House numbering

[Joel S. Berson]

At 6/26/2011 05:48 PM, victor steinbok wrote:
>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).

I would not be surprised if Wiki had done exactly that -- took an
average of the lowest and highest figures in the historical
literature.  Not a good way of writing an encyclopedia, I think.  But
OK for government work (I mean ours, here).

Note that I used the lower, 800 foot length when I did a guess as to
how many warehouses (20) there might have been.

>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).

I thought we hadn't found any until circa 1770?

>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.

For practical purposes, it was.  It must have been wide enough for
wagons to transport merchandise, and visiting dignitaries from
overseas went up it, escorted, to the foot of King Street (definitely
a broad way) and on a bit farther to the Town House (the seat of the
provincial government, having in it the Assembly and Council
chambers).  In fact, the distance from the end of Long Wharf to the
shore was longer than that from the shore to the Town House (Bonner's map).

>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

I have on my agenda looking at what Drake says the next time I am in
the large university library.

>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.

I do have the same impression.  But unfortunately, absence of hits
does not mean absence of occurrences (particularly with EAN), and I
at least have great difficulty figuring out how to search for house
numbers on streets.  That said, Winsor does allude to house numbers
in Boston elsewhere than on Long Wharf, and I will try to see if
Drake says anything about that.

>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.

Me too.  I was reporting a tantalizing statement I had come across
this week, which needs harder data.

Joel

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