Prater's stairs

[Elamarna]

Richard,

this really does look great

my view is that given the various suggestions you have been given, none of which can be proved to be 100% acurate, what you have produced is the best possible fit.

Any changes which are suggested, unless they come from a professional such as architect, insurance map company or even a building Facility manager (basically some one who studies this sort of thing in their employment), are best avoided.
Such changes will be based on the whims of whoever puts them forward, that is not just aimed at Pierre, but everyone.
If of course any suggestion for change/improvement could be agreed upon by most, if not all, then of course incorporate it.

How about Goad 2 and 3 as a base , and if there is a consensus for a change and you are happy to produce an alternative have a Goad 3B.

Elamarna

[richardh]

Thanks Elamarna,
I agree, at the moment it does seem to be a good (or at least acceptable fit). My only issue at the moment would be that #13 partition position. If I put it in the gap on Goad's then it will enter the shed (salon) and not be seen from 'Prater's stairs'. That gap does seem twice as wide as a door (6ft) but as has already been stated the Goad scale of windows/doors is not to be relied upon.

Could that gap be an original window that had been bricked/blocked up in Mary's day?
Could it signify a window AND door configuration which again was partitioned over?

Who knows?

Richard,

this really does look great

my view is that given the various suggestions you have been given, none of which can be proved to be 100% acurate, what you have produced is the best possible fit.

Any changes which are suggested, unless they come from a professional such as architect, insurance map company or even a building Facility manager (basically some one who studies this sort of thing in their employment), are best avoided.
Such changes will be based on the whims of whoever puts them forward, that is not just aimed at Pierre, but everyone.
If of course any suggestion for change/improvement could be agreed upon by most, if not all, then of course incorporate it.

How about Goad 2 and 3 as a base , and if there is a consensus for a change and you are happy to produce an alternative have a Goad 3B.

Elamarna

[Michael W Richards]

Richard,

this really does look great

my view is that given the various suggestions you have been given, none of which can be proved to be 100% acurate, what you have produced is the best possible fit.

Any changes which are suggested, unless they come from a professional such as architect, insurance map company or even a building Facility manager (basically some one who studies this sort of thing in their employment), are best avoided.
Such changes will be based on the whims of whoever puts them forward, that is not just aimed at Pierre, but everyone.
If of course any suggestion for change/improvement could be agreed upon by most, if not all, then of course incorporate it.

How about Goad 2 and 3 as a base , and if there is a consensus for a change and you are happy to produce an alternative have a Goad 3B.

Elamarna

You have the patience of Job and some great modeling skills Richard. It might help you, on the partition angle, that where the door is mounted in the background in MJK1 is likely the original opening to the salon that was closed off when partitioning this space and allocating it to Millers Court. It was said that the wall was made up from odd materials including door(s), so perhaps Im assuming incorrectly and that was just "an" door, not "the" door, but from my own experience, the flow from the entranceway under the archway to the stairs and the salon wouldn't be impeded, so that door mounted to create the partition is likely the original entrance to the salon.

[Elamarna]

As you say who knows!
I have shown the map to a friend, who is a modern facility manager of a Victorian built building in London, which has been much converted.

He is not convinced that the gap measurement should be taken as accurate, the gap appears to be centred in the line.His view was that it was a generic plan, showing an opening, but not necessarily in that exact position.He did not think that was the purpose of the map.

I did ask him to write something for me, but he wasn't that interested.

that’s why i said, we need an expert on board, if we are to make any further changes.

Elamarna

[richardh]

It's actually very enjoyable to create these things and see them come to virtual life. I have been 'walking around' this model today and with the right lighting and 'mood' it is a very eerie experience.

Once we have decided on a final model I will create a final render 'fly-thru'.

[Pierre]

Thanks Elamarna,
I agree, at the moment it does seem to be a good (or at least acceptable fit). My only issue at the moment would be that #13 partition position. If I put it in the gap on Goad's then it will enter the shed (salon) and not be seen from 'Prater's stairs'. That gap does seem twice as wide as a door (6ft) but as has already been stated the Goad scale of windows/doors is not to be relied upon.

Could that gap be an original window that had been bricked/blocked up in Mary's day?
Could it signify a window AND door configuration which again was partitioned over?

Who knows?

Richardh, very good work, impressing.

Now, a question concerning 27 Dorset Street, the house to the left in the map which is joined together with 26 Dorset Street through the arch over the passage:

How were the tenants in 27 Dorset Street able to get into their apartments?

And another question:

Do you see any door on Goad´s map leading to their apartments?

Ant this one:

Where does the door from the street lead?

It leads to McCarthy´s shop (S).

Now:

Did John McCarthy have a door in his shop were anyone could go in and out using his shop door?

No. Because there IS no other door in the wall on the left side. There IS only such a door in the right side.

So there is only one solution and one answer to the questions:

The tenants in 27 Dorset Street reached their rooms from the same door in the passage between number 26 and 27.

And they could not have been flying over from number 26, nor could they have been climbing over the roof so where did they go?

It is simple. They used the corridor in the archway.

This hypothesis solves ALL our problems with the mapping of Prater´s stairs. It means that the landing of the stairway was exactly beside Mary Kelly´s room and exactly beside the "partition".

I am no artist and can´t draw. So I am sorry that I can only provide this simple sketch.

The door in the doorway, how wide is it? 1,30 m.?

Regards Pierre

[MBDecre]

It's actually very enjoyable to create these things and see them come to virtual life. I have been 'walking around' this model today and with the right lighting and 'mood' it is a very eerie experience.

Once we have decided on a final model I will create a final render 'fly-thru'.

It's really good work you're doing Richard. Enjoying seeing it come to life. Just shows that reality is often more lumpy and odd than in 'history' books, novels and films.

As this property and others underwent quite a few semi-temporary modifications... a note on many old houses (100 years plus) here in the UK, especially re semi-temporary stairs, is that they can be barely fit for purpose. And people just lived with them. I've been involved with two architectural museums and this can be the case, and more often in poorer dwellings.

Re stairs - some stairs are almost like ladders, and you get odd turns and uneven steps and levels just whacked into a space that just about allows people to get to upper floors without breaking an ankle - if you're lucky! And that's when you're not in a hurry!

The stairs we're looking at in Richard's work might have been better than the ones I'm thinking of, but I'm guessing we shouldn't assume neat and tidy angles, turns and levels, etc. We could chase perfect solutions to get some areas to fit, when really it could be wonky stairs and partitions made of bits and pieces which made things work in realty, in this instance.

The comments recently about 29 Hanbury's stairs are relevant. The photo in the same post showed some quite narrow, wonky stairs with a tight turn half way, with the whole staircase looking pretty crammed into the available space.

Just some thoughts.

[Pierre]

Pierre
I don't know what you mean by 'in the arch'. can you explain a bit more please?

Richardh, I mean this!

It all fits perfectly. See post 336!

.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

why are you talking about external doors, there are virtually none on any building on the map, none on the front of 29,28,27 or 26 but there are obviously there.

So how do people get into 28 and 29?

see still not apology for what you said on Sunday?

[Pierre]

Pierre,

why are you talking about external doors, there are virtually none on any building on the map, none on the front of 29,28,27 or 26 but there are obviously there.

The external door is in the side of the passage leading to the stairs. Can´t you see it in the map?

McCarthys side should naturally also have such a symbol on the map if there was an external door on his side.

But there isn´t one. So the external door leading from the passage to the stairs must have been used by the tenants on both sides.

Do you understand this now?

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

just take a moment and look at the goad map.

There are solid walls on the 26 side of the archway, are you now suggesting there is a unseen opening to allow people to enter 27 via the archway from 26?

[Elamarna]

You are the one who does not understand,

the map shows no entrances into 28,29 or 27. are you saying there are no entrances?

my friend you are so wrong, but then that is nothing new.

and still no apology!

[Robert St Devil]

Regards Pierre

I agree with this line of thinking. I am working towards the belief that 26 and 27 were once a single unit. No. 26 was the salon and parlour, 27 was the kitchen. I have been wondering if it was a nice house when it was originally constructed, but became slummish as the East End became overrun with immigrants. Afterall, 'the court' was first considered 'the garden'. I could see the upstair rooms being accessed thru that arch passage.

[Elamarna]

Robert
You surprise me.
There is no access from 26 to 27 marked on map. There are brick walls. No openings.
The map shows no entrance at the front for 26 . But there is a door there. The sketch Pierre likes to use looking at 26 shows a door. It's not on the map.
Neither are there doors for 27 28 and 29.

We can occluded the map rarely shows doors .

Steve

[David Orsam]

Richard,

Another good job and I agree with Elamarna that in terms of the structure this is probably the most accurate model possible, being based, as it is, on the Goad map.

I would, however, like to discuss the wooden partition a little further. There is an argument to be made that it should have a much wider surface area.

I note that Wickerman, who seems to understand the Goad map very well, stated in #187

"The fact the line [on the Goad map] is broken will indicate access through, but does not indicate what size that access is. It could be a single door, a double door, pocket sliding doors (originally), or even the installation of a RSJ (Rolled Steel Joist) over a wide opening, in order to give support to the wooden floor joists in the floors above."

Similarly, Michael W. Richards stated in #166

"The original "brick wall" as you call it was simply the access point to the salon, it wasn't a brick wall but an opening framed by brick."

On their own, these comments only raise the possibility that the wooden partition was wider but we also have to bear in mind the other available evidence.

First we have the statement in the Times of 10 November 1888 (noted earlier in this thread):

"A correspondent who last saw the room in which the murder was committed says it was a tenement by itself, having formerly been the back parlour of No. 26, Dorset-street. A partition had been erected, cutting if off from the house, and the entrance door opened into Miller's-court."

This, of course, is not a first hand account, but it is from the Times, which was usually accurate, and the partition would not have been said to have been "erected" if it was merely a door that was already there.

Secondly we have the first hand account of Dr Phillips who said that the bedstead, i.e. the framework of the bed, was "close up against the wooden partition". He did not say that only part of the framework of the bed was close up against the wooden partition, so it must have been all of it. In another thread it has been calculated that the bed was probably about 6ft 3" in length. Therefore, the wooden partition needs to have been this wide to fit with the evidence in the case.

I might add that Dr Phillips would not have referred to a door as a "wooden partition". He would have said "wooden door".

Finally, we have the photographic evidence of MJK1. The background wall, as far as I can see, is all made of wood, not brick.

Taking all the evidence as a whole, therefore, it seems reasonable (and indeed sensible) to conclude that the Goad map is showing some sort of alcove at the back of number 26, which never had a door, and that this alcove became room 13. Consequently, the wooden partition (which, as set out currently, does not even appear to be visible from the stairs) must have been added to create room 13 and must have been much wider than currently shown.