11 West 20 Street loft zooms through market, beats higher floor

it’s the renovation, Mars
If you blinked in June, you missed the Manhattan loft on the 5th floor of 11 West 20 Street. This "2,205 sq ft" full floor condo loft came to market on June 2 and was in contract by June 18. Zoom!

The 5th floor closed on August 24 and (no surprise) got the full ask of $2.26mm. The broker babble is very enthusiastic about the "recent renovation by an award-winning architect", which renovation is probably might be why the 5th floor did better than the 8th floor when that loft closed on February 11.

about the renovation
The layout is classic Long-and-Narrow: 2 bedrooms split the back wall, plumbing on both sides permits the second bedroom an en suite bath while lining up the master bath, half-bath and kitchen on the long wall opposite, a window-less office is opposite the public staircase, and the kitchen opens to the living room at the front, with four south-facing 9-foot windows. The classic loft features that remain are the barrel vaulted ceilings, brick walls, and hardwood flooring. The most interesting modern improvement is the externally vented stove … from the 5th floor in a 9-story building (!).

was it the windows, Mars?
Given that the 8th floor loft has exactly the same footprint as the 5th floor loft, they are a study in contrasts. First, as to market response; second as to layout.

The 8th floor came back to the market in November at $2.25mm and hardly lingered. In contrast to the full-price contract in 16 days on the 5th floor in June, the 8th floor took all of 5 weeks to get a contract at $2.15mm, only a slight discount. (When it had been offered earlier, the ask was $2.495mm, in the teeth of the Nuclear Winter, December 2008 to June 2009.) That slight discount from the 8th floor (last) ask amounted to a similarly slight discount compared to the recent sale of the renovated 5th floor. The less enthusiastic babble in the 8th floor listing descriptions suggests that the 8th floor was in a bit more ‘dated’ condition than the "recent renovation’ on the 5th floor, but the 8th floor floor plan is also rather awkward.

On the 8th floor, those four huge north windows in the back are ‘shared’ only by the master bedroom and master bath, leaving a second "bedroom" and an office without windows on one long wall. That suggests to me that the layout hasn’t changed in quite a while, after some prior owner built it out as a one-bedroom-with-other-spaces. The result is not a layout that should compete well with ‘real’ 2 bedroom floor plans. But in this case it actually did compete, allowing for an adjustment of $110,000 between the 5th and 8th floors due to condition.

It is also interesting how the 5th floor and 8th floor dealt with brick. On the 5th floor, the exposed brick walls are painted white and it appears that they uncovered the brick in the barrel vaults of the ceilings. On the 8th floor they merely sealed the (natural) brick walls, while leaving the barrel vaults painted white (not clear if the vaults are opened to the brick, or whether the vaults are covered). Different strokes, different folks.

how recent should "recent" be?
Look at the pictures for the 5th floor listing and see if they are not perfectly described by this listing description:

Magnificently renovated and in triple mint condition, this 2 bedroom, 2,5 bathroom (plus home office) loft encompasses a generously proportioned entertaining area with an adjoining open plan kitchen resplendent with professional stainless steel appliances and natural stone countertops. The grand Master Suite with it’s walk-in closets features a jacuzzi and dual sinks. The entire apartment is centrally air-conditioned and wired with a 4 zone, hi-tech stereo system.  

That is, of course, a listing description for the 5th floor.

But from 2006. Two thousand SIX. (Same floor plan as 2010, also.)

fun with numbers
The 5th floor was marketed like that from April 2006 to a contract in November (it sold on January 18, 2007). The asking price Way Back Then was $2.25mm, then $2.125m; the clearing price was that last ask, $2.125mm. Yes, that is (just) $135,000 less than the 5th floor just sold for.

It is no surprise that the 8th floor was in exactly the same condition in 2007 as when it sold last February. You can’t see more than one photo, but when the 8th floor was marketed in December 2006, our data base has the same (awkward) floor plan as the 2010 plan, and that single photo has the white ceilings and (natural) brick walls as in the recent marketing.

You noticed, just now, that the 5th floor went to contract November 2006 and that the 8th floor was marketed in December 2006, right? If the listing and contract dates can be believed (our data base matches what StreetEasy has), it was the 8th floor that zoomed through the market in 2006: listed December 12, contract December 18 … an almost impossible sequence. Of course, with that trajectory, it is a bit odd that the 8th floor closed on February 6, 2007 at $2.15mm, a slight discount from the $2.25mm ask.

That is $25,000 more than the 5th floor got 2 weeks earlier. And exactly the same price as the 8th floor got three years later. Let’s simplify (I hope, I hope):

5th   new to market April 2, 2006 $2.25mm
5th   contract Nov 23 $2.125mm
  8th new to market Dec 12 $2.25mm
  8th contract Dec 18 $2.15mm
5th   closed Jan 18, 2007 $2.125mm
  8th closed Feb 6 $2.15mm
    … time passes …    
  8th new to market Nov 23, 2009 $2.25mm
  8th contract Dec 29 $2.15mm
  8th closed Feb 11, 2010 $2.15mm
5th   new to market June 2 $2.26mm
5th   contract June 18 $2.26mm
5th   closed Aug 24 $2.26mm

to the trees!
I am going to go out on a short limb here and conclude that both sets of paired sales are within the range reasonable variation in a Manhattan real estate market that this not-very-efficient. In 2006/07 the spread was $25,000 in favor of the 8th floor. In 2009/10 the spread shifted in favor of the 5th floor, at $110,000. I would think that there would be a deeper market for a more recently renovated space with two real bedrooms (5th floor), so the 2010 spread is easier to explain.

And, yes, that is real money (especially $110,000), but normal variation (even 5%).

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

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

asking $1.495mm did not work for 148 West 23 Street loft, but asking $1.575mm did

can’t (really) blame the calendar
I’ve talked before about lofts that did not sell during the nuclear winter of Manhattan real estate that followed the Lehman bankruptcy (two years ago next week!), but the recent sale of the combined Manhattan loft #1CD at 148 West 23 Street (Chelsea Mews) does not quite fit that pattern.

When this loft did not sell in 2009 when it was asking $1.495mm, it already missed the chilly part of 2009 (coming out in September), and it stayed out at that same price until February 8, 2010. You’d think that a buyer willing to spend $1.41mm might have found it by then.

But sometimes The Market is just odd. Let’s lay it out before chewing on it.

double height and double wide
Our database shows this loft as "1,770 sq ft", with 18 ft ceilings that provide the volume for duplexed bedrooms. Although "recently renovated to posh perfection", the two mirror-image lofts appear to have been combined since at least the owner-before-last (2002). And an odd combination it is.

I am not saying that the renovation was not posh or perfect, just that they have left an awful lot of Two Loft things in place, including two stairways (needed if there is no transit point upstairs between the bedrooms), two entrances (with matching hall closets), and one long stretch of living room wall with another shorter length (much more than the load-bearing column needed to keep the upper floor duplexes up). And there’s not a lot of privacy in the two upper level bedrooms, both being open to the lower level and them sharing some kind of sliding door. I assume (hope) that it works better as built than it appears as drawn, but it surely appears to do The Absolute Minimum Needed To ‘Combine’ Adjoining Lofts.

But the really odd thing is the price history, not the layout.

bad luck in late 2009?
Here’s what happened:

Sept 30, 2009 new listing $1.495mm
  … nothing …  
February 8, 2010 off the market  
March 31 new firm $1.575mm
July 7 contract $1.41mm
Aug 25 closed $1.41mm

It’s that "nothing" that is odd here, given that The Market was much deeper in the 4th quarter of 2009 than earlier in 2009, and given that there was a shorter bridge to the clearing price from the 2009 asking price of $1.495mm than from the new 2nd quarter 2010 asking price of $1.575mm.

Perhaps there was simply no one interested in this space from September 2009 into February 2010, and then exactly one person interested in this space in June 2010 (who had not been looking before). That would explain it, but it seems odd.

Still. And probably more-so to the agents who were trying to sell at $1.495mm, unsuccessfully.

on that 2010 – is – not – 2009 theme
We’ve been here before, probably most recently in my July 23, 1200 Broadway loft closes near 2009 ask, where I said:

I know you don’t need them, but here are the basic links: my July 7 post, 12 examples of the (rapid) velocity of the Manhattan loft market, and my July 8 post, another sign that 2010 is not 2009, as 60 West 15 Street loft sells.

Apparently, I did not start using ‘nuclear winter’ as

a tag

until June this year.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

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

visualizing The Market / Manhattan real estate fun at Urban Digs

more to come, he promises
Noah Rosenblatt over at Urban Digs has long been working on data sets, and is getting ever so much closer to being able to publish what will be unique information about the Manhattan real estate market. His latest teaser (The August Lull) looks at monthly data for contracts signed and new listings, back to 2008. What he’s focused on is the Very Slow Summer we’ve had (for both contracts and new listings, both starting to slow down in May this year), but what struck me visually was The Lehman Effect.

Look especially at the way contracts signed fell off the cliff from October 2008 through January 2009, then slowly (very slowly) increased during February through April 2009. Nuclear winter, indeed. Of course, you may find other things here that will grab you.

You will see that he says these kind of charts "will be launched very soon". Yes, he’s been saying that for a while now, but stay tuned….

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

Tagged with: , , , ,

loft living or penology? Quote Of The Day


you can’t make this stuff up

Today’s QOTD comes via the New York Times’ own Hunt Grunt, Joyce Cohen, and requires Manhattan Loft Guy readers to cross the river. Not far, but still …. In The Hunt feature in today’s real estate section in the Times, The H Grunt quotes an art-y type thus:

The design reminds me of a prison, but in an elegant kind of way

The context is clear that he means this in a positive way (he moved to 184 Kent Avenue, after a long search [of course, in The Hunt] all the way from … 181 Kent). The photos (renderings?) on the building’s StreetEasy link don’t give the same impression as the photo in the Times. Something about the tall and narrow windows in the center section are vaguely correctional. (Compare the Manhattan Criminal Court building, which carries that verticality all the way to the top.)

the Wiki is my friend
But we are talking about a Cass Gilbert building here, circa 1913, so let’s be kind. Looking only at the New York division of his Greatest Hits, we find:

  • Woolworth Building
  • U S Customs House
  • NY Life
  • 90 West Street

None of these is pedestrian like a warehouse can be. (184 Kent was a grocer’s warehouse, back in the day.) But his Brooklyn Army Terminal on the waterfront in Sunset park is not too shabby, either.

A tip of the Manhattan Loft Guy hat to Damien Girardi for a holiday QOTD.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

Happy Kidneversary Day to all

but especially to Susan
It is not only a holiday weekend, but today is a very significant anniversary for me (not as Manhattan Loft Guy, but as … me).  Close and long-time MLG readers will remember this one, September 4, 2009, do any of you people know how to pray?, and the recap on January 20, 2010, adventures in nephrology / about that kidney donation….

As noted in that January 20 post, you can read a good bit of The Story in a profile that was done for January 2010 monthly newsletter of the school that Susan and I have both been associated with, but you have to scroll to p8 of 10, here.

tempis fugits, endlessly
We will see Suan and her husband tonight, at an anniversary dinner at one of the best known restaurants (and best!) in a Manhattan loft neighborhood. (A coincidence, that, I assure you.) It seems like a very long time ago to me, but I will ask Susan tonight about her sense of time. I suspect that the One Year Healthy milestone is more of a big deal for the recipient than the donor. Note to self: I do need to get back to the gym more regularly, though.

serious question: why keep it after you don’t need it?
For now the third time, here is information about what New York residents can do about their organs after they are done using them:

The New York Donor Network website is http://donatelifeny.org/, where you can get information about donating organs after you don’t need them. There’s a form you can fill out, print and mail that enrolls you in the donor program, which you can access here. The main site has many, many links if you want further information about organ transplants.

I feel like Sally Struthers
Thousands of people die every year without having gotten the organ donation that could save their lives. Millions of people die every year without having made arrangements to donate any usable organs. You can do something about that today.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

Tagged with: , , , ,

no skyscrapers in Manhattan loft neighborhoods, but why not?

[UPDATE 1.18.12: this topic is ‘news’ again because the Working Paper I talk about below has just been published in an academic journal, which got some press through the New York Observer, Uncanny Valley: The Real Reason There Are No Skyscrapers in the Middle of Manhattan, on line last night. Same paper, same issues, same conclusions. I could not get the link in the Observer piece to work, perhaps because it is a paid journal; the link below to the working paper pdf does still work. One author restates the conclusion for The Observer in colloquial terms: “It’s not an issue of supply, of where you can build. It’s an issue of demand, or where you want to build.” Nicely put; details below. I fixed some of the awkward formatting in the original post. ]

the bedrock principle, or not?

Anyone who has looked at a large scale photograph of the Manhattan skyline has noticed the clusters. Most people who wonder why the distribution of very tall buildings has this huge gap from about Chambers Street up into the 30s are satisfied with the claim that the famous Manhattan bedrock is closer to the surface in midtown and near the Battery. Let’s take a mild diversion from the focus on Manhattan lofts heading into the holiday weekend to consider the work of a couple of academics who, bless their hearts, not only wondered "why?", but came up with a way to answer the question.

Their 38 page (very) academic paper, “Bedrock Depth and the Formation of the Manhattan Skyline, 1890-1915″, comes up with a different answer than you think you know. They start (p. 3) with the lore:

For example, New York geologist Christopher Schuberth (1968) writes, “[T]he skyscrapers of New York City are clustered together into the midtown group, where the bedrock is within several feet of the surface, and the downtown group, where the bedrock again reappears to within forty feet of the surface near Wall Street….In any event, it is readily seen how clearly the accessibility of the bedrock has, to some degree, controlled the architectural planning of the city” (pps. 81-82).
 

Their conclusion (at pp. 5-6) is introduced in the dialect known as Academic English:

Overall, our results suggest that bedrock had, at most, a small effect on the formation of the skyline. Rather, developers were most affected by the other economic factors, such as agglomeration economies in the already established centers, the distance to public transportation, the desire to avoid being near slums and manufacturing districts and to be closer to upper- and middle-class citizens in Manhattan. That is to say, the evidence strongly suggests that the polycentric nature of Manhattan was driven more by the demand for skyscrapers and agglomeration benefits in particular neighborhoods rather than the inability of
suppliers to provide skyscrapers in other places.

 They consciously place their analysis in the framework of other academic studies of cities with multiple business districts (noting one study that found that "that population and traffic congestion can account for close to 80% of the variation in the number of subcenters across the U.S., as of 1990") and then question one implication of the population+commuting studies ("that subcenter formation and ‘sprawl’ are post-World War II phenomena, or at least contingent upon the widespread use of the automobile"). They are intrigued that Manhattan’s skyscraper distribution and pattern of business development are much older phenomena than mid-20th Century sprawl.

They reference The Great Jackson (Kenneth T.; here cited for the 1987 Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, he’s "great" in my book for his 1995 The Encyclopedia of New York City):

                                                                 Jackson (1987), for example, demonstrates that the process of “suburbanization” in New York City began in the first half of the 18th century, with the introduction of steam ferries and railroads. Our work shows that intra-city (rather than intra-regional) subcenter formation was occurring in New York City during the 19th century. As such, midtown Manhattan perhaps represents one of America’s earliest “edge cities” (Marshall, 2007; Garreau, 1991).
 

cutting to the chase
I read the whole thing, so you don’t have to (unless you want to, of course).

They make a convincing case that it is not the soft(er) earth in Tribeca, Soho and Greenwich Village that accounts for skyscrapers having "leaped over" that part of town, but two other things: a high concentration of tenements and factories (to be avoided by a business district) and the political decision in 1871 to require the NY Central Railroad to terminate its route at 42nd Street, to reduce pollution and congestion downtown. (See p 9.) There’s a lot of math involved in eliminating (accounting for) cost and technical issues, as well as varying bedrock depth (I admit it: I skipped the math), but that is the gist of it.

For me, a nice diversion to head into a holiday weekend and "the end" of Summer. It is also nice to discover an Urban Myth that is so very urban.

a tip of the Manhattan Loft Guy hat

I just love people who ask "why?", and "is there any data for that proposition?". That group certainly includes Matt Yglesias, who gets today’s Hat Tip for having flagged this study on his blog (a blog on which he frequently wonders "why?", and "is there any data for that proposition?"). 

Watch out for today’s wind gusts.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

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

nice loft, great deck, but not so near work

if this is "near" so is Penn Station
It is always nice to see a beautiful Manhattan loft featured in the media, and this more-foodie-than-lofty item from The Observer does feature a beautiful loft. The loft in question is the Penthouse at 238 East 4th Street, which was sold last week (August 24) for $3,027,373. At "2,700 sq ft" with a "1,200 sq ft" terrace with Empire State and Chrysler Building views and "the highest caliber of finishes" ("magazine ready"!), that seems like a good deal for a loft that is (per The Observer) "near the storied Village eatery" One If By Land, Two If By Sea (on Barrow Street in the West Village) owned by the new buyer. (Unless it is not near the restaurant.)

remembering things in the past?
The Market did not take long to warm up to this listing, though it did take a few trips to the barber: they started at $3.75mm in March, but were flexible enough to drop twice in April ($3.4mm and $3.195mm), then held steady until the contract on July 22 at that funny purchase price ($3,027,373; someone’s lucky numbers??).

The story line for The Observer is the celebrity buyers and bold-faced-name sellers:

One if by Land, Two if by Sea owner Oscar Proust purchased some land of his own near the storied Village eatery. Mr. Proust and wife, Colleen Goujjane, snagged an East Village penthouse duplex at 238 East 4th Street for $3 million. The couple bought the three-bedroom condo from Niche Media editor and Hip Hollywood Homes author Sue Hostetler and husband, Jon V. Diamond, a media executive and co-founder of the Whitney Museum’s New Media Committee. The apartment was listed by Corcoran’s Julie Pham and Sarah Thompson. Mr. Proust bought the famous West Village restaurant 10 years ago, and refurbished both decor and menu adding Picholine chef Craig Hopson and re-antiquing the esthetic, replacing rugs with wide-plank wood floors and adding antique chandeliers. Perhaps he’ll do the same for his new home which boasts, "the largest ipe-and-concrete decked terrace you’ve ever seen in the East Village with sweeping Empire and Chrysler building views."

east meets west, eventually
I bet that someone at The Observer missed the "E" in the penthouse’s address, as 238 EAST 4 Street is hardly "near the storied Village eatery". That penthouse is almost at Avenue B.

Using the restaurant website’s Google Maps Directions feature (which can give you directions by foot, bless them) the penthouse is 1.2 miles from the restaurant. That’s about the same distance from the restaurant as Penn Station, or Madison Square Garden.

Indeed, Soho and nearly all of Tribeca is within that walking distance.

it is not the commute
A lovely loft, and a great roof deck. Just not very near the guy’s restaurant.

Indeed, unless there is a same-family situation hidden behind a purchasing LLC in City records, that was absolutely not The Point of the purchase. It appears that he is moving to Avenue B from just around the corner from his restaurant.

StreetEasy show that he and his wife just sold the townhouse at 123 Washington Place, a mere 361 feet from OIBLTIBS, on June 10 to a LLC for $4.8mm. If that is an arm’s length transaction, the clearing price is a long way from their attempts to sell at The Peak (March to July 2008), at $9.995mm and $8.995mm. But you will need a Manhattan Townhouse Guy / Gal to tell you that story.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

 

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

new real estate agency law disclosures coming to Manhattan in 2011


REBNY announcement of A Major Change is a little weird

Manhattan Loft Guy is going into the weeds of New York agency law and disclosure a bit, but before I force you to that I will give you the bottom line:

as of January 1, the written disclosure about agency must be given in all real estate transactions, which I take to mean that all buyers in Manhattan (sellers too, but the real change impacts buyers more) will be told in writing whether the agent they are talking to represents them, represents the seller, or (might) represent both of them.

This is a huge change for the (few??) people who will care, and I look at it as essentially closing a loophole through which agency disclosures in Manhattan did not have to be in writing and any oral "disclosures" were … err … confusing for consumers. My (fascinating?) between-the-lines read of the REBNY announcement is that (among other things) REBNY claims credit for this change that will "increase transparency of the real estate process and offer increased protections for consumers and real estate brokers", while neatly avoiding how we got the loophole to begin with.

The full REBNY announcement is below; the official memo from the State Assembly about the bill is excerpted below, and can be found with the full text of the bill and the new disclosure forms here. As I will explain below, it is difficult to explain the difference between the way that REBNY summarizes the bill and the way the Assembly has. But for civilians, the more important stuff is what the new law does, so let’s start there.

the disclosure
I went on (and on, and on) about agency law and real estate agent disclosure in my September 1, 2009 post, (bad) quote of the day / lawyer stumbles in NYT real estate Q&A, so I am not going to repeat that extended analysis here. See that post for the actual disclosure form language and extended (very extended) commentary about how it "works" in Manhattan and elsewhere. One very important element of the whole regulatory framework is the requirement that certain things be carefully explained.

Under current New York State law, every real estate agent working with a buyer and every agent working with a seller had to provide a written disclosure to any seller or buyer they came in contact with about who they really worked for … except in the five boroughs of New York City for coop or condo units in buildings with 4 or more units. Keep that exception in mind.

Under current NYS law, every agent in New York City working with a buyer and every agent working with a seller had disclose to (i.e., have a conversation with) any seller or buyer they came in contact with about who they really worked for. Keep that required conversation in mind.

If the same individual agent wanted to "represent" both a buyer and a seller in the same transaction, a special "dual agency" disclosure was required and (outside the City) a specific written disclosure and consent was required. If different agents at the same firm wanted to "represent" both a buyer and a seller in the same transaction, a special "dual agent with designated agency" disclosure was required and (outside the City) a specific written disclosure and consent was required. It is this Dual Agency and Designated Agency stuff that has always been required to be carefully explained, whether it was explained in writing or not.

I will note again that these requirements of "disclosure" have always been state-wide but the requirement of a specific form was different in the five boroughs (not required for a coop or condo in a 4+ unit building).

what is new?
There are two main changes to the law: one is housekeeping (a change in the written form that permits consent to Dual Agency in advance); the other (the big one) makes it a uniform state-wide requirement that the disclosures that have always been required now be confirmed in writing (i.e., ending the exception for NYC coops and condos with 4 or more units).

Here is how the Assembly officially describes the new law, in a pretty straightforward manner:

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: The bill would amend the agency
disclosure form to allow advanced consent to dual agency and require the
use of agency disclosure forms in real estate transactions for condomin
ium and cooperative housing.

Even REBNY seems to think that there has been some … err … "confusion" about who represents whom in the current world in which buyers and sellers were not entitled to written disclosures as a matter of law (my bold for emphasis):

In a move that will facilitate residential real estate transactions and alleviate any confusion about which party is represented by a real estate broker, New York State Governor David Paterson today signed into law amendments to the state’s real estate agency disclosure law to take effect on January 1, 2011 that will increase transparency of the real estate process and offer increased protections for consumers and real estate brokers. The amendments, fully supported by The Real Estate Board of New York’s (REBNY) residential leadership, will impact real estate brokers by requiring that agency disclosure forms be completed for all residential transactions and permitting consumers to give their advance consent to dual agency representation.

so what?
Life for Manhattan real estate agents is going to get more complicated. A lot more complicated if they have not been used to making these agency disclosures at all; less complicated if they’ve already been having these conversations; much less complicated if they have also been using the disclosure form. (Agents in other boroughs are much more likely to have done business involving single family to 3-unit buildings, so the changes should be much less radical for them.)

Life for buyers (especially) and sellers in Manhattan (especially) is also going to get more complicated. Sellers will probably just get used to signing a different form (with advanced consent for Dual Agency with Designated Agents), but buyers should begin to notice that they have more paperwork to deal with than they had before.

Recall that there was always supposed to be a careful explanation of certain things. Now there will be the additional requirement that the paperwork be completed in NYC that has always been required in NYS.

making sausage in Albany
I can’t help but suspect that the reason the new law makes two principal changes is that one is a trade-off for the other, and that the heavy hand of REBNY insisted on that trade. Call me cynical, or paranoid, but note the oh-so-pregnant conjunction "but" in this REBNY description of the two things the new law accomplishes:

“REBNY, through its Residential Brokerage Division Board of Directors, worked closely with the state legislature and NYSAR to negotiate amendments that would increase transparency of the real estate transaction process, but also would be realistic for brokers to implement.”

That pregnant conjunction implies that there is (at a minimum) some tension between the Transparency goal and the Realistic For Brokers goal, no?

Why would that be? Well, it may be that REBNY ("work[ing] closely with the state legislature and NYSAR") was concerned about how "realistic" it would be to "implement" a requirement that (essentially) only changed the form of disclosure in Manhattan from oral to writing, so insisted that the careful explanation of Dual Agency and Designated Agents could at least be begun in advance, and signed off in advance. It seems that REBNY, in the interest of "offer[ing] increased protections for consumers and real estate brokers" (my bold) was concerned that brokers would not be so well protected if the only change in the law was to require a uniform written agency disclosure across the State.

future tension
I have been candid in the past about the difficulties in really giving a careful explanation to a buyer or a seller of what Dual Agency and Designated Agents means (I will quote one section of that September 1, 2009 post below). Obviously, there is training required, as REBNY promises us members, on the "nuances" of the new disclosures. I very much hope that the nuances include the fact that the sign-in-advance form not be the only careful explanation that a buyer or a seller gets about Dual Agency and Designated Agents.

Here is how I described the typical scenario for a potential conflict of interest in Manhattan in that September 1, 2009 post:

The seller of Beautiful Loft represented by a Brokerage Firm (let’s call it "Corco"; although you could equally well call it "Prude"). The buyer has been working with a different Corco agent, and becomes interested in the Beautiful Loft. As a firm, Corco has a conflict in that setting unless the buyer knows (agrees) that s/he is unrepresented for purposes of the Beautiful Loft (in which case only the seller’s agent participates). If that buyer wants to be "represented", both parties must agree that Corco is a Dual Agent and that the seller’s agent is "designated" to work with the seller, while the buyer’s agent is "designated" to work with the buyer.

a bit of a swamp
As the disclosure form says, this is another opportunity for a "careful" explanation. I have seen precious little practical guidance here over the years, but this is what the form says (in part):

A designated sales agent cannot provide the full range of fiduciary duties to the buyer or seller. The designated sales agent must explain that like the dual agent under whose supervision they function, they cannot provide undivided loyalty.

I take this to mean that the two "designated" agents can go at each other on behalf of their respective principals, but if they choose to get guidance from their supervising broker, everybody knows that the supervising broker will give advice to both "sides" equally. I admit that I am a bit fuzzy about the "designated sales agent … like the dual agent under whose supervision they function, … cannot provide undivided loyalty" part.

Frankly, I would love to hear more specifics about what "designated" agents can and cannot do, but each time I have asked a lawyer or association executive I have gotten boilerplate responses that are not very useful in the real world.

What is clear is that there has to be a "careful" explanation of this. While NYS law does not require that the disclosure form be provided in most cases in Manhattan, I will use it and get my "client" to sign it.

We Manhattan real estate agents will need very practical advice (I guess REBNY would call it "realistic" advice) about the "designated sales agent … like the dual agent under whose supervision they function, … cannot provide undivided loyalty" part. That’s what REBNY is for, isn’t it?

that REBNY verbal weirdness
I hinted up top that something strikes me as weird about the way that REBNY announced this major change in the law. As I said many paragraphs up, this is how the Assembly officially describes the new law:

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: The bill would amend the agency
disclosure form to allow advanced consent to dual agency and require the
use of agency disclosure forms in real estate transactions for condomin
ium and cooperative housing.

To me, the REBNY spin on this curiously avoids making the simple statement that now (as of January 1) Manhattan coop and condo transactions are covered by the same disclosure laws as the rest of New York State real estate transactions (my language in [italicized brackets] should help illustrate my point; if not, read again the simpler language in the Assembly memo about the General Idea of the bill that has passed and been signed):

Previously, verbal consent for agency disclosure was accepted for multifamily buildings over four units [i.e., nearly all New York City coop and condo units ]. The new law specifies that a written agency disclosure form must be used for all residential transactions. In addition, the amendments have created a section on the agency disclosure form where consumers can give their advanced consent to being represented by two agents from the same real estate broker in the same transaction.

I am going to speculate that REBNY did not want to draw attention to the (likely) fact that way back whenever New York State law was changed to require the written agency disclosure for any real estate transactions in the first place, REBNY, through its Residential Brokerage Division Board of Directors, worked closely with the state legislature and NYSAR to negotiate amendments that would exclude nearly all NYC coop and condo transactions from that transparency and consumer protection effort.

Now, apparently faced with the likelihood that the NYS Legislature would do away with that loophole, REBNY wants to take credit for amendments that "would increase transparency of the real estate transaction process, but also would be realistic for brokers to implement.”

Gotta be realistic about how much transparency REBNY members can handle!

Sept 1 synchronicity

Is there some weird harmonic convergence in the Manhattan Loft Guy universe involving today’s date? Today’s post is only the second major discussion I have had about the critical topic of agency disclosure, with the first being (of course) one year ago to the day. Is Rod Serling still available? Perhaps I should make a note for another Agency post for September 1, 2011.

addenda, and detail
Here is the full text of the REBNY announcement yesterday:

REBNY STATEMENT REGARDING

NEW AGENCY DISCLOSURE LAW

New law increases transparency, protects consumers and brokers

NEW YORK, Aug. 31, 2010 – In a move that will facilitate residential real estate transactions and alleviate any confusion about which party is represented by a real estate broker, New York State Governor David Paterson today signed into law amendments to the state’s real estate agency disclosure law to take effect on January 1, 2011 that will increase transparency of the real estate process and offer increased protections for consumers and real estate brokers. The amendments, fully supported by The Real Estate Board of New York’s (REBNY) residential leadership, will impact real estate brokers by requiring that agency disclosure forms be completed for all residential transactions and permitting consumers to give their advance consent to dual agency representation.

Previously, verbal consent for agency disclosure was accepted for multifamily buildings over four units. The new law specifies that a written agency disclosure form must be used for all residential transactions. In addition, the amendments have created a section on the agency disclosure form where consumers can give their advanced consent to being represented by two agents from the same real estate broker in the same transaction.

Neil Garfinkel, REBNY’s residential counsel, who was involved in the negotiations and drafting of the disclosure law amendments said, “These amendments will ensure that brokers and consumers are legally protected by requiring written disclosure in all residential transactions. We also sought to ensure that the advanced consent measure be included so that brokers, who show numerous listings to potential buyers, would not need to have separate agency disclosure forms prior to showing each listing. This is an important distinction, particularly for New York City brokers who frequently represent buyers and who may show dozens of apartments before a transaction happens.  The advance consent provision reflects the realities of the marketplace and will ultimately facilitate transactions.”

“The revised agency disclosure law provides additional safeguards for sellers, buyers, tenants, landlords and brokers to ensure that transactions move forward fairly with all parties understanding who is representing whom,” said Steven Spinola, REBNY President. “REBNY, through its Residential Brokerage Division Board of Directors, worked closely with the state legislature and NYSAR to negotiate amendments that would increase transparency of the real estate transaction process, but also would be realistic for brokers to implement.”

REBNY will be holding multiple seminars in the Fall to educate its members to the nuances of the revised disclosure form before it goes into effect.

From the Assembly memo:

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: The bill would amend the agency
disclosure form to allow advanced consent to dual agency and require the

use of agency disclosure forms in real estate transactions for condomin

ium and cooperative housing.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1: Real property law section
443, subdivision 1, is amended to add "associate real estate broker" and
"real estate salesperson" to the definition of "agent".

The definition of residential real property is amended to include condo-
miniums and cooperatives with respect to the provisions of this section.

New definitions for "advanced consent to dual agency" and "advanced
consent to dual agency with designated sales agents" are also added to
sec. 443 of real property law.

Section 2: The real property law section 443, subdivision 3, is amended
to add a new paragraph (f) that allows sellers, landlords, buyers and
tenants to consent in advance to dual agency.

JUSTIFICATION: A statutorily required agency disclosure form is used to
provide consumers with information regarding their representation in a
real estate transaction. "Dual Agent" is currently recognized in real
estate license law as a valid form of agency relationship in which the
buyer and seller are represented by the same real estate brokerage
company.

This bill will allow consumers to select and allow a "dual agency"
relationship in advance of it actually occurring. In many cases, buyers’
agents will bring their clients to multiple properties in their search
for an appropriate property for the buyer. They will often rum into
situations where the seller is represented by the same brokerage company
for whom the buyers’ agent works. Currently, the property could not be
shown until a new agency disclosure form was signed by the seller and
buyer. This delays these activities and sometimes prohibits the property
from being shown. The revised agency disclosure form would streamline
this process by allowing consumers to provide advanced consent to this
"dual agency" relationship. The selection by the buyer or seller of dual
agency in advance of it occurring is completely optional.

The bill will also require real estate licensees to provide a written
agency disclosure form when working with clients purchasing or selling
condominiums or cooperatives. Current law requires licensees in these
types of transactions to provide verbal disclosure of the agency
relationship. Requiring written disclosure in condo and coop trans-
actions will ensure these consumers are afforded the same disclosure of

agency representation information that is provided to buyers and sellers
of residential real property.

If you have read this far along, THANK YOU. You now know more about agency law than 64.32% of REBNY members.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

Tagged with: , , , , ,

pricing right to (yes!) sell quickly at 55 Liberty Street

how tall is that eye candy in the window?
When I was playing around yesterday in Tribeca, at the "intersection" of West Broadway at N. Moore and White Streets, Tribeca’s crowded townhouse corner: West Broadway at N. Moore + White, I clicked on some architect websites. Indeed, I gave a (subtle?) compliment to Joseph Pell Lombardi, in favorably contrasting his work at The Fairchild and Pearline Soap to the new facade planned for One N. Moore Street. Although that is yesterday’s news, Lombardi came up again when I noticed the August 18 sale of #5B at 55 Liberty Street, as Liberty Tower was a very early financial district residential loft conversion (1980) done by Lombardi. First, the numbers; then, the building.

How quick is "quick"? In the case of #5B, "quick" is coming to market on May 11, finding a contract by June 16, and closing on August 18. Q U I C K.

Consistent with this velocity, The Market generated a full price sale of this one-bedroom coop at $509k. The BHS listing is typically coy about the size of this coop, but our data-base shows #5B as being "650 sq ft". That translates to a modest $783/ft, though in this case Modesty Is Rewarded.

How modest is "modest"? In the case of #5B offered (and sold!) at $783/ft, that May 11 asking price followed the sale of a slightly larger one bedroom (#11D, "750 sq ft", in contract on March 25, closed on May 21) at $803/ft. M O D E S T. [UPDATE: I neglected to mention that i hit #11D when it closed, on May 28, 55 Liberty Street closes as if 2007, progress of a sort]

One problem with many lofts in the financial district canyons is that views are often very limited. After all, it is a "canyon" because many buildings are tall and the streets are narrow. So I was intrigued by the #5B listing description bragging on "four oversized loft windows with eye candy architectural views", even from this low floor. Sadly, none of those views are evident in the listing photos. It didn’t seem to hurt, but I don’t get that….

beautiful tower
Unless you have no soft spot in your heart for classic New York commercial architecture, you should at least appreciate (if not adore) Liberty Tower. It was for a short time the tallest building in the world (from 1909 until the 1913 Woolworth building), and had been headquarters for the Sinclair Oil and Refining Corporation (was that Dino the dinosaur??) . I was wondering whether the style was Gothic, until I read that answer in the #5B babble, in which even the language is Gothic [archaic?]:  "the 380 foot high building was designed in modified Gothic style, adorned with carved stone eagles perched thereon". Thereon???

As I mentioned up top, I visited the architect’s website yesterday and complimented his new-but-classic-Tribeca design for two new condos. I was reminded yesterday that he also did the Liberty Tower residential conversion in 1980, but I am disappointed to see that there is not much information about that project on his website. Darn.
 

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

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

Tribeca's crowded townhouse corner: West Broadway at N. Moore + White

the only one in Tribeca?
The news come from the Tribeca Tribune this morning, via Curbed, that the long-delayed project at the corner of West Broadway at the beginning of N. Moore Street is in an "active" phase again. When (if?) completed, that project will fill in the empty NW corner of the almost-but-not-quite single intersection of West Broadway at N. Moore and White Streets.

If there is another Tribeca intersection with townhouses at each of the four corners, it does not come to mind. Indeed, I wonder if there is another intersection anywhere in a prime Manhattan loft neighborhood that has townhouses on all four corners….

The new project used to be "240 West Broadway", but seems to be re-branding as One N. Moore Street. It will be nice to get full use of the sidewalk and streets here, once the constuction is done, as they’ve been blocked for quite a long time. Although the lot is hardly small at 53′ x 78′, every time I go by there when the construction gate is open I marvel at how comparatively deep the basement / foundation is being dug for the size of the lot. Maybe (most likely) that is just an ilusion, and there is nothing unusual about the digging.

own it = build any design you want
Aside from the fact that it is coming back from the dead, the big story is that the facade is changed from the original design. Both Trib Trib and Curbed have new and old renderings. We’ll see what it actually looks like as-built (if!), but I am not getting a warm-and-fuzzy from the new facade; I am getting a vibe that is more generic-UWS than new-but-classic Tribeca, a la the Fairchild or Pearline Soap (see those architect renderings here). Curiously, the old rendering for 240 West Broadway is still on the architect’s website (click Projects, then Under Construction), but I don’t find the new one there. The old rendering certainly is different, perhaps in a Bowery-near-Delancey kind of way, which is not to say that I love it.

The New Guys have the right to do pretty much anyting they want on this lot (respecting zoning regs, of course), as this lot is just outside the land-marked district. I wish they had done something more interesting than the new rendering, but it is their money.

a lot of their money
The guys who started this project at this site bought it in March 2007 or August 2006 for $12.5mm (there are deeds for $12.5mm in both months, which may just reflect corporate structure changes). They put some additional money into it (design, permits, that digging), before bailing out this past April for $8,757,15. That is an expensive shirt to lose, no?

With a lot of 53′ x 78′ and FAR (per Property Shark) of 5, we are probably looking at a roughly 20,000 sq ft building, which will have separate entrances for a 6-story townhouse and a 6-unit condo topped by a 3-story penthouse. if that rough math is right about the size of the to-be-built townhouse+condo, the April price of $8,757,15 is roughly $438/build-able foot for The New Guys.

coincidence? you decide
i can’t help but think that The New Guys were motivated by the Ridiculous Single Family townhouse across the street at 2 N. Moore Street ("our suburb", which the building suburbanites ended up selling without even moving in; did they move to The [Real] Suburbs??), which finally sold in July at $24mm but went into contract in February, two months before The New Guys bought One N. Moore. (Curbed coverage here. The New York Post identified the buyers on June 10, before they closed.)

Of course, that thing is 11,000 sq ft, so probably much larger than the One N. Moore townhouse will be. And I suspect that the level of workmanship and design was higher on the south side of the street than it will be on the north side townhouse, though it is easy to be distracted by the $2,000+/ft sale of the south-side townhouse.

across, and down to White Street for 2 other townhouses
N. Moore Street butts into West Broadway from the north just a few feet from where White Street ends at West Broadway from the east, forming my almost-but-not-quite single intersection. Stick with me (and cross West Broadway with me) to see the other two townhouses at this ‘intersection’.

The John Lennon mythologized One White Street sold for $3.25mm in June. Curbed coverage here. There is ground floor retail with a three-story single family home on top; the building is a tidy (I believe the babble word is "cozy") 15′ x 43′. (Does anyone remember the name of the shop at this address that sold terrific chicken pot pies during the 1980s?) At just under 2,000 sq ft, the residential portion of this house is definitely three floors worth of ‘cozy’. There is retail rent being paid here, of course, so the $3.25mm purchase price does not simply translate to $1,260/ft, but that (pretty quick) sale (March 3 to April 27 contract) shows a healthy townhouse market in this Tribeca micro-nabe.

Speaking of retail rent being paid, the late and lamented Liquor Store bar was in the two-story building at 235 West Broadway, at the NE corner of White Street, making it the fourth ‘townhouse’ at this ‘intersection’. It has been (gasp!) a J. Crew since 2008. See this 2006 story from the Tribeca Trib about the liquor license travails of the (then) new owner of Liquor Store, who ended up not getting his license ($250,000 later). Here’s the New York Magazine babbling about that unique retail location:

J.Crew’s first menswear-only boutique takes the place of the former Liquor Store Bar, a longtime Tribeca favorite. The brand preserved both the name and authentic sensibility with help from Andy Spade, who consulted on the comfortable, set-like design of the narrow space. Liquor Store breaks away from the standard mall-like J.Crew setup with dark paneling and antique displays, plush leather chairs, and art-directed knickknacks strewn about: a model ship, a miniature airplane built from Tecate beer cans, and cloudy liquor bottles long since tapped.

Ouch.

Tribeca purists (and other lovers of Manhattan loft ‘authenticity’) might well scoff at this adaptation of a classic old space (I am looking at me, actually), but if you read the 2006 Trib Trib story, you will see that one of the long-time neighbors of the Liquor Store (as a bar) who is quoted in opposition is the (now former) owner of One White Street.

Yes, it is a stretch to call 235 West Broadway a townhouse, but it is a single-family residence. Is there another Tribeca location with four townhouses on (roughly) opposite corners?

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

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