What do you think?
Rate this book
Columbia History of Urban Life
A History of Housing in New York City[ A HISTORY OF HOUSING IN NEW YORK CITY ] by Plunz, Richard (Author ) on Apr-22-1992 Paperback
A History of Housing in New York City [ A History of Housing in New York City by Plunz, Richard ( Author ) Paperback Apr- 1992 ] Paperback Apr- 29- 1992
Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
14 people are currently reading
187 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
Read
May 6, 2021The ability of the author to make an enjoyable read out of what is a potentially forbiddingly opaque subject is incredible—I dunno how he did it. The writing style didn’t seem to *deliberately* seek to avoid coming off as dry, yet it wasn’t. In any age, this book shoulder required reading for anyone in New York… and beyond. But especially those of us living in New York, some perspective is gained—for instance, the fact that early problems in equitable housing were often attributed to “absentee landlordism,” a term which today wouldn’t even register since the phenomena of having your landlord actually live in your building is incredibly rare, was just, well, a sign of the times, eh?
While early beginnings from Dutch colonization are passed through, the details really come out when Plunz gets to the imposition of the grid. The New York gridiron was not just lacking imagination, it was also “reversed from the ideal” in terms of solar orientation, with south facades receiving all of the sun and north facades receiving none at all. This, in addition to their being no service alleys, made the New York gridiron uniquely substandard. That said, it was profitable for landowners. Plunz writes,
“Even if the city had doubly reimbursed owners, permanent removal of the land from the market would have reduced profits for an infinite future. The original gridiron was designed to maximize profits. Land speculation was big business. The rights of its practitioners were not easily infringed upon.”
In these early days maximum land coverable of buildings meant maximum profits. Old Law rules did a bit to fight this tide, but if a building was built with lesser coverage than other projects, it was probably the result of some sort of philanthropic effort. The result was overcrowding, disease.. and shanty towns. The New Law was an attempt to balance real estate interests, the architectural profession, and the building bureaucracy. The New law era, with its elimination of the 25 foot lot development (the efficient lot size for New Law was, for complex reasons, 40 x 100 feet), opened up the space for large capital development. The fact that projects were now typically larger scale also opened up a space for the architect.
Because land become so expensive in Manhattan, this large development was more appropriate for the outer boroughs. Yet, development was not equal across boroughs. For instance, in The Bronx, a smaller outer borough land-wise which saw much early development, there grew a city of apartments. The New Law developments of The Bronx then saw large, perimeter block style apartments which became especially common in the 1920s. In Queens, much larger and later in development, single family homes were more common. Brooklyn was somewhere in-between. In all cases, open land and reduced values permitted reduced site coverages.
For all these reasons we begin to see a turn in philanthropic housing which focuses on building and design quality instead of land value. The 1920s was the era of the middle-income private unit and the co-operative house (a la Amalgamated Dwellings). Tax exemptions for construction in the 20s as well as subsidies for private development also served to catalyze such projects, which were usually realized in the “garden apartment.”
New technologies and building materials further increased “creativity” in land coverage, making possible “Zielenbau” type development associated with the functionalist “international style” that came to define 20th century architecture—the “slab block” and “tower in the park” were not far behind. Plunz writes,
“In the twilight of the prepenicillin age, the ideal hygienic its had at last emerged, with the old urbanism of insalubrity replaced by a perfect elixir for urban ills, real and imaginaned. […] For the first time, social housing was definitively linked to low cost of construction. Previously, the issue of cost had been limited to providing affordable housing through philanthropy, rather than economy. […] the slab block was consistently conceived as a breakthrough in the realm of cost. Nothing could be cheaper, and therefore more housing could be built with limited resources. It was an elusive dream, inextricably tied to the emerging morality of the modern welfare state.”
An era, defined!
It has been said many times that the early NYCHA houses were informed so much more by a sense of dignity than the later developments. Plunz reflections above epitomize the runaway ideology which informed the brutalities of Slum Clearance and its attendant projects. Gone are the days of the social vision of the 1920s driven by the garden apartment which, as advised by Frederick Ackerman, dissenting voice in social housing, still maintained a distinction between housing and the factory. Even commercial spaces, a feature of early public housing, was quickly removed from the sites.
It is important to remember, however, that *much more* money was given towards realizing single-family home ownership. Woefully inefficient, yet serving an American ideal, subsidies were provided to fuel a consumerist economy, much to the pleasure of giants such as General Electric who wished to hock their wares in the form of household appliances.
The midcentury left us with two ideals in social housing within the City itself. One was the NYCHA campuses, which served to contain its inhabitants, masses of people which formed an economic and racial ghetto—and of course there was the middle class ideal, the fortress that protected its inhabitants from the assault of the unwashed. It really was a tale of two cities.
From here, we know the story, The Jacobsean backlash, the insistence on construction and housing which does not disturb the neighborhood. “Nehemiah” and Charlotte Street style apartments which at once spoke to a homeowners ideal while remaining silent on any sort of aesthetic vision. The slow death of funding for public housing as well as the failures of the Bloomberg and DeBlasio administrations to tackle the housing crisis through public-private partnership scenarios are covered. All this in a landscape of increasing wealth inequality. The issue of “patronage” for social housing remains a yawning question. The early 20th century found private initiative to be inadequate—a lesson I think we could take stock of today.
Plunz ends on a hopeful note, that the ideals of the “ownership society” have lately come into question and New York seems the most ideal answer, saying “history seems to be in the side of New York.” But he also ends this incredible history reminding us that “What is even clearer today than three decades ago is that there will be no ‘uninformed and naive’ social catastrophes as far as housing in New York is concerned. How the future plays out, however, remains a large question, as indeed the game is quickly changing.”
I myself am encouraged by much of the work done lately on housing—the new rent laws which have landlords in a panic are surely a step in the right direction, and the greatest movement towards making the challenge to the ownership society a sustainable one. But New York has always had the best and the worst of the United States. Monstrosities in construction (both aesthetically and in terms of social responsibility) continue to go up. The proposed two bridges towers are a perfect example of this. Yet, plenty of good people are working towards a better future. And with Plunz, I agree, that future is likely to lie in New York—what that future looks like remains to be seen.
While early beginnings from Dutch colonization are passed through, the details really come out when Plunz gets to the imposition of the grid. The New York gridiron was not just lacking imagination, it was also “reversed from the ideal” in terms of solar orientation, with south facades receiving all of the sun and north facades receiving none at all. This, in addition to their being no service alleys, made the New York gridiron uniquely substandard. That said, it was profitable for landowners. Plunz writes,
“Even if the city had doubly reimbursed owners, permanent removal of the land from the market would have reduced profits for an infinite future. The original gridiron was designed to maximize profits. Land speculation was big business. The rights of its practitioners were not easily infringed upon.”
In these early days maximum land coverable of buildings meant maximum profits. Old Law rules did a bit to fight this tide, but if a building was built with lesser coverage than other projects, it was probably the result of some sort of philanthropic effort. The result was overcrowding, disease.. and shanty towns. The New Law was an attempt to balance real estate interests, the architectural profession, and the building bureaucracy. The New law era, with its elimination of the 25 foot lot development (the efficient lot size for New Law was, for complex reasons, 40 x 100 feet), opened up the space for large capital development. The fact that projects were now typically larger scale also opened up a space for the architect.
Because land become so expensive in Manhattan, this large development was more appropriate for the outer boroughs. Yet, development was not equal across boroughs. For instance, in The Bronx, a smaller outer borough land-wise which saw much early development, there grew a city of apartments. The New Law developments of The Bronx then saw large, perimeter block style apartments which became especially common in the 1920s. In Queens, much larger and later in development, single family homes were more common. Brooklyn was somewhere in-between. In all cases, open land and reduced values permitted reduced site coverages.
For all these reasons we begin to see a turn in philanthropic housing which focuses on building and design quality instead of land value. The 1920s was the era of the middle-income private unit and the co-operative house (a la Amalgamated Dwellings). Tax exemptions for construction in the 20s as well as subsidies for private development also served to catalyze such projects, which were usually realized in the “garden apartment.”
New technologies and building materials further increased “creativity” in land coverage, making possible “Zielenbau” type development associated with the functionalist “international style” that came to define 20th century architecture—the “slab block” and “tower in the park” were not far behind. Plunz writes,
“In the twilight of the prepenicillin age, the ideal hygienic its had at last emerged, with the old urbanism of insalubrity replaced by a perfect elixir for urban ills, real and imaginaned. […] For the first time, social housing was definitively linked to low cost of construction. Previously, the issue of cost had been limited to providing affordable housing through philanthropy, rather than economy. […] the slab block was consistently conceived as a breakthrough in the realm of cost. Nothing could be cheaper, and therefore more housing could be built with limited resources. It was an elusive dream, inextricably tied to the emerging morality of the modern welfare state.”
An era, defined!
It has been said many times that the early NYCHA houses were informed so much more by a sense of dignity than the later developments. Plunz reflections above epitomize the runaway ideology which informed the brutalities of Slum Clearance and its attendant projects. Gone are the days of the social vision of the 1920s driven by the garden apartment which, as advised by Frederick Ackerman, dissenting voice in social housing, still maintained a distinction between housing and the factory. Even commercial spaces, a feature of early public housing, was quickly removed from the sites.
It is important to remember, however, that *much more* money was given towards realizing single-family home ownership. Woefully inefficient, yet serving an American ideal, subsidies were provided to fuel a consumerist economy, much to the pleasure of giants such as General Electric who wished to hock their wares in the form of household appliances.
The midcentury left us with two ideals in social housing within the City itself. One was the NYCHA campuses, which served to contain its inhabitants, masses of people which formed an economic and racial ghetto—and of course there was the middle class ideal, the fortress that protected its inhabitants from the assault of the unwashed. It really was a tale of two cities.
From here, we know the story, The Jacobsean backlash, the insistence on construction and housing which does not disturb the neighborhood. “Nehemiah” and Charlotte Street style apartments which at once spoke to a homeowners ideal while remaining silent on any sort of aesthetic vision. The slow death of funding for public housing as well as the failures of the Bloomberg and DeBlasio administrations to tackle the housing crisis through public-private partnership scenarios are covered. All this in a landscape of increasing wealth inequality. The issue of “patronage” for social housing remains a yawning question. The early 20th century found private initiative to be inadequate—a lesson I think we could take stock of today.
Plunz ends on a hopeful note, that the ideals of the “ownership society” have lately come into question and New York seems the most ideal answer, saying “history seems to be in the side of New York.” But he also ends this incredible history reminding us that “What is even clearer today than three decades ago is that there will be no ‘uninformed and naive’ social catastrophes as far as housing in New York is concerned. How the future plays out, however, remains a large question, as indeed the game is quickly changing.”
I myself am encouraged by much of the work done lately on housing—the new rent laws which have landlords in a panic are surely a step in the right direction, and the greatest movement towards making the challenge to the ownership society a sustainable one. But New York has always had the best and the worst of the United States. Monstrosities in construction (both aesthetically and in terms of social responsibility) continue to go up. The proposed two bridges towers are a perfect example of this. Yet, plenty of good people are working towards a better future. And with Plunz, I agree, that future is likely to lie in New York—what that future looks like remains to be seen.
February 27, 2024
too technical for my research, but would be great for someone studying architecture
November 15, 2024
An extraordinary book.
January 20, 2015
Read most of it...interesting because it essentially traces the origins of the architecture profession. Explains where a lot of zoning code and building code requirements arise from.
January 31, 2008
Quintessential reference book. Must own for NY historians, conservators, historic preservationist and architects.
January 28, 2009
housing and nyc. sweet.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews