Co-op of the Day: 30 Ocean Parkway, #1F
Here’s a neat one. This three bedroom pad in the art deco building at 30 Ocean Parkway is actually like its own little house. The 1,700-square-foot apartment has its own entrance. Given what good shape the prewar apartment is in and its proximity to Prospect Park, we’d say this is looking like a pretty attractive…
Here’s a neat one. This three bedroom pad in the art deco building at 30 Ocean Parkway is actually like its own little house. The 1,700-square-foot apartment has its own entrance. Given what good shape the prewar apartment is in and its proximity to Prospect Park, we’d say this is looking like a pretty attractive buy at the asking price of $549,000. Do you agree?
30 Ocean Parkway, #1F [brooklyn real/NYT] GMAP P*Shark
wouldn’t you get tax deductions on both maintenance and your mortgage? for those looking for this type of pre-war apartment, this seems pretty good. there are, of course, potential maintenance additions in this type of large older buildings, just do as much research as you can.
i don’t really see the first floor thing as a negative at all. how is this different from a house? just get an alarm system. i live in a place with several 1st floor duplex apts, and all but one are owned by people with kids. it’s an advantage i think because it’s easy to get in and out.
also, this area has the potential for major growth in the long run and is generally not overpriced.
Thanks. That was exactly the sense that I had. Kind of a shame, really.
Minmin…Yes. In coops, size does matter. We have about 100 units so are required to have live-in super and 2 FT porters. The building systems are complex, more expensive (elevators??). And we do not get the economies of scale that we would if we had 50% more units. The cheaper per share maintenance is either for very small or very large coops. But then there are the other issues — we do not have a problem if a few owners are behind… and we are really more of a community that if we were larger.
On the “overstaffing” issue. If the buildings were cooped under non-eviction plans, it’s likely that they had a fair number of tenants who stayed on as renters. Presumably that number has gone down (way down…) over the years, but they are guaranteed any and all of the services that a building had when it was cooped.
I’ve thought about that: it seems that buildings that are up to say 8-12 can keep maintenance down (I think it’s the ratio of tax per unit, and the lower operating costs because they have less square footage, staff, etc); larger buildings 80-150 do seem more expensive; though the largest ones get a break because of larger economies of scale. This is anecdotal. Does anyone have evidence?
In my old coop the breakdown was:
Payroll 25%, Energy 13%, Insurance 4%, Taxes 30%, Financial 15%
basically NYC is screwing us all one way or another with these tax increases.
Kens, funny thing with these cost stuff is it appears the more units, the LESS cost efficient. my coop is much bigger than yours hence the much higher maintenance. wtf happened to cost efficiency as one gains critical mass?
we got 12 apts, much smaller
DeLepp, I remember your co-op being a lot smaller in size correct? I can see you having a bit different ratios than I have. My co-op is 90 apartments.