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

  1. 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

  2. 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).

  3. 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

    Yes, a good point.

  4. l,

    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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

1 4 5 6 7