In Chapter 1, Riis takes the time to recount a recent case of landlord exploitation, lest people assert that such evils are of "a day that is happily past and may safely be forgotten." Riis utilizes his trademark verbal irony in this passage when discussing the landlord’s actions:
The fire made homeless ten families, who had paid an average of $5 a month for their mean little cubby-holes. The owner himself told me that it was fully insured for $800, though it brought him in $600 a year in rent. He evidently considered himself especially entitled to be pitied for losing such valuable property.
In the above passage, Riis recounts the tale of a landlord who insured his tenement for more than he collected in rent, overcharging for residence in barely-tolerable living conditions. In the final sentence of this passage, Riis makes a statement that is verbally ironic, calling the landlord's tenement property valuable when he evidently considers it to be exactly the opposite. This statement brings to attention just how ridiculous and inhumane the tenement landlords are. Riis employs irony often when discussing the actions of landlords he deems immoral. As a literary device, irony proves effective at this goal: by introducing humor, Riis makes the landlord into a subject worthy of ridicule.
In Chapter 4, Riis recounts the story of a landlord whose tenements receive the nickname "Blind Man's Alley" on account of the fact that many blind, impoverished men come to find homes there. Riis quite clearly chooses to relate this story to his readership on account of the glaring situational irony it introduces:
"Old Dan" made a big fortune—he told me once four hundred thousand dollars—out of his alley and the surrounding tenements, only to grow blind himself in extreme old age, sharing in the end the chief hardship of the wretched beings whose lot he had stubbornly refused to better that he might increase his wealth.
In an ironic turn of events, the landlord who preys on blind men becomes blind himself later in life, still refusing to give up his wealth or help his tenants even as he sits on death's door. Riis includes this passage to further showcase the cruel excesses of the wealthy, juxtaposing it with the abject poverty that results from the business ventures of these wealthy landlords. Furthermore, this ironic passage makes the exploitative landlord into a debased and silly figure in the eyes of readers: he is so obsessed with wealth, but in the end, his wealth cannot save him from the fate of those he exploited.
