Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So then the consensus is that a landlord could, on a whim and legally, evict his tenants, tear down his building and sell the lot to a developer. No threats, no buyouts, no harassment, just "Move within 60 days. Building being torn down" or "Lease will not be renewed at expiration because the building is set for demolition."
Does anyone disagree with this?
Of course ! Completely disagree.
Tenants get lawyers. Look what happened with the Columbia project.
That's always meant to be the check on the system.
"One of the grounds upon which an owner may end a rent regulated
tenancy (rent controlled or rent stabilized) is where the owner intends to
demolish the building. However, in such situations, the owner must first obtain
the approval of The Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR).
The owner is required to file Form RA-54,
"Owner's Application for Order Granting Approval to Refuse Renewal of Lease
and/or to Proceed for Eviction" with DHCR. In New York City, if
the building contains rent controlled tenants, before filing Form RA-54, the
owner must also file with DHCR and serve the rent controlled tenants with Form
RC-50 "Report and Certification To Alter or Demolish Occupied Housing
Accommodations." The RC-50 needs to be filed prior to the submission of plans to
the New York City Department of Buildings."
Thank's, Bugsy.
I was curious whether there were any brakes on the wholesale tearing down the blocks and blocks of tenements. So the main brake is the tedium of endless paperwork and PROCESS an owner must wade through. I see so many potential blocks in my neighborhood and as each falls, away goes a good Thai, Chinese, Indian restaurant that gets replaced by a ground floor Duane Reade, a Starbucks and a Chase branch effectively sterilizing/ruining the entire block for me.
I wish the brakes on the conversion system were stronger, perhaps demanding tenant relocation into comparable digs.
Just walked down Third and noticed the new loft type apartment building at 94th. Am sure that was the former Mrs. Roles Laundry space.
I snooped around that place yesterday, 182 E. 94th, and indeed it looks like a single residence on 5 or 6 entire high ceilinged floors, at least 5K square feet. If anyone can find the price, please post it. My curiosity is killing me. The staging is spectacular from what I could see from the street.
Found it: 5 grand short of $10 million...for 5000 square feet.
I snooped around that place yesterday, 182 E. 94th, and indeed it looks like a single residence on 5 or 6 entire high ceilinged floors, at least 5K square feet. If anyone can find the price, please post it. My curiosity is killing me. The staging is spectacular from what I could see from the street.
Found it: 5 grand short of $10 million...for 5000 square feet.
Geez, isn't $2000 per square foot a little high for Third Avenue although it IS an amazing place?
Ten million to live on the corner of busy Third Avenue where anyone and their mother can stare into your ground floor (large) glass windows? Can see why that place hasn't sold (or has it?). Maybe if the property were between the avenues....
But as I was saying before you see what happened here. Previously there was a single or two story building on that corner lot (Mrs. Roles) and after tearing down the largest that could be built was a similar building. No tower, not even a small high rise.
Thank's, Bugsy. I was curious whether there were any brakes on the wholesale tearing down the blocks and blocks of tenements. So the main brake is the tedium of endless paperwork and PROCESS an owner must wade through. I see so many potential blocks in my neighborhood and as each falls, away goes a good Thai, Chinese, Indian restaurant that gets replaced by a ground floor Duane Reade, a Starbucks and a Chase branch effectively sterilizing/ruining the entire block for me.
I wish the brakes on the conversion system were stronger, perhaps demanding tenant relocation into comparable digs.
First you'd have to find "blocks and blocks" of tenements in Manhattan much less NYC to tear down. Given the costs of land and the likely event many of those buildings are owned by different landlords it would probably cost billions. The only real time this was done in NYC to my knowledge was via Urban Renewal/HUD and even then that process was eminent domain IIRC.
Again it is *VERY* expensive and time consuming to get land in NYC, especially Manhattan but it can be done. As have stated at least twice in this thread the half block of Second Avenue between 81st and 80th is coming down (mostly gone now). But Icon Properties paid dearly for those lots. Something like >$50 million for each building.
Ten million to live on the corner of busy Third Avenue where anyone and their mother can stare into your ground floor (large) glass windows? Can see why that place hasn't sold (or has it?). Maybe if the property were between the avenues....
But as I was saying before you see what happened here. Previously there was a single or two story building on that corner lot (Mrs. Roles) and after tearing down the largest that could be built was a similar building. No tower, not even a small high rise.
I looked at the photos and floor plan. While nice looking, 10 Million for 3rd ave and 94th street!
I looked at the photos and floor plan. While nice looking, 10 Million for 3rd ave and 94th street!
Developer has to make back his money..... *LOL*
There was a reason that lot sat empty for so long. Again without a zoning variance you can only build to the same height as the other buildings (or perhaps slightly above) which only would get you what you see up and down Third Avenue; small four to six story walk-ups with ground floor commercial space. A rental would have worked but could take decades to make back the costs of development and turn a profit. The only way to have put up anything substantial would be to have acquired adjacent lots or two. That is what is going down on 88th Street and Third where that new tower will wrap around an existing building.
There are town houses on avenues in Manhattan including a few in that area right on Lexington. A more traditional design *might* make for an easier sale. Developer likely went with mostly glass for the same reasons everyone else seems to; cheaper and faster to build...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
