The photos of the apartment have an odd feel. Reminds me of my parents' middle class home in the suburbs built in 1932 which they bought in 1961. The furnishings, carpeting, finishing, paint job, seem sturdy and of that early 1960s era, now old and blah. Not luxurious or expensive. The expansive view in the living and dining rooms across the river, being across from a park, the large rooms, the light and large windows is what this apartment is about.
No improvements, terrace, balcony, additional floors, loft space, roof deck, gym, sauna, pool...? Meh!
You didn't say if there were parking for a limo and two Beemers.
2
RIP - At the end of the game, the king queen and pawns all go into the same box.
4
I wish this paper would do something similar to the Wall Street Journal's "House of the Day". I enjoy seeing 12-15 pictures of a house on the market as well as the readers' comments. I wonder if the listing agents warn the sellers that the commenters are frequently a brutal bunch, myself included, but that is not the norm. Most commenters are positive and even offer suggestions -- "get rid of the stuff" and "too many antlers".
Funny how the decorator forgot to do anything with the ceilings.
The clock squeezed in between a column and door frame in the gallery is not the best design. I never understood why people cannot enjoy uncluttered space without the useless furniture on which no one sits.
4
No need to do anything with the ceilings. They are perfectly fine without any adornment and they reflect light better this way.
6
This apartment is stunning. Period.
23
Stunning!
9
It is a great apartment but one has to like the out-of-the-way quiet location and want to pay a stiff maintenance every month. Many could think of more practical things to do with $10,000 per month.
8
And thats just the maintenance! The mortgage would be that much or more as well.....
1
Quiet location with views, incredible space, and beautiful. Someone who does not have a concern about the $$$ will buy it and before that the White Glove Board will fully vet them. Not even in my dreams but I enjoy the glimpse into it.
3
You don't get great views of the river and park without being out-of-way and most people would pay good money for some quietness in NYC. If you can afford an apartment with an asking price of almost 9 million dollars, you don't fret about the monthly maintenance fees either. Actually, it is good value considering the size (5,250 square feet approx) -- in other more "trendy" neighborhood at newly-built "luxury" buildings, the asking price would be at least doubled.
4
Magnificent. Just what i would expect of a Cravath partner. If it was a great investment also, so what, It reflects her judgement and commitment to quality. I have no knowledge of her deceased spouse and so I cannot comment if he also deserves credit. From what I know of Cravath partners, I expect he does. Thanks.
1
Commercial Intermission?
2
What a lovely apartment--so gracious. It must have been a wonderful space to have grown up in.
26
So they bought the apartment in 1972 for under $200,000. A 30 year mortgage at 8% would have cost them $328,310 in interest.
"Not too much has been done to the apartment since the Beshars settled in 47 years ago . . . "
And today, 47 years later, their estate is asking $8,950,000, an increase of $8,750,000. That's 44.75 times what the long-time owners paid for it.
Suppose that the property taxes and common charges of today, at $10,485 per month, were unchanged in 47 years. $10,485/month is $125,820/year. 47 years at $125,820 per year is $5,913,540. Let's say that half of that, $2,956,770, was paid to the city in taxes on the apartment and its share of the value of the land under the 17-story building, and the other half went for caring for the building's exterior and common spaces, and providing services to the owners of the 34 apartments. One half helped pay for NYC's schools, emergency services, transportation infrastructure and services, libraries, parks, etc.
The bls.gov inflation calculator says $200,000 in January 1970 would be worth $1,317,413 today.
Who produced that increase in value? Was it magically created from thin air? Or on the backs of people who worked for low wages and paid taxes on their wages and purchases to provide those city services?
www.propertyshark.com/mason/Property/27389/120-E-End-Ave-New-York-NY-10028/ says the entire building's current tax bill is just $1,884,019.
Does it seem to you that a higher tax makes sense?
43
Bravo -- a brilliant outside the box perspective on the absurdity of inflated real estate prices. Ability to pay does not validate price.
16
Let us not forget the bad old days of the 1970s when people were moving out of NYC for fear of crime and decline of municipal services. I fled the literally burning South Bronx in 1976 and purchased a 2 bedroom, 1.5 bath, co-op in Flushing for $9,200. By 1986, it was selling for $92,000. That declined to around $35k a few years after that. Recently, there has been a rapid increase to perhaps $380k. Co-op ownership can be a bumpy ride, but some have been lucky to purchase at the bottom of the market.
5
No. But lower taxes do.
4
I once went to a party there. It was a lovely apartment with a lovely family living in it.
17
What a gorgeous space! I greatly fear that whomever buys it, will decide to show just how clever and hip they are and will turn it into a contemporary horror. It seems to happen more often than not, these days.
53
I wonder if any natives can enlighten a mid-continent dweller as to what the owners of such a magnificent co-op get for their annual maintenance expense of $125,000? I realize they are subject to arcane co-op rules and shared costs of unionized workers (3 people to change that light fixture) and I suppose some goes to taxes. As someone who wishes he lived there, but who is not among the 1%, I wonder often about the feasibility of actually making a move. I know i am in the category of "If you have to ask the price..."
14
Sorry to disappoint: Property taxes -- in co-ops they're included in the monthly fee, which takes square footage into account. Also, buildings like this take a tremendous amount of skilled maintenance. Finally, I'm sure there's a 24 hour desk and doorman, as well as common areas that need to be maintained in style. In this case, I believe there are even grounds to be maintained. Click on the link in the last paragraph and take a look.
22
As Katherine points out, in co-ops monthly "maintenance" includes a share of property taxes -- and Manhattan real estate is taxed at a much higher rate than property in the outer boroughs. If, instead of buying that house in 1972, they had bought a house with comparable square feet in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn or Forest Hills, Queens, the annual property taxes today would probably be more like $10,000 (that's ANNUAL), with maintenance whatever it cost them to keep it up.
8
I don't know what makes you think the fact that the building employees may be unionized means that three of them are required to change a light bulb. However, as a former "native" of Manhattan, I can tell you that the union wages that the excellent folks who worked in my building earned enabled then to earn a solid middle class income and take care of their families.
54