Crazy sale at Chelsea Grand w17th
Started by jimstreeteasy
over 16 years ago
Posts: 1967
Member since: Oct 2008
Discussion about
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/403966-condo-270-west-17th-street-chelsea-new-york I am baffled that the rather mediocre "luxury" building Chelsea Grand has a 12th floor unit of 644 sf which just sold for between 1100 - 1200 psf. This seems to say that this market still has a long way to go before a return to sanity. I would like to buy, but when sanity returns.
Look at it this way, the owner's housing costs will be about $3,500 after tax. How much more reasonable does it need to get?
Hopefully this buyer loves the neighborhood, the views and the building. If so, I wouldn't call him/her crazy, even though for the price it's not what I would buy.
sure maly - calculate the "after tax," forget about what you could otherwise make on your down payment, and ignore the opportunity costs of buying and selling, and VOILA: Such a Deal!
jims is right - that price makes NO sense. You couldn't rent the place out for the carrying costs.
It doesn't make sense to an investor, but it might make sense to a buyer nonetheless. Unappealing properties will get down to the investor's clearing price, but to someone who intends to enjoy their home, looking at housing costs makes sense. I think that's the force behind what 30years describes at "flight to quality."
I think that's what's going on behind the dichotomy of the sales that defy the trend and the ones that don't. If you intend to live someplace, all that matters is that the cost is no higher than what you'd pay for an equivalent rental. You have to make sure it's "the" place, ie. you love everything about it. For a cookie cutter apartment, or for the places you would "settle" rather than love, renting makes more sense unless it's also a financial decision, ie. you cover your costs even at today's depressed rents.
"If you intend to live someplace, all that matters is that the cost is no higher than what you'd pay for an equivalent rental."
You're absolutely right. Which is why your out-of-pocket expenses should be the same. If you want to include the "tax benefit" feel free, but then you must include all of the associated costs, as well, including projected increase / decrease in value and the very significant transaction costs amortized over the time period you intend to live in the place. You just can't include some and exclude others willy-nilly to get the answer you want, and then justify that answer with nonsense.
It must be very annoying for you to live in this nonsensical, irrational world. Things must have been so much better on Vulcan.
Welcome to Earth, Superman.
Balcohny, twice exposures and in a very demanding gay area where they want to live.
erlenm...those reasons explain a decent price....not a crazy one...This is a near zero cachet building, way to old to be considered hip or trendy etc..