Armley Park Arch

stevief · Post by **stevief** » Sun 25 May, 2008 12:03 pm

Is this a Victorian folly or was it part of something larger.

stevief · Post by **stevief** » Sun 25 May, 2008 12:06 pm

From t'other side

Phill_d · Post by **Phill_d** » Fri 30 May, 2008 7:47 pm

Does nobody know anything about this arch? I can't find anything out about it. It has the date 1893. but the construction seems to be a concrete material with brick and pebble in the mix.

Tasa · Post by **Tasa** » Sat 31 May, 2008 11:22 am

This picture is from Leodis. The caption says:The 24 acres of Armley Park was acquired by the Corporation in 1892. This view of the 'arch steps' looking up from the Leeds and Liverpool canal vicinity. The land sloped steeply from the ridge down to the canal and several sets of steps were constructed to cope with this. Some followed scenic winding paths but these ran in a straight line and were often counted by young visitors to the park. The castellated archway bears the date of the formation of the park, 1893. The steps are flanked by stone pillars surmounted by Grecian style urns.

Chrism · Post by **Chrism** » Sat 31 May, 2008 3:32 pm

I wonder which garden the urns are in now. We used to lake round here as kids and as far as we were concerned this was a 'real' castle!!

Phill_d · Post by **Phill_d** » Sat 31 May, 2008 7:42 pm

Thanks Tasa. The place looks very different these days. Has anyone had a close look at this arch? It's like a concrete pebble and brick mix. Did they use this sort of the thing in 1893??? or is the arch just a latter day folly?

drapesy · Post by **drapesy** » Sat 31 May, 2008 8:12 pm

Phill_d wrote: Thanks Tasa. The place looks very different these days. Has anyone had a close look at this arch? It's like a concrete pebble and brick mix. Did they use this sort of the thing in 1893??? or is the arch just a latter day folly? I suspect the latter Phill - I suspect it was put up at a later date and, as Leodis says, the date commemorates the opening of the Park rather than the construction of the arch itself.

Phill_d · Post by **Phill_d** » Sat 31 May, 2008 8:28 pm

Yes that's what I think as well Drapsey. It looks pretty convincing stone until you look close at it.

sirjohn · Post by **sirjohn** » Sun 01 Jun, 2008 12:39 am

they did have concrete in 1893 you know... and they bunged a surprising amount of rubbish in it as well.

drapesy · Post by **drapesy** » Sun 01 Jun, 2008 10:36 pm

I just think the whole thing doesn't look right for 1893 - the material, the "workmanship", even the style of lettering used for '1893'. It looks more like something built in the 1930s to me!