A long street of identical Bushwick-Ridgewood brick apartments can be a stunning sight, but like brownstones, the charm wears off after a few blocks of the same old thing. That’s why I love when an architectural maverick breaks up the landscape. This house on Suydam near Knickerbocker is one of my favorites facing the park. Its kooky English red brick and slate roof is so different from its blond brick neighbors, you have to wonder what the builder was thinking — and what the neighbors thought.
Since this architecture was most popular in the 30s, and the other buildings are certainly about 20 years older, my theory is that this used to be just like its neighbors, and an owner with a streak of individualism decided to add a “modern” facade — which would explain why the building sits about a foot closer to the street.
Any better-trained historians in the house to explain this place?
UPDATE: Turns out it was simply rehabbed to be a medical office with upstairs apartments for the doctor.
Jimmy Legs February 29th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
weird! do you know the street address? we could look up the property records and maybe get some notion of its history.
Jeremy February 29th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I forgot the address, it’s 284 maybe?
Jimmy Legs February 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
huh get this: pshark report says the build date for 284 is estimated around 1901. the buildings on either side of it have definite build dates of 1931. so maybe this isn’t a case of an iconoclast making a statement so much as an old house that made it through a building boom (in 31?) without being demolished. the DOB site has its C/O: zoned in ’36 for a doctor’s office and 3 living units. the certificate is so old, it has (unused) space listing how many males and females are living there.
Jeremy February 29th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Nah, every building around Bushwick was allegedly built in 1899 or 1931. My neighbor’s building has 1907 CARVED INTO IT and the city still says it was built in 1931. I think they just don’t know on a lot of places.
Jimmy Legs February 29th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
but it seems significant that this one odd building has a different date, doesn’t it? make it mean something!
FormerRidgewoodite February 29th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Yes, I notice that whenever they don’t know the year, 1931 becomes the numbers. They weren’t building those style 6 family houses in the 1930′s anymore. My old building was built in 1914 (I had the original deed if you can believe that, provided by the builder), yet on the records it says “1931″.
I have a feeling it was a facade change of an original, although, it could also be that perhaps the original building was a very early victim of a fire, and they replaced it with this. Seeing that both sides of the building are the same buildings, I severely doubt the one that once stood there didn’t also look like the others.
I have seen on Fresh Pond Rd over by Myrtle, they added an entire addition to the front of a typical 6 family house to make an office building out of it. They built to the property line over what would have once been in the inside gate of the property. It sticks out about 10 feet from all the other buildings.
Nick February 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
These old building are found everywhere. Down Cooper Avenue, these exact buildngs are converted into condos. So, the neighborhood is much safer and cleaner.
*I have a feeling the “new” building was probably burned down back in the 70s and they built a new one. I think all the connecting buildings will either be knocked down or converted into condos.
Suzy Kline February 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
The Library of Congress has atlases of Brooklyn dating from 1888. They might help date these.
Matt February 29th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I was just walking down Suydam today from Central. I could see this in the distance, it is quite interesting. And one of my favorite house in the area is right there on suydam between central/nick.
Brick/stone, cool layout with front balconies, a garage door I assume to a back lane etc. It really sticks out on that block. I have no clue what ‘style’ it is or when it was built. It could be a circa 70′s Italianite cheese reno for all i know, but I dig.
bushwicknative February 29th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I had ancestors who lived on that block facing the park and actually passed away in some of those houses and had funerals from those houses at 314 and 320 Suydam St. That was in 1908/1909 …I have to believe it was the same houses that are there now so think the 1931 cannot be accurate.
FormerRidgewoodite February 29th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
They often had funerals in their apartments back then. My father told me their neighbors had the wife layed out in the livingroom of their apartment in the 6 family house for a few days and everyone came to the wake like they do todata, excep-t instead of the funeral parlor, they wer ein the aprtment.
bushwicknative March 1st, 2008 at 1:19 am
yes i agree . I found their obits in the staats zeitung which was the German newspaper in that era.
My dad told me of an uncle who died and since his aunt was so meticulous about the living room family folklore has it that the only time poor uncle was allowed in the living room was after he died.
artist March 1st, 2008 at 7:02 pm
“These old building are found everywhere. Down Cooper Avenue, these exact buildngs are converted into condos. So, the neighborhood is much safer and cleaner.”
WTF????????
WHY, because WHITE PEOPLE live in the condos?
” I think all the connecting buildings will either be knocked down or converted into condos.”
yeah, lets just raze ALL of Brooklyn and build ugly, badly constructed, overpriced CONDOS that will last all of a decade or so before the shoddy materials deteriorate…….. these old brick houses have lasted over a century, have classy and sturdy detailing that no one even knows how to build anymore, are build with materials that are now prohibitivly expensive (mahogany, marble, etc)
WTF????
ffgagagg March 1st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
the truth is so much less sexy isnt it? dull almost….it was rehabbed from a 6 fam to its current state now becuse a jewish/german pediatrician named dr feinberg purchased it and amended it for his use. he lived upstairs in the 2nd story apt, his kids on the 3rd floor, of the 25×75 building, after the rehab during the day he walked downstairs from an interior staiway (duplex) to his medical practice which was a specialty at the time of removing infected tonsils from children and then used the back rooms for cotts as recovery so that the parents could come back in the afternoon and pick their children up. the area was still heavily german.
when dr feinberg died in the 1960′s, his wife or sons who also lived on the top floors when they were young, sold the building to my dad who becuse of the large influx of Italians, had an immense and instantly successful medical practice as well so for the last 75 plus years, this building while primarily residential, has had a long history as a doctors office and continues to be an integral part of the community.
n1mbus March 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Hi. My husband, an architect, says that the erroneous dates on many records date from the first tax maps of the areas. In the area of Brooklyn where I live, many of the buildings were built around 1860 – 1880, but the city record dates them all at something like 1901. This is because that was the first records mapping date, not the date of the building’s completion.
Armstrong March 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 am
Fascinating history ffgagagg! Can you recall anything about Starr Street from your Bushwick days? My building on the other side of the park dates back to sometime between 1901-1910, yet the records say 1931 as well.
In 1901 the Tenement Act was passed which declared all new apt bldgs must have windows in interior rooms (shaftways in the middle of buildings) and indoor plumbing/bathrooms, among other amenities. It’s interesting legislation.
Also, by 1910 gas lighting was obsolete and wasn’t installed in new bldgs anymore.
My apt has the original shaftway and bathroom, yet there are also defunct gas lines in the walls. I gleaned the approximate construction date from these clues.
Apparently there were several fires at the Dept of Buildings and when records were lost, they just slapped 1931 on the replacement records for whatever reason.
FormerRidgewoodite March 3rd, 2008 at 8:07 am
They still installed gas lighting well into the 1910′s in buildings, even after the New Law Tenement laws.
My old building was a typical 6 family house, new law tenement built in 1914 in Ridgewood. It originally only had gas lighting. The buildings are still laced with live gas lines to this day.
All the ceiling fixtures were fed by gas lines. Occasionally whenever someone decided to put up a ceiling fan or something, and accidentally touched the gas lines that were all still up there, you would get the smell of gas, and it would have to be recapped.
It wasn’t until the 1920′s that electric began to replace it. Most of the buildings built in the 1910′s still had gas lighting.
Armstrong March 3rd, 2008 at 8:07 am
Actually the specific law regarding my side of Starr came to pass in 1879. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Law_Tenement
So the buildings on Starr facing the park date from sometime between 1879-1910 at the very latest—probably more like 1879-1905.
DRESDEN March 3rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I’m in New Zealand! It’s summer! I was born here! Totally irrelevant!!! Ha ha ha!
John Dereszewski March 4th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Armstrong, in estimating the construction date of your house, it’s useful to note that what is now Maria Hernandez Park was constructed in 1896. Since this site was previously either vacant or only slightly occupied, it is logical to conclude that the same was true for most of the surrounding area. In fact, one of the park’s purposes was to promote development in the area by creating a valuable amenity. My guess is that most of the brick buildings surrounding the park were built either during or – more likely – after its opening. The same, however, might not have been the case for the wood frame buildings situated, I believe, on Starr. They may have represented the extent of development in that part of the neighborhood prior to the park’s creation. But this is just guesswork.
One last tidbit. According to the NYC Park Dept’s not always accurate website, the land purchased by the city of Brooklyn for the park was owned, in part, by none other than the estate of PT Barnum. I’m sure they did not get a sucker’s price for it.
Armstrong March 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Another reason why I always love and appreciate your posts John D! Thanks for the additional info.
derwood March 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
i have a six family on grove with the original shaft as well as a dumb waiter..my records show 1931 as well.
Armstrong March 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
and thanks FormerRidgewood. the crossover from such major services as gas to electric lighting must have taken a decade or two and must have been interesting policy-wise and for individual property owners to implement.
on another note, there’s a vacant lot on starr between irving and knickerbocker where clearly a building such as the rest on the block was knocked down. any oldtimers have any idea what happened there?
BornOnWyckoffAve March 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Our four-family in Ridgewood was plumbed for gas lighting. The bedroom I shared with my sister even featured a gas fireplace, which had been sealed up since my father was a kid. I covered it in Wacky-Pack stickers.
BIG RED December 31st, 2008 at 2:37 am
I LIVE ON THAT BLOCK… COME CHECK ME ASK 4 RED ILL EXPLAIN EVERYTHING…