The idea of charging more sounds ridiculous!

The space occupied by the individual is the surface area. This happens to be the same no matter how you slice it.
My only contention is, I hope those with exposed beams do not start complaning of more noise and dust coming from the unit above.

Good luck!

AdC

My only concern was the one raised earlier: if this shareholder will now have more area (cubic feet) to heat, all shareholders will be paying to pump more heat into that one apartment. Fuel prices are low this winter (compared to last year, anyway) but don't count on them staying low.

If the ceiling the shareholder wants to remove/adjust is original to the building, then I think it's fair to ask them to pay more.

Two corrections need to be made to earlier posts. Sherman asks if shareholders don't own their apartments "slab to slab." The answer is no, shareholders do not own property. They own stock in a corporation; those shares give stockholders the right to occupy an apartment, but the apartment itself belongs to the corporation.

Second, if we're referring to the maintenance fee, shareholders are not charged by square feet. The size of an apt is certainly part of the formula, but it also includes such things as the number of bathrooms, and which floor it's on.

Intangibles count too, like how nice the view is. Think of it this way -- if Apt 12A and 12B both have 1,100 square feet, four rooms, one bathroom and the same view, would they both have the same number of shares if 12B had 20-foot ceilings while 12A had 9-foot ceilings? Clearly, the apartments aren't the same even though the "footprint" is the same.

Did the shareholder in question ever requested authorization from the Board to do the type of work described? As AR mentioned before, would the removal of the ceiling violate any code. If the apartment is sold would the co-op insist on re-installing the ceiling or would the new shareholder assume the responsibility for any issues pertaning to the removal of the ceiling.

Regarding your heating of the extra space, I would not think this would be a great issue, specially being on the first floor. Yes, heat rises and the living space may be cooler than the exposed beams. But the space gained may not be more than a 10" to 12". I also assume that the shareholder did not expose all beams in the rooms and the entire length of the beams, but certain rooms and areas to avoid exposure of heating distribution pipes (which could contain asbestos) and electrical wire conduits that may be part of the structure.

As AR states, charging more for the apartment means issuing more shares for the apartment and this would be a great ordeal. Finally, this is the type of work that the Board should review and ask the questions before providing authorizing similar work n to avoid after the fact questions.

AdC

Ridiculous on the face of it - check your Proprietary Lease.
People are charged for square footage, not cubic footage; raising maintenance fees for people who take off a ceiling to get more cubic footage would be charging them more for having the same space!

While a lot depends on the language of the lease, original construction details of the co-op are critical. For example, are ANY utilities now exposed that had been concealed by the drop ceiling? Air supply or return ducts, plumbing pipes, electric conduit, etc? If so, this was a working plenum space, & the owner did, indeed, annex common area. If no utilities are found, it's possible drop ceilings were added after construction, & any owner removing now is simply reclaiming space that's already theirs.

There's little question that an apartment with 9' floor-to-ceiling height would have greater value than the same apartment with 8' ceilings, just as the same apartment on a higher floor or with other amenities is typically worth more. It doesn't seem unreasonable for the Board to consider this question.

However, the simple & equitable solution would be for the Board to declare that all owners have the right to utilize this "newly discovered" plenum space, provided that they acquire permission & follow all proper procedures for having the work done.

I know this isn't comparable, but ...
In my (old) building with a sloping roof, a top-floor shareholder wanted to remove his ceiling eliminating the space between it and the underside of the roof, which would have raised the height of his ceiling to over 10 feet at its highest point. The board refused its permission to do so. The board members didn't agree on a single reason. My concern was that with that much more cubic volume in the space, the existing supply of heat would not sufficiently warm the apartment, especially since it was right under the roof, and we'd get complaints that his apartment wasn't warm enough.

Bingo! You put your finger on a very important issue, that is, space volume and sufficient heat. We have two units with 12 foot ceilings in our building, They have always been cold, but it's gotten worse as the windows age. Our engineer did a calculation and they were 5,000 BTUs short of having sufficient radiation to heat the place. Corp had to install larger radiators. Some SHs on other floors are considering opening up their ceiling for aesthetics and we may have them sign an alteration agreement saying they do this at their own risk and if their heating fails, they have to upgrade radiators on their own.

Folks,

Does not a shareholder own the apartment slab to slab and wall to wall? The co-op owns inside the wall and the owner owns the paint and outward, to over simplify.

But, the shares are typically allocated based on floor size within the unit as bounded by the walls regardless if useable or not, e.g.: walls and columns are not subtracted from the square foot calculation and the elevation, floor within a building, e.g.: higher equals more shares.

A unit owner is thus not encumbered in modifying an apartment save with the provisions of the bylaws and house rules. As for charging more for “improvements”, in this case removing a drop ceiling, it is out of the question and just a bit incredulous.

But, if the dropped ceiling is used as a fire break or sound buffer, then the corporation can assert that the drop ceiling cannot be removed. This is the corporation’s only recourse.

We don't know what "slab to slab" means at this building. IF the dropped ceiling defines a working plenum, then the shareholder's space likely begins with the paint on the underside of that sheetrock, while the corporation owns the plenum. This detail is critical.

The larger point is that dealing with each apartment case-by-case would be as silly as trying to increase the % of building maintenance paid by those with a little extra headroom. Make a building-wide decision to allow, then move on.

Given that attention is paid--as has been rightly pointed out by others--to issues of adequate heat, noise, etc., then no shareholder will be measurably inconvenienced or financially burdened by anyone's individual ceiling choice.

Slab to slab or slab to "drop ceiling" ----
Who is responsible for the drop ceiling?

Is it the corporation? If yes, then the resident may not remove/alter without permission and stipulations.

Is it the shareholder? If yes, then this is a simple alteration within a unit and most often, the corporation is not involved save to ensure that insured and licensed contractors perform the work.

Hi, Sherman,

As someone in the real estate business, I feel obligated to point out a common error you made. A Co-op owner does not, in fact, own any part of his/her apartment (not counting the furnishings, of course).

When you buy into a co-op you buy shares in a corporation. The corporation owns the building and all the apartments in it. Your shares grant you the right to live in one of the apartments as long as you sign the lease (that's the proprietary lease).

Since co-op shareholders don't own their apartments, the corporation determines which alterations are made and under what circumstances.

It is important to note with this information you have provided that while the Co-op (or higher governing Corporation as is in some cases) owns the building in entirety, the resident Shareholder has purchased shares entitling them to a long term, almost perpetual Proprietary Lease Agreement for use and occupancy of a specified area, which clearly states and defines the area that the resident shareholder is leasing and responsible for. The borders of this Leased area, which is typically plaster to plaster on a horizontal level and flooring substrate to plaster on a vertical plane (making no mention here of elec, plumbing, etc.).

Consequently, the Co-op would either have to amend the particular lease to include the given areas, which would then require a reallocation of shares, maintenance, etc.. and is more trouble than it is worth for a small indenture as this, or it may sell permanent usage/easement to the Leaseholder for a single payment with no share allocation. This is usually the best way to go, and is typical of may similar situations we have done.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, I am still somewhat opposed to this particular idea because of the liability concerns and potential future problems that are sure to arise. Good Luck.

~AR

Allot of good insight from others here.
A couple of thoughts…
Who keeps the long term liability? I would only add that the Board should seek some form of indemnification from the shareholder. It would have to be treated on the level of performing your own plumbing alterations within the wall.. the SH now owns it and all issues arising as a result of the alteration.

With regard to the financial remuneration, for what they will get, it is probably best to forgo it and limit their liability as much as possible by simply permitting the alteration with an indemnification and full understanding by the SH that they may be required to restore it back to its original condition should it create a problem, in any of the mentioned areas ort be some violation of building or fire code, etc..

Also word into the agreement that “… permission does not constitute legitimacy of any kind… it is the SH sole responsibility to ensure that this alteration is compliant with all state, city and local building codes, etc…” or something to that effect.

~AR

Ellen, I've found a Habitat article about this very thing. You might want to check out "Your Ceiling -- Or IS It?" at

http://habitatmag.com/publication_content/habitat_s_purchasing_primer_news_for_new_buyers/your_ceiling_or_is_it