Issue 105 – Combining Apartments for Greater Resale Value — When 1+1=3

Who hasn’t dreamed of having an extra room in their home? For some, that dream can become a reality by strategically buying two units and combining them into a larger living space.

This approach particularly appeals to the many people who love their current building and apartment. Buying a connecting unit — to either side, above, or below — can be incredibly beneficial because the owners can remain in their beloved residence while expanding their square footage. It allows them to capitalize on the place they’ve called home in creating a more expansive footprint.

Just imagine: Buying an adjoining unit means not having to change your commute or leave your memories behind. Your very identity might well be engrained in the dwelling. It also means avoiding the hassle of searching for another place to buy, dealing with the timing of selling an apartment to buy a bigger one elsewhere, and (importantly) enduring another stressful board interview! Adding onto your apartment is the most seamless way to increase precious living space with minimal disruption and change.

Of course, the above assumes a connecting unit is or will become available. Another, likely easier, option is to buy two units together in a new development in the preconstruction stage. This way, you can view the floorplans before the build-out has begun and discuss how best to combine the units with the developer. Namely, you can make the finishes consistent throughout, and the developer can ensure the plumbing and gas lines are efficiently integrated.

Whichever way you go about combining two units, there are a few significant drawbacks to keep in mind. A primary concern should be whether the size of the combined space will have enough value to justify this endeavor. You want to be sure the value is both immediate and increases over time so you can get a solid ROI when it is time to sell, even if that won’t happen for a decade.

For example, combining units might deprive the space of two highly desirable qualities: abundant natural light and impressive views. Or it might result in an awkward layout (more on this below). This value assessment can be complex when you hope to remain in your preferred building, but a place on, say, the third floor that doesn’t hold value would not be prudent.

Large entertaining and living spaces with sizable bedrooms that feel comfortable garner the most value. Specific examples include a great room with 13 to 28 feet of frontage, a luxurious primary bedroom with dual bathrooms, and a chef’s kitchen that becomes the heart of the home. The ultimate win? Integrating two corner units with panoramic views.

Other factors to consider before embarking on this endeavor include financing, building and city regulations, demolition and construction costs, and tax liabilities. You should also assess whether a precedent exists in your building, especially if it is a co-op. If not, doing a combination can be challenging and frustrating, causing much stress and expense. Because of “wet-over-dry” rules, you might be unable to add a bathroom or move the kitchen where you want. In addition, buildings may say that they will allow something only to reverse course after you’ve purchased the second unit.

An essential preliminary step is consulting with an architect and developing a firm plan. Do you want to add a smaller unit to an existing large one? According to a recent article in Brick Underground, duplexing up or down might prove more difficult because it involves building a new staircase requiring structural changes. Many boards will not approve this large-scale work.

You should avoid ending up with a Frankenstein apartment, meaning one that is put together haphazardly with no natural flow. A big no-no is a random hallway or weird entry that doesn’t fit into the fuller space. Ditto an apartment that feels like a maze, where you can’t tell which way to go.

Another potential pitfall is that unless you file with the city as a single-family residence, meaning just one permit for the entire space, the carrying cost can be slightly higher than you’d prefer because you are incorporating an additional unit into your original space.

Finally, although it is wonderful to avoid the general upheaval of moving, the labor and construction fees can be exorbitant, notably if you have updated your present apartment and the add-on unit may have done some renovations along the way. Labor fees can really become a factor if the condition of the apartment is not on the same level. It can be even more expensive if the combination requires plumbing upgrades and matching the flooring and finishers, some of which may have been discontinued. It gets even more complicated when you must file plans with the DOB and deal with your building’s architectural requirements, such as knocking down support walls or creating a duplex.

The ultimate advice is to do your due diligence. Always and proactively read the alteration agreement with a fine-tooth comb, looking for rules that would preclude completing your combination. Find out ahead of time if the building is supportive of this type of change. Ask any neighbors who have undergone this kind of renovation.

One additional note: Depending on the scope of work, you may have to move into a short-term rental and put items into storage, or at least have limited use of your everyday space, for a period.

The overarching goal is cohesion throughout, making every area as functional and aesthetically pleasing as possible. The rooms should be right-sized and have a clear purpose—is it a bedroom or a study? They also need to be carefully organized, or your home will feel discombobulated.

The bottom line is that combining two — or even three! — units can be a massive boon for anyone interested in increasing living space and resale value if they know what to look out for and what to avoid. This single step can create an architectural masterpiece and a genuinely unique home.

Issue 126 – Who Owns the Listing?

New York real estate is quietly becoming a battle for access, and most consumers don’t even realize the rules are changing.

The most important battle may no longer be who gets the listing — it may be who gets to see it. For most of my career, a listing broker’s job has been straightforward: create demand, tell the property’s story, expose it to the right buyers, negotiate expertly, and ultimately get the best possible outcome for the seller. Now a fundamental element of that role is shifting — access itself.

That does not mean private listings are inherently problematic, or even new. I’ve sold properties quietly myself. Sometimes discretion is necessary—for privacy reasons, security concerns, divorce proceedings, an occupied home, or to test a pricing strategy.

But what was once the exception is becoming more the norm.

As of August 12, Marketproof identified 440 Manhattan properties being offered as ‘Participant Only’ listings, representing approximately $1.94 billion in asking volume. Of this total, 47 new Participant Only listings were added in June, 144 in July, and 153 in just the first 12 days of August.

This isn’t just a trophy-market phenomenon. Marketproof found that nearly 30% of those listings were asking under $1 million. And The Real Deal’s recent analysis points in the same direction, reporting a 30% increase in off-market residential sales volume across Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens in 2025.

Put those numbers together, and it becomes difficult to dismiss private real estate as merely the world of whisper listings and ultra-high-net-worth sellers. Private marketing is becoming mainstream, which deserves a closer look. We need to ascertain who benefits.

So, who owns the listing? Legally, the answer is obvious — the seller owns the property. In practice, the picture is more nuanced. Listings have become valuable currency: they attract buyers, who generate data and relationships. And those relationships lead to transactions that create market share and leverage.

Perhaps we should be asking a different question: When did exclusivity stop meaning the right to represent a property and start meaning the right to restrict who sees it?

The seller wants the best possible combination of price, privacy, certainty, and timing. The broker wants to represent the seller successfully, protect the relationship, and complete the transaction. The brokerage or platform has another economic interest: inventory. Listings attract consumers, engagement, data, and future business. None of these interests is inherently improper. But when they diverge, we need to be very clear about whose interest comes first.

For me, the seller has to be the North Star. That is where the debate becomes complicated.

StreetEasy has argued that the growth of private listings creates artificial scarcity and gatekeeping. Supporters of private marketing argue that sellers should have the right to decide how — and how publicly — their homes are marketed.

I understand both arguments. But I keep coming back to one question: Does restricting exposure actually create a better outcome for the seller? If it does, show me.

The early data is fascinating, partly because it doesn’t give us a definitive answer. Marketproof found that 78% of the Participant Only listings it analyzed had previously been publicly marketed. Of those Participant Only listings that came off the market without selling, roughly one-third subsequently returned to the public market. Additionally, those relistings came back at a median asking price 6.4% below their Participant Only asking price, according to Marketproof. While interesting, it doesn’t prove that private marketing is ineffective.

There aren’t enough matched transactions yet to determine whether comparable privately marketed properties ultimately sell for more or less than publicly marketed ones. That’s precisely why I think the industry should be careful about declaring victory on either side.

Real estate value is established through imperfect but important information: comparable transactions, current competition, buyer behavior, and ultimately what someone is willing to pay. Exposure is part of that price-discovery mechanism, but it doesn’t mean maximum exposure always produces maximum price.

Scarcity can create urgency. A sophisticated broker may know exactly which handful of buyers are right for a particular property. However, we need to be careful not to confuse controlled exposure with manufactured scarcity.

Another reason this conversation matters now: Consolidation is changing the brokerage business. Large firms can offer extraordinary advantages — technology, referral networks, data, marketing resources, and access to enormous numbers of agents and consumers. Scale itself isn’t the problem, But when scale is combined with proprietary inventory, the competitive equation changes.

For years, technology moved residential real estate toward greater transparency. Consumers gained access to listings, price histories, comparable sales, building information, and market data that once largely resided with brokers. That disrupted our industry, but I think it made good brokers more valuable — not less. A great broker shouldn’t be afraid of this transparency.

Our value is actually understanding the information. It’s knowing why one apartment deserves $2,000 per square foot while another in the same building doesn’t. It’s knowing when to walk away from a bidding war, how to position an unusual property, how to navigate a board, how to structure a complicated deal —  and how to tell a seller something they may not want to hear.

None of this means every property should automatically be marketed publicly. But as a broker, my responsibility is making sure the seller understands the nuance.

Whenever an industry undergoes structural change, I find it useful to ask one simple question: Who benefits? And I always circle back to the ultimate one: What will produce the best outcome for my client?

Before New York embraces a fundamentally different marketplace, we should demand enough transparency to know, because the future of residential brokerage shouldn’t be decided solely by which company has the largest network or which website has the largest audience.

None of us should confuse access to the listing with ownership of the client’s interests.

So, if private marketing creates greater value for sellers, let’s prove it. If an open marketplace creates greater value, let’s prove that too. If the answer depends upon the particular seller and property, let’s have the sophistication to say so.

Because ultimately, the most important question isn’t whether a listing is public or private; it’s whether restricting access creates value for the seller — or just value for the company controlling the access. Those are not the same thing.

And right now, New York real estate needs to understand the difference.

Recent Reports

SUBSCRIBE TO THE KATZEN REPORT

UP-TO-THE-MINUTE PULSE ON REAL ESTATE