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.

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…

When I got the R32 a year ago I was really psyched. I had waited like 6 months for it and it was in the first batch to arrive in August ‘07… My only complaint about the car is that I haven’t gotten to drive it enough - especially this year. I think it was July that we put a whopping 30 miles on it.

Nevertheless, we did manage to put about 10,000 miles on it the first year and had a great time with it. Initially I was driving to Norwalk, CT a couple a times a week on the Merritt Parkway, which is a blast with all the curves and whatnot. And on Memorial Day I drove single-handed to Chicago with a stop in Cincinatti both directions.

I haven’t gotten enough pictures of it, but here is one from the Chicago trip - this one is taken in Oak Park, near the Frank Lloyd Wright house…

Gas mileage isn’t all that great with it, but with a 3.2L, VR6, 250hp engine you don’t really expect it to be. I get about 24 mpg on the highway driving “comfortably fast”, which isn’t bad in my book. If I slowed down, I’d get better gas mileage, but that’s not why I bought an R32. (Do make sure you have a good radar detector).

One of my favorite things about the car is when Dan drops off something at the front door and then drives away to go park it in the garage. The sound (or should I say growl) of the car is just perfect. I get this big grin on my face and think “yeah, that’s my car…”

Would I get another R32? Absolutely, in a heartbeat…

We love the 2008 VW R32 we got back in August. And one of the things we like the most is the nav system. I’ve read reviews that say it’s not the best navigation system, but it does the job pretty well. The most important thing is we never argue about directions…  I was raised in a family where the answer to “are we there yet” was to pass you a map and tell you to find where we were, where we were going and calculate the distance and divide by the speed. Dan has improved his navigation skills considerably since we first met, but before the nav system there were still times I’d have to either grab the map and look at it while I was driving, or pull over to look at the map… Now with “Mildred” (the name we’ve given our nav system) - none of that is necessary.

You’d think the nav system is completely wonderful, but I’m on a trip right now in Chicago and I gotta say there are times I love the nav system, and times I wish I had a map on me. What you lose with navigation systems is a sense of place and location. With a map you get a big picture and see things in relation to each other. Coming into a new city I feel a bit lost using a nav system to get me around. Sure it does a good job, but I don’t really have a clue where I am, and I miss that. I want to understand the city and the nav system doesn’t do that for me. I tried Google Maps and that helps a little, but for really getting and understanding a big map with lots of information density will beat Google Maps any day.