a holiday no-Manhattan-lofts diversion is about being thankful to be alive on earth

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in caution no real estate content — No Comments ↓

from one who knows (about earth, not Manhattan lofts)

Perhaps I am selling retired Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield short in supposing that he doesn’t know anything about Manhattan lofts (he is, after all, An Amazing Fellow), but he is most famous for the recorded-live-from-outer-space rendition of David Bowie’s Space Oddity, about which I diverted in my May 18, odd diversion from space, when he won the internet with the video.

He’s back in the news in anticipation of a book to be published soon, in publicity for which he was interviewed (all too briefly), on Slate.com, here. Money quote:

To be able to take that song and reflect it into the environment that it ostensibly targeted or was written for helped people rethink the whole thing. Spaceflight isn’t just about doing experiments, it’s about an extension of human culture.

Cool guy. Happy thanksgiving to all, including those of us still alive on planet Earth.!

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

hyper-local (6th floor) Tribeca loft market at 44 Laight Street up 17% in 17 months

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

not much of an outlier from overall Manhattan residential real estate market, however

An index is one thing, but real (individual) data points are another. It should no longer be headline news that a particular downtown Manhattan loft resells in the current market at a premium like 17% to a 2012 sale, except that it seems (to many, to me … at times) shocking in its scale. The headline set your expectations about the recently sold “1,581 sq ft” Manhattan loft #6C at 44 Laight Street (the Grabler Building, overlooking the Holland Tunnel spillways in upper Tribeca). The folks who sold it a month ago for $2.55mm owned it only 17 months, having paid $2.175mm in May 2012. This is the kind of thing that makes buyers in the current market recoil, some in disbelief, yet the reality (or, the ‘feel’ for the reality) of the overall Manhattan market from the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index is that the Index was 1,940 when they bought and 2,184 when they sold. Their specific (gross) gain of 17% is not so radically different from the Index at plus 13%.

It used to be that when I would see a gain of this magnitude over such a short time frame I would assume an intervening upgrade in condition. No longer.

(I will pause here as buyers cringe. And re-count their dollars. Or recalibrate their expectations.)

different paint, same loft in same location

For a loft that sold over $1,600/ft, this is pretty modest broker babbling, isn’t it?

condo loft with protected Southern light and views from every room. Truly a sublime oasis…gracious living/dining room with fireplace, substantial tasteful chef’s kitchen. Oversized master bedroom with dressing room and spa bath. Second bedroom winged for privacy. Additional features include: maple floors, 10-foot ceilings, washer/dryer and abundant storage. Further, there are One World Trade Center, Woolworth building and tree views.

Sublime, gracious, tasteful, oversized, abundant … not a lot of bragging going on here.

In 2012 they were a little more specific, but the idea is the same:

perfect move-in condition with a wonderful layout. The comfortable square living room is perfect for entertaining and includes a gas fireplace. The kitchen is outfitted with high-end appliances, poured concrete countertops, and lots of cabinets for storage. The master bedroom is huge and includes an oversized walk-in closet and beautiful en-suite bath. The second bedroom is at the opposite end of the loft maximizing privacy.

I am not going to repeat the 2008 babbling, as there is too much SHOUTING, but it is the same, more or less.

No one said “triple mint”, no one said “meticulously renovated”, no one said “stunning”. Even the “perfect” was a modifier (only) for move-in condition. And, trust me, the floor plan is unchanged over all these years. You’ve got two widely separated (“winged”, in the new vernacular) bedrooms sharing the same single exposure with the living room, with the plumbing rooms at the open end of the inverted “U”. A principal feature is that (single) southern exposure, over treetops and auto traffic. (“Protected” views until someone decides to develop in the middle of the Holland Tunnel spillways; hardly an unthinkable event.)

I see no differences at all, apart from coloring, from 2013 to 2012, to 2008.

sometimes you can get a bad feeling from the Index

I’ve mentioned 2008 a few times in connection with loft #6C. The same loft in the same condition sold for an even $1.9mm in a near-Peak sale in July 2008. That is not a happy number for fans of the StreetEasy Index, or for those sellers. While the May 2012 sale number and the October 2013 sale number can be fit into the Index shifts, July 2008 breaks the wrong way. Badly. The Index value then (2,180) is essentially flat to the current value, and dramatically higher than the May 2012 value. Bummer.

No other loft in the building has sold as many times in the recent past as loft #6C, and no “C” line loft has resold since … ever, if you can believe StreetEasy. (The Grabler Building is a 2004 condo conversion into residential lofts.) The “A” line is where the action has been, with results that differ from the value-over-time line of loft #6C.

I will put aside “stunningly renovated” sale of the “4,021 sq ft” loft #2A in May 2011 at $4.97mm ($1,236/ft) as being different from its peers because of its stunning renovation. That aside, the “A” line sales include the “4,052 sq ft” loft #5A at $4.505mm ($1,118/ft) in May 2012, compared to the “4,021 sq ft” loft #4A at $4.06mm in August 2011 ($1,010/ft), and the “3,735 sq ft” #3A in June 2010 at $4.2mm ($1,124/ft). StreetEasy Index values at those times were 1,940, 1,900, and 1,880, so they are tolerably within range of the Index trend lines.

The day before #5A sold at $1,118/ft last year, #6C sold at $1,376/ft. Smaller seems to be better (or, more highly valued) here. By a lot. With #6C up 17% since then, I imagine the gap has increased.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

a rising tide floats 712 Broadway loft in upper Noho to full price after 10 months

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

a downtown Manhattan loft tale of markets and tides

In a flat market, or even in a slowly changing market, the listing history of the “2,800 sq ft” Manhattan loft on the 5th floor at 712 Broadway would be unusual. In the oh so exciting world in which we live, and in which civilian buyers try to buy, the fact that the loft sold at its asking price but too nearly 9 months to find that contract is remarkable only for the patience of the seller in sitting at the wrong price for enough months that it became the right price. Here’s the macro context, courtesy of the the “feel” you can get from the overall Manhattan residential real estate market, courtesy of the single number tool of the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index (a powerful but crude tool, alas). When the “meticulously renovated” 5th floor loft came out on September 28, 2012 at $2.995mm, the Index value was 1,990; it went to contract by July 10 and when it finally closed on November 7, the most recent Index value available was 2,188. That’s a 10% gain over the 12 months of Index-to-Index. The implication is that the loft was over-priced by 10% and that when the rising tide of the overall market brought market valuations up by that amount, the loft sold. Let’s play with that some more after visiting this beauty.

the wonderfulness of a One Bed Wonder loft, in pictures and one (2,800 sq ft!) floor plan

You don’t often see One Bed Wonders this big, but that what makes this one so wonderful. (I’ve not been consistent on this, but the collection of lofts ‘tagged’ One Bed Wonders can be found here; those in the category One Bed Wonder here; and that last set includes my [now ancient] February 24, 2007, what is a 1 bed wonder?, the post in which I coined the locution.) Take a classic Long-and-Narrow, in this case about 22 feet wide, and give an architect the responsibility of maximizing the utility of the space for however many people sleep in a single bedroom. The result is a floor plan with a 700 sq ft “master” bedroom, no other bedroom (or guest room, or interior office, or any other set of walls), a single bathroom (not en suite, obviously), leaving an open front room more than 70 feet long, pinched in places by the public stairwell, the kitchen, and the elevators. Obviously, owners wanting 2 bedrooms could easily fit them along the back wall, with as many as 3 additional interior rooms easily fitting into the floor plan, if desired. But not these folks. Don’t ask me to make the measurements work, but that huge (single) bedroom is bigger than many 1-bedroom apartments, and the rest of the wide open space is about twice that size. (“2,800 sq ft”??) Add the elements of 12 foot barrel vaulted ceilings and 4 knee-to-ceiling windows up front, and there is a dramatic ‘volume’. (And, likely, some echoes.) Within this space, you’ve got classic elements:

reclaimed wide-board flooring …. Venetian plaster walls … [,] original cast-iron radiators, authentic steel and bronze detailing, and a romantic brick fireplace

And the finishes and modern touches that can qualify as renovation as “meticulous”:

chef’s kitchen … features gorgeous Pietra Cardoza countertops, a wall of custom milled cabinetry, and state-of-the art Miele, Sub-Zero and Gaggenau appliances. Nearby, a flexible partition creates a cozy lounge area, while custom industrial steel and glass doors slide open to reveal a classic Prewar bathroom with vintage sink, subway-tiled walls, and an oversized glass-enclosed shower. … Master Bedroom … with separate sitting area, built-in Library, floor-to-ceiling custom fitted closets…. loft is centrally air-conditioned, wired for sound, has a washer-dryer, and offers custom lighting on dimmers throughout

This space is so big that (unless I am missing something) there is no door to the bedroom. Just a curtain, which is big and thick enough to drown out any light or sound getting way back to that bed, I suppose. Truly, a One Bed Wonder!

feets and dollars, so often in conflict in Manhattan lofts

If you take the maximal if fanciful position that the 5th floor is “2,800 sq ft” of loft (again, look at the “approximate” dimensions) the loft sold for $1,070/ft, hardly a princely sum for a meticulous renovation with the character of this one. My favorite loft in the building is the 2nd floor, which sold for $2.7mm in a very different market (also with a huge single bedroom across the rear, by the way), and has been marketed at various times as “2,825 sq ft“, “2,600 sq ft” and “2,400 sq ft“. Such … er … variety makes it difficult to compare lofts in this building to lofts elsewhere, as your per-foot values for the 5th floor might be $1,070/ft, or they might be $1,152/ft, or they might be $1,248/ft. That’s quite a lot of … er … variety. (Sigh.) But looking at the 5th floor a few weeks ago and the 2nd floor in July 2011 at $2.7mm is a straight-up comp. The 5th floor is (d’oh!) higher above Broadway, but the 2nd floor has higher ceilings (15 feet, not 12), so more ‘volume’. I have not seen the 5th floor, but it has features that sound like the 2nd floor (Venetian plaster walls, top kitchen, ‘industrial’ design). The 2nd floor has a second bath already, plus a study / guest room, so there’s no risk of a renovation ruining a now-coherent design. (To add a second bath on the 5th floor, you’d have to do that in the bedroom, where that built-in Library is. Oops.) But let’s assume the two interiors are equivalent in condition, and that the extra ceiling height on two offsets the extra floor height on five. (Humor me.) On an Index basis, the $2.7mm from July 2011 implies a current value around $3.075mm (the Index went from 1,920 to 2,188 in that time, up 14%). That’s tolerably close to the $2.995mm at which the 5th floor was valued on November 7.

please don’t quibble

You sharp-eyed StreetEasy users have already noted the yellow highlighting in the upper right of the 2011 listing for the 2nd floor sale. So you know the problem with this facile comp analysis is that there is a new (still open) data point, with a hard value not yet realized but implying that the 2nd floor is not being simply projected with a 14% premium over its last sale. I will leave that conundrum for another day (another post), once that shoe drops. For today, let’s stick with the interesting calendar within which the 5th floor sold: it came out at the right price but the wrong time, taking 9 months to get a full-price deal. Patience, rewarded.

Nicely played, sir; nicely played.

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

diversion: Lena Dunham’s parents ruin a Tribeca loft

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

not a sale, so a diversion, even if about a Manhattan loft

Weekends on Manhattan Loft Guy are usually for diversions from outside the real estate world, but this Robin Finn story (A Lena Dunham Locale and slideshow) from the Sunday New York Times Real Estate section this week doesn’t lend itself to a traditional weekday post and my headline snark marks it as more a source of fun than (ahem) analysis. The Old Grey Lady’s puffery was the opening shot in a marketing campaign as the loft “is poised to enter the market at $6.25 million” so I will restrict myself to general jibes. (What was “poised” when the article hit the inter tubes on Friday has now leaped, so I do not want to be seen as commenting seriously about someone else’s pending sales listing.)

Of course I am interested in how lofts come to be adapted to residential use, and Finn tells a story: northwest Tribeca former textile factory converted by an consortium of architect plus artists plus writers in 2001 (well beyond the struggling artist period in Tribeca); an artist/filmmaker and painter, “both renowned in the fine arts orbit”, used the space for their various projects, renovating it themselves for that purpose; by 2004, they moved in full-time with their two daughters “and the duplex has since undergone a progression of reconfigurations and modernizations by the architect David Bers in collaboration with [the painter], with finishes and overhead lighting by the designer Nick Dine and custom wood cabinetry by the artist Gregory Curry”. Oh, and one of the daughters has since moved out, and apparently has made a name for herself.

The article tells us that the loft in 2001 featured a 40 foot wall of brick, 11 foot ceilings, and original hardwood floors, while Slide #2 adds the detail that the ceilings were tin and Slide #11 adds that the lower (still studio) space has original beams and cast iron columns. All are details that make loft snobs (c’est moi) wax about “classic” and “authentic”. Such character was not what this arty family wanted, however. They painted the brick white (which you often see), they painted the original hardwood floors first white and now grey (which you sometimes see), they painted the downstairs beams and cast iron columns white (which you do see from time to time), and they pulled down the tin ceilings in favor of exposed beams and recessed lighting (quelle horreur!).

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it is a beautiful loft with wonderful modern finishes and elements, and walls and flooring that maximize the light for these artists. But … but … but, it could have been an authentic loft, DarnItAll.

That’s why some people can’t have nice things. (I wonder if they salvaged the tin ceilings.)

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

a (rather crude) no Manhattan lofts diversion with ‘advice’ for the departing

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

there’s a Manhattan real estate angle

I’m a big fan of the Ask A New Yorker feature on Gothamist and of the type of articles to which Jake Dobkins refers in the latest effort, Ask A Native New Yorker: Why Is The NY Times Making Leaving NYC A Thing?. His advice is … er … harsh. And direct. His writing is … pointed:

I have written about this before, and do not want to belabor the point, but you are doing no one a favor by sticking it out here. Your suffering is painful, not just to you, but to your New York acquaintances who are forced to read your “essays” and “personal narratives”. Your physical presence is also driving up rents, leading to longer lines at overpriced coffee bars, and generally harshing the emotional scene on L Train platforms between Union Square and Ridgewood, and in many bars in Prospect Heights.

Of course, Dobkin’s analysis and advice do not cover someone like Andrew Sullivan (who bitches here, but wrote his Outta Here behind a Times of London paywall), but I love his writing. Check out other AANYers here. Yuks abound.

Tagged with: , , ,

the yield after renovating 71 Nassau Street loft? 5% over 2006 (ouch)

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

numbers collide, a little painfully, for FiDi loft on resale

It’s not bad enough that the folks who just unloaded the “1,376 sq ft” Manhattan loft #15A at 71 Nassau Street (the Croft Building) for $1.348mm paid $1,282,995 when they bought it from the developer in August 2006, “earning” a 5% gain; after all, over that time period the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index was up (only) 8%. Nope, the bad news is that these folks put some money into “many recent renovations” before getting that already-below-expectations return. It seems that The Market responded to the “many recent renovations” with a … meh.

Admittedly, it is hard to assess how much these folks may have spent on the many recent renovations, as it is hard to see them, even with the hints in the broker babble. (At least, it’s hard to see “many recent renovations”.) The babble points to only a few things, none terribly “renovation” compared to “upgrade”. This is not a very long list:

The apartment further showcases many recent renovations including custom designed closets throughout, a washer and dryer, custom shelving and built-ins as well as charming window treatments that adorn each of the residence’s ten magnificent windows.

This next sentence doesn’t imply that these other brag-worthy features are added since 2006:

The top-of-the-line designer chef’s kitchen showcases seamless wooden cabinetry with self-closing drawers, slate countertops, a stainless steel Sub Zero refrigerator as well as a 4 burner Bosch stove, and Bosch dishwasher. The two spa-like marble bathrooms features beautiful slate tile flooring with intricately detailed tile work that adorn the walls, in addition to Watermark bathroom fixtures as well as extra-large bathroom mirrors and separate sleek inset vanities; a Zuma soaking tub is located in one of the bathrooms while an over-sized luxurious tiled shower is located within the other.

Post-“renovation” loft #15A sounds a lot like no-renovation-but-2006-new-development-level loft #11A:

The unit offers high- end finishes with 5 [inch] oak plank floors. The large north-facing master has his and hers closets, 4 windows and a spa-style bathroom, and city views. The second bedroom is a very generous size. The second bathroom features a soaking tub. The Kitchen offers Subzero refrigerator, Bosch dishwasher and gas stove top vented to the outside. There is a Bosch washer and dryer in the unit.

I can’t tell from the #11A kitchen photo if there are self-closing drawers, but I’d bet a quarter that there are, along with slate countertops, Sub Zero frig, and Bosch stove, just like in #15A. Similarly, there are no bathroom photos in either listing, and no detail in the #11A babble to match that of #15A, but it sure seems as though the bathrooms in #15A were standard issue for the building in 2006, nice as they may be.

Custom closets, custom shelving, custom built-ins, and new window treatments neither sound like “many” nor like “renovations”, but I wasn’t on that committee. The only visible new stuff in the listing photos are the bookshelves, desk, and lower cabinets on two walls in the second bedroom (pic #4), less than 30 linear feet of millwork. Not likely they would have spent more than $35,000 for these “[not] many” “[not] renovations”, which is cold comfort in view of the market response.

No surprise that the loft claims “an impressive open bird’s eye view of NYC’s downtown financial district” at this height. With the listing photos showing the living room windows at such extreme angles, it is difficult to assess how impressive these views are, or whether they are materially more impressive than the views 4 floors below.

playing with the neighbor’s money, losing

Let’s assume that the light and views are substantially equivalent, despite the height difference of about 45 feet. What would you guess is the value of being on a higher floor? According to One Smart Guy I know, “a typical adjustment might be 1% per floor before considering view differences”. The Miller’s approach implies that the gap between #15A and #11A would be about $54,000 if measured from the #15A base-line. Another Smart Guy I know is in the same ballpark, with Urban Digs using a range of $10,000 to $15,000 per floor for two same-line units with a small gap between their floors and no (or little) difference in light or view. Of course, that implies a range of difference between #11A and #15A of $40,000 to $60,000.

If you already clicked on the #11A listing you know where this is going. Loft #11A sold for $1.3mm on August 28, off a May 22 contract. Loft #15A had some hiccup (needing two contracts to get one sale), but went head-to-head against #11A from its debut on February 7 until its first (failed) contract on April 28. The Market treated these two lofts as though those two Smart Guys are smart guys, and as if the lofts were otherwise identical in condition. In other words, by setting clearing prices for these two lofts $48,000 apart, The Market behaved pretty much exactly the way the simple Floor Height Differential implied and treated the “many reverent renovations” as adding no value.

Ouch.

It is fascinating that this analysis implies that the #15A sellers were poorly treated by The Market (at least, insofar as the “many reverent renovations” are concerned), yet they got exactly what they wanted. The sales price of $1.348mm exactly matches their single asking price, both before and after the April 28 failed contract.

These sellers are, then, the opposite of greedy. They believe they improved the loft through “many reverent renovations”, yet they set an asking price below what the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index would suggest for an unimproved loft. And they accepted a deal at a price that treated their higher-floor loft as perfectly equivalent to the lower floor neighbor who sold a little earlier, allowing only for differences in floor height and allowing no premium for improvement.

Fascinating.

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

true sculptor studio loft at 561 Broadway needs gut, gets $1,142/ft

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

you’re looking at a $1,400/ft Soho loft, all in (at least)

What would you do with the “2,100 sq ft” Manhattan loft #4A at 561 Broadway (the oh so lovely Little Singer Building)? It “has been the studio and showroom of an important sculptor” (sometimes described as “Spain’s premier living sculptor“), has a kitchen, 2 baths, and a sleep area (floor plan, here), but you must assume it needs everything. There are no photos of the plumbing rooms and no description of finishes, beyond the oh so pregnant “bring your ideas and an architect to make this space your space”. The glory of the space is the ceiling height, the 3 huge columns, and the 47 foot length of french doors over Broadway, most of which leads to one of the inset Juliet balconies that give the building its singular look.

The loft came to market at the unconventional ask of $2.398mm on June 20, found its full price contract within two weeks, and sold on September 25.  If you can easily find the calculator function on your phone (or if you remember the headline) you know that comes out to $1,142/ft. To sit 35 or so feet above Broadway just below Prince (hello Dean & Deluca!, hello double-decker tour buses) and face the challenge of making this space your space.

And challenging it is. The most obvious space for a (real) bedroom (the kind with windows) is that southeast corner ‘alcove’, which would yield a modest bedroom rather a long way from the plumbing. It would also begin to impinge on the true glory of the space: the 47 foot expanse of essentially floor to ceiling glass. Plumbing has to go on the back (dark) wall, it seems, permitting an en-suite (but interior) master bedroom of serious proportion and utility. The floors look magnificent, perhaps needing recondition rather than repair.

A nice kitchen, two nice baths, some carpentry, central air, and fancy in-wall sound … all probably do-able within a budget of $250/ft, or a larger budget, or a much larger budget, as resources and taste require.

Contrast this project (and single exposure) with the already stunning Chelsea loft with a single exposure that I hit last week in my November 15, it’s the exposures, Mars; why stunning loft at 161 West 15 Street sold under $1,200/ft. That loft was smaller (“1,200 sq ft”) so the single exposure is probably more dramatically limiting on that floor plan, but that one sold (remember: already “stunning”) at $1,163/ft. Soho still trumps Chelsea, but I am not sure that 35 feet over Broadway in the busiest part of Soho trumps West 15th Street off Seventh Avenue as a location. Yet the gut-and-build in the lovely Little Singer Building sold for all of $22/ft less than the (yes) already stunning Jensen Lewis loft.

let’s play the Index, and see which loft outperformed the other

When loft #4A sold, the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index was 2,188. The loft upstairs sold in the same “[b]ring your architect” condition on December 14, 2011 for $2mm, when the Index was 1,890. The Index implies that a similar loft in the same building should have sold in September 16% higher than the even $2mm at which #5A sold. If you are not fumbling for the your phone, you’ve already figured out that #4A sold in September 20% higher than #5A in December 2011.

The Spanish sculptor wins!

Sharp-eyed readers of Manhattan Loft Guy will recall that I hit that #5A sale when it was current, in my February 6, 2012, loft seller massively resets expectations to sell 41% off post-Peak request at 561 Broadway. The focus in that post was on expectations, reset “massively”, as that headline put it. There was some quality snark in that post:

it is very interesting that the seller had entertained the fanciful notion in 2008 and 2009 that this opportunity might be worth more than $1,500/ft

I was also in the building when the much larger  #12A sold on September 30, 2010 (with “3,000 sq ft”) for $4.2mm, or $1,400/ft. That post was fun for comping against the even larger neighbor that had sold as a total gut job right around The Peak of the Manhattan real estate market for (an adjusted) value of $1,126/ft (after taking into account a private terrace). I figured in that post that the #12A renovation was much more than basic, so likely cost much more than $250/ft. Compared to #4A, #12A also has the advantage of much better light and views, so there are other comp adjustments to make, beyond time and condition. (On time alone, the Index implies that the overall Manhattan residential real estate market has improved 16% in the 3 years between #12A and #4A.)

Looks like another win for the Spanish sculptor.

For still more quality Manhattan Loft Guy snark in the building, we have to use the other entrance to the Little Singer and revisit my March 21, 2012, real estate sales made easy: 88 Prince Street loft sells because (some say) it is correctly located. Snark aside (read it: it’s good), that one dealt with a loft in the same “L” shaped building but facing north that sold for $1,167/ft in truly beautiful condition. Playing the Index, again, we have #4A at $1,142/ft needing a total gut and the ‘done’ #7C in February 2012 at $1,167/ft, when the Index implies the overall market was up (only) 15% in that period.

Looks like yet another win for the Spanish sculptor.

what does the future hold? (I have some ideas…)

Anyone comping on the Broadway side of the building off of the #4A sale would adjust for floor height (in this case a double benefit: further from the noise of the traffic on Broadway and better light and/or more open views), as well as any difference in condition. If you took an aggressive stance on the value of light, you might hope that clearing the rooftops across Broadway might be worth as much as … what? … $300,000. Sounds like a too-big premium to me, but you might just give it a shot.

I have to believe that an owner with a substantially identical loft to #4A just 4 floor higher that does look at the roof edge opposite would not really expect to attract a buyer asking much more than $300,000 over the settled #4A value.

It remains a free country. The fact that the owner of #8A took a shot at a $600,000 premium tells me she was looking for someone to make her day. #8A has much better (dare I say, “dazzling”) light and already has central air, but there’s no bragging there about finishes. Assume another gut, and assume she will need additional market oomph to find a loft buyer at that loft-y value if she comes back to market.

That’s my story, and I am sticking to it. Until market conditions change, or someone does something irrational (in the sense of beyond-comps). That is all.

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

225 Lafayette Street loft sale tells me private seller did a great job in 2012

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in lofts in other neighborhoods — No Comments ↓

sometimes the most interesting thing about a Manhattan loft sale is insight about the past

On its own merits, the recent sale of the “1,498 sq ft” Manhattan loft #9C at 225 Lafayette Street just past the edge of Soho into Nolita shows the strength of the current market: it took exactly 30 days to find a contract $56,000 over the ask. But of course you want to know (and I want to know) how this sale figures into the past sales history in this 38-unit 2005 condominium loft conversion of a Cass Gilbert (!) bank building. Alas, the last two sales here (the only sales in more than 3 years in this building) were private affairs, with a small unit selling to the next door neighbor last month at $1,789/ft, and the unit below #9C selling 18 months ago for $2.4mm. What does #9C tell us about the #8C seller’s choice in 2012?

Here’s what we know about the interior of #8C:

Stunning, sun-drenched loft residence in the heart of Soho [oops]. 2 Bedrooms, 2.5 Baths, Open Layout, in the recently converted 1924 Beaux Arts former Bank Building, Interiors designed by renowned architectural firm Tsao & McKown, West and Northwest Exposures, Walk-in Custom Closets, …. Stunning design details such as Brazilian Walnut Camaru Plank Floors, Oversized Tilt and Turn Picture Windows, Sub Zero Refrigerator and Freezer, Bosch Gas Cook Top and Oven, Miele Dishwasher, Elkay Stainless Steel Sink with Garbage Disposal, and Brazilian Walnut Camaru Custom Bathroom Vanities.

No disrespect intended, but the owner’s #8C photos are pretty horrible. Reading between the decor and poor lighting, though, the space is the same as the space in #9C.

StreetEasy shows that the #8C started marketing on December 9, 2010, asking $2.45mm, and that it “sold” 3 months later. Given that the deed that was eventually filed reflects a transaction on May 25, 2012, that February 9, 2011 “sold” date is wrong, and probably does not even reflect a contract date (as sometimes happens with StreetEasy’s “sold” dates). There’s a tiny chance that the owner made a deal in February 2011 that did not close for 15 months, but if that is the case the margins were even more in his favor than I thought. More likely, the seller did not sell 2009 into 2010 and was approached by someone renting on the 3rd floor in 2012 and was persuaded to sell at a discount to the last asking price. (Note the notice address for the #8C buyer on the May 2012 deed record.)

Was the #8C seller desperate to sell in 2012, and desperate to ‘save’ a sales fee? Maybe. (After all, he didn’t even restart a FSBO campaign.) But it looks like he made a pretty good deal.

The seller knew that $2.45mm was too high a price for the market to accept from December 2009 into February 2010 (at least the way the seller was marketing on his own). The seller would have known ‘had a feel’ for the market (had he consulted the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index) that overall values were up 8% from January 2010 to May 2012, but still would not have known what the actual value was in early 2010 for loft #8C.

We now know that the actual value of the identical loft one flight up is $2,806,000, 17% higher than the #8C private sales price in May 2012. To get a more apt net comparison, we should deduct the 6% sales fee that our system notes the #9C sale involved, to compare #8C at $2.4mm in May 2012 to #9C at about $2.638mm, or a (net) 10% premium. In that time the StreetEasy Index was up from 1,940 in May 2012 to 2,188 as of last month. That’s a 13% gain … a 3% greater gain for the overall market than the #9C seller got over the #8C (after deducting the #9C sales fee).

Nicely played, 2012 owner-seller; nicely played.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

no Manhattan lofts, but a diversion: a song that changed America

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in caution no real estate content — No Comments ↓

for people of a certain age, another anniversary

Before we get to a truly tragic 50th anniversary on Friday, there’s a musical one from 1963 that tracks only as “late November”. I can’t relate (at all!) to the musical commentary in this November 11 piece from the culture blog on Slate.com, but I surely remember the song. I didn’t know in 1963 that it “revolutionized pop music”, because I then had little awareness of what had come before. But, man! What a thrill.

Go ahead and invest 2:28 to listen, especially you kids out there. I dare you to tell me that it didn’t make you smile.

I don’t get any of the musical analysis (e.g., “half-bar phrases governed by its fourth-dominated harmony”), but it makes me smile. I “sing” it in my head with a slight skip about 40 seconds in, where my record always and forever had a slight skip. Then, as it ends, I (mentally) launch into “she’s just 17, you know what I mean …” as the opening burst of the next song on that album. Always and forever.

no-Manhattan-lofts diversion is back to football, violently

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in caution no real estate content — No Comments ↓

the hits just keep on coming

Does anyone else feel it? Perhaps because I am sensitized to these articles, I am seeing dribs and drabs of media reports and commentaries that are dribbier and drabbier than what has come before. This piece from The Atlantic, Tony Dorsett Has CTE from the always thoughtful Ta-Niesi Coates, is both respectful and frightening. At the other end of the age spectrum, this ESPN piece suggests how the NFL may eventually whither, if not die: the pool of young people feeding into ever higher levels of “amateur” football may be shrinking already.

If you know Coates, you know he was a huge football fan who stopped watching NFL games 2 seasons ago. (Although, unlike me, he will watch if a game is on at a bar.) He was an even bigger Dallas Cowboys fan (long story, that) and Tony Dorsett was The Man:

To perform in that way, to be a magician, to bring people to the edge of themselves, up out of their skin, simply by running with a ball seemed incredible to me. Watching Dorsett was like a watching a doe play tag with a pack of hyenas. The doe always won.

In his always thoughtful way, Coates addresses the NFL as it is:

It isn’t the violence to which I object. Players often say “I know the risk.” I think it’s worth taking them at their word on that. Longevity is not the only value in the world. There are experiences so intense that you might trade them for the years. Were I white I could pad my life expectancy a bit. Still I somehow believe I got the better end of the deal.

What rankles me is the inability to look squarely at what this game is, to obscure, to pretend that penalizing head-shots, that decreasing “big hits,” that playing the game “the right way” will make it all go away.

Dorsett is about my age and he “often” can’t remember how to get from Point A to Point B in a car, with Points A and B being places he has been going for many years. Brett Favre was quoted recently as saying he can’t remember having been to his daughter’s soccer games, and refused to consider (yet another) NFL comeback for fear of doing further damage to his brain. These stories will both be more common and more notable for the players involved.

The Big Names With Bad Brains will probably get the biggest headlines, but I don’t think that’s the biggest story here. After all, as Coates notes, the obvious point is that adults are free to make their own decisions, even decisions that are likely to reduce their life span or future lifestyle. (Need a cigarette, anyone? Considering a job fighting fires on oil rigs?) It’s the parents of little kids who are going to be doing the math, and fewer will want their boys playing tackle football. That’s the takeaway from the ESPN piece, done under their (seemingly increasingly marginalized) Outside The Lines franchise.

According to data provided to “Outside the Lines,” Pop Warner lost 23,612 players, thought to be the largest two-year decline since the organization began keeping statistics decades ago. Consistent annual growth led to a record 248,899 players participating in Pop Warner in 2010; that figure fell to 225,287 by the 2012 season.

Pop Warner officials said they believe several factors played a role in the decline, including the trend of youngsters focusing on one sport. But the organization’s chief medical officer, Dr. Julian Bailes, cited concerns about head injuries as “the No. 1 cause.”

I don’t know if the game can be tinkered with to be made “safer” and still be palatable to the core of football fans. Frankly, I don’t much care, as I am no longer a fan. But I know many people who consider themselves fans who do worry about these things. In a world in which “ultimate fighting” and “mixed martial arts” get many many television eyeballs, there is a huge market for violence as violence. Not my eyeballs. Not any more.

If the pops (and especially, the moms) with Pop Warner age boys continue to vote with their feet, there will be fewer kids in the pipeline. If the lawsuits over concussions make their way to college or high school sports, those levels might ratchet down participation dramatically. I don’t know how long it will take (40 years??), but I expect professional football players to be selected from a pool with fewer and fewer people. Grown men, more or less, making decisions about their jobs and their families’ financial futures. Maybe the skill levels will go down as the feeder pool shrinks, and maybe fewer people decide to carry 350 pounds in case they make it in the NFL. There will always be fans, likely fewer and fewer, however.

(By the way, if you are at all interested in this stuff, read the comments to the Coates piece. He has, hands down, the best set of readers and commenters on the inter-tubes, in large part because they are a stable group, heavily invested and smart as heck, and because he actively moderates the comments.)

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Top