yet another Steinbrenner abomination

I knew him but never met him
Long-time Manhattan Loft Guy readers will not be surprised to know that I am a big baseball fan*, given the number of occasional baseball-themed discursions over the years. I was going to write something in July for a group of friends who were sharing thoughts on The Principal Owner of The NY Yankees, George Steinbrenner, and figured that if I was going to write anyway, I may as well write here. But I got bogged down, I started and stopped, and the timeliness (if any) faded.

However …  I tuned in late to last night’s game and my jaw dropped at a picture of the “monument” unveiled before the game. (There are pictures of it everywhere on the inter-tubes, but Geo Vec has one in the NY Times, here.)  True to form in our dysfunctional relationship, TPOoTNYY once again set my blood on ‘boil’.

Be warned: if you have already read more on TPOoTNYY than you want to, put your hands up and step away from the monitor.

a monstrous monument
The Thing is 7 x 5 feet, dwarfing the other plaques in Monument Park. Is it ten times bigger, or only five times bigger than everything else??

Whether or not TPOoTNYY dictated the size, it is so typically George that it is a perfect reflection of his priorities, of his Being-In-Charge-ness, of his ego. The guy acted as if he were Larger Than Life, and now The Thing says that he was Larger Than Ruth (and Gehrig, and Dimaggio, et al.) by a factor of Five+.

The scale is so extreme, I can only imagine that the family’s extended discussion started with someone suggesting that they take up the entire wall as a monument, so that the ‘compromise’ to a plaque that is only 5 x 7 feet must have seemed a modest gesture.

back in July
I was fascinated after he died that so many articles, obits, memorials about TPOoTNYY attempted balance … everyone seems to feel required to at least refer to The Dark Side of TPOoTNYY. (Will we get the same with Cheney, I wonder.) Here are three I collected from the Times back then,
here, here, and here, but they were everywhere that baseball fans or New Yorkers congregated.

our relationship
My first surviving baseball memories date from the 1964 World Series, so I matured as a baseball fan and as a Yankee fan in the Dark Ages of no World Series (1965 – 1975). TPOoTNYY arrived, of course, in 1973, but by then the Yankees were “my” team, as much as they could belong to anyone. He just put the money together to buy them. I took my dad (a recovering Indians fan) to his first World Series game, the Reggie game in 1977. My daughter threw a complete game her first time out (at age 4 months, the “day” they threw Bobbie Murcer so he could retire in mid-season with dignity and they could bring up a young good-glove-no-power first baseman who would later wear #23). I shared them with millions of others, but they were my team, dammit.

Sure, there were hints right away that TPOoTNYY might be a problem, but he did seem committed to winning.

By the time that I got a 16-game season package to Yankee Stadium in 1980 (Opening Day, all Sunday games, Old Timer’s Day, one holiday) it ws clear that TPOoTNYY was a problem, but it was still my team, and I resolved that even he could not ruin that relationship for me. Oh, how he tried!

People who did not live through it cannot appreciate the disgust felt by many True Yankee Fans (not all, but many): the “George Must Go!” chants in the stands; the photocopies of pictures of TPOoTNYY with a red circle and slash across his face; the game at which word circulated (from people listening to a radio in the Stadium??) that he had accepted a Lifetime Ban from baseball (probably over the paying-a-low-life-to-dig-dirt-on-your-best-player thing, but I can’t remember, and it is not important) … the feeling after that announcement among Yankee fans was general euphoria. Metaphorical dancing in the streets, singing “Ding, dong, the witch is dead …”; that   kind of euphoria.

But it didn’t last. Sigh.

After The Strike in 1994 I was disgusted with MLB as well as with TPOoTNYY. So when I dropped my season package after 16 years I wrote a two page letter to TPOoTNYY to explain. I didn’t want him to think it had anything to do with him bashing the Bronx as a place where nice people could not feel safe, or because he did not extort more parking concessions from the City, or because the subways were dangerous at night, or any of the other BS he promoted. I was disgusted with Baseball as an Industry, and with TPOoTNYY as an owner.

Imagine this: the letter became a minor classic among friends and friends of friends, but I never got a response from the Yankees after 16 years as a ticket holder.

winning excuses all? really??
The apologists for TPOoTNYY tend to balance any admitted shortcomings by noting (a) that he really wanted to win, and pushed … err …. (to be most gentle) …. relentlessly to win, and (b) that he did ITAL make the Yankees winners. This apology is wrong on baseball terms and on moral terms.

In baseball terms, he was always a football guy who thought The Answer was always to try harder (giving 110% 120% of the time), while the baseball pros knew that this game required concentrated relaxation. I will forever believe that the Yankees succeeded in spite of efforts by TPOoTNYY to turn up the stress level so that they would hit the other guy harder, somehow.

Oh, and in baseball terms, people seem to forget that the seeds of The Great Yankee Teams of the late 1990s were sown when TPOoTNYY was banned from baseball (sadly, not for life) and could not force My Baseball People to trade away the young Jeters, Posadas, Pettittes, Riveras, et al., for former and waning All-Stars. By the time he came back (drat!), the momentum had swung and Gene Michael’s work was bearing fruit too obvious for even TPOoTNYY to ignore. (Thank you, Stick!)

In moral terms, the apologists have a lot to answer for. Results matter, but process cannot be ignored. John D. Rockefeller was an unscrupulous, rapacious, monopolist who built a huge industrial and financial empire, but there was more of a sense then that the Titans of Industry had been (would always be) Robber Barons; in that earlier time, it took two generations for the Rockefeller wealth to take on a sheen of respectability.

The apologists act as though TPOoTNYY made that transition in 25 years.

Worse, they act as though there was no other way for the Yankees to have succeeded, other than for TPOoTNYY to terrorize employees from the top of the food chain to the bottom (then to ‘atone’ by private acts of charity), to attack and belittle his players (from trying to extort Winfield out of his contract rights, to saying a young pitcher ‘spit the bit’ after a poor performance, to branding an imported pitcher a puss-y toad), to showing his ‘passion’ by fighting with (non-existent) Dodger fans in an elevator in LA, to … (add your own personal lowlights).

some credit
TPOoTNYY and his executives put together a marvelous business, generating revenue that his competitors could not even dream about (and profits that were not too shabby). To his credit, he plowed the revenue into the team, creating a foundation that could make the Yankees perennial contenders indefinitely (unless The Sons pull a Wilpon; always a possibility, no?). I can’t take that away from him.

But to me (and many other mature Yankee fans), the Yankees succeeded in spite of TPOoTNYY, not because of him. His ego was such that the more loudly he claimed the mantle of Yankee Greatness the more crass his grasping became.

I always wanted to see an analysis of what TPOoTNYY did to the shipping company he inherited from his father, that generated the wealth he was able to leverage into a billion dollar Yankee franchise. I suspect he ran it into Davy Jones locker. His management “style” is indicated in this quote today from Cashman in that Geo Vec column, which is obviously intended by the GM to be complimentary:

“I can’t tell you how many people it takes to replace him,” Cashman said. “He was the ticket manager, the marketing director, the general manager, the manager in the dugout, the stadium manager.”

cue the baker
I misplaced my Steinbrenner angst two months ago, within a week or so after he died … especially with the Fair and Balanced reporting and blogging that followed. But seeing that “monument” really takes the cake. Because I have no editor, I can just vent and click and my venting is on my blog. My blood temperature is down to 211 … 209 … 203 … 190 … but I am going to click anyway. Have a nice day.

*That’s “fan”, as in FANatic, of course.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

Tagged with: , , , ,

same floor lofts sell at 46 Mercer Street, in same condition but at different prices

East meets West, West wins
The Residential Sales Around The Region feature
in yesterday’s New York Times featured one Manhattan loft, 46 Mercer Street (also known as 473 Broadway, aka the Hohner Building), at $3.01mm after 17 weeks on the market. That is #6W, which city records (per Property Shark) peg as “1,901 sq ft” instead of “2,500 sq ft” and which came to market on March 6, went to contract by April 16 (6 weeks) and closed on June 1 (12+ weeks, not 17).

Aside from wondering why the Times is reporting about a loft sale from June 1, what caught my eye about this sale is that #6E next door sold on June 10 for $2.85mm. Why the $160,000 premium for #6W over #6E?

#6W was billed as a "no detail spared" renovation, with 2 bedrooms, office / den, and 3 baths. When #6E was marketed (briefly, unsuccessfully) in 2008 , the babble was only a slight variation (“no detail was overlooked”), but more enthusiastic about #6E than the 2010 prose for #6W. The footprint of #6E is the mirror image of its neighbor, though city records rate #6E as (very) slightly larger, at “1,958 sq ft”.

Is it the professional marketing of one and not the other, Mars?
The 8.8% spread between #6W at $1,583/ft and #6E at $1,455/ft (using #6e as the baseline) is larger than a rounding error. I was willing to ascribe the difference to the Power of Marketing (this is a StreetEasy “[n]o listing associated with this closing” transaction) until I discovered that StreetEasy is wrong: our data-base shows that this loft was offered for sale as a co-broke by Leslie J. Garfield & Co. from October 21, 2009 until it was marked as “temporarily off the market” as of May 26 (2 weeks before it sold).

It is possible that the sale was independent of Garfield (it does not show up on that firm’s brag page), but it seems clear that #6E was exposed to the market by Garfield for at least some time before the June 10 sale.

Aphorisms ‘R Us
Frequent Manhattan Loft Guy readers can guess where this is going. (Waiting ….) Yes, the Manhattan real estate market is not efficient. (As in my August 15,
tales of one loft building / the inefficient market at 718 Broadway, circa 2006, weaker market, 2010.) Except when it is efficient (which is more rare; as in my August 26, loft market at 476 Broadway is pretty F’in efficient, and May 6, 2009, pretty efficient (depressed) market at 505 Greenwich Street as both 6F and 7F sell, off 25%).

and: Rants ‘R Us
Now that I have ‘explained’ that, can someone please tell me why the NY Times reports on a loft sale that is 3.5 months old? I know the Residential Sales Around The Region is not the RECENT Residential Sales Around The Region, but are they trying to prove that print is dead as a “news” media? Sigh….

Because Manhattan Loft Guy might be re-titled as Manhattan Loft Anal Guy, I checked the closing dates of the other 3 Manhattan sales in Sunday’s real estate section: 335 West 21 St #2RE = June 24; I can’t find a 870 Riverside Drive closing, except in our data base, but the price at which #6C closed on July 6 does not match; 10 West End Av #11J = July 7. All these are more “recent” than #6W at the Hohner Building, but none is really recent. Sigh….

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

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

thieving coop and condo property manager pleads guilty

we were speaking of crooks…
A soon-to-be-former-NYS-senator was the foil for Friday’s post about a cynical lack of morality within the Manhattan real estate industrial complex (September 17, the (low) morals of the Real Estate Industrial Complex, politics division); today I will revisit a (now) convicted bad guy who has done some serious damage to many Manhattan coops and condos, including at least one loft building.

I started the story at the beginning of the middle, with my January 30, post, why hire a low-life as property manager? ‘cuz you didn’t know, after a NY Daily News article from January 24 about property manager Richard Bassik of Downtown Properties being accused of scamming his coop and condo clients. Later, my July 2, low-life property manager INDICTED, continued the story in the late middle, when Bassik was indicted, and quoted from the District Attorney’s press release about the charges.

As I said in the July 2 post, the January 30 post:

included the story of one Bassik-managed Manhattan loft building that had escaped without a financial problem (so far?) and talked about what coops and condos can do in these situations (after the fact, not much; before hand, a lot).

closer to the end
There I was, this past Thursday evening, learning that we are at at least the beginning of the end of the story … I had just finished reading
The Real Deal’s Thursday night piece announcing that Bassik pleaded guilty on Thursday to 14 counts when I got an email from a shareholder at one of the victimized coops with the same news. I wonder to what extent the inter-tubes were humming Thursday night, passing along this news among Manhattan coop and condo owners and boards….

The overview of the guilty plea, from TRD:

Property manager Richard Bassik has pleaded guilty to 13 counts of grand larceny and one charge of scheming to defraud, the Manhattan district attorney’s office announced today. Through his company, Downtown Properties, Bassik stole upwards of $2.3 million from the 19 properties he managed, including several high-end co-ops and condominiums, cashing wrongfully issued checks and diverting funds from building bank accounts for his own personal use. The fraudulent activity took place between January 2005 and August 2006 ….

The middle of the end of the story will be when Bassik is sentenced on October 12. Apparently, the District Attorney’s office has told victims that the judge is likely to sentence Bassik to between 5 and 15 years in prison.

This sorry story won’t finally end for quite a while. I will need to deal with this in another post, but the story won’t end until the cascading effects of Bassik’s crimes get worked cleanly through the social fabric of the coops and condos that were victims. Here’s a preview: that rippling process will likely take years.

an (open) question of scale
Here is one troubling thing evident from the sources cited in my two prior posts: there are probably more victims, with more damage, than Bassik has pleaded to.

The January 24 Daily News article talked about 4 buildings that had lost "nearly $2mm"; the June 30 DA press release talked about $2.1mm stolen from 13 properties, between January 2005 and August 2009 (note that the TRD article says “January 2005 and August 2006”, a much shorter period; I haven’t seen the official document about the plea, so can’t tell if the right end date is 2006 or 2009). That is 9 additional victims and something more than $100,000 in additional losses discovered between January and June this year. The TRD piece last Thursday notes that Bassik “stole upwards of $2.3 million”, so the loss number grew another $200,000 or more since June.

Part of that increase is probably from the loft building that I mentioned in my January 30 post, which turns out not to have “escaped unscathed”, as they first thought. They filed a Victim Impact Statement stating that they had documented more than $30,000 in losses … and suspected that there was more that they had not uncovered. I suspect that this is true of other Bassik-managed buildings as well; there are probably some who do not know they were victims, and probably others that suspect they lost more than they can know prove. The DA worked from numbers that could be proven in court; who knows what the real numbers are?

back to the late middle of the story
My July 2 post contained this bit of advice that is useful enough (and short enough) to repeat:

The things that coop and condo boards can do to protect their fellow owners are simple, limited, and effective:

  • pay attention
  • require multiple signatures for non-trivial checks, including a board member signature
  • check your property manager’s bond and insurance limits, and compare those limits to the amount of money they manage
  • create a culture in which detailed scrutiny by the board is perceived as professional and a sign of good management instead of a sign of suspicion
  • and (first, last, and not least) … pay attention

I won’t repeat the useful story about (Not) Out-running The Bear (too long for a too-long post), but that is there, too.

Manhattan Loft Guy note to self: write about how that rippling effect may cause lots of problems between coop shareholders / condo owners and boards, and among shareholders and owners. Soon.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

laughing at economists / a Saturday diversion


the nation’s only stand-up economist
A tip of the Manhattan Loft Guy cap to The Miller, for
a Wednesday link to a video deconstructing Ten Principles of Economics, providing some levity for a Black 15th Anniversary. I especially like the distinction between micro- and macro-economists. Enjoy!

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

Tagged with: , , , ,

the (low) morals of the Real Estate Industrial Complex, politics division


the (non) Quote Of The Day
If there’s a word “antidote”, should there be a word “antiquote”? I feel as though we need that word today, in looking at this quote in last night’s piece,
Espada, an ally of the real estate industry, mourned in defeat, from The Real Deal:

"Regardless of what you thought of Espada personally, his defeat was not good for the real estate industry,"

I have nothing personal against the guy who made that statement (we’ve never met, though I was disappointed when he cut off his pony tail). You do see him quoted a lot about Manhattan real estate, perhaps because he is a ‘good quote’: colorful, glib. But cute has its limits: I had to wash my hands after clicking through the TRD article.

My premise, obviously, is that I believe not-soon-enough-to-be-former-State-Senator Pedro Espada probably did the bad things he is accused of doing, and so is guilty of gross mis-use of his office (and probably of felonies). See, for example, this April 20 article from the Old Grey Lady about the Attorney General’s civil suit alleging that Espada wrongfully diverted $14mm from a non-profit he set up, whose board was controlled by his staffers and family associates. While these remain “allegations”, my sense is that the specific allegations about money being moved (or “diverted”) are likely to be true, and that any defense will rest on a claimed lack of personal knowledge, or careless book-keeping. No moral exculpation is likely.

My premise, obviously, is that I believe that unless someone is pretty convinced factually that Espada did not do these bad things, it is a shameful act to have voted for him. Worse, it is a shameful act to have donated money to him in the narrow belief that He Is Good For My Business, The Fate Of The State Be Damned.

As in, it is perfectly OK to have crooks in Albany, so long as those crooks keep my business interests in mind. It is important to note that this is not (in my opinion) a close question about Estrada. At a minimum, there is enough ‘smoke’ about him to suggest that anyone interested in Good Government would prefer a more-likely-to-be-honest senator to one with such smoke.

In other words, it is the height of cynicism to support this likely-crook because he helps you make money.

While the one guy who made the (Non) Quote Of The Day may have been less “circumspect” than other members of the Manhattan real estate industrial complex, the others are no less to be shamed for putting their money where our government dysfunction is:

Espada was clearly supported by New York’s development community. A look at state financial disclosure forms from recent months turns up names like Stellar Management, which donated $5,000; Brookfield Properties ($2,500); Jack Rudin ($2,500); and Greenberg Traurig, the real estate law firm ($1,750).

Yes, yes, I know I am “naive” and I “don’t know How Things Work”. Boo! Hiss!

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

“true Soho loft” at 169 Mercer St closes at $766/ft

how’d that happen?
It is difficult to argue that the block of Mercer Street just below Houston Street is Prime Soho, what with Silver Towers and NYU just to the north, but it certainly is a convenient location. And it is Soho, so how did the Manhattan loft on the
2nd floor at 169 Mercer Street close for only $766/ft, not to mention taking nearly a year to get even that??

2,350 sq ft One Bed Wonder
It has been quite a while since I was fixated on One Bed Wonders*, but this “2,350 sq ft” space was marketed as a “true One Bedroom One Bath Soho Loft”, with private space for only one bed here. Indeed, the very open Long-and-N
arrow floor plan just reeks of a 1970s or early ‘80s provenance, with the single bathroom squeezed along the long wall between the stairwell and kitchen, and the kitchen a simple all-appliances-and-utilities-along-the-wall, affair, with a long island for additional storage and seating. (I was suprised to learn that the recent seller bought in 1998 … not 1988; my guess is that she did not move any walls.)

The building is 25 x 98 feet (per Property Shark), yet the entire back wall is a rather extravagantly large bedroom. (Obviously, the One Bed of Wonder!).

This layout hints at the reason it took a year to sell and got under $800/ft in Soho. No matter how chef-y the kitchen, if that is the only wall with plumbing stacks, any renovation will add a second bathroom; either further along that wall toward the (single, Wonderful) bedroom or, more likely, back-to-back with the present bathroom, pushing the kitchen down the wall and (probably) pivoted to perpendicular to the wall. And, of course, all but a single person or couple-without-plans-to-be-more would break up the (Wonderful) bedroom into two 12 foot wide bedrooms along that back narrow wall.

So add a minimum of $200/ft for someone to do a pretty complete build-out, with demolition. So a buyer who would put down ‘only’ 20% to buy this coop is committing $360,000 cash to buy and another half million or so to renovate. Without being able to easily finance the renovation expense (very likely), that is nearly $900,000 in cash and a mortgage of $1.44mm to own the opportunity to renovate this true Soho loft of “2,350 sq ft”. That  is what shrinks the market for a buy-and-build-out loft these days. Even among the relatively few people with the time, talent and patience to buy-and-build, not too many of them have $900k in cash, with enough left over to pass a coop board.

your reward is great (probably)
If a 2nd floor buyer were to make that $500k renovation investment on top of the $1.8mm purchase, there should still be some upside in The Market. The only other loft in the building to trade in available records was the 7th (top) floor, which has the benefit of open views along the long south wall, plus skylights for additional light. That sold in a classically minty condition in 2006 (a market frequently even, or a little behind the 2010 market) at $2.9mm. Even allowing for the difference between 7th-floor-with-light-and-views and the 2nd floor, that’s a lot of upside for the 2nd floor buyer.

a (happy) birthday loft
Note the patience (stubbornness?) of the December to May period:

May 27, 2009 $2.295mm
Oct 12 $2.1mm
Dec 30 $1.925mm
May 6, 2010 contract
Aug 31  $1.8mm

By the time the listing had the (dreaded) first birthday, it had been in contract for 3 weeks. Whew!

* "One Bed Wonder" is a Manhattan Loft Guy locution for an unusually large space configured for a single person, or a couple sharing one bed. My all-time fave was the very first one I profiled, but here are links to five early posts about that genus:

Feb 24, 2007, what is a One Bed Wonder?
Feb 27, 2007, really big One Bed Wonders with really big prices at 716 Broadway + 32 Laight
Feb 28, 2007, smaller but still One Bed Wonder-full at 644 Broadway + 30 W 13
April 25, 2007, wondering about the 1 Bed Wonder at 543 Broadway / how much for how big?
Jan 29, 2008, limits of the loft form / 448 Greenwich St

(MLG note to self: revisit the One Bed Wonder phenomenon, or at least Tag ‘em when I see ‘em)

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

Tagged with: , , , ,

bidding war after 9 months, 6 price drops at 244 West 23 Street loft


timing is everything
That hoary chestnut “it only takes one (buyer)” is dear to every seller’s heart, while the very optimistic sellers also love “it only takes two (to have a bidding war)”. These bromides cause a lot of sellers to make mistakes, but sometimes they are … you  know … true. I came across the Manhattan loft
#5B at 244 West 23 Street as I was recently cleaning up my Master List of Manhattan Lofts Sold Since November 2008 . It is worth a post, even though it closed almost two months ago, because it is that rare bird: after many months of having no one interested, a (mild) bidding war erupted after the last price drop, and it closed on July 19 $25,000 above the ask.

Here’s the history:

Sept 10, 2009 $1.62mm
Sept 30 $1.52mm
Oct 6 $1.5mm
Nov 2 $1.49mm
Jan 29, 2010 $1.465mm
Feb 13 $1.41mm
Feb 18 $1.375mm
May 2 contract!

I have already ruined the punchline, as you can figure out that the contract was signed at $1.4mm.

Of course I don’t know what the sellers and agent talked about from September into April, but a reasonable guess is that these sellers were frustrated. And motivated. Note the three prices in four weeks at the start; note the three prices in three weeks after New Year’s. Note the resistance implied by holding at that last price for ten weeks before signing a contract.

that one buyer
Any reasonable buyer prepared to pay up to $1.4mm for this loft in May was probably pretty new to the market as a buyer; otherwise she’d have bid in October, if not from the begining.

Any reasonable buyer prepared to pay up to $1.4mm for this loft in May probably figured that no one else was interested in the loft, or it would have long since sold. Hence, she would naturally have assumed that the sellers would be negotiable from that last $1.375mm asked.

Imagine how surprised that solitary reasonable buyer prepared to pay up to $1.4mm for this loft was when she found out that there was another bidder (who must also have been new to the market, and was probably surprised to have company).

those two bidders
While the sellers were able to squeeze only a $25k premium over the asking price in those late April – early May negotiations, there must have been some satisfaction in not having to further cut their price to make a deal. I am guessing that the second bidder was worth at least $50k for the sellers, as they most likely would have had to give up at least $25k from their asking price if negotiating with a single buyer.


the metaphysics of The Market
Looking at this another way, if the loft was worth $1.4mm in May (a ‘fact’ established by the arm’s length transaction), then it must have been worth $1.4mm for at last some time before hand. (What changed from January 1, for example??)

But, if the loft was not worth $1.4mm in February (a ‘fact’ established by the failure to sell off the $1.41mm asking price), then how could it have been worth $1.4mm in May?

paging Yul Brenner
‘tis a puzzlement. But the odd stuff is what makes it fun! (Unless you are a frustrated-but-motivated seller, or a surprised bidder, perhaps.)

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

why didn't the loft at 252 West 30 Street sell at The Peak?

not one trend, but another
The Manhattan loft 252 West 30 Street #6B does not quite fit a pattern that regular readers of Manhattan Loft Guy know intrigues me (the pattern of lofts that did not sell in 2009 at $Xmm selling in 2010 at or near that same price). This "1,750 sq ft" condo loft at Chelsea’s northern fringe sold on August 23 at $1.51mm and was another Bang! Zoom! sale (see below), as it took all of 15 days in May to find a contract.

But I am scratching my head about why it had not sold when it was offered just after The Peak, from May 2008 to February 2009, from $1.695mm to $1.595mm. That seems within spitting distance (err … negotiating range) of the August 2010 clearing price of $1.51mm. What happened?

a data hole
I don’t know why, but this loft is hard to track (impossible to track for a civilian). The August 23 sale shows as "[n]o listing associated with this closing" on StreetEasy. I know that StreetEasy is sometimes referred to as the closest Manhattan equivalent to a Multiple Listing Service (it is a very useful tool in our environment), but this sale is one indication that is not. (Oh how I wish we had a real MLS!) In this instance, the inter-firm data-base shows that #6B was offered for sale through The Level Group on May 5 and went into contract by May 20. Only the most cogno of the cognoscenti will recognize that The Level Group is the new name for the (even more?) unfortunately named Pari Passu Realty.

The Level listing is still on their public web site as "in contract" so it may fall away when (if?) they update. For now, you can find it here. Maybe StreetEasy missed it in the changeover from Pari Passu to Level???

peaking at an unsuccessful sale
The Halstead no sale listing is on StreetEasy, where you will see that this loft had been offered from May 2008 to February 2009 starting at $1.695mm and dropping to $1.595mm on September 8, 2008. Maybe that unfortunate date is the clue to my question about why it had not sold off these asking prices in a pretty active market, yet sold in August 2010 off only 5% from the last ask: they were asking $1.595mm for less than a week when Lehman filed for bankruptcy, then everyone held their breath, then banks shut down (much) lending, then buyers ran to the sidelines, then we were in the full-fledged Nuclear Winter of Manhattan real estate.

Maybe.

Of course, I don’t know if the sellers had any offers through the Summer of 2008 off the $1.695mm asking price, or whether they then considered themselves negotiable (had there been an offer) enough to work down from $1.695mm to $1.51mm. Certainly a lot of people missed the fact that The Market Had Changed, even before Lehman … that The Peak was more or less coops or condos that closed in the first quarter of 2008.

hindsight is a female dog
It would have taken a discount of 11% for the sellers to have gotten to a $1.51mm sale in Summer of 2008, a discount level that was commonplace in 2009 but may have seemed like too much to swallow until they faced the music and dropped the price in that fateful September. To get a good visual on how active that May – August 2008 market was, check again the green lines the contracts signed per month chart in Mr. UrbanDigs September 6 post, The August Lull. Short story: many contracts were signed in each of those months, so there were a lot of buyers around then, pulling cash out of their pockets (and out of their lenders).

If the two owners had any offers then, and if one owner persuaded the other not to negotiate (enough), I wonder if they entered couples therapy after The Market froze and it took another 20 months after Lehman to sell. Ouch.

awkward footprint
I have not (yet) described the loft. Yes, it appears to have been renovated in the not-to-distant past, as the overall condition is babbled in that unsuccessful 2008-2009 listing description as "recently renovated and is in excellent condition" [if A, then B, right??], while the kitchen is specified as "newly renovated open kitchen features a Bosch range and dishwasher, lustrous white cabinets with recessed pulls, and granite countertops". Is this language ("can easily be redesigned to suit your personal needs and preferences") a hint that the layout is not ideal?

I bet that the walk-in closet can be turned into a second bath (it has a washer-dryer already and sits between the kitchen and the [now] single bath). Having two bathrooms in a "1,750 sq ft" loft would help.

Is that the longest master bedroom you’ve ever seen, in proportion to the overall size of the loft? Those 3 side windows in the master look to be lot line windows, with no view and (likely) little light, so all "solutions" to the over-sized bedroom ‘problem’ are imperfect; if you cut it in half and keep the ‘real’ window, that bedroom is now far from the bath and teh walk-in closet; if you cut it in half and use the other end, there may be little light.

But I bet the next owner has tried to do something to shorten that bedroom and open up the space, which would also solve the ‘problem’ of the current long and narrow living room. And put in a second bath.

Loft #6B sold for $863/ft 3 weeks ago, even with these awkward layout issues. Among neighboring sales, #6B at $863/ft compares favorably to #5A and the #14. Loft #5A traded at $1.325mm for "1,542 sq ft" in April ($859/ft) in probably equal-or-or-better condition than #6B and certainly in a move-in floor plan that is far superior (3 bedrooms, 2 baths, a corner that seems to have real windows on two sides). Those sellers came out in June 2009 at $1.475mm, as The Market had started to thaw.

The 14th floor went through the teeth of the chilly market, coming out in October 2008 (about six weeks after Lehman) at $2.3mm before selling in September 2009 at $1.55mm (ouch). This "1,750 sq ft" 3 bedroom + 3 bath loft is not very comparable to #6B or #5A, as it has three terraces and four exposures providing "outstanding light all day long" and views of the Empire State and downtown skyline. At $886/ft without taking the 14th floor outdoor space into account, these folks got slaughtered in The Market, but show that #6B at $863/ft (even with the layout issues) was not too bad.

$863/ft is not as well as they might have done before Lehman, but not too bad overall. Especially considering that the August 2010 #6B sellers had bought it in January 2006 (before renovating) at $1.35mm. Or considering that #7B sold in May 2006 at $1.575mm in better condition and layout (3 bedrooms + 2 baths), with two walls of windows that clear adjoining buildings, offering "open downtown views", "sky and sunshine all day", and sunsets. (What a difference one floor higher can make!) I will stop now, I promise….

those Bang! Zoom! sales
But not before noting the other parts of the trend of which the quick 252 West 30 Street #6B sale is a part. This loft is now the third loft profiled recently that spent very little time "in the market" before closing within 4 days of each other last month. The others were, of course, Penthouse E at 73 Worth Street, which I hit in yesterday’s bidding war over penthouse loft at 73 Worth Street that started at 2006, and the 5th floor at 11 West 20 Street, which I profiled in my September 9 post, 11 West 20 Street loft zooms through market, beats higher floor.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

bidding war over penthouse loft at 73 Worth Street that started at 2006


winning at putting, puttering

The Manhattan loft #PH-E at 73 Worth Street is another loft that recently raced to contract, like the loft in my September 9 post, 11 West 20 Street loft zooms through market, beats higher floor. Long story, short: to market on June 3 at $2.395mm; in contract by June 24 at a premium; closed on August 20, so the sellers put $2.475mm in their pocket (and the bank’s coffers) and walked away 11 weeks after they started selling. But this is Manhattan Loft Guy, so you know you will hear a longer story….

first, the loft
Duplexed lofts can be awkward: some feel boxy-upon-boxy; some cheat by taking high ceilings and making you feel cramped. This one is a true penthouse and a true duplex (built as such), with a Long-and-Narrow lower level on the rooftop, set back from the building edges, with terraces at either end, and an upper level (further set back) with the master suite and a den / 4th bedroom, and yet another terrace. With south-facing glass walls in both levels, there will not be many Tribeca lofts with more light. There are said to be "2,015 sq ft" of interior space, and "800 sq ft" in the three terraces.

The babble is enthusiastic without being hysterical. There are proper proper names in the right places, and this is the first listing description that I recall to ever use both "putting" and "puttering". Nicely played, ma’am, nicely played.

the history
Whether or not the early bird of lore gets that worm, the modest sellers get the contract. And these sellers were modest.

They paid the funny number $2,392,887 in March 2006. Many, many sellers are tempted to test The Market; many fewer are motivated to take the money and run. These sellers announced thtat they were money-runners by asking only $2,113 more than they had paid 51 months earlier. Even calling this "more" is a bit misleading, as they essentially just rounded to the nearest $5,000 increment.

There were two prior 2010 sales in the building when they came to market in June. Unit 5D is a similar size (simplex; ‘only’ 2 bedrooms) at "1,925 sq ft"; it cleared on February 4 at $907/ft, without considering a small (130 sq ft) balcony. Unit 5B is a bit bigger, at "2,571 sq ft", with ‘only’ 3 bedrooms; it traded on January 21 at $1,007/ft. Roughing out an average per-foot interior value from these two building comps within 6 months, that’s $957/ft; extrapolated to Penthouse E, that’s just over $1.9mm for the interior. Perhaps they rounded up, to an even $2,000,000 of implied interior value, making a positive adjustment for the higher floor, better light and true penthouse nature of their unit, while still staying within the achieved price-per-foot of #5B at $1,007/ft.

If they were so formulaic and got to a $2mm value for their "2,015 sq ft" interior, when the Penthouse E sellers priced at $2.395mm they were (intentionally or not) using The Miller Rule for valuing outdoor space by discounting the very useful, very private, very integrated terraces by at least 50%. (See May 6, riffing with The Miller on the value of Manhattan terraces, decks + balconies.) For the anal among you, that would work this way:

$992/ft for 2,105 interior sq ft = $2mm
  plus
$992/ft for 400 exterior sq ft (discounting the actual terraces by 50%) = $396,800
  total = $2,396,800

I have no idea how these sellers actually came up with their asking price. But it is interesting (or, perhaps, coincidental) that it is (relatively) easy to back out a very justifiable theory, based on two same-building-same-year prior sales and The Miller Rule for outdoor space.

Of course, it is even more interesting that The Market found that asking price of $2.395mm inadequate, by $80,000. Only a 3% premium, but a premium nonetheless, achieved within 3 weeks.

Nicely played, sellers, nicely played.

"slow" Summer did not begin in June (at least for 2 lofts)
You hear a lot about seasonality, and a lot about how the fast(er) market of 2010 slowed down in the Summer. You’d never know it from these two lofts, however. Unless June is too early to be called Summer. (UrbanDigs always does a good job on trend theories like Seasonality, often attacking The Anecdotes with Actual Data [how refreshing!]; see Noah’s September 6, The August Lull, for one such discussion.)

Compared to the 5th floor at 11 West 20 Street (June 2 to June 18 contract), the 73 Worth Street #PH-E was a relative laggard (June 3 to June 24). But I am sure they were not complaining when the movers pulled up on Worth Street last month.

net, net
Molto props to the sellers of Penthouse E at 73 Worth Street and their BHS agent, Jennie Holman.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

 

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

same day, another year

This year I am only going to offer two quotes from a mother who lost a daughter and a not-yet-grandchild that day, taken from her essay, The Sensitivities of 9/11 Families:

Since that morning, time in my world is no longer linear–it undulates, circles around the anniversary. 

For most of us who lost loved ones on that morning, there is no corner. There is no distance in time. We are still there. In the moment. At the site. Walking the pile. You don’t leave your children or your mother or father or cousin or best friend there and walk away. Time collapses. For most people in America, 9/11 comes around once a year, but not for me. For me, it is always here.

My experience of that day is different from hers. No less real, and infinitely less painful, but different. Yours is different from mine, and from hers.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

Tagged with: , , ,