A comprehensive comparison of pre-war vs post-war vs new construction (real estate market, apartments)

[minnomaboidenapolis]

The NYC real estate market, and especially in the borough of Manhattan, is very unique. I'm trying to evaluate which type of NYC building is actually the best for the purposes of buying (either co-op or condo). I also want to ask people who have lived in each type of building what their overall experience/opinion is to help me with a future search, as well as to help anyone looking right now. If you were to buy in the NYC market, which would you choose?

Pre-war (anything late 1890s- early 1940s):
Pros:
-Beautifully designed, old world charm. From classic 1920s Art Deco to 1900s Art Nouveau to Romanesque revival, pre-war's have sophisticated, classically inspired architecture. They are the embodiment of class and glamour.
-Tall ceilings. Pre-wars have ceiling heights of 9ft at a minimum, often going up to 9'8" or easily over 10ft in the ones that were designed as ultra-luxury. (As someone who is 6'4" in height, this is a very important feature to me)
-Large windows, but not too big like some all-glass new builds.)
-Usually in good, established neighborhoods.
-Sturdy build. The pre-wars were made with high quality materials. They also have thick plaster or brick walls for better sound insulation.
Cons:
-Mostly, but not always, on the expensive side.
-Overwhelmingly co-ops, which can be a negative to some people due to the restrictions this brings
-Outdated apartment layouts: tiny kitchens, tiny bathrooms, every room is separate (this might be a pro to some people)
-They are old. Which means they need more frequent repairs. Apartment renovations are difficult and very costly.
-No central AC. Need window units in summer.
-Loud steam radiators.
-Some may lack elevators or have a tiny, slow elevator.

Post war (mid 1940s- early 1990s)
Pros:
-Function over form. Good apartment layouts more equipped for modern times.
-Quite affordable. Definitely the best "bang for your buck" of the 3
-Also mostly located in established/convenient areas
-Apartments easy to renovate.
-More are condos than pre-war although many are still co-ops.
-Might have deeded underground parking spaces.
Cons:
-Low 8 foot ceilings. By far the biggest downside to post-wars. If you are lucky, some of the 1940s/early 50s building will graciously offer you 8'4" or maybe even 8'6" ceilings. But 60s onward, expect exactly 8'. Some people like low ceilings but most definitely do not.
-Bland designs, no character. Usually boxy exteriors made of red or white brick. Some of the 1970s era buildings are in my view, downright hideous looking.
-Smaller windows (to pair with the low 8' ceilings)

New construction (late 1990s/early 2000s - present day)
Pros:
-A return of 9 feet as the standard ceiling height. Lately the trend in Manhattan new builds has been 10 feet if not even more!
-Open modern layouts. Lots of electrical outlets.
-Large kitchens
-Usually washer/dryer hookups in the unit
-Large windows (though some all-glass builds take this to the extreme)
-Modern HVAC systems, no noisy radiators or window units.
-Many amenities are standard: gyms, roof decks, pools, etc
-Virtually all are condo ownership
Cons:
-Price. By far the most expensive per square foot.
-High commons charges (for the amenities)
-Might be in less established areas farther from transit (i.e. Far West Side, BK waterfront, etc)
-Many units in new builds are quickly rented, which means a lot of transients and no "community"
-Material quality used tends to be cost-cutting, so sometimes you may inadvertently be getting low quality stuff even though it looks good.
-Anecdotally, the building puts most responsibility on the owners so the super does not actually help much

[yodel]

I don't know what's best investment-wise, but I tend to prefer pre-war. My least favorite is post war usually.

This would have been interesting as a poll. I bet if you were able to add the ability to vote, you'd get more responses.

[Gantz]

I'd prefer new construction if you can afford it.
The modern layout and availability of electrical outlets and jacks is a huge deal. *That moment living in an old house when having AC on and microwave at the same time blows a fuse or running an extension cord through the whole room to hoop up your PC, because your gigantic room only comes with 2 electrical outlets*
The elevator is usually faster as well. Sometimes significantly faster and more reliable.

The material quality is actually not bad starting around 2010+ either. The worst is gotta be 1970-2000 period.

[7continents]

Unless you have a very well renovated pre war, the cost to make it "conveniently live-able" is quite high. I lived in a great pre-war but couldn't microwave and make a piece of toast at the same time. New furniture frequently got carried up the stairs as the elevator was tiny. Garbage was left in plain view until garbage day.
I've lived in two new builds and find that it's extremely neighbor dependent. Good neighbors mean thin walls aren't such a big deal for noise and smells. The huge windows are heat magnifiers in the summer and cold sinks in the winter. But there's a separate freight elevator, rooms for garbage, in house handypeople, etc. etc.
I've also learned that these opinions are very lifestyle dependent.