How do you compare these two Carnegie Hill Apts?

My initial impression: the 94th St unit is weirdly shaped, has less closet space and is on first blush at least less desireable. For me, the $100K less it costs doesn't matter because I don't like the unit. I am one of those people who couldn't care less about a condo vs. coop--in fact I prefer coops. So the fact that the 94 St unit is a condo doesn't change anything for me. I do not know the area's micro-climes well enough to know the difference between 89 St versus 94 St. but I suspect that being further north is not an advantage for the 94th St. unit, either. Both look in reasonably good condition and the 89th St unit's asking price looks at least inside the ballpark for comps in the building. With wso very much available on the upper east side, though, the price of both units seems rather high for the amount of space available. For example, 300 E 74 St. had essentially the same one bdrm/balcony units (B line, among others) going for mid $700,000s. $1/2 million is a pretty enormous premium to be paying for the same space 20 blocks north. I don't really get it... for either unit.

kylewest - I think it's hard to compare the location of a 300 block in the 70's with a block right off the park, even though the latter is high 80's/low 90's. And the views in both of the units listed.(especially the park views from the 94th street apt) are really good. However, I agree that the East 94th street apt. has weird angles and quite a bit less usable space.

And yes, a ton of money for a 1 BR

ph41: you are absolutely correct re location. I wrote so quickly I didn't really take that into account. It also didn't register with me because I'm a downtown guy and find the UES and what I'll call the Upper Upper East Side (above 86 St.) so undesirable that I tend to glom it all into one area from Madison to 1st Ave which is obviously wrong to do when valuing property. Still, These buildings aren't on the park and are not in particularly special buildings. These aren't "trophies." To spend this kind of money for a weird 94th St. unit is bizarre to me. If the owner is an avid runner or user of the park, and proximity is very important, I could see why the locations would be a draw. But if not, why pay so much to be in an area so bereft of everything else? For restaurants, food, most shopping and entertainment, you have to go east. Transportation isn't especially good. For the twice a year you go to the guggenheim, Met or Cooper Hewitt you could just as easily take a cab or walk a few blocks. This is obviously very personal in terms of taste, but I don't think you get much bang for the $1/2 million in extra bucks in these buildings.

both overpriced. weird angles on e94.

Anything over $800 psf is overpriced.

FWIW, I am pretty sure that Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft owned an apartment at 45 East 89th Street.

In terms of location, both buildings are on or right near Madison Avenue. That stretch of Madison Avenue is very family friendly - right near several private schools, restaurants, upscale shops.

I must prefer the layout of the East 89th Street apartment and the addition of the balcony is a bonus.