I like this collection for two reasons. First, the way in which the rightmost is almost an outcast among its “family,” namely with its stripped cornice and alternative painting. Second, I have a weak spot for the heavy arches four-fifths of the way up the building. But more than that, the way in which the offsetting window spandrels create three-story tall archways, almost as though in a loft building. This type of building displays a remarkable coherence despite, or as a result of, its weight.
Added: May 3, 2009
Something about this doorway caught my eye, but all I see now, reviewing it, is how the modernization of the building to the right truncated the spandrel artwork.
First, don’t be confused by the consistency across the buildings; they are not connected. Obviously, they are not maintained together, since the window frames are different, and the right one is much dirtier than the left. Second, the brickwork is different; look at the corbels.
Look at the quality of the brickwork;Â fairground arches beneath the cornice; the lazy chimney corbel; the varied arches and patterning; the horse shoe arches ovre the windows.
Added: May 3, 2009
This building is a classic tenement style. It has the ornamentation, including three distinct sections, topped by a cornice, and also the minimum-regulation air shaft.
It is a little difficult to see in this picture, but this is the case with many buildings: was it always intended for the storefronts to fill the airshaft on the 1st story? That is, there is an archway above that seems stunted for spanning what is essentially an empty gap. On the other hand, many buildings, such as The Park Row Building (in another way; there are closer matches in the neighborhood I haven’t documented), do the same thing.
These are just charming places; I love the balconies, etc. They are also stylistically well-composed, from the ornaments on the top to the bracketed windows with the pediments.
Added: May 3, 2009
I was fully taken aback by this building when I glimpsed it between shots of the Dorilton. What is unusual — aside from the lovely facade in all respects — is that the front of the building has been altered to have this appearance, which is definitely not original.
Some web searching uncovers that this building was converted to apatments in 1984 (look at the COO), and its neighbor built in 1985. This leads me to believe that addition of balconies, etc. coincided with the demolition of its neighbors and the setback of their replacement. However, there is no record of the facade being altered on the DOB site (I suspect that a lot of jobs are not classified that specifically, and “alterations” sometimes include facade work not recorded).
Added: May 3, 2009
This funny building has the Beaux Art look on the bottom, but an unusual curved roof devoid of ornamentation. In all likelihood, it was modified to remove difficult-to-maintain gables and dormer windows when the roof was repaired in the past. (A few years ago there was work done on the building, including upgrading the lobby to have a more luxury feel, or so it seemed from the street.)
This building is unassuming from the street, but has decorations that seem quite out of place.
This block-long pair of buildings was to be bought by a developer and have a monstrous modern condo built on top of the existing structures. Community outcry, revised zoning (in the aftermath of the Ariel East and West), and the economy killed that plan. Nonetheless, most of stores on the block closed with the exception of three restaurants. See also the Curbed coverage, including renderings of the proposed additions.
I really like the variety of brickwork on this building, which varies from under-window to adorning the chimney on the eastern face (sunny) face. At the corner you can see that the building is one of a set and has several relatives adjacent and across Amsterdam.
The entrance archway here caught my eye. Although partially obscured by the fire escape, one can see the interesting proportions in the arch, the tall ledges, pilasters, and the frieze capping it. Note adjacent to the entrance the shoddily removed decorative windows.
At the top corner of the building, I found the superfluous pilaster rather interesting; what caused its addition? Why does it have the shabby offshoot? And why is there a picket fence, of all types, on the roof?
Added: March 27, 2009














