415 Greenwich Street loft closes up 1% from original price (2005), 22% off 2008 ask

was there a Peter Principle for new developments heading into The Peak?
As with many new development lofts marketed in pre-construction and pre-Peak days, the Manhattan loft #6F at 415 Greenwich Street, Tribeca Summit, has a complicated listing history, with many significant events having occurred ‘behind the curtain’ and not visible to the naked eye (even to the inter-firm data-base).

This Manhattan loft had been marketed from October 2005 (per our data-base), instead of a year later as reflected in StreetEasy (you will see that the first appearance on StreetEasy is "already in contract"). Given that it just closed at $3.35mm, the difference is significant: up barely 1% from the original ask of October 2005 but down 4% off the StreetEasy first price of October 2006. Sometime after that "already in contract" contract failed, this loft showed up again in StreetEasy (but not in our data-base!?) as back on the market and in contract on April 14, 2008 (pretty much exactly The Peak) asking $4.29mm. At which point it disappears from StreetEasy and from our data-base until it closed on July 30 at that $3.35mm. Got that? Let’s unpack….

Intentionally or otherwise, new development owners make it hard to track what is ‘for sale’ at any given point (I have a strong opinion, but yours may be different), this loft being an excellent example. It is hard to comp in a building in which the ‘available’ inventory on a visit to the sales office is different from what is available (and at what price) in even industry data-bases.

exuberance, rational and other
One way to look at the (essentially flat) first offering price for this Manhattan loft in 2005 and the clearing price five years later is the developer was right. After all, they ‘correctly’ predicted the closing price from the get go!

Another way to look at the original asking price is that it was the base line from which the developer attempted to learn from actual signed and closed contracts to squeeze as much money as possible from these lofts, and that the developer kept raising prices to a point at which the loft could not sell. Sort of a Peter Principle for asking prices. Genius! (Not.)

In this case, the public asking prices generated at least two contracts, though neither closed. That April 14, 2008 contract off the then-asking price of $4.29mm must have been very distracting for the developer, as it prevented the developer form finding a contract with a qualified buyer who was actually ready and able to buy for another two+ years.

In the meantime, stuff happened, as recounted by Curbed on May 14:

In the case of #6F, there was no visible Price Chop and I have no way to determine what the whisper price was for this loft. Net, net, they accepted 22% less than the last published asking price, comfortably within the range of discounts I discussed for a slew of June closings I noted the last time I was in this building, talking about the haircuts a developer would take to sell out (July 15,

more developer haircuts, as 415 Greenwich lofts cut to close

), generating

a Price Chopper link from Curbed

(

thx

again, Sara!).

a logical link to a Curbed post

As I noted in my recent On Vacation (mea culpa) blog post, August 17,

among the things that conflict with blogging …

, I had made some quick notes for future posts even while traveling (drinking, sightseeing, drinking, walking, drinking) in California this week. The #6F closing was one such note. Happily enough, it gibes nicely with a Curbed post from yesterday about another developer-at-the-barber, in that case a reverse trajectory than #6F at the Tribeca Summit. As

noted there yesterday

, Penthouse 1 at 60 Beach Street just closed at 8% off the last asking price, but 32% off the original (

pre

-Peak) asking price.

So goes the linking feedback loop between Manhattan Loft Guy and Curbed. Back to the pool in Thousand Oaks CA, while (another) beer chills. Cocktails at five….

© Sandy Mattingly 2010