Hewes Lyman Terrace

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30013828?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30013828?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



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



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.



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




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).



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).



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



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




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.



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




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).



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,




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



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.




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.



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.



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-



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

Documents

Hewes Lyman Terrace