Thursday, December 8, 2011

'Five Oaks'

'Five Oaks', the proposed design of the William H. Erhart estate by Freeman & Hasselman c. 1906 in Lawrence. Erhart was chairman of the board of Charles Pfizer Co. and a director at American Water Works & Electric Company. 'Five Oaks' was demolished c. 1950 but stood on Ocean Avenue.

Images from Architecture, 1906.

18 comments:

The Devoted Classicist said...

Zach, although I usually read this and other blogs on my iPhone, I generally do not like the mobile format version. But for Old Long Island, I do find it easier to read on the small device. Keep up the good work!

Doug Floor Plan said...

Good looking house, very livable today even without at least seven live-in servants – I’m counting second floor bedrooms & there are back stairs up to the third floor so who knows how many total. I’m very impressed that this house (built around 1906) had two half-baths just to the right of the vestibule. Zach didn’t provide a link to where it stood on Ocean Drive, which is probably good because I suspect what’s there now doesn’t compare that well … but who knows?

The Down East Dilettante said...

Doug, it is likely to this amateur detective's eye that whatever the third floor held, it wasn't more servant's rooms. This can be deduced from the direction the open third floor stair rises from the main hall toward the service end. So, likely the third floor held more family/guest/nursery rooms (the service stair clearly would arrive at nearly the same point as the main stair, so just provided cleaning access. Maybe, as was so often the case, there was even a large playroom or the like up there. (and seven indoor servants would have been about right for this medium size house back in the day)

The Down East Dilettante said...

PS---Beyond the Gilded Age is refusing to load at the moment--"page cannot be found"

Doug Floor Plan said...

DED, I agree seven indoor servants seems ample for this house (in the day) & like you I originally concluded the main & back stairs arrived at nearly the same spot on the third floor. It makes sense that the back stairs start where you can walk straight up them from the hallway. But then I decided it appeared the back stairs don't start at the outside wall, they start at the other end & head up towards the outside wall, bringing them up where there may or may not have been other servants' rooms ... so I hedged my comment.

LOL, is this another mystery?

The Ancient said...

The garden view --

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5Sj0P1KwIyc/ScjVuiBnSTI/AAAAAAAAAOE/Ghm1BC5k3-U/s1600/ced00032.jpg

The Down East Dilettante said...

They must start at the outside wall, for they'd wind up at the bottom of a sloping roof otherwise.

The Down East Dilettante said...

Ancient, definitely not the same house. So do we imagine there were more Erharts in the neighborhood, or that they moved?

archibuff said...

But more importantly who designed the stables? Oh sorry, different day, different house. Attractive home nonetheless, even without the lawsuits, scandals and controversy.

Anonymous said...

I think Cedarhurst and Lawrence were always two separate towns, unlike the North Shore which town divisons seem to happen on a regular basis.

Anonymous said...

I guess I'm wrong..the picture states Cedarhurst, maybe Lawrence was created after...

Glen said...

This was a very attractive house and a well laid out floor plan. This would have made a very nice modern home. I am intriguied that the largest room in the house appears to be a billiard room, in lieu of a library (and no indication of built in shelves for dual use. Interesting in light of yesterday's comments about the library at Hempstead House. No boring book reading for these upper crusts - just all play. Although the little nooks next to the fireplace look like a cozy place to read or contemplate one's station in life.
The mystery of third floor accommodations sparks the debate of benefits/perils of servants quarters in a separate wing from the priveleged or above them on the third floor. I know from personal experiences that. . . oh never mind.

Lodi said...

Archibuff...LOL! My coworkers are asking wha's so funny? I told them they would have to have been there!

The Ancient said...

Dilettante --

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F70615FB345B127A93C5A8178CD85F4C8285F9

http://ftlh.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html

The Ancient said...

Dilettante --

You're right, of course.

But what Zach has posted above was merely a design proposal, and not the house as it was actually built.

See page 174:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jIXc9ES8qcAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Robert+B.+MacKay%22+inauthor:%22Anthony+K.+Baker%22&hl=en&ei=2jXhTqaKFsjt0gH_0eGbBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=inauthor%3A%22Robert%20B.%20MacKay%22%20inauthor%3A%22Anthony%20K.%20Baker%22&f=false

Zach said...

Thank you for the correction Ancient.

The Down East Dilettante said...

Oh duh. I get 20 lashes with a copy of Long Island Country Houses---which I normally always check for verifcation, today it didn't even occur. duh, duh. Thanks Ancient.

The Ancient said...

If there's a lesson here -- and there probably isn't -- trust a contemporaneous postcard over a sketch published more or less when the house was commissioned.

Because the latter goes to the vanity of the architect, while the postcard is merely a profit-making business.