More on Cobble Hill's Windowgate
The Brooklyn Paper reports new developments in the Norah Jones’ great window scandal of 2009. First, it turns out that the famous singer’s designer originally applied to punch three new windows in the brick side wall but that it was Jones herself who pushed to modify the Landmarks application to add a total of ten…
The Brooklyn Paper reports new developments in the Norah Jones’ great window scandal of 2009. First, it turns out that the famous singer’s designer originally applied to punch three new windows in the brick side wall but that it was Jones herself who pushed to modify the Landmarks application to add a total of ten windows. Second, the Cobble Hill Association, which has been up in arms over the LPC’s approval of the request since it was made public, has counted up the number of similar houses with windowless side walls that it says are all vulnerable if the Jones precedent is allowed to stand. The tally? 70.
Windows 7 was Norah Jones’s Idea [Brooklyn Paper]
LPC Will Not Reconsider Norah Jones Decision [Brownstoner]
Cobble Hill Neighbors Irked by Norah Jones’ Windows [Brownstoner]
Photo by Stephen Brown for The Brooklyn Paper
Dibs and friends, my point is not so much where the windows are (and I know these are visible from the street), but that the neighborhood should have the ability to rule first on Landmarks decisions. If Landmarks decides that the windows – or whatever — are appropriate without sending the information back to the CB or at least notifying the local neighorhood association, I find it very unfair and undemocratic. And since these windows are visible from the street, the neighbors have a right to have their opinions heard, whatever those opinions may be.
Bxgrl — I am not sure what landmarking is other than “visual purity.” It seems everything else of importance in landmarking is achieved via zoning regulations. As I said, I don’t have a firm opinion one way or another on what the windows do to the appearance of the block, as there has not been any visual represntations of what it might look like.
Boerumresident- I am very pro landmarking and I love old houses. But sorry- the “approach” to a block? This reminds me of the guy who got his art critic knickers in a twist over the height of curbs because he likened the old bluestone curbstones to waterfalls and cliffs overlooking the Grand Canyon or some such nonsense. The windows destroy neither the character of the house, nor the block. The CHA sounds like a bunch of overwrought drama queens who have nothing better to do than squeal over imagined slights to their visual purity.
I thought they did have to go before LPC, just that they don’t require any serious degree of review if not visible from the street.
It’s probably not the best example, as lot line windows on an extension could be forced to blocked up by your own extension (unless there is some weird zoning variance between two side by side lots.)
Contra to Bxgrl’s belief that adding 10 windoes has no real impact on the block — I won’t accept that out of hand. I walk down this block not infrequently. I can certainly imagine that the approach to the block will feel quite different if there is a wall of windows 90 or 100′ down the right hand side. (I also wonder if there would be headlight glow in the house at nighttime, but that’s really the owner’s problem, not the neighborhood’s.)
And don’t start suggesting to people to ban cars — you never know where that might go.
bklyn20, yard windows would not have to go before landmarks if not visible from the street.
ROFL, NSR!
I don’t get the big deal over the windows. They will not change anything except the sidewall of Jone’s house. The significant aspect of a block are the facades, front yards and stoops – the dominant visual features. If people are that upset by how these blocks are significantly impacted by changes I suggest they ban cars, reinstall or restore the old cobblestones and wear period clothing.
Some visual elements have no real impact on the block as a whole. Adding windows in this case is enhancing the house, and is well within the context of the architecture and period. It’s not a drastic change like adding an extension, ripping off a cornice, putting in a steel front door or painting the brownstone lime green.Block residents should stop wasting their time and Jones’ over nonsense.
I think Boerum Resident has it right. The original proposal, that went to the local CB6 and was thus presented in a public forum, was approved by the CB and then went on to Landmarks. The request for the additional windows came up at Landmarks, and they did not send it back to the community for their approval.
While the extra windows may not be ugly or particularly inappropriate, the first look at any changes to a neighborhood should be evaluated by the residents of that neighborhood. In some cases, I think Landmarks has no idea of the local area details and is working with only the descriptions of the architect and building owner — who of course have their own vested interests.
Perhaps the windows seem like a non-issue, but if the same thing goes on with a rear yard extension next door to your house, wouldn’t you want to have a voice in its approval or disapproval? The alternative: you can have it presented to you as a fait accompli when you see the backhoe in your neighbor’s backyard.
I think it is too many windows for a lotline. Two or three new windows would be OK, but ten is too many. It will make the bearing wall more transparent than the street facade. It does not seem right to me. Or even sensible considering the structural and fire code issues. Only a dippy singer/celebrity would want to blow out her historic houses’s structural bearing wall to put in ten windows looking into her neighbor’s yard. A big waste of money.
Hyuk hyuk, Northsloperenter.