Hi,

In my complex, the super has the largest unit! When he retires or moves out, we are going to explore giving him a smaller one or not providing one at all. We want to use the space to increase the size of the gym (next door) and/or other community uses. I wonder if it is cheaper in the long run to rent a unit for him in a neighboring unit (so he is close) than provide a unit ourselves. I am not just talking out of pocket costs but also the opportunity costs of having that much space tied up.

Good luck with your search!

> Join the conversation Comments (2)

Hi, if the bulding needs the money (low reserve fund) then I would rent the apartment. But you will face a problem for a new tenant to pay the high rent. If your tenants are paying a fee for the gym, expand and increase the gym member ship fee.

Good Luck

> Join the conversation

Consider the long-term consequences if the apartment you rent "in a neighboring unit (building??)" becomes unavailable when the lease on that apartment expires. Buildings over a certain number of apartments must have a live-in super or (if I am correct) the super must live within a certain number of *feet* to the building. If you lose the current rental for your super, you may be hard pressed to find something that meets the proximity requirement at a cost-effective price.

Consider advising whoever replaces your super when he retires that the apartment the new super is initially given will not be permanent, and that he will be moved to a smaller unit when one becomes available. Make this an up-front part of the hiring process so there are no misunderstandings later on. Then, when a smaller unit becomes available, move the super into that unit and reclaim the larger unit for your purposes.

> Join the conversation Comments (2)

i believe that the requirement for the live in of within a certain block is for union supers. Nothing wrong with union supers, if they are truly professional, and know their stuff, plus have a personality that makes them like family.
If your management company doesn't know these basics, they do not know management.
I think it is a good idea to have a live in super, with the undersyanding, that they have to be a homeboy, if they have hobbies , better to have them arounfd home, not away all the time, if they are not going to be there after hours, no reason to supply an apartment. An apartment is a huge bonus

> Join the conversation

i believe that the requirement for the live in of within a certain block is for union supers. Nothing wrong with union supers, if they are truly professional, and know their stuff, plus have a personality that makes them like family.
If your management company doesn't know these basics, they do not know management.
I think it is a good idea to have a live in super, with the undersyanding, that they have to be a homeboy, if they have hobbies , better to have them arounfd home, not away all the time, if they are not going to be there after hours, no reason to supply an apartment. An apartment is a huge bonus

> Join the conversation

Under the New York City Administrative Code, any building with nine or more units must have a “janitorial service” or super either in the building or within one block or 200 feet of the building. The janitor or service must be available by telephone 24 hours a day.
A single super or janitor is not deemed capable of serving a building or complex with more than 65 apartments. In such a case, at least one additional super or janitor must be employed and at least one of them must live in the building or close by.
I don't see any reason why a security deposit can't be required, unless there is a provision in a (union) contract or something similar prohibiting it.
An apartment can be provided in another building as long as it's within the required proximity.

> Join the conversation