House numbering -- minor detail

[victor steinbok]

There is a bit of difference between 800 ft and 2640 ft (half-mile). Perhaps
if we split the difference and put it at about 1700 ft, we'd be closer to
the accurate number (Wiki claims it was about a third of a mile long, which
is [exactly] 1760). That's a pretty good distance and longer than any other
structure of its kind, particularly considering that most of it extended
into the Harbor. The original Long Wharf started at the shoreline next to
Faneuil Hall--yes, it was near the water in 1710. There is also the question
as to how much the length of LW might have changed between 1710 and 1750,
when numbers started appearing on streets (in other locations). It certainly
stood out among other Boston docking structures because it extended directly
into open water (in fact, a marvel of engineering for that period).

Since much of the construction was essentially a pier (with warehouse
buildings on it), my original question as to whether it is appropriate to
look at it as a street stands. It is not--and should not be--particularly
surprising that the warehouses on the Long Wharf represented a virtually
continuous mass of buildings. Unlike other areas where some yard or other
open space may be of importance, there would be no use for open space here.

I have no particular objections to the suspicion that LW had numbers on its
warehouses. But I would like to see 1) a confirmation that this indeed was
the case and, if so, 2) at least a suggestive text that connects the numbers
on LW with street numbers in other places, such as NYC and London--as far as
I recall, Boston streets were not numbered until /after/ New York. So if
Long Warf was an exception, if counted as a street. On the other hand, if
similar structures were also numbered at other locations (including NYC and
London or British sea ports), this would make the case more interesting.

Either way, I am not questioning the find, just holding off the excitement.
The fact that numbers first appeared in NYC on market streets, identifying
shops and stalls rather than docks and warehouses, may be significant.

VS-)

PS: There may be some confusion between wharf, pier, dock and quay. In fact,
I should have probably arranged these in a different order: dock, pier,
wharf, quay--in the order of being "built-up". Dock and pier also have
multiple diverse definitions that make this more difficult.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

> Victor,
>
> I think you're incorrect on a couple of historical points.
>
> Long Wharf was long when it was built, or at least its contemporaries
> thought so.  It's shorter today; much of it is State Street.  Justin
> Winsor (Memorial History of Boston) quotes 18th-century observers as
> writing 800 feet, 1800-2000 feet, and "about half a mile."  Perhaps
> not long enough, and having no turning-off points, to make it
> difficult for someone to find a particular building without
> numbers.  But still, if they were very similar-looking, and with no
> well-known spot (such as a corner or a prominent building), numbers
> might have been useful.  (One might ask, why not signs with the
> proprietors' names?  A question I can't answer.  Perhaps the
> warehouses changed hands frequently; perhaps they were shared by
> several merchant shippers, so it was the shipper's name not the
> warehouse owner's name that was important; etc.)
>
> As for "suites", Walter Muir Whitehill (Boston: A Topographical
> History) writes "Long Wharf was early lined with continuous rows of
> shops and warehouses".  Whitehill has an engraving by Paul Revere
> depicting it in 1768, which shows buildings all along one side, with
> little or no clearance between them.  Winsor writes "a continuous
> range of warehouses extended down the wharf, for they are delineated
> in the original sketch of the waterfront as made by Bonner in
> 1714."  Jonathan Belcher, later governor, bought and sold buildings
> on Long Wharf.
>
> Even at only 800 feet, and assuming wide buildings for warehouses,
> say 40 feet, that would allow 20 individual buildings.  I count about
> 15 in Revere's engraving, but of course I can't know whether he
> intended accuracy or just suggestion.
>
> Winsor's source for house numbering is Drake's History of
> Boston.  That doesn't seem to be in Google Books; I'll have to go to
> the library to track it down.
>
> Joel
>
> At 6/25/2011 02:35 PM, victor steinbok wrote:
> >A couple of minor points--I agree with lack of connection with the
> >Declaration of Independence. I was not implying any such connection when I
> >wrote that piece. I did choose to use "proclamation" to avoid tying the
> >development either to a specific document or a specific date.
> >
> >On Long Wharf, there is an issue as to whether it would be considered a
> >"street". But it would still be interesting if the units (I suppose,
> they'd
> >be "suites" today) within the structure were numbered. The "Long Wharf" is
> >not particularly long, so finding a particular merchant, undoubtedly
> >displaying the mark of his wares on the storefront, would not be difficult
> >without the numbering. Slips and docks, on the other hand, might have been
> >numbered in their own right. But that certainly would not translate to
> >"street numbers".
> >
> >Please don't interpret my remark as pouring cold water on this
> >development--I simply want to ascertain what actually transpired before
> >getting excited about the result.
> >
> >VS-)
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org