Wood Burning Fireplace Ban a Trojan Horse?
Carriage horses, low-rise 19th-century buildings, wood burning fireplaces — the Mayor doesn’t seem to have much use for the 19th century. The mayor’s ban on building new wood burning fireplaces will take effect July 2, so build your fireplaces while you can. But the new law could be a Trojan horse, soon to be followed…
Carriage horses, low-rise 19th-century buildings, wood burning fireplaces — the Mayor doesn’t seem to have much use for the 19th century. The mayor’s ban on building new wood burning fireplaces will take effect July 2, so build your fireplaces while you can. But the new law could be a Trojan horse, soon to be followed by a ban on all wood burning fireplaces, according to a story in The New York Times.
Montreal implemented a similar innocuous sounding rule a few years ago, and is now requiring all residents to actually remove wood burning stoves and fireplaces by 2021, said the Times. That sounds a bit extreme. London also banned the burning of wood and “other solid fuels” but has not demanded residents rip out their mantels and stoves.
A family in Park Slope spent $17,000 outfitting two fireplaces and a chimney in their brownstone to burn wood and they use it “as often as five times a week” in the cold months. A couple in Bay Ridge reclaimed their circa-1900 fireplace from a family of raccoons but they’ve only used it a handful of times. Two Boerum Hill roommates actually used their fireplace to heat their apartment this past winter, until they realized their windows were actually slightly open.
Science says each wood burning fireplace creates 6,200 grams of heart-stopping, asthma-inducing particulate matter a year, vs. 23 grams from a natural gas fireplace.
But while the utility of a wood burning fireplace is questionable, its symbolism is great. “There may be no feature of a New York apartment more sought after, yet less used, than a wood-burning fireplace: one of the city’s great real estate holy grails, keeping company in the dream-apartment pantheon with walk-in closets and private outdoor space,” said the Times.
What do you think of the Mayor’s ban?
That Dream Apartment With a Crackling Hearth Is Losing Some Spark [NY Times]
Photo by Cara Greenberg
I imagine that gas-guzzling SUVs emit far more harmful carbon emissions than the relatively few wood-burning fireplaces which only operate during part of the year. Yes, very foolish and petty. The mayor should not mandate small, individual issues like soda servings, carriages in the park or fireplaces. He should be concerned with larger directives, and delegate little issues to committees.
Does anyone actually think Landmarks or the Buildings Dept is going to behind REMOVAL of fireplaces? Can you imagine all the potentially compromised masonry chimneys that are part of shared walls between rowhouses? Not to mention the costs…less gentrified neighborhoods should be screaming the loudest. Next time there’s an oil crisis, people will be burning wood again. The mayor should focus on CBD car fees or tolls on major highways to help limit car traffic. Encourage use of electric cars in the city. That would be a great start.
forbidden fruit
that would be way cooler without typos
it’s you’re right to look like a moran and it’s my right to tell you such.
it’s really ironic that someone who doesn’t live in NYC (or owns a property in NYC with a fireplace) cares so much about this topic.
Correct, focusing on wood-burning fireplaces is misplaced while large buildings continue to burn the dirtiest oil imaginable (and after the ban fully kicks in, the second-dirtiest oil imaginable). But he knows he can’t take on the real estate lobby to force a natural gas conversion there, where it would really matter. Easier to go after fireplaces.
Completely agree. He did it becasue of Bloomberg’s soda ban, which would have affected less wealthy versus other classes. Both ideas are very silly and a waste of time and energy.