Why are the CC's/taxes so high? For a building with over 450 units, the CC's/taxes on a 2BR/2BA approaches $3,000 in many instances. Usually buildings with even only 200 units, like the typical bland 1960's white brick buildings, have much lower carrying charges. Unless there is something unique to Worldwide Plaza, I'm not sure that I understand why the large number of units doesn't cover the common costs of doormen and other services at a much lower monthly cost.

Does anyone know why this is not the case with Worldwide Plaza?

I believe the condo association is also responsible for a share of the mid-block plaza's upkeep, though that also shouldn't be enough to break the bank.

Don't have the financials in front of me -- if you want to send them to me I could comment further -- BUT

Property taxes on Class 2 properties (which include condos) are assessed AS THOUGH those properties were generating rental income.

So the "full-service" nature of Worldwide Plaza essentially gets counted twice -- you have to pay for all those doormen/common amenities in your common charges, but then your taxes are higher because those doormen/common amenities increase the rental value of your property.

signed,

fellow Midtown condo owner

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

it still doesn't explain why their CC/taxes are so bloody high.
Most condos are under $1/sqf plus taxes (totaling $2/sqf). WWP is hovering at $3

and there are over 450units. In reality, it should be 0.75/sqf

The RET on the larger units at WWP is significantly higher, per sf, than the RET on the smaller units.

That's not the condominium's fault, that's the city's.

Thanks, Ali G., that's very helpful. But, like ba294, I'm failing to see why the monthlies on a 1090 sf apartment are nearly $3,000, when something like the Vermeer or the John Adams (both of which are co-ops) or 155 East 34th (which is a condo) have combined cc's/taxes in the neighborhood of $1,500 for a similarly-sized apartment.

The three buildings that I just cited benefit from the large number of apartments that are able to "share" the common charges. But regarding Worldwide Plaza, which has twice as many apartments to "share" common charges, there has to be some truly concrete explanation why the monthlies are twice as much, particularly because Worldwide Plaza doesn't even have the kind of amenities (e.g., gym, media rooms, etc.) that the new buildings are offering these days.

unions. bldng staff want shareholders (owners in this case) to pay for their family health plans at near zero cost to them.

Unionized staff with Full blown benefit doesn't affect the CC that much on a building with 450+ units.
Extra $100/month equates to (averaging out the small vs big units) $45,000/month. $45k is more than enough to pay for health, pension, and possibly even the salary.

Can't explain the expensive common charges, but I've observed many seemingly unfair assessments of property taxes in the city. Ali is correct to note that higher rent districts (like Downtown and Midtown) can result in higher tax bills psf based on the way the bills are calculated. Also, newer construction tends to have higher assessments (as if the city figures those who can afford new construction should pay more tax). Ironically, those who pay most for homes in prestigious buildings like old money 740 Park Ave or new money Chelsea Mercantile garner tax deals compared to less expensive buildings. I think the city's website makes it harder to compare the taxes assessed by building then it used to be, but property shark may be a good resource.

PMG,

FormerRenter is talking about the cc:s side of costs, which is a point I can't really address without the financials in front of me. (although I would point out that WWP does have high amenities, including more outdoor space than the downtown buildings, and an onsite pool, though you have to pay separately for it).

But it is interesting to think about rents -- the 2-BR, 2-BAs in Worldwide Plaza rent for LESS than 2-BRs do in the John Adams (when they come up) even though the WWP apts tend to be corners, high floors in the tower, W/Ds, pet-friendly, and with kitchens and baths that can be 25 years more recent. Renters would generally rather be downtown, where it's quieter -- you know as a real estate agent I can't comment on schools. Yet the city taxes WWP as though its rents were higher.

ali

Thanks for all of these insightful comments. Actually, I'm talking about both cc's and taxes, as both seem somewhat inflated, making things that much worse when you combine them for the total monthlies. I do think that WWP does have potential given that Hell's Kitchen is still at the early stages of desirability and will only get better with time. But, for the moment, given everything that's been discussed here, including that the apartments command less in the rental market, I wonder why WWP didn't get any tax incentives from the city, given that it really did provide the impetus for transforming the neighborhood. Also, is there something that we simply don't know about that is pushing the costs up, like an antiquated heating/air conditioning system or something else that requires the staffing level to be much higher than other similar properties?

Tax incentives are given for short duration of period. Even if given, WWP would have been decades out.