if at first … 24 East 22 Street closes after trying again, and again

a long strange trip
This is one of those posts that changed 180 degrees in a long gestation. It had a simple starting point (a Manhattan loft sold that had been marketed in 2006), with an extended series of didn’t sell at that price moments. It took a turn when the recent clearing price was compared to No Sale prices around The Peak. Then it took another turn when I found a curious very comparable sale during this extended marketing period. Throw in a few digressions and, well, it is another meandering Manhattan Loft Guy walkabout.

Bear with me, as this one proves that I never know where I will end up when I start one of these "the Manhattan loft at [wherever] recently closed at [whatever]" posts.

This particular story starts in Rupert Murdoch’s empire, sadly.

2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
The Manhattan loft on the 5th floor at 24 East 22 Street had something of a tough time getting sold, though you’d never know it from the Just Sold feature in last week’s NY Post. A complete look at the listing history show that this loft took the better part of four years to go from A to Z — not the 14 weeks shown in the Post.

Our data-base shows that the owner started trying to sell this loft by himself throughout 2006, asking $2.95mm. He hooked up with BHS in July 2007, first asking $2.9mm, then $2.795mm in September, then $2.695mm in March 2008, until the listing petered out later in March 2008. (Ouch! Note that he missed The Peak.) He jumped back on that horse in January 2009 (in a chilly market), asking $2.549mm, then $2.349mm before that listing petered out last Summer.

persistence (finally) pays (big!)
When he came back to The Market on February 8, 2010 he was at the right price to attract a bid ($2.5mm), and signed a contract by March 17, so if you really looked at (only recent) velocity, that looks like a very fast sale when it closed on April 9. (That’s less than 9 weeks, all in, and less tahn 6 weeks to contract; where does 14 weeks come from??)

Nonetheless, it is odd that he came back to the market at a higher price than the last unsuccessful price. Also odd that his market reward was a contract at $2,243,700 (just judging from the not-round number, that must have been an interesting negotiation).

glowing, and growing
The loft has been variously described as "2,150 sq ft" (this listing), "2,000 sq ft" (a prior listing), and "1,764 sq ft" (the Shark); more on that below. It has also been described glowingly: a "must see", with 14 foot ceilings, "constant" light from 3 exposures (unusually for a Long-and-Narrow, there are five long-side windows that are pretty spread out along that side), renovated baths and kitchen, central air, surround sound and "abundant" closets. The floor plan reveals one bizarre choice: look to see where the "door" to the master bedroom is, compared to the door to the 2nd bedroom. I can’t see that arrangement working for too many people (assuming it is portrayed accurately).

the folks downstairs did not want a triplex
Hindsight is supposed to be a female dog, right? Remember above that I noted that when one of the prior attempts to sell petered out in March 2008, this seller had missed The Peak? I mean, it is not fair to assume he should have known, is it? And, is it fair to assume that The Peak is THE Peak?? (As you will see, the mind reels.)

As it happens, the guy downstairs figured out a price that would sell, though he also had a unique structural advantage and a much greater motivation. The 4th floor overlapped the first BHS campaign for #5, as it came to market in December 2007 at $2.695mm, dropped to $2.45mm in February, $2.25mm in March, and $1.85mm in April, before finding a contract in June at $1.8mm (closed on July 16).

That price sequence evidences a high level of motivation, with serial price drops of 9%, 8% and 18% over the space of only about ten weeks, from $2.695mm to $1.85mm. Over those same ten weeks, #5 was priced at $2.795mm and (briefly) $2.695mm before being exhausted for the balance of 2008.

paging Kenny Rogers
So which neighbor made the better move? The one who kept dropping the price to get The Best Deal Available In That Market (the 4th floor)? Or the one who lived to sell another day, after being continually rejected by The Market, even though that overall market was the strongest sellers market ever??

When #4 finally sold, it sold to a unique buyer: the owners of the 3rd floor since April 2005 ($1.675mm) bought the 4th floor in July 2008 ($1.8mm). The 4th floor had been exposed to the entire marketplace for 6 months by the time that contract was signed in June 2008, without finding a non-local buyer. Or any buyer at all before dropping the price from $2.695mm to $1.85mm. I guess the price just got to be too attractive to those 3rd floor neighbors. I wonder where they put the connecting stairs?

The Peak (somehow) wasn’t The LOCAL Peak
All that said, note that the 5th floor seller got quite a bit more money in 2010 than his downstairs neighbor selling into The Peak, $2,243,700 compared to $1.8mm. How weird is that?? (Very.)

These two overlapping price histories are simply not rational. If #5 is really worth $2.25mm now, then #4 had to have been ‘worth’ a lot more than $1.8mm in June 2008; if the value for #4 was right in 2008, then #5 should have been worth a lot less than its clearing price in 2010.

Bizarre. The only difference between the two units is that the 4th floor lacks the 5 west (long) side windows on the 5th floor. Truly bizarre.

I am not trying to make your head spin here, honest; just to slow down my own spinning. Note also that this 5th floor loft sold for $1.9mm way back in August of 2004. That’s $225k more than the 4th floor 8 months later, and $100k less than the same 4th floor loft in July 2008. While general market conditions in 2004 were lovely, they have never been confused with the frothiest period in Manhattan residential real estate.

Repeat after me: The Market is not (always) rational. I can’t say any more than that. (I keep trying, but it doesn’t help me explain anything.)

those awkward (square) feet
One final numbers game. Property Shark does not have building dimensions for 24 East 22 Street, but it is a condo and the Shark thinks the city thinks these full-floor lofts are only "1,764 sq ft", as opposed to the "2,150 sq ft" or "2,000 sq ft" in different listing descriptions. Taking the width of the building at 22 feet (as in the 4th floor floor plan) and the length as 89 feet (as in the 5th floor floor plan), the footprint is 1,958 sq ft before adjusting for the public stair and elevator. Let’s just say that it is disappointing that our data-base carries this space at a higher number than 1,746, especially at two different higher numbers.
 

© Sandy Mattingly 2010