Character appraisal of Riddle's Court

Edinburgh College of Art MSc. Architectural Conservation AC 03 Building Analysis The University of Edinburgh ESALA - Edinburgh College of Art MSc. Architectural Conservation AC-03 Building Analysis

A Formal Analysis of the Evolution of Circulation in Riddle’s Court

GROUP D Kathleen Cooper Koki Maeda Francesca Morri Efi Stathopoulou Fernanda Vargas Erin Wiser

3rd December 2018

But a city is more than a place in a space, it is a drama in time.​ ​ ​ ​

Sir Patrick Geddes

3

Fig 1.1 Riddle’s Court, Edinburgh, view with Children Titled ‘Riddles’ Close High Street, 1903. Picture from Canmore

Contents

LIST OF IMAGES AND ILLLUSTRATIONS

6

INTRODUCTION

11

CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

13

RIDDLE’S COURT AND EDINBURGH

17

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF RIDDLE’S COURT

19

ROOM ANALYSIS

27

STAIRS AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

38

BUILDING’S COMPARISON

48

CONCLUSION

52

BIBLIOGRAPHY

53

APPENDICES

55

5

List of Illustrations

Fig 1.1 Riddle’s Court, Edinburgh, view with Children Titled “Riddells’ Close, High Street. August 1903.

Reproduced from canmore. Accessed 30 Nov 2018. https://canmore.org.uk/collection/1118341 Fig 1.2 View of arch over entrance to Riddle’s Court reproduced from Canmore. Accessed 30 Nov 2018. http://canmore.org.uk/collection/426595 Fig 2.1 Riddle’s Court, south-east entrance, 2018 Fig 2.2 Oxford Theatre rehearse on the Mile in Riddle’s Court reproduced from SCRAN, Accessed 30 Nov 2018. https://www.scran.ac.uk/database/record.php?usi=000-000-038-836&scache=30l6c936ys&searchdb=scran Fig 2.3 Group D Riddle’s Court Geddes Room ceiling detail, 2018.

Fig 2.4 Drawing of view of Riddle’s Court reproduced from SCRAN, Accessed 30 Nov 2018 https:// www.scran.ac.uk/database/record.php?usi=000-000-030-404-C&scache=30l3d936y3&searchdb=scran Fig 3.1 Plan of the City of Edinburgh, William Edgar, 1746 Fig 3.2 Bowhead, West Bow and Lawnmarket, Edinburgh: Engraving from Daniel Wilson, Memorials of Edinburgh in the Olden Time, 1891 Fig 4.1 Alexander Seton reproduced from Scottish National Gallery accessed 27 Nov 2018 https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/2348/alexander-seton-1st-earl-dunfermline-15551622-lord-chancellor-scotland Fig 4.2 Portrait of Anne, Duchess of Buccleuch and sons reproduced from National Library of Scotland accessed 27 Nov 2018 https://digital.nls.uk/jacobite-prints-and-broadsides/archive/75241928 6

Fig 4.3 Portrait of David Hume reproduced from National Gallery Scotland accessed 27 Nov 2018 https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/2775/david-hume-1711-1776-historian-and-philosopher Fig 4.4 Photograph of Patrick Geddes reproduced from Patrick Geddes Centre, accessed 30 Nov 2018 https://www.patrickgeddescentre.org.uk/ Fig 5.1 Phase development- basement Fig 5.2 Phase development- ground floor Fig 5.3 Phase development- first floor Fig 5.4 Phase development- second floor Fig 6.1 Photograph of floor levels in first level corridor, 2018 Fig 6.2 Group D generated floor plan highlighting Seton Room, 2018 Fig 6.3 Group D generated South Elevation of Seton Room highlighting moulding locations, 2018 Fig 6.4 Group D drawing of baseport in Seton Room, 2018 Fig 6.5 Group D drawing of string course moulding in Seton Room, 2018 Fig 6.6 Group D drawing of bay frame’s moulding in Seton Room, 2018 Fig 6.7 Photograph of north elevation in Seton Room, 1930, reproduced from Canmore. Accessed 30 Nov 2018. http://canmore.org.uk/collection/1115811 Fig 6.8 Photograph of north elevation in Seton Room, 2018 Fig 6.9 Group D generated plan of Seton Room, 2018 Fig 6.10 Group D generated north elevation of Seton Room, 2018 Fig 6.11 Group D generated south elevation of Seton Room, 2018 Fig 7.1 Group D generated floor plan highlighting Geddes Room, 2018 Fig 7.2 Group D drawing of door’s entablature in Geddes Room, 2018 Fig 7.3 Group D drawing of door’s frame in Geddes Room, 2018 Fig 7.4 Photograph of south west corner of Geddes Room, 2016 reproduced from Audrey Dakin 7

Photos Fig 7.5 Photograph of south west corner of Geddes Room, 2018 Fig 7.6 Group D generated plan of Geddes Room, 2018 Fig 7.7 Group D generated south elevation of Geddes Room, 2018 Fig 7.8 Group D generated north elevation of Geddes Room, 2018 Fig 8.1 Group D generated floor plan highlighting McMorran Room, 2018 Fig 8.2 Group D generated west elevation highlight moulding locations in McMorran Room, 2018 Fig 8.3 Group D drawing of window’s bar moulding in McMorran Room, 2018 Fig 8.4 Group D drawing of baseport and panel moulding in McMorran Room, 2018 Fig 8.5 Photograph of north elevation of McMorran Room, 2016 reproduced from Audrey Dakin Photos Fig 8.6 Photograph of north elevation of McMorran Room, 2018 Fig 8.7 Group D generated plan of McMorran Room, 2018 Fig 8.8 Group D generated north elevation of McMorran Room, 2018 Fig 8.9 Group D generated west elevation of McMorran Room, 2018 Fig 9.1 Turnpike stair at Riddle’s Court, 2018 Fig 9.2 Steps leading underground at Mine How, Tankerness, Orkeny Islands, mainland. From Staircases: History, Repair and Conservation.

Fig 9.3 Linlithgow Palace Staircase showing the extra steps at the top of the stair. From Staircases: History, Repair and Conservation Fig 10.1 Stairs evolution- basement floor Fig 10.2 Stairs evolution- ground floor Fig 10.3 Stairs evolution-first floor Fig 10.4 Stairs evolution- second floor Fig 10.5 2016 horizontal circulation- basement floor

8

Fig 10.6 2016 horizontal circulation- ground floor Fig 10.7 2016 horizontal circulation- first floor Fig 10.8 2016 horizontal circulation- second floor Fig 10.9 Photographic survey of North wall traces of demolished additions and facsimile of BB section LDN Architects’ drawing reproduced from Edinburgh City Council.

Fig 10.10 Alteration of LDN 3D model explaining the insertion of horizontal circulation’s routes in the building.Reproduction of original from Preapplication discussion of Riddle’s Court document by LDN Architects.

Fig 11.1 Gladstone’s Land General view of front elevation. Reproduced from Canmore. Accessed 30 Nov 2018. https://canmore.org.uk/collection/426588 Fig 11.2 General view of Glastoneland before conservation, picture from “Gladstone’s Land: The Changing Face of Edinburgh’s Royal Mile”, Post-Medieval Archaeology 51, no. 2 (2017): 364.

Fig 11.3 Phases of building development at Gladstone’s land, picture from “Gladstone’s Land: The Changing Face of Edinburgh’s Royal Mile”, Post-Medieval Archaeology 51, no. 2 (2017): 357.

Fig 11.4 Glandstone’s land turnpike stair, 2018 Fig 11.5 Gladstone’s Land turnpike stair, 2018 Fig 12.1 Riddle’s Court Pend, 2018

9

10

Introduction

This Building Analysis report focuses on a compilation of research, surveying and physical study conducted at Riddle’s Court, located at 322 Lawnmarket in the Old Town of Edinburgh. While this Category A-listed building has been analysed numerous times by members of academia and experts, the aim of this report is to offer a new point of view on the importance and evolution of circulation throughout Riddle’s Court and its many interventions, and how this idea relates to the rest of the building fabric. In the coming chapters, these hypotheses will be tested by examining the historic and current routes of circulation and their evolving functions and characteristics, analysing the possible routes evident in the physical built environment, combining computer-generated and hand-drawn plans, details, elevations, façades, and referring to the history of the stair in medieval Britain in order to understand its importance.

The analysis of the building begins with a

statement of cultural significance and continues with an historical and technical research focused on the house, its owners, its historical context, and continues with old and recent documents about previous conservation studies and renovation projects.

The next chapter addresses the survey of the structure, focusing on the three main rooms of the house: the Geddes, Seton, and McMorran rooms. During the analysis, plans and elevations were sketched from in situ measurements, along with drawings and moulding profiles of the main features of the rooms (fireplaces, windows, ceilings, panelling). This information was then taken into AutoCAD and used to create a set of final drawings.

Further research was conducted to understand the modifications that occurred in the house throughout the centuries, which will be explained via models and graphics.

11

Fig 1.2 View of arch over entrance to Riddle’s Court Picture from Canmore

Cultural Significance Riddle’s Court occupies a special place in the UNESCO World Heritage site that is historic Edinburgh. Its location alone is enough to justify it as a culturally significant building, but it is important to understand what specifically distinguishes Riddle’s Court from other sites in the Old Town (Fig 2.1). The cultural significance of a site as unique and complex as Riddle’s Court cannot simply be summarised in a few sentences.

Therefore, the building’s value will be discussed in terms of the four most important categories as stated by historian Alois Reigl: architectural, historical, social, and artistic1. Then these four elements will be related to the central focus of circulation. First, each section shall be defined independently, in order to then reach a complete definition of Riddle’s Court’s cultural significance.

Architecturally speaking, Riddle’s Court is one of the most significant sites in Edinburgh. It is one of the only surviving sixteenth century stone and timber constructions of court and private architecture while simultaneously highlighting later structural alterations of its fabric. For example, in the Geddes and Seton rooms on the first floor, the early eighteenth century fireplaces along the north elevation stand in opposition to the mid-nineteenth century façade to the south constructed during the Victoria Street renovation. These are both juxtaposed against the late nineteenth century Patrick Geddes conservative surgery elements, demonstrating 1 Leo Schmidt, “Conservation in the 20th Century,” in Architectural Conservation: An Introduction, trans. Ralf Jaeger (Westkreuz-Verlag GmbH, 2008), 45.

Fig 2.1 Riddle’s court, south-east entrance, 2018

13

CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

Fig 2.2 Oxford Theatre rehearse On the Mile in Riddle’s Court. Picture from SCRAN.

how the entire complex is a conglomeration of interventions and different styles.

While the plot of the current site of Riddle’s Court pre-dates Bailie John McMorran’s ownership, he must be credited with the emergence of the court as a prominent site in Edinburgh. Its age value certainly adds significant meaning to the site, as it is an existing twelfth century burgage plot adorned with a late sixteenth century structure. However, the story of the court really develops when McMorran creates his Great Tenement. After his sudden death, the McMorran family took over the plots and thus began the complicated history of Riddle’s Court as a tenement in Edinburgh.

Riddle’s Court also holds significant social value, as it has played host to many important events and prominent people throughout its

years. Perhaps the most notable is the 1598 banquet held for James VI and Anne of Denmark. Some distinguished Riddle’s Court tenants include Alexander Seton, the Earl of Dunfermline, the Earl of Cromartie, the Countess of Wemyss, and Anne, Duchess of Buccleuch.

In the nineteenth century, when Sir Patrick Geddes transformed the dilapidated structure into dormitories - exemplifying his conservative surgery ideology - he increased the social value of the structure tenfold. By introducing young students into an area with such a rich history to make their own, Geddes added a new level of social significance not yet seen in the area.

In the mid-twentieth century, the Mechanics’ Library acquired the site and established it as a gathering space for adults seeking education in Edinburgh (Fig 2.2). Fringe Festival events were also held here, increasing its social and

CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

Fig 2.3 Riddle’s court Geddes Room ceiling detail, 2018

artistic identity within the wider community.

The building’s artistic significance is easily recognisable from the ornate interior details (Fig 2.3). Within the King’s Chamber, there is the elaborately painted wooden beam ceiling from the King’s royal banquet. The restored eighteenth century panels, marble fireplaces and the Seton room plaster ceiling recall its stately past appearance. Additionally, there are the James Norie painted panels, which no longer reside in Riddle’s Court, but still symbolise the degree of artistry found in the building.

The circulation of Riddle’s Court coincides with the building’s cultural significance quite well. The addition and removal of staircases throughout the centuries has physically altered the building’s architecture. One can only begin to imagine how these ever-changing circulation routes affected

the dwellers of this structure over time. It is easy to imagine the difficulty of having to travel up narrow turnpikes that prohibited inner-horizontal circulation, forcing users to return downstairs and back up again in order to access other parts of the building. The introduction of straight stairs and corridors between structures offered much more convenient routes, especially for the servants of the wealthy aristocrats. Finally, LDN’s newest intervention has allowed those with disabilities to access the upper and lower floors with ease, and even travel horizontally between the north and southeast blocks via ramps. While the lift and turnpikes now make up the main circulation for the south block, ghosts of staircases past, allow guests to visualise the routes that past tenants would have used on a daily basis.

Fig 2.4 Drawing of view of Riddle’s Court Picture from SCRAN

Riddle’s Court and Edinburgh

Fig 3.1 Plan of the City of Edinburgh, William Edgar, 1746

In order to understand the importance and irreplaceability of Riddle’s Court, its broader location within the historic city of Edinburgh must be examined (Fig 3.1). Although the current structure at Riddle’s Court was not built until the late sixteenth century, the plot of land it sits on has transformed over time reflecting the growth and change of Edinburgh from a medieval town to the thriving capital city it is today.

Under the reign of David I from 1124-53, the system of Scottish feuing was introduced, in which burgage plots were issued to those who wished

to build residences or businesses on the upper west section of the main street, known today as the Lawnmarket on High Street2. Structures were typically built on the foreland of the plot and it was not until the fifteenth century, when Edinburgh’s population began to increase, that people started to erect or expand their structures into the backlands, perhaps due to the decreasing amount of land available3.

2 Andrew PK Wright, Riddle’s Court, Edinburgh: Conservation Statement (Edinburgh: Cockburn Conservation Trust, 2008), 71.

3 Geoffrey Stell and Robin Tait, “Framework and Form: Burgage Plots, Street Lines and Domestic Architecture in Early Urban Scotland,” Urban History

17

RIDDLE’S COURT AND EDINBURGH

However, there were advantages to building on a backland and it is very likely that Bailie John MacMorran, the original owner of Riddle’s Court, knew these. As the Old Town became increasingly crowded with residents and traveling merchants, the backlands tucked behind the foreland properties posed as a more private and sanitary refuge. Additionally, its centralised location directly off of the Lawnmarket and West Bow permitted a linear route to the market places and major roads (Fig 3.2). The specific circulation routes that Riddle’s Court residents used to enter and navigate the building will be further addressed and analysed in the coming chapters. Nevertheless, it is beneficial to know that MacMorran’s southern plot, initially confined by the King’s Wall, had a peculiar feature: access to his court from both the eastern and western closes, suggesting that he might have acquired sections of multiple feus from his purchase of the plot in 15874.

Therefore, the historical significance of the site’s location within the city of Edinburgh reveals its broader yet crucial relationship to the topic of the evolution of circulation.

Fig 3.2 Bowhead, WestBow and Lawnmarket,Edinburgh ; engraving from Daniel Wilson, Memorials of Edinburgh in the Olden Time (Edinburgh and London, 2nd edn in 2 vols., 1891), vol. II, opposite 156.

42, no.1 (February 2015), 2-4.

4 Wright, Conservation Statement, 71.

18

Historical Context of Riddle’s Court

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Further elaborating on the evolution of Riddle’s Court, this section of the report will focus on the social history of the building in order to strengthen the hypothesis that the circulation of Riddle’s Court physically evolved as a result of changing ownership and residents. This will include a general timeline of the succession of residents and events taking place within the building which may have affected the structure’s physical fabric. As mentioned in the previous section, Riddle’s Court does have a brief history before Bailie John McMorran’s final purchase of the plot in 15875. The previous owners, the Henrysone family, sold McMorran an amalgamation of plots on the south side of High Street where he would begin the development of his Great Tenement and lavish dwelling during 1590 in both the North and South blocks of the existing building6.

This is precisely when the story begins for Riddle’s Court, but it would soon change ownership to McMorran’s brothers Ninian and George after his death in 1595. The brothers split the north and south properties between them and soon after, collectively sold them to Sir John Smith, who claimed to have at least twenty-five rooms in the back tenement, confirming the continuation of Riddle’s Court as a ‘great tenement’7. One of Smith’s tenants was the Lord Chancellor Alexander Seton (Fig 4.1), who is credited with the commissioning of the plaster ceiling in the Seton room—an important feature to the increasing artistic value of the property, which actually transpired years earlier in 1598 when the ceiling beams in the King’s Chamber were elaborately painted for the royal banquet of

5 Mike Cressey, Charles McKean et. al, “Historical Phase Development and

turies,” in Historic Building Survey Report No. 2164, ed. Sue Anderson and

Analysis,” in Riddle’s Court, Lawnmarket, Edinburgh Historic Building Survey Report No. 2164, ed. Sue Anderson and Tim Neighbour (Musselburgh: CFA Archaeology Ltd, 2013), 136.

Tim Neighbour (Musselburgh: CFA Archaeology Ltd, 2013), 65-66.

7 Cressey, “Historical Phase Development and Analysis,” 136.

6 Alasdair Ross, “Historical Research Results: Sixteenth & Seventeenth Cen-

19

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

1600 Great Fire Destruction of timber properties in burgh plots 1544

1700

Banquet held for King James VI and Anne of Denmark

1598

Fig 4.1

Fig 4.2 Anne Duch-

Alexander Seton,

ess of Buccleuch

Hume,

1st Earl of Dun-

and Monmouth,

1711-1776.

Fig 4.3 David

fermline,

1651-1732.

(Scottish National

1555-1622.

(National Library of

Portrait Gallery)

(Scottish National

Scotland)

Portrait Gallery)

1590

1450

1616

Alexander Seaton took residence

Presence of Backland Tenement

1717

1726

Anne Duchess of Buccleuch took residence

1751

David Hume move in

Adquisition by Captain George Riddel

Bailie John McMorran built his ‘great tenement’

James VI and Anne of Denmark8. Accordingly, the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries are two of the most critical development periods of physical change within Riddle’s Court until Sir Patrick Geddes’ interventions during the late nineteenth century.

the acquisition and further development of the foreland by Captain George Riddel in 1727 and backland by Anne, Duchess of Buccleuch in 1749 (Fig 4.2), one of the building’s most famous residents, the philosopher David Hume (Fig 4.3) took up residence in Riddle’s Court11.

Returning to the seventeenth century, Sir John Smith sold the back tenement property to Sir John Clerk of Penicuik in 1676 for a brief time until Clerk sold it to Roderick Mackenzie in 1684, who also acquired the fore tenement from Sir John Smith9. Alterations known during the Mackenzie family period of ownership are the addition of wooden panelling and marble fireplaces to the McMorran, Geddes and Seton rooms due to the tastes of the aristocratic tenants10. Upon

Major changes during the nineteenth century include the 1836 Victoria Street project in which the gardens off the south elevation were removed and the south façade underwent extensive reconstruction, leading to a period of the building’s aesthetic and social decline as overcrowding in the Old Town became a severe problem in Edinburgh12. The next major owner and developer of Riddle’s Court was Sir Patrick Geddes (Fig 4.4). He recognised the dilapidated state of the structure in 1889 with a plan to save the entire building by establishing

8 Andrew PK Wright, “Conservation Management Plan,” 8-9.

9 Ibid, 10.

11 Cressey, “Historical Phase Development and Analysis,” 139-141.

10 Ibid, 11.

12 Andrew PK Wright, “Conservation Management Plan,” 12-13.

20

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

1800

Construction of Victoria Street.

Removal of south storeys and gardens

2000

1900 Fig 4.4 Patrick Geddes, 1854--1932.

(Patrick Geddes

Edinburgh Council Moved in Housing

SHBT created the Patrick Geddes Centre

Centre)

1836

1946

1854

The Mechanics’ Subscription library

1889

1975

1898

it as a University of Edinburgh student dormitory.

He would then embark on his project of restoration known today as ‘conservative surgery’13. The building was transformed into a dormitory with several rooms devoted to communal use, such as the Geddes and Seton rooms, both featuring decorative ceilings after Thomas Bonnar’s completion of the painted ceiling in the Geddes in 189714.

The next phase of the building’s social history deals heavily with the efforts of conservative interventions and repair, both in the 1960s by architect John Wilson Paterson after encouragement from Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland’s comprehensive building survey in 1951 and in the most recent intervention by LDN architects in 2016. Both interventions aimed to preserve 14 Ibid, 15.

2012

2016

Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland

Passage to the town & Gown Association Ltd. Workers’ Educational Association

Patrick Geddes Student’s Hall of Residence

13 Ibid, 14.

2011

LDN Architects Intervention

as much original fabric of the sixteenth century building as possible15. The specific plans and alterations of each intervention - Geddes, Paterson, LDN - will be discussed later on in the report.

CFA Archaeology Ltd produced several phase plans in their 2013 report illustrating these major property ownership exchanges, which aided visual comprehension of the building’s social history. However, a better interpretation of the physical change relating to the central topic of circulation is represented in their phase plans highlighting the addition of staircases, which will be further examined in the building analysis section.

15 Ibid

21

RIDDLE’S COURT - PHASE DEVELOPMENT

RIDDLE’S COURT PHASE DEVELOPMENT In the following graphics, the evolution of the building illustrates this development of style, materials and circulations.

Fig. 5.1 Phase development - Basement

Phase 1: Pre 16th century

Phase 3: 17th century

Phase 5: 19th century

Phase 2: 16th century

Phase 4: 18th century

Phase 6: 20th century

22

RIDDLE’S COURT - PHASE DEVELOPMENT

Fig 5.2 Phase development - ground floor

Phase 1: Pre 16th century

Phase 3: 17th century

Phase 5: 19th century

Phase 2: 16th century

Phase 4: 18th century

Phase 6: 20th century

23

RIDDLE’S COURT - PHASE DEVELOPMENT

Fig 5.3 Phase development - First floor Phase 1: Pre 16th century

Phase 3: 17th century

Phase 5: 19th century

Phase 2: 16th century

Phase 4: 18th century

Phase 6: 20th century

24

RIDDLE’S COURT - PHASE DEVELOPMENT

Fig 5.4 Phase development - Second floor Phase 1: Pre 16th century

Phase 3: 17th century

Phase 5: 19th century

Phase 2: 16th century

Phase 4: 18th century

Phase 6: 20th century

25

Fig 6.1 Photograph of floor levels in first level corridor , 2018

0-BASE POINT

T'

A

C

B

T

D S

E

E'

R F

Q

P M

L

G

I

E

D

C

J

K

N

O

H

F I

G

N

M

J

P

H

K

H

H' B

G

P3

N1

M1

Q A

Room Analysis

0-BASE POINT

L

R M 0-BASE POINT

F U

T

A

E

J S

J0

E1

Ι0

S R

Q

D

C K

MAIN FEATURES Seton Room is one of the most well-preserved rooms17. The proportions of this room are smaller than Patrick Geddes Room (5.06 m. Wide; 7.41 m. Long; 3.2 m. Height) (Fig 6.911) but their decorations are similar. Its wood panelling and fireplace characterise this room; however, its 17th-century plaster moulded ceiling and the seated bays built in the 19th century are its more noticeable elements18.

L

Fig 6.2 floor plan

312

239

311 243

SETON ROOM

3 2

74

1

68

HISTORICAL USE Seton Room located in the south-east corner of the south block next to Patrick Geddes Room (Fig 6.2). Historically this space was used as ‘Drawing room’ and ‘Students Common Room’, during Patrick Geddes period. During the 1960s, it was used as meeting room. Currently, this space is used as an tour guiding space, under the charge of Patrick Geddes Centre16.

Ι

N P

Fig 6.3 South elevation0

1

2

Fig 6.4 Baseport (1)

ACCESS AND CIRCULATIONS Until 2016, this room did not have independent access; the only entrance into this room was through the western door that connected it with the Geddes Room. After LDN intervention, a new access was added on the north wall, providing independent access to the room through the new corridor19.

16 CFA Archaeology, ‘Historical Building Survey, Part 3’, 5.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 LDN Architects, ‘The Patrick Geddes Centre for Learning and Conservation: Design & Access Statement’, 50.

Fig 6.5 Panel central

Fig 6.6 Bay frame

string course

moulding

moulding (2)

27

ROOM ANALYSIS - SETON ROOM

Fig 6.7 Seton Room, north elevation,

Fig 6.8 Seton Room, north elevation, 2018.

1930. Picture from Canmore.

INTERVENTIONS The most important alterations in this room are the extension of the room southwards to adapt to the Victoria Terrace facade, the construction of the bay seats during Patrick Geddes period and the addition of a new access in the north elevation of the room20. Regarding decorations; panelling has suffered several repairs and multiple changes in paint colour; the most noticeable from the last intervention made in 2016 (change from pink to nut-wood)21. Furthermore, there have been some changes in floor material.

19TH CENTURY 1836-7 Construction of Victoria Terrace. Re construction of South Façade. New windows, and alterations in wood panelling. The ceiling was preserved. Panelling in the south elevation was replaced.

1890 – onwards Construction of new niches in the south side of the room.

20TH CENTURY

According to the literature review and surveying process, it is possible to identify the following interventions in this room: 17TH CENTURY Plaster moulded ceiling.

18TH CENTURY 1717 Addition of marble fireplace Addition of wood panelling.

1960s Changes in Windows, painting panelling and doors. Addition of ventilation and heating system.

21ST CENTURY 2016 New independent access on the north elevation, changes in the floor material and alterations in the wood panelling (painting panel).

20 CFA Archaeology, ‘Historical Building Survey, Part 3’, 5.

21 Hughes. ‘Phase 1-Architectural Paint Research’, 63.

28

ROOM ANALYSIS - SETON ROOM 107 107

506 1038 335 59 1824 55 2618

184

4 41

381 330

765

454 454

19

81 122

23

99 99

17 17

130 130

42 42

93 32 9 55 30 2012

88 88

66 117

741

Seton Room 33.60 m2

58 162 497

43

129 104

0

1

2

311 243

1

68

71

71

320

322

249

251

Fig 6.9 General plan, scale 1:75

0

36 59

239

34

312

143 105

74

19 37 68

0

2

Fig 6.10 North elevation,

Fig 6.11 South elevation,

scale 1:75

scale1:75

1

2

29

0-BASE POINT

T'

A

C

B

T

D S

E

E'

R F

Q

P M

L

G

I

E

D

C

J

K

N

O

H

F I

G

N

M

J

P

H

K

H

H' B

G

P3

N1

M1

Q A

0-BASE POINT

L

R M 0-BASE POINT

F U

T

A

E

J S

J0

E1

Ι0

S R

Q

Ι

N P

D

C K

L

Fig 7.1 floor plan

PATRICK GEDDES ROOM HISTORICAL USE The Geddes Room is located in the south-west corner of the south block and is the largest room on the first floor (Fig 7.1). Historically, it is recognised as the place where the famous Royal Banquet took place in 159822. In the late 19th century, when Riddle’s Court functioned as student accommodation, the room was used as a ‘Dining Room’23.Since 1946, when Edinburgh City Council bought the property, this room has had multiple uses24. Today, this space is mainly used as rentable Conference Room, serving an important purpose within the Patrick Geddes Centre.

MAIN FEATURES This room is characterised by its generous proportions (6.33 m. Wide; 8.45 m. Long; 3.6m.

Height) (Fig 7.6-8) and decorations, such as the 18th century wood panelling, 19th century windows, the 17th century fireplace25 and the Tomas Bonnar painted ceiling, which illustrates scenes of the history of the building, city and the university26.

tral turnpike stair remains). In the 17th century, a straight stair, which probably was used for servants, was added in the eastern corner to give an additional access to this room. During the Geddes period, and according to Capper’s plans developed in 1892, this access was blocked and began use as a cabinet until LDN intervention, when they demolished it in order to link the room with the new corridor and lift.

Fig 7.2 Door’s entablature

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Originally, the access to the room was through the two original turnpike stairs 27(only the cen22 CFA Archaeology, ‘Historical Building Survey, Part 3’, 3.

23 Ibid.

24 LDN Architects, ‘The Patrick Geddes Centre for Learning and Conservation: Design & Access Statement’,12.

25 CFA Archaeology, ‘Historical Building Survey, Part 3’, 3.

Fig 7.3 Door’s frame drawing

26 Wright, ‘Conservation Statement’, 53.

27 Hughes. ‘Phase 1-Architectural Paint Research’, 48-9.

30

ROOM ANALYSIS - PATRICK GEDDES ROOM

Fig 7.4 Geddes Room, south-west corner, 2016.

Fig 7.5 Geddes Room, south-west corner, 2018.

Picture from Audrey Dakin archives.

INTERVENTIONS The most important alterations in this room had been the extension of the room southwards to adapt the façade to Victoria Terrace and the alterations in the north-east entrance.

Same as Seton Room, panelling has suffered punctual repairs and changes in painting colour, and there is a change in floor material. The painted ceiling was restored in 199628.

According to the literature review and surveying process, it is possible to identify the following interventions in this room: 17TH CENTURY Demolition of south-west turnpike stair.

19TH CENTURY 1836-7 Construction of Victoria Terrace. Reconstruction of South Façade. New windows, and alterations in ceiling and wood panelling. Some original panels were salvaged and recycled.

1890s Punctual repairs in decoration, especially in wood panelling (patches and changes in panel painting). Alterations in the accesses of the room. The north-east entrance is blocked and became a cupboard.

1897

Tomas

Bonnar

Painted

Ceiling.

20TH CENTURY 18TH CENTURY

Addition of wood panelling.

1960s Change in Windows, painting panelling and doors. Addition of ventilation and heating system. Interventions in painted ceiling (cleaning and punctual repairs).

Construction of new straight stair in the northeast corner. This access probably used for services purposes.

1996 Painted ceiling dining room is repaired by MM Pryor on behalf of City of Edinburgh Council. New radiators and lightening.

1717 Addition of marble fireplace

28 CFA Archaeology, ‘Historical Building Survey, Part 3’, 3.

21ST CENTURY 2016 Independent access through the northeast entrance, changes in the floor material and alterations in the wood panelling (painting panel).

31

ROOM ANALYSIS - PATRICK GEDDES ROOM

835 482 101

65

141 98

272

212 125

93

17

588

442

197 73

62

64

105

86

391 453

633

Patrick Geddes Room 50.24 m2

134 156

22

103 103

30

120 174

24

97 97

37

115 169

18

104 104

3410 44

845

Fig 7.6 General plan, scale 1:75

0

1

2

32

354 74

71

360

283

286

ROOM ANALYSIS - PATRICK GEDDES ROOM

0

1

0

1

2

72

68

360

289

364 296

Fig 7.7 South elevation, scale 1:75

2

Fig 7.8 North elevation, scale 1:75

33

0-BASE POINT

T'

A

C

B

T

D S

E

E'

R F

Q

P M

L

G

I

E

D

C

J

K

N

O

H

F I

G

N

M

J

P

H

K

H

H' B

G

P3

N1

M1

Q A

0-BASE POINT

L

R M 0-BASE POINT

F U

T

A

E

J S

J0

E1

Ι0

S R

Q

Ι

N P

D

C K

L

Fig 8.1 floor plan

MC MORRAN ROOM HISTORICAL USE Judging from its size and a cupboard on east wall, McMorran room seems to have been originally designed as a drawing room or office during the early period of James Ferret and George McMorran29 (Fig 8.1) . Although the room’s use during the latter period is not clear, it was likely used as a drawing room or a bedroom. This is probable due to the limited access by only the current doorway. Following the LDN intervention it is now used as one of the rentable conference rooms.

northwest wall. At this time, it is possible that there was a second entrance into the room, as it was directly connected to the alleged exterior southwest turnpike staircase30. After the southwest turnpike was demolished, it was only accessed via the northwest doorway until the mid 19th century. Blockage of the northwest doorway and creation of the current doorway altered the room‘s circulation to go in the opposite direction.31 30 Ibid.

ACCESS AND CIRCULATIONS Since this block was originally built as an extension of the northwest structure before the 17th century, the McMorran room must have been accessed through the northwest structure via its 29 CFA Archaeology, ‘Historical Building Survey, Part 2’, 122.

196 287

288

1

90

91

MAIN FEATURES McMorran room is located on the west block and it is the smallest room among these three rooms (3.34 m. Wide; 6.14 m. Long; 2.91 m.

Height) (Fig 8.7 -9). Interestingly, this room is on a different floor level from the other rooms in south block. The sharp, acute angle in the southwest corner infers past alterations to this corner. It is also noticeable that there is a cupboard disguised behind panelling on the west wall. Except for that, the rest its decorations, such as wood panelling, windows and a marble fireplace are similar to Geddes and Seton Rooms.

198

31 Hughes. ‘Phase 1-Architectural Paint Research’, 32.

2

Fig 8.2 West elevation

0

1

Fig 8.3 Window’s bar

Fig 8.4 Base port and

mouldings (1)

panel moulding (1)

2

34

ROOM ANALYSIS - MC MORRAN ROOM

Fig 8.5 McMorran Room, north elevation, 2016.

Fig 8.6 McMorran Room, north elevation, 2018.

Picture from Audrey Dakin archives.

INTERVENTIONS This rooms has not experienced as much structural alteration as other rooms. However, as mentioned above, it underwent several interventions relevant to the circulation and access.

According to the literature review and surveying process, it is possible to identify the following interventions in this room: 17TH CENTURY Demolition of southwest turnpike stair.

19TH CENTURY Owned by the Mechanic Subscription Library in 1854 and the existing south doorway was created. Suggested that doorway linked to the northwest room was blocked. A set of steps was created to fill in the difference of floor level between south and north.

20TH CENTURY Alterations made by the Edinburgh City Council; most of the windows were replaced and panelling was painted in pink.

21ST CENTURY Alteration by LDN; panel painting from pink to brown, including the repainting of the marble surrounding fireplace 35

ROOM ANALYSIS - MC MORRAN ROOM

334 131 98

104 121

141 117

7

109 102

11

165 180

114 103

99 116

608 73

82

151

41

58 11

98 98

64 40 9 312

13

75

614 145 132

Mc Morran Room 21.50 m2

22

84 18 79 356

0

1

Fig 8.8 North elevation, scale 1:75

1

2

287

288

196

198

0

90

93

90

288

291

198

198

Fig 8.7 General plan, scale 1:75

127 145

91

107 133

2

0

1

2

Fig 8.9 West elevation, scale 1:75

36

Fig 9.1 Riddle’s Court, Turnpike Stair, 2018.

Stairs and Circulation Analysis HISTORY OF CIRCULATIONS IN BRITAIN

Fig 9.2 Steps leading underground at Mine How, Tankerness, Orkeny Islands, mainland. Picture from Staircases: History, Repair and Conservation

To understand the evolution of circulation in Riddle’s Court throughout the years, we must first understand the evolution of circulation on a much wider scale. Unfortunately, the history of the stair is not as linear as one would think, but rather circuitous. The earliest surviving staircases in the United Kingdom, and most of Europe, are found in the Orkney Islands (Fig 9.2), all of which are made of stone32.

These ladder-like configurations of stone slabs were probably built by the Romans in the Iron Age, existing in places such as Mine Howe, the Broch of Gurness,Dun Bharbhat,Loch na Berie Dun Carloway, and also across northern and western Scotland, and the coasts of Lewis and Mousa33.

While wood was likely used as a secondary building material, these staircases did not survive the test of time the way their stone counterparts did. Additionally, there are many surviving examples of exterior spiral stone stairs, the most common form of multi-family residential structures in medieval United Kingdom (Fig 9.3). These can be found at Brixworth, Broughton, 32 Michael Tutton, Staircases: History, Repair and Conservation, London: Routlege, 2013, 22-3.

33 Ibid

38

Fig 9.3 Steps leading underground at Mine How, Tankerness, Orkeny Islands, mainland. Picture from Staircases: History, Repair and Conservation

and Hough-on-the-Hill34. During these times, especially in Scotland, turnpikes were the most common type of stair. While straight stairs definitely existed in churches, monasteries, and schools and colleges, turnpikes were most common in residential structures. Exterior turnpikes were generally only used for inns, and internal stairs were for vertical circulation between apartment dwellings, especially in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when compact dwellings became more common as populations rose and different types of architecture were introduced35.Their steepness and narrowness mostly had to do with space saving and cost of stones.

34 Ibid, 76-77

35 Ibid, 91

39

TYPES OF CIRCULATIONS

TURNPIKE STAIRS [Stair 1a] The sole surviving turnpike of the south block was added in the seventeenth century, when the Great Tenement was created. It provided access from the western court entrance into the upper dwellings, but only to the principal chambers of the south block at first floor and access to the west wing chamber (the one with McMorran’s dated dormer head) at the second floor. At ground level, the original access corridor to the southwest turnpike was blocked by its insertion36.

Turnpikes 1b, 1c and 1d were the first stairs existing during pre-McMorran ownership in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century.

[Stair 1b] According to the 1743 Edgar plan, we can observe that there was a western entrance to Riddle’s Court from the Upper Bow, hitting the NW angle of the southern block. The difference in floor levels could be due to the discrepancies in the two turnpikes, requiring the addition of steps on some levels.

The western access from the Upper Bow was closed off and the turnpike demolished likely due to the construction of new developments in the late nineteenth century. The plaque on the new building notes it was constructed in the 1880s, but the stair could have been demolished prior to this.

[Stair 1c] According to CFA’s 2013 Survey there was also a turnpike located in the current NW corner of the property, providing access to the upper levels of the former Forret building located to the northwest, and to which the remaining part was a southern extension. (image of the corner) According to the evidence we have from the in-situ research, there is a trace of a possible turnpike structure in the middle of the west elevation. According to 2017 CFA Survey Report, the trace on the wall are the remains of possible jambs for a doorway. (elevation drawing from 2017 CFA Survey – or photo) For that reason, we can’t be precise about its position.

In the nineteenth century, the removal of the south part of the Forret tenement on the west side of Riddle’s Close resulted in the demolition of the mutual north-west turnpike stair.

36 CFA Archeology Historic Building Survey 2013, p. ?

40

Fig 10.1 Stairs evolution - basement floor

Fig 10.2 Stairs evolution - ground floor

Fig 10.3 Stairs evolution - first floor

Fig 10.4 Stairs evolution - second floor

41

[Stair 1d] The CFA Survey of 2013 suggests that a turnpike stair existed in the NE part of the northern building, providing access to the upper levels of this block. As CFA mentions, a door jamb exists on the third floor, more or less against the wall of Fisher’s Close, implying there was a turnpike stair to the upper levels in that corner37. The in-situ research did not show any physical evidence.

During Geddes’ nineteenth century intervention, he demolished the interior part of the north eastern section of the block which was encroaching the courtyard due to sanitation issues. As a result, the possible turnpike would have been removed, too.

[Stair 2a1] The demolition of this section also led to the removal of the original stone access stair, its profile is still visible on the wall.

WOODEN STAIRS [Stair 2a] We know for certain this stair, which connects the first to the second floor, was constructed by Sir Patrick Geddes during his late nineteenth century intervention. The front segment of the building was demolished due to sanitation issues and the remaining tenants needed vertical circulation, so Geddes had this stair built. The current staircase is a 1960’s replica of the original structure.

[Stair 2b] Possibly According to historical engraving of 1848 from Sir Daniel Wilson’s Memorials , there was a window at the bottom left of the north elevation of the south block. In a later illustration of the 1880s38, “The inner court from Cassell’s Old & New Edinburgh we can observe that the window was blocked, while the one over it was extended downwards, reaching the lower string course and the inner slab’s level created possibly in the seventeenth century. In the CFA Survey of 2013, there is also an assumption that 37 CFA Archeology ‘Historic Building Survey 2013’, 121 38 Wright, ‘Conservation Management Plan’,97

the window was used as a door at this point.

However, there is no physical evidence to support this theory.

STRAIGHT STAIRS [Stair 3a0] This stair originally acted as a close between the forelands and back gardens. Bailie John McMorran probably enclosed it as tunnel access so he could build his great tenement on top of it, uniting the west and east blocks. It was later turned into basement access when the property was extended multiple times over the following centuries.

[Stair 3a1] This stair was constructed in the nineteenth century to access the ghost room from the ground floor. Previously, the only other access to this room was through the Geddes room.

It was demolished, along with the ghost room,

by LDN in the twenty-first century intervention.

[Stair 3a2] This short stair led from the Geddes room to the ghost room, meaning this room was likely a servant’s room in the eighteenth century and a dormitory in the nineteenth. The door that leads from the Geddes room to the stair is a hidden door, usually indicating such uses. The stair was enclosed in the twentieth century and used as a storage closet until the twenty-first century intervention, when the cupboard and stair were demolished in order to create an open corridor for horizontal access.

[Stair 3a3] This stair leads from a landing off internal turnpike 1a to a room in the south block on the second level. It was built during the seventeenth century, possibly during the same intervention as turnpike 1a. (section showing 3a stairs) [Stair 3b] These three steps on the first level lead from the corridor off turnpike 1a to the McMorran Room. While there is little evidence for this level change, we suppose that perhaps it is due 42

to the difference in landing levels between turnpikes 1b and 1a.

[Stair 3c] This second level stair leads from the corridor off turnpike 1a to a room in the south block. It was constructed in the nineteenth century.

[Stair 3d] This nineteenth century stair leads from a room in the southeast block of the second level up to a room above the ghost room, (Emma’s room), possibly used as student accommodation after Geddes’ conversion of the structure.

[Stair 3e] Similar to 3d, this stair was constructed in the nineteenth century and leads from the same room out to the corridor of turnpike 1a.

Z STAIRS [4] We have evidence that this stair, located in the south portion of the north block, was likely added in the early twentieth century, several years after Geddes removed part of this block which included Turnpike 1d and stair 2a1. The tenants would have required new vertical access from the ground floor to the first floor that would lead to Stair 2a for upper level access.

The creation of direct routes to the public rooms from the lift lobby, plus a direct internal access to the north block simplified the circulation.

It is intriguing that the area of the south block in front of the main public rooms was the least historically rich area of the interiors, and now works as a hub to access the principle rooms.

On the second floor the only way across the levels was to go down a floor and back up another stair. The creation of a new route from the new lift lobby to the turnpike stair provides a direct connection between these levels.

Evolution of staircases through centuries. Starting from 16th century turnpike stair, passing to 19th century straight stair and ending up to the 21st century lift and ramped access needed to create smooth circulation between levels to be compliant with DDA codes.

The most interesting point here, apart from the form, is the evolution in the use of materials through all these years. The use of stone is apparent in the older structures, then we see concrete, then glass and metal.

[5] Starting from ground floor, LDN opened up the east wall of the turnpike and changed the entry sequence to allow full access between the two blocks. The only way to travel this route previously was to go through the “Library room.”

A new lift gives immediate access to all floors and helps disabled circulation. On the first floor, the insertion of the lift involved the removal of the previous landings, walls and stairs in order to provide level access. These ‘shadows’ are revealed on the remaining surfaces of the external wall.

43

Fig 10.5 2016 horizontal circulation - basement floor

Fig 10.6 2016 horizontal circulation - ground floor

Fig 10.7 2016 horizontal circulation - first floor

Fig 10.8 2016 horizontal circulation - second floor

44

3a3

3a2

3a1

3a0

before

after

Fig 10.9 2016 Photographic survey of North wall traces of demollish addotions and facsimile of BB section of LDN’architects drawing.

45

Pre-21st C

21st C

Fig 10.10 Alteration of LDN 3D model explaining the insertion of horizontal circulations routes in the building.

46

Fig 11.1 Gladstone’s Land General view of front elevation

Building Comparison GLASTONLAND & MORAY HOUSE

The comparisons of Gladstone’s Land (Fig 11.1) and Moray House to Riddle’s Court focus on the differences and similarities of their circulation in order to analyze its general evolution in historic Edinburgh.

Fig 11.2 General view of Glastoneland before conservation, picture from “Gladstone’s Land: The Changing Face of Edinburgh’s Royal Mile”, Post-Medieval Archaeology 51, no. 2 (2017): 364.

The decision to compare Gladstone’s Land to Riddle’s Court arises from their similarities in history, use and location. Gladstone’s Land is a 16th century house also located on the Lawnmarket, in James Court. Despite being a foreland property, it presents a similar vertical circulation through the use of turnpike stairs. As a tenement, it also represents a typical pattern social stratification of the town’s houses, where wealthy residents lived in the ground or first floor and the poorer residents in the upper floors and attic39. For this reason, horizontal circulation was basically non-existent. A similar absence of horizontal circulation was present at Riddle’s Court, until the 2016 intervention.

39 Tom Addyman, Daniel T. Rhodes and Nicholas Uglow, “Gladstone’s Land: The Changing Face of Edinburgh’s Royal Mile”, Post-Medieval

Archaeology 51, no. 2 (2017): 356.

48

BUILDING COMPARISON

Fig 11.3 Phases of building development at Gladstone’s land, picture from “Gladstone’s Land: The Changing Face of Edinburgh’s Royal Mile”, Post-Medieval Archaeology 51, no. 2 (2017): 357.

49

BUILDING COMPARISON

Fig 11.4 Glandstone’s land turnpike stair,

Fig 11.5 Glandstone’s land turnpike stair,

Gladstone’s Land’s 16th-century stone turnpike stair in the north block (Fig 11.2) can be compared to Riddle’s Court’s possible western turnpike stair in the south block (Fig 11.3-4) because they were both original to the properties and served as the main source of circulation into the tenements 40.Since Gladstone’s Land was growing in occupancy, there was a need for separate entrances. Therefore, the creation of a second, southwestern stone turnpike stair at Gladstone’s Land during the 17th century provided this additional access for the new tenants41.Similarly, during the 17th century at Riddle’s Court, the main stone turnpike staircase in the south block would have served the same purpose. While Gladstone’s Land possesses similar centuries-old circulation techniques, we must also examine Moray House to understand other introductions of straight, open circulation existing in Edinburgh.

Different from Riddle’s Court and Gladstone’s Land, Moray House has consistently been an individually-owned building in the Canongate since the early 17th century42. There is no evidence of its subdivision into different tenements, thus there was no need for several accesses.

However, the addition of a metal and wooden open-well staircase in 1972 corresponds to the reinvention of circulation at Riddle’s Court during the 19th, 20th, and 21st century interventions43.

42 David MacGibbon and Thomas Ross, The Castellated and Domestic Architecture of Scotland from the Twelfth to the Eighteenth Centuries (Edinburgh, 1887), 536.

43 “Old Moray House,” Moray House School of Education, accessed 26 No-

40 Ibid, 358.

vember 2018 https://www.ed.ac.uk/education/about-us/maps-estates-his-

41 Ibid, 359.

tory/estates/history.

50

Fig 12.1 Riddle’s Court pend, 2018.

Conclusion

Each element of analysis examined previously is a contributing factor to the evolution of circulation within the historic Riddle’s Court. The Great Tenement has seen a multitude of owners, tenants, and interventionists, lending the property to many physical changes throughout its lifetime. While the architecture and rooms have changed based on the tastes of the previous dwellers, changes in circulation arose from the ever-changing needs of the tenants. The constant restructuring, addition, and demolition of segments, plus economic circumstances, have led to the variety of circulation routes present today. Ultimately, these architectural, historic, social and artistic qualities define Riddle’s Court as a culturally significant site.

52

Bibliography

Addyman, Tom and Daniel T. Rhodes and Nicholas Uglow. “Gladstone’s Land: The Changing Face of Edinburgh’s Royal Mile.” Post-Medieval Archaeology 51, no. 2 (2017). 354-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2017.1377978 Campbell, James W.P., Jill Pearce and Michael Tutton. Staircases: History, Repair and Conserva tion. London: Routledge, 2013.

Cressey, Michael. Riddle’s Court Lawnmarket, Edinburgh (Phase 2) Historical Building Survey & Archaeological Watching Briefs: Report No. 3423. Musselburgh: CFA Archaeology Ltd, 2017.

Cressey, Michael, Charles McKean and Alasdair Ross. Riddle’s Court, Lawnmarket Edinburgh: Historic Building Survey Report No. 2164. Musselburgh: CFA Archaeology Ltd, 2013.

Crone, Anne. Riddles Court, 322 Lawnmarket, Edinburgh Dendrochronological Analyses.

Loanhead: AOC Archaeology Group, 2013.

Dunbar, John. “Source Materials for the Study of Scottish Architectural History.” Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland Journal and Annual Report 12 (1983).

Gifford, John, Colin McWilliam and David Walker. The Buildings of Scotland: Edinburgh.

Penguin Books, 1984.

Hollis, Edwards. A Drama in Time: A Guide to 400 Years of Riddle’s Court. Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2018.

Hughes, Helen. “Phase 1- Architectural Paint Research.” In Riddle’s Court Edinburgh Old Town.

London: Historic Interiors Research and Conservation, 2015.

ICOMOS UK. Guide to Recording Historic Buildings. London: Butterworth Architecture, 1990.

Johnson, Jim and Lou Rosenburg. Renewing Old Edinburgh: The Enduring Legacy of Patrick Geddes. Glendaruel: Argyll, 2010.

53

LDN Architects. The Patrick Geddes Centre for Learning and Conservation: Design & Access Statement. Edinburgh: LDN Architects, 2013.

MacGibbon, David and Thomas Ross. “Edinburgh.” In The Castellated and Domestic Architecture of Scotland 4, edited by James Thin, 410-500. Edinburgh: The Mercat Press, 1990.

Mackenchnie, Aonghus. “Scots Court Architecture of the Early 17th Century.” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 1993.

Nicholas Boyes Stone Conservation. Riddles Court Stringcourse Investigation. 2014.

RCAHMS. An Inventory of the Ancient and Historical Monuments of the City of Edinburgh, 1951 SHBT. The Patrick Geddes Centre Bookelet: Riddle’s Court, Edinburgh. 2013.

Schmidt, Leo. “Conservation in the 20th Century.” In Architectural Conservation: An Introduction.

Translated by Ralf Jaeger. Westkreuz-Verlag GmbH, 2008.

Stell, Geoffrey and Robin Tait. “Framework and Form: Burgage Plots, Street Lines and Domestic Architecture in Early Urban Scotland.” Urban History 42, no. 1 (February 2015): 1-26.

The University of Edinburgh. “Old Moray House.” Moray House School of Education. Accessed 26 November 2018. https://www.ed.ac.uk/education/about-us/maps-estates-history/estates/his tory Wright, Andrew PK. Conservation Management Plan. Edinburgh: Scottish Historic Buildings Trust, 2013.

Wright, Andrew PK. Riddle’s Court, Edinburgh Conservation Statement. Edinburgh: Cockburn Conservation Trust, 2008.

54

Appendix

55 Drawing of exterior detail and arch, 2018.

APPENDICES

Drawing of internal turnpike stair, south block, 2018

56

APPENDICES

SETON ROOM First draft plan (scale 1:50), 2018

57

APPENDICES

SETON ROOM Second draft plan (scale 1:50), 2018.

58

APPENDICES

PATRICK GEDDES ROOM First draft plan (scale 1:50), 2018.

59

APPENDICES

PATRICK GEDDES ROOM Second draft plan (scale 1:50), 2018.

60

APPENDICES

MC MORRAN ROOM First draft plan (scale 1:50), 2018.

61

APPENDICES

MC MORRAN ROOM Second draft plan (scale 1:50), 2018.

62

ELEVATIONS

Drawing of Seton Room bays measurements, 2018

Drawing of Seton Room, North elevation measurements, 2018

63

Patrick Geddes Room, South elevation measurements

Seton Room, North elevation measurements

64

APPENDICES

FIREPLACES Seton Room’s fireplace sketches and details

Seton Room fireplace plan, 2018

Drawing of Seton Room

Drawing of Seton Room fireplace plan,

fireplace section, 2018

2018

65

FIREPLACES Geddes Room’s fireplace sketches and details

Patrick Geddes Room fireplace plan, 2018

Drawing of Mc Morran Room fireplace, 2018

66

APPENDICES

WINDOWS Patrick Geddes Room’s windows sketches and details

Seton Room windows plan, 2018

Seton Room windows details, 2018

Seton Room windows details, 2018

67

APPENDICES

Mc Morran Room’s windows plan

Seton Room window type 1 plan, 2018

Seton Room window type 2 plan, 2018

68

APPENDICES

TURNPIKE STAIR Section draft sketch, 2018

69

APPENDICES

TURNPIKE STAIR Survey analysis plan, 2018

70

PANEL MOULDINGS SETON ROOM

String course, baseport and bay frames’ moulding profiles

71

PANEL MOULDINGS PATRICK GEDDES ROOM

Baseport and panelling moulding’s profile

72

PANEL MOULDINGS MC MORRAN ROOM

Fireplace and wood panelling moulding’s profiles.

73

PANEL MOULDINGS MC MORRAN ROOM

74 Ceiling, baseport and panelling moulding’s profiles

PANEL MOULDINGS MC MORRAN ROOM

Panelling and windows moulding’s profile and drawing

75

EXTERIORS SOUTH ELEVATION FROM INNER COURT

76