From the NY Observer:
"In a house, maybe in the suburbs, one bathroom on the top floor is sufficient for all bedrooms," broker Purita Young said Sunday. "But not in the city."
She stood in the living room of a condo at 62 West 62nd Street, clutching a small water bottle and pointing out the apartment's amenities. At $1.8 million and 1,380 square feet, it contains two bedrooms and three full bathrooms.
Ms. Young wanted to talk about the apartment's windowed kitchen. When pressed about the disproportionate number of bathrooms, she said it was industry standard. "Three bathrooms because it's three bedrooms." But the bedrooms number only two.
She explained that the apartment used to contain three bedrooms, but the current owners tore down a wall to expand their living room. The future occupant, she assumed, would convert back to three. Even so, the number of bathrooms seems unusually high.
"Not in this area," Ms. Young said, pausing before revising that statement. "That's what makes this building a little bit in the upper class."
At five open houses Sunday, all of which had more bathrooms than bedrooms, the story was consistent: One can never have too many loos.
2 comments:
Doesn't seem as weird as it seems a waste of precious space, to me. If a family of three or four lived in a four bedroom McMansion in NJ, they'd have three bathrooms. One in the master suite, one near the rest of the bedrooms, and one in the public area of the house. Put that same family in a two bedroom Manhattan condo, you've still got one in the master bedroom, one near the other bedroom, if not en suite, the other in a more public area of the apartment.
There are three of us in a two bedroom Queens condo, and I'd sure as hell like a second bathroom, and a third could be nice a a few years when two of us are getting ready for work while a teen girl gets ready for school.
"Manhattanites are literally full of shit"
I resemble that remark!
Post a Comment