May. 23, 2012 - playing with 475 Broadway loft comp that is up +58% over 2004

right facts and wrong facts; helpful facts and distractions
I’ve been having a running conversation with a very savvy client about values in Soho, including market trajectory currently and in recorded history. He is wondering about a classic Soho loft that was gut renovated 7 years ago that is now asking nearly 70% more than it sold for then (needing that gut). He is trying to suss out how much of the current market value is based on the renovation, and how much is simple market appreciation over 7 years. The most interesting comp in our discussion is a similarly-sized loft that sold recently at a 58% premium to when it last sold. The conversation is interesting because (like all good buyer conversations) it is fact-based, using actual Manhattan loft sales data; it is really interesting because I think having so much information in this instance confuses rather than reveals.

It is hardly controversial to say that the most recent highly relevant comp for any loft is a much more important data point than anything that happened 7 or 8 years ago. My guy knows this, but in a world in much there is more information than just current comps, it can be hard to stay focused. And harder still for a guy who prides himself on fact-based analysis (yours truly, that is) to argue, essentially, that it is wiser to ignore the past history of the very loft you are interested in because that history (in this particular case) is unhelpful, or even wrong. (Let’s put aside the metaphysics involved in calling a market fact such as a past open market sale wrong. Please.)

That relevant comp is the “2,500 sq ft” Manhattan loft #6E at 475 Broadway, which has sold in this sequence:

• May 7, 2012 $3.2mm
• December 13, 2004 $2.025mm
• September 9, 2002 $1,873,700

That’s up 58% in the 8 years since 2004 (as noted) and up 71% in 10 years.

The “2,500 sq ft” floor plan is on a Long-and-Narrow footprint with a stub in the back where the master suite sticks out. The place is done, with classic loft elements and improvements that include:

• huge windows
• 13’ ceilings
• a gas fireplace
• wooden inlays
• wainscoting
• crown moldings
• 300 bottle temperature controlled wine room
• Subzero and Viking appliances
• maple cabinets and granite countertops.
• marble bathrooms (with rain shower and Jacuzzi)
• dual zone AC

(Personally, I don’t view wainscotting and crown moldings as “improvements” in a classic Soho loft [it looks rather UES to me], but to each her own.)

Manhattan Loft Guy snobbery aside, The Market loved this loft, as it came out on January 10 at $3.25mm and found the contract by January 25 that closed on May 7 at $3.2mm. Can’t argue with that.

You would never know it from StreetEasy, but this was the exact same beautiful loft (with the same floor plan) then, as now, though the living room light fixtures have been changed and there is a different tall sculpture next to the fireplace. Per our listing system, this is the broker babble that lead to the sale at $2.025mm:

Dramatic 2500 sq ft high full-floor condo loft offering an expansive living and entertaining space with a wall of oversized windows and 13' ceilings throughout. The loft includes a new top of the line kitchen, dining room, 3 full bedrooms, two of which have bathrooms en suite, and 3 full new marble bathrooms. There are beautiful details and crown moldings, a fireplace, central air-conditioning, and excellent light through oversized windows in all rooms.

May. 21, 2012 - 25 West 15 Street loft with unusual layout + funky colors closes at rough parity with downstairs loft

fresh nearby comps should be easier to apply
I bet that the walls in the “1,800 sq ft” Manhattan loft coop on the 7th floor at 25 West 15 Street have been where they are for 20+ years. The floor plan to this Long-and-Narrow loft has an “office / bedroom” with no closet in that (very) green room that opens to the living room (pic #3 and #5), a “master” bedroom that is an unimpressive 9’10” x 13’5” (in pic #4), and both a “living room” at the north end and a “great room” at the south end. Looks to me like a loft that was set up this way when one person lived there, and now is not quite big enough with 3 or more people. And notice the modifier in the broker babble that says volumes about the finishes, if you read between the lines: the kitchen is “open”; not chef’s or gourmet or top of the line, or any of those things, just “open”.

While the floor plan suggests “dated”, the colors are fresh. That (very) green “office / bedroom” looks especially bright in pic #3 alongside the red-ish and purple-ish hallway. And they opted to emphasize the largest plumbing lines in the great room with that shiny red. Interesting choice that perhaps gives some texture to a relatively low-ceiling (9.5 feet).

But paint is easy to change, and neither the colors nor the floor plan prevented this top floor loft from selling just a tad above the loft immediately below. This one took some chopping, and some fine dollar-shaving or difference-splitting in the negotiations, but it got done at $949/ft:

The 6th floor was the subject of my November 18, 2011, high floor low ceiling loft at 25 West 15 Street closes on 2nd contract, 2nd price, when it sold at $928/ft 6 months earlier, with no head-to-head competition (omitting a failed contract and a hiatus):

For all appearances, that was a better loft than the 7th floor, with a more typical floor plan with 2 bedrooms and a study that looks like a third bedroom, all more generously sized than on the top floor, and more brag-worthy finishes, both old (“distinctive tin ceilings ... and egg and dart moldings”) and new (“kitchen has been meticulously renovated with top of the line appliances and finishes [ t]wo new bathrooms with Waterworks fixtures”). The only advantage that I see for the 7th floor over the 6th is light from the two large skylights.

As noted in that November 18 post, the 6th floor sales compared well to the last sale in the building before that: the 3rd floor had sold in July 2010 for $1.575mm (only $875/ft). That one had a still different variation on the Long-and-Narrow footprint. Hard to say that the Waterworks bathrooms and greater light justified a $95,000 premium for the 6th floor over the 3rd, but that is what The Market established.

Just as the Market established that the 7th floor was worth 2.2% more than the 6th floor, (again) despite the floor plan weirdness, colors and lack of brag-worthy finishes. Not what I would have predicted, but the range is narrow enough to be readily understood as two separate sets of buyers and sellers butting heads and shaving dollars.

beware of low maintenance
I made a point last November about a positive selling point in this building (from now 3 sets of babble: no underlying mortgage on the coop) that may be counter-intuitive, so it bears repeating:

That [low maintenance] might not be such a good thing, however.
 

My buyers thought the entrance and lobby were not particularly well finished or maintained. This is fairly common with more … errr … mature coop lofts, but coupled with a low maintenance I would worry about whether the 7 shareholders are being only penny-wise as far as the coop budget is concerned. Our data-base shows that 3 shareholders have been in the building at least 15 years and paid, on average, less than $350,000.

I am not saying that I know that shareholders in this small coop are worse than frugal; I am saying that these circumstances suggest a heightened level of diligence to be done, and a willingness on the part of a buyer with an accepted offer to walk away rather than sign a contract. Sometimes low maintenance is the tip of a large iceberg.

As with many things, much diligence is due in such situations. I am sure everybody did it (after all, they closed). But while low maintenance makes a loft more affordable, it may mask the possibility of large expenses down the road.

(most) lofts are not shaped in a cookie cutter
All 3 of these lofts have the same “1,800 sq ft” Long-and-narrow footprint. Look (again) at the differences in floor plans, 3rd floor vs. 6th floor vs. 7th floor. Such variation within the same small (7-unit) coop. Fun stuff!

© Sandy Mattingly 2012

May. 20, 2012 - Sunday diversion / good baseball numbers

use your power for good, not for evil (or boredom)
Baseball stat geeks are sometimes boring, sometimes stupid as well as trivial (as in “Johnny Littlebat is hitting .350 in Tuesday day games, but at .180 he can’t buy a hit in Friday night games”), and sometimes fascinating. Asking questions and parsing data that bears on a question, perhaps finding an answer, perhaps merely identifying outliers. In this, they are not unlike people who play with (or abuse) sales data from the Manhattan residential real estate market, but this is a no-real-estate-content post, so I will leave that to another day.

I love this May 17 piece on SBNation by Jeff Sullivan about a surly phenom who is almost as dangerous to himself with a bat in his hands as to opposing pitchers. For fans of Readers Digest, the question is why are pitchers (seemingly) pitching to Bryce Harper differently than they have to other highly touted young hitters? and the provisional answer is that they have more respect (fear) of him than of other young hitters. The basic data are rates of fastballs and off-speed pitches, and I highly recommend the piece of that sort of question and that sort of data set may be of interest.

And the highly literate readers who comment on SBNation (not the right word, but you know what I mean) plumb the topic and force Sullivan to add some detail in response. Note, especially, the small sample dialogue and the maybe-they-faced-more-breaking-ball-pitchers hypothesis, bit of which seem to be well handled by Sullivan.

And in other news … go (young) Pacers! go (old) Spurs!

© Sandy Mattingly 2012
 

May. 18, 2012 - Chelsea House loft re-seller takes 51 weeks to get 7.5% discount, closing pennies below 2007 purchase

the birthday was a happy one
By the time the sellers of the “1,250 sq ft” Manhattan loft #9F at 130 West 19 Street (Chelsea House) blew out one candle, the loft had been in contract for 5 days, so the occasion was a happy one. Happier still, when the loft closed a month later, taking 3 small price drops to generate a deal that was 3.3% off the last ask, only 7.5% off the first ask (after 13 months), and a measly $1,462 off the net sponsor sale price 58 months earlier.

Of course, no sellers celebrate anniversaries in a marketing campaign, but a contract after 360 days is a thing of joy. Or relief, if the sellers were just worn down by these dates and numbers:

I bet these people rip band-aids off s l o w l y. It took 2 months for the first price drop, the big one at $35,000; then 5 months before a price drop that could easily be confused for a typo (0.064%), then another 3 months before another ‘big’ one. That is 9 months to go $70,000 (4.4%) in 3 moves. After all that fine slicing, they let The Market handle it from there, taking that last $50,000 off to do the deal, just short of the listing’s birthday.

fascinating layout, but not in a good way
There are some very conventional layouts at Chelsea House, a newly-built-in-2006 condominium developments that is as close to an-apartment-not-a-loft development as any building that I track in the Master List of Manhattan Lofts Sold Since November 2008. (But I have been tracking it, and will continue to do so.) Loft #9F does not have a conventional layout.

The #9F floor plan claims “1,250 sq ft”, a size which is usually not difficult to squeeze 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms into. I don’t know how the architects went about creating individual unit floor plans here, obviously, but this one looks like a left-over, after the adjoining units were (rationally) designed: we have 1,250 sq ft, so there must be a way to create 2 bedrooms here. Note that the second bedroom is rather narrow, at 7’11”. (This is one inch narrower than what I had understood as the legal requirements for a “room” per the Building Code, but in doing a quick search for a citation I find that I can’t be sure; this part of the New York city Code may or may not say that; it is hard to parse.) Now look at the wasted space from the door the master bedroom on the way to the only part of the room that a bed could fit in; too narrow to add closets, what do people do with that??

This master jumble of doors and halls leading to the 132 sq ft bed part of the master bedroom is so weird that I wondered if that was the original design, or a post-2006 “improvement” of some sort. But there are 3 other “F” line floor plans in the StreetEasy collection, all of which have the second bedroom as in the #9F floor plan, though not all have solid walls.

In a rational market, you’d think that the wasted space in #9F would be discounted. (We will come back to that thought.)

still a narrow range
In my December 9, 2011, Chelsea House loft at 130 West 19 Street bounces back from nuclear winter sale, I reviewed the two times that loft #7A sold since the sponsor sales (that story is in the headline), and linked to past Manhattan Loft Guy posts about sales 130 West 19 Street. One of those posts was my February 12, 2011, different story for this Chelsea House loft: started with Lehman, ended up off 22%, but up 6.5% lifetime, where I noted that the past 4 Chelsea House sales at that time were:

within a satisfyingly narrow range on a price-per-foot basis (satisfying, for those who prefer their markets rational). The last column below reflects the gain or (loss) since the original sale; those figures are all over the map, suggesting that The (current) Market valuation differences are different from the sponsor’s sense of the relative values among these lofts in 2005 and 2006.

Without that last column, you would never know from this table that #7B got squeezed by the market, or that #4F got a strong price. Isn’t this fun???

Since that recap, there have been only two public sales without outdoor space. The #9F sale a month ago comes to $1,180/ft; the only other public sale without outdoor space was the #7A sale 7 months ago that was the subject of that February 12, 2011 post, at $1,182/ft. Updating the table above extends the range of $/ft values, but only a little (again, the bonus 4th column is gain since the net-price sponsor sales):

Two things, and then I will stop: you cannot say from this distribution of values that the “wasted space” in #4F and #9F had any market impact; these sales are still within a narrow range, though the last two suggest that the building range may be creeping larger.

Are the efficient market fans happy??

© Sandy Mattingly 2012
 

May. 17, 2012 - Collect Pond loft at 366 Broadway sells at $918/ft after missing The Peak

going emo on a business transaction
There’s a mild puzzle in the recent sale of the “1,872 sq ft” Manhattan loft #3B at 366 Broadway (Collect Pond House) at $1.72mm, as it sounds like a beautiful loft that went for less than you’d think (well, than I’d think). But there is also a more emotional response, one of empathy, for a seller who tried to sell into The Peak but just could not get the deal done then.

Let’s start from a perspective of fellowship:

In fellowship, isn’t it clear that they picked the perfect time to sell, by coming to market 3 calendar quarters before peak pricing was recorded in the overall Manhattan residential real estate market? Timing is not, as they say, everything. Timing is one critical aspect, especially in a dynamic market, but this history illustrates that even with perfect timing a loft will not sell from the wrong price.

“What if?” is a hard game to play empathetically. But if you believe that the current market values are within about 10% of Peak values, the $1.72mm observed clearing price implies that Peak value for this loft was around $1.9mm. You’d think that a willing seller asking $1.995mm at The Peak could sell around $1.9mm, but that did not happen here. Perhaps the seller did not give the $1.995mm enough time (less than 5 weeks), but the clear mistake (clear, in not very empathetic retrospect) was in taking 2 months off the market. Remember: peak prices were recorded in the 1st quarter of 2008, many from contracts signed in the last quarter of 2007, overlapping with the 2 month hiatus.

In retrospect, that was one very expensive hiatus.

The overall market in the second quarter of 2008 was characterized by strong prices but was not quite as deep a market. You’d think this seller could have gotten a deal then off a $1.85mm ask, given that it eventually cleared at a very-post-Peak $1.72mm; if so, like me, you’d have been wrong.

Abandoning any empathy whatever, look again at that 2008 listing history. Before September 15, 2008 (when Lehman went down) there was an active Manhattan residential real estate market. These sellers did not know Lehman was coming, but they could have seen market momentum was declining. In retrospect (curses!), they took off the last 60 days in which they had a good chance to sell.

That’s twice that these sellers pulled the plug on marketing during active markets (November 10, 2007 to January 12, 2008, and after July 13, 2008). I have highlighted the disappointed seller’s conundrum before, first in my November 15, 2010, flight or fight? the disappointed seller’s conundrum, 30 East 21 Street and 205 West 19 Street lofts edition, and then in posts riffing on that same theme (here’s one with a happier ending: my December 21, 2010, ground floor loft at 7 Worth St proves how bad 2009 was). At the time, there are no guarantees that it is better to continue to fight the market, by dropping the price again (and again), or better to flee and wait for better conditions. So be gentle, for there but for the grace of The Market Gods, go you, and I....

sunny + quiet + mint = less than you’d think
All that empathy and projection aside, $1.72mm had to be a disappointing sale on the merits. For reasons unknown, the listing description in the inter-firm system starts with “Sunny and Quiet Loft in Mint Condition”, an introduction missing from the public broker babble. Aside from the sound claim, the pictures bear out these claims. The floor plan is more Short-and-Wide, with a wide wall of south windows, and is a very efficient 2-bedroom+, with the “+” including a home office, a walk-in closet behind the kitchen, and a large laundry/storage area behind that.

Yes, it is a coop instead of a condo, and on a busy stretch of Broadway instead of on a charming (and quiet) prime Tribeca block, but it sold at $918/ft. Compare this sale to the nearby (and, if anything, even more busy) coop 395 Broadway, which has had 4 sales in the last 16 months, each at higher dollar-per-foot prices than #3B at 366 Broadway. One of those was clearly a total gut job, another was sold emphasizing “possibilities”; I hit some of these sales when they were fresh:

• February 22, 2012, 395 Broadway loft sells at $1,174/ft, a relative bargain to a gut job
• January 26, 2011, gut job loft at 395 Broadway provokes war, gets $1,000/ft
• February 23, 2011, renovated 395 Broadway loft is jealous of primitive top floor + of 505 Greenwich Street loft

Loft #3B also under-performed relative to a very nearby and fairly recent comp. If the floor plan of #3B looks familiar to you, it is the “1,872 sq ft” loft #7B upstairs that you are thinking of. I hit that loft when it closed on September 16 at $1.795mm in my October 3, 2011, 366 Broadway loft sells up 10% over 2004 but flat to 2007. (There is a discussion of the historical "Collect Pond" in that post, with some cool history links.)

That loft had the advantage over #3B of better light and some views from the higher floor, and the disadvantages of a challenging floor plan and a dated interior. In other words, that one needed significant upgrades to bring it to the mints of which #3B boasts. Yet it sold at a $75,000 premium to #3B.

And trust me: you will find on the Master List of Manhattan Lofts Sold Since November 2008 lots of Tribeca lofts that sold in less well-finished condition at higher prices than #3B.

Did I mention (yet, today?) that comping is hard?

© Sandy Mattingly 2012
 

May. 16, 2012 - the Warburg guy wants to take the Dual out of Agency in Manhattan residential real estate

I applaud Fred (if I may be so familiar)
Long-time Manhattan Loft Guy readers know that the subject of New York State agency law and required disclosures is near and dear to my heart (links below). Not many agents share that passion, but @MalcolmBlogger is one. He launched into my corner of the twitterverse a link to the blog of the head of Warburg Realty, who also seems unusually interested in discussing agency. More interesting still, in his May 14, What We Talk About When We Talk About Disclosure, Frederick Peters seems very interested in having his agents not use a form of agency “permitted” under New York State law that some of his agents may think helps put money in their pockets.

Read the post for the details of Fred’s admitted evolution, but here is the (ahem) money quote:

straight dual agency, while a convenient idea in theory, is laden with possible conflict in practice. So I make the same recommendation to consumers and agents alike: don’t do it!

[1] a buyer came to her directly with interest in one of her exclusives. [2] Both the buyer and the seller signed the Disclosure Form acknowledging her as a dual agent. They made a deal. The next day, [3] an agent from another firm brought my agent a higher offer, which the seller chose to accept. So how could my agent be fair to both sides? Representing the buyer, [4] she should have thrown all her weight into persuading the seller to stick with the offer he had. But representing the seller, [5] she had to acknowledge that he was getting considerably more money and might be swayed by that. In the end, [6] the seller took the additional money from the new buyer and [7] the original buyer was angry at my agent, claiming that she had not really represented him. And the buyer was right! She simply could not be an advocate for both sides.

[1.5] My agent explained carefully to both the buyer and seller that the agent is acting for the other party as well, including that the buyer and seller are giving up their right to undivided loyalty.

May. 15, 2012 - telltale $9 shows bidding war for 100 Hudson Street loft

seriously: what’s so special here?
The fact that the “1,080 sq ft” Manhattan loft #8E at 100 Hudson Street recently sold with the last digit being “9” tells you that the loft almost certainly sold after a bidding war; that the clearing price is higher than the ask tells confirms it. As with most (but by no means all) bidding wars, this one was quick: it came to market on January 9 at $1.35mm and found the contract by January 31 that closed on April 30 at $1,400,009. That’s $1,296/ft for those of you scoring at home.

Yes, this is prime Tribeca (across the street from Tamarind, cater-corner to Nobu), but $1,296/ft in this no-frills coop exceeds the value of these similarly small-ish lofts in full service new-century condo conversions that have recently sold:

• the very mint-y “1,308 sq ft” loft #3B at 43 East 21 Street (2004 conversion), which sold at $1,185/ft on April 24
• the “upgraded” “984 sq ft” loft #3L at 655 Sixth Avenue in the O’Neill Building (2007 conversion), which sold at $1,280/ft on April 24
• the “1,314 sq ft” “super chic designer” loft #4F at 21 Astor Place (2003 conversion), which sold at $1,218/ft on March 21
• the “1,163 sq ft” loft with “numerous upgrades” #5L at 99 Jane Street (old century: 1999 conversion), which sold at $1,290/ft on March 14

And that is just in the last two months.

No disrespect intended, but neither the broker babble nor the pictures reveal anything special about loft #8E. The enthusiasm in the babble is remarkably specific: both “sun flooded” and “brilliant light all day”, with “great closet and storage space” and “soaring 12 foot ceilings”, with the single comment about finishes being “brand new appliances”. While there is a lot of utility crammed into “1,080 sq ft” (real bedroom + office + den), the floor plan has but a single bathroom, a limitation not addressed in the proposed alternative 2-bedroom floor plan.

answer: it’s tapping into a rich vein
My best guess is that the marketing campaign for this loft hit a rich vein of buyers looking for relatively inexpensive starter lofts in Tribeca that can support 2 bedrooms and are in move-in condition. In order to be a relatively inexpensive starter loft in Tribeca, of course, the loft must be relatively small, and the more mints the more dollars. These are modest characteristics; the only plus factors for this loft are the location and the light.

The inter-firm listing system shows that there was a single open house in this campaign on that first Sunday. It is not hard to reconstruct what that must have been like: wall-to-wall people or 90 minutes, most standing for a long time looking out those corner windows northwest, and down at Tamarind and Nobu. More than one set of visitors muttered to each other “this can work”, while looking nervously at all the other people doing the same thing they were doing (loitering with intent).

There is just not a lot to buy in Tribeca around $1.35mm. (A Streeteasy search today found 5 listings between $1.25mm and $1.45mm.) if you go back to the beginning of the year on the Master List of Manhattan Lofts Sold Since November 2008 you will find only 7 loft resales below $1.4mm, including:

• the “1,200 sq ft” loft 184 Franklin St #2 that sold on March 27 at $1.085mm with an “architectural design” but no elevator
• the “1,300 sq ft” loft 395 Broadway #9A that sold on March 16 at $1.275mm as an open loft with abundant possibilities and great light
• the “1,300 sq ft” very problematic “raw maisonette” loft at 39 N. Moore St #1A that sold on March 3 at $725,000
• the very primitive “1,100 sq ft” loft 474 Greenwich St #5N that sold on March 1 at $999,000, which I hit in my March 29, primitive loft at 474 Greenwich Street sells at $908/ft
• the “1,163 sq ft” loft 395 Broadway #11A that sold on February 2 at $1.365mm with renovated kitchen and bath
• the ground floor “1,439 sq ft” loft 130 Watts St #1S that sold on January 30 at $1.375mm

If you have been counting along, you have noticed that there is one loft missing from the list above. That would be a very interesting counterpoint to loft #8E: you already know that the “1,080 sq ft” loft #4B downstairs at 100 Hudson Street closed on April 4 at $1.17mm as a collection of lovely bones, because I hit it in my April 20, “great bones” 100 Hudson Street loft sells above where it “should” have. That was $207/ft below where #8E closed, which puts another spin on the #4B sale. In contrast to the move-in-but-not-’done’ #8E, #4B should be able to be renovated to exceed the condition of #8E for about $200/ft. Perhaps that #4B buyer got more of a bargain than I originally thought (though that thought was supported by data). Or (horrors!) perhaps the #8E buyers just overpaid. If so, they have an excuse: The Market made them do it.

To recap: there are not many starter lofts in Tribeca, and fewer still in prime Tribeca in move-in condition. In the current environment, there are enough buyers looking for starter lofts in prime Tribeca in move-in condition that when one comes to market at the right price, fisticuffs ensue.

There’s a trick to this, but it is not easy: at the right price. That’s how you get a loft selling at $9 above a very round number.

© Sandy Mattingly 2012

May. 14, 2012 - MLG fave loft at 130 West 17 Street again shatters expectations, sells 1.7% above Peak

non-commodities can be hard to value
it is a good thing I am not sensitive, because I have once already been surprised by the clearing price of the recently re-sold “2,150 sq ft” top floor Manhattan loft #9S at 130 West 17 Street. The last time it sold (June 5, 2008, at $2.85mm) I thought it “closed above where the comps and building stats indicated the range of values” (that was in my July 15, 2008, 130 West 17 Street #9S went for it + got it, the second of two posts about that listing, with my September 23, 2007, 130 W 17 9S is new + really going for it). This time it sold at $2.9mm, a tiny premium to even that near-Peak above-comps sale, but at least this time there is the baseline of that June 2008 sale.

I will come back to that June 2008 sale, but it is clear that The (current) Market had little trouble accepting the loft: it came out at $2.995mm on December 10 and found the contract by February 9 that closed on April 16 at $2.9mm. The premise for the recent asking price was clearly the very similar June 2008 value, though I will confess to finding it difficult to articulate why Now should be higher than Then.

My working assumption (subject to seeing some facts that lead me in a different direction) is that this loft benefits from scarcity of true comps, so is more prone to Field of Dreams pricing. This is how I put it in my July 15, 2008 post:

My general point here is that the truism that The Market Is Determined By The Decisions Of Individual Buyers And Individual Sellers generates -- in my opinion -- more variation for lofts than for "apartments". Perhaps because there are so many more "apartments" than lofts in Manhattan, an "apartment" buyer is more likely to have more directly comparable choices of units in similar locations, of similar size, in similar condition. Thus, the general market should be more 'efficient'.

My specific point is that this loft closed above where it could have been expected to (by me, at least), taking into consideration its location (a great Chelsea block, yes, but one that did not generate a premium for #9N or #6S), condition (is that renovation worth $400/ft over #9N? or even more over #6S?) and the possibility of paying an additional and unknown amount for roof rights.

May. 13, 2012 - Sunday diversion, mf & hoops edition

those were the days
While Andy Pettite practices his big league stare in the Bronx, Roger Clemens stews in DC, and mothers everywhere recover from their home-made breakfasts, let’s go the the basketball courts, though not to the NBA. To DC in the late 1950s when The Big Guy from Philly sojourned in Washington, “hosted” by the Main Man in DC.

Lovely piece from Dave McKenna in Grantland about Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor and some over-looked playground games. Enjoy.

And happy day to all the mothers out there. (You mfs know what to do with yourselves.)

© Sandy Mattingly 2012
 

May. 12, 2012 - Atalanta loft at 25 N. Moore Street did not triple in value in 10 years

though cigars may still be in order
The “2,907 sq ft” Manhattan loft #5A at 25 N. Moore Street (Atalanta) was recently resold by the original owner, 11 years after the loft was bought from the developer. I assume the sellers were happy with the space (it is lovely, with an interesting live-work layout), and (though they wanted more) that they were happy to (almost) triple their original purchase price:

I am impressed with the price drop. Talk about a successful bullet bitten! Many people succumb to the temptation, even at this price point, to nibble a bit with price reductions. These folks gave it a real shot for 4 months, then took a $400,000 hit that did the trick in 4 weeks. Nicely played, sir, nicely played.

splitting bedrooms, working hard
For a building with as large a footprint as the Atalanta, it is unusual to see a loft described as “floor through”, but the wording is apt for #5A. The master suite and open office look south over N. Moore Street (with open angled views to the southeast) and the second bedroom and “suite” look north (probably at the Troop A and First Precinct at this height; note that no northern windows are pictured). While not a full floor, the floor plan extends through the building with a rather squat Long-and-Narrow footprint, with windows only on the north-south narrow ends.

What is unusual about this floor plan is that the bedrooms are not both across the back wall but are at opposite long ends of the loft, and that the public space in the loft has no direct access to windows. The south end of the loft has that open office with open shelving that permits the windows to be seen from the living room, while windows at the back of the loft are closed off by that “suite” (with smoked glass doors?) and the second bedroom. Apparently, these folks needed not one, but two, good-sized work spaces in the loft, and spend enough time there to devote scarce windows to those (widely separated) work spaces.

For a loft with nearly 3,000 sq ft, I suspect that there is much less of a sense of volume in this space than if it had a more typical Long-and-Narrow floor plan, with the south end being entirely open and the single best view (that southeast corner) being present to the public space rather than closed off in the master suite. Such is life at the Atalanta, however. That corner of the duplex below is also closed off to public space (on both floors), as is the same corner in the loft on the second floor. (That corner view is much less interesting from the lower floor, of course, but it is interesting that that’s where bedrooms go in this layout.)

then-to-now values
The experience of these sellers getting 2.8 times their initial purchase price on resale compares well to recent resales for which I can find original sponsor sale prices. The last resale here was loft #7C on September 15, 2011 for $3mm. That was not by an original owner, as it had re-sold in 2007, but that 2011 resale was (only) 2.3 times the sponsor sale of November 2002.

That duplex right below #5A may sell again at a higher price, but the last time it sold (August 2010) that distressing sale at $5.6mm was barely 1.8 times the May 2001 sponsor sale at $3.045mm; a full price deal would still be only 2.6 times the sponsor price.

Loft #5A did pretty well at nearly 3 times the sponsor sale, wouldn’t you say?

© Sandy Mattingly 2012

May. 11, 2012 - loft without walls sells for $1,098/ft at 60 East 13 Street

it is a lifestyle thing
For a loft condominium conversion dating only to 2005, the “2,575 sq ft” Manhattan loft #5E at 60 East 13 Street has an old school look, at least insofar as the (very open) floor plan is concerned. Apart from the walk-in closet in the southwest corner of the loft, the only walls in this rather large space are needed to keep the bathrooms private. Sorta like the “layout” conceived of by a single guy in a 1980s downtown loft with more space than he knew what to do with; the kind of loft that over the course of 30 years had bedrooms filled in, as needed. Nor is there much else in this space to brag about. The kitchen is simply “windowed open kitchen with breakfast counter”; the bathrooms are simply “1.5”; the fact that there is “fantastic light through 16 oversized windows” is a matter of bones, not finishes.

Yet, despite the vast open space and the restrained broker babble implying that serious upgrades are in order, the loft spent little time on the market to sell at $1,098/ft. It came to market on January 27 at $2.975mm, found a contract by March 10, and closed on April 27 at $2,827,500. I am going to say it is either because of the location, the location, or the location.

rental conversions are variable
Prior to being converted to condos in 2005, 60 East 13 Street (at the corner of Broadway) was a rental building with two wings, in an “L” shape: 5 floors on one side (east) ran along 13th Street to Broadway; 4 floors on the other side (west) were mid-block and are oriented north-south. I can’t find out what interiors looked like as a rental, but I bet that loft #5E looked then like it does now. StreetEasy does not have the listings from the 2005 sponsor sales, but (miracle of miracles) our listings data-base has a link to the original PruDE listing for loft #5E. Despite the floor plan with that listing of “the East Wing Plan” showing 3 bedrooms and 2.5 baths, it is clear from the pictures that the space never got built out beyond what you see in the current listing. My guess is that someone had rented in with that configuration, probably for a long time, and all they did to dress it up as a condo was to refinish floors and paint. Maybe they put in new appliances. Back then, it sold for $1,985,587 ($771/ft).

Contrast the unchanged-from-2005 top-floor loft #5E with top-floor loft #4W, which re-sold approaching The Peak in very different condition than when the sponsor sold it in 2005. The “1,875 sq ft” loft #4W sold on July 3, 2007 at $2.45mm ($1,307/ft) (full description, pix and floor plan survive on the Corcoran site), after being sold for $1,663,057 ($887/ft) by the sponsor in 2005. (The only reason for the difference between the sponsor prices for #4W and #5E is the much higher ceilings and skylights in #4W.)

That 2005 PruDE listing has an as-is and alternate floor plan showing that #4W was delivered as an open loft with only one bath. Note the contrast between the enthusiasm of the 2007 #4W broker babble and the ho-hum babble for #5E in 2012:

open gourmet kitchen, sophisticated built-ins, SNE exposures and is in mint condition. 15.5 – 19 foot ceilings allow someone to add square footage to use as a den or home office. Located in an elevator building steps from Union Square, this beautiful space must be seen to be fully appreciated.

May. 10, 2012 - will it be lofts? new residential development to replace "asylum" at 124 West 16 Street

not worth $1,000/ft (as is)
In looking at newly filed deeds this weekend to update the Master List of Manhattan Lofts Sold Since November 2008 (17 loft resales filed last week!), I came across this odd one: The French Evangelical Church Of New York sold its “4,000 sq ft” building at 124 West 16 Street to some anonymous and eponymous LLC on April 16 for $4mm. That’s $1,000/ft for those of you without sense, or a calculator. StreetEasy says it is a 3-story building on a “2,581 sq ft” lot that has been classified as a “Miscellaneous Asylum and Home” (gotta love that arcana). $1,000/ft seems like a difficult place to start a renovation or conversion, doesn’t it? But (as they say in late night television) wait … there’s more!!!!

Permits have already been filed for a demolition and new building. For those of you with access to Property Shark info, The Shark shows the demolition permit was filed March 16 and the new construction permit on April 6, with two new liens from Midfirst bank totalling $9,161,515, presumably to finance the entire project. The Shark thinks the FAR for the site is 6, that zoning is R8A, that the building is not landmarked, and that the lot is not in a historic district.

Someone better versed than I am in deciphering building permits may extract more information from the New Building application filed with the New York City Department of Buildings, but I see that (if approved and actually built) the new building will be 6 stories, 12,643 sq ft of Total Construction Floor Area, with an Occupancy Classification of Residential - Apartment Houses, covering 70% of the lot, with a perimeter wall height of 80 feet. I can’t find again where I saw it in these documents, but the project will be full-floor residences, so they sound like lofts to me.

architect and developer, again
The architect is David Howell of DND Architecture Design PLLC, but I found no renderings or mention of this project on his website.

The LLC rep who signed the DoB forms uses an email address associated with this real estate business, and has the same last name as the founder of that company.

The inter-tubes tell me he was also associated with the developer of the 5-story residential condominium “classic loft conversion” in 2007 at 225 East 24 Street, using this contractor. The last sale there was the resale of the second floor “3,600 sq ft” loft on December 9 at $3.84mm. When first marketed, these lofts aimed for the high-end market in a non-traditional loft area:

Architectural detailing such as cast iron columns, exposed brick walls with arched insets intersect stylishly with loft classics like high ceilings, wood floors, wood burning fireplace and expansive windows. North, South + West exposures with a 30’ frontage space to create a perfect entertaining and living environment. The open kitchen has stainless Euro fixtures offset by white lacquered cabinetry and bathrooms envisage an understated elegance.

That LLC rep and that inspection company founder were two-thirds of the developer team for the 7-story loft conversion 316 East 22 Street (identified as the same developer team as at 225 East 24 Street, here) that sold in 2010. That building’s StreetEasy page has this building description:

award-winning architect David Howell has put the classic New York loft inside a sleek modern envelope. With 316 East 22nd Street, he has created 6 dramatic, 40-foot-wide, full-floor residences filled with high-end interiors and top-of-the-line details. Discover the best that 21st century design has to offer...

Howell got a below-market deal on his 2nd floor loft in this project, which he features on his website and which is the subject of a Kiwi magazine profile linked on his site.

Presumably, the new project at 126 [oops] 124 West 16 Street will be of the same quality. Interesting that this Chelsea block, like the East 22 Street and East 24 Street blocks for their prior projects, is not a traditional classic loft block. In the two prior cases, they converted existing non-residential loft spaces to residential; with 126 West 16 Street they will be building a new building.

© Sandy Mattingly 2012

May. 9, 2012 - 2011 new development loft, nicely flipped at 23% at 16 West 21 Street

take the money and run
One never knows what condo investors plans are, as some people who intend a quick flip end up being constrained by market forces working against them and others who plan on a longer term take opportunistic gains. Planned or not, the investor LLC that purchased the “1,368 sq ft” Manhattan loft #4A at 16 West 21 Street in the 2011 new development saw an opportunity, and ran with it. Having paid $1.52mm on March 2, 2011, the LLC put it on the market on February 1 at $1.79mm, seeking a healthy gain and capital gains treatment. The Market viewed that ask as a bargain, as it went into contract on February 28 (per our listing system; StreetEasy says March 1) and closed on April 20 at $1.875mm, a 5% premium to the ask and a 23% premium to the purchase price less than 14 months earlier. I will play with those numbers below, after touring the loft and bashing some babble.

classic form, new building
The loft is a full-floor floor-through, with a typical Long-and-Narrow floor plan: 2 bedrooms split the back wall, one long wall has the guest bathroom and the public stair and the other the master bath, elevator and kitchen; the windows are only on the narrow walls.

There are no room dimensions, but Property Shark has the building dimensions as 25 x 60 feet, yielding a outer wall footprint of 1,500 sq ft; taking the common stairwell and elevator out probably gets you to the “1,368 sq ft” quoted in the Offering Plan, but remember that that number includes the interior of the outside walls; if the masonry is one foot thick all around, 170 of the “1,368 sq ft” are within the walls.

No slur intended, but there is not much else to do with a Long-and-Narrow footprint of this size with no side windows. The juice for this still-nearly-new development is in the finishes. The current broker babble is actually rather restrained, while hitting the high notes that this is high quality:

open kitchen is ultra sleek and modern featuring a suite of Miele appliances, Sub-Zero refrigerator, and expansive stainless steel countertops. Both bathrooms have heated floors, deep soaking tubs, and fogless mirrors. En Suite master bath also has a steam shower and heated towel bar for added luxury. ... house amenities such as keyless entry, doorman 9am-9pm services, keyed elevator, spa & fitness center with steam & sauna rooms, refrigerated storage, package room, and a common roof deck.

That may not read as restrained to you, but contrast that with the word salad in the sponsor’s marketing prose:

a modern landmark building with an exquisite custom glass facade that frames the warmth of the light and vibrancy of the life within. Zac Posen, design wunderkind has crafted the building’s interiors by coupling an artisanal philosophy with the most progressive vision, each of the unique residences and every inch of every common area balances the human and the modern, the handmade and the technological, so that your life here will be uniquely more satisfying, more personal and more creative. The living rooms at 16W21 spanning approximately 23 by 14 feet, boast generous proportions that privately accommodate the most alluring cocktail parties imaginable. With a suite of Miele appliances, sub-Zero refrigerator, expansive stainless steel countertops and bespoke color options, the custom designed kitchen at 16W21 is the perfect canvas for your culinary creativity. So while each full-floor residence offers house amenities such as keyless entry, doorman services, keyed elevator, spa & fitness center, refrigerated storage, package room, and a common roof deck, equal measures were paid to making an environmentally friendly building that is targeted for LEED Silver Certification

I would normally use many ellipsis (ellipses?) for such a big block quote, but I did not want anyone suspecting that I selected only hyperbole and thesaurus thumping. That thing is all hyperbole and thesaurus thumping: “every inch of every common area balances the human and the modern”; “your life here will be uniquely more satisfying, more personal and more creative”; “proportions that privately accommodate the most alluring cocktail parties imaginable”; “bespoke color options”.

In comparison, calling a kitchen “ultra sleek and modern” and countertops “expansive” is restrained.

Can photos evidence hyperbole? If so, the recent listing pix for loft #4A do. I don’t know that the technical term is for the distortion effects in those first two photos is, but I would call it a fun-house mirror effect. Contrast the shape of the black leather recliner in the first photo (short, 2-person wide) with the same piece of furniture in the second photo (really loooong); or compare the widths of the front room windows to each other in each photo, and then between those first two photos, and then note that on the floor plan they are (surprise!) identical in width. Perhaps I look at too many listing photos, but I find these distortions to be jarring.

back to the investor math
Perhaps StreetEasy missed it, or perhaps the LLC leveraged some of the $1.52mm March 2011 purchase price without encumbering the condo, but there is no record of the LLC putting a mortgage on loft #4A. No leverage seems odd for an investor, particularly for a short term investor.

On the expense side, we have the purchase price (which includes any transfer taxes, if the purchaser paid them), no apparent mortgage, the common charges and (abated) real estate taxes for 14 months, and the sales fee on the way out, omitting miscellaneous other expenses, so the red numbers look like this:

$1,520,000
$22,498 (14 x $1,434 + $173)
$112,500 (6% of $1.875mm)
$1,654,998

On the positive side of the ledger, the big number is the sales price of $1,875,000, but a critical and missing data point is the rent paid by that “tenant in place until 4/5/12 providing a great rental income”. For ballpark purposes, let’s assume that the rent paid for #4A is similar to the rent paid for #5A, which was rented as of may 1, 2011 off an asking rent of $7,800/mo, but let’s discount from the ask to $7,500/mo. Assuming that the #4A tenant was in place for 12 months only, the black numbers look like this (more or less):

$1,875,000
$90,000 (12 months at $7,500)
$1,965,000

Combining the different color numbers bring us to a ballpark result:

$1,654,998
$1,965,000
$310,002

That’s a 20% gain in 14 months, assuming no leverage. With leverage, of course, the expenses go way up, but the red number will go down even more dramatically due to the reduced purchase cash.

Net-net, whether in a ball park or in real life, these numbers are likely close enough to the real numbers to safely conclude this was a very successful flip. What does the LLC do for an encore?

© Sandy Mattingly 2012

May. 8, 2012 - ballyhooed artist loft with unique floor plan + top kitchen sells for $962/ft at 307 West Broadway

famous in New York Times, and Manhattan Loft Guy
Talk about using the Real Estate Industrial Complex, Manhattan Media Division to your benefit! I have to wonder if there is any connection between the fact that the “3,300 sq ft” Manhattan loft on the 7th floor at 307 West Broadway that just sold was brought to market within two months of having been the subject of a lovely piece in the New York Times about Soho, back in the day. I hit that Times piece in my August 7, 2011, Soho in 1983: $211,000 for 3,300 sq ft; still an artist's loft., which gave me the chance to walk down memory lane, as I knew well the brick-strewn lot across the street from #307 (which a reader corrected me was the former St Alphonsus Church site, lost to foundation problems from the underground stream). Whether the Times piece coincided with or prompted the idea, the long-time, old school artist types who built this loft and lived to negotiate construction indemnification agreements with the developers of the Soho Mews next door put the loft up for sale on October 4. (Maybe, after the lovely publicity, they had people asking if they would sell.)

They shot for the moon in pricing, but accepted the stars:

no stars below
The 7th floor loft is in better condition than the loft immediately below, which was being offered for sale when the NY Times piece was published, as I noted in my August 7 post. As I said then about the 6th floor, then asking $2.8mm, “[t]hat loft appears to be in truly primitive condition, with just one bath, compared to the 7th floor with its nice (modern) kitchen with a huge Viking cook top“, and

Of course, that loft has not yet sold, so the asking price is just the ... you know ... asking price. But $2.8mm might well be a reasonable starting point for negotiations for a “3,300 sq ft” loft in much more primitive condition than the 7th floor.

There are more photos of the nearby environs than there are of the interior, which makes sense to a point. That point ends with the pic #6, looking southwest at the intersection of West Broadway and Canal Street, with its aggressive painting to prevent box-blocking suggesting the reality that the intersection tends to get backed up, with attendant horns. I applaud the presentation of reality; I wonder about the image as a sales item.

May. 6, 2012 - OYATOMLG one of the worst floor plans imaginable

few windows per foot
See my May 6, 2011, 245 Seventh Avenue loft sells after freezing in nuclear winter, in which a loft that did not sell in the post-Lehman market asking as low as $1.629mm sells in April 2011 at $1.675mm, with a seriously challenging floor plan featuring “1,800 sq ft”, two bedrooms, 1 window in each bedroom, and no other windows. Seriously challenging, indeed!

© Sandy Mattingly 2012
 

May. 6, 2012 - Sunday diversion has questions / baseball questions, but still questions

a confession is required, another is merely requested
The confessions is required is from me, though the question is whether a likely Hall of Fame catcher needs to confess. My confession is that I clicked on the Tom Verducci piece from Sports Illustrated because of the guilty pleasure of reading (more) about (more of) Bobby Valentine’s problems and (additional) dysfunction in The Nation. But the gem of the piece is the bottom bit about Pudge Rodriguez.

I am long past the point at which I think it is unfair to wonder and rude to ask questions about player performance in the Great PED Era of ‘Great’ Players. I remembered how Pudge shrunk, but had not tied that to Canseco; I forgot about Pudge’s bizarre no-answer answer to a direct question. Innocent until proven guilty is a bedrock right against government criminal conviction; in real life we use common sense and are free to doubt. Especially someone who refuses to answer questions when there are obvious open questions.

I am not so hopelessly naive that I expect we will get answers about the many ‘great’ players whose numbers would qualify them for Cooperstown (those in the large group beyond the beyond-a-reasonable doubt cheaters like Bonds and Clemens). But it would be nice to get some answers about some people before their 5 year waiting periods are over.

© Sandy Mattingly 2012
 

May. 5, 2012 - this very Winka-tect designed 497 Greenwich Street loft was all over the inter-tubes

so I had to track it down
I don’t know why it came up like dandelions, but I saw a bunch of tweets last week about an Archi-tectonics designed loft in Soho, with links from many, many design websites, including this one and this one. Never one to let sleeping lofts lie (let alone sleeping lofts that are both high-fashion and all over the inter-tubes), I had to go to the architect’s site and then try to find the loft. The good news is that I found the loft. The bad news is that architects describe and take photos of their work without regard to my interests; indeed, the prose on the Winka site is nearly impenetrable (to me) and the pix obscure rather than reveal the space she started with. Darn.

they are not paid to write (I should know; I am not, either)
As with many architect firm sites, you have to scroll through their projects to find a particular job, in this case the Schein Loft. Start here, then select Work, then Schein Loft under Residential Projects. I would do you the favor of cutting and pasting the key text here, but the web formatting prevents that. And the description text box is so small that you can only see 4-5 lines of text at a time, requiring scrolling, and more scrolling.

The key facts are that this “3,200 sq ft” 8th floor loft has part of the “folded glass facade” of the new “smart loft” built around and on top of the 8-story warehouse building:

the horizontal plane of the traditional urban fabric is questioned by the insertion of a diagonal surface that bifurcates the facade plane. Here the [building] code was re-coded; the mathematical tool of inflection was introduced to provide a 3d glass zone, a “glass waterfall”.

has windows all around; the views are accentuated by the open layout, a layout which arranges the loft in a series of overlapping zones, rather than enclosed rooms. A sculptural metal and wood spine arranges the different private spaces adjacent to its organic structure.

May. 4, 2012 - designer of renown will not be pleased that 114 Mercer Street loft sold for $989/ft

perhaps they won’t tell him
The broker babble for the “2,250 sq ft” Manhattan loft #4R at 114 Mercer Street calls Martin Raffone a “renowned New York designer” and the loft “ a warm, modern living environment- a quiet sanctuary away from the vibrant street scene below”, which has been “ featured on HGTV's Top Ten Lofts and praised in many publications for Mr. Raffone's sublime design which manages to combine the rough architecture of the original loft with elements of nature and modern day living”. Of course there are proper proper names throughout, of brands and materials (with a curiously frequent mention of poplar). This prime loft in prime Soho sold at $2.225mm, only $989/ft. Both the seller and the designer must have been disappointed by that, though one hit was only reputational.

Among the lofts of similar size in downtown Manhattan that sold recently at higher prices on a $/ft basis are:

• the “endless possibilities” loft I hit in my April 17, endless possibilities cost $1,160/ft in quiet Noho, at 325 Lafayette
• a“[l]uxurious[ly] renovated 1,900 sq. ft” 114 Spring Street #3 that sold on March 19 for $1,158/ft
• an “1,800 sq ft” 22 Warren Street #4 that sold on February 29 at $1,056/ft as “a seamless merging of the past with modern, state-of-the-art finishes”
• the “2,500 sq ft” with the bizarre post 2008 premium that I hit in my April 13, why did 48 Great Jones Street 1-bedroom loft sell 18% above Peak value?

Among the smaller lofts that sold recently at higher prices on a $/ft basis in downtown Manhattan are:

• yesterday’s mini-loft, when the 2nd floor is high enough: 21 East 22 Street mini-loft sells at $1,086/ft in Flatiron
• the “1,571 sq ft” non-A.I.R. Soho loft that I hit in my April 25, pushing slightly above the ask, as 140 Thompson Street loft sells on non-A.I.R. side of West Broadway Arches, when it sold at $1,082/ft
• the “1,080 sq ft” no-bragging-but-bones loft I hit in my April 20, “great bones” 100 Hudson Street loft sells above where it “should” have, after it sold at $1.083/ft

The loft #4R sale at $989/ft makes no sense. I assume the first official asking price was some kind of clerical error that took a few days to catch and fix, but the rest of the history makes sense (as far as it goes on StreetEasy):

This is a history showing a motivated seller with some unhappy holidays. A six-figure price drop after 6 weeks was followed by a $279,000 price drop the week after Thanksgiving, which did not generate a signed contract until nearly two weeks into the new year. Auld Lang Syne, indeed.

comping is hard, but it should not be this hard
You have noticed that the StreetEasy listing page for loft #4R does not have the sales price linked to it. The reason is that both StreetEasy and the our data-base mistakenly link the #4R sale on April 4 at $2.225mm to a 4th loft in the same coop with the street address 543 Broadway. Follow me into the weeds a bit to work through this confusion.

Remember the discussion of the single coop with two entrances in my April 25, pushing slightly above the ask, as 140 Thompson Street loft sells on non-A.I.R. side of West Broadway Arches? At least in that coop there are unique letter designations for individual lofts, whether on the 140 Thompson Street side or the 468 Broadway side. The coop that includes #4R at 114 Mercer Street is one long building, with an entrance on Mercer and the main entrance at 543 Broadway; I don’t know if the two halves are joined in the basement or the roof level, but there is no crossing the residential floors 2-10 from one side to the other. If this were a condo there’d be little chance for confusion among units as each would have a unique tax lot, but in a coop the 4th floor unit at 543 Broadway just might be confused with the 4th floor unit at 114 Mercer Street. In this case, with very confusing results.

Note that StreetEasy has the deed record for a 4th floor loft sale at “543 Broadway” with a notice address for the seller of “114 Mercer Street”, but associates that deed record with a listing for a 4th floor loft at “543 Broadway” that went into contract on February 25. But that deed at $2.225mm makes no sense in light of the long sales history featuring 11 months to contract, 4 price drops, and a final asking price of $1.725mm. (More on that loft in a bit.)

Note that the StreetEasy listing history for #4R at 114 Mercer Street ends on March 15 (not coincidentally, the end of a 6-month listing period that began on September 16, 2011), with a hanging contract from January 12. That #4R listing history does link to the prior sale of this loft, on March 3, 2006 at $1,699,999, with a deed record that identifies the buyer as having a notice address of “114 Mercer Street 4R” and the same name as the seller on the April 4 deed record for the 4th floor loft sale at “543 Broadway”.

For proof that some sales in this coop reflect a notice address of “543 Broadway”, see the deed record for the 9th floor in October 2009, or the deed record for the November 2007 of “Two Front” at 543 Broadway.

I don’t know what StreetEasy is going to do when the 4th floor at 543 Broadway (in contract since February 25) closes. Perhaps that will be a “no listing associated with this sale” deed.

In a world with a real Multiple Listing Service, this kind of crap would never happen. The #4R sale would be linked to the #4R listing, as updated by the listing agent. The #4R sale would never be linked to the 4th floor pending contract by that listing agent. Sigh....

a personal lament
I started a blog draft today based on the 4th floor $1.725mm listing and the #4R sales price at $2.225mm. It took me a long time because it is such a bizarre history: imagine a loft that sells 29% above the last asking price after 11 months and 4 price drops. Unimaginable! But (apparently) true. Until it wasn’t.

It would have been one heck of a post, introducing a Manhattan Loft Guy Cabinet of Curiosities (aka Cabinet of Wonders, aka Wonder-Room) in which to place #4-#4R with the spread between the last asking price of $1.725mm and the closing price of $2.225mm. Note to Self … be attentive for other (real) cases that can fit in my Cabinet of Curiousities....

I praise the deities that I clicked around the Streeteasy building page for this coop looking for comps before finishing that draft post. I have now also fixed the Master List, but still have to find and fix some past posts that have referred to the 4th floor listing as selling at the #4R price.

© Sandy Mattingly 2012
 

May. 3, 2012 - when the 2nd floor is high enough: 21 East 22 Street mini-loft sells at $1,086/ft in Flatiron

The Market shows some love for the little, the low, and the lovely
The 1988 conversion to residential coop living 21 East 22 Street is one of the largest buildings with some of the smallest lofts among classic Manhattan loft buildings. Most units in this 12-story, 128 unit coop are under 1,000 sq ft and most sales come in under $1,000/ft. So it is interesting that the vertically challenged “800 sq ft” (per our data-base) Manhattan loft #2L at 21 East 22 Street recently sold at $1,086/ft with hardly any resistance from The Market: it came out at $879,000 on October 18, found a contract by January 4, and closed on April 18 at $869,000. The tree top views did not hurt after all; nor did the recent and lovely renovation, leaving the loft replete with proper proper names.

Contrast that history with the “750 sq ft” #2E, which cleared on September 26 at $555,000 ($740/ft for those who can never find the Calc Function on your phones). That one had a challenging layout (funky shape, only one window) and a well-lived-in look (all that stuff!) that the listing insisted was ready for you to inhabit without changing a thing (“Create your own Intimate Living Spaces with Distinct Full Size Bedroom, Dining & Office Areas”). (Babbling question: what does “Architectural Design” mean??) But The Market deemed #2E inferior to #2L by 32% on a price-per-foot basis.

Or contrast #2L to the “850 sq ft” #2H that sold on February 11, 2011 at $826,000 ($972/ft). That one boasted of “beautifully renovated open kitchen with high-end appliances, wine cooler, oak floors, and great storage including a customized walk-in”, among other things, yet still cleared 10% lower.

You have to up to the 9th floor to find a small loft in the building that sold higher than #2L on a price-per-foot basis. The “950 sq ft” loft #9H is bigger (with a 2-bedroom layout), much higher, and also lovely (and features a web link:

Open stainless kitchen with top of the line appliances. Custom lighting and maple cabinetry. Amazing volume of storage throughout. The innovative design elements are by Jonathan Schloss Architect. Visit www.jonathanschloss.com..

May. 2, 2012 - 130 Fulton Street loft with incomparable light comps out 3% above 2006 after 13 months of a boring price

stubborn is as stubborn does
The last time I hit the near-Gehry Manhattan loft building 130 Fulton Street, I talked about a stubborn seller (in my August 11, 2011, stubborn seller of 130 Fulton Street loft takes 10% haircut). That July 2011 seller was a piker compared to the seller of the “1,900 sq ft” loft #12A, who held at $1.795mm for 13 months and recently closed at $1.67mm.

This 17-month listing history has only three entries, only two numbers, and appears to be missing 2011*:

(I left out the December 2, 2011 “no longer available” status as a nothing-is-happening distraction; it appears as though the listing expired on its one year anniversary but that it took another 6 weeks for someone who had seen it while ‘active’ to sign the contract.)

From beginning to contract is 412 days, nearly 59 weeks. From ask to clearing price is only a 7% discount. That’s some stubborn.

I can’t see the views
Sometimes they do this on purpose, sometimes they don’t. For a loft marketed as having “incomparable light, views and a perfect layout”, the pictures don’t carry the same message of “incomparable light, views”. Perhaps they were taken on a grey winter day (note the Christmas tree), but there is little visual evidence of brag-worthy light or brag-worthy views. And note again the syntax: “incomparable light, views” means “incomparable light, [and] views [of some sort, perhaps easily compared to other views]”.

As I said in that August 11 post, “[i]n Lower Manhattan, views are all about the angles, what you see between to get to what you see.” From #12A, the “views” are north and west, “with partial Hudson River and World Trade Center site views”. Note that both the river and the WTC site are to the west of 130 Fulton, and that the only west windows are the two in the kitchen and the one in the dining area. The dominant exposure is from those very wide north windows, but the pictures show only building facades and water towers. (Perhaps you can peek at the top of Gehry from close to the windows.)

I suspect the light from #12A, though incomparable in a broker babble sense, is very similar to the light from #11B, the loft featured in that August 11 post. That “2,280 sq ft” loft is larger and has greater utility (a 3rd bedroom), but they were valued on a price-per-foot basis at par: $879/ft for #12A and $882/ft for #11B. That’s even though #11B bragged about upgrades over the original-in-2006 finishes and about iconic views (Brooklyn Bridge, Woolworth Building, and the Municipal Building).

That parity is a surprise. Especially considering that #12A is essentially still at 2006 values (the 2012 seller paid $1,624,108 on July 19, 2006). That is a gain of 3% if you are scoring at home.

© Sandy Mattingly 2012

- the Corcoran disclaimer

This website is not the official website of The Corcoran Group or its affiliated companies, and neither The Corcoran Group nor its affiliated companies in any way warrant the accuracy of any information contained herein. Any product and/or services offered for sale on this website shall not be considered an offer to sell such goods and/or services in any state other than New York.

- 'nuff said