Nomad's Rear Addition to Brooklyn Victorian
We stumbled across this 2003 addition to a 19th-century Victorian rowhouse in Brooklyn by the Park Slope-based Nomad Architecture recently. While we didn’t think the end-product was particularly stylistically distinctive, it may not have been meant to be: Nomad Architecture does not have a “style” or signature look. Each project’s design is a response to…
We stumbled across this 2003 addition to a 19th-century Victorian rowhouse in Brooklyn by the Park Slope-based Nomad Architecture recently. While we didn’t think the end-product was particularly stylistically distinctive, it may not have been meant to be:
Nomad Architecture does not have a “style” or signature look. Each project’s design is a response to our client’s aspirations and values, the site, cultural and historical context, climate and method of construction. However, we find that there is a continuity to our work. We strive to design what a building is and how it works, not simply how it looks. We believe that there is much beauty to be found in an unpretentious, straight forward, simple, functional and well crafted building.
The thing that did strike us about the design was how much more open and spacious the room felt than most typical townhouse additions we’ve seen, a feeling the architects attribute to the sloped ceiling and clearstory windows. Has anyone been inside this house? On a related note, the firm also has a side business called Dumpster Design that turns salvaged materials into furniture. Neato!
Kellog/Sills Residence [Nomad Architecture]
It is still an narrow outer court even if you can pass under it. Ask the DOB if you are that confident but I do not think you will like the answer.
Hi, Nomad – thanks for the drainage explanation; it was educational and much appreciated.
I am the architect. I am glad to see that our addition is well received.
I should adress some incorrect critisism.
As to roof drainage, Thr roof slopes back – then unseen in the photos a cricket slopes to the side directing water to a collector head on the side of the roof. No water runs up against the wall. This is a typical detail used very often on commercial flat roofs. By the way, even though this roof is sloped at 2:12 it is still treated as a “flat roof”. It has also worked without incident for the past 4 years.
As to the side yard issue, zoneing says if side yard, it must be 8ft wide. We could not have built the addition encroching on the 8ft. So we choose to build right up to the side property line – which is legal. Furthermore, the area under the office is open – so one can pass through to the rear yard.
This does not violate zoning and appears to be the best solution considering the options.
Never mind the signature style or look. Lets talk about the home office put in the non-complying sideyard creating a new non-complying outer court.
Oops, that pesky Zoning Resolution getting in the way of “Good Design” again.
Looks like from their website that rear yard additions with newly created non-complying outer courts are their style
Oh Patrica dear, you out there honey.
Smart not to post addresses cause they have a nasty habit of getting complaints when you do.
Good Luck from here on going foward you will need it.
No need for the sarcasm, Anon 5:07. If you read my post, I ASKED how the potential problem was avoided. No answer yet…
While the roof drainage isn’t ideal, I’m sure the architect and owners balanced this (solvable) problem against the plus of getting natural light far in to the interior of the parlor floor. The section clearly shows this.
–an architect in Brooklyn
wow, thank god you guys thought of the drainage issue, i bet NO ONE thought of that before now! not the architect nor the owners who have been living with it for 3-4 year. good catch!
I agree with anon 12:47: isn’t it kind of a bad idea to have a roof sloping *toward* the main house?
I did some work with Nomad Architecture in 2003. Damon is a nice guy, and he was easy to work with.