Tenement Houses and Progressive Solutions
BY CAMILLE AVENA
At the turn of the twentieth-century, New York City was marked by a rapid increase in population due to a large influx of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Eventually this would lead to overcrowding – a fundamental problem for New York. The temporary “solution” to this problem was the creation of the tenement house – the dark, poorly sanitized living quarters for the lower classes. These tenement houses would soon become a cesspool of disease, malnutrition, poverty, and prostitution. Progressive reformers considered the tenement houses to a detriment to those who lived in them and to the city itself. Therefore, during the Progressive Era, New York City reformers proposed and enacted changes in order to alleviate and eventually eliminate the harmful conditions of tenement houses. The commission to the Henry Hudson-Robert Fulton Celebration of 1909 vouched for these progressive changes in order to create a positive city image (see below, Mulberry Street)
What did it mean to be Progressive? A Brief Introduction to the Progressive Age
The Progressive Age (1900-1920) grew out of the industrialization and urbanization of the United States. The birth of the crowded city resulted in poor housing conditions for its less fortunate members. The tenement house – home to most immigrants – was created in response to this increase in city populations. Progressive reformers felt that urban poverty and distress called for more governmental intervention to provide city dwellers with better streets, sanitary conditions, housing, and schools. When the government did not repair the city’s problems, the reformers, generally wealthy individuals, were able to alleviate the problems on their own. Therefore, “being progressive” meant fighting for social and economic change and believing that those changes would benefit both the city and democracy.
The Tenement House
According to the Tenement House Report of 1900, out of 3,437,202 people living in New York City, 2,372,079 lived in tenement housing. The report gives further figures of the housing conditions of New York. As of 1900 there were 82,652 tenement buildings in the city, 42,700 which were located in Manhattan. The Tenement House Commission identified the inadequacies of the tenement house as follows: poor air and light, danger from fire, lack of separate water-closet and baths, overcrowding, and foul cellars and courts. The typical New York City tenement house (right, floor plan) was known as the “dumb-bell” tenement. The land-plot for the building was 25 feet wide by 100 feet deep and the building it-self was 25 feet wide and 90 feet deep. Ten feet was left bare in the back of the building so that the back rooms would receive some light. Composed of five to seven floors, the first floor of the tenement house usually had one or two stores and a few living rooms towards the back. The main corridor of the first floor was 8 feet wide by 60 feet deep and was usually dark. On the floors above, there were seven rooms on each side of the corridor with four families living on each floor. Only four of the fourteen rooms in total receive direct light from the front and back of the building. Surrounding the entire building were extremely narrow air-shafts and therefore, the other ten rooms on each floor were plagued by foul air and semi-darkness[1].
Families living in the tenement houses usually paid twelve to eighteen dollars a month for four “rooms” (below, left) in the front of the building. Only two of the four rooms were large enough to be considered a room. The two larger rooms were 10 feet 6 inches wide by 11 feet 8 inches deep and were used as a kitchen and a living room. The other two rooms were used as bedrooms and were extremely small (7 feet wide and 8 feet 6 inches deep) and in the summer months, these rooms became so stifling that many tenement dwellers would sleep in the living room or even on the roof of the tenement building. Similar to the front four rooms, two families lived in the six rear rooms and each family paid ten to fifteen dollars for three rooms[2].
Overcrowding combined with poverty and poor sanitation allowed disease to infiltrate the tenement house. The Tenement House Commission of 1900 reported that tuberculosis was common in the tenement houses, writing that “from the tenements there comes a stream of sick, helpless people to our hospitals and dispensaries, few of whom are able to afford the luxury of a private physician, and some houses are in such bad sanitary condition that few people can be seriously ill in them and get well”[3]. In “Tuberculosis and Tenement House Problem”, Dr. Hermann M. Biggs points to overcrowding as the main factor for the rise of tuberculosis in the tenement houses. The bacteria tubercle bacillus is destroyed by sunlight and ventilation prevents tuberculosis and other diseases from being passed on. Therefore the unventilated and poorly lit rooms of the tenement houses were ideal for the spread of disease. As of 1900, thirty-five% of deaths for those between the age of 15 to 35 were due to tuberculosis. Hermann M. Biggs addresses the working conditions of these lower class people: “many large workshops, printing-offices, etc., in New York City are far beneath the level of the ground, are absolutely without light, excepting artificial light, are badly ventilated and overcrowded, and have not more than 300 or 400 cubic feet of air space for each workman”[4]. Not only was the tenement workman exposed to disease in his home, but also at his place of work.
One of the most dangerous problems in tenement houses was the greater chance of fires. From November 1, 1899 to November 1, 1900, forty-one people died in fires. This spike in fire deaths was most likely attributed to the high density of tenement occupants and by extension, the increase in New York City immigrant population. Of all the fires that occurred in New York City, forty-seven percent of them took place in tenement houses and tenement buildings which made up only thirty-seven percent of buildings in New York City. Tenement buildings did not have fireproof cellars or stairways. Also, the fire escapes were ladders which were very difficult for the elderly, women, and children to use. The dismal fire situation worsened the image of tenement life and strengthened the need for reform[5].
The lower east side of Manhattan and the tenement houses were parts of the “hidden city” – the city not seen by tourists of the time. In New York City’s efforts to become a metropolitan city, it was recognized that these neighborhoods neededto be reformed and revitalized. Under a blanketof altruism, progressive reformers addressed the needs of the tenement communities while simultaneously carrying out the orders from wealthy citizens and city officials. Tourists flooded Manhattan streets for The Henry Hudson-Robert Fulton Celebration of 1909 and the commission of the parade wanted to present a clean and cultured city to its visitors.
Why repair the tenement house?
The Tenement House Commission described tenement houses as “centres of disease, poverty, vice, and crime, where it is a marvel, not that some children grow up to be thieves, drunkards, and prostitutes, but that so many should ever grow up to be decent and self-respecting”[6]. One of the reasons that reformers were concerned about the tenement houses was the fact that nearly two-thirds of New York City dwellers were living in these poorly lit, inadequately ventilated, and overcrowded buildings. But what exactly did this mean for New York City? Reformers looked past the immediate dangers and towards the long term consequences of the present day situation. Two-thirds of New York City residents were raising their children in dire conditions. These children were the future of New York and therefore there was a need to repair the tenement house system to ensure that they would not grow up to be criminals and delinquents. The overcrowded, poorly ventilated, and unhealthy air of the tenements was not elements of a happy childhood. More importantly, the small rooms (right, basement) combined with no outdoor space stripped children of their right to be children and of their right to play. These were remedies for children in the public schools they attended but their home situations needed to be alleviated as well.
Throughout history, the upper classes have always had a social fear of the lower classes and New York 1909 is not an exception. There were certainly more tenement dwellers than non-tenement dwellers. If they were to form a gang, they could easily overtake the city. While rebellions and chaos seemed concerns of the distant past, many were intimidated by the strength of numbers. Although, the chances of a popular rebellion were highly unlikely, it was still in the back of many New Yorkers’ minds. The reformers worried that so many of their fellow neighbors were living in conditions which were harmful to the social and moral needs of the human condition. They felt that the lack of morality which existed in tenement house conditions would spread like a disease throughout the inhabitants of the house. The men and women who lived in tenement house were vital assets to American democracy in that they represented two-thirds of voters of one of the most powerful cities. The Tenement House Commission of 1900 wrote: “The most terrible of all the features of tenement house life in New York, however, is the indiscriminate herding of all kinds of people in close contact, the fact, that, mingled with the drunken, the dissolute, the improvident, the diseased, dwell the great mass of te respectable working-men of the city with their families”[7]. The idea that the “respectable working-men” could be turned into men lacking morals and values by living in a tenement house was a frightening thought to the middle and upper classes. How could any of these people make a proper decision in an election living in these destitute conditions? A main goal of reformers was to preserve the democratic way of New York City (and by extension the entire United States) and to prevent anarchy and chaos that could stem from having a major part of the city living in ways that promoted social conditions that were detrimental to the human condition.
Government officials, influential businessmen, and reformers sought to enhance the image of New York. A huge obstacle to this was the tenement house. The appearance of the tenement house was dismal. Officials wanted a city of prosperity. The tenement houses and the condition of its dwellers were not a part of the idealized vision of New York. A city cannot prosper if its workers do not prosper – and the majority of the city lived in poor conditions. From a financial point of view, the abundant amount of tenement houses was considered an obstacle in the goal of making the city a financial power. The men and women of the tenements were the manual labor for the economy and thus, they were an essential part of the economy. However, the conditions of the tenement house were prohibiting them from performing their tasks. Malnutrition, lack of sleep, and disease could affect the quality of their work. Therefore government officials and leading businessmen in New York society were willing to do what they could to help eradicate the evils of the tenement house and promote an idealized version of New York City[8].
The Tenement House Exhibition of 1900 (below)
Lawrence Veiller was the head of the Charity Organization Society of New York City (CSO) and a prominent social worker during the Progressive Age. He organized the Tenement House Exhibition of 1900 as an effort to promote awareness of evils of the tenement houses hoping to bring about change. The two week exhibition was held in a building on Fifth Avenue and was viewed by people from all financial backgrounds. Veiller included maps, charts, photos, and important statistics regarding tenement house conditions. Also, he added a study of the tenements in America and in Europe. In Tenement House Reform 1834-1900, Veiller wrote that “the exhibition also included in its study of existing conditions in New York exhibits showing density of population, death rates prevailing in tenement districts, the distribution of nationality in the city, charts showing overcrowding, dangers from fire, health conditions, etc.”[9]. During the second week of the exhibition, there was a series of conferences discussing the tenement problem; the titles of those were “The Exhibition and Its meaning”, “Model Tenements”, “Improving Tenements by Personal Influence”, “The Tenements and Poverty”, “The Tenements and Tuberculosis”, “The People Who Live in the Tenements”, “The Duty of the City to the Tenement Dweller”. One of the most interesting exhibits was an actual model of an entire block of tenement houses in New York City. The block chosen was the area bounded by Chrystie, Forsyth, Canal, and Bayard Streets – a total area of 200 feet by 400 feet. This block had 39 tenement houses and 2,781 persons living in this location in total. This model also pointed out the evils of the tenement condition – overcrowding, poor ventilation and air quality, and disease. The Tenement House Exhibition of 1900 was a big step in exposing those who have never truly experienced tenement house conditions to the way of life for the poor[10]. This awareness permeated the upper echelons of New York and directly influenced the planning of the 1909 celebration.
Introduction to Progressive Reforms
In The Progressive Movement, Benjamin DeWitt writes that progressive reformers sought to improve 6 elements of the city: the natural physical characteristics of the city (there was a need for reform in the structure of the city in order to create a sophisticated city), the means of communication between the city and other cities, the means of communication within the city, the housing problem, the health of the cities inhabitants, and the need to provide recreation[11]. De Witt recognizes the importance of city to the progressive reformer. The city was seen as the heart of democracy and therefore it could not be allowed to deteriorate. In the eyes of progressives the large European migration of the late nineteenth century was seen as detriment to the welfare of the city[12]. The job of the reformers was to change the tenement structure and the entire tenement neighborhood (above, tenement room).
Tenement Reforms
The Tenement House Commission of 1900 summed up the problems with tenement housing: “insufficiency of light and air due to the narrow courts or air shafts, undue height, and to the occupation by the building or by the adjacent buildings of too great proportion of the lot area; danger from fire; lack of separate water-closet and washing facilities; overcrowding; foul cellars and courts and other like evils, which may be classed as bad housekeeping”[13]. These were the evils of the tenement houses that would be addressed by progressive reformers.
The former tenement house, known as the “dumb-bell” tenement, only provided light for four of fourteen rooms on each of the building. The Tenement House Commission of 1900 decided that the new tenement houses would have courts, or porches, in the back and front to allow light to enter the back rooms as well. Also, it was decided that the air-shafts would be removed which would provide new tenement houses with better ventilation. Twenty-six families would occupy the old tenement house but sixteen to twenty-two occupied the newer tenements and the maximum number of stories the building could be was six, rather than seven. In the old tenement families would share water-closets, bathes, and allowing for the spread of diseases. One of the reforms to the tenement house was a water-closet placed in each family’s apartment. One of the biggest reforms to the tenement house was the implementation of fire-proof structures. The public halls, and the stairs of the new tenement were both fireproof and the cellar in the basement was completely fireproof. In addition to this, the vertical ladder fire escapes were replaced with stairs which would be more accessible to women, children, and the elderly. The reforms to the tenement structure itself were effective but it was also imperative to reform the entire slum area of New York City[14]. (below)
Settlement Houses & A Need for Reform
The settlement house was a center of community composed of reformers who sought to correct the conditions of tenement housing. These reformers viewed themselves as “shaping the evolution of the race”[15]. Settlement houses were opened in city neighborhoods as early as 1886. The settlement house structure was not meant for charity, instead it was considered “a vigorous and intelligent effort to seek out and modify the causes which lie at the roots of pauperism and of the ‘social evil’”[16]. Settlement houses became a community area to which people could turn to for health inspections, sanitation education, recreation, education, and most importantly, for social betterment.
The settlement reformers recognized that there was a need to reform these slum neighborhoods. They viewed the tenement house evils as contagious and that prostitution, delinquency, and immorality could be spread in clothes or in food. Identifying the slum community conditions as a disease led to the idea that, like diseases, they can be cured. Thus, the settlement reformers saw the settlement houses as a place where the tenement house residents could escape the horrible conditions of their lives. Overall, the settlement house was seen as a community refuge for immigrants and slum dwellers.
The beginnings of the settlement start as early as 1876 when reformer Felix Adler founded the Society for Ethical Culture. Felix Adler (left) , born in Germany in 1851, migrated to the United States with his family in 1857. Adler was raised by his father, a rabbi in the Reform Judaism sect, and attended Columbia University. After he received his Ph.D. from the University of Berlin, he taught Hebrew Studies at Cornell University. Rather than following in his father’s footsteps, Adler founded the Society for Ethical Culture.
The main goal of the Society for Ethical Culture was to improve society and resting on the belief that there is a good in every person. The Society believed that the people of the community should depend on one another to initiate action. Adler and other Society members promoted the idea of a “social community” but Adler also felt that it was harmful to the immigrant “to be Americanized by being taught to obliterate his race history and race consciousness”[17]. Rather than promoting a homogeneous American identity, the Society for Ethical Culture accepted different ethnicities and hoped that they could work together to eliminate tenement evils. Speaking about the Society for Ethical Culture, reformer John Lovejoy Elliot said that “individuals are not separated in their purpose, neither are the groups; each has a contribution to make to the establishment of a better life”[18] (Kraus 52).
In 1877, the Society, working with Lillian Ward and the District Nursing Service, sent nurses in the homes of tenement dwellers to give medical inspections for those who could not afford one. The Society organized The Workingman School’s, which provided training in manual arts and served as an experiment center for education. The Workingman’s School innovative education methods were recognized by New York City public schools in the subjects of history and literature. In 1885 Felix Alder organized the Tenement House Building Company to build model tenements on Cherry Street in Manhattan. The tenements they built had a kindergarten room (since public schools did not have a kindergarten grade), a playground for children on the roof of each building, and club rooms.
The Society for Ethical Culture and the work of Felix Adler directly influenced Stanton Coit.Stanton Coit was born in Ohio, studied at Amherst and Columbia, and received his Ph.D. from Humboldt University of Berlin. Not only was Coit inspired by Alder’s Society but he also drew inspiration from Toynbee Hall, the first settlement house in England, founded in 1884. In September of 1886, Stanton Coit rented a four room apartment on the second floor of 146 Forsyth Street of the Lower East Side. These two floors started the Neighborhood Guild, the first settlement that was founded in Manhattan. Originally, Coit assumed that the Neighborhood Guild would help develop a sense of identity among German and Irish immigrants; he did not foresee the settlement houses becoming a huge success amongst all different immigrant groups.
Stanton Coit’s main goal for the settlement house (left, Union Hall) was to foster the idea of community identification for immigrants and other tenement inhabitants. In order to do that, Coit thought of the neighborhood as a series of units, which he called a neighborhood guild. The neighborhood guild was a group of adults and young people who would listen and carry out the wishes of the people that they represented. Often, the actions of the neighborhood guilds would be focused around the improvement of some kind of municipal service – sanitation, transportation, schools, and playgrounds[19]. Coit hoped that a community working together to improve municipal services would allow for community consciousness – which “existed where the people are familiar with everyone and everything in the area-fellow citizens, local officials, local institutions, regulations, laws, the budget, the tax rate, and the social mores” (Kraus 56). Coit’s Neighborhood Guild, which soon would become the University Settlement, strived to improve the immigrant condition in New York City.
From 1886 to 1914, thirty-six non-sectarian and ten religiously affiliated settlement houses were developed in the city. The major settlements, not including the University Settlement, were the College Settlement, the East Side House, the Henry Settlement, the Union Settlement, the Hudson Guild, the Hartley House, and the Greenich House. In The Settlement Idea, Arthur Cort Holden states that the five functions of the settlement are recreation, education, health, financial distress, and conduct[20]. During the Progressive Age, the settlements upheld these functions in order to better city inhabitants.
Children & Playgrounds
The progressive reformers looked at childhood as the most impressionable stage of a person’s life – the stage in which a person is molded into an adult. Similar to the belief that every man has goodness inside of him, there was a belief that there is no bad child and that juvenile delinquency was the city’s fault. Progressive reformers did not only better the lives of adults but also the lives of children (below)
Progressive reformers believed that the city had six obligations to the child: the preservation of life, the preservation of health, the opportunity to play, the freedom from toil, the education of children, and the care of dependent children. The preservation of health of children was extremely important to reformers because if a child was unhealthy, his or her education and training will be useless. Freedom from toil meant that children had the right to be children and not “little adults” and therefore, they should not have to work. In Problems of Child Welfare, George Benjamin Mangold writes that the child is not a commercial asset of the parents and that the relation is exactly reversed – parents should take care of their children until the child reaches a certain age[21]. However, this did not mean that children should be idle; the substitutes for idleness should be education and recreation. Mangold states that “low wages, poverty, unemployment, and shameful conditions of living all partly due to defective education”[22]. The care of children meant that every child “should have the opportunity to enjoy a parent’s care and fondness, since the home gives to childhood a service which no other agency can supply”[23] (Mangold 16). These progressive ideas about children and their needs for play were reflected in the Henry Hudson-Robert Fulton Celebration of 1909 – children participated in the festivities simply by playing in local playgrounds.
Every child should be awarded the opportunity to play. Play and recreation are a fundamental instinct among children; they promote the physical and mental development of the child and aid in his or her moral development. In fact, progressive reformers realized that recreation could help adults as well. In The Settlement Idea, Arthur Curt Holden writes that recreation creates relaxation which in turn creates better citizens[24] (Holden 50). In a crowded city like New York, space for play was scarce and children in tenements suffered from poor air quality and no recreation areas. Therefore, reformers took up the challenge of creating playground and parks.
In 1887, The Small Parks Act was passed; this authorized the Board Street Opening and Improvement of New York City to select and lay out several park areas south of 155th street in Manhattan. Also, the Tenement House Commission of 1894 devoted some time to the creation of small parks, and in 1895 there was a law passed to create parks below 14th street in Manhattan. For example, Hamilton Fish Park was created in 1900 and, located on Houston and Sheriff streets, while Seward Park (above) was placed at Canal and Jefferson streets. Also, the Tenement House Commission of 1894 decided that the mayor should appoint a commission that will locate park spaces. The mayor at the time, W.L. Strong, appointed this committee[25].
As of 1908, Greater New York had a total of 6776 acres dedicated for parks – 1343 acres in the boroughs of Manhattan and Richmond, 1573 acres in Brooklyn and Queens, and 3849 acres in the Bronx. It is important to note that a great percentage of the 1343 acres in Manhattan and Richmond made up Central and Riverside Park. Therefore, there was an extremely small amountof parks in the borough of Manhattan. In “Parks and Playgrounds for Tenement Districts”, Lawrence Veillerlists the small parks in Manhattan as of 1908: Corlears Hook Park, Hamilton Fish, Tompkins Square, East River Park, Hudson Park, Mulberry Bend, and Paradise Park. The total acreage of these parks is 40.221 acres and Veiller points out that 40.221 acres is too small of a recreation space for a population of over one million people[26]. The commission of the parade recognized the shortage of recreation space in the city and it is not surprising that during the parade the Palisades Park was dedicated as a park for public use. The progressive belief of the importance of the outdoors was also seen in the celebration – which was for the most part outdoors.
The committee would take several factors into consideration when deciding where to place a small park. Before officially designating a certain area for a park, the committee would look at the death-rate of the particular block, the character of tenement houses, the proximity to public schools or other education institutions, the distance from other parks, and the population density in the area[27]. Areas that were suffering the most from conditions overcrowded and disease were most likely to have a park placed in that neighborhood. However a park was not enough – there must be a recreation area included to give children the opportunity to play. Progressive reformers believed that the city owed the children their right to engage in healthy activity.
One of the biggest organizations for the creation of parks and playgrounds was The Outdoor Recreation League. The Outdoor Recreation League, a group composed of reformers, created Hudson Bank Playground on 53rd street and eleventh avenue and Seward Park on the lower east side. This group of reformers insisted that each park be equipped with a gymnastic apparatus, swings, and sandboxes for children. All of the parks created in the tenement neighborhoods of Manhattan provided an escape from the tenement life. Children were exposed to fresh air and social activity that in turn helped their mental and physical health. Discussing Seward Park, Lawrence Veiller wrote, “no one who had not personally visited Seward Park playground can appreciate what this opportunity for natural play means to the anemic, underfed, and mentally overdeveloped young people of the East Side”[28].
The Settlement Clubs & Games
The reformers behind the settlement houses looked for ways to eliminate the “street gang”. One of those ways was the playground movement – which enforced healthy activity. Another way was the “club movement” – reformers wanted to civilize the street gang and turn it into a club with morals and rules. Ultimately, the clubs and the structured games played by the clubs served as a way to civilize tenement youth. (below)
The “clubs” were the most typical part of any settlement house. A club was usually a group of young people who had a common interest and it was hoped that club members would develop lifelong friendships. Arthur Cort Holden, author of The Settlement Idea, wrote that “the club form is at first used to give expression and stability to the requirements of everyday social intercourse. It soon becomes a regular source of recreational enjoyment and in time its educational potentialities are realized”[29]. Settlement reformers saw clubs as safe recreation that would hopefully give tenement children and young adults a sense of community and a reason to stay off the streets.
Every club would meet in a room in a settlement house, and there was always an adult settlement worker who would serve as the club director. The club director acted as an overseer, but not as a leader and would give helpful suggestions for clubs rather than orders. As a whole, volunteers were seen as the better club directors since they had a genuine desire to help the settlement houses. Busier men and women were supposedly better club directors, since the club members could look up to someone who knew how to manage their time. Club directors were an extremely important asset to the club. The club should be thought of as a medium for which young adults could discover themselves. The social activity, companionship, and the club directors helped teenagers along his or her path.
The clubs of the settlement house were seen as a way to civilize the tenement child, who was considered to be most susceptible to the influence of street gangs. Similar to many progressive reforms that targeted the youth, the clubs were intended to be agents of Americanization. For example, the clubs were named after patriotic heroes or Indians tribes. There was no European ethnicity connected to any of the club names even though the participants were usually European. Some club names were Lincoln Volunteers or Lincoln Associates. Naming clubs after important American figures served as a history lesson for immigrant children. Clubs would also put on plays and sing songs that were historically American[30]. It is this creation of the “visual history lesson” that was used in the Henry Hudson and Robert Fulton Celebration of 1909. During the children’s festival, children were able to view and comprehend New York’s history with the procession of floats. The progressive notion of the importance of a unified history was also portrayed in the parade.
The settlement implemented the summer camp in order to provide a safe outlet for tenement children. In the summertime, many children were out on the streets and were unsupervised since both parents were working. Therefore, summer camps were considered extremely beneficial and were relatively inexpensive. Summer camp activities became extremely popular because they removed children and teenagers from their ordinary surroundings, which reinforced the friendship amongst those who participated. In order to build stronger social bonds, those who participated were separated based on their age and gender. There were divisions for young girls, young boys, older girls, older boys, and adults[31]. All of the divisions would come together for daily events such as meals. For meals, everyone would eat in a dining room with the company of a few residents who would keep the group activity running smoothly.
The summer camps were seen as a democratic experience for the reason that any two people, despite their previous experiences, could find some kind of common interest in the primitive outdoor life. Arthur Cort Holden describes how the summer camp and the settlement theory were related: “to share life with others, to find joys, simple though they may be, that can be shared with an ever widening circle, is to discover that men have things in common”[32]. Like the settlement houses, the summer camp created the idea of the community for children and young adults. It became an opportunity to show young boys and girls how shared experiences can make life more enjoyable and that human inter-dependence demonstrates the stability of society.
Conclusion
The slum and tenement conditions (below) of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century did not go ignored by progressive reformers. They were able to realize that with no relief, poverty could spread and lead to the disintegration of New York City. Thetenement reforms and the settlement house did not completely root out poverty. Reformers hoped to alleviate those conditions which produced disease and degenerates. The settlement houses were a means to create a community amongst the tenement youth. Through the tenement house and settlement house reforms, progressives were able to save the youth from delinquency and in turn save the democracy from chaos. The reforms and the preparations of the Henry Hudson-Robert Fulton Celebration of 1909 introduced the city to the plight of the lower classes and helped to create the world city that is New York.
BY CAMILLE AVENA
At the turn of the twentieth-century, New York City was marked by a rapid increase in population due to a large influx of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Eventually this would lead to overcrowding – a fundamental problem for New York. The temporary “solution” to this problem was the creation of the tenement house – the dark, poorly sanitized living quarters for the lower classes. These tenement houses would soon become a cesspool of disease, malnutrition, poverty, and prostitution. Progressive reformers considered the tenement houses to a detriment to those who lived in them and to the city itself. Therefore, during the Progressive Era, New York City reformers proposed and enacted changes in order to alleviate and eventually eliminate the harmful conditions of tenement houses. The commission to the Henry Hudson-Robert Fulton Celebration of 1909 vouched for these progressive changes in order to create a positive city image (see below, Mulberry Street)
What did it mean to be Progressive? A Brief Introduction to the Progressive Age
The Progressive Age (1900-1920) grew out of the industrialization and urbanization of the United States. The birth of the crowded city resulted in poor housing conditions for its less fortunate members. The tenement house – home to most immigrants – was created in response to this increase in city populations. Progressive reformers felt that urban poverty and distress called for more governmental intervention to provide city dwellers with better streets, sanitary conditions, housing, and schools. When the government did not repair the city’s problems, the reformers, generally wealthy individuals, were able to alleviate the problems on their own. Therefore, “being progressive” meant fighting for social and economic change and believing that those changes would benefit both the city and democracy.
The Tenement House
According to the Tenement House Report of 1900, out of 3,437,202 people living in New York City, 2,372,079 lived in tenement housing. The report gives further figures of the housing conditions of New York. As of 1900 there were 82,652 tenement buildings in the city, 42,700 which were located in Manhattan. The Tenement House Commission identified the inadequacies of the tenement house as follows: poor air and light, danger from fire, lack of separate water-closet and baths, overcrowding, and foul cellars and courts. The typical New York City tenement house (right, floor plan) was known as the “dumb-bell” tenement. The land-plot for the building was 25 feet wide by 100 feet deep and the building it-self was 25 feet wide and 90 feet deep. Ten feet was left bare in the back of the building so that the back rooms would receive some light. Composed of five to seven floors, the first floor of the tenement house usually had one or two stores and a few living rooms towards the back. The main corridor of the first floor was 8 feet wide by 60 feet deep and was usually dark. On the floors above, there were seven rooms on each side of the corridor with four families living on each floor. Only four of the fourteen rooms in total receive direct light from the front and back of the building. Surrounding the entire building were extremely narrow air-shafts and therefore, the other ten rooms on each floor were plagued by foul air and semi-darkness[1].
Families living in the tenement houses usually paid twelve to eighteen dollars a month for four “rooms” (below, left) in the front of the building. Only two of the four rooms were large enough to be considered a room. The two larger rooms were 10 feet 6 inches wide by 11 feet 8 inches deep and were used as a kitchen and a living room. The other two rooms were used as bedrooms and were extremely small (7 feet wide and 8 feet 6 inches deep) and in the summer months, these rooms became so stifling that many tenement dwellers would sleep in the living room or even on the roof of the tenement building. Similar to the front four rooms, two families lived in the six rear rooms and each family paid ten to fifteen dollars for three rooms[2].
Overcrowding combined with poverty and poor sanitation allowed disease to infiltrate the tenement house. The Tenement House Commission of 1900 reported that tuberculosis was common in the tenement houses, writing that “from the tenements there comes a stream of sick, helpless people to our hospitals and dispensaries, few of whom are able to afford the luxury of a private physician, and some houses are in such bad sanitary condition that few people can be seriously ill in them and get well”[3]. In “Tuberculosis and Tenement House Problem”, Dr. Hermann M. Biggs points to overcrowding as the main factor for the rise of tuberculosis in the tenement houses. The bacteria tubercle bacillus is destroyed by sunlight and ventilation prevents tuberculosis and other diseases from being passed on. Therefore the unventilated and poorly lit rooms of the tenement houses were ideal for the spread of disease. As of 1900, thirty-five% of deaths for those between the age of 15 to 35 were due to tuberculosis. Hermann M. Biggs addresses the working conditions of these lower class people: “many large workshops, printing-offices, etc., in New York City are far beneath the level of the ground, are absolutely without light, excepting artificial light, are badly ventilated and overcrowded, and have not more than 300 or 400 cubic feet of air space for each workman”[4]. Not only was the tenement workman exposed to disease in his home, but also at his place of work.
One of the most dangerous problems in tenement houses was the greater chance of fires. From November 1, 1899 to November 1, 1900, forty-one people died in fires. This spike in fire deaths was most likely attributed to the high density of tenement occupants and by extension, the increase in New York City immigrant population. Of all the fires that occurred in New York City, forty-seven percent of them took place in tenement houses and tenement buildings which made up only thirty-seven percent of buildings in New York City. Tenement buildings did not have fireproof cellars or stairways. Also, the fire escapes were ladders which were very difficult for the elderly, women, and children to use. The dismal fire situation worsened the image of tenement life and strengthened the need for reform[5].
The lower east side of Manhattan and the tenement houses were parts of the “hidden city” – the city not seen by tourists of the time. In New York City’s efforts to become a metropolitan city, it was recognized that these neighborhoods neededto be reformed and revitalized. Under a blanketof altruism, progressive reformers addressed the needs of the tenement communities while simultaneously carrying out the orders from wealthy citizens and city officials. Tourists flooded Manhattan streets for The Henry Hudson-Robert Fulton Celebration of 1909 and the commission of the parade wanted to present a clean and cultured city to its visitors.
Why repair the tenement house?
The Tenement House Commission described tenement houses as “centres of disease, poverty, vice, and crime, where it is a marvel, not that some children grow up to be thieves, drunkards, and prostitutes, but that so many should ever grow up to be decent and self-respecting”[6]. One of the reasons that reformers were concerned about the tenement houses was the fact that nearly two-thirds of New York City dwellers were living in these poorly lit, inadequately ventilated, and overcrowded buildings. But what exactly did this mean for New York City? Reformers looked past the immediate dangers and towards the long term consequences of the present day situation. Two-thirds of New York City residents were raising their children in dire conditions. These children were the future of New York and therefore there was a need to repair the tenement house system to ensure that they would not grow up to be criminals and delinquents. The overcrowded, poorly ventilated, and unhealthy air of the tenements was not elements of a happy childhood. More importantly, the small rooms (right, basement) combined with no outdoor space stripped children of their right to be children and of their right to play. These were remedies for children in the public schools they attended but their home situations needed to be alleviated as well.
Throughout history, the upper classes have always had a social fear of the lower classes and New York 1909 is not an exception. There were certainly more tenement dwellers than non-tenement dwellers. If they were to form a gang, they could easily overtake the city. While rebellions and chaos seemed concerns of the distant past, many were intimidated by the strength of numbers. Although, the chances of a popular rebellion were highly unlikely, it was still in the back of many New Yorkers’ minds. The reformers worried that so many of their fellow neighbors were living in conditions which were harmful to the social and moral needs of the human condition. They felt that the lack of morality which existed in tenement house conditions would spread like a disease throughout the inhabitants of the house. The men and women who lived in tenement house were vital assets to American democracy in that they represented two-thirds of voters of one of the most powerful cities. The Tenement House Commission of 1900 wrote: “The most terrible of all the features of tenement house life in New York, however, is the indiscriminate herding of all kinds of people in close contact, the fact, that, mingled with the drunken, the dissolute, the improvident, the diseased, dwell the great mass of te respectable working-men of the city with their families”[7]. The idea that the “respectable working-men” could be turned into men lacking morals and values by living in a tenement house was a frightening thought to the middle and upper classes. How could any of these people make a proper decision in an election living in these destitute conditions? A main goal of reformers was to preserve the democratic way of New York City (and by extension the entire United States) and to prevent anarchy and chaos that could stem from having a major part of the city living in ways that promoted social conditions that were detrimental to the human condition.
Government officials, influential businessmen, and reformers sought to enhance the image of New York. A huge obstacle to this was the tenement house. The appearance of the tenement house was dismal. Officials wanted a city of prosperity. The tenement houses and the condition of its dwellers were not a part of the idealized vision of New York. A city cannot prosper if its workers do not prosper – and the majority of the city lived in poor conditions. From a financial point of view, the abundant amount of tenement houses was considered an obstacle in the goal of making the city a financial power. The men and women of the tenements were the manual labor for the economy and thus, they were an essential part of the economy. However, the conditions of the tenement house were prohibiting them from performing their tasks. Malnutrition, lack of sleep, and disease could affect the quality of their work. Therefore government officials and leading businessmen in New York society were willing to do what they could to help eradicate the evils of the tenement house and promote an idealized version of New York City[8].
The Tenement House Exhibition of 1900 (below)
Lawrence Veiller was the head of the Charity Organization Society of New York City (CSO) and a prominent social worker during the Progressive Age. He organized the Tenement House Exhibition of 1900 as an effort to promote awareness of evils of the tenement houses hoping to bring about change. The two week exhibition was held in a building on Fifth Avenue and was viewed by people from all financial backgrounds. Veiller included maps, charts, photos, and important statistics regarding tenement house conditions. Also, he added a study of the tenements in America and in Europe. In Tenement House Reform 1834-1900, Veiller wrote that “the exhibition also included in its study of existing conditions in New York exhibits showing density of population, death rates prevailing in tenement districts, the distribution of nationality in the city, charts showing overcrowding, dangers from fire, health conditions, etc.”[9]. During the second week of the exhibition, there was a series of conferences discussing the tenement problem; the titles of those were “The Exhibition and Its meaning”, “Model Tenements”, “Improving Tenements by Personal Influence”, “The Tenements and Poverty”, “The Tenements and Tuberculosis”, “The People Who Live in the Tenements”, “The Duty of the City to the Tenement Dweller”. One of the most interesting exhibits was an actual model of an entire block of tenement houses in New York City. The block chosen was the area bounded by Chrystie, Forsyth, Canal, and Bayard Streets – a total area of 200 feet by 400 feet. This block had 39 tenement houses and 2,781 persons living in this location in total. This model also pointed out the evils of the tenement condition – overcrowding, poor ventilation and air quality, and disease. The Tenement House Exhibition of 1900 was a big step in exposing those who have never truly experienced tenement house conditions to the way of life for the poor[10]. This awareness permeated the upper echelons of New York and directly influenced the planning of the 1909 celebration.
Introduction to Progressive Reforms
In The Progressive Movement, Benjamin DeWitt writes that progressive reformers sought to improve 6 elements of the city: the natural physical characteristics of the city (there was a need for reform in the structure of the city in order to create a sophisticated city), the means of communication between the city and other cities, the means of communication within the city, the housing problem, the health of the cities inhabitants, and the need to provide recreation[11]. De Witt recognizes the importance of city to the progressive reformer. The city was seen as the heart of democracy and therefore it could not be allowed to deteriorate. In the eyes of progressives the large European migration of the late nineteenth century was seen as detriment to the welfare of the city[12]. The job of the reformers was to change the tenement structure and the entire tenement neighborhood (above, tenement room).
Tenement Reforms
The Tenement House Commission of 1900 summed up the problems with tenement housing: “insufficiency of light and air due to the narrow courts or air shafts, undue height, and to the occupation by the building or by the adjacent buildings of too great proportion of the lot area; danger from fire; lack of separate water-closet and washing facilities; overcrowding; foul cellars and courts and other like evils, which may be classed as bad housekeeping”[13]. These were the evils of the tenement houses that would be addressed by progressive reformers.
The former tenement house, known as the “dumb-bell” tenement, only provided light for four of fourteen rooms on each of the building. The Tenement House Commission of 1900 decided that the new tenement houses would have courts, or porches, in the back and front to allow light to enter the back rooms as well. Also, it was decided that the air-shafts would be removed which would provide new tenement houses with better ventilation. Twenty-six families would occupy the old tenement house but sixteen to twenty-two occupied the newer tenements and the maximum number of stories the building could be was six, rather than seven. In the old tenement families would share water-closets, bathes, and allowing for the spread of diseases. One of the reforms to the tenement house was a water-closet placed in each family’s apartment. One of the biggest reforms to the tenement house was the implementation of fire-proof structures. The public halls, and the stairs of the new tenement were both fireproof and the cellar in the basement was completely fireproof. In addition to this, the vertical ladder fire escapes were replaced with stairs which would be more accessible to women, children, and the elderly. The reforms to the tenement structure itself were effective but it was also imperative to reform the entire slum area of New York City[14]. (below)
Settlement Houses & A Need for Reform
The settlement house was a center of community composed of reformers who sought to correct the conditions of tenement housing. These reformers viewed themselves as “shaping the evolution of the race”[15]. Settlement houses were opened in city neighborhoods as early as 1886. The settlement house structure was not meant for charity, instead it was considered “a vigorous and intelligent effort to seek out and modify the causes which lie at the roots of pauperism and of the ‘social evil’”[16]. Settlement houses became a community area to which people could turn to for health inspections, sanitation education, recreation, education, and most importantly, for social betterment.
The settlement reformers recognized that there was a need to reform these slum neighborhoods. They viewed the tenement house evils as contagious and that prostitution, delinquency, and immorality could be spread in clothes or in food. Identifying the slum community conditions as a disease led to the idea that, like diseases, they can be cured. Thus, the settlement reformers saw the settlement houses as a place where the tenement house residents could escape the horrible conditions of their lives. Overall, the settlement house was seen as a community refuge for immigrants and slum dwellers.
The beginnings of the settlement start as early as 1876 when reformer Felix Adler founded the Society for Ethical Culture. Felix Adler (left) , born in Germany in 1851, migrated to the United States with his family in 1857. Adler was raised by his father, a rabbi in the Reform Judaism sect, and attended Columbia University. After he received his Ph.D. from the University of Berlin, he taught Hebrew Studies at Cornell University. Rather than following in his father’s footsteps, Adler founded the Society for Ethical Culture.
The main goal of the Society for Ethical Culture was to improve society and resting on the belief that there is a good in every person. The Society believed that the people of the community should depend on one another to initiate action. Adler and other Society members promoted the idea of a “social community” but Adler also felt that it was harmful to the immigrant “to be Americanized by being taught to obliterate his race history and race consciousness”[17]. Rather than promoting a homogeneous American identity, the Society for Ethical Culture accepted different ethnicities and hoped that they could work together to eliminate tenement evils. Speaking about the Society for Ethical Culture, reformer John Lovejoy Elliot said that “individuals are not separated in their purpose, neither are the groups; each has a contribution to make to the establishment of a better life”[18] (Kraus 52).
In 1877, the Society, working with Lillian Ward and the District Nursing Service, sent nurses in the homes of tenement dwellers to give medical inspections for those who could not afford one. The Society organized The Workingman School’s, which provided training in manual arts and served as an experiment center for education. The Workingman’s School innovative education methods were recognized by New York City public schools in the subjects of history and literature. In 1885 Felix Alder organized the Tenement House Building Company to build model tenements on Cherry Street in Manhattan. The tenements they built had a kindergarten room (since public schools did not have a kindergarten grade), a playground for children on the roof of each building, and club rooms.
The Society for Ethical Culture and the work of Felix Adler directly influenced Stanton Coit.Stanton Coit was born in Ohio, studied at Amherst and Columbia, and received his Ph.D. from Humboldt University of Berlin. Not only was Coit inspired by Alder’s Society but he also drew inspiration from Toynbee Hall, the first settlement house in England, founded in 1884. In September of 1886, Stanton Coit rented a four room apartment on the second floor of 146 Forsyth Street of the Lower East Side. These two floors started the Neighborhood Guild, the first settlement that was founded in Manhattan. Originally, Coit assumed that the Neighborhood Guild would help develop a sense of identity among German and Irish immigrants; he did not foresee the settlement houses becoming a huge success amongst all different immigrant groups.
Stanton Coit’s main goal for the settlement house (left, Union Hall) was to foster the idea of community identification for immigrants and other tenement inhabitants. In order to do that, Coit thought of the neighborhood as a series of units, which he called a neighborhood guild. The neighborhood guild was a group of adults and young people who would listen and carry out the wishes of the people that they represented. Often, the actions of the neighborhood guilds would be focused around the improvement of some kind of municipal service – sanitation, transportation, schools, and playgrounds[19]. Coit hoped that a community working together to improve municipal services would allow for community consciousness – which “existed where the people are familiar with everyone and everything in the area-fellow citizens, local officials, local institutions, regulations, laws, the budget, the tax rate, and the social mores” (Kraus 56). Coit’s Neighborhood Guild, which soon would become the University Settlement, strived to improve the immigrant condition in New York City.
From 1886 to 1914, thirty-six non-sectarian and ten religiously affiliated settlement houses were developed in the city. The major settlements, not including the University Settlement, were the College Settlement, the East Side House, the Henry Settlement, the Union Settlement, the Hudson Guild, the Hartley House, and the Greenich House. In The Settlement Idea, Arthur Cort Holden states that the five functions of the settlement are recreation, education, health, financial distress, and conduct[20]. During the Progressive Age, the settlements upheld these functions in order to better city inhabitants.
Children & Playgrounds
The progressive reformers looked at childhood as the most impressionable stage of a person’s life – the stage in which a person is molded into an adult. Similar to the belief that every man has goodness inside of him, there was a belief that there is no bad child and that juvenile delinquency was the city’s fault. Progressive reformers did not only better the lives of adults but also the lives of children (below)
Progressive reformers believed that the city had six obligations to the child: the preservation of life, the preservation of health, the opportunity to play, the freedom from toil, the education of children, and the care of dependent children. The preservation of health of children was extremely important to reformers because if a child was unhealthy, his or her education and training will be useless. Freedom from toil meant that children had the right to be children and not “little adults” and therefore, they should not have to work. In Problems of Child Welfare, George Benjamin Mangold writes that the child is not a commercial asset of the parents and that the relation is exactly reversed – parents should take care of their children until the child reaches a certain age[21]. However, this did not mean that children should be idle; the substitutes for idleness should be education and recreation. Mangold states that “low wages, poverty, unemployment, and shameful conditions of living all partly due to defective education”[22]. The care of children meant that every child “should have the opportunity to enjoy a parent’s care and fondness, since the home gives to childhood a service which no other agency can supply”[23] (Mangold 16). These progressive ideas about children and their needs for play were reflected in the Henry Hudson-Robert Fulton Celebration of 1909 – children participated in the festivities simply by playing in local playgrounds.
Every child should be awarded the opportunity to play. Play and recreation are a fundamental instinct among children; they promote the physical and mental development of the child and aid in his or her moral development. In fact, progressive reformers realized that recreation could help adults as well. In The Settlement Idea, Arthur Curt Holden writes that recreation creates relaxation which in turn creates better citizens[24] (Holden 50). In a crowded city like New York, space for play was scarce and children in tenements suffered from poor air quality and no recreation areas. Therefore, reformers took up the challenge of creating playground and parks.
In 1887, The Small Parks Act was passed; this authorized the Board Street Opening and Improvement of New York City to select and lay out several park areas south of 155th street in Manhattan. Also, the Tenement House Commission of 1894 devoted some time to the creation of small parks, and in 1895 there was a law passed to create parks below 14th street in Manhattan. For example, Hamilton Fish Park was created in 1900 and, located on Houston and Sheriff streets, while Seward Park (above) was placed at Canal and Jefferson streets. Also, the Tenement House Commission of 1894 decided that the mayor should appoint a commission that will locate park spaces. The mayor at the time, W.L. Strong, appointed this committee[25].
As of 1908, Greater New York had a total of 6776 acres dedicated for parks – 1343 acres in the boroughs of Manhattan and Richmond, 1573 acres in Brooklyn and Queens, and 3849 acres in the Bronx. It is important to note that a great percentage of the 1343 acres in Manhattan and Richmond made up Central and Riverside Park. Therefore, there was an extremely small amountof parks in the borough of Manhattan. In “Parks and Playgrounds for Tenement Districts”, Lawrence Veillerlists the small parks in Manhattan as of 1908: Corlears Hook Park, Hamilton Fish, Tompkins Square, East River Park, Hudson Park, Mulberry Bend, and Paradise Park. The total acreage of these parks is 40.221 acres and Veiller points out that 40.221 acres is too small of a recreation space for a population of over one million people[26]. The commission of the parade recognized the shortage of recreation space in the city and it is not surprising that during the parade the Palisades Park was dedicated as a park for public use. The progressive belief of the importance of the outdoors was also seen in the celebration – which was for the most part outdoors.
The committee would take several factors into consideration when deciding where to place a small park. Before officially designating a certain area for a park, the committee would look at the death-rate of the particular block, the character of tenement houses, the proximity to public schools or other education institutions, the distance from other parks, and the population density in the area[27]. Areas that were suffering the most from conditions overcrowded and disease were most likely to have a park placed in that neighborhood. However a park was not enough – there must be a recreation area included to give children the opportunity to play. Progressive reformers believed that the city owed the children their right to engage in healthy activity.
One of the biggest organizations for the creation of parks and playgrounds was The Outdoor Recreation League. The Outdoor Recreation League, a group composed of reformers, created Hudson Bank Playground on 53rd street and eleventh avenue and Seward Park on the lower east side. This group of reformers insisted that each park be equipped with a gymnastic apparatus, swings, and sandboxes for children. All of the parks created in the tenement neighborhoods of Manhattan provided an escape from the tenement life. Children were exposed to fresh air and social activity that in turn helped their mental and physical health. Discussing Seward Park, Lawrence Veiller wrote, “no one who had not personally visited Seward Park playground can appreciate what this opportunity for natural play means to the anemic, underfed, and mentally overdeveloped young people of the East Side”[28].
The Settlement Clubs & Games
The reformers behind the settlement houses looked for ways to eliminate the “street gang”. One of those ways was the playground movement – which enforced healthy activity. Another way was the “club movement” – reformers wanted to civilize the street gang and turn it into a club with morals and rules. Ultimately, the clubs and the structured games played by the clubs served as a way to civilize tenement youth. (below)
The “clubs” were the most typical part of any settlement house. A club was usually a group of young people who had a common interest and it was hoped that club members would develop lifelong friendships. Arthur Cort Holden, author of The Settlement Idea, wrote that “the club form is at first used to give expression and stability to the requirements of everyday social intercourse. It soon becomes a regular source of recreational enjoyment and in time its educational potentialities are realized”[29]. Settlement reformers saw clubs as safe recreation that would hopefully give tenement children and young adults a sense of community and a reason to stay off the streets.
Every club would meet in a room in a settlement house, and there was always an adult settlement worker who would serve as the club director. The club director acted as an overseer, but not as a leader and would give helpful suggestions for clubs rather than orders. As a whole, volunteers were seen as the better club directors since they had a genuine desire to help the settlement houses. Busier men and women were supposedly better club directors, since the club members could look up to someone who knew how to manage their time. Club directors were an extremely important asset to the club. The club should be thought of as a medium for which young adults could discover themselves. The social activity, companionship, and the club directors helped teenagers along his or her path.
The clubs of the settlement house were seen as a way to civilize the tenement child, who was considered to be most susceptible to the influence of street gangs. Similar to many progressive reforms that targeted the youth, the clubs were intended to be agents of Americanization. For example, the clubs were named after patriotic heroes or Indians tribes. There was no European ethnicity connected to any of the club names even though the participants were usually European. Some club names were Lincoln Volunteers or Lincoln Associates. Naming clubs after important American figures served as a history lesson for immigrant children. Clubs would also put on plays and sing songs that were historically American[30]. It is this creation of the “visual history lesson” that was used in the Henry Hudson and Robert Fulton Celebration of 1909. During the children’s festival, children were able to view and comprehend New York’s history with the procession of floats. The progressive notion of the importance of a unified history was also portrayed in the parade.
The settlement implemented the summer camp in order to provide a safe outlet for tenement children. In the summertime, many children were out on the streets and were unsupervised since both parents were working. Therefore, summer camps were considered extremely beneficial and were relatively inexpensive. Summer camp activities became extremely popular because they removed children and teenagers from their ordinary surroundings, which reinforced the friendship amongst those who participated. In order to build stronger social bonds, those who participated were separated based on their age and gender. There were divisions for young girls, young boys, older girls, older boys, and adults[31]. All of the divisions would come together for daily events such as meals. For meals, everyone would eat in a dining room with the company of a few residents who would keep the group activity running smoothly.
The summer camps were seen as a democratic experience for the reason that any two people, despite their previous experiences, could find some kind of common interest in the primitive outdoor life. Arthur Cort Holden describes how the summer camp and the settlement theory were related: “to share life with others, to find joys, simple though they may be, that can be shared with an ever widening circle, is to discover that men have things in common”[32]. Like the settlement houses, the summer camp created the idea of the community for children and young adults. It became an opportunity to show young boys and girls how shared experiences can make life more enjoyable and that human inter-dependence demonstrates the stability of society.
Conclusion
The slum and tenement conditions (below) of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century did not go ignored by progressive reformers. They were able to realize that with no relief, poverty could spread and lead to the disintegration of New York City. Thetenement reforms and the settlement house did not completely root out poverty. Reformers hoped to alleviate those conditions which produced disease and degenerates. The settlement houses were a means to create a community amongst the tenement youth. Through the tenement house and settlement house reforms, progressives were able to save the youth from delinquency and in turn save the democracy from chaos. The reforms and the preparations of the Henry Hudson-Robert Fulton Celebration of 1909 introduced the city to the plight of the lower classes and helped to create the world city that is New York.