by Paul R. Spitzzeri
Bringing this post to a close, we return to the 11 May 1896 edition of the Los Angeles Herald and its article on “The New Hollenbeck Home,” referred to in a subheading as “a noble institution, “a home in every sense of the word to old people” and “the benefaction of Mrs. Elizabeth Hollenbeck” including a structure costing $50,000 and backed by “a handsome endowment for its support.”
The article noted its prominent location in Boyle Heights, the community deemed “one of the admitted show places of the city of beautiful homes,” and on the bluff that gave its name to the Hollenbeck estate, “La Villa de Paredon Blanco,” the last two words meaning “white bluff.” A sweeping panoramic view to the west was countered by an overlook of the recently established Hollenbeck Park, with land given by Elizabeth and close friend, ex-mayor and future city treasurer, William H. Workman, to the east. The landscaping was also “among the handsomest in the city.”
The piece turned to the new edifice, designed by the architectural firm of Morgan and Walls, recording that,
The main home building is a beautiful structure of the combined Moorish and mission style of architecture, of three stories and basement, and fitted up with every convenience, not to say luxury, found in a first-class modern hotel . . . It is practically fire-proof throughout, well lighted and ventilated, with roomy corridors and every facility for securing the greatest amount of sunshine and warmth.
The first floor comprised parlors, reception rooms, dining rooms, a library, offices and other spaces, with a wide stairway to the second level, which included the apartments for the “inmates,” or residents. The account continued that “these rooms are large with every convenience and all opening outward” and it was added that “there is not a dark room in the whole house.” The bathrooms were “elegantly fitted up” with hot and cold water, tile floors and “every convenience.”
The upper floor also contained resident units, along with assembly and reading rooms, while the basement included the steam heating system, electric power plant, laundry and other spaces. Fully electrified, the structure was so modern that “nothing that modern science could suggest for the comfort and convenience of the inmates has been omitted.” In addition to the construction cost, $25,000 was expended on furnishings and “there are accommodations for about sixty people, and if more room is needed additional buildings will be constructed.”
A Herald reported stopped by the Hollenbeck residence, constructed some two decades prior as detailed in part one of the post, and visited with Mrs. Hollebeck, noting,
Time has dealt lightly with this good, true woman, and but for her snow-white hair, framing her youthful and still-handsome face, she could easily pass for many years less than the years that have passed over her head.
Asked for a quote about her project, Hollenbeck demurred, merely replying that the Home spoke for itself and that she wanted it to be a model of its type. Seeking to forestall the possibility of “any miscarriage of her plans,” she set up the establishment so that “the home would be self-sustaining from the start and independent of any outside aid.” It was added, however, that the Home was “only the beginning of the work that Mrs. Hollenbeck has mapped out for herself.” Funds permitting, “she hopes that other buildings may be erected, either as a home for ‘homeless children,” or a continuation of the existing facility.
Another notable feature addressed in the article was the set of rules adopted for the Home’s operation. Applicants had to be at least 60 years of age, a resident of one year in California (with trustees allowing for some exceptions) and “of good moral character.” Moreover, “persons seriously deranged in mind” were not permitted and an “inmate” tending to this condition was to be removed by friends or the Board of Managers would see to the removal. Additionally, anyone found by the institution’s medical staff to have a contagious, infectious or incurable disease was to be denied residency.
While there was much discussion of indigency being core to the operations of the Home, the third provision was that “approved applicants, before they are received into the home, shall pay an admission fee of $300,” though, again, the trustees could make exceptions. Some online inflation calendars peg that amount as north of $11,000 today. Each resident was put on three months’ probation and those not confirmed after that date as permanent was to have that fee returned, subtracting $3 per week for the time they were there.
As reimbursement for the benefits provided to residents, it was decreed that “all the property, real and personal, which may belong to an approved applicant for admission to the home, shall be assigned and secured to the home.” Any such property realized after admission would also be transferred and, for those leaving the Home for any reason thereafter, the property would be used to pay for incurred expenses. Anyone coming to the Home having a pension from a benevolent institution, which was fairly common, were to have “their pensions or dues . . . continued to the home in order to lessen the expense incurred by the home.”
Any resident leaving the Home was not allowed to return and forfeited the portion of the admission fee to cover their board while there, while rule-breakers disturbing “the peace and happiness of the home” could be dismissed. The Board could evict an inmate “for any cause” subject to the remittance of the remaining fee and property. Only the Home’s medical staff could treat a resident unless special permission was made for outside physicians to attend them. The ninth condition was,
As occupation of mind and body is a requisite to health and happiness, it is expected, so far as possible, that the inmates will not only take care of their rooms, but will render such other service as they can for the good of the institution and for the comfort of those who may be less able than themselves.
The Los Angeles Times of 31 July included reference to a reporter paying a call to Hollenbeck to clarify that all applicants had to have the $300 for admission and she was hesitant to make any statement, but then, “when pressed for a decisive answer,” reluctantly stated that there could be no exceptions, otherwise “the place would simply be overrun,” while the fee was necessary “towards paying the expenses of the institution.”
The paper’s description of the Home did not materially differ from that of the Herald, though the cost was given as $55,000 and the verandas and courts were “where the aged inmates may spent pleasant hours in peace” and the décor provided “an attractive and luxurious aspect.” An unnamed correspondent, moreover, wrote that “the only refuge for old women” in the Angel City was “the Hollenbeck Home, where she who can raise $300 may live out the remainder of her days in comfort.”
On the afternoon of 6 September, four days after the 11th anniversary of John’s death, the formal dedication ceremony for The Hollenbeck Home for the Aged was conducted and it was remarked by the Herald that the facility “conspicuous . . . for its beauty of contour . . . will not only be a landmark to the city, but is a monumental evidence of the promptings of the generous heart of a noble woman” in dedicating the Home to her late husband.”
Nine residents were already living in the Home when the ceremony was held, this including literary and musical elements and Elizabeth was praised for “much business sagacity” as she oversaw the dramatic growth of the estate’s finances. In further describing the interior, finished in oak and Oregon pine, the paper noted a stained glass window over the main staircase in which “the figures represent Manhood Protecting Old Age and Youth,” with Aeneas carrying his father Anchises from the decimated Troy.
In the parlor and reception rooms, matting covered the floor and the furniture, though modest, was of “the best quality.” Supervisor Daniel W. Hanna kept his office adjacent to these spaces, while the dining room, 40′ square, was considered “cheerful” and the kitchen next to it fully modern in its appointments. More bedrooms and the matron’s quarters were also mentioned. The upper level, in addition to more apartments, also included trunk rooms and an assembly hall, while “last but not least, is a cosy [sic] little apartment where tobacco smoking is allowed ad libitum [as necessary or desired.]”
At the outdoor ceremony off the veranda, Hanna spoke for Elizabeth and heaped praise on her and her late spouse, while declaring that “the building had been erected by divine inspiration. He was followed by First National Bank of Los Angeles President John M. Elliott who also spoke of his late colleague and the work done by Elizabeth and “her wisdom in building the home during her life.” Trustee Frank A. Gibson invoked the founding of Babylon and its Queen Semiramis in honoring the legacy of her dead spouse to praise Elizabeth and told of how George E. Long, who was the Temple and Workman bank assignee for several years, told him of John’s many quiet charitable acts.
Charles Batcheller, another trustee, emphasized the aforementioned conditions for residents, with these devised “so as to do the most good with the best results” including the fee, which he deemed “sensible and right” and “a basis for the proper investigation of each case” and a filter of unworthy applicants. Yet, he continued, the Home did not “attempt to impose any particular ideas on the inmates” as “the tone of the institution is moral,” even as the facility was non-sectarian “and no religious test will ever be required.” He then concluded,
Let us hope that her [Elizabeth’s] example and the successful results of her charity may be a stimulus and encouragement to others to devote some part of the wealth that God has given them to those uses which indicate the highest and best results of Christian teaching.
The Rev. William Stewart Young, whose 1935 biography of the Home has been cited here, offered the dedicatory address and intoned that “this building is an attempt to translate the one supreme law” of God “into an application to current affairs.” John’s funeral, he noted, was held on the grounds of the estate before his interment at Evergreen Cemetery at the other end of Boyle Heights and he was lauded for his role in helping to make Los Angeles what it was in 1896, while Elizabeth was praised for continuing the work they developed together.
Young then commented that the home represented three ideas, the first being sympathy, and he decried that “strange sights are often witnessed in this world” including that “children turn on their parents” and “parents forsake the offspring of their own loins.” The minister also claimed that those who maligned “Christian progress” were those that “owe their all to the very truths which they attack.” He also sorrowfully averred that “one of the crying faults of this day is irreverence” including toward the older members of society and he lamented that “this is a young people’s age and there is a spirit abroad which tends to push the old people to the rear.”
The second concept was support, or “sympathy made practical.” The Home provided for those in which “the noonday of life is over and the sun is westering” and who lacked the right setting and/or family and friends to care for them, so that “for all these such a place as this is most desirable.” But, Young added, the word “home” was crucial as the environment of support and sympathy was such that “here will be companionship with those of their own age.” The orator then addressed Elizabeth:
And now, oh, generous giver and dear, personal friend, I congratulate you on the privilege of blessing your fellow-men, which you have had the wisdom and grace to seize and carry out . . . Oft have you been weary in the work, but never of it. You have a reward in the joy of success, in the good wishes of friends, in the benedictions of those whom you cheer and bless.
The final reward, however, would come after concluding this life and joining John in Heaven and being told by Jesus Christ, “well done, good and faithful servant.” Young then officially recognized the delivery of the Home to the trustees and five young women, daughters of trustees, including that of Dr. Anne W. Nixon, a member of the Board of Managers and the Home physician, and of Edward F. Spence, another confidant of Hollenbeck and former Temple and Workman assignee and banker, led tours of the Home. The paper added that “in every place are found the expression of a thoughtful hand and every little detail of comforts that are essential to the aged are in evidence.” Visitors were welcomed each Tuesday, as well.
The Los Angeles Express of the same day provided a briefer summary basically covering the same ground as its contemporary, while the Times, also of the 7th, added details such as a portrait of John prominently positioned in the main parlor and that about 1,000 persons were in attendance. John D. Bicknell, the last of the trustees, was unable to be present because of illness; otherwise, the summation largely echoed that of the Herald. Young’s book devoted 20 pages to the opening, almost all of it the text of the various speeches.
The highlighted photo from the Homestead’s holdings for this post, taken by Frederick E. Munsey, and dating to about 1900, shows the front, east-facing elevation with all the hallmarks of the Mission Revival style, including the arched covered patio, a center facáde, the tower to the left, or south, dentil molding, the tile roof and other details. Some of the elaborate garden elements, including lawns, bushes, shrubs and trees are also of note.
The 1900 federal census counted 46 residents of the Home, in addition to Hollenbeck and her household, Hanna and staff, with 80% of them women and two-thirds American-born. Only one person of color, listed as from somewhere in South America, resided at the Home. The oldest resident was 90 and there was a 17-year old girl, though everyone else was, as required, over 60.
A decade later, the population grew by more than double, to 104 persons, and the percentage of women residents grew to 83%, while the American-born were 72% of the “inmates.” The senior resident in age was 89, while the junior members were 60 and 63-year old sisters and the institution grew with additional buildings and a chapel.
Remarkably, Elizabeth Hatsfeldt Hollenbeck died on 6 September 1918, the 22nd anniversary of the dedication ceremony and the 33rd anniversary of John’s funeral. It was noted that, in addition to Hollenbeck Park and the Home, she erected, in honor of John, Jr., the Hollenbeck Home Memorial Chapel, from 1908 and still standing, though the original building does not survive. The Times of the next day observed,
The philanthropies of Mrs. Hollenbeck are not as generally known as they should be. She was always a great doer of charity, and the Hollenbeck memorials and Hollenbeck Park stand out only as the larger pieces of community enterprise to which she turned her attention.
As for the Hollenbeck Block and Hotel, it, along with the Nadeau Block and Hotel, was razed in 1932 and it was reported by the Times of 10 January that “the site will be utilized as an auto park, a drab fate for the colorful hostelry.” The parking lot remains today, with no clue, obviously, of the noteworthy building that didn’t quite make it a half-century there.
Hollenbeck Palms, however, continues in operation and its 130th birthday comes in September 2026, so look for more history of the establishment, through Young’s work, in a post at that time. Meanwhile, this Sunday, the Homestead hosts a 150th anniversary of Boyle Heights this Sunday and is offering another one in late August, so check that out on our website.
I believe the current Hollenbeck Palms is a continuation of the Hollenbeck Home, which was established in the late 19th century. However, I’m not sure whether it is still regarded as a charitable institution or has simply become a business-driven operation.
As noted in this post, in its early years, their $300 admission fee raised some concerns; however, it was only a one-time cost and even pro-rata refundable upon departure. By contrast, today’s retirement homes, nursing facilities, and assisted living centers of Hellenbeck Palms charge monthly fees ranging from several thousand dollars to around $10,000 per month.
This leads me to wonder – does Hollenbeck Palms still need to rely on an endowment fund to sustain its operations, as it did in the past, or has it become fully self-sufficient through resident fees as other similar institutions?
Hi Larry, yes, Hollenbeck Palms is the same facility and it remains a non-profit institution, charging fees for its independent, assisted living and memory care units. Notably, the Boyle/Workman estate a couple of blocks to the north has been the site of a Jewish and then, until summer 2021, a Japanese retirement home, and there are plans to raze the facility and develop the area for market-rate housing.
Thank you, Paul, for your response. Not only has Hollenbeck Palms remained a nonprofit organization, but I believe it must also maintain its charitable status to be able to continue receiving public donations. I also believe, over the years, its financial operations have likely evolved from initially relying on an endowment fund and predetermined business income to now being sustained primarily through resident fees, donations, and reinvestment income.
I’m not particularly concerned with how nonprofits or foundations manage their funds. There are various safeguards in place to allocate profits appropriately and avoid contributing them to individuals. What I find most remarkable, and truly worth celebrating, is that the Hollenbeck name has remained tied to this institution for nearly 130 years – and counting.