« Extension of Higher Conforming Loan Limits a Boost? Cubana Cafe Opens in The Slope »

November 16, 2009

Cobble Hill Neighbors Irked by Norah Jones' Windows

There's a major brou-haha brewing on Amity Street, reports The Post, over Norah Jones' plans to install ten new windows in the highly-visible side of her brownstone. The Cobble Hill Association is up in arms over both the fact and the way that the Grammy-Award-winning singer got approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission and charge that the windows are both historically inconsistent and structurally dubious. According to the article, Jones made an went before LPC based upon an initial filing for some minor changes; they later amended the application with the request for the addition of the 10 double-hung windows on the side of the house but were not required to appear again for a public hearing. Jones' neighbors are threatening a lawsuit, but Jones has rejected its overtures to discuss a compromise.
Neighbors Bash Norah's Window-in-Brick Trick [NY Post]
Famous Musician in Cobble Hill WindowGate! [Curbed]
Norah Jones Steps Up in Cobble Hill [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12295

Comments

Wow - Norah Jones has some annoying neighbors.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at November 16, 2009 10:31 AM

An architect could easily make the windows look like they've alwasy been there, and Norah has the dosh to pay for it.

What a bunch of ninnys. They're just envious becuase their brownstones are gloomy inside.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 16, 2009 10:32 AM

The windows probably should have had a "Full Review" but the whiner is only saying that these buildings shouldn't have side windows, which is ridiculous. If the windows are in scale and contextually correct for the building, she should be allowed to install them. it does look like there were loopholes though.

Maybe she can write a song about the whole thing similar to "Billy Jean."

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 16, 2009 10:39 AM

Wow. This feels absolutely nutty to me. So often I look up at these structures, note the blank, windowless walls, and don't get it. If you can put it windows, why on earth would you not? I hope she gets to move forward with this.

Posted by: Nokilissa at November 16, 2009 10:46 AM

Oh please, this is ridiculous. If she had been a "nobody", and wanted to do the same thing, there would have been no one screaming, they are just looking to make some money off of a rich celeb. As ditto says, she can afford to have it done right, and no one would even know it was new. Corner houses of this period have windows on the side. Since there is nothing next door, her period appropriate windows would resemble a corner house. No biggie.

If other building owners want to do the same, and are in the HD, they will have to go through the LPC, who are not going to approve tiny Home Depot windows, or other inappropriate fenestration. The character of the neighborhood is not being wrecked. That's hyperbole at its best.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 16, 2009 10:48 AM

And again, neighbors in Brooklyn prove to be nosy and aggressive. Sounds too familiar to me unfortunately...Wouldn't want anyone to improve their home now would we?

Posted by: wasder at November 16, 2009 10:53 AM

I agree with MM.....

Posted by: fsrg at November 16, 2009 10:53 AM

Spot on MM.

Posted by: 1842 at November 16, 2009 11:00 AM

Can't tell from the photo. Is it a corner building &/or does she own the adjacent lot? I'd just be concerned that she'd go to the expense of lot-line windows only to have someone build right next door. Otherwise, I agree, much better to have good windows than blank wall. Most corner houses have them.

Posted by: Arkady at November 16, 2009 11:04 AM

Her neighbors are a bunch of crybabies. Hope the middle school kids egg their homes! haha!!

+1 = Norah Jones
-1 = The Douchebag neighbors

Posted by: CookieCutterBrownstone at November 16, 2009 11:06 AM

She owns the adjacent lot so no lot-line issue.

Posted by: JoeBushwick at November 16, 2009 11:07 AM

Norah should put out a diss rap track putting her neighbors on blast.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at November 16, 2009 11:08 AM

Forgot to add, this is another of many reasons why anybody with a spec of public profile should buy real estate with a LLC and keep their personal names off of the public record.

Not that people wont recognize you on the street, but every little bit helps with nosy-evil-hateful-greedy people.

Posted by: CookieCutterBrownstone at November 16, 2009 11:08 AM

The fact that they are being described as "double-hung" makes me think they will be contextual.

How can you not like anything "double-hung?"

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 16, 2009 11:14 AM

I just wanted to see the sun
I don't know why the neighbors come
I thought some windows would be kinda fun
I don't know why the neighbors come
I don't know why the neighbors come

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at November 16, 2009 11:16 AM

Not so sure she owns property on west side of house. Isn't that the backyard of that free standing mansion that is divided into condos or coops?

Posted by: Petebklyn at November 16, 2009 11:19 AM

DIBS, as always, is absolutely correct. Norah Jones is bringing the double hung to the neighb!!!

Posted by: bupe at November 16, 2009 11:19 AM

The Cobble Hill Association makes the Brooklyn Heights Association seem like the epitome of reasoned compassion.

Posted by: altervoce at November 16, 2009 11:22 AM

According to the article, Jones made an went before LPC based upon an initial filing for some minor changes; they later amended the application with the request for the addition of the 10 double-hung windows on the side of the house but were not required to appear again for a public hearing. Jones' neighbors are threatening a lawsuit, but Jones has rejected its overtures to discuss a compromise."

Noone else seems to be having problems, but this paragraph is killing me! Is "made an went" just a typo? What's it supposed to be. And who is the "they" and "its overtures", do you mean their overtures? Sorry, I swear I'm not trying to nitpick, just a really tough paragraph the way it's written.

Posted by: bc at November 16, 2009 11:26 AM

bc - while we are at, please note that "noone" is not a word. I believe you meant "no one".

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at November 16, 2009 11:29 AM

I want names! :) Who are these greedy, self-entitled, a$$hat neighbors of hers?

At least with the lawsuit, their names will be known. And, their address! Let's prepare by taking your dozen eggs out of the frig and letting it get rotten just right for the lawsuit happy, f&*(tards!

j/k? kinda of, but would be happy if it happend - the rotten eggs I mean.

Posted by: CookieCutterBrownstone at November 16, 2009 11:32 AM

LPC has rules for staff-level approval of new window openings on a visible secondary facade, so assuming that Norah's windows meet those rules (which essentially require that the new openings form regular pattern and do not detract from architectural features on the primary facade), this is completely overblown.

CHA is blowing smoke when it says "Greek-revival buildings of your type do not have side windows". Even if it were true, it's irrelevant IF the windows meet the rules for a staff approval at LPC.

(According to the Post article, the adjacent property is owned by a co-op - not sure how that impacts lot-line window regulations, but that is for DOB, not LPC to determine.)

Posted by: WBer at November 16, 2009 11:35 AM

Ha! Every time I see a typo like 'noone', I think of Fletch. Don't ask me why.

I too had a tough time with that paragraph, bc. Had to read it twice. I try not to get irritated by it, but seriously. Have they nothing in place with which to catch that stuff before it goes to print?

Posted by: Nokilissa at November 16, 2009 11:36 AM

Have they nothing in place with which to catch that stuff before it goes to print?

Posted by: Nokilissa at November 16, 2009 11:36 AM

That would be an Apple.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 16, 2009 11:37 AM

IIRC, she does not own the adjacent lot -- that empty space is the back yard of the corner house.

Side windows would be great, but it would be unusual in the neighborhood to have side windows on a non-corner house. There might be a couple of examples, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Posted by: Boerumresident at November 16, 2009 11:39 AM

People in Cobble Hill deserve each other.

Posted by: GWH at November 16, 2009 11:41 AM

Boerumresident, wouldn't that only be unusual because there are so few homes with an exposed side?

Was this lot always part of the corner house or was something torn down once???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 16, 2009 11:42 AM

Ha! Touche, broke developer, busted. I'm certainly not perfect and I was sure I would get flamed for something. I let most mistakes go (as I obviously make many), but find that paragraph to be seriously difficult to comprehend, it wasn't just a typo here or there, I have no idea who a few of the "they" and "its" refer to.

Posted by: bc at November 16, 2009 11:44 AM

BC - read the Post article (yes, the post is poorly written, but the link is there!). Jones went before LPC at a public hearing for a permit in June; that work* was approved. "They" refers Jones and her reps, who subsequently went to the LPC staff to have the windows approved (as noted earlier, that is well within the staff's purview to approve). "Its" is Cobble Hill Association, who actually made the overtures (according to the Post) - and according to the article, Jones wrote back to say that she had all her permits and that the work is not out of context, so I don't think that qualifies as a complete "rejection" of their overtures.

*The Post says the original application was for interior work, which makes no sense, as that type of work usually doesn't require a public hearing. If you look at the LPC calendar, the application was actually for rooftop mechanical equipment, rear yard excavation and to "alter the rear facade" - all work that might not be covered under staff rules.

Posted by: WBer at November 16, 2009 11:45 AM

Sorry - now I am being unclear. Should have said "the *Brownstoner* post", as it was he, not THE Post who was unclear in the first place.

Posted by: WBer at November 16, 2009 11:48 AM

"Can't tell from the photo. Is it a corner building &/or does she own the adjacent lot?"

It is NOT a corner building, and Norah Jones does NOT own the adjacent lot. The adjacent lot is divided between parking and an oversize garden and belongs to the beautiful house on the corner of Amity and Clinton, facing Clinton.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 16, 2009 11:49 AM

I would like to eventually install 4 new windows on my corner brownstone (that will form a regular pattern and not detract from architectural features on the primary facade, etc., etc.) but I've always been scared to find out how much it might cost. Does anyone on the forum have an idea of the cost per window?

Posted by: mamaday at November 16, 2009 11:52 AM

Either she has better PR than her neighbors, or the neighbors are indeed very lame. Is the issue about having periodically-appropriate style of windows, or for her to sneak in lot line windows? It sounds like a rather muddled approach to the affair. Why make it personal instead of about the rules. Surely if the neighbors intend to sue, a legal construction rule was broken. It seems improbable that Norah Jones would risk the structural integrity of the house she just bought.

Posted by: Maly at November 16, 2009 11:53 AM

Wow, thank you very much WBer, very helpful, I should have followed the link myself, but thanks again.

Posted by: bc at November 16, 2009 11:59 AM

Wow- is this a first where nearly everyone agrees? Count me in. LPC protects the historical character of the buildings- if that house had been a classic corner, there would have been windows on the side. Her neighbors need to get lives.

Posted by: bxgrl at November 16, 2009 12:10 PM

"There's a major brou-haha brewing on Amity Street"

irony of the day (IOTD) award

Posted by: cmu at November 16, 2009 12:12 PM

I alone am in a position to comment on this, as I am friends with the previous owners. BTW, so much for not disclosing where she lives, which was a point in the post detailing this sale.

However Montrose nailed it.

Posted by: infinitejester at November 16, 2009 12:20 PM

Poor Norah - first the Jackasses at the Post published her address a few years back, now this.

What part of Privacy people don't understand?

Posted by: Crownlfc at November 16, 2009 12:29 PM

DIBS -- Not sure if anything was ever torn down here. But there are often exposed sides with no windows on the houses that abut the corner lot. E.g., the next blocks over the top floors of the equivalent house are exposed to view (at Congress, Baltic, Warren etc.) with no side windows.

Posted by: Boerumresident at November 16, 2009 12:31 PM

This is not a corner house. It is a house with an exposed sidewwall abutting a private garden. That is the problem. The neighbor's garden will be a lot less private with windows looking down on it. No more nude sunbathing. Not that anyone would do such a thing in Cobble Hill.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 16, 2009 12:38 PM

"This is not a corner house. It is a house with an exposed sidewwall abutting a private garden. That is the problem"

Norah could just get up on the roof if she wanted to see what was going on in next door's garden.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 16, 2009 12:47 PM

As unfortunate as the neighbor's garden losing its privacy is, the only real issue here is the lot line windows. However DOB allows lot line windows for specific circumstances( length from adjacent building more than 60', sprinkler or fireproof the windows, sign a paper that says you will cover them up if someone builds to the lot line, etc).
LPC has detailed guidelines for non-primary facades. It's not like she is painting the building purple and adding 4 floors here!

Posted by: jelly donut at November 16, 2009 2:34 PM

Is the brick painted?
If so. Please take care of that Norah.

Posted by: Expert Textpert at November 16, 2009 3:06 PM

The private garden isn't all that private- it's not like people in surrounding brownstones can't see over the walls when they ar on upper floors. And sorry but there is no private "outdoors." The whole thing is ridiculous. She has a chance to get more light inside- the neighbors should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: bxgrl at November 16, 2009 3:09 PM

I SINCERELY hope Ms. Jones gets to read these posts. Team Norah! Team LPC-compliant lot-line windows!

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at November 16, 2009 3:29 PM

As someone who had lot lined windows that are now covered with a neighbors wood fence, I wonder if the people in the mansion can't just do the same. Norah Jones does not own the property next to her, and there hasn't been another building there in almost a century. But I know the mansion's back windows will now face directly into her house when her windows go up, so everyone in these 2 building will be losing privacy.

Posted by: Cobblehillbaby at November 16, 2009 4:20 PM

I don't think privacy or expectations of such have anything to do with it. Additionally, a fence can only be 6' high.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 16, 2009 4:31 PM

Privacy? If Norah Jones wanted to go all "Rear Window" on my ass I'd be flattered and psyched.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at November 16, 2009 4:36 PM

Regarding the Privacy in the adjacent garden:
Um, shouldn't it be the other way around! Now more people can peer into Norah's windows (via the side wall)

You have a Townhouse garden in NYC, there is no such thing as privacy! Your adjacent neighbors can look in, duh.

Posted by: Expert Textpert at November 16, 2009 4:51 PM

Seriously ET!!

I would imagine a multiplatinum grammy award winning recording artist would have better things to be doing than spying on some dumpy Cobble Hillers playing with the 'fruit of their loins' in some 'garden'

Posted by: dirty_hipster at November 16, 2009 4:54 PM

'fruit of their loins'

Say the 'C' Word. I dare you.
I double dare you.

Posted by: Expert Textpert at November 16, 2009 4:58 PM

I can't believe the CHA is making a stink about this. I'm embarrassed for the neighborhood... makes us look like a bunch of absurd morons.

Posted by: MrsJ3 at November 16, 2009 6:36 PM

The mansion has huge windows in the back, if I were Norah, I'd rather keep my view on my backyard than right into my neighbors bedrooms. What is she going to do when she looks out her side windows, avert her eyes to her neighbors who now hate her? I'm glad everyone on this post is on team Norah, but I see the mansion owners point. I don't think lot line windows should be allowed in NYC. If you want multiple exposures, buy a corner townhouse/Brownstone or a Victorian somewhere else in Brooklyn. I would also like to know how she got some of the quickest approval by a Landmarks commision of all time. My neighbors had to wait a year to get approval to change their windows to the exact same ones they had just new.

Posted by: Cobblehillbaby at November 16, 2009 6:43 PM

Cobblehillbaby...no one said that the corner mansion owner was even complaining first of all. Secondly, corner mansions have windows on all sides typically so why is that different from this house getting windows on another side.

Thirdly, drapes, curtains and blinds.

Seems like you're one of the haters.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 17, 2009 8:13 AM

cobblehillbaby = player hater.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at November 17, 2009 10:29 AM

take a chill pill you annyoying cobble hill owners
let her put in some damn windows in "her" new HOME!
They have nothing better to do than bitch and bicker about nonsense BS~
GO NORA!

Posted by: tjj at November 19, 2009 8:34 PM

« Extension of Higher Conforming Loan Limits a Boost? Cubana Cafe Opens in The Slope »

November 16, 2009

Cobble Hill Neighbors Irked by Norah Jones' Windows

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions