Let me preface this by saying I've renovated 4 properties, like 12 bathrooms and NEVER had such stress in my life. But of course, none were in NYC. We have been rented the apartment that I grew up in (on the UPS) for 10 years to a tenant who moved out unexpectedly in October. I've now been forced with the task of renovating the apartment which is in great condition but needs some cosmetic... [more]
Let me preface this by saying I've renovated 4 properties, like 12 bathrooms and NEVER had such stress in my life. But of course, none were in NYC.
We have been rented the apartment that I grew up in (on the UPS) for 10 years to a tenant who moved out unexpectedly in October. I've now been forced with the task of renovating the apartment which is in great condition but needs some cosmetic upgrades.
The bathroom shower fixtures are the originals installed by the building. They work fine but look incredibly dated. If the building had used practically ANY other brand, we would have at least a few options. But they installed a commercial brand that has rendered the current shower fixtures obselete and offers no upgrades for it. Period. So to do ANYTHING with the fixtures, u have to change the Shower Valve.
In ANY other place, this would be a minimal job that takes 2-3 hours. But I've spend a week going back and forth with the building and the Plumber each one telling me the OTHER demands that ALL the plumbing be changed, which is a cost of 10K vs 1500 for changing just the shower body valves. The pipes are FINE. They have been working fine and there is no damage to them. How can we essentially be blackmailed into the 2 extreme choices of not touching our shower faucets and having to leave them there looking dated as hell, OR, spend TEN GRAND to change ALL the plumbing.
This seems incredibly unfair and illegal. If there is no damage that requires them to be changed and the only reason is AGE, then shouldn't everyone be required to change the pipes in the whole building?? If u dont want to renovate anything, the pipes are good enough to leave there, but if you want to do any cosmetic changes that cut a hole in the wall, then you MUST spend a fortune to change everything?
The building told me that they DON'T demand this, but instead rely on the plumber to decide if it is necessary work or not. If not, they are fine letting us do whatever. The plumber first told me, if the building said ok, he would just change the shower bodies. But NOW he's saying they REQUIRE him to do all the pipes. Each is pointing the finger at the other.
I've already had the hole cut and bought the valves, but if changing the valves means we have to spend 10K just because we opened the wall, I don't know what to do. It just seems incredibly unfair if there is no impending reason the work would have to be done otherwise.
*tears of frustration*
[less]
Response by estimator
about 14 years ago
Posts: 77
Member since: Nov 2011
Most of the building in NYC require to replace shut off valve if you want to change any plumbing fixtures.
Reason is provide local shut off valves each apartment for emergency situations.
let me know if you need solution advise.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by gabrielle904
about 14 years ago
Posts: 121
Member since: Jan 2009
Hi, if I may say, I think you are luckier than you realize.
I would get the plumber and the "building" in the same room for a meeting.
Thank the building for being flexible, in allowing just the shower bodies to be changed and let them know you would like to take them up on this offer and how much you appreciate it.
Hopefully they will honor what they said to you.
Hand them a simple letter stating this and asking them to sign off on it, and explain it is because you like clarity and don't like misunderstandings.
File it, as you want it in writing as they are giving you a big break, breaking into the wall and replacing the shower body, which will then need to be retiled, is deemed a renovation (especially as you yourself are saying it is NOT a repair). I haven't seen a building alteration agreement in NYC that doesn't demand you replace the pipes back to the risers.
If you feel uncomfortable about this, I suggest you send an email to all at the meeting thanking them and outlining there offer, again so you have it in writing, just in case they try to play games once the walls are open.
Assuming you have a standard bathroom with only 3 fixtures, the bath and shower counting for one, the vanity two and the toilet the third. $10,000 for 3 fixtures, i.e. $3,300 a fixture is the highest I have heard of a plumber trying to charge. I did hear $3000, once, however that was in one of the finest buildings in NYC, where every tradesman understandable doubles the price as soon as they see the place. $1,500 a fixture is what I would imagine the average person pays, landlords pay about $500 fixture, however they have more volume.
I hope this helps,
Good luck
Gabrielle
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by front_porch
about 14 years ago
Posts: 5316
Member since: Mar 2008
this is not at all unusual with a prewar -- where the building realizes that the plumbing needs to be updated but is trying to spare the shareholders the cost of doing it all at once -- to insist that whenever a shareholder renovates that the plumbing be renewed all the way back to the riser.
If you can't afford the $10K for the modernization, just leave the fixtures (and I assume where you're saying "fixtures" you may mean "fittings") you have.
ali r.
DG Neary Realty
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by maly
about 14 years ago
Posts: 1377
Member since: Jan 2009
I wouldn't change the original fixtures in a pre-war building. What looks "dated" to you, looks "incredibly charming" to others. If they are functional, and this is a rental, you are wasting your money. People who love a McMansion modern look are NOT going to rent in pre-war buildings anyway. Some things are hated by most people (wall-to-wall carpets come to mind), but otherwise you have to know your market. This pre-war building will never be a high-rise condo. Spending for a condo-spa-like bathroom is unlikely to get recouped.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by PMG
about 14 years ago
Posts: 1322
Member since: Jan 2008
Your cheapest option is always to go with the super and the building's go-to plumber. If they insist on additional work, that's just the cost of the upgrades in your building. They probably have very good reasons. Given that an all-new bath would cost up to $40,000, you may find that spending $10k is still worth it for an updated look of new fittings (of course it depends on how ugly and dated those fittings are). Or it may only make sense to do a total renovation. You are correct that the scope of the plumbing work, absent changing the pipes would be around $1500.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by gcondo
about 14 years ago
Posts: 1111
Member since: Feb 2009
10k for this plumbing work is robbery - big surprise there. get a few estimates/opinions then?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 300_mercer
about 14 years ago
Posts: 10569
Member since: Feb 2007
I would try tipping the super a few hundred $ and get a competent plumber to put in the right fitting. No one has to know.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Primer05
about 14 years ago
Posts: 2103
Member since: Jul 2009
This is very common in most buildings in Manhattan. As long as you are opening up the wall they want you change the plumbing back to the riser. I do not believe it is the plumbing who is charging the $10,000.00. Once the plumber is done everything has to be closed up, new tiles need to be purchased and installed. Fixtures have to be reinstalled, etc.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by estimator
about 14 years ago
Posts: 77
Member since: Nov 2011
go with 300-mercer cheapest way.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by angel9894
about 14 years ago
Posts: 73
Member since: Nov 2011
Hello all and thank you for your feedback. Just to clarify a few things (and update)
1. This is not a Pre-War building. It was built in 1980
2. The alteration agreement states NO WHERE that there is a requirement to change plumbing and fittings and only states that for any work done with the wall open, it must be inspected by a building engineer before being closed.
3. The building gave us approval via email 3 times. We hired the building approved plumber with this understanding. He came in, said the pipes looked great, but that we HAD to change them because of the buildings rule. We then contacted the building who said "We do not have a rule, we simply defer to the plumber and what they deem needs to be done". The both pointed the finger at the other for 2 days. The plumber then flipped out. We hired an outside plumber. He came, intalled the shower bodies and said our pipes were in GREAT condition. Absolutely no structural damage nor leaks whatsoever. Then, the ORIGINAL plumber came into the apartment 2 hours before scheduled and looked and first said "These look fantastic, everything looks great", THEN brought in 3 more men, The bldg engineer, one of the managers and some other guy and they then said "The building requires you to change all pipes. Period. If you do not, we will keep your 5K check". When asked where in the by laws this was stated they said "We don't know. It is simply a building rule".
My issue with this is two fold.
1. You don't mess with pipes that AREN'T broken. Its stupid. This pipes are NOT pre-war and are FINE.
2. There has been a lot of recent debate (and lawsuits) about what EXACTLY unit owners are financially responsible vis a vis pipes. Interior pipes are Owners responsibility. However, exterior shared pipes are often ruled to be the BUILDINGS responsibility.
3. There is a major conflict of interest in having Plumbers and Engineers and Inspectors who are all working together decide what has to be done. How can I expect them to give me an unbiased assessment if it's in their financial interest to demand the pipes be changed?
4. We are NOT spending anywhere near 40k for our bathrooms. Everything including changing the shower bodies has cost 10K. These are SMALL bathrooms and were not gutted completely and we have a good contractor with very reasonable fees and we bought ALL materials ourselves and are only paying for labor.
If this was a matter of 2, 3K fine. But more than that is absurd.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by angel9894
about 14 years ago
Posts: 73
Member since: Nov 2011
UPDATE*****
I was correct and we are not mandated to change the branch lines. They tried to threaten, intimidate and strong arm us into it and it was disgusting. The supers/management companies/plumbers I'm CONVINCED routinely conspire to beat people out of money when their backs are up against the wall. But in this case, they messed with the wrong one, and there is no written mandate for this anywhere, not in the by-laws or alteration agreement. So when faced with the fact they could not produce this in writing, they relented or faced a lawsuit.
I think alot of this stuff goes on in NYC and people just believe what they are told and that's sad. It's no one's business to assume how much someone spends on a renovation, or to demand that they undertake extensive work at cost of both money and time that is not immediately necessary.
If our alteration agreement does not state this in it and our management company is one of the big ones with tons of condo's in the city, then I would venture to say that many others do not either, and people are just allowing themselves to be bamboozled.
BTW, I never once said this was a Pre-War condo. Our building was built in 1980.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by gcondo
about 14 years ago
Posts: 1111
Member since: Feb 2009
are you saying that there is corruption in construction in nyc?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by FreebirdNYC
about 14 years ago
Posts: 337
Member since: Jun 2007
Angel - congrats on holding strong. Always easy to throw money at a problem to make it go away, but it feels good to see a story of somebody taking the right position and ending up with the right outcome
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by angel9894
about 14 years ago
Posts: 73
Member since: Nov 2011
@ gcondo - I'm assuming you are being sarcastic and YES!!! You know there is and it's shameless!
@ Freebird - Thank you :) These people marched into our apartment and literally acted like the mob. It was the craziest thing. I just feel badly for the older residents in our building who are being bullied and bulldozed, taken advantage of.
The bottom line is, people need to go over their by-laws and alteration agreements with a fine tooth comb and then make the best decisions for them, NOT based on what someone with their own agenda wants them to do and makes claims they are ordered to do.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Primer05
about 14 years ago
Posts: 2103
Member since: Jul 2009
Angel,
I agree with everything you are saying, however 95% of the renovations I do in fact have it written in either there alteration agreement or it is attached as a rider. Most buildings use a handful of architects/engineers to help them with the alteration agreements and it is becoming a standard practice to change the plumbing back to the riser.
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Most of the building in NYC require to replace shut off valve if you want to change any plumbing fixtures.
Reason is provide local shut off valves each apartment for emergency situations.
let me know if you need solution advise.
Hi, if I may say, I think you are luckier than you realize.
I would get the plumber and the "building" in the same room for a meeting.
Thank the building for being flexible, in allowing just the shower bodies to be changed and let them know you would like to take them up on this offer and how much you appreciate it.
Hopefully they will honor what they said to you.
Hand them a simple letter stating this and asking them to sign off on it, and explain it is because you like clarity and don't like misunderstandings.
File it, as you want it in writing as they are giving you a big break, breaking into the wall and replacing the shower body, which will then need to be retiled, is deemed a renovation (especially as you yourself are saying it is NOT a repair). I haven't seen a building alteration agreement in NYC that doesn't demand you replace the pipes back to the risers.
If you feel uncomfortable about this, I suggest you send an email to all at the meeting thanking them and outlining there offer, again so you have it in writing, just in case they try to play games once the walls are open.
Assuming you have a standard bathroom with only 3 fixtures, the bath and shower counting for one, the vanity two and the toilet the third. $10,000 for 3 fixtures, i.e. $3,300 a fixture is the highest I have heard of a plumber trying to charge. I did hear $3000, once, however that was in one of the finest buildings in NYC, where every tradesman understandable doubles the price as soon as they see the place. $1,500 a fixture is what I would imagine the average person pays, landlords pay about $500 fixture, however they have more volume.
I hope this helps,
Good luck
Gabrielle
this is not at all unusual with a prewar -- where the building realizes that the plumbing needs to be updated but is trying to spare the shareholders the cost of doing it all at once -- to insist that whenever a shareholder renovates that the plumbing be renewed all the way back to the riser.
If you can't afford the $10K for the modernization, just leave the fixtures (and I assume where you're saying "fixtures" you may mean "fittings") you have.
ali r.
DG Neary Realty
I wouldn't change the original fixtures in a pre-war building. What looks "dated" to you, looks "incredibly charming" to others. If they are functional, and this is a rental, you are wasting your money. People who love a McMansion modern look are NOT going to rent in pre-war buildings anyway. Some things are hated by most people (wall-to-wall carpets come to mind), but otherwise you have to know your market. This pre-war building will never be a high-rise condo. Spending for a condo-spa-like bathroom is unlikely to get recouped.
Your cheapest option is always to go with the super and the building's go-to plumber. If they insist on additional work, that's just the cost of the upgrades in your building. They probably have very good reasons. Given that an all-new bath would cost up to $40,000, you may find that spending $10k is still worth it for an updated look of new fittings (of course it depends on how ugly and dated those fittings are). Or it may only make sense to do a total renovation. You are correct that the scope of the plumbing work, absent changing the pipes would be around $1500.
10k for this plumbing work is robbery - big surprise there. get a few estimates/opinions then?
I would try tipping the super a few hundred $ and get a competent plumber to put in the right fitting. No one has to know.
This is very common in most buildings in Manhattan. As long as you are opening up the wall they want you change the plumbing back to the riser. I do not believe it is the plumbing who is charging the $10,000.00. Once the plumber is done everything has to be closed up, new tiles need to be purchased and installed. Fixtures have to be reinstalled, etc.
go with 300-mercer cheapest way.
Hello all and thank you for your feedback. Just to clarify a few things (and update)
1. This is not a Pre-War building. It was built in 1980
2. The alteration agreement states NO WHERE that there is a requirement to change plumbing and fittings and only states that for any work done with the wall open, it must be inspected by a building engineer before being closed.
3. The building gave us approval via email 3 times. We hired the building approved plumber with this understanding. He came in, said the pipes looked great, but that we HAD to change them because of the buildings rule. We then contacted the building who said "We do not have a rule, we simply defer to the plumber and what they deem needs to be done". The both pointed the finger at the other for 2 days. The plumber then flipped out. We hired an outside plumber. He came, intalled the shower bodies and said our pipes were in GREAT condition. Absolutely no structural damage nor leaks whatsoever. Then, the ORIGINAL plumber came into the apartment 2 hours before scheduled and looked and first said "These look fantastic, everything looks great", THEN brought in 3 more men, The bldg engineer, one of the managers and some other guy and they then said "The building requires you to change all pipes. Period. If you do not, we will keep your 5K check". When asked where in the by laws this was stated they said "We don't know. It is simply a building rule".
My issue with this is two fold.
1. You don't mess with pipes that AREN'T broken. Its stupid. This pipes are NOT pre-war and are FINE.
2. There has been a lot of recent debate (and lawsuits) about what EXACTLY unit owners are financially responsible vis a vis pipes. Interior pipes are Owners responsibility. However, exterior shared pipes are often ruled to be the BUILDINGS responsibility.
3. There is a major conflict of interest in having Plumbers and Engineers and Inspectors who are all working together decide what has to be done. How can I expect them to give me an unbiased assessment if it's in their financial interest to demand the pipes be changed?
4. We are NOT spending anywhere near 40k for our bathrooms. Everything including changing the shower bodies has cost 10K. These are SMALL bathrooms and were not gutted completely and we have a good contractor with very reasonable fees and we bought ALL materials ourselves and are only paying for labor.
If this was a matter of 2, 3K fine. But more than that is absurd.
UPDATE*****
I was correct and we are not mandated to change the branch lines. They tried to threaten, intimidate and strong arm us into it and it was disgusting. The supers/management companies/plumbers I'm CONVINCED routinely conspire to beat people out of money when their backs are up against the wall. But in this case, they messed with the wrong one, and there is no written mandate for this anywhere, not in the by-laws or alteration agreement. So when faced with the fact they could not produce this in writing, they relented or faced a lawsuit.
I think alot of this stuff goes on in NYC and people just believe what they are told and that's sad. It's no one's business to assume how much someone spends on a renovation, or to demand that they undertake extensive work at cost of both money and time that is not immediately necessary.
If our alteration agreement does not state this in it and our management company is one of the big ones with tons of condo's in the city, then I would venture to say that many others do not either, and people are just allowing themselves to be bamboozled.
BTW, I never once said this was a Pre-War condo. Our building was built in 1980.
are you saying that there is corruption in construction in nyc?
Angel - congrats on holding strong. Always easy to throw money at a problem to make it go away, but it feels good to see a story of somebody taking the right position and ending up with the right outcome
@ gcondo - I'm assuming you are being sarcastic and YES!!! You know there is and it's shameless!
@ Freebird - Thank you :) These people marched into our apartment and literally acted like the mob. It was the craziest thing. I just feel badly for the older residents in our building who are being bullied and bulldozed, taken advantage of.
The bottom line is, people need to go over their by-laws and alteration agreements with a fine tooth comb and then make the best decisions for them, NOT based on what someone with their own agenda wants them to do and makes claims they are ordered to do.
Angel,
I agree with everything you are saying, however 95% of the renovations I do in fact have it written in either there alteration agreement or it is attached as a rider. Most buildings use a handful of architects/engineers to help them with the alteration agreements and it is becoming a standard practice to change the plumbing back to the riser.
May i ask which management co your building uses?