310 E 46 street

there's a huge underlying mortgage on it, plus it's a land lease.

Looks like it's a condo - so the mortgage doesn't sound relevant/possible.

Think this building is actually a condo-op - technically a coop but has condo rules (no board approval, allow sublease..etc).

It's a coop, girlygirl. Believe me I know a lot more about their financials than I'd like to. Huge mortgage, at a pretty high rate iirc, and with not much prospect of refinancing. On the other hand, they've managed not to increase their charges for a while.

Hi. I went to an open house there, and the bldg is breath-taking in many ways--the common areas are new and beatiful, clean, HUGE, and well appointed with stones and fresh flowers throughout. Also, there were 3 doormen/concierge when we visited. I was really impressed.

What I don't understand, however, is that the apts there seem rather cheap. The location seems ideal, with UN, ultra-luxury "Alexander II" coming up right in front, proximity to the park, etc., but other condo-ops in the area are MUCH less nice and MUCH more expensive.

From what I have seen, I would have expected to pay quite a bit more (say, $1,000/sf versuss $800/sf most of the units are going for). Does anyone know why they price seems so low there? Anything I may be missing?

I owned in the building in 2002-04. That was before the common area renovations were completed and at the time, the building was covered in scafolding due to exterior leakage work that needed to be done. What I can say about the price being less than other buildings in the area is that it is an older building and some of the apartments had shabby demolition and construction work when they converted. At the time the I lived there, the upkeep was not the greatest either. Regarding the high CC, that is due to the COnd-op having a land lease payment that is high. It is true that it has not gone up in a while so thats a positive. I will agree that the ceiling heights and massive windows are awesome. Huge potential if you want to do your own renovations.

nyc212 - did you think the square footage in the unit you saw was anywhere near what's on the listing? I've found that very often in that building there's a 20-30% difference, which brings prices to the $1000/sqft you mention.

Ian - Do you remember when the land lease expires?

I owned there from 2003-08, (just sold this summer) the apt are all so different from each other which is nice, however no one could ever explain how the maintenance for each apt. was calculated.Some with the same sqftg were paying very different monthly's even on the same floor.They did do a special assessment right as I was leaving and had increased maintenance back around the beginning of the year.Another issue I found was that alot of apt were represented by a broker from Corcoran and I don't think he was pricing right for the neighborhood and the building, I felt he was more about pricing low to get the sale (I know image that)then my broker has to match his pricing cause he had so many apt's.In the end I got around $830.00/sqft.I do think it's under valued, it is a great building the doormen and building staff are really nice they just opened the roof last year, the lobby is beautiful and the apt's are all very unusual,most with 13 ft ceilings.

Thanks for your input, everyone. I didn't realize it was a land lease bldg., but the realtor said they have over 70 years left on a 99-year lease. That seems fine. I don't really find the maintenance to be all that ridiculous for the unit I looked at... It was just over $1.50/sf/mo, which I think is within norm for doorman bldgs in Manhattan. I am paying more now...

It makes sense about pricing--I checked the flyers I collected this weekend, and the pricing by the Corcoran guy does seem grossly lower than others (e.g., he has a nice 1BR going for $549, and there are others on the same line up in the high $600s--and one is actually lower floor than his!). In a sense, he is probably smart. In this climate, lower the price now and get rid of it, rather than holding onto what you think is "fair value" and not sell at all. But, from a buyer's perspective, I just assumed that there was something wrong with that cheap apt (e.g., murder, suicide, fire, etc.).

Also, zizizi, you are right. Apts with the same floorplans had different sqft listed. In his defense, the Corcoran guy appears to underestimale, while one seller clearly overestimates by at least 20%.

IanPerry, you MUST visit the bldg if you haven't seen it after the renovation! It's quite magnificent. But, then, this is not really the time to be buying... Uggggggh. What am I to do!

I have a friend who purchased, in 2004, a very high floor 1 bedroom with a terrace and outstanding views to the south, east, and west. As she said then and now, the prices are inversely proportioned to their maintenance fees. This was originally a rental buildng built by Rockrose and received a fair number of architectural awards for design and preservation back in the day. The question you might want to answer is how much the land lease increases and on what dates. You have no control over that future increase in your maintenance and there is no tax benefit whatsoever. The question over maintenance allocation in this building was always difficult because of the unique (sometimes bizarre) layouts and the fact that two nearly identical square footages sometimes had dramatically different ceiling heights and that was weighed into the maintenance calculation (you do pay for all the unused space betwen the top of your head and the ceiling:) In any event, this builidng's maintenance fees are well over 25% higher than most buildings, but with a higher than average door staff, land lease, and less than favorable mortgage, those might be expected. Just don't ever expect them to go down.

nyc212 --

i can tell you that as far as i know there is nothing wrong with the apartment listed by corcoran at $549k -- i assume you're referring to unit #10a. a similar unit (same line a few floors lower) sold in june for $555k, so i'd guess that's about the right market price for this one.

the other units in the "a" line would appear to be priced higher for essentially the same apartment, though i don't know if any of them have been over-renovated. (you know, with $7000 stoves and whatnot.)

note that apartment #15a is also for sale -- not listed here on streeteasy but is on the new york times website -- that is larger and has more windows than the "a" line units in the lower floors, but is listed at a lower asking price than several other units on this "a" line.

oh, and the square footage for apartment #10a is accurate to the best of my understanding.

some brokers will overstate square footage, but the size of this particular unit has not been been inflated.

There is no land lease. Whoever told you that is crazy. There is however a significant mortgage that relates to the purchase of the land under the buidling from Rockrose in the original conversion back in 1985.

Yes, sushiman is correct. There is no land lease. There is, however, a huge underlying mortgage of approx $30m. It is rare for a coop building to have more than a $5 underlying mortgage, let alone $30 million!

That goes back to the original deal. Rockrose got a very favorable appraisal and stuck the COOP with the mortgage for the land.

I have suggested that the buidling sell the land under the building and lease it back. Land sale lease backs used to be common in NYC. The building could get a 100 year lease and put a ton of money in the bank. Some investor would propably love a steady safe return.

sushiman, did you present your suggestion to the newly elected board???? seems like a good idea to sell the land & lease it back. right now, all the board can think of to get revenue into the coop is to begin a flip tax that will probably have further negative effect on the sale of these apartments, which seem somewhat undesirable in this market due to the extremely high maintenances.

Seems like your suggestion is a logical one. I could never understand why the board would want the easy way out with the flip tax instead of pursuing other avenues. While i realize that the current assessment did not go over well with the shareholders, it seems the flip tax is not viewed upon favorably since the board cannot even get enough shareholders to vote yes to pass it (as seen from the elevator notices). Is there any negatives to the selling of the land and leasing it back???

According to streeteasy, there are 338 units in the building. With a $30M underlying mortgage, that's about $90k per apartment (presumably more for larger apartments, less for smaller ones). I guess that should give some sense of the discount one should expect for buying in this building.

I see the reasons why this building is a tough sell. Why do the rentals sit there so long?

any latest info about this building?

Has anything changed with this building? I'm looking at a studio there and was wondering about the high maintenance myself. This was a very informative thread even if it was 7 years old.

The mortgage has been renegotiated at a much lower rate as of this year. The common charges will remain the same however they have not been raised for many years and based on the latest shareholder meeting no plans for further increases in 2017. This building has solid financials and the board has been quite apt at shielding its shareholders from assessment increases. The whole east facade rejuvenation as well as other wall/rooftop terrace work completed this year only required a small assessment for a short period of time. Furthermore approx 50-60% of CC are tax deductible. Planed renovations for 2017 are hallway makeovers with potential HVAC system on each floor. Something to think about.