The Original Story of the Seward Park Cooperative
Written in 1961,
by Abraham E. Kazan

 

Your Webmaster (me – Eric) found this history of our development so fascinating...  and informative and instructive, that he/I actually input the whole thing, in "html" for faster downloading.  This, in other words, makes it more accessible.

While the original copy is so very compelling – with its pictures and graphics – it is 12 megabytes, and challenges even the fastest high-speed internet connections.  Being in image format (pdf), it also doesn't allow for random access.  That is, it is hard to skip spots, or to jump around to the parts that interest at the moment.  ( Just the same, old, hot type can't be beat.  Click here to view the original. )

Also, being so long, it is easy to get discouraged when one hits a boring passage, or excessive tables and numerics.

And so, below please find an abstract, contained in a Table of Contents.  If you live here, or even if you don't, I heartily recommend the reading...

We are fortunate, I think, to have this history.  They are rarely, if ever, done this thoroughly – contemporaneously – and whatever histories have been done, rarely survive.

Table of Contents

4♦3

4♦3

“The Story of the Seward Park Cooperative”

Seward Park Housing Corporation

Member United Housing Foundation

570 Grand Street

New York 2, N.Y.

    Oregon 3-3900

March 8, 1961

To the Board of Directors and Members of the Seward Park Housing Cooperative:

I take pleasure in presenting to you the story of the Seward Park Housing Corporation cooperative development, together with the financial report covering the acquisition and clearing of the site, the cost of tenant relocation and the cost of construction.

For the benefit of the member-cooperators who are not fully acquainted with all of the details of the development, I have attempted to present as clear a picture as possible even at the risk of being somewhat repetitious.

A consumer cooperative is a public institution since those charged with the responsibility of carrying out the objectives of the cooperative are handling finances provided by other people.  This is particularly true in this case where 1,728 member-cooperators have invested 54,678,000 and where the City of New York and the Federal government have participated in the promotion of the development.

It is also my hope that the story as presented will encourage the promotion of similar consumer cooperatives for the benefit of their respective participants and for the benefit of the larger community.

Sincerely yours,

    (Signed)

        Abraham E. Kazan

        President

( Back to Table of Contents )

The Story of the Seward Park Cooperative

This is the story of the Seward Park Housing Corporation, a cooperative development, built, owned and operated for the benefit of 1,728 families who decided to use the method of mutual self-help to solve their housing problem.  The project was conceived and completed under the guidance of the United Housing Foundation, a federation of cooperative housing societies, non-profit organizations and labor unions interested in promoting better housing through the consumer cooperative method.

In 1957 the Seward Park Houses was the second Title I development undertaken by the United Housing Federation.  It owes its existence to the successful completion in 1956 of the East River Housing Corporation, a housing cooperative for 1,672 families which was financed and sponsored by the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union.  The East River Housing cooperative in turn came into being after the completion of the Hillman Houses, located in the immediate vicinity.  This cooperative, for 807 families, was completed in 1950.  It was built as a redevelopment Company under the sponsorship of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.  The same organization is also responsible for the erection of Amalgamated Dwellings, a Limited Dividend housing cooperative for 236 families, completed in 1930 under the supervision of the State Board of Housing of the State of New York.

Together, these four cooperative enterprises, legally and financially operate as separate entities; they occupy the southeast section of the lower part of Manhattan from the East River bend known as Corlears Hook to Essex Street of the west, Delancey Street on the north and East Broadway and Cherry Street on the south.  The entire area comprises about 32 acres.  The four cooperatives are providing homes for 4,443 families with a population of approximately 20,000.  The Seward Park Houses is the latest member to be added to the group.

For decades this part of New York City was the center of the melting pot for newcomers to these shores.  It is one of the oldest sections in the City.  Grand Street was at one time the Mecca of the department stores and other commercial enterprises.  Up to about fifty years ago East Broadway was the neighborhood of the elite of the assimilating immigrants.  It provided housing and offices for the intellectuals and professionals.  Gradually the second and third generations moved to the other parts of the city leaving behind the old and the weak.  The neighborhood gradually deteriorated into a slum area.

The Seward Park Houses derives its name from a three acre park and playground which borders upon Essex Street and East Broadway.  This was the first playground established in the City of New York in 1903.  It was named after William Henry Seward, born in 1801.  Seward served as Governor of New York from 1839 to 1843.  He was one of the earliest political opponents of slavery.  Seward was known for his liberal and humanitarian views.  He favored prison reform and the use of public funds for internal improvements.  In 1849 he was elected to the United States Senate.  President Lincoln selected Seward as his Secretary of State.  He served in the same capacity in the cabinet of President Andrew Johnson.  It was during this administration that he negotiated the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867.  He died in 1872.

♦ ♦ ♦

We have attempted in this report to give the member cooperators a complete and comprehensive picture of the development of the Seward Park Housing Corporation from its inception to its completion and occupancy.  We believe you, as members of this cooperative, are entitled to know all of the details of the enterprise of which you are one of the owners.

It is our hope that the experience of the Seward Park cooperative will benefit others.  We trust that they will follow your example and adopt the idea of self-help in solving many problems which otherwise go unsolved.  It is also our hope that the method adopted to finance this development will be followed by other organizations who are interested in helping the man who wants to help himself.

    ( Back to Table of Contents )

The Site

The site of the Seward Park development consists of approximately 13 acres and forms an irregular triangle.  The base of the triangle is Essex Street and runs from East Broadway, skirting the north and east sides of Seward Park to Grand Street.  Grand Street and East Broadway form the other two sides of the triangle, meeting at Scammel Street, which has since been abolished.  Montgomery, Pitt, Ridge, Attorney, Clinton, Suffolk and Norfolk Streets cross the triangle from north to south.  All of these streets, with the exception of Pitt and Clinton have been incorporated in the site area.

On November 29, 1957 when title to the site was transferred to the Seward Park Housing Corporation, there were on this site 138 residential buildings; 57 structures of a miscellaneous character, a conglomeration of public, institutional and commercial building; 10 formerly residential buildings with only the ground floors being occupied by small stores; 4 totally vacant buildings and 10 used only for storage – a total of 219 structures.

The residential buildings were classified as follows:

Not a single building, erected within fifty years was to be found on the site.  As nearly as could be determined the average age of the buildings was 60 to 75 years old.  The construction was of wood and brick, built back to back and side to side with no consideration given to providing light and air.  All of the buildings had long ago outlived their usefulness.  Due to the prevailing shortage of housing, some of these structures were pt [sic] back into use after they had been abandoned.  These 13 acres of the city contained some of the most miserable slums to be found anywhere.  They were the typical breeding grounds for physical diseases such as tuberculosis, as well as juvenile delinquency and other crime.  Families were living in these buildings only because of the acute shortage of housing.

A preliminary study of this section of the city made in 1956 by the Slum Clearance Committee revealed that the 138 residential buildings were classified as follows:

The commercial buildings, used primarily because of cheaper rentals, made it more difficult for the owners of the residential buildings to maintain their property even if the should have wanted to do so.

At the completion of the development only two of the original buildings remained on the site.  These were the Bialystoker Home for the Aged and a branch of the Public Library.

At the time the site for the Seward Park project was acquired there were living in the buildings on the site 1471 families with a total population of 4304.  These families had to be rehoused before construction could start.

Who were the 1,471 families that occupied the 138 buildings on the site?  What was the composition of the families?  How long had they lived in the neighborhood and in the buildings which they occupied?  How deep were the roots they had established in the neighborhood?  Why were they living in a slum area?  Did they constitute a homogenous group in a compact community which would be broken up by moving to other sections of the city?

A survey made immediately after the site was acquired revealed the following composition of the families as follows:

Erratum:  In the table [above] under the heading Number of Families Without Children the first line should read 370, the … [rest cut off]

The survey also revealed that the neighborhood was comprised largely of a mixture of racial minority groups.  18.6 per cent of the families lived on the site one year or less.  Evidently they could not find housing within their financial means elsewhere and were forced to move into this section.  41.4 per cent of the families had lived on the site less than five years.  This is a comparatively short period of time when taking into consideration that there has been a shortage of housing for almost a quarter of a century.  The fact that over forty per cent had lived in the neighborhood less than three years and almost 20 per cent for less than a year indicates the site was a transitory neighborhood.

Rehousing 1,471 families is not only a problem of housing but perhaps, even more, a problem in human relations.  1,471 human problems, no two exactly alike.  From the very beginning the sponsor recognized that the relocation program required physical and emotional adjustments and that each family’s problems must be handled individually with sympathetic and courteous understanding.  The sponsor also recognized the opportunity and his obligation to use the relocation program as a means of providing the families with better living accommodations than they had on the site.

It was the older people in the community who found relocation particularly difficult.  It was this group too, who had lived on the site for the longest period of time.  Rehousing this group often presented a pathetic picture.  Most of them were living on small pensions or were supported b their children who lived elsewhere.  A good many were maintained by the Welfare Department of the City of New York.  To some, the forcible rehousing proved to be a blessing.  They could not summon enough courage on their own free will to find another and better place to live; the relocation program made action necessary.  Citing a few cases will illustrate the point.

Living on the sixth floor of a walk-up house of Suffolk Street was an old woman.  Her husband and children had been dead for a long time.  She occupied four tiny rooms.  Not that she needed all that space, for her wants were very simple.  She had occupied the same place for a long number of years.  A metal folding bed, two chairs and a kitchen table were all the furniture she possessed.  An outmoded gas range, a sink and tub were the only equipment in the kitchen.  As decrepit as her home was, she was frightened at the prospect of being forced to move.  She feared having to go to a public institution or home.  We rehoused her in a decent building where she no longer had to climb stairs to reach her apartment.  When moving day arrived, it was pitiful to observe that all her belongings filled the space of a peddler’s pushcart.  As her belongings were moved, she carefully watched the two bundles that held her personal possessions.

One of the saddest cases was an old man, a photographer by profession in his younger days, who lived in miserable conditions in one of the worst buildings on the site.  His only friends, three dogs, shared his humble home.  He refused to be separated from his animals.  The Welfare Department on whom he depended for support could do nothing to make him give up his dogs.  Sickness and death finally separated this kindly man from his friends.

One of the most difficult cases was a family with eight children – all were living in two rooms.  This family wanted to move into a public housing project.  However, they did not qualify.  The family went on “strike’ and were determined not to move anywhere else.  It took several months before they finally accepted a large size apartment in Brooklyn.

Forty-six families were relocated quite a distance from the site.  These were the families whose transportation was paid back to Puerto Rico.  They were a happy group when they left the airport.

There are but a few examples of the human side of relocation.  Each family had problems, some more serious than others; we tried in each case to handle the problems with sympathetic understanding.  By July 1, 1959, eighteen months after acquisition of the site, the last family to be rehoused was relocated.

To rehouse 1500 families under the best of conditions is a difficult task.  For a family to move from one place to another is generally considered an unpleasant task.  When 1471 families, in one neighborhood, are faced with the problem of vacating their apartments the task is more difficult that usual.  This is particularly true when one is told that he has no choice in the matter and that he has to move irrespective of whether or not he likes his present living quarters.

The preference given to site tenants in the proposed new development appeased some, the largest number of families did not take advantage of the opportunity.

There was a lapse of about three years between the time when the development was announced and when title to the site was transferred to the cooperative.  During this period sentiment against the project developed among families living on the site.  This made the relocation problem more difficult.  Little, if any, support was extended to the cooperative in its efforts to improve living conditions in this slum section by the local political groups, social agencies or religious institutions.

With the exception of a few individuals, at no time did any of these groups take the definite position that the neighborhood had to be rebuilt.  At best, they remained silent and avoided the subject.  The small businessmen in the area, a good many of whom did not live on the site, were not particularly concerned about the new development.  They would have preferred the neighborhood to remain as it was as long as the business activities they conducted remained undisturbed.  They added their sentiments in opposing the construction of the cooperative.

The Housing and Home Finance Agency and the Slum Clearance Committee, the two public agencies involved in the promotion of the project, prescribed definite plans to be followed in relocating site tenants.  Families must be advised of their rights and no family could be arbitrarily moved to another location unless the new dwelling met specific standards.  The Seward Park Housing Corporation in undertaking the redevelopment of the area assumed the responsibility of rehousing all families in accordance with the prescribed regulations.

After the Board of Estimate had approved the Seward Park development and shortly before title to the site was acquired, the corporation sent the following letter to the families on the site:

Dear Tenant:

As you already know, the building in which you now reside is part of the proposed Seward Park Redevelopment Project.  Inasmuch as the site is expected to be acquired in the month of November, the following information regarding relocation is being sent for your information and guidance.

A relocation and management office will soon be established on the site.  The Urban Relocation Company, Inc. has been retained by the Seward Park Housing Corporation as relocation agent to facilitate the program of site clearance and aid you in your relocation problems.  Very shortly, a member of their relocation staff will visit you as part of the program of surveying all site tenants.  These people will all have proper identification.  Your cooperation in furnishing the information required, is most important so that they may determine how best to assist you.  The representative calling on you will be prepared to answer your questions and advise you of your relocation rights.  Each family’s problems will be considered on an individual basis.

Public Housing

All site families will receive a preliminary application for Public Housing at the time the relocation program commences.  Interested families should complete this application and return it to the site office as quickly as possible.  After these applications have been reviewed, appointments will be made for a personal interview with a representative of the New York City Housing Authority at the site office.  Cooperation in appearing for interviews when scheduled and in furnishing the necessary information required by the Housing Authority to establish eligibility, is most important.  Eligible families will receive priority for apartments in Public Housing Projects.  Families who move into public housing will have their moving expenses paid by the sponsor.

Private Listings

The site relocation office will obtain and maintain listings of standard apartments.  These apartments will be offered to site families who cannot be relocated to public housing.  The apartments to be provided by the site relocation office will be decent, safe and sanitary, and within the site families’ financial means.

Self Relocation

Site families who prefer to relocate themselves to accommodations of their own choosing, will be assisted by a cash bonus payment.  To qualify for this cash bonus payment, families must turn over a completely vacant apartment to the site relocation office.  No moving expenses will be paid to families who qualify for the cash bonus payment.

Seward Park Housing Corporation sends this letter as an expression of policy and hopes that this will answer many of the questions that may have arisen in your mind regarding relocation problems.  While the fact remains that you will soon be required to vacate your present apartment, please be assured that you will find the relocation staff helpful, courteous, and understanding at all times.

            Very truly yours,

                        Seward Park Housing Corporation

Through real estate brokers housing for many families was found.  Each dwelling was approved by the Department of Real Estate of the City of New York.  The corporation assumed the costs of painting the apartments, moving the tenants and paid the brokers from $150 to $250 for each dwelling which was located.  The site tenants had the final say in accepting or rejecting the housing which was found for them.  Each apartment had to be within the financial means of the tenant.

Site families also had the option of finding their own housing, for which they were paid cash bonuses.  Before bonuses were paid, the dwellings had to be approved by the Department of Real Estate as being standard housing.  Many families elected this method to relocate themselves.  The bonuses paid were on the basis of the number of rooms the family vacated and included the moving expenses of the families.  The schedule was as follows:

$275 up to 3 rooms

$350 up to 4 rooms

$425 up to 5 rooms

$500 up to 6 rooms

How Families were Relocated

* Moved from the site without notifying the office.

† Remained on the site until the new buildings were completed.

Where They Moved