The Lucida condos are subject to a land lease

crap building. ugly building on an ugly corner. looks creepy when its dark out because you can see right into all the vacant apartments

You have got to be out of your mind crazy to buy or rent in this building. Location is abysmal. Way too pricey for the location. Will enjoy watching this thing fall apart.

The economics appear to be stacked in the Developers favor. Timeshares have the rap for providing their developers with an easy source of funding. The Lucida is not a timeshare in form, but in substance the residential condo apartment owner is funding something way beyond their unit. The purchaser will have to be comfortable with this type of investment. Some prefer it this way.

Outside of BPC and Roosevelt island, how do you have a Condo on leased land?

How is this information just coming out now? No one on this site who read their documents noticed this, or is this just a hoax?

Look at some of the available rentals listed under Lucida in StreetEasy. Some are offered by the Developer since they are excluded from the plan. And just ask the agents on site. A lot of info out there.

I think some are misreading the situation:

"Extell did not look to do a hybrid building; it was a matter of ownership rights, Haas said. Extell owns floors eight and up outright, and leases from Goldman Estate the bottom portion of the building, which houses the rentals and retail."

source: http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/hedging-bets-with-rental-condo-hybrids

So, it's not that it's on leased land, it's that the first 8 floors is a "block", not individual parcels, and set up as a rental property. This sort of a reverse "Cond-op". but just like a Cond-op, it's not on leased land: it's that there are separate blocks of units, and the lower floor one's in the building are retained and rented rather than being sold.

This is an Extell building. This is a private company that has huge footprint in Manhattan. I would like to know if there is a govt agency in the city that is monitoring their affect on NYC real estate. In Miami, they screwed the buyers in one of their troubled buildings and sold all the (many) remaining apts for less that 50 cents on the dollar. So watch out buyers of Extell properties. I refer you to the Extell thread on this site.. One of my posts from that thread:

3 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse
They have many more than 12 buildings. They control millions of sq. ft. in existing or projected projects. 2.25 million sq ft between Gem Tower and World Product Center alone. Then there in Riverside center - that is five buildings, right?. And they own dozens of buildings and lots all over Manhattan. My point is only that I wonder if there is govt oversight of a private firm like that because if they bail on a large residential building here as they did in miami, it would certainly have ripple effects in the RE market,

Good find on the June 2007 article on the "hybrid".

Per the real estate agent on site, there is a land lease and air rights that form an integral part of this offering. While a Condo purchaser may choose to ignore the risks, that is their right.

Goldman estate? Isn't this the family that by policy never sells a property, only leases? But of so, then back to 30yrs' question - how do you have a condo on leased land?

Here's an answer from the NY Times:

On Lexington Avenue, the Extell Development Company plans to demolish the tenements to develop a glassy L-shaped building that will fill the block between 85th and 86th Streets and extend east along the south side of 86th Street, occupying about a third of the block. The project will contain about 150 condominiums (some with as many as five bedrooms) and 20 rental apartments.

A separate entrance on 86th Street will lead to about 100,000 square feet of shops, including two basement levels. Gary Barnett, the president of Extell, said he was negotiating leases for large spaces with a major bookseller and a clothing retailer. Extell's retail broker, Gary Trock, a senior vice president at CB Richard Ellis, said the project would stimulate further development on 86th Street. "It will mature this neighborhood tremendously," he said. Extell is seeking an annual rent of $400 a square foot for the ground-floor space, a big jump for a street where rents were customarily less than $200 a square foot, Mr. Trock said.

Despite rising rents, brokers say the street is not likely to compete with Madison Avenue for luxury retailers but will continue to cater to a broad range of customers. "Prior to Harlem's renaissance, people from northern Manhattan shopped on 86th Street because it was convenient," said Benjamin Fox, an executive vice president at Newmark Knight Frank. "To some extent, this is still the case."

The Lexington Avenue site is owned by the heirs of Sol Goldman, who built a large fortune over more than half a century by accumulating hundreds of small buildings in anticipation of future development. After Mr. Goldman's death in 1987, his children and their mother fought over his estate in a legal battle that was not resolved until 1994. Mrs. Goldman died in 2002.

By 2004, Jane Goldman, one of the daughters, had acquired the last building needed to assemble the site. Famous in real estate circles for their reluctance to trade their buildings, the Goldmans decided to lease the site to a developer rather than sell it.

In an interview in his modest Midtown Manhattan offices, Mr. Barnett said his deal with the Goldmans was unusually complex. "The negotiations were somewhat innovative and extended," Mr. Barnett said. He is also developing another Goldman property, the Stanhope Hotel on Fifth Avenue at 81st Street, which is being converted into condominiums. Ms. Goldman did not return telephone calls.

Under the agreement for the Lexington Avenue site, the ground lease applies only to the retail space and the rental apartments, Mr. Barnett said. The condominium buyers will own title to their space with the power to sell it or transfer it to their heirs. Extell acquired some of this space last year when it bought a five-floor walk-up on 85th Street, just east of Lexington, with unused development rights.

The full article ("Gentrification Arrives at a Crossroads in Yorkville") can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/business/01lex.html?pagewanted=1

The initial condo declaration from 2008 split the land into three units. The amended declaration from 2009 split it into 100 units: 1101, 1102, and 1103-1200. 1101 is retail. 1102 is rental. 1103-1200 are regular residential condos.

Whoever owns 1102 will rent out the apartments it contains, but can't sell them individually unless they amend the declaration yet again.

Whoever owns 1103-1200 will try to sell them. Those remaining unsold will be rented out, too.

All this is normal condo practice. Who the "whoever" is doesn't matter. Right now it's a mish-mash of Extell and the Goldman heirs.

Interesting head count on the number of units. Be sure that 2 (units 1101 and 1102) will far outweigh 98 (units 1103 to 1200) in the control of Lucida. Bottom line: what are you getting for your condo unit purchase versus what the other parties are putting in for the ongoing expenses of the Lucida.

That's why purchasers of any condo would read the offering plan and condo declaration to see how the PCI is divvied up. Of course, the more PCI (control) the bigger the share of the CCs. Hard for anybody to have bigger PCI *and* lower CCs.

If in the market for a condo, you've already conceded that you don't give a shit who your neighbors and partners are, so doesn't matter.

The second amendment was just filed this morning. Just a little change removing references to the subway easement. Put through by the sponsor, as owner of 81%+ of the PCI. (Retail, rental, and 66 of the 99 other condos.)

PCI, and therefore CCs, divided as follows:

28.4%....96,187 sf: Retail
13.3%....50,841 sf: Rental
52.3%...238,792 sf: Units 1103-1200

The upper floors above the 8th look like a ghost town. The developer retained floors 5 to 8 as rentals. The Lucida is a perfect example of RENT v BUY. Both have the same services and the smart are electing to rent. Why shell out millions in this market.

whats PCI ?

Percentage of Common Interest. Your share of the whole shebang.

Considering the market and how hard it is to get jumbo mortgages, I think Extell has been doing well well (certainly much better than I expected) to get as many sales closed as they have. Since the first closing in June, they have closed 39 of the 98 condos available for sale, ranging from the 8th floor to penthouse and ranging in price from about $2mm up to a couple at $12.5mm each. Average price $4.2mm ($164mm total sales / 39 units). It does look like the closings have been slowing down in the last month after a strong Sept/Oct. Closings in the next month or so should be a pretty good indication of whether they are running out of buyers willing to close. I just wonder what all these buyers are thinking. This is big $ to drop to be underwater from day 1.

Building + location = super ugly

where did you get the number 39 from? SE shows 10 sales.

So I look at SE and rentals are going down in monthly cost and retail purchase price of condos is going up. Do I RENT or BUY in a depressed market???

I thought I'd do an update on status of Lucida closings. Since I posted in Dec or Jan, they have got closings back on track (seemed to be slowing around year-end) and are now up to 68 closed of the 98 condos at the 13 month mark since the first closing. It looks as if they've held the line quite firmly on price, judged either on the discounts to ask (mostly modest) or the absolutely kooky ppsf that they have got these buyers to pay.

It looks as if my comment about being under water from day 1 was off base. The first resale closed in early June, up fractionally from the developer sale last December and at a not-exactly-distressed $1,762 psf.

07/13/2010 #17A $6,500,000 -7.1% $6,995,000 4 beds 4.5 baths 3,688 ft²
12/08/2009 #17A $6,402,000

Further on the under water question, #15C is listed for resale currently asking 7% below the December 2009 sponsor sale.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/495826-condo-151-east-85th-street-upper-east-side-new-york
12/16/2009 Previous Sale recorded for $4,276,650.
02/12/2010 Listed by Corcoran at $4,950,000.
04/10/2010 Price decreased by 9% to $4,500,000.
05/05/2010 Price decreased by 3% to $4,350,000.
06/04/2010 Price decreased by 9% to $3,980,000.

I'm confused: which entity owns the land underlying the building?

The condo does. Somewhere up above it's explained who owned which units nine months ago. The title of the thread came from a misunderstanding.

Thanks, NWT

does anyone know if the original numbers are the same? something sls posted earlier seems to indicate that they are selling fewer units than originally planned.

yup, spend your time worrying about the Lucida when you are in Peter Cooper Village. It's good to have a lot of leisure time. It's not like there's anything else going on.

Like your husband's father's passing.

It's still 1101-1200. No third amendment to declaration that I can find. They did try to sell some combos (e.g. 17AC, PHJH) but got no takers for them so no need to combine tax lots. No splits either, apparently, as lot 1201 is still unassigned.

thanks nwt. it might be they still are trying to combine lots. or maybe i got the building confused, not a small possibility.

blah blah blah, pretend you aren't upset, blah blah blah, Lucida, blah blah, commentary about something irrelevant, platitude, platitude, blah blah blah, father in law is dead and I don't care, blah blah blah, I'm happy, blah, daughter is throwing a hissy fit, blah blah blah, pretend more, pretend more, Lucida, fake humility, when is my next vacation, let me mention the Lucida again

aboutready also has an opinion on the Setai down on Wall Street.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/3985-setai?page=3

aboutready
about 22 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse thanks nwt. it might be they still are trying to combine lots. or maybe i got the building confused, not a small possibility.

Aboutready, you live in the lucida? Or were you just looking.
You have so much to say ... seem very invested.

This looks like the first resale at the Lucida. Closed 1.5% above sponsor sale on price, presumably down a few % net of transaction costs coming and going. I have to admit I'm amazed. I'm pretty sure I was posting a year ago that the Lucida was late to the party and would end badly for people who decided to close. Not yet, anyway.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/518738-condo-151-east-85th-street-upper-east-side-new-york
12/08/2009 Previous Sale recorded for $6,402,000.
01/13/2010 Previously Listed by Corcoran at $7,795,000.
04/21/2010 Corcoran Listing is no longer available. Last priced at $6,995,000.
05/01/2010 Listed by Corcoran at $6,995,000.
06/01/2010 Listing entered contract.
07/13/2010 Listing sold.
07/13/2010 Sale recorded for $6,500,000.

The second resale in the Lucida shows a result that is much easier to understand (at least for me) than the first one. A 19% loss vs. the December 2009 purchase price, closing at a 13% discount to last ask and what looks like the lowest ppsf of any sale in the building to date (although I didn't check every one). This will be close to a $1mm equity hit considering all costs.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/495826-condo-151-east-85th-street-upper-east-side-new-york
12/16/2009 Previous Sale recorded for $4,276,650.
02/12/2010 Listed by Corcoran at $4,950,000.
04/10/2010 Price decreased by 9% to $4,500,000.
05/05/2010 Price decreased by 3% to $4,350,000.
06/04/2010 Price decreased by 9% to $3,980,000.
08/10/2010 Listing entered contract.
08/12/2010 Listing sold.
10/22/2010 Sale recorded for $3,462,050.

This sale is not so auspicious for a couple of other resale listings that have been out there for a few months with no movement, asking modest premiums to owner's cost.

Also not auspicious for the developer's sale of 11C, four floors down but asking $1mm more than the 15C closing price.

151 East 85th Street #11C 4 beds 2,350 ft² $4,488,500

Those two sales look like flippers who thought they would buy "pre-market" and sell at the height of the building's opening. Well you win some, you lose some. Too bad they didn't have the same lawyer at Stroock who drafted the docs over at The Rushmore, also from Extell.

shouldn't this building be a condop?

No. See 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO's explanation on the first page.