Brownstone Interior Destroyed Modernized by Artist Couple
We had mixed emotions reading the Times Real Estate story this weekend about the older artist couple who financed the purchase of a Stuyvesant Heights brownstone four years ago by selling a Basquiat that one of them had picked up for $100 back in the Eighties. (Anyone know what block this is?) Aren’t there enough…
We had mixed emotions reading the Times Real Estate story this weekend about the older artist couple who financed the purchase of a Stuyvesant Heights brownstone four years ago by selling a Basquiat that one of them had picked up for $100 back in the Eighties. (Anyone know what block this is?) Aren’t there enough brownstones that have already been stripped of their original detail that someone wanting to create a modern space could avoid destroying yet another piece of history? Yes, these folks were considerate enough to call in a salvage company to save the architectural artifacts, but it’s still a bummer. And how about all that tree-cutting? What a soap opera! Update: Okay, it’s sounding like the Times article might have overstated how salvageable the interiors of this place were, so it’s looking like we came down a little too hard on these folks. Apologies.
Bankrolled by a Basquiat [NY Times]
Photo by Gabriele Stabile for The New York Times
I don’t understand people like this. They say it was there dream to own a brownstone and then buy one and gut it. What is it about brownstones that they love? It is not a question of whether they have a right to ruin the inside of there property but why not buy a loft or a shell. Not all modern is bad but don’t rip out marble mantles to get there. I would love a tribeca loft but I would not buy one and add victorian details. From the pictures of this place it now looks like a Residence Inn suite.
Oh gross, this is so sad. If they wanted to live in a white-box mcmansion they should have moved to Atlanta, I hear they have plenty.
Yes DIBS, you are correct. This house is outside of landmarked Stuyvesant Heights. I’ve actually been inside of this home. (It was on the Bed Stuy house tour this year.) I think it was renovated beautifully if you enjoy modern design, although not my personal preference.
When I was looking for a house in Bed Stuy, most of them did not have enough detail left for me to be interested. I suspect the writer in the NYT article took liberties with the level of “din” expressed by the neighbors. Most people in that neighborhood really don’t give a rats ass what people are doing inside their homes unless it gets too loud, messy or just plain irritating.
Of the 12 homes that I looked at, only one; the one I bought had a lot of the architectural detail left and that was because it had already been restored. The other 11 really didn’t have that much left for me to care about.
We don’t really know “how much” was removed here so I don’t think its worth arguing over.
Got to agree with Mr. B. It would be like covering a beautiful painting with white. Of course you can do whatever you like with a canvas you own but its hard to understand why you wouldn’t just buy a blank if you wanted a white box all along.
i think THIS is in bad taste for our day. these people gutted a house with all it’s original details, and turned it into a midtown manhattan highrise apartment circa 1995. As brownstoner said, there are tons of other detail-less houses they could have considered. i seriously wonder what goes on in the minds of people who do this. what a shame.
We’re not against modern design at all; we are against destroying older homes to build white boxes though. There’s plenty of opportunity, especially in Brooklyn, to find a blank slate for modern design without destroying the borough’s architectural heritage. And, besides, the finished product in this case was not particularly impressive. It was perfectly nice but nothing to write home about and not worth destroying a historic interior, which is what the article at least implied existed when they bought the place.
These people live down the street from me on Stuyvesant Ave. I’ve met them a few times and they both seem like very nice people and dedicated to Bed Stuy.
I have to agree with new2; although I myself wanted a brownstone for its original architectural detail, many others do not. It is unclear how much architectural “detail” was actually left in this house that they removed. They’ve done an incredible renovation.
The inside of their home belongs to them no matter what the landmark status of the area. And this house is not within the landmarked blocks if I remeber correctly.
Also, yes, I too removed a catalpa tree from my yard but it was not the one they speak of in this article. Catalpa trees are an incredible nuisance to deal with.
The name of the blogsite is BROWNSTONER.