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.
bob- I agree that tastes change over time -but that relates to style. Windows are a whole other thing. I think those blank sidewalls were of necessity at the time they were built. Houses were planed to abut each other with no airspace. But if that didn’t happen, or if gaps appeared in the row. a blank brick wall is not only uninviting, it really wasn’t part of a design other than as needed for a rowhouse. But architecturally and artistically, I don’t know of anyone who would design a freestanding house or one with an open side wall without windows.
I have been asking for over a year for one of the preservationist advocates to spell out the underlying rationale of the landmarks law in a clear concise manner, other than, “It’s old and charming, so it should be landmarked”. I have yet to see anyone give a holistic rationale that is in synch with basic principles of economics and urban planning.
I’m now of the mind that the best way to derail this unhinged movement is to let it run its course. The LPC now has 20,000 buildings under its jurisdiction, and more is coming. Let 20,000 homeowners experience the joy of the LPC’s jurisdiction, and here is an excellent example. Let them continue to argue that freezing supply in wide swaths of the central city with excellent mass transportation has no impact whatsoever on the basic laws of supply and demand, as housing prices continue to escalate (millions of dollars for an 18 x 45 house, anyone?). Let the movement collapse under its own weight.
But that’s my point, bman! That’s what LPC should be empowered to do, not stop someone installing energy-efficient windows or repainting the door. Jeez.
AND once again, this is just another reason why people need to get a life. A brownstone stood empty for years, someone spends millions and purchases it, puts in a few windows and the neighbors go NUTS!! Not a pleasant way to welcome a new neighbor. Park Slope, Clinton Hill, Cobble Hill, new motto: I AM SPECIAL – !! YOUR NOT WELCOME HERE.
get a life, the windows probably added more real estate value to this home, more light! I hope they let her live in peace.
“As long as the windows are acceptable in design, match the front, there should be no issues except if someone wanted too many of them that it looked ridiculous.Corner buildings have side windows. No reason that other buildings can’t either.”
I agree with Dave, here, and Bxgrl and Stargazer regarding bringing light into these buildings. I know what you are saying, Bob, but I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. There aren’t all that many buildings that can benefit from this, in the grand scheme of things, and if steps are taken in landmarked districts to make sure they are done well, like Nora’s, I have no problem with it. Punching windows willy-nilly in the side of a building is a whole nother animal.
“Why doesn’t Landmarks stop the building of hideous new buildings and the teardowns and not sweat the small stuff?”
Because legally they can’t.
>How can we preserve our landmarks when windows can be put in places where windows were never intended to go?”
>WOW! Just wow.
EXACTLY. Just why there should be a Landmarks backlash. Ridiculous to say that because there weren’t windows when the building was built, there should not be now. Why doesn’t Landmarks stop the building of hideous new buildings and the teardowns and not sweat the small stuff?
I hate to disagree with people like bxgrl and daveinbedstuy, whose opinions I respect, but I think there’s a lot to be said for maintaining the integrity of historic buildings’ original design. Tastes change over time and if the LPC were to permit large numbers of side wall windows I think that people in future generations are likely to wonder how an agency charged with historic preservation could have ever allowed alterations like that.
Was just about to reply to the same quote as Ty. Have to say I agree with all the posts above. Norah’s windows are really nice, and do not detract in the least from the house. Landmarking is not intended to freeze properties in time.