Tasteful friends: 995 Fifth Ave., $36M, 15 rooms, 8360 sq.ft., views over the Met and across Central Park
A full-floor apartment fronting on Fifth Avenue and 81st Street in a Rosario Candela designed building of 1926. At 8360 square feet it has 15 rooms, 6/7 bedrooms, 7 full baths and 2 WCs, and it has had an active listing/selling history in the past 13 years.
Aside from location and views, the best feature is the enfilade of three public rooms fronting on Fifth, and the entrance gallery and adjoining main corridor which have nicer architecture than the rest of the apartment where the rooms seem too low in height and a little...ordinary. Though the rooms have wonderful large windows, every thing else seems a little underscaled. There are two underwhelming fireplaces—both in secondary rooms—and the stretch of three main rooms is short on architectural detail or a sense of progression. Despite a vastness of space, the circulation scheme is slightly odd, organized around a U-shaped corridor and its major spine, a long stretch that that runs parallel to 81st to serve a small hotel of en suite bedrooms and some tricky access to one of two bedrooms buried at the core of the apartment, and then terminates at the back with one of the nicer architectural gestures, a circular juncture at which the corridor becomes the private entrance to a large main bedroom suite.
It's not a bad plan, exactly, it's just not a great plan so much as it's disappointing considering all that is going for the property. It's not so much architecture as a collection of modular rooms.
The low ceilings and some of the improvements made in recent years and those carpets in too many rooms pull the space down. And there's a big fucking kitchen/family room for those who like that sort of thing (and a "washer & dryer in unit" stated in the listing though not shown clearly on the plan.)
Never mind the money, I would struggle to fill all those bedrooms. That they are all more or less the same size and communicate only to the corridor makes it a problem of disconnected en suite bedrooms. There are only so many offices and studies and libraries and sitting rooms before you start down the Candy Spelling path.
The views are superb, and the location, and the lightness from the large windows in four directions, it's just that I wish the architecture were up to the rest.
[Listing link at R1]
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 34 | November 22, 2020 2:01 PM
|
Listing details & floor plan porn
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 1 | November 21, 2020 9:42 AM
|
Why did these NY luxury developments and clients want such low ceilings? If people were moving from townhouses and mansions they had high ceilings.
No other city I know has lux and bourgeois apartments from that era with these hideous low ceilings.
by Anonymous | reply 2 | November 21, 2020 9:53 AM
|
It will do for an oligarch daughter's crash pad, but with no terrace, no basement pool, and a whopping bad feng shui beam above the main bed, it's less than what others have come to expect due to the new options available in the last decade.
by Anonymous | reply 3 | November 21, 2020 9:53 AM
|
The building was designed as a hotel, which explains some of the seemingly odd layout choices; the multiple bedrooms with en suite baths; and the lack of a truly grand unifying scheme, which Candela usually provided.
It's also why the ceiling heights are lower - these were spaces for a short stay, rather than grandly-scaled permanent residences, and the more floors to the relative height of the building, the better.
The Stanhope (for such it was) was one of my favorite hotels in New York. The location opposite the Met provided the reason for most of its clientele to be visiting New York and I had many interesting conversations there. The Waikiki murals in the bar were a hoot.
It was the only hotel on Fifth Avenue north of the Pierre and Plaza, and the sole commercial establishment facing the park of any kind north of the Pierre.
by Anonymous | reply 4 | November 21, 2020 9:57 AM
|
The penthouse ($55 million) has been for sale for a while.
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 5 | November 21, 2020 10:00 AM
|
Thank you for the background. It now makes sense.
by Anonymous | reply 6 | November 21, 2020 10:01 AM
|
You're welcome, R4 - if you have a chance to see the building next door to 993 Fifth Avenue (1935, by Emery Roth) you will see that the latter clearly has much higher ceilings relatively.
However, it is true that ceilings got lower in the 1930s, as the extremely high ceilings of the previous generation were increasingly thought difficult to light, heat and clean and were seen as unfunctional, oppressive and over-scaled. A more "domestic" appearance that was less ornate and took less help from servants was the fashion among even the very wealthy - flaunting your cash was seen as unwise.
I know, amazing, right?
by Anonymous | reply 7 | November 21, 2020 10:09 AM
|
Why would anyone want an apt looking over the Met? It's always got a ton of people in front of it
by Anonymous | reply 8 | November 21, 2020 10:26 AM
|
$36m. I wonder what the soundproofing is like? It’s a lot of cash to put up with noisy neighbors.
by Anonymous | reply 9 | November 21, 2020 10:56 AM
|
So this is a part of the Stanhope building? And the hotel is gone, and now what? I used to like that hotel.
by Anonymous | reply 10 | November 21, 2020 11:04 AM
|
Thanks, R4/R7. I forgot that that was the Stanhope; somehow I always place it farther from the Met in my mind. That explains everything about the disappointing plan and detailing.
by Anonymous | reply 11 | November 21, 2020 11:06 AM
|
The building was designed as a hotel, which explains some of the seemingly odd layout choices; the multiple bedrooms with en suite baths; and the lack of a truly grand unifying scheme, which Candela usually provided.
Yes, that background info was helpful, because the places definitely *looks* like a hotel
by Anonymous | reply 12 | November 21, 2020 11:07 AM
|
Architect designed the flatiron in Brooklyn, which I always admired.
Offsite Linkby Anonymous | reply 13 | November 21, 2020 11:43 AM
|
Let’s be brutally honest here-it’s ghastly.
by Anonymous | reply 14 | November 21, 2020 11:50 AM
|
Yes it's in the sky but the impact in that cavern must be underground bunker, with windows.
by Anonymous | reply 15 | November 21, 2020 11:59 AM
|
Seems to me there's better ways to spend $36 million than to buy a place with no outdoor access, overlooking a roof. Even a very grand roof.
by Anonymous | reply 16 | November 21, 2020 12:01 PM
|
R5 The black flowers print is in both listings.
by Anonymous | reply 17 | November 21, 2020 12:09 PM
|
R10, I loved the hotel - it was the perfect place to meet with friends before or after a visit to the Met.
I was shocked when it was turned into condos, but not surprised when the finished apartments were a hard sell, to a large extent because they don't have the engaging plans and high ceilings and ornate finishes associated with Fifth Avenue.
I've always though it an elegant and understated building nonetheless.
by Anonymous | reply 18 | November 21, 2020 9:48 PM
|
The Met should have bought the building when it was for sale.
by Anonymous | reply 19 | November 21, 2020 9:59 PM
|
Underwhelming - a one word summary. Sadly, the 7' ceilings are a dick wilter.
by Anonymous | reply 20 | November 22, 2020 12:05 AM
|
Could the two smaller bedrooms on the west side be meant for domestic staff, leaving a large master suite and three smaller bedrooms for kids/guests? That wouldn't so excessive.
by Anonymous | reply 21 | November 22, 2020 12:19 AM
|
It's a hike to the subway. Pass!
by Anonymous | reply 22 | November 22, 2020 12:30 AM
|
According to the listing details, the MONTHLY maintenance fee is over $40,000. That's almost half a million each year on just the maintenance fee. I assume that includes this unit's share of the property taxes?
by Anonymous | reply 23 | November 22, 2020 12:33 AM
|
Is a condop board as picky as a co-op board?
by Anonymous | reply 24 | November 22, 2020 12:38 AM
|
WTF is with these tiny kitchens for 36 or 55 million! I have a bigger kitchen in my small Brooklyn studio apt. I would hate living in either place. I love to cook and the kitchen is the most important room to me.
by Anonymous | reply 25 | November 22, 2020 12:45 AM
|
Too noisy. And bit expensive for the location, which may seem great but really is too too.
by Anonymous | reply 26 | November 22, 2020 12:56 AM
|
Looking at the floorplan, do I understand this correctly--one of the service elevators opens into the sitting room of the primary bedroom? So the master of the domain can funnel up his two-bit WHORES without anyone being the wiser?
And I'm sorry, but I don't want to walk that far to the master bedroom--for those prices the master bedroom better come to ME.
by Anonymous | reply 27 | November 22, 2020 2:05 AM
|
Way overpriced. You're paying for an address, not a home. Those Lantern House condos have much more to offer for a lot less money, and several have private terraces and beautiful views. Not to mention there's a hot guy by the pool...
by Anonymous | reply 28 | November 22, 2020 3:10 AM
|
Turn it back into a hotel, an SRO in fact, and house the poor there.
by Anonymous | reply 29 | November 22, 2020 9:51 AM
|
These photos are suspiciously pristine.
by Anonymous | reply 30 | November 22, 2020 1:23 PM
|
The funniest thing about the link at r1 is that toward the bottom of the page, they tell you where the closest subway stations and bus stops are.
by Anonymous | reply 31 | November 22, 2020 1:27 PM
|
I find the interior shots very disappointing. i expected vintage elegance with some mod cons where needed. Most of the rooms are far too modern and lacking taste .
by Anonymous | reply 34 | November 22, 2020 2:01 PM
|