Help understanding Victorian floor plan.
-
Thanks very much, everyone. It's fantastic that ye feel so inclined to help. I hope to return the favour to some other novices on this forum one day.
So, I've gone through the whole book and put together all the plans where I personally noticed this yoke we're discussing or something that could potentially be the same. I may have missed a couple but this is about as good as it'll get I imagine. (And I've apparently neglected to include the plan for Bignell House.) Am I correct in seeing doors going into whatever this thing is? If so, why is no-thing indicated on the outside for picking up the waste without entering the house as Dave R has suggested? That seemed the most likely suggestion to me but this bit is puzzling.
-
and 9. seem to be exactly the same as Bignell House, a rounded shape totally outsdide of any buildings but connected to one, usually a scullery.
-
is rounded but within square walls and it comes out of the scullery. I thought it was indoors in a different building but the fuel shed is where it goes and is really outdoors.
1., 4., 7., and 8. are irregularly shaped but I believe the same device is implied. 4. seems the only one of these that protrudes totally out of the building. Interestngly, in 1. and 7. the device in question is in the wash-house and not the scullery. Could it be a different device in that case?
-
and 6. are rather more oblong, and 5. rather curiosuly seems to be indoors and not adjacent to an external wall, whereas in line with the rest of them, 6. is at the outer wall and could be outside.
-
and 11. are different but near the end of this I wondered are they fulfilling the same function. I'm talking about the rectangular items against the outer walls. The first image has this as well in the scullery.
driven: I think it looks interesting and mysterious on the map so I'll keep it and do something with it. It's for a computer game, a horror one no less, so a bit of mystery is good.
Calstock: In a way it is surprising, but at the same time the rooms are quite big, and in addition to what Dave has said, the space required to do all these tasks is indicative of the number of people that needed to do them, hence the high number of bedrooms (some of which are for guests as well). And considering that these are generally homes and countryhouses for the wealthy, this was by no means standard for the majority. Many families had a single room for living, cooking, sleeping and any thing else that you'd like to do indoors.
Dave: never seen either programme but I'd love to. I should save the names for when I have time to watch something. I've read Margaret Powell's books on domestic service, and they were positively fascinating. Her accounts start from the 1920s but she often draws comparisons to Victorian living, and mentions what had improved, or occassionally grown worse.
-
-
I know what you mean EPD. My wife grew up in a 1650's farmhouse, (ex-inn we believe)and our previous property, (where we lived for 17 years) was a 1760's Cotswold stone cottage. Obviously modern amenities had all been added at some point, but it did give you a sense of the room sizes, ceiling heights, wall thicknesses, garden sizes, (the one thing that was considerably bigger), and other details apparent in an older property. We brought our current house when it was 18 months old - a complete change you can imagine !
-
Indeed, Calstock. That can certainly be some change. I'm doing a lot of research on this type of thing lately as I'm writing a novel about an 1870s Donegal farm girl that goes into service in a big mansion, as well as working on the computer game that this floor plan will be for. So, I'm finding out a lot and it's interesting. It's the sort of thing I never used to think about that much. I always liked it but hadn't really given much thought to the complexity of it.
-
I highly doubt that most American homes built today will be standing 400 years from now...
-
@krisidious said:
I highly doubt that most American homes built today will be standing 400 years from now...
Nor, for that matter, most of those being built anywhere else today.
-
Isn't that the truth. A fair few shoddy buildings being put up these days. As technology improves, cheaper ways of doing things come about, and a good half the time, cheaper won't last.
-
I know we're drifting off topic here, (and off Sketchup), but it is an interesting discussion.
Having lived in a 1760's Costwold stone cottage,it was certainly sturdy. We had some really bad gales one day when I lived there and on the way home there were roof tiles off all the buildings, trees blown down, vehicles tipped over, etc. I was dreading what I'd find when I got home, only to find it didn't suffer one jot !
Here's the thing though - we shouldn't have too much of a rose tinted view of these properties because although they are long-lasting, they're constantly damp, (despite all the usual modern day remedies), they end up twisted and leaning all over the place, (on account of no foundations and the crucial element of lime mortar, (which allows movement without cracking). What I'm saying is if a modern building had these defects, we'd probably call it a fail. I know that's not a fair comparison but then comparing modern and old properties isn't fair on some levels either.
We do tend to forget, (or take for granted), that new houses come with double glazing, central heating, fitted kitchens AND inside lavatories !! as standard, (to name a few).
-
It certainly is interesting. I hope anyone that indeed has insight into what I've said in my last Sketchup post, will tell me, as I need it, but I don't mind an interesting discussion in the meantime.
So, I agree with most of what you've said there, and I take your word on the rest.
In my book, as was common practise, the protagonist and her family sleep with several animals inside the cottage, as this aids in heating the place. It was that and a fire. The fire didn't really cost you on a farm, but you certainly worked for it. I can't imagine the ordeal of keeping a fire in all them fireplaces you sees in a mansion.On the topic of toilets now, would anyone care to explain to me what apparatus was common when? My understanding is that indoor plumbing wasn't uncommon by the 1880s, at least in Britain and Ireland (probably not in the rural parts, though). By what process did they achieve hot water and when did our modern process come about of relieving ourselves indoors and flushing? How about what's called a bathroom or washroom in these floor plans? What was in there?
-
Look at this!
http://0.tqn.com/d/architecture/1/S/r/i/1/scullery-3069961-crop.jpgAny chance that round thing I was talking about is an oven?
-
I believe item 4 as noted in original post is a servants staircase to the first floor from the ground floor. Very steep with treacherous winders at the top and bottom of the run. If you look at the first floor plan the top of the stair is in the linen area on that area of the plan. There is a separate steep stair from the first floor to the second floor for servants from the linen area to the closet area above.
-
I'm sorry, stfo1, but I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying the hook-like symbols mark the top of the stair? I'm not trained to read floor plans but I would intuit that rather than vertical they'd be horizontal. If that's what they are, altough I could think of a few better symbols than those if it were my choice.
-
-
@epd gaffney said:
I'm sorry, stfo1, but I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying the hook-like symbols mark the top of the stair? I'm not trained to read floor plans but I would intuit that rather than vertical they'd be horizontal. If that's what they are, altough I could think of a few better symbols than those if it were my choice.
I am certain that what is delineated is a stair. In a residence such as you are studying, it was rather common that servants used a separate set of stairs to perform their chores. Using the main stair was largely unacceptable. The drawings use conventional drafting to depict a winding stair. For a stair of this nature "pie" shaped treads are at both the top and bottom. See attached photo for the bottom of such a staircase.
As to bells and hooks, it is uncommon to show such details on a plan as you are studying. Typically plans like this shown room arrangements, major structural elements, fenestration, doors and stairs.
-
Driven: Thanks for the picture. If I don't find any thing I'll just put bells like those there.
Stfo1: I know there's stairs there (in fact they're already modelled), that they're for servants, and that servants were not to use the main stairs or really even be seen if avoidable. In #4 I'm just talking about the 'hooks' on the floor plan. I wouldn't expect hooks to be labelled on a floor plan, but neither would I expect bells to be. However, if you look at driven's original post here you can see the floor plan I've based mine on, and whatever publication that is doesn't even have the symbol despite being in the printing I have. Very curious.
But what's holding me back is that round bit coming out of the scullery, labelled #1 on the first image I've posted. Would you have any idea what it is? It's not a copper.
-
Anyone interested, on another forum someone's explained to me that in the first image what I've labelled #2, the white squares, is a dormer. That makes sense to me with what Dave said earlier about #3. I've actually e-mailed the UK National Trust to see what they could tell me about that round yoke. I'll post back with their answer in case anyone's interested.
Advertisement