415 Greenwich Street loft resale clobbers sponsor at Tribeca Summit, nears record
this may sting
The recent sellers of the “2,318 sq ft” Manhattan loft #3A at 415 Greenwich Street in the 2008 new development Tribeca Summit must have been paying attention. They no doubt noted the two most recent sales in the building: that #5B set a building record when it sold in October 2011 with significant upgrades in condition at $1,560/ft; and that the sponsor finally sold the highly relevant loft #8A on February 1 at $3.35mm.
So when they brought #3A to market on May 25 they stayed out of record territory and asked that same $3.35mm to let The Market tell them how big a discount there should be for the 5 floors difference in height (with 12’6” ceilings heights, that’s not nothing) in the “A” line. Who do you think was more surprised by The Market’s answer, the #3A sellers or the sponsor? Loft #3A took all of 3 weeks to find a contract at a 4.6% premium to the ask (and to the #8A clearing price).
Let’s do that again, with the numbers:
|#8A||asked $3.6mm||sold Feb 1||$3.35mm|
|#3A||asked $3.35mm||sold Aug 13||$3.505mm|
On a ranked dollar per foot basis, the last eight 3-bedroom sales in the building, going back through 2011:
|$1,560/ft||#5B||Oct 3, 2011|
|$1,512/ft||#3A||Aug 13, 2012|
|$1,445/ft||#8A||Feb 1, 2012|
|$1,389/ft||#8G||April 6, 2011|
|$1,305/ft||#5A||May 6, 2011|
|$1,276/ft||#THF||April 14, 2011|
|$1,276/ft||#THD||Mar 29, 2011|
|$1,266/ft||#6G||Feb 10, 2011|
It does not seem likely that the #3A sellers maintained their loft over 4 years much better than whatever tenants did to #8A, or that (if there had been any unusual wear and tear upstairs) the sponsor would not have brought everything back to original sale condition. (The recent #3A sellers paid $3,105,662, including the transfer fees, when they bought on May 20, 2008 from the sponsor.) And we know that in that set of eight 3-bedroom sales in 2012 and 2011, only #5B was in upgraded condition from when the units were first sold in 2008, yet even #5B in setting a building record was at a mere 3% premium to #3A on a dollar per foot basis.
A couple of things are obvious. There was more than one very interested suitor for #3A three months ago, and none of them were interested in #8A more than three months before that. In other words, these #3A suitors were not in the market for a “2,318 sq ft” 3 bedroom loft with behind the Holland Tunnel spillways in Tribeca above $3mm when they could have bought #8A for $3.35mm or so.
Neither the #3A buyer at $3.505mm not the sponsor seller of #8A at $3.35mm is laughing, but there is no (rational) explanation for this pair of sales. It is just one of those The Market Is Funny Sometimes, In’it? moments. (Funny peculiar; not funny ha-ha.)
it gets worse
You can see why the sponsor* was willing to take $3.35mm for #8A this year if you look at the history of #5A, another of these same-line lofts sold by the sponsor after (one hopes) a tenant or two since 2007. (The floor plans are identical for these three “A”s, except that the entry doors might be in a different place in each.)
|Mar 23, 2006||new to market||$3.1mm|
|June 7, 2007||$3.2mm|
|Jan 25, 2008||$3.5mm|
|July 22||back on market|
|May 11, 2009||hiatus|
|Jan 7, 2010||back on market|
|Nov 17||back on market|
|Feb 10, 2011||contract|
With this odyssey, $3.025mm for #5A was manifestly a relief 18 months ago. With that market premise, selling #8A a year after #5A at $3.35mm probably felt like progress.
And then #3A this month at $3.505mm? Ha-ha.
*not the same sponsor
I don’t have the details to link to at hand, but “the sponsor” that recently sold #8A (and #5A, less recently) is not the same as “the sponsor” who marketed these lofts beginning in 2006. I don’t recall where the break falls, but it looks like it was after that May 2009 hiatus, and that the recent sales were by (lenders?) who took over the project when the original developer got ground up in the post-Lehman financial squeeze and market freese. The StreetEasy building page will give you dates of closings and corporate sellers if you want to see precisely when the break occurred, how many lofts were closed in the first efforts, and how many were after the sales efforts were revived. Knock yourself out.
new locution alert
I never noticed this before, but the sponsor’s broker babble has a peculiar locution to describe condition. I was going to say that I don’t think it will catch on, but the reselling agents for #3A
stole flattered it in their own 2012 babble:
every detail has been tediously tended to
Tediously. Not meticulously, which implies a high level of interest, if not craft. Tediously, as though someone was getting bored with it …. Which can happen if you have been triyng to sell these suckers in each year since 2006.
Still don’t think it will catch on.
© Sandy Mattingly 2012