Can’t see Newgate prison, ashamed of it even back then?
The London Time Machine
11–18 of 18 posts
Re: The London Time Machine
#12It's always incredible to me to how many areas of London are new. The East End here is some text describing City wards. The West End is names of sponsors. Chelsea isn't even within the bounds of the map. There is only a single crossing. Etc.
Yet Old Street was already "Old", 335 years ago!
Re: The London Time Machine
#13Fun! Made something similar a while back with Taiwanese cities in WWII and now, the changes are quite similarly substantial! https://imrehg.github.io/taiwanmap/
Re: The London Time Machine
#14It's always incredible to me to how many areas of London are new. The East End here is some text describing City wards. The West End is names of sponsors. Chelsea isn't even within the bounds of the map. There is only a single crossing. Etc.
Yet Old Street was already "Old", 335 years ago!
Old Street is roughly colinear with Old Ford Road, which went over the Lee (aka Lea). It's also colinear with Oxford Street. The route is pre-Roman.
(I used to live just off Old Ford Road, and commuted along this route for about 8 years.)
Re: The London Time Machine
#15Did something similar a long, long time ago: https://patrickbrosi.de/tuemap/
Re: The London Time Machine
#16The National Library of Scotland has a good collection of digitised maps (mostly for the UK, but also less-detailed maps of Europe and the world) [1].
If you click "Explore georeferenced maps" you can superimpose the historical map on top of a modern base map (or Bing Satellite imagery), and then adjust its transparency with a slider: here's a similar view using the 1885-1093 One-Inch OS survey map [2] (for comparison, the map pasted by the OP is from 1682, which an information box tells you, but only if your browser-window is wide enough).
[1]: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore
[3]: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=14&lat=51.5100&lon=-0.0...
Re: The London Time Machine
#17It's always incredible to me to how many areas of London are new. The East End here is some text describing City wards. The West End is names of sponsors. Chelsea isn't even within the bounds of the map. There is only a single crossing. Etc.
The original map dates from 1682, which didn't jump out if it was mentioned at all on the linked site. So "new" is relative, i.e. less than 335 years old.
Well, something being new is always relative isn't it?
Re: The London Time Machine
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original map dates from 1682, which didn't jump out if it was mentioned at all on the linked site. So "new" is relative, i.e. less than 335 years old.
Well, something being new is always relative isn't it?
Yes. I would argue, though, that the really striking thing about new bits of London is the expansion between 1918 and 1939, which increased the built-up area by 200%. That was real inflationary growth.