Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mistes t1_jdcsg4b wrote

For some reason this is less than I expected for the building - it's a historical and super iconic piece of history.

Sounds like a deal hahaha

626

BillionTonsHyperbole t1_jdctnxz wrote

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

msa1124 t1_jdd8ds1 wrote

$850/sf for a fully vacant office building is an obscene overpayment. Likely that the only economically viable business plan is to convert to condos.

51

d4ng3rz0n3 t1_jddhe14 wrote

Condos in flatiron would sell for a huge premium. I cant imagine a bigger flex for NYC than saying “I live in the Flatiron”

86

thegreatsadclown t1_jddjahx wrote

I used to work there and everyone would lose their minds when I told them

51

z3rohabits t1_jde6mxo wrote

the biggest flex would be I live in a pizza shaped studio

30

TizonaBlu t1_jddufnf wrote

Are you serious? It’s like saying, “I work in ESB”, like ok?

I own a townhouse in Manhattan is a significantly bigger flex. Not to mention Flatiron district is actually not great to live in, and the price reflects it.

−17

vanalla t1_jdek5ea wrote

"I work in ESB" is a dunk on everyone who doesn't live here.

"I own a townhome in UWS/WV/Chelsea is a dunk on everyone who lives here.

10

40characters t1_jddpfe1 wrote

I … kinda … like? … the condos idea?

23

damnatio_memoriae t1_jddx2i2 wrote

the only thing i dont like about it is i wouldnt be able to afford the penthouse.

13

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_jdepjpk wrote

You'll be able to afford one of the units that opens up when the city's wealthier residents do their hermit crab dance up to the flatiron building.

Guy moves into the Flatiron, guy 2 moves into that guy's old place, yaffa yadda yadda, you move into guy 10,000's old place

10

damnatio_memoriae t1_jdevepw wrote

trickle down housing

7

maydaydemise t1_jdfp4y8 wrote

You joke but it's a real thing

Now obviously boutique condo conversions like this have less impact than larger housing developments, but new supply is still a good thing

3

JetmoYo t1_jdggrzo wrote

This presumes the higher end housing is actually going to NYC residents. And maybe Flatiron would. But some of the luxury market is functionally geared to foreign wealth sheltering and money laundering. I think that needs to be factored into NYC's luxury housing model as well.

1

z3rohabits t1_jdgymkt wrote

truth be told I can’t even afford a pent house in Jersey city

1

dbenc t1_jddkkwj wrote

That's 220k sq ft, if converted into 115 condos of approximately 2000 sqft, taking into account 100m of renovations needed (mentioned by another comment) they would have to sell for 2.6m each to break even, probably more like 3-4m each. or more condos of smaller size... might work 🤷

15

_ACompulsiveLiar_ t1_jddl9el wrote

Brand new 2k sq ft in the flatiron building would go for well above 3m. Probably closer to 6m, with ~$3k/sqft. With the risk of construction/condo dev it seems like a reasonable buy.

24

TizonaBlu t1_jddummu wrote

You significantly overestimate the amount of wealthy people who want to live on 23rd, and in a building where tourists are constantly outside taking pictures.

−8

_ACompulsiveLiar_ t1_jdduw1s wrote

No, I don't. Flatiron new developments are going for $2k-$4k/sqft right now and they are having no trouble clearing inventory (flatiron house for ex). Also owning a 5m property is not that selectively "wealthy" for a location as central as 23rd. It's a lot, sure, but there's also a lot of wealthy people in this city

19

theageofnow t1_jdestah wrote

Normally developers like to have sell out be 2x hard and soft costs when underwriting a deal. The numbers don’t always work out that way (overruns, market conditions etc) but that’s the pro forma

3

nonlawyer t1_jddai3c wrote

Could be. Maybe in a few years it will be seen as cheap. Who knows.

Or maybe the buyer is just a big fan of The Boys and wants to pretend to hunt supes

13

TizonaBlu t1_jddu5cz wrote

It’s not gonna be good as a condo. The weird shape of the building significantly limits the shape of the building. Not to mention it’s landmarked. It’s also iconic, meaning there’ll be people taking pictures outside constantly. Lastly, it’s on 23rd, and not exactly luxury real estate.

The actual luxury buildings in the area sit on 22nd and are nice and quiet while still having park view.

6

JonB_ t1_jddy2zx wrote

Converting the floor plans for use as condos could be a little awkward, but I have to think it would be easier than converting the postwar super wide office towers to condos, no?

8

AlienTD5 t1_jded5sr wrote

Yeah for sure. A huge problem with converting most office buildings to residential is that NYC requires a window for every bedroom; shouldn't be an issue for the Flatiron bldg.

7

msa1124 t1_jdey8l2 wrote

Think you’re wrong on most accounts but I guess we’ll see

2

[deleted] t1_jdet1ps wrote

[deleted]

0

TizonaBlu t1_jdettj4 wrote

Uh, you’re literally proving my point? I was referring to both One Madison and MSP Tower, both of which have their entrance on 22nd, a much quieter street, not that you’d know. I’ve literally been on top of both.

Also, please stop spamming me with the same stuff thanks.

1

jles t1_jdfz6zn wrote

Another viable business plan is laundering Russian money.

3

Ok-Strain-9847 t1_jddtok3 wrote

The Flatiron building is one of the most photographed, non-high-rise buildings in NYC.

14

johnla t1_jdd9jgc wrote

First thought was it's a steal when you consider that the high level apartments on billionaire's row went for hundred million range.

7

TizonaBlu t1_jdduw43 wrote

Because it’s literally in the flatiron district. Which is not a highly desired residential neighborhood.

4

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jdeaod9 wrote

Old building with a pretty small floor plate and limited space for modern amenities/utilities that tenants demand.

Any renovations or uses need to preserve it historically.

I think that price is kinda high. Going to be hard to recoup that money unless people pay to look at it from the street.

Even in a hot market it would be tough to find commercial tenants who want to be there. Today? Nobody would pay what would be needed just to cover day to day operations.

4

TizonaBlu t1_jddtgj1 wrote

Yes it’s iconic, it also means it’s landmarked and there’s no way in hell to build anything on the land or modify it much at all. The fact that it’s oddly shaped means it’s difficult to use. I don’t think it’s gonna be much of a revenue generator.

2

TeamMisha t1_jdeetl0 wrote

Given the crash in office retail leasing, personally if I was a business owner I'd look for quality Class A office space in a newer building than stuff in an ancient one with weird angles, $190m could take a long ass time to recoup lol

2

Mistes t1_jdegkco wrote

Hahaha good point - I remember I visited another building shaped like the flatiron in the past and that weird corner fit like maybe a single (expensive) chair.

That being said, I feel like there's some sticking power to the building, whether it becomes a museum of some sort of niche event space.

Here's to hoping this buyer is a super fan of the flat iron and regards like like one might a Van Gogh painting...but which continues to cost additional money each year

1

monkbus t1_jdf98nj wrote

It’s not that cheap. Only about 200k rentable square feet so over $900/rsf.

Wonder if they will try to make it something other than office space. Floors are odd but could lend well to resi

1

Casamance t1_jdgad2e wrote

Yeah I read the title and I was like "That's it?"

1

Geronimobius t1_jdikeu7 wrote

Most in the industry think its a crazy high number for the building. Likely a condo conversion play.

1