I have recently been busy with other projects for clients, while trying to line up a good contractor to help us with the renovation. In the process of working on the project one of the stumbling blocks that we have come to is the choice of a heating system. Almost every plumber who has seen the job is trying to convince us to convert the oil burner to gas to reduce heating costs. I think this is a good, cost conscious approach. Supposedly this will cost around $10,000 to $12,000 and includes removal of the oil tank. It is simple and straight forward. Although in every conversation regarding this topic, I have routinely felt that it is an up sell by the plumber.

The issue that I have, is that the boiler is currently 20+ years old and was not designed to be used with gas. A rudimentary analogy is that the procedure of switching a boiler from oil to gas is similar to removing the engine from a Chevrolet and trying to install it into a Dodge. You can do it, although it will take some work and may not operate as well as it currently does, provided the plumber is relatively skilled and knows what they are doing.

In an effort to get to the bottom or the heart of the issue we decided to speak with a good friend and mechanical engineer, David White of the Right Environments to get some impartial advice. I will say that it was an engaging conversation with many ramifications to the larger context of the home and our renovation. We discussed the pros and cons of putting in new windows, adding insulation in the walls, and more importantly altering the heating and cooling systems of the building. After walking through the building, it appears that the biggest bang for our buck on the long term operational costs will come from changing the boiler to a more efficient system.

We had toyed with the idea of using mini split AC units that heat and cool because they are easy to install, but the cost of running these systems on a month to month basis will be quite expensive and they produce dry, stale air. After reviewing the existing boiler in great detail, David mentioned that high efficiency condensing boilers can operate at about a 95% efficiency versus the 55% to 60% at which our current boiler operates. High efficiency condensing boilers are able to do this by sucking all the heat out of the exhaust air and putting it back into the hydronic supply. This means that you can use a 4″ PVC pipe for the chimney versus the 10″ insulated steel pipe that we currently have. This translates into real savings every month.

A high efficiency condensing boiler combined with a thermostatic radiator valve in each room will allow each occupant to control the temperature of each space. Our entire building is currently controlled with one thermostat in the cellar. Unfortunately the big drawback to the system is that while it is very common in Europe, it has yet to find wide spread acceptance in the United States. This fact also helps to explain why the plumbers have been so eager to convert the existing boiler to gas. We are currently looking into a few heating contractors to get accurate quotes before we proceed.

Another interesting fact that I would love to share is that David pointed out how large some of the old radiators were. What I was shocked to learn is that the reason so many New Yorkers open their windows in the winter is not by accident, but by design. It was believed and advocated by health officials that allowing fresh air to move freely through the building would limit the spread of Spanish Influenza around the turn of the century. The Fresh Air Movement became widely accepted in engineering circles and was advocated for in building codes. In its aims, it cautioned engineers to specify boilers and radiators that would be large enough to heat the building on the coldest day of the year, with the windows open. This is why newer radiators are so much smaller than older radiators.

The Spanish Flu affected millions of people and must have been a terrifying ordeal to have lived through because it affected not only the size of radiators, but the lives of millions of people.

In this image surgical masks provide a measure of protection against a killer flu for American baseball players in 1918. That year—the final year of World War I—the Spanish flu took 50 million lives worldwide, at least three times as many as during the war.

I found a great post with more detail here…

I have to say that I am a fan of historic districts and the idea that we as a society deem some level of importance to the creative efforts of architects and designers who came before us. These districts as designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) create an architectural continuity within the urban fabric to prior generations allowing us to understand our moment in time as relative to theirs. The home that we have purchased is in the proposed historic district of Bedford Corners and along with the general charm of the neighborhood is one of the reasons among many that we decided to purchase the home. It has also been said that home values in historic districts tend to trend upward once approval is made by city council. Without waxing to poetic about the past, it should be said that I am architect who also loves contemporary design.

The truth is that no matter how many times I get drunk at Madison Square Gardens in elusive hope of seeing the Rangers hoist the Stanley Cup, it never ameliorates the fact that I also believe New York would be a far better place had our forefathers not demolished Penn Station for the fetid toilet above which the Rangers currently play. While Jackie Onassis should be praised for having saved Grand Central with the help and urgence of Phillip Johnson after having lost the battle to save the old Penn Station and for helping to create the LPC to save historically significant buildings, I sometimes find myself at odds with the mission of preserving what seems like every last crumb of the city.

I have been at hearings at listened to people fervently argue for and against these districts and there is no easy answer to this question. One could argue that the very nature of these districts drive housing costs upwards, increase renovation costs and displace many longtime residents who cannot afford to install historically accurate period windows with special muntins or other such requirements to meet the satisfaction of the LPC. From the LPC website;

As an owner of a landmarked building, what are my obligations and duties under the Landmarks Law?
In general, there are three things that you must do as an owner of landmarked property:

1. You must obtain prior approval from the Commission before you do any work on the building.
2. You must follow and abide by all permits and other conditions required by the Commission; and
3. You must maintain your building in good repair to ensure that the outside portions of the building (or designated interior spaces if there is an interior landmark) do not become deteriorated or dilapidated.

Through their authority the LPC has the power to instantly deem vast areas of the city as architecturally significant through these historic districts thereby creating another layer of regulation, zoning restrictions which limit the supply of housing driving costs upward and sometimes alienating longtime residents who vent their frustrations at the very thought of these districts. They also have to the power to deny or allow a project, if it does or does not meet their not so defined standard of being historically sympathetic with the previous design or urban fabric. While I do not know anyone personally at Studio V, I will say their proposal for the Empires Stores warehouses is pretty cool and preserves much of the existing building which is essentially a shell. It also looks like they created some stimulating spaces that I myself would imagine being hip and cool and in keeping with the Brooklyn zeitgeist that we have all come to know and love. The developer Midtown Equities took a chance with Studio V and now the LPC has thrown egg in their face in the attempt to ye oldify the city.

I lived in Providence, Rhode Island for many years and watched them destroy the city in the attempt to preserve it. Because they could not afford standing seam copper roofs for the their bus depot, they decided to use cheap painted green steel standing seam roofing in an effort to make it look like old patina copper. Because they could not afford marble or real stucco, they used Styrofoam dryvit and within a few years the pink foam started to show on the bottoms of all the buildings. I can go both ways on this conversation but I cringe at the thought of snubbing new contemporary architecture, nurturing young artistic talent and cool new ideas for ye oldification because some old fogey thinks it would be nicer.

It makes me wonder if back in the day when Penn Station was first proposed by a group of young architects and no doubt a developer of some type, with its gleaming glass roof and innovative glass floors, yes that’s right, glass floors above the train platforms, if the LPC would have had the courage to allow it to be built…

How it went today…

Me: Good morning, how come your so late.

Contractor: We got into an accident.

Me: An accident, what happened? Was anyone hurt.

Contractor: Nobody was hurt, but a car opened its door as we were driving past and we took it off with our truck.

Me: Really…

Contractor: Yes, and it was a cop car. The cop was opening the door…

Me: Oh no.

Contractor: Yes, and it was directly in front of the precinct.

The truth is, you just never know what a day is going to bring you and sometimes you just have to roll with it, thank your lucky stars that nobody was hurt and your insurance is fully paid. This is the stuff you don’t learn in school and it is what ultimately makes a day interesting.

No doubt my wonderful contractor will undoubtedly be dealing with endless paperwork from the NYPD for the next few days. So it goes…