So many of Albany’s uptown neighborhoods were developed in the first quarter of the 20thcentury during a period referred to as the “Progressive Era” and formally defined as spanning from 1900-1930. Within these neighborhoods, there are countless two-family homes having identical apartment flats stacked one on top of the other. With the layout of deep narrow housing plots or parcels as a carry-over from the downtown neighborhoods which contained primarily attached townhouses, these two family homes were oriented with the narrowest façade along the street frontage. The buildings typically featured architectural embellishments common in the period such as a mixture of clapboards, wood shingle siding or stucco, gabled or hipped roofs with attic level dormers, angular or square two-story bay windows, decorative Palladian-style windows at the attic, multi-paned double-hung windows, and prominent front porches. The development of this very prominent building type was the result of a new housing plan that emerged in this era which incorporated new functional and technological amenities that improved the levels of comfort, domestic conveniences and social patterns allowing working class families to achieve middle-class quality of life. This “progressive-era plan” had a standard 6-7 room layout with bath, kitchen, dining, living room and two or three bedrooms.* In the early 20th century working class neighborhoods, multi-unit structures, like duplexes, triple-deckers and larger multi-unit apartment complexes which provided middle-class amenities quickly gained in popularity. 
This was a critical period of transformation of the full range of socio-economic conditions that influenced the entire inventory of American housing. Prior to 1900, working class houses commonly contained two major rooms – a kitchen and a work/sleep space with perhaps one or two small storage or sleeping rooms. The amenities typically included a stove for heating and cooking, a sink with cold water (typically hand pumped), oil lamps or candles and access to an outhouse. Lodging relatives or boarders typically served as another source of income even though it further decreased the amount of space for the family members and produced crowded conditions. Overall, the typical pre-20th century working class home was characterized as having multi-functional rooms with little architectural distinction; spatial crowding due to the small sizes and the taking in of working boarders; room usage dictated by the work and various schedules of family members; and the absence of privacy or significant personal space. These patterns of living underwent a significant transformation with the development of new dwelling types for the working class in the Progressive era.
While this was a significant advancement for the working-class, the middle class was also greatly impacted in their new ability to afford their own home. The dramatic shift of the middle-class family home ideal between 1890 and 1901 was part of a more general reorientation of American culture partly in response to the depression of 1893, which was the impetus for a search for new standards in national patterns of production, communication, consumption and family life. The Victorian system of values and its assumptions about women’s proper roles were challenged as the new economy influenced subtle changes in family composition. The woman’s role in the house was shifting with the availability of a number of labor-saving equipment, the tendency to purchase more goods and services from outside the home and the overall reduction in family size. Women started to enter the work force and spent less time working in the home, while fewer middle-class family households employed servants. In comparison to 19th century homes which put social status and formality above comfort, the main focus of the early 20th century or Progressive era homes was comfort and convenience, for all classes.
Comfortable working- and middle-class houses in the Progressive era routinely incorporated eight specific elements into a 6-7 room plan which collectively defined a new standard of housing. This informal but widely accepted plan became a nationally recognized standard for domestic living. They included:
1. Bathroom with three fixtures. The combination of a bathtub, toilet and sink in a minimum standard 5×7 foot room plan marked a dramatic technological leap from the primitive semi-public facilities that had remained unchanged since the middle ages.
2. Dining Room: The dining room was a desirable symbol of middle-class domesticity, yet for a working class family this separate room also provided the practical benefits of offering space for multiple activities in addition to regular dining.
3. Kitchen Technologies: Kitchen improvements naturally facilitated the everyday work of the homemaker. In addition to the kitchen stove, a sink with plumbed or pumped water, hot-water heaters, refrigeration units, ice holding appliances, washing machines and a variety of labor-saving devices introduced in the 20th century improved the overall quality of life for an increasing number of American families.
4. Public Utilities & Services: One of the most important accomplishments of Progressive era reformers after 1900 was the introduction of a range of public utilities and services to working- and middle-class neighborhoods such as sewer, electricity, gas, garbage collection, and street lighting and sweeping. Urban residents were among the first to receive them. Previously these services had been the luxuries of the well-to-do only, whereas with the Progressive Era housing reforms they became standard features for all.
5. Private Bedrooms: Before 1900, privacy was nearly non-existent in typical working-class households of 2-4 rooms. The creation of a new world of domestic privacy for working class families is one of the major effects of housing reform in the early 20th century. Still there often remained the necessity of having a renter’s room in many working class homes until after the Depression.
6. Storage Closet: The closet was an entirely new type of space in working-class homes and indicates a critical turning point in the availability of industrially produced personal domestic goods.
7. The Front Porch: After the turning of the century, the front porch became a place for and symbol of leisure for the working class. The porch symbolized for many the potential of a new life-style made possible by the 8-hour workday and improved living conditions. More than any other architectural features, the modest front porch represented a new space for domestic comfort and social gathering in improved housing.
8. Car & Garage: While the automobile was a late addition to working-class households, the popular use of the automobile significantly contributed to the transformation of the American home and lifestyle. By 1928, ¾ of all non-farm families owned an automobile; however it tended to be accommodated in rented garages or minimal detached structures. Shelter for the automobile became an increasingly important consideration after 1900. Driveways were readily accommodated in the Progressive era design of new neighborhoods having road improvements such as paved surfaces, gutters and curbs, and sidewalks.
During the Progressive Era between 1890 and 1930, thanks in part to pre-fabrication and mass production of building materials, more houses were constructed in the United States than in the nation’s entire previous history. The Progressive era plan and the key eight features that became housing standards as described above has no single source or creative designer and could be applied to a variety of architectural styles. Like other building inventions in popular housing, this plan and these features were the product of an evolutionary process. Thousands of local builder/developers aided by mass communication, industrialized product development and a speculative housing market, designed and developed this plan type until it was the ubiquitous housing style of urban neighborhoods.
The front-facing gable end two-family home is the most recognizable Progressive Era plan structure in the city of Albany, particularly in its early 20th century uptown neighborhoods (Delaware, Helderberg, Woodlawn/Pine Hills). There is no standardized nomenclature by which this two-family home is known, but has been referred to as the “Temple-house” because of its rectangular footprint with short wall facing front and having either cornice returns or full pediment over its two-story porch approximating the image of a Classical Greek temple. These houses were customarily built in rows alongside each other on a street creating a rhythm similar to town houses despite the fact that they were detached. Their appeal and the simplicity of their construction encouraged many variations of the basic plan. The homes related in massing and form to those adjacent houses on the street to create a cohesive community similar to older urban rowhouses. These multi-family homes retained a domestic scale and were thoughtfully sited to provide open space for fresh air, light, privacy and recreation. As built, they were intended to house a diverse population, particularly as residents were moving out of the crowded central city. At the same time, the two-family homes accommodated the ability to offer rental housing and/or inexpensive homeownership in a planned environment.
Today, despite alterations to cladding and porches, these Temple front two family houses remain a predominant housing type in the city of Albany and continue to offer affordable homeownership as well as abundant rental opportunities for our working and middle-class residents. They retain the ability to contribute to the vitality and village atmosphere of each street and neighborhood in which they exist and should be appreciated for the special role they played in housing reform and architectural history.
St. James St, Albany
*This term has been coined by Thomas C. Hubka & Judith T. Kenny in their article “Examining the American Dream: Housing Standards and the Emergence of a National Housing Culture, 1900-1930” featured in Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture (Vol 13:1, 2006).
**This summary is taken from the Reconnaissance-Level Survey of the Delaware Avenue Neighborhood conducted by Landmark Consulting in 2012-13 and sponsored by DANA, Historic Albany Foundation and the Preservation League of NYS.