Building of the Day: 1574 Bergen Street
Brooklyn, one building at a time. Name: Row House Address: 1574 Bergen Street, between Utica and Troy Avenues Neighborhood: Weeksville section of Crown Heights Year Built: Unknown Architectural Style: Italianate Architect: Unknown Landmarked: No The story: These attractive clapboard, or in this case, shingled, houses appear here and there throughout Brownstone Brooklyn. I always enjoy…
Brooklyn, one building at a time.
Name: Row House
Address: 1574 Bergen Street, between Utica and Troy Avenues
Neighborhood: Weeksville section of Crown Heights
Year Built: Unknown
Architectural Style: Italianate
Architect: Unknown
Landmarked: No
The story: These attractive clapboard, or in this case, shingled, houses appear here and there throughout Brownstone Brooklyn. I always enjoy seeing them, as they represent rare survivors, and are more often than not, the first houses in neighborhoods to be covered over with aluminum or vinyl siding, asbestos siding or some kind of stone faced stucco. They often lose their cornices, hooded window cases, and porches. Rarely will you find an intact row of them, usually, like here, there will be one, perhaps two in the row that are whole, or almost so. This particular house is in the Weeksville section of Crown Heights, far to the east of the wealthy and upper middle class area near Nostrand Avenue. These were always working class homes. This one is remarkably original, with fish scale shingles, and mostly intact brackets and dentils on the window frames. The porch is also intact, featuring standard catalog issue, turned wood gingerbread, in great shape. These are classic vernacular Brooklyn houses, often pooh-poohed for their ordinary-ness, but a vital part of the pantheon of Brooklyn architecture.
(Photo: Property Shark)
Mopar, as to the date: I don’t know which way the numbers run, and I cannot be sure there has been no address change, but the 1888 Brooklyn directory carries occupants for both 1572 and 1576, suggesting strongly that 1574 had been built by that time, since it matches one or the other. But only the dead know Brooklyn, or at least the dates of the buildings, unless they really really milked the Record & Guide.
Slope4Eva, as to “Benson”, he is sort of regularly obnoxious, doesn’t really bother my own contrarian personality, and he does bring up some good points, e. g. as to density. So buried within his nasty remarks is, frequently, something useful.
The comments section of these forums do take on a mutual admiration society character, but he seems to make such an effort to rain on the birthday cake it takes up unnecessary bandwidth and, of course, does not advance his own ideas. Of course, he may just be having fun.
Personally, I welcome MM’s full and frank reaction to every poster’s remarks. She can call me an idiot any time she wants.
Christopher Gray
To those who think I was being too harsh, let me explain my cryptic comments in more detail;
First: I can understand that Montrose put up this BOTD out of her love for old buildings. I have no issue with that.
My issue is with guys like Minard and Mr. B. When Minard makes the following statement – “beautiful shingles and trimwork. Restoring these features to a house that has been stripped and aluminumized is relatively easy. Easier than restoring crumbling brownstone facing. I hope it becomes the next trend.” – to whom do you think he is making these remarks? Joe six-pack? You think that the average Joe has the time and means to undertake such a restoration, in this economy? Of course not.
No, Minard was making his remarks to gentrifiers, and hence my “hobby horse” comment and all the rest. This is the unique world of Brownstoner: rich people coveting formerly working-class homes, and using landmarks protection to make sure that their architectural standards are preserved. Imagine if the guy who owns this house decided to sell it to another working class guy, and the new owner decided he could not keep up with maintaining this facade? Imagine if he decided to vinyl-side it. You can bet your bottom dollar that Mr. B would run a feature mocking the guy’s bad taste, with general applause from his audience. It doesn’t stop with homes like this either. They will mock pastors of small struggling churches who can’t keep up with the burden of maintaining an old church, calling them “liars”, “sell-outs” and even “frauds”.
And then people wonder why NYC is morphing into a world of the rich and the immigrants that bus their plates at restaurants? You think most middle-class and working-class people have time for this nonsense?
The numbers tell the story: Fifty years of NO GROWTH in New York State and City, at a time when the US grew by 50%. You would think that this would make folks stop and take stock, reflect, etc. Nah. Let’s have another story from NOP about the glory days of the progressives in NYC, and scorn the heathens who don’t understand it.
Probably too late to comment, but, why is a reader being attacked for his opinion. Is that not allowed? And, by the author no less.
“Pathetic. The sign of a loser culture and policies. The elite are happy, however. They can play with their hobby horses, like this house.”
Yes- because posts like this really add to your argument when discussing a little beauty of a house. You don’t like old houses, you hate preservation, is your only joy to post negative comments on threads like these? Why not stop reading them and insulting those of us who like them?
“Benson, so what you are saying is that you really have no rational reason to hate this house, and others of its ilk, but you just do. Presumably because it is old, and working class, and that somehow is offensive and non-progressive. But since the “better” homes of the gentry are also offensive in their eliteness, that doesn’t leave much.”
Montrose;
I see no need to defend myself against presumed notions of my motives. I’ve laid out reasoned arguments for my positions many times on this site. If you don’t agree, I respect that.
In other news, I got a cherry tree today 🙂
Though it might just end up in Pratt’s secret garden.
Oh, yeah. I love this house. And the house next to it isn’t too bad either. The whole row isn’t bad, aside that silly neighbor next door but even that pseudo-gray lady ain’t half bad either.
Benson, so what you are saying is that you really have no rational reason to hate this house, and others of its ilk, but you just do. Presumably because it is old, and working class, and that somehow is offensive and non-progressive. But since the “better” homes of the gentry are also offensive in their eliteness, that doesn’t leave much.
Hi folks;
A few comments:
Snarkie – I’m a blast at parties. You should try me out. I have a whole repetoire of jokes that begin with the line: Did you hear about the liberal who….;-)
Montrose – one point of information: It is a common mis-conception that projects are “high density”. While the buildings themselves are high density, they are not so from the point of land usage. In fact, the number of units per acre of a typical project is about the same as the house pictured. I do not advocate for “towers in the park”. I am not Le Corbusier.
Love this house- I’m a sucker for fishscale shingles and gingerbread anyway.
Honestly benson- it’s really sad you are unable to enjoy a perfect little beauty of a house. And what makes you think rich elitists live in this house? Because it looks well-kept in a poor, mostly Black neighborhood? You really ought to spend some time getting to know the people in Crown Heights- you would be embarrassed by your assumptions.