What you're really saying is those mansion owners could afford horse-drawn carriages or early automobiles. They mostly didn't ride streetcars --which, anyway, mostly didn't go where they lived.
Corey Hill, turn of the century
- Thread starter Shepard
- Start date
What I think is interesting is that these homes weren't considered worth saving in the 1950's. Were they in disrepair? Were they considered too expensive to maintain? Did growth (sprawl) make the land too valuable to be used for single family houses? Stonehurst was only 75 years old when it was torn down.
In some ways not really typical of 1950's moderno-futurism ---because so elitist and "European", this car is also the most perfect example to illustrate your point.
The Continental Mark II was the most perfectly beautiful of all that era's vehicles, because it was a ravishing collection of near-misses all bundled into a package that transcended its individual parts --exactly like its contemporary, Elizabeth Taylor.
The Continental Mark II was the most perfectly beautiful of all that era's vehicles, because it was a ravishing collection of near-misses all bundled into a package that transcended its individual parts --exactly like its contemporary, Elizabeth Taylor.
Love the pictures...beautiful building...atrocious urban planning. Boston would be a far more interesting and attractive place if the 'streetcar suburbs' had been stamped with street grids and brick/masonry construction was mandated. It still amazes me that after the great fire wood construction was not outlawed in the city...(ironically my great great grandfather was fire commisioner around that time so I guess the blame rests close to home)
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 6
Most of the buildings destroyed in the Great Fire of 1872 were stone. Quincy-quarried granite, to be exact.
Wood has always been valued as a building material in New England since the first English colonists were delighted to find it as a plentiful building material. I wonder if the space between the triple deckers - made possible by the proto-sprawl of streetcar suburbia - was what allowed the wood building tradition to flourish in the city again.
Wood has always been valued as a building material in New England since the first English colonists were delighted to find it as a plentiful building material. I wonder if the space between the triple deckers - made possible by the proto-sprawl of streetcar suburbia - was what allowed the wood building tradition to flourish in the city again.
kz1000ps
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,827
- Reaction score
- 10,325
You're right. It was the best I could find at the time, but since then I came across this one which has more of the future-sure-will-be-swell vibe:
I'm sure there's some truth in that...but much of Charlestown and rowhouse South Boston was built post fire era. You would think that there would have been a sentiment to build with materials that were fire resistant...eh...the mayor's brother in-law probably owned a lumber yard and that was that.
But it's something I think of whenever I drive through the outlying neighborhoods...'ahh, look at that handsome brick rowhouse, untended but still dignified and grand...next to that ramshakle post victorian three decker that looks like it's about to fall into the street and shed what's left of it's peeling coat of paint.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
I'll readily admit my preference for masonry as well. I wonder though if the bias against wooden three deckers has more to do with the economic condition of the neighborhoods where we most commonly find them than it has to do with the material/design itself. East Broadway in Southie and Green Street in Charlestown are two streets I can think of where wooden multi-family homes stand as proud as their brownstone neighbors (admittedly many of these wood buildings aren't traditional three decker design...)
The front porches on the three deckers was their greatest design flaw. They are functionally unecessary as most of the units have a rear porch. Most problematic is the fact that they don't hold up over the years and almost all of them buckle towards the street.
That said, the fact that brick can go decades without being maintained and still look great makes it a far better choice for urban construction.
That said, the fact that brick can go decades without being maintained and still look great makes it a far better choice for urban construction.
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 6
There are plenty of beautifully maintained triple-deckers in Cambridge and I still think they're hideous.
In Queens wood framed houses never stopped getting junked for brick apartment buildings - it's a process that's been going on since the 20s. I wish there were more of that happening here. There are plenty of places in Cambridge - even on Mass Ave. - where a wood frame house sits between two apartment buildings, interrupting the street with some huge lawn. I bet if anyone made a move to touch it the neighbors would whine about the character of the area changing, context and height, etc. - even if development would bring it far more into line with its neighbors than preservation.