Cheltenham Township: A Sociological Analysis of a Residential Suburb [Reprint 2016 ed.] 9781512803198

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments
Contents
Tables
Charts
I. Introduction
II. The Growth of Cities
III. Cheltenham Township History and Description: I
IV. Cheltenham Township History and Description: Ii
V. The Cheltenham Pattern: Migration
VI. The Family
VII. Schools
VIII. Business and Occupational Distribution
IX. Indices of Economic Status
Χ. Government, Political Opinion, and Indices of Social Disorganization
XI. Recreation
XII. The Church
XIII. Summary and Conclusions
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP A SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF A RESIDENTIAL SUBURB

By Arthur H o s k i n g J o n e s

Philadelphia UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS LONDON.·

HUMPHREY

M I L F O R D : OXFORD U N I V E R S I T Y

I94O

PRESS

Copyright UNIVERSITY

Manufactured

1940

OF P E N N S Y L V A N I A

PRESS

in the United States of America

To M.S.J.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IT IS a great pleasure for me to acknowledge here the valuable assistance that was given me in the carrying on of this research. I am especially indebted to many people who gave their time for interviews and to others who made reports available for me to use and who, by explaining those reports, assisted me to understand and to evaluate the life of the township. M r . Edward Linson, Township Treasurer; Chief Theodore Hallowell of the Township Police; M r . George Fondersmith of the Township Commissioners office were of great help. It would be impossible to name all the people in the school system of Cheltenham Township who by criticism, encouragement, and active assistance made much of the research possible. Among these are hundreds of high school and junior high school students and their parents who answered questionnaires and exhibited interest in what was being done. Many of the instructional and administrative staff seemed to welcome continuing and, at times, labor-making inquiry. D r . Frank Ketler, Superintendent of Schools, and Miss Muriel Nicholson, his secretary, were of very great assistance. D r . Ira R . Kraybill, Principal of the High School, was understanding and encouraging. M r . Donald Harding and M r . Paul Freeburg of the vocational department of the High School were generous and helpful in the printing of the questionnaires. Dr. Herman M . Wessel, who has had a continuing scientific and sympathetic interest in the community of Cheltenham Township and who for years has shared that interest with me, has had a larger part than he knew in this research. I take this opportunity to express publicly my gratitude to M r . Benton M . Spruance for his generous help. I am especially appreciative of the interest, encouragement, and criticism of Professor James H . S. Bossard of the Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania. A. H . J . Aupist

1940 vii

CONTENTS Page I.

II.

INTRODUCTION

Ι

T H E G R O W T H OF C I T I E S

8

III.

H I S T O R Y AND D E S C R I P T I O N : I

17

IV.

H I S T O R Y AND D E S C R I P T I O N : I I

29

V.

THE

CHELTENHAM

VI.

THE

FAMILY

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

PATTERN:

42

61

SCHOOLS

76

BUSINESS AND O C C U P A T I O N A L D I S T R I B U T I O N

98

I N D I C E S OF E C O N O M I C S T A T U S

GOVERNMENT,

POLITICAL

OPINION,

111

AND

INDICES

OF S O C I A L D I S O R G A N I Z A T I O N

121

RECREATION

137

THE

144

CHURCH

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

MIGRATION

158

168

ix

171

TABLES P°ge

Number I . Population of the W o r l d ' s Largest Cities,

1800

to 1 9 3 0

11

I I . Incorporated Places of Specified Size in Selected Metropolitan Districts, 1 9 3 0

12

I I I . Population G r o w t h of Cheltenham T o w n s h i p I V . S u m m a r y of the Zoning Ordinance .

.

.

29 .

31

V . Geographical Distribution of Building Permits for N e w D w e l l i n g s by Estimated Value . . . V I . Comparison

of

Cheltenham

Township

with

Other Areas VII. The

Country

32

34 of

Birth

of

the

Foreign-Born

W h i t e and the Parents of the N a t i v e - B o r n W h i t e Population of Cheltenham T o w n s h i p

.

.

36

VIII.

Sex Composition, 1 9 3 0 — M a i n L i n e Radial Line

38

IX.

Population: Composition and Characteristics by A g e , Color, Nativity and Sex. Cheltenham Township

39

X . L e n g t h of Residence of Families by Section of Township

42

XI.

XII.

Duration of Occupancy of F a m i l y D w e l l i n g Units by Present Occupants for Selected A r e a s in Philadelphia Age

of Oldest Child W h e n

Family

Came

to

Cheltenham T o w n s h i p XIII.

XIV.

Reasons for Coming to Cheltenham by Section of T o w n s h i p

44

47 Township 48

W h e n D i d T h e y C o m e and W h e r e D i d T h e y From? 1 N u m b e r and P e r C e n t χ

53

TABLES

xi

Number

Poge X V . Marital Condition of the Population 1 5 Years Old and Over, by Sex, Color and Nativity; Cheltenham Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1 9 3 0

62

X V I . Number of Children in Family, by Place of Residence

63

X V I I . Occupational Distribution by Number of Children in Family

65

X V I I I . W h o Are Employed in F a m i l y — B y

Place of

Residence

68

X I X . Home Tenure by Section of Township . X X . Home Tenure by Length of Residence .

69 .

X X I . Number of Children in Family; Tenure of Home X X I I . Home Tenure and Auto Ownership

70 70 71

X X I I I . Home Tenure and Telephone Subscription .

72

X X I V . School Enrollment

78

X X V . Enrollment of Children in the Schools of Cheltenham Township by Sex, Grade and Section . X X V I . Levels of Training of Teachers in Service, Cheltenham Township, 1 9 3 9 X X V I I . Levels of Training of Teachers in Service in Thirty-Five City School Systems over 3 0 , 0 0 0 Population. Percent Only X X V I I I . Length of Teaching Experience in Cheltenham Township of the Instructional Personnel of the Cheltenham Township School District, 1 9 3 9 XXIX.

80 81

81

84

Median Salaries Paid Teachers of Elementary, Junior High Schools and Senior High Schools, 1 9 3 8 - 1 9 3 9 Cheltenham Township and C o m parative Areas in Pennsylvania

85

X X X . Number of Graduates of Cheltenham High School Entering Institutions of Higher Learning

90

xii

TABLES P°ge

Number XXXI.

Expenditure of Cheltenham School District for Decade 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 3 9

93

School Budget, 1 9 3 8 - 1 9 3 9

93

T h e Nature and Number of Business and Industrial Enterprises in Cheltenham T o w n s h i p

99

Persons 1 0 Y e a r s Old and O v e r E n g a g e d in G a i n f u l Occupations by Sex and Industry Groups for Cheltenham Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: 1 9 3 0

104

Social Economic Classification of G a i n f u l W o r k ers Resident in Cheltenham Township, 1 9 3 8 , and in United States, 1 9 3 0

105

Occupational Distribution and Length of Residence in Township

107

X X X V I I . Occupational Distribution by Section of T o w n s h i p

108

XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV.

XXXV.

XXXVI.

XXXVIII.

XXXIX.

XL.

Socio-Economic Classification of G a i n f u l W o r k ers Resident in Cheltenham Township, 1 9 3 8 , and in the United States, 1 9 3 0 . (Same as T a b l e XXXV)

112

Number and Percent of Graduates of Cheltenham Township High School Entering Institutions of Higher Learning. (Same as Table X X X )

113

Number of Families W h o Subscribe to Telephone Service

114

Home T e n u r e and Telephone Subscription

115

XLII.

Automobile Ownership by Section of T o w n s h i p and by Original Cost of C a r

115

XLIII.

Number of Automobiles O w n e d by Families by

XLI.

Section of T o w n s h i p

116

XLIV.

A g e of Automobiles by Section of Township

116

XLV.

Home T e n u r e and Automobile Ownership

117

Number of Township

118

XLVI.

Servants Employed

by Section of

xin

TABLES

P"ge

Number X L V I I . Number of Children in Family and Employment Servants

119

X L V I I I . Percentage of Levied Taxes Collected During T a x Years 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 3 8

124

X L I X . Percentage of Township Vote Cast for Candidates of Major Parties in State and National Election Years: 1 9 3 2 - 1 9 3 8

125

L . Vote Cast by Party and District in Cheltenham Township, November 7, 1 9 3 9

127

L I . Total Arrests Made by Cheltenham Township Police

128

L I I . Arrests Made by Cheltenham Township Police, I938

13°

L I I I . Section of Residence in Cheltenham Township of Juvenile Delinquents and Dependent Children Brought to Montgomery County Juvenile Court, 1931-1938

132

L I V . Cases of Private Assistance in Cheltenham T o w n ship Reported by Old York Road Health Center by Section of Township and Type of Service R e n dered

133

L V . Number of Cases Receiving Public Assistance in Cheltenham Township, October 1 , 1 9 3 8 , to September 3 0 , 1 9 3 9 , by Kind of Assistance .

135

L V I . Distribution of Public Assistance Case Load, O c tober 2 7 , 1 9 3 9 , by Section of Township and Kind of Assistance

135

L V I I . Family Memberships in Fraternal Organizations, Lodges, and Clubs, Showing Number of M e m berships and Section of Residence in Township

137

L V I I I . Kinds of Organizations to Which Cheltenham Township Families Belong, by Section of Residence

138

L I X . Churches Serving Township

Residents

of

Cheltenham 145

CHARTS Page A r e a s in Philadelphia and Vicinity from Which Families H a v e C o m e to Cheltenham T o w n s h i p

XIV

54

I

INTRODUCTION a study of a residential suburban area, Cheltenham Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, adjacent to Philadelphia, approximately ten miles north of the center of the city. It contains 5,400 acres and had, in 1939, an estimated population of 18,000. Proximity to an old city has made possible a development which seems to have resulted in a pattern or a series of patterns which are worth description. T h e r e are a number of factors which have contributed to the Cheltenham pattern; two of these, proximity to the city and the fact that Philadelphia is an old city, have already been mentioned. Other factors are the age of the Township as an independent minor civil division, the gradual character of its growth which has permitted it to escape the disintegrating results of too rapid growth, and the fact that a certain kind of people, in terms of what they consider to be desirable environment, have been drawn to the area. T H I S IS

Throughout this investigation there have been three questions which have been constantly in my mind. These constitute what might be called the backbone of the investigation in that together they make up the basic structure into which data are articulated and around which they are arranged. These questions have been kept simple because of the difficulty of finding answers to even the simplest of questions. T h e y are: ( 1 ) What is the background of this community and how did it come to be what it is? ( 2 ) W h a t is the community like and is there a pattern of organization and behavior discernible? ( 3 ) H o w can I find out the answers to the other two questions? T h e answers to the first two questions f o r m the body of this study. This chapter tells how the third was answered. Before the study was properly begun I felt that I knew the I

2

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP

area. Twelve years of constant contact with the children of the community in its schools cannot but give some understanding of the district. Seven years of residence with the acquaintances and friendships that develop permits a participating observer to see more of a different segment of the commmunity. Walks, drives, and other recreational activities provide another view. This knowledge, which was informally gathered over a considerable period, was consciously checked and corrected later in the process of making the investigation; but the informal knowledge so garnered was invaluable in providing a sense of what the community is, a feeling for its atmosphere. Three major methods were used in the investigation itself: the methods of the historian; the consultation of accounts of the growth of the area, the examination of records of its schools, its government, and its population as described in Census reports and in special tabulations of certain Census data; the reading of newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets to try to discover what the people of the Township had done and were doing in their community life. T h e historical data, both primary and secondary, were supplemented by data gathered through interviews with many people who knew something about some part of the life of the Township. In the course of the investigation interviews of formal or informal nature were had with old residents, officials in the Township government and in the school system, business men, local post-office employees, political leaders, clergymen, recent in-migrants, school children, and housewives. In the formal interviews notes were taken during the interview in the interests of accuracy, even though the taking may have interrupted the interview itself. In the informal interviews no notes were taken at the time, but were made as soon as possible after the interview. Some of the interviews were brief, some were as long as two hours. Some of the persons interviewed knew the purpose of the interview, and in some cases what was an interview to me was a conversation to the other person. The ease with which interviews were scheduled and the freedom with which the interviewer's questions were answered arose out of the fact that he

INTRODUCTION

3

was known personally by many of the people interviewed, at least as a resident of the Township and as a teacher in its schools, even though at the time the study was made he was no longer either. In a few cases I was told that I might use the material but was requested not to mention names of individuals as sources. Those requests have been respected. In order to acquire more data of a definite nature it was decided to use a questionnaire. T w o trial questionnaires were drawn up and schedules were submitted to groups of students in the High School in order to discover a satisfactory form to be used with a larger group. Finally one was made which appeared to be satisfactory. It is reproduced below. C H E L T E N H A M T O W N S H I P PUBLIC SCHOOLS Administration Offices Elkins Park Pennsylvania T h e accompanying questionnaire has been prepared by a member of the social studies faculty of the Cheltenham Senior High School. He is making a very detailed and careful study of the social composition of a suburban community. Since there is no other way he can get any considerable amount of information, he has prepared the questionnaire in the hope that the residents of this community will cooperate with him. Every effort has been made to eliminate from the questionnaire any indication of the identity of the person answering it. It is hoped, therefore, no one will feel any embarrassment in supplying the information requested. Yours very truly, F r a n k C. K e t l e r Superintendent of Schools K:mn SURVEY OF CHELTENHAM

TOWNSHIP

This questionnaire is distributed to you in order to acquire information about this Township that is not available in any of the official sources. It is to be used, along with other materials in a study of the Township being made by a member of our faculty.

CHELTENHAM

4

TOWNSHIP

D o not sign y o u r n a m e because w e do not w a n t to k n o w personal information, When

returns be made

public.

the study is completed it m a y be seen in the H i g h

School

Library.

neither

Will

you

will

any

please

individual

answer

these

questions

truthfully

and

completely because the i n f o r m a t i o n is valuable only if it is accurate. W i l l y o u take this h o m e and get y o u r parents to help to a n s w e r it c o r r e c t l y , and return it as soon as possible? I . H a s any other m e m b e r of y o u r f a m i l y received and a n s w e r e d this questionnaire? Y e s . . . . N o . . . .

If so, do not a n s w e r ,

but r e t u r n the questionnaire. I I . W h e r e do y o u live in the township? 1. C h e l t e n h a m

. . .

2. R o w l a n d P a r k

.

3. M e l r o s e P a r k

. . .

6. E l k i n s P a r k . . . . .

7. W y n c o t e

..

8. G l e n s i d e

. ..

9. E d g e Hill

4. L a M o t t . . 5.

(Please check)

.

.

1 0 . O u t s i d e township

Erlen....

III.

W h e n did your family come to this t o w n s h i p to live?

IV.

Where

has y o u r

parents?

family

lived

since

the

marriage

Please list in order the cities and if

. ..

of

your

Philadelphia

sections of the city. F o r e x a m p l e , W e s t Philadelphia, F r a n k f o r d , etc. V . W h y did your family m o v e to C h e l t e n h a m VI. VII.

Township?

How

m a n y children are there in y o u r family?

their

ages)

W h o in y o u r f a m i l y are employed? 1.

Father

2.

Mother

( P l e a s e list

(Please c h e c k )

3. B r o t h e r s 1 . . . . 2 . . . . 3 . . . . 4 . . . . 4 . Sisters VIII.

1 . . . 2 . . 3 . . 4 . . .

W h a t are their occupations? F o r e x a m p l e : Salesman, M a n a g e r of T e x t i l e F a c t o r y , Electrical E n g i n e e r , C a r p e n t e r

IX.

H o w l a r g e is y o u r living room? 10x15

X.

( G i v e dimensions, example

ft., 25 χ 30 f t . )

T o w h a t lodges, fraternal organizations and clubs do m e m b e r s of y o u r family belong? I.

4·

2.

5-

3·

6.

INTRODUCTION

5

X I . Does your family own an automobile? Y e s . . No. 1 . If you own more than one automobile, how many . . . . ? 2. What makes? 3. What year? X I I . Have you a telephone? Y e s

.

. No

. .

X I I I . Does your family employ a full time servant? N o . . . . If more than one, how many?

Yes. . . .

X I V . Does your family regularly employ a part time servant? Yes. . . . No . . If more than one, how many? X V . D o you own or rent your home? O w n

. . . Rent. . . .

The questionnaire was distributed to all the students of the Cheltenham Senior High School who were present in school on the second Tuesday of December, 1938. It was distributed to the students of the Elkins Park Junior High School on December 18, 1938, and to the students of the Thomas Williams Junior High School in Wyncote on January 10, 1939. There were several circumstances beyond the control of the investigator which made it impossible to distribute the questionnaire to all of the students on the same day. A total of 1,257 questionnaires were distributed to students. Of this number, 898, or 7 1 . 4 percent, were returned. T w o classes of returns were discarded from the tabulations. These were returns from families who had previously made a return, and returns from students who lived outside the Township. There were 197 duplicate returns made, principally from Junior High School students whose older brothers and sisters had earlier received and returned a questionnaire, and fifty-three returns from students who lived out of the Township. It was the residue, or 648 usable questionnaires, each representing a family in Cheltenham Township, which was used for tabulation purposes. This questionnaire was distributed to children in the six later years of the public school system. It therefore excluded four groups of people in the Township: those who are childless, those whose youngest child is too old to be included, those whose eldest child is too young to be included, those whose children do not attend public school. The findings of the study are presented with these limitations in mind, but there are several other condi-

6

CHELTENHAM

TOWNSHIP

tions which should here be mentioned because they affect these limitations. T h e r e are few childless families in the area; how many there are cannot accurately be determined because there are some two-person families which consist of one parent and one child. Not all of the two-person families can be considered childless. It is the well-considered opinion of persons who know the district that those families whose children are too old or too young to be included are very much like the families included in every way except the age of their children, and that if they were to be studied at the same time in the history of the family, that is, when they had a child in the secondary school, the results of that study would be approximately the same. This means nothing more than that the community, in the opinion of those who have reason to know it, is continuing to attract to it people who are very much like the people who are already there, and that this attraction of likes has continued for the last quartercentury. T h e school officials are of the opinion, based on the annual census of children of school age, that over ninety per cent of those children are in the public schools of the district. T h e material so gathered has been treated with a concern for the ecological characteristics of the community and especially with an interest in determining the spatial distribution of the phenomena and the factors which make for such distribution. In addition to the ecological factors there has been a constant concern for other socio-economic and psycho-social phenomena which might enlighten the investigator in his search for the realities of the area. T h e purpose of the study has been to present a description, primarily ecological in its approach, of the social pattern of a suburban area, Cheltenham Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. This is a study of a single suburban community. It is not and is not meant to be a study of suburbs generally nor is it meant to suggest that this is a typical suburb. There are many different kinds of suburbs. T h e r e is wide variation within each kind. This is but one example of one variation of one kind of suburb—an old upper class residential suburb of a great metropolitan city. It is my purpose, in the chapters which follow, to show the

INTRODUCTION

7

background and development of the community, its population composition and characteristics, and its territorial divisions. M a terial will then be presented to show the design, ecological and social, of the area today as it is seen in migration, the family, education, recreation, religion, political behavior, business activity, occupational distribution, and socio-economic status. F r o m these data emerges a description of the social composition, the selective factors, and the forces which result in the complex which is here designated the Cheltenham Pattern.

II THE GROWTH OF CITIES SUBURBAN development is a part of urban development. One cannot discuss one without having in mind the existence of the other. Cities have a long history. In fact, there are civilizations known to historians today only because of the ruins of their cities. Cities have arisen to answer certain human needs for goods in greater quantity and perfection than may be obtained from other non-urban sources; and for services of greater variety and skill than may be had from any but the h i g h l y specialized artisans and professional workers of the city, and for defense. T h e r e are many conditions which form the basis for the existence of cities, but of these, two seem to be universal in western civilization. First, the city exists because the extractive techniques are sufficiently developed and the city has access to natural resources which are sufficiently rich to permit a surplus of food. Second, because a group has achieved permanent residence and division of labor. On the occupational side, cities are places of specialization as compared with non-urban areas. T h e rural dweller is required to do many different things passably well. T h e city dweller does fewer things better. T h e r e are few cities that do not specialize, as cities, in some form of activity. Some cities are and have always been centers of distribution and exchange. T h e s e cities, situated favorably on trade routes, rivers, and harbors, have come to exist because shippers find goods from the hinterland there, because goods from other lands are deposited there, because there is where trade routes cross. T h e names of many of these cities, both ancient and modern, come to mind in this connection: N i n e v e h , Byzantium, Syracuse, Marseille, L o n d o n , New Y o r k , Chicago. Other cities are predominantly centers of production of some commodity which they manufacture cheaper or better than any 8

THE GROWTH OF CITIES

9

other place. Proximity to sources of raw materials or to markets results in the eminence of the people of one place as producers of products of high quality and cheap price. It was not necessary for the Industrial Revolution to come for cities to become renowned for certain goods. Examples of some of these cities of production are: Damascus, Cordoba, Calcutta, Florence, Pittsburgh, Birmingham, Manchester. There are cities also which are predominantly agglomerations of people brought together in one place for purposes of government. These exist because political control can be most effectively exercised by the location together of the ministries, bureaus, and courts concerned with policy-making and administration. Egyptian Thebes, Rome, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Washington, are cities that have been or at present are fundamentally cities of control. But while cities may be to greatest degree cities of distribution, production, or control, there are no cities today that are exclusively of one type. All combine two or more of these functions. All commercial cities are industrial to some extent also. There are no market cities where no processing takes place. All cities are points of distribution where goods from other places and from the hinterland are sold to purchasers and users. There are no cities which escape the task of control. Some, great capital cities like Washington, owe their existence to the centralization of political power. Others exercise financial or managerial control over enterprises which may extend around the world. These bases of city existence are also of the most important economic functions of cities. These things are what cities do. T h e y are not the reasons why people congregate in cities. There are other reasons why cities exist. Cities, because of the variety of occupational choices and because of the size of the market offer great opportunity for economic and professional success. Cities are points of concentration of wealth; they are also places where chances of employment and of advancement are great, and where rewards for services are relatively more abundant. Cities also offer stimulation \vhich comes from intimate contact with others who are engaged in similar tasks and whose profes-

10

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP

sional interests are supplementary. Cities are places where new ideas, new methods, new contributions meet the greatest welcome. People live in cities because cities are places of freedom. Here they find freedom from primary group domination where friendships may be made on a basis of interest rather than on a basis of locus; freedom to behave differently, either for good or evil; freedom to express opinions; freedom to move from place to place. Cities also are places where opportunities for recreational behavior and for cultural interest and development are richest and most varied. Cities exist because they serve needs, because people want to live together, and because the group can afford them. This has always been the case. But the size of the city has depended on the other factors of ease of communication and upon the speed of transportation. There are no accurate figures for ancient cities such as Thebes, Memphis, Nineveh. They are reputed to have been large. Certain ancient cities such as Athens and Syracuse had populations of about one hundred thousand. Weber estimates that the population of Carthage reached seven hundred thousand and that Alexandria had from five hundred to seven hundred thousand at the beginning of the Christian era. T h e population of Rome was from six to eight hundred thousand. 1 T h e estimates of Warren S. Thompson substantially agree with Weber's. 2 Although the ancient people of the Mediterranean were excellent city builders, their cities, because of the limitations of transportation and communication, never exceeded one million. There was little city life in Europe between the end of the Roman Empire and the eleventh century. T h e eleventh and twelfth centuries were great eras of city building. T h e cities of northern Italy, the cities along the European coast and the cities of the Hanseatic League grew rapidly in response to the need for more trade with each other and with the Near East. T h e 1 Adna Ferrin Weber: The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century; a Study in Statistics, T h e Macmillan Company, New Y o r k , 1899, P· 44&· ' Warren S. Thompson: Population Problems, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1935, p. 300.

T H E G R O W T H OF C I T I E S movement begun so early continued irregularly until the second half of the eighteenth century. During the eighteenth century there occurred two great developments which were of primary importance as factors of city growth. T h e first of these was the Agricultural Revolution which, by increasing the yield per acre and per man, created an unprecedented surplus of food and released many from the necessity of farm work. T h e two results of this are apparent: first, it provided food for greater numbers of people than ever before; TABLE I POPULATION OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST CITIES, 1800 ΤΟ 1930"

City New York London Berlin Chicago Shanghai Paris Moscow Osaka Leningrad Buenos Aires Tokyo Philadelphia Vienna Detroit Calcutta t Rio de Janeiro Sydney Los Angeles Warsaw Bombay Hamburg Cairo Glasgow Melbourne Rome Budapest Birmingham

1930'

/poo

1850

1800

6,930,446 4,396,821 4,227,000

3,437,202 4,536,267 2,712,190 1,698,575 457,000 2,660,559 1,174,673 996,000 1,439,613 821,293 I ,819,000 1,293,697 1,727,073 258,704 1,145,933 687,699 487,932 102,479 638,000 776,000

696,115 2,363,341 429,217 29,963

79,216 959,310 172,846

1,053,262 332,878

547,756 188,654

487,300

220,200

121,376 446,415 21,019

231,949

166,419 53,924 I ,610 160,000

2,537

3,376,438

3,000,000 2,891,000 2,781,000 2,453,000 2,228,000 2,100,000 2,070,000 1,950,961 ι,836,000 ι,568,662 1,485,58* I ,469,000 I,254,000 1,238,048 I , 178,000 I,161,000 1,147,000 1,103,196 I,088,000 1,033,000 I,008,000 ι ,005,000 I,002,000

721,744

570,000 761,709 496,079 463,000 732,000 522,000

41,220

100,000

194,000 344,986 39,000 184,000 178,000 242,000

77,385 153,000 54,000 71,000

* 1930 or latest available, t Includes suburbs.

second, it allowed people who heretofore had been needed on farms to seek employment at other tasks. These people migrated to cities where their urbanization increased the market for farm products and also for all other types of consumers' goods. ' T h o m p s o n , op. cit., p. 3 0 1 .

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP

12

T h e second great development of the eighteenth century was the Industrial Revolution which, by applying steam power to the production and the transportation of goods, provided what appeared to be limitless opportunities f o r profitable employment in cities. It provided, as well, the means of getting ever-increasing quantities of food supplies and raw materials to the cities and of distributing the manufactured goods of the cities to the surrounding market. T h e nineteenth century, which not only developed the transportation of goods by steam but also saw the growth of communication by telegraph and telephone and the application of electricity to production, can be called among other things the century of large cities. T h e extent and rapidity of that growth can be seen in Table I above. None of the world's largest cities in 1 9 3 0 was less than five times larger than it was in 1800. T h e increase of urban population in the United States has been equally great. In 1800, 3.97 percent of the population was TABLE

II

I N C O R P O R A T E D P L A C E S OF S P E C I F I E D S I Z E IN S E L E C T E D DISTRICTS

METROPOLITAN

1930·

Size of Place Less than 2,500 New York Pittsburgh Chicago Philadelphia Boston Los Angeles St. Louis Cincnnati Detroit Cleveland San Francisco

III

57 59 43 10 10

27 23 13 24 14

2,500 to 4,999 49 26 16

25 14 '3 4 9 11 5 6

5,000

to 9,999 49 23 15 14 17 13 8

7 6

4

8

10,000 to 49,999

SO,000 to 99,999

100,000 and over

Total

48

8

6

272

27

I

I

18

5

2

135 "5

7 30

5

16

2

7 3

I

8

5 7

1 4

92

80

2

56 48

I

I I

4

I

2

I

I

2

44 43 41 38

urban, in 1900, 40 percent of the population was urban, in 1 9 3 0 , 56.2 percent of the American population was urban. T h i s does not clearly tell the story of how the population of the United ' Fifteenth Census of the United ton, D.C., 1 9 3 2 , p. 6.

States,

"Metropolitan Districts," Washing-

THE GROWTH OF CITIES

13

States has become urbanized. In 1930 the Census Bureau established the fact that 45 percent of the population of the United States lived in ninety-six metropolitan districts, each of which had a population of 100,000 or more and containing one or more central cities of 50,000 or more. (These areas varied greatly both as to the size of the central city or cities which formed the nucleus of the area, and in the number of subsidiary civil divisions which constituted the rest of the area.) Professor R. D. McKenzie in Recent Social Trends, Chapter I X , entitled "Metropolitan Communities," shows the degree to which this is so by a table of "Incorporated Places of Specified Size in Selected Metropolitan Districts, 1930," 5 which is reproduced as Table I I . There are many geographical factors which would permit a city like Chicago or Detroit to increase in size without the development of as many subsidiary or satellite communities as their size would warrant. Large undeveloped areas within city limits, in newer prairie cities, permit the continuing growth of the city itself. This the age and original size of incorporated territory of a New York, Pittsburgh, or San Francisco, would prohibit. There may be areas within the political boundaries of the central city which are by every criterion except separate incorporation separate satellite communities. They are suburban communities within the city limits. The existence of these communities acts to impair the perfection of the correlation of Table I I , but does not change the trend. Many attempts have been made to establish criteria for determining the boundaries of metropolitan areas. The Bureau of the Census considers population density the important factor and defines the metropolitan areas as consisting of the central city or cities and all adjacent or contiguous civil divisions having a population density of not less than one hundred and fifty inhabitants per square mile.3 'Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1 9 3 0 , "Metropolitan Districts," quoted in Recent Social Trends, Chapter I X , "Metropolitan Communities," M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company, Inc., New Y o r k , 1 9 3 3 , p. 448. 'Fifteenth Census of the United States, "Metropolitan Districts," Washington, D . C . , 1 9 3 2 , p. 4.

CHELTENHAM

Η

TOWNSHIP

There have been broader definitions which are based on economic and social conditions. These accept as criteria "the large daily movement of population to and from the center for work, trade, amusement, or other purposes." 7 T h e Merchants' Association of New Y o r k in 1 9 2 7 defined a metropolitan area as " a n area within which the conditions of manufacturing, trade, transportation, labor and living—in brief, the daily economic and social life—are predominantly influenced by the central city." 8 Other discussions have used other characteristics as bases for determining the geographical extent of the metropolitan area. Among these characteristics are the area of free delivery of goods by central city stores and the area of delivery of central city daily newspapers by employees of the publishers. T h e metropolitan area is the result of the concentration of population at a certain geographical point. That point, the city, exercises a magnetic force which draws people from other places to it. At the same time that this force is operating centripetally, there is also a centrifugal force which operates to throw off from the city's center certain elements in the population so attracted. These are not distributed evenly over the surrounding countryside, but tend to follow radial lines from the center to the periphery of the metropolitan area. Because of this inequality of distribution of population, the boundaries of metropolitan areas are seldom definite, clearly marked lines which can be graphically shown. Rather than lines, there are zones in which the influence of the city changes constantly, due to changes in conditions of transportation and communication. T h e improvement of roads, the electrification of railroads, the reduction of the cost of commuting, the reduction of time consumed in commuting, are all factors which affect the boundaries of the area. H o w e v e r , in spite of the difficulty of determining boundaries, it may be said that the aggregate area of the metropolitan districts (in which live almost half of the population of the nation), ' Encyclopaedia

of the Social Sciences, Volume X , "Metropolitan Areas,"

P· 397· N. Anderson and E. Lindeman: Urban Sociology, pany, New York, 1928, p. 47.

F. S. Crofts and Com-

T H E G R O W T H OF C I T I E S

15

is only a small part of the total area of the United States.® Of this area, 12.3 percent lies within the boundaries of the central cities and 87.8 percent in the surrounding suburban area outside of the central cities. The population distribution of the metropolitan areas shows 69.1 percent resident in the central cities and 30.9 percent in the surrounding suburbs.10 Just as the influence of the city is unevenly spread over the total area of the metropolitan district, so is the population unevenly spread. In the ten-year period, 1920 to 1930, the population of the United States as a whole increased 16.1 percent; the population of metropolitan areas in the United States increased 24.9 percent. The population outside metropolitan areas increased 10.8 percent. It should also be kept in mind that not all of the metropolitan areas increased at the same rate during this period. It is seen that the central cities of the ninety-six metropolitan areas increased 20 percent, while the surrounding suburban sections of the metropolitan area increased 39 percent." These data are available to all. T h e story of the development of cities in the United States contains no new information for those who have the inclination to investigate it. There is much activity expended and there are many books and reports written which tell this story in more detail than it is given here. The problems, the sociology, of the city also have been given much attention and much space. At the other end of the scale the rural community and rural sociology have had many investigators who have seen here opportunities to investigate the forms and the functioning of various human groups who live in certain economic, geographic, and social environments. While these groups of investigators have been studying the city and the rural community, the most rapidly growing area in the United States has largely been neglected: those com* Using the definition of the Census Bureau, metropolitan districts occupy 1 . 2 percent of the total land area of the United States and include 45 percent of the total population. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1 9 3 0 , " M e t r o politan Districts," p. 6. "Ibid., p. 6. "Ibid., p. 6.

ι6

CHELTENHAM

TOWNSHIP

munities which are neither city nor village, those communities that are of the city but not in it, of the country but not in it either. T h e writers of various textbooks on the general subject of urban sociology have given space to a discussion of suburbs. All of these, however, are characterized by generalities, and by lack of precision, which grows out of the fact that anyone can observe the existence of suburban communities and can see that they differ in many ways f r o m the central cities and among themselves.

III CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: I FOR ONE hundred and two years of its history, Cheltenham Township was part of Philadelphia County. In 1784, by act of the State Legislature, it was included in the newly organized Montgomery County. It is the extreme southeastern township in Montgomery County, bounded on the northeast by Abington Township, on the southeast and southwest by Philadelphia, on the northwest by Springfield Township. It is small in area, in comparison with other townships in the County, being about one and one-half miles wide and about five and one-half miles long. It contains 5,400 acres,1 and is situated about ten miles from the center of Philadelphia. The first settlement in what is now Montgomery County was made by Dr. Thomas Wynne, who came to the New World on the Welcome with William Penn. Wynne settled in what is now Lower Merion Township. The second settlement in the County was made in 1682 by Richard Wall and Toby Leech, two English Quakers from Gloucestershire. These men gave to the township the name of Cheltenham, for the town of that name in their home county. Wall and Leech were both large landholders in the Township, and, as might be expected, were very active and prominent in local affairs. Richard Wall and his son, Richard Wall, junior, had between them seven hundred acres at what is now Elkins Park. Toby Leech owned six hundred acres east of them, along the Tacony Creek, near the present site of the Cheltenham High School. In addition to farming Leech was an assemblyman, one of the jurors who planned and laid out the Old York Road from Center Bridge on the Dela1

Clifton S. Hunsicker: Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, a History, Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 1 9 2 3 . Vol. I, p. 295. >7

ι8

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP

ware to Philadelphia, the owner of a gristmill on the Tacony Creek, and a manufacturer of sea biscuit, which he sent to Philadelphia to be sold. 2 T h e proprietor of the colony granted or sold land in strips extending the entire distance from the southern to the northern boundaries. T h e original purchasers were H u m p h r y M e r r y , Thomas Phillips, M a r e y Jefferson, William Frampton, John Russell, Patrick Robinson, Richard W a l l , Tobias Leech, John Ashmead, Everard Bolton, William Brown, J o h n D a y , Nehemiah Michell, and John Wes. These men, with their families, were members of the Society of Friends and were attached to the meeting at Tookany and Poetquesink, now Frankford and Byberry. T h e y attended meeting there, even though the distance was several miles and travel through the wilderness was difficult. A l l during the summer, from J u l y third to October third, 1 6 8 3 , the journey was made. In October the Cheltenham Friends decided to form a meeting of their own to provide a more convenient place to worship. T h e y chose to meet at the home of Richard W a l l , in what is now Elkins Park. This was fairly centrally located, and also was a form of recognition of the leadership of Richard Wall. 3 W h e n , on February 18, 1688, the Germantown Society of Friends drew up a protest against slavery, the first document against slavery in America, a copy was sent to the Society of Friends which met in Richard Wall's house. This Cheltenham Meeting was the nucleus from which grew the Abington Meeting, which still exists to serve the Friends of the lower Old Y o r k Road area. T h e farms which composed the Township in colonial days were self-sufficient economically. T h e r e was some trade with the near-by growing commercial city, but the city did not set the tempo or determine the activities of the people of Cheltenham. T h e r e developed considerable interest in roads to connect various 'Horace Mather Lippincott: "An Itinerary for a Visitation of a Few Historical Places on the Old York Road and Its Vicinity in Cheltenham, Abington, Upper Moreland, Horsham, and Springfield Townships of Montgomery County in Pennsylvania." Old York Road Historical Society Bulletin, Jenkintown, Pa., October 1938. Vol. II, pp. 27-28. 'Ibid., p. 28.

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: I

19

parts of the Township with each other and with the surrounding world. In 1711 the York Road was laid out, from Center Bridge on the Delaware River, to Third and Spring Garden Streets in Philadelphia. T h e Church Road ran from St. Thomas' White Marsh, on the Bethlehem Pike, eastward across the Township to Oxford Church near Rising Sun Avenue. This provided opportunity for travel east and west, and connected two major highways out of Philadelphia. 4 Other roads were built later. T h e Limekiln Pike was completed in 1851 and W i l l o w Grove and Cheltenham Pike, now Easton Road, in 1857. By 1857 the independence of Cheltenham Township was beginning to disappear and its development as a township composed of a number of small communities each to a greater or less degree suburban to and dependent upon Philadelphia, was well under way. This can be seen in a number of ways. T h e population of the Township increased slowly until 1850. From 1850 to 1880 it jumped rapidly, from 1,292 to 3,236.° Communities came into existence and became important and influential in the life of the Township. An example of this is Ashbourne, situated a half-mile from City Line on the Reading Railroad, which, prior to 1856, had a gristmill and one family, the miller's. In 1856 the railroad was constructed and a station was built at Ashbourne. In one generation, by 1882, Ashbourne had sixty-five houses, a store, post office, and a church, with a population of 342. T h e social and economic differences of the various communities of the Township were early apparent. Bean, writing of Ashbourne in 1882, says: "Ashbourne is surrounded by a beautiful country, and from its nearness to and facilities with the city, abounds in elegant residences." 6 That the occupants of these residences were religious folk is seen in the fact that in June 1878 the Presbyterian Church opened a sabbath school at Ashbourne to accommodate the families of Presbyterians who had moved out from Philadelphia. On October 8, 1878, a petition was presented to the Presbytery asking for the right to organize a church there. * T . W . Bean: History of Montgomery County, and Peck, Philadelphia, 1884. ' S e e table of Population Growth, below, p. 38. 6 Bean, of. cit., p. 803.

Pennsylvania,

Everts

20

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP

T h e petition was granted and the organization of the Ashbourne Presbyterian Church was completed October 25, 1878. T h e community of Cheltenham, in the northeast corner of the Township, previously known as Milltown, has a longer history of gradual growth. Its early name was given it because of the existence of several gristmills and a shovel and spade factory. H e r e lived people who were employed in the near-by mills. N o mention is made of the elegance of its residences. In 1882 there were four other communities. Shoemakertown, near the center of the Township, where the Y o r k Road at first forded, then later bridged Tacony Creek, was close by the home of Richard W a l l . In 1882 it was smaller than Ashbourne but was the business center of the Township. A t that time it was composed of thirty houses, a mill, a carriage factory, hotel, two halls, machine shops, Episcopal Church, railroad station, and post office. Camptown, situated on the Philadelphia line a quarter-mile northwest of York Road, came into existence following the use of the land there as a Civil W a r camp for N e g r o recruits, Camp Wagner. This community, now called L a M o t t for Lucretia Mott, a Friend who had been active in the abolition movement, has remained predominately Negro in population and is the place of residence of the majority of the Negroes in the Township today. H a r m e r H i l l was the community situated at the intersection of the Limekiln Pike, W i l l o w Grove and Germantown Pike, and the Church Road. T h e community lost its identity and is now a part of the community of Glenside. T h e center of Glenside, however, is not around the intersection of the above roads but around the Reading Railroad station. E d g e H i l l , situated in the northwestern corner of the Township, was primarily a residential community for workers who were employed in the near-by quarries and mills located in Springfield Township. It enjoyed some prominence in the middle of the nineteenth century, and obtained a post office in 1 8 5 1 . It is unique in the Township today because it is now an Italian community composed of immigrants and their families and in-

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: I

21

eluding the majority of the Italians in the Township. 7 T h e Township today still includes, as has been indicated above, most of these earlier communities. They have changed in size, composition, general characteristics, and relative importance in the Township. It is desirable to describe the various sections of the Township as they are today. It must be remembered that the Township is constantly changing. New homes are being built, new names are given to old places, old names to new places. As recently as 1926 the Township consisted of a number of communities each with a particular atmosphere, each homogeneous in the sense that economically and socially and culturally the people were roughly alike j and each set off geographically as well as socially. One knew then when one was in Wyncote or Glenside or Oak Lane Terrace or Melrose Park. Since then the situation has changed. Geographically, it is now difficult to tell when one community is left and another is entered. Open land is rapidly disappearing, new homes which are being constructed are very much alike all over the Township. Older communities of definite character are surrounded and, with the invasion of new owners, are losing their older characteristics. Cheltenham Township is composed of nine well-defined communities, each of which is relatively homogeneous. These communities differ from each other widely in economic status and cultural background, but there is much overlapping. In the Township as a whole there are extremes of economic and its attendant social and cultural status. On one end of the social and economic scale are to be found a few very wealthy families who have estates of large size. T h e largest of these estates is owned by the Widener family, which owns several hundred acres of land and whose home, in addition to being one of the show places of the Philadelphia area, houses one of the finest private collections of art in the world. This group of families lives in the Township, but is not of it. Its influence is slight, and, where it is exercised at all, is almost impossible to measure. Its activities demand a larger theatre than is provided by one suburban community, which is for this group only a place of domicile. ' H u n s i c k e r , of.

cit.,

pp. 296,

297.

22

CHELTENHAM

TOWNSHIP

A t the other end of the scale are two groups of people, Negroes and Italians. T h e oldest in terms of settlement in this Township is the N e g r o group, whose community was founded about 1865 at Camptown. T h e majority of the Negro families here are northern Negroes, but in recent years a few southern Negro families have come in. M a n y of these people are employed as domestics in white homes near-by; some own small businesses and several have civil service positions. T h e L a Mott community is the home of most of the Negroes in the Township, but there are Negroes in two other places. There is a small settlement in Wyncote, and another in E d g e H i l l . T h e other group of people who are economically and socially unfavored is a group of Italians who were encouraged to move into the E d g e H i l l section of the Township because a large quarry there offered opportunity for employment. T h e quarry no longer employs all of them, and those who are employed elsewhere are small local business men, gardeners, greens keepers on golf courses, and unskilled laborers. T h e two groups of Italians and Negroes are conscious of their minority status and are also conscious of their political strength which they use in local government to guarantee improvements for their communities and employment for some of their members. Between the extremes already described are many gradations, each of which is difficult if not impossible to isolate and describe. T h e middle-class groups shade in imperceptible steps. There are, of course, many differences between the lower middle-class group and the upper group. Of the many degrees included it seems to me possible to establish three large divisions. First, there are those families in which income depends on earnings of the father and investment. These people are employed in executive and professional occupations. T h e y live in houses worth from fifteen to twenty-five thousand dollars and enjoy other advantages of large incomes. T r a v e l , education, expensive recreation, servants, are taken for granted. This group contains a considerable number of J e w s , principally of German-Jewish origin. Second, there are those families in which the income is entirely earned, usually by the father, in less responsible or remunerative

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: I

23

business and professional fields: small business men, office managers, engineers, government services. The lives of these families reflect considerable struggle to obtain and enjoy as many of the desirable components as possible, and while it is a struggle, it is one in which there is considerable success. Their homes are smaller, they travel less, education is not quite so taken for granted, their recreations are less expensive, and they have fewer servants, but life is comfortable. Third, there are those families whose income is earned by the father and by other members who contribute to the family's support as they are able. These people are employed for the most part in skilled, semi-skilled, clerical, and sales occupations. Incomes are smaller and less certain ·, advantages and luxuries are things to be worked for, debt is never out of mind, unemployment is always a possibility; but there are vacations, there are pleasures to be gained from family and church and social groups. Their homes are smaller, furnishings are less expensive, servants are nonexistent, recreation costs are carefully counted. N o one knows how many of each of these five groups there are in the Township. Observation, interviews, and examination of school records lead me to believe that the very rich and the very poor are numerically quite small, and that the other three groups do not differ greatly in size. The purpose here has been to describe, as accurately as possible, the composition of the Township without the use of numerical data. This descriptive material has dealt with the Township as a whole. It now seems to me desirable to describe each of the nine communities which go to make up the Township. There are certain obstacles to a clear-cut division of the entire area into nine communities. The constant, and at the present time, rapid, changing of the entire district results in the fact that in certain areas there is no agreement on name. In the eastern end of the Township, which is, by political division and by postal service, in one area, there are three smaller areas: Cheltenham Village, one of the oldest and less wealthy communities in the Township, and two newer developments, Rowland Park and Ashmead Village. In the central part of the Township there

24

C H E L T E N H A M TOWNSHIP

is some confusion as to the precise limits of Oak Lane, Melrose Park, Elkins Park, and Ashbourne. In the west the boundaries of Laverock, Custis Woods, E d g e H i l l , and Glenside are, in the minds of people living there, unclear. In order to bring some order here, we have, on the basis of conversations with Township officials and with citizens of the Township, by virtue of having lived in the area and having taught in the area, determined upon nine communities which by some common usage constitute the Township. This classification and delimitation will not suit everyone, but it is the division on which there is most agreement. It is not strange that these divisions are different from those existing in the 1880's. Some of the changes have been indicated above. Others will be mentioned when necessary for clarity. It is our purpose to begin in the eastern end of the Township and to proceed in what is roughly a westerly direction. T h e community of Cheltenham, situated in the northeastern corner of the Township, is one of the oldest communities in the Township. It developed there because the Tacony Creek, which flows through the Township close to the village, was intensively used as a source of water power for mills and factories. T h e factory hands lived here. T h e industrial character of this end of the Township may be seen from its early name, Milltown. At the present time it is less industrial than it has ever been. T h e community is now almost entirely residential in character. H e r e the houses are older, the community has been settled longer, there is less new building here than in the rest of the Township. M a n y of the families in Cheltenham have been here a generation or more. T o the south of Cheltenham is located the community of Rowland Park. In many respects Rowland Park is similar to the village of Cheltenham. It is in the same political and postal district, it is like the older section in many social characteristics, but it differs in the important respect that the people who live here consider themselves residents of Rowland Park, not residents of Cheltenham. This community is smaller than the community of Cheltenham. T h e people have come to the Township more recently, the houses are newer, most of them having been

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: I built in the last fifteen years. Rowland Park, for the purpose of this study, includes the newer Ashmead Village, which is adjacent to it. T h e present Melrose Park is one of the larger and less homogeneous communities in the Township. Its boundaries are roughly Oak Lane Avenue on the east, Cheltenham Avenue on the south, York Road, except for Latham Park, on the west, and Ashbourne Road on the north. This is a district in which nomenclature is confused. T h e southeastern corner of the community was known until recently as Oak Lane Terrace. This is a small, compactly built-up area of small homes which are twenty years or more old. T h e inclusion of this area in the Melrose Park district is responsible for much of the heterogeneity of the social data included in this study. T h e area is included in Melrose Park because the more recent residents and, at the present time, the officials of the Township, consider it as part of Melrose Park. T h e south central section of Melrose Park has traditionally been known as Oak Lane. T h e Reading Railroad station of that name is located here. This is an area of large homes and of commensurately large incomes. Latham Park is a small, exclusive, restricted, residential section just north of Cheltenham Avenue and west of York Road. It is included here in the Melrose Park area because of general usage and because it differs markedly in every way from its nearest western neighbor. T h e northern boundary of Melrose Park is here set at the south side of Ashbourne Road because many of the people who live here consider themselves residents of Melrose Park. T h e old community of Ashbourne, which was mentioned above, is seldom spoken of by any person who has been in the Township for less than fifteen years, and, for the purpose of this study, is divided by Ashbourne Road. The southern portion is included in Melrose Park, the northern portion in Elkins Park. In addition to difficulties of definition which Melrose Park provides, there are also difficulties in description. Some of the homes here are large, some small; some are old homes, some are very new. Some of the people have large incomes, some small. It is, indeed, less a community sociologically than it is a geographical area, the inhabitants of which,

26

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP

for a number of reasons, think they live in Melrose Park. T h e largest community in the Township is Elkins Park, located north of Melrose Park, extending to the northern boundary of the Township 5 its eastern boundary is N e w Second Street and its western boundary Washington Lane. Included in this area are the largest estates in the Township. T h e great majority of the houses here indicate a better than average economic status. In fact Elkins Park and Melrose Park contain the greatest number of people who are in the upper and upper-middle classes. Elkins Park is almost centrally located and is the community in which the Township offices and the H i g h School are located. H e r e , too, is to be found the Township crossroads, where Y o r k Road and Church Road cross. This has been and is the location of a number of business enterprises. T h e r e is also a small business section near the Elkins Park station of the railroad. Elkins Park is a community. T h e r e are political clubs, scout troops, women's clubs, and other types of associations showing commonality of interest. Because of the location of the Township offices and H i g h School here, Elkins Park is frequently considered typical of Cheltenham Township. However, it is, as later chapters will show, perhaps representative of what Cheltenham Township would like to be, rather than what it is. L a Mott has already been identified as a N e g r o community, located about a quarter-mile west of North Broad Street and Cheltenham Avenue. It is on the southern boundary of the Township and extends northward about three hundred yards. Most of the Negroes in the Township live here. T h e houses are small, and are more crowded than in any other section of the Township. Also, there are here more frame houses than are found in any other section of the Township. T h e location of L a Mott is doubly advantageous because it is close to opportunities for employment and is close to transportation to the central city. Erlen is located just west of L a Mott along Cheltenham Avenue and northward. B y criteria of geography it belongs with L a Mott. But L a Mott is a Negro community of long tradition, whereas Erlen is a new real estate development with a totally white population. T h e houses, 1 2 6 of them, were built by the

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: I

27

same company during the years 1 9 3 1 -1937, and while they are not all exactly alike, they give an impression of monotony which is not experienced anywhere else in the Township at the present time. Wyncote is located west of Elkins Park, north of Church Road, and east of Glenside Avenue. Its northern boundary is the northern boundary of the Township. It contains a small business district along Greenwood Avenue near the Jenkintown Wyncote station. This station is near a junction point on the Reading Railroad, and is the busiest railroad station in the district. A l l passenger trains stop there. It is about twenty minutes by rail from Philadelphia, and eighty minutes by rail from N e w Y o r k . T h e houses here are comfortable but for the most part not as large as the homes in Elkins Park. T h e population is middle class, Protestant, and white. Wyncote, even more than Elkins Park, is a community with self-consciousness and definite community organization. Its churches and clubs are self-sufficient. Its people think of themselves as living in Wyncote, not as residents of Cheltenham Township. A number of estates of several acres are located in Wyncote, but their proprietors take little part in the affairs of the community. West of Wyncote is the community of Glenside, located along both sides of Easton Road. It is impossible for me to speak of the community of Glenside here because less than half of the community of Glenside is located in Cheltenham Township. T h e greater part is in Abington Township. This condition makes for a division of loyalties. There are questions of community interest in which all of Glenside is concerned, and there are certain rivalries which split the community into the Abington and the Cheltenham sections. T h e houses here, and other criteria of social and economic status classify Glenside a little lower than Wyncote. Glenside is now enjoying considerable growth. T h e older community of Harmer's H i l l has been absorbed into Glenside, and the business section, which is larger here than anywhere else in the Township, has moved closer to the railroad station. T h e people of Glenside are conscious of the recreational needs of their children. A swimming pool operated for the people

28

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP

of the Township is here, and it was in Glenside also that the movement for public playgrounds was started. In the northwestern corner of the Township is Edge H i l l , which has been identified above as a community of Italians and Negroes. T h e community is small, and there is no sign of new development here. There is no movement of Italian families into this area. T h e r e is some movement of Italian families out of Edge H i l l and into Glenside. As the Italians move out, their place is taken by Negroes. In the southwestern corner of the Township there is a small community known as Laverock. This is a community of homes which is more closely allied with the neighboring Chestnut H i l l and Springfield Township than with other close-by sections of Cheltenham Township. Houses here are new, and f r o m t w e l v e to twenty thousand dollars in value. A l l data f o r this community have been included with Glenside. Since there were only a few cases, it does not change the picture in any way.

IV CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP HISTORY A N D DESCRIPTION: II date of the first settlement of Cheltenham Township in 1682, until the first Federal Census of population in 1790, there is no record of the size of the population. During that time, however, the population was growing. From the fourteen families of the original purchasers of land it increased in a century to a population of 620.

FROM THE

TABLE

III

P O P U L A T I O N G R O W T H OF C H E L T E N H A M

ι 790 i8oo ι8αο 1830 1850 i860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920

TOWNSHIP

62ο 1 63ο 1 956 1 934> 1,292» 1.979* 2,462* 3,236* 4,746» 6,154» 8,434» 11,015*

1930 193 7

15,731» 17,737*

193 8

18,208'

For the next sixty years, until 1850, the growth of population here was gradual. Small industries developed and businesses came into being to care for the increasing traffic on the York Road and the Church Road. T h e old village of Shoemakertown, now Elkins Park, was the most important of the business sections in the Township. L a r g e land holdings were divided, people were encouraged to settle here because there was employment in fac1

Bean, of.

1

United States Census

cit. f o r years listed.

' Sewer Survey made for the Commissioners of Cheltenham T o w n s h i p . 29

30

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP

tory, store, mill, tavern, and on farms. During all of this time the Township remained remote from Philadelphia. B y means of transportation then available, the trip to and from Philadelphia took the greater part of the day. T h e r e was contact with the city, but it was not the casual, constant contact of today. Such contact as then existed was based on the business needs of Cheltenham Township. T h e producers there needed Philadelphia as a place where their surplus production of farm and mill could be sold. T h e decade 1850-1860 saw the greatest increase of population of any equal period for which we have record. This was due to the fact that the Township was, during this period, connected with Philadelphia by railroad. This made it possible for people to work in Philadelphia and to live in Cheltenham. Homes and businesses were separated, the independence of Cheltenham Township had come to an end. F r o m this time on it became increasingly a residential area where people lived who could afford it. W h i l e there is no doubt that the building of the railroad was the most important factor in the growth of the Township, there were other factors which played a part. Roads were being built which connected the Township with growing sections. N e w industrial methods which were put into effect in Philadelphia were causing that city to grow. This growth of the central city had many effects on its population. First, the boundaries of the urbanized portion of Philadelphia moved farther from the center and closer to the boundaries of Philadelphia County. Second, the increase of population in the city drastically changed the pattern of the lives of urban dwellers, many of whom, to escape the changed urban conditions, moved out of the city into the neighboring countryside. T h i r d , the rapidly increasing size of the commercial and industrial units resulted in a large group of clerical and supervisory employees whose incomes were larger than those of the working class and who could therefore afford to pay for the increased comfort of suburban life." T h e Township continued to appear relatively undeveloped until 1920, when the population reached 11,000. Then it increasingly ' L e w i s Mumford: The Culture New York, 1938, pp. 2 1 1 - 2 1 5 .

of Cities, Harcourt, Brace and Company,

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: II

31

took on the appearance, if not the actuality, of a built-up section. The land has been used more and more intensively in the last twenty years. Estates and farms have been subdivided and new houses built. As recently as 1935 more than 50 percent of the total area of the Township was undeveloped land. This land, however, was more than a comfortable walk from a means of public transportation. The areas near railroad stations, bus routes and, to a less degree, trolley lines, have been built up. The rest of the area of the Township is developing more slowly, but growth has been constant. Since the coming of the railroad in the 1850's there has been no single factor which has caused the Township to increase too rapidly. Institutions and services have been able to keep pace with increasing population. Constant gradual growth had the effect of increasing the value of undeveloped land, and this in turn precluded the erection of a large number of inexpensive dwellings crowded together. That such a danger existed was recognized by the Township, and on June 1 1 , 1929, the Board of Commissioners passed Ordinance # 3 5 1 , a zoning ordinance which established seven types of zones and listed the requirements for each. Zones A to TABLE

IV

S U M M A R Y OF T H E Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E 1 A Zone

Use

TyPe 0/

Res.

Dwelling

Single

Β

C

D

Res.

Res.

Res.

Single

Single 2-Jamily Multiple

Single Semi-del.

Res.

Same as Ό

Multiple

20%

30%

30%

40%

S°%

yard Width yard

40'

30'

30'

20'

20'

30' (total)

20' (total)

20' (total)

9'

7'

25'

25'

25'

25'

IS'

1

1

G Any use exand

business

or offensive industries

businesses needed by community

side

D e p t h of rear yard

1

Res.

Same as D and necessary

Building a r e a D e p t h of front of

F

Ε

Ordinance / 3 5 1 , B o a r d of Commissioners. Only if building is used as residence. Only if building is used as residence.

3'6"« is'

IS" 1

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP ο

WH »jnsvTjo JfJOJ

»SOipfl

ο ο

-

ο

ο

ο ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο ο

ο

ο ~

ο ο

ο

ο

Ο ft ο ο

ο ο ο ο

ο

-

- -

ο ο

ο

mtntuvptfj

ο

ο

ο ο

ο ο

ο ο

©7·**ίΛ3

ο

ο

ο ο

ο

ο

ο ο

t

ι- "Τ ο

ο ο

ο ο

Μ ο Ο ο

ο ο

»*WA

tfojf

ο

0 ^ 0

quoj

W i l t s

VonrfJi ! *ϊτηΐ\Λ

wvyu^iptfO

ι - r-

ο ο

ο

ο ο

ο

ο

ο

- ο

ο

ο

«

ο ο ο ο

ο

ο

«

ο

«

ο

ο -

-

Ο Μ

ο

ο

ο

ο ο

ο

ο

ο

ο ο

ο ο

ο ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

»SOjpff

ο

ο ο

ο

ο «*> ο

ο

suiqtz

ο

910DUKM rivinA

ο ο

-Τ

9ptSU*1Q

d

ο

Ο "

M j f

qjOJ

-

ο

ο

κ>

η

ο

ο ο ο

ο

v j - v * i j g

»sojpjf

«

ο

ο ο

ο

ο

ΙΛ Ο

- -

^

Γί η •1

ο Vitt

Ο «

Λ Itoft

»7 -vijjg 9ptSU9JQ

3f2Vj

Ο

ο

ο ο

ο

ο Ο Ο

1

ΙΟ Ο >-.

-

-

ο

ο

ο ο

ο ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο ο

ο ο

ο

φ ο

f)

ο

ο

ο

- ο

ο

ο

ο

0

0

0

« Ο Μ ^

ο

Ο Μ

ο

ο

ο ο

ο ο

ο

Μ Ο ο ο

ο

ο

ο ο

« ο

ο ο

ο ο

ο ο

-ο ο

Η CO Ν

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

92*11}Λ

ο ο

ο ο

Ό Ο ο « Ο

9t03UK.j\\

f

Μ ο Ο ο

»sotpjf

OJ-U9J43

ο

ο Ο Ο Μ ο

I f i v j

;/£>/f

ο ο

ο ο

"·. CC t

Μ Ν ο Ο Ο Ο 1w f> m rn

9ptSU9]Q IfJVJ

ο ο

ο

ο ο

utvtfuvwo VOR

«

ο

t

Μ ο

ο

ο ο

ο ο

ο Ο « ** ο ο

ο

ο

ο ο

ο ο

ο ο

«

ο

ο 0

0 0

0 ο ο

ο

ο

r-oo Ο Ο Μ « « ^ m Ό Ν » ^ ^ Φ Φ Φ ^ Ο1 ^ Ο* & & © Ο1 ^ S &

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION:

II

33

Ε inclusive are residence districts; Zone F is a residence and business district, and Zone G is industrial. T h e part of the Township which had been developed before the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance of 1929 was placed in the zones most appropriate to the type of building already there. 5 In addition to the Zoning Ordinance, the Township restricts construction, alteration, and types of materials used, by means of a building code. It is readily seen that the requirements of Zones A , B , and C are such that a certain degree of spaciousness is maintained. Houses are set well back from the street, side yards prevent too much crowding, and rear yards provide air and sunlight. T h e record of new dwelling construction since January 1 , 1 9 2 7 , shows that half of the houses built during the last twelve years had an estimated value, exclusive of land cost, of $7,500 or more. This suggests a minimum total investment of $8,500 for house and land. Of the 2 5 1 houses constructed in this period at an estimated cost of less than $5,000, 126 constitute the community of Erlen, which is the outcropping on the Cheltenham side of Cheltenham Avenue of a real estate development on the Philadelphia side of the line, which is similar in cost and nature. This development, which would look out of place if constructed farther north in the Township, is not so noticeable in its present location. T h e more expensive houses constructed during this period were located in Elkins Park, Melrose Park, and Wyncote, where the immediate environment made such construction desirable. Since there has been practically no demolition of dwelling units in the last twelve years, the new construction represents opportunities f o r increased population. T h e great depression of 1929 is not the only factor responsible f o r the slump in construction in Cheltenham Township, although it was the most important cause of that slump. T h e fact that there was, in 1929, little land available for development close to satisfactory transportation contributed to the slowing up 3 Ordinance # 3 5 1 , Board of Commissioners, J u n e n , Pennsylvania.

1 9 2 9 , Elkins P a r k ,

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP

34

O· "

« I . » ν α % ft. -

Ε

ft.

"« Ο

Ο

s 1 i -S

s 3)

•13 Ϊ

c

j

I

a

i»j «·}

^

V ^

«

« «ο

Μ Ο ο >©

j

Ο·

Μ

Ό

Μ t

β

^

ΙΟ

Ό "5

«Λ Ο Ok Ο « Ο Ο -ο ·ο f·» Ο Ό Ό Ο * (Ο ΟΟ *t ο> ο «λ ·ο

τ ί 3S

6 3·« - Ι
3~ 16is 18

12

4

8

5

15

1

10 5 1 2 3 0 0 0 26 31 13 1$ 16 20 ι 0

1921

17 0 4

1

27 4 18 3

89 72 80 89 76 1 5 . 3 12.4 1 2 . 3 1 3 . 7 1 5 . 3 1 3 . I

0

7 1 6 1 14 3 8 ι

22- 25-f 24 0 0

41 7.0

6

2

0

2 0

1

18 2

Total

1 $

91 3 62

3 0 ι 0

10 2 12

13 191 66 116

9 1.$

$4 9.3

$81 99.9

4

14

homes there. T h e low rate of mobility can be seen in the fact that sixty percent of the families reporting had lived for ten years or more in the Township and that almost ten percent of the families reporting have lived in the Township for twenty-five years or more. Comparison of these data with mobility data in selected sections of the adjoining large city, Philadelphia, demonstrates the low mobility rate of the Township. In Cheltenham Township only fifteen percent of the families reporting were recent mi42

MIGRATION

43

grants in the sense that they have lived in the area for three years or less. These data are not strictly comparable to the data in Table X for sections of Philadelphia, but it should be noted that there is very little movement from one house to another in Cheltenham Township. This permanence in the area is to be seen in the large percentage of home owners and in the scarcity of family dwelling units available for occupancy by tenants. T h e city areas were selected in order to include the central city and the area along North Broad Street, which have been areas from which families have moved to Cheltenham Township, and certain peripheral areas which adjoin the Township and from which families move into Cheltenham Township or are the boundary sections of the city. In Table X I percentage data are presented, first for all time groupings below three years, second for all time groupings above three years. This has been done to show the comparative mobility for the sections of the city itself and to facilitate comparison with the Township data. There is wide variation of mobility as shown by duration of occupancy for the various sections of the city. T h e highest mobility is seen in the central city sections and the lowest in the sections near the city boundaries. In no section, however, does any city section show less than twice the mobility of the Township. That is, the section of Philadelphia which has the fewest families occupying their present dwelling f o r less than three years, Germantown and Chestnut H i l l , has 3 1 . 2 percent of its families in this time grouping. Cheltenham Township has but 1 5 . 3 percent of its families in this category. T h e r e is even greater mobility seen in the central city districts, where 4 1 . 4 percent and 50.0 percent of the occupants have been in the same location f o r less than three years' time. It may be that the nature of the sample of Cheltenham Township would operate to select families of longer residence in the area at the expense of showing a true picture of mobility here. T h a t is a possibility which has been impossible to measure. H o w e v e r , there is evidence that this is not so. First, in order to achieve a percentage as large as that given for occupancy of three years or less in the Philadelphia sections it would be neces-

44

CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP 1 3

ta c -ι κΓ

Ε "-Ü^ ub -" COQ Ö Ο ON c — Ν πο h r** f-O -oo a

~ 'S

I^· «S3« μ - ncH η

«Γ^ν^^,-,οο no Γ—C \