hewes lyman terrace
TRANSCRIPT
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 1/18
Lyman Terrace: A Small Housing ProjectAuthor(s): Amy HewesReviewed work(s):Source: Social Service Review, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Mar., 1942), pp. 86-102Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30013828 .
Accessed: 22/02/2012 11:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social
Service Review.
http://www.jstor.org
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 2/18
LYMAN TERRACE: A SMALL HOUSING PROJECT'
AMY HEWES
A T HOLYOKE,MASSACHUSETTS,he ConnecticutRiver
sweepsfirst east and then west, in a great bow, nearlyen-
circlingthe city on its west bank. The land within this arc
rises to heights which commanda panoramaof the countrysidein
three naturalterraces. The waterof the river, mprisonedby the big
dam,is drawnoff in canalsat three levels andfinallyreturned o theriver at South Holyoke, after it has furnishedpowerfor the manymills and factorieswhich line the banks of the canals.
The visitorwho drives fromthe southalongRoute 202, just before
crossing he third-levelcanalat LymanStreet,willpass on his rightan attractivecolonyof two-storybrickhouses n terracedrows. Each
house has a separate front and back entrance and each a small,
sodded,frontyard,some of which areplantedwith juniperandother
evergreens.The visitormay look into the centralspacewhich serves
as the children'splayground,nearlyshut off fromthe street by thehouses. This settlement is Lyman Terrace Project, an importantfirststep in the solutionof the housingproblemswhichformorethan
eighty years have vexed Holyoke.These problems,as old as the city itself, beganwhen the Hadley
Falls Companywas formed,in 1847, to promotethe establishment
of mills andfactories orutilizationof the waterpowerofferedby the
site. Whenthe LymanCottonMills werebuilt,in 1854,between the
two canalsbelowwhatis nowtheproject,
t wasnecessary
oprovidehousesnear the mills for the workpeople to live in. The promotion
company,anticipatingthe growthof a great textile city, took care
that the near-by housingsites werebuilt uponwith no waste space.Hence, solid rows of brick tenements-as close together as though
IAstudymadeby the following tudents n statisticsat MountHolyokeCollege n
co-operationwiththe HolyokeHousingAuthority:ElizabethBarrows,MildredDunn,MargeryFarrington,FrancesFrazer,NathenaFuller,WinifredHobson,LoisJenkins,Jean Johansen, Celia Kaler, Kathryn Kimble, GertrudeNatusch, and ElizabethPlatou.
86
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 3/18
LYMANTERRACE:A SMALLHOUSINGPROJECT 87
they were surroundedby a dense urbanareainstead of a spreadingunsettled river valley-were put up where the new houses now
stand."The houses were structurallygood, and, although they longago failed to meet latter-day standards,they withstoodthe wearof
time for nearly eighty years. They were finally taken down in the
slum-clearance program of 1939-40. The bricks were saved for the
new houses,and their attractive color and texturegive character o
the presentLyman Terrace.
Since its early days, Holyoke has struggledto get enoughhouses
built, and its authoritieshave deplored he insanitaryconditions n
whichmany of the peoplehave been forced to live. As long ago as
1855,it was reported hat 778families ived in only 514houses. Thefollowingyearthe Boardof Healthfoundthat manyfamilies ived in
dark,dampcellars.3As the city grew,conditionsbecamemoregrave.
High death andmorbidityrateswere attributedto insanitary iving,but housingwas not yet recognizedas a public responsibility.Civic
organizationsmade surveys and comparedHolyoke unfavorablywith other cities, in the numberof personsperdwelling,andpointedout the high infant mortality and poorhousingin WardsI, II, andIV.4
The depressionyears of the thirties increased the difficulty of
housingproblemsbut ushered n a programof publichousingmade
possibleby the United States HousingAct of 1937. Massachusetts
was one of the thirty-eight states which by the end of 1939 had
passedlaws enablingtheir cities to set up local housingauthorities.In the springof 1938the Holyokeboardof aldermenbeganthe con-sideration of a public housingproject. This seemeda dangerouslyradicalstep to someof the city's taxpayers,who voicedvigorousop-
position. Government, t seemed to them, might appropriately ur-nish such services as schools, fire protection,or electric light, buthousesshouldbe put up by private constructioncompanies. On theother hand, it was arguedthat houses are as necessaryto satisfac-
tory living as schools, and private constructioncompaniesdid not
and couldnot providestandardhouses to rent at figures ow enough2 ConstanceMcLaughlin Green,Holyoke,Massachusetts: Case History of the
Industrial Revolutionin America (New Haven, 1939), P. 40.
3 Ibid.,pp. 41, 43. 4 Ibid., p. 283.
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 4/18
88 AMY HEWES
to make them available for many of the city's workers. The need
became very clear when the Holyoke Housing Authority, set up
in April, 1938, reported, after a survey, that twenty-eight hun-dred of the city's dwellingswere substandard. This situation, in
the eyes of the Authority,justifieda programof publichousing,and
it was decided to embarkupon the Lyman TerraceProject, made
possible by a contract with the United States Housing Authority,
signed February11, 1939. According o the terms of this contract,the federalgovernmentwas to furnish90 per cent of the cost of the
project, estimatedat $i,8oo,ooo, and in additionmake annual con-
tributions n orderthat rentsmightbe low enoughfortenants in the
lowest-incomegroup.The site decideduponwas the areaboundedby Front,John, High,
andLymanstreets, then still occupiedby the old LymanMills com-
pany houses. These properties,which had passed to the Whiting
Paper Company, were bought from it by the city for $114,500. The
Holyoke Housing Authoritywill financeits share of the expensebya fifteen-yearbondissue at 3 per cent, and the city agreedto waivetaxes forsixty years. It was estimatedthat $37,448wouldbe needed
annuallyfor maintenanceand debt service. Rents were set so as to
yield this figure,but also with reference o the main object of the
undertaking,namely, to make standard houses available to low-
incomegroups.The Project, in freeingits tenants from the hazardsof the slums,
has offereda safe and healthy environment. The amount of spaceand the numberof convenienceswerenecessarily imited in order to
keep buildingcosts at a minimum. The aim was to secure the bestaccommodationswhichpeoplewith lowlevelsof income couldaffordto live in.
It is the purposeof this study to report the ways in which the
HolyokeHousingAuthorityset up a communityof men,women,and
children n the new houses and to consider he Projectin relation to
the city's urgenthousingneeds. The informationpresented s takenfromthe recordsof the HousingAuthority, mainlyfrom the applica-tion forms of those who wished to live at Lyman Terrace. Theseformsgive descriptionsof housingconditionsof the familiesat timeof applicationand statementsof sizeandmakeupof families,costs of
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 5/18
LYMANTERRACE:A SMALLHOUSINGPROJECT 89
rent, heat, and utilities, and familyincomes. Data were also drawnfromscoresheetsof the substandardhousingconditionsof the appli-
cants and from the ManagementResolution,whichforms the basisfor the administrationof the plan.
WHO WANTED TO COME AND HOW THEY WERE SELECTED
There weremany morefamilies anxious to move into the Projectthan Lyman Terrace could hold. Only I67 of the 795 applicationsreceived by the Housing Authority could be accepted. Althoughmany applicantsliving in substandardhouses were necessarilyre-
jected, those selectedall caine fromhomes in which the living con-
ditions were "unsafe, unsanitary,overcrowded,or detrimental tohealth or morals.''sThe locations of the formerhomes of the tenants were widely
spreadover the city, with representationn each of the seven wards.The largemajority,however,werein WardsI, II, andIV. The Proj-ect itself is in WardIV, and, in comingto live in it, many familiesmoved fromhomesonly a few blocksaway. Somehadlivedin houseswhich stood on the actual site of the Project.
Three principal qualifications were considered in determining
whichof the applicantsshouldbe accepted. The firstwas residencein the houseswhich had been torn down to make room for the Proj-ect. A specialclaimwas recognizedas belongingto the familieswhohad been put out of their homes for the new building operations.Only five of these, however, were able to avail themselves of thechoice thus given them. It has often been noted that slum-clearance
projectsfrequentlyresultin no advantageto those whose homesare
replacedby model houses, because the latter are so expensivethatthe displacedfamilies must find other inadequateor even worse ac-
commodations.In this instance it was thought that the reasonwhyso few becameProject tenants was not so muchthe increase n rentbut the fact that, when the first move was made, "doubledup"familiesseparated. Frequentlythese were a combinationof the par-ent-generation whoactuallyhad the claim to the Project)and mar-ried children who wished to set up housekeepingfor themselves.When they moved away they found new homes in all parts of the
5Management Resolution, Holyoke Housing Authority, Sec. 3.o8(a).
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 6/18
90 AMY HEWES
city, but for the mostpartthey wereforcedto reside n themore con-
gested areasfromwhichmany of the Project tenants came.
The second considerationwhich might make other applicantseligiblewas the kindof housesthey wereoccupying. Familieslivingunder the worst conditions were given preference over others.
Among the conditionsjudged most seriouswere unsafe buildings,lack of bath or privateinsidetoilet or ones unfitforuse, roomswithno outsidewindows,unsafeheatingor cookingarrangements,ackof
runningwater,andovercrowding.Sizeof the familyincomewas thethird factor in selectingtenants.
Theparticularcircumstances f eachfamilywerealwayscarefully
consideredbefore acceptingor rejectingit. For example,a familyconsistingof two womenand a little girl, who might not otherwisehave beengivenpreference,was admitted to the Projectbecause theolder womanwas paralyzedand the youngeran invalid, and their
inability to climb stairs had made them virtual prisonerson thefourthfloorof their walk-uptenement.
SPACE FOR CHILDREN
Children,whomsomeof the landlordswillnot accept,arewelcome
at Lyman Terrace,wherethey have healthyhomesin which to growup and a safeplaceforoutdoorplay. To insurethe use of the Projectby children,families of more than three persons are not acceptedunless there are children. In families of four there must be at leastone child; in familiesof five, at least two; and in families of six or
more,three. Furthermore, he Projecthomesareopenonly to such
groupsas aregenuinefamilies-either parentswith dependentchil-dren orotherrelatives,or adultswho "haveregularly ived as an in-herentpartof the familygroup,whoseearningsare an integralpartof the family income and whose resourcesare available for use in
meetingfamilyexpenses."6Persons iving aloneareexcluded,as are
lodgersor temporarypaying guests, combinationsof families, andcasual groups of workingadults. When Lyman Terrace was first
opened in November, 1940, 324, or nearly a third of the total of 996
personsin familieswhose applicationswereaccepted,were childrenundersixteenyears of age.
6Ibid., Appen.A(g).
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 7/18
LYMAN TERRACE: A SMALL HOUSING PROJECT 91
FAMILY INCOME
The Housing Authority limited Lyman Terrace to the use of
families with incomesof not more than $1,450 a year. Actually allthe incomes of the families admittedin 1940 were under $1,400, and
the large majority (82 per cent) received between $6oo and $1,200.A comparison f this distributionof incomewith that for the families
whose applicationswere rejected,which is shownin Table i, indi-
cates that income was a factor in selection. The medianincome for
TABLE 1
INCOMESOFACCEPTEDAND REJECTEDAPPLICANTS
ACCEPTED REJECTED
INCOME RouP APPLICANTS APPLICANTS
(DOLLARS)
Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
Total......... 167 100.0 605* 100.0
Under 200........ 2 1.2 31 5.1200- 399...... 4 2.4 30 5.0400- 599...... 5 3.0 57 9.4600- 799...... 61 36.5 112 18.5800- 999...... 30 18.0 96 15.9
1,000-1,199...... 46 27.5 103 17.0
1,200-1,399...... 19 11.4 75 12.4
1,400-1,599...... ........ ........ 56 9.31,600-1,799...... ........ ........ 119 3-11,800 and over.... ........ ........ 26 4-3
* Twenty-three rejected applicants failed to report definite incomes.Two reported living on savings and one earning $5.o00a day "off and on."
both groupswas between $8oo and $i,ooo, but I7 per cent of the
rejectedapplicantshad incomeshigherthan any of those who were
accepted.The fact that a greaterproportionof families with incomes below
$600 is found among those who did not get into the Project than
among the tenants indicates that many people decided they could
not afford the move and couldnot pay even the low rents chargedfor the Projecthouses. Oneout of every five of the rejectedfamilies
had incomes below $6oo. Thus the Project leaves still unsolvedthe
problemof adequatehousingfor those with the lowest incomes.
The earned ncomeof almost a third of the familiesacceptedhad
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 8/18
92 AMY HEWES
been supplementedby aid frompublic sources. The largest part of
this group,about 23 per cent of the total numberof tenant families,
had beenemployedby the W.P.A. duringthe year previousto theirapplication. Eight per cent of the families, including about one-
fourth of the W.P.A. workers,had receivedrelief from more than
one source.
Amongthe Projecttenants, the earningsof the headof the familywere the mainstay and constituted the sole means of support in
nearlythree-fourths 74 per cent) of the families. In only 9 per cent
of the familieswas the familyincomeentirely derivedfromearningsof other membersof the family.
TABLE 2
FAMILIESREPORTING ASIC
SUBSTANDARDACTORS
ACCEPTED REJECTEDNUMBEROF
FAMILIES* FAMILIES+BASIC SUB-
STANDARD
FACTORSNumber Per Cent Number Per Cent
Total... 150 100.0 399 100.0
0........... 27 I8.o io6 26.6
1........... 61 40.7 170 42.62.......... 35 23.3 79 19.83 .......... 23 15.3 39 9.84 .......... 4 2.7 4 1.0
5 .......... ........ ........ 1 0.22
* Seventeen families made no report.
t Excluding 58 families who were accepted but withdrew and
17I who made no report.
THE HOUSES THEY HAD LIVED IN
A list of the basic substandardconditions n the dwellingof each
applicantwasmade andscored,and this score was usedin the selec-
tion of tenants for the Project. The recordshowedthat the great
majority ivedinhousesstructurallyunsafeor withoutbathingfacili-
ties, inside toilet, running water, or adequate cooking arrangements.
In many homes combinationsof these undesirableconditionsmust
have made wholesome iving impossible. In addition, the dwellingswereoften overcrowded.
Morethan two-fifthsof theaccepted
familieswerelivingin homes
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 9/18
LYMANTERRACE:A SMALLHOUSINGPROJECT 93
with two or more of these substandardconditions (Table 2). The
reportswereincomplete,andmanysubstandard eatures were prob-
ably omitted. It may be assumed,therefore,that the situation wasmoreunfavorable han the tabulation ndicates. The items of toilets
and baths were morereadilyevaluatedandmoregenerally reportedon than others. The prevalenceof substandardconditions in these
two counts alone foracceptedandrejectedfamilies s shown n Table
3. The lack of inside toilets and baths or showerswas reported by
nearly one-third of the homes of the accepted familiesbut by lessthan one-fifth of those who were rejected. This suggests that the
conditionsof the formerhomesof the familiesnowlivingin Lyman
TABLE 3
FAMILIESLACKINGSANITARY ACILITIES
ACCEPTED REJECTED
FAMILIES* FAMILIESf
SANITARYACILITIES
Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
T o t a l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 0 . 01 0 0 . 0
No inside oilet......... 52 31,1 89 15:6No bath or shower....... 52 31.I Io7 I8.8
* Seven of the accepted and 17 of the rejectedfamilies failed to report oninside toilet; 6 accepted and 16 rejected families failed to report on bath orshower.
t Excluding58 familieswho wereacceptedbut withdrew.
Terracewere worsethan those of the applicantswho failed to get in.
In general,however,the wide distributionof poorhousingamongthe
applicantsmakes the marginof difference mall.
THE NUMBER OF PERSONS PER ROOM
The Housing Authority has defined "overcrowding"as "occu-
pancy seriously exceedingapprovedmaximum imits and detrimen-
tal to health,privacy, or morals. Roomssmaller n size thanlocallyestablishedminimumstandards."'7 ome latitude may be allowed n
determiningwhat is the "approvedmaximum imit" of the numberof persons who should occupy a given numberof rooms. Size of
rooms,amount of light and air,and ageand sex of childrenmake for
considerabledifference n adequacy.
7Ibid., Appen. B.
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 10/18
94 AMY HEWES
The families of specifiednumbersof persons occupying houses
with the indicatednumberof rooms at LymanTerraceare shown in
Table4, A. For example,there werethirty-onefamiliescomposedoffive personseach. Thirteen of these wereliving in four-roomhomes
TABLE 4
SIZEOFFAMILYANDNUMBEROFROOMS*
NUMBERF MEMBERSN FAMILY
NUMBERF
ROOMs2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A. Families at Lyman Terracet
2..........
3.......... 25 31
4.......... 14 42 13
5.......... 18 13 46.......... 1 3 2
B. Families in Former Homest
2.......... 3 4 1
3.......... 6 6 5 1 1
4.......... 5 24 23 16 10 2 2
5.......... 6 8 13 13 3 3 2
6 . . . . . . . . . .
* There are5 lessfamiliesrepresentedn Table 4, B, than inTable4, A, as 5 applicantsdidnot reportthe numberof roomsin the home. Onefamily of 7, includinga married on
with his wife andchild,divided,and the son moved into LymanTerrace. Thus one familylisted in Table 4, A, as having3 members s listed in Table 4, B, as having 7.t The heavilyboxedsquares nclude the numberof families n which the ratio ofperson
to roomis i:x.
and eighteen in five rooms. There were forty-two families of four
memberseach livingin four-roomhomes,and no familiesof four liv-
ing in less than four rooms. The ratioof onepersonperroom(shown
by the heavy squaresin Table 4) is taken frequentlyas a standard
and morethan onepersonperroomasovercrowding.Judgedby this
standardLymanTerracehas forty families (those below and to the
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 11/18
LYMANTERRACE:A SMALLHOUSINGPROJECT 95
left of the heavy squares)with fewerthan one person per room and
thirty-six families (those above and to the right of the heavy
squares), includingall those composedof six or morepersons,withmore than one person per room. The standardactually appliedin
Lyman Terracewas a maximumof two personsper bedroom,a per-son being anyone over the age of one year. Three facts should be
kept in mind whenconsidering he homes in whichthere weremore
than one person per room: first, the rooms are well ventilated, out-
side rooms; second,the ratio is only a small fractionmore than one
person per room; and, third, the only alternative to this arrange-ment for these familieswouldhave beento stay in theirformer ene-
ment homes.A comparisonof this distribution with the ratio of persons to
roomswhichheld in the formerhomes of these samefamilies (Table
4, B) showsclearlythe changesbroughtabout by the Project. Less
than half as many families whenliving in the formerhomeshad one
person per room, and the number with more than one person perroomwas over40 per cent larger. For some familiesthe overcrowd-
ing was extreme,and fora few others the numberof roomswas more
than the standard. The extent to which this was the caseis indicated
by the spreadon either side of the heavy squares. Obviouslywhat
the Projecthas done is to equalizethe distributionof roomsamong
families, making it come much closer to their actual needs than
before.In order to avoid overcrowdingand at the same time use the
Project to the best advantage,the numberof persons n eachfamilydeterminedthe size of the apartment allotted to it. Three-room
apartmentswere assignedto families of two or three persons;four
rooms to those of from three to five; five roomsto familiesof fromfour to seven; and six roomsto those of from six to eight members.This last restrictionhas been madeflexibleenoughto admit into the
project two familieswith nine memberseach, thirteenof whom are
children. It was specified that ". consideration shall be given to
the age, sex, and relationshipof the members of the family, and
other factors, such as disability. Every childregardlessof age shall
be consideredas a person."'8
Ibid., Sec. 3.o5(b).
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 12/18
96 AMY HEWES
RENT
The HousingAuthorityaimedto fix the cost of shelter n the Proj-
ect at levels which would not entail appreciable ncreasesover therentspaidin the formerdwellings. The lowestmonthlyrentformer-
ly paidby any Projecttenant was $8.62, the highest$34.66,and the
averagefor all $16.69(Table 5). The rentspaid by these samefam-
ilies afterthey becameProjecttenantsranged rom$13.50to $22.00,
and the average was then $18.52. This higher average might be
TABLE 5
AVERAGEMONTHLYRENTSFORFAMILIES
IN VARIOUSNCOMEGROUPS
PROJECTENANTS REJECTEDPPLICANTS
INCOME ROUPS(DOLLARS) Former Project Rent
Number Rent Rent Number(Dollars)
(Dollars) (Dollars)
Total......... 158* 16.69 18.52 547t 18.45
Under 500......... 6 15.28 17.67 66 16.46500- 599
....... 4 17.83 17.16 29 17.006oo- 699....... 28 15.29 17.7 56 16.o09
700- 799 ...... 29 i6.6o 17.88 47 I8.og8oo- 899 ....... 11 16.39 18.o9 39 17.95900- 999 ....... 16 14.96 17.88 52 17.17
I,000-1,099....... 20 17.12 19.35 57 I8.8I1,100-1,199....... 25 I8.68 19.76 37 20.87
1,200-I,299....... Io 18.17 20.15 32 20.06
1,300-1,399 ....... 9 17.00 20o.78 40 18.77
I,400-I,599....... ........... .. 50 22.40
I,6oo-I,799................................ .......... 15 18.65
1,8oo and.over.... ........... ........... ........... 27 19.73
* Eight applicantsfailed to reportformerrent;one reportedonly two weeks' ncomefor the year.
t Eighty-onerejectedapplicantsfailedto reporteither ncomeorrent.
taken to indicate that the new standard houses absorbedlargeramountsof the familybudget, but it must be rememberedhat the
cost of heat is included n the Projecthousesand,withonly very few
exceptions,not in the others. The amountspentforheat in the large
majorityof former enementhomeswas estimatedto be about$4.00
permonth,but the informationgivenon the applicationblankswas
so irregularand uncertainthat an attempt to get a rent-plus-heatcost by using the figures given was abandoned. It was sufficient,
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 13/18
LYMANTERRACE:A SMALLHOUSINGPROJECT 97
however,to indicate that, if the cost of heat were included,the ex-
penseto Projecttenants for heated houses wasusuallyless thanthey
had paid for shelterplus heat. It is certainlya fact that the Projecthouses are more adequatelyheated than the formerhomes.
The rejected applicantspaid an average monthly rent of $18.45,
only slightly lower than that for the Project homes; but, again, it
must be remembered hat in almost every instance they paid for
heat in addition, so that, aside from generallybetter accommoda-
TABLE6
NUMBEROFFAMILIESREPORTING ORMER UBSTANDARD
CONDITIONSATDIFFERENTRENTLEVELS*
NUMBEROFFAMILIESWITH SPECIFIEDNUMBEROF
BASIC SUBSTANDARDACTORSRENT PER MONTH NUMBEROF
(DOLLARS) FAMILIES
0 1 2 3 4
Total............. 142 25 57 34 22 4
8.oo-o10.99 ............ 17 I o 10 4 2
II.oo-13.99 ........... 27 o 12 9 6 o
14.oo-I6.99........... 31 6 12 5 6 2
17.oo00-19-I.99........... 38 II 20 5 2 o
20.00-22.99 ............ 20 2 II 4 3 o23.00-25-99 ........... 2 I o I 0 0
26.00-28.99 ........... 5 2 2 O I O29.oo-3I.99............ I I O 0 O O
32.00-34-99 ........... I I o o o o
* Seventeenmade no reporton substandard actors; 8 made no reporton rent.
tions, the advantageforrent-plus-heatcost is againwith the Projecttenants.
Usually the lower rents paid for their former homes by Project
tenantswere associated with the
prevalenceof
largernumbersof
substandard eatures(Table 6). It is true,however,that the numberof familiespaying the higherrents in this groupwas too small to
establishthis relationshipclearly. Many of the houses werepoorerthan the reportson substandard eatureswould indicate, since the
detailed score sheet was missing in nineteen cases and the reportsfor these coveronly three substandard eatures(lackof insidetoilet,lack of bath or shower,and overcrowding).
It will be observedthat the Projectrents increasefairlyregularly
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 14/18
98 AMY HEWES
with the incomelevels in contrastto the absenceof this relationshipbefore. It is also clear that for the familiesin incomegroupsbelow
$1,200, constituting88 per cent of the total number,the spreadofaveragecosts is smaller n Projectrentsthanin rentsfor theprevioushomes; the formerranged from $17.07 to $19.76, the latter from
$14.96to $18.68.The relationshipbetweenrent and incomeis in largemeasurethe
result of the policyof the HousingAuthority,which has divided the
apartments n the Project into threegroups. The family income,aswell asnumberof rooms n thesehouses,determines he rent,as indi-
cated in Table 7.9TABLE 7
CLASSIFICATIONFDWELLINGUNITS IN PROJECT
GRoUPA GRoUPB GRoupC
NUMBERFRooms
Maximum Maximum MaximumRent Rent Rent
Income Income Income
3 ........... $1350 $750 $16.50 $ 950 $19.50 $1,2004............ 14.00 850 17.00 1,050 20.50 1,3505 ........... 15.00oo 925 17-50 1,150 21.50 1,400
6........... .......... ........ I.. 8.oo 1,200 22.00 1,450
The percentage spent for rent after the tenants became Projectdwellerswas slightly larger than before (Table 8). This increase,however,resultsfrom a comparisonof rents forunheatedtenements
with those for the heated Project houses, and, as previously ex-
plained, it cannot be assumed that the Project tenants devoted
larger proportionsof their income to housing. Little differencecan
be discernedbetween the ratios of rent to incomein the case of re-
jected applicantsand the correspondingatios for tenants of LymanTerrace.
The percentagesof incomespentforrentby mostof theseHolyokefamilies are markedlyhigher than those reportedfor low-income
groupsin the United States as a whole.IoA percentageof 28.9 for
9Ibid., Secs. 2.oI(b), 3.02(a).10 ConsumerExpendituresn the United States (National ResourcesCommittee,
1939), p. 78.
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 15/18
LYMANTERRACE:A SMALLHOUSINGPROJECT 99
incomes under $500 throughout the country drops to I9.9 for in-
comes between$5oo and $750,and to i8.I for those between$i,ooo
and $1,250. In contrast with these values, the percentage for LymanTerrace tenants with incomes between $600oand $700 was 31.8, and
for those between $1,200 and $1,300 it was 19.4. As the incomes in-
creased,the percentagesspent for rent in LymanTerraceand in the
TABLE8
PROPORTION F INCOMEPAID FORRENT
PROJECTENANTS REJECTEDPPLICANTS
INCOMEaours Per Cent of IncomePer Cent
(DOLLARS)of Income
Number Number
Former ProjectPaid for
Rent RentRent
Total.............. 148*" .................... 452t
6o0- 699............. 28 28.4 31.8 56 30.7700- 799 ........... 29 26.6 28.6 47 28.9800- 899............. II 23.3 25.9 39 25.4900- 999 ............ 16 18.9 22.6 52 21.9
1,ooo000-,O99............ 20 19.6 22.2 57 21.6
1,1oo-1,199 ............ 25 19.7 20.9 37 21.81,200-1,299............ 10I 17.5 19.4 32 19.41,300-1,399 ............ 9 15-5 19.o 40 16.91,400-1,599...................... ....... ..... .......... 50 18.31,6oo-1,799............ ..........
........ ..... .......... 15 13.3i,8oo and over.......... .......... .......... .......... 27 12.8
* Eighttenants failed to report ormerrent;onereportedonly two weeks' ncomefor the year. Ten withincomesunder$6oo are also omitted, because the money income had been largely supplementedby giftsof food,clothing,andfuel and thereforewas not comparablewith other incomes.
t Eighty-one rejected applicants failed to report either income or rent. Ninety-five with incomesunder$6oo are also omitted.
country as a whole appear less disparate, though throughout the
income groups within which the Project tenants fall the Holyoke
percentagesare persistently higher.ThisdifferencebetweenHolyokecosts and those for the countryat
large s paralleledby similardifferences eported n a study of family
expenditures n seven other New Englandcities." In the two mid-
dle-sized cities, New Britain, Connecticut, and Haverhill, Massa-
" FamilyExpendituresn SevenNewEnglandCities,1935-36 (U.S. Departmentof
Labor Bull. 645 [Washington, D.C., 1941]), p. 33.
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 16/18
1oo AMY HEWES
chusetts, the percentagesrangefrom38.3 for incomesbetween$250and $500 to 29.0 for incomes between$I,250 and $I,500. For four
smallercities the rangefor the same incomegroupsis from 39.2 to28.1. The high costs of rent found in New England, as comparedwith costs for the countryas a whole, appearto prevailnot only in
cities but in villages as well.'"
LIFE AT LYMAN TERRACE
The establishmentof a new communityof human beings under
conditions which present such a marked contrast to those which
obtained in the same spot only a short time ago is changeof a kind
which can be only inadequately measuredby statistical analysis.Moreover, t is too earlyto findreflected n publicrecordssuchgainsin health and well-beingas those of which the tenants are alreadyconsciousas a result of better housing.
An officer of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Chil-
dren remarked hat no complaintshad come to that society from
the Project up to date. By the early spring of 1941 the increase
in private employmentas a result of the developmentof the de-
fense programhad taken a number of the Project tenants from
the W.P.A. rolls. Onehealthy reactionwas the resentmentshownby members of the community to public notice. "We are not
guinea pigs," said one of the tenants, "we are just ordinaryhu-
mans." Life at the Project among individuals who were at first
strangerssoon showedall kinds of manifestationsof neighborliness,and a varietyof such socialactivitiesas have small chanceto growin
overcrowdedhousesbegan to appear.The communityhas the stimulusof the variety of nationalback-
groundwhichhas characterizedhe city eversincepeoplefromother
partsof the worldweredrawnto it by the opportunityto work in itsmills and factories. All tenants areAmericancitizens,since citizen-
shipis a requirementor admission. Two-thirdsof the first167. am-
ilies wereof French-Canadian r Irish stock in about equal propor-tions. Another fifth of the group were Polish. People of Scottish,
German,Italian, Portuguese, and English backgrounds,together12Family Incomeand Expenditures,Five Regions,Part II: Family Expenditures
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1940), p. 87.
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 17/18
LYMANTERRACE:A SMALLHOUSINGPROJECT Io1
with Americansof several generations'standing, made up the re-
mainder.
More than half of the first tenants were industrialworkers n thecity's mills and factories, about thirty were W.P.A. workers,and
others were employed in the stores, in transportation,and in per-sonal service.
Whenthe Projectwas only a few monthsold, an informalpoll was
taken to find out the wishesof the tenantswith regard o the uses of
the community social room and community activities in general.The responsesobtained revealeda good deal about the attitudes of
the tenants towardthe Project. With almost no exceptionthey ap-
pearedto be enjoyingliving there. They likedthe newnessandcom-pactness of their homes and the complete separationof their own
from their neighbor's. One spoke of satisfaction in having privatefront and back entrances,another of the light affordedby the largewindows. A young woman said: "This is the nicest place we have
ever lived in"; and an old woman said: "This is the kind of place I
want to die in." A numberhad alreadyexperimentedwith growing
things in the tiny yards. The warm rooms in cold weather were
prizedby manywho had neverhad that comfortbefore. One woman
describedher surprise n findingit warmin the house when she got
up: "And Faith, niver did I think it would be warm until I had
broughtup my wood and kindleda fire and Saints alive, there was
the blessedwarmth without me havin' to raisemy hand."The Projectis too small to have someof the serviceswhichlarger
housingunits have enjoyed,and tenants wish for supervisionof the
children'splay andfor moreequipment. But birthdaypartiesforthe
childrenin the community room have affordedmuch pleasure,as
havealso
partiesforadults. Ideas for the
promotionof socialactivi-
ties are fostered in "TerraceTopics," the mimeographedProjectnewspaper.
This study of Lyman Terrace has aimed to give a pictureof the
materialchangesbroughtabout in the environmentof familieswho
moved into the Project. Without increasingcosts, their new homes
have afforded he tenants adequatespaceandequipment n contrast
with the unhealthyand crowdedhousesin whichthey hadbeencom-
pelled to live formerly. The basic housing needs of low-income fam-
8/3/2019 Hewes Lyman Terrace
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hewes-lyman-terrace 18/18
Io02 AMY HEWES
ilieshave beenmet, and thus problemsof greatimportance or these
peoplehave beensolved. But morethan this hasbeenaccomplished.
It is becomingclear that newstandardsof community iving are tak-ing root in what formerlywas a slum area.
The Project has shown the extent of Holyoke's need for better
housingfacilities. Lyman Terrace could accommodateonly a frac-tion of thoseinadequatelyhoused,but the practicalexperiencet hasaffordedshould hasten the day when the city will assume the re-
sponsibility for making prevalent within its boundarieshousingstandards as high as those it has provided n the Project.
MOUNT HOLYOKECOLLEGE