Aug. 17, 2009 - 161 Hudson Street closed after 14 weeks, up 33% (since 2004)

don't worry about the interim
The Manhattan loft #2B at 161 Hudson Street had a pretty good run through the 2009 market, starting at $2.7mm in March, dropping twice in April (to $2.5mm) and closing June 30 at $2.41mm. That quick history shows that they really wanted to sell, and had a decent grasp of The Market. 

Aug. 7, 2009 - 2006 + 30% = 2009? (or not)

pushy, pushy
Having visited both 2006 and Franklin Street in Tribeca on Wednesday (Aug 5, 155 Franklin Street crashes past 2006 to close up 28% (since 2000)), a Manhattan loft that sold more than 3 years ago around $850/ft caught my eye. It is in prime loft-ville, just down from my (dearly departed) long-time favorite Tribeca bar. Back then, it had bells whistles, mints, custom-this and marble-that, yet it took a year to sell in those heady days. Now that we are less heady, the 2006 buyers want to be 2009 sellers, although they have priced at nearly $1,100/ft so maybe they don't really want to be 2009 sellers....

It is one of those layouts that is perfect for however many people can share one bed (though there are two full baths). While I can't be certain from the old and new listings, it seems as though the unit is in the same minty condition that it was in 3 years ago, rather than having been re-renovated since. These folks are betting that The Market is presently well above 2006. That is a tough bet, as indicated by the history of #3S at 155 Franklin Street (down 16% since 2006).

Wonder if they will hedge....

Aug. 5, 2009 - 155 Franklin Street crashes past 2006 to close up 28% (since 2000)

Jul. 19, 2009 - 100 Reade Street sale is straight out of 2005 while wishing for 2008

Jul. 11, 2009 - 50 Warren Street closes, off 45% from original ask + 14% off 2005 price

• $5.5mm February 2008
• $4.9mm November (new firm)
• $4.75mm December
• $4mm January
• $3.75mm February

Jun. 26, 2009 - 73 Worth Street closes by biting a very large bullet in one bite

did I say "large"?
I wish I had a transcript for the negotiating that resulted in the June 12 closing of the Manhattan loft #4B at 73 Worth Street. The 'simple' facts are that it had been asking $3.2mm and the deal was done well south, at $2.69mm. $510,000, or 16% -- that's a pretty big gulp.

how big was that gulp? into the way-back machine
Here's another way to measure how big that hit was for these sellers: the June 2009 clearing price was 7% below their purchase price way back in August 2005. ($2,905,250 -- with that funny number, there must have been an interesting negotiation that time, as well.)

no sales since 2005??
According to the building page on StreetEasy (here) there have been no sales in this building since 2005 -- not for lack of trying. In fact, this very same loft was offered for sale for the summer of 2007 for $3.5mm before taking a year off the market and coming back in September 2008 at that same $3.5mm. That return to market was immediately before Lehman fizzled, so it was no surprise that the price that did not work in September 2007 was again not working in September 2008. It took these sellers four months to adjust that price (to $3.2mm) and then another 3 months to sign a contract.

As I said up top, negotiating 16% off the (reduced) price -- to a point well below the 2005 value -- must not have been easy (and it probably took a few weeks). Props to the sellers for proving that yes, they really did want to sell.

impact?
Check the building page on StreetEasy (here) to see whether (how) any currently available listings are adjusting to this news.




© Sandy Mattingly 2009


 

Jun. 22, 2009 - biting a big bullet in little pieces / 9 Murray closes off 40%

price of "canvass" has plummeted
The Manhattan loft 5SE at 9 Murray Street was presented to the market in August 2008 (just before Lehman) with grand ambitions and evident motivation: starting at $1.9mm on August 16, 2008; dropped to $1.8mm in five weeks (and to $1,799,999 -- just for fun, I assume -- soon thereafter); then to $1.6mm within another 4 weeks; then to $1.5mm in 2 weeks; then (exhausted, no doubt) to $1.4mm after another 3 months, which generated a contract within 6 weeks. That contract closed on May 29 at $1.15mm.

That's 9 months on market, with 4 price drops of more than one dollar, to clear at 60% of the original asking price.

The "2,084 sq ft" loft was marketed as a bring-your-architect special with "divine" light. Nearly square, having windows on only one side is a severe limitation to any layout having real "bedrooms" (i.e., with windows), no matter how divine the light.

reasonable, just wrong
Hindsight is terribly clear that this loft never had a chance, even starting at $950/ft. (It overlapped from January into May with a high-floor neighbor asking about $1,200/ft [and then about $1,100/ft] for a "delightful" renovation with city, sky and river views -- that one came off the market without finding a buyer.) But when it started, it did not appear to be unreasonable, as another "canvass" cleared in January 2007 at just under $1,000/ft. Unit 8NE was another gut job ("Calling all creatives. Blank canvas to change."), though perhaps with slightly better light and city views. At "2,254 sq ft", it found a full price deal within 2 months in late 2006, closing in January 2007 at $2mm.

While the #5SE sellers relied on that 2007 sale in setting their asking price, they hardly sat on that price when it didn't work -- with four $100k price drops after 5 weeks, then 4 weeks, then 2 weeks, then 3 months. Having cut-cut-cut, they were still flexible enough to negotiate another 23% off their last asking price.

funny little "Tribeca" corner
I get it that this block is "Tribeca", but it is a very different Tribeca than the rest. The street level retail is vastly different from most of Tribeca-proper and the "T" intersection into Broadway at City Hall Park orients this block more to that park than to the river. Subway access is nearby and myriad, but a lot of charm has been lost in the translation. So it is priced accordingly.

funky condo development
This building looks to have been converted only in 2000. Judging from the 1 bathroom layout of #5SE (and of other units), it must have been sold as white boxes, and several people left them in that form (at least as far as plumbing). The lower 4 floors are commercial and the upper residential floors have varying layouts -- with 3, 4 or 2 units per floor and no two floors exactly alike. Makes me wonder if it evolved from residential rentals....

Prior pricing here reflects non-prime Tribeca values, with a typically powerful roof terrace premium: a no-detail-overlooked renovation sold around $1,150/ft in June 2008 (#8W) and (an even better renovation?) closed that same June around $1,300/ft (#8E; no listing info), while a "2,000 sq ft" penthouse with terrace sold for $4.85mm in September 2008 (#12SW) -- just a few weeks after #5SE came to market at $950/ft.

 

Jun. 15, 2009 - price drop can re-set expectations IF low enough

probably not low enough
There's a Manhattan loft newly returned to market in a brand-name Tribeca building that has been for sale for quite a while. It is now on its third firm and fourth price. It is hard to see that the new firm and new price will have more luck than the last firm and price, as there is not  a huge difference in then-vs-now pricing, but The Market will tell....

how big a change is big enough?
This seller is at least frustrated, and maybe pissed. Here's a bit of price history, then an explanation for the (certain) frustration and (likely) pissedness:

early 2008 asking $4.2mm
Spring 2008 drop to $3.95mm
Summer 2008 asking $3.85mm
(the new price is roughly 6% off the last price)

There is an extremely local and extremely timely comp for the value of this loft, a sale in July 2008 at $4.075mm that took about 10 weeks from offering to close. In other words, that successful sale overlapped with the newly returned to market loft, but was (a) offered at a higher price and (b) closed at a higher price. Hence the (certain) frustration....

thin market leads to inefficiency
Retrospect (bitch that is) establishes that The Market was changing (dropping) in Summer 2008, though some were quicker than others to notice. Manifestly, last Summer there was a buyer for a loft like the one newly returned to market and the one that sold in July. And I mean "a" buyer in the sense of a single buyer, for had there been two buyers, the second one would have bought this newly returned to market loft soon after the other one sold in July, as that sale established a market value above the then-current asking price. But it did nto not happen that way.

The new price for the loft newly returned to market is about 15% lower than the original asking price, and more than 10% below that July 2008 clearing price. Unfortunately for this frustrated seller, they stayed on The Market long enough after the July sale below that July sale price to confirm that $4.075mm no longer represented The Market Value for this loft. Eight months later, the sellers are left with the difficult task of setting a new price to attract buyers in the current market. If the old price did not work (it didn't), it is hard for me to see that a price 6% less 8 months later will work.

This whole scenario is similar to the dueling neighbors at 144 West 18 Street that I hit on June 11, neighborly competition / laggard at 144 West 18 Street closes off 15% since December. One of those neighbors got 'the' buyer for the building (as in, the single buyer), selling at $1.675mm in December to a buyer who signed a contract in October; the other got stuck with a buyer who closed at $1.425mm on June 2, after signing a contract in April. In other words, more evidence that a thin market is very dangerous for sellers and that even contemporaneous sales in the same building can be distracting comps.

In the case of the newly-returned-to-market-in-Tribeca loft, I think The Market expects more of a change over 8 months than 6% -- the July 2008 sale be damned. Perhaps the new price will attract a (in a former lexicon) low-ball offer that the old price did not. Seems unlikely to me.

Please note that this is not fair. In a rational (efficient) world, this unit would have sold when the other one did. But it didn't. Sucks for them.

 

Jun. 10, 2009 - getting out of the Zinc with some of shirt, as 475 Greenwich flips

not much fun, or profit
The Manhattan "loft" #3A in the new building dubbed Zinc, 475 Greenwich Street (love the Tribeca pix and Talking Heads on the building's website), sold in the first offering for $2.45mm and was immediately (10 days; they had to do some paperwork) put back on the market for $2.895mm. That did not work out too well....

The building is obviously brand new. This unit is "1,862 sq ft", set up as 3 bedrooms with the WOW of river views because of the angled streets at this edge of Tribeca.

is that handwriting on the wall?
They held at $2.895mm for 3 months, until -- after Lehman -- dropping to $2.425mm in October. When that drop -- below the July purchase price -- did not work either, they dropped again to $2.35mm in November. And sat.

And sat.

That price finally attracted a buyer and a contract in February, closing on May 14 at the uneven even number of $2,112,500. (Whenever I see a 7 figure purchase price that is hard to shorten I imagine someone just throwing up their hands, as in: all right dammit, here's another $500 but that's all I will move.) That's 14% off the July 2008 purchase price (which looks like a February 2007 contract), for sellers who (probably) had to pay transfer taxes on the way in and out. But, they did get out....
 

Jun. 5, 2009 - 4 months to close, 4 years to zero out at 260 West Broadway

threading the needle to a quick sale, through the Way Back Machine
The Manhattan loft #5G at 260 West Broadway (the American Thread Building) slid through The Market this year, starting on January 8 and finishing on May 6. (Not as fast as the ten week close at 155 Hudson Street that I hit on May 28, but almost as quick as the 15 weeks to close at 644 Broadway that I hit for the second time on May 29, but PDQ for this market.)  I'd say they were well-priced for this market. I'd also say they were ready to deal ....

I have been waiting for the clearing price to hit public records since I noticed it as Sold & Closed 4 weeks ago (my original draft said "I'd say they were well-priced for this market"); it finally hit this week (leading me to add "I'd also say they were ready to deal" to that draft). The clearing price of $1.29mm is a healthy 19% off the asking price, and an anemic $35,000 lower than the price this May 2009 seller paid when buying in March 2005.

I would say that the low price has to do with the new-ish hotel blocking most of the north views (and probably light) on the 5th floor, except that #4G sold in July 2007 quickly (7 weeks to contract) for much more than #5G just did (#4G cleared at $1.775mm). So, I guess it was The Market (same old, same old). I have absolutely no idea what to make of the transfer of #9G in March 2008 at $2.3mm -- a price per foot that is radically higher than any other transfer I see in this building; neither StreetEasy nor our data-base has any record of a listing for that unit, and that is a very high price for the north view above the hotel. #9G is a large distraction, even a mystery (but i digress) ....

odd numbers
#5G was marketed as "1,500 sq ft", but #4G was marketed in 2007 as "1,450 sq ft" and #8G was marketed in 2004 as "1,400 sq ft". I believe that the condo's floor plan in the inter-firm data base from the Select Registry is taken from the official floor plan in the condo declaration; the "G" line is there said to be "1,420 sq ft" on floors 4 through 10. City records (per StreetEasy) shows this unit as "1,334 sq ft". Why oh why can't they get that right?

quirky numbers
Taxes and common charges for #5G in 2009 were $685/mo and $948/mo, respectively. Monthlies for #4G in 2007 were $766 and $1,312 (I wonder if that common charge included an assessment for the elevator replacement project); while way back in 2004, the monthlies for #8G were $663 and $975 (essentially the same as #5G this year). Assuming the numbers in the listings were correct (counting on agents is ... errr ... problematic), it appears that taxes went up and down in the last five years in this line, and that common charges (assessments aside) have been flat. That's roughly $1,600/mo for a "1,420 sq ft" condo with a doorman, common roof deck, and (pretty spartan) fitness room -- a relative bargain.

Props to the #5G sellers (and to their agent, PruDE's Lisa Sinclair) for biting the bullet in a biting market and doing what it takes for a quick deal.


© Sandy Mattingly 2009

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. 2, 2009 - Saturday diversion / Tamarind in Tribeca

May. 1, 2009 - bringing low balls and a hard nose / developer trying to close out at 415 Greenwich

take the money + run?
The Tribeca Summit at 415 Greenwich Street is a candidate for poster boy for bi-polar psychosis (an armchair diagnosis). The Manhattan loft deluxe condo conversion of a warehouse  has been marketing since Summer 2006, at a time when the arms race among high-end condos was approaching a Tribeca peak. (In addition to the lux finishes, there are Amenities: there's no way to park your car on your residential floor here, but there is indoor parking, plus children's play area, fitness center and 24 hour concierge.) They put two interior courtyards into this massive former warehouse to bring light to the interior and converted loading docks into "townhouses" (clever!). They started selling (errr ... trying to sell) well before the lofts would be finished, then raised many prices (as you will see), presumably because they saw Tribeca lofts continue to increase in value through 2007, as they kept delaying projected closing dates.

Jan. 8, 2009 - set price off low comp or high comp? too pushy (or not) in Tribeca gets neighborly

comping is hard
Fascinating new listing for a Tribeca loft in a fairly recent high-end Manhattan loft conversion. They are asking above $1,250/ft for space that sold in the conversion at around $850/ft, probably with many of the same proper proper names (and other indicia of bling-bling) with which it is offered now. But that original sale price is not a particularly useful benchmark. The interesting (and perilous) question is which neighbor's 2007 sale is the better benchmark -- and the question is perilous because the two sales (the most recent in the building) were at such different levels.

comping is scary
One sold for nearly $1,400/ft; the other for under $1,150/ft. The latter was described glowingly (even gushingly) as a gorgeous space with ooh-la-la finishes, so there is not likely to be much difference between those two spaces in level of finishes. Perhaps there is a low-floor discount for the lower-priced unit, but I find it hard to believe that this accounts for much.

The other sale in the building in 2007 was also in highly praised condition and sold quickly above $1,300/ft. So ... which sale is the best indication of current value in the building? The new sellers are counting on the two high prices, obviously, arguing that their asking price (below either of those two sales) is not pushy at all. Any potential buyer will bang on the lower one, equally obviously, arguing that the sellers are too pushy by $100/ft even using 2007 valuations straight up.

Fascinating, indeed (from a bystander's perspective). From the seller's perspective, perilous.
 

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

Jan. 2, 2009 - getting pushy but getting it / 90 Hudson exceeds $1,200/ft

renovation bliss, perhaps

The Manhattan loft #5B at 90 Hudson Street was certainly pushing the envelope when it came to market in September 2007 at $1.495mm (we know this because it did not sell). That ask was roughly $1,500/ft in a no-frills-mature Tribeca coop, but the sellers were very proud of the gut renovation (not only is it a "gorgeous renovated loft", but it is "1,000 sq ft of pure bliss" and is "totally renovated with top of the line materials"; all that gushing in a not-very-long listing description makes no bones about the renovation). You can see the part of the Halstead listing captured on StreetEasy here (why no floor plan in the listing??).

They were patient (obstinate?) at that price seven months, until dropping to $1.395mm in April and then $1.349mm in September, before getting into contract by October 18 and closing December 15 for $1.237mm. That's 13 months to contract, and a closing 17% off the original asking price. Still, getting nearly $1,250/ft is pretty good for a no-frills mature coop, even on "Main Street" in Tribeca (the coop was converted in 1983).

The $1.237mm clearing price is all the more impressive because the larger #4A failed to sell for the 8 months it was on the market beginning in September 2007. (It is "1,250 sq ft" and was asking $1.595mm, or $1,276/ft at the same time #5B was asking nearly $1,500/ft.) The part of that Halstead listing captured on StreetEasy is here. That unit has 2 bedrooms + 2 baths, as opposed the 1 bedroom + 1 bath layout of #5B.

market inefficiencies

Can't tell what condition this loft was in when the December 2008 sellers bought it in May 2005 (for $936k), but it is at last interesting that the two "B" units underneath sold later, for less: #4B in August 2005 for $875k and #3B in December 2006 for $830k. (Not a very efficient market, is it?)

My conventional wisdom to buyers is that if they don't overpay on the way in (when buying in a stable neighborhood; Tribeca has qualified for quite a while), they will hold their place in the market on the way out. (Whether they sell for more than they paid is a function of Overall Market Direction, of course.) The December 2008 #5B sellers certainly did well with their sale price; I wonder if they overpaid when they bought it in May 2005 (based on the later sales of #4B and #3B). Absent some unexpected (and unknown) facts about these 3 Bs, one would expect #3B (in December 2006) and #4B (in August 2005) to have been worth more than #5B (in May 2005).

Weird.

squeezed by math (how hard?)

Now I wonder what they paid for that gorgeous and total renovation of pure bliss. Add $200/ft for a gut renovation (it was probably cheaper in 2005-2006), figure 6% commission on the $1.237mm clearing price and more and more of that (apparent) $300/ft "profit" from May 2005 to December 2008 evaporates. My guess is that they did not have to pay $200/ft for renovated bliss, but their 3 year old purchase price strikes me as anomalous as the sale price does now. Hope they enjoyed living there. 

© Sandy Mattingly 2008

Dec. 30, 2008 - quick work at 139 Reade Street / 11 weeks from list to artistic close

taking advantage of the Fall market

How's this for a quick sale? The Manhattan loft #3B at 139 Reade Street came to market on September 28 at $2.875mm and found a contract within six weeks, then closed in another 4 weeks. In any market it could be considered quick work to bank your cash 11 weeks after coming to market. In the brave new world of The (current) Market, that is awfully good.

2 very different buildings, one condo

This building is the 5-story component of an unusual 2007 Manhattan loft condo conversion, Artisan Lofts, along with the neighboring 17-story 143 Reade Street. The shorter building shares the amenities next door, but appears form the title histories to have been a separate condo formed in 1994. In 2007, it looks like it became a legal part of the new condo including 143 Reade Street (looks as though 143 Reade had an old address and entrance on Chambers Street; did they incorporate the lobby of 139 Reade as the lobby of the new condo??). The result would be 5-stories of 'classic' Tribeca lofts (with all thevariety of finishes and layouts in such a building) attached to 17 stories of brand new "loft" spaces.

Unit 3B is "2,175 sq ft" set up as 3 bedrooms plus media room in a relatively stumpy Long-and-Narrow footprint (roughly 35 x 70, so not so long or so narrow), but with the classic windows at either end and all plumbing in the middle (on both sides), including the proverbial gourmet kitchen. As part of a new development, amenities include concierge, gym, roof deck and "Children's Imagination Center" (which undoubtedly includes more than a box with old clothes in it). These sellers had been here at least 14 years, but I can't tell when they renovated.

no premium here; curious...

The deed was dated December 12 for $2.5mm so the seller quickly took a 13% discount to get the price available in The Market ($1,149/ft, in this case). Props to them for getting out quickly (11 weeks!) and for being nimble enough to drop 13% to make a deal.

You'd think the values in this 5-story building would reflect access to the amenities in the 17-story uber loft next door at 143 Reade Street, wouldn't you? Looks as though you'd be wrong. The last sale I see at 139 Reade was #4A, which is said to be "1,900 sq ft" but I don't have any information about its condition, or the marketing that resulted in its sale in June 2006 (7 months before the deal with the Artisan Lofts developers and the amenities upgrade) at $2.2mm -- $1,157/ft. Or, if there is a premium for having access to The Amenities (as you'd expect), you can't see it anymore because of shifts in The Market from June 2006 to December 2008.

© Sandy Mattingly 2008

Dec. 24, 2008 - NY Times highlight 142 Duane St sale, mis-counts weeks, omits land lease info

garbage in, garbage out?

The problem with relying on the NY Times sometimes for accurate information about Manhattan loft sales is that the Times has to rely on (shudder) real estate agents to supply "facts". That can lead to errors and omissions, as they say. Take the sale of #3B at 142 Duane Street reported in this past Sunday's Residential Sales Around The Region. For one thing, it was on the market longer than the 20 weeks reported, whatever theory of counting you use; plus (if our listing data base is correct) you'd never know from the Times (or from the listing agent descriptions, for that matter) that this coop does not own the land the building sits on.

Here's my quick-and-dirty on this loft, from an open house review I did on January 11 when it was a brand new listing:

$1.95mm and $2,290/mo for “1,650 sq ft” with 14 foot (tin) ceilings; nearly square with only one wall of windows, so flexibility is limited; set up as a 2 bath 1 Bed Wonder, with fireplace and balcony

With a  deed dated October 3 (for $1.75mm, as the Times correctly reports), a listing history showing a contract as of July 30 off a (reduced) asking price of $1.895mm (as the Times correctly reports), and an original listing date of January 9 (then asking $1.95mm), I don't see how you get "20 weeks" on the market, as the Times reports (incorrectly, no doubt based on information supplied by one of the agents involved in the sale). From January 9 to July 30 is more like 29 weeks (total time to contract); from the May 27 price drop to July 30 is only 9 weeks (using the Miller Samuel way to count 'days on market').

so what?

A small point, perhaps, this discrepancy about the Times reporting 20 weeks on the market, but it is an example of the risks of relying on agents to provide accurate information (even in the inter-firm data-base). Feh...

not buying an interest in land
It is probably unfair to criticize the Times -- or even the agents -- for not reporting that this coop does not own the land underneath the building. (Assuming that our data-base is correct; see below.) That is typically revealed (to those to whom it would be a surprise) at the offer stage or in negotiations. It would be bad form, as well as counter-productive to a negotiation, to leave this important datum to be discovered only in due diligence.

a nasty rash you've got there

There are not many land lease buildings out there (outside of the unique situation of Battery Park City, nearly all are coops rather than condos) and some lawyers I know will counsel a client to never buy in a land lease building. Here's a colorful attorney quote from a NY Times article from 1998 (the article has an excellent overview of the issues with land leases):

''Owning a co-op with a ground lease is like having a chronic rash,'' .... ''It's not going to kill you, but it's always there and it sure can be irritating.''

A 1987 NY Times article talks about a land lease having more (negative) impact on value in a tough market than in a strong sellers market. (That article estimates that in 1987 there were about 50 coops that did not own the ground, with another 1 or 2 such coops "created each year"; undoubtedly that 'trend' slowed or stopped as fewer coops of nay kind were created in more recent years.)

looks like a land lease

If I am reading the city property records correctly, this document from 1999 (when the coop was created) is a sponsor-entity assignment of its interest in a lease including the land under 142 Duane Street to the new coop corporation. I may have missed it, but I don't see any records indicating that that lease has been sold to the coop or otherwise abrogated.

another sorta recent sale in the building

#4A closed in this coop about 2 weeks before this one. That one was on a faster track than #3B: it came to market May 21 at $2.35mm and found a contract just before #3B did (July 19). Interesting that the clearing price for #4A of $2.15mm was nearly exactly the mid-point between the asking price and the sale price in August 2005 ($1.955mm; a slight premium over the then-asking price). That one was said to be "2,000 sq ft" of "Old World detail [that] meets seamless Modern Luxury". (THX StreetEasy; here.)

one happier neighbor?

Both sellers should be happy they sailed through the sales process, of course. But with #3B getting $1,060/ft at pretty much exactly the same time that #4A got $1,175/ft, OOPS one Manhattan loft seller is just a little bit happier than the other.

[update 1.6.09, after noting my simple + obvious math error above:

2 happy neighbors, 1 efficient market

© Sandy Mattingly 2008  

Dec. 12, 2008 - more unintended consequences in petri dish of Tribeca neighbors

can you stir the pot in a petri dish?
I hit a Tribeca building with 3 active Manhattan loft sale listings on December 8 (selling the neighbor's loft / unintended consequences in a Tribeca petri dish?), another in my occasional neighborly competition thread (such as November 30: neighborly competition leads to neighborly mistakes? the laboratory at 24 East 22 Street). To continue to fracture metaphors, the plot thickens ... as a 4th unit is now for sale, with possibly interesting consequences for the neighbors.

That earlier post dealt with lofts listed at these approximate dollars/ft prices, all of which were functionally similar in size and layout, and which appear to be roughly equivalent in level of finishes: Loft 1 is now asking about $1,400/ft; Loft 2 is in contract off $1,200/ft; and Loft 3 was the newest at about $1,330/ft.

snark about wishing
My somewhat snarky comment to conclude that post was (the bold is added today):

going outdoors as a wisher or a seller?

The newest listing in the building is -- again -- roughly equivalent in size and layout (OK, a tad smaller) and likely equivalent to the neighbors in level of finishes and condition. The huge plus to this listing is a rather large outdoor space. There are some buyers who are unimpressed with outdoor space, but most will consider it a major plus factor, likely vaulting this listing to the top of the class in the building's (friendly??) competition. If so, one question is whether that class (building) is in the right price range. The other question is ....

what will the neighbors think?

I have updated the table from the December 8 post to include the new competition:

If I am the sellers of Loft 1 (priced only $30/ft below a neighbor with a terrace) or Loft 3 (priced $100/ft below a neighbor with a terrace) I would be worried that my listing will help sell Loft 4 to anyone who (all other things being equal) would prefer outdoor space (i.e., most buyers) -- especially after I have to wonder if I have already made it easier for my neighbor in Loft 2 to find a contract. Let's see if they counter this new Manhattan loft competition, or if The Market responds to any of these three opportunities at these price points.

© Sandy Mattingly 2008  

Dec. 7, 2008 - selling the neighbor's loft / unintended consequences in a Tribeca petri dish?

pricing within a building is ... interesting
I remain fascinated by multiple units offered for sale in the same Manhattan loft building. I riffed on the possibility of one mistaken price leading to another on November 30 in neighborly competition leads to neighborly mistakes? the laboratory at 24 East 22 Street , citing there a New York Times piece (August 10, Neighborly Competition). Today's rumination about neighborly competition concerns the unintended consequence of pricing a loft so that your neighbor's loft sells, leaving you on the market.

There's a Tribeca building that will remain anonymous for now (for obvious reasons, right? April 9 end of an era for Manhattan Loft Guy / a new day dawns?) in which there are multiple lofts for sale. Check out these listing histories in that petri dish:
 

Based on the listing descriptions, they have a similar level of outstanding renovation / finishes, with proper proper names in the chef's kitchens, great light, etc, etc, in roughly similar sizes. In other words, there is nothing notably different about them other than the price (they have the same numbers of bedrooms and baths as configured, but one is 10% larger than the other). Most likely, anyone taking the trouble to see one loft also saw the other. Manifestly, the comparison helped sell Loft 2.

fly on the wall that speaks English

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall at some these conversations: (1) The Loft 2 seller had resolved to sell when Loft 1 came to market; did that seller and agent adjust their anticipated asking price in response to the $1,450/ft pricing of the neighbor? (2) Did the Loft 1 seller ask the Loft 1 agent why they were priced so far above Loft 2 on Day 3? (3) Why did Loft 1 drop only $50/ft after five weeks? (4) When Loft 2 went into contract, did the Loft 1 seller feel they no longer had that competition, or did s/he feel that The Market had been established? (No subsequent price reduction suggests s/he feels The Market has not yet been established.)

the plot thickens, considerably

Then ... what happens when a third loft is offered for sale in the building? Let's update the history table:

It is tempting to try to read between the lines of the listings descriptions, but the 3rd loft sounds as though it might have a still higher level of finishes than the neighbors who are selling. (Then again, maybe not; maybe the possible differences are -- literally -- semantic.)

eyes of the buyer(s)

On Day 30, that Loft 2 seller had to be feeling pretty good about The Competition, with a second loft in the building priced considerably above Loft 2. With the context of the new Loft 3 listing on Day 30, the $50/ft price drop for Loft 1 makes a bit more sense: while still well above Loft 2, Loft 1 is not so radically priced compared to Loft 3. (Problem is, that both Loft 1 and Loft 3 remain well above Loft 2.)

Chances are that any buyer who discovered Loft 3 between Day 30 and Day 43 also had seen Loft 1 and Loft 2. What we know is that at last one buyer (likely) viewed all three lofts and (certainly) concluded that Loft 2 at $1,200/ft met his/her needs and represented better value than Loft 1 at $1,400/ft or Loft 3 at $1,330/ft. Is any of this surprising? Sometimes the business is not all that complicated.

(On the other hand, sometimes sellers persuade themselves that their loft is sufficiently special [dare I say unique?] that market data like a neighbor selling below them gets filtered out; that gets complicated.)

Of course, any but the most ignorant buyers interested in either Loft 1 or Loft 3 will know this full history. The two remaining sellers' agents will have to convince someone to pay more for their lofts than the Loft 2 seller got (assuming Loft 2 did not get a big premium over the asking price). That may get complicated!

Add some history to the data mix available to all but the most ignorant buyers: two of these lofts sold around $1,100/ft; one last year, one three years ago.

wishing or selling?
One can say that the Loft 2 seller really wanted to sell (and -- absent some post-contract calamity -- got her/his wish). The other two sellers in the building, at this point, remain more wishers than sellers.

Dec. 4, 2008 - Sugar is sweet but 79 Laight Street closing is better

new-ish Tribeca condo under $1,100/ft
The NY Post Just Sold feature today has some of the basic info about a Manhattan loft in pretty prime Tribeca that was converted in 2002 (a relatively high level of building amenities):

TRIBECA $2,525,000

79 Laight St.

Prewar three-bedroom, three-bath loft condo, 2,332 square feet, with dining room, step-down living room with woodburning fireplace, Viking, Bosch and Thermador kitchen appliances, beamed ceilings and central AC; building features doorman, gym, children's room and storage. Common charges $1,751, taxes $1,008. Asking price $2,499,000, on market 14 weeks. Brokers: Bill Kowalczuk and Lisa Nederlander, The Corcoran Group

What the Post does not say (does not know) is that this listing (#5D) started at $2.695mm on June 14 before dropping to $2.499mm on July 29. From there, it was quick and sweet: they got into contract within 3 weeks. The marketing noted this was "priced for a quick deal", which they got, but I can't tell if that copy was added when they dropped the price, or whether it came with the original $2.695mm price. Regardless, they got that quick deal.

did the neighbors help?
When #5D came to market in mid-June, the neighbors at #5G had been on the market for 6 months already, first asking $3.25mm for "2,820 sq ft", then dropping to $2.995mm in April. (It is weird that the #5G closed listing has dropped off Corcoran's site, but StreetEasy comes to the rescue, here.) It is probably not a coincidence that #5D dropped their price within five weeks of #5G signing a contract, but I wonder if either the neighbors talked or the Corcoran agents talked -- the contract price for #5G was $2.8mm -- since it would have been very useful for the #5D sellers to know that their neighbors were in contract under $1,000/ft. (Sometimes neighborly 'competition' helps, unlike in my November 30, neighborly competition leads to neighborly mistakes? the laboratory at 24 East 22 Street.)

layout premium for #5D simplex?
The descriptions of the two units imply that they are of a similar level of finishes, so what accounts for the difference in value between the two units? If anything, #5G has better light and more windows, but that larger unit commanded about $100/ft less than the smaller (by nearly 500 sq ft) #5D. I suspect it is the duplexing

at #5G that -- despite the light and windows -- gives less of a sense of spaciousness there than in the "smaller" #5D. #5D has three widely separated bedrooms, with a good-sized master suite, and a living/dining/kitchen open sequence of 40 feet. #5G has a more square lower-level with living/dining/kitchen of 35 x 27 feet, but the bedrooms are all on the upper floor, in a fairly conventional ('apartment'-like) array. Duplexes just don't have the sense of space of simplexes -- even (especially?) duplex lofts.

That's the only thing that comes to mind to explain different ways The Market valued these two units. But there is contrary data ....

sweeter still in 2007?
The best prices I see to date in this building are for two low floor units last year: #2E closed with a deed filed May 30, 2007 at the $3.1mm asking price for "2,420 sq ft"; and #3A closed with a deed filed on November 6 at $4.33mm for "3,555 sq ft". On the one hand, #2E is a triplex (even less loft-y than a duplex, usually), but the finishes described here are pretty over-the-top, and at a different level than either 5th floor loft.  I can't say whether the #3A finishes are similar to (or better than) the 5th floor finishes, but #3A is a duplex (darn). The plus factor for #3A must be the direct river views -- but that is quite a premium (over #5D and #5G) for river views. [update 12.5.08: see the hints from Reader Jess in the Comments about those river views, and #3A finishes]

© Sandy Mattingly 2008