Jul. 16, 2009 - dropping $2mm to make an un-lofty sale at 175 Sullivan Street

Jun. 9, 2009 - ending up where they started / $4mm closing at 99 Jane

head scratching in a thin market
The Market just proved that the Manhattan loft #10A at 99 Jane Street is worth $4mm, as that is the clearing price just now publicly available from the May 30 closing. That strikes me as at least a bit odd, as this loft started to market a year ago at that exact price but did not find a contract until April 25, 2009 -- after changing firms (once) and prices (twice; both above $4mm). You'd think (at least, Manhattan Loft Guy'd think) that with someone willing to pay $4mm in April 2009, either that someone or a different someone would have been wiling to pay $4mm earlier, and would have persevered through higher asking prices of $4.495mm and $4.3mm. Perhaps another example of The Market being rather inefficient....

ooh-la-la views
This "1,920 sq ft" high-floor loft has a long wall of windows west (with "panoramic river and city views" and "streaming sunlight and magical sunsets") and a south-facing terrace. The building is only ten years old, so I take the description of "pristine" condition as being original-but-luxe. The plus factor for this loft is the view outside those windows (secondarily, the 10 x 35 ft terrace). So why didn't it sell last year for this year's price?

dangerous, but fun, speculation
The history of a neighbor suggests (only a theory here) that the June 2008 $4mm seller stiffened, and would not have accepted only $4mm last year. The hard evidence for this supposition is that they raised the price in July 2008 to $4.495mm. The intriguing fact here is that the neighbor in #9C rocketed through The Market last June at that same $4.495mm (on the market June 6, 2008; in contract June 20, 2008; cleared on July 10, 2008 -- I said rocketed through The Market -- at full ask).

In comparison, #10A came to market the day before #9C last June, and it is unlikely to be a coincidence that the #10C sellers raised the price to exactly #9C's clearing price 4 days after #9C closed. In an efficient market, #10A figured to command a similar value to #9C, off-setting the larger terrace of #9C (821 sq ft) and possibly higher level of finishes against the river views of #10A. This was not an unreasonable view in July 2008. Except that The Market, even then, had changed and was decidedly more thin than it had been.

My supposition is that the #10A sellers were swayed by the #9C sale and stiffened their resolve enough to prevent a sale at their original asking price of $4mm. Alternatively, there was just one buyer for 99 Jane Street lofts in the $4mm to $5mm range last Summer, and #9C found that buyer.

Fascinating, no? If only as an illustration of how The Market can work, even if not precisely descriptive of the #10A sellers state of mind.

One wonders whether it was the sellers or the agent who decided in July 2008 that #10A was worth more than the original $4mm ask. One wonders about the conversations in which the former agents were not given an extended listing when the listing expired in December at $4.495mm, and how the new asking price in March 2009 of $4.3mm was divined with the new agents. One wonders how relieved the sellers were to end up in contract within 6 weeks of coming back to market (I assume, very relieved).

other neighborly ruminations
Turns out there were two $4mm+ buyers for 99 Jane Street, but maybe only one in 2008 and (so far) only one in 2009. This much I know: a thin market is a dangerous market for sellers.

All in all, I wonder how distracting it was for the #10A sellers (remember, they started as if they'd be happy at $4mm) to see what happened to #9C at $4.495mm. Sometimes neighborly competition gets in the way, even if it provides (what used to be considered) a wonderful + nearby + recent comp:

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
 

Jan. 3, 2009 - you price it high, you pay the price / 105 East 29 St #11 closes, finally

from September 2005 to now
Manifestly, the sellers of the beautiful 11th floor loft at 105 East 29 Street (with "3,000 sq ft" that have room for 2 fireplaces, 4 exposures and 19 windows) mis-perceived the Manhattan loft market when they came to market in September 2005 for $3.5mm, as it did not sell then. Nor did it sell for the $3.75mm asking price from March 2006,the September 2006 price of $3.8mm, nor -- after a 6 month hiatus and a change in firms -- for the $3.495mm beginning in March 2008 (essentially re-starting at the September 2005 [unsuccessful] price). But the May 2008 price reduction to $3.295mm go the ball rolling to a contract in July and a closing at $3.15mm with a deed dated December 12.

whose bitch?
Might they have gotten more than $3.15mm if they had been quicker to get down in the low-3s? Probbaly. Hindsight is a bitch, no?

I hit the 9^th floor unit both when it came to market at $3.75mm (September 23, 2007: 105 E 29 9th fl is new this weekend + going for it) and after a drop a year ago to $3.495mm (does that price sound familiar??) (on January 17, 2008). In both posts I reviewed building sales (and listing) activity, including the 11th floor extended listing activity; this is from a year ago:

I relayed some inside

about the 11

floor in that January 17, 2008 post, which ameliorated the view that I took about that 11

floor (non-sale) history as a negative comp for the 9

floor (the bold is new):

There is a reason that people (agents, lawyers; less often sellers) say "you don't have a deal until you have a deal", meaning that nothing counts until a contract is effective. For the 11

floor sellers, they probably felt pretty good about their pricing strategy when they took it off the market after getting offers above the asking price, and (likely) persuaded themselves that it did not much matter that those offers never

counted. (Of course, I have no idea if the offers came from people who were qualified, or well-informed about the market, or kooks; how much stock to reasonably put in those offers would vary greatly, depending on the circumstances.)

Oops...

$3.15mm in December 2008 is a

long way from anywhere near $3.8mm a year or more earlier. Hindsight = (nasty, nasty) bitch, indeed. (For the 9th floor, as well, as it is now offered with a "2">)

Dec. 21, 2008 - FSBO loft in unusual location offers artist provenance + park views

a possible jewel, squeaking through the Junk folder
On a typical day, i get anywhere from 100 to 250 e-flyers from real estate firms touting a new listing, a price reduction, an open house, "spectacular views", or simply an AMAZING deal (sometimes "priced below market" ;-) -- a ridiculous barrage that undercuts the utility of any of these individual messages. In order to keep my email handling at all functional, I filter nearly all of these things by 'offending' senders so that they never get to my In-Box, but collect in a Junk folder, which I scan quickly every so often to see if there is anything I really should look at. (Hint: that would be rare.)

Unique or first time 'junk' mailers get through, until I identify them as Junk for my filters. Hence, the email that came in Friday afternoon from a for-sale-by-owner went into my In-Box, with a subject line that caught my eye: "FIFTH Avenue TROPHY LOFT ** PARK VIEWS ** 4BR ** UNDER $1,000 PSF ** Open House SUN 1-3" (abbreviated as a subject line on first view as "FIFTH Avenue TROPHY LOFT ** P", still enough to be catchable).

Yes, I am a sucker for trophy lofts, and how many lofts of any kind (in Manhattan, at least) have park views? "Under $1,000 psf" is not so catchable these days, of course, but there was enough for me to click through.

major park to view
I found a fascinating loft with all the elements as advertised, offered by an owner willing to pay 4% to an agent who brought him a buyer. The pix show the green trees of "park" and the address tells you that is no ordinary park, but Central Park. How many "lofts" have Central park views? Precious few, making this a "loft in 'other' neighborhoods" entry.

Just as there are not many "loft" buyers who want to live on East End Avenue (though there are a few real lofts there), there are relatively few "loft" buyers who will prefer living on Fifth Avenue at 107 Street unless something really makes it worth their while to do so.

This loft is a combo unit of "3,042 sq ft", 1255 Fifth Avenue #3CDE (the link may expire, but will be updated if the owner replaces it), and the principal candidates for that something to lure buyers to this area are those Central Park views (including the Harlem Meer) and the fact that it had been owned by Annie Liebovitz. The other lures are more typical of trophy lofts, generally: 15 foot ceilings, high end finishes (granite kitchen counters, Venetian plastered walls), that general feeling of 'space' and 'volume' from a loft with these dimensions, all in a condominium building with amenities to shock the downtown snobs (doorman + concierge, health club, roof deck and live-in super).

Whether pricing below $1,000/ft is enough of a something to lure buyers here depends on whether the whole value package works for a particular buyer (after all, it only takes one buyer).

they say that comping up is hard to do
(And they are right.) Pity the buyer, agent, lender or appraiser who has to consider a (truly) "unique" property (or seller, for that matter). The multi-variant calculus of adjustments to finding any useful comp to this property will make most heads split.

Because this is a 3-unit combo, there is no similarly sized building past sales data. Because there are so few lofts anywhere near here, general loft pricing does not easily apply. Because this is above 96 Street, it is within the borders of East Harlem, according to StreetEasy (their building page is here). (Actually, I am pretty sure that some of those new condos east of Second Avenue in the 100s and 110s are probably at least 'loft-like', but 107 Street and First Avenue is in no ways comparable to Fifth Avenue and 107 Street.) How many apartments of any kind above East 96 Street have Venetian plastered walls? (I know what it cost for the 7 coats of Venetian plaster applied to a townhouse apartment I marketed last year, which involved an artist living in the space for a week, and working at night.)

The single best comp that I can find for this space is a year old, lacks the high end finishes promised in #3CDE, and requires adjustment for having a (250 sq ft?) terrace. It happens to be next door to #3CDE, and is the combination #3AB, with those same 15 foot ceilings, which sold in December 2007 for $1.897mm; said to be "1,720 sq ft", that is just over $1,100/ft before adjusting for the terrace. On the one hand, that $1,100/ft was at a lower level of finishes (it appears to me; the Corcoran listing did not do any bragging about that), would require renovation to be more than the 1-bedroom it sold as, yet it found a buyer within 3 months (within 4 weeks of a price drop from $2.25mm to $1.995mm).

On the other hand (there's always another hand, isn't there?), that was December 2007, and #3CDE -- even under $1,000/ft -- is asking another million bucks above what the neighbors got. Staying on that hand, this unit was offered together with the neighboring #3AB (by Corcoran, for $5.29mm) before #3AB found its buyer, and alone by different PruDE teams for $3mm as #3CDE and for $2.55mm for the "1,866 sq ft" of just the #3CD portion -- without selling. (The complicated listing history is available on that StreetEasy building page, above.) So it has already been professionally exposed to The Market.

the power of one comp
The December 2007 sale of #3AB at $1,100/ft provides some hope to this seller of #3CDE, trying to sell a (nearly) "unique" Manhattan loft in a non-loft neighborhood. Any buyer will want to beat him up about the difference in The Market from one December to another, to which the seller will respond by beating the drum of his finishes, his space, his views, his provenance.

One one year-old comp is an awfully thin reed on which to set a price, but in the absence of more useful (or current) data there's a justifiable (if arguable) logic to it. Whether it works is up to The Market, in combination with the motivation of the seller (about which I know nothing).

props to the seller
Since this is not a current listing by a REBNY firm, I would not have my April 9 problem in commenting on it, but I emailed the seller after getting his flyer to ask if he would mind if I blogged about his listing. I referred him to this blog to see my MO and we spoke yesterday. I gave him no editorial control other than the courtesy of saying whether he wanted the exposure at all. He agreed, for which I give him props. And props, too, for his beautiful pix on the e-flyer.

I don't know if there are enough unique buyers for unique lofts in unusual neighborhoods who have the $$$$ needed for this loft. No doubt, it is a very cool loft with many attributes. No doubt, The Market will determine if he can sell off this price. Let's wish him luck....
 

© Sandy Mattingly 2008  

Dec. 17, 2008 - was the 708 Greenwich seller a yogi? the buyer was inflexible

2004 + 17% = 2008, with an asterisk, not a bullet

When I first looked at the listing history for the Manhattan loft #4F at 708 Greenwich Street (a rare West Village loft), I wondered if they had picked the right year in which to offer it for sale at $2.35mm, with it last changing hands in 2004 off an ask of $1.95mm. I noted the update to Sold & Closed on December 5 and drafted a blog post, then checked periodically to see when the clearing price hit the public record. 

a bit drafty

That original draft started with the first sentence, above (it still works), then continued:

Seems they were quite right in pricing this as they did, as it fairly flew off the shelf: it came to market on October 7 and was in contract by October 22 -- pretty good velocity in any market conditions. Props to the seller and to Halstead's Judith Kleinman. The deed was filed December 5 at ____. The old listing is preserved, in part, on StreetEasy, here.

that's a big but you have

It finally showed up today with a closed price on StreetEasy, with a price that set me off in another direction: $1,999,999 -- not so very different from the 2004 asking price from which it last traded, but (BUT!) rather different from the asking price. Forgive me StreetEasy, but I doubted the data -- doubted that someone who wanted $2.35mm on October 7 would have folded by 15% so quickly.

Of course StreetEasy was right, as confirmed on the city's Department of Finance ACRIS on-line data, here. The Real Property Transfer tax documents were dated December 4 (nice to see that the inter-firm data-base was updated promptly on December 5) and filed on December 15. So my first sub-heading should have been "2004 + 17% - 15% = 2008, with a bullet", but I did not want to give the ending away so soon.

Perhaps as interesting as the ... err ... flexibility of the seller is that the buyer immediately went at the asking price with a meat axe. I'd love to know how those negotiations started, and proceeded, to contract in 15 days that far from the asking price. It is so dramatic (to me) that I wonder if something happened to the seller's World (or world view) in the middle of October. While it is possible that the seller went into that negotiation intending to be rather flexible rather early, the fact that I started the draft of this post as I did (in blue, above) reveals how surprised I am by such a parley.

Indeed, I think it almost probable that -- at some point when the seller and agent saw how firm the buyer was about chopping the heck off the asking price -- the seller said something like: the first number HAS to be a two. Weird that they ended up one lousy dollar under $2mm. How hard was that last dollar??

Enough about me ... what about the loft?

combo?

Can't be sure, but the duplex layout looks to me like a combination, with the downstairs (former) full bath having been converted into a half-bath plus laundry closet and the upstairs bath having been expanded (into old kitchen space?), with a right angle staircase cut through and separating the two rather extravagantly sized bedrooms in the upper level (22 and 29 feet long). Doesn't that run of closets in the upper floor look like an old entry?

All the bragging about woodwork, built-ins, chef's kitchen and fireplace aside, you'd think the piece-de-resistance would be the large terrace that stretches across both bedrooms, as this would be a huge differentiator in the West Village market.

loft or apartment?

I don't know the history of this building, apart from the report in our database that it was built in 1920 and converted to a coop in 1981. I wonder about it's usage prior to being residential. On the one hand, our database calls it a loft building, and four units sold there in the last four years were marketed as lofts. Plus, the ceilings are high (11 feet), throughout (except perhaps the top floor) and the floor plan for #4F shows no interior load-bearing elements, though there may be some in that stairway structure.

On the other hand, my sole niggling doubt is that the building just does not look like a loft (former industrial or commercial) building. The front windows look very much like "apartment" windows. Perhaps back in the day, this far west, this was a warehouse of some sort, with the front windows added later.

Indulge me a bit .... I got to this point in drafting, but was curious.... So I googled. (In doing this update with the actual sales price, I had forgotten that I already had a while-I-was-drafting segue in this post ... weird; "indulge me", indeed!)

loft! (Google is my friend)

It took a few clicks, but I found the page for this block on The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, which has some spare but very informative history. This residential coop is made up of two buildings that were combined into a multiple dwelling unit in 1978 (rental, presumably, since our database says it went coop in 1981; but our database was wrong about the date it was built, so maybe it converted as a coop). The southernmost building (formerly 704-706 Greenwich Street) was a 4-story stable built in 1893 that had a brief life as a disco (!) back in the day (1975-1978). The main building (formerly 708 - 712 Greenwich) was built in 1909 as a 4-story warehouse that was soon expanded north and up, extending it 25 feet along Greenwich Street and adding two floors in 1912 (must have been an immediate success as a warehouse).

full circle

On reflection, I was not wrong in my original draft about "pretty good velocity in any market conditions [and] Props to the seller and to Halstead's Judith Kleinman". But now it is props to the seller and to Ms. Kleinman for getting the deal done (by definition, at a level the seller wanted) and I must add props to the buyer (and agent) for seizing an opportunity I am not sure I would have guessed was there. (A learning experience for me, that.)

© Sandy Mattingly 2008  

Dec. 9, 2008 - 176 Broadway has a closing 40% off the original price

long and hard slog ends
The Manhattan loft Penthouse E at 176 Broadway took ten months but it did close; it also took three price drops from $1.425mm down to $945k, to finally get it done at $850k. Happy New Year (early) for that patient, humbled seller.

Nothing came easily for this "1,650 sq ft" (plus patios) listing. They started on January 29 at that $1.425mm, waited just over two weeks to change significant digits by dropping to $1.295mm, then waited 4 months before taking a painful (no doubt) price chop to $1.075mm (if they only knew...), then 2 more months to $945k, which drop took 2 additional months to find the contract that caused a deed to be filed on November 24 for $850k. Patience and humility, no?

I can't remember a loft that closed this far from the original asking price, but maybe we will see more of this....

(quietly) a fave of MLG (not of The Market)
I have considered the building to be a favorite of Manhattan Loft Guy, but was surprised to find only 1 post (other than an open house review) about the building. But that post (August 1, 2007: more BOM pain / 176 Broadway is back) has this nugget in the comments, in response to Reader Looking Now asking "what's wrong with this place?" (the bold is new for this post):
 

In short, this building offers value -- measured on a space-for-dollars basis, at least. This sale is -- to me and (no doubt) to at least one other agent and the November sellers -- at a shockingly low price for what was offered.

want views?

The Penthouse E has classic city-as-canyon views (sold here as "stunning downtown cityscape" views; see picture 6 of 8 on Corcoran), as well as sunsets (for now; see below).

want outdoor space?

This penthouse has not one, but two pretty big patios; one facing south into that cityscape (maybe 200 sq ft), the other facing west and the World Financial Center (hint, hint) (maybe 100+ sq ft). Not many downtown lofts have so much outdoor space.

want flexibility?

The 2 bedroom layout seems to support an interior den/office if the 2nd bedroom is chopped in half or so.

want to upgrade?

The listing description brags not at all about finishes, so I assume this is a dated loft (the only kitchen photo is hardly telling), but what (else) do you want at this price??

want windows?

There's a wall of south-facing patio doors off the living room (picture 2 of 8), another wall of west-facing patio doors in the master suite, a (large?) window in the 2nd bedroom visible in picture 4 of 8, and a window in a bathroom. I fully credit that this space is "sun-filled throughout the day" (especially with a skylight), but there are not many windows for the length pf walls. Feh ... that is probably quibbling.

want Freedom?

Remember that view west, over the World Financial Center? (Photo 1 of 8) Unless I have my site angles wrong, the "1,776 feet tall" Freedom Tower on the World Trade Center site will obscure the WorldFinancial Center (and probably any sky, as well), whenever that gets to 60 stories or so. Love it or hate it, this unit will have a bird's eye view, during and long after construction.

location, location, location (for good or ill)

As I mentioned in my August 1, 2007 comment (above), one must conclude from the low prices 'commanded' by this building that this location (Broadway at the corner of Maiden Lane) is "off-putting for many". But there are high-priced new developments and longer-tenured condos near this corner that are not in more well-developed 'residential'micro-neighborhoods (15, 25 and 40 Broad Street; 45, 55, 59, 80 and 99 John Street; and 101, 119, 127, 130 and 138 Fulton Street, to name a bunch) -- Ihave not checked each of these buildings for this post, but my sense is that none has the historically low market valuation as the coop at 176 Broadway.

Yes, this block is very much 'in the middle of the city' (in terms of bustle and business focus), but we are talking about Manhattan -- where many lofts (especially lofts) feel like they are right 'in the middle' (that [used to be?] part of their 'charm' as lofts...).

Frankly, I don't get it. If you'd consider living near here, consider this building!!

gun shy, with reason, of course

Our database indicates that there were 6 other lofts in this building for sale during 2008 that did not sell and have been taken off the market -- out of what were 72 units inthe building when it was converted in 1980. ( StreetEasy's building page, here, can track any units that may be for sale.) In this building, even more so than for many, if you don't have to sell, this is not the right market....

© Sandy Mattingly 2008  

Dec. 5, 2008 - find the number, hit the number / 35 East 12 Street closes

sounds simple, no? (no!)
Sometimes those silly buyers pay very close attention to the first, or even to the second, digit in an asking price, so sellers use the 'wrong numbers' at their peril.

In the case of the Manhattan loft on the 5th floor at 35 East 12 Street, everyone's job in assessing value was made more difficult by the fact that there are few true loft buildings in Greenwich Village, so comps are hard to come by. The seller of this "2,600 sq ft" coop (with come-ons like "exquisite", "architect", "no detail spared") started out more than a year ago, asking $4.2mm. History showed that the "4" was a non-starter, as it came off the market after 5 months. When  ti it came back in May 2008, they fixed the "4" problem (they came out at $3.85mm), but were not successful until they fixed the "8" problem (they took a big chunk off the price in July, to $3.499mm). The contract signed in September just closed (deed filed on December 4) at $3.4mm.

I have no idea where that buyer started bidding (perhaps not too low, as they ended up with only a 3% discount off the asking price), but the history suggests they were simply unwilling to bid at all off the higher price.

comping up is hard to do
As I mentioned, there are precious few true lofts in Greenwich Village, but there is one right behind this building, that may in fact be part of one (peculiar) coop with 35 East 12 Street. I hit 48 East 13 Street on January 16 (48 E 13 new but does it 'have it all'? ), where I noted:

and an oddity
This building is one half of a tax lot, with 35 East 12 Street being the other half. My guess is that the two buildings are part of one coop. (The 12^th Street side appears to be a little narrower, but they may even has been built as a single building, with 12^th and 13^th Street entrances.)

(That would explain why the StreetEasy "building page" for 35 East 12 Street includes information about listings at 48 East 13 Street.)

As I noted in that January 16 post about 48 East 13 Street #3B, that loft was priced dramatically differently than the 5th floor at 35 East 12 Street. The subsequent history of that loft shows even more drama. I hit it again with a snarky-titled post on February 6 when the price dropped to $2.85mm (February 6, does 48 East 13 Street have 92% of it all? ), but not when it dropped further to $2.595mm in March, or when they changed firms and price in May (to $2.395mm), leading to a contract in July that closed in August at $2.25mm.

Talk about dramatically different! (from the [fellow shareholders?] at 35 East 12 Street, and from the original asking price.) 35 East 12 Street #5 got $1,300/ft, while #3B at 48 East 13 Street got under $1,000/ft; that clearing price for #3B was nearly $900k off the original ask (a total 'discount' of about 40% to 'have it all' on East 13 Street (sorry)). Again, as a comp, 48 East 13 Street and 35 East 12 Street don't have a lot in common (apart from being in the same coop, and being very close to each other, and having similar sizes, and having [somewhat] similar levels of finishes ... you get it?). The fact is that The Market does not view them as comparable in the least.

... so hard to do
Nor are there many other 'comparable' loft buildings in the Village. I did a quick-and-dirty search for "lofts" that closed in the last 6 months in the Village between $2.5mm and $4mm. Of the only 12 results, the only ones that had asking prices at all comparable to the $1,300/ft clearing price for 35 East 12 Street #5 were in brand name condos (1 each in 21 Astor Place, 65 West 13 Street, and 147 Waverly Place) or were sold as exceptionally unique (yes, I get the mis-use of "exceptional" and "unique", but this is real estate), at 719 Greenwich Street.

Expanding that quick-and-dirty to other large "apartments" in the Village (3 bedrooms and up), I got only another 13 that closed in the last 6 months. Of those that had asking prices that matched or exceeded $1,300/ft, nearly all are in fancy-schmancy Gold Coast coops or high-amenity condos  that are not obviously -- to me -- comparable to 35 East 12 Street (99 Jane Street, 166 Bank Street, 25 Fifth Avenue, 51 Fifth Avenue, 11 Fifth Avenue, 32 Washington Square West, 31 West 11 Street, and 15 West 11 Street).

Which is a long way of saying that 35 East 12 Street #5 obviously got The Market Price of $1,300/ft (it closed; QED) but it probably gave the mortgage lender (if any) a run for its money.

© Sandy Mattingly 2008  

Sep. 27, 2008 - flipper flips 225 Fifth Avenue #5P quickly, poorly

seemed like a good idea at the time
The Grand Madison is, of course, not on Madison Avenue -- that would be too obvious, right? At Fifth Avenue at the northeast corner of 26 Street, this condo at the corner of Madison Square Park was converted to lofts (as either "a" or "the" gift building, I think it had mostly been showrooms) with first sales in early 2007. Unit #5P sold for $965k in the first offering (a "1,024 sq ft" 1 bedroom; part of the last web marketing survives on StreetEasy here), with that deed filed February 14, 2007. That original buyer did not wait too long to flip, selling (profitably, clearly) for $1.245mm with a deed filed May 1, 2008.

one of those eight million stories
That buyer immediately put it back on the market (OK, not the next day, but on May 9), suggesting that something happened in his/her life after signing the contract to buy in March 5. With only one set of transfer taxes to pay, that May-buyer-and-May-seller stood a (small) chance of making a (small) profit, with an asking price of $1.335mm. They dropped to $1.299mm after a month and had a contract for $1.315mm by June 30 (and closed August 19, as now appears in city records) -- so that went pretty quickly above the (reduced) asking price. But I wonder what changed to cause such a quick and dicey buy+sell.

how far does $70k go?
Not far enough. Out of that $70k "profit", take off as round numbers $24k (1.825%) for city and state transfer taxes and -- if the commission was 'only' 5% on the sale -- another $65k. Oops ... that puts this flipped flip about $20k in the hole before getting to miscellaneous costs like attorneys. They never liked living there (they owned for 8 days before trying to sell), but they did get out from under. Hope they are happy with that.

Jul. 1, 2008 - 116 West 14 Street closes at very old price / why so long?

recycled listing, very successful marketing

). It closed recently, with a deed filed June 16 for $4.75mm.

I still think that January 26 has interesting commentary, but here's the punchline: it came

market originally in June 2007 (taking only 6 weeks off the market before

firms in January 2008) for $4mm. That original firm offered it at two higher prices ($4.5mm after one week in June, then up to $4.75 in July), then

had it at $5mm from January until the contract was signed in 4 weeks.

The

marketing was beautiful (you can see some of it on this

), but it is weird that The Market did not reward the first firm with a contract off of $4mm, $4.5mm or $4.75mm yet

got $4.75mm (quickly!) while asking $5mm.... This looks like a beautiful renovation, indeed, but the living room overlooks 14

Street from the second floor.

Props to Sean Turner and Michelle Della

at

.

Jun. 17, 2008 - another Broadway odyssey / 710 Broadway (finally) closes

Apr. 30, 2008 - O - d - y - s - s - e - y ends at 714 Broadway with 4th floor closing

Apr. 18, 2008 - quick sale at 244 Madison

Mar. 26, 2008 - having it all gets cheaper at 48 East 13 Street

Mar. 25, 2008 - 39 East 12 Street has 2 new, with terrace + without, priced accrodingly

Mar. 7, 2008 - New School tower on Fifth Avenue at 13th Street + 74 Fifth Avenue views

tower that teaches, but blocks
A January post about Manhattan loft #8A at 74 Fifth Avenue triggered a discussion (with links) to the proposed tower the New School (New School University?) wants to build on the east side of Fifth Avenue between 13th and 14th Streets. (January 8, 74 Fifth back on market / ‘potential’ costs money).

exposures from "magnificent" to "missing"
As I noted in a comment response to readers Jess and Lofty,

What is touted at #8A [at 74 Fifth] as the “open exposures [that] are quite magnificent” are mainly the eastern exposures, which “flood[] this unique voluminous space with light all day long”. Maybe not in the morning for so long….

Curbed had a post yesterday about further efforts by the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation to oppose this "350-foot-tall" proposal, with a nice graphic and news of another public meeting at the New School to discuss this next Thursday.

meanwhile, back at 74 Fifth Avenue...
#8A is still on the market at 74 Fifth Avenue, still asking $2.595mm and $2,234/mo for “2,400 sq ft” with the “potential to be a showcase apartment”. As I noted in January, it started listing life in April 2007 at $2.85mm and #10A came to market in that time at $2.95mm. Reader Lofty saw both #8A and #10A and agreed with the thrust of my post "that a steeper discount is going to be required for 8A to move". It may be time to shop for a birthday card for #8A, as the more newsworthy the proposed 350 foot tower across the street becomes, the more skittish buyers will be.

(Weird that I can't find a closing price for #10A in city records, which has been in contract since June and supposedly closed in September, but a reliable source says it was $1.925mm.)

More "A" line news from 74 Fifth: #7A sold in May 2006 for $2.65mm in not only "triple mint" condition, but one featured in Interior Design magazine. (Of course, #8A is offered for its "potential".)

© Sandy Mattingly 2008

Feb. 19, 2008 - another minimal drop in minimal masterpiece at 8 West 13 Street

[The original post:]

death by small increments? (ouch)
I hit #2F at 8 West 13 Street when it was new at $1.5mm for “1,100 sq ft” of “museum quality” (July 9: min to the (small) max / new at 8 W 13; note Reader Jess’s citation to the August 2007 Architectural Digest) and again when the price dropped a second time, from $1.45mm to $1.35mm (December 17: not buying the minimalism (yet) / 8 W 13 drops). I hit it again when they had a price drop in January (minimal drop at minimal beauty / 8 West 13 Street drips).

oops they did it again
I was disappointed to see that this baby has not sold yet; worse, it just had another price drop -- this one more significant than the last. The new price (as of yesterday) is $1.25mm. So far, that is 18% off the original $1.5mm asking price from July.

As I said on January 28:

It is difficult to determine the Market Price for such a (yes, I have to use the “u” word) … unique loft. Someone could build another one like it, but they haven’t done that. Until they do, anyone who loves the look here will have to consider squeezing themselves (and a roommate, or not) into 1,100 sq ft.

I am rooting for this one, and watching the way you watch a potential car wreck in slow motion (screech of brakes, but will they hit??). Heart on sleeve, I hope this loft finds a buyer who will love it as is, at/near this price. Any takers?

Hello! Any takers??

[update 12.3.08: yes; it wsa taken for $1.1mm with a deed filed on June 23]

(C) Sandy Mattingly 2008

Feb. 14, 2008 - 116 West 14 Street is new, or is it?

Feb. 6, 2008 - does 48 East 13 Street have 92% of it all?

price drop within 3 weeks
I hit unit 3B at 48 East 13 Street when it was new to market, asking on January 16 48 E 13 new but does it 'have it all'? because the headline was "dramatic triple mint loft has it all”. Being the skeptic that I am, I checked and – in that January 16 post – provided some reasons why this loft might not quite have it “all”.

At that point there was no floor plan no the web (there is now), so I was unsure about the light, especially in the 2d bedroom. Turns out that the 2d bedroom is in the front, so it probably has better light than the master, which is pictured with the shades drawn. (Were the living room pictures taken on a foggy day??)

quick move
Turns out that this loft did not, quite (yet) have it all (unless “all” includes a price drop). They dropped the 3 week old original price of $3.1mm today to $2.85mm, with $2,108/mo for “2,300 sq ft”.

little direct comp info
I touched on the (lack of) building price history in that January 16 post, as well as the quirk that the building behind this one (fronting on 12^th Street) seems to be part of the same coop but has very different valuations.

Let’s see if The Market thinks that #3B – with all it has – is correctly priced above $1,250/ft.

open house Sunday, February 10 from 11 - 12:30 PM

[update 12.5.08: For the later (and closing) history of  48 East 13 Street #3B, see December 5: find the number, hit the number / 35 East 12 Street closes.]

© Sandy Mattingly 2008

Jan. 28, 2008 - minimal drop at minimal beauty / 8 West 13 Street drips

Jan. 26, 2008 - ‘new’ at 116 West 14 Street is recycled, green, pumped