Lipstick on a pig.
7
Mr. Two Cents,
Some statistics, as of mid-September Chicago experienced 500 murders. For the same period, NYC experienced 179 murders, a historically low number. I have been to Chicago several times, great city and amazing pizza. However, I will take NYC to live in compared to anywhere in the world.
4
"Too old to be cool?" That was the lead-in for this article, yet another ageist, stereotypical put-down of "older" people (whatever that is). So even the supposedly "cool" New York Times is guilty of categorizing another demographic with a blatant generality. It's as bad as saying "Most women prefer to stay at home" or "Men don't cry." Really, as bad as that because it's such a blatant throwaway of an entire group of people. "Too old to be cool" my butt. I am sick of these demoralizing characterizations. I, for one, am a person who is "older" and yet very, very "cool". I am interested and participate in joyously in the latest technology, fashion, architecture, art, music and social media. Not everyone over fifty is a socially reluctant "codger." Some of us are decidedly cool. Please - stop making us "less than."
4
P.S. I realize that the comment about "cool" was referring to the apartments themselves, but the implication was obvious, and insulting.
2
My definition of postwar is anything built between 1946 and today. Based on that I favor the period of 1950 through the late 1960's. Large and plentiful closets, large windows, and not unusual to find 30 foot living rooms. Once the 1970's rolled by the dimensions kept getting smaller.
I consider prewar to be anything built between WWI and WWII. As to the "charm" of prewar, there isn't much charm in a building or apartment built between 70 and 100 years ago unless it's been gut renovated over the past 10 years. Small windows, few closets and free standing radiators don't equal charm to me. Also many lack the amenities of newer buildings, such as a health club, children's play room, swimming pool, garage, etc.
As they say, "to each his own".
2
I lived there for about a year in the same size apartment Morris is selling, and could not wait to get out. Most of the people living there are totally unaware that the building is riddled with mold, most of it being toxic mold, and the spores are being spread throughout the apartments through the HVAC system. Maintenance knows, and I would imagine the Board knows, so it surprises me that nothing is being done, although I question how you can remediate a building like that. One of the maintenance men confided in me that every time there is a leak and they open up a wall or ceiling, there is a ton of mold. Windows are old and black soot permeates the apartment even with the windows closed. The building absorbs no part of the cost of replacement and without cosmetic work after replacement, an apartment that size costs about $250,000. They can keep it.
2
Hey. New York.
Move to Chicago.
Everything that NY has but more.
For one, affordable (at least by NY standards) housing.
The 'Eisenhower' high rises discussed in this article were recently torn down in Chicago.
The were Section Eight housing.
The City compassionately decided the no one should be forced to live in such structures, not even people on public assistance.
And for close to a million dollars it's considered a 'bargain' to land 500 square feet in one of these eyesores in NY?
There is life outside of NY.
Something to think about.
11
And one of the worst murder rates in the country.
I have always loved 1960s-70s era apartments. I'd like it if you'd didn't publicize their blend of affordability and utility.
5
I loved my L-shaped studio in an early 1960s white brick building in Gramercy. Generous closet space, sturdy construction, nice light from the 12th floor and a monthly maintenance charge that was very reasonable.
I didn't feel any plight at all.
11
Apartments, condos or in my case, houses, the same dilemma. Rashly gave up our 'storybook' '20s Tudor home 15 years ago for a 'sort-of' mid-century modern.
Yes, you 'bloom where you're planted,' -- yet not a day has gone by that I don't regret / miss my beautiful, charming, house with walls (and moldings and picture hanging rails and dream attic).
Those homes have continued to skyrocket in value ... current digs, not so much.
Live and learn I guess. And adapt.
4
All across NYC these boxy buildings have ceilings that have been failing for at least the last 20 years (and more) and continue to fail. The ceiling material was sprayed on in very thin layers to save on construction costs. These layers are now failing due to the layers' adhesion letting go. Moisture gets in the layers near windows and bathroom where humidity pools, bubbles form until one day the ceiling releases with a distinctive "pop." Adding to the problem are the iron rods (rebar) in the concrete. Where the rods were not covered by the sprayed material, they rust and leach into the ceiling layers. This, too, leads to bubbles and eventually falling material. And if the ceiling survives either of the two failing examples above, the weight of repeating painting eventually pulls the ceiling away when the adhesion breaks. Patching and repainting only makes the problem worse and worse. At its worst, I have seen a primer applied to a ceiling after only minor repairs, that added intense moisture to the ceiling as a whole, only to hear a series of pop, pop, pops turn into a cascading of plaster-fall from one end of a room to the other leaving the room in heavy ceiling chunks and dust. In many of these buildings the window line is right at the ceiling line because the ceilings are so low. Outdoor light skims across the ceiling revealing every flaw, bubble, crack or repair. It also reveals an uneven paint job that is usually hidden when the ceiling is well above a window.
5
As someone who lives in a blocky unattractive 1970s building that converted to co-op in the 1980s, I really enjoyed reading this article. I purchased my 500 square foot alcove studio with private patio 20 years ago, and have watched its value increase 600 percent. Still, my building has the cheapest listing prices in this trendy neighborhood (Chelsea/West Village) because, as this article points out, it's not old enough to be charming or new enough to be chic. Sure, my building is kind of ugly. But its basic boxy layouts provide a great blank slate for creative renovations, and it's fascinating to see all the wildly different ways residents have altered them. Yes, the ceilings are low, the lobby is dated, and the overall vibe is decidedly "uncool" but that's what makes them such a bargain. On the downside, there always seems to be maintenance issues with a building of this age, i.e. roof, heater, pipes, etc., which leaves little money left for a much-needed design overall. But hey, that's why we got our apartments so cheap! Personally, I think these post-war buildings are diamonds in the rough and among the last decent deals in the city.
10
Not mentioned in the article is that many of these post-war buildings have maintenances twice as high as what is typical in a pre-war. That is often reflected in the shockingly lower offer price. Particularly around Sutton Place, many buildings are on land leases, which are coming due in a few years, and the cost to acquire the land or renew the lease doom the buildings to massive maintenance hikes.
8
Bingo. The East 50s and 60s have dozens of buildings like this. The prices look great, until you see 2k, 3k, 4k, 5k maintenance on 1 and 2 bedrooms. Absolutely insane.
3
land lease is one issue (the owner of the land gave a 99 year lease to developer and rent is paid for it). The high maintenance is also do to the city of New York taxing all "apartment buildings" to death (that includes rentals, co-ops and condos). While BDB enjoys low taxes on his million dollar townhouses (as do all "single family" homeowners outside of Manhattan), the rest of us (and that includes landlords (who are all painted as the devil incarnate). So while the city never stops with its lip service on affordability, they are actually making it unaffordable to those who invested to live here (owners of co-ops and condos and yes landlords). BTW - the ballooning taxes just keeps the pressure on landlords to raise rents. This is what the public does not understand. Think about it, despite the high rents, developers cannot build more housing with a tax abatement, because the taxes are so high.
1
I grew up in a Lower East Side housing project with a great view of the Empire State Building. It was actually an area with a lot of poverty and a recent visit showed that the projects are now surrounded by these million dollar homes. Who can afford to spend millions on a home?
I went through the slide show and honestly, the most "REAL" room, a place that the average American would probably feel comfortable in, is the book filled nursery. Everything else looks like it is straight out of Trump Tower.
As for me, I would love living in the buildings in the Village, which is close to where I grew up but who can afford million dollar houses? Hollywood, Big Law, Wall Street and the Trumps.
8
I've lived in a slum clearance, urban renewal complex built in the 1950's most of my adult life: first in a two-bedroom, one-bath; then a three-bedroom, two-bath, now (and for the last 21 years) in a studio. Harrison and Abramovitz designed this complex. Yes, the interior walls and deckings are too thin, and the bathrooms have barely satisfactory mechanical ventilation (the trick is to leave the bathroom door wide open). But three things make these low-ceilinged boxes work: 1) the principal rooms are close to square; 2) all the windows, except kitchens/dining areas (which are 4' x 4'), are 6' high and 4' wide, except the principal room--the living/dining room--where the window is 7 1/2" wide. Because of the basic layouts, there is flexibility in furniture placement in the living/dining room and all rooms have lots of wall space. In such spaces imagination goes a long way; some have it; some haven't. What is crucial:all apartments from the second to the tops of the six buildings have two exposures. The complex occupies two city blocks, most of the site slopes radically, the open grounds are lush and the views from many apartments are thrilling. So the large windows are the key; one always looks out and the boxes are open.
3
It's not what the outside looks like; it's what you do with the inside. One of the most counterculture couples I knew lived in an ordinary tract house, but the inside reflected their lives perfectly.
13
At least post-wars aren’t full of leaks like all the new condos. They say they don’t build Em like they used to. While post-wars may be cheaper versions of the pre-wars just wait to see what the fancy new condos look like in another 15 years ...
12
This is true. My time renting a condo in a newly built "luxury" building has made me worry about what the neighborhoods that are dominated by this new construction (Williamsburg, Hudson Yards, LIC) are going to look like in a couple of decades. The amount of corners cut, terrible design choices, and cheapness of material is stunning in comparison to the prices people are paying for these.
13
This is Jane Street problem she states “It doesn’t have the patina that I love in prewar buildings.”
She lives in a Post War building
6
I am a native New Yorker. Since I was a little girl, I have fantasized about living in a brownstone, preferably on the Upper West Side. I live in a cookie cutter, and I hate it. I long for moldings, fireplaces, outdoor space - everything and anything that has character. I don't play lotto, I don't have the money, but I decorate in my head and read in my imaginary window seat. Still, I recognize, on a daily basis, how lucky I am to have a roof over my head, especially after so many disasters.
46
I grew up in the NYC projects and dreamed of living in the suburbs. It took nearly 40 years but I made it. I love suburban life and now I can visit NYC as a tourist.
3
That's a very sweet comment. We all live in some form of imagination anyway.
6
Seems totally insane to spend so much, to live so small, in a place so crowded, dirty and noisy.
19
I really like a window in the bathroom and a window in the kitchen. I also really like higher ceilings. They are all worth not having if you get to spend a lot less for your apartment.
15
>> windows in bathrooms and kitchens.
these are bad things? I was never happier than when I had windows in the bathroom and the kitchen!
15
"That’s the reaction many buyers have to postwar apartment buildings, roughly defined as those built after World War II."
-------
"Roughly" defined? Isn't that the "precise" definition?
35
Wow! Have always though pre-war apts were the way to go... not so much anymore.
1
My friends live in a white brick on East 9th St. They combined a two bedroom penthouse with the studio next door. It was a total, lengthy and very expensive gut job. It has a gas fireplace, a large planted terrace and great views, but the ceilings are low and the public hall an ugly claustrophobic horror. For the money, I'll stick to my 300 acres in Fauquier County!
3
I live in the same building. You’re presuming you’d get past the initial co-op interview.
6
I live in an area with 41 co-op six story buildings constructed in the 1950s. Some of the earlier ones are a would be Georgian Revival style, while mine from 1957, is just a plain brick box. When rummaging through the original plans, I discovered the Linden Towers development was intended to be green---not in the environmental sense. but covered with ivy. A neighborhood of these would certainly be eye catching, but ivy proved impractical. Various forms of wildlife took up residence to the annoyance to tenants, and of course, the advent of Local Law 11 facade inspections ruled out ivy. The buildings are all free standing with lawns, and generous 10 X 14 kitchens and sometimes an 11 X 17 space that might pass for a "gallery" on Park Avenue. Two bedroom units are about 1,150 SF.
Our facades are of an orange brick covered with a thin whitish coating giving a pinkish appearance. These are no longer made and repairs have been in a dark red brick that is too obvious. A far worse brick is that which is white and glazed. As in the old roach motels, water checks in, but not out, and freezing pops off the surface. Many of these buildings have had major facade replacements on this account.
6
You are so right about the white brick. Every single brick in my building is in the process of being replaced
4
"More than two-thirds of sales in 1960s buildings over the past year were for less than $1 million."
Yes, I grew up in another era, and in Chicago, where real estate prices are, at least somewhat, still more reasonable than they are in New York. But for most of America, and particularly outside of the major cities, it would still seem odd, to say the least, that "less than" $1 million for a cramped apartment in an unremarkable building is deemed accessible.
Such prices may be the reality for those who either choose or have to live in New York City, but for the rest of the country, even with everything that New York has to offer, paying such prices for what most would deem inadequate housing, regardless of design, would be a compromise too far.
13
Thanks for pointing out to NY Times readers that Manhattan real estate prices are high.
35
While it's true that this publication is often referred to as the nation's "newspaper of record," it is also a local NYC paper. The prices reflect the going rate, particularly in Manhattan for people looking around or considering purchase in this area. Local papers in Detroit or Grand Rapids must surely show the qualities and prices acceptable to people in the upper Midwest.
I lived for short periods of time (as a child and young adult) in NYC. Most things I enjoyed there were on weekends. I later found myself for professional reasons in a provincial city. I live quite well and yet I am better able to accumulate wealth than if I remained in NYC. I can visit NYC for day trips or weekend getaways at will. Moreover, I could stay at luxury hotels (not my style) every weekend cheaper than if I owned "modest" property in NYC.
Its often said that NYC (particularly Manhattan) are for the very rich and very poor. Still, there are ways to enjoy the city without destroying one's bank account.
7
I am a native NYer, have read the NYT Real Estate Section for 25 years, and the exact same thoughts hit me as well. These prices are way out of control, and how many of us can afford it?
6
I lived for 20 years in a mid-rise Art Deco building. It was a charming and had 9' ceilings. The only problem was the apparently thin floors for we could hear our upstairs neighbors' TV late at night and alarm clock going off early in the morning. Sometimes they weren't there to turn it off! Oddly we never heard our next door neighbors so the walls were thick. In addition the living room looked out to the back of a taller apartment building and the area had not that many restaurants to choose from. We found another one we could afford in a 1950s building that is so well run that it almost makes up for its thin walls, which of course we found out only after we'd moved in - now we can hear our neighbors when they raise their voices. You can't have it all unless your pockets are very deep indeed. So we make do. At least the view from the living room is more open than the prior apartment. All in all we consider ourselves lucky to live in a nice building that is steps away from several parks and many small restaurants and music.
Takeaway: 1950s buildings shrank in size for economic reasons and also they have inferior sound insulation than older buildings
10
Any perceived savings will be gone, and more, renovating in New York City and its DOB system.
2
Post-war apartment buildings hurt my eyes, from the outside and the inside. I've never lived in anything newer than a building built in 1909, with high ceilings, fireplaces, pantries, paneling, original tiling, sunlight poring in. I have friends and family who live in post-wars on the East and West Sides, but nothing about their buildings compel me in the least. I'm happy there are buyers who do like them.
10
However you got the money to afford that, I'm guessing it wasn't through a keen grasp of economics.
19
SW: if you can afford that, great. But clearly prices for that kind of cool, old-timey detail and size are in the MILLIONS of dollars -- meaning only for the 0.5% if even that. I'm happy for your good fortune, but regular folks cannot make choices like that -- it's simply not affordable.
4
The real problem with many of these post-war buildings is that they need very expensive rehab of vital systems such as bathroom ventilation, plumbing, furnace, chimney, firestairs, etc. The boards often kick the can down the road and spend any available money on glitzy stuff like a fitness room or gussying up the lobby and mailroom.
I live in one of these post-war high rises in Spuyten Duyvil. It's no fun not having any bathroom ventilation at all (nor is it legal). But our board wants to maximize the sales price of apartments without paying the real dues of maintaining an aging structure. Caveat emptor!
53
I sympathize, however as to retro-engineering bathroom ventilation it’s hard to even imagine how it would be possible, given I assume they must be non-windowed baths as you say “illegal” (I assume a window would qualify as ventilation). As such they are likely not reasonably close to exterior walls to vent out - and cuttings holes in masonry walls is never a really good idea.
5
Yes. Low ceilings and windowless bathrooms are real issues that aren’t easily fixed. Flashy lobbies mean nothing to me and don’t impress many buyers these days.
Despite that, value pricing can solve almost every issue these “mid century” buildings have. They’re generally in great locations and there’s a huge demand for housing throughout NYC.
13
Windowless bathrooms are required to be ventilated at 50 cubic feet per min. Normally, this is accomplished by having a vertical masonry shaft rising to a rooftop exhaust fan.
4