Square Feet delenda est

I'm much more annoyed by posted floor plans that lack room dimensions.

I could see not accurately knowing the square footage for an 1870-vintage building where the original blueprints have been lost. But for a postwar building? For a 21st-century building, where the original designs were probably made with a computer and where it should be possible to calculate any detail you desire with a click of a button?

And when I saw the title of this post, I thought it was going to be an exhortation for American real estate to finally go metric. I don't mind square feet, but I have no idea what an "acre" is. Give me universal square meters any time.

What's a universal square meter? Is that the little coffin-like thing that musicians use that goes tick-tock-tick-tock-tick-tock?

Measured in France

"What's a universal square meter?"

A way of measuring universal squares. OBVIOUSLY.

Oh please. Let's be honest. The listings that omit the square footage are often those "gut renovated, thoughtfully re-designed" one bedroom condos that turn out to be walled up 580 square foot studios. They are authored by the the same class of realtor who just casually omits the $2100 maintenance in the listing for that charming Emery Roth one bedroom with fireplace and original details in the East 50s...

Elige optima mensura: Pedes? Digitis? Iugera? Quis mensurae melius quam nullum. (Should there be an "est" at the end there? a "sunt"? Nothing?)

Most condo listings do give square footage, though the figure is often inflated by an allocation of common space. For coops, I never found the number very useful anyway, because some brokers are scrupulous about the math and others, well, not so much.

"Elige optima mensura: Pedes? Digitis? Iugera? Quis mensurae melius quam nullum. (Should there be an "est" at the end there? a "sunt"? Nothing?)"

I'd put a "sunt" in (the subject being the plural 'mensurae') but I feel like it could go anywhere; after 'mensurae' or 'melius', maybe? Not sure.

And I'm on the side of wanting to know at least an approximation of the number of square feet. I visited an apartment a year ago that claimed to be 510 SF and was actually closer to 300. That means it was advertised as a place a couple could easily live in but was in fact more suited to a single person. Significant difference there.

Let's look at SE's most recent 173 co-op listings. Only 71 cite a ft² figure. That's an even smaller proportion than the last time I checked.

It does make sense. The broker can say "How big does it feel?" or "Measure it yourself with your own method." rather than waste time with whiny buyers wanting a number defended or wanting to know where it came from, or pointing out for the nth time the disclaimer language on the floor plan.

With many of those 71, the number is rounded to 100, an approximation large enough for a room or several valuable closets.

When I was selling my last apartment, I got into a dispute with a prospective buyer -- practically ending in fisticuffs. The mark insisted the ceilings were 11 feet high (based on "feel" -- apparently he was an expert at feeling numbers), while I had measured them to be precisely 9 feet and 6 inches.

well...doesn't the sq ft measurement in a co-op usually include the storage room, your allocated part of the lobby/stairway/elevators/hallways/trash compactor/sidewalk and air rites? I swear that I've been in apartments with only 1600 usable sq ft which claimed to be 2600 sq feet.

another favorite trick is giving overall room dims as if bathrooms, closets, plumbing risers, etc. don't exist.

Well, the world changed. We moved from a time where you could put three 50-year-old brokers in a co-op and have them walk out and all say "it feels like 1350" to a time where the potential buyer is going to measure that apartment and say "it's 1200 I feel ripped off," and then the seller is going to get upset and is going to say "they said 1350 when I bought it."

In consequence, one of those brokers is still going to walk out and say "we estimate 1350, be aware that's just an estimate" but the other two - from firms with fewer lawyers on staff -- just aren't going to play the game anymore.

Nice thread title, btw.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

The world has indeed changed.

And for decades, before three 50-year-old borkers would guesstiflate the area, it was completely standard to state how many rooms there were (and in Manhattan, that never included bathrooms, pantries, halls, entrance galleries, et cetera).

Area simply wasn't discussed -- you knew the kind of building you were looking in, and how big the rooms would be.

It's always the lawyers, or the buyers today, or the impossible sellers, but never, never the brokers....

It is unwise to not post a floorplan and square feet.
You are better off listing it with the requisite 10% inflation, which is frequently dismissed and then overlooked.

The alternative is allowing the potential buyer to put a spotlight on it, get a more exact figure, giving your unit a market comp 10% disadvantage.

re: In consequence, one of those brokers is still going to walk out and say "we estimate 1350, be aware that's just an estimate" but the other two - from firms with fewer lawyers on staff -- just aren't going to play the game anymore.

Ali - explain to me why it's so hard for ALL of these honest professionals to post floorplans with AT LEAST ONE accurate "wall surface to wall surface" measurement in ANY room so that a buyer can calculate square footage with a ruler and 2 minutes of simple math? And since Manhattan is largely blue, we can all agree that we are using the same math. Problem solved. In fact, I challenge you to do this moving forward with ALL your listings.

I would settle for room dimensions.

Well, West 34, that's essentially what many seller's agents are doing, posting floorplans with measurements but not doing the math. But that conduct is what Falcogold is complaining about.

and I do admit to occasionally selling listings without getting full floorplans up at all -- this just happened to me with a 2-BR duplex in the West 80s. The existing floorplan was inaccurate, so I shot photos and had a floorplan drawn.

However, the eventual buyer got in quickly on the strength of the photos, and locked the place up before we got the plan posted.

ali

Falco, here's a perfect example: I'm going to take a listing and so I have my floorplan guy in to create a floorplan. He does a drawing for me that I can post on the web, and also gives me his approximate square footage of the apartment.

Unfortunately, a competing (and very large) brokerage house has recently sold something in that same line, and their agent's estimate of square footage was 5% higher than the number my floorplan guy came up with.

So what choice do I make?

a) use the number the large brokerage firm used, which to my mind is an overstatement of the apartment's square footage?
b) use the number my floorplan guy gave me, which will make my listing look 5% more expensive/sf than the recently sold comp?
c) just not list any square footage figure, which I gather from this thread is less useful to potential buyers?

ali

nostalgia.....
square footage
8 track tapes
click clacks
functional government
Iranian Pistachio Nuts
a haircut called "the shag"
Streeteasy's old clean easy to navigate web site

Re: So what choice do I make?

option c - Post the floorplan with ACCURATE dimensions

Who cares if it looks higher psf?
Buyer: "Hey Ali why did you price this higher psf then the comp?"
Ali: "Well buyer, you know how many brokers lie about square footage?, well my measurements are correct and the comp's ppsf are incorrect. Go ahead, measure it for yourself, and you'll see how honest I am, and then you can tell all your friends you found an honest broker"