« Park Slopers Petition for a Greener Whole Foods You Too Can Get Laid At The Oro »
February 22, 2007
Brownstone Renos: A Contrast In Styles
The House & Home today section compares the renovation approaches of one couple who went for a bold modern approach to renovating part of their brownstone overlooking Fort Greene Park with that of hardcore preservationists and Clinton Hill old-timers Jim and Sharon Barnes. Here's what we had to say about the modern reno after seeing it last May on the Fort Greene House Tour:
Clearly the boldest departure from brownstone tradition on the Fort Greene House Tour was the parlor floor renovation at 203 Washington Park which featured poured and buffed concrete floors as well as an open-plan loft-style kitchen/dining/living area. We thought the modern approach was largely successful but agree with an earlier commenter that the juxtaposition to the shlubby traditional hallway was a little jarring. Perhaps the coolest part of the design, though, was the giant wall of windows overlooking the garden.
Interestingly, modern and spare does not mean cheap: The Phillips spent $400,000 renovating the bottom two floors.
By contrast, the Barnes have painstakingly restored their Clinton Avenue house over the past twenty years, along with seven other rental properties in the neighborhood. Preservation, to the Barnes, is a kind of calling. “Every one of the people who I met over the years who’d bid on this house were going to tear it to smithereens," says Ms. Barnes. "What is unique about this house is that it is intact.”
A Flood of Foreclosures, but Should You Invest? [NY Times]
FGHT: Modern on the Park [Brownstoner]
Photos by John Lei for The New York Times
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/599
Comments
both equally reprehensible in their own way...but the preservationist win because they're being so precious about their house.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 9:54 AM
If the owner of the modern house sees this, can you please tell me where you got the rug in the kitchen photo above? thanks!
Posted by: Wendy at February 22, 2007 9:54 AM
I have a friend with a house in the West Village who also did that to the back of her house. It's almost all glass. A lot of her neighbors did it too on their houses. It seems it's common in Manhattan but new to Brooklyn, that kind of modern reno. I think it will catch on here big time especially with the non-spectacular houses in South Slope and Sunset Park. They aren't as precious or historic, so people will feel free to play with them more and be innovative. Plus those smaller houses in South Slope desperately need to be opened up and let in more light.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 9:55 AM
Love the modern one. There is no moral high ground in restoration.
Posted by: Liz at February 22, 2007 9:55 AM
Brownstoner is a strict preservationist when it comes to renovation and additions. He should talk to someone about this regressive behavior.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 10:03 AM
I think it is a shame when someone buys a house loaded with details only to tear it all out, but I think it is refreshing when someone renovates a detail free house and makes it their own—parlor floors look especially amazing opened up!
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 10:09 AM
We agree with 10:09. We like some modern renos if they're done well, but we do think that if that's your plan, you should not go buy a detail-rich house and then destroy it. Find a shell and then go nuts. Of course, personally we think it would be fun to reconstruct a shell using architectural salvage, but that's just us...
Posted by: brownstoner at February 22, 2007 10:11 AM
Bravo, Brownstoner. Whole heartedly agree.
Posted by: Erin Joslyn at February 22, 2007 10:23 AM
i absolutely agree with Mr. B. on this one. but then, i don't know. it's something about grandfather clocks that makes me want to crawl under my blankets and wish i it would all just go away.
Posted by: anon. at February 22, 2007 10:26 AM
"Of course, personally we think it would be fun to reconstruct a shell using architectural salvage, but that's just us..."
Pardon my ignorance but is that really possible. (I'm from the Long Island suburbs and no absolutely nothing about all of this brownstone architecture stuff.) I recently saw a CH brownstone that was within my price range but was lacking in the original detailing that attracted me to brownstones in the first place. I was kinda giving up on the place. Didn't know it was possible to create the old world look. I imagine that's a big undertaking, no?
Posted by: maybe there's hope at February 22, 2007 10:31 AM
Sure it's a big undertaking but oh how satisfying it would be!
Posted by: brownstoner at February 22, 2007 10:35 AM
I love the modern loft interpretation. It's so nice to see a fresh renovation instead of yet another tired, "authentic" resurrection of the past. How many museums do we need in Brooklyn? Meanwhile, we don't live like we did 100 years ago, so why should our homes stay stuck?
Of course, we do need some preservation. And in all fairness, we should give plenty of kudos to the eccentrics (and their p-whipped husbands) who obsess over every little detail to give us perfectly restored museum pieces.
God love 'em. Lord knows thumbing through reams of historically accurate wallpaper and paint colors would make the rest of us INSANE!
Posted by: Ed at February 22, 2007 10:40 AM
The worst part of attempting to do a "perfect" historic renovation would have to be finding handymen or contractors to do perfect work! I've literally never found one single one who didn't slack off on at least one portion of a task. Leaving one part undone, or something crooked, etc. I get so exhausted constantly having to make them re-do things that I give up at a certain point. It takes a patient patient person who is able to stay at home to micromanage everything, and not throw in the towel, to get a perfect renovation done.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 10:57 AM
"Interestingly, modern and spare does not mean cheap"
I was kind of surprised by this statement, bstoner. You seem to pay enough lip service to liking modern design when it's good that I would have thought you'd know that quality materials and design cost $$, whether it's minimalist or baroque in approach.
Posted by: combustiblegirl at February 22, 2007 11:49 AM
Odd how homes that have modern design interiors always end up looking like some sort of swanky corporate office. Or rather, maybe it's not that odd. That "corporate look" is always based on tenets of modern design.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 11:52 AM
I love modern but my fear would be it doesn't hold it's value. With a few notable exceptions, do you really see all that many "modern" renovations you see and love from 10-15-20 years ago?
If I had a lot of money to throw around, or I knew I was going to sell in less than 3 years, or I knew I was going to die in the house, I'd be tempted. But I know there's a good chance I want to sell in next 10 years and this kind of renovation makes that risky.
The classic restoration on the other hand will always retain it's value.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 11:55 AM
11:55 again -- also let me say I did enjoy House&Home for once. How many mornings have I looked forward to that section only to find features on landscaping in desert environments on some such. It's the least NY-centric section of the paper!
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 11:57 AM
I bought a house that had some detail interspersed with decades of really bad patchwork alterations, I guess like many brownstoners. I am not a big fan of dark interiors and I hate a lot of Victoriana but I think I kept a lot of cool things, like the decorative plaster molding, shutters, I reproduced the original floors and camped out at Eddie's, finding light fixtures, marble mantlepieces and other bits and pieces so that it is a mixture which works for me, but much closer to the place on the right.. I rebel against people who think it is a mortal sin to paint dark wood or to rip out details which have deteriorated badly. Sometimes old is just old. Figuring out what to save and what to change is the cool part.
Posted by: donatella at February 22, 2007 11:58 AM
Well yeah, modern architecture will remind you of office buildings. Because often it's the big corporations that hire the most cutting edge architects to design their buildings. From the very beginning, with the first modern skyscrapers built by Bauhaus architects. No big revelation there. It's a matter of taste, as in all things. Someone who can't stand dark Victorian interiors might say "It would remind me of a dusty antique shop." I think the most interesting thing about modern interiors vs. old interiors is how it affects attitude or even personality. A friend of mine grew up in a very modern glass house designed by a major architect, and she believes those houses make the people in them more disciplined. She certainly is one of the most disciplined people I've ever known. But then maybe old houses with dusty crusty interiors contribute something else positive to the people who live in them. Like maybe old-house people are more accepting, and less picky? Because they have to be, that is.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 12:37 PM
Crown Heights Proud asked me to post this -computer took a sick day :-) :
I'm with Mr. B. all the way on this. Modern can be great, but don't destroy a house with detail to get it. There are plenty that have been stripped of detail, and they often cost less for it.
In answer to "maybe there's hope" - it is quite possible to recreate the detailing through salvage. It just takes a great deal of time and money. There are plenty of people selling all kinds of salvage, but it certainly ain't cheap. If you were to go that route, be prepared to do it a little at a time, as what you may need for a certain room may not be available right away. Personally, I'd do as much of my salvage shopping as far away from the city as possible. The prices here are absurd. I buy little bits here and there, whenever possible, and love incorporating it into my home.
There is a wonderful, over the top book about people decorating with salvage. It's called Extraordinary Interiors by Brian Coleman and Dan Mayers. Coleman is an editor at large for Old House Journal Interiors, and is a consumate salvager. His apartment in the Village is in the book. My favorite spread is a house in SoHo almost entirely done in first class salvage elements. All very inspiring, and very, very expensive. But, like a good house museum, it's fun to look and get ideas.
While I would not want to live in a period perfect museum (my cats would certainly not allow it anyway), I admire those who are comfortable doing so. I think that is a lifestyle choice, and has as much value as someone who lives in an empty looking room with modernistic square furniture and all their personal belongings hidden. In my opinion, as much of a museum look, just a different museum.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 22, 2007 1:01 PM
Eh. I know it's not fair but once I hear that she's an attorney and he's an investment banker, I kinda tune out. And the other couple owns 7 buildings or something. Okay, whatever. (altho I'm luvin' that she saves cats!)
BUT turn the page and read about the couple who fled New Haven and bought that sea captain's house in Nowhere, Maine? And she write mysteries about a renovator/sleuth? AND she repairs window frames her own damn self? I am SO there. Loved that article.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 1:15 PM
Lord knows I love period restoration (though not necessarily period decorating)- sometimes you can't save the detail. And some people just hate it. But if you have an old house with great detail I think it is just totally disrespectful to tear it out. But I do have great respect for those who can do the modern thing and make it work with an old house. After all, they have to live there and it's more important that the house is loved and maintained rather than be torn down. A bit of straddling the fence there I guess- but eclectic can be really fab.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 2:00 PM
Sorry- the anon 2:00 post was me. for some reason it didn't post my typekey id
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 22, 2007 2:05 PM
"I'd forgotten how horrible modern design tends to be. What a mess!"
funny...i find the old school look to always look a mess. how can you call modern a mess...there's barely anything there!
Posted by: modern in cg at February 22, 2007 2:14 PM
I don't know what you're insinuating up there Ed about Sharon and Jim, but they're both intelligent, strong personalities in their own right (no whipping of any sort going on there as far as anyone can see) and they have lived in Fort Greene/Clinton Hill FOREVER, buying most (if not all) of their properties for what now seems a song -- each one is a painstaking labor of love and both neighborhoods owe them a great debt.
Posted by: babs at February 22, 2007 2:17 PM
"Well yeah, modern architecture will remind you of office buildings. Because often it's the big corporations that hire the most cutting edge architects to design their buildings."
I suppose that's true if "the most cutting edge architects" are by definition the ones who are hired by big corporations. But then, who cares?
"It's a matter of taste, as in all things."
I agree that it's a matter of taste, but it's not merely a matter of taste. It's also a matter of design and theory, and the modernists lose.
'Someone who can't stand dark Victorian interiors might say "It would remind me of a dusty antique shop."'
Cool!
"I think the most interesting thing about modern interiors vs. old interiors is how it affects attitude or even personality. A friend of mine grew up in a very modern glass house designed by a major architect, and she believes those houses make the people in them more disciplined."
More disciplined? Hardly. More anal retentive? Definitely.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 3:20 PM
FYI to all- I NEVER EVER post links to tinyurl.com and tell everyone do not click on those links. If you see Bx2Bklyn without the typekey icon- it ain't me. hate to spoil the troll's fun (or add to it) but those posts are not and NEVER have been mine.
I can't stop that piece of mentally deficient garbage from posting (and he will) but I will reiterate as often as necessary those links are not posted by me. And I don't often post these days because of socially challenged malicious twits like him. For all of you who think it's a matter of just ignoring him, when he associates my id with the links he posts, it's impossible to ignore.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 22, 2007 3:35 PM
What I don't get is this craze for concrete floors. Who wants to get a tired back and have floors that look like they belong in a warehouse or factory? I can see the trendy appeal in a big retail space or even a restaurant, but nothing about concrete underfoot says "home." (Of course, for me, nothing about a wall of glass says "home" either, unless you're an iguana...)
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at February 22, 2007 4:10 PM
Both pictures look great!. But, if I had a choice I would live in the classic designed home it's timeless. To me the modern style just keeps reinventing itself every 10 yrs or so. Just like fashion.
I’m sure we all remember the “modern” wall panels that were made out of compressed wood in the 70's. Even station wagons had them on the side.
Posted by: Jack Slade at February 22, 2007 4:11 PM
i think it all boils down to whether it's good modern and good old school. i know for a fact that b'stoner loves modern, when it's done right, whatever the price. He also loves restoration and using salvaged materials to fix up a house. I agree. I hate over-mahoganized, dripping with victorian fixtures, stuff as much as I hate totally characterless white-box hotel furnished spaces.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 4:13 PM
I had my bathroom floor done in concrete. bad idea. I guess the contractor screwed up the mix because the top layer was gritty and crumbled away after a few months. And it was cold and uncomfortable underfoot. Can't afford to redo it now, but this past wekend I bought those interlocking foam floor mats and put them down until I can fix the floor. They look great, were easy to put down and they feel wonderful. Now I am not sure if I will do tile or get something similar but in a better grade.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 22, 2007 4:19 PM
Okay so you don't agree with me, 3:20, I get it. I just didn't know I wasn't allowed to have any personal opinions or taste of my own. Thanks for correcting me on that.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 4:25 PM
I had a concrete floor in Tucson and it was great because it stayed so cool underfoot and was very easy to clean.
Here? Brrrr!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 4:39 PM
I like the traditional restoration with modern furniture.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 5:26 PM
Well, I am one of the owners of the modern house. To the person interested in the rug, we got it at Kia Carpets on Atlantic Ave (I can’t remember the exact cross street – fairly close to third ave.). I hope this came through in the article, but we are big fans of traditional brownstones. This whole thing of sort of pitting the modern against the traditional was the Times – we just agreed to talk about our renovation and why we chose to do something modern. For us to something traditional would not have involved “restoration” – it would have involved entirely recreating period detail inside a house that (on the two floors that we renovated) was a rental building that had been gutted many times, most recently in the late 90s low-end Home Depot mode. Maybe someone has done it successfully, but I have never seen anything built brand new that has the same charm that original brownstones have. In any case, over the time we lived in the house we also were drawn more and more to modern houses, mostly because of the openness and light. I fully agree with the many comments that destroying a lot of traditional detail would not make sense. It’s not a moral issue – it would just be stupid to destroy something rare and valuable when you could build something modern somewhere else. Where the line is as to how much does there have to be to justify saving it, I don’t know. Luckily we didn’t have to deal with that issue because there were literally no details left at all.
We are really enjoying the modern design. It is very bright and sunny, and when the doors are open in the summer it is almost like being outside. The key to livable concrete floors is radiant heat – without it I think the room would feel cold. With radiant heat the floor feels great. It also isn’t much like an industrial floor – it is highly polished and very smooth. It is actually very warm in the winter because of the heat system (warmer than our Home Depot wood floors used to be) and cool in the summer. That said, the room does echo a bit, concrete is slippery when wet, and the completely open parlor floor is such a big space that it does not feel “cozy” exactly. Our bedrooms downstairs are more traditional sized and provide some contrast to the big open room.
It may be that tastes will change and at some point this renovation will look dated, but we didn’t think of this as a pure investment play or a statement about architecture – it is our home, where we live. Neither of us are particularly into design or theory, we just wanted to try to make a house that fit our lifestyle, looked neat to us, and felt good to be in. So far it seems to be working pretty well.
Posted by: kphillips at February 22, 2007 5:38 PM
kphillips!
Thanks so much for adding a comment. It really gets tired and old hearing people complaining about someone's design, as if it should be designed with the intention on opening your doors to the masses. Good Grief!.
A question for you though. Do you see a hicup in the con-ed bill with the radiant heat? I want it. I really really want it. In the bathroom... The marble floors are ICE COLD.
Posted by: NewStoner at February 22, 2007 5:56 PM
The problem with modern isn't the modern, it's the lack of character and craft.
Once in a while I come across a modern interior -- the dutch and belgians are great at this -- that feels really cozy and warm while being simple and light. The lines aren't necessary angular or retro-60s, as most of NY's "modern" is (that corporate office look someone mentioned, which at this point is really as traditional as victoriana, including the polished concrete floors, etc.) How do you make a modern interior have character and warmth? You use really beautiful materials, and you hire craftsmen to make things. This is really expensive, and that's why it's rare to see. But god, is it gorgeous to see the natural beauty of great materials mix with the masterful work of a great craftsman. Plus, Europeans are way less control-freaky about their environment -- they'll actually use old stuff and new stuff together, but each piece is great in and of itself, and not because it represents a look.
And that kind of home ends up lasting and lasting. Quality and character are ageless.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 10:10 PM
Two thoughts: 1- Why can't we all judge homes and architecture in the context of whether they accomplish the goals of the people who live in the homes?
2- I love modern design. But then walking along today plotting out what sofa to try to get and realizing that they all look the same in each and every shop I started to wonder if perhaps the popularity of modern design now has to do with how accessible it is, both in terms of the whole cheapening of consumer goods internationally (hello china) and also the fact that when you do get something or build something with modern lines it is not so easy to screw up. And I say this with the utmost respect for modern design because it's what I'm in to as well. But just wondering if I like it 'cause it's easy.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2007 11:35 PM
I have a hunch that if you can afford radiant heat in your custom cement floors, you don't have to worry about a 'hiccup' in your Con Ed bill! (Thanks for joining the discussion, kphillips, and may your prosperity be blessed!)
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at February 23, 2007 12:34 AM
I htink people are less "afraid" of odern design, primarily because its familiar. But like anon at 10:10 says, the problem is with the character and craft. Modern design can be classic- or vry cheesy- its very heavily dependent on the quality of the materials because a lot of the craft is hidden. When you see a gorgeous carved marble fireplace, the craftsmanship is up front/in your face. It seems to me antique furnishings or homes are as much about the artistry of the craftsman as about the finished product. You are meant to see it. Modern showcases the product more than the process- but you are supposed to recognize the quality of the product by what you don't see. The more "perfect" or "clean" looking it is, the better it is.
It really isn't easier to design in a modern style- it just looks that way because the lines are simpler. But to doing it well- that stands the test of time.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at February 23, 2007 12:48 AM
I too, like modern design that incorporates the touch of the craftsman. I recently saw a home in a magazine (Elle Decor, the best American home magazine out there) where they used huge pieces of wood veneer on walls and doors. The grains were all identical, and it had a wonderful sculptural and organic quality that was modern, yet warm. I think the turn off for me in a lot of modern design is the coldness factor. Many people like the stark white on white look, with the angular furniture lines, and minimal or no accessories, but I do not find it comfortable or warm. To me, the best design of any kind, modern, period, eclectic, has to be comfortable and livable. I like homes that look like real people live there, with their family photos, mementos, kid's toys, and the pet chew on the floor. If that design works for the homeowner, whatever that may be for them, by definition, then it is a successful design.
Posted by: Crown Heights Proud at February 23, 2007 1:43 AM
However, people can be wrong about many things, and what they believe to "work for" them might in fact not work for them at all. And indeed, such has been my experience with many advocates of modern design.
I wonder if this has something to do with why modern design changes so rapidly. It makes sense, actually. If people have little sense of what they're doing, what they want, what they should want, and so on, then the final product will change a lot over time as the designers thrash about trying to find themselves.
Posted by: Leo at February 23, 2007 7:16 AM
Owner here again - clarification on the radiant heat. There are two kinds - generally when someone just does a bathroom or something after the fact, they put electric coils under the floor surface. I imagine this would have some effect on your electric bill, but I have no idea how much. When you are actually heating the house with radiant heat (rather than warming the floors), as we are, you have water tubes in the floor. The water is heated by our furnace, which is natural gas. We use the same furnace we had when we had radiators, but it was converted by a plumber. Radiant heat using water tubes embedded in the floor (here embedded in concrete) is actually considered significantly more efficient than other heating methods, and ultimately cheaper, depending on your costs of conversion. The water heats the slab and it holds the heat for hours. And you don't have to have big radiators cluttering up the walls, which is a problem when you have a design like ours.
Posted by: kphillips at February 23, 2007 8:38 AM
thanks so much kphillips - the design is great and it is such a benefit to have you on the thread!
Posted by: miss priss at February 23, 2007 9:56 AM
"However, people can be wrong about many things, and what they believe to "work for" them might in fact not work for them at all." (from Leo) Leo, who are you to say that Ms. Phillips' design may not work for her family, when she has said that it does? She and her husband found an original way to make the space that they have livable, beautiful, and spacious. They generously shared their ideas with the community, and what do they get? People like you saying that they must not know what works for them, because you don't like it. Stop it, Leo. Don't be a hater.
Posted by: Jennifer at February 23, 2007 10:56 AM
Surely "hate" is a little something more than admitting the possibility of error, no?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 23, 2007 11:07 AM
Some of these comments are so arrogant that I almost cannot believe the writers are serious. This was by far our favorite house on the FG house tour. My husband and I thought it was gorgeous, stylish, and far more interesting than some of the tradition, restored homes. But Im not so arrogant to this that this is the "correct" way or "best" manner to renovate a home. It is completely up to those who purchased it, and it works for them. Design is about evolution, sometimes incorporating the past or even recreating it. But for some of you to imply that modern design and that sort of evolution is "wrong" because it is new, is almost laughable. If we thought this way, many of the architectural wonders of the world would not have been created. There would simply be "new" replicas of the past. How boring would that be? Its time for some of you to get off your pedestals and acknowledge that while this home may not suit your particular tastes, it is still wonderful because the owners are happy with it, and it possesses its own new and refreshing beauty. I also own a brownstone in FG, and do enjoy the landmark status because I feel it maintains level of architectural beauty and consistency on the OUTSIDE of owners homes in a residential area. But the insides are another story- where the owners spend their days and their nights. Shouldn't this be the place which suits them? Congrats on the Wash Park couple for renovation such a fantastic home.
Posted by: MJ at February 23, 2007 1:10 PM
mj, i guess your opinion is the right one.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 23, 2007 3:39 PM
I love the unexpected contrast between outside and inside. Another question to the owner -- where did you find the lamp over the dining table?
Posted by: Laurie at February 24, 2007 6:25 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.