905 West End Avenue

"Those who can, sell. Those who can't sell, sell real estate. And those who can't sell real estate sit around posting on Streeteasy." :o)

Let's be friends, 1313. If you sold that apartment on the eleventh floor for $3.5MM, I won't eat my hat, but I will tip it to you with great respect and deference.

W81, your wonderful sense of humor inspires me to call a truce! Friends it is :).....

isn't the deadline for condo sales up for 905 wea? thought it was the end of feb 2009. have they met their quota?

Two new mid-floor contracts: #72 and #63. Plus a price cut on #34, which brings it back into line with the other low-floor loss-leaders, #44 and #21. That's solid work. Clearly, Samson and Halstead are doing what they have to do to get this plan effective. I'm eager to see the declaration, and the clearing prices.

Heard the conversion fell through.. is it true?

....

...see above

.

all this talk about 905 WEA seems to be a lot of fluff to me...

i live at 310 RSD and i can see 905 WEA from my window. i've "known" 905 WEA and some of the people living in it since 1989. as a rental the insides were always in decent shape, but nothing fancy. aside from what the condo converters have done on the inside, which i haven't seen, so i don't know, the outside look of the building is even duller now that it was 20 years ago.

back in '89, 905 was a building grayed and sooted by time, but still original. to my mind, things went only downhill about 10 years ago when 905 was managed by Kreisel. first, they completely destroyed and removed the beautiful original cornice, replacing it with the plain wall you see today. then they replaced the corners of the building up and down its entire length with new bricks. being neither an architect nor a building engineer, i will assume that such work was absolutely necessary for the future integrity of the building, but Kreisel left 905 an aesthetic mess! the original brickwork was never cleaned or sandblasted, so that left a very unattractive mismatch of colors between the old and new bricks.

905 looks like it's now been cleaned with the condo conversion attempt, but the bricks still don't match. if i wanted to pay millions of dollars for an apartment i'd at least still want to have an attractive, or at least interesting, building to look at from the outside. unfortunately, 905 WEA still is neither. i don't wish so much that the conversion will fail as much as that these hyped-up self-indulgent real estate brokerage companies, converters, sponsors, etc. (like corcoran, elliman, etc....), be brought back down to earth. whatever happens i just hope my friends who've rented there for 40 years don't get screwed...

skyr: Great color. Thanks for sharing. The exterior of 905 WEA is indeed totally nondescript. It's helpful to know how it got that way.

UWS1313: What's up? I expected to see a filing in ACRIS by now.

.

Heard that one of the potential buyers is now looking to rent elsewhere because the conversion was not consummated. If anyone knows the deal, I'd love to know.

Does the recent listing for rental of two apartments at this building imply anything about the conversion process?

and what about the fact that two units went "off market" in the past day or so? Sounds like there may be some instability in the conversion process?

W81 - the bldg has been declared effective. no closings yet. more open house traffic which is a big +. the lobby is 95% done.

slow progress, but getting there.

Mazel tov!

I noticed that this building has raised their bottom-end price in their print ads. Does anyone know anything about this? Is this some cynical marketing strategy or are they actually selling units?

When will all those in contract apartments close?

Here's the link to the Condo Declaration. It only works if ACRIS is already open.
http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/ViewImage?Doc_ID=2009070200719001

The list of nine buyers, with their downpayment amounts, appears on page 113. Inferring prices from downpayments is tricky, because the sponsor clearly accepted less than 10% down on some contracts.

i meant to post this about a month or so ago; actually, i'll admit that it's just a rant, but i do wonder if anyone else feels this way...
i walked past 905 around mid-June(?) or so, and noticed their new black awning. who had the bright idea of putting up such a cheap-a** (pardon my french) looking awning for such a wanna-be building? for anyone who hasn't seen it, the awning is black, has a rounded front, and extends out only to about halfway from building to curb. it's actually a nice awning as it is, but completely misplaced. 905 is already, unfortunately, nothing to look at; couldn't they have bothered at least to install a dark greenish, full length awning to complement its neighbors' awnings and respect the general continuity of West End Avenue??? sorry, but 905's new awning sticks out like a sore thumb...

The first closing is in: Apartment 72 (renovated seven, 2165 sq.ft.), priced at $2.975MM, closed for $1.740MM. That's $804 per stated square foot, versus the ask of $1374.

Obviously, the circumstances of the conversion wieghed heavily on pricing. Nonetheless, this seems like a profound comp for the UUWS in general, and West End in particular.

There is at least one apartment in this building with bedbugs. Is the sponsor disclosing this to potential buyers?

Three recorded closings so far:
-------- Recorded Sales -------- | ---------- Previous Listings ----------
08/10/2009 #122 $1,884,380 -40.0% | $3,140,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²
07/30/2009 # 93 $1,748,780 -21.8% | $2,235,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/23/2009 # 72 $1,740,000 -41.5% | $2,975,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²

The amendments are interesting. West81st, do you figure the one tenant-purchaser was a renegade from the TA? Or sponsor-connected?

NWT: "Renegade" might be a little strong, unless the TA pushed a firm no-buy pledge. My guess would be that the one tenant-in-residence who chose to buy was either free-market or vulnerable to luxury decontrol. That's pure conjecture, based on what happened in our building.

On another thread, nyc10023 asked whether Samson was likely to keep offering similar deals now that the plan is effective. My guess is that they'll try to do a little better with the deadline pressure off, but they might fall back to similar discounts to move the remaining product.

Judging by the contract date, might've been before the TA was formed. Doesn't matter, but the dynamics of these things are fascinating. When my building converted, the TA had some trouble keeping everybody in line -- only natural of course. In the end the TA did a great negotiating job, and looks as if the one here did pretty well, too.

I take that back. The concessions on the super's unit, etc., might've had nothing to do with the TA.

At the 1.8m price point for a "renovated" 7, it's interesting that someone would shoulder the risk (if indeed, arm's length buyer) for living in a likely-to-fail conversion. The market has spoken?

Tough to figure. I was half rooting for my conversion to fail, but then I was in on a good interim lease in a different environment.

Yeah. If they were willing to accept 900k for a 7, I bet there'd be takers who'd risk the failure of the conversion. The question is (as always), what the maximum someone would pay to take that chance.

I was there yesterday and they told me the conversion was done. He was shocked that I knew the closing price of 72 -- thanks W81-- which continues to shock me since there must be many buyers not doing any homework. Hence, the recent sales. Broker told me that 72 was not renovated. But the difference between reno and non reno was about $250 thou. He also said there is only one 2 bedroom left.

That said, they are dark and dank. The hallways are a mess and a tenant in the elevator went off about how horrible it was to live there. To me, the surprise is that these apts are grossly overpriced and if anything, the discounts only come close to true market value. People must be so besides themselves that they are getting 40% off, that they buy. I will bet that if there is a resale in the next three years, it will be at a lower price. It is rather like the subway announcing $3 price hikes and facing outrage, they when they only raise it $1.5, everyone is happy. So, 905 is not for me but love the neighborhood.

NWT - Just to confirm the earlier conjecture: your "renegade" tenant-buyer in Apartment 12-4 isn't regulated. He's designated as "FM" - see pages 94 and 113 of the Declaration. That means he didn't have much leverage, so the price of $1.07MM or $1.1MM (depending on whether he took sponsor financing) is probably a decent deal.

West81st, thanks! That doc's a keeper, going in the folder with the Apthorp stuff for future reference. I'd never seen offering-plan amendments stuck at the end of condo declarations before.

How do I get my hands on the doc?

nyc10023: The Condo Declaration is in ACRIS as Document ID 2009070200719001

I am pretty sure that #72 was not renovated. My friend (who's been low-balling multiple large apartment listings for fun), forwarded me an email exchange with the Halstead broker in which she said that the unit was in original condition, which makes the sale price a bit less meaningful.

Direct quote from the listing for #72:
"THIS APARTMENT HAS BEEN RENOVATED AND THE PRICE REFLECTS A FULLY FINISHED AND BEAUTIFUL APARTMENT!"

So either Halstead lied in the listing, or they're lying now to make the discount seem less dramatic. The first scenario is distasteful but basically harmless, since nobody would buy the apartment without seeing it and the price would include the eventual renovations anyway. The second scenario would involve misrepresentation of comparable sales bordering on fraud.

Maybe Aptometrist's friend should ask to see #72, just to get an idea of what "original condition" looks like.

THIS APARTMENT HAS BEEN RENOVATED AND THE PRICE REFLECTS A FULLY FINISHED AND BEAUTIFUL APARTMENT!"

I specifically pointed out that the listing said that it had been renovated. Broker assured me that it had not been. So yes, if in fact it had been renovated, that would be a little dicey, legally and ethically speaking. He said that 72 was sold at that price because of timing because they needed the sale to make the conversion. However, I replied, it established a viable comp and the bank won't care about the circumstances and neither will I. I would never pay above that price point.

I saw the non reno in #111 and that had old appliances, no ac. sanded floors and the walls were not skim coated. but there were new tubs in the bathrooms so some work had been done.

apt23: Thanks for the additional color. The most charitable interpretation is that Halstead was just sloppy with the listings. Rather than craft text that fit the condition of each apartment, then update it as renovations progressed, they may have slapped the same "THIS APARTMENT HAS BEEN RENOVATED..." boilerplate on nearly every listing. That sloth is surprising, for at least two reasons. First, these were supposedly $3MM apartments; tailoring a dozen listings and keeping them updated isn't a terribly onerous task, considering the money involved. Second, the same Halstead team was much more diligent at 220 West 93rd: there, each listing reflected the unit's condition, and included exact terms for a sponsor renovation package. Even at 905 WEA, the listing for #32 draws the distinction: "This particular apartment HAS been renovated, we are offering some in AS IS condition with the option to purchase the upgrade package."

If pressed on this point, Halstead would probably respond along the following lines: "What's the big deal? The prices included some renovations that hadn't been finished yet. So what? Besides, read the text carefully: 'THIS APARTMENT HAS BEEN RENOVATED AND THE PRICE REFLECTS A FULLY FINISHED AND BEAUTIFUL APARTMENT!' Those are two separate statements. All of the apartments had been renovated TO SOME DEGREE, at some time. (See the pictures in the listings for #111 and #81, for example.) The point of that statement was that all the apartments, regardless of current condition, would be delivered fully finished." It's a lame, 2007-vintage response, but I think it's much more likely than "Hmmm, you're absolutely right - we messed up the listings" or "Yeah, the listing is right, and #72 was fully renovated, but we have to explain that low closing price SOMEHOW."

In any case, apt23 hit the key point: these 40%-off sales are now indelible comps.

How is #32 supposed to appraise anywhere near $2.675MM after #72 sold for $1.74MM? To make matters worse, when the appraiser does her homework in adjusting the comps for condition, she will find a listing that describes #72 as already renovated prior to the sale. Then again, maybe the appraisal issue is moot, since banks aren't exactly lining up to lend in buildings where only 15% of the units are sold.

Financing aside, why would a buyer pay more now than she would have six months ago? The market, as 10023 aptly said, has spoken. Maybe condition accounts for some incremental value, and maybe the condo declaration adds a bit of clarity to a risky situation. But even if you give 905 the benefit of the doubt and say the pre-declaration sales were exceptional, there's a practical limit to how exceptional they can be. Samson may now be less motivated to SELL apartments at 40% off list, but it's not clear why anyone would be motivated to BUY them if the deep discounts are discontinued.

BTW, what ever happened to UWS1313? I feel like Hannity without Colmes...

I didn't want to go into it in my first post, but now that we're discussing the broker team, I felt it necessary to add that the broker's email to my friend was curt to the point of being rude. One would think that someone whose job is to market a property primarily in writing would do better than that. And I totally agree with West81st's point -- if you're trying to sell $3m apartments, please take the time to describe each one in some detail! It's not that hard, unless you're trying to hide something...

I feel that my biggest problem in this market is uneducated buyers. Each broker with whom I have discussed prior sales price, comps,etc has been shocked that I had the info and asked me where I got it. One assumed I had bribed the doorman. Clearly many buyers are not making proper use of the internet. My husband and I were looking seriously at 32 in 905, even though I was unhappy with the lack of light. We like the neighborhood and I had the 72 price firmly planted in my head. Then the broker told me they had interest in 32 and that that was not just "broker talk". Immediately, the bubble burst. I am not going to compete with an uninformed buyer. Case closed for us on 905.

Based on the article about bedbugs and non disclosure in the Times today, potential buyers should be sure that their attorney press on the bedbug issue in the building. There is an active infestation next to one empty apartment.

Four closings in the books:
-------- Recorded Sales -------- | ---------- Previous Listings ----------
08/10/2009 #122 $1,884,380 -40.0% | $3,140,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²
08/06/2009 # 63 $1,619,000 -14.8% | $1,900,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/30/2009 # 93 $1,748,780 -21.8% | $2,235,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/23/2009 # 72 $1,740,000 -41.5% | $2,975,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²

#63 was reduced to $1.619MM a few days after closing for... $1.619MM.

Interesting how close the gross pricing is on the units regardless of SF.

Are you kidding me. I don't know that 122 was available in the conversion. Could it have been an insider? If any case, how could it go for more than #72 within 2 weeks. Just the 5 floors? We need more transparency in sales. I think we should get the govt/acris to list sales instantaneously. If this was the stock market and you didn't have an open forum to know exactly what the guy paid for the same stock 2 seconds before your purchase, the govt would be all over it. This is outrageous. We need transparent markets.

No, not an insider. 122 listed as Vacant in the offering plan. I guess the buyer valued the five floors more than the sponsor did when divvying up the PCI. (It jumps .02% from floor to floor.) Or 122 could've been in better shape than 72. Apartments are like that; they're not the same the way oil or stock is.

30yrs, yeah, that is odd. The 2-line seems vastly better than the 3-line, in terms of layout, useful rooms, baths, etc., but not reflected in price.

The 2-line is now reported as a 4/3, I guess because the maid's room is big enough to count as a bedroom, while it was 3/3 in the offering plan.

The building to the rear on 104th St. is ten floors high. Elevation is most important in the west-facing "4" line, which is a cave on low floors. In the east-facing "2" line, clearing that building probably enhances the rear corner bedroom. In the south-facing "1" and "3" lines, the main effect is light, because 895 WEA to the south is about the same height as 905.

What's the school story up there? I'm trying to account for the lack of a premium going from six to seven rooms, and thinking maybe that's one reason. But then I'm projecting too much from a mere four sales in one building....

NWT: There are excellent private schools and at least one well-regarded, selective-admission public middle school. The zoned elementary option does not seem to be a selling point.

UPS17 Do you know for certain there are bedbugs in the building..... We are looking at an apartment in 905 and that scares me

205: Be sure and check the closing prices. Also, I would hang out in the elevator for a while. Those tenants -- you're prospective neighbors -- seem very unhappy. But I bet they would know about whether there is a bed bug issue.

"Also, I would hang out in the elevator for a while."

We may be crossing the fine line between due diligence and criminal trespass.

west 81 -- not to go too far afield on this blog but i once waited outside a building i was considering buying in. I asked tenants about the "insider" take on a current lawsuit the building was involved in. I got info that allowed me to make the decision to buy in the building that the broker and co op minutes could not shed light on. Never thought it was trespassing. But point taken, take heed 205.

Sidewalk interviews are valid intelligence-gathering. Loitering in elevators is Brian de Palma territory.

apt23: Don't worry, though - we all know you meant it figuratively.

well then, you don't know how much i love (early) brian de palma. btw, are you ever a buyer's broker?

apt23 - Yes, that's the focus of my work with Keith Burkhardt.

sometimes you can get some good info at the closest good playground. maybe not, but you'll meet some of the local residents at the least. of course if you don't have a kid you might want to borrow one. or not, just wave vaguely when someone asks which of the little nippers is yours.

So is there a name to ask for at Keith Burkhardt or are you really anonymous here?

My cover was blown months ago. E-mail is good. Just put my first name (Michael) in front of @theburkhardtgroup.com. Thanks for your interest.

One apartment continues to have a persistent problem with bedbugs. The brokers may not have all the information about that.

UPS17 how do I find out which apartment?

Sale number five has been recorded: #104 for $1.53MM.
-------- Recorded Sales -------- | ---------- Previous Listings ----------
08/28/2009 #104 $1,530,000 -18.0% | $1,865,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,636 ft²
08/10/2009 #122 $1,884,380 -40.0% | $3,140,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²
08/06/2009 # 63 $1,619,000 -14.8% | $1,900,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/30/2009 # 93 $1,748,780 -21.8% | $2,235,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/23/2009 # 72 $1,740,000 -41.5% | $2,975,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²

A bit more color on those sales: The buyers of #104 and #93 took Samson's 90% financing deal. The seller financing on #122 seems to be even higher: almost 93%. That might help to explain the higher price discussed above, since #72 appears to have been a cash transaction. #63 took 43% seller financing.

A 90% LTV, 7 year loan for a home is a huge risk, particularly in a largely unsold building. If these buyers don't need a loan, only potential problem is Samson's ability to meet it's maintenance commitments. I guess the buyers that need the money are willing to give the keys back to Samson if they don't repay or refinance in seven years. It's my opinion that seller financing like this exposes every buyer to a greater risk of distressed sellers in their building down the road. Why go there?

Does anyone know if that financing deal was recourse or non-recourse? 90-93% non-recourse is actually a fantastic deal. I have not done the formal math yet, but it should make the purchase basically an below market 7-year rental with a free call option on the equity. If it is a recourse deal, then the buyers are suckers, even at these prices.

The sixth closing is #144 for $1.55MM 19.5% below ask, with 90% sponsor financing.
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/closing/921160
I never saw #144. If elevation helps the "4" line as much as I think it does, this is a pretty nice apartment for the price.

west81st,

do you prefer the 1 line or the 2 line in this building? a friend of mine lives in the building next door and is thinking of taking a look at the 7 lines.

HR: "1", and it isn't close. I like corner apartments because of the extra exposure and variety of light plus ventilation for days when A/C isn't absolutely necessary). Neither floorplan is perfect. On low floors, the bedrooms of the "1" line could be noisy, and the public spaces don't have much of a view. The master is narrow and has little closet space. But I think it's a clear choice over the "2", as you would expect the featured eight-room corner line from that period to be. That said, the "2" might suit a family that prefers quiet bedrooms.

Funny note about the exposures in the "1" line: I'm pretty sure the floorplan on the 905 WEA has West End Avenue on the wrong side of the building. See http://www.905wea.com/images/floorplans/no1.gif. The little bird's-eye-view diagram of the full floor appears to be correct.

you're right. one point: i think it's a 7, not an 8 (unless i'm missing a room). i wonder what they would let the 1 line units go for...

another question: do you know 789 West End. 12A and B are both for sale right now--12A just went on at a pretty eye-catching price.

HR: You stole my thunder again. I was going to try Photoshopping a jigsaw of the two floorplans as a combination to send to a client. Not sure it works; you might have to buy a piece of public hallway or something. Also, if I remember that building correctly, the lettering is unconventional in that the "A" line isn't a feature apartment. Still, the prices do suggest that Wohlfarth is trying to create some buzz there.

WRT to the "1" line at 905 WEA, it's listed as an eight, which suggests that there used to be an extra maid's room. Not sure whether that's right. To my eye, the windows say otherwise.

W81: I just emailed you a full-floor plan of 789WE in pdf format.

NWT: we should meet up and I'll scan the floorplans you have.

west81st: the listings don't mention a combination possibility. does wohlfarth say it can be done?

Too bad I can't post a picture of the full floor plan on SE. The apts are combinable but the situation of the passenger elevator in between the 2 foyers means that the maid's room of A shares the wall with foyer of B. So you would create a bedroom wing out of the rooms in B, combine maid's room & kitchen of A and make your bedroom passsage through A's kitchen. Not the best layout, IMO. A lot of space for 2m, though.

Happyrenter: do you have an email? I'll email you a copy of the full floor plan as well.

happyrenternyc@gmail.com

thanks

I've sent it.

thanks.

now it makes sense why they don't mention a combination possibility: the elevator sits right between the two apartments so the piece of public hallway that would make the combination rational can't be purchased. too bad.

Got it. Thanks!

Sale number seven to hit ACRIS is #92, and it's an interesting wrinkle in the story.
-------- Recorded Sales -------- | ---------- Previous Listings ----------
08/28/2009 #144 $1,550,000 -19.5% | $1,925,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,636 ft²
08/28/2009 # 92 $1,705,200 .......... |
08/28/2009 #104 $1,530,000 -18.0% | $1,865,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,636 ft²
08/10/2009 #122 $1,884,380 -40.0% | $3,140,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²
08/06/2009 # 63 $1,619,000 -14.8% | $1,900,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/30/2009 # 93 $1,748,780 -21.8% | $2,235,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/23/2009 # 72 $1,740,000 -41.5% | $2,975,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²

The buyers of #92 were tenants-in-residence, which explains why the apartment was never listed. They appear to have paid cash. On the other hand, #92 is denoted in the condo declaration as "FM" (fair market), so this sale doesn't shed much light on the many remaining regulated rentals.

The main significance of this sale is that it's the first closed contract that wasn't part of the push to declare the condo effective. It therefore discredits any claim that the door has closed on deep discounts now that the sponsors can take their time. To the contrary, this sale suggests that the condo declaration has done very little to boost prices at 905 WEA. The low percentage of apartments sold, the scarcity of financing and the general state of the market seem to have capped this building around $800/SF.

Correcting the sale dates for #144 and #92:
-------- Recorded Sales -------- | ---------- Previous Listings ----------
09/18/2009 #144 $1,550,000 -19.5% | $1,925,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,636 ft²
09/15/2009 # 92 $1,705,200 .......... |
08/28/2009 #104 $1,530,000 -18.0% | $1,865,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,636 ft²
08/10/2009 #122 $1,884,380 -40.0% | $3,140,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²
08/06/2009 # 63 $1,619,000 -14.8% | $1,900,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/30/2009 # 93 $1,748,780 -21.8% | $2,235,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/23/2009 # 72 $1,740,000 -41.5% | $2,975,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²

nyc10023, great, if you have an 11x17 scanner. Mine's just 9x12. God knows I'd never get around to it myself. BTW, what's your gmail address? I'd sent 173-175 to plain nyc10023, but that's not it.

The next twist in the 905 WEA story is an attempt to flip #122. It is now listed for sale, asking $2.3MM. The listing agent appears to be a member of the buyer's family. The apartment is described as "currently being renovated". That suggests that #122 was sold as-is, which in turn supports the theory that Samson chopped about 40% off the price of unrenovated apartments, and about 20% off the price of renovated units.

I'm the friend aptometrist mentioned earlier. I don't see the listing for #122 on StreetEasy, did they pull it down or did they list it elsewhere. Kind of heartening to learn there is still lots of "investor" capital out there.

NWT: I can be reached at nyc10023a@yahoo.com. Any floorplans you want to send my way?

The layout is nice, but like other Gaetano Ajello buildings (885 and 895 especially) the Livingroom is small.

"Marketing for the residential condominium conversion of the 13-story apartment building at 905 West End Avenue on the northwest corner at 104th Street began in 2008.

It was one of three similar buildings designed by Gaetano Ajello for the Paterno Brothers in this attractive stretch of the Upper West Side. The other two at 885 and 895 West End Avenue."

If you look at what 7's have traded for in those buildings:
885 4A Sold $1,995,000 $950 06/22/2004
885 12A Sold $2,700,000 $1,125 06/16/2005
895 5B Sold $2,150,000 $1,194 04/18/2007

905 is a Condo, but carrying (cc plus RET seems significantly higher. it will be interesting to see what happens here.

renter88: it's at http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/detail/221-995624/West-End-Avenue-Upper-Westside-New-York-NY-10025. Not on SE that I can find.

nyc1003: you have mail.

renter88 / NWT - Please note: That NY Times ad is NOT the actual listing. That's just an Ardor agent fishing for a buy-side split by advertising the apartment as though it were his exclusive.

For reasons only they know, the seller and her agent (husband, son or brother, perhaps?) have chosen not to list the apartment in venues such as Streeteasy and nytimes.com where they would reach buyers directly. It seems they prefer to deal with brokers, rather than the general public. Out of respect for their preference (and a bit of enlightened self-interest), I won't post the listing agent's contact info here. If anyone wants to explore this one further, please see my e-mail instructions 25-30 posts up this page. And of course, the Burkhardt Group commission rebate offer applies.

Ah-hah. Wondered how that guy and seller were connected, but with Ardor, should've known they weren't.

30yrs, yeah, that's the problem with those narrow side-by-sides. All four walls occupied by french doors, mantle, and window. I was once almost seduced by tall french doors and an oak dining room into a living room so small that I could fit a chair in each corner and maybe a couple of tables. Would've fallen if it'd had those big casement windows that Ajello often used.

Looking at the 2-line plans again, 13'x19' isn't bad. You could have a sofa facing the fireplace and still be able to get into the dining room. I was thinking of the many that run 11' or 12'x16'-ish.

Apt 32 sold for $2.175mm. seems to be the first sale to break the $2mm mark. Does this mean that the days of $800/sq ft for 905 WEA are over?

#32 had an interesting history. It was one of the nine contracts that enabled Samson to declare the condo effective, but that deal never closed. (Whether the original buyers got their $100K deposit back is not public record.) The new buyers paid $1K/sq.ft. That's dramatically higher than the prices paid for #72 and #122 by outsiders, or for #92 by the tenants in residence.

Whether the sale of #32 represents a meaningful bounce depends largely on condition. The simplest explanation of the data series in the "2" line would be that #32 was the first full gut reno to sell, and renovated apartments at 905 WEA command a 20%+ premium over unrenovated apartments. That's pretty plausible.

I would say the glass is half-full no matter which side of the bull-bear debate you're on. Even the grumpiest bear would have to admit that $2.175MM for #32 is the best sale Samson has made at 905 WEA. On the other hand, the original price for that apartment in 2008 was $3.185MM. Selling it at a $1MM+ discount may elicit sighs of relief at Halstead and Samson, but I doubt champagne corks are popping.

The people who bailed on #32 went on to buy this: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/385103-condo-272-west-107th-street-manhattan-valley-new-york

Thanks, NWT. I thought the names looked familiar.

Sale number nine is #113. The price doesn't suggest much of a trend in either direction.
--------- Recorded Sales --------- | --------- Previous Listings ---------
01/29/2010 #113 $1,620,000 -13.6% |↓ $1,875,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
11/20/2009 # 32 $2,175,000 .......... |↓ $2,175,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²
09/18/2009 #144 $1,550,000 -19.5% | $1,925,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,636 ft²
09/15/2009 # 92 $1,705,200 .......... |
08/28/2009 #104 $1,530,000 -18.0% | $1,865,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,636 ft²
08/10/2009 #122 $1,884,380 -40.0% | $3,140,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²
08/06/2009 # 63 $1,619,000 -14.8% | $1,900,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/30/2009 # 93 $1,748,780 -21.8% | $2,235,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/23/2009 # 72 $1,740,000 -41.5% | $2,975,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²

Two more sales in the books, including the first in the very nice "1" line. No mortgage has been recorded for either property. One note regarding a previous transaction: the buyers of #113 were able to obtain financing from a third party.
--------- Recorded Sales --------- | --------- Previous Listings ---------
03/05/2010 # 74 $1,548,136 - 3.5% |↓ $1,605,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,636 ft²
02/10/2010 # 21 $2,436,754 -12.5% |↑ $2,785,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,290 ft²
01/29/2010 #113 $1,620,000 -13.6% |↓ $1,875,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
11/20/2009 # 32 $2,175,000 .......... |↓ $2,175,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²
09/18/2009 #144 $1,550,000 -19.5% | $1,925,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,636 ft²
09/15/2009 # 92 $1,705,200 .......... |
08/28/2009 #104 $1,530,000 -18.0% | $1,865,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,636 ft²
08/10/2009 #122 $1,884,380 -40.0% | $3,140,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²
08/06/2009 # 63 $1,619,000 -14.8% | $1,900,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/30/2009 # 93 $1,748,780 -21.8% | $2,235,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,812 ft²
07/23/2009 # 72 $1,740,000 -41.5% | $2,975,000 Sold 4 beds 3 baths 2,165 ft²

Is the "1" line better than "2" line? Granted, it has no internal windows, but I prefer the "2" layout. Kitchen immediately adjacent to DR and you don't have to go by maid's to go into K.

nyc10023: The separation of the K and DR in the "1" line wouldn't really bother me. It's not that far - comparable to a lot of butler's pantries - and you probably eat quick meals in the little "breakfast area" anyway. Not saying I would pay a big premium for the "1", but I definitely prefer it. I just hope #21 has good bedroom windows; WEA gets pretty busy, although less so on 104th Street.