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/ny...pagewanted=all




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/ny...appraisal.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/manhatta...reet/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.)