More Oversight for New Windows on Landmarks?
The Brooklyn Paper has a story about how the city is looking to beef up restrictions on homeowners who want to put in new windows on the sides of buildings in historic districts, a move that comes after the stir caused by Norah Jones putting in windows on the side of her Cobble Hill house…
The Brooklyn Paper has a story about how the city is looking to beef up restrictions on homeowners who want to put in new windows on the sides of buildings in historic districts, a move that comes after the stir caused by Norah Jones putting in windows on the side of her Cobble Hill house and, perhaps, the controversy over 227 Clinton’s owner wanting to do the same. According to the article, the current law governing such alterations is “ambiguous,” and an LPC spokeswoman says there’s “a need for the Commission to set a limit on the number, size, pattern and placement of visible window openings on secondary facades.” Meanwhile, Roy Sloane, the president of the Cobble Hill Association, had this to say about the matter: “How can we preserve our landmarks when windows can be put in places where windows were never intended to go?”
City to Close ‘Norah’ Loophole [BK Paper]
Photo from Lost City.
LPC has already started the process of streamlining certain types of requests and is shrinking staff through attrition (3 positions in 2010).
I agree that the LPC can be too nit-picky. I believe that the Commission is going to have to modernize and streamline their review process because there are more and more historic districts in the pipeline and no more staff. In fact, they will probably be shrinking through attrition over the next few years.
I hear that there is a big push for allowing more windows on historical facades from the Peeping Tom and Voyeurs lobby.
I am arguing in favor of balance. No question that LPC should be able to restrict or forbid major alterations, including teardowns (which apparently they can’t do, how stupid is that for so-called ‘preservation’?) Iow, preserve the street facade and general esthetics.
But I do think they should have no authority over painting doors and trim, window types as long as they generally conform to the building (ie, what’s actually *wrong* with casements, anyway? they’re so much more practical and energy-efficient), lighting, etc. And if you want to replace your incredibly expensive slate roof with something look-alike, let them pay for it if you’re not allowed to.
bfarwell- buy six units you get a discount 🙂
I agree with that, minard.
You’re right, BSM- but I hear they had a problem because they have to incorporate sea air which was too refreshing. They might have two versions now- without sea air for those who want the unadulterated experience, and with, for those who like a little sugarcoating on their truth 😉
Heh. bxgrl, put me down for several rooms’ worth of asylum. A perfect fit with the current state of the apartment.
Minard;
The statements I make on this site and elsewhere are motivated by my desire to improve the life of my native and life-long city. If you find my statements to miss your definition of “balanced”, I can live with it. I make reasoned arguments, and leave it to each reader to judge them on their merits.
Bxgrl – you forgot my favorite “bowels of the saiing ship” air.