Recently we've seen a couple of places that have advertised "possible" roof rights. When pressed, the broker usually says something vague like the co-op board has either not objected or has given an indication that it would be willing to look at plans if presented with them. Keeping in mind we would only buy such an apartment if we were completely comfortable with the possibility of ultimately... [more]
Recently we've seen a couple of places that have advertised "possible" roof rights. When pressed, the broker usually says something vague like the co-op board has either not objected or has given an indication that it would be willing to look at plans if presented with them.
Keeping in mind we would only buy such an apartment if we were completely comfortable with the possibility of ultimately having no outdoor space:
1) How can we evaluate how "possible" roof rights actually are? Can we ask for co-op board minutes or something to verify the claim? (After all, can't anyone claim anything is possible?)
2) Should an apartment with "possible" roof rights (no approval, no plans) command any premium at all over an identical one without roof rights?
3) What kind of timeline / process / budget would we be looking at for something simple (e.g., removable decking), assuming there's an existing external stairwell or ladder that can be used? Assuming we have to do create an internal stairwell? Roof space would be 500-750 s.f. I realize that estimates could vary tremendeously, but at this point, anything would help.
My initial thoughts is that the apartment should command no premium, and that we should factor on two years and up to $100k in order to make it possible. I suppose no seller would make a purchase contingent on a coop also allowing us to purchase the roof rights, given how little has been done in the way of existing approvals?
ANY advice, no matter how ballpark, would be appreciated.
[less]
Response by drdrd
about 16 years ago
Posts: 1905
Member since: Apr 2007
I wonder if your RE lawyer would be the person to speak to. Certainly you've got NOTHIN' unless you have 'roof rights' spelled out clearly (in your proprietary lease?). Also, the manner of access is key, as well. A stair is more convenient for schlepping things up there than a ladder. If you were to gain roof rights, I imagine you could choose to not use all of the space; just make an island or roof raft of decking with a fence around it & thus you've determined the footprint of your roof deck. Good luck & proceed with caution.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by evnyc
about 16 years ago
Posts: 1844
Member since: Aug 2008
My advice would be to treat this as you would any property that does not come with outdoor space. "Possible" outdoor space isn't a selling point; it's a headache. Pay no premium for phantasmagorical outdoor space that may prove to be a mere daydream. Unless you can get it in writing, it doesn't exist.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by w67thstreet
about 16 years ago
Posts: 9003
Member since: Dec 2008
Lmao. If it could've been built I would have. Usually it means you take full responsibility for any defects of putting on said roof/outdoor area. Including structural crap if there is a little leak and over the years a structural i beam becomes compromised and ya gotta pay for $5mm repair bill.
Just put a heavy chair and table on the roof get a new handle on se with 'ph' and tell people you are a class above cause you have a built out roof top!!! Just don't invite anyone over.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by spinnaker1
about 16 years ago
Posts: 1670
Member since: Jan 2008
67 is right - stay away, even if you find you can do something up there. Its a big risk. Roof rights may mean yours to access for purposes of installing an antenna, or to put out a cooler and folding lawn chair on a Saturday afternoon. It doesn't always mean perm structure.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by lad
about 16 years ago
Posts: 707
Member since: Apr 2009
I have to admit that my first thought was along the lines of "if it could've been built it would have." On the other hand, my tolerance for long, complicated processes is higher than most people's, so I'd be potentially willing to undertake a big project that others would pass on for hassle reasons.
Stuff in our price range with decent private outdoor space is hard to find, to the point that I'm reluctantly ready to cross it off the required list if we can find a place with shared outdoor space. (Significant other doesn't care about outdoor space and has other priorities that eliminate many apartments with private outdoor space. *Sigh.*)
I think we'll keep the "possible" roof rights places on the list, treat the possibility as worth $0, and only make an offer on a place if it makes sense financially and for our lifestyle.
Thanks for the advice, and feel free to offer any other suggestions.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by spinnaker1
about 16 years ago
Posts: 1670
Member since: Jan 2008
Well that's different, most wouldn't have the stomach for it. I'm no expert on legal issues like this but you may very well not get a definitive answer on what "roof rights" mean until it is tested with the board -or in court.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
about 16 years ago
Posts: 9877
Member since: Mar 2009
For years I've chuckled when some owner thinks their unit is worth a LOT more because iy has "roof rights"* and I always say to myself "If this thing has been Coop for 25 years and none of the 4 owners have done ANYTHING with the roof, how much of a premium can you think you're going to get?"
* also "roof rights", while way too often used in Offering Plans, is really a term of art: I don't think there is anyone who can give a definitive answer as to what "roof rights" listed in the Schedule A of an Offering Plan actually entitles anyone to.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NYCMatt
about 16 years ago
Posts: 7523
Member since: May 2009
Keep in mind that "possible roof rights" means just that -- possible. It could be that you may never have roof access. Our building just last year looked at the possibility of installing a roof deck, but because the roof wasn't originally designed to hold the weight of PEOPLE (as is the case for most New York City apartment buildings), we would have had to spend more than $100,000 just to fortify the roof.
We scrapped the plan. It's unlikely we'll ever have the money to do this.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by spinnaker1
about 16 years ago
Posts: 1670
Member since: Jan 2008
NYCMatt - I disagree with the blanket statement that most NYC apartment buildings roofs were not designed the hold the weight of people. if your roof can't hold the weight of people, I wonder how it would fare under a nice two day dump of wet snow. I'm guessing you mean both live and snow loading together. A lot of penthouses went up on top of pre war buildings without structural modification.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by lo888
about 16 years ago
Posts: 566
Member since: Jul 2008
If you wouldn't want it without the roof rights, I would have the sale contingent upon getting board approval for the rights. Can you ask the current owner to apply for the roof rights? You may have to provide some plans so that you know exactly what you are getting approved for.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NYCMatt
about 16 years ago
Posts: 7523
Member since: May 2009
"if your roof can't hold the weight of people, I wonder how it would fare under a nice two day dump of wet snow."
Most roofs, in fact were designed to hold "snow loads", and nothing more. Typically, those loads, while heavy in the aggregate, are spread out, and on a per-square-foot basis, are rarely more than 20 pounds or so. A person standing on the roof can be as much as 200 pounds per square foot. That's an enormous weight difference.
*****
A lot of penthouses went up on top of pre war buildings without structural modification."
The vast majority did NOT.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by spinnaker1
about 16 years ago
Posts: 1670
Member since: Jan 2008
The the vast majority of roofs were built without consideration of a live load....?? How were roofing materials applied? By workers suspended from helicopters?
..sorry but I just have a hard time believing that the top floors of all the big buildings I see on the UWS were cleared out so that the roof structure could be modified for the addition of penthouses.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NYCMatt
about 16 years ago
Posts: 7523
Member since: May 2009
Spinnaker, I really don't care what you "believe". Yes, of course roofs were designed with consideration of "live loads" -- but only for short periods of time (during construction and repair), and only for a set number of people (construction workers). The vast majority of New York City rooftops were not designed for everyday loads of more than about 40 pounds per square foot.
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
I wonder if your RE lawyer would be the person to speak to. Certainly you've got NOTHIN' unless you have 'roof rights' spelled out clearly (in your proprietary lease?). Also, the manner of access is key, as well. A stair is more convenient for schlepping things up there than a ladder. If you were to gain roof rights, I imagine you could choose to not use all of the space; just make an island or roof raft of decking with a fence around it & thus you've determined the footprint of your roof deck. Good luck & proceed with caution.
My advice would be to treat this as you would any property that does not come with outdoor space. "Possible" outdoor space isn't a selling point; it's a headache. Pay no premium for phantasmagorical outdoor space that may prove to be a mere daydream. Unless you can get it in writing, it doesn't exist.
Lmao. If it could've been built I would have. Usually it means you take full responsibility for any defects of putting on said roof/outdoor area. Including structural crap if there is a little leak and over the years a structural i beam becomes compromised and ya gotta pay for $5mm repair bill.
Just put a heavy chair and table on the roof get a new handle on se with 'ph' and tell people you are a class above cause you have a built out roof top!!! Just don't invite anyone over.
67 is right - stay away, even if you find you can do something up there. Its a big risk. Roof rights may mean yours to access for purposes of installing an antenna, or to put out a cooler and folding lawn chair on a Saturday afternoon. It doesn't always mean perm structure.
I have to admit that my first thought was along the lines of "if it could've been built it would have." On the other hand, my tolerance for long, complicated processes is higher than most people's, so I'd be potentially willing to undertake a big project that others would pass on for hassle reasons.
Stuff in our price range with decent private outdoor space is hard to find, to the point that I'm reluctantly ready to cross it off the required list if we can find a place with shared outdoor space. (Significant other doesn't care about outdoor space and has other priorities that eliminate many apartments with private outdoor space. *Sigh.*)
I think we'll keep the "possible" roof rights places on the list, treat the possibility as worth $0, and only make an offer on a place if it makes sense financially and for our lifestyle.
Thanks for the advice, and feel free to offer any other suggestions.
Well that's different, most wouldn't have the stomach for it. I'm no expert on legal issues like this but you may very well not get a definitive answer on what "roof rights" mean until it is tested with the board -or in court.
For years I've chuckled when some owner thinks their unit is worth a LOT more because iy has "roof rights"* and I always say to myself "If this thing has been Coop for 25 years and none of the 4 owners have done ANYTHING with the roof, how much of a premium can you think you're going to get?"
* also "roof rights", while way too often used in Offering Plans, is really a term of art: I don't think there is anyone who can give a definitive answer as to what "roof rights" listed in the Schedule A of an Offering Plan actually entitles anyone to.
Keep in mind that "possible roof rights" means just that -- possible. It could be that you may never have roof access. Our building just last year looked at the possibility of installing a roof deck, but because the roof wasn't originally designed to hold the weight of PEOPLE (as is the case for most New York City apartment buildings), we would have had to spend more than $100,000 just to fortify the roof.
We scrapped the plan. It's unlikely we'll ever have the money to do this.
NYCMatt - I disagree with the blanket statement that most NYC apartment buildings roofs were not designed the hold the weight of people. if your roof can't hold the weight of people, I wonder how it would fare under a nice two day dump of wet snow. I'm guessing you mean both live and snow loading together. A lot of penthouses went up on top of pre war buildings without structural modification.
If you wouldn't want it without the roof rights, I would have the sale contingent upon getting board approval for the rights. Can you ask the current owner to apply for the roof rights? You may have to provide some plans so that you know exactly what you are getting approved for.
"if your roof can't hold the weight of people, I wonder how it would fare under a nice two day dump of wet snow."
Most roofs, in fact were designed to hold "snow loads", and nothing more. Typically, those loads, while heavy in the aggregate, are spread out, and on a per-square-foot basis, are rarely more than 20 pounds or so. A person standing on the roof can be as much as 200 pounds per square foot. That's an enormous weight difference.
*****
A lot of penthouses went up on top of pre war buildings without structural modification."
The vast majority did NOT.
The the vast majority of roofs were built without consideration of a live load....?? How were roofing materials applied? By workers suspended from helicopters?
..sorry but I just have a hard time believing that the top floors of all the big buildings I see on the UWS were cleared out so that the roof structure could be modified for the addition of penthouses.
Spinnaker, I really don't care what you "believe". Yes, of course roofs were designed with consideration of "live loads" -- but only for short periods of time (during construction and repair), and only for a set number of people (construction workers). The vast majority of New York City rooftops were not designed for everyday loads of more than about 40 pounds per square foot.