Building of the Day: 135 Joralemon Street
The BOTD is a no-frills look at interesting structures of all types and from all neighborhoods. There will be old, new, important, forgotten, public, private, good and bad. Whatever strikes our fancy. We hope you enjoy. Address: 135 Joralemon Street, between Henry and Clinton Name: Private house Neighborhood: Brooklyn Heights Year Built: 1833 Architectural Style:…
The BOTD is a no-frills look at interesting structures of all types and from all neighborhoods. There will be old, new, important, forgotten, public, private, good and bad. Whatever strikes our fancy. We hope you enjoy.
Address: 135 Joralemon Street, between Henry and Clinton
Name: Private house
Neighborhood: Brooklyn Heights
Year Built: 1833
Architectural Style: Federal, with later porch and ironwork.
Architect: Unknown
Landmarked: Yes, part of the Brooklyn Heights HD, the first HD, landmarked in 1965.
Why chosen: For many people, if you had to put a building on the cover of a book about Brooklyn Heights, this would be it. Part of its charm is its location, not over in the older, northern part of the Heights, where clapboard houses are more common, but here, sandwiched between buildings of a much later date, a delightful remnant of an earlier time, when all of Brooklyn Heights was filled with Federal style clapboard houses and buildings. The earliest homes over in the Middagh Street area date from the 1820’s, this one is only ten or so years later, which still makes it one of the older buildings in the Heights.
It’s a wonderful two story, plus basement floor and attic, with twin dormers, clapboard siding, and a wide Italianate porch superbly ornamented by cast iron work that gives the house a Charleston or New Orleans flare. The porch and ironwork were added sometime in the middle 1800’s. Records show a Dr. John Haslett, a surgeon with the US Navy, living here in 1833, perhaps the first owner of the house. Brooklyn Heights had its ups and downs over the century, and by 1936, when photographer Berenice Abbott was documenting the buildings of Brooklyn, the house was looking a little worse for wear, but still had great dignity.
On New Year’s Eve, 2004, a devastating fire burned through the interior, and many feared the house was too far gone to restore. But it wasn’t anything a whole lot of money couldn’t fix. By 2008, the renovated house was the winner of the Landmarks Conservancy’s Lucy G. Moses Preservation Award. The line to get into the house during that year’s Brooklyn Heights House tour stretched for a block, showing that there is much interest in one of Brooklyn’s most iconic houses. That year it also was listed for almost $6 million. It went down in price by a couple million, but I don’t think Dr. Haslett would even be able to comprehend that much money. Who would have thought? I really like the shutters in the 1936 photo.
(Photo: Berenice Abbott, 1936. NY Public Library)
(Photo: Gotham Gazette, by way of Landmarks Conservancy)
“Another excellent post. Yes, you are right. Advocating for the further development of this BH site is akin to disdain for the Coliseum in Rome or the Palace of Versailles.”
Why thank you. I really don’t want to have a serious discussion because I found it ridiculous that you’d think maxing THIS house’s FAR would help elevate the shortage of middle class housing in NYC. Adding one floor here, another somewhere else to a landmarked building is really not the solution. There’s a broader scope to city planning than infilling /adding on to an existing house that is landmarked.
I still say you have a gripe with landmarking.
I’m bored with this. I’m done.
“My issue is with under-developed lots”
Prospect Park seems like a very under-developed lot.
“and laws are subject to change”
so fight your fight to change the zoning laws.
“My issue is with under-developed lots”
You want to discuss under-developed lots? The Whole Foods site when said and done will be under-developed. That vast site for one store. It most likely will be a one story double or triple height.
Why not have a whole foods and a residential tower above?
Talk about underdeveloped. I don’t see you opining on that. Or did you?
this little house is perfect the way it is.
I like the new, improved Benson. Can we keep him.
Heights Magnifico;
Another excellent post. Yes, you are right. Advocating for the further development of this BH site is akin to disdain for the Coliseum in Rome or the Palace of Versailles.
When you wanto have a serious discussion, let me know.
I love you Frownstoners! I wish I could put this thread in amber, to be preserved for future generations of urban planning obsessives.
I’m visualizing Benson traveling through out Europe.
Rome – “What the heck is this pile of columns in a circle for? an old stadium? Tear it down and put up housing.”
Outside Paris – “What a waste of space? Look at all the rooms. So what Louis the XIV lived here. Add more stories.”
Not that I’m comparing the Coliseum and Versailles to this little house. But this structure is part of NYC’s history and architectural development as a city. Why can’t we enjoy it for what it’s worth.
Minard;
OK, you are correct, so let me amend my statement. Infill has been allowed on vacant lots. My issue is with under-developed lots. How about that?
Heights Magnifico. I don’t have a “gripe”, I have an opinion. I live in a democracy, and laws are subject to change. I don’t get people like you. Want do you want, an amen choir? OK, I’ll be happy to oblige you this once:
************************************
Post from the new, improved, Benson
************************************
(Said all misty-eyed):
Oh Montrose, thanks so much for putting out this article!! It’s just such a joy to see an old home.
I’m so glad that there is no more knowledge to be learned regarding city planning, land use and development. All that was good and noble happened prior to 1900, and it is our duty to just study these homes in amber, and lament the appearance of these evil, modern-day developers. It is our duty to keep them away from these sacred, landmarked areas.
The only thing that could make my day more complete is to hear another story from NOP about how wonderful life was in 1950’s Crown Heights.
benson, now you’re just being inaccurate. How can you say infill development was halted in the Heights since 1965? How about all the new buildings that have been built over the past thirty years and the ones that have just been completed or under construction? Honestly, you are entitled to your own views but not to your own facts.
“If one walks around Brooklyn Heights, one sees such infill development from successive eras, until the area was landmarked.”
yes, and apparently they thought it was terrible and decided to landmark the area and then put a height limit.
So in essence your statements about infilling a “landmarked” area are silly. Obviously people/the city think the area, the houses should remain intact.
You have a major gripe with landmarking and you need to move on. It’s here to stay.
“Why not then also propose to change zoning to increase land use since you believe this city is under built. The sky is the limit. We can build them tall and high everywhere.”
Silly statement. Please read what I wrote in my comments above. Nowhere do I advocate for upzoning of any area. Rather, I am advocating that “infill” development be allowed according to the current zoning regulations.
If one walks around Brooklyn Heights, one sees such infill development from successive eras, until the area was landmarked.