Stucco Horror on North 9th
110 - 114 North 9th Street
ca. 1860s
On the north side of North 9th Street between Wythe and Berry there is a lovely row of tiny houses, about 9 in all (originally there were 10). Raised on low basements, the two-story buildings are simple and small. They are constructed of brick with brick or stone segmental-arch lintels and brick cornices.
By Northside standards, the buildings are quite old - they appear on land maps as early as 1869 and probably date to before the Civil War. They've survived for at least 140 years pretty much intact. Some have been painted, some have been made fancier through the addition of porticos and porches. But for the most part, they have remained as simple brick buildings.
96 North 9th Street (during)
Until now. The westernmost building in the row (96 North 9th Street) is in the process of being "upgraded" with a new stucco finish. This is a treatment that has become ubiquitous in Greenpoint and Williamsburg in the past few years. It involves gluing styrofoam to the face of a building and then applying a very thin coat of cement stucco. By sculpting the styrofoam, wonderful (as in wonderfully tasteless) shapes can be achieved. The stucco can be tinted any color of the rainbow, and it usually is. In a neighborhood that has embraced every form of artificial siding ever invented, maybe its appropriate. But from the building's point of view, there is absolutely no reason for it. The stucco will not make the building last longer - certainly no longer than a decent pointing job would. It certainly doesn't make the building look better. It just makes the building look like something it shouldn't be.
Comments (8)
They have added vertical styrofoam at the edges as some kind of bad detail but the vast majority is stucco over the brick (not foam)
Good point, but not good example here of what has become sadly too common in W/Gp.
Have you shared this opinion directly with the owner when you took the picture? I hope so because I doubt he will read this
It is on the south side of North 9th not the north.
Posted by Craig | May 4, 2009 9:02 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 21:02
If you want to see another horrible example of this got to B-52 Tattoo at the corner of Manhattan Ave & Grand Street. A really nice brick stable building and the building next door redone in awful stucco.
Posted by will | May 4, 2009 9:42 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 21:42
Many many brick buildings were covered in stucco back in the 1800s because it was thought the stucco looked better than the brick! Just look at the photos on the right side of this page of landmarks of Williamsburg.
Posted by Brian | May 5, 2009 1:25 PM
Posted on May 5, 2009 13:25
I think all of the photos on the right show original historic material - brick and concrete for the most part. I don't think any of the buildings have a stucco finish, and certainly not a historic or original stucco finish.
Stucco was historically an expensive and hard to maintain material. It was used on buildings historically, but not buildings of this type. It was also not as common in NY or other northern areas where freeze/thaw would take a quick toll. This changed in the 20th century with the development of Portland cement stuccos and wire lathe.
Posted by Yorkton | May 5, 2009 1:44 PM
Posted on May 5, 2009 13:44
I THINK THAT THE HOUSE WILL LOOK GREAT AFTER IT IS DONE. THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE IF THE BUILDING IS STUCCO OR THE BRICK BEING PAINTED. IT IS JUST JEALOUSY. THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIKE IT CAN GO BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM CAUSE THIS AREA WAS BETTER WITHOUT YOU.
Posted by MIKE | May 11, 2009 3:24 PM
Posted on May 11, 2009 15:24
In many parts of Europe, exposed brick has for ages been considered cheap and unfinished. The owner here is improving their property. I agree with Mike that it will look nice whwn completed and an improvement. The author(anonymous?) needs to get his facts correct and keep his rude and offensive opinioin silent.
Posted by Craig | May 11, 2009 8:15 PM
Posted on May 11, 2009 20:15
It's funny how people who just moved to the neighborhood in the past few years have no shame critizing other peoples' work. Perhaps, maybe we should bring up the topic of how the city spent so much money in making bike lanes but not one person uses them. But that's ok because the majority of you ride bikes. But you dont see that article anywhere. I believe that this neighborhood and not to mention where I was born and raised was a better place before all the "trash" moved in and yes, I totally agree with Craig and Mike, I think its a great idea.
Posted by Malinka | May 13, 2009 12:03 PM
Posted on May 13, 2009 12:03
As an architect, I would advise against styrofoam insulated finish systems and I would never specify them to be used. The company who manufactures it has been brought to court recently, but miraculously won. In 3 years, there will be mold between the inner styrofoam and the masonry wall due to water leaking in. The outside of this "stucco" surface is porous. In a freezing climate, this will crack with freezing/thawing. An architects main concern is keeping the water out of a building. This system is used when cost is a concern. Come back in 3 years and tell me what you think.
Posted by MF | July 7, 2009 2:45 AM
Posted on July 7, 2009 02:45