New York City
Northern New Jersey
Search Better With
Shop for a Broker
Open House Planner
Saved Listings & Folders
Stats and Figures
Manhattan Condo Market Index
How does everyone feel One Madison Park will do with the recent downturn?
I know that everything is in contract, but I remember hearing that the building was mostly bought by brokers at BHS? Is this true? If so, do you think these brokers were mostly planning to resell?
Another question - many of the listings have increases AFTER the unit went into contract, can a broker here explain this?
I'm not predicting massive walk-aways or anything crazy, but aside from the full floor units, I do not find the apts impressive at all (mainly due to the "kitchen"), considering the ppsqft.
There's even a tiny one bedroom listed at 3,333 ppsf, which I don't think has a chance in hell at selling at ask (the asking ppsf is far greater than all the available units, except for the penthouse).
However, I do think Madison Square Park is great and some of the best real estate investments can be made on a park, but I could only accept these prices if the bubble didn't burst until 2010.
I would appreciate anyone sharing their thoughts.
I think the increases occurring during contract were flips. So perhaps all the brokers who bought already flipped, and perhaps it was flipped again after that.
These amount of flips would explain the high p/sqft asks.
I just read the thread about the building at wiredny, answered most of my questions.
3 BR with terrace just listed at $3500 psqft.
I am very eager to see where these prices end up.
mercurioxide--I share your interest in this building (although no one else seems to . . .) A 930 sqf 1 bedroom (23A) just underwent a "price reduction" to $1.975 million. Really wish I knew what was going on with this building. How close to completion is it?
Thanks for the reply princetonbabe.
I find this building wonderful, but highly emblematic of the real estate bubble - almost like a lesser 15 CPW, but a year too late - which is why I thought it would be highly discussed here, but it's not.
The only available units that are "reasonably" priced are 12B and #39, which are $1891 and $2567 psqft respectively - which is somewhat insane.
Does anyone else share the view that the floor plans are not grand enough for the price? I only find the PH's kitchen grand, that of the full-floors nice, while the others are "settle" material.
Also, I heard closings are scheduled for this spring, should be very interesting!
Curbed just posted a story about the Penthouse (still under construction), with pics!
I just can't help myself...we have a PH at Madison Green. Same views...the apt needs work, and obviously the building is no Rem Koolhaus masterpiece, but for the right buyer, the apt could be dreamy. The sellers want to make a deal...
While the apt is nice, I can't stomach the appearance of that building.
Unfortunately, I think the sellers that you are representing will need to make some serious cuts to garner interest. $1790 psqft is approaching low end One Madison Park inventory and even surpassing new developments in the immediate area - so quite frankly, not even a fool would pay your asking price. You need to come to terms that only star buildings will be able to demand such an asking in this climate, and Madison Green could not be any more cookie-cutter.
People are no longer settling in this economic climate, nor will they pay prices on the assumption that Madison Sq Park will soon become the next Central Park.
I sincerely hope that you forward this message to your sellers.
mercurioxide--another building I am curious about is 325 Fifth, which seems to be holding steady at $1800 psft--have you been following this one at all?
I haven't really been following this building. I do find the ppsqft somewhat high, I guess people are paying for the views.
While there are some high ppsqft listings in contract, that doesn't quite paint the whole picture. Another poster made a thread about 35 and 36E (sorry, don't remember the thread title).
It's very interesting. These are two 1-bedrooms that are 1 floor apart, where the sellers have been facing off against each other with back and forth undercutting. Right now, 36E is 40k cheaper than 35E. However, both of these 1 bedrooms are still around $1600 psqft - we'll see if anyone bites.
Btw, they have both been on the market for nearly 400 days.
sorry, 35E - 377 days, 36E - 203 days
Mercurioxide--looks like we have another person interested in One Madison Park: (Sorry--haven't figured how to link to hreads, so I just copied and pasted . . .):
Discussion about One Madison Park at 23 East 22nd Street in Flatiron
about 3 hours ago
Will this building become a glorified rental when many people walk away from their deposits? Was only 10%. The prices being suggested are pure fantasy. Think $1,200-$1,500/ sq. foot for good views! Did anyone read last weeks Barrons on the future of NYC real estate? Looks like a waterfall going straight down! Heard that some people have 4/1 completion dates for building or they can walk away from their deposits. How many units recieved this favorable treatment? Developer had better hurry up and complete project or this will be a total rental! Too bad I can't short these apartments like stocks! Good luck to the buyers...better plan on holding permently!
This person appears to be more of a bear than the both of us.
While I do see the economy in dire straits, I wouldn't be too quick to predict that this building will turn into a glorified rental.
That insane one-bedroom (46A, $3333 psqft) was taken off the market. It'll be interesting to see the price it returns at.
There is total chaos at this development site because of the confusion between buyers in contract for OMP and the developers' retrade by boosting the Rem Koolhaas building to double its original planned height. The Koolhaas building appears to be in trouble, as evidenced by the legal statements referenced in other thread for this bldg.
Also heard amenities spaces are being completely changed which could be in violation of all signed contracts.
What's interesting is how the brokers seem to try and steer towards certain units. Is it because Wendy Maitland and team purchased units and are trying to assign their own contracts?
Killer views, which the building has, won't support those prices and if the AG decides the retrade on the amenity spaces and the height of the second building voids contracts then watch out for a falling knife.
They'll be lots of lawsuits and walk-aways. What kind of sponsor allows assignments in new Manhattan construction anyway?
Oh so Florida.
So what's going on with occupancy for this development now?
I heard May, but has this recent development set that back?
understand closings not until sometime in July, however, fate of Rem's building not yet determined
I thought the outside date was July 1. So I heard.
If that's the case, this will end up in disaster world. Everyone could get the right to rescind and who would pay these prices today?
Can't confirm it but someone with an offering plan can. Anyone? If this is the case, there will be lots of finger pointing. Rem's hold-up on the second tower plans, the developer's greed in going for tower two, Wendy & Co's insane pricing and almost unheard of in NYC, the right to assign contracts.
Anyone got the scoop on outside date? Is it time to stick a form in this sucker?
2748: fate of REM building appears to have been determined, see other threads re DOB permits for shorter (original) structure. I have observed a lot of construction activity at site since the permits were filed for the reduced height building.
OldWest: I also heard about the July 1 date for OMP, very curious. That building seems to be in some serious trouble.
lol, stupid rumor regarding REM building. It will be built.
And why do you idiots think the second tower is "greed"?
because they're communists
Wonderboy -- I'd love to see this building built -- do you have any facts on this?
Here are the things I know:
- There is one offering plan that covers both buildings.
- The second building in the plan is only 11 stories -- and much shorter than the Rem building.
- There WAS an application on the NYC Building information site for the larger building -- but that has been rejected and withdrawn.
- The current buildings described on the BIS system now once again match the plan document and the smaller building.
- If they were going to build the Rem tower, they would have to amend the offering plan and do a bit of work with the City for approvals.
- And my understanding is that if they want to amend the plan, the right time to do it is before the first tower starts to close.
It's all feeling pretty grim, so it's sounding a bit like you're a broker/cheerleader -- but I'd love to be wrong on this one. So, if 1 Madison starts to close, how will this building get approved and built?
HERE'S YOUR CHANCE WONDERBREAD!
'Wonderboy -- I'd love to see this building built -- do you have any facts on this?'
Do you have any facts on this???
It's greed because instead of focusing on the first tower, sticking with the plan, getting it finished, and making money the developers wanted more.
Bring in Rem and all of a sudden the project slows to a halt as Rem does his "magic." And the views in first tower will suddenly be affected and amenity space must be re-done, etc. Altering the offering plan substantially to build a second Rem tower was a stupid try.
So, where are we? Well, instead of a finished building in closings, it looks like they missed the outside date and the developers will lose a substantial amount of money. If enough people drop out, and I imagine they will, this project will be another white elephant. Greed. Pure and simple.
Do the first tower, do it right, do it on time, make money. Or, listen to the sales team, bring in Rem, and flush it all down the toilet because the project is so delayed.
wonderboy: Face facts or show me approved plans for a Rem tower.
The bigger question is whether the rumors of issues with getting deposits back is true. Escrow should be rock solid but grumblings that contracts with earlier outside dates have had trouble getting their deposits back are circulating.
Cuomo steps in when?
VERY well put, Old West. A thoughtful and intelligent post.
Yes, Wonderboy, if you think the Rem tower will be built, speak up with some information instead of posting a silly comment.
I won't say anything other than the REM tower WILL be built.
It isn't canceled, sorry Bonvivant. I know you've been actively campaigning against this project so the when the construction breaks ground in 10-12 weeks, it will surely be a bit upsetting to you.
wonderboy: that's great. Be helpful if they built it WITH permits and filed plans though.
I'm sure the bank will be thrilled when Cuomo forces the developer to offer rescission rights to all the current purchasers and the developer has two buildings worth of apartments to sell in an ever-worsening market.
Rem held the project up by what? 6 months? Pretty much the delay that now appears to have them missing the outside date. I hope that tower is worth it. The bank will enjoy owning them both some day. Thank goodness Wendy loves Rem so much. Super-broker? LMAO. She must be as relieved as all the other purchasers that she can get the deposits back on the apartments she wanted to flip for a profit.
This whole project was a shit-show. Greedy developers, greedy sales and marketing, outrageous prices and it all comes crashing into a huge pile of dung. The AG is going to have to get involved, especially if deposits aren't returned in a timely manner.
Since Wonderboy isn't very forthcoming, here's a theory on how Rem could rise again. Now this is all based on the rumor that June 30 was the outside date (can anyone confirm that?).
First, making sense of the last few months. The developer was desperate to get this thing closed with people locked in. The ONLY way to do that was:
- Meet the June 30th date, AND
- Keep the plan as it stands -- without the Rem tower.
Why? Because missing the date gave every buyer the right to rescind. And amending the offering plan to implement the Rem also arguably gave all buyers the right to walk. So, as long as there was a CHANCE that they would meet the June 30 date, the Rem had to die, because they couldn't risk a mass exodus.
But, once they missed the date, the rescission doors were open. All buyers have the right to walk. So -- in effect -- there is nothing to lose by now amending the offering plan to incorporate the Rem building.
In fact, I can picture right now Wonderboy (as part of the sales team) telling the Developer that they will have an easier time keeping buyers locked in to the development by incorporating this bit of architecture. A "go big or go home" strategy!
It would be a ballsy move in this market. I'm not saying that works -- but I can see the team making the argument.
It will be fascinating to see how this plays out. The building is unique. The views are spectacular. There are not that many units to sell in the grand scheme of things. Normally, you'd think missing the outside date would give everyone the right to walk OR (more likely) to renegotiate the sale price. But who knows . . . maybe there are enough factors here for an exception. And then there's the Rem wild card!
Reality show anyone?
Either way, the developer is screwed. If the developer missed the outside date, many buyers are going to rescind because they bought at the height of the market, and I don't think the developer will be able to get anything close to what they received a year or so ago. Someone here must have entered into a contract for a One Madison unit and could tell us the outside date for the development. Anybody? Also, why do the purported sales agent for Rem not return inquiries into purchasing into the Rem?
OnMadPark: the developer missing the outside date violates the loan agreements with the bank. We need to confirm date.
Forget developer balls, does the bank have the balls to say, "OK, you fucked up phase one and gave everyone the right to rescind in the worst real estate market in NYC in 30 years because you were greedy little piggies and let your sales team talk you into a diva starchitect who delayed the project. Sure, here's another fat loan to build yet another tall tower to sell at exorbitant prices per foot just to break even."
Because that's what banks want right now, more unsold NYC inventory that needs $2,000+ psf just to break even.
And that same bank is going to let BHS and Wendy & Co continue to sell this crap? Who gives buyers the right to assign contracts in NYC? What is this, Miami?
Views or no views, no sane buyer would stay in this project if given the right to get out.
Wonderboy, go ask Wendy if she expects the team to get paid when everyone drops out, tries to get their deposits back -- though that may be the first sign of something fishy when escrow is short -- and the bank fires the little piggies who wanted the right to assign and bought some apartments to flip for themselves.
Always nice when the sales team competes with developer inventory. Conflict of interest much?
This sucker is toast. And I think -- if the escrow rumors are true -- someone will be going to jail.
Maybe Wonderboy thinks they will build the Rem building on top of OMP?? LOL. Dude, the permits were filed with DOB and the construction has begun and they ARE NOT doing the Rem tower, so stop trying to put out all this misinformation. You can see the information on Curbed, the permits are clearly NOT for the Rem building. Case closed. Or maybe the Rem building is going to Jersey City? Or White Plains? One thing is for sure, it ain't happenin' on 22nd Street, bucko....
OldWest: LOL. Great post. Though I do think these things could sell at $2K/sf -- particularly the full floor units. They won't make tons of money, but unless this gets way outta hand, they probably won't do as badly as other developers with less unique inventory.
Wendy's brokers who bought in must be thrilled if the delays got them out of the deal. How interesting for the developer to have a roomful of people who are secretly hoping that the project will miss its outside date so they can escape.
And you do intrigue -- what are the escrow rumors? I didn't even know it was possible to screw up escrow!! Madoff II?
Well, looked at the site this morning and construction on the smaller tower/lobby for One Madison is proceeding at a snail's pace. It is still possible to see unfinished concrete on about half of One Madison's upper 30 floors or so. I don't see how they could hope for a C.O. anytime in the next few months at the pace they're going. Makes the "outside date" discussion a bit more interesting.
Seems that Wonderboy vanished as well, as soon as pressed for any actual facts re Rem tower and now clearly appears to be part of the sales team for One Madison, thus not credible.
Bonvivant, a couple of fun facts for you:
- Since you're a Rem hater :), check out Curbed, where there is a picture of the eviction notice on the door of the Rem showroom, showing over $80,000 in back rent. I'm sure wonderboy has a positive spin on this awesomely good news! http://curbed.com/archives/2009/07/08/action_at_rems_soho_sales_office_but_not_the_kool_kind.php
- There was an inspection last night, and the last element was cleared for a TCO for the lower floors. Expect to see one in the next days or weeks.
OnMadPark, thanks! Those ARE fun facts. Not that I hate Rem or his work (although I do think this proposal was mediocre at best), just thought that was an absurd idea and the wrong place for it.
Guess cash flow for Slazer is not that good if they can't even pay the rent on the sales office! LOL.
Bigger problem than anything is that this is a very shitty area, sorry to say. How they sold a luxe product in this middle of crap is amazing, except that the market foiled the best laid plans.
It is kind of shitty, and what's worse is the idiots on here hoping REM wouldn't be built or OMP was never built....to keep the area shitty and low-class.
ccrowley and 599GTB (obviously the same spammer using exactly the same words),
You spend an awful lot of time hanging around in the neighborhood for hating it so much. Kinda makes you sound like a 'wannabe'!
Seriously, we get it that you hate it, and that you hate it so much that you have to open multiple accounts to make multiple posts saying that you hate it. We won't look for you at the block party.
To be fair, the neighborhood is pretty shitty. Less shitty than a year ago and much less shitty than five years ago but then again, I think Chelsea is dirty and dark.
Go west from the park on 28th street and its vendor store central. Ugly.
The park is beautiful and fairly well cleaned up. The buildings on the north side are nice and I certainly see the appeal of having a southern park view. I wouldn't take that on Central Park.
I give it another 5-10 years for the area to really come into its own. Sure, there's restaurants and the like but no real supermarket. Still feels a little dead at night directly north and east of the park.
It'll hopefully improve but let's not pretend it's a prime location. Time will tell...
Whole Foods is on 7th and 24th and Associated is on Park.
That Reem Koolas tower (I don't if it will be built) would have been a push in the right direction into transforming that sad location into a more beautiful, pleasant and upscale locale.
If Madison Park was located in civilized city like Paris, all those ghastly unattractive retail slums in the vicinity would have been destroyed a long time ago. It's a shame New York allows such disgusting and dilapidated shit in prime areas throughout the city.
That area and the city needs help, ASAP.
Bonvivant, from the picture above (and others i've seen on the web) and the site in general it looks like you are incorect about the 2nd tower and lobby. The second tower is set back, on 22nd street, not 23rd. Not sure what is being built next to the OMP tower but it ain't the "rem" tower. Walk to 22nd, you will see a footprint with no work going on, I believe that is the future "rem" or other tower.
I find it more than a tad ironic that I have to defend One Madison Park from some of the claims made against it but as a "foodie" I feel obligated to point out that said location is a food lover's heaven. There are excellent restaurants in most directions that you turn, and if you want to cook, you're within a reasonable walk of many fine food vendors. Putting aside minor ethnic gems like Kalyustan's on "Curry Hill," there's another Whole Foods on Union Square, as well as the 7th Avenue location already mentioned on this thread. While you're down there you can stop at the Union Square Farmer's market which is pretty much every foodie's wet dream. I could mention many other purveyors of fine food as well. All that said, I kind of suspect that whomever drops $45M on the penthouse is not going to be doing much cooking themselves...
Lest you wonder about my credentials, I was the last resident of the penthouse of the building that preceeded One Madison. It's a lovely location in a somewhat commercial neighborhood, and I was quite sad to see my former residence torn down - hence the irony alluded to earlier. As for the food though, I'm now on the UES and the food shopping pales in comparison. I used to take foody friends on epicurean tours of the city, and like Calvin Trillin who once wrote an article about touring the city with visiting gastronomes, I'd start at the Union Square Farmers market.
mnktmaker, thanks, yes, i've looked at the footprint as well and the work that has been done last week or so is at the north side of the lot (23rd). However, as noted extensively on Curbed and other sites, the DOB permits for this lot have been filed for the short building in the "pre-Rem" plan. There is no theater included in the approved DOB permit, or any of the other features associated with the Rem plan. Thus, it would seem safe to conclude that the Rem building is DOA.
Oh, I agree REM is dead. I am just saying that whatever building is going to be built on the site will be built on 22nd and has not started yet.
One Mad is like bizarro world.
You have the in-house brokers most likely secretly wishing the project falls apart so they don't have to close on the units they speculated on - how Miami 2005.
On the other side you have buyer's brokers who desperately want the project to close so they can get a commission even if their clients get screwed.
Wonderboy: which one is you? In-house or do you have a client with a One Mad contract? Confess. It's OK.
Does anyone know whether the temporary certificates of occupancy were issued? Also, I wonder whether the developer can force the buyers to close based on a temporary certificate of occupancy, even though the lobby is not finished. I guess it depends on the contract of sale, and I know that many contracts during the boom were generally favorable to the seller. Anybody hear anything about buyer's having a right to walk?
There are no TCO's. The information is available real time at the DOB building info system. But the last objection was cleared last week, so I'd expect to see one shortly.
If you're planning on moving in, be prepared to wait. They don't have the tax lots assigned yet or a condo declaration filed either. All stuff that banks and mortgage lenders kinda like to see. :)
I'd expect closings to start in the next several weeks -- if everything goes right.
I thought they got their TCO last week?
They got the final inspection approval (which is what that shows), but the TCO has not been issued. It will show up here real time:
Right now, application status is "Open" and no TCO's are available for preview.
But if you check the same link later, it might show the actual TCO.
Flatiron, bldgs don't get their final TCO's, sometimes, for years after they are finished and all moved into. Yes, all you need is the TCO to start closings. OnMad is correct, probably see closings in a couple of weeks when the paperwork catches up with the inspection. Looks like they need to square the paper work is all.
I think you mean final CO. The T is for temporary and can be granted floor by floor or even for partial floors. The CO will cover the entire inhabitable building and can take awhile.
Without the tax lots and condo declaration approved by the AG, there is no way to sell a unit. Without or without a mortgage, you can't be forced to close without those two items.
Not so sure the AG will be granting the condo declaration effective. Lots of things in the filings don't match up. Sloppy job when you read through. And you can't extend the outside date by filing an amendment and just saying so. Otherwise, developers could just file and extend projects for years and years.
Even if the AG approves it, there will be a ton of lawsuits on this one. The sponsor did a crappy job with the amendments and the original outside date has been missed.
Sorry, Wonderboy, that commission you've been counting on to buy a place in the under-priced Apthorp may not be so solid after all.
Grab a tub of popcorn and watch the fireworks
23 East 22nd Street #26A
SE lists this unit as closed/sold as of today. Is this a mistake?
Princetonbabe, I noticed that as well. Nothing of yet however in Acris. I think it must be a mistake, considering the sponsor didn't even apply for a TCO above the 16th floor.
Oldwest, curious what you are referring to as the outside date? I hear the out date is September 1st clear as day in the Offering Plan?
PB -- Remember that Streeteasy is not a primary source. Sometimes things that are listed as "sold" are just in contract. I suspect this was an assignment. It was originally listed as already in contract, put back on the market, and then taken off again. Bottom line, it is probably just in contract.
Hey BobbyO and OldWest, I'm going to start a new thread on "outside date". There have been some recent situations that leave me confused about what that term means.
REM not gonna happen...too much money to produce too much inventory.
REM will be built.
Wonderboy.... Why do you always just make blanket statements to the effect that REM will be built, without providing any backup information -- even information as loose as who you learned this from or how you know this information? It's just strange. If you in fact know that it will be built, why would you be shy or hesitant about telling us the source of your information?
Rem is not happening. 22nd Street will be an 11 story structure, as originally stated in the offering plan. It may be a Rem Koolhaas designed 11 stories, but the cantilever project that has caused such a stir of late will not be built. The main lobby will be on 22nd Street, as will the screening room, per the latest amendment.
BobbyO... Thank you for the information. I'm just wondering whether the placement of the main lobby and screening room on 22nd Street was a change from the original plan and/or whether people have any misgivings about it.
OnMadPark: fairly simple. My understanding is the law states that developers have one year from the offering plan -- Schedule B -- completion date to close one apartment to an outsider. It protects contract signers from staying in an infinite limbo as developers delay projects.
My understanding is that the Schedule B for One Madison stated a completion date of June 30, 2008. One year later, as of July 1, 2009, there were no closings.
Now the amendments to One Madison tried to amend the expected completion date by pushing it back to September and there are various places where different dates are used. So the developer is trying to claim a different outside date.
Will the AG allow an amendment to push back the outside date by amending the expected completion date? I doubt it. To do that would violate the spirit of the law and allow developers to put contract signers into that infinite limbo. Does the offering plan, from what I'm told as I haven't read the whole thing, have different dates mentioned than what's on the Schedule B? Seems so.
My guess is that with what is going on, including the Setai last week, is that the AG will tell the sponsors they must abide by the one year rule from the Schedule B. In the case that the AG decides not to get involved, contract signers will still be able to take the Sponsors to court using the Schedule B as the correct date.
We all know how the NY courts lean in such matters. The Sponsor won't have a chance. And in the meantime, I can't imagine a bank willing to finance a closing when there is litigation.
This might be settled quickly by the AG or it might drag out in the courts but if I were a gambling person, I'd say this project is over.
And Rem is just as cooked.
Oldwest, there is clear language in the plan that the first unit needed to close within one year of August 2008 (by Sept 1, 2009.) Otherwise, all buyers will be given the right to their money back. You are correct that the schedule B originally stated the first year of operation would conclude on June 30th, but given the fact that there is such clear language regarding the first closing, I have trouble believing that the AG will force rescission rights based on the June 30 date. That said, I'm sure some buyers will try to use that as their out during litigation.
BobbyO: the AG's "force" is pressure. They can highly suggest that the Sponsor offer the right of rescission but short of actually filing charges, they can't force it. Now the pressure can be immense, including holding up condo declaration, amendments, or other tools, but it's still just pressure.
I doubt the AG would really file charges -- would need to look up what exactly the could charge the Sponsor with as I haven't seen it done.
Clear language on the outside date is in conflict with the Schedule B. They should match. That they don't is in favor of the Sponsor, whose lawyers wrote the offering plan. I doubt the AG or a civil court judge would allow the Sponsor to benefit from their own sloppy work.
Maybe the AG puts pressure on the Sponsors, maybe they don't. Busy office these days, I am sure. But even if they don't, I would wager a purchaser wins in civil court against the Sponsor for missing the outside date as stated in the Schedule B.
I have a hard time believing a judge in NY would give the benefit of the doubt to a Sponsor for their own bad work product. I've never seen the Schedule B and outside date mis-match. If anyone can find an example, it might be helpful.
Otherwise, it looks like a Sponsor error and I don't believe the AG or, more likely, a civil judge would allow them to benefit from their own error.
So I think the REM verdict is in. All of a sudden the picture above does not show the REM building. Coincidence or meaningfull statement?
I think that the REM verdict has been in for a while (even noted in New York Magazine in late June), but what is curious is that Brown Harris Stevens continues to list the project in their "new developments" section. Just lazy website management? I do not understand what possible benefit they might derive from keeping defunct projects active on their website. I believe it reflects poorly on that firm.
I don't think there's any arguing that the cantilevered Koolhaas tower is not happening. It's sounding more like his office is designing the eleven story structure, as originally stated in the offering plan, along with all of the amenity spaces throughout both buildings.
Looks like the tower received it's TCO last week. OldWest/OnMadPark have you heard anything?
TCO last week. They still need the condo declaration and tax lots assigned . . . oh and they have a tax bill to pay! But assume closings should be starting soon.
Update posted on Curbed today...read "comments" section for additional interesting information:
Regarding the downsizing of the Rem . . .
An article in the NY Times yesterday talked about architects being faced with downsizing their projects. In an aside at the end, the author says:
Is this kind of downscaling the beginning of a trend? Herzog & de Meuron is not the only architecture firm that is being put through this process. Just a few days after I saw the new Parrish design, Rem Koolhaas told me that he was in a similar predicament over a condo and screening room design in Manhattan.
The full article is here:
Closings have started:
From the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/realestate/16deal1.html?_r=1&ref=realestate
August 16, 2009
A Closely Watched Closing
By JOSH BARBANEL
IT used to be that the drama at the opening of a luxury condominium was the delectable identification of the men and women of wealth and celebrity who had chosen to make a home in a new tower in the sky. Lately, the theatrics have centered on whether these luxury palaces will close at all.
At One Madison Park, a 597-foot-tall glass tower at East 23rd Street near Broadway and Madison Square Park, lawyers for some anxious buyers have been circling for months as the project headed toward a Sept. 1 deadline. If the sponsors do not complete the first closing by then, buyers will have a chance to back out of their contracts, or perhaps negotiate lower prices.
For weeks, the sponsors — Ira Shapiro and Marc Jacobs — have scheduled and then postponed the first closings as they rushed to get their paperwork lined up. Toward the end of July, they obtained their first temporary certificate of occupancy for the first 10 apartments on five floors.
Then, last Monday, the condominium declaration was filed, listing the individual apartments and block and lot numbers.
And late last week, lawyers for the first buyer, of a two-bedroom 11th-floor apartment, showed up with a check, getting that requisite first closing under way. The apartment is to be a pied-à-terre for a couple who live in Montauk, on the eastern end of Long Island, brokers said.
Wendy Maitland, a broker for Brown Harris Stevens, who has been marketing the apartments at One Madison Park with a partner, Wilbur Gonzalez, said that with the stirrings of renewed confidence in the economy, at least five other buyers are scheduled to close in the next few days.
The list includes one buyer who might have some particular insight into the intrinsic value of Manhattan real estate: Peter Buffett, a composer, singer and songwriter, and a son of Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor and philanthropist.
Mr. Buffett and his wife, Jennifer, plan to buy a three-bedroom apartment at One Madison Park. They have a house upstate and have been renting an apartment at Morgan Court, a postwar apartment tower in Murray Hill. Jonathan Adelman, Mr. Buffett’s representative, said Mr. Buffett was traveling last week and unavailable for comment.
“It is going to be his home, and he will have a small studio there as well,” Mr. Adelman said. “They chose to move there because they love the neighborhood and it’s an extraordinary building.”
Ms. Maitland said that in the past, when some buyers at One Madison Park said they would not be able to close on their apartments, the units were resold, including a high-floor apartment that went for more than $3,000 per square foot in the last few weeks. “In March, the market was abysmal; now it is not as abysmal and deals are being done,” Ms. Maitland said. “There is an air of excitement. We are seeing a whole different side of the market.”
But one lawyer said he represented a handful of buyers who still hoped to recover their deposits. He declined to be named because he has not yet notified the sponsors.
Of the 69 apartments in the tower, 62 are now in contract, Ms. Maitland said, while several others were reserved by the sponsors. A $45 million penthouse was pulled from the market until it is completed, she said.
The project at one time included a second, cantilevered 22-story building, designed by Rem Koolhaas, which was supposed to rise over East 22nd Street. But the condominium declaration filed on Monday said the second building would be only 13 stories high, with only nine apartments.
I'm a buyer in 1 Mad and read the above article with interest. I'm interested in pursuing a rescission as well. Could anyone direct me to the lawyer for the group? Please contact me at FlatIrony@gmail.com. Thanks!
I am also seeking a refund of my deposit. I don't know who the attorney is that is referred to in the NYT article but I have retained a uniquely qualified individual. He is a former Assistant Attorney General, who used to work in the Bureau that reviews offering plans and handles the applications for the return of coop/condo down payments. He has just completed a thorough analysis of our offering plan and has given me numerous reasons to believe I am entitled to the return of my down payment. He has a very strong command of the governing regulations, a thorough knowledge of the Attorney General's policies and procedures, and is uniquely qualified to obtain results because of his recent and specialized experience in that office.
You can contact me for a referral at firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm passing on the name of the attorney who took on Linden 78. One unit holder asked out. Developer said 'no way', so they went to the AG, and the whole thing collapsed.
I'd also find about about attorneys on the Setai. I don't know them, but it sounds like almost identical facts -- and when the developer decided not to negotiate -- the whole thing fell apart.
Does anyone know how many units are held by the sponsor/brokers/friends? The latest amendment (#15) raises some questions.
In that amendment -- which declares the plan effective -- the sponsor lists about 40 buyers as "bona fide" (not related to the sponsor or sales agents). I've crossed checked those units with the BHS sales listings, and 6 of them are currently for sale. That brings bona fide sales down to less than half the building. Subtract from that the folks who apparently are challenging their contracts and may not close, and the building isn't exactly feeling like its as sold out as the brokers suggest.
I guess the piece that's missing is -- who are the buyers for all of those other units? The regs state in Section 20.5(e)(iv) that the sponsor must disclose all sales to parties related by blood or business to the sponsor, selling agent or managing agent. This amendment does not list those sales.
So the question is -- are they real? Will they close? Or will there suddenly be a glut of units on the market after they get the first units to close?
If I'm reading the regulations wrong, let me know. But if it is correct, this is either a big oversight or a bigger problem.
flatirony: I know the brokers for the building bought more than a few. I heard Wendy Maitland put deposits on five. True or not? Who knows. I do know for sure that a few friends interested in the building were steered towards her apartments for re-sale over the sponsors. They were quite shocked by it.
Regardless of what happens with One Madison, I think it will be a long while before another upscale building allows contract assignments in the plan. It really just causes problems. Even if the brokers themselves didn't have units for re-sale so we could ignore the conflict of interest with the sponsor, it doesn't do purchasers any good in my opinion. It just adds froth and speculation.
BTW: That Times article is crap. Not surprising. NYTimes has been on a steady decline but hey, who else is going to take out those half pages ads in the real estate section on Sunday? Buyers? The line between sales and editorial is long gone. Pity.
Hey Old West --
Yeah, the NY Times was the greatest PR piece for young Wendy et. al. Congrats to them for it! We'll see what the next story looks like . . .
I'd love to get some insight "off board". If you wouldn't mind, pop me an email at email@example.com.
i would not exactly refer to wendy as young
Thanks to all for providing some insight and clarification. There was something about that NY Times article that just smelled wrong. Some very careful obfuscation. Also, the somewhat gratuitous reference to Warren Buffet's son buying in the building may well be true, but it had an air of desperation, or at least overreaching, to it.
jasonkyle--are you saying a broker would keep using a highly flattering photograph of herself/himself long past the expiration date? NO, . . . I just don't believe it!
I can tell you that Buffet is listed as a buyer. So are a bunch of LLC's and that guy who was running around buying properties for an investment fund.
So, that one part of the article looks factually accurate! Most of the rest sounds more like a BHS press release (lots of sales, $3,000/sf, etc., etc.).
Flatirony, Where are you getting the list of buyers from? I heard the unit that closed last week went for over $2500/sf? Is that true?
OldWest, Wendy Maitland is in contract for 5 units? Did she flip them all or is she moving in?
How does one get factual information on this building, not from Brown Harris agents?
I'm a buyer. The list was part of the last amendment to the offering plan.
so will it close or not in September?
There have already been closings. Can't confirm it on Acris yet, but everything is in place -- TCO, Condo Dec, Tax Maps (all of which can be verified online). No real reason to doubt it.
Wonder when they will start construction on 22nd Street now that the Condo Declaration and Tax lots have been finalized?
Flatirony -- if you don't mind I was curious to know/understand your reasons for wanting to rescind.
Is it that (i) you believe you are now paying above current mkt, (ii) due to financing problems and/or (iii)some combination of (i) and (ii) or perhaps you just bought to flip, which is no longer a great play in this mkt? I ask because I have a friend who knows someone buying in the bldg and I was surprised to learn that while a lot of the press surrounds the 3000psf sales (the full floor really high up apts I imagine), a lot of the other sales are priced much lower. I know the area rather well and while it has taken a hit along w/ everywhere else, the prices seem to be holding up ok (or better than most). Looking at buildings around One Mad the prevailing prices seem to range from 1,500 psf to perhaps 1,800. Trying to figure out what an appropriate premium should be for One Mad to account for the views, higher end finishes/amenities, being on the park, etc. Would appreciate your take if not too personal. I have a hard time putting my finger on a proper value in this mkt for this particular product.
Just curious as to what bldgs you have currently noted at 1800 per sf?
As we know the asking is not what the final sale price might be in current mkt
Just as a helpful guide for your friend:
- There have been no sales (oops, other than the ones that just closed).
- The "in contract" prices listed on Streeteasy are not accurate. They're from the broker. They do reflect the "selling prices" in the offering plan (which were increased after many sales were in contract), but they don't reflect actual contract prices.
- A quick comparison of the BHS site (the "in contract" prices) with the actual contract numbers (at least as they are listed in the sponsor's latest amendment) shows the Wendy numbers to be typically 25% to 30% higher than the actual contract price.
My personal take is that high floor, full floor apartments are pretty spectacular, and that they could well deserve a significant premium. It is definitely a unique product. Smaller units, lower floors are much more run-of-the-mill.
If your friends want to buy, there probably isn't a big rush. There's a decent chance that a significant amount of inventory will be available.
I would agree. The special units are above the 35th floor, where you clear the building to the west. Anything higher is truly a WOW view.
Flatirony, we would love to get our hands on the ACTUAL contract prices :)
2748 -- I suppose I have, in a very non-scientific way, tried to find some comps (or at least pts of reference) to compare to One Mad, while understanding that these comps represent a less high-end product (or location). The 4 bldgs I have looked at are 15 Mad Sq North, 260 Park Ave So, 141 5th and 240 Park Ave So. 15 North just closed a park facing unit on the 16th floor for 1,710 psf. I have looked at this building, do not find the level of finishes, amenity spaces or location (the dividing line btw vibrant Mad Sq. Park and dead, dreary and wholly commercial Madison avenue/Broadway) comparable to One Mad. On top of that the carrying charges at 15 North are dramatically higher than they would be at One Mad in light of no tax abatement for the next several years and, of course, facing the park or not, the unit only has those park facing windows, the rest are just interior walls. 141 Fifth is hard to compare as closings have not started yet but the building itself certainly looks gorgeous from the outside and I am just kind of assuming the pricing will be in the 1,800+ range. For 260 Park I am just talking about the B line as a comp since all the interior units are simply not able to be used as any kind of barometer. The B line appears to be going for just north of 1,500 psf. Having said that, no views at all (even for a high B line) and much higher carrying costs because there is no abatement, in addition to a far inferior bldg in terms of amenities. Finally, for 240 Park there is not a lot of sales data to look recently (a small 1 bdr and 2nd floor two bedroom is not particularly informative) so again, in a very unscientific way, I took 260 and added a premium to account for the lower carrying costs at 240 and few other factors.
Bottom line, looks like the area ranges from 1500 to just north of 1,700 (1,800 looks a bit off now since I am just guessing on 141 closing prices, though I think they will be north of 240 and 260). I any event, if we were to just use 15 North it seems to be that some premium over that is pretty easily justified for numerous reasons. What that premium is I have no idea but something over 2,000 psf does not seem crazy, even in this mkt.
flatirony -- thanks for the info. I have been around enough to know that long after a sale Sponsors keep raising prices in amendments that do not reflect reality, a silly game that I don't think really helps them. Perhaps I got too personal but was interested to know if you were walking away purely on price or some other factors? If I had the cash I think I would be ok stretching in the 2000 - 2200 or so range for these apts (not talking about the crazy high ones, I know those are more unique), in light of what else is out there at the high end. That or go pure value somewhere else.
On comps, the two buildings that I think match this one in terms of location and quality are 50 Gramercy Park North and 15 Union Square West.
The good news for buyers here, is that the sf asking prices are very high. At 50 Gramercy they are 3K to 5K/sf. At 15 Union Square they seem to hover around $3,000/sf. Both of these buildings are new builds (or relatively new), on parks with good quality amenities.
The bad news is they are all just asking prices. Nothing seems to be moving at those prices. Oh, and it's Brown Harris marketing 15 USW . . . so who knows what the real prices are.
I actually like the park facing units at 15 Mad Square North, but I think the building is at a slightly lower level that the other three.