New York City
Northern New Jersey
Open House Planner
Shop for a Broker
Condo Price Index
All of your points are well taken, colleagues. Will drag my a.. to the management company's office tomorrow morning. Cheers. :-)
My managing agent wouldn't insert documents after copies of the package had been submitted. They required 12 copies, so I could understand their point of view. ( Both the seller's and my broker reviewed the package and contacted the managing agent with questions before they made the copies. ) The managing agent also had extra work to do by prescreening the package for mandated criteria from the Board, mainly financial checks. So the application fee was substantial.
From my POV, it's your job. The fact that the management company is located in an inconvenient place is annoying, but not actually relevant here.
You really don't have a choice. Just hope your buyers pass the board. Remember, the board hired that management company, which tells you a lot about the board.
To play devil's advocate for just a second, bear in mind that if the board package isn't perfect the underling at the management company could be blamed for "messing up" the board package by inserting documents incorrectly, or "losing" documents, even though it was not her fault. She maybe has had that happen to her and does not want to go through that again.
If this is all that's gone wrong so far, and it's only two hours driving? I'd say you are doing pretty well. And I'm jealous.
A person at the management company has been reviewing my buyer's Board paperwork, and requested three additional items. My buyer has submitted the items to her via email immediately. She, in turn, asked me, the broker, to drop off the said items at her office and to "insert" them into the Board package. Just to clarify, it takes me over one hour to drive to the mgmt. company, plus an hour to return, and the lady I am dealing with knows it. Her argument is that inserting additional paperwork into Bd packages is "not a part of her job description." Coincidentally, the fees that the said management company charges to process Bd paperwork are above average. I have closed quite a few co-ops, and have never heard of such obnoxious requests on mgmt. companies' behalf. Thoughts?
Yeah, I don't know if I agree with the delay being caused by having to absorb extra work. I know about the merger between the two firms. That doesn't explain the staggering level of unresponsiveness and inconsistent explanations provided for why our closing is so delayed. I am also a lawyer - we are all busy. Real estate closings are not rocket science. Thankfully we have a closing date now - after kicking and screaming for almost a month.
lots of work and extra time involved with CEMA as well...
they had 26-29 closings already
A bit of insight on the delays and lack of responsiveness on the closings... the developer's attorney dissolved their office and were acquired by another firm in November/December. So a big cause for the delays is certainly due to a new law firm absorbing the workload for all of the closings
Thanks, mdiane. I did the initial walk-through on Friday but still no date for the closing. I was one of the very first buyers and bought one of the biggest apartments -- no idea why my closing is taking so long, or why I seem to be at the bottom of their list. They seem to have done a very good job on the building but are extremely non-responsive.
What about winter storm Juno?
Another fact---what about hurricane Sandy?
what about the land lease?
FACT: It's a long cold walk in the winter from any subway line to apartments in BPC.
Time to start a new discussion as the rental building is no longer ... moving forward it is important to objectivity check the facts of comments as it will help buyers. Renting is no longer possible and sales are in full swing - the awesome waterfront location in a park setting remains one of the best in NYC. FACT
Veronica- there is no way BPCA will sell the land to private investor because BPC is the golden goose generating tons of $$ for the city year after year. I very much doubt that BPCA will increase the lease to market rate because Goldman Sachs will threaten to leave. Goldman Sachs owns their building and the hotel next to it. If anything, GS got a big discount to be in BPC. Do you think that BPCA would give GS a big discount and then stick it to the residential owners? If you don't like land lease, fine. No need to spread FUD. If BPC didn't have land lease, the condos would be worth a lot more than $2000 per sq ft, given the quality of life in this neighborhood. Part of the high common charge is to pay for the parks and the programs for kids, etc... Where else do kids have tons of parks and ball fields right outside their door? Where else do kids can draw on grass and have bike races in summer ? People who live here - rent or own - stay for years because it is a community that they love. Pls if you hate BPC, fine, go away.
>fieldchester - it's in nobody's interest to take the land away
Maybe not, but who is most least interested in taking the land away, and who is least least interested in taking the land away? Study game theory. Or watch War of the Roses ... Danny DeVito, Kathleen Turner, and that old dude with herpes in his throat who sent his kid away to jail... good movie, and shows what people will do...
498 west end avenue in UWS is a comparable luxury property selling at $2000 per square foot (presumably owns the land). They'd have to rent for above $80 per square foot to justify even Manhattan's super steep 25x rent multiple - wow!
Carnegie House acquired their land for $185 million (supposedly $1000 per square foot); a Werner-led group acquired land below 301 east 63rd for $285 million ($750 per square foot).
The land under 200 Rector therefore is worth (conservatively at $500 per square foot) about $300 million (600,000 square feet). Since ground rent is supposed to be 6% of market value, the lease rate should be $18 million per year; BPCA leases for under $2mm per year. Am I missing something?
Also land appreciates over time while building depreciates over time. Land building is the total return most retail investors see as real estate return. Most of the real estate return is from the land, not the building.
So if you can get the land from BPCA at $500 per square foot, then buy the property for $1500 per square foot. Or buy the property at $1500 per square foot and pray that BPCA continues to lease the land at below market rates (to the detriment of the NYC taxpayer?). Because the third scenario – buy the property at $1500 per square foot and BPCA increases the land lease to market rates (or sells the land to a private investor who increases the land lease to market rates) could be a terrible outcome.
fieldchester - it's in nobody's interest to take the land away - taking the land away simply destroys value. prior examples of ground lease situations in nyc (trump plaza, carnegie house) have resulted in one of three outcomes that are better than letting lease expire (1) extend lease at "market rate" (2) sell to a third party at "market value" (3) sell to the building at "market value".
The problem is not lenders either. All parties will negotiate and extend lease with more than 30 years left for sure, especially in this case because NYC will want to protect property values (which will fall if banks don't lend) and therefore property taxes.
The issue is knowing and being comfortable with what you are actually paying for the unit. Paying $1500 per square foot for the unit is comparable to approximately $2000 per square foot if the unit owned the land (e.g. in Tribeca) i.e. if BPCA said they want to sell the land (and they'd have to sell at market value), the condo owners would likely have to pay about $500 per square foot. This is a very broad approximation, but works because (1) slightly below comps for recent average buildable land sales due to encumbrance of existing property on land (2) brokers have mentioned that land lease buildings should trade at 20-30% below buildings that own land (3) NYC also typically ascribes 20-30% of property value to land in property tax calculation.
So, are you comfortable buying at "effectively" $2000 per square foot? You could probably get cheaper units elsewhere, but then these are nice, new buildings with luxury condo finishes, next to the water and parks, great quality of life at a lower initial price vs units that own land. In terms of quality, NYC for example assesses BPC buildings 20% higher for property tax than some of the office to condo conversions in FiDi. 200 Chambers is a similar quality building that owns the land, units there are likely $1800-2000 per sq ft. So what you are prepared to pay for quality is entirely your call, just make sure you know what you might "effectively" be paying. Maybe UWS at $1500 per sq ft with the land ownership is better. Maybe Jersey City at $1000 per sq ft and a car parking spot and Manhattan views is better. Your call.
Last comment (sorry for the lengthy post). Currently, it may be that BPCA is charging ground lease payments much below "market rent" resulting in huge property value appreciation for BPC and surrounding areas. For example, 200 Rector which is a 600,000 sq ft building is paying only $1.6mm per year growing at 3% per year (renegotiated recently and implying land market value per square foot of $1,600,000 / (6% - 3%) / 600,000 = $88 per square foot. Can also confirm this ground lease rent is low by comparing with other private market ground leases comps in NYC. So (1) BPCA may be creating value for BPCA condo owners (any vested interest here?) (2) BPCA extending ground lease subsidy (if one exists) to affordable housing such as Gateway is ok, but to private market condos? (3) if you believe BPCA will continue this subsidy (if one exists), you are "effectively" buying the $1500 per sq ft apartment at $1588 per sq ft. Does that make you want to buy? What if BPCA suddenly stops this subsidy (if one exists)?
Say what you want but reality is BPC ground lease generates huge revenue for the city. Why would they take that away...
Well, good to know, hard to keep track of! :)
They did the same with the status of an apartment I was selling. They also had several errors in the description of the building and wouldn't change it because a broker gave them the description. So they took the word of a broker over an owner. That broker never sold anything in the building. I invited streeteasy down to look at the building for themselves.
I wonder about the quality of the SE database sometimes. In this sale, the apartment number given by SE is wrong and the broker is wrong. ACRIS got it right, of course.
Why are there so many apartments for sale in this building?
The board would set that. I am sure there are a number of factors that will determine what the board thought they needed.
What is the average flip tax if regulatory agreement has expired?
Building looks excellent, not sure about if those space are officially legal rooms though...
Haven't been inside, but so far, the reno of the exterior of the building looks promising
Oh, I see this is Jay Street in Brooklyn, not the one in New York.
No, more like the vinegar district.
Unfortunately, like 9/11 payments and illnesses, and mesothelioma issues, there's probably a group of silver tongued lawyers and eager greedy plaintiffs who are all about ready to find a reason to sue and further abuse the system, probably some of them were involved in the last lawsuit too that ended up causing rents to increase in this complex. The average New Yorker always loses, but there are always profiteers about ready to profit directly or via Columbia.
Any thoughts about a possible StuyTown/PCV condo/coop conversion? We haven't heard anything in a while. But, the following article was posted recently pertaining to the complaint filed against CW? Looks like the suit will be heard on the State level in NY. Maybe some progress can be made toward a sale, hopefully soon. It will be interesting to see how this goes... See attached for the full article -
Stuy-Town Juniors Kick $5.4B Loan Fight To State Court
Share us on: By Andrew Scurria
Law360, New York (January 13, 2015, 2:11 PM ET) -- A New York federal judge ordered Monday that a state court hear a lawsuit claiming CWCapital Asset Management LLC improperly seized the $5.4 billion Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village project following a debt default, a victory for junior lenders that say they were left out of the money.
U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan remanded the litigation to the New York state court where it was originally filed, finding no claim that would rise and fall based on the application of a federal statute — a prerequisite for the CWCapital affiliate defendants to keep the case in a friendlier federal jurisdiction.
CWCapital, which has managed Stuy Town since 2011, canceled a planned foreclosure auction and took title to the residential development back in June after a $3 billion mortgage default and was sued the following month by several funds controlled by Centerbridge Partners LP that hold lower-ranking mezzanine debt.
“The defendants are unable to meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating that a federal question is necessarily raised by any of plaintiffs' claims,” Judge Nathan said.
Representing holders of the Stuy Town’s defaulted senior debt, CWCapital took control through a so-called deed in lieu of foreclosure transaction from Tishman Speyer Properties LP and BlackRock Inc., which walked away from the development in New York’s highest-profile failure from the recession-era real estate bust.
Stuy Town came about through a multitiered $5.4 billion financing that closed in 2006. Comprised of a senior mortgage loan that was packaged into securities and $1.4 billion in junior debt, it remains to this day the single largest real estate transaction in U.S. history.
The clash between mortgage creditors and junior stakeholders has clouded the future ownership of the property and its 4,300 rent-stabilized apartment units. Tishman had planned to raise the rents at the complex's regulated units, which led to a contentious class action that ultimately thwarted that plan.
Stuyvesant Town became the icon of a historic rent regulation fight culminating in a landmark $173 million settlement with tenants that ensured continued rent stabilization through 2020.
The junior creditors’ complaint centers on an intercreditor agreement that lays out the rights of each constituency and allegedly forbids the deed in lieu transaction.
The deed in lieu deal transferred the property to several special purpose entities owned by CWCapital, allegedly with the goal of keeping the property for itself and wiping out its mezzanine debts.
The plaintiffs are after the “excess value” of the property — whatever proceeds are left over from its eventual sale after the mortgage debt is satisfied. The plaintiffs say that CWC improperly inflated the interest rate they were owed to calculate a total senior debt of $4.4 billion.
In reality, only $3.45 billion actually remains outstanding, according to the complaint filed in New York Supreme Court and removed by CWCapital in August.
Critically, the plaintiffs say they are in the money even if CWCapital’s calculation of the default interest rate is correct, Judge Nathan said. With the property’s worth estimated at $5 billion, they see $1.5 billion in excess value.
Judge Nathan held that the claims therefore did not turn on the federal law governing post-judgment interest, the only dispositive federal question cited by CWCapital to justify keeping the case out of state court.
“This is plainly wrong,” the judge said. “At multiple points in their complaint the plaintiffs explain that they still stand to recover a very substantial sum of damages even if their interpretation ... is wrong.”
The suit accused CWCapital of a “continued pattern of misconduct” designed to take more than $1 billion away from subordinated creditors. The senior creditors hold a $3.6 billlion foreclosure judgment from 2010, which is planned to be satisfied out of the property’s eventual sale.
The defendants acquired the top-ranking slices of the mezzanine debt shortly after the foreclosure judgment, which the junior group says violated its intercreditor agreement. A CWCapital representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael B. Carlinsky, Susheel Kirpalani, Scott C. Shelley, John H. Chun and Robert S. Trisotto of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Scott Mollen of Herrick Feinstein LLP.
The defendants are represented by Gregory A. Cross, Colleen M. Mallon, Michael Schatzow and Michael C. Hartmere of Venable LLP.
The case is PCVST Mezzco 4 LLC et al. v. Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C30 et al., case number 1:14-cv-06023, in the U.S. District of New York for the Southern District of New York.
— Editing by Ben Guilfoy.
The more you know.
It seems to me with the new regulations, it's good practice for a buyer to remember to use the form of his name that's on his New York State driver's license. If they match at the offer, they're more likely to match on the deal sheet; if they match on the deal sheet, they're more likely to match on the contract; if they match on the contract, they're more likely to match on the Aztechs -- I just had a client who needed to sign a second set of recognition agreements to get an exact name match, and I'd like to spare everybody else this hassle.
Disclaimer that I'm not an attorney and this isn't legal advice.
Licensed Real Estate Broker
The house has always been 13x40 on a 13x90 lot. The neighborhood has a lot of tiny lots, split from larger lots when the area was developed into housing for the poor. Hence the A.
So they took one house that would sell for 1.4, split it in half and sell one half for the same amount of money.
Galka, I tried to connect with u on linked in (ian).
Thanks for the feedback.
Actually, horn noise complaints are included. They are handled by the NYPD. We also look at the former locations of no honking signs (not sure why the City removed them).
Thanks for the infomation. I'd think, as a comment to your project which seems to pull official complaint data, that much of the city's noise is transient in nature and would not warrant an official complaint. One obvious example is the use of horns, which contrary to their intended purpose of preventing accidents, is more commonly used by drivers to "yell" at each other.
We are working on a website that tries to address questions like these (Revaluate, currently in beta). This building pulls up a few records about noise, but it seems to be more about construction noise that traffic. Our database includes complaints made to MTA Bridge and Tunnel, and some areas have many, but this one seems to be ok.)
It does appear to have high utility costs though, and a history of elevator and boiler violations. But those are pretty minor things. It is helpful to us to know what would make the product more useful, so if there is anything else in particular that would be helpful to know about the building, please let me know and I am happy to see what I can dig up.
Does anyone have any experience with the noise and traffic at this location? Seems like it would be surrounded by commercial truck/van or LIC taxi traffic given proximity to the Queensboro bridge exit/entrance. Any feedback appreciated. Thanks
Long term I have to wonder what is going to become of these trophy properties that no one actually lives in. Has this ever happened in the past, and if so, how did it play out?
Tempted to do what?
It's gone rental. Anyone tempted?
what happens.. this building has been taken out of market? Is it going to be on sale at all?
Anybody get floorplans/pics/prices on this building?
I liked those Time Warner cable commercials that made fun of the Verizon FIOS commercial where the grinning doofus had sparkling light coming out of his hands.
Thanks, Joe. Very helpful advice
What does RCN say about the differential between their plan terms and your tests/experience? (I wouldn't immediately mention the age of the coax wiring; don't give them an out right away.) Or just ask them to switch you to the faster plan as a free trial for a week and see how it goes...
I just bought an internet plan with RCN for 110 mbps. But I've done repeated speed checks, using tools from websites online, and the fastest download speed I can get is 40 mbps (and fastest upload about 20 mbps).
If I buy a more expensive plan through RCN (the next level up is 300 mbps)--is there a chance that my speed will improve to at least, say, 100 mbps? Or does that fact that I've can only get about 50 mbps (at the alleged speed of 100) mean that there's something intrinsic to the cable wires in my building (which was built in 1988) that maxes out my speed at 50 mbps. Has anyone been in a similar predicament?
In my building I can't really get Fios (without turning my apartment into an ugly mess of wires) so I'm stuck with TWC or RCN. I've had TWC for 7 years and have not had a good experience at all... So I'm pretty much stuck with RCN (for now).
Thanks so much for any feedback.
Aaron 2: I concur. Those "ranch" windows are useless -- looks like there's a lovely view out there that you could only see standing on a ladder or chair! Also hate the open kitchen, and frankly, whether the sf is 580 or 600, it is really only the size of a good studio. I'd rather live in the Bronx. (Joke)
Good point Aaron, I know West 14th street was up-zoned to C6-2A and developers are beginning to take advantage For example, with the new Village Green West building across the street from the Sequoia (and another between 6/7 aves), that building I believe is up to 12 stories, so this unit on the 10th floor unit would be affected if a neighboring site would ever be developed.
Speaking of the Village Green West, they're priced around $2200/sq for a brand new construction, though availability may be an issue at this pricepoint.
Is that "ranch window" a lot line window, and thus at risk of being lost when something bigger goes up next door? I'd only consider the place for rental income/investment, as I sure wouldn't want to live there. -- hate the LR windows, don't like open kitchens, bedroom too small. Renovation materials look good though.
Also just noticed, 13A was listed with a floorplan at 580 sq ft, so is this unit really 600 sq ft or 580 sq ft?
At 580/sqft we're looking at almost $2200/sqft after mansion tax.
Is this normal for this building and neighborhood?
Looks like #13A is offered for rent at $3,500. It's a higher floor, but not renovated. Given this as a proxy, you're looking at a 2.08% rental yield on this property at the current asking price.
Is that good for this building and neighborhood?
That's the spirit Pencap, taxes should apply just over your level.
"Only the little people pay taxes."
And they need to raise to mansion tax threshold to like $2million.
I can rest assure that although the house I am going into contract with just north of a million is nice, its definitely NOT a mansion. Neither is your typical NYC 1000 sq ft apt that typically gets hit with this stupid tax.
I hated the mansion tax, but it actually helped me in my recent house hunt in the suburbs of long island.
Been looking for a sub-million home in the north shore of long island since 2012, and have lost multiple bids.
Finally put a bid for a house thats $1,025,000, and it got accepted without competition. Seems like there is psychologic aversion to paying that 10k to Uncle Sam. I had that aversion also, but I was so sick of house hunting that its worth the 10k in taxes to get that house without loosing out to multiple bidders.
Repeated cash withdrawls just under the $10k threshold, or a set of transactions that look like you are structuring activity to avoid reporting are typically flagged by banks as 'suspicious activity', and they are required to file a SAR.
What do the by-laws of your condo say? That will answer your first question.
I'm going to speculate here: You by-laws are silent on the subject of enclosing balconies, unfortunately, but they do say the board can assess fees for modifications of common elements.
The board is hitting you with the highest fee they think they can get away with if sued because, as Aaron points out, all such enclosures look like hell. They don't want you to do this.
Also, I seem to recall seeing a report somewhere that the City is going after existing enclosed balconies (conditioned spaces) because so many were built without approval. I would not assume that the City will approve your plans. Have you spoken to an architect yet? I actually would start there.
An eearlier interpretation from DOB did not consider balcony enclosures to take away from FAR (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/bb2.pdf), but to the extent you're taking over *any* general common element the condo could choose to charge you. You could offer to release the Condo from their obligation to maintain the wall you're taking over (with the risk that you're on the hook for big $$ if there's a hidden structural problem). Or maybe the condo just wants to charge a big fee for enclosing a balcony and making the building ugly. (In my opinion most enclosures look terrible. Even the higher end ones (I'll hold up balconies at Imperial House as an example) still look cheap.
I am surprised a condo would try to pull this as opposed to a coop. The cost of unimproved buildable square feet is nothing like the value of NYC real estate square footage. And, this is not even buildable, as it has no value to the condo. So this is worth materially less that vacant land. This is a stick-up. When I combined two apartments into one and took over the hallway that once served the two units, I received a perpetual, royalty-free lease to the space, subject to a full indemnity, release of Condo's obligation to maintain the space, etc. The latter would be a very significant concession in your situation because maintaining a balcony can be expensive, and impractical for a single unit owner.
Typically, outdoor space is valued differently (lower) than indoor space when it comes to assigning shares/percentage ownership.
It seems expected that your common charges would go up, and that some form of payment would need to be made to the condo for selling you the right to have additional indoor space.
$100k does seem steep to me. I would expect $100 to $500 per square foot. Could you and/or the condo hire an appraiser to value the space? Vanderbilt, Mitchell Maxwell & Jackson, and Miller Samuel are the big three.
We are seeking to alter our limited common element (exterior balcony) by permanently enclosing it. Assuming the city grants us this right, the Condo Board would allow it, but wants to charge us for the right at to do this at a rate close to NYC real estate square footage (so over $100k)! That's just for the right, not a sale of anything, and does not cover our construction costs of course. Are they allowed to do this? Are there any precedents?
To reiterate, this is limited (not general) common element, that is, for the exclusive use of our unit, so our modification takes no usage away from others in the building. The Board argues we are increasing our space, so we should have to pay for the right, even though we are not taking away any space (except perhaps FAR?) from the building. They also claim we are taking over the wall which is a general common element.
Any advice much appreciated.
Dear StreetEasySupport: I want to sincerely thank you for correcting the problems I was having. I now receive email notifications, which I enjoy immensely (I have never gotten them in the 4 years I have been a Member). and the person(s) who contacted me corrected the problem immediately. Thank you all who were involved in this. Although I reside in San Francisco, SE is an excellent way to keep myself apprised of what Is going in Manhattan and to enjoy some of the real "characters" who are members. Cheers to StreetEasy!
@Riccardo65 I have taken a look at your account, and sent you a support email. You are now set to receive emails from StreetEasy. If you have an questions, please email email@example.com. Thanks!
@blairteam Hello, I have taken a look at your account, and updated your email settings. You will now get your email alerts. If you have anymore questions, please email the Support Team at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks!
Every time I open SE, there is a message at the top that my email is out of date and that I am not receiving notifications. Yet there is no way for me to reset (let alone the fact that I haven't changed emails). I love reading what all you New Yorkers have to say, but the SE site sucks big time. Someone (or multiple persons) are asleep at the wheel. I would expect more from a New York site.
They've been sending out general listings weekly.
Does anyone know why the price jumped on this property from $413k to $479k? It was on the market for a year then suddenly went into contract at what looks like a higher price. See price history at http://streeteasy.com/building/622-west-114-street-new_york/22a