Douglaston Historic District, Douglaston, Queens, New York City, New York, United States

 

Type: Freestanding house with attached garage (on lot 93) Style: Vernacular cottage Stories: 1

 

Structure/material: Frame with stucco facing

 

Notable building features: Intersecting gable roofs, flared over front porch; round-arched, batten door; brick chimney; brick stoop with non-original wrought-iron railings; some brick veneer; windows with historic multi-pane sash and casements.

 

Notable site features: Mature trees; flagstone walkway; gravel driveway; perimeter hedge; storage shed; cobblestone curb.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The Douglaston Historic District contains more than 600 houses set along landscaped streets on a mile-long peninsula extending into Little Neck Bay, at the northeastern edge of Queens adjoining Nassau County.

 

Its history over the past four centuries ranges from a native American settlement to an eighteenth-century farm, a nineteenth-century estate called Douglas Manor, and an early twentieth-century planned suburb, also called Douglas Manor.

 

The Douglaston Historic District encompasses the entire Douglas Manor suburban development, plus several contiguous blocks. Most of the houses in the proposed district date from the early- to mid-twentieth century, while a few survive from the nineteenth century, and one from the eighteenth century.

 

The landscape includes many impressive and exotic specimen trees planted on the mid-nineteenth-century estate, as well as a great white oak, located at 233 Arleigh Road, believed to be 600 years old.

 

Douglaston's location on a peninsula jutting into Flushing Bay at the eastern border of Queens County is an important factor in establishing the character of the district. The very early buildings surviving in the district include the c.1735 Van Wyck House, the c. 1819 Van Zandt manor house (expanded in the early twentieth century for use as the Douglaston Club), and the Greek Revival style c. 1848-50 Benjamin Allen House.

 

Much of the landscaping, including the specimen trees, survives from the estate of Douglas Manor, established by George Douglas and maintained by his son William Douglas.

 

Most of the houses in the historic district were built as part of the planned suburb of Douglas Manor, developed by the Rickert-Finlay Company, that was part of the residential redevelopment of the Borough of Queens following its creation and annexation to the City of Greater New York in 1898.

 

A set of covenants devised by the Rickert-Finlay Company helped assure a carefully planned environment, including a shorefront held in common, winding streets following the topography of the peninsula, and single-family houses ranging in size from substantial mansions along Shore Road on the west to more modest cottages closer to Udalls Cove on the east.

 

The houses of the historic district, which are representative of twentieth-century residential architecture, were designed in a variety of styles including the many variants of the Colonial Revival, many houses in the English manner incorporating Tudor Revival, English cottage, and Arts and Crafts motifs, as well as the Mediterranean Revival. In most cases, they were designed by local Queens architects, including over a dozen who lived in Douglaston itself.

 

The district includes three houses of the Craftsman type pioneered by Gustav Stickley. Eight of the houses in the district were designed by Josephine Wright Chapman, one of America's earliest successful women architects, and they constitute an important body of her work.

 

The Douglaston Historic District survives today as an important example of an early twentieth-century planned suburb adapted to the site of a nineteenth-century estate. The stylistically varied suburban residences, the distinctive topography, the landscaped setting, and the winding streets create a distinct sense of place and give the district its special character.

 

HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE DOUGLASTON HISTORIC DISTRICT

 

Native American and Colonial antecedents

 

The Native American presence on the Little Neck peninsula today known as Douglaston included the Matinecoc,1 one of a group on western Long Island linked by culture and language to others in the area surrounding Manhattan Island (including the Nayack, Marechkawieck, Canarsee, Rockaway, and Massapequa). A number of finds from those settlements have been identified at various sites on the peninsula.2 The Matinecoc, who fanned the peninsula and apparently also produced wampum, were summarily evicted in the 1660s by Thomas Hicks, later Judge Hicks, in what has been described as the only such seizure of property recorded in Flushing town records. In the 1930s, according to local histories, a Matinecoc burial ground was destroyed to make way for a widening of Northern Boulevard, and the remains reinterred in the cemetery of Zion Church.3

 

The property seized by Thomas Hicks in the 1660s passed through the hands of several of his family members, and several subsequent sales to other families, before being acquired in 1813 by Wynant Van Zandt. In 1819 Van Zandt bought an adjoining farm from the Van Wyck family. Both tracts had been farmed during the eighteenth century. The Van Wycks built and lived in a shorefront house which still stands (the Cornelius Van Wyck House, at 126 West Drive aka 37-04 Douglaston Parkway, a designated New York City landmark).

 

Nineteenth-century country seat: Wynant Van Zandt. George and William Douglas, and Douglas Manor

 

Wynant Van Zandt (1767-1831) kept his property in agricultural use. Unlike his predecessors, mostly local formers, Van Zandt was a prominent New York City merchant, active in New York civic affairs. As a city alderman, Van Zandt served as chairman, starting in 1803, of the building committee for City Hall, and in 1804 as chairman of a committee on water supply, among other duties. Van Zandt established his Queens County property as a country estate, and built himself a manor, or country seat, in 1819; the building survives, with additions, as the Douglaston Club.

 

In May 1835, following Wynant Van Zandt's death, George Douglas acquired the estate from Robert B. Van Zandt; the deed identifies Van Zandt as a "farmer" and Douglas as a "gentleman."5 One obituary, in the Flushing Journal Weekly, described Douglas as "what the world would call an eccentric man."6 Another, in the New York Evening Post, described him as a wealthy young man from Scotland, who during a fifteen-year stay in Europe "collected some very valuable pictures," and later turned to philanthropy.7

 

Douglas's son, William Proctor Douglas, inherited the property after his father's death in 1862. The younger Douglas served as vice-commodore of the New York Yacht Club in 1871-74. During his tenure, Douglas Manor became a center for New York society yachting and polo. In later years, Douglas rented out the estate house to a variety of well-connected tenants, including European royalty.8

 

In 1869, Douglas hired landscape architect William McMillen to, in the words of McMillen's daughter, "superintend the Estate, improve driveways, and lay out plantings and trees and ornamental shrubs."9 McMillen was later associated with Frederick Law Olmsted and his work on the park system in Buffalo, New York.10 Although McMillen spent six years working on the estate, it is not known exactly what he undertook for Douglas. From turn-of-the-century photographs and other records analyzed in a landscape history undertaken in 1994, it appears that under Douglas's

 

ownership the landscape was characterized by "an informal 'English' look...with English ivy, winterberry, Boston ivy and wisteria."11

 

It was also during Douglas's tenure that a number of exotic specimen trees were planted on the property. Local histories suggest a connection with Samuel Parsons (1819-1906), a pioneer horticulturist with a nursery in Flushing; Parsons owned land near the Douglas Estate. The trees have been a distinguishing characteristic of Douglas Manor since William Douglas's day.12

 

Early suburban subdivision

 

Although the suburban development called Douglas Manor dates from 1906, William Douglas apparently attempted a suburban subdivision half a century earlier south of Douglas Manor. The dominant force propelling development was the gradual extension of the Long Island Railroad, which ran as far as Flushing until 1866 (with stage coach connections for points east), when its extension to Great Neck opened. Even in the 1850s, anticipating the railroad's extension to the Little Neck peninsula, William Douglas had subdivided part of his property (the area today known as "the Hill").

 

Douglas donated land for the railroad's right of way, and later, according to local histories, relocated one of his farm buildings to be used as a railroad station, asking in exchange that the new village be called "Douglaston" (instead of Marathon, a competing name).13 He named a number of new streets after the abundant trees on his property (Pine, Poplar, Willow, Cherry).

 

The Rickert-Finlav Realty Company

 

Besides the three early surviving houses already mentioned (the Van Wyck House, the Douglaston Club, and the Allen House), almost all the rest of the houses in the historic district were built as part of the early twentieth-century planned suburb of Douglas Manor, named for Douglas's estate, laid out by the Rickert-Finlay Realty Company. The redevelopment of Douglas Manor was part of the vast transformation of much of the newly created Borough of Queens into new residential neighborhoods. In 1906, the year Rickert-Finlay bought Douglas Manor, several major transportation projects to speed connections between Manhattan and Queens were underway: the Pennsylvania Railroad and Long Island Railroad tunnels under the East River, and the Queensborough Bridge at 59th Street.14 According to the Real Estate Record and Guide of that year:

 

The development of numerous farms into building lots and the erection of hundreds of new buildings have necessarily advanced the value of real estate in that section of Greater New York. It is said that more than 8,000 new apportionments have been made in the Borough of Queens during 1906, and that considerably more than 10,000 acres of land have been cut up into lots....

 

Chief among the new developments cited:

 

Title has just been taken to the Douglass [sic] homestead of about 180 acres by the Douglass Manor Co. This will probably be the highest class development on the island. It has a mile of water front and most magnificent shade trees. This property will be subdivided immediately.16

 

The Rickert-Finlay Realty Company, which bought Douglas Manor, was active in real-estate development in Queens and Nassau Counties in the early years of the century, buying up large farms and estates on the north shore of Long Island, preferably those with attractive topographical features, and subdividing them into new suburban communities. Their projects included Norwood in Long Island City, Broadway-Flushing in Flushing, Bellcourt in Bayside, Douglas Manor in Douglaston, and Westmoreland in Little Neck.17 By 1908, the company, with offices at 45 West 34th Street in Manhattan,18 was advertising itself as "The Largest Developers of Real Estate in Queens Borough ~ over 10,000 lots within the limits of New York City."19

 

The company's typical strategy for selecting development sites was described by E.J. Rickert in a 1914 article in Architecture and Building: "It was selected because it was on high ground, with a splendid outlook . . . and only four blocks from a railway station. It was . . . noted for the magnificent row of maples and lindens, nearly a mile long, extending through the entire property."20 The company then developed each tract according to a formula based on past successes. E.J. Rickert described the progression of the firm's ideas:

 

The first property developed was Bellcourt in Bayside, which was improved along the same lines as had heretofore prevailed on Long Island — that is, gravel sidewalks were laid, streets were graded and shade trees were set out, no other improvements being made. In the sale of Bellcourt, however, it was found that there was a demand for better improvements, and, consequently, when Douglas Manor was developed, cement sidewalks were laid, macadam roads were built and trees and hedges were set out. Broadway-Flushing and Westmoreland, which came next, were developed to about the same extent as Douglas Manor, all then being considered the best improved properties on Long Island.

 

The next development, Kensington, saw the addition of complete "sanitary sewer system, water mains and underground conduit for street lighting."

 

The new suburb of Douglas Manor

 

The qualities of the nineteenth-century Douglas Manor on which the Rickert-Finlay development capitalized included its hilly topography, its mile-long waterfront accessible to the entire narrow peninsula, and its lush plantings, especially the specimen trees planted during Douglas's tenure. The development also based its new road system on the major farm roads already in place, which became West, East, and Centre [Center] Drives.23

 

The company then established a series of protective covenants to guarantee a certain manner of development and density within the new suburb. In an era pre-dating the adoption of zoning regulations,24 the character of a new development could be guaranteed in no other way.

 

The covenants affected the architectural character of the houses only peripherally — by prohibiting flat roofs, thereby encouraging a more romantic roofline. Instead, they focused on the kind and size of houses and the nature of the landscaping of the new development. They required all houses to be single-family residences, with the sole exception of the Douglaston Club (commercial uses and two-family buildings and flats were specifically prohibited). They encouraged an economically mixed development, with a boulevard of substantial mansions along the Shore Road waterfront, while smaller, less expensive houses would predominate on the peninsula's east. (Such conditions were guaranteed by requiring houses of a certain cost and lots of a certain size). A verdant landscape was ensured by requiring houses to be set back 20 feet, leaving room for greenery, and by prohibiting fences and encouraging hedges, creating vistas not of individual, fenced-off gardens, but rather of a continuous, green, park-like, landscaped environment.

 

Rickert-Finlay went even further, taking steps to protect that environment and shape the community's social character by creating, in 1906, the Douglas Manor Association. Its stated objectives were the creation and maintenance of a club house to promote "social intercourse" among the residents, and to preserve and protect the development's physical amenities, including the roads, parks, shorefront, and plantings.26

 

Selling Douglas Manor

 

Promotional brochures prepared by Rickert-Finlay characterized the new neighborhood as a private community of houses, nestled in a landscape similar to Central Park, surrounded with a mile of shorefront, just blocks from each home.27

 

Douglas Manor's convenience to Midtown Manhattan via the Long Island Railroad was compared favorably to subway commutation to new Bronx neighborhoods. The commute was touted at "only 33 Minutes to Manhattan, 52 Trains a Day," and predicted to become "20 Minutes to Herald Square, when Pennsylvania-Long Island Tunnels are completed." The neighborhood was just three blocks from the Douglaston station, itself very near the Long Island Sound, "being the only station on the line near enough to the Sound to bring the shore front within easy walking distance. "28 The history and character of the old Douglas estate were emphasized, especially the trees planted by Douglas: "Scotch Holly, Magnolia, Japanese Maidenhair, Chinese Cypress, European Beech, Scarlet Maple, Horse Chestnut, Tulip, Lime, evergreens... Even Central Park does not possess a greater variety of rare trees....

 

" This park-like effect would be "preserved and increased by setting out hedges along winding roads, following the natural contour of the land as much as possible.... The shore drive, curving along the bay for over a mile, will be made the finest boulevard on Long Island." To all these suburban advantages, Douglas Manor also boasted the services provided by the City of New York: "city water, stone sidewalks, macadamized streets" and the "full benefit of all departments of the city government, including schools, water, police and fire protection."

 

From 1906 through the Depression, several hundred houses were erected in Douglas Manor, following the plan suggested by the Rickert-Finlay covenants. In general, the lots along Shore Road on the west were developed first, with larger, more substantial houses, followed by the more modest

 

homes to the east towards Udalls Cove. Property owners often acquired lots adjacent to those on which their houses were built to accommodate more generous lawns or gardens. The mile-long waterfront remained undeveloped, held in common by the Douglas Manor Association. The large caliper specimen trees planted in Douglas's day remained in place. The grounds of the various houses were separated by perimeter hedges only — no fences. Two smaller lots formed by irregular street intersections were planted as small parks, maintained by the Association. Together, the parks, commonly held shorefront, specimen trees, and hedged gardens created something close to Rickert-Finlay's version of Central Park, surrounded by water, with several hundred houses nestled in the landscape.

 

The Architecture of the Douglaston Historic District

 

The architectural styles of the over 600 houses and some 150 related structures (mostly garages) in the historic district reflect three centuries of Douglaston's built history. From the eighteenth-century colonial Van Wyck House, to the early nineteenth-century Van Zandt House and mid-nineteenth-century Allen House, to the twentiethth-century suburban houses of the Rickert-Finlay development, to the additions of the post-World War II period, they tell the story of the development of this part of eastern Queens, part of the larger developmental story of New York City and the country as a whole.

 

The Cornelius Van Wyck House, at 126 West Drive, survives as the oldest extant house in the district, and one of the oldest in New York City (it is a designated New York City landmark). Built c.1735 for an early Dutch settler as a farmstead, the house reflects eighteenth-century New York colonial styles. Douglas, who transformed the farm to Douglas Manor, is said to have used the house as an "entrance lodge to his estate.w29 In 1907, one year after the acquisition of the Manor by the Rickert-Finlay Company, the Douglaston Country Club enlarged the building for use as a clubhouse. In 1921, the Van Wyck House passed back into use as a single-family residence, and its owner, E.N. Wicht, hired Frank J. Forster, designer of Colonial Revival and Tudor Revival style houses in the new Douglas Manor development, to restore it to its original Dutch Colonial appearance.

 

The Wynant Van Zandt House, at 600 West Drive, reflects both the older and the newer history of Douglaston. Built in 1819 as a home for Wynant Van Zandt, it was significantly altered after 1906 for use as the Douglaston Club, but still reflects some of the character of Van Zandt's original two-story Greek Revival manor house.

 

The Benjamin P. Allen House (a/k/a the Allen-Beville House, a designated New York City landmark) at 29 Center Drive, built c. 1848-50, is another rare Queens farm house. Predominately Greek Revival in style, it also shows the influence of the newly fashionable Italianate style, especially in its cornices and brackets.

 

Almost all the other buildings in the district date from the twentieth century, and the greater number of them from its first three decades, when Douglas Manor was developed by the Rickert-Finlay Company. Douglas Manor is a contemporary of several other planned communities in New York City, notably Fieldston in the Bronx and Forest Hill Gardens in Queens, all three of which began as subdivisions in the first decade of die century, and blossomed in the late teens and twenties. Like them, Douglas Manor was developed with houses based on historic styles of the past.

 

The first few decades of the century constituted a period of ferment and development in the design of American single-family houses. The epoch has been characterized as "a resurgence of individualism and an indulgence in residential architecture, a reaction to the standardization of the previous two decades. Fanciful cottages in fairy-tale styles were part of that image."30 In some ways, that approach is a logical continuation of late nineteenth-century architectural eclecticism, characterized in the 1890s as "rampant eclecticism in all fields of life and taste, of triumphant individualism, when authority sits so lightly on men's interests and lives; in this age of archaeology, when the different periods of history are made to live again in our imagination. "31 At the same time, residential architecture was affected by notions of progress and efficiency, and a drive toward simplicity and sanitary conveniences in home design.

 

Rickert-Finlay's protective covenants left the architectural character of the buildings almost entirely in the hands of owners and architects, requiring only that building roofs not be flat.32 The result was a collection of early twentieth-century eclectic residential styles, ranging from grand Colonial Revival mansions on the Shore Road waterfront, to picturesque Tudor Revival or Mediterranean Revival houses or houses in the English cottage manner or Colonial Revival houses on the blocks between West and East Drives, to modest cottages near Udalls Cove. Houses were sited in harmony with the topography, which tends to get hillier in the southeastern section of the peninsula.

 

One Douglas Manor architect, Alfred Scheffer, expressed his point of view in an article published in 1929. He described the Tudor Revival house he designed for himself at 216 Beverly-Road — a particularly useful indication of both the architect's and the client's point of view. Tellingly, the very first observation he makes is about the siting of the house, overlooking Long Island Sound: "The water is only a stone's throw — of a conservative marksman — from our front door and the second floor bay window has a certain suggestion of the forecastle deck of a ship, for the intervening land and highway are quite lost to sight and I can get a fine sense of sailing the seas, when I stand there." Only then does he turn to the formal style of the design, and sums up in a sentence the attitude of his day towards historically-inspired styles: "The construction is quite definitely in the English manner although / was not concerned with making it exact or authentic [emphasis added]

 

Scheffer then lists the elements that make his house "English": "stucco and halftimber walls with slate roof . . . The substantial chimney of common brick is typical of many English country houses. . . . The main entrance doorway of the house, at the end of a narrow flagstone walk, forms a Gothic arch of oak timber, framing a paneled oak door with iron straps and two small leaded glass windows, the effect completed by a semi-circular stone stoop. Beside the door is a lantern of pierced wrought-iron in the shape of an inverted tunnel, with wrought-iron bracket." Clearly it is details like the paneled oak door and leaded glass windows which give the house the English "effect" Scheffer wanted. But when he turns to describing the interior, practical matters take precedence: "The interior of the house was designed to take full advantage of our gorgeous outlook over the water."

 

Historical details are listed — "The walls are of rough English hand finished plaster" - but so are the "built-in bookshelves," "built-in comer cabinets," and "convenient and numerous closets and the very large closet and bathroom which join the master bedroom and add much to its convenience." "The interior of the house," concludes Scheffer," will probably grow from year to year. Things will be taken out and others put in until eventually, it comes near to realizing my mental image of what it ought to be. Already, I think, it has the liveable quality which is most essential of all."33

 

The majority of houses in the historic district reflect a variety of styles, loosely adapted by architects like Frank Scheffer, typical of suburban residential architecture across the country. The predominant style is the Colonial Revival in several variants, ranging in date from c.1910 to the present. Most are of frame construction with shingle and/or clapboard siding. Besides a generic Colonial Revival style, the district has such distinctive variations as the Dutch Colonial Revival, New England Colonial Revival, and Cape Cod Colonial Revival. Colonial Revival houses of brick, or frame with brick facing, often have a more formal neo-Georgian appearance. The English manner, the other major stylistic mode, is expressed with Tudor Revival, English cottage, or Arts and Crafts details. These houses, too, are often of frame construction with stucco facing and brick and/or stone trim. The Mediterranean Revival style was also popular.

 

These houses usually have stucco facing and tile roofs. The district also has a handful of houses of the Craftsman type pioneered by Gustav Stickley. Suburban houses of the type found in the district were judged by their picturesque qualities. The Architectural Forum, for instance, featured a Douglas Manor house by Frank Forster, the same architect who restored the Van Wyck House to something approaching its original Dutch colonial appearance. The writer praised Forster's "excellent use of half-timber in connection with brick or stucco," but more importantly his "rare skill in grouping, which creates a picturesque and architectural composition, wholly unaffected or exaggerated and involving no sacrifice in the matter of interior planning to secure this effect."

 

An additional group of houses in the historic district, on the south side of Bay Street, predates the Douglas Manor development by several years. Designed c.1900, they are excellent examples of the Colonial Revival and Queen Anne styles popular at the end of the nineteenth century.

 

Playing an important role in the historic district are the many related garage structures, often designed in architectural styles compatible with the houses they serve. Some were constructed originally as carriage houses and stables, often with residential accommodations, and later converted for garage use. By about 1920, the automobile had supplanted the horse, and garages were built as freestanding structures, some with chauffeur's quarters at the second story, usually situated close to a side or rear lot line. By the late 1920s, some houses were constructed with attached garages, or garages were constructed later, atttached to earlier houses. After World War II, many houses were built with basement garages, while other earlier houses were modified to provide basement garages.

 

The Douglas Manor Architects

 

A few prominent New York City architects with Manhattan offices received commissions in the new neighborhood; however, the vast majority of Douglas Manor houses were designed by local Queens and Brooklyn architects, and a surprisingly large number by architects who themselves lived in Douglas Manor or had offices nearby.35

 

Among the better known firms from outside the neighborhood who worked in the historic district, Buchman & Fox, architects of many Manhattan office buildings, designed 1008 Shore Road, a substantial Colonial Revival mansion overlooking the Bay. George Keister, whose practice included churches, hotels and Broadway theaters, designed 24 Knollwood Avenue, an Arts and Crafts style house, and 104 Hollywood Avenue, a Colonial Revival house. Diego DeSuarez, who planned villa gardens at both La Pietra, outside Florence, and Vizcaya, outside Miami, designed a one-story Mediterranean fantasy at 231 Beverly Road. Lionel Moses, of the firm of McKim, Mead & White, designed a house in the English cottage manner at 1102 Shore Road overlooking Little Neck Bay. The architectural firm of McKim, Mead & White is credited with the formal French Renaissance Revival style house at 4 Ardsley Road. Dating from 1919, it is constructed of hollow terra-cotta block, a form of fireproof construction, and faced with stucco.36

 

Architects from Brooklyn and Queens represented in the historic district include Arthur H. Allen, an architect very active in Forest Hills (a Colonial Revival house at 217 Ridge Road); Philip Resnyk (Tudor Revival, English cottage manner, and Colonial Revival houses on Warwick, Beverly, Grosvenor, Hollywood, Knollwood, Richmond, Kenmore, Richmond and Manor); Benjamin Dreisler (an Arts and Crafts/Colonial Revival house at 243 Forest Road); Louis Feldman (English cottage type houses at 211 and 217 Forest Road); J. Sarsfield Kennedy (a Tudor Revival house at 369 Beverly Road and a grand English bungalow/Arts and Crafts house at 1114 Shore Road), and Shampan & Shampan (a Colonial Revival house at 110 Arleigh).

 

Almost 60 of the over 600 houses in the historic district, built in the first decades of the century, are known to be the work of fourteen Douglaston architects.37 Alfred Scheffer, whose views are quoted above, designed at least ten, most in the Colonial Revival style or English cottage manner with Tudor Revival or Arts and Crafts detail.

 

John C.W. Cadoo designed at least sixteen houses, mostly Colonial Revival in style. Frank Forster designed at least three houses, one Colonial Revival, the others in the English cottage manner, as well as overseeing the restoration of the eighteenth-century Van Wyck House. Albert Humble designed at least ten houses, most in the Colonial Revival style.

 

Josephine Wright Chapman

 

Eight houses in the historic district are known to have been designed in the 1910s and 1920s by one of America's earliest successful women architects, Josephine Wright Chapman (1867-?). Chapman was professionally active from 1892 to 1927, but little is known about her education or commissions.

 

She pursued her interest in a career in architecture over opposition from her family, working from 1892 to 1897 as a draftsman in the office of Boston architect Clarence H. Blackall. Very few academically trained women became architects in the last two decades of the nineteenth century, and Chapman may have entered the profession as an apprentice.

 

By 1898 she was listed in the Boston City Directory as an architect, and developed a successful practice, despite the rejection of her application for membership in the American Institute of Architects.

 

Chapman's first major project was the New England Building at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo in 1901. Other known work includes the Craigie Arms Apartments (1897) in Cambridge, Mass., the Episcopal Church in Leominster, Mass., and the Women's Clubs in Worcester and Lynn, Mass.

 

In 1905, Chapman began to devote herself to the design of houses. She preferred the "English type," long, low and rambling, with gables and timber and plaster detailing. In 1907 she moved to New York, where she was listed in directories as an architect until 1925. Among her few published works was a sixteen-story apartment building on Park Avenue, described as demonstrating "the feminine idea of correct planning . . .and many innovations were to be introduced."

 

While in New York, she also received the commission for Hillandale, an Italian Renaissance style villa in Washington, D.C., built 1922-25. In the words of historian Gwendolyn Wright: "Neither Chapman's early public success in Boston nor her conversion to professional pursuit more appropriate for a woman qualified her for coverage in the architectural press.

 

But her career was remarkable, for few women had the financial independence to experiment with their own offices."

 

Chapman's known Douglaston houses, which date from 1909 to 1917, are in the historic district's two prevalent stylistic modes — five Colonial Revival and three in the English cottage manner.

 

They share picturesque silhouetttes with rooflines that feature gambrel or gabled roofs with hipped or shed dormers, and exposed brick chimneys; and distinctive entry and porch details, including one with Tuscan columns, one with a pointed-arch batten door, and one with a panelled entrance with side-lights and transom.

 

The Craftsman style houses

 

Several Craftsman style houses, including No. 122 Arleigh Road, 140 Prospect Avenue, and 111 Hollywood Avenue, may be one of the largest such collections in any New York City neighborhood.

 

Furniture designer Gustav Stickley of Rochester, New York, created the Craftsman architectural movement and disseminated it throughout the country via his Craftsman magazine.

 

The Craftsman aesthetic drew on the English Arts and Crafts movement, California Mission design, Japanese architecture, and Native American design, and was supported by an ideology influenced by concepts of socialism, the nobility of work, and the value of manual training.

 

Stickley developed his interest in architecture in the years 1902-05, initially as a way of creating the proper environment for his furniture. He hired architect Harvey Ellis to help develop a Craftsman architecture, and the Craftsman magazine began publishing prototype houses initially designed by Ellis, encouraging the public to take them as models for their own homes.

 

The published houses included floor plans, sketches, renderings of room schemes, elevations, and descriptions of appropriate rugs, fabrics, furniture, and color schemes. Stickley then encouraged his readers to alter the plans to suit local conditions.

 

In 1909, Stickley became involved in the actual construction of houses when he organized the Craftsman Building Company, which constructed houses in New Jersey and on Long Island.

 

The company was active for just under a year; the exact number of houses built is unknown. Most "Craftsman" houses were built by contractors using Craftsman plans.

 

The Craftsman house embodies a number of characteristics in its exterior. It is generally designed to take advantage of its site and views. Picturesque in its composition, it incorporates an "honest" expression of its materials and structure.

 

It makes use of exposed or emphasized structural elements, especially a broad, overhanging roof, often supported by large, open rafters extending beyond the eaves.

 

There may be wooden elements including curved roofs, or exotic piled capitals. Often such houses include pergolas, porches, balconies or verandas. Windows are grouped together to create large openings.

 

Craftsman houses use a variety of materials, preferably local. Stonework is often textured and ornamental, with variegated colors and shapes. Other common materials include clinker brick, and stucco, often mixed with rough sand or bits of glass.

 

Historical and Architectural Introduction

 

No. 111 Hollywood Road was designed by the Craftsman architects in 1914.55 The interior follows the Craftsman aesthetic, while the exterior borrows the distinctive eyebrow window and brick Tudor arched entrance from neighboring houses.

 

No. 122 Arleigh Road corresponds to Craftsman plan number 70, a "Ten-Room House for Town or Country Life" published originally in the Craftsman in July 1909 and again in More Craftsman Homes. Its horizontal orientation, large living porch, emphasis on structural elements including low, spreading, overhanging eaves and extended rafters, and central entrance and symmetrical facade with grouped windows, all reflect the Craftsman mold.

 

No. 140 Prospect Road correspond to Craftsman plan number 85, a "Small Two-Story Cement House with Recessed Porch and Balcony," published originally in the Craftsman in March 1910 and again in More Craftsman Homes. Its low-pitched roof revealing the rafters, porch and balcony, decorative use of structural elements, and grouping of windows and openings, all fit the Craftsman aesthetic.

 

A number of other houses in the historic district reflect the Craftsman aesthetic, even though they do not follow published Craftsman plans.

 

Prominent residents and later history

 

The first residents to move into the new Douglas Manor development, in 1907, were "the Misses Butler, of Flushing." They were followed by a number of newspapermen including "Mr. Mayer, World cartoonist, on Shore Road and Knollwood Ave.," "George C. Minor, of the New York Herald" on West Drive and Knollwood, and "Arthur Greaves, city editor of the New York Times" on West Drive, as well as a Mr. Slater of Manhattan and a Mr. Burtis, "manager of the Brooklyn branch of Swift & Co."56 Country Life in America the following year showed houses for sale in Douglas Manor priced at $8500 and $10,000.

 

Over the years, the historic district has attracted many famous residents, including a number of people in theater and the arts. Besides the above mentioned Herbert Mayer, cartoonist for The World, and architect Elbert McGran Jackson, who also illustrated covers for the Saturday Evening Post, artists included Percy Crosby, author of the "Skippy" comic strip; Robbie Robinson, another

 

illustrator for the Saturday Evening Post, Norwegian born sculptor Trygve Hammer, whose house is at 329 Forest Road,59 and satirist George Grosz.

 

Douglaston's location on the Long Island Rail Road, which made it convenient to the Astoria Studios in Long Island City, an early movie center, attracted many actors in the days before the ascendancy of Hollywood.

 

Residents have included Ginger Rogers, Hedda Hopper, Richard Dix, Ward Bond, Bonita Granville, Clifton Webb, Arthur Treacher, Jack Donahue, and William Collier Sr., as well as Ziegfeld Follies star Margaret Corry.

 

Other notable residents have included author Ring Lardner, as well as Olympic swimmer Annette Kellerman, tennis pro John McEnroe, Jr., and pianist Claudio Arrau.

 

Douglaston resident Anne E. Hayes was one of the first women to attend Cornell University's medical school, and later became a clothing designer.

 

In the half century since the end of World War II, the Douglaston Historic District has seen numerous houses altered or demolished, and much new construction. Some of the new houses have maintained the scale and repeated the materials and styles of earlier houses; others have not.

 

They have ranged in style from ranch houses to modern versions of the Colonial Revival. Overall, however, the Douglaston Historic District survives, maintaining much of its original architectural character as a planned suburban community, as well as rare surviving reminders of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and significant landscape features including the commonly-held waterfront, specimen trees, and generous landscaping.

 

All create a distinct sense of place, recalling a significant period in the history of Queens.

 

- From the 1997 NYCLPC Historic District Designation Report

Hasselblad 500C/M

Carl Zeiss Planar 80/2.8

expired Kodak T-Max 400, developed in Ilfotec HC

HPD pupils are developing concept models as part of their Developing Design Proposals Unit. As usual lighting remains a popular choice. Pupils are also developing proposals on themes as diverse as seating, kitchen utensils and sportswear equipment.

 

Good to see evidencs of great strides being made in quich modeling techniques using materials like plasticine, copper wire, plywood and foam. The glue gun gets a lot of use at the moment as does the bandsaw and fretsaw.

 

Fortunately, Cathy, our cleaner has been very understanding. The mess at times you would not believe!

 

Good work everybody. Have a great Christmas break, get some rest. You'll need all your energy for the new year!

Pier 45 (Christopher Street Pier), Greenwich Village, Manhattan

 

The Empire State Building is today the best-known symbol of New York City. Its name, Its profile, and the view from its summit are' familiar the world over, and a visit to New York is generally conceded to be incomplete without a trip to the Empire State Building's observatory.

 

The Empire State was the final and most celebrated product of the skyscraper frenzy produced by the economic boom of the 1920s, and'the most prominent of the modernistic towers that created the midtown skyline in those years. Its completion in April, 1931, on the former sits of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, marked the transformation of midtown from New York's preeminent residential area for the social elite into the commercial center of the metropolis.

 

The engineering and construction of the Empire State Building were perhaps the most awesome accomplishments of its creators. Its design, in many ways shaped by the constraints of time, cost, and structure, was the finest work of architect William Lamb, chief designer for Shreve, Lamb 6 Harmon. The slender, modernistic silhouette he created fit the building so well that even today, when it is no longer the tallest, it remains one of the handsomest of New York's skyscrapers.

 

With the decline in construction which accompanied the Depression, and the tendency in the post-war period towards shorter, denser office buildings, the Empire State it 1250 fser remained the world's tallest building until the 1970s, when the Sears Building in Chicago took the title of the world's tallest, end the World Trade Center took the title of New York's tallest. Yet despite the loss of the title which was one of the sources of its original renown, the Empire State Building remains New York's most widely recognized symbol, and the city's quintessential landmark.

 

The Site Development of Midtown Manhattan into the commercial center of New York

 

The site of the Empire State Building was part of a farm, owned by John Thompson, which was acquired In 1827 by William B. Astor. The site remained in Astor hands over a hundred years of development until Its purchase, in 1929, by the Empire State Building Interests.

 

Astor was the second son of John Jacob Astor, founder of the Astor dynasty in America. Using the family fortune, he acquired a great deal of undeveloped property in Manhattan, foreseeing that the northward expansion of New York along the island would eventually make his property worth many times its original price. Over the next fifty years, the area around 34th Street and Fifth Avenue developed first into an outlying rowhouse neighborhood of New York, and then into the city's most fashionable residential area.

 

By the 1850s, Fifth Avenue was lined with the palaces of the Vanderbilts, A.T. Stewart (the "merchant prince," one of New York's wealthiest men), and other millionaires. The Astors themselves moved from Astor Place up to Fifth Avenue in 1859, when John Jacob Astor, Jr., built his house at the northwest corner of Fifth and 33rd Street; shortly thereafter his brother William Backhouse Astor built an adjoining house at the southwest corner of Fifth and 34th Street. The Astor houses soon became known as the central meeting place of New York society, and home to the famous balls thrown by Mrs. Astor for "the four hundred," New York's social elite.

 

Following the traditional pattern of Manhattan growth, the city's hotels, theaters, clubs, and restaurants followed the residential development up Fifth Avenue. By the 1890s, guides to the city identified "the great hotel district" as lying "between 23d and 59th Streets, and Fourth and Seventh Avenues.... in that territory, which is little less than two miles long by a half mile wide, are half of the leading hotels of the metropolis.

 

In 1890, William Waldorf Astor, son of John Jacob Astor, Jr., having decided to move to London, tore down his house and filed plans for the Waldorf Hotel, a thirteen-story building designed by Henry J. Hardenbergh and completed in 1893. in 18S7, the neighboring Astor house having been demolished, the Astoria Hotel was erected by Astor's aunt, and connected to the Waldorf to form the Waldorf-Astoria. The new hotel soon became a major social institution of New York.

 

Forty years later the area was changing again, largely because of the influx of department stores just before and after World War i. During the final decades of the 19th century New York's fashionable stores had clustered in the area called the "Ladies Mile," along Fifth and Sixth Avenues and Broadway between 11th and 23rd Streets.

 

Altman's started the new trend northward by moving in 1906 from Sixth Avenue and 18th Street to Fifth Avenue at 34th Street. Others followed, and by the early 1920s Fifth Avenue was lined from 34th Street north by stores such as Best s, Tiffany's, Franklin Simon, Bonwit Teller, Lord & Taylor and Arnold Constable. Along with the department stores came several tall

 

office buildings, beginning in 1902 with the Flatiron Building at Fifth Avenue and 23rd Street.' Rider's New York City Guide noted that "Hotels and restaurants that have long been landmarks, such as the Manhattan, the Buckingham and Sherry's, have disappeared and tall office buildings are multiplying even on the side streets.

 

Newspapers picked up on the changes taking place in the area. Capt. William J. Pedrick, executive vice-president of the Fifth Avenue Association, was quoted extensively on the development of Fifth Avenue; he noted in particular the avenue's new tall commercial buildings: the 15-story New York Trust, the 34-story Squibb Building, the 58-story Salmon Jower (500 Fifth Avenue), and the plans for the Empire State Building.

 

To demonstrate the rate of change on Fifth Avenue, Rider's Guide gave a capsule history of the site across Fifth Avenue from the Waldorf-Astoria: a house belonging to Dr. "Sarsaparilla" Townsend, popularlzer of soft drinks, was replaced in 1867 by the "marble palace" of A.T. Stewart; in the 1890s the house was converted for use by the Manhattan Club; in 1901 it was demolished to make way for the four-story Knickerbocker Trust Building, to which, finally, in 1920-21 were added another twelve stories to create the Columbia Trust Building.

 

The changeover of Midtown Manhattan from social to commercial center was finally consummated by the demolition In 1930 of the Waldorf-Astoria Itself, and the opening on its site the following year of the Empire State Building, a speculative office building and the tallest In the world.

 

A New, Modernistic Midtown Skyline and the Skyscraper Race

 

A new skyline was created for the newly commercial Midtown by the progressively larger office buildings being erected during the 1920s, Since the beginnings of skyscraper development in New York in the last decades of the 19th century, architects had tried to adapt historical sty.es to the modern American invention of the skyscraper. The most successful and famous of these attempts produced the Woolworth Building (Cass Gilbert, 1913), the sixty-story Gothic tower christened the "Cathedral of Commerce." Towards the end of the 1920s, however, under the influence of a "modernism" derived in part from the European Art Deco, New York architects created a new "skyscraper style" which, it has been argued, more fully expressed the nature--the verticality, the metal structure, the sense of an industrial and technological future—of the skyscraper. The series of skyscrapers constructed in midtown, including ;be Chrysler, Daily News, McGraw-Hill, Chanin, RCA (now GE), Fuller, and Empire State buildings, helped Introduce the new modernistic Art Deco style to urban America, and defined midtown's characteristic look for the next several decades, until the new round of skyscraper buildings began in the 1960s.

 

At the same time, the builders of skyscrapers began to reach for progressively greater heights. The WooIworth Building's sixty stories

 

had rested unchallenged for a decade, and Its observatory was considered to have the finest view of New York.

 

In the late 1920s, however, the new commercial buildings began to challenge the title. A 110-story building announced in 1926 by developer John Larkin was never built, but in 1929 two towers, the Bank of Manhattan (927 ft, 70 stories) downtown on Wall Street, and the Chrysler Building (1,050 ft, 77 stories) in Midtown on East **2nd Street, competed in a race to see which would be the new tallest building in the world. The race was heightened by the rivalry between the architects of the two buildings, H. Craig Severance and William Van Alen, who had formerly been partners.

 

Chrysler won by arranging to have the building's spire secretly constructed inside the building and then jacked up through the top at the last minute. Shortly thereafter, however, the Chrysler Building lost Its title to the Empire State Building.

 

The Empire State Building was a speculative office building planned by John J. Raskob, who hired former New York State Governor A1 Smith to be president of the Empire State Company. As an executive of General' Motors, Raskob no doubt considered himself a rival in many ways of Walter Chrysler.

 

According to rental manager Hamilton Weber, the originally planned 86 stories of the Empire State Building were only four feet higher than the Chrysler Building, and "Raskob was worried that Walter Chrysler would pull a trick—like hiding a rod in the spire and then sticking it up at the last minute." Hence, according to Weber, the Idea for the 14-story dirigible mast which raised the building's height to 1250 feet but proved, in the end, to be unusable for its Intended purpose. The Chrysler and Woolworth buildings, seeing there could be no hope of competition with the Empire State, eventually closed their own observatories.

 

The 1920s procession of skyscrapers might have continued producing ever taller buildings: according to a Herald Tribune article discussing the Empire State project in 1930, "Charles F. Noyes let it be known some time ago that he was considering erecting 150 floors over two square blocks in the old mercantile district downtown."

 

The Depression put an end to any such plans, however, and the Empire State Building remained the tallest by far of the city's commercial towers.

 

John Jacob Raskob and Al Smith.

 

The man who conceived the idea for the world's tallest speculative office building was a self-made multi-millionaire industrialist named John J. Raskob.

 

Born Into a poor family in Lockport, New York, Raskob went to work early In life to support his widowed mother and family. He found work as a secretary for a small street railway company in Lorain, Ohio, that happened to be owned by Pierre Du Pont, of the Du Pont chemical industry family.

 

When Du Pont bought the Dallas Street Railway Company In Texas, he made Raskob treasurer, and eventually he took Raskob with him to Wilmington, Delaware, where Du Pont became president of E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Raskob became vice president in charge of finance.

 

Early In the century, Raskob Invested heavily In the newly formed General Motors Corporation, and convinced Du Pont to do the same.

 

In 1915, Du Pont became chairman of General Motors, and in 1918 Raskob became chairman of its Finance Committee. The spectacular growth of the value of General Motors stock made Raskob a multi-millionaire, and one of the wealthiest men in the country. Shortly before the Depression Raskob co-authored an article in the Ladies' Home Journal entitled "Everybody Ought to be Rich."'

 

Aside from his organizational abilities, Raskob's chief contribution to General Motors was the invention of the installment plan for buying automobiles.

 

Like many businessmen of the time, Raskob was interested in politics, and like most millionaires he was a Republican. His entry into politics, however, was as a contributor to the gubernatorial campaign of populist Democratic governor A1 Smith. Raskob was introduced to Smith in New York City in 1926.16 The two men came from similar backgrounds--poor Irish Catholic famlies—and shared a dislike of the Prohibition amendment, an issue in Smith's later campaign for the presidency. They became friendly, and Raskob volunteered generous contributions to Smith's 1926 gubernatorial re-election campaign. Although many of Smith's closest aides distrusted Raskob, they were unable to prevent his appointment two years later as campaign manager for Smith's unsuccessful 1928 race with Hoover for the Presidency, an appointment which resulted in the anomaly of a conservative Republic millionaire becoming Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

 

(One of Raskob's first actions as Chairman was to move thecommittee to offices in the General Motors Building on West 57th Street.)

 

Although Raskob was blamed by some Smith aides for the loss of the 1928 election, and by others for Smith's gradual shift towards a more conservative political philosophy, the relationship between the two men remained strong. When Raskob decided to get into the real estate business, and to build the tallest building in the world, he offered Smith the $50,000 a year job of President of the Empire State Corporation.

 

Al Smith and the World's Tallest Building: Public Relations at the Highest Levels."

 

Raskob's rationale for building the world's tallest building, and for making Governor Smith its president, was never clearly stated, although several explanations have been offered. Unlike its immediate predecessors—the Woolworth Building for Frank W. Woolworth and his company, the Manhattan Company Building for the Bank of Manhattan, and the Chrysler Building for Walter Chrysler and his company—the Empire State was not built to symbolize one man or company: it was not the General Motors Building or Raskob Tower, for instance.

 

The Empire State Building was instead simply a speculative office building, and it was named for New York State, home of the building and the state of which Al Smith had been four times governor. Rather than being a corporate symbol, the building became identified as the world's tallest building and a venture of Al Smith's.

 

The explanation of its height offered by the company in Its various promotional brochures was simply that of a human adventure, carrying on "the Pharaoh's dream":

 

Down through the ages, men have yearned and toiled and planned, that they might build a structure nearer to the skies than ever had been built before. Something of this great desire burned in the souls of the Pharaohs of Egypt, when the Great Pyramid of Gizeh was erected, 451 feet high, equal to thirty-four stories. St. Peter's, at Rome, lifts its dome 435 feet toward the sky. That slender and marvelous minaret in Cairo spears the heights at 280 feet and the Cremona Campanile in Italy rises 396 feet above the earth. The famous Cathedral of Cologne attains an altitude of 512 feet; the Washington Monument is 555 feet high. Then came the era of steel, heralded by the world-famous Eiffel Tower in Paris, 984 feet high, useless except as an awe-inspiring demonstration of what men, steel and machinery can accomplish.

 

The Woolworth Tower was for long the world's tallest building, rising in beautiful Gothic design to a height of sixty stories, 792 feet. The Bank of Manhattan at last surpassed it with its height of 838 feet, only to be in turn surpassed by the 1046 foot elevation cf the Chrysler Building's topmost spire. But Empire State is higher than all these. It carries to triumphant completion the vaulting ambition of the Pharaohs, of Pope Julius when he began the building of St. Peter's.

 

As for bringing ex-Governor Smith into the project, Raskob apparently suggested at the time that he was going to build the Empire State Building to give his old friend a job. Smith, having lost the presidential election and retired from the governorship of New York, faced an uncertain future.

 

His friend, actor and producer Eddie Dowling, recalled being present at the moment of Raskob's offer, the occasion being a dinner thrown by the New York State Democratic party for newly elected Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt. Smith and Dowling had gone to the men's lounge during a lull in the proceedings, and Smith was telling him of his worries, when Raskob appeared and announced, "Don't worry, A1, I'm going to build a new skyscraper--biggest in the wor!d--and you're going to be president of the company," maintaining that he was doing it all to give Smith a high-paying job.

 

The key to understanding the actual motives behind the height of the building and the involvement of Governor Smith seems to involve a newly developing science that was becoming more and more important to the art of architecture: advertising.

 

Advertising seems to have become an accepted function of office buildings in the 1920s. Arthur Tappan North, writing on the subject, noted:

 

The incorporation of publicity or advertising features in a building is frequently an item for consideration.... This feature, when possessing intrinsic merit, is consonant with and is a legitimate attribute of good architecture. It stimulates public interest and admiration, is accepted as a genuine contribution to architecture, enhances the value of the property and Is profitable to the owner in the same manner as are others forms of legitimate advertising.

 

The Empire State Company in fact launched an extensive advertising campaign capitalizing on several features of the building: its "historic site," formerly that of the Astor Mansion and the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel; its convenience ot the two rail terminals in midtown; "a board of directors that inspires confidence;" and its advertising campaign, run by the public relations firm of Belle Moscowitz, former political aide to Al Smith, hit all the leading New York newspapers 'week after week with very clever ads.

 

The value of advertising for the Empire State Building was picked up by the Real Estate Magazine, in an article entitled "Good Publicity Something More Than 'Hitting1 Front Page," in which the Empire State Building was singled out as an excellent example of how it should be done:

 

The Empire State Building has received extensive newspaper attention because of former Governor Smith's connection with the enterprise and through a number of clever creative publicity stunts, notable the mast which will top the building as a mooring spot for Zeppelins duly authorized by official Washington with reporters and cameramen obligingly on hand.-1

 

The two primary subjects of the advertising, however, the two attributes most closely identified with the building, were the involvement of Al Smith, and the building's unmatched height.

 

Al Smith's relationship to the enterprise was frankly stated In the booklet released on May ], 1931> for the building's opening ceremonies:

 

Raskob and his associates selected a leader, a man so well known to the public that his very presence placed the seal of integrity upon their undertaking. He was Alfred E. Smith, four times Governor of New York State, Presidential candidate of the Democratic Party.... known and beloved by his countrymen. He became president of Empire State, Inc. even while the mighty structure was only a dream.

 

Lists of the building's board of directors invariably began with Alfred E. Smith, and ended humbly with John J. Raskob. A New Yorker article of early

 

1931 noted that the building was "inevitably associated with ex-Governor Al Smith, fn its earlier stages his picturesque statements made excellent publicity and drew all New York's attention to the steelwork as it grew to dizzy heights."

 

Smith's biographers have noted that his functions at the building were "largely ceremonial.... The staff handled all the rental and maintenance problems, while Smith served as attention getter, greeter, and publicity man delux." To the public, however, the building was Al Smith's, and from the opening ceremonies, when his grandchildren, as representatives of "posterity," cut the ribbon at the main entrance, through the following years of giving tour upon tour to visiting royalty, politicians, sports heroes, and celebrities of every kind, he remained the building's symbol.

 

Similarly, the building's height played a major role in the company's public relations campaign. Besides constantly comparing the building's height to other tall monuments, the company emphasized the extraordinary daring of the construction workers involved in erecting the world's tallest building by commissioning photographer Lewis Hine to document the work.

 

The Company arranged for a special mechanical cage that would enable Hire to be swung out into the air to photograph the most difficult feats. The photographs were then used in advertisements, and put on display in the ground floor store windows.

 

The publicity value of tall buildings was apparently considered to be great enough that it could actually be figured in as a legitimate "expenditure," designed to bring increased prestige and, presumably, income. R.H. Shreve, one of the Empire State Building's architects, wrote in 1930 that the constraints of zoning, wind-bracing, and general costs of a very tall building determine a point...

 

...where the balance begins to swing back and the rate of return on capital investment begins to diminish as the building goes higher, unless the owner gets a markedly greater unit return for the higher space, or charges the decrease in the direct net return to "advertising."

 

Justification for this approach was probably found in the tremendous public interest which developed during the late twenties in skyscraper heights.

 

The New York Sun published a list of the fifty tallest buildings in New York, arranged by height, and shortly afterwards the architectural journal Pencil Points found It necessary to reprint it, in January 1931, noting that "Interest in the heights of New York skyscrapers does not seem to abate, if we may judge by the inquiries concerning them received in this office."

 

A cartoon in the same issue showed an architect with a rendering of a pointed skyscraper and a caption reading: "Enthusiastic Architect: 'You See, This Spike Runs Down the Entire Length of the Building and if Anyone Builds a Taller Building We Can Jack Up the Spike and Still Be the Tallest!"

 

In short, Raskob's strategy was based on an aggressive advertising campaign to market the Empire State Building, a speculative real-estate venture, as the world's tallest building, headed by the world's most popular former politician, with the world's most competent board of directors, on the world's most prestigious site, and the world's most

 

daring engineering feat, with Ai Smith personally conducting the world's famous to see the world's most overwhelming view.

 

If advertising was indeed the goal of the builders of the Empire State Building, they were extraordinarily successful. Twenty years later, Collier's described the effect of the building on the publicity-minded:

 

Douglas Leigh, who makes those superspectacular signs for Broadway, is itching to transform the top into a giant soft-drink bottle, or a glowing cigarette. Human flies want to walk up the front, flagpole sitters want to sit on the lightning rod, and high-wire artists want to traipse through space over to the Chrysler tower at Forty-second Street,

 

The effort spent on public relations paid off much sooner than the building's promoters imagined. Two weeks after the project was announced the stock market crashed, and throughout the early years of the Depression the building remained seriously undertenanted. The Empire State Building was saved from bankruptcy, in part, by the million or so visitors to the observation decks each year who paid one dollar a piece admissions.

 

Shreve, Lamb & Harmon

 

John J. Raskob was no doubt attracted to Shreve, Lamb 6 Harmon by their business-like approach to architecture. Raskob first encountered Shreve S Lamb in 1926 when his company, General Motors, commissioned a new headquarters on West 57th Street from the firm. He must have been impressed by their performance; he may also have considered it an advantage that Shreve, Lamb £ Harmon had been called in as consulting architects for the Bank of Manhattan Building, and therefore had some experience in races for the "tallest building" title, as well as experience working with the Starrett & Eken construction company which built the^Bank of Manhattan and which was later awarded the Empire State contract.

 

Richmond Haroid Shreve (1877" 1946) was born in Cornwall is, Nova Scotia, son of a former Dean of Quebec Cathedral. He studied architecture at Cornell University, graduated in 1502, and spent the next four years on the faculty of the College of Architecture there. While at Cornel! he supervised construction of Goldwiri Smith Hall, designed by the prominent New York firm of Carrere £ Hastings, and at the conclusion of the work he joined the firm.

 

William Frederick Lamb (1883-1952), son of New York builder William Lamb, was born in Brooklyn. After graduating from Williams College in 1904, he studied at the Columbia University School of Architecture, and then went to Paris to study at the Atelier Deglane. Having received his diploma from the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in 1911, he returned to New York and joined Carrere S Hastings. in 1920, both Shreve and Lamb became partners in the new firm of Carrere £ Hastings, Shreve & Lamb.

 

Four years later they broke away to form Shreve & Lamb, and in 1925 they were joined by Arthur Loomis Harmon (1878-1958) to form Shreve, Lamb & Harmon.Harmon, born in Chicago, had studied at the Art Institute there, and graduated from the Columbia University School of Architecture in .1901. From 1902 to 1911 he was a designer in the office of McKim, Head & White, in 1912-13 an associate of the firm of Wall is & Goodwlllie, and then practiced under his own name until joining Shreve £ Lamb. His work alone included battle monuments at Tours, Cantigny and Somme-Py in France, a YMCA in Jerusalem, and the award-winning Shelton Hotel in New York.

 

Of the three architects in the firm, Lamb was generally acknowledged to be the designer, and Shreve the administrator. Shreve was also active as a planner outside the firm's work; he was the director of the Slum Clearance Committee of New York after its formation in 1933, and chief architect of the group preparing plans for the Williamsburg Housing Project, as well as chief architect of the Vladeck Houses on the Lower East Side and also of Parkchester in the Bronx.

 

Shreve, Lamb & Harmon worked principally on commercial office buildings, although they also designed a number of estates and residences in the New York suburbs, and a few apartment houses in Manhattan, Their residential work largely in the neo-Tudor and other popular styles of the 1920s, while their commercial work tended to be spare and functional, reflecting little of the Beaux-Arts ornament for which Carrere & Hastings had been famous.

 

Their buildings in New York, including 500 Fifth Avenue, 14 Wall Street, the Lefcourt National Building, and the Mutual of New York Building, and also their commissions outside the city, such as the Standard Oi! Building in Albany, the Reynolds Tobacco Company building in Winston-Salem, and the Chimes Building In Syracuse, are all similarly designed with unadorned limestone cladding, metal framed windows, and simple set-back massing, occasionally with Art Deco or Streamlined ornamental motifs.

 

The spareness and economy of the firm's designs were a reflection of several architecturai notions gaining currency in the 1920s. As office buildings grew larger and their engineering and financing more complex, the nature of architecture had to adapt to new conditions, Many architects in the 1920s and 1930s, recognizing new constraints, adapted the language of the international Style and functionalist schools of thought and wrote about a new art of architecture.

 

All three architects in the firm wrote on the subject of the changing nature of architecture. Harmon listed the various forces at work on design as: steel construction, congested business areas, the need for light and air, property shape, internal lighting, zoning, the ratio of rentable area to overall area, the cost of steel, wind bracing, and elevators. William Lamb, the partner concerned least with organization and most with design, concurred:

 

An interesting development in the planning of present day office buildings is the change in the conception that the architect has of his work. The day that he could sit before his drawing board and make pretty sketches of decidedly uneconomic monuments to himself has gone. His scorn of things "practical" has been replaced by an intense earnestness to make practical necessities the armature upon which he moulds the form of his idea. Instead of being the intolerant aesthete, he Is one of a group of experts upon whom he depends for the success of his work, for the modern large building with its complicated machinery is beyond the capacity of any one man to master, and yet he must, in order to control the disposition and arrangement of this machine, -have a fairly accurate general knowledge of what it is all about. Added to this he must know how to plan his building so that it will "work" economically and produce the revenue for which his clients have made their investment.39

 

Lamb's design inclinations corresponded very well to the kind of work that Shreve brought into the office. Mrs. Lamb recalls that his tastes in most matters tended to the simple and classical. The architecture he loved best was the spare Romanesque of the southern French cathedrals. Among his contemporaries he greatly admired Raymond Hood, particularly his spare, vertical Daily News Building; HoGd also wrote about the practical side of architecture, dismissing fantastic design as unnecessary. The two men were close friends. Although Lamb's "work had much of the Modernistic to it, his opinion of the flamboyant variety of Moderne represented by the Chrysler Building was rather low—he referred to it once as the "Little Nemo school of architecture," meaning fancy and fantastic, like the comic strip. He never considered his work to be in any way describable as "Art Deco."

 

Precisely because the firm was a well-organized producer of practical and unadorned office buildings, it was able to organize the myriad elements involved and produce a striking, handsome, but still economical design for the Empire State Building, which was above all a creation of business considerations and an unrivalled engineering feat.

 

Conception and Design

 

According to the architects, the Empire State Building was largely shaped by the various economic and engineering considerations involved.

 

The program was short enough—a fixed budget, no space more than 28 feet from window to corridor, as many stories of such space as possible, an exterior of limestone, and completion by May 1, 1931, which meant a year and six months from the beginning of sketches, The first three of these requirements produced the mass of the building and the latter two the characteristics of its design.

 

Planning of the building's layout — involving the placement of elevators, utilities, ventilation, and pipe shafts in such a way as to obtain the maximum amount of rentable office space-~centered on a prototypical plan for the 30th floor, at which point the tower legally began to rise with a zoning-mandated floor-area of one-quarter the lot size.

 

The principles, established by these cooperative investigations, which covered a period of four weeks, together with the owner's requirements... formed the complete program. The "parti" was arrived at in two hours, the evening before a meeting of the owner's corporation. An all-night "charette" produced the next day a series of five or six of the essential plans, an elevation, a perspective, and a fairly accurate tabulation of rentable areas and cube.

 

Lamb described the plan arrived at through the various consultations:

 

The logic of the plan is very simple. A certain amount of space in the center, arranged as compactly as possible, contains the vertical circulation, toilets, shafts and corridors. Surrounding this is a perimeter of office space 28 feet deep. The sizes of the floors diminish as the elevators decrease in number. In essence there is a pyramid of non-rentable space surrounded by a greater pyramid of rentable space....^

 

The massing of the building was to a great extent affected by the elevator system. The elevators were placed in four banks parallel to the building's main axis, with those on the east and west sides being the low-rise group. The low-rise elevators drop off as the building rises, enabling the tower to step back...

 

...from the long dimension of the property to approach the square form of the shaft, with the result that instead of being a tower, set upon a series of diminishing setbacks prescribed by the zoning law, the building becomes all tower rising from a great five-story base.^

 

Elevators and budget were said to be the determining factors of the building's height. The elevator contractor, and Starrett Brothers and Eken, asked independently to calculate the height limit of the building based on their economic priori tie:;, each arrived at a limit of eighty stories plus five for the executive offices.

 

Floor-plan, massing, and height arrived at, the architects turned to the building's exterior. The spare design, based on massing and vertical window strips, was a product of both the building program's practical needs, and Lamb's aesthetic preferences.

 

The exterior is defined almost entirely by a system of vertical strips of windows, projecting slightly beyond the limestone walls, set in continuous vertical metal surrounds, and separated by dull aluminum spandrels; these strips are arranged singly, in pairs, and in sets of three, and run continuously from bottom to top. There is almost no ornamental detail, other than modernistic ripples in the aluminum spandrels and modernistic caps where the window strips terminate at building setbacks.

 

The practical source of the window system was "the last and perhaps_ the most important item in the owner's program-speed of construction."

 

Completion of the building by May 1st was required because that was the traditional day for the signing of new commercial leases in the city, and therefore of crucial importance in the economic planning of a speculative office building. With such a complex building program, construction had to proceed smoothly and as quickly as possible. The advantages of the system were outlined by Shreve in a special article.

 

The total effect of the massing, height, and window-spandrel-wall design is of a very tall tower, rising from a five-story base, and topped by a modernistic spire. The window strips break up the mass of the building, and emphasize its verticality, while the elimination of reveals creates effectively a smooth glass, metal, and stone skin. The expression

 

of the building's taliness is simple arid elegant, the epitome of the kind of design most admired by William Lamb.

 

On the question of the building's style, Lamb wrote:

 

Whatever "style" it may be is the result of a logical and simple answer to the problems set by the economic and technical demands of its unprecedented program.

 

He never thought of it as Art Deco. Much of the ornament can only be described as "modernistic," especially the glass and steel dirigible mooring mast, and in that sense would fall under the generic term "Art Deco" or "Moderne," but the design of the building has little in common with that of the flamboyant Chrysler Building, almost its contemporary and the generally accepted prototypical Art Deco skyscraper.

 

In its reliance on stacked massing, vertical window strips, and simplicity of materials, and in the public insistence by its architects that these elements were largely determined by sheer practical necessity, the Empire State Building seems closer to Raymond Hood's Daily News Building, also contemporary with it.

 

It is quite possible that Lamb discussed his work with his close friend Hood; he admired his work, and the Daily News was Hood's most recent success at the time. The Daily News Building is also riot a purely Art Deco creation, but in some respects an International Style slab; similarly, Hood's contemporary McGraw-Hill Building combines aspects of both, If the Empire State Building, a spare tower on a base with some modernistic details, belongs In a line of succession, it might be that of the News and McGraw-Hill Buildings, followed by the RCA tower in Rockefeller Center, of which Hood was a chief designer.

 

By contrast with the News Building, however, the Empire State is thoroughly symmetrical, and not treated with bright colors. Unlike many skyscrapers, it does not present an overwhelming mass: in midtown, pedestrians are conscious only of its five-story base, which blends into the scale of the area, while from a distance It presents 3 slender silhouette, rising from the center of the metropolis, which Is visible and recognizable from almost every point in the city and some beyond. In this sense, the Empire State Building is in its own class, and its design reflects what it, uniquely, is.

 

Description

 

Although the 1250-foot high Empire State Building is often described as 102 stories tall, that is not quite accurate. The major portion of the building is comprised of 80 stories of commercial office space, with five stories above that for the building's executive offices, and the observatory at the 86th floor. The enormous metal "mooring mast" above the building contains only an elevator encircled by a staircase, and no floors per se; its height, however, is considered by the Empire State Building management to be the equivalent of 14 stories; these, added to the 86 offices floors and two basement levels, produce the figure of 102 stories.

 

The building's tower sits on a five-story base, with facades at the lot line on West 33rd Street, Fifth Avenue, and West 34th Street. The base is a monumental modernistic version of a classical scheme: basement, colonnade, and attic. The basement is formed by the first floor shops and entrances •> the colonnade is approximated by a giant order of molded stone piers piers flanking vertical window strips; and the attic consists of small windows alternating with molded stone panels.

 

The Fifth Avenue facade centers on the building's main entrance which consists of a central pair of doors flanked on either side by a revolving door; a three-story high, three-bay wide set of windows set in modernisticalIy-designed patterns; and an attic story of a pair of windows, all set off from the rest of the facade by two giant molded-stone piers topped by stylized stone eagles above which are inscribed the words EMPIRE STATE. The rest of the facade is comprised of monumental bays, three on either side.

 

Each bay consists of a storefront of chrome-metal and glass at the first floor levei, two three-story vertical window strips separated by a narrow stone mull ton and flanked by a wide stone pier with a modernistic top in place of a capital, and two windows at the fifth-floor level separated by a narrow squat molded-stone mull ion and flanked by wide squat stone piers. These three bays are set off from the central*-entrance bay by a half-bay comprising one vertical strip of windows, and end at either corner with a half-bay set between two monumental stone piers.

 

The identical 33rd and 34th Street facades each comprise three sections of monumental bays, similar to those on the Fifth Avenue facade, separated by two entrance bays. The three sections consist of six, seven, and six bays, slightly emphasising the central section. The two entrance bays on either facade, which project slightly outward, are less elaborate versions of the main Fifth Avenue entrance bay: doors at the first floor level, three vertical window strips, and a three-window attic story, all enframed by a wide stone surround.

 

The two West 33rd Street entrances, however, are actually recessed; these entrances have sets of side doors perpendicular to the building front, and front revolving doors; a moderne light fixture hangs In the center of the recess; the doors are aluminum, set in marble walls.

 

Streamlined metal marquee-type canopies with curving corners project over the entrances on West 33rd and West 34th Streets; each is ringed by three sets of continuous horizontal metal bands. The original storefronts are almost entirely glass-fronted. Each has a black-granite base, a cornice of horizontal molded-aluminum bands framing a black-granite panel, and a central recessed entrance, and each is separated from the next by narrow molded aluminum mull ions topped by modernistic finials.

 

The storefronts form a glass wall which projects three feet beyond the five-story base and forms a banding around it; the continuous black-granite cornices are at the same level as the metal canopies over the 33rd and 34th Street entrances and form a black band course at that level. Several of the storefronts have been unsympathetically altered.

 

The design scheme above the five-story base is determined simply by massing and fenestration. On both the eastern, Fifth Avenue, facade and the western, rear, facade, the tower is dramatically set back above its base, and rises, with shallow setbacks at the 21st and 25th floors, to the 30th floor; from there It rises unobstructed to a .shallow setback at the 72nd floor, then to the 81st floor setback, somewhat more pronounced, which marks the top of the commercial office portion of the building--wi th corresponding elevator banks—and the beginning of the five-story executive suite; a final setback at the 85th floor marks the observatory. Above the tower rises the metal-faced dirigible mooring mast, topped by an enormous television broadcasting antenna.

 

The tower on the east and west facades is nine bays wide from the sixth to the 25th floor, seven bays wide to the 72nd floor, six bays wide to the 81st floor, and five bays wide to the mooring mast.

 

The north (34th Street) and south (33rd Street) facades, wider than the east and west facades, are fifteen bays wide from the sixth to the 21st floor, eleven bays wide to the 30th floor, and nine bays wide to the mooring mast; the nine bays from the 30th floor up are divided into three sections of three bays each: a central section enframed by two projecting side sections; the central section rises unbroken to the 85th floor, while the flanking projecting sections rise to a shallow setback at the 72nd floor and another at the 81st. The various setbacks produce a symmetrical massing that emphasizes the verticality of the building, and creates at the lower levels the effect of a tower rising from a layer of surrounding tapered masses.

 

A fenestration pattern of long vertical window strips is used to break up the mass of the building and emphasize Its verticality. Each window In the vertical strips protrudes slightly from the Indiana limestone cladding of the tower, and is enframed by a strip of nickel-chrome-steel ; each window is separated from the one above by a dull aluminum spandrel with modernistic molding. Where the vertical window strips rise to a setback, they end in simple modernistic metal caps, and begin again above the setback. The three central window strips on the north and south sides end at the 85th-floor level in much larger and more elaborate modernistic metal plates.

 

The strips on most of the building are arranged in pairs, each level comprising two adjacent windows separated by a nickel-chrome-steel mull ion and enframed by nickel-chrome-steel surrounds, each window having an accompanying dull aluminum spandrel; several bays however comprise triple window strips, while others comprise single window strips. The alternation between paired, triple, and single strips Is used to create a horizontal rhythm of vertical lines accentuating the center of each facade.

 

On the east and west facades, all windows are arranged in paired vertical strips, with these exceptions: the outer bay on either side from the sixth to the 25th floor, and the outer four bays on either side from the 21st to the 25th floor, consist of single vertical window strips; the outer bay on either side from the 72nd to the 81st floor likewise consists

 

Sf a single vertical window strip, and also the outer two bays from the 81st to the 84th floods. The arrangement on the wider north and south fronts Is more complicated. The outer two bays, on either side, which rise from the sixth to the 21st floor, are paired vertical window strips.

 

The next five bays on either side, rising from the sixth floor to a shallow setback at the 25th, and projecting out past the central section, are symmetrically arranged with a centra! paired-window strip bay in the center flanked on either side by two single window strips; these bays above the 25th floor setback to the 30th floor are rearranged as two paired vertical strips and a triple strip. The central five bays, from the sixth to the 30th floors, are paired vertical window strips. Above the 30th floor, where these facades are divided into two projecting sections flanking a central section, the latter comprises three paired window strips, while the former are symmetrically arranged as a triple-window strip flanked on either side by a paired window strip.

 

Rising above the 86-story office building is the aluminum, chrome-nickel-steel and glass mast, originally designed to be used for mooring dirigibles but now serving only as a support for the upper observatory tower, and housing for display lights, Four progressively smaller rectangular levels form a base from which springs a cylindrical shaft rising to a conical top. The sides of the levels forming the base are ringed by continuous horizontal metal banding. At each of the four corners of the cylindrical shaft, rising to half its height, Is a set of three overlapping metal wings from which the shaft appears to grow; the four sides of the shaft are formed by continuous glass walls.

 

The top is Jr. three sections: a cylindrical enclosed observation level, still used, of the same circumference as the shaft; a second, smaller cylindrical level surrounded by an open-air observation area, no longer in use, originally Intended as a landing platform for dirigible passengers; and a top section In the shape of a truncated cone--pierced by eight circular openings--which houses the mooring mechanism and beacon lights, and which is topped by a metal mooring pole; each of these three sections is ringed by continuous tubular metal bands. The mooring mast Is now the base for a 200-foot high television antenna, added In 1953, which completes the silhouette of the building as It has been known since that year.

 

Empire State Building: Symbol of New York

 

Following the uncertain first years of the Depression, during -which the half-tenanted building was nicknamed "Smith's Folly*" or the "Empty State Building," the Empire State became a successful commercial office building. The continuing northward trend of Midtown took the prime corporate tenants whom Raskob had hoped to attract away to office buildings north of 42nd Street; the tenancy of the building therefore has since bean largely drawn from the surrounding garment district. Among others housed In the building are the notions, shoe, shirt and hosiery industries, as well as many international corporations and banks.

 

The Empire State Building, however went beyond the aspirations of

 

Raskob for a prestigious and profitable commercial office building. The success of the observatory in drawing crowds of tourists, arid the guided tours by Governor Smith for all visiting celebrities, started a process which helped make the building famous the world over. March 1940 saw the building's four-millionth visitor (actor Jimmy Stewart), and May 1971 its forty millionth. "

 

The Empire State Building's place as symbol of New York derives perhaps equally from its function as a place to visit, from where the most spectacular view of Mew York can be had, and its function as a centrally located landmark, whose slender, pointed silhouette can be seen literally from miles around, marking out midtown Manhattan, the center of the metropolis. The famous silhouette has been reproduced in countless images, and small statues of the. building have been spotted in Far-Eastern bazaars 55 as well as In Times Square tourist shops. The building has figured In television and movies--most famous of these being King Kong—as a symbol of the summit of New York, the greatest creation of a great city.

 

In the 1970s, when the building lost Its title as world's tallest, the office of Shreve, Lamb & Harmon announced a plan to remove the mooring mast above the 86th floor observatory and replace it with twenty stories of office space, to reestablish the building's position as world's greatest skyscraper. The plan—apparently more a public relations ploy than a serious proposal —was quickly forgotten, and indeed would have been counter-productive, as It would have destroyed the silhouette by which the building is known.

 

Despite the loss of Its "world's tallest." title, In fact, the Empire State Building has lost none of Its original distinction or renown. Its design, its history, and perhaps also its position In the center of the city, have all helped it retain Its symbolic significance.

 

On the occasion of its 50th anniversary—May 1, 1981--a special proclamation was Issued by the Mayor of New York, declaring the week of May 1-8, 1981, to be "Empire State Building Week."

 

The Empire State Building remains New York's preeminent landmark.

 

- From the 1981 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

I have a Patreon page where you can support my work and have access to content I haven't shared anywhere else before! Link below.

 

Self-portrait

Film

 

Developed and scanned at home

 

You can support my work at:

Patreon

Ko-fi

 

Instagram

Website

Tumblr

Developing.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Sweden required a strong air defense, utilizing the newly developed jet propulsion technology. This led to a pair of proposals being issued by the Saab design team, led by Lars Brising. The first of these, codenamed R101, was a cigar-shaped aircraft, which bore a resemblance to the American Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star. The second design, which would later be picked as the winner, was a barrel-shaped design, codenamed R 1001, which proved to be both faster and more agile upon closer study.

 

The original R 1001 concept had been designed around a mostly straight wing, but after Swedish engineers had obtained German research data on swept-wing designs, the prototype was altered to incorporate a 25° sweep. In order to make the wing as thin as possible, Saab elected to locate the retractable undercarriage in the aircraft's fuselage rather than into the wings.

 

Extensive wind tunnel testing performed at the Swedish Royal University of Technology and by the National Aeronautical Research Institute had also influenced aspects of the aircraft's aerodynamics, such as stability and trim across the aircraft's speed range. In order to test the design of the swept wing further and avoid any surprises, it was decided to modify a single Saab Safir. It received the designation Saab 201 and a full-scale R 1001 wing for a series of flight tests. The first 'final' sketches of the aircraft, incorporating the new information, was drawn in January 1946.

 

The originally envisioned powerplant for the new fighter type was the de Havilland Goblin turbojet engine. However, in December 1945, information on the newer and more powerful de Havilland Ghost engine became available. The new engine was deemed to be ideal for Saab's in-development aircraft, as not only did the Ghost engine had provisions for the use of a central circular air intake, the overall diameter of the engine was favorable for the planned fuselage dimensions, too. Thus, following negotiations between de Havilland and Saab, the Ghost engine was selected to power the type instead and built in license as the RM 2.

 

By February 1946 the main outline of the proposed aircraft had been clearly defined. In Autumn 1946, following the resolution of all major questions of principal and the completion of the project specification, the Swedish Air Force formally ordered the completion of the design and that three prototype aircraft be produced, giving the proposed type the designation J 29.

On 1 September 1948, the first of the Saab 29 prototypes conducted its maiden flight, which lasted for half an hour. Because of the shape of its fuselage, the Saab J 29 quickly received the nickname "Flygande Tunnan" ("The Flying Barrel"), or "Tunnan" ("The Barrel") for short. While the demeaning nickname was not appreciated by Saab, its short form was eventually officially adopted.

 

A total of four prototypes were built for the aircraft's test program. The first two lacked armament, carrying heavy test equipment instead, while the third prototype was armed with four 20mm automatic guns. Various different aerodynamic arrangements were tested, such as air brakes being installed either upon the fuselage or on the wings aft of the rear spar, along with both combined and conventional aileron/flap arrangements.

 

The flight test program revealed that the J 29 prototypes were capable of reaching and exceeding the maximum permissible Mach number for which they had been designed, and the flight performance figures gathered were found to be typically in excess of the predicted values.

 

In 1948 production of the type commenced and in May 1951 the first deliveries of operational production aircraft were received by F 13 Norrköping. The J 29 proved to be very successful and several variants and updates of the Tunnan were produced, including a dedicated reconnaissance variant and an all-weather fighter with an on-board radar.

 

A trainer variant was deemed to be useful, too, since the transition of young pilots from relatively slow, piston-engine basic trainers to jet-powered aircraft was considered to be a major step in the education program. At that time, the only jet-powered two-seater in Swedish inventory was the DH 115 Vampire. 57 of these, designated J 28C by the Swedish Air Force, had been procured from Great Britain in the late Forties, but an indigenous alternative (and a more capable successor) was politically favored.

 

In 1952 initial wind tunnel tests with scaled-down models were conducted, since it was not clear which layout would be the best from an aerodynamic, structural and educational point of view. After a thorough inspection of wooden 1:1 mock-ups of alternative tandem and a side-by-side cockpit layouts, as well as much political debate between Saab, the Swedish Air Force and the Swedish government concerning the costs and budget for a dedicated Saab 29 trainer fleet’s development and production, a compromise was settled upon in early 1953: No new trainer airframes would be produced. Instead, only existing airframes would be converted into two seaters, in an attempt to keep as much of the existing structure and internal fuel capacity as possible.

 

The side-by-side arrangement was adopted, not only because it was considered to be the more effective layout for a trainer aircraft. It also had the benefit that its integration would only mean a limited redesign of the aircraft’s cockpit section above the air intake duct and the front landing gear well, allowing to retain the single-seater’s pressurized cabin’s length and internal structure. A tandem cockpit would have been aerodynamically more efficient, but it would have either considerably reduced the J 29’s internal fuel capacity, or the whole aircraft had had to be lengthened with a fuselage plug, with uncertain outcome concerning airframe and flight stability. It would also have been the more costly option,

 

However, it would take until 1955 that the first trainer conversions were conducted by Saab, in the wake of the major wing and engine updates for the J 29 A/B fleet that lasted until 1956. The trainer, designated Sk 29 B, was exclusively based on the J 29 B variant and benefited from this version’s extra fuel tanks in the wings and fully wired underwing weapon hardpoints, which included two wet pylons for drop tanks and made the Sk 29 B suitable for weapon training with the J 29’s full ordnance range.

 

The trainer conversions only covered the new cockpit section, though. The Sk 29 B did not receive the new dogtooth wing which was only introduced to the converted J 29 D, E and F fighters. The upper pair of 20mm cannon in the lower front fuselage was deleted, too, in order to compensate for the two-seater’s additional cockpit equipment weight and drag. Performance suffered only marginally under the enlarged canopy, though, and the Sk 29 B turned out to be a very sound and useful design for the advanced jet trainer role.

 

However, budgetary restraints and the quick development of aircraft technology in the Fifties limited the number of fighter conversions to only 22 airframes. The aging Vampire two-seaters still turned out to be adequate for the advanced trainer role, and the Sk 29 B did not offer a significant advantage over the older, British aircraft. Another factor that spoke against more Sk 29 Bs was the simple fact that more trainer conversions would have reduced the number of airframes eligible for the running fighter aircraft updates.

 

All Sk 29 Bs were concentrated at the F 5 Ljungbyhed Kungliga Krigsflygskolan training wing in southern Sweden, where two flights were equipped with it. Unofficially dubbed “Skola Tunnan” (literally “School Barrel”), the Sk 29B performed a solid career, even though the machines were gradually retired from 1966 onwards. A dozen Sk 29 B remained active until 1972 in various supportive roles, including target tugging, air sampling and liaison duties, while the final Vampire trainer was already retired in 1968. But by the early Seventies, the trainer role had been taken over by the brand new Saab 105/Sk 60 trainer, the long-awaited domestic development, and Sk 35 Draken trainers.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 10.23 m (33 ft 7 in)

Wingspan: 11.0 m (36 ft 1 in)

Height: 3.75 m (12 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 24.15 m² (260.0 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,120 kg (11,277 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,375 kg (18,465 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Svenska Flygmotor RM2 turbojet, rated at 5,000 lbf (22.2 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,010 km/h (627 mph)

Range: 1,060 km (658 mi)

Service ceiling: 15,500 m (50,850 ft)

Rate of climb: 30.5 m/s (6,000 ft/min)

 

Armament:

2x 20mm Hispano Mark V autocannon in the lower front fuselage

Underwing hardpoints for various unguided missiles and iron bombs, or a pair drop tanks

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another Saab 29 conversion of a variant that was thought about but never materialized, much like the radar-equipped all-weather fighter. The impulse to tackle this stunt was a leftover D. H. Vampire trainer fuselage pod in my stash (from the ‘Mystery Jet’ conversion a couple of months ago, from an Airfix kit). The canopy’s shape and dimensions appeared like a sound match for the tubby J 29, and so I decided to try this stunt.

 

The basis is the Heller J 29 kit, which is, despite raised surface details, IMHO the better kit than the rather simple Matchbox offering. However, what makes things more hazardous, though, is the kit’s option to build the S 29 C reconnaissance variant – the lower front fuselage is a separate part, and any surgery around the cockpit weakens the kit’s overall stability considerably. Unlike the J 29D all-weather fighter built recently, I had no visual reference material. The only valid information I was able to dig up was that a side-by-side cockpit had been the preferred layout for this paper project.

 

Implanting a new cockpit is always hazardous, and I have never tried to integrate a side-by-side arrangement into a single seater. The Vampire cockpit was finished first, and also mounted into the Vampire’s original cockpit pod halves, because I was able to use its side walls and also had the original canopy parts left over – and using the Vampire’s cockpit opening would ensure a good fit and limit PSR work around the clear parts. Once the Vampire cockpit tub was complete, the “implant” was trimmed down as far as possible.

 

Next step was to prepare the Tunnan to accept the donor cockpit. In order to avoid structural trouble I finished the two fuselage halves first, mounted the air intake with the duct to the front end, but left the fighter version’s gun tray away (while preparing it with a load of lead). The idea was to put the Vampire cockpit into position from below into the Tunnan’s fuselage, until all outer surfaces would more or less match in order to minimize PSR work.

 

With the Vampire cockpit as benchmark, I carefully tried to draw its outlines onto the upper front fuselage. The following cutting and trimming sessions too several turns. To my surprise, the side-by-side cockpit’s width was the least problem – it fits very well inside of the J 29 fuselage’s confines, even though the front end turned out to be troublesome. Space in length became an issue, too, because the Airfix Vampire cockpit is pretty complete: it comes with all pedals, a front and a rear bulkhead, and its bulged canopy extends pretty far backwards into an aerodynamic fairing. As a result, it’s unfortunately very long… Furthermore, air intake duct reaches deep into the Tunnan’s nose, too, so that width was not the (expected) problem, but rather length!

 

Eventually, the cockpit lost the front bulkhead and had to trimmed and slimmed down further, because, despite its bulky fuselage, the Tunnan’s nose is rather narrow. As a consequence the Vampire cockpit had to be moved back by about 3mm, relative to the single-seater’s canopy, and the area in front of the cockpit/above the air intake duct had to be completely re-sculpted, which took several PSR stages. Since the Vampire’s canopy shape is very different and its windscreen less steep (and actually a flat glass panel), I think this change is not too obvious, tough, and looks like a natural part of the fictional real-life conversion. However, a fiddly operation, and it took some serious effort to blend the new parts into the Tunnan fuselage, especially the windscreen.

 

Once the cockpit was in place, the lower front fuselage with the guns (the upper pair had disappeared in the meantime) was mounted, and the wings followed suit. In this case, I modified the flaps into a lowered position, and, as a subtle detail, the Tunnan kit lost its retrofitted dogtooth wings, so that they resemble the initial, simple wing of the J 29 A and B variants. Thanks to the massive construction of the kit’s wings (they consist of two halves, but these are very thin and almost massive), this was a relatively easy task.

 

The rest of the Tunnan was built mostly OOB; it is a typical Heller kit of the Seventies: simple, with raised surface detail, relatively good fit (despite the need to use putty) and anything you could ask for a J 29 in 1:72 scale. I just replaced the drop tanks with shorter, thicker alternatives – early J 29 frequently carried Vampire drop tanks without fins, and the more stout replacements appeared very suitable for a trainer.

 

The pitots on the wing tips had to be scratched, since they got lost with the wing modifications - but OOB they are relatively thick and short, anyway. Further additions include a tail bumper and extra dorsal and ventral antennae, plus a fairing for a rotating warning light, inspired by a similar installation on the late J 29 target tugs.

  

Painting and markings:

As usual, I wanted a relatively plausible livery and kept things simple. Early J 29 fighters were almost exclusively left in bare metal finish, and the Swedish Vampire trainers were either operated in NMF with orange markings (very similar to the RAF trainers), or they carried the Swedish standard dark green/blue grey livery.

 

I stuck to the Tunnan’s standard NMF livery, but added dark green on wing tips and fin, which were widely added in order to make formation flight and general identification easier. However, some dayglow markings were added on the fuselage and wings, too, so that – together with the tactical markings – a colorful and distinct look was created, yet in line with typical Swedish Air Force markings in the late Fifties/early Sixties.

 

The NMF livery was created with an overall coat of Revell 99 acrylic paint (Aluminum), on top of which various shades of Metallizer were dry-brushed, panel by panel. Around the exhaust, a darker base tone (Revell 91, Iron Metallic and Steel Metallizer) was used. Around the cockpit, in order to simulate the retrofitted parts, some panels received a lighter base with Humbrol 191.

 

The raised panel lines were emphasized through a light black in wash and careful rubbing with grinded graphite on a soft cotton cloth – with the benefit that the graphite adds a further, metallic shine to the surface and destroys the uniform, clean NMF look. On the front fuselage, where many details got lost through the PSR work, panel lines were painted with a thin, soft pencil.

 

The cockpit interior became dark green-grey (Revell 67 comes pretty close to the original color), the landing gear wells medium grey (Revell 57). The dark green markings on fin and wing tips were painted with Humbrol 163 (RAF Dark Green), which comes IMHO close to the Swedish “Mörkgrön”. The orange bands were painted, too, with a base of Humbrol 82 (Orange Lining) on top of which a thin coat of fluorescent orange (Humbrol 209) was later added. Even though the NMF Tunnan did not carry anti-dazzle paint in front of the windscreen, I added a black panel because of the relatively flat area there on the modified kit.

 

Decals come from different sources: roundels and stencils come from the Heller kit’s sheet, the squadron code number from a Flying Colors sheet with Swedish ciphers in various colors and sizes for the late Fifties time frame, while the tactical code on the fin was taken from a Saab 32 sheet.

Finally the kit was sealed with a “¾ matt”, acrylic varnish, mixed from glossy and matt varnishes.

  

An effective and subtle conversion, and a bigger stunt than one might think at first sight. The Tunnan two-seater does, hoewever, not look as disturbing as, for instance, the BAC Lightning or Hawker Hunter trainer variants? The rhinoplasty was massive and took some serious PSR, though, and the livery was also more demanding than it might seem. But: this is what IMHO a real Saab 29 trainer could have looked like, if it had left the drawing boards in the early Fifties. And it even looks good! :D

Roscosmos plans to develop touristic programs to Russian spaceports including Baikonur and Vostochny.

 

According to Roscosmos representative there is a special program to be elaborated to improve this field. The Agency itself is not going to work with the tourists directly but will definitely make all infrastructural changes necessary. Read the full story here➡️ russianspacenews.com/roscosmos-to-develop-touristic-trips... (Our special project to announce our space news) #вежительтур #roscosmos #NASA #ESA #baikonur #rocket #liftoff #space #spacetours #ISS #Байконур #космодром #космос #МКС #авиакосмическийтуризм #Союз #СоюзТМА #soyuztma18m #spaceport #spacelove #spacetours #spaceshuttle #spaceship #spacecraft #followme #instadaily #picoftheday #вежитель

 

20 Likes on Instagram

  

Jeron Classic Motors began to develop a series of miniature ¼-scale cars and engines in the mid 1990’s. Only a few of the cars were sold before the company closed its doors forever and all remaining inventory was sold at auction. Twelve engines were built from the inventory parts by Bennie Vreeman in the Netherlands. One engine was a running model that burned methanol on glow ignition, while the remaining eleven were built for display only. This engine was completed as a running model in 2009 for the Miniature Engineering Museum. It burns methanol, on glow ignition and it is equipped with two oil pumps for dry sump lubrication. All six carburetors function and are linked together for smooth operation.

 

See Our Model Engine Collection at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets/72157602933346098/

 

Visit Our Photo Sets at: www.flickr.com/photos/15794235@N06/sets

 

Courtesy of Paul and Paula Knapp

Miniature Engineering Museum

www.engine-museum.com

Decided the other day to work on other things, but I have this one hanging around....

 

Crease pattern available.

Because the box rests on the table with three tips touching, your food stays hot longer.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Sweden required a strong air defense, utilizing the newly developed jet propulsion technology. This led to a pair of proposals being issued by the Saab design team, led by Lars Brising. The first of these, codenamed R101, was a cigar-shaped aircraft, which bore a resemblance to the American Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star. The second design, which would later be picked as the winner, was a barrel-shaped design, codenamed R 1001, which proved to be both faster and more agile upon closer study.

 

The original R 1001 concept had been designed around a mostly straight wing, but after Swedish engineers had obtained German research data on swept-wing designs, the prototype was altered to incorporate a 25° sweep. In order to make the wing as thin as possible, Saab elected to locate the retractable undercarriage in the aircraft's fuselage rather than into the wings.

 

Extensive wind tunnel testing performed at the Swedish Royal University of Technology and by the National Aeronautical Research Institute had also influenced aspects of the aircraft's aerodynamics, such as stability and trim across the aircraft's speed range. In order to test the design of the swept wing further and avoid any surprises, it was decided to modify a single Saab Safir. It received the designation Saab 201 and a full-scale R 1001 wing for a series of flight tests. The first 'final' sketches of the aircraft, incorporating the new information, was drawn in January 1946.

 

The originally envisioned powerplant for the new fighter type was the de Havilland Goblin turbojet engine. However, in December 1945, information on the newer and more powerful de Havilland Ghost engine became available. The new engine was deemed to be ideal for Saab's in-development aircraft, as not only did the Ghost engine had provisions for the use of a central circular air intake, the overall diameter of the engine was favorable for the planned fuselage dimensions, too. Thus, following negotiations between de Havilland and Saab, the Ghost engine was selected to power the type instead and built in license as the RM 2.

 

By February 1946 the main outline of the proposed aircraft had been clearly defined. In Autumn 1946, following the resolution of all major questions of principal and the completion of the project specification, the Swedish Air Force formally ordered the completion of the design and that three prototype aircraft be produced, giving the proposed type the designation J 29.

On 1 September 1948, the first of the Saab 29 prototypes conducted its maiden flight, which lasted for half an hour. Because of the shape of its fuselage, the Saab J 29 quickly received the nickname "Flygande Tunnan" ("The Flying Barrel"), or "Tunnan" ("The Barrel") for short. While the demeaning nickname was not appreciated by Saab, its short form was eventually officially adopted.

 

A total of four prototypes were built for the aircraft's test program. The first two lacked armament, carrying heavy test equipment instead, while the third prototype was armed with four 20mm automatic guns. Various different aerodynamic arrangements were tested, such as air brakes being installed either upon the fuselage or on the wings aft of the rear spar, along with both combined and conventional aileron/flap arrangements.

The flight test program revealed that the J 29 prototypes were capable of reaching and exceeding the maximum permissible Mach number for which they had been designed, and the flight performance figures gathered were found to be typically in excess of the predicted values.

 

In 1948 production of the type commenced and in May 1951 the first deliveries of operational production aircraft were received by F 13 Norrköping. The J 29 proved to be very successful and several variants and updates of the Tunnan were produced, including a dedicated reconnaissance variant and a dedicated all-weather fighter with an on-board radar, the J 29D.

 

The J 29D variant originally started its career as a single prototype to test the Ghost RM 2A afterburner turbojet with 27.5 kN (2,800 kgp/6,175 lbf). The new engine dramatically improved the Tunnan’s performance, esp. concerning the start phase, acceleration and climb, and was eventually adopted for the whole J 29 fighter fleet in an update program, leading to the J 29F variant.

 

However, at the time of the RM 2A trials, Sweden was more and more in need for a suitable all-weather aerial defense for its vast, neutral airspace in the vicinity of the Soviet Union. Only a single flight of the Swedish Air Force, F1 in Hässlö, operated roundabout thirty radar-equipped fighters, and these were outdated De Havilland Mosquito night fighters (locally designated J 30).

 

The highly successful J 29 was soon considered as a potential air-intercept radar carrier, offering a much more up-tp-date performance and deterrent potential against would-be intruders. Consequently, Saab started the development of an indigenous all-weather fighter on the basis of the Tunnan (originally coded “J 29R”). The work started with aerodynamic trials of different radome designs and placements on a Tunnan’s nose, e .g. inside of the circular air intake opening or above it. No major drawbacks were identified, and in 1955 the decision was made to convert thirty J 29B daylight fighters for the all weather/night fighter role. These machines officially inherited the designation J 29D.

The J 29D’s compact radar, called the PS-43/T, was designed by CSF (Compagnie Generale de Telegrahpi Sans Fil) in France after the Swedish specification. It had a wavelength of 3 cm with an effect of 100 kW, and it was to have a spiral scan pattern. Range was 15-20 km, only a slight improved against the Mosquitos’ bulky SCR-720B radar set, which only had a range of 12-16km. But the system’s compact size and the ability to be operated by the pilot alone meant a serious step forward. 34 sets were delivered together with blueprints in 1956, and the PS-43 radar system was later modified and adapted to the Saab 32 Lansen, too.

 

The structural modifications for the radar-equipped Tunnan were carried out in the course of the ensuing J 29F update program, which had started in 1954. Beyond the afterburner engine and dogtooth wing updates for the day fighters, the J 29D also received a re-designed nose section which now featured a thimble radome for the PS-43/T, integrated into the upper air intake lip, reminiscent of the F-86D’s arrangement. The air intake itself kept the original circular diameter, but the opening was slightly wider, raked forward and featured a sharper lip, for an improved airflow under the radome. Overall performance of the J 29 did not suffer, and the conversion took place swiftly thanks to a simple replacement of the nose section in front of the windscreen and the installation of a shielded tracking monitor in the cockpit.

 

Experiments with a heavier cannon armament (consisting of four, long-barreled 30mm guns in the lower fuselage) for the J 29 in general were conducted in parallel, too. But, despite showing no negative effect on the J 29’s handling or performance, this upgrade was not introduced to any of the J 29 variants in service and so the J 29D kept its original four 20mm cannon as main armament, too. Additional ordnance consisted of optional racks with 75 mm/3 in air-to-air rockets under the inner wings against large aerial targets like bombers. A pair of drop tanks could be carried on the outer pylons, too, and they were frequently carried in order to extend range and loiter time. Other loads, including bombs or unguided air-to-ground missiles, were possible, but never carried except for in practice.

 

The last converted J 29D was delivered back to the Swedish Air Force in late 1956, just in time to replace the last active J 30 Mosquitos in service, which had been gradually phased out since 1953. In parallel, the radar-equipped J 33 Venom was introduced into service, too, since the small number of J 29Ds had in the meantime turned out to be far from sufficient to effectively cover the Swedish air space against large numbers of ever faster jet bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. The J 29D fulfilled its role and duty well, though, and was just as popular as the daylight fighter versions.

 

Initially, all J 29D were delivered in bare metal finish, but they were soon adorned with additional markings on fin and wing tips for easier recognition and formation flights. A few all-weather fighters of F1 Flygflottil experimentally received the blue/green camouflage which had been adopted for the S 29C reconnaissance aircraft, but this was found to be ineffective at the typical altitudes the interceptors would operate. As a consequence, the scheme was quickly changed into the much lighter livery of the former J 30 and J 33 fighters, although the bare metal undersides and the formation markings under the wing tips were retained – even though this practice was confined to F 1 and not consequently carried out among all of the fighter squadron's J 29Ds. Some J 29D furthermore carried various forms of black ID bands for quick identification in war games, but unlike the day fighters, these markings were limited to the undersides only.

 

From 1963 onwards all frontline J 29Fs were equipped with AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared-seeking air-to-air missiles, designated Rb 24 in Swedish service. This update was also carried out among the J 29D fleet, and the new, guided missiles considerably improved the aircraft’s capabilities.

 

Anyway, the J 29D’s small number remained a fundamental problem that prevented bigger success or even export sales, and due to the quick technical advances, the J 29D remained only a stopgap solution. The much more capable Saab 32 Lansen had been under development and its dedicated all-weather fighter variant, the J 32B, had already entered service in 1958, replacing the mixed and outdated lot of radar-equipped fighters in Swedish service.

Nevertheless, the J 29D soldiered on, together with the rest of the J 29F and S 29C fleet, until 1970, even though not in front line duties anymore.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 10.80 m (35 ft 4 1/2 in)

Wingspan: 11.0 m (36 ft 1 in)

Height: 3.75 m (12 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 24.15 m² (260.0 ft²)

Empty weight: 4,845 kg (10,680 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 8,375 kg (18,465 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Svenska Flygmotor RM2B afterburner turbojet, rated at 6,070 lbf (27 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,060 km/h (660 mph)

Range: 1,100 km (685 mi)

Service ceiling: 15,500 m (50,850 ft)

Rate of climb: 32.1 m/s (6,320 ft/min)

 

Armament:

4x 20mm Hispano Mark V autocannon in the lower front fuselage

Typically, a pair of 400-liter (106 US gallon) or 500-liter (132 US gallon) drop tanks was carried on the outer “wet” pylons

Further air-to-air ordnance initially consisted of 75 mm (3 in) air-to-air rockets, from 1963 onwards the J 29D could also carry up to 4x Rb 24 (AIM-9B Sidewinder) IR-guided air-to-air missiles.

Optionally (but never carried in service), the J 29D could also deploy a wide range of bombs and unguided missiles, including 145 mm (5.8 in) anti-armor rockets, 150 mm (6 in) HE (high-explosive) rockets or 180 mm (7.2 in) HE anti-ship rockets

  

The kit and its assembly:

Sweden is a prolific whiffing territory, and the Saab 29 offers some interesting options. The all-weather Tunnan was a real Saab project, and things actually got as far as the aforementioned radome shape test stage. But eventually the project was fully dropped, since Saab had been busy with standard J 29 production and conversions, so that this aircraft never materialized, just as the projected side-by-side trainer Sk 29 of the same era.

 

However, I recently came across a nice Saab 29 book which also covers some projects – including drawings of the radar-equipped Tunnan that never was. My converted model with the thimble radome and the raked air intake is based on these drawings.

 

The basic kit is the Heller Saab 29, which I deem superior to the Matchbox Tunnan, with its mix of raised and engraved panel lines and overall rather soft detail (despite the surprisingly nice cockpit). Anyway,, the Heller kit has its flaws, too, e. g. a generally weak material thickness, lack of locator pins or other stabilizing aids and some sinkholes here and there.

 

The kit was built mostly OOB, with as much lead in the gun tray as possible - and it actually stands on its own three feet/wheels! The only major change is the modified nose section. It sounds simple to graft a radome onto the Tunnan's nose, but the rhinoplasty was challenging. The whole front end had to be renewed, based on the profile drawings and sketches at hand.

 

The thimble radome is actually a recycled drop tank front end from a Hasegawa F6F Hellcat. The raked, lower aitr intake lip comes from a Matchbox Mystère IVA - but it lost its splitter, was reshaped and had the OOB air intake duct glued into place from behind. Once the intake was glued into its place, a wedge opeing was cut into the area in front of the canopy and the drop tank radome adapted to the gap, a step-by-step approach, since I wanted to have the radome slightly protrude into the airtake, but also keep a staright line in front of the windscreen.

 

Additional details include new pitots on the wing tips and some additional antennae. The heat shield for the afterburner engine is OOB, as well as the streamlined drop tanks and their pylons. I just added an additional pair of pylons (from an Acedamy MiG-23) to the inner wing, holding a pair of AIM-9Bs.

  

Painting and markings:

Finding a suitable, yet “different” scheme for the J 29 night fighter was not easy; most J 29 were left in bare metal, some carried dark green upper surfaces and some S 29C wore a paint scheme in olive green and dark blue. I eventually settled for the RAF style paint scheme that had been adopted with the J 30 Mosquito and J 33 Venom night fighters – not spectacular, but different from the Swedish early Sixties norm, and it subtly underlines the J 29D’s role.

 

The scheme was lent from RAF Venom night fighters (which was used on the Swedish J 33, too), and of the upper surfaces I used RAF tones, too: Humbrol 163 (Dark Green) and 165 (Medium Sea Grey). However, I did not want to use the grey on the lower surfaces, since I found that scheme a bit too uniform and British, so I painted the lower surfaces in NMF, with a waterline at medium height - higher than the camouflaged S 29C’s and lower than the early, camouflaged J 29A fighters (with an experimental all-green upper surface).

 

The bare metal finish was created with acrylic Aluminum (Revell 99) and Polished and Matt Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol) added on top, highlighting single panels. Around the engine bay and the exhaust, a base with Iron (Revell 91) was laid down, with Steel Metallizer (Modelmaster) on top.

Under the wing tips, green formation markings (again Humbrol 163) were added, as well as black ID stripes (cut from generic decal sheet material). Other, Swedish adornment, like the roundels, codes or squadron markings, was taken from the OOB sheet, a PrintScale sheet for the J 29 and leftover decals from a Heller J 21.

 

Interior details were painted according to Swedish standard, thankfully there are many good pictures available. The cockpit interior became grey-green (Revell 67 comes very close to the real thing) with light grey dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear wells medium (Revell 57) grey with some dry-brushed Aluminum, while the wheel discs became grey-green, too.

  

An interesting result, through relatively little effort: the dog nose changes the look of the tubby J 29 a lot, it looks much sleeker and somewhat German now – but somehow also more retro than the original aircraft? The different paint scheme looks unusual, too, despite being relatively down-to-earth. This will certainly not be my last modified J 29, a two-seat trainer would certainly be another cool and reality based Tunnan whif?

Somewhere above Andalusia, Spain, Europe.

Hadrian's Tower is a residential tower block in Newcastle upon Tyne. Located at 27 Rutherford Street, construction started in 2018 and was completed in September 2020.

 

History

Hadrian's Tower was designed by Faulkner Browns, built by Tolent Construction, glazed by EVB Facades (UK) Ltd and handed over to the developer, The High Street Group, in September 2020 and opened in December 2020.

 

Newcastle upon Tyne, or simply Newcastle is a cathedral city and metropolitan borough in Tyne and Wear, England. It is located on the River Tyne's northern bank, opposite Gateshead to the south. It is the most populous settlement in the Tyneside conurbation and North East England.

 

Newcastle developed around a Roman settlement called Pons Aelius, the settlement became known as Monkchester before taking on the name of a castle built in 1080 by William the Conqueror's eldest son, Robert Curthose. It was one of the world's largest ship building and repair centres during the industrial revolution. Newcastle was part of the county of Northumberland until 1400, when it separated and formed a county of itself. In 1974, Newcastle became part of Tyne and Wear. Since 2018, the city council has been part of the North of Tyne Combined Authority.

 

The history of Newcastle upon Tyne dates back almost 2,000 years, during which it has been controlled by the Romans, the Angles and the Norsemen amongst others. Newcastle upon Tyne was originally known by its Roman name Pons Aelius. The name "Newcastle" has been used since the Norman conquest of England. Due to its prime location on the River Tyne, the town developed greatly during the Middle Ages and it was to play a major role in the Industrial Revolution, being granted city status in 1882. Today, the city is a major retail, commercial and cultural centre.

 

Roman settlement

The history of Newcastle dates from AD 122, when the Romans built the first bridge to cross the River Tyne at that point. The bridge was called Pons Aelius or 'Bridge of Aelius', Aelius being the family name of Roman Emperor Hadrian, who was responsible for the Roman wall built across northern England along the Tyne–Solway gap. Hadrian's Wall ran through present-day Newcastle, with stretches of wall and turrets visible along the West Road, and at a temple in Benwell. Traces of a milecastle were found on Westgate Road, midway between Clayton Street and Grainger Street, and it is likely that the course of the wall corresponded to present-day Westgate Road. The course of the wall can be traced eastwards to the Segedunum Roman fort at Wallsend, with the fort of Arbeia down-river at the mouth of the Tyne, on the south bank in what is now South Shields. The Tyne was then a wider, shallower river at this point and it is thought that the bridge was probably about 700 feet (210 m) long, made of wood and supported on stone piers. It is probable that it was sited near the current Swing Bridge, due to the fact that Roman artefacts were found there during the building of the latter bridge. Hadrian himself probably visited the site in 122. A shrine was set up on the completed bridge in 123 by the 6th Legion, with two altars to Neptune and Oceanus respectively. The two altars were subsequently found in the river and are on display in the Great North Museum in Newcastle.

 

The Romans built a stone-walled fort in 150 to protect the river crossing which was at the foot of the Tyne Gorge, and this took the name of the bridge so that the whole settlement was known as Pons Aelius. The fort was situated on a rocky outcrop overlooking the new bridge, on the site of the present Castle Keep. Pons Aelius is last mentioned in 400, in a Roman document listing all of the Roman military outposts. It is likely that nestling in the shadow of the fort would have been a small vicus, or village. Unfortunately, no buildings have been detected; only a few pieces of flagging. It is clear that there was a Roman cemetery near Clavering Place, behind the Central station, as a number of Roman coffins and sarcophagi have been unearthed there.

 

Despite the presence of the bridge, the settlement of Pons Aelius was not particularly important among the northern Roman settlements. The most important stations were those on the highway of Dere Street running from Eboracum (York) through Corstopitum (Corbridge) and to the lands north of the Wall. Corstopitum, being a major arsenal and supply centre, was much larger and more populous than Pons Aelius.

 

Anglo-Saxon development

The Angles arrived in the North-East of England in about 500 and may have landed on the Tyne. There is no evidence of an Anglo-Saxon settlement on or near the site of Pons Aelius during the Anglo-Saxon age. The bridge probably survived and there may well have been a small village at the northern end, but no evidence survives. At that time the region was dominated by two kingdoms, Bernicia, north of the Tees and ruled from Bamburgh, and Deira, south of the Tees and ruled from York. Bernicia and Deira combined to form the kingdom of Northanhymbra (Northumbria) early in the 7th century. There were three local kings who held the title of Bretwalda – 'Lord of Britain', Edwin of Deira (627–632), Oswald of Bernicia (633–641) and Oswy of Northumbria (641–658). The 7th century became known as the 'Golden Age of Northumbria', when the area was a beacon of culture and learning in Europe. The greatness of this period was based on its generally Christian culture and resulted in the Lindisfarne Gospels amongst other treasures. The Tyne valley was dotted with monasteries, with those at Monkwearmouth, Hexham and Jarrow being the most famous. Bede, who was based at Jarrow, wrote of a royal estate, known as Ad Murum, 'at the Wall', 12 miles (19 km) from the sea. It is thought that this estate may have been in what is now Newcastle. At some unknown time, the site of Newcastle came to be known as Monkchester. The reason for this title is unknown, as we are unaware of any specific monasteries at the site, and Bede made no reference to it. In 875 Halfdan Ragnarsson, the Danish Viking conqueror of York, led an army that attacked and pillaged various monasteries in the area, and it is thought that Monkchester was also pillaged at this time. Little more was heard of it until the coming of the Normans.

 

Norman period

After the arrival of William the Conqueror in England in 1066, the whole of England was quickly subjected to Norman rule. However, in Northumbria there was great resistance to the Normans, and in 1069 the newly appointed Norman Earl of Northumbria, Robert de Comines and 700 of his men were killed by the local population at Durham. The Northumbrians then marched on York, but William was able to suppress the uprising. That same year, a second uprising occurred when a Danish fleet landed in the Humber. The Northumbrians again attacked York and destroyed the garrison there. William was again able to suppress the uprising, but this time he took revenge. He laid waste to the whole of the Midlands and the land from York to the Tees. In 1080, William Walcher, the Norman bishop of Durham and his followers were brutally murdered at Gateshead. This time Odo, bishop of Bayeux, William's half brother, devastated the land between the Tees and the Tweed. This was known as the 'Harrying of the North'. This devastation is reflected in the Domesday Book. The destruction had such an effect that the North remained poor and backward at least until Tudor times and perhaps until the Industrial Revolution. Newcastle suffered in this respect with the rest of the North.

 

In 1080 William sent his eldest son, Robert Curthose, north to defend the kingdom against the Scots. After his campaign, he moved to Monkchester and began the building of a 'New Castle'. This was of the "motte-and-bailey" type of construction, a wooden tower on top of an earthen mound (motte), surrounded by a moat and wooden stockade (bailey). It was this castle that gave Newcastle its name. In 1095 the Earl of Northumbria, Robert de Mowbray, rose up against the king, William Rufus, and Rufus sent an army north to recapture the castle. From then on the castle became crown property and was an important base from which the king could control the northern barons. The Northumbrian earldom was abolished and a Sheriff of Northumberland was appointed to administer the region. In 1091 the parish church of St Nicholas was consecrated on the site of the present Anglican cathedral, close by the bailey of the new castle. The church is believed to have been a wooden building on stone footings.

 

Not a trace of the tower or mound of the motte and bailey castle remains now. Henry II replaced it with a rectangular stone keep, which was built between 1172 and 1177 at a cost of £1,444. A stone bailey, in the form of a triangle, replaced the previous wooden one. The great outer gateway to the castle, called 'the Black Gate', was built later, between 1247 and 1250, in the reign of Henry III. There were at that time no town walls and when attacked by the Scots, the townspeople had to crowd into the bailey for safety. It is probable that the new castle acted as a magnet for local merchants because of the safety it provided. This in turn would help to expand trade in the town. At this time wool, skins and lead were being exported, whilst alum, pepper and ginger were being imported from France and Flanders.

 

Middle Ages

Throughout the Middle Ages, Newcastle was England's northern fortress, the centre for assembled armies. The Border war against Scotland lasted intermittently for several centuries – possibly the longest border war ever waged. During the civil war between Stephen and Matilda, David 1st of Scotland and his son were granted Cumbria and Northumberland respectively, so that for a period from 1139 to 1157, Newcastle was effectively in Scottish hands. It is believed that during this period, King David may have built the church of St Andrew and the Benedictine nunnery in Newcastle. However, King Stephen's successor, Henry II was strong enough to take back the Earldom of Northumbria from Malcolm IV.

 

The Scots king William the Lion was imprisoned in Newcastle, in 1174, after being captured at the Battle of Alnwick. Edward I brought the Stone of Scone and William Wallace south through the town and Newcastle was successfully defended against the Scots three times during the 14th century.

 

Around 1200, stone-faced, clay-filled jetties were starting to project into the river, an indication that trade was increasing in Newcastle. As the Roman roads continued to deteriorate, sea travel was gaining in importance. By 1275 Newcastle was the sixth largest wool exporting port in England. The principal exports at this time were wool, timber, coal, millstones, dairy produce, fish, salt and hides. Much of the developing trade was with the Baltic countries and Germany. Most of the Newcastle merchants were situated near the river, below the Castle. The earliest known charter was dated 1175 in the reign of Henry II, giving the townspeople some control over their town. In 1216 King John granted Newcastle a mayor[8] and also allowed the formation of guilds (known as Mysteries). These were cartels formed within different trades, which restricted trade to guild members. There were initially twelve guilds. Coal was being exported from Newcastle by 1250, and by 1350 the burgesses received a royal licence to export coal. This licence to export coal was jealously guarded by the Newcastle burgesses, and they tried to prevent any one else on the Tyne from exporting coal except through Newcastle. The burgesses similarly tried to prevent fish from being sold anywhere else on the Tyne except Newcastle. This led to conflicts with Gateshead and South Shields.

 

In 1265, the town was granted permission to impose a 'Wall Tax' or Murage, to pay for the construction of a fortified wall to enclose the town and protect it from Scottish invaders. The town walls were not completed until early in the 14th century. They were two miles (3 km) long, 9 feet (2.7 m) thick and 25 feet (7.6 m) high. They had six main gates, as well as some smaller gates, and had 17 towers. The land within the walls was divided almost equally by the Lort Burn, which flowed southwards and joined the Tyne to the east of the Castle. The town began to expand north of the Castle and west of the Lort Burn with various markets being set up within the walls.

 

In 1400 Henry IV granted a new charter, creating a County corporate which separated the town, but not the Castle, from the county of Northumberland and recognised it as a "county of itself" with a right to have a sheriff of its own. The burgesses were now allowed to choose six aldermen who, with the mayor would be justices of the peace. The mayor and sheriff were allowed to hold borough courts in the Guildhall.

 

Religious houses

During the Middle Ages a number of religious houses were established within the walls: the first of these was the Benedictine nunnery of St Bartholomew founded in 1086 near the present-day Nun Street. Both David I of Scotland and Henry I of England were benefactors of the religious house. Nothing of the nunnery remains now.

 

The friary of Blackfriars, Newcastle (Dominican) was established in 1239. These were also known as the Preaching Friars or Shod Friars, because they wore sandals, as opposed to other orders. The friary was situated in the present-day Friars Street. In 1280 the order was granted royal permission to make a postern in the town walls to communicate with their gardens outside the walls. On 19 June 1334, Edward Balliol, claimant to be King of Scotland, did homage to King Edward III, on behalf of the kingdom of Scotland, in the church of the friary. Much of the original buildings of the friary still exist, mainly because, after the Dissolution of the Monasteries the friary of Blackfriars was rented out by the corporation to nine of the local trade guilds.

 

The friary of Whitefriars (Carmelite) was established in 1262. The order was originally housed on the Wall Knoll in Pandon, but in 1307 it took over the buildings of another order, which went out of existence, the Friars of the Sac. The land, which had originally been given by Robert the Bruce, was situated in the present-day Hanover Square, behind the Central station. Nothing of the friary remains now.

 

The friary of Austinfriars (Augustinian) was established in 1290. The friary was on the site where the Holy Jesus Hospital was built in 1682. The friary was traditionally the lodging place of English kings whenever they visited or passed through Newcastle. In 1503 Princess Margaret, eldest daughter of Henry VII of England, stayed two days at the friary on her way to join her new husband James IV of Scotland.

 

The friary of Greyfriars (Franciscans) was established in 1274. The friary was in the present-day area between Pilgrim Street, Grey Street, Market Street and High Chare. Nothing of the original buildings remains.

 

The friary of the Order of the Holy Trinity, also known as the Trinitarians, was established in 1360. The order devoted a third of its income to buying back captives of the Saracens, during the Crusades. Their house was on the Wall Knoll, in Pandon, to the east of the city, but within the walls. Wall Knoll had previously been occupied by the White Friars until they moved to new premises in 1307.

 

All of the above religious houses were closed in about 1540, when Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries.

 

An important street running through Newcastle at the time was Pilgrim Street, running northwards inside the walls and leading to the Pilgrim Gate on the north wall. The street still exists today as arguably Newcastle's main shopping street.

 

Tudor period

The Scottish border wars continued for much of the 16th century, so that during that time, Newcastle was often threatened with invasion by the Scots, but also remained important as a border stronghold against them.

 

During the Reformation begun by Henry VIII in 1536, the five Newcastle friaries and the single nunnery were dissolved and the land was sold to the Corporation and to rich merchants. At this time there were fewer than 60 inmates of the religious houses in Newcastle. The convent of Blackfriars was leased to nine craft guilds to be used as their headquarters. This probably explains why it is the only one of the religious houses whose building survives to the present day. The priories at Tynemouth and Durham were also dissolved, thus ending the long-running rivalry between Newcastle and the church for control of trade on the Tyne. A little later, the property of the nunnery of St Bartholomew and of Grey Friars were bought by Robert Anderson, who had the buildings demolished to build his grand Newe House (also known as Anderson Place).

 

With the gradual decline of the Scottish border wars the town walls were allowed to decline as well as the castle. By 1547, about 10,000 people were living in Newcastle. At the beginning of the 16th century exports of wool from Newcastle were more than twice the value of exports of coal, but during the century coal exports continued to increase.

 

Under Edward VI, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, sponsored an act allowing Newcastle to annexe Gateshead as its suburb. The main reason for this was to allow the Newcastle Hostmen, who controlled the export of Tyne coal, to get their hands on the Gateshead coal mines, previously controlled by the Bishop of Durham. However, when Mary I came to power, Dudley met his downfall and the decision was reversed. The Reformation allowed private access to coal mines previously owned by Tynemouth and Durham priories and as a result coal exports increase dramatically, from 15,000 tons in 1500 to 35,000 tons in 1565, and to 400,000 tons in 1625.

 

The plague visited Newcastle four times during the 16th century, in 1579 when 2,000 people died, in 1589 when 1700 died, in 1595 and finally in 1597.

 

In 1600 Elizabeth I granted Newcastle a charter for an exclusive body of electors, the right to elect the mayor and burgesses. The charter also gave the Hostmen exclusive rights to load coal at any point on the Tyne. The Hostmen developed as an exclusive group within the Merchant Adventurers who had been incorporated by a charter in 1547.

 

Stuart period

In 1636 there was a serious outbreak of bubonic plague in Newcastle. There had been several previous outbreaks of the disease over the years, but this was the most serious. It is thought to have arrived from the Netherlands via ships that were trading between the Tyne and that country. It first appeared in the lower part of the town near the docks but gradually spread to all parts of the town. As the disease gained hold the authorities took measures to control it by boarding up any properties that contained infected persons, meaning that whole families were locked up together with the infected family members. Other infected persons were put in huts outside the town walls and left to die. Plague pits were dug next to the town's four churches and outside the town walls to receive the bodies in mass burials. Over the course of the outbreak 5,631 deaths were recorded out of an estimated population of 12,000, a death rate of 47%.

 

In 1637 Charles I tried to raise money by doubling the 'voluntary' tax on coal in return for allowing the Newcastle Hostmen to regulate production and fix prices. This caused outrage amongst the London importers and the East Anglian shippers. Both groups decided to boycott Tyne coal and as a result forced Charles to reverse his decision in 1638.

 

In 1640 during the Second Bishops' War, the Scots successfully invaded Newcastle. The occupying army demanded £850 per day from the Corporation to billet the Scottish troops. Trade from the Tyne ground to a halt during the occupation. The Scots left in 1641 after receiving a Parliamentary pardon and a £4,000,000 loan from the town.

 

In 1642 the English Civil War began. King Charles realised the value of the Tyne coal trade and therefore garrisoned Newcastle. A Royalist was appointed as governor. At that time, Newcastle and King's Lynn were the only important seaports to support the crown. In 1644 Parliament blockaded the Tyne to prevent the king from receiving revenue from the Tyne coal trade. Coal exports fell from 450,000 to 3,000 tons and London suffered a hard winter without fuel. Parliament encouraged the coal trade from the Wear to try to replace that lost from Newcastle but that was not enough to make up for the lost Tyneside tonnage.

 

In 1644 the Scots crossed the border. Newcastle strengthened its defences in preparation. The Scottish army, with 40,000 troops, besieged Newcastle for three months until the garrison of 1,500 surrendered. During the siege, the Scots bombarded the walls with their artillery, situated in Gateshead and Castle Leazes. The Scottish commander threatened to destroy the steeple of St Nicholas's Church by gunfire if the mayor, Sir John Marley, did not surrender the town. The mayor responded by placing Scottish prisoners that they had captured in the steeple, so saving it from destruction. The town walls were finally breached by a combination of artillery and sapping. In gratitude for this defence, Charles gave Newcastle the motto 'Fortiter Defendit Triumphans' to be added to its coat of arms. The Scottish army occupied Northumberland and Durham for two years. The coal taxes had to pay for the Scottish occupation. In 1645 Charles surrendered to the Scots and was imprisoned in Newcastle for nine months. After the Civil War the coal trade on the Tyne soon picked up and exceeded its pre-war levels.

 

A new Guildhall was completed on the Sandhill next to the river in 1655, replacing an earlier facility damaged by fire in 1639, and became the meeting place of Newcastle Town Council. In 1681 the Hospital of the Holy Jesus was built partly on the site of the Austin Friars. The Guildhall and Holy Jesus Hospital still exist.

 

Charles II tried to impose a charter on Newcastle to give the king the right to appoint the mayor, sheriff, recorder and town clerk. Charles died before the charter came into effect. In 1685, James II tried to replace Corporation members with named Catholics. However, James' mandate was suspended in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution welcoming William of Orange. In 1689, after the fall of James II, the people of Newcastle tore down his bronze equestrian statue in Sandhill and tossed it into the Tyne. The bronze was later used to make bells for All Saints Church.

 

In 1689 the Lort Burn was covered over. At this time it was an open sewer. The channel followed by the Lort Burn became the present day Dean Street. At that time, the centre of Newcastle was still the Sandhill area, with many merchants living along the Close or on the Side. The path of the main road through Newcastle ran from the single Tyne bridge, through Sandhill to the Side, a narrow street which climbed steeply on the north-east side of the castle hill until it reached the higher ground alongside St Nicholas' Church. As Newcastle developed, the Side became lined with buildings with projecting upper stories, so that the main street through Newcastle was a narrow, congested, steep thoroughfare.

 

In 1701 the Keelmen's Hospital was built in the Sandgate area of the city, using funds provided by the keelmen. The building still stands today.

 

Eighteenth century

In the 18th century, Newcastle was the country's largest print centre after London, Oxford and Cambridge, and the Literary and Philosophical Society of 1793, with its erudite debates and large stock of books in several languages predated the London Library by half a century.

 

In 1715, during the Jacobite rising in favour of the Old Pretender, an army of Jacobite supporters marched on Newcastle. Many of the Northumbrian gentry joined the rebels. The citizens prepared for its arrival by arresting Jacobite supporters and accepting 700 extra recruits into the local militia. The gates of the city were closed against the rebels. This proved enough to delay an attack until reinforcements arrived forcing the rebel army to move across to the west coast. The rebels finally surrendered at Preston.

 

In 1745, during a second Jacobite rising in favour of the Young Pretender, a Scottish army crossed the border led by Bonnie Prince Charlie. Once again Newcastle prepared by arresting Jacobite supporters and inducting 800 volunteers into the local militia. The town walls were strengthened, most of the gates were blocked up and some 200 cannon were deployed. 20,000 regulars were billeted on the Town Moor. These preparations were enough to force the rebel army to travel south via the west coast. They were eventually defeated at Culloden in 1746.

 

Newcastle's actions during the 1715 rising in resisting the rebels and declaring for George I, in contrast to the rest of the region, is the most likely source of the nickname 'Geordie', applied to people from Tyneside, or more accurately Newcastle. Another theory, however, is that the name 'Geordie' came from the inventor of the Geordie lamp, George Stephenson. It was a type of safety lamp used in mining, but was not invented until 1815. Apparently the term 'German Geordie' was in common use during the 18th century.

 

The city's first hospital, Newcastle Infirmary opened in 1753; it was funded by public subscription. A lying-in hospital was established in Newcastle in 1760. The city's first public hospital for mentally ill patients, Wardens Close Lunatic Hospital was opened in October 1767.

 

In 1771 a flood swept away much of the bridge at Newcastle. The bridge had been built in 1250 and repaired after a flood in 1339. The bridge supported various houses and three towers and an old chapel. A blue stone was placed in the middle of the bridge to mark the boundary between Newcastle and the Palatinate of Durham. A temporary wooden bridge had to be built, and this remained in use until 1781, when a new stone bridge was completed. The new bridge consisted of nine arches. In 1801, because of the pressure of traffic, the bridge had to be widened.

 

A permanent military presence was established in the city with the completion of Fenham Barracks in 1806. The facilities at the Castle for holding assizes, which had been condemned for their inconvenience and unhealthiness, were replaced when the Moot Hall opened in August 1812.

 

Victorian period

Present-day Newcastle owes much of its architecture to the work of the builder Richard Grainger, aided by architects John Dobson, Thomas Oliver, John and Benjamin Green and others. In 1834 Grainger won a competition to produce a new plan for central Newcastle. He put this plan into effect using the above architects as well as architects employed in his own office. Grainger and Oliver had already built Leazes Terrace, Leazes Crescent and Leazes Place between 1829 and 1834. Grainger and Dobson had also built the Royal Arcade at the foot of Pilgrim Street between 1830 and 1832. The most ambitious project covered 12 acres 12 acres (49,000 m2) in central Newcastle, on the site of Newe House (also called Anderson Place). Grainger built three new thoroughfares, Grey Street, Grainger Street and Clayton Street with many connecting streets, as well as the Central Exchange and the Grainger Market. John Wardle and George Walker, working in Grainger's office, designed Clayton Street, Grainger Street and most of Grey Street. Dobson designed the Grainger Market and much of the east side of Grey Street. John and Benjamin Green designed the Theatre Royal at the top of Grey Street, where Grainger placed the column of Grey's Monument as a focus for the whole scheme. Grey Street is considered to be one of the finest streets in the country, with its elegant curve. Unfortunately most of old Eldon Square was demolished in the 1960s in the name of progress. The Royal Arcade met a similar fate.

 

In 1849 a new bridge was built across the river at Newcastle. This was the High Level Bridge, designed by Robert Stephenson, and slightly up river from the existing bridge. The bridge was designed to carry road and rail traffic across the Tyne Gorge on two decks with rail traffic on the upper deck and road traffic on the lower. The new bridge meant that traffic could pass through Newcastle without having to negotiate the steep, narrow Side, as had been necessary for centuries. The bridge was opened by Queen Victoria, who one year later opened the new Central Station, designed by John Dobson. Trains were now able to cross the river, directly into the centre of Newcastle and carry on up to Scotland. The Army Riding School was also completed in 1849.

 

In 1854 a large fire started on the Gateshead quayside and an explosion caused it to spread across the river to the Newcastle quayside. A huge conflagration amongst the narrow alleys, or 'chares', destroyed the homes of 800 families as well as many business premises. The narrow alleys that had been destroyed were replaced by streets containing blocks of modern offices.

 

In 1863 the Town Hall in St Nicholas Square replaced the Guildhall as the meeting place of Newcastle Town Council.

 

In 1876 the low level bridge was replaced by a new bridge known as the Swing Bridge, so called because the bridge was able to swing horizontally on a central axis and allow ships to pass on either side. This meant that for the first time sizeable ships could pass up-river beyond Newcastle. The bridge was built and paid for by William Armstrong, a local arms manufacturer, who needed to have warships access his Elswick arms factory to fit armaments to them. The Swing Bridge's rotating mechanism is adapted from the cannon mounts developed in Armstrong's arms works. In 1882 the Elswick works began to build ships as well as to arm them. The Barrack Road drill hall was completed in 1890.

 

Industrialisation

In the 19th century, shipbuilding and heavy engineering were central to the city's prosperity; and the city was a powerhouse of the Industrial Revolution. Newcastle's development as a major city owed most to its central role in the production and export of coal. The phrase "taking coals to Newcastle" was first recorded in 1538; it proverbially denotes bringing a particular commodity to a place that has more than enough of it already.

 

Innovation in Newcastle and surrounding areas included the following:

 

George Stephenson developed a miner's safety lamp at the same time that Humphry Davy developed a rival design. The lamp made possible the opening up of ever deeper mines to provide the coal that powered the industrial revolution.

George and his son Robert Stephenson were hugely influential figures in the development of the early railways. George developed Blücher, a locomotive working at Killingworth colliery in 1814, whilst Robert was instrumental in the design of Rocket, a revolutionary design that was the forerunner of modern locomotives. Both men were involved in planning and building railway lines, all over this country and abroad.

 

Joseph Swan demonstrated a working electric light bulb about a year before Thomas Edison did the same in the USA. This led to a dispute as to who had actually invented the light bulb. Eventually the two rivals agreed to form a mutual company between them, the Edison and Swan Electric Light Company, known as Ediswan.

 

Charles Algernon Parsons invented the steam turbine, for marine use and for power generation. He used Turbinia, a small, turbine-powered ship, to demonstrate the speed that a steam turbine could generate. Turbinia literally ran rings around the British Fleet at a review at Spithead in 1897.

 

William Armstrong invented a hydraulic crane that was installed in dockyards up and down the country. He then began to design light, accurate field guns for the British army. These were a vast improvement on the existing guns that were then in use.

 

The following major industries developed in Newcastle or its surrounding area:

 

Glassmaking

A small glass industry existed in Newcastle from the mid-15th century. In 1615 restrictions were put on the use of wood for manufacturing glass. It was found that glass could be manufactured using the local coal, and so a glassmaking industry grew up on Tyneside. Huguenot glassmakers came over from France as refugees from persecution and set up glasshouses in the Skinnerburn area of Newcastle. Eventually, glass production moved to the Ouseburn area of Newcastle. In 1684 the Dagnia family, Sephardic Jewish emigrants from Altare, arrived in Newcastle from Stourbridge and established glasshouses along the Close, to manufacture high quality flint glass. The glass manufacturers used sand ballast from the boats arriving in the river as the main raw material. The glassware was then exported in collier brigs. The period from 1730 to 1785 was the highpoint of Newcastle glass manufacture, when the local glassmakers produced the 'Newcastle Light Baluster'. The glassmaking industry still exists in the west end of the city with local Artist and Glassmaker Jane Charles carrying on over four hundred years of hot glass blowing in Newcastle upon Tyne.

 

Locomotive manufacture

In 1823 George Stephenson and his son Robert established the world's first locomotive factory near Forth Street in Newcastle. Here they built locomotives for the Stockton and Darlington Railway and the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, as well as many others. It was here that the famous locomotive Rocket was designed and manufactured in preparation for the Rainhill Trials. Apart from building locomotives for the British market, the Newcastle works also produced locomotives for Europe and America. The Forth Street works continued to build locomotives until 1960.

 

Shipbuilding

In 1296 a wooden, 135 ft (41 m) long galley was constructed at the mouth of the Lort Burn in Newcastle, as part of a twenty-ship order from the king. The ship cost £205, and is the earliest record of shipbuilding in Newcastle. However the rise of the Tyne as a shipbuilding area was due to the need for collier brigs for the coal export trade. These wooden sailing ships were usually built locally, establishing local expertise in building ships. As ships changed from wood to steel, and from sail to steam, the local shipbuilding industry changed to build the new ships. Although shipbuilding was carried out up and down both sides of the river, the two main areas for building ships in Newcastle were Elswick, to the west, and Walker, to the east. By 1800 Tyneside was the third largest producer of ships in Britain. Unfortunately, after the Second World War, lack of modernisation and competition from abroad gradually caused the local industry to decline and die.

 

Armaments

In 1847 William Armstrong established a huge factory in Elswick, west of Newcastle. This was initially used to produce hydraulic cranes but subsequently began also to produce guns for both the army and the navy. After the Swing Bridge was built in 1876 allowing ships to pass up river, warships could have their armaments fitted alongside the Elswick works. Armstrong's company took over its industrial rival, Joseph Whitworth of Manchester in 1897.

 

Steam turbines

Charles Algernon Parsons invented the steam turbine and, in 1889, founded his own company C. A. Parsons and Company in Heaton, Newcastle to make steam turbines. Shortly after this, he realised that steam turbines could be used to propel ships and, in 1897, he founded a second company, Parsons Marine Steam Turbine Company in Wallsend. It is there that he designed and manufactured Turbinia. Parsons turbines were initially used in warships but soon came to be used in merchant and passenger vessels, including the liner Mauretania which held the blue riband for the Atlantic crossing until 1929. Parsons' company in Heaton began to make turbo-generators for power stations and supplied power stations all over the world. The Heaton works, reduced in size, remains as part of the Siemens AG industrial giant.

 

Pottery

In 1762 the Maling pottery was founded in Sunderland by French Huguenots, but transferred to Newcastle in 1817. A factory was built in the Ouseburn area of the city. The factory was rebuilt twice, finally occupying a 14-acre (57,000 m2) site that was claimed to be the biggest pottery in the world and which had its own railway station. The pottery pioneered use of machines in making potteries as opposed to hand production. In the 1890s the company went up-market and employed in-house designers. The period up to the Second World War was the most profitable with a constant stream of new designs being introduced. However, after the war, production gradually declined and the company closed in 1963.

 

Expansion of the city

Newcastle was one of the boroughs reformed by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835: the reformed municipal borough included the parishes of Byker, Elswick, Heaton, Jesmond, Newcastle All Saints, Newcastle St Andrew, Newcastle St John, Newcastle St Nicholas, and Westgate. The urban districts of Benwell and Fenham and Walker were added in 1904. In 1935, Newcastle gained Kenton and parts of the parishes of West Brunton, East Denton, Fawdon, Longbenton. The most recent expansion in Newcastle's boundaries took place under the Local Government Act 1972 on 1 April 1974, when Newcastle became a metropolitan borough, also including the urban districts of Gosforth and Newburn, and the parishes of Brunswick, Dinnington, Hazlerigg, North Gosforth and Woolsington from the Castle Ward Rural District, and the village of Westerhope.

 

Meanwhile Northumberland County Council was formed under the Local Government Act 1888 and benefited from a dedicated meeting place when County Hall was completed in the Castle Garth area of Newcastle in 1910. Following the Local Government Act 1972 County Hall relocated to Morpeth in April 1981.

 

Twentieth century

In 1925 work began on a new high-level road bridge to span the Tyne Gorge between Newcastle and Gateshead. The capacity of the existing High-Level Bridge and Swing Bridge were being strained to the limit, and an additional bridge had been discussed for a long time. The contract was awarded to the Dorman Long Company and the bridge was finally opened by King George V in 1928. The road deck was 84 feet (26 m) above the river and was supported by a 531 feet (162 m) steel arch. The new Tyne Bridge quickly became a symbol for Newcastle and Tyneside, and remains so today.

 

During the Second World War, Newcastle was largely spared the horrors inflicted upon other British cities bombed during the Blitz. Although the armaments factories and shipyards along the River Tyne were targeted by the Luftwaffe, they largely escaped unscathed. Manors goods yard and railway terminal, to the east of the city centre, and the suburbs of Jesmond and Heaton suffered bombing during 1941. There were 141 deaths and 587 injuries, a relatively small figure compared to the casualties in other industrial centres of Britain.

 

In 1963 the city gained its own university, the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, by act of parliament. A School of Medicine and Surgery had been established in Newcastle in 1834. This eventually developed into a college of medicine attached to Durham University. A college of physical science was also founded and became Armstrong College in 1904. In 1934 the two colleges merged to become King's College, Durham. This remained as part of Durham University until the new university was created in 1963. In 1992 the city gained its second university when Newcastle Polytechnic was granted university status as Northumbria University.

 

Newcastle City Council moved to the new Newcastle Civic Centre in 1968.

 

As heavy industries declined in the second half of the 20th century, large sections of the city centre were demolished along with many areas of slum housing. The leading political figure in the city during the 1960s was T. Dan Smith who oversaw a massive building programme of highrise housing estates and authorised the demolition of a quarter of the Georgian Grainger Town to make way for Eldon Square Shopping Centre. Smith's control in Newcastle collapsed when it was exposed that he had used public contracts to advantage himself and his business associates and for a time Newcastle became a byword for civic corruption as depicted in the films Get Carter and Stormy Monday and in the television series Our Friends in the North. However, much of the historic Grainger Town area survived and was, for the most part, fully restored in the late 1990s. Northumberland Street, initially the A1, was gradually closed to traffic from the 1970s and completely pedestrianised by 1998.

 

In 1978 a new rapid transport system, the Metro, was built, linking the Tyneside area. The system opened in August 1980. A new bridge was built to carry the Metro across the river between Gateshead and Newcastle. This was the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, commonly known as the Metro Bridge. Eventually the Metro system was extended to reach Newcastle Airport in 1991, and in 2002 the Metro system was extended to the nearby city of Sunderland.

 

As the 20th century progressed, trade on the Newcastle and Gateshead quaysides gradually declined, until by the 1980s both sides of the river were looking rather derelict. Shipping company offices had closed along with offices of firms related to shipping. There were also derelict warehouses lining the riverbank. Local government produced a master plan to re-develop the Newcastle quayside and this was begun in the 1990s. New offices, restaurants, bars and residential accommodation were built and the area has changed in the space of a few years into a vibrant area, partially returning the focus of Newcastle to the riverside, where it was in medieval times.

 

The Gateshead Millennium Bridge, a foot and cycle bridge, 26 feet (7.9 m) wide and 413 feet (126 m) long, was completed in 2001. The road deck is in the form of a curve and is supported by a steel arch. To allow ships to pass, the whole structure, both arch and road-deck, rotates on huge bearings at either end so that the road deck is lifted. The bridge can be said to open and shut like a human eye. It is an important addition to the re-developed quayside area, providing a vital link between the Newcastle and Gateshead quaysides.

 

Recent developments

Today the city is a vibrant centre for office and retail employment, but just a short distance away there are impoverished inner-city housing estates, in areas originally built to provide affordable housing for employees of the shipyards and other heavy industries that lined the River Tyne. In the 2010s Newcastle City Council began implementing plans to regenerate these depressed areas, such as those along the Ouseburn Valley.

developed this roll with my exhausted c41 kit, room temp 1 hour stand with 1 min starting agitation, then fixed with bw fixer, looks really fine for an experiment

 

Thanks for viewing my images, if you like them, give a look to my portfolio

yayoboy.com

Picture of my dog Ted.

Part of a test strip which was stand developed for 1 hour in a xtol and rodinal mix.

Transaid is developing a project designed to improve the livelihoods and security of female market traders through the development of Women’s Transports Co-operatives. Transport and Trade for Market Women, in Accra, will provide women market traders with a transport system to satisfy their specific needs.

 

Presently most women use “tro-tros”, passenger mini-buses or taxis to get their goods to market. This means women are spending more money and time that they would need if they had an appropriate transport system in place.

 

These Co-operatives will aim to reduce transport costs, bringing economic benefit, and providing a fast, reliable and secure means of transporting their goods.

 

photo by Caroline Beaumont

 

From the early 50's until a fire in the 80's this was the site of Gold Star Studios, then the center of rock music recording on the West Coast. Located on Santa Monica Boulevard near Vine Street (about a mile south of Hollywood & Vine), it is near Paramount Studios (incorporating the former RKO/Desilu Studios) and the Hollywood Forever Cemetary where numerous famous stars are buried.

 

As one of the first independent recording studios it was not constrained by the "old line" policies of the majors and developed its own unique commercially succesful sound. Using custom-built recording equipment and its "best ever" echo chamber, it was home to Phil Spector's "Wall of Sound", an unmatched "Wrecking Crew" house band, and source of hundreds of hit records.

 

A very abbreviated list of top artists that were associated with Gold Star:

 

Hal Blaine - the world's most recorded drummer

 

Tommy Tedesco - the world's most recorded guitarist

 

Jack Nitzsche - arranger - including many hits produced by Phil Spector. Co-wrote "Up Where We Belong".

 

Sonny Bono - percussion. Brought his girlfriend Cher to Gold Star. The backing on his defiantly patriotic "Revolution Kind" is a great example of the Gold Star sound.

 

Cher - graduated from backing singer to superstar. Recorded "Bang Bang" and "You Better Sit Down Kids" at Gold Star

 

Ronnettes - recorded "Be My Baby" at Gold Star -- favorite song of Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys. The elaborate intro to their "Do I Love You?" clearly highlights the elements of the Gold Star sound.

 

Beach Boys - recorded "Don't Worry Baby" at Gold Star - a tribute to "Be My Baby" with same Hal Blaine drum intro

 

Paul Revere & the Raiders - recorded "Kicks" and "Hungry" at Gold Star with Hal Blaine on drums

 

Buffalo Springfield - recorded "Expecting to Fly" at Gold Star with Jack Nitzsche as arranger

 

Righteous Brothers - recorded "Ebb Tide", "Unchained Melody", "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" (the most played song ever on US radio), and many others at Gold Star

 

Ike & Tina Turner - recorded "River Deep-Mountain High" and "I'll Never Need More Than This" at Goldstar - Tina was never hotter and no one ever did a better job of soaring over the Wall of Sound

 

Darlene Love - recorded the best rock Christmas song ever at Gold Star: "Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)"

 

Crystals - recorded "Uptown", "He's a Rebel", and the quickly withdrawn "He Hit Me and It Felt Like a Kiss" at Gold Star. Group often included Darlene Love.

 

Glen Campbell - started as session guitarist at Gold Star

 

Leon Russell - played keyboards at Gold Star early in his career

 

Later recordings that paid tribute to the Gold Star sound include:

 

Bruce Springsteen - "Born to Run"

 

The Tubes - "Don't Touch Me There"

 

Eddie Money - "Take Me Home Tonight" which featured Ronnie of the Ronnettes reprisng the chorus from "Be My Baby"

 

(These are the one's that instantly come to mind -- there are hundreds more).

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Added February 2013: As the result of a comment, the photo has been updated. According to Wikipedia:

 

"Gold Star Recording Studios was located at 6252 Santa Monica Boulevard near the corner of Vine Street in Hollywood. The studio closed in 1984. A fire occurred in the structure after its closure, but all contents had been removed prior to the fire. The building was later demolished. A strip mall currently stands on the original location."

 

6252 Santa Monica Boulevard is now occupied by the water store in the above photo. The photo previously here was 6223 Santa Monica Boulevard, across the street. It had a "strong resemblence" to an alleged photo of the studio on a now non-existent web site.

BSG training for Countries (SG1) for SG Effectiveness. 19-01-2016

 

©ITU/A.Mhadhbi

Developed and scanned years after being shot on a Holga GN. Remember to clean out the bags. ;)

05/05/2023. London, United Kingdom. Bilateral meeting between Andrew Mitchell, Minister of State in the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and President of Comoros Azli Assoumani at the Small Island Developing States Coronation Event at Lancaster House. Picture by Lauren Hurley / DHSC

Developed at school.

developed at home with Tetenal C-41 kit.

It is a matter of huge pride that the ‪#‎SAD‬ led Government of Punjab has played a pivotal role in setting up of Indian School of Business (ISB) campus in Mohali. With Punjabi youth aiming for the world, we will surely bring more such world-class education institutions in Punjab in times to come.

#ShiromaniAkaliDal #ProudtobeAkali #SADDelivered #SADCommittted #SADforPunjab #SukhbirSinghBadal #ISBMohali

Stratford Square Mall opened on March 9, 1981 as was developed by Urban Investments. The original anchors were Marshall Fields, Carson Pirie Scott, Wieboldts and Montgomery Ward. In 1984, Main Street department store which was owned by Federated opened as the 5th Anchor.In 1987, Wieboldt's went out of business and was replaced by JCPenney the next year In 1991, Sears was added as the 6th Anchor. A renovation was made in 1998 to remove the old fountains and replace them with stores like FYE and add a smaller fountain. In 2002, the property was sold to General Growth Properties and during the same time Montgomery Ward went out and was replaced by Burlington. Shoppers sawed this as things to come and left. In 2005, General Growth Properties sold the mall to Feldman Mall Properties and added Century Theaters, Red Robin and removed the fountain for a carousel which the carousel has relocated since. In 2014, JCPenney closed and Round 1 Entertainment opened. Macy's closed in 2017 and Carson's closed in 2018 leaving Sears, Kohl's and Burlington left. This mall is my favorite due to the skylights, food court, the amount of anchors, entertainment options and making the second floor useful to go to by putting the movie theater up there. The mall is currently owned by StreetMac LLC out of Northbrook, Illinois. The mall is still has people going to it and it's busy on weekend afternoons which is always nice to see.

An afternoon visit to Castle Bromwich Hall Gardens during October 2018 (middle of autumn so leaves out and pumpkins out for Halloween).

  

Castle Bromwich Hall Gardens are situated adjacent to the west side of Castle Bromwich Hall, a Jacobean Mansion. They are in the old centre of Castle Bromwich, a large village in the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull of the English West Midlands area.

 

Castle Bromwich Hall was built between 1557 and 1585 by Sir Edward Devereux, the first MP for Tamworth. Sir Orlando Bridgeman bought the Hall and Gardens in 1657 for his son, Sir John Bridgeman I. He made changes to both around the year 1700 advised by his cousin, Captain William Winde. The gardens were designed as a formal arrangement of self-contained garden areas. Some of these were ornamental and some working. They were separated by walls, hedges or level-changes at terraces. On the death of Sir John Bridgeman I in 1710 his son, Sir John Bridgeman II, continued to extend the Gardens westwards until they reached their present size of 10 acres (40,000 m2). He also improved the Hall.

 

The Gardens were developed by further generations of the family, later to become the Earls of Bradford. Lady Ida Bridgeman was the last member of the family to live at the Hall before her death in 1936 and the Gardens were well looked after again under her care. The Hall was then rented out and they fell into decline. A planning application was made in 1983 for the building of housing. Luckily, the planning inspectors employed by West Midlands County Council realized the importance of the Gardens. It was decided that restoration was essential and work started to clear the undergrowth and repair the damage caused by vandals. The Castle Bromwich Hall Gardens Trust was formed to restore and maintain them.

 

These 10 acres (40,000 m2) walled Baroque gardens are listed grade II* and are the only remaining example in the country of a formal English garden design. They are being restored as near as possible to the period 1680–1740, which was when they were at their best, and contain over 600 species of plants from the time.

 

The Holly Maze is a mirror image of the one at Hampton Court Palace designed by George London and Henry Wise. The Kitchen and Fruit garden is based on a design by Batty Langley from his book "New Principles of Gardening".

 

A DVD of the gardens by Great Britain Online is available.

  

The area outside of the garden walls.

  

You can see Castle Bromwich Hall from down here!

 

Castle Bromwich Hall, now a hotel during a visit to Castle Bromwich Hall Gardens. Access to the garden near the hall is for guided tours only, so this was as close as I could get!

  

Castle Bromwich Hall (grid reference SP142898) is a Jacobean Mansion in the village of Castle Bromwich, which is situated in the northern part of the West Midlands county, England. It is a Grade I listed building.

 

The Hall was built between 1557 and 1585 by Sir Edward Devereux, 1st Baronet of Castle Bromwich, MP for Tamworth in Staffordshire. It was single storey with a plain entrance. It was then bought by Sir John Bridgeman (son of Orlando Bridgeman, keeper of the Great Seal) in 1657. He extended and improved the property in 1672, adding the second floor and a large front porch. The porch projected out by ten feet from the main building. Above the twisted columns of grey stone of the porch are two figures in niches, called Peace and Plenty. The coat of arms and monogram of Sir John is carved into the stone above the doorway.

 

The Bridgemans were created Barons Bradford in 1794 and Earls of Bradford in 1815. A marriage brought Weston Park into their possession after which the Castle Bromwich Hall was often rented out.

 

The Hall is famous for having twelve windows (one for each Apostle) and four dormers above (one for each Evangelist). The garden door passed through a grapevine which was always trimmed into the form of a cross. The Hall and Long Gallery were panelled with dark oak timber, and the dining room with pitch pine from the United States. The ceilings were adorned with designs of fruits and shells. In 1810 a tapestry of three sections made in Brussels was hung in the drawing room. One of the windows in the Long Gallery had the arms of Sir Edward Devereux and his wife Catherine. There were many secret doorways and hiding holes. Built into the high garden wall was a brick open air cold water bath dated 1733. The garden maze with 6 ft high holly hedges was a mirror image of that at Hampton Court. The North Garden has double iron gates which lead into the adjacent Church grounds.

 

The Hall has had many famous visitors including The Duke of Connaught, The Duke and Duchess of Teck, The Duke and Duchess of York, Prince and Princess Christian, Queen Mary and William Gladstone.

 

The last family member to live in the Hall until her death in 1936 was Ida Bridgeman, Countess of Bradford. She really loved this home and the village, holding the garden fete in the Hall grounds and mingling with the villagers.

 

It was then used for storage during World War II. After the war, it was leased out as an apprentice training centre for the GEC, and then used as building company offices while the outbuildings were used by other small companies.

 

The Hall was sold in 2007 to Theodore Alexander, furniture designers and manufacturers who planned to restore the property and open their European showroom there in 2008. In 2009, Castle Bromwich Hall was put up for sale, with the estate agents Knight Frank, with an asking price of £5,000,000 (circa $8 million US). It was sold for £1,750,000 (circa $2.8 million US), then underwent extensive restoration and was opened as a hotel in October 2011.

 

The Hall is usually open to the public for hotel accommodation only. The surrounding Castle Bromwich Hall Gardens are one of the last examples of Formal English Gardens in the country and have been restored by Castle Bromwich Gardens Trust (established 1985), which holds a long lease from the City of Birmingham. These gardens are a popular tourist attraction and are open to the public.

 

The conservation area of Castle Bromwich is centred on the Hall.

  

Grade I Listed Building

 

Castle Bromwich Hall

  

Listing Text

 

CASTLE BROMWICH CHESTER ROAD

1.

5108

(South-West Side)

Castle Bromwich Hall

SP 1489 22/271 11.11.52.

GV

2.

Late C16 or early C17, remodelled with additions circa 1657. Heightened and altered

internally 1719. Enlarged by Rickman, 1825-40, by addition of north-east tower

wing, passages lining courtyard. Plan: hollow square with 3 wings on south, staff

wing on north-east. Stone dressed red brick. 3 storeys, plinth, floor bands, stone

coped gables with finials, central south front balustraded parapet. Stone mullioned

and transomed leaded casement windows, mainly 3 and 4 light. Central 2 storey rusticated

stone south projection has 1st floor window flanked by arched niches with statues,

1697 by Sir William Wilson, above broken segmental pediment on 4 Corinthian columns,

inner pair with twisted shafts.

Interior: exceptionally fnine late C17 plasterwork by Gouge, ceiling paintings

by Laguerre. Internal remodelling, 1685-1702, by William Winde. C.L., 17.8.1912

and 9.5.1952.

 

Castle Bromwich Hall, Bakehouse, Stable Block, Pigeon House. East and West Forecourt

Walls, Walls to north, east and south sides of garden, Flight of Steps and Pedestals

in west garden all at Castle Bromwich Ball form a group with the Gatepiers to

forecourt of Castle Bromwich Hall, Birmingham Road.

  

Listing NGR: SP1428489779

 

This text is from the original listing, and may not necessarily reflect the current setting of the building.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The "Entwicklung" tank series (= "development"), more commonly known as the E-Series, was a late-World War II attempt by Germany to produce a standardized series of tank designs. There were to be six standard designs in different weight classes, from which several specialized variants were to be developed. This intended to reverse the trend of extremely complex tank designs that had resulted in poor production rates and mechanical unreliability.

 

The E-series designs were simpler, cheaper to produce and more efficient than their predecessors; however, their design offered only modest improvements in armor and firepower over the designs they were intended to replace, such as the Jagdpanzer 38(t), Panther Ausf. G or Tiger II. However, the resulting high degree of standardization of German armored vehicles would also have made logistics and maintenance easier. Indeed, nearly all E-series vehicles — up through and including the E-75 — were intended to use what were essentially the Tiger II's 80 cm (31½ in) diameter, steel-rimmed road wheels for their suspension, meant to overlap each other (as on the later production Tiger I-E and Panther designs that also used them), even though in a highly simplified fashion. For instance, while the E-50/75’s running gear resembled outwardly the Tiger II’s, the latter’s torsion bar suspension, which necessitated a complex hull with many openings, was replaced by very compact conical spring coil packages that each held a pair of interleaved road wheels – with the benefit that all suspension elements remained outside of the hull. This considerably simplified production and saved time as well as scarce material.

 

Focus of initial chassis and combat vehicle development was the E-50/75 Standardpanzer, designed by Adler. These were two mostly identical vehicles and only differed in armor thickness, overall weight and running gear design to cope with the different weights. While the E-50 was the standardized replacement for the medium PzKpfw. V “Panther” and the last operational PzKpfw. VI “Tiger”, with an operational weight of around 50 tons, the E-75 was intended to become the standard heavy tank in the 70 ton class, as a replacement for the Tiger II battle tank and the Jagdtiger SPG. They were to share many components, including the same Maybach HL 234 engine with up to 900 hp output and the drivetrain, as well as running gear elements and almost all peripheral equipment. Both E-50 and E-75 were built on the same production lines for ease of manufacture.

 

This universal tank chassis would, beyond the primary use for battle tanks, also become the basis for a wide range of specialized support vehicles like self-propelled artillery, assault guns, tank hunters and anti-aircraft weapon carriers, which would gradually replace and standardize the great variety of former support vehicles, dramatically optimizing maintenance and logistics.

The E-50/75 SPAAG sub-family itself was quite diversified and comprised a wide range of vehicles that mainly carried different turrets with the respective weaponry as well as air space surveillance, targeting and command equipment. The range of armament included not only guns of various calibers for short, medium and long range in armored and mostly fully enclosed turrets, there were furthermore armored launch ramps for anti-aircraft missiles, including the guided “Rheintochter”, “Wasserfall” or “Enzian” SAMs as well as batteries with unguided “Taifun” anti-aircraft missiles.

 

Among this new vehicle family, the heaviest gun that was carried in a fully enclosed turret was the Rheinmetall 8.8 cm Flak 41. This was an improved version of the powerful pre-war 8.8 cm Flak 36/37 that was also developed into an anti-tank gun and became the main armament for Germany’s heavy battle tanks like the Tiger I: the 8.8 cm PaK 43 and KwK 43, respectively.

The 8.8 cm Flak 41 was a mobile field weapon on a new pedestal mounting that lowered its silhouette, and it used a longer barrel and a longer 88 mm cartridge with an increased propellant load. The shells had a weight of 9.4-kilogram (20 lb) and achieved a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s (3,280 ft/s), giving the gun an effective ceiling of 11,300 meters (37,100 ft) and a maximum of 14,700 meters (48,200 ft). The barrel initially consisted of three sections and had a length of 74 calibers but was then redesigned to a simpler dual-section barrel with a length of 72 calibers, for easier manufacture. Improvements in reloading raised the manual firing rate, with 20 to 25 rounds a minute being quoted. The Flak 41 could also be used against ground targets and was able to penetrate about 200 mm (7.9 inches) of armor at 1,000 m (3,280 feet), allowing it to defeat the armor of any contemporary tank from a relatively safe distance. Because of the high cost and complexity of this weapon, however, Rheinmetall manufactured relatively few of them, 556 in all. 399 were fielded, the rest went into SPAAG production.

 

The new pedestal mounting made it easy to adapt the weapon to a vehicle, so that this formidable weapon was immediately earmarked to be combined with a tank chassis to improve its mobility. Since an SPAAG would not need the massive frontal armor of a battle tank, the hull from the lighter E-50 was used (which still had a maximum armor thickness of 60mm at the front at 30°, which was effectively 120 mm vs. the E-75’s 185 mm), but instead of the E-50 MBT’s running gear with six steel wheels per side, the Flak 41 SPAAG used the heavier E-75’s running gear with eight wheels per side and wider tracks, effectively creating a hybrid E-50/75 chassis. This measure was taken to better distribute the vehicle’s overall weight and stabilize the it while moving and firing. In this form the new vehicle received the designation Sd.Kfz. 192/3, also known as “Einheits-Flakpanzer E-50 (88 mm)” or “E-50-41” for short.

 

The Flak 41 was integrated into Rheinmetall’s standardized SPAAG turret that could carry a wide range of automatic anti-aircraft weapons. It was a spacious, boxy design, optimized for maximum internal space than for effective armor protection, resulting in almost vertical side walls and a high silhouette. However, the level of armor was sufficient to protect the crew and the equipment inside from 20 mm gun shells – the typical armament of Allied fighter bombers of the time like the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest.

 

A heavy-duty hydraulic gun mount with a reinforced recoil system allowed an elevation of the Flak 41 between +83° and -3°. As a novel feature the weapon received a semi-automatic loading mechanism. This was the attempt to increase the gun’s excellent manual rate of fire even further, and it mimicked the magazine clips of the smaller 37 mm Flak 37 that contained seven rounds for short, continuous bursts of fire. A belt feed for truly continuous fire had been envisioned, but not possible with the long and heavy 88 mm rounds within the turret and chassis limits. A mechanical magazine solution, e. g. a drum with several rounds, was impossible, too. The most practical solution was a spiral-shaped magazine, driven by simple gravitation and directly attached to the Flak 41’s breech. This feeding could – beyond an initial round already in the barrel – hold up to three more rounds, and upon firing and expelling the empty case, a fresh round automatically fell into place. The rounds from the magazine could be fired in a fully automatic mode in a short burst with a rate of 50-55 RPM. The magazine itself had to be filled manually, though, and the gun could alternatively be fed directly, too, so that different types of ammunition could be prepared and the gunner could switch between them on short notice.

 

To accommodate the weapon’s longer ammunition (the Flak 41’s cartridge was 855 mm long) and a crew of four (commander, gunner and two loaders), the standard Rheinmetall Flak turret had to be extended at the rear. Anti-aircraft aiming was done visually, a stereoscopic rangefinder with a span of 200 cm (78¾ in) was integrated above the gun mount. A secondary ZF.20 scope for ground targets was available, too. Two more crewmen, the driver and a radio operator, sat in the hull in front of the turret, similar to the E-50/75 battle tank’s layout. The radio operator on the right side also acted as a third loader for the ammunition supply stored in the hull’s front.

 

Initially, no secondary defensive armament was provided since the new SPAAGs were to be operated in specialized anti-aircraft units, the so-called Fla-Züge, in which the SPAAGs’ protection would be taken over by supporting infantry and other dedicated vehicles. However, initial field experience quickly revealed this weak spot in the vehicle’s close-range defense: due to material and personnel shortages the Fla-Züge units could hardly be equipped with everything they needed to operate as planned, so that they were in most cases just an underserved mix of SPAAGs, occasionally augmented by a command vehicle and rarely with the protection these specialized vehicles needed. Most of the time the units’ vehicles had to operate independently and were therefore left to their own devices. As a solution, a commander cupola was soon added to the Sd. Kfz.192/3’s turret that not only improved the field of view around the vehicle to assess the tactical situation and detect approaching infantrymen that tried to attach mines or throw Molotov cocktails, it also featured a remote-controlled MG 42 that could be aimed and fired by the commander from the inside. However, to re-supply the ammunition, the cupola hatch had to be opened and someone had to leave the turret’s cover and manually insert a new box of rounds. Furthermore, a 100 mm grenade launcher, a so-called “Nahverteidigungswaffe”, was mounted into the opposite side of the turret roof, too. It fired SMi 35 leaping mines for close defense against approaching infantry. This made the cramped turret interior even more cluttered, but significantly improved the vehicle’s survivability, especially in a confined, urban combat environment. Updated vehicles reached the frontline units in late 1945 and were immediately thrown into service.

 

Despite being a powerful weapon, several operational problems with the Sd.Kfz. 192/3 became soon apparent. The complex Flak 41 and its feeding mechanism needed constant proper maintenance and service – otherwise it easily jammed. Spent shell casing also frequently jammed the gun. The high silhouette was an innate tactical problem, but this had already been accepted during the design phase of Rheinmetall’s SPAAG standard turret. However, the tall turret was the source of an additional conceptual weakness of the Sd.Kfz. 192/3: the sheer weight of the large turret with the heavy gun frequently caused imbalances that overstressed the turret bearing and its electric drive (which had been taken over from the E-50/75 battle tanks), resulting in a jammed turret — especially when either fully loaded or when the ammunition supply was depleted. Due to the large and heavy turret, the vehicle’s center of gravity was relatively high, too, so that its off-road handling was limited. Even on paved roads the early Sd.Kfz. 192/3s tended to porpoise in tight corners and upon braking. Stiffer coil springs, introduced during the running production and retrofitted through field kits to existing vehicles, countered this flaw, even though these kits were rare due to material shortages. Sometimes the harder coil springs were distributed between two vehicles, only replacing the suspension on the front and rear pair of wheels.

A different tactical problem was the limited ammunition supply for the Flak 41. While 57 rounds were sufficient for a comparable battle tank, the semi-automatic Flak 41‘s theoretical high rate of fire meant that the Sd.Kfz. 192/3 quickly depleted this supply and could only keep up fire and its position for a very limited period, or it had to save ammunition to a point that its deployment became pointless. After spending its ammunition, the vehicle had to retreat to a safe second line position to re-supply, and this was, due to the vehicle’s limited mobility, size and the heavy and bulky rounds, a risky undertaking and meant tedious manual labor with poor protection for the supply crews. The resulting supply logistics to keep the Sd.Kfz. 192/3 operational and effective were demanding.

 

Nevertheless, despite these shortcoming, the Sd.Kfz. 192/3 greatly improved the heavy Flak units’ mobility and firepower, and the weapon’s effectiveness was high against both air and ground targets. Until mid-1946, a total of around forty Sd.Kfz. 192/3 were built and put into service, primarily with units that defended vital production sites in Western Germany and Saxonia.

 

At the time of the Sd.Kfz. 192/3’s introduction, anti-aircraft aiming was already augmented by mobile radar systems like the “Würzburg” device or special command vehicles like the Sd.Kfz. 282 “Basilisk” which combined an autonomous radar system with a powerful visual rangefinder and an integrated analogue range calculator, the Kommandogerät 40. However, fire control development had continued, and at least one Sd.Kfz. 192/3 was used in late 1946 during trials to fully automatize gun aiming and firing remotely through electric drives through “slaving” a turret to an external director. This was a modified Sd.Kfz. 282/1 that successfully controlled the Sd.Kfz. 192/3 via cable from an elevated location 50 m away from the SPAAG’s firing position. The objective of these trials was to connect several anti-aircraft weapons to a single command unit with improved sensors and high accuracy under any weather condition for concentrated and more effective fire and an improved first shot hit probability.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Sixe (commander, gunner, two loaders, radio operator, driver)

Weight: 64 tonnes (71 short tons)

Length: 7.27 m (23 ft 10 ¾ in) (hull only)

9.57 m (31 ft 4 ½ in) with gun forward

Width: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in)

Height 3.46 m (11 ft 4 in)

3.81 m (12 ft 6 in) with commander cupola

Ground clearance: 495 to 510 mm (1 ft 7.5 in to 1 ft 8.1 in)

Suspension: Conical spring

Fuel capacity: 720 liters (160 imp gal; 190 US gal)

 

Armor:

30 – 60 mm (1.2 – 2.4 in)

 

Performance:

Speed

- Maximum, road: 44 km/h (27.3 mph)

- Sustained, road: 38 km/h (24 mph)

- Cross country: 15 to 20 km/h (9.3 to 12.4 mph)

Operational range: 160 km (99 miles)

Power/weight: 14 PS/tonne (12.5 hp/ton)

 

Engine:

V-12 Maybach HL 234 gasoline engine with 900 PS (885 hp/650 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF AK 7-200 with 7 forward 1 reverse gears

Armament:

1× 8,8 cm Flak 41 L/72 anti-aircraft cannon with 57 rounds in turret and hull

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 42 with 2.400 rounds, remote-controlled on the commander cupola

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional German SPAAG never existed, not even on the drawing boards. But I wondered, after ModelCollect had released an E-100 SPAAG with a twin 88mm gun some years ago, why there was no lighter vehicle with the powerful 88 mm Flak in a closed turret? There were plans to mount this weapon onto a tracked chassis in real life, but it would have been only lightly armored. Then I recently came across a whiffy aftermarket resin turret with a single 88 mm Flak, based on the Tiger II’s Porsche turret, and I liked the idea – even though the rather MBT-esque aftermarket turret looked rather dubious and too small for my taste – esp. the potential angle of the AA weapon appeared insufficient. From this basis the idea was born to create a personal interpretation of a Flak 41 in a fully enclosed turret on a tank chassis.

 

The basis became the Trumpeter 1:72 E-75 kit of the twin 55 mm Flak with its boxy turret. While I initially considered a totally different turret shape, I eventually settled on a generic design that would have been used for a variety of weapons. This appeared more realistic to me and so I stuck to the Rheinmetall AA turret. However, due to the heavy weapon its certainly massive mount and bulky recoil system as well as the long rounds and a crew of four, I decided to enlarge the Rheinmetall turret. The turret was cut into a front and rear half and an 8 mm wide plug, made from 1.5 mm styrene sheet, was implanted and PSRed. To keep the turret rotatable, the rear extension had to be raised, so that the “oriel” could move over the air intake fairings on the engine cover.

Due to the longer roof, some details were modified there. The most obvious addition is a commander cupola on the left, taken from an early Panzer IV, together with a MG 42 and a small shield on a swing arm, inspired by the remote-controlled installation on some Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer. A stereoscopic rangefinder was added to the turret flanks and a periscope added to one of the loader’s hatches. A cover for a ventilator was added on the right side of the roof, together with a cover for a vertical grenade launcher underneath.

 

Using the original turret as base, the model’s movable mount for the twin 55 mm guns was retained and the rear extension would also become a good visual balance for the new main weapon. The armor at barrels’ base was cut off and a 1:72 Flak 41, taken from a Zvezda field gun kit, was glued to it, together with parts of the field gun’s recoil system and styrene bits to blend the new gun into the rest of the turret.

 

The E-75 chassis was taken OOB, since it would be a standardized vehicle basis. Outwardly the hull did not bear recognizable differences to the lighter E-50, which it is supposed to represent, just with more wheels to better cope with the bulky and heavy new turret.

 

Thankfully, this Trumpeter kit’s vinyl tracks were molded in black – sometimes they come in a sandy beige, and it’s a PITA to paint them! As another bonus, Trumpeter’s running gear on the 1:72 E-50/75 model is of a more sturdy and simpler construction than the one on the alternative ModelCollect kit(s), making the assembly and esp. the mounting of the tracks much easier. The Trumpeter kit is simpler than the comparable ModelCollect models with the E-50/75 basis, but the result is visually quite similar.

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme uses once more typical German late WWII "Hinterhalt" camouflage colors, namely Dark Yellow, Olive Green and Red Brown. This time, however, to adapt the livery to the boxy hull and the huge turret, the pattern ended up as a kind of a splinter scheme – inspired by a real Panzer V Panther from the Eastern Front in 1943.

The basic colors became Humbrol 57 (Buff) for the RAL 7028 Dunkelgelb, in this case as a rather pale (stretched?) shade, plus large areas of brown (RAL 8017, I used this time Humbrol 98 for a darker and less reddish shade) and Humbrol 86 for the green (RAL 6003), which appears quite pale in contrast to the dark brown. The camouflage was applied over an overall coat of sand brown as a primer coat, with the intention of letting this uniform basis shine through here and there. The distribution of the darker colors is quite unique, concentrating the brown on the vehicle’s edges and the green only to the flanks of hull and turret. However, the pattern works well on the huge E-50/75, and I can imagine that it might have worked well in an urban environment, breaking up the tank’s outlines.

As a match for the upper hull the wheels were painted uniformly in the same standard colors –without any pattern, because this would be very eye-catching while on the move. The many delicate tools on the tank’s hull are molded, and instead of trying to paint them I tried something else: I rubbed over them with graphite, and this worked very well, leaving them with a dark metallic shine. Just some wooden handles were then painted with a reddish brown.

 

Decals/marking came next, everything was procured from the scrap box. The Balkenkreuze came from a Hasegawa Sd.Kfz. 234/2 “Puma”, the tactical code from a TL-Modellbau sheet and the small unit badges on front and back from an UM Models Bergehetzer. A dry brushing treatment with light grey followed, highlighting surface details and edges, and after painting some details and adding some rust marks with watercolors followed a coat of matt varnish.

 

The tracks were painted with a cloudy mix of dark grey, red brown and iron acrylic paints, and mounted after hull and running gear had been assembled. The antennae, made from heated spure material, were mounted to the turret and, finally, the tank’s lower areas were dusted with a greyish-brown mineral pigment mix, simulating dust and mud residue.

  

This project was realized in just two days, made easy through the Trumpeter kit’s simple construction. Most work went into the extended turret and the different main weapon, but all parts mostly fell into place – and the result looks IMHO quite believable. In fact, the E-50/75 with a Flak 41 reminds a bit of the Italian Otomatic 76 mm SPAAG from the late Eighties?

 

Developed to introduce all new manufacturers/suppliers never before seen at the SHOT Show, the overwhelmingly popular NEXT Pavilion continues in 2018. With more than 100 exhibiting companies, the NEXT Pavilion is an excellent opportunity to discover new potential equipment.

Bentley 4.5ltr Blower (1932) Engine 4398cc Supercharged S4 Production 50 ( 4 built by Tim Birkin)

Registration Number GY 3905

BENTLEY SET

www.flickr.com/photos/45676495@N05/sets/72157623759855498...

This has a Vanden Plas body and is from the collection of The National Motor Museum at Beaulieu.

The first Blower Bentley was a 3 litre FR 5189 built at the Bentley works in 1926. W.O.Bentley was strongly opposed to forced induction and Henry (Tim) Birkin undertook to develop the Blower as a private venture, with private finance he hired ex-Bentley engineers for the venture based at Welwyn Garden City. Four Supercharged cars were produced, three road cars to race at Le Mans and a single seater for the track, mainly Brooklands. The large Rootes Supercharger was placed at the front of the engine and produced around 175bhp but with a huge thirst of between 2.3 to 2.8mpg. Reliability was a problem and the 1929 and 1930 Le mans 24hour races were won by the works 6.5litre normally aspirated Bentley. The Silver single seater track car did however achieve the outer circuit lap record of 137.96mph.

Woolf Barnato authorised Bentley to build 50 Blowers that enabled Birkin's prototypes to meet the Le Mans qualification. Sales were however slow and the London Bentley dealer Jack Barclay bought up the remaining sets of components following Bentley's bankruptcy.

In Ian Flemings, James Bond novels James' purchases a Blower Bentley from Amherst Villiers and the car features in the books, Casino Royale, Live and Let Die and Moonraker.

Shot at the Enfield Pagaent 30,05,2010 ref 55-56

The recent rise in sovereign debt vulnerabilities in many developing countries merits attention, especially in the context of a new creditor landscape and rising shares of domestic, non-concessional and collateralized debts. Key policy questions include: How can sovereigns increase their resilience to exogenous shocks? Can state-contingent debt help? What role can official and private creditors play in preventing and resolving unsustainable debt situations?

A roll of Fuji 200 my mother left in a Minolta 400si with two exposures remaining after battery died.. then they gave me the camera.

American artist, designer and inventor L. R. Emerson II may be considered the Thomas Edison of art yet is equally considered among the world’s most unusual artists. L. R. Emerson II may also be one of the most prolific artists the world has ever witnessed. Since 1983, has been personally compelled to develop and express through multi-directional art.

L. R. Emerson II is best known as the leading artist of the Upside-Down Art Movement or Masg Art movement.

Emerson never intended to become a household name in artmaking and the evidence of his effort to avoid selling out is firstly, his diligent efforts to make art that was intentionally against the common trends and secondly to keep his style secret from the world at large for two decades.

Recently, however after Emerson decidedly released some of his work after keeping it suppressed since the 1980’s renowned artist Georg Baselitz called L. R. Emerson's art"...inspiring." Baselitz’ own art has sold for in excess of $4.2 million dollars at recent auction.

In tribute, paying homage to neo-expressionist painter Georg Baselitz, Emerson recently exhibited at Saatchi an work Upside-Down Artwork or also known as Masg art called "Ode to Baselitz". Featured at Saatchionine.com Emerson has presented a work which has garnered the attention of Charles Saatchi himself who personally flagged L. R. Emerson ‘s work as “Liked”. "Ode to Baselitz" is part of L. R. Emerson II's "Heavy Ink" series.

The medium of “Ode to Baselitz” is called Digigraph or Digiography (both phrases termed and documented in 2009 in The Purple Tree; Art in a Boundless Age) is a combination of both traditional and tech media. The Digigraph featured at Saatchi is part of L. R. Emerson’s 50+ documented, pioneering inventions for making art - each calling for combinations of traditional and digital technology mediums.

“Ode to Baselitz” is a culmination of pen and ink, and computer aided design. Emerson’s goal with “Ode to Baselitz” is not only to bring attention to the already known upside-down work of Baselitz but moreover for the fact that like Emerson, Baselitz has ridden the critical seas of the public’s reaction to upside down work.

Baselitz, according to Emerson has paved a way for artists, even ones who are not working neo-expressively to express themselves through multi-directional composition – though Baselitz does not intend his upside-down works be hung in two or more directions as Emerson intentionally does.

As Emerson puts it “Baselitz broke the water and I am simply delivering the baby” speaking metaphorically to the aspect of L. A. times featured article from 1984 showing Baselitz’ then Upside-Down painting. By comparison, Emerson’s 1984 series was removed from exhibition during the same time period (’85) as Emerson feared critical rejection and stylistic copying. Thus L. R. Emerson II’s art was selectively hidden from the world for the next two decades.

In 2005 Emerson II exhibited nearly 800 works sharing several signed prints with major museums and galleries in 11 countries, yet he determined it necessary to continue to hold other selections from the public eye. What is seen today in exhibition by Emerson are mere artistic fragments of what he actually creates. With his current work never shown and by only releasing work that is about two years old, Emerson keeps ahead of those who would choose to mimic his style.

With over 100 awards to date and currently working in his third decade, L. R. Emerson II has proven himself worthy of critical appraisal. Nicholas Forrest, contributing writer to Art & Antiques Magazine wrote about L. R. Emerson II stating "An amazing artist, Amazing art!" 2006. L. R. has been actively researching, developing, and inventing methods of making art and specifically Upside-Down art known as Masg Art, from Gaelic meaning to mix; or infuse for 30 years.

To date, Emerson has delivered on his 1983 promises to make “Upside-Down Art” a household name in the very near future. In the aftermath we find now major artists effecting and or following the Upside-Down Art movement which is crossing international lines with artists such as Germany's Georg Baselitz and British Sculptor Anish Kapoor, giving significantly strong visual support.

Emerson's own efforts in leading the Upside-Down Art Movement has thus far have encompassed the following:

•Created Upside-Down Art for nearly thirty years having begun in 1983 and has made more upside-down, multi-directional, ambigram, Masg styled art than any person in history.

•Exhibited at age 18, and worked as a commissioned artist beginning at age of 19 with work appearing in newspaper and magazines by age 19 and for major celebrities by age 23

•First artist ever to offer their art for free; up to $1 million dollars of L. R. Emerson II’s artwork was literally offered for free to anyone in the world. The offer was advertised to the general public in numerous places and stood from 2005 until 2009

•Created in excess of 100,000 works within over 1,000 series

•Engaged 30 years of innovative, experimentation and invention driven research on Upside-Down Art or Multidirectional Art Composition, process and art methodology

•Created Upside-Down, multi-directional Masg Art in the following mediums: airbrush, collography, clayography, etching, lino-cut, oil on linen and canvas, acrylic on canvas, acrylic on board, emulsion transfer, mixed media, photography, digiography, emulsion transfer on metal, pen & ink with watercolor, pencil and ink on paper, oil pastel, collage, digital imaging, vector-based CGI, acetone transfer

•Has been awarded for being considered one of America’s Leading Art Educators, frequently serving as a Lead Art Educator on a variety of curriculum writing and Art Education textbook adoption committees or chairperson capacities. Emerson’s curriculum writing experiences have included practicum, research and committee collaboration to develop Art Education practices and standards for Art Foundation teaching and Cornerstone Assessments which serve as standards or benchmarks to assess a practicing artist’s skills and ability(2008 to 2012)

•Secured exhibition opportunities for student artists - having exhibited several academic thousand works.

•Invented in excess of 50 documented new methods for making Upside-Down Art or Masg Art

•Established a world record in the “Most Digital Works Created in One Hour” with the record set at 86 in 2007 and succeeded to a new record of 87 in 2008, both held by Emerson

•Published The Purple Tree; Art in a Boundless Age, 2009

•2012 Charles Saatchi personally flags Emerson’s online Saatchi Gallery as a “Liked User”

•Among the world’s most accomplished airbrush artists, having been placed in magazines the age of 19 and still today advancing the power of airbrush through invention and exhibition.

•Serving among the world’s most influential 21st Century Artists and Designers

•Created work for numerous patron including Grammy Winning musician/songwriter Leon Russell – who wrote “Superstar” the number one hit song for the late Karen Carpenter , March 2, 1950 – February 4, 1983 (also a Grammy Winner) and living legend Barbara Streisand, born April 24, 1942.

•Donated by Deed the printing, publishing and rights to sale of over $1 million dollars in art.

•Created the first Upside-Down Art/Masg art Portraiture featuring a living person

•Established new art movement named “Pop Not” – genuine Pop Art styled social criticism with Pop styled, collages and punchy graphics but far removed from the kitschy, pseudo Pop Art existing today. L. R. Emerson II documented in the Purple Tree; Art in A Boundless Age the mission of Pop Not artists and the socially critical work they produce.

•Produced 14 Art Education videos highlighting the earmarks of Upside-Down Art

•Achieved in excess of 100 awards including awards for advertising design and photography

•Received critical acclaim from Nicholas Forrest, contributing writer to Art and Antiques Magazine. Forrest wrote about L. R. Emerson II’s Upside-Down Art or Masg Art stating “Amazing art by an amazing artist!” 2006

•Written and published Art History and or Criticism articles about Upside-Down Art

•Exhibited Upside-Down Art or Masg Art at prominent museums such The Museum of Contemporary Art

•Works held in both private estate and public art collections

•Developed, termed and published research about the "Digigraph" art process and art medium - a unique new art medium using traditional art media and technology

•2005, Established e4 Fine Art and an accompanying website e4fineart.com to serve as the exclusive representative for L.R.’s work and the web site to host functional space to not only electronically exhibit my work but moreover to share understanding about the art history related to Upside-Down Art.

•To date www.e4fineart.com.com and its’ counterpart gallery, www.upside-down-art.com has had over 600.000 visitors from across the planet and exists as “The World’s Largest Solo Artist Site” TM

•First artist to call for a change in the current Art Education texts and practices as L. R. Emerson II’s 30 years of pioneering research has proved the merits and validity of Upside-Down Art, or Masg Art as being a worthy alternative to the three common forms of compositional balance.

Because of the work of L. R. Emerson II and other supporting Upside-Down artists the old texts and teaching foundations known as The Principles of Art/Design are outdated and need revision. Museums, Art Critics, Educators, conservators and Historians can no longer ignore the relevance and merit of multi-directional composition or Upside-Down Art.

•In 2005, after having been kept secret for over two decades, Masg or Upside-Down Art was introduced to more than 500 galleries and in excess of 50 renowned museums worldwide including:

National Gallery

Tate Museum, London

Smithsonian American Art Museum

Musée du Louvre, Paris

The Museum of Modern Art, NYC

Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles

 

Additionally, several videos were produced in the past three years and subsequently presented to the global community including the following:

Art is Art is Art by L R Emerson II

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftwMV0kxeuo

L R Emerson II Art

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyekoiK5N4c

Art is Upside-Down by L R Emerson II

www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7R5nuZ-2So

Art 21 L. R. Emerson II: Masg A New Art Movement

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIYCTL-cnPs

Art History by L. R. Emerson II

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjlw6iFfnvQ

Math and Art - Music and Art

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks1RKmUodbA

The Purple Tree: Art in a Boundless Age

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjZwNnWZNLA

 

“Currently as I continue my research and documentation I look toward an Upside-Down Art group exhibition including myself, Georg Baselitz, and Anish Kapoor. London’s Tate Museum, NYC Guggenheim, MOMA and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art are fine venues for this warranted proposal. The considerably unusual exhibition will likely be presented as the world’s most unusual art of the 20th and 21st Century.

We have come a long way but still have an engaging journey ahead. I am pleased however at our progress so far and know we have truly shattered the proverbial “glass ceiling” or stronghold of art conservators, critics and museums as they too now have accepted our methods of composition and see that we have forever changed the manner in which art is composed.

The more I’ve advocated for Upside-Down Art, the greater the number of artists we (representatives and assistants) find are mimicking my style, however this is rewarding to me. Neither am I displeased to be named ‘Jack the Flipper’ (linguistically spinning Pollack’s ‘… dripper’ nomenclature).” Excerpt: L. R. Emerson II, 2012

Please see the revolutionary art of L. R. Emerson II at www.upside-down-art.com , “The World’s Largest Solo Artist Site” TM, and consider the merit of L. R. Emerson II’s work for inclusion in your presentation, writing, evaluation and discussion of 21st Century Art.

 

developed from RAW.

 

室内＆マクロ。暗所のAFはちょっと頼りない感じです。

 

あとやはり手振れに注意。手振れ補正なし＆軽いボディ＆16Mピクセルのおかげで、気を付けないと微ブレ写真を量産してしまいそうです。というか微ブレのせいで没になった写真多数（涙）。APS-Cセンサーの懐の深さに頼ってガンガンISOは上げていった方が良さそうです。

 

Pentax-Ricoh GR | GR Lens 18.3mm

Developed using darktable 3.8.0

Developed using darktable 3.2.1

Lipca Rollop Automatic 2.8

 

Arista EDU Ultra 100 developed in Rodinal (1:50)

 

view large

with Fujica ST701 and Eastman double-x 5222 @200

D76 stock

Epson V600 scan

Developed using darktable 2.4.4

Developed using darktable 2.4.4

How can developing countries ensure they take the path to prosperity, and not the road to ruin? Once a nation has more citizens of working age than dependents, it is poised at the edge of an unprecedented economic boom, known as the demographic dividend. But realizing this dividend demands multisectoral policies, investments, and programs that enable young people to flourish.

 

“Ensuring access to education, health services and employment for youth can mean the difference between capitalizing on a demographic dividend or taking a road towards disempowerment and disaffection,” says Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin, UNFPA’s Executive Director.

 

Join us on December 8th to explore how countries can achieve the demographic dividend through empowerment, education, and employment. Panelists will present innovative rights-based approaches to working with women, youth, and marginalized groups in ways that ensure the demographic dividend benefits all.

 

Just as empowerment, education, and employment are key to unlocking the demographic dividend, environmental sustainability also plays a critical role in the future of today’s youth. Join us for a special reception celebrating the release of ECSP’s “Healthy People, Healthy Environment” documentary trilogy, filmed in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Nepal. Filmmaker, Sean Peoples, UNFPA’s Benoit Kalasa, and the Wilson Center’s Roger-Mark De Souza will offer brief remarks.

 

This event is co-sponsored by the United Nations Population Fund.

 

Read more: www.wilsoncenter.org/event/path-to-prosperity-empower-edu...

Developing natterjack toadlets . Note characteristic yellow stripe down back beginning to show.

© Natural England/Peter Roworth 2013

Some background:

The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the fully functional VF-1 prototype (the VF-X-1).

 

Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be produced en masse within a short period of time, a total of 5,459 airframes were delivered until 2013. The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. From the start the VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable and versatile craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.

 

The basic VF-1 was deployed in four sub-variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements and upgrades, including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S with additional firepower. The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.

 

After the end of Space War I, production on Earth was stopped but the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and its persistent production after the war in many space sectors proved the lasting worth of the design.

The versatile aircraft underwent constant upgrade programs. For instance, about a third of all VF-1 Valkyries were upgraded with Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems, placed in a small, streamlined fairing in front of the cockpit. This system allowed passive long-range search and track modes, freeing the pilot from the need to give away his/her position through active radar emissions. The sensor could also be used for target illumination and precision weapons guidance.

Many Valkyries also received improved radar warning systems, with sensor arrays mounted on the wingtips, the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECR measures and other defensive measure like flare/chaff dispensers were also added to some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.

 

In early 2011, VF-1 production on Earth had already reached the 2.500th aircraft, a VF-1J which received a striking white-and-blue commemorative paint scheme upon roll-out, decorated with the logos of all major manufacturers and system suppliers. After a brief PR tour the machine (Bu. No. 2110406/1) was handed over to SVF-1, the famous Skull Squadron, as an attrition replacement for Major Yingluck 'Joker' Maneethapo's aircraft, leader of the unit’s 5th Flight and a Thai pilot ace from the first stages of the Zentraedi attacks in 2009.

With the opportunity to add more personal style to his new mount, Maneethapo's chose the non-standard modex ML 555 for his fighter - a play of words, because the five is pronounced 'ha' in Thai language and '555' a frequent abbreviation for 'laughing'. Bu. No. 2110406/1 retained its bright PR livery, because its primary colors matched well with SVF-1 ‘Lazulite’ flight’s ID color. The aircraft just lost the sponsor logos and instead received full military markings and tactical codes, including the unit’s renowned skull icon and the characteristic “ML” letter code on the foldable fins. The nose art for the 2.500th production VF-1 jubilee was retained, though.

In SVF-1 service, Bu. No. 2110406/1 was soon upgraded with an IRST and retrofitted with FAST Packs and avionics for various zero-G weapons for operations in space, since the unit was supposed to become based on SDF-1 and go into space with the large carrier ship. However, only SVF-1's Flight #1, 2 and 3 were taken on board of the SDF-1 when the ship left Earth, the remaining unit parts remained at the home base on Ataria Island, tasked with homeland defense duties.

 

In 2012, at the end of the war, SVF-1’s Lazulite’ flight was re-located on board of ARMD-02 (Armaments Rigged-up Moving Deck Space Carrier vessel), which was and rebuilt and attached to the refitted SDF-1 Macross as originally intended. There, Bu. No. 2110406/1 served into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013, when it was replaced as a Flight Leader’s mount by a VF-4 and handed over to SVF-42 back on Earth, where it was repainted in standard U.N. Spacy fighter colors (even though it still retained its commemorative nose art) and served until 2017. Bu. No. 2110406/1 was then retired and unceremoniously scrapped, having already exceeded its expected service life.

 

The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with several major variants (VF-1A = 5,093, VF-1D = 85, VF-1J = 49, VF-1S = 30), sub-variants (VF-1G = 12, VE-1 = 122, VT-1 = 68) and upgrades of existing airframes (like the VF-1P).

Despite its relatively short and intense production run the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness even years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!

 

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force and U.N.S. Marine Corps

 

Accommodation:

Pilot only in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat

 

Dimensions:

Fighter Mode:

Length 14.23 meters

Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)

Height 3.84 meters

Battroid Mode:

Height 12.68 meters

Width 7.3 meters

Length 4.0 meters

Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons

Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons

MTOW: 37.0 metric tons

 

Power Plant:

2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or 225.63 kN in overboost

4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1 x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1 x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip)

18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles

 

Performance:

Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h

Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87

g limit: in space +7

Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24

 

Design Features:

3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system

 

Transformation:

Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.

Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.

 

Armament:

2x Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 ppm

1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rpm

4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including…

12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or

12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or

6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or

4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,

or a combination of above load-outs

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another small and vintage 1:100 VF-1 Fighter. This time it’s a non-canonical aircraft, based on a limited edition decal sheet that was published with the Japanese Model Graphix magazine in April 2001 (check this here for reference: www.starshipmodeler.com/mecha/jl_clrvalk.htm) with Hasegawa’s first release of their 1:72 Valkyrie Fighter kit. The give-away sheet featured several VF-1s, including an anniversary paint scheme for the 2.500th production Valkyrie. This is AFAIK neither ‘official’ nor canonical – but the pretty blue-and-white livery caught my attention, and I had for a long time the plan to re-create this livery on one of my favored 1:100 models. This would not work 100%, though, so I had to improvise – see below.

 

The kit was built OOB, with the landing gear down and (after taking the flight scenic pictures) with an open canopy, mounted on a small lift arm. Some typical small blade antennae the 1:100 simple kit lacks were added around the hull as a standard measure to improve the look. In the cockpit I added side consoles and a pilot figure for the in-flight shots.

The only non-standard additions are the IRST sensor fairing in front of the cockpit – the model of the anniversary VF-1 in the Model Graphix magazine carries this canonical upgrade, too, it was created from clear sprue material. Another tiny addition were the RHAWS antenna fairings at the top of the fins, scratched from small styrene profile bits.

 

The Valkyrie’s ordnance is standard and was taken OOB, featuring twelve AMM-1 missiles under the wings plus the standard GU-11 gatling gun pod; the latter was modified to hold a scratched wire display for in-flight pictures at its rear end. The Model Graphix VF-1 is insofar confusing as it seems to carry something that looks like a white ACMI pod on a non-standard pylon, rather attached to the legs than to the wings? That's odd and I could not make up a useful function, so I rejected this detail. The magazine Valkyrie's belly drop tank was - even though canonical, AFAIK - also not taken over to my later in-service status.

  

Painting and markings:

The more challenging part of the build, in two ways. First, re-creating the original commemorative livery would have called for home-made decals printed in opaque white for the manufacturers’ logos, something I was not able to do at home. So, I had to interpret the livery in a different way and decided to spin the aircraft’s story further: what would become of this VF-1 after its roll-out and PR event? In a war situation it would certainly be delivered quickly to a frontline unit, and since I had some proper markings left over, I decided to attach this colorful bird to the famous Skull Squadron, SVF-1, yet to a less glorious Flight. Since flight leaders and aces in the Macross universe would frequently fly VF-1s in individual non-standard liveries, sometimes even very bright ones, the 2,500th VF-1 could have well retained its catchy paint scheme.

 

The second part of the challenge: the actual paint job. Again, no suitable decals were at hand, so I had to re-create everything from scratch. The VF-1J kit I used thankfully came molded in white styrene, so that the front half of the aircraft could be easily painted in white, with no darker/colored plastic shining through. I painted the white (Revell 301, a very pure white) with a brush first. For the blue rear half, I settled upon an intense and deep cobalt blue tone (ModelMaster 2012). For the zigzag border between the colors, I used Tamiya masking tape, trimmed with a tailor’s zigzag scissors and applied in a slightly overlapping pattern for an irregular edge.

The landing gear became standard all-white (Revell 301, too), with bright red edges (Humbrol 174) on the covers. Antenna fairings were painted with radome tan (Humbrol 7) as small color highlights.

 

The cockpit interior became standard medium grey (Revell 47) with a black ejection seat with brown cushions (Humbrol 119 and Revell 84), and brown “black boxes” behind the headrest. The air intakes as well as the interior of the VG wings were painted dark grey (Revell 77). The jet nozzles/feet were internally painted with Humbrol 27003 (Steel Metallizer) and with Revell 91 on the outside, and they were later thoroughly treated with graphite to give them a burnt/worn look.

The GU-11 pod became standard bare metal (Revell 91, Iron metallic), the AMM-1s were painted in light grey (Humbrol 127) with many additional painted details in five additional colors, quite a tedious task when repeated twelve times...

 

After basic painting was one the model received a careful overall washing with black ink to emphasize the engraved panel lines, and light post-shading was done to the blue areas to emphasize single panels.

The full-color ’kite’ roundels came from an 1:100 VF-1A sheet, the skull emblems were left over from my Kotobukiya 1:72 VF-4 build some years ago, which OOB carries SVF-1 markings, too. The 2.500th aircraft nose art decoration was printed on clear decal film with an ink jet printer at home, even though it’s so small that no details can be discerned on the model. SVF-1’s “ML” tail code was created with single white decal letters (RAF WWII font), the red “555” modex came from an PrintScale A-26 Invader sheet, it's part of a USAF serial number from an all-black Korean War era aircraft.

 

The wings' leading edges were finished in medium grey, done with decal sheet material. The Model Graphix Valkyrie does not sport this detail, but I think that the VF-1 looks better with them and more realistic. Red warning stripes around the legs - also not seen on the model in the magazine - were made from similar material.

 

The confetti along the jagged edge between the white and the blue areas was created with decal material, too – every bit was cut out and put into place one for one… To match the cobalt blue tone, the respective enamel paint was applied on clear decal sheet material and cut into small bits. For the white and red confetti, generic decal sheet material was used. All in all, this was another tedious process, but, at the small 1:100 scale, masks or tape would have been much more complex and less successful with the brushes I use for painting. For this home-made approach the result looks quite good!

 

Finally, after some typical details and position lights had been added with clear paints over a silver base, the small VF-1 was sealed with a coat of semi-matt acrylic varnish, giving it a slightly shiny finish.

  

A pretty VF-1 – even though I’d call it purely fictional, despite being based on material that was published in a Japanese magazine more than 20 years ago. The simple yet striking livery was a bit tricky to create, but the result, with the additional SVF-1 unit markings, looks good and makes me wonder how this machine would look with FAST pack elements for use in space or as a transformed Battroid?

Downtown Brooklyn, New York, New York City, United States

 

Erected between c.1835 and 1847. these four houses are unusually intact survivors from the early nineteenth century residential neighborhood that once flourished on the blocks east of Brooklyn's civic center. In contrast to wealthier Brooklyn Heights and the working class district near the Navy Yard, this neighborhood evolved between the late 1820s and 1840s as a upper middle-class enclave and remained downtown Brooklyn's leading middle-class neighborhood throughout the nineteenth century.

 

Moved two blocks to their present site in 1990, these houses were originally located on Johnson Street between Bridge and Lawrence Streets on one of several blocks developed by Rev. Samuel Roosevelt Johnson, who had inherited a portion of his grandfather's colonial-era farm. Three of the houses were constructed by Johnson; No. 184 was erected in 1847 as an investment property by merchant Francis Chichester.

 

Nos. 182, 184, and 186 display aspects of the Greek Revival style. No. 186 is especially noteworthy as one of the few surviving row houses in the city with a free-standing Greek Revival portico. No. 188, an 1830s house remodeled in the early 1880s, is ornamented with a combination of Queen Anne and Second Empire elements including an elaborate bracketed porch hood. During the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, these houses were occupied by merchants, lawyers, brokers, engineers, teachers, builders, and shipmasters.

 

Residents included surveyor John S. Stoddard, credited with laying out the streets in many of the older sections of Brooklyn, who owned No. 188 in the 1850s and early 1860s, and teacher Helen Lawrence who conducted a private school in No. 182 from the mid-1850s through the mid-1870s. The houses remained in residential use through the 1980s. They were moved to their present site as part of the MetroTech redevelopment plan in 1990. Today they survive as a significant reminder of the history of downtown Brooklyn and of the evolution of Brooklyn's middle-class residential architecture.

 

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS

 

Early Brooklyn and the Johnson Estate

 

In the mid-eighteenth century the village of Brooklyn was a small hamlet centered around the highway (modern-day Fulton Street) and the ferry that linked the farming communities of western Long Island with New York City. In 1755, Barent Johnson, a prosperous farmer of Dutch descent, purchased a pie-shaped tract of land of about forty acres which extended from the highway to Wallabout Creek (near present-day Navy Street) between present day Willoughby and Tillary Streets.

 

Barent Johnson died in 1777 of wounds he received fighting on the American side during the Battle of Long Island." Johnson left his property in trust for his orphaned nine-year-old son, John Barent Johnson. John Barent Johnson attended Columbia College and became a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church.3 In 1803, Rev. Johnson and his wife Elizabeth Lupton Johnson became ill and died with a few months of one another. They left three young children who were raised by Elizabeth Johnson's half-brother, Peter Roosevelt, an Episcopalian minister at Newtown.

 

Both of the Johnsons' sons, William Lupton Johnson (1800-1870) and Samuel Roosevelt Johnson (1802-1873), attended Columbia and became Episcopalian ministers. Their daughter, Maria Laidlie Johnson (1798-182?), married Rev. Evan M. Johnson, an Episcopalian minister from Rhode Island who served as curate at Newtown from 1814 to 1826. In 1823, when Samuel Roosevelt Johnson, the youngest of the three Johnson heirs, reached the age of majority, the heirs entered into a partition agreement to divide their Brooklyn property which was subdivided into city blocks and lots.

 

By that time the village of Brooklyn was growing rapidly due to the opening of the Brooklyn Navy Yard in 1801 and the introduction of steam ferry service between Fulton Street in Manhattan and Fulton Street in Brooklyn in 1814.

 

The village was incorporated in 1816 and in 1819 began an ambitious program to map and improve its streets. The opening of the Erie Canal in 1825 brought increased growth to Brooklyn. New warehouses were built along the Brooklyn waterfront and new factories were erected on the outskirts of the village; a thriving commercial district developed along Fulton Street.

 

The new opportunities for employment brought many new residents to the area. At the same time the expansion of New York City's downtown commercial district led many businessmen who had formerly made their homes in Lower Manhattan to look to Brooklyn for convenient suburban residences. A wave of speculative residential building began. At first, most of the new houses were concentrated in Brooklyn Heights and in the neighborhood around the Navy Yard. In the late 1820s and 1830s, however, the heirs to the farms east of Fulton Street began to develop their property.

 

By 1834, Brooklyn had a population of 24,310 and was incorporated as a city. In 1836, construction began on the foundations for a magnificent city hall, located on a triangular site at the junction of Court, Joralemon, and Fulton Streets, just opposite the southwest corner of the Johnson Estate.

 

Development of the Johnson Estate began in the mid-1820s, moving east from Fulton Street along Myrtle Avenue, then expanding to the north and south. Rev. Evan Johnson, who had inherited his wife's share of the estate, was instrumental in this development. In 1826, he sold his farm in Newtown and moved to Brooklyn where he established St. John's Church at Washington and Johnson Streets.

 

(Churches were an amenity that attracted home buyers to a neighborhood). According to the historian Henry Stiles, Rev. Evan Johnson regarded the civic growth of Brooklyn as a key factor in enhancing the value of the family's real estate and actively promoted the development of "its City Hall, its parks, its ferries, its streets."

 

Moreover, Stiles credited to Rev. Evan Johnson's "exertions and perseverance.... the opening of that great eastern wing of the city Myrtle Avenue."9 All three of the Johnson heirs contributed to the growth of Brooklyn by selling the right-of-way through their property for Adams Street and Tillary Street to the city at the cost of only $1 in 1826.

 

The heirs also gave considerable importance to the development of Johnson Street, entering into an agreement in May 1833 to develop the street "in a uniform manner so as to render it pleasant and desirable for private residences" and establishing restrictive covenants that required all the houses be set back ten feet from the edge of the lot.

 

Thus, they tried to ensure that their property would attract well-to-do buyers and that the neighborhood would develop as a fashionable enclave.

 

Construction and Early History of the Johnson Street (now Duffield Street) Houses

 

In the mid-1820s, Rev. Samuel R. Johnson, sold a few unimproved lots (mostly on Bridge and Tillary Streets) to builders and investors. In most cases he held mortgages on the properties. Development increased in the area in the 1830s and Johnson began to erect houses on his lots which he either sold or leased to tenants. He began developing the block bounded by Bridge Street, Johnson Street, Lawrence Street (formerly Barbarin Street), and Myrtle Avenue around 1835.

 

By 1840, when a street directory was published listing occupants of residential buildings by their addresses, there were four houses standing on the south side of Johnson Street between Lawrence and Bridge Streets including the houses formerly at 108 and 110 Johnson Street (now Nos. 186 and 188 Duffield Street), four houses on the east side of Bridge Street between Johnson and Myrtle Streets (demolished), one house on the north side of Myrtle Avenue between Lawrence and Bridge Streets (demolished), and two houses on the west side of Lawrence Street between Johnson Street and Myrtle Avenue (demolished). The occupants included shipmasters, builders, a butcher, and several merchants.

 

Johnson continued to build houses and sell vacant lots through the 1840s. In 1839-40, he erected a house at 100 Johnson Street (now No. 182 Duffield Street), which was acquired by his cousin Oscar Johnson in April 1840 and sold to a widow, Elizabeth Liscomb, in June 1840. Liscomb resided at 100 Johnson Street until around 1844-45. In January 1842, she purchased the vacant lot at 106 Johnson Street from Samuel R. Johnson that she sold to Charles H. Baxter, a sandpaper manufacturer, in 1845. In February 1847, Francis H. Chichester, guardian of Henrietta Chichester, purchased the vacant lot from Baxter and erected a house at 106 Johnson Street (now 184 Duffield Street), which was leased for a period of five years beginning in May 1847.

 

During the late 1830s and early 1840s, Rev. Samuel R. Johnson resided in Lafayette, Indiana. For most of the period, his real estate affairs were handled by his nephew, Samuel E. Johnson, a distinguished attorney and judge, who was the son of Maria Laidlie Johnson and Rev. Evan Johnson. In 1847, Samuel R. Johnson returned to Brooklyn and took over the pulpit of St. John's Church. In 1850, he was appointed Professor of Systematic Divinity at the General Theological Seminary and moved to Manhattan. That year he sold his remaining rental properties on the block.

 

The house at 110 Johnson Street (now 188 Duffield Street) was acquired in 1850 by John S. Stoddard, a surveyor and civil engineer who was responsible for laying out the streets in a large portion of Brooklyn and who served in the late 1850s and early 1860s as chief engineer for Brooklyn's municipal water company.

 

In 1866, Stoddard's widow sold the house to investor Alfred E. Lyman who leased it to furrier Thomas Finnigan through the mid-1870s. In the early 1880s it was occupied by clothing dealer Isaac Cohn and his family. In 1881, the building was sold to Catherine Bagley, who raised the attic to a full story and altered the facade.

 

Occupants included John McDonald, a carpenter, who occupied the house with his family in 1900, William J. Cummings, an engineer, and Joseph Henderson, an undertaker, both of whom resided in the house with their families in 1905.

 

Samuel R. Johnson sold 108 Johnson Street (now 186 Duffield Street) to merchant George Hastings in 1850. It was acquired the following year by attorney Henry Hagner (1824-1880) who had offices on Court Street in Brooklyn. It was occupied until 1910 by members of the Hagner family, including Henry Hagner, Jr., who also practiced law in Brooklyn, his sister Mary H. Lyman and her husband Robert A. Lyman, an officer, at a coal and wood company.

 

No. 100 Johnson Street (now 182 Duffield Street) changed hands several times in the early 1850s. In 1856 the house was purchased by schoolteacher Helen W. Lawrence who conducted a school on the premises with her sisters Sarah and Margaret until the early 1870s. It was leased to Zebulon Post, a fish merchant at the Fulton Market, in the late 1870s and occupied by members of the Lawrence family in the 1880s.

 

No. 106 Johnson Street (now 184 Duffield Street) was purchased in 1852 by Charles B. Prindle, a grocer with a wholesale business on South Street in Manhattan. After his death in 1858, his heirs retained the house as an investment property. Around 1860, it was leased to Sarah Halstead, a widow, who kept a boarding house for two or three tenants at a time including a lawyer, a printer, and a bookkeeper. In 1880, it was leased to Jacob York, a brick mason, and in the 1890s was occupied by I. Craven, a broker, and his wife. William Nolting, a physician, and Archibald Crowe, a bookkeeper, and their families resided there in the early 1900s.

 

This occupancy by professionals and well-to-do merchants was typical of the neighborhood which evolved as an upper-middle class enclave and remained a middle-class residential neighborhood until the early 1900s. To a certain extent this evolution sets it apart from downtown Brooklyn's other nineteenth-century residential neighborhoods.

 

Brooklyn Heights, while retaining a significant amount of its older middle-class housing, became a neighborhood of the wealthy following the construction of large numbers of elegantly-appointed new houses along Montague Street, Montague Terrace, Remsen Street, and Columbia Heights in the 1840s and 1850s.

 

It remained Brooklyn's most fashionable and aristocratic district throughout the nineteenth century. The Fulton Ferry neighborhood, which had initially incorporated a mixture of housing and commercial enterprises, became

 

exclusively commercial and industrial by the mid-nineteenth century.

 

The neighborhood to the south and west of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, developed largely between the mid-1830s and the 1850s and built up with modest rowhouses, became a working-class enclave. As immigrants flocked to the neighborhood to take advantage of the jobs provided by the Navy Yard and neighborhood industries, it became one of Brooklyn's most densely populated areas and was popularly known as "Irishtown" or "Vinegar Hill," for the large number of residents of Irish descent.

 

By the mid-nineteenth century other middle-class enclaves began to develop just beyond the downtown, including the neighborhoods now known as Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Clinton Hill, and Fort Greene, but the neighborhood to the east of City Hall, now Borough Hall, retained its desirability, probably as a result of its convenience to Brooklyn's commercial and governmental center.

 

The Desink of the Houses'

 

Erected between c. 1835 and 1847, these two-and-one-half-story and three-story brick and clapboard-covered frame houses are representative of the urban residential buildings that once lined the blocks east of Brooklyn's civic center and for the most part have now been replaced or severely altered.

 

Three of the four buildings display aspects of the Greek Revival style, which dominated American architecture from the late 1820s to the late 1840s, and is characterized by its emphasis on planar wall surfaces, simple massive forms, and classical ornament primarily derived from classic Greek sources. No. 188 Duffield Street (formerlyllO Johnson Street) a mid-1830s house remodeled in the early 1880s, features a combination of Queen Anne and Second Empire decorative elements. In accordance with the agreement the Johnsons had made regarding the development of Johnson Street, the houses originally set back from the street along a uniform building line and had small front gardens with iron picket fences. (This arrangement was replicated when the houses were moved to Duffield Street).

 

No. 182 Duffield Street (formerly 100 Johnson Street), constructed c. 1839-40. is a Greek Revival style, three-bay-wide, two-and-one-half-story, brick townhouse with a peaked roof. This house was originally located on the comer of Johnson and Lawrence Streets and its north wall is articulated by two lines of windows that are now mostly sealed.

 

The north gable is capped by paired chimneys joined by a parapet, a characteristic Greek Revival feature. On both the primary and north facades, the window and door openings are set off by the simple marble lintels and sills. The wide marble stoop with cast iron railings has not survived.

 

The tall parlor windows may be an original feature since such floor length windows were just becoming fashionable around 1840 or may be the result of an early alteration. Historic photographs show that the other windows originally had six-over-six wood sashes which have been replaced. The building's most notable feature is the crowning wood entablature composed of a tripartite architrave, fascia board frieze pierced by horizontal attic windows, and denticulated cornice.

 

Similar attic friezes and entablatures are found on such notable examples of the Greek Revival design as the houses at 1 -13 Washington Square North (1831-33) familiarly known as "The Row" in the Greenwich Village Historic District and the houses in Cushman Row (1839-40) at 408-418 West 20th Street in the Chelsea Historic District.

 

Alterations to the facade have included the replacement of the original wood entrance surround, doors, and transom with paired paneled wood and glass doors and single-light transom, probably in the 1880s or 1890s. These handsome doors are enriched with beaded moldings and the transom bar above the entrance is decorated with an unusual stylized classical motif.

 

The two-story extension at the rear of this house was probably added in the 1870s or 1880s. Its north wall, which is partially visible from Duffield Street through the alley between this building and 3 MetroTech Center, has lost its first story angled bay visible in historic photographs of the house.

 

No. 184 Duffield Street (formerly 106 Johnson Street), constructed in 1847, has a restrained design typical of mid-and-late 1840s urban vernacular buildings influenced by the Greek Revival style. As was characteristic for houses in the late 1840s, it has a full third story surmounted by a flat roof. This house is designed using an English basement plan, a type of house plan modeled on English precedents that was just coming into vogue in New York in the late 1840s.

 

In an English basement house the first story is set only a few steps above street level and contains a formal dining room and a stairhall which leads upstairs to a double parlor on the second floor. This plan is expressed in the exterior design of the house by the tall windows at the second story which extended to the parlor floor to provide adequate light and ventilation for the large room.

 

A stone band course between the basement and first story and a string course beneath the second-story windows emphasizes the dining room floor. These stone courses create strong horizontal lines to counter the tall proportions of the building and the height of the second-story windows. Also characteristic of the period is the use of dark stone trim (probably bluestone or brownstone which is now painted white) rather than the limestone or marble customary in the 1830s and early 1840s and the employment of somewhat heavy sills and lintels. The facade is capped by a Tuscan Doric entablature with a boldly projecting crowning cornice.

  

No. 184 also originally incorporated some Gothic Revival details, including the trefoil pattern cast iron railings and fences (no longer extant) and the cusped arch panels which may survive on the paired wood doors (now covered with metal panels). The entry retains its original molded wood door surround and single-light transom. The house originally had a basement entry and small basement windows which were not recreated when it was set on the present foundation.

 

At the rear extending across the back of the house is a two-story porch with brick side walls and a wood- framed rear wall clad with non-historic wood siding. In the 1840s and 1850s such multi-story galleries were a popular feature for urban houses. Typically these galleries opened on to the back rooms of the house through floor-length windows or French doors which ensured adequate light and ventilation and provided a view of the back garden. In many instances one or more stories of the porch was enclosed with framing and lit by multiple windows. When an enclosed porch opened off the back parlor it was often used as an informal sitting room or "tearoom."

 

Here, it appears that the first-story porch opening off the dining room was an open porch and had steps leading down to the back garden.

 

The second story porch was probably always enclosed and used as a tearoom-sitting room. Because rear porches were usually not built on as firm a foundation as the rest of the house during this period many galleries and tearooms have disappeared making this porch something of a rare survivor.

 

No. 186 Duffield Street (formerly 108 Johnson Street), constructed c. 1835-38, was built as a pair with the house at 188 Duffield Street (formerly 110 Johnson Street) with which it shares a party wall. A two-and-one-half-story frame house, faced with clapboard siding above a masonry basement (originally brick), No. 186 displays elements of the Federal and Greek Revival styles. Its most notable feature is the freestanding Greek Revival portico with square Doric columns supporting a heavy entablature. According to architectural historian Charles Lockwood, "the high cost of cutting ... columns and building a freestanding porch limited this [type of] doorway to only the finest row houses" during the Greek Revival period. Surviving examples of such porticos are rare in New York City and are exceptionally rare for frame row houses.

 

No. 186 also is distinguished by the handsome Greek Revival entrance surround with its narrow sidelights framed by pilasters, and tripartite transom set off by console ornaments and a transom bar ornamented with a beaded molding. The house retains its original wood door articulated with two long narrow recessed panels. The articulation of the door, entrance surround, and portico may have been adapted from plate in Minard Lafever's The Modern Builder's Guide (1833),20 a popular source for builders and architects of the period.

 

The parlor and second story windows are framed by molded wood surrounds and have historic six-over-six wood sashes. The facade is crowned by an entablature composed of a wide frieze and a denticulated cornice which was modified by the addition of small decorative brackets in the late nineteenth century and by the removal of a decorative architrave molding sometime after 1940.

 

The building is surmounted by a peaked roof with two pedimented dormers at the front of the house and a single dormer at the center of the rear facade. The use of such dormers is typical of the Federal style and points to the early date of this house. Another early feature is the irregular arrangement of windows at the second story of the rear facade, where the northernmost window is somewhat lower than the other windows since it lights the staircase landing.

  

No. 188 Duffield Street (formerly 110 Johnson Street), built as a pair with 186 Duffield Street (formerly 108 Johnson Street) with which it shares a party wall, was raised from two-and-one-half stories to three stories and given a new facade enriched with Queen Anne and Second Empire details when it was remodeled in the early 1880s.

 

Faced with clapboard siding, it has molded window surrounds with decorative lintels and two-over-two wood window sashes. The entrance is sheltered by an elaborate bracketed hood which may to have been adapted from an earlier portico roof. This surround features decorative spandrel panels including stylized foliate forms and sunflowers, a favorite motif of British Aesthetic movement, which became an emblem of the Queen Anne style.

 

Historic photographs show that doorway contained paired Queen Anne style paneled doors which were replaced by the current door, side panels, and transom by the 1980s. The facade is capped by a Second Empire style metal comice enriched by a paneled frieze, modillions, and console brackets. A large two-story wing at the rear of the house was demolished immediately prior to the house being moved to this site. While all of the window casings appear to be historic, the present wood clapboard siding and brick side wall facing were installed c. 1990.

 

Later History'

 

By the time of Consolidation in 1898, the area around Brooklyn's City Hall (subsequently Borough Hall), had become its financial, commercial, transportation, entertainment, and governmental center. While much of this development took place in the area south and west of Borough Hall, Fulton Street remained the Borough's prime commercial artery with businesses radiating outward for several blocks. The western portion of the former Johnson Estate (Washington, Adams, Pearl Streets, at Willoughby Avenue, Myrtle Avenue, and Johnson Street) became a commercial area with many of the borough's leading shops, hotels, theaters, and major office buildings.

 

This development was assisted by improvements in transportation, notably the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge (John A., Washington, and Emily Roebling, 1867-83, a designated New York City Landmark) which terminated in Brooklyn at Sands Street between Fulton Street and Washington Avenue where it connected with the Kings County Elevated line, which ran along Fulton Street, and with the Brooklyn Elevated line, which ran along Washington Street and Myrtle Avenue. Within a few years of the opening of the elevated.

 

Myrtle Avenue was transformed into a commercial and manufacturing corridor with buildings such as the Wilcox Millinery Company factory (1889) at the northwest comer of Myrtle Avenue and Bridge Street and the McEnnery and Mullins & Son furniture warehouses on the south side of Myrtle Avenue at Lawrence Street (pre-1903). For about twenty years Johnson Street and blocks to the north remained residential and middle class. However, the opening of subway service to downtown Brooklyn in 1908, the construction of the Manhattan Bridge and the Flatbush Avenue Extension in 1905-09, and the opening of a new Long Island Railroad terminal at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues in 1906 made downtown Brooklyn even more accessible and led to a further expansion of the downtown business and entertainment district.

 

At the same time Brooklyn's manufacturing sector, which had traditionally been located near the Navy Yard, was also expanding. A number of new factories and warehouses opened along the Flatbush Avenue Extension. In 1920, the American Safety Razor Corporation erected the first building of its factory complex on Lawrence, Johnson, and Jay Streets. By that time, many of the older houses in the neighborhood had been altered to accommodate commercial uses at the first story and most of the houses had been converted from single-family occupancy to boardinghouses or multiple dwellings. These changes were reflected in the occupancy of the houses on Johnson Street by 1915 when the census indicates that all but No. 108 (now 186 Duffield Street) were being used as multi-family dwellings with residents employed in such occupations as teamster, newspaper dealer, nurse, stenographer, and printer.

 

The majority of occupants were of Irish descent but No. 106 (now 184 Duffield Street) was occupied by a Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company conductor from Guinea who leased rooms to a number of fellow countrymen. By 1925 a number of the houses were occupied by Italian working-class families.

 

In the post-World War II era several blocks east of Fulton Street were demolished to create a new Civic Center centered around Cadman Plaza. A portion of Fulton Street between Pierrepont Street and the old ferry landing was renamed Cadman Plaza West and Washington Street was widened and renamed Cadman Plaza East. Tillary Street was also widened to provide an easier approach from the Flatbush Avenue Extension to the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

The elevated tracks that had formerly descended from the Brooklyn Bridge on Fulton Street and Myrtle Avenue were removed. As factory jobs and long-time residents moved to the suburbs in the 1950s and the Brooklyn Navy Yard closed in 1966, the downtown business and residential districts began to contract. Many of the historic stores along Fulton Street closed and a number of houses in the neighborhood east of the civic center became derelict or were demolished.

 

The neighborhood began to experience new growth in the late 1950s when the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn (now Polytechnic University) acquired and renovated the American Safety Razor Company's old buildings on Lawrence Street. In 1977 construction began on the Fulton Mall. In the early 1980s plans began for MetroTech, a sixteen-acre complex of new and renovated buildings developed as joint venture by Polytechnic University and Forest City Ratner Corporation.

 

As part of the development, the Johnson Street site was redeveloped for Polytechnic University's Bern Dibner Library of Science and Technology, 5 MetroTech Center. These four houses were moved from their original site to Duffield Street in 1990 where they adjoin historic St. Boniface's Church. Today they survive as a significant reminder of the early history of the neighborhood and of the evolution of Brooklyn's middle-class housing stock, representative examples of what Walt Whitman described in 1861 as "the architectural greatness" of Brooklyn, "the hundreds and thousands of superb private dwellings, for the comfort and luxury of the great body of middle class people."

 

Description

 

Moved to their present location in 1990, the four houses are located on a single tax lot which extends 98.4 feet along Duffield Street and is 100.3 feet deep. A low non-historic wrought-iron fence set on blue stone foundation borders the property on Duffield Street and divides the front yards of the individual houses. A non-historic metal gate extends across the narrow alley between the north wall of 182 Duffield Street and the south wall of 3 Metrotech Center. The matching gate across the alley between 188 Duffield Street and St. Boniface's Church (190 Duffield Street) is partially on church property. The north wall of the handicap ramp to the church and a cyclone fence bordering the south side of the rear yard of No. 188 mark the division line between the two properties. The houses set back several feet from the fence and are approached by non-historic bluestone pavers and small grass plots. The houses were stabilized and refurbished when they were moved to this site in 1990.

  

No. 182 Duffield Street is a Greek Revival style, three-bay-wide, two-and-one-half-story peaked-roofed brick rowhouse with a two-story flat-roofed extension. The house rests on a non-historic basement (constructed when the house was moved) which is parged with brownstone-colored stucco. The basement window openings contain one-over-one wood sash and metal grilles which were salvaged from the building's old basement. A small spigot is set between the north window and the northeast comer of the building. A small areaway in front of the basement windows is protected by a low non-historic stuccoed masonry wall that is coped with bluestone.

 

The house is approached by a high stoop, which appears to incorporate a historic masonry base that has been parged with stucco and new brownstone-tinted concrete steps. The wrought-iron railings were installed when the house was moved. The iron gates under the stoop were salvaged from the old basement entrance.

 

Above the basement, the house is faced in brick laid in running bond and has marble window sills and lintels on its Duffield Street and north facades.

 

The parlor-level entrance is set off by a marble lintel. The brick facades and the lintels and sills on the north facade are painted. The entry contains a pair of historic wood doors and a single-light transom in a historic molded surround that probably dates from the late nineteenth century. The doors are decorated with recessed panels and are lit by tall windows. The transom bar above the doors is enriched with an unusual stylized egg-and-dart molding. The current wood one-over-one window sash and wood surrounds at the first and second stories are non-historic.

 

They replace one-over-one aluminum sash and frames that had been installed by the mid-1980s. A photograph from the 1930s shows six-over-six sash in most of the windows and late-nineteenth-century two-over-two sashes in the front parlor windows which were lengthened. The facade is capped by a wood entablature composed of tripartite architrave, fascia board frieze pierced by attic windows, and denticulated cornice. The paired wood casement windows are historic.

 

The north elevation of the main portion of the house is visible from Duffield Street. Above the basement, the facade is articulated by two lines of windows. On the east side of the facade, the first story is lit by a non-historic one-over-one wood window. The second and third story windows are sealed and may have originally been blind windows. The western line of windows have non-historic one-over-one wood sashes at the first and second story.

 

The attic window is sealed with brick. This wall is capped by a pair of chimneys that are joined by a parapet. Both of the chimneys were rebuilt after the house was moved in 1990. The one-bay deep, three-bays-wide, two-story extension is faced with brick. On the north wall of the extension the former first story oriel has been removed and the opening sealed with brick. The second story is lit by a single window.

 

No. 184 Duffield Street is a three-story, twenty-feet-wide, brick rowhouse with a two-story porch extension. Its facade is designed in a restrained style typical of mid-and-late 1840s urban vernacular buildings influenced by the Greek Revival style. The building rests on a non-historic masonry foundation. A small pipe head and round metal vent are located at the north end of the base. There is a small spigot just north of the stoop. The low masonry stoop and iron side rails are non-historic.

 

Above the base the building is faced in red brick laid in running bond. The windows and entrance are set off by brownstone sills and lintels. The lintels are painted; the sills and a sill course beneath the second-story windows have been rebrownstoned. The entrance retains its historic molded wood surround, single-light transom and paired paneled wood doors with long single lights.

 

The bottom part of the doors have been covered with painted sheet metal. Metal numerals reading 184 are affixed to the top of the south door. A non-historic metal light fixture has been installed between the entrance and the middle window at the first story. Non-historic metal window grilles have been installed on the doors and the first story windows. All of the window openings on this facade have historic one-over-one double-hung wood sash. The facade is

 

capped by its original molded wood cornice which is edged at the top with non-historic sheet metal flashing.

 

The rear elevation rests on a tall non-historic basement which is faced with stucco. Above this base the wall is faced with common brick. Much of the facade is concealed by the historic two-story porch which has brick side walls (painted). None of the fenestration or cladding on this porch appears to be historic but the presence of an enclosed porch at the second story, the brick sidewalls and framing of the porch, and the use of a shed roof are historic.

 

At the third story the rear facade is articulated by historic segmental window openings with trabeated wood surrounds. The windows have non-historic aluminum sashes. The facade is capped by a denticulated brick cornice.

 

No. 186 Duffield Street, constructed c. 1835-38, is a twenty-four-feet-wide, two-and-one-half-story clapboard-covered frame house which displays elements of the Federal and Greek Revival styles. It rests on a low non-historic foundation which is faced with stucco. There is a small spigot just north of the stoop. The entrance porch and steps are supported by non-historic foundations which are stuccoed.

 

Non-historic wood lattice screens cover the openings beneath the stairs and porch. The stoop has non-historic wood steps and railings dating from the 1990s, however, the porch floor appears to be historic. The heavy entablature of the Greek Revival entrance porch is supported by square wood Tuscan Doric columns and pilaster responds that frame the entrance. Extending between the columns and pilasters at the sides of the porch are historic wood lattice screens which have small wood benches built into their bases.

 

The elaborate Greek Revival entrance surround features a central paneled door which is flanked by narrow sidelights and surmounted by a tripartite transom. The pilasters framing the door are ornamented with anthemions and the transom is enriched by a egg and dart molding and by richly carved console brackets. A non-historic recessed light fixture has been installed in the porch ceiling. The door has non-historic hardware and a non-historic mail slot. Non-historic metal numerals reading "186" have been applied to the lintel above the entrance. The house retains its original wood clapboard siding and molded window surrounds and has historic six-over-six wood window sash.

 

The non-historic louvred wood shutters date from the 1990s. The facade is capped by an entablature composed of a wide frieze and a denticulated cornice which was modified by the addition of small decorative brackets in the late nineteenth century and by the removal of a classical architrave molding sometime after 1940. The gabled roof and gabled dormers are covered with standing seam sheet metal. The wide piers framing the paired windows in the dormers were once ornamented with classical motifs (probably brackets) which were removed after 1940. The historic brick chimney on the south side of the roof was largely rebuilt in the 1990s. The metal pipe vent at the northeast corner of the roof was installed prior to 1940.

 

The rear elevation is also faced with historic wood clapboards. This facade has a one-story shed- roofed porch which was completely enclosed and entirely clad with non-historic wood clapboards after the house was moved in 1990. The present stoop and paneled door are non-historic additions from the 1990s. At the second story the facade has three window bays, the northernmost set slightly below the others. All three have six-over-six wood sashes. At the attic level, there is a central gabled dormer which is identical to the dormers on the Duffield Street facade. Its paired window openings contain non-historic one-over-one wood sashes.

 

No. 188 Duffield Street is a mid-1830s twenty-four-foot-wide frame rowhouse which was raised from two-and-one-half stories to three stories and given a new facade enriched with Queen Anne and Second Empire details when it was remodeled in the early 1880s. It rests on a low non-historic foundation which is faced with stucco. There is a small spigot just south of the stoop and a round metal vent cover at the south corner of the base.

 

The entrance is approached by a historic wood stoop which rests on a non-historic masonry base and has non-historic wood railings. The upper stories are faced with wood clapboard siding. The windows retain their original Queen Anne style molded window surrounds with decorative lintels and historic two-over-two wood window sashes. The entrance is sheltered by an elaborate bracketed hood with sawn and turned decorations including spandrel panels featuring stylized foliate forms and sunflowers.

 

The entrance retains its original molded wood surround with paneled jambs. The current door, sidelights, and single-light transom are non-historic infill replacing paired Queen Anne style doors visible in c. 1940s photographs of the house. The facade is crowned by a Second Empire-style metal cornice enriched by a paneled frieze, modillions, and console brackets.

 

The south wall of the building was faced with brick when it was moved to its present site. A large two-story extension at the rear of the building was also removed.

 

- From the 2001 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

Welcome Queens Village part II congrats u did it

I developed this film using QWD ECN-2 chemistry. It's a long story about a gift of 4 Silbersalz rolls that should have included developing and scanning back in Stuttgart. Instead, the film took a round trip from New York to Frankfurt, getting stuck in German customs for months with indifferent support from Silbersalz. So upon their return to me, I developed and scanned them myself. QWD makes a great product for home development of Vision3.