Vince, if you search google images, (or simply google search the web) using the right combinations of words, you will find pix of it that passer-bys took in the 1910s, 20s, and '30s before reconstruction. And certainly the historic preservation people, prior to their late 1930s reconstruction, would also have taken pix (to document their work, and so forth). Not sure if it was as nice and full as the drawing in that 1957 magazine depicts, but yes .... there were good high walls still there, prior to the re-construction (albeit beginning to melt and the tops, and perhaps missing the roof, and so forth).
But in any case, I believe your quote answers the matter. That if one room and such are from the original, then it seems to me that it's on the exact same foot-print, and merely incorporated original walls in the re-do, whenever possible.
Have you, or can anyone, find something to the contrary, which says that the current location, is not the original location? That is, that it was: "moved" ?