The first beaux-arts collaboration between Alva and Richard Morris Hunt was a house in New York to replace the brownstone house on West 44th Street that she secretly greatly disliked. The design of the new house was undeniably the outward expression of social ambition. Alva was, in effect, pioneering vertically rather than horizontally, creating a space that the aristocrats of New York would find irresistible. However, 660 Fifth Avenue can also be understood as the first great example of Hunt and Alva’s shared vision – a house designed to show American aristocracy what could be done if the great architecture of the European past was combined with the American gift for the modern in America’s own ‘Renaissance’. Alva’s vision for the Vanderbilts went even further, for she felt the family should act like Renaissance merchant princes and become great patrons of the arts. The Medicis of Florence had built houses that were not merely beautiful private residences but an outward expression of the importance of the family. They had ‘represented not only wealth but knowledge and culture, desirable elements for wealth to encourage …’ If the Medicis could do it, so could the Vanderbilts. ‘I preached this doctrine at home and to William H. Vanderbilt’ she wrote later.25
Persuading her father-in-law, William Henry Vanderbilt, to behave like a Medici, turned out to be surprisingly easy. Liberated from both the Commodore and the will case after 1879, he went into action in an uninhibited manner which astounded New York society, only just coming to terms with his transformation from Staten Island farmer to railroad tycoon. He needed little persuasion that the Vanderbilts should build houses that reflected the family’s wealth, and encouraged his elder son, Cornelius II, to follow suit. The settlement of the will case had the effect of a starting pistol: William H., Cornelius II and William K. all filed plans for houses along Fifth Avenue on the same day. Fifth Avenue north of 50th Street was at that time unfashionable, but by the 1880s the area would be known as ‘Vanderbilt Alley’, setting a tone for sumptuous development in New York for the rest of the century.
660 Fifth Avenue was not the largest of the three houses (the others were at 640 and 1 West 57th Street) but it was certainly the most audacious. Alva drew gasps from her in-laws when she presented her plans to them in 1879:
I knew that they were more elaborate and would have a somewhat staggering effect on the family group. Nor was I mistaken. When the paper was unrolled and they all saw the pretentious plans of a house which would cover almost a city block there was a unanimous gasp from the assembly. With much elation I carefully explained the drawing, elaborating all the details and enjoying the effect on my audience. After a while my father-in-law said crisply: ‘Well, well, where do you expect to get the money for all this?’ ‘From you’ I answered instantly, giving him an affectionate slap on the back. The rest sat appalled at my temerity. To them it was like being families with Established Power. My father-in-law laughed and the money for the house came.26
660 Fifth Avenue, designed by Richard Morris Hunt for Alva and William K., would become a New York landmark for decades. Based on the sixteenth-century chateau of Blois on the Loire, out of Chenonceau, it also enjoyed fifteenth-century French Gothic accents, and marked a clear turning point for Hunt as he finally slipped his American architectural moorings. Suggesting that Sleeping Beauty’s castle had somehow landed from outer space on Fifth Avenue, its dominant feature was a three-storey tourelle by the entrance. There were gargoyles, flying buttresses and gables. The designs for this house, a masterpiece of aristocratic image-making, suggested something more complex than straightforward conspicuous consumption, or even aristocratic emulation – though both were an important part of its make-up. The most striking note of all was an unmistakeable flight from reality. In Richard Morris Hunt’s conceptual watercolour for 660 Fifth Avenue, ghostly figures inhabited a fairy-tale palace; drawings for other rooms, such as the Supper Room, were peopled by tiny Renaissance princes.27 In 660 Fifth Avenue, it was as if a deliberate decision had been taken to turn an aristocratic back on the drab, poverty-stricken world a few blocks away – a world into which one could fall so easily without a safety net. This sense of withdrawal to a magical past was a new departure for American architecture; it would make its own contribution to the growing sense of division between rich and poor in New York and it would be copied to the point of pastiche by the early-twentieth century.
Although New York’s architects generally approved of 660 Fifth Avenue, and admired its originality, reaction from New York society was mixed. The pale Indiana limestone of its exterior marked a decisive break with the ugliness of brownstone houses. Every block of limestone was tooled – worked over by a hand chisel. The facades were covered with a riot of rich and decorative carving which caused great consternation: ‘This radical departure from the accepted brown-stone front raised a storm of criticism among my friends,’ wrote Alva. ‘O these whippings from parents and society when the child or adult wishes to be a person and not a member of a mass.’28 (Readers of Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence may remember that Catherine Mingott’s decision to build a pale, cream-coloured house also marked her out as a morally courageous eccentric.) While she was away in Europe, Alva received a stream of alarmed letters telling her that carvings ‘of naked boys and girls’ were appearing on the rooftop. ‘They failed to see, as many, fatally tainted by Puritanism still fail to see, the exquisite beauty of the human form and of its significance in connection with the special period we were trying to represent,’29 she commented.
Even to those who could take the psychological strain, the interior was almost overwhelming, dominated by spaces intended to dramatise the authority and economic power of the Vanderbilts. The dining room was 80-feet long, 28-feet wide and 35-feet high, had two colossal Renaissance fireplaces and a stained-glass window depicting a scene from the meeting of Henry VIII and Francis I at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. The sweeping grand stairway of Caen stone to the second floor was a tour de force of trophies, fruit, masks and cherubs. The entrance hall measured 60 feet and was lined with carvings and tapestries. The dominant theme may have been illusion and flight from reality but the translation of the remains of France’s ancien régime to this new American interior was real enough. It had all been masterminded by the French firm, Jules Allard et Fils, who would come to specialise in importing architectural salvage, artefacts and paintings directly from the houses of ruined French aristocrats for the houses of plutocratic aristocrats in the United States. The William K. Vanderbilts’ paintings not only included Rembrandt’s ‘Man in Oriental Costume’, and Gainsborough’s ‘Mrs Elliot’, but François Boucher’s spectacular ‘Toilet of Venus’. This came to Alva’s boudoir – indirectly – from the boudoir of Madame de Pompadour; and at least one fine secretaire came from the apartments of Marie Antoinette herself.
As late as 1882, Mrs Astor was still refusing to acknowledge the Vanderbilts formally. Her attitude was increasingly irrational for leaving aside Alva’s claims to southern gentility, Cornelius II had married Alice Claypoole Gwynn in 1867 (whose great-great-grandfather was Abraham Claypoole, a direct descendant of Oliver Cromwell), and in 1881 William K.’s sister, Lila, married William Seward Webb, whose grandfather had been an aide to George Washington. Both William Henry and Cornelius II, head of the family elect, were building fine houses and lived lives of unimpeachable luxoriousness. However, Mrs Astor’s strength of feeling on this matter may have been reinforced by two Vanderbilt upsets in the same year. One came about as a result of William Henry Vanderbilt remarking: ‘The public be damned!’ in answer to a reporter’s question about running a Pennsylvania train for the public benefit. Some maintain that William Henry was simply defending the interests of shareholders as he had every right to do, but he was universally excoriated for this jest, and the image of a Vanderbilt as a boorish robber-baron was successfully dangled before the public once again by his opponents. The scandal surrounding the unfortunate Cornelius Jeremiah was worse. After the Commodore’s death he became obsessed with funding his addiction to gambling. In 1882