$3,150,000 215 East 96th Street #34B

Land lease and grimy area. Isn't the penthouse of the same line on for less? Didn't the apartment on the 31st in the same line with an enormous terrace fail to sell at similar pricing for 2 years. On the southern side of the street is a large hospital which obscures the manhattan views completely. Not sure if the 34th is above this or not.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/818683-condop-215-east-96th-street-yorkville-new-york

To compare, you'd have to find another rapidly-aging building with cheap-landlord-grade finishes. (Note the floors, kitchens, and HVAC.) All but HVAC is fixable, so add in that cost. You don't know what other corners Related cut, so make a guess at those.

To the $1000-ish per ft² they're asking, add $500 or $600 or whatever you think land is worth at 96th and Second. You'll be renting that until 2102, at market rates, so discount for that.

Then there's the going-away RE-tax abatement. The co-op's taxes are increasing by ~$500,000 every couple of years, so factor them in.

The tall building blocking the southern view is Normandie Court.

>rapidly-aging building

Please elaborate .

We're already ten years into the 99-year lease.

While it's safe to say that today little is built for the ages, this being a land-lease adds some wrinkles.

Related's construction may be only just good enough to last for the lease term, since they couldn't be assured that all the co-op's shares would sell and they'd end up having to hold them and rent out apartments. That's what happened. Or, they may have been optimistic and assumed that everything would sell and they'd be off scot-free.

On the other hand, a landowner's lease will often specify standards of construction, because the landowner will be taking over the building at the end of the lease term or even earlier should the co-op default. E.g., the Gary's lease of the land under 2 East 67th was quite detailed in its specifications for the apartment building, which continue to pay off 85 years later. (The co-op did end up defaulting during the Depression.)

Of those approaches, I lean toward the take-the-money-and-run one, just going by the look of the place.

>Related's construction may be only just good enough to last for the lease term,

NWT, what's the margin of error on such specs?

No idea.

For the 1920s co-ops there'd be an architect representing the co-op corporation, as a double-check on the developer's architect. In the case of a land-lease like 2 East 67th there was a third architect representing the landowner, so three layers of oversight of the contractors' work.