92 1/2 2nd Street

[Audrey]

When I began to imagine the house as two separate flats the number of doors started making sense to me. Specifically the number of doors in what I believe to be the "common rooms".

For example... Imagining the sitting room and Lizzie's room as dining rooms or other common rooms make the doors to the parlor and guest room make sense. If the entry way and landing were considered somewhat public area and not lockable to the other unit they would have used these doors to move from one of these rooms to the other without having to step outside the apartment.

When you look at Emma's room and Abby's dressing room you can see how one door to these rooms makes sense. When the rooms below were divided to make one large room, both doors were left in place. It is also worth noting that neither Emma's room or the dining room have doors into the guest room or the parlor.

The doors to what I think were the bedrooms also make sense. If you notice the door from Abby's dressing room and the corresponding door in the Borden dining room below--- they open not directly into the heart of the kitchen but to almost a vestibule caused by the chimney location.

[FairhavenGuy]

That's it, Audrey.

Both the first and second floors would have been almost identical, except upstairs there's the little room over the front stairway that the Borden's used as a dress closet. That was probably used as a bedroom. It almost certainly would not have been a closet in a house of this type ca. 1845.

Historically speaking, built-in closets virtually did not exist at all during colonial times. Most people simply didn't have enough clothing to merit having them. Clothing was stored in simple chests and in more elaborate "chests of drawers."
Armoires or wardrobes were freestanding closets. Later, nooks might be screened off with curtains to form an area for storing and hanging clothes. When closets, still later, were built into walls, they were generally quite small. A tenement-style house in the mid-1800s would have small closets by our standards.

[Kat]

That's interesting, and a good job Audrey.

Is the door referred to as possibly kept locked to the hall, the one where the arrow is? Or do you mean the door from the parlour into the hall?

May I ask which floor plan this is based upon?

[Audrey]

The arrow was there..... It indicated (I believe) how the door opened/shut from Lizzie's room to the guest room.

I used the 2nd floor plan with the measurements. I just cropped them out and added text over the rooms.

[Kat]

Thanks!
Then this would be called "After Bill Pavao & Len Rebello."
Like in Judge Sullivan and his plans say "After Porter."
It just gives the credit.

I think the "Hallway Front Door" in your plan might be the one which was locked as that may have been a master bedroom. And where the arrow is, for the description of the first floor, would be the door that connected the apartment within itself as you postulated.
Then the door to the sitting room would be the "front door", as the bedroom (possibly the bedroom) , of course, would not be the first entry.
I think there might have been more use for bedrooms then for *common rooms*- that's the reason why I think the Parlour might be a bedroom in the first floor flat.

You're right about the layout now making more sense.
I was beginning to think more in terms of a horizontal duplex, rather than the type of vertical duplex we see the Bowens and Millers living in. But I don't know if there is any comparison because I'm not familiar with Bowen's duplex/ or dual house.

[Audrey]

The rooms may have been used for a variety of purposes. It would have been up to the tenant to make decisions as to what purpose each room would serve... However-- the intention of the room may have been different--- hence the built in.

[FairhavenGuy]

The book on tenements "The Patina of Place," which I mentioned in the thread on the cupboard, was listed as being "in transport between libraries" when I checked for it on Saturday. It still wasn't in today. So I'm still just winging it, here, based on my memory of the prior reading a year or two ago.

You're right, Audrey, that the apartments were constructed with an intended use for the various rooms and that tenants adapted the rooms uses to their own needs. Generally speaking there were rooms intended for a parlor, a dining area, and a kitchen along with the bedrooms. In those days, even in tenements, the parlor was used only formally for non-family visitors. The "dining room" was more of a living room in many cases. Of course when conditions were crowded, almost anyplace could be used as a bedroom.

That cupboard in Lizzie's room, matches what is technically called a built-in china closet. I've found images of similar "closets" in houses dating to the 1700s. (And they're all right next to fireplaces/chimneys.) A 1904 Victorian house supply catalog shows them, which you could order pre-made to the depth and width you needed to pop right into an existing space.

I still feel it could be pre-Borden and it could be called a "closet" on a plan.

Of course, it could also have been added later. . .

[FairhavenGuy]

Look vaguely familiar? These are rows of two-family “corporate” houses built about 1882 by the Grinnell Mill in New Bedford for its workers.

The houses on the left side of the street are mirror images of those on the right, so the front doors are on the right side, similar in design to 92 Second St.

The fact that the Borden house was privately built, probably accounts for its less stark and simple design.

The photo, from the collection of Spinner Publications in New Bedford, was reproduced in “The Patina of Place,” which had been returned to the library when I checked this morning.

The photo was taken in 1915.

[Audrey]

Both the first and second floors would have been almost identical, except upstairs there's the little room over the front stairway that the Borden's used as a dress closet. That was probably used as a bedroom. It almost certainly would not have been a closet in a house of this type ca. 1845.

Therefore-- the 2nd floor may have been a more desirable flat as it had the extra bedroom. Perhaps this was to make up for having to climb the steps?!

Do you suppose the rent would have been higher?

[Kat]

I have talked to the FRHS about the Kieran plans which they have.
The second floor Plan and the first floor Plans seem a bit different, almost as if 2 people did them, tho we are assurred they are Kieran's.
For one thing, the rooms are designated on the first floor as to their function, whereas on the second floor they are not. The scale is 4' to an inch so only the closet in Andrew's bedroom and the one in Lizzie's bedroom are given specs.
The print is white on blue, so the dimensions were hard to read.
They seem to correspond to the closets below in the kitchen and sitting room, respectively.
The closet in Andrew's room shows the word "closet" and shows a door and is 3'6" by 2' 4".
The closet in Lizzie's room has the word closet, but no door is shown! AND it does not exactly match the length dimesion of Andrew's closet, which is a bit odd.
Lizzie's "Closet" looks to be 3'x4" by 1'x?".

Also, another odd point is that the door that divides Lizzie's room from Andrew's is shown as 2 lines, but no "open" door.
Lizzie's closet is depicted the same way: 2 lines across the opening.
Apparently no other areas of the 2 floors are designated as such with measurements- but it was explained the reason was that these were the only places that fell below the 4 foot = 1 inch ratio.
The closet in Emma's room was as wide as to fit the criteria, but not as deep as to fit the criteria, yet the depth was not noted.
(Apparently both depth and width would need to fall below the spec requirements in order to be identified as different.)

It's unsure why the door between the the 2 bedrooms does not show- and it was opined that was because Lizzie's bed was placed by her in the diagonal in that corner abutting the door.
However, it is my contention that that door would open into Andrew's room and therefore drawing the "open door" would not conflict with Lizzie's bed.
Of note is that no piece of furniture is shown to have been in front of that door obstructing it on Andrew's side, like we see in Sullivan's plans- but we know Kieran was there later so I suppose that doesn't prove anything.

I have looked at the plans again in de Mille's Dace of Death and these are the same.
I will scan them and send to Dennis to verify.

[FairhavenGuy]

Audrey,

From my rereading of the tenement book so far, it seems a good possibility that the "dress closet" room at the front of the second floor could have been rented out to a separate boarder. It doesn't say whether a boarder in a case like that paid rent to the tenants of the second floor flat or to the owner of the building. My guess is that it would be sublet by the second floor tenants if they didn't need the room themselves.

It also says "the dining/kitchen area generally came equipped with built-in china cabinets with linen drawers below." (The Patina of Place, p. 142)
However, this is talking about New Bedford three-deckers ca. 1903 and later, so I'm not sure that we can project that to Fall River pre-1872.

Also, you might like to know that one of the earlier tenements, which launched the "age of the apartment house" in New York City was called a "French or Parisian flat," having been based on 18th century French designs.

[Audrey]

I am drawn to your posts FHG.... They are very informative and interesting! Thank you!

I can imagine the closet room being a "sleeping room" rental very easily.

Common Parisian apartments are tiny and generally consist of one all purpose room, a kitchen and sleeping areas. Of course the toilet and bathing facilities are still almost always separate.

[Audrey]

It's unsure why the door between the the 2 bedrooms does not show- and it was opined that was because Lizzie's bed was placed by her in the diagonal in that corner abutting the door.
However, it is my contention that that door would open into Andrew's room and therefore drawing the "open door" would not conflict with Lizzie's bed.
Of note is that no piece of furniture is shown to have been in front of that door obstructing it on Andrew's side, like we see in Sullivan's plans- but we know Kieran was there later so I suppose that doesn't prove anything.

At the Prelim. Alice states:

Q. Do you remember whether they went up the back or front stairs?
A. I do not remember anything about it.
Q. Do you remember anything they did up stairs?
A. I remember being up in Mr. And Mrs. Borden's rooms with some officer, I remember their asking me about the rooms that went out of it. The door into Miss Lizzie's room was hooked. They pulled the screw out, I judged. I remember I asked them to let me look in first; I did not know what the condition of the room was. I pulled the portiere aside, and looked in, and said it is all right, and they went in. I do not recollect whether I went in or not.
Q. Do you know whether they searched it or not?


She did not mention a bed obstructing her view, or entry into the room. If Lizzie had a high and ornate headboard and the bed was angled in front of this door one would think Alice would not have been able to pull the portiere aside and see into the room. LIkewise, this negates a hook being on Lizzie's side of that door.

[Kat]

The bed "abutted" the door- it didn't obstruct it or cover it.
It is in the floorplan as diagonal in the northeast corner.
One of the officers described it that way as well.

Actually, since you bring it up- we can't tell from Alice in the Prelim. which direction that bedroom door opened, but in the trial it is more clear- and also she describes the fastener on Lizzie's side as being a hook.

Trial
Alice Russell
385+
Q. Did you notice how it had been fastened on the other side?
A. On Miss Lizzie's side?

Q. Yes.
A. I didn't notice then.

Q. Did you afterwards notice?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you notice about the fastening on Miss Lizzie Borden's side?
A. That it had a hook and a screw-eye.

Q. Did you notice anything else about the hook and the screw-eye?
A. No, sir.

Q. Whether it was pulled out or not, I mean?
A. It was pulled out.

Q. And what sort of a place---as the officers pulled that door

Page 386 / i408

open---what sort of a place did you observe afterwards it left in the wall where this screw was?
A. I didn't observe anything about it.

Q. You simply saw them pull it out?
A. I saw her screwing it in.

Q. You saw her screwing it in again?
A. Sometime during the day.

Q. After the officers had done this thing that you say?
A. Yes, sir, I think in the evening.

[Kat]

The description of Lizzie's bed position is by Harrington:

Trial
Phillip Harrington
560+
Q. Did you have some conversation with Miss Lizzie Borden?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was there anyone else except Miss Russell and Miss Borden there at the time?
A. No, sir; not outside of myself.

Page 561

Q. Where were they?
A. Miss Russell stood in front of a chair which was at the north side of the door which I entered. Miss Lizzie Borden stood at the foot of the bed, which ran diagonally across the room. That is, the head of the bed was up in the north-east corner, forming a triangle with the north and east sides of the wall. She stood at the foot of the bed on the north side.

[lydiapinkham]

Two questions occur to me about Lizzie's room.

First, if the dimensions of her closet don't match those of Andrew and Abby's, does that leave a niche accessible from her closet, one where objects could be hidden? If not, shouldn't her wall on that side be irregular? Isn't her wall straight from door to window?

Second. Alice was supposed to be taking a bath when Lizzie went downcellar the second time. Where? Was this a sponge bath using water from the pitcher and basin, or would she have brought up a hip bath. For that matter, how did these very private girls ever bathe and dispose of the water without breaking their backs?

--Lyddie

[Doug]

Kat, regarding the Miller/Bowen house I believe the Millers lived in the south (uphill) side of the house and the Bowens lived in the north (downhill) side of the house. Also, I recall reading either in testimony or possibly the witness statements that another person lived upstairs above the Bowens. It was not clear whether that individual, a lady I think, had the entire upstairs above the Bowens or only part of it, or whether she was a relation to the Bowens and/or the Millers.

My grandfather's house, a two-family up-and-down in Somerville, MA (Boston area), was built around 1910 and in the dining rooms had built-in dish cabinets with glass doors and three (I think) drawers underneath. Our house in CT is also a two family up-and-down built around 1925. In the kitchens it has similar built-in dish cabinets and drawers. My family's house where I grew up in CT (four blocks from where I live now) is a two family side-by-side or duplex built around 1890. The two sides are essentially mirror images of each other and neither side had a built in dish cabinet or accompanying drawers. All of these houses have what today would be considered small closets (perhaps 2' to 3' deep by 3' to 5' wide) compared to the walk-in types constructed today. Exceptions are a couple of closets built under stairways which are longer and/or deeper but you have to bend down to access the extra space in them.

In the Borden house I suspect the small rooms on the north side of the house, which became the dining room downstairs and Lizzie's/Emma's bedroom and Abby's dressing room upstairs were meant as bedrooms, as was the room at the top of the stairs in the front of the house which was used as a clothes closet by the Bordens. I think when that house was built it was anticipated the owner would live upstairs and a tenant or other family member downstairs. The second floor apartment had more ready access to the attic, both the open space and the room or rooms constructed there, hence the upstairs apartment had more readily useable living and storage space than the downstairs. Also, if the owner lived upstairs he or she could access the cellar by walking past the tenant's sink room rather than the tenant living upstairs and walking past the owner's sink room to access the cellar. Of course, the drawback to living on the second floor was/is climbing the stairs. However, after living "upstairs" for twenty years I can honestly say that all things being equal I prefer second floor living to first floor living!

[Nancie]

Yet the Borden house was never used for the
intention it was built, no two families ever lived there? Is this correct?

[FairhavenGuy]

I think, Nancie, you're confusing ownership of the house with occupants of the apartments. In the thread on the "cupboard," Kat listed some of the owners and some of the post-Borden tenants. She also noted in bold type that there were many other residents not listed, who were tenants.

The registry of deeds could list a single owner for twenty-five years, but many, many people may have rented there. There's actually no guarantee that the person listed as the owner of a house actually lives there. Many tenements were built as an investment.

The census listings for that address in 1850, 1860 and 1870 as well as any other directories would clear this up.

[Kat]

I think maybe you are both right and you read my mind FairhavenGuy!
Persuant to Nancie's question I have been looking at the census of 1860 and 1870. Apparently in 1860 there is only Charles Trafton and his housekeeper! At least that is what it looks like.
Then I will post the 1870 census which does show 2 families finally, Nancie!


Anyone who can read this print can transcribe it after, it might help. Thanks.

[BTW: There is ole Laddy Borden, Andrew's Famous Uncle, next door!]

pleaseclickonpic

[Kat]

This is the 1870 census and there are 2 families- one being good ole George Pettee, who I mentioned earlier with his testimony.

The first page here is the info to the right which is what Trafton's occupation was and his net worth, the second page is his listing.


[Notice Laddy has another wife]

pleaseclickonpics

[Susan]

I can kind of read the writing in the first census from 1860:

Free inhabitants in Land Tax

1) 299...Inhabitants 9 (looks like 8 crossed out)..Margaret Cuin(c?)e
..7..female....Massachusetts

2) Rose A....4...female....

3) Catharin...3...female

4) John....3/12(3 months old?)....male

5) 400....Inhabitants 2..Ladwick Borden..48..male...Lumber Man(x?)...4,400..9,700

6) Elisa F...47...female....Wife

7) Maria...15...female

8) 1...Inhabitants 3...Chas(Charles) Trafton...50...male...C(?) Wool Mill..3,000....6,000

9) Rhoda White...60..female...Housekeeper

10) Inhabitants 4...W M Cook...34...male...Lumber & (?) dealer...2,200...5,500

11) Esther..32...female...Wife....Rhode Island

12) Charles B...10...male...Massachusetts

[Kat]

Wow, Susan- you were always good at that.
Does it seem to show just Trafton there with a housekeeper, 1860?

I had made a picture out of a pdf from the 1859 City Directory for Trafton and forgot to show that. Also I have Southard Miller and Laddy Borden as well:

[Kat]

Southard Miller, 1859

[Kat]

Uncle Ladwick Borden who had 3 or 4 wives and was the Borden whose wife killed her children in the cistern and committed suicide next door to (then) #66 Second Street, our Borden house:

[Kat]

Two questions occur to me about Lizzie's room.

First, if the dimensions of her closet don't match those of Andrew and Abby's, does that leave a niche accessible from her closet, one where objects could be hidden? If not, shouldn't her wall on that side be irregular? Isn't her wall straight from door to window?

Second. Alice was supposed to be taking a bath when Lizzie went downcellar the second time. Where? Was this a sponge bath using water from the pitcher and basin, or would she have brought up a hip bath. For that matter, how did these very private girls ever bathe and dispose of the water without breaking their backs?

--Lyddie

Inquest
Alice Russell
154+
Q. Did you have occasion to go down stairs with Miss Lizzie that night?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. The first night?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. For some purpose connected with her sickness?
A. It was just wash water, water we had been using for bathing that
afternoon. She started to get it out of the wash bowls &c. I said “I will go down with that”. She says “I will go, if you will go and hold the lamp.” I went down with her, and she emptied it. Then she went into the laundry and rinsed out the pail. I stood at the door and held the lamp.
Q. Where was this?
A. Down cellar.
......

Trial
Alice
Page 390

Q. What were you doing---that will measure the time, perhaps as well as anything else ---what were you doing while the doors were closed between the rooms?
A. I was getting ready for bed. I read an account of this affair in the News.

Q. Anything else?
A. I don't think I did anything else.

Q. Any toilet operation of any sort?
A. Bathing.
.....

I notice now she says wash bowls- plural.
Plus it sounds as if Alice bathed during the day and then bathed later before bed. It's possible Alice is including herself in the earlier *bathing* which may have been done by Lizzie and Emma. Since she said "we", maybe she is referring to bathing Lizzie's forehead etc. Emma would "bathe" after her train trip, surely, as well.

As to the differing dimensions between the closets it seems unaccountable and maybe Bill Pavao has an explanation. He is my final source as to the possible date of the cabinetry, too. I will ask him.

[Nancie]

wow I am impressed at the research and info
here, thanks (i feel stupid). I remember my
childhood girlfriend and I looking for nooks and
crannies in our homes, things didn't make sense.
(at that time we heard history of people in town hiding slaves).

[Susan]

Wow, Susan- you were always good at that.
Does it seem to show just Trafton there with a housekeeper, 1860?

It lists 3 persons living in Trafton's home, but, it just lists him and the housekeeper? Odd.

[lydiapinkham]

Thanks for the passage on the bathing, Kat. Sounds like sponge baths were the thing at the Borden house. But the extra space behind the closet might be worth exploring!

--Lyddie

[Kat]

So the 1= dwelling house in order of visitation
3= *families* numbered in order of visitation =2 people
4= Cook and family?
At the same address?
I think you are right.
oops.
That's 2 families.

[Kat]

Looks like all these people in the big blue square lived at the same address. That is Trafton's house- which became #92 Second Street
Thanks Susan!

[Susan]

You're welcome, Kat, kind of confusing, isn't it? So, it looks like #92 was used as a 2 family home, even if for a short while. I wonder why they list 3 for Trafton and 4 for Cook, yet they name only 2 people under Trafton's name and 5 under Cook's, whats that all about anyway? Is that just some sort of numbering system and not the amount of people per family?

[Nancie]

frustrating i can't read what you are posting, can't see the pix, but I trust your research. I am concluding that for a short time the Borden house did serve two families.

[FairhavenGuy]

Susan and Kat,

The heading at the top says "Families NUMBERED in the order of visitation." It has nothing to do with how many people. If you keep reading down the page, you'll see after 2, 3, 4, it goes 5, 6, etc.

[Kat]

Sorry about your not being able to see:

[Kat]

frustrating i can't read what you are posting, can't see the pix, but I trust your research. I am concluding that for a short time the Borden house did serve two families.

Nancie: Please go back a page and you can see the pictures I put up- I suppose Debbie will be able to as well?

[Doug]

The woman who lived upstairs from the Bowens was named Mary Wyatt. This is from the Witness Statements, page 20.

"Mrs. Mary Wyatt, No. 91 Second St. This woman lives over Dr. Bowen. It is she who first told Mr. M. Chace, L. Winslow, and several others who were standing in front of Wade's, about the crime. She dodged us for a week or more; and when finally seen, positively refused to be interviewed."

This report was made by Officers Harrington and Doherty.

Mrs. Wyatt was evidently home at the time the crime was discovered; perhaps she heard Bridget downstairs talking to Phoebe Bowen or Mrs. Bowen called up to tell Mrs. Wyatt of the occurrence. I have never seen Mrs. Wyatt's name among those of the women who visited the Borden house on August 4; she may not have been friendly with Lizzie or simply did not want to get involved. It would be interesting to know if she saw or heard anything out of the ordinary that morning. Apparently she told the police nothing.

[Kat]

Thanks Doug. Maybe she was of an age with Southard Miller- methinks he did not want to get involved either.
He actually pulled a witness off the street to hear what Bridget had to say so he need not be called to testify. Maybe it is an ancient Fall River custom- like Andrew would probably refuse to be involved if Mr. Miller had been the victim?

[Nancie]

thanks for the clearer attachment Kat!
yes Doug, sure sounds like miss wyatt didn't want to get involved, nor has anyone for over 100 years! except Ruby, I'm still thinkin on that theory!
Why does it say families of visitation? Does that mean they just visited or did they live there?

[Kat]

The familys were visited by the census taker and they were numbered as to when the family's info was recorded. A family, or the person ablest to give census information may not be home on several visits and so the order in which they were seen is recorded.

[Susan]

Thank you, FairhavenGuy and Kat! Well, that makes much more sense now, amazing the things you miss if you don't have the full picture!

[Allen]

I have a question. It was said that the little room at the top of the stairs which the Borden's used a dress closet might have been used for a bedroom at one time. This is an awfully small room. It's just a small bathroom now.I can't imagine it as a bedroom.Were any renovations made to the house?Any rooms resized?

[Kat]

Harry & I were just talking about this. There might have been more renovation than we know. What we know pretty much is that there was a kitchen where Andrew's bedroom is and he had that dismantled.
Also that there was a divider in what is now the dining room, that made 2 rooms of it, which would correspond with the second floor rooms - Emma's and Mrs. Borden's *dressing room*, and that was removed.
The cellar has had changes- the floor mostly was dirt but now is paved and you can see where thresholds used to be, leaving a mark on the floor, though essentially the layout there is the same.
You may already know this much.
About the clothes press. It seems a decent size- at least in relationship to Emma's room. Here is the past curator's specs on the house- Bill Pavao's floorplan, based on Porter's original.
Please note the measurements comparing the closet and the little bedroom, and you can decide if the room was livable.


pleaseclickonpic

[Allen]

I was going by what I saw when I was inside the room on my visits.It is just a small bathroom now, and the one I used during my stays in the guest room. There was enough room for the toilet,the sink, the shower, a hamper, and that did not look crowded, but a bed? If it was used as a bedroom, I would have to say that was some pretty close quarters.I wouldn't think a double bed would fit in the room, but possibly a single.

[Allen]

Maybe with all the amenities of being fitted out for a bathroom it makes the room look smaller? But I would still have to say only a single bed would possibly fit.

[Kat]

Is 10' 3" x 6' 3" too small?
I think someone opined it was a baby's room?
I don't remember where I read that idea.

Emma's room is 11' 3" x 9' 8"- do they compare at all in size?
It would be interesting to know the dimensions of the attic room where Morse stayed. Since the ceiling is so slanted, his area of living must have been drastically reduced.
Do you recall the attic bathroom? Morse lived there for a year!

[Susan]

I think the babie's room was in Lincoln, when she went to visit the Borden house, I think she said the dress closet was fitted up as such. Will have to check for sure.

[Allen]

I realized after reading your post Kat that the third floor bathroom, and the bathroom adjoining Abby and Andrew's bedroom are two rooms I remember almost nothing about.I recall most of the rooms in the attic.I also double check my video if I feel unsure about something it helps me to remember. Unfortunately, I did not see much of the attic bathroom. When I went up to the third floor it was occupied, and I never did go back to get a look at it again.I can only speculate about it based on my observations in the other of the rooms in the attic.I'd say the slant of the ceilings gave a sort of clostrophobic feel to the two bedrooms toward the rear.Mostly because it gave me the feeling of not enough head room.I am only 5'4" so I guess it would depend on your size also.If you were very tall it might hinder your movement more.But there was enough space to move about comfortably in all the bedrooms and in the sitting room.The statement that the dress closet was once used as a baby's room I found in Lincoln's book on page 34.

"Over the front entry, at the head of the stairs, there was also a walk-in closet which had a window; nowadays it holds a baby's crib."

It might be interesting if we could get up-to-date measurements of the house.

[Kat]

Bill Pavao provided us with the measurements of the first and second floor rather recently.
I think these were compiled within the last 2 or 3 years or so- but I don't know exactly when.
I will include the first floor here so you have access to both.
We don't have the cellar or the attic measurements on any plan like this, though Len Rebello has some good schematics in his book, especially the house cut-a-way, page 48.

pleaseclickonpic

[Allen]

These are floor plans for the way the house should have looked in 1892?