« Monday Links CB2 Says Dock Street Design is "Too Tall" »

December 22, 2008

Brownstone Interior Destroyed Modernized by Artist Couple

We had mixed emotions reading the Times Real Estate story this weekend about the older artist couple who financed the purchase of a Stuyvesant Heights brownstone four years ago by selling a Basquiat that one of them had picked up for $100 back in the Eighties. (Anyone know what block this is?) Aren't there enough brownstones that have already been stripped of their original detail that someone wanting to create a modern space could avoid destroying yet another piece of history? Yes, these folks were considerate enough to call in a salvage company to save the architectural artifacts, but it's still a bummer. And how about all that tree-cutting? What a soap opera! Update: Okay, it's sounding like the Times article might have overstated how salvageable the interiors of this place were, so it's looking like we came down a little too hard on these folks. Apologies.
Bankrolled by a Basquiat [NY Times]
Photo by Gabriele Stabile for The New York Times

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7721

Comments

Usually these columns are warm and fuzzy but this wsa sort of a weird one.

Posted by: Fast Freddy at December 22, 2008 9:26 AM

First of all, it seems to me that people have the right to live *inside* their homes as they want. Exteriors and streetfronts are one thing; interiors are another.

Second, not everything *old* needs to be kept. And how old is *old* anyways? Renovations of an 1880's house are ok if they're done in 1910 but not if they're done in 2008?

It would be different if the typical *historic* Brooklyn interior really were architecturally significant. But many were just the bad taste of their day. And there's a lot of them. It would be different if we were talking about the Montauk Club. But it looks to me like what these people did was probably an improvement.

Mr B's obsession with "preservation" lacks architectural discernment, and ends up being reactionary and oppressive. IMHO.

Posted by: new2 at December 22, 2008 9:26 AM

The name of the blogsite is BROWNSTONER.

Posted by: Brooklynista at December 22, 2008 9:30 AM

These people live down the street from me on Stuyvesant Ave. I've met them a few times and they both seem like very nice people and dedicated to Bed Stuy.

I have to agree with new2; although I myself wanted a brownstone for its original architectural detail, many others do not. It is unclear how much architectural "detail" was actually left in this house that they removed. They've done an incredible renovation.

The inside of their home belongs to them no matter what the landmark status of the area. And this house is not within the landmarked blocks if I remeber correctly.

Also, yes, I too removed a catalpa tree from my yard but it was not the one they speak of in this article. Catalpa trees are an incredible nuisance to deal with.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 9:32 AM

We're not against modern design at all; we are against destroying older homes to build white boxes though. There's plenty of opportunity, especially in Brooklyn, to find a blank slate for modern design without destroying the borough's architectural heritage. And, besides, the finished product in this case was not particularly impressive. It was perfectly nice but nothing to write home about and not worth destroying a historic interior, which is what the article at least implied existed when they bought the place.

Posted by: brownstoner at December 22, 2008 9:40 AM

i think THIS is in bad taste for our day. these people gutted a house with all it's original details, and turned it into a midtown manhattan highrise apartment circa 1995. As brownstoner said, there are tons of other detail-less houses they could have considered. i seriously wonder what goes on in the minds of people who do this. what a shame.

Posted by: bowl of dicks at December 22, 2008 9:46 AM

Got to agree with Mr. B. It would be like covering a beautiful painting with white. Of course you can do whatever you like with a canvas you own but its hard to understand why you wouldn't just buy a blank if you wanted a white box all along.

Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at December 22, 2008 9:49 AM

When I was looking for a house in Bed Stuy, most of them did not have enough detail left for me to be interested. I suspect the writer in the NYT article took liberties with the level of "din" expressed by the neighbors. Most people in that neighborhood really don't give a rats ass what people are doing inside their homes unless it gets too loud, messy or just plain irritating.

Of the 12 homes that I looked at, only one; the one I bought had a lot of the architectural detail left and that was because it had already been restored. The other 11 really didn't have that much left for me to care about.

We don't really know "how much" was removed here so I don't think its worth arguing over.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 9:49 AM

Yes DIBS, you are correct. This house is outside of landmarked Stuyvesant Heights. I've actually been inside of this home. (It was on the Bed Stuy house tour this year.) I think it was renovated beautifully if you enjoy modern design, although not my personal preference.

Posted by: StuyIvy at December 22, 2008 9:50 AM

Oh gross, this is so sad. If they wanted to live in a white-box mcmansion they should have moved to Atlanta, I hear they have plenty.

Posted by: Clinton Hillster at December 22, 2008 9:51 AM

I don't understand people like this. They say it was there dream to own a brownstone and then buy one and gut it. What is it about brownstones that they love? It is not a question of whether they have a right to ruin the inside of there property but why not buy a loft or a shell. Not all modern is bad but don't rip out marble mantles to get there. I would love a tribeca loft but I would not buy one and add victorian details. From the pictures of this place it now looks like a Residence Inn suite.

Posted by: carroll2stones at December 22, 2008 9:52 AM

My head tells me that it's their house and they can do whatever they want with the inside. My heart tells me that it's a shame and that I'd never do anything like that, or even knowingly sell my house to someone who I suspected would destroy the details. (Of course, I never actually plan to sell my house, but that's a different story).

Posted by: Bob Marvin at December 22, 2008 9:52 AM

Like I said, if someone can prove that the place was "chock full" of details then that's one thing but I suspect that the writer embellished the story, as usual.

My experience is that 80-90% of the homes in Bed Stuy do not actually have enough detail left to make it worth salvaging.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 9:55 AM

And yes, that is sad that they don't.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 9:55 AM

"Most people in that neighborhood really don't give a rats ass what people are doing inside their homes unless it gets too loud, messy or just plain irritating."

I don't think people in my neighborhood feel that way. When I was president of the Lefferts Manor Association in the early '90s one of my neighbors sold all his parlor floor woodwork to an antique dealer. MANY neighbors rang my bell, asking what we could do to stop him. Of course there was nothing, but it was painful to tell them that.Ironically I later came across the stripped-out detail in a Queens antique shop. The dealer said that even he had tried to dissuade the homeowner from selling. He was sure that the value of the house had been reduced by far more than what the homeowner gained from the sale.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at December 22, 2008 10:00 AM

It's too bad we don't have "before" pictures to resolve the question.

Posted by: cobblehiller at December 22, 2008 10:02 AM

It goes without saying that you can do whatever you want with the interior of your private property, so long as you're not breaking any laws. I think that's a good thing, new2 and dibs. I certainly wouldn't want the Brownstoner crowd to be able to come into my home and tell me what I should/shouldn't do with it! And I even admire the renovation that this couple has done. As a lover of architecture and design in general, this looks like a rather gorgeous example of a thoroughly contemporary renovation of a historic structure!

But, my first love at heart is for old houses -- especially those turn-of-the century urban townhouses known as brownstones and limestones (as I would assume to be the case of most folk who originally gravitated to this site). Thus, I also agree with the thrust of Brownstoner's question: if you truly lust for a modern interior brownstone (as many do), then why not pick a structure that has little architectural/historic detail to offer? As I read the story, this house actually had a substantial amount of original detail that was removed (much to the consternation of their neighbors and preservationists) solely for the purpose of making way for a modern design. IMHO, that's like forcing a square peg into a round hole. Although it can be done. . . why?

Posted by: Brooklynista at December 22, 2008 10:03 AM

Maybe the phrase "don't give a rat's ass" was a bit extreme Bob.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 10:04 AM

I have actually seen the interior photos of this house before the renovation. I don't recall seeing anything in those photos worth saving (maybe an odd fireplace, but that's all). Considering the dearth of salvageable details, I think this couple did a mighty fine job. It may not be to everyone’s taste, but at the very least we can all respect the work and effort required to make this fine home.

Welcome Morris and Mary-Anne! You two are a great addition to the neighborhood!

Posted by: bedstuyhoya at December 22, 2008 10:12 AM

Thank you bedstuyhoya. Case closed.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 10:13 AM

How can anyone condemn what they did if we do not even know what "details" they "destroyed" - all the article mentions is "victorian details" and fireplace mantles.

For all anyone knows the inside of this place was a wreck.

All that being said - this renovation is still DULL

Posted by: fsrg at December 22, 2008 10:23 AM

The cabinetry is all top notch. That's what Morris does for a living. You can't find any better out there.

Can we focus on tearing apart the lighting choices now!!?? :)

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 10:25 AM

Brownstones are more (much more) than just crown molding and baseboards. People can appreciate them for different reasons: compact design, generous Parlor volumes, energy efficiency, grand stairwells, neighborhood scale, etc..... I suggest people think more thoughtfully on this count before condemning other motives for wanting to live in this type of dwelling.
Removing the chair rails does not negate the quality of this renovation.

Posted by: wpg at December 22, 2008 10:26 AM

"one of my neighbors sold all his parlor floor woodwork to an antique dealer. MANY neighbors rang my bell, asking what we could do to stop him"

That's not even funny what some people would do to invade others privacy. I wouldn't be surprised if they would spy to see what underwear their neighbors have and whether it has details that please their eyes through binoculars.

Posted by: Gravis at December 22, 2008 10:26 AM

Morris & Marry-Anne...looking forward to pizza with you when Saraghina opens.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 10:28 AM

I agree with the other old home nuts. If they wanted a modern home, let them buy something modern. Personally, I'm not too impressed with the renovation. It's totally cookie cutter.

Posted by: rh at December 22, 2008 10:31 AM

How come no one ever comes on here and says:

I can't believe those home owners! They took a perfectly fine 'modern' brick box and added all those outdated 19th Century architectural details. Look at the heavy use of crown mouldings and over scaled base moulding. And can you believe they even added chair railings and a hideous ceiling medallion.
These people are crazy turning this 'modern' house into a relic...such bad taste!

Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 22, 2008 10:38 AM

RH,
"let them buy something modern". Do I hear the word "regulation"?
But seriously, no one stood between them and a modern home. There WAS a reason they bought that property.

Posted by: Gravis at December 22, 2008 10:43 AM

Buying an historic house and spending big bucks to destroy the interiors and making it into a drywall vanilla box is bad karma. These two old farts should be ashamed of themselves. They have destroyed something of value for the sake of their own vanity.

Posted by: sam at December 22, 2008 10:49 AM

So Mr. B...because of what bedstuyhoya wrote at 10:12 are you considering a re-write of the Headline???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 10:50 AM

sam...read bedstuyhoya's post above. There was little left.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 10:51 AM

Dave, I don;'t buy it. These kind of people, who destroy historic interiors in order to create fake Manhattan lofts, ALWAYS say there is nothing left. What they mean is: the interiors were somewhat in need of restoration and we don't like old stuff.
There was obviously enough to interest the architectueal salvage company that filled up its truck. I bet that the house was probably largely intact.
A pox on them.

Posted by: sam at December 22, 2008 10:56 AM

some people enjoy living in a rowhouse.

it has nothing to do with the "details"

Posted by: Santa at December 22, 2008 10:57 AM

sam...bedstuyhoya; who has posted on the reno blog here is the one who said that he saw it and there wasn't much left.

God forbid we hear fom "these kind of people.." LOL

If they don't show up here today to defend themselves then I'll tell them tonight when I get home to post tomorrow. That is, if they reall care what all of us are saying. LOL

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 11:01 AM

Sam....First "bad karma" and then a "pox"!

Posted by: wpg at December 22, 2008 11:03 AM

I think the interior is really beautifully done. (The lighting too DIBS!) Modern can be really hard and cold 'feeling' at times, and this doesn't feel that way to me. It looks livable and cozy. I Like the wood floors and the stairs.

It maybe that details were lost, but not everyone has to save every inch of everything. It seems to me that there are plenty of 'preservationists' to go around.

It was their house, their money, their call, their style, and I like it!

Posted by: cobblehiller at December 22, 2008 11:05 AM

Sam,
IMO, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Gravis at December 22, 2008 11:06 AM

and isn't it true that the salvage companies very rarely agree to buy and send a truck out for just one or two pieces? unless of course the company thinks your one or two pieces are very desirable and will fetch a mint..... in which case, makes me even more upset.

Posted by: bowl of dicks at December 22, 2008 11:08 AM

How could there have been "nothing left"? There is nothing left now, that's for sure. Unless there was a fire in the house, I'm sure the plaster and partitions, and stair and fireplaces were in. Imagine buying a brownstone and removing the fireplaces! Unbelievable. I bet this couple moves back to Manhattan or to L.A. in about ten months. -They will leave behind a motherload of sheetrock.

Posted by: sam at December 22, 2008 11:10 AM

sam...it'd sell faster than most other houses in bed Stuy.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 11:14 AM

Gravis,
This pretentious old couple has a right to buy a historic house and ruin it. But I also have a right to say that what they did is appalling and to call them old farts.

Posted by: sam at December 22, 2008 11:14 AM

I know them. They are not pretentious. Sam you're riding an awfully high horse today. Read bedstuyhoya's post at 10:12 before you continue your rant.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 11:18 AM

Sam, are you saying that even plaster and partitions from 1890 are worthy of salvation?

Even the fireplaces, originally used (obviously) to heat the house, are no longer required with a modernized heating system. To replace the flues and rebuild the fireboxes just to reuse the original mantles is a vanity project if ever there was.

Posted by: wpg at December 22, 2008 11:19 AM

Never mind sam. He's just shaking his period-appropriate walking stick.

"Hey kids! Get off of your own lawn!

Posted by: SnarkSlope at December 22, 2008 11:25 AM

Sam,
We all have a right to say. That's not the point.

*** Brownstones Are Overrated ***

Posted by: Gravis at December 22, 2008 11:31 AM

Where do you live Gravis?

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 11:32 AM

Dave--when is Saraghina scheduled to open? And Butternut?! Looking forward to both.

Posted by: housebywe at December 22, 2008 11:39 AM

DIBS,
Bensonhurst. That's in Brooklyn, BTW.

Posted by: Gravis at December 22, 2008 11:39 AM

Saraghina hopefully soon. Butternut on hold.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 11:45 AM

I hate this place. It should be a crime to gut a Brownstone.

I'm pretty sure they could have preserved and probably rebuilt some of the woodwork and details in this Brownstone. What they overlooked is that in Bed Stuy there are a lot of contractors that especialize in woodwork, plaster and preservation. Aren't these people so called artist? I agree that is up to the owners to renovate the inside of their homes as they please, but you can renovate and restorate tastefully.

Welcome to the neighborhood. By the way your property value just went down the drain.

Posted by: Crooklyn at December 22, 2008 12:05 PM

this house is on stuy. ave. between macon and macdonough. i was in contract to buy this house 4 years ago, but i dropped it because the real estate company was trying to "shake me down".......they asked for lots of money in a brown bag to be given to them at the time of closing. i reported them, but the whole mess turned me off to the house. and yes, it did have lots and lots of beautiful details.

Posted by: oxirix at December 22, 2008 12:08 PM

I love brownstones and I love to see them well preserved but this house was in bad shape when this couple brought it a few years ago. I think they did a great job with the renovations. Dave this house will be part of the extended Stuyvesant Heights Historic District along with yours. 95% of the homes in South Bedford Stuyvesant are in tack because many of the old timers did not have money to renovate, they just painted and painted over the wood most of the time. I think most homes on my block have had nothing done to them all the houses are well preserved and many people have owned 40-50 years.

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 22, 2008 12:10 PM

I hope who ever buys the Bedford Corners Hancock Street house that was featured on here will preserve it back to it glory days. It has tons of detail all covered in lead paint.

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 22, 2008 12:15 PM

oxirix...you got the balls to name that real estate firm???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 12:38 PM

I wont be syrpriced if its Corcoran.....
Their Bed Stuy brokers at that time were crooks.

Posted by: Crooklyn at December 22, 2008 12:48 PM

I also saw this house on the 2008 Bed Stuy House Tour. The couple was very nice, and they did a really quality modern renovation. The art and the cabinetry really highlighted the modern furniture and white walls. The back yard was also very spacious, and because of the way the surrounding houses are placed on the grid, they had the biggest back yard on the block, with a nice balcony like deck on the parlor floor.

That said, this is not my taste, and I prefer period details whenever possible. I also would never have a house full of white walls, I just find them too cold and stark, even if paired with period detail or colorful art and accents. If they really got rid of a house full of detail, I'm saddened. I agree people who want to do that should look for one that's already gone. That said, at least they sold it to a salvage place, and did not just dump it all in a dumpster.

I do have to disagree, Dave, on most BS houses not having detail. As Amzi said, more are detail intact, especially on the bottom 2 floors, than not. People just couldn't afford to heavily renovate, they just subdivided with sheetrock, and covered up rather than removed. I've been in at least 100 BS houses over the years, and 90% still had significant amounts of detail, usually under 10 coats of paint, but still there.

In the long run, as much as I am a defender of architecture and detail, it is more important that Morris and Mary-Anne are good neighbors, good stewards of their place on the block, and love their community, and interact with it. That will be the growth and saving of the community. Architecture can't do it alone.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 22, 2008 12:59 PM

It does seem funny to dream of owning a Brooklyn brownstone, especially on one of the historic blocks of Bed Stuy, as the article claims this couple did, but to call yourself a "modernist" and dislike all the details of the brownstone era. I think that's what many posters here are reacting to. I could imagine "settling" for a brownstone because it was cheap at the time, or the only way to find a single family home in Brooklyn, but to specifically look for one because that's the kind of housing you like, but then turn it into something else inside, just seems to be a contradiction. Perhaps there's more to the story -- the couple did look at more modern homes first but they were too expensive or none available in the neighborhood they liked. The article implied that their first choice in housing was a historic brownstone in Bed Stuy and perhaps it left out some details that would have made this choice more understandable. However, that being said, they certainly have every right to renovate to their taste, and it seems as if they've created a fine space for themselves.

Posted by: CGfan at December 22, 2008 1:01 PM

I have lived in Ft. Greene, Park Slope and now I am three blocks away in Stuyvesant Heights and I have to say Bedford Stuyvesant especially south of Monroe Street has more houses that are architecturally intact than most neighborhoods. When the brownstone movement of the 1970s and 1980s was taking place many people from Park Slope and alike areas came to Bedford Stuyvesant to steal doors and other Victorian details. The houses that are gutted are investors that wear black mainly from north of the neighborhood that care nothing about preserving the architecture of these great old brownstones. Those people I wish would not buy around here. This couple is have decided to plant roots here and I really welcome to the community. I am not a fan of modern in a brownstone but I think they did a great job. I wish people like this would but more of the more unsalvageable homes in the community.

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 22, 2008 1:40 PM

quote:
many people from Park Slope and alike areas came to Bedford Stuyvesant to steal doors and other Victorian details

alol. so those early slope gentrifiers were THIEVES!?

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at December 22, 2008 2:29 PM

PitbuillNYC you know it is said but I did not even think twice when I lived in PS. I would ask my neighbors was your door etc. original and they would say no we got them from some house in Bedford Stuyvesant. That was such a common response.

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 22, 2008 2:37 PM

Gravis,

It didn't take much spying--the extensive woodwork was carried out of that house over a period of 2--3 hours. The houses on Midwood Street in Lefferts Manor have a LOT of woodwork.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at December 22, 2008 2:49 PM

Not at all my cup of tea. Photo #8 looks remarkably like my college dorm room from freshman year, in a building that one of my profs described as a 'fine example of neo-penal architecture'.

Posted by: mscrochety at December 22, 2008 3:10 PM

It would not be so bad if the owners were honest about it and said: the interiors needed work and we don't really like all of that period detail, so we decided to remove it and sell it to a salvage company that will sell it to people who are doing restoration work. We really wanted a spare minimalist interior that would set off our modern art and our modern furniture and we did not want our house to look like all our neighbors' houses.
That is honesty.
"There was nothing left to save in the house" is not honesty.

Posted by: sam at December 22, 2008 4:35 PM

sam...you continue to dispute what a few others who had actually seen the house or seen photos have said about the interior.

Besides, do you believe eveything that's written by a reporter doing this type of story?? They always add crap that they like the sound of to fit their agenda.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 22, 2008 4:39 PM

After further dueling on this situation I came to realize how bad of a move this was.

If this couple was looking to gut reno a Brownstone, they probably could have gotten a Brownstone shell in Fort green or Clinton Hill for the price they paid for their Stuy Heights home.

They basickly paid almost a million dollars (including labor) to live in a brownstone that you cannot get its value back.

Very bad move....

Posted by: Crooklyn at December 22, 2008 6:17 PM

I am always conflicted by stories like this.

I am deep in a two year restoration and people think I'm crazy. In looking at the details of my 1880 brownstone and in studying the history I have learned that updates and changes were made to the house to follow the trends of the day early as ten years after the house was built. It seems natural for a home to have an evolution.

I do believe that some homes should be preserved for the sake of history. I suppose the LPC is designed to take care of that. In the end, it should be the most notable residences historically, either because of their owners or their architects, that get the most protection. Was there something special about this house other than the fact that it was old? I love brownstones but I don't want to live in some time warp Disney-fied 19th century theme park. They shouldn't all be kept in a time capsule.

On another note: With the coming crime wave, I hope these folks have a good alarm system now that they have disclosed their location and the nature of the valuables in their home.

Didn't a Basquiat sell for $14.6 last year?

Posted by: superstooper at December 22, 2008 6:41 PM

I met the owners and they really wanted to live in the Stuyvesant Heights area. I really think if they wanted to move to Ft. Green or Clinton Hill they would have but they decided Stuyvesant Heights over those area much like I did. Morris tells me that something about the area makes him feel at home. I like this down to earth couple and I am glad to be there neighbor.

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 22, 2008 6:53 PM

Sam is right, this couple should have hired an srchitect to design a loft for them in some unfinished industrial building. I think they just wanted to show off to their neighbors. Dave, for one, is impressed down to his argyles.
They destroyed a house. What is there to pass on to future generations? Sheetrock and hollow-core doors? Those interiors are horrifying when you realize they are in a lovely, lovely, turn-of-the-last-century rowhouse.

Posted by: Inigo at December 22, 2008 9:29 PM

jeez...these asshats built a third rate loft renovation inside of a brownstone..what a bunch of fools

Posted by: eman1234 at December 22, 2008 9:56 PM

Rich White folks, "art connoisseurs" no less, moving to a Black neighborhood composed mostly of poor people with a few "Daves" thrown in, and seeking to impress the locals by ripping every stich of fabric out of their house and replacing it with, what else? Whiteness! Love it!

Posted by: Inigo at December 22, 2008 10:20 PM

I sell Real Estate in Bed Stuy and have been in Mary-Ann & Morris’ house before and after; after is much better. The important thing is, Marry-Ann & Morris are wonderful neighbors and a pleasure to be around. Bed Stuy needs more people like this couple that made their house their own.

Posted by: edofstuy at December 22, 2008 11:07 PM

From the NYTimes article (and most likely quoted indirectly from the couple--why would the reporter make this up for a non-controversial, human interest fluff piece?):

"They gutted the place of its many marble fireplaces and Victorian details, and their neighbors were horrified at the destruction."

This house apparently had quite a bit of detail. A real "artist" is sensitive to history and to his/her surroundings, and would have been able to successfully blend the old with the new to create a contemporary space. No need to gut the place of its original character. Truly sad.

Posted by: bk14 at December 22, 2008 11:11 PM

Jeez, not every house, that is old, is or was a work of art.

Posted by: superstooper at December 23, 2008 12:30 AM

I've known one of the owners half my life, and she is a talented woman with really good taste, and more important, someone who cares about community and has always worked and socialized with people of all races, classes, religions, etc. The bottom line is that it's her and her husband's property, and unless you're invited inside, it's none of your darn business!

Posted by: load07 at February 24, 2009 5:33 PM

« Monday Links CB2 Says Dock Street Design is "Too Tall" »

December 22, 2008

Brownstone Interior Destroyed Modernized by Artist Couple

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions