Manhattan, Anyone?

New York City is known for its dense, and pricey living. After visiting several spots, here are the notes I took:

In terms of affordability for Manhattan, two good spots are:

432W52 in Hell's Kitchen

Used to be one of the cheapest locations in Manhattan (not anymore). What was going for $600,000 or $700,000 a year back is now over $1,000,000. Go figure. But anyways, still noteworthy. I would go for the garden residence currently available. They are very rare.

I think the reason that I am attracted to this buiilding specifically is that it is simple, but elegant, and not overly glitzy like its more upscale 135W52 counterpart. P.S. If you like extravagant living, that's the place to go. Your visitors will have a nice shock when they enter the building. :)

15 William

As in the case of 432W52, what was $600,000 and $700,000 the last time I checked is now $1.1 million. Some went down for $500,000 before I visited originally. Kaching!

Apparently, the building was nominated as the most ugly condominium building in the past. It looks like a whole bunch of yellow sticky notes got sprayed onto the building, making it look like a vertical chess board. I don't honestly think it's ugly. In fact, I think it's unique. Living here has slightly more amenities than 432W52, including an outdoor pool basketball court, which are extremely rare for condominiums in Manhattan. The rooftop deck is very nice, with large indoor and outdoor areas. It would be nice for treating visitors.

The location is also pretty good. It is nowhere near Midtown, Times Square, and Central Park, but it is in the Financial District, so if you work at Wall Street, this is one of the most convenient places to live. Further, this is one of the cheapest places to live if you are looking for living high up above the streets.

The two developments described above are my top two primarily because they are cheap, but practical in terms of new condominiums. 15 William is the better of the two for me.

Much to the shock of readers (especially for those who crave 3-car wide garages or more...), getting room for your car is nearly impossible in Manhattan. True, you could pay $500,000 or even $1,000,000 for a spot in your condominium building, but would you rather spend that much for a garage or for a larger condominium? Other than for bragging rights or long-distance traveling (something which will make me sad if I have to lose that), a garage is not that important. If you like long-distance traveling, do not buy in Manhattan.

In terms of feeling at home like at California, a good development is:

River & Warren

Location is a definite check. Waterfront with views of national volleyball games and surrounded by parks. Check. Right next to one of the best high schools in the United States, Stuyvesant. Check.

Unlike nearly all other small condominiums, these residences actually have decent kitchens, even the little guys. While other developments like 432W52 have only kitchenettes, even for the garden residences, and have common rooms the size of a den here in Southern California to conserve room, River and Warren focuses on the common rooms whilst still maintaining efficiency to a degree. Maybe not perfect and no islands except for the larger residences, but the floorplans are some of the best I have seen so far for Manhattan. Well done!

The smaller residences might have already sold out by now, but larger residences are still available. I would still recommend this development because of its superb location. It's not in nearby Tribeca, but it's still great. If it was in Tribeca, prices could have quadrupled. The smaller residences would not have had waterfront views. Instead, they would have faced a park. Only the larger residences (or slightly smaller ones with hefty premiums) would have carried a river view.

The first part of my posts will conclude with a discussion of the tallest condominium buildings in Manhattan, and also the most pricey.

One 57 & 432 Park Avenue

One 57 has lost the title of being the tallest building to its contender, but it's designed better than it for sure. It took a lot more time to plan this one than 432 Park Avenue, and thus it is more unique. Unlike the traditional boxey condominium with plain boxy windows looking out, One 57 has unique window designs and a clever top piece that stands out compared to others. It feels more luxurious than its counterpart and has parking. Shockingly, 432 Park Avenue doesn't. For being the tallest building in Manhattan zoned for residential usage, I would have expected it to have something of that sorts. Bummer. In 432 Park Avenue's rush to beat One 57, construction was also haphazard. One time, a beam actually fell down from a high floor all the way down to ground floor. That's dangerous! Construction was temporarily suspended, but it resumed quickly (obviously). Anyways, 432 Park Avenue will not shine in the moonlight for long. A new building, the so-called Nordstrom Tower, will crush 432 Park Avenue in being the tallest building in Manhattan. While 432 Park Avenue is barely taller than One 57, the Nordstrom Tower will become the tallest building, non-residential or not, in all of the United States by far. Nicknamed as grazing the stratosphere, it is now apparently called the Central Park Tower. I preferred the old name better for some reason, even though I don't like Nordstrom...

Pricing is beyond exorbitant for these two developments. The cheapest condominium for general purchasers in both developments is going for about $3 million the last time I checked. That's ridiculous! I would rather buy a condominium in a shorter building, but on a much higher floor. 432 Park Avenue is trying to brag on their website by first asking you what language you speak. Come on! It's not like your record is going to last forever! The cheapest residences are on the 28th and 29th floors, but those are zoned for maids and servants only (ridiculous). And those prices are bad enough (I believe the starting price is $1.5 million). Ouch! I'm not even going to mention the top prices for each development. They make me cough.

There is another development planned that is in between 432 Park Avenue and the Central Park Tower in terms of height. I was looking into it in terms of affordability, but I recoiled because all residences are full-floor! Definitely no-no in terms of affordability, then. There was another tower I visited that boasted Gothic architecture, and pricing was absurd (something like $3,000/sf). If you want classical or modern architecture, there will always be something you like. A notable example of classical architecture would be Shigeru Ban's Cast Iron House. Prices start from $5,000,000, but it is a nice facade overall. Toll Brothers is also known for developing tall classical buildings in Manhattan.

Going for a walk in Central Park was also nice. I enjoyed the water (even though Manhattan itself is surrounded by rivers) and museums, such as the Guggenheim Museum. The park was a relief from the dense nightmare elsewhere. The Getty and Guggenheim Museums, together, form the basis of some of my architectural inspirations over the years. By Guggenheim Museums, I mean the one in New York AND the one in Bilbao. I, in fact, like the one in Bilbao better than the one in New York. The one in Venice does not have a particularly nice exterior facade in my opinion. It's traditional, but definitely not modern except for the sculpture that stands awkwardly in front of it.

Buying land in Manhattan is rare and expensive, in capital letters. Many local experts have noted the soaring land prices as an indication of economic recovery. Sure you could buy a 4,000 or 5,000 square foot small plot in Harlem for less than $1 million, but I wouldn't for obvious reasons. If you want Manhattan, expect $10,000,000 at minimum for small land. This is one main reason why no large-scale projects could be planned for years. Even if you buy land for that crazy price, it would look strange to build a normal home there. A yard would not be a yard... all the tall towers surrounding you would be looking down on you.

There is occassionally land for cheaper, such as $4,000,000 or $5,000,000, but I checked one time and an old map of New York labeled the neighborhood it was in as "Ghetto". Super ouch. Maybe it isn't now (because of it being in Manhattan), but it sure hurts the land's reputation. If you are looking for homes with a low number of floors (mid-rise), 4- or 5- floors seems to be the limit, and you are looking at really old homes with high price tags. A new development coined the "Rat Tower" because it used to be infested with them that is 7-stories was refurbished and sold as new condominiums, but it was not aesthetically pleasing at all and it wasn't in the best location. No thank you. It doesn't hold any records anyway. Just live in 15 William or something else. Finding a single-family residence in Manhattan is also extremely rare. There do exist some unicorns, but some go for $100,000,000! So it's your choice: penthouse or that. For that much, I would go for the penthouse with the views.

After visiting Manhattan, I feel refreshed. I used to like high-rises, but my ideas have been somewhat spoiled by my visits. Do I want to live there? Probably not. I like Southern California (except for the potential earthquakes which I can't stand like a cat placed in water). Even Playa Vista is a bit too dense for me now...

One thing I have learned from this visit, and not from visiting the humongous homes in Crystal Cove, is the idea of living in small areas, but living happily. This is one of the primary reasons why I don't like living in large homes, they are not only impractical, lonely, and in some instances capable of being lost in (you might be laughing but it's serious), but they just aren't comfortable. And this wraps up my conclusion. I'll continue my discussion later on with homes outside of Manhattan, but in New York. I'll see you later.

NOTE: I tend to try balancing my posts: half about Irvine, half about non-Irvine. Thus, discussions are sometimes split up, as in the case of Exposition for the Great Park Post and this post.