Very Old Pic (Apparently it's an East Dulwich house)

[ed_pete]

Looks like Underhill Road to me...

 

[Sue]

That certainly looks like the house :)

[Laur]

The space between the two middle windows seem slightly different?

[Penguin68]

The gap between the windows is definitely different on the photographs (as is the detailing around the bay window roof, including the little ridge tiles on the modern photo). This would have to have been a replacement roof for the bay. The gap between the windows could be a function of the slightly different angles to the house in each photograph (i.e a photographc difference, not an actual one). The detailing of the roof ridge on the adjacent house entirely matches on both pictures, as does the height relationship between the two houses and the detailing around that (where brick courses are in relationship to each other). The changed roof ridge on the main house probably is a reflection of the loft extension work to be seen by the new dormer windows visible - although both roofs do seem steeper (bigger pitch) in the modern photo.

The only concerns therefore would be the apparent difference in gap between the two windows over the left hand and right hand bays. The modern picture suggests each window is the same distance from the next, the old photograph suggests that the windows over the bays are closer to each other than to the window over the next bay. And the roof pitches seem different - again this may be down to photographic angle.

[Sue]

Laur Wrote:

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

> The space between the two middle windows seem

> slightly different?

Xxx

I'm no expert but the photos seem to have been taken from different distances away which could explain it?

But I'm sure there are many similar looking houses so unless the people can be identified it will be virtually impossible to find the right ones :(

ETA: Sorry, posted before I saw Penguin's post!

[ed_pete]

There are several houses on Underhill Road that look like this - this view was the best I could get from Streetview which is not square-on. Anyway, if it's not one of these then it looks very similar and was probably built by the same builder ? Note the terracotta ridge tiles on the left hand house look the same.

[Jeremy]

Note that google streetview images are a bit squashed horizontally...

[Penguin68]

Note also that google view is taken from cameras on poles on the top of cars - the old photograph looks to have been taken on a box brownie (possibly) so would have been held at waist height to see into top view-finder. So there might have been 3-4 feet or more difference in camera height.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Please ask whoever owns the house to shift the alarm over to the right a few inches - it's really irritating me, like wonky picture frames.

[Laur]

That's funny Peckham gatecrasher .... I agree :)

[Jeremy]

But it's a half house... hence the alarm belongs to one side...

[Toxtoth]

I live in one of those half houses and having just been outside with the picture on the ipad I can say with certainty that this is one of the houses along the row. Due to the guttering and slope of the ground, I am guessing its either 195 or 199. Interestingly, 197 still has many of the original features shown in the picture - same pathway, same front door, same 'bullnose' detailing, same roof detailing, and same porch tiling.

p.s. I did a major renovation on my house and can also say with certainty that they were originally built as half houses - not converted later

[Toxtoth]

Also, this:

[indiepanda]

Toxtoth Wrote:

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

> I live in one of those half houses and having just

> been outside with the picture on the ipad I can

> say with certainty that this is one of the houses

> along the row. Due to the guttering and slope of

> the ground, I am guessing its either 195 or 199.

> Interestingly, 197 still has many of the original

> features shown in the picture - same pathway, same

> front door, same 'bullnose' detailing, same roof

> detailing, and same porch tiling.

>

> p.s. I did a major renovation on my house and can

> also say with certainty that they were originally

> built as half houses - not converted later

That's interesting - do you share a water supply with your neighbours? I was thinking the fact the water supply for my house is shared with next door was a sign they built as one house and split later but maybe it's just poor design not shoddy conversion! It's been a pain when I've had plumbing work done anyway...

[sleepy-li]

Sorry about the alarm, I'll see what I can do!

[rbarber1]

This photo can also be found on the Mary Evans Picture Library. The lady is called Cissie and the photo was taken in 1910.

[captainhook]

We also live in one of these houses.

From previous research, 203-215 are all listed in the 1911 census, along with 203a-215a.

These addresses are all individually listed as maisonettes, and were all obviously built as half houses.

Ours - 201a however, does not appear on the census, but 201 does, and is listed as a "private house"

The deeds to our property, from memory, only go back to the 50's, when a restrictive covenant was added at the time the deeds were split - 201's deeds go back further. Notably, 201 and 201a are split identically to the rest of the terrace, and physically seem to have always been seperate inside.

Interestingly, 185-199 are listed in the census as "missing", suggesting these were possibly not yet finished or inhabited at the point of census.

The terrace does not appear in the 1901 census.

217 is also listed as "private house", with a note after it - "1 house and 6 maisonettes building" This is the last entry on the census page, before Dunstans Road listings. Presumably the "maisonettes building" are the "missing" 185-199?

201 was owned by Charles Stanley White, a wood turner at a sports factory, his wife, and 2 year old son at the time of the 1911 census.

201/ 201a do seem to have a slightly larger gap between the centre windows than 199/ 199a. The window reflections in the photo do indeed look like Honor Oak mansions opposite.

However, as mikeb points out, the family are standing to one side, with the photo obviously framed on that side as if that maisonette is their particular house, so the photo seems unlikely to be of 201, if it was a single house at the time.

I'd have loved to upload my downloaded copies of the census pages, but sadly they are very clearly marked "crown copyright"...

Thanks for the photo jimbo1964 - lovely to see this. It would be facinating if you find anything else.

[alice]

I think the percieved difference in the gap is due to the different materials used for the window frame - wooden frames maximize the amount of glass while the upvc frames are much chunkier taking up space on the wall of the house.

[indiepanda]

For 199 / 199a we have a deed of covenant re maintenance of shared areas which states that the properties "aforesaid formally comprised a single property" and that "the said properties have been subdivided in such a way as to include certain common parts". The split dates back to 1968.

I guess it's theoretically possible that it started out as two houses and then at some point both sides were bought by one person, and then it was then split back into two houses in 1968, but it was definitely was a single property for a time!

[captainhook]

alice - in this case, the windows along the terrace are heavily rebated into cement (or similar) render frames. Any wood or UPVC frames are in reality 3 inches INSIDE these cement frames. The gaps mentioned are those between these cement architraves.

Never did really understand how UPVC companies manage to pursuade people to put up with so much less glass, and so much more frame!

indiepanda - (hello neighbour!) We thought the same of ours - odd that it is identical in every way to those in the terrace which were always listed as being halves... Partition walls are all constructed in the same "interesting" manner...

Lovely houses by the way. Great place to live. (Great neighbours too!)

[indiepanda]

captainhook Wrote:

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

> alice - in this case, the windows along the

> terrace are heavily rebated into cement (or

> similar) render frames. Any wood or UPVC frames

> are in reality 3 inches INSIDE these cement

> frames. The gaps mentioned are those between

> these cement architraves.

> Never did really understand how UPVC companies

> manage to pursuade people to put up with so much

> less glass, and so much more frame!

>

> indiepanda - (hello neighbour!) We thought the

> same of ours - odd that it is identical in every

> way to those in the terrace which were always

> listed as being halves... Partition walls are all

> constructed in the same "interesting" manner...

>

> Lovely houses by the way. Great place to live.

> (Great neighbours too!)

Hello! Yes, it is odd, I was starting to wonder if my memory was playing tricks on me last night re it having been one house but I found the deeds and it's quite clear. Maybe some people just bought both halves when they were built??

[Penguin68]

From previous research, 203-215 are all listed in the 1911 census, along with 203a-215a.

As each plot (containing 2 half houses) is listed as a single number (plus an 'a') this suggests that the plots were sold as single plots, each plot numbered, and then the developer split them into two residences. Further south the semi-detached houses in Underhill (the ones, roughly, 94-106 and 89-107) are each individually numbered (no 'a's), suggesting that, when developed, the 2 plots (for each semi) were always seen as being 2 plots and not one split. Hence trhe description 'maisonette' rather than semi. [The 92 numbering - 92, 92a and 92b follows post war rebuilding of a single large 92 house].

It is possible that on occasion both maisonettes were bought by one family, either to live in one and rent the other to lodgers, or for an extended family to live together in both (parents in one, a married child in the other). This may have encouraged the owner not to have 2 postal addresses. There may have been a rates advantage to this, there being only one rateable address and not two.

With the gap in numbering (185-199) it is clear that the road numbers for plots had already been allocated (presumably by the Post Office or local authority) - so the 201a numbers etc. were later changes made by the developer to take account of placing two abodes on one numbered plot.

[jimbo1964]

captainhook Wrote:

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

> Thanks for the photo jimbo1964 - lovely to see

> this. It would be facinating if you find anything

> else.

A pleasure. I actually live in one of the Victorian houses on Ryedale As soon as I saw the pic I thought it looked like Underhill. I'd love to find an old photo of my house. Or Ryedale as it was before the 1930's houses were developed. I think my house was originally part of Balchier Road.

[Toxtoth]

> Interestingly, 185-199 are listed in the census as

> "missing", suggesting these were possibly not yet

> finished or inhabited at the point of census.

> The terrace does not appear in the 1901 census.

>

> 217 is also listed as "private house", with a note

> after it - "1 house and 6 maisonettes building"

> This is the last entry on the census page, before

> Dunstans Road listings. Presumably the

> "maisonettes building" are the "missing" 185-199?

>

>

its certainly possible that the block was bought & sold as pairs of half houses (or an entire block in one) but then leased as individual houses by the landlord. I suggest that they were originally constructed as separated leased dwellings and only legally split into individual saleable houses some time later.

[Sue]

rbarber1 Wrote:

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

> This photo can also be found on the Mary Evans

> Picture Library. The lady is called Cissie and the

> photo was taken in 1910.

xxxxx

Do you have a link to that? That's really interesting :)