nicest apartment/townhouse

Penthouses are nice and high-status buildings are amazing (I especially love River House). But to my brain, once you push past about $5 million, the homeowner's art collection generally starts to be more impressive than even the most impressive real estate.

Still, I'd give the prize to a 34-foot-wide townhouse (which gives you a price point of around $30mm). Imagine the conflation of every homey detail that townhouse people like with suburban-sized rooms and expansive outdoor spaces. It was quite a house.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

I think townhouses are certainly beautiful and have advantages, but I've never really seen the point in Manhattan for a variety of reasons. Why trade in light and views of the Manhattan skyline and parks for a house? If were obscenely wealthy, I'd move from the village to a grand, sprawling co-op with terraces along 5th in the 60s to low 80s. If I wanted a house, I'd theoretically have many to visit from the Hamptons to St. Jean Cap Ferat (while we're dreaming). I suppose that townhouses are useful for large families, but most trophy apartments should have enough bedrooms to suffice.

It's not that hard to figure out the highest level of RE - just go by price. At the very top of the heap, you'll get "best of" in each category - wide park block UES TH (and increasingly wide prime Village houses), Fifth Ave apt with grand floorplans and terraces, top Park Ave bldg (740 Park f'r instance). Sometimes it's harder to tease out the top RE bcs the prices are a little deflated to account for fussy co-op boards.

And "top" new condo products (15 CPW, TW, Beacon).

Btw, as to the original poster's question, my "dream" apartments are probably in the $20-50M range - way outside my price range for housing.

However, one of the nicest apartments I considered buying was a penthouse in the Chelsea Atelier (across from the Mercantile). It was beautifully renovated with a dark wood library, large kitchen, living room with sweeping views across Chelsea and cantilevered stairs which lead to an incredible solarium off of which was a multi-tiered terrace. It was configured as a huge 2-bedroom - I think it was 4k square feet. This was about 8-10 years ago and it was about $5M if memory serves me correctly. I was reluctant to move uptown to a "transitional" area, and the place was a bit too modern for my tastes. I still think about it from time to time...

I'll take this one (http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/599299-townhouse-144-144-duane-street-tribeca-new-york) or Sandy Weill's place

I think I just wet myself.

(http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/599299-townhouse-144-144-duane-street-tribeca-new-york)

maybe the most perfect example of completely flawless mix of an anstonishing range of periods and styles prestigious fluently pulled together by pure bravado.
_________________________________

ok, googled and the names associated are Mario Rivelli who is an architectural designer as well as an accomplished sculptor and Joseph Jaroff who does metal and glass interior architectural structures as well as art installations. so them fellas are the designers. google seems to be silent on the decorator. does anyone know? because while that house is obviously stunning, the real dramatic impact, what knocks you back when you look at those pics, comes from the way it was decorated. the way the owner's collection is displayed against the modern backdrop. who is the decorator? an do they need an intern? im thinking about switching careers. from housewifery to something a bit more professional.

oh shit!

"27:1 At that time the Lord will punish

with his destructive, great, and powerful sword

Leviathan the fast-moving serpent."

madonna's double wide UES townhouse with garage comes to mind.

triple-wide?

Anything with a magnificent view of the Hudson River. In my book, that's worth its weight in gold.

i also think this Franklin Street loft is pretty amazing: http://janekimdesign.com/index.php?/works/franklin/

I don't know the address or price.

My favorite kind of place: http://www.halstead.com/sale/ny/manhattan/upper-west-side/222-riverside-drive/condo/2240259

Gorgeous!

bram- you love those 1980's parquet floors? (just a minor quibble- that and the lack of a terrace)

The most amazing apartment I've ever seen was a sprawling 5,000sf pre-war apartment with 4 or 5 bedrooms, a library, a double parlor, 2 maids' rooms and a terrace, on CPW. Just incredible, with the right mix of amazing period furniture pieces and contemporary art.

Interesting choice. I can see the pros (and cons) for brownstones, prewar, new construction, etc. but 1980s postwar condos just don't do it for me. If money was no object I'd try to get those views in a place with a bit more character. Just my 2 cents.

How do rich folks live with the 'security' issue with townhouses?

1. Known target. Townhouse owners are most likely V rich
2. No doorman, just pick the front door.
3. No apartment neighbors to hear any noises
4. Does an alarm really give that much sense of security?

If I was superrich, I cant imagine living in a townhouse unless there was a security guard outside or I lived on the same block as Bloomberg

a better question:

can anyone explain the link between UES money and farm animals?

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/499383-townhouse-16-east-95th-street-carnegie-hill-new-york

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/644713-townhouse-178-e-75th-st-upper-east-side-new-york

In the under $5M club, I thought this place had a lot of wow factor (ignore some of the glam decor), but the location is just not for me...

http://www.elliman.com/new-york-city/manhattan/sutton-area/400-east-59th-street--phab---40059-owners-corporation/ryhlnyq

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/604064-townhouse-16-east-95th-street-carnegie-hill-new-york

Creel - that's the cow house

That Tribeca town house on Reade is PERFECT. However, Tribeca is generally kind of an ugly area spare a half block here or there -- especially that block of Reade.

That Tribeca town house on Reade is PERFECT. However, Tribeca is generally kind of an ugly area spare a half block here or there -- especially that block of Reade.

For something more cozy, try the Bacchus house: http://www.observer.com/2011/real-estate/tech-bigs-buy-villages-bacchus-house-where-napster-once-partied

Okay, I like the Cow house. Now I just have to hit the lottery.

"can anyone explain the link between UES money and farm animals?"

hey, it's a hip crowd!

>>bram- you love those 1980's parquet floors? (just a minor quibble- that and the lack of a terrace)<<

No--not crazy either about it being a post-war but willing to overlook for the views. Sure a terrace would be great if you had an extra mil or so to spend. Personally if given the choice between terrace/ so-so views and no terrace/great views I'd hands-down choose the latter.

a terrace on high floor on riverside drive is not particularly useful...kind of like an outdoor swimming pool (without heat) in alaska.

Bram: really, 222 RSD?

nyc10023, I'm a sucker for those views.

nyc10023 -jeez give it up - the world is NOT all prewar , except in your little world.

And in your brownstown , you have NO views

Sorry, brownstone

ahhh, this is freaking me out: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/614535-townhouse-26-east-73rd-street-upper-east-side-new-york

last photo

are farm animals a trend? am i the only one who finds this peculiar?

UWS: hadn't noticed any farm animal trends before, what jumps out at me are the cheap-looking floors.

Bram: I like RSD views, but I do have a prewar bias. This combo & the potential knocked my socks off (NW corner) - http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/85633-coop-258-riverside-drive-upper-west-side-new-york.

And also, the 10-room at 404 RSD & the whole floor line at 22RSD and A+B at 5RSD. Okay, and of course, the west-facing lines (particularly the SW corner) at 173 RSD. I'm done now.

ok, this one is pretty fabulous: http://www.elliman.com/new-york-city/manhattan/upper-east-side/3-riverview-terrace/riverview-terrace/duvdlpj

nyc--agreed. 173 12D was particularly drool-worthy.

this place is beautiful (yep, i'm looking at downtown lofts tonight...)
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/641187-coop-133-west-17th-street-chelsea-new-york

p.s. the interior of 3 Riverview Terrace is not my thing. It gets points for size, views, and outdoor space.

op,how does hearing opinion on what other folks think are the nicest apartments they've seen (and in most cases "seen" means they saw pictures of it here on streeteasy,not actually set a foot in the place)help you "understand ny re at the highest level?" just curious.

I'd take a high floor apartment at 40 5th Avenue--there was a great penthouse there for sale not too long ago. Alec Baldwin's new place at the Devonshire House is great as well, though I'm not a big fan of the DH interiors, they feel over-renovated. A tower apartment at 1 5th would be great too, especially with a nice terrace, or one of the penthouses with terraces on Abingdon Square.

I think $12 million is the upper limit of the market that I would ever consider, no matter how rich. $30, $50, $80 million residences are grotesque. I mean, that Tribeca townhouse has 30,000 square feet. That's not reasonable. There are beautiful, spacious, perfectly-located prewars, townhouses, and new apartments all over the city under $12 million, which is still an obscene amount of money. I grew up in an incredible prewar apartment in the most prime area of the west side, and similar apartments in the building sell for under $6 million.

Good to know you'll always be down to earth with the rest of us on streeteasy.

Happyrenter, I'm with you.

There comes a point at which you're no longer paying for space you "need" -- and just become pretentious.

I have friends who built a 13,000 square foot house -- a gay couple. They adopted three kids. "Tim's" parents have moved in with them, as has "Russell's" grandmother. They knew they would eventually be hosting aging relatives, so the house was built with FOUR master bedroom suites (and by "suite" I mean each is a generously-sized "bedroom" -- 17' x 12' -ish -- along with its own living room -- and fireplace! -- also generously sized -- and a spa-sized bath off the bedroom that they carefully designed to be large enough to accommodate walkers/wheelchairs and a helper in the shower).

Two of these master bedroom suites are on the house's (actually a "mansion" but they call it a "house") first floor. Two more are on the second floor. The house has an elevator -- not because they're too lazy or too pretentious to walk up any of the three staircases, but because they're thinking ahead to the day the fourth master suite will be occupied by an elderly relative who can't use stairs. There are four more "regular" bedrooms (all with baths en suite). Their two boys share a room (yes, even with all this space the boys share, but I understand there's a heated negotiation going on as I write this for a change in this arrangement), their girl has her own room, so they have one empty master suite and two empty bedrooms that they use for out-of-town guests (which at any given time are occupied, more often than not).

Not surprisingly, they have a full-time housekeeper and full-time groundskeeper (along with two part-time cleaning ladies). The housekeeper has her own office located off the kitchen. The groundskeeper has his own office adjacent to the garages. (None of the staff lives on-site.)

So. Even with all this activity on a daily basis -- eight adults, including the grandmother's visiting nurse, and three kids -- PLUS whomever happens to be in town visiting that week -- there always seems to be dinner for ten laid out every evening -- the house seems absolutely cavernous. And that's "just" 13,000 square feet. I can't even begin to imagine a house more than twice that size. As someone who's tired of living in cramped New York City apartments, I'm the first to defend anyone's desire for space. But honestly, what the hell would someone with a household of fewer than 10 do with all that space??

matt, the gigantic townhouse I was in was being used for business entertaining -- I was there at a Christmas party, and there were maybe 300 people, and I got the impression that parties that size weren't just once-a-year events.

Matt, I think you mean ostentatious, not pretentious.

That too.