Our place is shrouded with black netting that covers the scaffolding they’re using to work on the front façade. As a result it’s hard to see their progress, but they’re finally down to the parlor level on one side, so you can see their restoration work as you go in the building…

There are these rosettes on each side of the windows… Here’s one on the top floor that’s still in great condition…

The mason has taken a mould of one of the good ones and is using the mould to restore the ones that aren’t in good shape… Here’s one around the parlor window that’s in progress…

There’s also a detail over the front of the big parlor window that was missing on our place and is missing on many of our sister townhouses, but is still there on one of them – it’s a subtle crown moulding-like detail in a corner just above the window. The foreman noticed the detail on the neighboring house and is having the mason reinstate it on our place. They seem to be having fun with the restoration… Which is good…

Here you see them working on the sill for the parlor window…

And below you see they’re restoring a detail around the door and creating a template of it to recreate the same detail on the other side of the door where it’s completely deteriorated…

With all the netting up it’s been hard to see the progress. It will be cool when they take down the netting – we’ll finally get to see a fresh “new” façade.

Dan’s also been fussing over getting the color of the façade just right. He got a piece of the original brownstone and had it color matched. But that’s tricky ’cause the original brownstone had something like mica in it that made it sparkle slightly. We’re wondering whether we can get a mica aggregate in the paint we use, but we don’t want to overdo it and make it look like its got bling embedded in it…

One of the things we’ve been contemplating lately is the color of our cornice. We thought we had a color picked out, but as I was half way done writing up this blog post I changed my mind. When I talked with Dan he agreed with me – that we should change our strategy.

It all started with me walking around Mount Morris Park taking pictures of townhouses for real estate clients – with the objective of understanding what was out there and possibly available. I looked at the cornice colors and my favorite color was gray – it just makes for an incredibly handsome cornice. Here’s the gray cornice from 30 West 120 which sold recently for $2.5M…

To my eye that’s a bit of a brownish gray. There are also some handsome gray cornices at the other end of our block – 102 and 104 West 123rd both have gray cornices…

As you can see 102 (on the left) has more of a taupey gray and 104 has more of a bluish gray. Personally I don’t really like the bluish gray so much. I like a taupey or brownish gray..

What we’re worried about when it comes to using gray is that our façade will have too many different colors. Our windows will be a chocolate color, our stoop railings and the grill work on basement level will be black – gray wasn’t really a color we were going to have anywhere else except the cornice, so it didn’t really make sense. The places we liked that used gray used it elsewhere on the building.

The chocolate is sort of tone-on-tone with the brownstone façade. We could have gone with a chocolate cornice… Those look good too…

But the color we’ve decided to go with is black…

That means our building’s hat (cornice) will match it’s shoes (stoop railings and basement grill work) while the windows and basement doors will just blend in with the brownstone. The only down side is that it will be a pretty somber/formal color combination.

The one remaining question is the color of the front parlor doors. Dan’s advocating for chocolate colored doors with the logic that all the wood on the façade should be the same color. I could see that, but I could also see black since that the façade’s accent color is black and the parlor door is a focal point of the façade. We’ve got some time before we have to make that decision. I’m guessing we’ll go with chocolate – it will soften the look and make the façade seem less formal.

Less than a month ago I was a little worried about the lack of high end sales in Mount Morris Park. Well, there’s no longer a need to worry… 30 West 120th (across the street from Marcus Garvey Park) sold on August 29th for $2.5 million. That breaks just about all the sales records since the downturn in the economy 3 years ago.

The house is “just” 18 feet wide (narrow for a house selling over $2M), but it’s roughly 60 feet deep so it has approximately 4,400 sq. ft. That means the new owner paid about $568/sq. ft. – so not only was the $2M barrier broken, but the $500/sq. ft. barrier was broken as well.

Curiously, for such a high price, there’s a rental building on one side of the house and a shell on the other side. And with all the 5th Avenue traffic going around the park it’s not a particularly quiet location. This is good news for some of the 20 and 25 footers on more the coveted blocks just off the park – they should be able to go for even higher prices.

However, the house does have a rather good provenance… It was purchased by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in 2002 for $525K. Between 2005 (the filing date) and 2009 (the sign off date) he did a gut renovation. The estimated cost of the renovation was $375K + $7,500 for sprinklers, but that was the estimated cost – the actual cost may have been substantially higher. Given that he was renovating at the height of the market it could very well have been a $1M+ renovation.

You can see from the pictures below that the renovation was pretty conservative – no daring architectural features or anything, but still quite nice. They say townhouse buyers like original detail. There isn’t all that much original detail left in the house, but the traditional nature of the renovation must have resonated with the buyer…

Another thing to note is that the house was single family. That means the owner was buying a degree of luxury – a 4,400 sq. ft. home. We’ll also have a quadraplex when our renovations are done, but it will only be about 3,200 sq. ft. – definitely a nice size, but not nearly as luxurious as 30 West 120. I’ve seen this in the comps before – single and two family homes often sell for substantially more than 3+ family homes.

This sale should solidify the top end of the market and hopefully it will get hesitant buyers to pay a bit more. I’ve always thought Harlem townhouses were undervalued in comparison with Brownstone Brooklyn – let’s hope that changes

After I finished this post I started thinking about the effect on shells (like the one next door). If 30 West 120 can sell for $560/sq. ft. subtract $250/sq. ft. for a nice gut renovation, then subtract say $100/sq. ft. to reimburse the new owner for the trouble of going through renovation and you still have a value of $200/sq. ft. – and that would be if it were a total shell (like ours was). The shell next door doesn’t seem like a total shell, so it could go for even more.

Of course one comp doesn’t make a trend, and rehab mortgages are getting harder and harder to come by, but as the high end prices go up so too will the prices of shells – and the changes on the low end will seem even more dramatic since renovations are a somewhat fixed cost. $200/sq. ft. is about 50% higher than the $125 to $140/sq. ft. I would have thought was an average shell value in the past (for a shell needing a total gut including structural work). 50% is a big jump.

Back in the late 1800s when most of Harlem was built brownstone was all the rage. It was a local stone (quarried in Connecticut) and less expensive than limestone. BUT brownstone is a far softer and more porous stone than limestone. The limestone façades aged much better than the brownstone ones did.

One problem was that brownstone has a distinct grain where limestone doesn’t. People in the 1880s and 1890s didn’t really like to see the grain so the stone was cut in line with the grain. That meant that as water got into the stone and froze the stone would sheer along the lines of the grain and flake off. You can see this happening on our house in the picture to the right.

To compensate people have been painting brownstone, and putting stucco finishes over it that simulate brownstone. You don’t actually see many true brownstone finishes in Harlem any more. That’s always made me wonder what brownstone was supposed to look like…

This past weekend we went to Pasvalco over in New Jersey and I mentioned to the woman who was helping us that we were renovating a brownstone but I wasn’t sure what brownstone was supposed to look like. She showed us pictures of a project they did on the Upper West Side for Mark Gorton – founder of Limewire (software that facilitates illegal fire sharing). Back in 2005 he bought 108 West 76th Street for $4.8M (all cash) and then proceeded to do a major renovation on the place. He (almost) completely replaced the brownstone façade on his 5 story, 9,250 sq. ft. single family townhouse. Pasvalco did the job using brownstone quarried from Connecticut. So if you take a look at 108 W 76 that is how brownstone is supposed to look…

In the picture below you can see how much grain there is in brownstone…

That’s with brownstone cut “correctly” – with the grain showing so it won’t flake. As I mentioned, back in the 1800s they cut it differently so the grain wouldn’t show so much, but that caused flaking. I personally think the grain is rather beautiful…

Given that brownstone used to be less expensive than limestone but now it’s far more expensive, I asked one of the guys why that was. The answer was pretty simple – there used to be 30 or 40 brownstone quarries in Connecticut, now there is just one quarry and it’s only a 3 man operation. Simply put the owners of the other quarries made more money turning their land into condo developments (land in Connecticut is expensive). In contrast there are still lots of large limestone quarries in places like Indiana and shipping costs are (relatively) lower than they were in the late 1800s.

One other factor that makes brownstone expensive is that the stone yards have to assume 100% waste when working with brownstone. So they have to quarry twice the amount they need. With limestone there’s much less waste, so less material is needed to complete the job.

While raw, properly cut brownstone is gorgeous, it’s simply cost prohibitive for Harlem brownstones. In our case our façade is currently painted and in generally decent condition. For the most part only the lintels and sills are deteriorating – most of everything else is in pretty good shape. The National Park Service allows you to repaint in a situation like ours, so that’s what we’ll be doing. We’ll repair what damage we find and then repaint. The next most expensive solution would be to chip and resurface with a brownstone-like stucco – but we need to control costs…

The “store front” came off our building yesterday and we were pleased/amused to see the painted sign for The Happy Game Room that was visible in the 1980 tax photo. Our place has a commercial overlay, so it’s legal to run businesses out of the bottom two floors. Around 1980 the business that was in there was The Happy Game Room. At that time the neighborhood was going downhill quickly, but our building had an owner who seemed to care about the building. I’m not sure what all went on in The Happy Game Room, but it’s sorta fun that the sign is still there…

And no, we’re not restoring/keeping the sign. We don’t want to have people knocking on our tenants’ door wanting to play cards – lol.

More than anything else, I’m just happy the store front is gone and it’s starting to look like a normal brownstone again. We’re going to have french doors in the opening you see in the picture above, not a window like most brownstones. There are two entrances under the stoop, and the 2 foot wide entrance under the stoop into the rental apartment isn’t up to code (which requires 3 feet of width). BUT the good part is we can get to the cellar without having to go through the rental apartment.

In the photos above you can see how there’s a narrow walkway around the column into the apartment, and then wider stairs down into the cellar. That’s unusual for Harlem brownstones – usually there’s just the entrance into the apartment.

The blocked up opening you see above right will be reopened and a proper grille put in – more or less as it was originally.

I first wrote this about a year ago when Dan and I went through a LEED certified townhouse that was for sale, but I was afraid my wording was too harsh, so I never published it. But a year later the place still hasn’t sold so I’m stripping out the details of which house it is, reworking some parts, and putting up the post.

The townhouse we saw is a gut renovated townhouse that was one of the first to get LEED certification (it achieved “silver” certification). Everything in this townhouse is “green”. The plywood is green (at 3 times the cost), the dumpsters of garbage were recycled (a 1.5 times the cost), the paint is “green” (and I’m not referring to the color), there are 3 huge solar panels on the roof, the insulation is incredible (composed of things like closed cell foam and recycled blue jeans), the heating and cooling very high efficiency – EVERYTHING about the house is green. The project is even got fairly substantial national recognition and had all sorts of big name sponsors (who donated things like appliances).

It’s been finished for a while and on the market for about two years, yet it still hasn’t sold. Here’s why I think that is…

#1 – The Price

When we went through the house another couple was also looking at it. As they left a guy shouted to them from a van “how much are they asking for that place?” Their answer summed it up nicely – “Too much”.

The asking price at that time was $2.79M down from an initial asking price of $2.995M when they put it on the market two years ago (it’s now down several hundred thousand more). Simply put, NOTHING in Harlem is selling for that price. The top of the market right now is about $2M, and things were selling for even less two years ago when they priced it at $3M.

Compared to other townhouses at the high end of the market this one’s primary advantage is all the green technology, but the question is how much will someone really pay to be green? A million dollars? That’s a lot of money.

#2 – The Layout

The layout to me just seemed odd. The living room was TINY, the dining room HUGE, there are huge wide hallways with wasted space throughout the building. On one floor there are two bathrooms across the hall from each other – you’d think they’d connect at least one to the bedrooms that were right next to them. The workspace for the kid’s computers didn’t make a lot of sense to me. I understand why parents might like that, but aren’t parents buying laptops for kids these days? Plus it’s incredibly specific to a particular market segment. You have to have kids of a certain age to find that a good feature.

There were lounge spaces on each of the two upper floors instead of bedrooms. When asked why there weren’t more bedrooms the answer was that that more bedrooms would have made it even more difficult to comply with LEED standards. As a result they only managed to fit 3 bedrooms into an owner’s unit that should have had 4 to 6 bedrooms. There were also 2 bedrooms on the ground floor that I’m not counting, but that raises a whole other issue (see the next section – C of O Issues)…

That said, the top floor master bedroom suite was pretty nice. The terrace off the master bedroom was extremely pleasant.

#3 – C of O Issues

For some reason after doing all that work, the owners still haven’t gotten a new C of O three years later. Legally it’s still a C5 Rooming House that’s SRO restricted. The renovations were done legally, but for one reason or another they never took the final step. I can see on the DOB website that they put some more work into it last year, but still no C of O.

When they do get it, the plan was for it to be a single family home which seems odd to me. That’s just too big of a house to be single family. 2 family with a ground floor rental is a lot more practical. In fact they’ve set it up for a 2 family, put in the plumbing, etc. Why they didn’t file to convert it to a 2 family to start with, I just don’t understand.

#4 – The Level of Finish

While there were some very nice aspects to the house, overall the finishes were of uneven quality. The stairs are a good example. They have this cool LED lighting that’s a very nice touch, but apparently the budget was tight and they couldn’t finish the stairs the way they wanted to and so they covered the center railing with sheetrock with the metal end posts poking through (and the metal was rusting). At $3M (or any price over $2M) people expect better finishes.

What Will It Sell For?

The odd layout and wasted space make it difficult to price. I think the new square footage is about 5000 sq. ft – which is quite big – especially for a single family home. If it weren’t for the inefficient use of space $450 to $500/sq. ft. would be reasonable based on the comps and that would come out to between $2.25M to $2.5M. Based on square footage they’re finally priced right. But my gut tells me it won’t sell for that ’cause it’s got the “issues” I talk about above. I’d guess the sale price will be closer to $2M – possibly even lower.

The issue is that they purchased the place in early 2008 (really bad timing) for $1.45M and given the fact that they did a rather expensive renovation that included major structural work and absurdly expensive “green” materials, I’m guessing they’ll lose money – even at their current asking price the losses could be substantial. If they’re paying a mortgage it gets even worse given high carrying charges.

What Does It Mean?

It’s sorta sad to see a demonstration project of green architecture end in people losing money, but that seems to be the likely outcome. While I think it’s great to be green, I don’t see the point of being green at all costs. From what I’ve read LEED is an absurdly difficult standard for existing structures, but the owners and their sponsors had committed to living by LEED and by the time the expenses were mounting and the market crashing it was too late – the financial damage had been done.

In my mind the project points out that LEED isn’t a standard Harlem townhouse renovators should strive to live by. Instead, be green in ways that are practical and relevant to what we’re working with – old, imperfect buildings.

And be less dogmatic about the whole green thing… For example plywood is green by it’s very nature since it’s made up of wood byproducts that are waste material, or “junk” wood from young trees that come from well-managed, renewable forests. You’re really not achieving much by paying 3 times more for “green” plywood.

To me energy efficiency is the name of the game. Use closed cell foam insulation when possible. Have efficient boilers and zoned heating and cooling. Have energy efficient windows. But don’t try to be so green that it causes you financial problems. Done properly being green should benefit your bottom line – not hurt it.

It took us forever to get our application together for the historic preservation tax credit, but we finally got it in just after New Years. Yesterday we got a call from one of the reviewers who asked a few questions and then sent us a PDF of their comments. All in all no huge surprises. They wanted a lot more detail on exactly what we were doing with the exterior masonry. How we were getting the stucco off the brick in the rear. How we were cleaning the brick. Exactly what we going to do with the front since the brownstone is currently painted, etc. If you follow historic preservation guidelines none of those items are big deals. It’s just important to make sure you know what they want before you do it. Today we had a meeting with our contractor and the masonry sub-contractor – none of it seemed to be a problem, though it did change how he was going to handle the brownstone in the front.

They also wanted to know what we meant about raising the parapets. They prefer we put railings on top of the parapets instead of raising them. However, on the party wall fire code requires that we actually raise the parapet. The sum total is that they want us to raise parapets as little as possible and prefer railings over taller parapets since railings are easily reversible.

One issue was that we had spec’d vinyl windows in bathrooms. The windows are in shower areas and vinyl is more appropriate in a wet location. Plus, it’s in a sidewall which is a few feet from an apartment building – so not generally visible. The said they understood why we had spec’d vinyl in that particular location, but said the National Park Service usually doesn’t like vinyl windows. But the sum total was that they cautioned us to not order the windows before we get NPS approval – so it sounds like they personally think vinyl is OK in that particular situation.

The last issue was that I told her we heard from our window and door manufacturer that they weren’t able to fabricate 10 foot tall doors. That means we’d need to have shorter doors with a transom on top. I said our other option was to get salvaged doors and restore them, but our concern was that they wouldn’t be identical to what was there originally. She thought salvaged doors were the stronger option even if they weren’t like the originals. As long as they were of the neighborhood and of the era we’d be fine. However, in talking to our contractor today he’d prefer to make new replicas of the original doors. We just have a photo of our place from 1940, but I think it should be good enough for him to come pretty close to what was there originally, so that’s what we’ll propose in our revised application.

All in all nothing major. That means we can proceed with getting a loan and going into contract with our contractor. More hurdles to jump through, but we’re moving forward…

Getting our house renovated feels like a never ending series of delays. We thought we had picked a contractor, but his final bid was 88% higher than his initial bid (!). We knew his initial bid was too low, but weren’t expecting such a huge increase. Now that his price is so much higher we’re re-examining our options and are back to getting other bids. We may wind up going with him, but the equation has changed.

Then there’s the tax credit incentives which I wrote up in a previous post. It’s yet another delay, but a delay that may put $100,000 in our pocket, so it’s worthwhile…

The first thing to realize is that the tax incentives follow federal (National Park Service) guidelines. Those are not the same as New York City Landmarking rules (as enforced by the Landmarks Preservation Commission). In some ways they’re more lenient, in other ways they’re stricter. Personally, I like the national standards better than the City’s standards.

When you get landmarked by New York City their objective is to restore the area to what it looked like in the past. As you do major work you’re required to put things back to what they used to look like. But the City is only worried about what things look like from the street (with the rare exception of landmarked interiors).

The federal government has a slightly different objective – they want to preserve and respect existing historic details. They’re more restrictive in that they care about everything – not just what can be seen from the street. However, they’re less restrictive in that if an original detail is missing they’re not quite so fussy about what replaces it. I spent a half hour on the phone with the woman from NY State’s Office of Historic Preservation in part trying to understand how that actually gets implemented. They have two options for replacing original details – 1) replicate the original exactly, or 2) put something contemporary in it’s place that’s generally “compatible” with the original design and more plain (less ornate) than what was there originally. Here are a few examples…

Front Doors – When we started thinking in terms of meeting the guidelines for the tax credit we wondered what we should do about the front door. Our original plan was to have two 8 foot (French) doors with a 2 foot transom over them. The doors would be wood and have the general proportions of the original doors with wood panels in the bottoms and glass in the upper portion.  Thing is, in looking at the picture of our house from 1940 we see there were solid wood doors that were the full 10 feet tall. We then went to Demolition Depot thinking we might be able to find an old door that would pass muster with the historic preservationists. We found some, but they had glass panels in them. When I was talking to the woman from NYS I realized I had it all wrong. They don’t want old doors, or even new doors that look like old doors, unless they’re the originals or identical to the originals. The doors we were planning on initially were almost perfect – clearly contemporary, similar proportions, less ornate than the originals, etc. We’ll probably need to get rid of the transom and make the doors full height. And they may push back on the the glass in the doors – we’ll see… But the point is they like new doors better than non-original old doors.

Stoop Newel Posts – Unlike NYC LPC, the state/federal guidelines don’t require us to do anything with the newel posts – we could just repair what’s there. If we were landmarked by the City LPC I’m pretty sure they’d would require us to restore them given the overall size of our project. We want to do more than patch up what’s there – we want it to be much closer to what was there originally. Our guidelines will be 1) generally similar to the original, 2) less ornate than the original. Our only problem is Dan wants cast iron posts and finding ones that meet the federal guidelines.

Ground Floor Security Gates – Like the newel posts, because the originals are missing we have some latitude. We can do something contemporary and compatible and less plain than the original. That’ll save us a lot of money…

Windows – Again, the state/federal government lean a bit more liberal when replacing details that aren’t there. The woman I spoke with was open to the idea of “fake double hung windows” – ones that look like double hung from the exterior, but are actually tilt-n-turn windows. She was also open to the idea of having color matched protective metal trim on the wood windows’ most vulnerable spots. But she emphasized “open” didn’t mean they’d get approved. Still, I don’t think LPC would even entertain the ideas.

BUT, there are ways in which state and federal guidelines are stricter than LPC’s guidelines. They care about things like rear façades which can’t be seen from the street. We don’t have any original details inside the building, but I think they’d care about them if we had them which could be a huge headache.

Our rear deck is probably going to be the biggest sticking point. For starters federal guidelines require an archeological survey if there’s ground disturbance. However, because that’s cost prohibitive for small projects they’ve never actually required it for homeowners. But they clearly don’t like the idea of ground disturbance. Because our deck is, in part, a fire egress for our unit they’re willing to consider it. We’ll see what feedback they have.

I’m also not sure how they’ll handle the bulkhead we’re putting on the building – we’ll see what they say about that. I think we can make a strong argument for how we’ve done it, but I sorta expect them to ask us to change something – I’m just not sure what that something will be.

Both the LPC and National Park Service guidelines are somewhat difficult. I’m really glad we only have to meet one of the two. If we were landmarked by the City we’d need to comply with both. I’m also really glad we don’t have a lot of original detail. The lack of it is really helping us. After talking to her I wondered what limitations there would be if you had original plaster walls – would you be allowed to tear them out and change your floorplan?

At least they pay you to put up with all the rules…

The City of New York has old tax photos available from 1940 and 1980 for people who want to know what their building looked like in the past. Here are the photos of our building…

Here’s the building in 1940…

There are a few things that are interesting here. First is the size of the windows. I was expecting to see smaller panes. Clearly the architect liked the idea of big huge panes of glass.

I also like the low wall along the street, though that wouldn’t be considered safe enough these days. We plan on putting in a low wall with some sort of fencing above to make it meet current standards.

The next item is that you can sorta see the front door in the house next to ours and it’s solid wood with no windows. That’s somewhat surprising (and dark).

I also love the newel posts at the bottom of the stoop – wish they were still there. Dan thinks they’re done in brownstone, I think they’re done in cast iron. Oddly cast iron was the less expensive option back then. We probably only have the money to recreate something like them in brownstone.

The other surprising thing was that the building 2 doors down already had a fire escape by 1940 (it’s still on the building).

And here’s the building in 1980…

You can see that the building had sorta seen hard times by 1980s. City records tell us a vacate order was issued in 1966 (and never lifted). So the building’s problems most likely started in the early 1960s, if not sooner.

By 1980 windows had been replaced with less expensive windows – a smaller window on the parlor floor and smaller panes of glass in the top two floors. The front doors were gone and replaced by one that was far less expensive and with a lot less character. The wonderful newel posts were gone.

On the plus side we can see that the exterior had been painted. While this may not seem like a good thing, what’s good about it is that 30 years later it’s still in remarkably good condition – the only problems are the cornices. We were thinking of doing a major job on the exterior, but seeing how stable it’s been we’ve changed our plans and will just patch up and restore the painted surface.

Our building has a commercial overlay. We’re allowed approximately two floors of commercial space. You can see in the picture that the ground floor was “The Happy Game Room”…

I’m sure the Happy Game Room wasn’t a completely legal establishment. After all, our block was a drug block back in the day. I’m sure there was a fair amount of drug use, drug dealing and gambling going on…

And here’s the building today (actually November 2009)…

After 1980 a storefront was added to the ground floor.

Things got pretty bad in the mid-90s when the building became a drug flop house. We’ve talked to some of the neighbors who “lived” in the building at that time. There was a raid and a largely unsocialized (nearly feral) child was found in a closet. Then there was a fire and apparently people pretty much stopped “living” there after that. But the woes continued and the building was involved in a mortgage fraud scandal that delayed it’s being renovated.

But hey, it got a tree! That’s a small step forward…

It’s definitely time for the building to get a new lease on life…

Generally I’m a big advocate of landmarking – certain places just need special protection. But these days most of those places have been identified and now some of the places they’re trying to landmark don’t really warrant landmarking.

Case and point is the Mount Morris Park Historic District – there are pluses and minuses to the proposed expansion. The core of Mount Morris Park was landmarked by the City in 1971 – just a few short years after landmarking began in New York. The neighborhood was then put on the National Register of Historic Places in 1973. Then in 1996 the boundaries defined by the National Register of Historic Places were extended (see map below). Now residents are talking about changing the City’s landmark boundaries to reflect the national boundaries.

There are parts of the MMP extension that make perfect sense and should be landmarked. The Historic Districts Council shows examples on their website that demonstrate this perfectly. I want to be clear, I’m not against the expansion of the Mount Morris Park Historic District. BUT, not all the blocks in the proposed extension are as homogeneous as the ones they show. I think the boundaries of the extension need to be reconsidered. For example, our block is nothing like the blocks they show, yet they want to landmark it. Here are a few pictures of our block…

How is that something that should be landmarked? That’s not the streetscape of a historically significant area that needs landmarking. That’s just a nice street in Harlem. There are brownstones on the south side of the street, but I wouldn’t say they warrant landmarking either. It’s not like every brownstone in Harlem needs to be landmarked.

Landmarking is supposed to be reserved for things that are special – and we’re just not that special. The row of townhouses one block down that were designed by Francis Hatch Kimball – are a completely different situation…

Those townhouses are incredible. They absolutely need to be landmarked, and everything adjacent to them that can be landmarked should be landmarked to preserve the general feel of the era when they were built (unfortunately, there’s a 1950s-era school across the street from them). But my point is, we’re not that special.

The other night we were walking around lower Manhattan. What struck me was the layers of history you could see in the buildings. New and old were mixed together and there were new interpretations and adaptations of old buildings. I liked the mix of it all. As you can see in the pictures above, our block is a bit like that. There are a few old brick townhouses with mansard roofs, there are classic brownstones in a few different styles, there are a couple churches on the block (both landmarked), and there are apartment buildings. One apartment building looks like it’s from the 1930s, others look like they’re more turn of the century. And then there’s the gleaming new condo – Windows on 123. We have that wonderful patchwork of different historical eras. Thing is, you don’t preserve a patchwork of eras by freezing it in time. You preserve it by letting the patchwork continue to evolve. For example, when new and old are co-existing so closely, why shouldn’t the old buildings have modern doors or windows? Yet that is what would be prevented if the block were landmarked.

Yes, there is something special about our block, but the best way to preserve it is through zoning, not through landmarking. Many of the old apartment buildings on our block are built over their currently allowed F.A.R. (floor area ratio) which means if they were torn down you’d have to build a smaller building in their place. That’s a huge incentive for their owners to keep them in tact and renovate them. Even  our townhouse – it’s currently at a FAR of 3.0. The max is 3.44, so you can’t even add another full floor to our building (though the previous owners did manage to fudge the numbers and get plans approved that included an additional floor).

If it were no big deal to own a landmarked building we wouldn’t really care. But it’s a huge headache to own a landmarked building. So many things are more complicated and more expensive. And there are certain things you’re just not allowed to do. For example, we’ll be putting in large tilt-n-turn windows that would not be allowed if the building were landmarked. I’m sure our doors wouldn’t meet with landmarks approval either – they’re modern interpretations of old doors – still wood, and similarly proportioned to the original doors, but lacking the details you would find on an old door. If I lived on a block that warranted landmarking I’d gladly put up with the headaches associated with being landmarked. But our block doesn’t warrant landmarking so neither Dan nor I feel we should have to deal with the hassles of owning a landmarked building.

There’s a community meeting this Tuesday evening (October 5th) at 7pm at the Rice High School library (74 West 124th Street). I plan on being there to see what the chances are of dropping 123rd Street from the proposed extension.

I thought I’d share how we finally decided to (re)configure our townhouse… It’s a 5 story brownstone. We’ll have a 4 story owner’s quadraplex over a duplex rental unit (that has “accessory” space in the cellar)…

Starting at the top… There will be a roof deck on the rear of the building. We only learned after buying the building that we had views of the midtown skyline (off in the distance). Mind you, climbing up all those stairs to get there won’t be a lot of fun, which means we’ll need some sorta buzzer system for the front door. We’ll eventually mount a retractable awning on the bulkhead for shade. We opted for bulkhead windows instead of a skylight because they let in more light in the winter and less in the summer.

There is some dispute on the proper width of the bulkhead. The architect has a 3 foot passage to the side of it, the plan examiner says it’s a “side yard” and should have an 8 foot passage OR be the entire width of the building with a ladder over it. The architect noted that if he encloses the walkway it becomes interior space and 3 feet is appropriate. We’re still trying to figure out which solution we want to go with.

The next floor down, the 4th floor of our unit (8-9′ ceilings), will be art studio space for Dan. He’ll have a clean studio / office in the front of the building, and a dirty studio in the rear of the building. The small utility room in the middle will be his wet area. The floors in all his studio space will be commercial grade vinyl flooring (inexpensive and practical). There will be clerestory windows letting lighting from the stairwell into the front room (which is on the North side of the building). We’ve configured it in a way where the next owner could turn the utility room into a bathroom and then have two additional bedrooms / playrooms, etc.

The 3rd floor of our unit (9′ ceilings) will have the master bedroom in the rear and a spare room in the front. The spare room will most likely be a den / exercise room – have a treadmill, a couch and a TV. Like the clean studio above it, the den will have clerestory windows letting in light from the stairwell. We wanted the bedrooms in the back since the back of the building should be quieter.

The 2nd floor of our unit (one floor up from parlor, 10′ ceilings) will have the spare bedroom in the back and a home office in the front. Having the office in the front achieves two goals… First, the office isn’t noise sensitive, so it’s on the noisy side of the building. And second, it’s used during the day, so air conditioning bills will be lower since there’s far less heat gain on the North side of the building. (We’re using a mini split ductless system where each room is a separate zone). On this floor, attached to the bathroom is the laundry room. Having been in apartments for the past 20 years, we can’t wait to have a washer/dryer in our unit! Oddly it’s one of the things we are most looking forward to.

Our original plans had the 2nd and 3rd floor swapped, then we realized that we’ll be going up and down stairs to the office a lot more than we would be going up and down to the master bedroom, so we put the master bedroom up higher and the office down lower. Swapping the floors also lets us have a laundry chute from the master bedroom closet directly into the laundry room. We’re going to love that feature!

The parlor floor (10.5′ ceilings) will have the living room, dining room and kitchen. This is where we had to get a special reconsideration to have an open floor plan since code would otherwise require having 1 hour fire rated walls around the staircase and from the staircase to the front door. I know some people hate having front doors open into kitchens, but we saw so many narrow unusable living rooms that we decided to put the living room in the rear where it could be more spacious. But it does mean that the kitchen design needs to be pretty flawless since it will be people’s first impression of the house. One thing we have noticed is that the living/dining/kitchen space is nearly identical to our old apartment. This is a 15′ wide townhouse – we may have 6 bedrooms, but some things are more on the modest side.

There will be a narrow 4′ wide deck with a pergola off the living room. We kept it narrow so the tenant’s window would still get plenty of sunlight, and we added the pergola (which we’ll have vines growing on) to give us some shade in the summer. Here’s a diagram showing how it will look…

From the beginning of our process we knew that we didn’t have the biggest townhouse and as a result our design choices were a bit limited. There just wasn’t the space (or budget) to be all that extravagant. Where we were a bit extravagant was with the staircase. It will have a 3′ x 6.5′ lightwell running down the middle of it that will help get light deeper into the core of the building. We’re also going with open risers to help let light bounce around. From the beginning I knew the stairs would be the dominant design element in the building. To that end our architect really stepped up and has given us an incredible staircase design. You can see a bit of it in this diagram…

Basically there will be swoopy translucent plastic (or fiberglass) panels that will be attached to simple metal framing. Because it’s reducing metal work it should be a fairly economical solution. It’s also changeable. I had thought the staircase would permanently define the space, but because the panels can be redesigned and executed in different materials, there’s nothing permanent about it. Not shown in the diagram is the architect’s solution for the “railing” along the hallway. We’ll be taking the existing floor joists cutting them down into thin strips and creating a “screen” (wall) with vertical strips of old floor joists. That will be our version of “original details” and should look pretty incredible if we get the right balance of colors and textures in the space.

Continuing down the building… The rental unit will have smaller rooms that are still a decen size (i.e. the bedroom will be 175 sq. ft. and the living/dining room 260 sq. ft.). We’ll be putting in a decent Ikea kitchen (not bare bones, but still Ikea). One of the things we’re debating currently is the appropriate level of security for the rental unit. Our options are metal gates/bars on the doors/windows -or- laminated security glass with a security break sensors in lieu of gates/bars. Gates and bars will feel more secure, but it may seem like you’re in a prison.

The rental will be a bit of a duplex. I say “bit of” because it incorporates cellar space which can’t legally be a bedroom. It can be a media room, a workspace for an artist or craftsman, or a home office. Because that’s the south-facing wall, there should be plenty of light down there so it won’t feel too much like being in a cellar. What this means is is that it’ll be far more than a 1 bedroom, but not really a two bedroom. The tenant will also have their own laundry room in the cellar.

The cellar will also have the mechanical room and storage space for us. There’s this incredible arched brick ceiling in the “vault” under the “front yard” which we’ll be repairing/restoring. This townhouse is rather unusual in that it has a separate entrance for the cellar under the stoop, so we don’t have to go through the tenant’s space to get to the cellar.

In terms of utilities we’ll only be providing heat for the tenant. We’re separating all the other utilities – gas, electric, even water. Given how the boiler will work if we were to put in separate heating for the tenant the heating system wouldn’t run at optimal efficiency. So it won’t cost that much more to give the tenant heat. We don’t want to have the typical over heated New York apartment. Instead, we’ll keep it at a temperature where we’re comfortable in a light sweater but not so cool that our hands get cold. That will be lower than the minimum heat required by NYC, so the A/C units in the rental unit will be “mini PTAC” thru-wall units which can also provide supplemental heat as needed to keep the tenant comfortable. That means we’ll need to have the tenant sign something saying they understand they aren’t getting full heat for their unit.

I know Julia Angwin had mentioned on her blog at the Wall Street Journal that she had a tough time trying to figure out if she still wanted telephone jacks. Our strategy for voice and data is fairly aggressive, but also a bit conservative. Half of the closet in our home office will be a mini “server room” complete with rack mounted servers, cool air intake and warm air exhaust. (Dan and I do web projects for a living – we need all that sorta stuff). All voice, data and security will “home run” to that closet. We’re assuming we’ll continue to have a Vonage VoIP system, so we see won’t have a dedicated phone line coming into the building. Other than in the server closet there will be only two voice jacks – one in the office for the fax machine and one in the living room for a phone. We’ll also have Ethernet jacks throughout the house even though wireless will be our main form of connectivity. Primarily we’re putting Ethernet jacks next to cable TV jacks because we believe video and entertainment over the Internet will be common in the near future and the video/entertainment boxes may not support wireless. The Ethernet jacks will also be used for wireless routers – we assume we’ll need several to properly cover the entire house.

There’s a lot more detail I could go into, but that covers the basics… It’ll be fun to see it all come together…

I’ve been meaning to do a series of blog posts on the state of townhouse sales so far in 2010 by neighborhood. Here’s the first in that series – covering the neighborhood that’s near and dear to us – Mount Morris Park…

Generally I find there are two groups of townhouses – 1) ones that need $500K+/- in renovations, and 2) ones that don’t (at least not right away).

On the high end…

The very first one, 226 Lenox was a bit of a special case – it’s probably at the high end of the ones needing around $500K in renovation. Among the others you can see the trend is generally up (slightly). The standard price seemed to be $1.65M (no matter what the size, oddly), but now that’s been broken and prices are just under $2M.

On the low end…

The first thing to notice is that this is still a great time to buy a townhouse shell in Harlem. There’s over a million dollar difference between the price of shells and the high end places, but you can renovate a shell into a high end townhouse for about $600-$800K, so you’re likely to net between $300K and $500K on the renovation.

Price per square foot is tricky with shells. Taking our place as an example – officially it’s 4 stories and 3605 sq. ft. However, in actuality it’s 5 stories and 4500 sq. ft. Oddly, I thought the number of stories would get fixed as we went through the DOB plan approval process, but I saw the plan examiner look right at the plans and call it a 4 story building. However, they are now billing it as having 4,500 sq. ft. – at least that much is getting corrected. What this means is as you look at townhouses you need to calculate the real square footage and determine your own price per square foot.

The bottom line is, like the upper end, there is an upward trend in prices for shells. Not counting the fully occupied SRO (which you wouldn’t want to touch with a 10′ pole unless you wanted to be a landlord, not a home owner), our place was pretty much the low price on a price per square foot basis at $117/sq. ft. The others since that time have been more money on a price per square foot basis (which is how you really need to price buildings like these). Assuming the recent ones are 4 story buildings misclassified as 3 story buildings – that means the actual price per square foot for shells is now in the mid-$140s.

A while back we discovered Eggersmann at the A&D building and really liked them. In fact we liked them better than Poliform which is saying a lot – our last kitchen was by Poliform and Poliform’s sense of design resonates with us, but Eggersman is even better (in our opinion). When we first talked to them, Eggersmann was nice enough to mock up a kitchen for our space and quote us a price, but the price didn’t really work with our budget.

Well, months passed and then someone at Eggersmann found my previous blog post mentioning them. They contacted us and asked if we had made a choice yet. Thanks to problems with DOB, we hadn’t. They noticed that I had mentioned that their last price was too high, and offered to design a lower cost kitchen. Our kitchen design and layout had changed somewhat since their last proposal. The biggest change was moving the coat closet further into the building – across from the stairs rather than across from the kitchen. The other change was getting rid of the upper cabinets and taking the cabinets at each end to the ceiling (which is 10.5′ tall). The net result was a 1/3rd savings in cost. We need to see where the other numbers come in, but we’re thinking we just might be able to afford an Eggersmann kitchen, which is quite exciting…

Dan and I had gone through several rounds of kitchen designs but hadn’t been 100% happy with anything we came up with. Many of the designs reminded us of our last kitchen and we really wanted this one to be different. Finally I proposed a layout one day and Dan liked it. That’s the layout Eggersmann laid out (and improved slightly). Here are some 3D renderings Eggersmann did for us…

Instead of having coat closets across from the kitchen, we’re going to have a bench where people can sit and talk. This will essentially be the view from the bench. The door to the right is the front door. The upper panels in that door will be glass. The column to the left will house a Sub Zero 736 TCI fridge. At over $6,000 it’s our one huge extravagance in the kitchen, but we loved the 700 TCI we had in our last kitchen… The shelves in the center island will be used for wine and cookbooks. Dog leashes and the like will go in the cabinets below.

This shows a few of the details more clearly. We’re envisioning Corian (white) counter tops, a stainless back splash. The range is a compromise. We’re going with a 30″ Electrolux when Dan would really love a 36″ Wolf, but it costs nearly $4,000 more. The range hood was one of our challenges. The shape of it will probably be a bit different than what you see, but luckily we can exhaust directly out the wall, so no chimney is needed. We’re also thinking of put lighting on the top of the shelf as well as the bottom so the wall isn’t so dark.

Seen from a different perspective… The wall to the right will be exposed brick, and the front doors will have glass in the top panels. The window looks huge as it is, but looking at it now I realize it wasn’t drawn big enough. It’s 4 feet wide, 7 1/2 feet tall, so it will be another foot higher (at least). It won’t be one huge piece of glass. Instead it will look a bit like a french door (two vertical casement windows).

This last one shows how we’re hiding the microwave in a nook with additional cabinets. Up by the ceiling, above the cabinets, will be the A/C. We’re going with a “mini-spit ductless” system and that location gives us a nice place to hide the unit. (Not going with concealed units is another budgetary concession). The large wall will be exposed brick, so while the cabinets will be white / off-white, there will be plenty of color and warmth in the kitchen.

The other thing I’ve realized looking at these renderings is that the radiator we were going to put under the window will conflict with opening the cabinets. Dan and I are debating where the radiator should go.

So we’re crossing our fingers hoping we can get the Eggersmann kitchen. It’ll be really wonderful. Their sense of design is really special and their fit and finish is incredible.

After we took the first look at the place we wound up buying, we noticed 243 West 120th Street and had our broker get us in even though it wasn’t officially on the market. I really liked this building. We bid on it, but our bid wasn’t accepted. It’s now officially back on the market and the price has been reduced to $795K. If you’re looking for a shell I think it’s one of the most interesting townhouses on the market – and possibly one of the best investment properties – if you can get it for the right price.

There are two big things the building has going for it. First, location – it’s practically in the heart of all the redevelopment and buzz that’s happening in South Harlem. Walk across St. Nicholas Avenue and you’re in the middle of everything that’s hot and trendy in Harlem – Nectar wine bar, Moca Lounge, etc. And it’s also close to the A,B,C and D trains at 125 – so it’s just 1 stop from 59th Street.

The second thing the building has going for it are its development possibilities. You can (and probably should) invest a $1 million in this building, and when you’re done it’ll be worth more than you put into it (if you’re smart about how you spend the money). Because most of the lot is within 100 feet of St. Nicholas Ave, it has a FAR just under 6 (which means you can expand the building far bigger than you can other townhouses that have a 3.44 FAR), and it’s got a C1-4 commercial overlay, so you can have the option of a commercial tenant on the ground floor (but it has to be one that services the immediate neighborhood).

It’s currently a 4 story building. If I were buying the building I’d push the back wall back to maximize square footage and add two partial floors on top. I’d configure it with three units. Because the building is only 17 feet wide you don’t really want to make it more than 3 family. The basement would be one unit with the possibility of a commercial tenant. The parlor floor could be a two bedroom apartment, and the top two existing floors plus the two floors I’d add would be a large quadraplex. You could step back each of the additional floors and allow for outdoor terraces making the quadraplex an incredible space with tremendous outdoor space…

In the picture above you can see that there is an alley along the west side of the building. There are a number of existing windows in that wall. The rules about lot line windows apply, but it’s a great to have windows in your bathrooms and a wall you can exhaust vents out of.

As you can see the façade and the stoop need a lot of work. But as you move inside the original floors and a some original details are still intact…

(click on any image to see a bigger version of it)

I have to say going through the building was a bit unsettling. There were clothes and sleeping bags left over from when homeless used to live in the building. The staircase was a bit rickety, and there was a dead cat in the basement. But all of those things are easy to fix.

While you can buy this building and not expand it beyond it’s current 3,400 sq. ft. it’s best if you plan on making the building substantially larger. The construction will be pretty expensive given that you’ll want to add two floors and push the rear wall back, and you may need to reinforce the foundation to support the additional floors and you might want to lower the floor in the cellar – none of which comes cheap. But given the area, you can spend the money and have it come back to you.

In terms of price it’s currently at $795K. Townhouses typically sell for around $200K off their asking prices, so I’d guess it’ll sell for around $600K, maybe a bit higher. $600K would be $176/sq. ft. which is high for a shell, but the location and development possibilities explain why it’s at the high end for a shell. Even if you spent $200/sq. ft. renovating it (no expansion) you’d still be under $400/sq. ft. which is supported by the comps. If you want to expand the building I think you’ll find that cost effective as well.

I should also say something about the tax situation. The taxes are quite high – $9,664/year. Most townhouses pay about 1/3rd that amount. The current owner sorta messed up. He should have pulled a permit to convert it to 2-3 family, started construction, and gotten Department of Finance to reclassify the building and bring the taxes down. This is actually a good example of what I was talking about in the previous post – you don’t want to convert this building to 4 (+) family because the taxes will remain high and the additional rental income may not cover the higher taxes. 2 or 3 family makes a lot more sense in this case. If you can get it reclassified as 2 or 3 family, then the assessed value will drop to $10,200 (6% of the market value of $170K), which is far lower than the current transitional assessed value of $72,990. The taxes on $10,200 would be $1,745 – nearly $8K less than what’s being paid now. DOF will up the market value because you’re doing work on the building, but you’ll still pay substantially less than what’s being paid now.

It’s probably worth mentioning that we bid $575K on it back in November 2009 and it was rejected – we were told we weren’t even close. I would have gone up to $600K and possibly a bit higher if we had access to the money, but the ‘no’ was so resounding we never went back with another bid. It wouldn’t surprise me if the owner currently feels a bit firm at $795K, so it could take some negotiation to get the price you want…

Whether you get this building or another I recommend you have a real estate broker who’s an aggressive negotiator. Norman Horowitz (the listing agent) is a good guy, but I wouldn’t go to him directly since you will be wanting to negotiate a significant amount off the asking price. If you’re looking for a tough negotiator who really works for her clients, we recommend Maria McCallister of Barak Realty – she’s proven herself to us in both the sale of our apartment and the purchase of our townhouse.

After a VERY VERY long time waiting, we finally closed on 168 West 123rd Street in Harlem.

We’ve been looking at townhouses in Harlem for about a year now and saw at least 30 different places (not including drive-bys). At first I was only interested in Hamilton Heights and Sugar Hill (aka “West Harlem”) which would have had us near the A, B, C, and D trains at 145th Street. Being two stops from 59th Street (on the A and D) seemed like it would be great. The nice part about Hamilton Heights / Sugar Hill is how stable the area encompassed by the historic district is. It really is lovely, but once you get outside of the historic district it’s hit-or-miss. The bottom line was that there was  nothing available in our price range on a block we wanted to live on. I’ll be doing blog posts in the near future on the various places we looked at and the reasons why they didn’t work out…

I really didn’t know that much about Central Harlem, but as Hamilton Heights & Sugar Hill started drying up we started looking at places further south and east. Strivers’ Row is stunning, but it wasn’t quite in our price range and the subway access was a bit bleak. Strivers’ Row townhouses do have garages, but that doesn’t help the people we want to visit us and work for us. The other issue in Central Harlem were the rather large and ugly housing projects that were built in the 1950s. I just refused to live in a place where I’d have to walk past something like that all the time. Other places were on the 2/3 train and while that was OK, it wasn’t as good as being on the A, B, C, D.

In early October our (wonderful) broker, Maria McCallister of Barak Realty, suggested we look at 168 West 123rd Street. Up to that point I had found most of the places we looked at. I’m not quite sure why I kept skipping over that particular listing, but (obviously) I’m quite happy she suggested it. As I went over the details of the property I realized the location was pretty incredible. It wasn’t near any big housing projects and it was within easy walking distance of the 2, 3, A, B, C and D trains. And since this was Central Harlem it was just 1 stop from 59th Street on the A & D trains. And the 2/3 gives us great access to the Upper West Side.

The building had the critical “certificate of no harassment” that you need to convert the building to 2 family. There is public housing close to our place, but it’s the type of building that you don’t know is public housing unless someone tells you or you’re particularly well-versed in the tell-tale signs. I knew the townhouse was one of a group of townhouses that were all being sold by the same owner – TPE Townhouses Harlem. At the time I didn’t know much about TPE or the story behind those particular townhouses. In the coming months I’d learn a lot more about them than I ever wanted to…

When we looked at the building we realized it was a total shell. There were no floors, no windows, not much of anything – just 4 walls, a leaky roof, and some rotting floor joists. It was sorta cool – you walked down into the cellar and looked up 60 feet to the roof. It was somehow very peaceful and had a strange beauty about it. Here’s a picture of the interior – it’s the view looking up. The timber you see are old floor joists (they happen to be some of the better, less rotted ones)…

As you can see, there are no “original details” to preserve. In other places there may be plaster walls, or original tile work, or old fireplaces. While we would have been game to take on a project with original details, they do create a bit of a problem since you have to do the construction somewhat surgically in order to preserve them, which will increase cost somewhat. None of that is necessary here. It also gives us a completely blank slate to construct whatever we want (and can afford).

The good part is that people with total shells are more realistic about the value of their place than other people are. Finding realistic sellers was one of the many problems we encountered in our search. Most owners just didn’t (want to) realize how far the values of their places had fallen since the height two years before. The reason we bought was because values were down about 65% from their high in 2007. That’s a hard pill to swallow for owners. Estates were some of the only people who were being realistic.

Another seller that was being pretty realistic was TPE Townhouses Harlem. They had purchased 11 townhouse shells in 2004 – 2005. They were all townhouses that had been involved in mortgage fraud starting in the early ’90s. Unbelievably the mortgage fraud was perpetuated by churches who typically would buy townhouses at inflated prices from accomplices and then take out the maximum federally-insured mortgages which they would promptly never pay. The church involved in the TPE Townhouses was Beulah Church Of God In Christ Jesus. I do not know the particular details of the Beulah case – just how it turned out. Based on how it turned out there’s a very good chance Beulah didn’t actually commit the fraud, but again – I don’t know. In some of the cases people would forge documents pretending to be the churches so the churches were involved but not guilty of any wrong doing. I do know there was a court decision in 2002 that determined that Beulah was the actual owner of the properties. TPE bought our particular townhouse from Beulah in 2004 for $1.13M.

TPE then seems to have wasted the next three years of opportunity. They could have developed and sold the properties at the height of the market in 2007 for a huge profit. In 2005 they took out a blanket mortgage on 11 townhouses for a total of $14.3M. They’ve developed the two most valuable buildings that are over on Frederick Douglass Blvd (8th Avenue) in the heart of “SoHa” (South Harlem – the new and upcoming area in Harlem that’s been recently gentrified), but they only did that development recently. The other 9 townhouses they decided to sell just before the market crashed.

TPE put our place on the market in July of 2008 for $1.1M. In November they lowered it to $995K. In March of 2009 they lowered it to $895K and a week later reduced it again to $795K where it stayed for quite a while. We saw the place for the first time on 10/15 and put in an admittedly low-ball offer of $450K the next day. It was rejected and we were told our offer “needed to start with a 5″. Almost 3 weeks later, on 11/5, we came back with an offer of $500K. We then continued to take our time negotiating the price because some other properties came up that we were interested in. On 11/13 they reduced the price $100K to $695K most likely trying to see if anyone else would come in with a higher bid. At this point we gave our broker a ceiling price that we couldn’t go over and told her to see what she could do. By this point in our relationship with Maria we knew she was very good at negotiating price and we trusted her. After a few rounds of negotiation, the day after Thanksgiving (11/27) we got the call that the seller accepted a price of $530K. (That’s less than half what they paid for it in 2004 and what they listed it for a year an a half before).

We were thinking that since it was technically an all cash deal we might close before the end of the year. Boy, were we wrong! First things were slowed down by TPE telling their lawyers to put as little time into the closing as possible to reduce costs. I should mention that TPE is Tahl Propp Equities which is a big Harlem landlord that seems to own over 100 buildings in Harlem alone as well as some fairly large office buildings in Midtown. Tahl comes from a well-established NY real estate family. Propp was one of Donald Trump’s lawyers at one point. This sale was pretty insignificant to their overall operations.

Then we hit a wall with title issues. Given the sordid legal history of the building our lawyer insisted in using his own title agent and insurance company – not the one TPE was insisting we use. In fact, they wouldn’t even go into contract unless we either settled the title insurance issue or used their title company. So we waited. In a hotter market not being in contract would have been dangerous. But in this particular case we were pretty safe. It wasn’t in the best interest of the seller or the seller’s broker to get another offer on the place. They still have about a half dozen similar properties to sell. It’s much better that they make two sales than one at a slightly higher price.

It wasn’t until early February that the title issues got settled. The seller’s title company was actually a pretty good company so now we have two big, solid title companies that think the building is OK, which will help when we go to sell. We signed the contract during the (first) big snowstorm on 2/10 and the seller’s signed a week later on 2/18 and we closed yesterday, 3/3.

The closing was actually a bit up in the air there for a little while. Apparently the seller’s bank was giving them difficulty about it. Remember, they initially had a $14.3M mortgage covering 11 buildings. They’ve developed two of the buildings, and sold maybe half the others ones. It makes me wonder how well that loan is collateralized these days… I know our final payment went 100% to the bank (The Community Preservation Corp). I’m guessing a fair amount of the deposit went to the bank as well.

So now we’re working on plans with our architect. More on that soon…

Just some basic info on the building – It’s 15 feet wide, 5 stories tall (most are 4 stories). The usable interior space will be about 13 feet in width. It’s longer than most townhouses – 58 feet. That means we can have decent sized bedrooms of 200+ sq. ft. The ground floor and part of the cellar will be a rental unit (residential or commercial) which will help offset the cost of the mortgage.

Here are some pictures of the front and back of the building. The big window on the parlor level is nearly 8 feet tall and 4 feet wide! The front of the building faces north. You can see in the picture how there’s an alleyway between us and the apartment building to the right. This will be helpful since we can punch holes in the wall and have windows in the bathrooms, and vents for the kitchen range hoods.

The back of the building will be incredibly sunny since it faces south. Some of the windows you see are about 7 feet high and 3 feet wide – so the rooms on the back of the building will be incredibly sunny. Obviously the entire back wall has to be resurfaced and the brick repointed.

It’s a huge project, but it’ll be fun and the end result will be pretty spectacular. And no, we’re not doing the work ourselves. Everyone seems to ask that but it’s an absurd question… Just monitoring the work and choosing finishing materials will require an incredible amount of time.