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?
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.
Bookmarks