"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message ...
On 10/12/2016 10:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:51:08 -0700, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2016 4:16 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:33:55 -0700, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2016 9:05 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:46:44 -0400, Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:47:44 -0400, Gary wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then the two floors are 4,200 sq ft... divided by 24 apartments if
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> equal size makes them each about the size of a roomy toilet (175
>>>>>>>>> sq
>>>>>>>>> ft).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lol. Failed math in high school, I'll bet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My apartment is 1050 sq ft. Same as my next door neighbor.
>>>>>>>> Basement is underneath us both. Basement = 2100 sq feet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think you explained it correctly. The basement doesn't
>>>>>>> extend
>>>>>>> across the whole building - only under your section. Some of the
>>>>>>> apartments are at ground level with no basement. Right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You got it right, Steve. Not all basement, just underneath 4
>>>>>> apartments.
>>>>>> The other 8 are on ground level.
>>>>>> I took a couple of pics this morning. I'll show the real deal next
>>>>>> time
>>>>>> I post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still don't understand why Sheldon was doing that weird math -
>>>>>> dividing apartment size by 24. WTH?
>>>>>
>>>>> He was right in his calculations - dividing the basement size by 12
>>>>> (half of the 24 apartments in a 2 story building).
>>>>>
>>>>> You're still not explaining it right, though. The basement is only
>>>>> directly under 2 apartments. That makes all your numbers add up.
>>>>
>>>> That was pretty obvious from his initial post.
>>>
>>> No, it wasn't obvious at all. He originally said there were 12
>>> apartments above the basement. And to even get the number 12 one had
>>> to assume the layout of the bottom floor was just like that of the
>>> upper floor (which isn't always the case).
>>>
>>> The he says later "just underneath 4 apartments". It's not "just
>>> underneath 4 apartments". It's "just under" 2 apartments (there are
>>> two apartments just under the other two of four apartments.
>>>
>>> Anyway - Sheldon, at least, agrees with me. So that's all the
>>> confirmation I need :-) <snork>
>>
>> "Underneath ***my*** bottom floor is the basement." He does not say the
>> basement runs under the entire building. Given the fact that he states
>> the basement is 2100 sq. ft. and his building has 24 apartments, it is
>> obvious what is going on here. Nothing to see here.
>
> There was no way a person would have extrapolated that only one small
> section of building was raised up 6 feet and had a basement while the
> rest of the building sat at ground level from what he originally said.
> You're nuts. That is hardly typical construction. Just under **his**
> bottom floor would only be 1050sq ft - still didn't make sense.
>
> If you really thought that then why didn't you explain to Sheldon his
> faulty math? No, you had to wait for Gary and I to explain it to you.
>
> -sw
>
I understood the basement did not extend to the entire building. Then I
moved on. This is neither rocket science or very meaningful.
=================
Nitpickers. Obviously nothing better to do. Either that or they think it
makes them look clever ... LOL
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk