$770 psf - 60th Park Lex...

You would be in Bloomningdale's hell.

The place definitely needs some work. Perhaps major work.

man that is one unattractive apartment

No offense to the owners, but I am willing to guess they are at least 70 years old based on the furniture they have.

Yowzas, high maintenance!

THere is no way that place is going to sell in that type of condition and that maintenance. They will need to lower the price significantly.

Is there a rule of thumb for adjusting price for maintenance? $1000 of extra maintenance on this piece of sh*t is probably $300k of extra price. High maintence tends to rise as well. Imagine a buyer trying to qualify for that place with a maintenance like that.

If you imagine it without all of that furniture, it's not so bad. Actually, the layout is fantastic. Personally, I'd want to get rid of all of that carpeting. The maintenance is really high, though.

don't forget the dead person in the closet :)

$1.78 psf maintenance isn't low obviously, but its not exactly crazy.

In terms of location, we're talking about a stone's throw from some of the most expensive on the east side... 1 beacon court, 570 park, trump park ave...

Even still, $770 psf... wow.

I guess its the asking price vs. the maintenance number that seems odd. Is that thing 1400 sqft?

$770 psf..it's a miracle. Pleeeze

Its the new zen...

If an apartment price is cut but julia can't afford it, it never happened.

No how is that 1300 feet. 1100 at best. High monthlies, and needs work.

Crappy condition, yes. Lying about SF, what else is new. But, it's a very legitimate 2-bedroom with a dining room, or a 3-bedroom, with a balcony, on the 33rd floor of a great UES area. For under $1MM. In my experience, unheard of until very recently.

One thing I know from looking at this building in 2007 is that the board requires a ridiculous amount of liquid assets - something like close to the full purchase price. Then again, I hear that's not uncommon on UES as you get west of Lex.

Not an absurd price; if I had to guess I'd say it would probably sell for around $850k at the end of the day, so that with renovations it would be a $1M apartment. Reality is that on UES this kind of apartment is a dime a dozen, and it is in a tough area -- not really UES and not really midtown. I wouldn't want to live there.

> For under $1MM. In my experience, unheard of until very recently.

That, to me, is the bigger point. Obviously, this apartment has issues... but we're getting into new territory here. That thing is over $1k psf last year..

Could be that the building has tough financing requirements.

If it's the place I'm thinking of, I looked at a unit there 2 years ago and the listing agent told me the board pefers to see a MINMUM 50% of the VALUE of the unit in liquid assets. That seemed absurd to me (it isn't Park Ave, after all) so I walked out. Figured it would affect resale value. And so it has.

It could... but also remember that a lot of prime buildings have crazy requirements.

If this is going to hurt this place, its also going to hurt a lot of 5th ave co-ops. We get back to the reasons some of those traded for $1 in the 70s. Not saying we get back there, but this kind of thing can force prime prices to bigger discounts than the rest of market...

f

You make a good point, nyc10022. Though to me it seemed strange, this is the type of requirements you'd expect from exclusive buildings, but this one isn't in that league. Again, if it's the buiding I'm thinking of.

I think you are thinking of the right one. I know what you mean, its not exactly a spectacle. But I think it was built as high end construction when it came out, and there is some money in the building. The thing has a damn fountain in front! Its no monument, but neither are the expensive white brick buildings either. Or the towers on 3rd ave in the 60s (also very expensive) In the end, you are talking 60s west of lex, and while it can be busy, its expensive. And, remember all the talk of the 59th street corridor... beacon to Time Warner Center.

Its a unique spot, and a strange building, but it has traditionally been an expensive one.

But, if these rules have this effect, you have to figure the effect will start creeping in to the better and better buildings.

I see what you mean, 022, it's called the 'trickle-down' theory :-)

or in this case, trickle-up.

As a rule I'm wary of any building that has a fountain in front and chages high maintenance - wasted space.

There are MANY co-ops on the UES, well east of Park, that require 100% in liquid assets POST purchase price (AFTER your equity contribution). I have recently looked at 2 buildings, nice but nothing special, that have strenuously pushed on me and my broker about such requirements in the 70's on 3rd Avenue. I simply assume, that like a few friends of mine, many of those documents shown to co-op boards represent assets that come out of their accounts as quickly as they go in. aka- a helpful parent, friend etc..who's willing to play along. Eager to see the co-op issues that arise in '09 as those maint pmts and higher CC's take an increasing bite out of smaller salaries/bonuses of many of those residents

We in Manhattan forget that really coops are a ridiculous concept. Condos, not so. I read in the NYT that coops are actually turning down buyers because the prices are low and they don't want the comps to print at those levels.

In'tg fact, aj. I wonder if any of these coops will ease up on their requirements. Ironically, as banks are getting stricter these days, I wonder what is the fiscal benefit for these coops to require high liquid. Why not just require 50% down or all cash? Is it truly an exclusivity thing?

Interesting point Rhino - wonder how frequent that is. I have always been under the impression that coop boards didn't really care about pulling down the price of the apartments by limiting the pool of buyers. If they truly are rejecting buyers because of low prices, which I'm skeptical about, that would only further reduce the value of apartments in the building because more of them will be sitting on the market.

I didn't make it up.... but maybe the NY Times did. I can't put anything past a coop board. Its a truly odd construct and to my knowledge a metro NY oddity. Requirements for coops are snobbery and also conceptually trying to avoid someone who could be forced to sell in distress....but the margins of safety required in Carnegie Hill can be surreal.

This point (co-op board rejecting what they considered unsatisfactory prices) was the subject of a post a few weeks back. My take (after talking to my broker) is that it ABSOLUTELY happens, in some locations (the UES 5th-Park corridor) more than others, for the same reasons that LEH was wont to take "real" marks on their Level III assets..Noone likes it when their stated equity is worth a whole lot less than they think..Of course, price fixing only works so well (ask OPEC) and while being marked to market puffs out everyone's chest when things are going up, the other side is not so sunny. Of course, many of those residents/boards sit in apartments they could no longer come close to qualifying for if their own assets were held to such scrutiny but that's another point altogether..

OPEC is finding out similarly, that output cuts only matter when there are buyers looking for the product!

it will be a balance between admitting the new market reality, or seeing folks trying to sell turning into folks who maybe can't pay maintenance either...

They can only dig in their heels so much. Only so many folks can cover that kind of maintenance (which will probably be going up).

This will be an interesting battle to watch.

I wonder if we'll get walkaways like the 1970s. If you only put 10% in 2006-2007 and you are jobless looking at $5000 in maintenance, why not skip town...

Seems like something that is extremely short-sighted. Preventing people from selling in the building will only drive prices down more for a whole bunch of reasons.

Its a corporation run by random people....its not supposed to be smart. If I were a seller I'd lose my mind if a board did that to me.

i must have missed something--that's not a bad apartment at all. very nice layout, big wide living room, two bedrooms, two baths, dining room, and balcony. i disagree about the location: i think it's perfectly great. not where i want to live, but then, i don't want to live at 75th and Park either and that doesn't stop it from being an expensive area. the price on that apartment is due to the market conditions, not an inherent problem with the apartment.

agreed.. thats why i posted it.

Its not perfect, but this is not the bottom rung. If this is $770, what does the bottom run look like?

The price is a reflection of the fact that similar apartments are a dime a dozen at the same price. Add to that the fact that monthlies are relatively high and apparently the coop board is very strict, and you get an apartment that really isn't all that special and will not be that easy to sell. Also, I think most people would prefer to live on 75th and park over 60th and park.

happyrenter, we got a little of topic here. I think UES_Buyer summed it up nicely.

> Also, I think most people would prefer to live on 75th and park over 60th and park.

Doesn't say much for 90th and park, though.

As some point, everything can't be an exception.

At the end of the day, it seems like this isn't that eyepopping an example, mainly because of the location and the maintenance.

Never said it was an exception. It is a useful comp -- useful to the point that when all was good in thw world and NYC, apartments that had relatively minor flaws still sold well for good prices. As soon as things start to get bad, the first apartments that feel it are the ones that have some flaws, such as this one. Buyers become more picky and will look only at "perfect" apartments.

I view the desirable UES to be from about 70th street to 86th street (plus a little further each way depending on avenue) and no further east than 2nd ave. Obviously lots of people will disagree, but this is what I think of when I think UES. And within this area, you can easily find apartments for $800 sf (although not on park).

That would make the e 60s more expensive than the 70s then.... (on an avenue parity basis, leaving out prime 5th). On lex/3rd, I believe you are more expensive down than up.

I don't think so at all, but could be wrong.

"At the end of the day, it seems like this isn't that eyepopping an example, mainly because of the location and the maintenance."

This is an expensive location, not a dump like the 90s, and desirable for a lot of people (my wife for one...). Whether you want to be around it is another question, but there's a lot of good apartments in the neighborhood.

Second, we are never going to find a single comp that represents the market. Some buyers are ahead of the market and some are behind. Some condos have nasty little details that aren't exposed in a paragraph writeup. Pointing to a single comp and saying it is or is not representative of the current market is bound for failure.

I think there is a lot on the market in the $800/ft range. Maybe this hood is more prime than I give it credit. I do frown on the busy areas.

> I don't think so at all, but could be wrong.

I'm going by what you said here...

> And within this area, you can easily find apartments for $800 sf

I have not seen this on lower lex yet.... I've definitely seen more of it uptown.

"I think there is a lot on the market in the $800/ft range. Maybe this hood is more prime than I give it credit. I do frown on the busy areas. "

Agreed, and I think thats what it is.

60s aren't perfect, but I think it breaks into 3 zones. The part by the bridge 2nd ave and over. Forget it, sucks. Not just noise, but the streets get cut off by the tentacles of the exit, dark streets, bad.

By the park - this to me is similar to the 70s with one big exception - a lot of "foundations", embassies, that sort of thing. Some might see it as positive, some negative, but I figure this is a superexpensive spot that then gets defined by the specific buildings, more than 68th vs. 73rd.

Middle.... surprisingly expensive and in demand. The new construction helps... 3rd ave had a ton of "ok" buildings, including the chatham (better than ok), the trump stuff, etc. Not that they're awesome, but better than a lot of the stock on upper 3rd.

Lex has a lot of smaller co-ops, nothing fancy but consistent.

I think its actually move expensive here than the 70s now - which is a change from 10 years ago - because the "living near midtown" thing has become cool, much cooler than it was. Beacon Court and TWC absolutely play into this, when they started talking about the 59th street corridor. CPS upswing helped, too. I'm sure the living too far uptown getting uncool didn't help either. And, of course, better transportation (this building is steps from NR456, and 3 blocks from F).

A lot of the lower 60s apartments just got expensive from what I've seen.

How about this?

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/356091-coop-310-east-70th-street-lenox-hill-new-york

Thats definitely where I've seen the cheaper stuff. You are talking east of 2nd ave.... definite cheapie zone.

I,ve seen those before, and this is $800 psf. We saw one a little crappier at $770 a little higher I believe (on chops thread)

But this is why the 60/park-lex one popped for me... I think its a more expensive location.

Looks like there is some competition at 118 East 60th:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/315406-coop-118-east-60th-street-lenox-hill-new-york

Or this

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/356420-coop-150-east-61st-street-lenox-hill-new-york

Or this

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/317997-coop-220-east-67th-street-lenox-hill-new-york

Wow that wins. Very similar layout, slightly lower maintenance. What is it, these 70s build shit boxes had big mortgages? I guess I have the bent toward $1.5/ft for maintenance... Like these 1100 ft apartments, I'd like to see maintenances of $1700-1800 tops.

One of 'em is $880 psf....

The other, I like the $714 psf example, but I love this line more... "Owner will pay $1000 month towards maintenance for 12 months" $2800 maintenance? wtf? $2300 is bad, but now we're getting wacky.

KAS's example is another in building at $760 psf.

Times hafve definitely changed.

and so the race to $500psf begins :)

I still disagree with all the dissing of this apartment (and building, and area). Of the other examples, one was east of 2nd and had no outdoor space, one was on a very low floor (likely noisy), etc. And none had a legitimate way to make a 3rd bedroom, like the places at 118 East 60th do. I know many people like the 2-bedrooms as is, but I know there's at least a segment that needs that 3rd bedroom.

More importantly, all those examples are now. In fact, several of them look pretty good to me. My point was that I didn't see anything remotely like this in 2007. Same layouts in the same building, in fact, were asking $1.2-$1.3MM, and seemed cheap compared to other stuff I was seeing at the time (until I heard about the liquid assets requirement, which based on what I was told, is closer to 100% of the purchase price than 50%.

That building is not park and is closer to lex. It's right next to the subway. There are (maybe were since I haven't looked in a bit) a lot of cheaper units in the building and I know a few people there that aren't exactly rich.

I don't think that apartment is anything so hot. Agree that a while ago it would have fetched a higher price, but I think $800/sf is fairly common now for typical, middle of the road 2bd/2bth coop.

interestingly enough, Real Deal JUST came out with an article on what I was talking about..

"And, remember all the talk of the 59th street corridor... beacon to Time Warner Center."

The lower 50s and upper 50s around lex were absolutely crappy for the longest time... I remember walking over to an office in that big building on the NW corner of 57 & lex and going "wow, does this street suck" after coming over from park and madison. But, once the Alexander's eyesore ended, this place really began a dramatic shift...

http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/victoria-s-secret-steve-madden-complete-east-59th-street-transformation

"The stretch along Lexington Avenue between 58th and 59th streets is one of those clamorous New York City blocks that many locals avoid like the plague.

But if you have any recollection of how it looked in the 1980s, up to even five years ago, you'll be astonished at its complete transformation, with the recent arrival of new flagship stores for Victoria's Secret and Steve Madden."

I looked at it out of curiousity as I live nearby...is a complete and utter dump. It wreaks of cigarette smoke, hasn't been touched in any way in over 30 years. And the bathrooms are unbearable. Beyond a gut job. You would have to sink $200,000 into this place, minimum.

Yes, for those familiar with the co-op, the board is extremely demanding and difficult to pass. I don't know why, because the building is not great at all, but does have unusually high fiancial standards. The maintenance is high, but I was told that they have a large staff for the building by the broker.

If you are considering buying this DUMP, make sure you have at least $200,000 to invest into it. This is the new definition of "GRANDMA SPECIAL"

I think the only good thing about the apartment is that it's on a high floor. Other than that, YUCK.