Progressive Housing in New York City:

A Closer Look at Model Tenements and Finnish Cooperatives

BYXsusha Carlyann Flandro, Christine Huh, Negin Maleki,

Mar iana Sarango-Manaças & Jennifer Schork

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.

Xsusha Flandro, Christine Huh, Negin Maleki, Mariana Sarango-Manacas & Jennifer Schork

  

2

Table of Contents Item Page Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..4

Chapter 1: The Historic Context of Progressive Housing……………………………....5

A. The History of Model Tenements……………………………….......9

B. The History of Housing Limited Dividend Cooperatives…………...11

Chapter 2: Women’s Involvement in Progressive Housing……………………………..15

Chapter 3: Model Tenements……………………………………………………………24

A. Architectural Analysis ……………………………………………..24

B. De Forest Conditions Survey…………………………………….....35

Chapter 4: Finnish Limited Dividend Cooperatives…………………………………….39

A. Discovering the Finnish Cooperatives………………...…………..39

B. Alku II Conditions Survey…………………………………………58

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………....60

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….62

Selected Bibliography…………………………………………………………………...66

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………...68

  

3

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.

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 & 

William P. Miller

Bishop Model Tenements1901‐1902

60 Hester Street‐ ManhattanFunded by: Cortlandt & DW Bishop

Architect: Ernest Flagg

The Bishop Model Tenements were the earliest built of the three. Erected in 1901 by Cortland

and D.W. Bishop with the architect Ernest Flagg, this building stands on 60 Hester Street in the

Lower East Side. The Bishop tenement provides a good example of exterior model tenement

construction. Buff colored brick was used in alternating courses of headers and stretchers, the

windows are stacked vertically giving the building a verticality that it would otherwise be

lacking. The only other place that another masonry material is used is in the lintels and sills

where limestone has been inserted. The building is topped by a relatively small and simple

cornice. The building does not have any other decoration; it is an austere façade but an effective

one. The goal here was to create a good building, not a fancy one, and it has succeeded because it

still stands in good condition 107 years after its construction date.

  

24

The interior tells a different story. Another goal of the model tenements were to establish a

quality of life on the interior that was unobtainable in dumbbell tenements. The Bishop Model

Tenements were not as successful in this area. At the time of completion there were nine

apartments per floor, some with windows that all faced the light court, residence would have to

pass through a bedroom to get to the restroom and the kitchen and living rooms were combined

into one.

After looking at different plans for model tenements it quickly became apparent that we would

have to come up with a way to objectively assess these buildings on the interiors, thereby

revealing whether or not they were really progressive in terms of interior design and layout. We

looked extensively at the literature that was published on model tenements printed during the

period of model tenement construction in New York City (see bibliography and selected

bibliography for references), and came up with seventeen pieces of criteria that were cited as

being important in model tenement layout design. Each of these criteria were given a numeric

value, ventilation questions made up 46 points, crowding 44 points, amenities 24 points and

privacy 18 points, totaling 132 points. A plan that earned all 132 points would be our marking

point as a layout that was one-hundred percent progressive with its interior layout. All three

plans underwent this evaluation. The plans used, the complete results and a brief written

summary can be found on the following pages.

 

 

 

   

 

   

  

25

    

Crit

erio

n us

ed to

eva

luat

e m

odel

tene

men

t int

erio

r lay

outs

26

Bis

hop

Mod

el T

enem

ents

-Gro

und

floor

pla

nB

ishop

Mod

el T

enem

ents

-

Plan

for f

loor

s tw

o th

roug

h si

x

Stre

etSt

reet

 

  

27

 

Bis

hop

Mod

el T

enem

ents

-Num

eric

al A

naly

sis

  

28

De

Fore

st F

irepr

oof T

enem

ents

-Flo

or p

lan

for f

loor

s tw

o th

roug

h se

ven,

pla

n fo

r flo

or o

ne is

iden

tical

ex

cept

it d

oesn

’t ha

ve th

e th

ree

stre

et fa

cing

apa

rtmen

ts in

the

front

.

Stre

et

  

29

De

Fore

st F

irepr

oof T

enem

ents

-Num

eric

al A

naly

sis

  

30

Hartle

y Ope

n Stair Ten

emen

ts‐Upp

er floo

r plan

s*

*Bec

ause

 we were un

able to

 loca

te th

e original floo

r plan

s for this building, we foun

d on

e with

 the sa

me foot prin

t , sam

e lot s

ize an

d bu

ilt fo

ur yea

rs earlie

r to com

plete ou

r an

alysis. Imag

e from

 Slums an

d Hou

sing

 V. II P

late 13. 

 

  

31

Har

tley

Ope

n St

air T

enem

ents

-Num

eric

al A

naly

sis

  

32

Bishop Model Tenements- This tenement building rated as being only twenty-nine percent

progressive. Some of the factors that drew its score down were: it had nine apartments per floor

making crowding higher, some apartments only had court facing windows, a person would have

to pass through a bedroom to get to the bathroom in a few of the apartment layouts and the living

room and kitchen were combined in all of the apartments. What kept this plan from total failure

were: the majority of the windows faced a yard or a street rather than a court, in the majority of

the apartments a person did not have to pass through a bedroom to get to the bathroom and the

plan of the first floor had rooms for boarders. Rooms for boarders were a good thing, seeing as to

they kept the boarders from living in the apartments with the families but also helped to keep

rent low for the entire building.

De Forest Fireproof Tenements- Funded by Josephine L. De Forest and her husband Shephered

De Forest in 1905 using Ernest Flagg as the architect, this building also has an austere façade and

uses the same brick laying techniques as the Bishop tenements. Again, the same verticality is

given to the building with the stacking of windows and small cornice. However, terra-cotta

ornamentation surrounds the door in the form of imitation stone blocks and a large cartouche,

drawing the eye to the private entrance as the large event on the façade.

The De Forest tenements actually had the highest result on our survey, a sixty-four percent.

Some of things that drove its score down were: a few of the apartments had only court facing

windows, courts which were closed on all four sides (once the neighboring buildings were

erected) and in some apartments the living room and kitchens were combined into one. This

building however had more pros in its layout than cons. The pros were: the majority of

apartments had separate kitchens and living rooms, half of the apartments had more amenities in

the restrooms with addition of a tub, and none of the restrooms had to be accessed through a

bedroom, and only eight apartments were on each floor, the lowest amount in our evaluation.

Hartley Open Stair Tenements- The last building we looked at, the Hartley tenements were

funded by Helen Hartley Jenkins and the architect was Henry Atterbury Smith. The building was

completed in 1912. The façade is the most decorated out of all the model tenements we

evaluated, with terra-cotta surrounding the entrance as well as decorating the parapet. It also uses

brick laying in an interesting manor, used to draw attention to certain areas of the façade. On the

façade the brick is extended out from the plane to create pilasters. The Pilasters begin with a

  

33

rectangular design done in brick and triumphantly end with poly-chromed terra-cotta garlands,

added color to the building and also giving the building verticality. Poly-chrome terra cotta is

again used around the entrance (this has since been painted over in a buff colored paint), and

bricks were laid diagonally in the parapet to visually separate it from the rest of the building. A

stone band runs horizontally between the ground and first floor.

The interior layout of this building scored a forty-five percent. The cons were: there were only

toilets in the restrooms, all the light courts are closed on all four sides, and the kitchens and

living rooms are combined in the majority of the apartments. The pros were: all the apartments

had vestibules separating the public hall from the private apartment, the restrooms were separate

from the bedrooms, and the most of the apartments are cross ventilated because of the number

and placement of the windows.

In order to judge our buildings as progressive in terms of interior layout we had to run the same

survey on three speculative apartment buildings, built for the same income bracket, during the

same period of the century. The results have been graphed below for comparison and complete

results from the speculative tenements can be found in the appendix.

Model tenements  progress ive value compared with speculative tenements  progress ive value  

S peculative tenements Model tenements

1902 1902 1902 1903 1905 1912

  

34

As the graph reveals, the majority of our previously named progressive model tenements were

actually not progressive in their layout, contrary to common beliefs. This could have been one of

the reasons that only a small number of model tenements were ever erected and their

construction was discontinued.

If the same income bracket could live in a better building and it was available to them, there

would be little reason fro them to choose to live in some of the model tenements. However, this

doesn’t make them any less significant in the history of housing in New York City, similar to

how pre-law and old-law tenements were found to be poor in terms of design; they continue to

be visual representations of the changes in housing. The model tenements were used as one

example of the progression towards better housing conditions in future government subsidized

projects. They were transitional housing but they can be used to give a historic memory that

would otherwise be lost.

  

B. De Forest Conditions Survey

Building materials define a building and express its design intent. Brick was the primary building

material in every single building we have discovered within the context of progressive housing

(over 90 buildings total, with construction dates ranging from 1894 to 1963). While this is not a

surprising fact, it is of interest to further examine the material choices within this group of

buildings. All the buildings we have studied were of quality materials, as evident in how well

they have held up over time.

Brick is one of the most common building materials throughout history; it offers affordability,

speed of construction, and by the end of the 19th century- creativity in ornamentation. Brick

masonry was inexpensive but at the same time, very expressive. It is a versatile material that can

articulate many different styles and details, as previously shown in the Hartley Tenements.

Many, many of different kinds of bricks were used on these buildings, usually with trimming

details of terra cotta or stone. These buildings were designed and built with expressions of

modesty—for their function was to provide better housing to the working class. While most of

these designs are relatively restrained, with no extraneous ornament, the intricate brickwork

  

35

achieves a great deal of visual interest. As we see here, a lot of variety and creativity can be

expressed both with the choice of bricks and the manner in which they are laid.

The first step to preserving these buildings is awareness—we hope this will be accomplished

through our extensive research and analysis. The next step will be the actual preservation of the

structures in their physical fabric. One method is through conditions surveys.

A building conditions survey has been defined as, “A comprehensive, critical, detailed, and

formal inspection of a building to determine its condition and value, often resulting in the

production of a report incorporating the results of such an inspection.”

Conducting a conditions survey on a historic building of significance can serve as an incredibly

valuable tool for preservation of the structure. A close examination of the materials used on the

building is necessary to determine the current condition and understand the decay processes of

these materials. Before any work is done to structure (be it conservation, alterations,

refurbishment, or restoration) a conditions survey acts as a guide in defining the scope of work.

The defects and problems can then be prioritized and dealt with accordingly. Conditions surveys

are incredibly valuable to the future maintenance of buildings. Problems with the building found

at an early stage of deterioration can be assessed, and the conditions can be monitored and

compared over time.

The surveys I conducted were purely visual conditions assessments. I used simple tools like

binoculars, a camera with a zoom lens, and took field notes and sketches to document the

buildings.

The De Forest Fireproof Tenements were built in 1905, and designed by Earnest Flagg. The

building is seven stories, with a central entrance and retail spaces on the ground floor. The

simple ornamentation of the Beaux Arts style terra cotta detailing and the flat arch brick lintels

gives this building a subtle dignity. To the owner’s credit, it is in excellent condition.

The original 2 over 2 windows have unfortunately all been replaced with black metal framed, 1

over 1 windows. It is recommended that more historically sensitive windows are specified when

the current ones need replacement. The terra cotta cornice is intact and in good condition.

  

36

Some of the issues we see is the soiling on the entryway, small areas of spalling or damaged terra

cotta, and excessive plant growth on the façade.

The mortar joints appear to be in good condition, and the original recessed pointing detail

remains. This effect creates shadows and accentuates the buff-colored bricks. The brick wall,

however, is in need of cleaning—the mortar is covered in a blackish film, over-accentuating the

recessed quality. This is a minor problem, needing no immediate action, and only mildly affects

the aesthetics of the facade.

The terra cotta around the entryway and string course is in fine condition, considering the age of

the building. Aside from some small areas of spalling and blackish staining, the entry is very

much intact and not deteriorated. It does appear however, that the joint between the terra cotta

blocks were insensitively repaired at some point, and the inappropriate caulk-like material has

accumulated a great deal of soiling, causing visual discontinuity.

The most pressing issue with the maintenance of this building is the excessive plant growth

accumulating on the second floor. Vines are growing from the east elevation (the neighboring

building’s property), wrapping around to the front façade, and extend over the first story terra

cotta string course and up above into the bricks. This appears to have caused some deterioration

to the masonry and a great deal of soiling. The presence of these plants could further

compromise the integrity of the façade; as the vines mature and grow bigger, they could push on

the mortar joints or trap moisture in the masonry wall.

A careful examination of the building can also tell you about its past or even original features

that have been removed. When paired with documentary research, oddities on the building can

often be explained—as we see here, the addition of lighter bricks on the seventh story, below the

windows can at first be puzzling, but upon reviewing the original drawings, it is clear that this

decorative balcony railing was removed at some point during the buildings history. The replaced

bricks are poor color matches to the original shade of buff brick, or else the older bricks appear

darker with soiling and age.

Lavoisier Apartments, a progressive housing building funded by John D. Rockefeller, is a

perfect example of a rather destructive repair campaign. Work was recently completed on the

  

37

building, with little respect to the design intent or materials of the buildings. In contrast to the De

Forest Tenements, Lavoisier is in relatively poor condition despite the recent repairs.

The bricks have been repaired and/or replaced inappropriately, and very adverse re-pointing has

occurred. These changes have drastically altered the aesthetic reading of the building, and in this

case, a conditions survey could have helped guide the work that was completed, and helped to

develop a historically sensitive repair program.

A great textural aesthetic created by these rough bricks. This visual texture is completely lost in

the areas of poor repointing, as previously shown. On the left, it also appears that the masonry is

experiencing some issues with salt deposition (or efflorescence), that should be further

investigated. Many of the original windows remain on Lavoisier, seen on the right, but are in a

quite deteriorated state.

This building shows how and why it can be beneficial to have an initial conditions survey

completed, before the work is performed. Recommendations from the survey can help ensure

that proper repair methods are carried out on historic buildings.  

  

38

Chapter 4- Finnish Cooperatives 

History

History of the Finnish Immigration to the United States

Sunset Park is a neighborhood in south Brooklyn that once attracted a large population of

Finnish immigrants. The large immigration of these Finns to the United States started in 1864.

Initially, four groups of immigrants settled in Minnesota. Soon thereafter, the first group of

immigrants arrived in Michigan, which became a popular state for immigration. These

immigrants worked in mines and lumberyards.

The largest wave of immigration took place between 1899 and 1913. In the peak years, over

20,000 immigrated to this country each year. Out of the 40,000,000 Europeans who emigrated to

North America between 1821 1nd 1929, 350,000 were Finnish and they immigrated to the

United States.19 However, with the 1921 immigration “Emergency Quota Act”, which limited

the number of Finnish immigrants to 500 a year, the number of immigrants decreased.

Most of the immigrants settled in the eastern states of New York, and Massachusetts, and in the

midwestern states of Michigan and Minnesota, near the Great lakes. Later the settlement spread

westward to Montana, California, Oregon and Washington. However, very few settled in the

southern states.

Image from Finnish Immigrants in America

                                                            19 Genealogy website

  

39

Finnish Immigrants in Brooklyn

The largest number (10,240) of these urban settlers settled in the city of New York, mostly in the

Sunset Park area of Brooklyn. This area, which was known as the Finntown, covered 20 to 25

blocks, between 40th and 45th Streets, to the south and north, and 5th and 9th Avenues, to the

west and east.

Finntown in Sunset Park

At this time, New York was faced with a serious housing shortage. Overpopulation and over

development were the two factors leading to this shortage in Manhattan, while under

development and lack of sufficient housing were the instigators of the problem in Brooklyn.

This led the growing population of the Finnish immigrants in Sunset Park, to join forces and

build their own homes.

Housing was only one of the problems of these immigrants. Lack of familiarity with the new

country and the inability to speak English, created special hardships for these immigrants,

excluded them from jobs and made it difficult for them to assimilate. All of these factors were

compelling forces that led the Finns into forming their own network in the community.

From the 1890s the Finns began forming workingmen’s societies that were later replaced by

socialist clubs. In 1890, the Imatra Society of Brooklyn in New York was among the first

workingmen’s clubs that was formed as a mutual benefit association for workingmen. This was

a social club, where the Finns would gather to socialize and discuss their problems, one of which

was housing. Soon thereafter, they established the co-operative system of conducting business,

based on the principles set forth by the “Co-operative Movement” in Finland.

  

40

Based on those ideologies, the Finns in Brooklyn launched an array of co-operative businesses,

including a grocery store, a bakery, a meat market, a restaurant, a poolroom, a newspaper

establishment and garages. All of these businesses were concentrated on 8th Avenue, between

40th and 45th Streets.

Finnish shopping center (left) and Finnish Co-op Bakery (right)

Images from the Library of congress

History of the Finnish Co-ops

From starting in 1910, the existing housing shortage prompted the Finns to begin constructing

single family houses on the blocks bounded by 41st and 43rd Streets, to the south and north, and

7th and 9th Avenues, to the west and east. These were built by the Finnish Building

Corporation, and they acted as the precursor to the Finnish Coops.20

One-family and two-family houses built by the Finnish

Image from Co-operative Movement; the co-operative movement in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx.

This was followed by the construction of limited-dividend co-ops. The first such co-op, which

was the first to be built in the United States, was built in 1916 and was named Alku I, meaning                                                             20 Ekman, p.59-68.

  

41

“beginning”. This was followed by the construction of Alku II in 1917. After the success of

Alku I & II, 12 existing buildings were purchased and converted into co-ops. At this time

construction was slowed down by World War I. However, starting in 1923, once again

construction picked up and 14 new co-ops were constructed. By 1927, over 28 co-operative

apartment buildings - original and converted - were operating in the Sunset Park area.21

Alku I Alku II

After the 1920s, two factors contributed to the decline in the construction of co-ops, which

resulted from a reduction in the demand for housing. First, the new immigration laws which

limited the number of immigrants, led to a decrease in the number of new immigrants to the

Brooklyn area. Second, the Depression forced many of the immigrants who were in search of

jobs into leaving New York for other states. Today, few Finns remain in the area, and the social

fabric of the neighborhood has completely changed, but these co-operative apartments continue

to stand.

Buildings Selected as Case Studies

For the purpose of our study, we have focused on 6 buildings that were originally built as co-ops,

and have chosen to exclude the converted ones; because the latter were not built by the Finns,

there was no way that they could be linked to the Finnish culture through architectural analysis.

In selecting our case studies, we used two criteria. First we selected those that were the first to

be built by the Finnish as limited-dividend co-ops, and these were Alku I & Alku II.

                                                            21 For a complete list of images of the Finnish coops, refer to the building profiles provided at the end of this report. 

  

42

Next, we selected the buildings that were designed by Eric Holmgren, a Swedish/American

architect born in the United States, with an architectural practice in Brooklyn. These buildings

included the Sunset Court, River View, Sun Garden Homes, and Park Slope Homes and Alku

II.22

Analysis of the 1930 Census Records: Ethnicity & Occupation

We then looked at the 1930 census records to determine the percentage of occupants that were in

fact Finnish, and what percentage of these Finns were involved in the construction industry.

In doing so we discovered that the Finnish made up 95% of the occupants in Alku I, 95% of the

occupants in Alku II, 80% of the occupants in Riverview, 65% of the occupants in Park Slope

Homes, and 87% of the occupants in Sun Garden Homes. These results stand in great contrast to

those found for the speculative homes, which showed a great ethnic diversity.

verview, 65% of the occupants in Park Slope

Homes, and 87% of the occupants in Sun Garden Homes. These results stand in great contrast to

those found for the speculative homes, which showed a great ethnic diversity.

Ethnical identity of the Occupants: Ethnicity

The census records also revealed that a good number of the occupants were involved in building-

industry trades. The number of such tradesman constituted 80% of the households in Alku I,

47% of the households in Alku II, 57% of the households in Riverview, 39% of the households

in Park Slope, and 64% of the households in Sun Garden Homes. Our analysis confirmed that

these were in fact built by and for the Finns.

                                                            22 For a complete list of images of the Finnish coops, refer to the building profiles provided at the end of this report.

  

43

Number of Households in Building Industry

The Co-operative Housing System

The Co-operative Society System

The Co-operative System

A co-operative housing Association is one composed of a group of like-minded people who unite

to secure attractive homes; homes built and run, not for profit but for the service of the

occupants.

Title

In this type of housing a tenant does not buy or own his house or apartment. He owns shares in

the Cooperative Society. The ownership of these shares entitles him to a permanent lease for the

home he occupies. In this system, the legal ownership of the property is vested in the

Association as a whole.

Costs

Payment on land and building was secured by the tenant members buying shares in the Housing

Association. These payments were secured in two mortgages, the first of which is about 50

percent of the valuation, and the second of which varies between 50 to 75 percent. In order to

achieve the most favorable conditions, ideally the mortgages do not exceed 66.6 percent of the

  

44

cost of land. Bond issues, loans, and preferred stocks are among other forms of financing the

enterprise.

Steps to Incorporation

A co-operation is incorporated only after a land or property has been selected, approved by all

the members, and its value determined.23

Advantages Leading to the Success of the Finnish Co-ops

There were certain advantages to living in the Finnish co-operative housing. As mentioned

earlier, these co-ops were built by the Finns themselves, and they provided the people of their

community with secure homes in a new country, resulting in a sense of stability and permanence.

This granted the co-ops their principal advantage, and acted as a strong incentive for wanting to

be part of the Finnish co-operative system. Furthermore, as we saw earlier, many skilled

building-industry craftsmen, including carpenters, bricklayers, plasterers, painters, and

electricians, were living in these buildings. These craftsmen participated in the actual

construction, which resulted in a higher degree of craftsmanship. Finally, members knew their

neighbors and they united with them in the up-keep of the property, thus contributing to their

beauty, order, and cleanliness. These advantages were the direct result of the like-mindedness of

the co-operators, and the strong sense of community and camaraderie among them.

Factors Leading To Low Costs & Affordability

The none-profit “limited dividend” characteristic of these co-ops, which increased their

affordability by reducing costs, was the main factor leading to their success. Also, the familiarity

of the Finnish with an already-established system of co-operation, was the other factor to which

this success can be attributed. This familiarity provided them with the know-how of the system.

Moreover, we have reason to believe that two of the design architects of the buildings may have

also contributed to this reduction in cost by providing their services at reduced value; we know

that Eric Holmgren was involved in charitable affairs, and Maxwell Cantor – the architect of

                                                            23 International Labour Office, p.1-15. 

  

45

Alku I - made contributions to the shortage in housing in the spirit of cooperation and

helpfulness.

Finally, the participation of the resident building-industry craftsmen in the actual construction

resulted in a reduced cost of construction. Costs could be kept at the absolute minimum by

limiting involvement to these residents and to those most familiar to their community. The

resulting affordability led to reduced rents; for instance in 1925, members of Alku I were paying

$32 a month while other workers in the neighborhood were paying $70 to $80 a month to private

landlords. 24

Case Study: “Riverview”

The above-described principles are demonstrated by the “Riverview” case, reported in the Co-

operation magazine, as follows:

“In the case of “Riverview”, the total cost of construction was $170,000. Each member put in

$300 per room (which would mean $1,500 for a five-room apartment); a first mortgage of

&70,000 was placed with a local bank, and the balance was raised from the well-known method

of negotiating “Comrade Loans”. These loans are procured from fellow co-operators in the

neighborhood who make loans to the housing group at 5% on notes. Every one of the apartment

houses built since the first two has solved the second mortgage problem by means of these

“Comrade Loans”. As there are 104 rooms in the “Riverview”, the cash paid in by members was

about $31,200, and the amount raised from “Comrade Loans” about $68,000.”25

“One of the members of the group was an experienced builder, so he was made construction

superintendent, and worked for a weekly wage. Through buying many of the materials himself

and hiring much of his labor by the day, he eliminated large contractors’ fees. Every week

during the entire process of construction he met with the whole group and they together went

over all the details involved in building their home. The excellent quality of material used, the

                                                            24 Co-operation (1925), p.64-65. 25 Co-operation (1925), p.64-65.

  

46

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).

Genealogy Website http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/emi3e.htm

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

Gray, New York Times: June 21, 1992.

  

67

Appendix

  

68

  

Distribution Map: Red= Model Tenements,

Yellow= Limited Dividend Cooperatives 69

304-306 West 149th Street

Image from Slums and Housing V. II, Plate 11D

  

70

179 Mulberry Street

Plan from Clark, Figure 17.

  

71

183 Mulberry Street

Plan from Clark, Figure 17.

  

72

Finnish Co-op housing in Sunset Park

# Name Address (Brooklyn) Architects Date Built

Other Notes

1 Corner View I 4401 4th Ave. ? 1912 2 Corner View II 4407 4th Ave. ? ? 3 Bayview 540 40th St.(b/w 5th

and 6th Ave.) C. Schubert 1912?

1920? converted

4 Florence 546 40th St. (5th&6th Ave.)

Eisenla & Carlson 1912 converted

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, 

Inc

•Architect: 

•Date Built: 1929

•Materials: brick & limestone

76

“Brooklyn Garden Apartment”100 Adelphi Street, Brooklyn

• Building Type: Model Tenement

• Developer/ Original Owner: Brooklyn Garden Apartments, Inc.

• Architect: Frank H. Quimby

• Date Built: 1930

• Materials:  red brick

77

“Emerson Tenements”746 11th Av, Manhattan

(at 53rd St)

• Building Type: Model  Tenements

•Developer/ Original Owner: William Emerson

•Architect: William Emerson

•Date Built: 1914

•Materials: brick, fireproof construction

•Significance: It is about to be added to the National 

Register to utilize tax credits for 

rehabilitation. The first floor was 

entirely devoted to communal 

amenities.  

78

“Hartley Open Stair Tenements”523‐531 W 47th St, Manhattan

• Building Type: Tenement

•Developer/ Original Owner:  

•Hartley Open Stair Tenement Co. (20 Broad St.)

*Funded by Mrs. Helen Hartley Jenkins

•Architect:  Henry Atterbury Smith & William P. Miller

•Date Built: 1912‐13

•Materials:  brick with polychrome terra cotta 

ornamentation

•Significance:  In the Special Clinton zoning district of 

Manhattan

79

“Harlem Apartments”211 West 146th & 

210 West 147th Street, Manhattan

• Developer/Owner:  Open Stair Dwellings Company

• Architect:  Henry Atterbury Smith & William P. Miller

• Date Built:  1916

• Materials:  Brick

• Building Type:  Model Tenements 

80

“Mills House 1”160 Bleecker St, Manhattan

(at Sullivan St)

• Building Type: Model Tenement

•Developer/ Original Owner:  Darius Ogden Mills

•Architect: Ernest Flagg

•Date Built: 1896

•Materials: brick with stone detailing

•Significance:  This building was not for families but 

rather for single working men, we included it in our 

survey as it is mentioned frequently in the literature 

about model tenements. There is also a “Mills Hotel 

No. 3” at 7th Avenue between West 36th & 37th

Streets, Manhattan. The architect was Copeland and 

Dole, it was completed in 1906 and also funded for 

by Darius Ogden Mills. Mills House 2 has since been 

demolished.

81

“Manhattan Housing Corporation”176‐182 E 3rd St, Manhattan

• Building Type: Model Tenement

•Developer/ Original Owner:  Housing Construction Corp.

(Lippman Schurmacher, pres.)

•Architect: Horace Ginsberg

•Date Built:  1931

•Materials: brick with glazed brick detailing

82

“Stanton Homes Corporation”193‐95 Stanton St, Manhattan

• Building Type: Model Tenement

•Developer/ Original Owner:  Stanton Development Corp.

(Lippman Schurmacher, pres.)

•Architect:  Louis R. Uffner

•Date Built: 1930

•Materials:  brick

83

“Thomas Garden Apartments”

840 Grand Concourse, Bronx.

Building Type: Model Tenement

Developer/Original Owner: John D. Rockefeller

Architect:  Andrew J. Thomas

Date Built: 1928

Significance:  The five‐story development was funded by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. as housing for middle‐income families.Plan from Plunz page 155.

84

“York Avenue Estates”

York Between 78‐79th Street‐Manhattan, Landmark

Type: Model Tenement 

Developer/Owner: City & Suburban

Architects: Harde & Short, Percy Griffin and Philip  H. Ohm

Date Built: 1900‐1913 

Materials: Buff brick, limestone

Significance: Designated a New York City Landmark in 1990

85

Building Type: Model Tenement

Developer/Original Owner: City & Suburban

Architect: City & Suburban Homes Corporation Architect Dept.

Date Built: 1906

Materials: brick, granite, limestone.

“Seventy Third Street Estate/James H. Jones Memorial Buildings”

415‐419 East 73rd St., Manhattan

86

“First Avenue Estates”

First Avenue between 64th & 65th Streets, Manhattan

• Building Type: Model Tenement

•Developer/Original Owner: City & Suburban• Architect: James E Ware & Son 

• Date Built: 1900• Materials: brick, cast‐stone.

• Significance: Designated as a New York City Landmark in 1990

87

“Celtic Park Apartments”

4810 43rd Street at 48th

Avenue, Woodside, Queens.

Building Type: Model Tenement

Developer/Original Owner: City & Suburban

Architect:

Date Built: 1909‐26‐31 

Materials: brick, terracotta

88

“East River Homes (Cherokee)”E 78th St at York Ave, Manhattan

• Building Type:  Model Tenement

•Developer/ Original Owner: Mrs. Ann Harriman Vanderbilt 

•Architect: Henry Atterbury Smith

•Date Built: 1909

•Materials:  brick, terra cotta, Guastavino tile

•Significance: Designated as a New York City Landmark in 

1985. It was built specifically for those suffering from 

Tuberculosis and their families, with an emphasis on 

ventilation and cleanliness in each apartment.

89

“Lavoisier Apartments”

1213 York Avenue, Manhattan

Building Type: Model Tenement

Developer/Original Owner: John D. Rockefeller Jr.

Architect: Andrew J. Thomas

Date Built: 1924

Materials: Rough red brick with limestone details 

90

“Phelps‐Stokes Properties”52‐58 East 97th Street, 

Manhattan 

• Developer/Original Owner:  Phelps Stokes Fund 

• Architect:  Sibley  and Fetherston

• Date Built:  1922  

• Materials:  Brick

• Building Type: Model  Tenement  

91

“Rogers Model Dwellings”425‐427 West 44th Street, 

Manhattan 

• Developer/Original Owner:  Catherine Cossitt.D. Rogers• Architect:  Grosvenor. Atterbury

• Date Built:  1912  

• 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.

Images from Plunz, Pages:  177 & 179

104

Limited Dividend Cooperatives 

105

“Corner View I”

4401 4th Ave., Brooklyn

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/Owner: Corner View Assn., Inc.

• Architect:

• Date Built: 1912?

• Materials: bricks and stone

• Integrity: 

•Significance: 

•Other info: Block/Lot= 738‐9

Number of building= 1 

Number of floors= 4

Number of units= 20 

106

“Corner View II”

4407 4th Ave., Brooklyn

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/Owner: Corner View Assn., Inc.

• Architect:

• Date Built:

• Materials: bricks and stone

• Integrity: 

•Significance: Block/Lot= 738‐6

Number of building= 1

Number of floors= 4

Number of units= 16 

107

“Florence (Risula)”546 40th St. (5th & 6th Ave.), 

Brooklyn

• Building Type: Finnish Co‐op (converted)

•Developer/ Original Owner: Florence Assn., Inc.

•CM:  Armstrong Construction Co. (412 Macon St.)

•Architect: Eisenla & Carlson (312 51st St., Brooklyn)

•Date Built: 1912, 1920?

•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)

• Date Built: 1926•Materials: 

Upper walls: brick

Floor: wood, steel and cinder concrete

Roofing: material 4 ply tar felt and slag. 

• Integrity: •Significance: •Other Info: Block/Lot= 917‐48 

Number of buildings=1

Number of floors= 4

Number of Units= 41 

NB 11082‐26

Estimated cost: $150,000

Size: 113’*88’3”*Height 4 stories 

111

“Sunset View I”605 41st St., Brooklyn

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/ Original Owner: Horwitz Morris, Ross 

Sunset View Assn., Inc.

•Architect:

•Date Built: 1921?

•Materials:

•Integrity: bricks

•Significance:

•Other Info: Block/Lot: 918‐1 

Number of buildings= 1

Number of floors: 4 

Number of units: 20 

112

“Sunset View II”611 41st St., Brooklyn

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/ Original Owner: Horwitz Morris, Ross  

Sunset  View Assn., Inc.

•Architect:

•Date Built: 1920?

•Materials: bricks and stone

•Integrity:

•Significance:

•Other info: Block/Lot= 918‐70

Number of buildings= 1

Number of floors= 4 

Number of units= 20

113

“Sun Garden Homes”637‐47 & 655‐61 41st St, Brooklyn

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/ Original Owner: Sun Garden Homes Assn., Inc.

•CM: Sun‐Heights Building Corp. (Otto Noro, president‐ 826 

43rd St., Brooklyn)

•Architect:  Eric O. Holmgren (371 Fulton St., Brooklyn)

•Date Built: 1924

•Materials: bricks, stone entry

•Integrity:  intact

•Significance: 

•Other Info: Block/Lot= 918‐52

Buildings on Lot=  6 

Number of floors= 5

Number of Units: 72

NB # 11495‐1924 (07/30/1924)

114

“Riverview (Koopeli)”673‐83 41st St., Brooklyn(41st

St&7th Ave)

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op•Developer/ Original Owner:  Riverview Homes Assn., Inc.

•Architect: Eric O. Holmgren (371 Fulton St, Brooklyn)

•Date Built: 1923•Materials: bricks, stone

•Integrity:•Significance: First Holmgren’s Co‐op housing design

•Other Info: Tax Block/lot= 918‐44 , Number of buildings= 1 

Number of floors= 4

Residential Units= 32

NB 8217/23 

ALT 13216/23

•Nickname: Koopeli, ‘The place where old maidens go’; Kyopeli or Kyopell, ‘Old maids home’ ‐ there were only unmarried women living in Koopeli.

115

“Sunset Court (Kiusala)”4002‐12 7th Ave., Brooklyn

(at 40th St)

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op•Developer/ Original Owner:

Sunset Court Assn., Inc. (4301 8th Ave., Brooklyn)

(Kalle Arorven, president)

•Architect:  Eric O. Holmgren (371 Fulton St., Brooklyn)

•Date Built: 1925•Materials: brick, multiple types, with stone entry

•Integrity:  Intact•Significance: •Other Info: Block/Lot= 918‐36

Number of buildings: 1

Number of floors: 4Residential Units: 44

NB # 998‐1925

•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.

116

“Berkshire Court”cor 7Ave. 40st 100*100.4001‐11 7th Ave, Brooklyn

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op•Developer/ Original Owner:

Safe Construction Co. 

(David Goldstein, pres.‐ 125 Bristol)

(current: Martan Properties LLC)

•Architect:  Benjamin Cohn of Cohn Bros. 

(361 Stone Ave., Brooklyn)

•Date Built: 1915? 1924?•Materials: brick, minimal stone detailing

•Significance: •Other Info:  Block/Lot=919‐1

Number of buildings= 1

Number of floors= 5Residential Units= 44

NB 105306‐29‐23F&F‐080923

117

“Sunset Home (Koyhaintalo)”4015‐21 7th Ave., Brooklyn

(at 40th St)

• Building Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/ Original Owner:

Sunset Home Assn., Inc. 

•Architect:

•Date Built: 1916? 

•Materials: brick, multiple types, with stone entry

•Integrity:  Intact

•Significance: 

•Other Info: Block/Lot= 919‐1

NB 105306‐29‐23F&F‐080923 

Number of buildings= 2

Number of floors= 4 

Number of units= 43

•Nickname: Koyhaintalo, ‘the poor house’; Residents of 

the building called it Alajokis. ‘very cozy and cared’.118

“Baltic Homes”

4113 7th Ave., Brooklyn

•Type: Finnish Co‐op (converted)

•Developer/Owner: Baltic Homes Assn., Inc. 

• Architect:

• Date Built: 1914?

• Materials: bricks

• Integrity: 

•Significance: 

•Other Info: Block/Lot= 922‐4

Number of building= 1

Number of floors= 4

Number of units= 16 

119

“Elmo Homes (Lepola)”

728‐734 41st St.

•Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/Owner: Elmo Homes Inc., Inc. 

• CM:

• Architect:

• Date Built: 1927?

• Materials: bricks and stone

• Integrity: 

•Significance: assumed as the last Finnish coop house to be built.

•Other info: Block/Lot= 922‐17

•Nickname: Lepola, ‘the place of rest or Rest Haven.’ No specific explanation, assumed as the house in which our pastor lived. 

120

“Park Hill Home”

759 42nd St., Brooklyn

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/Owner: Parkhill Homes Assn., Inc.

(Current: Biagio Sciacca et al)

• Architect: Eric O. Holmgren?

• Date Built: 1926

• Materials: bricks

• Integrity: 

•Significance: 

•Other info: Block/Lot: 922‐45

Numbers of floors: 5

Total # of Units: 24

NB 10287‐061222

NB 89366‐12‐22FOF‐071222

121

“Alku I”816 43rd St (near 8th Ave), 

Brooklyn

• Building Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/ Original Owner: 

Finnish Home Building Assn., Inc.

(822 42nd St., Brooklyn)

•Architect: Maxwell A. Cantor of Cantor & Dorfman

(373 Fulton St., Brooklyn)

•Date Built: 1916‐17

•Materials: brick (multiple colors) and stone detailing 

•Integrity: intact

•Significance: 

•Other Info:  Block/Lot=733‐13

NB# 3088‐1916 

•Meaning:  Alku, ‘beginning’

122

“Alku II”826 43rd St (near 8th Ave), 

Brooklyn

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/ Original Owner: 

Finnish Home Building Assn., Inc.

(822 42nd St, Brooklyn)

•Architect: Maxwell A. Cantor of Cantor & Dorfman

(373 Fulton St, Brooklyn)

•Date Built: 1917

•Materials: brick (multiple colors) and stone details

•Integrity: intact

•Significance:

•Other Info:  Block/Lot= 733‐17

NB# 3088‐1916 

•Meaning:  Alku, ‘beginning’

123

“Advance Homes (Moskova)”

848‐856 43rd St., Brooklyn

•Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/Owner: Advance Homes Assn., Inc.

• Architect:

• Date Built: 1922?

• Materials: bricks

• Integrity: 

•Significance: Block/Lot= 733‐25

Number of buildings= 1

Number of floors= 4

Number of units= 36                            

•Nickname: Moskova, ‘Moscow’. Some residents were leftists. People lived there were foolish enough to move to Moscow

124

“Top View”

801‐11 44th St. (4317‐23 8 Ave.), Brooklyn

•Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/Owner: Top View Assn., Inc. 

Current= 4205 8th Avenue Corp.

• Architect: 

• Date Built: 1923

• Materials: bricks

• Integrity: 

•Significance: Block/Lot= 733‐1

Number of building= 1

Number of floor= 4

Number of units= 18 (residential units: 15) 

NB 927‐23 

125

“Broadview (Petleheemi)”

4313 9th Ave., Brooklyn

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/Owner: Broadview Assn., Inc.

• Architect: Eric O. Holmgren?

• Date Built: 1923?

• Materials: brick, decoratively laid, stone over entry

• Integrity: 

•Significance: 

•Other info: Block/Lot= 5601‐1

Buildings on lot= 2

Numbers of floors= 4

Number of units= 30 (31) 

•Nickname: Petleheemi, ‘Bethlehem’ 

126

“Linden Heights”

702 45th St., Brooklyn

•Type: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/Owner: Linden Heights Assn., Inc.

• Architect: Eric O. Holmgren?

• Date Built: 1924

• Materials: bricks and stone

• Integrity: 

•Significance: Block/Lot= 750‐5

Building on lot= 4

Number of floors= 4

Number of units= 40

127

“Bay View”

671 47th St., Brooklyn

•BuildingType: Finnish Co‐op

•Developer/Owner: The Bayview Home Assn., Inc.

• Architect: 

• Date Built: 1915? 1930?

• Materials: bricks and stone

• Integrity: 

•Significance: Block/Lot= 758‐48

Number of building= 1

Number of floor= 5

Number of units= 16 

128

“Victory Home”

672 46th St., Brooklyn

•Type: Finnish Co‐op (converted?)

•Developer/Owner: The Victory Home Assn., Inc.

• Architect: 

• Date Built: 1915? 1928?

• Materials: bricks and stone

• Integrity: 

•Significance: Block/Lot= 758‐37

Number of building= 1

Number of floor= 5

Number of units= 17

NB 875P9‐15‐141‐13‐‐030514

129

“Hillside” 

566 44th St., Brooklyn

•Type: Finnish Co‐op (converted)

•Developer/Owner: Hillside Assn., Inc.

•CM: A.S.W.Coustin Co.

•Architect: Eisenla & Carlson (16 Court St., Brooklyn)

• Date Built: 1913

• Materials: bricks and stone

• Integrity: 

•Significance: Block/lot= 739‐30

Number of building= 1

Number of floor= 5

Number of Units: 16 (residential 16) 

130

“Parkslope”

570 44th St., Brooklyn

•Type: Finns Co‐op (converted)

•Developer/Owner: Park Slope Assn., Inc.

• Architect: Eisenla & Carlson (16 Court St., Brooklyn)

• Date Built: 1913

• Materials: bricks and stone

• Integrity: 

•Significance: Block/Lot= 739‐32

Number of building= 1

Number of floor= 5

Number of units= 16

131

“Pleasant View”

574(576) 44th St., Brooklyn

•Type: Finnish Co‐op (converted)

•Developer/Owner:  

Louis Stechern & John C. Weleh (4516‐6th Ave., Brooklyn)

Current= Pleasant View Assn., Inc.

• Architect: Eisenla & Carlson (16 Court St., Brooklyn)

• Date Built: 1912‐3

•Materials: Wall=brick 

Floor= wood

•Significance: 

•Other info: Block/Lot= 739‐34

Number of building= 1

Number of floor= 5

Number of units= 17

Estimated cost= $ 30,000

Size of building= 49’4*85’10”*4 stories 45’6”132

“Hilltop View”

4402‐4412 6th Ave., Brooklyn

•Type: Finnish Co‐op (converted)

•Developer/Owner: 

Louis stecker & John C. Walsh (4516‐6th Ave.) 

Current= Hilltop View Association, Inc.

• Architect: Eisenla & Carlson (16 Court Street)

• Date Built: 1912‐3

•Materials: Upper walls= bricks 

floor= wood 

•Integrity: 

•Other info: Block/Lot= 739‐37

Number of floor= 4

Number of units: 16

Dimension= 50’*100’2”stories 48

133

“466 49th Street Club”

466 49th Street, Brooklyn

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op (converted)

•Developer/Owner: 466 49th St. Club Inc.

• Architect: 

• Date Built: 1914?

• Materials: bricks, stone and metal 

• Integrity: 

•Significance: 

•Other info: Block/Lot= 783‐33

Number of building= 1

Number of floors= 4 

Number of units= 17 

134

“517 49th Street Club”

517 49th St., Brooklyn

•Building Type: Finnish Co‐op (converted)

•Developer/Owner: current= Neighborhood Stab Assn.

• Architect: Eisenla & Carlson

• Date Built: 1909? 1914?

• Materials: brick and stone

• Integrity: 

•Significance: 

•Other info: Block/Lot= 775‐80, 

Number of building= 1

Number of floors= 4

Number of units= 8

ALT 379‐517‐052281  

ALTERATION 00/00/1982, 

135

“Academy Housing Cooperation”

523 Commonwealth Avenue, Bronx

Type: Cooperative

Developer/Owner: Academy Housing Coop.

Architect: Springsteen & Goldhammer

Date Built: 1931

Materials: Red Brick, Limestone, Stucco

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 

30th and 31st Avenues Woodside, Queens

Type: Co‐op

Developer/Owner: Boulevard Gardens Housing  Corporation

Architect: Theodore H. Englehardt

Date Built: 1935

Materials: Brick, limestone

139

“Hillman House”504‐20 Grand Street, 

Manhattan

Type: Co‐op

Developer: United Housing Foundation

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.  

Size/Buildings/Units: 20 buildings/5860 apartments

145

“Shalom (Scholem) Aleichem Houses”Giles Place/ West 238th Street & Cannon 

Place, Bronx

Type: Co‐op

Developer/Owner: Yiddish Cooperative Heimgesellschaft

Architect: Springsteen & Goldhammer

Date Built: 1927

Materials: Brick, stucco, stone, 

Integrity: Very good, well kept up 

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

154