Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ja84q62 wrote

Reply to comment by kinky_boots in Midtown Owners Hedge on Costly Office-to-Home Conversions by psychothumbs

Lots of places have done conversions like this.

It’s not a difficult engineering task.

The issue is the buildings are financed/leveraged over the idea of 15-30 year leases and residential leases are 1 year. That changes the economics substantially.

33

karmapuhlease t1_ja8dv44 wrote

It's a very difficult architectural task, depending on the floorplate. Lots of office buildings have way too few windows relative to their surface areas, and people don't want long skinny apartments with just one or two windows.

24

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_ja8iouk wrote

> people don't want long skinny apartments with just one or two windows.

But what if it's....... cheaper

"People don't want" is kind of an insane thing to say about housing in Manhattan. If the place has downsides, make it cheaper, ta-da people want it

16

coffeeshopslut t1_ja8r3r5 wrote

Well you need to change the building code and multiple dwelling code. You need light and air or mechanical ventilation for living areas. Hence the set backs, the courtyards etc of older buildings

6

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_ja8ssy3 wrote

That's all true but not particularly relevant to the diad of comments you've responded to here.

−1

coffeeshopslut t1_ja8ulrd wrote

But it's part of the reason you can't just throw up walls in old offices and call them apartments, even in cheap, poorly laid out form. Or am I missing part of the conversation?

7

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_ja8w909 wrote

One way to solve the light and air requirements is to make long spindly apartments with windows and bedrooms at one end. That is the starting point of the prior comments. Adding "but also, you need to solve the light and air requirements" is misplaced.

2

karmapuhlease t1_ja9crn3 wrote

It might not be financially viable, with either reduced sale prices or longer selling periods (to unload these terrible layout apartments), especially with interest rates being much much higher now (so construction loans are very expensive and mortgages are higher for would-be buyers).

3

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_ja9frlv wrote

It is absolutely financially viable to sell or rent a space that is receiving 0 income otherwise. It's just not what they want.

The places don't need lots of work to turn into apartments. They need lots of work to turn into lots of apartments.

There is a point between "leave it almost as is and rent out as many units as there are existing bathrooms" and an extreme retrofit to maximize the number of units that becomes worth it. The former scenario is still better than getting nothing.

1

blackfire932 t1_ja949nv wrote

The people not wanting them can also apply to the landlords having to rent them at a lower cost and brokers having to show them and make less. Most “new” apartments I have seen have all been “luxury” apartments to cater to these groups. I mean its midtown, a semi desirable area, so the people not wanting them might also be those that demand luxury at the price points the other groups want. So golden fixtures and marble countertops mean nothing if I cant instagram my view from my window.

1

ehsurfskate t1_jaamank wrote

Right and "cheaper" is the issue. The landlord would need to do a ton of work, devalue an overleveraged building, and after everything end up with residential units that are "cheap" so there is no money to be made.

It would probably be better in the long run to tear down the buildings and put up residential in its place. That would be worth the tax subsidies.

1

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_jab68ed wrote

At a certain point "devaluing a building" is better than paying taxes on an empty building that no one can do anything profitable with.

Also at a certain point, doing a small amount of wall work and renting out as many huge residential units as there are bathrooms in the building is better than paying taxes on an empty building that no one else can do anything profitable with.

Like you're talking about the renovations being too expensive... Is that a reason to endlessly hold the property, pay taxes on it, and get nothing forever? No. It's a reason to lower your expectations. It's a reason for your asking price to go down until you're back on the demand curve.

1

ehsurfskate t1_jac4fjp wrote

You make some points but also have the underlying assumption of zero office tenants. With all the cost and devaluation of that work it might even be worth it for the owners to just hold on at 20-30% occupancy and hope the offices gradually fill back up. Plus, if the space is vacant they get tax breaks so the hit is not as bad.

Again, not saying it’s impossible but with a 100 million dollar investment owners will do everything they can to get that back before cutting bait and spending money on a reno.

1

Dantheking94 t1_ja90rli wrote

People don’t want? Are you kidding??? A long skinny apartment is still an apartment, and it’s better than having roommates to some people. I promise you,, those spaces would be rented.

1

firstWWfantasyleague t1_ja9582r wrote

Absolutely. How could you look at all of the absurd and shitty situations and apartments that people currently live in in this city and think they would object to living a decent, newly remodeled apartment in Manhattan just because it has less than ideal natural light?

4

Dantheking94 t1_ja975zn wrote

Agreed!! I think just one room having natural light is enough for most people! It could be the living room! I know for me, my bedroom doesn’t need natural light, I use the really thick light blocking curtains anyway.

3

karmapuhlease t1_ja9cybb wrote

Yes, they would be rented, but all else equal they would be less desirable than units with better floor plans. That means the sale and rental prices would be lower, which might make some of the projects unviable, especially given high interest rates right now.

1

MarquisEXB t1_jaajbas wrote

People don't want = owners can't charge the high rent they'd want to.

So instead of a luxury apartment, with super rich folks, you might only get an expensive apartment with people that can barely afford it. And every building owner thinks they deserve the former.

1

Strawbalicious t1_ja87lz9 wrote

I think the bigger issue more than leases, is building codes. In converting most office buildings into residences, you'd have a lot of rooms and even whole units without any windows on the inside of the building. The city would need to give special exception building permits to let that go through.

23

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ja8iqw9 wrote

You can go for longer units. You can also do what has been done in other parts of the world and have commercial on the interior with its own elevators and walls separating. A doctors office or even retail on the same floor with separate elevators is totally possible.

This kind of stuff is already normal in parts of Asia. The US just has a fixation on residential being over anything else, not on the same level.

23

Dantheking94 t1_ja90hrd wrote

I completely agree! Longer units with maybe kitchens and bathrooms close to the interior and living rooms and bedrooms closer to the windows. They can also use the interior spaces for communal spaces like laundry, day care centers, gyms, small shops and stores etc. if they really wanted to make this work, they would. It takes some creativity and some time.

5

blackfire932 t1_ja93add wrote

This probably requires new permitting laws. I haven’t seen mixed-use floors for commercial and residential. Definitely have seen mixed use where the floor is all commercial or residential, but this would be problematic. At the end of the day zoning laws and associated costs are what limit development more than anything.

4

masahawk t1_ja880fc wrote

This is the Crux of it since every room needs a Windows for ventilation purposes. You can Malena windowless room but man that room will suck.

5

MillardFillmore t1_ja8st41 wrote

> It’s not a difficult engineering task.

No, it very much is difficult and expensive. Consider how many toilets and sinks are on a floor and where they are located in an office building. There's probably a sink in the break room and a row or two of toilets, separated by gender. Now split up the floor plan into 6 apartments. Where do you set up (at least) 5 extra bathrooms and kitchens without completely ripping up the floors, which are probably concrete? Can the building handle that much water and and sewage out?

6

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ja8tfxi wrote

This is done all the time. You just use the walls so you don’t violate the floor plate.

Wall mounted toilets are common in retrofits. They’re so common most Home Depot’s have them in stock. It’s not even a special order kinda thing. I can walk out with one in an hour.

5

enjinnx t1_ja8lqcp wrote

It can be a difficult engineering task. The sewer connection alone will probably require a hydraulic study to ensure the existing city sewer can handle the expected increase in waste from the building.

3

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ja8lzs2 wrote

City sewers used to handle substantially more from industrial uses years ago.

Residential puts a fraction of the stress on water/sewer.

1