View allAll Photos Tagged streamlined
The Daylight had a disastrous maiden voyage at the Galveston Railroad Museum this weekend. While I was prepared for her derailing every single time she went through the lumpy curves, I was not prepared for her to collide with the adjacent trains due to her huge swing out in curves. This means she swung out more than 8 studs from the track.
I have made some radical changes to her, still works in progress, and I am in great need of opinions on the changes I've made to #4449. The swing has now been reduced to about 6.5-7 studs, I don't know for sure but it's about comparable to the T1.
Changes:
The driver and piston assemblies are now articulated.
The rear truck is now attached to the firebox above it via a train bogie plate.
In order to articulate it, the boiler and orange skirting has been raised up one plate. The rear truck was raised in height by one plate as well.
The orange sloped front of the skirt was lengthened by one plate. This causes a flattened look to the slope assembly.
An addition was made to extend the thickness of the skirt (this can be removed.
The 1x1 round tile on the upper portion of the pistons were removed, the articulation could not work with it in place.
I have not yet worked on the tender, but if these changes are kept I will have to raise the tender a plate as well, so the stripes line up again.
A railwayman cycles with his child past a row of China Railways locomotives in the yard at Shenyang loco shed.
Streamlined SL7 4-6-2 751 was no longer running at this time and later became an exhibit in the Shenyang Museum collection. It was constructed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries in 1934 for the South Manchuria Railway and was operated for the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. SL7s pulled the Asia Express & trains reached a top speed of 140 kilometres per hour (87 mph), surpassing the contemporary Chinese rail system and rivaling the United States and Europe. It served as a symbol of technology and modernism in Manchukuo and was used to demonstrate the success of Japan's imperial project.
The other two engines are 2-10-2 QJs, 557 on the left and ex-works 141 to the right.
LMS streamlined Princess Coronation Class 4-6-2 No.6220 Coronation at Euston with the Coronation Scot. 1937
New York Central 4-6-4 Hudson, J3a class, streamlined Empire State Express steam locomotive # 5426, is seen scooping water at speed along the mainline at Rochester, New York, 1947. This locomotive was one of two locomotives constructed with this style of streamlined art deco stainless steel jacket. This locomotive also makes use of a standard centiped tender, while the other locomotive of it's type has a special configured stainless steel sheather tender. Notice the track pan for water located between the rails on which the train is operating. The mainline track to the right also has a track pan for the use of tenders to scoop water on the fly. You can notice the tender's overflow pipes ejecting excess water at times. It is interesting to note that even though this is a streamlined passenger train, the RPO car is a standard heavyweight car. In the background you can see a coal tipple with some coal hopper cars heading toward it. This photo came from an unknown source.
The name of the photographer that took this photo is unknown.
Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for the purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
A high-fidelity 4K render celebrating the "Great Steel Fleet" of the New York Central Railroad. The image depicts a streamlined Hudson locomotive featuring a grand mural that transitions through the eras of rail travel: from the early days of steam and the 19th-century "DeWitt Clinton" to the iconic Art Deco 1938 20th Century Limited and modern Amtrak service at Grand Central Terminal. An artist on a scaffold is seen putting the finishing touches on the "New York Central" lettering, bridging the gap between historical legacy and artistic preservation. The backdrop features the iconic Empire State Building and the One World Trade Center, symbolizing the railroad’s enduring connection to the heart of New York City.
History of the New York Central Railroad
The New York Central Railroad (NYC) was one of the most vital transportation systems in American history, primarily operating in the Northeastern United States. Known as the "Water Level Route" because its main line from New York to Chicago followed the Hudson River and the Great Lakes, it was famous for offering a smooth, high-speed ride without the steep grades of its rivals.
The Flagship: Its most legendary service was the 20th Century Limited, inaugurated in 1902. In 1938, industrial designer Henry Dreyfuss transformed the train into an Art Deco masterpiece, complete with a streamlined "shrouded" Hudson locomotive (like the one pictured) and a signature red carpet rolled out for passengers at Grand Central Terminal.
Engineering Marvels: The J-3a Hudson locomotives were the pinnacle of steam technology, capable of pulling heavy passenger consists at speeds exceeding 90 mph (145 km/h).
Legacy: Though the NYC merged with the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1968 to form Penn Central (and later became part of Conrail and Amtrak), its home base—Grand Central Terminal—remains one of the world's most famous architectural landmarks and a testament to the railroad’s golden age.
The hulking remains of the great streamlined Art Deco ferry that once graced Seattle's Lake Union is but a rusting shell of its former glory. It's being towed to the scrapyard Thursday for its final grave.
These are all my streamlined locomotives, be they diesel or steam. From left to right:
Late 1940's FA / FB diesel freight loco in classic Brick Railway Systems paint
Early 1960's F10 diesel passenger engine in Lodi Clearwater & Green River Rail-Road blue
Early 1940's 4-8-4 Daylight mixed traffic loco in Southern Pacific War-time black
Late 1930's 4-6-2 Scarlet Crusader fast passenger engine in Missouri Central red and gray
Late 1950's Aerotrain diesel prototype in Rock Island Red stripe over gray
Preserved London, Midland & Scottish Railway streamlined 'Coronation' class 4-6-2 steam locomotive 6229 'Duchess of Hamilton' is pictured on display in the Great Hall at the National Railway Museum, York.
This locomotive was renumbered 46229 by British Railways when the railways were Nationalised in 1947.
The MV Kalakala operated from 1935 to 1967 in Puget Sound. Here is a mural on the side of a building in Port Angeles depicting the ferry leaving that city's harbor. The artist is Cory Ench.
Note: "MV" stands for motor vessel.
Best viewed 'Original' size.
De-streamlined "Princess Coronation" class 4-6-2 46224 "Princess Alexandra", still carrying a tapered smokebox and wrapper, is illustrated here working 11:25 Birmingham to Glasgow through the Lune Gorge near Dillicar - c.07/1957.
The photographer claims that by 1957 only 46224, 46241, 46243 & 46246 retained tapered smokeboxes, and all four now feature in that condition on my Flickr site.
© 2014 - 53A Models of Hull Collection. Scanned from the original 120 format negative; photographed by the late Antony M S Darnbrough. Image previously appeared in the photographer's book "West Coast Steam", first published in 1988 by Ian Allan (ISBN 0 7110 1791 3) but now believed to be out of print.
- - - - - -
In two years of production less than 1,000 Salsbury Model 85 were built in Pomona, California in 1947 and 1948.
The gorgeous streamlined LMS Princess Coronation Class steam locomotive number 6229 'Duchess of Hamilton' inside the Great Hall at the National Railway Museum in York (UK).
6229 was built at Crewe Works by the London Midland and Scottish Railway in 1938
I've streamlined the design a bit, added a train for a size reference, and added technic pins - because SOME PEOPLE seem to think a technic bridge without them would make it unusable or something. Hmph.
The Shape of Speed
Streamlined Automobiles and Motorcycles, 1930–1942
JUN 16 – SEP 16, 2018
Portland Art Museum
The Portland Art Museum is pleased to announce The Shape of Speed: Streamlined Automobiles and Motorcycles, 1930–1942, a special exhibition debuting at the Museum in Summer 2018. Featuring 19 rare streamlined automobiles and motorcycles, The Shape of Speed opens June 16 and will be on view through September 16, 2018.
The concept of streamlining has fascinated people for generations. Beginning in the 1930s and extending until the outbreak of the World War II, automotive designers embraced the challenge of styling and building truly streamlined cars that were fast and fuel-efficient. They were encouraged by the confluence of aircraft design with the sleek shapes of fast railroad locomotives; new advanced highways such as the Autobahns; and events like the 1939 New York City World’s Fair, which showcased futuristic design.
The Shape of Speed presents a select group of rare automobiles and motorcycles that demonstrate how auto designers translated the concept of aerodynamic efficiency into exciting machines that in many cases, looked as though they were moving while at rest.
The Museum will display 17 cars and two motorcycles—the best of that era’s streamlined offerings—from Europe and the United States. Engineering drawings and period photographs will show some of the aircraft, railroad, ship and yacht designs that influenced the automakers.
Featured designers and engineers include European streamlining pioneer Paul Jaray, along with Richard Buckminster Fuller, Norman Bel Geddes, Raymond Loewy, Harley J. Earl, Hermann Ahrens, Georges Paulin, Joseph Figoni, Dr. Wunibald Kamm, Otto Kuhler, Jean Bugatti, Hans Ledwinka, Gordon Buehrig, and others.
The gloriously streamlined art-deco Duchess of Hamilton sits outside the National Railway Museum for Railfest.
Built in 1938 and one of thee Princess Coronation class, the train sports a streamlined design by Sir William Stanier and is the most powerful express passenger locomotive built in Britain.
The train was destreamlined in 1947 and only restored in 2009 after a sustained appeal.
Railfest 2012 was a nine-day celebration of all things train-related, held at the National Railway Museum in York during the period of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.
Famous locomotives such as Mallard, the Flying Scotsman and even the Hogwarts Express all lined up out on the tracks, with thousands of visitors taking the chance to admire them up close or even climb aboard.
Several trains were operating over the course of the festival, with steam puffing into the sky as they carried visitors up and down small stretches of track.
The National Railway Museum in York is the largest railway museum in the world and houses a collection of more than three million items, from ticket machines and platform signs to bullet trains and steam locomotives.
The museum charts the rise of the railways in the 19th century, their use in the transportation of goods and people, their role in the Industrial Revolution and their overall effect on the world, especially England.
The current museum was founded in 1975 and is housed in a former steam engine shed, an old goods depot and numerous other buildings close to York station.
The main structure, the Great Hall, holds everything from a replica of Stephenson’s Rocket, the first steam train from 1829, to the Flying Scotsman, from the Mallard to a modern-day bullet train – one of a very select group of bullet trains outside of Japan.
There is also a workshop where visitors can see museum volunteers and engineers working on trains and the station hall, where trains sit on old platforms and you can step in and out of carriages.
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:
Streamlined LMS Princess Coronation Class 'Duchess of Hamilton' No.6229 at York Railway Museum.
Taken 25th May 2009.
Studebaker introduced these low set, streamlined coupes in 1953, both pillared coupes and hardtop coupes, 6 cyl and V8 versions were available.
For the 1960 model year Studebaker reorganized their streamlined coupe Series into one model, the Studebaker Hawk. The Hawk was only offered as a pillared coupe, and was powered by the 289 cu in V8 engine. Both manual and automatic transmissions were available.
Production of the Studebaker Hawk ended in 1961, which would be the last year Hawks would be offered with its distinctive tailfins. Identifying the 61 over the 60 was the secondary colour stripe on the tail fin on the 61.
The Hawk was replaced by the Studebaker Gran Turismo Hawk.
Another day, another Museum of Transportation MOC - or three! This time a streamlined Wabash caboose is being created, while the refrigerated boxcar (reefer) and two-bay covered hopper are already on order from Bricklink. (not shown)
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
Restored waiting room at the Hoboken Terminal.
The Phoebe Snow was a premiere passenger train that departed daily from the station.
The Phoebe Snow, a beautiful streamlined train featuring lightweight equipment from the Budd Company, American Car & Foundry, and Pullman-Standard in a stylish livery of maroon and gray, was born in November 1949 to directly compete with the New York Central between New York City and Buffalo (although the Lackawanna’s service only went as far as its Hoboken Terminal). The personal service and charm of this train, coupled with its brilliant marketing campaign of a fictional young lady dressed in white welcoming you to either ride the train or while you were aboard with photos of her showcased throughout the train made the Phoebe Snow a “down to earth,” beloved operation.
Former Lackawanna Railway & Ferry Terminal, Hoboken, New Jersey. Passengers alighted from their trains and went straight through to ferries to cross the East River to Manhattan.
Hoboken Terminal is one of the New York Metropolitan area's major transportation hubs. The commuter-oriented intermodal facility is located on the Hudson River in Hoboken, New Jersey. It is served by nine New Jersey Transit (NJT) commuter rail lines, one Metro-North Railroad line, various NJT buses and private bus lines, the Hudson–Bergen Light Rail, the Port Authority Trans Hudson (PATH) rapid transit system and NY Waterway-operated ferries. More than 50,000 people use the terminal daily.
Designed by architect Kenneth M. Murchison in the Beaux-Arts style, the rail and ferry terminal buildings were constructed in 1907 by the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad. The terminal building is listed on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places[6] and the National Register of Historic Places (added in 1973 as #73001102 as the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad and Ferry Terminal). It has been undergoing extensive renovations which are projected for completion in 2011.
The large main waiting room, with its floral and Greek Revival motifs in tiled stained glass by Louis Comfort Tiffany set atop bands of pale cement, is generally considered one of the finest in the U.S. aesthetically. The terminal exterior extends to over four stories and has a distinguished copper-clad façade with ornate detailing. Its single-story base is constructed of rusticated Indiana limestone. A grand double stair with decorative cast-iron railings within the main waiting room provides an entrance to the upper-level ferry concourse.
A 225-foot (69 m) clock tower was originally built with the terminal over a century ago, but was dismantled in the early 1950s due to structural damage and deterioration from weather damage. A new clock tower, replicating the original, was constructed during the terminal's centennial year of 2007 and was fully erect that November. The replica tower has 4-foot-high (1.2 m) copper letters spelling out "LACKAWANNA", which are lit at night.
The original ferry slips inside the historic terminal were restored in 2011.
The terminal is considered a milestone in American transportation development, combining rail, ferry, streetcar (later, bus; even later, bus on one side and light-rail on the other), and pedestrian facilities in one of the most innovatively designed and engineered structures in the nation. Hoboken Terminal was also one of the first stations in the world to employ the Bush-type train shed, designed by and named for Lincoln Bush of the DL&W, which quickly became ubiquitous in station design.
The station is unusual for a New York City area commuter railroad terminal in that it still makes use of low-level platforms, which require passengers to make use of stairs on the train to board and disembark.
Until the opening of the North River Tunnels and the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad tubes around 1910 travel to Manhattan from most of the continental USA required a transfer to a ferry at the Hudson River, at the time often called the North River. The site of the terminal has been used as a landing since the colonial era, accessible via turnpike roads, and later plank roads (namely the Hackensack, the Paterson and a spur of the Newark Plank Road). John Stevens, founder of Hoboken and inventor, launched steamboat service in 1811. During the next 100 years cuts or tunnels were constructed through Bergen Hill to terminals on the west bank of the river and the Upper New York Bay. One of the Bergen Hill Tunnels under Jersey City Heights were opened in 1876 by the Morris and Essex Railroad. A parallel tunnel was added in 1908 by Delaware, Lackawanna, and Western Railroad (DL&W). Both were used by the Erie Lackawanna Railway and by New Jersey Transit today.
Hoboken Terminal was one of several terminals with ferry slips owned by competing railroad companies. Two are still standing (the other being the Central Railroad of New Jersey Communipaw Terminal); Hoboken is the only one still in use. Numerous streetcar lines (eventually owned and operated by the Public Service Railway), including the Hoboken Inclined Cable Railway, originated/terminated at the station until bustitution was completed on August 7, 1949. The Phoebe Snow was a premiere passenger train that departed daily from the station. In 1956, four years before its merger with the DL&W, the Erie Railroad began shifting its trains from its Jersey City terminal to Hoboken. Trains to Chicago and Buffalo were discontinued on January 5, 1970.
The timetable for 27 April 1952 shows 134 weekday departures including four to Buffalo, one to Binghampton and one to Scranton. None of the other trains ran beyond Washington or Branchville; 43 ran to Montclair.
In October 1965 (after the Erie trains had moved from Jersey City) five weekday trains ran to Midvale, three to Nyack, three to Waldwick via Newark, two to Essex Fells, two to Carlton Hill, and one to Newton. All those trains were dropped in 1966.
In 1967 ferry service ended; it resumed in 1989 on the South side of the historic terminal and moved back to the restored ferry slips inside the terminal December 7, 2011.
Hoboken Terminal, like Hoboken itself, is a place of "firsts". One year before his death, Thomas Edison was at the controls for the first departure, in 1930, of a regular-service electrified train from Hoboken Terminal to Montclair, New Jersey. The first installation of central air-conditioning in a public space was at Hoboken Terminal, as was the first non-experimental use of mobile phones.
The station has been used for film shoots, including Funny Girl, Three Days of the Condor, Once Upon a Time in America, The Station Agent, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Julie & Julia, Rod Stewart's Downtown Train video (1990) and Eric Clapton's video for his 1996 single "Change the World". The terminal was parodied in Grand Theft Auto IV as the "Liberty Ferry Terminal", although the waiting room and the train Terminal are non-existent.
A project three years in the making is finally taking shape. The red and blue streamline trains project is coming into the station.... soon.
(Yes, that's a GG1 sitting there. The steam loco seen above is a 4-6-4 streamlined NYC-style Hudson. Oh, and there are to be two more passenger cars when this is complete!)
Highlighting the versatility of steam locomotives from the elegant streamlined express steam engine such as Duchess of Hamilton to the not so elegant but extremely powerful and unique appearance of Oliver Bulleids Q1 class 0-6-0 No. C1 (33001)
22-11-2015
Since I'm in the midst of revising my GS-6 Daylight 4460 steam locomotive model, I figured it would be prudent to make a few 1930s streamlined Southern Pacific coaches to go with it. Thus, these five passenger cars are in the process of having parts found / bought for construction... so keep your eyes peeled for them in the real world in the near future!
The gorgeous streamlined London Midland and Scottish (LMS) 'Princess Coronation Class' 4-6-2 pacific steam locomotive number 6229 'Duchess of Hamilton' inside the Great Hall at the National Railway Museum in York (UK).
6229 was designed by Chief Mechanical Engineer of the LMS William Stanier and built at Crewe Works in 1938.
6229 was withdrawn from service as 46229 in February 1964.
www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/tags/6229/
Photograph courtesy of my regular photostream contributor David on his travels and is posted here with very kind permission.
4.425 cc
V12
Bonhams : Den Hartogh Sale
Ford Museum
Hillegom
Netherlands
June 2018
Estimated : € 80.000 - 120.000
Sold for € 62.100
Introduced in late 1935 as a 1936 model, the original Lincoln-Zephyr combined the aerodynamic efficiency of streamlined styling with an early form of unit body construction that reduced weight while enhancing rigidity. A style leader from the beginning, the original Zephyr featured a tall, prow-like grille for its first two years. A new face appeared on the 1938 Zephyr, featuring a low-mounted, horizontal grille that would have a tremendous influence on automotive designers everywhere—by 1940 many American cars were frankly copying the late '30s Zephyr frontal ensemble.
Inside, the stylish design aesthetic continued with a central console erupting from the floor and a large, multi-gauge cluster acting as an orb-like cornice. Within the large, Art Deco scripted roundel was the speedometer as well as gauges for temperature, fuel, oil, and battery. A smaller clock sat below.
Power came from the trusty L-head V-12 that had appeared in various iterations since 1935. Funneling the horsepower reward was the rugged Zephyr 3-speed manual transmission (which would become a legend among hot rodders of a later generation) that shift by way of a standard level that bent around central gauge cluster. An optional two-speed Columbia axle was available to improve highway performance.
With the natural following that the ground-breaking Zephyr design garnered, Lincoln wisely didn't alter the mold much for 1937. This year's car could be singled out by the most knowledgeable in the day or today by the five pairs of horizontal bars on the radiator grill, or the more accessible rear trunk compartment, or the slight refinement of the dash with twin gloveboxes either side of the central console.
To cater for the growing European market, in 1934 Ford had set up a partnership with Mathis, who held a large production plant in Strasbourg. In deference to the local operation, the joint venture, which was owned 60/40 in Ford's favor was called Matford S.A. Ultimately, the Mathis side of the operation seems to have faltered early on, but Ford seems to have used this still to market their Ford and Lincoln cars, of which this must be an example.
To judge from its chassis plate which states that this is Lincoln car number 82, of the Zephyr H model, this is either very early in the run of these car, or more likely that very few were actually built. The rakish teardrop Coupe appears to be in particularly original order, perhaps with an older repaint, but no evidence of a thorough restoration. Its rich dark brown scheme is accented with the subtle chrome trim to the exterior. In the driving cabin, likewise the upholstery is either very old, or may well be original and appears to be accurate finished, complete with the period cloth bench seat and well- appointed and aesthetically pleasing dash.
The car wears French road registration plates with central 'FM' lettering, which suggests that it was last on the road in the Finistere jurisdiction, being in northern Brittany. Although there is no supporting paperwork to assist with this attribution.
One of the greatest pieces of automotive design, the '37 Lincoln Zephyr, specifically in its two-door coupe form will always be coveted and rightly so, this adds to the mystique with its French supply.
I love this streamlined research building on Research Park Blvd. I passed it occasionally and also took the occasional shot but I thought it would be nice to see how a photo turns out when the sky is gray like today. So, I drove in the lot and took this image from the back of the building. Yes, it is tilted, but well, it is the weekend.
I assume Johnny Blood was looking at the same building.
When I looked at the image the first time, I had Annie Lennox' "Why" in my ear. Thanks to NJ Dodge I now know that it is a "boat" and not a "ship" that sinks.
A mixed flock of Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) and Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis, out of frame) streaks over the Choptank River. These two species of divers are often found together.
Dorchester county, MD
A C&O Hudson, in service from 1926-1953, it was streamlined in 1946 for a luxury train that never came to pass.
BENS, a classic Streamlined Moderne restaurant in Montreal, visited by many celebrities, is being sold and is in grave danger of being demolished. Sam Benatar, president of SIDEV, the developer, has declared, "It isn't worth anything." It is very ironic that there is now an exhibition at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts on Streamlined Design, www.mmfa.qc.ca/en/expositions/exposition_43.html with carefully preserved examples of Streamlined Modern design but a beautiful public example of it is about to be destroyed. Surely, BENS is as important to preserve as the objects in the museum exhibit.
BENS was designed by Charles Davis Goodman (1894-1962), who was one of the architects of a number of well-known Montreal buildings, including the now demolished, and much mourned, 1948 Laurentien Hotel, the 1931 Jewish General Hospital and the 1948 Pascal Hardware. Goodman, a McGill University graduate, was elected a fellow of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada in 1955.
See artdecomontreal.com/pages/news.htm for full alert.
If you care, please send an email to these people in any language and forward this alert to anyone else who cares about good and historic design.
Josette Laurin, Josette.Laurin@mcc.gouv.qc.ca
Yves Laliberté, yves.laliberte@mcc.gouv.qc.ca
Caroline Dubuc, cdubuc@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Karim Boulos, karimboulos@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Benoit Labonté, benoitlabonte@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Melanie Faucher, melaniefaucher@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Catherine Sevigny, catherinesevigny@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Gerald Tremblay, geraldtremblay@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Lucienne Robillard, Robillard.L@parl.gc.ca
Beverley Oda, Oda.B@parl.gc.ca
SIDEV, info@sidev.com
Jacques Chagnon, jchagnon@assnat.qc.ca
Christine St-Pierre, ministre@mcccf.gouv.qc.ca
See artdecomontreal.com/pages/news.htm for full alert.
If you care, please send an email to these people in any language and forward this alert to anyone else who cares about good and historic design.
Josette Laurin, Josette.Laurin@mcc.gouv.qc.ca
Yves Laliberté, yves.laliberte@mcc.gouv.qc.ca
Caroline Dubuc, cdubuc@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Karim Boulos, karimboulos@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Benoit Labonté, benoitlabonte@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Melanie Faucher, melaniefaucher@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Catherine Sevigny, catherinesevigny@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Gerald Tremblay, geraldtremblay@ville.montreal.qc.ca
Lucienne Robillard, Robillard.L@parl.gc.ca
Beverley Oda, Oda.B@parl.gc.ca
SIDEV, info@sidev.com
Jacques Chagnon, jchagnon@assnat.qc.ca
Christine St-Pierre, ministre@mcccf.gouv.qc.ca
(nonworking) neon sign and streamlined vitrolite storefront. a 1930s addition to a 1880s building. 2nd st. Hastings, Nebraska.
One of the best storefronts I have personally seen.
A caspian tern looks for a fishy breakfast over Lake Michigan. Milwaukee, Wisconsin at Bradford Beach.
Preserved in all her glory at the National Railway Museum, York. Yorkshire. England.
Built as a streamlined locomotive in 1938.
She was one of 38 'Princess Coronation Class' steam locomotives capable of running at 90mph and more, pulling Anglo Scottish Express trains on the West Coast route.
Withdrawn from service in February 1964 and after being de-streamlined for many years was streamlined again (as seen here) in 2009.
4-6-2 Wheel arrangement with Tender..
The logo has been significantly streamlined over the years. In the first version, which was based on a 16th-century Norse woodcut, the Starbucks siren was topless and had a fully visible double fish tail. The image also had a rough visual texture and has been likened to a melusine. In the second version, which was used from 1987–92, her breasts were covered by her flowing hair, but her navel was still visible, and the fish tail was cropped slightly. In the current version, used since 1992, her navel and breasts are not visible at all, and only vestiges remain of the fish tails. ~ Wikipedia
This Dreyfuss-style streamlined 4-6-4 steam loco is numbered 5448 and is mostly modeled after a real, long-scrapped New York Central engine.
The tender really should say the railroad's full name of New York Central instead of its initials, but I don't want to shell out the money for all those 1 x 1 tiles, so I'm using fewer 2x2 tiles instead to spell out NYC, as it's much cheaper that way!
Note: As some of you might be able to guess, this loco was inspired by pictures of Anthony Sava's original streamlined Hudson locomotive from 2007... no instructions were used to build this engine. See it here: www.flickr.com/photos/savatheaggie/1338258406/in/album-72...
Nice example of the famous streamlined Saab.
The Saab 92 was the very first version and was introduced in 1949.
This final version was only available in 1978-1979.
The 95/96-Series were designed by Saab's chief designer Sixten Sason (1912-1969).
1498cc V4 engine,
900 kg.
Amsterdam-Z., Van Ostadestraat, De Pijp, July 19, 2013.
© 2013 Sander Toonen Amsterdam | All Rights Reserved