The Heritage at Trump Place

Most of riverside BOULEVARD is a yawn, but this building, and perhaps the higher floors in the taller building next door, has some great north-western facing units. Riverside Park begins at 72nd street, so the NW exposures from the Heritage capture the park, the Hudson River and the graceful curves of Riverside Drive. Your view of the mighty Hudson is of the 79th St boat basin in the foreground and the George Washington Bridge in the distance--pretty spectacular.

Although many cannot bear the non stop drone from the West Side Highway. No matter how high the apt, you can still hear that drone/highway noise

I live further up, on the river. I don't hear any highway noise whatsoever, maybe a very slight hum if the windows are open. Certainly a lot quieter than bus brakes or ambulances sirens you get at intersections along nearly every avenue in the city.

It's the best building on the block.

The North West views cannot be duplicated.. Add to that privacy and good service.

thank you to all for responses

Lived on the blvd for many years. Lots of highway noise, even high up floors. Do you think prices will drop with all the inventory, and now the Rushmore? Can anyone explain why the Blvd has so much inventory that is not moving?

Isn't the Trump name still magical?

The inventory is not moving because the pricing are higher than the market is willing to pay at the moment. Any other questions?

More seriously, it's probably related to bubble-era new condo "investment" issues. If you look at 200 RSB, which was built in 2000-ish, only a 2-3% are for sale. For the most part, apartments were bought and possibly horse-traded at prices that does not involve losses. In 220 and 240, with first closings in 2004-2005, about 5-10% are for sale. In 120, with most closings in 2006 and a greater proportion of smaller "investor-friendly" apt sizes, 15% are for sale. With 100, with most closings in 2008, about 10% are for sale even though they've been held for less than 1.5 years. And then there's 80, which is a story unto itself.

People are very averse to realizing a "headline number" loss in RE. They'll lose $250K in a decade of negative carry on a bad $1M investment and another $50K in transaction costs, sure, but if at the end they sell it at $1.1M they'll rationalize that a 100% gain on the $100K downpayment rather than the 200% loss it really is. Hence, they list at a price that is unrealistic given the market.

FWIW, I don't think the numbers are any different in RSB than any other area. It's just the high concentration of new development condos, but if you look at many any other 2006-era condos, the picture quite similar. The 2000-era 200 RSB's inventory of 2-3% provides a nice counterpoint to the other properties in illustrating the differences.

I always thought the newer buildings affect expectations of the sellers of older units, perhaps with Broker feedback. The sellers rationalize that their apt is similar to that new one in Rushmore..

I like your analysis INONADA, especially on 120 being investor product. I would add to that that 200 is more modest than say the buildings to the North, with units tending to be a little smaller.

I think you are right inonada. Investors taking a look at recent transactions --even those conducted by non-investors-- would have to be discouraged. Look at the rental at 240 Heritage. In 2008, the owners of a 2 bed w/terrace were hoping to get $11,995. They now have it listed - after a recent cut- to $7,495.

And, 24C which just closed for $2,220,000 has got to be painful for those owners. They bought in 2007 for $2,500,000. If you include about 10% for transaction costs of buying and selling, that is about a half million dollar loss. The owners of 25C who bought in 08 for $2,600,000 cannot be happy either.

ION, Re 200: How do you think the fact that their tax abatement is either over or nearly over affects the sales in that building vs. the rest.

I'll tell you how it would affect me. The unabated tax on a $1M place seems to be about $10K a year. Assume you get a tax deduction for it at a 40% marginal rate, so really $6K a year. So if you buy a $1M something with a 10-year abatement with the full 10 years ahead of you, it's worth $6K in the first year, going down to $0 after 10 years, so call it $3K/year average, or $30K total. Present value that according to some rate you think is appropriate, it'll end up in the $25-30K range. So I'd value it in the neighborhood of 3% of the condo value for a spankin'-brand-new condo.

You start looking at a 5-year-old abatement that's running out in 5 years, the value is close to nothing. At that point, you're looking at a $3K/year after-tax savings in the first year going down to zero, or an average of $1.5K a year for 5 years, or $7.5K. I.e., something like 0.75% of the condo value.

That being said, I can see how the $800 savings per month can look to someone who is a slave to the monthlies. If you're an "investor", you'll think it's $800 less you'll have to carry, and besides, you've got a 2% interest-only ARM, and you'll have sold the place in 2 years anyways, etc. If you're a stretched buyer, you'll think that you don't have the $800 a month now, but you'll have higher income in 10 years, you better buy now while the getting is good, besides you don't have the option of buying something else that is going to cost you $800 extra in taxes, so why bother comparing. I.e., you look at it in ways that put you at a disadvantage relative to the meager 1-3% value it actually is, depending on the number of years of abatement left.

"Investors taking a look at recent transactions --even those conducted by non-investors-- would have to be discouraged."

Discouraged, sure, but what can they do about it. Say you were an "investor" who bought for $1M. You put $100K down, property value has dropped to $800K, so you're $100K underwater. Even if you want to sell because you think the market is headed down (which is not the typicial mindframe of the bubble investor at all), you don't have $100K sitting around to bring to the bank at closing, plus another $60K for the brokers, plus anothher $10K for sell-side taxes. You don't want the hit to your credit either, so short sale is out.

So what are you left with? You can afford to pay the $3000 a month rental shortfall to keep the alligator from eating you, just as you've been doing for the past 4 years, and hope things will turn.

The inventory of RSB units will trade at reduced prices when/if the owners are distressed. I don't think we will see a complete re-pricing of units on RSB to lower, market clearing prices, because of inonada's point about current owners having a higher cost basis than today's market, With all of the RSB inventory, it's not a bad area to target if you want to find a distressed seller of a Manhattan condo.

FYI, it seems most of the bid on the city or other Manhattan condo auctions have been in recent new developments delivered in the final years of the housing bubble, so really any of these newer buildings is a reasonable place to target if you are looking for a deal.

IMO if you can pickup a unit in 240 RSB which is the smallest and best located building on RSB for a fair (2005) price and plan on holding on to it your investment should be safe. any comments

Relative to other parts of the city, yes. On an absolute basis, nobody ever knows.

I think that is a naive statement, n2r. The only thing certain in life is uncertainty. Rents vs prices in 240 are as problematic as anywhere else in the city. The location is not that different than 200 / 220, and a premium for the place is priced in already.

What is most silly about your statement is that people who bought back in 2005 for a 2005 price are sitting on losses 5 years later. Prices are probably down 5-10% nominally (2004 pricing is more typical), plus another 10% for transaction costs, plus another 5-10% in difference between rental value and monthly nut assuming a financed purchase. So down 25%, or more than 100% of a "safe" 20% down payment, for what you are calling a "safe" investment.

Crap, even rents were higher back then.

Alllow me n2r, a year ago I gave riversider the advice of selling sitting tight and renting for a few yrs thereby buying back his old place for 2/3 original price. Muck akin to metlife buying back for $1.8billion after 3 yrs.

Now inonada has completely given you a financial model of why that aide if no all of NYC re is toast. But if you wish the ignore that large growth on your cheek and the 3 tests that show it to be cancer, go ahead and be a lemming. You and the millions of bubble buyers and oh so smart re 'investors' in Arizona, cali and miami who though 25% off was just too much to let slip past shows Americans at least have a strong lemming herd mentality.

At least you'd have the same lemming stories to share in your old age home that serves car food.

How hard is it to rent a one bedroom in this building?

The latest: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/445434-condo-240-riverside-blvd-lincoln-square-new-york

08/26/2005 Previous Sale recorded for $6,321,000. (January 2004 contract)
02/07/2009 Previously Listed by Corcoran at $11,750,000.
08/06/2009 Corcoran Listing is no longer available.
08/17/2009 Listed by Corcoran at $10,950,000.
11/17/2009 Price decreased by 16% to $9,200,000.
11/26/2009 Listing entered contract.
04/07/2010 Sale recorded for $9,000,000.

SE lists an interim contract, but that was Corcoran reporting the 11/2009 contract twice.

Can anyone reccommend anyone that may be of interest in selling their condominium in this building that is around 1,000-1,100 sqft that has direct water views in all rooms?