Jesuits adapt to Lower East Side gentrification by moving; will lofts follow?

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in change is a constant — No Comments ↓

2 things dear to my heart
I missed this piece in yesterday’s NY Times (h/t The Real Deal): Lower East Side Has Less to Offer Jesuits Who Teach the Poor. Manhattan Loft Guy is Jesuit educated, I am in close contact with some Jesuits, and I remain interested in (and impressed by) so many things that the Jebs do that are "… for others", so this story would have been interesting to me, regardless. But from the perspective of this blog, the story resonates on a nothing-in-New-York-stays-the-same basis, involving Good News and Bad News.

Everyone has a story about how different Manhattan is now from The Olde Days, particularly people with long memories about how Gentrification came to formerly desolate-but-non-residential areas like Tribeca and Soho and to formerly crowded-but-economically-challenged areas like the Lower East Side and Hell’s Kitchen. Jesuit priest and educator Jack Podsiadlo tells the story in the Times of how the changes in the micro-neighborhood around 204 Forsyth Street are putting him out of business there, setting him off to find a more suitable location for his work.

In broad strokes, the same changes that caused the Tribeca butter-and-egg guys to flee the short people (March 12, Quote For The Day, 2000 edition) are causing Father Podsiadlo to flee the condo people.

That Forsyth Street block just below Houston Street used to feature the staples of the old Lower East Side (hookers, syringes, slums), but now there are boutiques, hotels, construction cranes, and fewer poor families whose middle school children have been educated there for nearly 40 years.

one block, one mission, different times
Here’s the timeline from the NY Times article:

When the Jesuits bought the building in the 1940s, the area was becoming a destination for thousands of Puerto Ricans in a huge postwar migration. Men found work as janitors, women as sewing machine operators, settling with their extended families into tenements that had previously housed Jewish and Italian immigrants.

A small group of nuns were running a nursery school in the building, which had become a settlement house of sorts. ***

By the 1960s, the Rev. Walter Janer, a Puerto Rican-born Jesuit, was reaching out to local youngsters, setting up study halls and recreation, and opening a summer camp upstate. ***

The school opened in 1971 with a simple model. Relying on priests, volunteers and young teachers, it welcomed youngsters whose parents could not afford parochial school tuition. ***

This year, after years of dwindling enrollment from the neighborhood and under financial pressures that could have closed the school, its board voted to move.

 

not enough poor people
Maybe the school would have stayed where it was if it were in gentrifying Chelsea, near the New York City Housing Authority buildings along 9th Avenue. There might have been enough Latino poor kids to fill out the school. But the accident of geography and the trend of gentrification in the Greater Whole Foods micro-nabe thinned out the potential client families too much for the school to persist on Forsyth Street.

So it appears that the school is headed to Mott Haven in the Bronx, with its relevant resources of poor Latino kids, subways, and public housing. My South Bronx geography is not very good, but the potential for gentrification (and conversion into residential lofts) is everywhere. Here’s an old piece from The Real Deal (September 2, 2008; immediately pre-Lehman, so the slope of the trend line may certainly have changed):

The Bronx Bricks lofts ["the first privately financed condominium ever built in Mott Haven, a five-story converted print shop of 11 loft spaces"] were put on the market at the end of July 2007, and all of the units have been sold except for one. Prices — from $395,000 for a second-floor, roughly 1,200-square-foot loft to $795,000 for a top-floor loft nearly twice the size — were previously inconceivable in the neighborhood.

The Bronx Bricks success story has prompted other investors to follow suit.

yet another New Soho
From the Department of Eerie Parallels, when you read these excerpts from a July 29, 2009 article from The Mott Haven Herald replace "Soho" every time "Mott Haven" is mentioned:

 

This year they hoped the art alone would be the center of attention, but in a place like Mott Haven, the conversation inevitably turns to the neighborhood itself.

Calderon … used to have a studio of her own in Mott Haven. She had to move to Norwood when the rents shot up.

“Artists come here for a year or two and have to leave,” she laments. “There is a history that is totally gone, but those of us who remember hold the torch.”

Despite the rising cost of space in the area, Mott Haven remains an attractive place for artists to work, as evidenced by the many studios open during the May 2nd tour put together by the Bronx Council on the Arts. The Bronx Culture Trolley ferried visitors to more than 15 studios and galleries. ***

The South Bronx art community, he says, has “been here a while, but it hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves.”

He acknowledges the double-edged sword of getting that attention however, noting, “It’s gonna displace people.”

“It’s the beginning of the end,” Nieves agrees. “Gentrification is coming.”

Good luck to Father Podsiadlo and the Nativity Mission Center. Watch out for the artists and the yuppies.

AMDG

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

20-26 N. Moore loft clears at $1,286/ft with no frills

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods tribeca — No Comments ↓

listing associated with "no listing associated" sale
StreetEasy has the news that the Manhattan loft #8W at 20-26 N. Moore Street closed on August 2 at $3.6mm, but no other news about the sale ("no listing associated with this sale"). Which is weird, because the boutique broker who is ITAL Tribeca listed it in February and you can find it on the Past Sales page of his website (scroll down), from which one can access pictures and the floor plan.

Our data base has this at "2,800 sq ft", while Tabak describes this as "masterfully renovated", with 4 exposures but only 3 are worth bragging about ("glorious light and views from South, West and East windows"). Is that Venetian plaster on (at least) the living room and bedroom walls? (Isn’t it funny how that fish-eye lens makes the toilet so far from the bathroom sink??)

Whether it was the light, the views, or the masterful, The Market loved it: it was new on February 15 at $3.95mm and in contract by March 30 at $3.6mm. I mean, loved it, as even Oscar The Grouch could tell….

that Sesame Street game
Which of these things is not like the other?

  sq ft to market contract price $/ft
#8W 2,800 Feb 15 Mar 30 $3.6mm $1,286
#5W 2,700 Feb 6 Apr 22 $2.5mm $926
#7E 2,700 Mar 6, 2009 June 4, 2009 $2.825mm $1,046

Granted, #5W is reliably reported as having needed a substantial renovation, while #7E (though a "masterpiece", "stunning" and "published") was in a different set of market conditions (brrr), but #8W was beloved of The Market.

tops in the Tribeca no-frills department?
I can’t think of another loft in a similarly classic small Tribeca coop with no amenities that has cleared recently at as high a price-per-foot as #8W. 100 Greene Street #4 is in a similar (smaller) coop building in a similarly prime area (but in Soho); that June 21 sale at $1,350/ft topped #8W by a bit.

The Market loved #8W!

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

Tagged with: , , , , ,

171 Duane Street loft closes at 12% premium, contract in 3 weeks

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods tribeca — No Comments ↓

"every once in a while …", indeed
Every once in a while, a listing description not only does justice to the loft listed but to potential buyers, giving an appropriately enthusiastic description of the loft instead of merely babbling. The Manhattan loft on the second floor at 171 Duane Street was just sold with such a description. That lede, excerpted:

Every once in a while, a special property comes to market that captures the true spirit and essence of its neighborhood. 171 Duane Street is that residence. … this magical 2000 square foot loft is flooded with radiant sunlight and offers picture-postcard views of historic Duane Park, a poetic setting where time stands still. Carefully renovated to preserve its original character, this sophisticated loft is the perfect mix of modern elegance and 19th Century charm.

I was going to replace the "poetic setting where time stands still" with an ellipsis, as it is (to me) a bit over the top, but it worked. This loft came to market on March 10 with an asking price of $2.495mm that was 11% higher than the December sale of the 4th floor "architecturally published masterpiece" and found a contract by April 1 at $2.8mm (it closed on August 2). No reason to quibble with that marketing campaign.

how special is special?
The footprint of this "2,000 sq ft" loft is classic Long-and-Narrow but the layout is not traditional. Taking advantage of windows along the long east wall (over the alley that is called Staple Street), the two bedrooms line that wall, with a (windowed but dark?) guest room that shares the rear with the elevator. The plumbing is on both sides, giving the flexibility for baths that are separated rather than back-to-back, and a kitchen on the other long side.

But the layout is not what makes this loft special enough to trade quickly and at a premium. The premium comes from the combination of items such as 12′ beamed ceilings, "sleek ebonized wood floors", white painted exposed brick walls, "enormous" double-hung windows, poured concrete kitchen countertops, a hand-cut glass-tiled backsplash, top-of-the-line appliances, a long hallway lined with antique bookshelves, vintage hand-painted wood doors, custom wallpaper, "Federal-style" windows and built-in cabinetry.

more special than an "architecturally published masterpiece"
The 4th floor is a great comp for this loft, with no adjustment needed for location or functionality (with 3 real bedrooms, the 4th floor is slightly more functional than the 2nd floor, with 2 bedrooms with a guest room that doubles as the elevator landing). Level of finishes are probably comparable; though that comes down to personal taste, the 4th floor is described as an "architecturally published masterpiece" and I will not repeat the prose about the "magical" 2nd floor.

Two things account for the dramatic spread between the December 4th floor closing at $2.25mm and the August 2nd floor closing at $2.8mm: market timing and market reaction.

2009 is not 2010
We’ve been down this road before, about the difference between the thin 2009 market and the more active 2010 market. (Some links: July 8, another sign that 2010 is not 2009, as 60 West 15 Street loft sells, June 30, Chelsea House kinda sorta holds its own, reveals Truths in The Market, June 15, 808 Broadway seller bites painful bullet, closes off 15% since 2006.)

The 2nd floor had the advantage of coming to market in March 2010; the 4th floor started in the still-chilly month of June 2009. The 4th floor was pretty successful in its own right, finding a contract in less than 3 months at only a slight discount from ask (2.2%). But I have this nagging feeling that market timing cannot explain the entire premium between the 2nd floor last September and the 4th floor this past March.

tautology department?
What I term above the "market reaction" to the two lofts being different is probably circular, but I can’t come up with a better locution. The Market valued the 2nd floor in March 2010 24% more than it had valued the 4th floor in September 2009 because … because that is what The Market did (meh). Put another (no less circular) way: the 2nd floor buyer loved the 2nd floor more than the 4th floor buyer loved the 4th floor. But that’s not quite right.

The 4ht floor buyer may have loved the 4th floor in September as much as the 2nd floor buyer loved the 2nd floor in March, but the 4th floor buyer had competition that the 4th floor buyer did not have. The competition was there because (tautology alert!) The Market was more active in Spring 2010 and (possibly) because the 2nd floor was perceived as the more desirable loft (arrgghhh).

Let’s try this from a different direction.

Yes, the Spring 2010 market was different from the Summer 2009 market. But because I just don’t believe that that difference was 25%, I am stumbling about for an additional explanation. Because I doubt that the condition of the two lofts is significantly different, I am at a loss.

when I get to a loss
Here’s my best ‘answer’ to ‘explain’ the radically different market valuations of these two very very comparable lofts: because The Market is made up of individual decisions by idiosyncratic individual buyers and sellers, it is not efficient. That does not mean the 4th floor seller under-priced that loft, or that the 2nd floor buyer over-paid. That just means that the difference between these two loft sales cannot be rationalized.

At least not by the Manhattan Loft Guy. I would stop now, but for one quibble about that 2nd floor layout and one additional note about timing.

a quibble for your thoughts …
I’ve been through the poetry and the ecstasy of the "magical", "sophisticated", "elegant" 2nd floor, etc, etc. But the layout lacks one thing that a high-end loft buyer typically wants: a bedroom larger than "second bedroom" size.

The largest bedroom on the second floor is 13’4" x 11’9". Let’s just say that many "sophisticated" lofts of 2,000 sq ft have one bedroom much larger than that. Plus, the layout is such that there’s no way to make one bedroom much larger without losing the second one (absent a major renovation). Yeah, yeah … The Market didn’t mind.

quick contract, slow closing
This loft took four months to get from contract to closing, a little slower than is typical for coops but hardly a glacial pace. But if it had closed in June I might have caught it for my July 7 post, 12 examples of the (rapid) velocity of the Manhattan loft market, as it was on the market at exactly the same time as those dozen lofts that also went to contract quickly.

Props to Richard Orenstein of Halstead, and to the 2nd floor seller.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

trading spaces / (lots of) loft on West 19 Street for (lots of) light + terrace on Gramercy Park

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods flatiron — No Comments ↓

one of those 8 million stories
I mentally filed away an Observer piece from July 30 some time ago for a future post. The Observer observed because it involves a celebrity. Voyeur that I am, Manhattan Loft Guy is interested because it shows someone who tired of deluxe loft living on a gritty Flatiron block in a mixed-use non-doorman building, and who traded it in for the opportunity to gut renovate a smaller Gramercy Park prewar apartment with wrap terraces and forever light and views in a "prestigious" coop with (white glove?) staff. Interesting choice.

The celebrity is Stone Phillips. The future is now!

Here’s the guts of Chloe Malle’s observation:

Several weeks ago The Times reported that the former Dateline NBC co-anchor Stone Phillips and wife, Debra, nabbed a rarely available Gramercy Park North penthouse–the two-bedroom was last on the market in the 1960s. Due to a bidding war, the sale went over the $4.75 million asking price and finally sold at $4.9 million. …

Now … the former Yale football quarterback and philosophy major, has sold his over 4,000-square-foot apartment at 8-10 West 19th Street, only a few blocks away. Mr. Phillips, whose Ken-like features placed him in the canon of all-American newsman Adonises, bought the apartment for $4.4 million in 2005, and originally listed the loft in the fall of 2009 for $4.995 million…. The price dropped to $4.65 million in April, before selling two months later for a clean $4.5 million.

The full-floor loft, whose audio, video, central air, fireplaces and curtains are all conveniently operated by wall-mounted Crestron panels…. [and] the master suite … includes a fireplace, Brazilian Paduk flooring, his and her closets (one of which is an over-sized walk-in), and a windowed spa bathroom with heated flooring, an "extra large" steam shower and Jacuzzi tub. When not in the bedroom, the kitchen is "a cook’s delight," and includes a built-in coffee/cappuccino maker; and the library has custom floor-to-ceiling bookshelves. Perhaps most seductively with the current thermostat, the "high velocity air system" promises to keep the entire custom wood-paneled apartment Stone cold in August climes.

what he lost
Let’s look at that loft, #8 at 8-10 West 19 Street. This condo is an interesting building, with 11 full-floor lofts, floors 1 through 6 of which are commercial spaces, and 7 through 11 being residential. The city thinks the lofts are "3,781 sq ft"; the listing description claims approximately "4,100 sq ft". While the footprint is rectangular, it is more squat (at 46 ft wide) than a typical Long-and-Narrow loft building, and has the huge advantage for a rectangle of four exposures. But on the 8th floor just off Fifth Avenue, the effect is probably more "light" than "views", as implied by the listing description’s failure to brag on either.

I can’t find a listing from when the media guy bought this loft in September 2005, so I don’t know if it was in the deluxe condition when he bought it. I have to hope so, and not just because this media guy would then have been lucky to have bought a loft that the previous owner had already installed a "high tech media room [that] is soundproof with electric shades and custom space for a 65 inch plasma TV".

I have to hope so because this media guy just sold (June 29) for $4.5mm what he paid $4.4mm for in September 2005. Assuming he put no money in it whatever, that’s a rounding error level "gain" of 2% for the five years of ownership. That’s a mild ouch if he sold it as he bought it, but a major OUCH if he bought it then renovated.

opportunity, missed (drip, drip)
The media guy was asking $4.995mm in October, but didn’t find his buyer until after dropping the price to $4.65mm in March (the contract at $4.5mm followed five weeks after the price drop). But he also tried to sell at The Peak; no telling what he might have gotten then, at the right price, had his luck been better.

The history of his 2008 listing is poignant, if not downright tragic. On the market for 3 days in February until a leaky faucet upstairs caused enough water damage to require it to be taken off the market until May 10, and then only for 6 weeks. With this limited marketing period, it is hard to say if The Market rejected the $5.495mm asking price, or if that price was simply too high, even for The Peak.

My guess is that the media guy probably would have generated a contract off that asking price had he been on the market continuously from February 2008, so that was a very costly leak.

While that unfortunate leak damage may have been limited to "limited areas" of the loft, a comparison of the floor plans in 2008 and 2009 shows that the storage and bar structure towards the back of the loft was re-shaped and moved about ten feet, costing him an entertainment / billiards area. I imagine the upstairs neighbor’s insurance picked up that out-of-pocket expense.

The market hit from being off the market at The Peak came out of the media guy’s pocket. In retrospect, he hurt himself by staying off the market from June 2008 until Lehman in September, but that’s got to hurt.

what he gained
The media guy won’t be moving in to his new apartment for a while, as he bought #PHA at 45 Gramercy Park North as a bring-your-architect project. At least here, his timing was good. He signed his contract to sell the loft on April 15; he pounced when Penthouse A came to market on April 26. As the Observer observes, his purchase price of $4.9mm exceeded the $4.75mm asking price, suggesting a bidding war from April 26 to the May 16 contract.

This penthouse has high ceilings for a prewar apartment building (built, 1929), but will probably seem like it has few and small windows after the huge windows in the West 19 Street loft. But maybe the architect will design fewer walls and more windows to have visual access to the amazing views from the huge wrap terraces. This coop is (typically) coy about size, but the 2 bedrooms, the dining room and the living room are all pretty big (so far as "apartments" are concerned) and those terraces are probably more than 50% of the interior space.

So the media guy sold a "4,100 sq ft" exquisitely done loft for $4.5mm, then paid $4.9mm for the opportunity to spend another half million or more on a renovation. I wonder if he will include a custom space for a 65 inch plasma TV. Or if he will get his billiards room back.

years of therapy pay off
I no longer take it personally when people reject lofts for apartments. Honest. In this case, the media guy trades in a huge space, beautifully finished, that was all about being in that space.

With no doorman, no amenities, and a lobby shared with workers and visitors to six floors of businesses, the West 19 Street lifestyle was more gritty, less refined (more anonymous?) than life will be in "in one of Gramercy Park’s most prestigious co-ops", with its doorman, concierge, elevator operator and 39 neighbors. He won’t be able to entertain quite as many folks as in the loft, but — especially if he can open up some walls — this soon-to-be-beautifully-finished apartment will be all about the great outdoors.

Enjoy, media guy!

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

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

negotiation science / The Anchoring Effect

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in psychology of the market — No Comments ↓


indeed, "we" are not so smart
Interesting post from an interesting blog that I have been mulling over this past week, as it had great personal relevance this week (story below) and has a real estate nexus. The post is Anchoring Effect; the blog is You Are Not So Smart with the clever subtitle, A Celebration of Self Delusion. Here’s the lede, where the key factor (after you understand how it works) is where that "initial conception" comes from:

The Misconception: You rationally analyze all factors before making a choice or determining value. 

The Truth: Your first perception lingers in your mind, affecting later perceptions and decisions.

Read the whole thing. I am pretty sure that at least one of his examples will resonate with you (the leather coat, the population of Venezuela, African countries in the UN, car sales, auctions and social security numbers, Vuitton vs. Wal-Mart handbags, summer camp volunteers). The Anchor Effect definitely exists, and understanding how it works helps us better able to overcome it.

Let me give you one (true!) story about the car we bought this week (after I read this post), before getting to some highly relevant Manhattan real estate issues.

me and my Anchors buy a car
Long story, short: I did tons of research, over-preparing to buy a certified pre-owned Prius, had Net Number (after trade-in) in mind we were comfortable with, and identified two dealers with interesting low-mileage inventory. Both had a pair of a fully-loaded 2008 and a 2010 with fewer options. At the NJ dealer, the 2008 and 2010 were offered at essentially the same price and we preferred the 2008 (partly due to the exterior and interior colors). Valuing the trade-in, that dealer and I got within $550 of each other, net.

I have to believe that was the dealer’s best price, because we said NO, walked out, and did not hear from them again.

At the CT dealer (90 miles north of the first dealer!), the web price for the fully loaded 2008 (which we again preferred) was $3,000 less than the 2010 but (it turned out) this dealer valued the trade-in much lower than the NJ dealer, complicating the Net Number calculation.

I became aware of three Anchor Effect problems. First, my expectation based on the lower 2008 sticker price in CT was that I should do much better there than in NJ, so I was disappointed (distracted?) when I did not. Second, my expectation from the NJ experience was that the 2008 fully loaded should be equivalent in price to the 2010 with fewer options, while in CT there was a relative over-valuing of the 2010 (a car I did not prefer). Third, I had negotiated a much lower discount on the 2008 in NJ than it looked as though I was getting in CT (absolute prices aside), so it did not feel like a better deal.

As it played out, I negotiated a Net Number in CT for the fully loaded 2008 that was clearly going to be better than the price I would have been willing to pay in NJ (but that dealer would not meet it). The mistake I almost made was to walk away in CT to return to NJ to buy the 2010, even though we originally preferred the 2008 to that 2010, and even though I could get the 2008 in CT for less than we would have been satisfied paying in NJ. Weird behavior.

Fortunately, I had enough time to reflect through (and get over) my anchor biases, and to return to my original goal: to buy the Prius we preferred within our original dollar comfort zone, net. We preferred the 2008 fully loaded, so the 2010 valuations were only a distraction. I could get a better deal (net) in CT even though that dealer was willing to give me (significantly) less on trade-in. The fact that my negotiating margin in CT was smaller than in NJ was irrelevant, so long as the result was better.

a 5% solution
We are picking up our new-to-us certified pre-owned 2008 Prius (did I mention that it is fully loaded?) in CT on Tuesday. The Net Number in CT is 5% lower than the number I would have taken in NJ but that dealer let me walk away without offering.

Now I spend too much time second-guessing my CT negotiating strategy since I only pushed back once when the dealer said I had squeezed him to his "final" number. Yes, I got $250 less than his "final" number, but could I have gotten another $100 off his final final number??

Never mind. What does this have to do with real estate?

difference for real estate buyers and sellers: who sets the anchor
There are the obvious points of relevance for buyers to recognize the Anchor Effect of an asking price, and maybe someday I will do a post about how sellers of (truly) unique lofts set arbitrary anchors (perhaps using as a point of reference the June 2008 sale of #9S at 130 West 17 Street, which I hit when it it came to market, 130 W 17 9S is new + really going for it, and again when it went into contract, don’t sneeze at 130 West 17 Street contract, as I believe that seller created an arbitrary anchor that succeeded in generating an above-market deal). For now, I want to focus on the difference between anchors for sellers and buyers.

As Raney suggests in his blog post, a buyer is more likely to be aware that the seller has created a likely-to-be-arbitrary asking price than the seller is to be aware that she has been (irrationally?) influenced by an anchor in setting (and sticking to, stubbornly) a possibly-too-high asking price. As he puts it:

External anchors, like prices before a sale or ridiculous requests, are obvious enough you can sidestep the actual price, the real appeal. Internal, self-generated anchors, are not so easy to bypass.

 


I take that to mean that a seller who paid $1.5mm for a loft at any earlier time will probably use that $1.5mm as the anchor from which to make adjustments for current market conditions but that seller is prone to making poor adjustments because of the anchor. As Raney quotes some other smart folks:

In many situations, people make estimates by starting from an initial value that is adjusted to yield the final answer. The initial value, or starting point, may be suggested by the formulation of the problem, or it may be the result of partial computation. In either case, adjustments are typically insufficient…that is, different starting points yield different estimates, which are biased toward the initial values.

 – “Judgment Under Uncertainty” by Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky

Or, a seller may (unintentionally) be anchored by the number she has to have in estimating what a buyer will rationally pay. Yes, that seller may say she is willing to make adjustments offered by a professional real estate agent based on the current market, but may be over-committed by her anchor to an unrealistic price for a "reason" she does not fully appreciate.

Fascinating stuff.

h/t Andrew Sullivan

© Sandy Mattingly 2010


Tagged with: , , , , , ,

getting emotional (litigious!) over commission on $44 million Manhattan townhouse

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in manhattan real estate business — No Comments ↓

it’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world
The Manhattan residential real estate business is such a wonderful spectator sport because it has everything: big numbers! huge egos! drama queens (and drama kings, and drama knaves)! (Not to mention: spectacular lofts, apartments and townhouses!!) We also have a media environment in which the NY Times and Wall Street Journal fight it out at the top of the "news" food chain, with more gossip-y stuff than you can shake a stick at on the pages of the Observer, NY Post and NY Magazine, even before descending to the all-comers drollery (and trollery) of the Curbed readership.

All of this is being fed by Public Relations staffers working for sellers, buyers, celebrities, developers, firms, Big Hair people, and agents (note to Manhattan Loft Guy self: pinch the pennies enough to afford that Howard Rubinstein retainer).

hissing and suing
The big cats track the big dollars, and when they are not happy …. When there’s "news" to be reported, and quotes to be given, fur flies. And quaint notions of professionalism, ethical responsibilities, discretion and following the rules can be tossed to the wayside from the high road of Publicity. (It seems that unlike "publicity", all "Publicity" is deemed Good.) We saw this pretty starkly in the meow-fest in Christine Haughney’s August 3 piece in The Appraisal feature of the New York Times, But What Did You Do for Me Today, Developers Ask Brokers.

But I want to focus on the fact scenario behind another case of Manhattan real estate Big Dollars, and the relationships trashed in their wake. That would be the commission dispute involving the sale of the Duke-Siemans mansion (no mere "townhouse", that) on Fifth Avenue at 82nd Street, which had been offered at $50 million and sold at $44 million, making it the fourth biggest townhouse sale in Manhattan real estate. I saw the story in the Wall Street Journal on-line on August 3 (Broker Sues on Slim Deal), but you might have seen it first … anywhere. It was in The Real Deal, Crains or Curbed (all linking to the Journal), but I found no mention of it in the Times, even after a search.

I will lay out the facts from the lawsuit, as reported in the Journal, then step back and analyze the normal rules that apply in these situations. Caution: because I do not have all the facts about this lawsuit, I do not know how (or whether) the normal rules apply, so just use this as an information guide on how these things ‘work’.

$880,000 worth of ‘facts’, as alleged in the complaint as reported in the Journal:

December 2009 BHS $50mm exclusive sales agreement signed
June 15 expiration date of exclusive
June 15? exclusive extended 30 days
July 14 BHS contact with buyer
July 15 exclusive expires
July 16 contract b/w buyer and seller?
July 21 closing at $44mm
July 30 lawsuit filed

 
I do not assume that the July 16 contract date is necessarily correct, as BHS has no direct knowledge of it (the other dates are either public record [the closing] or known to BHS). But the sequence is pretty clearly alleged to be:

  1. BHS introduction of buyer to seller within the exclusive period (just barely, but still…)
  2. expiration of exclusive
  3. contract (and closed sale) very soon after expiration of exclusive

Seems as though it should be pretty simple to establish whether BHS is owed a commission. Seems that it should be pretty simple to just read the contract. (BHS has; the Wall Street Journal has not, unless it is an exhibit to the complaint.) With $880,000 at stake, "seems" is a wiggle word.

rules … you mean there are rules?
The standard exclusive listing agreement of all REBNY firms has a clause that directly addresses this situation. The language that Corcoran uses in a townhouse exclusive is below, with some critical stuff in bold:

Within three (3) days after the expiration of the listing term, we shall deliver to you in writing a list of no more than six (6) names of persons who inspected the premises during the listing term. If within three (3) months after the expiration of the listing term a contract is signed to sell the premises to a person on said list, we shall be entitled to a fee for service of __% of the purchase price.

If it is in the exclusive between the seller and BHS, there may be some pesky fact questions as to whether the players knew who they were dealing with in the critical July 14 conversation described by the Journal this way:

On July 14, the suit says, Brown Harris Stevens spoke with Mr. Halabi, who was known to be representing Mr. Slim. The suit says that "prior to this conversation, neither defendant Halabi, nor his customer, Mr. Slim, were aware that the 1009 5th Avenue property was on the market."

If the standard REBNY clause is in the exclusive agreement between the seller and BHS and if BHS knew that it was dealing with the buyer (not just the agent), there is the critical fact question of whether BHS protected itself, as provided in the standard clause.

simple is as simple does
If there is such a clause in the BHS listing agreement, did BHS send a Six Names List within 3 days? If BHS did, is the buyer’s name on the list? Those are two simple fact questions.

Here is another simple fact question that may lead to a complex legal question: did the buyer or his agent "inspect the premises" before the exclusive agreement expired?

If the answer to all three questions is YES, then the firm is likely to win and the evident scenario is that the seller is playing hardball to squeeze $880,000 out of BHS.

If the third answer is NO, simple contract principles would appear to apply simply: no commission is due under the contract.

If the answer to either of the first two questions is NO, then BHS has no rights to a commission under the exclusive listing agreement. Whether BHS would have any commission rights under a different legal theory if they did not avail themselves of this simple contract procedure would depend on clever legal theories. In my civilian opinion, any firm seeking commission for a deal that they did not protect themselves on is likely to lose, but that would be for the lawyers and judges of the word to figure out.

If the buyer’s agent’s name is on the list (not the buyer himself), things get dicey, but more promising for the listing firm. (I have sent a Six Names List before, with a "name" like "Agent Mary Jones client who visited on ___", but I can’t guarantee that this was a sufficient ID.)

the complaint may be a curtained window in a dark loft
Good agents learn to read between the lines (and photos) on a listing, to ‘see’ what is not there and to ‘know’ what it means. It is really not so difficult to figure out there is (a) no view and (b) probably little light in a loft that has enthusiastic babble about many things but is silent about light and views, and in which the beautiful photos feature beautiful window treatments that are closed. Obviously, if what is outside the windows were a selling point, that would be mentioned or shown by a professional sales agent hired to sell the loft.

Do you see what is missing from the Journal’s recital of this factual scenario? The Journal does not report that the BHS complaint alleged that (a) buyer or agent "inspected" the townhouse in the exclusive period, or that (b) BHS sent a Six Names List by July 18, or that (c) the name of buyer or agent was on the Six Names List. Maybe the Journal reporter did not report these things because — although they are in the complaint — he did not deem them significant. Or maybe these "facts" are not in the complaint.

The article reads as though the Journal article had access to the complaint, so I am inclined to believe that the missing facts are missing because they are not facts.

The Journal notes that BHS declined to comment about the lawsuit for the article. If they ever comment, saying something like "we had a contract and did everything necessary to earn a fee", that general statement is consistent with the missing facts being actual facts. If they comment only about how "these bad people conspired to cheat us", they will not sound confident about their contract remedies.

some timing is a red herring
No matter what actually happened, the contract and closing were done in rocket time. BHS might use the very compressed schedule as evidence that the seller sought to screw them, but I don’t think that is the only logical or necessary conclusion. Under their scenario, seller must have heard from buyer before the exclusive agreement expired, and "intentionally, maliciously and tortiously" delayed negotiation until after the exclusive. The proof they offer is the fact that a $44mm deal got done in a week (using the first BHS contact with the agent on July 14, to the closing on July 21). Yes, the actual facts are whatever the actual facts are, but that does not look like a slam dunk argument to me.

Doing a $44mm deal in 7 days seems ridiculously fast to me, but that is the maximum length these parties may have taken. What if the real timing was only 5 days? Still ridiculously short, but in the word of ridiculously expensive lawyers, doing a deal in 5 days is only marginally more challenging than doing a deal in 7 days. I am sure there are corporate transactions in the billions that are much more complicated than buying a house that have been done in a week.

BHS may simply not know whether the timing worked more like this: buyer agent and seller talk directly for the first time on July 16, lawyers get to work on contract immediately, close on July 21. Is that really so much less likely to have occurred than that the first buyer and seller contact was 48 hours earlier?

big cats, sharks, and being in the news
Residential real estate firms and agents like to think of themselves (ourselves) as sophisticated players who regularly handle "multi-million dollar transactions" with highly sophisticated clients. But even the biggest of the big cats in our business in Manhattan are pikers compared to a guy like the seller of this mansion, let alone the buyer.

If BHS really did get screwed out of this $880,000 commission, they have every right to be publicly mad about it and to take all legal steps to recover what they are owed. But if that is the case, a "no comment" is not helpful to their image once the lawsuit becomes a major story. I just don’t understand why their story line is not "we followed the rules; this guy is cheating" if they actually have a simple case under the listing agreement. They run the risk of sounding like whiners and — among people who know how this should have been done if they have a good case — look like losers because either (a) they failed at PR, even though having a strong case, or (b) are suing a (former) client after not protecting themselves under a contract because it is "just not fair".

Personally, if I were going to publicly fight with a (former) client, I would want to put the best possible PR case forward.

On the current public record, this looks more like a firm taking a shot at a difficult legal case than a slam dunk. Maybe BHS figures that everyone settles a lawsuit sooner or later, so it is worth it to them to make an investment in their own lawyers to show (a) we can’t be pushed around (even when we don’t have a case!), and (b) we can inflict some pain (legal fees) on a client who treated us badly (even when we don’t have a case!), and (c) we won’t go away unless you spend a ridiculous amount of money defending the case or pay us some money for "emotional distress" (even when we don’t have a case!).

Maybe. But unless I had a slam dunk contract remedy, I personally would be reluctant to throw my lawyers at a guy who spends much more than I do in legal fees every day.

Maybe they have a good legal claim and a bad public relations approach. That is certainly a much better problem to have than the more obvious scenario.

I sure hope the Real Estate Industrial Complex in Manhattan pays enough attention to this dispute that we find out how it ends.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

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

real estate blogosphere just got smaller

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in internet and blogosphere — No Comments ↓

that did not take long
Back only on May 14, I posted sad news about a giant in a small world, www is big / RE blogosphere is small. That giant, Joe Ferrara, would be a giant in most worlds, and I am sad to say that he lost his battle with a brain tumor. Sad, sad, sad.

I doubt that many Manhattan Loft Guy readers were aware of Joe, but he was A Good Guy. Funny, passionate, dedicated, ambitious, resourceful, idealistic … I could go on and on.

I don’t read Inman News much anymore, but I tracked down this piece last night, after seeing some comments elsewhere that hinted at the sad fact of Joe’s death. I assume the link will break, so I am going to cheat, by posting this entire thing that will probably be behind their paywall soon (they can sue me):

Joe Ferrara, blogging and social media pioneer, dies

Many real estate professionals around the country are in mourning today after Joseph Ferrara, a trailblazer for blogging and social media in the industry, died from a malignant brain tumor. He was 55.

Ferrara, known to his friends as "Joe," passed away last night in a Pennsylvania hospice with his wife, Sandra, at his side. He had been diagnosed with brain cancer in mid-March and had been fighting the disease through chemotherapy and radiation treatments, according to Scott Forcino, Ferrara’s friend and business partner at Real Estate Advocates Inc., a lawyer-based brokerage company they founded last year.

Ferrara was also the publisher of the Sellsius real estate marketing and technology blog, an Inman News technology columnist, a real estate broker and attorney, and founder of TheClozing.com, which aggregates real estate news from mainstream media and social media.

Ferrara and his wife both grew up in Staten Island, N.Y. He graduated from Monsignor Farrell High School in Staten Island in 1973 and earned a degree in accounting and financial management at Pace University in 1978.

 
 

See related article:

Thank you, Joe Ferrara
 
 

Shortly thereafter, he received a law degree at the University of Houston. He worked as a real estate and intellectual law attorney and was a partner at Posner & Ferrara for more than 22 years, until December 2005. He launched Sellsius in January 2006.

Ferrara is survived by his wife of 30 years, Sandra, and his son, Joseph Ferrara Jr. A wake will be held for him on Friday, Aug. 6, from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Fitzgerald Sommer Funeral Home: 17 South Delaware Ave., Yardley, Pa. 10967. The burial ceremony will take place at 10 a.m. Saturday at St. Ann Catholic Church in Bristol, Pa.

Jay Thompson, a Phoenix real estate blogger and a friend of Ferrara’s, began a fundraising campaign for Ferrara’s medical expenses a couple of months ago.

"Joe Ferrara was one of the most gifted men I’ve ever known. Not just intellectually, but morally as well. He was truly a world-class human being with a heart second to none. The world is an emptier place without him — but a better place because of him. I miss him already," Thompson said.

The fundraising campaign collected $6,875; donations are still being accepted at joe-ferrara.com. In a statement relayed by Forcino, Mrs. Ferrara thanked well-wishers and donors to the fund.

"Thanks for all the outpouring of concern and feelings. The money raised and contributed by the members of the real estate world actually paid for Joe’s nursing. It went for nothing else and it was basically in the appropriate amount that he needed."

Some friends of Ferrara remembered him on a blogtalkradio session this morning. Many brought up his pioneering 2007 Blog Tour USA, when Ferrara and his then-business partner Rudy Bachraty drove across the country meeting with real estate bloggers. Ferrara was instrumental in bringing bloggers together in person for the first time, speakers said.

"When Joe and Rudy took that coast-to-coast tour in 2007 they helped us all get to know each other. Joe was a natural leader," fellow Inman News columnist Teresa Boardman told Inman News.

"I knew Joe well. He was smart and had a wicked sense of humor. He had a passion for truth, transparency and justice, and always helped the underdog. He was always there for advice, and I loved arguing with him, too," she added.

While a formidable opponent in a debate, he was kind-hearted and loved people, his friends and colleagues told blogtalk listeners.

"He always made people feel like they were the most important person in the world no matter who they are," Boardman said.

Kris Berg, also a fellow Inman News columnist, met Ferrara online first through their respective blogs, around 2006.

"Joe was one of the finest people I have ever been privileged to know and call a friend. He was unconditionally supportive and quick to give positive feedback and encouragement, yet just as quick to call me to the carpet when he felt my tone or message was straying. To all of us in the online real estate community, he was giving of his time, of his intellect and of himself," Berg said.

"A breath of fresh air in our uber-competitive industry, he did not have an arrogant or self-righteous bone in his body but only wanted to inspire us all to be better and do better. And he did. His honesty, wit, passion and compassion will be missed."

Amy Chorew, a real estate technology strategy trainer, met Ferrara at a Real Estate Connect conference in New York three years ago and, as many people who met him said, had an instant connection.

"We have sat on panels together, and best of all, Joe and I had discussions offline on issues that I was addressing in my classes about the ethical and moral content of being ‘in the space.’ A lawyer who gave me free advice. A beautiful soul. I am crying today," Chorew said.

Dozens of industry colleagues also remembered him on Twitter and Facebook, sharing memories and photos.

"Joe, my law partner, was like a brother to me. This tiny planet of ours will be a much poorer place without his incredible sense of humor, endless kindness, and eclectic creativity. Taken by cancer much too young," wrote Gerald Posner on the Friends of Joe Ferrara Facebook page.

"Never would have thought I could feel so much for someone I never met. Condolences to his family and friends," said Daniel Hunter, a Florida Realtor.

"(Rest in peace) Joe – thank you for all you have done for us," said Tom Ferry, a real estate coach.

"I will remember Joe Ferrara with love and gratitude for his legacy to the real estate industry. Heartfelt condolences to his family," tweeted Realtor and blogger Frances Flynn Thorsen.

"Joe will be sorely missed. Long live the king!" said Laurie Manny, a California Realtor.

Inman News invites you to contribute your thoughts and memories in the comments section below or send us an e-mail. We will compile the comments to share in a later article.

same problem, different text

Here is what Glenn Roberts had to say in the related article on Inman:

The real estate industry will miss you, Joe Ferrara.

When the creators of Sellsius — Joseph "Joe" G. Ferrara and Rudolph "Rudy" D. Bachraty III — first approached Inman News back in 2005 about their plans for yet another property listing site, there were skeptics of the proposed business plan — and the name itself.

But the duo proved visionary — in perhaps unexpected ways — in the conversation, engagement and buzz that they created around their idea and around real estate as a whole. Their Sellsius blog, which preceded the launch of their listings portal, firmly established the pair among the pioneers in the real estate blogosphere, social Web and RE.net as we know it today.

I was a beat reporter at Inman News when I first wrote about their plans in 2005, and would later turn to Ferrara as a source on a range of topics. He could be counted on to deliver educated and thoughtful insights about online ethics issues, the sharing of property data, creative marketing techniques … you name it.

 
 

See related article:

Joe Ferrara, blogging and social media pioneer, dies
 
 

He was a thought leader who helped the industry grapple with — and sort out — a myriad of issues as it found its way online. He was a provocateur of sorts, in a positive, progressive sense of the word. He didn’t mind stirring things up in order to prod the discussion, and the industry, in a forward march. Ferrara died Tuesday after a battle with brain cancer.

In response to the Federal Trade Commission’s call for comments on the topic of real estate competition in 2005, Ferrara weighed in on the "ownership" of property listings information, which has been a historically hot topic for the industry.

"Brokers ‘own’ listings only by virtue of their relationship with sellers, who give them authority to advertise/promote for the purpose of selling. And that authority may be revoked by the seller at any time. Their so-called ownership is merely a temporary right; ultimate ownership of the listing abides with the seller," Ferrara wrote.

"Since the brokers are agents of the seller, it seems that the seller, as principal, should be heard on this issue. As a seller, I would want my property disseminated to the widest possible audience of potential buyers. I am not a party to the broker/(multiple listing service) contract and should not be bound by it. The MLS does not speak for me. If the MLS restricts my listings dissemination, it is not acting in my best interest."

He viewed technology as an asset and ally. He tested new technologies, shared his discoveries with others, and generally embraced innovation. He coined the phrase: "Unzillowable," which he defined as a property that could not be adequately valued by Zillow.com or other automated valuation models.

An attorney for 25 years, and a real estate broker and technology consultant, Ferrara was himself an innovator who worked to launch TheClozing.com, a real estate news aggregator he launched last year with partner Anthony Barba.

He loved writing and had a natural knack for it. He often mixed in humor and quirky tidbits to his real estate posts at the Sellsius blog that offered comic relief for readers and sometimes went viral across other real estate blogs and websites.

Last year, Ferrara began writing a tech column, "Tech Tool Shed," for Inman.com, and it quickly became one of the most popular columns among our readers. He shared information about new technologies and trends that he viewed as relevant to the real estate industry.

In the summer of 2007, Ferrara and Bachraty toured the country together in an RV — the journey was dubbed Blog Tour USA.

They met with several other prominent real estate bloggers during their cross-country trip, which encompassed 30 cities and 10,000 miles in 31 days, and in the process forged strong and lasting bonds among a core of tech-savvy real estate professionals while promoting the need for more online engagement and interaction by all real estate professionals. (Inman News was a sponsor of their memorable road trip.)

In an interview with Inman News Publisher Bradley J. Inman prior to embarking on the tour (see video below), Inman and Ferrara discussed a post at the Sellsius blog, titled, "The Real Estate King Takes a Gabby Queen."

That post, featuring a royal portrait, begins, "The fortunes of online real estate sites were based on the notion that property listings were king — the more listings, the more traffic, the more success. Every real estate website chased the almighty listing."

Ferrara said in the interview, "We’ve all heard the term that the listings are king of the real estate sites, and everyone’s racing to get as many listings as they can.

"But, you know what? There’s a queen … showing up on the scene and we think it’s conversation, it’s user-generated content, it’s interactivity. So we think the queen has entered the stage and (we’re going to see) if her conversation is interesting enough."

While there have always been real estate discussions occurring offline, Ferrara noted that the Internet has been a game-changer. "Those (offline) conversations — we say it’s like words written on water. They come and they go. But once you put them on the Internet, it’s permanent. It’s like now I’m carving it in my newly laid concrete sidewalk so it’s there for everyone."

Such concepts seem old hat for the real estate industry because of forward-thinkers like Ferrara and the movement that he drove home.

The real estate industry will miss Joe Ferrara. Let’s remember him with a smile.

Sad, sad, sad. Joe’s wife Sandra has my thoughts and prayers today.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

Tagged with: , , , ,

another celebrity who hates Tribeca

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in general weird stuff — No Comments ↓

cognitive dissonance is in the eye of the beholder
OK, OK, I don’t know that Mike Love of the Beach Boys really hates Tribeca, but this is supposed to be a Manhattan loft blog, so I need a hook.

I do know that he owned a (combo) 3 bedroom condo in the oh-so-not-chic Yorkville micro-nabe of Second Avenue at 93 Street. Liz Harris of the NY Times told me that gave me enough hints to figure that out today. Must have been the water views.

If you know where to look in Property Shark you can find the July 19 deed, then cross check against StreetEasy to get listing information. (Some prior owner combined the A and B units on the 30th floor.)

insert your own bad pun here
I am not going to play, but punning off Beach Boy lyrics to describe a disappointing sale is like shooting fish in a barrel. (Go ahead. I will wait.) … (Not done yet?) … The prior sale and listing history show some (… errr …) disappointment with the Love tenure in this "1,787 sq ft" condo:

Dec 1, 2004 purchase $1.465mm
     
Nov 11, 2009 new to market $2.35mm
Jan 19, 2010   $2.05mm
March 9   $1.995mm
April 21 change firms  
May 10   $1.875mm
June 15 contract $1.6mm
July 19 closed  

That’s nearly 8 months, 4 prices and $460k in price drops to get to contract 9% above the 2004 purchase price, 32% below the November asking price. OUCH

Were the Beach Boys too old for Tribeca, even in 2004? Or were they always an Upper East Side sound??

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

50 Walker Street loft sells with huge deck, NY Observer observes

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods tribeca — No Comments ↓

how to value the deck??
I am going to have to struggle some other time with applying The Miller’s approach to valuing outdoor space to this beautiful Manhattan loft #6B at 50 Walker Street that sold on July 13 for an even $2.5mm. It merited only a brief mention in The Observer last week (using the official City address of 48 Walker St):

— Lawrence Leibowitz, COO of the New York Stock Exchange and one of the only people on earth who knows why the Jersey Shore cast members opened the market earlier this week (except maybe Hawaiian Tropic), has a new home in Tribeca at 48 Walker Street. Congratulations, Larry!

(h/t

The Real Deal

.)

That brief Observer mention was enough to send me to look at the pix, floor plan and listing description. I am going to post this today, then come back to it to address some open questions. Not having posted anything substantive since last month, I feel badly about having been away from the blog; press of appointments and some evening (late evening) activity have severely cut into my normal blogging schedule. I hope there is enough here of interest to be worthwhile, with the tease that I will expand a couple of things in one or two updates.

the loft

What a lovely loft! Said to be "1,763 sq ft" with a "1,850 sq ft" private roof deck, there is an efficient nearly square layout, with windows only on one side (a skylight makes the second bedroom a legal bedroom). It has "the intrinsic architectural details of this circa 1880’s … loft, such as original pillars, exposed brick, [and] wood beams", plus a "[s]

teel

staircase [that] leads to glass-floored greenhouse room and spectacular outdoor deck with glorious views." This List Of Materials ("natural materials

includ

[e] stainless steel, copper, concrete, glass and wood") omits one very cool material ("a long, zinc island dining").

Two things about the decor leave me scratching my head. Can anyone explain how that (bookcase? book pile??) works (in the living room corner in pix 1 and 2)? I can’t decide if I love or loathe the oh-so-spare light fixtures in the bedroom and bath in pix 6 and 7.

about that deck

At "1,850 sq ft", that private deck has more space than the interior space. Judging from the peak at the old AT&T headquarters in the photo of the  stairs (pic 3), the loft windows face north and the deck seems to go west to east along the north edge of the building, though without a deck floor plan I can’t be sure. It id a challenge to specify the value of the deck to the entire $2.5mm loft. You should read the entire may 6 post,

riffing with The Miller on the value of Manhattan terraces, decks + balconies

, to do justice to The Miller’s approach to valuing outdoor space, but I there distilled it to this:

Even much qualified, his "non-formula formula" comes down to:

A. Start with a value for the interior in $/ft

B. Pick a sensible number between 25% and 50% from which to start an analysis of the exterior.

C. Adjust that number up or down based on a mix of all that things that you think are relevant.

Yes, this approach is better than a number Pulled From (the) Air.

But it hardly inspires confidence that three appraisers would come within a reasonable range of each other in valuing a specific terrace. I obviously don’t have an alternative. But my take-away from this is that no one could push too hard in saying that a terrace is ‘really’ worth $xxx because at the end of the day it is going to come down to an appraiser’s opinion. (JM: is that why they pay the appraisers such Big Bucks??) Any principled conversation about a specific loft will run out of gloves (on the one hand … on the other hand … on yet another hand …).

If I can find useful comps for this loft without considering the deck, I will be back to talk more about what that deck contributed to the overall $2.5mm value. For now, I will ballpark the loft interior as $1,000/ft (based on non-prime Tribeca location, condition and quality of finishes), implying that The Market thought the deck was worth $737k, or about 40% of the value on a per square foot basis to the interior space. That seems like a reasonable (defensible) ballpark.

I hope to come back to that….

neighborly calculus
I will also come back to the sale last year of the other loft on the 6th floor, which also has a roof deck. For now I will just mention that #6A sold on March 17, 2009 for $2.175mm after a long (grueling) campaign. At "1,600 sq ft" of interior space and a "1,000 sq ft" private deck, that will be an interesting (very nearby) comp from a more challenging market to add to the valuation discussion. That listing has a (complicated) deck floor plan, but no interior floor plan (darn!).

One more thing about #6A before I go …. That baby sold in December 2006 for $2.1mm in what was probably the same condition (with the same dining room fixture) as the resale 27 months later, a modest 3.6% appreciation over those 27 months from pre-Peak to post-Lehman.

paging the CA gov
Sorry to hit and run, but I will be back.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

Tek Nickel Difew Culties

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in internet and blogosphere — No Comments ↓


(or: Technical Difficulties)
If you tried to access Manhattan Loft Guy late Friday or into Saturday, you probably got the same message I got, more or less this:

website not found; if you are sure you have typed the URL correctly, please try again later

Arrrrggghhhh. As they say,

We apologize for the inconvenience.

Turns out that some malicious SOBs evaded spam controls at the MLG blog host and flooded many blogs with spam comments, which generated emails from the host to bloggers like me that a comment had been posted. I got 1,500+ such emails between about 11PM Friday and 1 PM Saturday, before the blog host got the spam shields back up.

So … I am sure it was a pain for you if you failed to reach MLG. It certainly was a pain for me to delete 1,500 emails (manually, individually; darn that Outlook Web Access!). I look forward (not!) to deleting the comments (later).

I am told that won’t happen again, which we know means it won’t happen again until it happens again.

but seriously, folks
Sorry for the inconvenience.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

 

Tagged with: , , , ,