expected photos on Flickr

2017 World Championship Group Stage at Wuhan Sports Center Gymnasium in Wuhan, Hubei, China on 8 October 2017.

14

Papplewick 1940's Event 2024.

1

I wasn't expecting the fog to be so thick or last so long when I planned a sunrise photoshoot. Two hours later it was starting to clear a bit, so I decided to fly the quadcopter to see what was visible. The fog bank was thicker than 100 m, but patches were clearing and I was able to grab a panorama of the old Walker Sawmill.

This 360° aerial panorama was stitched from 26 photographs with PTGUI Pro and touched up in Affinity Photo and Aperture.

Original size: 25000 × 12500 (312.5 MP; 642.78 MB).

Location: East Duffins Headwaters, Ontario, Canada

Vancouver Chinatown Happy and Sad by PhotoJunkie88

Before March 2 2015, please come here to nominate the entire Chinatown as the historic site to be preserved, don't expect City of Vancouver to save Chinatown when the Council approved more condo to be built in Chinatown at rapid rate to destroy the Chinatown.

www.heritagebc.ca/blog?articleid=162

Chinese Historic Places Recognition Project

THE HERITAGE BATTLE FOR CHINATOWN

Historic Vancouver neighbourhood is being redeveloped, raising fears it will lose its character.

By JOHN MACKIE, VANCOUVER SUN November 15, 2014

The marketing line for the Keefer Block condo development in Chinatown is “Heritage Meets Modern.”

But just how much heritage will be left after a wave of modern developments washes over the historic district is a matter of debate.

A new proposal for the 700-block of Main Street would demolish the last three buildings from Hogan’s Alley, a once-notorious back lane that was the longtime home of Vancouver’s black community.

Another condo development at 231 Pender would replace a funky, Chinese-themed garage that is listed on Canada’s Register of Historic Places. Angelo Tosi’s family has owned their building at 624 Main since 1930. It may date back to 1895, and looks it — the fixtures and shelving are as old as the hills.

But Tosi is 82, and will probably sell when the price is right. He doesn’t expect his store to survive.

“It’ll be gobbled up by the monstrous buildings,” said Tosi. “And then they’ll take it all, and it’s finished. They won’t keep the heritage on the bottom, they’ll put down whatever they want.”

His fatalistic attitude reflects the changes in Chinatown, which is undergoing a development boom after zoning changes by the City of Vancouver.

The protected “historic” area of Chinatown is now Pender Street, while much of Main, Georgia and Keefer can now be redeveloped, with heights of up to 90 feet (nine storeys). A few sites can go even higher.

Two towers are going up at Keefer and Main — the nine-storey, 81-unit Keefer Block, and the 17-storey, 156-unit 188 Keefer. Up the street at 137 Keefer, a development permit application has just gone in for a new nine-storey “multi-family building.”

None of them has stirred up much controversy. But a recent public meeting about a 12-storey, 137-unit condo to be built on an empty lot at Keefer and Columbia got people riled up.

“There was a lot of angry people that night,” said Henry Yu, a UBC history professor who feels a “vision plan” the Chinatown community worked on with the city for several years is being ignored.

“The vision plan gets passed, (but it has) no teeth,” said Yu. “Actually (there is) no policy, it’s a wish list of ‘Oh, we’d like seniors housing, we’d like to do this, we’d like to do that.’

“Almost immediately, the two (highrise) buildings in the 600-, 700-block Main go up, and they’re just basically Yaletown condos. Not even Yaletown — Yaletown has more character.

“These are straight out of the glass tower (model), no (historic) character, obliterating everything in terms of tying it to the kind of streetscape of Chinatown. You’re going to split the historic two or three blocks of Chinatown with a Main Street corridor of these glass towers.”

Yu says Chinatown has historically been small buildings on 25-foot lots, which makes for a jumble of small stores that gives it a unique look and character. But the new developments are much wider, and just don’t look like Chinatown.

“The two 600-, 700-block buildings have a rain shield that’s an awning, a glass awning that runs the whole block,” said Yu. “That’s the design guideline for the city as a whole, but it was nothing to do with Chinatown, (which is) narrow frontages, changing awnings.

“We said that (to the city planners), we raised it and raised it, but the planners just shoved it down our throat.”

Kevin McNaney is Vancouver’s assistant director of planning. He said the city changed the zoning in parts of Chinatown to help revitalize the neighbourhood, which has been struggling.

“We have been taking a look across Chinatown,” said McNaney. “What we’re finding is that rents are dropping, and vacancies are rising. And that’s a big part of the strategy of adding more people to revitalize Chinatown.

“There are only 900 people currently living in Chinatown, many of them seniors. It’s just not the population base needed to support businesses, so a lot of the businesses are going under. Along Pender Street you see a lot of vacancies right now.

“So at the heart of this plan is to bring more people to revitalize Chinatown, and also use that development to support heritage projects, affordable housing projects and cultural projects.”

Henry Yu disagrees. “The idea that you need density in Chinatown itself, that you need your own captive customer base, is moronic,” he said.

“Where else in the city would you make that argument, that nobody can walk more than two blocks, that no one is going to come in here from somewhere else?

“They will. People go to the International Summer Market in Richmond in an empty gravel field. Ten thousand people at night come from everywhere in the Lower Mainland, because there’s something worth going to.

“The problem isn’t that you need a captive audience that has no other choice but to shop in Chinatown — that’s just stupid, there’s plenty of people in Strathcona. The problem is, is there something worth coming to (in Chinatown)? And that has to do with the character, what the mix is, what kind of commercial.”

Ironically, all the new construction comes just as Chinatown seems to be undergoing a bit of a renaissance. Several new businesses have popped up in old buildings, attracted by the area’s character and cheap rents.

The très-hip El Kartel fashion boutique recently moved into a 6,000 sq. ft space at 104 East Pender that used to house Cathay Importers. It’s on the main floor of the four-storey Chinese Benevolent Association Building, which was built in 1909.

Across the street at 147 East Pender is Livestock, a runner and apparel store that is so cool it doesn’t even have a sign. “We were in Gastown at the corner of Cordova and Abbott, (and) just felt a change was needed,” said store manager Chadley Abalos.

“We found the opportunity in Chinatown, so we decided to move here. We feel it’s one of the new spots that are booming. You see a lot of new businesses — restaurants, clothing stores, furniture. We see the potential in it growing.”

Russell Baker owns Bombast, a chic furniture store at 27 East Pender. But he is not new to the neighbourhood — Bombast has been there for 10 years.

“I think (Chinatown is) one of the most interesting parts of the city,” he said.

“It’s still got some variety, some texture, architecturally, socially, economically. A lot of what’s happened to the downtown peninsula (in recent years) constitutes erasure. This is one of the places that still sort of feels like … it feels more urban than some parts of downtown. I would say downtown is a vertical suburb.

“If you like cities, Chinatown feels like one. That’s why we’re here.”

Baker said he expected Chinatown to happen a lot sooner than it did. Retailers that do well there still tend to be destinations, rather than stores that rely on heavy street traffic. “The buzz is that Chinatown is happening, but it’s really strategic, what’s happening,” he said. “Fortune Sound Club, that’s a niche market that’s destination. That’s the kind of thing that works down here. We’re destination, Bao Bei (restaurant) is destination.”

The new businesses make for an interesting mix with the old ones. The 200 block East Georgia Street is hopping with hipster bars (the Pacific Hotel, Mamie Taylor’s) and art galleries (Access Gallery, 221A, Centre A). But it also retains classic Chinatown shops like the Fresh Egg Mart and Hang Loong Herbal Products.

The question is whether the small businesses will be displaced as the area gentrifies. Real estate values have soared — Soltera paid $6.5 million for the northwest corner of Keefer and Main in 2011, Beedie Holdings paid $16.2 million for two parcels of land at Columbia and Keefer in 2013.

That seems like a lot for a site that’s two blocks from the troubled Downtown Eastside, but Houtan Rafii of the Beedie Group said that’s what land costs in Vancouver.

“It is a significant, substantial amount of money, but compared to most every area in Vancouver, it’s not dissimilar, whether you’re in Gastown, downtown, Concord-Pacific, even on the boundaries of Strathcona or on Hastings close to Clark or Commercial,” said Rafii. “It’s not an obscene amount of money, it’s market.”

Rafii said the Beedie Group met with local groups for a year about its development, and was surprised at the reaction it got at the public meeting, which was held because Beedie is looking to rezone the site to add an additional three storeys.

Yu doesn’t have a problem with the Beedie proposal per se, but feels it’s on a key site in Chinatown, and should be developed accordingly.

“It’s not the building’s fault,” said Yu.

“People are going ‘What’s wrong with this glass tower, it’s working everywhere else, and Chinese people love buying this stuff if it’s UBC.’

“That’s not the point. There’s plenty of room around the city to build glass towers (that are) 40 storeys, 50 storeys, whatever. Why do they need to be in this spot?

“This one is right in the heart (of Chinatown). Across the street is the Sun Yat-sen (garden), the Chinese Cultural Centre. On the same street is the (Chinese workers) monument. Next door is the back alley of Pender.”

Yu said a recent study found there will be a need for 3,300 income-assisted senior housing beds in the Lower Mainland over the next 15 years. He said the Columbia and Keefer site would be perfect for a seniors project.

“There’s a particular kind of resonance to the idea this is a traditional place where a lot of Chinese seniors can retire to,” he said.

“There is a five-year waiting list for the Simon K.Y. Lee Success long-term care home, so there’s huge demand, huge need, this is a place where they want to go. (Building a seniors home) would actually would help revitalize (Chinatown), because seniors bring sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters into a community.

“That’s the Chinatown vision plan, that’s what’s in there, that’s what those discussions were about. And yet what we’ve got is 137 luxury condo units for hip youngsters. That’s the Beedie proposal, and that’s what the last two towers (on Main) were. It’s not just insulting, it’s the thwarting of the very promise (of the vision plan).”

Wu would like to see a moratorium on new developments in Chinatown “until design guidelines are actually built to create a zone that respects the (area’s special) character.”

Retired city planner Nathan Edelson agrees. Which is significant, because he worked on the Chinatown vision plan for over a decade.

“My suggestion is that there should be a moratorium on the rezonings, for sure, until they can get an assessment of what the current new development is,” said Edelson. “To what degree are they contributing to, or harming Chinatown, the historic character of Chinatown? And it’s not an obvious answer.”

34/365 Resting by Carrie Norris

2

iPhone photo.

I didn't expect to use an iPhone photo in this 365, but I love the composition of this shot, and I find this photo somehow very calming.

Our oldest son's Show Choir season has begun (I'm sure there will be photos of competition to come in this 365). On Saturday he had to be at the school at 6:00am, they drove 75 minutes to the school where they were competing and the Girl's Show Choir competed at 10:00am (my son plays piano in the band for the girls choir). Then, he competed in the Mixed Show Choir at 4:45pm, then they made it to finals (!!!), so they competed AGAIN at 10:00pm. This is an almost 20 minute, high energy, dancing and singing show. I watched and literally didn't know how they were still giving it so much energy. They made it through awards (they got 5th place out of 18) and drove back to the school an unloaded. He got back to the school at 2:20am Sunday morning.

Six more Saturdays like this to come. He's 17, a straight A student. But, he doesn't eat well--how do teens survive on so little nutritionally?-- and he absolutely doesn't sleep enough.

So, hopefully, there will be six more Sundays of rest to come.

This photo is calming to me... a little like the eye of a hurricane, but still truly calming.

All Saints, Hollingbourne, Kent by Jelltex

1

We stumbled upon All Saints en route to a different church, and as all those seen thus far on this day had been small and plain, not much was expected. But I saw the tower from along the main street, and looked impressive. and once parked we found it unlocked and welcoming.

Star of the show is the northern chapel, given over to the Culpepper family, with a fabulous tomb in the centre. On the walls, dozens of blank shields show what had been planned to be the family mausoleum for centuries, but things changed, the family moved away and the chapel has just three shields decorated.

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

There was considerable damage caused to this church in an earthquake of 1382. The medieval accounts survive so we know that 48s 2d was spent on the rebuilding. Little can have changed to the structure since that time, except for the construction of a north chapel in 1638. This chapel has a charming pattern of flint flushwork triangles in a horizontal course below the battlements. It contains one of the most interesting seventeenth-century monuments in Kent - to commemorate Lady Elizabeth Culpepper (d. 1638), carved and signed by the Court Sculptor Edward Marshall. The detail is amazing and the cord that connects her ring and wrist is always pointed out to visitors. The rest of the church was restored early in the career of George Gilbert Scott Jr in 1876 (see also Frinsted) and retains its patina of age unimaginable in a restoration by Scott Sr. The pulpit is early seventeenth century and dates from a few years after the much crocketed font cover. There are three signed monuments by Rysbrack and a tall crownpost roof of good construction in the nave.

www.kentchurches.info/church.asp?p=Hollingbourne

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

HOLLINGBORNE.

THE next parish north-westward from Harrietsham is Hollingborne, called in Domesday, Hoilingeborde, and in later records, Holingburnan and Holingeburne. It probably took its name from the spring which rises in the vale underneath the hill, in this parish.

THE PARISH of Hollingborne is situated much the same as that of Harrietsham last described, close to the great ridge of chalk hills, at the foot of which is the village called Hollingborne-street, in which at the south end of it stands the church and vicarage, and near them a well-looking brick mansion, of the time of queen Elizabeth, which by its appearance must have had owners of good condition in former times, but what is remarkable the rector of Hollingborne claims some rooms in this house in right of his rectory at this time. The road through Newnhambottom from Ospringe and Canterbury passes through Hollingborne-street, and thence through Eyhorne, commonly called Iron-street, in this parish, where there are two good houses, one belonging to Robert Salmon, esq. who resides in it, and the other built not many years since by Mr. John Weeks, who died possessed of it in 1785. Hence the road leads on, and joins the Ashford high road through Bersted to Maidstone. The southern part of this parish consists mostly of a deep sand, the whole of it below the hill is well watered by some small streams, which running southward join the Lenham rivulet in its way to Maidstone. Nearer the street the soil becomes a chalk, which continues to the summit of the hill, at the edge of which stands Mr. Duppa's house, whence the remaining part of this parish northward, situated on high ground, and exposed to the cold bleak winds, is but a wild and dreary country, with thick hedgerows, and frequent coppices of wood, mostly of hazel and oak, and small unthriving trees of the latter dispersed among them; the soil a deep tillage land, wet and very poor, being a red cludgy earth, covered with quantities of flint stones. On Eyhorne green, or as it is commonly called Broad-street, in this parish, in October yearly, two constables are chosen, one for the upper, the other for the lower half hundred of Eyhorne, each of which district consists of the twelve adjoining parishes, the borsholders in which, and the several boroughs in them, except such as are chosen at the different court leets, are chosen here likewise.

This parish, with the manor of Elnothington in it, together with the rest of the hundred of Eyhorne, was antiently bound to contribute to the repair of the sixth pier of Rochester bridge.

ÆTHELSTAN ETHELING, son of Ethelred II. gave by his will in 1015, to Christ-church, in Canterbury, his lands at Hollingborne, with their appurtenances, excepting one plough-land, which he had given to Siserth. In the MSS. in Bennet college library, Cambridge, of the evidences of Christ-church, Canterbury, intitled Thorn, printed in Decim. Script. f. 2221, this gift is said to have been made in 980; a very improbable circumstance, the king, his elder brother, at that time being but fourteen years of age.

These lands he had bought of his father, and gave them, with his consent, to Christ-church, L. S. A. that is, free from all secular service, excepting the trinoda necessitas, in like manner as Adisham had been given to it.

The manor of Hollingborne remained part of the possessions of the church of Canterbury at the time of the conquest, when the revenues of it were enjoyed as one common estate by the archbishop and his convent; but archbishop Lanfranc, after the example of foreign churches, separating them, in the partition Hollingborne fell to the share of the monks, and was allotted for their subsistence, (or ad Cibum, as it was usually termed) and it is accordingly thus entered in the book of Domesday, under the general title of Terra Monachorum Archiepi, i. e. the land of the monks of the archbishop.

The archbishop himself holds Hoilingeborde. It was taxed at six sulings. The arable land is twenty-four carucates. In demesne there are two, and sixty-one villeins, with sixteen borderers, having twenty-three carucates. There is a church, twelve servants, and two mills, and eight acres of meadow. Wood for the pannage of forty hogs. In the whole, in the time of king Edward the Confessor, and afterwards, it was worth twenty pounds, and now it is worth thirty pounds. To this manor there adjoins half a suling, which never paid scot, this the bishop of Baieux rents of the archbishop.

At this time, the whole of the above premises seems to have been valued at thirty pounds.

King Henry II. granted to the monks of Christchurch a charter for their lands at Hollingborne upon the Hills. In the 10th year of king Edward II. the prior obtained a charter of free-warren for his manor of Hollingborne, among others; about which time it was, with its appurtenances, valued at 46l. 9s. 8d. King Henry VI. by his letters patent, in his 25th and 26th year, granted to the prior a market, to be held at this place weekly on a Wednesday, and a fair yearly on the feast of St. Anne. (fn. 1)

William Selling, who was elected prior in the next reign of king Edward IV. anno 1472, during the time of his holding that dignity, greatly improved the prior's apartments here. After which, it seems to have undergone no material alteration till the dissolution of the priory, which was surrendered into the hands of king Henry VIII. in the 31st year of his reign.

The manor of Hollingborne did not remain long in the hands of the crown; for the king settled it, by his dotation charter, in his 33d year, on his newerected dean and chapter of Canterbury, part of whose possessions it now remains.

There is a court-leet and court baron regularly held by the dean and chapter for this manor, which extends likewise into the adjoining parishes of Hucking, Bredhurst, and Harrietsham, the quit-rents of it called Beadle-rents, being about forty-two pounds per annum.

¶BUT THE DEMESNE LANDS of this manor have been from time to time leased out by the dean and chapter at a reserved rent of 10l. 9s. The year after the grant of it to them, they demised them by lease to I. Reynolde, as they did anno 19 Elizabeth to William Puresoy, in whose family they remained till the beginning of king James I.'s reign. After which the Fludds held them in lease, and continued so to do, till their interest in them was passed away to W. Alabaster, D. D. After which these premises were held in succession by Bargrave, Boys, Farewell, and Gookin, till the year 1684, when Sir Thomas Culpeper, had a lease of them, in whose family they continued till John Spencer Colepeper, of the Charterhouse, passed away his interest in them to the Hon. Robert Fairfax, who held them in 1758, and then alienated his lease to Francis Child, esq. banker in London, whose brother Robert Child, esq. of London, banker, dying in 1782, the trustees of his will, Robert Dent and John Keysel, esqrs. are now in the possession of his interest in the lease of these demesnes, under the dean and chapter, besides which the dean and chapter have several other lands and woods here leased out by them to different persons.

HOLLINGBORNE is within the ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION of the diocese of Canterbury, and deaury of Sutton; and is exempt from the jurisdiction of the archdeacon.

The church, which is dedicated to All Saints, is a handsome building, consisting of three large isles, with a chancel at the end of the middle one, and a square tower at the west end. The chancel is much enriched with the monuments of the family of Culpeper, of Greenway-court, and for two of the lords Culpeper, one of them by Rysbrack; on the north side is one for Sir Martin Barnham and his two wives, in 1610, their three figures kneeling at a desk, and underneath their children. At the east end of the north isle there is a small neat chapel, raised up several steps to give room for a vault underneath, in which lie the remains of all this branch of the Culpeper family. The sides of the chapel are filled with black escutcheons, and square tablets of black marble alternately, only two of these among the numbers of them are filled up, and those with younger branches of the family settled elsewhere, a proof of the disappointment of the vain endeavours of the builder to transmit the memory of his descendants to posterity. On the middle of the pavement is a beautiful raised monument of white marble, and the figure of a lady, lying at full length, in the habit of the times, of exceeding good sculpture, in memory of Elizabeth, lady of Sir Thomas Culpeper, daughter of John Cheney, esq. of Sussex, obt. 1638. In the isle a monument for Nich. Chaloner, esq. obt. 1706. Against the north wall of the north isle for two of the family of Duppa, and at the lower end of the church, for the Plummers, Collins's and Dykes. In the middle isle a stone, on which have been the figures of a man and woman in brass, but two shields of arms remain, being quarterly, first and fourth, A chevron, engrailed on a chief, three sleurs de lis; second and third, Three fishes, wavy, sessways, in pale.

There is belonging to this church, a most superb altar-cloth, and a pulpit-cloth and cushion, of purple velvet, ornamented with different figures of fruits of pomegranets and grapes, wrought in gold, the needlework of the daughters of Sir John Colepeper, afterwards created lord Colepeper, who employed themselves for almost the space of twelve years in the working of them, during their father's absence abroad with king Charles II.

The communion plate is very handsome, and an swerable to the above-mentioned furniture, being mostly the gift of the family of Colepeper, and some of it of Baldwin Duppa, esq.

John Eweyn, by his will proved in 1527, gave a table of alabaster, to stand upon the altar of St. John the Baptist in this church; and money to the repair of St. John's chapel in it. John Aleff, parson of Hollingborne, as appears by his will in 1537, was buried in the way beside the porch-door, on the right hand, and that there was set in the wall, nigh his grave, a stone with a plate of sculpture, mentioning where and when he was buried. He had before been vicar of Little Chart, and of St. Laurence Wolton, as he was then of St. John's Sherburne, in Hampshire.

The church of Hollingborne, to which the chapels of Hucking and Bredhurst were antiently annexed, is a sinecure rectory, with a vicarage endowed. The rector of Hollingborne is at this time patron of the perpetual curacy of the chapel of Bredhurst. The archbishop is patron both of the rectory and of the vicarage of Hollingborne, the vicar of which is collated to this vicarage, with the chapel of Hucking annexed.

The vicarage was endowed before the year 1407, in which year Arthur Sentleger, the rector, granted to William Maunby, vicar of this church, a messuage, with its appurtenances in this parish, for the habitation of himself and his successors for ever. (fn. 5) In archbishop Chichele's register, at Lambeth, there is an unauthenticated writing of a composition, made about the year 1441, for it is without date, between William Lyeff, then rector here, and John Fsylde, vicar, upon the assignation of a proper portion for the endowment of this vicarage in future times.

The rectory of Hollingborne is valued in the king's books at 28l. 15s. 5d. and the tenths at 2l. 17s. 6 1/7d. The vicarage is valued in them at 7l. 6s. 8d. and the yearly tenths at 14s. 8d. The vicarage in 1640 was valued at eighty-six pounds, and the communicants were then 271. It is now of the yearly certified value of 70l. 16s. 8d.

The vicarage was augmented twenty pounds per annum, by lease between Ralph Staunton, rector, and Sir Thomas Culpeper, of this parish.

¶The name of Culpeper, or Colepeper, is so variously spelt in different deeds and records, that it is impossible to keep with any rule to either spelling; on all the monuments, and in the parish register, (excepting in two instances in the last) it is spelt Culpeper.

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol5/pp460-478

Public School 66 by Emilio Guerra

Public School 66 (formerly the Brooklyn Hills School, Later the Oxford School, now the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis School). Richmond Hill, Queens

Originally constructed in 1898-9, Public School (P.S.) 66 is a remarkable survivor from a time when Richmond Hill, Queens, was transitioning from a rural farming community into a vibrant residential neighborhood. Three identical schools (two now demolished) were constructed in anticipation of an influx of residents, expected as a result of improvements in transportation, the subdivision of farmlands into lots for residential development, and the consolidation of Queens with Greater New York City that same year.

Also known as the Brooklyn Hills School after the suburban development in which it was physically located, P.S. 66 formally opened its doors in 1902. Harry S. Chambers, Superintendent of School Buildings for the Union Free School District No. 7 of the Town of Jamaica, Queens, is credited with the design of the original school building.

C.B.J. Snyder, Superintendent of School Buildings for the New York City Board of Education from 1890 to 1923, is noted as the architect of a 1905-6 addition.

The two-and-a-half and three-story red brick building is Victorian Eclectic in style. Many of its features are characteristic of the Romanesque Revival style and give the building a fortress-like appearance, including prominent round arches highlighting window openings and the main entrance, a flared base, and a distinctive six-story tower (restored in 2001).

Elements of the Queen Anne style are also present in the building’s large entablatures featuring elaborate rinceaux, its gabled dormers, and the steeply pitched roofs of the 1905-6 addition, which was harmoniously designed in the style of the main section. The tower, which originally contained a bell used to call school children from neighboring farms and developments, is distinguished by round arches, brick corbelling, large masonry columns, and foliate details. An ornamental panel above the main entranceway survives and features the name of the school.

Today, P.S. 66 has been renamed the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis School in honor of the former First Lady’s passion for literacy and for historic preservation and continues to serve in its original function as a grammar school. It remains one of Queens’ most distinctive school structures.

Richmond Hill, Queens

P.S. 66 is geographically located in east central Queens, just south of the verdant Forest Park in the neighborhood of Richmond Hill. The area was originally part of the town of Jamaica, one of the oldest and most historically significant areas of the borough. Jamaica was inhabited by a Native American tribe called the Jameco or Yamecah, a word meaning Beaver in Algonquin, when the first Europeans arrived there in 1655.

They had came from neighboring Hempstead looking for more space to farm and in 1656 applied to Governor Stuyvesant for a patent to “purchase” 10 acres of land from the native tribe.4 When the English took over in 1664, the town’s name was changed to Jamaica. Queens County (then including all of Nassau County) was chartered in 1683 as one of the ten counties of the colony of New York and official town patents were given to Jamaica, Newtown, and Flushing. A 1698 census of Queens County showed a total population of 3,366 white residents and 199 black residents.

While early records do indicate the existence of slaves in Jamaica, the town also had a free black population throughout its history. Through the next century, the community of Jamaica served as the county seat and became a trading post where farmers from outlying areas brought their produce.

Incorporated as a village in 1814, Jamaica became a center of trade on Long Island. Early east-west roads, like King’s Highway, and the arrival of the first railroad, the fledgling Long Island Railroad (LIRR), in 1836, provided crucial links between Eastern Long Island and Manhattan.

Further transportation improvements following the Civil War, including a horse car line in 1866 and electric trolley in 1888, began to open up previously rural, inaccessible portions of the county. The area became ripe for urban development, much of which remained focused around Jamaica.

During the 19th century, Jamaica evolved into a retreat for urban dwellers who patronized its numerous inns and saloons on weekend excursions and built large summer homes on its open land. The permanent population of Jamaica increased steadily throughout the second half of the 19th century, and eventually some of the nearby farms were subdivided for house lots.

While driving from his Wall Street office to his Lawrence, Long Island, summer home, Albon Platt Man, a wealthy lawyer from New York City, is said to have become enamored by a sunny slope in northwest Jamaica which dropped gently southward from Long Island’s terminal moraine ridge.

Man purchased the land in 1869, consisting of five farmsteads belonging to the Lefferts, Bergen, Welling, Robertson, and Hendrickson families, amounting to more than 400 acres.9 He later acquired adjacent parcels to the north and to the east.10 Man and his business partner, Edward Richmond, a landscape architect, envisioned the development of a rural community where workers could escape from the congestion of the industrial city to peaceful homes in picturesque settings.11 They named the project Richmond Hill, most likely after the famed London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.

By the 1870s, 250 acres of Man’s original purchase had been transformed into lots suitable for private residences. Between 1868 and 1874, some 400 shade and ornamental trees were planted, and various streets, avenues, and drives were laid out around the most desirable portions of the property. A passenger depot at Richmond Hill was opened in 1868 by the South Side Railroad of Long Island.

A school and a church were erected, followed shortly by both small-scale cottages and more luxurious houses built by wealthy businessmen from Manhattan. The heart of the village was the main junction of Myrtle, Jamaica, and Lefferts Avenues, near the train depot and a small grocery store / post office.

Richmond Hill continued to grow in the decades that followed, as did the surrounding neighborhoods that were similarly being developed by real estate developers and syndicates. In 1895, the three separate hamlets of Richmond Hill, Morris Park, and Clarenceville were incorporated as the Village of Richmond Hill.

The municipal independence of the village, however, was short-lived – just three years later Queens would become part of Greater New York City. Consolidation was favorably looked upon by developers, as extension of New York City’s water and sewers, rapid transit, and new bridges across the east river undoubtedly meant an increase in the region’s desirability.

Brooklyn Hills

In 1887, the Brooklyn Hills Improvement Company, a real estate syndicate, purchased roughly 160 acres of farmland within Richmond Hills.14 The land was easily accessible at the junction of the Long Island Railroad on Atlantic Avenue, the Rockaway Beach Railroad, the Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad, and a proposed subway route (later an elevated train, now the J). To help ready the land for residential development, the company graded streets, laid flagging and sidewalks, planted more than 1,000 trees, and connected water pipes to the mains of the Woodhaven Water Supply Company.

By 1895, the company had constructed about 150 houses and 20 stores within the development that had come to be known as Brooklyn Hills.16 While the population of the neighborhood was cited as 200 residents by 1898, much of the land remained undeveloped at the turn of the century. This included “Plat No. 3,” a residential subdivision within Brooklyn Hills that consisted of roughly twelve blocks surrounding the newly constructed P.S. 66, located at Union Place (now 102nd Street) between Walnut Street (now 85th Road) and Tulip Street (now 85th Avenue) (see Figure 18).

A lawsuit brought by the Brooklyn Hills Improvement Company against the New York and Rockaway Railroad Company in 1899 alleged that a contract to establish a station at Brooklyn Hills had been breached, and that failure of the railroad to build the station had damaged and hindered the company’s efforts to sell real estate in the area.18 Ultimately the company was awarded only six cents in damages. The argument that the company had not been able to profit off its land was widely considered specious.

A Brooklyn Hills station of the Rockaway Beach Branch of the Long Island Railroad had operated at Myrtle Avenue and Forest Park from about 1882 to 1911. Moreover, records indicate no problem with sales – as reported in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, by 1902 the company had sold nearly 600 building lots at prices ranging from $2,500 to $3,000 per acre.19 The company had also profited in 1898 off the condemnation by the city of a hilly portion of the tract located north of Plat No. 3, which was to become part of Forest Park.20 Development delays, specifically within Plat No. 3, more likely resulted from complications with the nearby Waterbury and Napier farms which, until 1905, prohibited the cutting of through streets and which therefore stood as a barrier between the subdivision and the rest of the village.

This impediment, however, was removed by the time of the 1905 auction of the 382 lots of Plat No. 3.22 Real estate boosters prepared for the auction touted the tract’s location, bounded by a “beautiful range of hills” to the north (now part of Forest Park) slated to become “one of the most beautiful of New York City’s public parks.” Physical improvements were also touted, such as the widening of Union Place (now 102nd Street), the plat’s principal avenue, and the presence of the “large modern public school on its property,” referring, of course, to P.S. 66. The auction was apparently a success. The Brooklyn Hills Improvement Company was voluntarily dissolved on October 28, 1907.

Public Education in Jamaica, Queens

The present New York City public school system, fully supported and maintained by public funds, developed slowly from the initial establishment under the Dutch of elementary schools supported and jointly controlled by both the civil authorities and the Dutch Reformed Church. Under English rule, a system of private academies, similar to those in Britain, appeared in lieu of a public system. Through the 18th century, schools in Queens were rarely free and were primarily run by religious institutions.24 It was not until after the American Revolution that New York State undertook the task of creating a public education system. During the period between the first meeting of the state legislature in 1777 and 1851, nearly 1,000 pieces of legislation concerning education were passed. In 1812, New York State adopted a common school system intended to provide free elementary education to all the residents of the state, to be funded through local taxes.

In 1813, the town of Jamaica voted to receive its allotted quota of the state’s school fund to put towards establishing common schools.

“Union free school districts” were established during the 1853 session of legislature as a way for municipalities to combine two or more common schools for the purpose of making education available to children from a broader region. In addition to free admission, pupils within union free school districts were also entitled to free school materials, such as textbooks.26 The Union Free School District No. 7 of the Town of Jamaica was founded in 1888 and encompassed Richmond Hill.27 By 1890, 1,350 school children were enrolled within District No. 7, an increase of more than 30 percent in the two years since the district was established.

Consolidation of the city in 1898 created the need for a unified public education system that would combine the numerous, independently-administered school districts of the borough, each with its own curricula, grade divisions and educational policies. The Borough School Boards and Central Board had been established in 1897 to begin centralized decision making, but in 1901 they were abolished and replaced by a newly reorganized Board of Education consisting of 46 Local School Board Districts and a central Executive Committee. The work of the new organization was affected by several recently implemented state and municipal efforts at reform, including the Compulsory Education Law of 1894 which mandated school attendance for all children until age 14, the School Reform Law of 1896 which mandated state support of secondary schools, and revision of the city charter in 1901.

The laws substantially increased the number of children attending city schools, created new types of schools, and improved school accommodations. A temporary halt in funding for new buildings significantly slowed the construction of school facilities in most parts of the city for a year following consolidation. Although the moratorium led to further overcrowding in existing schools in Jamaica, as throughout the city, in the years that followed, millions of dollars were authorized for the construction of new facilities.

History of P.S. 66

Conditions in District No. 7, as throughout pre-consolidated New York City, were crowded as a result of the changes to state and municipal education laws. In July 1897, a resolution was presented before the local school board calling for $100,000 to be raised via taxes and the sale of bonds, for the construction of additions to existing school structures and the purchase of land for the erection of a new school house within District No. 7.30 Hoping to thwart further shortages in classroom space, and possibly anticipating the post-consolidation freeze in funding for new buildings, the board dramatically increased its proposal just one month later with a call for three additional ten-room school houses. In total, the school board hoped to be able to accommodate 1,750 pupils.

On August 3, 1897, the school board passed a resolution to purchase three sites for the proposed school houses – Site No. 7, referred to in town records as the Broadway site, which would become Public School 64, Site No. 8, referred to as the Union Course site, which would become Public School 65, and Site No. 9, referred to as the Brooklyn Hills site, which would become P.S. 66. The parcel of 200 feet by 175 feet on which P.S. 66 would be constructed was purchased for $7,000 from the widow of Thomas F. Hayes, a real estate agent who may have been associated with the Brooklyn Hills Improvement Company. Three identical plans were submitted for the buildings by Harry S. Chambers, the Superintendent of School Buildings and architect for District No. 7, and were accepted in the fall of 1897. In early December, however, a motion was made to reduce the size of the schools from ten rooms to eight rooms, as a result of contractor bids exceeding approximated building costs.

New plans were summarily submitted and accepted. A carpenter by the name of Thomas J. Clarke was awarded the contract for construction of “Building No. 9” just one week later, with a winning bid of $24,290.31 Construction began in early 1898, and the school was officially designated as “Public School No. 66” on April 15, 1898. The building was completed on July 28, 1899.32

Upon completion, P.S. 66 contained eight classrooms serving the first through sixth grades, a library, and a principal’s office. Four classrooms were located on each of the first and second stories of the building, surrounding an octagonal lobby. The two-and-a-half story Victorian Eclectic-style building, consisting of bearing exterior and interior walls with floors framed with wood joists, was essentially square in plan. The primary entrance to the school, which was picturesquely sited within a verdant, undeveloped area of Brooklyn Hills, was located at the base of a six-story, projecting tower along the building’s west elevation. Many of the original school’s features are characteristic of the Romanesque Revival style and give the building a fortress-like appearance, including prominent round arches highlighting window openings and the main entrance, a flared base, and its distinctive tower.

Elements of the Queen Anne style are also present in the design of the original school building, in its large entablatures featuring elaborate rinceaux, its gabled dormers, and a pair of paneled brick chimneys. The tower, which originally contained a bell used to call school children from neighboring farms and developments, is distinguished by round arches, brick corbelling, large masonry columns, and foliate ornamentation. An ornamental panel above the main entranceway featured foliate decoration and the name of the school.

Despite a very real need for classroom space throughout New York City at the turn of the century, most apparent in the fact that many schools were running classes part-time in order to accommodate demand, P.S. 66, like other schools constructed in Queens just prior to consolidation, did not immediately open. Due to a shortage in municipal funds, the unoccupied school had not been assigned a janitor and consequently began to deteriorate. In December 1899, the windows at

P.S. 66 were reportedly broken by neighborhood children and the plumbing stripped by thieves. To prevent further vandalism, P.S. 66, as well as the still unoccupied P.S. 65, were boarded up. Notwithstanding the continued residential development of the borough, Queens was still largely considered a rural farming community at the turn of the century and the presence of unutilized schools structures did not go unnoticed. As reported in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in 1900:

…While in Brooklyn and Manhattan there are thousands of children who cannot

go to school because there is no room for them, [here] there is room for nearly

two thousand with which the population of the village has not yet been blessed...

The notion that the schools remained unopened due to a lack of demand, however, was a misconception. For several years, the children of Brooklyn Hills residents were forced to attend Public School 58 in nearby Ozone Park on a half-day schedule as they eagerly awaited transfer to the new school. The New York City Board of Estimate and Apportionment, however, had only allotted $25,000 for janitors’ wages for the entire borough of Queens for the 1900-1901 school year, a full $15,000 less than the sum awarded the borough in the years prior to consolidation.34 Similar reductions in appropriations were made for teachers’ salaries, with reductions of 25% in early 1900 leading to a numerous teacher resignations. While P.S. 65 appears to have opened in time for the 1899-00 school year, relieving some of the crowding experienced by the school district, it is not surprising that under such financial strain, both P.S. 64 and P.S. 66 remained closed.

P.S. 66 finally opened its doors on April 14, 1902 and was referred to locally as the Brooklyn Hills School.35 Neighborhood residents were transferred to the school by start of the new fall term. In early 1902, the school board petitioned the Board of Public Improvements to open nearby Orchard Avenue (now 86th Avenue) “to accommodate school children in getting to this school, as no street opens from the northeast to it.”36 By May of that year, attendance at the school had increased so rapidly that the services of two additional teachers were requested. Records from 1905 indicate that seven teachers and 278 students occupied the building.

Between 1900 and 1910, the city’s population grew by nearly 39 percent, primarily a result of unprecedented levels of immigration. This growth naturally led to further increases in school enrollment and attendance throughout the city. To meet the latest increase in demand for classroom space, a three-story addition to the east of P.S. 66’s original school building was constructed in 1905-6. The addition doubled the number of classrooms and included space for a kindergarten and an auditorium. The addition, which is attributed to C.B.J. Snyder, superintendent of School Buildings for the New York City Board of Education from 1890 to 1923, was harmoniously designed in the style of the main section. Consisting of brick bearing walls with floors supported by steel beams, the addition is roughly rectangular in plan. The addition features a pair of two-and-a-half story gabled wings that project northwards and southwards from a three-story, flat-roofed core.

The addition is distinguished by steeply pitched slate roofs and ornamental brick corbelling at the wings and central core. According to Board of Education records, the addition was occupied on September 9, 1907.

Description

P.S. 66 is situated towards the eastern boundary of a large, rectangular lot bounded by the gently sloped 102nd Street to the west, 85th Avenue to the north, 85th Road to the south, and a service driveway to the east. The site is presently surrounded by a non-original concrete curb that is topped by iron and chain-link fencing. Primary pedestrian entry to the site is located along 102nd Street, while secondary entries can be found along 85th Avenue, 85th Road, and also via the service driveway. The school building is set back from 102nd Street by a verdant lawn featuring large trees and other plantings.

The school structure is composed of various masses that, together, are roughly symmetrical in plan (see Figure 12). The two-and-a half story, original portion of the school building, consisting of approximately the western two-thirds of the present structure, is essentially square in plan. An addition, consisting of a pair of two-and-a-half story gabled wings projecting northwards and southwards from a three-story, flat-roofed core, was joined to the east of the original school building in 1905-6 and is roughly rectangular in plan. The primary entrance to the structure is located at the base of a projecting fortress-like tower along the original school building’s west elevation. Secondary entrances are located along each of the remaining elevations.

All elevations of the Victorian Eclectic-style school feature red-brick laid in a Common bond. Partially-exposed basement stories are visible at all elevations (except where noted) and are flared at the original school building, one of several design elements that gives the school a fortress-like appearance. Rectangular window openings (shorter at partially-exposed basement stories) featuring flush cast-stone lintels and projecting cast-stone sills are typical at each elevation of the structure (except where noted). At the original school building, the sills of the first and second stories, as well as the lintels of the first story, are continuous with flush cast-stone bands at all elevations (except where noted). All first and second-story window openings of the original school building and 1905-6 addition feature six-over-six double-hung wood sashes (except where noted), several of which are original (see Alterations).

Basement window openings typically feature three-over-three double-hung wood sashes (except where noted).

Original School Building

West (102nd Street) elevation: The primary, west elevation of P.S. 66 is composed of three sections. The two-bay wide central section projects forward (except where noted) and is principally defined by a six-story, fortress-like tower at the southern bay. Two round-arched openings featuring concentric brick arches with brick hood molding are located at the ground story of the central section (basement not exposed), consisting of a window opening containing paired typical sashes and a typical sill, topped by a fanlight with ornamental lead dividers, on the left, and the primary entrance, consisting of slightly recessed, wood double-doors (non-original), paneled wood reveals, and a matching fanlight, on the right. The primary entrance is raised slightly on a single granite step. The ground-story arches of the central section spring from a molded cast-stone water table course, continuous on all sides of the projecting central section and beneath which are found recessed rectangular brick panels.

A single, narrow typical window opening, which descends slightly into the water table course, is visible at the north-facing portion of the projecting central section at the first story. A decorative panel featuring foliate details and inscribed with the words “Public School” and “No. 66” is found above the primary entrance. A masonry and cast-stone balustrade tops the first story of the northern bay of the central section (including the north-facing portion). The two-story tall northern bay is recessed above the first story. At the second story, the northern bay features paired window openings topped by blind arches consisting of concentric brick courses, brick hood molding and a herringbone tympanum and featuring elaborate window surrounds with foliate details. An entablature consisting of a molded architrave, rinceau, and molded cornice, is found directly above the second-story window openings of the northern bay (see Alterations).

A hipped section of the structure’s slate roof is visible above the entablature at the northern bay. A drain pipe is affixed to the north-facing portion of the central section.

The southern bay of the central section consists of the six-story tower. Above the primary entrance, the tower consists of two, narrow rectangular window openings featuring four-overfour double-hung wood sashes and flush, continuous cast-stone lintels and sills at the second story, three narrow round-arched window openings featuring two-over-two double-hung sashes with arched upper sashes, brick hood molding springing from molded brick corbels, and slightly projecting cast-stone sills connected by a flush cast-stone band at the third story, three blind rectangular windows with a continuous cast-stone sill supported on stepped brick corbelling above a paneled frieze (continuous on all visible sides of the tower) at the fourth story, three arched masonry openings featuring outsized Corinthian columns (half-columns at outer arches), a continuous rinceau, and a projecting cast-stone sill supported on stepped brick corbelling at the fifth-story and repeated at a shorter height (and without the frieze) at the sixth-story, and a diminutive molded cast-stone cornice at its crown. Similar to the fourth story, the sixth-story sill and corbelling is continuous on all visible sides of the tower. The south elevation of the tower features two, irregularly-sized and irregularly-spaced narrow typical window openings at the first and second stories (left window opening at first story descends slightly into the water table course) and a single window opening at the third story with details similar to that of the third story of the tower’s west elevation. The details of the fourth, fifth and sixth stories of the west elevation of the tower are repeated on the north, south and east elevations (east elevation not visible from street).

The two-and-a-half story north section of the west elevation is four bays wide and features a typical window opening at each bay of the partially-exposed basement, first, and second stories. A wide gable with cast-stone coping that culminates in a finial spans the width of the section. Two shorter typical window openings are set within the gable and feature six-oversix double-hung wood sashes, sills connected by a flush cast-stone band and another flush cast-stone band that serves as a lintel course. The substantial metal tympanum beneath the gable features elaborate foliate, garland and urn details. Paired, cylindrical pinnacles of differing height, featuring cast-stone corbels with foliate details and patterned cast-stone finials, flank the section (the left-most pinnacle is continuous with the north elevation). From a distance, a rectangular brick chimney featuring arched panels, brick banding, and masonry coping, is visible above the roofline (also visible from the north elevation).

Each of the three bays of the two-and-a-half story south section of the west elevation features a typical window opening at the partially-exposed basement, first, and second stories.

An entablature consisting of a molded architrave, rinceau, and molded cornice, is found directly above the second-story window openings, matches that of the northern bay of the central section, and is continuous with the south elevation. A gabled dormer featuring cast-stone coping that culminates in a finial contains two rectangular window openings featuring two-over-two double-hung wood sashes and typical sills. The dormer pierces the cornice of this section and is flanked by cylindrical brick pinnacles with patterned cast-stone finials. A flush cast-stone band serves as a lintel course for the dormer windows. The metal tympanum beneath the gable features elaborate foliate details. A drain pipe that is affixed to the south-facing elevation of the tower at its top pierces the cornice of the section and continues towards the ground affixed to it. From a distance, a cross-hipped section of the structure’s slate roof is visible above the entablature.

One of the structure’s two rectangular brick chimneys featuring arched panels, brick banding, and masonry coping, is visible above the roofline (also visible from the south elevation).

South (85th Road) elevation: The south elevation consists of two sections. The two-bay east section of the south elevation is recessed from the four-bay west section. At the partially-exposed basement, first, and second stories, the west section of the south elevation features single typical window openings at each of the first two bays and two typical window openings at each of the third and fourth bays (a single header course is found beneath the typical sills of the partially-exposed basement windows). A dormer matching that of the south section of the west elevation is centered above the west section. At the partially-exposed basement, first, and second stories, the east section features a single typical window opening at the western bay and three typical window openings at the eastern bay. An additional bay is visible at the east-facing elevation between the two sections and features a single narrow typical window opening containing four-over-four double hung wood sashes at each of the first and second stories and a non-original door opening with typical cast-stone lintel raised on one concrete step at an exposed basement level (door is accessed via non-original, below-grade concrete stairway surrounded by a concrete curb with metal handrail) (see Alterations). An entablature matching that of the west elevation is found above the second-story window openings of the east, west, and east-facing sections of the south elevation, and is continuous from the west elevation. A cross-hipped section of the structure’s slate roof is visible above the entablature, as is one of the structure’s two rectangular brick chimneys featuring arched panels, brick banding, and masonry coping (also visible from the west elevation). A drain pipe that is affixed towards the right side of the east section pierces the cornice as it runs to the ground. Additional drain pipes are affixed towards the left edge of both the east and west sections.

North (85th Avenue) elevation: The north elevation is the same as the south elevation, except where noted. Unlike the south elevation, the west section of the north elevation features two typical window openings at each bay of the partially-exposed basement, first, and second stories, and there is no header course beneath the sills of the partially-exposed basement window openings of the east section. Although there is no opening at the partially-exposed basement story of the west-facing elevation between the sections, there is a non-original door opening at the right side of the third bay of the east section at the basement level (door is accessed via non-original, below-grade concrete stairway surrounded by a concrete curb with metal handrail) (see Alterations). The window openings of the left side of the fourth bay of the east section at the first and second stories have been altered into door openings to accommodate a fire escape (see Alterations). A multi-level, cross-hipped section of the structure’s slate roof is visible above the entablature at this elevation, as is one of the structure’s two rectangular brick chimneys featuring arched brick panels, brick banding, and masonry coping (also visible, at a distance, from the west elevation). In lieu of the smaller dormer present at the south elevation, a large, gabled dormer rises from the roof at the east section, about two-thirds of the way back. The dormer contains a single rectangular window opening with a molded window surround and three-over-three double-hung wood sashes. The metal face of the dormer features radiating sunburst and foliate details. Unlike the south elevation, only one drain pipe is affixed to the north elevation, at the west section.

1905-6 Addition

West elevation: The west elevation consists primarily of the west elevations of a pair of two-and-a-half story wings that project from a central, three-story, flat-roofed core (because the core abuts the slightly shorter original school building to the west, only a small portion of its western elevation is visible). Few details adorn the west elevations of the north and south wings. The west elevation of the south wing does not feature any openings, and although a typical lintel and sill are present at the partially-exposed basement story, any window opening that may have been present here has been seamlessly bricked in. The west elevation of the north wing features a short, wide rectangular window opening with a typical lintel and sill at the partially-exposed basement story that has been filled-in with a non-original metal panel. A portion of the west elevations of both the north and south wings is taken up by a projecting one-story pavilion which features brick corbelling, a large, flush masonry band, and masonry coping, all of which wrap to each pavilion’s south elevation (the pavilions may not be original to the 1905-6 addition, see 1905-6 Addition, South (85th Road) elevation). Brick corbelling caps both the north and south wings and terminates at the outer edge of each wing at a stylized brick buttress featuring a cast-stone corbel and capital (the buttresses are shared with the north and south elevations of the wings). A pitched slate roof is visible above each wing. The visible portion of the west elevation of the central core features a projecting brick band and parapet with brick corbelling and masonry coping, all of which are continuous with the north, south and east elevations of the core. A rectangular brick chimney is partially visible above the roofline of the flat-roofed core. Drain pipes are affixed to the west elevations of both the north and south wings and a pipe vent is visible along the roof of the south wing.

South (85th Road) elevation: The south elevation is principally defined by the gabled, three-bay wide, two-and-a-half story tall, projecting south wing. A single bay of three-story central core, flush with the original school building, is visible to the west of the south wing. Each of the bays of the south wing features a typical window opening at the first and second stories. At the partially-exposed basement story, only the outer bays feature a typical window opening. A single, shorter typical window opening is found within the gable of the south wing. Stylized brick buttresses featuring cast-stone corbels and capitals flank the gable (the buttresses are shared with the east and west elevations of the wing) and are continuous with cast-stone coping which culminates in a finial. The single bay of the central core, to the west of the south wing, features a typical window opening at the second story and a narrow typical window opening at the third story.

The first story is taken up by the projecting one-story pavilion, which overhangs the original school building slightly and which features brick corbelling, a large, flush masonry band, and masonry coping, all of which wrap to the pavilion’s west elevation. The masonry band serves as a lintel course for a wide door opening that pierces the brick corbelling. The door opening is raised on a wide concrete step that extends beyond the opening and contains a deeply recessed non-original metal door and solid metal side panel. The pavilion may not be original to the 1905-6 addition, as it obscures most of what appears to have been a typical window opening at the first story of this bay, presently only partially visible above the pavilion. Portions of the brick band and parapet with brick corbelling and masonry coping of the central core are visible above the gabled roof of the south wing, all of which are continuous with the north, east and west elevations of the core. A brick buttress-like element is located above the west slope of the gabled roof of the south wing at the central core.

North (85thAvenue) elevation: The north elevation is a mirror image of the south elevation, except where noted. Unlike the south elevation, only the west-most bay of the partially-exposed basement story of the north wing features a window opening. At the projecting pavilion, a shorter typical window opening that pierces the brick corbelling, whose lintel is integrated with the masonry band, and which contains two-over-two double-hung wood sashes, is located to the right of the door opening. To the west of the north wing, two bays of the central core are visible, both recessed slightly from the original school building. The eastern bay of the central core is the same as the north elevation, while the western bay features a short, narrow typical window opening containing two-over-two double hung wood sashes, offset in height at each of the first, second and third stories.

East elevation: The east elevation is comprised of three sections consisting, like the west elevation, of two wings projecting from a central core. The east elevations of the north and south wings are the same as the west elevations of the wings, except where noted. Unlike at the west elevation, the north and south wings are flush with the central core. Additionally, at the south wing, the window opening of the partially-exposed basement story is not filled in and, in lieu of a sill, abuts a raised concrete planting bed (see Related Landmark Site). The north wing does not feature any window openings, lintels or sills. Neither the north nor the south wing is obscured by a pavilion.

The three-story tall central core features two bays, each containing three typical window openings at the first, second and third stories. At the partially-exposed basement story, a single typical window opening is present at the first bay which, in lieu of a sill, abuts a raised concrete planting bed (see Related Landmark Site). At the second bay of the partially-exposed basement story, an additional three window openings are found and consist of a short typical window opening containing three-over-three double-hung wood sashes to the north, a typical, full-height window opening at center, and a filled-in typical window opening to the south that has been altered to accommodate a basement door opening below and three, square louvered vents above (door is accessed via a below-grade masonry and brick stairway surrounded by masonry curbing and a metal fence with gate).

A one-story pavilion projects from the central core at the first bay of the partially-exposed basement story and may not be original to the 1905-6 addition as it obscures part of the rightmost window opening of the first bay of the central core at the first story. The pavilion features projecting brick banding separated by a large masonry band, and masonry coping, all of which wrap to the pavilion’s north and south elevations. The east elevation of the pavilion features two typical lintels where typical window openings appear to have been bricked in. A square metal panel with a hinged door is set within the south elevation of the pavilion. At the third story of the central core, a projecting brick band runs continuous with the lintels of the third-story fenestration and is also continuous with the north, south and west elevations of the core. The central core also features brick corbelling and masonry coping at the parapet which, too, is continuous with the other elevations of the core. At the partially-exposed basement story, a small length of masonry or concrete base trim stretches from the right side of the central core to the north wing. A large number of drain pipes, pipe vents, and through-wall vents are affixed to all three sections of the east elevation, several of which may be original.

Alterations

While the windows of P.S. 66 are largely non-original, the replacement windows were apparently selected to maintain the integrity of the exterior facade and feature multi-paned, double-hung wood sashes similar to the building’s original windows (several of the non-classroom windows of the west elevation of the original school building are original and have not been replaced; it is not known when the non-original windows were installed). None of the school’s doors are original. The doors of the primary entrance were replaced with new paneled wood double-doors in 2009, while the remaining secondary entrances feature non-original metal doors. The fire escape affixed to the east section of the north elevation of the original school building is not-original.

Although it is unclear when the fire escape was put in place (not present in c. 1939 tax photograph), its installation required the enlargement of the leftmost window openings of the fourth bay of this section at the first and second stories in order to accommodate new door openings and metal doors. Although the original window lintels were retained, the remaining portions of the window openings not occupied by the doors have been filled in with metal panels. The three pavilions that extend from the various elevations of the 1905-6 addition are not thought to be original. Although it is not known when they might have been constructed, the pavilions do appear in the c. 1939 tax photograph of the school. An element that appears to be a large cornice at the central core of the 1905-6 addition looks to be present in the c. 1939 tax photograph, but has since been removed. It is not known when the concrete curb that surrounds the site was installed or when the areas to the north and south of the school were paved with concrete, but both conditions are present in the c. 1939 tax photograph.

Non-original signage is affixed to the central section of the west elevation of the original school building. A number of non-original security lights, school bells, speakers, conduit, and electrical boxes are affixed to the various elevations of both the original school building and the 1905-6 addition. Non-original window guards are present at all windows of the first, second, third, and partially-exposed basement stories at all elevations and at the fanlights of the central section of the west elevation of the original school building, but are not present at dormer or gable windows. The small length of masonry or concrete base trim at the east elevation of the 1905-6 addition is painted red. A concrete platform has been built up along the east elevation of the 1905-6 addition at the central core and north wing, which extends from the projecting pavilion and is continuous with the ramp that runs alongside the north elevation of the north wing.

It is not known whether the through-wall vent beneath the rightmost window of the south section of the west elevation of the original school building is original, nor if any of the through-vents on the east elevation of the 1905-6 addition are original. Similarly, it is not known if the various drain pipes affixed to the east elevation of the 1905-6 addition are original, although the drain pipes affixed to the other elevations are thought to be original.

A major exterior modernization project that took place in 2001 under the leadership of the architectural firm Montoya-Rodriguez Architects, PC returned many original details to the school building that had been removed or altered over the intervening years. The metal entablatures, including the rinceaux, present at the north, south and west elevations of the original school building, had been covered with stucco (see Figure 10), but were replaced as part of this project. The firm also restored much of the bell tower, which had been removed above the second story in 1967 due to wood deterioration. Although the present tower is not an exact replica of the original, a large number of details, including the numerous brick and masonry arches, continuous brick corbelling, and open belfry, are evocative of, and, in fact, very similar to the original design (see Figures 13 & 14).

As part of the scope of work, finials were returned to the pinnacles of the west elevation of the original school building, failing cast-stone details and rusted sections of decorative metal were replaced in kind, several windows of the 1905-6 addition that had been previously enclosed with face brick were filled-in with matching brick, and asphalt shingles that had been introduced to the roof in the 1980s were replaced with more appropriate slate shingles. The project also undertook the stripping of non-original paint layers from all exterior brick, cast-stone, masonry, and metal details, and the repointing of all existing brickwork (including chimneys) and masonry. Window openings at the partially-exposed basement story of the east-facing section of the south elevation of the original school building and at the rightmost opening of the third bay of the east section of the north elevation of the original school building were enlarged into door openings and below-grade access staircases were installed as part of the project.

- From the 2010 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

G2 EXPECT by LoL Esports Photos

Day 5 of 2017 Mid-Season Invitational Group Stage at Jeunesse Arena in Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 14 May 2017.

Expecting by Kristina Borgstrom

1

September 10, 2021 Subverted Selfie Project by Steven Lee

September 10, 2021: So… this wasn’t the post I was expecting to post today.

Today was fairly good. I got the grass backyard at Mom’s cut. I got my beard and lower legs waxed in the afternoon @thepxssyshop, as I’m getting a tattoo next week on my lower leg. On my way downtown I did pass a wildflower asking for change on one of the medians and I had one bottle of water left that I gave him, which he appreciated (I need to stick up again, this was an idea I got from @larayia Gaston’s book LOVE WITHOUT REASON, which I’ve mentioned a lot lately on this feed).

I then went to have dinner at one of my favourite Chinese food places, Congee Delight in the International Village Mall. The last time I was here was when I was last waxed. But for the life of me I couldn’t eat my meal. Over the last two years or so when I eat mainly rice or noodles - it’s like I’ve swallowed air and it’s like I have a tight ball wanting to burst out of my stomach. I’ve found a sip of ginger ale or even coke is enough to break it up so I can eat. Slow eating helps too - chewing it and enjoying the flavour. But that didn’t work tonight, and I actually had to run to the washroom a few times where I lost what I had just tried eating. That’s only happened a few times. But it’s concerning.

So I had the food packed up. The waitress was worried and asked if I was ok, and I briefly described what had happened. She wished me well and asked if I made a mistake on my bill, as I gave a twenty dollar tip on a thirty dollar meal. When I came in, I asked how her day had been and she described how the day had been very busy. I could feel how tired she looked and that she was probably looking forward to the end of her shift. I’ve been to the place when it’s been jam packed, and with a line of people wanting take away, so I had no doubts about her authenticity. Waitressing work can be very demanding.

Anyway, I had the food, but to be honest I didn’t want to try eating it again. So I thought I’d do what I did the last time I was here with leftovers - I’d find someone to give it to.

I drove around a bit and found someone that looked like she could use something … She was sitting alone, with what was likely her only belongings. My heart broke for her. I thought she was the one I wanted to give my food too. I had to drive around the block again to get back to where she was. I pulled alongside her, and tried to make eye contact. I said things like “hi there” and “excuse me, are you hungry?” She didn’t respond. Wouldn’t make eye contact. So I decided to get out of the car. This ally I turned into was pretty harsh. The actual smell of shit was strong. There was an overflowing garbage bin. The hardened tar of the ally itself was slimy, with cracks filled of water from recent rain. There was a sharps container randomly strewn in the alleyway in the path of my car. The alley walls were covered in graffiti.

I approached her, she wouldn’t make eye contact. I again said “hello?” No response. Maybe she’s hard of hearing. I asked again, a bit louder, “are you hungry? I have this food here I can’t eat.” More awkward silence. She was older, with a very small frame, and her face looked worn like old leather. She wore a dark navy blue jacket that looked like it provided a nice warmth. My intuition tried warning me, I heard my mind say, “Dude, there‘a a few others around the corner, they’ll want it.” But that would mean leaving my running SUV with its door open alone longer than I expected. I placed the food next to her in front of her stuff, and backed away to get back in my car. She then swiftly grabbed the bag and hurled it along the alleyway, it’s contents spilling out all over the already rotting surface of the street. I froze. The Chinese broccoli looked to me incredibly saddened by their fate… “I’m sorry” were the only words that slipped out of my mouth in a tone that was almost a whisper.

“I don’t care!” She barked.

I felt my chest stiffen. I wanted to say, “but I do,” but didn’t. It was fight or flight and I chose to flee. I heard the crunching of the sharps contsiner under my tire as I headed down the alleyway already regretting not asking her if I could do anything different to help her out. I even had $60 or so in my pocket I could have given her. I had a bottle of ice tea I got at a pharmacy before going for dinner. Might have she preferred that? I felt stupid. Why was I drawn to help her? Why didn’t I pick someone else? What pain must she be feeling to have done what she did? Will she be okay? My hands shook as I kept my eye on the road. I wanted to cry.

So now I’m in the parking lot of a McDonald’s. Pondering what just happened. I was able to hold down a plain cheeseburger and I’m nursing a tea. I remember this wasn’t the first negative response from a wildflower I had gotten. Many years ago, a wildflower was outside a fast food joint, asking for change. When I got my order, I got a second for him. I offered it to him and he grabbed it and also threw it to the ground, proclaiming he didn’t want anyone’s fucking food. In metro Vancouver, there are some wildflowers only want change to help feed their next fix. He was one of them. But the woman today hadn’t been begging. She was just there.

This is post 253/365 in my #subversive #selfie project.