Sophie, When you think upscale in Manhattan the upper eastside immediately comes to mind. In Downtown, Soho is also upscale with excellent shopping and hotels.

There are upscale neighborhoods, upscale blcoks, and areas which are upscale but do not necessarily appear to be so.
Then are expensive hotels in areas that are just trendy.

What are you looking for and why?

And what is your hotel budget?

This is in terms of living not visiting...

Money is not an issue at all. I am looking for upscale neighborhoods that are and look polished not the - "areas which are upscale but do not necessarily appear to be so" type.

Soho is on my mind... Have another area around SoHo?

I would prefer personal experience rather then a television series. The guy who asked what I was looking for has the right idea.

I don't think you have a good understanding of the scene in New York. With a few exceptions there are no areas that are exclusively upscale. You can get a building with $25million condo that is a few doors away from a walkup where apartments rent for $600 a month. Or next door to a jail.

You should narrow your search to one or two neighborhoods, find the blocks you like in those areas, and then look at the individual buildings.

Are you looking to rent, or to buy?

..and if you don't mind, what kind of price range are you looking at? If you care to divulge this, we can give you a few ideas for individual buildings that are fabulous!

But be aware that in some buildings, particularly coops, having the cash is only the first step in the process. You'll have to be interviewed and have to share a ton of personal information, financial and otherwise. There are plenty of very rich and very famous people, as well as some regular folks, who have not been allowed to buy in the building of their dreams even though they had the cash.

Corcoran.com

You need a Realtor for this, not a travel forum. Be prepared to be asked and to provide all your pre-qualifying financials and/or the information needed to determine it will be a cash purchase. Buying real estate is very straight forward in New York City, just show them the money.

Sophie,

I would say that the Upper East Side, in particular the area bounded Fifth Ave and Lexington Avenue, and 60th Street and 86th Street have the more homogenous upscale "look" you are seeking--rows of townhouses, large prewar and postwar apartment buildings, and such. This by no mean limits "upscale" to that area--I just think you will find the general "look" of that area to be what you are describing and seeking.

(And it is precisely why I do not live in that area.)

Lighten up Alice. Asking on a travel forum makes as much sense as asking a television show with real estate professionals. You have gotten some kind answers, but as a first time poster to a travel forum, I find your query suspect. Anyone with the many millions it takes to shop the NYC real estate market simply would not think, how bout a travel forum for some expert advice.

Sorry but I think real estate in New York is anything BUT straightforward if we are talking about expensive coops in the neighborhood described by Ellenem, and in any other elegant coop, for reasons I described above. Having enough money is but one element in the process.

Even condo boards are getting structure these days and one can expect an interview and an intensive grilling about financial status. There is usually a "magic number" of liquid assets required over and above the purchase price of the apartment. For example, a buyer of a $4million coop might be required to have $12million on hand in liquid assets in order to pass the coop board's requirements.

For the uninitiated,or the simply curious, here is a bit of related info:


http://www.brickunderground.com/agent-referral/how-to-buy#getting-approved

And no disrespect to the above posters, but anyone who knows the basics of NYC knows that the Upper East side is the quintessential upscale hood.

Some more dishy details; don't expect that things have changed too much in the buildings mentioned:


http://www.nypost.com/pagesixmag/issues/20080713/Powerful+Co+op+Boards+Gatekeepers+Fifth+Avenue


Helpful advice for aspiring buyers:

http://cooperator.com/articles/1450/1/Top-Dozen-Reasons-for-Co-op-Board-Rejections/Page1.html




and I meant to write "getting stricter," in my post above, not "getting structure!"


But one can always hope!


http://www.ny1.com/content/ny1_living/real_estate/154651/rejection-from-a-co-op-board-can-sometimes-be-reversed

"$25million condo that is a few doors away from a walkup where apartments rent for $600 a month."

$600 a month rental next to a $25 million condo? In Manhattan? Sign me up.

Even condo boards are getting structure these days and one can expect an interview and an intensive grilling about financial status. There is usually a "magic number" of liquid assets required over and above the purchase price of the apartment. For example, a buyer of a $4million coop might be required to have $12million on hand in liquid assets in order to pass the coop board's requirements.

___________________________________________________________

eks: These are all financial concerns, which is exactly what I referenced in a brief statement: show them the money. If you have enough money and you're not Richard Nixon's relative, you will be able to purchase whatever your little heart desires in NYC. Renting a property can actually be much more convoluted a process.

Most expensive neighborhoods in Manhattan; a guide for the OP:

http://www.propertyshark.com/Real-Estate-Reports/2012/05/04/most-expensive-nyc-neighborhoods-in-q1-2012/

I enjoyed the NYPost article.

This was just to gain some info before I move further. So no harm done.

What about the long list of very rich, and often very famous, persons who did not get into their desired coop building? Poor Gloria Vanderbilt is just one of many super-rich who could not buy at River House. Along with Diane Keaton. And Striesand was turned down by 740 Park, along with was Barbara Walters, if I am remembering correctly.

You can have plenty of money, but if you do not have the right kind of dog, or do not fulfill any number of variables, you might have to keep looking. You can be rejected for any number of reasons, and there is a good chance that you will never know just what lead to the rejection.

I think newcomers to the city are often surprised at this....just having the cash MAY not be enough. But of course, it's a good start!

More info for you, Sophie, in case you were considering any of these buildings:


http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/getting-across-the-moat-at-the-top-cooperatives/

eks: That is so 1980's. The real estate bubble has changed all that nonsense. New days, new rules, new money rules these days.

For insight into the subject, and a tour of one of the city's toniest buildings, I highly recommend this title, written by my former college classmate:


http://www.amazon.com/740-Park-Richest-Apartment-Building/dp/0767917448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336329684&sr=1-1


And this is also a good read, with lots of juicy gossip:



http://www.amazon.com/The-Skys-Limit-Property-Manhattan/dp/0316608513

Bowsprit: Sorry but the strictures have not changed much at many NYC coops. You'd barely know there was a recession on in some rarified precincts. I had to jump through a few hoops myself not so long ago, but I guess if a coop accepted me...well, you know that old saw, don't you?


Don't want to immerse myself into an argument with you so I will leave it at that.

Good enough. My kids didn't jump through hoops at all, they increased their offer.

Despite my above proclamation that I was stepping off the podium, I will attempt one more time to put across my point. I'm not sure you are understanding what I am trying to explain.

No doubt the fault lies in my feeble powers of explanation.

Your kids were able to increase their offer. Perhaps they are even among the richest of the one percent. Perhaps they were engaged in a bidding war, which is once again becoming common here. None of that has any bearing on the subject that I am discussing here.

There are times when a prospective (usually coop but possibly condo) buyer has scads of money, and has had his or her offer accepted by the seller. The deposit has been placed in escrow. The prospective buyer then has to "jump through hoops," meaning, but not limited to the following: submit a package to the board: get dolled up in clothing appropriate to the image that the particular building is trying to project, go for a board interview, armed with financial records that go back for years, along with up to a dozen letters of recommendation, and proof that he or she has donated to various charities approved by the board. And sundry other documents. The non-human prospective residents have to be interviewed as well. At some buildings, by the way, it is a cash sale or no sale..no mortgages allowed.

That, along with sundry other various minutae is what I mean by "jumping through hoops." All this takes place after the price has been accepted by the seller. So increasing an offer has no bearing whatsoever. If only it as always as straightforward as that.

The board does not disclose the reason for a rejection. so the rejectee will never know. Lawsuits are not common, but they do occur. (See "Gloria Vanderbilt," above)


There are times when the buyer and seller have an agreement, but the board then nixes the sale because the agreed-upon price is not high enough and the board fears that the sale will bring down the building's numbers, or the price paid per square foot.

Anyway, I linked various articles about the subject above, including at least one from last year. They can give you further relavent enlightenment, and in a fashion better worded that my rushed attempt in this post. Or better yet, your kids might be able to explain, if they have purchased in a coop building with a stringent board. (Obviously the situations I am describing do not apply to each and every coop in Manhattan, and there may even be some that require very little hoop jumping!)

And now can we discuss dinner??

And on that note, and in an attempt at fostering good will, I now present a recipe that has recently been inducted into my repertoire; feel free to improvise; what matters is the quality of both the tuna and the pasta; I used roasted grape tomatoes a few nights ago. Oil cured black olives would work well, as would a dash of melted anchovy.


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/07/tony%E2%80%99s-table-troffie-with-ventresca-tuna/

This thread reminds me of a true story from years ago when I worked for a very wealthy family. The Patriarch died and I was trying to help sell his 5th avenue co-op for what was then an obscene amount of money. I use to joke with the the executors of the estate that there were only about 100 people in the world who could afford the purchase price and only 6 of those would be able to get the board's approval.

In NYC there are expensive apartments and extremely expensive apartments none of which would be considered upscale or in upscale neighborhoods. Upscale begins at asking prices that are wild beyond the dreams of avarice.

Perhaps it is you who don't 'get' that your perspective is a little limited. You're preaching to the choir here. I know about (and understand ) all facets of a cash sale in NYC. I did mention that a cash purchase might be a requirement in my first post.

I wouldn't consider an interview with the board as 'hoop jumping' at all. Boards are simply trying to maintain their own property values. Imagine the impact if properties in their building were in foreclosure! yikes. Careful FINANCIAL screening (it's all about the money, honey) is crucial to any sale in NYC.

My kids were interviewed; they thought it was amusing and gave them an opportunity to see who they'd be living with. One withdrew her offer and her escrow was returned after such a meeting; she decided the board was badly managed and bought elsewhere. The interview was very helpful, actually.

This op is probably not among the ranks of the rich and famous and neither are my kids. You have taken the singular, politic, complicated experience of Gloria Vanderbilt and generalized this to that of a regular Joe with a few extra bucks and a decent credit line. I heard the board gave Gloria a hard time because they thought she was low balling her offer. Again, it all comes down to money, honey.

We don't/didn't jump through hoops; sorry you felt you were made to. Next time, include 'no hoop jumping' as a condition of purchase.

We're eating steak, rare, for dinner. Enjoy your pasta!

Bowsprit, it may not have been an issue in your kids' choice of apartments, but increasing their offer to the seller is simply not relevant to the point eks was putting forth. the board could reject you because of the business you're in, or because they think you'll make too much noise. The fact is, except for housing discrimination (they can't reject you due to your race or religion), they can reject you for any reason at all, whether or not the seller loves the price you've agreed to pay.

And just because you have jumped through those hoops along with Fido, you are not home free; better make sure that the little one keeps his voice down:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/nyregion/03debark.html?pagewanted=all


And if $11 a pack is not enough to get you to quit, there's this:

http://realestateqa.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/second-hand-smoke-from-a-co-op-neighbor/

I can confirm that Eckscrunchy's posts are true.

the board could reject you because of the business you're in, or because they think you'll make too much noise. The fact is, except for housing discrimination (they can't reject you due to your race or religion), they can reject you for any reason at all, whether or not the seller loves the price you've agreed to pay.
___________________________________________________

That's interesting. My kids have assumed these arbitrary reasons for rejection were simply excuses used so laws would not be obviously broken.

Were you not in a position to offer more cash before or after your hoop jumping interview?

I get it. I do. I just don't think it's a bad thing to make sure that everyone can manage within a building's dynamic. There are buildings in NYC where one's kid can scream, one's dog can howl and one can smoke to one's heart's content. If you have enough money, live there.

offer more cash?

the price between the seller and the buyer has nothing to do
with the coop board interview and whether or not
they will be allowing you to buy? Who are you offering
cash to Bowsprit? The seller is selling. So are you suggesting
bribing the coop board?

I know a ex-drummer of a once famous group who lives on 76 Street right off the Park on the Eastside who lives in a tiny apartment and barely scrapes by.

Many movie people, artists, and writers are buying expensive brownstones in Brooklyn.

If you need to live in an upscale neighborhood, try the UES from the Central Park to Park Avnue and hope that the riff-raff do not have rent controlled apartments near there.

the price between the seller and the buyer has nothing to do
with the coop board interview and whether or not
they will be allowing you to buy

________________________________________________

This is a guileless assumption.

So OP says "Lower Manhattan is more my preference" but I see a lot of references to the UES. It sounds like TriBeCa won't be your cup of tea, since it doesn't have an overtly upscale look to it when you stroll the streets. But the West Village might suit. And if you're willing to make a short hop across the East River, tony brownstone Brooklyn awaits in historic Brooklyn Heights. A little farther out, more tony brownstones and the joys of Prospect Park in Park Slope...

I love this board

The most upscale neighborhood in Manhattan is part of the uper east side - specifically Fifth through Park Avenue from the low 60s thruogh the upper70/low 80s. Most buildings are co-ops not rentals - and prices can be staggering - as well as th eentire process of approval needed to be allowed to buy into the building.

What size place are you looking for and how many millions do you have to spend? (And no - that is not hyperbole if you want a truly upscale buidling.)

Another example of the stringency of NYC coop board occurs when share holders purchase second apartments in the building, usually adjacent spaces that will allow expansion of the current apartment.


Even though he or she is an owner, the board may require another set of hoop jumping, including submission of financial records for current and previous years, before approving the purchase of the new space. This is to insure that the shareholder will be able to cover the new monthly maintenance costs, which will increase due to the acquisition of more shares in the building.

And those who decide to undertake renovations, a completely new and detailed set of documents, often called the "renovation package," must be submitted to the board.


The famous Dakota (where Antonio Banderas and Melanie Griffith were rejected by the board) was embroiled in a lawsuit last year, brought by a shareholder who was denied permission to purchase an adjacent apartment:


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyregion/26dakota.html?pagewanted=all




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/nyregion/01appraisal.html

This is to insure that the shareholder will be able to cover the new monthly maintenance costs, which will increase due to the acquisition of more shares in the building.
--------------------------------------------------------

This makes absolute, perfect sense, eks.

Do you suspect the op (or anyone else reading these boards for real estate advice) would be the subject of such close scrutiny for similar issues? That's an unlikely scenario, don't you think?

Let me ask you: Why do you think Antonio and Melanie were rejected by the board? (they don't jump either, I would guess)

We know nothing about the OP - so have no idea if she would qualify for any upscale building - not only financially - but in terms of what the building is looking for in tenants. Obviously Griffith and Banderas were turned down because the board and tenants wanted to be able to maintain their privacy - and not be subject to constant attention from the papparazzi.

But each building has different desires in terms of tenants - some don't want young singles, some want only a certain number of kids - and all have standards about how many people per size of apartment and "compatibility" in the interviews. (This is on top of the financial, general background and criminal/civil legal checks - our board turned down one applicant who wasn't paying his child support - and could potentially involve the co-op in a lawsuit when his ex-wives found and sued him - and our managing agent told state authroities where he was.)

If the OP can provide more info - people canmale sensible recos. (I know she said money wasn't an issue - but I find it often can be when you're talking 3 or 4 million dollars for a basic family apartment.)

So! A really nice neighborhood would be the West Village from like Abingdon Square south, Hiudson St. area, WashingtonSt. Nearby Bleecker St and all those winding streets in that area-like Bedford St. Or I understand that the financial district is up and coming.

Exactly.

If I won the lottery, I would probaby buy something deep in the West Village. The people on the UES are too shiny.

Bowsprit to me, "This is a guileless assumption."

It most certainly is not. you're a bit of a bully, aren't you

The OP said

I am looking for upscale neighborhoods that are and look polished not the - "areas which are upscale but do not necessarily appear to be so" type.

Sounds like the upper east side to me. Wouldn't be my choice - but that seem to be what she wants.

Virtually the same question was just aasked a few minutes ago on AskMetafilter, presumably by the same poster.

I don't think either of these is a troll, though it certainly had the effect, but that someone is trying to gather information for a purpose other than deciding where to buy property. My guess is that that they are trying to find a location/setting for a work of fiction.

It will be interesting to see what heat and flash is raised over there, where the demographic is younger, no offense somewhat hipper, likely to be poorerand more focused on tech than real estate. I'll let you know tomorrow morning what showed up there.

Oh, Lookin_Glass: I said your Assumption was guileless, not that You were guileless! Sorry you felt bullied.

Bowsprit: Something you wrote above piqued my interest.



<My kids were interviewed; they thought it was amusing and gave them an opportunity to see who they'd be living with. One withdrew her offer and her escrow was returned after such a meeting; she decided the board was badly managed and bought elsewhere. The interview was very helpful, actually.>





Your daughter had her bid accepted on a coop, and put down a deposit on the apartment (presumably the 10% of purchase price that is common here).

She then decided, at the board interview, that she did not want to buy the apartment.

How did she manage to have her deposit returned to her by the seller? In most cases, changing her mind so late in the process would mean "leaving the deposit on the table."

I do not mean to stir up more animosity, just curious.

If I remember correctly, bowsprit's favorite is Gold Street.

I do love Gold Street.

eks: Oh yes indeed, she did lose some of her deposit but not a substantial amount. The seller complied with the terms of the contract as did my daughter.

10% down on a co-op is very unusual now. (I got this on my first apartment - more than 15 years ago - but given the financial uncertainties few buidlings will take that little any longer.) Most buildings require 25% - with a mortgage for 75%.

Uppercrust buildings often require 1/3 of the total cost down, at least in NYC.

I understood you the first time bs. I didn't say I felt bullied, I said you were a bit of a bully.

You rather mockingly suggested I made a naive assumption. So when a buyer and seller negotiate the deal for a $15 million coop they make a deal contingent on the coop board. If the coop board denies your application, it has nothing to do with the seller. How is throwing more money at the seller going to better your chances with the coop board? The seller is no longer their concern.

So since I am so naive, how exactly did your kids increasing their offer to the seller help them get accepted into the building. Should you need me to type slower before you mock me for a third time, that can be arranged.

NYT: I did not mean that Bowsprit's daughter put down a deposit of 10% cash for the purchase, which I agree would not be an option for most coops that I am aware of in Manhattan. I assumed that she put 10-15% in escrow at the signing of the contract and was surprised that she would get that money refunded if she chose not to proceed with the deal.
Bow: Thank you for the clarification.


For those less versed in all this detail:
Many advertised listings specify the percentage of financing allowed. For an example, see this listing in the Sutton area, which allows 50% financing:


http://halstead.com/sale/ny/manhattan/midtown-east/410-east-57th-street/coop/6654

You're welcome, eks.

Feel better soon, lg.

Much easier to mock me once again, rather then to explain why my assumptions are 'guiless'

I have no issue being misinformed. I do take issue with being repeatedly mocked.

Perhaps someone else can explain how offering more money to the seller, helps you with the board members?

I know you did not ask me, but I'll venture a guess:

A desperate seller might accept a lowball offer. But the board nixes the buyer because a sale at that low price would decrease the building's average price per share to such a degree that it would have a negative effect on future building sales. Of course, this would presumably happen when the board package is submitted, well before the actual interview.

So maybe a board would make its approval of a buyer contingent on the offering of additional cash (???????????) We need a local real estate agent to weigh in!

As far as I know the board cannot mandate the sale price of an apartment (unless someone is esentially giving it away for $1 or something). If the board is concerned about the potential owners being able to carry the apartment (mortgage and maintenance) long-term - it might help if the buyer increases the size of the downpayment (thus reducing the mortgage costs and making the monthly carrying charge less). Not increasing the price of the apartment overall - but reducing the mortgage and allowing people with a marginal income to become viable purchasers. (The question then is - where and how do they get the money to increase the down payment.)

Thanks for the replies. When I assisted my Mom in buying her coop, she paid cash. Even so, she had to go thru hoops. The process was rather invasive with demands about all her financial records, which I refused as they simply were not relevant. Seems the man that ran the board was a bit of a snoop and in his retirement, but the rest of the board happily voted her in.

Was that a coop in NYC?

The board cannot mandate the sale price, but they can turn down a buyer who does not offer what they feel is a correct price. This can be distressing to a seller, who might be willing to accept a low price in order to close the deal quickly, for whatever reason. (Maybe it's an estate sale and the sellers want to unload the place fast, so as not to be compelled to pay thousands in maintenance each month...just speculating here)

Of course, the board does not have to reveal that the reason for the turn down is too low a price. They don't have to give a reason for rejecting a buyer. Imagine that a buyer endures several rejections and never knows that the reason for these is that his clothes are hideous! (Just joking, but it could be anything....speculation is always rife..)

What I find really invasive is that boards will often ask to pore through the financial records of anyone who plans to live in the apartment, even if he or she is not the buyer.

So if a man goes up before a board, and that man has a live-in girlfriend, chances are good (in some buildings) that she will have to submit tax returns going back a few years, and subject herself to all the related snooping, even though she is not a prospective owner.

Well, look at it this way: If the buyer's live-in girlfriend has mountainous debt, it might be considered that the buyer may help her lower her debt or has even co-signed (or shows the potential and inclination to co-sign) a loan for said live-in debtor. This could have a potentially negative impact on the buyer's financial status.

Again, it's all about the money, whether it's maintaining the right atmosphere or security (or whatever they're trying to maintain) for increased property values.

As an aside: I was surprised to see the large number of short sales and foreclosures available on the West coast of Maui, Hawaii when I checked the Prudential site today.

The reason people choose to live in co-ops is that they want to be able to choose their neighbors. this ranges from the most obvious things - like financial stability and criminal record to less obvious things - like the size of a dog (yes, many buildings have weight limits) - to just getting the feel of what someone will be like as a neighbor.

In most middle class buildings people are turned down only for obvious reasons. Since I've been on my board we have only turned down 2:

A guy who wanted to pay all cash (in the restaurant business) - and we discvovered to be not paying court mandated child support (no, we didn;t want him as a neighbor -besides the potential financial/legal issues of being a co-owner with him)

A well-to-do couple who claimed they wanted a small apartment as a pied a terre - but turned out to be buying it for a 17 year old daughter who was about to start Columbia - who would have lived there with an unnamed roommate (no - we didn't want to have to be their parents - or have all-night parties, but mostly because the parents lied and when they finally came clean the "resident" was more than 40 minutes late for the interview).

And yes, it is routine to want to interview all residents (esp those that might become co-owners) along with the actual purchaser. Perhaps they were asking bout the finances of the girlfriend because 1) his finances were marginal and they wanted to be sure that she was self-supporting, or 2) they wanted to know if she was a really expensive girlfriend that would give him financial problems.

But - that information goes through the management agents and the board/interview committee - it is not public to everyone in the building.

However, the financial background check is stringent - since we need to know not only that the owner can NOW afford to pay the maintenance on top of their other bills, we need to know they have a strong job history, have a career that will allow them to find another job if they lose theirs and that they have significant savings to fall back on if necessary. And this isn't being nosy - it's simply fiscally responsible when considering new co-owners.

What you call 'jumping through hoops', I call good business practice. We have a difference of perspective, not experience.

ditto nytraveler.

If I did not agree in theory, I guess I would not be living in a coop myself! I think many owners would agree that the process (what I referred to as the "hoop jumping") can be a big pain; that does not mean that they refuse to submit to it.

The board requires 6 letters of recommendation. The agent, who has a big stake in someone getting accepted by the board, tells you to make sure that those letters come from people with "good" addresses!

I know. As I said earlier: My kids have assumed these arbitrary reasons for rejection were simply excuses used so laws would not be obviously broken.

Also, a good realtor would make sure the live-in didn't owe child support, the 20 year old was not going to be the real tenant, and the letters all came from those who had the 'good addresses'. Welcome to the reality of NYC home ownership.

I think I'll remain a renter. While my wife is perfectly respectable, I can't imagine any board giving me a pass.

People on the boards of not-for-profits are very important. Just ask them. There are always six people who do all the work and then they become indignant, defensive, officious, and tyrannical when not they are recognized. I am not sure why they expect to be treated otherwise.

Our building may go condo and one reason is the smell test and who would administer it and who would pass it.

Most of the coops in NYC re middle class - not luxury buildings where the tenants are fanatics about their right, quiet etc. And most buildings use the same sort of standards (besides financial and criminal check) as one would with neighbors moving into the house next door. You want people who are respectable, reasonable and won;t be neighborhood PIAs (as in keeping 3 pit bulls in the yard,) etc. Truly weird or extremely eccentric is all people are trying to weed out.

The difference is that when you buy a house in a neighborhood, the HOA doesn't get to pick and choose who moves in. Definitely no access to financial records and personal information.

"I like Fidel Castro, and his beard." -- Bob Dylan

Yes, but in a co-op you're actually living in the same building, sharing public areas and common walls.

And in a coop, you don't own your apartment--you own shares in the corporation and own the entire building together.

Yes. Exactly. Nothing like "as one would with neighbors moving into the house next door."

Sure, you'd want "people who are respectable, reasonable and won;t be neighborhood PIAs (as in keeping 3 pit bulls in the yard,) etc. Truly weird or extremely eccentric is all people are trying to weed out."

But that doesn't happen elsewhere. Even if a neighborhood has an HOA, they don't vet the prospective buyers as the board in a coop does. Not the same at all.

And from today's Times, this most timely story, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/nyregion/co-op-board-rejects-sheik-seeking-two-of-huguette-clarks-homes.html?ref=nyregion, in which Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani, the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar and a member of that country’s royal family, had his offer of 31 million dollars for two co-op apartments on Fifth turned down.

Thrill to the conflicting rumors why!

That is certainly timely, in light of this discussion!

Maybe it was the fact that he has 15 kids and a flotilla of staff, not to mention the two wives!

http://www.observer.com/2012/05/what-was-the-co-op-board-rejection-of-huguette-clark-bid-really-about/

Thanks for the link, FraD.

Yes, but it was an easy sale for her penthouse apartment - http://www.observer.com/2012/04/buyer-strike-copper-vein-hugette-clarks-907-fifth-penthouse-in-contract/

I have been intrigued by Ms. Clarks story for quite some time. That she chose to reside in a hospital and abandon her many homes for the last two decades of her life begs to be explored. For us that are not an heiress, what would be the tab to stay at Beth Isreal for 20 years, in which many years were in fine health.

I think the co-op board denying the buyer with his security force and entourage a nod to her reclusive life.

I never realized that Daddy Warbucks was 67 when she was born.

I wanted her place in CT - http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/06/inside-houses-huguette-clark/38384/

The jewelry, at least some of it, was auctioned, but what happened to the dolls?

Thani, the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar and a member of that country’s royal family, had his offer of 31 million dollars for two co-op apartments on Fifth turned down.

Welcome back Qatar.

Adu - I am not shiny

Sophie - if you're still reading this, Carnegie Hill on the UES is a beautiful, quiet, historic neighborhood.

UPDATE ON THE HUGUETTE CLARK APARTMENT: Sold for $US25.5 million, $1.5 over ask:







http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/big-ticket-sold-for-25-5-million/?ref=nyregion

UPDATE ON THE HUGUETTE CLARK APARTMENT: Sold for $US25.5 million, $1.5 over ask:
__________
I could not get it any cheaper.

And here we were trying to throw a smoke screen on the buyer's identity!

After the redo, can I come visit?

Only if you bring a box of cookies.