In the summer of 1991 I spend two months living in one of these hotels, the Parkside Evangeline, in Gramercy Park while I was taking some classes nearby. It was extraordinary. The description of the rooms (and the whole place but especially the rooms) is spot on. The residents in the summer of 1991 (it was fully occupied), included many many many elders who had been around since the 60s. These were not women who felt they had been left and forgotten - these were women who were still living rich lives (many retired teachers and secretaries). In this residence they had many "rules" to live by similar to the novel, but there was a lot of freedom as well. Freedom to be exactly as they wanted to be. The elders I encountered during my time there were active and happy - in some ways this living situation was one that allowed them to escape the trappings of mainstream expectations for women. They were not biding their time there till something better came along - they were where they wanted to be. I hope when it closed down in 2008 they found somewheere they felt equally safe and at home.
After your description, I had to look up the Parkside Evangeline, and I loved reading more about it. Also came across this piece about living there by Amy Rowland, and I thought you might find it interesting: https://lithub.com/where-new-yorks-literary-single-girls-lived/
I haven't started the book yet, but this reminds me of an earlier NYC women's hotel I stayed at by chance in 2012, the Beekman Tower at 3 Mitchell Place (not The Beekman at 123 Nassau Street):
"Built in 1928, the iconic Art Deco style tower designed on the East River was originally known as the Panhellenic Tower. The tower originally served as a clubhouse and residence for professional women affiliated with Greek-letter sororities. In 1932, the tower made accommodations available to men, and in 1934, the building was renamed to The Beekman Tower. The Beekman Tower was named a New York City landmark in 1998."
It was fascinating to reflect on the lives of women who lived there and worked in NYC during the Great Depression.
The bar and restaurant at the top of The Beekman Tower with an open air terrace (currently the Ophelia) was at one time frequented by Frank Sinatra and has the most enchanting views at night. You can of course go there without staying in the hotel.
It's only a three-star hotel and thus not so expensive by NYC standards. It was a bit run-down when I was there in 2012, and the ancient elevator terrified the friend I was traveling with. It's changed hands and been renovated since I was there, but the photos don't look that different to me. If you want a bit of time travel, I think it would be worth considering staying there or visiting the atmospheric Ophelia.
My first thought is that the question could be the inverse—what are the difficulties and freedoms (or lack thereof) that made a place like the Biedermeier a good option for women? Types of jobs were limited, unless a woman went out on a limb and went for a job that wasn’t traditional to her gender. Salaries in “women’s jobs” were super low—lower than they are now even. Single women, gay or straight, had a more affordable place to live than their own apartment. And there were rules about having visitors, so there was a sense of protection (whether they wanted it or not, haha), which was thought to be important back then, among many. I mean, I went to an all-women’s college in the seventies, and in the lobbies of all the dorms there was a room called a date parlor and we actually still called it that, even though by then there were no more visitor rules.
I really appreciated the way you framed this and the way it changed my thinking on this question. I was also thinking about how different the experience might have been for women who may have chosen to live this way versus having the choice made for them because of a life situation like Katherine's or a life circumstance that reduced their options and made living someplace like the Biedermeier the only real choice available. Feels a bit like the women's hotels were a historical and feminist transition point for a lot of women, depending on their trajectories, but the kind of transition point that was not necessarily available to earlier generations.
Yes, interesting. I think it’s good that we’ve moved beyond the need for women’s hotels. And I wonder whether they might make a comeback in light of the current political situation. If things go as badly as some believe they will, there may be a need for a lot more communal opportunities. In a different kind of iteration, of course.
Ooooo I love this answer. I went to a religious private university and men and women couldn't live in the same building. We had visitor rules and lobby hangs!
I think I definitely would have lived somewhere like the Biedermeier if I lived in that era---mostly because I'm a lesbian from a religious family and would have had to get out somehow.
They were a haven in terms of safety and community. In a time when working women were sexual “prey” for men, they could be free of assault worry, get meals and relax in congenial company. Alone, on the streets was always harrowing, not to mention ha
Although I haven't read the book yet, I'd venture to imagine that independent women in persuit of a career and with necessary resources would have found a safe space there. I am thinking of journalists or teachers. We shouldn't forget that for eg. in the turn-of-the-century Europe, single women living on their own were suspected of being sexual workers and often harassed rather than protected by the police.
In the summer of 1991 I spend two months living in one of these hotels, the Parkside Evangeline, in Gramercy Park while I was taking some classes nearby. It was extraordinary. The description of the rooms (and the whole place but especially the rooms) is spot on. The residents in the summer of 1991 (it was fully occupied), included many many many elders who had been around since the 60s. These were not women who felt they had been left and forgotten - these were women who were still living rich lives (many retired teachers and secretaries). In this residence they had many "rules" to live by similar to the novel, but there was a lot of freedom as well. Freedom to be exactly as they wanted to be. The elders I encountered during my time there were active and happy - in some ways this living situation was one that allowed them to escape the trappings of mainstream expectations for women. They were not biding their time there till something better came along - they were where they wanted to be. I hope when it closed down in 2008 they found somewheere they felt equally safe and at home.
After your description, I had to look up the Parkside Evangeline, and I loved reading more about it. Also came across this piece about living there by Amy Rowland, and I thought you might find it interesting: https://lithub.com/where-new-yorks-literary-single-girls-lived/
I haven't started the book yet, but this reminds me of an earlier NYC women's hotel I stayed at by chance in 2012, the Beekman Tower at 3 Mitchell Place (not The Beekman at 123 Nassau Street):
"Built in 1928, the iconic Art Deco style tower designed on the East River was originally known as the Panhellenic Tower. The tower originally served as a clubhouse and residence for professional women affiliated with Greek-letter sororities. In 1932, the tower made accommodations available to men, and in 1934, the building was renamed to The Beekman Tower. The Beekman Tower was named a New York City landmark in 1998."
https://www.thebeekmantowerny.com/contact/about/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beekman_Tower
It was fascinating to reflect on the lives of women who lived there and worked in NYC during the Great Depression.
The bar and restaurant at the top of The Beekman Tower with an open air terrace (currently the Ophelia) was at one time frequented by Frank Sinatra and has the most enchanting views at night. You can of course go there without staying in the hotel.
https://www.thebeekmantowerny.com/ophelia/
It's only a three-star hotel and thus not so expensive by NYC standards. It was a bit run-down when I was there in 2012, and the ancient elevator terrified the friend I was traveling with. It's changed hands and been renovated since I was there, but the photos don't look that different to me. If you want a bit of time travel, I think it would be worth considering staying there or visiting the atmospheric Ophelia.
I loved checking this out - thank you for sharing!
oh absolutely
My first thought is that the question could be the inverse—what are the difficulties and freedoms (or lack thereof) that made a place like the Biedermeier a good option for women? Types of jobs were limited, unless a woman went out on a limb and went for a job that wasn’t traditional to her gender. Salaries in “women’s jobs” were super low—lower than they are now even. Single women, gay or straight, had a more affordable place to live than their own apartment. And there were rules about having visitors, so there was a sense of protection (whether they wanted it or not, haha), which was thought to be important back then, among many. I mean, I went to an all-women’s college in the seventies, and in the lobbies of all the dorms there was a room called a date parlor and we actually still called it that, even though by then there were no more visitor rules.
I really appreciated the way you framed this and the way it changed my thinking on this question. I was also thinking about how different the experience might have been for women who may have chosen to live this way versus having the choice made for them because of a life situation like Katherine's or a life circumstance that reduced their options and made living someplace like the Biedermeier the only real choice available. Feels a bit like the women's hotels were a historical and feminist transition point for a lot of women, depending on their trajectories, but the kind of transition point that was not necessarily available to earlier generations.
Yes, interesting. I think it’s good that we’ve moved beyond the need for women’s hotels. And I wonder whether they might make a comeback in light of the current political situation. If things go as badly as some believe they will, there may be a need for a lot more communal opportunities. In a different kind of iteration, of course.
Definitely agree. Folks are going to need communal support now more than ever.
Completely!
Oh I'm fascinated by this and the idea that it could be more communal than it was back then. I'd be down!
Ooooo I love this answer. I went to a religious private university and men and women couldn't live in the same building. We had visitor rules and lobby hangs!
I think I definitely would have lived somewhere like the Biedermeier if I lived in that era---mostly because I'm a lesbian from a religious family and would have had to get out somehow.
They were a haven in terms of safety and community. In a time when working women were sexual “prey” for men, they could be free of assault worry, get meals and relax in congenial company. Alone, on the streets was always harrowing, not to mention ha
Harrassment at work. Many novels show this freedom.
Although I haven't read the book yet, I'd venture to imagine that independent women in persuit of a career and with necessary resources would have found a safe space there. I am thinking of journalists or teachers. We shouldn't forget that for eg. in the turn-of-the-century Europe, single women living on their own were suspected of being sexual workers and often harassed rather than protected by the police.
I'd guess a safe place to live without fear of men assaulting them. Many women out on their own did not have the protection of families.
It shows women as being Independent in their day
Back then Women was not getting paid as men. Some of them wanted to work because they did not want to be a housewife