Archives
August 2006
Aug. 31, 2006 - Lofts are sexy – marketing “loft-like” apartments
I often get email blasts from agents about their listings, some of which are over the top, some just barely alive. For purposes of this discussion, I am amused by the apartment listings from non-loft neighborhoods that describe the apartments as “loft-like”.
Over-selling to other agents?
Maybe it is just me, but I figure that people who would be interested in “loft-like” apartments in Manhattan would be very interested in actual lofts. And if they were interested in real lofts, they would not be looking for apartments in … say ... the Upper East Side. But enough professional agents disagree that I can keep a collection of listing announcements for “loft-like” apartments that do not seem very much like lofts to me. But maybe they do to people who really like Upper East Side (standard) apartments.
How many points for an open litchen?
Take the Hampton House, a 32 story condominium tower built in 1985, that is at 404 East 79 St. Looking at pictures of listings on the web for this building, the ceiling heights look pretty standard at less than 9 feet. Foroogh Zarinehbaf at Nest Seekers Apartment 4A has offered for sale (though “temporarily off the market” as of last week), with inter-broker emails describing it as “loft-like”. It looks like a pretty standard (cookie-cutter) UES 2 bedroom layout, with an open kitchen, with about 1100 square feet. About the only thing in the description, floor plan or photos that is at all “loft-like” is an open kitchen.
I don’t think so.
A loft antonym?
Then there’s the 1950s East Side former rental building at 150 East 56 St that is about the least “loft-like” buildings imaginable: white brick, small windows, low ceilings. But Matthew Yee at Corcoran is marketing 11B to agents as a giant loft-like 850 square foot one bedroom apartment. In addition to the (obligatory) open kitchen, this one has a large open space for the kitchen, dining area and living room (20x 28 feet), which could be loft-like with a higher ceiling, with bigger windows, with a whole lot of other things it does not have.
No suspense, but I don’t think so.
The incredible shrunken loft (not)
Finally, a nice try. Unit 2C at 331 East 92 St is a studio that looks like no more than 250 square feet, described by Steve Lopez at Benjamin James as an “elegant loft-like studio with soaring high pressed tin ceiling, beautiful exposed brick wall,”, which is a mouthful (especially for a tiny studio). Soaring ceilings sounds like a loft. Lots of authentic lofts have pressed tin ceilings and/or exposed brick walls. And – of course – open kitchens (how could it be otherwise in a tiny studio??). But there is nothing loft-like that can be encompassed within 250 square feet.
Partial credit for the nice try, but I don’t think so.
Hint to buyers: if you want something "like" a loft, don’t shop on the Upper East Side.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Aug. 31, 2006 - The politics (?) of press reporting on recent sales / NY Times picks two hot ones
I gotta wonder sometimes about the politics of press reporting on real estate….
I am not saying there is a grand conspiracy going on, or even necessarily a single editorial sensibility. And I have not paid enough strict attention to notice trends. But sometimes things jump out at me.
Like today, when the NY Times “Residential Sales” section of the Home & Garden section had exactly two Manhattan apartment sales in it and -- for reasons also unknown, but continuing an out-of-town trend -- six sales in Maine (!).
What struck me about the studio sale at 250 East 40 St (The Highpoint) is that it sold in ONE WEEK at the asking price. This was followed by a "25 King Street" two bedroom loft that took 14 weeks to sell, but sold ABOVE the asking price.
Is this a bubble-busting item? How many closed sales must the Times get each week to choose from? And do they look at their mix, or just pick “interesting” ones? I don’t know anything about real estate in Maine, but four of the six listings featured today sold at or above asking price (a fifth was $2,000 below). Hmmmmm….
And, while I am on a string of rhetorical questions – has the Times given up on their real estate blog? There have been two posts in August, for the newspaper of record…. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
And, while I am needling the Times … they got the address wrong on King Street. #25 is a rental building; 29 King Street is the former schoolhouse, now condo. And #3-I is the loft unit at 29 King Street that sold above asking price.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Aug. 30, 2006 - the Tao of Lofts / essential features
There must be many opinions on what makes a loft a "loft", or where the line is between merely "loft-like" and a "true" loft. I know this because I see many listings for "lofts" that - to me - are not lofts at all, but "apartments".
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, of course. And everyone is entitled to mine, as well.
Lofts have to have (a) a sense of "space", (b) "high" ceilings, (c) lots of windows (the bigger the better), and (d) the flexibility afforded by only a few structural columns or other load-bearing elements.
Lofts don't have to have (a) a prior non-residential use (at thsi point it is pointless to quibble over brand new loft buildings) or (b) the Tao of Lofts - essential features like exposed mechanicals, visible girders, beams or columns, but it helps.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Loftlike, Tao, Prior Use, Space, Ceilings, Windows
|
Aug. 29, 2006 - NY Post “Just Sold” at the Petersfield 115 Fourth Av / hard data can be hard
Here is the description given in the NY Post on Aug 24 for a recent closing of a condominium loft at the Petersfield at 115 Fourth Av (at 12th St):
$1,050,000 One bedroom, two-bath loft condo, 900 square feet, with washer/dryer, den and storage; building has roof deck with Empire State Building views. Common charges $1,000, taxes $600. Asking price $1,195,000, on market 40 weeks.
Broker: Alan Pfeifer, Halstead Property
The listing is no longer up on the agent’s website as active, and not yet up as ‘recently closed’, but this listing has to be #4G, which has a more extensive price history than indicated to the Post.
Originally offered at $1.275mm, it had five price drops in 9 months before a contract was signed in June at $1.05mm.
The Petersfield has long been one of the premier condo loft buildings south of Union Square, with a doorman, new gym and beautiful roof deck. (And much better windows than across the street at 111 Fourth Av.) But a couple of other sales have been slow there of late.
4H has also been on the market for a year, with no sale yet. It is said to be 1260 sq ft, now asking $1.99mm through Douglas Elliman, having come out last year at $1.25mm.
The same agents also have 7B, 1175 sq ft, said to have been “meticulously renovated to the most exacting standards” (these guys don’t lie). This one came to market in March at $1.595mm before one price change and one agent change.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Aug. 28, 2006 - internet searches correlating with home sales?
Not sure what to do with this, but it looks intriguing....
A firm that analyzes web search traffic (not sure how, but that's another story) published a chart showing a "rough correlation" between internet searches for "houses for sale" and the National Association of Realtors monthly data on existing home sales.
Hitwise is a blog I am not familiar with (thanks to Inman News blog for the 'get'). See their link here.
As noted by a comment on their blog, their data goes back only one year. An interesting test will come with next month's NAR numbers, which the Hitwise search data anticipates will come in stronger than previous months.
Who cares if there is a correlation? I suppose one advantage (if the data holds) is that the Hitwise web search data is quicker to collect and report than NAR's data (so monthly numbers can be more current). It is at least interesting (and to some, probably powerful) if web search data can be found that closely correlates with consumer behavior, such as purchasing a house. All this is "crude" to the same extent that any national data is (ever hear the expression that "real estate is local"?), but even crude data can have value.
Tune in when the August numbers are reported in a month or so....
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Aug. 24, 2006 - Is the buzz dead? / will Britney be the last celeb in this loft?
The Wall Street Journal carried this news to me, but I am sure other media outlets had things to say about it that I missed.
Oops! It (finally) sold again
Britney Spears finally sold her Manhattan loft, after two years of marketing. The 4400 square foot penthouse unit in The Silk Building at 14 East 4th Street was first offered for sale in July 2004 for $5.975mm. Following several price drops down to $4.5mm over two years, the Journal reports that it sold last week for $4m.
The anonymous buyers are civilians, so this may be the end of the line for the celebrity residence of this penthouse, the provenance of which sets something of a straight line down, out of celebrity-hood.
the civilians were begat by Britney Spears,
who was begat by Russell Simmons,
who was begat by Keith Richards.
That is a fall from grace.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Aug. 22, 2006 - Eyes out for a market indicator / 240 Park Av South follows its sibling at #260
Comparing pricing at building A to building B – pretty good lab data is coming
By then we will probably all know how the market is doing, but the related developments at 260 Park Avenue South (at 20th St; occupancy began this year) and at 240 Park Avenue South (at 19th St; to be completed next year) would provide very good comparative data about the Manhattan luxury market in general, and the market for high-end condominium lofts more specifically late this year or early next.
THX to Triple Mint for pointing out the project. Her take was on 240 PAS as one of several Gwathmey Seigel projects in the post-Design For Living period (the Astor Place curved glass tower that has taken many shots in the press and New York City blogosphere).
My take is that ready-in-2007 #240 PAS will provide a great side-by-side market study compared to its sibling at #260 PAS, which was sold beginning in 2005. The same developer is aiming at the same market.
Same finishes, same sizes, same developer, same location (nearly)
According to The Real Deal, 240 PAS sold at an average price of $1,275/ft, but that “front end” apartments sold for more (“as much as” $2,400/ft). 240 PAS will feature all “frontal” apartments. (#240 will be smaller, with only 55 units, compared to the 110 units at #260).
“Like its neighbor at 260 Park, the new project will feature loft-style apartments with 11-foot ceilings (15 feet in the penthouses) and 8-foot high windows that will let in light from the front, back and sides -- courtesy of a back courtyard and a rounded southeast corner that will grant expansive Downtown views. All the units will be "frontal," unlike at 260 Park Avenue South, [Yitzchak] Tessler says.”
The two bedroom “B” line at 260 PAS should qualify as “frontal;” it has the best downtown view, at the Southeast corner of the building. The top floor unit, #11B, just went into contract off an asking price of $2.825mm for 1880 sq ft, or $1,503/ ft asking.
(Makes me wonder about some the front-end space that sold for “as much as” $2,400/ft, but who am I to quibble with a developer’s data??)
Two bedrooms at 240 PAS will be smaller than the “B” line a block north (though bigger than the two bedrooms in other lines at 260 PAS).
“The project at 240 Park Avenue South will include 800-square-foot one-bedrooms, 1,500-square-foot two-bedrooms, 2,150- square-foot three-bedrooms, and four 4,000- square-foot penthouses.”
The developer has not selected a marketing firm yet, so there will be no marketing for a while. But when that new building “comes out”, it should be easy to compare how the market is doing at that time.
Just look one block north.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Aug. 17, 2006 - Chuck Close lighting unresolved – stay tuned
That fascinating issue about whether a developer would get a variance to block the light of Noho artists’ studios (including that of Chuck Close) will continue for another month, and may be heading towards a negotiated resolution. I blogged about it in July; here’s an update.
Big artist calls out big art’s big guns
The Zoning Committee of Community Board 2 hearing that was to consider the variance application in mid-August has been adjourned while the developer talks to the artists whose light is at stake. Once again The Villager has the story.
Not surprisingly, the case attracted major interest in the art world, and The Villager describes two letters sent to government officials, one from Glenn D. Lowry, the Museum of Modern Art’s director, and one from Nan Rosenthal, a curator in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Department of 19-century, Modern and Contemporary Art.
The letters emphasize the importance of Close’s work, as you would expect from their sources. From a public policy perspective, however, I hope there will be commentary about whether and under what circumstances an “artist’s easement for light” should be required, or purchased.
Lowry wrote
“I understand the need for development. I also believe that a balance should be found between new construction and the protection of artists whose work has helped define a neighborhood and, in fact, our city. I would urge the Board of Standards and Appeals to carefully review the plans of the proposed project to insure that the building does not adversely affect Mr. Close’s working environment. Mr. Close is one of the United States’ leading artists and has long been an advocate of New York City’s importance as the cultural capital of the country,” Lowry wrote.
Ms. Rosenthal took the same tack:
“The project will block light from artists’ studios of long standing at 20 Bond St., including that of Chuck Close, the United States’ most brilliant colorist”. “Light is essential to Close’s work. Without it, Close will be forced to leave the building and Noho for brighter space, very likely moving his studio out of the city.”
“Close is not just an extraordinary painter and printmaker, he is also ‘Mr. Art World.’…. Close is handicapped (he had a spinal aneurysm in 1989 and is confined to a wheelchair) and having a studio where he can move his canvases easily from ground floor to basement mechanically — and still have light — is crucial.
“Please ask the developers to select a different plan,” Rosenthal urged.
Not surprisingly, the chair of CB2’s Zoning Community was impressed by the letters.
“Obviously, he’s a big shot because you get letters from two major museums about him specifically,” she noted. “It’s not just some little art gallery in the Village.”
Nothing against Chuck Close, but I wonder what would have happened if the developer had not needed a variance to build something that would block light from the 20 Bond Street artists. But for the variance request, the City would have nothing to say about the plans.
Like views, all light is provisional in Manhattan
While I don’t know this for sure, it appears that this is a situation of someone taking for granted the “fact” that they would always have light, because they “always” had. Presumably, Close and friends would have had the opportunity to offer cash to the owners of the undeveloped lot in order to protect “their” light, but they probably figured that they did not have to.
This is a situation similar to the folks at Lincoln Towers who had terrific Hudson River views (see the blog entry that got me started on Mr. Close’s situation), looking over rail yards that could “never” be developed – until The Donald did.
Stay tuned until late September.
Is your light at risk?
In the meantime, if you really need the light you currently enjoy in your loft, maybe you should research the development possibilities between you and the sun.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Aug. 12, 2006 - Timing the market when timing is everything / CNNMoney on ‘bubble-sitting’
They make it sound so easy
“Bubble-sitting” is the term used by CNNMoney reporter Les Christie to refer to potential buyers who anticipate that house or apartment prices will fall, so are renting in the interim. There is a lot of talk about this these days, most of it overly simplistic, in my view.
Sell high / buy low
No real estate market in the US is as transparent or as deep or as broad a market, with as much up-to-the-minute well-regulated data, as the stock market. Stock investors (speculators?) try to time the stock market all the time, yet few civilians succeed.
But Dean Baker is Bubble Sitting the real estate market, or so he says.
Dean Baker, an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, is a bubble sitter himself, having sold his home a couple of years ago. "It is a very bad time to buy. Prices are heading down," he said.
Baker also predicts that the markets that have run up the most will suffer the worst turndowns. He compares it to the tech bubble when Nasdaq stocks rang up the biggest gains before the pop and fell the farthest from their highs after it.
How’s his timing?
But Mr. Baker illustrates the difficulty, perhaps inadvertently, “having sold his home a couple of years ago”. Since The Center for Economic and Policy Research is in Washington DC (according to its website), I assume Baker lives somewhere in the metro DC area. I don’t know that area market, but I will try to get some stats on pricing history there. For present purposes (and as an illustration) let’s assume that the DC metro area real estate market has had average price increases of 7% per year from 2003 through 2005, and stays flat beginning in 2006 until whenever this 'bubble' bursts.
So if Mr. Baker sold his house for a hypothetical $500,000 in early 2003, that house was worth about $610,000 in early 2006. If Mr. Baker is right that there is a bubble and that the “correction” will be between 11% and 22% (as he argues elsewhere; I will explain) that same house might be worth ‘only’ from $544,000 to $478,000 after that correction, when Mr. Baker would anticipate getting back into the market.
Hmmmm …. Does that work? (Let’s ignore the real life complicating factors of what he could have done with the net proceeds from the sale of the $500k house in 2003, other than paying rent with it, and the transaction costs of getting in and out.)
Mr. Baker has been writing articles about ‘the housing bubble’ since at least August 2002, so maybe he sold even earlier than my hypothetical date of early 2003. (About halfway through this article, Baker has a scenario involving a “big bubble" and a “little bubble”, which he equates to a range of 22% to 11% as the decline in average house prices when the big or little ‘bubble’ bursts.)
So my hypothetical Bubble Sitter named Baker tried to Bubble Sit beginning in early 2003 by selling a $500,000 house and hypothetically bought that same house back sometime in the future for up to a $44,000 more than he sold for, or up to a $22,000 less than he sold for (without considering transaction costs, etc). Someone else owned it when its value increased above $500,000 to its post-bubble low value. That does not sound like a terrific deal to me.
If he was three years off when beginning to sit…?
Of course, that is assuming my hypothetical Baker timed the market perfectly when he bought it back – right at the moment when values increased. Since he was hypothetically at least two years wrong in picking when to sell, he would have to get lucky to time it perfectly on the return, wouldn’t he?
If he waited too long (perhaps a quarter or two to be sure that the market trend continued), he would probably pay even more to buy back his $500,000 house.
I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Baker, especially as he told reporter Christie that most people should not try what he tried:
Even though he did it himself, Baker says most people should not sell in anticipation of getting back into the market at a lower price.
"I don't think people want to speculate on their homes," he says. "But if they're selling for another reason - if they're downsizing, for example, because their children have moved out - they should cash out and rent for a while."
Christie closes with at least some good advice, warning off people from Bubble Sitting if they have a longer term orientation.
The value of bubble sitting also depends on how long you intend to live in a house. If you're planning to be there for five years or more, it make sense to buy as soon as possible. Time smoothes out any price bumps - over long periods prices nearly always go up - and the tax advantages may help make it cheaper to buy than rent.
It's a different story for the short term. Then, all those buying and selling expenses means that even in flat markets, you could be underwater if you sell out after two or three years.
But even if you have a short term perspective, timing the market is not for the faint of heart. Remember how much gain the hypothetical Mr. Baker sold to someone else when he missed the best time to sell by at least three years.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Aug. 9, 2006 - Another precinct heard from, and giving me a headache / Halstead’s Q2 report
Compared to the Miller Samuel data, Halstead’s suggests that the loft market is not quite as strong, with average price per square foot for downtown lofts being up 7% year-over-year, but down from the first quarter of this year ($1,005 per ft now; $1,072 then).
Halstead claims more transactions than Miller Samuel – not sure why
But the Halstead format and presentation is frustrating. Only when you get to the end do you see that the overall number of transactions in the second quarter is reported as 2,655 sales (719 more than Miller Samuel reported for the same period), with no breakdown within geographic or market segments.
Thus, we can’t tell how many loft transactions Halstead tracked for the quarter. Worse, I can’t figure out why they use median sales price and median price per square foot, instead of averages, in the main loft presentation [page 6]. I think average is a more useful metric. Are they trying to differentiate from Miller Samuel?
And, they do only a year-over-year comparison for median loft prices (Q2 05 and Q2 06), instead of also showing performance for this quarter compared to the prior quarter. (They use both averages and medians elsewhere throughout the report; and report average price per square foot for the last five quarters elsewhere in the report [page 2].)
“Inventory” means whatever they want, apparently
Once again, Halstead uses as an “inventory” data point the number of new listings in the quarter (with both YOY and Q1 comparative data this time), which strikes me a misnomer. “Inventory” is “how much is available?”, not “how much new stuff came out?”. New stuff may be interesting in its own right, but not nearly as interesting as knowing what the market overhang is.
Feh!
Loft apartments in the Greenwich, East and West Village areas sold for a median of $1,024,500 during the second quarter, 21% higher than a year ago. In the Tribeca and Chelsea / Flatiron markets, the median price per square foot rose 17% and 15% respectively. from 2005’s second quarter despite a decline in the median price. Although the units sold were smaller than a year ago, they still fetched higher price per square foot prices.
I am spoiled by Miller Samuel (or maybe just cranky today), but the “commentary” is more of the “here’s a data point, and here’s another data point, and here’s yet another data point” variety, rather than any attempt to explain anything. And the commentary refers to data not provided anywhere in the report (the many references to the size of units sold).
Cranky, maybe. But I get a headache trying to compare reports that have different data.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Aug. 7, 2006 - Lofts again out-perform the market / Miller Samuel 2Q 06 report
Overall, a buyer’s market with stubborn sellers
The overall Manhattan market in the second quarter reflected two clear trends toward a market in transition, according to appraisal firm Miller Samuel: on the one hand all price indicators were up; on the other hand, inventory continues to increase as the number of transactions declines and the average days on market increasing.
But the loft sub-market showed significant relative strength, with inventory essentially flat and average days on market up, but better than the overall market.
As always, there is a lot to digest in the Miller Samuel data. Jonathan Miller selected the following as the key excerpt about the stand-off between buyers and sellers evident in the second quarter, in his blog Matrix:
…The phenomenon of rising prices and declining sales is a classic sign of a market in transition. The market has entered a period where the sellers no longer have a clear advantage in the typical sales transaction. Buyers were expecting a deep discount on all transactions while sellers remained fairly firm in their pricing. As a result, the number of sales dropped as the buyers who were resistant to rising prices simply chose not to participate, while those who stayed in the market paid record prices on average. The modest uptick in mortgage rates since the beginning of the year tempered demand as both existing and new development inventory was rising. While inventory levels are the highest they have been in ten years, the selection for buyers has not improved as much as the inventory numbers would suggest as sellers have not yet responded to the weaker demand. There is still a substantial portion of listings that are priced as if the market was seeing double-digit annual appreciation that occurred over the past several years. As a result, it is taking longer to sell an apartment and there is generally more negotiability…
I also think it noteworthy that Miller found that coop “entry level units” (one bedrooms and studios) lost market share to sales of larger apartments in the quarter, compared to last year (52% vs., 57%), and were the only market segment with lower prices year-over-year. This suggests that first time coop buyers may be getting squeezed out of the market.
Condos ‘lead’ the market, softer and softer
The impact on the market of the continuing stream of new condominium offerings is evident in several ways. First, there were more condominiums sold in the second quarter than coops, for the second consecutive time. Second, while the overall inventory is up 54% year-over-year, that increase is disproportionately from condos: coop inventory is up 30.8% but condo inventory is nearly double the prior year’s inventory (up 93.5%). Third, Miller estimates that the roughly 60% of the increase in condo inventory is from new developments. Finally, condos took longer to sell in this quarter than coops (149 days on the market, compared to 138 for coops).
A tentative (not bold) prediction
I suspect that with the pipeline of new condominium projects remaining robust, each of these trends should continue for the rest of 2006 – unless developers begin to price new condos lower, in which case it is likely that overall market price indicators will fall.
Relative strength in lofts / higher prices, flat sales and inventory
The number of loft transactions in this quarter was essentially the same as the prior year’s quarter (218, down from 221), compared to the 14.8% year-over-year decline in transactions in the market overall.
Loft inventory was up modestly year-over-year (376 units this quarter, 361 lofts for sale last year), compared to the 54% general inventory increase in the overall market.
And loft prices per square foot were higher than for condos generally, or for coops generally (at $1,170 for lofts, $1,149 for condos, and $968 for coops) – which is remarkably strong (to me), as my guess is that most loft sales continue to be in coops rather than in condos.
The Miller Samuel report came out last week, while I was enjoying moderate temperatures and sea breezes in Maine and Canada, so I have not yet had the opportunity to see how the media has spun the data. We’ll see….
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Aug. 3, 2006 - a secretary + a boss + a ‘sketchy’ president + a maritime afterthought = Mad Sq / Times tours Mad Sq statues
I am thinking that Madison Square Park is the loft-neighborhood park with the greatest number of historic statues....
The NY Times a while back ran a feature about statues in parks that started with a Tompkins Square statue of a Congressman beloved by postal workers (!), then followed with three (the four) statues in Madison Square.
Mad Sq statues of 3 19th C giants, one short guy
The Mad Sq lineup includes William Seward at the corner of 23 rd and Broadway. Seward is said to be by the Times “ to be the first person born in New YorkState to be honored by the city with a monument. Seward earned it; he was secretary of state during the Civil War, surely one of the more stressful jobs in human history”, but the (apocryphal?) story I have heard is that this statue was built as an Abraham Lincoln but Seward’s head was added late. “They” say the large hands are the Lincoln give-away. NY Songlines agrees that a Lincoln cast was used, citing as evidence that Seward was really quite short.
Near Seward stands a Republican giant.
The undisputed king of the New York Republican political machine, Senator Conkling played a critical role in one of the most hotly contested presidential elections in history. In 1880, James A. Garfield -- a man who enjoyed not one-tenth of Conkling's fame -- was elected president and took with him to Washington as his vice president an even less well-known former customs collector for the Port of New York named Chester Alan Arthur. Were it not for Conkling, Arthur would be even more of a footnote in history than he is.
Conkling was a US senator and representative, but the NYC connection I am aware of is that he died in the Blizzard of 1888, trying to walk home. I have been told that he lived near Madison Square and died there (so close to home) but Forgotten-NY thinks he died in Union Square, but was denied a statue there because he did not rank with Lincoln, Washington and Lafayette – so he was relegated uptown to Madison Square.
‘sketchy’ Pres with good taste
As everyone knows  Arthur was the 21 st President, following the death by bullet of James Garfield. His statue is near the playground at the corner near 26 th and Madison. Arthur is the ‘sketchy’ President from Vermont, though he developed important New York City connections, having been Commissioner of Customs and Quartermaster General for New York during the Civil War.
He was in many ways a man of his times, and that included a tacit understanding that bribes and kickbacks were as important a part of politics as campaigns and conventions.
The Times follows with the sort of left-handed compliment that Republican Presidents would love to still get:
[On the one hand] Most people agree that though Arthur was one of our least important presidents, [but on the other hand] he did have great taste; among other things, he hired Louis Comfort Tiffany to help refurbish the interior of the White House.
… though he disappointed his patrons
That is quite a redeeming feature for a President, non? But they do give Arthur his due (unlike his contemporaries):
In 1883 he became a champion of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which guaranteed that government jobs were handed out based on merit and not political connections. Old friends of his, including Conkling, ostracized him, and he was not renominated in 1884.
Damn the oversight, there’s more
As an addendum, the Times noted that there is also a statue in Mad Sq to Civil War admiral David Farragut. I believe he is the “ damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” guy. He stands on a monumental pedestal along 26th Street in mid-block.
|
Comments (1) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Aug. 1, 2006 - The other side of the illegal loft story / conflicts with industrial policy
As a follow-up to my July 19 blog about the potential benefits from living illegally in non-residential space (such as living rent-free), there was a terrific item last week on Brownstoner.com about the tension between the City’s industrial development policy and encroaching residential-ism, and a related ironic piece in the Post about the Business Improvement District headquarters for the Fashion District being unable (so far) to move into new space because the BID is not a qualifying manufacturing use.
Remember those 3 guys living rent-free?
My blog piece focused on the peculiar only-in-New-York-kids aspect to the three guys who stopped paying rent for the space they lived in, then the landlord being unable to easily evict them because he had knowingly rented it out illegally as residential space. There was some discussion in the underlying Village Voice piece about the reasons some areas and some buildings are not suitable as legal residences, but that was a footnote to their main point.
But the Brownstoner.com blog and the Post article highlight the direct issue of the conflict between competing residential and other uses of land in the city. Brownstoner lays out the issues in Brooklyn, which are the same as for anywhere in Manhattan, although some of the sources he links to won’t apply to Manhattan.
How to preserve some manufacturing or industrial sites?
On the one hand, there is a continuing need for *some* manufacturing / industrial space – even in Manhattan -- and the City has a legitimate interest in preserving facilities to retain those jobs and firms, rather than permitting zoning changes or variances to permit residential development.
The jobs and firms that could survive have their natural habitats shrunk or eliminated when (especially luxury) residential development is created nearby. Consider the Meatpacking District, and the reaction of new condo owners who have paid $x,000,000 to live in a neighborhood in which 18 wheel trailers block streets and sidewalks, and in which guys in long coats (formerly white, now stained red) hose down the sidewalks under carcass conveyors. (Or consider the poor souls at 44 Laight Street in Tribeca, who moved into a historic district without sidewalks but with cobblestones, who now find it hard to walk safely, let alone push strollers or shovel snow.)
Some folks prefer their grit quiet and tame
Although part of the “charm” of some loft neighborhoods includes the elements of authentic urban industrial ‘grit’, when commercial trash haulers blare back-up sounds and their hydraulics lift and bang trash bins at 4 AM in an area that includes high end apartments, there is bound to be conflict. Lately, the residential market is so strong that it has been pushing aggressively into formerly off-limits areas.
In contrast, much of the residential loft development in the 1970s and 1980s in Soho and Tribeca was more ‘bottom-up’ encroachment, as the residential buildings filled in where industry had already vacated, where blocks were nearly deserted.
Lafayette Street is probably an example of both trends – ten years ago some businesses vacated, and residential usage filled in the gap. More recently, residential developers have bought usable industrial buildings out from under commercial tenants.
Bless the Mayor
The Mayor, bless his corporate heart and business head (really), sees this issue for the complex one that it is -- and probably more fraught in Brooklyn than in Manhattan. I recommend the Brownstoner piece, and his blog generally.
The irony of the Post article is that the West 30s have stringent zoning and usage requirements to ‘preserve’ space for needle trades. In this case, the regs are an obstacle to a Business Improvement District – formed to assist the Fashion Industry in that neighborhood – cannot move its offices because the desired space is in a building reserved for industrial use. I gather that many people feel that the amount of reserved space vastly exceeds even a hopeful renaissance of needle trade firms, so the BID (and its allies) argue that the Preserve The Needle Trades regs should be revised in their case.
Gotta love the irony!
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Industrial Policy, Fashion District, Development, Meatpacking District, 44 Laight Street
|
|
on matters of interest to Manhattan coop or condo loft apartment dwellers, buyers, sellers, and others, especially about New York City real estate
Links
• Home
• View my profile
• Archives
• Email Me
• Blog Manager
|
RSS Blog Feed
