I've been following NYC real estate listings for 10+ years (residential on SE and commercial on other sites) and I've noticed something lacking. Almost never have I seen listings that say "ripe for tear down" or "the land is valuable" or "a good location to build XXX". Occasionally there will be the single word "redevelopment" in a long list of possible uses for a property, but that's as close as... [more]
I've been following NYC real estate listings for 10+ years (residential on SE and commercial on other sites) and I've noticed something lacking.
Almost never have I seen listings that say "ripe for tear down" or "the land is valuable" or "a good location to build XXX". Occasionally there will be the single word "redevelopment" in a long list of possible uses for a property, but that's as close as anyone comes to admitting what is painfully obvious for some listings: that the building that's there is crap and the land is far more valuable than the building.
Is demolishing buildings in NYC particularly difficult legally? I'm not talking about landmarked buildings, just normal buildings. Non-landmarked townhouses, multi-family apartment buildings with or without commercial space.
I just find it strange. It's like it's a taboo that no-one mentions in their listings.
[less]
I see this frequently enough that it's definitely not taboo. Perhaps your search is too limited geographically? Look outside of Manhattan below 96th st. I mostly see this in Harlem, Hamilton Heights and Washington Heights.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 300_mercer
almost 6 years ago
Posts: 10577
Member since: Feb 2007
One does not have to go far and look at Billionaire row new developments. I think in virtually all cases, a building was torn down.
Wherever you have "taxpayers" you have future demolition baked in. Look all over Queens Blvd and all the other main thoroughfares in the outer boroughs.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
almost 6 years ago
Posts: 9880
Member since: Mar 2009
Where I grew up in Glen Oaks, Queens I don't think there's been more than a handful of sales of houses built before 1980 in the last 10 years that didn't result in teardowns.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 300_mercer
almost 6 years ago
Posts: 10577
Member since: Feb 2007
Main driver of tear down is how much unbuilt FAR is remaining or can be obtained. If you have a residential building using all FAR, it does not make sense to tear it down to due to expensive cost of construction unless the neighborhood has gentrified significantly and the current structure is falling down. Then you have to address vacating the building if coop or rental.
I was confused reading this because I see it all the time. It may just be as subtle as quoting the buildable sqft. Others are explicit, example:
https://streeteasy.com/building/14_09-31-avenue-astoria/2
I see this frequently enough that it's definitely not taboo. Perhaps your search is too limited geographically? Look outside of Manhattan below 96th st. I mostly see this in Harlem, Hamilton Heights and Washington Heights.
One does not have to go far and look at Billionaire row new developments. I think in virtually all cases, a building was torn down.
https://ny.curbed.com/2019/11/12/20959995/adam-friedberg-photography-lower-east-side-single-story-buildings
Wherever you have "taxpayers" you have future demolition baked in. Look all over Queens Blvd and all the other main thoroughfares in the outer boroughs.
Where I grew up in Glen Oaks, Queens I don't think there's been more than a handful of sales of houses built before 1980 in the last 10 years that didn't result in teardowns.
Main driver of tear down is how much unbuilt FAR is remaining or can be obtained. If you have a residential building using all FAR, it does not make sense to tear it down to due to expensive cost of construction unless the neighborhood has gentrified significantly and the current structure is falling down. Then you have to address vacating the building if coop or rental.