If you can demonstrate market movement with comps, please post here.

I have been keeping my eye on new developments because the comps are often for the exact same apartment. In the Cielo on 84th and York, 10C closed on 5/25/06 for $1,015,000 and was flipped on 2/27/08 fo $1,110,000. That is a 9% increase in just under 2 years. Hard to say if the flipper made any money though after new development fees, carrying costs, sales commission and taxes. My guess is they lost money. 4b is studio that closed from the developer on 09/27/06 at $722,957. After being on the market for some time with several price decreases to $775,000 it was taken off the market in March 2008. If they could have gotten $775 I think they still would have lost money.

The penthouse in the Cielo is for sale at $6.4mm and also is available for rent at $27,000 per month. That math also loses money on a run rate basis. There are 10 other apartments for sale in this beautiful brand new building that only recently went to closings with the developer.

excellent data collection on the cielo jake. I have been watching that building as a proxy as it is one the first "new" development condos to close on the UES. We have so many new buildings due to close to the developer in the next 18 months. If the Ceilo is an indication, there will be a flood of new condos resold or leased on the market.

finally a worthy discussion! Thanks for starting West81st! Reality is, given expected layoffs and foreign investor resales, you will see a noticeable rise in new dev resales in late 2008 and 2009.

Look at the Ariel West bldg (new construction)
25A closed for 1.98 in Dec,
26A closed 1 month later for 1.9 - same layout, higher floor, cheaper price.
Sounds like the developer (Extel) thinks prices are going down.

My mistake. It was Ariel East (2628 Broadway)

I had a typo too. "89th" should be "88th". The references to 88th are correct.

I'm not sure how to interpret this one, but the pattern of sales at 310 West 86th seems to suggest - factoring in inflation, floor and condition - that in Q1 2008 the UWS family sector was pretty much at the same level as in early 2008:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/310-west-86-street-manhattan

Listings in Contract (1)
↓ $2,999,000 310 West 86th Street, #5B 3 beds

Recorded Sales
05/02/2008 #10A $3,175,000 -9.2% $3,495,000 3 beds 2.5 baths
07/25/2006 #7A - $2,750,000 3 beds 3 baths 2,300 ft²
07/20/2006 #7A 7D $2,960,000 -
04/18/2006 #5A $2,450,000 $2,450,000 3 beds 3 baths
06/08/2004 #3A $2,200,000 -

Sorry about the formatting there. 310 WEA is a useful benchmark for the UWS classic 7 market because the floorplans vary so little from apartment to apartment. Note that 5B and 10A came off their initial asking prices substantially before going to contract just before the Bear Stearns collapse. By contrast, 7A sold about 8% above its asking price in mid-2006, and 20% above a very recent comp. (The sale shows as "7A/7D", but I'm pretty sure it's the same footprint as the other A line units.) Assuming that 5B went for roughly the final asking price, the three sales are within statistical spitting distance of each other if you factor in nearly two years of inflation and the difference in elevation.

Whether these sales reflect a flat market, a change in market direction/psychology or just the effects of a big construction site a hundred feet away is anyone's guess. 535 WEA seems likely to raise property values on that block in the long run; but in the short run, it's no fun living down the block from a construction site.

One

The post two lines up should read: "pretty much at the same level as in mid-2006", not "early 2008"

Thanks West81st, I forgot about this thread.

At 77 7th Avenue, The Vermeer:

Current listing:
3H $640,000 1 bed 1 bath
Recorded sale 10/28/2005:
3H $637,500 1 bed 1 bath

Seller is said to be buying another unit in the building. Growing family, I would guess.

3H is not recently renovated, but it’s not in bad shape, either. Unless you would want to gut reno anyway, why buy this at anything but a significant discount?

Current listing:
5K $649,000 1 bed 1 bath. Marginally better view in estate condition. Nearly identical floorplan.

Also currently listed is:
9J $649,000 1 bed 1 bath. Also an estate sale in even worse condition, but beyond a certain point I’m not sure it matters. This one, however, has an open view west. With a nearly identical floorplan, why buy 5K with much less of a view?

An interesting set of downward pressure circumstances.

BTW, recorded sale 03/06/2008:
5H $750,000 1 bed 1 bath. The kitchen in the photo looks recent, but there’s no bathroom pic. My guess is the contract was signed pre-Bear meltdown.

At 333 E. 14th Street:

Current listings:
9D $695,000 1 bed 1 bath. It’s been recently renovated in a sort of industrial design. I mostly like it, not sure how many others would (glass brick for bathroom walls, not my favorite, either). Open views north, east (well, StuyTown is NE) and south.
5D $659,000 1 bed 1 bath. Same layout without the open views, in old condition. Why pay only 5.5% less?

Recorded sales:
06/25/2007 7D $675,000. No linked listing. No idea of condition. Similar views to 9D likely, but not sure if it reaches over surrounding buildings as well.
04/12/2007 3D $732,500. Listing boasts a recent reno, but only two exposures, and bedroom pic has curtains drawn, so view is likely not so good (worse than 5D). Ouch.
10/07/2004 3D $583,000. Before the reno, I would assume.

333 E. 14th is the building I mentioned in a previous OHR as having a recently defaulted sponsor. The 9D broker claims this is great as the co-op now owns 35 units and will be making improvements with the money from their sale. Of course, there could also be some bad results from this (creditors?) that are keeping people away.

Pardon the redundancy, as I’ve just discussed these properties on the 5/11 Open House Report, but since I was the only one with a report until jordyn’s this morning, I’m not sure how many saw them.

I mentioned on another thread a few weeks ago. The price on the current listing was cut again last week, putting it below the 2006 comp four floors down.

470 West End Avenue
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/470-west-end-avenue-manhattan
Active Listings (1)
↓ $2,595,000 #10B 2 beds (reduced from $2.995M, then $2.75M)
Recorded Sales
06/21/2006 #6B $2,710,290 +18.1% (asking $2,295,000) 3 beds 2 baths

Identical footprint, four floors apart. Both renovated; 6B may have been done a bit more recently. Both merged the living and dining rooms. 6B merged the maid's room into the kitchen, split the corner bedroom into two child-size bedrooms, and converted most of the entry gallery into a windowless playroom. 10B opened up the kitchen to the dining/living room and kept the rest of the traditional floorplan. The maid's room is a nice guest/office space.

Estimated fair value difference: roughly a wash, before considering inflation.
Actual price difference (at current ask for 10B): -4.4% in nominal price.

Here's a seller who apparently just wants to break even after three years (before transaction costs):

320 Riverside Drive Apt. 6AC
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/320-riverside-drive-manhattan
Active Listing
$3,900,100 #6AC 5 beds (just listed)
Recorded Sales
08/11/2005 #6AC $3,900,100

Estimated fair value difference: Zero, before considering inflation. It's the same apartment.
Actual price difference (at current ask, in nominal dollars): Zero.

342 W85th #1A
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/193187-condo-342-west-85th-street-upper-west-side-manhattan?email=true

purchased in 06 for 1.325 M
now price reduced to 1.25 M

Don't see too many underwater deals like this. Maybe more to come in the future.

Where's petrfitz, malraux, and juiceman when you need them?

How about this one listed at $2.25 million after a couple price chops that the current owners bought late in 2004 for $2.15 million? After transaction costs that would be a loss.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/184239-coop-515-west-end-avenue-upper-west-side-manhattan

sorry, they bought late in 2005...

drg: From what I understand, she took early retirement this month, and they're probably leaving the city after moving East a couple of years ago. At this point, I think they just want to be done with it. Probably an opportunity for somebody.

It is a little unnerving that West81st knows so much about these properties. I'm relieved to know that she's not my buyer competitor given my price point is much lower than hers.

hsw9001: I don't even have a price point. I'm just the neighborhood gossip.

Apt 22C 236 E47th
Just gone into contract for 699k
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/179502-condo-236-east-47th-street-turtle-bay-manhattan

Identical apt (32C - 10 floors higher) sold May 07 for 690k

look at apartment 10G in the charleston, it's a resale

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/216546-coop-237-east-12th-street-east-village-manhattan
For sale 520k
Same apt sold Aug 2006 for 467k

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/93980-coop-158-east-22nd-street-gramercy-park-new-york?email=true

listed for $499; sold for $549 in 2006

mazdamp: Are you sure it sold in 2006? That 2006 listing looks to me like a failed attempt by the same owner.

shamrock: It's hard to draw conclusions from those listings without knowing the eventual selling prices.

I agree that 158 E 22nd St is a comparison of two listings as opposed to sales, but it's an interesting study in seller psychology. In Nov 05 they try to get $590k, 6 months later they drop the price $41k, 3 months after that they pull the listing, probably thinking "we'll re-list in a year and get a better price." So they try again in July 07 at $699, drop it to $599 3 months later, and now, with the maintenance up almost $200/mo and carrying two homes (it's empty) they are asking 15% less ($623/sf) than they were trying to get 3 years ago.

I only wish I had a violin, as Rome burns.

West81st, the first property I posted (Apt 22C 236 E47th) has gone to contract per Streeteasy at 699k compared to 690k for a 10 floor higher version (Apt 32C) sold May last year

I appreciate that the second one posted, 237 E12th Apt 2a, is comparing sale price now to purchase price 2 years ago

Shamrock: Right you are. I saw "In Contract" on 22C, and didn't realize that it had already closed. My mistake.

As a comp for 22C, 20C is also striking, though the data is a bit stale: 22C is just two floors higher than 20C, but fetched an extra $77K (12.4%) after 16 months. One small caveat: 22C appears to have gone to contract just before Bear Stearns collapsed, so it may not fully reflect current market conditions.

"...data is a bit stale" should read "data ARE a bit stale". No excuses for poor grammar.

W81, as right as you are, and as grating as "data is" to the ears of the educated, even the venerable NY Times is using it.

Yuck.

580 WEA. All apartments are full-floor nines, with identical footprints.

---------Recorded Sales--------|-------Previous Listings-------
05/12/2008 #2 $3,030,000 +1.2% | $2,995,000 ↓ 3 beds 3 baths
09/10/2007 #6 $3,955,000 -4.7% | $4,150,000 ↓ 3 beds 3 baths
07/19/2006 #4 $3,695,000 ----- | $3,695,000 ↑ 3 beds 4 baths 3,100 ft²

Condition appears to have been similar for all three: no serious defects; no major investments.

The floor is an important consideration, especially for the comparison between #2 (2nd floor) and the others. Corcoran intially priced the difference between #2 and #6 at $205K ($3.750MM for #2 vs. $3.955MM for #6) , which seems like a reasonable spread, if a bit optimistic. The final spread was $925K. That looks more like market movement than differentiation between the units, but there's no way to know for sure.

Also note that the contract date was just before the Bear collapse. I'm watching with curiosity for post-Bear sales.

West81, the only thing I'd note is that the Corcoran add for #2 mentioned that the place needed to be renovated. Pictures didn't look so bad but perhaps 2-3 hundred k can be attributed to condition. just a thought.

ccdevi: Good catch. I missed the throwaway "Once renovated...". I agree that phrase is probably worth $2-300K.

The other listings didn't seem to suggest those apartments were exactly turnkey either. Can't really draw any conclusions about #4, since the full listing is gone.

2 more data points for re-sales of the exact same unit - 1 good, 1 maybe very good

300 east 77th 12-A closed 1/30/2008 for $3,655,000. It was purchased 06/30/2005 for $2,850,000. That's about a 28% increase over 2 1/2 years or about 11% annualized.

Arcadia has a new listing

17-a is offered at $3,250,000. It was purchased for $2,126,000 on 1/10/2006. If they can get the ask that would be a 52% increase over 2 1/2 years or about 21% annualized. The intersting thing is that according to the listing the unit is currently rented for $13,000 per month. Per the Streeteasy mortgage calculator, the monthly payments are nearly $19,000 per month. On top of that there is the opportunity cost on the $650,000 down payment. I guess you can lose $6,000 a month (thats's roughly 10% on the $650,000 d.p.) if the unit appreciates 20% per year but somehow I think Economics 201 will catch up to that story. This one will be interesting to watch.

Sizable price reductions just posted on two units in The Charleston:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/49747-condo-225-east-34th-street-murray-hill-new-york

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/105849-condo-225-east-34th-street-murray-hill-new-york

cliff702: I wonder how the buyer who closed on #5E in April is feeling now. Looks like his investment is down about 10% already. For his sake, I hope he's not the type who keeps watching the market after he buys.

drg: 515 WEA #11D was just reduced a further $150K, to $2.1MM. The asking price is now slightly below what the owners paid in 2005, in nominal $. It's probably down close to 10% when you factor in inflation.

West81st: In the Case-Shiller index the historical norms for the P/E ratios are quite different for different cities. What is the rationale for the difference?

hqi: I'm not sure I understand the question, or why it's addressed to me on this particular thread. We're just comparing resales here, not really looking at the rent vs. buy math, which is what I think you mean by "P/E ratios". Sorry if I'm missing your meaning.
.

10 West 86th Street. #15B and #4B have the same footprint, and both are nicely renovated. #15B is more open, #4B kept a slightly more traditional layout. The main difference is elevation; facing the south and west from a north-facing building, eleven floors mean a lot. But $937K?
--------Recorded Sales-----------|--------Previous Listings----------
05/21/2008 #4B $ 1,772,500 -1.2% | $1,795,000↓ 2 beds 3 baths 1,700 ft²
07/11/2007 #15B $2,710,000 +8.6% | $2,495,000 3 beds 3 baths
12/02/2005 #15B $1,827,500

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/10-west-86-street-manhattan

Here's a 2/2 at 66 Madison Ave that I've been following:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/179924-coop-66-madison-avenue-midtown-south-manhattan?email=true

high maintenance kills every time.

"high maintenance kills every time."

Oh no, vverain, not if it's tax deductible. As the JuiceMan.

I'm bumping these over from joedavis' "Awesome price reductions in Harlem" thread:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/3854-awesome-price-reductions-in-harlem

265 West 131st Street:
Sold $650,000 11/17/2005
Sold $950,000 05/01/2006
Currently listed at $600,000, down from $1,100,000 on 02/24/2008
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/house/265-west-131-street-manhattan

432 West 162nd Street
Sold $400,000 08/05/2004
Sold $1,700,000 10/30/2006 WOW! Wonder what the reno cost, but still.
Currently listed at $1,200,000, down from $2,600,000 on 02/24/2008

320 west 76th 2 Bed 1 Bath on nice block with good light, small second bedroom

3F recently sold for 1,060,000.

6F now reduced:

12/06/2007 Listed in StreetEasy with Corcoran at $1,175,000
01/08/2008 Price decreased to $1,125,000
01/30/2008 Price decreased to $1,069,000
03/11/2008 Price decreased to $999,000
05/28/2008 Price decreased to $949,000

"Location, location, location" seems to be supplanted by "timing is everything."

slate in chelsea, disconnect ?

apt 3 floors below selling for 200k more.

8 th floor (8c has made a few appearances )
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/146329-condo-165-w18th-chelsea-manhattan

5th floor
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/272651-condo-165-west-18th-street-5c-chelsea-manhattan

I was just checking out slate - my guess was that 8C is that rental that was on the market last year, so an investor is trying to get out while times still seem good, what's with the recorded sales in that place?, there are none that are being picked up by streeteasy. Where does streeteasy get the data for sales & how is it missing completely for slate?

10 West 66th Street. #16EF was just reduced to $3.195MM
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/178099-coop-10-west-66th-street-lincoln-square-manhattan

The same broker sold the identical combination on the 10th floor for $3.5MM last year:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/73418-coop-10-west-66th-street-lincoln-square-new-york

Condition doesn't seem to be an issue at all. It's a very solid comp. Unless the current listing sells above the asking price, the drop in this case is 10% and counting.

mrsbuffet, StreetEasy gets sales data from ACRIS:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/jump/acris.shtml

ACRIS also has no unit sales info for Slate, just the initial building sale and the loans the developers took out for building.

I’m bumping this one over from Curbed (?!?). 230 Central Park South saw both 6F and 6G sell for a total of $1.25MM in April of 06. The combined 6F/G just sold for $1,375,000. I’m sure the combination and any renovating that took place cost more than $125k, and I would think that the value of a 2bed/2bath over a 1/1 would be worth more than the difference of approx $75/sf.

Then (2006):

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/closing/4010

and now:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/159888-condo-425-fifth-avenue-midtown-south-new-york

Looks like a small loss factoring in transfer taxes, broker and closing costs

kgg, I saw 6F a while back and it's sorely in need of renovation. Don't know what condition 3F was in but that could account for some of the difference.

JohnDoe-

Yeah, there is some truth to that. 3F was in better shape but in no way mint.
Looks like they've slapped some paint on the walls and staged it since I saw 6F.
The height off the street is a bit of a tease too as you are just at roof level
with the brownstones on the block, not over with a view nor lower with trees outside.

By the way, I've been tracking 2 Beds on UWS and according to StreetEasy (listings for no more than $1,500,000 with at least 2 bedrooms, with an address, excluding listings in contract) there were
94 listings on 01.01.08 and today, 06.04.08, there are 214 listings. More than double in 5 months.

From the "celebrity sales" department, evidence that the high end is not immune to a soft market:

115 Central Park West, #7F
--------Recorded Sales----------|--------Previous Listings----------
05/29/2008 #7F $7,500,000 -6.2% | $7,995,000 ↓ 3 beds 3 baths
06/07/2006 #7F $8,200,000 ----- |

It seems that at least one Wall Street Mega-Bull is still a buyer:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/closing/732558

It's nice to see that Abby's recent demotion hasn't dimmed her enthusiasm for buying on the dip. Meanwhile, don't worry about the Pohlads. They can afford the 9% hit (plus transaction costs).

A nice reduction off of the listing price:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/105847-condo-225-east-34th-street-murray-hill-new-york

cliff702 is referring to 21H:

05/27/2008 #21H $2,025,000 -14.7% $2,375,000 ↑ 3 beds 3 baths 1,761 ft

If I was the buyer of either of these I'd be pretty upset:

02/06/2008 #17H $2,125,000
01/23/2008 #19H $2,275,000

At 10 West 66th Street #16EF (mentioned above), the drop is now nearly 15%, after a further reduction of $200K:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/178099-coop-10-west-66th-street-lincoln-square-manhattan

...and curiously, #16F is now being offered separately.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/315895-coop-10-west-66th-street-lincoln-square-manhattan

No listings, no info, just a presumably small apartment that sold for a tiny bit less than it did almost exactly 2 years ago.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/541-east-12-street-manhattan

06/12/2008 #1F $354,000
06/19/2006 #1F $356,000

275 West 96th Street, the "Columbia". This is an interesting combination for measuring the current state of the market, because #4E and #21E went to contract after the Bear Stearns crisis - and multiple price cuts. #10E had a new kitchen and new floors, and the layout might be a bit different (it's hard to see where a third full "original" bath would fit in that floorplan) but it's basically the same apartment.
--------Recorded Sales-----------|--------Previous Listings----------
06/13/2008 # 4E $1,250,000 -3.8% | $1,299,000↓ 3 beds 3 baths 1,315 ft²
05/22/2008 #21E $1,355,000 -9.7% | $1,500,000↓ 3 beds 2 baths 1,315 ft²
07/18/2007 #10E $1,510,000 +9.0% | $1,385,000 3 beds 3 baths 1,316 ft²

Clarification on the list above: #4E and #10E have a third bathroom to the right of the entrace. #21E has a "raised platform" in that spot, plus a balcony. Not sure about outdoor space on the others. #7E is on the market now, fully renovated, with terrace, for $1.4MM after opening at $1.3MM. Interesting to see a price increase there - might be related to not having to compete with #4E any longer.

4e needed updating and traffic noise is an issue
have not seen 7e yet -- it was in estate condition when originally listed
I think they have done cosmetics and replaced appliances to justify the price increase, but need to go and see. They were not ready to show when 4e and 21e were on the market
dont know about 10e -- did not see it
it is a much higher floor unit which may be important since both broadway and 96th and the w side highway are noisy.
Any reactions to this building itself?

joedavis: Thanks very much for the information on the "E" line. I agree that noise would be an issue on the fourth floor;, #4E seems to have grossly overpriced when it was first offered at $1.65MM. The more persuasuve exhibit seems to be #21E. Even if it was in poor condition, the 10% discount below #10E is striking, as is the 20% discount off the initial ask. And there's a limit to how dilapidated an apartment of that age can be; for example, you can usually at least count on the plumbing and wiring being OK.

As for the building as a whole, don't ask me... I pretty much hate everything on the UWS built after 1930. To me, buildings like the Columbia belong on First Avenue, or even better, in Jersey City. >:o(

J Condominimum 100 Jay Street DUMBO

Sales reports from Streeteasy
05/23/2008 #31C $1,240,000 2 beds 1,183 ft
09/26/2006 #31C $1,090,000 2 beds 1,183 ft

Gross profit o$150,000 or 14% over 1.5 years or 9% a year. But wait. The BROKER FEE is $74,400 the common charges and taxes were $15,500 over the 1.5 years. The closing costs on the way in were $54,500 plus a mansion tax was paid.

Gross Profit $150,000
Broker -$74,400
Closing costs -$54,500
Mansion Tax -$10,900
Common chrgs -$15,500
-------------------
Net profit -4,900

I'm ignoring the tax breaks on the interest portion of the loan. I'm also ignoring the opportunity cost of the down payment and closing costs invested at the risk free rate. Maybe they're a wash. This part is very hand-wavy but I don't think it makes much difference.

So at first blush the buyer lost money on this deal. Assuming a 90% mortgage the total monthlies would be about $7,500 (including cc's). So buyer would have come out ahead renting for under $7,500 and keeping the down payment in a box under the bed.

"I'm ignoring the tax breaks on the interest portion of the loan"

How can you ignore this? Assuming 6% interest, the interest payments would amount to about $60,000 a year. Assuming that whoever purchased this apartment is a high tax bracket, the taxable deduction would come out to about $20,000 (at a minimum).

Assuming 10% downpayment closing costs, or $150,000, the after-tax risk-free investment would yield, at best what, 4.5%? Let's round up to 5%, or $7,500.

So, over two years we're talking about a $25,000 uplift (this is a conservative add-on to your calculation), resulting in a net profit of about $20,000.

Here's one in World-Wide Plaza that we like - but the price is going up after it hasn't sold in 172 days:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/167186-condo-350-west-50th-street-clinton-manhattan

ap307: the buyer had to pay upfront costs of 10% down 109,000 + 54,500 cc + 10,900 mansion tax = $174,400 to move in. $174,400 at 5% annual compounding for 1.5 years is $13,000. So the buyer saves $20,000 in taxes are forgoes $13,000 in risk free capital appreciation. Net to the buyer $7,000. Not a wash, but close, buyer goes from -$5,000 to +$2,000.

This post wasn't about someone losing a lot of money. It was about how someone didn't make any appreciable amount of money on an apt bought in 2006 and sold in 2008. Despite the apartment increasing in price. It's very hard to win with these built-in transaction costs.

ap307 & 80sMan - what about the cost of owning this apartment as to say the cost of a similar rental over the past few years if they didnt purchase?

If this apt, at a 6% rate, cost say about %6,800 a month to maintain, with only the mortgage interest as a deduction since the tax abatement pretty much washes out that write off, I would guess a similar unit would cost about $4300-$4500 or so to rent, no, back at SEPT 2006 rates?

So, $2,300 , perhaps more, savings a month for the renter equates to the owner being out of pocket about $46,000 in the 20 months of home ownership of this property. Somehow, that needs to get calculated into this math, doesnt it, if you are counting the write off of interest deduction.

Urbandigs, I didn't want to get into that...but since you mention it, a larger 2BR apartment in the same building (J Condos) on a high floor with Manhattan views is for rent at $4,500. At a 5% annual rent increase it would have been maybe $4250 1.5 years ago.

31C's monthly nut for the original buyer was probably $7,500. So the buyer is paying about $3,000 a month extra for the privilege of owning. That's -$54,000 for the owner.

Looks like somebody is losing money on this flip. More than 75k if it gets sold at the asking price. Not bad for owning a prime piece of property for a week.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/146853-condo-100-riverside-boulevard-lincoln-square-manhattan

surdy, what a crazy building. Apt 8G has been sold 3 times.

4/24/2006 1,740,000
5/02/2007 1,765,000
4/11/2008 1,830,000

None of the first 2 buyers cleared the transaction costs hurdle. The total price change on the apartment is $90,000, the total broker fees are over $300,000. Is some broker churning this apartment? Is that possible? Is their an evil monkey in the closet that only comes out after you've been living there 5 months?

8G is only up 5% since 2006.

at 80 Metropolitan in Williamsburg

SOLD 01/31/2008 #3N $885,000 2 beds 2 baths 1,058 ft
FOR SALE 07/08/2008 #2N $799,000 2 beds 2 baths 1,058 ft (open house today 11-7)

2N hasn't been reduced. It was listed at $799,000, after 3N closed. 3N must be steamed.

Savvy posters and real estate mavens: what's the purpose of the price increase on this one just prior to it going into contract? Anyone benefit from this? How? and i ralize we won't know the true sale price until it closes.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/167186-condo-350-west-50th-street-clinton-manhattan

Sorry for the typo. Should read "And I realize..."

So that people think it sold for a price that it didn't sell for. The whole "In Contract" thing should be barred unless they say what the contract price is. If they lie (since it's verifiable) streeteasy should exclude their listings or put a footnote on future listings: "Liar liar, pants on fire!"

R U listening streeteasy?

Steve, Is that to create the appearance that the other 31 listings in the building are worth more?
Seems deceptive to me, especially since the agent owns a 2/2 in the building on the fourteenth floor that he has listed at $1,390,000.

Another same unit comp and we are back to 2006 prices.

More arrows pointing down at the Cielo the newer development on York.

17C 2 br 2.5 ba recently dropped the ask by 155k to $1.995mm. Originally close 8/1/2006 for $2,005,952.

Price History
01/20/2008 Listed in StreetEasy with Corcoran at $2,400,000
02/21/2008 Price decreased to $2,250,000
05/13/2008 Price decreased to $2,150,000
07/08/2008 Price decreased to $1,995,000

Just 40% more to make it worth buying.

It is a challenge when you have such a good idea that everyone of your neighbors wants to hit the bid too. damn copy cats!

"Is that to create the appearance that the other 31 listings in the building are worth more?"

I can see no other purpose.

7A for sale @ 745k

6-A sold for $758k

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/211743-107-east-31st-street-kips-bay-manhattan

Closings at 544 East 11th St.

07/03/2008 #3A $590,000
10/18/2007 #4A $599,000

Identical layouts. Condition of 4A was old and low-end, so not a factor in the higher price. This is a walk-up building, which other sales in the area have valued at $20-25k per floor (the lower the better, of course, excluding ground). If you factor that $20k in to the value of 3A you're looking at a 5% drop in 8.5 months.

In a similar vein to the Abby Joseph Cohen purchase, here's another financial star taking advanage of a dip at the high end. #7E was listed in May 2007 for $8.25MM. When it went to contract in early March 2008, the listing price was adjusted to $7.695MM; but the actual closing price in June was $6.885MM. Broker games or renegotiation after the credit crunch intensified? Who knows. In any event, the apartment went for less than what looks like a solid 2004 (yes, 2004) comp, and condition does not appear to have been an issue at all. Three floors do make a difference to the park view, but the seventh floor is high enough; once you're above the trees, three floors shouldn't be a huge factor.

262 Central Park West
--------Recorded Sales-----------|--------Previous Listings----------
06/26/2008 #7E $6,885,000 -10.5% | $7,695,000 ↓ 4 beds 4 baths
06/16/2004 #10E $7,500,000

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/90161-coop-262-central-park-west-upper-west-side-new-york

One caveat: without access to the 2004 listing, comparability is hard to confirm. There might have been something special about #10E. Tenth floor seems a bit low for outdoor space, but there might be something on the inside.

RE 262 CPW ....2E closing in 10/07 for $4.3 likely didn't help pricing. For sure big difference in the views. Worth $2.5mm? Maybe.

Love this thread - thanks West 81st for starting. Finally found something to post in this thread - check out this one, same unit, on the market 4 years later, asking $70K more than they paid in 2004, 55 days on market.

1349 Lexington Avenue
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/266176-coop-1349-lexington-avenue-carnegie-hill-manhattan

Listing
#PH1 2 beds 1,100 ft² $1,795,000

Sale
09/01/2004 #PH-1 $1,725,000

Walterh7: Since the big attraction there is the park view, I don't think #2E qualifies as a good comp. All you see from that level are the first row of trees and the M10 bus (and you hear it too).

Jess: If that's the apartment I think it is, there's a very sad story behind that listing, and the owner's surviving spouse may not be overly concerned about the price.

West 81st: Just proves in this city, there are a million different stories.

I almost put in a bid on a resale of #7B at 125 Central Park North, a condo conversion from 2006, but ended up passing on it for various reasons, including what I felt was an inflated asking price as a result of the building's proximity to 111 Central Park North. 7B originally closed for $977,520 in August 2006. Here's what happened with the recent sale:

#7B 2 beds 1,177 ft²
10/08/2007 Listed in StreetEasy with Halstead Property at $1,295,000
(priced at about 32.5% above its 2006 closing price)
10/16/2007 Price decreased to $1,199,000
02/06/2008 Listing entered contract
02/09/2008 Listing no longer available
02/27/2008 Sale closed for $1,200,000
(almost 23% above its 2006 closing price)

This apartment is now available for rent (although the web site does not list the apartment no., if you click to e-mail the agent on the Elliman web site, it gives the apartment no. as 7B):
↓ $4,000 125 Central Park North 2 beds 1,177 ft²
03/05/2008 Listed in StreetEasy with Douglas Elliman at $4,900
03/09/2008 Price decreased to $4,800
04/02/2008 Price decreased to $4,500
04/22/2008 Price decreased to $4,295
05/12/2008 Price decreased to $4,000

....and if you follow the link to the Elliman web site, you will notice that the asking price has gone down to $3,700 a month. Setting aside the downpayment, a mortage & maintenance on that apartment would have been over $7000 a month...Seems to reinforce Steve's mantra, why buy when you can rent at half the price?

Oh, OnTheMove, don't forget about the tax benefit! :)

this does not make sense. If the person was buying that unit to live in it, then subjective factors re renting or buying could be viewed as responsible for this purchase. But to buy it as an investment property and then rent it out for a loss....
hmm.. I guess it makes sense if you believe in spectacular appreciation potential and need a short term tax writeoff from the negative cashflow from an investment property.
Now that I think of it, this logic may be better than buying to live in, if you are in a high income bracket and cash rich
When the rent drops to $2000 a month I'll take it -- just think the owner would have an even better tax deduction. (Hope they are reading......)

I have skimmed the previous posts for this but still have reservations about this process you brokers go through. Somehow you've been able to distill a very complicated decision making process for buyers that aren't flipping or consistently speculating int a simple equation.

It seems that the intangibles that influence purchases are not represented. Interestingly enough, other merchants with less valuable commodities do far more research and study to analyze buying habits and motivations for purchasing either products or services.

I am certain that some factors are reviewed and understood by both brokers and sellers/buyers but it seems that they are ultimately ignored when it comes to representing a property. First questions are: How many square feet, what is the maintenance, what exposure, doorman, elevator etc etc, But if you compare two similar properties there are many factors that simply do not factor into the broker discussion, regardless of what the buyers say. If the broker says a property is not worth the asking because of the SF cost, then what alternative does a buyer have even if the use of the SF is ineffective and inefficient? The numbers say one thing but the use of the space says another. Besides, at any one given time, buyers motivations change both from a financial and emotional perspective, but all I see here are numbers. It's all very ambiguous. Easy to deal with and easy to throw around to rationalize. Sure, I do think it needs to be discussed but Ive seen many brokers comp properties by the seat of their pants and act intuitively when there is so much more too it.

Whatever. My two cents.

clear_vision: I agree that many brokers use highly dubious comps to justify prices, and that $/sq.ft. is a lousy pricing metric. In this thread, we have mostly tried to stick to direct comps: same-unit resales, prior same-line sales with similar elevation, or same-building sales of very similar units. Obviously, there's some sampling bias here. Bulls will tend to pick comp pairs that show upward movement, and bears will tend to pick pairs that show the market dropping. But if you believe in comps at all, these pairs are about as legit as it gets.

You're right about emotion influencing buyers' decisions. The value of good comps is that they provide a sanity check against a purely emotional purchase - or, in this discussion, a purely emotional assessment of the market's direction. Of course, a buyer still needs to apply his/her own judgment. Otherwise, comps just tend to perpetuate folly by encouraging buyers to emulate the errors of others.

BTW, I don't think many brokers have posted on this thread. Urbandigs posted one question. Most of us folks posting comp sets are innocent civilians.

West-

Fair enough. I also agree that comps and most brokers do in fact perpetuate the errors of others. There are a few that like to toss around numbers and sound important, trying to sway buyers and sellers in a direction that might not be quite right for either of them.

Here's one. 257 Central Park West, #10E.
Started at 1.295 in January then 1.195 then 1.095 with Corcoran.
Now 995 with Halstead. Curiously the maintenance is listed as less now.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/320354-coop-257-central-park-west-upper-west-side-manhattan
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/164788-coop-257-central-park-west-upper-west-side-manhattan

Loks like it was staged this time--I saw it before--tiny and unappealing--would be better as a one bedroom by knowcking down the wall between the living room and bdroom.(But then it's overpriced)

KGG,

I think this is a significant listing. To me it shows that for a nice apartment there are not many people who can afford both the payments on a 995K apartments and 50% down payment.

Or that some at least are coming to their senses.