Document v6G1je6nBxB2K0QmkwkeVEVER

\ c f :; \ ;.v: "55'/^p '*. -.V'; 'Mi\ /.'.: ,' The Committee on Housing New York Chapter 4AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS S^mm fcMWv . -* . Price *2,50, . , i:^ . vj$; _ New Y01&9 \m N39077 0007-HUD-000003106 Addenda* In the accompanying report it is stated that there has been a regrettable amount of friction between the State Commissioner's office and the New York City Housing Authority* It was intended to. relate this part of the . report to a period prior to July 19 19^7* We have been assured that no such condition presently exists* h o o .0000031i>'1 / ooo-J 0007-HUD-000003107 0007-HUD-000003107 LARGE SCALE HOUSING IN NEW YORK Monograph No. 1 Vp A'tTx. Ml vTHE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORK OF THE NEW YORK aTY HOUSING AUTHORITY The Committee on Housing New York Chapter AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS New York, 1949 0007-tHJD-00000 3108 00 0 7-HUD-0 00003108 0007- H U D-000003108 m*r-y NEW YORK CHAPTER THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS 115 EAST 40th STREET, NEW YORK IS HOUSING COMMITTEE 1947-48 1948-49 I Arthur C. Holden Chairman Perry Coke Smith Henry S. Churchill Vice Chairmen * Elisabeth Colt Malcolm G. Duncan William I. Hohauser George Nemeny Clarence S* Stein * John A. Wahl Roland Wank * Served 1947-48. While this report is presented as the united opinion of the committee, it should he recognised that it cannot, in every instance, represent the opinion of each individual member. \ : / ^ fI Publication has been made possible through a grant from the Arnold W. Brunner Scholarship Fund of the N. Y. Chapter, A. I. A. 0007-HUD-000003109 0007-HUD-000003109 0007-HUD-000003109 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .. . LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......... 4 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ................................................................................................ 5 PART I FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE A. General Considerations ....................................................... * 6 B* Standards of Livability................. . 7 C. Amenities and Community Facilities ............................* 8 D. Relation of Work of Authority to Housing Work in General 9 E. Methods of Operation....................... 10 F Cooperation Between Authorityand Governmental Agencies ................. 11 PART II GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1 Scope of Report......... ....................... .............. ...... 13 2* Scope of Work of Authority ............................... 13 3. Advantages Enjoyed by Authority......... .. 14 4. Appraisal of Large-Scale Housing Work 15 5. Examination and Comparison of Plans ........... 16 6* Review of Critical Data Prepared by Others 18 7 Visits to Projects ................................................ IB 8* Temporary Housing #*# 19 PART III STANDARDS OF LIVABILITY 1 Livability of Apartments................ 21 a. Effect of Livability on Family Life .. b* Criteria of Apartment Livability c Minimum Requirements for Room Sizes II 21 22 23 0007-HOD-000003110 00 0 7-HUD-0 0 0 0 0 3110 0007-HUD-000003110 2* The Livability of Building Typos ****** a* Criteria for Building Types ................ 3* Land Use and Site Planning *,**************** a* Effect of Site Density upon Building Types * b. Effect of Building Types upon Site Planning ** c* Grouping of Building .............................................................................. d* Projects Composed Principally of High Buildings .................. e* Two-Story Projects *****,*,,,*,*.* f. Summary *...........................*******................. ********* 4* Livability and Construction Cost **********.* a* Miscellaneous Construction Economies ***.********* b* Relation of Subsidies to Costs and Livability Standards * PART IV AMENITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES 1* General 2 Standard Equipment for Common.Use *......... *...................** 3* Recreation and Social Needs *........... **.* 4* Difficulties in Adapting Basement Space * 5 Administrative Difficulties *..............*.......... *..........................**** PART V RELATION OF WORK OF AUTHORITY TO HOUSING WORK IN GENERAL 1* Antecedents ***.......... *............. 2* Early Types ................................. ............................................................ 3* Achievements in Large-Scale Housing - Public and Private Contrasted **** 4* Aesthetics and Amenities .................................................. PART VI METHOD OF OPERATION 1* Development of Staff ................................. *............... 2* Research in Connection with Design ******** 3* Specifications and Supervision **............*.............***** 25 25 H. 3r 33 33 36 37 38 38 40 41 87 88 90 92 93 95 95 96 98 102 104 105 III 0007-HUD-000003111 0007-HUD-000003111 0007-HUD-000003111 4. Successful Dealings with Architects......... ............................ 5* Financial Policy ......... ...... 6* Administration of Subsidies .*................... .................... 7* Reports and Records PART VII COOPERATION WITH GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1* New York City Planning Commission............Ill 2. Relation to Work of Borough Presidents ........................... 3* Park Department............................... 4* Relation to School Facilities .................................................................... 5. Health Centers ................................................................................................ .... 6* State Commissioner of Housing 7. Conformity to Codes and Ordinances ............................................. .... 106 107 108 4 109 113 114 114 115 116 117 APPENDIX A.... .Summary of 12 Reports on Public Housing...................... INDEX OF ARCHITECTS AND ASSOCIATES IN DESIGN, PROJECTS N. Y. City Housing Authority .................. .. 119 123 \ IV 0007-HUD-000003112 0007-HUD-000003112 0007-HUD-000003112 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Three representative types of unit plans: Pig* 1, Williamsburgh; Fig. 2, Red Hook; Fig. 3, Bronx River Ptge 17 Photographs Harlem River Houses, small court and river front court plate 1 Williamsburg}! Houses and South Jamaica Houses "2 Clason Point Houses and Edwin Markham Houses n3 Red Hook Houses and Ringsbridge Houses Fort Greene Houses: Bridge in western area and 13-story buildings in eastern area t 5 Queensborough Houses and Viadeck Houses East River Houses and John Lovejoy Elliott Houses 6 tt 7 Brownsville Houses and Marcy Houses James Weldon Johnson Houses and Abraham Lincoln Houses it 8 u9 Amsterdam Houses and Astoria Houses tt 10 Comparisons of Unit and Building Plans Table I, Arithmetical Standards for Room Sizes 24 Unsatisfactory types of unit plans: Figs. 4, 5* 6 and 7. Room arrangements showing good furnishability: Figs. 8, 9 and 10 26 Unit plans, Category I, Harlem River Houses and Gowanus Houses, Figs. 11 and 12 28 Unit Plans, Category II, Marcy Houses and Jacob Riis Houses, 6-story. Category IV, Jacob Riis Houses, 13-story, Figs. 13, 14 and 15 30 Unit Plans, Category III, Astoria Houses; and Category IV, Farragut Houses, Figs. 16 and 17 32 Unit Plan, Category III, Brownsville Houses. Category IV, Abraham Lincoln Houses and Lillian Wald Houses, Figs. 18, 19 and 20 34 -20007-HUD-000003113 0007-HUD-000003113 0007-HUD-000003113 3j.te Plans (Arranged in Alphabetical Order) Albany Houses Amsterdam Houses Arverne Houses Astoria Houses Gen. Charles W. Berry Houses Boulevard Houses Bronx River Houses Brownsville Houses Clason Point Gardens Houses Colonial Park Houses Dyckman Houses Eastchester Houses East River Houses John Lovejoy Elliott Houses Farragut Houses First Houses Fort Greene Houses Stephen Foster Houses Glenwood Houses Gowanus Houses Gun Hill Houses Page 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Abraham Lincoln Houses Page 67 Marcy Houses 68 Edwin Markham Houses 69 Melrose Houses 70 Nostrand Houses 71 Patterson Houses 72 Pelham Parkway Houses 73 Queensbridge Houses 74 Ravenswood Houses 75 Red Hook Houses 76 Jacob Riis Houses 77 Sheepshead Bey Houses 78 Governor Alfred E. Smith Houses 79 South Beach Houses 80 South Jamaica Houses 81 Todt Hill Houses 82 Viadeck Houses 83 Lillian Wald Houses 84 Williamsburg)b Houses 85 Woodside Houses 86 Harlem River Houses 64 James Weldon Johnson Houses Kingsborough Houses 65 66 Photograph of Community Center, Red H0ok, and first floor and basement plans of Stephen Foster Houses Recreation Center 89 -5- 0007-HOD-000003114 0007-HUD-000003114 0007-HUD-000003114 Acknowledgments The Committee acknowledges the generous cooper ation of the staff of the New York City Housing Authority in arranging consultations, visits to projects* and the loan of photographs and plans. Special acknowledgment is due to William I. Hoh&user* AIA, for his contribution of supple mentary illustrations; and also* to Elisabeth Coit* AIA, who compiled Appendix A prior to her resignation from the Committee to accept an ap pointment to the staff of the New York City Housing Authority. Eighteen of the twenty photographs reproduced herewith are the work of L. Narinoff* photo grapher for the Authority. Photograph of the Red Hook central vista is by Samuel Gottscho* and view of Navy Street Bridge at Port Greene Houses is by Louis H. Dreyer. -40007-HUD-OG0003115 0007-HUD-000003115 0007-HUD-000003115 HAROLD R. IUIPIR DANIEL SCNWARTZMAN FRANCIS W* ROUOSEUEM PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT SECRETARY WILLIAM POTTER TREASURER DOROTHEA WATERS EXECUTIVE SECRETARV NEW YORK CHAPTER THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS IIS EAST 40th STREET, NEW YORK 16 ,, Harold R. Sleeper, President New York Chapter The American Institute of Architects 115 East 40th Street New York 16, New York May 16, 1949 Dear Harold: We transmit herewith our report on "The Significance of the Work of the New York City Housing Authority." This is Monograph No. 1 of a pro posed series dealing with large-scale housing in New York City. At the time the report was commenced in 1948, the New York City Housing Authority had either completed or under construction over 48,000 family units, and had under contemplation a program for the construction of 2$ ,000 additional units This alone constitutes sufficient reason for a technical appraisal by architects of the work of the Authority* It is important for technical men to look beyond the discussion of the validity of public housing as a social and political policy. The scope of the present report has therefore been limited to an evaluation of the accomplishments of the Authority solely on the basis of the living quarters provided. Answers have been sought to two questions: How well is public housing satisfying the physical needs of family living? How well does large scale housing satisfy the needs of community living? As a result of the present study, the Committee is convinced that public housing cannot be carried on indefinitely under the existing policies of governmental expend iture and subsidy. For this reason it recommends that architects support a movement for searching investigation directed towards developing an im proved technique of long term credit, investment and banking. This report, mhile addressed primarily to architects, is intended also for others who are interested professionally in the techniques of housing design and construction* What has been done by the New York City Housing Authority is a challenge to further ingenuity in design, construction and real estate administration. It is a challenge to architects and business men as well as to officials responsible for public housing. Respectfully submitted. ach;vh encl. Arthur C. Holden, Chairman Housing Committee -5- 0007-HOD-000003116 0007-HUD-000003116 0007-HUD-000003116 PART I SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING NEW YORK CHAPTER, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS / For convenience and clarity the Committee on Housing of the New York Chapter, A, I* A*, has prepared a summary of the findings of two years of study of large-scale housing work in New York City. The investigation of the committee has been focused principally upon the work of the New York City Housing Authority. The summary of the findings should be considered in connection with the detailed recommendations of the committee, which are oont&ined in the body of the report. A. General Considerations 1. The Authority has recognized and consistently fulfilled its obligation to produce and maintain safe and sanitary dwelling units for the largest number of families that can be accommodated within the limits of the funds available. 2. Confronted with rising construction costs and high acquisition costs for land, the Authority has shown wisdom in deciding how far desirable standards of livability could be modified without jeopardiz ing decent conditions of family life or the long term usefulness of its projects. 3. Pressure to supply housing for returning war veterans compelled the construction of "temporary" dwelling units for over 10,000 veteran families by the Authority. Not only the Authority but other city -6- 07- h t/o 000003117 00 07-HUD-0 00 00 3117 0007-H U D-000003117 departments will face the problem in the future of restoring park lands, temporarily used for housing, to their original intended purpose. Furthermore, a program must be devised for the gradual replacement and elimination of temporary quarters, or, perhaps in a few cases, of the rebuilding of temporary quarters where they are potentially adaptable to permanent use. B. Standards of Livability 1* The committee recognized that as a technical body its opinion would carry the most weight where it dealt specifically with con sideration of the standards of livability that have been set by the work of the Authority. Desirable standards of livability can be judged adequately only when consideration is given to the size of rooms, their exposure, arrangement, circulation and furnishability. Ignorance of the fundamental importance of these related factors has been the basis for most of the opposition to the standards which have been established by the Housing Authority. 2. Even after desirable designs for individual living units have been determined, these cannot be combined into buildings unless the method of horizontal and vertical access, through halls, stairs and elevators, can be skillfully and economically worked out. 3. A combination of economic and social considerations sets the population density of each project. As population density increases it becomes relatively more difficult to maintain adequate standards of livability. 0007-HOD-000003U8 0007-HUD-000003118 0007-HUD-000003118 The Authority has used both high and low buildings . With low buildings, high standards of livability can be maintained with % smaller courts and more continuous buildings. When higher buildings are used it is more difficult to maintain standards of good livability unless the area of the building can be limited and the extent, of open spaoes increased. Economic as well as legislative restrictions have influenced the Housing Authority to build tpo small a proportion of three-bedroom apartments, which are necessary for the normal family, such as one con sisting of parents and two children of the opposite sex. A better public understanding of the factors which govern liv ability standards is essential if the Authority is to be allowed to function in the interest of long-range economy, protected from ignorant and special interest criticisms. C. Amenities and Community Facilities When a neighborhood is built up without a previously formulated plan, certain social needs tend to be satisfied as demands arise. In contrast, when a community is planned all at one time, unless certain needed community amenities are provided for in the plan or space left for changes, it is virtually impossible to make provision for these after the plan is executed. -80007-HUD-000003119 GO07-HUD-000003119 0007-HUD-000003119 Part I 2* The Authority has recognized that its projects create neighbor hoods of sufficient size to require planning for certain community ^ needs in advance of construction* 3* The success of community facilities provided for by the Authority varies* The best developed are the Children^ Centers, Nursery Schools and Health Centers* Most of these are well designed and usually are adequately maintained by experienced and established agencies* On the other hand, the community centers, social rooms, and craft centers are generally far below desirable standards, both in space allotted and in design. It has been difficult to find sponsoring organizations capable of adequate maintenance. 4* Community facilities and other amenities are discussed in Part IV of this report* D* Relation of Work of Authority to Housing Work in General 1* The New York City Housing Authority has set standards for largescale housing which have begun to create an understanding on the part of the public of the better type of city living that is made possible by coordinated, large-scale design* 2* The large-scale housing work of the Authority has influenced the design of large-scale housing projects through direct investment by life insurance societies* With the exception of the Fresh Meadows project by New York Life, the insurance companies have not equalled the standards of site planning and population density attained by the work of the Authority* -90007-HOD-000003120 0007-HUD-000003120 0007-H U D-000003120 To date all large-scale housing work has been insufficiently coordinated with the planning of the city as a whole. The housing work of the large insurance societies has, in general, demonstrated less consideration, for relation of site plan to its environs than have the projects of the Hew York City Housing Authority* Failure by the Authority to realise aesthetic possibilities in large-scale housing has set a bad example of barrenness and barracks like appearance, which has been exaggerated in the majority of the projects by the large insurance societies* E Methods of Operation The Authority has reduced construction costs by increasing ad ministrative efficiency* It has been successful in encouraging close competitive bidding; and, by means of fair and uniform practices in purchasing and contract administration, has increased the value of the construction dollar* While using its own staff to establish minimum standards of design, the Authority has effectively used practicing architects, and as a result has shown originality in the solution of the design of its many projects, where variations of economic problems and site conditions were encountered* The Authority has made continued progress in obtaining the advantage of low interest rates for its obligations* It has never been sufficiently emphasised that subsidies make up for the inevitable difference between economic rentals and the actual rentals charged to tenants eligible for public housing* As -10- 0007-HUD-000003121 0007-HUD-000003121 0007-H U D-000003121 Part I a tenant's income increases, it should be made possible to increase the proportion or rent he is asked to pay, until the economic ceiling of rents is reached* This would broaden the usefulness of subsidies and do away with the injustices now due to the unenforceable limits on income eligibility* For admission of new tenants, however, there should be no relaxation of low inoome requirements. 5* The committee recommends that periodic appraisals be made of the work of the Authority by a technically competent, independent body, and that such reports be published in addition to the regularly published reports of the Housing Authority itself . F. Cooperation between Housing Authority and Governmental Agencies 1 Although the City Planning Commission has indicated blighted areas suitable for redevelopment with housing and has designated recommended densities for such areas, the City Planning Commission has made virtually no suggestions for the replanning of neighborhoods or for relating the planning of housing projects to the general improvement of neighborhoods* 2 Although other City departments have been cooperative in offering to aid the planning of housing projects, most City depart ments have lacked the resources to carry the needed improvements into effect and to tie these into the time schedule for the construction of housing projects* Lag in schedule on the part of the Borough Presidents' offices has been particularly unfortunate, as well as costly. New pavements and curbs surrounding housing projects have been too frequently delayed long beyond the completion and occupancy of housing projects. -11- 0007-HUD-000003122 0007-HUD-000003122 0007-H U D-000003122 Public opinion has not been awake to the need for coordinating civic improvements with projects involving large-scale construct! dl,. The Board of Education, with a schedule of construction already 1 4 delayed by the war, is far behind in satisfying the needs created by large-scale housing* Under the existing system of subsidies for public housing, the supervisory agencies established by the federal government as well as by the State of New York must pass upon the eligibility of housing projects far loans and subsidies* This entails passing upon plans. The Federal Housing Agency, with a longer experience behind it, has so far been more successful than the New York State Commissioner of Housing in minimizing the delays and frictions occasioned in determin ing whether the local project conforms to required standards of eligibility for loans and subsidies* Efforts should be made through administration or through legislation, to reduoe the degree of control exercised by the Federal Housing Agency and the State Commissioner^ office over the New York City Housing Authority* -12- 0007-HOD-000003123 '0007--HOD-000003123 0007-HUD-000003123 PART it GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1, Scope of Report The Committee made itself familiar in. a general way with current and relatively recent large-scale projects of the New York City Housing Authority and of private--principally institutional--investors* It then felt that in view of the expanding operations of the Authority, and also because of the public and social responsibilities of that agency, the Com mittee should center its attention predominantly on the work of the Authority. The 30 projects initiated since the oreation of the Authority in 1934 are a record of outstanding achievement* The policy of the Authority has been to combine standardisation of building technique with the opportunity for originality and for adapting design to the problems of each individual site* The Authority has built up and maintained a competent staff and yet has found that independent practicing architects could be used to great ad vantage when given the responsibility for project design within the require ments set by the Authority. The architects of New York, therefore, have a direct professional interest as well as responsibility for the successful design of housing projects* The Committee on Housing believes that a report which aims to give a dispassionate technical appraisal of the results of public housing will be of far reaching interest to technicians, to all who are interested in better housing of every kind, and to the public in general* 2* Scope of Work of Authority The projects of the Authority range in type from two-family row houses to tall elevator apartment buildings. Up to the time this study was commenced the Authority had initiated 30 projects designed for 60 years1 -13 0007-HUD-000003124 0007-HUD-000003124 0007-H U D-000003124 serviceability, as well as 11 projects designed as temporary shelter for returning war veterans* While this study yras underway the Authority an nounced a program of 27 additional projects to be built without cash subsidy for occupancy at medium rentals# Fifteen of these were announced for open land and 12 for areas to be acquired for slum clearance purposes* It is important that the public realize that even though aided by subsidies, the Housing Authority is required to conduct its affairs in a businesslike manner, to balance its budget and to live up to its obligations* The Authority has had to adapt its policy to changes in the cost of construc tion, to variations in the cost of land acquisition, as well as to changes in the cost of maintaining and operating its buildings* In this it has been in a position similar to any large private owner except for dependence upon subsidies from public funds for a definite part of its income. The Authority has produced housing facilities which theoretically could be operated on a commercial basis if rents were charged equal to the sum of rents plus sub sidies* 5. Advantages Enjoyed by Authority It is important to consider the accomplishments of the Authority for the light which they may throw upon possible improvements in housing enterprise generally, keeping in mind, however, three essential advantages enjoyed by the Authority* 1. The subsidies equivalent to annual financing charges. 2# The power of eminent domain conferred upon the Authority by law to facilitate the assembly of land and the clearance of obsolete structures. As yet, however, the erection of low rent housing projects on new land has proved far more econom ical than the attempt to erect low rental housing on slum -14- 0007-HOD-000003125 0007-HUD-000003125 0007-H U D-000003125 Part II clearance sites* At the present time and perhaps for some time to come, the housing shortage appears to have forced the post- * ponement of slum clearance. 3. The Authority has been able to borrow funds at lower rates than k i have been available to private investors because both interest and amortization payments have been guaranteed by federal and state subsidies.. 4. Appraisal of Large-Scale Housing Work In the body of this Report will appear a detailed critique of the work of the Authority. At this point the Committee believes that it should point out that the greatest shortcomings appear to be due to lack of equally well-developed techniques on the part of bodies other than the Authority, on whose part cooperation is needed for a long range housing program. The. main criticisms are as follows: 1. As yet there has been little progress in discovery or developing the best future uses for centrally located blighted land which it is recognized should be- cleared of slums. 2. A rational over-all pattern for city development is essential as a guide in determining the areas to be redeveloped with large scale housing. 3. There is immediate need for better coordination between city planning and planning for the redevelopment of local neighbor hoods. This report is intended to be an appraisal of large scale housing work in New York City. It is focused, however, principally upon the work of the New York City Housing Authority, because of its significance and im- -15- 0007-HOD-000003126 0 0 0 7-HUD-0 00003126 0007-H U D-000003126 portance as a matter of public policy* To be fair an appraisal must first judge the thing itself and then weigh its value in relation to other things. The committee has sought to apply the following tests of judgment: i 1. The merits of the planning within the borders of the project. ^ 2. The relation of the interior plan of the project to the plan of the neighborhood and the city as a whole. Livability is the ultimate test of planning within the borders of the project. Tests of livability must be applied first, to the design of family dwelling units; second to the combination of dwelling units into buildings; and third, to the selection and combination of building types into a site plan. 5. Examination and Comparison of Plans The committee devoted its first attention to a careful study of the plans of building types, and sought to select from plans those buildings which provided the greatest degree of livability within the dwelling unit. The plans of Harlem River Houses and Williamsburg Houses, two of the earliest projects, and the 4-story buildings of Gowanus, then under construction, appeared to provide the best types of dwelling unit arrangement. In these plans, the kitchens are large enough to provide daylight dining spaces, the living rooms have a satisfactory degree of privacy, and there is excellent cross-ventilation in all apartments# In the attempt to serve a greater number of apartments from a single stair and thus reduce construction costs, the benefit of oross-ventilation was sacrificed in planning many projects. An unsatisfactory result was the subjection of the living room and dining space to excessive cross -16- 0007-HUD-000003127 0 00 7-HUD-00000 3127 0007-H U D-000003127 WILLIAMSBURG HOUSES Part II Fig* 1 - Full through ventil ation and room privacy Fig* 2 - Reduced through ven tilation and objectionable cross-traffic in living and dining spaces* Fig* 3 - Privacy restored to living room by angular placement with by-pass to other rooms* 0007-HOD-000003128 00 0 7-HUD-00000312 8 0007-H U D-000003128 traffic within the apartment* The committee made a seoond group of plans of this type, and noted that the reduced standards for room arrangement were the result of the desire to place more apartments on a public hall | available to elevator service. More recent plans, only one of which, Astoria, could be seen in completed buildings, have attempted to remedy excessive passage through living rooms by placing the living room at an angle, bypassing it, and thus restoring privacy. These three types are illustrated by figures 1, Z & 5. 6. Review of Critical Data Prepared by Others After studying the plans, the committee reviewed all available printed material containing descriptions or criticism of the work of the Authority. This material emphasised the desirability of maintaining high standards of livability. All critics agreed that arrangements where passage through both living room and dining space was necessary were the least de sirable. Much valuable material was available regarding general amenities of living outside the family unit, such as: laundries, health centers, nursery schools, perambulator storage space, other storage space, arrangement of play spaces, etc. A summary of available critical data has been compiled by one of the former committee mentoers. Miss Elisabeth Coit, and appears as Appendix I 7. Visits to Projects Following the study of the plans and the available critical data the committee visited most of the projects completed or under construction. The first series of visits was devoted to study of workability of room ar rangement within the apartments. This was followed by a series of visits where the combination of apartments into building types was studied. A -18- 0007-HOD-00000 3129 0007-HUD-0 0 0 0 0312 9 0007-H U D-000003129 Part II third series of visits was devoted to the study of site planning, and a fourth to the study of community amenities. On several occasions members of the Authority staff joined the Committee on its tours and participated in the discussions at committee meetings. The opinions expressed in the report, however, represent so far as it oan be expressed solely the col lective opinion of members of the Committee. 8. Temporary Housing The committee visited several of the Authority1 s temporary housing projects executed for the families of returning veterans. Because of material shortages and construction delays following the close of World War II, such housing may be recognized as a regrettable step forced by political pressure. Some of these projects were built from materials re claimed from temporary housing that had been erected for barracks or housing for war workers. Prom six months to a year was probably saved in creating shelter for over 10,000 families. There is little doubt that if full cost and maintenance could be computed, the temporary units would be shown to be less economical than the costs of permanent construction, undertaken at the same time, were averaging. Permanent units built at the time were averaging from $1,600 to $2,200 per room without land. The population of the temporary projects averages 47 persons to the acre. Arithmetically this appears to be better than the usual densities for permanent projects, which range from 200to 500 persons to the acre. But 47 persons to the acre in one-story buildings creates much less desirable conditions than 200 to the acre in 4 and 6-story buildings or even 300 to the acre in buildings 13 stories high. To eliminate difficulties of land aoquisition some of the temporary 19- | 00 0 7-HUD-0 00003130 0007-H U D-000003130 projects were built in undeveloped park areas* Problems have been created that will have to be solved in the future, when a large proportion of the temporary housing will have to be recognised as a blight that may be ^ exceedingly difficult to get rid of* Some of the temporary sites are too far from transportation for permanent development at the present time; others are suitable for a step-by-step conversion into permanent projects* s 200007-HUD-000003131 0007-HUD-000003131 0007-H U D-000003131 Readers are asked to f consider the accom-- panying pages of pho tographs in connec tion with the site plans included at the end of Section III* HARLEM RIVER HOUSES in Manhattan. Sim plicity and domestic character* An out standingly excellent job of planning* (above) A corner of one of the small s. courts* (below) A corner of a river front court* Plate 1 0007-HUD-000003132 0007-HUD-000003132 0007-H U D-000003132 WILLIAMSBURG HOUSES - in Brooklyn Well planned but the project as a whole lacks the domestic charm of Harlem River Houses (above) View from street* SOUTH JAMAICA HOUSES -- in Queens* Severely plain but domestic in character A desirable place to live* (below) View of court Plate 2 0007-HCDw000003133 0007-HUD-000003133 0007-H U D-000003133 CLASOK POINT HOPSES - in the Bronx. Combinations of row houses with apartments with private fapily gardens at rear, (above) Interior walkway. EDWIH MARKHAM HOUSES - on Staten Island. Domestic scale in a large scale housing project, (below) Interior walkway. Plate 3 0007-HUD-000003134 0007-HUD-000003134 0007-HUD-000003134 KXMGSBOBDUGH HOUSES - in Brooklyn * Orderly wall planes enclosing pleasant outdoor spaces* (above) The interior central court* VLADIK HOUSES - in Manhattan* Handom pattern of wall surfaces producing less agreeable and narrow outdoor courts* See site plans for comparison* (below) A side court* Plate " 000700^000003135 0007-HUD-000003135 0007-H U D-000003135 EAST RIVER HOUSES - in Manhattan. Successful diagonal courts on super block with waterfront outlook, (above) General view. JOHN LOVEJOY ELLIOTT HOUSES - in Chelsea, Manhattan. Less successful use of diagonal planning. See site plans for comparison, (below) Tall build ings on narrow blocks of expensive land. Plate 7 0007-HOD-000003136 0007-HUD-000003136 0007-HU D-000003136 BWmSUUUB BOUSES - in Brooklyn* . Domestie character retained in six-story and three-story buildings (above) interior vista* MAHCf HOUSES - in Brooklyn High standards of livability in the unit plans* maintained in composition of ex clusively six-story buildings* (below) Diagonal vista Plate 8 0007-H0D-00000313? 0007-HUD-000003137 0007-HUD-000003137 JAMES WELDON JOHNSON HOUSES - in Harlem, Manhattan. Attempt to break solidity of high buildings, and successful pattern of open spaces, (above) Avenue frontage# ABRAHAM LXNCOIN HOUSES - in Harlem, Manhattan. Use of massive buildings of different heights at unrelated angles. \below) Interior court# Plftt 9 0007-HUD-000003138 000 7-HUD-0 00003138 0007-H U D-000003138 AMSTERDAM HOUSES - Columbus Hill* Manhattan. Brick courses give scale and help to reduce the severity of the buildings* (above) Central Terrace looking up toward Amsterdam Ave ASTORIA HOUSES - in Queens One of the most superb of all sites for public housing* Recreational and social features on waterfront* (below) View north from East River* Plat 10 0007"HOD-000003139 0007-HUD-000003139 0007-HUD-000003139 PART III STANDARDS OF LIVABILITY 1# Livability of Apartments The committee gave first consideration to the planning of the apartment as a unit of family living* The standards established by the Authority were examined* The Authority appears to have shown wisdom by shifting its standards to meet changing conditions in the field of construc tion, as well as variations in the needs of the families to be housed* Desirable standards of livability are the aim of all apartment planning* There are obviously only two excuses for toleration of new con struction which falls below minimum standards of livability* These are cheapness which could not otherwise be achieved and the time factor in needi It was the time factor alone which justified so-called "temporary emergency housing." This report will deal in the proper place with illusions regarding savings in original cost* At this point the committee seeks to describe rather than to define the characteristics of planning which promote livability* a* Effect of Livability on Family Life It is the Committee's belief that conditions of good livability induce improvement of the family's way of life, and conversely, livability conditions less than good tend to deteriorate the way of life* This belief is supported by observation of the projects visited* Good exposure provides comfort, sunlight, and a sense of freedom and well-being* -21- 0007^HUD-000003140 0007-HUD-000003140 0007-HUD-000003140 cross-traffic and furniture ar rangements where there is bad relation between useable wall surfaces and wall openings as well as room arrangement* Figs* 8 9 and 10 -- Illustrate good rel ationships of useable wall spaces and wall openings f and room arrangements permitting alternative placements for furniture* -24- OMJ-IUD-oooOMm 0007-HUD-000003141 0007-H U D-000003141 Part III are similar but differ slightly. They are given in the accompanying* table. PerState mitted Room Design Occup. Count Living Room -- SF SF SF A1 1 160 B2 2 160 C2 2 175 D2 3 3 160 150 E3 4 4 150 150 F 4 4 4 4i 160 160 G 4 4 5 5 160 160 H 5 5 5 5 170 170 I 6 6 5 5f* 180 180 J 7 7 6 6# 190 190 Dining Space SF 30 40 40 45 40 55 50 55 50 60 55 70 60 80 70 Kitchen SF First Second third Foiirth B. R. BR. B.R, S ? S F ~g" F S g" 46 125 45 50 125 125 49 50 125 126 80 90 55 55 125 125 115 110 55 55 125 125 80 90 80 90 55 60 125 125 115 110 80 90 60 65 125 125 125 110 115 no 60 70 125 126 126 110 115 110 80 90 Minimum Width of L.R. (for area to 170 sq.ft,) "" " (over 170 sq. ft.) w" " Bed Rooms State 10* 64 11*0W 7*0" FFHA lO^" 8*'6W Arithmetical standards are in themselves insufficient. Room sises must be considered in connection with standards of livability which take into consideration exposure, arrangement, circulation and furnish- ability. As has been pointed out, these are not susceptible to precise definition. The accompanying diagrams demonstrate why ill-arranged rooms which may adhere to minimum arithmetical standards may be otherwise un- satisfactory. The characteristics of livability exist in close to the optimum degree in Harlem River Houses, Williamsburg Houses, and In the four-story units planned for Gowanus Houses. These projects are all walk-up units with no more than three apartments served by a stair. It is the judgment of the committee that the maximum livability can be achieved, if costs permit, when the well-planned individual apartment can be placed in a walk- -25- 0007-HOD-000003142 0007-HUD-000003142 0007- H U D-000003142 APARTMENT DISTRIBUTION 2 Rooms--2 Persons 60 3 Rooms--2 Persons 259 4 Rooms--3 Persons 43 4 Rooms--4 Persons 192 5 Rooms--4 Persons 6 5 Rooms--5 Persons 17 plan is representative of Category I, walk-ups four stories and over, with through ventilation and maximum room privacy* Fig* 12 - The unit plan of Gowanus Houses is another illustration of Category I, designed at a later period but main taining optimum standards of through ventilation and room privacy* UNIT PLAN 0007-HU0-000003143 0007-HUD-0 00003143 0007-HUD-000003143 Part III up "building with no more than three apartments per stair* Quiet and clean living becomes more difficult as building population becomes more dense* 2* The Livability of Building Types In a city like Hew York, there are traditional pressures for the more intensive types of housing* As the number of families to be served by a single stair hall is increased, there is a loss of many of the amenities of good design for the apartment unit itself* * The committee reaffirms its belief that buildings with elevators and halls serving many families should be resorted to only in oases where it has been demonstrated that low buildings are out of the question. The committee suggests also that in many cases, walk-up types may be made possible by including a reasonable proportion of tall intensively planned buildings within the same project* a* Criteria for Building Types As a result of the inspection of completed projects, the committee is inclined to draw the conclusion that the design of building types falls into several classifications of desirability* 1. Walk-ups usually designed with three apartments per stair. Three stories being limit of desirability. 2* Six stories with four apartments per stair and elevator* Pour apartments to the stair being the maximum for full cross % ventilation. 3* Six stories with more than four apartments per stair and elevator* Desirability depends largely upon type of public hall. The EL public hall being preferred to the long narrow hall, especially when outside light and ventilation can be introduced at the angle of the EL* -27- 0007-HUD-0o003ltt4 0007-HUD-000003144 0007-HUD-000003144 Pig* 14 - Jacob Hits Houses Chit Plant (below) Example of Category II, sixstory elevator building with througl ventilation and room privacy* Fig* 13 - Marcy Houses Unit Plans (above) Example of Category II# six-story elevator building with through ventilation and room privacy* APARTMENT DISTRIBUTION 2 Rooms--2 Persons 84 4 Rooms--3 Persons 310 4 Rooms---4 Persons 396 5 Rooms--4 Persons J/0 SJfooni*---5 Persons 170 5 Rooms--6 Persons 170 f nr M^VsIl ----- EJW UNIT PLAN Fig* 15 - Jacob Riis Houses Unit Plans Example of Category IV, 13-story elevator building with 9 apartments on a floor, served by elevator and stairtower* The majority of apart ments are subject to cross-traffic and lack of privacy* -28- 0007-HUD-000003145 0007-HUD-000003145 0007-H U D-000003145 Part III 4. More .than six stories with more than six apartments per pairs of elevators and stairs* Here again desirability depends in large measure upon the type of public hall and whether or not the method of access to individual apartments interferes with cross ventilation and prevents satisfactory room arrangement. It seems clear that categories 1 and 2 permit planning of buildings which retain the fullest apartment livability* The best examples of build ings planned for livability are to be found in the walk-ups at Harlem River Houses, Williamsburgh,the four story buildings at Gowanus* In the second category, the six-story elevator buildings at Marcy Houses and Jacob Riis Houses are excellent examples* The limitation of apartments served by one stair and elevator to four permits full cross ventilation and short adequately lighted public halls* In categories 3 and 4, which are utilized where greater site density is required, desirability is reduced by the increased number of families using the same public hall on one floor as well as by the additional load put upon vertical circulation* In these categories definite sacrifice must be made to exposure, as well as in the interior arrangement of family units. In the plans of Farragut Houses, with 10 dwelling units on a floor, a definite step in advance was taken; by turning the wings at an angle, it was possible to give the living room an improved outlook and at the same time to bypass it so that it did not serve as a thoroughfare. The principle of the living room at an angle was also applied to the cross shaped plans of -29- o o o 7-h o i>'00<)003:L46 0007-HUD-000003146 0007-H U D-000003146 V Fig 16 - Astoria Unit Plans Example of Category III, 6-story elevator build ing with 8 apartments to the elevator stack and with privacy provided for living room and by-pass to other rooms Fig* 17 - Farragut Houses Unit Plan: Example of Category IV, 14-story, 10 apartments to the elevator stack, wit out through ventilation but with priv provided for the living room, with by pass to the other rooms* -30- 0007~HUD~0000031^7 0007-HUD-000003147 0007- H U D-000003147 Part III Astoria Houses with 8 units on a floor* Both privacy and outlook are im proved in these plans but enlarged kitchen and dining space form an active thoroughfare, and the living room an isolated front parlor* A similar type of room arrangement was made the basis of the plans for Stephen Poster Houses with 10 units to the floor* At the'time of the preparation of this report, Astoria Houses was the only project where this particular type of unit plan had been carried far enough in physical construction for the communities to pass judgment upon it. The opportunity for room outlook in the Astoria plan is superb* The large living room windows placed at an angle to the adjoining wings are at tractive* The Committee, however, questions the uniformly high window sills in the bedrooms* 3* Land Use and Site Planning Site planning begins with the determination of the number of families to be accommodated* The type of unit to be selected depends upon the density of the site plan* The original character of the site and its environs must be taken into consideration. Good site planning should improve the conditions of living and working, as well as the methods of circulation in the environs of the project as well as create good conditions within the project proper. Good housing should always exert a favorable influence upon the neighborhood in which it is placed* The experience of the Authority illustrates the great diversity of site planning which is possible. It clearly demonstrates too that the space between the buildings must vary as widely in* character as the type of buildings. When low buildings are used, small intimate courts are practicable -31- 0007-WJD-000003148 0007-HUD-000003148 0007-H UD-000003148 FT and uniformity of height is an aesthetic advantage* In all projects at least one large concentration of open space is desirable* If composed entirely of tall buildings, the desirable degree of wide spacing may de-\ prive the project of a feeling of coherence of plan* Too many tall Tk buildings of a uniform height produces an impression of institutionalism rather than domesticity* a* Effect of Site Density upon Building Types When a population greater than 250 persons to the acre is to be provided for, the tendency is to force the selection of build ing types which compromise with the optimum of apartment livability* Below the density of 250 families to the acre, the highest standards of apartment and building planning can be maintained, so that a decrease, in required density permits greater freedom in site planning and consequent improvement in livability. At the time the committee made its inspection, Marcy Houses (with a density of 266 persons to the acre) was the only project with six-story buildings which pre served the important advantages of through ventilation and room ar rangement that characterized the four-story buildings of the earlier Harlem River Houses and Williamsburgh* The majority of the Authority*^ projects show a density of over 500 persons to the acre* To aohieve these higher densities, some compromise must be made in building design and in the livability of either all or a part of the individual apartments. The Authority has had to resort to such compromises where land cost or increases in the 0007-HUD-000003149 G007-HUD-000003149 0007-H U D-000003149 IT- Bart III cost of construction have been the controlling factors in establishing required densities* Lillian Wald Houses is an example of a project where a density, forced as high as 457 persons to the acre, has produced a range of apartment livability within a single building varying from the very best to the least desirable; apartment livability was sub ordinated to elevator efficiency. b. Effect of Building Types upon Site Planning Prior to the extensive visits of inspection which were made, the committee placed on its agenda the selection of the building types which seemed to promote the best site planning. After the visits, the committee reached the conclusion that an acceptable geometrical shape of a building unit offers no safer guarantee of a good site plan than does a series of arithmetical standards for room sizes offer a guarantee of livability for the individual apartment. A great variety of site plans is to be found in the projects of the Authority. A few are mediocre; the majority are of outstanding merit. o. Grouping of Buildings (Note: Complete site plans are shown at end of Part III arranged in alphabetical order.) It is obvious that, where low structures are used, the building units may string together in continuity as has been so suc cessfully done at Harlem River Houses without the feeling that there is any repetition of buildings. At Williamsburgh a different method was employed. Pour-story units were combined into three general types of buildings, and these repeated placed at an angle to the surrounding streets but in such a manner as to create a feeling of great spaciousness \ -33- 0007-HOD-000003150 0007-HUD-00 000 3150 0007-HUD-000003150 IB - Brownsville Unit Plans Example of Category III, 6-story elcr tor with 9 apartments to the elevator [tack. without through ventilation and with eros8-traffie necessary through most living rooms* 19 - Abraham Lincoln Unit PI Example of Category IV, 14-stc 9 apartments to the floor, kii and dining alcove placed betwt living room and entrance* Lor hall and cross traffic necesst for approach to living room ar bedrooms Fig* 20 - Lillian Wald Unit Plan Example of Category IV, 10 to 14-story buildings, with 10 apartments having varied ar rangements served by elevator stack* 0007-HUD-000003151 0007-HUD-000003151 0007-HUD-000003151 Part; III of the inner courts, as well as one of openness, at the perimeter* Many other projects have utilised an angular placement* . East River Houses and Brownsville have perhaps been the most success- ful. The interior spaces are large and form pleasant rectangles while the angles on the perimeter seem to open the project to the ad joining neighborhood. At East River Houses six-story units are suc cessfully combined to form large buildings. These have been used in combination with six cross-type units of 10 and 11 stories, and yet the feeling of domesticity has been retained. The success of the Brownsville plan appears to be due to the subtle skill with which variations have been employed to make a composition out of similar units. It is a composition not alone in variety of spacing but of well-disposed variations in height. Brownsville is a triumph of three-dimensional planning. James Weldon Johnson is another example of site planning where 6-story and 14-story buildings have been well placed. At Abraham Lincoln Houses 6-story and 13-story buildings have been combined. Here the walls of the 13-story units are at an angle of 45 to the streets and the walls of the 6-story units at 90^. While there are large open spaces between the buildings, the conflict in angles is unpleasant to the eye and there is no feeling of domestic seclusion. At Jacob Riigj although the same variation of angles has been used, the placement of the buildings is such as to be easily comprehended by the eye A coherent composition is the result, fitting harmoniously into its sur roundings. At Tladeck Houses and at Kingsborough, Z-type 6-story units have been used in ranges running back from parallel boundary streets. -35- 0007-HOD-000003x52 r" F' ' 0007-HUD-000003152 0007-H U D-000003152 The shape of the space between the buildings at Kingsborough seems to produce a more satisfying effect upon the eye than the effect of rest lessness produced by the space between the buildings at Vladeck Houses* ,a Irregular angles can be successfully used, as has been I demonstrated at Queensbridge* Here, the basic unit is a 6-story building with three wings* In combination, these units produce eccentric formsj nevertheless, the great interior courts of the six superblocks are exceedingly attractive* It is to be regretted, however, that Queens bridge Houses presents a rather forbidding aspect from the bordering streets. The project does not open up and relate itself to the neighbor hood, and those who are passing have no way of realising either the expanse or the character of the living conditions behind the bordering buildings* d Projeots Composed Principally of High Buildings It seems apparent that the management and administrative experience of the Housing Authority has influenced the selection of an increasing proportion of buildings of 11 stories or over in height* Two elevators are a necessity in case of breakdown, and two elevators automatically increase the number of families economically accommodated on one floor. The easterly section of Port Greene Houses exemplifies the difficulties of making a composition out of tall, isolated buildings, in contrast to the type of planning employed at Harlem River Houses, East River Houses, and Queensbridge* At Fort Greene, the.backwardness of the planting, due in large part to the use of the project by the Navy during the war, shows how dependent isolated buildings are upon planting to tie the project together. Two portions of the huge Port Greene project -36- 0007-HOD-000003153 0007-HUD-000003153 0007- H U D-000003153 Part III exemplify successful group planning. On either side of the curve in Ua*vy Street the six-story units are arranged so as to produce coherent , harmonious compositions# The balance of the project, especially that part v?here the taller buildings are placed, exemplifies the difficulty of moulding the three-dimensional space between tall buildings into a satisfactory composition. Lillian Wald Houses contrasts with the adjacent Jacob Hi is Houses in the same way. The larger buildings of Lillian Wald have been placed so that less pleasing vistas and less pleasing enclosed spaces are produced. The cross-shaped buildings of Jacob Riis Houses have been grouped to produce a feeling of greater openness, and yet at the same time the enolosed space is definitely satisfying and compre hensible to the eye. e. Two-Story Projects The Authority has two projects to its credit, at Classon Point Gardens, in the Bronx; and Edwin Markham Houses, on Staten Island. Edwin Markham demonstrates the success of the two-story project in economically meeting requirements when there is a preponderance of three and four-bedroom apartments. It shows a density of 104 persons to the acre on land costing 67/ per square foot net. Classon Point is designed principally for smaller units of two-bedrooms or less to the dwelling unit. Classon Point shows an especially pleasant distribution of open space at both front and back of dwelling units. The experiment with private gardens to be maintained by the individual family, however, does not appear to have had adequate tenant and administrative support. -37- 0007-H0D-000003154 0007-HUD-000003154 0007-H U D-000003154 f* Summary In summarising the effect of building types upon site planning, the four classifications of building types that have already been discussed should be reviewed* In the first two categories, 'll * walk-ups and six-story elevator buildings, which retain through venti lation, it is possible to provide for good site conditions and apartment exposure, and to use a greater building coverage than it is desirable in categories 5 and 4* In the low walk-ups, it is possible to connect many units into long buildings, as well as to space buildings closer together, without sacrificing exposure and sunlight* In the second categpry, all the advantages of the first are applicable except that six-story buildings should not be spaced as closely together as three or four-story buildings, nor may as many units be connected together in a continuous building* In categories 3 and 4 it is more difficult to work out a good site-plan* It requires a greater degree of skill to realise the sub tleties of arrangement that are needed to maintain distant vistas, _ assure sunlight, and yet create a sense of enclosed outdoor living* 4* Livability and Construction Cost The Committee fully appreciates that planning for the maximum of livability does not mean planning for the minimum first cost* We are fully aware that two of the projects mentioned herein (Harlem River and Williams burg^) as illustrating the best livability characteristics were constructed at costs not since tolerated by the Authority nor possible for housing Sub sidised by public appropriations* Nevertheless, it is the conviction of the committee that the character of the planning in these two early projects is -38- OOOT'HOO-000003155 0007-HUD-000003155 0007-H U D-000003155 Part III not wholly responsible for the high cost* We observe that the 6-story units of Jacob Riis and Maroy come very near to realising the highest standards of good livability at tolerable first cost* Certainly the nature of the building plan has an influence on the cost of providing an apartment for rent* But in observing and re viewing the liistory of the Authority's operations, this Committee believes that the standardisation of construction methods and materials, the sound ness and uniformity of contract award procedures and the methods of field controls and general contract administration, all as practiced by the Authority, have been a richer source for cost control than many forms of economy so far observed in the planning of dwelling units* * It is the opinion of the committee that at times the Authority has accepted some building plans which seriously compromised livability without sufficient justification in cost savings* Original cost may appear to be saved by overloading public halls and vertical circulation* Then to correct maintenance difficulties, another project may be designed with increased quantities of general structure required for circulation and re duced ratio of efficiency between service space and living space* The committee does not advocate the standardisation of planning, but we do suggest that first consideration should be given to good livability and less reliance placed on guidance of arithmetical standards for room sizes and over-ingenious geometrical forms for planning* It has been established that economies in foundation costs and roof costs appear to be possible where families are housed in fewer buildings of greater height* It also appears that vertical distribution is more economical for heating, electrical distribution, and sanitary drainage* Against savings suoh as -39- 0007-HUD--000003156 0007-HUD-000003156 0007-HUD-000003156 r these must be balanced the disadvantages of limitations on exposure and dwelling unit arrangement that have been pointed out* a* Miscellaneous Construction Economies :\ There are other forms of savings that are equally appli cable to low as well as high buildings* Certainly the Authority has proved itself fully justified in the economies arrived at by the elimination of individual metering and individual distribution pipes and conduits required for services for water, gas and electricity* Though more questionable, the Authority has tried the omission of all doors for closets* The arithmetical result of such a saving, both in construction cost and in direct maintenance cost, cannot be denied. Its wisdom from a social point of view, however, is another matter* Certainly an amenity which keeps the living standard of the family high is an indirect oontribution to morale and therefore a con tribution toward reduced maintenance. The omission of covers to water closets, when multiplied by a thousand or more dwelling units, offers an arithmetical advantage but causes hardship to families using a single crowded bathroom. Similarly, the omission of separate kitchen and dining alcove and the combination of kitchen and living facilities in one room is an obvious construction economy, though questionable from the point of view of livability standards. Again, it is consideration of cost whioh must be weighed in many of the decisions, such as that to eliminate sound-proofing* A plan which minimises the length of continuous walls between apartments goes far toward reducing the need for the use of sound-deadening mate rials in vertical walls. The committee recommends that attention be -40- 7-MD-000003157 0007-HUD-000003157 0007-H U D-000003157 Part III given to reducing sound transmission through floors by the use of sound-deadening material in concrete arches, and also, the use of baffles in vertical channels of air-borne noise at ducts and risers The Authority has been parsimonious in the number of electric light outlets furnished, so much so that the committee ob served that tenants utilise an excessive, and in some cases dangerous, amount of exposed extension wiring* The design and operation of the heating systems have been efficient# Provision has been made to minimize the cost of peak loads as well as to prevent overheating# Exposed steam risers are used throughout. More care should be taken to establish a good rela tion between risers, windows, and the location of radiators# Horizontal runs of heating lines above the floors are space consuming in small apartments# When placed on ceilings, horizontal runs are objectionable because both unsightly and dirt catchers. b# Relation of Subsidies to Costs and Livability Standards It is clear that the obligation on the part of the authority to keep costs down has been a continual source of concern in relation to the desire on the part of the Authority to maintain high standards of livability. The Authority is constantly reminded that both interest and amortization charges are defrayed by either federal or state sub sidies, both of which must ultimately be met by the taxpayer# The Authority has not only struggled to distribute the benefit of subsidies to as many needy families as possible, but has felt pressure to eliminate seeming luxuries or amenities which were beyond the need of subsidy# j/, ^ -41- 0007-HUD-000003X58 0007-HUD-000003158 0007-H U D-000003158 For this reason, subsidies have acted as a damper to pre vent the Authority from realising as high a quality of work as might otherwise have been accomplished* In Parts V and VI of this report we will discuss some of the far-reaching consequences of this situation and deal primarily with the effect of excessive economies upon standards of design and construction in private enterprise as well as in public housing. In Part VI we shall also discuss a possible change in the application of subsidies* -43- Q007~HUD~000003l59 G007-HUD-000003159 0007-HUD-000003159 JL u > < >2 < CD al b an y ST. MARKS AVE h) > < O CK n v.vjEa-pw<?a^t m.rwu m* PERSONS PER APARTMENT ROOMS PER APARTMENT NUMBER OF APARTMENTS NUMBER OF CONST. ROOMS XTYPE APARTMENTS 1 2 9 18 1.1 o to on wo SCALI IN PKKf i 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 TOTAL 55 27 52 165 384 III 61 629 54 I5G 660 1536 555 405 3384 S2 6.3 20.0 463 135 96 100% r A TOTAt AREA---------------------------------------------------------- 388,399 SO. FT.(8.92 ACRES! a NET HOUSING AREA----------------------------------------------- 398,389 SO. FT.(8.92 ACRES) C. AREA COVEREO BY DWELLING BLOGS. 0. AREA COVERED BY NON-DWE LLING BLDGS.______ E. COVERAGE (C + O-f Al_______________ F. DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE) 92,059 SO FT. (1.19 ACRES! 8,400 SO.FT.(BOILER RtAB CHILDRENS CENTER) I 5.09 % 351 G. NO.OF DWELLING BUILDINGS----------------------------------------------- 8 IIVV6IK CITT NWNH MTNMlTV KEY PLAN 0007-HDD-000003160 0007-HUD-000003160 0007-H U D-000003160 0007-HUD-000003161 0007-H U D-000003161 STREET 3-* BEACH CHANNEL DRIVE S3-05 54-/5 ^I COAL __ AR BUNKER ARVERN E 0U E E NS I TOTAL 0001 1 cu s * cO ID N K 1 9*6 ! I| ** s1 IO fO CO CO CD CM I5D 1 ca pO CO o to ui 1 M 1 318 | CM CM M * o 1 1% si os* CUoD:l CD W oo o< a1* s 3| K u. u. cf cr (A CD ocu M *m o-- io IO |I U S St oMID N(--D " II II I 1 5A0 tec> CoC o CD <5 -I o a. 3 o X -2 is o <z UJ -- rr CD - -J < .I UJ CD O O 3* CD J O -uJi 2 3o s oo Ui UJ a: k UJ Ui >o >O OO << UJ Ui a: as << ui oc O < CL CD C0D O- CD O OZ -j Ui ~ 3 CD t2 z -J Ui UI O* o ID Ui O OZ < ai d d ui u: d fPERSONS PER APARTMENT | ROOMS PER APARTMENT | J N U M B E R OF APARTMENTS | |N 0 . OF CONSTRUCTION RMS. | i X TYPE APARTMENTS | |N a O F RENTAL ROOMS 56TM BEACH ?*|-49 NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY KEY PLAN 45. 0007-H0D-000003162 0007-HUD-000003162 0007-H U D-000003162 ASTORIA 0uE ENs o AVENUE A. A TOTAL ARCA (INCLUOINO PLAYCROUNOL-__ ___* MKT HOUSINC ARCA (fK6UMMNC FLAYCAOUNOU* l,SSC,S?l i,tc,cn SO. FT SO FT 01.14 ACRES) (207S > C ARCA COVCRCO CV 0WCLUK8 CUtLOtNCS______ ITO,STC SO. FT ( Off ) a ARIA * NON- * * ______ 3, ISC SO. FT. I .0? I t .COVCRAOC IC4 0 4A) _______.... * It. T9* F. DCSKM OCNSITY(FCRSONS FCR ACME)_________* 1ST.* 0. NUMSCR OF DWfLLIMO BUILDINOS^ _______* CC * y PERSONS PER 8MWTMENT NUMBEROF APARTMENTS NaoFCONsrmucfioN r o o ms X TVPE APARTMENTS ~T4 ~ SIS 1260 2S.S 44 826164 19.6 4 5 105 52 S 9.9 5 5 207 loss 16.7 6 S 195 9TS 17.7 s7 TOTAL 66 1104 396 50SS 6.0 100.% -46 NCW YORK CITY HOUSINC AUTHORI 0007-HUD-000003163 0007-HUD-000003163 0007-H U D-000003163 RICHMOND GEN. CHARLES W. BERRY . n ft I G H M O K O SC AVER :S t PERSONS PER APARTMENT ROOMS PER APARTMENT 2 3 3 4 4 4 G 5 TOTAL NUMBER OF APARTMENTS 151 SO 979 3 SOG NO OF CONSTRUCTION RMS 453 390 IOSS IS IS76 % TYPE APARTMENTS 99.G I5.S S3* OG 1000% NO OF RENTAL ROOMS -- -- - -- 9199 ALL SUILOINGS ARE 6 STORIES HIGH SCALE IN FEET & A. TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAYGROUNO)----------- 735,593 SQ.FT. (16.69 ACRES) & NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYGROUND)- 511* ITS SO.FT. (11.74 ACRES) C AREA COVERED GY DWELLING SUILOINGS-----------74,7IS SQ.FT (1.71 ACRES) O AREA COVERED BY NON-DWELLING BUILDINGS- 2,434 SO.FT.(CHILDREN'S CENTER ft GARAGE.) C. COVERAGE (C+D+A)____________________________ 10.49% E OCSIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)------------ 99 0007-HtID-000003l64 Gl NUMBER OF OWCLLING BUILDINGS------------------------ B -47- k e y PLAN MC TOA* eiTV MQUSIttO AUTHORITY 000 7-HUD-00000 316 4 0007-H U D-000003164 LI NOE N -- bo ul evar d br o o k l y n BOULEVARD o o: o Ik X CO r -- STONir BUILDINGS itlliiiS 14 STONY BUILOINGS 0 PERSONS PER APARTMENT ROOMS PER APARTMENT NUMBER OF APARTMENTS NO.OF CONSTRUCTION RMS. % TYPE APARTMENTS NO. OF RENTAL ROOMS 2 3 414 1242 28.7 -- -- -... `` lWAftWICKr 1 *r. I s c a l e in rc.tr 50100 34 44 227 508 ISJ8 -- 789 3196 55.4 -- 5 S 1 5 0.1 -- t o t al 144! 5351 100.0% 6071 A. TOTAL AREA_________________________________ _________ S. NET HOUSING AREA_________________________________ & AREA COVERED BY 0WELLIN6 BLOGS._________ a AREA COVERED BY NON-DWELLING BLDGS*. E. COVERAGE (C+D-rA)----------------------------------------------- R OESIGN OENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE). G. NO. OF DWELLING BUILDINGS_________ -____ -- 1,127*650 SO. FT. (25.89 ACRES) -- 1,127,650 SQ. Ft (25.89 ACRES) -- 164,664 SO FT. ( 3.78 ACRES) 6,367 SOFT. (0.12 ACRES) -- 15.06% -- 182 ___ 18 NCW YORK CITY HOUSIMC AtjTMOAlT KEY PLAN -48- 0007-HOD-OOOOQ316S 0007-HUD-000003165 0007-H U D-000003165 BRONX RIVER BR O N X EAST 173* STREET I WIST PLOOPI EAST 174t h STREET I PISit PLOOP) SCALE IN FEET 0*ii'4S ALL BUILOINGS ARC 14 STORIES PERSONS PER APARTMENT ROOMS PER. APARTMENT NUMBER OFAPARTMENTS NUMBER OF CONST. ROOMS X TYPE APARTMENTS 2 34 45 3 44 35 47 331 460 I6B 170 141 1324 IB 40 B40 850 3.77 2656 36.92 13.48 13.6$ 6 5 70 3$0 5.62 TOTAL 1246 5345 100% A. TOTAL AREA | INCLUOING PARK) B. NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLU0IN6 PARK) C. AREA COVERED BY OWE LUNG BUILDINGS D. AREA COVERED BY NON DWELLING EXT. E. COVERAGE (C+D+A) F. DESIGN OENSITY ( PERSONS PER ACRE) 0 NO. OF DWELLING BUILDINGS 607297 563737 82419 1 616 13.67 350.29 9 SO. FT. <13.9 ACRES) SO. FT. (12.9 * ) SO. FT. (189 * ) SO. FT. (0.04 ) % 0007-HUD"000003166 49- NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 0007-HUD-000003166 0007-H U D-000003166 r I--\ t irn Mkirai % 1TMT MiN |U t* ir ImmXmMnwmmMmmmmmBmmmT 4WU<WMiMUWMMNINaM____________* *<" *" I ACMtl ACMQMI PHI AMIVTIiCffT 800H* Pf* AMKTMKMr NUMMft OP APAUmCNTt HO.OrCOMtTIHMT10M8 ITYW APT* 8 8 4 188 it 4 848 1888 sat 8 8 818 1818 sat 8 J m LT 8 8 188 878 iai 8 8 mu 188 iwf 878 8818 IAI toot .MT aimiM MMDkltXUlim '*' t.tU MVtUI IV NtlUII kM.-------- * 1*,* .#T. ( .t> .AW* MmilMUMIIIUn----- # ------ -- * 9 mmm wwtwtw--iwiw....... -- * ***** .Wkw--ttiwt wiunwi--. ---' ** * *1 ** CW WW n NWII ATMMr 0007-HUO-000003167 00 0 7-HUD-0 00003167 0007-HUD-000003167 JL CLASON POINT GARDENS.u1>J1-ju1za3 Ki *"<> i N SEWARD AVE AVENUE i!E i < 5. I * si @Ni LA FAYETTE AVENUE $ $ ! m STORY AVENUE w -SI ui 3 2 UI Hi M> < t w5 "< * Qu << w X 0 ui * -I 'll31 oS UJ toecl * IOO t f K ni dto dto ow o-- <o--o to o te K M< K * . 2 O2 . ON 01 II i\ \\ CM O -I 3 o< 5Y51l _i .| I J s 3 * <* * 3 O at k ?+ H>* O* O5 5 >' O * t<ei U>i ZCO o3 <K 0O 0HI 2O < d d 6 <: d NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY. 0007-HUD-000003168 0007-HUD-000003168 0007-H U D-000003168 r^ovc*. 1PERSONS PER APARTMENT 2 34 4 | TI AVI T AA 1L ROOMS PER APARTMENT 3* 4 4 5 NUMBER OP APARTMENTS 95 34 665 95 95 964 NO. OP CONSTRUCTION RMS. 265 136 2660 475 475 4031 NO. OP RENTAL ROOMS -- -- -- --. -- 4 472*4 X TYPE APARTMENTS 9.7 3.4 67.5 9.7 9.7 100.0% * C.S. COUNTED AS ONE CONST. ROOM A. TOTAL AREA-- 475,672 SQ. FT. (10.62 ACRES) 6. NET HOUSING AREA 475.672 SO. FT. (10.92 ACRES) C. AREA COVERED BY DWELLING BLOGS________-- 56,570 SO FT. ( 1.34ACRES) 0 AREA COVEREO BY NON*DWELLING BLOGS______ 13,101 SO FT. ( 030 ACRES) E. COVERAGE (C^DrA)____________________________ *5.07 % E. DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE*________ 349 a NO. OP DWELLING BUILDINGS______ __________ S 0007-HOD-000003169 YORK CITY h o u s imc .u y k o .it y KEY PLAN 0007-HUD-000003169 0007-HUD-000003169 NAGLE DYCKMAN MANNATTAH AV E N U E 0 Y C K MAN Yho -a* A. TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAYGROUND)-------------B. NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYGROUNO)-- C. AREA COVERED BY (DWELLING BLDGS---------------O. AREA COVEREO BY NON-OWELLING BLOGS--------E. COVERAGE (C4 0-i-A)*.---------------------------------------- 619,884 SO. FT. (14.09 ACRES) 570,318 SQ.FT. (13.09 ACRES) 74,317 SQ.FT.( 1.71 ACRES) 6,140 SQ. FT. (KEATING PLANT, GARAGE. TOT ETONAGE .... AND CHILDREN'S CENTER EXT.I F. DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)________ G. NO. OF DWELLING BUILDINGS_____________ --. 290 7 -53 NEW YORK CITY HOUStRC AUTHORITY KEY PLAN 0007-HUD-000Q03170 0007-HUD-000003170 0007-HUD-000003170 JL r~'" EASTCHESTER BRONX Ui > < 1 STORY BUILDINGS e STORY BUILDINGS PERSONS PER APARTMENT ROOMS PER APARTMENT NUMBER OF APARTMENTS NUMBER OF CONST. ROOMS % TYPE APARTMENTS HOTC eSV.O.RA...MGG*W0R6OA1OFABTtVROROOROOKtMMN*** SHOT 2 344 3 4 '4 5 73 181 229 no 223 724 916 550 0.6 20.7 26.2 12.6 OCALC IR RICT 5 5 278 1390 31.8 6 5 * 5 0.1 TOTAL 874 3810 100% RENTAL ROOMS 4,239 A TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAYGROUNO)--------------- 6 53, 856 SQ. FT. (15.01. ACRES) a NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYGROUNO)-- 607. 3 96 SQ. FT. (I3.S4 ACRES) C. AREA COVEREO BY DWELLING BLDGS_____________ I I 0, 124 SQ. FT. ( 2.53 ACRES) 0. AREA COVERED BY NON*DWELLING BLOGS________ 5, 794 SQ. FT. (BOILER RM. B CHILDRENS CENTER) E. COVERAGE (C+O+A), 17.72 % F. DESIGN OENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)___________ G NO.OF DWELLING BUILDINGS_______ ______________ 230 10 MC* YORK CITY MOUSING AUTMONITY KEY PLAN -54- 0007-HUD4"* 00000 3171 0007-HUD-000003171 0007- H U D-000003171 J ()4 & EAST RIVER. .MANHATTAN S o H J L_ ^OTE. - MUMALAS APPLY TO t02"2 STAELT* PERSONS PER APARTMENT. ROOMS PER APARTMENT. NUMBER OF APARTMENTS. NO. OF CONSTRUCTION R'MS. % TYPE APARTMENTS 2 2 126 2S2 10.6 2 3 334 1,002 26.5 3 4 46 192 4.1 NO MAEAS APPLY TO tOS Zif STAELT. 44 56 45 56 464 144 30 24 1856 720 150 144 39.7 123 2.6 2.0 TOTAL 1170 4316 100.0% A . TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PARK L_______ ___ ___ * 6 * NET HOUSING AREMEXCLUDING PARK.)________ C AREA COVERED BY DWELLING BUILDINGS______ 0 AREA * * NON- " * ______ E COVERAGE.(C Ot A)------------------------------------------------- F DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)* G * NO. OP DWELLING BUILDINGS -- 10 5 12,822 SO. FT. (11.77 ACRES.) 4 6 6,607 SO. FT. (10.71 ACRES.) 109,170 SO. FT. ( 2.60 ACRES.) 2,870 SQ. FT.(NURSERY SCHOOL EXT.ONLY) 2 1.87 % 322 LEGEND I STORY EXT. 6* B*LD*G. 10 STORY B'LD'G. 11 * * NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY -55 0007-HOD-000003172 GO07-HUD-000003172 0007-H U D-000003172 _J II L_--------- --------------------------- 1 L_ l ovej oy E L L I 0 T T ... ... M N HATT A N UI Hi 5J trt 01 w CO W Ui U tat * o* U* u* ota- J <4X 4 * 4 U. fc. ta. U. 6 V> 6 (A o (A * o o O M Ift ft NJ* 01 tO* O461 O* N X I IIII I x I I I I II - I I. o cu I III I I I 133 | J I 13 3 IS \i o$ I|So i * o*o*5- 4 CD < 'OOi i<n * X o toCa}1u o u -A * 4f4 0-S <u t*a0in*1W 1- X 44 0 0 << O <0 ut * 0 T X A Ve 0007-HUD-000003173 NEW YORK CITY H0USIN0 AUTH0RU KEY PLAN 0007-HUD-000003173 0007-HUD-000003173 FARRAGUT. BROOKLYN LEGEND -AREA TO BE CCDEO TO CITY OF NEW YORK FOR PARK PURPOSES. TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAYGROUND*____ _ 700,561 SO Ft(17.91 ACRES) NET HOUSING AREACEXCLUDING PLAYGROUNOL_ 791,2)9 * * (17.29 ' AREA COVERED BY OWELUNG BUILDINGS_______ 99,443 * * AREA * * NON* * *_______ * 6,499 COVERAGE IC4-0-Ml! 12.16 PERCENT 0ESI6N DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)______ 297. 94 NUMBER OF OWELLIN9 BUILDINGS.___________ J& PERSONS PER APARTMENT 1 2 2 5 4 4 8 6 ROOMS PER APARTMENT 2 2 5 4 4 5 5 5 HUMBER OFAPARTMENTS 12 28 71 405 457 (40 207 82 HOOF CONSTRUCTION RMS. 24 56 215 1612 1828 700 1055 410 __ X TYPE APARTMENTS 09 2*0 5*1 288 528 too 14.8 5.6 TOTAL 1400 5878 loaox k -67- NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 0007-HOD-000003174 0007-HUD-000003174 0007-HUD-000003174 niiT I V INUC sI i FIRST HOUSES AN AT AN IsSsfi 151 illi5* fill , 1U i 8 ll Is #S 3-2 ii irsjii ?S32 r i* M at o So m z. + " o~fc* 5S>SS5g8S3 5O ^*2 Sco?S5tfl *- * A < O A* < A U PW A s i* L * ( 1,4 A. V E N U E a " -58. Hi <O :: OJ A r''i NEW YOU* CITY HOOSINi AUTHORITY 0007-MUD-000003175 0 00 7-HUD-0 00003175 0007-HUD-000003175 FORT GREENE SECTIONS 1-2-3. N (A (9 Z o cr o Id 31 Klit) 111 U(rtl ww os : or uo vo << << lO lO I(OO K<9 *-1 > _k: d to| U. U. U. U. oooO Ul W (ft to O) eu v 9> K (0 S CO O W co g* OO 1O^ CO to 0> o CM CM to I I 1 UK I I Jg M 2s IK UJ at: * n zi uKi * o s< az < to! J2 si otooc o_~J Ua.I a2 z< --` o <z UQCi <--/> c^ UI o2 < < u Ui UI > < t^t oo s^ ui ui g ig <A UI O az NEW YORK CITY HOU3INO AUTHORITY 0007-HOD-000003176 It 0007-HUD-000003176 0007-H U D-000003176 STEPHEN FOSTEI M A N HAT T A WEST 112t h STREET A. TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAYGROUND)__________ m 0S9* tto s q .pt . (13.79 ACRES) B. NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYGROUND!-- 955,5*7 - * (12.79 * ) C. AREA COVERED BY DWELLING BUILDINGS______ 1,172 * * ( 2.09 * ) 0. AREA * BY NON' * *______ m 7,6S0 * * (NURSERY SCHOOL BBOILER ROOM EXT.) E. COVERAGE (C+O-rA) m IB.49 % P. DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)________ 3TB C. NUMBER OP 0WELLIN6 BUILDINGS-- m 10 OTHERS* 5. I I <4 STORY BUILDING V///A IS STORY BUILDING PERSONS PER APARTMENT I1 2 ROOMS PER APARTMENT |] 1 3 NUMBER OF APARTMENTS 57 NO. OF CONSTRUCTION ROOMS 171 % TYPE APARTMENTS 1| 4.26 3 4 367 1466 2745 4 4 487 1946 3643 4 5 166 640 12.57 5 5 188 940 MAS 61 5 "TOTAL 70 I33T 350 5717 5.231| 100.0% Q007-HDD-000003177 -60- KEY PLAN Kew vo""6,TV *w t > 00 0 7-HUD-0 00003177 0007-H U D-000003177 GLEN WOOD 56TM STREET EAST (LOINS* ARE STORIES HISH PERSONS PER APARTMENT ROOMS PER APARTMENT NUMBER OF APARTMENTS NO.OF CONSTRUCTION RMS % TYPE APARTMENTS NO. OF RENTAL ROOMS 23 34 252 214 TBS SS6 IT.O iS.S -1 - 4 4 582 2328 50.4 - 8 S ISO 850 I4J -- TOTAL 1188 4820 ioao% 5214 A. TOTAL AREA (INCLUOING PLAYGROUNO)- 9T5.0S5 SQ.FT (22.38ACRES) B. NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYGROUNO) 915,230 SO.FT (21.01 ACRES) C. AREA COVEREO ST DWELLING SLOGS---------------------- I7T.39S SQ.FT ( 4.07 ACRES) 0. AREA COVEREO GV NON-OWELLING BLDGS_________ 8.457 SQ.FT (0.15 ACRES) E. COVERAGE (C + Ot * A)------------------------------- --------------------- 1808% F. OESIGN OENSITY (REASONS PER ACRE)-----------------6. NO. OF DWELLING BUILDINGS------------------------------------ ** 20 NSW VON* CITY MOOSINO AUTHORITY KEY PLAN -61 0007-HOD-000003178 0007-HUD-000003178 0007-H U D-000003178 J HOYT G 0WAN U eROO K L Y STREET ~1 BONO s ta n ! il SCALE IV MET 1 s t o r ies 23 * STORIES Pe r s o n s pec a r t . ROOMS PER APT. NO. OP APARTMENTS NO OF CONST. ROOMS % TYPE APTS. h 2 IS SC I.SS czn 9 STORIES IS STORIES 2 5 SO ISO 4.JS s 4 SCO 1440 SI. Cl 4 4 SET ISOS ES.TI 4S S8 its ISS C40 ILE4 SS8 ll.CS 1 14 STORIES 10 STORIES c 8 IOC 540 S.48 S .. c 15 SO I.SI TOTALS IISS 48SS io o r. * TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PARK)________ * 547,627 (12.57 ACRES) 8 NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PARK)____ 502.1 $0* (11.55 ACRES) C AREA COVERED 8Y DWELLING BLDGS..* 102,014* ( 2.36 ACRES) 0 AREA COVERCO 8V NON-DWELLING BLDGS.- 2,B45* ( .06 ACRES) E COVERAGE (C+DrA)*____ 1029% F OESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS RERAGRElI^* 355.21 0 NO. OF DWELLING BLDGS.* 16 OTHERS-O TOTAL-16 -62- MEW YORK CITY I.SUStN* AUTHOR IT 0007-HUD-000003179 0007-HUD-000 003179 0007-HUD-000003179 GUN HILL BRONX I 1 MAGENTA STREET faj > PARK PLATOROUND 31,106 SftPt 0.72 ACRES o 9 BAR THOLDI ST. PERSONS PER APARTMENT ROOMS PER APARTMENT NUMBER OF APARTMENTS NUMBER OF CONST.ROOMS % TYPE APTS. NO.OF RENTAL ROOMS 1 2 3 6 0.4 - 2 3 245 735 33.5 -- 34 B 44 s 81 323 81 324 1292 405 11.0 44J 11.0 ------ TOTAL 733 2762 . 3127 'A * ooo A. TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAVGROUNO)____ 345,256 SO.FT(7.93ACRES) B. NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYpROUNO)_ 314,070 SO FT.(7.21 ACRES) C. AREA COVERED BY DWELLING BLDGS__________50,404 SQ FT.(I.IG ACRES) 0. AREA COVERED BY NON-OWELLING BLOGS._____ 4,200 SO.FT(O.IOACRES) E. COVERAGE (G+0 4A)------------------------------------------- 15.04% F. DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE). G. NO. OF DWELLING 8UIL0INGS_________ -63- 0007-HOD-000003180 317 6 NCW YO.R ITT MWIM RUTHORITY KEY PLAN 0007-HUD-000003180 0007-H U D-000003180 0007-HUD-000003181 0007-HUD-000003181 EAST '4V-; ) ui t* > *< r II 5 TM J. W. JOHNSON MA N H a t t an STREET e.i4 < sr no ft #1 * c < a. c al c i* rcir r 4 STORIES jgsma to STORIES I ..................I .4 STORIES PERSONS PER APT 2 3 4 4 S 6 7 TOTALS | ROOMS PER APT. 2 4 4 9s 54 NO OP APARTMENTS MO. OP CONST ROOMS % TYPE APTS SS no 420 404 141 3014 4SS ISS2 3S0I 99 499 T.3S ISI 999 14.99 92 310 4.73 1 4 .04 13)0 S4S4 1001 1 0 | B A . TOTAL AREA(INCLUDING PLAY6ROUNO)________- 517,632* (II.$8 ACRES) 8 . NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYGROUNO)-- 456,630* (10.48 ACRES) C . AREA COVEREO BY 0WELLING BLOG$ _* 95.358* (2.19 ACRES) O .AREA COVEREO BY NON-OWELUNG BLOGS.--* 2,446* ( .06 ACRES) E .COVERAGE (C D A )________________________ 18.88% F . OESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)_______* 424.68 G . NO. OF DWELLING BLDGS-10 OTHERS - 0 TOTAL-IO NEW YORK CITY HOUSING Aut WORMY 0007-HOD-000003182 0007-HUD-000003182 0007-H U D-000003182 ----------- 1 KINGSBOR.OUGH 8r o O k l y m * "*7*# *3A V Nr~ H 4 "I Y * JL H9m' V7 V0fi*9S0fiHxl 09* ,-c^c^v^s fii** #9ft<nt*vs9Mnt fWt#'v9/t1w0*i09*9*1* 5w m > on*v3^AiVna e~ * ^2 5,, wV7flVvMww/)ffS * ^* Sr. vyrAf f*ar $$*$> ** *9/>0V09r;v/y *V7rM /$/ ^,- c m - l*LLl*L "7:" npnovotsDUnt -r?= ?- * *3Af U3XS3H00 M -66- ttl ** si ** z 111 J8 <8 et S N ^J *1 ^ <0 - * -- " 3 11i<5 CO CO IO CO * o o -* 5T lO to CoO CO o rO Y -M* $ CO 5 0> to ! ii i cm to ID O to o m - 5f IO CM CM + M CD N CM j* !z 111 s H ct o. < a: UCLl to Hz HO RCA 1U aori la KZ ui 2 fIrT- 2 < OC UCLi IA 2 o o 0 to & z Ul 2 fr ee 2 < Ll . O (e Ul 00 2 3 Z <A 2 oe z o p u a: - CA z o o Ua.l > * h uo H cf z : APTS < moo NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 0007-HUD-000003183 0007-HUD-000003183 0007-HUD-000003183 --It IV t ff TON MOUSES' ABRAHAM LINCOLN t m AN.... H A T Ta m AVENUE EAST ISE" STREET STORY BUILDINGS cf 9<t imtiitmi toet_____________ too* ICAlt IK rtCT 14 s t o r y b u il o in g s PERSONS PER APARTMENT 2 ROOMS PER APARTMENT 2 2 3 3 '4 4 4 4 5 3 5 s s 6 6 7 6 TOTAL NUMBER OF APARTMENTS 53 NUMBER OP CONST. ROOMS 110 % TYPE APTS. 426 4 12 .31 36S 439 m 215 72 1 1332 1796 359 1075 360 6 3a7 34.13 8.63 16.72 360 J06 1 6 .06 1266 5432 100% II A. TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAYGROUND!________-554,200 SO. FT {tt.7* ACRES) 0. RET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYGROUND)_r 511,0 21 SO. FT. (11.73 ACRES) C. AREA COVERED ST DWELLING BLOCS.______*10 2,601 SQ.FT (2.39 ACRES) 0. AREA COVERCO BY NON-0WELLING BLOGS. iNuft&CRv s c h o o l c x t ) * 4.137 SO FT. E. COVERAGE(C+D-rA)____________________ ______ * I 9.2C \ F. OESION DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)_________ * 593.24 G. NO. OF DWELLING BUILDINGS 14 0007-HOD-000003184 -67- KEY PLAN , NKW YORK CITY HOU4IN9 AUTHORITY j 0007-HUD-000003184 0007-H U D-000003184 M AR C Y BROOKLYN AVE NU 1 r al l suti.ptc* aac sTosies tBcsKaagA^ltsaIsNsKfstKaTBssssf PERSONS PER APARTMENT.. ROOMS PER APARTMENT NUM8ER OF APARTMENTS HO. OF CONSTRUCTION ROOMS % TYPE APTS. 2 5 88 *88 MO 34 44 488 185* *8.4* 488 188* **4* 45 88 *18 1075 1*9* *15 1078 1*8* S 5 815 1078 ICS* TOTALS 1717 T4IT too* __ A TOTAL AREA (INCLU0IN8 PLAYGROUND)>1,141,000 SO. FT 0. NET HOUSING AREA(EXCLU0IN8 PLAYfeROUNO)* 1,101,047 SO. FT. (18.48 ACRES) (IS.2* ACRES) C. AREA COVERED 8Y OWELLING BLOCS*298,680 SOFT. (5.48 ACRES) 0. AREA COVERED BY NON ~0WCLUNG BLOCS.INVRSCSV s c h o o l CKT.)*lSt8 SO. FT. C- COVERAGE (C + O-VA)___________________________ 19.34% F. DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)__________ ESB.84 C. NO. OF DWELLING BUILOtNOS___________________ "IT KEY PLAN NEW YORK CITY M0USIN4 AUTHONITT -68- 0007-Hop-Q00003185 0007-HUD-000003185 0007-H U D-000003185 13 3 U S a> t---- 3NkV M EDWIN MARKHAM RICH MONO m > a o -69- NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 0007-HUD-000003186 0007-HUD-000003186 0007-HUD-000003186 0007-HUD-000003187 0007-HUD-000003187 PELHAM PARKWAY B RO N PERSONS PER APARTMENT ROOMS PER APARTMENT NUMBER OF APARTMENTS NO OF CONSTRUCTION R'MS. X TYPE APTS. 2 3 33B IOOB 2B.B 3 4 IBB 744 I4.B 4 4 B54 2BIB 51.7 e 9 SO 450 7.1 TOTAL I26B 4BIB too % PELHA*H**''U PARKWAY WORTH A. TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAYGROUND)____________1,034,100 SO.FT. (23.74ACRES) 8. WET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUOING PLAYGROUND)___ 967,232 SO. FT. (22.20ACRES) <X AREA COVEREO BY DWELLING BLOGS 163,208 SOFT. (4.21 ACRES) 0. AREA COVEREO BY NON-OWELLING BLOGS________ I,BBT SO FT. (CHILDREN'S CENTER EXT.) E. COVERAGE (C +0+A) 17.87% F. DESIGN OENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)____________ a NO.OF OWELLING BUILDINGS---------------------------------- IBS 23 ' MEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY KEY PLAN -73- 0007-HUD-000003188 0007-HUD-000003188 0007-HUD-000003188 PROJECT PARK -- 4 0 1 ,4 0 7 SQ.FT. PERSONS PER APARTMENT. ROOMS PER APARTMENT. NUMBER OF APARTMENTS. NO. OP CONSTRUCTION R*MS. % TYPE APTS, 2 234 2 345 222 1,188 1,328 399 444 3,564 5,312 1,995 7.0 37*7 422 127 7 6 12 72 *0 TOTAL. 3,149 11,387 100% A * TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PARK)--------------------------- -- * NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PARK)--------------- -- C * AREA COVERED BY DWELLING BUILDINGS_____ * 0 - AREA ' * NON* * * _____ E * COVERAGE (C+D-rA)_____________________________ 2, I 54,94 I SO. FT (40.47 ACRES.) I *510* 3GB SQ.FT. (34.67 ACRES.) 362,306 SQ.FT. ( 6.32ACRES.) 27,607 SQ.FT. (SEE NOTE.) 16.10 / F DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PERACRE) ITI G * NO.OF DWELLING BUILDINGS-26 OTHER-2. ALL BUILDINGS-28 NO. OF STORES-25 (398 L.F.) * NOTE- t*41 COMMUNITY BUILDING AREA c h il d r e n 's c e n t e r __________. STORE EXTENSION AREAil STORY)_____ -74- 6,601 SQ.FT. 6,762 SQ.FT. 12,600 SQ. FT. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 0007-HUD-000003189 0007-HUD-000003189 0007-HUD-000003189 RAVENSWOOD ! PERSONS PER APARTMENT ROOMS PER APARTMENT NUMBER OF APARTMENTS NO.OF CONSTRUCTION RMS. NO. OF RENTAL ROOMS % TYPE APARTMENTS 2 3 607 1821 -- 28.0 3 '4 44 272 i 12B7 1088 | 5148 --| -- 12.6 j 594 TOTAL 2166 8057 9140 1000 X A. TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAYGROUND)_________ 1,867,814 SQ.FT.(30.29 ACRES) a NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYGROUNO)___1,537,135 SO.FT.(35.29 ACRES) C. AREA COVERED OY DWELLING BLOGS.__------------ 310,050 SQ.FT.(7.I ACRES) O AREA COVEREO BY NON "DWELLING BLOGS______30,003 SQ.FT. ` SS!^i*eM * 6tNTM* #T0,,M*A E. COVERAGE (4 0* A)_______________________________ 20<75 % F. OESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)_________ G. NO. OF DWELLING BUILDINGS____________________ 187 3I *o* cnr ho usinc aut mo ikt y KEY PLAN -75- 0007"HUD*000003190 0007-HUD-000003190 0007-HU D-000003190 FT" RED HOOK. TV /" ALL 8UIL0INGS ARE < STORIES HIGH, ( DWELLING BUILDtHCS ONLY.) tCAUC in MIT o m m t PERSONS PER APARTMENT. 2 23 45 7 ROOMS PER APARTMENT. 2 3 4 4 5 6 NUMBER OF APARTMENTS. 186 852 648 479 338 42 NO. OF CONSTRUCTION R*MS. 372 2,556 2,592 1,916 1,690 252 % TYPE APTS. 7.3 33.5 25.5 18.8 13.3 1.6 TOTAL 2.545 9.378 100% A . TOTAL AREA__________________________________ . _ B NET N00S1N6 AREA____________________________ C AREA COVERED BV DWELLING BUILDINGS_____ D AREA * * NON- ' *_____ E COVERAOE (C+O+A) F - OESIGN OENSITY(PERSONS NEB ACRE)___________ G * NO.OF OWELLIN8 BUILDINGS-25 OTHERS-4 l,43,B34 SO. FT. (32.92 ACRES.) 1,433. 834 SQ.FT. (32.92ACRES.) 30f.,T4.9 SQ.FT. ( S.95ACRES.) 23,408 SQ.FT. (SEE NOTE.) 22.75V* 24 1.88 a l l BULDINGS-9 NO.OF STORES- 15 (208L.F.) * NOTE -- COMMUNITY BUILDING AREA________ NURSERY * *_________ STORE * _________ 8,308 SQ. FT. 4,700 SQ. FT. 10,400 SQ.FT. (ARTS OVER) NEW TORN GITV HOUilNO AUTHORITY -76- 0007-HUD-000003191 0007-HUD-000003191 0007-HUD-000003191 JACOB RI IS N HATT A r s LILLIAN WALD HOUSES -77- NEW YORK CITY HOUSIRO AUTHORITY 0007-HOD-000003192 0007-HUD-000003192 0007-H U D-000003192 SHEEPSHEAD BAY B R O 0 K L y1 L Softi]uw <n Ui 3 O <a: h* 2 <0 u> w co ui Co<C. til <o<E Uci 2 S s m oI ^ O ku. Hu. ^u. u. 2 6 & o6 0 vt tn v> v> " O N W IO f*z O fO <0 <0 O 1 O CD CD OD 1no0 n1cn4 IuD) K) -- -- 1i o I iMi !itMi i jI o l s E7 I a toc o* $j 2o ?* * a. s o o UI tzn --o O --C 3 < > > 3?I (5C 0* O o >. z $t3 2< S 3t g aw O *W O UoI < Zu fl UJ o *O - <1<< K h III UI > <c<c 0o 0ui 2o < d u d hi u: o r 0007-HUD-000003193 NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY KEY FLAN 0007-HUD-000003193 0007-H U D-000003193 GOV. SMITH. MANHATTAN s I___'iZmNo , J sI l 5i I| pl aygr ound ar ea I| A. TOTAL AREA {INCLUDING PLAYGROUND)---------. NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYGROUNDS. * C. AREA COVERED GY DWELLING BUILDINGS___ ___ 0. AREA * ' NON- * *_______ E. COVERAGE <C Ot -A>---------------- ------------ ------------ - ft DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)___________ G NUMBER OF DWELLING BUILDINGS ALL BUILDINGS ABC If RESIDENTIAL STORIES PERSONS PER APARTMENT I 2 34 ROOMS PER APARTMENT I 344 NUMBER OF APARTMENTS 100 192 392 576 NO. OF CONSTRUCTION ROOMS 100 376 1568 2304 % TYPE APARTMENTS 5.0 10.0 20.0 300 4 5 192 960 10.0 RIVER ( 21.43 ACRES) ( IS IS * I ( 2. SB " ) ( 0.43 * ) 5 5 392 I960 20.0 SS& SCALE IN FEET s TOTAL 3 96 1940 480 7948 SO 100.0 V/, -79- NEW TORN CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY KEY PLAN 0 0 0 7-HUD-0 00003194 0007-HUD-000003194 KRAMER STREET SOUTH BEACH , RI C H M 0 N D 1___ PERSONS PER APARTMENT ROOMS PER APARTMENT , 1 NUMBER OF APARTMENTS II NO. OF CONSTRUCTION RMS. II % TYPE APTS. 2.6 RENTAL ROOMS-1.918 2 3 445 6 3 4455 5 20 127 182 30 40 12 60 508 728 150 eoo 60 4.8 30.1 43.1 7.1 9.5 2.8 TOTAL 422 1717 NOTE : HOUSE NUMBERS FOR BUILDINGS 6 87 ARE TAKEN FROM NORWAY AVENUE. 100% 1 A. TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAYGROUNO) B. NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYGROUND) C. AREA COVERED BY DWELLING BUILDINGS_________ D. AREA COVEREO BY NON-OWELLING BUILDINGS____ E. COVERAGE (C*D r A) F. DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE) G. NO. OF DWELLING BUILOINGS 708,283 SQ.FT. (16.26 ACRES) 638,737 SO. FT. (14.66 ACRES) 63,760 SO. FT. ( 1.46 ACRES) 4,324 SO. FT. (CHILDREN'S CENT, a CHILD HEALTH STA-) 9.61 % 95 8 NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY KEY PLAN 0007-HUD-000003195 0 0 0 7-HUD-0 00003195 0007-H U D-000003195 SOUTH JAMAICA QUEENS 160t h STREET. 17 2 o 2 5o N K I III II 8~l i*o <1I 5ofi3odt +S oo*T rf*c *2-3i o>o Ub wa w << <UKl *h<i < m o c* w u. NCW YORK OITY HOUtINC AUTHORITY 0007-HOD-000003196 0 00 7-HUD-000003196 0007-H U D-000003196 J r man o r WESTWOOD av en u e s c a l e in rceT *o too ^itoo 4tL BUILDINGS AWE S STORES HICM A. TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAYGROUND)501,006 SO. FT. 0. NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PLAYGROUND)___ 532,004 SO FT. C. AREA COVERED BY DWELLING BLDGS--------------------- 71,630 SO. Ft O. AREA COVERED BY NON-DWELUNG BLOGS._______ 7,470 SQ.FT. E. COVERAGE (G + D-rA)_______________________________ 13.62 X F. OESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE)_________ 132 G. NO. OF OWELLING BUILDINGS____________________ 7 -82- ( 13.34 ACRES) ( 12.22 ACRES ) ( 1.64 ACRES ) (CHILDRENS CEF *R) 0007-HOD-000003197 new vo nn cirr mo u sin c au ih o ait * KEY PLAN 0 00 7-HUD-0 0000319 7 0007-H UD-000003197 ALL SUILDWGS AWE STORIES HIGH. PERSONS PER APARTMENT ROOMS PER APARTMENT NUMBER OF APARTMENTS NO. OF CONSTRUCTION R'MS. % TYPE APTS 2 2 120 240 6.77 2 3 611 1633 34.50 3 4 613 3662 4531 4 5 227 1135 12.62 TOTALS 1771 6460 100% A . TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PARK! S NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PARK).. C AREA COVERED GY DWELLING BUILDINSS- 0 * AREA * * NON- ___ . E * COVERAGE (C40+A |_____________________ F DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE I________ G NO. OF DWELLING SUILOINGS 24 6S I, 347 604,03? SO. FT. 1[ 14.95 ACRES ) SQ.FT. | 19.67 ACRES ) 199,971* NONE SQ.FT. ( 4.99 ACRES ) 30.70% % 32 L 67 NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY -83- Q007-HUD-000003198 0007-HUD-000003198 0007-HUD-000003198 AVENUE * [_(. ILL-1 AN WALD MA L-.....!" ,, ,..3 10 RESIDENTIAL STORIES V7Z777&777P7* ,, - 1 PERSONS PER APT. | 1 2 2 3 || ROOM S PER APT. | 1 2 3 4 II NO. OF APARTMENTS 39 119 2 929 NO. OF CONST. ROOMS 39 239 9 2119 H % TYPE APTS 2.1 94 0.1 29.4 EZZZZZ3 4 4 999 2279 30.6 4 9 203 1019 10.9 IS RESIDENTIAL STORIES 14 * 9 9 1 99 990 109 6 9 197 999 106 a| 6 1 TOTALS 5 >861 30 76 99 03 100.0% A. TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING PLAYGROUND)_____ 7 I 7,071 SO.FT(16-46 ACRES) B. NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUO'G PLAYGROUND)-- * 694,013 * " (1533 * ) C. AREA COVERED BY OWELLING BLOGS.--.____ I2S,236 " * ( 2.89 * ) 0. AREA COVERED BY NON-DWELLING BLDGS.-- * 6.6BI * * (0.16 * ) ih eat in g p l an t ) E. COVERAGE (C*D+A|- IB.I0 % F. DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER ACRE*.______ 4 26 G. NO. OP OWELLING BLDGS.-16 OTHER-1 TOTAL-IT KEY PLAN NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY -84- 0007-HOD-000003X99 0007-HUD-000003199 0007-H U D-000003199 _J L 3 AV ntMHSn s WILLIAMSBURG F~ 1 MANAGEMENT >S 32 2w t t< gst se 2 85 Ooo O-k ** Mil I I Is | I II li I II 11 I II a" f 5 i. I is <|. * O > 23310o "X U*> s*X ' ui UCCi o <I--*O USJ ' Szc-- *wor >* <5 8 dg Ui * * ** f5- * 2< . v . SS <ub -85- NEW YORK CITY MOUSINC AUTHOR!! T 0007-HOD-000003 200 0007-HUD-000003200 0007-H U D-000003200 F'~ PERSONS PCS APT. ROOMS PER APT. ML Of APARTMENTS NO. OP CONST. ROOMS * TYPE APTS SCALE iM'CfT 1t 3 1 S4 44 49 S f TOTALS 99 It n ft 3t4 IOT 194 99 1997 It tie 171 f toss US 770 tss Sf40 AS 3.31 SIj SI 3S.fl TAS 1149 449 100% A TOTAL AREA (INCLUOINO AARKI------------- l,0|4%tSS SO. AT.12 340 ACRES) a NET HOUSING AREA (EXCLUDING PARK)-------- 371,399 SO. AT. (2240 ACRES) C. AREA COVERED IT DWELLINGS!. DCS.---------------- 183,1ft SO. AT. I 4*0 ACRES) O " * * ROR OWELLING EXT.--------- 2,S4 30. AT.I O.0T ACRES) C. COVERAGE IC*04A)---------------------------------- -- If.33% t DESIGN DENSITY (PERSONS PER. ACRE)-------- 2If.3 G. NO Of DWELLING BUILOINCS.------------------- -- SO ~8&~ NEW YORK CITY HOUSING a u t h o r it y 0007-HOD-000003201 0007-HUD-000003201 0007-HUD-000003201 F PART (V AMENITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES 1 * General There has been considerable confusion of thought as to how far the Authority should go in providing amenities for living, in addition to the essentials of family shelter. On the one hand, there are those who claim that housing funds and subsidies are intended to provide minimum decent shelter for those whose income is too limited to pay for commer cially produced housing. This group contends that it is morally wrong to apply such funds to provide amenities or common facilities that are usually the product of private enterprise or which should be furnished 'by s the municipality out of its tax income. On the other hand, another group points out that it is morally and socially wrong to provide bare shelter on a large scale without recognition of the social needs of neighborhood and community living. It seems clear that the Housing Authority has been conscious of these opposing types of criticisms respecting the use of housing funds. While the Authority has insisted in providing outdoor space in all projects sufficient for outdoor passive recreation, the policy of the Authority has varied greatly with respect to specific recreational and community facilities. It should be clear that the amenities and community facilities that are advisable, depend upon the location and character of a project as well as upon the character of the neighborhood in which it is located and the facilities with which the neighborhood is already provided or which are likely to be provided outside the project* -87- 0007-HUD 0007-HUD-000003202 0007-HUD-000003202 1 2. Standard Equipment for Common Use In all projects there is need for mechanized laundry equipment to supplement the facilities inside the individual apartment* There is also need for storage space for articles seldom used as well as for wheel \ i toys, bicycles, baby carriages, and other articles of frequent outdoor use Policy with respect to laundries has been subject to frequent experiment* It seems, however, to have at last become apparent that the larger centralized laundry offers sufficient advantages to offset the lesser advantage of proximity where smaller laundries can be placed within convenient walking distance of every entrance. In the larger laundry, it ! is possible to have a professional attendant constantly on hand to service s the machines, to keep them in running order and to afford protection, both against accidents and mischief* A better proportioning of machinery is also possible between washers and extractors. The centralized laundry can pay its way by coin box operation. The well equipped laundry becomes, to a great extent, a social center. It is therefore advisable to make some provision for convenient ad jacent waiting and recreation space for both mothers and children. Lending libraries, small game rooms, or stores may appropriately be installed ad joining the modern laundry. Because of the large amount of basement space available, all laundries have up to date been given a basement location. It is to be hoped, however, that where elevators are available it may be possible to design a roof laundry with open deck and sunlight drying facilities in addition to mechanical extractors. -88- 0007-HDD-000003203 0 007-HUD-0 0 0 00 32 03 0007-H U D-000003203 Part IV There has been no great problem in the design of basement storage space, except to devise a means for the control of wheel vehicles that are handled by children# Recently the Authority has at tempted to provide sufficient space upstairs within the apartment to permit the storage of baby carriages# 3# Recreation and Social Needs In all projects small outdoor playgrounds suitable for little children have been considered to be essential, since the Authority has not been in the position to provide supervised play directors# These small playgrounds assume that the littlest children will be under parental care and that only such equipment will be supplied as can be used in common by young children without supervision# In the design of some of the earlier projects such as Williamsburgh, the Authority made the attempt to provide basement indoor shelters for children's unsupervised play for rainy days# This has been found to be impractical# The Authority's policy has now swung to the provision of special facilities for recreational or social purposes only when it is evident that independent neighborhood organizations exist competent to provide supervision and administration# In all projects it has been found necessary to provide rooms sufficient for modest size meetings, clubs and social gatherings# Because Classon Point Gardens appeared to be a community of individual two-story homes with individual gardens, it was not thought necessary to provide space for common social life# The community has come to demand it, however, and has taken over for club and social use, space originally designed for storage purposes# -89- 0007-HOD-000003204 0007-HUD-000003204 0007-H U D-000003204 -90- 0007-HOD-000003205 0007-HUD-000003205 0007-H U D-000003205 Part IV Because the Queensbridge Houses are located in an industrial district where few amenities for community living appeared to be available, the Authority provided a separate central recreational and community building, equipped with a gymnasium, auditorium, and specially designed club rooms* Additional social rooms were also located at the rear of the store group* A separate building was provided for the ohild center for pre-school age* This recreational space has been much in demand* Some of the rooms have actually been taken over for school use by the Board of Education to compensate for the delays in needed school construction caused by the Second World War. Centralized recreation space was .also provided at Red Hook. In the main the policy of the Authority has been one of coop eration with such City departments as are responsible for the furnishing of specific functional services. It is preferable, for example, to have a health center designed, built and operated by the Health Department, on a site near the project, but where this is impracticable the Housing Authority has offered space for the operation of general or specialized health centers within its projects. It has been found wisest too, to encourage the Park Department to acquire contiguous property and to equip and maintain a public neighbor hood park suitable for active games and recreation and to reserve the open areas within the project for passive recreation and for small children. The Authority has, however, found it uniformly desirable to maintain a specially constructed child center, equipped by the Authority and maintained by an organization to which the tenants of the project can -91- 0007-HOD*000003206 00 0 7-HUD-0 0 00032 0 6 0007- H U D-000003206 contribute the greater part of the needed financial support. The Authority has allowed one-story extensions to provide adequate unobstructed floor space* It is to be regretted that the model children's centers so far constructed can only accept and care for an exceedingly small pro portion of the children who are of an age to benefit from organized child care centers. The Authority has not been uniformly successful in the recre ations and social needs or able to provide for teen-age groups, or for adults. There are two real difficulties that have been encountered. In the first place, one of physical space, in the second place, the diffi culties of adequate administration. When people gather in numbers, those responsible for the buildings come face to face with the laws regulating % places of public assembly. This means that minimum conditions of venti lation, egress, safety and supervision must be met. 4. Difficulties in Adapting Excess Basement Space While an excess of space is usually available in the basement of the Authority's buildings, it is in no sense an easy task to adapt such space into desirable rooms for social or community gatherings. Basement space is likely to be interrupted by those facilities which require access for the service of the living quarters above, as for example incinerator rooms and control stations for heating or electrical equipment. When the attempt is made to plan a community center in basement or cellar space, it is found that the rooms must be strung out. The material relation of rooms is broken up by the service circulation of the project. Dispersion tends to prevent the making of a coherent plan. Furthermore, the available space is generally too far below the level of the ground to produce a felicitous atmosphere for a community center. Sometimes an accident of -92- 0007-HUD-000003207 0007-HUD-000003207 i 0007-H U D-000003207 Part IV terrain offers an unusual opportunity, such as a hillside site, as at Amsterdam Houses, or where the ground water level is so high, as at Astoria Houses, that it is necessary to place basements wholly above grade* One visit to Astoria Houses should be sufficient to convince any doubter of the importance of locations and outlook in the design of a social center# On the other hand, a visit to Harlem River Houses and its delightful and beautifully located social room overlooking river and terraces, is convincing proof that something more than isolated rooms are needed for the development of a community center# 5#Administrative Difficulties The Authority has found that it. is difficult either to find or to develop the type of leadership needed to administer social room% as s well as craft rooms# It is fortunate that one of the oldest Social Settlements, Christodora House, having been forced to sell its home on the Lower East Side to the city, was in a position to take over the administra tion of the community center at Jacob Riis Houses. The rooms, which the Authority has furnished, are by no means ideal, but they represent a step in advance over those available in most of the projects previously con structed. In the absence of more widespread public support and understanding of the importance of community centers for housing projects, it is hard to see how the Authority can authorize even the small additional sums needed to produce more satisfactory quarters for its Community Centers# But until the space is better arranged and more adaptable and attractive for social and craft uses, it is unlikely new types of support will spring into being capable of administering a Community Center. -93- 0007-HUD G007-HUD-000003208 0007-H U D-000003208 The Authority deserves the fullest possible support which outside independent neighborhood organisations, social settlements, boys* clubs, and other forms of recreational and neighborhood organisa tions are capable of giving# Further data on community facilities is tabulated in an appendix to this report. -94- 0007-HUD-000003209 0007-HUD-000003209 0007-HUD-000003209 PART V RELATION OF WORK OF AUTHORITY TO HOUSING WORK IN GENERAL To evaluate the work of the Authority one must consider the projects of the Authority as part of a long-range movement for the improve ment of urban housing conditions* 1* Antecedents: Following the close of World War I, large-scale investment housing was given impetus under the leadership of Walter Stabler of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, under legislation permitting direct investment in housing by the insurance societies* The State Housing Law of 1926 offered state supervised corporations the advantage of low interest money and taxation limited to land value only, in return for agreements to limit both profits and rents* A third step was taken in 1933 as a depression measure, when state supervised housing corporations were made eligible for federal loans and grants* In 1934 public housing corporations were authorized and made similarly eligible* The New York City Housing Authority became heir to the tech niques of design and construction tried under the supervision of the New York State Board of Housing. The two most influential projects were probably Hillside Gardens and the Grand Street Houses of the Amalga mated Garment Workers* 2* Early Types: The first projects of the Authority were low walk-up buildings designed around garden courts, in which the influence of Hillside Gardens was definitely apparent. Here the first large-scale demonstration was made of the economy of concrete frame, fireproof construction and low buildings, with the use of concrete slab without the application of plaster -950007-fftlD-000003 210 0007-HUD-000003210 0007-H U D-000003210 for ceilings. There followed six-story projects at Queensbridge and Red Hook, which depended upon the type of self-service elevators that had bee,n utilized at the Amalgamated project. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company had already begun the \ designs for its huge project at Parkchester when the Housing Authority took a further step in advance at East River Houses by utilizing ten and eleven-story buildings in combination with six-story units. This was an important demonstration in managerial economies as well as a demonstration of effective construction of tall units of reinforced concrete frame. Further improvement in technique demonstrated that concrete could be poured successfully for fourteen-story structures. 3. Achievements in Large-Scale Housing - Public and Private Contrasted: By the clearance of a large blighted section for Port Greene Houses in Brooklyn, the Authority presented a challenge to private industry. The huge Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village projects of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may be recognized as the answer to this challenge. A comparison is possible with Riis Houses, a project by the Authority, which virtually adjoins Stuyvesatrb Town on the south. Both the Metropolitan and the Housing Authority had the advantage of the use of eminent domain in the assembly of sites. Both had the advantage of tax limitation on the basis of existing assessments. But the Housing Authority enjoyed the additional ad vantage of government subsidies sufficient to effect interest charges and amortization. Without this additional advantage, the Metropolitan Life Insur ance Company felt the need for densities of population sufficient to increase the total rent roll beyond the indicated carrying charges. -96- 0007-HOD-000003211 0007-HUD-000003211 0007-HUD-000003211 Part V Elsewhere in this report it has been pointed out that higfr densities militate against optimum standards of livability* The neigh boring projects of Stuyvesant Town and Riis Houses present an interesting contrast. Stuyvesant Town presents an aspect of solid brick walls and an impression of land overcrowded with high buildings. Riis Houses opens up both from within and without and presents an aspect of well-planned environ ment which seems to improve the character of surrounding properties as well as provide superior openness for the tenants residing within the project itself. In contrast, the sole offset to the barracks-like aspect of the Stuyvesant Town project is the large oval interior court. This is not visible from the outside. It is an asset only to those buildings that face upon it. In order to attract the clientele required to pay the higher rents necessary to defer carrying charges, the Metropolitan Life has pro vided Stuyvesant Town with individual dwelling units planned for better livability and with larger rooms than those provided by the Authority at Riis Houses. The Authority has been handicapped by the assumption on the part of the public that public housing means minimum housing, and therefore, that its tenants should be made slightly uncomfortable. The implication is that public housing tenants ought to be influenced to seek "better" housing at an economic rent as soon as they find it possible* It is for this reason that the committee has given so much attention to defining minimum standards of livability* Even when established, there is public pressure to reduce minimum standards still further in the interest of producing a greater quantity of public housing rather than to maintain its quality* The Authority -97- 0007-HUD-000003212 0007-HUD-000003212 0007- H U D-000003212 is limited "by statute as to the cost of individual dwelling units which may enjoy the benefit of subsidies. At Riis Houses the Authority exercised its discretion to maintain openness and combined six-story with thirteen-story buildings ^ in the design to enhance this quality of openness. The Authority appears to have shown better discretipn in design within statutory and economic limits than has been shewn by the Metropolitan Life project of Stuyvesant Town. 4. Aesthetics and Amenities? Unquestionably, the Authority has pointed the way to the building of large-scale developments and better standards of living which may be furnished through the design of communities. It is to be deplored, however, that there are certain psychological obstacles to the realization of aesthetic values, which, in general, are avoided not because they add to costs so much as in deference to hostile public opinion, which still thinks of public housing in terms of minimum provision for the amenities of living. Astoria Houses provides an excellent example of the results of fear of this type of hostility. Astoria has the exceptional advantage of a location at the water's edge, thus requiring foundations which set the basements well above grade. This fortunate accident of location provided not only a situation for superior outlook but also the opportunity to develop the basements above grade into covered terraces or social and recreational rooms looking directly out on the East River. It is clear to one who observes the plan that the Authority avoided taking full ad- -98- 0007-HUD-000003213 0007-HUD-000003213 0007- H U D-000003213 ii PartV vantage of this opportunity even though the cost would have been negligible. As one views the project it is evident that there was fear of the adverse opinion of passers-by, who might see facilities constructed for low-income tenants but offering aesthetic values and community amenities superior to facilities currently provided for high-rental tenants in the same area. Consequently, at Astoria Houses only a restrained and timid advantage was taken of the magnificent possibilities inherent in the site and the circum stances of useable basements along an extensive waterside* Too many of the projects executed by the Authority are barren and barracks-like in design. Brownsville, on the contrary, is an out standing example of the charm and sense of domesticity which can be ob tained on an uninteresting, flat site through the intelligent placing of buildings of varied height, with a plan which is definitely in harmony with human scale. Brownsville, like Jacob Riis Houses, creates vistas that open up into the surrounding neighborhood. It is clear that the Authority has been Instrumental in intro ducing a new concept of city living, and through its large-scale approach to design has long since outstripped the orthodox idea of designing one building on one lot. The danger now is that the public has been educated to the acceptance of large-scale projects of a grim, barracks-like character because that is the type of project which public opinion has expected the public authorities to construct for low-income families -- and unfortunately, the grimness of a large part of public housing has set a standard which private industry seems to follow in estimating the needs and desires of families capable of paying an economic rent. -99- 'I 0007-HOD-000003214 0007-HUD-000003214 0007-H U D-000003214 The public can demand only what it has been educated to expect through visual demonstration# A part of the trust that has been reposed in the Housing Authority is that it serve to point toward realization of the best that is possible in group housing, within a given economic framework* Had the Authority been free to exercise the same originality and courage in design that has been demonstrated in Sweden's public housing, the American public by this time would have had the benefit of far more worthy examples upon which to base its judgment and demands for similar efforts from private industry. The public is at present educated to expect a higher standard for public buildings, even of a correctional nature, than it is for public housing. The Jefferson Market Prison is an example of the beauty which can be achieved in economical brick design. * Meanwhile, the Housing Authority has moved very carefully for fear of public criticism, and even such simple means of creating permanent aesthetic values as brick design have been sparingly used. The same may be said in regard to planting, especially of trees. Port Greene Houses presents an example of a project in which liberal planting would have reduced the barrenness of the courts and knit the disjointed buildings into a harmonious composition. It should be noted that appropriations for many of the more recent pro jects have made larger allotments for planting. By demonstrating the acute need of planting in housing projects, the Authority is gradually F"~ -100- 0007-H0D-00G003215 0007-HUD-000003215 0007-H U D-000003215 Part V enlisting more public support for appropriations that will provide planting in harmony with actual requirements* So long as public opinion restricts the work of public housing agencies, private enterprise can continue to foist upon an uneducated public a type of community living which is inferior to that which actually should be provided for the economic rent to be paid. To date there have been few large-scale housing projects planned by private enterprise which have been better than copies of minimum public housing planned for lowincome families. In connection with activities in large-scale housing by private enterprise groups, it is only fair to point out that the New York Life Insurance Company has avoided the temptation to overcrowd and build up solidly with barracks-like structures. Its great Fresh Meadows community is planned for the required density by the use of two large thirteen-story buildings, making it possible to construct the majority of the dwelling units in attractively designed two and three-story apart ment buildings set about spacious, sunny and beautifully planted courts. i -101- 0007-HOD-0000Q3216 0007-HUD-000003216 0007-HUD-000003216 PART VI METHODS OF OPERATION 1. Development of Staff y When the New York City Housing Authority was organised in February, 1934, it was the first publicly owned corporation in the United States authorised to build and operate a large-scale housing project. The creation of such a body was in part due to recognition of the fact that the power of initiative was needed in addition to the powers of research and supervision which had been vested in the New York State Board of Housing as early as 1926. Furthermore, it was felt that the planning of housing within local municipalities could be undertaken with better understanding by a municipal housing authority than by a state wide agency. Considerable preparatory work had already been done under the leadership of citizen groups in New York City with relation to investiga tion of housing conditions in blighted and slum areas. The New York City Housing Authority was faced with the problem of how to address itself to a general long-range program of slum clearance and the construction of large-scale housing projects. However, there was at the same time an economic pressure to create immediate employment for the relief of the depression, and housing construction was recognized as an important source of re-employment. Thus the Housing Authority was faced with pressure from two directions - first, to get actual building of housing projects started as quickly as possible, and yet at the same time to engage in urgently needed research as a basis for its long-range program. In order to build successfully it was necessary to determine where to build and -102- 0007-HUD-000003217 0007-HUD-000003217 0007-H UD-000003217 what to build* Long-range planning and the development of a technique of operation were prerequisites to successful construction* When the New York City Housing Authority commenced operation its first problem was the organisation of a staff competent to handle a program of large-scale slum clearance and construction of large-scale housing projects* The first task of the Authority was to select locations where it could operate most advantageously, and second, to determine the type of housing to be built. The Authority was required to select its staff under Civil Service rules but was permitted to retain pro fessional advice on the basis of contracts to be made with practicing architects, engineers, real estate experts, and other professional advisors* The Authority commenced operation with a staff largely com s posed of workers borrowed from the Works Progress Administration on Federal payroll* Membership on the Authority itself was then, and remains, voluntary. The original chairman was the Commissioner of Buildings of the City, who gave spare time voluntarily to the direction of the Authority's affairs. As the Authority's staff has grown to 2760, the law has been amended to provide for a paid chairman who can give full time to the execu tive work of the Authority. At the outset the most urgent problem presented to the Authority was that of design. A staff of five advisory or executive architects was created. A competition was held under the supervision of this staff for the selection of architects to execute the projects of the Authority. The executive architects were directed to establish minimum standards and accepted types of construction, and to coordinate the work of the designing project architects. -103- 0007-HUD-000003218 00 0 7-HUD-0 00003218 0007-H U D-000003218 From its inception the Authority has been able to adhere to the policy of utilising architects in private practice for the preparation of project designs and contract drawings. For its initial projects \ the Authority was compelled to bow to the decisions of the Federal Housing Division in order to obtain federal appropriations^. Federal fhnds were not available for research and long-range planning. At the direction of the federal government first emphasis was given to increasing employment and spreading work. Not only was the effort made to employ the maximum number of workmen possible in actual construction of the projects, but it was also sought to increase employment by having as many architects as possible assigned to the designing of each project. To spread employment architects were first asked to associate in groups of ten, later in groups of three, and to form special firms for the execution of each project. The standards for the initial projects were dictated from Washington and were costly in execution. As the Authority built up a body of completed work over a period of years its staff increased to in clude both competent management and planning divisions. Income from rentals of occupied projects enabled the Authority to charge off to the management and operation of the projects the cost of sufficient original study to allow for the continued improvement in the techniques of con struction and contract administration so that significant economies have been realized. 2. Research in Connection with Design The Housing Authority has not been able to realize the goals which it first set for itself in making the planning of housing projects a part of the long-range planning of neighborhoods and, particularly, the replanning of slum areas. Research facilities do not exist in the -1040007-H0D-0Q0Q03219 0007-HUD-000003219 0007-H U D-000003219 Part VI Housing Authority or elsewhere for the study of proposed projects in relation to the surrounding community in which they are placed* The following section of this report will deal with the relation of the Housing Authority to other official city agencies as well as private agencies that are responsible for furnishing municipal services such as streets, utilities, schools, hospitals, shopping areas and other com munity facilities* The Authority has recognised the need for research in con nection with the design and construction of its buildings* The Authority has utilized its own technical staff to develop standard details and to improve these continually in the interest of economy* These include the standardization of window openings, interior and exterior wall finishes, methods of water-proofing, stair construction and economies in mechanical equipment* The Authority has made it a policy to reserve one or two units in a new project for test experiments in alternative methods of con struction, and has by this means developed improvements inwall construction and, particularly, in interior finish. Major economies have been achieved through alternative designs which have made it possible to figure re inforced concrete for fifteen-story buildings in competition with structural steel* 5* Specifications and Supervision The Housing Authority has developed a type of specification which is highly standardized and which insures the benefit of large-scale purchase in quantity manufactured materials. At the same time, the Authority has developed a method for special variation and alternates which permits a choice of improvements where these are possible on an -105- 0007-HOD"000003220 0007-HUD-0 00003220 0007-H U D-000003220 r~" economic basis* Through the control and direction of purchasing the Authority has been able to maintain high construction standards and to counteract to some extent the effect of rising costs of labor and materials^ The Authority has organised its own staff for field supervision# The effectiveness of this supervision has been facilitated by the high quality of the standards set for contract drawings, details, specifications, methods of letting contracts and administrative control# 4* Successful Dealings with Architects The Authority has given its designing architects full benefit of its progressive experience in construction# It has pursued the policy of retaining architects in independent practice for the design of projects and the preparation of contract drawings* The Authority has used its own staff to aid the project architects with a knowledge that has been tried in design as well as the construction techniques that have been developed by the experience of the Authority. On the other hand, every effort has been made to take advantage of the fullest amount of initiative and originality that can be contributed by independent designers# The Authority has been fair in its dealings with practicing architects# It has continually reviewed types of contracts and as a result has been able to make improvements in them. The complications of the earlier contracts have been done away with and procedures simplified. The fixed fee type of contract has proved satisfactory to both the Authority and the practicing architects. The decision to place the responsibility in the office of a single practicing architect rather than following the earlier policy of requiring a combination of offices has both speeded up the making of plans and reduced production costs# The Authority has built up a large list of architects to whom the design of projects has been assigned# 1060007-HUD-000003221 0007-HUD-000003221 0007-H U D-000003221 Part VI In the greatly expanded programs which the Authority is about to undertake the problem arises as to hew this list may be extended* It will become increasingly desirable to make use of the originality of younger men who have not yet had the test of executing large-scale work* 5* Financial Policy While the focus of this report is intended principally as a con structive criticism of the accomplishments of the Authority from the point of view of design and construction, it would be incomplete without in cluding also a comment upon the significance of the progressive financial policy of the Authority* Under the United States Housing Act of 1937 local authorities were permitted to borrow up to 90JJ of the cost of public housing projects from an agency of the federal government* Congress stipulated that the interest on such loans, which were to mature in 60 years, was to be at the going rate of interest for long-term federal loans plus a fractional charge for handling the financing. The legislation provided that the federal agency might make annual subsidies to local authorities sufficient to cover interest for financing charges provided that an equivalent of at least 1CJS of the original cost had been covered by local contribution. The New York City Housing Authority was the first to demonstrate that* as a result of the tax-exempt features and the government guarantee of subsidy, the bonds of the Authority could be sold in the local financial market and secure the benefit of interest charges considerably lower than the terms obtainable from the Federal government. As a result the New York City Housing Authority was able to reverse the relationship of local and federal funds and, in general, to provide 85?S of its financing locally, thus obtaining the benefit of reduced financing charges* -107- I; J Ii | 0007-HUD-000003222 0007-HUD-000003222 0007-H U D-000003222 r When the New York State Constitution was amended in 1958, Article XVTII was added dealing with housing* A special bond issue was subsequently authorized which permitted the State of New York to make loans % and subsidies in a manner similar to that initiated by the federal govern ment* Again, the New York City Housing Authority was the first to take advantage of this method of financing through state funds. The Authority has continued to make use of the New York financial market to sell its bonds at a most favorable rate, and the example set has been followed by housing authorities in other parts of the state* 6* Administration of Subsidies The administration of subsidies is primarily a fiscal matter and one which ordinarily is not the proper concern of a committee of architects. It has already been pointed out, however, that there has been a continued demand from certain quarters that the Authority ought not to maintain standards of livability for subsidized housing which have proved in practice to be better than those obtainable by families whose incomes are too high to make them eligible for public housing. This sort of criticism could be answered, and at the same time greater justice cculd be done to families receiving various gradations of earnings in the lower income brackets, if subsidies could be more directly related to rental scales* At the present time arbitrary limits are imposed upon family rents, costs of dwelling units, and the earnings of families eligible as tenants in public housing; and then in addition, subsidies are applied according to another predetermined formula based on the carrying charges for financing. It is unrealistic not to recognize that all these factors are interrelated* >108' 0007-HUD--000003223 00 07-HUD-0 00003223 0007-H U D-000003223 Part VI The committee believes that it is undesirable socially to design projects at one rental level for tenants who must all be in the same in come group* The income of tenants is bound to fluctuate* Family incomes increased during the war and have remained up, partly due to inflation* As a result, a large proportion of family incomes have exceeded the statu tory limits to qualify for occupancy in public housing. Because of the housing shortage, however, special legislation has permitted families with excess income, who could find no other quarters, to remain as tenants of public housing, continuing at the previously established rental rates. Had the Housing Authority been permitted to set an economic rental for each apartment unit, graduated according to desirability, it would have been possible to admit tenants on the assumption that subsidies made up for the difference between rents paid and the established scale of economic rents. As family incomes increased, each tenant could have been charged an advanced rental up to the ceiling of economic rent, when he would be required to find living quarters outside public housing. This differential paid by tenants would have constituted a subsidy surplus and could either have been used to accelerate amortization or to reduce the subsidies required for the project, and thus be made available elsewhere. 7* Reports and Records \ 'a The Housing Authority is to be commended for the reports of its work which it has made public. The Monthly Report of its activities and, in particular, the Tenth Annual Report published in 1944, contain a wealth of material of value to the public. Never before has so large a body of work been undertaken as the result of concerted guided policy for the im provement of housing. The example set by the New York City Housing Authority should serve as a stimulus to private enterprise* -109- 0007-HUD-000003224 0007-HUD-000003224 0007-H U D-000003224 The Committee on Housing which has compiled this report was directed by the Executive Committee of the New York Chapter, A. I. A., to investigate and appraise the work of the New York City Housing Authority. The committee believes that a detailed study of the work of the Authority is of great educational value to the profession of architecture. It believes that similar periodic appraisals should be undertaken. The Committee points out that the Housing Authority has established a body of work which is of great value not only in terms of public housing but also as applied to the needs of private enterprise large-scale housing. -110- 0007-HUD-000003225 G007-HUD-000003225 0007-HUD-000003225 PART VII COOPERATION BETWEEN AUTHORITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Effective planning on the part of the New York City Housing Authority requires coordination with the work of many city departments as well as with state and national agencies concerned with housing* Of these the City Planning Commission is the most important* 1* New York City Planning Commission The Hew York City Planning Commission is one of the most power ful bodies of its kind* It is charged with the custody of the official city map, the preparation of the master plan, recommendations for zoning changes and the preparation of the capital budget. Created in 1938, the Commission has not yet reached its full level of effectiveness. The Commission has exhibited a great willingness to cooperate with the Housing Authority as well as with other large-scale housing enterprise. The Commission has demonstrated a willingness to close streets to create superblocks, and has made it a rule to require street widenings around the perimeter of a housing project* The Commission has designated areas as suitable for redevelopment with housing and has established recom mended densities of population. On the other hand, the Coimdssion has not been able to command the funds to recommend the replanning or redevelopment of the environs of housing projects or to relate these new concentrations of housing to the organism of the city as a whole. In some cases the Com mission has laid itself open to criticism in allowing housing projects to preempt the most immediately available land without giving sufficient con sideration to other needs that should be provided for in the city plan. -111- 0007-HOD-000003226 0007-HUD-000003226 0007-H U D-000003226 (T-: A case in point is the concentration of an almost continuous strip of low-rent housing along the East River waterfront bordering Franklin Delano Roosevelt Drive* At the time of acquisition, this land" X was blighted and low priced* It was less of a problem to acquire this property than to include in the clearance program the interior land which was, and still is, carried at a higher value because of its greater intensity of use* By way of extenuation, it may be pointed out that a large-scale assembly for housing purposes constitutes a pioneering prob lem in itself and that the Authority can ill afford to risk additional costs or delays to allow for the development of a plan which coordinates the proposed housing improvements with the city plan# Because the City Planning Commission has lent itself to furthering the immediate development of large-scale housing projects, the greater opportunities and responsibili ties of the Commission and its failures have been overlooked* To appreciate the opportunities that have been missed, it is necessary to recall some of the difficulties that have confronted the city in the past in the development of principal arterial streets and open spaces* As land use increases in intensity, traffic and population demands choke old, narrow streets designed for less intensive uses* When attempts have been made to relieve congestion by street widening and the demolition of all or part of buildings in the way, the city has suffered because the redevelopment of these abutting properties has lagged some times many years behind the cutting of the new arterial highvay* No way has been found to develop new uses of private property which could be coordinated with the public improvements undertaken by the city* When the city was asked to assent to large-scale housing pro jects along the East River waterfront by both the Housing Authority and the -112- 0007-HUD"000003227 0007-HUD-000003227 0007-HU D-000003227 Part VII Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, it had no general plan of redevelop ment of the large blighted areas which lie behind the waterfront. It was self-evident, however, that an adequate approach to the proposed housing was a first prerequisite. Had the City Planning Commission prepared a plan for adequate access to the new Bast River Drive, it might have been possible to develop a much needed east-and-west principal artery approxi mately along the course of Houston Street and to aid the Authority to acquire sites bordering on this street for a portion of its low-rent housing program* This would have left a larger portion of the waterfront available for medium and high-rent housing as well as for such types of industrial use as require proximity to the waterfront. The Housing Authority can hardly be blamed for acquiring the most immediately expedient sites. While the City Planning Commission can be commended for assisting the Housing Authority in expediting its program, the Commission must be blamed for its lack of preparation for a long-range program. Lack of such a program has created the greater difficulty which now presents itself as to how the needed improvements in the blighted area on the inland section of the lower East Side may be undertaken. 2. Relation to Work of Borough Presidents Although the New York City Planning Commission is one of the most powerful of its kind, it is still one of the newest, and it has had the difficult task of taking over many of its functions from other city departments. The Commission has had to devote the major part of its time during its first ten years to detail work rather than to coordination and city-wide planning. For example, the maintenance of existing streets and sewers as well as the construction of new facilities still remains a -113- 0007-HOD-000003228 0007-HUD-000003228 0007-H U D-000003228 function of the five borough presidents* However, new work cannot be executed without the approval of the City Planning Commission, and with out an appropriation in the capital budget, over which the City Planning %% Commission has control* The Commission has been so occupied in checking the plans of the Borough Presidents for routine street grades, etc., that it has not been able to aid the Borough Presidents in timing appropriations to allow for the carrying out of street and sewer improvements needed for the work of the Housing Authority. Due to lag in programming, many completed housing projects are surrounded by areas of mud instead of by reconstructed, widened border streets. 5. Park Department Apparently, there has been better coordination between the Housing Authority and the Park Department than between the Authority and the offices of the Borough Presidents. In locating projects where enough park and recreation facilities are not available, the Park Department has cooperated in acquiring contiguous areas for small neighborhood parks and has been developing these in a schedule which is much more nearly synchronized with the construction schedule of the Housing Authority than was evidenced at the inception of the program. The Park Department operates playgrounds adjacent to public parks, but the limited funds of the Authority are insufficient to operate recreational facilities with the project. 4. Relation to School Facilities While both the Housing Authority and the City Planning Com mission have given recognition to the ne6d for adequate school facilities accessible to new housing projects, the whole school building program, which was interrupted by the war, is so far behind schedule that the re lation of school facilities to the work of the Housing Authority and -114- 0007-HUD-000003229 0007-HUD-000003229 0007-HUD-000003229 Part VII other large-scale housing remains one of the most critical problems to be faced at the present time# This situation has become so serious that there was a recent proposal to finance schools out of housing funds under legislation permitting amenities essential to housing to be made a part of public housing projects# The Board of Education has not been able to cope with the additional demands placed upon it by the development of largescale public housing as well as large-scale institutional housing by the life insurance societies* It does not appear that the City Planning Com mission has been able to give assistance in facilitating a program for additional schools. It should at least be possible to insist on the designation of appropriate school sites or to hold housing developments within the limits of areas that can be served by the Board of Education. Surely it might have been possible for the City Planning Commission to co operate with the Board of Education in developing new schools for areas where a large population increase was contemplated, or to insist that largescale housing should be placed in areas where reasonably adequate school services were available. When approval was given for Stuyvesant Town an existing school was razed without arrangements for replacement. 5. Health Centers The Housing Authority has cooperated with the Health Department in providing space for health centers. In some of the earlier projects the Department of Health constructed independent buildings in the neighbor hood of housing projects. Latterly, the Health Department has been eouipping and maintaining health centers in the lower portions of apartment buildings inside the boundaries of the housing projects. -115- 0007-HUD-Q0000323Q 0007-HUD-000003230 0007-H U D-000003230 6* State Commissioner of Housing When the Hew York City Housing Authority was created it was required to file plans not only with the City Planning Commission but also with the New York State Board of Housing* Since 1938 the State Board has been superseded by the State Commissioner of Housing, under whose supervision has been placed the administration of the funds which have been made available for the bond issues and subsidies authorized under Article XVTII of the new state constitution* The State Conmdssioner has had the power of approval or rejection of loans and subsidies re quested by local housing authorities* It has been the responsibility of the State Commissioner to establish certain standards as a pre requisite for state aid for housing. The State Commissioner has found it necessary to set up machinery to deal with many housing authorities all over the state* All of these consist of voluntary membership and many have had no previous experience in housing. The regulatory and in spection service developed to control state housing loans for subsidies to the less experienced local housing authorities have been made to apply with restrictive severity to the work of the New York City Housing Authority in spite of its greater technical experience. As a result, there has been a regrettable amount of friction between the State Commissioner's office and the New York City Housing Authority* While regulation and supervision are necessary concomitants of the use of public funds, it is believed that better results might be achieved if supervision by the state could be made less restrictive and less irksome in cases where the competence of local authorities has been adequately established* -116- 0007-HUD-00G003231 0007-HUD-000003231 0007-H U D-000003231 Part VII The respective responsibilities of local, state and federal authorities are functional rather than hierarchical. The local authority is responsible for good technical performance, the state and federal agencies for conformity to law and financial requirements. 7. Conformity to Codes and Ordinances The design of all housing projects must necessarily conform to existing codes, both state and local. The State Multiple Dwellings Law and the Zoning Ordinance of the City of New York were both enacted prior to the advent of large-scale planning, and they were designed primarily to prevent overbuilding upon individual lots. They contain many provisions which are unnecessarily restrictive where a large community is planned at one time. While it is possible for the Housing 5 Authority and its architects to ask for variations in the law, where hardship results, by going to the Board of Standards and Appeals , the necessary procedure entails delay and is discouraging to originality of design. There is need for amendment to both the Multiple Dwellings Law and the local zoning ordinance to encourage originality in large-scale design. Although the New York City Building Code has recently been revised it also is frequently unnecessarily restrictive both in mandatory requirements and in the procedure which has been established to secure modifications. Large-scale housing is a relatively new concept. A large part of the established procedures of government has been built up with out the appreciation of the possibilities of large-scale design. In all departments of the city there is need for reorientation and the develop- -117- 0007--HOD GO07-HUD-000003232 0007-HUD-000003232 ment of a policy which takes large-scale housing requirements into special consideration* All departments should prepare to revise their rules and procedures so as to facilitate the general coordination of % housing construction with other city facilities which are essential to coimirunity living* -118- o<> "00003233 0007-HUD-0000 0323 3 0007-H U D-000003233 1 APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF 12 REPORTS ON PUBLIC HOUSING The committee appends herewith a summary of twelve selected reports dating from 1936 to 1948, which were analyzed hy the committee be fore proceeding with its investigation* The principal points stressed in the reports were subsequently corroborated by the findings of the committee The reports analyzed were selected for the light which they threw upon tenant satisfaction and on smooth or rough administration for managers. Criticism of physical deficiencies can be recognized mainly as the result of selective choices in the interest of economies in original construction cost; as for example: 1* Inadequate sound absorption! s 2* Excessive condensation; 3* Inadequate standards for articles requiring frequent replacement. The social deficiencies are more complicated and more difficult to resolve. Examination of government space standards shows a small steady increase in space standards in successive programs (excluding temporary housing standards) from the 1937 USHA requirements to the FPHA standards of 1945. But recent surveys, however, show no apparent corresponding in crease in tenant satisfaction. It seems that either the enlargement of the dwelling is nbt sufficiently great to be satisfactory, or the space de sign itself has not been worked out to utilize those slight increases by providing wall surfaces uninterrupted by openings, radiators and columns. So long as enclosed space is as expensive as it is, and so long as bulky second-hand furniture is cheap, bulky furniture will reduce the livability of small rooms. Unfortunately, low rental housing budgets have -119- 0007-HOD-000003234 0 007-HUD-000003234 0007-H U D-000003234 not encouraged sufficient experiments with built-in furniture for the Eco nomical storage of clothing and family necessities* 1* A PRELIMINARY STUDY OP LOW-RENTAL-HOUSING MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS as ' affected by the work of the Architect* 1935, Housing Study Guild, New York City, Mim*, 40 p* A pioneer report in its field* Apartments without cross-ventilation not easily rented; living room privacy desired; room sizes affect rentability (average net room area of 168 square feet proved satis factory, 113 ,!very difficult to rent"); leaky walls and parapets commonly found; pull chain switches a source of frequent trouble; tenant desire for open-air laundry drying; friction caused by many families using the same stair hall* 2. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING MANAGERSf REPORT TO THE CITIZENS * HOUSING COUNCIL OP NEW YORK. 1939, typed, 4 pages. Design items causing management difficulties: Incinerator hopper door too small; incinerator chambers not designed for easy cleaning; door bells placed so low that children can ring them; self-locking apartmez doors; exterior roof drains; too few electric outlets* 3. NEW STANDARDS IN APARTMENT DESIGN. Pub* No. 0R44, 1941, NATIONAL ASSO CIATION OF HOUSING OFFICIALS. Reprinted from The Architectural Record, August, 1941. Sp. illus. A survey of two large-scale New York City Housing Authority develop ments (Red Hook and Williamsbuig^) with special attention to apartment layouts and descriptions of reorganization of some apartments for more efficient use. Main difficulties noted: fitting tenant furniture into spaces provided; awkward locations of radiators and steam pipes; in adequate serving space in kitchens; lack of family privacy. 4. ESSENTIALS OF SPACE PLANNING AND SPACE ORGANIZATION IN DWELLING UNITS . 1942* American Public Health Association, Subcommittee on Standards of Occupancy. Minw, 36 p*, illus. A fundamental critique of space arrangement in typical public housing, showing furniture layouts appropriate for the dwelling size and for the expected normal occupancy. M....rooms designed in terms of rigid area-figures offer no guarantee of space adequacy, circulation, furni ture arrangement, kitchen storege and work surfaces." 5. REGIONAL CONFERENCE ON MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE REPORTS. 1943. Federal Public Housing Authority. Recommended: Gas ranges away from, windows; no shelves over ranges; hot and cold water controls for each dwelling; no electric pull chains one size of washers for an entire project; correct as-built plans on file in the project office. . -120- 0007-HUD-000003235 0007-HUD-000003235 0007-H U D-000003235 6* 1944 ANNUAL LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY MAINTENANCE CONFERENCE. REGIONAL REPORT ON DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT ITEMS. 1944. Federal Public Housing Authority, Region II, mam#, 23 p. Architect and engineer should be required to spend at least two weeks at a comparable operating development, talking to manager and maintenanoe men, before starting the design of a new project; standardisa tion and simplification of items such as window glass, washers and hardware urged, also good inspection during construction; certified as-built drawings supplied to manager on completion of work. ^ ^ 7. PUBLIC HOUSING DESIGN. 1946. Federal Public Housing Authority. 294 p., illus. Experience record of planning and operating low-rent housing on a countrywide .basis and over a twelve-year period. Specific examples illustrate conditions under which solutions have proved successful or otherwise. Site selection, site planning, building and dwelling types are discussed, as are also construction details, mechanical layouts and equipment, and landscaping. Emphasis on planning a community within a larger community rather than on a collection of dwellings. 8, 9, 10, 11. THE CONSUMER VIEWPOINT. 1946. Compiled by Catharine Lansing Oats. Mim*, 12 p. A comparative summary of four reports: Housing for the Family, Women's City Club, New York, 1936. Housing from the Tenants' Viewpoint, Elisabeth Coit, Architectural Record, April, 1942. Design of Dwellings, Society of Women Housing Managers, London, England, 1943. The Livability Problems of 1,000 Families, Federal Public Housing Authority, 1945. Vivid and thoughtful summary of tenant criticism of space within the dwelling, including suggestions made for overcoming present deficiencies, concluding: "The findings obtained in this study reveal two major fallacies in space planning: (l) The failure to realize that family possessions are not of minimum sizes and cannot be accommodated in minimum spaces; and (2) that the equipment requirements for household operations are far greater than the storage spaces provided." 12. BETTER HOUSING FOR THE FAMILY, Prepared and edited by Beatrice S. Friedman for the Housing Committee, Women's City Club of New York, 1948, 58 p., illus Survey of tenant opinion in four New York City Housing Authority pre war projects, Cl&sson Point, Vladeck, Queensbridge, and East River Houses. -121- 0007--HUD-000003236 0007-HUD-000003236 0007-H U D-000003236 From four hundred and fifty-eight families, questioned on their dwellings and general community conditions, results are clearly tabulated by size of project, type of accommodation, etc. Housewives usually prefer a small project, particularly the row house type with its private yard. The,,f large dwellings ordinarily suit their occupants better than the small % ones do theirs Dining alcoves are preferred to kitchen dining except by large families. Desired aret Better laundry facilities! more storage spacei closet doors; soundproofing between apartments; toilet seat covers. Double-hung sash is thought to he safer for children than casement sash. Better transportation and shopping facilities were desired by tenants of outlying projects and those in blighted neighborhoods. Provision for more recreation also desired. Report emphasizes that tenants, well aware of the increase in comfort and good housekeeping conditions afforded by present public housing standards over slum dwellings, also have now a broader concept of what is needed for truly useful dwellings. -122- 0007-HUD--000003237 0007-HUD-000003237 0007-H U D-000003237 INDEX OF ARCHITECTS & ASSOCIATES IN DESIGN PROJECTS FOR N. Y CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY The following projects are arranged in the order in which the architects were appointed. Date of construction completion follows project name# WILL1AMSBURGH HOPSES - April 1938 Architects - SeniorsRichmond H. Shreve (ch); Matthew W. Del Gaudio; Arthur C. Holden; William Lescaze; James Bly; Juniors: John W. Ingle, Jr.j Gurney & Clavan; Holmgren, Volz & Gardstein; Paul Trapani; Harry Leslie Walker. Structural Eng# - George E. Strehan Mechanical Eng# - Meyer, Strong & Jones, Inc. Plumbing Eng. - Fred Brutschy Landscape Arch. - Vitale, Geiffert & Clarke HARLEM RIVER HOUSES - October 1937 Architects - Archibald M. Brown (ch); Horace Ginsbern; Charles F. Fuller; Richard W. Buckley; John Lewis. Wilson; Frank J. Forster; Will Rice Amon Structural Eng. - Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng. - Paul Wunderlich Landscape Arch. - M. Rapuano RED HOOK HOUSES - November 1939 Architects * Alfred E. Poor (ch); William F. Dominick; W. T. McCarthy; William I# Hohauser; Electus D. Litchfield; Jacob Moscowitz; Edwin J. Robin Structural Eng. - Gibbs & Hill, Inc. Mechanical Eng. - Frank Sutton Landscape ,,Arch. - Chas. N. Lowrie QUEENSBRIDGE HOUSES - March 1940 Architects - Wm. F# Ballard (ch); Henry S. Churchill; Frederick G. Frost; Burnett C. Turner Structural Eng. - Elwyn E. Seelye & Co. Mechanical Eng. - Meyer, Strong & Jones, Inc# Landscape Aroh# - Clarence C# Combs VLADECK HOUSES - November 1940 Architects - Richmond H. Shreve (ch); Lamb & Harmon; Wm. F. R# Ballard; Sylvan Bien Structural Eng. - Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng. - Meyer, Strong & Jones, Inc. Landscape Arch* - Gilmore D. Clarke i; I -123- 007-HUD-00000323a 0007-HUD-000003238 0007-HUD-000003238 SOUTH JAMAICA HOUSES - August 1940 Architects - Daniel P. Higgins (oh); Carl A. Vollmer; Frederick G. Frost Structural Eng* - Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng. - Meyer, Strong Sc Jones, Inc. Landscape Arch. - A. Carl Stalling EAST RIVER HOUSES - May 1941 Architects - Voorhees, Walker, Foley & Smith (ch); C. W. Schlusing; Alfred E. Poor Associates Structural Eng. - Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng. - Meyer, Strong St Jones, Inc. Landscape Arch. - Alfred Geiffert, Jr. KIBGSBOROUGS HOUSES - October 1941 Architects * Skidmore & Owings(ch); Slee Sc Bryson; Starrett & Van Vleck Structural Eng. - Elwyn E. Seelye & Co. Mechanical Eng. - Meyer, Strong Sc Jones, Inc. Landscape Arch. - Clarke Sc Rapuano CLASPS POINT GARDENS - December 1941 Architects - York & Sawyer (ch); Howard B. Burton; Aymar Embury II; Maximilian B. Bohm Structural Eng. - Wilcox & Erickson Mechanical Eng. - Edward A. Sears Landscape Arch. - Jo Ray Sc A. Carl Stalling FORT GREENE HOUSES - February 1944 Section I Architects - Harrison Sc Fouilhoux (ch); Rosario Candela; Albert Mayer Structural Eng. - Chas. Mayer Mechanical Eng. - Syska Sc Hennessy, Inc. Landscape Arch. - A. Carl Stalling Section II Architects - Ely J. Kahn (ch); William I. Hohauser; Ethan Allen Dennison Structural Eng. - Severud & Mayer Mechanical Eng. - Clyde R. Place Landscape Arch. - A. Carl Stalling Section III Architects - Clarence S. Stein (ch); Charles Butler, Robert D. Kohn; Henry S. Churchill Structural Eng. - Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng. - Badie, Freund & Campbell Landscape Arch. - A. Carl Stalling -124- GOO?-HUD-00 000 3239 0007-HUD-0 00003239 0007-H U D-000003239 WALLABOUT HOUSES - November 1941 Architects - William I* Hohauser; Carl A. Vollmer, Walter Wefferling Structural Eng. - Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng* - Sullivan A* S. Patorno Landscape Arch* - A. Carl Stalling EDWIN MARKHAM HOUSES - June 1943 Architects - DeYoung & Moscowitz; Frederick Mathesius Structural Eng* - Elwyn E. Seelye & Co* Mechanical Eng* - Sullivan A* S. Patorno Landscape Arch. - Alice Recknagel ELLIOTT HOUSES - July 1947 Architects - Archibald M* Brown; William Lescaze Structural Eng* Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng* - Meyer, Strong & Jones, Inc. Landscape Arch* - A. F* Brinekerhoff AMSTERDAM HOUSES - November 1948 Architects - Atterbury, Corbett & Holden Structural Ehg. - Elwyn E. Seelye & Co. Mechanical Eng. - Meyer, Strong <fe Jones, Inc* Landscape Arch* - Clarke, Rapuano & Holleran BROWNSVILLE HOUSES - April 1948 Architects - The Firm of Frederick G. Frost; Frederick G. Frost, Jr* Structural Eng. - Fred N* Severud Mechanical Eng* - Meyer, Strong k Jones, Inc. Landscape Arch* - Alfred Geiffert, Jr. JACOB RIIS HOUSES - November 1948 Architects - James Mackenzie; Sidney L. Strauss; Walker <fe Gillette Structural Eng* - Tuck & Eipel Mechanical Eng* * Edward A* Sears Landscape Arch* - Charles Downing Lay LILLIAN WALD HOUSES - September 1949 Architects - Frederick L* Ackerman; Lafayette A* Goldstone Structural Eng. - Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng* - Sullivan A. S. Patorno Landscape Arch* - Leo A* Novick LESTER W* PATTERSON HOUSES - (under constmiction) Architects - James F* Delany & James W. 0*Connor; Aymer Embury IIj Matthew W. Del Gaudio Structural Eng* - Tuck & Eipel Mechanical Eng* - Meyer, Strong & Jones, Inc. Landscape Arch. * Clarke, Rapuano & Holleran -125- 0007-HOD-000003240 0007-HUD-000003240 0007-H U D-000003240 ABRAHAM LINCOLN HOUSES - November 1948 Architecta - Slcidmore, Owings, Merrill, Tandy k Forbes Structural Eng* - William Hoffberg Mechanical Eng* - Edward A* Sears Landscape Arch. - Clarke, Rapuano k Holleran MARCY HOUSES - December 1948 Architects - Voorhees, Walker, Foley k Smith Structural Eng# - Weiskopf k Pickworth Mechanical Eng. - Meyer, Strong k Jones, Inc. Landscape Arch. - Alfred Geiffert, Jr. GOWANUS HOUSES - June 1949 Architects - Candela, Kahn k Jacobs k McCarthy Structural Eng. - Charles Mayer Mechanical Eng* - Jaros, Baum k Bolles Landscape Arch. - Janet Darling JAMES WELDOR JOHNSON HOUSES - November 1948 Architects - Whittlesey, Prince k Reiley Structural Eng# - Charles Mayer Mechanical Eng. - Alexander D. Crossett Landscape Arch. - Cynthia Wiley k Alice Rechnagel MELROSE HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Jallade k Koch Structural Eng. - Seelye, Stevenson k Value Mechanical Eng. - Meyer, Strong k Jones, Inc. Landscape Arch. - A. Carl Stalling Assoc. ASTORIA HOPSES - (under construction) Architects - Harrison k Abramovitz Structural Eng. - Elwyn E. Seelye & Co. Mechanical Eng. - Edward A. Sears Landscape Arch. - Clarke, Rapuano k Holleran GOV* ALFRED E.- SMITH HOUSES - (under construction) Architects * Eggers k Higgins Structural Eng. - Elwyn E. Seelye & Co# Mechanical Eng. - Meyer, Strong k Jones Landscape Arch* - Jo Ray FARRAGUT HOUSES * (under construction) Architects - Fellheimer, Wagner k Vollmer Structural Eng. - Fred H. Severud Mechanical Eng. - Paul Wunderlich Landscape Arch. - A. Carl Stalling Assoc. -126- 0007-HUD-000003241 0007-HUD-0 00003241 0007-HU D-000003241 STEPHEN FOSTER HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - William I* Hohauser --' Structural Eng* - Fred N* Severud Mechanical Eng* - Sullivan A. S. Patomo Landscape Arch* - Ralph Eberlin & Leo A. Novick BRONX RIVER HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - William I* Hohauser Structural Eng* - Fred N* Severud Mechanical Eng. - Sullivan A* S. Patorno Landscape Arch* - Ralph Eberlin & Leo A* . Novick ALBANY HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Fellheimer, Wagner & Vollmer. Structural Eng - Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng* - By Architects r Staff Landscape Arch. - A. Carl Stalling Assoc* EASTCHBSTER HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Harrison & Abramovitz r Structural Eng* - Seelye, Stevenson & Value Mechanical Eng* - Edward A* Sears f Landscape Arch* - Clarke, Rapuano Holleran WOODSIDE HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Voorhees, Walker, Foley <fc Smith Structural Eng* - Weiskopf & Pickworth Mechanical Eng* - Meyer, Strong & Jones, Inc* Landscape Arch* - By Architects r Staff SOUTH BEACH HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Henry V* Murphy Structural Eng* - Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng* - V. L* Falotico Associates Landscape Arch* - Leo A. Novick SHEEPSHEAD BAY HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - James MacKenzie Structural Eng* - Tuck & Eipel Mechanical Eng* - Sears & Kopf Landscape Arch* - Charles Downing Lay COLONIAL PARK HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Whittlesey, Prince & Reiley Structural Eng* - Charles Mayer Mechanical Eng* - Philip M* Gussow Landscape Arch* - Coffey & Recknagel -127- 0007-HUD-000003242 0007-HUD-000003242 0007-H U D-000003242 ST, NICHOLAS HOUSES - (being planned) Architects - York & Sawyer Structural Eng. - Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng, - Meyer, Strong <5: Jones, Inc, Landscape Arch. - Lay Lay PELHAM PARKWAY HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Rogers Sc Butler Structural Eng, - Seelye, Stevenson <fc Value Mechanical Eng, - Meyer, Strong & Jones, Inc, Landscape Arch, - Clarke, Rapuano & Holleran DYCKMAH HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - William F. R. Ballard Structural Eng, - Fred N. Severud Mechanical Eng, - Sullivan A, S Patorno Landscape Arch, - A. Carl Stalling NQSTRAND HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Andrew J, Thomas Structural Eng. - Weiskopf & Pickworth Meohanical Eng, - Sullivan A, S, Patorno Landscape Arch, - Clarke , Rapuano Sc Holleran GLENWOOD HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Adolph Goldberg Structural Eng, - Weiskopf & Pickworth Mechanical Eng, - V, L. Falotico & Assoc, Landscape Arch, - Alfred Geiffert, Jr. GUH HILL HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Alfred Hopkins & Assoc. Structural Eng, - Fred N, Severud Mechanical Eng, - Guy B, Panero Landscape Arch, - A, Carl S tel ling TODT HILL HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - H, I, Feldman Structural Eng. - J-acob Feld Mechanical Eng. - Emery U. Markush Landscape Arch. - Clarke, Rapuano Sc Holleran -128- 0007** HOD-00 000 3 24 3 0007-HUD-000003243 0007-H U D-000003243 SEDGWICK HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Skidmore, Owings A Merrill Structural Eng - Strobel & Salzman Mechanical Eng* - Sears & Kopf Landscape Arch* - Skidmore, Owings & Merrill Staff MARBLE HILL HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - John A. Thompson Structural Eng* - Tuck & Eipel Meohanical Eng. - Thomas E. Kennedy Landscape Arch* - Janet Dariing-Innocenti Webel BOULEVARD HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Kelly & Gruzen Structural Eng* - J. Di Stasio & Co. Mechanical Eng* - E. E. Ashley Landscape Arch. - Michael M. Burris PARKS IDE HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Walker & Poor Structural Eng. - Seelye, Stevenson & Value Mechanical Eng. - Meyer, Strong & Jones, Inc. Landscape Arch. - A. F. Brinckerhoff ARVBRNE ROUSES - (under construction) Architects - Simeon Heller Structural Eng. - Tuck & Eipel Mechanical Eng. - Edward A. Sears Landscape Arch. - Leo A. Novick BBT. CHARLES W, BERRY HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Holden, McLaughlin & Assoc. Structural Eng. - Seelye, Stevenson A* Value Mechanicel Eng* - Syska & Hennessy, Inc. Landscape Arch. - Alfred Geiffert, Jr. RAVENSWOOD HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - Frederick 0. Frcst Structural Eng. - Weiskopf & Pickworth Mechanical Eng. - Guy B. Panero Landscape Arch. - Leo A. Novick LEXINGTON HOUSES - (under construction) Architects - J.M. Ber linger Structural Eng. - Jacob Feld Mechanical Eng. - V. L. Falotico Assoc. Landscape Arch* - Alfred Geiffert, Jr. -129- OQ07-HUD-000003244 Q007-HUD-000003244 0007-H U D-000003244 inm7 - 0007-HUD-000003245 0007-H U D-000003245