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