This site is entirely user-supported. See how you can help.
We don't have any photos of this building yet. Why don't you be the first to send us one?
Latitude: 55.9585 / 55°57'30"N
Longitude: -3.1835 / 3°11'0"W
OS Eastings: 326207
OS Northings: 674571
OS Grid: NT262745
Mapcode National: GBR 8QC.NJ
Mapcode Global: WH6SM.2HBJ
Plus Code: 9C7RXR58+9J
Entry Name: 9, 10, 11 Elm Row, Edinburgh
Listing Name: 1-23 (Inclusive Nos) Elm Row and 2 Montgomery Street
Listing Date: 16 December 1965
Source: Historic Scotland
Source ID: 367207
Historic Scotland Designation Reference: LB28734
Building Class: Cultural
Electoral Ward: Leith Walk
Traditional County: Midlothian
W. H Playfair, designed 1821, building began circa 1823. Near-symmetrical, long classical palace-fronted range with shops to ground floor; 42-bay, 3-storey (attic floors to advanced pavilions) principal elevation; to SW elevation, 3-storey and attic, 5-bay quadrant corner with 2-storey tetrastyle in antic Roman Doric colonnade to 1st floor; to NW elevation, 3-storey and attic, 3-bay splay corner with 2-storey tetrastyle Ionic portico to 1st floor. Polished ashlar (predominantly painted to ground floor); predominantly coursed rubble with dressed margins to rear. Base course; dividing band between ground and 1st floor; cill cornice to 1st floor (excluding SW elevation); cill band to 2nd floor (principal elevation only); main cornice dividing 2nd and attic floor; eaves cornice (defaced to Nos. 4-8); blocking course. Predominantly regular fenestration to upper floors.
W (PRINCIPAL) ELEVATION: 5-bay advanced pavilions to outer left and right; to central pavilion, 3-bay advanced sections flanking 6-bay central section. To ground floor: to 1st and 10th bays from left, modern timber doors in original round-arched openings with teardrop and circle glazing pattern to stilted segmental fanlights; to 19th and 24th bays, modern timber doors in original round-arched openings with blocked segmental fanlights; to 32nd bay, modern timber door in original round-arched opening with segmental fanlight; to 36th bay, modern door in original round arched openings with replica teardrop glazing to fanlight, flanked to left (35th bay) and right (37th bay) by windows in original round arched openings with replica teardrop glazing to fanlight; windows to 38th and 40th bay, 2-leaf timber-panelled doors to 39th and 41st bay; timber-panelled door to 42nd bay, all in original round-arched openings with teardrop glazed segmental fanlights. To 16th, 17th and 18th bay from left to 1st floor, original fenestration pattern replaced by out of character single, large, quadripartite window.
NW ELEVATION: advanced 3-bay section to centre. To centre bay to ground floor, 2-leaf timber panelled door with large letterbox fanlight of 3 central panes bordered by narrow margin lights; windows flanking to left and right bays. To 1st floor, dividing bays, 4 giant Ionic columns supporting entablature with dentilled cornice and pediment above. To attic floor, pilaster-strips dividing bays; blind window to centre bay.
SW ELEVATION: slightly recessed curved elevation. To ground floor, round arched openings framing 2-leaf timber panelled door to centre bay, with windows flanking; all with teardrop glazed segmental fanlights; ornamental cast-iron grates below cills. Dividing bays to 1st floor, giant engaged Roman Doric columns, flanked to outer left and right by antae, supporting entablature with modillioned cornice. Pilaster-strips dividing bays to attic floor; blind window to 2nd bay from left.
REAR ELEVATION: 2 narrow semi-curved receding sections to far left.
GLAZING etc: to ground floor: predominantly out of character modern plate glass; to NW elevation, SW elevation and right pavilion of W elevation, 16-lying-pane glazing bordered by narrow margin lights. To upper floors, predominantly 12-pane glazing in timber sash and case windows; plate glass in timber sash and case windows to 2nd to 10th (inclusive) bays to W elevation, to 16th to 18th bays (2nd floor) inclusive to W elevation, to 20th and 21st bays to W elevation, to 25th to 27th (inclusive) bays (2nd floor only) to W elevation, and to 33rd to 37th (inclusive) bays to W elevation; 6-pane glazing to top sash and plate glass to bottom sash to 1st floor to 28th to 31st (inclusive) bays to W elevation; 4-pane glazing in timber sash and case windows to 1st floor to 11th to 15th (inclusive) bays. To attic floor, predominantly 8-lying-pane glazing in timber sash and case windows (predominantly 12-pane glazing in timber sash and case to rear). Double-pitched roof with some piended sections to pavilions; graded grey slates; stone skews and skewputts. To N pavilion, 1 mutual ridge stack to far left, 1 ridge stack to centre, 1 wallhead stack to right; all corniced ashlar preceded by 3 linked individual octagonal flues. To 3-storey sections, 1 corniced rendered ridge stack to front elevation, 1 corniced rendered ridge stack to rear elevation, 2 corniced wallhead stacks (brick to N section, rendered to S section) to rear. To central pavilion, corniced, partly rendered wallhead stacks to far left and far right; 3 corniced, predominantly rendered ridge stacks to centre. To S pavilion, 1 mutual ridge stack to far right, 1 ridge stack to centre, 1 wallhead stack to left; all corniced ashlar preceded by 3 linked individual octagonal flues. Circular cans to all stacks.
INTERIOR: to ground floor of No 11 Elm Row, front room subdivided by screen of 2 Ionic columns; round-arched opening (leading to back room) with architraved doorpiece featuring ornate mouldings and raised keystone with eagle motif; egg and dart ceiling cornice; plaster ceiling border.
Part of the Calton A-Group.
The block comprising 1-23 Elm Row and 2 Montgomery Street forms part of Playfair's Eastern New Town (or Calton) scheme, and as such is an important example of the work of one of Scotland's leading early 19th century architects. Playfair was one of the major driving forces of the Greek Revival in Edinburgh at this time, and his public commissions such as the National Monument, the Royal Institution and the National Gallery (see separate listings) gave strength to Edinburgh's reputation as the Athens of the North. The Calton Scheme was one of his few domestic commissions, and the variety of designs, different for each street, demonstrates Playfair's expertise with the Grecian style and his characteristic punctilious attention to detail.
The impressive curved Roman Doric quadrant at the SW corner of Elm Row, in conjunction with its Ionic counterpart on the other side of the road at Blenheim Place, forms one of the architectural set-pieces of Playfair's Calton scheme, set on a commanding corner site framing the Eastern exit and entry to the city via the then newly built London Road. The northern approach road, Leith Walk, is addressed by the long palace-fronted W range which is terminated at the NW end by the imposing splay corner with Ionic portico (Playfair originally intended that this should be balanced by a Doric portico on the other side of Montgomery Street, but this was never built). The block comprising 1-23 Elm Row and 2 Montgomery Street is important for its streetscape value, as an example of the work of one of Scotland's leading early 19th century architects, and as a significant element of the Eastern New Town scheme.
Designed and built as high quality private housing with shops to ground floor, the majority of the block retains its original uses. The ground floor originally featured an arcade of round arched openings, but only those at the S end survive. In 1875, Thomas Cochrane, Wine and Spirit Merchant, commissioned McGibbon and Ross to draw up designs for forming an internal door between 23 Elm Row and 2 Montgomery Street
The origins of the Eastern New Town, which was to occupy the east end of Calton Hill and lands to the north of it on the ground between Easter Road and Leith Walk, lie in a 'joint plan for building' which three principal feuars (Heriot's Hospital, Trinity Hospital and Mr Allan of Hillside) entered into in 1811. In 1812 a competition was advertised for plans for laying out the grounds in question. Thirty-two plans were received, displayed and reported on by a variety of people, including eight architects. Eventually, it was decided that none of the plans was suitable. However, it was a more general report by William Stark (who died shortly after submitting it) which caught the attention of the Commissioners and formed the basis of the final scheme. Stark's central argument stressed the importance of planning around the natural contours and features of the land rather than imposing formal, symmetrical street plans upon it. After several years of little or no progress, in 1818 the Commissioners finally selected William Henry Playfair, Stark's former pupil, to plan a scheme following his master's Picturesque ideals.
The resulting scheme, presented to the Commissioners in 1819, preserved the view of and from Calton Hill by the creation of a limited, triangular development of three single-sided terraces on the hill itself. These looked over a huge radial street pattern, centred on the gardens of Hillside Crescent, on the land to the north. The feuing of these lower lands started well, with Elm Row, Leopold Place, Windsor Street and the west side of Hillside Crescent being built fairly swiftly. However, demand for the feus faltered severely, due to the growing popularity of new properties being built to the west of the New Town. The fate of the Calton scheme was sealed in 1838, when it was decided that feuars should pay poor-rates to both Edinburgh and Leith. This virtually halted development for the next thirty years. The result of all these problems was that very little of Playfair's original scheme was ever built. When building resumed in the 1880s, some of Playfair's original street lines were adhered to, as was the case with Hillside Crescent, and in others such as Brunton Place, Brunswick Street, Hillside Street (originally to be a longer street called Hopeton Street), and Wellington Street (also curtailed). However, due to piecemeal residential, industrial and transport developments immediately to the north, it would have been impossible to further follow Playfair's original layout, even if this had been considered desirable.
Elm Row was named after the double row of elm trees which once extended 600 feet down Leith Walk. The retention of these trees was strongly advocated by Stark in his Report, contrary to the previous competition entries, which had all proposed the removal of the trees. Playfair's plan retained the trees, but they have subsequently been removed.
Other nearby listed buildings