The quiet 10th Street block between Fifth and
Sixth Avenues saw tremendous change throughout the 19th
century. The street of two-and-a-half-story
Federal-style brick houses of the 1830s saw the rise of wide,
brownstone-fronted Victorian mansions in the 1850s and ‘60s. Then as the end of the century neared, apartment
buildings replaced some homes and, as a result, the block became a delightful
concoction of coexisting architectural styles and periods.
On October 11, 1890 the Real Estate Record and Builders’
Guide reported on the sale of the two brownstone houses owned by the Spiess
Estate—Nos. 66 and 68 West 10th Street. The Guide noted that compared to No. 53 West
11th Street sold the same day, the properties “did not fare as well,
they being bought in for the owner at $47,500.”
The houses were purchased by William J. Moore who demolished
them and set architect George Keister to work designing two matching apartment
buildings for the site. Moore intended
his buildings to be up-to-date and comfortable, in keeping with the upscale
tone of the block.
Completed in 1892, Keister’s two identical five-story structures
were a bit of an architectural split personality. The
heavy lower levels supported three floors of light-colored brick and delicate
ornamentation.
Keister reduced the sober nature of the base
floor-by-floor. The brooding brownstone
basement with its rough-cut stone and rugged openings gave way to smooth
rusticated stone at the first floor. Here
the façade was made more elegant with carvings and pilasters at the entrances. The rustication melted away to smooth planed
walls at the second floor.
Robust carving frames the entrance. |
Then suddenly the design changed course. The
upper three floors were clad in light colored brick trimmed in terra cotta. Keister tossed aside the weight of the Romanesque
brownstone base in favor of a light Classicist-inspired design with decorative
panels and fluted pilasters.
The upper windows are framed in terra cotta, including exquisite Italian Renaissance panels. |
The twin buildings filled with well-to-do tenants. Among the first tenants of No. 66 were brothers
Frederick R. Howes and Rueben W. Howes, who both served in the First Battalion,
Naval Reserve Artillery New York. Their
wives lost no time entertaining. Mrs.
Ruben Howes held a reception on January 26, 1893, barely before the paint was
dry; and a few days later The New York Times noted “Mrs. Frederic R. Howes of
66 West Tenth Street has been at home during the past few weeks on
Thursdays. Mrs. Howes will continue to
receive on Thursdays until Lent.”
Both houses attracted professionals. In 1893 Mercy E. Davis, C. S. treated
patients in his apartment/office in No. 68 through the “absent treatment.” The method claimed to cure disease through
telepathy. At the same time Daniel
Williams, a clerk in the Third Judicial District Court, was in the building.
One other change was happening on the block at the time the
buildings first opened. Although the millionaires
of nearby Fifth Avenue were quickly moving northward, the 10th
Street block was still highly respectable.
Yet when envelope manufacturer Benjamin B. McFadden moved his family
into No. 66 in September 1894, he quickly realized a shocking truth. There were prostitutes on West 10th
Street.
He moved out on April 1 and The Evening World reported on
June 25, 1895 “He had to get out of the district on account of the number of
disorderly houses in the street, and had moved to Jersey City with his family.”
McFadden complained about one brothel right next door. “He had particularly observed 60, 64 and 69
West Tenth street, and said they were disorderly houses,” reported the
newspaper. “He had been frequently
solicited by women in front of his own house.
All three of these houses were open all night long and the noise of the
carousing and piano playing was very annoying to the neighbors.”
Apparently, however, McFadden was one of only a few tenants whom the ill-reputed women offended enough to leave. The buildings continued to attract high-end tenants, many of them physicians. Dr. Antoni Fanoni was in No. 66 in 1898. The neighborhood was, by now, filled with
artists (the famous Tenth Street Studio Building was just down the block) and
one, Arnolda Premi, suffered a “bilious attack” on December 4. Premi’s wife asked a friend to go to Dr.
Fanoni for a prescription.
The prescription was filled and Premi took two doses—one at
11:00 in the morning with his coffee, another at 2:00. He died before he reached the hospital. Dr. Barbour of Bellevue hospital told
reporters “Premi had certainly been poisoned.”
Dr. Fanoni shrugged off the incident. “I was very busy in my office this morning,
when a man came to me saying that his friend, Premi, had been taken ill…I told
him I could not go with him and advised him to call some American
physician. He would not do so, and I
then satisfied him by writing out a simple prescription to cover the symptoms
described. That is all I know of the
case.”
If Dr. Fanoni’s reputation was scarred by the poisoning of
his patient, it was restored when it appeared he found a cure for consumption,
or tuberculosis, that same year. Fanoni
injected patients daily, or every other day, with what he described as “equine
serum inoculated with the protiene and tubercular toxins.” The results of his treatment of several local
patients was reported in newspapers as far away as Australia's The Brisbane Courier.
Six-year old Albert Noussert and his family lived in No. 66
at the turn of the century. In 1900 his
parents enrolled him in a boarding school for boys in Tuckahoe run by William
E. Duffy. Little Albert was packed off to
the exclusive school—there were only three other students--and his parents went
about their routine, firmly assured that their son was in good hands. It was not so.
The $12.50 per month board and tuition (about $300 today)
must have seemed a bargain. That, too,
was not so. A shocking expose in The New
York Times in November that year said “Neighbors of the school complained that
four boys at the place were almost daily turned out of the house in the morning
by Duffy, who would then lock the building and depart, not returning until
evening. He would leave the boys some
cold meat and a couple of loaves of bread on the veranda, their only food
during his absence.
Complaint was made that the boys were neglected, were
unclean, and half starved, and not properly clothed for inclement weather, but
were turned out into the open air daily and forced to remain out of the
building all day. In bad weather they
sought shelter in barns in the neighborhood, and were a source of annoyance to
the neighbors.”
The Times added “The boys were not taught anything.”
Along with doctors (Dr.Stephen J. Clark joined the list in
1903) and little boys at boarding schools, there was at least one European
title; albeit an obscure one. Baroness
von Groyss lived on the third floor of No. 68 in February 1912 when she sent
invitations to Manhattan’s most socially-elite names to attend a concert,
reception and supper at Delmonico’s. The
price to accept the invitation was $5.00.
The New York Times suggested that it was all a scam. “Several persons of prominence were somewhat
surprised last week by receiving invitations…Some of those who received
invitations didn’t know who the Baroness von Groyss was.” The newspaper mentioned that “She has given
exhibitions of Hawaiian dances at various social functions.”
The baroness was quick to respond. On February 12 she telephoned the Times office
and said “This is the Baroness von Groyss of 68 West Tenth Street. I wish that you would send a reporter down
here to see me.”
When the reporter arrived, she accused the newspaper of
stating “that invitations to my concert and supper had been sent out
promiscuously and that many persons who were not acquainted with me had
received tickets. This is a
misunderstanding.”
The $5 ticket invitations had been sent on behalf of the
International Artistic Social Club of which she was president, she
explained. She also dismissed the idea
that she would make money on the event. “The
fee will in fact scarcely defray the expenses of entertainment.”
In addition to the concert, the Valentine favors, the six-course
supper accompanied by the Vienna orchestra from Shanley’s and dancing, the 200 “ladies
and gentlemen of unquestioned social standing” would see some shocking
performances.
“One of the most startling features, according to the
Baroness, will be a spear and head-hunter dance by her protégé, Dogmeena, a
lissome Igorrote maiden from the Philippines.
Dogmeena will dance in native costume.”
The “native costume” was a string of beads and her “maiden
innocence.”
When the reporter suggested that the “costume” might be
considered “somewhat indelicate,” the baroness seemed surprised and explained
that native dances must be presented in native dress.
The reporter wrote “Another bizarre feature of the concert
will be a series of Oriental dances, including a Hindu sword dance, performed
by Prince Ishmail and an Indian girl, Ishtar.”
He added “The costumes to be worn by the dancers were vaguely described
as native.”
An even more scandalous story at No. 66 began when Frank
Stranz brought his pregnant wife to Dr. Fred Van Vliet here in April 1921. The woman was far along in her pregnancy and,
according to Stranz, the doctor performed an abortion “without his knowledge or
consent,” according to the New-York Tribune.
Mrs. Stranz died a few days later. Oddly, the doctor was charged with “assault
and battery.” Stranz’s $10,000 suit
alleged “that Dr. Van Vliet treated the patient carelessly and unskillfully.”
Six years later Dr. Van Vliet would not get off so
easily. On September 15, 1921 27-year
old Ruby Gonzales, a waitress in a hotel in Asbury Park, came to Van Vliet’s
No. 66 West 10th office with her boyfriend, Herbert Ullman and her
five year old daughter, Vivian.
While Ullman and the little girl waited, the abortion was
performed. Ruby Gonzales died on his
operating table that afternoon. After
being questioned for eight hours, Dr. Van Vliet was arrested the following day for
“having performed an illegal operation.”
This time he was charged with homicide.
Dr. Eugene T. Boyle also practiced from No. 66. The problem was that he wasn’t
a doctor at all. On October 30, 1934 Boyle
was sentenced to a term of not more than three years for practicing medicine
without a license. The New York Times
frankly deemed him a “bogus doctor.”
In the meantime, No. 68 got its own share of negative
publicity. On January 12, 1932 broker Charles
T. Morgan was indicted on forgery charges of $5 million in stocks.
Not all the residents, of course, were quack doctors and
forgers. Esteemed artist Emil Ganso lived
and worked in No. 66 in the 1930s. A
retrospective exhibition of his work in 1944, three years after his death,
called him “one of America’s finest print makers.”
The 21st century leaves its mark with sprayed graffiti and an unfortunate choice in lighting. Cornucopias and floral forms create an imaginative capital to the carved fluted pilaster. |
Aside from the unsightly but necessary fire escapes and the
replacement windows, little has changed in the outward appearance of the twin
apartment buildings at Nos. 66 and 68 West 10th Street. Their
unusual transitional style adds to the rich assortment of architecture on this
amazing block.
photographs taken by the author
How exciting! I've lived in #68 since 1976 and have never heard any of this except the part about Emil Ganso, who pales next to all the sinister and tragic former denizens of these buildings.
ReplyDeleteThe current configuration (4 small apartments per floor) would not have suited the former well-to-do residents, and dinner parties would have been out of the question! I would love to see how things were laid out 100 years ago. Have you found any floor plans, or even apartment numbers for the likes of the Howes Brothers?
Thank you so much for researching this!
I also live at 68 since 1975. I always thought the type of building was called a tenement but apparently not. I also thought it was built as two apts per floor with parlor in front with entrance door and kitchen in the rear with entrance from hall. Now, of course it is 4 per floor. Thank you for the research and the lovely photos.
DeleteJust found this via google while doing a genealogical search. Apparently my mothers cousin lived in No. 66 during the 90s, maybe longer, haven't concluded my research yet. But if either of the above two posters recognize the surname Butler from that particular building, I would be interested in hearing from you.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article.
Just found your email as I was the reviewing the article (it never gets boring!). I was the head of a tenants' group in 1990s and still have the list of tenants and contact info. I'll see if there's someone named Butler there.
Delete