Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Oo-er missus, they lost three 'ouses
The other day I walked over to the Latino shop at the top of Seven Sisters Road, near to Wards Corner. To get there, I walked along Harringay Road and noticed something odd about the houses in the picture above. All perfectly normal looking until you notice the numbers. From the left we have 77, then 79 and last number.......the last number is......87 ?......87 ?.....yup, number 87.
The close-ups below show the front doors and numbers more clearly.
Google Maps Birds-eye view sort of confirms this oddity - but this oddity is clearly too much for them. "89" is on house number 69 (which is missing). "7"3 is on n house number 75 and a stray "83" has been added (no such house exists). Also someone has added "93R" which is currently on number 79, etc etc. (I've had a go at rectifying the mistakes, but Google sometimes think they know better. So it reamins to be seen id the fix will 'take').
As to how all this happened, I checked the old Kelly's directories and the 1894 edition shows two numbering gaps between Colina and Park Roads, reflecting the unfinished state of the road.
This situation is shown in the 1893 Ordnance Survey map.
By 1900. Kelly's shows that the gaps had been at least partially filled in. The more southerly numbering gap (the lower one) had gone and the more northerly one had been reduced to almost what is is today, except numbers 87 and 89 had yet to appear.
It also shows, rather oddly that the numbers between 91 and 95 repeat.
If you look at the Google Street view picture again, you can see that the builder had built sort of semi-detached houses, but with a single front door. The 1947 Ordnance Survey shows the situation as it is today and through showing the split back gardens of numbers 87 - 95, shows that each of the houses was set-up as two dwellings.
What seems to have happened is that, a gap was left in the numbering under the assumption that the plots that had been sold would be filled with the requisite number of houses. Once a different style of house was built, for some reason, instead of giving each of houses 87 - 95 two numbers, they used just a single number for each, not even using 'A' and 'B' to differentiate between the two dwellings.
I had thought that numbering accidents like this had all been cleaned up during the various street renumberings that have takeb place over the years. However, for whatever reason, this one has been overlooked.
I wonder how many odd numberings exist arond the borough and indeed around London.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Shulver on
-
Oh gawd Hugh, what a puzzle that is. I thought I may have worked it out but my idea crumbled away. However regarding 'split' housing : I was born at 40A, a house near identical in view as your number 87. We had downstairs 'flat' entirely self contained with own front door. Being downstairs we most fortunately had the front and back garden. The front doors were recessed into a porch with the upstairs 'flat' (40B) front door facing onto the road. Our front door was set to the left at 90degrees. Our neighbouring property 38A/B was a mirror version otherwise identical in all aspects.
I've been trying to date our old house but can't tie it down, Ordnance Survey maps that I've found haven't really helped. And 40 is also absent from the extracts in your article.
And yes, agree totally, I thought all renumberings had been well and truly sorted by now especially with introduction of the postal code system. My previous address had been renumbered from 23 to 50 near on 40years back.
Appreciate your querying with me Hugh but I knew nothing of this discrepancy. I will come back to it later though Hugh with a fresh pair of eyes. Good stuff as always.
-
-
Sadly Hugh my hopes of a possible solution to this conundrum have resulted in nothing better than a damn good old head scratching. We must put it down to a cock up I reckon but left wondering how many times it might've cropped up in conversations over the years. But one or two interesting little points (to me at least) have surfaced through this post of yours. However I must start off with an apology : for the record, numbering of my house was 40A. Upstairs was simply 40. No suffix.
Initially I guessed the gap in numberings might have been down to planners leaving a few houses out for access to the piano factory, then maybe change of plans and infilling. But that didn't help me solve anything. I now think I understand how Colina MEWS came to be called : most probably rear access for horses and stabling to service the big houses fronting Green Lanes. What wonderful details on porches of your featured houses 77&79 ! And an EIGHT stack chimney seen on number 87, I would've expected just two pots per house assuming 4 open hearths funneling into 2 pots per house ? Yes, as you say, so many double fronted properties with shared front entrance. That never occurred to me when living there. My best friend Tommy Daniels lived in that "squeezed in" property immediately above the wording "BM 601" on 1893 Ord.Surv.Map. On 1947 Ord.Surv.Map, to left of "air shaft" on Oakwood Laundry site is noted "PCB".......Police Call Box. I remember that so clearly. Had another mate Paul Clarke lived in region of numbers 71-79. What a coincidence then to note a Clarke, Chas, residing at number 77 in both Kelly's Directories. But I seem to recall mate Paul moved in around 57/60 time (?) but what's not to say it might've been his grandfather's house passed down ??? Well I haven't thrown any light at all on your query Hugh but I've thoroughly enjoyed the journey. Thank you. I do hope you get more responses.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
