136 -140 west 16th
Started by mjs02
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 21
Member since: Apr 2009
Discussion about
I'm curious if anyone is familiar with this building. If so, I'd be grateful for your comments.
Very familiar. But you're gonna have to ask specific questions.
30 yrs -- thanks for the response. Well, I'm curious, first of all, about what's keeping prices here relatively low on a per SF basis -- Is it just the walkup situation, or is there some other factor or risk? Other questions -- financial health of the coop? And if you know -- is it a comfortable place to live? Any negatives/issues you know about other than perhaps resale?
Well, the walk-up for sure. But also, they are railroad apartment where the original layout is as a 1 BR. I also don't know how many square feet you are counting because all you have to do is artificially depress $/Sf pricing. Back in 2004 the units seemed to be 1250 SF. By 2006 They had grown to 1400S and in 2009 to 1600SF. Now one seems to be 1500SF and another 1600SF.
If you actually measure them, they probably aren't much over 1100SF. I'm not sure that over $1,000/sf for a 5th floor walk-up is "so low".
that's interesting. my visual impression was that they were more spacious than that, but it could be that I've gotten accustomed to comparing artificially inflated numbers. another negative is that the middle rooms get very little light, due to the buildings on the east and west...
another question: do you have any idea whether the roof has an insulation package? 136 seemed very warm on the day I visited (it was 60's outside). I wonder if the top floor might suffer from heat gain issues, especially in the summer with the black roof...
I did a quick calculation based on measurements provided by the seller and came out to about 1000 sq/ft. Assuming I am WAY off by not counting measurements to center of walls and misjudging hall width or closet depths, I don't think there is any way on earth you can find another 600 sq/ft or 60% more space than appears on the floorplan. 30yrs is dead-on that at the true square footage, this place isn't a bargain at all--it is actually quite expensive.
Agree with kylewest
I measured the entire length of apt,from back wall to back wall to 74feet. Offering a very generous 14 feet width for the entire length of the apartment gets you 1036 sq ft.
Ok, I just had a look at the posted floor plan for 136, and you guys appear to be right! On the basis of this plan, I'd say the length just might be closer to 77 and the average width might closer to 15 feet. But even that only gives 1155 sq feet, which is just what 30 years suggested. Certainly no bargain. Kylewest -- did you measure it yourself or are you working off the floorplan?
sorry for any miscommunication--I did calculation off posted floorplan. I haven't looked at this apartment. Just eye-balling it you can tell there's no way it is 1200 sq/ft let alone 1600. That's just whack. If you talk to the broker smack them for me and tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves. $1.3MM or whatever it is they are asking for the place strikes me as absurd.
I've learned that the *outside* of the building is officially listed at 94 feet. But even multiplying that by an assumed 14 feet of width only gets you to 1316 SF....
Guess it is a truly magic space that is larger when you are in it than it is from the outside. CSLewis architects.
Maybe a timelord lives there that only answers to.....the Doctor.
FYI for the past 20 years my office has been 1/2 block away from this building and I have seen better than 50% of the units in the building personally. I have no idea if they have an insulation package for the roof, but would extremely doubt it.
As far as light is concerned, the West unit in the 140 Building is far superior to the other 3 lines. This is because the building to the East of 136 is about the same depth (takes care of 136 E line); 136 and 140 are the same depth (obviously; this takes care of 136 W line and 140 E line which face each other across a light well), but the building to the West of 140 is a Federal ex-single family, and built MUCH more shallow, so starting around the dining room (in the original configuration - which, BTW was, front to back, LR, small sitting room, bath, bedroom, dining room, maids room, kitchen) things open up facing West over the garden.
Oh, BTW, I haven't looked at the financials lately, but it does seem like the maintenance has gone up like 40% in the last 3 or 4 years (off the top of my head).