6 Woodfield Drive, Whippany NJ, c. 1955. Lots of Hudson/Nash vehicles.
I was fortunate to recently discover some great vintage color photos that were taken in the municipality I grew up in–Hanover Township, New Jersey. These pictures mean a lot to me, because even though I didn’t come along until the 1970s, the color images capture familiar places that still had shades of the 1950s/60s/”Wonder Years look” that I remember so well. And it now occurs to me that so much has changed in my home town since I was young–changes I never would have imagined.
The Good Old Days: Mom & me reading together.
Approximate borders of Hanover Township (green line).
Hanover Township encompasses two distinct communities: Cedar Knolls and Whippany. I was located in Cedar Knolls, although our mailing address was Morris Plains. So if someone asked me where I lived, the answer was either Morris Plains, Cedar Knolls, or Hanover Township. This gave me a kind of “location dysphoria” since I couldn’t solidly identify with one definite place (like “I’m from Newark”; or Morristown; or Hooterville or whatever.)
2nd shot: Not sure what kind of car this older one is.
Nevertheless, Hanover Township experienced tremendous growth from the late 1940s to the ’70s. The suburban development boom was on, as residents and industry from the old “inner cities” (New York, Newark, East Orange, etc.) were fleeing to open spaces and greener pastures, courtesy of that marvelous invention, the automobile!
Baldwin & Broome Streets, view northwest, Newark. Samuel Berg Collection/Newark Public Library
This is where they were fleeing from: the old, dense, decaying neighborhoods of Newark and other cities. Designed for the horse-and-buggy and heavy on faded Victorian charm (which nobody cared about anymore), streets such as these paled in comparison to the tree-lined, winding lanes of suburbia. A cute house with a yard; quiet, leafy–virtually no crime; “A Home of Your Own”. These things represented the future–success–modernity!
Baldwin & Broome Streets today. Bland government-subsidized housing projects have replaced the fanciful, European-inspired architecture of old. How different this neighborhood would look today if restoration rather than demolition were pursued.
A friend of mine, Kurt Hirschberg–we have a lot of common interests. He also grew up in Hanover Township, but in Whippany. Kurt loves historic architecture and he has several classic cars including a ’55 Mercury wagon and a ’58 Edsel Citation (among others). He provided me with some great color photos of cars and houses in Hanover:
House on Dogwood Road where Kurt grew up, Whippany, built 1948; photo taken in 1973. The knotty pine has since been painted over, obscuring the architect’s original conception. Photo courtesy Kurt Hirschberg
Kurt’s father’s 1957 Mercury Montclair, taken at Kurt’s grandparents’ house at 72 Highland Avenue, Whippany, 1960.
The 1957 Mercury is one of my favorites because of its long, low, sleek, “Dream-Car Design–Straight Out of Tomorrow” (as the ads described it).
Another view, showing the Gondek family house at 74 Highland.
1963: Kurt’s father (shown) is now driving a 1961 Mercury Monterey. Note Gondek house with its diamond shutters and two-toned mauve-and-white paint scheme.
1961 Mercury–another great classic, now almost extinct today.
Kurt’s mother posing in front of the Monterey.
Mrs. Hirschberg owned a ’62 Mercury Comet. John Lotz (Morristown Lincoln-Mercury dealer) painted the roof white because she wanted a two-tone.
Gondek House, 74 Highland Avenue, recent photo. All beige now. The cute diamond shutters, pastel two-toned paint scheme–all gone.
80 Highland Avenue, possibly the last house in the township retaining the original diamond shutters. Note ’50s style “awning” over front door.
Crossing guard, Highland & Reynolds Avenue, 1950s. These students are on their way to Memorial Junior School on Highland, where I also attended, grades 6-8.
Same location today.
Low-cost suburban tract houses. Designed to be plain and cheap, with a few added details like shutters and gables to give them some much-needed charm.
This brings up another point–when I was growing up, I always assumed that the houses and streetscapes of Hanover Township would never really change. There was no urban blight as in Newark, and rarely if ever was a development house torn down. Owners put a lot of care and love into their plain little houses, and everything seemed stable and unchanging.
House I grew up in, 53 Cross Road, built 1955.
Today it’s hard to find one of these tract houses that looks the way it did when built. Nearly all of them have aluminum or vinyl siding, replacement windows and doors, original shutters stripped away and replaced with tacky fake “screwed-in” shutters (yecch!) The pleasing uniformity of the block (given variety by mirror-image floor plans; cheerful house color choices of individual owners; and flower beds and landscaping) has been lost.
20 Edwin Road, around the corner from my house. It’s hard to find the original house amidst all the additions. That blah shade of beige has taken over everywhere!
Directly across from #20 is 19 Edwin Road, the last tract house in the development that has maintained its original look: [Faded] pastel paint scheme on original wood siding; original doors and windows; original shutters with S-curve hardware (the shutters actually swing out); original chimney; and no additions. I would support the idea of having the Township purchase this last survivor and restoring and furnishing it authentically 1955 as a kind of museum. Kurt and I could serve as consultants!
Marsh Mansion, Plainfield NJ. Architecture worth preserving!
It feels a little odd for me to write this, because I always considered these postwar suburban tract houses to be cheap, plain, dull, “all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same” as the song goes. Victorian–that’s where the beauty, craftsmanship and artistry was. I still believe that, but at the same time I do occasionally feel a nostalgic pull for these basic and familiar 1950s suburban development houses with their simple attempts at charm like real shutters and other mid-century “revivalist” motifs–often based on imagined “Colonial” or “Cape Cod” inspirations.
Not Colonial Williamsburg but Levittown, New York under construction. MAD magazine called it “Leveltown” LOL! None of the original Levittown houses look even remotely like this anymore.
And they weren’t all “ticky-tacky”–our house had real solid-wood, long-length lumber flooring and no plastic doors or particle board anywhere. Which shows you just how far down the line we have gone in cheapening so many of the things we make!
1959 Dodge parked in a suburban housing development, location unknown. Dainty ’50s trim adorns the houses.
And here’s another thing I noticed when I first saw the lead photos in this post: the presence of the chrome-y and voluptuous cars of the 1950s parked in streets and driveways radically changes the whole visual character of the neighborhood. So in a very real sense, we can never truly go back to the way things were.
Me cheating:
This was my plan: I park a ’50s car next to an old house, take a picture and voilà, suddenly it’s 1960 again! Can you tell these last three are recent and not authentic vintage photos?
TOP PHOTO:
If you look at the house today on Google maps, you see how additional landscaping has changed the initial appearance of the home.
However, if you look at the house just to the right on Google, that house appears almost original. Could be used as the back drop of some 50’s movie or TV show.
Nice contrast.
Great pics, love the nostalgia. Looks like a 62/3 s22 comet in you’re driveway. Is that an opel gt behind it..? I currently own a 63 convertible
Yep, that’s Dad’s 1970 Opel GT. Mom’s Comet was a 1962 S-22.
Wonderful post! Those were the days. Growing up in a small Midwestern city, we have so much in common, our feelings that things keep changing and rolling right over us. Fortunately my family home has been correctly updated. I visit often and am happy to see that they have carried on my Mother’s love of flower gardening. The rest of the neighborhood has gone down hill. And the vintage cars! As a 1947 Rolls Canardly (Roll down one hill and Can ardly get up the next), I feel fortunate to STILL be able to pilot my 2007 Town Car around town. But those fabulous 50s chromed beauties will never return, while we live in a world of plain SUVS, crossovers and melted jelly beans. So many of our historic buildings are being replaced with UPSCALE condos and apartments. Local businesses are quickly being bought up by conglomerates bringing sweeping changes. Our local University has decided to sell its best and most valuable paintings to finance dorm renovation, while owning acres of vacant land and even purchasing more. Our Historical Museum has been moved to a miniscule 60s brick building, only showing its treasures on a rotating basis. Driving is more challenging with round a bouts replacing stop lights. Many years ago, I left my heart in SAN Francisco and planned to move. Family loyalty kept me here, but don’t regret that. I do regret that so called improvement is a backward step, destroying our beautiful heritage for the sake of profit! So many low people in high places!
Cole Porter famously wrote in his 1930s 🤔 ANYTHING GOES, The world has gone mad today and goods bad today….What a visionary!
‘Night is day and day is night. Right is wrong and wrong is right’. Madness madness.
I identify with most of what you say. I remember my own subdivision – it was a little newer (1959-60) and looking across the back yard I saw nothing but white aluminum siding. Now you can’t see anything for all the fences and trees.
I have refused to consider replacing the original aluminum windows in my current house, built in 1958. My utility bills aren’t bad and I don’t like the way most replacement windows look. Besides, mine will never need paint and they work great.
Your friend’s house has a nice Lincoln coupe in the drive – it must have lost that wheel cover when quite new, if the photo date is correct.
Also, that song you cite is one I find more irritating with each passing year. There is a smug and dehumanizing superiority there.
Thank you JPC! I entirely agree with you about that song, and have said so (much to the dismay and consternation of other people) for quite a few years. It just reeks of a certain kind of yucky bohemian sensibility and superiority that has always bothered me.
I feel that people can agree to disagree, and one’s preferred abode/lifestyle may absolutely not be someone else’s…but to ridicule like that song does. Yuck.
/rant
It’s sort of a counterpoint to Merle Haggard’s Okie From Muskogee, eh?
Haggard went on to say that he had regrets about writing it, since he knew he was just inflaming the culture wars and he actually leaned leftward in a number of ways. He also claimed he wrote it satirically.
I thought it was funny at the time, even though I was pretty squarely in its cross-hairs. What he didn’t know was that “white lightning” was also the name for a famous batch of LSD made by the Owsley Stanley, the “King of LSD”. Or maybe Haggard did know that? He went on to be a regular user of pot.
In any case, one shouldn’t let these songs get under one’s skin. 🙂 There’s a bit of truth to all of them, along with the hyperbole and trolling.
I’m with Tom Lehrer who (may or may not have) said that Little Boxes was “the most sanctimonious song ever written”. At least that’s how I’ve always heard it…particularly in the Pete Seeger rendition. Pete, definitely knowing a thing or two about sanctimony 😉
Merle, well, I’m not sure that he had too much experience with Owsley’s products and likely stopped at weed. Then again, who knows.
The so-called ‘culture wars’ in the United States, have been promoted by the establishment for decades. It helps divide the people. They want a left versus right divide, as it deflects from the true top down divide. That genuinely marks the country, and the world. Basically, divide and conquer.
Daniel, the last thing I want is to get into a debate with you on this subject, but the left is every bit as responsible as the right. It takes two to tango, or create a culture war.
And yes, this silly little song was of course highly condescending and sanctimonious, and just the kind of thing that fed it. And the left is still doing it today. End of this thread.
Respectfully, no aim to debate you. Rather, inform others.
To JP, with all due respect, IMO, with so much AI, cell phones constantly being checked, et al, unfortunately we are increasingly becoming dehumanizing. Fortunately in the USA 🇺🇸 we can STILL have our own opinions. Not sure how much longer 😕
And our own houses – even if those that most people can afford are tract homes.
Besides the cars another thing that stands out about “looking down the street” pics of those early-postwar suburbs when they were new, like the 4th one from the bottom, is the lack of mature trees or in this case any trees at all.
That’s noticeable in new-build subdivisions today but the effect highlights that of the cars.
Yes, NJ has changed just like about every place else! When we lived on Rose Str in a 2 bedroom that was part of a large complex in Metuchen, NJ from 1954-1957 the fronts were, IIRC brick, but the rears-my first view-struck me as looking like a Army barracks! I think I said that, which rather deflated my father’s proud search results……..OOPZ!
Apparently the fronts of the complex now look like the below pic, and the interiors look much nicer than in 1954!! 🙂 DFO
The ’57 Mercury with black–walls —
Tires look oversized …. maybe because we’re more accustomed to seeing ww’s on those Mercs.
The unidentified late ’40’s black car, behind a continental spared blue-green Hudson….
Its in good shape, altho antiquated after only 10 yrs —
I’ll call it a Plymouth.
What struck me most was the house on Dogwood Road, with the vertical natural (stained) knotty pine exterior siding. That’s all the rage now, at least out here: all the flippers that buy rather boring ’60s ranch houses here add vertical natural wood siding, on either the lower half or the upper half.
While I appreciate (and resonate with to some extent) your deep interest in originality, I happen to subscribe to the concept that buildings should (and often need to) adapt, change and be repurposed. real working shutters? Who needs them with air conditioning? Single pane original wood windows? As a landlord that made the huge mistake of keeping them in my numerous moved houses when I rehabbed them, they are a total maintenance nightmare, as the interior condensation in the winter drips down the glass and creates mold and rot on the wood frames and mullions. Vinyl insulated windows totally solved that issue. And then there’s the almost inevitable lead paint issues that is of course worst on wood windows since they get opened and shut repeatedly, turning the lead paint into toxic dust. Keeping wood windows with lead paint is a potentially serious health hazard and a legal one for landlords.
The same issue applies to the wood exteriors painted with lead paint. I still shudder when I see folks sanding theirs on old houses, spewing leaded dust into the neighborhood (and their lungs). Removing it, or covering it up with aluminum or vinyl siding is actually a very pragmatic solution to a serious issue.
And then of course expectations and standards change, so the desire to remodel is a very natural one.
So while your idea to keep one of these completely original for historical reasons makes sense, it is also unrealistic to expect owners to do the same, for a whole number of reasons. Buildings are created for a purpose, and the specifics of that purpose inevitably changes over time, so to remodel, adapt, repurpose and otherwise change a building is just the natural evolution of its life. None of us stays the same over our lifetimes, and so it is with buildings. One can honor history as well as embrace change.
There are ways to update and improve the functionality of buildings without engaging in “remuddling” which is rampant today. My main concern is Victorian houses with historical and architectural merit. Replacement windows can be obtained which look correct and are the correct size. Shutters should have hinges and hardware and appear to be functional even if not used. Imitation shutters screwed in look obviously fake and tacky. Aluminum and vinyl siding often covers original artistic details and just looks bad overall on these houses. The people who take pride in their Victorians and other historic houses know this.
In my own case, the diamond lattice windows are original and add immensely to the charm of the house. No way I’m replacing them. Non-original aluminum storm windows were later added for functional reasons, however a previous owner painted the aluminum frames green, thus turning a visual liability into an asset. There are lots of creative solutions, but people have to CARE first, and that to me is the main problem.
Updating and remodeling–done intelligently–is often profitable and good. But the idea that people will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house and remodeling, renovation, and maintenance costs–and end up with something that looks butchered, tacky, and stupid has always been a head-scratcher for me!
Stephen, you’re preaching to the choir. I spent years and way too many hundreds of thousands of dollars restoring our 1866 Greco-Italianate house in Los Gatos (and lost some $125k when we had to sell it). I sourced “wavy” glass from Germany for the original windows that were restored, reclaimed old growth redwood for the siding and trim, I scoured all the Bay Area salvage yards for the period-correct doors (which weren’t made after about 1880 or so) and external-mount rimlocks for them, and……………
I was referring to modest postwar tract houses and such. which were built to a price in a very competitive market. It’s essentially the same issue as with cars from the ’50s and ’60s: do we keep them 100% original or do we put radial tires, dual circuit brakes (and possibly discs) on them, and (god-forbid) a more modern drive train in them?
These cars (and houses) from these era were cranked out by the millions, and there are examples around that are still original, and I applaud those that keep them original. But I also totally get why folks take an essentially discarded old car or truck and modernize it, to make it feel like it can be driven in modern traffic conditions or such without any significant compromise.
My rentals fall in this category: they were neglected and about to be torn down. I had some lots and a neighbor who was a house mover. So I rescued them from the dump, but yes, I also upgraded them to make them more functional, safer, energy efficient, and easier to maintain.
The reality is that after 30 years, these modest little houses are becoming increasingly obsolete, with minute “prison camp” bathrooms and other functional obsolescence. Given what new houses are selling for in this neighborhood, I’m realistic that there will come a time when they will be torn down and replaced by new ones. I’ve extended their useful life, but these are not beautiful Victorians, and their builders never expected them to last this long, most likely.
In fact, the typical modest tract house has a lifespan of some 60-100 years. Yes, in theory that could be extended, but in practical reality, it generally doesn’t make sense to do so.
There’s an actual reason why the IRS allows a rental property to be depreciated over 28.5 years; they really do depreciate in relation to a new house, even if the market value isn’t actually going down.
One further thought: from my experience things like wood windows were of significantly lower quality on ’50s houses than they were on pre-war houses. Everything was mass-produced and it shows. There are of course exceptions, but to wrap it up, those little Levittown cottages are simply not functional anymore in just about every respect except for a hard core conservationist who is willing to live with all their limitations. How many people would be ok with having a 1948 Ford as their daily driver today?
Paul, do you think that wood’s original in this case? The caption says the picture was taken at 25 years after being built, but I don’t see any architect or designer of a 1940s house in a town (as opposed to a cabin in the woods or a little house on the prairie) using natural stained wood as a decor/trim effect or in any place besides the flooring, at least not on that style of house in that time period. I’m guessing for some reason the original siding in those areas was removed and this was put in on the homeowner’s whim. You’d normally always just see more of the wide-plank horizontal siding as is below and around the side of the house butting up toward the windows.
Having lived in a house with actual, real, correctly sized shutters that could block all the light and provide a security purpose (both of which on modern houses in the same countries are now replaced by hidden exterior roller-blind assemblies), the picture of the rundown faded “original” house with the shutters cracks me up. They shutters may actually work as stated, but it’s lame, look at the lower level, even if they did work and swing, they aren’t anywhere near wide enough to actually cover the window/ I can’t believe the upstairs ones actually work either, the lower edge seems to be in line with the lower edge of the window sill which on that house likely juts out 2″ from the siding, i.e. blocking the shutter from closing. Shutters in the US in almost all cases in the last hundred years are literally just “window dressing”, in the literal sense of the phrase. Why waste money on making them movable when that cannot actually accomplish anything?
That’s a good question, as to whether that natural wood is original. it was quite common for the front facade on these tract houses to have more “texture”, with a variation of the siding and some brick or fake stone or such. I think it is original, and I doubt someone took the paint off, or the original siding and added this before 1973. Knotty pine paneling was hugely popular in the ’50s, and I can see why someone might put it on the outside too.
As to the shutters, yes, after the mid ’30s or so, they all became useless affectations, the equivalent of Buick portholes or such. Even the house that Stephen points out as having functional original shutters with S bars, I doubt they actually did work, and that the S bars were also affectations. The upstairs ones are about the right size, but the downstairs ones clearly aren’t.
The other issue is opening and closing them daily worked more readily when houses had tall and narrow double hung windows with rope and pulleys, but that was not the case with more modern small windows and with screens built into the storm windows. One would have to pop out the screens just to do that. There’s a reason you never, ever saw a post ’20s house with the shutters actually closed. Folks had moved on to roll-down shades on the inside of windows, which were universal by then.
Jim K.: Our house (below) was the same design as the “rundown faded ‘original’ house” shown. Yes, the shutters would swing out but only partway, and could not cover the window. Purely decorative. My father liked them because you can swing the shutters out and paint the house siding underneath.
The truth is, these houses look too stark and plain without the shutters, non-functional as they are. So even though the houses were built to be low-priced, the builders spent the extra money on real shutters and hardware to enhance curb appeal. But people in the ’50s were much more sophisticated in their tastes than today, and just nailing fake shutters on both sides of a window would look too phony and crass to most people at that time.
I saw on this forum, a interesting thread about the post-war subdivisions in French. https://forum.agoramtl.com/t/patrimoine-en-peril/1008/62 Kind of ironic to see these bungalows at the same situation then once Victorian home and buildings are. Here an example of post-war houses in Quebec City in 2009 https://maps.app.goo.gl/xrZQNaog4R5iCmKw9
Same location in 2022
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xpLwJrZ8JFda88oQ6
For those who are curious, there’s a interesting thread about Streetview on Skyscraperpage forum showing how things have changed in some places in 15 years.
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=249429
“all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same”
I can’t believe this 1960’s song is still remembered .
Nice pictures, I too prefer Victorian design but it took too much maintenance .
-Nate
The TV show “Weeds” used it as its theme song about twenty years ago and reintroduced it to a new generation. The original song references the houses on the hillsides of Daly City, CA, in the early 1960s, while the show takes place if I’m not mistaken amongst the stucco mini-mansions of the Santa Clarity Valley or therabouts – the modern equivalent, I suppose.
The unidentified black 4 door sedan looks like my 1947 Plymouth I had when I was 17.
Few will recognize that the styling of the house in Whippany on Dogwood Road descends from work F L Wright did at the beginning of the last century. His early work is replete with examples of a first-floor exterior material extending up to the second-floor window sills, rearranging the proportions of the facade to increase its apparent width while minimizing its height. The ploy seems to work wherever it is employed—including in these houses from the ‘fifties.
Beautiful post and photos Stephen. Your talent, and passion for history, are remarkable. And much appreciated! So much beauty and artistry, here to enjoy.
Yes, all three photos do appear authentically originating from that era.
Paul N.: Wow! I didn’t know (or had forgotten) that you did things like import wavy glass from Germany and search salvage yards for antique doors and hardware for your 1866 former house. That’s the kind of stuff I do, but on a much smaller scale.
Some windows on my house are Andersen replacements (done by previous owners), but done in such a way that no one notices. But all the front facade windows with the diamonds are original, and they do have wavy glass! There’s a small window on the side that looked kind of “naked”, so I put shutters on it. But the shutters are real wood, correctly sized (or close), with hinges and S-curve holdbacks, so they look (to me, at least) like they’ve always been there. See pic.
All my 1958-60 classic cars have radial tires, which I greatly prefer over bias ply. No one who sees my cars notices or cares. The ’60 Dodge Dart also has an electric fuel pump, a dual master cylinder, and seat belts. The seat cloth is not original but sewn in the original pattern. To me these are reasonable and desirable upgrades.
Ah yes, the Hanover Twsp, NJ area, home of: Forbes Garden Center; Capital Lighting; Nabisco, and – I think,
Allison Automotive, the company that used to make things like those plastic cup holders that went on your car door sills, & those magnetic 3-slot coin holders (useful for Garden State Pkwy tolls!). Morristown-Beard school is nearby too. I grew up in “The Oranges” (West & South), not far from Turtle Back Zoo. That whole region of NJ is now considered “trendy”, like the Lower West Side of NYC (which used 2b all delivery truck terminals but are now $$ Lofts!). That ’62 Comet is nice; i’m guessing it’s NOT an automatic – hence the cinder block parking brake. Great pix; Uncle Floyd would be proud!
Wow, a lot of these old houses look even better now than they did in the 1950s. I looked up the addresses in Googlemaps.com and it’s amazing that they are still in great condition, at least on the outside. You sure don’t find that in a lot of Southern cities, which is where I grew up and still live. Down here, many, if not most middle class houses built in the 1950s look bad now.
The older car in the second picture is a late forties Mopar. My guess is Plymouth, but Dodge or DeSoto are also possible. I’m not knowledgeable enough to say for sure. Maybe someone else can be more certain.
Grew up in Academy estates in Whippany. Sold my mother’s house, and you would never recognize it now. Mansionized. Love these photos, I know the streets
This really spoke to me. I’m fortunate to have avoided modern tract houses, and was instantly drawn to a 1970’s “shed style” house when I bought it in 2014. Working in a manufacturing plant, I wanted to be as far removed from that industrial conforming feel as possible. I’m still here today and haven’t so much as painted the front door. As for Mercury, there’s a 1964 Caliente convertible in the garage. Doesn’t exactly fit with the style, but someone in the neighborhood could have had one half a decade ago.
“industrial conforming”? “Half a decade ago”? Sheesh, I meant century. I need to stay off the phone until I’m fully awake.