Sale at 740 Park Avenue #1C

Maybe you should ask her directly , genius

Broker babble says that it was once part of a triplex in the building, which is a floorplan I'd like to see. Any leads, anybody?

There is no such thing as 'medical zoning' in New York City, and in any case 740 Park Avenue is located within two high-density residential zones, R8 and R10. It is 100% legal to convert this office to residential. Einstein - before making catty and uninformed, I suggest a little bit of research. An excellent GIS-based resource for city zoning information (and much more) is ZoLa, available at maps.nyc.gov/zola.

The offering plan has 1C as a four-room two-bath simplex, with 2/3C a regular duplex. Gross's 740 Park book says 1C was intended as a doctor's office.

The maisonette triplexes were A, B, and D. I've never found floor plans for them. Apparently their first floors were turned into doctor's offices early on.

Thanks for the info. I'll look for the 2/3C floorplan.

All the ground floor "offices" on the upper east side are medical offices for medical use only. This is very easy to look up at the DOB. The offering plan is just that, an offering. One needs to look at the Certificate of Occupancy.

The idiotic listings that one sees all the time stating "the Board will allow a live/work situation or a professional use are nonsense. Cooperatives are governed by Federal, State and City law and so is the Board. It was in public interest to zone these spaces for medical use. Today most of them are too small to practice medicine with all the equipment required. The change needs to be legislated. Permitted use by a licensed professionals would be a start.

The monthly charges associated with these units are greater than residential units on the same floor since they are used for a commercial application, no matter how noble. It's very easy to differentiate an original medical space from a maisonette, not only at the DOB but by the 40' sitting rooms versus the many small rooms with sinks. This is not a grey area. An expeditor can resolve this very quickly.

The practicing of medicine has changed. Every building is plagued by this. And instead of saying the use can be changed, the Corporation should change the use legally prior to the listing the unit.

The Corporation can also repurpose the space for their own use. One always needs more space even at 740. Bikram yoga?

If the corporation wanted to sell this as a residential unti, they should change the C of O

Einstein - you seem confused about the distinction between zoning and a C of O. Changing a C of O can be done as of right - it's not a discretionary approval. And generally a co-op will allow someone to commence the process as long as the buyer pays for the work involved (zoning analysis, inspections). The zoning analysis wouldn't really matter in this case - as I mentioned above, the zoning for 740 Park Avenue is already residential, and converting the medical unit to residential would not change the bulk. The only hurdle would be making sure the unit, once renovated, would comply with residential building code. This shouldn't be difficult, either - the unit has two means of egress, and presumably a buyer would pay a top architect to redesign the space so it meets code.

It's just not a very big deal to change the use, or change the C of O, in a situation like this. It might be expensive, but what else would you expect at 740 Park?

I am confused as to why someone would the ability to buy this, would. How about the 2 bedroom at the Pierre that Hanley-Melon are selling for 2.4 mil, renovated, with a view, light and 7K monthly carrying costs? As opposed to 1st floor unrenovated, no view medical office with 9K monthly charges that was probably was used for rectal exams. Hmmm, let me think.

Man, you really have an odd obsession with this place...

Einstein, Just bid what you think is appropriate. It seems that you like these ground floor apts.

Btw, I do not disagree that it is overpriced by 2mm. But some resident of the building may buy it or someone for medical purposes.

Do we see a pattern? Einstein has a bug up his ass about doctor's offices, and keeps mentioning rectal exams.

Indeed. I think he is annoyed at high prices and a lack of full disclosure in the listing. Second part would annoy me too. First does not.

I see the pattern NWT mentions.

Full disclosure is one issue and the maintenance was priced for a medical rental tenant which is higher, so the cheery "can be a doctors office or a wonderful maisonette" is more than annoying. The descriptions are always so glamorous when no medical procedure is. Former abortion clinic? Rectal exams? I would want to know. I do love original maisonettes but these are not and I find it misleading. In pre-war buildings they usually have high high ceilings even in more modest buildings because they are lobby level. One doesn't have to use the elevator. The city could also facilitate the transformation of these spaces by permitting specific professions to use these medically slated spaces.

I agree that former professional spaces are not really "maisonettes" just because they have a private entrance from the street. I'm pretty sure that true maisonettes are supposed to be 2 or more stories and there are a number of really nice one's in Manhattan although they tend to be fairly expensive, like this one:
http://streeteasy.com/building/120-east-end-avenue-new_york/maisonette

Thank you 30yrs - exactly. 120's maisonette is sublime and grand at the same time which is hard to achieve. The rest of 120 has large "dry" apts, but the maisonette is everything, glamorous, grand, sexy. There are so many chic maisonettes. River House, 778, the four at 775 and those on Beekman and Sutton.

Why isn't Elliman marketing this space to an incontinent acrophobic? Makes sense for a two bedroom on the ground floor with four bathrooms.

On first read I thought you said "agoraphobic" and thought "Why would it matter? They never leave the apartment anyway."

That's funny, I thought on first read that he was talking about an incompetent acrobatic and thought "Hmm, Jim never has a second cup at home."