Lucyarth

May 5, 2009

re: 296 Main Street, Beacon, NY

Dear Lucy and Arthur:

I was very impressed with the beautiful living/studio/retail space at 296 Main Street. It was obvious that the owners care for the building and were personally involved in the renovation.

As I mentioned at lunch, I have some concern about the masonry foundation, particularly in the front and somewhat on the side adjoining the street. In the front the brick is rather deteriorated with significant spalling. Some bricks are almost completely deteriorated. The exterior bricks on the wall along the side street show some spalling as well. Brick that were used in historic buildings were fired at a lower temperature and are softer that modern bricks. The brick was meant to absorb and release moisture and the lime mortar was allowed some flexibility for the changes in the brick. But the extent of the deterioration is a serious concern to me. Masonry repair in historic structures is a specialty, the materials and technique must respect the existing system. As such it can be rather expensive.

My other significant concern is about the bulge on the side of the building facing the street. At some point in the building's history there was some movement of the structure. The building is rather tall and narrow and so the potential for lateral movement is higher than average. It appears that the original builders considered this as seen in the use of diagonal bracing in the wall separating the kitchen from the dining room. I am concerned that subsequent renovation may have removed some of that bracing and allowed for some bulging of the building. Any renovation in the wall between the two bedrooms would have to take that into account.

The work on the major systems of the building seems carefully done and well crafted although I am concerned about non-standard building practice in evidence. The building code calls for pressure treated lumber for all framing in contact with masonry. In the basement there are knee walls providing additional support for the floor framing, parallel to the existing foundation. The base plate on these walls is regular lumber, not pressure treated.

In light of the bulge in the sidewall I have some concern that the wide open beamed expanse might not be engineered to oppose lateral movement. There is no evidence of diagonal bracing.

The plumbing has been completely redone. I was surprised to notice that neither the kitchen nor the laundry appear to be vented. Considering that the closest stack is probably 15' away in the bathroom, this seems to be a significant oversight; one not solvable using a "quick-vent" for the kitchen. Proper venting insures good drainage. Poorly vented construction will work most of the time but I worry about backups when soapy water from the washing machine, dishwasher and kitchen sink simultaneously make demands on that drain. The copper piping in that area looks overly complex and convoluted.

The owner mentioned with some pride that the electrical work was all 12-2 wire. while I am not familiar with the electrical code in NY, there is no move in MA in that direction. I would argue that the use of 12-2 exclusively is a non-standard practice. Good practice requires that the devices match the wire size, in that case all of the switches, receptacles and fixtures would need to be rated at 20 amps. That did not appear to be the case. Standard practice is to use 15 amp circuits for lighting and convenience outlets and 20 amp circuits for kitchen receptacles and other hi-load circuits.

The heating system too appeared to vary from standard practice for mechanical systems. The stated reason of having separate shutoffs for each radiator was a little suspect. A well designed mechanical system can be drained for maintenance or renovation with little trouble. Home-running each radiator to the boiler requires and enormous amount of piping. Heat not delivered to the radiators and lost in the piping will be significant. I am not sure that the heating system will be comfortable and efficient. Some radiator runs are significantly longer than others and will have greater resistance to flow. While it will be possible to balance the system by adjusting all the ball valves in the basement, this is not a well engineered solution.

While I am not sure of about the NY state energy codes, I would think that they would be similar to those of Massachusetts. A renovation as significant as this would need to meet current codes. The building has brick firestopping in the exterior walls of the first two floors. The R-value of brick is very low ~=1, lower than the R value of modern windows. This is about 1/15th of 4" wall with fiberglass insulation. The walls were furred out with what appeared to be 3/4" strapping and then insulation board was placed between the studs. The insulation board seemed to be less that 3/4", much thinner than the owner claimed it to be. In the basement, the heating pipes that were visible were not insulated. My overall sense is that the compliance with modern energy codes was inconsistent at best.