interesting comments
question: what kind of hoops are they putting up these days in terms of ADA compliance in old brownstones with three or more units?

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 3, 2010 1:25 PM in response to Conversion and the DOB

City Hideous Movement

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 3, 2010 1:22 PM in response to Another Perspective on 25 Washington

you will need to kayak way past Nyack.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 3, 2010 11:59 AM in response to Staycation: Bannerman Castle

In general, when the state of NY buys land to add to its park system and that land happens to have on it historic buildings or structures, that is the end of said buildings and structures. Only warfare destroys historic buildings more methodically than the Office of State Parks -also known as Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, although the latter division is largely window dressing.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 3, 2010 11:46 AM in response to Staycation: Bannerman Castle

there are two topics (at least) on brownstoner that I will absolutely not comment on.

1) bicycle lanes that take up a lane of real traffic.
2) boiler room inspection by prospective co-op buyers.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 3, 2010 11:42 AM in response to A Tree Falls in Park Slope

Americans unlike Europeans have never had a tradition of pollarding or trimming trees. Here we think the tree should do its thing. While I agree with this approach in country settings, here in the city Parks should inspect and prune street trees. On my block a huge London Plane tree branch -those trees tend to have almost horizontal branches- crashed down a few days ago. Fortunately, as far as I know, no one happened to be under it at the time.
Once the city gets the bike lane mania out of its system (it probably won't be long now) it should dedicate itself to other public works such as maintaining, not just planting, street trees.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 3, 2010 10:28 AM in response to A Tree Falls in Park Slope

The pencil factory is in Greenpoint? Then that reinforces my view that the landmarks commission has a williamsburg phobia.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 4:30 PM in response to Building of the Day: 70 Havemeyer Street

Actually, I do recognize this building from a list put together by the MAS some years back. Most of Williamsburg is devoid of landmarks. The Commission must have been scared off years ago and has never dared return. They did designate a pencil factory last year I think.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 4:23 PM in response to Building of the Day: 70 Havemeyer Street

denton,
1. if the apartment and the parking space are part of the same share allocation then they are stuck together and can no more be split apart than a bedroom or kitchen. That's different, in that case, a sublet of the space would be the best bet.
2. I would not let a prospective buyer look at the boiler any more than a shareholder. those rooms are off limits in my building except to qualified personnel. If a prospective buyer tells the board to change the boiler or upgrade the electrical or redecorate the lobby, that applicant would be seen as a dangerous flake and would most likely never be approved.
3.in terms of leaks, if a leak is the result of a pipe burst in the wall or ceiling, it is the co-ops responsibility. if it is because a shareholder forgot to watch the tub and it flows over, it is the shareholder's insurance responsibility.
And to answer Manhattanite's question, yes I have found that most people willing to dedicate time and energy to serving on their building's board largely do it for selfless reasons, there are the exceptions but the good people on most boards more than compensate for the bad ones, and most importantly, unlike North Korea, there are real annual elections in a co-op.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 4:19 PM in response to Buying Parking Spot in a Co-op

where is this really? Philly?

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 3:48 PM in response to Building of the Day: 70 Havemeyer Street

Very Tiburon Bay Area.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 2:59 PM in response to Windsor Place Gets Modern

denton, you're a silly goose. I don't understand your comment about difficulty with the mortgage on a parking spot. First of all, you don't mean mortgage do you? You mean Co-op loan right? remember we are dealing with shares not real estate.
The questioner asks about purchasing the parking space, which should be a straightforward transaction like any other transfer of shares. Of course the board must approve, and of course the board's closing attorney must be at the closing to place the corporate seal on the transfer documents and of course new shares need to be issued in the new holder's name.
No rocket science here, or evil vampires to fend off.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 2:57 PM in response to Buying Parking Spot in a Co-op

co-op boards are not universally evil. Manhattanite must have had a bitter experience as many of his posts lash out at the folks who volunteer their time to serve on boards of directors.
In terms of the question at hand, of course you must speak with your managing agent, and find out the rules from the get-go. These are your neighbors, you gotta get along.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 1:54 PM in response to Buying Parking Spot in a Co-op

Nice house and nice layout. I just question the wisdom of buying such an expensive house and having the rental unit be as large as the owner's unit. It is more like a two-unit condo. This is an astronomical price to pay in order to live in only half the house.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 1:34 PM in response to House of the Day: 242 Bergen Street

I'm sure it is a remote-control operated gas fireplace. When I first saw one about fifteen years ago, I thought it was the stupidest thing I ever saw, but since then I have mellowed and think they can be pretty nice. I disagree that this is an ugly intersection. One Hanson Place is an ugly intersection, this is much more user-friendly and residential in feeling.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 1:27 PM in response to Rental of the Day: 183 State Street

The column/fireplace does not appear on the floorplan, which is very poorly rendered. Things like that annoy me. And it cheapens the product.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 1:05 PM in response to Rental of the Day: 183 State Street

It looks like the apartment has a large terrace, not a balcony. Big difference. The outdoor space is really nice.
I agree that the fireplace looks silly attached to a central column but it probably is pleasant when lit on a cold windy day.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 12:59 PM in response to Rental of the Day: 183 State Street

I used to marvel at people who knew shorthand. Their notes looked liked Arabic or ancient Korean.
It must be a very useful skill if one needs to take notes or minutes of long meetings.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 11:57 AM in response to Walkabout: Stenography and the Law in Brooklyn

Call your City Council person. They usually have good experienced staffers (non-pols) that can place calls on your behalf. But the DOB is a tough one. Lately they are stiff-arming everyone. Months ago I wrote about the nightmare experience of filing and pulling a C of O and as usual, was poo-pooed by the oh so experienced posters who know that city governemnt is there to serve the tax payers and that all one had to do was show up and demand your rights, HA HA! -They are probably the same folks who think it is a snap to get rid of rent-regulated tenants.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 11:15 AM in response to C of O Application in DOB Sink Hole

very interesting indeed. thank you.
The Stern building is a very sophisticated work from one of the country's most sophisticated design firms. We are lucky to have it in our little municipal district.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 2, 2010 11:07 AM in response to Walkabout: Stenography and the Law in Brooklyn

Another guess is that someone dropped the parlor floor joists in order to get more height inside -note the bricked-up basement windows that could be a sign that the floor was dropped and now sits directly behind the former windows. Interesting.
The mission style was very popular in the 1905-1915 period and the dark Victorian facades were becoming very unpopular.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 1, 2010 5:10 PM in response to Building of the Day: 377 Prospect Place

MM my take on these is that they are 1870's vintage.
Around 1905 or so they were updated with the Mission-style pent roof and stucco facing that lightened up the color of the facade -it is red brick beneath. Around that time the stoop was removed and the front door was lowered. Notice that the door's threshold is below the basement beltcourse. That is not traditional or usual. Also the transom is a strange proportion. I bet that once one enters, there are more steps up. I doubt that these houses were originally built with a two-step stoop.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 1, 2010 4:56 PM in response to Building of the Day: 377 Prospect Place

Atlantic Center garage?
That sounds gruesome.
No Thanks.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 1, 2010 2:59 PM in response to Condo of the Day: One Hanson Place, #16J

badger, the organ looks to be in front of a large side window on the rear ell.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 1, 2010 2:34 PM in response to House of the Day: 287 Dekalb Avenue

I like the building but not the location. That intersection is just insane. It just does not seem like a residential context. The access to subways is excellent but getting there by car is a hassle and I don't think the building has a garage. That may not be a concern to many posters here, but to someone looking to spend big bucks on a luxury condo it usually is.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 1, 2010 2:21 PM in response to Condo of the Day: One Hanson Place, #16J

Thanks MM, thought so. By 1905 the materials palette and stylistic trends were quite different.
The woodwork is unbelievably great. Whoever buys this is buying a piece of American history. I hope they appreciate that fact.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 1, 2010 2:08 PM in response to House of the Day: 287 Dekalb Avenue

1905, really?
I would have guessed earlier. This style was over by 1894 or so. But I suppose there may have been clients with old-fashioned tastes.
This is a great house.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 1, 2010 1:57 PM in response to House of the Day: 287 Dekalb Avenue

I can live with the idea of people painting over the wood and the tiles. That can be undone as illustrated above. What bothers me is the newer trend of ripping features like these out and placing them in a dumpster if your anal compulsive architect can't live with anything that is historic or not part of his "signature style".

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 1, 2010 1:33 PM in response to Parlor Floor: Fireplaces Stripped

The monthly maintenance is almost $1700.
Is that what I'm reading?

That is pretty high.
Maybe too high.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 1, 2010 1:08 PM in response to Condo of the Day: One Hanson Place, #16J

jester, that's harsh. she didn't even see the bouquet, ouch!
If she had liked you she would not have minded the carnations, especially since Seaport always uses all those fancy ribbons, girls love that.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 5:28 PM in response to Seaport Flowers Gets Signage, Opening Soon

Montrose's buildings have a way of turning into the grimmest looking piles when they are neglected. Fortunately they clean up well. Wonder if this building will ever get a second chance like the Alhambra and the Roanoke.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 4:20 PM in response to Building of the Day: 76-82 St. Marks Avenue

The building seems extremely well maintained and operated. In fact it is impeccable. The board looks to be doing its job very well.
Having a shareholder go into default is a nightmare for any board. None of that is controlled by the board but rather by the courts. Boards do not have the right to evict without lengthy court procedures. That is one of the reasons why it is so important to screen potential buyers. I honestly do not know how a small co-op manages to survive a shareholder foreclosure. Perhaps the courts treat those cases more expeditiously, but I doubt it.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 4:16 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 70 Remsen Street, #5J

Another distinguished example of the City Hideous Movement.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 3:37 PM in response to Mutant Ninja Building at 869 Pacific Street

This was a residency hotel, the dining room was downstairs. Surely posters on this sophisticated blog are familiar with this sort of arrangement from the hundreds of similar buildings all over the city?
It is what it is. Small kitchen small price. People manage to make a sandwich.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 2:20 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 70 Remsen Street, #5J

What is going on with real estate in Brooklyn? Are people nuts or is it just this blog? Get a grip on reality.
If you can afford this, rent a studio in Manhattan and avoid the hassle of begging cabbies to take you home late at night for the next four years.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 2:14 PM in response to Rental of the Day: 94 Clinton Avenue

So you already built it and now you want to get it approved?
Don't know the wisdom in that. The DOB is totally crazed at the moment. They could say anything. You would be opening a huge can of worms.
Why are your neighbors concerned? Did you do a sloppy job? They can put in a dunnage on their side too if they wish. It is pretty standard practice.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 2:10 PM in response to Permitting a Roof AC Unit

It seems like such a minor thing to worry about.
-unless you're neurotic, then it's major.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 12:57 PM in response to Should We Worry About Lead Paint?

prices seem to be moderating.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 12:30 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

jester, you don't give a girl carnations, no wonder she broke up with you.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 11:45 AM in response to Seaport Flowers Gets Signage, Opening Soon

I don't think it was the collapse of the Tacoma-Narrows bridge that ruined Moisieff's career as much as the film of the collapse. It is one of the great moments in early reality video. There were even some cars stranded on the bridge to give it extra drama.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 11:43 AM in response to Walkabout: The Manhattan Bridge, part 2

That storefront does not say "$65 tulips".
They are going to have to work on that.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 11:12 AM in response to Seaport Flowers Gets Signage, Opening Soon

good quote from Gray. Even I have to admit that the grandiose Manhattan portal is a bit ridiculous. I'm glad they moved the statues on the Brooklyn side to the Brooklyn Museum. They look wonderful there and are more likely to survive.
Years ago before they started on the repairs, I was stuck in traffic in the center of the Manhattan Bridge. All around me where rusting and peeling trusses, the lighting created weird shadows, and as a subway train rumbled across, the pavement heaved up and down like a 6.1 earthquake.
I thought: this is a vision from Dante's Inferno.
The City Beautiful aspirations of the Victorians were overwhelmed and replaced by the City Hideous movement of the 20th century.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 31, 2010 11:03 AM in response to Walkabout: The Manhattan Bridge, part 2

Two of the most important qualities in any human habitation are natural light and ventilation. These things are mandated by law in low-income housing projects. The affluent should keep in mind basic amenities when shopping for expensive apartments featuring fancy kitchens with sub-zero refrigerators.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 30, 2010 7:36 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 557 3rd Street, #2

the main TA headquarters is the huge building at 2 Broadway in lower Manhattan, this may be their Brooklyn HQ. Not bad digs considering how miserably and inhumanely they treat their customers. To paraphrase Lily Tomlin:

"we don't care, we don't have to, we're the Transit Authority."

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 30, 2010 7:11 PM in response to Building of the Day: 130 Livingston Street

from brooklyn heights/cobble hill it is pretty easy to catch the Manhattan Bridge back into Manhattan but I guess the cabbies suspect, probably correctly, that there will be back ups. fortunately the bike lanes will be open in both directions for those of us who like to ride our bikes late at night after the theater, dinner and drinks.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 30, 2010 5:04 PM in response to Closing Bell: No Cabbies to Brooklyn

sorry about the double posting, I don't recall hitting send the first time.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 30, 2010 4:26 PM in response to Building of the Day: 130 Livingston Street

it is pretty hilarious when you think about it: people are spending millions of dollars to buy houses in neighborhoods where cab drivers refuse to take them. Only in New York.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 30, 2010 4:25 PM in response to Closing Bell: No Cabbies to Brooklyn

This is a nice, sleek, urbane design. I appreciate that the MTA went to an "A list" architect rather than going to some politican's son-in-law as was more the custom.

Is Helmut/Jahn still in business? I had not known they had modeled Citispire after One Hanson Place. How interesting!
I suppose being Chicago-based architects, they did not automatically reject anything from Brooklyn as being declasse like Manhattan architects would.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 30, 2010 3:53 PM in response to Building of the Day: 130 Livingston Street

This is a nice, sleek, urbane design. I appreciate that the MTA went to an "A list" architect rather than going to someone's son-in-law as was more the custom.

Is Helmut/Jahn still in business? I did not know they had modeled Citispire after One Hanson Place. How interesting!
I suppose being Chicago-based architects, they did not automatically reject anything from Brooklyn as being declasse like Manhattan architects would.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 30, 2010 3:51 PM in response to Building of the Day: 130 Livingston Street

This is a commercial property. Works well as such. Depending on how much one would have to put into the infrastructure, the price makes sense. That location will always be desirable for a prime restaurant or retail tenant. There is no rent control for retail tenants so that is how to make up for the renters upstairs paying 1962 rent.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at August 30, 2010 2:56 PM in response to House of the Day: 44 Henry Street

the parking issue will be very clear as soon as you ask .. anyone. board member, seller, whoever. it may be owned outright as a separate unit and may have share allocated or not. this is done a lot with parking spots, cabanas, storage areas.. many times things that were added after conversion. anyway, it could be any unique situation that will be easy to understand when you ask anyone who knows what's what.

Posted by: Ringo at September 3, 2010 4:21 PM in response to Buying Parking Spot in a Co-op

Thanks to all for all your insites. I will be attending the homeowners meeting on tue to see whats going on.

Posted by: flawlessphoto06 at September 3, 2010 8:26 PM in response to Conversion and the DOB

Interesting thing about parking spaces. Every building is different. My building is a condo and we have residential units and parking units, each with a stated percentage of entitlement to common space and parking space owners have separate titles and pay separate taxes. Banks won't finance the parking space so if you need a loan for 80%, it's only the residential unit value they consider, but they take the mortgage over both pieces of property. We haven't had any resales of parking spaces, so I have no idea how it's going to be handled, but the board would not allow a sale to someone who is not a residential-unit owner, it would exercise its right to acquire.

In a co-op all transfers of shares must be approved by the board. It is possible to divide a shareholding and rewrite the proprietary lease, people combine apartments all the time, and the rules that allow combinations usually allow sub-dvision, but only with the consent of the Board. Boards are required to act in the best interests of the co-op corporation as a whole, any self-dealing is prohibited and an injured party can take legal action if they have evidence of self-dealing by a board member (evidence that will stand up in court and be sufficient to overcome the business judgment rule). Clearly the OP's first port of call should be the board. The board will have to approve either a transfer of shares or a sub-letting arrangement. If the board has established a procedure for such sales, like requiring the sale at an agreed price to the next shareholder on a waiting list (which would be covered by the business judgment rule) then they are unlikely to approve any transaction which seeks to circumvent those procedures.

Posted by: bohuma at September 4, 2010 6:06 AM in response to Buying Parking Spot in a Co-op

Thanks for all the great advice on this thread. My girlfriend and I are looking at different neighborhoods right now and Gowanus was our next stop. I think we will have to look around the neighborhood to get a good feel for ourselves, but certainly appreciate the headstart.

Posted by: buyingby2012 at September 4, 2010 8:39 AM in response to Living in Gowanus

Ok, we checked out Gowanus for ourselves and just don't think it is worth the money. Both Greenpoint (as another poster mentioned) and Bay Ridge cost the same or less than Gowanus, and are far superior neighborhoods in terms of livability.

We have been keeping a blog about our search for a home, so if you want to read our full report on Gowanus, you can check it out here:

http://iwantawalkup.tumblr.com/post/1069525165/review-gowanus-brooklyn

Thanks for all the advice.

Posted by: buyingby2012 at September 5, 2010 9:35 AM in response to Living in Gowanus

The issues are as follows:

1) When converting from a 2 to a 3 family you will not need sprinklers if you do it under 1968 code.
2) If you want to sprinkler the hallways then the sprinkler system will need to comply with 2008 code which will probabaly mandate the entire building.
3) If you can get away with a fire escape then the entire sprinkler issue shouldn't be a problem.
4) However, since it is a change from j-3 (r-3) to r-2 (j-2) according to the fire code there is a need to sprinkler the building unless you leave ut as RES.

Posted by: brooklynexpediter at September 5, 2010 12:34 PM in response to Conversion and the DOB