Tasteful Friends: Jessica's Chastain's Home at the Osborne

Where did you get the info that she divorced her husband?

Love the green color scheme

Beautiful and classy, just like her. The kitchen is rather dull and empty.

Some of the wallpaper is a bit much, but otherwise gorgeous.

It's all done up in colors flattering to her skin tone. It's like it was decorated by this lady.

I wonder if she’s broke.

Ahem. This lady

I love it. Truly a tasteful home. Could be stuffy but somehow it’s not. Love the jukebox.

Wow, impressive.

Beautiful apartment. Nothing not to like other than some obvious tings that onewould expect to change: wallpaper and wall finishes (those faux light circassian walnut panels or whatever they are in one of the principal rooms) and the personal effects (furniture, etc.)

The one possible downside is that none of the rooms are large, though the very high ceilings are terrific and comensate to a large extent. It's a great building and this apartment is one of the least fucked with, the alterations all compatible with the original details.

“403 Forbidden”

Too old-fashioned and conservative for me. Looks like a grandma's apartment.

Every piece of furniture is fine but doesn't stand out. Very little character in decor. Why bother?

Beautiful details though - the windows, ceilings, some of the light fixtures, etc.

Gorgeous apartment 'bones' - it feels like they highlighted that with having the most dull and boring decor you could find. You don't have to either/or. Snoozefest.

She spends no time at all in that kitchen.

R12 Don't you know how to paint the walls and buy some plants and art?

R14 - Yes - but usually these tasteful friends discussions are about the property AND the style. Not commenting alone on floorplan and architectural elements.

Any idiot knows decor can be changed - I just don't know why they picked THIS bland, uninviting decor.

I thought she had died or something.

Where does she cook her fragrant vegan meals?

$7,450,000.

In a minute if I had it.

[quote]I just don't know why they picked THIS bland, uninviting decor.

It's almost like different people have different tastes.

r19, sparkling people see their homes as the setting where they are the diamond.

I believe that Jessica would be stunning in every room.

That's why it is elegant, mute and perfectly understated.

Plus, it's the OSBORNE, it isn't Trump Tower.

I've seen numerous better 'Tastefuls' here over the years.

r21, don't let the better be the enemy of the perfectly fabulous.

But Tasteful Friends is based on OPINIONS.

Fancy! That was the point, right? FANCY! It's nice but too "total decorator".

I cannot open the link.

OMG! #4AA in the Osborne would be MY PERFECT NYC pied-à-terre.

Does she know where her children are?

Does anyone know what these mean?

flip tax: 3% Paid By Buyer mt: $7,259

Funny thing…I knew the late Robert Osborne, and yes he lived there.

Beautiful apartment, but the total lack of any discernible views or outside access from the apartment is a bummer ☹️

Stunning.

I want it, but will need to trade the husband in for bigger coin.

I love it.

[quote] Beautiful and classy, just like her. The kitchen is rather dull and empty.

Just like her.

Yeah, no discernable views. Maybe why it seems somewhat "affordable."

I remember this one, a perfect garçonnière.

One would need a country home of course.

This is beautiful, very little I'd want to change, although I agree with OP about the tub in the bedroom. Also not keen on having a jukebox in the lounge. The kitchen is a bit bland but perfectly adequate and funtional for me, maybe just ad a bit of colour to it. Fantastic building too.

R34 that place is stunning especially for its size. I could probably manage that without a country home

All that money and you choose to live on fucking 57th St.? No thank you.

This might be a better link.

I haven't read anything about a divorce, but since he's a count he definitely comes from old money, which is probably tied up by a bunch of lawyers and older family members.

I bet he's cash poor and probably needs some new money from his rich actress wife, who was born to teenage parents and grew up poor.

R27

My guess is that the flip tax is paid by the buyer and is assessed on the sales price? The $7500 is the monthly maintenance. Again, guessing.

r34, #4AA in the Osborne is a perfect pied-à-terre. Glad you agree.

.

r25

So you have to pay $90,000 a year just to live in that building. No thank you.

Thank you r37.

I love what she's done with it and her use of colour in particular. Bold but not overdone.

And on 57th St. no less r40

Wow, I don’t get this decor at all nor the colors. It’s all replaceable obviously but it just seems very tepid.

I do like the warm woodwork; it’s been refinished so it isn’t that awful heavy dark brown varnish. The downstairs lobby is stupendous.

[Quote] Snoozefest

People say “snoozefest” as if that’s a bad thing. I would attend a snoozefest, moving around things in my schedule, and you could name your price.

Is this Pete Buttygeek’s gay husband???

I’m sorry but I hate it.

^ Don't be sorry embrace your hate and celebrate it

R37 Deux Moi said so, IIRC, so take it for what it's worth.

She has not commented.

It's a lovely home, especially for a pretentious white trash girl from Sacramento who regularly "skipped school to read Shakespeare".

Maintenance is too expensive!!!

She’s the one who has that secret childhood that she won’t discuss. Methinks she grew up with loons which would explain her behavior.

Not surprised Jessica is selling this. She couldn't afford it to begin with. Her movies are all low-budget.

I think I'd choose The Osborne over The Dakota. But it's not something I'll ever have to worry about.

R46 What do you hate about it?

R52 She's one of the biggest movie stars of the last 20 years and she is married to an Italian count. Yet, she can't afford it? Don't be stupid

Jessica also owns an $8 million townhouse on the Upper Westside.

Were both of her kids through a surrogate?

[quote]Does anyone know what these mean?

[quote]flip tax: 3% Paid By Buyer mt: $7,259

R27, yes, a flip tax is a charge levied by the co-op association whenever a membership (apartment) changes - a sort of club initiation fee beyond the monthly payments.

The $7259 is the monthly maintenance fee. For co-ops (not condos), this includes property tax.

Love it, love it, love everything.

R54 - All that Victorian era wood paneling is just so ugly to me. It’s the same style as The Dakota which was built at the exact same time. It would be a mistake to remove all that paneling. I might paint over it all, which I’m sure would make every Queen on this thread apoplectic. And I loathe stained glass.

I can’t imagine Jessica Chastain has any taste or style at all. Her fashion sense is terrible. She probably just hired a well-known designer and said “do what you want to make it cohere with the architectural style of the apartment.”

It feels like somewhere that a contemporary Dracula might live. I just find it so ugly. I’ve rarely had such a visceral dislike to a celebrity house.

My suggestion, R59: don't buy at the Osborne or the Dakota.

A flip tax is common in co-ops. It is an easy way to generate revenue for the building’s reserve fund.

Sure, but: $223,500 to the building's reserves, $155,000 to NYC and State (transfer tax) BEFORE you move in and then $90,000 a year to stay there?

Yea—that’s the way it works. You’re not buying a house. You’re buying shares in a corporation that entitles you to a lease of a particular unit—so the first and third points make sense. That’s how you fund the corporation to maintain the building, pay utilities and taxes, and finance improvements.

The second point is applicable to every parcel of real property—not unique to co-ops.

You also get a tax deduction on the portion of the maintenance attributable to property taxes and interest on the building’s wrap around mortgage.

Love the apartment. Can’t imagine living on 57th Street though. Midtown is a horror show to me.

R59 Wow, you really hate it. I think you are in a small minority for this one

r62 the cost of living in NYC is NUTS.

R67. Do you own a home? Don’t you set aside money for repairs and improvements? Don’t you escrow or save money to pay your mortgage and taxes? When you bought, or if you sell, aren’t there other fees and charges to be accounted for?

It’s really not different …

Yeah, my coworker just bought a condo in Brooklyn, it's one bedroom and he pays over 8000 a month

Not that I could afford it, but the $90,000 maintenance fees on this property would be the biggest prohibition to me to living in this apartment. That doesn't include the annual costs for household bills, cleaning, improvements, insurance, etc. It's really only the very rich that can afford to waste that much money every year. So, you don't even own it, you're just leasing it as long as you live there. I will be curious to see if anyone meets Jessica's asking price, which is around $2.5 million more than she initially paid.

R68: "It’s really not different …"

I know it's an old building in an expensive city and one that appears well-kept, but to buy a place for roughly $7.5 million, and then pay another $500,000 the first year you live there AND THEN pay $90,000/yr to stay there on top of the mortgage is very, very different than what most of us pay. I own a home Zillow says is worth a million dollars. Of course I set aside money for repairs and maintenance - old houses fall apart if you don't. I don't escrow but of course I pay taxes, directly to the city quarterly. And of course there are deed registration fees, inspections, insurance, etc. all of which cost money when you buy a house. But I don't pay 1/7th or so of what she does.

As Scott Fitzgerald is supposed to have said once to Ernest Hemingway, "You know, the rich are different from you and me" to which Hemingway replied, "Yes. They've got more money." Lots more, I guess.

R70 you’ve entirely misunderstood the legal and economic concept of co-op living.

I live in a 2 bedroom in a desirable neighborhood, on a high floor, with full Manhattan views from every room. The market value is +- $2 million. The maintenance is ~$2200 month. That monthly payment pays my share of the property taxes, the building mortgage, repairs, new improvements, a full staff of a super+doormen and porters, a rooftop deck, a garden, water and A/C. Over 50% of that is tax deductible.

On a comparative basis, very similar to the numbers above. I’ve got a great deal—

To add: I only use my own situation as an example of how the economics can and work at a variety of income levels/real estate values. Co-ops are an integral part of the NY real estate puzzle. If the economics didn’t work, then co-ops would not have survived as a linchpin of real estate.

R73 - New Jersey?

Huh?

Manhattan

Co ops are not as popular as they once were with all the costs and co op board bullshit. Condos in modern buildings with all the modern amenities are more popular than ever.

Many people these days wouldn't think of living in a building that didn't have an on-site fitness center and a washer and dryer in the apartment.

Yes, but the dryer takes forever to dry your clothes. My friend's apt has washer dryer but I don't know how they vent it, takes hours to dry clothes pretty sure that is bad for clothes

“Condos in modern buildings with all the modern amenities are more popular than ever.”

Caveat: do a Google search of construction lawsuits in NYC condo projects, and get back to us. Or read up on condo association assessments, and the problems with residents failing to pay.

R79, plus once the sponsors leave, no work will be done

And all of those amenities start to wither on the vine…

Better to have amenities than none at all.

Of course this is Datalounge where so many posters think it's still 1965 and they're CZ Guest which is why they worship these old out of date limestone piles not suitable for modern living.

[quote]Or read up on condo association assessments, and the problems with residents failing to pay.

That's on the residents, not the condo boards.

Of course many of our resident DLers don't care for modern amenities since they've never seen the inside of a gym and as long as they have a VCR to play their old VHS tapes of Dynasty they're happy. Silly me.

R83 non-sequitir, but I’ll take the bait. Who do think is responsible for enforcement? The doorman?

If people don't pay they don't pay. It happens in co-ops too.

And the remedy is quicker in a co-op.

So what r87?

Condos are better if you're into modern living.

What is modern living?

I live modernly, in a co-op. Your post (or posts?) don’t seem to make much sense, or reflect the reality of living in NY. They are different, yes. Co-ops aren’t going away, however, and condos do not have some unique or overriding advantage.

Kathy, I’ll give you a call if you promise to put a blouse on between your sagging naked skin and that vest. Eesh.

Some of the co/op fees cited here seem reasonable but not for this property. They are way too high. No wonder Jessica is broke and trying to offload it.

What an ugly apartment. I hope it was inherited because if not, yikes. The floor plan shows a workable home but the photos are just dressing.

Co-ops are really a NY thing. They don't make much sense but there you go.

the rules in co-op are too much for me. gotta be quiet at 10pm. blah blah blah

I don't do HOAs and I don't do co-ops. They're both a special kind of hell.

I much prefer co-ops. It's a pain to get in, but the process goes a long way to ensure that bother buyer and co-op board know what they are getting into with each other. Condo owners have a "fuck you it's mine to do with as I please" attitude and like all the mod-cons and concierge services and such things; they will think nothing of ripping an apartment apart for months and fuck the neighbors. Co-op owners can be imperious in their own ways, but more comically, and the thing the value is that the building be maintained as it is or should be - not that it be updated to every newfangled thing. They want a foorman who's a door man, an elevator operator who's an elevator operator, a porter who's a porter, a front desk person who's... They will slit your throat before they let you embark on an open-ended "gut reno" -- those are for condo people. They insist on quiet and on not accommodating strange whims if new people who want new things -- that's for condo people. Co-op people have a certain distrust of one another but also a certain respect for anyone who tries to do right. Condos are every man for himself; co-ops are about knowing how the votes will go. Co-ops want members who are snooty enough to keep to themselves but respectful of basic decorum in the building; it's a society built much more on respect than friendship (though most co-op people develop a couple good friends in their building.) co-ops are about knowing that your neighbors are not the sort to keep chickens in their apartment; condos are about having to take the chicken people to court.

R96 - very true BUT don't think the co-op boards are any different than condo boards. Same power-trip people making questionable decisions and ruling against others because they personally don't like it.

That's why a lot of celebrities have been rejected from co-op buildings. The list is numerous.

Madonna, Barbara Streisand, Calvin Klein, Carly Simon, Billy Joel, Cher - can you imagine what they said when they were rejected?

Grandma chic. It’s not exactly my style but it’s tastefully done. I do like a bit of vintage but mixed with modern. This is a bit too busy for me.

Have condos completely replaced co-ops in new construction, or are they still being built?

What's wrong with 57th street?

R99 new construction is invariably condo—that’s intentional by developers, as much for their own needs as it is a case of buyers’ perception that it is easier to re-sell (which perception is overstated IMHO).

[quote]What's wrong with 57th street?

It's a noisy shitshow with sirens blasting 24 hours a day.

That area is noisy as hell, way too much traffic. But I appreciate how convenient that location is.

Lez be friends

[quote]Many people these days wouldn't think of living in a building that didn't have an on-site fitness center

I'd like to know how much use those "fitness centers" in new luxury buildings actually get.

Most people in those buildings don't want to run into their neighbors. Privacy, anonymity is king.

From what I've seen they get a lot of use. Most people aren't agoraphobic shut-ins like some DLers.

R104 Huh?

The white tile is the wrong color and look for the kitchen. They should be warmer to match the cupboards and perhaps in a matte glaze or a simple unobtrusive pattern.

[quote]new construction is invariably condo—that’s intentional by developers, as much for their own needs as it is a case of buyers’ perception that it is easier to re-sell (which perception is overstated IMHO).

Agreed, R101. For me, the co-op/condo divide comes largely to a matter of taste in architecture. I prefer old buildings and the old buildings that have enjoyed the greatest degree of respect for their original design and details are typically co-ops. Condo projects, no matter how much they may tout historic architecture in some cases, usually make broad and extensive changes in development projects and end up leaving token bits of historic architecture and elements. New developments that tout classic design and detailing like Robert A.M. Stern's 15 CPW usually settle on slightly higher ceilings and a lobby with a theatrical nod to generic historic references -- a few historic-like details scrambled up for show for people who like the idea of something different without actually liking the ickiness of living in a place where people have lived before them. Itś not that condo developers of new or preservation projects are inauthentic in little details, itś that they get almost all the things wrong: the progression and hierarchy of spaces, the volumes of rooms (with some height, not just sprawl), the quality, solidity, and other aspects are forsaken for the trendy finishes of the moment that are a few cuts above Property Brothers. (And of course the Osborme was plenty trendy in its time, and its detailing is very specific to the period, but it was done well and a complete package, not as a package of compromises and watered down gestures toward quality.)

I lived in noisy areas and you get used to it. I lived on a cable car line in San Francisco (which is surprisingly noisy - the sound of the cable itself is loud - even if one of the trolley cars isn't going past). I also lived near a hospital (ambulance sounds all the time). I would trade off the convenience. Cities are noisy.

Yea—all of Manhattan is “noisy” by any definition. You get used to it. From one sude of my apt. I hear a major avenue and a major cross-town street. From the other side I hear birds chirping from sunrise to sundown, and little kids laughing and playing. I’m good.

R28 Robert Osborne seemed like a real gentleman. I really enjoyed his commentary on TCM.

This article about Chastain buying the apartment states it was Leonard Bernstein's until selling it in 1974.

[quote]The apartment has long been a haven for the theater elite. Bernstein lived in the apartment until 1974, at which point he sold it to cabaret star Bobby Short who then sold it to the current seller, Adam Guettel, a Tony-winning composer who is also the grandson of Richard Rodgers and son of composer Mary Rodgers Guettel, who was chairman of Juilliard when Chastain was a student at the school.

And this article confirms the Bernstein connection. He kept a studio apartment on another floor for work.

Anyone else hear Bunny MacDougal's voice while viewing the photos? I'm watching SaTC right now on E!. Bunny was rubbing Vicks on Trey's chest.