The City Record and Boston News-Letter

Developing Jones Hill

A recent commenter on my posting about 40 Hancock Street noted that Dorchester is dense by suburban standards, but not by urban standards.  The irony is that much of Dorchester initially served as a suburban alternative to Boston proper in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.   Jones Hill had more density (if we measure density  by people per acre) fifty years ago then it has today.  The decline in population has been somewhat offset  by an increased number of dwelling units with the conversion of some single family homes into apartments or condominium units.  One can argue that the neighborhood could become more dense with houses and people, given the decline from historic levels.   But density isn't solely about the number of people per acre or the number of dwelling units.  Density manifests itself in many other guises: noise, traffic, trash, among other issues.  The density of cars has increased, for example.  On a hill where offstreet parking is scarce, the conversion of a single family home into three condominium units can double or triple the number of cars associated with the property.  The commenter argues that sometimes too much value is placed on having green open space.  I would counter by saying that in many cases it isn't the green open space itself that is valued (vacant lots in and of themselves aren't useful and most people prefer parks), it is the absence of yet another structure that people prize. 

The debate over density and its concomitant effects should inform how we view infill housing and the effect new construction has on a neighborhood.  Out of this debate should come a better set of standards for evaluating the impact of new development at the neighborhood level.  The simplest way to preserve the character of a neighborhood is  the renovation and rehabilitation of the existing building stock.  This won't always be possible and sometimes a building will need to be torn down and replaced or a vacant lot will be built upon.  It is in these cases that particular care needs to be taken to understand how the proposed development will affect the life of the neighborhood. 

An Upscale Lifestyle Magazine By Any Other Name

MassINC, publisher of the magazine CommonWealth, has filed a lawsuit to prevent a publishing company, Niche Media, from starting a new magazine called Boston Commonwealth.  MassINC is charging trademark infringement and will likely prevail, in my layman's opinion.  According to the Boston Globe the attorney for Niche Media has stated: ''MassINC is improperly claiming an exclusive right to the term 'Commonwealth,' which is in the public domain and is widely used throughout Massachusetts and beyond."

As the publisher of the City Record and Boston News-Letter, I feel obliged to give Niche Media two pieces of advice.  First, if you're going to try to publish a periodical with the same title as another periodical, do as I did and take your title from periodicals whose publishers are long dead.  John Campbell and Abel Bowen aren't coming back from the grave (I hope) to sue me for trademark infringement.  Second, a piece of advice about using the word "Commonwealth" in the title of a magazine about luxury lifestyles.  Don't.

Sure, commonwealth has the word "wealth" in it, which I suppose is what makes it attractive, and Commonwealth Avenue is a pretty well-heeled street.  But the concept of a commonwealth is the antithesis of what the magazine seeks to promote.  As I've noted in a previous post on the early history of Dorchester, the people who founded Massachusetts had a very clear concept that while private property existed, much of what was public domain was held for the common good and that people existed within a system of mutual obligation.

Remarks on the 375th Anniversary of the Founding of First Parish Church in Dorchester

First Parish Church in Dorchester
“To Tend to the Generall Goode”
Remarks on the 375th Anniversary of First Parish Church in Dorchester
Sunday, March, 20, 2005
J. Charles Swift, Church Historian

(not as delivered)

I would like to take the opportunity to greet everyone this morning, with the words spoken by the Rev. Thaddeus Mason Harris on the occasion of First Parish Church moving into the fifth meeting house on December 2, 1816.

“We behold too, convened in one assembly, those from whom we have been divided, and some to whom we have been strangers; who come to congratulate us on this auspicious occasion, to unite in the same acknowledgements of gratitude, and to mingle accordant voices in the same anthems of praise.”

Most of us here are Dorchester residents by choice, not by birth. This would not have been the case in 1816, when many parishioners could still trace their ancestry to the early settlers of Dorchester. While a few of us here today trace our ancestry back to the passengers on the Mary and John, most of us have ancestors who made their own journeys overseas more recently and I’m sure even as I speak someone new is arriving in Dorchester to make this place their home. Newcomer or not, we all adopt the identity of a “Dorchesterian”.

I want to talk a little today about the earliest history of First Parish and the beginnings of Dorchester. Dorchester’s history is overshadowed by that of Boston. Even the site of Dorchester’s greatest claim to fame in the American Revolution, Dorchester Heights in South Boston, was taken from Dorchester by the legislature in 1804 and awarded to Boston at the behest of Boston based real estate speculators.

Few outside of Dorchester know that Dorchester was founded before Boston, if only by a few months. I bring up Dorchester’s founding date because Dorchester’s settlement marked an unusual experiment in New England’s history: the earliest settlers of this town gathered in England, formed a congregation, and emigrated as a congregation with ministers. The Rev. John White of Dorchester England, the impetus for the Dorchester settlement, was one of the originator s of the movement for the Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter. White and others raised money to put a colony in New England—an investment opportunity, which resulted in Salem. Salem almost failed, but White was not deterred, and continued to encourage settlement.

Boston Population 2004

[Update: I'm interested in why so many people are searching for the population of Boston in 2004.  Shoot me an email and let me know.  Thanks--The Editor.  Entry edited 28 February 2005]

[Update:  The Boston Redevelopment Authority has the 2000 Census data broken down by neighborhood.  You can find it here. 18 March 2005]

I've had  quite a few people searching for the population of Boston in 2004.  The 2000 Census showed a population of 589,141, an increase from 1990's 574,823.  The Boston metropolitan area population is around 2.9 million.  Anything more recent is an estimate.  My guess is that Boston's population has increased slightly since then based mostly on my own perceptions, nothing more.  In past years, a state census (or was it a city census?--I can't remember which) would be conducted mid-decade.  I believe this practice ended in the 1960s.  Boston's population peaked in 1950, at 801,444.

Historical Inaccuracy, Part 1

I usually don’t get too worked up about historical errors I see, but there have been two in the past two days that have really bothered me.  The second error can be found here. In part, they result from sheer laziness I think—we’re not talking about the finer points of the XYZ Affair here—and with even modest research, say five minutes on the Internet, could have been avoided.

The Improper Bostonian has an article on Dorchester in their March 9-22, 2005 issue. Now, I’m agnostic on the question of the Improper. Some people really despise it, some people I suppose really enjoy it. I pick it up and read it, just like I pick up the Bay State Banner, Bay Windows, the Dorchester Reporter, the Boston Globe/Phoenix/Herald, the South End News or any of the myriad other publications about Boston. I’m a historian of Boston so I need to know what’s going on around town. I’m not certain I fit into their target demographic, but now that my hill in Dorchester has been written up in the Improper’s article “Hot Dot”, I may find myself being included against my will.

Water, WiFi, and Wherewithal

[Feb 2006: an updated version of this post can be found here, so please read the updated version]

[edited 2 March 2005--see the end of the essay for additional information on the aqueduct]

[update 19 April 2005--The Town of Brookline (and the story of how Brookline didn't become a part of Boston is worthy of a blog entry) is considering a wireless network which would encompass the town.  You can read about it for the next few days here.]

Using historical analogies is a difficult business.  Too often the analogy breaks down in the details because, except for very broad comparisons, history doesn’t really repeat itself and the contexts in which decisions were made are difficult to reproduce.  With that disclaimer in place, I’m going to use an analogy today.  I came across a blog this morning that raises an interesting question about whether or not WiFi (wireless high speed internet access) should be public infrastructure. 

As my regular readers know, I’ve been working on the Boston Almanac Project this year, republishing the entries for all of the Boston events and fires found in the 1838 and 1841 Boston almanacs.  There is much more in the almanacs than the events and fires however, including a list of all the places where water was available to the public in Boston in 1838.  These public water spots co-existed with a private entity, the Boston Aqueduct Company, which delivered water for a fee.  These parallel delivery systems bring me to WiFi networks.  But first, a little history.

Private companies financed the bulk of capital intensive infrastructure projects in late 18th and early 19th century Boston.  Boston’s town government faced opposition to taxation and had limited revenue opportunities, which made capital formation difficult.  Private investors filled the void by forming companies to build bridges (see this post), turnpikes, water delivery systems and other infrastructure.  In turn, the companies charged tolls and fees to recoup their expenses.  In order to build the projects, the private companies had to obtain a corporate charter from the state. These corporate charters often included mention of the public benefits of the project because the state realized that it was granting an advantage to the private company to the exclusion of the general public.  This system still exists today in certain industries, with the issue of licenses to television stations as one example.  Along with their general programming, television stations are required to have portions of their schedule devoted to public affairs programming.

Antique Photos: 8 Louisburg Square

I've acquired a set of photos of Boston doorways taken by a photographer from Malden, MA, Herbert A. Hall.  The photos are all of Beacon Hill and I won't hazard a guess as to when they were taken, except to say what one always says when one doesn't know: c. 1900.  They are lovely sepia toned prints and I haven't seen any of them published anywhere.  The photos are numbered and if the ones I have are any indication, there might have been over a hundred of them in the complete collection of which I have eleven or twelve.  If I get around to it, I may try to take some present day photos for comparison.

Now for a little Louisburg Square information. First, click here to see where the name comes from and then continue on to read a little tourist information and the official history of the street.

From Boston: A Guide Book, by Edwin M. Bacon (Boston, 1907).

Louisburg Square, with its inclosed park of lofty trees and diminuitive Italian marble statues of Aristides and Columbus at either end, suggestive of old London residential squares, connects Mt. Vernon with Pinckney Street, the latter with an air of shabby gentility yet borne with decorum.  Blaxton's spring is believed to have been in the middle of this square.  The point is disputed by local historians, the popular location being Spring Lane, north of the Old South Meetinghouse; but the evidence in support of the Louisburg Square situation is accpeted as conclusive by most authorities.  The matter, however, is not of moment, for the town was full of springs when Blaxton "solicited" Winthrop hither. [Editor's note:  The John Winthrop led Puritans had initially settled in Charlestown, but the need for a good source of water brought them across the harbor to Boston.  William Blaxton, who had settled on the Shawmut Peninsula, invited Winthrop to move.  Blaxton is immortalized in Boston's Blackstone Square, among other things.] 

Blaxton's orchard spread back up the hill slope toward this square  His homestead lot of six acres, reserved after his sale of the whole peninsula to the colonists for thirty pounds, occupied the northwesterly slope of the hill, bounded southerly toward the Common and westerly on Charles River, the water's edge then being at the present Charles Street.  His cottage, with its rose garden, was on the hill slope toward the Common, between the present Spruce and Charles Streets.  He moored his boat on the river, presumably at a point which jutted out from the bluff in which the hill ended, on the Charles Street Side.

Washington Street: The Mystery is Solved(?)

I cleaned off my desk today.  Thrilling, no?  I have an old roll top desk with a variety of pigeonholes and other built in storage spaces which means that I periodically have to go through and re-sort the materials inside.  Whilst organizing, I came across some items that may be of interest to my readers, including a few early 19th century maps I had misplaced and a c. 1870 or so photo of the reservoir which used to be behind the Statehouse on Beacon Hill. 

Buried under a number of other books I found A Record of Streets, Alleys, Places, Etc. in the City of Boston, published in 1910 in an edition of 2500 copies.  My regular readers know that I've used the 1894 version of this document extensively so I've never needed to crack open the 1910 edition.  I bought the 1910 edition because it included a facsimile of a broadside printed in 1708 which listed all the streets in Boston in 1708 (there are 110 streets listed, by the way).  However, the 1894 edition is getting a little beat up--the binding is leather and the covers are detached--so I thought this might be the time to switch over to the newer and more durable clothbound edition.  The preface also indicates that the 1910 edition had been updated, so I thought I would look up Washington Street, the subject of a few recent entries.

In my original post on  Washington Street I had wondered why there were different names for different sections of the road that ultimately became Washington Street, a question that had bothered me since the first time I saw John Bonner's 1722 map.  I posited it might have been a way of remembering the locations of houses and businesses at a time when buildings weren't numbered. A reader commented that it was because the people of Boston thought of them as separate streets.  That didn't sound right to me, for reasons I outline here.  When I went to look up the Washington Street entry, I didn't expect to find any new information.  After all, Washington Street was the most important street in Boston.  What new information could the city have possibly found in between the 1894 and 1910 editions?  Well, they found at least a partial answer to my question, that's what.

From A Record of the Streets, Alleys, Places, Etc., in the City of Boston (Boston, 1910).

Washington Street, Boston, Roxbury, and West Roxbury, 1788; from Haymarket Square to Dedham line, thence through Westwood, Norwood, Walpole, Foxboro', Wrentham, North Attleborough, Attleborough and Pawtucket to Providence, R.I.; in the first book of the Town's Records called the "High Street," or "the way leading towards Roxbury"; (italics mine). 

Washington Street, Redux

A commenter on my post on Washington Street suggests that early Bostonians gave different names to different sections of Washington Street because they were considered "separate streets".  The commenter also names Beacon Street as an example of a long street that has always had one name.  Lest I appear pedantic, I'd like to address those observations.

I'm not convinced that early Bostonians thought of the various sections of Washington Street as separate streets--after all, this was the only way out of town so one travelled a single road without deviation to reach Roxbury.  The oldest recorded name for a portion of Washington Street dates from the 1660s, for the Orange Street section--the Newbury, Marlboro, and Cornhill names are first recorded in 1708.  John Bonner's 1722 map shows that the section name changes occur when another major street instersects Washington Street.  Orange Street runs to Essex Street, Newbury Street from Essex to Summer Street, Marlbrough (the map's spelling) from Summer to Milk Street, and Cornhill from Milk to Dock Square.  Now, I suppose one could consider those sections separate streets solely because they had different names and that they would have been thought of separately.  But I don't believe the street sections themselves were created at different times--after all, from the earliest days of Boston people had a need to reach the mainland.  So the question remains--were the name changes part of mnemonic device to aid in recalling where specific places were along the road in the days before the numbering of buildings?  Or were these really considered separate and distinct streets?  Or, most likely, is the logic of the names lost to us today?

Mass Ave History

I had believed that Boston streets (within Boston proper) followed a naming convention by which streets changed name as they crossed over Washington Street, in honor of the first President.  Summer becomes Winter, Essex becomes Boylston, and streets in the South End switch from East to West.  My earlier entry on Washington Street states the naming convention to be fact.  But an 1837 map shows Orange Street on both sides of Washington Street.  This made me wonder--why didn't Orange Street change names?  Then I started to wonder if the story I had always believed was in fact wrong.  A quick research check shows that at least a few of the East/West streets in the South End appeared in 1868--Canton Street was layed out in 1826 but the names East and West Canton Streets are approved in April of 1868.  Chances look good that the conventional wisdom is wrong.   

Whatever the truth of the naming convention, if you ask anyone, and by anyone I mean anyone who can find their way around Boston, to name a street that doesn't change its name as it crosses Washington Street and almost all of them will have the same answer, "Mass Ave." For our out of town friends, Mass Ave appears on the maps as Massachusetts Avenue.  But why does Mass Ave have the privilege of keeping its name as it crosses over Washington Street?  Geography, as always, played a role.