Form Matters: A History of Tenements in Harlem

Places of significance in Harlem's housing history: Activism in response to inequity, and inequity of the response through maintenance.

Overview

Form Matters: A History of Tenements in Harlem is a project concieved under the direction of Bilge Kos, professor at Columbia University for the course entitled "Digital Heritage Documentation". The research conducted was derived from the "Studio 2" core course taught by Erica Avrami and Morgan O'Hara on the Environmental (In)Justice in the Harlem community over time.

Timeline of Policy Reform

Policy was able to enforce quality and regulation of building design and housing conditions throughout Manhattan at large.

1800-1880

Buildings which had once been single-family dwellings were increasingly divided into multiple-dwelling living spaces to accommodate the growing immigrant populations to Manhattan at Large.

Prior to 1867

Prior to 1867, tenements had few restrictions or requirements through law or through ownership.

1867

Tenement Housing Act: Legally defined a 'tenement' for the first time, and set construction regulations. This legal definition brought on the first standards for minimum room size, ventilation, and sanitation in tenement dwellings. By enforcing mandatory codes, the placement of a window in every room and shared wash closets were incorporated into tenement design.

1879

 The Pre-Law Tenements were banned in 1879 as the local Manhattan government further expanded the Tenement Act. Those built after 1879 are what we now refer to as Old-Law Tenements, which accounted for 48% of housing typologies in Harlem as of 1969.

1900

More than 80,000 tenements had been built in New York City at large. They housed a population of 2.3 million people, two-thirds of the city's total population of around 3.4 million.

1901

In 1901 further amendments were made, which promoted rehabilitation of deteriorating tenements, with new builds under this act being referred to as New-Law Tenements, built between 1901 and 1929. These amendments mandated better lighting and fireproofing, and most important of all, the law required that outhouses or prives must be replaced with indoor toilet facilities connected to city sewers, with one toilet for every two apartments.

1927

The State Legislature declared that the Tenement House Law had “outlived its usefulness” and replaced it with the Multiple Dwelling Act, which is still in place today.

1929

The "Multiple Dwelling Law" took shape.

1950s

By this time the enactment of the "Multiple Dwelling Law" led to many of the older tenement-style typologies to be demolished.

1960s

There was a nation-wide trend toward rehabilitation of older housing typologies.

1963

Marked the official start to the Harlem Rent Strike. Over the course of this event, hundreds of tenants and community leaders filled Harlem's Millbank Centre in protest of 'inhumane' living conditions.

1984

This was the latest findings from a housing study conducted where close to 6,400 old-law tenement apartments were converted into co-op or condominium living.

1989

The U.S.A EPA established the Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality

Places, Corridors, and Organizations of Significance

As the studio undertook research into the historic contects of Harlem and its history of housing, places of significance were discovred, from physical to social assets that have/had a place-based dimension.

To the right is an interactive map. Through the command tools in the bottom right corner of the map, you are able to zoom in and out, and pan by clicking and holding.

Boundary of Study Area

Bound by 110th Street to the South, 155th Street to the North, Hudson River to the West, and Harlem River to the East.

Physical Sites of Importance

Shown in blue on the map to the right are significant buildings and sites to the housing reform movement in Harlem.

Those selected are tenements which were mentioned in historic newspapers, literature, and housing reports conducted by the City of New York.

Corridors of Importance

Along the corridors highlighted in green are where significant events took place in the fight for more just living conditions.

Rally's such as the Harlem Rat Strike, which marched along 114th Street along with other major outdoor events are highlighted here.

Integral Organizations

Shown to the right in yellow, are identified organizations who's mission was and is now, to help those who live in Harlem fight and speak out for just, affordable, and comfortable housing in Harlem.

Click on the buttons below to learn more about each organization

Interactive Stories

Click on the higlighted assets below to read into the history of sites, corridors and organizations, then click again on each asset on the map to learn about specific histories.

    • The Randolph Houses
    • Rent Strike Path of 1963
    • Ascendant Neighborhood Development Corp.

Form Matters: Physical Change

A study of the formal shape of tenements conducted through solar radiation studies

Pre-Law Tenements: Built before 1867

These structures went unregulated and with little to no restrictions on occupancy, sanitation, ventilation, or access to light and air. Once a majority of building typology throughout Manhattan- now are obsolete. These dwellings were rectangular structures with party walls on either side, on a twenty-five by one hundred foot lot, covering 90% of the lot with built structure.

Light only reached the front and back elevations, from the street front, and back yard- between the dwelling and privies. This typology was often referred to as ‘rail-road flats’ as they consisted of two units running the length of the building parallel to each other. In doing so, the floor plans of these flats consisted of rooms with no hallways, creating the only means of circulation by traveling from one room to the next.

Old Law Tenements: Built between1880 and 1901

The plan of these tenements was often referred to as ‘dumbbells’ due to their resemblance to that of a dumbbell weight. A typical plan consisted of flats on either side of a dark, narrow, unventilated public corridor. The interior light wells-or air shafts offered little increase to ventilation and natural light access and created inaccessible pockets where tenants often discarded garbage.

As a result, they were severely condemned in 1903- and called “foul air shafts… receptacles for garbage and filth… and a conveyor of smells and noise (Tenement Housing Committee Report, 1900).” Many Old Law tenements are 80 feet long and 25 feet wide, built on lots 25 feet wide and 100 feet deep.

New Law Tenements: Built between 1901 and 1929

The amendments mandated lot coverage of no more than 7 percent, replacing the unenforceable 65 percent maximum in the Old Law, according to Richard Plunz in his 1990 text, ''A History of Housing in New York City'' published by Columbia University Press. Air-shaft dimensions were increased to courtyard size allowing for foot traffic and obliging builders to utilize larger sites.

An Overview of Tenements Over Time:

below show the (slow) implimentation of access to sunlight and air into flats

Activism as Response

Written by Shannon Trono and Mimi Vaughan

While the establishment of these acts seemed to provide equitable access to housing, many government-sponsored and distributed rehabilitation materials still referred to substandard or insanitary areas as “slums” or “blighted areas,” a choice in rhetoric that propels the negative narrative of the “types of people” who live in areas like Harlem. Urban renewal and rehabilitation pitfalls ultimately failed to address ulterior factors contributing to neighborhood decay and poverty like rampant drug use, addiction, prostitution, and homelessness. As the policy was changing for Tenement living in the mid-century, many activists, community groups, and organizations helped lead the fight for adequate housing. Jesse Gray is arguably one of the most influential housing reform advocates. Mr. Gray, a prolific tenement activist, was the leader and founder of the Harlem Tenants Council. This community organization rallied Harlemites to band together to advocate for improved housing conditions. In 1963, Gray helped facilitate rent strikes to protest subhuman living conditions in collaboration with other local activist groups.

Historic Newspaper Articles Written: Covering Activism in Harlem

Response to Activism

The 'rehabilitation' of 114th Street homes:

Rehabilitation was framed as the ideal, cost-efficient solution to address poor living conditions in dilapidated tenements. The West 114th Street project emerged as more than just another New York example of a growing nationwide trend toward rehabilitation in the late 1960s. Instead,  it became a national example.

The publication also included a chapter entitled “The Spirit Restored,” which detailed how the transformation of interior space poured out into the streets of Harlem: “The Mangums’ response to the rehabilitation project has been the typical response of any American family when it is offered an opportunity to solve its problems. People are quick to take advantage of the help. They are equally quick to devise ways to help themselves. And by becoming involved with their neighbors’ efforts, they are taking the first steps towards helping others.” 

The Magnum Family in their revitalized apartment on 114th Street

Inequity of the Response

 In 1968, two years following the initial block-wide renovation of West 114th Street, the living conditions of the apartments were assessed by the Harvard-MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies through photographs and interviews with tenants living in their “newly” renovated apartments. The assessment conducted by the Harvard-MIT research illuminated the physical failures in the rehabilitation effort, many emerging almost immediately upon completion of construction.

These findings contradicted the picture-perfect narrative that investors proudly showcased in their advertising materials—it was all propaganda for their financial gain. In reality, residents faced multiple problems with their rehabilitated apartments, including gaps between floors and molding and vertical risers, which served as entry points that allowed rats and roaches to enter homes. The rehabilitation movement yielded nothing but cosmetic band-aid fixes that would need to be remediated only several years later due to the decision to use cheap and incompatible materials—ultimately costing more than a new build. In the late 1960s, officials and observers cast rehabilitation as a cure for urban renewal’s harms.

Course Documents

ARCGIS StoryMap for Digital Heritage Documentation Spring 2022 Columbia University

Mimi Vaughan

Mimi Vaughan

Professor: Bilge Kos