Co-op of the Day: 35 Prospect Park West, #14A and 15A

Tybur6:

That second entrance is a housing code requirement: the second floor needs access to the public hall and fire stair.

Two combined apartments?

Not likely. Everything is too well-organized, from functional adjacencies to hierarchies of "public" and "private" spaces.

You have to love that second stair to the kitchen. Originally meant to separate family from the staff, it makes a great "back stair" for today's kids. They can get straight to the cookie jar!

Emery Roth was a master of the apartment building, and this unit shows his touch. My New York place is in one of his 1920s co-ops. I know it's not a brownstone, but in its way, it's just as good.

Posted by: NOP at September 28, 2009 1:32 PM

Minard Lafever:

As to the co-op review process working "super well" for "real folks" that depends on your definition of real folks.

For real folks outside the co-op's social profile it doesn't.

For people of color it doesn't.

And even for rich gays, it sometimes doesn't.

Just read the New York Times to learn about blacks who've been "politely" shown the door; Asians and South Asians bringing suits against co-op boards; and the occasional "social" gay who can't get into Sutton Place.

And discrimination isn't limited to the Upper East Side but can be found in middle-class precincts in Queens. (Again, read the New York Times.)

I have rich friends who've moved to New York from India who've passed on the indignity of appearing in front of another co-op board, opting for a multi-million dollar condominium and paying a 30% premium over the cost of a comparable co-op. (Why do you think condominiums are more expensive than all but the very best co-ops? Because in many cases they're less "exclusive," the transaction direct between buyer and seller -- without intrusive boards -- making them more valuable on the open market.)

Just recently, Indian guests of mine from London were shown the service elevator by the doorman at my Park Avenue building! I let him have it, believe me, but his behavior is so culturally ingrained that he was less upset than bemused by my response. (His look was quizzical, not ashamed, as in, is there really a problem about this?)

Yikes!

Posted by: NOP at September 28, 2009 9:03 PM

Minard,

I'll quote you for your own benefit. And from today's Brownstoner, September 28, 2009 at 1.42 pm in the Slope synagogue thread:

"My goodness, if anyone has been involved in the real estate or architecture business in New York City for longer than ten minutes they know about which are the Jewish buildings and which are the Gentile buildings and which are the buildings with the rich Catholic families, etc etc. Same with private clubs. It's not the sort of thing that is enforced by law, it is enforced by human mores, for better or worse.

Twenty years ago the racial boundaries in Brooklyn were as hard as those in Johanesburg. Apartheid was not a state law but it may as well been.

Are you all that young?"

That's your quote, in its entirety, which sets the general context for my personal experiences, those of my friends and visitors, and those of people confronted by discrimination at New York cooperatives as reported in the Times.

And Nomi:

It's not cooperative boards' right to discriminate by race, gender, religion or sexual orientation in New York City housing, whether it's a condo in Park Slope or a cooperative on Fifth Avenue or a rental unit in Flushing.

It's against the law.

Not that agents won't steer people away from certain buildings to avoid conflicts. That's against the law, too.

Know your rights. You may some day have reason to want to use them. :)

Posted by: NOP at September 29, 2009 12:03 AM

Nomi, of course what I meant to write is that boards, landlords or agents can't discriminate in selling or leasing apartments in NYC, whether coops, condos or rentals.

Good night.

Posted by: NOP at September 29, 2009 1:03 AM