One Madison Park future?

Is there even a TCO for 52?

My best guess is that this is some sort of insider sale.

Perhaps Slazer need the cash to
settle his lawsuits!

Slazer needs the cash. No doubt about that.

NYT Big Deal reporter says that the $5M sale of the full 52nd floor went to Ian Bruce Eichner http://twitter.com/bigdeal_nyc/status/7999649259

Birds of a feather? Eichner is a developer who most recently let a Las Vegas Casino development go into foreclosure. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/04/state/n111603S73.DTL

OK, it's time for a pricing update. For all of you folks asking "what's the right price", I've put together a lovely little database with statistics on actual sales v. last selling price and vs. the 2007 contract prices that we know about from amendment 15.

Here's some topline:

Units closed? 12
Total LISTING price for those units $63M Averaging $2,850/sf.
Total CLOSING price for those units $39.225 Averaging $1,765/sf
That represents a discount off "List" of about 38%. These are real closings v. real list prices.

How many of the 12 are for over $2,000/sf? Three (32B and 33A and 33B).

That's all fine and good, but everyone knows list prices are bogus (even though that's what's currently up on Prudential Elliman site). So what about those units that went into contract back in 2007? The ones in contract, with deposits?

Well, 8 of the 12 sales were listed as "in contract with deposits" in Amendment 15. On the aggregate, those units also ended up closing for about 40% under listing price (there seems to be a pattern here). But it's interesting to note that at least 4 of those 8 did NOT close at the contract price. In total, these 8 closed for 25% under their "locked in" contract prices.

So patterns suggested by the actual comparables:
- If you want to use listing prices as a guide, chop them by about 40%;
- $2,000/sf is not a floor.
- If you have cash, you can make a great deal.

Oh, and it's still early days. The more recent sales (for larger units and higher floors) seem to actually be trending down.

From the NY post:

Condo backers are seeing stars
By JENNIFER GOULD KEIL

A glamorous Madison Avenue condo tower that generated buzz from early buyers like Susan Sarandon, Naomi Watts and Liev Schrieber, is now under legal fire from both buyers and creditors.

The legal and financing firestorm is a cautionary tale for real estate pros as it marked the first Manhattan effort by developer Ira Shapiro -- one of many real-estate prospectors drawn to the Big Apple in the middle of the last decade by the soaring condo market.

Shapiro financed the project, One Madison Park, at Madison Ave. and 23 Street -- and got Los Angeles talent agency CAA to partner with him -- and started construction just prior to the housing bubble bursting. When it did, sales sagged and the trouble started.

At least eight lawsuits have been filed.

* Edward Lau is suing the developers -- Shapiro and Marc Jacobs -- to get back $1 million in overdue personal loans.

*Harvey and Linda Levine sued the duo -- and their wives -- for $600,000 in overdue loans.

* The original listing broker, Wendy Maitland, of Brown Harris Stevens, is suing Park Madison Associates in Manhattan state court because, she says, the developers borrowed $300,000 -- and promised to repay her within 24 hours, but never did.

* One prospective buyer, Charles Milite, sued the developer for his $600,000 deposit. After his deal was canceled, the unit, 16A, was resold for $5 million, but his money was never returned. Milite even filed a second lawsuit against the law firm holding the deposit.

* Three additional suits were filed last month against the developers, for $3 million each, by would-be condo buyers.

*Finally, businessman Harvey Schiller and his wife, Marcia, filed suit against Shapiro and Jacobs to get back $1.5 million involved in buying a $7.15 million unit in the building, according to The Real Deal.

In an exclusive interview with The Post, Shapiro said: "This is a $300 million development, lawsuits happen. It's just the times we're in."

While Shapiro said he has been in real estate development "up and down the East Coast" for the past 20 years, this is his first big high-rise project in Manhattan. "You will see that my story is about how a developer, in the most difficult time since the Great Depression, was able to take this project to the end," Shapiro said, sounding confident that he will be able to turn the current problems into a successful ending as the Manhattan real-estate market appears to be nearing a bottom.

A new agent, Prudential Douglas Elliman, has been brought aboard and one of its top brokers, Tamir Shamesh, is in charge. He said the firm has brought in $70 million in offers.

Shamesh said there have been two closings since he took over around Thanksgiving. The most recent happened last week, when tech entrepreneur Yigal Lichtman closed on his $10 million unit on the 42nd floor.

"Since we took over, the market has reacted favorably -- we've had a lot of activity, especially for this time of year. There are $14 million in signed contracts, he said.

Has there ever been a more meaningless bragging point than "$70 Million in offers"? I mean, you put a $10M apartment up for sale, and 10 people offer you $5M for it . . . that's $50M in offers! It only matters for the one offer they accept.

But then again, it looks like they are accepting $5M for $10M properties, so maybe . . .

Ira and Bernie Madoff -- suitemates in the big house.

so mktmaker, did you try with a cash offer?

alex, I have not made an offer as of yet (and even at depressed prices in this bldg, while my cash flow could support it, an all-cash offer would be tight -- or tighter than I would like). I've been told that 52 was an anomaly and that we will soon see other full floor closings, on much lower floors, for significantly higher dollars. In truth that would not surprise me. If that does materialize I would be more inclined to pay less attention to 52, rather than focus on it as some sort of meaningful barometer of pricing.

As we have all said before, time will tell here. It appears to me that obtaining a full floor at any kind of distressed deal price (assuming these other closings materialize) will be difficult (though a discounted price, not so difficult). The real 'deals' are probably more likely on the non-full floor layouts.

Yeah, $5M won't buy you a floor. But you also don't have to pay $10M for a floor -- despite the much publicized (yet not showing up in public records yet) sale of the 42nd floor.

But somewhere 'twixt $6M and $7.5M will get you in there, wouldn't you say, mktmaker?

I am pretty skeptical about the as yet unverified 10m 42 purchase. I agree that the range, depending on the floor, should come in at 6-7.5. I think that the top cube is going to break that since they are just so unique. They might fetch 9m a floor (or at least 8m). A more economical move (relatively speaking of course) would be to buy two units below 20 and combine them. Even the low floors have pretty sweat views uptown and if the upper floors fetch huge bucks the old rising boat thing would do real nice for the rest of the bldgs property values, irrespective of height.

I was surprised not to see Ira's name in this article about real estate developers' potential influence on the AG (through contributions). I guess it means he really is out of cash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/nyregion/29donations.html

Any thoughts on $5.6m for 35A?

From today's NY Post
Developers sued for $25M
By JENNIFER GOULD KEIL

The developers of luxury apartment building One Madison Park are the target of another lawsuit -- this time from a branding guru who claims he was never paid for work he did to create the condo's image and now wants $25 million for his trouble.

David Lipman, whose clients include DeBeers, Mercedes-Benz and Burberry, filed the suit in state Supreme Court in Manhattan alleging One Madison Park's developers, Ira Shapiro and Marc Jacobs, promised him two luxury apartments as partial payment for his services, but never intended to follow through with the deal.

He is also suing for unpaid work, fraud, breach of contract and punitive damages.

In the suit, Lipman claims the advice he gave Shapiro and Jacobs helped send units in the building at 22 East 22nd St. skyrocketing as much as 70 percent, but that the duo reneged on a pledge to pay Lipman the equivalent of $7 million by handing him the keys to apartments 15A and 15B.

"This was outrageous fraud," said Judd Burstein, Lipman's lawyer.

In an interview with The Post, Shapiro said the suit "is a complete bunch of lies and misrepresentations."

Though One Madison Park initially generated buzz when Hollywood A-listers bought units in the buildings early on in its development, it has since faced a barrage of lawsuits from buyers, creditors and brokers.

Brown Harris Stevens On Site Marketing and Sales LLC and Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales LLC have also launched a $152,737 lawsuit for unpaid commissions. A source said multimillion dollar lawsuits will follow if "commissions continue to not be paid."

By the way, there is STILL no public record supporting the much publicized sale of 42A for $10m.

I know there are sometimes delays in recording ... But it's been 3 weeks ... And a later deal already shows up.

It smelled like a publicity stunt then, and smells even more now.

I don't really have any doubt that 42A closed (would be a bit over the line and beyond puffery for them to invent a closing, not to mention short lived), it is the sale price I am most interested in seeing. I imagine any day now it will show up.

mktmaker,

Shame on me for intimating that Ira would cross the sacred puffery line! :)

Truth be told, I wouldn't even be surprised if 52 showed up as a $10M sale. But if it does, I think there's a strong likelihood that it would not be the whole story.

What's a likely scenario? Ira says "Buy this apartment at full price so we can get it in the public records, and we'll give you another one free!!".

Heck, that seems to be their modus operandi. More specifically, promise an apartment that had already been promised to several other people!

I mean really, the battle for them right now has to be to avoid creating their own bad comparables. They can't force people to close at the old prices (if the could, they would have by now), and the prices people are willing to buy at are too low -- so they don't want them out there depressing prospective buyers.

Rock, meet hard place.

so the "$10 million sale" is in.....for $6.3! lol

And, did the 52nd floor just close for $5M? Am I reading this right?

It's official. A fire sale is in progress.

Help me out -- did the 52nd floor just close for $5 mm vs. a $10 mm broker puffery claim?

No budda -- They bragged about the 42nd floor. It was in contract for 10.5M long ago. They SAID it closed for $10M (all the press covered it). And the official deed showed a transfer to the same party for $6.31M.

Here's the article from Curbed.

http://curbed.com/archives/2010/02/08/one_madison_park_sale_falls_short_of_10_million_rumors.php

REAL ESTATE SOLD
Monday, February 8, 2010, by Sara
For one shining moment last month, it seemed like there was a bit of good news coming out of One Madison Park: a technology entrepreneur was rumored to have closed on a $10 million 42nd-floor unit, a final price that worked out to $3,021/square foot. Our minds were briefly blown. But at the funhouse that is One Mad Park, nothing is ever as it seems, and the tech entrepreneur's news isn't quite that good. Igal Lichtman, CEO of tech company MagicSolutions, paid only $6.31 million for apartment 42A, according to the deed, which recently hit public record. That works out to a little more than $1,900/square foot. Not quite what the developers were hoping for, in all likelihood, but One Madison Park probably isn't looking any gift horses in the mouth right now.

i am considering purchase of apt 47b. it lists for 6.75 with pde, but maitland had it listed for 5.4m. since 46b sold for 4.24m, i am thinking of offering 4.5m. am i in the right ballpark?

Not really relevant to pricing, but a little background on those units. Both 46B and 47B were shown in Amendment 15 as having been sold (in contract) to unrelated third parties (back in 2007). The contract price for those units was $5.0 and $5.275 respectively.

I don't see the 46B sale on ACRIS -- will be interested to see whether it is the original buyer (who has negotiated a reduced price), or a new buyer entirely.

If you have cash, you can probably get closer to $2,000/sf -- that's $4M or under.

i have cash. so maybe 4.5 offer?

My view is if you can get 47B for 4.5 you should grab it. I see that a huge 12 million apt just closed at 15 mad sq. north, which I find a far inferior bldg (comes to about 2,000 psf), so if you can get that price here w/ a view from 47 you will be pretty thrilled in a year or two.

First of all, if you have $4.5, add a little to your pot and go for a full floor. It's a much better deal than $4.5M for a 3BR.

And while mktmaker is probably right -- that 1 Mad WILL be a better building -- today it simply is not.

It's an unfinished building with a lot of risks, no plan for completion, unstable financing and ownership operating under a cloud. It's a half finished project, with no movement on an actual front door or second tower (do look forward to years of construction noise out your window).

That's what you're buying right now -- the possibility of a great building. I'll even grant a good possibility -- but for that I'd want a pretty serious discount.

I think you make good pts flatirony. Allow me to amend my comment and perhaps get your reaction. The news the past month or so has been about as horrific as any development can have (it was enough to scare me away from the bldg, regardless of possibly taking advantage of the distress to get a discount). Nobody seems to know what is going on. How would you feel about this project IF the developer/lender, whoever has clout, came out with some kind of statement that all funding is in place, the tower is going to get finished asap and all ancillary issues are resolved (apart from lawsuits seeking money from Slazer, couldn't care less about that). In effect, telling the buying public that going fwd the only press will be about closings and the bldg is fully capitalized to completion (of both towers). Would that give you confidence to buy? So long as people with contracts to buy units are getting what they bargained for (and monetary lawsuits against the developer, so long as construction is not affected, is not a huge concern (I don't think)) then wouldn't the cloud over this project go away?

At the end of the day, my only real fear of this project is that it is not finished or that more sleazy info comes to light.

if this building has so many possible faults, what other comparable hirise should i be looking to purchase an apt.?

That is the rub ronbo. If you get past the faults (financing issues to get the thing built) there isn't a comparable at the price point you are apparently willing to offer. It is the warts on this project that are lowering the prices, the uncertainty and "taint" of some of the sleaze being reported that appears to be going on. Taken purely on its merits (location, amentities, views, finishes), the floors above 30 (certainly the floors above 40!) would likely be trading above 2,500 psf. So, are you looking to compare to other properties trading above 2,500 psf or properties trading around 2,000 psf, that's the question.

One Madison is a very tough bldg to put a value on, until the uncertainty washes away (at which point prices will go up significantly I think).

46b is out of sight. not under maitland in contract. streeteasy lists it as temporarily unavailable. anyone know what's the deal? a contract was signed for 4.25 about a week to 10 days ago.

now i am told (by a broker-svp) that 46b was not maitland's exclusive listing and in fact she lost the listing when her firm lost exclusives to 1MP. the apt is in contract and i think it is via a corcoran broker and i am told again the 5.5 listing price is closing at 4.25. a fishy building. i'm out!

I saw and liked 47B, but the problem I have with the building (besides all the uncertainty) is the layouts. I just don't find it practical (at all) for anyone looking to make this their primary residence. The three things that jump out at me are (1) the lack of a kitchen (even though I hate to cook and rarely do, it just seems like a $4MM place would have more than a small wall of kitchen!), (2) the big pillar in the living area/"third" bedroom (sliding door bedroom) and (3) lack of closets. I think that at 2K per square foot, units in this place are a decent value because I agree with others that the value will likely go up once building is completed, and I had been dying to make this place my home due to all the great aspects of the building, but upon seeing it I just can't imagine myself living with such a poor layout. Maybe if this was my second or third residence and I'd just be visiting here, but not for full time residence.

That said, I may be in the minority because when I saw the place, the only "3 bedroom" B-line units still available were on 47 and a low 20s floor, so they clearly have sold decently so far. I didn't like the low 20s floor because it apparently doesn't clear the soon-to-come tower on 22nd, so the master bedroom view would become slightly obstructed.

I definitely agree that the full-floor units are a different story - MUCH more liveable, and dare I say good.

Like Ronbo - any comparable hirises in this area that anyone would recommend? I actually liked 15 Madison Square North but prefer new construction.

i would wait for a sale on high floor of the chelsea stratus. price is right and views are incredible. plus layouts above 30 are first rate.

Mochi Good luck, one day this will be a great bldg, and a good investment. You have to wait it out for 1-2 years. but if you have a nice temp lobby, and a great apt, I feel it's worth the wait. There really isn't anything like it out there. not familar with smaller units, but the full floors are great and very livable.

how about the finances, the lawsuits, unfinished lobby working at a snail's pace, noise if new building is constructed...shady operation...this place is a mess.

stratus is gonna get blocked by that extell hotel
http://curbed.com/archives/2010/02/10/extells_cheltel_still_on.php

Did you really just compare this bldg to the stratus in the flower district off of dingy 6th avenue? That might be even more of a damning statement about this project than the financial shape and shadyness of the bldg.

LOL mktmaker! I agree. Things are rough at 1 mad . . . but never "stratus" rough.

The shame here is that the cloud of uncertainty is what's holding down values.

This may be way too buddhist for a desperate real estate developer and a very rational bank . . . but I truly believe if they just stopped trying to fight with all of the old buyers (who have plenty of money and time to fight an increasingly weakened developer) and started sales from scratch (not even making folks close until they had more than 50% in contract), the place would sell out in a few months -- and at prices higher than they are getting now. I know that's crazy . . . but a clean slate would do this thing a world of good.

It's fundamentally a good project that's dying in the hands of incompetent developers. The irony is that by hanging on so tightly, they could end up in bankruptcy or foreclosure . . . and then the slate will be wiped clean anyway.

"stratus rough" should be instantly added to the streeteasy lexicon. love it

have you seen these units. obviously developer faced financial problems and cut back on frills like kitchen space-island-most units have a wall of cabinets--might as well be a mobile home and for 4, 5 and 6 million dollars. give me a break. stratus is much better buy. just look out 23rd street and see the beauty--oh, that's right; there is none. for all these reasons these apartments are not flying off the shelf. and more....

Ronbo, you are free to have your opinion and I think most on this board have pointed out plenty of flaws in this bldg (though personally i do not think that a lack of frills is one of them, the flaws are financial and the always undefined but equally valid "sleeze factor"). Having said that, why we are trying to mention the stratus in the same breath as this bldg or even go so far as to suggest it represents a better buy is beyond me. Is it a comparable bldg or not? Clearly not. Now, if we want to make an economic argument that paying less money at the stratus gives more bang for the buck, fine, however, i HIGHLY doubt that the person looking at one madison is the same buyer in the mkt for stratus. Perhaps you want to go take a look at the Tempo on first if you are looking for lesser neighborhoods and lesser bldgs to compare.

jasonkyle - Let's also add "loft25 rough" to Streeteasy lexicon.

Now, comparing apples to oranges, OMP is certainly an aesthetically "better" product than Stratus, since it overlooks a park and was designed for a much fancier target buyer. But if "better" to you means more successful, then Stratus kills OMP because it was launched properly, well-timed and completed and closed as scheduled. From where I sit, OMP is striking and desirable - albeit a skyline rapist, but honestly Stratus would be a comfortable investment right about now...

"albeit a skyline rapist"

LMAO. I see this dark obelisk every night from my window, and keep waiting for the message across my screen, " All these apartments are yours except OnemadisonparkA. Attempt no purchasing there. Use them together. Use them in peace."

Stratus was better handled and more successful as a business, but as mktmaker says, it's a different class of building. A big part of the problem is that OMP does not have it's proper entrance and lobby (which will be on 22nd -- a huge improvement), doesn't have it's amenities (the spectacular pool/spa/wine room) or the theater. When (or if?) this is ever completed, it will communicate a bit more clearly that this is a different class of building.

Not to mention the fact that over 1/2 of the units are full floors with their own private elevator entry -- and decent layouts. None of those ugly long shared hallways where one might run into the hoi polloi.

I echo the criticisms of the 1/2 floor units -- but remember, these are intended to be just $3-$5M pied a terre's that will be used infrequently by people with way too much money. And Charlie Trotter's will have room service, I'm sure! :)

Ronbo, unfortunately the kitchens in the less-than-full-floor units were always designed that way (there was not a cutback). That said, I think there might have been one change that does make the design even less workable. Originally, these units had wooden panels that covered the kitchen in a wall of wood when it wasn't used (truly hiding in). These panels could be folded into the wall on each side of the kitchen when you needed to use it. I believe these panels were removed from the final design. Do you remember seeing them?

Still, they are galley kitchens. A special feature of the tenements on the UES back in the day.

I appreciate reading this blog. From what i know, all of your comments appear to be spot on and therefore that is why i am reaching out. I love this building. I need a second apt. Nothing to big. Really like the true 2 bedrooms. 1 bedroom is way too small. What is the likelihood of me getting in this building for 2 million or under 20th floor and up. Also, are they even selling apts...cant seem to get anyone to return calls. Finally, what building is going up on 22nd street? I heard that the lobby is done and they may stick with 23rd street entrance.

Looking,

I assume by "true 2 bedroom" you are talking about the 1,560 sf B units.

At $2M, that would be less than $1,300 sf. No matter what problems this building has, that sounds very low. Even for cash. Even for a desperate developer. And if you're not paying cash, forget about it. A wild minimum would be $1,500 sf. And if the unit DOES go for that little, it's probably an indication of even more serious problems.

It sounds like you haven't had a chance to visit the units. You should know that they do not feel like "true 2 bedrooms". If you close the wall to make the second bedroom, you are left with a room that is 13' wide, and that has a kitchen counter as a wall. It's practically unworkable. It feels more like a 1 Bedroom with a wonky layout.

Regarding the lobby, if the 23rd street is the permanent lobby, that's a pretty huge change. It would mean the mysterious 22nd street tower is not being built (which is a distinct possibility), and that the Charlie Trotter restaurant would not be included (it's designed to take the space where the lobby is right now).

Keep us informed about your interactions with the real estate agents -- if you do get through for a visit, we can give you a list of 100 questions to ask them that are guaranteed to make them squirm!

Looking,

I think you have a decent chance of getting a lower floor unit for around $2 million. In terms of "20th floor and up" though, I have looked at a number of units there and I'm not sure that there is much of a difference between say 14th floor and 21st floor on either the "a" or "b" line. As an example, 10a and 11a closed for $2 million (1,500 sq/ft) and that is even before many of the incremental building problems have resurfaced. Also, take a look at 52a, that also closed at 1,500 sq/ft. I'm surprised that there isn't more discussion about that particular closing on this board. I was told by the broker there to put in a bid for 14B "in mid 2's" as a starting point. I got a sense that there is more flexibility there...

flatirony, i would like those 100 questions. i do have a broker and am looking into either 1MP if i believe it can survive its financial turmoil or sky house--a lesser building--but with great views from floor 54 55 for much less money.

the 1MP staff is relocating to another location so that may be why you can't get them. sounds like a retreat?

nothing about this building is stable yet. it is a pity cause it has an iconic facade.

? has anyone moved into 1MP. i know that about 13 closings are on record, but dont know if the building has its tco, etc...

Alex,

Those low floors are a substantially different experience, and you can get a deal there. I've been on the 12 floor, and it's positively claustrophobic. You need to clear your neighbors to make a glass box a good experience. Frankly, $1,500 sf for those units doesn't even feel like a good deal at this point.

Re: 52A was a cash deal for a desperate developer. Cash is king and will get you a good price on any floor. Take a look on ACRIS at the actual closings, and you'll see almost none of them involve mortgages. I've heard that there are other full floor sales for the $5M to $6M range -- again, 40% off the "list" prices. 40% off is looking like the magic number/rule of thumb for this building at the moment. Try it, it works.

ronbo,

You can check the TCO status online. Last time I checked (which was a while ago), they had one all the way up to around 52. There are apartments occupied, though I don't think many (any) are primary residences.

flatirony, Thank you for your feedback...when I said a true 2 bedroom I meant the the 1328 sq ft A line....still no shot? And is there any available...should I just get a broker to deal with this for me?

lookingflat, I was actually going to say that the only 2 bdr that made sense close to you price pt was a low A line, however, thought better of it since you said the 1 bdr was way too small. The 1328 A line is probably the most efficient use of space in the bldg but the L/R and D/R is the same as the 1 bdr's, just another bdr (though the master in this layout has a great view from any height as it is unobstructed up Madision and over the park. If there is a very low A line unit you might be able to pick it up for close to 2M. Over 20 would probably get to the 2.4 to 2.6 range. Problem with the lower floors is not the L/R or master view, it is the 2nd bedroom.

By the way, a lot is being said here about price psf. At OMP, square footage is measured to the building perimeter and, at least in the case of the full floor units, the 3,300 sq. ft. floor plate includes about 650 feet for the fire stair, elevators and elevator lobby. The apartment's interior square footage is closer to 2,650 so effective prices paid psf are higher. On two-unit floors, the total of the two units is about 300 sq. ft. less than the full-floors so it would seem that some portion of the interior common area is included and some portion excluded for those units.

The full-floor apartments of 3310 ft² and 2723 ft² (those with terraces) do include everything on the floor.

The half-floor apartments total 2888 ft², with the remaining 422 ft² being common elements.

Being so tall and narrow, the building requires very thick concrete shear walls, so a greater proportion of each unit's ft² goes to structure than an in a lower-rise building.

great facade but layouts are less than great. for the only truly iconic building in the city, try richard meier's 165 charles street; there is an apt for sale with 2300 sq. ft. i have been in the building, and it is most livable down a cobblestone street w great city and river views.

Lookingflat --

I echo mktmaker's sentiment on the small units -- but you really should get in to look at them. The LR/DR is extraordinarily small. And you need to be in the 30's to clear one of the ugliest buildings in manhattan (5 East 22). It may be efficient, but it's an odd layout.

Tell46 --

While what you say is accurate, it's kind of irrelevant. The only purpose for square footage prices is to help develop comparabiles -- and we all know that those are very loose guides at best. The simple truth is that you won't find a listing out there that shows accurate internal square footage. The square footage for everything is overstated -- making the square footage prices understated. So, sure, you can compute a square footage price for OMP based on actual space -- but you'd have to adjust all of your comparables to make that number useful.

for a comparable:look into richard meier's 165 charles street. that is incomparable a building.

speaking of Architectural beauties, what about Jean Nouvel's 100 Eleventh Avenue?

Ronbo, for yucks, look at the Vanity Fair piece on Meier's towers.

Flatirony, except for some full-floor apartments, most comps won't have the same pct of common space (elevators, stairs, etc.) allocated to the apartment...some exclude such space altogether. While your point is right that you need to take care when making such comparisons, I disagree that it's irrelevant. The decision any buyer of OMP needs to make today is whether the price they are paying represents enough of a "bargain" for all the uncertainty relative to where the units would otherwise sell in today's market. No one in his right mind should pay 15CPW prices today for a development with OMP's problems, notwithstanding arguably comparable construction quality and desirable location. The only way to make any kind of judgment about what someone "should" be paying today for OMP (and admittedly the building's uniqueness makes it difficult in any event) is to look at comps to see what OMP "could be worth" and then adjust from there.

Tell46. I take it back. Irrelevant was too strong. I just meant that $/Internal square feet wasn't necessarily more relevant than the bastardized square footage info out there. Any analysis should get as many facts about the comparables as possible . . . and everything else you said!

165 charles street is art; omp is popart. big difference.

btw tell 46 that vanity fair article is from 2004 and deals with his first two towers which every student of architecture knows had problems. not so with 165 charles. it is a perfect condo w grace and is a nyc icon know round the world. do your homework.

long term, it should be pretty cool, but right now, the location is marginal given the price. Thats a block of crap. And there is still a homeless problem around the park. In this economy, much of that isn't going to be fixed anytime soon.

"ronbo
report abuse ? has anyone moved into 1MP. i know that about 13 closings are on record, but dont know if the building has its tco, etc..."

Definitely not any upper floors (25 and higher). Only light at night from the upper floors looks like sporatic construction drop lights and not normal apartment lighting.

From the NY Post:

One Madison Park's dire straits

By JENNIFER GOULD KEIL

Last Updated: 8:33 AM, February 19, 2010

Posted: 12:44 AM, February 19, 2010

The developer of one of Manhattan's glitziest and most controversial residential developments is scrambling to keep his project out of the hands of lenders.

Developer Ira Shapiro said he's in talks with iStar Financial, which he said now holds a $114-million mortgage on One Madison Park, the $300-million, glass condo project that had attracted Hollywood stars before financing woes hit.

"There are issues," he said. "We are hoping to resolve them."

The lender, iStar, did not return calls by press time.


PRINT EMAIL SHARE
Yahoo! Buzz
Digg
Reddit
Fark It
Newsvine
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Facebook
RSS The developer of one of Manhattan's glitziest and most controversial residential developments is scrambling to keep his project out of the hands of lenders.

Developer Ira Shapiro said he's in talks with iStar Financial, which he said now holds a $114-million mortgage on One Madison Park, the $300-million, glass condo project that had attracted Hollywood stars before financing woes hit.

"There are issues," he said. "We are hoping to resolve them."

The lender, iStar, did not return calls by press time.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/one_mad_dire_straits_fj1YBRULtSTZkPsAsKxpcO#ixzz0fzf1qVaA

Too many partners on the project end of the development with varying agendas now.
When all said and done, this will be Istar's $300 million dollar building for $114 million.

this is not a time to buy; scares me to death. lender will try to make a buck=cutbacks to GOD knows what. this building is becoming a white elephant. very sad.

I agree ronbo.

I can't see touching this development with a ten foot pole until all of the uncertainty is cleared up. I'd even go further to suggest that if in fact the bank takes over they might as well knock a good 500 psf off of any current mkt prices for this bldg, i'd have no confidence in the quality of the project that would follow. You would think that with all the money at stake, the number of units left to close etc., that the lender/developer and whoever else has an interest would lock themselves in a room and figure something out. This is like watching someone eat their young, by the time they figure out what they are doing here they will have crushed the prices they can get for this property. Only winners will be the lawyers . . .

"You would think that with all the money at stake, the number of units left to close etc., that the lender/developer and whoever else has an interest would lock themselves in a room and figure something out."

Too many chefs, the developer end is a consortium of investors with a variety of needs and problems.

what a marketing mess. first buyers were told building was sold out. so noone bit. then maitland's tricks and now shemesh--considered one of the most arrogant sob's in the business. glad i didn't get involved.

Mktmaker what do you think is going to happen to contract holders? Get there money back and then try to renegoiate? i think there is a chance to get a good new deal. The main question is will the bank maintain the high level of service and ammenities?

It's official . . . from the post:

Foreclosure looms for One Madison Park
By JENNIFER GOULD KEIL and DAREH GREGORIAN
Last Updated: 4:40 AM, February 20, 2010
Posted: 1:13 AM, February 20, 2010

Glitzy residential development One Madison Park is being foreclosed on before it's even finished.

A prominent commercial real-estate lender says the developers have defaulted on the mortgage and owe them over $200 million.

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, iStar Tara claims the borrowers at the problem-plagued luxury condo site have committed "numerous breaches of its obligations under the mortgages," and the company's had enough.

It wants to foreclose on the property, sell it, and get a "deficiency judgment" against developers Ira Shapiro and Marc Jacobs and their Slazer Enterprises, who had "guaranteed repayments of certain amounts owed to [iStar]."

Calls to Slazer were not returned.

When it was announced in 2008, the blue-glass One Madison Park was a hot property that attracted Hollywood stars such as Susan Sarandon, Liev Schrieber and Naomi Watts.

Then financing woes hit, and Shapiro and Jacobs found themselves mired in controversy and targeted in lawsuits by other angry lenders and buyers, including ex-Yankees Chairman Harvey Schiller and ex-broker Wendy Maitland of Brown Harris Stevens.

The newest suit says the developers defaulted on interest payments, which have not been paid since September and now total over $13 million. They also didn't keep enough cash on hand to finish the 60-story building on East 23rd Street.

In an interview with The Post on Thursday, Shapiro acknowledges there were "issues" with iStar, but said, "we are hoping to resolve them." iStar didn't return calls about what Shapiro had characterized as 11th-hour talks.

The suit says there are a dozen judgments, liens and lawsuits pending against the property. The on-site sales and marketing office has been closed for at least the past week, sources said.

The suit said the foreclosure action would not affect condos that were sold by the developers with iStar's OK.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/tower_loses_its_power_QVmYLJipAD0mDTpoQ233jI#ixzz0g4fAhKio

a sad day for a great building.

WOW!

When I created this thread 13 months ago, I did not even dream of today's scenario.

Walkways, 40% off closings on full floors, and now foreclosure.

Sad indeed.

I'd disagree ronbo. It's a great day for the building. Slazer and it's desperate attempts to hang on to the project is what has created the cloud of uncertainty.

A new owner has the opportunity to bring some clarity to the project by wiping the slate clean. And when that happens, it will sell quickly. Simply knowing that someone will actually build an entrance/lobby on 22nd street and finish up the amenities is probably enough. Forget that second tower -- or keep it simple.

If the project were only half done, I'd be more worried. But even a bank can probably bring this to the fininsh line successfully.

i agree flatirony. Do you think all contract holders will have the right to rescind? I believe the bank can even throw out executed contracts in foreclosure. May be a good time to renegoiate a contract.
the question is how long will it sit in limbo? Will They continue on the construction or just let the site sit till it's resolved.

What would you do, if you were in contract????????

Hmmm...so what does this mean? If the developer is out of cash who is obligated to pay ongoing operating costs of the building (let alone complete construction)? Are the handful of tenants who've moved in going to have to take turns manning the front desk? And if the developer chooses to fight the foreclosure process, how long does the building sit in limbo?

all good questions- Not a clear answer. It can go many ways, but i don't think the tenants will have to man the front desk. LOL

If they fight the foreclosure, it could go into limbo for a while. I would assume alot will pan out over the next 30-60 days.

"truthskr10
3 days ago
ignore this person
Too many partners on the project end of the development with varying agendas now.
When all said and done, this will be Istar's $300 million dollar building for $114 million."

Didn't think it would be this quick! (thought it would be a month away)

I'd look for Istar to finish the building and sell off units around 1200/1300 psft.

I have feared this bohemoth toppling over with its water-ballast tanks drowning people on 27th street where the roof lands. With bankruptcy I hope more than every they didn't try to save money by skipping every other rivet. What a mess--beyond being an eyesore.

So we wait the 60 days it will take for the AG to review what they have and let everyone out of their contracts. Hopefully the escrow agent has been above board.

Then iStar gets another building back to try and manage and sell off. This one will be a mess for years to come. First will be the operational budget with common charges getting raised a few times. Then there will be the inevitable lawsuits over the construction. A developer in trouble always cuts costs, pisses off construction crews, and ends up with a shoddy project.

The truth about Wendy will be even more clear and it will be official: total crap show.

No view is worth that much headache. It won't be until 2013/2014 that this is all sorted out. Construction problem lawsuits and finger pointing will mean delays and more lawsuits.

One interesting part of this drama is the second tower.

As a refresher, the offering plan includes a small second tower on 22nd street whose base serves as the entrance to both towers.

A big part of the problem with this development is that the developers went ahead with marketing a much, much larger tower (355 feet vs. 165 feet) even though they never changed the offering. And they couldn't change the offering, because it would give everyone the right to just walk away from the development.

So, with time and money wasted, they threw out the Rem tower, and nothing more was heard.

Now, if all of the buyers are given the right to rescind anyhow, it is their opportunity to simply scrap the second tower formally in the offering plan -- or amend an offering plan to allow for later development of some other tower.

I'm guessing the path of least resistance is just to scrap the second tower and finish the lobby an amenities and move on. They'll certainly get $1,500 - $2,000 sf for the units.

But if they wanted to find another developer out there to buy the project, it could take an interesting turn. An incredible longshot I'd guess, but still interesting.

so...can i make an offer on one of the apartments? is that still possible even with lawsuits in the offing and can i close in a reasonable amount of time?

why would you want to these people are frauds and the building will not close it would be a bad decision to even think about buying in such a mess of an opperation

Ronbo I suggest to sit tight for 30-60 days to see what's happening. these things are slow. If everyone backs out of there contracts, you will be in a better position to get a better deal. The AG will probably give everyone the right to drop out.

Agree w/Steelman... you can be sure that right now all the parties -- developers, investors, lenders and most likelty the AG -- are all scrambling to reach some agreement on how to move forward while iStar's foreclosure proceding is underway. It's impossible from the outside to understand exactly what the rights and obligations of the parties are currently, let alone what the parties may agree to in the future in order to further their objectives. Common sense suggests that everyone would have an interest in a solution that provides clarity/certainty of funding during this period, so there's a very good chance that when the dust settles (30 days is as good a guess as any) there may be enough information to make an informed decision about whether to buy in the building and with what kind of a "discount" for the project's risks. The units are off the market as of today (well, perhaps for the last couple of weeks), so it sounds like no one will even have the option of entering into a new contract -- presumably the AG will not permit it -- until iStar or someone has stepped up to affirm its willingness to fund to completion -- both construction costs and the developer's operating cost obligations and also to provide greater clarity on the 22nd street building/entrance, etc.

All very good points and I agree with tell46 that even if you wanted to make an offer they are likely prohibited from entertaining any at this time. Only part I question is if there will end up being discounts off of the current mkt prices for this type of product or not. The way I see it, and the way this may shake out, the best "bargain" you might have been able to get could have come right before the iStar proceeding. I have to assume that when this re-launches in 30 days or so the buying public will be informed that all funding is in place to complete the project pursuant to the offering plan. While 07/08 contracts may choose to back out, believing those prices are not reflective of the current mkt, the building will be marketed at what the current mkt is for this type of luxury development. Whatever that number is I would not expect a further "discount for the project's risks" as those risks should no longer be an issue. I tend to think that all this building ever needed was a house cleaning, a showing that all work is moving asap and a period of NO bad news or shoes dropping for it to sell rather quickly (perhaps not at 3k psf but certainly at a very healthy number in this mkt).

Mktmaker,

Totally agree with you (as always!). If:

- Slazer is eliminated from the equation;
- Funding for completion is in place, and
- The old contracts (and related complaints/suits) are opened for rescission.

Then this project will take off again. And in those circumstances, I think 2,000+ prices are doable -- with the high floors getting much higher sf prices.

But I'm also very curious about the "second tower". I wonder if a developer buying in would want to complete the second tower as planned (probably the quickest), scrap it, or have the right to do a larger second tower. I don't know how this works, but I would assume changes to the offering plan would be needed to do anything other than complete the second tower as described in the plan -- and that would take a lot of time.

So a general questions about the existing contracts. Common sense would suggest that this situation can only resolve in some sort of material change that would give current contract holders the right to rescind their contracts. But I'm guessing that is not the case!

So a simple question. Under what circumstances would the existing purchase contracts stay in place? In other words, what would have to happen so that the purchasers are not given the right to rescind?

Most likely developer would offer recision rights only if required to do so by the AG...which has happened in many similar cases in the past.

Tell46 (or anyone) -- Just a process question.

At this point, what action would prompt the AG's involvement? Would the AG just intercede on its own? Would it react to one of the current complaints? Would someone have to file a new complaint based on new facts? Would an amendment filing by the developer trigger it? Or is there some point in the foreclosure process that the AG becomes involved?

Just curious.

Flatirony: when there is material change to a contract, you can exercise your right to rescind. I don't know if you have closed, which might make a difference, but I would talk to your lawyer. You might want to file independently with the AG and/or sue the developers -- clearly they withheld material information, like their financial ability to see the project to term. In any case, if you do so early and proactively, it will probably increase your options down the road. I believe many of the Rushmore buyers filed en masse. Though I know one of the most developed suits was from an individual. The lawyer for the Rushmore buyers seemed very savvy in that article. Perhaps, you should give him a call.

here is a material change;

http://curbed.com/archives/2010/02/26/one_madison_park_halts_sales_during_foreclosure_spat.php

What are the chances Trotter actually opens in the building now?

any news on the status of this building? i am still interested.

Nothing in the public domain. Most likely, Ronbo, nothing for you to do until they start showing the building again. And that's likely to happen only in conjunction with some better resolution -- and disclosure -- of the financial status of the building.