View 59 in LIC. 12 Units for rent?

It looks like the building only has 39 units. If that's true this condo is 33% rental. I could ofcourse be wrong I'm just going off the listings on the NYT's. Is it possible that several units are listed at different prices's? If this is an accurate number then it would indicate to me that their were a large amount of speculators or people who feel that they can't sell at today's prices and re-coup their investment. I guess perhaps this is agood example of how NYC did have speculative buying that contributed to the boom.

I find this very interesting. Those asking rent prices are way out of control. I guess the owner has no choice. Any ideas?

the link doesn't show any rental listings.
8,000 does seem like a lot for a 2b/2b if that's the case.

Lobo- I go this from the NYT rental search. Put rentals in LIC. I stated above that this site doesn't have this info. $8000 is nuts. Even at $3400 its a stretch for the penthouse. Even steve would say that this is a better buy then rent. Something is not right.

I think I got them all.

http://realestate.nytimes.com/rentals/detail/46-985942
http://realestate.nytimes.com/rentals/detail/46-985958
http://realestate.nytimes.com/rentals/detail/46-985946

http://realestate.nytimes.com/rentals/detail/46-985925
http://realestate.nytimes.com/rentals/detail/46-985933

http://realestate.nytimes.com/rentals/detail/25-NY56A20A
http://realestate.nytimes.com/rentals/detail/46-985818

Sorry it wouldn'y let me post them all.

It's likely no one wanted to buy them. I looked at the floorplans. They're not particularly well designed....you've got columns in really annoying places, like in the middle of your kitchen countertop. Also, the apartment size for the 2 bedroom is rather small as well. Especially for their asking price. You should check out the thread about View 59 at Queenswest.com. They have a juicy story about buyers being disappointed by the building, and the developer desperate to find a buyer willing to close on a specific date, to prevent other buyers from walking away scot-free from their signed contracts.

This is suppose to be the new developing area of LIC. Actually I never liked the area so I'm not surprised at the lack of activity at those price's.

Any ideas?

Ladies and Gentlemen: I am the new broker for the 12 rental units at View59. These units are sponsor units -held by the owner as investments. The range in rental price is that some are with an option to be furnished. For example, a 2br/2ba rental unfurnished for $3500 turns into a $4100 rental furnished. There is nothing wrong with the bldg, or the apts. These are not flippers who couldnt unload the apts. The developer turned sponsor intended to maintain units within the bldg. Now that the bldg is complete and occupancy has taken place we have them on market for rent. Any questions, feel free to email me at meredith@erudd.com.

MJW812- Actually I do have a question. Does the $3500 unit come complete with a view of all the hookers walking around Queens Plaza or is that extra?

Rudd, heh-heh! Sounds familiar.

There's was a good discussion between buyers on the QueensWest.com forums about this building. Use the search function to look for "View 59". Generally, the discussions on QueensWest.com are a lot more informative about specific buildings in LIC than anything on Streeteasy.

dco, how do you know so much about hookers and where they work? Seems like you have a lot of experience . . .

LICComment- "dco, how do you know so much about hookers and where they work? Seems like you have a lot of experience . . ."

Actually I have a tremendous amount of knowledge about the area and probably too much about the Hookers. I tend to research things to a point of obsession.

Just to let everyone know I'm not bearish to a point of fault, I find Sunnyside, Woodside and Astoria to be great areas. LIC got way ahead with it's price's.

"These units are sponsor units - held by the owner as investments."

As if that was the original plan?

Broker says: "These units are sponsor units -held by the owner as investments."

Read as: "they couldn't sell them - so they are forced to rent them .."

Can they rent them?

I'm sorry, I meant can they rent all TWENTY-TWO of them (currently listed)?

This location is a great sign of how this RE market got out of control. This is one of the dirtiest, ugliest and noisiest location you could possible find in this city. It's actually comical. Quite frankly the location is a dump. $3400/month should come with, 10 hookers and a maid, to make it worth renting. At least by renting, after I'm finished with the hookers, I can just leave and not worry about selling my dump.

Look in Sunnyside, Woodside or Astoria and you will find yourself to be much happier.

THe rudd people lie also.

Can I here from people that live here? Does it have a pool?

What's the latest? Are these still mostly rentals?

26 of the 39 apartments were sold, all in 2008. (That doesn't include 4A, which the developer sold to another of his own LLCs.)

Those 13, plus the two commercial units also kept by the developer, come to just shy of 58% of the building.