Richmond’s Public Bath Houses, by Christopher B. Coleman

Local historian Christopher B. Coleman recently wrote a piece on Richmond’s public bath houses, and while this site has visited the subject before, he supplies a lot more information and graciously agreed to share it here-

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, people visited public baths in towns and cities. Even a city as small as Richmond, Virginia, had one called Charles Beck’s Public Baths in 1832. The enigmatic Beck’s Public Baths token has been a numismatic mystery since the latter part of the 19th century. With its lone obverse device depicting a woman bathing, the only aspect of the token which exceeds the token’s mystery is the beauty of the woman herself. The reverse of the token doesn’t reveal many clues about the token as well. The reverse features the business’ name, two florettes, and its premised city of issue.
However, only a scant bit of evidence to date has emerged that incontrovertibly and inexorably links the token to Richmond, Virginia. The existence of records dating to the Hard Times Era are few, after many public documents were burned during the Civil War.
David Schenkman, author of Virginia Tokens, briefly explored the Beck’s token in the May 1980 edition of The Numismatist. In his essay, he writes that several entries for “Beck’s Public Baths” was uncovered in two Richmond Virginia Deed books.
The first deed entry dated from 1832, and the second was dated from 1844. Both entries listed the owner as Charles Beck, as well as indicated its location on the south side of Main Street between 13th and 14th streets. Along with running a public baths, Charles Beck was also a confectioner. Russel Rulau, in his Standard Catalog of United States Tokens Fourth Edition, estimates that Beck’s business operated from 1832 through 1844.
Fire insurance policies, originating from the Mutual Assurance Society, validate both the existence and the location of Beck’s businesses, as well as confirm most of what Schenkman and Rulau report. Contained within the policies were building maps and the street location, as well as affirmation that not only did Charles Beck operate a public bath facility, but was also a confectioner.
However, what was most suprising from this new research was the discovery that the Beck’s Public Baths businesses may have continued to operate for several years after 1844. Of the insurance documents discovered, one dating from 1851 was also found. Like the earlier policies, the Public Baths property had remained insured. (Policies from 1836, 1844, and 1851 were located.)
What is uncertain, however, is whether Charles Beck himself continued to operate the businesses, or his son took over the enterprise sometime in the 1840s. Census documents from the era confirm the residencies of both Charles Beck Sr. and a son, Charles Beck Jr, both of Henrico. Charles Beck Sr. was born in 1781, and died on June 22, 1848. His son, Charles Jr., was born in 1823, and continued to appear in both the 1850 and 1860 U.S. censuses.
Thus, if the business had remained open up until 1851, as the fire insurance documents appear to confirm, it would have been his son who continued the operations. Indeed, looking closely at the 1851 document, it appears that the “JR” suffix is noted after the Charles Beck name.
Three varieties of the Beck’s Public Bath tokens are known. The more common variety, struck in copper, is cataloged by Rulau as HT-441, and has an estimated rarity rating of R-3. The second variety, struck in German silver, is quite rare, and is cataloged by Rulau as HT-441A. It’s rarity rating is R-8. Likewise, the third variety struck in white metal, and is cataloged as HT-441B. It is equally rare.
As to the token’s beautiful design, in 1999 numismatist Wesley Cox researched and through die analysis demonstrated that Beck’s tokens were produced by the firm of James Bale of New York. Given the uncertainty of exactly when its dies were cut, its design may have also involved engravers Charles Cushing Wright, or Frederick B. Smith.
All varieties, when they are seldom encountered, are most often found in lower grades. Given this, it is surmised that the tokens were heavily used by the Richmond public.
There were other public bath houses in Richmond in operation until the 1950’s.
In a time when many people did not have access to running water, a local banker and philanthropist named John P. Branch established a public bath at 1801 Broad Streets in 1909. A brick building that still stands at 1801 East Broad Street, Branch Public Bath #1 used coal-fired boilers to provide hot water for showers and tubs on the second floor.
These grew so popular that four years later, he built the more beautiful Branch Bath #2 at 709 W. Main Street. The bath house was erected in 1913 on a small midblock parcel facing Monroe Park. Branch deeded both buildings to the city with the stipulation that the city appropriate $3,000 annually to maintain each facility. At the peak of use in the early 1920s, the two baths were patronized by 80,000 people per year.
At each, any white Richmonder (like so many other amenities in the city, the public baths were segregated) for ten cents, a bather would receive a sterilized towel, a bar of soap, and a set (yet largely unenforceable) bathing time: twenty minutes for men, thirty minutes for women. Admission for children was 3 cents.
Winter was the busiest time, since people tended to bathe in creeks and lakes during the warmer months. As indoor plumbing became more common, however, patronage waned and both baths closed in 1950.
John Zehmer of the Historic Richmond Foundation wrote in his new book, THE CHURCH HILL OLD & HISTORIC DISTRICTS, that the Branch baths served 60,000 bathers a year. “The cost [in the early 1900s] was five cents for adults and three cents for children. The bath was popular with judges, doctors, lawyers, and all classes of people because it was so much better than what was available at home. The development of indoor plumbing led to the closing of the public baths . . .”
Residents used a backyard privy as a toilet, and bathed in wash basins or in nearby waterways. Most early Americans took sponge baths, standing beside their washstand with its pitcher and bowl of water or in a small tin tub with a few inches of warm water, usually in their bedchamber. Servants or slaves, if one were wealthy enough to have them, brought buckets of water from the pump, heated it in kettles on the stove, and lugged it up the stairs to the shallow tub. Otherwise you did the chore yourself. Ladies often preferred to put the tub by a fireplace. Some people bathed in the kitchen, nearer the stove, less privacy but less carrying. Many who were willing to wash their bodies while standing in a basin were unwilling or unable to immerse themselves fully in a large tub.
Interestingly, bathing and washing didn’t necessarily include the use of soap, at least not until the 19th century. The association of bathing with soap began in the 1830s, representing “a new fastidiousness about body odor that increased the labor required to achieve decency.”
One thing’s for sure, people washed their hair less often than we do today. A women would have had to spend half her daylight hours sitting by the fire or in the sun to dry her long tresses. Hair styles reflected this reality. Until the 1920s when American women began cutting their hair short for the first time, most braided, knotted, or twisted up their long hair and wore it under a cap or bonnet. The invention of the electric hair dryer allowed a greater variety of styles.
In the 1870s, the discovery of germs helped boost the idea of cleanliness in Europe and America. Modern indoor bathrooms with a sink, tub, and toilet in one room, gained popularity from the 1920s on. But even then, by 1940 (just before World War II), only half of American homes had this sort of modern bathroom.

In 1979, VCU redeveloped the entire block as Gladding Residence Center, but preserving a portion of Branch Bath #2’s façade as the entry to the complex. The bathhouse had found a new purpose, but was now uncomfortably shoehorned between two wings of the new complex.
Four decades later, GRC was outgrown and outmoded, and VCU needed to replace it. The university engaged Ayers Saint Gross as Design Architect and Clark Nexsen as Architect of Record, along with American Campus Communities, to create a new student housing complex that meets the evolving needs of a 21st-century student population.
But what to do about the bathhouse? It was awkwardly located at not-quite-midblock. Its Renaissance aesthetic contradicted VCU’s image as a forward-looking, innovative institution. But the residents of the adjacent neighborhood saw the bathhouse as a beloved artifact of the district’s history. Any effort to demolish it would be met with stiff community opposition, and relocation costs were prohibitive. The bathhouse had to stay.
Ayers Saint Gross as Design Architect grappled with how to incorporate it into the new GRC. Architectural massing is a push-pull of external and internal forces, and student housing is no exception. The need for exterior space-making and articulation must be balanced with the internal scales of the unit module and the RA community. Adding a randomly-sited, 100-year-old architectural folly into the equation only complicated matters still.
In the end, the solution was subtractive. The design team made space for the bathhouse by carving out a zone of units on one side of the corridor, in the process producing multiple positive outcomes.
The bathhouse, which threatened to be a thorn in the side of the project, became an asset. Its limestone exteriors have been cleaned, and its leaky casement windows were replaced with contextually-designed insulated units. The graphic design studio even faithfully recreated the long-vanished “BRANCH PUBLIC BATHS” engraved signage that adorned the stone entablature.
The bathhouse structure now houses community space for GRC residents on its first floor, and a media lounge on the second story. The full integration of old and new at GRC serves as a reminder that cities, like campuses, are a collage of eras. Source: Times-Dispatch, historymyths.wordpress.com, Laura Carr, thevalentine.org, asg-architects.com

King Asks Governor To Reject Mayor’s Plea Without Water Rate Reform

Dear Ralph,

I have become aware that the City of Richmond Mayor Stoney is begging for more assistance from the state of Virginia in regard to the city’s utility budget. His letter, dated July 7 and signed by the nine Democratic Party members of Richmond’s delegation to the General Assembly, asks for money to pay for improvements to Richmond’s sewer system from the influx of $4.3 billion the state is to receive from the federal American Rescue Plan. Now, normally, as a king, I loathe interjecting in matters between your state and and the city or bothersome party politics, just as I know that you, as a state official, do not wish to become too involved in local city matters. That said, two things are causing this exception from normal – one, the amount of American money requested, $833 million, is rather large and meaningful; and, two, I am personally offended by how the City uses its water utility to take advantage of its own citizens, especially its most impoverished. Therefore, as the King of Oregon Hill, I am writing to ask that you give Mayor Stoney’s request more scrutiny, and perhaps even rejecting his plea altogether until certain considerations are met.

As you are already aware, the City of Richmond as well as your Commonwealth of Virginia overall, are very blessed with a plenitude of water, especially in comparison to western American states. In the past, city officials have taken this natural blessing for granted and used it to help wash away the city’s wastes, and consequently polluted the James River. Sewer overflow, as citizens have come to know it, is rightly seen far and wide as a large, embarrassing, decades-old problem that must be corrected. I give that environmental effort my royal benediction. If I felt that this matter was all this was about, I would leave this to yourself and others to freely administer.

But City officials over time abused the water wealth in other ways, and have unwisely become dependent on unfairly bilking their own constituents. I point to four problematic practices –
1) A payment line (I believe the bureaucrats refer to it as a PILOT) in the citizens’ water bills that goes straight to the City’s general fund, money that has not necessarily gone to paying for water/sewer or anything other than padding the City’s budget. The city’s PILOT surcharge on water includes a reprehensible payment in lieu of federal income tax. I will note that Paul Goldman, former chairperson of the Democratic Party of Virginia, has also called attention to this ‘rip-off’ of Richmond citizens (sans lawsuit, so far…).
2) Bad water agreements with the surrounding counties that sell the the City’s water at low, wholesale prices. Indeed, the City is charging it’s own citizens more for the water than the counties are charging theirs for the water their governments are buying from the City. These low prices for this valuable natural resource are encouraging an even more horrible waste through growing suburban sprawl in the counties, which in turn is polluting the James River even more.
3) High minimum water rates for residents. At one point in the past, the local Green Party ran a contest that would award anyone who could find a higher residential minimum water rate that was comparable to the City of Richmond’s anywhere else in the country- no one won (The City administration later lowered the rate just enough that the contest could not be run again). It is shameful that the City keeps crying poverty, creates whole public bureacracies devoted to ‘wealth building’, but still insists on high minimum rates which place an unfair burden on its poorest residents for what is a basic human need. I have heard one wealthy white resident defend this longtime practice as a way “to claw back some of the money that spent on public housing’ (for black residents).
4) The overall utility and water situation favors large corporations over residents. The utility rates in effect award large volume users while punishing poor residents. It discourages conservation. This is also reflected in other matters – for example, how Dominion Power company is allowed to release water from its coal ash ponds while discouraging other uses like micro hydropower on the James River. Again, it pains me to watch how the City not only weaponizes its water utility against its own residents, but squanders and abuses its natural blessing of water wealth. It is truly offensive and deserves repudiation.

It should be noted that citizens have tried to bring these problematic and unfair practices to the State Attorney’s attention, state representatives’ attention, the Mayor’s attention, to City Council’s attention, to the media’s attention, and to the larger populace’s attention, all with limited effect. Water rates have been brought up by mayoral and council candidates as a campaign issue, only to be forgotten or abandoned by those who win office. Reporters shrug their shoulders and tell me that Richmond uses its water utility in this manner to balance its budget, never mind how regressive it is and how it would make more sense to charge large volume users more instead of overcharging its poorest residents.

Ralph, it is widely reported that you and Terry regard Levar as a ‘rising star’ in your political party, but you should not be blind to what is important here – yes, the City needs money to repair its sewer system in order to help the environment- very much so. But keep in mind that the City has been using the sewer overflow problem as a reason to beg money from the federal and state governments for years and years. And while Richmond has undoubtedly realized many benefits from its CSO control program, the City is not doing as good as a job as it should in regard to stewarding it’s water wealth for the benefit of ALL of its citizens and the environment. And in the REAL big picture, these underlying issues will only deepen and become more exacerbated as climate change reduces the current water wealth. In your speeches, Governor, you talk about how Virginia needs to become more progressive and future-oriented. I contend Richmond’s backwardness must change in order for that to happen.

I cannot command, but I strongly recommend your office consider rejecting the Mayor’s plea until City officials, including the Mayor and City Council, publicly and sincerely promise to phase out the PILOT payment, renegotiate its county water agreements, and fully reform its utility water rate structure. Yes, the City desperately needs the money to correct the sewer overflow problem, but it must reform its water utility and water wealth management in order to have that money spent well.

While I do not have power over the Commonwealth of Virginia, I do claim sovereignty over Oregon Hill within the City of Richmond, and I feel it is my duty to look over the interests of citizens. I am hoping this letter will prevent future interventions.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Scott Burger
King of Oregon Hill

Deadline quickly approaching for City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities utility relief assistance

From City press release:

Deadline to apply for the COVID-19 Municipal Utility Relief Program is January 17. DPU representatives available to answer questions and collect applications this week!

Richmond, VA – City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities customers that have fallen behind on their utility bills as a result of an economic hardship due to COVID-19 are encouraged to submit applications for utility relief.

The COVID-19 Municipal Utility Relief Program funding provided by the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) is being administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development and supports municipal utility relief efforts during the pandemic. The utility relief assistance program is designed to be a one‐time opportunity with one payment per household or business. Funding for the program is limited, so don’t delay in applying.

Applications are due by midnight Sunday, January 17. This one-time opportunity is to help customers pay down or pay off high utility bills as a result of COVID-19 and avoid future utility service disconnections at the end of the pandemic’s state of emergency.

The application process is simple and takes less than 5 minutes to complete. Drop by one of these locations to fill out an application or feel free to drop off your completed application. DPU representatives will be on-site to assist from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm.

Tuesday, January 12, Southside Community Services Center, 4100 Hull Street

Thursday, January 14, North Avenue Library, 2901 North Avenue

Friday, January 15, The Market @ 25th, 1330 N. 25th Street

Customers can also request an application via email to DPUCares@richmondgov.com or by calling (804) 646-4646.

To be eligible for funding under this relief program, applicants must meet the following criteria:

· Be a customer (residential or non-residential) of the City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities with active utility service;
· Have experienced/been impacted by an economic hardship due to COVID-19;
· Have fallen behind on their City water, wastewater or natural gas utility bill for services during the period of March 1, 2020 through December 30, 2020;
· Have not received any other forms of relief or financial assistance for their City utility services; AND
· Submit the completed application so that it is received by DPU on or before January 17, 2021.

With limited funds available and the application deadline quickly approaching, eligible customers are encouraged to apply immediately. More information, including the application, are available at www.rva.gov/public-utilities.

RVAH2O Storm Drain Art Project Announces Its Fifth Year

From press release:

RVAH2O, a public education initiative of the City of Richmond’s Department of Public Utilities (DPU), is seeking the talents of local artists ages 18 and up to help communicate the importance of keeping city storm drains litter-, leaf- and pollutant-free. The annual Storm Drain Art Project, which calls for artists to paint on city storm drains, is kicking off its fifth straight year. The deadline for submissions is Sunday, February 2, 2020, at 11:59 PM.

Twenty painted storm drains from previous contests currently adorn City sidewalks in Tredegar, Carytown, Northside, and Scott’s Addition. The City estimates that, each year, several thousand people walk by and view the drains. “Our goal is for artists to harness their talents to communicate a message that resonates with every Richmond citizen – that only rain should go down these drains,” reports Jenn Clarke, DPU’s stormwater outreach coordinator. “It’s creativity for a cause.”

This year’s chosen artists will paint their designs on storm drains in Shockoe Bottom. The art should reflect the goals of the RVA Clean Water Plan – the City’s five-year roadmap for reducing pollutant discharges into the James River, starting with wastewater, stormwater, and the combined sewer system. Artists are encouraged to think creatively and design a drain that will inspire Richmonders to keep our waterways clean.

An independent panel of judges from DPU will select four designs to be painted on designated drains in April 2020. Selected artists will receive a $400 stipend for their work and materials; DPU will provide non-slip paint, water and water tubs, and basic brushes.

Now in its fifth year, the RVAH2O Storm Drain Art Project has earned an award from the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and inspired similar programs in municipalities throughout the country. It has also earned recognition in two consecutive years from the Richmond Ad Club.

“We’re excited to continue this tradition for another year,” adds Clarke. “It’s a tremendous opportunity for local artists to display their work, and it’s an important environmental message for Richmond’s citizens and visitors.”

The Storm Drain Art Project is being conducted with permission from the Richmond Department of Public Works, the Richmond Public Art Commission, and the Richmond Planning Commission.
Visit RVAH2O.org for details. Submit art at http://www.RVAH2O.org/submit-art.