Prater's stairs

[richardh]

Why is there a 'partition' on the first (#19/#20) floor? The landing only contained the stairwells and a small 'store room' so what would the need for a partition which, by the sound of these statements, is a separate entity from the walls that divide the landing from #20 & #19.

[richardh]

"There is a partition and a little store-room between us. I can hear what goes on in Roberts’ room." That's two separate things between the two rooms.

No Richard, he is only describing how to get to room 19, not that room 20 has a different access.
We know from the testimony that the doors to rooms 19 & 20 face each other across an open space, a landing or passage.

You also have, in the Goads version, a partition that runs from the room 20's partition, to the wall of room 19. This is the face (partition) of your storage room.
And the testimony does say that there is a partition between the two rooms.




Right, and there is no need to trouble yourself about this hypothetical second staircase, there's no justification for it.



The same argument applies to Kelly's door. That room was accessible from within No. 26 at one time, so why not leave it that way?

The fact remains two side access doors were created for separate entrances, one for Kelly, and one to the rest of the upper floors of the house.

That front door to No. 26, which is part of the 'shed' may not have functioned anymore, so no access to the original staircase of No. 26 directly from Dorset St.

[richardh]

Jon
are you saying that there is NO 2nd staircase?
"Right, and there is no need to trouble yourself about this hypothetical second staircase, there's no justification for it."

If so the original staircase is the one and only staircase available to work with?

"That front door to No. 26, which is part of the 'shed' may not have functioned anymore, so no access to the original staircase of No. 26 directly from Dorset St."

[David Orsam]

Why is there a 'partition' on the first (#19/#20) floor? The landing only contained the stairwells and a small 'store room' so what would the need for a partition which, by the sound of these statements, is a separate entity from the walls that divide the landing from #20 & #19.

This is a very good question and one that I have been pondering on since I heard of its existence.

I am currently wondering if this partition was about waist height and its only job was to stop people falling down the stairs. The house in which I grew up had just such a "partition" (although I don't think we ever had a name for it) on the landing at the top of the stairs, which was directly opposite my bedroom.

But I find it hard in my head to fit everything said in the evidence with the reality of what the first floor of 26 Dorset St could have looked like.

[Wickerman]

Not really sure of your question Richard.

The wall we see on the Goads Plan that divides the back two rooms (13 & 19) from the rest of the house is a wall, with access through.
We are assuming, for the sake of the comment by Dr. Phillips that those openings were closed in or reduced in size by later partitions, or wooden panels.

The storage room on the same floor as rms 19 & 20, has a front, presumably with its own door. This front is also made of wood, so it is a partition, and it runs perpendicular from the wall of room 19, to the partition of room 20.

As for room 20 & the shed below, the back walls of those rooms are not brick, but internal partitions installed across the width of the house.
The partition which forms the back of rm 20 begins, for arguments sake, at the west wall of No. 26, runs down the side of the staircase (whether the stairs run up or down), and continues across to Amery's door, then on to where another partition (from the store room) meets it perpendicular, then continues to meet the east wall of the house.

This is only what you have drawn Richard, which is why I am not sure of your question.

[David Orsam]

Not really sure of your question Richard.

The wall we see on the Goads Plan that divides the back two rooms (13 & 19) from the rest of the house is a wall, with access through.
We are assuming, for the sake of the comment by Dr. Phillips that those openings were closed in or reduced in size by later partitions, or wooden panels.

The storage room on the same floor as rms 19 & 20, has a front, presumably with its own door. This front is also made of wood, so it is a partition, and it runs perpendicular from the wall of room 19, to the partition of room 20.

As for room 20 & the shed below, the back walls of those rooms are not brick, but internal partitions installed across the width of the house.
The partition which forms the back of rm 20 begins, for arguments sake, at the west wall of No. 26, runs down the side of the staircase (whether the stairs run up or down), and continues across to Amery's door, then on to where another partition (from the store room) meets it perpendicular, then continues to meet the east wall of the house.

This is only what you have drawn Richard, which is why I am not sure of your question.

I scratch my head again here.

Jon, your post refers to a number of partitions and you lost me as to which one is supposed to be the wooden partition identified by the witnesses.

For the purposes of this discussion, can we assume that all the internal wall partitions in the house were made of plaster and there was only one wooden partition on the first floor? In which case, where was the wooden partition and what was its purpose?

p.s. the wooden partition identified on the ground floor by Dr Phillips can't have any relationship to the one of the first floor can it? Because room 19 had a functioning door leading into the main body of 26 Dorset st which Kelly's room didn't have.

[Wickerman]

Jon
are you saying that there is NO 2nd staircase?
"Right, and there is no need to trouble yourself about this hypothetical second staircase, there's no justification for it."

Correct, the existence of a second staircase was proposed in order to solve a problem. A problem that never existed in the first place.

If so the original staircase is the one and only staircase available to work with?

That is how we should approach the subject.

Building a staircase is a huge undertaking compared to moving a few wooden partitions around.
To install a second staircase you have to remove joists. Which creates a significant weak point in the structure, which in turn requires reinforcements for the cut joists in the form of pillars or another brick wall.

Think of the structure of this house.
The apex of the roof runs east-west.
This means the main floor joists for No. 26 Dorset St. also run east-west.
Which means the east & west walls are load bearing walls.

Now, if you install a second staircase within No. 26, you have to cut one or two of those joists short at some point so you can come up through the floor at another location. Which means those joists have no visible support at one end.

Room 13 is built as an extension, which means the floor joists above rm 13 (which form the floor of rm 19), run perpendicular northward from the back wall of the house.
So, if you now choose to place a second staircase (as we have seen proposed in another version), you would have to remove several of those floor joists, so what is holding the ceiling/floor up?

A second partition will not do it (it needs to be load bearing), you would have to build a wall - which makes the proposal for a second staircase redundant.

I'll try and draw what I mean if you like, but I'm saying the basic structure of the house would be compromised unless you spent an extraordinary sum of money, which makes the second staircase an exercise in futility.

[richardh]

Great stuff. Now we might be getting somewhere!
But...
If that's the case then the original (and only) staircase will naturally* be orientated like Hanbury street - facing the original front door? And turning right 'L' shaped up to the 1st floor?

If that's the case then the passageway door would be positioned midway along the passage* so as to open into the foot of those stairs?

So the passageway doorway can't have been on the other side of #13's partition?

(* all speculation on my part)

Correct, the existence of a second staircase was proposed in order to solve a problem. A problem that never existed in the first place.



That is how we should approach the subject.

Building a staircase is a huge undertaking compared to moving a few wooden partitions around.
To install a second staircase you have to remove joists. Which creates a significant weak point in the structure, which in turn requires reinforcements for the cut joists in the form of pillars or another brick wall.

Think of the structure of this house.
The apex of the roof runs east-west.
This means the main floor joists for No. 26 Dorset St. also run east-west.
Which means the east & west walls are load bearing walls.

Now, if you install a second staircase within No. 26, you have to cut one or two of those joists short at some point. Which means those joists have no visible support at one end.

Room 13 is built as an extension, which means the floor joists above rm 13 (which form the floor of rm 19), run perpendicular northward from the back wall of the house.
So, if you now choose to place a second staircase (as we have seen proposed in another version), you would have to remove several of those floor joists, so what is holding the ceiling/floor up?

A second partition will not do it (it needs to be load bearing), you would have to build a wall - which makes the proposal for a second staircase redundant.

I'll try and draw what I mean if you like, but I'm saying the basic structure of the house would be compromised unless you spent an extraordinary sum of money, which makes the second staircase an exercise in futility.

[Wickerman]

I scratch my head again here.

Jon, your post refers to a number of partitions and you lost me as to which one is supposed to be the wooden partition identified by the witnesses.

David.
The partition which David Roberts kicked is the one I have described, it is the back wall of room 20 and runs full width of the house.
At least this is how I interpret the testimony.

p.s. the wooden partition identified on the ground floor by Dr Phillips can't have any relationship to the one of the first floor can it? Because room 19 had a functioning door leading into the main body of 26 Dorset st which Kelly's room didn't have.

Robert's door (rm 19) opened to the rest of the house, it was a door in a wall, not a door in a partition.
This wall naturally extended down to form the back wall of room 13, the door from rm 13 in this wall was blocked up, this is what I believe Phillips called a partition. It was a fixed door, that gave no access to the front of the house.

[Robert]

Everyone's doing very well here - and it's good practice for when you all do the Partition of Poland job.

[Wickerman]

Great stuff. Now we might be getting somewhere!
But...
If that's the case then the original (and only) staircase will naturally* be orientated like Hanbury street - facing the original front door? And turning right 'L' shaped up to the 1st floor?

Yes, the joists in Hanbury St. also run east-west, so the most preferred method of accessing the floor above with a staircase, from an architectural perspective, is to run it 'between' the joists, not across the ends of several joists. This is why the stairs turn as they enter the next floor.
Exceptions always exist, I'm not denying that, but exceptions are not entertained in row-houses, this is only with single family homes, or maybe an occasional semi-detached.
Row-houses (or terrace houses), because you are repeating the design over and over again tend to follow the most expedient floor plans, for both simplicity and cost savings.

Any staircase should enter the floor above 'between' the floor joists.

If that's the case then the passageway door would be positioned midway along the passage* so as to open into the foot of those stairs?

Yes.

So the passageway doorway can't have been on the other side of #13's partition?

Correct.

[David Orsam]

David.
The partition which David Roberts kicked is the one I have described, it is the back wall of room 20 and runs full width of the house.
At least this is how I interpret the testimony.

Thanks Jon. I have to confess that I don't understand but if Richard does that is the only important thing.

Robert's door (rm 19) opened to the rest of the house, it was a door in a wall, not a door in a partition.
This wall naturally extended down to form the back wall of room 13, the door from rm 13 in this wall was blocked up, this is what I believe Phillips called a partition. It was a fixed door, that gave no access to the front of the house.

I have a lot of trouble accepting this, largely because of the newspaper report that said that the partition was "erected", and partly also because of the way Phillips described the partition, but I've been unable to come up with a sensible alternative explanation so I have to rely on Stephen to win the day on this one if he can!

[Wickerman]

I have a lot of trouble accepting this, largely because of the newspaper report that said that the partition was "erected", and partly also because of the way Phillips described the partition, but I've been unable to come up with a sensible alternative explanation so I have to rely on Stephen to win the day on this one if he can!

David.
Do I take it you agree that the wall of houses 26 & 27 shown here running down below the attic window in the roof, is the back wall of rooms 19 & 13?
This wall extends down through all floors, and is the wall which is shown on the Goads Plan.

[David Orsam]

David.
Do I take it you agree that the wall of houses 26 & 27 shown here running down below the attic window in the roof, is the back wall of rooms 19 & 13?
This wall extends down through all floors, and is the wall which is shown on the Goads Plan.

This kind of stuff at least I understand, Jon, but you might remember that my original theory was that a partition was inserted to form a new back wall of room 19 and thus create a space between that partition and the brick wall that we see on Goad. My assumption was that a staircase was inserted in this space. I guess that this would mean that the brick wall on the first floor was actually the outer wall of room 20.

Now, for various reasons, especially the lack of space to fit everything in when compared to the Goad map, this may be a bad theory - a terrible theory - but for possibly irrational reasons I can't discard it entirely in my own mind. Alternatively, something was going on in that house that we don't have enough information to understand.

Anyway, in my reply I wasn't actually trying to disagree with you, because the failure of understanding is probably due to my lack of knowledge about buildings, and you may well be right - perhaps when I see everything in Richard's next model it will all become clear.

[Wickerman]

Hi David.

Think of how the back rooms were extended from the house. It's called 'Lean-to' construction. The main floor joists and roof joists run out from the house, much like this.



The above is only a single story construction, but imagine another floor above.
How many of those floor joists between room 13 and room 19 above, will you need to cut off in order for you to build a staircase inside room 13?
Then, how will you support them?

Any joists that you cut will need added support at the cut end, which means, in order for the construction to remain stable, you need to support those joists with a second wall. Not, a wooden partition.
So what was the point of doing this?
You have replaced one wall with another - a very expensive undertaking if your sole intent was to provide another set of stairs to room 19.