Why are the majority of apts on Fifth and Park Avenues co-ops?

1. They went individual-ownership before condos were legally feasible in NY.
2. Coop ownership allows you to keep The Others out of your building.

those co-ops all look the same. Ugly buildings.

i love the pre-war bldgs on park and fifth...keeping those other people out i agree with alanhart was probably the main reason.

The Others = rufus

alanhart, why were condos not legally feasible in ny?

Don't feed the Chicago troll.

Julia: Agree 100%. Though I wouldn't really want to live there, the line of pre-war buildings along Park Avenue is one of the City's beautiful features, especially in winter.

> those co-ops all look the same. Ugly buildings.

So, we'll add 5th avenue to the list of one more place rufus has never been...

uptowngal, the New York State Legislature enacted the first New York Condominium Act in 1964.

Here's a US condo summary from the wikipedia:

The first condominium law passed in the United States was in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1958.[citation needed] English Common law tradition holds that real property ownership must involve land, whereas the French civil law tradition recognized condominium ownership as early as the 1804 Napoleonic Code; thus, it is notable that condominiums evolved in the United States via a Caribbean government with a hybrid common-civil legal system. In 1960, the first condominium in the Continental United States was built in Salt Lake City, Utah.[citation needed] Initially designed as a housing cooperative (Co-op), the Utah Condominium Act of 1960 made it possible for "Graystone Manor" (2730 S 1200 East) to be built as a condominium. The legal counsel for the project, Keith B. Romney is also credited with authoring the Utah Condominium act of 1960. Romney also played an advisory role in the creation of condominium legislation with every other legislature in the U.S. Business Week hailed Romney as the "Father of Condominiums".[citation needed] He soon after formed a partnership with Don W. Pihl called "Keith Romney Associates", which was widely recognized throughout the 1970s as America's preeminent condominium consulting firm.[1]

Although often mistakenly credited with coining the term "condominium", Romney has always been quick to point out that it harks back to Roman times, and that he merely borrowed it.[citation needed]

Nowadays, the leadership of the industry is dominated by Community Associations Institute or CAI.[citation needed]

Section 234 of the 1961 National Housing Act allowed the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages on condominiums, leading to a vast increase in the funds available for condominiums, and to condominium laws in every state by 1969. Many Americans' first widespread awareness of condominium life came not from its largest cities but from south Florida, where developers had imported the condominium concept from Puerto Rico and used it to sell thousands of inexpensive homes to retirees arriving flush with cash from the urban Northern U.S.[citation needed]

nyc10022: Fifth is definitely the uglier side of the park. Bit of an unfair standard, though. CPW is just amazing.

Tangentially, I think I read that there was a big wave of high-end coop construction in NYC before WWI, but a lot of them went bankrupt after the war (but before the 1920s) following a stock market crash and ensuing recession. I forgot what year. They became landlord-owned buildings. It must have been fun to be a shareholder in that situation (not).

> nyc10022: Fifth is definitely the uglier side of the park. Bit of an unfair standard, though. CPW is
> just amazing.

The ugliest park buildings to be are all on upper CPW. That red brick monstrosity facing the big black rock, the insane asylum thing with a weird tower stickout of it it. I think both sides have their prime stuff - Dakota, Pierre, etc, but I think UES is more consistent, and isn't broken up by like random churches that just don't fit. Also, the museums on 5th take things up a notch on UES, CPW has, what, Tavern on the Green?

The Condominium Act is the answer. The previous situation was a holdover from English law, which did not contemplate owning property that was not connected to the ground (horizontal property, as it's called). In the UK the "freeholder" was the person who owned the unit on ground level; all others were "leaseholders," and the leases typically ran from 66 to 999 years. The Conservative government of John Major converted leaseholders to freeholders, with the exception of Crown Property. It caused the Duke of Buckingham, the largest landowner in London, to leave the Conservative party.

I agree with nyc10022. While CPW is nice, I would take prime upper east prewar co-ops (park ave through 5th ave) over prime upper west any day of the week. The same goes for townhouses - the brick and limestone residences are so much more beautiful and elegant than those awful dark dutch-style homes in the west 70s and 80s. Of course, it is nice to live in a city that has so many options to suit all tastes!!

nyc10022:

That's it, Muffy. I'll meet you on the Great Lawn at sunrise. Choose your weapons. I suggest your Blahnik stilettos and Vuitton handbag vs. my Birkenstocks and green Fairway carry-all. I assume the nanny and maid will carry your stuff, since they do everything else in your apartment, including your husband.

Tavern on the Green, my @ss. And for your information, Missy, the Metropolitan Museum is on the WEST Side. But I guess they don't teach geography at Brearley.

"I showed you the value of information. How to get it."

BTW, what the hell is the Metropolitan Museum?

And where can I get one of those maids?

Mmmm, upper east!! http://www.stoneroberts.com/

Seriously, I was just talking about architecture. There's a reason Reitman set Ghostbusters on CPW. Once you're INSIDE the buildings, the East Side wins.

The air seems cleaner on the UWS, and the people seem more real.

Does that mean prices hold their value better on the UWS since the "real" UW siders will be die hards, and will stick it out here even when Manhattan is no longer the fad? Whereas, UE siders will be quick to move away to the next hot place to live (Chicago???)

I'm sorry, but we are talking about Manhattan, NY not Manhattan, Kansas. Silly answer for a silly question.

And the Met... Fifth Avenue.

buster: stoneroberts CSI? scary lookin.

And the Met... WEST of Fifth Avenue, therefore on the West Side, along with the rest of Central Park.

Fifth vs. CPW is largely a matter of personal style. Fifth is more about understated elegance: drab avenue name, subdued exteriors and lobbies, unpretentiously unnamed buildings, no celebs welcome. CPW is still elegant, but with a "wow" appeal: the avenue name has a catchier ring, the buildings have sexy silhouettes and/or other distinguishing features that make them recognizable, they have names that strive to add elegance, some of the lobbies seem to go on and on with opulent decor (The Beresford comes to mind), and for each of the "best" buildings you can go on and on naming the celebs who live there (The Beresford comes to mind).

One of the nicest things about prime Fifth Avenue buildings is the view of the CPW skyline.

Park Ave, lacking that, has the truly opulent apartments.

I'm partial to the ones with his & hers master bedrooms -- they didn't even pretend otherwise back then. I'm surprised they didn't have a mistress suite attached to the "his" bedroom, with a separate entrance to the service elevator.

And yes, Central Park and The Met are on the Upper West Side, while all the rest of Museum Mile is on the Upper East Side.

mrsblogs: Mass exodus is conceivable east of Third Avenue. Prime UES is very stable.

> Seriously, I was just talking about architecture.

So was I.

> There's a reason Reitman set Ghostbusters on CPW.

Yes, because the building stood out from its neighbors. As I said, CPW is *much* less consistent. The same building on the east side (and there are many ones like it) doesn't stand out because its next to other just like it...

> And the Met... WEST of Fifth Avenue, therefore on the West Side, along with the rest of Central Park.

Given that the homeless folk live in Central Park, yes, that does sound much more west side like.
;-)

I suppose one of the things that may be revealing if (when) the difficult economic times persist and worsen is how coops fair versus condos. Will the more restrictive and stringent coop boards be shown to provide advantages to residents in a serious down economy than condos?

okay. that was a butchered last sentence. but you know what i mean...

Fair question... I think co-op boards might have prevented the incredibly leveraged scenarios, BUT, there is a downside there too.

Expensive maintenance can REALLY hurt someone who took a hit. 5th avenue co-ops traded for $1 decades back because folks couldn't afford maintenance... not saying it will get that bad, but the carrying costs are higher, and that can have a negative impact in a recession.

"I'm partial to the ones with his & hers master bedrooms -- they didn't even pretend otherwise back then. I'm surprised they didn't have a mistress suite attached to the "his" bedroom, with a separate entrance to the service elevator."

Separate sleeping quarters is pretty common in "old money" WASPs, regardless of fidelity.

Mmmm - separate sleeping quarters, cold restraint, repressed emotion - that's hot!!