9 Murray Street #8W closes at just over $1,000/month / neighbor does faster (is higher better??)

It is not often that I can talk about a Manhattan loft sale in terms of dollars per month, but this one is just too good to pass up. The bonus angle is that a next door neighbor had a very different experience, closing a week earlier, permitting some fun analysis about who might be happier.

9 Murray Street #8W (StreetEasy link is here ) closed after 2.5 years, starting in January 2006 and ending with a deed filed (that is now visible in city records) on June 26. It was being actively marketed for all but about ten weeks over that long run around the turn of this past year, with six different prices (one of which repeated). At 30 months from start to finish and the clearing price of $3.1mm, that comes out to $1,033/month.

More conventionally, this "2,700 sq ft" condo loft traded at $1,148/ft — a far cry from where they started in January 2006, $3.9mm. in between, they were at $3.75mm for ten months, $3.595mm for one month, $3.5mm for four months, $3.35mm for six months, then that ten week hiatus, and $3.25mm for one month before bouncing back to $3.35mm for the final two months before finding a contract that closed.

confusing name, no?
The Franklin Building is a 5 minute walk from Franklin Street, oddly enough, just off City Hall Park. The building was converted to condos about eight years ago by Alchemy (just before September 11, 2001).

no detail overlooked
The layout is classic Long-and-Narrow, with plumbing on both long sides in the middle and the significant bonus of 7 windows along one long side and 3 in a corner of the other long side. So there are 3 real bedrooms, plus an open den that can easily be closed. The condition is said to be of the no-detail-untouched level, with the "highest level" of materials and a Poggenpohl kitchen.

jealous of the neighbor?
During that ten week hiatus for #8W around the turn of the year, one of the immediate neighbors (#8SE) came to market, with a much quicker happy ending. This "2,800 sq ft" loft is of the every-inch-newly-renovated variety and was viewed by The Market as much more appealing than its neighbor. They started in January at $3.875mm, found a buyer with a contract by March and closed at $3.775mm with a deed filed on June 19, a week before the #8W deed was filed. That’s about $1,350/ft, a full $200/ft higher than the long-suffering owner of #8W.

why the disparity?
#8SE has an "L" footprint, permitting the master suite to be at the opposite wing of the loft than the other 2 bedrooms. While the text of the two listings suggest they are of a similar level of finishes, it is hard to judge that from the pictures (particularly as there are relatively few for #8W). The pix for #8SE leave no doubt, however, that this is the "meticulous" renovation that is claimed. I have to believe that The Market reacted to a finishes gap between the two listings — the "magnificent custom mill work" and the "state of the art" custom audio system are very likely emblematic of that gap.

My guess is that the no-detail-untouched finishes of #8W are the original (8 year old) finishes, which compared poorly to the "newly renovated" condition of #8SE. Certainly, anyone who saw one during the 2 months or so that they overlapped on the market also saw the other. The tortured history of one, compared to the quick success of the other tells the recent story in broad strokes. Some details from earlier history suggest that the #8W seller did not do too badly at all, after all.

who made out?
The #8SE June 2008 seller was a buyer in November 2005 at $2.8mm — long enough ago that the "newly renovated" work was done after this November 2005 purchase. If the renovation cost only $200/ft (see the comments to my December 10, 2007 need renovation stories / a reader writes for help for the basis for using that ballpark figure), the cost-plus-renovation for #8SE comes to about $3.36mm — sharply reducing the apparent again on the ‘high’ price in June of $3.775mm. (I wonder how the November 2005 sale of #8SE at $2.8mm figured into the decision to sell #8W asking $3.9mm two months later.)

In contrast, the #8W June seller was an original buyer in November 2000. I don’t see a sales price, but the original mortgage on the unit was $618,750. (The original #8SE owner had a mortgage of $712k in December 2000.) If I am right in inferring that #8W was just sold without a substantial renovation from its original 2000 condition, the fact that they sold for ‘only’ $3.1mm in June compared to #8SE at $3.775mm probably did not make them very unhappy. They may have been anxiousvarious times in the two and a half years #8W took to sell, but they should not be unhappy. Not a bad ‘investment’.