Pet friendly buildings

Of course. Why would you reduce buyer pool?

+1. Building's that aren't friendly to dogs also tend not to be friendly to people either.

*Buildings (stupid autocorrect obviously doesn't know grammar)

I seem to remember Zeckendorf Towers being fairly dog restrictive for a condo.

Back in medieval times when 99% of Real Estate advertising was in the Sunday New York Times, every once in a while you would come across an ad which said "ABSOLUTELY NO DOGS" and it was almost always a tell that there had just been a board rejection because the agent hadn't bothered to check the Coop's restrictions when they took the listing.

Or a no pets building can be a blessing: no barking at all hours, no scrabbling of claws on the floor above while the animal runs around, no flea infestations in the hallway carpets, no allergens for the animal-sensitive, and less wear and tear on the building (cat litter in the trash compactor and plumbing lines, pee & poo in the lobby & hallways).

That said, since practially all you need these days is a note from your chiropodist saying that you require a 'therapy animal', and New York City requires that the landlord 'accommodate' this need, true 'no pets' buildings are going the way of the dinosaur.

Zeckendorf allows dogs for owners but not renters, which is to say that most of the residents aren't allowed to have dogs. Tenants can decide for themselves if they are willing to be treated as second class citizens.

Buyers will pay more for a cleaner building without dog shits and smells around