How much does a building's No Dog Policy adversely affect an apt's value?

In my experience primarily in central Greenwich Village area, no-pet policies to do not impact an apartment's value at all. Rather, the policy makes resale more challenging because a segment of the buyer pool won't consider it. For non-pet owners, though, the policy is irrelevant and the value of the apartment is, as always, based on location, light, building quality, and layout. I don't understand what you mean re: "outdoor space" and decreased values in terms of no-pet policies.

The policy is not irrelevant for all non-pet owners. Personally, I would prefer a no-pets building. Pets have a way of making common areas smell and dog barking is just plain annoying. If in a hypothetical world there were two otherwise identical apartments, but one was $500 to $1000 more and in a building with a no-pets policy, I'd buy that one.

I'm not sure what buildings Slope is accustomed to, but I have lived in only pets-allowed buildings that ranged from decent doorman Chelsea coop to Gold Coast white-glove coop and also a rental on lower Fifth, to central GV coop just shy of white-glove quality. In 20 years I have never experienced a common area that "smelled" like a pet. Nor have I ever had a barking problem or heard of one that wasn't quickly remedied. I'm sure such problems exist, but they are hardly the norm or something I'd be worried about. Seems like a made-up concern to me.

Well, I was told since many of the rentals here in the city do not allow pets, many pet owners (and there are quite a few of them here) have to resort to buying.

Hence, the pool of buyers are more skewed towards pet owners than otherwise would be. And if you are a no pet building, you are eliminating quite a bit of potential buyers. Less buyers, mean less demand...which means a lower price for the apt.

It makes sense to me but how much of a decrease in value does a no pet apartment command? I say more for outdoor space apts because I've also been told a lot of dog owners would pay a hefty premium for outdoor space because of the sheer convenience.

And yes there are a few people who are allegeric to pets or prefer no pet buildings because of the annoyance factor as soon here. But I think there are way more pet owners and people who don't care about living in a pet friendly building to more than overcome this small minority of people.

A lot depends on the building. I've never lived in a building that doesn't allow pets, though I do think there are pluses to a no-pets policy.

I've had neighbors' cats (who would often roam free in the halls) regularly use my morning newspaper as a toilet. The same cats loved to lie in wait, listening for doors to open and then dart into unsuspecting tenants apartments and scurry under the bed to hide.

One person's dog was elderly and rarely made it to the elevator before creating a puddle of one sort or another on the carpet. Said puddle would sit and ferment until someone from the building came to clean it up. Then there was the mastiff who would hack those loud, barfy/belchy sounding barks all day until his owners returned from work. And let's not forget the swearing parrot, who would screech obscenities anytime he heard footsteps in the hall. I'm not making this up.

So would I consider a no-pets building? Absolutely. Would I see a no-pets policy as a detriment to value? Probably not.

Squid - But you are living in a pet friendly building even though they are an annoyance to you. But the opposite isn't true. A pet owning buyer is not even going to look at a No Pet building. I'm just wondering how it will affect the value and if so, by how much. Apparently, the broker I was working with said it's a "common" fact that the way to increase an apt's value is by making it a pet friendly building. Conversely, how much does a no pet building decrease it's value? Or does it? Common sense and logic tells me it does (because of the limited pool of buyers) but by how much? Hmmm.

And in this market, when there is already a smaller pool of willing buyers out there, I suspect the ones that HAVE to buy are the pet owners since they can't rent (most if not all of rentals here in the city have a no pet policy). So does this even have an even greater negative effect on value even more for no pet buildings?

Feel free to eliminate a couple of the word "even" in my last sentence. :-) Am writing this the day after a long New Year's Eve night out.

Seems logical to me that it's basic demand and supply. No pets could easily reduce potential demand by 50%. I'd guess that could cut the equilibrium price by 10%. (It would be more except that non-pet owners would then see a "relative" bargain and then snap it up at such a 10% discount. I doubt there is all that big a population of pet-haters who would clamor for such apartments.)

I'm currently in a rental. The apartment was advertised as "no pets." But the apartment was perfect for me so I went to work making the case to my landlord for "Marley and Me." We ultimately settled on just an extra month's security.

I don't see much difference in price. Certainly not 10-20%. I'd say less than 5%.

We don't have a pet, but always talk about getting one. We backed out of a contract on an apt we loved partly (very small part) b/c of a no-pet policy