Wednesday, September 4, 2013

More Moments in the History of Promenade Hill

In the past few days, inspired by a mysterious object visible in the background of a photograph possibly dating from 1878, Gossips has been sharing bits of information, discovered in newspapers and Common Council minutes, from a hundred or more years ago. Today, Gossips offers two more entertaining bits of information about Promenade Hill, found in Council minutes for 1910.

April 28
Alderman Finigan stated that Promenade Hill did not have enough benches, and he moved that the matter be referred to the Commission of Public Works, with the urgent request that the Commission secure about three times as many benches as are now at that place.
Alderman Flanagan observed that if three times as many benches were secured that it would be necessary to tie some of them to the flag staff in order to find room.
[The resolution was adopted, with only Flanagan voting no.]
Gossips Note: Thomas Flanagan and Patrick B. Finigan, often at odds in Council discussions, both represented the First Ward.]

May 26 
Alderman Decker stated that last year a special policeman had been appointed for service on Promenade Hill and the Common Council had made appropriation therefor. He offered the following resolution:--
Resolved, that the Police Committee be and they are hereby instructed to consider the advisability of having a special policeman for the summer to maintain order on Promenade Hill, the expense of securing such policeman, if thought advisable by the Committee, not to exceed $75.
[The resolution was adopted unanimously.]


  1. Following Vince's suggestion, might his "octagonal tea house" be seen in the left of this image? Or is that a band stand?

    1. According to Byrne Fone's book, "this [octagonal] structure was demolished in 1835."

      Because the city's Proprietors were so specific in their conditions when granting Parade Hill, my guess is that the Common Council decided the tea room never belonged there in the first place.

      Nowadays we're back to adding any old thing we want to the park, or rather Rob Perry is.

      The mistaken belief is that a DPW Superintendent can do whatever he wishes in a park that the Proprietors intentionally created as the PEOPLE's park (it is owned exclusively by the Common Council).

      Of course Mr. Perry is correct in one assumption: he may commit any action he pleases as long as no one gives a damn, and it appears no one does. His predecessor Mr. Butterworth probably met with more resistance, but he did whatever he wished as well.

      I really don't understand what's wrong with this place.