Gotham, 170 East 87th St

This is the building I was talking about: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/170-east-87-street-manhattan

Urbandigs had a posting on it last year.

Finding a 2 bedroom Condo is like finding a good looking women that cooks...

...It's just really rare on the Upper East Side. The price won't drop because demand will always outstrip supply.

Thanks, gluck75. But, listings for 2BRs in same building in 2006 was $1.125. Does a $200,000 increase in a little more than a year seem OK?

huh?

see link: http://www.urbandigs.com/2006/12/video_report_in.html

maybe they are actually going on more than just SF. Some apartments are sh!itholes, while some are renovated with no expense spared...

Your asking about 50K though, which is not such a large %

This is a great building, btw...

I find most apartments in this building are very cookie cutter. Great amenities and location though.

I live in the Gotham. It is a great building and the staff is top notch! I saw that apartment a few weeks ago. It is nice but 1100 sqf is "smallish" for a 2br. I think the price is a little ambitious but it is at "the going rate".

87th St is at the beginning of Carnegie Hill. Wouldn't you say THe GOtham is at a location where prices are likely to remain stable?

Ugh, don't fall into the trap of moving above 86th Street. It's like the iron curtain - you don't want to be on the wrong side.

Surely one block doesn't make such a difference?

Like it or not, there's a real social stigma attached to living above 86th Street if you travel in certain circles. Carnegie Hill is the exception, but only if you live west of Park. Anything above 86th east of Park is "lesser babka."

So true east_cider.

:) That's probably why apartments below 86th are much more expensive. But, living east of 3rd in the 60s or 70s is not very attractive either. What do you think?

what is the point of buying in this building? a one bedroom duplex is listed at 910k. with 10% down, this is approx. 6500 monthly payment. the same unit can be rented for 3500 a month...

Isn't that true of most buildings? Kiky: Your argument is an argument against buying in general. Also, 10% downpayment seems low.

anonblack - i only checked for this particular building. certainly, if this is true for most buildings, as you say, then this is a good argument against buying in general. with 20% down, the monthly payment is 6000. you have to put 60% down to come close to 3500 monthly payment - in this case it's a 546000 down payment...i am questioning the economic rationality behind this.

kiky, you might want to check your math. I can tell just by a glance that 6500 is too high for a monthly carrying cost on a tax equivalent basis.

anonblack, you are correct about the 60s and 70s...gotta be west of third or it's just not the real deal. You'll be able to tell the "right areas" by the financing requirements the co-op boards have. It's as reliable a barometer as you're going to find.

Thank you, east-cider. I think with a 20% downpayment, you'd be paying out about $4400 on your mortgage (plus the maintenance and RE taxes). Not sure what this is after the tax saving.

Kiky - I have to agree with you on how little sense it can make for some people to buy if they are only putting 10-20% down. There is such a big gap between the cost of renting vs buying right now and that is why I believe things are due to correct somewhat for any properties that are marketed to people(1st time buyers, studio's, 1 Brm, odd properties etc) that cannot afford a huge down payment. Also, do not get fooled by the famous broker remark about tax savings because of a mortgage. The first 10-15 years on a 30 year mortgage is mostly all interest payments and that is always higher than any tax saving if all you put down is 10-20% (also most people do not live in the same place more than 7 years). Manhattan is now a place for 30%+ down payment buyers. The rest of you need to chill.
P.S. - the Gotham is a great building