Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating
Review: As a native new yorker and a harlem resident of four years...I was intrigued by this book and recommend it along with harlem style.
Rating: 
Summary: A Superb Book! Harlem is Full of Unknown Treasures
Review: At a recent Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting, I got to see Michael Henry Adams' new book Harlem Lost and Found. This longtime friend of the neighborhood has been working on this book as long as I can remember.I had no idea it was going to be so beautiful! I thought we were just going to get a serious tome like Dolkhart's fine architectural history of Morningside Heights, but this is a big, full-color, exquisite coffee-table book. It really is one of the nicest books on NY architecture I have ever seen. The text is well-written and well-informed, too. People really should get to know the architectural treasures of New York's most underappreciated neighborhood. Ian Fletcher
Rating:
Summary: A Superb Book! Harlem is Full of Unknown Treasures
Review: At a recent Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting, I got to see Michael Henry Adams' new book Harlem Lost and Found. This longtime friend of the neighborhood has been working on this book as long as I can remember. I had no idea it was going to be so beautiful! I thought we were just going to get a serious tome like Dolkhart's fine architectural history of Morningside Heights, but this is a big, full-color, exquisite coffee-table book. It really is one of the nicest books on NY architecture I have ever seen. The text is well-written and well-informed, too. People really should get to know the architectural treasures of New York's most underappreciated neighborhood. Ian Fletcher
Rating: 
Summary: Beautiful pictorial survey of upper Manhattan
Review: Harlem Lost and Found (Architectural and Social History, 1765-1915), Michael Henry Adams's recently released volume on the architectural, social, and cultural history of Harlem, is a visual feast. With beautifully reproduced etchings and engravings, crisp black and white photos and brilliant color photographs by Paul Rocheleau, Adams presents Harlem's past and present architectural splendor. He sets a lofty goal for himself ' 'to place Harlem's architecture in a context of history and people, living and dead, not only building and past residents but also those who preserve, cherish, and restore what has been built' ' and, visually, he succeeds. Adams has an architect's eye and, seemingly, a photographic memory that allows him to correlate examples of architectural styles and trends, even when the examples are blocks, neighborhoods, or, in a few cases, boroughs apart. Given the sheer number of structures in Harlem, this is no mean feat. The descriptive, concise prose that accompanies the pictures is engaging and, on the surface, sounds authoritative. Adams is at his best when developing broad architectural themes ' his primary one being that neighborhoods evolve, socioeconomic and ethnic groups come and go, but architecture provides an anchor; it is a link with the past that, when lovingly preserved, becomes a bridge to the future. In the specifics of examples and historic detail, however, Adams is often careless. Sometimes, the result is a minor inconsistency from one section of the book to another; other times, however, the resulting inaccuracies mar the credibility of a book that professes to be history. 'There was a great deal of material to consider, and behind nearly every fact included lies a host of stories untold.' writes Adams at the onset, 'In some cases, memory or notation of sources has been less than perfect; any resultant errors are my own.' Amiable though that disclaimer might be, it does not excuse lax research. Adams has an expansive view of Harlem that extends to descriptions of buildings in Washington Heights as well as thumbnail sketches of forgotten areas such as Carmansville, Minniesland, and Audubon Park. Therein lies a problem. Although early New Yorkers referred to the area north of Harlem as Harlem Heights, that name fell out of use well before the decades that form the heart of Adams's book. The present-day southern border of Washington Heights is 155th Street and has been since its inception more than 140 year ago. That boundary has appeared on city maps for decades and determines, among other things, voting districts and police precincts. Although blurred names and boundaries may seem negligible, they exaggerate Harlem's geographical and cultural reach, which is not necessary ' as the portions of the book that are devoted to the real Harlem clearly prove. Further, this exaggeration denies the annexed neighborhoods the individuality their respective histories have earned them. While architectural trends north of 155th Street may serve to illustrate some of Adam's themes, these neighborhoods did not share a social or cultural history with Harlem, much less with each other. The working-class and transient population that occupied row houses in 19th Century Carmansville (clustered around Amsterdam Avenue, to the east of Broadway) had little in common with the upper-middle class families who owned large houses surrounded by cultivated gardens in Audubon Park (to the west of Broadway). Although Minniesland and Aububon Park were different names for the same area ' the former from approximately 1841 to the early 1850s and the latter from about then until approximately 1910 ' Adams leaves the reader with the impression that they were two different areas. Attention to detail does not seem to a primary concern when Adams, admittedly a good storyteller, recounts history. He incorrectly identifies the major owner of Audubon Park (it was George Blake Grinnell, not Jesse Benedict), confuses two Grinnells (the older was George Blake, the younger George Bird), and attributes one of Madame Audubon's houses to Vaux & Withers (who may have enlarged it decades after it was built). In more recent history, he incorrectly puts The Grinnell (an apartment building in Washington Heights) in Harlem, incorrectly states its date of co-oping, and grossly exaggerates an apartment sale-price there in 2000. A beautifully produced book with an expensive cover price carries a certain amount of authority simply because it looks impressive. Through his inattention to detail, Adams undermines his own authority and prevents this book from being the definitive history it could have been. That said, this book is a superb pictorial survey of upper Manhattan, and deserves a place in every New York-o-phile's library.
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful pictorial survey of upper Manhattan
Review: Harlem Lost and Found (Architectural and Social History, 1765-1915), Michael Henry Adams�s recently released volume on the architectural, social, and cultural history of Harlem, is a visual feast. With beautifully reproduced etchings and engravings, crisp black and white photos and brilliant color photographs by Paul Rocheleau, Adams presents Harlem�s past and present architectural splendor. He sets a lofty goal for himself � �to place Harlem�s architecture in a context of history and people, living and dead, not only building and past residents but also those who preserve, cherish, and restore what has been built� � and, visually, he succeeds. Adams has an architect�s eye and, seemingly, a photographic memory that allows him to correlate examples of architectural styles and trends, even when the examples are blocks, neighborhoods, or, in a few cases, boroughs apart. Given the sheer number of structures in Harlem, this is no mean feat. The descriptive, concise prose that accompanies the pictures is engaging and, on the surface, sounds authoritative. Adams is at his best when developing broad architectural themes � his primary one being that neighborhoods evolve, socioeconomic and ethnic groups come and go, but architecture provides an anchor; it is a link with the past that, when lovingly preserved, becomes a bridge to the future. In the specifics of examples and historic detail, however, Adams is often careless. Sometimes, the result is a minor inconsistency from one section of the book to another; other times, however, the resulting inaccuracies mar the credibility of a book that professes to be history. �There was a great deal of material to consider, and behind nearly every fact included lies a host of stories untold.� writes Adams at the onset, �In some cases, memory or notation of sources has been less than perfect; any resultant errors are my own.� Amiable though that disclaimer might be, it does not excuse lax research. Adams has an expansive view of Harlem that extends to descriptions of buildings in Washington Heights as well as thumbnail sketches of forgotten areas such as Carmansville, Minniesland, and Audubon Park. Therein lies a problem. Although early New Yorkers referred to the area north of Harlem as Harlem Heights, that name fell out of use well before the decades that form the heart of Adams�s book. The present-day southern border of Washington Heights is 155th Street and has been since its inception more than 140 year ago. That boundary has appeared on city maps for decades and determines, among other things, voting districts and police precincts. Although blurred names and boundaries may seem negligible, they exaggerate Harlem�s geographical and cultural reach, which is not necessary � as the portions of the book that are devoted to the real Harlem clearly prove. Further, this exaggeration denies the annexed neighborhoods the individuality their respective histories have earned them. While architectural trends north of 155th Street may serve to illustrate some of Adam�s themes, these neighborhoods did not share a social or cultural history with Harlem, much less with each other. The working-class and transient population that occupied row houses in 19th Century Carmansville (clustered around Amsterdam Avenue, to the east of Broadway) had little in common with the upper-middle class families who owned large houses surrounded by cultivated gardens in Audubon Park (to the west of Broadway). Although Minniesland and Aububon Park were different names for the same area � the former from approximately 1841 to the early 1850s and the latter from about then until approximately 1910 � Adams leaves the reader with the impression that they were two different areas. Attention to detail does not seem to a primary concern when Adams, admittedly a good storyteller, recounts history. He incorrectly identifies the major owner of Audubon Park (it was George Blake Grinnell, not Jesse Benedict), confuses two Grinnells (the older was George Blake, the younger George Bird), and attributes one of Madame Audubon�s houses to Vaux & Withers (who may have enlarged it decades after it was built). In more recent history, he incorrectly puts The Grinnell (an apartment building in Washington Heights) in Harlem, incorrectly states its date of co-oping, and grossly exaggerates an apartment sale-price there in 2000. A beautifully produced book with an expensive cover price carries a certain amount of authority simply because it looks impressive. Through his inattention to detail, Adams undermines his own authority and prevents this book from being the definitive history it could have been. That said, this book is a superb pictorial survey of upper Manhattan, and deserves a place in every New York-o-phile�s library.
Rating:
Summary: Another View of Harlem
Review: Kudos to Michael Adams for a book that combines information, beauty and balance. Harlem Lost and Found is deserving of a permanent place on your reference shelf as well as on your coffee table.
Rating:
Summary: Harlem Lost?
Review: Paul Rocheleau urged me not to worry about what I wrote stressing, "Most people only look at the pictures anyhow." Taking over ten years to research and write something, how tiresome it is to then be compelled to defend it. One is reluctant to do much beyond urging those who might disagree with what you've said to take a decade or two themselves and write their own work. After all no matter what one does or doesn't do the inadvertent error is sure to emerge. This was so for Galsworthy and for Langston Hughes. It will be for you as well. The Riviera Apartments, for instance, were designed by Rouse & Goldstone, not Schwartz & Gross. Mr. Charles Lovejoy is in fact Mr. Charles Loveday, and so it goes. It appears that Harlem Lost and Found will warrant a second printing at least, so thank goodness these mistakes and similar ones can be addressed. What cannot be altered, however, is my understanding of Harlem's boundaries. Quite justifiably, I believe they can be identified as extending as far north as 168th St. "Not For Tourists Guide to New York City 2003", sponsored by JPMorgan Chase Community Development Group, at least agrees to this hallowed region extending north as far as 160th St. Well, actually, they call the region south to 134th St. between Bradhurst Ave. and the Hudson River 'Manhattanville/Hamilton Heights'. However, surely these neighborhoods are agreed to be in Harlem, are they not? Unashamedly, I concede that my book was driven by handsome buildings. But, throughout its publication from circa 1910 through 1934, Harlem Magazine, an all white journal, included the very same structures that I have located north of 155th St. in its pages. Things do change, of course. Attempting to dissect Harlem into a series of hierarchically class-based districts, many, by the 1890s, designated all Manhattan west of St. Nicholas Ave. and north of 135th St. as 'Washington Heights'. Already by the 1860s the appellation was used from 155th St. north. But this initial usage much like that of 'Carmansville' was meant, I believe, to identify a subsection of greater Harlem. Certainly, the Audubon, Knapp, and Hooper families continued to identify their address as Harlem much as today many residents of the officially named 'Clinton' continue to give their address as 'Hell's Kitchen'. In any case, perhaps the old-fashioned but unfashionable race card trumps other considerations? Asked in the 1950s by Joe McCarthy where he lived, Ralph Ellison said 150th St. and Riverside Drive. He qualified his answer, though, noting that the area had once been regarded as 'Washington Heights'. But stated that from his experience, "Wherever Negroes live uptown is considered Harlem." Surely this is the logic whereby the Audubon Ballroom and Theater, where Malcolm X was slain in 1965, was and continues to be identified as a Harlem landmark. No doubt, as more whites displace more blacks and Latinos throughout Upper Manhattan, Brian Keith Jackson's satirical references to name changes in the novel "The Queen of Harlem" will, in fact, occur more and more. It's this likelihood that makes me even more adamantly compelled to document the old understanding amongst blacks and many whites of what is Harlem. How easy it is to regret what one has not done. If only I had a computer I might have addressed these issues earlier. If only I were more prosperous, I might have also included footnotes in Harlem Lost and Found and saved myself some grief. But as an author under contract to a small press it was difficult enough to pay for an index, I can assure you. As it was so dear, I especially wish the mystery reviewer at 800 RSD had consulted it. I reference Vaux & Withers twice. Once in relation to their Trinity Cemetery suspension bridge. Another time based on Francis R. Kowsky's 1980 monograph of Withers (Wesleyan University Press), on page 196, in the appended work list, I cite the George B. Grinnell house and stable on West 156th and 157th Sts. entered for 1869 and 1870. At no time, regarding this firm, do I ever mention either Mrs. John James Audubon or her dwelling. As for my attribution of Audubon Park's ownership by George Bird Grinnell, on page 21 of the pamphlet "Audubon Park" published by the Hispanic Society in America in 1927 and reissued in 1987, a later George B. Grinnell relates of his relative, "Long before this, the greater portion of what had been Audubon Park, that is to say, all of it except the track where the old Audubon houses stand had become the property of a single owner, George B. Grinnell, from whose estate, in 1909, a large part of it passed into the hands of builders who covered much of it with tall apartment houses." Similarly, so far as Jesse W. Benedict's earlier ownership of the park after 1864 goes, no less an historian than Audubon Park's own Reginald Pelham Bolton in his great book "Washington Heights, Manhattan, Its Eventful Past" asserts the same on page 111. Regarding record sale prices at the Grinnell, the New York Times, it's true, might inflate values, but can I really be faulted for believing all the news that's fit to print? Yes, indeed, whatever else it is, thanks mostly to Paul Rocheleau and designer Abigail Sturges, Harlem Lost and Found is a visual feast. Whatever its shortcomings, I hope that it is better written and researched than one critic suggests. Better than ever, I now appreciate the aphorism 'Some do, and others complain'. And anonymously, no less. Well, what can one say except God Bless America.
Rating:
Summary: Harlem Lost?
Review: Paul Rocheleau urged me not to worry about what I wrote stressing, "Most people only look at the pictures anyhow." Taking over ten years to research and write something, how tiresome it is to then be compelled to defend it. One is reluctant to do much beyond urging those who might disagree with what you've said to take a decade or two themselves and write their own work. After all no matter what one does or doesn't do the inadvertent error is sure to emerge. This was so for Galsworthy and for Langston Hughes. It will be for you as well. The Riviera Apartments, for instance, were designed by Rouse & Goldstone, not Schwartz & Gross. Mr. Charles Lovejoy is in fact Mr. Charles Loveday, and so it goes. It appears that Harlem Lost and Found will warrant a second printing at least, so thank goodness these mistakes and similar ones can be addressed. What cannot be altered, however, is my understanding of Harlem's boundaries. Quite justifiably, I believe they can be identified as extending as far north as 168th St. "Not For Tourists Guide to New York City 2003", sponsored by JPMorgan Chase Community Development Group, at least agrees to this hallowed region extending north as far as 160th St. Well, actually, they call the region south to 134th St. between Bradhurst Ave. and the Hudson River 'Manhattanville/Hamilton Heights'. However, surely these neighborhoods are agreed to be in Harlem, are they not? Unashamedly, I concede that my book was driven by handsome buildings. But, throughout its publication from circa 1910 through 1934, Harlem Magazine, an all white journal, included the very same structures that I have located north of 155th St. in its pages. Things do change, of course. Attempting to dissect Harlem into a series of hierarchically class-based districts, many, by the 1890s, designated all Manhattan west of St. Nicholas Ave. and north of 135th St. as 'Washington Heights'. Already by the 1860s the appellation was used from 155th St. north. But this initial usage much like that of 'Carmansville' was meant, I believe, to identify a subsection of greater Harlem. Certainly, the Audubon, Knapp, and Hooper families continued to identify their address as Harlem much as today many residents of the officially named 'Clinton' continue to give their address as 'Hell's Kitchen'. In any case, perhaps the old-fashioned but unfashionable race card trumps other considerations? Asked in the 1950s by Joe McCarthy where he lived, Ralph Ellison said 150th St. and Riverside Drive. He qualified his answer, though, noting that the area had once been regarded as 'Washington Heights'. But stated that from his experience, "Wherever Negroes live uptown is considered Harlem." Surely this is the logic whereby the Audubon Ballroom and Theater, where Malcolm X was slain in 1965, was and continues to be identified as a Harlem landmark. No doubt, as more whites displace more blacks and Latinos throughout Upper Manhattan, Brian Keith Jackson's satirical references to name changes in the novel "The Queen of Harlem" will, in fact, occur more and more. It's this likelihood that makes me even more adamantly compelled to document the old understanding amongst blacks and many whites of what is Harlem. How easy it is to regret what one has not done. If only I had a computer I might have addressed these issues earlier. If only I were more prosperous, I might have also included footnotes in Harlem Lost and Found and saved myself some grief. But as an author under contract to a small press it was difficult enough to pay for an index, I can assure you. As it was so dear, I especially wish the mystery reviewer at 800 RSD had consulted it. I reference Vaux & Withers twice. Once in relation to their Trinity Cemetery suspension bridge. Another time based on Francis R. Kowsky's 1980 monograph of Withers (Wesleyan University Press), on page 196, in the appended work list, I cite the George B. Grinnell house and stable on West 156th and 157th Sts. entered for 1869 and 1870. At no time, regarding this firm, do I ever mention either Mrs. John James Audubon or her dwelling. As for my attribution of Audubon Park's ownership by George Bird Grinnell, on page 21 of the pamphlet "Audubon Park" published by the Hispanic Society in America in 1927 and reissued in 1987, a later George B. Grinnell relates of his relative, "Long before this, the greater portion of what had been Audubon Park, that is to say, all of it except the track where the old Audubon houses stand had become the property of a single owner, George B. Grinnell, from whose estate, in 1909, a large part of it passed into the hands of builders who covered much of it with tall apartment houses." Similarly, so far as Jesse W. Benedict's earlier ownership of the park after 1864 goes, no less an historian than Audubon Park's own Reginald Pelham Bolton in his great book "Washington Heights, Manhattan, Its Eventful Past" asserts the same on page 111. Regarding record sale prices at the Grinnell, the New York Times, it's true, might inflate values, but can I really be faulted for believing all the news that's fit to print? Yes, indeed, whatever else it is, thanks mostly to Paul Rocheleau and designer Abigail Sturges, Harlem Lost and Found is a visual feast. Whatever its shortcomings, I hope that it is better written and researched than one critic suggests. Better than ever, I now appreciate the aphorism 'Some do, and others complain'. And anonymously, no less. Well, what can one say except God Bless America.
Rating:
Summary: Buy it for the pictures
Review: The long awaited oeuvre of Mr. Adams has finally arrived, and is sitting handsomely on many Coffee Tables around the world. Exquisite photgraphy. It is unfortuante that many of the details within the text are inaccurate, and it's a shame that the author was not more careful with his research. However a very pretty book to own - buy it for the pictures. Enjoy Mr. Adams stories (for they are that). What is intersting is that the owners of the cover (limestone) property are defacing THAT building as we write this. Metal Windows now everywhere. Whats a shame that the present owners of these structures cannot appreciate the efforts, craft and care of the original European Architects of Harlem. So it might serve to document the continuing erosion of a once handsome place.
Rating:
Summary: Buy it for the pictures
Review: The long awaited oeuvre of Mr. Adams has finally arrived, and is sitting handsomely on many Coffee Tables around the world. Exquisite photgraphy. It is unfortuante that many of the details within the text are inaccurate, and it's a shame that the author was not more careful with his research. However a very pretty book to own - buy it for the pictures. Enjoy Mr. Adams stories What is intersting is that the owners of the cover (limestone) property are defacing THAT building as we write this. Metal Windows now everywhere. Whats a shame that the present owners of these structures cannot appreciate the efforts, craft and care of the original European Architects of Harlem. So it might serve to document the continuing erosion of a once handsome place.
|
