Staten Island

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS

Completed in 1921, Wallcot is one of several small stone cottages built by Ernest Flagg on the grounds of his Todt Hill estate. Employing the architect’s inventive cost-saving design and construction techniques, Wallcot demonstrates Flagg’s conviction that economy and good design are not mutually exclusive. Flagg’s Todt Hill cottages embody his pioneering vision of affordable housing which could fulfill the aspirations of a broad segment of the nation’s population.

Ernest Flagg’s Todt Hill Estate

Stone Court, the country estate of the noted American architect Ernest Flagg, is located on Todt Hill, part of the central ridge of serpentine rock which bisects the northern half of Staten Island. Flagg’s imposing Colonial Revival style residence, several outbuildings and the nearby stone cottages he constructed on the grounds of his estate form a harmonious ensemble which exemplifies the architect’s distinctive interpretation of Beaux-Arts inspired design principles as well as his life-long commitment to building reform.

Born in Brooklyn in 1857, Flagg was a member of the first generation of American architects shaped by the rigorous training programs of the Eccle des Beaux-Arts in Paris. Returning to this country in the 1880s and 1890s, Flagg and his contemporaries were imbued with an awareness of an architectural beauty governed by the constant principles of correct design discovered by the ancients and recovered by the architects of the Renaissance.

Flagg’s career, initiated by his competition-winning design of 1892 for St. Luke’s Hospital on Morningside Heights, has been characterized as one which embraced seemingly disparate orojects ranging from imposing residences for affluent clients and large institutional complexes to workers’ housing.

These were but the outward manifestations of an architectural sensibility which sought always to mediate the general polarities implied by the terms "art" and "science." Flagg noted, for instance, that the entire design of St. Luke’s Hospital, from its plan to the placement of ornamental elements, was determined by his employment of a modular unit of measure, a methodology inspired by his analysis of Greek architecture and repeated in his subsequent designs such as those for the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. (1894-1893) and the Naval Academy at Annapolis {1397-1899).

Flagg also recorded that, "Even for tenements it has worked well and plans for several large groups of model fireproof tenements (N.Y. Fireproof Model Tenements, 1899-1900) were made this way."

Flagg was introduced to Staten Island by its first Borough President George Cromwell and in 1898 Flagg purchased a lot adjacent to Cromwell’s Todt Hill property. Fronting on Prospect Place (today’s Flagg Place), it offered spectacular views of the Lower New York Bay and the Atlantic Highlands.

Set upon a large terrace defined by rubblestone walls and occupying the most elevated portion of his property, Flagg’s residence was a substantial structure of whitewashed fieldstone and shingles. The construction material and the gambrel roof alluded to the local Colonial building tradition which Flagg defined as French Huguenot.

Numerous permutations of the colonial tradition were introduced by Flagg; they include a vastly enlarged scale, massive chimneys rising above the eaves on the front and rear elevations, and a circular balustraded observation deck which, straddling the roof ridge and enframed by the chimneys, marked the central axis bisecting the house and its grounds.

Subsequent additions to the residence, the siting of outbuildings and the design of the landscape were all undertaken in reference to this axis. In addition to demonstrating Flagg’s individualized Beaux-Arts-derived aesthetic, the estate also reveals, from its inception, the architect’s interest in building technology.

The chimneys, for example, are topped by distinctive curved ventilator caps which were painted black; intended to improve the efficiency of the heating system, the curved ventilator cap became one of the hallmarks of his Todt Hill designs. Continuing change, constant elaboration and ongoing experimentation are intrinsic to the history of Flagg’s Todt Hill estate; the series of small stone cottages he constructed beginning in 1916 may in some respects be regarded as the culmination of the building program initiated in 1898.

As a young man Flagg had been involved in land and building speculation with his father and brother in the 1870s and 1880s. It was an experience which surely played a formative role in shaping Flagg’s visionary development scheme for his Staten Island properties. Just after the turn of the centry Flagg began buying additional tracts of land on Todt Hill.

By 1907 he had acquired approximately 70 acres in the vicinity of his original purchase and in 1909 he established the Flagg Estate Company. The total of 200 acres Flagg owned by 1918 extended southwestward from West Entry Road to the far side of Todt Hill Road where his extensive holdings included much of what is today the Richmond County Country Club golf course.

Concurrently, Flagg was also involved in a number of projects entailing additions to his residence and its immediate grounds. The residence gained added grandeur with the construction of a wing on the southwestern side which balanced the earlier wing opposite.

A second level was added to the facade porch; its colonnade repeated the forms of the newly elaborated colonnade below. The terrace platform was extended and the landscaping formalized. Low fieldstone wings were added to the rear of his residence, a new gardener’s residence was constructed in 1908, and the earlier gardener’s residence on Flagg Place was subsequently enlarged and converted to a gatehouse.

Although conventional rubblestone construction was used for the smaller structures, their scale and design elements predict the architect’s experimental cottages. Foreshadowing Bowcot, for example, the new gardener’s residence abutted and incorporated a portion of an existing stone retaining wall.

Small Houses: Their Economic Design Construction

Flagg’s new additions to his residence de-emphasized its Colonial Revival character; so too did his contemporary removal of whitewash from much of the estate’s rubblestone construction. Revelation of Stone Court’s stone represented far more than a cosmetic change.

Stone construction lay at the heart of his ambitious development plan, the "Flagg Ridge Estate of Ernest Flagg at Dongan Hills, Staten Island," outlined in his book Small Houses: Their Economic Design and Construction published in 1922. Drawing upon protypes of greater antiquity than those provided by the local Colonial building tradition, Flagg envisioned his Todt Hill lands populated by many small stone houses, an ensemble which would evoke the ancient Anglo-French or Norman villages of England and France. Stone, described by Flagg as "king of building materials," was selected for very practical reasons as well.

The cost of wood increased during the post-WorId-War-1 period due to a diminishing supply. Reduced combustibi1ity was another benefit of stone construction.

By his use of an earlier spelling of the family name, Flagg conferred ancestral and manorial character upon his proposed development, associations perhaps related to the concomitant aggrandizement of his residence and its grounds. The Flegg Ridge Estate was conceived as more than a picturesque enclave for the privileged however.

It would also demonstrate that Flagg’s inventive cost-saving but improved construction methods could make the American dream of a single-family house attainable by a broadened segment of the country’s population. Affordability was not to be the altar upon which good design was sacrificed.

On the contrary, as Flagg pointed out in his introduction to Small Houses, "… the theory for the design of these houses is that the most economical way of obtaining good results is to apply the greater fundamental principles of art and depend upon them for beauty rather than upon the use either of applied ornament or more expensive materials. …"

Economy was to be achieved by a host of means which Flagg divided into five general categories. Economical plan preparation entailed the use of a modular system. Subdivisions of a three-foot nine-inch modular unit chosen for its relationship to standard lengths of building materials corresponded to the grid of specially prepared graph paper.

Economy was also obtained either through the utilization of under-used spaces or their elimination. Attics, for example, were enlarged through the use of tall, wide-spreading roofs and rendered habitable by the introduction of ridge-line dormers which provided ample light and controllable ventilation. Hallways and corridors were abandoned while frequently wasted odd spaces were provided with lockers and cupboards.

Reduction of the construction materials required was another area in which costs could be lowered. Wall heights, for instance, diminished as a result of the inhabitable attic story. Foundations shrank and cellars were eliminated by the damp-proofing methods introduced by Flagg.

The architect’s ingenious method of partition-wall construction — plaster applied to a jute or burlap screen — made studs and lath unnecessary. The much thinner (and fire-proof) walls which resulted also took up less space. Trim, baseboards and molding were dispensed with.

Flagg’s fourth method of economizing entailed decreasing labor costs. A method of concrete wall-construction Flagg called "mosaic rubble" was one of the principal means of accomplishing this goal since it eliminated the need for skilled workmen. Flagg devised a system of reusable formwork consisting of uprights and cross-bars on foundation sleepers.

These formed a trough into which stones could be placed — their flat sides flush with the outer face of the wall — to form a mosaic pattern which evoked conventional rubblestone construction. Concrete was poured around the stones to form a backing. The formwork was subsequently reassembled at a higher point and the process repeated.

When the wall was completed only face-pointing was required. Lastly Flagg cites a number of "more economical devices, materials and methods" which range from construction details — for these Flagg produced many patented designs — to siting. Structures which conformed to the terrain, for example, eliminated the cost of extensive excavation and grading while adopting the European tradition of a roadside location represented an economical use of the land.

Wallcot

Wallcot, known also as House-on-the-Wa11, was begun in 1918 and completed in 1921. Fronting on Flagg Place some 500′ southwest of the architect’s lot, it is a roadside pendant to Flagg’s earlier stone cottage — Bowcot — sited in a comparable location of the northeastern edge of his estate.

The building occupies an embankment which Flagg described in Small Houses as being about 4′ above the level of the road. Although a 1909 topographical map indicates that a retaining wall extended along this section of Flagg Place, Flagg appears not to have incorporated it into this structure.

The new retaining wall built by Flagg along the embankment and its upward extension which comprise Walloot’s principal facade and the lower flanking continuations of this wall are, as Flagg noted, "set a few feet back from the building line, thus making the road appear wider in front of it."

Flagg Place bends slightly northward just northeast of the main facade, but the facade wall and retaining wall extensions, unlike Bowcot’s curved walls which follow the course of the road, form a perfectly straight line. Wal loot’s relationship to the roadway is, as a result, less picturesque.

From another vantage point, however, Wal1 cot’s picturesqueness appears. Behind the house the terrain continues to slope upward. On this higher ground Flagg constructed a garage building which also housed a small apartment for the chauffeur. It is set at right angles to the main section of the house; the northeast walls of the two structures are aligned.

A post-1947 structure now links the garage and house to form the existing L-shaped plan. Because the slope continues its upward rise beyond the garage to Iron Mine Drive at the rear of the property (a modern street proposed by in a development plan devised by Flagg toward the end of his life but not constructed until after his death in 1947), the view of Wallcot from this thoroughfare, its gable peaks rising above the contours of the slope, is of a house which, in Flagg’s words, "is hugging tight, as it were, to Mother Earth." Wallcot, like Bowcot seems to nestle into the terrain and into its landscaped setting of large trees, lawns and shrubs.

Wallcot is comprised of two sections, both rectangular in plan. The smaller and lower southwestern portion which houses the living room is one story in height and three bays wide. The northeastern bay on the Flagg Place elevation is occupied by the main entranceway which leads to a wide entry hall.

The larger and deeper main section is also three bays wide but one-and-a-half stories high. A dining room, two large bedrooms and/ originally, two smaller bedrooms for servants were located on the principal floor. Two large bedrooms take up the attic story. The garage is a long rectangular one-story structure. The chauffeur’s apartment was located at its northwestern end; the garage portion of the building, emphasized by a projecting gabled portico on the southwestern elevation, is reached from Flagg Place by a curving driveway.

A later spur off this driveway continues toward the rear of the property and exits onto Iron Mine Drive. The post-1947 structure which links the house and garage is also one-story in height.

The stone employed for Walloot’s mosaic-rubble construction is the light green serpentine or soapstone taken from the quarry Flagg had established on the grounds of his estate.

The existing sandy-colored face-pointing mortar probably replaces mortar that was similar to the rose-colored mortar used at Bowcot. Because the joints have a rounded profile and considerable foliation has occurred behind them, the face-pointing is a more prominent visual element than originally intended.

Wallcot’s design is one of the more than fifty Flagg included in Smal 1 Houses. There is a clear familial relationship amongst them, a result of the economical design and construction features they all share. But Flagg’s Smal 1 House designs also demonstrated that uniformity need not be the inevitable product of economical construction.

Diversity is achieved, for example, through differing juxapositions of variously scaled masses. Plans are varied in response to distinctive topographies. There are endless variations in the placement and scale of such elements as windows, doorways, dormers and chimneys. And, although "picturesque" is an appropriate descriptive term for all of the designs in Smal 1 Houses, that quality is counter-balanced with varying degrees of formalism.

As Flagg’s comments make clear, Wallcot’s design provides a studied contrast to the more thoroughly picturesque Bowcot. For example, while the house and garage were originally two separate structures, Flagg thought of them as an ensemble, noting that . . .the garage adds much to the appearance of the house; the two buildings together form a group possessing importance and dignity, which neither would have singly."

Discussing the long retaining walls which flank the house he observed, ". . „ .how 1 arge a part in the composi tion is played by the stone retaining wall. Without them the house would lose half its importance and the whole character of the design would be changed.

The wall not only adds as much to the composition as the house itself, but lifts it out of the ordinary." One notes that the cost of this design element which contributed so greatly to the effect Flagg sought was relatively low. Originally the walls were termined by large piers topped by urns. Only the pier on the southwestern wall survives today and the urns are gone, but~the "importance" of the walls has been enhanced by the tall privet hedges planted along the embankment running behind them.

(Photographs of Wal Icot taken while it was still owned by Flagg show this same hedge at a much earlier stage of its growth.) Just to the northeast of the house an arched opening in the retaining wall leads to a flight of stairs providing access to the lawn area located on this side of the structure.

An imposing main entrance also proclaims Wallcot’s "importance." Behind a wide, round-arched opening a flight of steps leads up through an open stone-walled vestibule once terminated by solid panelled doors which early views suggest were painted a dark color. The modern, more simply panelled dorrs are painted white.

The decorative curvilinear ironwork in the upper portion of the arched openings remains however. Above the arched opening there is a large gabled hood-roof carried on enormous ornamental brackets. Flagg referred to it as forming a "sort of marquee so that one might alight from a vehicle under cover."

The soffits of the eave and returns are adorned with mutules ornamented with large guttae; these alternate with plain panels. The bracket impost blocks each consist of three triglyphs; voids evoke metopes. This whimsical arrangement of classical motifs is, perhaps, Flagg’s visible and affectionate tribute to the modular measure which underlies the design of his Todt Hill cottages.

Flagg recorded in Small Houses that his study of classical temples have revealed to him that it was the triglyph which embodied and expressed the modular unit of measure employed by the architects of ancient Greece.

Roof treatment also contributes to the formality of Wallcot’s Flagg Place elevation. Evoking the idea of shelter and home, wide-spreading roofs cover both sections of the house. Except for the contrast resulting from the lower ridge line of the living-room section roof, the front slope extends across the width of the entire structure. As an imposing unifying design element, it transcends the picturesque.

Originally rolled-roofing held in place by a fastening device patented by Flagg may have been used.

A variety of window types appear on this elevation. The major openings — two in the living-room section and three in the main section — employ casement windows which Flagg preferred to double-hung sash because they admit more air and, since they swing inward, are easier to wash.

Setting the frames flush with the wall plane eliminated the need for reveals and stone sills. The main section casements break through the eaves and are topped by modest wood lintels. Today storm windows below the partially obscure the casements from view. Small square windows below the main section casements, similar to those used to illuminate Bowcot’s basement level kitchen, served a similar function here. Three gabled dormers are located on the main section slope; above them there are three ridge dormers.

Although four window types are used in this section, their placement in aligned rows both horizontally and vertically formalizes the variety. The two ridge-line dormers directly above the living-room casements repeat this pattern.

The brick end-chimineys terminated by Flagg’s distinctive curved ventilator caps also demonstrate a similar restraint. These do not, unlike Bowcot’s, break through the gable peak. Nor are they dynamic contributors, as are Bowcot’s, to a picturesque roof design. Their relatively modest dimensions are in keeping with the scale of the other roof elements; they are part of the unified facade design.

The sobriety and formality of Wallcot’s street facade design, a design which achieves the imposing effect Flagg desired, stand in contrast to the greater picturesqueness of the more private world behind it. As seen from the southwest, for example, the gable-wall of the living-room section, together with the slender-columned open porch on its northwestern elevation, is juxtaposed with the taller and wider main section gable-wall to the northeast.

The roof slopes on this side of the house are more picturesque as well. Extensions added to the living-room section rafters create a bel least eave over the open porch; it reads as a continuation of the gable slope. The rear wall of the main section is very low and, as a result, the roof slope above it seems dramatically elongated. The sweeping expanse of the southwestern slope of the garage roof, which also rises above a low wall, is seen in contrasting relationship to the roof profiles of the house.

Similarly, window design and placement display a greater variety. For example, the northwestern bay of the garage is occupied by a large gabled casement which breaks through the eaves. The casement to its right is set lower in the wall and under the eaves. The three ridge-line dormers are unaligned with any of the openings beneath them. The square attic-level window in the main section gable-wall is off-center; the casement window below lies even further toward the northwest.

Openings on the southwestern elevation of the living-room section are constricted by the expanse of the fireplace within. The narrow window on the right side is balanced by the narrowness of the doorway opposite. The hood over this door is carried on relatively simple brackets.

The ridge line of the post-1947 structure which links the garage and house is slightly lower than that of the garage; a single ridge-line dormer is used. Although the design of its southwestern elevation is utilitarian, the long glazed panels which constitute its northeastern elevation and form an enclosed porch make it an addition which is readily differentiated from the original structures.

The relative transparency of this elevation evokes the space which originally separated the house from the garage. The northeastern walls of the garage and house are aligned. The symmetrical placement of the main section gable-wall windows — two in both the principal and attic stories — is in keeping with the greater formality of this elevation.

Conclusion

Although it is a smal1 structure, Wal lcot’s design embodies Flagg’s central aesthetic theories. Flagg considered his Todt Hill cottages to be an integral part of his oeuvre, of no less importance, for example, than his most famous design, the Singer Tower, the world’s tallest building when completed in 1911.

As Flagg recorded in Smal 1 Houses, "It may seem to some that the steel frame his little to do with small houses. This may be true of the frame itself but not of the methods of design applicable to it. These methods apply to every artistic construction whether steel frame or otherwise…..The idea that is requires one kind of skill to deal successfully with the design of the tall building and another with the small house is fallacious; both alike are architectural .problems, and in both alike the immutable laws of right design govern."

Many elements
contribute to Wallcot’s undeniable beauty but primary among them, in Flagg’s view, was the modular measure which determined its design and assured a harmonious relationship between all its parts.

The enabling technology exemplified by Wallcot played an influential role in the development of American domestic architecture throught the 1920s and 1930s. Flagg’s ideas were widely disseminated through his articles in such journals as Country Life and McCall’s Magazine. Flagg’s methods of economical stone construction and modular design were also taken up and popularized by other architects.

Harold Carey’s Build _a Some—Save a Third, published in 1924, and Frazier Forman Peters’ Houses of Stone fl933) brought national attention to Flagg’s ideas. * Flagg’s legacy, however, as represented by Wallcot still endures. By promoting the concept of domestic architecture which is responsive to nature (Flagg’s stone cottages have recently been cited as early examples of passive solar design 1 ) and respectful of the land, an architecture which did not regard good design and economical construction as mutually exclusive, Flagg articulated goals which retain their validity for contemporary residential design.

- From the 1987 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

Popularity: unranked