Sep. 15, 2009 - loft developer in default at 654 Broadway

crunched by numbers
Not a pretty story reported in The Real Deal (last Friday, on line) about a Manhattan loft developer default, CIT Group sues for $12M at Noho condo site. I don't have a lot of any experience running numbers on a development project, but this seems like it was a tough needle to thread even when it was fresh.

It appears that the six-story building had been upstairs rentals (vacant?) when purchased by the developer in August 2007 for $12.6mm. August 2007 ... probably within 6 months of the tippy-top of The Market. Plan was to create five full-floor condo residential lofts and one commercial unit at street level. The building is awfully long, at 29 x 123 ft, and is shorter than both its neighbors along Broadway (i.e., not so narrow but very long, with no side windows). The only unit that I see that was ever marketed was the fifth floor, listed as "2,540 sq ft". That unit was offered at $2.95mm in a fully done condition ("the ultimate in downtown living ... and hi-end finishes throughout") from February into August; the listing has expired.

Using 2,500 sq ft per floor, that is 12,500 sq ft for the five residential lofts to have been developed; maybe the developer could have done them for $150/ft. That's nearly $2mm in construction costs for the five residential units. They did not sell #5 for $2.95mm, so the top of the resale recoupment is something south of $15mm. Maybe the plan here was to break even on the residential units and make dough on the commercial unit....

I have no idea what the value of a commercial condo is along this stretch of Broadway, but I suspect that it may have more value for cash flow (renting it out) than selling it. The coop next door at 652 Broadway has always had absurdly low maintenance because they own the store front: they generate nearly all of that building's operating costs from the rental stream. (The full-floor #2 at 652 Broadway was marketed in 2006 and 2007 as "3,300 sq ft" of raw space [I think it had been a sweat shop], with maintenance of only $548/mo -- barely 20 cents per foot.)

coincidence?
That raw 2d floor had been marketed since March 2006 and closed in December 2007 at $2.2mm, $667/ft. 654 Broadway Partners LLC closed on their purchase in August 2007 at $800/ft (using 2.500 sq ft per floor). It's gotta be the commercial income stream that made this (appear to) make sense, right??

In the event, no sense was made .... Somebody needs to re-set the sunk costs for this building to be developed. (I am pretty sure the retail tenant has been paying all along, but that is a wee small flow of cash.)


© Sandy Mattingly 2009

Sep. 14, 2009 - nice price at 40 West 24 Street? (consider the renovation)

Stage One review
When I saw that the "2,000 sq ft" Manhattan loft #9E at 40 West 20 Street closed on September 2 for $1.64mm and that the "2,000 sq ft" #8N closed for $1.7mm on January 30, 2008 I was intrigued. That #8N closing was pretty close to the calendar peak for all Manhattan, yet #9E cleared only 3.5% off....

Stage Two explains
Even with the full wind of the late 2007 market behind it, #8N took a while to sell. It was first offered in December 2006 at $1.895mm but took one change in firms and one price change to $1.795mm to find a contract in December 2007 -- a full 49 weeks to contract. Billed as "an incredible value", it was either in "move in" condition or was a bit of a project ("bring your architect and design the loft you've always dreamed of"). As noted, it took a while for someone to dream that dream, and pay the freight.

In contrast, the recently closed #9E had already been visited by the architect (and the dream) when it was marketed, beginning in February 2009 (a particularly frigid part of a thin market). They started at $2.05mm on February 11 but were on a 6 week plan: dropping to $1.975mm on March 26, to $1.875mm on May 9, and to $1.775mm on June 17 before finding a contract on July 22.

in the ballpark, or out
If you ballpark the architect-designed #9E as a $200/ft renovation and the architect-invited #8N as needing that level of work, then #9E looks to be (very) roughly one-third off peak, a year-and-a-half later. Ouch. 'Course that would be a lesser hit to the extent that #8N was less than a full-renovation project.


© Sandy Mattingly 2009

Sep. 11, 2009 - 8 years, still fresh

quote of the day
Rudy Giuliani, whom I loathe, read this morning from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whom I revere. Let's just say that Rudy made a nice choice:

“Everybody can be great,” he said, “because anybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love.”

R.I.P.  2,752 souls (up 1 since last year) Plus those at The Pentagon and in Shanksville.

Basic coverage, with a strong WTC-focus: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/remembering-the-horror-of-a-bright-blue-morning/?hp

(as if you need additional links for this)

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

Sep. 4, 2009 - do any of you people know how to pray?

today would be a good day
No real estate news from Manhattan Loft Guy today, but a most personal request. If you are the praying type, please offer some today for me and for Susan Smelin. We will be at Columbia Presbyterian today and some time around 9 AM she will become the proud owner of my left kidney. I can live without it just fine, but she can't.

She suffers from polycystic kidney disease, which developed into end-stage renal disease last year, and without a transplant she will have to go on dialysis (3 days/week in the hospital, or more frequently at home). Dialysis, I gather, is not fun and not everyone tolerates it. Beginning within about 30 minutes after the operation, my (former) kidney will be working just swell for her.

My recovery is relatively brief (out of the hospital on Sunday, most likely), activity level reduced for a few weeks after that; hers is more extensive, with a lifetime regimen of ant-rejection drugs.

Both of us could use any and all prayers. You non-praying types out there can just send good thoughts our way. Appreciate it!

will you need your kidneys after you die?
Uhhh, no, you won't. Nor any other parts of your body that someone else might benefit from having. The New York Donor Network website is http://donatelifeny.org/, where you can get information about donating organs after you don't need them. There's a form you can fill out, print and mail that enrolls you in the donor program, which you can access here. The main site has many, many links if you want further information about organ transplants.

I am going on blogger's medical leave, at least through Labor Day. (Let me know if you need to see a note from my doctor.) Be back sometime next week.

[Update Sept 8: home yesterday; all went VERY well; Susan is well begun on a long journey, so keep her in your prayers. THANKS TO ALL ]

[Update Sept 14: feeling very well, but marshalling energy; I am well on the way to a successful recovery. Susan's had a couple of up-and-downs but should be home today (2d time), but is getting stronger, with a 'beautiful' kidney ]

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

Sep. 3, 2009 - new loft price needs to be justified

asking 20% more for 2006 mints??
When I first saw the listing description for a Manhattan loft brand new to market (chock full of mints, renovation news, adverbs and adjectives) I assumed that it is priced almost 20% above the 2006 clearing price because all of the broker bragging was about new elements that had not been priced into the 2006 transaction. Silly me.

But listen to some of the babbling done by a different firm in 2006:
 

The new listing description is remarkably similar to the old one. The floor plans are identical, 2006 and 2009. But the kitchen photos show that the old chef's kitchen with those top of the line appliances has been changed. Looks like new cabinets (which now get proper proper names) and the cooking elements have been increased, and moved. Doesn't look to me like $300k worth of upgrades, however....

I got into

started by a guy who believes that sellers should have to prove the renovations they did, in the interest of greater "transparency". In my first contribution to that thread I talked about having represented an apartment for sale that was priced

above a very recent very nearby comp, for which we justified the premium by the quality of the renovation. In that case, I had before-and-after photos and contractor bills and materials to prove how much money got poured into that place. (In fact, that seller spent way too much money to create a very personal space; more money than she could have hoped to recover from a buyer who did not share exactly her taste.) My broker-babble there posed the challenge directly: "An exquisite renovation that is priced accordingly. Your only question may be 'does it match my taste?'"

For this loft, I assume the 2006-buyer-turned-2009-seller premises some of the premium on the new kitchen elements. If so, that seller may have to prove the value of that improvement. Otherwise, adding nearly 20% to a 2006 clearing price is not likely to be a successful marketing strategy.

Sep. 2, 2009 - 876 Broadway comes + goes QUICKLY / knowing what you can get, and getting all of it

Sep. 1, 2009 - (bad) quote of the day / lawyer stumbles in NYT real estate Q&A

was the nuance edited out?
The Sunday Real Estate section of the New York Times regular feature by Jay Romano, Real Estate Q&A last week posed a complex question and provided an overly simple answer from a lawyer who represents the Westchester Board of Realtors®. I wonder if the lawyer provided a more complete answer that got edited down. Indeed, I hope so, because the simple answer quoted (and then amplified) can give real estate agents (and the lawyers who love them) a bad name.

The question is also a little confused: 

the [seller's] broker for this apartment [I might buy] is also the broker whom I wanted to use to sell my own apartment,... Should I avoid listing with the same firm because of a conflict of interest?

The question is confusing because the Questioner has TWO potential relationships with the agent who represents the apartment s/he might buy, but asks explicitly only about one. The Questioner may bid (buy) the apartment the agent represents, and the Questioner may want that same agent to represent Questioner when s/he sells his/her own apartment. The lawyer's simple answer (below) is particularly superficial for not dealing with these two potential conflicts of interest.

simply wrong
The simple answer to the not-so-simple-question was:

No. [identifying information omitted] Always list with the person who is most effective and has your best interests in mind.

The correct overly simple answer is "it depends on what you want and why you value this agent, after you understand it". But at least this simple-but-wrong response deals with the Questioner's precise question.

Bear with me here (or bail out now), as I can't find a simple way to approach this, other than step-by-step. (Regular readers know this might be a good time to freshen up that cup of coffee.)

answer that does not match the question
Remember that the Questioner asked about a conflict if s/he listed his/her apartment with the same agent that was representing the other seller. The lawyer's extended answer, paraphrased by Romano, 

the broker [acting as "dual agent"] works for the seller and the buyer with the informed consent of both. “Effective people get the job done,” he [the lawyer] said.

He noted that a dual agent cannot absolutely guarantee undivided loyalty. But such loyalty, he said, might not be as valuable as having a respected, honest and effective agent working on your behalf.

No part of that extended answer addresses using the same listing agent, but this whole answer deals with buying through the agent who 'represents' the seller. Best to begin at the end, then, with that Dual Agency thing before dissecting that legal train-wreck of a (paraphrased??) comment "a dual agent cannot absolutely guarantee undivided loyalty".

"dual" agency is an odd duck, best served well-advertised
The NYS official disclosure form for real estate buyers and sellers is accessible here (pdf). (The form is not required to be signed for coops and condos in buildings with four or more units, but the substance of the disclosure is still required to be given to buyers and sellers by agents.) The key provision of that disclosure about an agent "representing" both buyer and seller in the same transaction indicates that this idea is ... fraught (I put some of the heavy words in bold):

An agent acting as a dual agent must explain carefully to both the buyer and seller that the agent is acting for the other party as well. The agent should also explain the possible effects of dual representation, including that by consenting to the dual agency relationship the buyer and seller are giving up their right to undivided loyalty. A buyer or seller should carefully consider the possible consequences of a dual agency relationship before agreeing to such representation.

With that disclosure mandated by New York law in mind, refer again to the simple question asked (essentially, should I avoid the conflict?) and simple answer given ("No. ... Always list with the person who is most effective and has your best interests in mind."). Nothing particularly "careful" about that answer, with no indication that there may be possible effects other than the one I will get to ("a dual agent cannot absolutely guarantee undivided loyalty"). To be pedantic, nothing like, "after the agent carefully explains the risks and benefits, you should carefully consider whether that is best for you, or whether you prefer to work with an agent who can give you full-fiduciary-level services". 

consider the alternative
If an agent represents only one party in a transaction, that agent can be a full fiduciary with the following duties (per the form) to the buyer or to the seller: "reasonable care, undivided loyalty, confidentiality, full disclosure, obedience and duty to account". Of these five fiduciary duties, the most problematic in a Dual Agency situation are Undivided Loyalty (as the form itself notes) and Full Disclosure. Keeping the train-wreck (Undivided Loyalty) aside still, the duty of Full Disclosure would be lost to a "client" of a Dual Agent.

With an agent who owes me (a seller) Full Disclosure, if my agent learns something about a buyer that might give me a negotiating edge, that agent is obligated to tell me, to use it to my advantage, and has no obligation to protect any of his secrets. This topic lends itself to Big Picture (vague) pronouncements, so I will try to be concrete.

more concrete scenarios
Let's hypothesize that my agent (as I am a seller) overhears or figures out that the buyer has some time constraints (a lease is ending, or some parent gift-money must be given by the end of the year), or that there are only two viable purchase candidates for this buyer and that the other one just went into contract. My agent's job is to exploit that information for my benefit. If, instead, "my" agent morphed into a Dual Agent, that agent would owe the buyer Confidentiality and I would never learn of these factors.

Or if I am the buyer, my agent might learn that the seller is under contract to buy something else so is under pressure to make a deal to sell. My agent's job is to help me leverage that intelligence to get the best deal possible for me. But if, instead, the agent who was "my" agent became "our" agent (a Dual Agent), the agent would have to hold that information in confidence.

Worse for the seller whose agent goes from Seller's Agent to Dual Agent: if there is a very comparable competing listing on the market that goes into contract during negotiations between buyer and seller, the parties will want to know what the contract price is (if they can find out). If the agent somehow learns that the contract price would advantage the seller (because it is very high), the Dual Agent would be prohibited from telling the seller this information while a Seller's Agent would be duty-bound to use it to put the screws to the buyer. Once you get the idea of how significant Undivided Loyalty is in a negotiation, more fertile minds than mine will come up with more powerful factual scenarios. I will offer just one more.

the Negotiating Eunuch
Even without any special factual nuggets that a seller's agent might exploit, the entire negotiating dynamic is different with a Dual Agent. One of the reasons that some people use agents is to get that important emotional distance in a negotiation; another is to take advantage of the experience of someone who negotiates coop or condo purchases for a living. Whether that takes the form of hand-holding ("relax; that last gambit only seems personally insulting; are you really willing to walk away because the Idiot Buyer wants your drapes??") or is more strategic ("I think they are bluffing and that they will make another counter"), the seller often asks the agent "what do you think?" or "what does that mean?"

But if "your" agent becomes a Dual Agent there is a reverse-phone-booth effect: the formerly powerful tool you had becomes a mere transcription service.

Seller: how much more do you think I can push this Buyer?

Dual Agent: I can't say. What should I tell the Buyer?

Seller: well, I can counter by dropping $50k but that is close to my Absolute Bottom Line.

Dual Agent: don't tell me that unless you want me to tell the Buyer.

Seller: I thought you worked for me!!

Dual Agent: I used to, but then we agreed that I would act as Dual Agent.

Seller: why did "we" do that?

Which leads us back to the lawyer's comments and the question: if Dual Agency can only be created by agreement of all parties, why would a Seller agree?

back to that train-wreck of a comment
Romano edits the lawyer's answer to put these words into the lawyer's mouth about the Loyalty of a Dual Agent (though he does not quote the lawyer): "a dual agent cannot absolutely guarantee undivided loyalty". Doesn't that weasel set of modifiers ("cannot ABSOLUTELY guarantee...") suggest that you might get some loyalty, and that -- in some circumstances but we can't promise in advance -- you just might get that Undivided kind of loyalty?

Instead, the NYS disclosure form is clear that when "your" agent becomes a Dual Agent, you "give up your right" to Undivided Loyalty. You had it. You lost it. No, "we might be able to provide it, depending ..." stuff.

Any "careful" explanation (as required by the disclosure form) should -- it seems to me -- include the Negotiating Eunuch. Some people don't need help negotiating; they may do it every day at work, in transactions involving many, many more dollars than an apartment or loft sale. So some sellers will maturely conclude that they can handle the entire negotiation on their own. But what do they get for "giving up their right to undivided loyalty"? In most cases, I expect that the sole benefit to a seller of "their" agent going in to the reverse phone-booth is that the agent believes the buyer and agent share a rapport and that the transaction can be expected to be "easier". No risk of misinterpretation between two sides if the same agent is in the middle.

I am trying to think of another "significant" "benefit" to a seller.

Still trying ....

When "carefully" explaining all this to "my" seller, I want to be very clear that I would owe neither party much loyalty if the seller and buyer agree that I should be a Dual Agent. I would owe both of them honesty, reasonable care, obedience, and confidentiality, but otherwise I am playing it straight down the middle. I would want to be so sure that "my" (soon-to-former) seller "gets it", that I would never be wishy-washy about Loyalty by suggesting "well, I can't absolutely guarantee you undivided loyalty, but ..." and then leave that pregnant ellipsis hanging and hope the seller draws his/her own conclusion.

Nor would I want a buyer to think -- after careful explanation of Dual Agency -- that I had his/her best interests in mind ("[a]lways list with the person who is most effective and has your best interests in mind"). Because if that is what the buyer thinks, there was something wrong with my explanation, no?

But then I am not a lawyer representing a Board of Realtors®.

more common scenario in Manhattan: dual agent with designated agency
It is much more common here for a slightly different potential conflict to come up. The seller of Beautiful Loft represented by a Brokerage Firm (let's call it "Corco"; although you could equally well call it "Prude"). The buyer has been working with a different Corco agent, and becomes interested in the Beautiful Loft. As a firm, Corco has a conflict in that setting unless the buyer knows (agrees) that s/he is unrepresented for purposes of the Beautiful Loft (in which case only the seller's agent participates). If that buyer wants to be "represented", both parties must agree that Corco is a Dual Agent and that the seller's agent is "designated" to work with the seller, while the buyer's agent is "designated" to work with the buyer.

a bit of a swamp
As the disclosure form says, this is another opportunity for a "careful" explanation. I have seen precious little practical guidance here over the years, but this is what the form says (in part):

I take this to mean that the two "designated" agents can go at each other on behalf of their respective principals, but if they choose to get guidance from their supervising broker, everybody knows that the supervising broker will give advice to both "sides" equally. I admit that I am a bit fuzzy about the "designated sales agent ... like the dual agent under whose supervision they function, ... cannot provide undivided loyalty" part.

Frankly, I would love to hear more specifics about what "designated" agents can and cannot do, but each time I have asked a lawyer or association executive I have gotten boilerplate responses that are not very useful in the real world.

What is clear is that there has to be a "careful" explanation of this. While NYS law does not require that the disclosure form be provided in most cases in Manhattan, I will use it and get my "client" to sign it.

who cares? why??
There is a sense in which none of this matters to agents in the real world except under three circumstances.

(a) The Department of State exercises its ability to audit firms for compliance and (in the absence of a form in the file) may start asking questions of the buyer and seller that could have embarrassing repercussions.

(b) Something bad happens to the deal after the fact, and sharp-eyed lawyers are paid to dig through the deal's carcass.

(c) A painful situation that came up in the last few years, the details of which are lost in my memory but the outline of which I saw reliably reported when there was litigation. At the closing table of a deal in which there was only one agent involved (the seller having a written agreement to list with that agent's firm), the seller's lawyer overheard a remark by the buyer about something the seller would have liked to have known, but did not (maybe it was that the buyer would have spent more??), although the agent knew. The attorney asked the agent if there was a NYS Dual Agent with Designated Agency form signed (of course not) and refused to deliver the commission check (a rather large number, as I recall). Teh firm sued for the commission, and lost because it appeared as though the agent had some loyalty to the buyer but had never explained to the seller about Agency. (Anyone else remember the details? I think it was one of the "S" firms....)

There is a sense in which this matters a great deal to a buyer who thinks that the agent who really (and exclusively) represents the seller somehow has the buyer's best interests at heart. And a sense in which a seller should never give up a right to undivided loyalty unless the seller truly does not care or if the seller gets something in return of real value (still can't think of another example).

to sum up
This is a complicated topic, hardly suited for simple answers.

This is a wordy MLG post, and your coffee is probably cold.

I wonder if that lawyer will write in next week to "amplify" his remarks.... Whatever, he is the source for my Bad Quote Of The Day. Congratulations. The certificate is in the mail, c/o the Westchester Board of Realtors®.

Aug. 30, 2009 - quote for the day / NYT The Hunt

who is out of touch now?
The Sunday Real Estate section of the New York Times regular feature by Joyce Cohen, The Hunt, today profiles a woman who seems to have spent much of the last 18 months looking for a 2 bedroom with light on a narrow slice of the Upper West Side. She eventually found her light slice of Manhattan (as always happens in this feature) and closed last month.

Among various other adventures, she made a bid on another apartment that also closed last month. The article implies that the offer was made when the apartment was asking $1.6mm, which helps narrow the time frame considerably (below). The fun stuff is in bold.

Nearby, on West 111th, was a beautiful three-bedroom co-op on sale for $1.6 million. Ms. Gooding offered $1.05 million. Her only concern was the possibility of construction nearby.

When she finally heard back, the agent said the offer was so low as to be “out of touch.” The apartment sat on the market for a year and finally sold this summer for $1.075 million.

a better quote that I'd like to have overheard
Zing! That “out of touch” is a good quote, but the conversation I would like to see reported is the one between that agent and that seller. Maybe the seller agreed about the touchiness of the $1.05mm offer (which presumably would have been raised); but maybe not. I sure hope the seller knew about the offer.

on further review
I dislike short posts (I need to get over that), so -- having written this much -- it took only a little digging to find the apartment, which was offered for $1.6mm for only a short while. I will not identify the unit because this is a snarky post, but here is the listing history:

In defense of the agent, the real story is not quite what the NYT story implies -- though The Quote is priceless. In reality, agent and seller recognized in 6 weeks that they were at the wrong price, although it did take six months to get to a price that would generate a (deeply discounted) contract. I wonder at what point they tried to find Ms. Gooding and her $1.05mm ....

If the oh-so-quotable listing agent has half a brain, she will refrain from defending herself publicly.

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

Aug. 29, 2009 - modesty rewarded, but 'how well?' remains the question

sometimes Manhattan Loft Guy gets it right
I posed a question on July 8 that was answered very quickly: will pricing 25% below 2007 hit The Market in a sweet spot?  The answer came in an update on StreetEasy the very next day: contract signed. It sure is nice to get an answer; better, an answer that supports one's general thesis....

The loft in question has not yet closed (so will remain anonymous), but found a contract in a somewhat thin market within 3 weeks. Nice work, that. I may not be able to identify this loft until a while after it closes, as the stubborn neighbor upstairs ("an upstairs neighbor has been stubborn, and offering another (essentially identical) loft at more than 20% above the new asking price, without generating a contract in the 8 months that has been offered") has still not generated a contract and has not bothered to change the price -- the hallmark of a seller waiting for a listing to expire. If it expires, I will be able to come clean about this building (one of "the roller coaster of brand name loft conversions in nabes that are tres fasconable"); if not, you will remain in the dark.

I reviewed on July 8 the building's listing history since the newly-converted-loft was converted in 2005, which involves considerable up-ing and down-ing. Hence my final comment on July 8 about the soon-to-be-in-contract-but-hardly-on-the-market sellers: "At a minimum, they are ignoring much of the background noise of the intervening roller coaster years. Props to them for that." That ignoring thing can be hard.

Aug. 28, 2009 - one less funny person at The Porter House

... unless the buyer is a clown?
I checked in at 66 Ninth Avenue (The Porter House) on August 16 (Porter House loft may be "beyond the beyond" but sells off a million, up 40% or down 25%) to tell a tale of  Manhattan loft sellers who recently closed 40% above their November 2003 purchase, but down 25% from where the upstairs neighbors sold while they were on the market at the wrong price. Yesterday's The Real Deal updates that building's news to note that a "comedy actress" well-known to many and liked by some just sold a high floor loft there for $2.61mm.

That not-so-funny-anymore loft was evidently #9E, in the brand new four steel-and-glass upper floors that cantilever out over the original furniture warehouse lower six floors. Let's look at what the comedian did with #9E.

from 2003 to 2009, up 69%
TRD's Adam Pincus reports that the sponsor sold the "1,836 sq ft" #9E in November 2003 for $1.6mm ($871/ft) -- not much of a premium over Old Loft #3W, which the developer valued at $1,522,284, or $784/ft for "1,942 sq ft", given the "120 sq ft" terrace and the height (and light) advantages of the new 9th floor. That puts the #9E seller up seven figures in six years, or nearly 70%, before considering round trip expenses. Happy math, that!

Of course, as even sellers with no sense of humor are wont to do, the comedian wanted happier math, having started to market in March at $3.25mm (we'll come back to that number, so make note). Proving to be a serious seller, they dropped the price a healthy 8% within four weeks ($2.995mm) and again by 5% six weeks later ($2.85mm). They were in contract from there within another 6 weeks, so were on the market just over 4 months before contract. That contract negotiation was, of course, serious, and chopped another 8% off the last asking price, or a total of 18% off the original March asking price to close at $2.61mm.

the neighbors did better last year (of course)
As with the Porter House sale I hit on August 16, this sale has a lovely comp with which to asses the change in The Market pre- and post-Lehman. In that case it was #4W selling on July 3, 2008 at $2,787,500, compared to #3W selling on June 23, 2009 at $2.15mm. In this case, the very recent #9E sale at $2.61mm compares with the July 1, 2008 of #8E for $3.1mm (raise your hand if you remember the original asking price for #9E). Pretty strong evidence that the value of #9E declined by about 16% in a year.

Those downstairs neighbors had an interesting listing history, as well (is there such a thing as Listing History Porn??). They over-shot the market (an endemic situation), but recovered to generate a bidding war. Check this out:
 

This history is interesting because they were on the market at The Top, without getting their price (or any price) for five months, and then they got someone to pay $100k over a two-month-old asking price. Also interesting that they did not generate a contract at the April 2008 contract price of $3.1mm when they were asking (only) $3.3mm from November to January. If that eventual buyer was looking in November, you'd think that buyer would have bid to a $3.1mm contract then. Perhaps the buyer did not emerge until later; perhaps the seller was not willing to compromise (yet).

further shameless speculation
If there was a bidding war in April 2008 for #8E, as this history suggests, I wonder if the losing bidder bought something else then or ... perhaps that bidder came back to snap up #9E a year later, "saving" almost $500k.....

It is much less speculative to believe that the comedian was distracted (mistaken) by starting in March 2009 above where #8E had closed 9 months earlier, as the facts proved that no one stepped up with an acceptable offer off of $3.25mm. By April, even asking $105k less than #8E's clearing price generated an offer. Still, the comedian sold 69% above her November 2003 purchase price, so she should be smiling even if she left 16% of notional dollars on the table.
 

(h/t to Curbed for the TRD link)

Aug. 27, 2009 - revisiting Trouble in Tribeca, while stopping in Soho

a promise, kept (rare!)
When I hit the Manhattan loft #3S at 155 Franklin Street (the Sugar Loaf) as a June 2009 sale 16% off the 2006 clearing price (August 5, 155 Franklin Street crashes past 2006 to close up 28% (since 2000)) I made a note-to-self to revisit The Real Deal July 31 article Trouble in Tribeca that noted that this was one of only five lofts in Tribeca that closed in June. So let's go visiting....

tweaking TRD data
The article relied on data from StreetEasy and OLR and noted that "[t]he number of closings may not be completely inclusive because there is sometimes a lag period when closings are reported". In fact, one of the 5 "June" closings they cite was a deed dated May 29 (#19A at 270 Broadway), and there were 3 other Tribeca loft closings in June that they did not catch for this July 31 article: 161 Hudson Street #2B, which closed on June 30 at $2.41mm;  28 Laight Street #1 [Cobblestone Loft], which closed on June 24 at $2.845mm; and 100 Reade Street #5A, which closed for $1.545mm on June 23. (You can find these closings on the handy dandy spreadsheet of Manhattan loft closings that I posted about on August 23, which can be found in the cloud here.)

These adjustments hardly change the overall tenor of the article: there was much less sales activity in Tribeca in June 2009 compared to June 2008.

I don't personally have enough comparative data to fully explore Tribeca sales trends (come back to the spreadsheet in a year or two ;-), but two thoughts in the real Deal article about Tribeca make sense:
 

Although I am not quite sure if that first factor is meant to address employment prospects (are there more Wall Streeters worried about their job prospects in Tribeca than elsewhere?) or general wealth (did rich people take a bigger hit in the recession?), both factors would seem to disproportionately impact Tribeca because not only does Tribeca have very many very expensive lofts but it has very few relatively inexpensive lofts. This is one highly concentrated pocket of real estate wealth.

June was actually a bigger month for Tribeca closings than July. I count (only) another 5 Tribeca loft closings in July (see the spreadsheet) and (so far) only 3 in August.

whither Soho?
While Soho has a broader range of property values than Tribeca, the wealth-and-jumbo factors should also apply there. I count 3 Soho loft closings in June, 9 in July, and (so far) 4 in August.
 

(The two at 459 West Broadway were actually by a single seller to a single buyer.) Still not enough here to draw solid conclusions, other than to note that Soho ain't cheap (though it does have a few more [relatively] low-end sales) and to wonder why does everyone want to live on Greene Street during a recession?
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Sandy Mattingly 2009
 

Aug. 24, 2009 - three zeroes / flipping the odometer on a major Manhattan Loft Guy milestone

the rundown on the Countdown
That Countdown thing that has appeared on the last ten posts was pointed to the 1000th post since Manhattan Loft Guy launched three and a half years ago. O N E  T H O U S A N D posts, as of yesterday.

It occurred to me as I was counting down that the post that got the Three Zeroes should be 'special' in some way, rather than being a 'regular' post. I think that hitting number 1,000 with my master list of (essentially) all Manhattan lofts that have sold since early November, resales and new developments, qualifies. I can already see many data points on the spreadsheet that deserve a post, as well as lines for 'big picture' (interesting) analysis. If the MLG readership helps to really exploit the potential in the spreadsheet, who knows where it may lead?

you can't make this stuff up
I mentioned in yesterday's post my limited spreadsheet skills. As if to prove my lack of ability in math generally, I counted wrong in starting the countdown, hence the "oops". If I can't even count backwards from tenautomatically (and correctly), you know I need a great deal of help to make the closings spreadsheet more usable!

© Sandy Mattingly 2009
 

Aug. 23, 2009 - master list of Manhattan loft closings since November

this is The Big One
It has been quite a while since I posted loft-closings-in-last-30-days, but I have not stopped keeping track of Manhattan residential lofts as they close. While there are many limitations in the data (discussed below), the collection is worthwhile enough to post as is, without giving in to my temptation to wait until it is more complete or more useful.

Without further ado ... click here for a Google Docs spreadsheet with 229 resales of Manhattan lofts since November  [sheet 1], and another 164 deeds filed for new developments [sheet 2].

I am not going to offer much commentary on the data at this point, but will do so in the coming days and weeks. The major improvement over the 30-day sets is that I have included prior sale information for the third of the resale set that have now sold twice in the last five years or so. That is a potentially very rich source of trend analysis.

need a geek
I am not a wizard at spreadsheets (d'oh). If there is a Manhattan Loft Guy reader out there who wants to play with the data in more sophisticated ways than I have done, I would love to hear from you. In the current state, this is pretty much a data dump, with the only calculations for price-per-foot and days-until-contract, and the only sorting being by deed date. There's much more that can be done, but I don't have the talent or time to do more at this point.

Anyone interested??

limitations
The major limiting factor in this data collection is that it is based on my ability to recognize "loft" closings when I periodically scan the list of deeds filed in Manhattan. My former weekly data collections were automatic in the sense that my data source at the time (OLR) was search-able for "lofts" as designated by listing agents. Since I don't have that source since changing firms I have made a choice to only sift through Downtown deeds on StreetEasy, meaning that I am ignoring lofts in the (relatively) few true loft buildings on the Upper East Side or Hell's Kitchen, to use two examples. Call me lazy, but I don't want to sift through every damn closing in Manhattan....

If any of you note a loft closing that I have overlooked (uptown or downtown), let me know and I will track it down and add it.

The data is based on StreetEasy's links to deeds and listing histories. If no "square feet" are in the deed information or the listing, then that field is blank on my spreadsheet and there's no price-per-foot calculation. If there is incomplete information on StreetEasy for listing date or contract date, those fields are blank, and there's no days-to-contract calculation. In a few cases I have made judgments to ignore the reported data on contract date or last listing price because the information just looks wrong to me. For example, a listing history may show a price reduction days before a contract is signed, at a price suspiciously close to the closing price; that looks to me as though a listing agent is manipulating data to suggest that there was only a small discount from asking price.

With that caveat, the data on the spreadsheet should all be verifiable through publicly filed deeds and the inter-firm data base that Corcoran uses. There are probably typos resulting from careless keyboarding when I enter data; I know I have caught a few so it is very likely that I did not catch all. Feel free to let me know of any errors.

At some point I may segregate it by date, or create subsets by date, so that the prime spreadsheet doesn't get more unwieldy. Any suggestions for how to improve this spreadsheets will be considered.

Much more to follow!

COUNTDOWN: 10 ... 9 ... 8 ... 7 ... 6 ... 5 [oops] ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... 0 !!!!!

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

Aug. 21, 2009 - risk, revisited / I am still a coward, but the 'brave' did not sell (yet)

checking back on the Spring
I recently had a conversation with a former shareholder in one of the Manhattan loft buildings that I visited in my March 25 lengthy rumination, am I a coward? assessing + bearing risk in a risky world, as she was curious about how her former neighbor's loft was (was not) selling. So I went back to look at the listing history of the three lofts I used as the specific scenarios that generated this conclusion:
 

None of the three lofts has sold, but each has reacted to The Market a little differently.

One took one (very mild) shot at a price drop, reducing the asking price by 3% after 2 months. It went off the market "temporarily" a few weeks later. Perhaps it will come back after Labor Day. My guess is that it won't be back any time soon, or (if it does come back) that it will come back at a much sharper discount. This seller does not look like someone who

wants to sell.

That one appears to fit this profile, as they have made

serious effort to 'catch up to the active market':

The second one has tried, and tried, and tried. In fact, that one nearly fits one projection I offered on March 25:

That one started a bit under $2mm and dropped the price 3 times, changing the second digit each time. Problem (for them) is that they have dropped 20%+ and they have a 'tired' listing (about half-way to a birthday, so far). They may yet be willing to negotiate to a deal, but they have yet to attract a serious bidder. That female dog --

-- is barking that if they had started in February where they are now they would probably have struck a deal long since.

The third has taken yet another tack, sort of / kind of midway between the other two. That one has dropped twice, but mildly (about 7%, total), in nearly 6 months, with no price change in about 2 months. Manifestly, they have not found the part of The Market where the buyers are (

, they have not been able [willing?] to 'catch up to the active market').

These sellers have seriously upgraded the loft since they bought it some years ago. Perhaps they are overmuch in love with their renovation, fitting this profile in my March 25 rumination:

Their problem -- to date -- is that no one else provably loves their loft as much as they do. Thus, no one has bought it out from under them. Even at the current price (down 7% in nearly 6 months) no one is likely to. Perhaps they plan to drop again after Labor Day, in a more significant way. If they

want to sell (like the second loft mentioned, but unlike the first), I can only hope that my assumption is correct that they have fully understood what they have been doing here:

My guess is that they have gotten similar advice from their agent that the second loft owners got, but have been too stubborn to take it (so far). Absent a more aggressive price, I see this one as lingering on The Market until the listing expires.

In the first case, the more-brave-than-I agent made a 2-month investment of time and effort. In the second case, the more-brave-than-I agent had a seller with a Plan B, but has invested a lot with no return (yet). In the third case, the more-brave-than-I agent has (perhaps) been sucked into a great deal of effort and no reasonable expectation of making a sale until (unless) the sellers change their approach.

To repeat (again!):

I just hope the sellers understood what they were doing, way back when they started these marketing campaigns.

COUNTDOWN: 10 ... 9 ... 8 ... 7 ... 6 ... 5 [oops] ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

© Sandy Mattingly 2009
 

Aug. 19, 2009 - strong pricing hint on lovely loft for sale at 360 West 36 Street

exception to the rule (he's begging me)
Most Manhattan Loft Guy readers understand why I haven't commented on identifiable current listings for the past year and a half. I am going to make an exception for a loft (a) that I really like, and (b) whose listing agent is practically begging me to comment on it. The loft is #10S at 360 West 36 Street; the agent is master blogger / video pioneer Doug Heddings of True Gotham [reminder to DH: you promised to blog more frequently]; the begging is in a comment to my July 29 post, "How about that incredible 2000sf Loft at 360 West 36th Street that will likely trade around $1.25M or so.   That's $625/sf!  Shameless marketing of my own property I know but thought it fit PERFECTLY in this piece." Since Doug's blogging persona (and real life character) is strongly in favor of consumer information and real estate transparency I am confident that he will not mind me talking about his listing here -- though it won't be the same "shameless marketing" as he might do in support of his client the seller.

my opinions, not his
I wholeheartedly agree that this loft is a real opportunity for the right buyer at the price it can sell for ("around $1.25M or so" in Doug's words), though I am somewhat less enthusiastic about some of the adjectives and adverbs he is using to sell it. The good news is that this is a very large loft for the price ("2,008 sq ft", now offered at $1.395mm, down from $1.695mm in January), with terrific light and some views, and a classic loft style. The layout enhances the sense of space, taking advantage of the long run of windows on the south wall (more "light" than "views") and leaving a very large dining area and a "living room" (sitting / media area). The master bedroom on the west looks far out to Jersey (sunsets!).

The overall 'feel' is more funk than sleek, featuring exposed piping and mechanicals, long runs of exposed (ancient) radiators, large steel-frame windows. The kitchen and baths are all modern and well-equipped (the master bath is particularly so). The layout includes a set of closets outside the master bedroom that provide a corridor to the master bath, and an interior room set up as gym and office (with a clever casement window into the living area).

this loft is not for everyone (neighborhood is love-it-or-hate-it)
I brought one buyer to see it and enthusiastically described it to a second. For both, the loft is not bid-worthy at nay price because they don't love the neighborhood. Sitting nearly at Ninth Avenue on a very gritty commercial block, many people are going to be put off by the micro-nabe in which it sits. I can't argue about anyone's personal reaction to the sense of grit, but I definitely encourage anyone who likes that sort of thing to consider this loft. There is definitely some old-school Manhattan loft 'charm' to the grit, and the immediate neighborhood features small theater and arts groups and more food sources than choice restaurants.

The white-box 2003 loft conversion 315 West 36 Street is just down the block (I hit a sale there on June 23), as is some new (mid-scale) hotel, but the street level is dominated by non-residential uses. The 2003 luxe conversion Cass Gilbert at 130 West 30 Street did very well on a block that I find to be much more gritty than this. The Glass Farmhouse at 448 West 37 Street is even more remote than this block (I hit a new listing there way back on December 7, 2007, with some commentary on grit and that neighborhood). And the Cupcake Cafe is around the corner....

As configured, this loft is not set up for a family larger than 3. That gym/office can certainly be converted to an interior sleeping area, but the existing 2d bedroom is rather ... tight. Not only is that 2d bedroom small, but it cannot be enlarged without major surgery (moving the kitchen). In other words, for a big loft the space is not very flexible very inexpensively.

searching for The Market
The #10S seller and very experienced professional agent have been searching for the market value of this loft since January. The current asking price is $1.395mm but the agent has signalled to Manhattan Loft Guy readers (and probably others ;-) that the seller will take at least 10% off that price. At around $625/ft, a sale at that price would be a large discount off the last sale in the building: the "1,250 sq ft" #8NW sold in May 2007 for $1.275mm, after selling in February 2005 at $1.095mm. The 2005 and 2007 sales pair for #8NW is interesting given my recent fixation on 2005 - 2009 pairs (that July 29 post) and because the last "S" unit to sell was #11S, which sold in April 2005 for $1.1mm. (StreetEasy has "no listing associated with this closing" but out system shows that that old Corcoran listing was sold more for its character than finishes ("designer" kitchen, jacuzzi and glass block shower aside; 1980s much??).

The #10S sellers and True Gotham hope that 2005 is not the correct market frame for measuring value here.


COUNTDOWN: 10 ... 9 ... 8 ... 7 ... 6 ... 5 [oops] ... 4 ... 3 ...
 

[Update 2 PM: sorry about the multiple posts of the same thing today; the platform was a little squirelly and I kept hitting "send" without being able to see that it had posted]

© Sandy Mattingly 2009
 

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

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

Aug. 16, 2009 - Porter House loft may be "beyond the beyond" but sells off a million, up 40% or down 25%

context tells the story, but what's the context?
The Manhattan loft #3W at 66 Ninth Avenue (The Porter House) was marketed very enthusiastically at prices The Market was not ready for. It cleared on June 23 at $2.15mm, which is a difficult number to put in context. In the context of neighborly competition, it got killed. In the context of past sales, it has been up and down. But first, some listing history ....

This loft flirted (teased?) The Market for a few months in 2007, when they were asking $4.2mm. (Same firm, different agent.) When it came back to market in May 2008, they were asking $3.25mm and competing with the upstairs neighbors in #4W, who were then asking $2.85mm. 

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

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

Those 2006 buyers got killed by the 2009 market.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

- 'nuff said