Progressive Housing in New York City: - Columbia University ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Introduction 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. Finnish Cooperative‐ Riverview Cooperatives 673‐83 41 st Street, Brooklyn Model Tenement‐ Hartley Open Stair Tenements (525 West 47 th Street, Manhattan) 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. 3 Citizen’s Association of New York, 1865, p. lxxvi. 4 Pluntz, p. 30. 5
Page 1 and 2: Progressive Housing in New York Cit
Page 3: Table of Contents Item Page Introdu
Page 7 and 8: eferred to as “New-Law” tenemen
Page 9 and 10: A. Model Tenement History With the
Page 11 and 12: “Model Houses for Families” Blo
Page 13 and 14: this time the Finns had banned toge
Page 15 and 16: Chapter 2- Women’s Involvement in
Page 17 and 18: name unless they were windows or ne
Page 19 and 20: Robert Weeks de Forest Forest Hills
Page 21 and 22: interested in creating better life
Page 23 and 24: development of housing for families
Page 25 and 26: The interior tells a different stor
Page 27 and 28: Street Street Bishop Model Tenement
Page 29 and 30: Street De Forest Fireproof Tenement
Page 31 and 32: Hartley Open Stair Tenements‐ Upp
Page 33 and 34: Bishop Model Tenements- This teneme
Page 35 and 36: As the graph reveals, the majority
Page 37 and 38: Some of the issues we see is the so
Page 39 and 40: Chapter 4- Finnish Cooperatives His
Page 41 and 42: Based on those ideologies, the Finn
Page 43 and 44: Next, we selected the buildings tha
Page 45 and 46: cost of land. Bond issues, loans, a
Page 47 and 48: usually fine workmanship, and the l
Page 49 and 50: Lot Coverage - Building Footprints
Page 51 and 52: larger and brighter, and the corrid
Page 53 and 54: Sun Garden Homes: Floor Plan and In
Page 55 and 56:
Plan A Plan B Park Slope Homes inte
Page 57 and 58:
these co-operatives improved over t
Page 59 and 60:
in a severely unsafe condition. Bec
Page 61 and 62:
presence in Brooklyn (and New York
Page 63 and 64:
Dolkart, Andrew S. Biography of a T
Page 65 and 66:
Tarn, John Nelson. Five Percent Phi
Page 67 and 68:
42. I.N. Phelps Stokes: Tenement Ar
Page 69 and 70:
Distribution Ma p: Red= Model Tenem
Page 71 and 72:
179 Mulberry Street Plan from Clark
Page 73:
Finnish Co-op housing in Sunset Par
Page 76 and 77:
“Brooklyn Garden Apartments” 71
Page 78 and 79:
“Emerson Tenements” 746 11 th A
Page 80 and 81:
“Harlem Apartments” 211 West 14
Page 82 and 83:
“Manhattan Housing Corporation”
Page 84 and 85:
“Thomas Garden Apartments” 840
Page 86 and 87:
“Seventy Third Street Estate/Jame
Page 88 and 89:
“Celtic Park Apartments” 4810 4
Page 90 and 91:
“Lavoisier Apartments” 1213 Yor
Page 92 and 93:
“Rogers Model Dwellings” 425‐
Page 94 and 95:
“DeForest Fireproof Tenements”
Page 96 and 97:
“Henry Phipps Houses” 234‐248
Page 98 and 99:
“Henry Phipps Tenement Houses”
Page 100 and 101:
“Home Buildings” 445 Hicks St.,
Page 102 and 103:
“Astral Apartment (flat)” 184 F
Page 104 and 105:
“Mesa Verde” 3433 90 th Street,
Page 106 and 107:
“Corner View I” 4401 4 th Ave.,
Page 108 and 109:
“Florence (Risula)” 546 40 th S
Page 110 and 111:
“Park Slope Homes” 521‐31 41
Page 112 and 113:
“Sunset View I” 605 41 st St.,
Page 114 and 115:
“Sun Garden Homes” 637‐47 & 6
Page 116 and 117:
“Sunset Court (Kiusala)” 4002
Page 118 and 119:
“Sunset Home (Koyhaintalo)” 401
Page 120 and 121:
“Elmo Homes (Lepola)” •Type:
Page 122 and 123:
“Alku I” 816 43 rd St (near 8th
Page 124 and 125:
“Advance Homes (Moskova)” 848
Page 126 and 127:
“Broadview (Petleheemi)” 4313 9
Page 128 and 129:
“Bay View” 671 47 th St., Brook
Page 130 and 131:
“Hillside” 566 44 th St., Brook
Page 132 and 133:
“Pleasant View” 574(576) 44 th
Page 134 and 135:
“466 49 th Street Club” 466 49
Page 136 and 137:
“Academy Housing Cooperation” 5
Page 138 and 139:
“Amalgamated Dwellings” 504‐2
Page 140 and 141:
“Hillman House” 504‐20 Grand
Page 142 and 143:
“Seward Park” 504‐20 Grand St
Page 144 and 145:
“Hillside Homes” 3480 Seymour A
Page 146 and 147:
“Shalom (Scholem) Aleichem Houses
Page 148 and 149:
“The Dunbar” 149 th ‐150 th S
Page 150 and 151:
“Varma I ” 828 Gerard Avenue ,
Page 152 and 153:
“Flagg Courts” 7200 Ridge Blvd,
Page 154:
Model Tenements that have been demo
show all

Progressive Housing in New York City: - Columbia University ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?