Pine Apple Inn, Quarry Hill

[The Parksider]

Si wrote: Three.The rear entrance is just beyond the down-pipe. Note the slatted box on the roof. Something to do with brewing?     The slatted box probably was the top of the vent pipe for the brewing vessels, especially the copper which would have boiled along for some time. Therefore the brewer didn't want "foreign bodies" dropping down the pipe into the beer.........

[jim]

I've been following this one with interest. There's something not right with the street numbers. I agree that the most likely candidate is that proposed by Chemimike ( Sherlockmike? ).Looking on Leodis only shows a couple of identifiable buildings on High Street, but the Turkish Baths ( number 4 ) and the Swimmers Arms ( number 91 ) can be positively located on the Godfrey maps. This shows that the buildings in High Street were numbered in the normal way - from the major junction ( in this case St Peters Street ) odds to the left, evens to the right. The corner shop in the Turkish Baths picture would have a number on St Peters Street, agreeing with No 4 for the baths.According to my count that makes the building identified as the Pine Apple Inn number 20, and the building I identify as number 32 not in any way a possibility. Is it possible that your belief that the Pine Apple Inn was number 32 is mistaken, Si? Or was the street numbering at one time very strange and a later renumbering undertaken to straighten things out?    

[drapesy]

jim wrote: I've been following this one with interest. There's something not right with the street numbers. I agree that the most likely candidate is that proposed by Chemimike ( Sherlockmike? ).Looking on Leodis only shows a couple of identifiable buildings on High Street, but the Turkish Baths ( number 4 ) and the Swimmers Arms ( number 91 ) can be positively located on the Godfrey maps. This shows that the buildings in High Street were numbered in the normal way - from the major junction ( in this case St Peters Street ) odds to the left, evens to the right. The corner shop in the Turkish Baths picture would have a number on St Peters Street, agreeing with No 4 for the baths.According to my count that makes the building identified as the Pine Apple Inn number 20, and the building I identify as number 32 not in any way a possibility. Is it possible that your belief that the Pine Apple Inn was number 32 is mistaken, Si? Or was the street numbering at one time very strange and a later renumbering undertaken to straighten things out?     The 32 number is given on Leodis - so they must have some reason to put that.

[jim]

Very true, Drapesy. Nonetheless there is something wrong somewhere - even if it's me!

[chemimike]

I agree with jim that something doesn't look right. However, I have now gone back to an earlier Kellys, and the 1872 version does actually list The Pine Apple , beerhouse, at no 32, then under the control of a J.Stewart.Looking at the Pigotts 1834 directory (which has no street listing, so you have to just go down the innkeepers) there is nothing at no 32, but is one called the Hop Pole at no 26, which is a bit nearer the number one would expect that building to have.

[drapesy]

This Leodis pic shows Turkington Yard , between Cornhill and High Street,in 1901- described as looking towards the back of the Hop Pole inn with an alley leading to High Street on the right. So the picture must have been taken looking east. The hop Pole must have been on the North side of High Street, therefore (just above the second 't' in 'High Street' on Si's map I reckon) - so if this was 26 in 1834 where was the Pine Apple???What we haven't established is the numbering system - was it a modern style 'odds on one side - even on the other' or the older style (still used on Briggate and Kirkgate) of numbers in sequence along one side, crossing over then back up the other side???High Street was a very old street so I would suspect it would have had the old system originally - but its quite possible it might have been changed at some stage - this often happened in the 18th century.

[Leodian]

The Parksider wrote: Leodian wrote: I suspect I am going to seem stupid asking this but as I'm unsure I will. Is the Quarry Hill being discussed that in Leeds where the famous flats used to be? There will have been demolition since the maps but there seems to be no same road names at all currently that I'm aware of in the area. To add to my confusion though St Peter's is (I think) a name for the Leeds Parish Church which is very near to what were the Quarry Hill flats. I'm confused, but that's easily done! Your not stupid, all the area mapped was pulled down for Quarry Hill flats, and all the street names lost, and yes the Parish church was very near..... Thanks for that The Parksider. There was certainly massive demolition of the area at some stage to lose all the street names as well. I wonder if there any images of St Peter's Chapel (Wesleyan Methodist) and the interestingly named Sir John Falstaff PH (Public House?).

[Si]

cnosni wrote: Have another look Si,all you need to do is to look at the different heights of the buildings to estimate that its either the 4th of 5th property.I reckon that if you look at Chemimikes map his extreme left property he has hilighted in pink would seem to match the layout of what we have seen in the pictures,it has a ginnel and also a back door to the part of the property fronting High Street,it would also appear to be between 4 and 5 properties from the corner of Back High Street and St Peters Street. I disagree, Chris. The pub rear is about four or five properties up from the people in the distance, but there are (lower) buildings beyond them heading down towards St Peter's Street.Also, as mentioned by Chemimike, the adjoining property's rear wall is even less flush with the pub's back wall/door.As for the numbering of the street, it does seem somewhat haphazard. I wonder if this has something to do with the random back-to-back blocks of houses? There are b-t-b houses opposite my house, and the numbering is complicated to say the least!Thanks for everyone's interest. I thought it would be relatively simple to work out, but as Geordie-Exile once said, "Can open. Worms everywhere!"    

[Si]

Having studied the map and photos some more, I have a theory. The Pine Apple may have been the house next door (marked in green on the map) to Chemimike's orange premises.My reasonings are:1: Looking at the front of the pub, the house to the left looks deeper, with a large chimney stack, suggesting a back-to-back build, as on the map. Also, if both doors belong to the pub (or one's some sort of ginnel) then the marked railings fit exactly.2: The rear photo, as mentioned before, shows two doors which are flush. Two entrances matching this appear on the map.3: The buildings in the rear photo (the one with the little girls - perhaps distant relatives of mine?) match the map. The only problem here, is that the "brewhouse" (as confirmed by Parksider and marked blue) isn't deep enough. However, if you look at the other picture (looking down Back High Street) there is "join" in the wall suggesting an extension. I don't mean the big crack where the gable-end's falling off, but further along where the "black square" is.I know every detail still doesn't fit, and the numbering is still a mystery, but it's another theory.(PS Ignore red dot.)PPS Would this area be now under the Playhouse?    

[chemimike]

I can see Si's reasoning, and just don't know which, though i think it must be either my or his choice (guess?) As to the numbering, in both the 1893 and 1872 directories the numbering is definitely odd one side, even the other. the slight peculiarity is that, in the 1872 street no mention is mad eof Lemon St, and looking at Lemon St, no mention is made of High St. this does introduce the possibility that at that time Lemon St did not meet High St. There is , bowever , the possibility that thye were just missed out. Errors are not rare in directories, even later Kellys ones. On eparticular fault that seems to occur (I'm not sure about Leeds, but its certainly true with Birmingham) is for it to say "North side" then "south Side", but in fact the two are reversed.