square footage discrepancies

There was a thread on this earlier on. There doesn't seem to be much of a science about this.

Do a search of earlier threads. Sq/Ft measurements in coops are approximations and caveat emptor applies.

See: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/2807-square-footage

Don't be fooled with the square footage. ALMOST ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION IS AOUT 150-300 SQUARE FEET LESS. The funny thing is you don't even have to wait to see the differance in person. Just look at the plans and do the math. It still amazes me that people think they are paying say $1000 sqr ft when in reality its $1250-1450. Do the math. Don't be the ones that overpays. This could hurt you at resale. Good Luck

How odd.

I've never seen Manhattan residential square footage estimates even remotely ever exaggerated.

I'm shocked!

Shocked, I say!!

We should all form a class action suit and sue the entire NYC real estate complex based on a law and order plank of unethical and immoral conduct (.....oops, wait a minute....it'll never get to the state level now....thanks again, Elliot....)

You must be either a developer or some poor sap who over paid. I guess your one of those people who just accept things as business as usual. By the way so did all those Investment Bank and look where it got them in the end. Good luck wasting your hard earned money.

dco, you're an idiot. I suggest you take a peek at some of my other postings, and reassess.

Oh, nice spelling and grammar, BTW.....

Malraux- I'm sorry your so angry. Perhaps you should consider help for your problem. Good Luck with your disorder.

Shocked, I say!

Sign me up for that class action suit. And a civil rights suit, too , perhaps. How can this be legal? Brokers have licenses so if they say something it must be true. Malraux The Developer--let's hire a lawyer...and maybe start a therapy group.

Is there an objective authority in place to police this? Short of lawsuits and writing the AG, is there a worthwhile place to file complaints? I'd be happy to report brokers and developers that lie about square footage.

Didn't BHS get sued for this and lose? Or was it another one of the big brokerages?

"Good luck wasting your hard earned money"

Why would I need luck to waste my money?

Shocked, I say!!

Some of the descrepancy relates to what type of building you have. It's my understanding that in a condo, certain common spaces can be allocated to square footage based on your building ownership %. It's also my understanding that there is some leeway on closets so these things add up. When I was looking in Brooklyn I actually measured a few places and they were pretty much bang on what the square footage was advertised as. I would be really surprised to see 150-300 difference.

jsey9, I briefly looked at new construction in Hells Kitchen, and at 517 W 46th, the 1br I considered seemed to have inflated square footage. I mentioned this to the broker, who told me it included the basement storage space. Fair enough, but it still left a decent amount of square footage unaccounted for, and he made no mention of divided common space. I also briefly considered the Novo Park Slope. The 900+ sf 2br I was interested in added up 200 sf short. Again, no mention of common space. Isn't there a lawsuit at 110 Livingston over square footage? While the sponsor offered to refund the buyer's deposit and void the contract (which the buyer didn't accept), I didn't hear anything about common space. I don't doubt that some, maybe many condos factor in common space (most of my research involves co-ops), but transparency regarding this seems appropriate.

Yesterday I was posting on a thread about an East Village 1br co-op, advertised as "huge...over 800sq ft!" It was basically a box, easy to measure, and came out to 675. Call it 700 when factoring in halfway through walls, etc. 100 square feet may not be a large absolute number, but it's a 14% overstatement!

I've seen other apartments in large buildings where comps and floorplans are readily available, and lines that were previously 700 or 800 square feet are currently listed 100 sf bigger.

I agree that the buyer has to beware, but a lot of lying shouldn't make it acceptable.

I found many square footage quotes to be well below their estimates. In LIC just on the plans alone you will find new developments off 300 sq/ft. When your talking about a listed 1500 ft. condo at 5sl and you do the math and it actually measures 1200 at best. Your just a fool to proceed and not ask the questions. Just my opinion. But hey it's not my money. 300 square feet on a 4000 square foot apartment is not that much, however on a 1200 square foot apartment that not an estimate its a lie.

square footage is like the old 2x4 which is actually 1.5x3.5

My new constuction building stated in the prospectus the gross square footage, usable square footage, common space allocated to each unit, and the sq footage of outdoor space for relevant apartments. My apartment is approximately the 954 sq feet of indoor usable space that was stated in the prospectus...however it was advertised (falsely in my view) by the broker as 1,400 sq feet- which included gross square feet (not usable) my patio common space allocated to my unit. I visited the unit prior to purchase and I knew it couldn't be 1,400 sq feet, but I liked what I saw, and carefully reviewed the prospectus- which gave me the truly relevant sq footage breakdown. Now that a bit of time has passed, I am seeing resales of apartments in my building with totally made up square footage numbers or square footage numbers that are calculated similar to what my broker did.

My friend also bought a new construction in Jersey City- his prospectus did not make any such breakdown the way mine did. I don't know if that is NY vs. NJ laws or just something voluntary by the developer in either location. In my view it should be a requirement that the developer give both gross and usable square feet and distinguish any other square footage amounts that are included in the sale of the space seperate. Also the brokers should advertise square footage standards in the same fashion- and be held accountable for any dramatic variances.

This is the biggest joke in the new construction market. People are paying hundreds of thousands for space that doesn't exist. How in the world would anyone agree to purchase a listed 1400 sf/ft condo when it is less 450. If someone owed you $1400 would accecpt $950. Use this as chance to get out. What happens in the future when you try to sell? Are you confident that you will be able to lie and state that it's 1400/ft. Or is some realtor going to tell you sorry, but it's actually 950. Semerun-- This is not an attack. This is just something that I have been yelling for sometime. The truth is that most people don't pay attention to sq/ft and except these week reasons for calculating sq/ft. My suggestion is explore your options. 450 sq/ft out 1400 is crazy. To put this 450sq/st in to perspective. It's like you lost an extra room that would measure 20x20= 400. Also the don't forget the "common space" you are being chared for twice. First in the square footage lie an then in you common charges. Good Luck

Shocked, I say!!

Malraux- Don't you have some Bear stock to sell.

DCO, I realize you aren't attacking me but I am unsure if you are pointing to the general market or my situation. I did my due dilligence before purchasing- that's what these real estate sites assist with (although sometimes you have to take it with a grain of salt). The price I paid was fair and reasonable for the true square footage that I received. The 1,400 sq. ft # advertised was broker b.s. and not legit and wasn't even priced to that size. Obviously the developer made it clear in the prospectus the true square footage.

The common charges were outrageously low when we bought, but it didn't account for a reserve fund or inflation. My common charges are fairly allocated compared to other units in the building- so in our case, your arguement is null and void. I do agree that there are probably many instances where you would be correct to assume that the owner is being charged disproportionately to others for their square footage. I have since become treasurer of the building and we now have a healthy and growing reserve..not a single owner was opposed to hiking common charges because (we were lucky to have well informed owners) they all assummed that the common charges were artifically low. Even with a massive percentage hike on the common charges- we are still very affordable and brokers are using that as a selling point in their ad's.

Here's a funny contrast between two listings: same building, same line, same floorplan, same AGENT.

2300 square feet: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/89657-coop-473-west-end-avenue-upper-west-side-new-york

vs.

2000 square feet: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/193176-coop-473-west-end-avenue-upper-west-side-manhattan

You can't make this stuff up.

Hi West81st - your comment on the apts at 473 WEA caught my attention because I have been in one of those apartments - the one listed on StreetEasy as 2300 SF. I didn't remember it being that large. Although StreetEasy shows 2300 and 2000 SF for these two listings, the actual listings do not mention total square footage. I pulled out the brochure I got at the "2300" SF apt and it says nothing about total square feet. It may be that the computer link between StreetEasy and the broker has those data, but it seems that the broker is not using them to market the apts. Strange.

That's funny - I'm pretty sure the Elliman listings DID show square footage. Now they don't. Maybe Renee Goff reads this site.

I agree about square footage in pre-war apartments. A 1600-sq.ft. classic six can have more useable space than an apartment with 10% more square footage, even if the measurements are accurate. At the end of the day, how useful is a "grand foyer" or a "cavernous central gallery"? They just give you a bigger place to toss your keys and mail, and for visitors to park their strollers. Give me a third bedroom any day.