Hi JeffersonLH! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Blaze The Wolf (talk).
I don't know what the author meant by "major renovations," but honestly, neither did the author. I often encountered this same issue while studying the tax digests, because "improvements" on a lot made no distinction between alterations, additions or a complete on-site rebuild. An example: Catherine Deveaux's House at 513 East York in Greene Ward dates to 1853... sort of and mostly. She'd owned the lot since 1818 and the current structure is either the second or third iteration on the spot; the 1854 tax digest saw the lot's valuation increase significantly... so was it a rebuild or similar "major renovations" that resulted in the house we deem today an 1853 structure? It's a bit of interpretive license. The Mary Morrison book and the MPC's 2011 survey [1] both date 420 East St. Julian ("20 St. Julian" was just its pre-1897 address) to 1868, but lacking any concrete alternative I would not take issue with applying some license, such as some "by 1868" or "possibly prior to..." or whatever you would feel is appropriate. My two cents. JeffersonLH (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"SCHWAAB.-- The friends and acquaintances of Mr. Augustus Schwaab are respectfully invited to attend his funeral, from his late residence, No. 7 Duffy street, east, at 4 o'clock, this afternoon." (fourth column, top)
In 1874 he advertised his office at "135 1/2 Bay street" (old style address, but between Bull and Whitaker), which he maintained as late as my 1884 city directory copy, and he had a son, Gustavus, who married one Sadie McDowell of McDonough Street in November, 1896.
I found a reference to the store being damaged (only a tad) in the 1804 hurricane. It's mentioned (in the second column) here as being "under the bluff", so it would be the same location. We have 1810 as the construction date currently. Seasider53 (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was its prior iteration; nothing left of that older frame structure. Archibald Smith owned the lot by no later than 1796, but there were multiple iterations of many of these riverfront buildings. The reason this 1804 source would not be referring to the current building is the telltale distinction of his stores being "under the bluff" while at the same time they refer (in the first column) to Commerce Row as "above the Bluff"; any structure that did not rise level to the bluff was characterized as "under the bluff." It was in 1810 that advertisements appeared in the Republican & Savannah Evening Ledger promoting "Mr. Archibald Smith's new Fire Proof Stores" ("fire proof" simply meaning brick and/or stone construction), and it became the first wharf complex east of the Exchange to rise above the bluff. JeffersonLH (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on the article of the above, and have read a note that, prior to the move to Commercial Row, his business was located across the street at the "southwestern corner of Whitaker and Bay Street", but I'm wary of taking it literally (that is, it could have been the building to the west on Bay Street or the building to the south on Whitaker). Do you have any information in your impressive annals? Seasider53 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the 1884 City Directory he was in the 3 story, 1819 building at today's 103 West Bay. His business appears on the street listings of "Bay Street" as "145 M. Ferst & Co., whol grocers" (old style address, naturally); and "Whitaker Street" as "1 M. Ferst & Co.". Next door to the west was another grocer ("149 and 151, S. Guckenheimer & Son, whol grocers"). As a business Ferst's location appears in the directory under both "Grocers" category and "Liquors" category. You can find a good visual representation on the 1884 Sanborn Map [map] (go to Image 4), though it happens to identify him more with liquors. JeffersonLH (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Savannah, Immortal City: Volume One of the Civil War Savannah Series states that both 15 and 17 West Jones Street were built in 1849, which obviously isn't correct for the John Williams House. While not the most reliable of sources, realtor sites do concur that number 15 was built in 1849 (or 1850), unless you have evidence against this. It isn't listed in Buildings in Savannah Historic District currently. Seasider53 (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad; I just never got a picture of it. (I'll put it on my list.) But your realtors' date is correct--according to the Morrison book and the MPC, while 17 is from 1883, 15 West Jones was built for Thomas Holcombe in 1849.
On another subject, I just noticed you changed the date from the first Kelly's/Kelley's Store from 1870 to 1869 per TGB article. If we're gauging by completion date, construction was begun on July 16, 1869 but not finished before early 1870. Morning News, 01/03/1870 (column 2): "Kelley's building will soon be ready for occupation. We understand that the plastering of the outside will not be done until spring." (Never trust those secondary sources, hehe...) JeffersonLH (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 1824, [Amos] Scudder bought the east half of Lot 13, Jackson Ward, or 114 East Hull Street, from John Crane and the Crane and Baker Company. He built a brick home on the lot, one block (not really - Ed.) from the Savannah Theatre. In 1848, however, Scudder is listed as living in the Orleans Square home, though both properties remained in his possession. Both the Hull Street and Orleans Square homes stayed within the family well after Amos' death.
114–116 West Hull Street, to which I think she is referring, was built in 1814, according to Buildings in Savannah Historic District and the Historic Building Map. (While I think 114 East is a typo, she does refer to both this property and "also one on Orleans Square", which would be the same one if it is indeed 114 West.)
The references she gives:
Deed of sale, Deed Book, p. 465,466. Chatham County Superior Court, Records Room.
Mary Lane Morrison Papers, folder 10, p. 106. MS 1320, GHS.
David Galloway, Directory of the citv of Savannah for 1849, p. 34, section 8, s.v. "Scudder, Amos."
Yeah, this source you discovered today seems confused and you rightly picked up on each aspect. There's enough that is wrong that I can't trust what may be right. Hull Street and Orleans Square would seem to refer to the same property. There is no 114 East Hull, and even if there were, the East/West address system was adopted in November, 1896... add to that the fact that NO street addresses existed before the advent of the city directories means that NO primary sources of the 1810s-1840s could refer to one. Locations were always distinguished by Lot numbers of a ward.
The Morrison book (compiled in part from the Mary Lane Morrison Papers cited above) agrees with the MPC pdf date you cite, claiming "Built by and for John H. Ash 1817". Now the Morrison book isn't perfect, but it is still viewed as the go-to, its dates based on meticulous study of the tax digests (if not something more specific).
In taking a few hours now to play detective using the old newspaper archives, I can confirm that John Ash was in possession of Lot 13 in 1818. In March & April, 1822 the "west half of lot No. 13, thirteen, and brick buildings, Jackson Ward...property of John H. Ash" was advertised at Sheriff's Sale. By 1833 Jacob De La Motta is associated with the lot, leaving me to assume he now owned the western half(?).
In regards to this Crane and Baker Company reference, in January, 1821 John Crane was cited as deliquent $48.30 on ground rent of "Lot 13, Jackson Ward". Given that this predates the Ash sale, it does support the suggestion that Crane might have owned or managed the eastern half lot. But did the eastern half already have building/s present? Dunno.
Amos Scudder, in the meantime, seems to have taken some possessions of Jackson Ward Lots 21 & 22 in 1826 through a legal suit; he is finally associated with Lot 13 by 1856, by which time he and De La Motta are in joint ownership of the full lot. So Scudder clearly owned Lot 13 before this, I just don't find any particular reference to any 1824 sale or anything he might have built. Is it possible that 116 is from 1817 and 114 is from 1824 or after? It absolutely is. But yeah, pending a deeper dive or some more convincing evidence than an (already clearly compromised) secondary source, I'd be inclined to still favor a circa 1817 attribution. JeffersonLH (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same reference (which has seemingly become more reliable) states Amos Scudder began Scudder's Row in 1853, but that it was completed by his sons, Ephraim and John, in 1855 (a year before their father's death). We have it as being completed in 1852-1853 (taken from the MPC file). Seasider53 (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found your source... a LOT OF disjointed information in there. With the paragraph you quoted I had kinda suspected you were consulting one of these Armstrong histories... just beware of them. They were all written by the history students of the late Dr. Roger Warlick, and they are oftentimes really very informative... ~BUT~... read them knowing they were assignments to (mostly) undergrad college students. Without fail, some of the material is right, some of it is wrong (& some of it is weird). Nothing better illustrates the gap between "academia" and a paper for school! Don't get me wrong, I don't mind upending long-accepted dates on properties, but it requires an unassailable source to point to, something above reproach, and Shelley Carroll's 1994 paper ain't it.
"Before he died, Amos Scudder passed his architectural trade on to his sons, John and Ephraim. Between 1853 and 1855, he began construction on a row of houses on Gordon Street (pictured in Appendix S), and with his direction, his sons completed the buildings in 1855. The Monterrey Square houses became known as Scudder's Row.77"
Her source for footnote 77 (that entire paragraph) appears to be Mills Lane's Architecture of the Old South: Georgia, itself a non-Savannah specific secondary source. I would suggest our current 1852-1853 date taken from the Morrison book & the Historic Building Map, remains more defensible. :) JeffersonLH (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of Mary Marshall properties downtown. One is the Marshall House, a demolished structure which was Mary Marshall's private home off West Broad Street ("Court-End District") the demolished Marshall Houses in Franklin Ward, then the 3 standing Anson Ward properties: the Marshall Duplex at 127-129 Abercorn (which is the one I think you're looking at), Marshall Row and the Marshall House Hotel.
"The house belonging to Mrs. Marshall... situated in President street between Oglethorpe and Wright squares," was referred to in an October 30, 1845 Savannah Republican advertisement, so clearly there WAS a Marshall property on or near 127-129 Abercorn by 1845... I just can't confirm that it was the same structure as today's "1859". Hartridge was a genius whose collection of research I helped to process as a collection in the summer of 1992 and whose insights I generally trust, but it's also true he died in 1975 and did not have access to the info we have today. Let me study this a bit more.
While we're at it (between you and me) the neighboring entry for 123 Abercorn ("Cluskey House"?) has never made any sense to me. Everything on that block 20th century. Maybe (???) Cluskey once had a property there, but even if he did it would be long gone, so I've always scratched my head at that entry.
As to the Marshall House Hotel, it was erected between 1851 and 1852; opened for business in July, 1852. The ornate and iconic iron-work veranda was added in 1857. (Trashed in the 20th century, today's ironwork is a 1995 replica)
JeffersonLH (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing a reference for a previous property at 123 Abercorn, I think a clergy house, but it can go from the list as it currently is. Seasider53 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clergy house, yes! 123 Abercorn was the original site for the Unitarian Universalist Church, which was moved on log rollers in 1860 to Troup Square & still stands today. I don't know what came next or when (the 1891 Birdseye appears to show that half lot empty), but what stands there today and in the picture is a contemporary building (Remax suggests it was built in 1967). :) JeffersonLH (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Draffin, in his Visitor’s Guide…, lists 123 Abercorn as being built in 1830, and does indeed refer to it as the Cluskey Building. Strange. Seasider53 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the Marshall Houses, I'd never really taken a dive into 127-129 Abercorn before. What I hadn't previously appreciated was that the current property was just one of at least two buildings in a complex; the second, President Street-facing range property (pictured in the HABS images) was demolished in the mid 20th; sometime thereafter the rear of 127-129 was doubled... the facade remains unchanged, but the entire back half of today's structure -- though seamless -- is non-historic. Interestingly, the 1853 Vincent Map depicts a total of five structures in the lot, though I don't know if all five were associated with Marshall. Today, only 127-129 Abercorn remains; the remainder of the block is a parking lot.
So here's what we KNOW:
The Marshall Houses were two buildings (at least) of what was basically a commercial business park owned and leased out by Mary Marshall on Anson Ward, Lot Y. The two buildings appear in the HABS image very similar in style and were clearly open by no later than 1845, at which time a school run by a Mr. Johnson was already present and to which another school (the Select Female Institute) relocated in November (Savannah Daily Republican, 10/30/1845). Meanwhile, the (1969/1979) Morrison Book, based heavily on the research of tax digests, suggests the structure at 127-129 Abercorn took its current form in 1859.
What I SUSPECT:
To me, the HABS images of the two-story carriage house absolutely scream Cluskey. As to the main structure though, Cluskey never built... well, this tall! There's a natural break line at the second story; my OPINION is that both structures were built c.1845 as two-story structures -- perhaps (or should I say, very likely) designed by Cluskey -- with an additional two levels added to each in 1859. It wouldn't be the only example of a Cluskey structure later enlarged while largely maintaining its character, the Philbrick–Eastman House in Brown Ward being another. I stress that this is my opinion, so I don't know what you do with this, but I believe 127-129 is a hybrid; its original lower configuration dating to c.1845, its current four-story configuration by 1859, with the rear half of today's structure added seamlessly in the 20th century. JeffersonLH (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. I've amended the relevant article, with a couple of "citations needed" added for if/when further information is found. I'll have a browse around there on Streetview to make sure I got the description correct. Seasider53 (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Took a couple of pictures today, so do with these what you'd like. Mary Marshall Commercial Property, 127-129 Abercorn Street (view from President Street)Mary Marshall Commercial Property, 127-129 Abercorn Street (view from York Street)JeffersonLH (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of big projects, I'm planning on merging the properties and photos sections into a table for each of the squares, with a sortable option for 1 through x, where "1" would be where 12 is on a clock face, so that the properties can be viewed in clockwise order if you were looking north from the square. I was going to just do "NETB" (for Northeast Trust Block), etc. for each entry, but if I was going to do that, I might as well do it more accurately. Seasider53 (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see the incorrect spelling of the last name of John Perceval, 1st Earl of Egmont has become commonplace in Savannah literature. I'm guessing things became too far gone for it to be changed in all the necessary places in governance, and so it remained. I did change Percival Square to Perceval Square in the Wright Square article the other day, but I should probably revert myself since Percival Ward is spelled as such. Seasider53 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, here it is 100% Percival; it's not incorrect so much as entirely subjective. You're considering it from a 21st century lens. One thing that should be understood about the 18th century is that the spelling of names & titles was entirely arbitrary and phonetically-based. There was little standardization of spelling to names/titles; Percival kept a journal and a diary and wrote extensively; he does not appear to have ever used the spelling "Perceval." As made clear in the footnote on page 1 of the Percival Diary, he "appears to sign invariably, 'Percival.'" JeffersonLH (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
C.A.L. Lamar (as he was known), son of Gazaway, was the highest (or lowest) antebellum embodiment of a rogue & scoundrel. And what a life story.... Baptized by Lafayette in 1825, he lost much of his immediate family in 1838 with the national tragedy of the sinking of the steamship Pulaski; twenty years later he would take his family's maritime legacy to new depths as an owner of the Wanderer, which was the last slave ship to bring enslaved Africans to the shores of Georgia. Somehow fittingly, this diehard never-say-die slave trader was the last Savannahian to die in the Civil War, just a bleak footnote casualty in a meaningless battle of an already-decided war. A dark, committed & dastardly bastard. Even wore a cape.
So I've got in my hand a copy of Walter Hartridge's genealogy of the Lamar family (he specialized in genealogies long before it was cool, and when I was given the task of processing the Hartridge Collection in July, 1992 I was assigned his voluminous genealogies... thus I made a copy or two for personal reference). You're right in that only his female line continued... but again, this is where nuance comes into play. Just as Percival may have never spelled "Percival" any other way, in the Lamar family there was an abundance of extended family, and one takeaway in genealogy is that everyone seemed to name their kid for a famous cousin or great-uncle. Sure, most of his siblings (six?) drowned in 1838, but he did have three siblings whose lines did continue, including two brothers---that doesn't even consider Gazaway's paternal (Basil Lamar & Mary Kelly) line of Lamar descendants, who don't appear in the single page I did copy. By this metric there were plenty of potential Lamars by the 1890s. In the interest of full disclosure, is there a "Charles A. Lamar" in this page of Hartridge genealogy?
NO.... But when I saw Mary Morrison's Book (informed by contemporary tax digests, after all) assign it unromantically to such an individual, I saw no reason to dispute it. :) JeffersonLH (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likely the same reasoning for some "Solomon Cohen" properties being built after his death in 1875. I suppose he could have dedicated a portion of his estate for the construction of buildings deemed necessary by someone in his extended family. Seasider53 (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And like Catherine Deveaux's House, apparently built some 20 years after her death... though honestly, these post-mortum construction projects were normally tagged as "Estate of" in the digests and in the Morrison Book. I did observe ongoing litigation of Lamar's estate & properties when I glanced at the Morning News of the 1890s, so yes, this is very possible. The answer is as easy as going to the Historical Society and consulting the "ward notebooks" (the extensive notes, conclusions and rationale for the dates in the Morrison Book). I keep saying I should go visit my old workplace, but I haven't been in there since 2006. JeffersonLH (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the artifacts are kept in the Stacks (think archival bank vault). There were no busts in the reference library or in the displays that I can recall. It is possible that a bust might have been in the public hallway with the restrooms and the elevator, or perhaps downstairs in the old meeting room, but nothing that was publicly prominent. JeffersonLH (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thank you. As an aside, I had a virtual fly around Savannah yesterday, coming in from the coast. Microsoft hasn't quite worked out how to process imagery beneath some bridges, so the Talmadge needs a bit of work. You'll see the imagery beneath it when viewing from its western side. The tree canopies are probably over-represented too. Seasider53 (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. Maybe it's because the building is being worked on now, but it's weird that despite all the doors on the property (and the fact that it occupies two lots) I couldn't see any address on it. The Morrison Book claimed the address is 142-144... MPC claims it's 144-146. I'll update it to the latter. :) JeffersonLH (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might you know of any buildings "named" for him in the city? I see there's a duplex each for his parents in Pulaski Square. I was working up an article for him but haven't found much, other than his being a real-estate developer/valuer. I know he took over his father's business in 1880 and that, in 1915, his office was at 21 East Bay Street. Seasider53 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stayed in the first floor of 435 on my last visit three years ago. Interesting to know it dates to the mid-19th century. I think the exterior might have been refreshed in recent years, giving it a slightly "newer" look? I'll go with that... Seasider53 (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong; the truth is that every property downtown has been there, done that and seen uncounted "refreshments," restorations, renovations & revitalizations. It's the rule, not the exception. Here's a picture of 435-437 in the 1979 Morrison Book....File:435-437 (c.1979).jpgPre-restoration image of 435-437 TattnallJeffersonLH (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a reference (one of your favorite student-type ones) that states Williamson Street at the waterfront was named for the former mayor John P. Williamson. Do you know if this is true and, if it is, is it just a happy coincidence that the John Williamson Range is also down there? Maybe incorrectly, I have associated the range with merchant John J. Williamson. There wasn't much on J.J. in my defence, but there are sources connecting him at the range article. Seasider53 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had more information to offer. Williamson Street is an odd, two & a half block street in an irregular tract caused by the bend in the river; City Council sold off the tract into public lots in 1803. I can't find any official naming of the street; nor any reference to it as Williamson Street before 1870. It seems to have become associated with John P. Williamson not because he had been mayor, but simply because the street had spent 60 or 70 years as (basically) the commercial driveway in front of his wharf/building. Bowen/Blair Street was essentially the vestige of the driveway in front of Fairlawn, Foley Alley was nothing more than a driveway between Foley family homes, while Fahm Street is a corruption of "Farm" Street, which began at the farm house of Vale Royal... so instead of being created by Council some streets downtown have simply evolved organically.
The current Williamson building is from about 1850, but like all the River Street properties it had been preceded by at least one previous iteration. Williamson's Wharf was referred to as early as 1799, though I can't say for sure that one was on the same spot. By 1811 I can say with some confidence the Williamson Wharf was at the current site. "Williamson's building" begins to appear aggressively in newspaper advertisements at the beginning of 1821, suggesting the prior building was finished 1820-21. Now was John J. a son or heir representing the next generation of family and/or that 1850 iteration of the building? I don't know. JeffersonLH (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I now think “J. J.” is his son John P. Jr., who purchased his father’s Savannah plantation in 1848. Maybe he went by “John Jr. Williamson”, hence the initials. Seasider53 (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know why the final stretch of East Gaston is offset from the rest of the street? I was assuming it was a comparatively modern addition due to this juxtaposition, and also because your camera hasn't ventured into the 500s, but I perused the MPC file, and most of the properties are 19th century. The fact that the McMillan Brothers Property, at 506-508 Price Street, sits so prominently at the head of the main section of East Gaston makes me think the original layout was bungled towards the end of its construction. Seasider53 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just Gaston Street. Many of these streets which "realign" on the east or west side of town are remnants of earlier layouts, whether that be the 500 block East Gaston/Huntingdon/Hall on the east or the equally-jarring realignments of Harris/Charlton/Jones/Wayne/Gaston Street on the 300 block west side. For example, today's Tattnall Street was the boundary of the old Currytown District, which had been founded outside of town... until the town caught up with it. Same thing to the east; Price Street marked the eastern boundary of the city common, so to the east there was the Fairlawn Plantation (later to become the Savannah, Albany & Gulf Railroad property and the 3 wards of today's Beach Institute Neighborhood). As the city expanded, where properties and road lines already existed they were largely respected. In short, the streets east of Price (Beach Institute Neighborhood) and west of Tattnall (old Currytown settlement) were leftovers from different eras that were imperfectly incorporated later into the town proper. JeffersonLH (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you! The funny thing is I keep thinking I'm done... and then a new property, street (or ward) softly calls my name. (But between our combined efforts, we have captured most of downtown.) JeffersonLH (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the one at 206–210 East Taylor. Those who might be of a slight OCD persuasion would be irked that entrance to the middle property wasn't centralized, given the location of the flanking ones. There's obviously a footprint limitation, since the sidewalk can't be blocked, but a small double staircase could maybe have been an option. Do you know of a three-unit row house in the city that is indeed symmetrical in this manner? Seasider53 (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you know of a three-unit row house in the city that is indeed symmetrical in this manner?" No, I can't think of any example. JeffersonLH (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any interest in joining me in listing our, say, top ten favorite buildings in Savannah and, say again, top three squares? Will be interesting to see how they compare. I was looking through the photos, and as much as I love brick buildings, the ones that have minimal amounts of mortar between the bricks (such as the Kehoe House and the Lewis Kayton House/Mansion on Forsyth Park) do absolutely nothing for me. Apologies, Alf Eichberg. Other features of buildings inexplicably irk me, but I won't go in those.
I've probably put too much thought into it, such as disqualifying a property if it's at the corner of a busy street (such as 125 East Jones Street at Abercorn), as if I had any chance of living there. Most choices are purely for architectural reasons. Seasider53 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"as much as I love brick buildings, the ones that have minimal amounts of mortar between the bricks (such as the Kehoe House and the Lewis Kayton House/Mansion on Forsyth Park) do absolutely nothing for me"
I find you're not alone in that assessment. While I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, I will grant you the "mortarless red brick" is a look. As to favorite buildings, I don't think I have any. I was lucky enough to live on Jones Street and Gaston Street; I could certainly name those as favorite streets (examples of genuinely interesting east-west thoroughfares in a town that generally plays out better north-south).
As to squares, most squares are marred by the presence of at least one out-of-place/period-inappropriate building, so my choices tend toward those largely without. I have to include Monterey Square because it is the perfect embodiment of what any square would aspire to be... Pulaski Square for the sheer and raw natural beauty of its enormous oak trees... and maybe Greene Square for its smaller scale, quieter beauty. JeffersonLH (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. I went for Reynolds (for a hustle-and-bustle selection of the three), Greene and Monterey. And, just to give you a small insight into my aesthetic likes and dislikes, I don't like it when a doorway has a lantern either side of it. One be fine (on the side on which the door opens)! Seasider53 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on Carl Asendorf Sr.'s article, and have read that he worked at his uncle (or cousin) John's grocery store "at the corner of East Jones and Habersham." Three of the four corner properties at that intersection look "too residential" to have been a business, but obviously still could have been. 320 East Jones is blurred out on Google StreetView, which I've never seen before. Any ideas as to which property Asendorf would have been working out of? Seasider53 (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He also ran a grocery store and saloon at 556 East Liberty, according to his great-granddaughter, which you have a nice photograph of. Seasider53 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the four properties at East Jones & Habersham, the two on the southern corners are historic while the northern two are contemporary structures... but it wasn't either of the northern properties... nor was it quite the southern ones, either. The grocery store was actually tucked away on the north-west corner of Habersham Street & Jones LANE, which is to say Wesley Ward, south of today's 321-323 East Jones (Sarah Bailey Duplex). On Habersham Street, between Troup & Whitefield squares the 1884 City Directory listed three grocery stores, one drug store and one residence of a woman of color, viz: "nw cor Charlton, B.W. Tedder, grocer", "sw cor Charlton, H. Gallager, druggist", "sw cor Charlton lane, S. DeLamotta, c.", "nw cor Jones, Mrs. A. Raetz, grocer", and finally, "nw cor Jones lane, P. Asendorf, grocer". It was elsewhere identified as 46 Jones Lane, old style address. Nothing there now. JeffersonLH (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I just rechecked; it was not 46 Jones Lane, but fell between the entries of 46 and 52 Jones Lane. Instead of any numbered address it was consistently described as "nw cor" of Habersham & Jones Lane. JeffersonLH (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John's old style address was described as 38 Jones Street, so "a room" at 49 Jones would have been several doors down at the Habersham end of the block. According to the 1884 Directory there were only two residents the entire length of Jones Lane who were not African-American, so I do presume the "room" was on the street and not the lane.
Without exception the Asendorf family groceries were in the bluer-class neighborhoods (John was once robbed in the Jones Lane location); I've found five stores between 1879 and 1887, and your article is right in that they often changed hands between family members. In 1887 the Morning News listed the downtown businesses granted liquor licenses, including four of their properties, by that time 93 Price (Price near Jones) was no longer in their possession. JeffersonLH (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did find a reference for his "having a room" at 49 Jones (but not appended with either Street or Lane), which I took as being at his uncle's abode. Seasider53 (talk)
Chuck wrote a nice little walking tour of the northern end of the city after his arrival with his family in 1835, in case you haven't read his works (which I somehow find hard to believe!) Seasider53 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly can't remember if I've seen that before or not, but I thank you for bringing to my attention. I wish it were more "Savannah-specific". His trek from the Rice Mill (eastern-most wharf) through a pre-1850s Factor's Walk to the pre-1857 beautified Bluff/Emmett Park would be a fascinating contrast to what we see today... a lack of description/depiction of the Riverfront prior to the rebuilding epoch of 1853-59 makes me wish he hadn't glossed over it so casually. The block of Bryan Street where he first lived is a parking lot. JeffersonLH (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m impressed he didn’t go to visit New York City, only to return in a casket. Seemed to happen to about 90% of Savannahians of that era. Seasider53 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its stint as the Remshart Inn seems to have ended, but it isn't included in "The List". Of 1853 origin, according to the realtor sites. Might you have this in your collection but it wasn't uploaded? Seasider53 (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's all part of Remshart Row. I believe I left that entry untouched and didn't bother with photography because there was already an existing thumbnail, but looking at the entry now the address isn't quite correct. Remshart Row runs from 102-112 West Jones. I'll take a look at the building tomorrow and decide whether or not it warrants more attention from us. :) JeffersonLH (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might you have any tidbits on Boucher? I was able to extract a few things on Georgia Historic Newspapers, but only on his defaulting. I was wondering if he was killed during the 1804 hurricane since there has been no record of his burial place. Seasider53 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very little information on Savannah's first notable designer, this man describing himself as "A. Boucher, Architect & Master-Builder, from Paris". He began advertising his services to Savannah in February of 1797, and won the commission for the city exchange in January 1799. The bulk of the building was completed by late 1801, bell was added in 1804. By December 1802 he was hard up enough to advertise a school of architecture on Broughton Street, but I think general consensus was that after that the man simply moved on. If he died in Savannah, that's news to me. I'm unfamiliar with this Kennedy Greek Revival America book, but I would really like to know their source for such a claim. I don't believe I have ever before today encountered a suggestion that Adrian Boucher died in Savannah in 1804. JeffersonLH (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I had not ever seen this; thank you for the head's up. His dedication to map a patient zero and spread of "contagion" strikes the modern reader admirable yet misguided, but nonetheless there is good info here on the infrastructure of the pre-1880s sewer system and details about Wright and Stone Streets. In the 20th century the 400 block of West Liberty was shifted to better line up with Louisville, wiping clean all preexisting layout and architecture, so neither one of these streets really exists anymore (Wright Street is the parking lot of the Pirates' House and Stone Street is lost under today's Courtyard Marriott & Liberty Street Garage). JeffersonLH (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering if you know of any people of import related to Savannah who are lacking an article. I'm running low on options in the resources I can draw upon. Seasider53 (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might you have any information the author of Historic and Picturesque Savannah? The internet seems largely devoid of anything regarding her, other than she published the book. I'm often more intrigued by the people who invest a large chunk of their lives putting together these volumes, rather than the publications themselves, as is the case here. Seasider53 (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid I'm not much help; I don't know or remember anything about her. Maybe thirty years ago I might have, but honestly I've forgotten too much. All that sticks in my head today is that her book had some wonderful images and vignettes, but like most 19th-century histories, the volume was built a bit more on anecdotal understanding than today's approach to research (looking at you too, Mr. CC Jones)... Still -- like the latter -- a great window and snapshot into the 1880s view of Savannah's understanding of itself. JeffersonLH (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, neither of those properties. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on William Jay. So there were two William Jay houses on Orleans Square, and neither still exists. One, the better known and photographed, was the Archibald Bulloch House (later known as the Bulloch/Habersham House) on the south-western trust lot (torn down in 1916 to make room for the municipal auditorium); the other was the Robert Habersham House, which I believe was also on the western side of Barnard, but as I recall north of the square. I've only ever seen one streetview image of the latter and am not sure if any other image exists. It kinda looked like a cross between the Scarbrough and Telfair Houses, but simpler and without their embellishments. I believe the 1819 fine was connected to the Bulloch House. JeffersonLH (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you scroll a few times down this page, you'll see the maps, which may be of interest if you haven't seen them before. I think there are three volumes in total. Seasider53 (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these Sanborn Maps have always been excellent tools; I've been relying on them since my earliest days of research in '91. The first Sanborn of Savannah was from 1884, subsequent editions over the years (1888, 1898, 1916) kept them relevant to the changing landscape while also providing a useful snapshot for today's curious researcher. JeffersonLH (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
