"In 2009, there was a main entrance on the upper left part of the plan and a side entrance on the upper..."

These two sentences are from my essay:
"In 2009, there was a main entrance on the upper left part of the plan and a side entrance on the upper right part, with a registration room (being) between these entrances."

"In the lower left corner was a meeting room with a stage and seats, front of which was a concert hall that also had seats."

1) Is it correct and grammatical to say "...entrance on the upper left part of the plan" or "...entrance on the upper left side of the room"?

2) Is my use of "with" grammatical? Also, I think writing "being" is optional.

3) Is it grammatical to say "front of which"?

hardyweineberg said:

"In 2009, there was a the main entrance was in on the upper top-left part of the plan, and there was a side entrance on in the upper top-right (part), with a registration room (being) between these entrances."

"In the lower bottom-left corner was a meeting room with a stage and seats, in front of which was a concert hall that also had seats."

Click to expand...

See above.

hardyweineberg said:

"In 2009, there was a main entrance on the upper left part of the plan and a side entrance on the upper right part,

Click to expand...

I find it odd that you say it was at the top left of the plan in 2009.That makes it sound as if only the plan has changed. It's still at the top left as far as the plan's concerned. What you probably mean is that in 2009, it was in that part of that floor of the building, and shown at the top left of the plan.

In 2009 the main entrance, shown at the top left of the plan, was at the northern/southern/[insert as needed] side, and there was a side entrance at the northern/southern/[insert as needed] side, with a registration room between the two entrances/between these entrances.

hardyweineberg said:

"In the lower left corner was a meeting room with a stage and seats, front of which was a concert hall that also had seats."

Click to expand...

At the eastern/western/etc. corner, shown at the bottom left of the plan, was a ... [See Teechar's corrections in the post above].

You can say the main entrance is in the northwest on plan, while the side entrance is in the northeast, by taking north as being at the top of the plan. The registration room is in between.
It is superfluous to say that a concert hall has seats. "In front of which (meeting room)" is vague as a description, though the plan says everything.

tedmc said:

You can say the main entrance is in the northwest on plan, while the side entrance is in the northeast, by taking north as being at the top of the plan.

Click to expand...

If I've understood you correctly, you're saying the top of the plan should be considered north for the purpose of describing what's shown where, though it may not actually be the north.

I'm not sure that's a commonly understood way of describing positions on a plan.

Barque said:

If I've understood you correctly, you're saying the top of the plan should be considered north for the purpose of describing what's shown where, though it may not actually be the north.

I'm not sure that's a commonly understood way of describing positions on a plan.

Click to expand...

There is no rule to say that you can't describe positions on plans, as long as the assumption (of where north is) is made known.

tedmc said:

There is no rule to say that you can't describe positions on plans, as long as the assumption (of where north is) is made known.

Click to expand...

That's true, but written communication is meant to be clear.

You could do that if you were verbally explaining a plan. Think of the top as north. There's an entrance at the northern side.

But if you aren't speaking face to face, your suggestion could lead to a misunderstanding.

Barque said:

That's true, but written communication is meant to be clear.

You could do that if you were verbally explaining a plan. Think of the top as north. There's an entrance at the northern side.

But if you aren't speaking face to face, your suggestion could lead to a misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

I don't think what I have written is unclear. Which part is not clear to you?

I have stated the assumption clearly, i.e. "taking north as being at the top of the plan". I deal with building plans in the course of my work and I do that sometimes, without being misunderstood. Of course it's not face-to-face communication; you wouldn't need such description when the plan is in front of both parties.

tedmc said:

I don't think what I have written is unclear.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean your post. I meant the possible result of using your suggestion.

But in any case, as I said in post #3, does the OP really need the words "on the plan"? I believe he's referring to changes that have taken place, so he just needs to say "In 2009". Perhaps he'll clarify.

Barque said:

I didn't mean your post. I meant the possible result of using your suggestion.

But in any case, as I said in post #3, does the OP really need the words "on the plan"? I believe he's referring to changes that have taken place, so he just needs to say "In 2009". Perhaps he'll clarify.

Click to expand...

I don't really need it. Maybe, it's also okay to say "the main entrance was at the top-left part of the building." But because I don't like using phrases like "top-left part" and "northwest" when describing buildings, I tend to say "in/at the top-left part of the plan." A plan, as opposed to a building, can have a top-left part, top-right part, or bottom left part.

I'm not sure you've got my point. Your post says that in 2009 there was an entrance on the upper left of the plan. It makes it sound as if the plan has changed though the actual layout might have remained the same. When you refer only to the plan, it sounds as if the plan may not necessarily be accurate.

If I've understood your post correctly you were trying to say the actual layout has changed.