DOCSLIB.ORG

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting of the City Planning Commission, Held in Room 16, City Hall, Wednesday, May 29, 1940, at 2.30 P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting of the City Planning Commission, Held in Room 16, City Hall, Wednesday, May 29, 1940, at 2.30 P 317 May 29, 1940 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting of the City Planning Commission, Held in Room 16, City Hall, Wednesday, May 29, 1940, at 2.30 P. M. The Commission met pursuant to adjournment. PresentR. G. Tugwell, Chairman; John C. Riedel, Chief Engineer, Board of Estimate; Lawrence M. Orton, Cleveland Rodgers, Edwin A. Salmon, Arthur V. Sheridan, Commissioners. (Roll Call at 2.30 P. M.) No. 1 Approval of minutes of the meeting of May 15, 1940, as printed in THE CITY RECORD of May 21, 1940. On motion, these minutes were unanimously approved. REPORTS Master Plan No. 2 (CP-915) In the matter of the probable total future population and age distribution of New York City and the metropolitan area during each of the next six decades. (On April 25, 1939, the Department of City Planning sent a communication to the City Planning Commission proposing a series of special public hearings on this subject; on May 3, 1939, Cal. No. 12, the Commission fixed May 24, 1939, for a hearing; on May 24, 1939, Cal. No. 1, the hearing was continued to June 7, 1939; on June 7, 1939, Cal. No. 1, the hearing was continued to June 21, 1939; on June 21, 1939, Cal. No. 1, the hearing was continued without date.) The following report was received and referred to the members of the Board of Estimate for their information: (Report No. 1387) (CP-915) This report summarizes the proceedings of the population hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 24, June 7 and June 21, 1939.* It attempts to high-light the opinions expressed at these hearings regarding the City's population and the factors that appear to govern future growth. Purpose of Hearings The purpose of these hearings, as stated by Chairman Tugwell, was ". to find out whether there is general agreement as to what the population is likely to be, and if there is not general agreement, to put the burden of proof on those people who disagree with the consensus of the experts". The first of these hearings on May 24th dealt with changing population trends for the nation as a whole and with the relationship of the city to the nation. On June 7th and June 21st the discussion was concerned more specifically with population trends in New York City and the surrounding Metropolitan Area. Appearances Professor Robert E. Chaddock of Columbia University served as special Chairman of these hearings. The experts invited to discuss the problem and to express their opinions were: Dr. P. K. Whelpton, Central Statistical Board, Bureau of the Budget, *This report was prepared prior to the enumeration of population under the Federal Census of 1940. The techniques and assumptions, and the resulting forecasts presented by the several experts, as well as the Department's estimate of net migration into New York City, will be compared with the 1940 Census returns when data are available. ' The Census may be expected to reveal trends that will have a direct bearing upon such hypotheses and methods as may be hereafter employed to estimate the probable future population. May 29, 1940 318 King, Department of Economics and Statistics, New York University; and Dr. Alfred J. Lotka, President of the Population Association of America and Assistant Statistician of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. In addition, representatives of private and public agencies attended the hearings and participated in the discussions : Mr. Thomas J. Duffield, Registrar of Records, Depart- ment of Health; Mr. Harold M. Lewis, Chief Engineer and Secretary, Regional Plan Association, Inc.; Mr. H. B. Stryker, Commercial Survey Engineer, New York Tele- phone Company; Mr. George G. Weinberger, representing the Deputy Superintendent, Washington, D. C.; Mr. E. P. Goodrich, Consulting Engineer ; Professor Willford I. Board of Education; Dr. Eugene A. Nifenecker, Director of the Bureau of Reference, Research and Statistics, Board of Education; Mr. Avery M. Schermerhorn, Real Estate Agent and Appraiser, Board of Transportation; Mr. Edward M. Law, Assistant Engi- neer, Department of Law and Real Estate, Board of Transportation ; Mr. Walter P. Hedden, Chief, Bureau of Commerce, Port of New York Authority ; Dr. J. M. Mailer, Teachers' College, Columbia University ; Mr. L. P. Wood, Chief Engineer's Staff, Board of Water Supply ; and Mr. Walter E. Nutt. Dr. Leon E. Truesdell, Chief of the Population Division, U. S. Bureau of the Census and Dr. Frank Lorimer, the American University, Washington, D. C., were invited to participate but were unable to attend. THE CITY'S FUTURE POPULATION The evidence presented at these hearings revealed the importance of population trends and population predictions in guiding policies and decisions of the various city agencies and departments. The different agencies emphasized those aspects of the popu- lation which bear directly on the types of problems they must handle. The Board of Education, for example, is primarily interested in the age composition and distribution of the population, whereas the Board of Water Supply is more concerned with the total of persons living in the city. Their common need and interest is to secure more accurate estimates of future changes in the population. Factors of Growth The speakers at these hearings generally agreed that the optimistic expectations of the 20'sthat the city would continue to grow at a fairly rapid rateare not likely to be realized. The decline in birth rates for the country as a whole as well as for this city during the last decade, the almost complete cessation of foreign immigration, and for New York City, a considerable diminution in migration from the rest of the nation into the city, have caused a marked downward revision in population estimates for the future. Population Predictions The several population predictions indicate that New York will continue to grow but at a decreasing rate, that a point in time will be reached when the city will cease to grow, and that this maximum will be followed by an actual shrinkage in the city's popu- lation. While this represents the general position taken by all of the participating consultants, their population estimates are not identical. The points of agreement and disagreement and the reasons for these differences are summarized below, together with other evidence presented at the hearings. Table I shows some of the population estimates submitted to the City Planning Commission. Chart I is a graphic representation of the same data. (See page 319.) Table I: Estimates of the Population of New York City (in thousands) Whelpton's Whelpton's Mailer's King's Average Board of Year Minimum Maximum Maximum of 8 Estimates Chaddock Water Sup. 1940 7574 7613 7200 7600 7400 7652 1950 7963 8165 7100 8200 1960 8045 8479 6800 8900 1970 7950 8680 9500 1980 7694 8786 10000 All of the estimates for 1940 show a gain over 1930 with the exception of Dr. Mailer's minimum estimate of 6.6 millions, which is approximately 300,000 lower than the population in 1930. Dr. Whelpton's minimum estimate shows an increase though at a decreasing rate until 1960 followed by a decline. Professor King's figures, the highest of the group, show an uninterrupted upward movement in population until 1980. The same is true of Dr. Whelpton's maximum estimate although his figures are con- siderably lower than those submitted by Professor King. Dr. Maller's estimates are 319 May 29, 1940 the lowest of the group. According to his data, the peak in the city's population will be reached in 1940, which is 20 years earlier than Dr. Whelpton's minimum estimate and 40 years earlier than his maximum estimate and Professor King's average of eight estimates. calatm x POPULATION ESTIMATES red/ 821 YORK can As Presented at Public ilearingo Held by the City Planning Commiseion in 1939 . , A - Dr. Whelpton's Minimum 9., - 8 - Dr. Shelpton's Ilasimum 0 - Dr. Mallet's Ilaximtuo D - Dr. Tingle Average of 8 Setimatea 9.° II - Dr. Maddock, e Intimate -- ...--- .. ... 3 8.5 ..... 8.0 T.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 City of Wee 'fork -- Department of City Planning Division of Iirseearoh. Reference sal Statistic:re Jermary 1910 _ 1.0 /92o 193D 1943. 19513 1963 two wo Dr. Whelpton's estimates of the population for the entire Metropolitan Area, as well as for New York City proper, are of interest. These figures are presented in Table II. For purposes of comparison, the table includes the census counts for 1900, 1910, 1920 and 1930. Table II: Population of New York City and the Metropolitan Area. 1900-1980 (in thousands) To City of Year New York City *Metropolitan Metropolitan Area Area 1900 3,437 4,608 74.5 1910 4,767 6,475 73.6 1920 5,620 7,910 71.0 1930 6,930 10,910 63.5 1940 (1)7,574 (1)12,191 62.1 1950 (1)7,963 (1)12,920 61.6 1960 (1)8,045 (1)13,122 61.3 1970 (1)7,950 (1)13,026 61.0 1980 (1)7,694 (1)12,606 61.0 * "Metropolitan Area" as defined by the Census Bureau. (1) Whelpton's minimum estimate. The ratio of New York City to the Metro- politan Area is the same in Dr. Whelpton's minimum and maximum estimates. It will be observed that while New York City has accounted for the major part of the population in the Metropolitan Area, its prominent position has undergone con- siderable alteration since 1900. In 1900 the city's population was approximately three- fourths of the population of the Metropolitan Area, but by 1930 this proportion was reduced to less than two-thirds, a decline of 11 per cent.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2018 AIA Fellowship
    This cover section is produced by the AIA Archives to show information from the online submission form. It is not part of the pdf submission upload. 2018 AIA Fellowship Nominee Brian Shea Organization Cooper Robertson Location Portland, OR Chapter AIA New York State; AIA New York Chapter Category of Nomination Category One - Urban Design Summary Statement Brian Shea has advanced the art and practice of urban design. His approach combines a rigorous method of physical analysis with creative design solutions to guide the responsible growth of American cities, communities, and campuses. Education 1976-1978, Columbia University, Master of Science in Architecture and Urban Design / 1972-1974, University of Notre Dame, Bachelor of Architecture / 1969-1972, University of Notre Dame, Bachelor of Arts Licensed in: NY Employment 1979 - present, Cooper Robertson / 1978 - 1979, Mayor's Office of Midtown Planning and Development / 1971, 1972, Boston Redevelopment Authority October 13, 2017 Karen Nichols, FAIA Fellowship Jury Chair The American Institute of Architects 1735 New York Ave NW Washington. DC 20006-5292 Dear Karen, It is a “Rare Privilege and a High Honor” to sponsor Brian Shea for elevation to the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects. To keep it simple, let me say that Brian is the single, finest professional I have ever known. Our relationship goes back to 1978 when he became a student of mine at the Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture. He then worked at the New York City Office of Midtown Development, and when I started Cooper Robertson in 1979, Brian became the office’s first employee.
    [Show full text]
  • New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan
    NEW YORK CITY CoMPREHENSWE WATERFRONT PLAN Reclaiming the City's Edge For Public Discussion Summer 1992 DAVID N. DINKINS, Mayor City of New lVrk RICHARD L. SCHAFFER, Director Department of City Planning NYC DCP 92-27 NEW YORK CITY COMPREHENSIVE WATERFRONT PLAN CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMA RY 1 INTRODUCTION: SETTING THE COURSE 1 2 PLANNING FRA MEWORK 5 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5 LEGAL CONTEXT 7 REGULATORY CONTEXT 10 3 THE NATURAL WATERFRONT 17 WATERFRONT RESOURCES AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE 17 Wetlands 18 Significant Coastal Habitats 21 Beaches and Coastal Erosion Areas 22 Water Quality 26 THE PLAN FOR THE NATURAL WATERFRONT 33 Citywide Strategy 33 Special Natural Waterfront Areas 35 4 THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT 51 THE EXISTING PUBLIC WATERFRONT 52 THE ACCESSIBLE WATERFRONT: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 63 THE PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT 70 Regulatory Strategy 70 Public Access Opportunities 71 5 THE WORKING WATERFRONT 83 HISTORY 83 THE WORKING WATERFRONT TODAY 85 WORKING WATERFRONT ISSUES 101 THE PLAN FOR THE WORKING WATERFRONT 106 Designation Significant Maritime and Industrial Areas 107 JFK and LaGuardia Airport Areas 114 Citywide Strategy fo r the Wo rking Waterfront 115 6 THE REDEVELOPING WATER FRONT 119 THE REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT TODAY 119 THE IMPORTANCE OF REDEVELOPMENT 122 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT ISSUES 125 REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 127 THE PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPING WATERFRONT 128 7 WATER FRONT ZONING PROPOSAL 145 WATERFRONT AREA 146 ZONING LOTS 147 CALCULATING FLOOR AREA ON WATERFRONTAGE loTS 148 DEFINITION OF WATER DEPENDENT & WATERFRONT ENHANCING USES
    [Show full text]
  • Losing Its Way: the Landmarks Preservation Commission in Eclipse
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research John Jay College of Criminal Justice 2018 Losing Its Way: the Landmarks Preservation Commission in Eclipse Jeffrey A. Kroessler CUNY John Jay College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_pubs/245 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Reprinted from Environmental Law in New York with permission. Copyright 2018 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a LexisNexis company. All rights reserved. Developments in Federal Michael B. Gerrard and State Law Editor ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN NEW YORK Volume 29, No. 08 August 2018 Losing Its Way: The Landmarks Preservation Commission in Eclipse (Part 1 of 2) Viewpoint Jeffrey A. Kroessler have been designated. Part 2 will also discuss issues related to IN THIS ISSUE the membership of the Landmarks Preservation Commission as Losing Its Way: The Landmarks Preservation Commission in well as the Commission’s role in regulatory decision-making. Eclipse (Part 1 of 2) ...................................................................... 161 LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS ......................................................... 167 The City Club of New York has serious concerns about how ^ ASBESTOS......................................................................167 the Landmarks Preservation Commission (Commission or LPC) ^ CLIMATE
    [Show full text]
  • IBO New York City Independent Budget Office
    New York City Independent Budget Office Fiscal Brief IBO November 2007 The Mayor’s New Housing Marketplace Plan: Progress to Date And Prospects for Completion Summary version Of this report... THE NEW HOUSING MARKETPLACE PLAN (NHMP) is Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 10-year plan to create or preserve 165,000 units of affordable housing. The original five-year Mayor’s Housing plan, announced in 2003, called for 65,000 units by 2008, but was expanded in February 2006 to a 10-year plan, ending in 2013, with a goal of 165,000 units. Plan: Progress to Date, Prospects for Completion The plan set specific targets in terms of construction of new units and preservation of existing ones, rental and ownership units, and by level of household income. The plan calls for 55 percent, ... at www.ibo.nyc.ny.us or nearly 92,000 units, of new construction and for preservation of another 73,000 units—45 percent of the total. Roughly reflecting the current rate of homeownership in the city, the plan envisions that approximately 30 percent of units will be ownership, and 70 percent rental. In terms of income groups served, the goal of the NHMP over 10 years is to make 68 percent of the units affordable to low-income households (defined as income less than or equal to 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI)—currently $39,700 for a single person or $56,700 for a family of four). Another 11 percent of the units are to be for moderate-income households, which includes incomes between 80 percent and 120 percent of AMI (up to $85,080 for a family of four), and 21 percent for middle-income households, which includes income greater than 120 percent of AMI up to generally no more than 250 percent of AMI.
    [Show full text]
  • The People, Through Their Elected Representatives, Have Supported the Commission in Fulfilling Its Mission to Protect the City's Heritage
    The people, through their elected representatives, have supported the commission in fulfilling its mission to protect the city's heritage. For many decades the commission has met the clarion call of the landmarks law: “as a matter of public policy . the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements and landscape features of special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the people.” We firmly believe that historic preservation still has an important role in fostering the livable city today Losing Its Way The Landmarks Preservation Commission in Eclipse A Report by the Preservation Committee of The City Club of New York March 2018 Losing Its Way The Landmarks Preservation Commission in Eclipse A Report by the Preservation Committee of The City Club of New York The City Club of New York has serious concerns about how the Landmarks Preservation Commission interprets and carries out its mission. Looking at a series of recent decisions, we have to question whether the commission as currently functioning considers historic preservation, at least preservation as understood by New Yorkers, to be in the public interest. We begin with a fundamental question: who, or what, is the client of the Landmarks Commission? The owner of a designated property? The landmark itself? The public? First and foremost, the principal client of the LPC must be the landmark itself. Is this building, site, or district worthy of designation? If so, how best shall it be protected? The commission must act on behalf of the historic city.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Raymond V. Ingersoll Collection, BCMS.0061 Finding Aid Prepared by Sarah Quick, Reference Archivist
    Guide to the Raymond V. Ingersoll Collection, BCMS.0061 Finding aid prepared by Sarah Quick, Reference Archivist This finding aid was produced using the Archivists' Toolkit February 04, 2019 Brooklyn Public Library - Brooklyn Collection , 2018 10 Grand Army Plaza Brooklyn, NY, 11238 718.230.2762 [email protected] Guide to the Raymond V. Ingersoll Collection, BCMS.0061 Table of Contents Summary Information ................................................................................................................................. 3 Biographical Note.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Scope and Contents....................................................................................................................................... 5 Arrangement...................................................................................................................................................6 Administrative Information .........................................................................................................................6 Related Materials ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Controlled Access Headings..........................................................................................................................7 Collection Inventory.....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Funding for School Choice in NY: Pathways Or
    ZAKIYA ANSARI is the Advocacy Director of the New York State Alliance for Quality Education (AQE), and a founding parent leader of the NYC Coalition for Educational Justice, a collaborative of community-based organizations representing parents, community members, students and educators organizing to end the inequities in the city’s public school system. Ms. Ansari is a member of the NYC Department of Education community schools steering and advisory Public Funding for committee, and served on Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Transition Committee. In 2013 she co-initiated a national grass roots movement, “Journey for Justice,” an alliance of community-based organizations from over 24 cities across the United States School Choice in NY: representing youth, parents, and inter-generational organizations affected by harmful policies of school closing, turnaround, and corporate charter school expan- Pathways or Threats to sion in communities of color. Ms. Ansari represents AQE in the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools (AROS) an alliance of parent, youth, community and labor organizations Educational Equity and Excellence? representing over 7 million people nationwide. She is the mother of eight children and grandmother of three. BEVERLY DONOHUE joined New Visions in 2003. She serves as Senior Policy Advisor, coordinating research and program development projects and providing Tuesday, May 23, 2017 policy analysis in support of New Visions initiatives. Ms. Donohue brings extensive experience from New York City government, where she held positions as Chief 8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Financial Officer for the New York City public school system and Deputy Director of the New York City Office of Management and Budget.
    [Show full text]
  • Preservation Organizations
    *{o ,s1cl?at c o \ Y Y %on oo ^"$ February3,2004 Hon. RobertTierney Chair, New York City LandmarksPreselation Commission One Centle Street,9t" floor New York, NY 10007 Dear Chail Tierney: I am writing on behalf of the Municipal Art Societyto expresssupport for the considerationof Village/SilverTowers complex and superblock, 100 and 110Bleecker Street and 505 LaGuardia Placein GreenwichVillage asNew York City landmarks. This complexis significant as an exampleof post-warrenewal and universityredevelopment and shouldbe consideredfor New York City Landmarkdesignation for its typological,canonic, historical, and technologicalmerit. Completedrn 1966,the complexis an outstandingand rare exampleof post-warurban renewal, universityplanling, andpublic housingintersecting in a sculpturaltotality. The pinwheel arrangementof the threesuperblocks reflects a shift fi'om the superblocksof the 1950sto the morecontext-sensitive designs of the later60s and 70s. Despitethe grandscale of the project, sensitivityto the immediatecontext and a humanscale is achievedby interweavingnearby streetswith pedestrianwalkways. The sculpturalconcrete and glassfacades ale enhancedby the focal point of the plaza,Portrait of Sylvette,by Carl Nesjar,who collaboratedwith Pablo Picasso to reinterpretPicasso's original 2-foot tali sculptureinto a thirty-six foot high, six-foot sculpture. Designedby Pritzker prize-winningarchitect I.M. Pei, the superblockcomplex reflects developrnentof sculpturalexpression and sensitivityto the user found in his iater work, and was influential
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix G Comments Received on the DEIS
    Appendix G Comments Received on the DEIS Manhattan Community Board Five Vikki Barbero, Chair 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2109 Wally Rubin, District Manager New York, NY 10123-2199 212.465.0907 f-212.465.1628 December 12, 2014 Hon. Carl Weisbrod Chair of the City Planning Commission 22 Reade Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Resolution on Zoning Text Changes Sought by the Department of City Planning for the Vanderbilt Corridor Dear Chair Weisbrod: At the monthly meeting of Community Board Five on Thursday, December 11, 2014, the Board passed the following resolution with a vote of 33 in favor, 0 opposed, 1abstaining: WHEREAS, The Department of City Planning (DCP) seeks to rezone a five block area bordered by Vanderbilt and Madison Avenues and 42nd and 47th Streets; and WHEREAS, DCP seeks to amend (application N 150127 ZRM) sections of the zoning resolution for the Special Midtown District to facilitate commercial development, pedestrian circulation and allow greater opportunities for area landmarks to transfer their unused development rights; and WHEREAS, DCP seeks a City Map change (application 140440 MMM) to transform the block of Vanderbilt Avenue between East 42nd and East 43rd Streets into a Public Place; and WHEREAS, The goal of the proposed zoning changes is to strengthen East Midtown’s global competitiveness in the 21st Century; and WHEREAS, An additional goal of the proposed Vanderbilt Corridor is to improve pedestrian circulation and access to transit, including East Side Access; the Vanderbilt Corridor would be located above the future
    [Show full text]
  • Women Creating Change (Formerly Women's City Club of New York
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 25, 2019 Contacts: Jeff Simmons, [email protected], 917-673-0024 ​ ​ ​ Sophie Crumpacker, [email protected], 347-361-7128 ​ ​ Women Creating Change (formerly Women’s City Club of New York) Moves in a Bold New Direction with a New Vision, Mission and Name —In an effort to become more relevant, impactful, and inclusive, and reflect a vision that all women can be changemakers, civic engagement-focused organization unveils multi-tiered ​ ​ programming to offer women resources, tools, and educational opportunities— (New York, NY)—Since 1915, Women’s City Club of New York has brought women together to ​ improve the lives of New Yorkers, upholding the mission of its founding members by advancing the rights of women to shape the future of New York City. From voting rights to public school education, WCC has been at the forefront of progressive change. But times have changed—and now so has Women’s City Club. The 104-year-old organization—which counts Eleanor Roosevelt as one of its earliest and most prominent members—today announced a new name that reflects its century of service and future of progress: Women Creating Change. ​ The new name comes as the organization plans for expanded impact in its second century, structuring comprehensive, multi-tiered, civic engagement programming to broaden access to tools, resources, and educational opportunities for women to become more civically engaged and empowered to create change in their lives and in their communities in New York City. “Women in New York City have the passion, the promise, and the potential to change and improve New York City by becoming civically engaged,” said WCC President and CEO Carole Wacey.
    [Show full text]
  • The Taxpayer As Reformer: 'Pocketbook Politics' and the Law, 1860--1940
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship Spring 2009 The taxpayer as reformer: 'Pocketbook politics' and the law, 1860--1940 Linda Upham-Bornstein University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation Recommended Citation Upham-Bornstein, Linda, "The taxpayer as reformer: 'Pocketbook politics' and the law, 1860--1940" (2009). Doctoral Dissertations. 491. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/491 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TAXPAYER AS REFORMER: 'POCKETBOOK POLITICS' AND THE LAW, 1860 -1940 BY LINDA UPHAM-BORNSTEIN Baccalaureate Degree (BA), University of Massachusetts, Boston, 1977 Master's Degree, University of New Hampshire, 2001 DISSERTATION Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History May, 2009 UMI Number: 3363735 Copyright 2009 by Upham-Bornstein, Linda INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Records of the Women's City Club of New York, Inc. 1915
    The Records of the Women’s City Club of New York, Inc. 1915 - 2011 Finding Aid, 3rd Revised Edition Former headquarters of the Women’s City Club of New York at 22 Park Avenue, N.Y.C. ArchivesArchives andand SpecialSpecial CollectionsCollections TABLE OF CONTENTS General Information 3 Presidents of the Women’s City Club of New York, Inc. 4 - 5 Historical Note 6 Scope and Content Note 7 - 8 Series Description 9 - 13 Container List 14 - 85 Addenda I 86 - 120 Addenda II 121 - 137 Addenda III 138 - 150 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Accession Number: 94 - 03 Size: 104 cu. ft. Provenance: The Women’s City Club of New York, Inc. Restrictions: The audiotapes and videotapes in boxes 42 - 48, 154, and 222 - 225 are inaccessible to researchers until they are transferred to another medium. Location: Range 14 Sections 8 - 13 Archivist: Prof. Julio L. Hernandez-Delgado Assistants: Maggie Desgranges Maria Enaboifo Dane Guerrero Nefertiti Guzman Yvgeniy Kats Christina Melendez - Lawrence Phuong Phan Bich Manuel Rimarachin Date: July 1994 Revised: October 2013 3 Presidents of the Women’s City Club of New York, Inc. Name Term Mrs. Alice Duer Miller 1916 Mrs. Learned Hand (Frances Fricke Hand) 1916 - 1917 Mrs. Ernest C. Poole (Margaret Winterbotham Poole) 1917 - 1918 Mrs. Mary Garrett Hay 1918 - 1924 Mrs. H. Edward Dreier (Ethel E. Drier) 1924 - 1930 Mrs. Martha Bensley Bruere 1930 - 1932 Mrs. H. Edward Dreier (Ethel E. Drier) 1932 - 1936 Mrs. Samuel Sloan Duryee (Mary Ballard Duryee) 1936 - 1940 Miss Juliet M. Bartlett 1940 - 1942 Mrs. Alfred Winslow Jones (Mary Carter Jones) 1942 - 1946 Hon.
    [Show full text]