Progressive Housing in New York City: A Closer Look at Model Tenements and Finnish Cooperatives BY Xsusha Carlyann Flandro, Christine Huh, Negin Maleki, Mariana Sarango-Manaças & Jennifer Schork Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Preservation and Planning: Historic Preservation Studio Spring 2008 with Pro fessor Andrew Dolkart 1
154
Embed
Progressive Housing in New York City: A Closer Look at Model Tenements and Finnish Cooperatives
A deeper look into the Model Tenements and Finnish Limited Dividend Cooperatives in New York City. This was done for the HP Graduate Studio II at Columbia University in Spring 2008.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Progressive Housing in New York City:
A Closer Look at Model Tenements and Finnish Cooperatives
Co lumbia Graduate School of Architecture, Preservation and Planning: H istor ic Preservation Studio Spr ing 2008 with Pro fessor Andrew D olkart 1
Acknowledgement We’d like to thank our patient studio advisor, Professor and Architectural Historian; Andrew Dolkart for his guidance and assistance in this project. Without his help we would have never completed the semester and made as much progress as we did. We hope that our time and research will be useful to social and architectural historians and invite all those who are interested to use it.
Over the last three months our studio group has undertaken a survey and study progressive housing:
model tenements and cooperative housing complexes that lie within the New York City limits. Before our
group encountered this project some research had been done on this type of housing but a complete
survey had not been completed. We started our research without a true definition of progressive housing
but through our findings we have come up with a working definition of the phrase:
Progressive Housing: homes that were meant for the hourly wage earner (ex: clerk, bricklayer, carpenter, chauffer, etc.) and their families; the layout and plans of the buildings were meant to be an improvement on earlier plans and most progressive housing was also subsidized in some way making it affordable to wage earners.
Upon the conclusion of our survey we found roughly ninety progressive housing buildings that are still
extant in New York City. Images and details are includes in the appendix to this paper. These buildings
can further be divided into two categories, the model tenements and limited dividend cooperatives.
Model Tenement‐Hartley Open Stair Tenements
(525 West 47th Street, Manhattan)
Finnish Cooperative‐Riverview Cooperatives
673‐83 41st Street, Brooklyn
4
Chapter 1- The Historic Context of
Progressive Housing
The two major factors contributing to the introduction of progressive housing in New York City
were the living conditions of the poor and the massive population of the city. These two forces
working together created a housing crisis that continues even today, evident by the high cost of
land in the city. By 1865 the city’s population was just over eight-hundred thousand, half of
which lived in tenement buildings.1 The majority of these buildings were built on the standard
sized lot, established by the 1811 grid system, one-hundred feet long and twenty-five feet wide.
The buildings were long and narrow and abutted each other on the long sides. There were only
windows on the front and rear facades, leaving the interior rooms in the buildings with no
exposure to natural light, these buildings also had little, if no, plumbing on the interiors.
Previous civic efforts had helped with the conditions of housing and had resulted in strong
private interaction as well as small amounts of government legislation. The creation of the New
York City Council of Hygiene a Citizens Association and the Department of Survey and
Inspection of Buildings were two such results. A survey of the 15,309 tenement buildings in New
York City was completed by the Council of Hygiene and was published in 1865.2 The report
cited the following conditions: “filth, overcrowding, lack of privacy and domesticity, lack of
ventilation and lighting and absence of supervision and of sanitary regulation.” 3
These housing conditions continued to linger well into the twentieth century as the population
exploded to three times its size in thirty-five years and the amount of tenement buildings
quintupled to 80,000 in 1900.4
At the government level, three major legislations were passed to combat the problems of
tenement houses. The first of which was in 1867 with the passage of the Tenement House Law.
This law legally defined a tenement as:
1 Citizen’s Association of New York, 1865, p. lxix. 2 Citizen’s Association of New York, 1865, p. lxix. 3Citizen’s Association of New York, 1865, p. lxxvi. 4 Pluntz, p. 30.
5
Any house, building, or portion thereof, which is rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied or is occupied, as the home or residence of more than three families living independently of one another and doing their own cooling on the premises, or by having more than two families upon a floor, so living cooking and having a common right in the halls, stairways, yards, water-closets, or privies or some of them.5
Not limiting this legislation to nearly the definition of a tenement, it also required existing and
new buildings to have fire-escapes installed (on non-fireproof constructions), there were
minimum ceiling heights, one water closet was required for every twenty people (which had to
be connected to the municipal sewer), and three foot transoms had to be provided over the doors
of all interior bedrooms.6
The second legislation was completed with the passing of the 1879 Tenement Act, a revision of
the 1867 law. This act changed the footprint of tenement buildings, it required windows facing
the street, backyard or light shaft in all interior rooms, and the maximum lot coverage was set at
65% (although city officials in charge of enforcing lot coverage often heeded to real estate
investors and the buildings were allowed to cover 80% of the lot7). The result was the ever
present dumbbell tenement (also referred to as “old-law” tenements). The act also required more
toilets in each building. Unfortunately, these changes to the building laws did little to improve
the conditions inside of the tenement buildings. The light shafts were ineffective for apartments
more than one floor down from the roof, became flues during a fire and a place where refuse
regularly collected.8
The next development was the 1901 Tenement House Act, again a revision to the previous
amendment. The 1901 act increased the lot coverage to an enforceable 70%, the airshaft
dimensions were expanded to court sized proportions, height restrictions were imposed on new
constructions, and toilets and running water were required for each individual apartment. These
amendments were also more thoroughly enforced through the simultaneous creation of the new
Building Bureau and Bureau of Inspection. Buildings constructed under this legislation are
5 Laws of New York, Chapter 85, Section 13 (1867).b 6 Dolkart, p. 60. 7 Dolkart, p. 61, and Plunz, p. 24. 8 Dolkart, p. 61.
6
referred to as “New-Law” tenements. It must be noted that the majority of progressive housing
was built under this act.
Progressive housing made up only a very small percentage of total new constructions during the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the poor living conditions of the over crowded
older tenements remained as a constant threat to those living during this time.
7
Baby in Slum Tenement, 1888Photograph by Jacob Riis, acquired from the Library of Congress Digital Archives
“266 Elizabeth St., N.Y. 3:00 P.M., February 2, 1912. It is a licensed tenement and finishing of clothes was going on in the homes”‐Lewis Hine.Photograph from Library of Congress Digital Archives
Shared water closet inside a tenement house,1907Photograph from the NYPL Digital Collection
Overcrowded tenements, 1927Photograph from the NYPL Digital Collection
These photographs span 40 years of tenement living conditions in New York City.
“Dumbbell” Tenement ‐ Old –Law
Pre‐Law Tenement‐1879
New‐Law Tenement‐ 1901
1879‐1901
25’ 50’
25’
* Floor plans reproduced from Slums and Hous ing V. II: plates 4, 5 and 11, respectively. 8
A. Model Tenement History
With the United States government hesitant to intervene in housing problems (the government
saw this as an invasion on private property rights), civic groups, architects and philanthropists
began to look for possible solutions to the housing conditions in New York in foreign projects,
particularly in Britain and France. In 1848 the World’s Fair was hosted in London and Prince
Albert debut his “Model Houses for Families,” a model tenement which was subsequently built
in Bloomsbury, England. 9 Each apartment was cross ventilated- all rooms had windows that
faced either the street of the generously sized courtyard and the staircases were moved to the
exterior of the construction, eliminating any dark hallways. The architect, Henry Roberts, was an
active member of the Society for Improving Conditions of the Labouring Classes, a civic group
founded in the late Victorian, publically minded era. As part of the society’s charter and
dedication to making better housing obtainable to the working classes they set their profit
dividend at four percent. Any profit exceeding this would then be put back into the building to
make it better or used to keep the rents low. The design was further developed on by Sir Sydney
Waterlow and his Improved Dwellings Company for their building in London in 1863, the plans
for these buildings were the first English plans to be published in the U.S. and were done so in
the Council of Hygiene Report in 186510. This form of building and financing were also used for
model houses in France.
Specific architects that traveled and investigated these model houses included James E. Ware,
Henry Atterbury Smith, Grosvenor Atterbury, Ernest Flagg, and I.N. Phelps-Stokes and
philanthropists Alfred Treadway-White, Olivia Sage (Mrs. Russell Sage), Caroline and Olivia
Phelps-Stokes and Ann Harriman Vanderbilt. Once back in the United States they used not only
the design ideas gathered from the model houses but also the financing scheme.
The first successful model tenements to be erected in New York City were the Home Building
and the Tower Building in Brooklyn. Financed by Alfred Treadway-Wright and designed by
William Field and Son they were completed in 1877 and a translation of the plans by Waterlow
and his company. Both buildings are six stories high have open stairs and provide amenities such
as a sink, a washtub and a water closet. The buildings only cover 52 percent of the lot, with only
9 Tarn, p. 18. 10 Plunz, p. 88.
9
one interior room receiving no natural light. The floor plan was an improvement over the
speculative tenements that were being built at the same time (pre-law and old law tenements).
These buildings are protected from exterior change and demolition by their placement on the list
of New York City Landmarks.
Women held a particular roll in the development of progressive housing, again looking to Britain
from the 1860’s and earlier “many women in towns and cities in Britain devoted themselves to
voluntary work.”11 They wanted to take initiatives in housing reform because the interior of
homes were the one place that women were strictly in charge of. Frustrated by their inability to
work directly with the poor due to social norms, women set up settlement houses and teams of
volunteers in attempts to befriend and help the poor. This roll continued and expanded in the
United States with the formation of settlement houses in poor neighborhoods, the creation of
active civic groups, such as the League of Mothers’ Club and through the financing of model
tenements by women, such as the Shively Sanitary Tenements by Ann Harriman Vanderbilt.
It is important to note that model tenements made up only a very small amount of tenement
buildings built in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
The following seven model tenements are designated New York City Landmarks or protected by
being contributing buildings to a historic district:
1. Home Building- Brooklyn
2. Tower Building- Brooklyn
3. Shively Sanitary Tenements (East River Homes)- Manhattan
4. City & Suburban York Avenue Estates- Manhattan
5. City & Suburban 1st Avenue Estates- Manhattan
6. Astral Apartments- Brooklyn
7. Riverside Buildings- (in historic district)-Brooklyn
11 Darling and Whitworth, p. 17.
10
“Tower Building”Brooklyn‐ the first successful model tenements in Greater New
York, erected 1876–79 by Alfred T. White
“Model Houses for Families”Bloomsbury, England 1850, by Prince Albert &
architect Henry Roberts. Photograph ‐Tarn p. 19.
B. Limited Dividend Cooperative History
To understand how cooperative housing systems work it is really important to look back at the
history of the cooperative movement. The two cooperative movements that we are interested in
are either based off of one of the earliest cooperatives, started in England or the cooperatives
from Finland. Cooperative ideas and principles were transferred to the United States through
immigration.
The Rochdale Cooperative was started in 1844 in Rochdale, England; coinciding with the
development of the model tenement. It was founded by a group of cloth weavers who were being
forced out of their careers due to the advancement of the industrial revolution. They were losing
their jobs and subsequently their homes because they were no longer seen as valuable workers,
as their jobs could be done by machines:
From all around came reports of weavers clothed in rags, who had sold all their furniture, who worked 16 hours a day yet lived on a diet of oatmeal, potatoes, onion porridge and treacle. No minimum wage existed and salaries were commonly below the equivalent of 10 pence per week in modern terms. Moreover, pollution had increased and public sanitation system was both poor in quality and
11
quantity. In fact, in 1848 the mean life expectancy in Rochdale was only 21 years.12
Their want for better living conditions is an obvious result. This cooperative movement was
based off of the writings and teachings of Robert Owen and Dr. William King of Brighton. Owen
founded the Economist magazine ten years earlier and used it as a platform to express his strong
views and beliefs about self government. In the May 13th, 1848 issue speaking about government
legislation on housing he says, “they have always been more productive of evil than good.” 13
Dr. William King of Brighton, founded the Co-Operator Magazine and in his monthly
publication he showed people how they could use what little monetary gain they had as a group
to start a cooperative. He worked out a system of capital gain by profits derived from the
collective sell of goods, which was then distributed evenly among the share holders. This differs
from regular “co-ops” of today, which distributes profits to the purchasers based on the amount
of their total purchases.
The weavers put these financial principles into action and started their cooperative by charging
three pounds to buy a share (making the share holder a partial owner). Starting with twenty eight
members they were able to take the money gathered, through the selling of the shares, to open a
cooperative food store. The members would then be able to buy food at the store for a lesser size
price than the market price and if any profit was gained it by the store it was distributed evenly
among the members. This style of cooperative was based on open and voluntary enrollment,
democratic control, limited return if any, net surplus belonged to the members and owners,
honest business practices, education and their ultimate aim was the advancement of the common
good.14
In 1861 they used the same principles used to start the food cooperative to start the housing
cooperative. They wanted to build better houses for those of the working class, and by the end of
the nineteenth century they owned and built over 300 homes.15
The second and largest area where cooperation was to be found in the world in the nineteenth
century was Finland. The first Finnish publication of the Rochdale system was in 1866. Prior to
12 University of Texas, The History of the Rochdale Cooperative. 13Tarn, p. 9. 14 Reeves, p. 29. 15 University of Texas, The History of the Rochdale Cooperative.
12
this time the Finns had banned together with formal rules and purposes to make living in the
harsh climate easier. A direct correlation between these early groups and the cooperative
movement has yet to be established, but it did make them more susceptible to the idea of
cooperation. However, after the publication of the Rochdale principles, co-operations in Finland
skyrocketed.
Cooperative movements first took hold in the larger cites in Finland and then spread to the more
rural areas. In 1898, Axel Granstrom, the Secretary of the Board of Trade and Industry in
Finland, published his book in Finnish, Cooperative Self-Help Societies. One year later the
“Father of Finnish Cooperatives,” Hannes Gebhard, published his book, Agriculture Cooperation
in Other Lands.16 At the same time Gebhard, who was a university professor, started Pellervo, an
informational system set up to spread the gospel of cooperation and to help established
cooperative movements. He sent 150 students to the more rural areas of Finland to help spread
information about cooperatives. The number of local cooperative societies increased 250 percent
between 1904 and 1908,17 and by 1914 two thirds of the Finnish population was in some way
part of the cooperative movement.18
The Finnish housing cooperative system was based on non-profit principles, meaning that each
apartment was worth one share, both in purchasing and selling. The owner of the share would
receive the same amount of money that she/he bought the apartment for when they decide to sell
it, regardless of speculative market prices. Along with the purchase of the share, each share
holder also gains one “vote.” When decisions are made about the building (repairs etc.) each
share holder will have one vote. In profit cooperative housing (the majority of co-ops now
present in New York City) a share holder could possibly have more than one vote if their
apartment is worth more than the others, the worth of the apartment could be based on its and
location in the building, these co-ops are also sold and purchased at market value rates. More
about the financing of Finnish Cooperatives in the United States will be discussed further in a
later chapter.
16 Marshall, p. 228. 17 Marshall, p. 229. 18 Reeves, p. 89.
13
Through large immigrant populations to the United States in the early parts of the twentieth
century, cooperative movements were transplanted. The first cooperative housing in the United
States was established by Finnish immigrants in the Sunset Park area of Brooklyn.
The following cooperative housing complexes are designated as New York City Landmarks:
1. The United Worker’s Colony- Bronx
2. Dunbar Apartments- Manhattan (first cooperative apartments for African Americans)
Please note that at this time none of the Finnish Cooperatives in Brooklyn are protected by
Landmark designation or by being part of a historic district.
Housing cooperatives in Katajanokka, Finland(Built around 1901)
Photograph from Wikipedia.org‐ Article on Katajonoka
Cooperative News, serving as the RochdaleCooperative weekly newspaper since 1871.
Cover from 1890 edition.Image from: University of Texas
14
Chapter 2- Women’s Involvement in
Progressive Housing Women became involved in progressive housing in NYC in the early 1900s, when they started to
realize the awful and unsanitary conditions in which poor and low-income people lived. Women
identified themselves with domestic issues such as housing, since they thought their role in
society was that of mothers and wives.
A big personality involved in the Housing Reform Movement in NYC was Josephine Shaw
Lowell. Mrs. Lowell was a social reformer and a philanthropist who influenced legislation and
organizations in order to create modern programs for the poor and needy. She worked with the
State Charities Aid Association for which she wrote reports on the need for adequate facilities
for the poor. These reports impressed Governor Samuel J. Tilden who, in 1876, appointed her as
Commissioner of the State Board of Charities, becoming the first woman in this position.
Josephine Shaw Lowell Samuel J. Tilden Image from the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities web site. Image from Wikipedia web site.
Among her many achievements were the founding of important organizations such as the Charity
Organization Society of the City of New York in 1882, the House of Refuge for Women in 1886,
the Women’s Municipal League in 1894, and the Civil Service Reform Association of New York
15
State in 1895. Of these organizations, the Charity Organization Society of the City of New York
was among her greatest achievements. The Society gave form and direction to all the efforts of
distinguished philanthropists in New York. Its primary concern was to distinguish between the
deserving and the undeserving poor sine they believed that giving out charity without
investigating the problems behind poverty created a class of citizens that would always be
dependent on people giving them money.
Josephine Shaw Lowell influenced a number of women into becoming more involved with social
problems. Among these women were Lillian Wald, who in 1893 founded the Henry Street
Settlement where she taught health and hygiene to immigrant women in the impoverished Lower
East Side; and Mary Kingsbury Simkhovitch, who in 1902 founded the Greenwich House in
order to improve the living conditions among the predominately immigrant population in
Greenwich Village.
Lillian Wald Henry Street Settlement Image from the Encyclopedia Britannica web site. Image from the New York Architecture Images web site.
With Josephine Shaw Lowell as their leader, women became more involved in the progressive
housing movement by becoming philanthropists in the subject. They started reacting to the
terrible conditions in which low-income people lived by funding projects that provided better
housing conditions. Women as philanthropists could only donate money under their husbands’
16
name unless they were windows or never married, thus becoming philanthropists in their own
right.
Mary Kingsbury Simkhovitch Greenwich House Image from the Unitarian Universalist Organization web site. Image from the Barrow Street Theatre web site.
An important figure in the philanthropic world was Margaret Olivia Sage, most commonly
known as Mrs. Russell Sage. Mrs. Sage was very interested in social problems and in improving
the living conditions of the less privileged. When her husband, Russell Sage, died in 1906, he
left her an approximate of 75 million dollars with which she founded the Russell Sage
Foundation in 1907 as a memorial for her husband. The main goal of the Russell Sage
Foundation was to promote the improvement of social and living conditions for the poor. The
Foundation was very active in the development of social work and urban planning as
professions, it published books and articles about social welfare, and sponsored progressive
activities.
17
Margaret Olivia Sage Russell Sage Image from Crocker, p. 196. Image by Hulton Archive/Getty Images.
In 1908 the foundation, under the advice of Robert Weeks de Forest, donated the money to build
Forest Hills Gardens, a model housing project in Queens. De Forest was a layer who had been
involved in the Reform Housing Movement for years and whose firm represented Russell Sage.
Mrs. Sage thought the suburbs, as she refer to the outer boroughs, needed better and more
attractive facilities for low-income families. She had been in England and had the idea of
recreating its garden cities in the suburbs, where the buildings or houses could be surrounded by
flowers and gardens and had accessibility to playgrounds and recreation facilities. She also
believed that the buildings for this complex should be of, quote, “tasteful design, constructed in
brick, cement, or other permanent material, even though of somewhat greater initial cost are
more economical in durability and lesser repair bills”, end quote. The idea was to provide
healthful homes at low rates so that families of modest means would be able to afford good
housing conditions and, by proving this method to work, encourage other such projects.
18
Robert Weeks de Forest Forest Hills Gardens, 1913 Image from Crocker, p. 202. Image from Klaus, p. 91
Another such woman was Anne Harriman Vanderbilt, wife of William K. Vanderbilt, Sen.. She
dedicated herself to philanthropic causes and was concern with the problems of poor people in
New York, for which she was active in helping unfortunate children.
Ann Harriman Vanderbilt William K. Vanderbilt Image from Lewis, p. 173. Image from Lewis, p. 173.
19
In 1910 she was approached by Dr. Henry Shively to help fund housing for tuberculosis patients,
for which she agreed to build what would then become the Shively Sanitary Tenements. Dr.
Shively was the head of the Vanderbilt Clinic and was concerned in finding efficient treatments
for the disease. He thought patients would benefit of living in a building that had, quote, “all the
positives features of a sanatorium treatment brought to the patients in their own home”, end
quote.
The Shively Sanitary Tenements housed low-income tuberculosis patients and their families. It
was believed that fresh air cured the disease for which the architect, Henry Atterbury Smith,
provided every apartment with a balcony, a building complex with an open stair design, a roof
space, and a park-overlooking location for this purpose. Furthermore, the buildings at the New
York City designated landmark had electricity instead of gas with the purpose of keeping and
environment of fresh air and healing conditions for the tenants.
Shively Sanitary Tenements Shively Sanitary Tenements Plan Image from Dolkart, “East River Houses” Image from Plunz, p. 103.
The Tuskegee was another model tenement funded by philanthropic women, as were Caroline
and Olivia E. Phelps-Stokes. The Phelps-Stokes sisters came from a wealthy family and grew up
traveling around the world and witnessing other types of living conditions, which later in life
they would witness in their own city. Caroline and Olivia were reverent Christians and believed
that nobody should be discriminated regardless of color, race, or station. They were very
20
interested in creating better life conditions for American minorities, such as African and Native
Americans, in education, in advancing the Christian religion, and in improving housing for the
poor. The Tuskegee was a six-story model tenement for African American families designed by
their nephew’s, I. N. Phelps-Stokes, architectural firm, Howells & Stokes, in 1901.
The Tuskegge Phelps-Stokes Properties Image from Lubove, p. 81. Own image.
In 1910, Olivia funded another model tenement in honor to her sister Caroline, who died in 1909.
These two buildings had open stairs, dropped balconies, and raised sills. Caroline endowed a
large part of her will to the creation of the Phelps-Stokes Fund specifying that the income be
used, quote, “for the creation and improvement of tenement housing in New York City, for
educational purposes in the education of Negroes both in Africa and the Unites Stated, North
American Indians, and needy and deserving white students”, end quote. In 1915, Olivia gave to
the Fund two more improved model tenements she had funded for African American families
Other important women involved in the progressive housing movement and who also funded
model tenements were Helen Hartley Jenkins, who funded the Hartley Open Stair Tenements in
1912; Laura Billings, who funded the Billings model tenements in 1901; and Josephine L. De
Forest, who funded the De Forest Fireproof Tenements in 1905. Even though Mrs. De Forest
died before the building was finished, she showed interest and involvement in the progressive
housing movement by erecting a seven-story fireproof model tenement that housed 53 families
and was built out of steel and concrete, which floors were proofed to save more space for living
areas.
21
These women established a tradition of female involvement in philanthropy in social and
housing work that continued in following years in policy-making, planning, design, and
administration, as opposed to companies dedicated to the building of model tenements where the
shareholders did not have an active and direct participation within the housing reform movement.
A very influential woman involved in planning, administration, and policy-making related to the
Housing Reform Movement in NYC was Edith Elmer Wood, who wrote books and articles in
order to inform people about current living conditions of the less privileged and to promote a
movement that would deal with these kind of social issues. In 1911 she moved to Washington
and joined a campaign to get rid of the capital’s slums and it was then that she began questioning
the effectiveness of the progressive reforms and decided to further study the subject. She
believed that because the housing reform movement was not backed by the state and local
government it had no control over law enforcement for better housing conditions and that it
would never work as it should be until this was incorporated.
In 1915 she moved to NYC in order to be at the center of the housing movement. Her book, The
Housing of the Unskilled Wage Earner, provided the first exhaustive survey of American
housing efforts and an analysis of its results. It also redefined the housing problem and placed its
solution in community planning and government subsidies, for which it proposed a legislative
outline in order to accomplish this. Mrs. Wood believed that the problem of housing reform laid
on the functioning of capitalism and the use of housing codes, as opposed to some earlier
reformers who pointed the problem to poor living conditions given by the landlords. She thought
that the new industrial system, which required more workers at low wages, was the cause for
slums since there was more area occupation and not enough earned money for these workers to
afford to move to different and better spaced areas. Furthermore, this was made even worse with
the passage of the new law, which did not allow cheaper housing.
Edith Elmer Wood did not believe that the housing reform movement was progressive or
effective. She believed that in order for low-income people to be able to afford a decent housing
environment the community and government had to be involved.
Following the steps of Edith Elmer Wood, women were fighting for better housing conditions
before and after the Great depression and urging the government for involvement and
22
development of housing for families living in conditions of poverty. They were so interested in
the housing problem that they created clubs and societies specifically oriented to this, such as the
Women’s Municipal League of the City of New York, the League of Mother’s Clubs, and the
Association to Promote Proper Housing for Girls, Inc., among others. They also made use of
newspapers, bulletins and magazines oriented to women in order to raise awareness on the
subject among other women. For example, the Women and the City’s Work was a bulletin
issued weekly and addressed housing problems in a political way by involving city and state
officers.
The organizations created by these women performed a number of studies to try to determine
what the cause was for people to live under these housing conditions.
Between 1928 and 1932 the League of Mother’s Clubs performed a study called Tenements and
Tenants on 1104 tenement families in which they showed how families struggled during the
depression by showing their income, rent, and housing conditions before the depression in 1928,
and after it in 1932. By comparing and analyzing the information gathered in these 2 years they
were able to determine how the income, rent, and housing conditions of these 1104 families were
affected over this 4-year period.
Among their findings they realized than more than half of the group was in conditions of poverty
and that they were dependent on agencies, the state or city relief, or starving. Some of them,
which represented the 27% of the group, had incomes between $1000 and $1500 per year and
were so close to the Minimum Subsistence Level that any accident or loss of earnings even for a
small period of time would have brought them into the dependent group. In 1932, 40% of the
group was unemployed and thus had no means to afford rent and food for their family members.
Furthermore, there was no positive relationship between the amount earned and the amount spent
for rent, which meant that the amount spent for rent was not dependent upon the family income.
These types of studies not only addressed the housing problems but also raised awareness among
social groups and, ultimately, gave way to the subsidized housing projects developed by the New
York City Housing Authority starting in the mid 1930s.
23
Chapter 3-The Model Tenements
A. Model Tenement Architectural Analysis Throughout our research we discovered over thirty two model tenement properties that are still
standing. For the purpose of this paper we choose to focus our research on three properties. Two
of which were financed by women philanthropist and all of which lie in Manhattan: The De
Forest Fire Proof Tenements, The Hartley Open Stair Tenements and The Bishop Model
Tenements.
De Forest Fire Proof Tenements1905
205 East 27th Street‐ ManhattanFunded by: Josephine L. De Forest
Architect: Ernest Flagg
Harley Open Stair Tenements1912
525 West 47th Street‐ ManhattanFunded by: Mrs. Helen Hartley JenkinsArchitect: Henry Atterbury Smith &
usually fine workmanship, and the low cost are all due to this careful oversight of the whole job
by the whole membership.”26
Riverview
Architectural Characteristics of the Finnish Co-ops
The Finnish Precedent - Worker Housing in Helsinki
The Finnish were already familiar with the idea of tenement housing. These two-story apartment
houses are examples of what the Finnish call “working housing” in Helsinki. This particular
building seems to have a linear plan with a double loaded corridor. In other words, the core of
the building is used for circulation and the outer portions are dedicated to living spaces which
require natural light. The interiors consist of single rooms occupied by several people. Unlike
New York where privacy was one of the main criteria for the new law tenement housing, privacy
was virtually nonexistent here. Nonetheless, these apartments have large windows that admit
plenty of light into the space.
26 Co-operation (1925), p.64-65.
47
Kirstinkuja 4 Helsinki, Finland
1910 1920s Images courtesy of Professor Andrew Dolkart, Columbia University
1925-26 1930s
Images courtesy of Professor Andrew Dolkart, Columbia University
48
Lot Coverage – Building Footprints
• With a lot coverage of 74%, Alku I and II are shaped like the letter “I”. This makes it
possible for the intermediate spaces to have exposure to natural light. The juxtaposition of
the two buildings forms an interior courtyard.
• Riverview, on the other hand, with a lot coverage of 64%, has an interior courtyard, two sides
of which are occupied by the vertical circulation of the abutting buildings. This eliminates
any circulation on the exterior plane of the building, which could be dedicated to more living
spaces that require natural light. Here the courtyard is directly accessible from the street
through a screened transitional space.
• Sun Garden Homes, with a lot coverage of 65%, is composed of six buildings that form an
interior courtyard. Once again, all vertical circulation is placed on the interior courtyard side
of the buildings.
Alku I & II Riverview Sun Garden Homes
• Sunset Court has a lot coverage of 70%. This building and the Riverview are similar in that
the courtyard to both of these buildings is accessible from the street through a screened
transitional space. This direct access has resulted in a break in the building massing. The
provided screen serves as vertical circulation, while it helps retain the volumetric uniformity
of the façade. Also, besides the fact that Sunset Court has an elongated courtyard, the
buildings have similar footprints.
• Then we have the Park Slope Homes with a lot coverage of 63%, where the entrance is
emphasized by being set back from the street. Here the vertical circulation joins the three
different segments of the building.
49
Sunset Court Park Slope Homes
By looking at the shape of the footprints we realized that although the layout of these buildings
follow the codes, spelled out in the new-tenement laws, the use of natural light has been
optimized; a conscious effort has been made to place more living spaces on the exterior plane of
the building. Also, with the exception of Alku I & II, the lot coverage for all of these co-ops is
actually lower than the 70% allowed by the codes. This created lots with open spaces that
allowed for good ventilation and ample light. Judging from the selection of lots for these co-ops
(newly built and converted co-ops), we can see that 12 of them face the park, which implies that
in fact the open space required by the codes was not viewed as an impediment by the builders.
This is in contrast to the desire of the speculative builder who maximizes the return on his
investment by maximizing floor area.
Architectural Analysis
Plan and Interior of Three Case Studies
Case Study No. 1 compared to the typical two-family house for working people in Sunset Park
The two-family house for working people has long rectangular plans that create interior spaces
that do not get any exposure to natural light. In the house, except for the spaces that are on
either end of the building, none of the intermediate spaces have windows to the exterior. On the
other hand, all of the spaces in the Finnish co-ops have windows and receive direct natural light.
Moreover, the Finnish co-ops show considerable improvement in the arrangement of spaces,
interior circulation, and in their increased consideration for light and air. Also, the spaces are
50
larger and brighter, and the corridors are much wider. The typical houses for working people on
the other hand have longer, darker and narrower corridors.
Alku I Typical Sunset Park Two Family Housing
817 43rd Street 640 54th Street
51
Alku I The Chislehurst
817 43rd Street, Brooklyn Fort Washington Ave., near 180th St., Manhattan
Alku I Interior:
Entry corridor Bedroom Bathroom
52
Sun Garden Homes: Floor Plan and Interior
The design of Sun Garden Homes proves to be even more refined. This building consists of two-
bedroom apartments, with a clean, clear, and straightforward layout. All rooms have windows to
the exterior, admitting plenty of natural light, and they are all accessible from a wide central
corridor.
Floor plan
Original image from Corcoran
Sun Garden Homes interior Images from Corcoran
Living room Dining room
53
Kitchen Entry corridor
Park Slope Home: Floor Plans and Interior
Park Slope Home consists mostly of one-bedroom apartments. In this building, an efficient use
of space has resulted in nice open layouts. Two plan types were examined in this building. In
both plan types, all rooms have windows. In plan type A, the public and private spaces are
separated, which results in an increased level of privacy. This is achieved by placing the two
sections on either side of the entrance. However, in Plan type B, the only access to the bedroom
is from the dining room. In fact all rooms are accessed from each other.
54
Plan A Plan B
Park Slope Homes interior
Kitchen Dining Room Living Room
55
The fact that spaces are accessed through each other might raise a question as to how well the
plans work in terms of space adjacencies. However, the sample layout found from the 1939 to
1940, attest to the fact that this was not an uncommon concept in Finland, and that private spaces
(bedroom) could be accessed from a public space (living).27
Apartment in Helsinki (1939-1940)
Floor plan from: Asunnon Muodonmuutoksai
So it can be concluded that in addition to the fact that the spaces are bright and cheerful, the
layout of the apartments work well.
Conclusion
Although built under the new-tenement laws, these co-operatives were progressive in that they
were much better in quality than the speculative apartments built in New York City at the time.
They have enhanced layouts and they make better use of space. There is a higher degree of
privacy, better interior circulation, ample light and air, and were built with an enhanced degree of
craftsmanship as opposed to typical family homes for working people. Moreover, the design of
27 Unfortunately we could not find any plans for apartments built in Finland before 1934.
56
these co-operatives improved over time. Finally, due to their smaller scale, they did and still do
create a stronger sense of community.
While co-operative housing was later sponsored by labor unions and the city, the limited-
dividend co-operatives of Sunset Park were the first successful case with a clear ethnic
affiliation. Furthermore, these co-ops remain as the last physical signs of the Finnish
community, which once settled in the Sunset Park area. These buildings were built for the
Finnish people by the very members of this community. These factors delineate a strong ethnic
picture, the historic memory of which merits preservation.
57
A. Alku II Condition Survey
A conditions survey was also undertaken on one of the first Finnish Co-operative buildings in
Brooklyn. Alku II, located in Sunset Park, was built in 1917, just after Alku I, and designed by
Eric O. Holmgren. Alku II is four stories with a central entrance, flat roof, and a three-bay
parapet. It is a brick masonry building with limestone trimming.
The simple limestone detailing is quite soiled as shown here. The areas that are the most soiled
are the undersides of the cornice, belt course, and entryway, as limestone tends to accumulate
soiling in areas where the rain does not wash the stone.
Tapestry brick is the primary masonry material on Alku II, exhibiting deep vertical ridges that
were raked into the brick before firing. Two different shades of bricks were used, a yellow-buff
color for the majority of the structure, and a darker reddish-brown iron-spot brick for the window
surrounds and pilasters.
Tapestry brick tends to have issues with soiling due to the deep grooves accumulating dirt, but
the condition of this façade is quite clean. Upon inquiring about this with the co-op president, it
was learned that the building was steam-cleaned about fifteen years ago. This treatment seems to
have been a very successful technique, and the bricks currently display almost no signs of
soiling.
Window decisions on this building are both made and paid for by the individual residents in each
unit, so there is a variety of window replacements seen here that create a discontinuity on the
facade. The original windows (6 over 1 and 9 over 1 panes) can be seen on the bottom right of
the screen. In this case, a window replacement master plan is recommended to ensure future
visual continuity of the façade.
Alku II serves as an example of a well-maintained building. Co-ops are often fortunate in this
sense because the residents of the building are also the owners, so there is a vested interest to
take care of the structure itself.
Many buildings in the Sunset Park area, where the Finnish co-ops are concentrated, are poorly
maintained. As you can see here, parapet and roof problems can be major issues. This parapet is
58
in a severely unsafe condition. Because this building is under six stories, Local Law 11 (the NYC
law that mandates building inspection every five years) does not apply. Alku II’s parapet is in
very stable and safe condition, as a testament to the owners’ careful maintenance.
Another co-op within our study, the Brooklyn Garden Apartments on the right, shows issues with
maintenance and graffiti on the building. In contrast, the majority of the Finnish co-ops are in
quite good condition, well-maintained and cared for by their owners.
59
Conclusion
In researching the buildings associated with progressive housing in New York City, we have
clearly found a great deal of historical, social, and cultural significance. Based on our findings,
we believe some of these buildings are worthy of preservation efforts. They are interesting
historically, and key to the development of housing in New York.
While there is a great deal more research that could (and should) be done, we feel that the
following preservation actions should be taken at this time:
Model tenements were an extremely small percentage of New York’s housing stock at the time;
yet their contribution to housing reform should certainly be acknowledged. Our findings show
that the true significance of these buildings lies primarily in their interior layouts and plans. We
feel that while the plans were not necessarily progressive, the architects and funders truly felt
that they were building homes that were better than the older tenements. The layout and plans of
these buildings provide us an insight to progressive housing that would otherwise be lost. The
methods of their financing and philanthropic construction are also very important to the history
of women’s social involvement in housing. Due to the limitations of New York’s Landmarks
Law, the interiors of these building cannot be given Landmark status. Therefore, we advocate for
the addition of some of the more successful model tenements funded by female philanthropists to
the National Register of Historic Places. While the National Register designation does not hold
any legal protection, it does designate the entire building, as opposed to merely the exterior
facade. If the opportunity to rehabilitate one of these structures using tax credits or federal funds
arose, their placement on the Register would provide them with protection of historic fabric
through the required employ of the Secretary of Interior Standards. For example, the Emerson
Tenements, built in 1914 by William Emerson, has recently qualified for eligibility to the
Register, and will undergo a tax credit rehabilitation project following these Standards.
Research on the Finnish Co-operative movement in Brooklyn has clearly divulged cultural
significance. As the first limited dividend co-operative housing in America, these buildings hold
great historic value. This group of buildings serves as a representation of what was once known
as Finn-town, one of the largest concentrations of Finns in the United States. While the Finnish
60
presence in Brooklyn (and New York City in general) has all but disappeared, the buildings
remain as an important link to ethnic heritage.
Because Alku 1 and 2 were the first of these limited dividend co-operatives to be built by the
Finnish, we recommend designation as New York City Landmarks. These two buildings have
already been recognized by Place Matters (an organization dedicated to preserving the cultural
heritage of New York). We feel that the Alku buildings would contribute to NYC’s Landmarks
as icons of this larger group of Finnish co-operatives (over 25 in all). These buildings are still an
integral part of the Sunset Park area, and part of the ethnic overlays that characterize New York.
A Thematic Nomination to the National Register would also be appropriate for the Finnish Co-
ops. This nomination could help raise awareness and recognition for this small but important
historical housing movement.
Community education plays a crucial role in our preservation recommendations for this large
group of buildings within New York’s history of progressive housing. With public involvement
and knowledge, these buildings could successfully be recognized and valued by the community.
Education can work as a powerful tool in successful preservation efforts. Because cultural
heritage is often difficult to present, the presence of these physical manifestations should be
made known. Maintenance and proper care of these buildings can emerge from acknowledgment,
along with more interest from the community as a whole. Educational recommendations include
children’s school programs, articles in local publications, or public informational lectures about
the history and importance of the Finnish Co-ops. Recognition and awareness can be powerful
tools applicable not only to our project, but to a broader understanding of preservation as a
whole.
61
Bibliography
Alpern, Andrew. Luxury Apartment Houses of Manhattan: An Illustrated History. (New York: Dover Publications, 1992).
Bell, Rudolph M. & Virginia Yans. Women on Their Own: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Being Single. (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2008).
Bremmer, Robert H. Josephine Shaw Lowell. (American National Biography website, 2008).
Brooklyn Municipality mortgage books
Census Record. (AncestryLibrary, 2008)
Citizens Association of New York. Report of the Council of Hygiene and Public Health of the Citizen Association of New York Upon the Sanitary Condition of the City. (D. Appleton and Company, NY; 1865).
Clark, T.M. Apartment Houses. The American Architect and Building News. (January 5, 1907)
Consumers Cooperative Movement. Co-Operation Journal. Published in the US 1920-1934.
Co-operative Home Builders in New York. Co-operation. Vol. XII., No. 2. (New York City: The Co-operative League. Feb., 1926.)
Crocker, Ruth. Mrs. Russell Sage: Women’s Activism and Philanthropy in Gilded Age and Progressive Era America. (Indiana University Press. Bloomington and Indianapolis, 2006).
Daniels, Doris Groshen. Lillian D. Wald. (American National Biography website, 2008).
Darling, Elizabeth and Lesley Whitworth. Women and the Making of Built Space in England 1870-1950. (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007.)
Department of Buildings
Documents prepared for the nomination of Alku I Placematters.
Dolkart, Andrew S. The Architecture and Development of New York City: Living Together. (New York, Columbia University Press, 2005).
62
Dolkart, Andrew S. Biography of a Tenement House. (Santa Fe, NM: The Center for American Places, Inc., 2006).
Edith Elmer Wood Archives, 1871-1945. (New York, Columbia University Archives, Avery Library, 2008).
Ekman, Katri. Co-operative Movement; the co-operative movement in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx, A history of Finnish American Organizations in Greater New York 1891-1976. (a project of the Greater New York Finnish Bicentennial Planning Committee, Inc.).
Eric O. Holmgren Dies; boro church architect. Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Apr. 8, 1951.
Ford, James. Slums and Housing Volume II. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936).
Greenwich House. The History of Greenwich House. (New York: Greenwich House Website, 2008).
Henry Street Settlement. About Our Founder, Lillian Wald. (New York, Henry Street Settlement Website, 2004).
Hoglund, A. William. Finnish Immigrants in America, 1880-1920. (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1960).
Howe, Barbara J. Edith Elmer Wood. (American National Biography website, 2008).
Institute of Architects Honors M. A. Cantor. Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Jan 31, 1951.
International Labour Office. Housing co-operatives. (Geneva, 1964).
King, Dr. William. Co-operator Magazine. Published in Britain 1844.
Klaus, Susan L. Modern Arcadia: Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. and the Plan for Forest Hills Gardens. (Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004).
Knopf, Sigard Adolphus. Tuberculosis, A Preventable and Curable Disease. (New York: Yard Moffat and Company, 1909).
Köngäs, Elli Kaiji. Nicknames of Finnish Apartment Houses in Brooklyn, NY. Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 77, No. 303 (Jan-Mar., 1964) (JSTOR, 2008).
63
Lewis, Alfred Allan. Ladies and not-so-gental Women. (New York: Viking, 2000).
Lindenmeyer, Kristie. Ordinary Women, Extraordinary Lives: Women in American History. (Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc., 2000).
Library of Congress. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/learn/features/immig/scandinavian5.html.
Lubove, Roy. I.N. Phelps-Stokes: Tenement Architect, Economist & Planner. (Philadelphia University of Pittsburg, 1964).
Marks, Stephen- editor. Concerning buildings : studies in honour of Sir Bernard Feilden. (Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996).
Marshall, Ray F..The Finnish Cooperative Movement. Originally published in Land Economics, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Aug., 1958) (JSTOR, 2008).
Plunz, Richard. A History of Housing in New York City. (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1990).
Proquest Historical Newspapers. Unknown author. Rent Model Flats After Rigid Tests. The New York Times, August 8, 1913.
Reeves, Joseph. A Century of Rochdale Cooperation: 1844-1944. (London, GB: Lawrence And Wishart, 1944).
Saarikangas, Kirsi. Osunnon Muodonmuutoksai: Puhtauden Estetikka ja Suku puoli Modernissa Arckkitehtuurissa, (Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuunden Seura 2002).
Sazama, Gerald. A brief history of affordable housing cooperatives in the United States, Department of Economics Working Paper Series. (Storrs, CT.: University of Conneticut, January 1996).
Seven Strides onward toward the Co-operative Commonwealth, Co-operation. Vol. XI, No.10. (New York City: The Cooperative League, October, 1925).
Siegler, Richard and Levy, Herbert J. Brief History of Cooperative Housing, National Association of Housing Cooperatives. (JSTOR, 2008).
Silbey, Joel H. Samuel Jones Tilden. (American National Biography website, 2008).
Swallow, Peter, David Watt, and Robert Ashton. Measurement and Recording of Historic Buildings. (London: Donhead, 1993).
64
Tarn, John Nelson. Five Percent Philanthropy: An Account of Housing in Urban Areas Between 1840 and 1914. (London, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1973).
Thernstrom, Stephan, Orlov, Ann, and Handlin, Oscar. Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1980) (JSTOR).
University of Texas. Unknown author. The History of the Rochdale Cooperative. http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~laurel/cooproots/history.html.
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=3199.
Watt, David. Building Pathologies: Principles and Practice, 2nd Edition. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007).
Wells, Ronald Austin. Essays on Philanthropy; Perspectives on Donor Legacy: What is it That History Teaches?- Legacy Across Continents: The Phelps-Stokes Fund. (The Wells Group Website, 2008).
Wells, Ronald Austin. Olivia E. Egleston & Caroline Phelps-Stokes. (American National Biography website, 2008).
65
Selected Bibliography
1. Better Tenement Houses, New York Times: November 22, 1896. 2. New York’s Great Movement for Housing Reform, Review of Reviews, December 1896. 3. Tenement House Show, New York Times: February 10, 1900. 4. Paying Model Tenements, New York Times: May 28, 1901. 5. Tenement Reform Threatened, New York Times: February 1, 1903. 6. The Model Tenement Problem, New York Times: April 7, 1903 7. To Promote Philanthropy, New York Times: May 23, 1905. 8. A New Model Tenement is opened to Tenants, New York Times: January 21, 1906. 9. Display Ad 32- Homewood, New York Times: March 25, 1906. 10. Philanthropy and Business, New York Times: May 29, 1906. 11. Model Tenements Pay, New York Times: May 29, 1906. 12. Apartment Houses, The American Architect and Building News, January 5, 1907. 13. Model Homes for the Poor, The Atlanta Constitutional, April 21, 1907. 14. 5,000,000 Invested in Model Tenements for New York’s Poor, Boston Daily Globe:
April 28, 1907. 15. Paying Philanthropy, New York Times: February 18, 1908. 16. Model Homes, New York Times: June 30, 1908. 17. “Model Flats” Ready Jan. 1, New York Times: December 11, 1908. 18. Model Tenement Problem, New York Times: March 21, 1909. 19. Bath Tubs as Garden Spots; Trials of Model Tenements, Chicago Daily Tribune: April
18, 1909. 20. Men Crowded Out as Tenement Heads: New York Times: May 21, 1909. 21. Model Tenements, New York Times: December 13, 1909. 22. Model Tenements Viewed from Investment Standpoint, New York Times: December 12,
1909. 23. South Brooklyn Tenements: New York Times: April 3, 1910. 24. Model Tenements Secured by Women, New York Times: May 8, 1910. 25. Model Tenements Good Investment, New York Times: May 29, 1910. 26. Designs Homes for Working Girls, New York Times: June 5, 1910. 27. Model Tenement Section, New York Times: December 25, 1910. 28. Hartley Open Stair Tenement, New York Times: July 9, 1911. 29. Housing: References to Books and Magazines, The Monthly Bulletin, December 1911. 30. Seeking to Remedy the Failure of Model Tenements, New York Times: December 1,
1912. 31. Rent Model Flats after Rigid Tests, New York Times: August 8, 1913/ 32. Latest Model Tenement on Avenue A, New York Times: December 12, 1915. 33. Model Tenements for West Harlem, New York Times: May 14, 1916. 34. Care of Tenement House Properties, New York Times: May 27, 1917 35. Model Tenement Designs Win Prizes, New York Times: February 5, 1922. 36. Site For Model Tenement, New York Times: March 16, 1922. 37. New Tenement House Shows a 6% Return, New York Times: February 25, 1923. 38. Model Tenements at $9 Per Room, New York Times: April 8, 1923. 39. Brooklyn to Build Model Tenements, New York Times: December 11, 1927. 40. Housing Authority Buys 2 Tenements, New York Times: August 15, 1941. 41. I.N. Phelps Stokes Architect, 77, Dead, New York Times: December 19, 1944.
66
42. I.N. Phelps Stokes: Tenement Architect, Economist, Planner, The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol, 23 No. 2 (May, 1964) Article by Roy Lubove.
43. Landmark Land Grab, The Village Voice: November 12, 1991. 44. Streetscapes: Model Tenements; Far West on 42nd St., A 1901 Innovation, Christopher
5 Park Slope Homes 521-31 41st St. Eric O. Holmgren 1927 6 Parkside 549-561 41th St. Eric O. Holmgren 1926 7 Sunset View I 605 41st St ? 1921 8 Sunset View II 611 41st St. ? 1920? 9 Sun Garden Homes 637-661 41st St. (7th
Ave.) Eric O. Holmgren 1924
10 Riverview 673-83 41st St., (7th Ave.)
Eric O. Holmgren 1923
11 Sunset Court 4002-4012, 7th Ave.(40th St.)
Eric O. Holmgren 1925
12 Berkshire Court 4001-11 7th Ave. Benjamin Cohn of Cohn Bros.
1915? 1924?
13 Sunset Home 4015-21 7th Ave. ? 1916? 1929?
converted
14 Baltic Homes 4113 7th Ave. ? 1914? converted 15 Elmo Homes 728-734 41st St. ? 1927 16 Park Hill Home 759 42nd St. ? 1926 17 Alku I 816 43rd St. (near 8th
Ave.) Maxwell A. Cantor 1916-17
18 Alku II 826 43rd St. (near 8th Ave)
Eric O. Holmgren 1917
19 Advance Homes 848-856 43rd St. ? 1922? 20 Top View 807 44th St. ? 1923 21 Broadview 4313 9th Ave. Eric O. Holmgren? 1923? 22 Linden Heights 702 45th St. Eric O. Holmgren? 1924 23 Victory Home 672 46 St. ? 1915 converted 24 Bay View 671 47th St. ? 1915?
1930? converted
25 Hillside 566 44th St. Eisenla & Carlson 1912-3 converted 26 Parkslope 570 44th St. Eisenla & Carlson 1912-3 converted 27 Pleasant View 574 44th St. Eisenla & Carlson 1912-3 converted 28 Hilltop View 4404 6th Ave. Eisenla & Carlson 1912-3 converted 29 517 49th Street Club 517 49th St. ? 1914? converted 30 466 49th Street Club 466 49th St. Eisenla & Carlson 1909?
1914? converted
73
74
Model Tenements
75
“Brooklyn Garden Apartments”715‐29 4th Av (at 24th St),
Brooklyn
• Building Type: Model Tenement
•Developer/ Original Owner: Brooklyn Garden Apartments,
• Materials: Brick• Significance: This building was in part sponsored by nuns, and there were very strict criteria if you and your family were going to live here. (See New York Times Article August 8th 1913‐ Rent Model Flats After Rigid Tests)
• Building Type: Model tenement
92
“Billings”(326‐330) 328 East 35th
Street, Manhattan
• Developer/Original Owner: Laura Billings
• Architect: Andrews & Withers
• Date Built: 1901
• Materials: Brick with stone trims
• Building Type: Two 6 story flats
93
“DeForest Fireproof Tenements”
203‐205 East 27th Street, Manhattan
• Developer/Original Owner: Josephine L. De Forest & Shephered K. De Forest
• Architect: Ernest Flagg
• Date Built: 1905
• Materials: Brick with terra‐cotta ornamentation
• Building Type: Model Tenement
94
“New York Fireproof Tenements”
500‐506 West 42nd StreetType: Model tenement
Developer/Owner: NY Fireproof Tenement Company aka The Model Tenement Fireproof Company
Architect: Ernest Flagg
Date Built: 1899
Materials: Brick and limestone
Integrity: Only a partial front façade and one doorway left of the west wing, the east wing is still intact
Significance: 1st Fireproof tenements. Ernest Flagg used his fireproof partition wall patented construction technique on these and other buildings that he designed for the NY Fire Proof Tenement Company which he founded (the three addresses I found for these buildings have all been demolished). 502‐506 were also demolished without a DOB Permit and a stop work order has been placed on the lots.
NYPL Digital Gallery
Half demolished
95
“Henry Phipps Houses”
234‐248 West 64th Street‐Manhattan
Type: Model tenement
Developer/Owner: Henry Phipps
Architect: Whitfield & King
Date Built: 1912
Materials: Buff brick, painted stone, limestone
Significance: Mainly for the African American population that populated the San Juan Hill area at the time of construction.
96
“Phipps Garden Apartments I & II”
5101 39th Avenue at 521st
Street, Sunnyside, Long Island City, Queens.
Building Type: Model Tenement
Developer/Original Owner: Phipps Houses, Inc.
Architect: Clarence S. Stein
Date Built: 1927‐30‐35
Materials: brick.
Significance: in Historic District. The Phipps Garden Apartments I is a large complex of apartments that, together with Phipps Garden Apartments II to the north, encompass an entire double‐width block. Housing development that provided low density, high quality housing, open space and gardens for low wage earners and
encouraged civic participation among its residents.
97
“Henry Phipps Tenement Houses”
233‐247 West 63rd Street‐Manhattan
Type: Model tenement
Developer/Owner: Henry Phipps
Architect: Whitfield & King
Date Built: 1905‐1906
Materials: light brick, red brick, some stone work
Significance: Built for mainly to house African Americans that populated the San Juan Hill area at the time.
98
“Tower buildings”431‐5(419) Hicks St., Brooklyn
• Building Type: Model tenement.
• Developer/ Original Owner: Alfred White.
• Architect: Williams Field & Son.
• Date Built: 1876‐77
• Materials: Bricks, cast iron and wrought iron
• Significance: Located in historic district, it was also one of the first two (Home Building was the other) model tenements that were successful in New York City.
99
“Home Buildings”445 Hicks St., Brooklyn
• Building Type:Model tenement.
• Developer/ Original Owner: Alfred White.
• Architect: Williams Field & Son.
• Date Built: 1876‐77
• Materials: Bricks, cast irons and wrought iron.
• Integrity: good.
• Significance: Located in historic district, multiple entrances, multiple buildings, courtyard, simple and bulky details. It was also one of the first two (Tower Building was the other) model tenements that were successful in New York City. Restored 1986 by Maitland, Strauss & Behr.
100
“Riverside Buildings (Apartments)”
10 Columbia Pl., Brooklyn• Building Type: Model tenement.
• Developer/ Original Owner: Alfred Treadway White.
• Architect: Williams Field & Son.
• Date Built: 1890
• Materials: Bricks, terracotta, cast irons and wrought iron.
• Integrity: half of the complex was demolished for the expressway construction, but the rest of it is maintained well. remodeled in 1988 by R.M. Kliment & Frances Halsband.
• Significance: Located in historic district.
101
“Astral Apartment (flat)”184 Franklin Street, Brooklyn
• Building Type: Model tenement.
• Developer/ Original Owner: Charles Pratt.
• Architect: Lamb & Rich.
• Date Built: 1885‐6.
• Materials: Brick & terra cotta.
• Significance: Designated as a New York City Landmark in 1980.
102
“Bishop”58 Hester St., Manhattan
• Building Type: Model Tenement. (tenement)
• Developer/ Original Owner: D.W. & ShepeherdBishop.
• Architect: Ernest Flagg.
• Date Built: 1901‐2.
• Materials: mainly buff brick with limestone lintels and sills
2nd‐5th Floor plan
103
“Mesa Verde”3433 90th Street, Jackson Heights,
Queens.• Building Type: Apartments
• Developer/ Original Owner: Open Stair Dwellings Company.
• Architect: Henry Atterbury Smith.
• Date Built: 1926 (completed).
• Materials: Brick and limestone.
• Description: Six closed L buildings organized at forty‐five degrees to the gridiron. Each building was six‐sty high and had one elevator that went to the roof, making the buildings “walk‐downs”. The intersecting diagonals of the buildings were connected by bridges and walkways.
•Materials: brick, decoratively laid, stone over entry
•Integrity: relatively intact, cornice missing
•Significance:
•Other Info: Block/Lot= 917‐23
Number of floors= 4
Units= 16
NB# 6788‐1911
108
“Bay View (Risula)” 540 40th St (b/w 5th and 6th Ave.),
Brooklyn
• Building Type: Finnish Co‐op (converted)
•Developer/ Original Owner:
McKinley Park Holding Co. (29th St & 3rd Ave. Brooklyn)
Current= YMS Realty Corp.
•Architect: C. Schubert (13th Ave. and 86th St., Brooklyn)
•Date Built: 1912
•Materials: brick, decoratively laid, stone over entry
•Integrity: relatively intact, cornice missing
•Significance:
•Other Info: Block/Lot= 917‐21
Number of building= 1
Number of floors= 4
Number of units= 19
NB# 585‐1912
109
“Park Slope Homes”
521‐31 41st St., Brooklyn
• Type: Finnish Co‐op
• Developer/Owner: Park Slope Assn., Inc.
•CM: Sun Heights Building Corp (637‐41st Brooklyn, John Noro. President 637 41st St., Brooklyn)
•Architect: Eric O. Holmgren (371 Fulton St., Brooklyn)
• Date Built: 1927
• Materials: bricks and stone
• Integrity:
•Significance:
•Other info: Block/Lot= 917‐58
Number of floors= 4
Number of units= 16
110
“Parkside (Ylijaama)”
549‐561 41th St., Brooklyn• Type: Finnish Co‐op•Developer/Owner: Parkside Assn., Inc.•CM: Sun Heights Building Corp (637‐41st Brooklyn, John Noro. President 637‐41st St. Brooklyn)
• Architect: Eric O. Holmgren (371 Fulton St., Brooklyn)
•Nickname: Kiusala, ‘The place of annoyance’ or ‘nuisance’. The house was built ‘to tease’ inhabitant of another house who thought theirs was a good building.
Integrity: Appears to still maintain most of the theoriginal material, the windows have changed and the stucco along the bottom may or may not be original. Gates have been added for security.
Size/Buildings: 6‐story buildings/8
Significance: Largest single project built under the 1926 Limited Dividend Law at the time of construction. Has elevators!
136
“Amalgamated Housing”80 Van Cortlandt Park South
Street, Bronx
Type: Cooperative
Developer: Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
Owner: Amalgamated Housing Corporation
Architect: Springsteen & Goldhammer/ Herman Jessor
Style: Neo‐Tudor
Date Built: 1927‐1932
Materials: Brick, Stone
Size/Buildings/Units: 7‐story buildings/6/620 units
Significance: It is the oldest limited equity housing cooperative in the United States. Sponsored by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union founding President and manager Abraham E. Kazan, known as "The father of cooperative housing in the United States." The first 303 "Pioneer Cooperators" began moving in on November 1, 1927. Building 6 is the oldest building. The "newest" buildings are two towers which were completed in 1968 and 1970, and replaced the original first building. Altogether, the complex houses 1,482 families.
137
“Amalgamated Dwellings”504‐20 Grand Street,
Manhattan
Type: Co‐op
Developer: Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
Owner: Amalgamated Dwellings Inc.
Architect: Springsteen and Goldhammer.
Style: Art Deco
Date Built: 1930
Materials: Brick and concrete
Size/Units: 6‐story buildings / 236 units
Notes: Union’s first architectural achievement. Won a medal for design excellence
138
“Boulevard Gardens”54th St. at Hobart St., Between
Owner: Amalgamated housing Corporation, and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (ACWA)
Architect: Springsteen/Herman Jessor
Date Built: 1951
Materials: Reinforced concrete and brick façade
Size/Buildings/Units: 12‐story buildings / 807 units
Notes: The third cooperative by ACWA Multiple entrances and courtyards. One of the first developments of UHF on an open lot facing the East River. Four slum blocks were slum and 65 tenements were torn down for the development.
140
“East River Houses”504‐20 Grand Street,
Manhattan
Type: Co‐op
Developer: International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union/United Housing Foundation
Owner: East River Housing Corporation
Architect: Springsteen/Herman Jessor
Date Built: 1956
Materials: Reinforced concrete and brick façade
Size/Buildings/Units: 20‐21 stories/ 1,672 units
Notes: Balconies and bay windows are Jessor’s innovation. Multiple entrances and courtyards. One of the first developments of UHF on an open lot facing the East River
141
“Seward Park”504‐20 Grand Street, Manhattan
Type: Co‐op
Developer/Owner: United Housing Foundation/Seward Park Housing Corporation
Architect: Springsteen/Herman Jessor
Date Built: 1961
Materials: Reinforced concrete and brick façade
Size: 1,728 units
Notes: Multiple entrances and courtyards. One of the first developments of UHF on an open lot facing the East River
142
“Farband Houses”2925 Matthews Avenue, Bronx
Type: Co‐op
Developer/Owner: Jewish National Workers Alliance/Farband Housing Corporation
Architect: Meisner & Uffner
Style: Neo‐Tudor
Date Built: 1928
Materials: Brick
Size/Units: 2 buildings/127 units
Significance: An envisioned utopia. Cornices/parapets have been redone inappropriately.
Other Name: Eastchester Heights
Other Information: The Jewish National Workers Alliance was a labor Zionist organization that wanted to establish a socialist Jewish state in what was then Palestine
143
“Hillside Homes”3480 Seymour Avenue, Bronx
Type: Co‐op
Developer/Owner:
Architect: Clarence Stein
Date Built: 1934
Materials: Brick
Size/Units: 5‐story buildings/1,400 apartments
Significance: An envisioned utopia Cornices/parapets have been redone inappropriately.
Other Name: Eastchester Heights
144
“Rochdale Village”
Between Baisley Boulevard and 137th
Avenue (north/South) and Bedell Street and Guy R. Brewer Boulevard (east/west),
South Jamaica, Queens
Type: Co‐op
Developer/Owner: Robert Moses
Architect: Herman Jessor
Date Built: 1963
Materials: Brick
Significance: The largest single cooperative housing community ever to be undertaken at its time. The vision of Robert Moses. Population 25,000 people. Covers 122 city blocks.
Significance: In very good condition, well cared for, and interesting architecturally which might help make a case.
Style: Neo‐Tudor
Website address: www.Bronxcourtyard.com
146
“Workers’ Colony Cooperative”2700‐2774 Bronx Park East &
2846‐2870 Bronx Park East, Bronx
Type: Co‐op
Developer/Owner: United Workers Cooperative (Jewish)
Architect: Springsteen & Goldhammer & Herman Jessor
Style: Austrian/German/Dutch expressionist
Date Built: 1925‐1929
Materials: Red brick, wood, stucco
Integrity: Although it has landmark status the building is not well cared for. Harm has been done to original material.
Significance: Landmarked in 1992, see designation report notes. Particularly notable for its brickwork. Has the most extensivefacilities, including classrooms, nursery, kindergarten, youth clubs, auditorium, gymnasium, children’s library, and adult library
Other Names: “The Coops”, “The Allerton Coops”, “United Workers Cooperative Colony” 147
“The Dunbar”149th‐150th St. & Adam Clayton Blvd., Harlem
Type: Co‐op
Developer/Owner: John D. Rockefeller Jr.
Architect: Andrew J. Thomas
Date Built: 1928
Materials: Red brick/limestone/stucco
Integrity: Very good, new windows to look old
Significance: Landmark
According to the New York City LandmarksCommission, it was "the first large cooperativebuilt for "Peoples of African Descent." Ratherthan being set up as rental apartments, thecomplex was a housing cooperative. Tenantswere required to pay a down payment of $50 perroom, and then $14.50 per room per month,much of which went towards a mortgage on thespace. In 22 years, if payments were all made ontime, the tenant would own the apartment.
148
“Penn South”23rd ‐ 29th Streets and
8th ‐ 9th Avenues Chelsea, Manhattan
Type: Co‐op
Developer/Owner: International Ladies Garment Workers Union
Architect: Herman J. Jessor
Date Built: 1963
Materials: Brick
Size/Units: 2,820 units
149
Type: Finnish Co‐op
Developer/Owner:
Construction Company: Building ThreeCorporation
Architect: C. Scahefer Junior
Date Built: 1924
Materials: Brick, cast iron
Size/Units: 6 floors/84 units
Other Information: Block/Lot: 2474 ‐10
NB #: 302‐1924
NB #: 1984‐1923
“Varma I ”828 Gerard Avenue ,
Bronx
150
“Varma II”825 Walton Avenue,
Bronx
Type: Finnish Co‐op
Developer/Owner:
Construction Company: Weinsil ConstructionCompany
Architect: Glick & Duma Architects
Date Built: 1926
Materials: Brick, cast iron
Size/Units: 6 floors/ 64 units
Other Information: Block/Lot:2474 ‐15
NB # 345‐1926
151
“Flagg Courts”7200 Ridge Blvd, Brooklyn
• Building Type: Co‐op
•Developer/ Original Owner:
•Architect:
•Date Built:
•Materials: brick, intricately laid with a
rusticated appearance
•Integrity:
•Significance:
152
“Souja 1 and Souja 2”129th St (b/w 5th Ave and Lenox)
127th St. and 5th Ave
• Building Type: Co‐op
•Developer/ Original Owner: Finnish
•Architect:
•Date Built:
•Materials:
•Integrity:
•Significance:
Limited Dividend Cooperatives that have been demolished
Address does not exist
“Eight Family Home”
43st 371' from 9 Ave. 29’3”*100’2”
•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op
•Developer/Owner: Eight Family Home Association Inc.
•Date Built: 1920
153
• Alfred Corning Clark Buildings‐•217‐233 West 68th Street & 214‐220 West 69th Street•Architect: Ernest Flagg• Date: 1898• Owner/developer: City & Suburban
• Tuskegee Houses –•213‐215 West 62nd Street• Architect: Howells & Stokes• Date: 1902• Owner/developer: Miss Caroline Phelps‐Stokes & her
sister Olivia E. Phelps‐Stokes•Description: First model tenements for African Americans, since Workingmen’s Home
• Billings –•326‐330 East 35th Street, Manhattan•Architect: Andrews & Withers• Date: 1901• Owner/developer: Laura Billings
•First Avenue & 71st Street, Manhattan• Architect: George Da Cunha & modified by Vaux & Radford•Owner/developer: Improved Dwellings Association
•John Jay Dwellings‐•East 77th Street (Across from Shivley Sanitary Tenements)•Architect: Henry Atterbury Smith & William P. Miller• Date: 1913• Owner/ developer: Open Stair Tenement Company
Model Tenements that have been demolished • Cathedral Ayrcourt Apartments –
•531 West 122nd Street and 540 West 123rd Street•Architect: Henry Atterbury Smith.• Date: 1921• Owner/developer: Open Stair Dwellings Company.
• Workingmen’s home• Intersection of Canal, Mott & Elizabeth Streets• Architect: John W. Ritch•Date: 1855• Owner/developer: New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor
•Monroe Model Tenement‐•Monroe Street, Lower East Side•Architect: William Field & Son•Date: 1879• Owner/ Developer: Abner Chichester
•Cherry Street Model Tenements•Architect: William Schickel & Company/ Tenement House Building Company •Date: 1886
•Hampton House‐•West 62nd Street•Owner/developer: City & Suburban• Date: 1912
•Phelps‐Stokes Properties• East 32nd Street (West of 1st Avenue)• Owner/ developer: City & Suburban
•Phipps Houses•321‐337 East 31st Street• Architect: Grosvenor Atterbury• Owner/ Developer: Phipps Houses Inc. •Date: 1906