(not very) recent NY Times Residential Sales / 22 Mercer Street loft sold in February

silly me
I just checked the fine print in this past Sunday’s NY Times feature Residential Sales Around the Region and was surprised not to see the word "recent" modifying "sales" anywhere on the page. I have just been assuming that the sales reported in this feature would be recent sales … how newsworthy is old data?? Newsworthy or not, the one loft in Sunday’s report closed 4 months ago. Weird. (I assume that the reporting firm [Corcoran, which must have represented the buyer, not the seller/developer] recently sent it to the Times; after all how newsworthy is old data??)

aged sale, long time coming
The common charge and tax data for the 22 Mercer Street loft reported as taking 3 weeks from "most recent listing to the sales agreement [i.e., contract]" correspond to Unit 4D, with a sales price of $3.55mm. Couple of things are interesting about the timing. First, according to city records this was the first sale of this unit (i.e., not a resale, but a direct sale from the developer) in a 16 unit building in which the first condo sales were in December 2006. Second, that "3 weeks" may be technically true but is essentially untrue: yes, the deed was recorded on February 14, the contract was signed (per our inter-firm data base) on January 16 and the "most recent listing" was December 27 BUT that followed 2 weeks of being "temporarily off the market". In fact, the unit had been marketed by Halstead beginning October 1, 2007. In fact, the unit had been represented by Corcoran from October 2005 into January 2007, then taken off the market for more than 9 months by the developer, who then switched to Halstead.

The developer kept raising the ante over this long time, by the way. According to the available listing history, they started with Corcoran at $2,750,800 on October 3, 2005,  immediately pulled it off the market (October 4), then jumped to $3.15mm when it came back on February 27, 2006 and again to $3.3mm on June 28, 2006, where it sat until being taken off the market on January 5, 2007. When it was revived with Halstead on October 1, 2007 they offered it at $3.6mm.

some contracts during construction
Remember 2005? That was back when it was fairly common for buyers to buy in new development off floor plans and examples of finishes. The #2D history shows a similar (though shorter) history: originally offered on October 3, 2005 for $2,392,000, then raised quickly (October 6) to $2.55mm, then taken off the market on October 25 until March 17, 2006 when it returned at $2.95mm. It found a buyer and contract May 15 and closed on January 12, 2007. Apparently, they did not like the (low) level of sales activity beginning in October 2005, but found the stage of construction more conducive to contracts by Spring 2006. Except for #4D, of course.

one more, and I will stop
#3D has an interesting history, according to our data base. Offered in October 2005 at $2,631,200 then pulled back, and then the data got garbled. Not sure when the contract was signed, but the developed sold to someone who — per the data on Street Easy — flipped it through PruDE, starting at $3.495mm in January 2007, dropped immediately to $3.395mm (so quick the first resale price may have been a typo), then in contract by February 22 and closed by March 29, 2007 at $3.2mm.

This is a bit garbled because StreetEasy does not show the original sale, just the flip in March 2007. Property Shark, in contrast, does not show the flip, but does show the original sale at $2.2mm as being recorded on March 27, 2007. Perhaps this flip was an assignment?? So the original buyer bought at $2.2mm (the Property Shark price) and transferred the same day at $3.2mm (the StreetEasy price)??

Whatever, the key is that the flipper/assignor in #3D began to offer that unit in January 2007 at $3.395mm just 3 weeks after the developer pulled #4D off the market after not selling at $3.3mm — and #3D got a contract and closing in March at $3.2mm, while the developer waited until October 2007 to bring #4D back at $3.6mm. Fortunately for the developer (and for Halstead), #4D ended up fetching $355k more than #3D, though I bet the developer made a concession about transfer taxes.

I have to stop. That was so garbled even I have to go back and look at the numbers in order to follow what I am saying here. Let’s just say — if you have followed along this far — that the #4D sale reported in last Sunday’s Times was not "recent" and that the developer recouped on #4D a Little of what it ‘lost’ on #3D (after all, the #3D flipper grossed $1mm but had to pay at least one set of closing costs, probably two).

as always…

To keep up with this building fairly easily, check the StreetEasy page for this condo here.

 
© Sandy Mattingly 2008