Pre-War Condo vs newer ones

Because of the unions driving up the cost of construction in this town, it is now impossible to build quality housing at a price where A) the developer can make money B) the buyer can afford it. Thus the old stuff is the only stuff (with a few exceptions) that is well made.

You dont see those kind of buildingsin non-union freindly states either (think big cities in the South.)

But you do in vegas. Weird, huh? So it IS possible.

There aren't all that many pre-war condos. Co-ops, yes. See http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/11226-pre-war-v-post-war.

Jazzman, union vs. non-union isn't all that big a factor in making NYC's development costs higher than other places. Take a seemingly-simple as-of-right project, e.g. the one at 76th and Broadway. Every aspect costs much more. All the city agencies to deal with via lobbyists. Hundreds of permits, or more exactly paying the people to shepherd them through. It's mind-boggling.

"Because of the unions driving up the cost of construction in this town, it is now impossible to build quality housing at a price where A) the developer can make money B) the buyer can afford it."

Don't blame the unions.

The unions are only there to prevent developers from exploiting unskilled illegal alien labor.

And as far as the illegal -- excuse me -- "non union" -- buildings being of any quality, let me just say I feel a lot safer in the older buildings that were built by legitimate and legal labor.

NYCMatt - the older buildings were all built by illegal (mostly Irish) immigrants - I don't get your point -

NWT - Unions are responsible for the difficulty (and expense) of the pre construction process in NYC - they push and push for more and more regulation so that they are the only ones who know how to navigate it. Why do you think so many national builders build everywhere in the country but NYC? These regulations make it so only a couple big builders will even work here. The more complex and time consuming the more the unions are needed.
There are a few reasons it costs so much to build in the city, one of them is land prices, another is politicians who take bribes (both legal and illegal), another is unions/mafia.

I guess to summarize the old pre war buildings are mostly build with bricks steel and mortar the new fancy condo building are mostly build with red tape.

Thanks for your replies everyone. I appreciate your feedback.

"NYCMatt - the older buildings were all built by illegal (mostly Irish) immigrants"

Completely wrong.

The older buildings were mostly built by LEGAL (mostly Irish and Italian) immigrants.

no one knows what their talking about. it's simple economics. Most developers try to by the building (site) as cheaply as possible, develop the site as cheaply as possible and charge as much as they can. Simple. Now who built what better when is completely irrelevant.

Yes, but "cheaply as possible" given the location, i.e. the market. For instance, it would've made no sense to put up one of those far-west-42nd St. high-rises on the 15 CPW site. And vice-versa. Then you have the middling sort of site like 535 WEA where the developer may turn out to have misjudged.

Or the best example of all: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/11-spring-street-new_york, where a couple of partners from Palm Beach and god-knows-where were ignorant and made a colossal mistake.

i think 535 wea is going to make the harrison, the lucida and the brompton look good. stupid location + hilarious pricing but...nothing beats timing and theirs couldn't have been worse.

Way back I dug up the prices the 535WEA developer paid for the rowhouse co-ops they replaced. Can't remember the numbers, but imagine the money it'd take to get every shareowner to agree to sell. Plus the tenants they had to buy out in some buildings. In a way they had to build over the market because that was their only hope. Standard apartments at standard $-per-buildable-square-foot couldn't cut it. No turning back.

made sense then, i guess? but, don't you think the prices now seem silly funny? remember, what tina fey got for $3.2 (or so--can't remember exact figure) at 300 WEA. right off the bat, i would much rather be at 74th then 86th---a nitpick but not at $23 million!

One bad call must've mushroomed, and there they are with that thing. May turn out OK in the end, but developers don't have that time-frame. Lenders do, though.

Completely agree re: 535 vs 300. For the 300 money you get impressiveness and class. Not so at 535.

how could it possibly turn out OK? someone(s) are going to lose a lot of money ....wonder how much they need to clear to break even...probably a lot more than 50% of asking.

The bank takes it, rents out what hadn't sold, and eventually recoups their money. Maybe. I'm just going by what happened in the '30s with the Beresford, 834 Fifth, etc. and making a stretch. Fortunately developers are resilient. Now we think of Anthony Campagna as a great builder with vision, but forget the bankruptcies along the way.

For the past 30 years, everything has been about building "lightweight construction". Metal studs, sheetrock, etc. When I thing about where I want to live, lightweight is the thing I want the least. Have you ever seen the difference in the seaside communities after hurricanes blow thru from the one's built over 100 years ago? In the one's which the majority of buildings were built post 1970, they look like cardboard boxes getting blown thru.

I don't know if you guys have this as much uptown, but one thing which drives me nuts is all the loft apartments which brokers advertise as "prewar": yeah, the SHELL was built prewar, but inside it's all the same crap as anything else built in the same vintage as the gut reno.

No more plastered gypsum block for interior walls. Supposedly steel studs with two layers of 5/8" sheetrock, with cavities sound-insulated, are just as good, but still doesn't pound right. It is easier to change wiring.