Closings Begin at the Heritage
The Heritage, that new condo building in the Slope that sells itself as old school Brooklyn, is seeing its first set of closings. According to Halstead Properties, the building is 70% sold, with six one- and two-bedroom units left in the 21-unit Karl Fisher-designed building, ranging from 940 square feet to 1,330 square feet and…
The Heritage, that new condo building in the Slope that sells itself as old school Brooklyn, is seeing its first set of closings. According to Halstead Properties, the building is 70% sold, with six one- and two-bedroom units left in the 21-unit Karl Fisher-designed building, ranging from 940 square feet to 1,330 square feet and $775,000 to $975,000. For that price, you also get a private balcony, garden, or rooftop cabana. Have any readers closed yet?
Heritage at Park Slope Listings [Halstead] GMAP
Development Watch: The Heritage at Park Slope [Brownstoner]
Well, I will first state that i’m NOT a broker, though I certainly do have a great deal of knowledge of this building, as i’ve just moved into the Heritage with my wife, son and dog. I’m also fairly knowledgeable of OP and development issues, as I am a developer myself, and full disclosure, a friend of the developer of The Heritage.
We moved in this past Sunday, and so far we are very, very happy with the unit we purchased, which is on the 2nd floor, with a rear facing ‘balcony’ nearly the size of my entire apartment (which is listed at 973 s/f, but really measures somewhere in the 900 s/f range). This ‘loss factor’ is quite standard, given current standards of architectural measurement vs. actual.
To take a quick sidebar to explain why the actual interior measurements don’t equal the s/f a buyer pays for – developers are by law permitted to (and fully disclose this in the offering plan) charge you for a percentage of the mechanical space of the building as well as measuring your apartment NOT to the interior walls but rather to the EXTERIOR brick on exterior walls, and 1/2 way to the middle of the space between shared walls between units. This was fully disclosed in the OP, and is standard practice in all new build. What I always tell potential buyers in my buildings – and told myself in this purchase – buy the unit not the S/F.
Now to the common charge debate. My unit, 2F, has the highest (or nearly) CC in the building. My unit (interior) is actually one of the smallest. I am paying MORE than $1,000/month in CC + $143/month in taxes AFTER the abatement. A huge amount for a moderately sized space. In truth i’d have expected my carry to be in the range of about $700/month. However, the reason for my high charges are readily evident on the OP – the developer took a fairly unsophisticated approach to common charge allocation – and simply added my interior space (973) to my outdoor space (820) and came to a number of 1793. He did this for every unit, then divided this number into the projected CC and came to a PSF number – then multiplied it back out again using the same numbers…
Hence larger interior units on higher floors but with smaller balconies end up ‘counting’ less toward common charge allocation than my smaller unit with a huge balcony. This is not standard, as anyone can see that exterior space should be allocated at a lower % of common charge than interior space… Be that as it may – I knew this going in, and made a decision that I was O.K. with the additional carry for the exclusive right to use what amounts to a 2nd floor ‘back-yard’ for my little boy and dog. Many of the Heritage units have large outdoor spaces – hence higher CC when compared w/SF. Marion on the other hand has a very small outdoor space, and commensurately lower CC.
A couple of last points comparing common charges with the unit across the street – 1) The Poster (Benson I think) indicated that the elevators open into the apartments – does this mean there are no hallways?? If so – this would be a perfectly rational reason for a lower CC – hallways require light, A/C, carpeting, upkeep & maintenance (hence payroll).. if you don’t have hallways, of course you’d have much much lower CC… Smart design choice by the developer really… more sellable s/f, lower CC…
Finally – i’m thrilled that the developer of this building was potentially HIGH on carry costs – he’s an honest person giving an honest assessment (yes he’s a friend, but a friend I trust)… rather than a developer who diminishes potential costs to earn a few more bucks in their pocket. What nobody seems to realize is this – CC is NOT a profit center for the developer – it’s a cost center. The higher the CC the lower his sale price. If the posters here say ‘the CC is too high’ well.. i hope you are right – it means my values just went up, and my costs just went down… and the only one who LOSES is the developer. CC is nothing more than the pass-along of things like electric and gas charges for the upkeep of areas used by the community of the condo.
Marion and any other future owners I look forward to seeing you in our new building.
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).
I think the point is, is that if you are going to pull comps, they need to be relatively equal.
I’ve walked by this street many times, and I can say that I’d much rather live in the Heritage than the building across the street (or any other new build in PS for that matter)
So if the common charges are a little more, it would make sense.
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.
Just to be clear here…
I don’t care much for either building. I don’t know much about the Heritage except for the wesbite (which means nothing) or your building Benson.
Seems to me, Benson that your interest in touting your own building, while trying to trash this one is more about self interest than anything Crimson said. I never for one second thought he/she was a broker or had a vested interest in the building.
You pulling comps from your own building to show us how great your place is seems like more of an advertisement than anything he said.
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.
Benson
Why is it whenever someone says counter to knee jerk comments here Brownstoner/Curbed, the common defense is that ‘you must be a broker’? As if logical arguments cannot exist without secret motivation.
Regarding bricks, that was hyperbole. But yes construction material can affect CC. How well they insulate? How much to replace? Who can replace them? Daily maintenance cost (if any)?
Offering plan is a good start because it states where numbers for the CC is derived from. It states the expected utilities, the labor cost, materials, etc. It defines (legally I might add) the common spaces, thus your share of maintaining these areas.
Saying OP is not relevant is shocking! It shows ignorance outright saying otherwise. Even if your condo budget changes after the first year, the OP still states legalities that is a huge portion of your next budget.
Yes you included square feet but did not include exterior space. What amenities was considered- a doorman and a gym? You disregarded so much more – like live in super, payment for housing of super, shared outdoor space, lobby area, elevators, refrigerated delivery storage, other labor, etc. This may or may not apply – but that is my point. We don’t know! You picked 1 to 3 things and came to a conclusion. If you know anything about condo budget it literally list a dozen major categories with sublist dozens more under that. Hell a gym does not even one of the biggest contributor to a CC in a luxury condo. Labor (salary, taxes and benefits), electricity, heat, water, sewer, insurance and daily supplies are.
Selling a place? Must be the pedestrian logic that if you are against me you must be trying to sell me something. Unless you can come up where CC budget are derived I suggest stop accusing me of some ulterior motive.
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.