There's a new listing at Eastern Consolidated for 202 First Ave., the story-story building that houses No Relation between East 12th Street and East 13th Street.A few details from the listing:
Of the 20 residential units, 5 apartments (25%) are Rent Stabilized with an average monthly rent of $1,016, which represents over a 50% discount to current market rates. The remaining fifteen (15) one, two, and three bedroom apartments (75%) are free market with an average monthly rent of $2,903. 8 of the units have a washer and dryer and 3 units are duplexed with rooftop terraces. In total, the 20 occupied apartments are renting at well below market rates with an overall average monthly rent of $2,431, offering tremendous upside to new ownership.
In summary, the in-place rents at the Property are substantially below market and the building is in excellent physical condition. It has been very well maintained, evidenced by its continuous 100% occupancy. Located in one of Manhattan’s most desirable submarkets, the Property offers an opportunity for investors to reposition the building and capture the significant upside potential.
The listing notes that No Relation "recently signed a new 5-year lease with no options, 3% increases per annum."
Asking price: $13 million.
7 comments:
All my clothes are from "Monk" or "No Relation".
"...apartments are renting at well below market rates...offering tremendous upside to new ownership" -- predatory equity. I wonder if the 5 stabilized tenants can take this ad to court as evidence when the "new ownership" initiates eviction proceedings. There's got to be some law against advertising opportunities to subvert the law. "Gun for sale, to kill the innocent!" If you bought it for that reason, haven't you implicated a motive?
No better way to start your day than to find out the building you live in is for sale.
isn't this the building where kamenstein's first relocated from stuyvesant street/bowery and before their move to east 14th street?
and if i remember there was a rent strike here about 20 years ago.
Rob, why/how would/could you sue the new owners for the wording of the sellers broker? That is just the tip of how 'off' you are
@3:41 -- Who said anything about suing? Actually, I was not seriously suggesting a strategy to defend a tenant from an eviction proceeding, but obliquely pointing out what the ad was implying: this building is a good deal if the buyer evicts those five stabilized tenants. In court it would be impossible to establish that the buyer bought the building for that purpose, regardless of the ad, so bringing the ad is not a serious strategy. I think oblique discourse doesn't come off sometimes in writing. I was trying to register disgust with the public display of predatory equity. Here's a link http://www.tenantstogether.org/section.php?id=135
To all those 'Anonymous' posters: Why not post under a pseudonym? It's much easier to respond to.
Post a Comment