Terrace or balcony markup

Some say that outdoor space = 50% of indoor space.
I don't believe it's that simple. Is it a balcony? Terrace? Is there a balcony right above? What is the size - can you do more than have a cigarette out there? How visible is it to other apartments in the building and other buildings?

Easy answer is "it depends" ... on a lot of things. Jonathan Miller addressed this question, and I riffed on it:

https://www.realtown.com/sandymattingly/blog/loft-features-outdoor-space/riffing-with-the-miller-on-the-value-of-manhattan-terraces-decks-balconies/

if not oversized to the apartment, the rule of thumb has been 50% psf of interior space.

Finished setback terraces and roof decks, 33% to 50% of interior psqft. A lot depends on views, privacy, availabilty,etc.
Balconies considerably less.

Of course unless it's listed with Sothebys, they usually start with an ask of 100% of interior psqft.

>Finished setback terraces and roof decks, 33% to 50% of interior psqft.

If you have a 2K sf apartment on the 14th floor, with a 500 sf terrace, right on top of an apartment on the 12th floor of 2500 sf, so in other words the 500 sf terrace is due to the setback, otherwise the apartments are identical. How much is that 500 sf worth? I could see the case for it being more attractive to some buyers than just having another 500 sf for a bedroom or more living room space.

Gdale it's a fair question, the thing is, apartments with non balcony outdoor space have a much smaller clientele as well as inventory. Less than 10%, probably less than 5% on both clientele and inventory. A situation you describe may very well be worth as much, but it would depend on the abundance of clientele out there with that priority.
Then wildcard factors like if 2 or 3, 20 story buildings are surrounding you and your terrace for example.

greensdale, the hypothetical you pose is also affected by the maintenance of both units: most co-operatives are going to assign a goodly number of extra shares to units with outdoor space, and so the monthly maintenance on those units will be higher. Some buyers who are willing to pay fairly high financeable (sp?) prices for real estate start to balk at high monthly carries, no matter how much those higher monthlies might be justified.

With that said, it does sound like in your example that terrace -- which is the difference between a 3-BR and a 4-BR, is that what we're thinking? -- might have substantial value if it attaches to the main living space and can be used for entertaining.

The point huntersburg raises is quite relevant here too -- is there more than one terrace on this setback? to what extent are you rubbing elbows with your neighbors?

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

I feel like buyers of apartments with outdoor space (and I'm one) are their own sub-market. Few people set out to buy these apartments, but the ones who do want the outdoor space very, very badly to the point that they'll often overpay. Having a terrace as a non-negotiable requirement makes an apartment search miserable. I tried to talk myself out of a terrace multiple times and almost bid on a couple of apartments without outdoor space because the search was so long and frustrating, but in the end, I just couldn't do it.

We had the unique situation of buying a place with a small terrace and then annexing/building a second, much larger roof terrace. It's so difficult to find nice outdoor space that we've only half-joking talked about eventually upgrading apartments and keeping this one solely for the roof terrace.

Lad I was in the same place. And I found myself bidding obnoxiously low on non outdoor space, because it wasnt what I really wanted.
It took patience, substancial effort, and a bit of luck.

Except for winter, I grill at least 4 days a week.
Small balconies are not the same. I lived in the Rivergate for 7 years. I don't think I stepped on the balcony the last 6 years and 6 months.

Gdale
Ali brings up an additional point, outdoor space maintenance tends to be substancially more expensive

So Twins, give us some more detail.

>greensdale, the hypothetical you pose is also affected by the maintenance of both units: most co-operatives are going to assign a goodly number of extra shares to units with outdoor space,

And why do they do that? Because the outdoor space has value. Not because it is punishment.

>And why do they do that? Because the outdoor space has value. Not because it is punishment.

Actually a bit of both. Someone weighing 2 units as the ones you suggested will likely 95% of the time go for the extra room and the lower maintenance. The ones smitten with outdoor space will be like smokers paying the extra $7 a pack tax on a $5 pack. And down the road when there are structural roof repairs needed, the building is still responsible, thus some of the heavier shareholder loads paying for those repairs by outdoor space owners.

And I'd like to note, I spent 3 years(2009/10/11) looking at apartments (over 100) with at least 400 sq ft of outdoor space and a minimum of 1000 interior. All south of 34th street and 99% of them if sold went for 50% and above the price of interior sqft.