Beginning in the 1800s, many proponents of social reform believed that the physical state of the body was thought to be deeply connected to moral character of a person. Progressive Era social reformers were greatly concerned with the “slum” as a large threat the American society, “[n]ot only was the slum an economic and sanitary problem, but also its very existence threatened the social stability of the city as a whole.” (Williams 1991, 22). Cleanliness and health (or lack thereof) were closely tied with the character and morality of a person. Many social reformers thought that by targeting the health and cleanliness of a poor population, they could improve the population’s civility. The mass immigration into New York County of people from Europe and of African Americans from the American South prompted the concern of social reformers. The influx of predominantly poor people with different cultures and ethnicities was seen by reformers as a threat to the ‘American’ (white, well-to-do) culture and way.
The New York state government created legislation that mandated the creation of public baths as a way to combat the unsanitary living conditions of urban poor (mostly immigrants). New York City spent over $2 million dollars (the equivalent of approximately $58 million today, adjusted for inflation) on public baths in Manhattan alone (Figure 3.). According to Williams (1991), NYC municipal officials were disappointed when there was low interest in and low attendance at many of the pools.”Despite the bath’s attractiveness, only 150 persons patronized it during the first week after its opening in March 1905. The AICP then sent an agent to the neighborhood to publicize the new bath. He visited stores, shops, and factories, and addressed classes at the local public and parochial schools. He and the teachers took groups of children to the bath and sent them home with letters printed in Italian and addressed to their parents regarding the bath. During the fourth week after the opening, patronage increased to 4,712 and the publicity campaign was deemed a success” (Williams 1991, 64). In this instance, children were actors who influenced their parents and helped the popularity of the public bath. Robert Todd realized that “…the only way to increase public use of the municipal baths was to include swimming pools and gymnasiums, which would attract patrons, especially children and young persons, who would be educated in the habit of bathing regularly” (Todd 1910, cited in Williams 1991, 65).
Public bath houses and later swimming pools were seen by some to be beneficial to children because of the lessons public places had to teach children about life experiences. “In that way, the WPA pool was an example of a democratizing space, as Worpole [2000] defines the term for the 1930s—an extraordinary work of modern architecture where design eased embedded social distinctions, but did not and could not erase all inequalities. At this and other public pools, boys and girls experienced firsthand the successes and the failures of American democracy, especially of a racially segregated society” (Gutman 2008, 545). The politics of the spaces in which public bath houses, and later pools, were located deeply affected the experience of the participants. Marta Gutman discusses racial segregation and the concept of separate, but equal in the context of pools. Gutman argues that “[t]he separate [pool] facilities were equal—the practical solution of a racial conservative to violent race prejudice, endemic in American society and exacerbated by the hardship of the Great Depression. Whites routinely beat up blacks and Puerto Ricans in East Harlem when they tried to swim at Jefferson Pool…” (2008, 545). Despite racial tensions, children found a way to navigate the space and social dynamics, “Puerto Rican boys and girls did make their way into the pool into East Harlem, where [social reformer and facilitator of WPA municipal pool construction, Robert] Moses’s architectural innovations stood them in good stead, especially at night, when the pool was closed. Kids climbed over the fence to join friends, and the sheer size of the place helped them elude the police” (Gutman 2008, 554).
Gutman (2008) goes on to explain the gender imbalance that occurred at swimming pools. Gutman claims that as a result of parents worrying about the sexual impurity of older girls being exposed to scantily-clad, often naked, swimming boys in combination with girls being expected to contribute to household chores and duties, many more boys swam recreationally in pools. Despite these differences, as swimming transitioned from bathing as hygiene toward swimming as a physical sport, both boys and girls were encouraged to engage in the activity. By the inter-war years, physical fitness began to take the place of hygiene as a measure of character. Gagen (2004) describes the contemporary ideas that “…the skills acquired by muscles in running and football, such as endurance, would be established in the brain as basic operating principles and provide the foundation for actions throughout life” (431-432). Social reformers of this time began to believe that the physical activities a person performed as a child would dictate the kind of adult they would be. It was therefore very important that boys and girls participate in masculine or feminine activities, respectively, in order for the children to fulfill societal gender roles later in life. In addition, “[p]lay and recreation became the route through which immigrant children would acquire and, more importantly, embed the qualities necessary for American citizenship. These characteristics, like bravery, honour and robustness in boys, and grace, humility and vitality in girls, were seen to be peculiarly American traits lacking in European immigrants” (Gagen 2004, 431).
Adiv (2015) discusses the tensions surrounding freedom in bathing spaces. She describes the inconsistencies between baths and pools being places of play and mischief (especially for boys and men) and the idea that bathing as a method of hygiene was a morally upright practice. This supports the idea of individual freedom of the space. Adiv (2015) goes on to bring attention to the shift from bathing as hygiene toward swimming as sport, a physical activity, and recreation in a much more regulated and intentional way. In the 1930s, the swimming facilities built in conjuncture with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) were specifically intended for swimming and recreation. The size and shape of many pools fit specifications for lap swimming and there were showers in the facilities so that one could clean themself before entering the pool (as opposed to using the bath house pool to get clean).