White brick buildings

They have no more issues than other buildings. Prewar buildings have their own expensive facade repairs due to decorative details. They are good value as the white brick (beige/gray a little better) plain look combined with low ceilings of this vintage is not popular.

Being a white brick building certainly doesn’t seem to have hurt sales at Stewart House (70 E. 10th St)

There are indeed special issues with glazed brick:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/nyregion/white-brick-buildings-begin-to-show-their-age.html

Yes, this is one of articles I saw. Not sure how you would diligence this as it could be a major expense!

I think the question you have to ask is how the White brick buildings have been passing Local law 11 / FISP. These inspections are fairly thorough as the engineer hired by the building is incentivized to create work for themselves and for their facade repair friends. That is why I believe that white brick buildings in terms of future facade repairs expenses are no different from 100 year old pre wars with some decorative details.

Imagine what it costs to maintain Ansonia’s facade every 5 years.

In the early 1990s an architect/engineer made a big deal about how the facades had been laminated and predicted dire consequences of them delaminating and crashing to the ground with the only solution being the entire facade needing to be replaced at the cost of millions of dollars. The only building I remember buying that was The Vermeer, 77 7th Avenue, which spent something like $4 million and changed from White brick to Taupe (NB the color of the brick has nothing to do with this issue). https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/realestate/streetscapes-the-vermeer-trouble-behind-the-elegant-facade.html

A few years ago we saw this issue result in some chunks of facade of 115 East 9th Street hanging off the building cause the closure of 3rd Avenue. https://champ.gothamist.com/champ/gothamist/news/unstable-east-village-building-facade-closes-sections-of-third-avenue

However the prediction back in the early 1990s that there would be widespread facade failures in these buildings and we would regularly see white bricks raining down on NYC sidewalks turned out to be very Chicken Little.

ph31,
Stewart House is very different than most of the White brick buildings in Greenwich Village in that it was built as a Coop whereas almost all the others were built as rentals. The room sizes are significantly larger, the lobby is larger and more "luxurious," it's one of the few in the area with the semi-circular drive up to the entrance (like 2 and 11 Fifth Avenue), etc. For decades it was 100% cash, but it was different to pay all cash when an apartment was $15,000. So they reduced the cash requirement to 50% and then to 40%. Had they not done that I think the pricing would have fared much worse. I think they are not suffering the same fate as similar Coops on the Upper East Side because 1) there are so few buildings like this Downtown and 2) because location wise Greenwich Village has become even more popular while UES had faded, but also within GV Stewart House used to be somewhat of an armpit location (across the street from the DMV! , Wrong side of Broadway, fairly surrounded by non-residential, the 9th St side of the building was somewhat of a homeless encampment). They have also relaxed other Coop restrictions like going from no pets at all to now allowing small dogs.

In the 1980s Stewart House somewhat resembled a nursing home with the lobby almost always full of senior citizens with walkers. Many of them were original purchasers from when the building was built. This was an impediment to younger people buying in the building. Now that they are pretty much all gone there has been huge turnover and a building where most sales were in estate condition now has most recently renovated.

Do a search for 2 Fifth Avenue. Some years back, they had a huge assessment for each apartment because they had to redo the facades of the entire building. Cause: the protrusions at each floor that held up 10 feet of brick were rusting, causing an entire side (I think facing Washington Square) to buckle noticeably. The Board came up with a solution at financing the assessments, but I seem to remember the cost was astronomical. It was at that point that I decided to stay with prewar buildings.

Prewar buildings can have sh!t happen too... hundred year old pipes and facades have a way of crumbling, even in the best buildings. And new buildings have problems: it's very difficult to hold a sponsor accountable for improper construction, there is no capital fund, and sponsors have a bad habit of underestimating the common charges. I would say you could look at a 15-year-old building as being stabilized, somewhat modern, and not falling apart yet, but the construction quality 15 years ago was horrible as everyone slapped up buildings. Ultimately the only way to avoid surprises is to be a renter.

Apparently the 2 5th Avenue assessment was $30 million. Previous similar discussion:
https://streeteasy.com/talk/discussion/26145-building-at-2-fifth-avenue-big-assessment

Yes this thread immediately made me think of 2 5th. What a nightmare.

Interestingly 501 E79th Street is stripping the white brick off now for brown brick as we speak. Somehow less expensive than I'd have thought (based on the assessment anyways)

https://streeteasy.com/building/501-east-79-street-new_york/4b

What is status of 2 5th today? Was all work completed and did building’s other desirable redeeming features enable it to weather the storm?

Let us not forget the trouble with the terracotta tiles on 55 Liberty Street -- astoundingly expensive assessments to examine and repair (I believe there were owners who walked away, rather than pay).

Ultimately every facade, whether it be painted wood, brownstone, terracotta, glazed or unglazed brick, or even glass (caulking/glazing) will need some amount of inspection, maintenance, and refurbishing/replacement. Buyers need to do their due diligence!

Aaron2,
Yes, I attended the auction where about a dozen shareholders were surrendering their shares due to the assessment at 55 Liberty.

The way they explained it in my building, is the original brick is the kind with the three holes in the middle, because it's cheaper. My building was originally rental. The water seeps into those holes and because of the glazing, it never really dries out so you get damage. We did quite a bit of repair. My share was 4k which I thought was reasonable.

Supposedly in a lot of these buildings the problem is that that white glaze which was supposed to keep water out actually did the opposite and trapped water in.

Exactly. The water gets in through the mortar.