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.
I am looking to buy a Apt. condo but realized most apt. are co-cops owned by greedy developers/corporations.
downside is that you can't sublet or leave it to your family.
Any benefits of owning a co-cop? Why is this allowed. why not have all condos.
I am looking to be living long term.
"Co-ops make up about 75 percent of New York’s real estate market, and they are generally in buildings built before the 1980s. The combination of older buildings and units, fewer amenities and the hassle of board approval mean they tend to be cheaper than condos. However, you’ll usually have to pony up 20 percent or more for a co-op down payment, while with condos you can sometimes get away with less."
I am looking to buy a Apt. condo but realized most apt. are co-cops owned by greedy developers/corporations.
downside is that you can't sublet or leave it to your family.
Any benefits of owning a co-cop? Why is this allowed. why not have all condos.
I am looking to be living long term.
"Co-ops make up about 75 percent of New York’s real estate market, and they are generally in buildings built before the 1980s. The combination of older buildings and units, fewer amenities and the hassle of board approval mean they tend to be cheaper than condos. However, you’ll usually have to pony up 20 percent or more for a co-op down payment, while with condos you can sometimes get away with less."
Co-ops are owned by shareholders who in most all instances are residents of said building. As you already have found out via your research cooperative living means residents form a corporation which technically owns the property. In turn that corporation issues shares to residents which give them certain rights. I can't see how co-ops are any more "greedy" than anyone else out to protect their own interests and investments.
Co-operative living took off in NYC because of the obvious benefits you stated; control over who lives in the building and under what rules.
When large apartment buildings started going up in Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn and Queens their main target demographic was to get wealthy persons out of their mansions and townhouses. If you look at vintage advertisements for UES, UWS, Greenwich Village and other such buildings they offered all sorts of amenities designed to cater to the wealthy. A co-op also assured Mrs. Vanderbilt would not be living in the same building as persons who weren't of her social class.
There are other reasons of course but that pretty much is the main one why co-ops have ruled NYC historically over condos.
The recent condo boom is actually a reaction that began in the 1990's and accelerated in the early 2000's from certain persons who found the whole board approval process intrusive, racist, elitist, and cumbersome. Many of the newly wealthy also didn't like rules requiring payment of all cash (tying up equity) or mostly (ditto). People also didn't like the idea of after paying all that money still being told what you can and cannot do within or in your own apartment or with it.
One thing in condo's favor is that they are easier to get financing for (mortgages) and once a market was established builders have not looked back. You see very few if any new co-op buildings (or rentals) in NYC, but plenty of condos. Builders love them because after the thing is up and units sold they can walk away having made their money.
Other shoe that dropped in the anti co-op war was the move back to private townhouses/brownstones. UES, UWS, Harlem, Park Slope, Clinton Hill, Fort Greene, The Village, East Village, Chelsea.... anywhere people can get their hands on them row houses are being converted back into private homes if they weren't already.
If it is any consolation to you with condo prices at one point out stripping co-ops some boards have heard the message and made changes. However others are quick to point out that during the last recession/economic upheaval co-ops in NYC held their value on average better than condos. Much of this had to do with the strict vetting process of many buildings that makes sure only those with rock solid finances got in.
the real benefit's to co-ops were it was the landlords light at the end of the tunnel after being duped by agreeing to rent stabilization and they ended up being used as political pawns .
taking the building co-op got them off stabilization once an apartment was sold or the original tenant moves out ..
most tenants could not qualify for full mortgages like condo's would require since many lived in rentals because they had limited resources to buy anything . since the buildings in a non eviction plan needed a certain percentage of tenant's to buy, the co-op structure was perfect .
the co-op held part of your mortgage with their bank so your portion was smaller and your bank was on the hook for less and more inclined to loan you money so the conversion could happen . . it worked beautifully as building after building was able to convert and insider tenants were able to purchase shares.
co-op structure is like owning shares in a company and as a shareholder you and the board dictate the rules .
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-17-2016 at 05:00 AM..
This is false. They started out when the plutocrats started moving out of mansions and into apartments. They wanted a way of controlling who was allowed in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctc7
Co-ops started out as a socialist idea. Put that in your Dunhill pipe and smoke it.
Lots of wrong in here. You can leave the unit to a family member, BUT the coop corporation has to approve the transfer to the recipient. And some, probably most, coops allow some subletting, but it's more limited than in condos.
And rentals make up most of the NYC real estate market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycnyc11209
I am looking to buy a Apt. condo but realized most apt. are co-cops owned by greedy developers/corporations.
downside is that you can't sublet or leave it to your family.
Any benefits of owning a co-cop? Why is this allowed. why not have all condos.
I am looking to be living long term.
"Co-ops make up about 75 percent of New York’s real estate market, and they are generally in buildings built before the 1980s. The combination of older buildings and units, fewer amenities and the hassle of board approval mean they tend to be cheaper than condos. However, you’ll usually have to pony up 20 percent or more for a co-op down payment, while with condos you can sometimes get away with less."
Lots of wrong in here. You can leave the unit to a family member, BUT the coop corporation has to approve the transfer to the recipient. And some, probably most, coops allow some subletting, but it's more limited than in condos.
And rentals make up most of the NYC real estate market.
My sister and I inherited our parent's Manhattan co-op apartment. Neither of us wanted to live there so we sold it. Even if you did want to live in an inherited co-op, but the board won't approve you (say, for finances) it is still yours to sell.
As to my blanket statement about co-ops originally being a socialist idea, after (an admittedly quick) review of some info such as here http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/re...-building.html I think the truth is somewhere in the middle between a way to live "co-operatively" (which sort of sounds like socialism--note in the article it was aimed in part at artists) and a way for the wealthy to pick and chose their neighbors. Of course today no one would describe NY co-ops as bastions of socialism.
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.