Prater's stairs

[Elamarna]

David

Whilst agreeing about the width of the door. Let's try and not confuse Richard.

I am prepared to accept that the whole wall is a partition but made up of what ever was avaliable be that a mix of bricks and wood maybe plaster and a door.
However the map indicates it is brick. Could well be mainly brick with wood facing in 13.

Steve

[GUT]

If 13 was a later addition, perhaps the whole wall was originally brick.

When 13 was added a hole was nicked through part of the wall, leaving the room with a half brick wall (with the fireplace being built into the chimney of 26 and an opening between the two rooms.

Later the opening was partitioned so 13 could be let as digs to people like Joe and Mary.

[GUT]

Re the room size that many worry about being possibly to small, when Mrs Gut and I first married, we didn't have 2 cents to our name we lived for three years in a caravan that was 17x8' bedroom, and then kitchen, living dining combined.

So why is 15x7 or thereabouts so unreasonable?

[David Orsam]

David

However the map indicates it is brick.

Yes but the point I was making was that there is also an opening and the map doesn't indicate how large the opening was. I'm suggesting that based on the evidence the opening must have been larger than currently indicated in order for the wooden partition to have been erected within that opening.

I don't think that this simple point can possibly confuse Richard. I also think it's more evidence based for the partition to be wider.

I might add that under normal circumstances I personally wouldn't care at all about the width of the partition but it seems to have taken on a greater significance due to Pierre's theory and, having now thought about it, that seems to me to be the most likely answer.

[Elamarna]

David

of course I agree with you, would show the whole wall as partition myself.

Was just concerned Richard has had so much info given to him,might be best to leave it as in his last plan. However I do understand where you are coming from.

Stevek

[David Orsam]

So why is 15x7 or thereabouts so unreasonable?

Here's my thinking GUT.

I assume Mary's bed was a double bed because Joe Barnett stayed there. If so, then having measured my own double bed it would have taken up 4 ft 3 inches in width.

The table next to the bed can't have been less than 1ft 4inches.

So we've already reached 5 ft 7 inches.

The door can't have been narrower than about 2 ft 2 inches.

Of course, when opened, the door knocked into table so we perhaps only need to add 1 ft for the door.

We now have 6 ft 7 inches taken up.

I think we have to add at least 2 more feet between the frame of the door and the edge of the room with the windows.

So that takes me to 8 ft 7 inches of space required.

Of course, if Mary's bed was a single that might give us more room to play with but I simply can't see how both Mary's room and Prater's staircase could have been squeezed into an area of only 9 foot in width.

[GUT]

Here's my thinking GUT.

I assume Mary's bed was a double bed because Joe Barnett stayed there. If so, then having measured my own double bed it would have taken up 4 ft 3 inches in width.

The table next to the bed can't have been less than 1ft 4inches.

So we've already reached 5 ft 7 inches.

The door can't have been narrower than about 2 ft 2 inches.

Of course, when opened, the door knocked into table so we perhaps only need to add 1 ft for the door.

We now have 6 ft 7 inches taken up.

I think we have to add at least 2 more feet between the frame of the door and the edge of the room with the windows.

So that takes me to 8 ft 7 inches of space required.

Of course, if Mary's bed was a single that might give us more room to play with but I simply can't see how both Mary's room and Prater's staircase could have been squeezed into an area of only 9 foot in width.

Looking at the pictures of Mary on the Bed I doubt it was a double, probably a3/4 so that saves almost a foot. Not sure why you want to squeeze the staircase into Mart's room? I also hen looking at he sketches would only allow a foot, maybe even as little as 6 inches, between the door and the window.

[David Orsam]

Not sure why you want to squeeze the staircase into Mart's room?

Oh right, well that's the whole point. According to the Goad map, the space from Miller's Court to the "brick wall" line - originally assumed to be Mary's room - is (by my measurements) 9 feet.

However, if the end of Mary's room was a brick wall there would have been no need for any kind of wooden partition to have been erected.

That being so - and bearing in mind the evidence that there was a wooden partition - one possible explanation (or so I believed) was that a staircase was erected inside the "brick wall" thus requiring a partition to cut off Mary's room from the staircase.

Given that at least 3 feet would have been needed for the staircase, I wondered if Mary's room could in fact have been only 6 feet wide once the partition was erected.

However, on consideration, I've abandoned the idea. I now think that the "brick wall" was not a solid brick wall but contained a large opening (hence the partition was required to fill it).

As a result, there is no need for us to ponder on the size of Mary's room because it is shown on the Goad map, assuming, of course, that the map is to scale.

[GUT]

Oh right, well that's the whole point. According to the Goad map, the space from Miller's Court to the "brick wall" line - originally assumed to be Mary's room - is (by my measurements) 9 feet.

However, if the end of Mary's room was a brick wall there would have been no need for any kind of wooden partition to have been erected.

That being so - and bearing in mind the evidence that there was a wooden partition - one possible explanation (or so I believed) was that a staircase was erected inside the "brick wall" thus requiring a partition to cut off Mary's room from the staircase.

Given that at least 3 feet would have been needed for the staircase, I wondered if Mary's room could in fact have been only 6 feet wide once the partition was erected.

However, on consideration, I've abandoned the idea. I now think that the "brick wall" was not a solid brick wall but contained a large opening (hence the partition was required to fill it).

As a result, there is no need for us to ponder on the size of Mary's room because it is shown on the Goad map, assuming, of course, that the map is to scale.

Thanks David I think we're on the same page re the construction of the wall part brick (with the fireplace) part open, thus needing a partition (or false wall).

Re the Scale, I've been trying to measure some of the parts that have distances marked, and I'm still to reach a conclusion.

[David Orsam]

Thanks David I think we're on the same page re the construction of the wall part brick (with the fireplace) part open, thus needing a partition (or false wall).

Yes, we seem to be close but I don't know anything about a fireplace. Where are you saying that would have been?

[GUT]

Yes, we seem to be close but I don't know anything about a fireplace. Where are you saying that would have been?

Well there was a fireplace in Mary's room, that the clothes were burnt in.

It would have been in the brick wall, probably backing onto a fireplace in 26 sharing a chimney.

[David Orsam]

But the fireplace was surely at the foot of the bed (in the centre of the room) whereas the "brick wall" or partition was to the right of the bed looking at it from the angle in the below sketch.

[David Orsam]

One can see the position of the chimneys in the property from this sketch:

[Pierre]

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?

Steve,

come on. Why can´t you understand what I am saying?

My point is that there isn´t any opening on the left side in the passage, that is, on the side of McCarthy´s shop.

So HOW could the tenants living above his shop get to their rooms?

They could, if they used the opening on the right side.

There must have been a corridor above the passage. It is the only possibility.

Regards Pierre

[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.

Hi,

You mean before 1890 then?

Because in 1890 hey weren´t a "single unit" in that meaning, since both number 27 and number 26 are shops = S. Look at the map.

But people had to be able to get up to their rooms without passing the shop. So where was the entrance to the rooms in number 27? It can ONLY have been through the side in the passage, leading first into 26, upstaris to the landing, and then left into the corridor, wich must have been a stairwell. There is a window in it. And from there you must have been able to reach the rooms both in number 26 and 27.

Regards Pierre