Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BillionTonsHyperbole t1_jdctnxz wrote

Reply to comment by Mistes in Historic Flatiron Building sells for $190 million at auction by Orener

I'm sure it probably warrants at least that much in repairs and upgrades to update and to comply with LPC and other City bodies. Those costs are priced in.

266

Mistes t1_jdcxr8b wrote

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it has $190 million in repairs given the cost of construction and restoration in NYC. Good luck to the winner haha

100

JeffeBezos t1_jdczpby wrote

The article said it needs $100MM in repairs.

110

thetzar t1_jddawj2 wrote

Which is nuts, didn’t they just do a decade of work on it?

29

Yolo_420_69 t1_jddti1z wrote

Im guessing the cost isnt to fix but to re-imagine the interior and space use. IE, it can be a perfectly good office floor but if you want to convert it to condos its going to cost a shit ton of money. Shop front additions, modern office spaces, etc

19

GVas22 t1_jddwj53 wrote

Historic landmark status makes repairs more expensive since they need to preserve a lot of the old building design and materials and you're restricted on the types of renovations that are allowed.

18

solo-ran t1_jddp6x9 wrote

I worked in offices in there from time to time and it seemed fine to me… but I maybe am used to old buildings.

4

UnidentifiedTomato t1_jdg0xz1 wrote

That's definitely bare minimum. I imagine a good investment would be $150mil ballpark

1

BillionTonsHyperbole t1_jdcz5p7 wrote

Also important to remember that owning the building is not the same as owning the land on which it sits.

6

JeffeBezos t1_jdczn11 wrote

Where did you find that this building has a land lease? I haven't seen anything to that nature.

20

BillionTonsHyperbole t1_jdd0p1p wrote

I may have been thinking about the ESB.

2

colampho t1_jdd5lan wrote

Chrysler Building is a famous example of a land-leased iconic building

19

BillionTonsHyperbole t1_jdd5yuv wrote

Cooper Union owns that land, right? I seem to remember something about that being a major source of revenue for them.

9

colampho t1_jddbo8d wrote

Yup! Cooper Union, and it’s quite lucrative (if I’m remembering correctly)

10

STcoleridgeXIX t1_jddkuco wrote

Not lucrative enough. The school was always intended to be 100% free, and it was until 2012. They hope to get back to that by 2030.

9

magnus91 t1_jdf2nih wrote

It is lucrative enough. It was just financial tomfoolery by the board that caused them to have revenue issues.

4

TizonaBlu t1_jddtkya wrote

The thing is, it’s landmarked, thus it’s impossible to do significant development.

−11

BillionTonsHyperbole t1_jde1dix wrote

There aren't many interior landmarks registered with the LPC, and this building is not one of them. Exterior landmarks are required to preserve the facade and appearance; you can still do significant upgrades and modifications to the interior.

6

TizonaBlu t1_jde1ll9 wrote

I literally said none of what you said.

−14

BillionTonsHyperbole t1_jde1zps wrote

> it’s impossible to do significant development.

Changing the building's interior layout, utilities, demising walls, or changing the use represents significant development. You can do these things with LPC designation. You'd apply for a Certificate of No Effect, if I recall from the few times I did this as a project manager in the city.

Edit: The original poster changed their tune and claimed it couldn't be developed into a tower. They'd still be wrong though; see Hearst Tower as an example.

6

TizonaBlu t1_jde29un wrote

Again, I said nothing of what you said. Im aware of what LPC does I’m currently dealing with them for my building. I’m talking about “significant development” meaning turning it into a tower. Not sure why you’re still confused.

−9

LoneStarTallBoi t1_jddzg2o wrote

Even still. If you need 60 mil in repairs you're still at the same price as one of the billionaire's row penthouses. Given the choice, I know what I'm spending my tax return on.

9