Lincoln Towers (Lincoln Center area -UWS)

Always been that way. Large complex, lots of units, no washer dryers in the apartments. Decent apartments but not built as well as the newer condos in the area. Seems well run for what it is.

I wouldn't say they weren't built as well. They just look sort of old and project-y. Good room sizes and layouts, and lots of light and air, but they don't have the temporary surface gloss that something like, say, 200 WEA has. Depends on how much more you want to pay elsewhere for 10 or 20 years of shiny-and-new.

Not well built is in referencing to the electrical wiring which won't support in apt washer/dryers, smaller windows, drafts that enter through the in-wall a/c, shorter ceiling heights, and outdoor terraces that have needed repairing. also the buildings don't have the most modern or efficient heating systems.

So...you assume that newly built buildings won't require repairs in the next 50 yrs?

Smaller windows are a sign of not being well built?

Eight foot ceilings are a sign of not being well built?

Stick to the price of cream cheese.

Also, quite a trek to the subway. The sort of secondary/subconscious issues: the stock above 72nd (The UWS proper?) is fabulous while this area somehow does not feel like UWS. NWT is right that the look is project lite. The ceilings are lower, and the windows are smaller, and the security guards on the perimeter are aquired taste...

Lincoln towers is a project, developed in the 1960's by Webb & Knapp Inc. with assistance from the Title 1 program of the Federal Housing Act of 1949. The Title 1 funding was in exchange for assurances that the project would house middle class renters.

and that means inferior construction?

How does 1960s construction stack up compared to that of other decades?

Super ugly buildings, kind of out of the way, mostly old people in buildings. But I was recently inside a Lincoln Towers apt. on a high floor and the views were exceptional. And broadway in that area is pretty nice. You could get a good bargain there.

The buildings may be ugly but it's definitely not a trek. It's .2 to .3 mile to the subway or about one avenue. Hardly a trek unless you are old. One entrance is on 71st Street. Also, since most of the stock in the area are prewar there's obviously no comparison. However, if you don't have the funds to buy a prewar or a new building Lincoln Towers is the way to go since you get a bigger apartment for money. Yes there are old people but just as many young people moving in as the apartments are sold.

To dollar's point about the security guards it seems like an expense a few decades past its time. It baffles me when you see ads saying "33 guard security force."

Are they kept working only to prevent reduction of services to rent controlled folks, and if so are they being only funded by the sponsor or by all sharedholders?

If you look at the placement of the guards, they are basically where the parking is to prevent unauthorized cars from going in and parking in spots that belong to shareholders. Also, they direct movers on where to park. There is a two acre playground in the back of 185 that is only available to owners to LT and guest. The playground includes sitting areas, basketball courts and playground equipment for children. They are there to make sure only authorized people are using it as it's not open to the general public. There are also guards between 200 WEA and LT to make sure nonresident cars are not using the street as a shortcut through the complex to get from Amsterdam to WEA. I believe that is what the guides are doing. Just general obversations.

How does 1960s construction stack up compared to that of other decades?

--
In the 60's and 70's it was considered inferior to pre-war construction.
I would say high rise residential construction has improved of late, and unless you are dealing with a builder looking to cut corners todays' buildings are designed to take advantage of newer technologies, are better insulated and compare favorably .

It's a nice atmosphere for a very young family if you don't mind the lack of charm and very boxy layout with no foyer or entry at all, low ceilings, 60's construction, etc. No one buys there for its beauty, but prices are as high as they are (and not lower) largely because of the zoning for PS199. It feels a bit outside UWS proper to many as said above, though the area now has more services nearby than it used to with the ever increasing new condos nearby.

The good thing about 1950's and 60's construction is the size of the rooms and closets. 600 sqft studios, 900 sqft one bedrooms and 1200 sqft 2 bds are common. Everything began to shrink in the 1970's. Lincoln Towers is similar to Parkwest Village on CPW in the 90's in terms of construction, public pace and parking.

When I moved to Manhattan many of the maps had the Wes Side starting around 72nd street calling the area below it Lincoln Square. I agree with the post that Lincoln Square doesn't feel West Side, but the people are nice, it's clean, there are trees and grass, all in all not too shabby.

So...is it well built or not?

Were there towers built in C0lumbia C0unty in the 1960s?

Did any one own in Lincoln Tower? How is the board?

The boards are very difficult but also run tight ships. I lived in 140 WEA. They were not crazy (like many boards) when I was there, but they were very, very tough. They tend to be more restrictive on what kind of loans they will allow, and they will look carefully at your board package. When I sold, they turned down my first buyer even though he was qualified - so we thought. Overall it is a nice place to live. Despite what others have said about security guards, I found it nice to see a guard there when I might come home late at night and there were no people around. The buildings have some private grounds and there is some sense of community. The discussion here about whether the construction is as good as it is in the 70s or whatever seems off message. In these buildings things all work very well and the ships run smoothly, as least that was my experience. I did not hear my neighbors make noise which was a good thing as that's a common problem in NYC. The biggest reasons to not live there are 1) can you get through a live with a difficult and meddlesome board 2) can you stand the generally vanilla box style of apartments 3) do you mind living in a place that looks like the projects with unattractive buildings. If these are not issues, it is worth looking at. It is a great way to get into the UWS in a good school district, with a more-or-less full service building, for around 15% less than it would cost anywhere else. The cost factor is always appealing there.

I live in one of the buildings and found the board to be very easy and opposite of Guywithcat. We only met with one board member who basically asked us one or two questions and wanted to know if there was anything about the building that we would like to know. It was just a friendly chat. I think that if your financials are ok meeting with the board member was just a formality. In my first co op we met with the entire board. Here it was just one board member. As for financing we went with a 30 year fixed but when the rates got really low, we refinanced with a 5/1 ARM and just filled out a few forms and that was it.

Also getting renovation approval was no big deal. We gutted kitchen, built some closets, redid floors, and other things. Did a hand drawing of the changes, submitted the proper forms and got approval two days later. Really quick.

The board discussion probably has to be more specific by building. This is an interesting example though of how buildings 'cut from the same cloth' can lead to different experiences.

I believe Lincoln Towers was built as middle class housing.

That said it's a solid investment, but if you can afford something else, go for it.

I looked at some places in LT. LOVED some of the big Jr 4 layouts. Hated the ceiling height. Some views were ok, some not so much. Some odd smells in hallways but I guess you can find that anywhere.

Are the ceilings lower than a standard 8'?

They look like 8'. In kitchen photos, 36" base cabinets + 18" + 42" upper cabinets. Doorways are the standard 6'8" tall, with what looks like 1'4" above them to the ceiling.

Guess 9'(?) ceilings in a tiny 10' pre-war bedroom are preferable.

The lower ceilings and smaller closets are something to expect from building's of this era.

wait...according to penthouse lady, 8 ft ceilings are standard.

so...are the ceilings a standard height?

is the construction ok?

tell us.

8' was standard for their period, and for others too. Higher'd be better, I guess, but they'd be a waste according to that mid-century-modern way of looking at things.

I saw a two-bedroom (http://www.lincolntowers.com/floorplan_images/floor_plan_185w_C_2Br.jpg) many years ago, with the original tenant's 1950-something furniture and flokati(?) rugs, and thought it was great. Didn't get to poke into the closets, but the plan shows there're lots of big ones.

these are great buildings. a lot of value. that's the whole point. plain and simple.

OP, how can you go wrong? this complex has been endorsed by both C0lumbia C0unty and PenthouseLady, the board smartly gives a hard time to Catguy, Aboutready isn't suing, and 300_Mercer isn't one of the deadbeat shareholders.

It's actually a good place to live, all things considered.

wait...is this despite your claim of inferior construction?

Riversider
4 days ago
Posts: 13219
Member since: Apr 2009
ignore this person
report abuse
Not well built is in referencing to the electrical wiring which won't support in apt washer/dryers, smaller windows, drafts that enter through the in-wall a/c, shorter ceiling heights, and outdoor terraces that have needed repairing. also the buildings don't have the most modern or efficient heating systems.

c0lumbiac0unty, if you move back to NYC, would you live there?

Where do you live?

Isn't it obvious?

No...why don't you tell us?

I give you more credit than that C0C0.

That's where you live?

Now you aren't even making sense C0C0.

Lets try again.

Where do you live?

Isn't it obvious?

Why are you so lonely?

Lonely for you C0C0!

That's so sad.

You are probably right.

Do you have any income?

Is that what it takes to get you interested?

So..no income.

Net worth?

Meaningful investments?

Just tell me what it will take to get you.

No friends.

No money

And you're physically deformed.

No wonder you hang out here endlessly.

So you don't associate with people who have physical handicaps?

More make believe.

Do what you have to do.

It's understandable.

Your mama should have taught you to treat people with respect.

It's all OK.

You're trying and that's good.

Thank you C0C0, sounds like even though I have no income, no money, no friends and a physical deformity, that you still have a soft spot in your heart for me. You really are g0ld C0C0.

No.

You are just saying that now.
I understand. wink wink

What the Fuck does that mean?

wink