CHARAS and The Reimagination of Loisaida
Dome Construction, August 1974, The Records of CHARAS, Inc., Archives of the Puerto Rican Diaspora. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, Hunter College, CUNY.
Editor’s Note: The following essay is part of a politics dossier featuring presenters from The Latinx Project’s recent conference, “Latinx Politics — Resistance, Disruption & Power.” To download the PDF, click here.
As New Yorkers continue to combat an ever growing budget deficit, they find themselves at the beginning of another period of city disinvestment and mass displacement—one that has already begun to disproportionately impact marginalized communities. With access to city resources and public services becoming more difficult and conversations around the future continue to promote a high level of anxiety for most people, it might be worthwhile to look back at another period of uncertainty in New York City’s history where community organizing and activism, coupled with an extensive arts program, provided alternative notions of power and ownership for community members.
In the early 1970s, to get out of a fiscal crisis, the city initiated a policy of “planned shrinkage,” in which all spending on municipal services, subsidies for housing, public schools, fire stations, hospitals, and garbage collection. Various low-income neighborhoods were directly impacted by these policy changes that ultimately encouraged redevelopment of New York for national and multinational corporations through the displacement of long time residents. One of the most impacted groups was the large Puerto Rican community that settled in New York City following the “Great Migration” of the 1950s. By 1960, the United States Census showed that there were well over 600,000 New Yorkers of Puerto Rican birth or parentage.
One of the largest communities of Puerto Ricans in New York City was in the Lower East Side. Devastated by the fiscal crisis and subsequent policy changes, between 1974 and 1979, the Lower East Side lost two-thirds of its population, with the most significant drop seen among the section from Avenues B to C and from 3rd to 12th streets that housed the highest number of Puerto Ricans: 14,908 to 4,597. From the 1970s and on, remaining residents were under the constant threat of gentrification (seen through the redevelopment of nearby neighborhoods Greenwich Village and Soho), afraid that there would soon be a disappearance of affordable housing and further displacement of the working class.
Fig. 1 Marlis Momber, Looking north from East Fourth Street are the tenement at 309 East Fourth Street and the bare-bones playground, El Jardin del Paraiso in the foreground, 1979, photograph.
Fig. 2 Josie Rolon, La Plaza Cultural in the foreground with CHARAS Recycling Center to the left in the middle ground, 1980, photograph.
As the Puerto Rican community in the Lower East Side faced the real possibility of extinction, it was the efforts of the remaining community members to directly address the multitude of problems found in the neighborhood. This conflict was captured in the mural project La Lucha Continua/ The Struggle Continues (1985-86) at La Plaza Cultural on 9th Street and Avenue C in the Lower East Side, New York. Sponsored by Artmakers and CHARAS, this mural project comprised twenty six murals addressing six political issues: gentrification, police brutality, immigration, feminism, racism, and U.S. military intervention. The central mural, which lent its name “La Lucha Continua/ The Struggle Continues” to the entire project, aimed to provide a sense of identity and place to the neighborhood. “La Lucha Continua” narrates the past, the present, and the potential future of the community through immediate and legible imagery. Depictions of homelessness, eviction, and the physical destruction of housing stock are juxtaposed with the rehabilitation of the neighborhood’s housing stock and a community cultural center. In the center of the mural is a clear ball held up by two hands that present a future signified through housing, various types of workers, and an idyllic image of children playing in an open field. However, this future is threatened by the imminent danger of gentrification in the personification of landlords through a green octopus in a limo.
Fig. 3 Eva Cockcroft et al., La Lucha Continua/ The Struggle Continues, 1985, photograph.
Fig. 4 Detail. Eva Cockcroft et al., La Lucha Continua/ The Struggle Continues, 1985, photograph.
While various historical details of the mural have been written about by previous scholars—homesteaders, gardens, a broader history of community development—there is an object present in the mural that has been obscured within the history of the community. In the upper right-hand corner, there is a geodesic dome. Due to its placement in the pictorial composition, the mural suggests a limited role for the geodesic dome in this attempt to historicize the struggle of the community. However, one cannot help but think about the visual similarities of its circular shape of the dome with that of the clear ball, and its optimistic ambitions for the future. The inclusion of the dome in a mural over other prominent figures and organizations in the community raises an important question: what are we to make of the geodesic dome within the context of the community?
Over time, the geodesic dome became a symbol of community building for Loisaida, the Latinized pronunciation of Lower East Side coined by activist and poet Bimbo Rivas in 1974. Loisaida represents the determination of the Puerto Rican community and the long term residents to preserve and cultivate the neighborhood despite limited support from municipal and federal agencies. From its first appearance in 1972, the dome has appeared throughout the Lower East Side, coinciding with the mass adoption of the word Loisaida throughout the community and the city. The image of the dome and the word Loisaida are constantly paired together through photographs, newspaper and magazine articles, various bureaucratic documents, exhibition posters, and banners. This deliberate pairing was crafted by the Puerto Rican activist organization CHARAS. Through the adaptation of the geodesic dome, CHARAS formed alternative notions of power and ownership over their community. As “the improbable dome builders,” CHARAS built and cultivated the image of the dome to fit within their programming and ambitions for Loisaida. By tracing the shift from the geodesic dome as a physical structure within the built environment to the geodesic dome as an abstraction serving as a reminder of the past, the image of the dome is intrinsically tied to the creation, maintenance, and potential of Loisaida.
Syeus Mottel, CHARAS: The Improbable Dome Builders,1973, book.
The narrative around domes in the Lower East Side starts with Syeus Mottel’s book CHARAS: The Improbable Dome Builders (1973), which tells the story of how CHARAS was able to build two geodesic domes as an alternative to current housing models over a period of five months, September 1972-January 1973. With guidance from architect and inventor of the geodesic dome, Buckminister Fuller, the dome becomes a platform for CHARAS and Loisaida to experiment with how to address prominent social issues facing the community.
Although the text contains various photographs of the dome that were republished and distributed by various local and national media outlets, the impact of the geodesic domes in Loisaida does not stop with Fuller in 1972-1973. There is a rich history of CHARAS’ dome building throughout the 1970s and 1980s that slowly began to shift away from its initial purpose as radical alternative housing. Despite the media attention CHARAS’ work with Fuller received, there is little written about what becomes of the dome as it begins to appear throughout the neighborhood and in other areas. The increased production of dome making and dome imagery by CHARAS supports larger efforts by many activist and community organizations, such as CHARAS, to implement a new community identity under the mass adoption of Loisaida. By framing the conversation around Loisaida, we can begin to make sense of the photographs found in the CHARAS archives that point to an increased use and production of domes.
Fig. 6 CHARAS, Summary of Dome Building, The Records of CHARAS, Inc., Archives of the Puerto Rican Diaspora. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, Hunter College, CUNY, 1973, Document.
Fig. 7 CHARAS, Summary of Dome Building, The Records of CHARAS, Inc., Archives of the Puerto Rican Diaspora. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, Hunter College, CUNY, 1973, Document.
How did CHARAS and their dome building operate within the larger process of building Loisaida? To answer this question, one must first look at how community members themselves came to understand Loisaida. The best historical record of what the public was thinking and talking about during the period was the community magazine The Quality of Life in/ La Calidad de Vida en Loisaida (March 1978 to December 1992). The Quality of Life served as a guide for the residents of Loisaida, ultimately evolving into an important source for news and other useful information for the community. Even though The Quality of Life was not a CHARAS specific publication, the channels of circulation for the publication were made possible through the work of CHARAS. In one of the first issues, there is an article titled “The Ideology of Loisaida” by Carmelo Quiñones. The article pulls quotes from several residents of Loisaida, stressing the importance of their role in rebuilding and reorganizing the community. For Quiñones, the “ideology” of Loisaida revolves around the ability to come together to make a claim to their community through physical actions for the future benefit of the residents.
Fig. 8 The Quality of Life in/ La Calidad de Vida en Loisaida, Vol. 1, No. 1, The Quality of Life, The Records of CHARAS, Inc., Archives of the Puerto Rican Diaspora. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, Hunter College, CUNY, 1978, Magazine.
Fig. 8 The Quality of Life in/ La Calidad de Vida en Loisaida, Vol. 1, No. 1, The Quality of Life, The Records of CHARAS, Inc., Archives of the Puerto Rican Diaspora. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, Hunter College, CUNY, 1978, Magazine.
If Loisaida was indicative of an active community constantly thinking about how to better themselves in hope for a better tomorrow, how did CHARAS and their domes promote this? In his PhD dissertation titled “Un Milagro de Loisaida” (A Miracle of Loisaida) (1980), Daniel Chodorkoff provides the first serious look at dome building in the Lower East Side after Mottel’s 1973 account. Chodorkoff understands the domes to function as both a physical and symbolic object. As a physical object, the dome was an all-encompassing project: it had a beginning and an end, taught participatory decision making, and showed how communal work can produce a result that would be insurmountable for one person. Symbolically, the dome was a representation of the new environment that they actively participated in creating and the dome building process itself was meant to empower the community to continually seek and produce change in their environment.
Below are a selection of a few photographs from the CHARAS archive that capture the community empowerment that Chodorkoff mentioned. Take note of the various different types of spaces the domes are being built in, the different functions of the dome, and how people are interacting with them.
Fig. 9 Untitled, Box 12, Folder 8, The Records of CHARAS, Inc., Archives of the Puerto Rican Diaspora. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, Hunter College, CUNY, photograph.
Fig. 10 Untitled, Box 12, Folder 8, The Records of CHARAS, Inc., Archives of the Puerto Rican Diaspora. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, Hunter College, CUNY, photograph.
By the mid-1980s, dome building by CHARAS began to slow down, with a complete stop of dome building by the early 1990s. With the move to El Bohio, an abandoned school turned community center on 9th Street near Avenue B in 1977, CHARAS shifted its operation to supporting various other artistic media and rented spaces to local community groups. What happened to the dome?
Fig. 11 Charas/ El Bohio, The Records of CHARAS, Inc., Archives of the Puerto Rican Diaspora. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, Hunter College, CUNY, Photograph.
When CHARAS began to invest in El Bohio and the arts, the image of the dome did not fully disappear. Looking at a thirty-fifth anniversary poster for CHARAS, it fully acknowledges the CHARAS-El Bohio identity shift. However, on a closer look, we can see their new logo, the use of the comedy and tragedy masks, incorporates the geodesic dome into their aesthetic design. If the reference to their history of dome building was not apparent enough, the children who are celebrating (in reference to CHARAS’ focus on the youth of the community) are holding balloons shaped as geodesic domes. Why is there an intentional call back to CHARAS’s legacy as dome builders in Loisaida?
To answer this question, one must return to the mural “La Lucha Continua.” In the mural, the importance of the image of the geodesic dome is not apparent—at first. However, by recalling the history of the geodesic dome as a tool to empower the community, there is a connection between the legacy of dome building in Loisaida and the future of the community. The future of Loisaida is dictated and shaped by the actions of the past. As the mural shows, it is the work of the community that brought about the changes seen in the physical landscape of the Lower East Side in the 1970s and 1980s, and it is the continued work of the community that will bring Loisaida closer to the idyllic scene depicted within the clear ball at the center of the mural. As external forces, such as developers and city government, began to pose direct and indirect challenges to members of the community, CHARAS and the dome gave people the chance to see the full potential of their actions when working as a community. With the dome perched up in the top, right hand corner of the mural, it is not obscured. In reality, the dome is responsible for all the change happening below it. At first, the dome drew its importance from how its physical structure actively engaged with the community, their built environment, and their immediate needs. But, as the physical act of dome building disappeared, the image of the dome remained, serving as a constant reminder of the spirit of Loisaida—the spirit of hope.
What can we take from this history of dome building in the Lower East Side? I argue that dome building presented one way of mediating how people can reclaim contested spaces to fulfill needs within a community. Dome building was a part of a larger arts program happening in the City and the rest of the country at the time that showed the valuable role of the arts within community activism. More importantly, dome building, in particular the existing photographs, serve as a reminder of the real potential of community organizing.
Author’s note: "This article stems from the research I conducted for my master's thesis. The research on this topic of dome building would not have been possible without the help and support of Libertad Guerra, urban anthropologist, curator, and Executive Director of the Clemente Soto Velez Cultural and Education Center, and Nandini Bagchee, Associate Professor of Design and History at the Spitzer School of Architecture at CCNY and Principal of Bagchee Architect. A significant portion of my research came out of my time as a fellow for the Loisaida Center in the summer of 2019, where Libertad was formerly director. Working alongside Libertad, Nandini, Andrea Gordillo (who is currently at The Clemente), and Alejandro Epifanio Torres, I became more aware of the power behind the visual arts and the passion needed to confront the various injustices faced by the Latinx community in NYC. Libertad provided essential feedback and insight as her expertise and intimate knowledge of CHARAS provided a framework for me to experiment and learn from. Nandini introduced me to the topic of the dome and shared with me her tremendous wealth of knowledge about the Lower East Side. Nandini's 2018 book "Counter Institution: Activist Estates of the Lower East Side" and her 2019 exhibition "Activist Estates" served as an invaluable foundation for my work. Lastly, it is important to highlight the legacy of CHARAS. Their impact on the community continues through the work of various individuals and organizations in the Lower East Side, such as the Clemente and the Cooper Square Community Land Trust."
Works Cited:
All of the archival material cited in this paper comes from The Records of CHARAS, Inc., Archives of the Puerto Rican Diaspora. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, Hunter College, CUNY.
Abu-Lughod, Janet. From Urban Village to East Village: The Battle for New York’s Lower East Side.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1994.
Bagchee, Nandini. Counter Institution: Activist Estates of the Lower East Side. New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2018.
Castells, Manuel. The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. London: Edward Arnold, 1983.
Chodorkoff, Daniel Elliot. “Un Milagro de Loisaida: Alternative Technology and Grassroots Efforts for Neighborhood Reconstruction on New York’s Lower East Side,” 1980.
Cohen, Linda, and Brent Sherman. “Rebuilding a Community.” WIN, December 20, 1979.
García Bedolla, Lisa. Latino Politics. Second edition. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2014.
Hassell, Malve von. Homesteading in New York City, 1978-1993: The Divided Heart of Loisaida. Contemporary Urban Studies. Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey, 1996.
———. “Names of Hate, Names of Love: Contested Space and the Formation of Identity on Manhattan’s Lower East Side.” Dialectical Anthropology 23, no. 4 (1998): 375–413.
Laó-Montes, Agustín, and Arlene M. Dávila. Mambo Montage: The Latinization of New York. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
Maffi, Mario. Gateway to the Promised Land: Ethnic Cultures on New York’s Lower East Side. New York: New York University Press, 1995.
Mele, Christopher. Selling the Lower East Side: Culture, Real Estate, and Resistance in New York City. Globalization and Community; v. 5. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.
Mottel, Syeus. CHARAS: The Improbable Dome Builders. New York: Drake Publishers, 1973.
“Richard Buckminster Fuller Retrospective.” Architectural Design, 1972.
Ševčenko, Liz, Agustín Laó-Montes, and Arlene Dávila. “Making Loisaida: Placing Puertorriqueñidad in Lower Manhattan.” In Mambo Montage, 293–318. The Latinization of New York City. Columbia University Press, 2001.
Warner, Michael. “Publics and Counterpublics.” Public Culture 14, no. 1 (2002): 49–90.
Weissman, Jane. La Lucha Continua/ The Struggles Continues, 1985 & 2017. New York, NY: The Loisaida Center, 2017.
Wilfred Guerron is a recent graduate of the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, holding a Masters in Design Studies in the field of the History and Philosophy of Design and Media. His research focuses on the ways community-based artistic practices shape the preservation and promotion of local identity. His work concerns the spatial and cultural histories of US Latinx communities in urban environments undergoing displacement. He holds a Bachelor of Arts from Williams College, where he majored in Art History. Wilfred was born and raised in the Lower East Side, New York.