2 fifth avenue

It looks like a major Local Law 11 facade project involving removal of damaged bricks and repair of infrastructure that water has infiltrated and damaged over the years. But it seems completely stalled without progress having been made for a couple of months. Would love to know what the story is. Special assessment? How much? This looks like it is costing a fortune.

I am thinking about 11MN at 2 fifth. Any advice? I've heard renovations could run bet. 8 million and 20 million. The coop would have to finance the cost.

My suspicions, based on prior experience with major Local Law 11 work and having watched 2 Fifth for a couple of years, is that this will be a very renovation. The facade is a wreck and has not been well maintained. Not even the interior halls and elevator cabs have been maintained well. I suspect the building has done as little as possible to get by on everything but amenities for a long time. Shareholders will now pay dearly for this. The maintenance in the building is already on the high side. After the facade work, it will likely be raised significantly.

Since I think the building is unattractive from the outside and inside (public areas) what it has going for it is location and views. For pure location, any number of others in the immediate vicinity are just as good. That leaves views as the only draw for me in this building. If an apt has killer views they are protected forever and would be pretty special. But any unit with blah views, or which was dark would be a deal buster for me.

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2009/08/10/it_happened_one_weekend_bulge_reigned_in_at_2_fifth_more.php

Thanks for your input!

2 fifth avenue also has the intangible going for it that residents tend to be happy there -- as far as I've seen from friends that have lived there (I haven't sold in the building) the residents mesh well with each other, and with staff.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

I'm going to completely speculate here, but it strikes me that the building faces a little bit of a dilemma. The public halls are quite worn and unattactive--at least those which I've seen during open houses over the last 2 years. The elevators were also shabby. The dilemma is when to address these needed improvements. Generally, it is a bad idea for a coop to undertake more than one capital improvement project at a time--it causes greater disruption, is harder to manage for the Board, and funding multiple projects at once is a challenge. Usually better to finish one project and re-assess a building's financial position to determine timing, budget and funding options for the next project. But here, that means a further deterioration of already worn public spaces which may have to wait for a year or more to be renovated. For shareholders, the idea of paying top-drawer maintenance to live in a building that is looking down-at-the-heels is unappealing; for buyers there is the prospect of looming maintenance increases to cover the deteriorated facade only to be followed by likely assessments for additional necessary capital work.

It will be very interesting to see how apartment values and sales are affected as this plays out.

Anyone know why there appears to be no progress on all those areas of facade covered with green tarp all winter?

I believe all the work that had been going on were tests to see the extent of the problems (involving removing various patches of facade around all 4 sides). That has been completed and I assume the real work will begin sometime soon...they're clearly waiting on something...

This building is just disastrous. I wonder if members of the board will be at risk of lawsuits by the tenant-shareholders for gross negligence in their management of the building. how can they have allowed the building to deteriorate to this extent? the dilapidated lobby, hallways, and elevators are bad enough, but are largely cosmetic issues. but the facade/structural problems are quite serious. i don't know where the number $20 million came from, but if that has any relationship to the actual cost of this project the tenants must be apoplectic.