Newsletter |
« More on Cobble Hill's Windowgate Checking in on the Argyle »
46

Walkabout: Some Favorite Things: Part I

Categories: Arch Diary

When I first moved to NYC, I lived in the Bronx, near relatives. Before moving to Brooklyn, I used to visit my friend, a Pratt student, who over the course of four years lived all over Clinton Hill and Fort Greene. Wandering around the neighborhood convinced me that Brooklyn was the place to be for someone who loved architecture. After moving here, I started really noticing the small details, when I would go on long, wandering walks for exercise, got involved in the preservation of Crown Heights and Bed Stuy, and started taking lots of photographs, and lots of research. I’ve wandered around a good deal of Brownstone Brooklyn in the past year, now hyper aware of every bit of architectural detail, the composition of blocks, the progression of style and history, use and adaptive re-use, and sometimes, the passing of an architectural treasure. Some neighborhoods I know quite well, some not so well, and there are some I have barely explored. In the future, I hope to be able to add elements from neighborhoods like Windsor Terrace, Sunset Park, and Bushwick, for example, places I just haven't gotten to. My favorites will be sure to increase with continued exploration.

In the meantime, here is the first in my “Favorites” series. These are just some of my favorite groups of houses. They were built to be viewed as a whole, as well as individual homes. Some, like the Montrose Morris houses, are framed under a common roof. Others blend seamlessly across the row, forming an aesthetically pleasing progression down the street. Others are joined by the commonality of building materials, or ornament: a shared cornice, pressed metal ornamental bands, or other decorative elements that join them together. More often than not, these houses were built in groups designed to fit into a set number of lots, often in the middle of other such groups. Most were not built specifically for a buyer, but were speculative housing, often for the upper middle classes.

The row houses of the early to mid 19th century were pretty much uniform, when built on spec, their attractiveness lying in their repeating uniformity. By the time of the Revivals, in the latter part of the century, much attention was paid to the individual-ness of design within groups. Romanesque and Renaissance Revivals, as well as Queen Anne styles show great variety and inventiveness in their groupings. Today, architectural historians group these houses by letters corresponding to their individual design: ABCBA, for example, where the two “A” houses are the same, the two “B” houses may have a different shaped bay, or façade, and the “C” house is different from the other two. Usually, the “A” houses act as anchors, and are often more ornate, or slightly larger, visually enclosing and embracing the entire group, and the “C” house is the focal point. Depending on how many houses are in a group, the combinations can be many. I live in an ABCD group, where all houses are different, but share many common elements, including cornice design, doorways and trim.

The best architects working in Brooklyn, including Axel Hedman, George Chappell, the Parfitt Brothers, Amzi Hill and son Henry, Montrose Morris, Magnus Dahlander and William Reynolds, all were masters of row house design. Axel Hedman was perhaps the most prolific in his groups of houses, found across much of Brownstone Brooklyn. His career will be featured soon, but in the meantime, a sneak peak is available along with the other greats and some unknowns, featured in my Flickr set. Please feel free to add to the list of other great groups of houses in your neighborhood or Brooklyn travels, and please continue to write in your personal favorite Brooklyn buildings for Thursday’s columns.

By Montrose Morris at December 1, 2009 10:30 AM | Comments (46)

46 Comments

By chrishavens on December 1, 2009 10:40 AM

some of my favorites too

By Stonergut on December 1, 2009 10:45 AM

Wow. Have I been in Brooklyn too long? I have been inside houses in 2 out of the 5 photos.

By Architerrorist on December 1, 2009 10:46 AM

Love these arts and crafts cottages. Very similar to a row on Newkirk, off Coney Island Avenue in Ditmas Park West, I believe. Wonder if it's the same architect.

By DeLepp on December 1, 2009 10:53 AM

wow, who needs to go to a museum when a stroll thru Brooklyn would delight. I need to get to Putnam Ave and Sterling for sure.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 11:00 AM

Tudors represent! I've lived in Tudor-style houses basically all my life from my parents' single family in Marine Park to the apartment building I live in now. The 1915 version doesn't seem too far off, maybe slightly more detailed from the 1920's and 30's versions I'm used too. Much appreciated Montrose!

By Brooklyn Red on December 1, 2009 11:07 AM

Great series, and thanks so much MM.
(Hard to imagine that anyone will be doing a "favorite things" walkabout of what's being built these days.)

By Expert Textpert on December 1, 2009 11:23 AM

Thanks MM.
Brooklyn has some beautiful architecture. I never tire of walking the streets.

By benson on December 1, 2009 11:31 AM

"Hard to imagine that anyone will be doing a "favorite things" walkabout of what's being built these days"

I'd be happy to do so.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 11:52 AM

"Hard to imagine that anyone will be doing a "favorite things" walkabout of what's being built these days"

I'd be happy to do so.

Posted by: benson at December 1, 2009 11:31 AM

Could you name some examples of newly-built 1-3 family residential Brooklyn architecture that you like Benson?

I'm curious as to what's out there. Thanks.

By benson on December 1, 2009 12:20 PM

Joe;

I really don't want to hijack Montrose's post, so I'll just give a very brief response.

The days of new, high-end 1-3 family construction are coming to a close in Brooklyn, doing to its increasing density. Other than a few examples in Bay Ridge and on State Street, I can't think of much.

I was thinking more of nice condo construction, which is where the action is at these days.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 12:42 PM

Thanks Benson. While people generally prefer to live in houses the upkeep and yard work involved is definitely at conflict with today's busy, overworked non-handy homeowners, not to mention the value of the land. I do notice most of these newer buildings are lacking in what were traditionally considered pleasing aesthetics such as architectural detail and being contextual to the surrounding neighborhood. If you know of any examples that might change my mind please let me know, I have an open mind.

By benson on December 1, 2009 12:46 PM

"I do notice most of these newer buildings are lacking in what were traditionally considered pleasing aesthetics such as architectural detail and being contextual to the surrounding neighborhood."

Joe

Are you talking about condo developments or private homes?

By Montrose Morris on December 1, 2009 12:57 PM

Joe, I think it is possible to design modern row houses that are contextural and aesthetically pleasing. For some reason, they don't do it in Brooklyn too often. I think the Ratner built houses on Fulton, near South Oxford, and surrounding area are pretty good, at least from the outside. There are some decent ones in Crown Heights North, one group on Pacific, near Albany that are nice too. The best ones I've seen locally are in Harlem, at several locations. Brownstoner had a new brick house on Lefferts Place recently, too, a couple of months ago.

They are all in brick, real brick, not those awful colored faux textured bricks, often with limestone looking cement trim. They reflect the brick and brownstone ancestors around them, but manage to be modernly old, if you know what I mean. It's too bad the days of great stone carving and ornament are done, it would just cost too much today, but those elements add that extra touch to our streetscapes that modernity just can't duplicate without great expense.

The good thing is that brick can be a very facile building material, and even on its own can be very decorative. The problem is that most developers can't afford, or don't want to pay for some of the great designs that brick, arranged diagonally, Flemish bond, English bond, clinker brick,and all the many variations, colors and designs around us, could provide. Too bad.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 1:09 PM

I was curious about condo developments Benson.

Montrose,

Thanks Montrose. I'll try to Google some of those row houses you mentioned.

My parents had a brick porch w/ real limestone trim built on top the an existing garage that's around the side (corner "A" house) in the mid 80's. It Goes well with the rest of the side of the house and still looks as nice today as the day it was completed.

By bkny on December 1, 2009 1:12 PM

MM - one of my favorite blocks in bed-stuy is Chauncey between Lewis & stuyvesant. according your post the houses would be something like this ccccabababacccc ( the c being 2 story houses) these first c's are framed houses. the a-3 story brownstone, b- 3 story limestone, c-2 story limestones. something like that. check it out. very pretty block.

By bxgrl on December 1, 2009 1:27 PM

I love Willow St.- it's like walking through a time portal to the old South. I also love the Warren St. Mews, and the odd little group of "dollhouses" on the block between Herkimer and Atlantic just behind the school on NY Ave..

By benson on December 1, 2009 1:31 PM

All of the latter-day row houses that Montrose cites above were built with heavy subsidies from the government, on government-cleared and provided land.

How are private developers supposed to build row houses (which require a large clearance of low-cost land to work) when there is little vacant private land left in NYC, and if it is available, is too expensive to justify such a low density?

The answer: they can't.

Joe, the homes that you admire in Marine Park (which I know well) were built when that was cheap, open land and labor was much less expensive in NYC.

You're asking for the impossible if you think we can go back to that time. It would be akin to asking why cabbage still can't be a good cash crop in Brooklyn, as it was in the 19th century.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 1:40 PM

The answer: they can't.

Joe, the homes that you admire in Marine Park (which I know well) were built when that was cheap, open land and labor was much less expensive in NYC.

You're asking for the impossible if you think we can go back to that time. It would be akin to asking why cabbage still can't be a good cash crop in Brooklyn, as it was in the 19th century.

Posted by: benson at December 1, 2009 1:31 PM

Well hopefully technology and an increased interest in these styles of home might help to change the answer to that question.
For the time being most people "in the industry" would agree with you, I'm a "contrarian" at heart and would like to see the people of this country begin once again take a "can do" approach to things. I think "doing the impossible" breeds innovation beginning with the very creation of this country! Anyone witnessing the Battle of Brooklyn would have certainly bet on the Brits.

By benson on December 1, 2009 1:44 PM

Joe;

It's not a matter of technology or a "can-do" spirit. It's a simple matter of economics - there's only so much land. I'm sure that at one time much of lower Manahattan was lined with row houses. Would you rather we go back to that point?? Where then, would all the people currently living there go?

By mopar on December 1, 2009 1:46 PM

Yes, these are cute. Whenever I see them, though, I think of the cost of maintaining the roofs and the challenge of getting my Model T through the tiny driveways. In a good way, of course. :)

By bxgrl on December 1, 2009 1:50 PM

mopar- the horse and carriage have no problem negotiating them :)

By bxgrl on December 1, 2009 1:57 PM

joefrombrooklyn- I agree with you! In fact there are some who are still shocked we won! My feeling is that there will be drastic rethinking of urban environments- what makes them livable or intolerable. I think we will find that cities need a variety of styles, including low-density areas to be healthy environments. Logistically, psychologically, economically.Huge hi-density projects like AY are stressors, disguised as solutions. They treat people like items to be packaged, basically meat warehouses and that in turn impacts not only how we live day to day but how we perceive ourselves. And that can be either very good or very damaging.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 1:57 PM

Joe;

It's not a matter of technology or a "can-do" spirit. It's a simple matter of economics - there's only so much land. I'm sure that at one time much of lower Manahattan was lined with row houses. Would you rather we go back to that point?? Where then, would all the people currently living there go?

Posted by: benson at December 1, 2009 1:44 PM

You are correct re: the economics of things however at some point there has to be a balance. I doubt the current infrastructure can support many more high rises, especially in Brooklyn. Looking at it this way puts logic more on the side of the houses and smaller apartment buildings or of building more subway lines to the outer-boroughs, either one would be an improvement in my book.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 1:59 PM

joefrombrooklyn- I agree with you! In fact there are some who are still shocked we won! My feeling is that there will be drastic rethinking of urban environments- what makes them livable or intolerable. I think we will find that cities need a variety of styles, including low-density areas to be healthy environments. Logistically, psychologically, economically.Huge hi-density projects like AY are stressors, disguised as solutions. They treat people like items to be packaged, basically meat warehouses and that in turn impacts not only how we live day to day but how we perceive ourselves. And that can be either very good or very damaging.

Posted by: bxgrl at December 1, 2009 1:57 PM

I wholeheartedly agree.

By benson on December 1, 2009 2:05 PM

Joe;

You are taking an anti-growth stand.

You talk about strain on infrastructure. You want to really put a strain on infrastructure? Allow no further growth in Brooklyn, and continue to push development to the suburbs. So, instead of having some people taking the subways, you'll have everyone driving in, burning gasoline, etc.

This process of development has been going on for 100's of years, and there's no stopping it. My father used to go CAMPING in Canarsie when he was a boy, that's how rural it was!!! As our region develops, the dense areas continue to expand.

Returning to the point of infrastructure and density: if you think our region is dense, then I take it you have not been to Tokyo or other world-class cities like it.

By Legion on December 1, 2009 2:23 PM

Hey folks,
I've seen a few nice developments recently in brooklyn recently, and they are rowhouses. Most recently along Flushing avenue in Bushwick where they replaced the grounds of an old brewery with really nicely designed rowhouses and a couple of rental buildings. The row houses remind me of those in the photos above.
they're worth checking out as an example of what can be done with good design on a residential scale with an eye towards building communities.

by the way joe and benson,
did you hear about the global warming e-mail scandal?lol

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 2:30 PM

Benson,
Most world class cities I've visited are in Europe where zoning laws and historic preservation tends to be much more strict than here. I don't think I'm taking too strong of a stand here just looking for the right balance.

Yes Legion, man-made global-warming is the biggest scam this side of our increasingly hot sun.

By benson on December 1, 2009 2:32 PM

Legion;

You have NO IDEA how gratified I am that these "scientists" have finally been exposed for what they truly are: doomsday preachers for the secular religion known as "global warming". Exactly as we predicted, no? Those people ought to be ASHAMED of themselves, as people who carried the banner for science. Disgraceful.

Regarding the rowhouses on Flushing: once again- government subsidized. You can do alot when someone else is writing the check.

By Legion on December 1, 2009 2:39 PM

Joe,

I know you got alot of flack from the other posters about that issue and so did I.
my feeling is that scientists should be able to back up their claims with facts. there is by no means a "consensus" and in fact there is much proof otherwise as in
-satellite altimitry scans
-sea level rise data
-hurricane strength data
-land subsidence/coastline data

the e-mail scandal sure doesn't help.

By benson on December 1, 2009 2:40 PM

Joe;

The words "Europe", "Growth" and "Dynamic" don't associate together these days, do they?

By Legion on December 1, 2009 2:46 PM

benson,
so true. it becomes a problem when money and politics get involved. money drives the competition for government grants. politicians guide the way grants are distributed. that's how politicians can drive scientific data to all of our detriment.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 2:48 PM

Joe,

I know you got alot of flack from the other posters about that issue and so did I.
my feeling is that scientists should be able to back up their claims with facts. there is by no means a "consensus" and in fact there is much proof otherwise as in
-satellite altimitry scans
-sea level rise data
-hurricane strength data
-land subsidence/coastline data

the e-mail scandal sure doesn't help.

Posted by: Legion at December 1, 2009 2:39 PM

I agree Legion. Let us all be above politics/ideology, let's all be honest and seek the truth FIRST. I heard a new term last week called "para-political." Rather than apolitical which sounds like someone who is disgusted and made apathetic, someone who is "para-political" steps back from the tug-of-war paradigm and begins with a question, or a healthy hypothesis, not pre-conceived answer set in stone.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 2:49 PM

Joe;

The words "Europe", "Growth" and "Dynamic" don't associate together these days, do they?

Posted by: benson at December 1, 2009 2:40 PM
and yet I'd rather live in Paris than Shanghai, hmmmm?

By Legion on December 1, 2009 2:54 PM

benson,
those row houses off Flushing were government subsidized?
any idea who bought them or prices?

Joe,
para-political sounds good.
now, can one be para-political and believe in the para-normal?

Crop circles anyone?

By benson on December 1, 2009 2:57 PM

"and yet I'd rather live in Paris than Shanghai, hmmmm?"

Joe;

I used to think just like you (believe me). However, after working in Europe for a couple of years, I changed my mind.

Yes, Paris is certainly beautiful and if that were my sole criteria, I'd take it.

If, on the other hand, I wanted to feel like I was in the middle of where the action is, where there is a dynamic spirit, where I could make a difference, then it would be no contest: Shanghai.


By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 2:59 PM

benson,
those row houses off Flushing were government subsidized?
any idea who bought them or prices?

Joe,
para-political sounds good.
now, can one be para-political and believe in the para-normal?

Crop circles anyone?

Posted by: Legion at December 1, 2009 2:54 PM

HA! The "Brownstoner love" I'm getting today might convince me to come Thursday after all.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 3:01 PM

If, on the other hand, I wanted to feel like I was in the middle of where the action is, where there is a dynamic spirit, where I could make a difference, then it would be no contest: Shanghai.


Posted by: benson at December 1, 2009 2:57 PM

Uh...road trip anyone?

By Legion on December 1, 2009 3:10 PM

joe,

a road trip sounds good. how about Queens? lol

By benson on December 1, 2009 3:11 PM

Legion;

As someone commented in yesterday's thread about the affordable housing development in Billyburg, I'm sure that the homes in Bushwick come under the purview of the Assemblyman Vito Lopez "machine" and his friends are rewarded. His machine is especially active in the Bushwick area.

There is some "affordable" housing complex in Bushwick called something like "Rheingold Gardens", named after the brewery that used to stand there. Under the building's marquis there is the statement, in big bold, letters permanently attached to the building :"Thank you Assemblyman Vito Lopez". Sickening. I wouldn't live there no matter how low the rents were.

By Legion on December 1, 2009 3:17 PM

Benson,

Rheingold Gardens. That's the development I'm talking about. and you're right about Vito Lopez. This guy's name is all over Bushwick. He has a nursing home on Troutman named after his mother and a street named after his brother.
That's what you call Politician's Graffiti.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 3:30 PM

"Thank you Assemblyman Vito Lopez". Sickening. I wouldn't live there no matter how low the rents were.

Posted by: benson at December 1, 2009 3:11 PM

There's definitely something scummy about criminals making a good name for themselves through charity.

I was in downtown Brooklyn last Monday during the corporate "Nino Brown" turkey give-away. While this is definitely the time of year to be helping those with less, I couldn't help but think of how demeaning it must be for a proud, hard-working person who has fallen on hard times.
I couldn't help but say out loud, "people need jobs, not f**kin turkeys."

By Montrose Morris on December 1, 2009 3:33 PM

What was that about not hijacking the thread?

Benson, please provide backup to your claim that EVERY SINGLE new row house development mentioned by anyone on this thread is subsidized by gov't money. You assume this, you don't know. The Fort Greene Ratner project, yes. The others - I was not even specific about the Harlem locations, so how can you be so sure? Everything in Harlem, or any low income area, is NOT gov't subsidized. There is plenty of private money being invested in these areas. It only makes sense, especially in Harlem. It is possible to have good design on a budget. WITHOUT gov't help. Many developers are just don't care to do so.

By Joe from Brooklyn on December 1, 2009 3:39 PM

What was that about not hijacking the thread?

Benson, please provide backup to your claim that EVERY SINGLE new row house development mentioned by anyone on this thread is subsidized by gov't money. You assume this, you don't know. The Fort Greene Ratner project, yes. The others - I was not even specific about the Harlem locations, so how can you be so sure? Everything in Harlem, or any low income area, is NOT gov't subsidized. There is plenty of private money being invested in these areas. It only makes sense, especially in Harlem. It is possible to have good design on a budget. WITHOUT gov't help. Many developers are just don't care to do so.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at December 1, 2009 3:33 PM

I agree, most of the ugliness we see being built around us is probably more the result of laziness and a lack of ingenuity on the part of the developer/architect than logistics.

By Brooklyn Red on December 1, 2009 3:41 PM

Thanks for the suggestions about some good looking row houses that may stand the test of time - wish they were closer to my neck of the woods, where most of the building is on 4th and the majority of the infill that has been done on the cross streets is staggeringly ugly.

I do have to take issue with benson’s equation that concerns about size and scope simply equal an anti-growth sentiment. I didn’t read the comments by joe or bxgrl to say that. Sure, we need housing, but it seems that we are just turning to big boxes as the solution, without concern about those quaint issues like livability and neighborhood. (Wasn’t there a post not too long ago about the decent housing stock, in terms of structurally sound buildings, that isn’t being used – perhaps made by MM?).

Seems to me like it's past time to start thinking outside the (big) box when it comes to housing.

By benson on December 1, 2009 3:43 PM

Montrose;

I didn't claim that all new development in Harlem is government subsidized - just those row house developments. I pass these developments every day as I take the Metro North RR to work, and I know about them. I read up alot on real estate in this city, and I can assure you that this is how they were built. No private builder in his right mind would have built at such a low density in Manhattan.

I am not aware of any private builder who is focusing on traditional row-house development in Brooklyn. Fedders - yes. Traditional row houses, no. Perhaps there are some exceptions somewhere, but that is what they are.

By Montrose Morris on December 1, 2009 4:13 PM

Benson, the houses I was referring to in Harlem are not along the Metro North conduit. They are in central and west Harlem, and they aren't some big mega project, just infill housing on blocks that had large swaths of open space so that one could build 3, 4 or 5 houses. Point being, they may have been built by private developers or through gov't programs. I don't know, and neither do you. Ditto for the ones in my area. My point is that many of them are attractively designed, and if they are so on a gov't budget, then that is even more evidence that it can be done. As Joe said, laziness and lack of ingenuity is probably more the culprit than money.

Bxgrl's point about high density housing is also apropos, and should be a serious consideration in development. Look at Cabrini-Green in Chicago as the ultimate test case. Too many people packed into high rise towers isolated from the rest of the city. Add poverty, drugs and gangs, and watch the chaos take over. An extreme case, but there are many, many studies showing that less human density makes for better living, even under other adverse situations. Perhaps some of today's more enlightened developers, not looking to profit from every possible square inch, have opted for a more human scale of development.

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.