pre-war v. post-war

what about the scenario whereby the building does not allow changes (new window styles, etc...)

No one is building anymore prewars. Can't up supply. The walls are crazy thick also. Love the charm. Ceilings are usually higher.

Give me a new construction condo with modern construction, large windows, soundless HVAC, washer/dryers, modern elevators, better plumbing, abundant amenities. lower building maintenance over pre-war anytime.

There is a reason why they don't make prewars anymore.

"There is a reason why they don't make prewars anymore."

Yes, there IS a reason: cost.

Prewar buildings were built with walls and floors thick enough to allow the buildings to serve as fallout shelters. Too expensive today.

The detail on the masonry, carpentry, and finish work required skilled craftsmen. Also too expensive today.

It's much quicker and cheaper today to employ illegal aliens to throw up concrete and steel skeletons, cover them with glass "walls", and call them "apartment buildings".

I think any established building that has a record of several decades is a known quantity--to the extent a building can be--going forward. Time has revealed any flaws and faults in the building, maintenance fees are established and amenities that exist are likely to continue. You see what you get. You know the way the market views the property. So pre or post war, I think "value" in a building with a solid history is easily determined.

New construction is an utterly unknown quantity. Pretty basic flaws can take a decade or two to be revealed. Tax abated maintenance and fees make true operating costs difficult to determine and predict. Triple deck rooftop clubs, private gyms, concierge services, all are attractions that can evaporate as true operating costs emerge and monthlies have to be kept in control. There are nice things like silent HVAC perhaps, and w/d's are fantastic when they are well-installed and work right in a building--I concede that.

But the best way to hedge risk in the enormous investment of buying an apartment is to buy in an established building with a proven track record, be it pre- or post-war.

it's silly to argue whether post war is better than civil war. It's like arguing whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream. Look at your own needs to determine whether post war is better than pre war. Are large and formal rooms important to you? Than pre war is your best option. Are walk in closets, large windows, and open floorplans important to you? Then post war is yur best option.

oops, the first sentence should read "it's silly to argue whether post war is better than pre war."

I use to live in a prewar building but now I live in a new construction.

New construction is far more superior. I have floor to ceiling windows, not my former tiny ones. My plumbing allows strong water flow unlike my old unreliable one. My centralized HVAC is tucked in the wall and makes no sound when turned on. I don't miss my old noisy heating system or the windowed air conditioning. I love my large washer and vented dryer. The one I finally got approval to install in my prewar was a small washer and condensation dryer which took 3 times as long to dry and handled 1/2 the load size. (And I was one of the lucky ones. Many of my friends who live in prewar bldgs were not even allowed this type of washer and dryer because their plumbing systems were so outdated). I relish our modern multiple elevators which go fast. I don't miss my 2 elevator slow-as-a-turtle ones in my old prewar which seemed to break down frequently forcing even longer waits. And I don't miss the occasional assessments to maintenance to fix some 80 year old broken down system.

I have a state of the art gym, pool, an intercom phone system that works loudly and clearly, a bigger mailbox that can handle more than 5 pieces of mail...

I can go on and on.

Few things that may not typically be pointed out.
1) Prewar tends to have lower real estate taxes.
2) Prewar buildings might have landmark status, the maintenance of which burdens unit owners with higher common charges.
3)New building is less likely to hit unit owners with assessmants since mechanicals are under warranty.
4)New buildings cost less to heat & cool since they are built with more efficient cooling and heating systems.

And yes, new buildings tend to have nicer amenities...

it's silly to argue whether post war is better than civil war. It's like arguing whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream.

Really? You really believe that? They are analogous?

That is no argument. Chocolate!

There's pre-war

There's crap built in the 50s-80s with 8 ft. ceilings.

Then there was the over 8ft ceiling era.

Going into the stuff built in the past decade.

With the overabundance of false facades and floor to ceiling glass.

i love a pre-war. i even have a further desire, which is the pre-war loft conversion, but only if the loft is 22' feet wide or (preferably) more.

Phish Food, people, obviously.

maleprop is right to identify the three eras: pre-war; post war garbage; and last decade. post war garbage is the worst long term value - as between pre war and last decade you need to balance lower monthly costs on the pre war (once the tax abatement on the last decade stuff runs out) and pre-war charm and sturdiness vs the higher cost per square foot, the better amenities and better light. On the new stuff, you are also taking a little bit of a gambit as to how well the building was made and will hold up in the medium term.

Two Cities you said it well. I generally prefer post war, even the mid century brick buildings. Let me explain. A good friend lives in a prewar just off Park in the seventies. Great address...but it is not a prewar built for the middle class professionals or merchant class of the time. It is not a prewar Candela nor Carpenter building. But it doesn't even have to be that grand. His building and apt is just old, with three small rooms facing the back of the building. It is oppressive. If I want prewar, it has to be one built for the professional class where it can be adapted for modern living. Otherwise even though it is prewar, it is just old. The whole mystique is just not there just because it is prewar. Even the post war white brick buildings were built for the emerging middle class with decent sized rooms and with layouts for modern living, and these can be adapted for 21st century living easier than the prewars built for the working class. I think the white brick post wars get a bad rap.

I appreciate the feedback. Bottom line is "to each his own." Generally, we prefer the charm, details, etc. of the pre-war apt's we have been seeing, but I am not adverse to the gray brick landscapes of UES, UWS.

tojc516 - remember charm, details, etc. are easily noticeable when looking at an apt to buy but when you actually live there, you'll see many of the shortcomings of living in a prewar building. It is not as evident. Good luck on your search. Hope you find a nice place to call home.

skippy - interesting

just wanted to add. My friend and his wife did a great renovation of the place and decorated it very well and it has 9-10 foot ceilings with fireplace. But the lobby, elevators, front doors, windows-all just not great...and can't be changed unless you do a whole building redo. The possibility of that with long term owners who don't really think that it looks bad it close to zero. Also some of the post war 'white brick buildings' were built with generously sized rooms and with good construction. I for years lived in one of them. Loved it and I never heard my neighbors in a 240 unit building in Gramercy. When I renovated the kitchen, afteward I wish that I had never gotten rid of the stove from 1959. It was totally manual(had to light the oven with a match) but was reliable and hot as a new Viking.

mine also had 8.5 foot ceilings, and I never felt cramped.

It all depends on the building. You can find almost any prewar attribute in a postwar building, and vice-versa.

You'll find big rooms, big closets, sufficient baths, etc. in both, depending on the market the building for designed for. Ceilings >9' and WBFPs, though, are more difficult to find in postwar, and aren't all that common in prewar, either.

This being Manhattan, most buildings of any vintage are going to have cramped apartments, with a room wider than 12' in its shorter dimension hard to find. There were exceptions in every era, but if you want those you have to pay for them.

It really is a matter of taste. I do want to offer a distinction. Pre-war typically refers to apartments built before WWII, many in the 20's (as the 30's was a pretty dismal decade). Post-war typically refers to apartments built from the mid-40's through the 90's, most in the 50's and again in the 80's. Buildings that went up in the past decade are typically referred to as new development, not post-war (same distinction as modern vs. contemporary art).

Many of the post-war buildings that went up in the 50's and 80's tend to be East of Lex and are typically cookie-cutter layouts with low ceilings, smaller rooms, and undistinctive white brick facades. We looked at a bunch of these units and couldn't find a single one we could stand. They tend to carry a lower price point than comparably sized pre-ward units. New development units do offer many advantages & amenities. My concern is that a decade or so in, when the new shininess wears off, will they be desirable? They have gone up so fast, many with thin sheetrock and low-end fixtures to make up for the 100 ft pool, screening room, lounge, billiards room, etc.

The pre-war units, like them or not, will look pretty much the same in 20 years, 50 years, 80 years from now (not that anyone has that kind of time frame, but it breeds a different mentality). Also, pre-war neighborhoods (West of Lex & most of the UWS) tend to be more fun to stroll around. I live near the Harrison on the UWS and have seen it go up over the past 3 years. I found it amazing that when it came time to place a facade on the structure, they used large 10 x 10 sheets of pre-cut faux brick and green paint to look like copper. Went up in a few weeks, vs. the months and years it took to craft a pre-war building . Glance down a few blocks at the Lucerne Hotel on 79th and do a comparison. Which building would you rather live in?

15 CPW.

You can have it all...

Yes, prewar is nice. But I've seen tons of crap prewar + horrible heating/cooling systems / no amenities.

Have it all at 15 CPW? I beg to differ...

i feel bad for post-war bldgs and new developments. they're like the ugly step-sisters.

Well really it should be pre-war versus 1941-1990 versus modern. Buildings built, say in the 1970s pretty generally suck versus pre-war or very modern ones. The very modern ones may or may not be pretty on the outside, but as many have said have waaaaaaaaay better amenities.

After reading these post, I have a suggestion for the majority of people here. Get a good architecture book and read it.
Despite what some brokers and realitors will have you believe, pre-war dates to pre WW 1 not 2. But not past 1920 in anyway.
The all had ceiling above 8'. That was cutting edge science at the time (first air conditioners). You figure it out. Hint: (Double hung windows)
They all had hard gypsom block plaster covered walls. Hint: (Sheet rock had not been invented)
They were mostly designed by out of work German Architects who came here and designed most of the UWS for the merchant class. Most building have beautiful exteriors but only a few stories tall, the rest plain brick. (peripheral vision)
Beautiful elaborate lobbies but the other floors with lobbies rather plain.

Anyway Pre-war or post-war or new, it is all matter of taste.

ruff, I don't know where you get your definition of pre-war other than in books written pre-1941. It's absurd to say anything after 1920 isn't 'pre-war.' For all intents and purposes, everyone involved in NYC higher end real estate would readily agree that 30 Fifth Avenue (1923) and 40 Fifth Avenue (1929) are pre-war buildings of the type discussed in this thread.

"The very modern ones may or may not be pretty on the outside, but as many have said have waaaaaaaaay better amenities."

And as many have also said, many of those amenities aren't guaranteed and can eventually disappear during times of financial distress.

Really? They will take away my washer dryer from inside my apartment? They will un-install my central AC?

I was not referring to gyms, but those can be taken away from either pre- or post-war buildings.

Pre-war, Pre WW 1 is anchitectual term used to descibe bulidings which were built with floors aboue the 8' ceiling height of modern Post war bulidings. This allowed for the same height building to have more floors. It was carried into the early 20's as I posted.
It is not however, correct to use this term in describing most bulidings built before WW2 unless they were somehow built with these architectual details.
Most of the UWS buliding were erected before 1917 with such details, hense PreWar of Pre WW 1.
But to sooth your ego, you are correct, and some buildings carried these into the 20's.

jason, i'm having this vision, similar to the movie Brazil, of SWAT teams swarming the city to rip out ACs and WDs.

ruff wrote: "pre-war dates to pre WW 1 not 2. But not past 1920 in anyway."

This isn't about ego, it is about you being wrong. I pointed out two clearly "pre-war" buildings that were built as late as 1929. They aren't pre-war-esque. They are pre-war, period. You said none were built after 1920 as quoted above. If your ego was poked, it was not my intent. Only to correct a pretty silly misstatement that doesn't further the discussion. Anyone leaving here thinking pre-war means only pre-1920 would be ill-informed. And how is pre-1920 pre any war? WWI began 1914 and was over by 1918.

Ruff, maybe your definition holds weight in Europe, or even other parts of the US, but in NYC pre-war is universally understood to refer to WWII. There's simply no debate about it.

"Really? They will take away my washer dryer from inside my apartment? They will un-install my central AC? "

lol

kylewest is correct. "Prewar" means just what it says: before 1942. The rate of construction dropped enormously after the 1929 crash, so most were completed before 1932.

The differences between pre-WWI and pre-WWII buildings are much less than the differences between pre- and post-WWII buildings. There're quite a few histories of the evolution of the apartment building -- as epitomized in NYC -- that explain the reasons why.

"And as many have also said, many of those amenities aren't guaranteed and can eventually disappear during times of financial distress. "

Dammit! Someone just came in and lowered my ceiling height and bricked up my windows!

So, this financial distress is going to hit modern buildings, but prewars, with higher underlying maintenance cost, will be saved?

It depends, again, on the building. E.g., there've been plenty of post-war buildings that've needed repointing, etc. If water penetrates it causes problems, no matter the age. Remember the building on 6th or 7th near 14th St. that had to have its entire facade replaced?

I've never seen numbers on pre-war vs. post-war maintenance in general. The Council on (of?) NY Cooperatives collects stats on maintenance in general, and might have stats on that.

I've lived in both, and I have to say - I prefer prewar that's been completely renovated (preserving as much detail as possible), with central A/C. It's the height of the ceilings, and the proportions of the rooms.

> It's the height of the ceilings, and the proportions of the rooms.

Which are all doable in modern buildings, of course.

"Dammit! Someone just came in and lowered my ceiling height and bricked up my windows!"

If someone builds directly next door, then yes, your windows can be bricked up. It has happened before.

Only if they are lot line windows, which need to be represented as such (and then you can't sell anything with them as a bedroom legally).

Try again, though...

you've got to be nuts or just ignorant to buy an apt with lot line windows. Even if nothing gets built, the value is much lower because of the possibility.

I found this excellent discussion and I wanted to bring it back up in case anyone else was interested in this topic. Kylewest, I always feel that I should take notes when you make your comments because they are very helpful.