The "cupboard" in Lizzie's room

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu May 27, 2004 2:59 pm

After seeing a photo of it (Thanks Tracy!) I am convinced this was meant as a dual type cupboard/buffet when her room was the dining room of the 2nd floor flat.

The doored panels at the top were probably for plates, etc and the two top drawers for flatware.

The larger drawers at the bottom of the unit indicate they were for table linens. Cabinets and buffets such as this usually have larger drawers at the bottom for tablecloths, etc so that they are not folded too many times and jammed into smaller drawers. When the lower drawer is not as long, it is usually deeper. The old kitchen "cupboards" did not have the same size drawers as they had flour bins and other more useful compartments.

The middle section was probably used as a serving buffet.

Not very fancy, but this house and those apartments were built for economy of space and a built in like this makes sense.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Thu May 27, 2004 3:07 pm

That's what it looks like to me, too. For a few years I was the caretaker at a historical home/museum/private club here in Fairhaven. The "butler's pantry" between the kitchen and the dining room had a similar setup, only it was longer and fancier. (The was in a large "neo-colonial" house built in 1908.) The good plates and glassware were behind the glass doors above, the linens were in the drawers below.

Robert Harry · Post by **Robert Harry** » Thu May 27, 2004 5:30 pm

Many thanks, Audrey--that clears up what has been a mystery for me. The set up must be original to the house. Some of us thought the arrangement had been changed, since some house plans call that thing a "closet." We thought that maybe it had been made into cupboards since Lizzie lived there. But the explanation you give is so logical and lucid, it simply must be true. I, for one, forget that Lizzie's room (and the downstairs sitting room) were originally meant to be dining rooms. The tour guide told us that Andrew had broken down a wall (between what had been 2 small bedrooms downstairs, corresponding to Emma's room and Mrs. Borden's dressing room upstairs) in order to make a larger dining room downstairs. This is evident from the current dining room windows, which are spaced curiously far apart, but would look normal if there was a wall in the middle.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu May 27, 2004 5:47 pm

Looking at the photo again... I can imagine it wasn't all that bad of a unit for Lizzie to use. She could put "pretties" in the glass fronted part and clothing and other items in the drawers.

I am curious as to what is behind those drawers. I would imagine the drawers are built into a frame..

I wonder how much room there is behind the drawers and if they were removed during the search...

And about that search......

How horrible would that be? Even if a person was 100% innocent (nothing to hide).... Strangers coming into your house and looking over every inch of the house-- turning mattresses, searching drawers, closets, etc. I would be sick.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Thu May 27, 2004 6:08 pm

You probably couldn't stuff a bloody dress into the space behind the drawers, but notice the depth between the lower drawer and the floor level. You could certainly pull out that bottom drawer and lay a pretty good sized hatchet or axe underneath. . .

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu May 27, 2004 6:33 pm

This is a little off topic, but I wonder if they ever (God forbid !) bulldoze that house, what would be found in the rubble ?

Tracy...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu May 27, 2004 6:37 pm

Has anyone ever gone through the place with a metal detector?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu May 27, 2004 10:28 pm

It was cited by the curator of the house that Lizzie kept her
washing things and her slop pail in that "Closet" somehow and it had a curtain over it, remember?
I was just getting used to this idea and now it is drawers of clothing?
This built-in piece has always been a mystery.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:03 am

When I was @ the house, I was surprised to see that "built-in" & wondered why I'd never read about it being there.

The Rebello house layouts (both 3-dimensional & flat, pgs 448 & 49), show it as a plain closet.

So, I always thought that "built-in" came POST-Lizzie.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:06 am

That's Rebello pgs 48 & 49, NOT 448 -- sorry but I can't use the edit feature.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:24 am

I have considered that-- but it just doesn't make sense to add a unit such as that to a room INTENDED to be a bedroom.

Since Lizzie's bedroom would have been the "common" room adjacent the kitchen when the 2nd floor was a self contained flat, I think the built in had to have been there when the house was built.

This room is one of the larger, decent sized rooms on the 2nd floor to be used as a bedroom. I doubt someone would remove a closet from a bedroom when it was the only one.

Looking at the drawing of the room,

and seeing the location of the closet in A&A's room I am more convinced that this built in is original to the house and not added later.

The closet in the "master bedroom" is (just like the one in the kitchen) rather deep. The area in Lizzie's room where the built in currently is is very shallow and would not have been a properly sized closet. Likewise-- it doesn't sound like they had rods in the closets-- only nails.

In my opinion-- this was not the area with the curtain covering it..... but if it was-- maybe the curtain was covering it.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Fri May 28, 2004 1:35 pm

Audrey, this diagram/floorplan also looks like a closet with a door.

Downstairs in the sitting room there is now a slightly different "built-in" than the one upstairs...this also shows on all the plans as a regular closet.

I think we need Bill Pavao or Len Rebello to clarify this.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:18 pm

I agree. I think Bill would be the final arbitrator.
The thing is, I was looking in all my books for the floorplans and some show a *closet* with no door open but it is definetly a space- and one or 2 show a door.
They are mostly *after Porter*- what we need is a Kieran and the only Kieran I can find is in The Knowlton Papers, and it's the cellar.
Let me check those plans Bill once posted on our Forum-

Audrey- you make a good case- I'm not necessarilly disputing you- I am just thoroughly confused.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:24 pm

Bill Pavao's rendition of the second floor of #92. I think this was a joint effort with Len Rebello:

please click on pic

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:39 pm

Well, reading Bill's sources made me get out de Mille and look in there.
Sure enough there are floor plans from the Jennings archive, first and second floor which are deemed trial exhibits.
lizzie borden a dance of death, agnes de mille, Little, Brown and Company, Boston- Toronto, 1968.

please click on pic to see larger image:

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:50 pm

If you look at the detail above you can see that the area measured that corresponds to the chimney and closet are 3'7" which is 43".

The size of a standard "full sized" mattress is 53".

So.... Take 10" off a full sized bed and then imagine two closets with this amount of space.

Does anyone know of the dimensions of the closet in the kitchen?

I am going to submit this-- we are having more weather-- and I can hear the hail on the windows now--- and the lights are flickering!

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat May 29, 2004 9:07 am

It seems to me that from the measurements given the "closet" on Lizzie's side wouldn't been much more than a foot deep. That ain't much of a closet. I think the built-in is probably original. I think they called it a closet, as in the definition below.

The Modern Webster Dictionary, The World Syndicate Publishing Co., 1940:

CUPBOARD (kub erd), n. a closet for holding cups plates, etc.

Can somebody check an earlier dictionary?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat May 29, 2004 12:10 pm

Can you all read the measurements of Lizzie's closet in the de Mille exhibit?
My problem is not with the dimensions or the term closet or cupboard, - it is whether there was a door there which was removed for a curtain to be put there instead- by Lizzie?
That's why I'm confused.
If it has a door- one door, it's a space that might run the heigth of the area-
What I picture from the sources so far cited (news items and photos and testimony) is a place that might still possibly have shelves within, either top or bottom- but some place as well that can hold Lizzie's (and possibly Emma's whose room this once was) *toilet*. I don't necessarilly think of it as something that can be entered and used as a closet, but a place that at the least could store the girl's washing things and slop pail.

It might be possible that the Historical Society has the Kieran drawings of the floor plans.
These shown in de Mille are from Waring and the defense- they may have commisioned their own.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat May 29, 2004 12:24 pm

The de Mille exhibit makes it appear as the built in is original to the house-- it shows no door-- and what appears to be the "lip" of the serving surface and how the bottom of the unit is larger than the top.

Since the unit appears so very much like a dining hutch I am still convinced it was original to the house and used when Lizzie's room was a common room-- perhaps the dining room of the 2nd floor flat.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat May 29, 2004 12:46 pm

Kat,

Look at the photo of the cupboard again. Resting right there on the countertop, on the left side, is a chamber pot. That would be the "toilet" in Lizzie's room for use at night. That's it.

The diagram with the yellow and green dots, shows a curtained area in a corner where it was supposed Lizzie's wash stand stood. The wash stand usually held a bowl with a pitcher of water for washing, and the slop pail below, into which the dirty water would be poured. The chamber pot may be on the wash stand, too, or under the bed.

You'll find set-ups like this in most historic homes you visit.

Later that evening. . .

I'm editing in some sizes from the 1902 Sears catalog.

Chamber pots:
size #1 is 7x4 1/2 inches,
#1 1/2 is 8 1/2 x 4 7/8 inches,
#2 is 9 3/4 x 5 1/2 inches
(These are blue enamelware chamber pots. The largest costs 62 cents.)

Slop Jar/Chamber Pails:
Painted metal pails with covers and bail handles
The largest holds 14 quarts and is 11 1/4 x 12 1/4 inches.

There is also a "Challenge Oderless Commode and Slop Bucket Combined." It looks like a bucket with a removeable seat. There's an inner cover with a recepticle to hold disinfectant (2 tablespoons of chloride of lime). "It is impossible for foul air to escape." There's no size given, but it holds only 9 quarts, so the capacity, at least, is less than the big chamber pail.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Sun May 30, 2004 10:55 am

Could the curtain have been Lizzie's attempt to conceal the fact that the built-in was designed for a dining room rather than a bedroom? I can imagine that dining room piece causing her no end of shame and agitation.

--Lyddie

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:52 am

For what its worth, I found this in the LB Society Archives under Stay to Tea; Topic is William A. Davis started on March 27, 2002:

235. "Re: Location of the Sitting Room Sofa"
Posted by Susan on Jul-25th-03 at 9:38 PM
In response to Message #233.
Yes, thank you for the info, Bill. I have a question about the Borden house. In Lizzie's room and in the sitting room are these built-in things, in the sitting room its a bookcase. In Lizzie's room its this dresser, shelving, hutch combo thing. I was curious if these were original to the house or added on at a later date as every house plan I've ever seen drawn of the Borden house shows these as closets? The trim certainly matches the rest of the house. Thanks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236. "Re: Built-ins"
Posted by Bill Pavao on Jul-25th-03 at 9:50 PM
In response to Message #235.
Wow!!! Great observation!!!!

You are correct. According to the 1892 floorplans the built-in shelves in the sitting room and in Lizzie's room were closets at that time.

The area in Lizzie's room that is now a hutch was a closet in 1892 without a door. Lizzie had a curtain hanging in front of it. If my memory serves me correctly, the curtain was red. Inside this open area is where Lizzie kept her washbowl and chamber pot.

I will have to look-up the dimensions of the sitting room and the parlor. I have them here in a folder.....I'll let you know. Interestingly, the ceilings on the first floor are higher than the ceilings on the second floor by several inches (I want to say six or eight inches, I cannot remember off the top of my head.)

Thanks!!
Bill

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:49 pm

Bill cleared that up later- the ceiling heights -by allowing us access to his floorplans..
The first floor ceilings are 8'9" and the second floor are 8'4".
Thanks Susan.
I have written to Dennis at FRHS to see if they have the Kieran plans.

Here is the first floor plan by Bill Pavao and Len Rebello:

pleaseclickonpic

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:59 pm

I am not ready to concede that the unit was added later. It makes little sense to add such a thing to a bedroom. If they had made it with all drawers-- perhaps yes-- but a hutch like unit to a room, which at the time was a bedroom?

I have read somewhere that the house was once used for multi-purpose activities-- a business downstairs and living quarters up? If so-- then perhaps I will have to at least decide to re-think my position.....

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:44 pm

Your position is absolutely fine, Audrey.
You have looked and thought and had an opinion and you are not the only one with that view.
I am the one confused and to me the Kieran plans would be the ultimate answer.
It is obviously a debatable subject and it is good that we get all opinions. I like stuff like this. We all learn something.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:48 pm

Exactly!

This forum is one of the best I have ever seen for people being able to share ideas and opinions and learn and grow from the ones others post! I love it!

I just feel so frustrated! One moment I am convinced of something and then someone posts a bit of testimony or other source document and I have to totally rethink what I was certain of moments before reading it!

So many contradictions and so many clues to chase!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:51 pm

Oh dear and it gives me a selfish reason to talk to Dennis at the FRHS again whom I love.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:44 pm

This isn't a poll, but I share Audrey's feeling the built-in could very well be original.

I can't see that cupboard being entirely covered by a curtain, though. Perhaps a decorative curtain was tacked below the glass doors, hanging to the top of the drawers.

If it was a "real" closet, was it supposed to have only a curtain and no door or a curtain in front of a door or what? If a curtain in front of a door, why? We have locked doors to nowhere all over those rooms. Why hide a door with a curtain?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:39 pm

You're welcome, Kat. Bill Pavao is of the belief that the built-in in Lizzie's room and in the sitting room were after she lived there. Also that there was no door on the closet in Lizzie's room, hence the curtain to hide her toilet things. He was on intimate terms with the Borden house, so, I don't know if this is from him knowing from investigation or from the same sources we have? Wish he was still here to ask.

One thing I thought of was has anyone checked the built-in in Lizzie's room at all? Pulled out the drawers and looked at them? Do they look handmade or machine made? I did a search and came up with some info that may apply:

Benchmade - This quaint term refers to an interim step between handmade and machine-made. In the few small craft shops that still exist, reproductions are made the way they have been made for nearly 100 years. Modern machinery is used for the heavy work, but most of the precision work, including carving, is still done by hand. Each joint is individually cut and assembled manually to ensure a tight fit; each panel is hand sanded and the finish is hand rubbed. In addition to staying true to the original design as much as is possible, each piece is made on a craftsman's bench rather than on an assembly line. The quality in most benchmade pieces, whether made in 1910 or 1999, is evident.

Construction - How a piece is made is often the clearest indicator of its age since the technology of any period usually leaves tangible clues, but the clues can be tricky. The difference between handmade dovetail joints and machine-made joints is almost always the first clue to look for, if the piece has drawers. Because the gang router that makes machine joints was not in general use until the 1890s, machine joints are a pretty good indication of 20th-century work. It couldn't have been much before. But do handmade joints mean antiquity? Not necessarily

If a drawer has a perfectly smooth bottom, both top and under side, and all drawer sides are the same, then it probably is not handmade but rather has been planed and sanded by machine or perhaps even made of plywood. The same applies to side panels and tops. Bear in mind the concept of "workman-like manner." In the days of hand production, if a piece of wood was not seen or did not have to be smooth, it was not. Nor was it stained and finished. The pieces were only as good as they had to be.

From this site: http://www.antiqueweek.com/stories/tmfe ... ture72.htm

Then there is the hardware on the cabinet doors and the drawer pulls, are they the original hardware to the built-in? That would be something to check on also. Weren't old drawer pulls bolted on the back instead of being screwed on? I guess you would need someone who was an antiques wiz to figure it out, but, just an idea.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:57 pm

Slightly OT but in the same area. I spotted this little article in the Oct. 18, 1893 New York Times.

Note how it says the house has been refitted to serve two tenants. I wonder what modifications, if any, were made to accomodate this.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 10:52 am

Thanks, Harry, thats a great find! I wonder what was done to refit it into two tenements? If we know who the house was eventually sold to and when it was made into a one family dwelling again we might have some answers.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:38 pm

Harry, the article wasn't really OT at all. Refitting in 1893, probably means pretty good workmanship and matching of existing trim, etc. Since a hunk of the door jamb downstairs was removed as evidence, there was obviously work done downstairs, too.

If the current owners or other researchers haven't already done this, every change of ownership of the property can be traced through the Bristol County Registry of Deeds, back to the time the land was owned by the Indians. The data is not accessible online, though. One has to go to Taunton or New Bedford and go back from book to book. The city of Fall River tax assessor's office may have property records that go back that far. They may or may not be easy to get.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 9:21 pm

Rebello has some information on residents and owners of #92:

Page 24: That Southard Miller built the house for Charles Trafton in 1845.

page 34+

"Residents of 92 Second Street

1845 to 1849 House built for Charles Trafton by Southard H. Miller
1850 to 1871 Charles Trafton, overseer of carding
1872 to 1894 Andrew J. Borden, businessman, Emma and Lizzie
1895 to 1897 Asa Gifford, janitor, Music Hall
1899 to 1920 Marcus A. Townsend, carpenter
1921 to 1948 Mendel Mark, manufacturing / stationary
1948 to 1995 John R. and Josephine McGinn
1996 -- Lizzie Borden Bed and Breakfast / Museum
1998 -- William Pavao, Jr., Archivist

There were no city directories prior to 1853 to show who occupied the home from 1845-1853. However, the 1850 atlas shows the Borden home with Charles Trafton as owner. The Registry of Deeds in Fall River shows Mr. Charles Trafton purchased the property in 1845 and built the Second Street home. Records at the Registry of Deeds listed the sale of the property to Andrew J. Borden in 1872. There were many other residents who were tenants at the Second Street home but are not listed.

Owners of Second Street

1845 to 1872 Charles C. Trafton, the original owner, sold the home to Andrew J. Borden on April 26, 1872.

1872 to 1918 Andrew J Borden and his wife owned the home until they were murdered. Emma and Lizzie inherited the family home. They owned the home until they sold it to John W. Dunn on June 15, 1918. It had been reported that Emma and Lizzie sold the home when they moved to French
Street. (Maplecroft) in 1893.
[Actually, the NYT snippet Harry posted shows the house was rented out by October, 1893.]

1918 to 1920 John W. Dunn sold the Second Street home to Mandel Mark on February 2, 1920.

1920 to 1940 Mandel Mark sold the property to The Fall River Trust Co. on March 27, 1940.

1940 to 1943 The Fall River Trust Co. sold the Second Street home to Wilfred J. and Alice A. Gingras on September 3, 1943.

1943 to 1948 Wilfred and Alice Gingras sold the property to Smart Advertising, Inc. on December 7, 1948.

1948 to Present Smart Advertising, Inc."
(That is Martha McGinn and Simone Evans)

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 2:25 am

Thanks, Kat. I guess it would make sense if Emma and Lizzie chose not to sell the house immediately to make it into two tenements. I guess it would be easier to rent a flat than a whole house and get two incomes from the whole.

william · Post by **william** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 10:04 am

Webster's International Dictionary, 1891:

!. A board or a shelf for cups and dishes.

2. A small closet in a room with shelves to receive cups, dishes, food etc.; hence any small closet.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 6:12 pm

What word is being defined, please, William?
I checked back a few posts but I can't find it.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 7:48 pm

This thread is bugging me because in the house I
grew up in, an Old Victorian like Lizzies nothing fancy, two rooms had a closet like that. Both my room and my parent's room had an alcove with a
closet, 3 or 4 drawers and a big space on top. The space must have been for the chamber pot. Our
"butler's pantry" had closets like in the pix with glass. I don't think the pix is original to the house,
as far as Lizzie's room is concerned.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:20 pm

But the point, Nancie, is that at the time the Bordens bought the house, Lizzie's room was not a bedroom. The second floor was a completely separate apartment and the room that became Lizzie's was a dining area, hence the "butler's pantry" type set-up was more appropriate for that room.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:21 pm

I just did an exhaustive search on built-ins and what I've found so far is that built-in furniture was something from the tail end of the Arts & Crafts movement. While it might not answer all of our questions about the Borden home, it sounds as though the built-ins were from a later time period. It started with homes built in the late 1890s on until the 1930s. The only type of built-in furniture I could find listed in any Victorian home was those corner china cabinets which have been around since the Colonial era. Built-ins came into vogue with the advent of the Bungalow, early 1900s, the idea being a smaller home, less storage space and no servants.

Few design philosophies have cast houses in a new mold like the Arts & Crafts Movement, and few features bring together so many of its forward-thinking ideas as the legendary built-in. Though examples of these innovative pieces of "permanent furniture" are still doing service in bungalows, Foursquares, and even Tudor- and Dutch Colonial Revival houses from 1900 to 1930.

Reactions and Inventions
Like so many things Arts & Crafts, built-ins were part of a wave of reform—an aesthetic about-face from the prevailing tastes of the Victorian era and a charge in new directions. Rejecting the mass-produced, overwrought furniture of the late 19th century (and the eclectic houses and interiors that went with it), designers sought to unify the house's design elements while simplifying the occupants' lifestyles—a functional necessity in the smaller, servantless suburban houses of the early automobile era. Their solution was not only to coordinate pieces of furniture with the overall architecture of the house but also to fuse them into the structure with seamless schemes and cunning joinery.

Pantries were not an option in the majority of smaller, Arts & Crafts houses, so a built-in sideboard or "buffet" was all-important for berthing flatware and linens. In the best layouts, it could be built into an alcove so the drawer fronts were flush with the wall, and the mirrored counter was a recess. At the least it was solidly anchored to the wall as a footless mass and commonly ordered as a prefab unit from a millwork manufacturer.

Even bathrooms and bedrooms benefited from the built-in concept. In-wall medicine cabinets and tubs first appeared during the built-in heyday, but there were fold-up seats and built-in linen cases too. Disappearing beds, such as the famous Murphy In-A-Door bed, freed floor space during daylight hours while built-in dressing tables—actually a vanity and drawers flush in the wall—barely entered the room.

From this site: http://www.oldhousejournal.com/magazine ... -ins.shtml

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:40 pm

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Susan,

I'm still swaying back and forth on this issue, but your exhaustive research makes me lean toward it being a post-Lizzie built-in, now. Most Victorian cabinetry, even in the kitchen, was free-standing, now that I think of it.

Now I have a little research to do.

Okay. . . back after having done a bit of research. As I had suspected, the Shakers were innovators in the built-in cabinetry department long before the Arts & Crafts movement. New England Shaker homes from the late 1700s into the mid-1800s had built-in cabinets with combinations of doors and drawers.

Closer to what we're looking at, though, is similar to the the built-in buffet. This, too appeared long before the Arts and Crafts movement. It appears in the 1700s as related in the article below.

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/arti ... i_54682882

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:30 am

You're welcome, FairhavenGuy, and thank you for the additional info. When I said I did an exhaustive search, I meant I ran out of resources to check. Do you have any more built-in cabinet info for the Victorian period? The target dates would be between 1845 when the Borden home was completed on up to the 1890s. The only other thing I could find with built-ins for the period would be a butler's pantry, but, that seems to have only been in the grander homes of the wealthy.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:24 pm

Susan, I have to go back to the library and take out this book:

The Patina of Place: The Cultural Weathering of a New England Industrial Landscape. By Kingston Wm. Heath. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2001. xxiv, 249 pp. $55.00, ISBN 1-57233-138-0.)

I read this a couple of years ago, but need to see what it might say about built-ins. It's primarily about "three-decker" tenements in New Bedford, but it describes earlier tenement design and it even details the evolution of one particular building as its apartments were transformed and modernized over the years.

My mother recommended it to me because she had grown up in one of these and I remember visiting my great aunts and my grandparents in apartments of this type.

Here's a bit of a review from the Journal of American History:

"Kingston Wm. Heath has written the first full history of industrial worker housing in a single city and the best and most thoughtful analysis of the New England "three-decker," the ubiquitous housing form that so characterized its cities. The book deserves a wide readership among historians of labor, family, and immigration. It also offers a sympathetic and contrarian view of what it means to "preserve" vernacular forms. 1
"The city is New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Heath takes us through its history as the world's premier whaling port from roughly 1829 to 1857 to its subsequent rise as a major producer of fine cottons in the years from 1880 to 1910."

Incidentally the traditional "bungalow" layout, adopted by the Arts & Crafts movement, developed earlier on the east coast and is really a single-family version of the tenement layout.

Edited about 47 *@%#!! times by FairhavenGuy, who has gotta learn to type with more than one finger.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:01 pm

Yea me too, FHG.
At this point I feel we are assuming the room was a dining room, which we really don't know for sure. We may never know to what use different tenants put that room.

I just watched "Below The Hill"- the movie made in Fall River- and those flats were pretty small, one bedroom and one little living room and they ate in the kitchen. That was in the early 1960's.
For all we know, a tenant could sub-rent out that room (which became Lizzie's) and in that way, pay his own rent and make some extra.

-see, there's an edit...

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:26 pm

I don't think Lizzie's room was ever a dining room.
IF that house was ever 2 families (which I find no evidence of). The house was built in 1845 for a Charles Tafton who lived there till 1872 when he sold to Andrew. It could hardly be called a "tenement flat". I think the piece in lizzie's room was redone, the glass added. I think when she lived there, it was just the drawers and the shelf above which she put a curtain over.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:02 pm

FairhavenGuy, that sounds like a great place to look! It would be nice to have a solid answer to the built-in question. The libraries in California are horrible, so few books on major subjects, I miss the east coast libraries! But, we do have some wonderful examples of early Bungalows here, they really are wonderful homes, so many nice things like the built-in glass front bookcases, tiled fireplaces and such.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:05 am

Trafton, I believe, rented it out as two "tenement" floors. A family to each floor and possibly sharing the attic space.
We know of two more tenents who did not make the list:
George Pettee who moved out before the Bordens moved in and the owner who stayed in the house after the Borden's moved in until he could move into his own house (implied in Lizzie's inquest testimony).
Also later in the 1900's, Hyman Lubinsky lived there, of all people!

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:57 am

I wonder if Lubinsky got a break on the rent. Lizzie & Emma would have been his landladies @ the time.

Thanks Susan for that info. I always thought the built-in style was too late to have been in Lizzie's day & I can't get past all the source docs listing those areas as plain closets.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:12 pm

Inquest
Lizzie
47
Q. How long had your father been married to your stepmother?
A. I think about twenty-seven years.
Q. How much of that time have they lived in that house on Second street?
A. I think, I am not sure, but I think about twenty years last May.
Q. Always occupied the whole house?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Somebody told me it was once fitted up for two tenements.
A. When we bought it it was for two tenements, and the man we bought it of stayed there a few months until he finished his own house. After he finished his own house and moved into it there was no one else ever moved in; we always had the whole.

--Since Trafton had the place built, it was probably he who lived with the Bordens. She doesn't say they shared the house with him, but it has seemed implied to me.

Trial
Pettee
644
GEORGE A. PETTEE, Sworn.

Q. (By Mr. Moody.) George A. Pettee, is it?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You live in Fall River, Mr. Pettee?
A. I do.

Q. How long have you lived there?
A. 54 years.

Q. How long did you know Mr. Borden before his death---Andrew Borden?
A. Since I was a young boy.

Q. Had you ever lived in the Borden house---what we have called the Borden house?
A. I have, yes, sir.

Q. When did you cease to live there?
A. 22 years ago last March.

Q. Were you the tenant preceding Mr. Borden, or one of them?
A. One of them: yes, sir.

Q. In what part of the house did you live, the upper or lower?
A. The upper part.

--Pettee was allowed in Thursday.

...Q. Now, then, what did you do?
A. Well, I passed right into the room where Mr. Borden was. Dr. Bowen was in the act of covering him with a sheet when I went in. When he saw me approaching he took the sheet away and gave me an opportunity

Page 646

to look at him. After I had looked at him what time I thought was necessary, I stood back and he covered him up.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:59 pm

I was thinking those people were more like borders
in the house. If you imagine a full kitchen, dining
room and parlor on each floor, plus having to allow
for separate entrances, it doesn't leave room for but one bedroom?

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 7:26 pm

As I'm sure you must know, Nancie, the Borden's dining room was originally two small bedrooms. The "sitting room" was probably the dining area, since that is the case with most tenement/bungalow style layouts.

Although in many overcrowded tenements the rooms served multi purposes, the "official layout" around here was generally like this, from the street back: on one side Parlor, Dining Area, Kitchen; on the other side Bedroom, Bedroom, and maybe a third bedroom (or a bath in later apartments.)

The front hall and the back hall were common areas.

There are literally thousands of buildings like this in the Fall River/New Bedford area, still in use today. They were built for mill workers, for the most part, and in many cases they were owned by the mills themselves, who rented the flats to their own employees.

The Borden house is a very common form of the early "two tenement" housing built in the mid-1800s. By the late 1800s, more "three deckers" were being built. They eliminated the wasteful attic with a pitched roof, added a third tenement on top of the second, and made the roof either flat or a shallowly pitched "Dutch cap" roof.

Some two tenements like the Borden's were converted into single family homes. That's a lot harder to do with a three tenement building, so most of those are still three family apartments today.