Welcome to the fraudulent marketing campaign by Mr. Broker of Apt PHB. Listed at 3,000 sq ft, what a bargain for $4.75 million (only $1,583 per sq ft!!!). Except that 2BR/2.5BA most surely ain't 3,000 sq ft. Livable is actually around 1,850 sq ft. Let's round it up to 2,000 sq ft b/c we're nice. I'm guessing you added in the terrace sq ft to get to 3,000. Oops, just a minor mistake. So, it turns... [more]
Welcome to the fraudulent marketing campaign by Mr. Broker of Apt PHB. Listed at 3,000 sq ft, what a bargain for $4.75 million (only $1,583 per sq ft!!!). Except that 2BR/2.5BA most surely ain't 3,000 sq ft. Livable is actually around 1,850 sq ft. Let's round it up to 2,000 sq ft b/c we're nice. I'm guessing you added in the terrace sq ft to get to 3,000. Oops, just a minor mistake. So, it turns out that the asking price is really $2,400 per sq ft. Quite the difference.
Are the terraces nice? Yes, BUT let's look at the dining room (and part of the living room) and how those big windows look out onto neighboring apts just feet away and they into this apt. Kitchen and bathrooms are OK but not at the beautiful level which should be the case for $5 million.
What will this sell for? In the current market, definitely below $4. Perhaps $3.8-3.9.
[less]
Response by 300_mercer
over 6 years ago
Posts: 10553
Member since: Feb 2007
Believe the developer included full foot print of both floors including stairs and elevator. That will give you appx 1500 sq ft per floor.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 300_mercer
over 6 years ago
Posts: 10553
Member since: Feb 2007
It is the same square footage in previous two sales. So seems more like a condo offering plan issue rather than the broker.
offering plan from 2002 lists as 2705 sq ft interior and either 827 or 927 sq ft terrace exterior.
its not perfectly legible
Certainly including stairs which is appropriate, elevator bank... well....when it opens in the apt, they generally get included.
Hardly fraudulent.
Id be mostly concerned with elevator bank proximity to the master bedroom.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 300_mercer
over 6 years ago
Posts: 10553
Member since: Feb 2007
Thank you. I do believe that broker, including previous ones, should be listing 2705 as per condo offering plan.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 300_mercer
over 6 years ago
Posts: 10553
Member since: Feb 2007
If it is full floor apartment, there is indeed a good case for including the full floor foot print as is typically the case for full floor lofts, but condo offering plan should indeed supersede as the transaction is being done as per the details in the offering plan.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by truthskr10
over 6 years ago
Posts: 4088
Member since: Jul 2009
300 I spent years crying about square footage inconsistencies when I was deep into hunting 10 years ago. I noticed a pattern that I have come to accept.
The majority of listings "cheat" or overstate square footage around 8%.
Which of course once everyone is doing it, it becomes a wash when comparing apt to apt when they are cheating by the same amount.
The occasional egregious footprints I would judge more harshly as the few correct dead on units I added value to.
And units like this when a substantial chunk is elevator and stairs(though much worse when the stairs are out of the apartment but in the floorplan), it highlights the space creepage even more.
Of course I agree with you and what's on the offering plan should be listed. But everyone kinda needs to do that at the same time.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by truthskr10
over 6 years ago
Posts: 4088
Member since: Jul 2009
I used to use this information during negotiations after sending out a feeler offer to a selling broker. To negate the "meet in the middle" game that always plays out between ask and first offer, I'd base my conversations on price per square foot so I could pull out the 8% less square footage later argument.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
over 6 years ago
Posts: 9876
Member since: Mar 2009
A couple of decades ago we had a unit at 530 WEA which the Offering Plan had as 1050SF so of course I listed it at 1050SF. There was another unit which the Offering Plan had as 950SF but the listing broker listed it at 1100SF. So of coarse there was a buyer's broker who had someone who was interested in our unit and was arguing with me that our unit was worth less than the other one because it was smaller when anyone with eyes in their head could see it was larger. The only place the other unit was larger was in the lie being told by the listing broker.
Since Coops almost never list square footage in the Offering Plan (almost all simply list "room count" in the Schedule A) I haven't listed square footage on a Coop listing in decades. Still, I can't even count the number of angry calls/emails I have gotten from brokers insisting I tell them the square footage - when the floorplan is clearly on the listing.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
over 6 years ago
Posts: 9876
Member since: Mar 2009
But when all square feet aren't equal, how do you use $/SF as a metric?
For a very long time in commercial leasing when landlords got pushback from leasing on the corporate side saying "I can't get that $/SF price past my Board of Directors" they would simply increase the amount of square footage listed FOR THE SAME SPACE. This is why you have so many categories for square footage in commercial leasing (gross, carpetable, etc)
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
over 6 years ago
Posts: 9876
Member since: Mar 2009
My dad once pointed out to me a building he was assessing where they were advertising full floors at almost 20% larger than the lot size.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 300_mercer
over 6 years ago
Posts: 10553
Member since: Feb 2007
Well, tricky part is “overstatement” vs “what” as there is no legal measurement standard applied uniformly to both coops and condos. For coops, I have indeed seen overstatement vs a generous actual measurement of square footage.
However,for condos, measurement standard for a particular condo is stated in its offering plan and in my experience more than 95 percent of listings strictly follow what is in the condo offering plan. It is a different matter that 80s condos such as 1 Irving place do not include space outside your unit and typically measure from the exterior glass where as newer condos may be measuring from outside of the exterior wall and including a share of common facilities such as gym, play room etc.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
over 6 years ago
Posts: 9876
Member since: Mar 2009
Are you saying that when you have an older condo that you think it's acceptable to state a number greater than listed in the Offering Plan?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 300_mercer
over 6 years ago
Posts: 10553
Member since: Feb 2007
No. Condo has to be as per offering plan. Otherwise, you can get sued.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 300_mercer
over 6 years ago
Posts: 10553
Member since: Feb 2007
However, market is pretty smart and it is reflected to in building comps for a condo building. For example, a 700 sq ft one bedroom in I Irving is a reasonable size and more new developments in Manhattan do not have many 1 bedrooms less than 800 sq ft with smaller living room.
300 , the writer for the article titled it based on the least egregious point though it does make for a sensational headline.
4700 square feet from 4548, a 152 square feet of difference (around 3%). And if you read the details, its actually 56 square feet larger because of some common space addition (paragraph 20).
We are talking about a shortage of 96 square feet on over 4000! lol
Meanwhile, wrongly listed common charges at $3870 instead of $5199.
And taxes at $1142 instead of $2196!
The square footage portion of this case is just filler and to add to the pattern of misinformation.
My biggest takeaway is how few actual cases there are as this article is 6 years old.
I also dont find any progression in this case other than the initial filing which likely means it was dropped or settled quite quickly.
300 , the writer for the article titled it based on the least egregious point though it does make for a sensational headline.
4700 square feet from 4548, a 152 square feet of difference (around 3%). And if you read the details, its actually 56 square feet larger because of some common space addition (paragraph 20).
We are talking about a shortage of 96 square feet on over 4000! lol
Meanwhile, wrongly listed common charges at $3870 instead of $5199.
And taxes at $1142 instead of $2196!
The square footage portion of this case is just filler and to add to the pattern of misinformation.
My biggest takeaway is how few actual cases there are as this article is 6 years old.
I also dont find any progression in this case other than the initial filing which likely means it was dropped or settled quite quickly.
I think the lawsuit was silly as well but the very fact that misstating square footage for a condo is a clear violation of the condo offering plan should give sellers and brokers a pause before misstatement. No such concern for a coop as the square footage is not typically defined anywhere.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by itesfai
over 6 years ago
Posts: 77
Member since: Nov 2012
300, what was the outcome of the case? did he win? setttle? etc..
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Believe the developer included full foot print of both floors including stairs and elevator. That will give you appx 1500 sq ft per floor.
It is the same square footage in previous two sales. So seems more like a condo offering plan issue rather than the broker.
Another growing unit like 260 W Bway:
https://streeteasy.com/sale/1322165
offering plan from 2002 lists as 2705 sq ft interior and either 827 or 927 sq ft terrace exterior.
its not perfectly legible
Certainly including stairs which is appropriate, elevator bank... well....when it opens in the apt, they generally get included.
Hardly fraudulent.
Id be mostly concerned with elevator bank proximity to the master bedroom.
Thank you. I do believe that broker, including previous ones, should be listing 2705 as per condo offering plan.
If it is full floor apartment, there is indeed a good case for including the full floor foot print as is typically the case for full floor lofts, but condo offering plan should indeed supersede as the transaction is being done as per the details in the offering plan.
300 I spent years crying about square footage inconsistencies when I was deep into hunting 10 years ago. I noticed a pattern that I have come to accept.
The majority of listings "cheat" or overstate square footage around 8%.
Which of course once everyone is doing it, it becomes a wash when comparing apt to apt when they are cheating by the same amount.
The occasional egregious footprints I would judge more harshly as the few correct dead on units I added value to.
And units like this when a substantial chunk is elevator and stairs(though much worse when the stairs are out of the apartment but in the floorplan), it highlights the space creepage even more.
Of course I agree with you and what's on the offering plan should be listed. But everyone kinda needs to do that at the same time.
I used to use this information during negotiations after sending out a feeler offer to a selling broker. To negate the "meet in the middle" game that always plays out between ask and first offer, I'd base my conversations on price per square foot so I could pull out the 8% less square footage later argument.
A couple of decades ago we had a unit at 530 WEA which the Offering Plan had as 1050SF so of course I listed it at 1050SF. There was another unit which the Offering Plan had as 950SF but the listing broker listed it at 1100SF. So of coarse there was a buyer's broker who had someone who was interested in our unit and was arguing with me that our unit was worth less than the other one because it was smaller when anyone with eyes in their head could see it was larger. The only place the other unit was larger was in the lie being told by the listing broker.
Since Coops almost never list square footage in the Offering Plan (almost all simply list "room count" in the Schedule A) I haven't listed square footage on a Coop listing in decades. Still, I can't even count the number of angry calls/emails I have gotten from brokers insisting I tell them the square footage - when the floorplan is clearly on the listing.
But when all square feet aren't equal, how do you use $/SF as a metric?
For a very long time in commercial leasing when landlords got pushback from leasing on the corporate side saying "I can't get that $/SF price past my Board of Directors" they would simply increase the amount of square footage listed FOR THE SAME SPACE. This is why you have so many categories for square footage in commercial leasing (gross, carpetable, etc)
My dad once pointed out to me a building he was assessing where they were advertising full floors at almost 20% larger than the lot size.
Well, tricky part is “overstatement” vs “what” as there is no legal measurement standard applied uniformly to both coops and condos. For coops, I have indeed seen overstatement vs a generous actual measurement of square footage.
However,for condos, measurement standard for a particular condo is stated in its offering plan and in my experience more than 95 percent of listings strictly follow what is in the condo offering plan. It is a different matter that 80s condos such as 1 Irving place do not include space outside your unit and typically measure from the exterior glass where as newer condos may be measuring from outside of the exterior wall and including a share of common facilities such as gym, play room etc.
Are you saying that when you have an older condo that you think it's acceptable to state a number greater than listed in the Offering Plan?
No. Condo has to be as per offering plan. Otherwise, you can get sued.
However, market is pretty smart and it is reflected to in building comps for a condo building. For example, a 700 sq ft one bedroom in I Irving is a reasonable size and more new developments in Manhattan do not have many 1 bedrooms less than 800 sq ft with smaller living room.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/ny.curbed.com/platform/amp/2013/3/26/10260252/200-chambers-penthouse-buyer-sues-over-square-footage
300 , the writer for the article titled it based on the least egregious point though it does make for a sensational headline.
4700 square feet from 4548, a 152 square feet of difference (around 3%). And if you read the details, its actually 56 square feet larger because of some common space addition (paragraph 20).
We are talking about a shortage of 96 square feet on over 4000! lol
Meanwhile, wrongly listed common charges at $3870 instead of $5199.
And taxes at $1142 instead of $2196!
The square footage portion of this case is just filler and to add to the pattern of misinformation.
My biggest takeaway is how few actual cases there are as this article is 6 years old.
I also dont find any progression in this case other than the initial filing which likely means it was dropped or settled quite quickly.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=ClNIfpIJTQL01Yiq0Feq/g==&system=prod
300 , the writer for the article titled it based on the least egregious point though it does make for a sensational headline.
4700 square feet from 4548, a 152 square feet of difference (around 3%). And if you read the details, its actually 56 square feet larger because of some common space addition (paragraph 20).
We are talking about a shortage of 96 square feet on over 4000! lol
Meanwhile, wrongly listed common charges at $3870 instead of $5199.
And taxes at $1142 instead of $2196!
The square footage portion of this case is just filler and to add to the pattern of misinformation.
My biggest takeaway is how few actual cases there are as this article is 6 years old.
I also dont find any progression in this case other than the initial filing which likely means it was dropped or settled quite quickly.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=ClNIfpIJTQL01Yiq0Feq/g==&system=prod
I think the lawsuit was silly as well but the very fact that misstating square footage for a condo is a clear violation of the condo offering plan should give sellers and brokers a pause before misstatement. No such concern for a coop as the square footage is not typically defined anywhere.
300, what was the outcome of the case? did he win? setttle? etc..
https://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2012/10/ever_wonder_why_an_agent_wont_talk_about_square_footage_heres_why
I'd guess it was settled for anywhere between $0 and $520k (the commission amount).