Archives
May 2007
May. 30, 2007 - price drop at Ruggles House, getting to the point of pain?
I touched on 112 E 19 St #3F in my May 4 open house review [3 Sunday loft open houses $2.3 - $2.5 (each with history)], when it was offered for $2.35mm, a $200k premium over the January clearing price for this unit. Yesterday, the asking price just dropped $100k (that’s now $2.25mm and $1,536/mo if you misplaced your calculator). This offereing by Taylor Hargrave at BHS is now only 7 weeks old.
Here’s what I said four weeks ago:
1,800 sq ft with a somewhat peculiar set up as 2 BR + library/den/media room; only 3 pix, with hints that this may need some “freshening up” (or more): an “alternate floor plan” is provided and the floors look a little weathered and there’s only those 3 pix; one challenge is that the space is nearly square, but has windows only on one side; on the market 4 weeks this time but there must be a story here: the owner bought this place only in January (paying $2.1mm), then Corcoran listed it for a day in March at $2.3mm
Still only 3 pix (is that a poor photo, or does the strip flooring in the foyer look rather … worn?).
how much value did the calendar add?
Ruggles House past sales suggest this is the right price neighborhood, “depending”. Depending on condition, mostly, which is why the implication that this one needs work suggests it may still be over-priced, but within a reasonable range of its asking price.
#6F sold in January for $2.15mm after 6 months on the market and sounds (from the listing description and pix) as though it has been more upgraded than #3F.
#7R (mint renovated and 1,950 sq ft) sold in September (4+ months on market; less than 3 weeks to contract) for $2.65mm -- $400k over the asking price
Of course, the most relevant “comp” is what did this same apartment sell for five months ago. That was $2.1mm as the market value then. Wonder why they are selling #3F, after just buying it. Wonder how anxious they are, getting close to a break-even point (net of double transaction expenses)….
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Ruggles House
|
May. 30, 2007 - 3,600 sq ft of ‘warm + cozy’ (?) goes to contract at 129 W 22
Chelsea loft at $920/ft lasts 3 months
Couple of puzzles about the 2d floor at 129 West 22 St, which went into contract this week off an asking price of $2.995mm ($3,000/mo maintenance): (1) how is a full-floor loft that is 3,600 sq ft with windows on the narrow ends “warm and cozy”? (2) how does a second floor unit get “great light”?
They tried to sell it through PruDE for six months spanning 2005-2006, without success, then started again in February this year with Reid Price (then at Corcoran / Sunshine, now at Brown Harris) at $3.395mm. It took a mid-April price drop of $400k (my kind of aggressive response to non-selling; see more price pain on 16 St /if you knew then what you know now… about death-by-small-price-drops) to get into contract this week.
The 2d floor is said to be newly renovated, about 100 feet long, with big windows front and back (and two at the front corners). They say “great light”, consistent with the pix, but from the second floor mid-block that is a bit of a mystery, as the buildings across 22nd Street are 12 stories high, and the buildings in the back (which front along 23rd Street) are three and four stories high.
This building has had enough recent activity to say some things about the Manhattan loft market.
agent knows the market
Price and Brett Miles know the market for this building, as they just sold (this month) the full-floor 6th floor. That one started in November (when Price was at Corcoran) at $2.695mm, and then went on steroids to $3.1mm in December [btw, Barry Bonds is in town] before going into contract in February and closing this month. Can’t get any pictures on the web from this closed listing, but the description implies that the 6th floor is not ‘done’ at all.
The interesting thing about the sale price for the 6th floor is that – after jumping from $2.695mm to $3.1mm (and holding there) – the seller did the deal at $2.75mm without reducing the asking price from $3.1mm.
this one lasts two months, and counting
#10A is for sale through Alex Nicholas and Gabriella Winter at Corcoran at $1.995mm ($2,000/mo) for 2,525 sq ft. (The finishes may be terrific in this unit, but the floor plan is rather choppy, with an odd footprint that they cleverly refer to as a “flexible and meandering space”, with a huge kitchen that dominates the floor plan.) They started here at $2.295mm in mid-March, dropped to $2.175mm on May 1 and then to $1.995mm on May 16 (cumulatively, my kind of aggressive response to non-selling).
this one lasted a year, then ….?
#5A had been for sale in March last year, first through Citi-Habitats for $2.4mm, then with Halstead in June for $1.999mm. It seems to have dropped off the market somewhere between June and March 2007. It is said to be 2,400 sq ft of “great bones” that needs “a little polish”.
but this one took (only) 7 months to close
#12A closed in November for $2.215mm off an asking price of $2.3mm. This one seems to be a little smaller than #10A, but has 1,500 sq ft of roof rights. It was sold as in good condition but in need of renovation, through Ingrid Weigand.
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (5) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 129 W 22, 8020 Rule, Irs
|
May. 29, 2007 - patience pays? 429 Greenwich births a contract
8 months later, #4B is in contract without a price change
#4B at 429 Greenwich St was the apple of its owner’s eye when it was first offered for sale in September at $3.1mm ($2,780/mo) and now – nearly a full-term baby – it has given birth to a contract without having to drop the price. With 2,100 sq ft it is called a 3 BR with 2.5 baths, but that 3rd bedroom lacks both closets and an easy walk to a bathroom.
Richard Orenstein at Halstead calls this Tribeca’s “most sought-after doorman building”, but there’s probably a huge intramural squabble over that title.
This pretty cool loft building was converted to condos in 1996 (it had been a lantern factory), when the high-end arm’s race was one of two turns of the wheel less manic. So there is no gym, no children’s play room, not even a wine cellar.
The same unit on the second floor (#2B) is available through Corcoran for $2.75mm ($2,150/mo, as the taxes are much lower here [a mistake??]). I wonder why the second floor unit has been harder to sell than the fourth floor unit with the higher price.
#2C sold for $3.375 last June (2,400 sq ft) and #4D sold for $3.325mm last August (also 2,400 sq ft) after two months on the market, offered through Halstead’s Orenstein.
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 429 Greenwich, Orenstein, Doorman, Halstead, Price Drop
|
May. 29, 2007 - advantages to the much-maligned coop ownership, vs. condos
getting rid of a bad neighbor is much easier in a coop
Another interesting bit in Sunday’s NY Times Real Estate Q + As section deals with one way in which coop boards have much more power than condo associations – dealing with seriously disruptive residents / shareholders.
Over the years, the co-op, a 64-unit building at Park Avenue and 87th Street, sued the Lapiduses a number of times. They were required to pay $170,000 to the co-op for maintenance, late fees and assessments and more than $400,000 in fees to the co-op’s lawyers.
The co-op also sued the couple over their air-conditioning system, accusing them of replacing the existing equipment with a water-cooled system connected to the building’s water supply. The co-op said the new system leaked and damaged the apartment below.
At a special meeting in December 2004, the co-op board voted unanimously to terminate the Lapiduses’ propriety lease. In accordance with the co-op’s governing documents, a special shareholder vote was required to ratify the board’s action. The court decision noted that the Lapiduses had threatened to sue any shareholder who voted to evict them, but after the board advised the shareholders that the co-op would assume responsibility for any judgments resulting from such litigation, 98 percent of the building’s shares were voted in the board’s favor.
This coop is one of the tony Park Avenue coops, 1050 Park Avenue, a long-established coop that requires that buyers finance no more than 50% of their purchase price. (I don’t know this particular building’s standards, but many “50% coops” require that the purchasers have a multiple of the purchase price in liquid assets following the purchase. So the purchasers-in-contract of #13D, which was asking $2.695mm [and $2.830/mo] for a Classic Six with 1,850 sq ft] may have to have upwards of $5.4mm or $7.8mm in the bank – in addition to other significant wealth – to qualify to purchase here.) The point being that the shareholders at 1050 Park Avenue who were so upset at their troublesome neighbors probably thought they were safe from The Wrong Kind Of People.
This was certainly not a simple process, with years of aggravation, then a board vote, then a special shareholder vote, but the court agreed that the coop had the ability to use its best judgment for when a shareholder should be ‘voted off the island’ (not a quote from the court!).
In contrast, the process by which a condominium deals with an abusive owner / resident is far more cumbersome. Since each condo owner owns the real property within its four walls, ceiling and floor, the path to expulsion requires that the neighbors establish that the offending owner is a “nuisance” under the law – with no presumption similar to the business judgment rule that protects coop boards in similar situations. Then the condo association has to evict the offending condo owner in landlord – tenant court (a venue notoriously disposed to favoring “tenants”).
coop board power is limited by shareholder assent
Most coops require a super-majority of shareholders voting to expel an offensive shareholder, which seems a reasonable limit on potential abuse of power by a coop board dealing irritating shareholders. (This coop got 98% of the shareholders to approve the expulsion; my guess is the offending shareholders held 2%.)
In a world in which many people tout the benefits of condo ownership vs. coop ownership, the power to deal with offensive shareholders is a significant way in which coops can be better than condos.
I blogged about a war between a condo association and one unit owner in January (un-neighborly neighbors / the dynamics of dysfunction), in a situation in which the condo was not even trying to evict the owner – just get him to stop harassing the board, the managing agent and the condo’s lawyers. A coop might have been able to get rid of that guy.
Is anyone surprised that the offending shareholder is a lawyer?
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 1050 Park, Coop Boards, Evictions
|
May. 28, 2007 - identity theft, anyone? / what really happens to confidential purchase applications?
why are 6 copies of my tax returns in the trash at my new building?
One of yesterday’s Real Estate Q + As In the NY Times (How Confidential Are Applications?) deals with one of those dirty little secrets in the Manhattan purchase process: buyers who submit multiple copies of tax returns, employment information, and copies of investment account statements rely on the focused good faith of coop and condo boards about disposition of all of that highly confidential paperwork.
Jay Romano of the NY Times quotes a Manhattan coop lawyer to the effect that there are no laws that protect buyers here, but that boards should act wisely:
Eva Talel, a Manhattan co-op lawyer, said there are no New York laws that specify how a co-op board treats information it receives from prospective purchasers, nor are there any laws limiting the locations at which purchasers’ applications can be reviewed.
But Ms. Talel said that as a matter of good practice, board members should maintain the confidentiality of application packages, regardless of where that information is reviewed.
“With regard to the disposition of application packages, management may wish to retain one copy of the package in a secure location, but the remaining copies should either be destroyed or returned to the applicant,” she said.
If Ms. Talel represents coop boards, I wonder how many boards she has advised to appropriately destroy or return copies of application materials….
this is a job for REBNY
I don’t have any doubt about the good faith of coop or condo boards, but I do worry about the focus of these people after they have reviewed a purchase application. And I wonder why REBNY has not addressed this in the standards of practice that it establishes for its managing agent member (who usually control such mundane processes as the handling of purchase applications).
I have yet to see a single purchase application that describes what happens to the application materials. The managing agent and the real estate agents involved in the purchase have implicit duties of confidentiality, I would think. Board members do, as well, but I suspect that they are not specifically aware of this (or, at least, that they don’t act consistently with purchase applications as if they do).
I know of some board members who are very diligent and very anal about retaining documents. But when it comes time for them to purge themselves of boxes and boxes of documents from their board service, I am not sure that they all use shredders.
a modest suggestion
When an application is finally approved, managing agents should collect all the material from board members and should either (a) shred it or (b) (more likely to occur) make it available for pick up by the applicants, to dispose of as they wish. I suspect there are arguments to be made that managing agents should securely retain one set, on the theory that you-never-know-when-it-might-be-relevant (even though it won’t be).
If the managing agent has a copy, there is simply no reason for any other sets to remain with board members or the Department of Sanitation.
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Coops, Condos, Purchase Applications, Rebny
|
May. 24, 2007 - “junior loft” in contract at 10 Leonard
#3N at 10 Leonard St just went into contract this week after six months on the market, off an asking price of $1.199mm (and a relatively high maintenance for a non-doorman loft of $1,157/mo for a 1,000 sq ft loft).
It is described as a “junior loft” with a “distinct ‘L’ shape [that] provides privacy for the bedroom”, but there’s no floor plan on the Corcoran site and the pictures take some study to figure out the layout. Perhaps there is no floor plan because they want you to fall in like with the beautiful finishes (truly beautiful) before you see that that Distinct L Shape provides privacy for the bedroom only from the kitchen – unless I am missing a sliding panel, the “bedroom” is open to the living room. (That is probably the reason why the floor plan is omitted; can’t think of another one.)
Definitely a beautiful loft. Probably perfect for a single person who entertains a lot.
This one had a bouncy price history, coming to market in November for $1.199mm, then rising $100k for six weeks before dropping back to the starting price two months ago. (Why’d they do that?)
The only recent sale I see in this small building (16 lofts) was #7S, which sold in January at $1.94mm for 1,723 sq ft. Check out that listing to see how nicely tricked out that top floor unit was when it sold for $1,126/ft. I wonder if the junior loft four floors lower did as well on a $/ft basis.
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 10 Leonard, Corcoran, Floor Plan
|
May. 22, 2007 - is 4,600 sq ft enough? 2 chances at 17 W 17 St
raw loft space at $700/ft
The 5th floor is newly available, and in similar raw-and-ready-to-be-built-out condition (except that the 5th floor is now a design showroom, vs. the tool and die on the 3d floor). Bonnie Wyper at Corcoran is representing this loft, asking $3.25mm (and $3,300/mo). As she says, “the traditional steel and concrete construction and 4 centered baring columns provide an eminently flexible space for your architect to turn this fabulous loft into a dream home”. (In case you are wondering about buying and using only part of the space, when I to Fred Williams at Sothebys about the 3rd floor, it seemed that the 4,600 sq ft space can be sub-divided into two units, but perhaps not very gracefully, given where the elevator is and the light comes in.)
One could spend $300-per-foot in doing a wonderful build-out ($1.5mm) on the 5th floor, and just be at $1,000/ft in total. If one had that kind of money and needed that kind of space.
As Judy asks (rhetorically, I am sure) in her listing description: “Where else can you find this kind of space in Manhattan?”
Is it rude to answer a rhetorical question??
There is at least one other place to find this kind of space in Manhattan, six floors above this space, where Fred Williams at Sothebys is offering the PH for $3.95mm (and $3,328/mo). Look at the pictures of the Empire State Building and Met Life Building at night and at day to decide if that view is worth $700k more than the 5th floor. (Fred used to have another place to “find this kind of space”, but that 3rd floor is now in contract; they were asking $2.9mm, since August.)
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (2) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 17 W 17, West 17, Raw Space, Renovation, Empire State Building
|
May. 22, 2007 - Tribeca at $1,000/ft (or less) – 261 Broadway 5E is new
Transportation options don’t get much better than at 261 Broadway (opposite City Hall), with every Manhattan subway that gets that far downtown passing with a couple of blocks. Unit #5E (the first listing at http://www.nyctribeca.com/) is newly for sale this week, asking $1.295mm (and $1,101/mo) for what is said to be 1,260 sq ft. Yes, it is barely Tribeca, but it is also barely over $1,000/ft (maybe it will trade for less).
Regina Wierbowski is rather stingy with web pix (and no floor plan), but she ain’t bragging about the finishes or kitchen or bath (only one bath; second can be added) or recent renovation. So don’t count on a dazzling interior.
Foot print will be the same as #7E , which looks to me from Property Shark as though it sold last August for $1.15mm (it took one year plus two firms to sell); based on similar descriptions of 5E and 7E, the two floor plans may be similar.
Regina has a contract on #3B in the same building (the listing below 5E on her home page, above), which she seems more willing to brag about. It is asking $1.275mm (and $1,449/mo) and is probably 1,200 sq ft. #12B should have the same footprint (claimed to be 1,200 sq ft ) and is offered (and in contract) through Lisa Wong at PruDE for $1.545mm (and $1,567/mo) for a gut renovated unit with “movie set views” and killer kitchen and baths.
Open Houses for #5E
Thursday 1:30-3:30
and Sunday 1:30-3:30
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 261 Broadway, City Hall, Transportation, Wierbowski
|
May. 21, 2007 - NYT on Condo Rules – bury the lead but generate fear
hysteria sells old grey newspapers?
The NY Times piece yesterday about a trend in which some Manhattan condominium boards behave like coop boards (Condo Boards Tighten the Rules) is an unfortunate load of fluff on its most essential point. Yes, I agree that some condo purchase procedures resemble strict coop purchase requirements, but the most important practical consideration was not mentioned until the middle of the article, and even then not really addressed.
The “strict” condo purchase applications are only disclosure (more onerous, yes), but they are extremely unlikely to result in a purchaser failing to purchase.
Here is the key paragraph deep in the middle of the article.
While condo boards cannot stop an owner from selling an apartment, they are given the right of first refusal to buy the apartment back at the price that the owner has negotiated with the prospective buyer. But condos very rarely exercise that right since it would require the board to raise enough money to cover the transaction. And before exercising the right of first refusal, most condos also require the board to get approval from two-thirds of the unit owners, another daunting task.
In other words, condo boards can ask a lot of questions (and many are asking more questions), but at the end of the day all they can do to prevent an “undesirable” purchaser from buying is to buy it instead.
In the unlikely event that a condo board does exercise that right, the seller gets out of the building on the same terms negotiated with the buyer, but the condo board steps into the buyer’s shoes.
is it an urban myth if it happened (a few times, long ago)?
Until reading in this article about the “few times” the board at the St. Tropez at 340 East 64 St exercise the right of first refusal more than twenty years ago, I had never heard of an actual instance of a board doing this.
As stated in the buried NY Times paragraph above, if a board is going to use this extraordinary power (a) it needs to raise a lot of money and (b) it needs to persuade the condo owners to agree that the prospective buyer is a threat that warrants raising a lot of money to buy out that buyer’s right to buy.
And it has to do this within 30 days.
how would it play on Page Six?
Consider what the campaign would have to look like, what the condo board would have to tell the unit owners about the risk that the objectionable buyer presented. Absent a slam dunk issue such as the convicted child molester example, it seems to me essentially impossible for a board to be both specific enough and sufficiently well-substantiated to make a reasonable case to persuade a super-majority of the emergency. Especially with lawyers hovering over potential defamation claims.
Especially as the board would probably be asking the unit owners for an immediate assessment to cover the negotiated purchase price. (It is not likely the condo could finance the purchase price, as it all it has to offer as security is the stream of common charges.) In a 100 unit building and a $1.5mm purchase, they need agreement for everyone to write a $15,000 check now.
yes, condo boards can be a pain
The real change in condo board behavior is more irritating than fatal for transactions, and is accurately reflected in the NY Times. Boards are making it more difficult for people who own to do whatever they want with the units, both as far as renting and using (pet policies and onerous rental approval packages and fees).
That is a topic for another day (for me).
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Ny Times, Condo Boards, Right Of First Refusal, Purchase Application
|
May. 18, 2007 - what would Cass Gilbert think / 130 W 30 St challenges
great building! the block … not so much
There are few great loft buildings in Manhattan that separate the Prefer-Loft people from the Love-Lofts people the way The Cass Gilbert does, at 130 West 30th Street. Indeed, this building even separates the Merely-Love-Lofts people from the Love-Lofts-And-Authentic-Grit people, as only the latter should find their way through the Lincoln Tunnel exiting traffic and past the police station next door to #130.
Nothing pretty about this block. And not much that is pretty about any nearby blocks, either. (see digression, at bottom)
Yet there is a beautiful loft there, new to the market this week– that may be worth – to the right buyer -- the $1,300/ft they are asking for it.
#17A at 130 W 30 St is newly offered by Susan Sears of Corcoran. It is 2,300 sq ft and is offered for $2.995mm (and an even $3,000/mo). In a world in which downtown lofts with more than 2,000 sq ft on less ... gritty streets can be had under $3 million, Susan’s challenge will be in getting $3 million buyers to this block. Once there and up the elevator, there is a lot to like.
the plus factor is out the window
I will assume for this discussion that the finishes are as advertised – and worthy of this price range. What makes this unit stand out from others in the building, however, is the 17th floor views, including the Empire State Building. Many units in the building are well appointed, but their big windows look at nearby buildings. It appears as though the 17th floor is high enough to provide the sense of space that is the kind of “extra” a $3 million buyer could need on this block.
By way of contrast, see #7B offered by Tamir Shemish of PruDE. It is nearly the same size (2,150 sq ft) and “no expense [has been] spared” in tricking it out, but it is offered at only $1.95mm (and $2,411/mo). Granted, this layout does not have as many windows as #17A, but the north windows on the 7th floor are looking across the street – not four blocks to the Empire State Building. (Open House in #7B on Sunday from 2 – 4)
helpful comp next door, facing south
Height matters. #17B sold in August 2005 for $2.35mm – nearly $1,100/ft for its 1,987 sq ft. (These south views might actually be preferred by many to the Empire State Building views in #17A.) It is likely to be at least two full years between the closing of #17B in August 2005 and the completed sale of #17A -- $1,300/ft is within a reasonable range as an asking price for #17A, IMO.
Final curio about marketing The Cass Gilbert: the listing descriptions for both #7B and #17B make lemonade out of the police station next door, by describing the locations as “the safest block in the city”. Well, I guess …. Nice try , for sure.
Open House in #17A on Sunday from 12 – 3
digression:
I thought about the Cass Gilbert this morning – before seeing the listing for #17A -- when reading a NYT review of Of Mice And Men. (really) The review begins:
This is the 70th anniversary of John Steinbeck’s novella “Of Mice and Men,” and the play he adapted from it, also in 1937, is being honored in a tiny theater on a West Side street where drunks and derelicts roam.
That “tiny theater” is Urban Stages, at 259 W 30th St – one block closer to the Lincoln Tunnel than the Cass Gilbert, and the block that has a fire station to the Cass Gilbert’s police station. Can’t get much authentically grittier for a $3mm loft buyer than “where drunks and derelicts roam”. Bet those drunks and derelicts are safe, though.
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Cass Gilbert, 130 W 30 St, Police Station, Steinbeck
|
May. 18, 2007 - Sunday open houses lofts under $1.5
1,150 sq ft condo for $1.295mm ($1,395/mo)
2 BRs + 2 balconies that looks more like an apartment than a loft; on the market a month
Open House 11 - 1
1,200 sq ft condo for $1.425mm ($1,405/mo)
1 BR + office at The Petersfield, looking away from Fourth Av (quieter!); N.B., lots of walls; on the market 4 weeks
Open House 12 - 1:30
1,060 sq ft condo for $1.495mm ($1,173/mo)
Yes, a “loft” (100+ years of industrial lineage, columns, high ceilings, big windows) but 2 BRs in 1,060 sq ft…; new to market this week
Open House 1 - 3
1,700 sq ft for $1.3mm ($1,278/mo)
Open House 1:30 - 3
1,300 sq ft for $1,24mm ($1,487/mo)
21’6” x 58’6” of main floor living space with a mezzanine “bedroom” (open to below) and bath; looks like great space for one person; on the market 5 weeks
Open House 2 - 3:30
1,200 sq ft (??) condo for $1.495mm ($1,214/mo)
a very “West Village” loft, with wood burning fireplace, garden views, brick, but only one bedroom; new to market this week; photos promised “soon”
Open House 2 - 3:30
1,600 sq ft for $1.399mm ($1,991/mo)
If you care to overlook Ground Zero…. ; on the market 2 months
Open House 2:30 - 4
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 324 W 23, 115 Fourth, Petersfield, 99 Reade, 241 W 36, 718 Broadway, 321 W 13, 176 Broadway
|
May. 18, 2007 - new this week off Un Sq / 105 E 16 asks $1.375 for what?
105 E 16 St #3N is so new there is only one picture (does that say “excellent light” to you?? is that Lou Dobbs on the screen?) and no floor plan. Likely to be more soon, and maybe an open house Sunday. Asking $1.375mm ($1,630/mo) in a coop that requires 25% down. Not saying how big it is, but it is probably smaller than the units on the south side of the building.
#4S sold last May above the asking price ($1.55mm for 1,650 sq ft), having been marketed as a “stunning post modern loft classically renovated”.
“Quiet” block, though it is between the (fun of?) Union Square and Washington Irving HS on the next block.
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 105 E 16, Union Square
|
May. 17, 2007 - portal potted / REBNY website to limp out in September
weak-ass website coming
It may sound like inside baseball to many, but the saga of the REBNY public web portal is a fascinating story, with important implications for how coops and condos are marketed and bought in Manhattan. I think it is worth a very long post, one that has been percolating in my mind for weeks.
NYCResidential.com is coming (yawn?), just not in the Spring, and not much
REBNY will launch NYCResidential.com in September, which will provide a single web presence for the public to see all the “exclusive” sale and rental listings of REBNY firms that choose to participate.
In concept, there would be none of the phantom or open listings that plague NYTimes.com. Potentially, this portal would have up-to-date links for 95+% of the apartments really for sale in Manhattan – since REBNY member firms probably have that large a portion of the for-sale market.
In theory, buyers would want to start a search here, rather than wade through the garbage on NYTimes.com, then look to NYTimes.com for the for-sale-by-owners or to take a chance on wasting times calling agents who offer vague descriptions of apartments that are too good to be true (or who offer the same vague descriptions of apartments as three other firms offer about the same apartments).
Possibly, the public would begin to appreciate that information provided by REBNY firms, and the business practices of these firms, are “better” than the information and business practices of non-REBNY firms. Over time, consumers might look at the public web portal as The Best source for information, and the easiest way to click through to the individual REBNY firm websites for details about interesting listings.
In theory, potentially, possibly, and over time. But … no, this ain’t gonna happen – at least not for a while and very possibly never.
a big deal for REBNY
While the early press commentary focused on the objections of the smaller REBNY firms (rebels in REBNY may repel web listing portal), this portal will be crippled from the start by the defection of the two largest firms – Corcoran (and its affiliate Citi-Habitats) and Prudential Douglass Elliman, which typically account for something north of 50% of the resale listings in Manhattan.
I will skip to the end (as of now) then walk back to see how we got to a surprisingly screwed up position.
to be designed and operated by pros
Trulia.com will build and operate the site, which Trulia announced on March 22 but which REBNY did not until mid-April. REBNY sent a memo last week to its members about the project. The details of what will be presented, and how, are undoubtedly the result of compromise and negotiation among the Large Egos that manage the (Large and Small) REBNY Member Firms.
presenting intentionally limited data, with links to firm websites
Interesting choices about the web data to be presented are:
- searchable by neighborhood, price, type, and number of rooms
- no information about square footage or time on market
- only exclusive sale or rental listings (no ‘open’ or ‘ours alone’ listings)
- all firm names will be in identical font, color and size
- search results will randomly re-sequence (so repeating the same search at different times will show different listings on top)
- will cover all five boroughs
- participating firms will decide how much information to provide (i.e., no address is an option for firms that see value in that)
The goal seems to be to drive customers to the individual firm websites for more information (and for pictures? floor plans?) – hence the careful use of the term “portal” to describe this thing to REBNY members from the beginning. Firms that think that their individual websites provide competitive advantages should still think they will realize those competitive advantages. The listings of smaller firms will have the same ‘presence’ on the portal as those of other firms.
Reasonable compromises, I suppose.
The choices to permit firms to piss off consumers by being coy about location (“East 70s stunner!!!”) and about size (square footage is prohibited) are other compromises – not so reasonable to me, but I wasn’t on that committee.
All in all, the kind of information to be publicly available on this portal is probably similar to the public information made available out there in America by the various Multiple Listing Services, which also link back to member firm websites for details.
the small firms won a big battle
Fascinating to me that the so-called small firms that agitated early within REBNY seem to have won a major battle about cost. What started as a two-tiered firm-based fee structure ($7,000 for large firms and either $3,000 or $3,500 for small firms) ended up as a five-tiered structure ranging from $2,000 to six times that figure.
As announced with REBNY last week, the sliding fee schedule has slid a lot, with an initiation fee and $100 per agent annual fees. The initiation fee for a one or two person firm will be $2,000, $2,500 for 3 – 5 people, $3,000 for 6 – 19, $7,500 for 20 – 74, and $12,500 for 75 people or more. (The initiation fees will increase by 25% after May 21. Operators are standing by!) For big firms, the big expenses are the annual per-agent fees, clearly.
big players with big problems
While the ‘little firms’ were fighting about paying too much, some of the big players started to grumble. As I noted in December (REBNY vs. REBNY vs. REBNY / portal potties still percolating), the power structure within the Residential Brokerage Division is such that you would reasonably have thought that an ambitious and (for The Establishment) radical plan such as this would never have gotten off the ground publicly without having been blessed by all the Big Girls and Boys.
The Ramirez-Peters cover memo says that the entire 13 member Board of the Residential Division voted for this portal. That includes representative of The Establishment, of course (Halstead, Warburg, PruDE, Corcoran, Stribling, Sothebys, Bellmarc and Brown Harris are all represented) as well as some smaller firms (Cornelia Netter and Barbara Fox from their eponymous firms, as well as a few others).
Assuming that all the Big Girls and Boys were on board was reasonable, but incorrect.
But thinking about PruDE and Corcoran bailing out on the other members of the Establishment represented on the Board of the Residential Brokerage Division helps to make sense of an odd note from the REBNY memo last week about management of NYCResidential.com. The memo explained that the site will be governed by a nine member Board (elected by participants in some manner) that will be under the supervision of the REBNY Board of Governors rather than the Residential Brokerage Division. Weird….
what are they thinking?
I am at a complete loss to understand (1) how The Establishment at REBNY let this thing unravel or (2) why Corcoran and PruDE refuse to participate.
Not that I agree, but I can only think it is based on money, cut two ways for the two Elephants – (1) the expense of paying $100 per agent per year (worth around six figures to both Corcoran and PruDE) and (possibly) (2) the fear that they are diluting the impact of their web sites and web-focused marketing. These two firms must spend a fortune developing, maintaining, tweaking and selling their websites – much more than any other Manhattan firms.
If I am right, I believe that is very short-sighted thinking – not least because a successful REBNY public portal would finally give the firms negotiating leverage against NYTimes.com. In addition, this path is the way of the future (indeed, it is the way of the past and present out there in America, but we are still stuck in 20th century business practices in Manhattan).
If I am a PruDE or Corcoran agent, how do I explain to a potential seller when pitching a listing why my firm refused to participate in what could otherwise be a useful marketing forum?? If I explain that “it’s money” I will expect a more difficult negotiation with the seller about my commission.
Perhaps it is just a power thing (“I am taking my ball and going home!”), but Corcoran must know they would essentially destroy this thing by not participating. (With Corcoran but without PruDE, the thing would work fairly well; without Corcoran’s market share it is no longer a Must Use consumer web instrument.)
Whatever the behind the scenes knife work, if I were Diane Ramirez or Fred Peters I would be embarrassed at not being able to deliver what had been grandly and prematurely announced. If I am Pam Liebman or Dottie Herman I would not be proud of myself, either.
If I were a consumer frustrated with the phantom listings and evident low ethics of real estate firms as demonstrated on NYTimes.com I would be unhappy with all the bastards.
Not a good thing, methinks. What are the odds they will reconsider?
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Rebny, Trulia, Corcoran, Prude, Web Portal, Nycresidentialcom
|
May. 17, 2007 - would you pay $2mm for a Soho roof terrace? (loft is another $2mm at 458 Broome)
Still scratching my head, however.
My guess (reading between the lines of the listing description) is that anyone thinking of paying serious money here ($3.995mm is very serious money here) would do a nearly complete renovation. I can’t remember the last time I saw the kitchen in a $4 million loft described only as “charming, windowed [and] eat-in”.
As I noted before,
the second, third and fourth floors all traded in 2005, at $1.905mm, $1.425mm and $1.651mm
I am thinking that a buyer who covets a terrace and the neighborhood will pay a significant premium over the 2005 prices on lower floors, but I don’t see anyone paying something that starts with a “3”….
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 458 Broome, Eychner, Terrace, Roof, Renovation
|
May. 17, 2007 - under $800/ft at 1200 Broadway (still too high?)
#7C at 1200
Broadway (the Gilsey House) is new today, offering a lot of
space (1,950 sq ft) for the money ($1.55mm and $2,007/mo) in a
central location. As PruDE’s Pam Huson says, this is definitely not
a “cookie cutter†loft. It does, however, present some layout
challenges.
This one is nearly square but has
windows only on one side (facing south) – and only four windows in
all. The only full bath is a bit of a trek from either bedroom, as
is the pass-through-the-‘nursery’ half-bath.
My guess is that this space will be
most attractive to someone who is willing to do some serious
updating or some serious renovation. My guess is that the asking
price does not reflect the work (expense) that a buyer will put
in.
#5G sold in September 2006 -- after “a year long renovationâ€
described as “stunning†-- for $1.495mm.
#6C (same foot print as #7C) sold in December 2005 for $998k
off an asking price of $1.195mm.
Open House in #7C Sunday 1:30-
3:30
#7B is still for sale here ($1.795mm and $2,079/mo for 2,000 sq
ft). This one is definitely more done than #7C next door,
with another non-cookie-cutter layout.
Open House Sunday 2:15-
3:30
Unless they have changed it
recently, this building has the (archaic? irritating?) security
feature of a front door without a buzzer, so residents have to
traipse all the way down the lobby to let the food delivery guy
in.
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (2) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Gilsey, Huson, Renovation, Broadway
|
May. 16, 2007 - aiming high at The Lyla 63 W 17 / one bed wonders about $$$$
#3B at 63 West 17th Street is a new-this-week One Bed Wonder that makes me wonder about value. (What is a One Bed Wonder?) With 1,217 sq ft in an exclusively one bedroom layout, $1.85mm is a serious price, the large terrace / garden “shared by only 3 other families” notwithstanding. (Monthly expenses are $1,561/mo and taxes are probably abated). No pictures or floor plan yet on the Citi-Habitats site.
Lyla memories are loud
I have not been in The Lyla since it was first marketed in 2004, but what I remember most clearly about the units was the traffic. Sixth Avenue buses were a significant part of the original experience, which may have been ameliorated by owners upgrading windows since then. (I hope so.) Otherwise, the building had the sleek finishes common to new construction of 2003, plus high ceilings and big windows.
The listing description says #3B has “top of the line renovations” but it is hard to tell if they are describing the original finishes, or work the original owner did after buying in 2004. Maybe they added sound protection….
#3B faces south, on 17th Street, so it may not get the worst traffic noise, but if it is near the corner the traffic will still be heading towards it. And that large terrace / garden might also be a bit noisy.
other Lyla sales suggest a stretch
#4B has a different and larger layout, with 2 bedrooms and 1,368 sq ft, but no shared outdoor space. That one took four weeks to go to contract off an asking price of $1.695mm ($1.092/mo, abated).
Other units that share that outdoor space with #3B have not been so aggressively priced. #3C sold in December 2005 for the full asking price of $1.15mm (1,059 sq ft with 1.5 baths). #3D is an even larger one bed wonder than #3B, at 1,415 sq ft (only 1.5 baths) and did not sell this year off an asking price of $1.535mm. (It started in May 2006 at $1.725mm and dropped three times before being taken off the market in February this year.)
oh yes, a stretch
So I would say that $1.85mm is aggressively priced, even before checking Property Shark to see that this unit sold on April 2, 2007 for $1.35mm. (That sale represented the highest price-per-foot ever paid in the building so far, apart from a 7th floor penthouse unit over 3,000 sq ft with two private terraces.)
I don’t think there has been enough time in the last six weeks to add a half million in value….
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Lyla, Citihabitats, Noise
|
May. 15, 2007 - 177 Duane “will not last” but it has! 6E + 3E still for sale
I don’t know that it helps a listing sell if the agent says something like “hurry, hurry, hurry, this hot one won’t last” – not my style -- but you see it often enough. If you do it, however, you should put a calendar note somewhere so that you remember to edit your listing text….
strong listings last?
#3E at 177 Duane St is nearly three months old now, but the BHS site still says “[t]his fine home will not last.” Maybe it’s a survivor….
It looks like a lovely loft, priced accordingly: $2.9mm for what is said to be 2,200 sq ft ($1,840/mo maintenance). This is the classic Long-and-Narrow, with three windows at each narrow end. They brag about the architectural renovation, with “no detail left untouched” and finishes, appointments and fixtures that are “refined, elegant, and most importantly, current.”
As I said, it does look lovely, but what caught my eye was the Hurry Hurry thing, which usually provokes me into checking the listing history. Then I check the light in any loft described as not only “light-filled” but being “filled with glorious natural light all day long”. When I see that, I check the windows and the pix. But here there’s only two interior photos (both of the three south-facing windows in the kitchen and living areas).
how big is that doggie in the window?
If the room dimensions are anywhere near accurate, the entire length of the unit is about 70 feet (38’ 6” + 19’ + xx for the 2d bathroom and closet) and 21’ 6” at the widest ends. Without taking into account the space lost to the elevator and stairwell, that suggests the space is not much larger than 1,500 sq ft – which puts the price pretty close to $2,000/ft. “Tribeca loft … perfection” indeed!
With the same unit for sale on the top floor, there are opportunities for interesting comparisons.
same foot print, different unit + price + size (long history)
#6E has been for sale since last July (with two breaks while it was off the market), starting at $2.995mm and is now at $2.695mm (and $2,150/mo). Corcoran lists essentially the same footprint as 1,900 sq ft, but their room dimensions also suggest a total of not much more than 1,500. Even with three skylights, this one doesn’t look all that “sun-splashed” either (though there are more interior photos than on the 3rd floor).
While the level of finishes are not described as enthusiastically in 6E as in 3E, this unit also has 750 square feet of roof rights – and is asking $205,000 less. (Open House next Monday, May 21, 5:30 – 7)
I don’t see a closing price, but #5W sold two years ago off an asking price of $1.995mm. That looks to be the same footprint as its eastern mirrors, with finishes that are between the levels of #3E and #6E.
call the lawyers
If you are interested in this building, be sure to ask about 80/20 (IRS rules for coops – beware the 80/20 rule); they may get huge retail income. The BHS listing says the tax deductibility of the maintenance is 0%.
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 177 Duane, Bhs, Corcoran, Square Feet, Irs
|
May. 14, 2007 - 241 W 23 St is back / 3 strikes, not out, at $752/ft
241 W 23 St #5B still for sale, but why? There are not many opportunities to get 2,000 sq ft of “the very definition of a ‘Classic Loft’” in Chelsea (on 23rd St, but still – this line looks into the block and should be quiet). This unit is said to be 2,000 sq ft for ‘only’ $1.55mm (maintenance a bit hefty without a doorman at $2,015/mo).
a bridesmaid, not a bride
It has been on the market since September, starting at $1.65mm, briefly at $1.599mm and has been at $1.55mm since January. The seller has been through the ringer, with an accepted offer (and contract out) for four days in January, another in February for two and a half weeks, then a contract signed in March. Alas, that fell through also, and it is back to the market as of last week.
$752 per square feet. Why is the market so cold for this one?
37 feet wide with two sides of windows, but the nearly square layout may feel a bit chopped up (no ‘flow’?). There’s a 23x16 master bedroom with an extravagant 9x12 closet, a small 2d bedroom at 11x9, and a den at 14x12 and an office at 11x9, with a huge master bath almost exactly in the middle of the room. The main living area, at 12 feet deep, is certainly a good size for an apartment, but the proportions (37 feet wide) may make it feel cramped (as the pictures suggest) for a loft.
Fans of PruDE’s Bob Manzari and Bonnie McCartney from Curbed.com will smile at the flower arrangement that shows up in the kitchen island and the living room coffee table and the dining room and (possibly) in the 2d bedroom.
no love for the building
The fact is The Market has never loved this building. Unit 3B is smaller than #5B (1,800 sq ft) and traded in February at $1.41mm after a year on the market. That was said to be triple mint, with a chef’s kitchen and “exquisite” bathroom renovations.
Unit 6B traded a year earlier at $1.4mm. This one was also said to be mint with a new chef’s kitchen, and was newly architect designed. This one is said to be 1,850 sq ft (same layout as #3B it seems, but not as large as the #5B foot print, oddly enough).
In a building that clears sales at under $800/ft, my guess is that #5B presents as a renovation project with too many dollars attached. #5B is not marketed as a triple (or even single) mint unit, just as a ‘classic loft’. Buyers who come expecting to ‘move right in’ may be disappointed. Somebody has been disappointed – with three accepted offers but no closing since September, that’s for sure.
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (0) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 241 W 23, Prude, Manzari, Mccartney, Mint, Classic
|
May. 10, 2007 - new + flipping at 249 W 29 St
Eight million stories in the naked city, and sometimes people buy what they soon have to sell. Probably an interesting story there.
#2E at 249 W 29 St is newly for sale with June Gottlieb at Warburg. No floor plan or pix yet on the web, but at $1.675mm (maintenance of $2,235)for 2,100 sq ft of interior space and 1,750 sq ft of private terrace this is quite an opportunity for someone who needs outdoor space – even at 29th St and 8th Av.
“E” units in this building are Long-and-Narrow, with windows front and back. Terrace is likely to be in the back, facing north in the middle of the block. Direct sunlight may be limited to certain few “high sun” summer weeks.
The 11th floor is still for sale through Atco (since March), now at $2.6mm for 2,600 sq ft (started at $2.95mm). #3N sold in February this year, 1,600 sq ft for $1.42mm (with a 250sq ft terrace) so #2E sounds like a reasonable asking price, even on a low floor, based on these sales. Depending on what is outside the windows and the terrace, I suppose.
But what if the present owner closed in December for $1.45mm? (As Property Shark shows.) Then the asking price of $1.675mm seems a bit aggressive (if understandable). That sale took over a year (from October 2005 to the closing in December 2006, starting at $1.895mm.) These sellers are going to be hard-pressed to do much better than break even, but probably do not have to worry too much if they don’t get capital gains treatment….
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (5) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 249 W 29 St, Warburg, Atco, Terrace, Flip
|
May. 10, 2007 - new contract at American Thread, 260 W Bway
I described #4G at 260 West Broadway (the fabled - to me - Manhattan loft American Thread Building) when it was new to the market in early March (new this week at 260 West Broadway ). It is said to be 1,450 sq ft and has been offered through Anne Aranseaz at Sothebys for $1.8mm ($2,078/mo).
It has had a contract signed this week.
As I noted back in March, the window sheers hint at the main story about light and (no) views in this unit, as most of the fourth floor windows in this line look at over an alley or at the new hotel just top the north. Looking again at the floor plan and pix, I see another somewhat interesting thing about this loft renovation: it is about as close to a "gracious" prewar "apartment" layout as one could imagine - with beamed ceilings and moldings to match. Indeed, I bet you could show that floor plan to anyone looking for Candela or Bing and Bing, and they would be happy with it. I wonder if the owners moved here from a "gracious prewar" uptown….
I will be surprised if they got near the asking price, as the much brighter #4A (similar size and shape, more light) sold a year ago for $1.6mm off and ask of $1.795mm. (Look at those photos for another seemingly "prewar apartment" vibe in a classic loft building.) Time will tell about #4G's clearing price.
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (2) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: American Thread, West Broadway, Contract
|
|
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