motivated seller sells classic Soho walk-up loft barely above 2005 at 477 Broome Street

the proof is in the ask
The seller of the very well-dressed but also well-staired “982 sq ft”* Manhattan (mini) loft #34 at 477 Broome Street proved she was motivated by asking for a modest premium over the price she paid in 2005, and by taking a small discount to sign a contract at a tiny premium over 2005. Had  she been less motivated, she would have started higher and refused to budge if no one made her a deal in a year. Oh wait …

June 24, 2005 sold $1.15mm
Sept 22, 2009 new to market $1.295mm
Sept 24, 2010 off market  
Oct 24, 2011 new to market $1.195mm
Dec 19 contract  
Mar 14, 2012 sold $1.16mm

The resale at a $10,000 gain over her 2005 purchase (0.087%) was hardly sufficient to pay her sales fee, but she got out.  Her recent asking price 3.9% over her 2005 purchase wouldn’t pay that either, but she got out. Unlike her experience in 2009 and 2010, when (it appears) she did not need to get out. We don’t know what her recent motivation was; we just know it was there.

idiosyncrasy is in the eye of the beholder
You know the Conventional Wisdom that warns people against unusual STRIKE unconventional design and color choices? I know at least two sellers who did not subscribe to that CW.

That 2005 seller changed the look of this loft sometime after buying it in 2001. I can’t tell  from the pictures if that mottled look on the  long left wall as you enter is concrete, a concrete finish, or (if painted) some waxed (“Venetian”) plaster or paint, and none of the babble helps. (Perhaps that is the most clear indication that it is just paint.) Whatever it is, it is an unusual unconventional choice.

The babble does not give you any help in figuring out how extensive the  “sublime” renovation was. You can’t see the original floor plan, but it has not changed since the sponsor sold it in 2001. I suspect the renovation was limited to that wall finish (whatever it is), plus the bragged-about built-ins, and maybe the stone bathroom was upgraded. Even post-renovation, the kitchen is bragged about as (ahem) “open”. The 2005 seller did whatever was done, and was rewarded for it: she bought in March 2001 at $491,000, “sublimely renovated” to whatever degree, and sold in June 2005 at $1.15mm.

The 2005-buyer-turned-2012-seller also loved the look, enough to go to war for it. You can’t see the 2005 listing photos or information on StreetEasy, but our data-base shows pix with the same finishes and a frothy history: offered on January 12, 2005 at $995,000, in contract by February 2 and closed on June 28 at that $1.15mm, a 15.6% premium over ask.

By the time that 2005-buyer-turned-wannabe-seller wanted to sell in September 2009, the overall Manhattan residential real estate market had been thawing out for at least a calendar quarter, yet she could not sell at (only) a  9% premium over her 2005 purchase price. For a year. (Yes, she was stubborn.) Evidently, there were fewer people interested in the unusual unconventional choice of wall finishes, at least if they had to walk up two flights of stairs to get there.

The fickle market does as the fickle market does. What in 2005 was worth $1.15mm could not be sold in 2009 or 2010 at a reasonable discount to $1.295mm,.and garnered only $1.16mm  in 2012.
* StreetEasy says “1,050 sq ft”, but we have “982 sq ft” in our data-base

© Sandy Mattingly 2012


Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply