Prater's stairs

[Pierre]

Richard

There is no question that your graphics will not be totally brilliant on this one or whatever project you tackle. However, this is rather complicated as to how the whole thing hangs together. As you will know, I was involved in making a video of the internal and external layout of #26 Dorset Street and Millers Court with the late Paul Kearney aka NEMO which was quite good but he cobbled together an imperfect version to show to people at the York conference. People liked it but it wasn't perfect.

I'd like yours to be perfect.

Me too.

Regards Pierre

[MBDecre]

Yes, considering the English convention is the refer to the first floor above the ground as "ground floor", it is very odd that Goads do not use that same convention.

Charles Goad, born in England, first opened up his mapping business in Montreal, Canada, only moving back to England in 1885.
He appears to have brought his 'American' terminology with him

Smile. It is odd. Although 'defense' of our "ground floor" here, we tend to build our (litteral) 1st floor more or less actually on the ground, hence "ground floor". It seems to us here that the US build quite some amount/height of space under their homes, so "1st floor" seems more well placed. Also, we have a lot of rain so the water-table is quite a present concern when building (thus, a lot of homes, perhaps most, don't have basements; unlike the US perhaps..?)
Hoping those generalisations of the US aren't too far off the facts??!!

Thanks for the Goad history - seems like he may well have brought the Candian terms back.

[Wickerman]

My confusion, and perhaps that of a few others, is that in England the Goad map's "1st floor" is what we call "ground floor", so Goad's "2nd" is the english "1st".

I hear the US and Canadian convention is to use "1st floor" re the english "ground floor". Was Goad US or Canadian?

Yes, considering the English convention is the refer to the first floor above the ground as "ground floor", it is very odd that Goads do not use that same convention.

Charles Goad, born in England, first opened up his mapping business in Montreal, Canada, only moving back to England in 1885.
He appears to have brought his 'American' terminology with him

[richardh]

Thanks to all for the thorough feedback and debate so far.

What I am going to do is create TWO versions (which is pretty much what I've already done) - The 'Goad's' version and the 'Thomas' version.

They will be 3D .projection. plans and once done they can be looked at and picked over and tweaked at will.

Stephen, I'm making adjustments to your version now and I'll post an update later so you can give me feedback. I've fixed the stairs but I have a question or two about the store and the partition in #19.

Thanks again for the help.

[MBDecre]

Hi Wickerman, re your posts 475 & 6. Appologies, i think you explained some of that before, and i forgot ! Thanks for re-explanation. Grin.

My confusion, and perhaps that of a few others, is that in England the Goad map's "1st floor" is what we call "ground floor", so Goad's "2nd" is the english "1st".

I hear the US and Canadian convention is to use "1st floor" re the english "ground floor". Was Goad US or Canadian?

Your explanation of the internal openings of Mjk's room 13 and 19 above at least comfirm how I did read those. (Explaining the door in the backround of the 1st MJK body/room photo. Also explains Prater's access from her stairs.)

With the detail sorted, it doesn't seem to detract from both our broader/overall points or perspectives.

Thanks for your expertease.

[Stephen Thomas]

I am looking at how to complete this project to give a really good interpretation of moving about the rooms. I have been testing lighting and texturing and I feel like texturing might spoil it somewhat. I did a test last night and got some really artistic, eerie results using just lights with no textures.

Richard

There is no question that your graphics will not be totally brilliant on this one or whatever project you tackle. However, this is rather complicated as to how the whole thing hangs together. As you will know, I was involved in making a video of the internal and external layout of #26 Dorset Street and Millers Court with the late Paul Kearney aka NEMO which was quite good but he cobbled together an imperfect version to show to people at the York conference. People liked it but it wasn't perfect.

I'd like yours to be perfect.

[Wickerman]

In the plan of No.26 (below), we see a wall between the the back of the house and Kelly's room, the wall shows an opening with no notes attached. The house was 3 stories, while the back room structure was 2 stories tall.
The opening therefore applies to both floors of this 2 storie structure.



In Millers Court passage the solid wall on the right of the passage, although extending up through all 3 floors, only has an opening in the bottom floor, the "1st" floor.

[Wickerman]

Re Stephen's points on Richard's latest render...

I don't have stephen's knowledge of that aspect of stair structures, but stairs facing the front door of No. 26 (probably accessed down a passage from said door) as Richard currently shows them - is pretty likely (just as we've been postulating for No. 27).

Re a door in the right side of the Court passage:

a) several period drawings (already posted here) show Prater's door just in under the passage arch, when viewed from the court. This is unlikely to be artistic license, as all the pics are corroborative, with the only variation being just how far under the arch the door is placed.

b) Prater or Cox or an other witness also describe the door/access to the stairs from the passage. One says, "my door" or "the door"([either just to her room and/or upstairs for the remainder of floors at 26) "is the first on the right" down the passage; the 2nd door presumably being MJK's.

c) The goad map, in this instance, might - for insurance/fire escape reasons - actually show the 1st door (sic) into the passage. The map shows a gap in the passage wall just where the witness/es describe a door/stairs, and close to where the period drawings (sic) show a door to be.

You've encapsulated all the relevant points there, with nothing known to contest the conclusion.
However...

The "1st" (we previously debated) that the Goad map puts in this gap, might refer to the stairs/door as an exit - in case of fire - leading to/from the "1st" floor, where Prater's room was, as a sole floor above MJK's room, and/or as an escape from the remainder of floors.

Just some thoughts.

On these Goad maps there are scores of examples of internal building walls with openings of various sizes.
In cases where no notes are attached to the openings, the intended meaning is that the opening applies to all floors.

Where we read "1st", and the building is 4 stories tall, the opening applies to only the first/ground floor, the floors above (2nd, 3rd, 4th), all being solid walls.
In other cases we might read a note like, "2nd, 4th", attached to the opening, which means the first/ground floor and the 3rd floor have solid walls, but the 2nd & 4th floor walls have an opening.

Some differences can be found on this small sample.


In the blue circle we see "1st", yet the building is 3 1/2 stories tall, the opening is in the first floor wall only.
Likewise, in the red circle we read "3rd", the building is 3 stories tall, so there is no opening in the lower two floors.

As can be seen in the above pic. there are numerous walls shown with openings carrying no notes, which means the opening applies to "all floors".

Goad maps only recognise a Basement, first, second, third, fourth floors, etc.
They do not use the term "ground floor", the first floor is the ground floor.

[David Orsam]

Stephen, by way of a supplementary post, can I also ask about the partition.

Is it your view that (as indicated by the Goad map) there was a brick wall separating the back room from the rest of the house and that (as indicated by Stephen's model based on your plan) a wooden partition was inserted inside the back room so that there was a now staircase between the partition and the brick wall?

If so, why was this done?

Was there already a staircase in the house so that this created a second staircase?

And do you say that the arrangement of Mary's room, i.e. wooden partition, staircase and brick wall was mirrored in room 19 on the first floor?

Apologies if I have misunderstood anything from your post - without seeing it in a model I'm not entirely sure how you are envisaging the staircase so you might have answered some of the above already but I would be grateful for the clarification.

[David Orsam]

Hi Stephen,

Like pretty much everyone I am trying to wrap my head around all the possibilities. I've been persuaded that the current model is the best we can achieve on the evidence but I admit to some nagging doubts. So do you mind if I ask you a few questions as follows:

you have backtracked terribly by entertaining the idea that the strange marking on the Goad map represents a doorway.

Firstly, why do you call the marking "strange". And, secondly, if it is not a doorway, and bearing in mind that the key plan suggests it is an opening of some sort on the ground floor, can you say it does represent?

There was no doorway halfway down the passage

How do we know this?

Given the known width of the house (14 foot maximum)

Why is this the known width of the house?

the 'storeroom' can't have been much more than a large cupboard.

How does this square with the 1899 evidence of Kate Marshall at the Old Bailey that room 20 was separated from room 19 by "a passage and a spare room, which is used at nights to put lodgers with their children in"?

[David Orsam]

'morning, David.
What about just a regular wheel barrow? The kind that you find at Home Depot. One wheel in the front. Two handles. A bin.

Yes, I'm sure that would have fitted down the passage but the article referring to a gate does also refer to costermongers barrows and they seem to be too wide.

[MBDecre]

Are you reducing the suggested 9ft depth of this landing/passage (between rooms 19 & 20)?

Hi Jon. I'm not sure which dimension of the landing your 9ft relates to.

a) If your 9ft is across from the 'store room' to the stair-head then maybe that could be reduced, that's a wide passage (recal the Dutfield's yard gate was meant to be 9ft wide, and that was for horses and carts to access!!). It depends... If the room doors open out into this area, then 9 foot could still be a bit wide but about right (still allowing for plenty of congestion!!). But if the doors open into the rooms (probable, except maybe the 'store-room') then a 9 foot landing seems excessive. In that case, at best, I'd imagine it 4 feet wide.
(Here's examples I know well. A late victorian terrace house of middle-lower class status with only a 3.5 foot wide by 7ft long landing/passage with 3 bedroom doors opening off from it. This area was dark even in daytime; no window. Identically, in another - larger - house, built 1833. People coming out of one room had to wait in the doorway to let anyone coming up stairs go by.)

b) If your 9ft is across from room 19 to room 20, then that sounds about right, to accomodate people moving between 19 and 20, and allowing for people passing on the landing. But that's just in my imagination. In reality it might have been less for all the reasons given in (a). However, 9ft would give the 'store-room' some space/length to be used by ad-hoc lodgers; as per info in the 1899 murder inquest depositions.

Hope that all makes sense!

[MBDecre]

Re Stephen's points on Richard's latest render...

I don't have stephen's knowledge of that aspect of stair structures, but stairs facing the front door of No. 26 (probably accessed down a passage from said door) as Richard currently shows them - is pretty likely (just as we've been postulating for No. 27).

Re a door in the right side of the Court passage:

a) several period drawings (already posted here) show Prater's door just in under the passage arch, when viewed from the court. This is unlikely to be artistic license, as all the pics are corroborative, with the only variation being just how far under the arch the door is placed.

b) Prater or Cox or an other witness also describe the door/access to the stairs from the passage. One says, "my door" or "the door"([either just to her room and/or upstairs for the remainder of floors at 26) "is the first on the right" down the passage; the 2nd door presumably being MJK's.

c) The goad map, in this instance, might - for insurance/fire escape reasons - actually show the 1st door (sic) into the passage. The map shows a gap in the passage wall just where the witness/es describe a door/stairs, and close to where the period drawings (sic) show a door to be. The "1st" (we previously debated) that the Goad map puts in this gap, might refer to the stairs/door as an exit - in case of fire - leading to/from the "1st" floor, where Prater's room was, as a sole floor above MJK's room, and/or as an escape from the remainder of floors.

Just some thoughts.

[Robert St Devil]

I've come round to the view that the costermonger's barrows couldn't have fitted down the passage but just want to throw a little spanner in the works. This is from a biography of an east end girl, Hilda Kemp, living in Bermondsey called "We Ain't Got No Drink Pa" (here regarding the year 1933):

"...I was nervous at what Pa was doing now. He grunted and puffed a bit more and then the object he'd been pulling into the room was revealed. It was a barrow, an enormous, two-wheeled, costermonger's barrow that was probably used to ferry enormous sackloads of fruit and vegetables from the cold stores to market, or to sell wares on the street. It had large wooden wheels and a flat wooden base that filled most of our small room....'Tell us then, Ted cos we ain't got a clue why there's a barra' in our 'ouse at this time of night' said Ma in her quiet way... "

So, somehow, her father had, apparently, managed to get a costermonger barrow into the family home in Bermondsey.

'morning, David.
What about just a regular wheel barrow? The kind that you find at Home Depot. One wheel in the front. Two handles. A bin.

[Wickerman]

Re upstairs at 26. Reading the old-bailey transcript of the Kate Marshal 1899 manslaughter, it seemed to me that the partition which the husband kicked at might have been closer to the stair-head. And the 'store-room', if used as an adhoc room by families arriving at short notice, might be a bit broader. These two circumstances would mean the landing was smaller, and the separation between room 20 (Amory) from room 19 (Roberts) becomes more of a "passage" (as Mr Robert's describes it). It does seem likely, considering the descriptions by Roberts, Amory, and other witnesses. The space as they describe it sounds claustrophobic, as though they were all jammed in and knocking against each other during the struggle. I could be wrong, It was just a sense I got. It might be a difference of only a foot or two move of wall positions.

Are you reducing the suggested 9ft depth of this landing/passage (between rooms 19 & 20)?