« Bed-Stuy Blocks Take Top Honors in Greenest Block Contest | Home | $25 Facials at Lewis Ave Flea Market This Saturday! »
Beautiful White Building
By The Changeling | August 8, 2007
I learned recently from a Brownstoner post that brownstones are not supposed to be painted white. I had no idea! I passed this beautiful white brownstone and took this picture months ago. I never posted it because I couldn’t remember where it was located. If this white home is allowed to peacefully exist on this block, then that must mean this block is not landmarked, right? Anyone know the location of this gorgeous building?
August 8th, 2007 at 10:34 am
it is beautiful, reminds me of london. it looks different from the brown house nest door but it is elegant.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
the painted brownstone thing is more a matter of taste. the brownstone purists are always gonna say paint is a travesty. in terms of landmarking, the rule of thumb is, if it was painted when it got landmark status, it will remain painted. so this place could very well be landmarked. love hte carvings in the facade, i can’t decide how i feel about removing the stoop and putting in the window. from an external perspective, i prefer a stoop and all it entails, but as a homeowner with a shady lower floor, i would appreciate more light! also the extra space.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
That building is located on Jefferson next to the church.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Thanks, Leo! I knew you would know. I think it looks like London too. And having the painted brownstones grandfathered in in landmarked areas makes a lot of sense.
I also noticed that the stoop had been removed, but I still think the building looks great. I don’t think I’ve ever said that about a brownstone with its stoop removed.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
There is a house on the next block without the stoop and from the inside it seems like it was origially built like that, or if removed, done when they did similar work.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
The hot pink house in Park Slope is in the historic district, I believe. The one on Garfield (? it was on brownstoner too).
I’ve always heard you shouldn’t paint brownstones because bits will crack off, water trapped inside the tiny crevices freezes and expands and can’t evaporate.
My house is brick, though, so I have no firsthand knowledge.
There are houses without stoops in Boerum Hill and elsewhere. Not all row/terrace house were designed with them.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
I should mention that brownstone, a form of sandstone, should not be painted because it destroys the stone. The porous stone is meant to absorb moisture and then let it evaporate again. Painting creates an impermeable layer that allows water to enter but eats away at the bonding elements of the stone. Eventually, as when the paint was removed from my house, all you have left is sand which falls to the ground. Most painted houses had some repairs made with white Portland cement in the past and the the stone was painted to make it all one color again. But not a good idea, please don’t paint brownstone.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I never considered them until I read this, but I counted two on my block (w/ stoops) while walking to the subway. They blend in nicely.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I didn’t realize that painting could be so harmful, hancock1. Thanks for the info. Despite being painted, I think this one blends in well with the others on the block.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:50 am
There’s a really pretty white one on Vernon between Tompkins and Throop too (south side of the street).
August 9th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
there are also very lovely cream color brownstones on macon and decatur.
does anyone feel that brownstones are smaller though. only 2 brs usually, and the duplexes can be pain to walk up and down, lots of details in them yes but space, no? any views?
August 10th, 2007 at 8:37 am
they are big and small at once. weird.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I am a Realtor who was born and raised in Bed-Stuy. I love all the building the neighborhood, esp. the brownstones. I ride my bike around and marvel at the awesome faces of many of the brownstones. Keep them natural. In my experience, buyers with big bucks want the old school details inside and outside of their home.
As I began researching the neighborhood in preparation for the sale of a 2 family double duplex home on Madison St(Nostrand Ave), the aforementioned point was brought to my attention.
It’s modern renovations, like the aluminum side paneling, doesn’t fall inline with the ole’ Bed-Stuy charm. In addition, I was saddened to discover that it was not landmarked Stuyvesant Heights.
Upon looking at a map, I discovered that in addition to a few buildings, only the brownstones on the southern side of Macon St(Tompkins/Throop) were landmarked. I live in a frame house on the northern side of the block.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/maps/stuyvesant_heights.pdf
August 13th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
[...] indeed. To prove the point, she posted a photo of a lovely, tall, well-cared-for brownstone — painted shocking white! The [...]