Firewood: where to get it?

Gowanusadonis-

Indeed, I do love my contractor and it is NOT Metropolitan. I don't know why the paperwork for this renovation mentions Metropolitan -- that's not the name of the firm doing the job on Cranberry.

(Not that I want people to be upset with my contractor -- I just don't think it's fair that this accident get pinned on a firm utterly unrelated.)

-Peter

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at January 7, 2009 12:07 AM in response to Fire Guts Newly-Renovated Townhouse at 67 Cranberry

I'm going to have to be careful that I don't say too much here -- not because anyone did anything wrong but because it's just not my place to state too many of the facts definitively.

I know quite a bit because the contractor renovating my place was also renovating this place -- it was one of ~3 gut renovations he has underway (he usually has 3 going at once -- each in different stages.)

1. The contractor is an EXCELLENT contractor. He's been doing almost exclusively gut renovations in Brooklyn Heights for at least 6 years (maybe 10?) and usually has at least 1 house on the annual House tour. One sign of how good he is? Many of his customers are repeat customers. Another sign? A year+ into the process I still think he's great and have not a single disagreement or quibble with him. How man people can say that about their contractor?

2. It was not an insurance fire. The fire was started (I was told) by a sub-contractor's tool that malfunctioned. Furthermore, the fire started at 9am, with many people in the building -- not exactly a smart way to start an insurance fire.

3. The contractor runs an extremely professional, clean, safe environment. Obviously I don't know the situation at that house, but at mine there are fire extinguishers on every floor, a first aid kit plainly located, no smoking signs all over. And for the record, in a year of going by the site almost daily, I've never once seen anyone smoking.

4. Why couldn't they put out the fire? Again, it's not my place to say too much but from the way it was described to me, not only would it have been impossible to put out the fire, they're lucky to have gotten out alive.

5. In my unofficial opinion, the fire spread more quickly than might be typical because 1) there was no sheetrock/plaster at all, and 2) the fire started on the 2nd floor -- which was more or less open to the 3rd floor above.

This situation aside, I'm dismayed that anyone would leap to the conclusion that any house fire was intentionally started. While it certainly does happen, how often? 5% of the time? 1% of the time?

Peter

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at January 5, 2009 8:32 PM in response to Fire Guts Newly-Renovated Townhouse at 67 Cranberry

Add Brooklyn Heights to the list. My landlord and I saw a monster of a raccoon twice within a week. Once up in a tree in front of 187 Hicks (corner of Pierrepont) and once in the backyard of our brownstone across the street.

Personally, I'm impressed that he got into the backyards -- there's only one entrance in the whole square block... unless you climb up and over one of the brownstones.

Peter
http://www.FlashlightWorthyBooks.com
Recommending books so good, they'll keep you up past your bedtime. ;)

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at November 14, 2008 11:07 AM in response to Raccoons Take Clinton Hill

While the Purchase Building may have had some historic merit (I don't think it did, but I'm open to the opinion that it did) I think the view it opens of the bridge tower is a far more valuable part of Brooklyn's architectural fabric.

If the Landmarks Office was around when the Purchase building was proposed -- it never would have been allowed to be built in front of the tower in the first place.

Oh, and congratulations to Marianna and Regina!

Peter
http://www.FlashlightWorthy.com

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at October 28, 2008 12:22 AM in response to Number 6: Marianna Koval and Regina Myer

I'm so disappointed that the floating walkways are getting nixed because of potential concern to "aquatic life". I'm all for Environmental Impact Statements and being sensitive to the issues, but this is absurd.

Does this mean that no new pier will ever be built in NYC? After all, they'll cast a lot more shadow than these small floating walkways.

And did anyone consider that maybe they'll impact the aquatic life for the BETTER? After all, lots of creatures seem to love living under the piers -- quite likely some form of beast will love the protection/shade/shelter these walkways provide.

Finally, could we keep some of the walkways and do away with others? After all, the walkways along the edges of the piers are neat, but don't affect the traffic patterns of the park. The piers that connect each pier to one another -- those are the vital ones. They get you places and attenuate the waves and currents to create more kayakable water.

Peter
http://www.FlashlightWorthyBooks.com
Recommending books so good, they'll take your mind off how long this park is taking!

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at October 14, 2008 10:02 AM in response to New Concerns about Brooklyn Bridge Park

"NY State has passed a green roof initiative. Property owners will now receive a $4.50/sqft property tax abatement for every square foot of garden or green roof they install."

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that if I install, say, 1,000 feet of green roof, I get $4.50 discounted for every square foot? So I get $4,500 off my property taxes? That's a heck of a discount. Or am I misunderstanding?

And is that an annual discount or just a one-time thing to cover installation cost?

Also, who deems it a "green roof"?

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at October 1, 2008 5:09 PM in response to Back on Track

I think the pop-up park, like the pool last summer, show what a good job the BBPC will do with the final park.

There's been a lot of attention to detail and a solid effort to have something for everyone. I can't wait for the new park (though, I suppose I have to.)

Peter
http://www.FlashlightWorthy.com
Recommending books so good, they'll keep you up past your bedtime. ;)

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at September 29, 2008 5:42 PM in response to Closing Bell: Farewell Pop-Up Park

I was actually surprised that Bloomberg's NYC2030 didn't REQUIRE building materials, or at least a certain percentage, to be recycled.

In Austin, Texas ALL demolition materials MUST be sorted and recycled.

And you know what? It saves money. Instead of paying people to haul off your dumpsters and pay them to landfill it, you get PAID for the debris buy a company that sorts it out and recycles pretty much ALL of it in one manner or another.

Homeowner makes $$.
Business makes $$.
Jobs are created.
Environment benefits.

Maybe the only downside is the added time it would take to demo in a slightly more thoughtful manner. But when it comes to single family homes, the This Old House episode that showed the demo and sorting made it seem as if you can just jumble it all together as you typically would and then it's sorted on the recycling center site.

After all, they're trained to do that work so they'll be more efficient at it. Also, it's a better use of space to sort it out 20 miles out of town instead of in the middle of the city. And sorting it elsewhere allows for faster demo.

Now, could this be applied to larger buildings here in NYC? Not sure. But many are not just knocked down with backhoes -- after all, neighbors are too close. A lot are carefull dismantled piece by piece.

Peter
http://www.FlashlightWorthy.com
Recommending books so good, they'll keep you up past your bedtime. ;)

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at September 29, 2008 3:23 PM in response to The Times on Deconstruction

I too would like to get more details on the specifics. I'm in the middle of a large renovation myself. I wanted to capture and reuse the rainwater on my roof (and from 2 neighbor's roofs) but my plumber estimated that it be $30,000 worth of equipment and installation. 9it's more than just a rainbarrel. There's extra piping, backflow valves, ultraviolet sterilization, filters, etc. if you want to be up to code and use the water for any household uses (toilets, dishwasher, washing machine.)

I'm all for green building, but with an annual water bill of $600 or so (I currently live alone) it's would take me 50 years to pay back my investment.

Is there a less expensive way to do this? Details are appreciated.

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at September 24, 2008 5:54 PM in response to Green on Brownstoner: Reusing Rainwater in Boerum Hill

I'm surprised the city didn't at least call Olde Good Things. God knows they have tons of this stuff for sale. I don't know if the city could collect any cash from Olde Good Things, but at least the city wouldn't have PAID for the carting charges to the landfill. :-/

Peter
http://www.FlashlightWorthyBooks.com
Books so good, they'll keep you up past your bedtime. ;)

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at August 26, 2008 8:16 PM in response to Painful Side Effect of 4th Ave. Firehouse Reno

I think those shades are drawn to allow for the photos to come out. Otherwise the light from the windows would have caused everything else to be too dark to see.

Peter
http://www.FlashlightWorthyBooks.com
Books so good, they'll keep you up past your bedtime. ;)

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at August 25, 2008 11:22 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 24 Monroe Place