May. 29, 2009 - 644 Broadway loved that first bidder: sells within 15 weeks, contract in 6, 1 price, 14% discount

[update: apologies for the weird formatting; I think I fixed most of it]

yes, "museum quality" around $1,000/ft, but there's a larger point, + 2 bromides
When I hit the Manhattan loft #2E at 644 Broadway on April 27 (price of 'museum quality' in Noho = $1,000/ft / 644 Broadway closes quickly), the focus (and snark) was on the difference between "museum quality" and "triple mint" in broker-babble. (And I had some snark about consistency in sizing.) I did mention the quick deal, and commended the sellers for being negotiable:
 

Following on yesterday's post about a quick sale at 155 Hudson (how to get cash in 10 weeks / negotiating to close at 155 Hudson Street), I want to re-visit 644 Broadway as #2E is another instance of sellers proving they really wanted to sell.  In contrast to the 10-weeks-all-done experience at 155 Hudson Street (6% drop after 30 days, contract 2 weeks later 13% off that price), the #2E sellers needed only one price to get a contract (also within 6 weeks), by negotiating to 'only' a 14% discount.

A tip of the Manhattan Loft Guy hat to these sellers, and to their Corcoran agents Lauren Muss and Michael Orme.

the First Bidder bromide prevails
Agents often tell sellers "your first buyer may be your best" -- I certainly have told Manhattan loft sellers that. It is one of those pieces of accepted wisdom (at least among agents) that seems to me both valid and impossible to prove. (We are never likely to get a perfectly matched pair of for-sale lofts to test the hypothesis with.)

Even though I can't prove it, the logic of The First Bidder Bromide is -- to me -- compelling. It starts from the premise that there is a pool of potential buyers for a given unit that is (a) limited, (b) ready, and (c) informed.

That pool is the largest and most likely source of a buyer, because other buyers will either dribble onto the market as new buyers and/or are not ready (qualified) and/or have not been paying attention. If the logic holds, that initial pool is the pool a seller wants to attract, by setting an asking price that (as I said in my original post about #2E at 644 Broadway, quoted above) will "attract serious bidders with whom one negotiates the best deal available ".

In the case of #2E that was a two-step process: they set an asking price of $3.995mm that attracted a sufficiently interested buyer that within 40 days they negotiated to a contract at $3.45mm. In the case of

#4N at 155 Hudson (yesterday's post), they needed the third step of an intermediate price reduction from $2.395mm to $2.25mm to provoke the contract at $1.95mm that closed ten weeks after they started.

if a seller is motivated, and confident

In order for a seller to take advantage of The First Bidder Bromide, the seller must be both really interested in selling, and willing to trust the market response the initial marketing generates. In other words, the seller has to be confident in the agent's judgment.

Of course, I know nothing about the actual negotiations for either #2E at 644 Broadway or #4N at 155 Hudson Street, but I will use them as examples of what may occur, based on their brief histories. In a scenario like #2E, the sellers were likely to have had only one expression of significant interest between the December 20 launch and the January 30 contract. Given that they ended up nearly 14% off where they started, they were likely to have been

very disappointed at the offer made by the only interested person with real money. But they were very motivated to sell, so they sucked it up and fought for a deal. Perhaps the bid started at $3mm and they essentially split the difference; perhaps it started at $3.3mm and they were only able to force another $145k out of the bidder. Wherever it started, this negotiation could have been a long one. (Many are, these days, as buyers can credibly play the I-have-other-choices card and sellers are loathe to accept deep discounts.)

The #4N 155 Hudson Street scenario implies a different sequence. Based on the price drop followed quickly by a contract, it is likely there was no interest at the original price (no bidding at all, and anemic showings or inquiries). The price drop after 30 days of 6% was modest, but it did the job: it probably generated an offer that was disappointing but the trigger for the sellers to lower their expectations to accept about 20% off their starting point.

In both cases, the sellers must have been peppering their agents with questions, and relying upon the answers and analysis. In both cases, the sellers accepted much less than they had asked for, and possibly much less than they were prepared to accept when they started marketing their lofts. But they came to conclusion that their respective (solitary?) bidders presented their best opportunities to sell, and they capitalized on those opportunities.

While these scenarios seem simple -- perhaps even obvious, in retrospect -- it does not always work this way. Indeed, these days I suspect it does not often work this way (which is one reason I highlight these quickly-discounted-sales when I notice them). The opposite end of the spectrum from The First Bidder Bromide is inhabited by seller who follow the It Only Takes One Bromide. The "logic" here is that only one person needs to buy the loft for the seller to be happy, so the seller is tempted to wait for that buyer to show up. That seller may start at a price little different from #2E and #4N, but because they are waiting for One Buyer rather than responding to the First Bidder they are (typically) not flexible at the time it would do the most good.

There is another bromide for that. (This one is easier to prove.)

if you (over) think that "it only takes one"
Chasing The Market Down, is the timely bromide for sellers who set prices like the #2E and #4N sellers, but who don't trust the market data (or their agents) the way the successful early negotiators did. One could say, as I did on May 3, that such "sellers" are a day late and a dollar short (recidivist edition). #4N shows that a seller can strike a quick deal even starting at a price 20% above the market. But the key is to respond when The Market ignores you and to strike when The Market offers a positive response. In The Market of the last 12 months (and the next ?? months) not being flexible and responsive can be fatal.
 

May. 28, 2009 - how to get cash in 10 weeks / negotiating to close at 155 Hudson Street

no secret formula
How's this for a lovely trajectory in a challenging market? The Manhattan loft #4N at 155 Hudson Street came to market on February 20 at the wrong price ($2.395mm) but they (apparently) really wanted to sell and they knew what to do: they dropped the price $145k (6%) after 30 days. To repeat, they (apparently) really wanted to sell and they knew what to do: so then they got a contract within two weeks by being flexible and, (very likely) through some hard bargaining. They closed April 30 at $1.95mm -- 13% off their last asking price, and about 19% off their original starting point on February 20.

NICE work, that. A tip of the Manhattan Loft Guy hat to the sellers and to PruDE's Ed Hardesty.

history did not help (much)
The loft is "2,241 sq ft" and was marketed as being in "absolute mint" condition, with your basic Viking, Miele, custom cabinets, dual wine coolers but there was a challenge: nothing in the building had traded hands in five years, though a couple had tried. The sellers of #4N were perceived by The Market to be very interested in actually selling, evidenced by the fact that they did sell (after a relatively modest price drop and a serious negotiation).

but there is some history (20% worth)
That prior sale was of #2N, which was said to be a "stunning, exquisitely designed custom loft". Assuming the implied comparability with #4N's condition, the #2N clearing price in June 2004 of $1,635,000 suggests that #4N appreciated about 20% in five years (net, of course) to get the $1.95mm at which it cleared last month. Nice data point.
 

May. 27, 2009 - 4 years = $15,000 at 477 Broome Street

same story, different year
The Manhattan loft #33 at 477 Broome Street recently delivered a new data point, with history:
April 12, 2005 = $950k
April 29, 2009 = $965k

This history nearly precisely parallels the 2006-2009 history of a loft profiled a few weeks ago (May 8, at 260 Park Avenue South 2006 = 2009), which showed a $2,000 spread between March 2009 and July 2006 clearing prices. #33 was marketed for its "minimalism and simplicity", plus classic loft features (12+ foot ceilings, tin ceilings,Corinthian columns, big windows). The portion of the original PruDE listing captured in StreetEasy misses a critical bit of information from the original listing description in our data-base: " two flights up".

not a lot of history, but some commerce
477 Broome Street had a spate of sales in 2005 -- one of those seasonal things that sometimes hits buildings. This 6-story building wasconverted to a coop in 1989, and StreetEasy shows 5 sales in 2005, and none since 2006 (other than the recent sale of #33). This very handsome cast-iron building sits in prime Soho (Green and Wooster) but -- with its limited history of sales -- has not commanded the premium pricing ofpremium Soho. (The single sale appreciably above $1,000/ft -- again, in a very limited data set -- was the November 2006 sale of the "1,399 sq ft" #22 for $2.1mm.) The lack of elevator will do that to a building.

The Broadway Panhandler that was at street level was featured in a New York Times article about the "malling of Broadway" in Soho in (wait for it) ... 1995 (it had just moved from Broadway), in an article with a very peculiar headline typo: A Hime-Furnishing Shoppers' Guide to SoHo; The Malling Of Lower Broadway, September 14, 1995. (The Panhandler is now at 65 East 8 Street, continuing a fascinating commercial march through old Manhattan; when did ti move from Soho??)

May. 26, 2009 - Manhattan loft inventory as of May 24 = 976

Number of Manhattan residential lofts offered for sale as of Sunday night continues to reflect a bulging inventory, but is down again this week off the record high: 
 

This is down 14 in a week, while up 296 since my recorded low in mid-August.

See my May 19, 2008 post for what I am counting, and why it is difficult.

May. 25, 2009 - new Manhattan loft listings + closed sales in last 7 days

• there were 18 Manhattan lofts reported as new to the market in the last 7 days and (again) only 8 as sold
• 13 of the 18 new ones are offered between $1mm and $3mm, while 7 of the 8 sales were offered below $2mm 
• 2 of the 18 new loft listings are in new development, and 4 of the 8 closed sales were in new development
  
  

  By price	New = 18	Sold = 8
  $500k to $999k	4	3
  $1mm to $1.99mm	5	4
  $2mm to $2.99mm	8
  $3mm to $3.99mm	1	1
  $4mm to $4.99mm
  $5mm+

  
   

  By neighborhood	New = 18	Sold = 8
  Battery Park City
  Chelsea		2
  Clinton	1	1
  East Village	1
  Financial District	3	3
  Flatiron	2
  Gramercy
  Greenwich Village	2	1
  Kips Bay
  Little Italy
  Lower East Side
  Morningside Heights
  Murray Hill
  Midtown East
  Midtown West
  Noho
  SoHo	2	1
  Sutton Place
  Tribeca	4
  Turtle Bay	1
  Upper East Side
  Upper West Side	1
  West Village	1

• 
  
   
• New loft listings in new developments
• 
  

  15 William Street (William Beaver House)	1
  25 Murray Street (Tribeca Space)	1

   
• 
  
   
• Sold lofts in new developments 

  
  

  420 West 25 Street (Loft 25)	1
  90 William Street (be@William)	3

  
  For information about how I get this stuff and why I slice it as I do, see methodology for New + Sold in The Last Seven Days. For my rant about how soft this data may be, see loft or not? caution: active ranting ahead.

May. 22, 2009 - perfectly bad timing for 19 Bond Street to flip

in this one of the 8 million stories, June 2008 less 14% = April 2009
The Manhattan loft #2A at 19 Bond Street is one of those poster children. In fact, it is at least two of those poster children. The first poster is captioned The Height of The Market; the second caption is Getting Out With Whatever You Can Get.

When this "quintessential" loft  zoomed through the market last year, it took all of three weeks to find a contract above the asking price. (To market on April 2, 2008 at $1.65mm; contract as of April 23 at $1.72mm; closing June 12.) They were then selling this "1,300 sq ft" loft for its potential ("[w]ith the right amount of love this magnificent space can become a dream home") and the light.

Something bad happened to the April 2008 buyers, as they brought it back to market in November, still selling potential ("open square layout is very functional and has tremendous potential ") -- and 367 more square feet (same agent; maybe they bought a new ruler??). But something bad (from their perspective) had also happened to The Market by November. Having bid over the April 2008 asking price of $1.65mm, these buyers-turned-sellers put it back at that same price -- $1.65mm. One price drop later (January 6, to $1.56mm), they found a contract by February 27 and closed on April 1 for $1.457mm (no fooling).

The quintessence, indeed! Times two.

 

May. 20, 2009 - price discovery is (still) a female dog / flailing in Flatiron

not finding buyers at that level, or that one
There's a lovely classic Manhattan loft for sale (nearly all of) the last 9 months. It has always been difficult to value lofts in small buildings that don't have a lot of turnover, but this one proved particularly challenging for the seller and agent.

When they started in the glow of the embers of Lehman, they were asking $3.6mm for the mints, renovation and light typical of "very nice" lofts in this area. I can't imagine there was much activity (given the history as it unfolded), but it took about five months for them to drop the price to a place there might be some buyers. Given that they dropped $650,000, I'd say they were (finally) convinced there were no buyers near $3.6mm.
 

May. 18, 2009 - Manhattan loft inventory as of May 17 = 990

Number of Manhattan residential lofts offered for sale as of Sunday night continues to reflect a bulging inventory, but is down 3% this week off the record high (back to where it was on April 12): 
 

This is down 34 in a week, while up 310 since my recorded low in mid-August.

See my May 19, 2008 post for what I am counting, and why it is difficult.

May. 18, 2009 - new Manhattan loft listings + closed sales in last 7 days

• there were (only) 14 Manhattan lofts reported as new to the market in the last 7 days and only 8 as sold
• 11 of the 14 new ones are offered between $1mm and $3.5mm, while all of the 8 sales were offered below $3mm 
• none of the 14 new loft listings is in new development, and none of the 8 closed sales was in new development
  
  

  By price	New = 14	Sold = 8
  $500k to $999k	1	2
  $1mm to $1.99mm	5	2
  $2mm to $2.99mm	3	4
  $3mm to $3.99mm	3
  $4mm to $4.99mm
  $5mm+	2

  
   

  By neighborhood	New = 14	Sold = 8
  Battery Park City
  Chelsea	2
  Clinton
  East Village	2	1
  Financial District	1
  Flatiron	1	1
  Gramercy	1
  Greenwich Village	2	2
  Kips Bay
  Little Italy
  Lower East Side	1
  Morningside Heights
  Murray Hill
  Midtown East
  Midtown West
  Noho
  SoHo	4	1
  Sutton Place		1
  Tribeca		2
  Turtle Bay
  Upper East Side
  Upper West Side
  West Village

• 
  
   
• New loft listings in new developments
• 
  

  none

   
• 
  
   
• Sold lofts in new developments 

  
  

  none

  
  For information about how I get this stuff and why I slice it as I do, see methodology for New + Sold in The Last Seven Days. For my rant about how soft this data may be, see loft or not? caution: active ranting ahead.

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

May. 15, 2009 - into the way-back machine to close at 42 East 20 Street, down seven figures

not bullish at all
The bloom is definitely off the bull at 42 East 20 Street, a/k/a the Bullmoose Condominium, which was a huge success in the wave of Manhattan loft conversions in 2003. Another candidate for how the mighty have fallen.... (See some data at the Chelsea Mercantile, 252 Seventh Avenue from my May 5, is Chelsea Mercantile off 25% since 2007? ) Two recent sales suggest values here have fallen into the way back machine. (There's a third very recent sale, with no number available yet.)

#5C at 42 East 20 Street (don't know how long that Mercedes Berk link will work) closed on April 30 for $1.35mm, which is rather notable because the last sale in the "C" line here was $1.69mm in April 2005. It is also notable for a long and tortured history.

pain, followed by pain, then more pain
The sellers of this "1,607 sq ft" loft with 11 foot ceilings, 10 foot windows, "designer" kitchen, and "lavish spa" bathrooms thought they had quite a valuable loft when they offered it for sale in April 2008 (indeed, the height of The Market) for $2.395mm. They recognized that -- although they were not at the market price -- The Market changed, so they dropped the price to $1.995mm on September 22, 2008 (soon after the fall of the house of Lehman). But they still were not at The Market, so they dropped to $1.895mm when they changed firms in November.

When the ball dropped and the corks popped it appears that they realized that (a) they really needed to sell, and (b) they had no idea where The Market was, as this is what happened:

Now THAT shows a whole lot of motivation! (And pain.) But it worked, and they signed a contract on April 13 and got the condo to waive quickly so that they closed two weeks later, April 30. The $1.35mm clearing price is:

• 56% of the original asking price in April 2008
• 80% of the price their upstairs neighbors got in April 2005
• $840/ft

not nearly as much pain
#3B did relatively better than #5C when it closed on May 1 at $2.7mm. For starters, that clearing price was $987/ft for this "2,735 sq ft" "super contemporary" and "ultra stylist" loft (they didnice work in this 2003 conversion, they really did). Second, although they started down the path towards a sale just after the #5C neighbors, the path for #3B involved fewer bumps, and probably less pain. They started this campaign on May 20, 2008 with an original price of $3.55mm and on July 8 dropped to $3.295mm. In November it appears that they formally took it off the market (StreetEasy and our data-base agree on this), but negotiated with somebody to sign a contract on February 25. This contract took a lot longer to close than with the #5C contract signed on April 13, but it closed on May 1, the day after #5C.

That $2.7mm clearing price was only a 24% discount from their May 2008 asking price of $3.55mm. Yet it was a 31% discount from their original asking price of $3.95mm with a different firm in November 2007.

seven figure hits
That is two lofts in this lovely 2003 conversion that closed recently at least One Million Dollars (read it in that Lotto Guy's voice) off their original asking prices. Yikes.

more data coming
I started looking at The Bullmoose today because #5A is on today's inter-firm hot sheet as Sold and Closed. I will keep an eye out for that clearing price. This "2,222 sq ft" loft might close above $1,000/ft (unlike #3B and #5C), as the last asking price was $2.45mm. But it may also be a Seven Figure Hit, as it started in June 2008 at $3.395mm. Double yikes.

(The sales history of #3A [the last "A" line to close before #5A] is very interesting: sold in March 2006 at $3.495mm; sold in September 2008 at $3.025mm.)

That's three neighbors who have learned that price discovery is very hard in a thin market.
 

May. 14, 2009 - Manhattan overall inventory down March-to-April (slightly)

just a nugget, not a trend (yet?)
The Wall Street Journal's on-line article Tuesday about a national trend in a decline in the number of homes for sale in 29 cities was based on a source that has no Manhattan data, but they seem to have checked in with The Miller: "Miller Samuel Inc., an appraisal firm there, reports there were 10,369 cooperative apartments and condominiums on the market in Manhattan at the end of April. That was down 0.7% from March but up 20% from April 2008."

h/t The Real Deal

a trend?
The Miller himself posted on Curbed last Friday about trends in weekly inventory levels by size of apartment, where the hint is in the title: Listings, They Are A-Stabilizing . Money quote comes with bolding in the original:
 

I don't see how a "seasonal increase in demand" (i.e., more buyers in Spring) translates into stabilizing inventory as early as May, because any March contracts (early Spring buyers) have not closed yet (i.e., are still in inventory). But he's been following this much more closely than I have, for a much longer time.

Note that my weekly count of Manhattan lofts available for sale does not reflect what The Miller sees in the overall Manhattan coop and condo market:

Loft inventory has been in a very narrow range the last seven weeks: from 989 to 1,024. That may be "stabilizing", but it is stabilizing at a record level. Time, as they say, will tell.

May. 12, 2009 - Manhattan loft inventory as of May 10 = 1,024

Number of Manhattan residential lofts offered for sale as of Sunday night continues to reflect a bulging inventory, up again very slightly to a record high: 
 

This is up 14 in a week, while up 344 since my recorded low in mid-August.

See my May 19, 2008 post for what I am counting, and why it is difficult.

May. 11, 2009 - new Manhattan loft listings + closed sales in last 7 days

 This is the eightieth Manhattan Loft Guy report on the number, price distribution and neighborhood distribution for Manhattan lofts reported as new to the market or as closed sales in the last 7 days.

The stats as of Sunday night:

• there were 21 Manhattan lofts reported as new to the market in the last 7 days and only 9 as sold
• 11 of the 21 new ones are offered below $2mm, while 4 of the 9 sales were offered between $1mm and $2mm 
• 5 of the 21 new loft listings are in new development, while 2 of the 9 closed sales were in new development
  
  

  By price	New = 21	Sold = 9
  $500k to $999k	4	1
  $1mm to $1.99mm	7	4
  $2mm to $2.99mm	1	2
  $3mm to $3.99mm	3	2
  $4mm to $4.99mm	3
  $5mm+	3

  
   

  By neighborhood	New = 21	Sold = 9
  Battery Park City
  Chelsea		2
  Clinton
  East Village	2
  Financial District	1
  Flatiron	1	2
  Gramercy
  Greenwich Village	2
  Kips Bay
  Little Italy	1
  Lower East Side	1
  Morningside Heights
  Murray Hill	1
  Midtown East
  Midtown West
  Noho
  SoHo		3
  Sutton Place
  Tribeca	8	2
  Turtle Bay
  Upper East Side	1	1
  Upper West Side	1
  West Village	2

• 
  
   
• New loft listings in new developments
• 
  

  415 Greenwich Street (Tribeca Summit)	1
  60 Beach Street	4

   
• 
  
   
• Sold lofts in new developments 

  
  

  311 West Broadway (Soho Mews)

  2

  
  For information about how I get this stuff and why I slice it as I do, see methodology for New + Sold in The Last Seven Days. For my rant about how soft this data may be, see loft or not? caution: active ranting ahead.

© Sandy Mattingly 2009
 

May. 8, 2009 - at 260 Park Avenue South 2006 = 2009

up, then down (probably not flat)
The Manhattan loft #4-I at 260 Park Avenue South sold in March $2,000 lower than these sellers paid in July 2006.

Had they been marking to market all along (tracking their real estate investment), they would undoubtedly have been pleased for a while after July 2006, then perhaps concerned as they started to think about selling in 2008. By the time they came to market in October 2008 at $1.795mm they were probably a little worried about getting back the $1.577mm they paid 2+ years earlier. As they should have been....

It took The Market a while to persuade these sellers that $1.795mm was not where the buyers are, but when they adjusted in January to $1.65mm they had a contract by the end of the month. 60 days later, they had their money almost back (clearing price = $1.575mm), with no need to wonder about paying capital gains taxes but some peace of mind. Hope they are happy, wherever they went.

This "1,328 sq ft" loft presumably has the standard deluxe finishes that were original to the conversion when the residential conversion of three adjoining buildings was completed in early 2006. The original buyer closed in March 2006, then acted like a motivated flipper: on the market with a few weeks (at $1.595mm), then dropped the price without a deal after another 3 weeks (to $1.55mm), then dropped again after not getting a deal in another 3 weeks (to $1.5mm). That flurry generated the deal with the to-be-sellers-in-2009 people -- apparently after a bidding war, as the clearing price of $1.577mm in July 2006 exceeded the last two asking prices for the loft.

The finishes and amenities at 260 Park Avenue South -- and its success -- upped the ante for the neighborhood, leading (inevitably) to 240 Park Avenue South, one block down and one step up in amenities and finishes (and one irritating soundtrack on that building's marketing website). The current inventory of 260 PAS (per StreetEasy, here ) has an average price per foot of $1,445/ft; the new Gwathmey Siegel glass-and-rounded-corners building at 240 PAS has average asking prices for its inventory of $1,782/ft (again, StreetEasy ).

So goes the arms' race.

yes, The Market has many data points
When Curbed.com linked to two recent Manhattan Loft Guy posts this week (thx, Lock + crew!) about sales 25% off prior sales in two different loft buildings, there was a little bit of commentary there along the lines of "d'oh -- everything is off 25%, so this is not news".

It is rather pointless to get into an extended discussion on Curbed (perhaps that will change with the new no-anonymous-guests-all-must-register policy), though I hope it would be obvious that The Market is the sum of transactions, not all of which will trend in the same direction or in the same degree at any given point. Hence, I find it interesting to see what has actually sold in a given building, compared to what has previously actually sold.

Then, instead of saying "the whole market is down 25%" (compared to when?), I can say that this building appears to have lost X% of value since Y date, which helps to estimate present value of a unit in the same building. Works for me. I assume it works for actual buyers and actual sellers who are only interested in specific lofts in specific buildings, rather than in The (overall) Market. YMMV
 

May. 7, 2009 - counting errors at Soho Mews / "lofts" + 2 BR "apartments"

look away to avoid a rant
When I do my regular weekly report of sales and new listings for Manhattan lofts as of Sunday, the report will include 2 "lofts" reported today within the inter-firm data base as having sold at Soho Mews, 311 West Broadway. But it will not include 5 sales in the same new development also reported today, because those sales were characterized as "2 BR" instead of as "loft". Arrgghhh.

All 7 of these units are marketed by the same firm. 6 of the 7 are in two lines, with identical floor plans within each line on these floors, yet one of 3 is designated a "loft" in each of the two lines, while the others are "2 BRs". I hate when this happens.

The website for the project makes it clear that the developers think they are selling "Lofts, Townhouses and Penthouses" and none of these seven units is a penthouse or townhouse. Especially with smaller numbers of sales of late, this kind of thing screws up the data. (But I still think it is right to avoid making my own judgments about what to include as "lofts", because doing that is [a] introducing yet another level of uncertainty, and [b] much too difficult.)

End of rant. Resume normal scrolling.

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

May. 6, 2009 - pretty efficient (depressed) market at 505 Greenwich Street as both 6F and 7F sell, off 25%

compare and contrast, upstairs and down, now and then
Here's another take on the theme of my neighborly competition thread (more links below): two all-but-identical Manhattan lofts at 505 Greenwich Street had overlapping marketing histories, prices and success, suggesting that even in this thin market The Market can be relatively efficient (if cruel).

This 2004 newly constructed condo is that oxymoron that loft-snobs like Manhattan Loft Guy just have to get over: yes, with no history of a non-residential usage (or any history at all), it is more accurate to say that the units are "loft-style", but no one else cares. It features open kitchens, big windows, (largely) open floor plans, and it is in a formerly non-residential micro-neighborhood, so The Market thinks it is a loft.

The "812 sq ft" "F" line is as big as some new condo 2 BR "apartments", but the layout is otherwise pretty conventional. The fixtures, finishes and amenities are consistent with the arm's race among new developments, circa 2004 (pet spa!). It is on the 'wrong' side of Canal Street to be in Tribeca, but it is hard to call this block Soho with a straight face.

the 3% difference
Neither #6F nor #7F seems to have been significantly upgraded in the brief history of the building. They have parallel recent listing histories:
 

I find that small difference in price to be remarkable in a noticeably thinner market than a year ago. I wonder if the #6F buyer had been in the market during the ten weeks #7F was being actively marketed....

Please don't worry that the #6Fsellers did not do as well as their upstairs neighbors. To the contrary: the #6F sellers were December 2004 buyers at $645k, while the #7Fsellers were January 2005 buyers at (ouch ahead!) $915k. (No consolation, of course, but the #7F sellers had no capital gains tax liability.)  Indeed, the "F" line original sales suggest a bizarrely inefficient market, presumably because the contract dates varied widely:

off 25% since Summer

Continuing the sale history of this line presents an interesting market perspective:

One little thing and one big thing jump out of this history: (1) The Market was both robust and efficient right around The Fall of Lehman, and (2) the recent sales of #6F and #7F are off almost 25% from the Summer sale of #5F.

other neighborly ruminations

April 17, break away to win the neighborly competition / so many lofts, so many dollars ... but no sales (yet)

January 7, are they fooling only each other? / 3 neighbors push, 1 smiles

December 12, more unintended consequences in petri dish of Tribeca neighbors

December 7, selling the neighbor's loft / unintended consequences in a Tribeca petri dish?

November 30, neighborly competition leads to neighborly mistakes? the laboratory at 24 East 22 Street

May. 5, 2009 - is Chelsea Mercantile off 25% since 2007?

one data point says 'yes'
I have long believed that the Chelsea Mercantile conversion of the old Veteran's Administration building into residential lofts on Seventh Avenue at 24th and 25th Streets 'created' a new market for (lower) 'north Chelsea'. (From back in the day, when I talked about active listings, see my August 21, 2007 new at 150 W 26 / one of the Merc's children and my March 30, 2007 Chelsea's Merc merchandise / 5 open houses.) When that building succeeded from its opening in 2000 with a high level of services and its (then shocking) prices, the micro-neighborhood gained Manhattan loft competitors (neighbors) such as 245 Seventh Avenue (Chelsea Atelier) and 213 West 23 Street (the venerable "Y" of ancient song), and services such as Whole Foods. Hard to believe that we would have an Onyx (261 West 28 Street) or a Chelsea Stratus (101 West 24 Street) without The Merc.

There goes the neighborhood, indeed.

So I noted with interest the most recent sale at The Merc. #9U closed on April 22 after a long slog. This "1,665 sq ft" unit was originally 2 bedrooms plus (interior) office, but was opened up to a 1 BR + office layout, permitting dinners for 24 (at one table; did they leave the table behind??). The "U" line is south-facing, though some (direct) view south is blocked on this floor by the Chelsea Royale across 24th Street (blame the success of The Merc on that), though there's still lots of sky from here, plus angled views.

slog this!
It took these folks a year to sell from when they came to market in April 2008 at $2.5mm. Back in the day, that asking price was pretty reasonable, considering that #11U had closed on February 19, 2008 for ... $2.5mm. (That one must have an interesting story: there were 8 months between that contract and that closing.) Turns out, of course, that April 2008 was very close to The Top of The Market. So not only did they not get $2.5mm, as #9U got, they did not get $2.395mm (the June price), or -- seeing the handwriting on the wall -- $1.975mm (the price as of February 2009). That February 2009 price drop did the trick however, generating the contract that closed on April 22.

The #9U clearing price of $1.875mm is 25% off the (delayed?) price of #11U from February 2008, not to mention barely $1,125/ft. How the mighty have fallen....

getting the memo, or not
StreetEasy has the data on the current inventory at The Merc. You will see that quite a few sellers are priced within spitting distance of $1,125/ft, though some have taken some pains in getting to that neighborhood. Others have not gotten the memo (yet).

May. 5, 2009 - Manhattan loft inventory as of May 3 = 1,010

Number of Manhattan residential lofts offered for sale as of Sunday night continues to reflect a bulging inventory, with most of the increase this week in the low and very high end of the market: 
 

This is up 15 in a week, while up 330 since my recorded low in mid-August.

See my May 19 post for what I am counting, and why it is difficult.

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

May. 4, 2009 - May 4, 1970 12:34 PM Ravenna, Ohio

if you are old enough, you will remember what happened then at Kent State University. (If not, Wiki is your friend.) Could my memory be right? I have a strong recollection of learning about it that afternoon from looking over someone's shoulder at a NY Post front page (within 4 hours; it must have been an extra edition). It was then a liberal rag.

R.I.P. Allison Beth Krause, William Knox Schroeder, Sandra Lee Scheuer and Jeffrey Glenn Miller

(Miller grew up in my home town; his mother worked in the Principal's office of the local high school; my dad was then President of the local school board.)

There are not many images from that time more searing than this Pulitzer Prize-winner (this is the original, uncropped, un-brushed):  one student dead, one 14 year-old wailing, and a bunch of people shocked. Surreal: but no one is running....

Once again, R.I.P. Allison Beth Krause, William Knox Schroeder, Sandra Lee Scheuer and Jeffrey Glenn Miller.

May. 4, 2009 - new Manhattan loft listings + closed sales in last 7 days

• there were 27 Manhattan lofts reported as new to the market in the last 7 days and only 8 as sold
• 19 of the 27 new ones are offered below $3mm, while 6 of the 8 sales were offered below $2mm 
• 5 of the 27 new loft listings are in new development, while 5 of the 8 closed sales were in new development
  
  

  By price	New = 27	Sold = 8
  $500k to $999k	5	3
  $1mm to $1.99mm	11	3
  $2mm to $2.99mm	3	1
  $3mm to $3.99mm	1	1
  $4mm to $4.99mm	4
  $5mm+	3

  
   

  By neighborhood	New = 27	Sold = 8
  Battery Park City
  Chelsea	6
  Clinton		1
  East Village	1
  Financial District	3	1
  Flatiron	4
  Gramercy		1
  Greenwich Village
  Kips Bay	1	2
  Little Italy	1
  Lower East Side
  Morningside Heights
  Murray Hill
  Midtown East
  Midtown West
  Noho
  SoHo	2	1
  Sutton Place
  Tribeca	3	1
  Turtle Bay	3
  Upper East Side		1
  Upper West Side	1
  West Village	2

• 
  
   
• New loft listings in new developments
• 
  

  120 Eleventh Avenue	1
  20 Pine Street (The Collection)	1
  250 East 49 Street (The Alexander)	3

   
• 
  
   
• Sold lofts in new developments 

  
  

  406 West 45 Street (Thorndale Condominium)	1
  90 William Street (be@William)	1
  15 East 26 Street (15 Madison Square North)	2
  60 Beach Street	1

  
  For information about how I get this stuff and why I slice it as I do, see methodology for New + Sold in The Last Seven Days. For my rant about how soft this data may be, see loft or not? caution: active ranting ahead.