Lion's Head loft resale up a tad since 2006 at 121 West 19 Street

depending on how big “a tad” is
Until a Manhattan Loft Guy groupie out there does the precise math, I am going to estimate that the all-time favorite MLG Manhattan loft building is the Lion’s Head, 121 West 19 Street, at least in terms of number of hits. (If I have tagged all those posts correctly, they will be collected here, though I may have not tagged some very early posts.)

There was a frenzy when sales launched back in the day (2005), with people lined up down the block (and around the corner!) to get into the sales office. And there has been a healthy resale market ever since. The most recent participant is the “1,915 sq ft” Manhattan loft #5G at the Lion’s Head, which sold 5 weeks ago up a mere 6% over the 2006 sponsor price. From the numbers in the brief marketing campaign, I am guessing that the sellers were disappointed in that result, given that they paid $1,883,762 to get in:

Three months to contract is hardly extreme, and it only took a single price drop to get there. But that last jump was to negotiate a discount of 11%, which was 15% lower than where they started in July. Worse, they were probably conversant with the history of other original purchasers (perhaps through Manhattan Loft Guy!) and expected to do better.

in a world in which +26% is niggardly
I last hit the Lion’s Head in my November 2, Lion’s Head loft sells above ask after changing firms, in which I replayed the Then vs. Now theme, where ‘then’ was original sponsor pricing in 2006. The top line info is that loft #2B had just sold at 49% above the 2006 sponsor price. Forty-nine percent!

But my Lion’s Head visit before that one was in my September 2, raise the price to get the price, as Lion’s Head loft sells after oddly successful campaign, about the unusual asking price history of loft #2C, which resold at a 57% premium to the sponsor sale (ignoring an intervening sale). Fifty-seven percent!!

I noted on November 2 the lack of a consistent pattern of 2006 v. 2011 prices:

I would not read too much into this exercise, as there is not a standard for the building, by which to compare 2011-over-2006 gains. The last sale before #2C was #9F, with a much different post-sponsor history. Loft #9F sold on June 9 at $1.475mm, almost five years to the day after the sponsor sale (June 12, 2006 at $1,170, 987). That computes to a niggardly 5-year gain of 26%. (I hit that one in my July 6, Lion’s Head loft sale hits the number at 26% over 2006.)

I see that I need to recalibrate my niggardly scale. The 26% gain for #9F was small in comparison to #2B and #2C, but compared to #9F at 26% the recent #5G sale at a 6% premium is very small. Indeed, the new market value is just a tad higher than the 2006 sponsor value.

Looked at another way, however, the recent #5G sale at $1,044/ft is not dramatically lower than other loft sales in the building this year, though at $1,044/ft it is in the lower ranks:

• #8D* $1,109/ft
• #4F* $1,099/ft
• #9F $1,081/ft
• #2C $1,080/ft
• #5G $1,044/ft
• #2B $920/ft

(I fit that #8D sale into the 2006 v. 2011 in my June 1, flipped early, Lion’s Head loft later gains only 4.8% since 2006, in which the interesting thing was that the immediate flipper soaked up most of that gain; #4F sold at a significant premium to ask, to the owner next door, causing me to wonder about extortion in my January 31, buying (+ overpaying) next door at 121 West 19 Street loft (Lion’s Head, revisited).)

Using the price-per-foot index, not only did #5G not do that badly in comparison (off a tad, you might say), but even if it had been at #8D’s level it would have cleared at only $2.05mm.

In that context, you can see that the #5G marketing campaign was a stretch from the get go. In this case, it seems that the sponsor priced #5G aggressively in 2006 (above market, if that makes sense; at least, above the other sponsor prices). That ‘high’ 2006 is what really makes #5G perform so poorly on the Then v. Now scale. Compared on the $/ft scale, #5G is within the range of other 2011 sales (considering being off 6% from the top performer and 1.3% from the average as market noise).

© Sandy Mattingly 2011