apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Ugliness like that should be outlawed. I wonder why the even bothered buying a brownstone if they were going to do this. Instead they should have a bought a steel and glass condo monstrosity that seem to be popping up all over the city.

I cannot believe this! Totally amazing modern architecture that it totally bombastic but still respects the area and the history of the building. and how on earth is the house next door abandoned???

“And I was thinking, This is the Wild West. The whole block was abandoned, burned buildings on the corners—there was nobody.”

So they spent $200K and moved 2 little kids into the neighborhood with cinderblocked windows and plywood boarded houses. Wow, that takes gritty to a whole new level. I'm not a NY'r so maybe I don't get it, but isn't living in Harlem on that block a lot like saying you moved the kids to Watts?

Not an effective integration of old and new, in my opinion... The song "Harlem Renaissance" by Immortal Technique addresses the recent real estate situation in Harlem fairly succinctly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRUXA7Lp8iQ

Trumystique - you should probably read the article before you make incorrect assumptions.

it says the property was "in the family." they or a relative already owned it. when it comes to bringing a neighborhood up, someone has to go first.

i admire the panels that allow so much light in.

I'm sure it's not for everyone, but I think it's a beautiful, vital design. I think the front door is a little squished, and I don't care for the door itself, but the interior and the rear wall are lovely.

If they don't and let it be known, then no one will. The idea is to get people to see that the area is revivable, the same thing I believe happened in the Bronks many years ago, but Harlem has had a hard life for decades, if not most of the past century.

All that said, I do love what they did here and love how they married modernism w/ that of the past to such an extent that as Adrian said, at first modernism can be cold, but here it's not and is growing on him and I DO think it has a lot to do with how modernism is treated as it CAN be cold and aloof, but doesn't have to be, which is where MCM comes in, it's modern, fresh, but not so rigid that it leaves many cold and has a lot of warm elements to it, but when you go mostly grays, hard, squared off shapes, it can come across as cold and hard.

I find most slideshows just don't do the space justice but done well, it can give you a good sense of the space but IMO, it never replaces being able to see the space first hand and in person.

I get the whole gentrification "pioneer" thing, but with little kids? It's like moving your kids into a prison. When can they leave the house unsupervised? Where will they ever play? I just think it's one thing to make that decision for yourself as an adult, and another for kids.

For $200K they could have found a place with a yard in Jersey.

Am I the only one who thinks the lavender-filled window box looks like a giant unibrow?

I applaud this couple for "making it work" in such a neighborhood but I don't like the exterior design at all.

Unibrow, yes! LBhirise, people make their own lifestyle choices for a number of reasons and, when you've got kids, you make decisions on their behalf as well. As someone who grew up in a less than savory part of NYC, I can imagine why this family would make this choice. Any choice, especially in a challenging market like NYC's, involves compromises, and I just don't see why high-tailing it to the 'burbs and giving your kids that life is necessarily better. For me personally, having grown up in the city, with all that offered me, is still way preferable to the alternative you suggest.

Currently, I live in what's considered a less than savory neighborhood in Cincinnati, and my landlords have two young kids. Believe me, these kids seem to have a great life filled with tons of activities right in the neighborhood. No, it's not someone's vision of a pristine suburban paradise, but then, not everyone is looking for that or wishing it on their children.

well, it's a little late to comment since this article came out in 2004 but I feel the reno has more downsides than upsides. yes, it's nice to have a terrace and have the ability smell the pretty lavendar. but the terrace overlooks a blighted landscape and that building next door is truly an eyesore! I don't know, space is really a premium in NYC, but there are other considerations to be had.

I don't know what’s worse the crap they're building in boroughs like Brooklyn and Harlem calling them brownstones or this? From an artist view it’s an interesting building. From a purest view when it comes to brownstones...uhgg! They just should have put the modern inside and left the look of the classic building outside. Oh well, their dime.

Aaron, I read the article and I mistyped in my buying comment. Reading the article doesnt change that I think this renovation is fugly. The couple's story doesnt change it. Its a brownstone and making it into something modern and completely contrary to the brownstone aesthetic makes no sense. Will you applaud when people renovate Victorians in Midwood and Flatbush by sticking oversized glass and steel additions to the facade?

Doesnt matter if the roof caved in or facade was struck by lightning. If you want to live amongst steel beams and glass then do so- but stripping a building that is decidely NOT modern to get that steel and glass look doesnt make sense. Before you go on to say: well isnt this reno better than boarded up buildings?''. I would say no "-because this building is just as much an out of place sore on the block as the boarded up buildings. At least the boards can be taken down- there is nothing that can be done for this building.

I live a block away and I think it's refreshing to see a new and modern slant to compliment the historic architecture in Harlem. There is another modern townhouse across the Ave. that is quite gorgeous also. For families/couples/people who dream of a modern house and don't want to give up the city life, Harlem seems to be the place to realize that vision.

And to LBhirise comment: This area of Harlem is quite safe. I'm sure the kids get a ton of space to play in a townhouse that large. Also, Morningside park and Central Park are just a block and 2 blocks away - so plenty of outdoor space for the kids to play (supervised, of course).

I hope they have a quality security system.

Thank you sooo much for posting this! I have been looking for ideas to reconstruct the front facade of my brownstone and this is very close to what I wanted. I love it! I'm just trying to figure out how they did all of this for 200K, they must have done it a long time ago. THANKS AGAIN!

if you want to live in a big steel and glass box, go build one - don't ruin historic architecture doing so.

@Trumystique

This isn't a brownstone. A brownstone would be brown and made of stone. This is a brick townhome. Just wanted to say...I will save my opinion on urban renewal for another day.

I think it's fabulous!!!

They invested $200,000 in a property and will recoup that ten times over when they're ready to sell, if not more. Most of all, I love that they are helping one of The City's most historic neighborhoods. Good for them!

Call me a purist, old-fashioned, whatever, I'm going to have to agree with Trumystique and everyone else who thinks that people who want to create "modern" spaces, shouldn't ruin historic architecture.

There's a huge difference between restoration and renovation, we should be respecting these beautiful buildings - not completely change their facade. It makes me think that we'll be looking back 50 years from now, cringing at our ignorance to completely rehab everything we put our hands on.

I love it! It's a very interesting way to add light and space to a very beautiful home. If the original facade looked anything like the one next door then it's a good thing they did it! It's a very respectful way to modernize the building. Awesome!

For all the commenters complaining about "ruining historic architecture" this kind of renovation is giving this historic architecture a second (or third, or fourth) life!

It takes a tremendous (unreal) amount of money to renovate a historic property in a historically accurate, purist way. Can't we be more original than that? Why limit yourself to thinking in one way? I applaud this particular project and others like it.

As a heritage preservation professional, I have to pipe in and say that from the sounds of the article, this property was essentially a tear-down -- this reno saved what little historic fabric there was worth saving.

The facade was struck by lightening and a large part of it collapsed as a consequence; the building had been a single room occupancy rental, with fires, leaking pipes -- the rooms had all long-since been butchered.

This reno saved the building.

No one, but no one, in their right mind would have plowed in the extensive funds to recreate something which no longer existed, and wasn't of significant heritage value to begin with. The most important part of the building, the street facade, is essentially intact (and in much, much better shape than its neighbours).

A project that saves a building from demolition (which represents the complete and irrevocable loss of historic fabric) like this one does, is a good one from a heritage preservation standpoint.

Personally, I like projects like this that move us forward.

I am not completely sold on this particular design -- I find something doesn't work about the front entrance and picture window (and the planters out front). Wish we could have had a constructive discussion on the how's and why's of that...

i agree, aaron. this is a great project. kudos to the owners.

Well....I guess someone has to be the first to begin revitalizing a run down area. So for that cause I really applaud the home owner. I also think they did a great job. However, until the rest of the neighborhood catches up a bit....it sure could be a dangerous area since these vacated buildings are a harbor for criminals of all sorts.

As a female, I would personally be afraid to live there.

Brownstone schmonstone or townhome- ;) I may stand corrected.

But it doesnt change the fact that this building is totally out of character with the architecture and building materials of the neighborhood. There is a reason why people love to visit European cities like Rome or Paris. These cities do a wonderful of incorporating different eras of residential and commercial architecture.

This American propensity to throw things away in the name of progress will be regretted. I can see this all over Brooklyn and Manhattan where this leads to completely schizophrenic architecture. And there is nothing vibrant about being schizo and it doesnt move us forward. Moving us forward would be zoning for modern architecture and new constructions (cant really call it a reno) like this. That way everyone would be happy.

@ Trumystique

"These cities do a wonderful of incorporating different eras of residential and commercial architecture."

Not in the case of Paris. Paris is largely architecturally homogenous -- the product of an enormous urban revival scheme by Baron Hausmann in the 1850s, whereby huge portions of the city were demolished and built anew. This is the Paris that everyone admires. Baron Hausmann would have torn down this house, and probably the whole neighborhood too if he had been around.

As with gardening, so with urban development: without occasionally clearing out some of the old, the new cannot flower.

There are different grades of historic buildings, as well as neighbourhoods, which guide the most appropriate intervention. There are many architecturally important buildings and streets in Harlem -- this is not one of them. The renovation to this building (yes, this is a reno) is not only appropriate, it is profoundly positive.

A critical aspect of improving architectural conservation and the design of buildings and cities in North America is for individuals to become more design literate. And this is something that AT is helping to do.

i wonder, has anyone done anything with the tear-down next door?

Not in the case of Paris. Paris is largely architecturally homogenous -- the product of an enormous urban revival scheme by Baron Hausmann in the 1850s, whereby huge portions of the city were demolished and built anew. This is the Paris that everyone admires. Baron Hausmann would have torn down this house, and probably the whole neighborhood too if he had been around.

As with gardening, so with urban development: without occasionally clearing out some of the old, the new cannot flower.

Okay, but my problem is that the renovation doesn't fit in with the neighborhood at all. It sticks out like a sore thumb. While Baron Hausmann might have started anew, it was the age of traditional architecture, and so there'd still be a connection with the neighborhood. The architecture would be different, but it wouldn't draw attention to itself like this does. Modern architecture really has nothing in common with classicism, it's its own beast, and that why it's so atrocious in this setting.

1) The $200K was merely to pay the back taxes, etc. God only knows how much was pumped into the actual reno! Certainly more than $200K.
2) Even back in '99, the neighborhood was changing and Harlem gentrifying, so all you folks worried about the kiddies should calm down. If you check out the block on Google Maps, you'll see that the building to their immediate west has had a gut reno and looks typical Manhattan pricey. In fact, except for the building to their immediate east, the whole block has been reno'd and brought back. In a manner in keeping with the neighborhood I might add.

Wow @ some of the insanely ignorant comments I've just read. I should begin by stating that I recently lived within a couple of blocks from this townhouse, and walked past it often. The comments about the neighborhood ("hope she has security", "run-down") are hilarious and, well...revealing of people's...well...beliefs...

This neighborhood in which this townhouse is located is indeed part of Harlem, but is considered by all to be "Harlem-lite"/Morningside Heights/Manhattan Valley. I was, for example, one of the only black people in my apartment building, and had other residents asking ME what I was doing in the building. (My answer: "Paying rent. In HARLEM. What's your excuse?"). I am now moving into a brownstone in "real" Harlem, incidentally.

The house in question is two blocks from Central Park, is next to the most desirable part of Morningside Park, waterfall included, and you can clearly see St. John the Divine and Columbia from the townhouse, as they are both about 5 minutes walking distance away. Can the children play outside? Yes, they can, and many do, on a daily basis, without fear in their eyes. On Saturdays they may even attend the local farmer's market located on the southern end of the park, after which they can head to Frederick Douglass Boulevard and enjoy a range of eateries, organic shops, and boutiques. Really, I could go on...

The point is, however, that it's better to make comments concerning subjects of which you have actual knowledge. No one who had actually have been to this particular neighborhood could possibly make some of the comments posted here, unless the mere presence of now-occasional brown faces classifies a neighborhood as dangerous and "run down". In which case, the White House and NW D.C. is indubitably dangerous and run down as well simply because of it's current occupants...

Now, for my comment on the townhouse: It's been on Craigslist for some time, and my guess is that this could be because of the price asked, or because it is, in my opinion, slightly fugly.

However, I don't agree with those who complain that the modern renovation somehow destroys the character of the building/neighborhood. Welcome to new Harlem! I understand where purists are coming from, but I am personally really enjoying the mix of old and new throughout all of Harlem. It is not at all uncommon to see renovations of these sorts. If you don't believe me, google "Windows on 123rd". Some of you all will hate it, but brownstones side-by-side with pre-war apartments and glass-and-stone buildings gives the neighborhood a very fresh vibe, IMO.

Oh my goodness!

You people need to read The Geography of Nowhere by James Howard Kunstler. Kunstler would have a field day with this.

Wake up! The emperor has no clothes people! It's ugly!

Historic brownstones are way more beautiful than the flat roofed boring boxes they build today.

Why didn't the owners jut put a Pizza Hut roof on the brownstone and call it a day?

"I'm not a NY'r so maybe I don't get it, but isn't living in Harlem on that block a lot like saying you moved the kids to Watts?"

"I get the whole gentrification "pioneer" thing, but with little kids? It's like moving your kids into a prison."

"I hope they have a quality security system."

These comments and those similar, at the very least, stereotypical and elitist.

Thanks to ro1 and visualingual for their positive comments and reflections on city life.

Wake up, this project is fantastic!

While I recommend reading Kunstler's book (as well as the newest one, Home From Nowhere) and it is true that he is not a fan of modernism, I doubt this would be an "Eyesore of the Month" pick.

This building is not a brownstone, historic or otherwise, and it is not an example of "classicism". It is a mediocre traditionally-built townhouse that underwent a sympathetic high-tech architectural renovation (it's not pure modernism).

IMO the concept is great, the execution, not so much.

The problem I have with it is that the brown front door looks like it could still be the front door of an SRO. The lower-level picture window just doesn't work for me in the aluminum, and the flower boxes are awful. Also, I find the efflorescence on the facade an unforgivable oversight -- it really should have been seen to and cleaned-up (it brings down the project). Those elements feel weird when combined with the traditional cast-iron railings along the front steps -- they just don't fit. I therefore think this is not a well-resolved design.

A better resolution may have been to have more traditional elements at street level, in keeping with the railing -- a more handsome traditional door (no ugly aluminum overhang over the door! ), a more traditional wood window, and instead of those enormous blocky aluminum flower boxes, more railing like along the steps, delineating an inventively landscaped, if tiny, front yard, including a small tree. Oh -- and a more appropriate light on the front facade.

The more "traditional" elements at street level wouldn't necessarily have to be historic - maybe wood windows in a modern style would suffice to help tie the dramatic bay window better to the elements of the lower level. A better resolved street-level involves a lot of detail work; it shows that street-level considerations were not important in the design (the work went into the bay window and the dramatic back facade).

Mschatelaine,

Great comments (I couldn't agree more) and thanks for the tip on the new Kuntsler book, which I didn't even know existed! (Oh, and BTW, did you see the Canadian "documentary" he was in a year or two ago, Radiant City? I have been unable to find it on DVD but you can find some excerpts on YouTube. It's brilliant.)

This article is five years old?? Harlem is now quite expensive and gentrified. So I guess it worked out for them.

that part of harlem is now very gentrified so they were pretty lucky/smart to see the potential in 2004.

and i like the exterior and the high tech look. it sticks out but i didn't think the original style was genius or special. it was a rundown townhouse surrounded be equally rundown sites without significant architectural value, not an unesco heritage site.

Word to everything you said floetikjustice.