TOUR CONTENT
GETTING BY: IMMIGRANTS WEATHERING HARD TIMES
The following document serves as the content for the “Getting By” tour. As such, it is
not a script. It is an informational tool for learning and imparting information in a
consistent manner. This document suggests locations on the tour where certain
information should be communicated, but it is not required that all information be
communicated in exactly the locations indicated in the document. It is not necessary to
communicate all the information in this document on every tour.
Primary Issues: The text in blue indicates the main issue or concept you should be
exploring in each location. The information provided below the issue will help you
explore that issue.
Information about objects- The text written beside an image of an object
provides information about that object.
Background information- The text written by this icon is important
and helpful background material that will aid you in really
understanding the tour outline.
Location- Text in red let you know where you should be located and how much time
you have in that area.
Handling Objects- Text in green indicates the objects and location of items that can be
touched in each apartment. Additional information about the objects are provided, so
you can get a better sense of how they were used by the families.
Sources- Text in orange indicates the source from which information was drawn. These
can be found at the end of the document in the form of endnotes.
© 2005 Lower East Side Tenement Museum
Tour objectives:
 Help visitors connect to the human experience of living through the
Panic of 1873 and the Great Depression, by describing the options
available to the Gumpertz and Baldizzi families and the choices they
made about how to “get by.”
 Help visitors understand how the Gumpertz and Baldizzi families’
choices were shaped by larger forces, by describing the attitudes,
practices, and policies that affected their immigration experience and
their access to assistance. Through the Gumpertz and Baldizzi stories,
help visitors understand how immigrants who are in dire economic
straits have to make hard choices in order to get by.
 Help visitors make a personal connection with the Gumpertz and
Baldizzi families, encouraging visitors to compare and contrast their own
experiences with the Gumpertz and Baldizzi’s experiences.
 Help visitors compare the Gumpertz and Baldizzis with the experiences
of immigrants today
 Foster dialogue among visitors on the question of who is in need and
who is responsible for assisting those in need -- exploring the variety of
perspectives on this question that were debated in the time of the
Gumpertzes and the Baldizzis, and encouraging visitors to share a
variety of perspectives on the question today.
ON BROOME STREET OUTSIDE 90 Orchard Street
The “Getting By” tour visits 97 Orchard Street, a five story tenement that was
home to over 7000 immigrants from more than 20 different nations between
1863, when it was built, and 1935, when it was closed to residents. This single
building provides a window onto the variety of immigrant and migrant
experiences that have shaped the Lower East Side.
Introduce LES as immigrant neighborhood past and present
The neighborhood continues to be an important first home for immigrants from
all over the world. About 40% of the people living here were born in another
country; they hail from 37 different nations. In more than 60% of the homes on
the Lower East Side, people are speaking a language other than English. About
¼ of the residents are from Spanish-speaking regions, primarily Puerto Rico and
the Dominican Republic, but Mexico and other parts of Latin America as well.
There are at least 4 mutually unintelligible Chinese languages spoken here,
representing different regions of China. About 20% of Lower East Siders were
born in China and other East Asian countries. 1
Right now, there are people living in the buildings on Orchard Street and its
surrounding streets who are very well off, and many who are struggling. As of
2002, the median household income in the section of the neighborhood that the
Museum stands in is just over $25,000. In the neighborhood as a whole, more
than ¼ of the people live below the poverty line -- almost 1 ½ times the city
average. But only about half of those people -- 14% -- receive any kind of public
assistance to help them get by.2
Emphasize the importance of social welfare networks that help immigrants
in “getting by.”
The Lower East Side is a neighborhood that has been shaped and reshaped by
the needs and ambitions of generations of immigrants. No one arriving here
goes it alone – each person relies on a combination of family, friends, landlords,
shopkeepers, charities, mutual aid societies, religious institutions, and the
government for help in tough times. Today, there are over 200 family and
social welfare organizations serving the neighborhood’s Chinese community
alone.3
This web of support is always shifting. At different moments in time, immigrants
have had different options for getting by. That’s because our ideas keep
changing about questions like: are there things that everyone living here should
be entitled to? What kinds of help should only be available for certain people?
Which people – and who should decide? The Lower East Side is a perfect
place to think about those questions, since many national welfare policies -decisions about who should help whom in America -- were first worked out right
here in these streets.
Stoop and storefronts:
A stoop can be a small porch, platform,
or staircase leading from the sidewalk
to the entrance of a building. The word
stoop is derived from the Dutch, stoep,
which is quite fitting: the architectural
concept was imported to New York
from the Netherlands by Dutch
colonists.
In 1905, the landlords of 97 Orchard
Street gave their storefront windows a
facelift. The renovation was likely a
practical decision, designed to better
expose and foster the building's
storefront businesses. In 2000, the
Museum restored the stoop and
storefront windows of 97 Orchard
Street to its conditions circa 1905. The
Museum also “repointed” the façade by
cleaning and replacing the mortar
between the bricks.
Fire escapes:
Lucas Glockner was required to install
fire escapes that led to the street for his
tenants.
Three out of the four
apartments on each floor had direct
access to a fire escape – tenants in the
north (right) rear could walk through
their neighbor’s apartment to get to a
fire escape, or could step out onto a
party balcony connected to the building
next door and try to escape through a
neighbors’ window.
Inside the Gumpertz apartment,
educators will note the door in the
bedroom, dating from 1863, designed
as another fire escape.
Documents indicate that the Fire
Department responded to at least four
fires in this building between 1863 and
1935. (One in 1863, one in 1895, and
two in 1901.)
Visitor reactions to the word
“tenement”
Many visitors to the Museum will bring
associations with the word tenement,
ideas about what a tenement should
look like, or what housing for workingclass immigrants should look like.
Some of these associations come from
the sources we’ve inherited about
tenements, like the photographs and
writings of reformers like Jacob Riis
Emphasize the challenge of finding affordable housing for immigrants in
NYC
Housing is one of the most difficult challenges faced by immigrants when they
arrive in the United States. There are three options generally available to
immigrants looking for low-income housing:
 Rent a privately owned apartment: Rents here average about $1400$1800 for a one-bedroom apartment.4
 Apply for public housing, operated by the government: If one of the
people living in your household is a citizen, you could apply to live in
one of the buildings you can see down the block. The waiting list is
very long, so you might wait several years before getting access to an
apartment there.5
 There are several public housing projects on the Lower East Side. The
nearest one is just around the corner. Bordered by Broome, Norfolk,
Grand, and Essex Streets, the Seward Park Houses Extension was built
in 1973 as a northern extension to the Seward Park Houses. First
proposed as a superblock project, the extension, as carried out, was
eventually reduced to two apartment buildings two blocks apart. These
two, 23-story buildings contain 359 apartments housing some 812
residents The midblock is occupied by a large park-like courtyard, and
on the other end a single-story building houses residents’ common
facilities. Admittance for a family of four is based on an income limit of
$50, 250.006
 Apply for subsidized housing: community groups, such as Asian
Americans for Equality have renovated tenements to make low-cost
apartments for groups of people they define as in need.7
 El Caribe at 161 Allen Street, between Rivington and Stanton Streets, is
a renovated tenement with subsidized apartments that is administered
by Asian Americans for Equality.8
IN FRONT OF 96 ORCHARD STREET OR ON THE STOOP OF
97 ORCHARD STREET
Provide an overview on the construction and habitation of 97 Orchard
Street
97 Orchard Street was built in 1863 with apartments for twenty families and two
basement-level stores. It closed as a residence in 1935 and has been
uninhabited ever since. The Museum moved into one of the four storefronts in
1988. In the early 1860s, New York City had a housing crisis. The two- and
three-story wood or brick buildings on Orchard Street, which served initially as
single-family homes, now overflowed with immigrants, mostly from German
states and Ireland.9
In 1863, Lucas Glockner, a tailor from Baden, in what is Germany today, and
two other tailors erected 95, 97, and 99 Orchard Street, buildings designed for
the needs of urban working people – that could house several unrelated families
each in their own space, or apartment. This form of housing became known as
a “tenement,” later legally defined as a building that houses three or more
unrelated families. Glockner knew he would have no problem filling all 20
apartments, and expected a handsome return on his investment.10
and Lewis Hine. These reformers were
trying to expose the worst kinds of
housing
conditions
in
the
neighborhood, in order to galvanize
people to fight to improve them. But
their sources left us with images of the
most hopeless, degenerated living
situations. This building is also like a
document, in that it gives us clues
about what it would have been like to
live here. It shows us that even in this
working-class housing, landlords and
tenants alike took great pride in making
their homes beautiful, even if they had
little money for it. That’s why it’s so
important to preserve the building.
What remains in the hallway represents
both original fabric and modifications
made to the building over time: it
captures elements from every era in
the building’s life, giving a sense of
how it changed over time.
When Lucas Glockner built 97 Orchard Street, he had some stake in its
condition, since he created an apartment for himself. But he had almost no
codes governing what he needed to provide for his tenants, or what his
responsibilities were towards them. Buildings like #97 came to be known as
“pre-old law” tenements, since they were constructed before there were any
laws governing housing development. So Glockner provided what he thought
was reasonable – not only for his tenants, but for himself.11
More on New York’s 19th century
housing shortage
Why was there such a shortage of
inexpensive housing? Manhattan
landowners wanted to increase the
value of their land by constructing
valuable buildings on it. While upper
class neighborhoods were constructed
uptown and new commercial buildings
rose downtown near the port, the city’s
lower classes huddled into the old
housing stock left behind by their
wealthier neighbors. Only with the
massive immigration beginning in the
late 1840s was a substantial amount of
new housing constructed for the
working class.
By the late 19th century, tenements became the dominant form of housing for
the majority of New Yorkers, most of whom were working people. By 1900,
almost 3/4 of all New Yorkers lived in tenements. Tenements remain a way of
life for New Yorkers. In the early 1990s, an estimated 40% of the city’s
residents still lived in 19th century tenements.
Ornamentation in hallway
Paintings:
Define the meaning of “tenement.”
The meaning of the word “tenement” has changed over time. Tenement comes
from the latin root tenere, which means to hold. Tenements are essentially
buildings that “hold” many families. In 1867, New York became the first state to
legally define a tenement as building housing more than three families. In 1887,
New York amended the definition to mean a building that houses three or more
families. Because wealthier New Yorkers were unwilling to live in multiple family
dwellings, tenements acquired a negative connotation, which increased as
tenement conditions worsened in the late 19th century.12
Educator should interpret the storefront window exhibition, explaining how
it explores connections between immigration past and present.
In the four storefront windows of 97 Orchard Street, the Museum hosts a series
of changing art installations about contemporary immigrant experience. It invites
immigrant artists to use this space to tell their own stories and to explore the
connections between immigrant experiences past, as represented by 97
Orchard Street and present in the neighborhood today. Detailed information
about the installation is available in the Visitor Center, and on the Museum’s
website.
Reinforce the Museum’s Rules

This is one of eight wall medallion
paintings the Museum found in the
tenement hallway.
Four have been restored. This
medallion remains in the condition it
was in when it was found. It is covered
with years and years of coal dust, dirt,
and other debris.




Do not lean against the walls; do not touch objects, wall coverings
or any part of the building. These rules are not meant to create a
hostile atmosphere but are crucial in helping us preserve the fabric of
the building. We keep nothing behind glass and would like to continue
to let people experience the Museum without those barriers, but need
the visitors to help make that happen.
No eating, drinking or smoking.
There is no photography of any kind inside the building. This is so
that the Museum maintains the quality and financial control of images of
the Museum's property. There are postcard images of all of the
museums apartments at the Museum Store.
Turn off all cell phones and beepers. These may disturb other
visitors during the tour.
Stay with the educator at all times. This is for personal safety and
building security.
ENTER TENEMENT (Hallway)
Explain housing options in the 1860s
An architectural conservator cleans this
medallion painting to reveal how it
likely looked originally. The Museum
believes that the paintings were added
in at the turn of the century when the
97 Orchard Street was part of New York City’s first wave of tenement
construction, which began in the 1850s when landlords realized that sizable
profits could be made from building cheap housing for the poor. The high cost
of Manhattan real estate encouraged landowners to house as many low-wage
renters as possible on a single building lot. New York City had a severe
shortage of inexpensive housing. Immigrants had few alternatives to
tenements. One option was to crowd into the small, two-story wooden houses
designed for one family that were being subdivided into small apartments, often
gas lighting was put in as a way to
beautify the hallway. The Museum
believes that an artist who lived in the
neighborhood, perhaps even in the
building, created them in order to either
promote nostalgia for the old country or
help residents to dream of a life very
different from their own. The
medallions were installed at a time
when this neighborhood was the one of
most crowded, urbanized places on
earth – it’s interesting that there is not a
single person in that painting, which
represents a different image of “home”
than what people could have enjoyed
in this tenement.
Burlap: considered a stylish wall
covering at the time; perhaps added
because gas lighting was introduced in
the late 1890s, suddenly brining
attention to this hallway – and other,
newer, tenements are being built
across the street and around the block
that may have more amenities than this
one – perhaps to stay competitive the
landlords decided to decorate.
by hanging a sheet in the middle of shared rooms. Another alternative was to
live beneath one of these buildings, in a cellar dwelling. Lightless, airless, and
prone to frequent flooding, cellars represented the worst housing in the city. Yet
another option was to live behind a street-fronting building, in a rear tenement.
Rear tenements or back buildings, however, were likewise devoid of light and
air, and were often equally crowded. Lastly, an immigrant could live in a
squatter’s shack in one of several shantytowns on the fringes of the city where
Central Park is today. But while less dangerous than other options, shantytowns
made the daily journey to work longer and more arduous for its inhabitants. 13
Introduce tenement living conditions in the 19th century
When Lucas Glockner prepared to build 97 Orchard Street, there were almost
no codes governing how the building should look and what it should contain – in
other words, what he should provide for his tenants. He would have developed
the building to maximize the number of tenants it could hold, and therefore
maximize the profit he could make from it. But he also would have developed it
to the standards he himself wanted to enjoy, since he planned to make the
building his home as well. His standards included:14

Light and air: No one required Lucas Glockner to light his tenants’ way
in the building. It was up to you to light a match or carry a kerosene
lantern to help you see where you were going. No one required him to
put in a certain number of windows.

Water: No one required Glockner to provide indoor plumbing – in fact,
the majority of New Yorkers did not have indoor plumbing in 1863, and
many immigrants would have been accustomed to outside facilities. But
wealthier New Yorkers and many immigrants wouldn’t have had to
share their water source with so many people: the Museum believes all
20 families in the building shared 3-4 privies in the back.

Fire: Glockner was required to install fire escapes that led to the street
for his tenants. Three out of the four apartments on each floor had
direct access to a fire escape – tenants in the north (right) rear could
walk through their neighbor’s apartment to get to a fire escape, or could
step out onto a party balcony connected to the building next door and
try to escape through a neighbors’ window.

Space: when this building was first opened, it was a solution to a
housing crisis of overcrowding in the neighborhood. This building was
designed specifically to give each family its own space – and in 1870,
an average of just 3-4 people lived in each apartment.
Ceiling:
This is the sheet metal (not tin) ceiling
that the Museum believes was added
around the turn of the century, probably
because it was more durable than
wood, important at a time when the
population of this neighborhood had
exploded. There was an average of 4
people living in each apartment for a
total of around 80 people living in the
building, making the wear and tear on
the building much greater than what it
was originally designed to
accommodate.
Arch: original to the building. Is not a
structural necessity, but shows the care
that Glockner would have put into
making the hallway of his home
beautiful.
Floor: tile, installed around the turn of
the century, probably because it was
more durable than wood (same
significance as described above)
Banister: original to the building.
Glockner thought it was best to build it
out of wood – later, this would be
outlawed as a fire hazard.
Introduce the idea that government laws affect housing options
As tenement construction exploded, more and more questions began to arise
about what is acceptable housing, and who’s responsible for providing it. Just
three years after Glockner opened his building, New York City decided that it
should start looking at this question and regulating what landlords needed to
provide their tenants, ad vice versa. This was a radical idea. What business
was it of the municipal government to tell anyone how they should develop their
property? But in 1867, New York City became the first in the nation to pass a
housing law. Lucas Glockner didn’t have to be too worried: the law only applied
to new construction, so he could continue to set his own standards for his
tenants. But the law did represent the beginning of an ongoing debate about
what kinds of homes everyone should be entitled to, and who’s responsible for
providing them – a debate that shaped and reshaped this building and the
experience of the people who lived here. Many of the architectural features in
this building represent different answers to that question.15
The questions about what kind of housing people living here deserved were part
of larger debates about what Americans were entitled to, which Americans were
These are the shelves on which
Nathalie kept all of her things. There
were no other cabinets in the
apartment and only one other shelf. In
order to decorate, the Museum
believes that Nathalie probably hung
lace from these shelves as seen in the
image.
This is the
chamber pot
that is under the
bed in the
Gumpertz
bedroom.
During the
Gumpertz’s
time, there were
no bathrooms in the hallway. In order
to use the bathroom it was necessary
to go all the way down the dark
stairway and into the courtyard where
the privies were. Most people did not
want to do this at night, so they would
use a chamber pot that they kept in
their apartment.
Privies and Disease
Because people didn’t yet understand
how germs were spread, they saw no
problem putting privies right next to the
water source. But this construction
contributed vastly to diseases and
terrible epidemics: cholera, yellow
fever,
diphtheria,
tuberculosis,
common diarrhea.
However, the
privies at 97 Orchard were connected
to the sewer, suggesting there may
have been less of a risk of disease
here than in other tenements.
Sad Iron-GUMPERTZ KITCHEN

The recorded use of a sad iron
started in the 16th century in
Europe

It is made out of cast iron and
consists of a flat base and
attached handle
-GUMPERTZ's sad iron: The
iron's model number is #6 and
weighs about 6 pounds. It also
has a raised "C" stamped onto its
top surface which may be the
markers mark.

The SAD part in sad iron means
heavy. Therefore, all heavy irons
can be classified as sad irons.

HOW TO PRESS A GARMENT
USING A SAD IRON:
1. Place the iron on the stove and
heat it.
2. When hot, apply iron to the
fabric using upward and
downward motions.
3. When the iron is too cold to
use, place it back on the stove to
heat.
entitled to it, and who was responsible for providing it. As ideas about how to
help people in need changed over time, as each grand experiment succeeded
or failed, the immigrant families who lived here had to continually develop
different strategies for getting by in their daily lives.
To explore how individual people who actually lived in this building survived in
tough times, the Museum recreated their apartments to look as it thinks they
would have when these families were living here. Of the approximately 7,000
people we calculate would have lived here, the Museum identified almost 1,300
of them by name. The two immigrant families featured on this tour are trying to
get by in two of the country’s worst economic depressions. The objects and
furniture in their recreated apartments are not actually theirs, but are original to
the time period, and are things these families would have owned.
The next apartment is restored to look like that of Natalie and Julius Gumpertz,
who came here from Prussia, in what’s now Germany, and were living in 97
Orchard Street in the 1870s.
ENTER GUMPERTZ APARTMENT
Introduce apartment
All apartments in this building were laid out the same way, 325 square feet
divided into three rooms, all for one family.
How much did tenement dwellers usually pay in rent?
About $10 a month. That was about 1/3 of what a working-class immigrant
family could expect to earn – and for many, wages and jobs were not steady, so
income was unpredictable. So many families took in boarders and extended
family, so that someone was always bringing in money for rent. There were no
regulations anywhere in the city controlling how high rent could go – the landlord
could charge whatever the market would bear.16
Explain the Gumpertz family story
How the Gumpertz came to call this home
This is the apartment of Nathalie and Julius Gumpertz, as they were living here
in the 1870s. How did they come to call this place home, and what did it take
for them to feel at home here? Nathalie (then Rheinsberg) did not know Julius
when she decided to come to America from Ortelsburg, in East Prussia (a town
now found in Nothern Poland, that would have been German-speaking when
Nathalie lived there), at the age of 22. When she arrived at Castle Clinton in
Lower Manhattan, she would basically have walked right off the boat and into
her new life – immigration was controlled by each state, and there were no
restrictions or real system for processing new arrivals. She would have known
she wanted to settle here in Kleindeutschland, or Little Germany – by then the
5th largest German city in the world -- and find a building like this one, where her
neighbors would speak German, there was a German saloon on the ground
floor, newspapers were in German, shopkeepers would speak German. In a
neighborhood like that, Nathalie could find support and guidance – and perhaps
even a man to marry. Julius came about the same time from Silesia, also an
eastern region of Prussia – and met and married Nathalie here.
But some native-born, English-speaking New Yorkers were horrified at the
growing German presence in the city. They feared that families like the
Gumpertz would bring more and more German children in to the world who
would never assimilate. They feared that soon everyone would be drinking beer
on Sundays and sending their children to kindergarten. On the other hand,
many praised the Germans for being thrifty, industrious, and orderly, and
considered them one of the most reputable immigrant groups.17
“Getting By” before the Panic of 1873
The Poorhouse in the 1870s
If Nathalie lost her apartment and had
nowhere else to stay, she could go to
the poorhouse on Randall’s Island,
where she could sleep and be fed. But
this would have been an absolute last
resort. The poorhouse was purposely
made as horrible a place as possible to
deter homeless people from turning to
it for shelter. And just after Julius
disappeared, in 1875, a Children’s law
was passed that required mothers who
went into the poorhouse to give up any
children over the age of two and have
them sent away to an orphanage. The
growing consensus among institutions
caring for the needy was that poverty
would only be prevented if families
were broken up, since it was believed
that poor mothers passed on
dependence and laziness to their
children. So Nathalie would have done
everything she could not to go to the
poorhouse, since all three of her
daughters would have been taken from
her, and she might never have seen
them again.
In the census and city directories in the early 1870s, Julius declared himself a
heel cutter, or shoemaker. He might have worked for several different shops in
Lower Manhattan. Nathalie described herself as keeping house – which meant
she would have been doing a daily battle with the soot emanating from this coal
stove to keep the family’s clothes white, and taking care of her two daughters.
She would have wielded heavy irons to keep the family’s clothes pressed – one
example of the “weight” of everyday life. She would not have been earning any
cash wages, but as the person who did the shopping for the family, she would
have been part of a web of relationships in the community. She might have
spent her days bargaining with pushcart vendors, shop owners, perhaps even
John Schneider, who ran the saloon downstairs, for buckets of beer to bring up
to her family.
Describe economic hardship in the 1870s
Panic of 1873 and the disappearance of Julius
In the next census, taken in 1880, Nathalie appears here with three daughters,
but Julius is gone.
The Museum doesn’t know what happened to Julius. But it does know what
happened to families like the Gumpertz in this moment. In 1873, just three
years after Nathalie and Julius first appear at 97 Orchard Street, the country is
hit with the worst economic depression in its history. In what became known as
the “Panic of 1873,” nearly ¼ of New York’s workers lost their jobs, and others
found their wages slashed. Families in this area like the Gumpertzes were
some of the hardest hit: in protest, workers rallied and even rioted in Tompkins
Square, a few blocks north of here.18
The Museum learned that one October morning in 1874, Julius Gumpertz left
the apartment for his job as a heel cutter, and never returned. Nathalie was
probably frantic. She asked Lucas Glockner, her landlord, and John Schneider,
the saloon keeper, to help her look for Julius.
Panic of 1873- (for more reference,
please see the Tenement
Encyclopedia) After the economic
boom following the end of the Civil
War, a number of U.S. banks had
begun failing in April 1873. Numerous
banks that had lent money too easily
and other overextended financial
institutions also failed. The New York
Stock Exchange closed its doors for
more than a week.
In New York, housing construction was
cut in half. One hundred thousand
people were thrown out of work, nearly
one-quarter of the city’s labor force.
Ten thousand homeless roamed the
city’s streets. Those who still had work
suffered a severe drop in wages,
roughly 30 percent across the board.
Socialist ideals gained became popular
throughout the working-class
neighborhoods of the city.
The working class was hard-pressed
by the decreased need for labor and
the government suppression of labor
organizations. In January of 1874,
laborers marched to demand that the
city find them work. Sadly, the event
culminated in violent police attacks on
the marchers in Tompkins Square.
Government – federal, state, and local
– generally took the side of employers
over employees and did practically
Julius might have lost his job and deserted his family. He might have been
murdered, or committed suicide. What is sure is that from one day to the next,
Nathalie’s sole source of support vanished, leaving her with four children – three
girls, Rosa, Nannie, and Olga, and a baby boy, Isaac – to support. Nathalie
was not alone as a suddenly single mother. A glance at a German newspaper
from this time will show dozens of women advertising for news of their missing
husbands. But that didn’t change the fact that Nathalie had to face the next day
with no job and no money of her own.
Introduce social welfare options available in the 1870s
Within 5 years of Julius’s disappearance, Nathalie had become a dressmaker.
But she didn’t open this business overnight. She needed to take immediate
steps to get back on her feet. And unfortunately for Nathalie, just at the moment
of her greatest need, the city was changing its ideas about who was really in
need, and how best to help them. This translated into changes in what was
available to her and her children.
Explain network of support constructed by Natalie to “get by.”
Nathalie probably turned to a variety of sources of support to help her and her
family get by. They could have included:
Landlords
Nathalie may well have asked her landlord, Lucas Glockner for a break on the
rent. Although he would have been suffering from the Panic himself, he might
be eager to keep his tenants even at a lower rent, since many apartments were
remaining vacant, with families unable to afford to pay any rent at all.
Local merchants/people in the building
She might also have asked John Schneider for leftover food from the saloon.
nothing to alleviate the hardships of the
unemployed. It took more than five
years for citizens of New York City and
the nation to finally recover from the
economic malaise.
The numbers of men roaming the
country looking for work swelled in the
1870s. A new term came into use to
describe/denigrate them: “tramp”
Glockner’s Court Testimony
I a m t h e o wn e r o f r e a l e s t a t e i n
the city of New York, among
wh i c h i s t h e h o u s e a n d l o t
number 97 Orchard Street, in the
city of New York. I n ow reside
at number 152 Henry Street, in
t h e c i t y o f N e w Y o r k . Ab o u t
thirteen years ago, I rented
certain apartments in my hou se
97 Orchard Street to Ju lius
Gu m p e r t z a n d h i s wi f e N a t a l i e
Gu m p e r t z & t h e i r c h i l d r e n . I
t h e n b e c a m e a c q u a i n t e d wi t h t h e
Gu m p e r t z f a m i l y. I w e l l
remember the disappearance of
J u l i u s Gu m p e r t z , t h e h u s b a n d o f
t h e a n n e x e d p e t i t i o n e r . It w a s i n
the month of October in the year
1874, and I rememb er th e
fruitless search mad e for him. I
frequently visit the p remises 97
O r c h a r d S t r e e t , t h i s c i t y, a n d
have visited the same very often
since 1874, but at no time have I
ever seen or h eard of or from
J u l i u s Gu m p e r t z a f o r e s a i d . M r s .
N a t a l i e Gu m p e r t z h a s
continuously resid ed in my house
for the past thirteen years. Mrs.
Gu m p e r t z i s h e r s o l e s u p p o r t .
Menorah on the mantel in the
Gumpertz apartment.
Singer sewing machine in Gumpertz
parlor. Nathalie may have used a
machine like this to make her dresses.
Compare access to public assistance in the 1870s with today.
Assistance from the government
Throughout her time living here in Kleindeutschland, Nathalie would have
known people who received “outdoor relief,” – people who went to storehouses
to receive free food and coal for heating. During the Panic, the number of
people receiving relief exploded, from 5,000 in 1873 to 25,000 in early 1874.
That year, the city began redefining who they felt was truly needy, or worthy of
relief. Many in the government and charities argued that giving people
handouts created dependency on relief and made people less likely to try to find
their own path out of poverty. By the time Julius disappeared, the Mayor had
restricted relief to blind New Yorkers and other people they called “proven” or
“worthy” poor. Nathalie would have been categorized as “able bodied” poor,
and would not have qualified for outdoor relief. The fact that she was not an
American citizen was not relevant.19
Fraternal and Religious organizations (mutual aid societies)
Julius belonged to the Joshua Lodge of the Fraternal Sons of Israel, a society
meant to provide some support to member families if the breadwinner should
get sick or die. Julius would have made monthly payments, like one would to an
insurance company. Julius paid an initiation fee of 2 or 3 dollars plus a monthly
payment of 12 to 25 cents per month, which ensured his family a minimal
income of 2 or 3 dollars a week if he got sick and was unable to work. The
money may have covered Natalie’s rent, but not much more. It’s also likely that
the Lodge funds were depleted in the Panic.
Some mutual aid societies provided health care to its members. Isaac, only an
infant when Julius disappeared, died from common diarrhea 9 months later.
Perhaps Nathalie was destitute in the months just after Julius’s disappearance
and could not get the health care she needed for Isaac. It’s also possible there
was nothing any doctor could do.
These were the options open to Nathalie. The country had never had to deal
with poverty on this scale before, and there was great disagreement about how
to deal with it: when so many people were in crisis, who should be responsible
for helping them? Should everyone receive help, or only some people? How
do you decide who should receive help and who shouldn’t?
Starting a Business
These were strategies Nathalie would have used to get back on her feet after
Julius disappeared. To sustain herself over the long term, Nathalie became a
dressmaker. Nathalie was fortunate enough to have cousins, Carl and Sallo
Callman, with the resources to loan her money and help her build the
connections she needed to start her own business. Carl ran a millinery (hatmaking) business and Sallo was a doctor. By 1879, five years after Julius
disappears, Nathalie was listed in the New York City directory – the phone book
of the time -- as a dressmaker. This was a common profession for single,
widowed or separated women -- nearly 35,000 worked as dressmakers or
milliners in 1875. Her customers were mostly local residents – perhaps
salesgirls, housewives, and domestic servants – and would have come here to
this apartment for ask Nathalie to fit a new dress or make over an old one.
Probably Nathalie’s daughters, Rosa, Nannie and Olga helped her baste and
sew the seams and do the finishing. With this help, Nathalie might have earned
$8 a week –more than just about any other trade open to women except
prostitution.
What happened to Nathalie? The Museum discovered documents revealing
that in 1883, nearly ten years after Julius disappeared, Nathalie petitioned to
have Julius declared legally dead. Nathalie received word that Julius’s father
had died and left him an estate of $600 – worth almost 60 months rent. That
money would be legally hers if Julius were dead – but although he had not been
According to the serial number, this
model
was
constructed
in
approximately 1869. Natalie may have
purchased used with the help of store
credit, or borrowed money from her
cousins the Callmans.
Dress-GUMPERTZ PARLOR

Paula Santacroce donated her
great grandmother's dress to the
museum circa 1995.

The dress is believed to have
been made circa 1880 from
cotton and metal.

The dress is an outdoor garment
most likely worn by a lower
middle to working class woman.

LOOK AT NATHALIE'S
OPERATION BELOW
How
would
have
Nathalie’s
workshop
operated?
Dressmaking was a highly skilled
profession. On your first visit the client
decided on a style from a fashion
magazine and eventually bought the
dry goods: fabric, thread, lace beads…
24 yards of fabric went into making
one dress. Then the dress maker
would cut or "fashion" the shape of the
dress by pinning paper or cheap fabric
onto the patron (one of the most
difficult steps in the process and
required 5 or more fittings). Secondly,
the she would stitch the cut pieces
together (compared to cutting, this part
of the
process was deemed minor
importance although still required a lot
of skill). The price for a new dress was
around $3. In addition to making new
dresses, Nathalie would also make
over, alter, and dye old dresses.
Probably Nathalie’s daughters, Rosa,
Nannie and Olga helped her baste and
sew the seams and do the finishing.
Nathalie relied on the help of her
daughters with no child labor laws yet
restricting the kind of work her children
could do. They did go to school: (laws
were passed in 1874 making primary
school attendance mandatory.) Also
she didn’t need to rely on (male)
bankers or jobbers for loans or goods,
didn’t need start-up capital and didn’t
need to stock inventory. Customers
brought their own material. Sewing
machines were affordable, especially if
purchased second hand or “on-time.”
Although they were meant to cut down
time, a dressmaker still needed to
know the craft of stitching to complete
her piece. Sewing machines at the
time could stitch in straight lines and
not in curves. The risks were many:
long hours, non-payment for services
rendered and suffering through slow
seasons. But she might have earned
$8 a week –more than just about any
other trade open to women except
prostitution..
Dressmaking
seen by anyone for nearly ten years, he was legally still alive. So Nathalie went
to court to have Julius declared legally dead. Family and neighbors went to bat
for her: John Schneider, Lucas Glockner, and her daughters testified to the
mysterious disappearance of Julius and the long search for him. It’s because of
these documents that the Museum learned the whole story of Julius’s
disappearance. With their help, Nathalie got the death certificate, and the
money. By 1886, Nathalie and her daughters had moved out of 97 Orchard
Street, their home of over 16 years, to Yorkville, a newer German immigrant
community.
De-romanticize appearance of apartment
How did the tenants get water? Where were the bathrooms?
If tenants wanted water for cooking or washing, or use one of the outhouses,
they had to walk down the interior stairs and through the back hallway to the
narrow rear courtyard. A water pump or spigot was located in the yard a few
feet away from the privies. Although some privies were dug out once a year,
the privies here were probably connected to a sewer in 1863. The Museum
doesn’t know for sure how many privies were originally here; there were at least
3. By 1867 there was a law requiring one privy for every 20 residents, so the
Museum believes there would have been at least 3-4 by the 1870s when the
Gumpertz family lived here.20
How did tenants heat their apartment?
In 97 Orchard Street, families used coal-burning cooking stoves on the hearth
here. Most tenement residents had to provide their own stove, as the landlord
generally did not supply it. Early residents could also have burned coal in open
fireplaces.21
Describing changing immigration demographics in the late 19th century and
foreshadow changes in social welfare.
By the time Nathalie moved out in 1886, the neighborhood barely resembled the
Kleindeustchland she had come to nearly thirty years earlier. New generations
of immigrants – primarily from Eastern and Southern Europe -- were flooding
into the neighborhood and transforming it.
While she might have been
accustomed to hearing different languages in the halls, or smelling different
cooking, the main thing she would have noticed is how many more people there
were living in each apartment, crowding the halls and the streets, and the
number of immigrants arriving each day grew and grew. By 1900, 5-6 people
on average lived in each apartment at 97 Orchard Street. The census records
as many as 12 people in one of these apartments or as few as 2. This block
(bounded by Orchard, Delancey, Allen, Broome) was considered the most
crowded place on earth.22
The second family on the tour came as part of this next wave of immigration that
transformed America’s cities: Rosaria and Adoplho Baldizzi, from Palermo,
Sicily. Like Natalie, they came to this country seeking a better life; and like
Natalie, their world were turned upside down by economic depression. But the
Baldizzi’s experience was very different: by the 1930s, when they are living
here at 97 Orchard Street, the country dealt with immigration – and with helping
those in need – very differently.
BALDIZZI APARTMENT
The 97 Orchard Street the Baldizzis moved in to was a very different place than
it was when Nathalie Gumpertz lived and worked here. The city’s ideas about
what all New Yorkers deserved in their homes had changed, bringing the
Baldizzis amenities that would have been considered luxuries in Nathalie’s time.
Describe how the 1901 Tenement House Act affected living conditions in
the 20th century.
Changes included:
New York first achieved its position as
the center of the nation's garment
industry by producing clothes for slaves
working on southern plantations. It
was more efficient for their masters to
buy clothes from producers in New
York than to have the slaves spend
time and labor making the clothing
themselves.
Dressmakers produced clothing for all
kinds of customers. As early as 1840
there were dressmakers in New York
who catered specifically to domestic
servants. High society patronized
fashionable dressmakers on Fifth
Avenue, while New Yorkers with less
money purchased their clothes on
Division Street on the Lower East Side.
Many dressmakers set up shops,
however, in tenements.
Interior window and sink
By the turn of the century, after Natalie had moved out of 97 Orchard Street,
disparities between the ways the rich and the poor were living were vast.
Where the majority of middle- and upper-class New Yorkers had gas lighting,
ventilation, and indoor plumbing, tenement dwellers were living in what seemed
like another country, living in dark, suffocating apartments and fetching their
water from a backyard pump. With more and more people cramming into these
apartments, epidemics were sweeping through the neighborhood, bringing
diseases for which there was no cure, like influenza and tuberculosis. The only
way to prevent further spread of these diseases, or to ameliorate the symptoms,
was with air and light – two things that were scarce in tenements. Many middle
class New Yorkers began to fear that the diseases would engulf the entire city.
They also believed that for New York to hold up its head as the most “civilized”
city in the world, it could no longer tolerate having a “primitive” rural village
within its borders. Long after the rest of the city got plumbing, light, and other
amenities, these reformers vowed to bring it to the tenements.23
Working at home allowed women to
simultaneously take care of their
families. Working at home also
eliminated commuting time and left
more time for household chores.
Women from different apartments
would often work together in one of
their kitchens or ‘best rooms’ (the room
facing the street or rear yard and
therefore receiving the most sunlight)
to keep each other company. In
warmer weather, women often moved
onto the roofs and fire escapes (when
they existed).
Since the first housing law in 1867, the city passed a series of laws raising
standards for tenement living. But all of these laws only applied to new
construction, allowing hundreds of buildings like 97 Orchard Street to go on
sheltering their tenants in conditions the city had declared unacceptable. So
starting in the late 19th century, reformers started lobbying for a law that would
apply to all buildings – to make water, air and light human rights for all New
Yorkers. These proposed laws were bitterly opposed by landlords and
tenement builders, who were the ones who would have to pay for New Yorkers’
new rights by installing pipes, windows, and other new features in buildings that
were not designed to accommodate them.24
This is a toilet that
remains in the second
floor bathroom that
was built in 1905.
Some tenants
objected to having the
“privies” brought
inside, believing that
this filthy facility should be kept outside
and away from living quarters
But the 1901 Tenement House Act passed. Suddenly landlords were faced with
thousands of dollars of new expenses that often far exceeded what they could
expect to earn in rent. It required that landlords install a sink for every family in
their apartment. It also required the addition of one toilet for every two families
to share, in the hallway, and an adjoining airshaft with windows to ventilate the
toilets. Making the required alterations was extremely expensive, costing
$8,000, much more than what the landlord of 97 Orchard Street could expect to
earn in a year. The law also required that every room of every tenement
apartment must have a window, forcing landlords to construct this interior
window out of what was a solid wall, as in the Gumpertz apartment Landlords
fought this requirement all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that it was
unconstitutional because the government was seizing property without
compensation. Some tenants feared the law would cause rents to skyrocket,
and force them to lose their homes, as landlords tried to find a way to pay for
the changes. After a five year battle, their appeal was denied in 1906. 25
Picture of an Interior Window
As controversial as it was, the law set a precedent for how governments could
set standards of living for their citizens, one that was replicated by cities all over
the United States. The housing laws in these cities, that establish the right to
water, light, and other amenities, are due to the changes people wanted to
make in apartments like those of 97 Orchard Street. There is still a long way to
go in enforcing those laws – people in this neighborhood today are still living in
conditions outlawed over 100 years ago – but when Adolpho and Rosaria
arrived in 97 Orchard Street, they could get cold running water for cooking,
washing, and bathing with just a flick of the wrist. 26
Electricity:
Nathalie would have used kerosene lamps, which were dim and often smoky.
The Baldizzis would have enjoyed electric light, which installed in these
apartments around 1924 (at least 10 years after it was widely used in other
homes and businesses in the city, underscoring that technology comes to poor
neighborhoods last)
These are Rosaria’s parents. This
picture hangs on the wall above the
suitcase that has been packed.
Josephine tells us that her mother,
Rosaria was sad to leave her family in
Italy and cried for them all the time.
She was unable to see her family for a
very long time after she moved to the
United States.
Stories from Josephine
Josephine remembers her mother
serving her and her brother pizzas on
a tray to show that they were
“somebody.”
Josephine and Johnnie shopped and
played in the candy stores, hotdog and
soda store, and charlotte russe carts.
Her brother John, as a boy, could run
around in the neighborhood. He
scavenged through boxes left by
peddlers, played ball and boxed at the
nearby Settlement House. Rosaria
kept Josephine, to raise her properly
as a girl, much closer to home: she
couldn’t leave the stoop without
parent, and remembers spending lots
of time doing chores for her mother.
Josephine and Johnny slept in the
small back room together on a fold-up
cot. The tiny room faces the airshaft
drilled into the building in 1905 to
ventilate the toilets. The room must
have smelled at times and been quite
noisy.
Josephine remembers it,
though, as her favorite place to play.
She would stand on a trunk and
pretend it was a stage. Across the
airshaft was the Rogarshevsky family,
now called Rosenthals.
Fanny
Roshenthal was the janitor of 97 for
over 25 years. They had six children.
Because they were religious Jews,
Josephine would turn their lights on
and off on the Sabbath, the shabbos
goy.
Explain the Baldizzi family story
How the Baldizzis came to call this home
So how did the Baldizzi family come to call this home, and what did it take for
them to feel at home here? When Adolpho Baldizzi was growing up in Palermo,
Sicily, in the 19teens, he probably saw many people in his town leave for
America. They would have talked about the many jobs there were to be had
there – many Sicilians even came back and forth, bringing stories and trinkets of
New York to villages like Palermo. So when Adolpho came of age, marrying
Rosaria in 1922, he decided he wanted to follow many of his compatriots and
come to New York City. But the nation had dramatically changed its attitudes,
and its policies, towards immigrants like Adolpho, making his experience
different from those who came before him.
Where Natalie had stepped right off the boat at Castle Clinton, with minimal
processing from the state immigration officials, by the time Adolpho sought to
come, immigration had become a grave national concern. His neighbors from
Palermo, together with all other immigrants, were processed by federal agents
through Ellis Island in a long and often invasive series of interviews and tests.
Starting in the 1880s, the nation had begun restricting immigration, defining who
should and who should not become American – starting with the Chinese
Exclusion Act in 1882, which set a precedent for denying entry to the US solely
on the basis of national origin. By the early 1920s, after millions of immigrants
had transformed America’s major cities, a movement grew to restrict
immigration again – this time even more broadly.27
Eugenicists – people who believed that hereditary traits (both positive and
negative) could be determined by selective breeding – began arguing that the
“blood” of the American nation was becoming “corrupted” by the influx of people
of inferior races with defective genes – like Italians, Jews, and other Eastern
Europeans. Where a generation ago native New Yorkers had expressed
anxiety about the inassimilable Germans like Nathalie, by the 1920s the
“Teutonic” race was considered to have good genetic stock for America.
Eugenicists argued that federal government needed to control who came into
the country, to be sure only superior “races” were allowed to become American.
As jobs became scarcer after the end of World War I, this idea gained currency
– and just as Adolpho decided to follow in his neighbors’ footsteps and come to
New York, quotas were put into place that severely restricted immigration from
Eastern and Southern Europe, culminating in the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924. 28
What did this mean for Adolpho? Bottom line, it meant that if he came sailing
into New York Harbor and tried to enter through Ellis Island, he might well have
been sent back. Adolpho decided to come anyway, with two of Rosaria’s male
cousins, planning to get settled and send for Rosaria later.
The Museum
doesn’t know exactly how he and Rosaria avoided the restrictions – the family
tells stories about last-minute escapes from border guards in Europe, stowing
away on ships, arriving as illegal immigrants and paying for false papers. What
the Museum does know is that their neighbors who immigrated a year before
could enter freely, when the Baldizzis chose to come they had to be creative to
get here, and to get by. But not 15 years after arriving in New York, Adolpho
and Rosaria were known as Al and Sadie, naturalized American citizens with
two American-born children, Josephine and Johnnie.
Audio recording
The Museum was fortunate enough to find Josephine Baldizzi – or rather, she
found the Museum. Before she passed away, she shared with us many of her
memories of life in this apartment, and what it was like to “Get By.”
Choose one track of the audio to play:
Josephine hated to see her mother
haggle with the peddlers, but Sadie
would reassure her, “That’s how you
Text of Josephine Baldizzi audio recording
Track 1
I remember sitting around the table in the kitchen under the window and we
gotta do, don’t worry about it.”
Wooden Cheese Box-BALDIZZI
PARLOR
 Cheese boxes were prevalent
during the Great Depression.
 This particular cheese box appears
to have held about 3 pound of
"Sante" cream cheese
manufactured by Sante Foods Inc.
in New York, NY.
 The cheese was most likely
covered with a gauze cloth.
 The box is made out of wooden
joined together by using the tongue
in groove or dove tail joints.
Chamber pot- BALDIZZI PARLOR
 Throughout the 19th and early 20th
centuries, chamber pots were
familiar sites in many American
homes regardless of social status.
 This chamber pot is dated circa
20th century.
 It is made from a ceramic coating
that is fused to a steel form.
 By 1889 law made it illegal to leave
filth in a chamber pot for a lengthy
period time.
 BENEFITS TO A CHAMBER POT
1. It was an alternative to going
outside to an outhouse at night or
in bad weather.
2. To avoid the filth surrounding a
pitiful privy pit.
would – my mother would have made us a fried egg or something on a roll with
butter. And my father would put the ketchup on it. That was a treat every
Saturday. Had to be Saturday or a Sunday, we would sit around and enjoy that
roll with the butter. My mother’d be moving around, always cooking, serving,
doing things, busy as a bee, never sitting down.
The sink is where we washed dishes, where we washed our bodies (Josephine
laughs slightly), and there was a little tub next to it and maybe once a week, my
mother would heat up the water and give us a bath - both of us in one tub. Every
morning she would stand in front of the sink and strip to the waist, and go like
this (scrubbing sound) you know, wash her, scrub herself. And, you know, she
was extra clean, my mother. So that was very important to her, that we would
be just as clean as she was.
And in the kitchen over the sink is a shelf that has Linet Starch, Bon Ami, and
she used to have this pink soap and steel wool…I guess to polish her pots.
Because they called my mother “Shine-em-up Sadie.” She loved to shine her
pots! And the Bon Ami used to go on the windows…it became so dusty all over
you got double work. And the Linet Starch, do I remember Linit Starch, because
it cut my neck and my brother’s neck the way my mother used to starch our
clothes. The shirts and the dresses and her housedresses. Everything! Linens
were starched, stiff, they stood up by themselves (Josephine chuckles slightly).
In the kitchen, at the table, when we weren’t eating, we used to play games. My
father would play cards with us: checkers, Chinese checkers and riddles. He
would write things down, and draw pictures of things, and we had to figure them
out. And that was another way we passed our time. He always made sure we
had things to do. And he taught us how to play all the card games, rummy
and….things like that.
The shelf above the sink, the first shelf, has a gas meter. And if I remember
right, they used to have to put a quarter in there to get the gas and it would heat
up the water. There was like a big tank over the stove that held the water and
there was a little gas jet on the side….it was maybe two feet, you know, and that
would light up and heat the water.
(Josephine laughs) The radio, always playing: Italian music, Italian soap
operas, and my mother crying all the time (chuckles). She used to miss her
family. She left her whole family in Italy, came here as a young girl and she
never saw them again for many, many years later, she never saw her mother or
her father again. (Italian music begins softly. A man sings in Italian. The music
grows louder, then fades out.)
Track 2
(Italian music begins softly, grows louder, fades out before Josephine begins
speaking.)
In the back room, my brother and I slept on a folding bed. And every night, my
mother would open it up, or….or my father, and my brother would sleep in one
end, I slept at another end. And every morning, we’d have to fold it up, cover it
very nicely, put it back against the wall.
The New Deal
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (18821945) was president of the United
States from 1933 – 1945. As
president, he promised Americans,
suffering from the Great Depression, a
“New Deal”. Many of the acts of New
Deal were successful, some
unsuccessful and some controversial
The other thing in that bedroom was a trunk that my brother and I enjoyed
playing with…..when I say playing, I mean standing on top of it and that was our
stage. And I became Claudette Colbert, he became somebody else. Whatever
movie that was out, we were acting, and we would do like a song and dance or
something, whatever was amusing to us.
And sometimes, in the trunk, must have been my mother’s clothing and hats and
whatever, we would take it out and wear it and put them on, high heels, you
know (chuckles) and have a lot of fun. And Rita Bonofiglio, who lived upstairs in
the tenement, she used to come down and play with us, too. We’d be three of
or even declared unconstitutional.
Many Americans who lived through the
Depression felt, and may continue to
feel, passionately about FDR. He has
been both acclaimed as a national
savior and denigrated as a socialist
who sought after too much federal
power. His New Deal did not bring an
end to the Great Depression and it did
not cause rapid change. It did,
however, alter the relationship between
government and big business and it did
cause Americans to expect a certain
amount of government involvement in
their social welfare.
us. And we would fight - I wanted to be Claudette Colbert, she wanted to be
Claudette Colbert. And we had a ball. We just enjoyed that, doing that.
In the back room, there was a shaft, a window facing a shaft and then there
was, across the way, was another window. And back there was the….the
Rosenthals lived there. I can still see Mrs. Rosenthal in the airshaft window,
waving to me, motioning for me to come in and to turn on the lights because it
was the Sabbath, the Jewish holiday, and they weren’t allowed to touch the
electricity. And it made me very proud to have to do that. I used to feel good that
she chose me to do that job for her. And I can still see her till today, the vision of
her in that window. It has never left my memory.
Describe economic hardship in the 1930s and government’s response.
After living on Elizabeth Street in a strong Sicilian community, the Baldizzis
moved to 97 Orchard Street in 1928, when Josephine was 2 and her brother
Jonnie was only 1 year old. They had made the long journey to America hoping
to prosper, but just a year after moving to 97 Orchard Street, the economy
collapsed in the stock market crash of 1929.
Adolpho was a skilled
cabinetmaker whose craft was not in demand during the Depression – he found
himself walking up and down the streets of the Lower East Side with his heavy
toolbox looking for work.
The Museum knows about this apartment from the memories of Josephine
Baldizzi. But despite hard times, her memories of living here are not terrible.
Josephine remembers her parents did everything they could to make sure their
children were fed, clothed, loved, and had fun.
Friends in the building
By 1930, immigration restrictions had depleted the population of the Lower East
Side by 40%, and buildings like 97 were so old and deteriorated, that only about
7 families lived in the whole building, with several apartments totally vacant. 29
But those families stuck together. Raymond Raspissio, who lived just next door,
was Johnnie’s godfather, or gumba. Rose Bonofiglio, upstairs, was Josephine’s
godmother, or guma. But the Raspissios and the Bonofiglios could not have
provided much help to the Baldizzis, since they were all facing the same
challenges.
Neighborhood shopkeepers and peddlers
Many families like the Baldizzis ran tabs at their local stores. Many stores went
out of business when too many customers were unable to pay. Families in need
also bargained aggressively to get the best price. Josephine remembers her
mother Sadie rushing out to the pushcarts under her window on Orchard Street
to first thing in the morning, to get the best goods at the best price.
Landlords
It’s possible that the Baldizzis asked their landlord, Moses Helpern, for
extensions on the rent. But Helpern would have been struggling too, with
depressed rents of around $18 a month, and nearly 2/3 of his apartments
vacant. But given the depressed demand for tenement housing, he might not
have wanted to evict the Baldizzis, for fear he wouldn’t find anyone to replace
them.
Sending more family members to work
Before the Depression, Rosaria worked at home, without earning wages. But
when Adolpho could not find work, Rosaria started working full time at a
garment factory uptown. This was a new experience she shared with married
women across America: according to the 1920 census, only 9% of married,
widowed, or divorced women worked; but in 1930 the percentage was 46.
Unfortunately, her wages were not enough to support the family.
Government
The city’s attitudes and ideas about who was in need and how to help were
radically different than they were in the 1870s. That meant that the Baldizzis
had different resources available to them than Nathalie did. In Nathalie’s day,
the city believed that giving poor people food or fuel would create dependency.
But starting in 1931, with millions of families struggling, the city changed its
mind. New York State started a program called Home Relief, which would give
relief to people in their homes. Rosaria did not have to worry that Josephine
and Johnnie would be taken from her – Home Relief believed that families were
strongest when they stayed together, and tried to help parents to support their
own children.30
But Home Relief was not easy – and it did not solve all the problems of families
in need. To get home relief, the Baldizzis would have gone to a nearby
schoolhouse, probably P.S. 147 at 197 East Broadway to ask for food items
such as cream cheese. The schoolhouse also served as a local Home Relief
precinct office. and waited in a long, long line to be interviewed about their
needs. Then, an investigator would interview recent employers, family, friends,
churches, and other organizations to make sure the family had no other means
of support and that Home Relief was a last resort. Finally, they would come to
this apartment to inspect it, and decide if the family was truly in need, and what
they needed. They would even look into people’s closets to see if they really
needed clothes. 31
This is the kitchen table where the
Baldizzi family would eat all of their
meals each day. This is also where the
children and Adolfo would play games
when the children were not at school.
Josephine had wonderful memories of
the meals eaten and the games played
at this table.
This Home Relief Budget Manual shows how New York State defined its
citizens’ basic needs, the ones it defined was the State’s obligation to meet.
Relief was rarely provided in cash— it mainly consisted of goods, or rent
payments made directly to landlords. But Home Relief rarely provided what the
official documents claimed. Families might get a strange collection of whatever
surplus goods were available that week, rather than a set of goods that directly
met their needs. For instance, Josephine remembers needing shoes for school,
but the home relief box arrived with only a pair of men’s shoes, much too large
for her. She was forced to make do, stuffing newspaper in them so she could
walk, and face the embarrassment of wearing them to school. 32
One of the most common goods provided through home relief was governmentissued cheese, which came in small wooden boxes. Josephine remembers that
her father used the empty boxes to plant morning glories, making something
beautiful out of a symbol of hard times. Children also used the boxes to store
marbles, toys, or other treasures.
Investigators would come back at least once a month to check on the family’s
status. Home Relief was meant to be a temporary measure. The main goal
was to get the family back to work. But once someone in the family was earning
wages, the family lost its home relief benefits. Rosaria got a job in a garment
factory and the family lost its benefits, even though her job was only during
certain seasons, and her wages were not nearly enough to support the family.
Realizing this, Josephine remembers that at one point Rosaria didn’t tell the
inspector about her seasonal work in order to be sure the family didn’t lose its
benefits.33
During the 1930s, there was a growing debate about whether immigrants should
receive relief.
The Baldizzis would have been following this closely.
Interestingly, few people opposed granting “aliens” like the Baldizzi family home
relief. There were complaints of discrimination in practice, though—some local
Home Relief authorities were known to dispense less relief, or late relief, to
people of non-European origin, arguing that they were accustomed to a lower
standard of living. But many immigrants without papers were frightened to
apply for relief, believing they might be deported. In 1934 only 3% of those
applying for relief were non-citizens, only about ¼ of the number of non-citizens
in the population.34
These two images are of the Baldizzis
front room interpreted to the day that
they moved out in 1935. The bed is
taken apart and most of their
possessions are boxed up in order to
transport them to the new tenement
that they were moving into on Eldridge
Street. They were being forced to
move because the landlord did not fire
proof the stairways.
But there was real opposition to non-citizens receiving work relief, or earning
wages through government-created jobs. But 1937, the federal government had
excluded all aliens from the Works Progress Administration, or WPA, the federal
jobs program. Adolpho was very lucky: he got his citizenship in 1937, just in
time, and was working in a WPA job by 1939. The federal government tried
other means to restricting aid to immigrants during the depression. They denied
entry to immigrants who could be considered a “public charge.” The Hoover
administration even started paying indigent immigrants to go back home. It was
not very popular: fewer than 1500 immigrants left from New York.35
The Baldizzis were in some ways the guinea pigs for the nation. New York
State’s Home Relief program, run by Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, was made
a national program, the New Deal, when he became president. 36
Compare access to public assistance in the 1930s with today
This is an inventory list
kept for the stores that
were once located in
front of the tenement.
Pieces of linoleum- RUIN PARLOR
 Invented in 1864 in England by
Fredrick Walton
 Joseph Wild & Co. of New York, a
carpet distributor, bought the patent
rights to linoleum in 1874 and
started a linoleum factory in Staten
Island
 HOW LINOLEUM IS MADE
1. Take pure linseed oil and oxidize
it by air drying it until it becomes
thick and elastic like rubber.
2. Mix the oxidized linseed oil with
ground cork, coloring and other
materials
3. Spread the linseed and cork onto
burlap.
4. Take steam rollers and press the
mixture into the threads of the
burlap.
 BENEFITS TO HAVING
LINOLEUM FLOORS IN THE
HOME
1. It is cheaper than other floor
coverings like marble and ceramic
floors
2. It is low maintenance. "A mild
soap-one free of alkali-with tepid
water is the only cleaning agent
that should ever be employed. The
water should not be hot and the
linoleum should be rinsed with clear
water and dried thoroughly
immediately after it is washed. It is
What support could the Baldizzis receive if they were applying today? Much of
the system on which the Baldizzis relied was taken apart in 1996, through the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The Act
restricted most benefits to US citizens – but left it up to the states to decide for
who they wanted to help and how. New York State made legal immigrants
eligible for most benefits – so if the Baldizzis could prove they came legally, they
would be eligible for help with food, housing, health care, and other benefits.
But getting those benefits could take them several months and a huge amount
of persistence, to complete complicated, long forms and even resist fraud, which
sometimes keep eligible families from receiving benefits to which they are
entitled. In exchange for these benefits, the Baldizzis would work 35 hours per
week. They would only be able to receive assistance for 5 years during their
lifetime.37
The Baldizzis Leaving 97 Orchard Street
In 1935, the Baldizzis would have gotten a knock on their door, or maybe a
letter, from their landlord, Moses Helpern, telling them they were going to be
evicted. A year earlier, the city had raised the minimum standard of living for all
New Yorkers, passing a law requiring that landlords protect their tenants from
fire by installing fireproof hallways. That meant, among other things, that Mr.
Helpern would be faced with replacing the entire wooden staircases with metal
ones. By this point, there were only about 7 families left in Mr. Helpern’s
building who could pay him rent, and two stores who were hardly doing a
booming business in the middle of the Depression. The immigration restrictions
that affected the Baldizzis had all but shut off the flow of newcomers to the
neighborhood – and those who had lived here before moved out to other
neighborhoods around the city. With so little income to cover the cost of the
massive improvements he was legally required to make, Helpern decided
instead to close the building and evict all the residential tenants. He kept the
storefronts open, and continued to collect rent from the store owners, but the
apartments remained closed to residents.
Although this law guaranteed tenants’ safety for generations to come, in the
short run it meant the Baldizzis were suddenly without a home. And there were
few other places in the neighborhood they could afford – hundreds of tenements
were either being boarded up or torn down.
The next room will show what happened to 97 Orchard Street after the Baldizzis
and the rest of the tenants moved out in 1935.
RUIN APARTMENT
Explain why apartment looks as it does today.
The apartments of 97 Orchard Street remained empty from 1935 until 1988,

best to wash an dry about one
square at a time." (catalog, 1918)
3. It was easy to install. "There I
only ideal way to lay linoleum over
concrete or
wood, and that is
to paste it down over a layer of
heavy felt paper and seal the
joints with waterproof cement"
(sales manuals in the early 20th
century).
4. SANITARY FLOOR COVERING!
According to the advertisers, the
oxidation of the linoleum gave off
powerful bactericides like
formaldehyde and formic acid
gases. However, this claim seems
dubious. Though the oxidation does
give off these gases, the trace
amounts would probably have had
little effect against bacteria.
FACTS ABOUT LINOLEUM IN
THE SECOND FLOOR RUIN AT
97 ORCHARD STREET
-The linoleum was NOT properly
installed throughout the apartment.
It looks like it was laid without a felt
liner to adhere to it.
-The linoleum that remains dates to
the 1930's.
- It is speculated that installing the
linoleum by a professional would
have been expensive for the
tenants of 97 Orchard Street.
- Another speculation is that the
tenants did not know or understand
how to install their linoleum
properly.
when the Museum discovered the building and began restoring it. As late as the
mid-1990s, many buildings in this neighborhood had their windows boarded up,
the only life coming from the storefronts below. For more than half a century, in
a city whose scarcest resource is housing, thousands of housing units remained
empty because no system was in place to bring them up to the new standards of
the day.
What is this writing on the wall?
One of the shops downstairs stored merchandise here after the building closed.
The lists record their inventory.
Why did these apartments stay empty for so long?
It did not make financial sense for private landlords. It was over 50 years before
any landlord could hope to recover the investment required to bring these
buildings up to code.
Where did people go who lived here? Where did they live after 97
Orchard?
In 1935, the same year the Baldizzis moved out, a new vision began for how to
provide affordable housing for all New Yorkers. After years of attempting to
improve conditions in existing housing, city planners felt that no amount of
reform could transform tenement living. Tenements should be torn down to
make way for a new type of housing. Instead of leaving tenant’s safety to
potentially unscrupulous landlords and market forces, the government would
step in to maintain housing conditions and ensure affordable rents. In 1935, just
a few blocks north of here, the federal government built First Houses, the first
government housing project in the entire country. These housing projects –
which had indoor plumbing, a bathroom in every apartment, central heating, and
other amenities – became the hope of the next generation. 38
Most families like the Baldizzis could not get into housing projects, since there
were so few units initially. Instead, they had to find space in remaining
tenements. The Balddizis banded together with two other Italian families in the
building, and they all moved a few blocks away to another tenement on Eldridge
Street. After that, the family moved to Brooklyn, where Josephine was living
when the Museum met her.
Bring the story of housing in the neighborhood up to the present.
Allen street was widened in 1931-32
and the elevated rail line was taken
down my 1942
In the ensuing decades, a policy of massive “slum clearance” began, with
hundreds of tenements razed to the ground to make way for these new projects.
When the Baldizzis lived here, Allen Street was one of the most notorious red
light districts in the city, a whole market of underground commerce operating in
the shadow of the elevated train. In the 1930s, city planners decided to
transform it into a grand, airy boulevard, with, they thought, fewer places for vice
and crime to breed. With the El removed, blocks of tenements were torn down
on this side of the street to double Allen Street’s width, creating a place to
promenade and, also important, easing congestion for the growing number of
automobiles. The result was a loss of more housing units, forcing people to
move out of the neighborhood or crowd into the tenements that remained. 39
After World War Two, African Americans from the South and Puerto Ricans
migrated to this area as a central and affordable place to live, waiting on waiting
lists for public housing units or renting remaining tenement apartments. And
after 1965, when immigration restrictions were finally lifted, thousands of
Chinese, Dominican, and others from Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America
filled the neighborhood – but not these apartments. Landlords still could not
hope to recover high enough rents to make the renovations worth it. 40
But today, the tenement is back. With the shift in the structure of New York's
economy towards the professional service sector during the late 1970s and
1980s, the Lower East Side became a "hip" place to live for young middle-class
professionals willing to pay higher rents. 41 The portion of the neighborhood in
which the Museum stands has seen an increase of over 30% in median gross
rent between 1990 and 2000.42
In the late 1980s, tenement rents ranged from $250-$850 for a one bedroom
apartment.43 Today, most are about $1400-$1800 for a one-bedroom. Overall,
they range from $800-$2,000, to up to $3750 for luxury apartments like one with
a modern penthouse constructed on a tenement rooftop.44
Between 1990 and 2000, over 8500 units of housing for very-low income
earners (those who earn less than $35,000) were lost. 45 But some have been
protected by government regulation and the efforts of community organizations.
91 Orchard Street, where the Museum’s offices are, contains rent stabilized and
rent controlled apartments, meaning that there are limits to the amounts rents
can be raised each year. One apartment, occupied by someone who has been
living there since the 1940s, rents for only $110 per month.46 A few blocks down
from there is an example of a formerly dilapidated tenement renovated by a
community organization as high-quality housing for low-income tenants.47
But for many, living in affordable housing means living in conditions that were
outlawed over one hundred years ago. Only since 1953 has state law required
landlords to provide centralized heat. But today, according to New York City’s
Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the majority of
complaints they receive from tenants focus on the lack of heat supplied by
landlords. Just five years ago, a tenement on Eldridge Street burned down, and
thousands of immigrants lost their homes. How did the fire start? The tenants
had no heat and were all using space heaters, which started a fire in a building
that did not provide the legal level of fire safety. 48
On the Lower East Side, many people are happy about some of the
improvements – cleaner streets, less crime, more entertainment and amenities.
On the other hand, many of those same people, who held on through the bad
times, are forced out as the neighborhood improves, since those improvements
raise rents – and encourage new businesses who charge high prices.
These changes in the Lower East Side – and the things that stay the same – are
raising the same questions the residents of 97 Orchard Street faced. Who
should be able to call this neighborhood home, and what should their home look
like? How should we help each other get by?
Supplemental Information in Tenement Encyclopedia
On Broome Street Outside 90 Orchard Street
For more on specific immigrant groups
See “Lower East Side.”
See “Irish Immigration to New York City.”
See “Germans.”
See “Jews/Immigration.”
See “Italians/Immigration.”
See “Chinese /Immigration.”
See “Puerto Ricans/Immigration.”
For more on public housing past and present
See “Public Housing.”
In Front of 96 Orchard Street or on the Stoop of 97 Orchard Street
For more on Lukas Glockner and the Construction of 97 Orchard Street
See “Glockner Family.”
See “97 Orchard Street.”
See “Lower East Side.”
Enter Tenement (Hallway)
For more on housing options in the 1860s
See Housing/Housing Options in the 1860s.”
See “97 Orchard Street.”
See “Lower East Side.”
For more on tenement living conditions in the 19th century
See “Housing/Tenements.”
See “Lower East Side/The Physical Landscape
See “97 Orchard Street.”
For more on tenement housing law
See “Housing/Tenements.”
For more on the Privies at 97 Orchard Street
See “Privies at 97 Orchard Street.”
Gumpertz Apartment
For more on the Gumpertz Family Story
See “Gumpertz Family.”
For more on the Panic of 1873
See “Economic Depressions/Panic of 1873.”
For more on public assistance in the 1870s
See “Public Assistance/The Poorhouse.”
See “Public Assistance/Outdoor Relief.”
For more on the Children’s Law of 1875
See “Public Assistance/Children’s Law of 1875.”
For more on Fraternal and Religious Organizations
See “Landsmanschaftn.”
For more on dressmaking in the 1870s
See “Dressmaking.”
Baldizzi Apartment
For more on the 1901 Tenement House Act
See “Housing/Tenements.”
For more on the Baldizzi Family Story
See “Baldizzi Family.”
For more on Immigration after 1924
See “Immigration/Johnson-Reed Act of 1924.”
See “Immigration/Immigration Since 1924.”
For more on the Great Depression
See “Economic Depressions/Great Depression (1930s).”
For more on Home Relief
See “Public Assistance/Home Relief.”
See “Public Assistance/Child Saving.”
For more on the New Deal
See “Public Assistance/New Deal.”
For more on public charge policy
See “Immigration/Public Charge Policy.”
For more on Voluntary Repatriation
See “Immigration/Voluntary Repatriation Policy.”
For more on Contemporary Welfare Policy
See “Public Assistance/Contemporary Welfare Policy.”
Ruin Apartment
For more on 97 Orchard Street in 1935
See “97 Orchard Street.”
For more on First Houses and the history of Public Housing
See “Housing/Public Housing.”
For more on slum clearance and urban renewal
See “Lower East Side/Continuity and Change Following World War II.”
For more on Puerto Rican immigration
See “Puerto Ricans/Immigration.”
For more on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
See “Immigration/Immigration and Nationality Act amendments—1965 and on.”
For more on gentrification
See “Housing/Gentrification.”
1
2000 U.S. Census; New York City Housing and Neighborhood Information Systems, www.nychanis.com.
New York City Housing and Neighborhood Information Systems, www.nychanis.com; Two Bridges
Neighborhood Council, “‘A Divided Community’: A Study of the Gentrification of the Lower East Side
Community, New York.” (2004).
3
Nancy Foner, ed., New Immigrants in New York, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001); Peter
Kwong, Forbidden Workers: Illegal Chinese Immigrants and American Labor (New York: The New Press, 1997);
Peter Kwong, The New Chinatown (New York: Hill and Wang, 1987).
4
Recent Real Estate Listings from the New York Times.
5
New York City Housing Authority, www.nyc.gov/html/nycha.
6
New York City Housing Authority, www.nyc.gov/html/nycha; The Great Gridlock,
www.greatgridlock.net/NYC/nyc.html.
7
Asian Americans for Equality, www.aafe.org.
8
Asian Americans for Equality, www.aafe.org.
9
Andrew Dolkart, The Biography of a Lower East Side Tenement: 97 Orchard Street, Tenement Design, and
Tenement Reform in New York City (2001).
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Andrew Dolkart, The Biography of a Tenement: 97 Orchard Street, Tenement Design, and Tenement Reform in
New York City (2001); Joan Geismar, The 97 Orchard Street Block and Lot—An Archaeological Perspective (1991);
Richard Plunz, A History of Housing in New York City: Dwelling Type and Social Change in the American
Metropolis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).
14
Andrew Dolkart, The Biography of a Tenement: 97 Orchard Street, Tenement Design, and Tenement Reform in
New York City (2001).
15
Andrew Dolkart, The Biography of a Tenement: 97 Orchard Street, Tenement Design, and Tenement Reform in
New York City (2001); Richard Plunz, A History of Housing in New York Cit: Dwelling Type and Social Change in
the American Metropolis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).
16
Andrew Dolkart, The Biography of a Tenement: 97 Orchard Street, Tenement Design, and Tenement Reform in
New York City (2001).
17
John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Rutgers University Press, 1955).
18
American Social History Project, Who Built America: Working People & the Nation’s Economy, Politics, Culture
& Society (New York: Pantheon Books, 1989).
19
Michael Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York: Basic Books,
1986).
20
Andrew Dolkart, The Biography of a Tenement: 97 Orchard Street, Tenement Design, and Tenement Reform in
New York City (2001).
21
Ibid.
22
Andrew Dolkart, The Biography of a Tenement: 97 Orchard Street, Tenement Design, and Tenement Reform in
New York City (2001); Tenement House Department of New York City Housing Survey, 1903.
23
Andrew Dolkart, Biography of a Tenement: 97 Orchard Street, Tenement Design, and Tenement Reform in New
York City (2001).
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Frederick Binders and David Reimers, All the Nations Under Heaven: An Ethnic and Racial History of New York
City (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995); John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American
Nativism, 1860-1925 (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1955).
2
28
John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Rutgers University Press, 1955).
29
Suzanne Wasserman, “The Good Old Days of Poverty: The Battle over the Fate of New York City’s Lower East
Side During the Depression,” (Ph.D. Dissertation: Department of History, New York University, 1990).
30
Michael Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in American (New York: Basic
Books, 1986).
31
Michael Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York: Basic Books,
1986); New York State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, “Budget Manual: The Family Budget as a
Basis for Home Relief,” November 1, 1935; New York State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, “Rules
Governing Home and Work Relief,” November , 1934; “List of Home Relief Bureau Stations,” New York Times
(December 28, 1931); Studs Terkel, Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression (New York: The New
Press, 1986); Suzanne Wasserman, “The Good Old Days of Poverty: The Battle over The Fare of New York City’s
Lower East Side During the Depression,” (Ph.D. Dissertation: Department of History, New York University, 1990).
32
New York State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, “Budget Manual: The Family Budget as a Basis
for Home Relief,” November 1, 1935; New York State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, “Rules
Governing Home and Work Relief,” November , 1934; Suzanne Wasserman, “The Good Old Days of Poverty: The
Battle over The Fare of New York City’s Lower East Side During the Depression,” (Ph.D. Dissertation: Department
of History, New York University, 1990); Testimony of Deacon Hopper, April 2004.
33
New York State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, “Budget Manual: The Family Budget as a Basis
for Home Relief,” November 1, 1935; New York State Temporary Emergency Relief Administration, “Rules
Governing Home and Work Relief,” November , 1934; Suzanne Wasserman, “The Good Old Days of Poverty: The
Battle over The Fare of New York City’s Lower East Side During the Depression,” (Ph.D. Dissertation: Department
of History, New York University, 1990).
34
Mary Anne Thatcher, Immigrants and the 1930s: Ethnicity and Alienage in Depression and Oncoming War (New
York: Garland, 1990).
35
Ibid.
36
William W. Bremer, Depression Winters: New York Social Workers and the New Deal (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1984); Michael Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America
(New York: Basic Books, 1986).
37
Steven Bingham, “Workfare or Wage Slavery,” Guild Practitioner vol 54, Iss. 2 *April 30, 1997); David W.
Chen, “U.S. Seeks Cuts in Housing Aid to Urban Poor,” New York Times, September 22, 2004; LyNell Hancock,
Hands to Work: The Stories of Three Families Racing the Welfare Clock (New York: Morrow, 2002); Delores
Jones-Brown and Jacqueline Mahoney, “Work First and Forget About Education: New York City’s Personal
Responsibility Act and the Creation of a Working Underclass,” Social Justice vol. 28, Iss. 4 (Winter 2001); Dorie
Seavy, “New Federal Welfare Policy: Getting to the Big Picture,” Peacework Iss. 270 (Jan., 1997); Anonymous,
“Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Reauthorization,” Social Justice vol. 30, Iss. 4 (2003).
38
Richard Plunz, A History of Housing in New York City: Dwelling Type and Social Change in the American
Metropolis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990); “‘First Houses’ Open, Roosevelt Hails New Slum
Policy,” New York Times, December 4, 1935.
39
Christopher Mele, Selling the Lower East Side: Culture, Real Estate, and Resistance in New York City
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000); Max Page, The Creative Destruction of Manhattan, 1900-1940
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998); Richard Plunz, A History of Housing in New York City: Dwelling
Type and Social Change in the American Metropolis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).
40
Frederick Binders and David Reimers, All the Nations Under Heaven: An Ethnic and Racial History of New York
City (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995); Christopher Mele, Selling the Lower East Side: Culture, Real
Estate, and Resistance in New York City (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000).
41
Christopher Mele, Selling the Lower East Side: Culture, Real Estate, and Resistance in New York City
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000).
42
Two Bridges Neighborhood Council, “‘A Divided Community’: A Study of Gentrification of the Lower East Side
Community, New York.” (2004).
43
Janet L Abu-Lughod, ed., From Urban Village to East Village: The Battle for New York’s Lower East Side
(Cambridge: Blackwell, 1994).
44
Two Bridges Neighborhood Council, “‘A Divided Community’: A Study of Gentrification of the Lower East Side
Community, New York.” (2004); Recent New York Times Real Estate Listings.
45
Two Bridges Neighborhood Council, “‘A Divided Community’: A Study of Gentrification of the Lower East Side
Community, New York.” (2004).
46
Conversation with Harry Schwartzman, PR & Marketing Associate, Lower East Side Tenement Museum (Spring
2004).
47
Asian Americans for Equality, www.aafe.org.
48
Asian Americans for Equality, www.aafe.org.