« What's Up with Cafe on Clinton? Co-op of the Day: 75 Prospect Park West, #2B »
February 8, 2010
Norah Jones' Windows Coming In
As a reader pointed out, workers have started the process of putting in those controversial windows on the side of Norah Jones' Cobble Hill house. That's it, there goes the neighborhood!
Norah Jones Cuts Back on Her Windows [Brownstoner]
Cobble Hill Neighbors Irked by Norah Jones' Windows [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/13341
Comments
I hope they get some steel lintels in place before they cut more holes in that side!!!! Is that what I see going in on the second one?? Maybe the first one already has one as it looks like there's been some brick work done at the top.
Side windows on a parlour floor looking out onto a garden gotta be pretty nice. I can see why the rest are full of hate.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 11:32 AM
the co-op next door that complained about those side windows has its own side windows.
i wonder if she'll face the side of her house with limestone.
Posted by: duckumu at February 8, 2010 11:37 AM
She should put Fedders under every window.
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 11:40 AM
I never realized the front of her house had been stuccoed. Looks like crap.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 11:41 AM
That's a very thin area of masonry at the corner. I hope they know what they're doing. These houses can be cranky when you mess with the bearing walls.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at February 8, 2010 11:47 AM
I expect no fewer than 7 additional posts on this matter.
Posted by: IMBY at February 8, 2010 11:54 AM
not stuccoed and does not look look crap.
Many rash/harsh judgments here based solely on photos on lots of threads/real estate listings. armchair critics.
Posted by: Petebklyn at February 8, 2010 11:59 AM
Minard, do you think that "thing" that we see in the second window is the new steel lintel??? If it is, unless it's some form of titanium, it isn't nearly as large as it needs be. I'm no engineer but you'd typically see at least an 8" I-beam.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 12:01 PM
What is the facade then., Pete?? All of the adjacent homes look to be brick.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 12:03 PM
Pretty disgusting, isn't it Pete.
It's bad enough we have a photo of the home up today of someone who probably moved to Brooklyn to be a little out of the limelight and now this.
It's one thing to pick apart a house for sale, but to snap a photo of a private citizen for the soul purpose of trashing it is deplorable, in my opinion.
This website is becoming the TMZ of Brooklyn real estate.
Posted by: 11217 at February 8, 2010 12:04 PM
wasn't this already discussed ad nauseum?
Posted by: coopfornow at February 8, 2010 12:04 PM
should read: private citizen's HOME for the SOLE purpose
Posted by: 11217 at February 8, 2010 12:06 PM
It's only windows folks. Wouldn't you think windows will look better than a blank brick wall.??
It's not like it is something completely off the wall, it's just windows.....
Hopefully they will be windows that will look like they have always been there.
Posted by: STARGAZER at February 8, 2010 12:07 PM
It looks more like paint on the facade than stucco. The details including the cornice appear to be intact. I agree the "crap" comment was unduly harsh. Seven new windows in the bearing wall is just odd and un-historical. The new cuts better be careful engineered or Norah will have a four-story open lanai and an immediate vacate order on her hands.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at February 8, 2010 12:07 PM
Perhaps the "crap" comment was over the top. That said, if the owner is doing an extensive restoration shouldn't the facade be returned to the original exposed brick with the brownstone lintels?
It certainly doesn't look like paint from any of the pics. Maybe it isn't stucco per se but it does look like a topcoat of some mortar-based material over the brick, generically referred to as "stucco."
Personally I'm all for the owner wanting the side windows. As lonh as they look historically appropriate to the design and age of the building.
They were approved by LPC apparently so if they look bad or out of context, LPC is to blame.
I wonder why there's no scaffolding???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 12:12 PM
painted brick which is not unusual in the neighborhood.
Posted by: Petebklyn at February 8, 2010 12:13 PM
Leave poor Norah alone!!
Posted by: dirty_hipster at February 8, 2010 12:18 PM
Surely there is something more interesting and less star-stalkingesque to post.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at February 8, 2010 12:21 PM
It's noteworthy, and worthy of comments because of the landmarks issue and the extent of construction. Who it belongs to is of no concern to me.
It's also an interesting project to follow.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 12:21 PM
This is news? Leave the person alone. It's irresponsible to be posting pictures of her house. Would Brownstoner like it if some other blog posted pictures of his house?
Posted by: buttermilk channel at February 8, 2010 12:22 PM
dave, what we are seeing in the second window is the "needling" steel that is put in prior to the lintel. The whole operation is like taking cans from the center of a giant stack. One false move and the whole pile can land on your head.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at February 8, 2010 12:23 PM
Or playing Jenga.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 12:28 PM
With the photos, I finally understand what was going on here.
How is this controversial? Man, people will complain about anything, won't they?
Posted by: infinitejester at February 8, 2010 12:30 PM
Dave, good point, I don't know why they don't have a sidewalk bridge up. Perhaps the work is being done illegally. I would not want to have my car parked in those spaces next to the wall -just in case. It is incredible that the DOB is letting them do this work from the inside without any public safety measures. It sure pays to be a STAH!
Posted by: Minard Lafever at February 8, 2010 12:39 PM
BFD
Posted by: chrishavens at February 8, 2010 12:40 PM
I agree that this is kind of star stalkerish, but I think DIBS might be one of the few justified in commenting since he's put up many pics of his own place to be critiqued.
Posted by: Biff Champion at February 8, 2010 12:40 PM
Did everybody hear about Maggie Gyllenhaal's curb cut?
Posted by: DitmasSnark at February 8, 2010 12:59 PM
"It's one thing to pick apart a house for sale, but to snap a photo of a private citizen for the soul purpose of trashing it is deplorable, in my opinion."
Houses for Sale are mostly owned by Private citizens. 50% of the threads on here are of things related to Private Citizens. Just the fact that THIS particular house is owned by a 'celebrity' have some up in arms. Should they be treated any differently?
The 'Pricest Condo' thread is about an apt. owned by a private citizen and that's getting torn apart. Nobody is bitching to leave them alone.
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 12:59 PM
The interest in it isn't because of who it belongs to, it's because of the Landmarks & DOB issues - recent projects that have had massive problems are a concern to anyone living next to an ambitious construction job.
Posted by: Arkady at February 8, 2010 1:00 PM
"It's noteworthy, and worthy of comments because of the landmarks issue and the extent of construction. Who it belongs to is of no concern to me."
Thank you for saying this.
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 1:01 PM
To those who don't think this is stalkerish:
Please send in your address and photos of your home to Mr. B for inclusion on this website. When then gets picked up by curbed.com, which then gets picked up by The Real Deal, which then gets picked up by the Brooklyn Paper.
A phone number would be good too.
Posted by: 11217 at February 8, 2010 1:10 PM
The difference to me here is not only that it's "outing" where a celebrity lives (there's a lot more interest in a celeb's address and there is a lot more potential for celebs to be harassed and stalked) but also the names of the owners of the other properties discussed here are almost never mentioned. Sure, the property records are likely available and one can find out where celebs live, but I don't think it needs to be made so blatant as it is in this case.
Posted by: Biff Champion at February 8, 2010 1:11 PM
as anyone who is familiar with these houses knows, the sidewalls hold up the floor joists, however the joists do not reach the walls where the chimneys are. The loads from those joists are picked up by a lateral beam and distributed to the joists on either side of the chimney. The chimneys are one of the structural weakpoints of most historic rowhouses. In this picture it looks like the new windows are being cut out from the bearing wall on either side of the chimneys. Where are loads being redirected? The chimney masonry? This looks so perilous. All the loads are being channeled into either a very thin area between the window and the chimneys or perhaps to the chimneys themselves. I hope someone really thought about this. The LPC does not look into those issues, it is up to the Department of Buildings to make sure the work will not cause a collapse.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at February 8, 2010 1:13 PM
Exactly Biff.
You said it a lot better than I did.
Not to mention that Brooklyn is special in that it seems to attract celebrities who really value their privacy which is oftentimes why they've chosen Brooklyn over Manhattan. Norah Jones could have bought a home anywhere.
Probably wishing she had bought in Tribeca or Nolita after all the attention her neighbors have given this. Un-named neighbors, mind you!
Posted by: 11217 at February 8, 2010 1:15 PM
"The interest in it isn't because of who it belongs to, it's because of the Landmarks & DOB issues - recent projects that have had massive problems are a concern to anyone living next to an ambitious construction job."
I agree with this completely, so why is the name of the owner necessary to be part of the story?
Posted by: Biff Champion at February 8, 2010 1:15 PM
DIBS I just called that number and got the Customer Service Department at silverdaddies.com.
:-)
Posted by: Biff Champion at February 8, 2010 1:16 PM
do you really think celebrities don't like it when people talk about them? I think it's quite the opposite. What an odd thing to worry about.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at February 8, 2010 1:20 PM
"Please send in your address"
Mr. B never provided the address of this house. Not in this thread or the other two Brownstoner threads that are linked.
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 1:20 PM
Ironically 11217, this discussion started out about the windows and facade and YOU first mentioned the celebrity aspect.
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 1:22 PM
Not saying whether it's right or wrong, but celebrities are public figures and do not have the same expectations to privacy as private citizens. I don't really care one way or the other.
And ET is correct, the address was never provided. Not that it matters.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 1:24 PM
Minard,
Do you really think all celebrities are alike?
You might as well have said...do you really think Asians like it when people talk about them.
What an odd thing of you to defend picking apart someone's house.
Posted by: 11217 at February 8, 2010 1:25 PM
"Ironically 11217, this discussion started out about the windows and facade and YOU first mentioned the celebrity aspect."
Clearly you missed the words "Norah Jones" in Mr. B's write-up of this post.
Posted by: 11217 at February 8, 2010 1:26 PM
While I agree that the owner's name and celebrity status is irrelevant, it was also widely reported on in connection with this house. NY's daily newspapers reach many more people than read this site on a given day. Also, the owner was made part of the story by the allegation -- not initiated here -- that she got some kind of favoritism from the LPC. Her name has been linked to the news of these windows from the beginning. Maybe not fair to her, but not Mr. B's doing.
Posted by: slopefarm at February 8, 2010 1:27 PM
"Not to mention that Brooklyn is special in that it seems to attract celebrities who really value their privacy which is oftentimes why they've chosen Brooklyn over Manhattan."
Okay, this is an absurd statement. Brooklyn is not a private gated community. It's effing part of NYC. Paparazzi want to snap photos of celebrities, believe me they know where to find them.
Some streets in Manhattan have less foot traffic than ones in Brooklyn.
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 1:31 PM
I'm done arguing about it. We don't agree.
I think it's unnecessary to discuss the celebrity's name associated with this house and you think it's fine.
Done.
Posted by: 11217 at February 8, 2010 1:33 PM
11217: you are an odd duck.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at February 8, 2010 1:38 PM
11217: you are an odd duck.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at February 8, 2010 1:38 PM
Pot <> Kettle.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 1:39 PM
"Clearly you missed the words "Norah Jones" in Mr. B's write-up of this post."
Clearly you missed my point about the discussion that started between the posters.
No one that posted a comment mentioned the celebrity.
If it ticks you so much, email Mr. B. and take it up with him and address HIM and HIS use of the celebrity name.
Frankly, I really don't care who owns this house or any house for that matter. I just like 'ripping apart the houses'
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 1:40 PM
Mr. B's original write-up on the windows was commenting on and linking to a NY Post article which put NJ's name in the headline. Presumably, the windows' opponents were talking the celebrity angle up big-time. Mr. B is hardly the source of her exposure on this.
Posted by: slopefarm at February 8, 2010 1:44 PM
"No one that posted a comment mentioned the celebrity."
So I guess you missed the "Leave Norah alone!" in addition to Mr. B's write up.
Posted by: 11217 at February 8, 2010 1:45 PM
"I think it's unnecessary to discuss the celebrity's name associated with this house and you think it's fine."
If this is for me:
They (posters) WEREN'T DISCUSSING the celebrity's name! It was mentioned in the Title of the Post. It was a discussion (the posters talking) about windows, lintels and the facade.
Why should this house be exempt from being discussed? Cause it's owned by a 'celebrity'? Big Whoop, really.
This house is being discussed cause of the Landmark issue with the windows and the community up in arms over them.
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 1:50 PM
If the current owner, whomever he/she be, had any balls, he/she would ask the neighbor for an easement so that he/she could build a really nice bay clad in copper on that wall.
If I owned the land i would have suggested it. it would look incredible.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 1:55 PM
"Mr. B is hardly the source of her exposure on this."
True, I blame the windows for that.
:-)
Posted by: Biff Champion at February 8, 2010 1:56 PM
"No one that posted a comment mentioned the celebrity."
So I guess you missed the "Leave Norah alone!" in addition to Mr. B's write up.
- Posted by: 11217 at February 8, 2010 1:45 PM
Mr. B's write-up IS NOT a poster commenting! And until you mentioned the celebrity aspect NO ONE else did. You started this train crash and others jumped on.
Not sure what your defense of celebrities are or what point you're trying to make. Celebrities are in the public eye all the time and if you think that this thread is jeapordizing this celebrities security or well being, you are so mistaken.
But tell me how you feel about those windows and the LPC process and the neighbors fighting the windows.
oh dear goodness, I give up!
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 1:57 PM
I hope after all the windows are up. NORAH JONES gets a collection of Antique Phallic symbols and proudly displays them in the windows.
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 1:59 PM
btw - who's Norah Jones?
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 2:01 PM
ET, dh mentioned it at 12:18. that was the first mention.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 2:05 PM
We actually know what Norah Jones thinks about her home being photographed and shown; she doesn't like it. The New York Post showed us that.
And in answer to that, ET, now seems like a good time to end my private, long-running joke.
Bjork maintains a punishing tour schedule with more than 250 days on the road, capped with several outdoor stadium concerts every year in Brazil, Scotland, Australia, and her native Iceland, performing in front of as many as 90,000 persons.
Posted by: infinitejester at September 28, 2009 1:29 PM
However Norah does play to packed houses abroad and generally maintains a punishing tour schedule of 250+ days on the road. She is often a headlining, festival-closing act in such places as Scotland, Brazil, Australia, and Italy, often performing before 80,000+ people.
Posted by: infinitejester at November 19, 2009 2:03 PM
Posted by: infinitejester at February 8, 2010 2:08 PM
Dave, I really don't give a crapola. Not sure why I got into this 'discussion'.
Just sick of people thinking that celebrities are above everything else and need not to be mentioned. Believe me, if 'Norah Jones' was irked by all this discussion about her windows and her name used in the media regarding these windows, her publicist would be on it. They'd contact Mr. B and request, threaten and do whatever else publicist do.
NORAH JONES BOUGHT A HOUSE IN COBBLE HILL AND IS PUTTING IN SIDE WINDOWS.
Big Fucking Deal that it's Norah Jones!
Please, let's get over ourselves already.
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 2:14 PM
They aren't above anything else, ET.
If this were your house, Mr. B would either use the word "a poster" or "Expert Textpert"
He wouldn't be announcing your REAL NAME in conjunction with this. The ONLY time names are mentioned is when it's a celeb and THAT IS WRONG!!
Posted by: 11217 at February 8, 2010 2:19 PM
If Mr. B posted my apt. (not that it's worthy of discussion) and real name, I wouldn't care. Why? Cause it's great exposure for me.
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 2:36 PM
"Would Brownstoner like it if some other blog posted pictures of his house?"
If I recall Mr. B STARTED this blog with pictures of the house he bought and renovated!
Posted by: denton at February 8, 2010 3:15 PM
I'd love to follow the progress of this.
I hope Mr. b has learned a lesson here and does not post it again as the "Norah Jones House" so that it doesn't generate excessive posts and page views.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 8, 2010 3:43 PM
"I hope Mr. b has learned a lesson here"
What lesson needs to be learned here? That people are sensitive at the mention of a celebrity. I guess all the TV shows, newspapers, magazines should learn a lesson also and never mention celebrities.
"does not post it again as the "Norah Jones House" so that it doesn't generate excessive posts and page views."
um, yeah right. Hello.
Posted by: Expert Textpert at February 8, 2010 6:09 PM
if norah jones does not wish to invite the public's gaze into her private life then guess what? she shouldn't be adding seven large windows on the side of her house!
11217 is very sweet trying to protect our local celebrities. Totally daft, but sweet.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at February 8, 2010 7:38 PM
1. Quote:
It's not like it is something completely off the wall, it's just windows.....
Posted by: STARGAZER 12:07 PM
LOL and QOTD
2. Then Minard gets to the structural issue here (quote):
as anyone who is familiar with these houses knows, the sidewalls hold up the floor joists, however the joists do not reach the walls where the chimneys are. The loads from those joists are picked up by a lateral beam and distributed to the joists on either side of the chimney. The chimneys are one of the structural weakpoints of most historic rowhouses. In this picture it looks like the new windows are being cut out from the bearing wall on either side of the chimneys. Where are loads being redirected? The chimney masonry? This looks so perilous. All the loads are being channeled into either a very thin area between the window and the chimneys or perhaps to the chimneys themselves. I hope someone really thought about this. The LPC does not look into those issues, it is up to the Department of Buildings to make sure the work will not cause a collapse.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at 1:13 PM
Minard, thanks again for your knowledge.
Posted by: BklynSoFar at February 8, 2010 10:39 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Madina
added March 9, 2010 12:00 PM in Kensington -
Cataldo's
added March 8, 2010 12:00 PM in Prospect Heights -
La Locanda
added March 5, 2010 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Manhattan 3 Decker Restaurant
added March 4, 2010 12:00 PM in Greenpoint -
San Remo
added March 3, 2010 12:00 PM in Ditmas Park -
Fanny
added March 2, 2010 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Pio Pio Riko
added March 1, 2010 12:00 PM in Greenpoint -
Santa Fe Grill
added February 26, 2010 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Vox Pop
added February 25, 2010 12:00 PM in Ditmas Park -
Cafecito Bogota
added February 24, 2010 12:00 PM in Greenpoint
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.