Together with a PDF version of this document, then-webmaster Eric Mandelbaum typed and uploaded this text to the original SPC (then spHC) website. His original documented was full of now-deprecated HTML tags. SPBuzz takes responsibility for bad layout resulting from stripping out the deprecated HTML.

Table of Contents [added by Mr. Mandelbaum]

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 column total should read 898. Under the heading Number of Adults in Families line7 shold read 103, line 8 should read 79.

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

( Back to Table of Contents )

Cost of Relocation

During the eighteen months that it took to rehouse the tenants, the Seward Park Housing Corporation was obliged to maintain the old buildings by providing heat and other services to the families living in them.  The announcement that this area of the city would be redeveloped was a signal to a good many unscrupulous property owners to stop making repairs on their buildings.  As a result, the day after title to the property was passed to the housing corporation, hundreds of pending building violations were found that had to be taken care of immediately.  Boilers that failed had to be replaced, new water tanks installed, roofs repaired, windows replaced and many other repairs had to be made on buildings which would soon be demolished.

It may appear peculiar that the property owners of the buildings on the site who remained in control of their properties to the hour when the Corporation Counsel of the City had the Supreme Court condemn them cannot be taken to account for having neglected the premises for long periods of time.  The irony if the matter is that the old buildings with many violations were portrayed by the owners during the condemnation award proceedings as being marble castles fit for kings to live in.

A site office was quickly established by Community Services, Inc. with an office and maintenance staff to provide services to the site tenants.  Emergency repairs were made as quickly as possible.  In many cases the previous landlords had left the buildings without fuel, and consequently without heat and hot water in November.  All during the relocation period the families continued to pay the same rentals they had been previously paying.  In line with the regulations formulated by the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the surplus of incomes from rentals over expenses could be used to help defray the cost of demolishing the old buildings.  However, the cost of operating and maintaining the buildings was considerably higher than it would have cost to operate them under normal conditions.

A detailed report on the cost of relocation follows:

The above costs do not include the additional amount of $97,562.56 advanced by the City of New York to cover the moving expenses of the tenants relocated.

    ( Back to Table of Contents )

Summary

On July 1, 1959, a year and a half after acquisition of the site, the last of the families to be rehoused were moved.  185 of the 268 families who applied as members of the cooperative remained in some of the old buildings until their apartments in the new buildings were completed.

The difficult task of relocation was accomplished without fanfare and without confusion.  We are convinced that in the vast majority of cases we succeeded in improving the living conditions of the families who were rehoused.  The fact that 545 families relocated themselves is evidence of the cooperation we received from most of the people involved.  On the other hand, in some instances considerable difficulties were experienced from reluctant tenants.  The resistance was largely due to the sentiment against Title I developments in the city.  The three years during which the Seward Park Houses was in the planning stage provided ample time for opposition to germinate.

No one can deny the fact that the relocation of a large number of families from one area to another constitutes a major problem.  However, the "friends of the poor" have succeeded in magnifying the hardships and inconveniences that confront families to be relocated out of all proportion to reality.  The unwarranted misdeeds of one sponsor is exploited time and again, and all sponsors no matter how conscientiously, considerately and carefully they try to do the job, are charged with the same wrong doings.  Fault finding without presenting a practical and better method to handle relocation has resulted in much higher costs and may in the future stifle entirely the rebuilding of slum areas in the city.

The handling of relocation for the Seward Park development illustrates that the job can be done with understanding and without undue hardship.

    ( Back to Table of Contents )

Organization and Method of Operation

The Seward Park Housing Corporation is a consumers [sic] cooperative organization.  The tenant-cooperators are the only stockholders.  Each stockholder, irrespective of the number of shares he may own, has only one vote.  The equity for the cooperative was provided by the members investing $650.00 per room.  The number of shares a member owns is determined by the number of rooms in his apartment.  The average monthly rental, or carrying charges, in the entire development is $21.00 per room.

The cooperative is administered by a Board of Directors elected by the member-stockholders.  During the period of organization, construction and until about one year after completion, the temporary Board of Directors established by the incorporators remains in office.  This permits the organization to settle all matters that had to do with the construction and it also provides the members with an opportunity to become acquainted.

Contrary to a mistaken assumption by the public, an individual cooperator does not own his apartment.  He is part owner of the entire development.  He enters into a lease with the housing corporation for a period of three years and is free to vacate the apartment at the end of that period.  Similarly, the corporation has the right to refuse the renewal of a lease of a member if he is found to be objectionable.

If a member wishes to withdraw from the cooperative, he must give the corporation the option to repurchase his stock.  To protect the withdrawing member"s investment, in case there are no applicants for the apartment he wishes to vacate, a stock repurchase reserve fund has been established.  Each member contributes 50¢ a month per room to this fund for a number of years.

At the end of each fiscal year, the stockholders receive a detailed financial report of operations.  If, after all expenses are paid, and reserves set aside, there should be a surplus, the Board of Directors may decide to distribute the surplus in the form of rent rebates.  A rebate when declared is in proportion to the amount the members paid in carrying charges during the year.  No dividends are declared on the stock investment.

At the annual stockholders meeting, the financial report is discussed; there are also reports submitted by the Board of Directors and the manager.  The stockholders elect members to the Board of Directors.  They may also elect a House Committee to assist management in an advisory capacity in the conduct of the affairs of the cooperative.

The Seward Park Housing Corporation is a Redevelopment Company under the laws of the State of New York.  The corporation is under the supervision of the Housing and Redevelopment Board of the City of New York.  In acquiring the site, the corporation took advantage of the provisions of Title I of the Federal Housing Act of 1949.  This act provides that a city may condemn a slum area and resell the property at a reduced cost, the loss being covered by the federal government and the municipality to the extent of two-thirds and one third respectively.  In the case of Seward Park the total paid on condemnation amounted to $11,800.00.  The Housing Corporation paid $1,442,602 for the site.

As a Redevelopment Company, the corporation succeeded in working out an agreement with the city entitling it to an average abatement of 45 per cent of the real estate taxes on the land and improvements.  This partial tax abatement is for a period of twenty years.  The tax abatement helps make it possible to maintain the carrying charges at $21.00 a room average.  As part of the agreement on taxes, the cooperative limits the occupancy of apartments to those whose annual incomes do not exceed eight times the annual carrying charges.

Schedule of Apartment Rentals

Ranges, per Month

( Back to Table of Contents )

Financing

The financing of the Seward Park cooperative was established upon a formula similar to many of the other organizations which are members of the United Housing Foundation.  The member"s equity in the cooperative would amount to about twenty per cent of the total cost.  The equity was established at $650.00 a room providing a total of $4,768,400.  The balance was to be raised by a first mortgage of $18,000,000/

The financing of a large housing development presents a most difficult problem.  Mortgage lending institutions are reluctant to make large investments in a single project.  This is particularly true in the case of cooperative organizations, where the objective is to have low rentals.  Some of these institutions fail to have sufficient confidence in developments that are owned and operated by and for large numbers of families.  Most large developments, whether cooperatively owned or not, depend upon Federal Housing Administration insurance which guarantees to the lender his investment in case of default.  This insurance adds ½ of 1 per cent to the cost, and in addition is very often responsible for long delays before a commitment is secured.

More than that, in order to obtain the insurance, the project must be built in accordance with the regulations of the FHA which does not necessarily make the construction any better.  The delays and red tape attached to securing a commitment from the FHA quite frequently results in additional costs.  This was very clearly proven in the case of the East River Housing cooperative.  Not only was the project delayed for over a year and an additional cost of about $250,000 was added to the original estimates, but the commitment when issued imposed so many restrictions that it was more advisable to drop the commitment after it was secured.

The success of the East River enterprise materially helped the Seward Park development in securing its financing.  For it was the first time that a large moderate rental development with a mortgage loan of $15,000,000 was completed without FHA insurance.  The design of the buildings, the size of the rooms and the layout of the apartments attracted wide attention.  With minor changes, Seward Park Houses were planned to be a duplicate of the East River cooperative.

Where the Money Came From

[graphic"s prose and numerical data retyped below]

Total Equity: $4,768,400

1,728 Cooperators

$18,000,000 Total Mortgage

Unlike the other development, the Seward Park Houses did not have a single organization like the International Ladies" Garment Workers" Union, which could undertake the mortgage financing of the entire project.  The advance in the cost of construction made it necessary to secure a mortgage loan of $18,000,000.  A plan was developed to combine the resources of several friendly organizations in partnership with two savings banks to jointly undertake the financing of the cooperative.  Together these institutions made a combined loan of $18,000,000, each receiving a part of the first mortgage in proportion to the amount of money supplied.

By virtue of its experience with cooperative organizations over many years and because of the fact that it was providing the largest proportion of the loan, the Bowery Savings Bank was asked to handle the temporary financing during the construction period.  Each participating organization, with the exception of one, agreed to advance its share of the funds as construction proceeded.  The Bowery Savings Bank assumed the responsibility of supervising construction and was authorized to service the mortgage after completion.

The Seward Park Housing cooperative was built during a period when mortgage financing was difficult to obtain and when interest rates were reaching their highest point.  Under these circumstances it certainly was not an easy matter to secure an $18,000,000 loan and at a reasonable rate of interest.  To the credit of the labor organizations and the Workmen"s Circle it must be said that they agreed to accept ½ of 1 per cent less than the rate of interest to be paid to the banks on their share of the loan.  This voluntary sacrifice will amount to about $1,000,000 over the life of the mortgage.

    ( Back to Table of Contents )

The Development

The Seward Park development consists of four residential buildings, two commercial structures located at different parts of the site, an underground garage for about 275 automobiles and a small office building.

The development was designed by Herman J. Jessor who is also responsible for the East River Housing Cooperative.  Farkas and Barron and William J. Dusenbury acted as structural and mechanical engineers, respectively, in both instances.

The residential buildings are twenty stories in height.  They are serviced by twenty-four Westinghouse elevators.  Each building is divided into three sections with two elevators of the skip-stop type serving a section.  Each section contains an incinerator chute for the disposal of waste material.  A hopper door is located on each floor, the hopper is enclosed behind a fireproof door.

The roof of the garage is divided into two parts.  One half is landscaped and provides sitting areas as well as a children"s playground.  The other half is used for above ground parking.

The ground floor of each building has a central lobby, laundry, carriage and storage rooms.  The buildings also contain community rooms for activities which may be organized by the cooperators.

The height and position of the buildings are such that many of the families may enjoy spectacular views.  Looking to the north, south and west is the incomparable sky line of the city.  Many of the apartments also view the East River from two vantage points; for it is at Corlears Hook that the river circles the southeast end of Manhattan Island.  The four residential buildings provide living accommodations for 1,728 families, 432 families in each building.  There are a total of 7,336 rooms.  816 apartments have balconies or terraces opening directly from the living rooms.  In most of these apartments the interior wall between the living room and the balcony is of glass with a sliding door in the center.  This makes the open balcony almost an integral part of the living room and provides additional light.  The apartments were designed to provide individual privacy, each room being reached from a central foyer or hallway.

Development and Construction Costs

The above figures are based on the final audited report on land and construction costs submitted by Apfel & Englander, Certified Public Accountants, to the Board of Directors of Seward Park Housing Corporation, dated October 11, 1960.

Development Cost Analysis

What the House Cost…

(a) These figures include the land cost of Shopping Centers #1 and #2, and the Construction and Overhead costs of Shopping Center #1 only.

(b) The Garage is constructed underground because no uncommitted land was available for such use.  Hence, no land cost is allocated to the Garage.

How the Dollar was Spent

    ( Back to Table of Contents )

Who Lives in the Seward Park Cooperative?

In attacking the rebuilding of slum areas we frequently hear the argument advanced that the tenants occupying the new buildings are well-to-do and should not be given assistance through the Housing and Home Finance Agency of the federal government or by the city government.  It is therefore important to acquaint the general public with the information as to who lives in new middle income cooperative developments.  The following is some pertinent information pertaining to the families living in the Seward Park cooperative:

Occupations

* more than one wage earner in some families

( Percentages in middle column provided by Webmaster Eric)

Size of Family

( Percentages in middle column provided by Webmaster Eric)

Where They Came From

* Includes 185 families who moved into the cooperative from the old site buildings

Family Income

Another argument advanced by those who oppose cooperative housing is that when an organization like a labor union helps promote such housing it does so for its own members, and therefore assistance given by public agencies is not warranted.  The Seward Park Houses was sponsored by the United Housing Federation with the assistance of District Council No. 9, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America, — Local #3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers — the United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers Union, and the Workmen"s Circle.  Of the 1,728 families living in the cooperative only 174 are members of these organizations.

    ( Back to Table of Contents )

In Appreciation

Organizing and building the Seward Park Houses has been a cooperative undertaking in more than one way.  Cooperation and team work on the part of the staff was essential to make it a success.  Without the support and contributions by the federal and city governments, the cooperative could not have been built.  To the City of New York and to its former Slum Clearance Committee ably headed by its chairman Robert Moses and to the Housing and Home Finance Agency we are very grateful.

This report would not be complete without expressing our appreciation to all who have helped make it possible.  First to the members who demonstrated their confidence in the cooperative by investing their savings.  To the organizations, District Council 9, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America.  Joint Industry Board, Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, United Hatters, Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, and the Workmen"s Circle, who ventured into the field of helping to promote a housing cooperative.  To the Bowery and Dry Dock Savings Banks for their confidence in this undertaking.  To the members of the Board of Directors who as a public service have given freely of their guidance and counsel from the inception to the completion of the development.

Varied skills and craftsmanship of many people were involved in planning, administering, supervising and constructing this $23,000,000 enterprise.  Our appreciation is extended to Herman J. Jessor the architect, Farkas and Barron, Structural Engineers, and William J. Dusenbury, Mechanical Engineer, all veterans in the field of housing.  The legal work with all its difficult ramifications was ably handled by Phillip I. Blumberg, of Szold, Brandwen, Meyers and Blumberg, the firm that takes care of the legal work for the United Housing Foundation and many of its member organizations.  Apfel & Englander acted as the official auditors of the corporation from its inception.  Edward J. Kelly was in charge of the supervision of construction.

The staff of Community Services, Inc. deserves particular praise.  Without their unselfish devotion it would not have been possible to accomplish the desired results.  Harold Ostroff, who participated in the planning of the cooperative from the time it was conceived, assumed the responsibility of expediting the work.  Arnold Merritt was [the] manager of the office which operated the old buildings and had the important task of supervising the relocations of the tenants from the site.  Donald Elberson was the manager of the applications office and had the responsibility of allocating apartments to the applicants.  Ralph Lippman in addition to his other duties took the responsibility of leasing the commercial space.  Sidney Vyorst, manager of the Insurance Department, assisted by Somer Alberg did a magnificent job in handling the insurance for the benefit of the housing organization as well as for the contractors.  Paul Kirtzman and William Robb were responsible for seeing that the cooperators took possession of their apartments expeditiously and also handled requests for service.  Rita Frankel, secretary to the president of Community Services, capably handled all the various requests from cooperators and others that reached the office.  Paul Kramer, auditor, and Jane Feldman, bookkeeper, were in charge of the accounts and the handling of the finances during construction.  To all these people we owe a vote of thanks.

It is also with a great deal of pleasure that we wish to record here the names of the contractors who participated in the construction of the development.  All of them have extended their efforts to perform faithfully their duties:

Contractors

    ( Back to Table of Contents )

Conclusion

Physically the Seward Park Housing cooperative for all practical purposes has been completed.  Only the landscaping and shopping facilities remain to be finished.  The cost of the development exceeds our budget by $489,992.75.  This does not include the cost of the second shopping center.  The difference between the budget and the actual cost will be made up from corporate income.  The primary reason for the increased cost was die to our being forced to build an underground garage which was not in the original estimate.  The progress of construction was slowed, adding to the cost, due to the old buildings left on the site.  These buildings were retained as a convenience to the site families who moved into the cooperative.

Another slum area of the city has been replaced by moderate cost decent homes.  But our task is far from finished.  For we seek more than good housing, gardens and shopping facilities.  Our goal is a better way of life for those who have joined this cooperative venture.  Housing is but one step toward a larger objective.

The Seward Park Housing cooperative demonstrates what people can do for themselves when they work together.  Without cooperation this development would not have been built, the old tenements would have remained.  It has taken a half of a life time to rid the city of only 32 acres of slums in this section and to provide good housing for nearly twenty thousand people.  All of these people are consumers; they share many other common needs.  It is our hope that from cooperative ventures they will learn to apply the same techniques of self-help not only to housing but to meet their other needs.

Each member of this cooperative has contributed toward its initial success.  If it is to remain successful, each member must diligently exercise his responsibilities as a member for years to come.  As a democratic institution it requires responsible citizenship on the part of its members.  In seeking a better way of life for the members of this organization we are endeavoring to demonstrate that people have the ability to successfully own and operate their own business — to help themselves.

This cooperative is another practical demonstration of not only how people can help themselves, but how the city can encourage public and private groups to engage in the battle against blighted areas.  From the example of what has been accomplished by the Seward Park cooperative we hope many other consumers and organizations will draw inspiration to duplicate what has been done here.

United Housing Federation

570 Grand Street

New York 2, New York

    ( Back to Table of Contents )

The Cooperative Village

Portrayed above [map in pdf version only] is a diagram of the Cooperative Village.  4,443 families live in this community.  They have invested nearly twelve million dollars of their savings in their homes valued at over $54,000.000.

In addition to the four housing cooperatives with twelve residential buildings, power plant, garages and outdoor parking areas, gardens, play and sitting areas, the Cooperative Village embraces many other cooperatives.  There is a community credit union, two cooperative supermarkets, a cooperative nursery school and space for another.  Many activities have been organized cooperatively to meet the social and recreational needs of people of all ages.

    ( Back to Table of Contents )