We are still way above 2006

no -- 11/1/2006 sale is the pre construction costs -- funded up to 2 - 3 yrs earlier? so assume 2003-2004...

Ummmmmmm....... how does showing that you CAN'T get $1,100,000 for a unit today prove that it's worth more than $855,330 it went for in 2006?

just bc its asking 1.1m it prob wont trade there- its been on since feb.. price was much higher in a better market.. terrible example if u ask me.. and considering manhattan fox is right- pre con pricing is usually even erlier price points- so we are def below 2006

also thats financial district where prices are down a lot- look at buuoldings like 225 fifth- below their schedule a pricing andsame deal

There's NO WINDOWS in the "bedrooms."

Nice try, broker.

I agree, it won't go for $1.1 because it hasn't gone for $1.1. and it has been a while - call it two solid price chops of $100K and $50K getting you to $950. I also understand manhattanfox, but a deal closed in November 2006 was not priced in 2003. Maybe 24 months earlier in late 2004 at best, but there are still new condo construction buyers who bought in 2006 who will come out ahead today - and again, this is new construction so it should have had the greatest "luxury" premium built in vs. if you just bought an existing co-op in 2006.
I remember 2004 thinking that the market was too high. So that means, what, 2002 would be fair. But we are way way off and again, I think this shows that a buyer in late 2006 will still be doing well despite a market that peaked 12 months later than this closing.

It's funny how brokers have gone from "It's not falling and it never will!" to "It's not falling as much and it'll soon stop!". Gleeclub, you just have to browse any of the other threads that mention closed sales (any of the IYCDMMWC ones) and you'll see, clearly and distinctly, that most SALES are being done at 2005-2004-2003 levels.

glee, you sound like someone who is desperately trying to convince himself. Are you the owner of the unit or a similar unit?

i smell dirty broker.

Does it get more sad than two windowless extra large closets with beds in them?
Anyone looking for a studio with 2 media rooms?
If you paid $650,000 for this I would demand an explination.
Good explination is that your a Vampire and you find light diagreeable.
Maybe an albino with super sensitive skin.
1.1MM...this is all that's wrong with this town.

This apartment is for a couple who will live in a shoe box, but need separate offices. H.O. = Home Office.

Steve - it looks like there are windows in the bedrooms in the pictures. I still don't think it's worth nearly what they are asking, but the floorplan doesn't seem to have the windows there. Of course, the pictures could also be from some other apartment...

Columbia, I don't know what your problem is. I have no hostility to brokers or people in the brokerage industry any more than I have "hostility" to the people at the grocery store who sell me food that has calories that can make me fat if I don't work out. There's been a demand for real estate, and brokers are part of that economy.

And, despite my lack of hostility, I am neither in the brokerage or real estate industry, or the grocery industry - the closest I am to real estate is that I write a rent check every month to someone who owns my apartment, and the second closest is that I read streeteasy. (so the answer to iamlooking is NO).

You have some oddly hostile attitude - I won't speculate the reasons but I will point out the behavior which has become too obvious to anyone else who is a streeteasy reader. What is the point of a discussion topic (two of them in fact yesterday) on "you cannot is a dirty broker?" or other similar nonsense?

You don't want to buy? You want to suggest people sell? That's all fine - I happen to be on the same side of the economics as you right now.

But at least I'm not a miserable ass.

"I think this shows that a buyer in late 2006 will still be doing well despite a market that peaked 12 months later than this closing." Didn't we already establish this was not a true 2006 purchase and also that the ask is meaningless? Our cousins are trying to sell something at their 2005 cost basis (purchase + renovations) and there appears to be no interest near that price point. To get deals done, we are clearly back to 2004 already.

gleeclub, it's just kind of a strange thread (not strange in the youcannot threads, which i quite enjoyed because youcannot has been a nasty piece of work in the past), because you seem to make a broad claim with your title and then present one property which really shows nothing. Rename it something like "many sellers still anchored to above-2006 pricing" and you would have had a flood of examples. Which probably/maybe was your point, but it doesn't present that way.

If I bought an apartment in 2006 I'd hope it was an existing co-op and not a new construction condo. Condo owners will start foreclosing in significant numbers over the next 12 months so I'd hate to be in a building where all of my neighbors paid at least $1,000/ft. Your maintenance expense will skyrocket. The nice thing about a co-op is that many/most of your neighbors will have a cost basis below $500/ft and will be much less likely to foreclose.
Certainly in a year from now co-ops will sell for more on a per foot basis than condos. Because the co-op building's financials will be more secure their will be a premium for their product. I'd especially hate to own a new construction condo in FiDi where everyone is in at more than $1,000/ft. Big trouble ahead.

aboutready
Rename it something like "many sellers still anchored to above-2006 pricing"

Uh, ok, I didn't know I had to hire a PR firm to be acceptable here.

Why don't you change your name from "aboutready" to "sometimesaboutready, sometimesready, sometimesnotatallready" and that will technically be more accurate because you can't always be about ready but never actually ready.

mkratter, i was trying to be helpful. gleeclub can speak for his/herself if so inclined.

as to the rest, piss off.

Honestly, the best comparison gleeclub is to look at 15 Broad vs. 20 Pine - they are similar area, similar amenities, similar developer, similar type of building. But 2 years apart on sales. Sure it isn't exact (eg one has a much lighter decor and one has a much darker decor), but you can get a sense of the comparison of the inventory

lol, thanks for the insight and for the defense

"Certainly in a year from now co-ops will sell for more on a per foot basis than condos. "

Jazzman, I'm not sure that works. Co-ops still have an underlying mortgage. Condos are still real property. Coops may fall less in % terms, narrowing the gap...I'm not sure coops/condos can flip flop. Anything can happen, though... If investors become the only buyers of condos (and look for fair cash yields in a falling rental martket), and coops remain exclusive...I guess it could happen.

Jazzman, I struggle a bit on your post because I don't believe you will really have so many condo defaults, but perhaps there could be many many underwater sales.
And as far as co-ops, depending on the type of co-op, there are still many originally owned apartments (bought from the sponsor), and so while the cost basis is low, we are also talking about owners with potentially lesser income means including older folks (that is why there are so many "estate" sales and the apartments in an otherwise "nice" building are unrenovated, etc.). Those folks are less likely to be able to handle maintenance increases, tax increases, temporary assessments for elevator/boiler/lobby repairs and upgrades, etc. when they are on a fixed income.

This building lists 45 for sale, 40 for rent. Peruse craigslist and you will see 25 ads a day from the likes of Platinum Properties and NYLS saying things like "Dude! Live like Diddy""Phat like Kim Kardashian's ass!""WOOOOOO!!!! Sweet pad for you and your buds!" The ads invite three or four bros to divide up the one bed/one baths into sweet bachelor pads.

Good luck.

jason can you post a link?

Never mind - rather amusing, I found them.
Seems tho that 15 Broad isn't among those listed, but rather 75 Wall, which has other issues, and then the rental building at 20 Exchange Place.

That is just one example.
What is good is that there are a lot of condominium luxury like apartments down on Wall Street area that are just rental so you can get good quality and still not buy if it is at 2006 or 2005 prices.

This is financial district. Show me something in a normal part of Manhattan like Upper West or Upper East and then we should talk about it.

To the $855K 2006 price you have to add all of the 2 way closing costs.

Also this seller has to deduct from the sale proceeds the broker fee, which means that the sale price, if it happens anywhere near here, still might not work out as a profit.

Let me get this straight, 2 rooms with no windows - why not rent a storage at Manhattan Mini Storage? The amenities include 24 hour security, climate control, and your own padlock.

Maybe co-ops won't become more expensive than condos (although I think it's possible) at least my theory is correct about building risk/unit owners defaulting on their maintenance and co-ops will hold their value better than condos. New condo prices are in trouble.

"jason can you post a link?"

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/15-broad-street-new_york

Right there! It lists 40 for rent. And if you persuse craiglsist under "broker - no fee", you can clearly see from the pictures that there are plenty of those 40 listed, just not by address. Just look for ads with ALL CAPS HEADLINES!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to read all that crap but the real property transfer report shows a contract signed date of 8/23/2004.

"H.O. = Home Office."

Sometimes. Sometimes, it just mean the b!tch is a HO!

Ok, I've been busy this past week with various travel, work and my brother's family, but I did have some time to check out listings in a bit more detail. I was wrong about the 2006 level - first of all the listing I posted, but also just generally, and I feel kindof foolish given how I've actually been paying attention for the past year or so on streeteasy.
However, in 2004, I said I would wait until prices fell a bit ... so I guess I have a bit more waiting to do ... or on the other hand, I wasn't good at market timing before, will I be better now? Dilemma!

Anyway, thanks for setting me right. And jason10006, thanks for pointing out those rather amusing ads on craigslist.

Is this the bldg. w/ Hermes on the 1st floor? It's a really nice bldg., but this unit is one of those famous 1,200SF studios--as commonly seen in 20 Pine and 75 Wall. A beautiful bldg., centralli located, but the price seems to be out of line.

I am impressed, though, by how low the CC is @ $950. That's 80 cents/foot, in such a nice bldg.!

155 Hudson Street #2S

05/18/2004 Previous Sale recorded for $1,487,250.
08/05/2008 Listed in StreetEasy by Corcoran at $2,825,000.
08/18/2008 Delisted temporarily.
09/02/2008 Re-listed by Corcoran.
09/17/2008 Price decreased by 2% to $2,775,000.
10/15/2008 Price decreased by 6% to $2,600,000.
11/07/2008 Price decreased by 12% to $2,295,000.
11/14/2008 Price decreased by 4% to $2,195,000.
12/18/2008 Delisted temporarily.
01/06/2009 Re-listed by Corcoran.
03/19/2009 Price decreased by 9% to $1,995,000.
05/28/2009 Price decreased by 15% to $1,695,000.

HO = not a legal room that we're trying to pass off as one.

30yrs, isn't it still a legal "room," although it's not a legal "BEDroom?" You need to have access to natural light AND a closet to qualify as a BEDroom, but I thought NYS didn't really regulate what a "room" could be, as long as they are enclosed somehow.

nyc212, "legal room" depends on who's setting the standard. See http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/9210-jr-4-classic-8-explain-old-skool-apartment-types.

The natural light-and-air needs to be protected, i.e. not from a lot-line window. I don't think a closet matters in NYC, but apparently does in other places.

Either way, those HO's and cellar "rec rooms" are nasty. Note that those cellar spaces always have a half-bath, as a full one would be fudging the code. There's always space for a shower to be added, though.

Gleeclub: I disagree. Unless you were planning on a quick flip or staying put for 7 years, you made the right decision in 2004.

I just walked by it, and it IS the bldg. w/ Hermes on the 1st floor. It is way more impressive-looking than 20 Pine, but I don't really know about the amenities. I am still impressed w/ the 80 cents PF CC, for such a luxurious bldg.

nyc212 - they're condo's so actually the cc's are on the mid to high side. they would be low if the building were coop

Thanks for your input. But I am an owner of multiple condo units in NYC, and I have actually never seen CCs so low in new/converted luxury bldgs., especially in FiDi. Sure, we have 99 John, but it's FAR from being luxurious--the cost cutting there is too obvious (cheap, dorm-like finishes, no renovations, plus large # of units).

Even bldgs. w/o notable amenities routinely charge $1 PF or higher in CC (excluding taxes, of course), and with amenities, it can easily approach $1.50 PF. I can't really relate to 80 cents PF being high, even for no-frills old bldgs., especially in FiDi. This is a SUPER LUXURIOUS-looking bldg., although I know nothing about its details.

You convinced me.

Buy now or be priced out forever!