Prater's stairs

[richardh]

Only that the stairs needs to be partitioned off from the shed and that seemed a logical way to do it. I would assume that the shed originally had that wall running the entire width so that there was a front room and a back room.

Would the front door of the shed have led directly onto a hall with a door on the right to enter the front room?

Excellent Richard, now, I have a question for you.

You have included an extra wall which runs from the back wall of the 'shed' perpendicular towards the 'partition wall' of Kelly's room.
You have also put a door in that perpendicular wall.
The end result appears to be the 'shed' is now an 'L' shaped room with two doors?

Do you have a reason for that?

[MysterySinger]

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

I believe it has to be brick as it is a load bearing wall - so I'm in agreement with the map on that and there would have been a single door from 26 into what became 13. I think that's the same door you can see in MJK1 (but yes it could well have been sealed up). I also think you're right about the wood facing in 13 covering initially both the the lower half of the wall and the door to make a flush wall/partition along the whole length (but part of this, at some point, has been removed from the door as evidenced by MJK1). The top half of the wall seems to have been plaster with wainscotting at the lower half.

[Wickerman]

Thanks Pierre,
With the door (Prater's) in that position it all seem to slot into place.
I was wondering if there were TWO door (partitions) in #13. One where we can see it in MJK photos and another other which would lead into the 'salon' (the backwall of the shed?

The Goads map of 29 Hanbury St. also provides no internal walls, yet from this poor quality photo we can see a wall down the right side of the passage.



I'm sure the 'shed' at 26 Dorset St. was partitioned off from the rest of the house, an access door could also have been nailed shut too.

[Pierre]

Yes. And the door called a partition is not in the right place.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;364377]Come on Pierre.
The sketch showing the crowd outside 26. Which you claim proves the police boarded it up. THAT SKETCH.
It Shows a door. In the front of the building. But no door is shown on the maps.

No doors are shown on 29, 28 and 27 at all so were there none? How did people get into those properties.

Have you not seen the photo of 26 and 27 with the entrance doors to both shops?

And look at my drawing in the previous posts where I describe the access to the corridor above the passage.

[Wickerman]

Here is what I've done today. I'm pleased with the result because it ticks lots of boxes regarding many of the issues we've addressed in this forum thread.

The yellow doors are the blocked 'partitions'
I took the liberty of putting a yellow partition (blocked up door) which would lead into the 'salon'.

The stairs from Prater's door fit very well.
The partition (or blocked door) from #13 fit by Prater's stairs and would be a natural doorway had it not been boarded up.
From the shed there is a blocked doorway (yellow)
On the 1st floor we have the store/room which fits nicely
The doors to #19 and #20 are facing each other.
The landing is the right measurement
The shed is the right measurement
The stairs from the 1st to the 2nd fit nicely






What do you think?

Excellent Richard, now, I have a question for you.

You have included an extra wall which runs from the back wall of the 'shed' perpendicular towards the 'partition wall' of Kelly's room.
You have also put a door in that perpendicular wall.
The end result appears to be the 'shed' is now an 'L' shaped room with two doors?

Do you have a reason for that?

[Wickerman]

Wouldn't Mary have locked her door though, if she was in her room alone and probably also barricade it with a chair?

That was the convention, the locks were to use when the tenant was in (lock your door for protection), not out. There was nothing to steal in these tenements.

[Wickerman]

That can't be right so the map is misleading in this respect.

I wouldn't use 'misleading', I think our problem is we are looking for details that these series of maps were never intended to provide.

Wickerman - I found your posts about the layout interesting. Could you elaborate further on where you think the staircase was? And do you think the Goad map is right about the location of "Prater's door"?"

I'm quite sure the staircase was between, the back wall of the front room (shed), and the ever-so controversial 'partition wall' of Kelly's room.
The back wall of the 'shed' rarely gets mentioned, but this would also have been a wooden partition, as was the wall directly above (rm 20).
So this staircase area would have been the same size as the space above, said to be 9ft deep (bearing in mind the house is 15ft wide.)

The only clue we have as to how the stairs may have run is what we read in the Kate Marshall case, and that isn't much.
The door we have termed 'Praters Door' should enter the main house (no.26) somewhere within that 9ft deep staircase area, in my opinion.

[Elamarna]

David and GUT

interesting debate. Think on this occasion i side with David on the fireplace, just based on the placement of the chimneys.

steve

[Wickerman]

Hello, all,

If Mary's room had a brick wall, would this have been where her fireplace was?

All four walls of Mary's room were brick.
The confusion relates to only the wall which divides her room from the main house No.26.
However, that wall is the back wall of the main house, it is the same wall that runs straight down from the roof/guttering of No.26.

So, it surely is brick.

The uncertainty lies with the question of how big was the access hole through that rear house wall into Mary's room.

This is what a set of pocket doors looks like.



This is what we had in our house at one time.
Or, maybe it was a single pocket door (below), fixed closed, and wallpapered over?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Robert St Devil;364373

That archway passage, i think, must serve some purpose beyond aesthetics.[/QUOTE]

Dear Robert
The archway passage as you call it is blocked on the 26 side by a solid brick wall.
If you argue that is wrong surly you must accept that no doors off of the main passage way is also wrong. For once I cannot see your reasons for the view the stairs gave access to 27

Steve

[David Orsam]

BUT

THERE is another sketch that shows the fire place against that brick wall.

If there is, then it surely must be in the wrong place due to the location of the chimneys (as seen in one of the above sketches).

Here's another one showing the fireplace where it surely must have been.

[Elamarna]

Come on Pierre.
The sketch showing the crowd outside 26. Which you claim proves the police boarded it up. THAT SKETCH.
It Shows a door. In the front of the building. But no door is shown on the maps.

No doors are shown on 29, 28 and 27 at all so were there none? How did people get into those properties.
Like normal you are highly selective in the what you answer.
Anything which does not fit is ignored.

Please explain how someone would get from the stairs in 26 into the archway passage when there is a solid brick wall at the 26 end of the archway?
That's the third time i have asked.

However if you say we cannot believe that wall is solid or the same about the 3 buildings above. Then you must accept there could be doors in the passage way. You cannot have it both ways.
And again where is my apology?

[GUT]

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.

I think we're in agreement about where the brick wall was BUT

THERE is another sketch that shows the fire place against that brick wall.

[Robert St Devil]

Pierre. Its speculation but...

Yes, im talking about waaay before 1890. Like, the original concept for the house. According to the Dorset Street link on CB, it says John Miller originally converted it many years prior to J McCarthy. I know the history of the East End in the 19th is written with the account of the large wave of immigrants flooding the area. I wondered if the same phenomenon that happens to some "nice neighborhoods" when the demographic changes in modern terms also occured to th East End, with it deteriorating at a record pace. Witness to terrace houses being blocced into rentable living quarters by slumlords.

That archway passage, i think, must serve some purpose beyond aesthetics.