Well, today was plan review day and we got rejected, AGAIN. The reasons this time were just bizarre…

The first thing that was rejected was the energy review. Our architect did this complex analysis using a web-based program provided by the federal government where you enter all the characteristics of the building including wall types, window types, light fixtures, etc. and it confirms compliance with the 2010 standards that are in effect for New York State. But the plan examiner rejected it because NYC is still on 2007 energy standards and the 2010 standards aren’t being phased in until later this year. They literally told us to come back in 24 days, on July 1, since they’ll accept our architect’s energy analysis on that date. So we got rejected for showing compliance with a more demanding standard that they’re going to use in less than a month. Go figure.

Second major item was the sprinkler system (again). This time the plan examiner wanted documentation that there was sufficient pressure in the water main to support the sprinklers being on the domestic water supply despite the fact that the code specifically states that sprinkler systems with 30 or fewer heads can feed off the domestic water supply. He also wanted all the pipe sizes and sprinkler heads specified, but that’s typically done when the sprinkler system is certified - it doesn’t need to be done at this point and requiring it now is just being difficult.

The biggest issue that he raised is that he’s insisting we do a pressure test on the water main to do the calculations to determine the sizes of pipes that are required for the sprinkler system. It takes 4 to 6 weeks to get DEP to do a flow test, so that means we can’t go in for a plan review until that’s done. Again, the flow test is typically done after DOB approves the overall plan - he’s just being obstructionist IMHO.

At one point the plan examiner insisted that we needed 2 hour fire rated walls around the stairwell, not 1 hour walls. Our expediter stuck to his guns and then it took the plan examiner 10 minutes of searching the code to realize we were right and he was wrong. Why do they have people doing plan exams who don’t know the code? If the code is just horribly complicated then why not have plan examiners specialize in certain building types? If we had someone who really knew the code issues for townhouses then maybe they’d know the code well enough to do their job properly.

Then the plan examiner was telling our expediter that he saw errors in the “I-Cards” for the building. I-Cards were the predecessor to Certificates of Occupancy, which came out in 1938. So in other words, he was holding us responsible for errors previous building owners made dating back to 1938 or before. I mean please… The whole point of our rehabbing the building is to bring it up to code and get a C of O. How can inaccuracies on the old I-Cards matter when the point of the exercise is to make them obsolete by getting a C of O?

Next time Dan and I will go to the plan review to prove the point that we’re not some nefarious slumlord trying to build a crappy substandard building. We’re just regular guys. Plus, with the enormous workload that DOB is under right now I just don’t understand how it’s productive for them to keep having us come back over and over again for stupid little things.

Now imagine if we were trying to purchase the place with a rehab loan and needed to get approved plans to close the loan. Obstructions like this can really hamper redevelopment of blighted buildings - for no good reason because they can tank deals. And it’s the reason why it can take FOREVER to close when the buyer needs financing to purchase. I’m sure more than a few deals have gone bad because DOB took too long and the contracts expired.

Harlem Bespoke just pointed out that 11 West 119th Street sold recently - for $400,000! That might seem like a low price, but actually it’s a surprisingly high price. The building is 14′ x 38′ on a shallow 65′ lot. 14′ x 38′ x 4 stories = approx. 2,128 sq. ft. So the cost per square foot was $188/sq. ft. By contrast we bought ours a few blocks away for $118/sq. ft. If 11 West 119th had sold for our price per square foot the price would have been $250,000. The final asking price was $450K. I’m not sure why the buyer only got $50K off final asking when most people buying similar properties tend to get $150-200K off asking. (For example, we got $265K off what they were asking when we started bidding).

During our search we went through the one 2 doors down - 7 West 119th Street. It was fully renovated with some high end finishes (Sub Zero fridge, but just “better than rental” cabinetry). It wound up selling for $1.0983M. It’s hard to figure out the square footage of #7. Officially it’s 2,794 sq. ft. so it officially sold for $393/sq. ft. However, the City has it’s length at 47′ when all it’s sibling neighbors are officially 38′. I don’t remember it being pushed out in the back and the permit they pulled said no enlargement was proposed. It’s on a lot with a diagonal back line - one side it’s 54′ deep, the other it’s 58′ deep. I remember the back yard basically being a small deck, but it the short side was definitely more than 7′ feet long. So I really think the square footage of #7 is smaller and more inline with it’s neighbors. On top of everything else they did a double height living room so it was probably under 2,000 of real square feet. If it were 2,000 sq. ft. then the price per square foot would have been $549/sq. ft. which is way over what the other comps support. By comparison the incredible one on Strivers’ Row went for $505/sq. ft.

11 West 119th is a SMALL townhouse that shouldn’t be made into more than a single family home (#7 was made into a 2 family with a tiny studio apartment and I think it was a mistake). It’s not not in a historic district (though it is literally adjacent to a one). It’s steps from East Harlem where values are somewhat lower. It’s across the street from (relatively nice) public housing. So I’m not seeing how the property commanded $188/sq. ft. But with both #7 and #11 selling way over what the comps support — apparently they’re smoking really good over at that end of West 119th Street! 

No matter - this is a great comp for those of us who own townhouses. Be happy! And for the new owners of #7 and #11 West 119th Street - the values will go up in the coming years and they’ll still make money when they sell.

But honestly - if you’re looking to buy a Harlem townhouse shell - get a damn good real estate broker and a subscription to Property Shark that includes comps and really get to know what things are actually selling for (as opposed to what they’re listed for). A Property Shark membership is WAY cheaper than overpaying for real estate.

We’ve seen a lot of townhouses in the quest for the place for us to buy. I may have missed a few, but it seems to be 27 and counting - most of which have been in Hamilton Heights / Sugar Hill. We have seen a little in Central Harlem, but have mixed feelings about that area. Central Harlem has more and better services, but the area is much more hit-and-miss / block-by-block.

The longer we search the more we see see what really makes places valuable…

• Being in a large, established, historic district like Hamilton Heights / Sugar Hill
• Having a certificate of no harassment, or not needing one at all.

If you click on the blue dots you get a quick synopsis of what we thought about each place.

View Townhouses We’ve Seen in a larger map

Does anyone else see the glaring problem with the ad I got in my e-mail (below)?

It’s really quite simple… That car has 4 doors. The “legend” of the GTI is that it’s supposed to be an inexpensive sports car and sports cars just don’t have 4 doors - they have 2 doors and a good engine.

That’s not “the return of a Legend” - it’s the return of a huge mistake they’ve made before - watering down the GTI and making it a Golf/Rabbit with a few extra features. The GTI needs to be distinct from the Golf or else it’s not a GTI.

Today VW is revealing the look of the Mark 6 Golf line with the Mk6 GTI. Here’s the pic they sent out yesterday…

Personally, I don’t really like it. I mean, it’s nice enough and better than a lot of their competitors, but I don’t know that it’s an improvement over the Mk 5 Golf/GTI/R32…

Here’s a Mk 5 GTI…

The Mark 5 “face” just has more attitude. The Mk 6 looks more pedestrian. The Mk 6 front end would be fine if it were a Golf/Rabbit, but it doesn’t look sporty. It looks like they’re watering down the appearance of the GTI, which is never a good idea - that’s what the Golf/Rabbit is for.

Oh well, it is what it is. I didn’t like the Mk 5 when I first saw it either, but it grew on me and now I love our Mk 5 R32… We’ll see what I think in a year…