Originally Posted by
dazza
Hi Quentin, that's one possibility I've already considered, but I think the decision to errect the terrace was born out of practicality, in overcoming a difficult site? Have you also considered the 1835 map in post#23?
div>
The natural topography of the land owned by the mill was on considerably higher ground [presumably one of the attractions of it's purchase], and this formed a bank which closely traces the street-line of Yates Street, and Beaufort Street. I don't really favour the Rights of Light rationale, simply because there are only terrace housing, gable-ends opposing Yates Street - not much of an obstacle to natural light I would've thought? Also the church at the end of the road, occupies a corner site with not too much over-shadowing burden over the rest of Yates Street.
I think the terrace was a consequence of two things: 1. the mill owner's possessed the land, and had to develop within the existing boundary. And 2. the land was at a higher elevation to that of the neighborhood.
Of course I agree with all that, but Corn, Bran and Grain Streets were built after the mill was well established. By which time it contained some rather tall buildings.
Apart from the fact that Corn Street, and the neighbouring Yates Street were built on a ridge, they were still
further elevated (to the height of the factory?), and built all at one level, rather than being "stepped".
"Rights to light" was a main consideration.
Bookmarks