85 Eighth Avenue #6V Sponsor Unit

The $1022 might be a typo. CitiHabitat's page has it as $102,280, so SE might've made a best-guess correction.

On the other hand, the co-op unit of the condo is carrying a $3M mortgage, which might be a lot for only 100-something studios. That wouldn't explain why 6V has so many shares (if it does,) though.

For this one I'd look at the offering plan sooner than usual.

Shamrocker - it's the private outdoor space-(see description) they seem to be showing a pretty good sized terrace. But they don't show a floorplan, which is stupid on their part. The outdoor space (if I am reading the description right) will bring up the maintenance on an alcove studio

(un)affectionately dubbed "the prison" during the mid-80's, it's one of those buildings where studios were being given away (i.e. less than $20K) at the bottom in 92-93. This is another one of the buildings which fits the example I talked about low price, high mtc units get killed as rents go down.

And that terrace wouldn't show up on the floorplan, anyway. Look at the pictures, the unit number and think about it.......

Yeah, the same little 4'-square things as on the street side.

You guys/gals are awesome...thanks! Yes, it's one of those little shared balconies...they almost feel accidental to me, but whatever.

I've seen the apartment and the only reason I'm even considering it is because of its "sponsor unit" status. The apartment definitely appears to be getting shafted on # of shares in relation to its size.

Usually when you buy a sponsor unit, the burden of the transfer tax is placed upon the buyer. Sometimes, you can negotiate your way out of this.

"The apartment definitely appears to be getting shafted on # of shares in relation to its size."

That's interesting: a lot of sponsors used to skew share allocations the other way: trying to guess which units would contain non-purchasing tenants and finding ways to UNDER allocate shares to them (since they would be carrying the mtc till they eventually vacated). They also tried to come up with ways to under allocate shares to vacant units which they knew they would be selling at market as opposed to insiders at "insider prices". Remember share allocations only have to be "rational and reasonable", which gave Coop Sponsors a fairly wide berth, and the only people who would really argue with them were a Tenant's Committee/Association which rarely cared much about allocation as long as they were getting low insider prices.

But remember that buying a sponsor unit is like driving a new car off the lot: you are paying more for the "no board approval" status of the sale, which you immediately lose (in most cases), so there's an immediate loss of value in that you paid for something which you can not resell (not the apartment, the right of no board approval).