Sick silver R8 parked in Carlton.

Youtube channel - www.youtube.com/MelbourneExoticSpota

A streamlined vessel drifts in an infinite expanse, evoking a sense of wonder as it navigates the quietude of the sky, challenging the constraints of earthbound existence.

The Peugeot 402 is a large family car produced by Peugeot in Sochaux, France, from 1935 to 1942. It was unveiled at the Paris Motor Show in 1935,[3] replacing the Peugeot 401.

 

The Peugeot 402 stands out in automotive design by its very streamlined, but also still somewhat Art Deco styling, strongly influenced by that of the 1934 Chrysler Airflow; especially the low-volume 402 Darl'mat coupé is viewed as distinctly Art Deco. Peugeot's 402 took it two steps further, however: the grille has an even more pronounced rake, but most importantly, Peugeot brought the headlights to the center, behind the grille, and in front of the radiator, sixteen years before the 1951 General Motors Le Sabre concept car. Contrary to Chrysler's Airflow, the Peugeot 402 wasn't a sales flop.

 

Furthermore, the 402 Éclipse décapotable, made in collaboration with Pourtout coachbuilders, was one of the world's first convertible hard-top production cars.

  

Peugeot 402 Eclipse décapotable (1938)

Despite being introduced some thirteen years after the demise of the 402 during World War II, the Peugeot 403 was clearly intended as the 402's successor, given that after the war, the market first needed cheaper and smaller, more frugal cars. Peugeot saw this and thus focused on their 202 and 203 models during the late 1940s and early 1950s.

 

A conservative innovator

The 402 was characterized by what became during the 1930s a "typically Peugeot" front end, with headlights well set back behind the grille. The style of the body was directly modelled on the Chrysler Airflow, which was seen as revolutionary at the time. Peugeot bought one or two Airflows to disassemble and study. Thus, the 402 received the soubriquet: 'Fuseau Sochaux' in France – this loosely translates to the "spindle or axis of Peugeot's main plant in Sochaux". Streamlining was a feature of French car design in the 1930s, as can be seen by comparing the Citroën Traction Avant or some of the Bugattis of the period, such as the Type 57, with predecessor models such as the Citroën Rosalie. Peugeot was among the first volume manufacturers to apply streamlining to the extent exemplified by the 402 and smaller Peugeot 202 in a volume market vehicle range.

 

Recessed ‘safety’ door handles also highlighted the car's innovative aspirations, as did the advertised automatic transmission and diesel engine options. Comparisons with Citroën's large family car of the time, the Traction Avant were and remain unavoidable. In that comparison, the basic underpinnings of the 402 remained conventional, based on known technologies, and presumably were relatively inexpensive to develop and manufacture: it was Citroën that in 1934 had been forced to sell its car manufacturing business to its largest creditor, Michelin. Sticking to a traditional separate chassis configuration also made it much easier for Peugeot's 402 to be offered with a wide range of different bodies.

 

Peugeot invested significantly in developing the car and in tooling up to produce it. The 402 was a popular seller by the standards of the time. It was also a large car and at the high end of the car market, and in advertising material of the time Peugeot evidently thought it important to highlight one or two tempting standard features, such as the twin windscreen wipers powered by their own electric motor, the semaphore-style trafficators, the clock included on the instrument panel, the twin sun visors and the switchable reserve section of the fuel tank.[4]

 

The range

 

Some sedans were converted into pickup truck and van versions, during and after the war.

Even by 1930s standards, the range of different 402 models based on the single chassis was large, comprising at one stage, by one estimate, sixteen different body types, from expensive steel bodied convertible cars, to family saloons which were among the most spacious produced in France.

 

An aspect of the all-steel car bodies that became mainstream among the larger European automakers in the 1930s was the very high initial cost associated with the heavy steel presses and the dies needed to cut and stamp pressed steel sheeting into the panels that, when welded together, would form a sufficiently rigid and robust car body. The wide range of car bodies was therefore carefully devised to maximise the sharing of panels between the different body variants listed.

 

Three chassis lengths

There were three different standard wheelbases of 2,880 mm (113 in) (short), 3,150 mm (124 in) (“normal”) and 3,300 mm (130 in) (long).

 

2,880 mm (113 in) “short” wheelbase (1937-1940)

When the 402 was launched in 1935 there were just two chassis lengths, but for 1937 the manufacturer added a third “short” chassis, inherited from the short-lived Peugeot 302. The short chassis was used from 1937 for the Peugeot 402 Légère (“light-bodied”).[5]

 

The Peugeot 402 Légère was first exhibited in July 1937 and was featured on the Peugeot stand in place of the Peugeot 302 at that year's October Motor Show.[5] The car combined the 2,880 mm (113 in) wheelbase and body from the Peugeot 302 with the larger 1991 cc engine of the Peugeot 402.[5] Whereas the 302 had produced a maximum output of 43 hp (32 kW) at 4,000 rpm, maximum power for the 402 Légère was listed as 55 hp (41 kW) still at 4,000 rpm.[5] That translated into a difference in listed top speed between 105 km/h (65 mph) and 125 km/h (78 mph).[6] The simple formula of combining one existing bodyshell with another engine that was also already in production enabled the manufacturer to produce an attractively brisk car with minimum investment. Approximately 11,000 were produced.

 

From the outside the 402 Légère was initially virtually indistinguishable from the 302.[5] However, on the front grille, whereas on the 302 the hole for the starting handle corresponded with the central digit in the car's name spelled out on bottom part of the front grille, on the 402 Légère it was necessary to position the hole for the starting handle below the “402” name badge because the engine itself was positioned very slightly higher.[5] An improvement over the 302 available to the driver, albeit only at extra cost, was the option of a Cotal pre-selector transmission, which could be controlled using a selector lever positioned directly behind the steering wheel, so that the driver needed to move his/her hand only minimally in order to change gear.[5]

 

Although sources tend to refer to the 402 Légère as a single model, there was nevertheless a choice of at least three bodies.[7]

 

Priced at 24,900 Francs in October 1937 was the four door “402 Légère berline” (saloon/sedan) using the body already familiar from the 302.[5] Not yet ready for presentation at the 1937 show, but nevertheless already priced (at 30,900 Francs) and advertised was the 402 Légère “coach”, which was a stylish thinner looking 2-door four seater car shaped somewhere between a sedan/saloon and coupe, with “glass on glass” side windows (allowing for the possibility, with the windows open, of a “pillarless” side profile) and front seats that tilted to permit access to the adequately spacious rear of the passenger cabin.[5] Represented at the motor show by a prototype which differed in certain details from the cars that actually appeared a few months later was the 402 Légère “décapotable” (soft-top convertible), priced at 31,900 Francs.[5] Both the “coach” and the “décapotable” bodied cars featured a slightly more streamlined look than the “berline”, and their stylishness was enhanced by “spats” covering the upper portions of the rear wheels.[5]

 

3,150 mm (124 in) “normal” wheelbase (1935-1942)

The standard bodied saloon/sedan (berline), first presented at the Paris Motor Show in the late Autumn of 1935 sat on the “normal” 3,150 mm (124 in) chassis and was advertised as a six-seater, the passengers being accommodated in two rows on bench seats in what was, by the standards of the time and place, an unusually wide car.[7] The four-door "berline" came as a "6 glaces" (six-light, ie three windows on each side) saloon/sedan.[7] In 1936 the price list showed the saloon as the least expensive of the normal wheelbase 402s, priced from 23,900 francs.[7]

 

Closely resembling the 402 berline "6 glaces", at first sight, was the 402 "normale commerciale" also offering seating for six people accommodated in two rows.[4] However, at the back, in place of the more usual panels, the “commerciale” featured a two-piece tailgate.[4] The rear of the cabin was described as being “transformable pour transport de marchandises” (transformable for transport of goods) which presumably would have involved lifting out the rear seat.[4] Later on there were also 402 commerciales exhibited with semi-squared off rear roof lines along the lines of a steel bodied station wagon/estate car conversion, but most of the 402 commerciales shared, from the side, the silhouette of the 402 saloon/sedan, presumably in order to avoid the cost of tooling up for volume-style production of a relatively small number of uniquely shaped body panels.[4]

 

Other models appearing on the “normal” wheelbase at the 1936 show included a Grand-luxe berline with a sliding steel sun roof, a 4/5 seater 2-door soft-top cabriolet priced in October 1936 at 30,900 francs, a 5/6-seater "coach" (elegant two-door saloon) priced at 29,900 francs, a 2/3-seater roadster at 27,900 francs and a "coupé transformable Éclipse", which was a steel-roofed convertible, priced at 34,900 francs.[4]

 

The Éclipse was significant as the first of many Peugeot coupés with a steel roof that would fold and stow in the boot/trunk.[1][4] The retractable hardtop mechanism had been designed, and in 1931 patented, by Georges Paulin. The mechanism was initially bulky by modern standards, and necessitated a very long tail end. Despite the generous length of the 3,150 mm (124 in) wheelbase, this first application of the technology came with just two seats. Interest in the Éclipse resurfaced more than half a century later with the reinvention of the retractable hardtop by the 1995 Mitsubishi 3000GT Spyder and subsequent popularization of the concept by cars such as the 1996 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class.[8] Peugeot resumed production of hardtop convertibles with the 2001 Peugeot 206 CC (Coupé Cabriolet).

 

Several of the body types were priced (and presumably costed) to be produced in relatively low volumes, and despite appearing at the Motor Show in October 1936, three had been delisted by the start of 1937.[4] The delisted variants were the 5/6-seater "coach", the 4/5-seat, 2-door soft-top cabriolet, and the steel-roofed "Coupé transformable Éclipse", although the third of these had already been effectively replaced in 1936 by a similar but even longer steel-roofed convertible Éclipse – now with seating for 4/5 people and using the longest of the 402's three chassis.[4]

 

3,300 mm (130 in) “long” wheelbase (1935-?1940)

The principal “long” Peugeot 402 in 1935 was the “402 Familiale”, closely resembling the “normal” length six light “berline, but with extra length used in the rear of the cabin to accommodate a third row of seats (“strapontins escamotables”) which could be folded away when not in use.[4]

 

By the time of the 1937 Motor show, in time for the 1938 model year, the 402 commerciale had also migrated from the “normal” to the “long wheelbase”.[7]

 

In addition, the manufacturer advertised a special taxi version of the long wheel base car, closely resembling the Familiale and of which, it was boasted in 1937, several thousand were already in service “in Paris and the [other] principal towns and cities in France or the colonies”.[4][9] Peugeot were slightly unusual among principal auto-makers at this time in never having acquired a Paris taxi business themselves, but the 402 taxi had nevertheless evidently been well received by independent taxi operators.

 

Much attention at the 1936 show also focused on the “402 cabriolet metallique decouvrable” which was a reincarnation of the Éclipse, but now using the 3,300 mm (130 in) “long” wheel base which made enough space for a (rather cramped) second bench seat.[7]

 

Light commercial van and utility variants of the 402 were also produced (or derived from conversion), and during the car's final years, during World War II, assumed increasing prominence within the range. Sources vary as to whether production was ended it 1942 or continued further, possibly till 1944...Wikipedia

These are a few Streamlined and Semi-streamlined steam locomotives in HO scale. All are brass, except the two British LNER locomotives. Pennsylvania Railroad T-1 4-4-4-4 by Alco Models

Preset Style = Streamlined

Format = 6" (Medium)

Format Margin = Small

Format Border = Sm. Rounded

Drawing = Technical Pen

Drawing Weight = Medium

Drawing Detail = Lower

Paint = Natural

Paint Lightness = Auto

Paint Intensity = Normal

Water = Tap Water

Water Edges = Medium

Water Bleed = Minimal

Brush = Natural Detail

Brush Focus = Everything

Brush Spacing = Wide

Paper = Plain

Paper Texture = Medium

Paper Shading = Light

Options Faces = Enhance Faces

The Times Square Building is a skyscraper designed by Voorhees, Gmelin, and Walker located in Rochester, New York. At 260 feet (79 m), it is the eighth tallest building in Rochester, with 14 floors.

The former Genesee Valley Trust Building is a streamlined twelve-story building supporting four aluminum wings 42 feet (13 m) high, each weighing 12,000 pounds (5,400 kg). These structures among the most distinctive features of the Rochester skyline.

The cornerstone of this bank was laid on October 29, 1929, the day the Stock Market Crashed.

Norfolk Southern operated N&W streamlined J-class 4-8-4 Northern steam locomotive # 611 leads its northbound Railfan Excursion Train into a tunnel portal on the main line route between Chattanooga and Oneida, Tennessee, October 1989. This route was formerly the property of the Southern Railway. After the train reaches Oneida and the people are feed in a park along with possible gifts being purchased, the Railfan Excursion Train will return to Chattanooga.

Jamaica Business Resource Center, 90-33 160th Street, Jamaica, Queens, New York City, New York, United States

 

La Casina is a rare surviving example of Streamlined Moderne design in New York City. The metal and stucco facade of this former nightclub and restaurant structure was constructed c. 1933, during the period of greatest popularity for the streamlined style. The building, erected in the heart of Jamaica’s commercial center, is representative of the many entertainment facilities built in Jamaica during the first decades of the twentieth century as this area developed into the commercial and entertainment hub for Queens County and nearby sections of Long Island. Although altered over the years, the La Casina Building has been beautifully restored and is again one of the most distinctive structures in Jamaica’s business district.

 

Development of Jamaica

 

Jamaica, one of the oldest settlements within the boundaries of New York City, developed into the leading commercial and entertainment center of Queens County. The Dutch purchased land in Jamaica from the Jameco (also spelled Jemeco) Indians in 1655. The following year, Governor Peter Stuyvesant granted a charter to the town, originally known as Rusdorp.

 

Following the transfer of power from the Dutch to the English in 1664, Rusdorp was renamed Jamaica, after the original Indian inhabitants of the region. Queens County (incorporating present-day Queens and Nassau Counties) was chartered in 1683. The English established Jamaica as the governmental center of Queens County, with a court, county clerk’s office, and parish church (Grace Church; the present structure, dating from 1861-62, is a designated New York Landmark). Outside the town center, Jamaica was largely an area of farm fields and grazing land for cattle. The rural village was officially incorporated by New York State in 1814.

 

Jamaica’s central location in Queens County and the extensive transportation network that developed in the town during the nineteenth century, resulted in the transformation of the community into the major commercial center for Queens County and much of eastern Long Island. It was the arrival of the railroads that began this transformation. The roads and rail lines connecting Jamaica with other sections of Queens County, with Brooklyn to the west, eastern Long Island, and ferries to New York City had a tremendous impact. Jamaica’s farmland was soon being subdivided into streets and building lots, and new homes were erected.

 

By the turn of the century, Jamaica’s importance as a commercial area became evident in the impressive buildings beginning to appear on Jamaica Avenue, most notably the Beaux-Arts Jamaica Savings Bank Building (Hough & Deuell, 1897-98), 161-02 Jamaica Avenue. After Jamaica was incorporated into the borough of Queens and became a part of New York City on January 1, 1898, additional transportation improvements brought increasing numbers of people. As a result, the population of Jamaica quadrupled between 1900 and 1920.

 

It was during the 1920s, when the major mass transit links were in place, and during a period when private automobile ownership was growing at an extraordinary rate, that Jamaica experienced its major expansion as a commercial and entertainment center. By 1925, Jamaica Avenue between 160th Street and 168th Street had the highest assessed valuation in Queens County.

 

During the 1920s and early 1930s, many small- scale commercial buildings were erected in Jamaica, as well as several major office and commercial structures, including the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce Building (George W. Conable, 1928-29) on 161st Street; the Title Guarantee Company Building (Dennison & Hirons, 1929), 90-04 161st Street; and the J. Kurtz & Sons Store (Allmendinger & Schlendorf, 1931; a designated New York City Landmark) on Jamaica Avenue. In addition, Jamaica developed into a significant entertainment center. By the mid-1930s, there were at least eight movie theaters on or just off of Jamaica Avenue, and there were over sixty restaurants, bars, and clubs, ranging from small ethnic taverns to elegant restaurants. It was within this bustling commercial and entertainment setting that La Casina opened.

 

The Nightclub:

 

A Brief Examination of Its History and Design

 

During the late 1920s and 1930s, the nightclub became a prominent and romantic symbol of New York’s nightlife. While partially based on the reality of the city’s exclusive clubs and restaurants, the nightclub image was largely a fantasy based on Hollywood’s interpretation of these elegant establishments. Nightclubs and restaurants with live shows began to appear in New York City in the late 1920s as the enforcement of Prohibition ebbed. With the end of Prohibition in 1933, nightclubs proliferated." As nightclubs and restaurants with live shows grew in popularity, their designs became increasingly elegant. Clubs and related restaurants such as the Central Park Casino, the Persian Room, the Rainbow Room, El Morocco, the 21 Club, and the Stork, catered to an exclusive clientele. While most New Yorkers could not afford to patronize these establishments, they were well known through newspaper gossip columns, magazines, and other popular media outlets.

 

Movies such as Broadway (1929), Puttin’ on the Ritz (1930), Gold Diggers of 1935 (1935), Broadway Melody of 1936 (1935), and Swing Time (1936) created a romantic image of nightclubs with Modeme and Art Deco decor incorporating streamlined walls and ceilings, glistening mirrored floors, and elegantly appointed revelers. Perhaps in homage to popular Latin dances, many of these clubs, both real and cinematic, were given Spanish- sounding names.

 

Although modest in scale, La Casina was designed to fit the image of the up-to-date night spot. The club and restaurant was provided with a Latin name and its streamlined design echoes, in miniature, the elegant clubs enjoyed vicariously by patrons as they viewed movies at their local movie palaces.

 

La Casina: The Site and the Design of the Building

 

La Casina is located on 160th Street between Jamaica Avenue and 90th Avenue. Located only a few blocks from the center of Jamaica, 160th Street was initially developed with modest frame buildings, most erected as residences but later converted for commercial use. In 1907, the Queens Borough Real Estate Exchange erected a neo-Classical style brick and limestone office building designed by Tuthill & Higgins at 90-33 160th Street.

 

The building was purchased in 1918 by Arnold Behrer, Jr., and Clarence Behrer. On November 1, 1932, the Behrers leased the site to Bernard Levy and La Casino, Inc., for a period of four years (until 1936). According to the lease agreement, the building was "to be used and occupied only as a restaurant, cabaret, beer garden, casino and dance hall." The rent rose from $1,800 a year the first year to $3,000 during the fourth year. All alterations made to the building by the lessee had to be approved by the owner.

 

The La Casino Supper Club opened in 1933. It first appeared in the Queens telephone directory for winter 1933-34. Apparently, the club was only open for a short time since it did not appear in the telephone directory for winter 1934-35. The club reopened by May 1936. Telephone directory listings continued to call the establishment the La Casino Restaurant. However, the weekly La Casina Journal, published by the establishment, spelled the name with an "a" and also referred to the La Casina Restaurant and Supper Club in its text. The work undertaken to create the present streamlined design was an alteration of the original building, but no surviving alteration application has been located that specifically notes the construction of a new front. Several permits for small alterations were issued in 1933, and one of these may have included the new facade.

 

La Casina was designed in the Streamlined Modeme style which became popular in America in the 1930s.' Although it initially appeared on residential buildings, the Streamlined Moderne style was soon adapted for commercial buildings since the dramatic massing and dynamic stripped forms drew attention and, therefore, brought people to the buildings. The style was popular for relatively small-scale public buildings, especially those that were erected for businesses that relied on a large paying clientele.

 

These businesses included hotels, such as those in Miami Beach; theaters, such as the Pan Pacific Auditorium in Hollywood; movie theaters, notably those designed by S. Charles Lee; bus depots, such as the Greyhound Bus Terminal in Washington, D.C.; and roadside structures such as auto showrooms, motels, and diners. Historian Martin Greif characterized the Streamlined Moderne (also sometimes referred to as Depression Modem) as "an art stripped bare of all ornamentation. . . . Ideally, the Depression Modern style was spare . .

 

. without a single detail that could be called extraneous, without any embellishment, without a line that did not seem inevitable."

 

With its smooth planes of stucco, dynamic ziggurat massing, sweeping bands of metal, and its lack of applied ornamentation, the La Casina building fits Greifs description of the ideal streamlined structure. The streamlined mode was an appropriate choice for La Casina, not only providing an up-to-date image for the establishment, but also creating a noticeable form for the small midblock structure, one that would attract attention from busy Jamaica Avenue. This was heightened by the use of a bright projecting vertical neon sign announcing the nightclub’s presence.

 

La Casina: The Restaurant and Nightclub

 

La Casina offered dining, dancing, and entertainment. According to the La Casina Journal, La Casina offered three shows a night performed by the La Casina Adorables and the La Casina Swing Melo-Dears. The club also featured special guests such as Maureen Rio, the Broadway star of Earl Carroll’s Sketch Book? There was no cover charge and the club offered free parking.

 

The Journal noted such special events as "Celebrity Night"; "Democratic Night" and "Republican Night" (at the latter two evenings guests were to meet primary candidates); and "Bowery Night," where guests were to dress in old clothes, men were to arrive unshaven, and all were to be entertained by Diamond L’il, Cuspidor Carrie, Fishface Fanny, Gashouse Gertie, Willie the Gonof, Little Annie Rooney, Champagne Lil, and Limehouse Lou.

 

Later History

 

La Casina (or a facility with a similar name) occupied the building until about 1938; the last entry in the telephone directory is for winter 1937-38. In 1940, Arnold Behrer, Jr., lost the property in a legal proceeding to the mortgagor, the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. A tax photograph taken by New York City in 1940 shows "For Rent" signs in the picture windows of the club.

 

In 1942, the building was sold to the Church of God of Greater New York, Inc., although it does not appear to have ever been used as a church (the Church of God was headquartered on 224th Street). The use, if any, of the building in the early 1940s is not known.

 

In 1946, the former nightclub was sold to Polly Foundations, Inc., which converted the building into a factory that manufactured Ladyform bras. In 1952, the building was purchased by the Ellen Howard Corporation which manufactured Roxanne swim suits in the building until c.1987.

 

At some point, probably in the 1960s or 1970s, the galvanized-iron cladding of the ziggurat was covered in aluminum siding. The building was vacated in the late 1980s and deteriorated. In 1989, the Greater Jamaica Development Corporation acquired the former home of La Casina. A restoration was undertaken in 1994-95 under the guidance of the architectural firm of Li-Saltzman.

 

The restoration entailed the removal of the aluminum siding, the replacement of the deteriorated galvanized iron with aluminum that matched the form of the original, the restoration of the stucco at the lower level to its original colors, the removal of historically and stylistically inappropriate glass block windows and their replacement with historically accurate plate-glass windows, and the restoration of the tile flanking the entrance and of the original doors and glass entrance surround. The original vertical sign was conserved and encased within a new sign. The building now houses the Jamaica Business Resource Center.

 

Description

 

La Casina is a one-story symmetrical structure with a two-tiered streamlined facade in the form of a stepped pyramid or ziggurat. The base of the pyramid is set parallel to the sidewalk. This section of the building is faced with stucco.

 

The stuccoed portion of the facade is divided into a lower section that is painted gray and an upper section painted coral (paint studies determined the historical accuracy of these colors). The base is punctuated by a central entrance that is set back from the sidewalk within a five-stepped enframement clad in glazed black tiles at the lower section; the upper section is coral-colored stucco.

 

The entrance contains its original wood and glass double doors with very large vertically-placed bronze handles supported by silver-metal upper and lower stepped brackets. The doors are set within a frame of opaque black glass. The entrance bay is flanked by rectangular windows.

 

During the restoration, glass blocks that were crudely installed, probably when the building became a factory in the 1940s, were removed and replaced with historically accurate undivided plate glass. In addition, a shallow ramp for handicapped access has been added in front of the building.

 

Directly above the entrance is a curving streamlined frontispiece. It is divided into six wide horizontal bands with seven raised narrower bands covering the joints. To either side of this frontispiece is a six-layer stepped ziggurat. The frontispiece and flanking ziggurats were originally clad in smooth galvanized sheet metal attached to a wooden frame. The metal may originally have been painted gray. During the restoration, the deteriorated galvanized metal was replaced with shiny bands of aluminum.

 

Attached to the Building is the original vertical neon sign. This sign, which retains the words "La Casina" (an "o" for "casino" overlaps the "a"), "Ladyform Bras," "Swim Suits," and "Roxanne Swim Suits,” has been encased in a new aluminum sleeve with the "JBRC" initials of the Jamaica Business Resource Center in neon.

 

- From the 1996 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The origins of the Saab 19 date back before the onset of WWII. At that time, the Swedish Air Force (Flygvapnet) was equipped with largely obsolete Gloster Gladiator (J 8) biplane fighters. To augment this, Sweden ordered 120 Seversky P-35 (J 9) and 144 P-66 Vanguard (J 10) aircraft from the United States.

However, on 18 June 1940, United States declared an embargo against exporting weapons to any nation other than Great Britain. As the result, the Flygvapnet suddenly faced a shortage of modern fighters.

Just in time, Saab had presented to the Ministry on Sep 4th 1939 a fighter that had been meant to replace the obsolete Gloster Gladiators. The aircraft carried the internal development code ‘L-12’ and had been designed in collaboration with US engineers in Sweden, who were to aid with license production of Northrop 8-A 1s and NA-16-4 Ms.

 

The L-12 looked very much like the contemporary, Japanese Mitsubishi A6M “Zero” (which had been seriously considered by the Flygvapnet, but import or license production turned out to be impractical). The aircraft was a very modern all-metal construction with fabric covered control surfaces. The L-12 was to be powered by a 1.065 hp Bristol Taurus and maximum speed was calculated to be 605 km/h. Its relatively heavy armament consisted of four wing-mounted 13.2mm guns and two synchronized 8 mm MGs on top of the engine, firing through the propeller arc.

 

The design was quickly approved and the new aircraft was to be introduced to the Flygvapnet as the ‘J 19A’. Production aircraft would be outfitted with a more powerful Bristol Taurus II, giving 1.400 hp with 100-octane fuel and pushing the top speed to 630 km/h. But the war’s outbreak spoiled these plans literally over night: the L-12 had to be stopped, as the intended engine and any import or license production option vanished. This was a severe problem, since production of the first airframes had already started at Trollhättan, in the same underground factory where the B 3 bomber (license-built Ju-86K of German origin with radial engines) was built. About 30 pre-production airframes were finished or under construction, but lacked an appropriate engine!

 

With only half of a promising aircraft at hand and the dire need for fighters, the Swedish government decided to outfit these initial aircraft with non-license-built Wright R-2600-6 Twin Cyclone radial engines with an output of 1.600 hp (1.194 kW). The fuselage-mounted machine guns were deleted, due to the lack of internal space and in order to save weight, and the modified machines were designated J 19B. This was only a stop-gap solution, though. P&W Twin Wasp engines had also been considered as a potential power plant (resulting in the J 19C), but the US didn't want to sell any engines at that time to Sweden and this variant never materialized.

 

An initial batch of 24 J 19B aircraft was eventually completed and delivered to F3 at Lidköping in late 1940, while airframe construction was kept up at small pace, but only seven more J 19Bs were completed with R-2600 engines. Uncompleted airframes were left in stock for spares, and further production was halted in mid 1941, since the engine question could not be solved sufficiently.

 

The J 19B proved to be a controversial aircraft, not only because of its dubious engine. While it was basically a fast and agile aircraft, the heavy R-2600 engine was rather cumbersome and not suited for a fighter. Handling in the air as well as on the ground was demanding, due to the concentration of weight at the aircraft’s front – several J 19Bs tipped over while landing. As a consequence, the J 19B simply could not live up to its potential and was no real match for modern and more agile fighters like the Bf 109 or the Spitfire – but the Swedish equipment shortages kept the machines in service throughout WWII, even though primarily in a ground attack role and fulfilling other secondary line duties.

 

Towards the end of WWII, the J 19’s intended role was eventually filled by the indigenous FFVS J 22 fighter – ironically, it was outfitted with a license-built P&W Twin Wasp. By that time, about forty J 19 airframes were more or less complete, just lacking a proper engine. Mounting the now available Twin Wasp to these had seriously been considered, but the aircraft’s performance would not suffice anymore. Consequently, a thorough modification program for the J 19 was started in late 1944, leading to the post-WWII J 19D.

 

The J 19D was another stopgap program, though, and the economical attempt to bring the fighter’s performance on par with contemporary fighters like the American P-47 or the P-51; both of these types had been tested and considered for procurement, and the P-51 was eventually ordered in early 1945 from US surplus stock as the J 26, even though deliveries were postponed until 1946. The J 19D was to bridge the time until the J 26 was fully introduced, and would later serve in the attack role.

 

Since the J 19 airframe could not take a large and powerful radial engine like the R-2800, Saab made a radical move and decided to integrate an inline engine – despite the need for some fundamental changes to the airframe. The choice fell on the Packard V-1650, the same engine that also powered the J 26 fighters, so that procurement, maintenance and logistics could be streamlined.

 

Integration of the very different engine necessitated a complete re-design of the engine attachment architecture, a new, streamlined cowling and the addition of a relatively large radiator bath under the fuselage. A new four blade propeller was introduced and enlarged, all-metal stabilizers were integrated, too, in order to compensate the changed aerodynamics induced by the new radiator arrangement (which made the aircraft pitch down in level flight). A new bubble canopy with minimal framing was introduced, too, offering a much better all-round field of view for the pilot.

 

Even though the inline engine had a lower nominal output than the J 19B’s heavy R-2600, performance of the J 19D improved appreciably and it became, thanks to improved aerodynamics, a better overall weight distribution, more agile – finally living up to its original design plans, even though its performance was still not outstanding.

Armament was upgraded, too: the inner pair of wing-mounted 13.2mm machine guns was replaced by 20mm Bofors cannons (license-built Hispano-Suiza HS.404), considerably improving weapon range and firepower. Under the outer wings, hardpoints could take a pair of 250 kg bombs, 300 l drop tanks or up to eight 50 kg bombs and/or unguided missiles.

 

After WWII, the J 19B survivors were kept in service and soldiered on until 1948, when all remaining aircraft were scrapped. Wright was also paid the overdue license fees for the originally unlicensed engines. The J 19D served together with the J 22 and J 26 fighters until 1950, when all of these piston engine fighters were gradually replaced by de Havilland Vampires (J 28) and the indigenous J 29 Tunnan, which rapidly brought the Swedish Air Force into the jet age. The last four J 19Ds, used as liaison aircraft at F 8 at Barkarby, were retired in 1954.

  

Saab J 19A General characteristics

Crew: One

Length: 9.68 m (31 ft 8 1/2 in)

Wingspan: 12.0 m (39 ft 4 in)

Height: 3.05 m (10 ft 0 in)

Wing area: 22.44 m² (241.5 ft²)

Empty weight: 1,630 kg (3,590 lb)

Loaded weight: 2,390 kg (5,264 lb)

Aspect ratio: 6.4

 

Powerplant:

1× Packard V-1650-7 liquid-cooled V-12, with a 2 stage intercooled supercharger,

rated at 1,490 hp (1,111 kW) at 3,000 rpm

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 640 km/h (397 mph) at 4.550 m (14.930 ft)

Cruise speed: 380 km/h (236 mph)

Landing speed: 140 km/h (90 mph)

Range: 1.500 km (930 mi; 810 nmi)

Service ceiling: 11.800 m (38.650 ft)

Rate of climb: 15.9 m/s (3,125 ft/min)

 

Armament:

2× 20 mm Bofors (Hispano-Suiza HS.404) cannons with 120 RPG

2× 13.2 mm (0.53 in) M/39A (Browning M2) machine guns with 500 RPG

Underwing hardpoints for an ordnance of 500 kg (1.100 lb), including a pair of 300 l drop tanks,

two 250 kg (550 lb) bombs, eight 50 kg (110 lb) bombs or eight unguided missiles.

  

The kit and its assembly

This is actually the second J 19 I have converted from a Hobby Boss A6M – and this build addresses two questions that probably nobody ever asked:

● What would a Mitsubishi Zero with an inline engine look like?

● Could the fictional Swedish aircraft have survived WWII, and in which form?

 

The Saab J 19 never saw the hardware stage, but it was a real life project that was eventually killed through the outbreak of WWII and the lack of engines mentioned in the background above. Anyway, it was/is called the “Swedish Zero” because it resembled the Japanese fighter VERY much – wing shape, fuselage, tail section, even the cockpit glazing!

 

This build/conversion was very similar to my first one, which ended up as a J 19B with an R-2600 engine from a Matchbox B-25 Mitchell bomber. However, due to the later time frame and different donor parts at hand things took a different route – this time, the key idea was the modernization/update of a rather outdated airframe, and the old J 19B model was the benchmark.

 

Again, much of the literally massive(!) Hobby Boss Zero was taken OOB, but changes this time included:

● The nose/cowling from a Matchbox P-51D

● A modified ventral radiator bath from a HUMA Me 309

● New horizontal stabilizers from a Griffon Spitfire

● A new propeller (Pavla resin parts for a post WWII P-51D/K with uncuffed blades)

● OOB main landing gear was inverted, so that the wheel discs face inwards

● New main wheels from an AZ Models Spitfire, IIRC

● New retractable tail wheel, from a Bf 109 G; the arrestor hook opening was closed

● A vacu canopy for a late mark Hawker Typhoon, plus some interior details behind the seat

 

In order to adapt the Mustang’s nose to the slender and circular A6M fuselage, a wedge plug was inserted between the fuselage halves from the Matchbox kit and a styrene tube added inside as a propeller mount. The latter, a resin piece, received a long metal axis and can spin freely.

 

For the new bubble canopy the cockpit opening and the basic interior was retained, but the dorsal section around the cockpit re-sculpted with putty. Took some time, but worked well and everything blends surprisingly well into each other – even though the aircraft, with its new engine, somehow reminds me of a Hawker Hurricane now? From certain angles the whole thing also has a P-39 touch? Weird!

  

Painting and markings

Again the dire question: how to paint this one? Once more I did not want to use a typical olive green/light blue Swedish livery, even though it would have been the most plausible option. I eventually settled for a pure natural metal finish, inspired by the post-WWII J 26/Mustangs in Swedish service, which furthermore carried only minimal tactical markings: roundels in six positions, the Flygflottilj number on the fuselage and a colored letter code on the tail, plus a spinner in the same color. Very simple and plain, but with more and more Swedish whiffs piling up, I am looking for as much camouflage/livery diversity as possible, and an NMF machine was still missing. :D

 

All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 02, and for the NMF I used my personal “recipe” with a basis of Revell 99 (Aluminum, acrylics) plus a black ink wash, followed by panel post-shading with Humbrol “Polished Aluminum” Metallizer (27002), rubbing/polishing with a soft cotton cloth and finally and a light rubbing treatment with grinded graphite for weathering effects and a worn, metallic shine of the surfaces.

 

Around the exhaust stubs, slightly darker panels were painted with Revell Acyrlics 91 (Iron) and ModelMaster Magnesium Metallizer. A black anti glare panel was added in front of the cockpit (P-51 style). The green propeller boss was painted with a mix of Humbrol 3 and 131 – emulating the color of the green code letter on the fin as good as possible.

 

The decals were puzzled together; the bright roundels belong to a Swedish Fiat CR.42, from a Sky Models sheet. The “8” on the fuselage comes from an early WWII Swedish Gloster Gladiator code (SBS Models), while the green “E” is an RAF code letter from a Heller Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XVI – actually a total print color disaster, since this deep green is supposed to be Sky!? For better contrast on the Aluminum the letter was placed on a white background, created from single decal strips (generic material from TL Modellbau).

 

After some soot stains around the exhaust stubs and the fuselage flanks with more graphite, as well as around the gun muzzles, the kit was sealed with a 4:1 mix of gloss and matt acrylic varnish, only the anti glare panel and the propeller blades became 100% matt. Some more matt varnish was also dabbed over the soot stains.

  

So, another J 19, and the “Zero with an inline engine” looks pretty strange – not as streamlined as other late WWII designs like the P-51 or Griffon-powered Spitfires, yet with a modern touch. The NMF livery looks a bit boring, but the unusual green code (used by liason J 26s from F 8 and some rare 4th or 5th divisions) is a nice contrast to the bright and large Swedish roundels, underlining the pretty elegant lines of the converted Zero!

Westmont IL / Downtown

Cruisin’ Nights & Street Fair

 

The late 30's and early 40's was when the manufacturers starred recessing headlight on cars

 

1940 Ford Deluxe

The history of the base ZIL-111 started in 1956. ZIL-111D with a body "convertible" is a modified ZIL-111G with a body "limousine" produced since 1962, which in turn was a modification of the basic model ZIL-111.

 

The first car to receive the (still unofficial) this index was constructed in 1948, the ZIS-110M number 5. He is the only five cars in this series had a streamlined body with a single pontoon sidewalls, similar in appearance to the body "Packard Clipper" in 1947. Second ZIS-111 "Moscow" appeared in the early 1950s, he was a creation of designer Valentin zilovskogo sprout. It was built only two or three copies, one of which was shown at the Exhibition of Economic Achievements. At the exhibition visitors, this car did not cause great pride in the domestic auto industry. Frankly American car-like "Buick" of the late 1940s, nothing but a big bird on the hood, did not attract attention, and generally looked mediocre.

 

In the early 1950s in the American automotive industry has arisen a tendency to change the annual lineup. As a rule, these changes were only the exterior and interior, chassis remained the same for several years. Keep up with such a rapid fashion could not even Europe, not to mention the Soviet Union with its planned economy. Indeed, the car just did, put on the conveyor belt - and the next year to change all the seals, snap-in, spend millions of rubles for the sake of fashion. The only solution here was to create a machine progressive enough to "margin of safety" was enough for a few years.

 

Knowing this and seeing that the plant itself could not find a worthy replacement for veteran ZIS-110 ZIS leadership decided to hold a competition to create a project perspective the car - ZIS-111 new generation. Among a number of proposals liderovali two projects already built by ZIS-111 "Moscow" sprout and experienced car with the outline of "Packard" 1955 model year, a young designer from the LM Yeremeyev.

 

It was a clash of different schools, different approaches: a, zilovskogo, and another, dared to revise established views of the plant. Battles have been hot. ZIS sprout had already been built and almost ready to launch into production, but the option Eremeeva turned much more fresh and sovremennym.V finally won Yeremeyev. After the germ left the factory.

 

In 1956, a design project Yeremeyev was embodied in the life-size clay. In 1957, a new car under the name of ZIL-111 was released (in 1956, died IA Likhachev, and the plant was renamed in his honor). In a metal machine was a beautiful, yet rigorous. The front part was like at the same time, "Packard" and "Mercury" 1955-1956 period, while at the same time, comparing favorably to both of them. A much more elegant than the "Packard", and more representative than the "Mercury", he became the personification of the Soviet Union period, thaw. Large glass area and a panoramic windshield missed a lot of light into the cabin. Located on the side molding and sagittal "gill slits" are copied from the "Imperial" in 1956 (on a batch molding ZIL-111 was replaced by a figure known to us gulls). The rear portion was done in the style of "Packard." Large vertical lights, covered wings, reminiscent of the arches of Gothic cathedrals.

 

In 1958, with some modifications ZIL-111 went into the series. The designs of the ZIL-111 was not just a step forward compared to the ZIS-110, it was a real breakthrough. ZIS-110 was a design in 1941 and ZIL-111 is fully consistent with the requirements of 1955. During this period the automobile world of America has replaced three basic models, and by 1955 in the technological sense of the early machines of the 1940s has disappeared. New ZIL, like its predecessor, remained framed machine, this is probably where the similarities end there. New gasoline V-shaped eight-cylinder engine with a cast iron block and aluminum cylinder heads weighed 350 kg and gave 200 hp (ZIS-110 - 140 hp).

 

For the first time on a serial domestic car was installed two-speed automatic transmission with push-button control. The car was much lower. Due to the increased width of the bodywork and interior remodeling space in the car became more, respectively, the passengers could accommodate much more comfortable than its predecessor.

 

In 1959, the series went to changed ZIL-111 with the installation of domestic air-conditioning, called ZIL-111A. Cooled air conditioning and reduced humidity in the cabin when the outdoor temperature exceeds 18 ° C. The engine ZIL-111A also has an index, "111A" - it was connected with the installation of the compressor and some changes in the design of the drive components. Externally, ZIL-111A can be distinguished on the back nepanoramnomu glass, it was done in conjunction with the installation of the sides of the rear window air conditioner.

 

In 1960 appeared convertible ZIL-111V: big seven-seater had a canvas awning and 4 side lifting windows in chrome frames. The rise of the windows, as well as the rise of the curtain, implementation-lyalsya through a hydraulic drive. Tent, as in chaise ZIS-110B, in the folded position is covered by a decorative leather cover, and additional seating - straponteny - had double back with equal halves. Special gray convertible ZIL-111V changed carriages at parades ZIS-110B. Convertibles "111V" issued three years before putting on stream next modification ZIL-111G.

 

There is a version that the next change in the appearance of the vehicle was conducted at the request of Khrushchev, who noticed that the car is head of state (ZIL-111) does not differ from machine chairman executive committee (GAZ-13 "The Seagull"). In 1961 he was a prototype car, which is similar in form to the "Cadillac", but for unknown reasons, the series did not go. In the same year the car has undergone yet another facelift, and took its final form. The car went into production in 1962 and was called ZIL-111G. In fact, this is the same, "111A" with air conditioning, but with modified external forms. Starting with the ZIL-111G, air-conditioning became standard equipment and is not designated as a separate model of the plant. Externally, ZIL-111G is not copied any particular car, and was fully established factory designers, albeit with an eye to the American automotive industry trends. At the "111G" was used chetyrehfarnaya lighting system front and rear. And two round rear lights have been borrowed from the ZIL-118, "Youth". The front and rear of the car have been completely changed. The central part is the same, except for the outer door panels, stylized in accordance with other external changes. The sidewall of the machine reappeared sagittal molding that goes from the big corrugated lining behind the rear wheel arches. Uppercase words "one hundred and eleven Zeal" on the rear wing gave way to a laconic "ZIL-111." On the radiator grille has disappeared with bas-relief image of a seagull Yuri Dolgoruky, but instead of a shield, stylized medieval tower with an inscription at the top - "ZIL", and at the bottom - "111" there was a simple inscription "111" with diverging rays. In the back of the emblem in the form of the same shield with radiating been replaced individually mounted letters "W", "U", "L". Due to the changes required a new bumper jack: the old captured the special eyelets in the bumper, the new well was placed under the vehicle frame. Instead of manually screw jack ZIL-111 was designed and built pedal mechanical folding type jack 2E111G jack "Cadillac" of 1961. The same jack, with minor modifications, all future manned cars ZIL.

 

ZIL-111D appeared in 1964 as a modification of the ZIL-111V with the forms of ZIL-111G. The first automobile ZIL-111D chassis number 82 was collected in July 1964. It was installed upgraded brakes. The awning was a soft top ply fabric stretched over the arches and lateral levels of the framework. Each tent is individually adjustable frame units to ensure trouble-free operation. Fabric awning was attached with nails to the cardboard inserts front bar, rear arches and rear side belt body. To shape and further stretch an awning had padded jackets side. Inside the transverse arch were closed to them suspended upholstery, has a longitudinal rubber bands, which protects the fabric from sagging during raising and lowering the canopy. In the back of the tent was provided a window of a flexible plastic film, which was attached to an awning on three sides with zips. The window could detach and drop down. Tent rose and fell with elektrogidravliche-ray drive. The whole process of raising and lowering the canopy occupied 7-7.5 seconds. To fix the canopy in the raised position had lever locks and latches. Lever locks your brackets to the front awning bar and catch on the corresponding recesses in the bracket is fastened to the top of the wind frame. On rack locks were locking pins, which when lifting the tent included in the special slot in the bracket, fixed to the wind frame. Pins, clips were used to prevent lateral displacement of the tent. When folded tent fit into the slot and the closed cover, which is fastened to the outside of the body with the buttons, and the inside of the pawned between the awning and the rear seat and fasten to the inner sidewalls buttons. To shape the bags under his tent folded stacked lightweight bag, made of porous plastic. In the raised position canopy cover was removed and stacked in a special envelope, and the pillow and contracts evolved a special belt. Pillows and envelope stored in the trunk.

 

In electrical ZIL-111D match predecessor, ZIL-111V. The differences could be traced, perhaps, only in radio. On ZIL-111, 111G and 111V was a radio-13M, kabrioletny version of which was different from the basic lack of remote control, instead using the volume control the rear speakers. Was different device antennas. On ZIL-111V was two antennas, two telescopic, located on the hind wings. They were nominated by hand, and the reception was possible only if nominated by the antennas, which caused some discomfort. At buggy ZIL-111D designers installed a new radio AR-61-2-A and improved antenna, leaving one with the electric lift telescopic. It was situated in the rear left wing and worked in both the raised and lowered in the state, but with a smaller number of programs adopted and the sound volume.

 

Cars ZIL-111D was carried out in 1964-1967, respectively. During this period, was made about eight cars. Three of them were used for the parade and had a complete set of additional radio equipment, special handles and a set of flagpoles. Others were used as a government gigs for special trips. Compare convertible ZIL-111D with any foreign counterparts is difficult, because the ZIL was the only plant that as the base car did notchback limousine, sedan and wagon were made based on it. Seven-seater convertible, which is stored in the Club cabriolets and roadsters in Moscow, is made as a whole, that is not longer "stretch" as the wedding in Lincoln, a model for a whole frame of its own configuration. Similarly, a car with a big stretch to be called "Lincoln Continental" 1961 model year. Based on this gig with the swinging doors of specialized bodywork company was established long gig. Unfortunately, this car after the murder of President Kennedy got him notorious, and the release of the model was discontinued. However, here we compare ZIL-111D with a "Lincoln" would be incorrect, as "Lincoln" also "stretch" to the same unit, built by special order.

 

ZIL-111D, owned by the Club now cabriolets and roadsters, was once presented to the General Secretary of the CPSU Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, leader Eric Honecker of East Germany - everyone remembers the "political kiss" between the two politicians, who was depicted on the Berlin Wall. It is on this car in 1974, met with Fidel Castro and Brezhnev, who came to East Germany with a visit of friendship, love a fast ride in a convertible with Comrade Honecker. Typically, the ZIL-111D softly and gravely walked in a motorcade escorted by motorcyclists and "thirteen", "Gull". After German unification and the removal from power Honecker some of its cars sold under the hammer. At the international exhibition in Brussels car was awarded the honorary diploma. Subsequent cars: ZIL-114-117 (1967-1976 years)

 

ZIL-111 all models was unquestionably reliable, stable on the road, with a great resource units, but the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution, he prepared a replacement - a new limousine ZIL-114. Drawn as a ruler, this machine represented the rational plane style of the late 60s. Engine with aluminum cylinder block was lighter and more compact than the ZIL-111, with a working volume increased from 6 to 7 liters, and power - from 200 to 300 liters. with. And the device ZIL-114 was a lot of unusual for the then Soviet vehicles: all-wheel disc brakes, height-adjustable steering column, front suspension besshkvornevaya on torsion bars. Equipment cabin was selected individually to taste this or that leader. In the early 70's at ZIL-114 appeared modification - Five sedan ZIL-117, along with almost the same, "Chaika" GAZ-13. Long ZIL-114 was the basis for universal emergency medical care, and "short" ZIL-117 - for a two-door convertible parade.

 

[Text from Blog "Russioan Traditions" - ZiL 111 - A Government Car]

 

russki-ya.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/history-of-base-zil-111...

 

This Lego miniland scale ZiL-111 Limousine (1958) has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 96th Build Challenge - The 8th Birthday, titled - 'Happy Crazy Eight Birthday, LUGNuts' - where all previous build challenges are available to build to. This model is built to the LUGNuts 66th Build Challenge, - "Behind the Iron Curtain" - a challenge to build a vehicle from countries with Communist Governements.

 

As we pulled into the Strasburg station to take a lunch break, we were all happily presented with N&W 611 still sitting in the shop area. Here they appear to be cleaning the engine up for it's trip back down south not many days after this was taken. Everyone in the car who was talking away became distracted by the massive streamlined beauty just outside the windows.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The origins of the Saab 19 date back before the onset of WWII. At that time, the Swedish Air Force (Flygvapnet) was equipped with largely obsolete Gloster Gladiator (J 8) biplane fighters. To augment this, Sweden ordered 120 Seversky P-35 (J 9) and 144 P-66 Vanguard (J 10) aircraft from the United States.

However, on 18 June 1940, United States declared an embargo against exporting weapons to any nation other than Great Britain. As the result, the Flygvapnet suddenly faced a shortage of modern fighters.

Just in time, Saab had presented to the Ministry on Sep 4th 1939 a fighter that had been meant to replace the obsolete Gloster Gladiators. The aircraft carried the internal development code ‘L-12’ and had been designed in collaboration with US engineers in Sweden, who were to aid with license production of Northrop 8-A 1s and NA-16-4 Ms.

 

The L-12 looked very much like the contemporary, Japanese Mitsubishi A6M “Zero” (which had been seriously considered by the Flygvapnet, but import or license production turned out to be impractical). The aircraft was a very modern all-metal construction with fabric covered control surfaces. The L-12 was to be powered by a 1.065 hp Bristol Taurus and maximum speed was calculated to be 605 km/h. Its relatively heavy armament consisted of four wing-mounted 13.2mm guns and two synchronized 8 mm MGs on top of the engine, firing through the propeller arc.

 

The design was quickly approved and the new aircraft was to be introduced to the Flygvapnet as the ‘J 19A’. Production aircraft would be outfitted with a more powerful Bristol Taurus II, giving 1.400 hp with 100-octane fuel and pushing the top speed to 630 km/h. But the war’s outbreak spoiled these plans literally over night: the L-12 had to be stopped, as the intended engine and any import or license production option vanished. This was a severe problem, since production of the first airframes had already started at Trollhättan, in the same underground factory where the B 3 bomber (license-built Ju-86K of German origin with radial engines) was built. About 30 pre-production airframes were finished or under construction, but lacked an appropriate engine!

 

With only half of a promising aircraft at hand and the dire need for fighters, the Swedish government decided to outfit these initial aircraft with non-license-built Wright R-2600-6 Twin Cyclone radial engines with an output of 1.600 hp (1.194 kW). The fuselage-mounted machine guns were deleted, due to the lack of internal space and in order to save weight, and the modified machines were designated J 19B. This was only a stop-gap solution, though. P&W Twin Wasp engines had also been considered as a potential power plant (resulting in the J 19C), but the US didn't want to sell any engines at that time to Sweden and this variant never materialized.

 

An initial batch of 24 J 19B aircraft was eventually completed and delivered to F3 at Lidköping in late 1940, while airframe construction was kept up at small pace, but only seven more J 19Bs were completed with R-2600 engines. Uncompleted airframes were left in stock for spares, and further production was halted in mid 1941, since the engine question could not be solved sufficiently.

 

The J 19B proved to be a controversial aircraft, not only because of its dubious engine. While it was basically a fast and agile aircraft, the heavy R-2600 engine was rather cumbersome and not suited for a fighter. Handling in the air as well as on the ground was demanding, due to the concentration of weight at the aircraft’s front – several J 19Bs tipped over while landing. As a consequence, the J 19B simply could not live up to its potential and was no real match for modern and more agile fighters like the Bf 109 or the Spitfire – but the Swedish equipment shortages kept the machines in service throughout WWII, even though primarily in a ground attack role and fulfilling other secondary line duties.

 

Towards the end of WWII, the J 19’s intended role was eventually filled by the indigenous FFVS J 22 fighter – ironically, it was outfitted with a license-built P&W Twin Wasp. By that time, about forty J 19 airframes were more or less complete, just lacking a proper engine. Mounting the now available Twin Wasp to these had seriously been considered, but the aircraft’s performance would not suffice anymore. Consequently, a thorough modification program for the J 19 was started in late 1944, leading to the post-WWII J 19D.

 

The J 19D was another stopgap program, though, and the economical attempt to bring the fighter’s performance on par with contemporary fighters like the American P-47 or the P-51; both of these types had been tested and considered for procurement, and the P-51 was eventually ordered in early 1945 from US surplus stock as the J 26, even though deliveries were postponed until 1946. The J 19D was to bridge the time until the J 26 was fully introduced, and would later serve in the attack role.

 

Since the J 19 airframe could not take a large and powerful radial engine like the R-2800, Saab made a radical move and decided to integrate an inline engine – despite the need for some fundamental changes to the airframe. The choice fell on the Packard V-1650, the same engine that also powered the J 26 fighters, so that procurement, maintenance and logistics could be streamlined.

 

Integration of the very different engine necessitated a complete re-design of the engine attachment architecture, a new, streamlined cowling and the addition of a relatively large radiator bath under the fuselage. A new four blade propeller was introduced and enlarged, all-metal stabilizers were integrated, too, in order to compensate the changed aerodynamics induced by the new radiator arrangement (which made the aircraft pitch down in level flight). A new bubble canopy with minimal framing was introduced, too, offering a much better all-round field of view for the pilot.

 

Even though the inline engine had a lower nominal output than the J 19B’s heavy R-2600, performance of the J 19D improved appreciably and it became, thanks to improved aerodynamics, a better overall weight distribution, more agile – finally living up to its original design plans, even though its performance was still not outstanding.

Armament was upgraded, too: the inner pair of wing-mounted 13.2mm machine guns was replaced by 20mm Bofors cannons (license-built Hispano-Suiza HS.404), considerably improving weapon range and firepower. Under the outer wings, hardpoints could take a pair of 250 kg bombs, 300 l drop tanks or up to eight 50 kg bombs and/or unguided missiles.

 

After WWII, the J 19B survivors were kept in service and soldiered on until 1948, when all remaining aircraft were scrapped. Wright was also paid the overdue license fees for the originally unlicensed engines. The J 19D served together with the J 22 and J 26 fighters until 1950, when all of these piston engine fighters were gradually replaced by de Havilland Vampires (J 28) and the indigenous J 29 Tunnan, which rapidly brought the Swedish Air Force into the jet age. The last four J 19Ds, used as liaison aircraft at F 8 at Barkarby, were retired in 1954.

  

Saab J 19A General characteristics

Crew: One

Length: 9.68 m (31 ft 8 1/2 in)

Wingspan: 12.0 m (39 ft 4 in)

Height: 3.05 m (10 ft 0 in)

Wing area: 22.44 m² (241.5 ft²)

Empty weight: 1,630 kg (3,590 lb)

Loaded weight: 2,390 kg (5,264 lb)

Aspect ratio: 6.4

 

Powerplant:

1× Packard V-1650-7 liquid-cooled V-12, with a 2 stage intercooled supercharger,

rated at 1,490 hp (1,111 kW) at 3,000 rpm

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 640 km/h (397 mph) at 4.550 m (14.930 ft)

Cruise speed: 380 km/h (236 mph)

Landing speed: 140 km/h (90 mph)

Range: 1.500 km (930 mi; 810 nmi)

Service ceiling: 11.800 m (38.650 ft)

Rate of climb: 15.9 m/s (3,125 ft/min)

 

Armament:

2× 20 mm Bofors (Hispano-Suiza HS.404) cannons with 120 RPG

2× 13.2 mm (0.53 in) M/39A (Browning M2) machine guns with 500 RPG

Underwing hardpoints for an ordnance of 500 kg (1.100 lb), including a pair of 300 l drop tanks,

two 250 kg (550 lb) bombs, eight 50 kg (110 lb) bombs or eight unguided missiles.

  

The kit and its assembly

This is actually the second J 19 I have converted from a Hobby Boss A6M – and this build addresses two questions that probably nobody ever asked:

● What would a Mitsubishi Zero with an inline engine look like?

● Could the fictional Swedish aircraft have survived WWII, and in which form?

 

The Saab J 19 never saw the hardware stage, but it was a real life project that was eventually killed through the outbreak of WWII and the lack of engines mentioned in the background above. Anyway, it was/is called the “Swedish Zero” because it resembled the Japanese fighter VERY much – wing shape, fuselage, tail section, even the cockpit glazing!

 

This build/conversion was very similar to my first one, which ended up as a J 19B with an R-2600 engine from a Matchbox B-25 Mitchell bomber. However, due to the later time frame and different donor parts at hand things took a different route – this time, the key idea was the modernization/update of a rather outdated airframe, and the old J 19B model was the benchmark.

 

Again, much of the literally massive(!) Hobby Boss Zero was taken OOB, but changes this time included:

● The nose/cowling from a Matchbox P-51D

● A modified ventral radiator bath from a HUMA Me 309

● New horizontal stabilizers from a Griffon Spitfire

● A new propeller (Pavla resin parts for a post WWII P-51D/K with uncuffed blades)

● OOB main landing gear was inverted, so that the wheel discs face inwards

● New main wheels from an AZ Models Spitfire, IIRC

● New retractable tail wheel, from a Bf 109 G; the arrestor hook opening was closed

● A vacu canopy for a late mark Hawker Typhoon, plus some interior details behind the seat

 

In order to adapt the Mustang’s nose to the slender and circular A6M fuselage, a wedge plug was inserted between the fuselage halves from the Matchbox kit and a styrene tube added inside as a propeller mount. The latter, a resin piece, received a long metal axis and can spin freely.

 

For the new bubble canopy the cockpit opening and the basic interior was retained, but the dorsal section around the cockpit re-sculpted with putty. Took some time, but worked well and everything blends surprisingly well into each other – even though the aircraft, with its new engine, somehow reminds me of a Hawker Hurricane now? From certain angles the whole thing also has a P-39 touch? Weird!

  

Painting and markings

Again the dire question: how to paint this one? Once more I did not want to use a typical olive green/light blue Swedish livery, even though it would have been the most plausible option. I eventually settled for a pure natural metal finish, inspired by the post-WWII J 26/Mustangs in Swedish service, which furthermore carried only minimal tactical markings: roundels in six positions, the Flygflottilj number on the fuselage and a colored letter code on the tail, plus a spinner in the same color. Very simple and plain, but with more and more Swedish whiffs piling up, I am looking for as much camouflage/livery diversity as possible, and an NMF machine was still missing. :D

 

All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 02, and for the NMF I used my personal “recipe” with a basis of Revell 99 (Aluminum, acrylics) plus a black ink wash, followed by panel post-shading with Humbrol “Polished Aluminum” Metallizer (27002), rubbing/polishing with a soft cotton cloth and finally and a light rubbing treatment with grinded graphite for weathering effects and a worn, metallic shine of the surfaces.

 

Around the exhaust stubs, slightly darker panels were painted with Revell Acyrlics 91 (Iron) and ModelMaster Magnesium Metallizer. A black anti glare panel was added in front of the cockpit (P-51 style). The green propeller boss was painted with a mix of Humbrol 3 and 131 – emulating the color of the green code letter on the fin as good as possible.

 

The decals were puzzled together; the bright roundels belong to a Swedish Fiat CR.42, from a Sky Models sheet. The “8” on the fuselage comes from an early WWII Swedish Gloster Gladiator code (SBS Models), while the green “E” is an RAF code letter from a Heller Supermarine Spitfire Mk. XVI – actually a total print color disaster, since this deep green is supposed to be Sky!? For better contrast on the Aluminum the letter was placed on a white background, created from single decal strips (generic material from TL Modellbau).

 

After some soot stains around the exhaust stubs and the fuselage flanks with more graphite, as well as around the gun muzzles, the kit was sealed with a 4:1 mix of gloss and matt acrylic varnish, only the anti glare panel and the propeller blades became 100% matt. Some more matt varnish was also dabbed over the soot stains.

  

So, another J 19, and the “Zero with an inline engine” looks pretty strange – not as streamlined as other late WWII designs like the P-51 or Griffon-powered Spitfires, yet with a modern touch. The NMF livery looks a bit boring, but the unusual green code (used by liason J 26s from F 8 and some rare 4th or 5th divisions) is a nice contrast to the bright and large Swedish roundels, underlining the pretty elegant lines of the converted Zero!

www.youtube.com/@frantisekhajdekr

The New York Central K-5b Pacific Class 4-6-2 steam locomotive #4915 with Henry Dreyfuss' streamline design. Originally manufactured in 1926 by the American Locomotive Company (ALCO), no. 4915 and her sister no. 4917 were streamlined in 1936 to lead The New York Central’s most luxurious experience on rails.

 

This project is my first MOC and has taken about a year and a half to complete with many challenges arising in trying to obtain the beautiful "streamline moderne" styling. Perseverance paid off however and through 1/2 steps, 1/3 steps and even 1/6 steps I have ended with a final version that I hope you all will enjoy.

 

The model is 8-wide, built to 1:48 scale and is designed to fit all standard lego track geometry. The locomotive is powered by two Power Functions M motors.

 

Directions to the build can be found here:

www.etsy.com/shop/ChristopherLocoWorks

Streamlined - Stewie style

Streamlined art deco van. This design is a slightly modified version of Flickr user snaillad's van, which you can find in his photostream. The delivery man seems to like it, so I guess it's not too bad. First created in MLCad, then built with real bricks.

Former Blackpool 'streamlined' Burlingham bodied Leyland PD2, No246 was one of the many preserved buses that was to be seen at the former St Helens CT bus garage, which was operated by the North West Transport Museum (NWTM). Such was the demand for parking spaces that buses where literally 'shoe-horned' in, making access to some of them almost impossible.

 

From 1991, the collection was opened to the public for occasional viewing, but the old bus garage was quickly falling into disrepair and the roof became damaged. In 1994 the museum was closed to the public on the grounds of safety. The NWTM then began a campaign to save the building and to get it repaired. Combined with the backing and support of St.Helens Council, the Museum secured funding, enabling it to be renovated and turned into a proper exhibition hall. The NWTM re-open its doors to the public in late 2006.

 

For more information about the NWTM please go to:

 

www.hallstreetdepot.info/index.html

 

During the period when the building was being renovated, many of the buses parked inside had to be moved out. Clearly, when the Museum reopened, it could not be crowded out with buses in the way it used to be, so a great many of the vehicles left the museum for good, finding homes elsewhere. 246, was one of those vehicles.

 

The bus had been new to Blackpool Corporation in 1949, and remained in passenger service until 1967, when it was passed to Blackpool's Permanent Ways Department for use as a mobile office and workshop. In 1969 she was sold to Lister of Bolton, who used the vehicle as an office, but being an enthusiast himself, the bus was later placed under cover at St Helens. In 2004 the bus passed to the Lancashire Transport Trust (LTT) for continued preservation, and awaits restoration.

 

Photo: 27th February 1994.

 

For more information about 246 and the LTT, please go to:

 

www.ltt.org.uk/ourbuses/blackpool_246.html

 

(The diesel-electric train)

tThe Aerotrain was a streamlined trainset introduced by General Motors Electro Motive Division in the mid-1950s. Like all of GM's body designs of this mid-century era, this train was first brought to life in GM's Styling Section. Chuck Jordan was in charge of designing the Aerotrain as Chief Designer of Special Projects. It utilized the experimental EMD LWT12 locomotive, coupled to a set of modified GM Truck & Coach divission 40-seat intercity highway bus bodies. The cars each rode on two axles with an air suppension system, which was intended to give a smooth ride, but had the opposite effect.

The two Aerotrain demonstrator sets logged over 600,000 miles (970,000 km) and saw service on the following railroads: the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway; the New York Central Railroad; the Pennsylvania Railroad; and the Union Pacific Railroad.

Starting in February 1956 the Pennsylvania Railroad ran the Pennsy Aerotrain between New York City and Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, leaving New York at 0755; the round trip was scheduled 7 hr 30 min each way. From June 1956 to June 1957 it ran between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

In 1956 Aerotrain No. 2 was leased as a demonstrator to the New York Central, and ran between Cleveland and Chicago.

In March 1956 the Aerotrain made experimental runs for theSatchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway in California as the San Diegan between Los Angeles and San Diego. Its use ended because the trainset had to be turned after each trip and it needed helper locomotives on the Sorrento Grade north of San Diego.

 

Starting December 1956 Union Pacific ran the ex-New York Central Aerotrain as the City of Las Vegas between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. The train was eventually relegated to Chicago commuter service on the Chicago & Rock Island Railroad.

 

GM's "lightweight with a heavyweight future" was introduced at a time when US passenger train revenues were declining due to competition from airlines and private automobile travel. Although it featured a streamlined design, the Aerotrain failed to capture the imagination of the American public. The cars, based on GM's bus designs and using an air cushioning system, were rough riding and uncomfortable. The design of the locomotive section rendered routine maintenance difficult, and it was underpowered. Both trainsets were retired in 1966 after a decade's use. The Museum of Tranportation in St. Louis, Missouri and the National Railroad Museum in Green Bay, Wisconsin each have one of the locomotives, and two of the cars.

 

(The steam engine)

Southern Pacific 4460 is the only surviving GS-6 Class steam locomotive. The GS-6 is a semi-streamlined 4-8-4 Northern type steam locomotive. GS stands for "General Services". The locomotive was built by the Lima Locomotive Works for the Southern Pacific in 1943. The GS-6 lacked side skirting and red and orange "Daylight" paint found on previous locomotives of the GS class, and were painted black and silver instead. This was because the US government controlled locomotive manufacturers during World War II and had turned down Southern Pacific's order of fourteen new Daylight locomotives. Southern Pacific re-designed the engine for general service and it was finally approved, but the government took four of them and gave them to the smaller and power-starved Western Pacific Railorad Their smaller size when compared to previous GS class locomotives and the fact that they were built during WWII earned them the nicknames of "War Babies" and "Baby Daylights".

4460 is famous for pulling what was to be the final movement of steam on the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1958. Following the final excursion, 4460 was donated to the Museum of Transportation in St. Louis, Missouri, on April 16, 1959, where the engine has since sat along with many other historic steam and diesel locomotives from around the country. The 4460 is sometimes called the "Forgotten Daylight", referring to its only surviving sibling, Southern Pacific 4449.

  

(This info was taken from Wkipedia and edited by me.)

Williamsburg, Brooklyn

 

A collaborative project of the Federal Public Works Administration and the newly established New York City Housing Authority, the Williamsburg Houses are notable as one of the earliest housing developments in the United States to reflect the ideas of the modern movement in architecture. In the 1920s Williamsburg was one of the most densely populated sections of Brooklyn and nearly six hundred, mostly frame, structures were demolished to create the 23.3 acre site. Proposed in 1934, this residential complex was skillfully designed by the Williamsburg Associated Architects during 1935 and most units were occupied by 1938.

 

The partnership included Richmond H. Shreve, of Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, the architects of the Empire State Building, and William Lescaze, the Swiss-born architect who helped introduce the “International” style on the eastern seaboard. Lescaze was responsible for the design, which includes twenty 4-story structures on four “super” blocks turned at 15 degree angles to the street grid. Oriented to the sun and prevailing winds, this unusual layout produced a series of large and small courts, many of which flow into a large public space at the center of each block. A light-colored palette distinguishes the facades, executed in tan brick and exposed concrete.

 

Among the most prominent features are the entrances, marked by blue tile and projecting stainless steel canopies, and the handsome streamlined storefronts. The complex was widely discussed by contemporary critics and more than 25,000 New Yorkers applied for 1,622 apartments. During the mid-1990s, the buildings underwent an extensive restoration which included the replacement of all exterior materials. Sponsored by the Housing Authority, in consultation with the Landmarks Preservation Commission, these alterations were remarkably sensitive and in the 4th edition of the AIA Guide to New York City the “revivified” complex was called “the best public housing project ever built in New York.”

 

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS

 

Housing the Masses

 

From the rowhouse to the apartment building, New York City has been a laboratory for innovative housing. Beginning after the Civil War, apartments, variously known as French Flats and tenements, were built to house the city’s surging population. Immigrants, for the most part, crowded into unregulated tenements, structures that maximized profits for developers while providing few amenities that we take for granted today, such as light, air, and private bathrooms.

 

Despite government efforts to legislate minimum standards in 1867 and 1879, initially private individuals took the most significant steps to make decent housing affordable to all. Several pioneering examples were located close to the Brooklyn waterfront, including the Home and Tower Buildings (William Field and Son, 1876-78), the Astral Apartments (Lamb & Rich, 1885-87) and Riverside (William Field and Son, 1890). The later complex surrounded a large tree-shaded courtyard incorporating a music pavilion and areas for drying laundry. Despite these, and a few innovative Manhattan developments, the majority of New Yorkers continued to live in substandard conditions.

 

The passage of the New Tenement Law in 1901 improved the situation, requiring that multiple dwellings be built on significantly larger lots, with fire escapes and separate “privies” for each family. After World War I, the garden apartment came into vogue. While most were built for the middle class, especially in Jackson Heights, a significant group were sponsored by unions and cooperative organizations that wished to provide members with inexpensive apartments. Significant examples include the Amalgamated Houses (Springsteen & Goldhammer, 1930) on Manhattan’s Lower East Side and the “Coops” built in the Bronx by the United Workers Cooperative Association (Springsteen & Goldhammer, 1925-27; Herman Jessor, 1927-29).

 

The first significant act of government intervention occurred in 1926 with the passage of the New York State Housing Law. Promoted by Governor Alfred E. Smith to encourage construction through the formation of local authorities that would sell bonds or seek federal funds, it had little impact until 1934 when the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) was established. The authority’s first project, aptly called the First Houses (Frederick L. Ackerman, 1934-36), was located in Manhattan’s East Village. Begun as a rehabilitation program involving the demolition of every third structure, due to structural problems the eight brick buildings were entirely rebuilt.

 

Throughout the early Depression, government-subsidized housing remained a controversial issue. Consequently, it was first promoted as worker relief, organized to create jobs but not compete with the commercial market. The first federal agency to involve itself with housing was the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which was created in 1932 to provide low-interest loans to limited-dividend housing corporations. Of the two loans it made, one was toward the construction of Knickerbocker Village (John S. Van Wart & Frederick L. Ackerman, 1933). Built for the Fred F. French Company, this Chinatown-area development consists of two 12-story buildings, both enclosing an interior courtyard.

 

In mid-1933, as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Housing Division of the Public Works Administration (PWA) was established. What made this agency different from its predecessor, the RFC, was that it would be directly involved in the planning and construction of low-income housing. The program was a great success and over the next three and half years it collaborated on the design and construction of 51 projects in 36 cities, including the Harlem River Houses and the Williamsburg Houses.

 

The passage of the Wagner-Steagall Bill (aka U.S. Housing Bill) by the United States Congress in September 1937, strengthened the federal government’s commitment to housing, but shifted greater control to local authorities. The first New York City housing project to be financed under this program was the Red Hook Houses (Electus Litchfied, chief designer, 1938-39) in Brooklyn. Future construction, which would amount to more than half a million low-rental units nationwide by 1957, would be funded primarily through low-interest loans.

 

Site

 

The Williamsburg Houses are located in northwestern Brooklyn, approximately one mile east of the Williamsburg Bridge and two blocks south of Grand Street, a lively commercial thoroughfare. Founded as part of the town of Bushwick in the mid17th century, Williamsburg was incorporated as a village in 1827. The community prospered and by 1852 it was the 20th largest city in the nation. Three years later, Williamsburg became part of Brooklyn and was commonly referred to as the Eastern District. Although ferry service was important to the area’s development, it was the planning and construction of a second East River crossing, the Williamsburg Bridge, that caused the most dramatic growth.

 

Proposed in 1883, the bridge was completed with much fanfare in 1903, serving pedestrians, bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles. In subsequent decades, Williamsburg rivaled the Lower East Side in population and density. The Brooklyn Eagle claimed in 1920 that the bridge was part of the busiest traffic center in the nation and that a single block north of it was the most crowded in the world. Conditions in the neighborhood continued to deteriorate throughout the decade, so much so that the population began to decline.

 

In October 1933, the Federal Works Administration (PWA) established a slum clearance committee to study conditions throughout New York City. Richmond H. Shreve, who would later serve as chief architect of the Williamsburg Houses, was named director. Based on the committee’s recommendations, $25 million was set aside for a housing program in New York City. Under the direction of the NYCHA, a more comprehensive study was undertaken in 1934, focusing on fourteen neighborhoods, including Williamsburg. The PWA reported:

 

When the study was completed the blighted slum area of the Williamsburg section stood out as the best example where the most good could be done in wholesale clearance work.

 

Of 93 blocks studied, a grid of 12 was identified for redevelopment in Williamsburg. These blocks were chosen because property values were relatively low and the owners were willing to sell. Most of buildings were mixed-use, incorporating retail spaces at ground level and apartments above. Each lot was carefully documented: 90% of the structures were at least forty years old, 70% were built of wood, 78% had no central heating, and 67% had no private toilets. Such statistics were used to paint an extremely bleak picture of life there:

 

But the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, according to official surveys, is unique in that its slums bear the stamp of dull listlessness and despair . . . Laissez faire, exploitation, and land speculation have robbed the community of its natural potentialities for development and orderly urban life.

 

Public amenities were also in short supply; there were few schools and there were almost no parks.

 

Architects

 

Five architects were appointed to the NYCHA’s architectural board in May 1934: Richmond H. Shreve (1877-1946) of Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, Matthew W. Del Gaudio (1889-1960), William Lescaze (1899-1969), Arthur C. Holden (18901993), and James F. Bly. As members of the board, their initial role was advisory. They would act as the authority’s chief architect, overseeing the design and construction of municipal housing citywide.

 

In June 1934 an open competition was held to choose the architects who would work on the Williamsburg Houses and other NYCHA projects. The program guidelines did not specify the location, but the grid chosen closely resembled the long blocks where the Williamsburg Houses would be built. Of 278 architects who participated, 5 of the 22 selected were assigned to the Brooklyn project: Samuel Gardstein, of Holmgren, Volz & Gardstein, G. Harmon Gurney (b. 1896), of Gurney & Clavan, John W. Ingle Jr., Paul Trapani (1887-1974), and Harry Leslie Walker (1877-1954).

 

In June 1935, a contract was signed with the Williamsburg Associated Architects. The partnership consisted of ten men: the five architects selected by jury, as well as the five members of the architectural board. Among them, Shreve had the most experience with large projects, having worked on a succession of major Manhattan skyscrapers, most notably, the Empire State Building (Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, 1931).

 

A graduate of the College of Architecture at Cornell University (1902), he began his career as a member of the school’s faculty and later joined the firm of Carrére & Hastings in New York City where he distinguished himself as having a “genius for the solution of operational and administrative problems.” Whereas prior to the Depression he mainly worked on office buildings, in his later years Shreve was associated with residential developments, most notably the Vladeck Houses (1940) on the Lower East Side, and Parkchester (1938-42), a development with more than twelve thousand apartments in the Bronx. During the late 1930s, he also served as a member of the board of design for the New York World’s Fair.

 

Design

 

Of the three initial projects built by the NYCHA and the PWA, the Williamsburg Houses were the most innovative. Shreve appointed Lescaze as the chief designer, responsible for the plan and elevations. In the 1930s, he was at the height of his career, profiled in publications read by professionals and the layman. Born near Geneva, Switzerland, in 1896, he studied in Zurich with the architect Karl Moser in 1915-19 and for a brief period worked in Paris with Henri Sauvage, an important designer of apartment buildings. Lescaze moved to the United States in 1920 and after working in Cleveland and New York City, formed a partnership with George Howe, a Philadelphia architect, in 1929.

 

Their association lasted four years and produced one architectural masterpiece, the Philadelphia Savings Fund Society building, completed in 1932. During the mid-1930s, he was extremely active, working on unrealized plans for the Museum of Modern Art, the Brooklyn Museum, and the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, as well as building three of the earliest modern-style townhouses in Manhattan, his own house and studio, completed in 1934, as well as the Raymond C. and Mildred Kramer (1934-5) and Edward and Dorothy Norman (1940) houses. He also designed, with Albert Frey, the Chrystie-Forsyth Houses. Planned in 1931, this unrealized proposal was included in the Museum of Modern Art’s so-called “International Style” exhibition of 1932.

 

One of the most unique aspects of the Williamsburg Houses is the plan. To create the 23.3 acre complex, twelve blocks were acquired by the city, and the two east-west streets (Stagg and Ten Eyck) were closed to traffic to create four “super” blocks. All but one extend three full blocks from north to south, except part of the block between Manhattan and Graham Avenues that was set aside for a new junior high school and play area.

 

The development of New York City was closely tied to its gridiron. Introduced in 1811, it resulted in a city of predictable intersecting streets and avenues. In 1835, a similar plan was approved for Brooklyn and by the early 1850s the streets that cross through the site of the Williamsburg Houses had opened.

 

Most were named for area residents, such as Daniel Maujer, a lawyer and alderman, John and James Lorimer Graham, land jobbers, and James Scholes, a local land owner. The impact of this approach is visible throughout New York City, establishing blocks and lots of equal size and dimensions. Residential developers benefitted immensely, commissioning rowhouse and tenement designs that could be repeated without regard to location.

 

By the end of the 19th century, there was relatively little open space in Manhattan and Brooklyn. As part of the City Beautiful movement, various attempts were made to loosen the grid’s hold, first through the passage of the Small Parks Act in 1887, which focused on tenement neighborhoods, and later, by situating major civic structures in plazas. Similar ideas shaped the development of garden apartments which came into vogue after 1910. One of the primary characteristics of this type of multiple dwelling was reduced site coverage.

 

In most cases, such as in the Jackson Heights Historic District, the buildings were set around the perimeter of each block, enclosing large private gardens, but in other situations, such as at the Harlem River Houses, a “crankshaft” arrangement was adopted, creating a mixture of interior and exterior courts.

 

Lescaze borrowed freely from both the garden apartment tradition and architects associated with European modernism. In his earliest design, each block incorporated six U-shaped structures arranged around a narrow central court. A later design was considerably more irregular. Turned at an angle to the street, there were fewer but larger buildings.

 

Many aspects of this proposal were integrated into the final design. The Williamsburg Houses are configured in three ways, with footprints suggesting a capital “H,” small “h,” and “T.” All have small spurs and extensions, resembling crossbars. By adding this feature the number of courtyards was significantly increased. Within each block are six buildings (except north of the school); at the north and south are the “H” and “h” configurations, and in the middle, the “T”s.

 

The decision to turn the buildings at a 15 degree angle to the street grid proved controversial. PWA accounts described it in functional terms, explaining that the orientation would provide tenants with more sun and take advantage of the prevailing northwest breezes. During the previous decade, many architects and planners experimented with similar ideas. One of the earliest built examples “to deviate from the geometry of the New York gridiron” was the Mesa Verde apartments (1926) in Jackson Heights. Designed by Henry Atterbury Smith and based on an earlier proposal from 1917, the development featured two rows of six “closed L buildings” set at 45 degree angle to the surrounding streets.

 

Lescaze, however, was more likely to have been influenced by European sources. During the 1920s, he frequently returned to Europe, a period when leading architects were involved in the design of social housing. Many favored the “tower in the park” approach in which free-standing high-rise structures stood in continuous open space. Writing in English in 1935, Walter Gropius concluded that apartment blocks should “command a clear view of the sky, over broad expanses of grass and trees which separate the blocks and serve as playgrounds.”

 

Another source of inspiration might have been Ernst May who oversaw the design and construction of many low-rise housing estates in Frankfurt. In his Bruchfeldstrasse development of 1926-27, designed with C. K. Rudloff, one section was arranged in an overlapping zig-zag configuration. As in Williamsburg, each unit had corner windows, providing tenants with uninterrupted views of a central garden.

 

Many writers were skeptical about the benefits of Lescaze’s plan. Hamlin argued that the layout would convert the courts “into perfect channels for Project for a group of factories. our most vicious northwest winds.” He was told that

 

the arrangement had, in fact, been chosen for aesthetic reasons, to “break up the street facades” and “allow the feeling of space to weave in and out on the street fronts. This goal was definitely achieved, producing an environment that was new and distinctive. The flowing spaces that Lescaze planned are less monumental and more intimate than those experienced in most housing projects, juxtaposing wedge-shaped lawns with semi-enclosed courtyards and large open plazas. As originally built, no fences interrupted the spaces and the areas adjoining the curving concrete walks were paved with cobblestone.

 

The Elevations

 

Equally modern were the elevations. Lescaze was attracted to the expressive and aesthetic qualities of modern materials. Particularly unusual was the decision to use a light-colored palette. Built from reinforced concrete, the walls were originally enclosed with a sand-cast brick that was variously described by observers as bright tan, yellowish, pinkish, and grayish warm pink. One of the most notable features was the exposed concrete floor plates which express the structure and division between the floors while giving the complex a strong horizontal appearance. Talbot Hamlin observed:

 

The effectiveness of the buildings is undoubted. The striping of brick and concrete and the contrast of the light walls which front the stair towers make a vivid picture . . .

 

Prior to the mid-1930s, red brick was the most frequently used material in housing developments, used throughout Jackson Heights and in the First Houses and Harlem River Houses. The proposal to break with this tradition generated considerable debate. While the general scheme was approved in June 1935, it was not until October that specific materials were selected. Presumably, the PWA wished to standardize the building process and reduce costs. Frederick Ackerman, technical director of the NYCHA, defended Lescaze’s proposal. He wrote the authority’s chairman, Langdon W. Post:

 

. . . the “effect” of the Project will depend very largely upon the texture and quality of the exterior wall. Unless the exterior wall possesses a greater intrinsic interest than one made of common brick then the resultant effect is certain to be a bleak, barren and unusually forbidding mass of building:

 

One might readily mistake the At Williamsburg, the buildings stand as freestanding objects, finished on all sides and approachable from multiple directions. No facade dominates and the apartment entrances face both the streets and courtyards. For those unfamiliar with the layout, the angled plan may have been somewhat disorienting. To make it easier to navigate, signs were installed throughout the complex and Lescaze skillfully designed the entrances, making dramatic use of color and form. Like Le Corbusier, he was an “accomplished” painter and frequently used color, especially blue, to enliven wall surfaces. Another possible model was May’s housing development at Praunheim (1926-29) where contrasting colors were used to give the projecting stair towers a distinctive appearance.

 

Within the courtyards are as many as five entrances. Each is sheltered by a small cantilevered aluminum marquee and is flanked by square blue terra-cotta tiles. The entrances that are located at the far end of the larger courtyards are set at a angle. In these instances, the tiles spread onto the adjoining walls and extend above the parapet to the stair bulkhead. Other tile treatments project slightly forward, or are recessed above the doors to the roof. An entrance is also located in the covered breezeway. Reached by a short flight of stairs connecting both the street and courtyard, the more public street facade had an asymmetrical character, incorporating projecting blue tiles to one side and a wide aluminum marquee.

 

Construction

 

To prepare the site for construction, 568 buildings were demolished on 349 lots and approximately 5,400 people were relocated. A 1935 report described the population as divided equally between American born, Italian born, and other nationalities. Most were semi-skilled workers, employed in manufacturing, or as clerks, truck drivers, and construction workers.

 

Demolition commenced in June 1935 as PWA supervisor Elizabeth Ross dug a crowbar into the facade of 197 Manhattan Avenue, near Ten Eyck Street. In the months that followed:

 

Steam shovels and picks played a tune to rival that of the pipes of the Pied Piper of Hamlin. From every dank basement and crumbling wall rats fled in droves. Backyards disgorged an assortment of rusted cans, trash, filth and litter that would have discouraged the most voracious goat.

 

Ground was broken on January 3, 1936. Following a brief ceremony in the rain, public officials addressed an audience of five hundred at Public School 196. During April 1936, the first foundations were poured at the southwest corner of Manhattan Avenue and Stagg Street. Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia was in attendance, followed by “a few hundred interested onlookers and an army of schoolboys.”

 

As the foundations neared completion, the PWA solicited bids for construction. Starrett Brothers & Eken was awarded the $7. 5 million contract for the first 18 buildings in October 1936. A subsequent contract, for construction of buildings No. 5 and 18, was signed in late April 1937.

 

Founded by Paul Starrett (1866-1957) and William Aiken Starrett (1877-1932) and Andrew J. Eken (1882-1965) in 1922, the firm was responsible for such high-profile buildings as the New York Life Insurance Company Building (1925), Bank of Manhattan Building (1929-30), McGraw-Hill Building (1930-31), and Empire State Building (1930-31, all are designated New York City Landmarks). The Starrett Brothers worked closely with Shreve on the Empire State Building and it is likely that this relationship helped secure the contract for the Williamsburg Houses. William Starrett acknowledged the importance and complexity of this issue when he said:

 

It is the hope of people who are discussing this (slum) problem that those same brains that put together the great skyscrapers . . . will turn toward this.

 

Starrett Brothers & Eken later built Parkchester (Richmond H. Shreve, chairman of the board of design, 1938-42), Stuyvesant Town (Irwin Clavan and Gilmore Clarke, 1943-49) and Peter Cooper Village (Irwin Clavan and Gilmore D. Clarke, 1947) for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

 

The cornerstone was laid in October 1936. It contained an aerial view of the site, a copy of the federal act creating the PWA, as well as an autographed copy of Jacob Riis’s timeless account of slum conditions, How the Other Half Lives, donated by his widow. Construction progressed rapidly, and aside from minor walk-outs by metalworkers and painters, the first six buildings were ready for occupancy with a year, in September

 

Publicity

 

The Williamsburg Houses was the largest and costliest project built by the PWA. With 1,622 apartments, it was more than twice the size of the Harlem River Houses. The approximate cost was $12.8 million. It was described by the PWA as part of “demonstration program” and numerous public events were held. In a letter to Post, Shreve stated:

 

As this project is the beginning of what, in a way, is a housing community experiment and as the public attitude toward housing will be largely controlled by the success or failure of such an experiment, it is of importance that every effort be made to make the first experiment successful.

 

In this context, how the project was perceived was of the utmost importance. Once the design had been approved, a scale model was built by the PWA and exhibited at banks in Brooklyn Heights and Williamsburg during late 1935 and 1936. This presentation was accompanied by a series of posters documenting the site, including photographs of earlier buildings and their demolition, as well as projected floor plans. The New York Times reported the model:

 

. . . throws into graphic relief the application of the new principle of multiple housing, providing more air, sunlight and recreational facilities and involving a departure from the solid-block construction.

 

The idea of using public funds to create low-income housing was relatively new and much of the language used in speeches and press releases heralded it as a major advance. At the site, signs were posted, calling Williamsburg the “Largest Low Rental Development in the USA.” At the ground-breaking, public officials evoked the memory of Alfred T. White, whose Brooklyn developments were among the first attempts to improve low-income housing in the nation.

 

Mayor LaGuardia thanked the President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for his support, as did Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, who described slums as a “vicious project of that old order whose passing, we hope, is at hand.” While some critics equated the federal housing program with socialism, most speakers saw it as a defense of democracy.

 

In November 1935, Post had contacted the PWA, requesting that the complex be called the “Ten Eyck” Houses. No explanation was given, but it is likely that the request was made to distinguish the new development from the larger surrounding neighborhood.

 

Ten Eyck Street was one of two east-west streets closed to create the site and it was probably named for the Dutch family whose Brooklyn lineage extended back to at least the 18th century. In the immediate area also lived William Ten Eyck, who during the mid-19th century served as the deacon of the Reformed Church of South Bushwick (1853, a designated New York City Landmark). Post’s request was quickly approved. The new name, however, was not widely used and a 1938 PWA publication refers to the development as the Williamsburg Houses.

 

On October 28, 1936, the construction site was briefly visited by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt. According to the New York Times, ten thousand school children and five thousand adults “cheered the President’s passage through the streets bordering the housing project.”

 

Three “model” apartments were opened for public view in July through August 1937. Furnished with loans from various Brooklyn department stores, they were presented at 180 Maujer Street. Post was an early visitor and he described the apartments as a “demonstration of what can be done, this is the most valuable contribution to social progress that the New Deal has made.” An average of 1,200 persons a day visited. In September 1937, a second group of apartments opened at 176 Maujer Street, including one decorated entirely with “reconditioned furniture.” In a related development, during April and May 1938, the WPA created an exhibit in a storefront office at 212 Graham Avenue. Organized by William Friedman of the art teaching division, the display was changed periodically to demonstrate different apartment layouts and decoration. Nine experts spent five months preparing the exhibit, hoping that it would influence local residents and provide a model for future public housing developments. A music branch, at 176 Maujer Street, also provided lessons in theory, voice, and various instruments.

 

Tenants

 

According to the Brooklyn Eagle, the Williamsburg Houses were “one of the most perfect home sites in the word . . . an eagerly sought spot to live.” Income and need formed the basis of selection and no tenant could earn more than five times the annual rent. Preference was also given to former residents of the site.

 

The first tenants began to occupy their apartments on September 30, 1937. The New York Times devoted at least two articles to “Moving Day,” as did the Brooklyn Eagle. As part of the operation, each tenant’s belongings were moved to a fumigation plant for sterilization near the intersection of Bushwick Avenue at Scholes Street.

 

This procedure was described as a “wise precaution against the spread of disease.” Bessie and Louis Grabkowitz were recognized by the NYCHA as the first official tenants. A week’s rent, of less than seven dollars, was paid and they were given keys to their new apartment. Two to five rooms in size, units featured steam heat, hot and cold water, as well as electric stoves and refrigerators. Residents praised their new homes, commenting on the appliances and abundant sunlight.

 

By the end of 1937, most apartments were occupied. A community newspaper, the Projector, began publishing on a semi-monthly basis in December 1937. In April 1938, the complex was completed. In addition to the twenty residential buildings, there were retail spaces, facing the north-south streets. The PWA reported:

 

To insure efficient, sanitary commercial services, 49 stores and shops within the project, distributing drugs, groceries, appliances, and general merchandise, have been leased to private individuals.

 

The storefronts were executed in a sleek Moderne style. To the north and south, they curved away from the street, recalling the streamlined designs of Erich Mendelsohn, as well as J. J. P. Oud’s Kiefhoek development of 1925. The prominent metal parapets were blue, matching the color of the apartment entrances. Despite their polished design, a significant number failed to attract and retain tenants. Consequently, in 1945 ten unleased spaces, near the corners of Maujer and Leonard Streets, and Scholes Street and Bushwick Avenue, were converted to apartments.

 

Tenants enjoyed a variety of useful services. At the center of the complex, on Graham Avenue stood the stripped classical-style William J. Gaynor Junior High School (1936-37), and opposite it, Building No. 11 housed a nursery school. Incorporated into the building’s south court and featuring a large play terrace, Hamlin described its glass-fronted design as “pleasant” and “delightful.” In addition, a new Moderne-style health center was built directly across from the complex, on Maujer Street.

 

Throughout the development were “social and craft rooms.” These basement spaces were originally used for classes, clubs, and meetings and many were decorated with large colorful murals. In contrast to the majority of WPA murals that were executed in style of social realism, the Williamsburg murals were non-objective. Lescaze favored “abstract and stimulating patterns” and Burgoyne Diller who headed the Federal Art Project, wrote that:

 

The decision to place abstract murals in these rooms [of the Williamsburg Housing Project] was made because the areas were intended to provide a place of relaxation and entertainment . . . The more arbitrary the color, possible when not determined by the description of objects, enables the artist to place an emphasis on its psychological potential to stimulate relaxation.

 

Of twelve murals commissioned, at least five were installed. In the early 1990s, the deteriorated canvases were restored and moved to the Brooklyn Museum of Art. They include works by the American painters Ilya Bolotowsky, Paul Kelpe, and Balcomb Greene.

  

Critical Reception

 

The opening of the Williamsburg Houses was treated as major news and writers used the event to analyze the project and express their own views about the role of public housing and the importance of modern architecture. Some of the earliest comments came from the architect Walter Gropius, former director of the Bauhaus in Germany. On a visit to New York City in April 1937 he was interviewed by H.I. Brock in the New York Times. They traveled together throughout the city, visiting both new skyscrapers and the nearly-complete Brooklyn development. Gropius was impressed and praised the unusual plan, saying that Lescaze:

 

. . . seems to have solved the problem of space and light very successfully and economically, and it has the great advantage of being spread over enough land to make it worthwhile as a sample of planned development.

 

Lewis Mumford was the first critic to publish a substantial review in February 1938. As a persistent advocate for public housing, he used the opportunity to evaluate the “outlines of the new order of building.” He praised the PWA for eschewing “overpriced building lots” and instead assembling large sites in quieter areas where streets could be closed to traffic to create gardens and playgrounds. Considerable attention was paid to the slanted orientation. Although he described it as “a bit queer,” he liked the way it separated the residences from the street and that it gave the appearance that the architects were concerned about providing tenants with ample sunlight.

 

Talbot Hamlin published the most-detailed analysis. In this review, he addressed both PWA projects, calling them “a new vision of democracy ... they are better than the most expensive apartments on Park Avenue.” Despite such praise, he expressed mixed feelings. While he found the buildings “fresh and inventive and alive,” he was disturbed by the “shockingly low” standards of construction. He also admired the “imaginative and carefully studied detailing,” but criticized the landscaping as little more than adequate. The WPA Guide to New York City, published in 1939, shared similar views, quoting Hamlin’s review, and praising the design of the individual buildings.

 

In the years since completion, the Williamsburg Houses have been a frequent subject for architectural historians. Many, starting with the Museum of Modern Art in 1939, have placed the development within the context of European modernism. In an exhibition celebrating the museum’s 10th anniversary and the opening of its new building, it was the only architectural work represented that was located in New York City. In a brief essay on housing, the curators highlighted the “triple-size superblocks,” that form an “oasis of open space,” but criticized the adjoining school building as a lost opportunity to create a “truly important work.” Photographs of the complex were also included in Forms and Functions of Twentieth-Century Architecture (1952), in sections devoted to city planning and concrete construction.

 

G. Holmes Perkins wrote in the city planning section that despite faults, the complex “may be held up as patterns for tomorrow.” Richard Pommer, in one of the most insightful discussions of Depression-era housing in the United States, criticized the angled plan, calling Lescaze a “versatile pasticheur” who used visual effects without logic or relation to function. Robert A. M. Stern shared this view, writing in 1980 that it “seems overrated.” Richard Plunz, in A History of Housing in New York City, credited the project as the start of a “brief but intense struggle” to determine the aesthetic direction government-built housing would take. All four editions of the AIA Guide to New York City have praised the Williamsburg Houses. The 1968 edition called it a “very successful solution to the problem of low-rent subsidized housing,” and in 2000 “the best public housing project ever built in New York.”

 

Subsequent History

 

Conveyed by the federal government to the NYCHA in 1957, the Williamsburg Houses continue to serve their original purpose, housing more than three thousand New Yorkers. Major alterations were first proposed in 1980 and significant work took place during 1985-91. At this time, the original casement windows were replaced with bronze-colored aluminum sash and the blue terra cotta that surrounded the entrances, with tan “Morocco” glazed brick.

 

In a remarkable turnaround, during the mid1990s, the facades were restored. What began as continued maintenance, soon evolved into a major architectural project, requiring an outside contractor and consultation with the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Under the supervision of Neil Cohen of the NYCHA, the elevations were completely reskinned, the parapets replaced, as well as the chimneys, railings, and terra-cotta banding. In addition, new canopies, doors, lighting fixtures, and signage were fabricated.

 

The approximately $70 million project was executed with great sensitivity; there was an article in the real estate section of the New York Times and the NYCHA was the recipient of the Lucy G. Moses Preservation Award from the New York Landmarks Conservancy (1999), which praised the participants for restoring the complex to “better-than-new condition.” Restoration of the storefronts, except along Bushwick Avenue, was completed in 2002.

 

The high standards set by the design of the Williamsburg Houses have rarely been matched. Innovative in terms of scale, plan, and aesthetics, it remains one of the most pleasant and architecturally-distinguished housing developments in New York City.

 

Description

 

There are twenty walk-up buildings in the 23.3acre Williamsburg complex and a total of 1,620 apartments. These buildings are numbered from 1 to 20 and each entrance has its own street address, for instance, “112 Maujer Street.” Stainless steel signs, with pin-mounted numbers and letters, identify each entrance.

 

The site extends four blocks east to west, from Bushwick Avenue to Leonard Street, and three blocks north to south, from Maujer to Scholes Streets. The principal north-south artery is Graham Avenue. Between Maujer and Scholes Streets, Ten Eyck Street and Stagg Street are closed to vehicles. These winding east-west paths are called Ten Eyck Walk and Stagg Walk. They are identified by large pin-mounted stainless steel letters attached to the building facades and are visible along the north-south streets. Throughout the complex are wall-mounted cantilevered lighting fixtures. These glass and aluminum fixtures are reproductions of the originals.

 

Three of the four blocks have a tree-shaded open space at center. At present, non-historic benches, play equipment, and basketball courts are located here. Most lawns are enclosed by low iron fences. Though not original, these fences pre-date the 1990s. Pole-mounted lighting fixtures are occasionally used to illuminate these areas.

 

All buildings materials are non-historic. Each structure is four stories tall and clad in ochre-colored brick. Exterior concrete spandrel beams are exposed at each floor. To disguise patches to the concrete, the beams are coated with a grey-colored water repellency finish. The entrances are flanked by blue structural glazed facing tiles that are approximately 12 by 12 inches. Blue mortar was used to minimize the joint lines. A canopy projects in front of each entrance (except on one side of the breezeways). Made of stainless steel, they incorporate recessed down lights. Some canopies are supported by a single pipe column. The entrance doors and sidelights are made of stainless steel.

 

Each door has a grid of four small square windows. Breezeways serve a dual purpose: reached by two sets of stairs, they provide an additional north-south passage, as well as entry to apartments. Most of the stairs are flanked by stainless steel railings. The bronze anodized aluminum windows, installed in the 1980s, are all one-over-one. Arranged as single windows or in pairs, they have concrete sills and meet the concrete spandrels above. The smaller windows light the bathrooms. Single windows and pairs are located where the facades meet, often creating triple-width openings at the cantilevered corners.

 

There are three general building configurations. All are original to the complex. They include eight buildings with “H” shaped floor plans, six with floor plans that suggest a small letter “h,” and six buildings with “T” shaped floor plans. While the “H” and “h” types alternate along Maujer and Scholes Streets (except next to the school where both are “H” shaped), the “T” shaped buildings are located only between Ten Eyck Walk and Stagg Walk.

 

The “H” buildings (Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 20) are nearly symmetrical, with almost identical north and south courtyards. At the center of each court is either a projecting center section or breezeway. The apartments are reached by four distinct entrances, each with a different tile treatment. They include: corner, wide, recessed between the door and the roof, and incorporated within a breezeway. Each entrance leads to interior stairs. The windows that light the stairs are arranged in horizontal grids of six and eight panes. Except for the recessed variant, the tiles project slightly and rise above the parapet to the stair bulkhead. The opposite side of the breezeway has no tilework. Reached by stairs, each breezeway incorporates two concrete columns and a metal door. The “h” buildings (Nos. 2, 5, 19, 13, 16 and 19) are similar to the “H” buildings, except one court is partially enclosed.

 

The “T” buildings (Nos. 3, 4, 11, 12, 17, 18) have shallow courts. The top of the ‘T” has three entrances, each framed with blue tiles. A pair of entrances are also found facing each other in one of the side courts, and occasionally on the opposite side, as well. Building No. 11, located on the east side of Graham Avenue, is unique due to the presence of a nursery school at the wider south end. To accommodate this function, the entrances were moved and the court at the south end was enclosed. The south wall of school is clad with glass blocks, many of which are original. A concrete shed, at the center of the wall, is not historic and there are plans for removal. From the south facade extends a raised play area that is enclosed by a fence. Along the east side of the building, facing Graham Avenue, a non-historic ramp with metal railings has been constructed.

 

Commercial storefronts parallel the streets and adjoin the apartment buildings in various locations. The materials are non-historic, but the new elevations closely resemble the originals. The largest storefronts are located on either side of Graham Avenue, between Maujer Street and Ten Eyck Walk (Nos. 8 and 9). Smaller retail spaces are located along Graham Avenue (near Scholes Street, No. 13); on Leonard Street (near Maujer Street, No. 1); and on Bushwick Avenue (between Maujer and Stagg Walk, No. 16). They have a stream-lined character and curve away from the street at both ends. One story tall, they have granite bases and are clad with stainless steel and metal that has a baked-on blue porcelain finish. Above the storefronts runs the blue metal parapet, crowned by a stainless steel roof rail. Lighting was added above the storefronts, and security gates, when the stores are open, roll up and are neatly hidden within the facades. Large glass blocks or plate glass are used throughout. Along Bushwick Avenue, the modifications are less sympathetic and a vertical grid of older decorative concrete block occasionally interrupts the facade.

 

- From the 2003 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

Minke whale in Nova Scotia

PRR 5711 leads the "Liberty Limited", a train of private railcars carrying wounded veterans to the Army - Navy Game in Philadelphia. This shot captures the beautifully restored E8A locomotive speeding northbound on the center track of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor at Seabrook, Maryland.

The LMS Princess Coronation Class 6229 Duchess of Hamilton was built in 1938 at Crewe as the tenth member of its class and the last in the second batch of five red streamliners.

In 1939 no. 6229 swapped identities with the first of the class 6220 Coronation and was sent to North America with a specially-constructed Coronation Scot train to appear at the 1939 New York World's Fair.

The locomotive was shipped back from the States in 1942 after the outbreak of the Second World War, and the identities of the locomotives were swapped back in 1943.

 

6229 was painted wartime black livery in November 1944. Her streamlined casing was removed for maintenance-efficiency reasons in December 1947 and she was then given the LMS 1946 black livery.

In 1948 she passed into BR ownership. BR added 40000 to her number to become 46229 on 15 April 1948.

46229 was saved from the scrap yard along with classmate 6233 Duchess of Sutherland as a result of Sir Billy Butlin's efforts to place these locomotives as children's playground exhibits at his holiday camps. Duchess of Hamilton survived at Minehead Holiday Camp and it returned to steam on the main line under the auspices of the Friends of the National Railway Museum.

 

Credit and thanks to Wikipedia for the Duchess of Hamilton information.

Albatros D.Va at the NASM, Washington DC.

 

In 1916, Albatros Werke produced the remarkably advanced Albatros D.I. It featured a streamlined semi-monocoque fuselage, with an almost fully-enclosed 160-horsepower in-line Mercedes engine, and the propeller spinner neatly contoured into the nose of the fuselage. A sesquiplane version with narrow-chord lower wings, designated the D-III, was introduced early in 1917, and served with great success. The Albatros D.V model was fitted with a more powerful 180-horsepower engine, but was plagued by a rash of upper-wing failures. The wings were strengthened, resulting in a re-designation, the D.Va. Unfortunately, the necessary strengthening increased the weight and negated the performance advantage of the new engine.

 

Approximately 4,800 Albatros fighters of all types were built during World War I. They were used extensively by the German Air Service throughout 1917, and remained in action in considerable numbers until the end of the war. Many of the highest-scoring German aces achieved the majority of their victories while flying Albatros fighters.

The early history of the NASM Albatros is very sketchy. During the restoration of the airplane by NASM, the serial number D.7161/17 was discovered under several layers of paint on the fin. This places it in the final batch of 550 D.Vas built by the Albatros factory during the war. The last of these aircraft reached the front in April 1918. It is apparent, however, that the airplane is comprised of components from more than one Albatros. The individual wings show evidence of workmanship of different quality, suggesting that they were not produced at the same time and at the same place. Further, before restoration, there were straight crosses as well as the earlier Iron Cross national insignia on different components of the airplane.

 

Another clue to the history of the NASM Albatros was revealed during restoration. The original layer of paint showed green and yellow stripes on the tail. This was the marking for the German squadron Jasta 46. This unit was formed at Graudenz on December 17, 1917, as part of Germany's Amerika Program, an effort to build up German strength rapidly and deliver a decisive blow to the West before American resources could be brought to bear for the Allies. Under the program, the number of German fighter units doubled. The inferred production date from the serial number of the NASM Albatros fits with the creation and equipping of Jasta 46 with Albatros fighters. Evidence that the NASM Albatros did see combat is damage from a bullet that passed through the right machine gun mount, penetrated the emergency fuel tank, and then lodged in the right magneto. The airplane was unlikely to have flown again as the fuel tank had not been repaired.

 

The distinctive personal marking of "Stropp" on the fuselage side remains a mystery. Some have suggested that stropp can be interpreted to mean a precocious or mischievous boy, but no record confirming this, or even with whom the marking was associated, has been found.

 

The history of the airplane for the remainder and immediate aftermath of the war remains unknown. The first record of the NASM Albatros in the United States is the presentation of the airplane to the De Young Memorial Museum in San Francisco on July 13, 1919, by Congressman Julius Kahn. It is unclear how Congressman Kahn became associated with the Albatros, but a label placed with the airplane at that time credited it as a gift from the French government. Some years later, NASM curator Paul Garber learned of the Albatros at the De Young Memorial Museum. On a trip to California in January 1947, he located the airplane and approached the museum about donating it to the Smithsonian. Garber was informed that it had recently been sold at auction for $500.00 to George K. Whitney, who planned to display it at Playland near Cliff House, a local San Francisco tourist stop. After Garber explained the importance of the historic aircraft to Whitney, he agreed to donate it to the Smithsonian, with the condition that the museum pay the packing and transportation costs. After a lengthy delay until funds were available, the Albatros was moved to the museum's temporary storage facility in Park Ridge, Illinois, in August 1949. It was brought to Washington, D.C., in 1952 and remained in storage until restoration began in January 1977. The complex and meticulous rebuilding of the NASM Albatros D.Va was completed in February 1979.

  

The history of the base ZIL-111 started in 1956. ZIL-111D with a body "convertible" is a modified ZIL-111G with a body "limousine" produced since 1962, which in turn was a modification of the basic model ZIL-111.

 

The first car to receive the (still unofficial) this index was constructed in 1948, the ZIS-110M number 5. He is the only five cars in this series had a streamlined body with a single pontoon sidewalls, similar in appearance to the body "Packard Clipper" in 1947. Second ZIS-111 "Moscow" appeared in the early 1950s, he was a creation of designer Valentin zilovskogo sprout. It was built only two or three copies, one of which was shown at the Exhibition of Economic Achievements. At the exhibition visitors, this car did not cause great pride in the domestic auto industry. Frankly American car-like "Buick" of the late 1940s, nothing but a big bird on the hood, did not attract attention, and generally looked mediocre.

 

In the early 1950s in the American automotive industry has arisen a tendency to change the annual lineup. As a rule, these changes were only the exterior and interior, chassis remained the same for several years. Keep up with such a rapid fashion could not even Europe, not to mention the Soviet Union with its planned economy. Indeed, the car just did, put on the conveyor belt - and the next year to change all the seals, snap-in, spend millions of rubles for the sake of fashion. The only solution here was to create a machine progressive enough to "margin of safety" was enough for a few years.

 

Knowing this and seeing that the plant itself could not find a worthy replacement for veteran ZIS-110 ZIS leadership decided to hold a competition to create a project perspective the car - ZIS-111 new generation. Among a number of proposals liderovali two projects already built by ZIS-111 "Moscow" sprout and experienced car with the outline of "Packard" 1955 model year, a young designer from the LM Yeremeyev.

 

It was a clash of different schools, different approaches: a, zilovskogo, and another, dared to revise established views of the plant. Battles have been hot. ZIS sprout had already been built and almost ready to launch into production, but the option Eremeeva turned much more fresh and sovremennym.V finally won Yeremeyev. After the germ left the factory.

 

In 1956, a design project Yeremeyev was embodied in the life-size clay. In 1957, a new car under the name of ZIL-111 was released (in 1956, died IA Likhachev, and the plant was renamed in his honor). In a metal machine was a beautiful, yet rigorous. The front part was like at the same time, "Packard" and "Mercury" 1955-1956 period, while at the same time, comparing favorably to both of them. A much more elegant than the "Packard", and more representative than the "Mercury", he became the personification of the Soviet Union period, thaw. Large glass area and a panoramic windshield missed a lot of light into the cabin. Located on the side molding and sagittal "gill slits" are copied from the "Imperial" in 1956 (on a batch molding ZIL-111 was replaced by a figure known to us gulls). The rear portion was done in the style of "Packard." Large vertical lights, covered wings, reminiscent of the arches of Gothic cathedrals.

 

In 1958, with some modifications ZIL-111 went into the series. The designs of the ZIL-111 was not just a step forward compared to the ZIS-110, it was a real breakthrough. ZIS-110 was a design in 1941 and ZIL-111 is fully consistent with the requirements of 1955. During this period the automobile world of America has replaced three basic models, and by 1955 in the technological sense of the early machines of the 1940s has disappeared. New ZIL, like its predecessor, remained framed machine, this is probably where the similarities end there. New gasoline V-shaped eight-cylinder engine with a cast iron block and aluminum cylinder heads weighed 350 kg and gave 200 hp (ZIS-110 - 140 hp).

 

For the first time on a serial domestic car was installed two-speed automatic transmission with push-button control. The car was much lower. Due to the increased width of the bodywork and interior remodeling space in the car became more, respectively, the passengers could accommodate much more comfortable than its predecessor.

 

In 1959, the series went to changed ZIL-111 with the installation of domestic air-conditioning, called ZIL-111A. Cooled air conditioning and reduced humidity in the cabin when the outdoor temperature exceeds 18 ° C. The engine ZIL-111A also has an index, "111A" - it was connected with the installation of the compressor and some changes in the design of the drive components. Externally, ZIL-111A can be distinguished on the back nepanoramnomu glass, it was done in conjunction with the installation of the sides of the rear window air conditioner.

 

In 1960 appeared convertible ZIL-111V: big seven-seater had a canvas awning and 4 side lifting windows in chrome frames. The rise of the windows, as well as the rise of the curtain, implementation-lyalsya through a hydraulic drive. Tent, as in chaise ZIS-110B, in the folded position is covered by a decorative leather cover, and additional seating - straponteny - had double back with equal halves. Special gray convertible ZIL-111V changed carriages at parades ZIS-110B. Convertibles "111V" issued three years before putting on stream next modification ZIL-111G.

 

There is a version that the next change in the appearance of the vehicle was conducted at the request of Khrushchev, who noticed that the car is head of state (ZIL-111) does not differ from machine chairman executive committee (GAZ-13 "The Seagull"). In 1961 he was a prototype car, which is similar in form to the "Cadillac", but for unknown reasons, the series did not go. In the same year the car has undergone yet another facelift, and took its final form. The car went into production in 1962 and was called ZIL-111G. In fact, this is the same, "111A" with air conditioning, but with modified external forms. Starting with the ZIL-111G, air-conditioning became standard equipment and is not designated as a separate model of the plant. Externally, ZIL-111G is not copied any particular car, and was fully established factory designers, albeit with an eye to the American automotive industry trends. At the "111G" was used chetyrehfarnaya lighting system front and rear. And two round rear lights have been borrowed from the ZIL-118, "Youth". The front and rear of the car have been completely changed. The central part is the same, except for the outer door panels, stylized in accordance with other external changes. The sidewall of the machine reappeared sagittal molding that goes from the big corrugated lining behind the rear wheel arches. Uppercase words "one hundred and eleven Zeal" on the rear wing gave way to a laconic "ZIL-111." On the radiator grille has disappeared with bas-relief image of a seagull Yuri Dolgoruky, but instead of a shield, stylized medieval tower with an inscription at the top - "ZIL", and at the bottom - "111" there was a simple inscription "111" with diverging rays. In the back of the emblem in the form of the same shield with radiating been replaced individually mounted letters "W", "U", "L". Due to the changes required a new bumper jack: the old captured the special eyelets in the bumper, the new well was placed under the vehicle frame. Instead of manually screw jack ZIL-111 was designed and built pedal mechanical folding type jack 2E111G jack "Cadillac" of 1961. The same jack, with minor modifications, all future manned cars ZIL.

 

ZIL-111D appeared in 1964 as a modification of the ZIL-111V with the forms of ZIL-111G. The first automobile ZIL-111D chassis number 82 was collected in July 1964. It was installed upgraded brakes. The awning was a soft top ply fabric stretched over the arches and lateral levels of the framework. Each tent is individually adjustable frame units to ensure trouble-free operation. Fabric awning was attached with nails to the cardboard inserts front bar, rear arches and rear side belt body. To shape and further stretch an awning had padded jackets side. Inside the transverse arch were closed to them suspended upholstery, has a longitudinal rubber bands, which protects the fabric from sagging during raising and lowering the canopy. In the back of the tent was provided a window of a flexible plastic film, which was attached to an awning on three sides with zips. The window could detach and drop down. Tent rose and fell with elektrogidravliche-ray drive. The whole process of raising and lowering the canopy occupied 7-7.5 seconds. To fix the canopy in the raised position had lever locks and latches. Lever locks your brackets to the front awning bar and catch on the corresponding recesses in the bracket is fastened to the top of the wind frame. On rack locks were locking pins, which when lifting the tent included in the special slot in the bracket, fixed to the wind frame. Pins, clips were used to prevent lateral displacement of the tent. When folded tent fit into the slot and the closed cover, which is fastened to the outside of the body with the buttons, and the inside of the pawned between the awning and the rear seat and fasten to the inner sidewalls buttons. To shape the bags under his tent folded stacked lightweight bag, made of porous plastic. In the raised position canopy cover was removed and stacked in a special envelope, and the pillow and contracts evolved a special belt. Pillows and envelope stored in the trunk.

 

In electrical ZIL-111D match predecessor, ZIL-111V. The differences could be traced, perhaps, only in radio. On ZIL-111, 111G and 111V was a radio-13M, kabrioletny version of which was different from the basic lack of remote control, instead using the volume control the rear speakers. Was different device antennas. On ZIL-111V was two antennas, two telescopic, located on the hind wings. They were nominated by hand, and the reception was possible only if nominated by the antennas, which caused some discomfort. At buggy ZIL-111D designers installed a new radio AR-61-2-A and improved antenna, leaving one with the electric lift telescopic. It was situated in the rear left wing and worked in both the raised and lowered in the state, but with a smaller number of programs adopted and the sound volume.

 

Cars ZIL-111D was carried out in 1964-1967, respectively. During this period, was made about eight cars. Three of them were used for the parade and had a complete set of additional radio equipment, special handles and a set of flagpoles. Others were used as a government gigs for special trips. Compare convertible ZIL-111D with any foreign counterparts is difficult, because the ZIL was the only plant that as the base car did notchback limousine, sedan and wagon were made based on it. Seven-seater convertible, which is stored in the Club cabriolets and roadsters in Moscow, is made as a whole, that is not longer "stretch" as the wedding in Lincoln, a model for a whole frame of its own configuration. Similarly, a car with a big stretch to be called "Lincoln Continental" 1961 model year. Based on this gig with the swinging doors of specialized bodywork company was established long gig. Unfortunately, this car after the murder of President Kennedy got him notorious, and the release of the model was discontinued. However, here we compare ZIL-111D with a "Lincoln" would be incorrect, as "Lincoln" also "stretch" to the same unit, built by special order.

 

ZIL-111D, owned by the Club now cabriolets and roadsters, was once presented to the General Secretary of the CPSU Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, leader Eric Honecker of East Germany - everyone remembers the "political kiss" between the two politicians, who was depicted on the Berlin Wall. It is on this car in 1974, met with Fidel Castro and Brezhnev, who came to East Germany with a visit of friendship, love a fast ride in a convertible with Comrade Honecker. Typically, the ZIL-111D softly and gravely walked in a motorcade escorted by motorcyclists and "thirteen", "Gull". After German unification and the removal from power Honecker some of its cars sold under the hammer. At the international exhibition in Brussels car was awarded the honorary diploma. Subsequent cars: ZIL-114-117 (1967-1976 years)

 

ZIL-111 all models was unquestionably reliable, stable on the road, with a great resource units, but the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution, he prepared a replacement - a new limousine ZIL-114. Drawn as a ruler, this machine represented the rational plane style of the late 60s. Engine with aluminum cylinder block was lighter and more compact than the ZIL-111, with a working volume increased from 6 to 7 liters, and power - from 200 to 300 liters. with. And the device ZIL-114 was a lot of unusual for the then Soviet vehicles: all-wheel disc brakes, height-adjustable steering column, front suspension besshkvornevaya on torsion bars. Equipment cabin was selected individually to taste this or that leader. In the early 70's at ZIL-114 appeared modification - Five sedan ZIL-117, along with almost the same, "Chaika" GAZ-13. Long ZIL-114 was the basis for universal emergency medical care, and "short" ZIL-117 - for a two-door convertible parade.

 

[Text from Blog "Russioan Traditions" - ZiL 111 - A Government Car]

 

russki-ya.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/history-of-base-zil-111...

 

This Lego miniland scale ZiL-111 Limousine (1958) has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 96th Build Challenge - The 8th Birthday, titled - 'Happy Crazy Eight Birthday, LUGNuts' - where all previous build challenges are available to build to. This model is built to the LUGNuts 66th Build Challenge, - "Behind the Iron Curtain" - a challenge to build a vehicle from countries with Communist Governements.

 

A cluster of cars outside Tubby’s auto repair and restoration workshop that represent the well-rounded look of the late 1930s/early 1940s. The 2-door Ford at the left is an early post-World War II offering, while the yellow Chevy alongside is shamelessly streamlined in its styling.

  

The Oliver 70 was part of the "Streamlined Series" which also included the Oliver 60 and the old style Oliver 88. It was manufactured from 1937 to 1948. The row-crop configuration could have either dual or single front wheels, and even had an adjustable wide front end option. The Oliver 70 was also offered in the standard, orchard and industrial configurations.

 

They were sold in the USA as the Oliver 70, painted green with red wheels. When sold in Canada they were painted red with cream colored wheels and were sold under the Cockshutt brand as the Cockshutt 70. With the optional 6 speed transmission these tractors are capable of traveling 13 mph down the road. An early advertisement states "Power when you want it - power when you need it - power to help put in crops when field conditions are right and time and help are limited. That's the power you'll find in an Oliver Row Crop 70." The tractors produced during these years were among the finiest and best performaing of the world's farm machines.

 

Production data shows that almost 63,000 of these units were manufactured. How many are still around today is not known. They are very collectible and we would venture to say that more of them are being cared for as a collection piece than in use for everyday farm chores. Parts are still available from select parts dealers. There are also a few specialty dealers who specialize in only the old Olivers. We see these tractors now and again at the local tractor shows - they are indeed a beautiful, stream-lined machine.

 

A swell old boy. Information gathered from here.

 

View Large and On Black

 

Hamilton Heights, Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States

 

Summary

 

The Jackie Robinson Play Center is one of a group of eleven immense outdoor swimming pools opened in the summer of 1936 in a series of grand ceremonies presided over by Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia and Park Commissioner Robert Moses. All of the pools were constructed largely with funding provided by the Works Progress Administration , one of many New Deal agencies created in the 1930s to address the Great Depression. Designed to accommodate a total of 49,000 users simultaneously at locations scattered throughout New York City’s five boroughs, the new pool complexes quickly gained recognition as being among the most remarkable public facilities constructed in the country. The pools were completed just two and a half years after the LaGuardia administration took office, and all but one survives relatively intact today.

 

While each of the 1936 swimming pool complexes is especially notable for its distinctive and unique design, the eleven facilities shared many of the same basic components. The complexes generally employed low-cost building materials, principally brick and cast-concrete, and often utilized the streamlined and curvilinear forms of the popular 1930s Art Moderne style. Sited in existing older parks or built on other city-owned land, the grounds surrounding the pool complexes were executed on a similarly grand scale, and included additional recreation areas, connecting pathway systems, and comfort stations. The team of designers, landscape architects and engineers assembled to execute the new pool complexes was comprised largely of staff members and consultants who had earlier worked for Moses at other governmental agencies, including architect Aymar Embury II, landscape architects Gilmore D. Clarke and Allyn R. Jennings, and civil engineers W. Earle Andrews and William H. Latham. Surviving documents also indicate that Moses, himself a long-time swimming enthusiast, gave detailed attention to the designs for the new pool complexes.

 

The Jackie Robinson Play Center was the only one of the WPA-era pools sited in a predominantly minority neighborhood. Formally opened on August 8, 1936, the Play Center was built on a narrow hillside site acquired by the City of New York and developed as Colonial Park soon after the turn of the 20th century. The uniquely monumental two-story design of the Center’s bath house is an ingenious response to the topography of the park. A rocky cliff drops off sharply from Edgecombe Avenue to the west, and the terrain then continues in a gentler downward slope to level ground along Bradhurst Avenue to the east. The locker rooms are located on the upper floor in order to provide direct access to the swimming and diving pools located above the grade of Bradhurst Avenue. The unusual dimensions of the swimming pool and the oddly shaped diving pool are accommodations to the narrowness of the site and the presence of the stone cliffs.

 

The fortress-like design of the Bradhurst Avenue elevation of the bath house capitalizes on its two-story height. Recessed bays which employ both rounded and slightly pointed arches are demarcated by giant rounded attached buttresses. Large round towers rise above the roof line at the ends of the building and flank the entrance. Rounded and curvilinear forms also characterize the design of the bandshell terrace to the north of the pool complex, as well as its perimeter walls and the elevated pathway continuing northward from the terrace, all which date to the same time period. The wading pool complex located between 152nd and 153rd Street also includes an attractive and contemporary comfort station which repeats the curvilinear forms employed elsewhere.

 

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS

 

History of the Jackie Robinson Play Center Site

 

The Jackie Robinson Play Center is set within a 12.8 acre, narrow hillside site acquired by the City of New York between 1894 and 1899. The acquisition of parkland during this time was part of a larger nation-wide reform effort to increase the availability of organized play areas in inner cities, made possible by the Small Parks Act of 1887, which authorized the creation of parks south of 155th Street as deemed necessary for the public welfare. The New York Times noted at the time of the acquisition that the Colonial Park site already “had much of the character of a park,” but needed to be preserved for park purposes before land values increased to the point that it would become impossible. Formed by retreating glaciers some 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, the parklands were particularly notable for having varied topography, a picturesque appearance, and trees providing ample shade. Colonial Park officially opened as a playground on August 12, 1911. Site interventions from this era included the addition of a comfort station, drinking fountains, and children’s playgrounds.

 

A variety of names have been given to the area in which Jackie Robinson Park is located. Known as Harlem Heights to Dutch and English settlers in the 1700s, by 1870 the neighborhood was referred to as Washington Heights, in commemoration of Revolutionary War battles that took place nearby, as well as to set it apart from neighboring working-class areas. By the turn of the century, both upper-middle class white professionals and recent immigrants from Italy, Ireland, and Germany were living in Harlem’s many neighborhoods. When African Americans began moving into the area after 1920, the elevated residential enclave just west of Colonial Park became known as “Sugar Hill,” one of the choicest neighborhoods in Harlem, tenanted by some of the area’s most successful black citizens. By the 1930s, however, much of Harlem was suffering under the combined effects of racism and the Great Depression. Colonial Park was noted at this time for being a welcome relief from the crowded conditions of the tenements and rooming houses that surrounded it.

 

Under the auspices of Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia and his legendary Park Commissioner, Robert Moses, major improvements to Colonial Park were made in the 1930s. By August 1935, the Parks Department had broken ground on the Colonial Park Play Center, a complex which would include new swimming and diving pools and an elaborate bath house. Other additions planned for the park were a new wading pool area, comfort station, bandshell and dance floor terrace, in addition to recreational areas for adults and a children’s playground. Overall enhancements were also planned for the surrounding park grounds. Funding for the various improvements was largely made possible by the Works Progress Administration , one of the many public works programs created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the United States Congress during the Great Depression.

 

In 1978, under a local law introduced by Councilmember Fred Samuel and signed by Mayor Edward I. Koch, Colonial Park and the Colonial Park Play Center were renamed for Jackie Robinson, the first black professional baseball player in the major leagues. A bronze bust of Jackie Robinson by Inge Hardison was installed inside the bath house lobby in 1981.

 

Fiorello LaGuardia, Robert Moses and the New Deal

 

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected President of the United States in 1932 in the middle of the Great Depression that followed the stock market crash of 1929. Roosevelt promised to rebuild confidence in American capitalism and to improve the nation’s standard of living by creating the New Deal economic program of unprecedented public spending on social programs and construction projects.

 

New York City had been especially hard hit by the economic downturn, and its citizens, hoping for change, elected Fiorello H. LaGuardia to the mayoralty of New York City in 1933 as an anti-Tammany Hall reform candidate. A maverick Republican and a five-term congressman from East Harlem, LaGuardia won the mayoral election on the “Fusion” ticket after losing the 1929 mayoral race on the Republican line. The Fusion Conference Committee at first considered running Robert Moses, another Republican, who was appointed Chairman of the New York State Council of Parks in 1924 by his political mentor, Governor Alfred E. Smith, a Tammany Hall Democrat from New York City. However, the committee decided against Moses because of his association with Smith, and chose LaGuardia instead. At the time, Moses was a popular public figure with a reputation as a progressive and as the builder of great parks and parkways like Jones Beach and the Northern State Parkway on Long Island. His endorsement of LaGuardia during the campaign was considered instrumental in securing a victory for LaGuardia. Within a week of the election, LaGuardia chose Moses, a champion of reform politics, as New York City’s new Park Commissioner.

 

Moses accepted the position of Commissioner of Parks in the LaGuardia administration on the condition that the five existing independent Parks Departments would be consolidated into a single department with himself as the sole Commissioner, with authority extending also over the City’s parkways. Moses also demanded to be appointed the Chief Executive Officer of the Triborough Bridge Authority, which was then building the bridge of that name, and that a new agency, the Marine Parkway Authority, which would build a bridge to the Rockaways, be created with himself at the helm. Already in charge of the Long Island State Park Commission, the New York City Council of Parks, the Jones Beach State Park Authority, and the Bethpage State Park Authority, Moses would then be in control of all existing and proposed parks and parkways in the New York metropolitan region, with the exception of areas outside of New York State.

 

In the 1920s, Moses was at the forefront of the national recreation movement that began in the first decade of the twentieth century, led by such men as President Theodore Roosevelt and the lesser-known George D. Butler of the National Recreation Association. The movement gained momentum under the administration of President Calvin Coolidge with the organization of the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation in 1924. The Depression of the 1930s further amplified the need to provide more, or improve existing, outdoor recreational opportunities, especially in urban areas. Fortunately, such goals fit nicely into FDR’s New Deal economic programs. Mayor LaGuardia’s success in securing a lion’s share of monies made available by the federal Works Progress Administration , and Moses’ management skills and his ability to attract talented designers and engineers to his staff, resulted in profound physical changes to the environment of New York City. The construction and renovation of neighborhood recreation areas, such as pools and play grounds, were some of the most ambitious and successful programs undertaken by Moses with funds largely provided by the WPA.

 

Moses began to assess the state of the City’s parks and to plan for their future as soon as LaGuardia announced his intention to appoint Moses as Park Commissioner. According to one source: “Immediately after the election he wrote out, on a single piece of paper, a plan for putting 80,000 men to work on 1,700 relief projects.” Moses hired a consulting engineer and three assistant engineers to survey every park and parkway in the City. The survey was completed by the time he took office in mid-January 1934.

 

When Moses took over the Parks Department, it was already employing 69,000 relief workers funded mainly by the federal Civil Works Administration and the Temporary Emergency Relief Administration . However, Moses found the men to be ill-equipped and inadequately supervised, and considered many of the construction projects to have been poorly designed. He immediately began to revamp the entire operation of the Parks Department and established a Division of Design, located at the Arsenal in Central Park. The staff was to be headed up by experienced professionals drawn mainly from his State agencies. Some of his talented staff of young architects, landscape architects and engineers had worked on the designs for Long Island’s highly acclaimed parks, including Jones Beach, which his considered one of Moses’ greatest accomplishments. His staff also included a number of well-known and accomplished designers, among them architects Aymar Embury II and John M. Hatton, and the landscape architect and civil engineer Gilmore D. Clarke. Other top members of Moses’ staff were the landscape architect Allyn R. Jennings, and civil engineers W. Earle Andrews and William H. Latham.

 

The Parks Department’s Division of Design was organized in the following manner: a topographical unit of about 400 surveyors and draftsmen, a landscape architecture unit of about sixty people, an architecture unit made up of sixty architects and draftsmen, and an engineering unit of about fifty. Smaller units included an Arboricultural Department and an Inspection Department. All the work in the Division of Design was under the direct supervision of the Park Engineer, who was aided and advised by a Consulting Architect, a Consulting Landscape Architect, and a Consulting Engineer. All new projects began in the topographical unit, where a complete survey of the land was prepared. It then moved on to the landscaping unit, where the basic concept for the design was developed. Next, the three units: landscape, architecture, and engineering, collaborated to produce the final design and all the necessary construction documents. The Park Engineer and his aides had to approve all of the plans. Moses himself sometimes stepped in to revise or overrule a design, especially on the larger, more visible projects.

 

Moses' superior management ability and political savvy allowed him to move projects along very quickly and to produce concrete results, gaining for him much public admiration. However, Moses’ personal demeanor was notoriously stubborn and arrogant, and he was known, at times, to disregard the legitimate authority of other governmental agencies. Once, when the Department of Plant and Structures refused to suspend a ferry service that used a terminal in the path of constructing the Triborough Bridge approach road, Moses had his men demolish the terminal while the boat was on the other side of the river. He feuded with President Franklin D. Roosevelt for years, even while Washington was pouring millions of dollars into Moses' own Parks Department. His later battles with and subsequent triumphs over community groups opposed to the routing of the Gowanus and the Cross-Bronx Expressways through their neighborhoods are now legendary. Moses was also known to have been insensitive to people of color, and reputedly tried to restrict access to many of his recreational facilities, including the WPA-era pools.

 

To many, Robert Moses was a master builder; to others he was a spoiled bully who seemingly always had his way. In the summer of 1934, however, Moses was a hero. Hundreds of projects, covering virtually every neighborhood in the city, had been completed. Structures were repainted, tennis courts resurfaced, and lawns reseeded. Hundreds of new construction projects were either already underway in the process of being designed. Among them was the Jackie Robinson Play Center in Harlem.

 

Subsequent History

 

The Jackie Robinson Play Center officially opened on August 8, 1936, the tenth of the eleven pools to open. Despite its inauguration on this date, the pool complex was not entirely complete - most notably, only half of the bath house was open to the public at the pool’s opening. Many of the drawings on file at the Parks Department archives in Queens are dated as approved well after the official inauguration date. Revisions for the bath house were still being approved as late November 1936, for the bandshell and dance floor terrace in December 1936, and for grading and other park improvements as late as April 1937. There were very few alterations in the years immediately following the completion of the pool complex, although some minor work to the park grounds was done in the mid-1940s, including plantings, fencing, and reconstructive work on existing stairways. Subsequent changes to the Play Center complex include the filling-in of the diving pool to create a “water play” area and the filling-in of the wading pool for use as a children’s playground, although it is unclear when either change took place. Upgrades to the playground equipment and active recreational facilities found throughout the park have also been made.

 

In 1978, Colonial Park was renamed Jackie Robinson Park after the first black professional baseball player in the major leagues. Born in Georgia in 1919 and raised in California, Robinson was the first UCLA student to earn letters in four sports: baseball, basketball, football and track. Robinson served in the U.S. army in World War II, played baseball in the Negro Leagues, and signed to the Brooklyn Dodgers top farm team, the Montreal Royals, in August 1945. On April 15, 1947, Robinson made history as the first African-American to play in a major league baseball game, paving the way for generations of black athletes to compete in the sport, which did not become fully integrated until 1959. As second baseman, Robinson led the Dodgers to six World Series, and was inducted into the Baseball Hall of fame in 1962. Robinson later became involved in a number of business enterprises, including several black-owned community businesses, and was active in the NAACP. He also served as a special assistant to Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller before dying of heart disease at the age of 53 . In 1981, a bronze bust of Jackie Robinson by Inge Hardison was installed inside the pool and recreation center lobby at West 147th Street. A mural of Jackie Robinson was more recently painted inside of the bandshell in 2006, designed by artist Michael Young, and painted by the Junior League of New York.

 

By the late 1970s, many of the WPA-era pools, Jackie Robinson included, had become badly run down, partially the result of the fiscal crisis of the 1970s which hit the Parks Department particularly hard. By March 1981, the Parks Department workforce had dwindled to a record low of 2,900 employees, mostly unskilled and temporary, as compared to the 30,000 parks employees on staff during the Moses administration. The strain on Parks Department resources was evident in the deplorable conditions of many of its facilities. To address the rapid deterioration of its recreational facilities, in 1977 the Parks Department began a major capital construction program involving more than 500 projects, expected to total more than $180 million, partly in Federal funds – the first such projects undertaken by the parks system since the fiscal crisis halted such work in 1975, and arguably the most ambitious program to improve the parks since the 1940s. Among the projects planned was a $10 million plan to preserve Prospect Park, a $1 million renovation of the Coney Island Boardwalk, and a $2.6 million rehabilitation of the Jackie Robinson Play Center. Several of the other WPA-era pools, including Sunset Park and Betsy Head, underwent restoration under the same program.

 

Closed since 1978, the newly renovated Jackie Robinson Play Center was re-opened on July 14, 1980, to the great relief of neighborhood residents. Much like LaGuardia and Moses before him, the administration of Mayor Ed Koch had been plagued by accusations of insensitivity towards minorities. In an effort to disprove such allegations, Mayor Koch was sure to attend the re-opening of the pool, where “an enthusiastic crowd of children plunged happily into the water at the Mayor’s signal.” Also present at the opening was Mrs. Jackie Robinson. The Parks Department called the renovations of the WPA-era pools “an essential part of the revitalization [of] the entire public recreational infrastructure of the city,” helping transform the aging pools back into modern recreational facilities.

 

The WPA-era pools faced a new set of challenges beginning in the mid-1980s, with pools like the Crotona Play Center in the Bronx becoming infamous for vandalism and walkways littered with broken glass. In 1991, Mayor David Dinkins proposed closing the pools as part of a package of budget cuts. Only a donation of $2 million from a private donor, real estate magnate Sol Goldman, guaranteed the pools would be kept open for at least a portion of that summer; an additional $1.8 million was still needed to cover the entire nine-week long swimming season. In the mid-1990s, a menacing ritual known as “whirlpooling” had become common throughout the pool system, a practice characterized by groups of teenage boys locking arms and shoulders, churning the water and disrupting the activities of other swimmers, particularly women who often found themselves unwilling fondled. Several more serious complaints of sexual assault were recorded throughout the pool system in the summer of 1994. With improvements in security staffing and increased vigilance on the part of patrons, many of the problems of the 1990s did eventually dissipate, and by 2003, the pools were once again touted as both extremely safe, and a welcome alternative on a hot summer day.

 

The Architecture and Site of the Jackie Robinson Play Center

 

The New Deal construction projects within New York City, such as the Jackie Robinson Play Center, were a part of a national trend that included similar projects undertaken by various governmental agencies, ranging from the vast Tennessee Valley Authority to small cities and towns. Urban projects built with WPA funding often possessed similar qualities from region to region, partly because the difficult economic climate dictated the use of inexpensive building materials, but also because the programs provided employment opportunities for a generation of young architects and engineers, many of whom were committed to modernism. For example, the bath house and waterfront facilities at Aquatic Park in San Francisco are similar in plan and appearance to the public pool and beachfront projects being built at about the same time in New York City. The California facility, with its streamlined, concrete facade and steel-framed windows, bears a striking resemblance to the facade added in 1936 with WPA funds to the bath house at Jacob Riis Park in Queens. The original and creative use made of these modest materials by Moses' talented design teams and the careful siting of each project makes every one of them a distinguished, individual design, as much related to their specific environment and needs as to one another.

 

The Jackie Robinson Play Center was built on a narrow hillside site acquired by the City of New York and developed as Colonial Park soon after the turn of the 20th century. The uniquely monumental two-story design of the Center’s bath house is an ingenious response to the topography of the park. A rocky cliff drops off sharply from Edgecombe Avenue to the west, and the terrain then continues in a gentler downward slope to level ground along Bradhurst Avenue to the east. The locker rooms are located on the upper floor in order to provide direct access to the swimming and diving pools located above the grade of Bradhurst Avenue. The unusual dimensions of the swimming pool and the oddly shaped diving pool are accommodations to the narrowness of the site and the presence of the stone cliffs.

 

The fortress-like design of the Bradhurst Avenue elevation of the bath house capitalizes on its two-story height. Recessed bays which employ both rounded and slightly pointed arches are demarcated by giant rounded attached buttresses. Large round towers rise above the roof line at the ends of the building and flank the entrance. Rounded and curvilinear forms also characterize the design of the bandshell terrace to the north of the pool complex, as well as its perimeter walls and the elevated pathway continuing northward from the terrace, all which date to the same time period. The wading pool complex located between 152nd and 153rd Street also includes an attractive and contemporary comfort station which repeats the curvilinear forms employed elsewhere.

 

Description

 

Plan and Circulation

 

Jackie Robinson Park is bounded by West 145th Street to the south, West 155th Street to the north, Edgecombe Avenue to the west, and Bradhurst Avenue to the east. Due to the steep difference in elevation between Edgecombe Avenue and Bradhurst Avenue, the park is mainly accessible along Bradhurst Avenue. Additional entry points can be found at the southwest corner of the park, as well as along Edgecombe Avenue, all of them via stairway.

 

The Jackie Robinson Play Center is located towards the southern boundary of Jackie Robinson Park. The Play Center can be approached from either the north or the south along Bradhurst Avenue. The two entrance doorways to the Play Center bath house are found just north of the intersection of Bradhurst Avenue and West 146th Street, beneath the imposing brick arches of the structure’s front facade. Upon entering the bath house building, patrons will find themselves in the vaulted, Gothic-inspired entrance lobby. Admission to the pool must first be purchased here at the ticket booth, a projecting, oblong, glass-enclosed structure. The ticket booth structure is vaguely reminiscent of the prow of a ship, and is located between the two entrance doorways. A modern, unenclosed extension of the original ticket booth structure was added in recent years.

 

After purchasing an admission ticket, patrons walk up one of two cascading stairways at the rear of the entrance lobby, to either the men’s or women’s locker rooms. From the locker rooms, access to the pool deck area, located west of the bath house structure, was provided by doors at the respective ends of the men’s and women’s sides of the rear facade, and only after patrons had passed first through the mandatory shower and foot baths. Today, access to the pools is available directly from the top of the two stairways, making it possible to circumvent the entirely redesigned men’s and women’s locker areas on the way to the pool deck. The two pools found here, the main swimming and former diving pools, are surrounded by a narrow promenade, an accommodation to the restrictive dimensions of the play center site. Concrete bleachers run the length of the main swimming pool to the west, while smaller concrete bleachers can be found north of the former diving pool. An additional service entrance is located at the southern boundary of the pool area.

 

The main entrance to the bandshell, dance floor terrace and extension, located between West 147th Street and West 150th Streets, is found at the intersection of Bradhurst Avenue and West 148th Street, and may be approached from either the north or the south. After ascending the stairway located here, patrons will find the open-air bandshell and dance floor terrace directly accessible to the south. To the north extends an expansive promenade lined by an undulating brick wall featuring concrete seating niches to the west, and modern park benches to the east. The promenade terminates at the intersection of Bradhurst Avenue and West 150th Street, and provides an alternative entry point to the bandshell and dance floor areas. An additional elevated pedestrian pathway links the dance floor terrace to the northern extent of the promenade, accessible via stairways at either end. This pathway provides an additional exit onto Edgecombe Avenue via an L-shaped stairway at its approximate midpoint.

 

The former wading pool and comfort station are located towards the northern boundary of Jackie Robinson Park. This area of the park has only one entry point which is roughly in line with the intersection of Bradhurst Avenue and West 152nd Street. This entrance may be accessed either off of Bradhurst Avenue, or via an additional elevated pedestrian pathway beginning at the northwest corner of the park at Edgecombe Avenue and West 155th Street, continuing parallel to Edgecombe Avenue, and terminating in a succession of concrete stairways near the intersection of Bradhurst Avenue and West 152nd Street. The remaining play areas, including children’s playgrounds, tennis courts, baseball fields, and handball courts, are all accessible along Bradhurst Avenue.

 

The Bath House

 

The Jackie Robinson Play Center bath house is built partially into the slope of Jackie Robinson Park, a response to the narrowness of the hillside site and the presence of stone cliffs, resulting in a two-story facade in the front, and a single-story facade to the rear. The fortress-like design of the front facade capitalizes on the building’s two-story height, giving the structure an imposing presence along Bradhurst Avenue.

 

The Play Center bath house is essentially an elongated rectangle, with its two longer sides running parallel to Bradhurst and Edgecombe Avenues, and its shorter sides parallel to West 145th and West 155th Streets. Each of the building’s four facades is constructed of brick laid in a common bond, with a brick soldier course at ground level. Fourteen recessed bays characterize the front facade, employing both rounded and slightly pointed brick relieving arches that are demarcated by giant rounded attached buttresses. Simple rectangular limestone corbels accent the arches of the southern half of the bath house facade, which features an asymmetrical combination of slightly-pointed and rounded arches. The more robust northern half of the facade is characterized by a series of full-height buttresses separating three bays of paired arches; the paired arches, one slightly-pointed, the other rounded, meet at substantial limestone corbels, with the central bay featuring also a stepped brick corbelling pattern.

 

Large round towers, capped by brick crenellations and cast-stone coping, rise above the roof line at the ends of the building and flank the two central bays. Smaller round towers are paired with the larger ones at the building’s center, and are capped by inverted, stepped cast-stone cones. Each of the two central bays is further defined by an enormous round brick arch, with two elongated niches punctuating the recessed areas beneath. The two arches of the central bays meet at a full-height attached buttress. Each bay also contains a single bas-relief panel, set within an arched niche featuring rounded reveals and a projecting brick sill, depicting a swimming-related scene. The two entrance doorways to the Play Center are also found beneath the arches of the central bays, one on either side of the full-height buttress, and are characterized by segmental brick relieving arches and rounded brick reveals. The doorways are noticeably small in scale, particularly as compared to the overall monumentality of the bath house facade. A second brick relieving arch is embedded in the facade just left of the southern of the two entrance doorways; the two relieving arches meet at a simple limestone corbel. The faint outlines of the words “Colonial Park” and “Play Center” are still barely visible above the central bay arches, where original park lettering once hung. A limestone panel found at the base of the full-height buttress between the two entrance doorways, originally displaying the date of the Play Center’s construction, currently displays only the letters “AD”.

 

The recessed areas beneath the arches of the north and south wings of the bath house feature a range of fenestration, designed to match the needs of the services provided in the interior spaces behind. For example, enormous clerestory windows can be found beneath the arches of both the northern and southern wings of the bath house facade – some paired, some curved, others slightly pointed, depending on the shape and size of the arch under which the window is found. These windows in turn draw natural light into the locker room and gymnasium areas beyond. At ground level, a series of service doors, windows, and louvered vents are all disguised as arched windows of varying size and shape, with limestone blocks flanking the upper corners of the window openings and projecting limestone sills. Additional service doors are located at the base of the large towers flanking the central bays, while elongated rectangular windows, capped by oversized, segmental brick relieving arches, can be found on the towers that flank the ends of the building. A parapet featuring a cast-stone balustrade spans the distance between the four main towers of the front facade. This same balustrade is repeated on the parapets spanning the north and south facades, as well as the area behind the former diving pool bleachers.

 

The south facade of the bath house is a simple brick wall featuring only three narrow arched window openings. In contrast, the north facade, which comprises the same narrow dimension, repeats the paired arch motif of the northern half of the front facade – though there is room for only two arches. A small circular tower flanks the north facade at its western end, capped by the same inverted, stepped cast-stone cone found elsewhere. The southern facade is painted red in patches, while the lower half of the northern facade is painted entirely.

 

The rear facade of the bath house building is a single-story, simplified version of the front facade, located level with the second-story of the bath house due to the slope of the site. Featuring protruding brick buttresses with simple cast-stone caps, the rear facade is divided into fourteen regularized bays. The roofline of the rear facade is enlivened by alternating header, stretcher and angled brick courses, as well as cast-stone coping. A mixture of doorways and large arched clerestory windows characterize this facade. A non-historic guardrail currently lines the roof.

 

The Pool and Deck Area

 

The enclosed pool area, located west of the Play Center bath house, forms an irregular shape in response to the unusual topography of the pool complex site. Within this enclosed pool area can be found the main swimming pool, a basically rectangular form with one semi-circular end, as well as the former diving pool, arranged in a linear fashion. The vaguely trapezoidal shape of the former diving pool is an accommodation to the natural rock outcropping that nearly spills over into the pool deck area. Once paved in brick, the deck area surrounding the pools has since been replaced by concrete. A series of historic lampposts have also been removed.

 

Concrete bleachers line the inner side of the western perimeter wall of the pool area, running parallel to the main swimming pool, while a smaller set of comparable bleachers can be found north of the diving pool, lining the inner side of the wall shared with the dance floor terrace to the north. Rectangular brick piers capped with cast-stone flank the ends of the main swimming pool bleachers, while the perimeter wall is topped by potentially historic wrought iron fencing. Several historic lampposts that used to sit on small concrete piers along the fourth riser of the main swimming pool bleachers have been replaced by modern lighting fixtures. An additional non-historic lamppost is located along the promenade between the main swimming and former diving pools. A cast-stone balustrade, similar to the parapet found along the north, south and east facades of the bath house, runs behind the former diving pool bleachers, which is flanked to the east by the rear elevation of the bath house, and to the west by two piers belonging to the dance floor perimeter wall.

 

The former diving pool is currently used as an active “water play” area for children, replete with a range of colorful water-emitting apparatuses, as well as some standard playground equipment. A non-permanent, plywood mural featuring an aquatic theme and completed by a local community group, currently lines the northeast corner of the pool area. Non-historic fencing currently separates the main swimming pool from the former diving pool area, while the original flagpole still stands just in front of the former diving pool bleachers. A service entry can be found at the south end of the pool area, consisting of a wrought-iron gate and iron fencing spanning tall, free-standing brick posts with cast-stone coping. The piers lining the southern boundary of the pool deck area have been painted in patches.

 

Bandshell, Dance Floor Terrace and Extension

 

The recently renovated bandshell, dance floor terrace and extension, are located between West 147th Street and West 150th Street. The main entry to this area is via a broad concrete staircase located at the intersection of Bradhurst Avenue and West 148th Street. Like the Play Center bath house, rounded and curvilinear forms characterize the design of the bandshell, dance floor terrace and extension, which also date to the WPA-era. The eastern wall of the dance floor terrace undulates between West 147th Street and West 148th Street along Bradhurst Avenue, abutting the bath house to the south. This wall is characterized by curved segments featuring semi-circular ached brickwork and cast-stone coping, that span between round brick piers, also capped with cast-stone. The wall turns sharply westward at the southern end of the West 148th Street staircase, forming part of the northern boundary of the dance floor terrace.

 

The dance floor terrace is lined to the west by an undulating retaining wall of curved brick segments spanning between round brick piers and capped by cast-stone coping. The bandshell, a brick and concrete structure , faces west onto the dance floor terrace, with the ashlar retaining wall and apartment buildings along the elevated Edgecombe Avenue providing a striking backdrop. The bandshell is located at the approximate center of this wall, dividing it into three curved wall segments below, and three above. Each of the curved wall segments doubles as a seating niche and features a concrete bench. At the southern boundary of the dance floor terrace, the piers of the western boundary wall are shared with the pool deck area and are capped by the same inverted, stepped cast-stone cones found elsewhere. The western boundary wall continues past the northern boundary of the dance floor terrace, becoming the western boundary wall of the promenade extension. A pattern of singular curved wall segments with seating niches, paired curved segments with seating niches, and flat segments, is repeated from West 148th Street until West 150th Street. The eastern boundary wall of the extension features flat brick wall segments with iron railings, spanning larger distances between brick piers, laid non-linearly. Planting beds line both the eastern and western walls of the promenade, while non-historic park benches can also be found lining the wall to the east.

 

The bandshell originally featured backstage dressing rooms, accessible via doorways on, as well as flanking, the stage. These doorways have since been permanently closed off. A mural of Jackie Robinson designed by artist Michael Young and painted by the Junior League of New York in 2006 lines the interior of the bandshell. The hexagonal block paving of the dance floor terrace and extension is another notable feature of this area. Although replaced by new material between 2006 and 2007, hexagonal block paving did originally line the perimeter of the dance floor terrace as well as the extension. At the center of the dance floor terrace, however, was originally a multi-colored granolithic dance floor laid in a geometric pattern of red, green and gray, now paved with new hexagonal blocks. It is not clear when this original floor was removed. Cobblestone planting beds containing trees can still be found in their original locations on the dance floor terrace, while new benches appear to be modeled on historic benches once found towards the rear of this area. All walls and cast-stone coping lining the bandshell, dance floor terrace and extension have been painted.

 

Comfort Station and Former Wading Pool Area

 

The former wading pool area, located between West 152nd and West 153rd Streets, has long since been turned into a sunken children’s playground. The shape of the former wading pool area, which would have included the elliptical wading pool and the surrounding deck area, vaguely mirrors the shape of the Play Center pool deck area to the south, only at a smaller scale. The comfort station, a single-story, four-sided structure, is located at the center of a curved perimeter curb that chamfers the southwest corner of the former wading pool area. The building is turned at a 45-degree angle to the streets that line the park. Mimicking the tower and arch design of the main bath house, the comfort station features giant rounded piers at each of its four corners, with segmental brick relieving arches spanning the distance across each of the four facades. Rectangular window openings can also be found at each of the four corner piers, featuring brick sills and slightly arched brick lintels. Entrances to the girl’s and boy’s toilets punctuate the recessed area beneath the arch on the northeast facade. The windows punctuating the remaining facades have since been filled in so that only small, horizontal openings currently remain. Construction is brick laid in a common bond, which has been painted in recent years. Non-historic security grilles have also been added to each of the windows. A service staircase runs beneath grade along the northwest wall of the comfort station, leading to the former boiler room and utility areas. Extensive, non-historic security fencing surrounds this stairway. The hipped roof of the comfort station features a brick cupola with metal louvers and a cast-stone chimney cap. The most notable change to this roof is the replacement of the original slate roofing with corrugated metal.

 

It is unclear when the wading pool area was filled in, however, a drawing dating to 1946 indicates this area as merely a “playground,” and not a wading pool. This former wading pool complex is currently used as a children’s playground. The jagged outline of where the wading pool once was is partially delineated by a crack in the modern asphalt surface.

 

The Surrounding Park including the Playgrounds

 

Two children’s playgrounds are located between West 148th Street and West 150th Street, to the east of the dance floor terrace extension, running parallel to Bradhurst Avenue. These playgrounds, in addition to the active recreational areas to the north , are in the same locations as laid out by Robert Moses in the WPA-era, but feature modern equipment, paving, fencing, lighting, and signage. A small rectangular comfort station can be found between the two children’s playgrounds, located at the intersection of Bradhurst Avenue and West 149th Street. This brick structure, which apparently pre-dates the WPA-era improvements, features a simple pitched roof with projecting wooden eaves, entrances to men’s and women’s toilets on the north facade, and fenestration on the three remaining sides. A service staircase runs beneath grade along the western facade of the structure. The comfort station has been painted.

 

The portions of Jackie Robinson that are part of the landmark site also include two elevated pedestrian pathways that run parallel with, but below the grade of Edgecombe Avenue. While the existence of these linking pathways predate the construction of the Jackie Robinson Play Center complex, they were reconstructed during the WPA-era, and were originally paved with the same hexagonal blocks found elsewhere. Numerous other pedestrian paths were removed from the park during this time to make room for the new recreational facilities. The hexagonal paving blocks are also found at the circular plaza located south of the service entry to the Play Center pool deck, which is accessible along Bradhurst Avenue between West 145th Street and West 146th Street, as well as via the concrete stairway that begins at the intersection of Edgecombe Avenue and West 145th Street.

 

The landings of this stairway are also paved with the hexagonal blocks. Lining the park along West 145th Street are seven brick piers with cast stone coping, alternating between round and rectangular, which are spanned by historic iron fencing. Three additional piers can be found along Bradhurst Avenue, terminating at the southern edge of the Bradhurst Avenue entrance to the circular plaza, with two additional piers to the north. The features of this area, which comprises the southern boundary of Jackie Robinson Park, date to the WPA-era. All the piers and their cast-stone coping have been painted. Non-historic lighting and signage is also found throughout.

 

- From the 2007 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

N&W 611 backs out of the Strasburg Station, taking her next group of riders down the line. It's really something to see, smell, hear and feel this beast rumble past you! I've never been next to a running steamer this large before, so it was flat-out awesome to see her in person.

Frisco RR Kansas City Special passenger train pulled by a Frisco 4-6-4 streamlined passenger locomotive #1062Birmingham, Nov. 1940. Photographer unknown

Streamlined, Poema Utrecht, 28-05-2010. Sorry for the week delay before uploading the set(s). Maar het was een zwaar weekend zo, met 2 top-trance parties. Friday: 28/05: Streamlined, het laatste trancefeest in de Poema :( En zaterdag 29/05 mijn verjaardag om 00.00 uur in de Westerunie tijdens de Armada Night. Van dat feest 2 sets, 1 van gastfotograaf Paul en een van mij. Vanavond ook online hier. Het was weer fun, en een erg mooi weekend al met al. Jammer van de (te) lage opkomst bij Streamlined!

 

Line-up Streamlined: partyflock.nl/party/174584:Streamlined.html

 

Dank allen! En tot snel!

 

Je foto(s) van: Streamlined, nabestellen voor maar 1 Euro? Geef het/de fotonummer(s) door. Stuur een mail naar: dutchpartypics@yahoo.com. Daarna volgen de details en stuur ik je via e-mail de high res. foto(s) zonder logo toe!

 

Check ook eens mijn showgallery: www.dutchphotogallery.net/ (online m.i.v. 01-06-2010). Check also my YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/user/dutchpartypics

 

© Dutchpartypics | Korsjan Punt 2010. Powered by Nikon D50/D80/D3000 DSLR; Lenses: Nikon AF 50 mm, f 1.8; Nikon AF-S 18 - 105 mm VR, f: 3.5 - 5.6; Nikon AF-S 55 - 200 mm VR, f 4.0 - 5.6; Nikon AF 70 - 300 mm, f 4.0 - 5.6; Tamron SP XR DiII 17 - 50 mm, f 2.8; Tamron XR Di 28 - 75 mm, f: 2.8; Sigma Super Wide II 24 mm, f 2.8; Sigma EX DC-HSM 10 - 20 mm, f 4.0 - 5.6 and Sigma EX DC Macro 105 mm, f 2.8. Flash: Nikon Speedlight SB600 (Nikon D80) | Sunpak PZ42X (Nikon D3000) | Sunpak PF30X (Nikon D50), all including Stofen omnibounce. Compact: Nikon Coolpix L110 and Panasonic Lumix FX500

 

NIKON: At the heart of the image! & DUTCHPARTYPICS: Power of Imagination, for Pounding, Vivid Pictures! Make your photos come alive! And... ! Relive your most intense moments, over again!

Tatra's chief designer, Hand Ledwinka's characteristic rear fin is clearly seen here in the streamlined four cylinder T-97. This is a 1938 car, and is really a sort of scaled-down version of the much larger V8 engined T-87.

 

Camera: Nikon F5

Lens: Nikkor 28-80mm zoom

Film: Kodak Ektar 100

the upgraded version of my Empire State Express loco. Largely identical to the first version, but the lead trucks have been changed so they can turn better under the pistons. A few other details were added too.

The streamlines of the Class 390 Pendolino are apparent in this shot of 390119 arriving at Crewe with a train from London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street

Deutsche Reichsbahn

DRG Class SVT 137

Streamlined Diesel

Leipzig Hauptbahnhof

Leipzig, Germany

 

Sava Railways Hudson class (4-6-4) streamlined locomotive #7244 (stickers forthcoming)

 

#7244 is based off of the iconic streamlining of the New York Central's 20th Century Limited designed by Henry Dreyfuss. While it's relatively true to the design, the color scheme is not.

P/1075

The Ford GT40 was a high performance sports car, named the GT (for Grand Touring), 40 representing its height of 40 inches.

1964-66 GT40 Mk I; 289 cu in V8, 87 built

1966 GT40 Mk IIA; strengthened for 427 cu in V8, 8 built

1967 GT40 Mk IIB; 427, 8 built, new body.

1967 GT40 Mk III; 289 cu in V8, 7 built, road version with quad headlamps

1967 GT40 Mk IV; 427, 12 built, streamlined shape, lighter J chassis.

1969 GT40 Mk V; 40 built by JW Automotive, using up remaining parts

The Mk I met with little success in its initial tune for the 1964 and 1965 Le Mans. Due to the change of rules, the 427 wasn’t allowed to race in 1968. After modifications to the 289 Mk I by J.W. Automotive, this car, chassis no 1075, won Lemans in 1968 (Rodriguez and Bianchi) and 1969 (Jackie Icyx and Jackie Oliver) .

Henry Ford Museum, Dearborn

Brooklyn, New York City, New York, United States of America

 

A collaborative project of the Federal Public Works Administration and the newly established New York City Housing Authority, the Williamsburg Houses are notable as one of the earliest housing developments in the United States to reflect the ideas of the modern movement in architecture. In the 1920s Williamsburg was one of the most densely populated sections of Brooklyn and nearly six hundred, mostly frame, structures were demolished to create the 23.3 acre site. Proposed in 1934, this residential complex was skillfully designed by the Williamsburg Associated Architects during 1935 and most units were occupied by 1938.

 

The partnership included Richmond H. Shreve, of Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, the architects of the Empire State Building, and William Lescaze, the Swiss-born architect who helped introduce the “International” style on the eastern seaboard. Lescaze was responsible for the design, which includes twenty 4-story structures on four “super” blocks turned at 15 degree angles to the street grid. Oriented to the sun and prevailing winds, this unusual layout produced a series of large and small courts, many of which flow into a large public space at the center of each block. A light-colored palette distinguishes the facades, executed in tan brick and exposed concrete.

 

Among the most prominent features are the entrances, marked by blue tile and projecting stainless steel canopies, and the handsome streamlined storefronts. The complex was widely discussed by contemporary critics and more than 25,000 New Yorkers applied for 1,622 apartments. During the mid-1990s, the buildings underwent an extensive restoration which included the replacement of all exterior materials. Sponsored by the Housing Authority, in consultation with the Landmarks Preservation Commission, these alterations were remarkably sensitive and in the 4th edition of the AIA Guide to New York City the “revivified” complex was called “the best public housing project ever built in New York.”

 

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS

 

Housing the Masses

 

From the rowhouse to the apartment building, New York City has been a laboratory for innovative housing. Beginning after the Civil War, apartments, variously known as French Flats and tenements, were built to house the city’s surging population. Immigrants, for the most part, crowded into unregulated tenements, structures that maximized profits for developers while providing few amenities that we take for granted today, such as light, air, and private bathrooms.

 

Despite government efforts to legislate minimum standards in 1867 and 1879, initially private individuals took the most significant steps to make decent housing affordable to all. Several pioneering examples were located close to the Brooklyn waterfront, including the Home and Tower Buildings (William Field and Son, 1876-78), the Astral Apartments (Lamb & Rich, 1885-87) and Riverside (William Field and Son, 1890). The later complex surrounded a large tree-shaded courtyard incorporating a music pavilion and areas for drying laundry. Despite these, and a few innovative Manhattan developments, the majority of New Yorkers continued to live in substandard conditions.

 

The passage of the New Tenement Law in 1901 improved the situation, requiring that multiple dwellings be built on significantly larger lots, with fire escapes and separate “privies” for each family. After World War I, the garden apartment came into vogue. While most were built for the middle class, especially in Jackson Heights, a significant group were sponsored by unions and cooperative organizations that wished to provide members with inexpensive apartments. Significant examples include the Amalgamated Houses (Springsteen & Goldhammer, 1930) on Manhattan’s Lower East Side and the “Coops” built in the Bronx by the United Workers Cooperative Association (Springsteen & Goldhammer, 1925-27; Herman Jessor, 1927-29).

 

The first significant act of government intervention occurred in 1926 with the passage of the New York State Housing Law. Promoted by Governor Alfred E. Smith to encourage construction through the formation of local authorities that would sell bonds or seek federal funds, it had little impact until 1934 when the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) was established. The authority’s first project, aptly called the First Houses (Frederick L. Ackerman, 1934-36), was located in Manhattan’s East Village. Begun as a rehabilitation program involving the demolition of every third structure, due to structural problems the eight brick buildings were entirely rebuilt.

 

Throughout the early Depression, government-subsidized housing remained a controversial issue. Consequently, it was first promoted as worker relief, organized to create jobs but not compete with the commercial market. The first federal agency to involve itself with housing was the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which was created in 1932 to provide low-interest loans to limited-dividend housing corporations. Of the two loans it made, one was toward the construction of Knickerbocker Village (John S. Van Wart & Frederick L. Ackerman, 1933). Built for the Fred F. French Company, this Chinatown-area development consists of two 12-story buildings, both enclosing an interior courtyard.

 

In mid-1933, as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Housing Division of the Public Works Administration (PWA) was established. What made this agency different from its predecessor, the RFC, was that it would be directly involved in the planning and construction of low-income housing. The program was a great success and over the next three and half years it collaborated on the design and construction of 51 projects in 36 cities, including the Harlem River Houses and the Williamsburg Houses.

 

The passage of the Wagner-Steagall Bill (aka U.S. Housing Bill) by the United States Congress in September 1937, strengthened the federal government’s commitment to housing, but shifted greater control to local authorities. The first New York City housing project to be financed under this program was the Red Hook Houses (Electus Litchfied, chief designer, 1938-39) in Brooklyn. Future construction, which would amount to more than half a million low-rental units nationwide by 1957, would be funded primarily through low-interest loans.

 

Site

 

The Williamsburg Houses are located in northwestern Brooklyn, approximately one mile east of the Williamsburg Bridge and two blocks south of Grand Street, a lively commercial thoroughfare. Founded as part of the town of Bushwick in the mid17th century, Williamsburg was incorporated as a village in 1827. The community prospered and by 1852 it was the 20th largest city in the nation. Three years later, Williamsburg became part of Brooklyn and was commonly referred to as the Eastern District. Although ferry service was important to the area’s development, it was the planning and construction of a second East River crossing, the Williamsburg Bridge, that caused the most dramatic growth.

 

Proposed in 1883, the bridge was completed with much fanfare in 1903, serving pedestrians, bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles. In subsequent decades, Williamsburg rivaled the Lower East Side in population and density. The Brooklyn Eagle claimed in 1920 that the bridge was part of the busiest traffic center in the nation and that a single block north of it was the most crowded in the world. Conditions in the neighborhood continued to deteriorate throughout the decade, so much so that the population began to decline.

 

In October 1933, the Federal Works Administration (PWA) established a slum clearance committee to study conditions throughout New York City. Richmond H. Shreve, who would later serve as chief architect of the Williamsburg Houses, was named director. Based on the committee’s recommendations, $25 million was set aside for a housing program in New York City. Under the direction of the NYCHA, a more comprehensive study was undertaken in 1934, focusing on fourteen neighborhoods, including Williamsburg. The PWA reported:

 

When the study was completed the blighted slum area of the Williamsburg section stood out as the best example where the most good could be done in wholesale clearance work.

 

Of 93 blocks studied, a grid of 12 was identified for redevelopment in Williamsburg. These blocks were chosen because property values were relatively low and the owners were willing to sell. Most of buildings were mixed-use, incorporating retail spaces at ground level and apartments above. Each lot was carefully documented: 90% of the structures were at least forty years old, 70% were built of wood, 78% had no central heating, and 67% had no private toilets. Such statistics were used to paint an extremely bleak picture of life there:

 

But the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, according to official surveys, is unique in that its slums bear the stamp of dull listlessness and despair . . . Laissez faire, exploitation, and land speculation have robbed the community of its natural potentialities for development and orderly urban life.

 

Public amenities were also in short supply; there were few schools and there were almost no parks.

 

Architects

 

Five architects were appointed to the NYCHA’s architectural board in May 1934: Richmond H. Shreve (1877-1946) of Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, Matthew W. Del Gaudio (1889-1960), William Lescaze (1899-1969), Arthur C. Holden (18901993), and James F. Bly. As members of the board, their initial role was advisory. They would act as the authority’s chief architect, overseeing the design and construction of municipal housing citywide.

 

In June 1934 an open competition was held to choose the architects who would work on the Williamsburg Houses and other NYCHA projects. The program guidelines did not specify the location, but the grid chosen closely resembled the long blocks where the Williamsburg Houses would be built. Of 278 architects who participated, 5 of the 22 selected were assigned to the Brooklyn project: Samuel Gardstein, of Holmgren, Volz & Gardstein, G. Harmon Gurney (b. 1896), of Gurney & Clavan, John W. Ingle Jr., Paul Trapani (1887-1974), and Harry Leslie Walker (1877-1954).

 

In June 1935, a contract was signed with the Williamsburg Associated Architects. The partnership consisted of ten men: the five architects selected by jury, as well as the five members of the architectural board. Among them, Shreve had the most experience with large projects, having worked on a succession of major Manhattan skyscrapers, most notably, the Empire State Building (Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, 1931).

 

A graduate of the College of Architecture at Cornell University (1902), he began his career as a member of the school’s faculty and later joined the firm of Carrére & Hastings in New York City where he distinguished himself as having a “genius for the solution of operational and administrative problems.” Whereas prior to the Depression he mainly worked on office buildings, in his later years Shreve was associated with residential developments, most notably the Vladeck Houses (1940) on the Lower East Side, and Parkchester (1938-42), a development with more than twelve thousand apartments in the Bronx. During the late 1930s, he also served as a member of the board of design for the New York World’s Fair.

 

Design

 

Of the three initial projects built by the NYCHA and the PWA, the Williamsburg Houses were the most innovative. Shreve appointed Lescaze as the chief designer, responsible for the plan and elevations. In the 1930s, he was at the height of his career, profiled in publications read by professionals and the layman. Born near Geneva, Switzerland, in 1896, he studied in Zurich with the architect Karl Moser in 1915-19 and for a brief period worked in Paris with Henri Sauvage, an important designer of apartment buildings. Lescaze moved to the United States in 1920 and after working in Cleveland and New York City, formed a partnership with George Howe, a Philadelphia architect, in 1929.

 

Their association lasted four years and produced one architectural masterpiece, the Philadelphia Savings Fund Society building, completed in 1932. During the mid-1930s, he was extremely active, working on unrealized plans for the Museum of Modern Art, the Brooklyn Museum, and the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, as well as building three of the earliest modern-style townhouses in Manhattan, his own house and studio, completed in 1934, as well as the Raymond C. and Mildred Kramer (1934-5) and Edward and Dorothy Norman (1940) houses. He also designed, with Albert Frey, the Chrystie-Forsyth Houses. Planned in 1931, this unrealized proposal was included in the Museum of Modern Art’s so-called “International Style” exhibition of 1932.

 

One of the most unique aspects of the Williamsburg Houses is the plan. To create the 23.3 acre complex, twelve blocks were acquired by the city, and the two east-west streets (Stagg and Ten Eyck) were closed to traffic to create four “super” blocks. All but one extend three full blocks from north to south, except part of the block between Manhattan and Graham Avenues that was set aside for a new junior high school and play area.

 

The development of New York City was closely tied to its gridiron. Introduced in 1811, it resulted in a city of predictable intersecting streets and avenues. In 1835, a similar plan was approved for Brooklyn and by the early 1850s the streets that cross through the site of the Williamsburg Houses had opened.

 

Most were named for area residents, such as Daniel Maujer, a lawyer and alderman, John and James Lorimer Graham, land jobbers, and James Scholes, a local land owner. The impact of this approach is visible throughout New York City, establishing blocks and lots of equal size and dimensions. Residential developers benefitted immensely, commissioning rowhouse and tenement designs that could be repeated without regard to location.

 

By the end of the 19th century, there was relatively little open space in Manhattan and Brooklyn. As part of the City Beautiful movement, various attempts were made to loosen the grid’s hold, first through the passage of the Small Parks Act in 1887, which focused on tenement neighborhoods, and later, by situating major civic structures in plazas. Similar ideas shaped the development of garden apartments which came into vogue after 1910. One of the primary characteristics of this type of multiple dwelling was reduced site coverage.

 

In most cases, such as in the Jackson Heights Historic District, the buildings were set around the perimeter of each block, enclosing large private gardens, but in other situations, such as at the Harlem River Houses, a “crankshaft” arrangement was adopted, creating a mixture of interior and exterior courts.

 

Lescaze borrowed freely from both the garden apartment tradition and architects associated with European modernism. In his earliest design, each block incorporated six U-shaped structures arranged around a narrow central court. A later design was considerably more irregular. Turned at an angle to the street, there were fewer but larger buildings.

 

Many aspects of this proposal were integrated into the final design. The Williamsburg Houses are configured in three ways, with footprints suggesting a capital “H,” small “h,” and “T.” All have small spurs and extensions, resembling crossbars. By adding this feature the number of courtyards was significantly increased. Within each block are six buildings (except north of the school); at the north and south are the “H” and “h” configurations, and in the middle, the “T”s.

 

The decision to turn the buildings at a 15 degree angle to the street grid proved controversial. PWA accounts described it in functional terms, explaining that the orientation would provide tenants with more sun and take advantage of the prevailing northwest breezes. During the previous decade, many architects and planners experimented with similar ideas. One of the earliest built examples “to deviate from the geometry of the New York gridiron” was the Mesa Verde apartments (1926) in Jackson Heights. Designed by Henry Atterbury Smith and based on an earlier proposal from 1917, the development featured two rows of six “closed L buildings” set at 45 degree angle to the surrounding streets.

 

Lescaze, however, was more likely to have been influenced by European sources. During the 1920s, he frequently returned to Europe, a period when leading architects were involved in the design of social housing. Many favored the “tower in the park” approach in which free-standing high-rise structures stood in continuous open space. Writing in English in 1935, Walter Gropius concluded that apartment blocks should “command a clear view of the sky, over broad expanses of grass and trees which separate the blocks and serve as playgrounds.”

 

Another source of inspiration might have been Ernst May who oversaw the design and construction of many low-rise housing estates in Frankfurt. In his Bruchfeldstrasse development of 1926-27, designed with C. K. Rudloff, one section was arranged in an overlapping zig-zag configuration. As in Williamsburg, each unit had corner windows, providing tenants with uninterrupted views of a central garden.

 

Many writers were skeptical about the benefits of Lescaze’s plan. Hamlin argued that the layout would convert the courts “into perfect channels for Project for a group of factories. our most vicious northwest winds.” He was told that

 

the arrangement had, in fact, been chosen for aesthetic reasons, to “break up the street facades” and “allow the feeling of space to weave in and out on the street fronts. This goal was definitely achieved, producing an environment that was new and distinctive. The flowing spaces that Lescaze planned are less monumental and more intimate than those experienced in most housing projects, juxtaposing wedge-shaped lawns with semi-enclosed courtyards and large open plazas. As originally built, no fences interrupted the spaces and the areas adjoining the curving concrete walks were paved with cobblestone.

 

The Elevations

 

Equally modern were the elevations. Lescaze was attracted to the expressive and aesthetic qualities of modern materials. Particularly unusual was the decision to use a light-colored palette. Built from reinforced concrete, the walls were originally enclosed with a sand-cast brick that was variously described by observers as bright tan, yellowish, pinkish, and grayish warm pink. One of the most notable features was the exposed concrete floor plates which express the structure and division between the floors while giving the complex a strong horizontal appearance. Talbot Hamlin observed:

 

The effectiveness of the buildings is undoubted. The striping of brick and concrete and the contrast of the light walls which front the stair towers make a vivid picture . . .

 

Prior to the mid-1930s, red brick was the most frequently used material in housing developments, used throughout Jackson Heights and in the First Houses and Harlem River Houses. The proposal to break with this tradition generated considerable debate. While the general scheme was approved in June 1935, it was not until October that specific materials were selected. Presumably, the PWA wished to standardize the building process and reduce costs. Frederick Ackerman, technical director of the NYCHA, defended Lescaze’s proposal. He wrote the authority’s chairman, Langdon W. Post:

 

. . . the “effect” of the Project will depend very largely upon the texture and quality of the exterior wall. Unless the exterior wall possesses a greater intrinsic interest than one made of common brick then the resultant effect is certain to be a bleak, barren and unusually forbidding mass of building:

 

One might readily mistake the At Williamsburg, the buildings stand as freestanding objects, finished on all sides and approachable from multiple directions. No facade dominates and the apartment entrances face both the streets and courtyards. For those unfamiliar with the layout, the angled plan may have been somewhat disorienting. To make it easier to navigate, signs were installed throughout the complex and Lescaze skillfully designed the entrances, making dramatic use of color and form. Like Le Corbusier, he was an “accomplished” painter and frequently used color, especially blue, to enliven wall surfaces. Another possible model was May’s housing development at Praunheim (1926-29) where contrasting colors were used to give the projecting stair towers a distinctive appearance.

 

Within the courtyards are as many as five entrances. Each is sheltered by a small cantilevered aluminum marquee and is flanked by square blue terra-cotta tiles. The entrances that are located at the far end of the larger courtyards are set at a angle. In these instances, the tiles spread onto the adjoining walls and extend above the parapet to the stair bulkhead. Other tile treatments project slightly forward, or are recessed above the doors to the roof. An entrance is also located in the covered breezeway. Reached by a short flight of stairs connecting both the street and courtyard, the more public street facade had an asymmetrical character, incorporating projecting blue tiles to one side and a wide aluminum marquee.

 

Construction

 

To prepare the site for construction, 568 buildings were demolished on 349 lots and approximately 5,400 people were relocated. A 1935 report described the population as divided equally between American born, Italian born, and other nationalities. Most were semi-skilled workers, employed in manufacturing, or as clerks, truck drivers, and construction workers.

 

Demolition commenced in June 1935 as PWA supervisor Elizabeth Ross dug a crowbar into the facade of 197 Manhattan Avenue, near Ten Eyck Street. In the months that followed:

 

Steam shovels and picks played a tune to rival that of the pipes of the Pied Piper of Hamlin. From every dank basement and crumbling wall rats fled in droves. Backyards disgorged an assortment of rusted cans, trash, filth and litter that would have discouraged the most voracious goat.

 

Ground was broken on January 3, 1936. Following a brief ceremony in the rain, public officials addressed an audience of five hundred at Public School 196. During April 1936, the first foundations were poured at the southwest corner of Manhattan Avenue and Stagg Street. Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia was in attendance, followed by “a few hundred interested onlookers and an army of schoolboys.”

 

As the foundations neared completion, the PWA solicited bids for construction. Starrett Brothers & Eken was awarded the $7. 5 million contract for the first 18 buildings in October 1936. A subsequent contract, for construction of buildings No. 5 and 18, was signed in late April 1937.

 

Founded by Paul Starrett (1866-1957) and William Aiken Starrett (1877-1932) and Andrew J. Eken (1882-1965) in 1922, the firm was responsible for such high-profile buildings as the New York Life Insurance Company Building (1925), Bank of Manhattan Building (1929-30), McGraw-Hill Building (1930-31), and Empire State Building (1930-31, all are designated New York City Landmarks). The Starrett Brothers worked closely with Shreve on the Empire State Building and it is likely that this relationship helped secure the contract for the Williamsburg Houses. William Starrett acknowledged the importance and complexity of this issue when he said:

 

It is the hope of people who are discussing this (slum) problem that those same brains that put together the great skyscrapers . . . will turn toward this.

 

Starrett Brothers & Eken later built Parkchester (Richmond H. Shreve, chairman of the board of design, 1938-42), Stuyvesant Town (Irwin Clavan and Gilmore Clarke, 1943-49) and Peter Cooper Village (Irwin Clavan and Gilmore D. Clarke, 1947) for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

 

The cornerstone was laid in October 1936. It contained an aerial view of the site, a copy of the federal act creating the PWA, as well as an autographed copy of Jacob Riis’s timeless account of slum conditions, How the Other Half Lives, donated by his widow. Construction progressed rapidly, and aside from minor walk-outs by metalworkers and painters, the first six buildings were ready for occupancy with a year, in September

 

Publicity

 

The Williamsburg Houses was the largest and costliest project built by the PWA. With 1,622 apartments, it was more than twice the size of the Harlem River Houses. The approximate cost was $12.8 million. It was described by the PWA as part of “demonstration program” and numerous public events were held. In a letter to Post, Shreve stated:

 

As this project is the beginning of what, in a way, is a housing community experiment and as the public attitude toward housing will be largely controlled by the success or failure of such an experiment, it is of importance that every effort be made to make the first experiment successful.

 

In this context, how the project was perceived was of the utmost importance. Once the design had been approved, a scale model was built by the PWA and exhibited at banks in Brooklyn Heights and Williamsburg during late 1935 and 1936. This presentation was accompanied by a series of posters documenting the site, including photographs of earlier buildings and their demolition, as well as projected floor plans. The New York Times reported the model:

 

. . . throws into graphic relief the application of the new principle of multiple housing, providing more air, sunlight and recreational facilities and involving a departure from the solid-block construction.

 

The idea of using public funds to create low-income housing was relatively new and much of the language used in speeches and press releases heralded it as a major advance. At the site, signs were posted, calling Williamsburg the “Largest Low Rental Development in the USA.” At the ground-breaking, public officials evoked the memory of Alfred T. White, whose Brooklyn developments were among the first attempts to improve low-income housing in the nation.

 

Mayor LaGuardia thanked the President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for his support, as did Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, who described slums as a “vicious project of that old order whose passing, we hope, is at hand.” While some critics equated the federal housing program with socialism, most speakers saw it as a defense of democracy.

 

In November 1935, Post had contacted the PWA, requesting that the complex be called the “Ten Eyck” Houses. No explanation was given, but it is likely that the request was made to distinguish the new development from the larger surrounding neighborhood.

 

Ten Eyck Street was one of two east-west streets closed to create the site and it was probably named for the Dutch family whose Brooklyn lineage extended back to at least the 18th century. In the immediate area also lived William Ten Eyck, who during the mid-19th century served as the deacon of the Reformed Church of South Bushwick (1853, a designated New York City Landmark). Post’s request was quickly approved. The new name, however, was not widely used and a 1938 PWA publication refers to the development as the Williamsburg Houses.

 

On October 28, 1936, the construction site was briefly visited by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt. According to the New York Times, ten thousand school children and five thousand adults “cheered the President’s passage through the streets bordering the housing project.”

 

Three “model” apartments were opened for public view in July through August 1937. Furnished with loans from various Brooklyn department stores, they were presented at 180 Maujer Street. Post was an early visitor and he described the apartments as a “demonstration of what can be done, this is the most valuable contribution to social progress that the New Deal has made.” An average of 1,200 persons a day visited. In September 1937, a second group of apartments opened at 176 Maujer Street, including one decorated entirely with “reconditioned furniture.” In a related development, during April and May 1938, the WPA created an exhibit in a storefront office at 212 Graham Avenue. Organized by William Friedman of the art teaching division, the display was changed periodically to demonstrate different apartment layouts and decoration. Nine experts spent five months preparing the exhibit, hoping that it would influence local residents and provide a model for future public housing developments. A music branch, at 176 Maujer Street, also provided lessons in theory, voice, and various instruments.

 

Tenants

 

According to the Brooklyn Eagle, the Williamsburg Houses were “one of the most perfect home sites in the word . . . an eagerly sought spot to live.” Income and need formed the basis of selection and no tenant could earn more than five times the annual rent. Preference was also given to former residents of the site.

 

The first tenants began to occupy their apartments on September 30, 1937. The New York Times devoted at least two articles to “Moving Day,” as did the Brooklyn Eagle. As part of the operation, each tenant’s belongings were moved to a fumigation plant for sterilization near the intersection of Bushwick Avenue at Scholes Street.

 

This procedure was described as a “wise precaution against the spread of disease.” Bessie and Louis Grabkowitz were recognized by the NYCHA as the first official tenants. A week’s rent, of less than seven dollars, was paid and they were given keys to their new apartment. Two to five rooms in size, units featured steam heat, hot and cold water, as well as electric stoves and refrigerators. Residents praised their new homes, commenting on the appliances and abundant sunlight.

 

By the end of 1937, most apartments were occupied. A community newspaper, the Projector, began publishing on a semi-monthly basis in December 1937. In April 1938, the complex was completed. In addition to the twenty residential buildings, there were retail spaces, facing the north-south streets. The PWA reported:

 

To insure efficient, sanitary commercial services, 49 stores and shops within the project, distributing drugs, groceries, appliances, and general merchandise, have been leased to private individuals.

 

The storefronts were executed in a sleek Moderne style. To the north and south, they curved away from the street, recalling the streamlined designs of Erich Mendelsohn, as well as J. J. P. Oud’s Kiefhoek development of 1925. The prominent metal parapets were blue, matching the color of the apartment entrances. Despite their polished design, a significant number failed to attract and retain tenants. Consequently, in 1945 ten unleased spaces, near the corners of Maujer and Leonard Streets, and Scholes Street and Bushwick Avenue, were converted to apartments.

 

Tenants enjoyed a variety of useful services. At the center of the complex, on Graham Avenue stood the stripped classical-style William J. Gaynor Junior High School (1936-37), and opposite it, Building No. 11 housed a nursery school. Incorporated into the building’s south court and featuring a large play terrace, Hamlin described its glass-fronted design as “pleasant” and “delightful.” In addition, a new Moderne-style health center was built directly across from the complex, on Maujer Street.

 

Throughout the development were “social and craft rooms.” These basement spaces were originally used for classes, clubs, and meetings and many were decorated with large colorful murals. In contrast to the majority of WPA murals that were executed in style of social realism, the Williamsburg murals were non-objective. Lescaze favored “abstract and stimulating patterns” and Burgoyne Diller who headed the Federal Art Project, wrote that:

 

The decision to place abstract murals in these rooms [of the Williamsburg Housing Project] was made because the areas were intended to provide a place of relaxation and entertainment . . . The more arbitrary the color, possible when not determined by the description of objects, enables the artist to place an emphasis on its psychological potential to stimulate relaxation.

 

Of twelve murals commissioned, at least five were installed. In the early 1990s, the deteriorated canvases were restored and moved to the Brooklyn Museum of Art. They include works by the American painters Ilya Bolotowsky, Paul Kelpe, and Balcomb Greene.

  

Critical Reception

 

The opening of the Williamsburg Houses was treated as major news and writers used the event to analyze the project and express their own views about the role of public housing and the importance of modern architecture. Some of the earliest comments came from the architect Walter Gropius, former director of the Bauhaus in Germany. On a visit to New York City in April 1937 he was interviewed by H.I. Brock in the New York Times. They traveled together throughout the city, visiting both new skyscrapers and the nearly-complete Brooklyn development. Gropius was impressed and praised the unusual plan, saying that Lescaze:

 

. . . seems to have solved the problem of space and light very successfully and economically, and it has the great advantage of being spread over enough land to make it worthwhile as a sample of planned development.

 

Lewis Mumford was the first critic to publish a substantial review in February 1938. As a persistent advocate for public housing, he used the opportunity to evaluate the “outlines of the new order of building.” He praised the PWA for eschewing “overpriced building lots” and instead assembling large sites in quieter areas where streets could be closed to traffic to create gardens and playgrounds. Considerable attention was paid to the slanted orientation. Although he described it as “a bit queer,” he liked the way it separated the residences from the street and that it gave the appearance that the architects were concerned about providing tenants with ample sunlight.

 

Talbot Hamlin published the most-detailed analysis. In this review, he addressed both PWA projects, calling them “a new vision of democracy ... they are better than the most expensive apartments on Park Avenue.” Despite such praise, he expressed mixed feelings. While he found the buildings “fresh and inventive and alive,” he was disturbed by the “shockingly low” standards of construction. He also admired the “imaginative and carefully studied detailing,” but criticized the landscaping as little more than adequate. The WPA Guide to New York City, published in 1939, shared similar views, quoting Hamlin’s review, and praising the design of the individual buildings.

 

In the years since completion, the Williamsburg Houses have been a frequent subject for architectural historians. Many, starting with the Museum of Modern Art in 1939, have placed the development within the context of European modernism. In an exhibition celebrating the museum’s 10th anniversary and the opening of its new building, it was the only architectural work represented that was located in New York City. In a brief essay on housing, the curators highlighted the “triple-size superblocks,” that form an “oasis of open space,” but criticized the adjoining school building as a lost opportunity to create a “truly important work.” Photographs of the complex were also included in Forms and Functions of Twentieth-Century Architecture (1952), in sections devoted to city planning and concrete construction.

 

G. Holmes Perkins wrote in the city planning section that despite faults, the complex “may be held up as patterns for tomorrow.” Richard Pommer, in one of the most insightful discussions of Depression-era housing in the United States, criticized the angled plan, calling Lescaze a “versatile pasticheur” who used visual effects without logic or relation to function. Robert A. M. Stern shared this view, writing in 1980 that it “seems overrated.” Richard Plunz, in A History of Housing in New York City, credited the project as the start of a “brief but intense struggle” to determine the aesthetic direction government-built housing would take. All four editions of the AIA Guide to New York City have praised the Williamsburg Houses. The 1968 edition called it a “very successful solution to the problem of low-rent subsidized housing,” and in 2000 “the best public housing project ever built in New York.”

 

Subsequent History

 

Conveyed by the federal government to the NYCHA in 1957, the Williamsburg Houses continue to serve their original purpose, housing more than three thousand New Yorkers. Major alterations were first proposed in 1980 and significant work took place during 1985-91. At this time, the original casement windows were replaced with bronze-colored aluminum sash and the blue terra cotta that surrounded the entrances, with tan “Morocco” glazed brick.

 

In a remarkable turnaround, during the mid1990s, the facades were restored. What began as continued maintenance, soon evolved into a major architectural project, requiring an outside contractor and consultation with the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Under the supervision of Neil Cohen of the NYCHA, the elevations were completely reskinned, the parapets replaced, as well as the chimneys, railings, and terra-cotta banding. In addition, new canopies, doors, lighting fixtures, and signage were fabricated.

 

The approximately $70 million project was executed with great sensitivity; there was an article in the real estate section of the New York Times and the NYCHA was the recipient of the Lucy G. Moses Preservation Award from the New York Landmarks Conservancy (1999), which praised the participants for restoring the complex to “better-than-new condition.” Restoration of the storefronts, except along Bushwick Avenue, was completed in 2002.

 

The high standards set by the design of the Williamsburg Houses have rarely been matched. Innovative in terms of scale, plan, and aesthetics, it remains one of the most pleasant and architecturally-distinguished housing developments in New York City.

 

Description

 

There are twenty walk-up buildings in the 23.3acre Williamsburg complex and a total of 1,620 apartments. These buildings are numbered from 1 to 20 and each entrance has its own street address, for instance, “112 Maujer Street.” Stainless steel signs, with pin-mounted numbers and letters, identify each entrance.

 

The site extends four blocks east to west, from Bushwick Avenue to Leonard Street, and three blocks north to south, from Maujer to Scholes Streets. The principal north-south artery is Graham Avenue. Between Maujer and Scholes Streets, Ten Eyck Street and Stagg Street are closed to vehicles. These winding east-west paths are called Ten Eyck Walk and Stagg Walk. They are identified by large pin-mounted stainless steel letters attached to the building facades and are visible along the north-south streets. Throughout the complex are wall-mounted cantilevered lighting fixtures. These glass and aluminum fixtures are reproductions of the originals.

 

Three of the four blocks have a tree-shaded open space at center. At present, non-historic benches, play equipment, and basketball courts are located here. Most lawns are enclosed by low iron fences. Though not original, these fences pre-date the 1990s. Pole-mounted lighting fixtures are occasionally used to illuminate these areas.

 

All buildings materials are non-historic. Each structure is four stories tall and clad in ochre-colored brick. Exterior concrete spandrel beams are exposed at each floor. To disguise patches to the concrete, the beams are coated with a grey-colored water repellency finish. The entrances are flanked by blue structural glazed facing tiles that are approximately 12 by 12 inches. Blue mortar was used to minimize the joint lines. A canopy projects in front of each entrance (except on one side of the breezeways). Made of stainless steel, they incorporate recessed down lights. Some canopies are supported by a single pipe column. The entrance doors and sidelights are made of stainless steel.

 

Each door has a grid of four small square windows. Breezeways serve a dual purpose: reached by two sets of stairs, they provide an additional north-south passage, as well as entry to apartments. Most of the stairs are flanked by stainless steel railings. The bronze anodized aluminum windows, installed in the 1980s, are all one-over-one. Arranged as single windows or in pairs, they have concrete sills and meet the concrete spandrels above. The smaller windows light the bathrooms. Single windows and pairs are located where the facades meet, often creating triple-width openings at the cantilevered corners.

 

There are three general building configurations. All are original to the complex. They include eight buildings with “H” shaped floor plans, six with floor plans that suggest a small letter “h,” and six buildings with “T” shaped floor plans. While the “H” and “h” types alternate along Maujer and Scholes Streets (except next to the school where both are “H” shaped), the “T” shaped buildings are located only between Ten Eyck Walk and Stagg Walk.

 

- From the 2003 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

Seen at Showbus 2016, we have this superb exhibition of ex-Kingston-Upon-Hull City Transport vehicles.

 

The majority in the classic KHCT 'streamlined' , and a Metrobus in the equally classic layered livery, before the arrival of the dreaded Stagecoach stripes in the mid-late 1990's.

Midtown Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States

 

The 21-story Look Building dates to 1948-50, when the minimalist aesthetics of European Modernism first began to transform the character of “setback” office buildings. Located on the west side of Madison Avenue, between 51st and 52nd Streets, this handsome mid-20th century modern structure combines tiers of ribbon-like windows with tightly-rounded corners and setbacks faced with white brick to create a unique and memorable silhouette.

 

Two second-generation, family-run, businesses were responsible for its construction: Uris Brothers, developers, and Emery Roth & Sons, architects. Though they first began to collaborate in the mid-1920s, it wasn’t until the death of each firm’s founder in the mid1940s, that the sons Percy and Harold D. Uris and Julian and Richard Roth, began to focus on commercial development. This informal partnership, which lasted until the 1970s, produced a great number of large Manhattan office buildings. Richard Roth, who attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, served as lead architect. Planned to be stylish and profitable, the building closely followed the requirements of the 1916 zoning code to maximize the square footage while using industrial materials to create sleek, streamlined elevations that suggest the influence of not only the German Expressionist architect Erich Mendelsohn, but also the 1931 Starrett-Lehigh Building and the 1947 Universal Pictures Building in Manhattan.

 

The new structure was named for Look magazine, which was part of the Cowles media empire. With a strong emphasis on photography, Look became one of the most widely-read magazines in the United States and it remained at this location until ceasing publication in 1971. Other prominent tenants included Esquire Magazine; Pocket Books; the music publisher Witmark & Sons, where singer-songwriter Bob Dylan made some of his earliest studio recordings; the industrial designer Raymond Loewy, and the building’s architects. During the late 1990s, a major and sympathetic restoration of the facade was undertaken by the architects Hardy Holzman & Pfeiffer Associates. At this time, the steel windows were replaced with similar aluminum frames and a new entrance portico was created. The Look Building was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2004 and the facade is subject to a conservation easement filed with the Trust for Architectural Easements.

 

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS

 

Building Site

 

The Look Building, at 488 Madison Avenue, stands directly north of the St. Patrick’s Cathedral complex and the Villard Houses . Prior to the First World War, this section of midtown Manhattan was primarily residential, with a mix of free-standing mansions, brownstone row houses, and a growing number of hotels.

 

Transit improvements, including the extension of the subway north along Lexington Avenue in 1918, as well as on Sixth Avenue in the 1930s, would attract commercial development to the area. While some elegant Fifth Avenue residences, including houses owned by George W. Vanderbilt , Morton & Nellie Plant , and Edward & Frances Holbrook , were converted to new uses around 1917, many structures were demolished and replaced by retail stores and office buildings. Rockefeller Center , which grew out of plans for a large performing arts center, was midtown’s most ambitious commercial ensemble, incorporating stores, offices, and entertainment venues.

 

In the vicinity of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, the Roman Catholic diocese of New York owned several structures, including the rectory and cardinal’s residence that flank the Lady Chapel on Madison Avenue, as well as the Villard Houses. It also owned the block on the west side of Madison Avenue, between 51st and 52nd Streets, where the Look Building would later be erected. This site was originally part of the Roman Catholic Asylum and in 1893 a three-andhalf-story Gothic Revival-style structure was erected to serve as a trade school for boys.

 

When much of the asylum’s property from Fifth Avenue to Park Avenue was sold in 1902, the structure became Cathedral College, a preparatory seminary to train men for careers in the priesthood. The New York Times called it “a midtown landmark which for two generations had offered a haven for quiet study and religious activities.” In 1942, the school moved to “modern facilities” on West End Avenue and 87th Street and the building was temporarily used by Catholic chaplains serving in the Second World War.

 

On East 51st Street, the Look Building stands beside a group of low-rise structures, including the former residence of contractor John Pierce . Designed by the prominent architect John Duncan, this five-story neo-Renaissance structure is clad with light-grey granite and was converted to commercial use after 1933. On East 52nd Street, the site adjoins 16 East 52nd Street , a 15-story brownish brick building with limestone details, designed by Schwartz & Gross.

 

Uris Brothers

 

Uris Brothers, acting as Neprock Realty, Inc., negotiated the purchase of the L-shaped site from St. Joseph’s Seminary & College in October 1948 for $2.6 million. The demand for office space in midtown Manhattan was growing and this market became their primary focus. Percy Uris and Harold D. Uris were the sons of Harris H. Uris , a Russian immigrant from Latvia, who arrived in New York City in 1892. By the first decade of the 20th century, he and his brothers operated a large iron foundry at 525 West 26th Street where a workforce of about 160 produced ornamental ironwork for the New York City subway system and other clients.

 

Percy Uris attended Columbia University, graduating with a degree in business administration in 1920. He and his father became commercial developers in the early 1920s, specializing in the construction of hotels and apartment buildings. Harold, who trained as a civil engineer at Cornell University, joined them in 1925. Together, they built numerous Manhattan structures, including the Court Square Building at 2 Lafayette Street, 1 University Place at the corner of Waverly Place, and the Hotel St. Moritz on Central Park South. They experienced great success but, like many of their contemporaries, struggled during the early years of the Depression and lost some of their best-known properties. In the late 1930s, they reentered the real estate field, hiring Emery Roth to design apartment buildings at 2 Sutton Place South and 930 Fifth Avenue . Roth also designed 880 Fifth Avenue, their last residential project, in 1946-48.

 

Few of Manhattan’s leading builders of the 1920s remained active following the Second World War. The New York Times described the Urises as being, along with the Tishmans, the “only builders . . . who are descended from the leaders of the Nineteen Twenties boom.” Percy and Harold Uris would accomplish this by focusing almost entirely on office building construction. The forecast for this type of real estate was particularly optimistic and using the skills they learned with their father, they would, over the next three decades, create more than 13 million square feet of new office space. Time magazine reported in 1954 that they:

 

. . . made a fortune out of conforming to the latest taste in office buildings. Their recent constructions in Manhattan have been compared both to wedding cakes and to Assyrian ziggurats, and have more layers than the former, more bulk than the latter and about as much esthetic merit as both combined. Says Percy Uris: “We’re not building in a vacuum. We’re building in a market.”

 

The company’s productivity was a remarkable accomplishment, one that transformed the midtown skyline and streetscape. Harold Uris recalled:

 

We had a policy of creating the greatest amount of space for the lowest cost . . . We bought better and built faster than anyone else . . . Efficiency was the key to our success.

 

In terms of architectural aesthetics, however, their ambitions were modest. They produced a portfolio of buildings that were modern but hardly radical, fresh but conventional. In 1972, Uris explained:

 

I happen to believe that the interior of a building is more important that the exterior. None of the architectural people agree with me. But you build for those who occupy it, not for those who stand across the street and look at it. We have always built good buildings. I won’t say I am not a perfectionist. I can’t help it if people think every building should be the Taj Mahal.

 

In 1960, Uris Brothers issued stock to finance future projects which resulted in such colossal structures as the New York Hilton , the Uris Building at 1633 Broadway , and 55 Water Street , which was at the time of completion the world’s largest office building. Shortly after the stock offering was made they began a series of major gifts to Columbia University which financed construction of a new building for the School of Business, called Uris Hall . They also made significant contributions to Cornell University, Lenox Hill Hospital, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Following the death of Percy, Harold sold his stock in the Uris Buildings Corporation to the National Kinney Corporation in 1973.

 

Emery Roth & Sons

 

Both before and after the Second World War, the Urises turned to architect Emery Roth with great frequency to produce buildings that were stylish and profitable. Emery Roth, the firm’s founder, was born in Hungary in 1871 and came to the United States around 1884. His talent as a draftsman was quickly recognized and in the decade that followed he worked in Chicago with the architects Burnham & Root, and in New York City with Richard Morris Hunt and Ogden Codman, Jr.

 

In 1895 he opened his own office and later purchased the practice that would initially be known as Stein, Cohen & Roth. Many of New York City’s finest residential structures were designed by him, such as the Bellclaire Hotel , Ritz Tower , the Beresford , the San Remo , the St. George Hotel in Brooklyn Heights, and the Normandy Apartments . Though his early works display rich and inventive exterior ornamentation, the character of his later buildings is more restrained, reflecting the growing popularity of the Art Deco and Moderne styles.

 

Roth first collaborated with the Uris family in 1924, designing the Buckingham Apartments, at the northwest corner of Sixth Avenue and 57th Street. It was during this decade that Roth’s sons, Julian and Richard, joined the firm. Julian Roth attended Columbia University and may have been a classmate of Percy Uris. Though not licensed as an architect, he “specialized in building materials, construction methods, cost estimates and the technology of curtain walls.” Richard Roth graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1928 and after briefly working with Allen & Collens in Boston, entered his father’s practice, which was renamed Emery Roth & Sons in 1938. Steven Ruttenbaum, author of Mansions in the Clouds: The Skyscraper Palazzi of Emery Roth, claimed this change had little impact on the firm’s operations and the elder Roth remained “the man who made the decisions, who maintained client contact, and set the fees. He shared the responsibilities of overseeing design development with no one.”

 

In the 1940s, however, ill health caused Emery Roth to relinquish control of the office. One of his last commissions was 300 East 57th Street, an 18-story tan brick apartment house. Built for developer Samuel Rudin in 1944-48, it featured unusual recessed terraces that were probably added by Richard who became the firm’s chief designer. This sleek project received a medal from the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects as one of the city’s best new residential structures. His next project was 505 Park Avenue , a 21story tan brick office building. Located at the northeast corner of 57th Street, the elevations had a strong horizontal orientation, with a “continuous glass front . . . to give a maximum amount of natural light.” This was the first of many buildings Richard designed for Uris Brothers, followed by 4 West 58th Street , incorporating the Paris Theater, and 575 Madison Avenue , between 56th and 57th Streets. Begun in January 1948, the latter building shares many features with the Look Building, such as a two-story base, white brick elevations, and continuous windows that “run entirely around the structure above the second floor level, providing maximum flexibility in the arrangement and subdivision of offices.”

 

These family-run businesses would remain closely aligned for several decades. Julian Roth later recalled:

 

Percy Uris would call me and say, Julian, I’ve just bought a plot of land. How soon can Richard have the plans ready?”

 

Emery Roth & Sons became one of New York City’s most prolific firms. As architect, or architect of record, they were involved in at least 150 structures after the Second World War. In 1967, reporter Thomas Ennis said that Roth has “earned most of the praise – or blame – for the way Manhattan’s business district looks today.” The firm developed a reputation for superior efficiency, employing mostly predictable formulas that maximized square footage and speed of construction. In addition, they collaborated on such high-profile projects as the Pan Am Building , the World Trade Center , and the Citicorp Building . One writer observed: “It seems unlikely any firm in history has been responsible for so many tall buildings within such a short span of time.”

 

Designing the Look Building

 

Richard Roth began to prepare his scheme in late 1948 and the final drawings were completed in July 1949. Built on speculation, the Look Building needed to be fashionable, practical, and profitable. Throughout his career, Richard pursued a pragmatic approach to design. Not only did he try to maximize the square footage in buildings but he believed this type of plan created the kind of interior space favored by prospective tenants. When he addressed the Real Estate Board of New York in 1952, Richard urged architects entering the field to develop “a working knowledge of the various codes, laws, regulations, and ruling affecting buildings.” Though he acknowledged that slender towers could be dramatic and beautiful, he believed the market for offices on the smaller, upper floors was limited.

 

While higher rents may be obtained from tower floors, he said there are fewer good tenants for 5,000 square feet of space than there are for 15,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet.

 

The 1940s proved to be a transitional period in office building design and the Look Building combines characteristics associated with Streamlined Modernism, sometimes referred to as Art Moderne, and the International Style. In terms of massing, its shape was determined by the 1916 zoning resolution, which was conceived to protect access to light and air in Manhattan’s most crowded districts. To accomplish this, commercial buildings were required to set back at a certain height, which was determined by location and street width. Bulk was regulated and diminished in stages, creating wedding-cake-like silhouettes in which the uppermost floors could cover only 25 per cent of the lot. Slender towers, consequently, were discouraged on all-but-thelargest of properties.

 

While Roth’s setback massing was fairly conventional, stepping back at every other floor above the 12th story, the treatment of the elevations was somewhat new. Faced with industrial materials, the facade has a strong horizontal emphasis. The building’s developer, Percy Uris, defended this trend toward simplicity, saying:

 

The new facade, with its horizontal lines and absence of ornamentation is generally admired, but there are some who consider the modern exterior too severe. Actually, if a building has good lines, its simplicity will add to its beauty.

 

The Look Building has bands of ribbon-like windows that alternate with white brick spandrels. Roth was most likely influenced by two local projects: the Starrett-Lehigh Building and the Universal Pictures Building . Both structures feature continuous bands of fenestration that reflect contemporary interest in functional aesthetics and possibly the work of the German Expressionist architect Erich Mendelsohn, who immigrated to the United States in 1941. Many of his works had a distinctive streamlined appearance, such as the Rudolf Petersdorf Department Store in Breslau, which was illustrated in the New York Times in March 1931 under the headline “German Architecture Goes Modern.”

 

Of probable greater importance was the Universal Pictures Building, 445 Park Avenue, completed in 1947. Designed by Kahn & Jacobs, the project architect was Elsa Gidoni, who trained in Berlin and was later described as “highly attuned to the International Style work of Erich Mendelsohn.” Built on a comparable block-long site, this 21-story office building has similar bulk and massing, ribbon-like windows, terraces, and air conditioning. It was a great success and entirely rented prior to completion. Developer Paul Tishman asserted these amenities would increase “working efficiency” and “make it possible for tenants to obtain maximum use of space on each floor . . . there just won’t be any unusable areas.”

 

For the Look Building, Roth fine tuned many of these ideas. While the number of floors and massing is similar, the curved corners allow the windows and spandrels to flow without interruption. According to Percy Uris, this type of fenestration had various benefits. Not only did it provide better lighting and a sense of openness, but he believed it was part of:

 

. . . a real step forward in office planning. Where the space is used as a large open general office, the effect is light and cheerful. These windows also make for easy subdivision into smaller rooms with more flexibility than formerly possible when masonry and columns more or less determined individual office spaces.

 

Roth claimed that this approach would satisfy “status conscious tenants . . . because it permitted an even distribution of window space for executive offices, a matter of considerable importance to corporate tenants.”

 

The stacked, multiple curves give the elevations an organic, almost biomorphic quality. Marv Rothenstein, who worked for Uris Brothers, later wrote:

 

Everything about them was special, starting with the curved structural steel,

 

followed by curved concrete forms, curved bricks, curved window frames, and

 

curved glass.

 

The corners have a three-and-a-half foot radius and are faced with radial brick. In New York City, buildings with rounded corners are found in Lower Manhattan, where irregularly-shaped parcels provided architects with opportunities to emphasize specific vistas, facades, and entrances. Though concave and convex facades gained greater popularity in the late 1930s and were present in various pavilions at the New York World’s Fair, such features were rarely used in office buildings. It was, however, used to great advantage at the Starrett-Lehigh Building, as well as in Roth’s much simpler design for 505 Park Avenue. These streamlined buildings, however, have much wider curves and were erected with less costly “straight segments.”

 

Above the 12th story, the Look Building’s setbacks function as private terraces. These unbroken, wrap-around spaces were part of the original design, and appear in the blueprints at Avery Library, Columbia University, with glass doors and metal railings.

 

In contrast to Rockefeller Center, which had common landscaped gardens on the rooftops, these shallow outdoor spaces seem closer in spirit to residential terraces and, like the upper floors of the Cities Service Building , 70 Pine Street in lower Manhattan, and the Universal Pictures Building, were reached from inside offices. Such amenities were also part of a broader trend after the Second World War to blur the boundaries between interior and exterior space.

 

To give the Look Building a stylish, modern appearance, Roth faced it with white brick. This material was introduced in the first decade of the 20th century but did not become popular until construction of Manhattan House . Built by the architects Skidmore Owings & Merrill on East 66th Street in 1947-51, this 21-story structure is considered Manhattan’s earliest white brick apartment house, influencing the design of numerous imitators and possibly Richard Roth. Though some explained the popularity of this brick in practical terms, saying it was self-washing and would reflect light into the surrounding area, white was also strongly associated with the European avant-garde, particularly the early minimalist works of Le Corbusier and Alvar Aalto.

 

Construction

 

Plans for construction of a $6 million structure at 488 Madison Avenue were filed with the Department of Buildings in November 1948. Several months later, during February 1949, D.

 

E. H. Demolition began tearing down the former home of Cathedral College and excavation of the site began. The Harris Structural Steel Company began to deliver the steel components in June 1949 and by the end of August 1949 the framework was “topped” out. The New York Times reported that this was “considered a postwar record for steel erection.” According to Marv Rothstein, as many as seven four-men riveting teams were involved in the process. The concrete floors were finished in early September 1949, and shortly after, the white brick elevations. About four floors were enclosed each week. As this task progressed, the steel casement windows were installed. Once this job was completed, the interior plastering began. Tenants began to occupy the air-conditioned structure in early 1950.

 

Tenants

 

With Cross & Brown as the building’s rental agent, all of the office floors were leased by November 1949 – several months before construction was complete – and all of the retail space by May 1, 1950. This section of midtown Manhattan was a lively hub of media activity, especially around Rockefeller Center. Several magazines were early tenants, including Look, Esquire, and Seventeen. Look was launched by Gardner “Mike” Cowles, Jr., in Des Moines, Iowa, in January 1937. He consolidated the editorial offices at 522 Fifth Avenue, where it remained for a decade. Modeled on European picture magazines, it became a significant rival to Life magazine, which was based in Rockefeller Center, and by 1948 the magazine had a paid circulation of three million. Look would become the largest tenant, with offices on the 10th, 11th and 12th floors.

 

Uris Brothers agreed to name the building for Look in early 1950. Esquire, which claimed it was “embarrassed by the “new look,” took legal action to stop this, arguing that the change would “convey the false impression” that Esquire was “published or sponsored by the publishers of Look.” No action, however, was taken by the courts and until 1980 large capital letters spelled out “Look Building” on the mechanical tower’s south side. The 1950s would be heyday of Look’s popularity, reaching an estimated 21 per cent of all U.S. adults in 1961. It was the third most popular magazine in the nation and in 1963 it would sign a new lease, almost doubling its office space to more than 200,000 square feet. The New York Times Company purchased the Cowles Media Company in 1971, which included Family Circle and various regional newspapers.

 

Pocket Books, Inc., a division of Simon & Shuster, which published popular best sellers, was also an original tenant, as was the Music Publishers Holding Company, with such subsidiaries as Harms, Inc., Remick Music, New World Music, Advances Music, and Witmark & Sons. In Witmark’s fifth floor studio, a young Bob Dylan produced a series of important early demo recordings during 1962 and 1963.

 

Emery Roth & Sons joined the prestigious roster of tenants in April 1950. The New York Times reported that it was only the firm’s “fourth move” in fifty years and they occupied part of the 18th floor until the late 1950s. Three floors above, on the 21st floor, was Raymond Loewy, one of the 20th century’s most significant industrial designers, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine in October 1949 and would design the interiors of Lever House , completed nearby at 390 Park Avenue in 1952. Later tenants have included the Institutional Investor and Abbeville Press.

 

Subsequent History

 

In April 1953, the property was sold to the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Several months later, in August 1953, the building was leased back to Uris Brothers. Since the 1970s, it has been owned by the 488 Madison Avenue Associates and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

 

The two-story retail base was remodeled with tinted black glass and new shop entrances in the 1980s. Horowitz Immerman Architects were responsible for these alterations. The rest of the exterior was renovated with great sensitivity by Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates in 1998. Architect Malcolm Holzman was the partner in charge of the project. He said that his main objective was to “keep the building as it is and not make it into something it will never be.” At the time, the original steel windows were replaced by similar aluminum frames and the glazed brick was cleaned. Additionally, about 20 per cent of the brick was replaced, as well as the original slate windowsills.

 

Interest in mid-20th century modern architecture was growing in the 1990s and the building’s careful restoration was described in a New York Times article, as well as in a small exhibition, New Life for a Modern Monument: A Salute to 488 Madison Avenue, organized by the Municipal Art Society in autumn 1998. The brochure’s text praised the owners and architects, commenting “The Look Building’s restoration shows how successfully the best postwar buildings can be updated, rewarding investors and delighting passerby.” In 2004, the Look Building was added to the National Register of Historic Places and the facade is subject to a conservation easement filed with the Trust of Architectural Easements.

 

Description

 

The Look Building stands on the west side of Madison Avenue, between 51st and 52nd Streets. It occupies an L-shaped lot, measuring 200 feet on Madison Avenue, 140 feet on 51st Street, and 75 feet on 52nd Street. Above the second story, the facade is mainly white brick. Continuous non-historic aluminum windows , three horizontal panes tall, extend continuously around the facade, starting at the west ends of the north and south facades. The center panes are operable and open out from the bottom. Above the 12-story base, every second floor sets back, climaxing with a mostly windowless tower, which incorporates horizontal louvers on the east front.

 

The two-story retail base is non-historic and dates to the late 1980s. It is divided from the third story on all facades by what appears to be charcoal-colored cast-stone panels, crowned by a curved aluminum molding. The two stories of glass panels are transparent or tinted black and the water table may be granite. The main entrance is at the center of the sloping Madison Avenue facade. There is a recessed passage that leads to a single revolving glass entrance door, flanked by conventional glass doors. The entrance passage is paved with contrasting light and dark gray granite. The exterior panels that face the street are polished black granite and the walls that flank the passage are light brown-and-black marble.

 

There is a ribbed aluminum ceiling with recessed lighting fixtures, as well as square service panel near center. Above the entrance passage is a wide non-historic aluminum marquee with curved corners and free-standing numerals that identify the address. To the left are three storefronts with recessed entrances. The one closest to the entrance has a horizontal aluminum sign with white lettering. At the corner of 51st Street is a revolving door with dark tinted glass. Directly to the right of this door is a conventional recessed store entrance. To the right of the main entrance is a single storefront with clear glass windows. This storefront incorporates several horizontal aluminum signs with white lettering: on Madison Avenue, at the corner of 52nd Street, and on 52nd Street.

 

The Fifty-First street facade has four non-historic storefronts, at 19, 21 and 23 East 51st Street. The last address has two entrances. Most of the first-story businesses are identified above the storefronts with metal letters against black glass panels. Though most of the glass on the second story is tinted black, the windows nearest Madison Avenue are transparent. At the west end of the facade, a vertical banner is strung between two horizontal brass poles. A significant number of glass panels toward the west end of the second story have been replaced with horizontal metal louvers. Near the top of the 11th story, at center, a white horizontal box projects out from the facade. In addition, there are four vertical boxes attached at the corner above the third story. There is a fan-like security gate at the west edge of the 7th story.

 

Fifty-Second Street has a single storefront that extends around the corner from Madison Avenue. To the west of the last window is a single vertical panel of horizontal louvers. At the corner, above the aluminum sign, are two small black boxes with visible wires. The service entrance, with two metal doors that open outward, is located at the west end of the first story. At the middle of the 4th story, two of the upper windows have been replaced with horizontal louvers. Fan-like security gates have been installed at the west end of two of the uppermost floors.

 

- From the 2010 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

Highbridge, Washington Heights, Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States

 

The Highbridge Play Center is one of a group of eleven immense outdoor swimming pools opened in the summer of 1936 in a series of grand ceremonies presided over by Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia and Park Commissioner Robert Moses.

 

All of the pools were constructed largely with funding provided by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), one of many New Deal agencies created in the 1930s to address the Great Depression. Designed to accommodate a total of 49,000 users simultaneously at locations scattered throughout New York City’s five boroughs, the new pool complexes quickly gained recognition as being among the most remarkable public facilities constructed in the country. The pools were completed just two and a half years after the LaGuardia administration took office, and all but one survives relatively intact today.

 

While each of the 1936 swimming pool complexes is especially notable for its distinctive and unique design, the eleven facilities shared many of the same basic components. The complexes generally employed low-cost building materials, principally brick and cast-concrete, and often utilized the streamlined and curvilinear forms of the popular 1930s Art Modeme style. Each had separate swimming, diving and wading pools, and a large bath house with locker room sections which doubled as gymnasiums in non-swimming months. Concrete bleachers at the perimeter of each pool complex and rooftop promenades and galleries furnished ample spectator viewing areas. The complexes were also distinguished by innovative mechanical systems required for heating, filtration and water circulation. Sited in existing older parks or built on other city-owned land, the grounds surrounding the pool complexes were executed on a similarly grand scale, and included additional recreation areas, connecting pathway systems, and comfort stations.

 

The team of designers, landscape architects and engineers assembled to execute the new pool complexes, in addition to hundreds of other construction and rehabilitation projects undertaken between 1934 and 1936 by New York’s newly consolidated Parks Department, was comprised largely of staff members and consultants who had earlier worked for Moses at other governmental agencies, including architect Aymar Embury II, landscape architects Gilmore D. Clarke and Allyn R. Jennings, and civil engineers W. Earle Andrews and William H. Latham. Surviving documents also indicate that Moses, himself a long-time swimming enthusiast, gave detailed attention to the designs for the new pool complexes.

 

The Highbridge Play Center incorporates a portion of the elevated site in Highbridge Park. This area was formerly occupied by a reservoir constructed in 1870 as part of New York City’s Croton water supply system. A short distance west of the bleacher section of the pool complex stands a related component, the tall ashlar water tower built in 1872. Designated a New York City Landmark in 1967, the water tower dominates both the distant and immediate landscape and, by virtue of its relationship to the play center’s pools, evokes the historic configuration of the tower with the reservoir. The unique arrangement of the Highbridge pools - an exceptionally large wading pool and an adjacent single combined swimming and diving pool - may well have been determined in part by the earlier history of the site. The distant views of the Harlem River valley area from the pool complex and adjacent areas are among the most striking vistas in New York City.

 

The unusual prominence of the ashlar construction is a distinguishing feature of the Highbridge Play center design. It is utilized for long stretches of the retaining wall extending along Amsterdam Avenue, the tall podium which forms a monumental base for the main entryway, and for the flanking dogleg approach stairways. Perhaps inspired by the construction materials employed for the water tower, and possibly incorporating some preexisting ashlar wall construction, the double stairways provide a ceremonial pathway up to the main entrance. The curved slightly projecting portico section of the entry is distinguished by two large fluted cast-concrete piers which, together with the massive flanking brick piers, carry a tall concrete architrave. The portico is offset and framed by the cubic shapes of the entry block and courtyard rising behind it. Together with the other WPA-era park improvements, the Highbridge Play Center complex was clearly a major achievement of the New Deal in New York City.

 

History of Highbridge Play Center Site

 

Highbridge Park, located at 175th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, was assembled piecemeal between 1867 and the 1960s, with the bulk being acquired through condemnation from 1895 to 1901. The cliffside area from West 181st Street to Dyckman Street was acquired in 1902, and the parcel including Fort George Hill was acquired in 1928. In 1934 the Department of Parks obtained the majestic Highbridge Tower (1872) and the site of old High Bridge Reservoir. The High Bridge, for which the park, pool, and the center are named, was built in 1848 to carry water through the Croton Aqueduct over the Harlem River. Construction began in 1837; High Bridge was part of the first reliable and uninterrupted water supply system in New York City, and one of the first aqueduct’s in the United States. The innovative system ran 41 miles into New York City through an enclosed masonry structure crossing ridges, valleys, and rivers. The High Bridge soars 138 feet above the 620 foot-wide Harlem River, with a total length of 1450 feet. The bridge was designated as a New York City landmark in 1970.

 

Highbridge Play Center had the distinction of being one the first sites to be selected by Moses and his team, because it was the location of a previous reservoir it could easily and economically be converted into a public swimming pool.

 

Fiorello LaGuardia. Robert Moses and the New Deal

 

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected President of the United States in 1932 in the middle of the Great Depression that followed the stock market crash of 1929. Roosevelt promised to rebuild confidence in American capitalism and to improve the nation’s standard of living by creating the New Deal economic program of unprecedented public spending on social programs and construction projects.

 

New York City had been especially hard hit by the economic downturn, and its citizens, hoping for change, elected Fiorello H. LaGuardia to the mayoralty of New York City in 1933 as an anti-Tammany Hall reform candidate. A maverick Republican and a five-term congressman from East Harlem, LaGuardia won the mayoral election on the “Fusion” ticket after losing the 1929 mayoral race on the Republican line. The Fusion Conference Committee at first considered running Robert Moses, another Republican, who was appointed Chairman of the New York State Council of Parks in 1924 by his political mentor, Governor Alfred E. Smith, a Tammany Hall Democrat from New York City. However, the committee decided against Moses because of his association with Smith, and chose LaGuardia instead. At the time, Moses was a popular public figure with a reputation as a progressive and as the builder of great parks and parkways like Jones Beach and the Northern State Parkway on Long Island. His endorsement of LaGuardia during the campaign was considered instrumental in securing a victory for LaGuardia. Within a week of the election, LaGuardia chose Moses, a champion of reform politics, as New York City’s new Park Commissioner.

 

Moses accepted the position of Commissioner of Parks in the LaGuardia administration on the condition that the five existing independent Parks Departments (one for each borough) would be consolidated into a single department with himself as the sole Commissioner, and with authority extending over the City’s parkways. Moses also demanded to be appointed the Chief Executive Officer of the Triborough Bridge Authority, which was then building the bridge of that name, and that a new agency, the Marine Parkway Authority, which would build a bridge to the Rockaways, be created with himself at the helm. Already in charge of the Long Island State Park Commission, the New York City Council of Parks, the Jones Beach State Park Authority, and the Bethpage State Park Authority, Moses would then be in control of all existing and proposed parks and parkways in the New York metropolitan region, with the exception of areas outside of New York State.

 

In the 1920s, Moses was at the forefront of the national recreation movement that began in the first decade of the twentieth century, led by such men as President Theodore Roosevelt and the lesser-known George D. Butler of the National Recreation Association. The movement gained momentum under the administration of President Calvin Coolidge with the organization of the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation (NCOR) in 1924. The Depression of the 1930s further amplified the need to provide more, or improve existing, outdoor recreational opportunities, especially in urban areas. Fortunately, such goals fit nicely into FDR’s New Deal economic programs. Mayor LaGuardia’s success in securing a lion’s share of monies made available by the federal Works Progress Administration (WPA), and Moses’ management skills and his ability to attract talented designers and engineers to his staff, resulted in profound physical changes to the environment of New York City. The construction and renovation of neighborhood recreation areas, such as pools and play grounds, were some of the most ambitious and successful programs undertaken by Moses with funds largely provided by the WPA.

 

Moses began to assess the state of the City’s parks and to plan for their future as soon as LaGuardia announced his intention to appoint Moses as Park Commissioner. According to one source: “Immediately after the election he wrote out, on a single piece of paper, a plan for putting 80,000 men to work on 1,700 relief projects.” Moses hired a consulting engineer and three assistant engineers to survey every park and parkway in the City. The survey was completed by the time he took office in mid-January 1934.

 

When Moses took over the Parks Department, it was already employing 69,000 relief workers funded mainly by the federal Civil Works Administration (CWA) and the Temporary Emergency Relief Administration (TERA). However, Moses found the men to be ill-equipped and inadequately supervised, and considered many of the construction projects to have been poorly designed. He immediately began to revamp the entire operation of the Parks Department and established a Division of Design, located at the Arsenal in Central Park. The staff was to be headed up by experienced professionals drawn mainly from his State agencies. Some of his talented staff of young architects, landscape architects and engineers had worked on the designs for Long Island’s highly acclaimed parks, including Jones Beach, which is considered one of Moses’ greatest accomplishments. His staff also included a number of well-known and accomplished designers, among them architects Aymar Embury II and John M. Hatton, and the landscape architect and civil engineer Gilmore D. Clarke. Other top members of Moses’ staff were the landscape architect Allyn R. Jennings, and civil engineers W. Earle Andrews and William H. Latham.

 

The Parks Department’s Division of Design was organized in the following manner: a topographical unit of about 400 surveyors and draftsmen, a landscape architecture unit of about sixty people, an architecture unit made up of sixty architects and draftsmen, and an engineering unit of about fifty. Smaller units included an Arboricultural Department and an Inspection Department. All the work in the Division of Design was under the direct supervision of the Park Engineer, who was aided and advised by a Consulting Architect, a Consulting Landscape Architect, and a Consulting Engineer. All new projects began in the topographical unit, where a complete survey of the land was prepared. It then moved on to the landscaping unit, where the basic concept for the design was developed. Next, the three units: landscape, architecture, and engineering, collaborated to produce the final design and all the necessary construction documents. The Park Engineer and his aides had to approve all of the plans. Moses himself sometimes stepped in to revise or overrule a design, especially on the larger, more visible projects.

 

Moses’ superior management ability and political savvy allowed him to move projects along very quickly and to produce concrete results, gaining for him much public admiration. However, Moses’ personal demeanor was notoriously stubborn and arrogant, and he was known, at times, to disregard the legitimate authority of other governmental agencies. Once, when the Department of Plant and Structures refused to suspend a ferry service that used a terminal in the path of constructing the Triborough Bridge approach road, Moses had his men demolish the terminal while the boat was on the other side of the river. He feuded with President Franklin D. Roosevelt for years, even while Washington was pouring millions of dollars into Moses' own Parks Department. His later battles with and subsequent triumphs over community groups opposed to the routing of the Gowanus and the Cross-Bronx Expressways through their neighborhoods are now legendary. Moses was also known to have been insensitive to people of color, and reputedly tried to restrict access to many of his recreational facilities, including the WPA-era pools.

 

To many, Robert Moses was a master builder; to others he was a spoiled bully who seemingly always had his way. In the summer of 1934, however, Moses was a hero. Hundreds of projects, covering virtually every neighborhood in the city, had been completed. Structures were repainted, tennis courts resurfaced, and lawns reseeded. Hundreds of new construction projects were either already underway in the process of being designed. Among them was the Highbridge Play Center in the Borough of Manhattan.

 

History of Swimming in New York City

 

The Hudson and East Rivers lining the shores of Manhattan both served as popular bathing spots dating to the Colonial Era. Despite extensive contamination resulting from decades of unchecked pollution, the long tradition of swimming in the city’s rivers was still strong at the middle of the 19th century. Out of concern for the health and welfare of the people of the city, and particularly of immigrant populations who took most advantage of the rivers, the city opened its first floating pools in 1870. The floating pools, however, were essentially wood-framed structures suspended on pontoons, filled with the same unfiltered river water. By the turn of the century, there were about two dozen of these floating pools moored at various places along the waterfront, competing directly with industry for the space. Some improvements were eventually made to the floating pool concept, e.g. by 1914, the baths were required to be watertight and filled with purified water. Nonetheless, as river quality continued to erode, and access to nearby beaches improved, the floating pools gradually disappeared.

 

In the 1890s, New York City’s first public bath was opened on the Lower East Side of Manhattan by “The Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor,” following a 1895 state law requiring the construction of such facilities. The pool-like indoor baths, however, were never very popular with the working class, and many of the bath houses eventually added actual swimming pools and gymnasia in hopes of attracting more patrons. The indoor pools at the municipal bath houses never quite replaced the need or demand for outdoor swimming facilities in the city, and by the 1930s, it was clear that they not aged well. However, there were at least two outdoor wading pools in existence John Jay and Hamilton Fish. Hamilton Fish was later redesigned to bean Olympic size pool.

 

At the time Robert Moses became Parks Commissioner in 1934, in addition to the wading pools, only two outdoor pools remained, one at Betsy Head in Brownsville, the other at Faber Park on Staten Island. Moses, however, considered the Betsy Head pool “unsanitary,” with an “unattractive, inadequate, and impractical bath house,” and furthermore recognized in the city “a demand for safe bathing which could never be satisfied until the boundary waters were cleaned up.” To Moses, a forerunner in the national recreation movement and an avid swimmer since his university days, a change was desperately needed, and by October 1934, excavations had already begun for the first of eleven state-of-the-art swimming pools. The pools were to be sited near inner-city neighborhoods in order to provide swimming for those who could not easily reach places like Orchard Beach or the beaches of Long Island. In addition to swimming pools, the new centers would incorporate elaborate bath houses, and also provide active adult sport areas, children’s playgrounds, and other amenities. The eleven pools opened in the summer of 1936 in a series of grand ceremonies and quickly gained recognition as being among the most remarkable public facilities ever constructed in the country. All of the pools featured new bathhouses, with the exception of Hamilton Fish and Betsy Head. After the completion of the WPA-era pool complexes, no other public swimming pools were constructed in New York City until the 1960s, with the construction of the Loula Lasker Memorial Pool. Located in the southwesterly corner of the Harlem Meer in Central Park, was an innovative swimming pool design that had a dual feature, a combination three foot swimming pool with an ice skating rink. This unique structure, was the first of its kind, and serviced both activities for the neighboring communities.

 

The Swimming Pools, Moses, and Segregation in New York City

 

Institutionalized racism was still an established way of life in the United States during the inter-war years, even on the federally sanctioned level. For example, as a result of federal guidelines articulated in the 1935 Federal Housing Administration Underwriting Manual, it was impossible for non-segregated developments to attain mortgage insurance, meaning ethnic and even religious minorities could only secure mortgages in certain areas. The result was a substantial increase in both racial segregation and urban disinvestment in cities across the country, New York included. At its peak, estimates of segregation in public housing nation-wide ran as high as 90 percent due in large part to both federal and local government policies. Even as late as 1943, the City of New York gave its approval for Metropolitan Life’s all-white, middle income project - Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village.

 

Similar to many people of his era, Robert Moses was also known to have been insensitive to people of color, an attitude which may have impacted both the siting and administration of the WPA-era pools. LaGuardia and Moses often went to great lengths to show the media that they did care about minorities, holding, for example, a celebration for 25,000 people upon the opening of the Colonial Park pool, at which the mayor offered the facility as proof that his administration was in fact “building and doing things for Harlem.” Although LaGuardia and Moses claimed they were siting pools in the most congested areas of the city, Colonial Park in Harlem remained the only one sited in a predominantly “non-white” neighborhood. Moreover, the Thomas Jefferson Park pool, located in East Harlem (LaGuardia’s old congressional district) was close to Spanish Harlem where the city’s growing Puerto Rican population was settling. To discourage minority use at this facility, Moses reputedly kept the water heating system turned off, believing that the cold water would not bother Caucasian swimmers, but would somehow deter non-whites.

 

It has been alleged that the Parks Department at the time had an active policy of hiring only white lifeguards and attendants in hopes of deterring minority patrons. Whether or not such directives came from Moses himself, the fact remains that the pools were largely segregated at the time of their opening. In the Pulitzer Prize winning novel, “The Power Broker,” Robert Caro writes that “one could go to the pools on the hottest summer days, when the slums of Negro and Spanish Harlem a few blocks away sweltered in the heat, and not see a single non-Caucasian face.” Similarly, oral histories relating to Betsy Head pool tell of an unwritten rule that “African-Americans could swim in the Brooklyn pool only in the late afternoon, after white residents had vacated the premises.” Such claims are supported by photographs and video footage from the era, showing that largely, white and black New Yorkers swam in different pools. For a handful of sites, however, including the Highbridge and Colonial Park Play Centers in Manhattan, as well as McCarren Plaj Center in Brooklyn, photographs and video footage seem to indicate that, on occasion, the populations did mix .

 

The Design and Construction of the Highbridge Play Center

 

The Highbridge Play Center is one of a group of eleven immense outdoor swimming pools opened in the summer of 1936 in a series of grand ceremonies presided over by Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia and Parks Commissioner Robert Moses. All of the pools were constructed largely with funding provided by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), one of many New Deal agencies created in the 1930s to address the Great Depression. Designed to accommodate a total of 49,000 users simultaneously at locations scattered throughout New York City’s five boroughs, the new pool complexes quickly gained recognition as being among the most remarkable public facilities ever constructed in the country. The city’s pool construction program was reported to have been the most expensive in terms of total cost. Robert Moses, an avid swimmer who had a home near the ocean in Babylon, Long Island, was known to have taken a special interest in the design and construction of bathing and swimming facilities, such as Jones Beach, Orchard Beach and Riis Park, as well as the neighborhood swimming pools. As a result of his special attention, along with that of Aymar Embury II and Gilmore D. Clarke, the design and execution of New York City’s aquatic facilities in the 1930s were a cut above most other park projects at the time.

 

At the start, the Parks Department adopted a list of shared guidelines for the entire pool project in order to enhance the efficiency of the design effort, to unify the operations of each complex, and to meet the various local and federal requirements of the relief programs. For example, each pool complex was to have separate swimming, diving and wading pools, and a large bath house, the locker room sections of which doubled as gymnasiums during non-swimming months. The bath houses, which would serve as the centerpieces of each complex, would be distinctive pavilions that would establish the design motif of each facility. Concrete bleachers at the perimeter of the pools would furnish spectator viewing areas to be augmented at some sites with rooftop promenades and galleries. There would be a minimum width for the decks to provide enough room for sunbathing and circulation. There had to be underwater lighting for night swimming, and at least one dimension of each swimming pool would have to be a multiple of fifty-five yards to allow swimming competitions to be held at standard distances in either English or metric systems. Plus, the complexes had to share low-cost building materials, principally brick and cast concrete, as required by the federal government as per the terms of the WPA funding.

 

To satisfy federal stipulations on low-cost materials, it appears that the design team for the pools determined that the streamlined and curvilinear forms of the Art Moderne and Modern Classical styles would best meet the low-cost needs and still permit pleasing aesthetics. As a group, the pools were also distinguished by the innovative mechanical systems required to heat, filter, and circulate the vast amounts of water they used. Many of these innovations set new standards for swimming pool construction, such as scum gutters that allowed in enough sunlight to naturally kill off bacteria and a series of footbaths filled with foot cleaning solution through which bathers were forced to pass upon entering the pool areas from the locker rooms. Sited in existing older parks or built on other city-owned land subsequently developed as parks and playgrounds, the huge pool complexes were provided with landscape settings that included additional recreational areas, connecting pathway systems, and comfort stations. Despite the fact that the basic components were essentially the same and that the WPA required that only the cheapest materials be used, each of these swimming pool complexes is especially notable for its distinctive and unique setting, appearance, and character.

 

The year 1936 was known as “the swimming pool year,” since ten of the eleven pools were opened that summer, one per week for ten weeks. Each opening day was a memorable event for its neighborhood. The daylong events featured parades, blessings of the waters, swimming races, diving competitions, appearances by Olympic stars, and performances by swimming clowns. Mayor LaGuardia attended every opening to perform the ribbon cutting.

 

Festivities continued well after dusk with LaGuardia pulling the switch to turn on each pool’s spectacular underwater lighting to the “oooohs” of the crowds. The site for Highbridge Pool was the first to be selected by Moses; in April 1934 the New York Times announced that two unused reservoirs has been offered to the Parks Department, and would be turned into parks and playgrounds. Highbridge was the fifth of the eleven pools to open; it was formally dedicated and opened to the public on July 14, 1936. Designed to accommodate 4880 patrons, the area included a swimming pool (166 feet x 228 feet), and a wading pool (97 feet x 228 feet).

 

Since its opening, the completed Highbridge Play Center has been considered one of the great WPA Art Modeme structures of the Depression era in New York. Featuring compulsory footbaths and one of the most advanced water filtrations systems of its time, the Highbridge Play Center was also considered the pinnacle of technological modernity.

 

The unusual prominence of the ashlar construction is a distinguishing feature of the Highbridge Play center design. It is utilized for long stretches of the retaining wall extending along Amsterdam Avenue, the tall podium which forms a monumental base for the main entryway, and for the flanking dogleg approach stairways. Perhaps inspired by the construction materials employed for the water tower, and possibly incorporating some preexisting ashlar wall construction, the double stairways provide a ceremonial pathway up to the main entrance. The curved slightly projecting portico section of the entry is distinguished by two large fluted cast-concrete piers which, together with the massive flanking brick piers, carry a tall concrete architrave. The portico is offset and framed by the cubic shapes of the entry block and courtyard rising behind it. Together with the other WPA-era park improvements, the Highbridge Play Center complex was clearly a major achievement of the New Deal in New York City.

 

The Designers behind the Planning of Highbridge Play Center

 

The eleven WPA-era pool facilities shared many common features and specifications that could be repeated at each site, and contained other elements that were similar from complex to complex. As a result, junior designers, having different areas of expertise, appear to have moved quickly among the various pool projects. The department produced designs and construction documents simultaneously with great speed so that eleven pools and hundreds of other park projects, including some massive undertakings like Orchard Beach, were completed within a few years. Aymar Embuiy II and Gilmore D. Clarke, respectively the Parks Department’s Consulting Architect and Consulting Landscape Architect, were employed by the City on a part-time basis to oversee designs for park projects under Robert Moses. William H. Latham, the head of the Division of Design at the time, was the Park Engineer, responsible for the preparation of all plans and specifications within the department. Major design problems were discussed by Embury and Clarke before the preliminary sketches were made under Latham’s direction. Completed sketches were subject to approval by the Park Engineer, the General Superintendent, and Commissioner Moses. The consultants would give regular criticism during the preparations of the plans.

 

Aymar Embuiy II (1880-1966) was bom in New York City and studied engineering at Princeton University, where he received a Master of Science degree in 1901. He acquired his architectural training through apprenticeships with three New York firms: George B. Post, Howells and Stokes, and Palmer and Hombostel. He also worked for Cass Gilbert. In 1905, Embury won both first and second prize in a contest held by the Garden City Company for a modest country house to be built in Garden City, Long Island. This gained for him a reputation as a talented designer, and led to many commissions for country houses in the New York metropolitan area.

 

He subsequently published seven books and several pamphlets, mainly on early American architecture, establishing him as an authority on that subject. By the start of the Great Depression, he was well-known and had received a wide range of commissions all over the east coast of the United States, including college buildings and social clubs, in addition to residences. He designed the Players and Nassau Clubs in Princeton, New Jersey, the Princeton Club in New York City, and the University Club in Washington, D.C. Embury was said to have supervised the design of over six hundred public projects, including Orchard Beach, Bryant Park, the New York City Building at the 1939 World's Fair, the Donnell Branch of the New York Public Libraiy, the Hofstra University Campus, the Central Park and Prospect Park Zoos, Jacob Riis Park, five of the eleven neighborhood pool and play centers, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Triborough Bridge, and many more.

 

The lead architect for each pool project generally designed the bath house, which was unique to each site, establishing the motif that guided the design and detailing of the rest of the complex. Although each pool complex has been credited to a particular architect, the designs appear to actually have been collaborative efforts among the army of architects, draftsmen, engineers, and landscape architects employed by the Parks Department in the 1930s.

 

Although Embury’s exact relationship to the planning of the Highbridge Play Center, beyond his role as the department’s consulting architect, is not confirmed, he is commonly credited with the design of the Play Center’s bath house. While no plans bearing Embury’s name were found at the Parks Department’s archives at the Olmsted Center in Queens, Embury is reported to have pointed proudly to the bath house as an example of his work, and was likely to have been the lead architect for the project.

 

Underscoring the collaborative nature of the design process for the pool complexes, the majority of the architectural plans and construction drawings on file at the archives for the Highbridge Pool and Play Center, including those for the bath house and terrace, were prepared by architect Hany Ahrens, with G.P. Logue as supervising Park Designer. Although not much is on record about Ahrens, what is known is that he was bom in New York City in 1896, received his degree from Columbia University in 1916, was “Architect in Chief’ with the New York City Parks department from 1936 until 1941, and a project manager with Skidmore, Owings & Merrill from 1942 until 1946. By 1962, it appears as though Ahrens had relocated to Philadelphia.

 

Architect Arthur J. Barzaghi prepared the majority of the engineering drawings on file at the Olmsted Center archives. Information on record for Barzaghi is limited to at least five buildings he designed in Manhattan between 1921 and 1930, including two industrial buildings, two office buildings, and one single-story “moving picture theater,” before going to work for the Parks Department. Architectural sections on file for the wading pool comfort station, located north of the primary pool complex, appear to have been prepared by Joseph L. Hautman, while civil engineer William H. Latham was responsible for the approval of numerous architectural drawings and landscaping plans. An assortment of other names (Wells, McCagg, Daugherty, Wohlpart, Cowell, etc.) appear on the drawings as well.

 

Gilmore D. Clarke appears to have been directly involved with the landscaping of the pool complex, signing approval on several of the plans for the park. Clarke (1892-1982) was bom in New York City and studied landscape architecture and civil engineering at Cornell University, from which he received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1913. He served as an engineer in the army during World War I, receiving many citations and decorations, and remained in the Army Reserve Corps until 1939. During the 1920s, he served on several local, state and federal commissions as landscape architect, including the Architectural Advisory Board for the United States Capital, the New York State Council of Parks (which was headed by Robert Moses), and the Westchester County Park Commission, among many others. For his work in Westchester County, which included the Rye Beach Playland, the Saw Mill River Parkway, and the Bronx River Parkway, Clarke was awarded the Gold Medal of Honor in Landscape Architecture in 1931 from the Architectural League of New York. By the time of the Great Depression, Clarke was already established as the most popular landscape architect in public works in America.

 

His career advanced during the 1930s. Besides being hired by Robert Moses as the Consulting Landscape Architect to the New York City Parks Department, he also became a member of the National Commission on Fine Arts, the New York State Planning Council, and the Board of Design for the 1939 New York World's Fair. In addition to Astoria Park, his work for the Parks Department included Bryant Park, Central Park Zoo, City Hall Park, Orchard Beach in the Bronx, and the Henry Hudson Parkway. He taught landscape architecture at Cornell University from 1935 to 1950, serving as dean from 1939 until his retirement in 1950 and wrote several articles for trade periodicals. In 1935, Clarke joined Michael Rapuano, an engineer and landscape architect, establishing the New York civil engineering and landscape architectural firm Clarke & Rapuano, Inc. Clarke was president of the firm from 1962 until his retirement in 1972. Later in his career, Clarke worked as a consultant on the construction of the United Nations Headquarters in New York and became a Trustee for the American Museum of Natural History.

 

Subsequent History

 

The Highbridge Pool bathhouse has undergone several renovations starting in the 1960s. At that time, the bath pavilion was redesigned and the original murals in the main lobby by artist Charles Clarke were either covered up or destroyed during renovation. By the late 1970s, many of the WPA-era pools, Highbridge Pool included, had deteriorated, partially the result of the fiscal crisis of the 1970s which hit the Parks Department particularly hard. By March 1981, the Parks Department workforce had dwindled to a record low of 2,900 employees, mostly unskilled and temporary, as compared to the 30,000 parks employees on staff during the Moses administration.

 

The strain on Parks Department resources was evident in the deplorable conditions of many of its facilities. To address the rapid deterioration of its recreational facilities, the Parks Department began a major capital construction program in the late 1970’s involving more than 500 projects, expected to total more than $180 million, partly in Federal funds - the first such projects undertaken by the parks system since the fiscal crisis halted such work in 1975, and arguably the most ambitious program to improve the parks since the 1940s. Among the long range projects planned was a $10 million plan to preserve Prospect Park, a $1 million renovation of the Coney Island Boardwalk, and a $2.6 million rehabilitation of the Jackie Robinson (Colonial Park) Play Center.

 

Numerous improvements were included in the renovation plan of Highbridge Play Center: at a cost of $9.1 million, the renovations involved the main pool building, concessions building, and filter building, also new heating, ventilation, electrical, and filtration systems. The main swimming pool (165 x 225 foot) was re-lined and made handicapped accessible. The consulting architect who oversaw the renovation was Stephen B. Jacobs. After a three year renovation the Highbridge Pool and Play Center re-opened on June 14, 1985. Several of the other WPA-era pools, including Sunset Park and Betsy Head, underwent restoration under the same program.

 

In June of 1984, an arson fire destroyed the roof of designated Highbridge Tower carillon and roof, private funds were raised to help aide in the restoration of the tower. November 15, 1991 the restoration of Highbridge Tower was completed the project was overseen by William A. Hall Architects. The scope of the renovations included: the installation of a new electronic carillon, the fabrication of a new 2,000 pound copper and aluminum belfry, the replacement of wood decks with fire retardant wood stabilization and cleaning of interior, cast iron stair.

 

The WPA-era pools faced a new set of challenges beginning in the mid-1980s, with pools like the Crotona Play Center in the Bronx becoming infamous for vandalism and walkways littered with broken glass. In 1991, Mayor David Dinkins proposed closing the pools as part of a package of budget cuts. Only a donation of $2 million from a private donor, real estate magnate Sol Goldman, guaranteed the pools would be kept open for at least a portion of that summer; an additional $1.8 million was still needed to cover the entire nine-week long swimming season.

 

In the mid-1990s, a menacing ritual known as “whirlpooling” had become common throughout the pool system, a practice characterized by groups of teenage boys locking arms and shoulders, churning the water and disrupting the activities of other swimmers, and sometimes fondling female swimmers. Several more serious complaints of sexual assault were recorded throughout the pool system in the summer of 1994. With improvements in security staffing and increased vigilance on the part of patrons, many of the problems of the 1990s did eventually dissipate, and by 2003, the pools were once again touted as both extremely safe, and a welcome alternative on a hot summer day.

 

Subsequent changes to the Highbridge complex included, a $305,000 pool filtration system funded by Mayor Giuliani, and in 1996, City Council Member Guillermo Linares funded a $445,000 upgrade of the pools heating and ventilation systems. In 1999 activist entertainer Bette Midler raised $1 million dollars for litter removal and new planting in Highbridge Park. Ms. Midler helped to raise awareness of the deterioration of Highbridge and other parks throughout New York City.

 

Description

 

Plan and Circulation — Highbridge Pool and Play Center is bounded roughly by 174th Street on the north and 172nd Street to the south, Amsterdam Avenue to the west, and the Harlem River Drive to the east. Highbridge Pool and Play Center is situated on top of the former Highbridge reservoir. Highbridge Pool and Play Center has a commanding position high above the city, offering extraordinary views of the Harlem River Valley. The podium-style entrance is centered along the ashlar retaining wall that runs the length of the Amsterdam Avenue frontage. Perhaps inspired by the construction materials employed for the water tower, and possibly incorporating some preexisting ashlar wall construction, the wall imparts a sense of permanence, stability and strength. The unusual prominence of the ashlar construction is the most distinguishing feature of the Highbridge Play Center design. The tall podium forms a monumental base for the main entryway and the double flanking scissor stairways.

 

The podium is offset by four decorative cast stone grilles that flank a simple metal utility door, providing an entry point to the basement level. Scissor staircases with wide landings rise up on either side of the entrance hall providing access to the pedestrian pathways or leading up to the entrance portico. These staircases wrap around stone benches built into the podium base on either side of the structure’s front. Concrete slabs inlaid with brick borders create a pattern mirroring the buildings facade along the entryways, stair landings, portico floor and pedestrian pathways. The entryway consists of twin segmental arches on either side of the grand portico. Both the bath house and pool deck can be accessed through this main entrance.

 

Patrons would then be led through one of two gauged brick archways on either side of the ticket booth to the men’s and women’s locker rooms. After changing into swimsuits and storing clothes and valuables with clerks in the available basket space, male and female patrons would pass from the mirror-image locker rooms, through the mandatory shower rooms, past the required footbaths, and through an assigned entrance, or under a suspended brass clock in the main lobby, to the pool deck area. The two pools found here, the main swimming and the wading pools, are surrounded by ample promenades, an expanse of concrete bleachers, and a series of seating niches. The pedestrian pathways curve around the site and terminate at the tower esplanade. Each pathway wraps around a horseshoe-shaped wall creating ramps that take the public to each side of the pool complex. A tunnel entrance accessible from the retaining wall on the west elevation, complete with arched door, runs under the north pathway to the filter house located under the bleachers.

 

Six cast stone bleachers located at the northeast side of the site, are intersected by four staircases that lead to a walkway allowing access to the loggia. At one time the loggia had a handsome copper hip roof, a cast stone balcony and housed men’s and women’s comfort stations below. Additional granite steps lead from the back of the loggia to the tower esplanade and to an additional pathway that follows the berm to the front of the complex and Amsterdam Avenue.

 

The pedestrian pathway that follows the south wing of the complex leads to a smaller horseshoeshaped ramp, which gives way to a tree-lined terrace with 24 ornamental lamp standards. This terrace houses a freestanding brick concession stand, now used for grounds-keeping purposes. The terrace once had ample access to the tower esplanade but is now enclosed by wrought iron fencing that runs along the east side of the complex creating a continuous barrier between the pool area and the esplanade. The serpentine asphalt pathway that encompasses the south side of the complex divides, and leads to the maintenance building, then follows the length of the enclosed pool to the tower esplanade. Set amidst the curved pathway is a grassy area between the two divided pathways, containing a small playground area. An additional path runs perpendicular to the iron fence-enclosed terrace, which is the southern boundary of the site.

 

Bathhouse

 

The Highbridge Play Center Bathhouse is deep-set into a berm, and sits back from and above the grade of the surrounding site. Long stretches of ashlar retaining wall, extending along Amsterdam Avenue, and the proximity of the naturally hilly landscape, create a majestic presence along the streetscape. The ashlar podium base has a central metal entryway, flanked on either side by two decorative stone grilles. On the pavement in front of the base are two large seasonal planting boxes that offset the basement entrance. Scissor staircases with wide landings rise up on either side of the entrance hall providing access to the pedestrian pathways. Above each segmental arched entrance hangs a non-historic cast bronze monogram for the City of New York.

 

These staircases wrap stone benches built into the podium base on either side of the structure’s front. The projecting portico section of the entry is distinguished by two large fluted cast-concrete piers separated by a simple iron rail, these together with the massive flanking brick piers, carry a tall concrete architrave. A projecting cast stone band, frames classical style embossed bronze lettering that announces “Highbridge Play Center.” The portico is accented and framed by two ornamental recessed cast stone grilles. Above these grilles, matching bronze flagpoles are affixed to the front of the building and rise above the linear roofline. A third flagpole, perhaps of newer origin is fixed to the roof of the entryway. The portico creates a central core from which the north and south wings emanate.

 

The north and south wings are nearly identical; these wings contain the men’s and women’s locker rooms, dressing rooms and showers. The north and south wings each have a row of eight engaged brick pilasters with cast stone capitals. These capitals line up with the lintels of the nine steel-framed windows creating a continuous line across each wing of the building. On both the north and south wings; every third pilaster has a non-historic security light. The roof line elevation changes at the corner sections of the building, creating a stepped pattern.

 

These corner sections each have one large rectangle window inset with glass-block that possibly dates from a 1984-85 renovation, with metal louver vents above. The original cast stone coping of the roofline has been sheathed in sheet metal. On both the north and south wings of the building, curved ramps are nestled into the berm, and hug the exterior walls. These two ramps are not identical in height, as the north ramp is elevated and once accommodated access to the top of the loggia. The wall is adorned with decorative cast-stone ocular portals. The south ramp provides access from the street to the tree lined terrace and former concession stand. The contrasting lines of brick, and ashlar, help this building blend in organically with the surrounding park landscape.

 

As is typical for all of the play center’s brick surfaces, the sidewalls are laid in a modified English bond of header courses separated by two stretcher courses and capped with cast stone coping. Nestled in the portico entrance hall is a brick circular turret with a winged loft that has a clerestory that overlooks the entryway below. Ornate brickwork is featured on the lower half of the turret. This design is repeated on the flanking walls that lead to the pool deck area. Two header courses separate a saw-tooth pattern in the turret.

 

The decorative brick and inlaid marble flooring design leads the visitor to the pool entryway. A bronze clock is suspended above the center arch of the eastern entryway, over the deep-set lintel of the pool side entry; there are also a series of four recessed clerestory windows, largely obscured from view. The design of the eastern poolside facade is a mirror image to the western street side facade with a few notable exceptions; the entrances to the women’s and men’s locker-rooms have a wall that extends from the building creating a vestibule with a connecting transom of cast stone with the appropriate signage above.

 

A basement area with several points of entry sits under the north (women’s) wing of the complex. This basement contains the boiler room, storage areas, staff locker rooms, comfort stations, service areas and once contained laundry facilities. Below-grade access to the filter house, located under the bleachers and the comfort stations under the loggia, was also accessible thru this basement area.

 

Pool Deck Area — The pool deck area of the Highbridge Play Center is rectangular in shape and is composed of the wading pool (97’ x 228’) and the main pool (165’ x 228’), which run parallel to each other. These are surrounded on three sides by a twenty-nine foot wide promenade. The main promenade is situated just beyond the main pool entrance and runs north and south on the pool deck. The deck is extended on the north and south sides by curvilinear alcoves formed by the ramps that lead to the bleachers, taking the form of exaggerated concrete stairs on the north, and the tree lined terrace to the south, both were once accessible from Amsterdam Avenue.

 

These oblique niches are not identical in height as the north ramp is taller than the south. It extends to form the base for the stairs, and contains decorative cast-stone ocular portals. Flanking the top of the stairs are two painted brick pillars with cast-stone coping, incorporating a wrought iron fence that runs the length of the bleachers to the loggia. The ramp that creates the northern alcove is smaller, and leads to an expansive bench and tree lined terrace. Just inside the terrace is a free standing brick building that has entrances on both the park and terrace side, it was once used as the concession stand. The terrace is enclosed with a simple iron fence on the far side, a partition wall with iron railings, and access ramps with stairs that lead to the pool promenade. The terrace located at the south of the pool complex leads to a semi-enclosed overlook granting viewers a scenic view of the Harlem River Valley and the Bronx.

 

The wading pool is of a simple rectangular design with beveled corners. The larger swimming pool is sited adjacent to and to the east of, the wading pool. A chain-link fence now separates the two pools. The swimming pool is also rectangular in shape with beveled corners. The swimming pool has two pyramidal intake units that circulate water through the filtration system located under the bleachers on the north side of the complex. These intakes are sited where fountains that originally aerated the pool water once stood. Recent upgrades to the swimming pool added a handicapped access ramp and aluminum railings and stairs for easy and safe entry into the pool. The pool is equipped with four elevated aluminum lifeguard stands. A solitary flagpole stands on the poolside promenade in front of the bleachers. Thirty-two ornamental lighting standards surround the entire deck area including the wading pool, the swimming pool and the walkway deck that separates these two pools. Niche seating is incorporated into a low wall that creates an eastern-most boundary overlooking the pool area.

 

A spacious, lined esplanade comprised of a wide pedestrian boulevard with two narrow, contiguous sidewalks, all of asphalt, wind their way along the Harlem River escarpment. The esplanade follows the natural landscape and at several points provides for unobstructed views of the river and the designated Highbridge aqueduct. This esplanade links the northern and southern pathways at either side of the pool complex and terminates just beyond the designated tower. The esplanade is graced with several traditional park benches, decorative light standards and a large, illustrated historical marker at the southernmost tip of the esplanade. A simple iron fence lines the escarpment perimeter along the full length of the esplanade.

1941 Packard 180 Touring Sedan

 

The Packard 180 was introduced for the 1940 model year (18th series) by the Packard Motor Car Company to replace the discontinued V-12 as their top-of-the-line luxury model. The correct name of the model was Custom Super Eight One-Eighty. The car was derived from the Packard Super Eight One-Sixty with which it shared the complete running gear including the in-line eight-cylinder, 356-cubic-inch (5,830 cc) engine that developed 160 horsepower. It was advertised as the most powerful eight-cylinder engine offered by any automobile manufacturer in 1940. (By contrast, the Cadillac 346 cubic inch V-8 developed 150 hp).

 

Packards of all series (110, 120, 160, 180) shared similar body styling in 1940 (which some later said led to a "cheapening" of the once-exclusive luxury marque), using the same bodies with hoods and front fenders of different length to meet their respective chassis. Thus the 160 and 180 got identical bodies. However, the 180s featured finer interior detailing with the best fabrics, leather and carpeting available. Packard used a special woolen ceiling in these cars only which was sewn longitudinally. Packard built the partition in its Limousines in a way that there was no hint of it when the partition glass was lowered, allowing the owner to use the car by himself as a sedan (thus the designation "Sedan Limousine" by Packard).

 

In 1940, Packard made air conditioning an option. It was developed by the Henney Motor Company with whom Packard had a long lasting business connection and used on Henney bodied ambulances as early as 1938. It was the first time that A/C was available on a stock automobile.

In an exclusive agreement with Packard since 1937 until Henney's demise in 1954, Henney provided bodies for Packards's ambulances, hearses and flower cars, and they often provided special custom body work for passenger cars. The pre-WWII Henney models usually had 160-180 trim but were actually on the Packard 120A 156" wheelbase chassis with the smaller 288 cubic inch engine although there were also 160 and 180 versions available.

 

There were minor styling changes in the 1941 and 1942 models (19th and 20th series), the most notable of which was the moving of the headlights into the fenders. Also for the first time, running boards could be deleted with a rocker panel put in their place to cover the chassis, and two-tone paint schemes were available.

 

The final 180s rolled off the Packard assembly line in February, 1942, as World War II brought a halt to civilian automobile production.

  

I have always been interested in the streamlining of cars in the 40s and statues of tigers, leopards and jaguars in sculpture of the 30s...

 

Streamline Moderne

  

A related style named Streamline Moderne, or simply Streamline, developed soon after Art Deco. Streamline was influenced by the modern aerodynamic designs,[14] including those developing from the advancing technologies of aviation, ballistics, and other applications requiring high velocity. The shapes resulting from scientifically applied aerodynamic principles were adopted for Art Deco, applying streamlining techniques to other useful objects of everyday life, such as cars. The Chrysler Airflow design of 1933 was unsuccessful commercially,[26] but the beauty of the design, being functional rather than simply added ornamentation, provided the precedent for more conservatively designed pseudo-streamlined vehicles.

 

Streamlining quickly influenced American and European automobile design and changed the appearance from the rectangular "horseless carriages" into sleek vehicles with sweeping lines, symmetry, and V-shapes that seemed to add to their suggestiveness of speed and efficiency.[27] Nash Motors introduced the modern fully unitized body (monocoque) design for the low-price market during 1941[28] that featured fastback “Slipstream” models with high prow-like hoods, and art-deco "speed lines" for chrome grilles and parallel bar trim.[29] These aerodynamic-looking designs were applied by automakers and continued to be popular in the sellers' market after World War 2.[30] These "streamlined" forms began to be used for the design of mundane and static objects such as pencil sharpeners, refrigerators,[14] and gas pumps.[31]

  

IMG_0777 - Version 2

This wonderfully Art Deco streamlined six piece jade green Bakelite, chrome and glass travelling dressing table set, consisting of brush, comb, powder pots and a perfume bottle, was made in England by the Halex Company (1897 - 1971) of Highams Park (which is a district in the London). The set, which comes with its own travelling case of green dyed leather to match with a salmon coloured satin lining also has one original powder puff in apricot, one in pale pink and one in primrose yellow. There is also a nail file and set of tweezers in metal as well as a removable mirror.

 

When acquired from a local auctioneers, the set was also found to include a little red Bakelite pot with the letter L embossed on its lid. It is in fact a pot of "mandarin" Leichner Cosmetics (1878 - present) rouge, which still contains its original sponge, a mirror on the inside of the lid, and most of the contents, which are a wonderful shade of vermilion.

 

Private collection.

A Streamlined era stop on the NYC! This station exudes the Art-Deco genre in all of it's glory!

 

This vintage Buffalo Central Terminal postcard looks like it's from the 30s or 40s. The color of the bus, and the identification of the cars could pinpoint the date.

As a bonus the reverse features the "TERMINAL RPO" postmark displayed.

DRG Class 05 streamlined 4-6-4T No.05 001 (Borsig No.14552 of 1935) in its beautiful deep red livery at the DB Museum, Nurnberg, 10 May 2016. Two Class 05's were built by Borsig (Berlin-Tegel works) in 1935 and one cab-forward version in 1937 by Borsig (Hennigsdorf works). They had 7'6.5" wheels. No.05 002 attained the world speed record in 1935 at 119.1 mph and again in 1936 at 124.5 mph, with an output of 3,400 ihp. This loco also holds the non-stop record for steam when it did 70.1 mls (Wittenberge - Berlin Spandau) in 48 mins at an average speed of 86.66 mph. Krauss-Maffei rebuilt them in 1950-51 without streamlining and they hauled the 'Hanseat' and 'Domspatz' on the Hamburg - Koln - Frankfurt service of 703 km (436.8 miles), the longest German steam hauled service. There is an 'urban myth' that at the end of WWII British troops found DR documents which revealed that, on the eve of the war, one of the Class 05's built Mallard's world speed record but that was never publicised because of the immediate break out of war. In order to retain Mallard's record, the troops - which included some railway enthusiasts - allegedly destroyed the records! How true this is will never be known but the abilities of the 05's should not be underestinated. And after 05 002's high speed runs, it was in normal service the next day.

Streamlined juveniles on Laminaria hyperborea frond, orientated with prow-like anteriors probably facing from whence wave or current impact comes. The width of the blue lines remains fairly constant at 0.1mm to 0.2mm at all growth stages. These juveniles also have a variable number of red-brown rays interspersed between the blue ones, but this is a more frequent feature on adults in holdfasts; Graham & Fretter (1947) only found red-brown rays on a juvenile once in a study of 684 shells. Radula marks on the frond suggest that the limpets swing their heads in an arc as they feed.

A dark chestnut band on the distal face of the horseshoe-shaped pedal-retractor muscle can be seen through the translucent shells of four of these juveniles.

 

Concise Key id. features: 1Pp flic.kr/p/Z4FxDe

Part 1, SHELL FORMS: 2Pp flic.kr/p/Z4FxAi

Part 2, BODY & ANATOMY, BELOW.

Part, 3 HABITS & ECOLOGY: 4Pp flic.kr/p/Z4Fx9M

Sets of OTHER SPECIES: www.flickr.com/photos/56388191@N08/collections/

PDF available at www.researchgate.net/publication/346673416_Patella_pelluc...

 

GLOSSARY below.

Body description (Features visible on live animal.)

The main flesh colour is white or yellowish white. A horseshoe-shaped series of strong muscle bundles make up the pedal-retractor muscle 53Pp flic.kr/p/Z6REoG & 54Pp flic.kr/p/C3widA . Juveniles have a distinct, longitudinal, dark chestnut band on the distal face of the pedal-retractor muscle that can often be seen through the translucent juvenile shell 3Pp flic.kr/p/Z4FxtK , 4Pp flic.kr/p/Z4Fx9M & 5Pp flic.kr/p/YNrZYJ or by dissection 55Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RDUW . The chestnut band fades on adults inside holdfasts 56Pp flic.kr/p/Y8tL5H . Some of the adults on fronds retain a strongly pigmented band 57Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RDtf & 22Pp flic.kr/p/Z51FP4 , but others lose it 58Pp flic.kr/p/C3wgX9 . Although the band fades on holdfast dwellers, the anterior dorsal surface of the foot, below the head, usually becomes yellowish with brown creases. This colouration may extend faintly over more of the foot dorsally 53Pp flic.kr/p/Z6REoG . The head has short stout snout occupied by a large mouth surrounded by thick, white, wrinkled outer lips 59Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RCRd which extend the snout when protruded 60Pp flic.kr/p/Y8tJDM . A pink, internal odontophore and buccal mass can be seen through the translucent, white head 61Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RCAJ . The odontophore is separated from the outer lips by dull orange inner lips that open laterally and close to a vertical line 62Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RCAJ . When they open, the radula with rust-coloured, iron-rich teeth is protruded through the arch of the opaque white jaw 60Pp flic.kr/p/Y8tJDM . The tapered, translucent white cephalic tentacles each have a black eye with a tiny opening on the dorsum of the slightly swollen tentacle-base 61Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RCAJ . The opening is at the apex of an internal cone of black pigment that, because visible through the translucent flesh, gives the false impression of a larger opening. Some or all of the black may be pigmented retinal cells. The eye can probably differentiate light from shade, and detect the direction of the light source, but cannot discern shapes. The mantle-skirt is translucent whitish, often showing the colour of underlying shell when viewed ventrally 63Pp flic.kr/p/Y4Rjnb . The mantle cavity consists of a nuchal cavity over the head 64Pp flic.kr/p/C3wfCW and a groove, containing pallial gills, around the periphery of foot but, unlike other British Patellidae, not around the anterior of the head 65Pp flic.kr/p/Y8tH2Z . The gill-less anterior gap appears (small sample) to be proportionally of greatest extent on juveniles 66Pp flic.kr/p/C3wf4Q . A red (vestigial?) osphradium is located within the nuchal cavity next to each terminal bundle of the pedal-retractor muscle Pp53 flic.kr/p/Z6REoG . The efferent pallial vessel, less whitish than the rest of the mantle skirt, runs around the entire animal at the base of the pallial gills 65Pp flic.kr/p/Y8tH2Z and in front of the head to a point left of the head where its two ends unite in a trunk 64Pp flic.kr/p/C3wfCW that passes through the roof of the nuchal cavity to the heart. The mantle skirt is fringed with translucent, white pallial tentacles that can protrude beyond the rim of the shell when the mantle is fully extended 67Pp flic.kr/p/Y8tGwv . Along the whole length of each side of the dorsal surface of the foot there is a lateral glandular streak 53Pp flic.kr/p/Z6REoG with an overhanging upper lip. The lip has lobe-like retractile tentacles 68Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RA7A and is usually paler than the rest of the foot when the latter is tinted yellowish.

58Pp flic.kr/p/C3wgX9 . The sole is pure white on juveniles and early adults on fronds, often becoming yellowish, especially at the anterior, on frond dwelling, large adults 69Pp flic.kr/p/Y8tEYF . Adults in holdfasts have white soles even when the dorsal surface of the foot is yellowish with brown creases 65Pp flic.kr/p/Y8tH2Z

The intensity of colour on coloured soles is diminished when the sole is expanded laterally 70Pp flic.kr/p/Z9Bf6x . The anterior of the foot is bilaminate with the dorsal lamina extending beyond the sole 59Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RCRd . The anterior-pedal mucous gland is between the laminae. As with other patellids, there is no penis as fertilization is external.

 

Internal functional anatomy

When the body is removed from the shell the entire mantle is visible. The peripheral mantle-skirt is white translucent and may reveal the white foot below 71Pp flic.kr/p/Zjfznw . The rest of the mantle is semi-transparent with a fine spray of black pigment of varying intensity. Many features of the viscera can be discerned through it.

Blood circulation and respiration

Image 72Pp flic.kr/p/YhjbgA illustrates paragraph 1.

After it has oxygenated organs in the visceral mass, the colourless blood, depleted of oxygen, collects in visceral sinuses. It then passes in vessels through gaps in the pedal-retractor muscle into an afferent branchial vessel that runs through the mantle skirt around the edge of the distal face of the muscle . The afferent branchial vessel distributes blood to all the gill leaflets which re-oxygenate it as it passes through them. The oxygenated blood passes into a large efferent pallial vessel (a.k.a. efferent branchial vessel) and passes forwards on both right and left sides of the animal. The

flow of blood in the efferent pallial vessel (e.p.v.) on the right continues round the front of the head to join the left of the e.p.v. in a trunk that enters the left side of the nuchal cavity to connect with the heart in the pericardial cavity behind the left of the nuchal cavity 55Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RDUW & 73Pp flic.kr/p/Zjfz8y . The heart consists of three parallel chambers; the auricle, ventricle and bulbous aorta. Blood is pumped out via the bulbous aorta to oxygenate organs in the head and visceral hump before returning to the visceral sinuses to recommence the cycle.

The gills consist of a large number of leaflets, alternating large and small, hanging from the roof of the pallial groove 74Pp flic.kr/p/YhjaWs . The leaflets vary in shape with free ends that can be rounded, flat or pointed, but all narrow where they attach to the roof of the pallial groove and have a deep and densely ciliated groove around the rim 75Pp flic.kr/p/YhjaS9 . The respiratory inhalant water current is created by the motion of cilia on each leaflet of the gills drawing water in all around the shell, except at the gill-less anterior (X5000 scanning electron microscope images of cilia on a chiton at flic.kr/p/qQB5zj ). Sediment entering with the water is trapped by mucus from the lateral glandular streak 53Pp flic.kr/p/Z6REoG and carried forwards and out by the exhalant current along the pallial groove. The oxygen-bearing water is drawn across the surface of the leaflets in the opposite direction to the blood flow within, so creating a counter current-system (Fretter and Graham, 1994). The dense cilia in the rim-groove are reported (Fretter and Graham, 1994) to propel debris particles caught on the leaflet surface to the free end where they drop off, but this would seem unlikely for those in holdfasts feeding upside down into the core of the stipe. After passing the leaflets, the current, now exhalant, is propelled by cilia forwards along the pallial groove to exit the gill-less anterior on the right of the animal 76Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfytY & 77Pp flic.kr/p/YhjaDJ . It is unlikely that the red features referred to as the osphradia 53Pp flic.kr/p/Z6REoG have the usually attributed function of water-quality testing as there are no associated ctenidia to forwarn, and they are located in the path of the exhalant water after it has flowed over the pallial gills and shortly before it exits the anterior of the shell. There are anatomical signs that they may be vestiges of a lost double osphradium-ctenidium complex like that still found in Diodora graeca flic.kr/p/neENxW (Spengel, 1881, in Fretter & Graham, 1962, p314). Graham & Fretter (1947) had a 'suspicion' that the leaflets on frond-dwellers are smaller than those on holdfast-dwellers, and that this can be correlated with the greater exposure to water movement of frond dwellers. This seems to be supported by some images 78Pp flic.kr/p/Zjfyby that show large leaflets projecting from the shell of holdfast dwellers, but no leaflets projecting from the shell of frond dwellers. But, measurement of live, expanded, gill area is difficult, and individuals can extend or retract the mantle and gills.

 

Alimentary and excretory features .

The inner lips of the mouth, described above, open into the buccal cavity. The anterior wall of the cavity is reinforced by a pliable, white, chitinous, antero-dorsal plate, called the “jaw” though it is not articulated and does not bite 60Pp flic.kr/p/Y8tJDM . It serves as an attachment for several muscles and has two lateral wings that meet dorsally at an angle and form an anterior shield for the inner lips when they are open. Within the buccal cavity there is a pink odontophore 61Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RCAJ & 79Pp flic.kr/p/Zjfxp3 consisting of a right and left bolster which is covered in thick cuticle. Much of a bolster is made of strong cartilage-like material. The odontophore occupies a large amount of the body, 25% of its length. There is a black mark within its anterior half that is visible through the dorsal surfaces of it 80Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfxcQ , the epithelium of the head and the overlying mantle 81Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfwMb , and, on many translucent shells, it underlies and adds to the intensity of a patch of black pigment on the anterior of the shell's interior 82Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfwtL .

The radula is created in a semi-translucent sac 83Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfwgS . Its exposed anterior, widened into a hyaline shield 84Pp flic.kr/p/Zjfwaj , rests on the dorsum of the odontophore 85Pp flic.kr/p/Zjfw5u . The strong, iron-impregnated, unarticulated teeth are firmly fixed in a backwardly inclined position on the radula 86Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfvYC , but the anterior tip of the radula bends over the front of the odontophore so that the front rows of four teeth are inclined forwards like a chisel 85Pp flic.kr/p/Zjfw5u . To feed, the strong muscles of the large odontophore thrust it forwards against the front of the buccal cavity which, reinforced by the jaw, restrains the odontophore but allows the front teeth to project strongly from the narrow vertex of the gap between the wings of the jaw 60Pp flic.kr/p/Y8tJDM . When applied to Laminaria, the teeth effectively chisel into the tough frond or stipe, and the curve of the withdrawing teeth acts as a scoop to lift particles back to the oesophagus in the buccal cavity. The action is surrounded by the outer lips which prevent the escape of loosened food fragments 60Pp flic.kr/p/Y8tJDM . Like other limpets and some sea snails that graze rock surfaces, P. pellucida has a long, powerful radula, but it is shorter than most, being about 75% the length of the shell 37Pp flic.kr/p/XQh5nv , requiring only a single fold to fit it inside the body 87Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfvNs which is about the same length as it 80Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfxcQ . Other British patellids have radulae between about 100% and 250% of shell length (Fretter & Graham, 1962). The cause of the correlation between length and rock grazing is uncertain. It may be that a lengthy process is needed for the teeth to acquire the required hardening mineralization, so less length/time would be needed to form a radula for grazing alga that is tough, but not as hard as rock. Tooth creation starts at the slightly bifid, white, inner end of the radular sac 83Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfwgS with secretion of colourless transparent cuticular material by odontoblast cells. As each new tooth commences, the previous one is pushed forwards along the sac. Cells along the roof of the sac make incremental additions, including the hardening salts of iron and silicon, to the teeth as they travel along the sac, with a progressive change from colourless through darkening shades of yellow/orange visible through the translucent sac walls. Creation is complete by the time the tooth reaches the buccal cavity, where the radula emerges from the sac onto the odontophore 85Pp flic.kr/p/Zjfw5u .

The yellow digestive gland 55Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RDUW & 81Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfwMb composed of a mass of tubules is usually the most obvious organ on the surface of the visceral mass when the shell is removed. Digestive cells in the tubules ingest particulate food to digest it intracellularly (Fretter & Graham, 1994, p. 219). The tubules extend into the blood filling the haemocoel, and their very thin covering of connective tissue allows the passage of nutrients into the blood. Food material passes along the long coiled intestine which is usually white like the consumed white inner parts of Laminaria 81Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfwMb & 87Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfvNs . Faecal boluses pass through the rectum 81Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfwMb and are compressed and bound with mucus to emerge as faecal rods 88Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfvsN from the anus at the rear right of the nuchal cavity 87Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfvNs and are conveyed to, and expelled from, the right anterior of the shell by cilia and the flow of exhalant water 77Pp flic.kr/p/YhjaDJ . Compression of faeces assists removal without fouling the gills. Excreta from the nephridipores by the anus are expelled by the same route. Particulate matter removed by cilia on the gill leaflets, and sediment caught in mucus from the lateral glandular streak, are conveyed along the pallial groove by cilia and exhalant water, to join the anterior expulsion.

 

Reproductive organs

The gonads are situated between the viscera and foot. During the breeding season, they may spread over much of the viscera 87Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfvNs & 89Pp flic.kr/p/Zjfvq3 , but on juveniles , and on adults out of breeding condition, they are usually hidden or nearly so 55Pp flic.kr/p/Z6RDUW & 82Pp flic.kr/p/ZjfwtL , on an animal removed from the shell. Female ovaries are granular, and male testes have numerous interconnected tubules. Fertilization is external, so the male has no penis. Gametes leave both sexes through the right nephridium (kidney) via its nephridipore at the rear right of the nuchal cavity, and carried from the shell by cilia and the forward flowing exhalant current.

 

GLOSSARY

 

afferent (adj. of vessel) = carrying blood etc. towards an organ.

aperture = mouth of gastropod shell; outlet for head and foot.

apex (definition for this account) = position of the larval protoconch (see summit).

branchial (adj.) = of or relating to gills (branchiae).

cephalic = (adj.) of or on the head.

cnidocytes = explosive stinging cells of hydroids, jellyfish, sea anemones etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnidocyte

ctenidium = comb-like molluscan gill; usually an axis with a row of filaments either side.

 

efferent (adj. of vessel) = carrying blood etc. away from an organ.

ELWS = extreme low water spring tide (usually near March and September equinoxes).

  

epizoic (of a plant or animal) = growing or living non-parasitically on the exterior of a living animal.

 

GS1, GS2 etc. = Growth Stage 1 (planktonic veliger larva), Growth Stage 2 (newly settled juvenile) etc.

 

GS5f = Growth Stage 5 (late adult) living on Laminaria frond.

GS5h = Growth Stage 5 (late adult) living in Laminaria holdfast.

GS5s= Growth Stage 5 (late adult) living on Laminaria stipe.

 

haemocoel = system of interconnected spaces (sinuses) containing blood within body of a mollusc.

 

holdfast = rootlike in appearance, but not in function, tendrils attaching seaweed to the substrate. (a.k.a. hapteron).

mantle = sheet of tissue that secretes the shell and forms a cavity for the gill in most marine molluscs.

 

MLWS = mean low water spring tide level (mean level reached by lowest low tides for a few days every fortnight; Laminaria or Coralline zone on rocky coasts).

 

osphradium (pl. osphradia) = organ for testing water quality (chemical and/or for particles) usually near approach of inhalant current to ctenidium or pallial gills. Structure varied; including comblike, papillate or ribbing.

 

pallial (adj.) = of, relating to, or produced by the mantle (pallium).

periostracum = thin horny layer of chitinous material often coating shells.

phylogenetic (of development) = of change due to genetic make up.

resorb = absorb again that which was previously produced.

resorption = the process of absorbing again that which was previously produced.

 

stipe = stem of some brown seaweeds that supports the fronds and may contain a core of cells that transports sugars and nutrients within the alga.

 

summit (definition for this account) = highest point of the shell above the substrate (see apex).

 

trochophore = spherical or pear-shaped larva that moves with aid of girdle of cilia that beat to cause rotation. Stage preceding veliger, passed within gastropod egg in most spp. but free in plankton for patellid limpets, most Trochidae and Tricolia pullus, and, with no veliger, chitons.

 

veliger = shelled larva of marine gastropod or bivalve mollusc which feeds and swims by beating cilia of a velum (small on P. pellucida).

 

title.

Your friends.

  

Manhattan . New york city 2017. shot..... … 　3 / 6

Day of departure from Japan, August 16, 2017.

The day I came back to Japan, 21 August 2017.

(4 nights 6 days.)

(Today's picture. That's unannounced.)

  

( ( Lumix G3 shot ) )

  

image.

LEFT ALONE '86……. MAL WALDRON・JACKIE McLEAN

youtu.be/vZ2OB52iQN0

  

_________________________________

_________________________________

Profile.

In November 2014, we caught the attention of the party selected to undertake the publicity for a mobile phone that changed the face of the world with just a single model, and will conclude a confidentiality agreement with them.

stealaway.cocolog-nifty.com/stealaway/2016/11/profile.html

 

youpic.com/photographer/mitsushironakagawa/

_________________________________

_________________________________

  

iBooks. Electronic Publishing. It is free now.

 

0.about the iBooks.

stealaway.cocolog-nifty.com/stealaway/2017/03/about-digit...

 

1.unforgettable '(ENG.ver.)(This book is Dedicated to the future artist.)

itunes.apple.com/us/book/unforgettable/id1216576828?ls=1&...

For Japanese only.

 

2.unforgettable '(JNP.ver.)(This book is Dedicated to the future artist.)

itunes.apple.com/us/book/unforgettable/id1216584262?ls=1&...

 

3. Streamlined trajectory.

itunes.apple.com/us/book/%E6%B5%81%E7%B7%9A%E5%BD%A2%E3%8... =11

 

_________________________________

_________________________________

  

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

instagram.

www.instagram.com/mitsushiro_nakagawa/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

Pinterest.

www.pinterest.jp/mitsushiro/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

YouPic

youpic.com/photographer/mitsushironakagawa/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

fotolog

www.fotolog.com/stealaway/

 

_________________________________

_________________________________

  

twitter.

twitter.com/mitsushiro

 

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

Japanese is the following.

stealaway.cocolog-nifty.com/

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

flickr . ( XL size )

_________________________________

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/

_________________________________

_________________________________

  

My Novel >> Unforgettable'

 

(This book is Dedicated to the future artist.)

  

Mitsushiro Nakagawa

All Translated by Yumi Ikeda .

www.fotolog.net/yuming/

  

images.

U2 - No Line On The Horizon Live in Dublin

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oKwnkYFsiE&feature=related

  

There are two reasons why a person faces the sea.

One, to enjoy a slice of shine in the sea like children bubbling over in the beach.

The other, to brush the dust of memory like an old man who misses old days, staring at the shine

quietly.

Those lead to only one meaning though they do not seem to overlap. It’s a rebirth.

I face myself to change tomorrow, a vague day into something certain.

That is the meaning of a rebirth.

I had a very sweet girlfriend when I was 18.

After she left, I knew the meaning of gentleness for the first time and also a true pain of loss. After

she left, how many times did I depend too much on her, doubt her, envy her and keep on telling lies

until I realized it is love?

I wonder whether a nobody like me could have given something to her who was struggling in the

daily life in those days. Giving something is arrogant conceit. It is nothing but self-satisfaction.

I had been thinking about such a thing.

However, I guess what she saw in me was because I had nothing. That‘s why she tried to see

something in me. Perhaps she found a slight possibility in me, a guy filled with ambiguous, unstable

tomorrow. But I wasted days depending too much on her gentleness.

Now I finally can convey how I felt in those days when we met.

1/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24577016535/in/dateposted...

2/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24209330259/in/dateposted...

3/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/23975215274/in/dateposted...

4/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24515964952/in/dateposted...

5/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24276473749/in/dateposted...

6/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24548895082/in/dateposted...

7/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24594603711/in/dateposted...

8/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24588215562/in/dateposted...

9/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24100804163/in/dateposted...

Fin.

images.

U2 - No Line On The Horizon Live in Dublin

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oKwnkYFsiE&feature=related

_________________________________

_________________________________

Title of my book > unforgettable'

Author : Mitsushiro Nakagawa

Out Now.

ISBN978-4-86264-866-2

in Amazon.

www.amazon.co.jp/Unforgettable’-Mitsushiro-Nakagawa/dp/...

_________________________________

_________________________________

Schedule of the next novel.

Still would stand all time.(unforgettable'2)

2018. Spring. It's expected to open it. That's Japanese.

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

2018. spring.

 

theme.

This must be the place I waited years to leave.

  

place. Tokyo Big Site.

www.bigsight.jp/

Sponsoring. Design festa.

designfesta.com/

  

2019.

Date unknown.

  

DIC Kawamura Memorial Art Museum attached gallery.

kawamura-museum.dic.co.jp/

 

place. Sakura City, Chiba Prefecture.

 

theme.

From that day, forever ...

  

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

instagram.

www.instagram.com/mitsushiro_nakagawa/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

Pinterest.

www.pinterest.jp/mitsushiro/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

YouPic

youpic.com/photographer/mitsushironakagawa/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

fotolog

www.fotolog.com/stealaway/

 

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

twitter.

twitter.com/mitsushiro

 

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

Japanese is the following.

stealaway.cocolog-nifty.com/

_________________________________

_________________________________

  

タイトル。

Your friends.

  

次の小説のイメージ。

Still would stand all time.(unforgettable'2)

（いつまでもなくならないだろう）

  

Manhattan . New york city 2007. shot … 3 / 6

（日本を出発した日。２０１７年８月１６日。）

（日本へ帰ってきた日。２０１７年８月２１日。）

（４泊６日。）

(今日の写真。それは未発表です。)

  

(( Lumix G3 shot ))

  

image.

LEFT ALONE '86……. MAL WALDRON・JACKIE McLEAN

youtu.be/vZ2OB52iQN0

  

_________________________________

_________________________________

プロフィール。

2014年11月、たった1機種で世界を塗り替えた携帯電話の広告を請け負った選考者の目に留まり、秘密保持同意書を結ぶ。

stealaway.cocolog-nifty.com/stealaway/2016/11/profile.html

 

youpic.com/photographer/mitsushironakagawa/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

iBooks.電子出版。（現在は無料）

  

0.about the iBooks.

stealaway.cocolog-nifty.com/stealaway/2017/03/about-digit...

 

1.unforgettable’ ( ENG.ver.)(This book is Dedicated to the future artist.)

itunes.apple.com/us/book/unforgettable/id1216576828?ls=1&...

For Japanese only.

  

2.unforgettable’ ( JNP.ver.)(この小説は未来のアーティストへ捧げます)

itunes.apple.com/us/book/unforgettable/id1216584262?ls=1&...

  

3.流線形の軌跡。

itunes.apple.com/us/book/%E6%B5%81%E7%B7%9A%E5%BD%A2%E3%8...

_________________________________

_________________________________

  

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

instagram.

www.instagram.com/mitsushiro_nakagawa/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

Pinterest.

www.pinterest.jp/mitsushiro/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

YouPic

youpic.com/photographer/mitsushironakagawa/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

twitter.

twitter.com/mitsushiro

 

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

Japanese is the following.

stealaway.cocolog-nifty.com/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

僕の小説。英語版　

My Novel Unforgettable' (This book is Dedicated to the future artist.)

  

Mitsushiro Nakagawa

All Translated by Yumi Ikeda .

www.fotolog.net/yuming/

  

1/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24577016535/in/dateposted...

2/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24209330259/in/dateposted...

3/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/23975215274/in/dateposted...

4/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24515964952/in/dateposted...

5/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24276473749/in/dateposted...

6/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24548895082/in/dateposted...

7/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24594603711/in/dateposted...

8/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24588215562/in/dateposted...

9/9

www.flickr.com/photos/stealaway/24100804163/in/dateposted...

Fin.

  

images.

U2 - No Line On The Horizon Live in Dublin

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oKwnkYFsiE&feature=related

  

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

Title of my book > unforgettable'

Author : Mitsushiro Nakagawa

Out Now.

 

ISBN978-4-86264-866-2

in Amazon.

www.amazon.co.jp/Unforgettable’-Mitsushiro-Nakagawa/dp/...

  

_________________________________

_________________________________

次の小説の予定。

Still would stand all time.(unforgettable'2)

（いつまでもなくならないだろう）

２０１８年。春。公開予定。それは日本語です。

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

２０１８年。春。

 

テーマ。

This must be the place I waited years to leave .

  

場所。東京ビッグサイト。

www.bigsight.jp/

Sponsoring. Design festa.

designfesta.com/

  

２０１９年。

日時未定。

DIC川村記念美術館付属ギャラリー。

kawamura-museum.dic.co.jp/

場所。千葉県佐倉市。

テーマ。

あの日から、ずっと…

  

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

instagram.

www.instagram.com/mitsushiro_nakagawa/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

Pinterest.

www.pinterest.jp/mitsushiro/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

YouPic

youpic.com/photographer/mitsushironakagawa/

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

fotolog

www.fotolog.com/stealaway/

 

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

twitter.

twitter.com/mitsushiro

 

_________________________________

_________________________________

 

Japanese is the following.

stealaway.cocolog-nifty.com/

_________________________________

_________________________________

  

Williamsburg, Brooklyn

 

A collaborative project of the Federal Public Works Administration and the newly established New York City Housing Authority, the Williamsburg Houses are notable as one of the earliest housing developments in the United States to reflect the ideas of the modern movement in architecture. In the 1920s Williamsburg was one of the most densely populated sections of Brooklyn and nearly six hundred, mostly frame, structures were demolished to create the 23.3 acre site. Proposed in 1934, this residential complex was skillfully designed by the Williamsburg Associated Architects during 1935 and most units were occupied by 1938.

 

The partnership included Richmond H. Shreve, of Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, the architects of the Empire State Building, and William Lescaze, the Swiss-born architect who helped introduce the “International” style on the eastern seaboard. Lescaze was responsible for the design, which includes twenty 4-story structures on four “super” blocks turned at 15 degree angles to the street grid. Oriented to the sun and prevailing winds, this unusual layout produced a series of large and small courts, many of which flow into a large public space at the center of each block. A light-colored palette distinguishes the facades, executed in tan brick and exposed concrete.

 

Among the most prominent features are the entrances, marked by blue tile and projecting stainless steel canopies, and the handsome streamlined storefronts. The complex was widely discussed by contemporary critics and more than 25,000 New Yorkers applied for 1,622 apartments. During the mid-1990s, the buildings underwent an extensive restoration which included the replacement of all exterior materials. Sponsored by the Housing Authority, in consultation with the Landmarks Preservation Commission, these alterations were remarkably sensitive and in the 4th edition of the AIA Guide to New York City the “revivified” complex was called “the best public housing project ever built in New York.”

 

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS

 

Housing the Masses

 

From the rowhouse to the apartment building, New York City has been a laboratory for innovative housing. Beginning after the Civil War, apartments, variously known as French Flats and tenements, were built to house the city’s surging population. Immigrants, for the most part, crowded into unregulated tenements, structures that maximized profits for developers while providing few amenities that we take for granted today, such as light, air, and private bathrooms.

 

Despite government efforts to legislate minimum standards in 1867 and 1879, initially private individuals took the most significant steps to make decent housing affordable to all. Several pioneering examples were located close to the Brooklyn waterfront, including the Home and Tower Buildings (William Field and Son, 1876-78), the Astral Apartments (Lamb & Rich, 1885-87) and Riverside (William Field and Son, 1890). The later complex surrounded a large tree-shaded courtyard incorporating a music pavilion and areas for drying laundry. Despite these, and a few innovative Manhattan developments, the majority of New Yorkers continued to live in substandard conditions.

 

The passage of the New Tenement Law in 1901 improved the situation, requiring that multiple dwellings be built on significantly larger lots, with fire escapes and separate “privies” for each family. After World War I, the garden apartment came into vogue. While most were built for the middle class, especially in Jackson Heights, a significant group were sponsored by unions and cooperative organizations that wished to provide members with inexpensive apartments. Significant examples include the Amalgamated Houses (Springsteen & Goldhammer, 1930) on Manhattan’s Lower East Side and the “Coops” built in the Bronx by the United Workers Cooperative Association (Springsteen & Goldhammer, 1925-27; Herman Jessor, 1927-29).

 

The first significant act of government intervention occurred in 1926 with the passage of the New York State Housing Law. Promoted by Governor Alfred E. Smith to encourage construction through the formation of local authorities that would sell bonds or seek federal funds, it had little impact until 1934 when the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) was established. The authority’s first project, aptly called the First Houses (Frederick L. Ackerman, 1934-36), was located in Manhattan’s East Village. Begun as a rehabilitation program involving the demolition of every third structure, due to structural problems the eight brick buildings were entirely rebuilt.

 

Throughout the early Depression, government-subsidized housing remained a controversial issue. Consequently, it was first promoted as worker relief, organized to create jobs but not compete with the commercial market. The first federal agency to involve itself with housing was the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which was created in 1932 to provide low-interest loans to limited-dividend housing corporations. Of the two loans it made, one was toward the construction of Knickerbocker Village (John S. Van Wart & Frederick L. Ackerman, 1933). Built for the Fred F. French Company, this Chinatown-area development consists of two 12-story buildings, both enclosing an interior courtyard.

 

In mid-1933, as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Housing Division of the Public Works Administration (PWA) was established. What made this agency different from its predecessor, the RFC, was that it would be directly involved in the planning and construction of low-income housing. The program was a great success and over the next three and half years it collaborated on the design and construction of 51 projects in 36 cities, including the Harlem River Houses and the Williamsburg Houses.

 

The passage of the Wagner-Steagall Bill (aka U.S. Housing Bill) by the United States Congress in September 1937, strengthened the federal government’s commitment to housing, but shifted greater control to local authorities. The first New York City housing project to be financed under this program was the Red Hook Houses (Electus Litchfied, chief designer, 1938-39) in Brooklyn. Future construction, which would amount to more than half a million low-rental units nationwide by 1957, would be funded primarily through low-interest loans.

 

Site

 

The Williamsburg Houses are located in northwestern Brooklyn, approximately one mile east of the Williamsburg Bridge and two blocks south of Grand Street, a lively commercial thoroughfare. Founded as part of the town of Bushwick in the mid17th century, Williamsburg was incorporated as a village in 1827. The community prospered and by 1852 it was the 20th largest city in the nation. Three years later, Williamsburg became part of Brooklyn and was commonly referred to as the Eastern District. Although ferry service was important to the area’s development, it was the planning and construction of a second East River crossing, the Williamsburg Bridge, that caused the most dramatic growth.

 

Proposed in 1883, the bridge was completed with much fanfare in 1903, serving pedestrians, bicycles and horse-drawn vehicles. In subsequent decades, Williamsburg rivaled the Lower East Side in population and density. The Brooklyn Eagle claimed in 1920 that the bridge was part of the busiest traffic center in the nation and that a single block north of it was the most crowded in the world. Conditions in the neighborhood continued to deteriorate throughout the decade, so much so that the population began to decline.

 

In October 1933, the Federal Works Administration (PWA) established a slum clearance committee to study conditions throughout New York City. Richmond H. Shreve, who would later serve as chief architect of the Williamsburg Houses, was named director. Based on the committee’s recommendations, $25 million was set aside for a housing program in New York City. Under the direction of the NYCHA, a more comprehensive study was undertaken in 1934, focusing on fourteen neighborhoods, including Williamsburg. The PWA reported:

 

When the study was completed the blighted slum area of the Williamsburg section stood out as the best example where the most good could be done in wholesale clearance work.

 

Of 93 blocks studied, a grid of 12 was identified for redevelopment in Williamsburg. These blocks were chosen because property values were relatively low and the owners were willing to sell. Most of buildings were mixed-use, incorporating retail spaces at ground level and apartments above. Each lot was carefully documented: 90% of the structures were at least forty years old, 70% were built of wood, 78% had no central heating, and 67% had no private toilets. Such statistics were used to paint an extremely bleak picture of life there:

 

But the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, according to official surveys, is unique in that its slums bear the stamp of dull listlessness and despair . . . Laissez faire, exploitation, and land speculation have robbed the community of its natural potentialities for development and orderly urban life.

 

Public amenities were also in short supply; there were few schools and there were almost no parks.

 

Architects

 

Five architects were appointed to the NYCHA’s architectural board in May 1934: Richmond H. Shreve (1877-1946) of Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, Matthew W. Del Gaudio (1889-1960), William Lescaze (1899-1969), Arthur C. Holden (18901993), and James F. Bly. As members of the board, their initial role was advisory. They would act as the authority’s chief architect, overseeing the design and construction of municipal housing citywide.

 

In June 1934 an open competition was held to choose the architects who would work on the Williamsburg Houses and other NYCHA projects. The program guidelines did not specify the location, but the grid chosen closely resembled the long blocks where the Williamsburg Houses would be built. Of 278 architects who participated, 5 of the 22 selected were assigned to the Brooklyn project: Samuel Gardstein, of Holmgren, Volz & Gardstein, G. Harmon Gurney (b. 1896), of Gurney & Clavan, John W. Ingle Jr., Paul Trapani (1887-1974), and Harry Leslie Walker (1877-1954).

 

In June 1935, a contract was signed with the Williamsburg Associated Architects. The partnership consisted of ten men: the five architects selected by jury, as well as the five members of the architectural board. Among them, Shreve had the most experience with large projects, having worked on a succession of major Manhattan skyscrapers, most notably, the Empire State Building (Shreve, Lamb & Harmon, 1931).

 

A graduate of the College of Architecture at Cornell University (1902), he began his career as a member of the school’s faculty and later joined the firm of Carrére & Hastings in New York City where he distinguished himself as having a “genius for the solution of operational and administrative problems.” Whereas prior to the Depression he mainly worked on office buildings, in his later years Shreve was associated with residential developments, most notably the Vladeck Houses (1940) on the Lower East Side, and Parkchester (1938-42), a development with more than twelve thousand apartments in the Bronx. During the late 1930s, he also served as a member of the board of design for the New York World’s Fair.

 

Design

 

Of the three initial projects built by the NYCHA and the PWA, the Williamsburg Houses were the most innovative. Shreve appointed Lescaze as the chief designer, responsible for the plan and elevations. In the 1930s, he was at the height of his career, profiled in publications read by professionals and the layman. Born near Geneva, Switzerland, in 1896, he studied in Zurich with the architect Karl Moser in 1915-19 and for a brief period worked in Paris with Henri Sauvage, an important designer of apartment buildings. Lescaze moved to the United States in 1920 and after working in Cleveland and New York City, formed a partnership with George Howe, a Philadelphia architect, in 1929.

 

Their association lasted four years and produced one architectural masterpiece, the Philadelphia Savings Fund Society building, completed in 1932. During the mid-1930s, he was extremely active, working on unrealized plans for the Museum of Modern Art, the Brooklyn Museum, and the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, as well as building three of the earliest modern-style townhouses in Manhattan, his own house and studio, completed in 1934, as well as the Raymond C. and Mildred Kramer (1934-5) and Edward and Dorothy Norman (1940) houses. He also designed, with Albert Frey, the Chrystie-Forsyth Houses. Planned in 1931, this unrealized proposal was included in the Museum of Modern Art’s so-called “International Style” exhibition of 1932.

 

One of the most unique aspects of the Williamsburg Houses is the plan. To create the 23.3 acre complex, twelve blocks were acquired by the city, and the two east-west streets (Stagg and Ten Eyck) were closed to traffic to create four “super” blocks. All but one extend three full blocks from north to south, except part of the block between Manhattan and Graham Avenues that was set aside for a new junior high school and play area.

 

The development of New York City was closely tied to its gridiron. Introduced in 1811, it resulted in a city of predictable intersecting streets and avenues. In 1835, a similar plan was approved for Brooklyn and by the early 1850s the streets that cross through the site of the Williamsburg Houses had opened.

 

Most were named for area residents, such as Daniel Maujer, a lawyer and alderman, John and James Lorimer Graham, land jobbers, and James Scholes, a local land owner. The impact of this approach is visible throughout New York City, establishing blocks and lots of equal size and dimensions. Residential developers benefitted immensely, commissioning rowhouse and tenement designs that could be repeated without regard to location.

 

By the end of the 19th century, there was relatively little open space in Manhattan and Brooklyn. As part of the City Beautiful movement, various attempts were made to loosen the grid’s hold, first through the passage of the Small Parks Act in 1887, which focused on tenement neighborhoods, and later, by situating major civic structures in plazas. Similar ideas shaped the development of garden apartments which came into vogue after 1910. One of the primary characteristics of this type of multiple dwelling was reduced site coverage.

 

In most cases, such as in the Jackson Heights Historic District, the buildings were set around the perimeter of each block, enclosing large private gardens, but in other situations, such as at the Harlem River Houses, a “crankshaft” arrangement was adopted, creating a mixture of interior and exterior courts.

 

Lescaze borrowed freely from both the garden apartment tradition and architects associated with European modernism. In his earliest design, each block incorporated six U-shaped structures arranged around a narrow central court. A later design was considerably more irregular. Turned at an angle to the street, there were fewer but larger buildings.

 

Many aspects of this proposal were integrated into the final design. The Williamsburg Houses are configured in three ways, with footprints suggesting a capital “H,” small “h,” and “T.” All have small spurs and extensions, resembling crossbars. By adding this feature the number of courtyards was significantly increased. Within each block are six buildings (except north of the school); at the north and south are the “H” and “h” configurations, and in the middle, the “T”s.

 

The decision to turn the buildings at a 15 degree angle to the street grid proved controversial. PWA accounts described it in functional terms, explaining that the orientation would provide tenants with more sun and take advantage of the prevailing northwest breezes. During the previous decade, many architects and planners experimented with similar ideas. One of the earliest built examples “to deviate from the geometry of the New York gridiron” was the Mesa Verde apartments (1926) in Jackson Heights. Designed by Henry Atterbury Smith and based on an earlier proposal from 1917, the development featured two rows of six “closed L buildings” set at 45 degree angle to the surrounding streets.

 

Lescaze, however, was more likely to have been influenced by European sources. During the 1920s, he frequently returned to Europe, a period when leading architects were involved in the design of social housing. Many favored the “tower in the park” approach in which free-standing high-rise structures stood in continuous open space. Writing in English in 1935, Walter Gropius concluded that apartment blocks should “command a clear view of the sky, over broad expanses of grass and trees which separate the blocks and serve as playgrounds.”

 

Another source of inspiration might have been Ernst May who oversaw the design and construction of many low-rise housing estates in Frankfurt. In his Bruchfeldstrasse development of 1926-27, designed with C. K. Rudloff, one section was arranged in an overlapping zig-zag configuration. As in Williamsburg, each unit had corner windows, providing tenants with uninterrupted views of a central garden.

 

Many writers were skeptical about the benefits of Lescaze’s plan. Hamlin argued that the layout would convert the courts “into perfect channels for Project for a group of factories. our most vicious northwest winds.” He was told that

 

the arrangement had, in fact, been chosen for aesthetic reasons, to “break up the street facades” and “allow the feeling of space to weave in and out on the street fronts. This goal was definitely achieved, producing an environment that was new and distinctive. The flowing spaces that Lescaze planned are less monumental and more intimate than those experienced in most housing projects, juxtaposing wedge-shaped lawns with semi-enclosed courtyards and large open plazas. As originally built, no fences interrupted the spaces and the areas adjoining the curving concrete walks were paved with cobblestone.

 

The Elevations

 

Equally modern were the elevations. Lescaze was attracted to the expressive and aesthetic qualities of modern materials. Particularly unusual was the decision to use a light-colored palette. Built from reinforced concrete, the walls were originally enclosed with a sand-cast brick that was variously described by observers as bright tan, yellowish, pinkish, and grayish warm pink. One of the most notable features was the exposed concrete floor plates which express the structure and division between the floors while giving the complex a strong horizontal appearance. Talbot Hamlin observed:

 

The effectiveness of the buildings is undoubted. The striping of brick and concrete and the contrast of the light walls which front the stair towers make a vivid picture . . .

 

Prior to the mid-1930s, red brick was the most frequently used material in housing developments, used throughout Jackson Heights and in the First Houses and Harlem River Houses. The proposal to break with this tradition generated considerable debate. While the general scheme was approved in June 1935, it was not until October that specific materials were selected. Presumably, the PWA wished to standardize the building process and reduce costs. Frederick Ackerman, technical director of the NYCHA, defended Lescaze’s proposal. He wrote the authority’s chairman, Langdon W. Post:

 

. . . the “effect” of the Project will depend very largely upon the texture and quality of the exterior wall. Unless the exterior wall possesses a greater intrinsic interest than one made of common brick then the resultant effect is certain to be a bleak, barren and unusually forbidding mass of building:

 

One might readily mistake the At Williamsburg, the buildings stand as freestanding objects, finished on all sides and approachable from multiple directions. No facade dominates and the apartment entrances face both the streets and courtyards. For those unfamiliar with the layout, the angled plan may have been somewhat disorienting. To make it easier to navigate, signs were installed throughout the complex and Lescaze skillfully designed the entrances, making dramatic use of color and form. Like Le Corbusier, he was an “accomplished” painter and frequently used color, especially blue, to enliven wall surfaces. Another possible model was May’s housing development at Praunheim (1926-29) where contrasting colors were used to give the projecting stair towers a distinctive appearance.

 

Within the courtyards are as many as five entrances. Each is sheltered by a small cantilevered aluminum marquee and is flanked by square blue terra-cotta tiles. The entrances that are located at the far end of the larger courtyards are set at a angle. In these instances, the tiles spread onto the adjoining walls and extend above the parapet to the stair bulkhead. Other tile treatments project slightly forward, or are recessed above the doors to the roof. An entrance is also located in the covered breezeway. Reached by a short flight of stairs connecting both the street and courtyard, the more public street facade had an asymmetrical character, incorporating projecting blue tiles to one side and a wide aluminum marquee.

 

Construction

 

To prepare the site for construction, 568 buildings were demolished on 349 lots and approximately 5,400 people were relocated. A 1935 report described the population as divided equally between American born, Italian born, and other nationalities. Most were semi-skilled workers, employed in manufacturing, or as clerks, truck drivers, and construction workers.

 

Demolition commenced in June 1935 as PWA supervisor Elizabeth Ross dug a crowbar into the facade of 197 Manhattan Avenue, near Ten Eyck Street. In the months that followed:

 

Steam shovels and picks played a tune to rival that of the pipes of the Pied Piper of Hamlin. From every dank basement and crumbling wall rats fled in droves. Backyards disgorged an assortment of rusted cans, trash, filth and litter that would have discouraged the most voracious goat.

 

Ground was broken on January 3, 1936. Following a brief ceremony in the rain, public officials addressed an audience of five hundred at Public School 196. During April 1936, the first foundations were poured at the southwest corner of Manhattan Avenue and Stagg Street. Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia was in attendance, followed by “a few hundred interested onlookers and an army of schoolboys.”

 

As the foundations neared completion, the PWA solicited bids for construction. Starrett Brothers & Eken was awarded the $7. 5 million contract for the first 18 buildings in October 1936. A subsequent contract, for construction of buildings No. 5 and 18, was signed in late April 1937.

 

Founded by Paul Starrett (1866-1957) and William Aiken Starrett (1877-1932) and Andrew J. Eken (1882-1965) in 1922, the firm was responsible for such high-profile buildings as the New York Life Insurance Company Building (1925), Bank of Manhattan Building (1929-30), McGraw-Hill Building (1930-31), and Empire State Building (1930-31, all are designated New York City Landmarks). The Starrett Brothers worked closely with Shreve on the Empire State Building and it is likely that this relationship helped secure the contract for the Williamsburg Houses. William Starrett acknowledged the importance and complexity of this issue when he said:

 

It is the hope of people who are discussing this (slum) problem that those same brains that put together the great skyscrapers . . . will turn toward this.

 

Starrett Brothers & Eken later built Parkchester (Richmond H. Shreve, chairman of the board of design, 1938-42), Stuyvesant Town (Irwin Clavan and Gilmore Clarke, 1943-49) and Peter Cooper Village (Irwin Clavan and Gilmore D. Clarke, 1947) for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

 

The cornerstone was laid in October 1936. It contained an aerial view of the site, a copy of the federal act creating the PWA, as well as an autographed copy of Jacob Riis’s timeless account of slum conditions, How the Other Half Lives, donated by his widow. Construction progressed rapidly, and aside from minor walk-outs by metalworkers and painters, the first six buildings were ready for occupancy with a year, in September

 

Publicity

 

The Williamsburg Houses was the largest and costliest project built by the PWA. With 1,622 apartments, it was more than twice the size of the Harlem River Houses. The approximate cost was $12.8 million. It was described by the PWA as part of “demonstration program” and numerous public events were held. In a letter to Post, Shreve stated:

 

As this project is the beginning of what, in a way, is a housing community experiment and as the public attitude toward housing will be largely controlled by the success or failure of such an experiment, it is of importance that every effort be made to make the first experiment successful.

 

In this context, how the project was perceived was of the utmost importance. Once the design had been approved, a scale model was built by the PWA and exhibited at banks in Brooklyn Heights and Williamsburg during late 1935 and 1936. This presentation was accompanied by a series of posters documenting the site, including photographs of earlier buildings and their demolition, as well as projected floor plans. The New York Times reported the model:

 

. . . throws into graphic relief the application of the new principle of multiple housing, providing more air, sunlight and recreational facilities and involving a departure from the solid-block construction.

 

The idea of using public funds to create low-income housing was relatively new and much of the language used in speeches and press releases heralded it as a major advance. At the site, signs were posted, calling Williamsburg the “Largest Low Rental Development in the USA.” At the ground-breaking, public officials evoked the memory of Alfred T. White, whose Brooklyn developments were among the first attempts to improve low-income housing in the nation.

 

Mayor LaGuardia thanked the President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for his support, as did Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, who described slums as a “vicious project of that old order whose passing, we hope, is at hand.” While some critics equated the federal housing program with socialism, most speakers saw it as a defense of democracy.

 

In November 1935, Post had contacted the PWA, requesting that the complex be called the “Ten Eyck” Houses. No explanation was given, but it is likely that the request was made to distinguish the new development from the larger surrounding neighborhood.

 

Ten Eyck Street was one of two east-west streets closed to create the site and it was probably named for the Dutch family whose Brooklyn lineage extended back to at least the 18th century. In the immediate area also lived William Ten Eyck, who during the mid-19th century served as the deacon of the Reformed Church of South Bushwick (1853, a designated New York City Landmark). Post’s request was quickly approved. The new name, however, was not widely used and a 1938 PWA publication refers to the development as the Williamsburg Houses.

 

On October 28, 1936, the construction site was briefly visited by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt. According to the New York Times, ten thousand school children and five thousand adults “cheered the President’s passage through the streets bordering the housing project.”

 

Three “model” apartments were opened for public view in July through August 1937. Furnished with loans from various Brooklyn department stores, they were presented at 180 Maujer Street. Post was an early visitor and he described the apartments as a “demonstration of what can be done, this is the most valuable contribution to social progress that the New Deal has made.” An average of 1,200 persons a day visited. In September 1937, a second group of apartments opened at 176 Maujer Street, including one decorated entirely with “reconditioned furniture.” In a related development, during April and May 1938, the WPA created an exhibit in a storefront office at 212 Graham Avenue. Organized by William Friedman of the art teaching division, the display was changed periodically to demonstrate different apartment layouts and decoration. Nine experts spent five months preparing the exhibit, hoping that it would influence local residents and provide a model for future public housing developments. A music branch, at 176 Maujer Street, also provided lessons in theory, voice, and various instruments.

 

Tenants

 

According to the Brooklyn Eagle, the Williamsburg Houses were “one of the most perfect home sites in the word . . . an eagerly sought spot to live.” Income and need formed the basis of selection and no tenant could earn more than five times the annual rent. Preference was also given to former residents of the site.

 

The first tenants began to occupy their apartments on September 30, 1937. The New York Times devoted at least two articles to “Moving Day,” as did the Brooklyn Eagle. As part of the operation, each tenant’s belongings were moved to a fumigation plant for sterilization near the intersection of Bushwick Avenue at Scholes Street.

 

This procedure was described as a “wise precaution against the spread of disease.” Bessie and Louis Grabkowitz were recognized by the NYCHA as the first official tenants. A week’s rent, of less than seven dollars, was paid and they were given keys to their new apartment. Two to five rooms in size, units featured steam heat, hot and cold water, as well as electric stoves and refrigerators. Residents praised their new homes, commenting on the appliances and abundant sunlight.

 

By the end of 1937, most apartments were occupied. A community newspaper, the Projector, began publishing on a semi-monthly basis in December 1937. In April 1938, the complex was completed. In addition to the twenty residential buildings, there were retail spaces, facing the north-south streets. The PWA reported:

 

To insure efficient, sanitary commercial services, 49 stores and shops within the project, distributing drugs, groceries, appliances, and general merchandise, have been leased to private individuals.

 

The storefronts were executed in a sleek Moderne style. To the north and south, they curved away from the street, recalling the streamlined designs of Erich Mendelsohn, as well as J. J. P. Oud’s Kiefhoek development of 1925. The prominent metal parapets were blue, matching the color of the apartment entrances. Despite their polished design, a significant number failed to attract and retain tenants. Consequently, in 1945 ten unleased spaces, near the corners of Maujer and Leonard Streets, and Scholes Street and Bushwick Avenue, were converted to apartments.

 

Tenants enjoyed a variety of useful services. At the center of the complex, on Graham Avenue stood the stripped classical-style William J. Gaynor Junior High School (1936-37), and opposite it, Building No. 11 housed a nursery school. Incorporated into the building’s south court and featuring a large play terrace, Hamlin described its glass-fronted design as “pleasant” and “delightful.” In addition, a new Moderne-style health center was built directly across from the complex, on Maujer Street.

 

Throughout the development were “social and craft rooms.” These basement spaces were originally used for classes, clubs, and meetings and many were decorated with large colorful murals. In contrast to the majority of WPA murals that were executed in style of social realism, the Williamsburg murals were non-objective. Lescaze favored “abstract and stimulating patterns” and Burgoyne Diller who headed the Federal Art Project, wrote that:

 

The decision to place abstract murals in these rooms [of the Williamsburg Housing Project] was made because the areas were intended to provide a place of relaxation and entertainment . . . The more arbitrary the color, possible when not determined by the description of objects, enables the artist to place an emphasis on its psychological potential to stimulate relaxation.

 

Of twelve murals commissioned, at least five were installed. In the early 1990s, the deteriorated canvases were restored and moved to the Brooklyn Museum of Art. They include works by the American painters Ilya Bolotowsky, Paul Kelpe, and Balcomb Greene.

  

Critical Reception

 

The opening of the Williamsburg Houses was treated as major news and writers used the event to analyze the project and express their own views about the role of public housing and the importance of modern architecture. Some of the earliest comments came from the architect Walter Gropius, former director of the Bauhaus in Germany. On a visit to New York City in April 1937 he was interviewed by H.I. Brock in the New York Times. They traveled together throughout the city, visiting both new skyscrapers and the nearly-complete Brooklyn development. Gropius was impressed and praised the unusual plan, saying that Lescaze:

 

. . . seems to have solved the problem of space and light very successfully and economically, and it has the great advantage of being spread over enough land to make it worthwhile as a sample of planned development.

 

Lewis Mumford was the first critic to publish a substantial review in February 1938. As a persistent advocate for public housing, he used the opportunity to evaluate the “outlines of the new order of building.” He praised the PWA for eschewing “overpriced building lots” and instead assembling large sites in quieter areas where streets could be closed to traffic to create gardens and playgrounds. Considerable attention was paid to the slanted orientation. Although he described it as “a bit queer,” he liked the way it separated the residences from the street and that it gave the appearance that the architects were concerned about providing tenants with ample sunlight.

 

Talbot Hamlin published the most-detailed analysis. In this review, he addressed both PWA projects, calling them “a new vision of democracy ... they are better than the most expensive apartments on Park Avenue.” Despite such praise, he expressed mixed feelings. While he found the buildings “fresh and inventive and alive,” he was disturbed by the “shockingly low” standards of construction. He also admired the “imaginative and carefully studied detailing,” but criticized the landscaping as little more than adequate. The WPA Guide to New York City, published in 1939, shared similar views, quoting Hamlin’s review, and praising the design of the individual buildings.

 

In the years since completion, the Williamsburg Houses have been a frequent subject for architectural historians. Many, starting with the Museum of Modern Art in 1939, have placed the development within the context of European modernism. In an exhibition celebrating the museum’s 10th anniversary and the opening of its new building, it was the only architectural work represented that was located in New York City. In a brief essay on housing, the curators highlighted the “triple-size superblocks,” that form an “oasis of open space,” but criticized the adjoining school building as a lost opportunity to create a “truly important work.” Photographs of the complex were also included in Forms and Functions of Twentieth-Century Architecture (1952), in sections devoted to city planning and concrete construction.

 

G. Holmes Perkins wrote in the city planning section that despite faults, the complex “may be held up as patterns for tomorrow.” Richard Pommer, in one of the most insightful discussions of Depression-era housing in the United States, criticized the angled plan, calling Lescaze a “versatile pasticheur” who used visual effects without logic or relation to function. Robert A. M. Stern shared this view, writing in 1980 that it “seems overrated.” Richard Plunz, in A History of Housing in New York City, credited the project as the start of a “brief but intense struggle” to determine the aesthetic direction government-built housing would take. All four editions of the AIA Guide to New York City have praised the Williamsburg Houses. The 1968 edition called it a “very successful solution to the problem of low-rent subsidized housing,” and in 2000 “the best public housing project ever built in New York.”

 

Subsequent History

 

Conveyed by the federal government to the NYCHA in 1957, the Williamsburg Houses continue to serve their original purpose, housing more than three thousand New Yorkers. Major alterations were first proposed in 1980 and significant work took place during 1985-91. At this time, the original casement windows were replaced with bronze-colored aluminum sash and the blue terra cotta that surrounded the entrances, with tan “Morocco” glazed brick.

 

In a remarkable turnaround, during the mid1990s, the facades were restored. What began as continued maintenance, soon evolved into a major architectural project, requiring an outside contractor and consultation with the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Under the supervision of Neil Cohen of the NYCHA, the elevations were completely reskinned, the parapets replaced, as well as the chimneys, railings, and terra-cotta banding. In addition, new canopies, doors, lighting fixtures, and signage were fabricated.

 

The approximately $70 million project was executed with great sensitivity; there was an article in the real estate section of the New York Times and the NYCHA was the recipient of the Lucy G. Moses Preservation Award from the New York Landmarks Conservancy (1999), which praised the participants for restoring the complex to “better-than-new condition.” Restoration of the storefronts, except along Bushwick Avenue, was completed in 2002.

 

The high standards set by the design of the Williamsburg Houses have rarely been matched. Innovative in terms of scale, plan, and aesthetics, it remains one of the most pleasant and architecturally-distinguished housing developments in New York City.

 

Description

 

There are twenty walk-up buildings in the 23.3acre Williamsburg complex and a total of 1,620 apartments. These buildings are numbered from 1 to 20 and each entrance has its own street address, for instance, “112 Maujer Street.” Stainless steel signs, with pin-mounted numbers and letters, identify each entrance.

 

The site extends four blocks east to west, from Bushwick Avenue to Leonard Street, and three blocks north to south, from Maujer to Scholes Streets. The principal north-south artery is Graham Avenue. Between Maujer and Scholes Streets, Ten Eyck Street and Stagg Street are closed to vehicles. These winding east-west paths are called Ten Eyck Walk and Stagg Walk. They are identified by large pin-mounted stainless steel letters attached to the building facades and are visible along the north-south streets. Throughout the complex are wall-mounted cantilevered lighting fixtures. These glass and aluminum fixtures are reproductions of the originals.

 

Three of the four blocks have a tree-shaded open space at center. At present, non-historic benches, play equipment, and basketball courts are located here. Most lawns are enclosed by low iron fences. Though not original, these fences pre-date the 1990s. Pole-mounted lighting fixtures are occasionally used to illuminate these areas.

 

All buildings materials are non-historic. Each structure is four stories tall and clad in ochre-colored brick. Exterior concrete spandrel beams are exposed at each floor. To disguise patches to the concrete, the beams are coated with a grey-colored water repellency finish. The entrances are flanked by blue structural glazed facing tiles that are approximately 12 by 12 inches. Blue mortar was used to minimize the joint lines. A canopy projects in front of each entrance (except on one side of the breezeways). Made of stainless steel, they incorporate recessed down lights. Some canopies are supported by a single pipe column. The entrance doors and sidelights are made of stainless steel.

 

Each door has a grid of four small square windows. Breezeways serve a dual purpose: reached by two sets of stairs, they provide an additional north-south passage, as well as entry to apartments. Most of the stairs are flanked by stainless steel railings. The bronze anodized aluminum windows, installed in the 1980s, are all one-over-one. Arranged as single windows or in pairs, they have concrete sills and meet the concrete spandrels above. The smaller windows light the bathrooms. Single windows and pairs are located where the facades meet, often creating triple-width openings at the cantilevered corners.

 

There are three general building configurations. All are original to the complex. They include eight buildings with “H” shaped floor plans, six with floor plans that suggest a small letter “h,” and six buildings with “T” shaped floor plans. While the “H” and “h” types alternate along Maujer and Scholes Streets (except next to the school where both are “H” shaped), the “T” shaped buildings are located only between Ten Eyck Walk and Stagg Walk.

 

The “H” buildings (Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 20) are nearly symmetrical, with almost identical north and south courtyards. At the center of each court is either a projecting center section or breezeway. The apartments are reached by four distinct entrances, each with a different tile treatment. They include: corner, wide, recessed between the door and the roof, and incorporated within a breezeway. Each entrance leads to interior stairs. The windows that light the stairs are arranged in horizontal grids of six and eight panes. Except for the recessed variant, the tiles project slightly and rise above the parapet to the stair bulkhead. The opposite side of the breezeway has no tilework. Reached by stairs, each breezeway incorporates two concrete columns and a metal door. The “h” buildings (Nos. 2, 5, 19, 13, 16 and 19) are similar to the “H” buildings, except one court is partially enclosed.

 

The “T” buildings (Nos. 3, 4, 11, 12, 17, 18) have shallow courts. The top of the ‘T” has three entrances, each framed with blue tiles. A pair of entrances are also found facing each other in one of the side courts, and occasionally on the opposite side, as well. Building No. 11, located on the east side of Graham Avenue, is unique due to the presence of a nursery school at the wider south end. To accommodate this function, the entrances were moved and the court at the south end was enclosed. The south wall of school is clad with glass blocks, many of which are original. A concrete shed, at the center of the wall, is not historic and there are plans for removal. From the south facade extends a raised play area that is enclosed by a fence. Along the east side of the building, facing Graham Avenue, a non-historic ramp with metal railings has been constructed.

 

Commercial storefronts parallel the streets and adjoin the apartment buildings in various locations. The materials are non-historic, but the new elevations closely resemble the originals. The largest storefronts are located on either side of Graham Avenue, between Maujer Street and Ten Eyck Walk (Nos. 8 and 9). Smaller retail spaces are located along Graham Avenue (near Scholes Street, No. 13); on Leonard Street (near Maujer Street, No. 1); and on Bushwick Avenue (between Maujer and Stagg Walk, No. 16). They have a stream-lined character and curve away from the street at both ends. One story tall, they have granite bases and are clad with stainless steel and metal that has a baked-on blue porcelain finish. Above the storefronts runs the blue metal parapet, crowned by a stainless steel roof rail. Lighting was added above the storefronts, and security gates, when the stores are open, roll up and are neatly hidden within the facades. Large glass blocks or plate glass are used throughout. Along Bushwick Avenue, the modifications are less sympathetic and a vertical grid of older decorative concrete block occasionally interrupts the facade.

 

- From the 2003 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report