Envisioning and modeling Seneca Village—a community that existed more than 150 years ago and of which there are no known surviving photographs or drawings—required imagination and informed speculation. Our assumptions are based on a number of factors and supported by evidence from a variety of sources, ranging from historic photographs of buildings from other areas of New York and the Northeast in the nineteenth century to the variation in declared value of different properties in census records, to materials recovered from archaeological excavation in the village, and to ideas from many of the researchers and scholars who have studied Seneca Village. All of our sources can be found in our References list, and we give our thanks to our many advisors listed on the About page.

As noted in our Methodology page, we attempt to make our speculations literally transparent in the model by rendering those elements less opaque than those about which we have more evidence. This page explains the speculations that we applied consistently across the village with minimal intentional exception to produce the credible variation that would be expected in a village.

Model-wide

Atmosphere: Many details of the village environment would have differed day-to-day or season-to-season. We have represented Seneca Village on a late spring day in 1855, as it might have appeared when the sun came out after a rainstorm so as to render the streams and foliage more full and visible. The model’s background sky is cropped from Thomas Cole's 1836 oil painting The Oxbow, representative of the work of the nineteenth-century Hudson River School of painters.

Level of Detail: Considering our task to create an accurate model of a village that was home to more than 220 people and contained dozens of structures, yards, sheds, barns, stables, fences, fields, the number of details we could include and refinements we could attempt to imagine are endless. We limited the visualization to the resolution one might see at a distance, to maintain reasonable loading times within a browser and to prevent excessive speculation. For instance, the model does not show doorknobs, house gutters, species of individual plants, or three-dimensional crops or animals.

Route: While model visitors are free to move through the village from any angle and choose their own route, we structured navigation through the village via the annotations to take the visitor on a roughly north to south path, viewing the village from approximately standing eye level, assuming they might like to imagine strolling through the village.

Buildings

Building sizes were determined by their footprints and height, in number of stories (floors), both indicated on the 1856 “condemnation map” made by Gardner Sage to assess properties to be seized for the construction of Central Park. Within the model, the distances between buildings and the footprint of each building are as accurate (to the inch) as the measurements given on the original map. Archaeological excavations in limited areas of the village have found the 1856 Sage map to be very accurate in each of these dimensions. The map indicates two types of houses in the village: frame houses of 1, 2, 2½ , or 3 stories and “shanties.” Floor-to-floor heights in frame houses are modeled at 10 feet for the ground floor and up to 9 feet for higher levels. Shanties’ interiors are modeled with minimum heights of 8 feet (at their shortest, beneath a sloped roof). In the nineteenth century the term shanty was often used in a derogatory sense to malign the small homes of working-class people who often built them expediently and informally. The “shanties” in Seneca Village were all valued significantly higher by census takers than shanties in other areas of the city, suggesting that Sage might have used the term simply to indicate one-story, one-room homes.

Rooflines: Double-sided pitched roofs were assumed for houses and higher-value shanties. Single-sided pitched roofs were assumed for lower-valued shanties, barns, stables, and outhouses. For rectangular houses, we have assumed that roof ridges are parallel to the longest side of the house. We based these assumptions on photos of comparable historic structures in the region and on the idea that residents would economize, when possible, in building. However, most village houses had square footprints, and thus we cannot infer the direction of a roof ridge from the footprint alone. Where this is the case, we rendered the roof ridge parallel to the street. This assumption stems from the practical constructions of side-by-side buildings given the proximity of some neighboring houses in the model as well as the imagined potential for new building construction as the village was growing.

Building materials: Most non-shanty buildings assume foundations made of Manhattan schist, the naturally occurring bedrock in the area that breaks through the surface of the ground in many outcrops within the village. The 2011 archaeological excavations in the village (Wall et al. 2018) uncovered the foundation of the house of the Wilson family, which was composed of roughly cut pieces of Manhattan schist held together by mortar and sitting atop shallow bedrock about two feet below the original village ground surface. This foundation is the inspiration for how all of the frame house foundations in the model are rendered. The model assumes foundations were dug a few feet deep, rising between 6 and 12 inches above ground level, and wood-frame house structures were built atop them.

Wood-frame shanties are modeled with floorboards lifted between 6 and 12 inches from the ground, supported at their corners and (depending on their overall size) middle with stone blocks. Self-built vernacular architecture in nineteenth-century New York existed on a spectrum, and many structures started as single-room wood-frame shanties that, over time, were built out into larger, more permanent structures. Mindful of this gradual process of upgrading and the surviving letters of villagers asserting the City undervalued their properties when it seized them through eminent domain, about half the homes labeled “shanty” on the condemnation map are modeled with schist foundations.

Wood siding is assumed for building exteriors, with boards of 6 and 9 inches wide. We assume most homes were built with exterior boards running horizontally (clapboard siding), rather than vertically (board and batten siding) that became popular later in the century for domestic structures. All Angels’ Church was rendered with board and batten siding, because of surviving photographs of the church, after it was moved from the village, showing that type of siding. We also considered the approximate dates of construction of each of the village homes and depicted a greater level of weathering on the siding of older homes than on younger homes.

Chimneys are modeled based on building type. For houses, a brick chimney (1-2 square feet in plan, broader at its base than top, and extending 2-4 feet above the roofline) is assumed. Archaeological excavation at the Wilson house uncovered red, locally made bricks formed their chimney, and fragments of red brick were also found in the yard between the Webster and Philipses homes. Thus we have assumed many houses in the village had red brick chimneys. Chimneys are shown without stone caps because chimneys connected to cooking fireplaces or cookstoves were unlikely to have caps as they were in constant use. For shanties, we have assumed a smaller, metal flue cut through the roof and extending above the roofline, based on historical drawings and photos and lower cost compared to brick chimneys.

Roofing materials: Imbricated tin-coated iron roofing panels are assumed for the roof of many houses. Slate is modeled for the houses with the highest value. Corrugated metal roofing is assumed for some of the lowest-valued homes.

Doors: Where primary entrances are unclear from the sources, doors were placed facing roads. The Viele 1855 and Sage 1856 maps show the vast majority of the homes were oriented toward property edges along roads, suggesting residents were attentive to the relationships between their homes and nearby roads.

Windows: Larger windows are assumed for homes than for stables and barns. All homes have double-hung windows, with each window composed of smaller panes (between 6 and 9 inches square). These assumptions were based upon the typical construction of windows in the Northeast during the period and the relatively high cost of large panes of glass. Preference was given to the southern exposure, for reasons of sunlight and warmth.

Shutters: We assumed that most homeowners who could afford them would have had shutters to help insulate homes in all seasons, reducing heating fuel needs in the winter and keeping houses cooler in the summer, and to protect valuable glass windows during storms. That said, most shutters could be detached and stored during the months when they were not needed. Roughly half of the windows are shown with shutters, and the other half without. More expensive houses are shown with painted shutters, made from wood boards fitted together with dovetail joints. Lower valued houses are shown with unpainted shutters (or ones with peeling paint) fitted together with nails and a wooden crossbeam.

Landscape

Trees: Locations and sizes of trees are based on the topographical map of the lands taken for Central Park made by Egbert Viele in 1855, which depicts trees of four distinct shapes. We assume they indicate the following four general types of trees, and we have rendered them as such in the model:

  1. The most numerous is a short, bushy tree shaped as a fruit tree or other small tree;
  2. A large, bushy tree, shaped as a full-grown oak;
  3. A large, round tree, shaped as a giant willow, found only along Seventh Avenue; and
  4. The least common is a tall, skinny tree shaped as a maple or pine.

We have not assumed species, but have assumed shapes and replicated each instance of the four types included in the Viele map, totalling about 150 trees across the village. A few historical records indicate the presence of fruit trees and “orchards” in the village, while archaeologically recovered botanical remains suggest the presence of elder trees, among others.

The Croton Reservoir looms large in the village landscape, but its exact height above Seneca Village is unclear from primary sources. However, the Distributing Reservoir at 42nd Street was 70 feet above sea level, or 120 feet to maximum water level, assuming 50-foot retaining walls from archival photos. Therefore, the retaining wall for the Receiving Reservoir at Seneca Village is shown with retaining walls high enough to produce an elevation at least 130 feet above sea level. One historic drawing of the reservoir shows land sloping up to the top of the reservoir wall on the northeastern portion of the village. Construction plans also depict the reservoir at about 4 feet above street level in the north and to up to 40 feet in the south. We also included a small doorway on the southwestern side of the reservoir wall that was depicted in that drawing. The appearance of the wall was inspired by a remaining portion still visible in the park today.

Elevation is based on the Viele Map that shows elevation points for the entire park at intervals of 100 feet. Contemporary maps and a 1930s topological survey of the park also show the current topography in greater resolution. The elevation model synthesizes these contemporary and historic sources to produce a detailed estimate of the village’s topography before demolition.

Water supply: Residences lacked access to the Croton Reservoir by internal plumbing, although they may have been able to draw water from it along 86th Street, where it was close to street level. Primary sources also indicate a well adjacent to the Mathew’s house and at two natural springs, one later known as Tanner’s Spring. We rendered both of these in the model with dirt paths to and from Tanner's Spring, assuming it was a heavily trafficked route given the many people who would have gone to the spring daily to collect water. We also assume some villagers collected rainwater in barrels and thus depicted some in the model.

Streams: The 1855 Viele map indicates a stream running south away from the spring at 84th Street at the eastern edge of the village, as well as one running west from Tanner’s Spring. We assume the flow of these streams increased seasonally and rendered gullies along their paths, depressed 1-2 feet below ground and surrounded by vegetation due to better growing conditions near these water sources.

Human Elements

Based on our own instincts as well as recommendations from our advisory group, the model does not depict people. That said, Seneca Village was far from empty, and the model attempts to represent that by showing various material traces of human activity. We aim to indicate how the everyday activities of villagers would have influenced the appearance of the village including dirt paths, laundry lines, smoke from kitchen chimneys, as well as signs of building wear and tear from use over time. Children’s toys and games (e.g., hopscotch and balls outside the schoolhouse) and the tools for a few professions (e.g., cartmen and a possible blacksmith) are included. Spaces of work and/or congregation, such as churches and schools, or other areas with greater foot traffic are reflected on the ground. A well, barrels, and buckets indicate the common and necessary activity of gathering water. And animals, along with the fencing they require, speak to both sustenance activities and work.

Desire lines: We assume villagers would have taken the shortest (or easiest) route possible between places within the village. Desire lines (paths worn by repeated use) are modeled, extending 15-20 feet in front of most doorways. Dirt-swept areas in places with significant foot traffic are represented, such as the area next to Ishmael Allen’s shop for outdoor work, in front of the Wilson House, and behind the public school house where children might have played games like hopscotch. Limited archaeological testing on the east side of the Wilson family’s yard suggests that they kept at least that portion of their yard devoid of vegetation, likely by regularly sweeping it. Yard sweeping is a common practice in many areas of the African diaspora, and it is a practice shared by many different cultures because of the benefits that it offers, such as discouraging rodents and insects from making their homes near human homes and animals from foraging too close to domestic areas.

Cemeteries are rendered with a mixture of grave markers. Most are informal stones (of slate or schist) or wooden (as boards or crosses) based on historical records, photos, and archaeological investigations of African American cemeteries, including the earlier Manhattan African Burial Ground and more contemporary (with Seneca Village) Rossville AME cemetery in the African American community of Sandy Ground on Staten Island. Historic photographs of All Angels’ Church’s sponsoring parish, St. Michael’s of Bloomingdale, informed our rendering of formal grave markers of carved stone. The relative number of burials in each church cemetery was based on New York City death records (that indicate the church that buried the deceased individual), parish burial records (in the case of All Angels’), and studies of historic cemeteries, especially Elizabeth Meade’s 2020 dissertation.

Cultivated fields: To the extent feasible, these areas reflect known agricultural activity in the village. Their size and location are drawn from Viele’s 1855 topographical map. Crop rows are planted perpendicular to the sun’s orientation to maximize light. In areas of the village with steeper topography, crop rows are rendered perpendicular to the slope.

Fences are applied across the village only to keep animals penned or protect crops from animals. Other uses (such as separating properties) are not assumed for fences. Cultivated lands are fenced, as are properties that include stables or animal barns. These vary in height by the type of animals included. Fences show openings for gates in the part of each cultivated field adjacent to the nearest house. The different types of fences (in terms of construction methods) shown are based on historical photos and studies of historic fencing.

Barns, Stables, and Sheds: The size and location of barns, stables, and sheds are based on the 1855 Viele and 1856 Sage maps. Their appearances are modeled from historic photographs and studies of historic farm architecture.

Animals and carts: The archaeological record hints at the kinds and numbers of animals that residents would have owned. The 2011 excavations revealed skeletal remains of sheep/goat, pig, and cow, including all elements from head to hoof, suggesting animals were raised and butchered within the village. A few goose-sized bones were recovered, and although chicken bones were not, we assumed some villagers kept them, and any remains would have been eaten by villagers’ dogs. For selected locations, we show pigs and chickens roaming around, as well as cows and horses confined to wooden pens. We depict goats on the hill in the village that was known as “Nanny Goat Hill.” For Andrew Williams and villagers known to work with horses, we show carts in the nearest yards.