View allAll Photos Tagged Evolution
The Project [R]evolution Digital and Social Media Conference offers a unique opportunity for business, government and media managers to glean insights, ask questions and mix with some of the leading players in the field.
One of the keynote speakers:
Alec Ross
Senior Advisor for Innovation to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Alec Ross serves as Senior Advisor for Innovation in the Office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In this role, Alec is tasked with maximizing the potential of technology in service of America’s diplomatic and development goals.
Before that appointment, Alec worked on the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team and served as Convener for Obama for America's Technology, Media & Telecommunications Policy Committee.
In 2000, Alec Ross and three colleagues co-founded One Economy, a global non-profit that uses innovative approaches to deliver the power of technology and information about education, jobs, health care and other vital issues to low-income people. During his eight years at One Economy, it grew from a team of four people working in a basement to the world's largest digital divide organization, with programs on four continents.
Power to every citizen
To me “digital revolution” can be defined as the massive shift in power that has taken place from hierarchies to citizens and networks of citizens as a result of powerful digital technologies.
What this means in practical terms is that everyday citizens have power today that they did not have as recently as five years ago. Anybody with a smart phone now has the kind of global reach that was once reserved for governments and large media companies. This shifting power has disrupted commerce, communication and governance.
I see this “digital revolution” as being overwhelmingly positive. Some of the disruption it has caused (and will cause in the future) is negative, but this has been far outweighed by the ability of people to connect and engage with the world and with the marketplace in ways that were previously unimaginable. I think about my own experience as a school teacher in an impoverished community. When I was a teacher, the only educational resource my students had beyond my own knowledge were a set of tattered, 30-year old textbooks. Today, that same classroom is equipped with an internet connection that can deliver world-class educational resources directly to the students that most need them. While there is no replacement for a good teacher, our students should not have to suffer with out-of-date and substandard educational resources. With the digital revolution, that no longer needs to be the case.
Another Keynote speaker:
Emily Banks
Associate managing editor for Mashable
Emily Banks is responsible for organizing and overseeing Mashable‘s growing editorial operations, including assigning, editing and publishing stories, as well as sharing them to Mashable's social accounts. She is also responsible for coordinating with partners on video and syndicated content. She joined Mashable‘s New York team in October 2010. Mashable is well known as the largest independent news source dedicated to covering digital culture, social media and technology.
Some of Emily’s recent engagements include "Social Media 101" for New York Women in Communications, "The New Face of Social Good: How to Make Your Own Social Media Magic!" and "Challenging Conventional Wisdom of Social Media".
Abstract: Social media and the newsroom: the Revolution of the Newsroom
Without question, social media has changed the pace of news; how and where it breaks and who breaks it. How does this change our trust in media organisations, journalists as individuals and news-makers? As we remove the layer of authority provided by news organisations, by placing the news directly in the hands of journalists on social media, how do -- or should -- our readers approach the news? This talk will discuss tools for verifying news through social media, cases of misinformation caused by the rapid nature of breaking news on social and the ethical questions involved in reporting in this new age.
TO SEE THE CHARACTERS THAT I HAVE USED to construct this PHYLOGENY :
metazoaevolution.blogspot.com.br/
Utilizei fotos da internet para ilustrar esta filogenia e como são muitas, fica complicado dar todas as referências, mas não é difícil de consegui-las...basta isolar a imagem e arrastar para o Google imagens e serão localizadas. Esta publicação não tem fins lucrativos, apenas procuro trazer informação para os internautas, simples divulgação de conhecimentos.
ERRATA : Na figura Platyhelminthes ficou sem o "Y".
seen across Helen Lake. this ridge divides the northern headwaters of the Kings River (this side) from the southern headwaters of the San Joaquin River (other side).
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some of the wealth of evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion of sedimentary deposits in perfectly, still water. Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 20/02/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Funny Images : Take a Loook This "Evolution of Man Image"...Is this a evolution concept from Darwin's Theory ????.....
SHARE THIS PICTURE TO YOUR ALL FRIENDS,...
See another funny images and videos here : www.funnyimages3.co.cc
Apresentação da Orquestra Filarmônica de São Bernardo do Campo e Coral Contabilis, na regência do maestro Carlos Moreno e da banda The Evolution, em São Bernardo, SP, dia 21 de dezembro de 2008.
One of SL's up and coming art galleries, It also has a Theatre and sculpture park that is dedicated to art made entireley in Second Life.
Posted by Second Life Resident Torley Olmstead. Visit Cassowarry.
A JMB VL-3EH Evolution (N8GL) passes the Moon over Melbourne, Florida Friday morning @ 8,825 ft & 185 kts. The VL-3 is a Czech-built carbon composite two-seat light sport aircraft powered by a turbocharged Rotax engine.
📷: me, flight data: Flightradar24.com
THE SIMPSONS: Flanders calls Homer an ape and makes a case for evolution revolution in THE SIMPSONS episode "The Monkey Suit" airing Sunday, May 14 (8:00-8:30 PM ET/PT) on FOX. THE SIMPSONS™ & ©2006TCFFC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ©2006FOX BROADCASTING CR:FOX
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
Evolution, naturale evoluzione del nostro modello top di gamma EuropeGold, è la massima espressione della produzione Laghetto e il riferimento qualitativo del mercato delle piscine fuoriterra. Evolution è frutto di una ricerca continua che dura da più di trent’anni e del successo di svariati test nelle condizioni più gravose in ogni parte del mondo.