Unrenovated sponsor sale

I think their preference is always to sell quickly without deploying capital. Also is this the original sponsor or new one that bought un reno-units in bulk? The new ones, mostly, tend to not renovate since they might not have the supporting structure (in house GC, Architects, etc..).

I would think that with sales at Belnord now underway, I would think a buyer would rather buy there vs renovating in this building with the headache that comes with it (unless compensated well). Thoughts?

I would certainly agree on the second part about a buyer wanting to buying renovated vs non renovated due to many fully finished choices in the market. Why spend $500+ per sq ft including carry and trouble to renovate?

The Apthorp has had issues, and if the units on the market are part of these:
https://therealdeal.com/2016/05/06/sitt-splashes-120m-on-71-units-at-apthorp-condo-building/
my guess is that Sitting doesn't have tons of extra cash laying around these days.

Thank you. They paid $810 per sq ft!! That seems like a very good deal if there is no rent stabilized tenant.

Btw, do you know if some of the 71 units Sitt purchased were rent stabilized?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/therealdeal.com/2016/05/18/michael-fascitelli-is-thors-partner-on-120m-apthorp-deal/amp/

Personally I would always prefer to purchase a prewar unit in a 'storied' building like the Apthorp raw and without a crappy sponsor reno that would just need to be torn out and replaced. Sponsor renos are fine in run-of-the-mill buildings but buyers in historic buildings tend to prefer higher-end work. At least I do...

It think a sponsor will have to respect the history and have pre war details. Robert M Stern building interiors are good examples of modern day take on the classic. However, many sponsors may cheap out and not spend the money on detailing.