Closings Begin at the Heritage

The common charges shown on the broker's web page seem incredibly high. They can't be right.

Posted by: benson at August 5, 2008 12:27 PM

Are folks doing their math here?

The top listing on the Heritage broker's site shows an (in-contract) apartment of approximately 1200 square feet with common charges of more than $900/month.

Here is a listing for a larger apartment (1350 square feet of interior space) right across the street. This condo development is 3 years old, and has more amentities than the Heritage:

http://www.warrenlewis.com/cgi-bin/re/re_show.pl?re_command=show&ID=6455

As you can see, the common charges are less than $500/month.

Posted by: benson at August 5, 2008 1:36 PM

11217;

I'll respect your taste as to which apartment you prefer, and that would be reflected in the price you would offer for the place.

We're talking about the common charges, however, and those relate to the operation of the building and its amentities.

The condo I referred to (City View Gardens) has a parking garage, a GYM, and a huge interior common courtyard, as well as private rooftop areas. It also has elevators that open right into the partments. Hence, in comparing the building operations and amenities, these two developments should have similiar common charges.

Again, remember, I'm not talking about whaich is better from an aesthetic or architectual POV. The common charges should only reflect what it takes to run the building.

Posted by: benson at August 5, 2008 1:50 PM

Crimson;

Get a grip. Are you the broker for this place??

Some of your points are way off. The quality of the brick has nothing to do with the CC. Tell me how the quality of the bricks affects the cost of running a building.

You make hypothetical points, as if instructing us on how to buy a condo. You don't actually address the comparison at hand. If you look at the discussion, folks did make attempts to compare apples to apples, in terms of square feet, buidling type and amenities.

By the way, of what use is the offering plan in considering the CC of a 3 year old condo? I live in a condo that is 4 years old, and our operating budget bears no resemblnce to that in the offering plan. Sponsors tend to underestimate the budget - they are trying to sell a product, you know.

Take a deep breadth. I'm sure you'll sell out the place, despite the criticsm on this post.

Posted by: benson at August 5, 2008 7:14 PM

Crimson;

The reason I suspect that you are a broker is your opening line: "Stop the Comparisons". What are you suggesting, that we make this an inefficient market? Only someone who has some type of interest in the matter would make such a statement.

For your information, I happen to live in a development across the street from The Heritage, and I know both it and City View Gardens well. They are similiar-type buildings with a similiar scale, and similiar features and amenities. It is preposterous to suggest that one might have a live-in super, as both developments are of a small scale and could never afford a live-in super. All the developments around here have part-time, visiting supers. Nobody was comparing a Manhattan hi-rise to The Heritage. You seem to be trying to obfuscate, which is another reason I suspect that you have an interest in The Heritage.

My point regarding the OP was the operating budget shown, from which the CC's are calculated. As anybody who has bought a condo knows, the OP makes pains to acknowledge that the budget and resultant CC's shown are just an estimation for the first year of operation. The estimation shown is NOT legally binding. Moreover, as I stated above, most sponsors tend to lowball the operating budget estimate, to make the building more sellable.I think what you are referring to is the percentage of common interest of each unit. This IS legally binding, as is contained in the declaration of the condominium.

Chill out.

Posted by: benson at August 5, 2008 8:57 PM

11217;

I am not selling, but I was upfront about where I was coming from, that is, that I live accross the street from The Heritage (i.e transparent). I cannot say the same for Crimson. You do not suspect he or she is a broker, but I still do. Anyone who tries to state that comps should not be made has some type of interest in the matter.

Also, I was not trashing the Heritage. My only comment, which I stand by, is that the common charges seem quite high for a new building of that type. I see that some folks have posted who are buyers, and they feel that they are getting their money's worth. Bully for them.

Posted by: benson at August 5, 2008 9:41 PM

11217;

This conversation is taking on an "Alice in Wonderland" quality. First you defend a guy (or gal) who makes a blanket statement: "Stop the Comparisons", and now you're telling me that I should have made a more apt comparison, since the Heritage is a higher-grade building (in terms of architecture and/or construction quality).

This latter comment makes me wonder if you understand how common charges are calculated, and their purpose. As I mentioned to you above, they have very little to do with the aesthetics of the building. It is not a "price" you pay for a better building. Your judgement (and anyone else's) about the value of the building is reflected in the price, not the common charges. The common charges are derived by calculating what it takes to run the building, and that in turn depends upon the building structure, the services and amentities offered, and the labor and material costs in the area.

Frankly, I can think of no more apt comparison for the Heritage than the nearby developments: Park Slope Estates, Park Slope Gardens and City View Gardens. They all have the same type of building structure: 4 or 5 story townhouse-style condos with elevator service, part-time supers, no doorman, individual HVAC units and a few added amentities, be they a gym or a playroom. Given that they are across the street from each other, there is no differential in labor or material costs.

Let me throw the ball in your court: if you do not believe that my comparison was apt, please point to a better one (same goes for you, Crimson).

Posted by: benson at August 6, 2008 10:00 AM