1. Samuel Hays in the foreword to Lubove, The Progressives and the Slums , x-xi. See also, Davis, Spearheads for Reform , 3-39.

2. During the years Lubin was at South End House, Wolfe was there finishing his study for The Lodging House Problem in Boston . On Lubin and Veiller, letter from Lubin to Veiller, October 21, 1913; Lubin Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California. Wood, "The California State Commission of Immigration and Housing," 1-42; and SFHA, Second Report (1913): 7.

3. CIH, Second Annual Report (1916): 8; CIH, Ninth Annual Report (1923); Wood, "The California State Commission of Immigration and Housing," 86, 97.

4. The major accomplishments of the group were their role in forming the CIH and a vigorous letter campaign demanding code enforcement; see Wood, The Housing of the Unskilled Wage Earner , 284; SFHA, First Report (1911): 7, 9, 11, 30-40, 45-46; SFHA, Second Report (1913): 7-8, 20-21.

5. Lubin-Veiller correspondence dating from May 14, 1913, to July 7, 1915; Lubin papers, Bancroft Library.

6. For instance, CIH Commissioner J. H. McBride, a Pasadena physician who drafted the major CIH publications on housing, cited Veiller extensively. continue

See esp., CIH, "An A-B-C of Housing" (Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1915).

7. On California real estate, see Weiss, The Rise of the Community Builders , and Weiss, "Urban Land Developers and the Origins of Zoning Laws." In the 1920s, the City Planning Section of San Francisco's Commonwealth Club was chaired by James Duval Phelan, a mayor and major downtown landowner; the club-sponsored Regional Plan Association of San Francisco was chaired by Frederick Dohrmann, Jr., the wealthy son of a successful retailer. See Scott, The San Francisco Bay Area: A Metropolis in Perspective , 2d ed. (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1985): 186-201.

For the general case of progressive reform, see Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform ; Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916 (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963); James Weinstein, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, 1900-1918 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968).

8. The English garden city planner, Thomas Adams, quoted in CIH, Second Annual Report (1916): 198.

9. The exhibit also traveled around the state, while its illustrations served double duty in several CIH pamphlets. On Cheney, see CIH, First Annual Report (1915): 97; CIH, Second Annual Report (1916): 306; and Wood, "The California State Commission of Immigration and Housing," 225. See also chap. 428, California Statutes of 1915. A classic review of fallacious assumptions of value-free planners is Robert Goodman, After the Planners (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971).

10. The CIH also instituted improvements in rural labor camps and made detailed urban housing surveys aimed at educating the public. Wood, "The California State Commission of Immigration and Housing"; CIH, First Annual Report (1915): 74, 80-84, 92; CIH, Second Annual Report (1916): 203, 268; CIH, Ninth Annual Report (1923): 69-70, 72, 74.

11. Byrnes, "Nurseries of Crime," 362.

12. In 1903, hotel runners (soliciting agents who boarded steamships, ferries, and passenger railroads to attract lodgers) had to be licensed at $10 per quarter; additionally, from 1903 to 1910, public dancing was not allowed between 1:00 and 6:00 A.M. except in hotels. San Francisco City Ordinances #826, 939, 1033. On the easing of the dancing restrictions in 1910, see "Lid Lifted from Tenderloin District: Dancing Allowed," San Francisco Chronicle (March 22, 1910), and the cartoon run on March 23, 1910, 3.

Note: Between 1856 and 1900, acts of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors were "orders"; from 1900 to 1906, "ordinances"; after the 1906 fire until the 1920s, "ordinances (new series)."

13. On red-light abatement and the municipal clinic, see Shumsky, "Vice Responds to Reform," 31-47, and Barbara Meil Hobson, Uneasy Virtue: The Politics of Prostitution and the American Reform Tradition (New York: Basic continue

Books, 1987): 148-149. On the 1917 moral crusade (and Lubin's quotation), see Central City Hospitality House, "Tenderloin Ethnographic Project," 13, 17-18; Gentry, The Madams of San Francisco , 219-225; and Brenda E. Pillors, "The Criminality of Prostitution in the U.S.: The Case of San Francisco, 1854-1919," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1984).

14. In Chicago, such recommendations came from the Council of Social Agencies. See Anderson, The Hobo , 275.

15. Elizabeth Anne Brown, "The Enforcement of Prohibition in San Francisco, California," (M.A. thesis in history, University of California, Berkeley, 1948): 9-11, 40-42, 50-55.

16. Girls Housing Council, "Where Is Home?" 29, 37. New York City eventually had eight major registries for women, although only a small percentage of the city's rooms were represented on the lists; Ford, Slums and Housing , 344-345. On registries for both men and women, see also Peel, "On the Margins," 814; Peel uses the term "regulation by inspection."

17. Boston's lodging house required an initial shower and another shower every seven nights; Kennaday, "New York's Hundred Lodging Houses," 490.

18. Veiller, Housing Reform , 89. For an early review of code reform, see Wood, Recent Trends in American Housing , 114-115. Building codes were so associated with Veiller and the National Housing Association that Wood and others have called them the "Veiller" school of thought.

19. The editor of the Sacramento Record-Union (November 16, 1876), quoted in Elmer Clarence Sandmeyer, The Anti-Chinese Movement in California , 63; see also 51, 63, 75-76. The state act of 1876 was America's first state lodging house sanitary law; its constitutionality was upheld in 1878.

20. On the use of the cubic air code after 1900, see SFHA, Second Report (1913): 24. For tax purposes, the city made no distinction between permanent and transient guests (as it does today) and used an equal gross revenues tax. On minor lighting, exit, and licensing ordinances, see Groth, "Forbidden Housing," 522-535, and San Francisco City Ordinances #102, 138, 303, 602, 913, 1493, 1677, and New Series #3361.

21. William Issel and Robert W. Cherny, San Francisco, 1865-1932: Politics, Power, and Urban Development (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1986); on Schmitz and his ouster in 1907, 139-164. The Board of Health empowerment is in Ordinance #501. In Sections 202 and 204 of the 1908 San Francisco Plumbing Code are rather lenient lodging house plumbing requirements: one water closet for every 25 people of each sex; the water closets did not have to be on the same floor as the tenants' rooms. After 1909, cubicle rooms were allowed only in steel frame or concrete frame buildings and not in buildings with masonry bearing walls with wooden floor joists (Sections 16, 190, and 191 of the 1909 San Francisco Building Laws, New Series Ordinances #1139 and 6286).

22. SFHA, First Report (1911): 7, 14. The California legislature was using continue

a draft of Veiller's A Model Tenement House Law , available in a published version in 1910 and intended for densely built cities like Boston and New York. In 1914, Veiller's office published A Model Housing Law for smaller or newer cities with more open-lot housing.

23. The clause remained in the California Statutes of 1915, chap. 572, the California State Tenement House Law; the quotation here is the entire text of Section 70, with emphasis added. Compare with Veiller, Model Tenement House Law , sect. 94. For other states' use of the Veiller models, see Wood, Recent Trends in American Housing , 114-119.

24. The 1913 act is California Statutes of 1913, chap. 395, State Hotel and Lodging House Act. It was neither very specific nor stringent in its requirements; see Groth, "Forbidden Housing," 523-535.

25. The trio of new statutes were California Statutes of 1917, chap. 736 (Hotel and Lodging House Act), 737 (Dwelling House Act), and 738 (Tenement House Act). The commission's boast is in CIH, Fifth Annual Report (1919): 35.

26. California Statutes of 1917, chap. 736, sects. 10 and 62, repeated in the 1923 State Housing Act.

27. California Statutes of 1917, chap. 736, sects. 33-36. New York also required one bathtub per 25 beds or one shower per 50 beds; Chicago Department of Public Welfare, "Fifty Cheap Lodging Houses," 70. On rag storage, see California Statutes of 1917, chap. 738, sects. 67 and 77, and chap. 736 (the hotel act), sects. 28 and 65.

28. California Statues of 1917, chap. 736, sect. 65; see also Statutes of 1923, chap. 386, sect. 65.

29. The inspection forms are microfilmed in the 1920s documents in San Francisco's Department of Apartment and Hotel Inspection (DAHI). On inspections, see Wood, Recent Trends in American Housing , 118.

30. CIH, Fifth Annual Report (1919): 76. See also CIH, Eleventh Annual Report (1925): 18; and CIH, Thirteenth Annual Report (1927): 24.

31. The 1920s date is based on the earliest DAHI file, which records the requirement of additional plumbing at various hotels.

32. This example stands at 172-180 Sixth Street and was probably built for skilled workers; the Tenderloin has several other such buildings from the pre-1917 era.

33. Hoch and Slayton, New Homeless and Old , 64, 70, 101.

34. Veiller, Housing Reform , 30.

35. "Zone Plan for San Francisco," The Architect and Engineer 62, 3 (September 1920): 65-73, on 65.

36. On covenants in the elite west side district of St. Francis Woods, see Scott, American City Planning , 75; on the prefire mixtures in the Western Addition and downtown, see John P. Young, San Francisco (San Francisco: S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1912), 2:754; and Judd Kahn, Imperial San Francisco: continue

Politics and Planning in an American City, 1887-1906 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979): 3, 215-216. Zoning as promotion as well as protection is succinctly reviewed in Weiss, "Urban Land Developers and the Origins of Zoning Laws," 8-11.

37. The expert reformer is Frederick C. Howe, "The Municipal Real Estate Policies of German Cities," Proceedings of the Third National Conference on City Planning (1911): 15. Paul Scharrenberg, "The Housing Aspect of the City Planning Problem" [Address to the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, June 16, 1917], The Architect and Engineer 50, 2 (August 1917): 66-68. Scharrenberg was secretary of the State Federation of Labor and by 1920, also a member of the San Francisco City Planning Commission. For Veiller, see Protecting Residential Districts , 11.

38. San Francisco, Building Zone Ordinance (Ordinance #5464), 1921 draft and 1927 revision, sect. 4. In the 1921 version, no housing was allowed in industrial zones; in the 1927 revisions, boardinghouses, lodging houses, and hotels were specifically added as allowed uses in industrial areas, indicating the continuing need for them in those areas of San Francisco.

39. From the 1890s through 1915, cleverly designed flats often mixed by developers into elite and middle-class districts of single-family houses; property owners who wished to build purposely designed rooming houses might have taken a similar visual cue.

40. Hamilton, Promoting New Hotels , 147.

41. On rooming house districts as zones of women's businesses, see Woods, "Social Betterment in a Lodging District," 967.

42. 195 Cal. 477, 234 P. 381 (1925), app. dismd., 273 U.S. 781 (1927). All quotations from Miller v. Los Angeles are from sect. 10.

43. 195 Cal. 477 ( Miller v. Los Angeles ), sect. 10.

44. State ex rel. Beery v. Houghton , 164 Minn. 146, 204 N.W. 569 (1925).

45. Jacqueline Tyrwhitt, High Rise Apartments and Urban Form , ACE Publications Research Report no. 5 (Athens: Center of Ekistics, 1968): 28.

46. 10 Minn Law R 48 (1925): 53, citing Miller v. Los Angeles (1925) and Zahn v. Los Angeles (1925).

47. The quotations from the Euclid v. Ambler decision are from 272 U.S. 365 (1926); see also 47 S. Ct. 114 and 71 L Ed 303 (1926).

48. Hoover was endorsing the reports of the 1932 conference on housing; Gries and Ford, eds., Planning for Residential Districts , xi.

49. Gries and Ford, eds., Slums, Large-Scale Housing, and Decentralization , 6; emphasis added. See also Joel Tarr, "From City to Suburb: The 'Moral' Influence of Transportation Technology," in Alexander B. Callow, Jr., ed., American Urban History , 2d rev. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973): 202-212; and Kenneth Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985): 45-116.

50. On "making family life possible," Veiller, in Deforest and Veiller, Tene - soft

ment House Problem , 1:3. On "concern for wives and families," see Veiller, Housing Reform , 155. On the single lot house, Veiller, Housing Reform , 6, 30, where Veiller (revealing his weak understanding of the employment structures that kept people flocking to the cities) hopes that immigrants could continue peasant life in the United States.

51. CIH, "An A-B-C of Housing," 5.

52. Gould, quoted in Lubove, The Progressives and the Slums , 110-111. Wood, Recent Trends in American Housing , 41. See hotel limits in Veiller, A Model Tenement House Law , 54-55, and Housing Reform , 6.

53. Veiller, Housing Reform , 109-112.

54. The 1912 meeting was the National Conference of Charities and Correction, in Cleveland, which passed a statement on the right to a home. See Wood, The Housing of the Unskilled Wage Earner , 10. On New York definitions, see Lubove, The Progressives and the Slums , 18, 26; and Veiller, Model Tenement House Law , sect. 2.

55. The San Francisco zoning ordinance of 1921, Ordinance #5464, defined an apartment as "a residence for one family doing its own cooking on the premises." In 1957, the American Society of Planning Officials advised its members that the distinguishing factor between an apartment and a rooming house was "the absence of kitchen facilities for each rooming house resident"; ASPO, "Rooming Houses," 6. On the 1950 census, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Housing, 1950 , vol. 1, General Characteristics, pt. 2 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953): xvi; this was the first time the census office had used cooking as a definition to distinguish between rooming and apartment houses.

56. On risks, Federal Housing Administration, Property Standards: Requirements for Mortgage Insurance under Title II of the National Housing Act, June 1, 1936 , Circular no. 2 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1936): 5.

57. FHA, Property Standards , 14-15, 17. On dwelling definition, 14. On the definition of "living unit," see Section 509. For San Francisco, the minimum number of rooms was set as three rooms and a bath; Pt. VI, Northern California District, 5. A later amendment technically included hotels in the definition, but other restrictions were not lifted. See Modernization Credit Plan, Property Improvement Loans under Title I of the National Housing Act: Amendments of 1938, Regulations effective February 4, 1938 (Washington, D.C.: Federal Housing Administration, 1938): 3.

58. FHA, Property Standards , 4-5. The guidelines did, however, allow up to 25 percent of a private dwelling to have rooming house or tourist house use, essentially allowing from about one to three boarders or roomers with a family; 17.

59. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier , 196-219; FHA Underwriting Manual (Washington, D.C., 1939, typescript ed. 1934); Goodman, After the Planners , continue

56-59; Miles Colean, The Impact of Government on Real Estate Finance in the United States (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1950). See also FHA, Property Standards (1936 ed.): 4-6.

60. The Los Angeles zoning law of 1955, for instance, specifically excluded hotels, boardinghouses, and lodging houses from the category of "dwelling." Concern over the ad hoc rooming house conversions prompted the American Society of Planning Officials to urge other cities to follow suit; ASPO, "Rooming Houses," 3-7, 10.

61. On the increase in tax benefits during the 1940s, see Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier , 293.

62. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Opinions .

63. Rose, "Interest in the Living Arrangements of the Urban Unattached," 486-498. Rose explained the interest before World War I as a function of labor migrations and Progressive Era concerns—municipal lodging houses, housing inspection, urban surveys that included transients and single people, and the proliferation of room registry organizations.

64. Ibid., 490. The peak of interest in Chicago seemed to be in the early 1920s, marked in part by the works of Nels Anderson and Harvey Zorbaugh. Rose attributed the decline of interest to a rise in political conservatism, a general decline in public concern about social problems, and immigration shutdowns that cut back the numbers of immigrant lodgers (and hence, social workers' concerns about their housing).

65. Deforest and Veiller, Tenement House Problem , 1:144.

66. Veiller, Housing Reform , 28. Investigation issues were also framed by conditions in New York City, where the tenement house department inspected apartments and the police inspected cheap hotels.

67. The exceptions, again, were in Chicago with Anderson's and Zorbaugh's work. A typical example of noninclusion is Wood's The Housing of the Unskilled Wage Earner , one of the best books on housing published immediately after World War I; it did not mention single people's housing at all.

68. Abbott, The Tenements of Chicago , 350. She expresses the same sentiment on 145 and 323.

69. The thesis was Wilson, "Chicago Families in Unfurnished Rooms," 25-50. Sampling based mostly on pathology also skews CSS, "Life in One Room."

70. Quoted in Hayner, "The Hotel," 69-70. Hayner also quotes a letter from the director of the Bureau of the Census stating that through 1920 no hotel study had been done.

71. U.S. Census definitions and categories for housing change from decade to decade. In 1890, the census made clear that a dwelling was anything from a "Wigwam on the outskirts of a settlement, a hotel, a boarding house, a large tenement house," or a single-family house. From 1900 through 1920, dwellings were "where one or more persons regularly sleep," with no cooking requirement. The enumerators were to distinguish between "private families" and "economic families." In 1930, reflecting the mood of the previous decade, continue

the census shifted strongly and defined dwellings as only those places occupied by private families of one or more people. A "quasi-family" category was begun. Later census reports called the dwellings of quasi-families "group quarters." Changes associated with the first Census of Housing, in 1940, are reported in the text.

In 1950, "separation"—separate cooking equipment or a separate entrance—became a key criterion for identifying a dwelling unit. Furthermore, the minimum size of a lodging house went from more than 10 lodgers to 5 lodgers or more. In 1960, the new term "housing unit" replaced "dwelling unit," with the following definition:

A "housing unit" was "a house, an apartment or other groups of rooms, or a single room . . . occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, that is, when the occupants do not live and eat with any other persons in the structure and there is either (1) direct access from the outside or through a common hall, or (2) a kitchen or cooking equipment for the exclusive use of the occupants. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Housing 1960, Metropolitan Housing Part I [1963]: xvi.)

In hotels and rooming houses, a single room qualified as a housing unit "if occupied by a person whose usual residence is the hotel." In that same year, "group quarters" were defined as occupied quarters that do not qualify as housing units (usually institutions)—"nurses' homes, hospitals, rooming and boarding houses, military barracks, college dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses, convents, and monasteries."

The 1970 guidelines were essentially the same as those of 1960. In 1980, the staff split the "group quarters" category into two: (1) institutional group quarters are those that indicate custody or care, such as prisons or rest homes; and (2) noninstitutional group quarters, including boardinghouses and dormitories.

72. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the U.S., Census of Hotels , 1930 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931).

73. John M. Gries and James Ford, gen. eds., Publications of the President's Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership , 11 vols. (Washington, D.C.: National Capitol Press, 1932). Single male lodgers living with families are mentioned in vol. 8, Housing and the Community: Home Repair and Remodeling , 158, 173.

74. In 1936, James Ford warned that the published data on single people were "surprisingly meagre"; Ford, Slums and Housing , 1:337, 344, 346, 349. For instance, in 1932, Edith Elmer Wood's article, "Housing in the U.S.," in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences contained no mention of single-room housing; she described the family houses built by the federal government during World War I but ignored the hotels and dormitory sections of those same projects.

75. On the 1933 SFHA survey, see Carl F. Gromme, "A Case Picture of Housing in a Slumless City," Architect and Engineer of California 117, 3 (June continue

1934): 35-38. In 1934, under the PWA's Civil Works Administration, surveyors conducted a 50-block survey in San Francisco. In 1936, California's State Emergency Relief Administration (SERA) surveyed half the city's living quarters; they included apartments and hotels, using the state's definition of hotels. The San Francisco Municipal Housing Survey, also of 1936 and a WPA project, used separate forms for "structures" (multifamily units and hotels) and "dwelling units" but carefully reported hotel conditions for each census district surveyed.

76. The beginning of the systematic excision can be seen in the office's in-house lists of buildings and conditions, where the staff did not give hotels building numbers as they did apartments. See, for instance, the "A" forms (or block lists) for Census Tract J-10, Block 757, in the survey manuscripts at the Bancroft Library, University of California. The seven pages about hotels are in SFHACC, Real Property Survey, 1939 , 1:3, 26-27, 249-253.

77. The buried proportion is in Tables C and D under "Project Operations," 288-289, vol. 1. The one-third figure can be found by comparing data within the tables: precisely 32.5 percent of the substandard dwellings units and 31.9 percent of ill-housed people were in hotels. The survey's definition of a hotel excluded rooming houses, so the number of legally defined hotels would have been higher. Quotation on 1:27.

78. The bureau's instructions to census takers directed them to count only whole hotels or wings of hotels that were residential. They were not to include "cheap one-night lodging houses." Reports of one-room units were conflated with efficiency apartments and simple cabins or tents. In San Francisco, the remaining hotel units reported hardly equaled the figures for Chinatown alone. Compared to the notes for the 1900 and 1910 population censuses, these 1940 instructions seem to have been written by people much less familiar with American cities or hotel occupancy.

79. SFHACC, Second Report (1940): 8.

80. San Francisco City Planning Commission, The Master Plan of San Francisco (1945): 18. The areas in question were Chinatown, the Western Addition, and the South of Market.

81. See William Wheaton, Grace Milgram, and Margy Ellin Meyerson, Urban Housing (New York: Free Press, 1966); Rose's article is reprinted on 217-222.

82. Rose, "Interest in the Living Arrangements of the Urban Unattached," 493.

83. Wolfe, Lodging House Problem , 182. On correspondence, Wood, "The California State Commission of Immigration and Housing," 247.