Forum
URL: |
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/LBForum/index.php |
Forum
Title: |
LIZZIE BORDEN
SOCIETY |
Topic
Area: |
Archives |
Topic
Name: |
this old house
|
1. "this old house"
Posted by adminlizzieborden on Jan-8th-02 at 9:54 PM
By kat on Friday, 12/21/2001 - 09:07 am
[Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Late last Sunday night/morn., happened to catch the second
episode I had seen on an old house being renovated in
(?)Westport, Mass. Thay had spent all last segment , and
this one, down in the cellar with the Master Plumber.
It was explained that apparently in these old houses the
City was responsible for the water line TO THE HOUSE,
but then the lines IN THE HOUSE were at the expense and
maintanance of the homeowner. They had no WATER PRESSURE
in this house, to get the water up a couple of floors
(defying gravity, it seems). This was the homeowners personal
problem. They installed a 2 piece pumping system that
cost over $600 to pump the water to the upper floors.
And this all originated IN THE CELLAR.
It occurred to me that that may be why Andrew never had
water lines to the 2nd and third floors! No Pressure!
And it may have been a BIG DEAL (like it was to this NEW
owner of an OLD house), and expensive to supply those
upper floors with water.
By kashesan on Friday, 12/21/2001 - 10:19 am [Edit] [Reply]
[Msg Link]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh-oh,
In my "Maplecroft" story I have Lizzie's master
bath including a shower stall. Not possible then? (No
there's not a Psycho-like shower scene)
By raystephanson on Friday, 12/21/2001 - 03:18 pm [Edit]
[Reply] [Msg Link]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The house on 92 Second St DID have water on the second
floor when it was a two-family tenement. Andy had them
shut off to save money (extra water bill).
When I was much much younger I had relatives who had a
small house with the toilet down in the basement, water
to upstairs kitchen, bedrooms on second floor. A simple
house from 1860s.
I believe showers were non-existent or rare prior to WW
2; that experience made them in vogue (or WW 1). Showers
invented around 1890s for military men: get rid of dirt
and lice at the lowest cost.
By kat on Friday, 12/21/2001 - 09:06 pm [Edit] [Reply]
[Msg Link]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray: Please to give your source on water upstairs?
Kash...I was wondering if the "outlying" areas
had less pressure, but that the stately homes, even on
a HILL might have first, best "pressure"?(with
a little help of gravity)
By augusta on Saturday, 12/22/2001 - 10:48 pm [Edit] [Reply]
[Msg Link]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kash - I read that Lizzie had a tub of her own in Maplecroft.
There wasn't any mention of a shower stall then. One of
the books on her, Spiering maybe, tells some about the
interior of Maplecroft - like her having a Winter bedroom
and a Summer bedroom for herself.
By raystephanson on Sunday, 12/23/2001 - 07:02 pm [Edit]
[Reply] [Msg Link]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like everything else, it comes from the books I borrowed
and read from the library. Either AR Brown or F Spiering.
Why do you ask? Don't we all know that it used to be a
two-family tenement? When Andy foreclosed on this house,
he converted it to a one family house. (Bigger than Grandpa's
Ferry St house?)
By kat on Monday, 12/24/2001 - 01:18 am [Edit] [Reply]
[Msg Link]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I asked because I had never heard Andrew had ReMOVED water
lines from the upper stories. Not adding them, and "taking
them out" are 2 different things.
A Two-family tenement it may well have been, but the occupants
could have had to share water downstairs. (If you read
it, and quote a source, I can verify...otherwise I would
think you were Assuming. That's why I asked).
The water mains weren't available, as far as I know, previous
to Andrew purchasing the property.
By kashesan on Monday, 12/24/2001 - 12:07 pm [Edit] [Reply]
[Msg Link]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damn...
By raystephanson on Monday, 12/24/2001 - 01:28 pm [Edit]
[Reply] [Msg Link]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be more accurate, Andy had them turned off. Removing
pipes would be a possibility as well, during those cheap
labor times (work 12 hours for $1!) to resell the pipes
for scrap.
By kat on Monday, 12/24/2001 - 10:53 pm [Edit] [Reply]
[Msg Link]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the previous tenants probably used the well. Andrew
brought in "City water" as soon as it was available.
I think you may be confusing the water situation with
the re-modeling of the 2nd story.
I was thinking about this last night, and it recalled
to me that Andrew had to REMOVE A KITCHEN from the room
that became his bedroom. You may have assumed there was
running water there, but this is 1872, before running
water was available.
He also took out a partition that divided the dining room
(as in the division on the 2nd floor that created Emma's
bedroom & Abby's dressing room). He also added a furnace
and radiators.
I was trying to picture it as a 2 family house:
Maybe--the parlour was the master bedroom and the dining
room divided made 2 more bedrooms (depending on the family
size). Then the Sitting Room would be the "common
room" for the family and maybe they combined the
kitchen with an eating area(That would be one family and
the'd use the front door).
The 2nd story would be a duplicate, except they would
have the benefit of the extra bedrooms in the attic, and
they would use the side door as their front door. With
the cellar in common?
So the use of the "back part" of the house,
and the side door for the elder Bordens and the maid makes
sense and doesn't seem so "odd" anymore.
-my own home has a "split plan" where the master
suite is at the other side of the house from the childrens
bedrooms...
2. "Re:
this old house"
Posted by Kat on Jan-15th-02 at 12:41 AM
In response to Message #1.
I think I stumbled on the source of the
"Andrew removing the running water upstairs"
misunderstanding. (I hadn't looked at this book
for at least 5 years):
In PROCEEDINGS, Bristol Community College, Fall River,
Mass. CONFERENCE, August 3-5, 1992 book, pgs. 17-18, there
is an article by Margaret Judge Grenier, entitled Lizzie
Borden: Violator or Victim:
"...Andrew Borden set up a household...The house
on Second Street was renovated into a one-family house.
During this renovation, the upstairs kitchen was removed,
including the running water. He believed running
water was an unnecessary luxury on the second floor.
Yet five people lived in his house: a child of five,
a teenager, two adults and a maid.
"...This conversion took place in 1865."
I am in no way belittling this article as having some
falsities, as surely they were not meant. Also,
the author IS published (and I am not) therefore merit
must be given to her efforts. We are lucky even
now, that we have more sources & resources than were
even available in 1992!
The Lizzie Borden Quarterly (due any day!) has also supplied
us with other's great research efforts--and that is where
the newer information resides as to running water and
renovations to the Borden home at Second Street (at that
time #66).
Andrew moved his family from his father's house on Ferry
Street which contained, at times, up to TEN people...(Rebello,
census) so downsizing to 5 seems like a dream, especially
to "the teenager" (Emma). The house was
built by Southard Miller in 1845, Andrew bought &
moved in in 1872, and in June of 1874 he had two faucetts
installed with running water. Sometime soon or at
the same time, he added the barn faucett--this happened
within months of City water first becoming available.
(LBQ, July '97).
--there is no Bibliography with this article, and footnotes
are "notations" which add to the text.
|
Page updated
7 October, 2003
|
|