No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 July 2018
This article examines contests over improving the municipal waterfront in New York during the Gilded Age, and it uncovers the hidden history of Thirteenth Avenue. To maintain its commercial prominence and competitive edge, New York established the Department of Docks in 1870, granting it the authority to manage maritime trade and oversee the redesign and modernization of the city's wharves and piers. Debates about how a modern industrial and commercial waterfront should look centered on new ideas about the aesthetic economy of cities. Business and civic leaders believed that the beauty of the built environment could be leveraged as an asset to attract commerce and industrial investment. But these debates about improving the industrial waterfront ultimately pitted business interests against maritime labor and local manufacturers. Thirteenth Avenue was a small-scale industrial district on the far edge of Greenwich Village that stood in the way of the lucrative transatlantic steamship trade. Siding with mercantile interests over those of small manufacturers, the city condemned Thirteenth Avenue in the 1890s and reclaimed it for the Hudson River to make way for the Chelsea Piers. These elaborate Beaux-Arts piers served as an aesthetic frame for New York City, but they also reflected the unequal dynamics of municipal planning and politics at the turn of the twentieth century.
1 Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1871), 10.
2 New York Times, Apr. 12, 1870, 4.
3 The edited volume The New York Waterfront includes several valuable essays on the Department of Docks that accompanied a 1994 exhibition of the same name (co-authors include Kevin Bone, Mary Beth Betts, Eugenia Bone, Gina Pollara, Donald Squires, Michael Z. Wise, and Wilbur Woods). Bone, Kevin, ed., The New York Waterfront: Evolution and Building Culture of the Port of New York (New York: Monacelli Press, 1997)Google Scholar.
4 Annual Report of the Art Commission of the City of New York (1914–16), 19–20. See also Art Commission of New York Papers, Design Commission Archives (hereinafter ACNY Papers).
5 See Boyer, Paul, Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820–1920 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Bender, Thomas, Toward an Urban Vision: Ideas and Institutions in Nineteenth-Century America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Boyer, Christine, Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of City Planning (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Peterson, Jon A., “The City Beautiful Movement: Forgotten Origins and Lost Meanings” in Krueckeberg, Donald A., Introduction to Planning History in the United States (New Brunswick, NJ: The Center for Public Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1983), 40–57Google Scholar; Wilson, William H., The City Beautiful Movement (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Gilmartin, Gregory, Shaping the City: New York and the Municipal Art Society (New York: Clarkson Potter, 1995)Google Scholar.
6 Scobey, David M., Empire City: The Making of the New York City Landscape (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002)Google Scholar. See also Stilgoe, John, “Moulding the Industrial Zone Aesthetic: 1880–1929,” Journal of American Studies 16:1 (Apr. 1982): 5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 For histories of New York's waterfront, see Condit, Carl, The Port of New York (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Buttenwieser, Ann L., Manhattan Water-Bound: Manhattan's Waterfront from the Seventeenth Century to the Present (New York: New York University Press, 1987; reprint, Syracuse University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Doig, Jameson, Empire on the Hudson: Entrepreneurial Vision and Political Power at the Port of New York Authority (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Steinberg, Ted, Gotham Unbound: The Ecological History of Greater New York (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014)Google Scholar. Early histories of the Port of New York include Albion, Robert G. and Pope, Jennie B., The Rise of New York Port, 1815–1860 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1939)Google Scholar; Writers’ Program of the Work Projects Administration of the State of New York, A Maritime History of New York (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran and Co., 1941; reprint, Brooklyn, NY: Going Coastal, 2004)Google Scholar; Griffin, John I, The Port of New York (New York: Arco, 1959)Google Scholar. For planning and architectural histories of early port development, see Konvitz, Josef W., Cities and the Sea: Port City Planning in Early modern Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Jackson, Gordon, The History and Archaeology of Ports (Kingswood, Tadworth, Surrey, UK: World's Work Limited, The Windmill Press, 1983)Google Scholar.
8 For histories of the impact of industrialization on port development see Carl W. Condit, The Port of New York, V. II; Konvitz, Josef W., “The Crises of Atlantic Port Cities, 1880–1920,” Comparative Studies in Society and History: An International Quarterly 36:2 (1994): 293–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rawson, Michael, “What Lies Beneath: Science, Nature, and the Making of Boston Harbor” Journal of Urban History 35:5 (July 2005): 675–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joshua Salzmann, “Safe Harbor: Chicago's Waterfront and the Political Economy of the Built Environment, 1847–1918,” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Chicago, 2008; Salzmann, , “The Creative Destruction of the Chicago River Harbor: Spatial and Environmental Dimensions of Industrial Capitalism, 1881–1909,” Enterprise and Society 13:2 (June 2012): 235–75Google Scholar.
9 Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1870).
10 For urban and planning histories that date the planning movement to the 1890s and early twentieth century, see Scott, Mel, American City Planning Since 1890 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Robert L. Wrigley, “The Plan of Chicago” in Krueckeberg, Introduction to Planning History, 58–72; Hall, Peter, Urban and Regional Planning, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 1992)Google Scholar; Smith, Carl, The Plan of Chicago: Daniel Burnham and the Making of the American City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 See Jon Peterson, “The Impact of Sanitary Reform upon American Urban Planning, 1840–1890” in Krueckeberg, Introduction to Planning, 13–39; Schuyler, David, The New Urban Landscape: The Redefinition of City Form in Nineteenth-Century America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Hammack, David, “Comprehensive Planning before the Comprehensive Plan: A New Look at the Nineteenth-Century American City” in Schaffer, Daniels, Two Centuries of American Planning (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Schultz, Stanley K., Constructing Urban Culture: American Cities and City Planning, 1800–1920 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Sies, Mary Corbin and Silver, Christopher, eds., Planning the Twentieth-Century City (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.
12 Zipp, Samuel, Manhattan Projects: The Rise and Fall of Urban Renewal in Cold War New York (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Klemek, Christopher, The Transatlantic Collapse of Urban Renewal” Postwar Urbanism from New York to Berlin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011)Google Scholar; See also special collection of essays in the Journal of Urban History by Zipp, Samuel, Carrier, Michael, Rowan, Jamin Creed, and Heck, Jennifer, Journal of Urban History 39:3 (May 2013): 359–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1871), 37–43.
14 Chapter 137, Article 14, 99, “Of the Department of Docks” Laws of the State of New York, Passed by the Ninety-Third Session of the Legislature, Begun January Fourth, and ended April Twenty-Sixth, 1870, vol. I (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company, 1870)Google Scholar.
15 Chapter 137, Laws of the State of New York, Passed by the Ninety-Third Session of the Legislature, Begun January Fourth, and ended April Twenty-Sixth, 1870, vol. I (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company, 1870)Google Scholar.
16 Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1875), 10–11; ibid. 37–40.
17 Chapter 197 Laws of the State of New York, Passed by the Ninety-Third Session of the Legislature, Begun January Fourth, and ended April Twenty-Sixth, 1870, vol. I (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company, 1870)Google Scholar. See also Bender, Toward an Urban Vision; Rosenzweig, Roy and Blackmar, Elizabeth, The Park and the People: A History of Central Park (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Trask, Jeffrey, Things American: Art Museums and Civic Culture in the Progressive Era (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Scobey, Empire City, 76–77.
19 For history of port development in Britain, see Konvitz, Cities and the Sea.
20 Report of the Committee on Wharves, Relative to the Erection of a Great Pier on the North River Document No. 80, NYC Board of Aldermen, Committee on Wharves (New York: William Townsend, 1836); “Our City Wharves,” New York Times, Jan. 2, 1870.
21 New York Times, Apr. 12,1970, 4.
22 Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1871), 43. See also Bone, New York Waterfront, 112–21.
23 Of the 44 completed piers between the Battery and West 11th Street in 1878, 14 were leased by railroad companies, 11 by steamship companies, 1 by a ferry company, and 19 were either leased or shared by individuals or small commercial and business entities. North of 11th Street on what was Thirteenth Avenue, there were no railroad or steamship company leases; 22 individuals or small commercial entities held leases on piers and along bulkheads on Thirteenth Avenue. Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1878), 58–68.
24 Between 1837 and 1857, riparian landowners purchased water lots from the city and filled them in to create Thirteenth Avenue. In 1857, the NY State Commission on Encroachments recommended discontinuing the process of granting water lots and filling. Chapter 182, Laws of the State of New York, Passed by the Sixtieth Session of the Legislature, Begun the Third day of January, 1837 (Albany, NY: E. Croswell, 1837)Google Scholar; Report of the Commissioners Relative to Encroachments in the Harbor of New-York, Report in the Senate no. 40 (Albany, NY: C. Van Benthuysen, 1857), 53–54Google Scholar; Steinberg, Gotham Unbound, 80.
25 Insurance maps: Atlas of the City Of New York (New York: G. W. Bromley, 1879)Google Scholar, plates 10–11; Atlas of the 16th, 18th, 20th & 21st Wards, City of New York (New York: E. Robinson, 1880)Google Scholar; Robinson's Atlas of the City of New York (New York: E. Robinson, 1885)Google Scholar, plates 10–11; Atlas of the City of New York (New York: G. W. Bromley, 1891)Google Scholar, plates 10 and 13; Atlas of the City of New York (New York: G. W. Bromley, 1899)Google Scholar, 2:sec. 3.
26 Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1879), 11–17.
27 “The Waterfront and Docks” (Dec. 26, 1882) William Grace Papers B1298F25, Municipal Archives of the City of New York (hereinafter MACNY), 8.
28 Rosenzweig and Blackmar, The Park and the People, 59–91.
29 Minutes, Conference of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund with The Counsel to the Corporation; Mayor Abraham Hewitt; Mr. James C. Carter, Special Counsel, the Dock Commissioners of the City of New York, and Mr. Simon Stevens, Representing Private Owners, Nov. 23, 1888, Simon Stevens Papers, New York City Waterfront Improvement Collection, New-York Historical Society (hereinafter Simon Stevens Papers, N-YHS).
30 Rosenzweig and Blackmar, Park and the People, see chap. 3.
31 Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1888), 3–5; The 1889 Mullaney Dock Bill was pushed by advocates for public access to piers. See “Resolution Opposing the Passage of Senate Bill No. 594, Hugh Grant Papers (B1382 F45), MANYC.”
32 West Side Central Association Circular against Westside Plan, date damaged. Signed by C. B. Dean, Jr., and C. B. Lawton. Meeting held in real estate offices of E. L. & B. S. Burnham (16 8th Ave). Franklin Edson Papers (B1312 F29), MANYC.
33 For the history of filling land in New York and elsewhere, see Buttenwieser, Manhattan Water-Bound; Steinberg, Gotham Unbound; Cantwell, Anne-Marie and Wall, Diana diZerega, Unearthing Gotham: The Archaeology of New York City (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Rawson, “What Lies Beneath”; Seasholes, Nancy S., Gaining Ground: A History of Landmaking in Boston (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2003)Google Scholar.
34 Teaford, Jon, The Municipal Revolution in America: Origins of Modern Urban Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Hartog, Hendrik, Public Property and Private Power: The Corporation of the City of New York in American Law, 1730–1870 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983), 45–53Google Scholar; Stanley K. Schultz, Constructing Urban Culture, 3–42; Reports of the New York Harbor Commission, of 1856 and 1857 (Republished by Order of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, NY: C.S. Westcott & Co, 1864)Google Scholar; Laws of 1870, chap. 137.
35 Hendrik Hartog argues that New York's 1811 grid was predicated upon the idea that the city could take possession of land for public streets, though the legal process would not yet be called “eminent domain.” Stanley Schultz explains that courts first started using the term in the 1820s and ‘30s. Hartog, Public Property and Private Power, 175; Schultz, Constructing Urban Culture, 35.
36 Rosenzweig and Blackmar, Park and the People, 65–78.
37 Deposition, William Haws, January 18, 1897, Condemnation Proceeding #45-1896, Division of Old Records, New York City Municipal Archives. (hereinafter cited as Condemnation Records, NYC); Deposition, John Harsen Rhoades, November 20, 1896, #45-1896, Condemnation Records, NYC. See also Rosenzweig and Blackmar, Park and the People, 81–91.
38 “A Very Peculiar Avenue,” New York Times, Nov. 11, 1883, 12; New York Times, May 9, 1886.
39 See descriptions of buildings and the landscape in depositions taken during condemnation hearings. Condemnation Records, NYC.
40 “A Very Peculiar Avenue,” New York Times, 12.
41 New York Times, Mar. 10, 1878; New York Times, Mar. 11, 1878.
42 New York Times, Dec. 25, 1897.
43 New York Times, May 9, 1886.
44 John B. Snook deposition, Nov. 22, 1895; David Brown deposition, Dec. 4, 1895, 40-1895, Condemnation Records, NYC.
45 The Campbell lot was owned by Emily Johnston de Forest, daughter of Metropolitan Museum President John T. Johnston and wife of railroad lawyer and social reformer Robert de Forest. 47-1896, Condemnation Records, NYC.
46 1-1901, 46-1896, Condemnation Records, NYC.
47 Hoffmann also owned the block between Jane and Horatio Streets, and family members owned other property on Thirteenth Avenue. 7-1895, 40-1895, 46-1896, Condemnation Records, NYC.
48 7-1895, Condemnation Records, NYC.
49 45-1896, Condemnation Records, NYC.
50 John Harsen Rhoades deposition, Nov. 20, 1896, 45-1896, Condemnation Records, NYC.
51 Insurance maps provide evidence of changes to Thirteenth Avenue as lumber yards moved out. Atlas of the City of New York (New York: G. W. Bromley, 1879)Google Scholar, plates 10–11; Atlas of the 16th, 18th, 20th, & 21st Wards, City of New York (New York: E. Robinson, 1880)Google Scholar; Robinson's Atlas of the City of New York (New York: E. Robinson, 1885)Google Scholar, plates 10–11; Atlas of the City of New York (New York: G. W. Bromley, 1891)Google Scholar, plates 10 and 13; Atlas of the City of New York (New York: G. W. Bromley, 1899)Google Scholar, 2:sec. 3.
52 West Side Central Association Circular against Westside Plan, Mar. 9, 1889, Signed by C. B. Lawton. Hugh Grant papers, B1382 F45, MANYC.
53 The Senate bill stalled because of amendments attached by Assembly representatives. “The Dock Bill at Albany,” New York Times, May 10, 1886, 4. See also “Produce Men Idle All Week,” New York Times, May, 9, 1886, 16; “Three Times One Are Three,” New York Tribune, Mar. 12, 1891, 4.
54 Hot Shot for the Dock Bill,” New York Tribune, Mar. 26, 1888, 2.
55 Sinking Fund Conference Minutes, Simon Stevens Paper, N-YHS.
56 Simon Stevens Papers, N-YHS.
57 Simon Stevens to Abraham Hewitt, Jan. 16, 1888, Simon Stevens Papers, N-YHS.
58 Ibid.
59 Stevens to Grant, Apr. 2 1889, Grant Papers, MACNYC.
60 Laws of the State of New York, Passed at the One Hundred and fifteenth Session of the Legislature, Begun January fifth, 1892, and Ended April Twenty-First, 1892, in the City of Albany I (Albany, NY: Banks & Brothers, 1892)Google Scholar.
61 Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1892), 121.
62 See Condemnation Records.
63 “A New and Great Work for the City,” New York Times Dec. 27, 1908, SM3.
64 Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1906), 225; Ibid (1909), 271–72.
65 The Papers of the Art Commission of New York include submission files for every pier and public building that the Art Commission oversaw, as well as many of the blueprints originally submitted with them. ACNY Papers.
66 Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1909), 273.
67 Submission Reports 484, 501, 522, 547, 594, 745, 2633, Chelsea Piers—Series 236, ACNY Papers.
68 New York Times, Dec. 27, 1908, SM3.
69 “New Chelsea Piers Open Tomorrow,” New York Times, Feb. 20, 1910, C6.
70 The International Mercantile Marine Company held leases for Piers 58-62 (occupied by the American Line, the Atlantic Transport Line, The White Star Line and the Red Star—or “Belgian-American” Line), while the Cunard Line leased Piers 53, 54, and 56, and the Compagnie Generale Transatlantique leased Pier 57; ferry and railroad companies also had access to the north side of Pier 62. Dock Commissioner to W. Taylor Phillips, Secretary of the Sinking Fund, June 15, 1906, George McClellan Papers (B23 F258), MANYC.
71 Ibid; Saliers, Earl A., “Some Financial Aspects of the International Mercantile Marine Company,” Journal of Political Economy 23:9 (Nov. 1915): 910–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
72 See notes 6, 10, and 11.
73 ACNY Papers.
74 Warner, Sam Bass, Streetcar Suburbs: The Process of Growth in Boston, 1870–1900 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Warner, , The Private City: Philadelphia in Three Periods of Growth (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Hammack, David, Power and Society: Greater New York at the Turn of the Century (New York: Russell Sage, 1982)Google Scholar; Teaford, Jon, The Unheralded Triumph: City Government in America, 1870–1900 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Beckert, Sven, The Monied Metropolis: New York City and Consolidation of the American Bourgeoisie, 1850–1896 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kessner, Capital City.
75 Zipp, Manhattan Projects; Klemek, Transatlantic Collapse; Zipp et.al., Journal of Urban History.
76 Gilmartin, Shaping the City, 207–10.
77 “No Chelsea Improvement,” New York Times, Aug. 17, 1902, 10.
78 “No Piers Here for New Atlantic Giants,” New York Times, Oct. 28, 1910, 5.
79 Annual Report of the Department of Docks (1910), 5.
80 Doig, Empire on the Hudson.