The Landmarks Commission allowed Norah Jones to bust out seven new windows on the side of her newly bought Cobble Hill townhouse—not ten, like she initially wanted. But it looks like she managed to get an eighth new light source in there anyway.
Unless, I'm mistaken, I spy a new skylight through one of the newly installed top-floor windows. Jeez, what's she gonna do up there that she needs so much light? Paint watercolors?
What Norah Jones does with "so much light" is her business. This is after all her house.
ReplyDeleteJust when I thought your Norah Jones fixation couldn't get any weirder or more trivial, you prove me wrong. So she has a skylight. Who cares? Having lived in a place with skylights before, and not having them now, I kind of miss them. And if I could afford a place with skylights, I'd move there tomorrow. Skylights are nice.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your point with this nonsense? You've said before that you're just trying to be funny, but your Norah-Jones-and-her-windows postings are an exercise in serial idiocy. Not funny, just stupid.
You guys are taking this too seriously.
ReplyDeleteI'm just following the building's renovations for fun. And I'm not the only one. The Norah Jones posts have gotten more linkage and clickage than almost anything I've ever posted.
Yes, and the ratings for "Jersey Shore" are sky-high. Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's not dreck.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize how much fun it is watching holes get punched in the side of a building. Excuse me, but I'm going to go have just a little bit more fun, and watch the grass grow in Owl's Head Park.
Honestly, I find your infatuation with Norah Jones and her house a little bit creepy.
If you don't like the posts, Carl, don't read them. And don't leave comments on them.
ReplyDeleteCarl, dear, the blog is about historical structures and establishments. When a celebrity buys an historical building and makes major changes to it, that's the kind of thing I'd expect to see in a blog like this. If it were being covered by the NY Times every couple days, that's what I'd call unwarranted.
ReplyDeleteYipes! Do not let the negative comments posted here squash any future attempts at humor.
ReplyDeleteI think maybe a good night sleep, and an effort to get up on the right side of the bed, may help some.
Of course it's not our business but who decides that?, for one reason or another we all visited this post...
imagine if we were called idiots for doing so?
Brooks,
ReplyDeleteNow how am I supposed to know I don't like a post until I read it? And what is this "Don't leave comments" stuff? Aren't you interested in promoting frank and open dialogue?
Yes, you're perfectly within your rights to cover this story as extensively as you have. But I'm also within my rights to state that zooming into someone's windows with a telephoto lens so closely that you can see their interior furnishings is weird, stalker-like behavior.
I stalk no one, Carl LaFong. People are stalked. I take pictures of a house in a landmarked district.
ReplyDeleteNow, if the house suddenly comes to life and swears out a complaint against me, I'll do my best to respect the house's rights and privacy.
Sorry, but taking (and posting) photos of a female celebrity's windows is really creepy.
ReplyDeleteIt's a series of window on the face of a building, John, that were put there out of variance from usual landmarking guidelines. That is my interest. Whether the building belongs to a man, a woman, or a "female celebrity" is beyond the point.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you and I live in completely different worlds, but it's one person's (in this case, Norah Jones) belief that their wishes are more important than those of an entire historic district that I find to be the creepy behavior here.
I do find the whole desperate search for a provocative 'blog worthy' bite a bit depressing in the aggregate. Oddly, the Venn diagram of people obsessed with celebrity homes like this tend to have a strong crossover with those who are paranoid about google street view. tee frickin' hee.
ReplyDeleteand the obsession of turning the city into a fly in amber rather than a dynamic, messy, constantly changing nexus of reinvention is futile.
ReplyDeleteRich: I'm not looking for hit-worthy posts. I post what I want and what interests me. And, frankly, most of what interests me had narrow appeal.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't want to dip the whole city in amber. Nor do I want to hand it over to a hoard of cretinous heathens for an uninspired, greed-driven, soulless makeover.
Jesus CHRIST, people, find another post to comment on.
...and putting windows on the side of a building; an action considered quite normal in most communities falls within this definition of cretinous, uninspired, greedy, or soulless? Look, you post the opinion, you turn comments on, it obviously resonates with people, I don't see why you want to hector people into shutting up about it.
ReplyDeleteArgh. That was a joke.
ReplyDeleteHey, comment all you want.
I think a lot of people who didn't grow up in houses in east coast cities find the lack of light in the middle of those homes makes them gloomy and dark. And that's probably particularly true if you grew up somewhere very sunny like Ms. Jones did (born in NYC, but raised in Dallas). I know my mother, from Michigan, always complains about how dark my place is when she visits me.
ReplyDeleteAs for the posting controversy, I think punching several windows in a historic home in a historic district is indeed interesting and news-worthy within the scope of this blog. The fact that she's a celebrity is germane to me because one has to wonder if she would have gotten the variance from the historic district zoning otherwise.
Oh ,and there's a big difference between holding onto the urban character of our cities by preserving historical structures and caring about the aesthetic integrity of neighborhoods and trapping the city in amber. And if you want to see why its important you can come to my Queens neighborhood where some older buildings and houses are being productively reused while many others are being
torn down and replaced with the plainest, ugliest, and most out-of-character structures imaginable.
OK, it's finally time to put the myth that Norah Jones got special treatment from LPC to rest.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link (pdf) to LPC's rules:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/pubs/rules.pdf
Go to page 26 in the pdf (page 2-17 in the document). You will see that there are rules for approving new window openings on visible secondary facades like the ones on Jones' house.
Basically, according to the rules, if the proposed openings generally form a consistent pattern, and the new openings and sashes "do not detract from the significant architectural features of the building," then they fit LPC's rules and will be approved.
Norah Jones' windows meet these criteria. LPC would have approved these windows if it was your house, or my house, or Norah Jones' house. If someone can show me how Norah Jones got special treatment here, I'd love to see it.
I'm tired of hearing people talking about the "variance" she got to install these windows. She didn't, and that's that. So stop it.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that top-floor skylight has been there since the previous owners did a renovation in the late 80s. That room already had great light without the two side windows.
ReplyDeleteInteresting one !! Don't understand what does Norah Jones do with so much light . Apparently, there would be some secret inside the building.
ReplyDeletemore power to Norah Jones go girl!!!!
ReplyDelete