TOO COOL,
WHEN YOU WRITE IN ALL CAPS IT READS AS IF YOU ARE SHOUTING WHICH IS RIDICULOUS GIVEN THE CONTENT.
OKAY I HAVE TO GO BACK TO WORK NOW.

Posted by: young archi at November 6, 2009 1:27 PM in response to Development Watch: 580 Carroll Gets Its Glass On

modsquad - were you an article 7C IMD unit? if so, DOB looks the other way as far as handicapped (although, legally, they shouldn't...)
Otherwise, you hade a bad examiner and you're lucky...

Posted by: young archi at October 9, 2009 1:16 PM in response to Live Work Rezoning

I am an architect, and your architect is correct, though there are some hairs that need to be split.

Bathrooms don't need to be ADA (ADA does not apply to residential occupancy (except hotels, which aren't res) accessible, they need to be FHA adaptable. Slight difference, including grab bars don't need to be installed, but walls need to be reinforced in order to carry the weight of future grab bars.

If one of your bathrooms is large enough and laid out as a Type 'B' FHA bathroom, federal regs permit the second bathroom on same floor to be normal (not adaptable). However, DOB doesn't necessarily accept this federal exemption so I wouldn't count on it and if i were your landlady's architect i wouldn't bang my head against the wall for it...

Sprinklers would be required in front of windows without adequate adjacent space (ie: not on a street or a 30' yard) or any window fronting a fire escape...

Posted by: young archi at October 9, 2009 1:15 PM in response to Live Work Rezoning

....No, seriously

Posted by: young archi at October 1, 2009 5:28 PM in response to Downpayment as a Gift

You know, I don't know anything about loans and down payments but I know this: I am really jealous and I hate you :)

Posted by: young archi at October 1, 2009 5:28 PM in response to Downpayment as a Gift

get recs from the expediter - they will know the absolute cheapest professionals for jobs that don't really require anything but a license...

Posted by: young archi at September 30, 2009 12:39 PM in response to Rooftop Deck

arch or engineer to stamp and sign off.
expediter can find someone cheap for you

Posted by: young archi at September 30, 2009 12:03 PM in response to Rooftop Deck

hc
don't see what's vague about it - 3 apartments are 3 apartments - makes no difference to a tenant whether the other 2 parties in a building own or rent...i guess its possible i'm just used to MDL where it doesn't matter who lives there - 3+ units = multiple dwelling

however, the link is 3rd party - if it were me i'd probably research USPS regs to make sure the above posted link was accurate.
If so, I'd put in the mailbox, not because I thought USPS would enforce the rule but because @$$hole tenants tend to know how to leverage legal technicalities in their favor when it comes time to pay rent...

Posted by: young archi at September 30, 2009 11:17 AM in response to Mailbox Issue

Just because he's a jerk doesn't mean you don't have to provide a mailbox."
'Oh, but it does mean exactly that.'

No. USPS and MDL require a mailbox. Put in the mailbox

'young archi - The OP lives in a three family (two rental apartments) house. The requirement only applies to three or more rental apartment buildings. There is no obligation, legal or otherwise, in the case. Sorry.'

"United States Postal regulations require landlords of buildings containing three or more apartments to provide secure mail boxes for each apartment unless the management has arranged to distribute the mail to each apartment. Landlords must keep the mail boxes and locks in good repair."

Where are you coming up with the fact that the OPs unit does not qualify as an apartment? I don't deal with USPS, but MDL definition of a multiple dwelling (and every other legal definition I've encountered) is 3 or more apartments - whether the owner lives there or China makes no difference in this definition.

Posted by: young archi at September 30, 2009 10:51 AM in response to Mailbox Issue

you know what, i take that back. i believe MDL allows you to deliver the mail to your tenants - don't think USPS does though...

Posted by: young archi at September 30, 2009 10:44 AM in response to Mailbox Issue

"Just because he's a jerk doesn't mean you don't have to provide a mailbox."
'Oh, but it does mean exactly that.'

No. USPS and MDL require a mailbox. Put in the mailbox.

Posted by: young archi at September 30, 2009 10:39 AM in response to Mailbox Issue

Just because he's a jerk doesn't mean you don't have to provide a mailbox.

Put in the mailboxes!

Posted by: young archi at September 30, 2009 10:07 AM in response to Mailbox Issue

Red Lipstick.

Is it a canine brothel or something?

Posted by: young archi at September 24, 2009 2:45 PM in response to StreetLevel: Red Lipstick in Red Hook Coming Soon

that 'distinctive' angle is a prevision of the zoning resolution...

the architect let the loophole inform form...

not usually a great idea

Posted by: young archi at September 24, 2009 11:45 AM in response to Price Chops at South Slope Specimen

you should be looking at zoning not code.

The code referenced above is for work not requiring a permit (1968 code - I'm not even sure it still applies under current 2008 code)....

However, they almost certainly DO have a permit since they are already building a 5 story extension so that section of code is neither here nor there....

Of course they can build a concrete block wall on their lot line per Code (it may even be required), the question in this case is whether it is permitted by Zoning...

it probably is a permitted obstruction by the way, but I don't have time to check for you right now...

if you're in a residential district look at chapter 2, bulk regulations and look under permitted obstructions in open space and yards (separate sections)...

Posted by: young archi at September 22, 2009 12:08 PM in response to Help! Legality of Extension

kind of lame.
If you're going to do the guerrilla gardening thing, you should REALLY do it.

i mean, people should be getting off work to find their car covered in petunias or some $h#t - people should literally be stocking up on gardening shears like its 2001 duct tape because they are so scared...

i don't have a car but if i did i'd probably be pissed. i know i hate it when cars park in the bike lane - though obstructing a bike lane in traffic is dangerous for cyclists as opposed to merely inconvenient...

Posted by: young archi at September 18, 2009 12:52 PM in response to Park(ing) Day on Fulton

My favorite blog on Brownstoner by far...put me down for a copy of that book...

These are pretty amazing, as always. A very funny, but less well crafted series of 'faces' occurs on 233 (or 235) Park Place in brooklyn (btwn Vanderbilt and Carlton, north side of street, recessed 25' building)...

There are three friezes about the principal first floor fenestrations...

Window 1: Nixon's Face
Window 2: Ford's Face
Entry Door: Carter's Face

It is hands down the strangest 3 presidents to canonize...

Posted by: young archi at September 15, 2009 1:42 PM in response to Walkabout with Montrose: Faces I Remember

If its a residential district you can't have JLQW but you can have home occupation (usually limited to 25% and/or 500 sf (whichever is less)) but can be increased in certain districts....)

Top floors and lower floors can be different uses but wouldn't be in separate zones....

Are you sure its residential?

I wouldn't want to send my address over the internet but can you tell me the Block (numerically) you're located on? I should be able to tell your zoning district from that - if the block is bisected by two zoning districts i'll let you know...

Posted by: young archi at September 13, 2009 12:13 PM in response to C of O Change in Loft

ModSquad -

This is going to be a frustrating answer:
Mostly yes, in some cases no....

If an old manufacturing or commercial building (built before 1961) or space is converted to JLQW, then the code and zoning requirements are a modified under Multiple Dwelling Law because its assumed that you're working with different spatial and construction type limitations then you normally would encounter for typical residential spaces.
However, these code and zoning differences are, by and large, the same as for other Loft Buildings and IMDs touched on above. They are all a subset with different regulations from typical residential construction.

If you have a JLQW in a newer building (which I've never done but if I remember correctly can be done), then there are some specific zoning caveats for the JLQW, but the code would be the same as for any other building.

When I say the Code is the same, I mean the same version of the Building Code would apply. Obviously, requirements for a single family home are vastly different than those for a commercial skyscraper within the same version of Code.

Posted by: young archi at September 12, 2009 8:43 AM in response to C of O Change in Loft

Swade - Just go see an architect.
I'm sure they'll do a quick analysis for you for free or for very little money...

Posted by: young archi at September 11, 2009 5:33 PM in response to C of O Change in Loft

and too your second point modsquad -
The majority of residential units in the city are not JLQW's.
You are, in descending order of probability:
1) An as of right residential district
2) Article 7B Loft Dwelling
3) Article 7C IMD

Most the JLQWs we have done are 7B Loft Dwellings - though the vast majority of the 7B Loft Dwellings we have done are NOT JLQWs.

If that makes sense...

Posted by: young archi at September 11, 2009 5:32 PM in response to C of O Change in Loft

Modsquad - i think you're confusing 7C interim multiple dwellings with JLQW - Joint living work quarters for artists.

JLQW is indeed a valid CO type of occupancy, and is valid in perpetuity once the CO is issued and presuming the CO is not altered and/or the building is not demolished.

IMDs were for protected tenants (in SOHO most famously, but all over the city including brooklyn)who were living in manufacturing Loft buildings. These IMDs were required to be legalized as residential units many years ago (but many are still not legalized - hence the continued existence of the NYC Loft Board).

However, as pointed out above, JLQWs are only permitted in certain districts, and you need to be (or the tenant needs to be) a Cultural Affairs registered 'artist.' This last requirement can be easily sidestepped (as long as no one is living in the space at the time of CO you are only required to submit an affadavit saying that it will be used by registered artists) and has therefore been traditionally abused by nefarious landlords and individual owners alike.

Posted by: young archi at September 11, 2009 5:28 PM in response to C of O Change in Loft

It is certainly possible to change the CO for one unit in the building!

Posted by: young archi at September 11, 2009 3:32 PM in response to C of O Change in Loft

You want joint living work quarter for Artists, I assume?

First, talk to an architect. They'll usually do enough of a zoning analysis for free to tell you whether this is possible.
(Are you in an M1-5B or M1-5A district?....You could also have a residential loft if the building is old enough and in the right commercial or manufacturing districts...)

Long story short - Its very easy for an architect to tell you whether you can convert or not, given the proper information. They'll probably do it for free in order to get the conversion job (assuming you are able to convert).

The only reason to involve a lawyer is if you are asking for a variance. Given BSA's current disposition - I wouldn't hold my breath...

Posted by: young archi at September 11, 2009 3:30 PM in response to C of O Change in Loft

ummmm, did you just call pratt 'hallowed'?

Posted by: young archi at September 10, 2009 1:16 PM in response to Inside Third & Bond: Week 100

insulating won't help (very much)...you need to isolate the sound with a continuous resilient barrier (carpet, cork or rubber (the best outside carpet) sub floor on the floor side).

the architectural solutions are all contingent on preventing a sound path from developing vibrated sound through the structure/finishes -

a better solution is working it out with the neighbor...

Posted by: young archi at September 8, 2009 5:22 PM in response to Running Child Upstairs

Gorgeous!

Posted by: young archi at September 8, 2009 3:28 PM in response to Walkabout with Montrose: Master of Schools, JW Naughton

Carpets are not required by law.

However, there is a minimum IIC (basically the amount of noise that can go through the floor is regulated). I'd be willing to bet your ceiling/his floor isn't the minimum.

Is that the guy upstairs fault?
I dunno.

I'm not sure area rugs are going to do anything (unless they are wall to wall area rugs the kid will run on and off the rugs).

There are many many architectural solutions to your problem, all of which are much much more expensive than just getting your neighbor to control his kid during critical hours...

If not, go to the board - the guy is exceeding maximum allowable dBA transfer (and/or his floor is insufficiently constructed...)

Posted by: young archi at September 8, 2009 3:21 PM in response to Running Child Upstairs

good luck with that....are you applying energy efficient and environmentally sensitive design in the renovation?

Posted by: young archi at September 2, 2009 2:30 PM in response to ISO Partner in Joint Ownership

Can vent out back if it is clear of residential windows...
Backdraft damper is pretty standard for most unit fans...

If you have appropriate windows the exhaust isn't required but I'd install it anyway...you don't always open your windows but you always want to exhaust the humidity...

Posted by: young archi at September 2, 2009 2:25 PM in response to Kitchen/Bath Vent Needs to

anybody who thinks NYC public schools are no good should try to get an education from rural Va schools. NYC is practically Exeter as far as I'm concerned.

I think its ridiculous to oppose spending and funding for public schools. better educated kids = good for everyone.

Posted by: young archi at August 27, 2009 4:10 PM in response to Sunset Park Finally Getting Its Own High School

Don't think the natives give a f**k about your clinton hill cap....you're only a haole to them after all...

Posted by: young archi at August 25, 2009 4:06 PM in response to Greetings From The Big Island

which is why people who don't live in mayberry lock their bikes...

Posted by: young archi at August 20, 2009 4:32 PM in response to Closing Bell: No Reward Is Its Own Reward

agreed with smeyer418.

would still like to find out more from 'Boerum Hill' poster...

Posted by: young archi at August 19, 2009 5:03 PM in response to Separating Lots

16'?

What was the address? it isn't permitted by Zoning....a variance or reconsideration could have been issues but i would like to see how that was done...

Posted by: young archi at August 19, 2009 3:05 PM in response to Separating Lots

Miss Breukelen - you are mistaken if you think this can get turned around in two weeks. Yeah, maybe topo can do what they have to do that quickly, but there is no way you're getting an amended C/O on the 30' wide house in 2 weeks.

6 months minimum.

btw - this is not a merger of tax lots.
this is subdivision of zoning lots.

very, very different animals.

Posted by: young archi at August 19, 2009 1:17 PM in response to Separating Lots

12' house may be feasible but considering that you cannot have a 12' lot, it doesn't make sense unless side yards are required...
how wide is existing house to remain?

Posted by: young archi at August 19, 2009 11:25 AM in response to Separating Lots

Min. lot width for most Residential districts is 18' but could be more - it depends on the district...

Checking the minimum lot sizes is a good place to start but by no means all inclusive of the process....

You essentially have to file a couple of jobs (a subdivision and also new C/O job for the lot with existing building).

In other words, not only do both lots need to comply with minimum lot area/width standards - but you have to prove that the subdivision isn't creating a new noncompliance for the existing building -

Your lot area will be reduced significantly for that lot so the allowable floor area and lot coverage will decrease as well. You also need to look at yard provisions...

Posted by: young archi at August 19, 2009 10:27 AM in response to Separating Lots

do you know what the re-zoning provisions are?

if the CB is behind it is it possible the developer is looking for a broader mix of uses that may be appropriate rather than an increase in bulk?

Posted by: young archi at July 24, 2009 3:08 PM in response to Zoning Lawyer Needed

ahem...

correction to my previously misspelled question:

what do you mean BY tuck point style....

Posted by: young archi at July 10, 2009 4:05 PM in response to Development Watch: 2 Lefferts Place Gets Windows

I've only heard of tuck pointing in the context of repairing old mortar joints.

what do you mean be tuck point style?

Posted by: young archi at July 10, 2009 4:01 PM in response to Development Watch: 2 Lefferts Place Gets Windows

Awesome piece.

On a completely random note: has anyone seen the 'gargoyle' depictions of Mediocre 20th century presidents on the building on Park Place between Vanderbilt and Underhill?

It is the only building I've ever seen that literally made me laugh out loud.

Its a plain building set back from the street. Not much detail or decoration. But there is a series of likenesses of presidents between the first floor and the second, with the faces of Nixon, Ford, and Carter cast and protruding from the facade.

Random and hilarious.

Posted by: young archi at July 10, 2009 10:02 AM in response to Walkabout: The Lion, the Stone Carver, and Bklyn

sam,

i don't think grey brick is ugly.

loads of designers use it, and not because its cheaper than other brick.

there's just no accounting for taste i guess.

as for contextuality: the building is 2-3 stories higher than the rest of block. red brick won't change that.

in fact, the grey brick helps identify if as of its time - you should be able to tell when a building was built by its construction techniques and detailing, in my opinion.

Posted by: young archi at June 26, 2009 6:42 PM in response to Price Cuts at 111 Monroe Street

tyburg -

there are many exceptions to the basic 30' rear yard, including but not limited too
- corner lots (or within 100' of corners) - this one should be obvious
- lots less than 70' deep
- through lots...ie lots that span street to street...

Looks like a through lot and complying as of right...

Posted by: young archi at June 24, 2009 6:02 PM in response to Development Watch: 580 Carroll Street

crimson -
planet earth. they close both parts of bqe and other streets every year for bike tours...

Posted by: young archi at June 16, 2009 7:49 AM in response to Closing Bell: Brooklyn Waterfront Epic Ride

i used to not wear a helmet...for 2-3 years in fact.
here was my logic:

I know how to handle a bike (i was a messenger for a bit after college and ride every day), helmets are hot and uncomfortable, and i felt like i was aware enough to avoid any problems.

The reality check was flipping over the handle bars in heavy traffic on flushing ave. I hit a pot hole that there was no way to avoid because the traffic was so heavy i couldn't see it until it was to late.

I've worn a helmet since.

I'm a huge bike advocate, but c'mon cmu - saying you don't need a helmet while riding in NYC is preposterous...

sure you don't NEED one, but you also don't NEED to pay attention while riding...

anyway, what does cmu stand for? the masonry unit? the university?

Posted by: young archi at June 12, 2009 4:24 PM in response to Fifth Avenue Bike Lane Debate, Continued

cmu -

i don't have a problem with kids who ride bikes, especially (under 12 - not 16) who are allowed to ride on sidewalks.

I DO have a problem with grown-ups putting toddlers on their handlebars, riding in the dark without light, and without helmets. its ridiculously dangerous.

I've been riding in the city long enough to know the risks: and if you want to take the risk and not ride a helmet, fine. but to put a 3 year old at risk is crazy to me.

also, wearing a helmet is not synonymous with wearing spandex. I bike in jeans, a t shirt and your godd##n right i wear a helmet. if you ride enough, you WILL be in an accident.

Posted by: young archi at June 12, 2009 3:27 PM in response to Fifth Avenue Bike Lane Debate, Continued

so if landlord (or in my bldg perhaps one of the other tenants - whoever gets home 1st) touching your mail bothers you go live in some other bldg.
The tenant sounds like a major pain in the neck. Demanding and entitled and thinks he/she owns the place.
When he/she decides to buy a place -can do what they want.

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 30, 2009 2:48 PM in response to Mailbox Issue

I'm curious, OP. Is the tanant upset with you seeing and handling his mail or the actual act of "touching" it??? Sounds like a severe case of OCD if it's the latter; along with the arachnophobia & drosophila melanogasterphobia.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 30, 2009 3:01 PM in response to Mailbox Issue

"Demanding and entitled and thinks he/she owns the place."

Actually, if the tenant thought he/she owned the place, he/she would just change the mailbox without consulting anyone.

Look, I understand that in some of these small buildings it is normal for everyone's mail to arrive together, but I don't see why some of you are so surprised that other people aren't comfortable with this.

You'd be hard pressed to find a rental building in Manhattan where the owner gets to browse through the tenants' mail every day.

The tenant may have other issues (e.g., fruit flies), but requesting a private mailbox does not seem so out of line to me.

It's not a question of whether or not the landlord "cares" about what kind of mail a tenant gets, because once the genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back again. What if the tenant is homosexual and gets some mail that makes this obvious? Even today, there are PLENTY of landlords in Brooklyn that would react badly to finding out their new tenant is gay. Or worse yet, what if he is a republican?!

If the landlord can and does refuse to install a private mailbox, then the tenant can go get a PO box, which is certainly doable but is extra expense and hassle and not as convenient as receiving your mail at home.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 30, 2009 3:07 PM in response to Mailbox Issue

Anyone who's bothered by someone else "handling" their mail should go live on a mountaintop. Unbelievable.

In 2-unit brownstones, the mailman will NOT separate the mail. So unless you have a trained monkey to split the mail, it will have to be handled by a human other than the addressee.

Posted by: cmu at September 30, 2009 4:33 PM in response to Mailbox Issue

am sure even in Manhattan (why that matters more than someplace else I'm not sure) - if rent in townhouse (which there are plenty further uptown) mail for whole house comes in together. And maybe fewer today but plenty of the old apt bldgs sorted the mail by staff member and went into your cubbyhole and you picked up at desk.
I just know I would not do it. Somehow mailman needs a key to get into vestibule and then that ugly metal box.
(in my neigbhorhood the MM does walk up the stoop).

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 30, 2009 4:53 PM in response to Mailbox Issue

Our mailman does separate mail in two-unit brownstones. My neighbors have helped by getting big boxes clearly labeled with last names and unit number.

Just sayin that in the scheme of things, this request seems reasonable. Exterminator for fruit flies? No. Mailbox? Yes. Regs say you can do it one of two ways, and tenant doesn't like your way. Like CH and NSR, I'm sympathetic to privacy concerns. Remedy is cheap and relieves you of liability and hassle. Thinking strategically, it's a good tradeoff against this tenant's other complaints and gives you some points as responsive to concerns.

Posted by: zeebee_in_bklyn at September 30, 2009 5:11 PM in response to Mailbox Issue

I think some of you protest too much.

I think we have some secret mail snoopers on this board who only became landlords to check out their tenants late notices, charitable organizations, political affiliations, magazines, and favorite lingerie catalogs.

:)

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 30, 2009 7:21 PM in response to Mailbox Issue

Call Geovany. He is a project manager for a prominent architect. He does the design changes on his own and gets a stamp from the architect he works for. Very reasonable. He can also do the expediting. I have used him on a couple jobs. 646-320-2747. Tell him Bill sent you.

Posted by: billybrooklyn at September 30, 2009 8:21 PM in response to Rooftop Deck

I understand the tenant, but he rented knowing this, didn't he? It seems like something that should be explained. I put in mailboxes because I hate the idea of the USPS throwning mail on the ground beyond the gate, nice and dirty and soggy when it rains. I don't want to be responsible for distributing mail, I travel for work, I don't want anybody "touching" my mail. But then he didn't rent from me. He should do like dirty hipster and get a box at the post office.

Posted by: donatella at September 30, 2009 9:01 PM in response to Mailbox Issue

There are only a few posts here, so let me suggest please putting *roof decks* (or other key words) in the brownstoner search box. This topic has come up on brownstoner before, and there are many excellent replies.

Posted by: prezanon at September 30, 2009 10:03 PM in response to Rooftop Deck