Aug. 25, 2009 - did 525 Broome Street get value for the 2008 renovation?

paired sale shows apparent gain over 2008
The major improvement to the Manhattan loft sales data I aggregated into a Google Docs spreadsheet and posted (as MLG #1,000 on August 23) (click here to access it in the cloud) is that I have past sales data for those lofts that were recently sold and that were bought by those recent sellers sometime in the last five years. Indeed, there are 82 such paired sales in my 229 loft resale data set.

from "open canvass" to "painstakingly renovated"
When the Manhattan loft #3 at 525 Broome Street sold in June 2008 it was billed as an "open canvass" with "infinite potential". This "2,100 sq ft" loft had been in live/work space (in the delightfully named American Nut & Screw Building) with 11 foot ceilings, steel beams and columns, maple floors, a fireplace, big windows, maple floors ... and all that potential. It was on the market from July 2007 to January 2008 (in retrospect, the height of the market) but at the wrong price ($2.59mm). When it came back to market in March 2008 it was at the right price ($2.35mm), as that price generated a contract in 18 days (at $2.15mm).

quick work
The June 19, 2008 buyer wasted no time in filling out that canvass, as it was back on the market barely 3 months later (September 25) at the pre-Lehman-price-in-a-post-Lehman-world of (feel the burn) $3.45mm. I hope that price was not a reflection of the cost of the 90 day renovation, as The Market battered the asking price to $2.95mm (November), $2.75mm (December), and finally to $2.59mm in April, which generated the contract in June that closed on July 31 -- at $2.35mm. (Ooooohhh, that burn!)

It is difficult to assess the level of finishes in this painstaking-but-90-day renovation, as the listing description lacks proper proper names and is relatively lacking in detail description of, for example, the "beautiful bathrooms" or the "custom design features". Using the $200/ft ballpark figure, that's approximately $450k in renovation costs to put on top of the $2,15mm purchase when measuring how this flip worked out.

the temptation to over-shoot on price
From that perspective, it is understandable that they wanted to be aggressive on price in September 2008, even after the Lehman hit the fan. They were already in for about $2.6mm (purchase + renovation) before considering that they paid a 1.925% mortgage recording tax and the 1% mansion tax, that they had to carry the purchase mortgage and the monthlies (did they ever live there?? there's very little furniture apparent in the pix), and that they were due to pay a 5% commission plus the 1.825% in city and state transfer taxes on the sale.

Of course The Market does not care what a seller has to pay, or has paid; The Market only cares about what the seller and buyer can agree upon. In this case, the July 31, 2009 buyer of a renovated loft and the June 19, 2008 buyer of a blank canvas agreed that the loft was worth $2.35mm after all the renovation. Net-net, these rough ballpark scribbles suggest they took a bath of about $500k or $600k in 13 months. Ouch.

What looks like a nice (odd) gain from just looking at deeds turns into a painful and sweaty loss. Maybe they bought in June 2008 intending to make it a beautiful home for them for years to come, and then something happened; or maybe they closed then always intending to flip. Eight million stories ....

those feet, odd
Marketed in 2007 at "2,100 sq ft", the flip offered in September 2008 was billed as "approx 2,250 sq ft". StreetEasy uses each figure for each sale. Property Shark, on the other hand, rates this loft at "2,900 sq ft" -- probably assigning it a percentage interest in the condominium's common space since the building is only 40 x 61 ft. With a footprint of 40 x 61 ft, both of the marketing measurements seem within the range of reason, figuring that the elevator and common stair take up from 200 to 350 sq ft. In my spreadsheet, I use "2,250 sq ft" (the number used in the listing that sold recently).

floor oddity
This loft is designated #3 but is on the second floor. (The basement is a separate condo unit and is designated #1.) I bet that confuses people who visit the loft all the time.

noise oddity
I grimaced when seeing that this loft was marketed as being "in quiet Soho", until I realized how far west they are. Since my office now sits along Broome Street I see (and hear) traffic heading toward the Holland Tunnel back up as far back as Broadway. But this loft sits between Sullivan and Thompson Streets, just past the dogleg when tunnel-bound traffic bends left from Broome Street onto Watts. I wonder how easy it is to get in front of this building in a cab at high-traffic times, but I am not surprised that this loft could be quiet.

[update: I realize that I hit this loft twice when it was being sold for it's potential. This March 24, 2008 post notes the price change from the (formerly patient) seller and includes a link to an open house review way back in the frothy days of November 16, 2007.]

© Sandy Mattingly 2009
 

Aug. 20, 2009 - 64 Grand Street closes UP 12% since 2006

The Market has many faces
One of these days I will do a long post about how The (overall) Market is made up of individual transactions that vary widely from The (overall) Market trend. But not today. Today the news is about a Manhattan loft that is anomalous only if your theory is that all transactions move in the same direction. 64 Grand Street #7 closed last week at $1.64mm after having traded previously at $1.475mm in October 2006.

This is a Long-and-Narrow "2,200 sq ft" (possibly; in 2006 it was "1,900 sq ft") loft that was gently marketed as a project: "an unquestionable value for a buyer with vision looking for a clean canvas and good bones". That description is very similar to the 2006 marketing pitch ("Needs TLC - great bones!"), so it appears that the recent sellers made few improvements or upgrades after buying in 2006. It still has only 1 bathroom, bit it also still has great light, Empire State building views, and a location at the bottom of prime Soho (between West Broadway and Wooster). The 4 windows on one long wall provide a lot of flexibility for a future renovation.

nice job
The loft came to market on March 3 at $1.75mm and made only one price adjustment, dropping to $1.64mm on April 22 and finding a contract at that price one month later. The closing was August 12. Props to the sellers and to Corcoran's Maura and Robert Gells for quickly finding the right price -- a price that runs counter to general market trends.

a lot of upside
This building is part of a single coop with 66 Grand Street. The October 2006 sale of #7 was the last sale in that building (64 Grand) and the most recent sale at 66 Grand Street was #5, in the frothy days of July 2007. That Long-and-Narrow "1,900 sq ft" loft (with windows only on both narrow ends) was billed as "stunning" and sun-drenched. It was offered in February 2007 at $2.35mm and closed at $2.23mm.

I assume the buyers of #7 at 64 Grand are going to develop those good bones. There should be more than enough room between the 2007 mint-y sale of #5 at 66 Grand and a renovation on top of the $1.675mm purchase price for #7 at 64 Grand for a first class renovation to make economic sense. At least, I hope the next time #7 at 64 Grand is marketed it is not offered as a one bathroom "project".


COUNTDOWN: 10 ... 9 ... 8 ... 7 ... 6 ... 5 [oops] ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
has anyone figured out this Countdown thing yet??

© Sandy Mattingly 2009
 

Aug. 15, 2009 - buying high, selling low (ouch) at 114 Spring Street

this one is difficult to fathom, my promise notwithstanding
The Manhattan loft #2 at 114 Spring Street has (and has had) a lot to recommend it: prime Soho location, "1,900 sq ft", 12 foot barrel-vaulted ceilings, bright lights and cast-iron views, and a renovation described as "magnificent" (Venetian plastered walls!). Back in the (frothy) day, it even had a (mild) bidding war: offered at an even $1.8mm, it closed at the rather awkwardly uneven $1,808,333 on May 15, 2006 after having come to market only on March 4, 2006.

Those 2006 buyers got killed by the 2009 market.

getting to 2006 quickly, but not helpfully
When these 2006 buyers came to market as 2009 sellers in February they were grossly wrong about The Market (they started out on February 4 asking $2.1mm for their $1,808,333-in-2006 loft, but they adjusted quickly (dropping to $1.9mm, then $1.825mm and then $1.7mm within 3 weeks. That did not do the trick.

motivated, without doubt (and unsuccessful, for a while)
Let's review that quick summary, because there is no question that these folks were (a) paying attention and (b) motivated to sell.

Yes, they started too high at $2.1mm on February 4 -- asking a 22% premium over their May 2006 purchase. But they adjusted after 12 days, 22 days and 23 days, down to $1.7mm, a 6% discount from their 3 year old purchase price and a full 19% less than where they had started only 3 weeks earlier.

But it took one more price drop (after they waited only 3 weeks, to $1.5mm on March 21) to find a buyer and a contract as of May 29.

Department of Repetition Department
To recap: within 44 days of coming to The Market too high ($2.1mm) they dropped the price 4 times, by then asking 17% less than they had paid in 2006.

From the last price drop on March 31 it took them 2 months to find a buyer and a contract. That deal closed on July 28 at $1.393mm -- a further 7% off the last asking price, a large third off their original ask, and an excruciating 23% off the May 2006 clearing price.

prime Soho took a huge hit here
I have promised not to be surprised at lofts that close in 2009 around (or below) 2005 prices. (In my July 29 attack of the Killer Comp (when 2005 pricing does not help) I said "Note to self: stop being surprised by 2005 comps.".) I am having trouble with that pledge, looking at this loft sale-and-resale. I suspect -- but cannot yet prove or disprove -- that this July 2009 sale 23% off the May 2006 purchase is not fully representative of The Market, that it is a (relative low-lier) that will go into determining market averages.

I am not going to repeat (again!) the price history, but you are free to re-read it above. (Please, please...) Props to these sellers for proving that they really wanted to sell and would do so at the best price The Market offered, and to (former and now-again colleague) Martin Eiden for steering them through this (brief but poetically painful) Odyssey and home to Ithaca (or wherever they went).

interesting layout
The loft is a classic Long-and-Narrow, with the benefit of 2 windows on one long side and plumbing in widely varied spots. The result is an unusual floor plan for a Long-and-Narrow, with the (windowed) kitchen at one Narrow end, the master suite at the other end, and a real 2d bedroom (with a side window) near the master, The entry is in the middle of one Long side, into the living room (instead of into the kitchen or dining area, as often happens with a Long-and-Narrow).

I don't see anything in the pre-2006 renovation or layout to suspect that The Market punished this loft for being unusual or too idiosyncratic. But i have to feel that punish it The Market did....

To repeat (again): Note to self: stop being surprised by 2005 comps. And 2006 comps.

A Manhattan Loft Guy tip of the hat to Reader Thomas for reminding me to comment on this sale.

COUNTDOWN: 10 ... 9 ... 8 ... 7 ...

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

Jul. 18, 2009 - another big drop that worked / 69 Wooster Street closes under $1,000/ft after $850k drop

but only 15% off
A Manhattan loft on the 5th floor at 69 Wooster Street closed in April under $1,000/ft, despite the fact that it was "newly renovated in a classic but modern style" and a ridiculously low maintenance ($0.42/ft). These sellers also bit a pretty big bullet in facing up to the beast that is The Market: they cut the asking price by $850k before negotiating another $275k off the price two months later.

size matters
I suspect that this loft, like the museum quality loft at 644 Broadway discussed April 27 (price of 'museum quality' in Noho = $1,000/ft / 644 Broadway closes quickly) was penalized for selling in a very thin slice of a pretty thin market. At "5,000 sq ft", even selling at $980/ft was a $4.625mm clearing price. As the marketing said, this space "defines living large"; with only 3 bedrooms in "5,000 sq ft", that is a very modest statement indeed. (In addition to the bedrooms, there is a very large media room and the master suite includes a dressing room equal in size to many Manhattan loft bedrooms; the combined living / dining / kitchen area takes up well over half the loft.)

Even in prime Soho, this scale commanded less than $1,000/ft.

why talk about an old closing?
This closing has been sitting in my Ideas / Draft pile for about 10 weeks, which would customarily exceed a freshness date for blog posting purposes. But this loft transaction intrigues me. There are just not that many lofts on this scale, and I have certainly been attuned to looking for Big Price Drops. Inabsolute terms, a price drop of $850,000 is large, though less than some I have hit (only most recently, I hit a $2mm drop for a sale at 175 Sullivan Street on July 16 and a 45% original-ask-to-close discount at 50 Warren Street on July 11), while negotiating from $4.9mm to $4.625mm is hardly a major (additional) cut.

slice, then slice again
But the scale! This loft was probably penalized, as I said above, for seeking "a very thin slice of a pretty thin market", but it is probably more than that. It probably suffered for taking two very thin slices of a very thin market: first, the thin-oxygen market around $5mm; second, the (thinner?) market of people for whom 5,000 sq ft is appealing.

I have found in Soho in the last five months only two sales above this one at $4.625mm. One was never publicly marketed and was bought by an LLC, so I am not sure what it may mean (285 Lafayette Street #7A, recorded at $6mm for an unknown amount of space in a 1999 uber-condo conversion). The other was in a brand new development, #7B at 151 Wooster Street, "3,007 sq ft" that cleared at $5.35mm with monthly charges and taxes of $5,732 (pretty uber, that condo). So not much changed hands in these rarefied price levels, and neither was more than 60% the size of the loft at 69 Wooster.

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

Jun. 16, 2009 - "absolute showplace" at 113 Greene Street in Soho goes for $918/ft (absolutely)

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??)

Apr. 29, 2009 - 497 Greenwich Street sale was off a low ball?

We put in [low] offers on about eight units in different buildings," said ..., who bought their $2.9 million TriBeCa condo at 497 Greenwich St. sight unseen. "I knew the building, I knew the line, and it was in the neighborhood we wanted ." There was also a rush to get the deal done: ... is pregnant with their first child and due in mid-May. [brackets in original]

© Sandy Mattingly 2009  

Apr. 15, 2009 - a tale of 2 Sohos, or 2 tales of Soho at $900/ft?

one tale: prime Soho bring-your-architect sells quickly at full ask -- PDQ, considering
The Manhattan loft #5E at 362 West Broadway was marketed as a true project for real loft lovers ("original loft space"; "bring your architect"; "create your dream home") so you must assume that this "1,100 sq ft" space was not meant to be lived in (by the buyer, at least) until some serious money had been spent in renovation / upgrade / gutting. Evidently, The Market thinks that such an opportunity in prime Soho (between Grand and Broome on Soho's 'main street') is worth $900/ft, as this loft closed at the full asking price of $999,000 on March 16. The sale did not take very long, all things considered in the modern world, as it started on October 27 and found a contract by January 14.

Mar. 13, 2009 - off (only) 6% in Soho in a year? one seller thinks so

© Sandy Mattingly 2009  

Feb. 26, 2009 - how much is that renovation in the window?

adding modest value, or too modest about the value added?
There's a Manhattan loft newly for sale that is asking about $1,300/ft and is described as newly renovated. The prose is rather muted for a renovation (the kitchen, for example, is only described by its size). I really wonder what the renovation cost. The loft is in prime Soho and is big enough to fit into the family-size-with-entertaining-space category.

The renovation resulted in bedrooms that are small by large loft standards, none of which are en suite. There's a good-sized main open area that seems to get a lot of light (and there's that ... errr ... spacious kitchen), but I really wonder what that renovation cost. It is priced as though it had cost enough to be flinging proper proper names, exquisite materials, and custom this-ing and that-ing. Not saying it does not have them; just saying the listing does not say ti has them.

really wondering
Did I mention that I am curious about the cost of the renovation? When the loft sold about four years ago, it cleared at about $850/ft. Did the renovation plus four years add more than $400/ft in value?

A neighbor on a higher floor in a larger loft did not sell three years ago, despite a game effort. That loft was offered at about $1,300/ft and was marketed as a terrific renovation: "custom" this, "fabulous" that, "luxurious" other, with proper proper names. That pricing did not fly then, for a loft that sounds as though it was a better renovation than the one newly for sale. That narrows the time frame in which to assign additional value in the new listing to The market, as opposed to the renovation.

At this point, a definite contender for the too pushy ...? thread. Or maybe (also?) the what year is it? thread. Or maybe just a new why are they so modest? thread. I really am wondering, as you well know by now.

© Sandy Mattingly 2009  

Nov. 12, 2008 - 2 tiny drops / 354 Broome Street #5G closes down 12%

hardball, anyone?
This one is interesting from a negotiating perspective. The Manhattan loft at 354 Broome Street #5G closed (deed filed September 24, but the clearing price was unknown for a while; it was $1.85mm) after having been on the market since January. They started at $2.2mm and -- while they were willing to come down -- they were not willing to come down much. At least formally.

They dropped $5,000 in March and $50,000 in April, then held on until finding a contract (the contract date on StreetEasy and in our database must be wrong, as it is September 17, a virtual impossibility for a closing 8 days later; so the contract came somwehere between April and August; darn those agents who screw up the data!!).

triple mint but double height = challenging layout
The StreetEasy link to the PruDE listing is here. As you will see, they do a lot of bragging about finishes (starting with "triple mint architectural renovation") but the layout is, well ... a challenge. At "1,700 sq ft" but no dimensions on the floor plan, they took advantage of the 18 foot ceilings to add that mezzanine with bedroom and bath, but that "room" does not close to the space below. Moreover, the second "bedroom" is aptly described as "bedroom / den / home office", as it lacks a window. In fact, there is only one window in the place!

back to those negotiations
The seller gave only the most prefunctory nod toward being "negotiable", despite offering the highest price to date in the bulding (the Ice House, which sits pretty far east to be "Soho"), with a $5,000 and another $50,000 price drop. Nonetheless, the deal was struck at $1.85mm -- a full 12% "discount". I can only imagine where they started that discussion ... $1.7mm?? And I can only speculate about the seller's reaction to what may well have seemed like the proverbial low-ball offer.

Whatever ... props to the seller for getting a deal done at the point The Market provided, in not such a long time at that.

Oct. 31, 2008 - 16 Greene Street closes around $1,000/ft, twice

Soho on the cheap, with reason
I noticed yesterday that the Manhattan loft #5N at 16 Greene Street was newly updated in our system as Sold & Closed, but no clearing price was visible yet in city records. But when I checked for #5N I saw that #4S closed there recently, with a deed filed September 2 for $1.415mm. Then I checked again this morning and there it was: the deed for #5N was filed on October 24 for $2.1mm. Quick work ACRIS!

#4S was said to be "1,400 sq ft" and was billed as a "bright renovated classic loft in historic cast-iron building", with a chef's kitchen, set up as a 1 bedroom (plus office/nrusery) and (only) 1 bath. Only 10 feet wide on the back (maser bedroom) and 17 feet wide on front (living room), the main photo presents a 'bowling alley' feel. (Dark floors adn white walls and furnishings were definitely a good idea, with only two windows at each end.)

#4S was new to market in January at $1.55mm, dropped to $1.495mm and found a contract in July.

My draft of yesterday said "#5N won't have done too much better than the price-per-foot of #4S, as it is said to be "2,070 sq ft" and was asking $2.1mm (this was a quick sale: offered pn Jluy 3 and in contract by July 25)" but the "quick sale" did yeield the asking price of $2.1mm (as noted above). I don't know if I have ever seen the locution "actual bedrooms" in a loft listing before, but here is the description: "This mint home has central air conditioning and has been architect designed incorporating actual bedrooms and separate living spaces while maintaining the integrity of the loft." You can see pix on the StreetEasy grab, here. Those 2 "actual." bedrooms ara in the back in the classic Long-and-Narrow array (the good news is that the North lofts in the building are 22+ feet in width at the back). With 3 windows in back and only 2 in front (the loft is billed as 92 feet long), there's a long way between windows -- good thing they are large windows.

how much renovation of #5N?
#5N changed hands in March 2006 for $1.65mm (off an ask of $1.795mm); then being sold as "in very nice condition" (that listing from Corcoran is here ). The 2006 pix show me a fairly primitive condition, but walls and plumbing apparently in the same places as in the 2008 sale. Hard to say from the descriptions and pictures how much renovation was done in between.

The building is old for a coop down there (mid-1970s conversion?), with rather low maintenance -- $999/mo for the larger #5N and only $795/mo for #4S. Especially with that low maintenance burden, $1,000/ft for "a Soho loft" seems low, right? But we are not talking prime Soho here. The building is nearly at the corner of Canal Street, which is a very gritty (hard) border with not-the-most-charming-part-of-Tribeca. Lots of car traffic zigging north from where Chruch Street "T"s into Canal; pain in the butt to get in front of 16 Greene by car or taxi, having to come from Canal Street....

in the Manhattan Loft Guy way-back machine
Astute readers will recall that I have hit this building before. Way back in March I posted about #4S in a post titled "16 Greene Price drops but still crowded", but took that content down in The Purge of April 9. From the archives, here is what that post said:

The link to the earlier January 22 post should still work, in which I hit #4S when it was new to market.

That's what you can get in Soho for $1,000 a foot.

Jun. 12, 2008 - (not very) recent NY Times Residential Sales / 22 Mercer Street loft sold in February

silly me
I just checked the fine print in this past Sunday's NY Times feature Residential Sales Around the Region and was surprised not to see the word "recent" modifying "sales" anywhere on the page. I have just been assuming that the sales reported in this feature would be recent sales ... how newsworthy is old data?? Newsworthy or not, the one loft in Sunday's report closed 4 months ago. Weird. (I assume that the reporting firm [Corcoran, which must have represented the buyer, not the seller/developer] recently sent it to the Times; after all how newsworthy is old data??)

aged sale, long time coming
The common charge and tax data for the 22 Mercer Street loft reported as taking 3 weeks from "most recent listing to the sales agreement [i.e., contract]" correspond to Unit 4D, with a sales price of $3.55mm. Couple of things are interesting about the timing. First, according to city records this was the first sale of this unit (i.e., not a resale, but a direct sale from the developer) in a 16 unit building in which the first condo sales were in December 2006. Second, that "3 weeks" may be technically true but is essentially untrue: yes, the deed was recorded on February 14, the contract was signed (per our inter-firm data base) on January 16 and the "most recent listing" was December 27 BUT that followed 2 weeks of being "temporarily off the market". In fact, the unit had been marketed by Halstead beginning October 1, 2007. In fact, the unit had been represented by Corcoran from October 2005 into January 2007, then taken off the market for more than 9 months by the developer, who then switched to Halstead.

The developer kept raising the ante over this long time, by the way. According to the available listing history, they started with Corcoran at $2,750,800 on October 3, 2005,  immediately pulled it off the market (October 4), then jumped to $3.15mm when it came back on February 27, 2006 and again to $3.3mm on June 28, 2006, where it sat until being taken off the market on January 5, 2007. When it was revived with Halstead on October 1, 2007 they offered it at $3.6mm.

some contracts during construction
Remember 2005? That was back when it was fairly common for buyers to buy in new development off floor plans and examples of finishes. The #2D history shows a similar (though shorter) history: originally offered on October 3, 2005 for $2,392,000, then raised quickly (October 6) to $2.55mm, then taken off the market on October 25 until March 17, 2006 when it returned at $2.95mm. It found a buyer and contract May 15 and closed on January 12, 2007. Apparently, they did not like the (low) level of sales activity beginning in October 2005, but found the stage of construction more conducive to contracts by Spring 2006. Except for #4D, of course.

one more, and I will stop
#3D has an interesting history, according to our data base. Offered in October 2005 at $2,631,200 then pulled back, and then the data got garbled. Not sure when the contract was signed, but the developed sold to someone who -- per the data on Street Easy -- flipped it through PruDE, starting at $3.495mm in January 2007, dropped immediately to $3.395mm (so quick the first resale price may have been a typo), then in contract by February 22 and closed by March 29, 2007 at $3.2mm.

This is a bit garbled because StreetEasy does not show the original sale, just the flip in March 2007. Property Shark, in contrast, does not show the flip, but does show the original sale at $2.2mm as being recorded on March 27, 2007. Perhaps this flip was an assignment?? So the original buyer bought at $2.2mm (the Property Shark price) and transferred the same day at $3.2mm (the StreetEasy price)??

Whatever, the key is that the flipper/assignor in #3D began to offer that unit in January 2007 at $3.395mm just 3 weeks after the developer pulled #4D off the market after not selling at $3.3mm -- and #3D got a contract and closing in March at $3.2mm, while the developer waited until October 2007 to bring #4D back at $3.6mm. Fortunately for the developer (and for Halstead), #4D ended up fetching $355k more than #3D, though I bet the developer made a concession about transfer taxes.

I have to stop. That was so garbled even I have to go back and look at the numbers in order to follow what I am saying here. Let's just say -- if you have followed along this far -- that the #4D sale reported in last Sunday's Times was not "recent" and that the developer recouped on #4D a Little of what it 'lost' on #3D (after all, the #3D flipper grossed $1mm but had to pay at least one set of closing costs, probably two).

as always...

To keep up with this building fairly easily, check the StreetEasy page for this condo here.

 
© Sandy Mattingly 2008

Mar. 31, 2008 - if at first ... 543 Broadway back with fewer dollars

Mar. 24, 2008 - 16 Greene still crowded but price drops

Mar. 24, 2008 - price drop trumps patience at 525 Broome, 9 months to contract

[update: I have restored the text of this post, as the listing described is no longer an active listing of another firm]

I have removed the content of this blog post, as it comments about the current listing of another agent. For information about why, check out end of an era for Manhattan Loft Guy / a new day dawns? from April 9.

I hit 525 Broome Street #3 in a Manhattan loft open house review November 16 (5 Sunday Open Houses around $2.5mm ), noting that the "patient seller" had not changed the price since July. They were selling
 

After sticking to that price of $2.59mm (and $1,651/mo)

into February (that's

a lot

of patience), the seller took it off for 12 days. When they brought it back to market on Leap Day for $2.35mm they found a buyer to sign a contract 3 weeks later. It will be interesting to see if the trading price is close to the new asking price; I would love to know if the buyer had seen it before, at the old price.

© Sandy Mattingly 2008

Mar. 18, 2008 - inquiring minds want to know / 292 Lafayette is new

Mar. 17, 2008 - new loft at 101 Wooster Street is an implied project

clean-up: I had removed this post, but the loft has traded, so is no longer an active listing and can be commented on...

[I have removed the content of this blog post, as it comments about the current listing of another agent. For information about why, check out end of an era for Manhattan Loft Guy / a new day dawns? from April 9.]

you got your pros
There's a lot of good stuff about #6R at 101 Wooster Street, new to the Manhattan loft market today. If you are a Soho fan, being on Wooster at Spring should be appealing ("quiet cobblestone street ... surrounded by luxury boutiques amidst authentic loft buildings"). The space is said to be quiet, with "streaming" sunlight and "fully operable" windows. The best news may be the price, asking $1.699mm and $1,700/mo for "1,447 sq ft".

you got your cons
Deconstructing the listing description, floor plan and photos, this loft appears to be fairly primitive. You could probably live in it as is, but you would probably upgrade or renovate extensively. Note that there are no words or pix devoted to the kitchen or (single) bathroom. Note the size of the 2 bedrooms and interior office (none as long or wide as 12 feet). Note that the 4 south windows are lot line windows. Note that those things that look like windows in the office / "interior bedroom" on the floor plan must not be windows because, after all, this is described as an "interior bedroom".

Note that they are selling change: "there is much that can be done to customize it to your own whims and desires" and "an idyllic setting could be made into your dream home".

what does that change cost?
So perhaps it comes down to whether there is enough potential in the quiet and sun and location to make this loft a dream home at a reasonable buy+renovate budget. They are asking over $1,100/ft and figure $200/ft for a substantial renovation (insert disclaimers here). Bring your architects!

The last sale in the building was #2R, which sold in October 2006 for $1.648mm (ask had been $1.8mm). That one was marketed as though done: with top-of-the-line appliances and an "ultra chic" bathroom.

[Update: it traded for $1.68mm on November 6, 2008]

© Sandy Mattingly 2008

Feb. 2, 2008 - sweeping the new at 477 Broome + 458 Broome + 354 Broome Street

Feb. 1, 2008 - contracts at 95 Greene show value + velocity + sloppy paperwork