Manhattan condos · below 96th $1,600/sf 2%Manhattan co-ops · below 96th $270K/room 2%Central Park perimeterPark Ave $472K/room 18%CPW $355K/room 5%Fifth Ave $501K/room 19%Billionaires' Row $4,313/sf 24%Greenwich Village $2,455/sf 10%
Full index →
Condominium · 1926
The Marlow
150 West 82nd Street, New York, NY 10024

150 West 82nd Street (The Marlow)

150 West 82nd Street, New York, NY 10024

Upper West Side

BBL 1012127503 · BIN 1032037

At a glance
Year built
1926
Type
Condominium
Units
40
Floors
10
Landmark
Designated
Amenities
Residents' lounge with kitchenette; children's playroom; fitness center; laundry room; landscaped interior courtyard; landscaped common roof terrace with grilling area; private storage lockers (sold as limited common elements); bike storage
Financing
Standard condominium financing; no cooperative-style financing ceiling
Flip tax
No traditional flip tax. The offering plan on file instead requires a non-refundable working capital contribution equal to two months' common charges, payable at the initial closing and again at each resale closing — a recurring transaction cost that functions like a modest flip fee and is easy to miss in a closing-cost estimate
The Data Room

Every recorded sale at this building, 2022–2025

Price-per-square-foot over time, the line- and floor-premium curves, and every recorded sale.

Median $/sf
$2,185
Listing discount
0.9%
Recorded sales
28
On record
2022–2025

The Marlow is the small, disciplined version of a thesis the Upper West Side has only been able to execute a handful of times: take a solid, unremarkable prewar rental apartment house, gut and recombine the plan into apartments people actually want in 2026, restore the façade under Landmarks review, add a rooftop level, and deliver it as condominium. George F. Pelham's 1926 building on West 82nd between Columbus and Amsterdam was never architecturally famous. It was a competent Neo-Georgian elevator apartment house on a quiet block, one of dozens the Pelham office produced. What makes it consequential now is what BKSK Architects did with it, and the ownership structure the conversion produced.

The offering plan on file is dated February 19, 2020, and it is a non-eviction plan — meaning no sitting tenant could be displaced by the conversion. Like 393 West End Avenue, it was filed before the 2019 change in New York conversion law fully closed off this category of transaction. The sponsor was 150 West 82nd Street Owner LLC, operating out of the offices of BentallGreenOak, a global real estate management and advisory firm; sponsor obligations under the plan were backed by an agreement procured from Apollo Global Management and its affiliates. That is an unusually institutional sponsorship for a forty-unit prewar conversion, and it shows up in the plan's capital provisions: a reserve fund of roughly $2.69 million established at conversion against a $89.9 million offering, which is a substantially better opening balance sheet than a small conversion typically carries.

The architectural work was real, not cosmetic. The sponsor's scope in the plan on file includes new amenity space at the cellar level and in the rear yard, extension of the existing egress stairs, and — the piece that changed the building's silhouette — enlargement and reconfiguration of the tenth floor to construct the upper level of two duplex penthouses, PHN and PHS, connected by internal stairs to their lower levels on the ninth floor. The building went into the conversion as a nine-story structure and came out as a ten-story one with two duplex penthouses at the top. City records reflect exactly that change.

Inside, BKSK's approach was to keep what a 1926 Pelham plan does well and discard what it does badly. Retained: the over-scaled base moldings, the picture rails, nine-foot ceilings, the fenestration rhythm, the masonry envelope. Rebuilt: the floor plates themselves. The pre-conversion building was configured at a much finer grain than the delivered condominium; city building records show 60 dwelling units at the property in 2012, and 54 and 58 in filings from the mid-2000s. The conversion recombined that stock into 40 residences as offered — from studios up through a four-bedroom penthouse duplex — around a new plan built on great rooms, open kitchens, and full baths at contemporary scale.

That is the reconciliation any buyer or seller here needs. Sixty is the rental-era apartment count, not the condominium. The offering plan offered forty residential units. City assessment records carry thirty-eight residential units on the condominium billing lot, and the City Register shows thirty-nine recorded condominium unit lots at the address, running from 1201 through 1239 with designations from 1A through 9H plus PHN and PHS. Some published building profiles cite twenty-seven residences, which appears to be a partial count taken during the sellout rather than the declared roster. Forty as offered, thirty-nine as recorded, thirty-eight in city assessment records — the small differences are ordinary conversion drift between the plan, the declaration and the assessor's file, and none of them supports the figure of sixty.

Architecture and unit composition

The elevation is a restrained Neo-Georgian composition in limestone and brick, restored during the conversion under Landmarks Preservation Commission jurisdiction. The building reads as a mid-block prewar apartment house of its period — no courtyard, no monumental entrance, a straightforward masonry mass — which is precisely the character of the block. The visible change from the conversion is at the roofline, where the new tenth-floor level was set back and detailed to sit quietly against the restored cornice line.

Residences run from studios through a four-bedroom penthouse duplex. The interior specification is consistent across the inventory: airy great rooms, nine-foot ceilings, white oak herringbone floors, open kitchens with Miele appliances, spa-scaled baths, multi-zone heating and air conditioning, and stacked Miele washer and dryer in-unit — the last of which is a genuine differentiator against the surrounding prewar cooperative stock, where in-unit laundry is frequently prohibited outright.

Two details from the plan on file are worth carrying into a floor-plan review. First, certain residences include accessory storage rooms labeled "Pantry" — these are not habitable space, may not be used for sleeping, cooking or living, and may not be rented separately. Read them as closets, not as rooms, when comparing square footage between units. Second, the storage lockers are separately offered limited common elements rather than deeded space, they range from roughly 15 to 25 square feet, and they are not served by the building's emergency generator.

The recorded unit roster shows lines running A through K but not continuously floor to floor — a signature of a recombined prewar plan. As at any conversion of this type, the correct pricing anchor is the specific line and floor, not a building average across a forty-unit roster with that much layout variance.

Building operations

The staffing model is the most important operating fact at The Marlow, and it is the one most often misread. The first-year budget in the offering plan on file projects a superintendent at approximately fifteen hours per week, a single doorman working forty hours per week Monday through Friday, one full-time maintenance worker and one part-time weekend maintenance worker — all engaged through a staffing agency under contract to the condominium board rather than employed directly. The plan describes a part-time lobby attendant in its amenity summary. This is a well-run boutique building, not a 24-hour full-service one, and the common charges should be read against that service level rather than against the larger doorman buildings nearby. Confirm current staffing with the managing agent, as the board has had years to adjust it.

The amenity package is compact and family-oriented: a residents' lounge with a kitchenette, a children's playroom, a fitness center, a laundry room, the landscaped interior courtyard, and the landscaped common roof terrace with a grilling area and open city views. Use of the roof terrace is subject to board regulation on occupancy limits and noise, as set out in the plan.

Two structural items belong in any diligence file here. First, the building sits within a designated historic district, so every façade alteration requires Landmarks approval — the plan discloses this explicitly. Combined with Local Law 11's periodic façade examination requirement, this means the exterior maintenance cycle is both mandatory and slower than in an unregulated building. The conversion-era restoration means near-term exposure is low, but the obligation is permanent.

Second — and this is the item a buyer is least likely to think to ask about — the offering plan disclosed that rent-regulation status at this building was determined unit by unit, turning in part on the expiration of tax-exemption benefits, and that twenty-seven of the offered units were not subject to any rent laws at the time of filing. The plan also carried the standard non-eviction-conversion special risk that the sponsor retained the unconditional right to rent rather than sell units, meaning purchasers could find themselves living alongside non-purchasing occupants indefinitely. Recorded transfers now show deeds across effectively the entire unit roster, so the sellout did complete. But the unit-level regulatory history is documented in the plan, and for any specific apartment it is worth confirming.

Policy framework

Pets: Permitted. Confirm size and breed conditions against the current house rules.

Pied-à-terre: Permitted.

Subletting: Permitted under the standard condominium framework — the board exercises a right of first refusal on a proposed sale or lease rather than approving or rejecting the purchaser or tenant. Confirm any minimum lease term with the managing agent.

LLC, trust and foreign ownership: Permitted.

Financing: No cooperative-style financing ceiling or minimum-down requirement.

Flip tax: No traditional flip tax. The plan on file instead imposes a non-refundable working capital contribution equal to two months' common charges at the initial closing and at each resale closing. This is a recurring cost that most closing-cost estimates for a condominium omit, and at this building's common-charge level it is a real number. Budget for it on both sides of a trade.

Storage: Nine storage lockers were offered under the plan, priced at roughly $15,000 to $17,000 each and structured as limited common elements rather than deeded units. Availability today should be confirmed with the managing agent.

Property tax abatement: As at every New York condominium, the NYC Co-op/Condo Property Tax Abatement requires primary residence. LLC purchases and pied-à-terre use forfeit it — model the difference on the specific unit before offer.

Local Law 97

Carbon-penalty exposure
🟢
Strong — under cap in both periods
2024–2029 annual penalty
$0 (under cap)
2030–2034 annual penalty
$0 (under cap)
Per unit / month range

Source: NYC LL84 benchmarking and PLUTO · The Roebling Research Library. City record last verified September 2026.

See full Local Law 97 analysis — emissions history, scenarios, methodology →

Facade safety — Local Law 11

Local Law 11 / FISP · last inspection 2025–30
Unsafe
What this means for you

The latest available filing classified the facade as Unsafe — conditions requiring corrective action, which under FISP means a protective sidewalk shed and repairs. Review the subsequent filings, the repair status, and the building’s board and financial materials — we pull the repair scope and funding picture for you.

Inspection history
2010–15
Safe
2015–20
SWARMP
2020–25
Unsafe
2025–30
Unsafe
2030–35
Due
Next report due
by Feb 2034
Assessed · 2005–10 to 2025–30
$39,000 in filing penalties
payment status not in the record
The three grades, in buyer terms
SafeLatest filing: Safe — no repairs required at that inspection.
SWARMPLatest filing: repairs required before the next inspection cycle.
UnsafeLatest filing: unsafe conditions requiring corrective action.
How to read this, and where it comes from

QEWI = Qualified Exterior Wall Inspector — the licensed engineer the city requires to sign the report (the independent expert, not the managing agent).

Penalties shown are amounts DOB assessed against filings on record across 2005–10 to 2025–30. The FISP dataset does not record whether they were paid, contested or remain open, so treat the figure as history rather than a current balance and confirm the building’s standing with the managing agent.

Source: NYC DOB facade filings (FISP) · The Roebling Research Library. City record last verified September 2026.

See the full facade history →

Recent sales

Recent closings at this building, curated by The Roebling Team research desk. Prices are the transfer amounts recorded with the NYC Department of Finance; apartment-level detail is checked against the building’s own file in The Roebling Research Library before publishing.

DateUnitApartmentPricePPSFvs. Ask
Jul 16, 20258J
3 BR · 2.5 BA · 1,546 sf
$3,400,000$2,199/sf-5.4%
Jan 27, 20252B
1,389 sf
$2,952,251$2,125/sfoff-mkt
Jun 20, 20246J
3 BR · 2.5 BA · 1,586 sf
$3,400,000$2,144/sf-12.3%
Apr 15, 20247K
3 BR · 2.5 BA · 1,907 sf
$4,050,000$2,124/sf-12.9%
Dec 20, 20231AE
2 BR · 2.5 BA · 1,270 sf
$2,014,793$1,586/sf-6.3%
Jun 20, 20232C
2 BR · 2 BA · 1,084 sf
$1,970,000$1,817/sf-14.3%
Apr 7, 20233K
3 BR · 2.5 BA · 1,905 sf
$3,900,000$2,047/sf-6.0%
Dec 30, 2022PHN
3 BR · 3.5 BA · 2,442 sf
$6,900,000$2,826/sf-0.7%

Market read. Most recent trades (2025) cleared a median $2,185/sf across 2 sales. Median listing discount 0.9% from the last ask — a recurring negotiation gap worth pricing into any offer or listing strategy.

View all 28 recorded sales, sortable

Full closing history with price-per-square-foot over time, the complete retrade record, and every line that has traded.

Sales sourced from NYC Department of Finance recorded transfers (BBL 1-01212-7503) and verified listing data. Apartment-level facts (line, condition, asking-price context) curated and cross-verified by The Roebling Team research desk. Not all transactions cross-verify with ACRIS records — sponsor and LLC purchases sometimes record at stipulated values rather than market price; square footage from recorded condo declarations and offering plans.

What to know if you’re buying

Buy the plan, not the vintage. The value here is that a 1926 shell was gutted and re-planned in 2020 — nine-foot ceilings and prewar moldings on top of a contemporary layout with in-unit laundry and open kitchens. If you want an untouched prewar plan, the surrounding cooperatives will give it to you for less.

Know the service level before you compare common charges. A part-time-attended lobby with weekday doorman coverage is not the same product as a 24-hour building, and the charges reflect that. Compare like with like.

Add the two-month working capital contribution to your closing costs. It applies at resale closings, not only at first sale, and it is easy to overlook.

Pull the plan and the financials. The offering plan, the reserve position since conversion, the current budget, the completed sponsor scope, and the unit-level rent-regulation history for the specific apartment are all documented. All of them are worth reading before contract.

Model the abatement. LLC and pied-à-terre purchases lose the Co-op/Condo Property Tax Abatement. On a three-million-dollar apartment that is a material monthly difference.

What to know if you’re selling

The conversion story is the selling story. BKSK Architects, a full gut and re-plan, a restored landmarked façade, a new rooftop level with two duplex penthouses — this is a documented, high-quality conversion, and buyers who have looked at unrenovated prewar cooperatives all week will recognize the difference immediately.

Sell the ownership structure to the buyers who need it. Pied-à-terre use, LLC and trust ownership, foreign purchase, in-unit laundry, and subletting flexibility are all available here and are all unavailable across most of the surrounding prewar stock. That is a specific buyer pool, and it should be targeted directly.

Be candid about staffing. Buyers coming from full-service buildings will notice. Positioning it honestly — a boutique building with proportionate common charges — converts better than letting it surface at diligence.

Comparables have to be built by hand. With this few trades, an appraiser or a buyer's agent will reach for the surrounding market. Assemble the line-specific and boutique-conversion comparables yourself and put them in front of the buyer rather than letting them be assembled against you.

Comparable buildings

If you're considering The Marlow, also evaluate:

The neighborhood

For the full corridor — architecture, schools, transit, and pricing across Upper West Side — read The Roebling Team Guide to Upper West Side.

How to read the facts on this page. Items attributed to an offering plan describe the building as it was offered at that filing — unit mix, square footage, the amenity program as planned. They are not a statement about how the building operates today. Tax and compliance figures are sourced separately to current City records and carry their own dates. House rules, staffing and fee policy can change by board resolution without any public filing: treat every policy line here as a starting point for diligence and confirm it with the managing agent.

Considering a move at The Marlow?

Request a private building brief with the relevant comparable sales, current and off-market availability, and an apartment-specific view of value.

Prefer to speak directly? Schedule a consultation →
Corey Cohen, Principal · The Roebling Team at Compass
646.939.7375 · c.cohen@compass.com
Considering a sale?

Own an apartment here? See what it would sell for.

A Private Pricing Opinion — what your apartment at The Marlow would likely sell for today, what it costs to sell, and what you’d walk away with — reviewed personally against condition, exposures, renovation quality, and the competition actually on the market.