum. If you don't want to respond to my posts, that's up to you. I'm not sure why you feel the need to announce it.   
    • @NewWave I know how you feel. Like you, I've lived and spent prolonged periods of time in some pretty crazy places and always thought I could handle a bunch of kids. But, no - they got to me and I was shaking like a leaf afterwards. That's what age does to us.  But I did engage with them, so bear that in mind.  My advice would be to never let anything like that stop you doing the things you love. I'm certainly not going to stop using the park, there's no way they get to take away our cherished spaces!  If you see them, just change tack and keep out of their way. My dog won't even go that way again, so that's that problem solved. (If I see them again, I'm going to keep taking photos from a safe distance). 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...