I’m thinking about lunch, and my lunch buddy just cancelled on me. We were going to check out one of the nearby places for Restaurant Week. It’s cold and so I’m going to eat at the desk.
Anyway food got me wondering about Waggamama. The signs are still up on the windows on 7th Street, but so far no change. Checked the website and it appears they will open Septemeber 2010.

Women, the past and home ownership

As I’ve stated before I’m not too keen on architectural history, in that I just don’t have an interest in it. However, I do have an interest in property transfers and its history, as that tends to relate to personal wealth.
Today, I’ll be covering myself in red rot from old volumes regarding, some DC properties in the 19th and early 20th centuries. There are published books (Lusk real estate assessment directories, published by Rufus Lusk & Sons) listing the owner of the property. I noticed, running my eyes down the list of owners, I saw several repeats for a series of houses right next to or nearby each other. So you’d have say a Ruppert or a Richardson owning 4 or 5 houses on a block. And not all owners were male. Most were male, but not all.
Now going back to the 1900 census project, so far (I’m still cleaning up data) of the 1101 households, 892 rent. That is a huge chunk. 78 are owners with a mortgage, and 104 own their homes free and clear. Of the homeowners, 45 are women. Now, it would be correct to say that in 1900, not many women owned their own home. It would be also correct to say not many men owned their own homes either, since most rental heads were male.
Though not as popular as the career of laundress there were about 9 landladies and 1 female capitalist. Yes, ladies and gents, someone said their occupation was that of a capitalist. So in this turn of the century world there were women involved in the real estate game, as owners or property managers (landlady). Not many, but 1900 wasn’t 2000 where credit was extended to anyone who could breathe for a home loan.