Some Favorite Things

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.

Some Favorite Things

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.

csicsaie@gmail.com

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.

Some Favorite Things

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.

Some Favorite Things

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.

Some Favorite Things

[Photos by Suzanne Spellen]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. “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.”

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

1 2 3 5