1864 Christchurch Coat of ArmsApproximately 1,470 historically significant photographs are restored and added to the archive each year. The next update will be 31 March 2008.
Feb 12, 2008
The Canterbury Heritage Photographic Archive
1864 Christchurch Coat of ArmsApproximately 1,470 historically significant photographs are restored and added to the archive each year. The next update will be 31 March 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I notice in your archive there's a mention of a 2006 photo of a derelict cottage in Harold St, Sydenham (circa 1860). I took some photos of it last year when I stumbled on it while walking through Sydenham. I was fascinated by the building, and wonder what its future may be. Do you have any information on the cottage?
Sorry to say that as yet not much is known about the cottage (we'd be keen to know more), but here's what has been either ascertained or surmised:
The early cottage at 3 Harold Street, Sydenham occupies the western part of Lot 67 on Deposited Plan 75 in the former Borough of Sydenham (1876-1903). That it shares the same legal description as 35 Buchan Street indicates that it occupied a quarter acre section, which originally faced on to Buchan Street, with two recent commmercial premises now occupying what had formerly been its front garden.
Harold Street was known as Aynsley Street until 1948 and its environs probably formed a part of the investment properties of the pioneer merchant Hugh Aynsley (1828-1917), who subsequently rose to civic prominence as Hugh Percival Murray-Aynsley, Esq.
The cottage appears to have begun life in the 1850s as a simple two-roomed dwelling, with a later extension to the north in the same style. It's design suggests a kitset cottage imported from Australia, and that it survives in relatively sound condition in spite of decades of neglect, would appear to indicate the durabilty of Australian hardwoods. The apparent era of construction predates the development of this part of Sydenham as a built-up residential district. It's therefore surmised that the cottage was probably either the residence of an early market garden or had been removed from the inner city as the pressure for commercial redevelopment began to overtake the earliest residential areas.
Thanks very much for the info!
Thanks very much for the info!
Post a Comment