John Bennett Photo discussion (moved thread)

[Hunter]

Hi Stephen,

If the front entrance was such, wouldn't the 2nd set of steps at the half landing have to be on the left to emerge on the first balcony where they seem to appear? If the front entrance was offset to the left to accomodate this, it would place it in the firewall.

[Stephen Thomas]

If you stood at the entrance to George Yard Buildings you would be faced by a staircase to the right and a passageway to the back of the dwellings on the left. If you walked up the staircase you would find yourself on a half landing (at the back of the building) and then an equal number of steps would take you to the landing shown on John's magnificently found photo, where the front doors of all the flats on the upper floors are shown. A stairwell is a stairwell whether it's in George Yard Buildings, 26 Dorset Street or the Twin Towers.

[Observer]

What happened to those photographs of the landings in George Yard Buildings that were taken in the early 1970's?

all the best

Observer

[DVV]

Right, Chris!

didn't have to think too much to admit it!

Amitiés,
David

[Chris]

However, the body couldn't be there. Too close to the door ...

Come to think of it, the door couldn't be there either, could it?

[Hunter]

Hi David, Garry,

The illustrator may not have seen the inside of George Yards building when offering his depiction. The drawing shows interior landings at both ends of the staircase which is not likely since the photo has the back of the steps exiting at the balcony. However, a single interior landing, with toilets for each floor is probable and would explain the article that David posted and the testimony of the tennants at the time. How the sequence starts from the ground floor is the conundrum at the moment; hence, the closeup of the right ground floor passage with what seems to be an opening into a foyer of some sorts.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello David!

Well, let's put the testimonies from the victims introduction of this site right here:

"...3:30 AM: Alfred Crow returned to his lodging in George Yard Buildings and noticed what he thought was a homeless person sleeping on the first floor landing. As this was not an uncommon occurrence he continued on to bed.

John Reeves left his lodgings in the George Yard Buildings at 4:45 AM. By this time the light was improving inside the stairwell. Reeves also noticed the body on the first floor landing but he was also aware that it was lying in a pool of blood. Reeves went off to find a policeman. ..."

All the best
Jukka

[DVV]

Hi Garry,

it's indeed a nice and well known drawing, and can tell something about the building.
However, the body couldn't be there. Too close to the door, and it would also contradict Crow's testimony.

Amitiés,
David

[Garry Wroe]

I didn't post this earlier since I assumed it was an illustration with which most are familiar. Perhaps, though, it might shed some light on the layout and construction of the building.



All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Hunter]

Hi Chris,

I was just about to post the same article that David had found. I would imagine the interior layout would be similar to the plan of the neighboring building that Colin posted. The toilets had to be somewhere and I doubt with a building this large that they would have been outside.

How the sequence of steps from the ground floor incorporate with the rest, including a first floor landing is a puzzle at the moment.

[Chris]

Hmm. I wonder if this could be a clue?

Originally Posted by Chris Scott

On the 7 August 1888, there was found on the first floor landing, next door to the toilets ("à côté des lieux d'aisances"), the body of Martha Turner, stabbed with 39 wounds.

I didn't know that her body was found "next door to the toilets" - has someone read this detail before ?

[Hunter]

Notice the brick jamb seems to corner hear, suggesting a foyer that may turn to the left. If this is so, there would be no ascending steps on left.



The maximum riser (height) for each step would probably be 8 inches
The minimum tread (depth) for each step would probably be 12 inches
At those dimensions it would take 15 steps to scale 10 ft of height and of course 15 ft deep.
The riser could be shorter and the tread deeper but from what can be gained from the photo the former dimensions could be correct.

The first and second floors appear to be taller than the ground floor and the third floor but this may be an illusion.

I do not believe that a gallery or a balcony would have been confused with a landing; which was the term used in the various testimonies.

Question- Where would the facilities ( WC) be if not arranged similar to those in the adjacent building?

[robhouse]

"...we can't tell from that photo what the sequence of steps is. For the upper stories, I'm inclining to his view of half-flights with intermediate landings at the front of the building, but I don't see how that would work on the lowest level because:
(1) the upper half of the front entrance would be obstructed and
(2) the foot of the stairs would be at the back of the building, rather than the front, which seems most natural."

So if I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the upper floors had the intermediate landings, as suggested, but that the stairs to the first floor went straight up from the ground floor entrance in front. This sounds reasonable to me, and I admit, I am unfamiliar with the architecture of these types of buildings.

As Rob C said, "There might have been a flat area between the top step and the start of the balcony, say about two feet."

I think that the idea then is that the stairs led from the front of the building straight up to the first floor, then there might have been a flat area (i.e. a landing) before the opening to the balcony in back. Is this correct? I think someone could do the math here, based on the rise angle of the steps, the distance between floors, the depth of the building, etc.. and figure out approximately how large such a landing would be. In any case, it seems entirely possible to me that there was a "landing" that was indoors (i.e not on the balcony). This would square with the assertion that Tabram was found on the stone landing, and that people commonly slept there, presumably sheltered from the weather, etc.

In summary, this assumes that the black diagonal line in the photo is NOT a railing to a stairway, and that the arched entrance on the first floor right side had a sort of indoor landing for some way before the stairs started down. So Tabram would have been found inside this arched entrance as depicted in the photo, a few feet in (or more?) on a "landing".

??

Rob H

But wouldn't that imply a landing at the front of the building halfway between the ground floor and the first floor, obstructing the front entrance?

I would think that what I have termed a 'half-floor' landing (i.e. an intermediate landing), would be situated approximately eight-to-twelve lineal feet into the structure. But, either way; the presence of such a landing, between the 'ground-floor' and 'first-floor' levels, would most certainly impede traffic within the building's front-to-rear passage.

This makes a very strong case for the plausibility of the stairway consisting of 'full-flight' depth (i.e. single-ascension flights); ... at least between the 'ground-floor' and 'first-floor' levels.

A keen observation, Chris!

[silverstealth]

As a post of mine has been deleted, without warning, or consultation, I shall be withdrawing my membership of this site at 10 pm GMT, and not returning.

This is terrible news.. How will we cope with the loss, I suppose at some point time will heal the scars and people will learn to live again..

Or in my case, post in an Ap free zone.