Author: Josué Pérez (Page 2 of 2)

Greenwich Village and Washington Square expressed two very different experiences as we walked through the streets. Different in street scape, Greenwich Village had an irregular and scattered grid while Washington Square had a more structured and rectilinear grid, this helped enhance the experience. We also walked about SOHO, where there was a huge change in building scape and architectural styles.

Starting with Washington Square, all the architecture was like Brooklyn Heights. There was a lot of townhouses that were made from brick, brownstone, and iron for the railings and balconies. The only difference was that they were taller. They carried the Greek revival style that was shown through the columns used next to the doors and the fenestration designs. All these buildings surrounded, one of the major notable qualities, Washington Square Park. It was considered one of the largest open spaces according to the 1811 map. I observed several green spaces that were adjacent to each other where people were able to lay, and rest and they also allowed circulation spaces between them so people can move throughout the park. All these paths led to the biggest open space of the park, which was right at the center. It consisted of a circular fountain as well as a tall arch composed of stone. Build in 1889, the arch was built to commemorate George Washington as the first president of the US. It was, in fact, temporarily plaster and wood but soon translated to stone. Another notable quality of Washington Square Park was that it broke the route of 5 avenue which is a major street, but this allowed the arch to be a beautiful and monumental view to 5 avenue.

Greenwich Village, on the other hand, as stated previously had a scattered grid layout causing the circulation experience to be different. This made the streets be narrow and one way, but there were more alternate routes for vehicles. Greenwich Village was a wealthy neighborhood and its architecture had its similarities to Brooklyn Heights specifically in materials. The difference was the use of iron for railings and balconies. They were much detailed and decorative, some of which were inspired by Italianate design. A notable quality in this area was the difference in door width. Some of the townhouses had monumental sized doors and it created a more elegant and unique experience to the façade.

Making our way into SOHO, we saw a major shift in building scape and material. There were more commercial buildings than homes. The buildings were much taller, and it was where the elevator was initially used. Cast iron was the common material used in this neighborhood, it was a cheaper, structural, and easy to form different geometrical shapes. One of the notable qualities here, was the modularity in windows and columns as well as the details in the columns themselves. Most of these designs, were inspired from Italianate architecture. The columns were Corinthian styled which became a mark for these SOHO buildings.

From the 1840s to the 1900s, a huge spike in population rose in New York City, as immigrants started to settle and find homes that were being sold by land and lot owners as well as new job opportunities. However, as a result from such stress and pressure in population, NYC started to become overcrowded which led to several housing dilemmas. Many of the houses lacked sun light and healthy air quality, plumbing, space, and sanitation.

Over the span of 16 years, 1840 to 1856, Manhattan and Brooklyn expanded, and people started to buy lots to sell. This was a main source of income for them, and they were successful because these new homes drew immigrants from foreign countries. As more and more immigrants started to arrive, homeowners had no choice but to fit everyone in such small spaces, ignoring the required limit given by the law. Housing issues started to rise making everyday living for immigrants difficult.

From 1890 to 1900, the population of New York City went from being 1.5 million to 3.4 million because of the consultation of the five boroughs. This caused housings to be compact which dispersed bad air quality. The “Lung” Block became an epidemic because of the high pressure in population. People were diagnosed with tuberculosis because of the bad air quality in the homes. City officials had to kick everyone out of their homes on that block and demolish the buildings that carried the disease. Lot sizes were another reason why there was such bad air quality and a lack of sunlight. All the buildings were literally touching each other and allowed no space for air travel between them and no sunlight to shed inside, making the buildings to be unpleasant to live in.

Another negative condition people had to live by was inadequate sanitation. There was poor plumbing and no sewage systems. Using the water closets in these buildings was the most uncomfortable issue tenants faced. All the tenants had to share one single bathroom. It got to the point where bathrooms were being built in the backyard, and all the excretion went no where but to bottom of the pit that were also built. In addition to the issue of sanitation, manure left by horses was found on the streets causing horrid stenches to linger in the streets of NYC. Weeks would pass and no one took the initiative to clean it up.

This crisis mirrors to today’s current situation by its over crowdedness. Sanitation and other living condition have improved over the years and it still is, however, immigrants from around the world still come today seeking for new job opportunities and living spaces.

Both Brooklyn Heights and Early New York architecture and streetscape were very different to each other for several reasons. As we visited the areas and studied the buildings, we learned about the different implementation of materials, their uses and functionality as well as how the buildings came about according to its landscape and terrain.

Starting with Brooklyn Heights, most of the buildings functioned as residential inhabitants. Many of the buildings we see today were built in order to make profit. People would claim these lands and properties to build houses to auction off. As more development was occurring in early New York, people were being driven to Brooklyn Heights because of the greater opportunities they foresaw, specifically profitable opportunities. In its early development, wood was the main material that was being used. However, wood was not great against fires. Many fires commenced and wood would only make the matter worse by letting it disperse and spread to any other wooden structures. A little bit after, materials like stone and masonry such as bricks started to be implemented for the facades of the buildings. Buildings were dominantly Federal Style architecture but also mixed with Greek Revival which was shown through the doors. The doors on all buildings were designed and detailed more than the buildings itself. They consisted of ionic columns, entablatures, cornices, the lintels of the doors and windows were detailed, as well as windows themselves. Another appeal Brooklyn Heights has is the Brooklyn Promenade Park which had a view to the waterfront and early New York. Before being a public area, it was cliff. Brooklyn, in its early development, was all hills and cliffs thus the name Brooklyn “Heights.” Using the cliff, the BQE came about which is right under the promenade. The BQE was a huge antidote to heavy traffic and it still is today.

Early New York was more commercial and industrial mainly because of the transportation of goods being offered by the waterfront. Although, Brooklyn Heights had profitable opportunities, Early New York did as well, because of the waterfront. Not only did New York have this advantage but also, its terrain was flat. Brooklyn was all hills whereas, early New York being flat, it helped in developing buildings. The streets were also much wider to accommodate for vehicles to circulate and transport goods. For its materials, stone, brick, and granite was used where we visited. The same type of architectural style was displayed for the most part, just like Brooklyn Heights, Federal and Greek Revival. The only difference between these cities was its uses.

New York City has come a long way from its beginnings, specifically Manhattan and Brooklyn. From lands, to hills, to forests and farms, New York began to have a big leap in urban development starting in the 1660s. The difference here is that Manhattan grew and developed quicker than Brooklyn.

Manhattan started to be developed in the lower side, which is Battery Park today, by the Dutch in 1664. Although the Natives, who were there first, did not like the idea of sharing the land, they were finally convinced and handed over a part of the land to the Dutch. During their time of development, they were able to establish their first inhabitable buildings and ship landings by the waterfronts. Settling by the waterfront was gold for them and it’s the reason why they settled there in the first place. This allowed easier trade and transportation. The Dutch’s settlement was very money-oriented and creating commerce was their primary goal. As this continued, farms were being created during the 1660s in early Brooklyn, slowly but surely, Brooklyn was starting to develop.

The Dutch were kicked out by the British and since then, Manhattan grew and expanded. Eventually there was peace between them, and a significant growth began. There were many flat lands that really helped establish streets for their homes and farms, as well as open spaces. With the help of John Randall creating plans and grid layouts, they were able to have a solid layout of Manhattan which is still alive today. On the other hand, Brooklyn struggled because of several hills and slopped terrains. The Natives did create roads and paths; however, they were not rectilinear like in Manhattan because of the many hills and highlands they had to carve around. Without having any plans of their land, it was difficult for them to have an organized grid layout, thus, Brooklyn’s plan today is very skewed.

Manhattan grew and Brooklyn finally developed. With the construction of the bridges, they both became very responsive to each other. Allowing better and easier transportation from one place to another. Despite the hardships, these two cities went through, especially Brooklyn, it is easy to say they are beautiful cities that carry valuable history.