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

west 81, i think you commented on this one in past

************
Discussion about 310 West 79th Street in Upper West Side
drei
about 12 weeks ago
ignore this person
report abuse
this apt. is only about 600-700 sq. ft., not 900.

West81st
about 12 weeks ago
ignore this person
report abuse
Looks like 750-800, assuming the room measurements are roughly accurate. It would be around 900 if the northwest corner weren't missing.
http://img.streeteasy.com/nyc/image/97/2481097.jpg

This seems to underscore that problem properties get crushed in a downturn. This apartment seems to lack a real kitchen and the living room seems way too small to have room for both dining and sitting areas.

It looks like this'll go way below 2004 prices.

not sure if this is the best strategy - seems like a bad broker with bad advice
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/348518-condo-635-west-42nd-street-clinton-new-york

STREETEASY HISTORY
05/08/2007
Previous sale closed for $1,260,150
09/12/2008
Listed in StreetEasy by River2River Realty at $1,445,000
09/17/2008
Price decreased to $1,415,000
09/27/2008
Price decreased to $1,400,000
10/06/2008
Price increased to $1,445,000
10/10/2008
Price decreased to $1,415,000
10/11/2008
Price decreased to $1,395,000
10/17/2008
Price decreased to $1,365,000
10/20/2008
Price decreased to $1,350,000
11/04/2008
Price decreased to $1,335,000
11/07/2008
Price decreased to $1,325,000

What I can simply not understand about 310 W79th is how and why somebody paid 675K in 2004 for a similar apt. one floor up. Are you sure is a comp? Couldn't it have been combined? I mean, even if 8ER had sold for it's OLP of 825K in 2007, the 2004-2007 appreciation would have been modest if 9 ER is a real comp. In general, I have seen appreciation over 60% between 2004 and 2007.

Jenny9823: Thanks for the reminder on the square footage discussion. To be charitable, it looks like the broker neglected to subtract the "missing" northwest corner of the apartment, which is probably about 90-120 square feet. The rectangular footprint is pretty close to 900. Whatever the exact number may be, this is clearly a small junior 2BR. The bedrooms and closets are OK, but as JohnDoe noted, the living/dining/kitchen area is miniature. Not a bad starter apartment for a couple: use the front bedroom as a living room at first, then rearrange to make room for baby. Not a great long-term solution for a growing family, obviously.

Trompiloco: I think the most of the original (larger) apartments were carved up into front and rear units a long time ago. 9E might have been divided differently from 8E. There may also be a difference in views and light in the bedrooms, because the adjacent building is about eight stories high.

We looked at 7B at 500 West 53rd Street over the summer. I discussed it here:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/5666-successful-price-reduction-resulting-in-sale-demonstrate-with-comps

The link to the listing is:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/127247-condo-500-west-53rd-street-clinton-new-york
So it closed for $1.85MM. When we saw it, the ask was $2.3MM, and the broker indicated there may be $100-$150K of flexibility in that, but not more.

7A closed for $2.13MM in July.
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/127246-condo-500-west-53rd-street-clinton-new-york
We did not see that one. The layout seems more "normal", but the listed square footage is smaller, and there is one less full bath (some might argue the extra bath is unnecessary, and just takes up space).

So it's far from a perfect comp, but I would argue the relative pluses and minuses of the two apartments balance, so they should trade at similar prices (feel free to disagree with that). They were also both originally listed at $2.3MM, so the developer/broker must have thought they were comparable. If so, the 7A November sale shows a 13% decline from the July sale.

$1.85/$2.13 for 53rd btw 10th & 11th?? The apts look really nice, good light & space, but this is 53rd by 11th Ave!! Haven't been in that area for a while, so maybe it's gentrified, but even still, it's 11th ave!!

It's between 10th and 11th, closer to 10th. The apartments were incredibly nice, as was the terrace. That said, I agree the location/neighborhood is a major minus, and was the deal-breaker for us.

In any case, my point wasn't that either is a great deal, just trying to compare july price to november price.

Hey, newbuyer I hear you & thank you for showing me a beautiful bld in that area, which obviously has really gentrified. I just feel a bit stunned that people would pay those prices for that location, notwithstanding that it's a gorgeous bld. Glad you passed on it cuz I don't think these units will retain their 'value' as reflected in the purchase prices as the market declines.

670 West End Avenue, "E" line (large classic five, converts well to 3 BR, maint. $1500-ish)

#5E debuted in April at $1.795MM . That was ambitious, but it didn't seem particularly wacky at the time. It's fairly stunning that they had to chop it by 27.6%.
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/217499-coop-670-west-end-avenue-upper-west-side-new-york

--------Recorded Sales----------|--------Previous Listings----------
12/02/2008 . #5E $1,300,000 -13.0% | ↓$1,495,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths
06/19/2007 . #2E $1,500,000 ........... |
05/23/2006 . #5E $1,217,300 ........... |
06/28/2004 #10E $1,420,000 ........... |

No condition issues with #5E. Don't know whether it had already been renovated at the time of the 2006 sale.

I also find it interesting that the accepted offer was 13% below the last, reduced, ask.

Certainly well below the lower-floor comp 18 months ago. Harder to compare to the 2006 sale without knowing the timing of the renovations, and to the 10E comp because of the floor difference.

Owner of 5E http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/profile-schrager-s-right-hand-man

and perhaps the answer to the sale - he also owned (and probably still owns) 5F. Failed bid to combine.

334 West 87th #4D (Jr. 2BR co-op; maint.$804)
StreetEasy History
07/27/2007 Previous sale closed for $807,500
05/03/2008 Listed in StreetEasy by Elliman at $829,000
06/13/2008 Price decreased to $799,000
08/01/2008 Price decreased to $775,000
10/10/2008 Elliman listing entered contract
12/08/2008 Sale closed for $675,000
Nice young Mormon MBAs try their hands at NY real estate, get burned.

ouch

408 East 79th, #3B. Asking price was reduced to about 10% below the 2005 closing price three weeks ago. Entered contract today. It'll be interesting to see how much lower this closes.

12/06/2005 Previous sale closed for $885,000
04/03/2008 Previously listed in StreetEasy by Corcoran for $1,175,000
09/23/2008 Corcoran listing unavailable at $959,000
10/02/2008 Listed in StreetEasy by Elliman at $950,000
10/10/2008 Price decreased to $900,000
11/10/2008 Price decreased to $850,000
11/17/2008 Price decreased to $800,000
11/18/2008 Price decreased to $799,000
12/17/2008 Elliman listing entered contract

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/354811-condo-408-east-79th-street-upper-east-side-new-york?email=true

How is this 1 bed worth $799,000?

I agree with you that 799k seems aspirational given the location. For all we know the contract is a significant percentage below that. It'll be interesting to see what it goes for.

how is it worth 799k? i think the better question is "how was it worth 885k in 2005?" the point is not whether or not you like the apartment--i certainly wouldn't spend that money on it--but that someone bought it for, in all likelihood, over 10% more in 2005.

west81st,

i think the 670 sellers were exceptionally lucky to get out at that price. 334 west 87th is a great find--how do you know all that info about the sellers? pretty sad for those folks to have to take a 17% loss on that apartment in one year. if they leveraged it up (in all likelihood) they probably lost over 100% of their equity investment. again, though, i think they were lucky to get out at this price--contract was signed in early-mid October.

Happyrenter: According to SE, 334 West 87th requires a minimum of 25% down. Nonetheless, after paying their broker and covering other expenses, they probably walked away with little or nothing. (BTW - no inside information on this one. They just happen to have an unusual name.)

I don't know what to make of this sequence:

340 West 86th #3C (2BR/2BA Condo; CC $1015, RET $493; 1,350 sq.ft., according to CBHK)
First, the owners sell to Cartus Financial, via Elliman, for $1.42MM in October:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/292867-condo-340-west-86th-street-upper-west-side-new-york

Then Cartus immediately relists the apartment with CB for $1.395MM:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/357737-condo-340-west-86th-street-upper-west-side-new-york
Now it's down to $1.199MM.

A generous relo, maybe? Or does Cartus just know when to fold 'em?

I just read this thread now. First, thanks to West81st for a great thread. Second, I'm curious why everyone calculates the downward motion to include transaction fees amortized over a short period of time? Granted, thats usually true for the sellers you're linking against, but that's not a factor in "market movement", what this thread (by title) is about.

That is, you should calculate market movement using good comps, but then apply it to those people who bought reasonably (ie: those who weren't trying for a short term flip, and had a job they were very secure in).

Most of the links seem to be UWS. Is that indicative of West81st's research being focused there, or indicative of that market being hit harder than other parts of prime Manhattan?

this one is pretty good:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/194210-coop-250-west-27th-street-chelsea-new-york

i dont know what the broker is trying to do with the $1k moves.
i also like that it starts with "is this real?" because the answer is it isnt, the real SF on this one is just barely over 600! how do these guys get away with just out right lying about the SF?!

tech_guy,

we've discussed those issues before in this thread. as west81st has explained, calling high prices "outliers" is slightly disingenuous. if they were real prices paid by real people for real apartments, then they were peak prices and are perfectly acceptable comps. likewise, to say that we should only use "good comps," and that those only include people who aren't flippers or who didn't lose their jobs, well, that makes little sense. the market has been propelled up, in part, by flippers and over-extenders, and those same folks will play a role in the decline. a "good comp" is simply a similar apartment.

squarefoot,

what a great listing! the living room, dining room, kitchen, and bathroom are all windowless. that place is a cave. is this real? yes: it's a real dump.

tech_guy: I completely agree that transaction costs should mostly be ignored in analyzing market movement. The only exception I can think of would the transfer taxes customarily paid by the buyer on new construction or conversions. I think it makes sense to add those costs into the purchase price (if you can determine them with reasonable certainty) because a rational buyer will reduce her bid to reflect the extra tax burden. This issue is probably not as important with sales happening now, because most developers and sponsors are paying the taxes anyway, but it's worth considering for apartments that went to contract before 2008.

Transaction costs on New York real estate stack the deck against flippers, and I know that some posters enjoy calculating the losses of distressed sellers, with all costs included. But while transaction costs should - and do - weigh on valuations, they are largely irrelevant to value TRENDS.

As for the heavy UWS bias of the thread, that's mostly my fault. All neighborhoods are welcome here, of course. I just try to stick to what I know: UWS and, to a much lesser extent, UES.

"likewise, to say that we should only use "good comps," and that those only include people who aren't flippers or who didn't lose their jobs, well, that makes little sense"

That's not what I was saying at all. Include the actual costs at both the tippy top and the actual bottom. I'm just saying its poor form to, on top of that, include transaction fees paid over a short period of time.

"likewise, to say that we should only use "good comps," and that those only include people who aren't flippers or who didn't lose their jobs, well, that makes little sense"

I never said you should. You get the absolute best data from them. Like you said, real people paying real money - that data is gold. Again, I'm saying you should take the data from flippers, then pretend it applied to regular people - take someone who bought in 2007, sold in 2008 at a loss, then imagine a couple who bought in 2000, considering selling in either 2007 or 2008. You can show how much they lost by not timing the market well, and transaction costs are a much smaller factor. You divide it over more years.

"The only exception I can think of would the transfer taxes customarily paid by the buyer on new construction or conversions"

Agreed, that's very appropriate.

320 West End Avenue "B" line (big Candela classic six; living room and BRs face WEA)

--------Recorded Sales----------|--------Previous Listings----------
CURRENT ....... #3B ......................... |↓ $1,600,000 2 beds 1,700 ft²
12/12/2006 #2B $1,975,000 -6.0% |↓ $2,100,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths

#3B has been discussed previously. The story here isn't the price difference. #3B is an estate wreck that needs $200-500K of work. #2B was a mint renovation. The interesting part of this one is that #3B is now a "make an offer" situation, and the $1.6MM ask is basically a placeholder. It appears likely to sell fast and cheap.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/26701-coop-470-west-end-ave-upper-west-side-new-york

Asking about 20% over 2006 prices, which seems about right. They may have updated a few items in-between, so call it 10-15%.

This seems like a good, standard prime pre-war UWS comp.

My correction: the apartment was renovated before 2006. So it's a great comp all around. Starting at 20% *over* 2006 prices. Seems to have no view, so a quite a non-special comp all around. I suspect they will get a similar to 2006 price after 6-8 months.

> Asking about 20% over 2006 prices, which seems about right.

I thought we're at 2005 now...

nyc10022 - Time will tell. I cited a nice comp for you. Don't believe every bear-nonsense thing you read on streeteasy.

In general, crap apartments in places no one wants to live (York Ave, FiDi) are probably down a reasonable amount. Apartments needing renovations probably are taking it on the chin, since who wants to do the work.

But quality apartments in nice buildings are probably down less than almost any other asset class, and as people realize that the world is not going to end, and a meteor will not hit the earth, I suspect you will see some firmness in the better apartments.

At any rate, I posted the comp apartment in a nice building, renovated but view-challenged. It sold for 1,065,000 in 2006, and is now for sale at 1,295,000. Let's see what it closes for, and this will be a nice comp, post-Lehman.

> nyc10022 - Time will tell. I cited a nice comp for you. Don't believe every bear-nonsense thing you
> read on streeteasy.

I don't... I read the market reports... and Miller Samuel has median down 20%.

happyowner: You're right about 470 WEA - very nice building. It's worth noting that the one closed sale there this year, Apartment #10B, sold 15% below a solid, lower-floor comp from 2006: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/470-west-end-avenue-manhattan/

#10B went to contract almost six months ago. #10F is selling into a much tougher market.

West - I know someone who tried to bid on 6B, your '06 comp. I have no idea why it went for 2.7. That was vastly in excess of other 6s in that bldg (incl. private sales), and of others in the 'nabe of similar appeal. Not saying someone didn't fall in love with 6B (which was modified to be a 3-bed), but I would view it as an outlier.

I expect 10F to sell at more or less '06 prices, after some cuts and after taking a while. Weak, but no collapse. There are not that many around, and the area is very popular with families.

My guess is that co-ops, both doorman pre-war and 60's white brick in prime locations (UES west of third, GV, etc.) will be weak but not massively down. That's where families live and downpayments are normal.

I would not like to own in some new glass condo something or other far from a subway. Those prices I agree had a flipping/no money down element to them.

"At any rate, I posted the comp apartment in a nice building, renovated but view-challenged. It sold for 1,065,000 in 2006, and is now for sale at 1,295,000. Let's see what it closes for, and this will be a nice comp, post-Lehman."

That's the key point - it WILL be a comp, when it closes. Until it does, the asking price means nothing, bullish or bearish.

happyowner,

your evolving explanation of this supposed 'comp' seems to indicate some confusion on your part. first, you say that it is "Asking about 20% over 2006 prices, which seems about right." then you say that it will sell "at more or less '06 prices." Well, which is it? 06 prices are below the peak and, as you point out, 25% below the asking price that you call a "comp."

you defend the use of an asking price as a comp, but then somehow dismiss an apartment that actually sold to real people at a real price. why, exactly, should we accept that 6B was an outlier? Or, put another way, what is the difference between an "outlier" and a "peak price"?

you may be right that well-located coops will hold up well in the current downturn, and you may be wrong. but if you base your opinion on current asking prices on apartments that can't sell i think you will be disappointed.

Happyowner is right that there's an inherent bearish bias to this conversation, but I don't think the bias is malicious. To some extent, it's inherent in the nature of the data. A lot of our comp pairs are comprised of a past closed sale and an on-market (or failed) listing with an asking price below the prior sale. Generally, we have ignored cases where a current asking price is ABOVE a prior sale, like Happyowner's example. I think that's reasonable, given the nature of asking prices, but Happyowner is right to call us out for bias.

Ideally, we'd stick to closed sales vs. closed sales, like #10D vs. #6D. (That one is a near-perfect illustration of market decline.). The problem with that "pure" approach to comp analysis is the time lag to closing, especially on coops, and more especially in a market that may be moving quite abruptly. So we use weaker pairings that include an on-market, failed, or in-contract listing. As long as the limitations of this approach are noted, I think the method itself is valid.

"As long as the limitations of this approach are noted, I think the method itself is valid."

Really good point. I haven't been paying close attention, but I'm guessing we're seeing significantly longer closing times (esp for coops). Any confirmation on this (even anecdotal)?

"I don't... I read the market reports... and Miller Samuel has median down 20%."

To be fair, none of the market reports say this because 4Q reports aren't out yet. Jonathan Miller has said he's seeing contracts today at 20% less.

hr - you say that it is "Asking about 20% over 2006 prices, which seems about right." then you say that it will sell "at more or less '06 prices."

Gotta leave some room for negotiation so the buyer thinks they got a deal!!!

BTW, I do not think UWS pre-war 2-beds had any increase in value above low single digits between 2006 and summer 2008. So if it sells at 1,065,000 or more, it would actually show the market is flat since then. There was a bidding mania for UWS 3-beds during that time, but 2-beds were more or less even, based on broker firm data. That's why we did not even look in that area, and several friends also chose to buy elsewhere (park slope and so forth).

With regard to Happyowner's other point about family-sized coops of good quality holding their value, it's obviously true, to a certain extent. The problem is that those apartments followed highly-leveraged condos up, and they are following highly-leveraged condos down.

Of course, great buildings have a solid floor under them, but nobody will know where that floor is until we hit it. On balance, I think those who say the floor is 2002 seem to have a stronger argument than those who say it's 2006 because, from a macro perspective, 2009 looks a lot more like 2002. I don't personally think it looks like 1992, or 1937. But the widespread perception that it COULD be that bad will also weigh on the market.

So, what will #10F sell for? I really don't know. If the owners are serious about a quick sale in the open market, I think the number is south of $1MM, because it's still a cramped, rear-facing 2BR, no matter now nice the renovation may be; but that's just my opinion, and it's worth no more or less than Happyowner's.

west81st,

i usually agree with much of what you write, and i appreciate your reasonableness, but i don't think that it is 'obviously true' that family-sized coops will hold their value--and clearly, neither do you, since you go on to say that "nobody will know where that (solid) floor is until we hit it." In the 1970s that solid floor got down to more or less nothing. Are we headed for the 70s? Probably not. But it is not 'obvious' that apartments in good buildings and bad are not headed for really serious declines.

if all you mean to say is that it is highly likely that nice apartments in nice buildings will continue to have some value, then sure, of course. but you can't say they will "hold" their value and then say that 2002 prices are a likely floor, since those prices would represent something akin to a 50% decline from the peak. That's not holding value.

81 - Happyowner's other point about family-sized coops of good quality holding their value

Or even increasing over the next 3-5 years for those who get one of the few distress sales. You guys need at least one optimist on the board. :)

Happyrenter: I was only supporting Happyowner's modest contention that quality coops will hold value better than crappy condos.

"quality coops will hold value better than crappy condos."

Quality anything will hold value over crappy anything always.

Try again.

81 - #10D vs. #6D. (That one is a near-perfect illustration of market decline.).

Gonna disagree on this one. By report, 6D has several hundred thousand put into it for a super fancy kitchen, walls moved/ added to make a 3-bed etc. For all we know, they could be a similar value or within 5%, assuming you thought the renovation added value. 6D does seem high, but probably not as much a drop to 10D as it looks.

#10D was renovated too, with a different approach: they merged the kitchen, DR and LR into a great room and kept the maid's room as a third BR. I personally think #6D used the space better, but opinions on that will vary. The four floors of elevation matter too.

I agree that the kitchen in #6D was great. Splitting the corner BR into two kid's rooms is not a big deal, and you could add that wall to #10D at modest expense. Overall, I think the value proposition between the two is a wash.

81 - I was only supporting Happyowner's modest contention that quality coops will hold value better than crappy condos

Off topic a bit, but I have never understood the appeal of the glass condos. No one really needs all the "amenities" (concierge, pool, theater room) and the price per foot was crazy, for generally crappy locations (10 WEA anyone?).

Give me a good location, decent price per foot 60's white brick over that anyday. I'd even take the Schwab house over 10 WEA at the same price per foot. I have no idea who buys things like that.

Just wondering......in every market there will be properties that will sell for less than the average -- well less than the average. Ar the threads such as these just exposing these properties -- and hence do not reflect the true state of what you can reasonably expect to buy.
I bring this up since many people are happily offering proof of "find me 1 apt that is selling for less than 20% of a price in 200x" and someone offers proof.
There will likely always be such an apt even in a amodestly upticking market.
The question and the answer are moot.
Nevertheless, it is fine to highlight the grossly overpriced and the dark deals so as a social exercise the drums should keep on rolling.
lol

joedavis: I agree that the "Find me one property, JUST ONE" arguments are little more than the Streeteasy version of a bar bet.

I do think it's significant that finding vivid examples of price erosion has become so easy. Whether the market as a whole has moved depends on how you define the terms "market" and "movement", but I do think critical mass was reached some time ago.

Also, when Q4 prices are finally released en masse (since some people are completely ignoring Miller Samuel's assessment in the Fed Beige Book) you'll be able to see that the number of sales has decreased to a trickle and the prices of most of those sales are substantially lower than summer prices, even though some may have entered contract before Sept. On top of that, you'll see an increasing number of contracts falling apart, increasing inventory, and subsequent rounds of price cutting. Then, of course, you still have the option, come March 09 to say that all that information is not enough.

happyowner, if you know places which kept reasonable value, you can feel free to post those comps as well. Then you can get a sense of what is holding value and that which is not. The problem is that there are so few closings in recent days that comps are hard to come by.

"Also, when Q4 prices are finally released en masse (since some people are completely ignoring Miller Samuel's assessment in the Fed Beige Book) you'll be able to see that the number of sales has decreased to a trickle and the prices of most of those sales are substantially lower than summer prices, even though some may have entered contract before Sept. On top of that, you'll see an increasing number of contracts falling apart, increasing inventory, and subsequent rounds of price cutting"

Agreed.... but, realizing how bulls have taken past data, I'm sure they'll find ways to ignore that one, too...

i wouldn't bet the bank on the the q4 data. it will be heavily skewed to contracts signed over the summer.

"i wouldn't bet the bank on the the q4 data. it will be heavily skewed to contracts signed over the summer."

As would the november numbers... but even those showed a 15-20% decline...

Granted, I think its small relative to Q1 numbers. When decline numbers come out officially, that will create more panic. And the contract process length effect will keep the decline going for a while...

Let's get back to the data.

West81st, you suggested this one might show us movement...and you were right! 15 F at 90 Riverside, a Classic 6 without view and needing a renovation just closed:
STREETEASY HISTORY
09/04/2008
Listed in StreetEasy by Elliman at $2,195,000
09/17/2008
Price decreased to $1,995,000
10/02/2008
Price decreased to $1,895,000
10/30/2008
Price decreased to $1,795,000
11/06/2008
Elliman listing entered contract
12/18/2008
Sale closed for $1,530,000

Now take a look at the comp:
02/23/2006 #11F $1,860,000 -6.8% $1,995,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths

This one also needed a renovation, plus lower floor, so it's very solid. That's 18% below the price from winter 2006--essentially 3 years ago, which we all know was well below the peak. That's a 2004 price. I'd STILL say they are lucky to have sold it for over 1.5, but clearly, there's movement.

happyrenter, good catch on this closing.
I am actually surprised by this price, I thought it would be higher. 90 is one of the top handful of buildings on RIverside, a great location. My guess is that this apartment has now traded for 30% off its "theoretical" peak value of last spring.
Very important price point for the UWS classic six market.
Can anyone fathom a guess how much $ needs to be put into this apt to be in reasonably updated condition?

If a post falls in the forest and I don't read it, does that mean there is no decline?

;-)

happyrenter, good catch. I also find it interesting that the accepted bid was 15% below the last, reduced ask. Clearly the strategy of lowballing is working for someone.

The other thing to note is that the layout of the F-line 6 at 110 RSD is very good. Easily converted into a 3-bedroom (where the rooms are actually close to each other) and an adjacent LR/DR.

It's interesting that the E-line 6 room on a lower floor is in contract (ask was 2.75m). Views apparently are worth 1m.

http://www.brownharrisstevens.com/detail.aspx?id=981292

Ariel East full-floor unit - this resale is either 28A, 29A, 30A, 31A, 32A or 33A, so it closed anywhere from 3.535m to 3.795m. Assuming the buyers paid the transfer tax and all other taxes, we're looking at a loss of at least 10% assuming someone bids at ask.

Ouch.

When we see the contract price, this should provide an interesting comp for the lower end. 245 East 87th St. 17D. Apartment sold in 2005 for $457k.

11/07/2008 Listed in StreetEasy by Corcoran at $575,000
12/11/2008 Price decreased to $530,000
12/25/2008 Corcoran listing entered contract

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/364272-coop-245-east-87th-street-yorkville-new-york?email=true

Funniest part of that is that there's a comp with identical layout on a lower floor (9D) that's asking 650K, meaning 23% more. After the closing, the difference could easily be 30% or 35%.

Aspirational pricing or broker/seller freakiness
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/153057-multi-320-west-140th-street-central-harlem-new-york?email=true
This is a shell in a not so hot area $1.85 million wow
would be interesting to see if he gets more than 500k out of it before it goes into foreclosure

Check several of the other listings by the same broker
similarly aspirational

what is fascinating is how long these have been on the market and there is no movement even with these cuts
Wonder if anyone has seen these properties at all

"When we see the contract price, this should provide an interesting comp for the lower end. 245 East 87th St. 17D. Apartment sold in 2005 for $457k."

Does the contract price hit on closing? Or before?

Somebody tell Julia...

Obviously this guy doesn't read Streeteasy and didn't know he could have gotten the place for half price if he waited a few weeks, unlike the real estate geniuses on this site:

http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/alliancebernstein-ceo-pays-37m-for-pad-at-720-park-avenue

Closed at nearly double the 2006 price. Just adding some closed comps here. :)

Yes, and I'm sure he signed the contract this week.

You got it, crisis averted. The crash is over an the recession has ended!

;-)

20% price chops on LES...and thats on top of giveaways that add up to a lot more ($36k in common charges paid for, closing costs, etc.)

http://curbed.com/archives/2008/12/29/door_prizes_threeyear_discount_at_less_ludlow_lofts.php

10022 - I'm sure he signed the contract this week.

Just giving you some hard data closed comps. :)

"Just giving you some hard data closed comps. "

You mean comp (singular)

thanks happyowner, always helpful to get more information. i tend to see that as indicative of the market over the summer, but who knows? maybe there is an ounce of life left in the ultra-high-end market.

nyc, hr - I can just hear the cognitive dissonance. :)

This is in Brooklyn, rather than Manhattan, but how about this:

Apt #9H closed for $584,000 in April, 2008
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/closing/726615

Apt #11H closed for $430,000 in December, 2008
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/closing/779180

These are the exact same apartment, and, in fact, 11H would be considered superior because it's on a higher floor. Am I missing some non-market factor here that would explain this price difference?

90 Riverside Drive: 15F closed for $1.53 mm, down from $1.95 milion for 11F in 2006.
200 West End Avenue: 22C just closed for $2.2mm, 15% below similar C line asks. Contract on 22C was signed BEFORe the market crash of mid-October.
245 W. 19th Street. Sales starting to come in 10-15% below ask.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/356499-coop-1035-park-avenue-upper-east-side-new-york

Listed and sold post-Lehman, for 100k above (yes, Virginia, above) 2007 price for same line, on a much lower floor (5 versus 15). Nice appreciation here.

If this doesn't make it clear, the "lowball" links people love are being cherry picked. :)

My mistake: it was the 6th floor versus the 16th that sold for 100k more, post Lehman. :)

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/356499-coop-1035-park-avenue-upper-east-side-new-york

NYC: You mean comp (singular)

Now fixed. :)

Multiple higher closings now linked. :)

happyowner, if you look at the history, the apartment below it (5B) sold for $2,395,000 in 2005. That's a bit of a crazy appreciation (and quite unsustainable), but interesting that deals are still happening at these levels. I would not say this is the norm right now, though it does show that things aren't as clear cut as some would have you believe.

Should also add that these UES buildings are really the upper echelon in terms "safe" investment (ie: the last ones most would expect to be hit). 1035 Park may never really suffer like other buildings, or it could just be on the horizon. As always, time will tell.

happyowner,

projecting a bit, are we? you are so attached to your agenda that you are projecting an agenda onto everyone else. i have no agenda whatsoever, i am just trying to figure out the market. i appreciate the information you provide, it's data and therefor helpful. i don't appreciate being told that my information is "cherry-picked." what is yours, objective? a sale is a sale is a sale, i can't make them happen.

as to the apartment you use as an example, that is certainly a strong sale for this market. that said, you leave out some important information, namely "triple-mint designer renovated." we don't know anything about the condition of the 16th floor unit, it could have been a dump, so you certainly can't call it "nice appreciation." it MAY be nice appreciation, but we don't know.

you CAN say that it is a strong sale for this market and shows some evidence of remaining life. a few people have commented that Classic 7s west of Lex on the UES seem to be moving well in the under $4 million category (or at least well relative to other segments of the market). definitely something interesting to watch moving forward. this would compare with, say, post-wars in Yorkville which are a complete massacre right now, or classic sixes on the UWS which are doing nothing.

again, thanks for the info. in the future, you might follow my lead and be appreciative of the data provided, cherry-picked or otherwise.

33% worth of chop on the upper west side..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123015006369333335.html

Who killed the reindeer and hung it in the master bedroom?

renter - i have no agenda whatsoever, i am just trying to figure out the market.

Ho, ho, ho!!

I thought this was New Year's, not April Fool's.

No agenda whatsoever. That's a good one!! *chuckle*

Below 08/03/2006 close

08/03/2006 Previous sale closed for $400,530
10/02/2008 Listed in StreetEasy by Park Avenue R.E. at $479,000
10/17/2008 Price decreased to $469,000
10/30/2008 Price decreased to $450,000
11/08/2008 Price decreased to $435,000
12/31/2008 Price decreased to $399,000

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/354802-condo-163-west-79th-street-upper-west-side-new-york

375 RSD #11BB. Same unit resale, 4.6% below 2006:

--------Recorded Sales----------|--------Previous Listings----------
12/16/2008 #11BB $850,000 ........... |
06/12/2006 #11BB $891,000 ........... |

Sold to the upstairs neighbors, presumably for combination.

West81st, 375 RSD #11BB seems odd - there was no streeteasy listing. Why would the seller choose to sell to neighbors at a loss without even taking the chance of marketing it? Seems strange...

2250 Broadway #8B. Same-unit resale, now asking 3.2% below price paid in January 2006:

--------Recorded Sales----------|--------Previous Listings----------
CURRENT #8B ................................. |↓ $1,345,000 2 beds 1,100 ft²
01/03/2006 #8B $1,390,000 ........... |
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/356863-condo-2250-broadway-upper-west-side-new-york

155 East 76th, 5E. Just listed for $100K under its 2005 closing price.

05/18/2005 Previous sale closed for $1,300,000
12/03/2008 Previously listed in StreetEasy by HF International for $1,200,000
12/31/2008 Listed in StreetEasy by HF International at $1,200,000

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/372240-coop-155-east-76th-street-upper-east-side-new-york

happy owner,
just proving my point :).

thanks, guys, for all the great comps. you can't get more rock solid than same-unit resale, these really give an accurate picture of things.

buster, i disagree with you that 375 RSD seems odd. if i were thinking of selling my apartment and my neighbor came along with a decent offer i'd jump at it in this market and get the damn thing done. these people are basically even-steven for the past three years now; if they sold in six months they might be down 20% or more.

Re: 375 RSD - If they had listed it with a broker (only way to get on Streeteasy) then even if they got the same sale prie of $891k it would still be less the 6% commission so they would net the same 850ish. Someone smart realized to get more than mid-06 would be a stretch and they got the same net price by doing a sale to the neighbors. And to the neighbors the apartment is worth more than to an outside party. So arguably the sale indicates that sellers are expecting that mid-06 is the top of their expectations and that it is possible they might get even less.

Yes, I agree re 375 RSD. At 4.6% below 2006, the seller saves the 6% broker transaction cost and could potentially come out (slightly) ahead or at least break even. Trying to market involves lots of hassles (staging, open houses, allowing apt to sit on market for unknown number of months) not to mention the many housing indexes in the news that are predicting 20-30% drop in Manhattan housing market in 2009 (HousingPredictor.com, Moody's Economy.com, etc). If the seller was serious about selling, it was probably extremely smart to sidestep the broker fees and all the hassles for a done deal at the best possible price they were likely to get.

186 Riverside Drive "A" line: Rear-facing 2BR/2BA, ~1200 sq.ft. Eighth floor clears the adjacent building, but view from LR is blocked by rooftop mechanicals.

I hope nshipley will comment; #8A is her listing.

--------Recorded Sales----------|--------Previous Listings----------
CURRENT . #8A ................................... |↓ $999,000 2 beds 1,200 ft²
10/01/2008 . #9A $1,100,000 -8.3% |↓ $1,199,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths
02/05/2008 #12A $1,330,000 +0.4% | $1,325,000 2 beds 2 baths
08/29/2006 . #2A .. $945,000 .......... |
06/06/2006 #15A $1,250,000 .......... |
03/22/2005 #10A $1,140,500 .......... |

#8A is in much better condition than #9A was, though the view is problematic. $830-ish psf seems notable, considering where apartments like this traded a year ago.

west81st,

i just noticed this one as well--that's a wild situation--even a bit more so than what you posted. this is textbook for what happens when a market collapses. Here's the history for 9A:

04/02/2008
Listed in StreetEasy by Rand Realty NY at $1,285,000
04/24/2008
Price decreased to $1,199,000
05/27/2008
Rand Realty NY listing entered contract
10/01/2008
Sale closed for $1,100,000

Here's 8A:
STREETEASY HISTORY
01/24/2008
Previously listed in StreetEasy by Rand Realty NY for $1,435,000
07/18/2008
Rand Realty NY listing unavailable at $1,299,000
09/05/2008
Listed in StreetEasy by Rand Realty NY at $1,199,000
01/01/2009
Price decreased to $999,000

This means that Rand realty thought that 8A was significantly MORE valuable than 9A--150k more valuable to be exact. Rand was offering both for sale at the same time, and 9A had to accept a 15% haircut in order to get sold. Now 8A is still sitting on the market, asking 436K less than its original ask, and 101k less than the lower floor comp sold for. That's a 30% chop, and 10% less than the 9th floor sale--and it hasn't sold yet.

It sounds like the view issue on the 8th floor is not share by the 9th, so Rand may have been wrong to think that 9A was much less valuable, even in worse condition. But regardless of that, this is dramatic.

JohnDoe - About that listing at 155 East 76th Street: Helene Fields knows the Queen Anne and its buyer pool inside-out. She has lived there for ages. If she says the building is south of early 2005 pricing, then it probably is. I think her pricing on #5E was probably influenced by the sad history of #11K, which Bellmarc originally priced at $1.5MM before losing the listing to Helene. She currently has that one at $800K. http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/288898-coop-155-east-76th-street-upper-east-side-new-york

By the way, south-facing units at 155 (like #5E) enjoy a nice view of St. Jean Baptiste across 76th.

Just closed yesterday on a 600 sqr ft alcove in 520 E. 72nd st. for $420K. Went to contract in September. Previously closed for $415 in August 2006.

11K at 155 East 76th is a cursed apt. When it was originally listed as a 2/2, it has the most horrendous layout imaginable. The living room was cut off from all the windows, and the second bedroom had a very strange, angled wall that left very little usable space. Now that the floor plan has been rejiggered, the owners have not only had to pay to re-do their original renovation, but they are now in the 1-bed pool. I'll still be surprised if this goes above the low 700,000s.

Unfortunately there is no good comp for this apartment, but i think the initial asking price is significant:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/372302-coop-290-west-end-avenue-upper-west-side-new-york

Classic 7 at 290 West End asking $2.575. This is a beautiful, front-facing, generously-proportioned, well-renovated apartment with great bones in a great building in an utterly ideal location (74th and WEA). This is the sort of apartment that could have sold for $3.5 million or even well more (West81st would probably know better) at the peak, and now is only asking 2.575. That is around $1100 psf if my measurements are right. Can someone find something wrong with this apartment? I certainly can't. I am very curious to see where this one trades.

happyrenter: If it's above the third or fourth floor, I can't see any major issues. The maintenance is a little on the high side. Pricing is obviously a challenge with so little recent turnover in the building.

west 81st, can you explain the significance of "above third or fourth floor" as you state above. Is the main issue on your mind security? Noise? Also what is the relationship between floor level and price? I have been looking at a first floor apt for some time. I generally don't like them but the one that has caught my attention has nice light and feels warm and cozy. A little garden too. Any cautionary advice? Resale issues?