another picture of the trough, as 92 Chambers Street loft sells up 37% over 2009

can’t explain the 2007, however
I am going to try not to get too distracted by the new development sale in 2007 of the “1,353 sq ft” Manhattan loft on the 2nd floor at 92 Chambers Street, as I don’t know in what condition it was then sold for $992,794. Instead, I am intrigued by the spread between the 2009 sale (as “newly renovated”) for $1.3mm and the recent sale at $1.785mm. That gain of 37% from the nuclear winter market is an outlier at that level, yet it illustrates that the thin chilly market conditions extant after the Lehman bankruptcy were especially cruel to some lofts. In this case, at least the 2009 sellers cleared higher than their 2007 purchase, possibly even after factoring in their renovation cost. Most people who had to sell in 2009 had much more painful arithmetic.

seems to be the same loft as in 2009
The broker babble from 2009 includes:

fully restored with today’s modern amenities … great light, impeccable oak floors, multiple closets, marble baths with Grohe fixtures, washer and dryer, your own central air conditioning system, …. kitchen features custom birch cabinetry, accented with stainless steel handles, and a honed black granite countertop. All new Wolf and SubZero appliances.

While the 2012 edition suggests the bathroom fixtures may have been changed (unless one set is in error; why switch out one set of high-end fixtures for another?):

sun-flooded kitchen, dining area and living room that boast 10’5 ceilings, exposed brick and four large windows facing Chambers Street. The modern kitchen offers a Wolf six-burner stove and oven, 36" Subzero refrigerator and freezer, dishwasher, vented hood and Jerusalem limestone back splash. Bathrooms are finished in a beautiful, unique marble with Kohler and Axor fixtures. Vented Maytag washer/ dryer.

Neither of the 2009 listings that have survived on StreetEasy contain a floor plan, but our listing system shows the same layout then as the floor plan in the recent listing (not a foolproof indication). In other words, apart from (possibly) changing Grohe bathroom fixtures to Kohler and Axor, the loft that sold on December 17 for $1.785mm seems to be the same loft that sold for $1.3mm in November 2009.

(That floor plan, by the way, is a classic Long-and-Narrow, nearly 23 feet at the front and back with 4 windows at each end, and plumbing on both long sides. The original 2007 layout was described as 3-bedrooms, meaning the developer must have squeezed an en suite master (with cedar closet) into the front corner. Note that there is nothing in the babble about the quality of the windows, and that the living room is just one flight up above the Chmabers Street sidewalks and traffic.)

Smartypants readers will complain that November 2009 is a little late for a trough sale, which is generally true as the overall Manhattan residential real estate market experienced a thaw beginning in mid-2009. But the loft was exposed to the market since February 2009 (still in nuclear winter), only to be ignored for 9 months:

Feb 16, 2009 new to market $1.35mm
July 6 change firms  
Nov 18 sold $1.3mm

(I can’t find when it went into contract, darn that REBNY non-compliance.) Despite the late closing date (late for The Trough, I mean), two things tell me this was a trough sale: the lack of activity by Summer 2009, and the November 2009 price compared to December 2012 (that 37% premium).

I used a smaller 2009-to-2012 spread in the headline for my November 26, 2012, particularly deep trough discovered, as 335 Greenwich Street loft sells 31% over 2009. That post also noted two other then-recent Manhattan Loft Guy posts about 2012 sales revealing the depth of the 2009 trough: my October 17, 2012, psst! wanna see a picture of The Trough? look at 477 Broome Street loft sold in 2009 and 2012, and my November 2, 2012, renovation after 2007 gets 55 N. Moore Street loft 15% over 2009.

If the marketplace keeps serving them up, I will keep beating this horse.

© Sandy Mattingly 2013

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply