Bones of an Apartment

with so many great neighborhoods in ny, the good bones usually applies to great neighborhood location. here, for moi - building more so than unit - a robust co op bank account=good bones. well maintained outside and in, no looming 6 or more figure all bldg assessments for ignored mntnce (roof/roof deck, elevators, laundry, beautification) solid heating, cooling if applicable.

They are talking about the structure of the apartment: layout, ceiling height, windows' size and placement, and prewar architectural details like original fireplaces, paneling, fretwork, flooring, etc... In short the kind of things that can not be changed or added (unlike paint and kitchen appliances.)

Thanks romary. Most of the articles that I've seen refer to houses as opposed to apartments. For example, http://www.houzz.com/ideabooks/9971/list/8-Signs-Your-House-Has-Good-Bones

Good bones: Things you can't change. Number/location of windows. Layout/footprint as defined by outer walls, plumbing lines, location of kitchen and baths and entry door. Location of structural walls and elements. These are the "bones" you build off of during a renovation. As "gut" as a reno is, there are some things you just can't change-those are bones. Another way to think of it is, assuming you were prepared to do a total gut, is an apartment you say to yourself, "Yeah, I can work with this--I can make this place great."

Think of a Katharine Hepburn vs. someone needing lots of make-up.

Good bones...I associate it with pre-war moldings, a nice and perhaps unique layout. Good bones tend to come with something rare, like a working fireplace.

"Good bones" as I'm sure you've figured out, generally refers to the value in an apartment that needs renovation, whether cosmetic or a gut. The commenter is urging you to see past cosmetic problems to an apartment's underlying advantages.

These can include special features like fireplaces or outdoor space, windows where you would want them, large rooms, bedrooms with a master split off from the children's for privacy, high ceilings, or the right number of baths.

For example, our listing at http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/495124-coop-430-east-56th-street-sutton-place-new-york is an estate apartment in need of significant renovation. We might be tempted to say that it has "good bones" because it has a windowed kitchen, corner windows in four of the rooms, large rooms and closets, and a gracious foyer/living room/dining flow.

To some commenters, however, it might never have "good bones" because it's a 1950s building, and therefore doesn't have high ceilings. To many, "good bones" is exclusively a prewar thing.

So like many terms, it's kind of in the eye of the beholder.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

Front Porch - very thoughtful comment.

Some also look at combination apartments where the combination, with thoughtful renovation, can be made to flow well (good bones?) - see comments from LeeLaura on SE about gut renovating a combo postwar 2,000 sf

Ali--I love that listing! If I were looking in that area, this apartment and layout would definitely excite me. The price point indicates a reasonable negotiation is possible and the result could be a really fantastic apartment. Good example of decent layout that with some tweaking could be nicely customized to a buyer's lifestyle without overly personalizing it or making the space quirky or odd. People looking at a post-war still should think about a unit's "good bones" because even in post-wars some have got the bones and some don't. I don't like the way one bathroom is dead ahead of the entrance here and there seem to be a lot of doors, and closets may be able to be reworked a bit, but overall, this is a very promising unit. I doubt you'll have trouble seeing this sold soon if the light and views are decent and building is a good one.

Ali - only problem is going to be the required 40% down(but then again, that's why the price is so reasonable)

I don't think that is why the price is "so reasonable." It is reasonable because of the condition and other factors. %-down doesn't usually decrease value of an apartment.

"%-down doesn't usually decrease value of an apartment."

Have you learned nothing of the cash-strapped, over-leveraged American consumer, kw?

Yes, that is me, inonada. Utterly removed and detached.

Can you show me an example of a well-run building in a prime area where apartment values in Manhattan are lower than a comparable building with the only difference being the percentage down required? I didn't think so.

% down doesn't decrease the value of an apartment? That surprises me. I'd have thought that anything that limits your pool of buyers would decrease the price.

I'd think the more cash, the less you have to worry about your fellow shareholders. They did their saving ahead of time, and can now just cough up what it takes to buy. Better that than in some condo where you have to be partners with anybody who could come up with 0% or 5% down.

Easy for me to say, of course, since I bought from the sponsor with only 10% down. Fine with me that new buyers have to do 25% or 30% or whatever it is now.

Fairly standard coop requirements would be 20% down - 40% in a non-prime building such as this one (prime being certain Fifth, Park Avenue, Sutton Place (or River House) or CPW buildings) would be, IMHO, somewhat out of the ordinary, and WOULD have a negative effect on price.

Why not ask Ali?

"Can you show me an example of a well-run building in a prime area where apartment values in Manhattan are lower than a comparable building with the only difference being the percentage down required?"

Perhaps if I cared to search, but I don't really. Do you actually have examples of, say, equivalent 5%-down vs. 20%-down vs. 40%-down buildings? If you've done the research, I'm curious to see what you came up with. I gotta imagine the bubble affected a 5%-down building more than a 40%-down building.

I'd be inclined to hear what Ali and other brokers have to say on the subject as well, since they have such a stronger sample than I would.

I'm going based on the near-universal belief expressed by people on this board that higher down payment requirements should be equated with a lower price. I don't personally give ascribe much value to the size of the down payment allowed per se, but given that most others seem to do so, it would seem prudent for me to recognize this.

"I don't personally give ascribe much value to the size of the down payment allowed per se, but given that most others seem to do so, it would seem prudent for me to recognize this."

Would you also recognize my belief that a lower price should be equated with sellers who are Jewish?

KW, a couple of examples of this from the past day:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/18525-how-many-of-you-are-payment-buyers

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/18533-cant-believe-someone-forked-out-all-cash-for-this

The most-recent comment from the second thread:

thegrimp
17 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

sjtmd - finally someone gets it. Problem is had to be purchased ALL CASH (and will have to be sold next time for as well). This is what makes this a truly terrible investment...

KW, I'm so glad that you like the Sutton Place listing. It really does have great "light and air" -- there's another term for you lob -- and I feel like someone who is willing to renovate will fall in love with it.

PH41, the 40% down will certainly lock out some potential buyers. I feel like this even happened with hubby and I when we were looking last year, because to go to 40% down would have meant that we would have had to sell our current place, and no seller in Gramercy House or Stewart House wanted to deal with waiting for us.

The question is how to measure that effect -- which is really a lack of liquidity -- and I can't do it because I can't think of a 40 percent down building that has a 20 percent down building as an easy twin. Stewart House (40%) is sort of like the John Adams (20%) in that they're both 60s white brick buildings, but the apartments at Stewart House are bigger and it's arguably in a better location (East 10th Street as opposed to Sixth Avenue).

Gramercy House (40%) is a fabulous Art Deco building, as is Chelsea Gardens (20%), but Gramercy House is ten years older (1929 vs. 1939), and the apartments tend to have fireplaces, but they don't have the gardens, and people who want to live near Second Avenue and people who want to live near Eighth Avenue are two different sets of people.

ali

front-porch, did the Sutton Place listing come with all those closets or were some added? I am a huge fan of closet space and it seems to have a tremendous amount of storage space?

front porch v- but aren't the apartments at Gramercy House on the small side?

Also, just for background, Stewart House was built as a coop, which was very unusual for that time (early 1960's) and actually was an all cash building for many years. I had been told several years ago (when I was selling my mother's apartment there) that the board still wanted purchasers who did not actually NEED a mortgage (meaning high liquid assets), though I don't know if this is still the case.

And apartment-wise, you really can't compare Stewart House apartments to the John Adams.

But to get back on topic - I don't think Stewart House apartments would qualify as having "great bones" (though 1,100 square feet in a one bedroom apartment makes up for a lot), and for quite a while the 40% down requirement certainly didn't seem to be hurting selling prices there.

"Would you also recognize my belief that a lower price should be equated with sellers who are Jewish?"

Huh?

As an example of a building, would anyone say that Butterfield House feels the effects of pricing compression due to its down payment requirement of 50%?

I haven't taken the time to make the case for that, but the pricing sure feels like it. Or am I just not thinking about it in the right class of buildings. Any thoughts?