Forum

« Stop Work Order: I'm an Idiot a huge thank you »

March 25, 2009

What is a Brownstone?

Serious question -- What is the definition of a brownstone? Does the facade actually have to consist of "brownstone" (which I understand is a relatively low strength and easily worked sedimentary stone)? When I see brownstone facades being redone it looks like the workers mix up a mortar mix, add brown coloring and then apply to the facade. Are there "brownstones" that have something other then actual brownstone but have this brown mortar applied as a coating? I have always followed the rule that what looks like a brownstone must be a brownstone, but I am realizing that I don't actually know if there are rules to what must be under the surface for a building to qualify as a brownstone.

Comments

Brownstone is a brown sandstone which was once a popular building material. The term is also used to sescribe a rowhouse clad in this material.

Most of the Brownstone quaries have closed (much of NY City's brownstone came from New Jersey). There is a quary in CT that has reopened.

As with other sandstone, brownstone is a sedimentary stone. It is also a soft stone allowing for all the carved details we now see. Once quaried the horizontal layers of sediment are often placed vertically on a building. This is not a good thing as weather helps the stone "delaminate" and "spall."

Once sections of the stone have fallen away, the accepted method of repair has been to apply a slurry mix to the remaining stone (as replacing the entire section of stone, in kind, is not a viable option). This slurry mixture is what you are referring to.

I have also seen where a rowhouse that was not constructed of brownstone has applied a layer of the slurry to the surface and created a 'psuedo' brownstone appearance (although not 'real' - it's much better than brown paint).

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 10:32 AM

One more thing - Many times the word "Brownstone" is incorrectly used instead of "Rowhouse" (something that drives me nuts!).

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 10:36 AM

Okay SenatorStreet answered your question and did a great job.

And for goodness sake everyone, DO NOT call every single townhouse regardless of what the facade is a Brownstone....I cringe.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at March 25, 2009 10:37 AM

Thank you SenatorStreet. Buy the question remains - is it improper to refer to a rowhouse with a layer of slurry on teh surface but a non-brownstone material underneath a "brownstone?" Should we be taking to task realtors who refer to these buildings as such?

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 10:41 AM

Thank you SenatorStreet. But the question remains - is it improper to refer to a rowhouse with a layer of slurry on teh surface but a non-brownstone material underneath a "brownstone?" Should we be taking to task realtors who refer to these buildings as such?

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 10:41 AM

Lechacal...you're correct about the facade restoration process. You could, in fact, apply that mixture to any surface and make yourself a "brownstone." Brownstone is actually a snadstone. If you look it up on Wikipedia there is some discussion, but not much.

There are various methods of repair of the decaying brownstone but they all pretty much involve additional layes of cementitious products...some last a long time and some do not.

From my research, the best products are thos made by Cathedral Stone Products (www.jahnmortars.com) and only a few contractors in NYC have been trained in their proper use. Many urban preservation authorities around the country require Cathedral Stone products to be used for landmarked PUBLIC buildings.

A facade repair can run you anywhere from $15,000 - $65,000 for a 3 storey house.

I will likley have mine done this year.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 10:41 AM

lechacal...I think it is very rare to find a building that has been transformed finto a brownstone. Where are you seeing this? I think frame houses look great in clapboards and brick looks nicer for its more-Federal appearances as well. Brick is easier to maintain so don'y know why anyone would actually bother to "create" a brownstone out of something else. And, FWIW, IMHO, limestone looks better than brownstone and, all things being equal, usually commands a higher price. Limestone is more durable. A lot of "limestone" houses are oftentimes referred to as greystones and are oftentimes granite. They are in Chiacgo.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 10:45 AM

lechacal - your question of is it "improper" - hard to say. Technically, I wouldn't consider a 100% slurry job over brick to be a Brownstone (but I really don't mind if a realtor advertises it as one).

Many of the realtors really just don't know (many of them are calling limestone townhouses "Brownstones" too!).

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 10:48 AM

DIBS: Totally agree on limestone vs. brownstone. I don't know if I have ever seen a non-brownstone building being trasnformed into "brownstone" with an outer layer -- but it strikes me that there is some real cache in many people's minds about owning a "brownstone" so there could be some incentive to do so. I'm really just asking the question out of ignorance. If I want to buy a row house of some kind in the next few years, should I insist that anything called a "brownstone" be the genuine article? I think I have seen newer construction that has a brownstone look (not that I can remember where). Could people be doing things like applying a coat of slurry to a cinderblock wall? FWIW I agree with you on the merits to other styles.

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 10:51 AM

I have no idea why I keep double-posting everything. I am also misspelling everything and my posts are coming out as word salad. Pretty sure I'm having a dumb day.

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 10:53 AM

Many homes I know of are made of brick and have that cement coat over it that transforms them into "brownstones". That's fairly common around here, at least. Nearly everyone I know calls those homes "brownstones" even if they are technically brick homes. Most people probably don't even know the difference since true brownstones are sometimes coated with same material.

Posted by: CGfan at March 25, 2009 11:10 AM

lechacal...when you start looking, try to avoid any place that has been painted over the brownstone. Even if the brownstone is in a state of decay (look at the pic of the foreclosure today) it is preferrable to one that looks more monochromatic because it has been painted. I learned these lessons the hard way.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 11:14 AM

DIBS is right. Paint over a sandstone or brick is lethal; it can not breathe. Moisture gets below the surface and with the freeze/thaw cycle literally tears the surface away.

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 11:23 AM

CGfan: It seems odd to me to transform brick (which can be perfectly attractive) into "brownstone" in this manner. If the brick layer is just being covered up, why not start with something sturdier and cheaper (assuming there is a material that fits this bill)? I used to own a brick home and recall maintenance costs (repointing etc) being an issue, although perhaps if the brick is not exposed to the elements the maintenance issues go away. Maybe a lot of row houses were originally built as brick and then it became fashionable to turn them into brownstones. Does anyone know if there was a period when a lot of brick houses in Brooklyn were transformed into brownstones in this manner?

DIBS: Duly noted and thanks for the tip.

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 11:25 AM

What if a building is 3/4 brick with brownstone at the bottom 1/4. Would this be a brownstone. Many houses on my block are like this, constructed btw 1898-1903

Posted by: crownheights2007 at March 25, 2009 11:36 AM

Indeed, there was a period when altering a facade to look like brownstone was in vogue. However this was back in the second half of the 1800s. By the late 1880s brownstone was falling out of fashion in favor or brighter and lighter (less monochromatic) architecture.

Edith Warton thought that all that brownstone rendered New York "hide-bound in its deadly uniformity of mean ugliness" and also called it the ugliest stone she had ever seen.

p.s. - Just in case it is not obvious: Houses themselves were not constructed of brownstone, but rather a veneer less than a foot thick was placed on the front of each home, which was actually constructed of brick.

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 11:38 AM

crownheights2007: No. It is not a brownstone. It is a brick house with brownstone trim.

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 11:40 AM

There was a nice Queen Anne brick on 6th Ave in the Slope that got a brownstone slurry facade when it was gutted a few years back. A lot of nice detail lost. Now it is a "brownstone" but I saw no increase in curb appeal. Quite attractive before.

Posted by: slopefarm at March 25, 2009 11:41 AM

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 11:38 AM

Yes, a good point.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 11:45 AM

Very interesting, SenatorStreet. So applying a slurry directly to the brick is just skipping an intermediate facade-only material. Or put another way, if the only thing the outside world sees is the slurry, why have a layer of brownstone sandwiched between that and the brick (unless for whatever reason it is important to you to say your house is made of real brownstone)?

I do wonder whether people apply slurry to cinderblock in new construction. Not that I can come up with a logical reason to look down on it (all ears if someone else has one), but somehow that just rings of cheapness. (not that brownstone wasn't a cheap material back in the day - but now I suppose we place value on it because of its age).

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 11:47 AM

To me a brownstone has a feature missing in a lot of brick houses, coated or not, the gorgeous parlor floor with high ceilings.

Posted by: denton at March 25, 2009 12:02 PM

Denton - not to detract from that grand image, but limestones have that too.

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 12:06 PM

I've only had a chance to skim most of the replies above. I do see that your original question (or most of it) was already answered. I don't agree that most buyers want to live in brownstones. Rather, they appreciate the details of a "brownstone" interior; there are more brownstones than limestones on the market; and, among those who desire living in brownstone neighborhoods, there is usually little understanding before purchase re: the frailty of brownstone facades. I agree with the others who bemoan the generic use of "brownstone" (as well as the use of "townhouse"). Two sites that might answer some of your other questions are: http://www.mzarchitects.com/images/PPN/BrownstoneGuide.pdf
http://www.oldhousejournal.com/Brownstone_Rides_Again/magazine/1319

Posted by: vinca at March 25, 2009 12:16 PM

Brick facade = pre 1880/1890s or therabouts.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 12:17 PM

lechacal, I agree with you that it is odd, but I think many houses in Carroll Gardens are actually brick with that "brownstone" cement over it and people call them all brownstones and they look pretty much like true brownstones. However, they all still have that brownstone parlor floor with high ceilings and details (if not stripped out), so I don't think whether they were originally brick or brownstone changes that. I always thought true brownstone houses were rare in this neighborhood, at least, but I have no real knowledge. But the brownstone looking facades have definitely been the norm since at least the 1930s and perhaps they were intended to look like true brownstones from the beginning.

Posted by: CGfan at March 25, 2009 12:44 PM

"brownstone" is one of those words, I think, that has evolved into multiple meanings.

Traditional "brownstone" is the actual material used to create many rowhouses/town houses in a large part of Brooklyn. And as many have said the original method of making it doesn't exactly exist and the quarry's are largely closed, so 100% original brownstone is hard to come by.

But the general reference of "brownstone" is, I think, akin to "band-aid". A Band-aid is a bandage but not all bandages are band-aids.

My grandmother's building (Bklyn Heights, 25' wide, 5 story, etc) is brick. Built well over 100 years ago. True brownstone building on one side, a red sandstone, not quite brownstone, on the other. Is that cluster 3 row/town houses of different material? Or generically "brownstones"?

As anyone who knows me will tell you, I am extremely provincial regarding my neighborhood, it's history/characteristics, and what not, but even I use the term "brownstone" to describe a wide variety of townhouse/row houses. I refer to my grandmother's as a "brownstone", but if someone were to ask specifically about the facade I'd say it was brick, using "brownstone" as a generic building description, not an actual factual material referent.

To add an layer to this, there is the brownstone/limestone/brick argument, but how about the "townhouse" differential? To me a townhouse is a 1 family building in the "traditional brownstone style". I think anything more than 1 family means its an apt building.

.02

Posted by: christopher at March 25, 2009 12:49 PM

You might want to pick up a copy of the wonderful book "Bricks and Brownstones: The New York Townhouse"

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 12:52 PM

Christopher: ""Is that cluster 3 row/town houses of different material? Or generically "brownstones"?""

They are rowhouses. Brownstone is misused - it is not generic.

Your band-aid argument is backward: they are all rowhouses; some are brownstone rowhouses, some are brick rowhouses and some are limestone rowhouses (among other types of rowhouses).

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 12:58 PM

OK, let me try to build a beginner's vocabulary:

1. Row house: It's a house in a row with other houses with no space in-between. Might be brick, might be a brownstone, might be a limesone, might be a wood frame house. But one way or another it is a row house, even if the distinction might seem pedantic to someone who doesn't follow urban real estate.

2. Brownstone: If the facade consists of either brown stone or a thin layer of brown masonry work, you can probably call it a brownstone (regardless of whether there is any actual brownstone involved).

3. Limestone: The facade consists of limestone. End of story.

4. Brick: The facade is mostly brick (maybe there is some brownsone at the bottom).

5. Townhouse: You live in a development somewhere in Florida.

Does this sound about right?

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 1:18 PM

"To me a townhouse is a 1 family building in the "traditional brownstone style". I think anything more than 1 family means its an apt building."

Anything 3-4 stories and generally one lot size (16-25') wide is referred to as a townhouse or a rowhouse. You can't actually tell by looking at the exterior whether any of them are 1 family, 2 family, 3,family or 4 family.

Also, if it's brick, then it's brick, not brownstone.

You may have been here for a lot longer than I have but your generalizations are wrong.

.50

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 1:23 PM

lechacal - LOL @ #5!! townhouselady may have something to say about that!!

Re #4 - Remember that the trim of any house can be anything. that brick house could have limestone trim or the limestone can have brownstone trim, etc. (Think how wood trim defines 'tudor' architecture.)

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 1:23 PM

how about a rowhouse with brick facade and 3x5' brownstone insert? Or the >50% of the facade area must be covered with brownstone?

Furthermore, who is allowed to post on this site? Only people, who proven to have proper brownstone? :)

Posted by: bobjohn at March 25, 2009 1:25 PM

Well obviously she needs to change her moniker to rowhouselady ;)

Also, Christopher put in two cents and Dave put in fifty. Should I read something into this?

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 1:26 PM

A "proper brownstone" would have single panel lace curtains in the windows.

How do you define proper brownstone bobjohn??? :)

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 1:29 PM

Christopher put in two cents and Dave put in fifty. Should I read something into this?

YES - Bigger must be better!!! - lol

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 1:29 PM

"Paint over a sandstone or brick is lethal; it can not breathe"

There are four contiguous houses on Carroll bet 6th/7th which are painted in various colors. It's been at least 8 years and they look to be in great shape, and look beautiful. Are they really rotting inside?

I love their colors; the only thing I hate about this area is the acres of drab BROWN BROWN BROWN. There's no reason to be stuck in historical aspic.

If I had the wherewithal, I'd colorize my "brown"-slurry before my block gets landmarked [ducks].

Posted by: cmu at March 25, 2009 1:31 PM

CMU - 8 years doesn't seem to be too long for a 100+ year house - give it some time to rot! lol

seriously there are some 'paint' products that are designed to breathe - such as the thoroughseal that is commonly used on the brick backs of these houses. Years back (before latex) Oil paints were used and these caused the majority of the damage.

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 1:35 PM

Senator...did you ever have any brownstone facade work done?? If so, who did you use???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 1:36 PM

dave - I posted this under the category "facade". Click on the category link above and I think there are some recommendations that people have made.

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 1:44 PM

DIBS - My house was refaced just before I bought it. I always heard good things about Malik (other than trying to get them to return calls). One of the problems that I have noticed on many jobs is that the work looks great right after the work is done, however it discolors after a winter or two (something to do with the lime in the mix). I have an article at home (from the National Park Service) that describes the formula and how if differs from mixing cement.

Drive around landmarked neighborhoods and see who is doing the work. Ring doorbells and ask about prior (and current) work. Call the neighborhood associations. Tooooo much money to spend without doing extensive research.

Also remember if you live in a NYC landmark area or are on the National Register, you may qualify for grants, loans and/or tax benefits for facade restoration. see:
http://www.hdc.org/financial%20incentives%20brochure.pdf

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 1:45 PM

I fully realize my comments are generalizations, but up until recently (5 years give or take) no one really differentiated.

Buildings were buildings. As a kid it was "we live in a building", not "we live in a brownstone".

I'm going to pull my provincial card and revert back to "buildings" and refuse to use any construction material to describe one, unless specifically asked.

Posted by: christopher at March 25, 2009 1:49 PM

Christopher - you may not have noticed people diffferentiating more than 5 years ago, but living in cobble hill/brooklyn heights in the late 70s and early 80s people there certainly did.

From reading the history of architecture in NYC I've learned that this differentiation is certainly nothing new; it most certainly existed 100 years ago.

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 1:54 PM

I'm with Christopher on this (and I'm sure I pre-date him by one or two decades): "townhouse" is not a "native Brooklyn" word, and until recently very few in Brooklyn would have said anything other than that they lived in a house/building, or they lived in an apartment. Townhouse might be the word everyone understands in today's real estate market, but it's not accurate to Brooklyn, historically or otherwise (and sorry DIBS, it's not on the cover of Lockwood's book, which is called "Bricks & Brownstone: The New York Row House..."). Brownstone, limestone, etc., may have been in and out of the vernacular, but re-emerged into more popular use with the "brownstoning" movement of the late 60s. The building I live in is unquestionably a limestone. It wouldn't be mistaken for anything else, but it's also got brownstone and brick components to it's front facade. I live in a house, in a brownstone neighborhood, with a CO for more than one family.

Posted by: vinca at March 25, 2009 2:01 PM

I suspect you're right on that "historical" context, christopher. Only once the neighborhoods filled up with Asshats did this differentiation really start. Did the Asshats start it or did the brokers??

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 2:01 PM

thanks SS, I was also going to ask about the thoroseal, which I do have on the back of my house. Maybe I'll do some colorization on that to keep the neighbors from lynching me

Posted by: cmu at March 25, 2009 2:07 PM

vinca, what is the "brownstoning movement of the late 60s?"

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 2:09 PM

Ok. How about this one. My corner building has 3 faces you can see from the street. The front is brownstone 20' wide. The street-facing side is 45' long, and predominantly brick with a 10' wide +/- brownstone bay. The rear is brick. I would consider this a brownstone since it was built as a set with 3 other neighboring buildings with brownstone facades. What's your call?

Posted by: Bessie at March 25, 2009 2:11 PM

yes, Bessie, it is. All of the corner buildings have brick on the long sides and brownstone on the face.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 2:18 PM

"Christopher - you may not have noticed people diffferentiating more than 5 years ago, but living in cobble hill/brooklyn heights in the late 70s and early 80s people there certainly did."

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 1:54 PM

As someone who grew up in Brooklyn Heights, in teh 70s and 80s, I'd disagree. In fact I'd say I remember more of the generalization of "brownstone" as opposed to "I live in a brick row house".

No one ever said "row house" or "town house". It was either "building" or the generic "brownstone" to describe the generically 25' wide 5 story buildings of BH.

My grandmother, been in the Heights 96 years, refers to her building as a "brownstone" even though it has a brick facade.

I think it's a generic term to describe the type of structure. At least that's how it's always been in my experience growing up in BH.

Posted by: christopher at March 25, 2009 2:20 PM

Bessie: Your building is a brownstone, no question (to my mind, anyway). My experience is that the determining factor is the front facade. The rear facade of nearly every brownstone, limestone, etc. is brick.

Lechacal: I'm sure you and others will enjoy the following links. Working on deadline right now so no time to pull up more, but they're easy to find:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/01/realestate/post-pioneer-arrivals-keep-park-slope-in-flux.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/27/garden/80-s-brownstoning-divide-and-conquer.html
http://brownstonerevival.org/comingsoon.html

Christopher: Because you mention the 70s and 80s, I'll wager that your grandmother's description was influenced by the brownstoning movement. It's true, I grew up in MANY neighborhoods way deeper in Brooklyn, where buildings were mostly wood frame and/or brick, but we were in the various "brownstone" neighborhoods all the time, and never referred to a building by construction material ("oh, what a beautiful wood-frame Victorian!," rather than "oh, what a beautiful building"). The former kind of description was left to people who wanted to be sure you understood they weren't "one of you," to which we said, "we noticed, and we're thankful."

Posted by: vinca at March 25, 2009 2:30 PM

Vinca,
I agree about the "brownstone" movement.

In general my family hardly ever refers to the buildings by material. They are "buildings" or the generic "brownstone" as I mentioned.

Thanks for the links

Posted by: christopher at March 25, 2009 2:37 PM

Vinca, those links are absolutely fantastic, the first one in particular. So many great lines that I can't even try to copy them all here.

I found it very interesting that $500k was cited as the highest price for park block brownsones in 1981. That is about $1.2 million in today's dollars. It's irresponsible to try to read too much into this because of all of the ways the world has changed since then, but current prices are clearly very high viewed strictly by comparison to inflation-indexed growth since 1981. Sales for more ordinary north slope brownstones were cited in the $200k range, which equates to about $450k in today's dollars.

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 2:52 PM

lechacal...try and picture what life was like in NYC in 1981. That was probably close to the bottom of modern society as we knew it in NYC. Times Square was 10 square blocks of squalor, prostitution & hustlers back then. What has happened in NYC since 1981 has been far more progressive than "inflation-indexed growth."

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 3:06 PM

Thus my observation that it is irresponsible to read too much into those numbers because of all the ways the world has changed since then.

Posted by: lechacal at March 25, 2009 3:10 PM

I have often wondered if there are brownstones left in good condition that haven't had their entire facade repaired/replaced with the masonry slurry. Judging from the number of these projects underway during the warmer months, I suspect very few examples remain. I've often looked for tell-tale signs suck as real edges between "stones" or the rough cut stones, but often on closer inspection these are simulated with the brown-colored cement.

It is also confusing that when you see the brownstone facade removed for the repair you see brick underneath. I live in a rowhouse that was originally brownstone (per "Bricks & Brownstone") but was surprised to see the brick when the facade was repaired. As others have explained this is because the underlying construction is brick, but it confuses the issue.

Posted by: BHS at March 25, 2009 3:16 PM

L and DIBS: To describe life in NYC as being at bottom, or blocks of squalor, or even neighborhoods as having been dangerous, completely loses the nuance and context of life as it was happening THEN, rather than as viewed with decades of distance, 20/20 hindsight, changed expectations, etc. Today's market and prices are sadly and badly skewed...a reflection of a much larger cultural shift, which at least in part transmogrified houses as a category into status symbols and investor cash cows, rather than affordable comfort and shelter within reach of the ordinary working family. A longer conversation which I don't have the time, or nuance, for right now.

Posted by: vinca at March 25, 2009 3:20 PM

senior citizen homes.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at March 25, 2009 3:27 PM

I guess you don't have time or nuance either, Rob. Are you on deadline, too?

Posted by: vinca at March 25, 2009 3:33 PM

Vinca...you mention the phrase "investor cash cows" This is interesting because it is one of the things that completely separates NYC from many parts of the country, especially Florida and perhaps most other fair weather and coastal areas that are currently experiencing the brunt of the problems.

Most properties in NYC were not bought as "second homes" or speculative purchases for investment (as they were too expensive to begi with compared to shelling out $50-200k on a bet somewhere else). Most NYC properties are primary residences.

But we're getting off track here as we typically do in every interesting thread.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 25, 2009 4:19 PM

As a "brownstoner" of nearly 35 years standing I disagree with SenatorStreet and bayridgegirl. In common New York usage a 'brownstone" is, quite properly, any historic rowhouse, from late 18th century wood frame to 1920 brick colonial revival.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 25, 2009 6:48 PM

Oh, BTW, my brownstone has a limestone and brick facade.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 25, 2009 6:49 PM

"what is the "brownstoning movement of the late 60s?"

lechacal, this site is the child [and benficiary] of it.

While the use of the term "brownstone" as synonymous with rowhouse predates the "brownstone movement" by decades, this "movement", in the late '50s through the late '70s [or later] involved those, like me, who valued these old houses and wanted to live in, and restore, them, as opposed to those [the vast majority] who saw them as undesirable, ugly, old houses in decaying slums. I say late '50s because the Park Slope House tour, the granddaddy of them all, celebrates its 50th anniversary this May.

In a sense the "Brownstone Movement" continues today, but, since these houses are once again desirable, they've become regular real estate instead of something you had to be crazy to want.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 25, 2009 7:09 PM

"Brownstone" has become a catch-all brand name which includes all row houses, no matter what they are made of. It's like "Kleenex" or "get the document xeroxed". Most people don't realize there are other building materials involved. A lot of Queen Anne rowhouses really complicate things by using several different materials, like an ashlar stone ground floor, with a brick face that has a great deal of limestone and/or terra cotta trim. You know, a brownstone.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 25, 2009 8:53 PM

Just need to say: just because several people do it - doesn't make it right.

Posted by: SenatorStreet at March 25, 2009 9:51 PM

"...current prices are clearly very high viewed strictly by comparison to inflation-indexed growth since 1981. Sales for more ordinary north slope brownstones were cited in the $200k range, which equates to about $450k in today's dollars."

The power of perspective.

"Thus my observation that it is irresponsible to read too much into those numbers because of all the ways the world has changed since then."

Fine. But how much of a factor does that deserve? 2 tops. Say $1M. We're on our way back through '81 to '33.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at March 25, 2009 10:30 PM

SenatorStreet,

After 100+ years of popular regional usage, it's "right" if you think that definitions should be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at March 26, 2009 12:43 PM

free stone; stone sink; mosaic
www.chinasink.com
www.2stone.biz

Posted by: jone5455 at July 7, 2009 10:36 PM