One Wall Street - is it nice?

No opinions? I heard that these kinds of conversions have a potential downside of not having a lot of windows. But this apartment seems to have plenty of light: https://streeteasy.com/building/one-wall-street/3404

I haven't seen them in person, but a browse of the floor plans shows that many of them are pretty good (except for that open kitchen thing which I hate). Some of the photos looks like they were stretching to make it look like there are very high ceilings, ergo some apparently stretched windows also. I don't remember (from my days in that neighborhood) the windows as being anything particulary special size-wise.

I didn't see the 40m triplex listed, but my problem would be, frankly, the neighbors. Based on what else is on offer, 40m is 3-4x the cost of most everything else in the building, and 2x the cost of the proposed combo of 3404/3405. Do you really want to be riding the elevator with people who could only afford a third of what you paid? If I'm dropping ~$40m, I could have an entire floor in a much more exclusive building, with fewer people on the elevators, and neighbors who were, um, shall we say, more of my kind. (https://streeteasy.com/closing/946282)

To my eye, there seems to be a discrepancy between that which is rendered and that which is possible with the building.

Aaron2, you do realize Ken’s new spread is more than 100x the price of the lesser apts in his new building, no? Such is the price of elevation.

The developer put one bedrooms and studios where the window situation was challenging. Here is an example.
https://streeteasy.com/building/one-wall-street/1508

Nada, 220 CPS seems to have a min entry point besides apartments people may use for staff or guests.

Or apartments >$10mm are most of the apartments.

These apts are a tough sell. For example, at $2K ppsf:

https://streeteasy.com/building/one-wall-street/1508

- Neighborhood? No.
- Views? No.
- Light? No.
- Open exposures? No.
- Layout? No.

That's a lot of "No" for a 1BR where the buyer would be spending ~$100K/yr on an after-tax basis. Sure, there will be some buyers for it, but at 566 such units that'll be tough to move.

>> Nada, 220 CPS seems to have a min entry point besides apartments people may use for staff or guests.

I don't think condos can really enforce staff / guest use beyond the developer holding units back initially for a batch sale. Besides, how people choose to house their staff is person-dependent. If you are a man of the people, like Rupert Murdoch, you use the second-best apt in a building for your staff and are even happy living there yourself:

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/rupert-murdoch-lists-triplex-penthouse-and-apartment
The additional unit, which Murdoch lived in while having the penthouse built and has reportedly since used to house guests and staff, is plenty impressive on its own. Located on the 57th level, the 3,300 square foot apartment is the highest full floor unit in the building and accordingly also offers 360 views and sun exposure.

I don't know about Ken's purchases in new developments. I imagine it's the same problem: best (overdeveloped) house on the block syndrome. I was focusing on his purchase at 820, but maybe that's just the staff quarters.

@nada: I'd slightly disagree on views @ 1 Wall, as a few on the north east corner have some open views over Trinity church. But it's pretty limited. And not enough to overcome the other negatives. That building did have one of the most beautiful tiled lobbies in NYC though -- I think it's been restored.

You mean the NW corner, Aaron2.

I was talking about 1508 at $2K ppsf specifically, Aaron. This unit is on the other side facing New St where the building-to-building distance is 35'. This one might be lucky, as it sits across from the NYSE and there faces mechanicals atop NYSE rather than a wall from the taller adjacent buildings. Even though the unit is south and east facing, you're not getting more than 30 minutes of direct sunlight ever. On the Broadway side, it'll be perhaps 1 hour. The tower and the south-facing units will fare better, but if you look at the shape of the building, that's not going to be the bulk of the 566 apts.

If you go to Google Maps and flip the building around in 3D, you'll see that only a very small section of the building looks like this apt:

https://streeteasy.com/building/one-wall-street/3404

This is from an add-on section in the south, with modern structure supporting the large windows. I count 8 such apts on the add-on structure, plus another such setback floor that is probably a ninth apt. That makes for 9 out of 566 apts.

Meanwhile, they use it in all their marketing, even on individual apts whose structure is nothing like it. For example, how can this apt have the expansive windows shown in the pics, even ignoring the exposure?

https://streeteasy.com/building/one-wall-street/4101

Counting the outdoor sq ft as half, that's asking $3300 ppsf.

Yes I think FiDi prewar conversions are a special class of not great residential options.
The building height vs street width, etc are all pre modern zoning laws and could never be built today.

If you’ve never worked in FiDi, you may not realize how much the streets & buildings are covered in perma-shadows and get near zero light.

Imagine living somewhere that the year round quality of light is “~4pm in winter” .

The original poster commented on light. For One Wall St. please note that they build a new addition on top of the shorter part of the building. The new addition was made to be residential, so it has glass curtain walls, open layouts, etc. 90% of the building is not like this.

To put a fine point on it, at that price point you can pick up a full floor below Rupert, living just like he was willing to slum it while his PH was being built out:

https://streeteasy.com/building/one-madison/40a

Same elevation, 360 exposure, more open views, an in-demand neighborhood, and actual expansive windows. I get that not everyone is into floor-to-ceiling glass, but that's what 1 Wall St is marketing despite not having it for the most part.

I just don't see these units moving at these prices. They've been marketing since Sept, 7 months now, and SE only has 17 of the 566 units in contract (diligently added across the months). Who knows how many of those were insiders, but at that pace it'll take 20 years to sell out.

566 is a lot of units to move at these prices or even 15% lower.

Will be monitoring this situation to see if they end up cutting prices by a significant amount.

@steve123 I worked in FiDi and understand what you are saying about light on extra narrow streets, very good point.

I also wonder in terms of location whether many people would be willing to pay $$$$$ to live there vs. somewhere in a more exciting area, or closer to a park. Middle class/Upper middle class of course would be quite happy with convenience of this location, but not sure about product/market fit at the very high end.

It isn't just the narrow streets. Some, but not all, of the buildings in the neighborhood have very bad layouts.

Here is a current listing where the livingroom and kitchen have no windows.

https://streeteasy.com/building/176-broadway-new_york/3d

Here is a current listing where only the livingroom has windows and none of the "bedrooms" have natural light.

https://streeteasy.com/building/176-broadway-new_york/7a

@Woodside: re 7a: Ha. Interior "bedrooms", indeed. I'd suggest that the co-op board was derelict in their duties in approving such a renovation (and for 3D as well).

Yet, clearly somebody thought these layouts were an acceptable way to live when you're spending $1.4m+. Glad I'm not their kid.

This is what I always find confounding about NYC real estate.
Yes, I get that it's expensive. But the floor for genuinely bad apartments is just far too high.

But clearly pricing is supported by idiots who, for example, prefer to live like vampires / grow their children in a cave like mushrooms rather than *gasp* move to Brooklyn, rent a little longer, or kick it to the burbs? LOL.

Both these apts at 176 Broadway are delusional on their ask. The building trades at $600-800 ppsf, depending on condition. 7A traded for $738 ppsf in 2017, at the peak, but now wants 40% more. So what? They’re probably not gonna find a buyer at that price, just like 1 Wall St is gonna have a hard time finding hundreds of buyers at $2000 ppsf for their product. Everything has a price, these are just not it.

I believe a SE poster recently bought in 176 Broadway. Light/windows were a low priority for him. I also have friends who live there, having moved from a much smaller place in the Village (with better light). People have differing degrees of wealth and utility functions, so they make different trade offs. No need to cast aspersions on them just because it does not match your wealth / utility function.

Well, normal-windowed units in the building trade higher. This one will end up closer to $900 ppsf:

https://streeteasy.com/building/176-broadway-new_york/8e

This window-challenged on attempted $900 ppsf in 2015 and failed. Now, it's down to $734 ppsf. I'm guessing it'll find a buyer in the $600-$700 ppsf range.

Link to window-challenged unit asking $734 ppsf:

https://streeteasy.com/building/176-broadway-new_york/3c

Market is pretty efficient at lower end of $ per square foot as long as it is not new development. Gentrified areas in Brooklyn are more expensive now vs 176 Broadway. One thing going for FIDI is good schools.

I retract my negatively viewed comment on the tastes of those who use storage closets as bedrooms. Although I maintain a rather low regard for those individuals' view of safety and health.

My true asperity is with the brokers (Arran, Luis, and Claudia, two of which work for Compass) and their listings, which incorrectly show 3C, 7A, and 8E as having multiple bedrooms, when this is does not appear to be the legal case. (Debatable for 8E: is the 8' x 9'4" windowed room in 8E legally large enough?).

The floorplan for 7A puts 'bedroom' in quotes, and lists two other spaces as 'home offices', yet has photos of what are obviously bedrooms. The floorplan for 3C doesn't label room usage, but the text listing uses 'bedrooms', along with one fake photo which includes an obvious bed. I'd like to know why this wouldn't be considered deceptive and misleading.

I understand your frustration with agents labeling non-conforming bedrooms as bedrooms.

I've said this before, we need a better way to list these non-conforming homes so the consumers can identify them properly in a listing search.

Whether you're a seller/owner or an agent, you're not going to get very far listing a 1500 square foot property as a studio or a one bedroom for $1.4mm. I know there's a pretty strong bent against agents/brokers here. But I don't think they're listing these as two or three bedroom homes to try to deceive anybody. They're simply trying to get the listing in front of enough eyeballs so that the consumer then can make a decision as to whether or not the sleeping arrangements suit them.

Currently the only way to handle this is to list it as a two bedroom or whatever and then start the subject remarks off with 'these are not conforming bedrooms: etc. Unfortunately not enough people search by room count, and I'm not even sure if you can actually just pick a number of rooms and search that way?? For how effective it might be.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

I think my snark was misread.
I’m sure the buyers/sellers are in the same economic class as me. I am not casting aspersions on their wealth.

I am befuddled someone with enough cash & income to spend over $1.2M+ on real estate would have such low regard for their childrens upbringing.
My point is, at that price point.. Brooklyn, renting, burbs are all excellent options.

And the price per sqft metric is wrong on these units as they are essentially 1600+ sq ft dark 1br/studios. I couldn’t even imagine using one of those illegal bedrooms as a home office all day.

Compare to what you can find for a 1200sq ft 2BR or flex 3BR elsewhere on an absolute dollar basis.

8E seems like a more normal offering as it at least has windowed bedrooms.

The tools in this industry need to improve.
If a car was listed for sale as “seating 7” but then had small print mentioning “there’s only seatbelts for 5” or “includes children sitting in adults laps”.. well we all know that would never happen.

I am sure people buy units with illegal bedrooms as their first purchase easily. Naivety plus brokers on both sides willingly not saying the quiet parts out loud or in writing.

Steve, I think buyers clearly know what they are getting in terms of legality of bedrooms. They have lawyers advising them.

However, broker should not be listing illegal bedrooms as bedroom count. It is clearly deception when it comes to eyeballs but actual buyers have plenty of advice for due diligence.

To act like anyone/everyone gets good advice from their lawyer or their broker is to blind yourself to what the actual situation is. No one - except for maybe the broker, and even then in only a MM$ translation - is actually paid to cast more than a passing eye on the legality the floor plan. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of people are purchasing “bedrooms” without knowing that they are not. American consumption relies heavily on the good-faith of others and validity of licenses and certifications. Otherwise we’d all have to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects, tax accountants, HVAC technicians, plumbers what have you.

Fundamentally the buyers attys job is not to verify the floor plan. That buck stops with the listing broker.

I was just giving you a little grief, steve123 & Aaron2.

So I think we all agree that these window-challenged units are sub-standard in various ways. If we look at the most recently closed apt in the building, it sold for $1.225M for 1800 sq ft, working out to $680 ppsf. What should the clearing price for this have been, in your minds? How is this any more egregious than people paying the same amount for a pedestrian 800 sq ft 1BR at $1500 ppsf? Or an ultra-lux 450 sq ft studio at $2800 ppsf? Some people want the space, to own, to be in Manhattan, and have a certain budget.

I was just giving you a little grief, steve123 & Aaron2.

So I think we all agree that these window-challenged units are sub-standard in various ways. If we look at the most recently closed apt in the building, it sold for $1.225M for 1800 sq ft, working out to $680 ppsf. What should the clearing price for this have been, in your minds? How is this any more egregious than people paying the same amount for a pedestrian 800 sq ft 1BR at $1500 ppsf? Or an ultra-lux 450 sq ft studio at $2800 ppsf? Some people want the space, to own, to be in Manhattan, and have a certain budget.

Not true. Real Estate is Caveat Emptor. Condos are sold as per the offering plan the legality of what you are buying including number of bedrooms is described in that. I am unclear about coop but offering plan is also available and buyers are supposed to perform due diligence. The other services you mention are not Caveat Emptor. I don't mean to say brokers should be listing incorrectly but buyers also have responsibility in real estate to verify the facts.

I can't find any mention of "listing broker" or "bedroom" in this.
https://ag.ny.gov/real-estate-finance-bureau/physical_aspects

Regarding 176 Broadway, since this is a co-op make sure to double check the math on the floor plan against listed square feet. You're relying on the input of an agent somewhere along the line, and then that data lives indefinitely in Streeteasy.

I'm not gonna lie: I didn't have dreams, as a little girl, of moving to New York so I could spend a million sweat-earned dollars to put my family in overcrowded, yeah, even, "substandard" housing.

However, while my parents thought that the best thing for their family was to raise the kids in a big house in a non-diverse (any way you slice it: racially, socio-economically, ideologically) suburb, I think the best thing for my family is to suffer with problematic housing near excellent educational resources, a spectacular park, and in a lively community with lots of different people from different backgrounds. It's really an individual thing, yeah?

In other words, I'm not a buyer at 176 Broadway, but I can imagine it. As 300 noted above, Brooklyn isn't any cheaper, and, at the price point I'm in the market at, neither is renting. The 'burbs (which I love in many ways, spending much of my summer there) are problematic not only on the diversity point, which is significant to me, but also on the transport point. You think children shouldn't be "mushrooms" -- I think children should be able to move around independently when they're tweens instead of being captives of parental chauffeurs for five developmentally important years. I don't know that either view is universally "right," -- I just have to do what I think works for us.

ali r.

@300 It’s one thing for the seller not to have the responsibility to disclose every defect or condition, but for the seller to be misleading is another thing. Caveat emptor applies to the first case but the second case is an act of bad faith. There is still the duty of good faith on both parties.

“This rule is not designed to shield sellers who engage in FRAUD or bad faith dealing by making false or misleading representations about the quality or condition of a particular product.”

Read more: Caveat Emptor - Seller, Buyer, Warranty, and Product - JRank Articles https://law.jrank.org/pages/5072/Caveat-Emptor.html#ixzz7PzKYAwP6

Real Estate is state law and I have not seen any lawsuits in litigious NYC due to mis-statement of bed rooms. Perhaps there have been.

I have seen a couple of condo square footage lawsuits.

Found one:
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2007/2007-27468.html

Except about buyer’s ordinary intelligence:

The Court went on to note, "Defendants are correct in contending{**18 Misc 3d at 299} that they would not be liable for the alleged misrepresentation if the facts misrepresented were not matters peculiarly within their knowledge and plaintiffs had the means to discover the truth by the exercise of ordinary intelligence."

Rooms identified as bedrooms in loft spaces / converted commercial buildings is one thing. I think most buyers are intelligent enough to understand that if a room does not have any windows it most likely does not constitute a legal bedroom. And is voiced by many posters here, would not be suitable as a sleeping area for members of their families.

Where I have seen egregious misrepresentation, duplexes in small buildings where the lower level is a cellar. I saw one recently that was beautifully renovated and also had a full bathroom. Windows and a walk out to the backyard, plenty of light.

However we pointed out to the client that these bedrooms were not legal, and the full bathroom is also not legal. In a cellar, only a toilet and sink is permissible. They found this hard to believe, they actually loved the home. Upon review of the offering plan it clearly stated in bold that the lower level was not legal space suitable for bedrooms.

My first apartment in New York City was at 188 Norfolk Street. It was a basement with no windows, quite large though. The owner painted the floors, put in one bathroom and basically spray painted the entire unit white and added some rooms with sheetrock and 2x4s. We got all of that for $250 a month! Lol. I had three roommates as well...

What do people make of a lack of lawsuits about misstated bedroom count? While my search is far from exhaustive and I am not a lawyer with court record search familiarity, I only found one lawsuit. Any lawyers on the board familiar with this issue?

I’d argue that a working knowledge of housing maintenance code, multiple dwelling law, building code, and zoning resolution does not fall under “ordinary intelligence.”

…though apparently the judge in the case you cite disagrees with me since the zoning ordinance is public knowledge.

Int, What about buyer ignoring/neglecting reading the offering plan (stating it is 1 bedroom), which was provided to them by the seller?

@300 I’m hinging more on that the apt was altered, because that definitely complicated the matter. The two additional bedrooms had windows, which ostensibly made them legal, but because the windows didn’t face a street or court they weren’t windows in the legal sense. To expect a layperson to be expected to know the difference between a legal and not legal window w/r/t lighting and ventilation just seems a bit obtuse to me. Then we can start talking about the actual size window size, glazed area, openable area, etc. and we can really get in the weeds here. The judge suggested that the buyer hires an architect as if a NYC has time or wants to spend that money every time they see an apartment they like.

Plus a lot of buildings factor in the number of bedrooms when calculating maintenance.

In a nation where my bleach has warnings telling me not to drink it, and my coffee warnings that it's hot.. I find it curious that RE pros think average Americans have all sorts of arcane RE knowledge for what is often a once or twice in a lifetime purchase.

Just because we haven't seen sufficient lawsuits re: specific immoral business practice does not make them good, moral, defensible and not worth changing.

On the financing side of RE, post GFC, you see for example ARMs come with massive legal disclosures including one-pager plane English explanation of risks/rate maxes of your ARM. I remember being provided all sorts of federal&state mandated materials and contacts pre-closing trying to explain to lay people how mortgages etc work. So we protect people from entering into bad financing to purchase RE while providing few or none of the same protections on the underlying RE.

You can't advertise an ETF or mutual fund without paragraphs of disclaimers nor sell them without pages of prospectus details.

Meanwhile RE it's totally fine to lie about size of units, number/legality of bedrooms&bathroom, what a lot line window means, etc. Sure new devs have to disclose in offering plan, but most people are buying years later after modifications have been made where sellers have no legal repercussions.

Yes a good buyers attorney should sniff this stuff out, but some think they can buy without an attorney, not all of them are great, and many people are thousands of dollars / months of effort into the purchase before their attorney will uncover these discrepancies.

Not to single out NYC either as if you go outside into the burbs you will see tons of single family homes with illegal modifications re: finished basements & attics, in-law setups, etc. In some areas I've seen the majority with illegal mods rather than the minority. Similar amount of wink&nod around the issue by sellers agents though some will at least use terms like "well this isn't on the original CO"...

The entire RE purchase process I went through, I felt less protected than my average $10,000 SPY purchase on E*Trade and it all felt far more akin to purchasing fake handbags off Canal St back in the heyday.

Apartment layouts are what they are. Whether a room can be called a bedroom seems like semantics to me and, unlike a lot of other places in the U.S., few if any persons buy real estate in NYC without representation. The health/safety issue also seems to me a bit overblown in the age of fully conditioned spaces; few people ever open the windows in their apartments, many windows in new developments are not operable at all, and you are not being rescued out of a window unless it faces the street and is less than 7 or so flights up -- the tallest ladder on any NYC fire truck is about 100 feet. A great many people spend much more of their life in window-less work spaces than they do 7 hours of sleep. And, on that note, I probably spend 30 non-sleeping minutes a day in my (fully-windowed) bedroom. The windows don't much matter to me (my wife would disagree vehemently, and does not even like to watch TV in the windowless home theater in our weekend house).

Besides, a great many people living in Manhattan/prime Brooklyn do not have families nor need extra "bedrooms" for sleeping. In 20 years I have lived in my current apartment, the (fully windowed) spare bedrooms have been used as bedrooms less than a few days a year. Space is the greatest luxury one can have in urban living. Space with windows is just a bonus.

You may or may not get good advice from your real estate agent. But you should certainly expect to get good advice from your real estate attorney, who will do quite a bit of due diligence. So pick your real estate attorney wisely.

I don't know Steve, anyone with an internet connection can log into a financial website, purchase quite a bit of stock, bonds, crypto with just about zero disclosures during the actual transactions. And you can buy all sorts of inappropriate investments.

When you purchase an apartment in New York City you're going to have an attorney review an offering plan, financials, send out a detailed questionnaire to the managing agent to inquire about lawsuits, current ownership, assessments and verify all sorts of other information.

And if you're financing, you will separately have a bank doing extensive due diligence on you and the building. To not only make sure you qualify for the loan, but that the building is suitable for them to lend it.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

front_porch>> Brooklyn isn't any cheaper, and, at the price point I'm in the market at, neither is renting

FP, how do you assess the cost of buying vs. the cost of renting to make such an assessment?

Personally, I look at the cap rate (current rent minus cc+taxes) vs. the 30yr fixed rate. I don't care whether or not one finances, how one finances, what one does with the capital, etc. That's my rule of thumb, formed for a variety of reasons that I need not get into.

At the ~$1M price point, I see cap rates at 3% using non-pandemic rents (though sometimes I see 2%). While 30yr fixed rates were hanging around 3% over 2020-2021, cost of buying vs. renting a 3% cap rate apt seemed like a wash to me. Now that we're at 4.5%, not so much -- by my calc, it's 50% more expensive.

Note that I'm not saying you should agree with my calc, just wondering what your calc is for determining whether or not it's any cheaper.

>>Just because we haven't seen sufficient lawsuits re: specific immoral business practice does not make them good, moral, defensible and not worth changing.

Steve, I agree that it is certainly unethical and immoral to misstate facts about the listing. I certainly have posted more than my fair share of listings inflating square footage including of condos.

But very few buyers complain to authorities and file a lawsuit. Economic loss or injury is also hard to prove as buyers/banks get an appraiser. That is probably why tort lawyers seem not to take it up.

And no, real estate is not a security regulated by SEC where companies file for bankruptcy and it comes with a long list of risk factors in the prospectus. Your house doesn’t. Condos kind of do but not enough people read even Schedule A containing square footage and bedrooms. So buyers also have some responsibility.

Making the last part clearer. Your house doesn’t file for Bankruptcy. And condos kind of come with a long list of risk factors in the offering plan.

>> it all felt far more akin to purchasing fake handbags off Canal St back in the heyday

At least you knew they were fake. This is more like the salespeople at Saks being allowed to sometimes sell fakes. Saks lends its imprimatur while turning a blind eye and stamping “no representation should be relied upon in making this purchase” to cover liability. Salespeople then say that buyers should be able to tell from stitching if it’s a real one or a fake.

FTR, you can still buy fakes on Canal.

>> I don't know Steve, anyone with an internet connection can log into a financial website, purchase quite a bit of stock, bonds, crypto with just about zero disclosures during the actual transactions. And you can buy all sorts of inappropriate investments.

Sure. But what’s happening here is that brokers earning a 3% commission are fraudulently modifying details of the prospectus, K-1, etc. Imagine a world where investment brokers can, in the process of marketing for their 3% cut, make fraudulent representations of earnings per share, number of stores, sq ft per store, revenue per sq ft, etc. It’s all correct in the actual materials, which your attorney can read. Sure, they’ll read it, but how are they supposed to know which figures where fraudulently misrepresented to you during marketing?

I was addressing the level of due diligence required to purchase real estate in NYC.

Also, the vast majority of real estate brokers/agents are presenting correct information. I've run across plenty of brokers in financial services that were less than honest. Or for that matter just about any place somebody selling something. I have a very direct experience with this, my father lost about 90% of his retirement savings through an unscrupulous broker.

"The entire RE purchase process I went through, I felt less protected than my average $10,000 SPY purchase on E*Trade and it all felt far more akin to purchasing fake handbags off Canal St back in the heyday."

This whole issue only comes up in a handful of weirdly converted commercial buildings into residential dwellings. I think miss stating correct square footage is a much more significant issue. I think nearly all buyers tend to see that number posted on Streeteasy and it's assumed to be accurate, as you did nada when quoting prices for the building. Maybe it is correct, but did you break out a pencil and a napkin to verify ; )

>> I've run across plenty of brokers in financial services that were less than honest.

Sure. But how many major financial services companies allow their brokers to publicly, on their websites, post fraudulent information? The RE brokerage companies seem to allow this as a matter of business.

>> did you break out a pencil and a napkin to verify

For One Wall St, no. Those sq ft were from the floorplans, from the sponsor. I have never seen a major sponsor like Macklowe state fraudulent sq ft. The AG would bring holy hell down on them if they did.

For 176 Broadway, I did. Because owners / brokers have a track record for fraud — not pervasive, but often enough for me to have always harbor doubt. If I’m willing to do this to simply not misstate facts online on a message board no one reads, RE brokerage companies can pay a professional to do it for the $60K+ they collect as a matter of business. If you can pay the photographer, you can pay a certifying measurer.

Condos aren't an issue, it's definitely more with a co-ops. You ever look at real estate ads in Paris? They use correct square meters, all the sub $1.5 million apartments seem incredibly small!

I think a lot of New Yorkers live in delusion regarding how big their apartments are. Especially if you start measuring square footage from inside walls. "You want the truth, you can't handle the truth. " : )

At least the real estate agents are lying out front, the financial services people blind you with all the disclosures, and then pick your pocket ; )

In the world of technology, there is no reason for this question to remain vexing. There are $300 laser tools that will give the full measurements of any room in 2 seconds. The real estate professionals could easily give very precise numbers room by room in five minutes if they cared. Some tools will even draw the walls for you, even curved walls. But no one wants this. As the posts above note, every seller things his or her apartment is bigger than it is, and no one will agree to list an apartment smaller than what was advertised when they bought it.

For a buyer, you can get a $40 laser measurer at any big box store and measure straight lines in two seconds, accurate to 1/16 inch over distances of 150 feet or more. If you are in the market, buy one. Break it out at the open house. The brokers will love you. I stopped using tape measures for anything years ago. You don't need to measure every room. Pick a rectangular/square room that is not debatable, you can measure the walls with a press of a button, and then downsize every other room by the same proportion. But, again, none of this matters in the overall sense since they are all over-sized, but it allows a better apples to apples comparison.

I think I really stirred the hornets nest posting above and then going out for the day lol.

As Keith has pointed out, the buyers agent should, but isn't in any way legally obligated to point out many of these issues. The buyers attorney is basically the backstop here. As crazy as it sounds many in the country and even a few in the city do buy without attorneys. Even here we are, of all the actors in the RE transaction, on buy&sell side.. putting it all on one party - the attorney, to protect the buyer.

Was thinking more that the only other place the average consumer sees this kind of rough&tumble purchase experience in America anymore is cars. Even there it is going away as most EVs move to direct sales, some of the major legacy manufacturers are dabbling in the same.. and especially the younger generation brought up on internet from birth just do not want to deal with this BS.

While the internet brought some transparency to RE in the last 20 years, I think there's a chance this new generation of always-on are going to push for it more.. and if they don't get it by willing industry reform, you may see it via regulation. My hope is the industry sees this and adjusts to the new reality of their customers, and the blunt tool of government intervention doesn't need to play a part.

You see a few pockets of this in the crypto space where you basically have an 1800s form of banking system, and with it the huge boom-bust, fraud, theft, etc issues unlike anything seen in the dollar banking system in 100 years. Here too I doubt it will last much longer as regulators step in, and more mainstream consumers will get exposure to the crypto space through traditional products (ETFs/ETPs) via traditional conduits (FAs/brokers/E*trade) rather than deal with the back corners of the decentralized internet..

And just to be clear and even handed here.

In terms of sketchiness, lack of transparency, and need for reform - I absolutely extend this to developers... who are an entire category of their own.

If you want to get an idea of how little buyer's attorneys examine Offering Plans and adequately explain them to buyers (or buyer's general ability to read Offering Plans and actually comprehend what they mean) read the Brooklyn Point thread.

As Keith points out about the (accurate) listings in France the reason why agents lie so often on listings is because if they don't buyers claim all the listings with accurate square footage are too small. And the asking price/SF is too high. Because they've seen larger apartments in their budget, even though the place they have seen it is in the listings of the agents who lie about square footage.

steve123,
To flog a dead horse Google Brooklyn point condominiums and see how far the developer went to give the impression what the were selling were condos.

There are also many ways to get all sorts of square footage included in the figure listed on a Condominium Schedule A. If anyone gets bored start looking at floorplans, calculating square footage, and comparing what you calculate with "official" figures from offering plans.
Or you can play along here:
https://www.urbandigs.com/forum/index.php?threads/no-peeking.304/

French law is pretty dumb. It allow inclusion of anything 5'11" and above ceiling height and excludes interior partition walls and rooms less than 86 sq ft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_Carrez

To those who said buyers should read offering plans and other info please note that most sellers do not allow buyers do their own due diligence! They would only disclose offering plans or building financials to buyers' attorneys, typically AFTER an accepted offer. I am not sure about legality of this, but I ran into this problem pretty consistently.

In NYC, buyer's attorney is buyer's representative for due diligence and the information goes to them. They will share all information provided to them with the buyer - so the buyers has full access before signing the contract and can take plenty of time to do their due diligence via their lawyer. They can walk away if they are not getting the answers. But buyers sometimes go with the cheapest lawyer and they get poor due diligence as they didn't want to pay. Condo offering plans are also available online from more than one source for free and from the managing agents for a fee.

What 30_yrs said, times 100 million. I am a one-person shop who operates in a big-firm environment. To nyc_sport's point, I bring my laser measurer (which was quite the fancy gadget when mr. front_porch gave it to me a dozen years ago) to showings as the listing broker. And I hear ALL the time about "why is your D-line smaller than the D-line listed by [insert name of big firm here] ?

Consumers, collectively, demand "marketing." With a few exceptions, they don't want selling, no matter how skilled. They generally don't want to be handed the Schedule A (which I usually have on offer for prospective buyers, to Krolik's point, so that they can see it before they have to purchase the entire floor plan.)

Case in point -- I recently sold a small one-bedroom at 189 Schermerhorn. I showed that apartment to somewhere around 50 people, saying consistently to buyer's brokers "it's 507 feet per the offering plan, it's a legal one-bedroom per the offering plan, but prepare your customers, because it's the size of an alcove studio." Probably twenty of these shows -- and this was during high Covid, so I'm risking my health every time I'm getting on the subway to show -- were to first-time buyers who thought the place was "too small" and they needed a "real-one-bedroom." Well, duh, try listening; you need never have walked in the door!

Finally sold it by creating a bidding war among four prospective buyers, two of whom had been previous homeowners. The ultimate buyer -- who was direct -- bought it for what I would say were "exactly the right reasons" -- because it solved the problems of his previous apartment (location and light/view) -- and secondarily because he thought it traded at a fair price. But consumers who don't think that way, who think "I want as much as I can get at a particular price price price," don't want to hear it.

And now we're moving beyond the insane emphasis on ppsf into a new phase, where success is being driven by brokers who make movies of themselves dancing around in a space. Let's check back in 24 months, say, so everyone can complain about how duplicitous we brokers are by pirouetting on camera instead of handing you copies of the Schedule A you don't want.

Bottom line: if people in a marketplace like razzle-dazzle, that's what they'll get. I agree most brokers suck and lie their butts off-- I have to work with them even more than you do! -- but there's a significant portion who don't. Yet their/our jobs are getting harder every year.

ali r.
{upstairs realty}

>> And now we're moving beyond the insane emphasis on ppsf into a new phase, where success is being driven by brokers who make movies of themselves dancing around in a space

Does this work? or is this just done for the purpose of filling an hour on a reality show?

Are buyers required to hire an attorney in NYC? Is it by law that all due diligence goes to attorney rather than buyers directly?

If you hire an attorney, common practice is that it goes to the attorney. Main point is that if your attorney has the info, you have it. I do not the law on requirement to hire an attorney but do not know of anyone in NYC who didn't. There are states where attorney's are not involved.

A buyer is not required to hire an attorney in NY, but I've hired one for all 3 purchases I've made (and used a buyers agent on 2 of those), as I didn't want to walk into discussions any less prepared and knowledgeable than those sitting across the table from me. I never faced off with the sellers agent without my agent there, and never talked to an attorney without mine there.

In NY, all real estate contracts need to be drawn up by a principal, or the seller or buyer’s attorney – it is against the law for real estate agents and brokers to draw up any sales contracts or to review them for the purposes of legal advice.

If I were to be the seller in NYC and the buyers didn't have an attorney representing them, I will look for other buyers as I want the buyer to take responsibility for their due diligence by hiring a professional and not deal with a likely quirky and uninformed person directly.

I hired an attorney on both of my two purchases in NYC. However, I found it really annoying that sellers would not share due diligence info with me directly at earlier stages in the process. I did not want to bother attorneys at the early stages before an accepted offer, and wanted to have the ability to check basic building facts (mortgage, cash reserves, history of maintenance increases) myself in order to be comfortable making such an offer.

Seller brokers were insisting that it was impossible to share information with anyone but an attorney, which I find really strange if an attorney is not required for a transaction.

While hiring an attorney is a part of buyer due diligence, the responsibility is still with the buyer, not with the attorney.

It is the seller’s choice to give out financials before an accepted offer. Maintenance and CC are disclosed anyway and typically current assessments should be. Seller’s brokers have no way to tell serious buyers from other buyers.

When we're listing a property, we're always happy to share the recent financials that we have. And we also try to get the managing agent to complete a generic questionnaire that we can share with potential buyers.

I never had problems getting a listing agent to send offering plans / coop financials. I then flipped the PDFs I'd been given freely into a bunch of credit @ titlevest.com so I could browse more buildings without having to deal with humans.

Granted this was in summer 2020 when everyone on the sell-side was desperate.

I am grateful to the agents at 176 Broadway who dutifully listed my apartment as a "studio" sans sqft, ensuring that nobody came to the open houses. I'm not surprised when others play it looser.

All apartments have compromises. People come to FiDi for transit and ppsf. One Wall St has better floor plans than the neighborhood-average, but that's not saying much, especially at their price point. They're gonna have to chop or rent like all the other nearby developers did.

Super interesting

https://www.urbandigs.com/forum/index.php?threads/history-repeating-itself.461/

People better get used to me taking victory laps.

This project has been on the market for a while:

They had claimed to have sold 10% to Asian buyers back in December, 2020 when the project was pulled from Core and given to Compass. Now closings have begun and it looks like they are at 15%. At this rate it's looking like a 20 year sellout (and with mortgage rates at current levels, I don't imagine the market vastly improving in the near future).

https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2023/02/28/harry-macklowe-faces-reckoning-1-wall-street/

https://youtu.be/i3yc0k_SeTE

https://youtu.be/i3yc0k_SeTE

https://youtu.be/i3yc0k_SeTE

https://youtu.be/i3yc0k_SeTE

https://youtu.be/i3yc0k_SeTE

https://youtu.be/i3yc0k_SeTE

https://youtu.be/i3yc0k_SeTE

https://youtu.be/i3yc0k_SeTE

https://youtu.be/i3yc0k_SeTE

https://youtu.be/i3yc0k_SeTE

https://youtu.be/i3yc0k_SeTE

I disagree with those who say conversions from office to residential are infeasible. Look at the former Veterans Administration headquarters converted to The Chelsea Mercantile Building. However, it's a cost issue. We've had plenty of conversions here in NYC but this all hinged on developers buying the buildings at very low numbers. I'm not sure we are anywhere near the price destruction which would need to occur in order to make the numbers work.

Most conversions are never going yield too-grade residential apartments, but many will yield apartments that are good enough. Chelsea Merc is a fine example. Developers have to target a $1500 ppsf average sale price or so, meaning they need to buy cheap as 30yrs says.

I am guessing the end of ZIRP will get a lot moving over time. As the video states, there’s a lot of zombie retail holding out hope for unrealistic rents. Why? I imagine the drop in asset values have essentially wiped out equity, and owners are using ZIRP-era rates to stay afloat for the time being until refi’s kick in. No way they can stay afloat long-term at market rent, so no point asking for market rent. They’d be toast anyways. So it’s better to retain the option value in their position, which can only be realized if they get high rent (even though that may be unlikely).

The game ends when banks tack an additional 5% to their rates come refi time.

too-grade => top-grade

People underestimate how much retail vacancy is due to CMBS financing and how you can't lease at below the stated pro forma without running it by a committee of lenders first.

@30 - Agreed, feel like this was lightly covered in the press during some of the "high end retail blight" journalism of the month era, years ago

Was interesting to reading about all the games CRE firms played with each other to basically cook the books on achievable rent before selling to one another.. (Favorable lease break covenants for tenants & cash back if they signed up for new lease renewals at elevated rates.. ex - hey I'm about to sell this place, but if you renew for a 20% increase, we'll put something in the 10 year lease that you have the option to be bought out of the lease for $200k if ownership changes)

Seems like a self fulfilling prophecy of eventually having a bunch of empty CRE that can't be rented at the rates they are keeping it on the books for, eventually someone would be a bag holder, COVID or not. Markets don't go up forever without interruption.

Hadn’t CRE been going sideways for a few years even before COVID?

Yes, sideways pre-COVID, so probably kept the bags from moving to a new bagholder

Now COVID era, CRE has moved down so the frozen bagholders realize they are actually holding the bags