15 offers in 6 days!? Thoughts?

The truth is that anything is possible. So without really knowing any more info I would say say it is possible but unlikely.

did you leave out the link supertrooper?

here is the link.

http://corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1281670

It is also a walk-up. I guess it is possible.

It's possible, but all offers could also have been under $600K. Who knows what "15 offers" means. There are no comparables for the building, so pricing is more difficult. Views and quality of building are unknown. Pricing is a little on the high-side from first appearance to me, but I guess we'll see soon enough. Monthlies are very low. Adorable 1-bedroom GV apartments are still hot if they aren't totally nasty. 83-85 Barrow Street sells like hotcakes for similar layouts.

I bid $325k because at $650k, buying would be twice as expensive as renting. I wrote a nice letter to the owner explaining this and included a smiley sticker at the bottom. I'm feeling pretty good, do you think I'll get it?

I bid $1,000,000 on a trophy $12,000,000 penthouse. I didn't get a counter-offer, but then again, it never hurts to ask.

JM- How much would it cost to rent a comparable unit? Perhaps it would be smarter to rent.

$1300/sq ft for that walk up. You have go to be out of your mind. Do people on this site actually read or follow the market?

Location is excellent and sub 1M condos in Soho are uncommon. I'd be tempted if it weren't so hard for me to get to work from SoHo.

Now when they list Water under Features, do they mean running water? It is quite the modern amenity. ;)

I bet that is why they have 15 offers. Water, it is very hard to come by...LOL

JM, I think the smiley sticker will definitely seal the deal! Nice touch!

that place will rent for a min. of $3k, the unit is a good deal rent versus buy analysis, and prime area in SOHO.

"That place will rent for a minimum of $3k."

But it will cost you $3,286.75 in mortgage payments, and total monthlies of $3,803, ergo you're setting yourself up for a minimum loss of $10,000 per year.

$650k for the joy of spending the rest of your life climbing those three easy flights in a tenement.

"Also, message to stevehjx, save us all your annoyance and do not reply to this post, you suck."

:)

I believe it.

1) there isn't a lot of condo inventory in SoHo (one of the markets where I work)

2) the second home market is holding up better than the primary home market is;

3) that "loss" that you are setting yourself up for can come off your taxes to a certain extent.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Yup, that's a reason to incur a loss - so you can write it off on your taxes.

The more I post on this website, the more amazed I get at exactly how many people have drunk the Real-Estate Kool-Aid. Did you know that if you lose money on the street you can write it off on your taxes? Well you can. So here's my suggestion - take that $10,000 and put it in a trash can once a year. You get the same tax deduction, you're not saddled with transaction costs, worrying about finding a renter, carrying the increased loss if you can't find a renter, fixing the place if the renter trashes it, or losing money on it if you're forced to sell at a loss.

The truth is that the National Association of Realtors has done quite a marketing job, because they've managed to convince an entire nation that buying real estate is a good investment, when it is not an "investment." It is shelter - that's all you're buying: shelter. And it only pays to buy shelter (or anything else) when it's cheaper than it is to rent it. Right now, as so often proved, it is twice as expensive to buy as it is to rent. Period.

So my suggestion is: you want a tax deduction, just throw your money into a trash can, preferably one close to my house.

I walked by a tree this morning, the leaves provided me with shelter from the sun. All I needed is shelter. I actually didn't pay anything for the shelter, but it it wasn't mine exclusively, so I guess it was a communal rental, and a free rental at that. If I bought the tree, the math definitively wouldn't have worked out, even with a formula 40%/12x, because 12x $0 = $0, which means there is no tax write-off on the purchase, so actually, it can't work out better to have bought in that situation.

Oddly, when I finished my drink under the tree, I left the shelter of the tree and threw out the drink container in the trash. And guess what I found in the trash ... $10,000. I guess renting truly is better than buying.

Was this an attempt at poetry, vverain? Try haikus, they are easier - you only need to be able to count to 7.

"That place will rent for a minimum of $3k."

"But it will cost you $3,286.75 in mortgage payments, and total monthlies of $3,803"

So much for 2x huh steve? The examples just keep coming. 25x? I don't think so pal. Wrong yet again.

Yup JuiceMan, "the examples just keep coming."

Who said, "That place will rent for a minimum of $3k"?

dledven

So that truly makes it a market rent, doesn't it, JuiceMan?

LMAO.

IF it rents for $3,000, it should cost no more than $430,000. It's listed for $650,000. Making it 50% overpriced.

If it rents for $2,500 - more likely, at a claimed 500 square feet for a third-floor tenement walk-up - it should cost $360,000. That would make it 22x annual rent.

The examples just keep coming, don't they?

Since no one else has stated the obvious... The only source of info is the broker. Maybe there were three offers, and two were lowballs as kylewest suggested. As long as one offer was close enough to asking to make the seller happy and get a contract out, the broker can make up any ridiculous number he wants. I suppose if it sells well above asking we can conclude there was some truth to the story, but I wouldn't expect it.

I said minimum, i haven't seen the unit, could rent for $3500, secondly how do you come up with your #'s if its all cash then run your #'s, its PRIME SOHO, people are willing to pay for PRIME SOHO, not everyone takes a mortgage, and some people can afford all cash, or foreign buyers will buy it up, there is a premium paid for owning versus renting. even if you take a mortgage of $417k then all in your payments
are under $2900-

So what your saying steve, is that this unit should sell for $35k more than a unit above it sold for in 2004 ($325k). Oh, and the 2004 unit is only 364 sqft. I guess $257/sqft for the additional 136 sqft makes sense to you (in Soho no less). Your numbers are getting worse steve. Why don't you just stop the bullshit? Is it fun for you to be worng all the time? 2x. LMAO.

"foreign buyers will buy it up"

You're delusional.

JM, I said what I said, and I stand by it. And despite the differences in square feet - they're probably the same size, since if it's a tenement they all have the same layout since the stairs are in the middle, there's a front and back unit - do you think it's normal for property prices to double in 3 years?

Well - alas - it's not normal. In fact, it's freakish. So yes, I expect that it will in the future sell for the price it sold for in 2004. Just as is happening everywhere else in the country where property prices rose so far so fast. The collapse here is just beginning.

dledven, the numbers are based on an 80/20 amortizing mortgage. That's the way the comparison is done because that's the way that most people finance their apartments.

PRIME SOHO! Prime So What? Some people will pay for Prime SoHo, some won't. I wouldn't. I hate the place and never go there. A giant outdoor shopping center to me. It's like being in a mall.

There aren't many market rental buildings in that neighborhood and the ones there are are incomparable since they're not tenements. When my mother lived in a tenement their goal in life was to get out of the tenement (which they did). There are 364 rental listings on streeteasy for $3,000 or under.

Show me your comps.

"there is a premium paid for owning versus renting."

Why? Historically, there isn't. Historically the cost is exactly the same. So you should amend that statement: "now there is a premium paid for owning versus renting, but there shouldn't be one."

JM: worng = Freudian

Steve, you don't live in Soho because you can't afford it! i'm buying a home right now, and i'm putting down more then 20%, so your argument doesn't really hold their either, and considering that I am in the business most loans are at 75/25, 70/30 and yes even 60/40 especially as some lenders Max LTV on on $2Million and over is 60/40.
Your comparison of rentals is not in prime soho. i'm not delusional, i'm realistic and i believe PRIME areas hold their value, and their is limited supply of properties in that area, and at the end pricing is determined by supply versus demand. not PSF. that is secondary.

Honestly, I think you need meds, and not in a bad way, it just think it may make you happier.

I'm very happy it's a lovely day out here in my vacation home on Fire Island. Alas I have to work, but at least I can do so where it's cool (about 75 degrees right now), outdoors, with a great view.

I can in fact afford SoHo, but I would never want to live there. I prefer the Far West Village and (most of) Chelsea. The EV is okay, too, I simply don't like living anywhere that feels like a mall, and that's what SoHo feels like to me.

You're delusional if you think foreigners will rush in where angels fear to tread.

PSF is, by definition, the result of supply vs. demand, both of which exist along a curve.

"PRIME areas hold their value" - you mean PRIME areas lose their value more slowly. I agree with that.

:0

:o

:o

:o

the living room is 11x15. this is really a divided studio in a walk-up. agree, great location, but.

"JM, I said what I said, and I stand by it."

standing by "it" and being correct are two very different things. I expect you to stand by your numbers but I also expect them to be wrong, as they are in this case. LMAO. How is this 2x steve?

“And despite the differences in square feet - they're probably the same size, since if it's a tenement they all have the same layout since the stairs are in the middle, there's a front and back unit”

Did you even look at the floor plan steve? Wrong again.

"PRIME SOHO! Prime So What? Some people will pay for Prime SoHo, some won't. I wouldn't. I hate the place and never go there."

I wouldn't go bashing neighborhoods steve. Except for gay men, Chelsea doesn't make the top ten of anyone's list. Certainly not the sterile Chelsea rentals you call home.

What it means is that it's nowhere near 500 square feet.

Look at the picture, look at how much furniture fits in the living room. NO WAY that is 11 feet wide. NO WAY.

They're counting the middle of the walls, and using shorter inches.

The bedroom isn't that wide (11'4"), either: a queen-size bed is about 6.5" long. A desk is about 18" deep. It's MAYBE 10'4" wide, because, obsessive as I am, I just measured my bedroom in Fire Island and it is 13" long with a California king-size bed in it, and there's 4' between the end of the bed and the armoire.

Look at how small the refrigerator is, and how narrow the cabinets and shelves are.

My kitchen here is 7'4" wide, and there is a set of standard cabinets on BOTH sides, separated at the end by a side-by-side refrigerator. With what's in that picture, there is NO WAY that kitchen is 7'9" wide.

My living room is 13' x 14.5' = 188.5 sq. ft. They claim that living room is 11 x 15 = 165 square feet. Difference = 23.5 square feet. That is, approximately 1 foot in both directions. I have a 72" sofa bed, a 44' round coffee table (not pushed up against the wall), 2 bar stools, a fountain, a media cabinet, plants, a neat-o glass coffee table, a club chair, and huge amount of empty space by the door, amounting to 36 square feet. Which means that I could fit all that furniture in a 165 square foot room, and still have space left over.

They managed to fit a dining room table pushed up against the wall, a sofa and a chair / ottoman, and there's no room for a coffee table.

BS that's 500 square feet.

This is a typical tenement - a 25' x 100' lot, of which at least 12' had to be left as open space in the back. That means that the typical tenement was 25' x 50' measured from the EXTERIOR, with 2 apartments on each floor, sharing a common bathroom. When configured like this the EXTERNAL dimensions (one front and one back unit) would be 25' x 19', so the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE MEASURED EXTERNALLY is 475 square feet.

Aren't those surprisingly close to the external measurements given in the (not-to-scale) floor plan? 22.5' x 18'?

And that doesn't include the hallway and stair space and the mandatory air shaft.

JuiceMan: "Oh, and the 2004 unit is only 364 sqft."

That's because this one isn't 500 square feet: just looking at the furnishings is enough to prove that those rooms are not the size claimed. Just knowing something about tenements makes it obvious that it's not 500 square feet.

The price is OUTRAGEOUS.

oops:

25' x 50' measured from the EXTERIOR = 25' x 38'. My bad.

Ah, again, here we go with the insults!

Most people in my building are straight, JuiceMan.

The floor plan is not to scale.

Tenements were built under specific laws that dictated how they were laid out.

Look at how much furniture is in those rooms, JuiceMan, sketch it out on your floor, make mock ups of the furniture, tell me how much you can fit in rooms claimed to be that size.

Lots more.

I’m not sure what you found insulting steve, that wasn’t my intention. I merely stated an opinion in the same tone of your Soho comment. I guess if you were insulted by my comment then there are probably a few folks that live in Soho that were insulted by yours. Do you care?

Interesting how you’ve changed your story to challenge the sqft. Yet another thing you can’t prove but you can yap on and on about. 2x steve. LMAO. Wrong yet again.

$257/sqft in Prime Soho. Halleluiah steve! Halleluiah! LMAO!!!!

"Changed my story"? No. Added to it. You are the one who claimed that a different apartment that sold in that building was 367 square feet versus the "500" of this apartment. In a typical tenement, it is impossible to get an apartment that large if there are 2 on each floor (as seems to be the case here) because the NYC tenement law specified exactly how large a tenement could be.

And this building seems to fit those measurements.

The real estate agent is measuring from the outside of the walls, and presents a not-even-close-to-scale drawing to make it look like something it can't be.

Again, you think that Manhattan real estate can never go down in value. What can't happen is it can't go up so precipitously in value as it has (doubled in 4 years) and stay there. People's income won't support it, the lending needed to make it happen is too risky. So the bubble deflates.

All this arguing, I just looked at this place recently, it's lovely for a single person or couple and it is quite large, it's just about 500 sq ft, not the 367 stevejhx is claiming. You are awfully obnoxious, aren't you?

Really? 15 offers two weeks ago, and it's still for sale?

And - did you take out your tape measure, or are you just eyeballing it?

HEY.. I know that Broker....LOL!!!!!

Hey Dave!!!

It's just not possible for so little furniture to fit in a room with the dimensions that are being claimed. One chair, one sofa, one table (pushed up against the wall) with barely enough space for a cat to walk through.

Moreover, it's a tenement, and tenements were regulated: the lots are 25' wide and 50' deep, with at least 12' unbuilt in the back. So sure it's 500 square feet, if you calculate it from the exterior walls.

What are you getting so bent out of shape for steve? Just accept the fact that it is 500 square feet, did you ever think you might be wrong? You usually are anyway. Stop being so obnoxious. No one here likes you anyway. You are so irritating, just shut up! And, yes, I did measure, I have laser tape measure. All the dimensions are accurate.

"No one here likes you anyway."

I have a fan club, are you kidding? The people here who don't like me (as if I cared) are:

1) real estate agents who don't like the truth to be told about how overpriced real estate is;
2) real estate investors who don't like the truth to be told about how overpriced real estate is;
3) real estate owners who don't like the fact that their properties won't be worth tomorrow what they are today.

Apart from them, everybody likes me.

I think the truth is that you don't like to hear about the impending crash, but it is inevitable. Economist Gary Shilling was on Kudlow last night, he says housing prices in the country have only fallen 50% of what they have to fall. They're just beginning to fall in Manhattan.

Do a little search on streeteasy, townhouses whose price has dropped more than 5%. Even townhouses in the $30 million range are seeing their asking prices fall. Them's the big league.

So sorry you don't like me rather than just accepting that no matter how you calculate it - using the Case Shiller method, using the historical 12x annual rent method, using the 40x monthly income / 28% total housing expense method, using the price to income method, property in Manhattan is unaffordable. I has doubled since 2003, and doubled once before that from 1998 to 2002. There is nothing fundamental that would support those price increases.

Read the msnbc.com article today on Poughkeepsie. This telling little quote: "The housing downturn here, as in the rest of the country, represents a hangover fueled by easy lending terms that sent prices surging much faster than incomes. Though median household income in surrounding Dutchess County rose by 15 percent from 2001 to 2006, home prices surged by 82 percent, with the average selling price peaking at $409,000 in 2006."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24956031/

Get your head out of the sand. How can median incomes rise by 15% while home prices rise by 82%? Give me one logical reason.

Because there ain't one.

Stevejhx - "My living room" & "My kitchen" - it is not technically "Yours". You are renting.

You're right, 93rd, because I was measuring my summer co-op, which since it's a co-op I don't technically own it. I own shares in the corporation.

stevejhx:

"1) real estate agents who don't like the truth to be told about how overpriced real estate is;
2) real estate investors who don't like the truth to be told about how overpriced real estate is;
3) real estate owners who don't like the fact that their properties won't be worth tomorrow what they are today.
Apart from them, everybody likes me."

I am not a real estate agent. I am not a real estate investor. I don't own real estate (I rent). But I don't like you - and I don't think I am the exception.

SteveEasy - kewl!

Once again, you are being obnoxious, do you think I am going to read that stupid essay you just wrote? Do you think anyone is going to? No, because you are never right. You are a self-righteous piece of shit. You are constantly pulling numbers out of your ass and wasting space on this board. You are a waste of space on this earth and, for that fact, I am putting you on ignore like so many others have. By the way, I didn't say ANYTHING about whether that condo was overpriced or not, I never even brought up the price, I was strictly talking about the size of the unit, which I measured. Did you go and physically measure it? No, but I did, so how can you tell me I'm wrong about the size of the unit? Justify that Steve.

"You are a self-righteous piece of shit."

Thank you. Coming from you, a former renter who just bought at the height of the property boom, I am honored.

You say that as if you know I overpaid for what I bought but the fact of the matter is you don't even know what I bought and at what price. By the way, I noticed how you skirted around the fact that you still cannot justify ANYTHING you've said and went straight for the insult, you are a total coward. Prove to me that the space in 195 Prince is not 500 square feet or don't respond at all. As for what I bought. I am completing a purchase of a townhouse on the Upper West Side from a family member and the grand total I am paying for the building is $950,000 and it is a perfect condition single family house. So, did I make a mistake doing that? Just around 5,000 square feet at about $190 per square foot, give or take, I can flip it at anytime, I think I did just fine. I know that it's not an opportunity that everyone else is given but I know I made the right decision. So, while you continue throwing your money away each month renting, I have over $6 Million in equity in a house I paid $950k for. So, if you can prove to me first that the dimensions are off on 195 Prince and, second, that I made a bad decision purchasing, I will sell my townhouse and split the profit with you. But since I know you can't, I'm not too worried.

Wow, it's been 11 hours since I've posted that and no response and we all know you are on this site 24 hours a day... maybe that's because you cannot prove anything you have said. It's the end of an era.

Really, the true issue here is that RIGHT NOW, and possibly from 2004-5ish (which is what probably makes everyone so upset), renting has NOT been a bad idea. We, as a city, don't have much available for lower middle to upper-middle rentals, so it has always seemed better to buy. As I keep on repeating, 4-10% of the rent stabilized market that will be entering market rate community yearly will impact this market more than most of you have been considering. AND there are a ton of condos going on the rental market. Well, there's more but I'm having a grand time in London (and reading their headlines, I must say that they don't sanitize bad real estate news the way we tend to).

uwsrenter, you're starting to sound like Sneaky Pete, who has a chauffeur-drive Prius and a singer/actress/songwriter/model/dancer/puppeteer trophy wife.

No insult meant - that's what he says he has.

yawn.

Once again, you still have done absolutely nothing to prove your point. I don't know who that is but I honestly couldn't care less what kind of wife he has. So when are you finally going to admit that you can't prove the size of that unit steve?

steve amazingly ignores tax benefits to owning and increases in rents over time whenever he sets forth his 4th-grade level analysis of buying vs. renting, even though he has been called on it over and over again.

I hate steve so much, he is such a pathetic loser!

15 offers in 6 days means it was underpriced. Fire the broker.

As much as I hate when someone digs up a ton of old threads and totally disrupts the continuity of the board, I've wondered about this place and the unlikely tale of 15 bids. Well, take at look:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/195-prince-street-manhattan

IT NEVER CLOSED! I checked at ACRIS in case it somehow didn't make it to StreetEasy. There's a record for 4F. There's a record for 5W, and there's no record for 4S. 15 bids and no one made the seller's price? No one made the board happy? No one could get financing?

Why does anyone ever believe a broker who doesn't has verifiable proof at this point?

Well, i can tel you that what sometimes happens is that a broker prices a unit, and the broker puts it on the market and gets a ton of offers. So the seller decides that the broker has under priced it and and pulls it off the market. The other thing that happens is the broker and seller get greedy and play to many games to pit buyers against eachother, and the get into a bidding war and the guy who winds looks and himself and and says "I won!!!!" and then a little later thinks to himself "wait a minute: ou of 15 buyers I was the only one to come up to this price? I LOSE!!" and pulls his offer, And then as they go back to the other people who they gamed to bid, that are no longer interested, either.

And brokers also lie and tell incredible stories (or create fake threads: see "Mason Fisk Sucks!!!") to get attention. If the claim was 5 bidders I could see something like that happening, but once the storytelling broker reaches for a number like 15, he's painted himself into a corner. There's no way all 15 fell short of the seller's needs. It's a whole lot more likely that the broker had one bid (or even a few) he felt confident would go through and then made up the rest.

Sorry - Ali - what research supports this claim: 2) the second home market is holding up better than the primary home market is

??????

But I have it on good authority from the broker glossary that "buyers are liars"

I like this Steve fellow. I think it's fair to say that he won this argument and this comes from a 2007 buyer who paid cash for a 3-bedroom in Chelsea. I *should* hate what Steve has to say, but it turns out he's right.

4F is 4S. In this building the F (front) is South. There is only one apartment on the south/front side. On the North Side, there are two apartments..."E" and "W". It was listed at $650k. So...it looks like it really did go over ask...$882k?!

jill24, you're right, but StreetEasy has updated the page for 195 Prince since yesterday. I just searched for the cached page to make sure I'm not losing my mind and it shows 4F as a different unit, closed without a linked listing.

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:oETpFGI10-sJ:https://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/195-prince-street-manhattan+%22195+Prince+Street+in%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Today it shows one line for 4F with the previous listing linking to 4S. My apologies to David Menendez.

Sorry about all of the confusion, we have updated the closing for 195 Prince 4F.

This building has 3 apartments per floor - 2 in back and 1 in front. Thus the "E" and "W" lines (both in the rear of the building) and "S" line in the front of the building (S is also referred to as "F"). The front apartment spans the full width of the building. It does not have a traditional tenement layout.