270 Broadway loft sellers prove to be quite flexible

the runt of the “B litter in southeast Tribeca
I don’t know enough about yoga to pun well (as you are about to find out), but the quite flexible sellers of the “2,554 sq ft” Manhattan loft #21B at 270 Broadway (Tower 270) had to be flexible to get a deal: they started the most recent marketing campaign at $2.7mm on May 20, but the drop to $2.495mm on July 19 is what did the trick … that, and the negotiating flexibility to take another deep haircut to sign the contract by August 30 that just closed (on October 14) at $2.065mm.

Yes, negotiating to a 23.5% discount from original ask and a 17.2% discount from last ask is quite flexible, particularly as that was done within 5 months. But what really makes this sale a downward facing dog is the comparison to other sales in the “2,554 sq ft” “B” line since The Peak:

• May 20, 2011 #19B $2.325mm
• Aug 31, 2010 #16B $2.2mm
• Oct 22, 2009 #17B $2.225mm

These three prior sales are within a tolerably narrow range (5.4%) yet each is appreciably higher than the recent #21B sale (from 6.5% to 12.6% higher). Go figure (please).

fainting from the damn praise
I take a couple of things away from having looked at the broker babble for these Bs. First, the floor plan must be described as “sprawling”, as 3 sets of agents from 3 different firms all used that modifier. Second, I was beginning to think that the faint praise babbled for #21B might suggest a difference in interior finish quality, but the unit was bought freshly renovated from the sponsor only in 2003.

Apparently, this famous team walks their babble through the lobby. Here is the faint praise for #21B:

Sprawling 3 bedroom 3.5 bath home in a beautifully restored full-service Art Deco condominium. Through the elegant, 24-hour attended terrazzo and polished marble lobby, 3 high-speed elevators await to whisk you to this 21st floor retreat. A full-sized foyer leads to a large living room with city views, generous dining area, and open Bulthaup kitchen featuring Miele & SubZero appliances. Bedrooms are accessed through a separate wing, providing a gracious flow of space and privacy from the living areas. This cheerful apartment gives you city views throughout, and Hudson River views from 2 exposures in the master bedroom.

Not a lot of interior bragging to match the building (“full-service Art Deco condominium”), the lobby (“elegant, 24-hour attended terrazzo and polished marble lobby”), or even the elevators (“3 high-speed elevators await to whisk you…”). Apart from name-ckecking the kitchen, the babble claims space and charm (“full-sized foyer” + “large living room” + “generous dining area” + bedrooms with a “gracious flow of space and privacy” + [the coup de grace, in summary] a “cheerful apartment”).

Hard to say from the descriptions that #21B is in a materially different condition than #19B earlier this year, #16B in 2010, or #17B in 2009. Not a 6.5% difference in condition, let alone a 12.6% difference in condition. If anything, one would think, #21B being almost 60 feet higher than #16B should generate some sort of premium for light, if not view. Nahhh.

hate to use the G word
I mentioned up top that the #21B sale at $2.065mm capped the “most recent marketing campaign”. The prior campaign did not do so well, having gotten a late start vis-a-vis The Peak:

Having missed The Peak by at least a few months, the #21B “sellers” were then slow to react to the post-Lehman market conditions, but they (and another neighbor) may have helped the 17th floor folks sell.

Compare that #21B history to the barely overlapping in time (but not price)  #17B:

It took a while, even after #21B left the market at $2.4mm, for #17B to strike that deal at $2.225mm. #19B was helpful (to #17B) for a little push that year:

I won’t say that the two unsuccessful “B” line sellers at 270 Broadway were greedy in 2009, but I will say that (assuming they really wanted to sell then) they mis-perceived the market.

the good news starts with 17, the bad with 8
There is some good news for the #21B sellers, at least relatively. They were not the original purchasers from the sponsor in 2003, but they bought in an early resale at only a slight premium to the sponsor’s price. The party names and unit sizes line up for this to be the sponsor sale of #21B (December 18, 2003 at $1,701,780) and this to be the first resale (July 8, 2004 at $1,730,475).

It is not what the 2004-buyers-turned-2009-non-sellers-turned-2011-sellers really wanted, but they sold 3 weeks ago at a 19% premium over that 7-year-old purchase.

Of course I have no explanation why this #21B sale is such an outlier to the other Bs. I traditionally blame a thin market for outcomes such as these. The notice address for the sellers (here) hints that they may have reason to have been more motivated in 2011 than they were last time, and why this time they started in nearly the same place as last time but took a big haircut. Maybe they had already moved to California and wanted (really wanted) to be done with it.

The $808/ft for #21B is the lowest dollar/ft in the tower portion of the building since the owner of #22A persuaded the owners of the "2,113 sq ft" #22B to sell to her on May 28, 2009 for $796/ft, without a broker; before that, $808/ft was ‘surpassed’ most ‘recently’ when the sponsor sold that same #22B on April 5, 2005 for $716/ft.

I will entertain any other theory for why #21B just did so historically poorly, dear readers, if you would be so kind….

© Sandy Mattingly 2011