I find a lot of roads which serve no purpose, apart from acting as improptu
urinals at 3am. For example, Woodville Road NW6. Despite having a guide at
the pathetic website
http://www.londontown.com/LondonStre..._road_344.html, it contains
no properties, and it isn't useful for any likely journey, especially since
Tennyson Road gained a barrier just south of Priory Park Road.

Why was Woodville Road built? Why was it given a name, when it could have
been considered a part of Donaldson Road (compare with the almost-as-useless
southern part of Hazelmere Road one block over)? Now that land is so
valuable that school playing fields are being built upon all over the place,
why isn't something built on Woodville Road, perhaps leaving a footpath
along one side?

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, John Rowland wrote:

Why was Woodville Road built?

Any chance it predates the railway, and is related to the ancient road
layout? I don't know the history of the area, and can't find the area on a
suitably old map.

Although i did find a nice collections of maps he

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb...._pages/lon.htm

tom

--
You may laugh. But me, I feel the chill wind of futurity down my
spine... -- Mr Snips

Tom Anderson wrote:

Any chance it predates the railway, and is related to the ancient road
layout? I don't know the history of the area, and can't find the area on a
suitably old map.

www.old-maps.co.uk has a map from 1874, apparently just when the area
was being built up. The railway's there but everything else is fields.

U

On 6 Apr 2007 11:52:21 -0700, Mr Thant
wrote in om:
Tom Anderson wrote:

Any chance it predates the railway, and is related to the ancient road
layout? I don't know the history of the area, and can't find the area on a
suitably old map.

www.old-maps.co.uk has a map from 1874, apparently just when the area
was being built up. The railway's there but everything else is fields.

I remember when it was all fields!

--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. ] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

In message , John Rowland
writes

Why was Woodville Road built? Why was it given a name, when it could have
been considered a part of Donaldson Road

It is shown as a continuation of Donaldson Road in the 1948 and 1954
editions of the Bartholomew Greater London Reference Atlas, but as
Woodville Road in the 1961 edition. So the dreadful deed was presumably
perpetrated between 1954 and 1961. Perhaps it was a cheap way of
commemorating some venerable Councillor Woodville or similar?
--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

Why was Woodville Road built? Why was it given a name, when it could
have been considered a part of Donaldson Road

It is shown as a continuation of Donaldson Road in the 1948 and 1954
editions of the Bartholomew Greater London Reference Atlas, but as
Woodville Road in the 1961 edition. So the dreadful deed was
presumably perpetrated between 1954 and 1961. Perhaps it was a cheap
way of commemorating some venerable Councillor Woodville or similar?

Good thinking. My 1957 Geographers Atlas of London shows Woodville Road, so
that puts the change between 1954 and 1957. But I wouldn't trust maps to be
accurate over something like this, and it's possible that the maps were
altered to correct an earlier error rather than reflect a recent change.

Anyway, my main point is why this piece of tarmac is there at all. The
eastern part of Littleton Street in Earlsfield is a similar waste of land.
There are numerous others.

On 7 Apr, 13:13, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

Why was Woodville Road built? Why was it given a name, when it could
have been considered a part of Donaldson Road

It is shown as a continuation of Donaldson Road in the 1948 and 1954
editions of the Bartholomew Greater London Reference Atlas, but as
Woodville Road in the 1961 edition. So the dreadful deed was
presumably perpetrated between 1954 and 1961. Perhaps it was a cheap
way of commemorating some venerable Councillor Woodville or similar?

Good thinking. My 1957 Geographers Atlas of London shows Woodville Road, so
that puts the change between 1954 and 1957. But I wouldn't trust maps to be
accurate over something like this, and it's possible that the maps were
altered to correct an earlier error rather than reflect a recent change.

Anyway, my main point is why this piece of tarmac is there at all. The
eastern part of Littleton Street in Earlsfield is a similar waste of land.
There are numerous others.

Bacon's shilling map of 1880 seems to show development extending
westwards from Kilburn High Road. Might Donaldson Road/Woodville Road
have marked the limit of one builder's laying-out of streets, and only
become logically surplus to requirements when the next section of
Brondesbury Villas was commenced?

StuartJ

John Rowland wrote:

Anyway, my main point is why this piece of tarmac is there at all.
The eastern part of Littleton Street in Earlsfield is a similar
waste of land. There are numerous others.

The eastern part of Littleton Street provides access between the western
and eastern parts of that estate. Pre-1950 developments generally had
easy access by road within the estate, thus reinforcing the sense of
community , but more recently there's been a fetish for incredibly
complex networks of cul-de-sacs which probably use more tarmac than the
older designs. Google Earth shows your "wasteful" stretch of tarmac
with 15 cars parked on it, so it seems quite useful really.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
John Rowland wrote:

Anyway, my main point is why this piece of tarmac is there at all.
The eastern part of Littleton Street in Earlsfield is a similar
waste of land. There are numerous others.

The eastern part of Littleton Street provides access between the western
and eastern parts of that estate. Pre-1950 developments generally had
easy access by road within the estate, thus reinforcing the sense of
community , but more recently there's been a fetish for incredibly complex
networks of cul-de-sacs which probably use more tarmac than the older
designs. Google Earth shows your "wasteful" stretch of tarmac with 15
cars parked on it, so it seems quite useful really.

I think I've read somewhere that a lot of these 'pointless' roads are not
easy to develop because they often contain the neighbourhood utilities,
especially sewers, and diverting everything so that a house or two can be
built is not worth the hassle...

Paul S

Richard J. wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Anyway, my main point is why this piece of tarmac is there at all.
The eastern part of Littleton Street in Earlsfield is a similar
waste of land. There are numerous others.

The eastern part of Littleton Street provides access between the
western and eastern parts of that estate.

The architecture suggests that these are actually two separate estates built
a significant portion of a century apart. The road geometry tells the same
story. But while it is easy to contrive two points for which this part of
Littleton Street is the shortest route, I suspect you could go a full week
(year?) without an actual person driving an actual journey which would be
lengthened by more than five yards if the road was shut. The only journeys
for which the road is a significant short cut are so short that they would
probably be walked anyway.

There is a place in London where a (decent length) road has been blocked at
one end, and a small residence for teachers has been built on the former
road. I can't remember where it is right now.