210 East 73rd Street (Eastgate)

Eleven floors of brown brick across a 100-foot frontage — roughly 75,100 square feet of building on a 10,216-square-foot lot, the same lot dimensions Bing & Bing used for the group's other 100-foot parcels. The façade carries the enclave's textured masonry: irregular projecting brick, random inset stones, carved ornament at the base. Behind the building the block holds a private landscaped courtyard, which is the reason a share of the apartments look onto planting rather than a rear lot line.

The layouts are Roth prewar at Eastgate's scale rather than Central Park West's: studios and one-bedrooms in the lettered lines, two- and three-bedrooms in the assembled apartments, with defined foyers and real closets. The building's Department of Buildings record is dominated by apartment-level combination and renovation work, and one 2019 filing merged three tenth-floor apartments with a penthouse into a single residence. That history explains the gap between the 81 units city records carry and the 78 the corporation's auditors count, and it makes the combinability of a given line a real feature — one to research at the specific line rather than at the building level.

Tax history. The building took two J-51 grants and has exhausted both. The corporation's audited financial statements record J-51 benefits commencing in the 1992/1993 tax year and expiring in 2002/2003, and a second, additional J-51 exemption aggregating $39,960 that commenced in the 1999/2000 tax year and expired in 2009/2010, reducing annual real-estate taxes by roughly $3,330 while it ran. The auditors state plainly that as of December 31, 2010 the corporation had used all its J-51 exemptions. Department of Finance records corroborate: across every assessment roll from 2010/11 through 2027 the parcel carries no J-51 and no 421-a entry, and the only exemptions against it are shareholder-level veteran and STAR benefits passed through to individual apartments. Underwrite the maintenance at full real-estate-tax cost.

That expiry also has a rent-regulation tail. The plan was a non-eviction conversion, so non-purchasing rent-stabilized tenants remained, and the corporation's Thirtieth Amendment carries the standard Roberts v. Tishman Speyer disclosure about apartments that may not have been validly deregulated during a J-51 period. It is a sponsor-side and tenant-side issue rather than a shareholder-side one, but a buyer acquiring an occupied unsold apartment should have counsel read it.

Debt. In July 2007 the cooperative refinanced its underlying mortgage into a $3,000,000 interest-only loan at 6.05 percent maturing August 1, 2017, alongside a $1,000,000 line of credit at 2.95 percent expiring the same day and undrawn as of the last audited year on file. ACRIS then records a consolidation, extension and modification on June 30, 2017 that brought the recorded indebtedness to $4,000,000, with an accompanying $1,000,000 instrument and the satisfaction of the prior loan. The current rate and maturity are not documented in anything on file with us — ask the managing agent for the note terms, because on 78 to 81 apartments the difference between an interest-only underlying mortgage and an amortizing one is a live maintenance question.

Capital work. The cooperative ran a Local Law 11 façade cycle beginning in 2010 at a contract cost of $492,500, funded with $400,000 drawn from reserves and a $200,000 capital assessment of $10.07 per share levied from July 2010 through June 2011. A second and considerably larger cycle followed: Department of Buildings records an alteration filed in February 2020 with an estimated cost above $1.1 million, covering masonry and window-lintel removal and replacement, repointing, sill repair and reinforcement. Separate special assessments were levied in 2009 and 2010 at rates set roughly equal to the co-op/condo real-estate-tax abatement then being received by eligible shareholders — a common device that leaves shareholder carrying costs flat while capturing the abatement for the corporation.

Building staff are covered by the 32BJ collectively bargained pension and health plans. The audited statements on file note that the corporation had not commissioned a study of the common property's remaining useful lives. That describes the reviewed statements, not proof that no study exists today. Request any current reserve study, physical-condition report and façade filings before assessing capital needs; the omission is not justified by the building's age.

Sponsor position. The building was converted by a mid-1980s sponsor and the unsold apartments were later acquired in bulk. As of the last amendment on file, the holder of unsold shares held seven residential apartments — roughly nine percent of the shares — and rented them, and did not control the board. That block was acquired in March 1996 as part of a single purchase of unsold apartments across roughly twenty Manhattan conversions, several of them on this block and the next, including 245 East 72nd Street and 200 East End Avenue. A buyer should ask how much of that position remains today, because sponsor-held rental apartments affect both lender owner-occupancy tests and the character of the shareholder body.

The published policy stack is thin, and we would rather say so than fill it in. Management-sourced records describe a building that permits pets, permits pied-à-terre ownership subject to board approval, permits subletting with board consent, and includes electricity in maintenance. The corporation's audited financial statements confirm that both a transfer fee and a sublet fee exist, because both appear as recurring revenue lines. The reviewed financial statements do not supply every current transaction term. The separate management schedule dated October 6, 2026 reports a selling-shareholder transfer fee of 1.5% of gross sale price and the sublet limits summarized above. It lists a sublet fee of 15% of the greater of monthly rent or maintenance for the first two years and 25% for the third and fourth years. Confirm these terms against the operative documents; financing, minimum down payment and post-closing liquidity remain unestablished in the reviewed material.

Recent sales

Recent transfers at this building, from The Roebling Research Library. 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.

Market read. $/sf is measured on the latest sales with reliable square footage (2023): a median $894/sf (floor-adjusted) across 2 sales. The building has traded as recently as 2026. Median listing discount 3.8% from the last ask — a recurring negotiation gap worth pricing into any offer or listing strategy.

Sales sourced from NYC Department of Finance recorded transfers (BBL 1-01427-0038). Apartment-level facts (line, condition, asking-price context) curated and cross-verified in The Roebling Research Library. Not all transactions cross-verify with ACRIS records — sponsor and LLC purchases sometimes record at stipulated values rather than market price; square footage on co-ops is not officially recorded, figures shown are approximate.

Get the board package standard before you fall in love with an apartment. This is a share purchase, which means a board package, a personal interview, and a set of underwriting standards the board is not obliged to publish. Financing ceiling, minimum down payment, and post-closing liquidity — usually expressed as some number of years of maintenance and debt service held after closing — are the three that kill deals, and none of them is in the public record for this building. Ask the managing agent for all three in writing before you make an offer, and run the Co-op Board Qualification Calculator against your own numbers first.

Price the flip tax into your exit, not your entry. A transfer fee exists and is a recurring revenue line for the corporation. The separate management schedule dated October 6, 2026 lists 1.5% of gross sale price payable by the selling shareholder. Have counsel confirm the operative rate, basis, payer and any exceptions for the specific transaction.

Read the debt. The 2007 loan matured in 2017 and was consolidated to $4,000,000 that June. The current terms are not in any document on file with us. An interest-only underlying mortgage that has to be refinanced into a higher-rate market is the single most likely source of a future maintenance increase in a building this size.

Underwrite the second façade cycle. The 2010 Local Law 11 work was a $492,500 project. The 2020 filing was roughly twice that. Ask whether it is complete, how it was funded, and whether a further cycle is scheduled. A 1929 masonry façade will face further examinations: get the building's current filing status, its filing window and any open repair obligations, and confirm the inspection interval under the rules implementing Local Law 49 of 2025, which lets the Department of Buildings set intervals of six to twelve years.

Pied-à-terre and entity ownership. Management-sourced records describe pied-à-terre use as permitted with board approval. Purchases in a trust, an LLC, or with a guarantor or co-purchaser are a separate question that co-op boards decide case by case, and this board's posture is not published. If your purchase requires any structure other than an individual buying in their own name, raise it with the managing agent before you sign a contract.

Correct the record in your own listing. Public sources repeat a 1994 conversion date that is not supported by the offering plan or the corporation's audited financial statements, and a unit count that the corporation's own auditors do not use. Getting the conversion year and the tax history right makes the rest of the package more credible to a buyer's attorney.

Lead with the enclave, then with the house. Eastgate is a name buyers recognize and can research, and the six-building group has a documented architectural history. Then say what the building actually offers day to day — 24-hour door staff, the garden courtyard, the fitness room, electricity in the maintenance — because carrying-cost comparisons against buildings that bill utilities separately are where sellers routinely lose the argument.

Have the capital story assembled before the first offer. Two Local Law 11 cycles, the 2017 mortgage consolidation, and the sponsor's remaining position are the three things a competent buyer's attorney will ask about. Answering them in the first week rather than the fourth keeps deals alive.

Combinations are a selling feature where they exist. The building's filing history is full of merges. If an adjoining line has traded recently or is likely to, that is worth saying plainly.

If you're considering 210 East 73rd Street, also evaluate:

• 220 East 73rd Street — the middle Eastgate building on this same tax block; the closest like-for-like
• 230 East 73rd Street — the eastern Eastgate building on block 1427, completed in 1936
• 225 East 73rd Street — the Eastgate blockmate directly across the street
• 235 East 73rd Street — the last of the six, and the most fully documented of the group
• 245 East 72nd Street — Emery Roth for Bing & Bing one block south, on this same tax block; a 20-story tower rather than a low-rise
• 203 East 72nd Street — The Bayard House, the postwar tower holding the Third Avenue blockfront of block 1427; the same block, a different era
• 215 East 72nd Street — a 1929 prewar cooperative a block south at comparable scale
• 150 East 73rd Street — a 1920s prewar cooperative west of Lexington; the step up in address
• 345 East 73rd Street — the postwar full-service alternative further east