Unusual Condo configuration

Aaron, Thank you for interesting listing. I am wondering who would want the lower 5 floors at this price if they have someone above them. The whole point of townhouse is absolute private and freedom within your home.

As far as creation goes, since it is a three condo unit as per streeteasy building info, lower two seem to have been legally combined. There are many three/4 unit townhouse condos in Brooklyn with no common mechanical equipment and no staff requirements besides for common space cleaning . As a result very low common charges of less than 50c per sq ft per month. However, they are in $1-3mm range rather than an extra zero at the end and some.

Aaron2,
How do you feel about the New Dev buildings which are condo/rental hybrids where it's clear the rental/commercial portion has a supermajority of the interest?

A quick search yielded interesting info.
Tommy Mottola owned at least units A and B sold each separately around 2003.
For whatever reason, Acris doesnt seem to have prior and future info on those block/lot numbers.
The only other info is the condo declaration happened in 2001.

Sometimes, block and lot numbers get changed and its requires some sleuthing I dont have time for now.

There are a lot of reasons someone would break up a townhouse like this into separate units. Aside from the obvious reasons like laddering your sale and tax bill if its in your family a long time, you could have a situation where siblings co owned the property and the next generation wanted some separation but not a sale.

As far as votes, that pretty much comes down to owns the most percentage shares(space) and could certainly be problematic in a building with so few units.
Ive heard stories of some downtown buildings not voting to repair the elevator which is exclusively used by the upper floor fewer tenant(s) and putting the cost solely on them.

Still this address is the Gold Coast. Someones buying it.

@30yrs: I have concerns! It certainly raises due diligence questions about how decisions on jointly run elements of the building are settled (cf: truth's extreme elevator example above). I know of a co-op where the large commercial spaces are part of the co-op. As a result, one owner has just over 10% of the voting power, and an apparently permanent board seat (the situation came about as a result of a lawsuit over how the co-op was initially created, and was settled by making the commercial space part of the co-op. I don't know if the board seat is defined as permanent, or the owner is just tight with management and the rest of the board.) Given that the owner is a non-NY-based pension fund, is into the building investment for the long haul (they make their money on rental income, not necessarily capital appreciation), and it's only 10% of the vote, I'm less concerned (the street-level retail elements remain empty 2+ years after their last tenant moved out. The other office space is occupied.)

Nope. Just nope.