We Got Vinyl Windows Past Historic Preservation Review!

Posted on April 27, 2011 by BeatingUpwind

The general rule you always hear is you can never put vinyl windows in a historic building – they just won’t be approved. Well, we managed to get them approved – at least in a limited way…

For starters nearly all our windows will be “all wood” – what you’ve heard about no vinyl windows in historic buildings is generally true. The vinyl windows that got approved are 1) in shower areas, and 2) on a wall that’s on a narrow alleyway and not generally visible. We made the argument that putting a wood window in a shower was a bad idea – that plastic windows are much more appropriate since they won’t be affected by the moisture and shower spray. The fact that they’re not visible was also another significant contributing factor in their approval.

We even got exceptions with our “all wood” windows… First, the windows we’re using have protective metal trim on the most vulnerable parts of the window (see image to the right). Even that small amount of metal on a window makes historic preservationists nervous. Usually no cladding is allowed. But we were given an exception for that because 1) there are no original windows – so it won’t stand out as different than something that’s original, and 2) the metal will increase the lifespan of the window – and historic preservationists like things to last a long time. However, to get the exemption for the metal on the windows we needed to have the metal color matched to the wood so it won’t stand out.

It’s also worth mentioning that we’re getting away with not putting in double hung windows (yet another exception to general wisdom about windows in historic buildings). We’re going to have tilt-n-turn windows (they can open completely like a casement window or tilt in at the top). To get that exception we had to have true dividers in the glass so, from the outside of the building, it looks like a double hung window. That’s a big thing to give up for me – I really wanted huge panes of glass.

Now a caveat to all of this is that we are not landmarked by the City. We did not have to go through review by LPC (Landmarks Preservation Commission). Instead, we were reviewed by the New York State Historic Preservation Office and by the National Park Service.

What this shows is that historic preservationists can be flexible. There can be a give and take and if you satisfy their most important concerns you can “get away with” more than you might expect – especially when they’re dealing with National Park Service guidelines rather than LPC rules.

ConEd Residential Gas Rates & Meters

Posted on April 24, 2011 by BeatingUpwind

A week ago or so we had a call from our contractor – a guy from ConEd was at the job site talking to the contractor, the plumber and the electrician – and according to him we couldn’t do things the way our architect spec’d. We were planning on two gas meters – one for each unit with heating on our gas meter. He said you couldn’t get a gas meter for an apartment unless it had gas heating. That’s odd, since every apartment I’ve lived in in New York had separately metered gas that didn’t include heating. He also mentioned we could get a better rate if heating was on it’s own meter.

We thought it over, did some investigation and got back to him. Then he got back to us saying he was wrong – that we could have separate meters for each unit. But questioning everything got us to thinking about whether we were happy with our configuration.

Our initial configuration was based on the premise that the best way to encourage energy efficiency is to have people pay for what they use. If it works for electricity, why not do it with gas? With all the questions I started running some numbers…

Take hot water. We expect the tenant will have to spend about $200/year in gas for hot water, but if it were electric it would be $800. Drying clothes and cooking is probably that amount again. That’s only about $33/month for gas, but it’s $133/month for electric – so we can save our tenants $100/month by having gas instead of electricity for hot water and drying. That savings is reduced a bit because ConEd charges $16.80/month just for the meter and the first 3 therms of gas. So the real savings is only about $85/month, but it adds up and lower utilities will keep our tenants happy.

Now, we could just pay for the tenant’s gas – it’s only maybe $35/month (that’s what architect Peter Holtzman does himself and what he recommends). But the thing is, that’s only if the tenant uses their utilities responsibly. We’re not really encouraging conservation if we pay for whatever the tenant uses. So the bottom line is we want to keep the tenant’s gas on a separate meter.

But the discussion with the guy at ConEd raised another question – do we want a dedicated meter/line for heating? If you combine all your gas usage in one line you’ll pay about 79 cents/therm. Dedicated heating lines start at 69 cents/therm for the first 90 therms, then go down to 53 cents per therm. For really large buildings that use a lot of gas the rate gets down to 41 cents per therm, but townhouses don’t use that much gas. I did some searching on Brownstoner and it looks like well-insulated 3,000 sq. ft. townhouses pay about $300/mo for gas heating for the coldest months. We’ll have about 4,000 heated sq. ft., so our bill will be about $400/month. Running the numbers a dedicated line will bring that down to $300/month – but that savings is only during the coldest months. Total yearly savings would be maybe $400. BUT you have to pay an extra meter charge. I haven’t confirmed it, but I think the meter charge is only during the months that require heating. So that reduces the savings by about $150/year. So total savings is about $250/year (guesstimate).

We’re going to ask our contractor/plumber whether there would be an additional charge for the 3rd meter for heating. If takes more than a few years to recoup the cost we’ll just forget about it. But if it’s inexpensive (or they’ll throw it in) then we’ll put it in.

If you’re thinking about a separate line for heating it’s not worth the trouble unless you’ve got a fairly big townhouse. We’re at about 4,000 heated sq. ft. and it’s a coin toss. If you’re at 5,000 sq. ft. I’d definitely recommend it. If you’re place isn’t properly insulated I’d also recommend it. However, if you’re around 3,000 sq. ft. it’s probably not worth the trouble – the cost of the meter will just about wipe out the savings you get from lower rates.

UPDATE:

I’ve tried pretty hard to get an answer from ConEd about whether a dedicated meter for heating makes sense and I can’t find anyone who can answer the question (!) Hardly anyone at ConEd understands their rate structure and the one guy who seemed to know the most seemed to think I was crazy for asking the question. Then he started talking about how many gallons of oil buildings use that typically have dedicated meters for heating. The gallons of oil comment just floored me. Though I think it comes from selling gas service to buildings that currently use oil (he was a sales guy). He was incapable of talking in terms of size of the building – units, square feet, etc. He couldn’t even tell me what a typical, well-insulated 2 family or 4,000 sq. ft. house pays in heating on cold months. How can they not know that?

I’d really like to know how much to expect in utility bills every month, but it seems it’s just going to be a mystery until it actually happens. Architect Peter Holtzman was nice enough to tell me he paid $2424 last year for all types of gas for his 3 family townhouse on Astor Row. But then a townhouse owner on the Upper West Side said in the comments below that he paid about $800 for just February alone for his 5,000 sq. ft. 3 family. That’s a pretty big range of possible costs. So who knows?

I give up. They seem to just want to put in two meters – one for each apartment. We’ll just stick with that. The separate line for heating seems like a huge uphill battle that’s just not worth the effort. I guess if our heating bills are absurdly high we can investigate installing a third meter down the road. My guess is the bills won’t be all that bad, but I’ll always wonder if they could be a bit lower.

Pleasant Suprise – Bigger Rooms

Posted on April 23, 2011 by BeatingUpwind

The past few days we’ve been doing measurements and oddly the building seems to be bigger inside than we were expecting. Since we never could get much above the cellar (which has thicker walls) we didn’t have very precise measurements of the upper floors. Now that we’re actually up in the building we’re finding that the rooms in the front will be about a foot longer than expected, and the ones in the back will be about a foot and a half longer than expected. On top of that everything is about a 1/2 foot wider than the architect was assuming it would be, so we get more space in that direction as well.

When I met Dan I was living in a 350 square foot 5th floor walk-up in Hell’s kitchen (it got really crowded when he moved in with me and my dog). Now our master bedroom and master bath will total 378+/- sq. ft. – bigger than my entire apartment back then, though it”s still a walk-up – of a different sort 🙂

Speaking of the master bedroom here’s a picture of the 3rd floor in our unit looking toward the rear into what will be the master bedroom…

looking towards the master bedroom in townhouse under construction

We measured and we’ll have about 9 foot ceilings on this floor, which will be nice. The ceilings on the parlor floor are about 10′ 5″ – and I’ve forgotten to measure the floor in between – that one should be around 9′ 5″ or 10′ since floor height gets shorter as you go up in townhouses.

And here’s the layout for the floor (with original dimensions). Now it seems the master bedroom will be more like 13.5 x 20 – so about 270 sq. ft. I guess we could make the bathroom a little bigger if we wanted to, but I don’t really see how another 6 inches or a foot will make that big of a difference.

The front “bedroom” will actually be used as a den – that’s where we’ll have our one TV. It will have clerestory windows over the closet to get light in from the bulkhead – should be nice.

The view from the master bedroom isn’t all that inspiring… But hey, you can’t have everything 🙂

View from master bedroom in Harlem townhouse

I can’t wait to see the view from the roof. I’m hoping that building behind us doesn’t block the view of midtown that we’ve seen from the apartment building next door.

Just one more floor and a roof to go and all the structural will pretty much be done!

The New VW Beetle Is HOT!

Posted on April 21, 2011 by BeatingUpwind

My first car was a rusted out, bright yellow 1973 Super Beetle that my parents bought for me from my brother-in-law. Even when I floored it I couldn’t get it over 60 mph. Going downhill flooring it I might be able to get it to 65. Here’s a pic of a similar car (with much less rust)…

It was a good, dependable car and was one of the reasons why I later fell in love with VWs.

Then in the late ’90s VW brought back a redesigned Beetle, but it just wasn’t the Bug everyone loved – it was very watered down – sorta neutered and feminine…

Well, VW is finally fixing that mistake – there’s a new Beetle coming out and it looks hot!

That’s a hot, sexy car… Dan heard on some news program that said VW thought the previous design attracted too many women – guys (like me) just couldn’t envision themselves in it. So this Beetle is aimed at men, not women – and it shows. It’s a fun, sporty car. Just put a more pastel color on it and it should attract women as well.

Bravo VW!

Historic Buildings Exempt From Energy Conservation

Posted on April 18, 2011 by BeatingUpwind

This morning I was browsing Brownstoner and came across a post that mentioned that landmarked buildings are exempt from the NYS Energy Conservation Guidelines. I sent off a note to our architect and his expediter (who’s also an architect), and it seems the exemption is somewhat new. It’s somewhat ironic though, considering all the hassle DOB put our expediter though last year to show compliance with the 2007 energy code when it now appears we’re exempt.

Here’s the explanation of the exemptions:

Buildings & Spaces

National- and State-designated historic buildings, buildings certified as contributing buildings within National or State historic districts, and buildings certified as eligible for such designation are exempt from the NYCECC (ECC 101.4.2).

Systems

The building thermal envelope of low-energy buildings is exempt from the NYCECC (ECC 101.5.2).

Work Types

Life-safety work types: FA, FP, SD, SP (ECC 101.6).
Other work types not regulated by the ECC: FB, FS, EQ, CC, OT/BPP, OT/FPP, (ECC 101.3).

(Source)

Those codes will probably mean more to your architect than it does to you or me, but the big one is exemption from rules about the thermal envelope.

Of course, for practical reasons you want to be as energy efficient as possible, but this is the first case I’ve seen where landmarked buildings had less regulation than regular buildings – so it’s notable.

C of O issues @ DOB

Another post on Brownstoner is worth mentioning as well. DOB is requiring some poor homeowner to prove that their place is really 2 family when the DOB lists the building as 2 family and the DOF also lists it as 2 family. In other words, the DOB is not honoring their own building classification. The problem is larger buildings have I-Cards (the precursors to C of Os) which can prove prior approved usage, but with smaller buildings it’s extremely difficult to show when buildings were reclassified. In the case in question the building was converted from 1 family to 2 family in the 1930s.

Homeowner’s Night @ DOB

And lastly, I’ve been saying DOB really needs to help homeowners with their difficulties getting projects through the DOB bureaucracy. Well, it turns out DOB already does exactly that (who knew?) Tuesday night is Homeowner’s Night at DOB – from 4pm to 5:30. Just show up at your borough office and there will be someone to answer your questions. Though I did see someone recommend that you call first to confirm the meeting hasn’t been canceled.