if that renovation cost 250,000(and not 4x that) every contractor and sub needs to post their info on this thread right now! Seriously, no way this cost that little. Not knowing the scope I say $1M labor and materials- I mean, those doors alone must run 8-10K an opening!

Posted by: jelly donut at November 20, 2009 10:33 AM in response to Development Watch: Turnaround at 424 Waverly Avenue

As unfortunate as the neighbor's garden losing its privacy is, the only real issue here is the lot line windows. However DOB allows lot line windows for specific circumstances( length from adjacent building more than 60', sprinkler or fireproof the windows, sign a paper that says you will cover them up if someone builds to the lot line, etc).
LPC has detailed guidelines for non-primary facades. It's not like she is painting the building purple and adding 4 floors here!

Posted by: jelly donut at November 16, 2009 2:34 PM in response to Cobble Hill Neighbors Irked by Norah Jones' Windows

I agree with other posters. This does not sound like a real price,or the contractor is not counting on pouring foundation, supporting the addition with structure, finishing out the inside, etc etc. either that or they have the change orders lined up already.
Plus if it's a 3 family it is considered a multiple dwelling unit and subject to the MDL laws (more headaches an requirements your contractor probably has not considered). I suppose the contractor also said that you do not need to file for a permit for this kind of work too...

Posted by: jelly donut at September 4, 2009 1:11 PM in response to Expensive Estimate?

you need to "legalize" the layout. As the previous poster mentioned, hire an architect, expediter, etc and submit plans to the DOB. Make sure your extension complies with FAR requirements and rear yard rules- if it was legal to do part of the width, chances are you are ok on both FAR and rear yard.

Posted by: jelly donut at June 25, 2009 4:40 PM in response to Building Footprint Changed

this is why wet over dry is not that big an issue: how tall are your thresholds in your bathroom? Probably not tall enough to keep the water in if your tub overflows. So then the water runs out of the bathroom and into the next room where it seeps into the floor. Unless of course, you waterproof your entire apartment. It is not nearly as big an issue as people make it out to be and buildings are generally ok with you doing it most of the time as long as you waterproof correctly-which you should do anyway right? Noise, maybe, plumbing, perhaps. deal-breaker, no.

Posted by: jelly donut at June 9, 2009 2:18 PM in response to DOB Handicap Hell

they are not the same, and in my experience they are not enforced the same way (ADA does apply to public buildings, and since it is federal law, everybody needs to comply). i am an architect and do about 20 apartment/house renovations a year. i deal with this very issue almost every day-- actually all morning today.
In any case, it doesn't matter which standard (or if ADA is the same as LL58) they are being held up to in relation to this thread. Only that if you live in a multiple dwelling building and make a new bathroom, you have to comply.

Posted by: jelly donut at June 9, 2009 1:19 PM in response to DOB Handicap Hell

LL58 only applies for multiple dwelling buildings. If you live in a 1 or 2 family it does not apply. When you create a new bathroom (by creating one or moving fixtures) and you live in an multiple dwelling you need to do LL58-which btw is less stringent than ADA. Waivers are very rare, but I have heard of it being done. An expediter should be able to help.
Oh and, wet over dry is a joke that building engineers made up to get money out of coops. There are many waterproofing products out there that make this a non-issue.

Posted by: jelly donut at June 9, 2009 12:40 PM in response to DOB Handicap Hell

my guess is probably not. A lot of people tried to drive a truck through a loophole (specifically relating to mezzanines and ceiling heights). It's like Madoff's ponzi scheme, if it's too good to be true...
The City could require the buildings be torn down- but probably just require modifications to bring it into line. somebody must have already lost their shirt on this particular one.

Posted by: jelly donut at June 5, 2009 3:19 PM in response to Desperation Sets in at 364 Myrtle Avenue

grip: AIA does not provide insurance for architects, though architects should have errors and omissions insurance (essentially malparctice). If you are a registered architect and you are signing forms and drawings that you do did not have a part in making- that is illegal (not that it doesn't happen). Same as a lwayer, accountant, etc.
The big problem (there are many) with this building is that the architect self certified what was essentially a building that did not comply with zoning regulations. Nobody caught on (or wanted to catch on) until it was too late and the thing had been built.

Posted by: jelly donut at June 5, 2009 11:50 AM in response to Desperation Sets in at 364 Myrtle Avenue

we found something similar in a brownstone back yard in the heights. the one we found was a brick "pipe" and wall, we think it was for sewage. this one looks a lot more elaborate.good stuff!

Posted by: jelly donut at May 15, 2009 5:12 PM in response to Backyard Reno Unveils Old Well in Fort Greene

I think the take away message here is: "treat people like, um people" regardless.
As a new-ish resident in the neighborhood I have always made an effort to say hello, open doors, make chit chat, and generally treat my neighbors with the respect they deserve. On the flip-side, they have welcomed me and my family.
respect your neighbors, and they will respect you.
I know, a little sanctimonius... sorry

Posted by: jelly donut at May 8, 2009 2:29 PM in response to Rosie and Nelson Redux

atlantic yards already exists #1. It is a rail yard.

Posted by: jelly donut at March 9, 2009 10:18 AM in response to The Times Wraps Its Arms Around Fort Greene

karl is a butcher, how I loathe his work.

Posted by: jelly donut at December 19, 2008 2:09 PM in response to Breaking Ground on a New South Slope Karl

it is hilarious that the contractor says he will lower his price 10% as if that were his profit margin. Contractors in this city (especially the higher end ones)shoot for 50% profit. They still have a ways to go down before they are losing money on projects.

Posted by: jelly donut at November 14, 2008 2:32 PM in response to The Future of Construction Costs?

i think the condition of the houses is what made the houses more or less equal.

Posted by: jelly donut at November 4, 2008 3:25 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

"People pay good money to live in project style apts - I'm sure a mortgage on a 1 bdrm in Clinton Hill co-ops is comparable to a 1 bedroom rental in Stuy-Town/Peter Cooper Village."

Having moved to the Co-ops from Stuy town (before our rent was raised 50%) I can attest to the fact that the mortgage plus maintenance is almost exactly the same as a Stuy town 1 bedroom was about 3 years ago.

Yes they look like projects, like Stuy town, Kips bay, and if you think about it (sans the white brick) a lot of UES buildings.

Luckily we live on the inside of our building-not the facade. Very friendly community. Is my dream brownstone? No. But it is a nice place to live and very affordable.

Posted by: jelly donut at October 17, 2008 12:20 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 201 Clinton Avenue

gates were great, well done, waterfalls are not so much. the intended effect of seeing a torrent of water would have been really cool, instead we see a huge scaffold and a litlle bit of water. meh
As for the water corroding the bridge....You know, the bridge is built over the East River, it is going to be exposed to salt water...

Posted by: jelly donut at August 28, 2008 4:01 PM in response to BHA Wants Waterfalls Shut Down

2 things to consider
1-you need to provide a 42" tall railing to the roof you are augmenting access to. A roof deck can be a huge liability (with folks falling and all) protect yourself
2-at the moment that you are calling your roof usable space I would imagine that you need to provide a stair that is compliant with chapter 6 of the NYC building code (new code probably has similar requirements under means of egress). basically that means steps no taller than 8" and no shallower than10" (I think) with a 1" nosing, and the new code will prohibit open tread stairs for egress.

In short, a stair or ladder to a roof for maintenance has very few requirements, when you are creating an occupancy situation on the roof (one where people may need to escape in the event of a fire) the requirement become very stringent.

Posted by: jelly donut at July 28, 2008 3:52 PM in response to Stairs to Roof Deck