We Have Chimneys!

Posted on September 28, 2011 by BeatingUpwind

Progress has seemed a little slow lately. Long story, but part of it is that they’re working on the front façade and cornice and they have mesh over the scaffolding, so we can’t really see the progress until the mesh is down so it feels like not much is getting done when there is actual progress being made.

One thing that is done are the chimneys. We’re not using the old chimneys. They were in really poor condition, were only ever made for gas fireplaces (too small for a wood burning fireplace), and they were on an exterior wall – which is a no-no since cold chimneys don’t draft well.

So we have a new fireplace in the living room (only) on the opposite wall from the originals and we’re putting the chimney up through each of the rooms above that as an exposed pipe…

We could have framed it out and put sheetrock around it, but that amount of sheetrock on an exposed brick wall would have looked weird and it would have taken up more floor space than the bare chimney does. It’s a little unexpected, but looks pretty good…

When you get to the roof it comes up the required 10′ over the roof…

That picture is sort of also a gratuitous pic of our skyline view (you can click to see a slightly bigger version).

Speaking of the fireplace it’s one of the few things we might have done differently if we had it to do all over again. Given that our place is a 15 footer the fireplace takes up a lot of width in the living room. Our couch doesn’t really fit right – we’ll have to design around it. And the fireplace will dominate the living room. If I were doing it again I’d probably go with a smaller gas fireplace. Still, it will be nice on a cold winter night to sit by a raging fire…

The chimneys / vents for other stuff are also now complete…

Going from left to right that’s 1) the rather huge exhaust vent for Dan’s art studio, 2) the plumbing vent, and 3-5) bathroom vents, boiler chimney, and hot water heater chimneys (not sure which is which). It’s a lot of stuff, but it’s gotta be there… You can also see the drain pipe for the front portion of the roof snaking past the vents.The roofer will be by soon to clean all of that up and make it water tight.

New Doors vs. Old (Salvaged) Doors

Posted on September 20, 2011 by BeatingUpwind

We have very little in the way of original details. The only place where we have original details is on the front façade. Our goal is to have a pretty traditional exterior and a completely contemporary interior.

The main front door to the house (parlor level) has been a big question mark. Initially we were going to do a completely contemporary french doors with a transom over them, but the NY Office of Historic Preservation nixed that idea because they see the front door as one of the most important parts of our entire house. So we opted instead for recreating the original doors. The problem with that was the picture to the right was only record of what our doors might possibly have looked like – and it’s a rather fuzzy picture and of our neighbor’s place, not ours. Also, it appears the door was originally all wood but we want some glass in our door. We figured if we tried to recreate the panel pattern, that Historic Preservation might let us get away with having some of the panels be glass instead of wood – but that was a gamble.

I always had using doors salvaged from another townhouse as an option in the back of my mind. We had been to Demolition Depot last year and I had seen doors that seemed like they’d work. They needed to be restored, but they were more or less the right size.

Dan was skeptical – he was convinced things at Demolition Depot would all be in horrible shape or we wouldn’t find the right size. I got him over there the other day to “look at how old doors were constructed” and luckily the doors I had seen last year were both still there. We took our contractor over to look at them and he’s game for using them. I also checked with historic preservation and they said it’s OK to use an old door – though we’ll need to submit an amendment.

The top contender is the door to the right. It’s the perfect size – 48″ wide, 119″ tall. It’s also in relatively good shape – though someone did cut a huge mail slot through the door at some point, but recently we’ve been thinking we’d go with a mail slot in the door instead of a mailbox – so the mailslot is OK with us.

It’s also got glass – which we’re really happy about. Now there’s no problem with historic preservation about having glass in the door.

The plan is to restore it and put new beveled, leaded glass in it. It should be pretty spectacular when it’s done. The question is whether to paint it or stain it. Dan really wants it stained, but I don’t think that’s practical. I think the repairs will be too visible if it’s stained. I think the way to go is to paint it.

Here are some more pics of it that we took – you can see the details a bit better as well as what the inside of the door looks like… (UPDATE: Now, newer, better photos…)

I love all the detail. I just don’t think we would have gotten that level of detail if we had had a new “replica” door built.

There is an alternate door we like as well. it’s an inch and a half wider – so we’re not completely convinced it would fit. At a minimum we’d probably need to trim it down. The windows on it start lower, which would be nice since it would let in more light, but I sorta like the detail on the other door better. Plus this door seems to be laminated – probably a thin layer of something like mahogany over oak. The laminate could prove to be difficult to restore. And if you’re just painting it when you’re done it’s not really important whether it’s mahogany or oak. Still, it’s also a very cool door…

All in all I think it’s sort of exciting to give old doors a new life. One of the principles of historic preservation is to not introduce “fake original details”, but clearly there’s an exception when you’re using doors another similar building in your neighborhood. Also, I think the decision might have been different if other of our sibling townhouses still had their original doors. Since all of them lack their original doors, there’s no continuity problem.

One thing I should mention… The old doors aren’t as airtight as new doors would be. One decision we made a while back was to consider the vestibule to be exterior space. We’re going to insulate the walls of the vestibule as if they were exterior walls. That means the main doors can leak as much air as they want and it won’t affect our heating/cooling bills. The interior set of doors will be proper, factory-made, contemporary doors that will be airtight.

It looks like we’re also going to get some balusters for our stoop railing from Demolition Depot. Unfortunately they don’t have the railing to go over them – so we’ll have to have that fabricated.

UPDATE: The one I mentioned as the “top contender” is the one we purchased. The size appears to be absolutely identical to what was in there originally – it’s a bit uncanny actually. Now we have to figure out the mail slot, the door knobs, the locks, etc…

What Brownstone Is Supposed To Look Like…

Posted on September 13, 2011 by BeatingUpwind

Back in the late 1800s when most of Harlem was built brownstone was all the rage. It was a local stone (quarried in Connecticut) and less expensive than limestone. BUT brownstone is a far softer and more porous stone than limestone. The limestone façades aged much better than the brownstone ones did.

One problem was that brownstone has a distinct grain where limestone doesn’t. People in the 1880s and 1890s didn’t really like to see the grain so the stone was cut in line with the grain. That meant that as water got into the stone and froze the stone would sheer along the lines of the grain and flake off. You can see this happening on our house in the picture to the right.

To compensate people have been painting brownstone, and putting stucco finishes over it that simulate brownstone. You don’t actually see many true brownstone finishes in Harlem any more. That’s always made me wonder what brownstone was supposed to look like…

This past weekend we went to Pasvalco over in New Jersey and I mentioned to the woman who was helping us that we were renovating a brownstone but I wasn’t sure what brownstone was supposed to look like. She showed us pictures of a project they did on the Upper West Side for Mark Gorton – founder of Limewire (software that facilitates illegal fire sharing). Back in 2005 he bought 108 West 76th Street for $4.8M (all cash) and then proceeded to do a major renovation on the place. He (almost) completely replaced the brownstone façade on his 5 story, 9,250 sq. ft. single family townhouse. Pasvalco did the job using brownstone quarried from Connecticut. So if you take a look at 108 W 76 that is how brownstone is supposed to look…

In the picture below you can see how much grain there is in brownstone…

That’s with brownstone cut “correctly” – with the grain showing so it won’t flake. As I mentioned, back in the 1800s they cut it differently so the grain wouldn’t show so much, but that caused flaking. I personally think the grain is rather beautiful…

Given that brownstone used to be less expensive than limestone but now it’s far more expensive, I asked one of the guys why that was. The answer was pretty simple – there used to be 30 or 40 brownstone quarries in Connecticut, now there is just one quarry and it’s only a 3 man operation. Simply put the owners of the other quarries made more money turning their land into condo developments (land in Connecticut is expensive). In contrast there are still lots of large limestone quarries in places like Indiana and shipping costs are (relatively) lower than they were in the late 1800s.

One other factor that makes brownstone expensive is that the stone yards have to assume 100% waste when working with brownstone. So they have to quarry twice the amount they need. With limestone there’s much less waste, so less material is needed to complete the job.

While raw, properly cut brownstone is gorgeous, it’s simply cost prohibitive for Harlem brownstones. In our case our façade is currently painted and in generally decent condition. For the most part only the lintels and sills are deteriorating – most of everything else is in pretty good shape. The National Park Service allows you to repaint in a situation like ours, so that’s what we’ll be doing. We’ll repair what damage we find and then repaint. The next most expensive solution would be to chip and resurface with a brownstone-like stucco – but we need to control costs…

The NYC DOB Is Completely Broken

Posted on September 3, 2011 by BeatingUpwind

Given all the grief the Department of Buildings has given us, I was a bit bowled over recently when a building in our neighborhood got a new C of O after a renovation that included ripping out the sprinkler system and not replacing it.

I’m sorry, but multiple people at DOB reviewed this project – a plan examiner, a C of O inspector and the DOB’s FDNY rep just to name a few. How did this happen? The information was right there staring the DOB folks in the face. A quick look at the “Actions” section for the building on the DOB’s own web site shows that there was an existing sprinkler system in the building…

That shows that a sprinkler system existed in 1941 and 1945. But when the homeowner submitted the paperwork to the DOB they flat out lied and said they were not permanently removing sprinklers…

No permanent sprinkler removal Now, I don’t blame the homeowners. Having been through the process your architect hands you a pile of papers and tells you to sign at the X. If you find the paperwork overwhelming you might not look at what you’re signing. Ultimately I blame the architect – they signed the paperwork as well (and even stamped it). I think architects who lie about life/safety issues should have their licenses revoked.

Still, it’s the job of the DOB to find problems like that. If they’re not there to find life/safety issues like ripping out sprinkler systems, why do they exist? If multiple people can’t find a really obvious problem like that, then they’re just completely broken.

ConEd Says EIGHT MONTHS To Get Gas/Electric Service

Posted on September 1, 2011 by BeatingUpwind

Today was not a good day. The ConEd guy came by and said it could be as much as 3 more months to get gas and electric service. We’ve already waited 5 full months – so that means 8 months to get utility service. That’s absurd.

The first five months was because ConEd refused to install their part until DEP had installed the new water main connection. Word to the wise – just flat out lie to ConEd and tell them you’re using the existing water main connection. The water main sub contractor will be under the control of your contractor – just get them to dig carefully. Also, a good idea is to put the new gas and electrical connections as far away from the water main connection as possible – it will minimize the chance that ConEd’s stuff will be disturbed.

But the rationale behind the additional 3 month wait is just retarded. Apparently ConEd only has one contractor working for them who’s got clearance to dig up streets in New York. There’s another contractor lined up but someone is dragging their feet signing the paperwork to get that contractor going. Meanwhile the first contractor has a backlog of 70 to 80 jobs, hence the 3 month wait.

But it gets worse… ConEd’s budget for installing new electrical/gas service is nearly exhausted. There’s no money at ConEd to pay their contractor to do the installations. What properly run business doesn’t have the money to start up new accounts? That just boggles my mind. They have to spend the money sooner or later and the sooner they do the installation the sooner they make money off us.

Needless to say, I blew up. 8 months is insane. The ConEd guy said he couldn’t start our 3 month wait because the electrical / plumber hadn’t put in the new sleeves (holes in the wall). So I was all over the electrician asking why they weren’t done yet. He said they weren’t done because he said ConEd said they wanted to wait for the water connection to be done. So I pushed further – why not just put them in anywhere (they could always be redone)? Then the electrician and the ConEd guy both tried to say they had to wait to see where the water connection came through the wall. I wasn’t having that excuse – the water connection came through EXACTLY where it had been before. Nothing changed.

Then I was all over the ConEd guy – if he knew it was a 3 month process why didn’t he say something to that effect earlier? Why not get us into the queue months ago? Why do we have to wait 5 months to start on a 3 month wait? If he had put us into the queue at 2 months we would be at the top of the queue now and everything would be fine. After waiting for 5 months we shouldn’t be told we have to go to the back of the queue.

When it was clear the ConEd guy was at fault, he said he needed to go to another appointment and he just turned and left. Nice. He causes us major problems and can’t even say ‘sorry’.

I should stop and say that as much as I rag on the bureaucracy at City agencies, our experience with DEP to get the new water connection was nearly flawless by comparison. Despite a hurricane doing a direct hit on the City, DEP managed to get us a water connection two weeks and two days after we got final signoff from DOB. Kudos to DEP!

The only silver lining to all of this is that the additional 3 month wait won’t hold anything else up. The electrical and gas inspections can be done without electrical or gas service. So we can close up the walls, etc. Still, it’s a bit insane that we won’t get electrical and gas service until right before we move into the building. Pretty much the entire job will be done off generators. Hopefully there won’t be freezing weather before we get gas and electric, since we’ll need those for heat to stop the pipes from freezing.

So there is something worse than the NYC Department of Buildings… ConEd…

Update #1 (that night): I’ve filed a complaint with the New York State Public Service Commission Office of Consumer Services. They have a handy online form you can use to make complaints against utility companies. We’ll see if it helps.

Update #2 (the next morning): Dan called the guy’s boss and left a message and then the boss called back a half hour or so later and said he had talked to the guy several times about us this morning. I think after I blew up yesterday the guy realized he had to do something. They’re now on top of things and are going to make sure there are no delays. The boss reiterated what I had been told that 3 months is a worst case scenario, but he didn’t say what the average wait time is. If it’s 2+ months then it’s still the same problem. We don’t know whether he’s aware yet of my complaint to the public service commission. But our strategy at this point is to be a very squeaky wheel that can’t be ignored.