Huge Architectural Salvage Haul at Circa Antiques

Salvage hunter's dream. Preservationist's nightmare. There should be a special place in hell for the non-profiteers who rape a pristine brownstone just to reap money from their funding sources.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 10:15 AM

As much as I love orig. details I think there are sometimes valid reasons for getting rid of them. We are going to renovate a house and have to figure out how to deal with the details in an upstairs dining room that we want to turn in to a kids room. Do you keep all the details intact even if there aren't any room for beds or closets in a room?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 10:17 AM

I love girls more than bathroom fixtures (and I LOVE bathroom fixtures), so I'll side with the non-profiters here and salute them for getting a salvage guy in there.

About the salvage guy tho: Of course they want to sell it in one lot (so much easier for them), but what are the odds? And how much do they want? I was thinking of going to look when I saw it posted earlier on this site, but .. sheesh... if I have to beg to be taken to a storage space to just look...

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 10:48 AM

Anonymous @ 10:17: Yes. You save everything. It is sacred and remember you will go to hell if you disturb anything!

Ha ha ha. Don't you think sometimes people go a little far with the edict that NOTHING SHOULD CHANGE. I personally love antiques and old, unique things and am not advocating for ripping everything out. But aren't some of the attitudes on here like proselytizing? "Brownstones are my religion and should be yours too"?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 10:51 AM

I think it is workh saving as much as possible because they simply don't make this stuff anymore and the resale value for intact properties, especially restored ones, is almost always higher than a gutted place. Before you pull out original features in a dining room, try to consider what other alternatives there may be for things like closets in the room. If it is a child, maybe a large wardrobe would work...

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 11:09 AM

Also, what would you remove from the dining room? What is preventing you from putting in a bed?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 11:10 AM

It's rare to see a brownstone with that much original detail in its original context. To see all that ripped out and replaced with cheap modern crap is a real shame. If the non-profit wanted/needed new construction, why not a shell or some other lesser property in need of rehab? Why destroy something that will never be built again?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 11:22 AM

I gotta say, I see brownstoner with exactly that much original detail in Bed-Stuy/Crown Heights all the time.

And if this place is for "girls in trouble"? I'm for ya. Hell, I was ya!

If they are combining two bldgs for one organization, I can think of a lot of reasons for ripping this stuff out and reworking the space for a particular need (more hot water, less non-working fireplaces).

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 11:43 AM

maybe because they don't think the girls should have to bunk 12 to a room like a French orphanage. it's cute in a picture book, not so much when irl.

I also think these girls might be past the doll stage

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 11:53 AM

OK, I stand corrected. I wrote earlier that not everything deserves saving just because it is old, but I hadn't looked at the pictures of the house with everything intact (based on the thumbnails I thought it was just a tub and a maybe some doors). Wow. The pictures of that house are incredible. I do agree it is a shame to rip something out that is that intact and truly beautiful. This is obviously a different situation from a house that has been tampered with over the years leaving a mishmash of bad taste.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 11:53 AM

Hal is on the right track--codes for type of special use probably require removing all the detail--why this house then? Probably in area where it is needed and maybe more affordable/best condition available to non-profit. To their credit, they didn't junk it, they tried to make sure it goes to a preservation-minded (if rich) person--maybe it's on consignment?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 12:38 PM

I agree with Cocco. Also, why would federal funding require ripping out all of the beautiful intact detail? I don't get it. Seems like a policy (if it is true) that is not well thought out or that is applied across the board without specific review of the properties concerned.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 1:12 PM

some of these walls hide gas lines from gas fixtures that still contain gas... some of the fireplaces are carbon monxide traps... there are code issues. I love mantels but I really do put girls' lives in front of things like that

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 1:29 PM

We all know about old gas line and carbon monoxide. I'd venture to say that most of the readers here live in old brownstones. No one is advocating putting lives in danger so let's not get into hyperbole here. The question is, why it would require totally stripping the details out of the place in order to get the building up to code for the girls half-way house. It would be nice if it could retain much of the character that would make it a welcoming and warm place for those unfortunate young ladies.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 1:43 PM

I can say that my old brownstone in its original configuration, would make a terrible space for a half-way house. 2-3 giant rooms per floor, not enough small spaces, tubs with no showers, tiny kitchen...

I'm doing nothing for these young girls, so I find it tough to find fault with those who are.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 2:13 PM

Since when does Victorian woodwork have a monopoly on warmth and welcome.

While I realize that most of you grew up in suburban raised ranches (or France) and can't ever seem to get enough filligree and scroll-work, for those of who grew up in and around these structures, they are not nearly so sublime and rare. Between New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, Brazil, Argentina and Europe there has to be a million relatively well-preserved Victorian row houses. If one of them, despite being a relatively good example, is salvaged instead of saved, I don't think the architectural record is in jeopardy. These are not Faberge eggs, they are middle-class dwellings. Relax.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 2:14 PM

I think it is obvious to anyone visiting the site in search of the random photos of intact details there are going to be strong reactions. it's the nature of the details beast however shallow to some. some people care about this stuff... and it ain't middle income housing anymore... i just hope that the non-profit got a large percentage of the profit that will be made from these pieces- on the up side many people needing these details can finally find them but on the downside I wonder at what outrageous price and at what profit to the dealer- i don't know the dealer, as some of you do, but i wonder how the deal was negotiated.

any guess how much will be made on all the loot and how much the non-profit got?

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 3:09 PM

Actually, I've lived in old houses my whole life - but that is beside the point. I agree with Roz that it is good that they are salvaging these details.

However, I think it should be said that I do not think any of the posters on this sight are opposed to the good work that the church is doing for the girls. It's just a shame that the guts of the house have to be removed. These houses were not middle class places when they were built actually - more than often they were built for relatively affluent families - hence the expensive materials. Unfortunately, there are not many places left that are this intact believe it or not. Over the years they have lost their details or been covered up with suspended ceiling, linoleum or several layers of paint by people trying to maintain old houses on a budget and/or not understanding the value of what they had.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 3:52 PM

I work on Wall St and spend very little of my day helping young girls in need, so my hat is off to them. Good for you!

Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2005 5:01 PM