« Bonuses Back to 2002 Levels The Curious Case of 88 Lafayette Avenue »

December 12, 2008

I.D. This Photo, Win a Book

Charles Lockwood, author of the definitive Bricks and Brownstone, sent in this photo of a mother and child on a brownstone stoop that he bought online. He's not sure where it is and is offering a signed copy of his book to the first reader that can correctly identify the location. Guesses?

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7573

Comments

If any of you do not have his book you should buy it. 11217....I'm going to be on every thread today but I will remain on topic.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 10:35 AM

If he doesn't know where it is how is he going to know if your guess is correct?!

Posted by: just me at December 12, 2008 10:42 AM

LOL just me!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 10:46 AM

If it wasn't for the mansard roof, I'd say it was my house on Jefferson, but that one did not have a full fourth floor. The rest of the house fits exactly.

I'm still going to say somewhere in Bed Stuy, though. That ornate ironwork can still be found intact on many blocks, and the materials, size and general middle class sensibility look like Bed Stuy.

I have both editions of Mr. Lockwood's book"Bricks and Brownstones". I bought the first, was given the second. I also have his book "Manhattan Moves Uptown", which is fascinating. I highly recommend both.

Montrose Morris, PBA

Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 12, 2008 10:47 AM

No clue but its a very cool photo. Where did he buy it?

Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at December 12, 2008 10:50 AM

I think this is on the west side of Willow Street, between Clark and Pierrepont streets.

Posted by: Jebby at December 12, 2008 10:57 AM

MM...I didn't know there were two editions. Are they significantly different from each other in terms of pics, etc?

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 10:57 AM

@Jebby, not according to Google Street View; all the lots on that street are much wider.

Posted by: tscola at December 12, 2008 11:10 AM

It looks like eastern Bedford Stuyvesant/ Ocean hill. The houses all have this scale

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 11:10 AM

Dave, the biggest difference is that the later one is has a beautiful dust jacket and lots of color photos, and may be a bit larger. I think some walking tour info was added, as well. I lent the earlier one to someone, so I don't have it in front of me. At the time, it was the ONLY source of information about NY row houses. It's still the best.

Montrose Morris, PBA

Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 12, 2008 11:23 AM

LOL just me! I'm gonna guess Macon St in Bed Stuy

Posted by: oohlala at December 12, 2008 11:25 AM

The Second edition of Bricks and Brownstones is nicer, many more color plates and walking tours with small photos.
The key to identifying these houses is in the unusual sloping hood feature above the doors. That is not a typical NYC rowhouse feature. Therefore these houses are either not in NYC or they are tucked away somewhere out of the way -or they have been demolished. I have never seen them.

Posted by: sam at December 12, 2008 11:33 AM

I'm guessing 143 Lincoln Pl.

Posted by: Arkady at December 12, 2008 11:37 AM

sam...good point. I haven't seen that roof style anywhere in NY.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 11:45 AM

Are we sure this house is in Brooklyn?

Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 12, 2008 11:48 AM

Looks like Park Slope to me...narrow sidewalks. Not sure where though.

Posted by: bigmissfrenchie at December 12, 2008 11:56 AM

Agreed in re: the "lintel"? above the doors. Also, the design just under the roof that seems to run across all three buildings seems distinctive enough to help.

Lastly, if we assume that this picture is at least 100 years old... It might be helpful to eliminate those areas where brownstones had not been erected and concentrate on the heights, park slope and what's in between?

Posted by: SJ at December 12, 2008 11:57 AM

Sam, there are houses in Bed Stuy with those rooflines. There are several on Herkimer between New York and Nostrand, which I walk by almost daily. I've seen them all over BS, actually.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 12, 2008 11:57 AM

This photo makes me swoon. It appeals to my love of history and my near obsession with 19th century lives, especially those in New York. It reminds me of one of my favorite books, (I think by Jack Finney) called Time and Again.

Posted by: Nokilissa at December 12, 2008 12:01 PM

Age of Innocence

Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 12, 2008 12:03 PM

Maybe it's just the old photography, but it looks to me like the facade is yellow brick...

Posted by: etisja at December 12, 2008 12:05 PM

It's incredible that there are no house numbers or any other identifying features. Anybody want to make a guess as to what time of day it is?

Posted by: SJ at December 12, 2008 12:06 PM

I was not referring to the roofline in my comments. I was referring to the hood features over the entrance surrounds. They look like stone awnings.
The roof is fairly standard Second Empire.

Posted by: sam at December 12, 2008 12:15 PM

SJ...that's the easy part. it's Sunday, at 9:45 and they are off to 10:00 mass!!!

But who is that figure up in the second floor window?? Is that Norman Bates' mother????

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 12:15 PM

Chances are this photo was taken in Harlem, even East Harlem.

Posted by: vinca at December 12, 2008 12:27 PM

look upstairs is that someone in the window?

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 12:32 PM

So... Morning in January or February is at least a good start. That would make this house on the west side of a north/south running street that was built before 1910.

As to the woman, assuming you are correct, it looks like she's pulling on her white gloves and worrying that her neighbors are going to get to church before her. I hope she didn't have to stand in the back...

Posted by: SJ at December 12, 2008 12:32 PM

What sins lie behind those lace curtains???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 12:36 PM

It feels like morning to me too. The way the shadows are hitting the house. The figure I had assumed to be a little brother in a cap looking down. But maybe too tall for a boy.

Posted by: Nokilissa at December 12, 2008 12:37 PM

Judging by the lady's outfit. this picture was taken in the 1910's. I would guess it is Boston, although there is an outside chance it could be Harlem judging by the way the row has "end pavilions". I don't think it is Sunday though. She is taking the little girl to school and besides, a professional photographer would not be taking pictures of houses on the Lord's Day.

Posted by: sam at December 12, 2008 12:40 PM

Awesome photo, I love that there is a person in the second story looking down over the people below. But these houses could be anywhere, including Manhattan or some other city altogether. Or was the author told the photo is from New York?

Very clever about the sloping roof over the door detail. The top window in the middle is also very large with a cross-shaped division between the panes.

These look like small, middle-class, single-family townhouses erected around the 1890s or so. (Montrose, I am guessing the date based on the style -- would you agree?) It is certainly the case that buildings of this sort were being erected in Eastern Bed Stuy (close to Ocean Hill) at this time as another poster suggest. (Ocean Hill, at least the part I am familiar with, is more two families, as is Bushwick.) The time frame is also right for Crown Heights, but I don't know if they were putting up single family, narrow houses -- Montrose?

I'm sure there are other areas (Manhattan? Baltimore???) where such houses such as these were being built at this time as well, but I am not familiar with them.

Posted by: mopar at December 12, 2008 12:43 PM

I agree that Harlem is a strong possibility as is Boston, but just out of curiosity... what in this picture would lead you to believe that it would be Boston or Harlem as opposed to anywhere else with rowhouses and victorian type people?

As to what sins lie behind those curtains, my suspicion would be a great deal.

Posted by: SJ at December 12, 2008 12:45 PM

SJ,

You read my mind. The windows and the stone base on these houses, along with the widow's walk are all features I associate with the Back Bay neighborhoods. Also, that shadow across the front looks a lot like a pitched roof, which I don't see all that often in BK, though that is inconclusive.

My guess is Boston, Back Bay.

Posted by: stoep2conquer at December 12, 2008 12:52 PM

Is it just a shadow or something in the background or does the house to the left have a gable?

Posted by: boofer at December 12, 2008 12:53 PM

Also, the orientation of the sun, to my eye, points to an East-facing house on a North-South street. Harlem seems less likely for that reason.

Posted by: stoep2conquer at December 12, 2008 12:54 PM

To me, the lady in the second story window looks dressed up and is carrying a muff. She is looking to see her daughter and the Nanny go off to school or some errand, probably school. The house looks failry grand to me as it is faced in limestone and even the dormer windows are limestone, rather than the more traditional(in Brooklyn) wood.
This isn't Brooklyn.
Maybe Manhattan.
The reason I say Harlem is because there are several rows of houses there with end pavilions that project out at the ends of Second Empire rows. It is a French stylistic touch. Folks in Brooklyn were a bit too Unitarian to go for French touches, Boston too proabbly, So I'm going with Manhattan, specifically Harlem.

Posted by: sam at December 12, 2008 12:55 PM

The reason I suggested Harlem is that these feel familiar to me from my high school days. Can't say exactly which street—anywhere from 140s and Convent on down, and both east and west. It's entirely possible that these are not in NY, but the feel of the street is familiar. You'll even still find similar (other than front door hoods) on the Upper West Side.

Posted by: vinca at December 12, 2008 1:09 PM

Looks to me like she's wearing some kind of very plain walking outfit circa 1890s, particularly going by the shape and tilt of the hat, but it's very hard to make out details.

None of the people in the photograph appear to be posing for it, which is quite remarkable.

Sam, the house looks like it's brick. It's so narrow, and yet appears to be a single-family house, that in Brooklyn at least (no idea re Boston) the price of this house would have been in the middle. A doctor or merchant would have lived in one of the wide, elaborate townhouses one sees in Stuyvesant Heights or Park Slope. Someone of lesser means would have lived in a two-family.

I find it odd there is no stained glass in this house. Could it be older than the 1890s?

Posted by: mopar at December 12, 2008 2:20 PM

The photo frames three window bays as if they were a single, symmetrical house, but those three bays include TWO stoops. I'll bet we're actually looking at part of a row of two-bay houses whose relatively modest width is masked, or at least played down, by a more monumental facade whose ins and outs don't correspond to the divisions between the dwellings inside.

The two projecting bays that are cropped off on the right and left sides of the frame look symmetrical. The circular repeats on their uppermost friezes match, and it looks like both have inverted brackets at the "eave" level of the central mansard. (The scroll of the right-hand bracket is only faintly visible.) Both of these "pavilions" (sam, 12:40) probably also have matching pointed roofs (more visible on the left), but they may not mark the ends of the row.

Maybe this can help someone else, because I don't have a clue where these houses are.

Posted by: rfr at December 12, 2008 2:38 PM

The single window in the basement is distinctive. At least it would be rare in Bed Stuy, as you can see if you check Google map streetview. These houses were designed as a group.

Posted by: mopar at December 12, 2008 2:45 PM

rfr is right about these houses being designed as a group, and the facade divisions not corresponding to the stoops. (There are at least two blocks like this in Crown Heights designed by well-known architects but the decoration is totally different.)

The single window in the basement is distinctive. At least it would be rare in Bed Stuy, as you can see if you check Google map streetview. (Though I remember mansard roofs with windows somewhere around Halsey and Stuyvesant.)

Posted by: mopar at December 12, 2008 2:51 PM

rfr's point is also borne out by the design of the ironwork.

Posted by: SJ at December 12, 2008 3:02 PM

Those mansaard roofs are on Macon just west of Stuyvesant but they are on frame/clapboard buildings. I can't remeber seeing any on stone buildings.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 12, 2008 3:32 PM

Mr. B, there seems to be a lot of interest in this item and some fascinating insight. Perhaps you should consider once in a while posting a vintage picture of a home for which you know the address and see if anyone can guess it by the end of the day. If not, let everyone know the answer. Just a thought.

Posted by: Biff Champion at December 12, 2008 3:46 PM

I hope the railing is still intact. I love the way it curves.

Biff, good idea....Find of the Day.
And a winner can be announced by day's end.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at December 12, 2008 4:52 PM

These are two houses designed together to look like a grand mansion. One of the houses is 2-bays wide and the other is 3-bays wide. They are quite grand houses. To me, they look like limestone but perhaps they are limestone and brick. either way, very French, no earlier than 1896 or so, probably in Harlem, but could also be in back bay Boston or any other sophisticated East Coast City. The ironwork looks typically New York. Other details do not. Too bad there is no answer to the mystery.

Posted by: sam at December 12, 2008 5:22 PM

I think what's been eating away at me all day is: why would this picture have been taken in the first place? It's not like people had the means to go around randomly snapping candid photos then. The woman and child are right there in that specific spot on the step on purpose, and the (man? woman?) is posing in the window for a reason. Why, though? Who would spend the money for a picture taken from all the way across the street like this? Maybe if we can figure out what particular use this photo had, we'll get closer to locating its whereabouts...

Posted by: bess at December 12, 2008 5:33 PM

"It's not like people had the means to go around randomly snapping candid photos then"

Actually, the first Kodak came out in 1888. EK Co.s slogan was "you press the button and we do the rest"

Posted by: Bob Marvin at December 12, 2008 5:45 PM

@bess, Kodak released the Brownie camera in 1900. It sold for $1 and was the first camera that made it practical to carry around and take snapshots.

Posted by: tscola at December 12, 2008 5:47 PM

Ah. Thanks -- I had no idea. But it still seems odd to me that someone would take this particular photo, if not for use in, say, a newspaper feature. It looks too professional to be an amateur/candid shot.

Posted by: bess at December 12, 2008 5:59 PM

If you look on Hancock St between Marcy and Nostrand the houses look like this one except for the houses being a floor taller. The HOTD on Hancock is part of that row... Also 302 Jefferson btw Tompkins and Throop the house on that block looks like this one

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 6:12 PM

This house is 302 or 304 Jefferson in Bedford Stuyvesant.

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 6:13 PM

I have this book already but it is not autographed. I do not have "Manhattan Moves Uptown"

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 6:17 PM

Sorry it is on the odd side of the street more like 299 or 301 Jefferson

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 6:21 PM

These houses are 297 and 299 Jefferson Ave Brooklyn NY 11216 in the Bedford Historic District of Bedford Stuyvesant

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 6:25 PM

Amiz you win! I just google mapped it and your dead on. Nice job!

Posted by: TownhouseLady at December 12, 2008 6:48 PM

thanks Townhouse Lady. I kept looking at the curve in the gates I knew Jefferson Ave was full of them.
To help Charles Lockwood out more in 1900 Robert and Abby Duncan lived at 297 Jefferson. He was a lawyer born 1833 in NH and Abby born in MA in 1838. They had two children in college in 1900 Anne b.1878 and Allen b.1879. a third child was living out of the house in 1900. A 16 year old maid also lived with them named Minnie Fogaity?
Next door at 299 Jefferson in 1900 lived William and Fannie Main. He was a chemist. They had two daughters living with them at that time Lillian born in 1877 and Edith b 1885. A third child was living out of the house in 1900.

In 1910 widow Abby Duncan from and her daughter Anne H Duncan lived at 297 They had a Irish servant named Mary Mulledy living with them all adults.
Next door at 299 was Fred and Louisa Sherman who was a superintendent of a Fire Insurance company. His sister in law Anna who was 44 and her daughter Edna who was 17 in 1910 also lived in 299 along with there mulatto 22 year old servant from Virgina named Margaret Brown. I hope this helps

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 12, 2008 7:23 PM

Loved this! Amzi, thank you so much for all of the information. Montrose was close with her first guess.

I agree with Biff, I would love to see this kind of thing again. (perhaps Amzi could give us some detailed info on the residents if he has it?)

Items like this do a great deal to help others understand that a neighborhood like Bedford Stuyvesant (Bedford Corners in this case) or Crown Heights have a rich history in many ways. These are not "fringe" neighborhoods. They are neighborhoods. People who would consider these places fringe or - heaven help us - ghetto, have very limited experience and need to learn more about the borough they have chosen to make there home.

Please keep this feature, Brownstoner.

Posted by: 11233 at December 12, 2008 7:57 PM

Amzi, that was fantastic work. And yes, I agree that this should be a regular Brownstoner thing!

Posted by: bess at December 12, 2008 8:05 PM

WOw!!! This was so cool to read through! I was going to guess Hancock near Marcy and I turns out I was almost right! More please!!!

Posted by: KIM at December 12, 2008 9:29 PM

Wow, Amzi, that was amazing. Any guess as to when the house was built?

Posted by: mopar at December 12, 2008 11:37 PM

Congratulations to Amzi, who has contacted me directly.
Amzi, please share with everybody the information
that you sent me about the residents of the house.

I am surprised that somebody found the missing
address for me so quickly. I guess that I under-estimated the "smarts" and numbers of Brownstoner bloggers.

I am really impressed at the many good comments
about the house. The analysis of the styles
and where a house of this size and style might have
been located. If only the Landmarks Commission were
intelligent. Right?

I suspected that the photograph showed "inner Bed Stuy.
The house has that look. Or, my lesser guess was
the East 80s or 90s near Third Avenue in Manhattan.
Similar size houses at that time.

The photograph was sold to me on-line as
"New York brownstone." So, I had that clue.
But I suspected from the start that it was Brooklyn.

Now, what about this hidden "sin" behind the curtains?
And talk of Norman Bates' mother. Halloween is over.

Thanks, finally, for the good comments about my
book. The new Rizzoli edition has the same text
as the original edition, but it has some great
color photographs, half taken in Brooklyn, and it
has the walking tours of some of my favorite brownstone
neighborhoods. I have many other favorites, but Rizzoli
limited the Walking Tours length.

If anybody cannot live without the new color picture
edition, Amazon is the best and easiest place to buy.
Their price is close to my author's discount price.

Charles Lockwood

PS--Sombody suggested that I post another historical
photograph. I don't have any Brooklyn photographs
with such a good house and the human interest of
the Mother and child heading out the door. That's rare.

Posted by: charleslockwood at December 13, 2008 12:06 AM

Just saw this now. Great detective work Amzi. Thanks Charles for putting this up, it was really fun. Mr B I agree that this could be a cool semi-regular feature if there were more pictures that needed ID'ing.

Posted by: wasder at December 13, 2008 9:09 AM

Mr. Lockwood,

As an owner of both the original and newer Rizzoli editions (the edition of the walking tours was fantastic!) I need to ask...

Is there ANY chance you could do a similar book on the Brick and Brownstones of Jersey City and perhaps Hoboken? There are a substantial amount of these phenomenal homes where I live in JC but it's been a struggle for me to find the depth of information that is available for similar New York homes. For me, a big part of the joy of owning these homes is knowing their history.

Thank you,

THL

(Sorry for the intrusion Brooklynians!)

Posted by: TownhouseLady at December 13, 2008 9:55 AM

Dear THL--and Other Jersey City/Hoboken Residents--
who are Brownstoner fans.

No, I don't haver plans to cover Jersey City or Hoboken.
Why hasn't somebody done it?

I do need to find time to expand the late 19th and
early 20th century section of Bricks and Brownstone. I have all the research. Just need the time to write it up.

Charles Lockwood

Posted by: charleslockwood at December 13, 2008 1:34 PM

I had thought judging by the way the shadow of the house opposite just stops 3/4 of the way across the pic that it might be on a t junction facing south down a street starting oppostie. But google map 299 Jefferson and whip the 360 degree camera round and theres your gap. Still there.
Any more id jobs out there this is fun!

Posted by: nicksull at December 13, 2008 4:57 PM

Nice Job Amzi! If you don't mind my asking, how did you find all the data on the inhabitants? Is the Brooklyn 1910 census searchable online?

Posted by: StuyMom at December 14, 2008 10:57 PM

Thanks StuyMom. I am a amateur genealogist and I did go online to ancestry.com to find out who lived in these homes. It would be nice to see what that missing house across the street looked like.

Posted by: Amzi Hill at December 14, 2008 11:49 PM

Hats off to you Amzi!

Posted by: vinca at December 15, 2008 9:33 AM

Mr. Lockwood, I enjoyed your book very much and learned a great deal from it. I particularly appreciated the interior photos, especially of the period, and also from the 1970s when the book was written. I particularly remember one showing an early example of indoor plumbing, a wet sink in a bedroom. I look forward to the new edition.

Posted by: mopar at December 15, 2008 11:08 PM

« Bonuses Back to 2002 Levels The Curious Case of 88 Lafayette Avenue »

December 12, 2008

I.D. This Photo, Win a Book

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions