One Madison Park future?

flatirony: about 2 hours ago

Regarding the lobby. The permanent lobby is/will be on 22nd street.

Regarding the Rem tower -- to be precise, it was never alive. It was never a part of the offering plan. It existed only as potential and marketing materials.

The offering plan has always had two towers. But the second tower was not the Rem. It was only about 165 feet. The Rem tower was 355 feet.

If the developer ever really wanted to build it, they would have had to change the offering plan. And if they did that, everyone would have had the chance to walk.

In fact, the closest they ever got to making a change was to send out a very strange letter asking buyers whether they would agree to the changes to the common spaces and tower based on the marketing brochure. Unorthodox, to say the least. But that was the last gasp for the tower as shown.

If they ever wanted to revive the plan, it would likely be a huge, complicated, expensive deal requiring the agreement of current buyers.

skippy2222: about 4 hours ago

Is the official building lobby on 23rd or is it on 22nd? Is the Rem tower officially called off, or on indefinite hold? I thought the lobby was to be through the Rem tower.

flatirony: about 6 hours ago

mktmaker,

I agree. The issue in this building is not some sort of crash. It's a good building, and it will end up selling out -- and likely at rates that give the developer a profit.

The only issue is how much profit. Remember the brokers have been touting a virtually sold out building, and showing listing prices from the mid $2,000's up to over $6,000 sf. And that's just plain silly.

The simple fact is that nobody is buying at anything remotely close to the rates -- and even those who bought before the listing inflation (back in 2007), are not closing at those rates.

So if you're a buyer, the question is what is the market price. My completely worthless guess is that the current value is closer to $1,700 for low floors and closer to $3,000 for the higher floors. And if they'd just stop pretending and sell a few of these, they might actually build up demand to sell the rest.

So no tears need to be shed for the developer or the building. If you want to muster some sympathy, send it to Wendy and BHS who probably invested pretty heavily in selling this and REM, only to have one tower collapse, many of the 1 Mad buyers walk, and the rug pulled out from under them once the building started to close. Karma can be tough.

And so far as the deposit goes, I'm more than a little bit sure that the developer is not keeping all of those.

mktmaker: about 7 hours ago

But doesn't the new buyer reflect the logic that if they keep the 385k deposit, the resale plus the deposit bring them back to over the original 3.85 sale price? Seems like good business decision to take that offer.

Also, at about 1,800 psf for the 20th floor that bodes pretty well for all of those full floors higher up. No?

flatirony: about 8 hours ago

Another apartment closed at something less than the contract price?

20B was listed in the AG documents as sold to a third party at $3.85M (with a $385K downpayment) back in 2007.

It just closed at $3.55M ($300,000 off) in a sale to an individual with a different name than the one in the Amendment.

Just because I find the asking prices so incredibly entertaining, this unit had been an active listing (despite the in contract sale) at $4.95M . . . that's almost 40% higher than the ultimate selling price.

Is it just me, or is there a pattern here?

30yrs_RE_20_in_REO: 5 days ago

The buyer challenges the distribution to the Sponsor of the security deposit from the escrow account. Until the deposit has cleared the escrow account, to some extent the contract is "still alive". The Sponsor can't sign a second contract on the unit while the first contract is in any way alive (well, not without having the situation signed off on by the new buyer, which isn't very likely). In NY, attorneys can do just about anything and not get disbarred....... except screw with escrow accounts.

flatirony: 6 days ago

Old west and 30,

Believe me, I'd love it if you were right on this, but my understanding is
that taking an action to reclaim your deposit will not
have any impact on a sale. And that kind of makes sense. After all, your
right to the deposit stands regardless of whether the apartment is sold
or not.

Now you might be able to tie up a sale by filing a suit that somehow
asks for specific performance, but I'm not sure what that claim would be.

Again, I'd LOVE it if you were right about this, so please feel free to
give any specifics that support it.

30yrs_RE_20_in_REO: 6 days ago

My point was pretty much the same as OldWest's (thank you for picking up where I left off and running with it).

NYCBuyerLES: 6 days ago

went to a party at an apartment in this building last weekend. pretty wicked view. building lobby was a mess.

OldWest: 6 days ago

I am fairly certain that even if a buyer fails to close, a buyer can still file suit for return of the deposit. As long as that suit remains, the developer cannot sell the apartment to someone else.

flatirony: 6 days ago

Old West, I think your analysis only makes sense if the buyer can actually "tie up" the process of reselling the unit. And in the case of this development, I don't think they can.

Once the sponser gives the buyer the closing notice and the buyer fails to close, the sponser is free to move on with his life and remarket the unit. The buyer can challenge for the deposit, but it can't restrict any sale of the unit.

If that's the case, then there is no reason for the sponsor to cooperate with a reticent buyer at all . . . unless they worked some deal on the deposit. And the sponsor wouldn't work a deal on the deposit unless it thought it might not be able to keep it.

OldWest: 6 days ago

Yes, in any case there is additional inventory.
But just because the developer re-lists it doesn't mean they think they cannot keep the deposit.

The apartment would be going back on the market either way (deposit kept, deposit returned). Makes more sense to have a quick one page agreement with buyer in contract: If it sells for same, give you back your deposit. Sells for less, deposit makes the difference.

Why do that? Faster and cheaper than going through process of breaking deposit escrow. If buyer fights it the apartment is tied up and cannot be put on market and the legal costs go up.

That said, based on common charge changes alone, I think the developer is going to lose any deposit fight.

flatirony: 6 days ago

I'm not sure I see/understand a real difference between "walking" and "not planning on closing". In either case, the buyer does not close and the sponsor gets the right to resell the units -- regardless of what happens with the deposit. And in either case, there is additional inventory on the market, which isn't great for the seller.

And wouldn't any cooperation with reticent buyers indicate that the sponsor doesn't think it has a clear right to keep the deposits?

30yrs_RE_20_in_REO: 7 days ago

One possibility is that they haven't "walked" but don't plan on closing, and the Sponsor has agreed to try to resell them and avoid litigation over the deposits if they are able to re-sell them and be made whole.

flatirony: 7 days ago

Interesting listings showing up.

As of today, there are 12 listings. Of those, 7 -- more than half -- are units that were shown in AG filings as already in contract. Those units are 9A, 9B, 12A, 14A, 21B, 43A and 47B.

Given that closing notices have probably been delivered on at least the first 5 units (floors 21 and below) . . . is the most logical explanation that buyers have walked from these units? Or might something else be going on?

Real estate pros, elucidate please!

2748: 11 days ago

Obviously this underlines the ethics of the developer as well,
sad this glorious bldg has such underlying bad karma, and financial uncertainty
Does anyone have a clue as to how many apts have closed?
Or how many are really in contract? Also what happens now to the apts owned by the BHS brokers now that PDE is handling OMP?
Will they be forced to close?

flatirony: 12 days ago

The Prudential Elliman listings are coming up . . . and one thing is pretty suprising. They have NOT updated the condo fees. At this point, the developer is aware of the issues related to the understatement of condo fees . . . so to allow the mistake to continue in the marketing material is pretty surprising.

For example, in the $3.025M listing for the 1328 SF unit, the condo fee is listed as $868. In fact, the latest amendment -- the one where they finally fixed the condo fee -- shows the LOWEST fee for that size unit (9A) is $1,377. That's 60% higher than shown in the listing.

Similarly, the $3.55M lsting for the 1560 sf unit, the fee is listed as $1,019 -- compared to the lowest fee for this size unit (9B) as $1,588. Again, almost 60% higher.

flatirony: 13 days ago

An even more comparable building . . . 15 Union Square West. High end building on a square . . . Wendy as broker . . . high prices, no visible sales activity.

NWT: 13 days ago

Meanwhile Wendy is still, for more than a year, trying (or not) to unload http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/365898-coop-115-central-park-west-lincoln-square-new-york. The problem there may be the seller, though.

flatirony: 13 days ago

So now we know why all of those listings are no longer available from BHS.

But what about the two that still ARE available? Specifically, the 40th and 43rd floors.

For the record, both of these units were shown as "sold to third parties" in the AG filings. So presumably they weren't part of "brokergate".

But if BHS retains the listings, is it likely that these are buyers who are just trying to get out and are sticking with Wendy? Or is there a better explanation.

For those shopping, you might be able to get a deal:

43 is a full floor unit with a terace. The current ask prices is $10M, and the contract price for the existing buyer is $8M. Think $7.5.

40 is one of the large full floor units (no terrace). The current ask is $9M (down from $9.9M), and the contract price for the existing buyer is $6.85M. Low $6's seem good.

2748: about 2 weeks ago

none of it is surprising building a total mess, everyone from original financier credit suisse, to current contractors, bankers/lenders feel that Slazer a mess, looking to borrow $100+ more million to finish adjoining tower, also iStar financials stability in question--sounds like a formula for disaster or foreclosure---and now the broker switch...........

flatirony: about 2 weeks ago

They probably weren't booted because they made a profit, but because they were the ONLY ones to make a profit.

Seriously, that can't be the real reason, can it?

Certainly the developer knew from day one he sold to them.

And developer would have to approve a flip ... No?

Feels like something else is going on here.

SkinnyNsweet: about 2 weeks ago

Wow. I didn't even realize there was a broker there. I thought the building sold itself.

flatirony: about 2 weeks ago

Wendy out!

Elliman replaces BHS at One Madison Park
http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/elliman-replaces-bhs-at-one-madison-park

November 23, 2009 02:00PM

One Madison Park
Not long after representing celebrity client Jude Law in leasing a Greenwich Village apartment, which ended up being visible from New York University dorms, Brown Harris Stevens has found itself in the middle of another gaffe. The firm has lost its role as exclusive broker for condominium One Madison Park, which has been attracting celebs, after two of its brokers reportedly agreed to buy units there and then flipped them for profit. Their actions, while not illegal, are considered in poor taste and perhaps even unethical, the New York Post's Jennifer Gould Keil reported. Prudential Douglas Elliman will now be representing One Madison Square Park. [Post]

OnMadPark: about 2 weeks ago

What is the latest on the 22nd street lobby/second tower/theater? I was walking past the 23rd street entrance this weekend and it is kind of awful. 22nd street (particularly with that beautiful townhouse next door) would be much better -- though it doesn't seem like anything is going on there.

aboutready: about 2 weeks ago

i doubt it's a glitch. i'd bet that people in contract were noticing relistings, so they pulled them all, left a couple still standing to create some possibility of credibility, and are looking for obfuscation. SE doesn't choose the designation, the broker does and had to decide physically to relabel those units.

flatirony: about 2 weeks ago

That's true. Though the point still stands -- it results in showing a limited inventory available for sale which is simply not the case. Many of the units listed as "not available" clearly are available.

And I'd love to know whether there is some distinction between those shown as "in contract" and those shown as "not avialable".

Again, I grant you that StreetEasy doesn't collect perfect data -- so it can all just be a glitch.

aboutready: about 2 weeks ago

flatirony, they're not listed as sold. they're listed as no longer available. which could mean sold, or not.

flatirony: about 2 weeks ago

Looks like Wendy and the gang are learning to play StreetEasy. It now shows only 2, yes 2, units available for sale. Everything else now appears to be "Sold".

Now there might be a reporting glitch as StreetEasy harvests data . . . but if it isn't, it feels just a little desperate.

The facts seem to be, plenty of units available (just check the BHS website), very few closings, and indications of price drops on the most recent closings.

I'd love to hear the current sales pitch.

flatirony: about 2 weeks ago

For reference, this is the unit with the terrace on the top of the first set of "cubes" (it's not the 16th "construction floor"). The upside is the terrace, and a full floor unit with a decent layout. The downside is that it is a low floor (and doesn't clear some of the surrounding buildings). But it does have terrific, more human views of the park, and spectacular empire state building views.

$5M seems like a good/fair price. That $1800/sf for a unit with a terrace probably translates to $1,500 or $1,700/sf for a non-terraced unit at that level. Much closer to current market for park facing units.

NoMadPark: about 2 weeks ago

Price cut on 16A?

Just so I don't jump the gun on this one . . . here are the facts.

16A was shown in the AG filings as sold to a third party on 10/12/2007 for $6 Million (with a $600,000 downpayment). That's a fact.

The actual sale came through to a party with a different name for $5 Million. That comes to just over $1,800 SF . . . for a really low floor, but one with a wraparound balcony.

Without knowing more -- it looks like the $6M buyer either bailed or sold at a huge loss -- but someone please correct me with other possibilities.

For amusement, check out the "asking" prices in the listings for this property. They started at $8.25M in 2007 and dropped steadily, with the latest listing showing at $6.9M.

2748: about 2 weeks ago

Available not available, listed no longer listed, in contract then nit, and multiple listing prices and closings for apts apparently still on the market?
Is this a bait & switch ploy? Anyone know what has really sold ie closed other than the 8 apts listed in SE?
Are banks giving potential buyers mortgages based on such long lag time in closings?

2748: about 2 weeks ago

mktmaker: about 3 weeks ago

no problem.

260 is all resales and their best line (the B line) appears to be at 1,500 psf in todays mkt -- w/ no views. I don't know much about 240 but Mad. Sq. North has been sitting so long that I assume the recent closings represent new buyers who are either buying unsold inventory or sales of apts from old buyers who walked from deposits. Again, I know this all involves some guess work, however, as OMP moves from spec floor plan to concrete building one can walk, the values should firm up. As far as the area goes it is by far the best thing around. Now, whereas 2007/2008 may have generated the lofty 3000psf gaudy numbers, even in today's world I think you are looking at 2,000.

In time we will all know . . .

jasonkyle: about 3 weeks ago

i guess it's hard to truly look at the closings for me because they were all from deals made before the crash. but thank you for answering so concisely. i am not sure about some of the comparison buildings you used. conversions of older buildings are such a different feel to me than an all glass tower. also isn't most of the contract data in those 3 buildings based on pre-crash deals as well?

mktmaker: about 3 weeks ago

Nope, not a broker for this bldg or any other. I have no idea what they are willing to accept and I don't think I suggested I did. I merely said that in my view a low ball bid for a high floor wold be in the 1800 psf range. I am offering an opinion to someone who questioned if 1000 psf would get a high floor apt here. My opinion is grounded in closings to date and my perception of the value of the bldg compared to inventory in the immediate area. Take a look at recent sale prices for inferior bldgs like 260, 240 and Madison Sq. North and let me know what you think makes sense here.

In my view, if non-full floors are getting 2200 psf (the 33rd floor), 1800 for a full floor is pretty aggressive.

jasonkyle: about 3 weeks ago

are you a broker for the building? how do you know what ppsf they are willing to accept now or especially in the future? I am not being confrontational just wondering.

mktmaker: about 3 weeks ago

You could not get near this bldg (including the lowest floor) for that number. If you want to be super aggressive, a low ball bid for a full floor from 30 on up would have to come in at 1,800 psf. And that would likely be rejected. If you want to take a stab at the lowest non-full floor think 1,500.

lo888: about 3 weeks ago

Do you think the ones about 30 can be had for $1,000/SF?

mktmaker: about 3 weeks ago

I have followed this board and this bldg quite closely for a while now (flatirony, your views seem well balanced and, by and large, surprisingly close to my own). As for the neighborhood I really could not disagree w/ Somewhereelse more strongly. I love this location (a lot more than the North side of the park). If you go downtown a block you get right into the heart of a great restaurant district and the buzz of downtown yet you avoid all of that noise by being just north of it. To the north you have what I consider to be one of my favorite parks in the city, take my son to the playground there all the time, love it. Now, I do stop at 26th street as it is a veritable wasteland above there (dreary Madison and Broadway, $1 stores west etc) but the niche of OMP sits very well (in my opinion) on the best parts of this neighborhood. Don't like 23rd street itself but the entrance will be on a very lovely 22nd street so while I get my views north I never enter or leave that way (seems like a great combo).

I don't have the resources to get one of those full floors above 30 but I certainly would not hesitate to grab one if I could. I have seen this area just get better and better for years now and see no reason why that won't continue.