same broker in the same building

for example
https://streeteasy.com/building/1-5-avenue-new_york/19g
https://streeteasy.com/building/1-5-avenue-new_york/15g

What's to prioritize, and how does anybody manage 2 projects at the same time? The broker is representing 2 sellers, and is motivated to bring in 2 buyers. She has the plus of being able to show 2 somewhat different apartments in the same building, so is able to provide a (admittedly small) range of choices to prospective buyers. She has 2 other units (vaguely similar) in the building in contract at the moment, so must be managing it pretty well.

She makes her living there.

https://annweintraub.com/properties

This is the logic that some green rookie at a big firm would use to try to get a seller not to use the person best qualified to do the job.

Bingo. The broker who sells the most in a building knows the most and has the most motivation to keep the building selling well. They will speak to buyers with the most authority and answer their questions better.

By that logic, why does anyone hire the high volume brokers, since they've got so many listings going on at the same time that some are necessarily going to have low priority?

That's a good question, front_porch. High inventory isn't high transaction volume, however, and a seller could want to understand the size of the broker's team, the size of the broker's buyer network which may be a partial function of the volume itself and also the diversify of the inventory.
George, the broker who sells the most in the building does have the most motivation to sell well, but what does "well" mean - is there an incentive at certain times to reduce activity to keep up prices, like the co-op board, and is that necessarily in the best interests of the seller in all cases?

Rinette, The selling broker's job is to ensure that they know about the property (this includes knowing the building; and possibly people on the board in a coop building) and present it in a best light on its own merits. Relative value judgement is for the buyer to make along with the buying broker. In this information age, buyers have a lot of infornation at their hand online.

If there were to be a conflict in a store selling two substantially identical product by two different sellers, Best Buy would only carry one brand of TV.

unique Manhattan real estate as a commodity electronic consumer product is a new perspective for me, but ok, half a dozen ways here that folks don't see anything suboptimal for anyone involved.

I could see a conflict if the units were under different contract terms. Say, an absentee owner who has completely turned over the keys to a nearby broker in return for a better cut.

But the same could happen between nearby buildings, not just within them.

re: "unique Manhattan real estate"

Sometimes I crack up when people in the city refer to "cookie cutter suburbs" as they go home to their apartment which has identical units in the same line up&down 5-30 stories, and substantially similar units in other lines within the same building. Parallel listings really bring this to the forefront when you can directly compare multiple sales/rentals within a building.

Even doing enough mindless RE browsing on this site within a given price point it's hard to not just see a sea of samey white everything boxes with same 3 appliances, optimized-to-perfection floorplans, etc.

Not sure the suburbs of NYC are "cookie cutter", some are downright historical.
Nonetheless, your point on identical units in buildings is taken, and you can question if you want a broker who is going to promote your unit better than others in the standard apartment building. But that doesn't apply to this building, I'm sure you weren't saying it was.

Rinette - the realtor's incentive is to sell the property as quickly as possible at a reasonable price with the least marketing effort to the buyer who is surest to close and not create problems along the way. Agents have no reason to try to defy the market like coop boards. They also have little incentive to get the highest price, just a decent price that makes everyone happy.

Realtor's who specialize in a small area do have more incentive to get a higher price bc they then send postcards to everyone else saying how they're the big agent in the area and look at the great prices they achieved for their sellers. Sellers have to decide if they want hustle or expertise - the two together are a rare combination for ordinary sellers. As a buyer I want expertise. As a seller I want hustle.

Oh dear, autocorrect doesn't know the plural of realtor. AI has a long way to go.

How can anyone possibly say this is working out for owners/sellers?

This is working out for owners/sellers.

How's it working out for owners/sellers now?

like this one? https://streeteasy.com/building/1-5-avenue-new_york/16d

How is it not?

listed by the building's expert broker for $5.2M, now in contract below $2M by another broker.

Because the broker sets the price and the seller has absolutely no say in the matter?

Right, the great broker who sets the price 2.5x the market value, just in case.

In all fairness, it might have merely been 2x overpriced in 2016/2017 and the rest is market movement.

Repeat after me:
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price.
The broker doesn't set the price

The broker makes the choice to accept the listing. If her time has any value to her or her services were actually meaningful, she would have passed.

if you look at the first 2 listings in the original post, it's hard to make a case that this broker has a clue.

You're right. Ann Weintraub knows nothing about selling Real Estate especially in 1 5th Avenue.

I know I'm right, I was pointing out all the evidence of it.

LOL 30.

Rinette, I'm sure your never met a doctor who gave a patient health advice that the patient then didn't follow...

Does the patient wear the doctor's name on his or her chest while disobeying the medical advice?

If your doctor has been practicing for 42 years and remains independent, not availing him or herself of the latest data, technology or support, is that a doctor whose medical advice you should be taking?

So this higher value listing that took 14 months to contract, why didn't they use the house broker who previously sold the apartment?
https://streeteasy.com/building/1-5-avenue-new_york/18gk

https://youtu.be/tldGgGFe194?feature=shared

which character in that youtube is the building broker?

Which poster in this thread has an IQ of room temperature?

Is that a dig at me? Oh, 30years_ago_I_was_??? , you are so funny.

anyway, what are the chances this listing goes for 20% more than 6 years ago?
https://streeteasy.com/building/1-5-avenue-new_york/16f

Considering a listing period of less than 2 months before entering contract?
Decent

sellers will usually interview a few brokers. It is human nature for most people to select the broker that suggests a higher listing price. the brokers being interviewed know that.

But a broker who sets the price too high is just wasting their time, no? Why would a broker take a listing where the seller is asking an unrealistic price?

MCR,
Stop spoiling rinette's fantasy

MCR,

1) to look active in a certain neighborhood / building /price range so that they can pitch and win a second listing in that neighborhood / building / price range, hopefully at a more reasonable market price;
2) they're the head of a team, so they have a lot of "cheap labor" and they're not tying up themselves, they're tying up a junior team member, so their opportunity cost is lower;
3) they think they can "wear down" the seller and that the seller will eventually come to Jesus (if I can use that phrase) and there will be a commission;
4) they are a network-oriented broker and the seller is in their network and they can't say no;
5) to have a stake in the other side of the market in case the market shifts (perhaps they are a broker oriented to buyers, but while they're pitching and servicing buyers, they take whatever listings they can to hedge in case we move into a "seller's market.")

The good news for brokers is that nobody is keeping track of close rates, but they're far, far from 100%, and probably lower the more "successful" the broker is.

@ali - thx for the explanation. I wonder how often that backfires to the extent listing agent at high price does all the marketing, the gets replaced when listing does not sell and incoming agent sells the place with new lower price. I guess if the listing agent was clear when taking on the overpriced listing that they did not think the price was realistic they would retain the listing during the necessary price drop.

Not necessarily MCR; sometimes the cycle is

Broker 1 "that listing price would be too high" >
Seller "let's just throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" >
Broker 1 "here's an offer at under list, but I think it's what the apartment is worth and you should take it" >
Seller "no, I said I want list, and I think you're not working hard enough to get me list; why don't you X (where X = the marketing flavor of the day ...film a video, get the apartment on TV, whatever)"
Broker "the apartment is over market price so that won't help" >
Seller (*fires broker*) >
Seller (*hires new broker who puts their marketing dollars into X*) > (*overpriced apartment does not sell*) > (seller capitulates to a price drop, with either broker #2 or ... yet another broker #3... or interest rates drop and save the listing broker) >
Apartment sells.

I've certainly been on the wrong end of that, and it's tough to watch your time and marketing dollars go down the drain in service of a client for whom the difference between list price and market price is a rounding error anyway.

But the idea is, I think, that luck breaks both ways, and sometimes you're Broker #2 or Broker #3 in the cycle.

This is enshrined at one of the big firms in the saying, "it's good to be the second wife and the third broker."

@Ali - Thank you for this additional insight. Interesting. I am filing all of this for our current listing that Mr. MCR and I just revisited this past weekend. He was asking when the listing was up so that he could move back in; I am pushing him to re-up it if it does not move.

My sharing the vagaries of my real estate experience from the consumer side is an attempt to repay the favor of all the realtors' sharing their insight on here. I really want the NY apartment gone for my mental health. I would give the apartment away. Mr. MCR is wired completely differently on many fronts. It is not about money; it is about community, and he is comfortable having many communities. I don't have the energy for multiple communities, and it is impossible for me to check out of the current building's community while we own there. Enjoy the show to see how it ends.

What is fascinating is that one of the offers that came in on our apartment well within reason of asking is also caught between the husband's and the wife's preferences - the husband loves the apartment, and wants to come up in the offer; the wife cannot get past entering the apartment into the kitchen. All of this just reinforces how real estate decisions transcend rational financial management.

People research the neighborhood, the school district, the financials, the market, interest rate futures, climate change....

And then buy the one with the pretty furniture which doesn't come with the apartment.

Ha!

the wife is right. Most people will not buy an apartment that enters directly into the kitchen, and that is a rational financial decision

“The wife is right. Most people will not buy an apartment that enters directly into the kitchen, and that is a rational financial decision”

That certainly maybe true for larger apartments but for your typical small one bedroom apartment in NYC, many, if not most, have kitchens that lead directly from the front entrance, it’s really hard to design otherwise. And in this price range and buyer pool, buyers don’t care. Sure, you could have a foyer that leads into the apartment from the front door but I find these foyers a waste of space since you can’t set up any furniture. I’d much rather have the square footage of a foyer/hallway put towards a bigger kitchen, bedroom, or living room at the expense of having the apartment lead right into the kitchen

911turbo,
Maybe in newish condos, but for over 100 years that was derided as "Pullman kitchen" and highly undesirable.

To me, the "wasted space" is what makes this a great 1 br.
https://streeteasy.com/building/gramercy-house/10i?utm_campaign=sale_listing&utm_medium=share&utm_source=web&lstt=BjCjDYDKRnD-ppv9-YncOcyqBR988RQL0BFSUayRXJRu4ZDDmW6-livmCOi77ug8zsxrBRofBul2MhAt

@value - then yet again, my experience tells you how unmoored real estate decisions are from financial management for some. We bought an apartment with an outsized foyer and renovated into an apartment where you enter right into the kitchen because that was the best use of the space for us personally, whatever anyone else thinks be damned.

@911turbo - Too bad you don't like NY and seem financially prudent. Our apartment is excellent for both dog lovers and runners.

@30: An excellent plan. Yes, some 'wasted' space, but it's exactly that space that makes it a $1.1m 1 BR rather than an 800k 1 BR -- it's that 'pre-war' style layout that people desire. As a regular resident of the space, you get the sense of multiple rooms to walk through, and good separation of public and private space. I gave up 9' of living room length specifically to create a shelf-lined foyer in my 1BR econo-shoebox-plan 60s apartment, and it's a huge differentiator. I did get rid of the door to the kitchen, but it's not materially 'open' to the entry area or the LR. Guests don't need to, and shouldn't, see what goes on in the kitchen, unless invited in. (And I don't want to sit in a restaurant and see into their kitchen either. Why is this a thing? Can't you just talk to your tablemates?)

30, I love that, but you knew I would

@Aaron2 Re open kitchens: I see the point, they're great for entertaining. You talk to your guests while you whip up a souffle. But inevitably they look cluttered unless you put everything away immediately in which case you have a bigger problem - you're probably Felix Unger

@MTH: Exactly, and I'm certainly not Felix Unger, so the kitchen during a dinner can get a bit out of control. What I don't see in many open kitchens is something that would go a long way to solving the problem: Make a counter in two sections: Put a bar-height counter on the living room side, trick it out with bar stools or whatever, then have the kitchen-side counter be regular counter height. You only need about 6" difference, and suddenly, most everything you have on the kitchen-side counter (remains of slicing & dicing, dirty dishes, grubby sponges, etc.) is pretty much invisible to those sitting in the 'living area'. This is, of course, more expensive to build, so it's unlikely to be seen in most developers' new units, particularly at a time when 'entertaining' has been reduced to opening up the pizza delivery box.

Aaron, Below is what I have and it does help separate eating / drinking area on the counter from the rest of the counter area but it is not the current market standard. However, my preference in general is for open kitchen. Kitchen counters do work really well as a serving area in an open kitchen rather that having a separate "banquet". So it is space saving as well.

"Make a counter in two sections: Put a bar-height counter on the living room side, trick it out with bar stools or whatever, then have the kitchen-side counter be regular counter height. "

I have no issues maintaining an orderly kitchen when cooking. It just needs planning and organization. But to me, planning & organization is a critical part of cooking — how do you get all the food ready at the right temperature and on a plate at the same time? Add “keeping tidy” to the mix.

@Aaron2 @300_mercer - Aren't you and your guests looking over the remains if you're sitting at barstool height? It's all tradeoffs. A table for dining is more relaxed and conducive to conversation - you're facing one another...but not as space efficient. A slim gateleg table can disappear but it's yet another piece of furniture to set up/take down.

@inonada I can't seem to pull that off. Set up/mise en place, OK, np, but cleanup before the food gets cold - you got me there

MTH, In an open kitchen, there is no substitute for continuing to clean as you prepare each dish. Or prep/chop all ingredients beforehand (the messy part), and clean up so that all you have to do it is put together the ingredients. For counter vs table seating, counter is when you are still cooking or for breakfast, quick meals.

Certainly mise en place (didn’t know what that meant, thanks for teaching me a new word!). And definitely no heavy cleanup before serving. But a warm oven is a great place to keep food warm while you’re readying everything, in their final dish. And a great place to hide stuff once you’re ready to serve.

There’s also a question of what you should be preparing when entertaining, IMO. You don’t want anything that requires long, detailed attention. Nor messy. Fresh rolled pizza dough in a wood fire is great and all, but leave that for the pizzerias.

And FTR, I’m Felix Unger, so your mileage may vary.

@300_mercer True and probably how most people use them - for themselves and not guests

@Inonada - Annoying as he may have been as a flatmate, I bet there were benefits to living with Felix: amazing grub

The dual height counter gets you a (mostly) open kitchen, and yes, if you're sitting at the counter, you're looking at the kitchen, and whatever is there. But I would never serve dinner to guests sitting at the counter. That's what a dining table is for. @MTH: I had friends with a small apartment and a gateleg table - they used it regularly and rearranged it a bit when more guests came over.

My apartments have had small kitchens, so I'm a big believer in mise en place coupled with lots of preparation, particularly as much of what I cook isn't conducive to doing more slicing and dicing once things start going into the pan. But, becuase the prep work has already been done, a lot of the cleanup has been done as well, and it's easier to wipe up as you go, and put the prep bowls into the dishwasher promptly. By the time dinner goes on the table, the kitchen is mostly clear and ready for the onslaught of dirty plates and glasses. As 'nada notes, it's about making the right food choices.

That wasted space today could have fit a half bath.

As long as you don't mind half baths with no water

Not to mention a half bath being unnecessary with that apartment configuration

https://www.curbed.com/article/rosario-candela-david-netto-paul-goldberger.html

@30: It's a very good book - highly recommended. My only complaint is that the redrawn floorplans are sort of dull, compared to the earlier versions from the marketing brochures and the Select Register records. But, it's the only thing we've got for some of the reconfigurations, and better than nothing. Completists will also want to own a copy of "The New York Apartment Houses of Rosario Candela and James Carpenter", by Andrew Alpern (with essays by David Netto). A bit of time reading the plans of even Candela's more modest buildings will highlight just how far the art of residential design has fallen.

The elimination of "wasted space" has ruined apartment architecture

Sometimes there is a golden halfway version.