old story of new building ruining view: a cautionary tale with rules to protect yourself

there goes the view!
Twice this week I have used the Lexington Avenue local station at 28th Street & Park, observing that the parking lot on the southwest corner is boarded up and that the building to the south on Park Avenue South is shrouded in mesh and is also a construction zone. I remember visiting a loft listing nearby a few years ago and asking about the view, a story that leads to today’s Manhattan Loft Guy Cautionary Tale. It is a timely story, at least in the sense that it is scary, if not quite scary enough for Halloween.

starting at the end
I will begin with The Moral Of The Story, then work backwards. The moral is Reaganite simple: when it comes to questions about possible future development that might impact the light or view of a Manhattan loft, Trust But Verify.

We could even shorten the rule, and use all caps: VERIFY.

No one will be surprised at the suggestion that a buyer should not take at face value anything important that a listing agent says about the loft, but here’s my story, followed by Some Rules….

nice view + nice agent = ???
The loft we saw had an angled view south and east over the parking lot and across wide Park Avenue South. A “city” view rather than an iconic view, but it was open and light. Certainly part of the charm of the loft (and, therefore, part of the price) was that open view and light. As one should always do when looking at parking lots, we asked “are there any plans to develop that parking lot?” The answer was something like “none that we know of, but if you look at the FAR for that lot there’s not much that could go there.”

Turns out that my buyers were not interested in the loft for other reasons, so we never considered whether that was the right answer about the parking lot.

I am not going to out the guy, but he remains one of the loft agents in Manhattan, with a lot of listings. And he is a nice guy. So far as I have known, he is honorable. But….

lovely renderings, circa 2005
When I searched on-line this afternoon, having been by that now-busy intersection twice this week, I was a bit mortified to note that Curbed had a story on June 3 about development of this parking lot (how’d I miss that on Curbed?). Worse, the story notes that a work permit had been filed way back in 2005. Much worse, the plans were for a 40-story building on the parking lot and the adjoining lot to the south, where there is (for a little while longer!) an 8-story building.

The listing agent for that loft we visited a few years ago was wrong. Possibly he knew about the planned tower, possibly he didn’t. I’d like to think that he didn’t lie.

I’d also like to think that we’d have found out about the planned development if my buyers had been interested in the loft. This story makes it all but certain that from this day forth I will make sure we find out about any publicly filed plans (or even public discussions) involving any parking lots “of interest”.

FAR = FA Schmar
Let’s assume that the agent did not know about the plans, and that he answered our question truthfully, if inaccurately. In this case, the FAR for that parking lot was just one piece of the puzzle, because (as Curbed notes) the developers bought “mucho air rights along Madison Avenue” and had the 8-story 396 PAS envelope to also work with.

what to do?
The only way I know of to give a buyer confidence about plans is to (a) contact the local Community Board and Council Member and (if no ‘bad news’ there), (b) pay an architect to review the actual building envelope available to the site, including a review of whether air rights nearby have been transferred. That first inquiry is a low-cost way to find out controversial news, but the second inquiry is essential if nothing bad has already turned up. (You might fid a real estate attorney who could do a title and air rights transfer review as an additional part of due diligence, but you’d need an architect to review ‘real’ FAR potential.)

Of course, this is not fool-proof. Your best efforts might miss some subtle evidence of (often subtle) lot assemblage and, of course, things change! A year after moving in, your buyers might discover that A Massive Project is going in as of right, taking away their precious light and/or views. There’s always that risk with parking lots or other under-developed properties. And in the right economic environment (circa 2006), some very aggressive envelopes get pushed.

a blight or a beauty?
In the case of this corner of 28th Street and Park Avenue South, there is an architect news website (nyc-architecture) that claims as of July 13 that the Community Board and City Planning Commission have already signed off on a 40-story tower to contain 439 rental apartments. Curbed dubs it the Fortress of Glassitude, while expressing skepticism that the renderings on line will actually be built.

As rendered, the tower is rather … different from anything else on PAS. Worth a try to me. If it comes out nice, whoever bought that loft we looked at a few years ago will lose am open "city" view but (perhaps) have an interesting slice of a beautiful building across the street.

to recap The Rules about ‘interesting’ parking lots

1. ask the agent (if they know, they have to tell you [legally])
2. ask the Community Board and/or City Council Member (they probably know about firm plans, if big)
3. pay an architect to review potential development envelopes for the site
4. pay an architect or lawyer to look for property and air rights transfers nearby

some related links

• in Manhattan, many views are temporary: July 11, 2006, Now you see it (and pay for it), now you don’t / what are views worth?
• what are the issues if a big building is going up next door (or nearby): March 16, 2010, what about that (not yet) New Construction across the street?

© Sandy Mattingly 2010