Submitted by TrafficSNAFU t3_y2a16w in Newark
LordStirling83 t1_is25vkp wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Newark's Architectural Heritage by TrafficSNAFU
Author also romanticizes 19th century housing. A lot of Newark homes were financed by building and loan associations that had...questionable...methods. Others were built by big developers or in conjunction with corrupt trolley companies. Not pictured were the 3-floor, 6 family homes that were crammed full of immigrant families and were never intended as anything more than a cheap copy of the refined middle-class housing the author is so high on. And, even if we're just talking aesthetics, even in their heydey Newark neighborhoods were mostly eclectic mixtures of wooden victorian's that many observers criticized in comparison to the classic brick rowhomes of Philadelphia or Brooklyn.
poete_idris t1_is2uh64 wrote
The houses criticized were the Forest Hill ones you mean ? Or the Newark row homes ? Cause the Newark ones are lovely to me, surprising anyone would speak low of them. They aren’t as grandiose as the cities you mentioned but definitely have that small Jersey charm to them.
LordStirling83 t1_is31jtj wrote
Not really the rowhomes like you see on James Street. Moreso if you stroll any street in Roseville or Clinton Hill there are usually just a mix of 2-3 story detached wooden houses. The eclecticism vs. uniformity led to criticisms, as did their wood construction. The three-floor tenements were more harshly criticized. In 1913 the city funded a housing study that suggested the city build more detached single family homes instead of higher density housing.
poete_idris t1_is31nui wrote
Interesting. Where did you find this information ? I’d like to learn more
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments