If You Can Demonstrate Market Movement With Comps: Upper West Side Edition

440 west end avenue battle heats up!

7E just reduced by $100,000 to $849,000

10E versus 7E-both have highly exaggerated square footages and only fair views.

from HIMWHOMEASURES....1953sqft

Buyer,

I think prime CPW, with no condition issues and direct views of the park will obviously hold up better than some other areas. However, rear facing or other negative factors will continue to pull CPW down.

johnjim,

thanks for the heads-up on 440 west end. but you didn't point out the most interesting thing:

previous sale
09/06/2006 #7E $990,000 -0.5%
04/04/2005 #7E $915,000

this is now asking 7% below the 2005 sale price and 15% below the 2006 asking price.

Buyer: I follow this segment pretty closely. Reality is that inventory of direct park views hasn't grown at the rate of other areas. However, there are several apts for sale and inventory IS growing, but very slowly. Because of the slow growth, sellers are taking their sweet time to lower prices. Having said this, they simply are not trading, so logic would dictate that they will eventually start lowering prices. There are some nice places for sale in 25, 41, 225, 262, 285 and 300. 101, 115 and 285 have apts for sale that are in terrible condition or ridiculously overpriced. A few sales have occurred, 262 and 115, but not enough be considered a trend. As we have said many times on other threads, the weaker apts, terrible layouts, low floors, no views etc etc..are going to get smoked.

patient: Been meaning to point out to you that another apartment in 151 CPW (Kenilworth) went to contract. Makes two there in about a month, after both were on the mkt for at least 6 months and likely closer to a year. Both Dan Douglas listings, he's having a pretty good year I think. Be interesting to see what they went for. Neither of them were in the largest line in the building, but they're still pretty nice apartments (the one on the second floor less so).

your right..I think 5W will be a great comp going forward. Don't know or care about the 2nd floor unit. Can never come to terms how you evaluate a floor like that with views of taxis.

I feel like 600/sqft for average apt in doorman building in my nabe is not out of sight by the end of year. Maybe I shouldn't be cheering on price declines as an owner, but I just want the price discovery part to be over and for prices to flatten out.

nyc10023: assuming you are using that 290 WEA from above as benchmark for current prices I think $600/square foot is a long way off -

Asking price: $2,395,000 / 2300 = $1041. So if it sold there that would be 40% down from CURRENT levels. I am not an an owner, and so have no skin in the game, but I think down 40% from current levels in the next 9 months would be a little steep, and in order for that to happen I would think things in the world around us would have to slip precipitously from their (admittedly) precarious positions.

My opinion only of course, worth what it cost.

True. But realize that 2300 X 600 is still over 1.2m, and roughly what this apartment would have gone for circa 1999. And look where our stock market & economy are at. Hmm. The target market for this apt (yes, yes I know about all the rich trust fund babies and LI retirees) is still the biglaw partner type/established MD/Wall St (except the 3rd of the trifecta doesn't exist anymore) and you have to ask yourself what would someone in this position pay for a 3-bedroom apt.

I hope we get there (as long as my circumstances are unaffected of course). There's another thread that hasn't gotten much attention about NYC CDS making new highs. I confess to not knowing anything about this, but if the spectre of a NYC default begins to rear it's head again, as the blog on that thread opines, real estate is going to get MUCH MUCH cheaper here in a hurry.

I'm going to try to nose around on those CDS tomorrow at work, but if anyone here knows anything or much about them I think that's definitely something worth keeping our collective eye on.

Ah, that's the crux - there are few who are going to be immune. I had a big chunk in NYC munis, got spooked and sold at a 35% loss. Then it went down another 10%.

nyc10023,

you're not doing an inflation adjustment on the price when you say it would have sold for 1.2 around 1999. more to the point, in 1999 the real estate market in new york was seriously undervalued--hence the huge run-up in the early part of the decade despite 9/11 and the local recession. not all of the appreciation in real estate was unwarranted. let's not forget that rents also rose dramatically during this period.

it is certainly true that the economy is a shambles right now, much worse than in 1999. but even with the current craziness we are still a more affluent and prosperous nation and city than we were in 1999. i do not say it's impossible for prime apartments to go to 600 psf, but the analysis needs to be more sophisticated than 'that's what it was in 1999.'

The rent today on the apartment we rented back in early '98 is back to what we paid. I didn't think that the '99 real estate market was "seriously undervalued". We were DINKS back then, with good professional incomes and could barely afford to buy a small 2 bedroom apartment. If rents today are closing in on '98 levels, why can't sale prices do the same?

"it is certainly true that the economy is a shambles right now, much worse than in 1999. but even with the current craziness we are still a more affluent and prosperous nation and city than we were in 1999. i do not say it's impossible for prime apartments to go to 600 psf, but the analysis needs to be more sophisticated than 'that's what it was in 1999.' "

Tell that to the stock market which is back to 1997 levels despite our being a "more affluent and prosperous nation".

Your argument, that prices can't go back to 1999 levels, seems to be defeated by example of the stock market, which can and did wipe out 12 years of gains. Can NYC real estate follow? Maybe.

Modern/HappyRenter:

We are less affluent and properous. As a city and a nation, we spent all our savings on things we didn't need. Now we must pay the bill. Our balance sheet and income statement as a city and nation are worse off, not better, than in 1999.

We can thank Chairman Greenspan for creating and extending the credit bubble which started in 1998 in the stock market, and then moved to all kinds of derivatives, consumer spending, and real-estate. How many people do you know, as a percentage of your family and friends, that own a house and a car that they cannot afford, because psychologically they "needed it now". It will take (unfortunately) 20 to 30 years to rebuild our balance sheet to what it was. This is a sad truth. And you and I, and our children will be paying for the Greenspan splurge/("we can not _ever_ have a recession so lets create cheap credit") until 2040. What is worse, is it is possible that as a city and nation, we may never recover to our past level of economic strength.

Policy mismanagement. This is the sad truth.

modern,

where did i argue that prices 'can't go back to 1999 level'? i would certainly never argue that. let me be clear: the market can go to zero. the future is, well, the future, and no possibility within the realm of logic can be definitively excluded. nyc real estate can go to 1999 levels, 1969 levels, or 1779 levels. my point is that it is unsophisticated to simply say "the stock market is now at 1997 levels so nyc real estate will go there too." the stock market was already very high in the mid-to-late 1990s; nyc real estate was very low at that point. i am bearish on nyc real estate but we need to be smart.

budda, you're simply incorrect. the economy is much less healthy now and we have lots of problems, but the economy is also much bigger, incomes higher, and living standards higher.

"down 40% from current levels in the next 9 months would be a little steep"

9 months in this scenario is an eternity. each week is bringing yet another corporate collapse, big company asking for yet another bail out, new next shoe to drop and country asking for help. i doubt that previous crisis were as eventful as this one, it feels like uncharted territory to me. the previous ones seem like a piece of cake in comparison.

budda
Modern/HappyRenter:

"We are less affluent and properous. As a city and a nation, we spent all our savings on things we didn't need. Now we must pay the bill. Our balance sheet and income statement as a city and nation are worse off, not better, than in 1999."

happyrenter
modern,
"budda, you're simply incorrect. the economy is much less healthy now and we have lots of problems, but the economy is also much bigger, incomes higher, and living standards higher."

Happy: what in the HELL are you talking about..are you one of those BUSH right-wingers now? You just clearly stated that living standards are higher from 1999-2008. I thought you said the Bush economic policies sucked. Now you type we are better off? Do you have multiple tag names and you posted this one under the wrong one? metalhead, is that you?

patient,

what straw man are you arguing with now? argue against what i actually wrote, not a fantasy in your head. bush's economic policies were obviously disastrous. that doesn't mean that the country is less well off than it was when he started his presidency. it is the very, very rare period of eight years in the modern era in which a major economy has flat or negative growth. let me put it another way: the american economy was far healthier in the 1950s than it is now. that doesn't mean the country was more affluent or that living standards were higher. on the contrary, it is obvious that the country is far richer now.

now it is certainly possible that the bush economic policies, combined with other factors, were so disastrous that over the next few years the country will fall apart to such an extent that we will be less well off than we were in the 19990s--that would require a significant depression. but that remains to be seen. as of now, we are certainly more affluent than we were ten years ago, despite the horrible economic situation.

you must have woke up to early. Do you really think that "living standards are higher". I think that's a ridiculous statement. I don't, thats why I support Obama, in spite off all of his obvious weaknesses. It was a big leap of faith for the Country to support and I did. I'm all-in. However, If me and lots of others thought even for a brief second that "living standards are higher" he would not have won.

December co-op contracts are starting to close. Here are two early data points. There isn't much information about the footprint or condition of the comps, but I think these are buildings where the original floorplans have mostly survived.

50 Riverside Drive #7C. 31 days on market. Original ask $1.795MM
--------Recorded Sales----------|--------Previous Listings----------
CURRENT ..... #3C ............................ | . $1,850,000 2 beds 1,800 ft²
02/25/2009 . #7C $1,795,000 ........ | . $1,795,000 Sold 2 beds 2 baths 1,800 ft²
01/20/2006 #10C $2,361,800 ........ |

200 West 86th Street #19A. 201 days on market. Original Ask $2.295MM
--------Recorded Sales----------|--------Previous Listings----------
02/26/2009 #19A $1,600,000 -10.9% |↓ $1,795,000 Sold 3 beds 3 baths 1,604 ft²
08/23/2006 #16A $1,875,000 ........ |
12/01/2004 #10A $1,500,000 ........ |

Hey folks. (P9 and HR) Could you please take the back and forth about economic beliefs to another thread?

yes, let's talk UWS. Won't the spring force buys by people with the second kid on the way who have to move in time to start school in the new nabe?

walter7: you are correct, my apologies. if I have too much wine again and need to smack another...please vote me off the island!

great finds west81st. here's a doozy for those of you who like astor court:

205 west 89th 10S
STREETEASY HISTORY
03/03/2009
Listed in StreetEasy by Halstead Property at $1,295,000

recorded sales
10/04/2006 #2S $1,590,000 +6.3%

the initial asking price is 18% below a 2nd floor same line comp from 2006. kind of jaw-dropping.

Trinityparent: While every situation is unique, as a general rule nobody is ever forced to buy. With rental inventory plentiful, that rule is more true than ever.

Happyrenter: I'll take the under on #10S. There was so much money in this town in 2006. Where was I when they were giving it out?

west81st,

you'll take the under? i'm missing the reference. but the idea that someone paid 1.6 million to live in a 4 room apartment on the 2nd floor in a building on 89th and broadway--even a great building--less than three years ago is just wild.

UWS - my stomping grounds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 3 districts people move to for school are PS199, PS87, PS9 (maybe). There are lots of rentals in PS199, with prices dropping as we speak, cost of buying very far below cost of renting. I don't know the rental market in 87/9 so well, but I know renting costs much less than buying. As for buying in PS199 zone, you're too late and not guaranteed a spot at this point in time. Timeline for renting is a little shorter, so you'd have way better luck getting a spot if you rent.

nyc10023...."There are lots of rentals in PS199, with prices dropping as we speak, cost of buying very far below cost of renting"

Really? Might you have stated this backwards? I find the cost of renting in the 10023 far below the overall cost to carry/own an apt.

Walterh7 - typo - cost of rent way lower than cost of buying.

nyc10023...i figured.

Here's what the inside of a bubble looks like. Huge (near 50%) jump from 2004 to 2007. Of course we don't know the condition of the apts so there is that.

251 W 89th St, #3F
Active Listings (3)
$3,300,000
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/388598-condo-251-west-89th-street-upper-west-side-new-york

Prior sales
06/25/2007 #7F $3,025,000 +6.1% $2,850,000 3 beds 3 baths 2,200 ft²
06/22/2007 #3F $3,200,000 +0.2% $3,195,000 3 beds 2 baths 2,300 ft²
07/01/2004 #9F $2,250,000

If we are truly headed to 2004 pricing, which I believe we are, then I predict this apt will be pulled from the mkt without a sale. How that plays out over the longer term is truly unknown but subject to wild speculation.

Can we officially put an end to the 'will prices get to 2004 levels' or 'i think prices are headed to 2004 levels' conversations? 2004 levels are here, and we are rapidly moving past them:

235 West End Avenue 16C
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/388696-condo-235-west-end-avenue-lincoln-square-new-york

STREETEASY HISTORY
10/21/2004
Previous sale closed for $650,000
03/03/2009
Listed in StreetEasy by Warburg at $650,000

walterh7: I agree about the bubble effect on #3F. Nice apartment, but ugly views and not the most efficient use of space. Also, there are a lot of options now for people who want a pre-war condo. The Admaston might fall even more than the neighborhood as a whole because its comfortable niche has been glutted by conversions.

With regard to your prediction, pulling it may not be an option. There's a lot of debt there.

My theory on that is those who have no or negative equity will not sell unless they can't service the debt. Most would rather eat cat food than lose real equity. Thus, they'll try and sell to stay whole. When they can't, they'll be prisoners of there bad decision (again, until they can't meet monthlies).

I suspect that long time owners and estates will force the market down. I've seen you write that as well. Only deep in the money owners could stand the pain.

But isn't it true that if you buy and sell in the same market, it's a wash? If you get a lot for your sale, you're going to pay a lot. If you take a bath, so does the guy who sells to you? Assuming people on the UWS have kids and sometimes have another , there's got to be a certain amount of movement, no?

tparent...only in an all cash environment. If you have a mortgage, once you lose your equity, you have nothing. beyond what you have in the bank, and they will come after you for all the losses so your bank account isn't safe either.

Leverage is lethal when used improperly.

It's only a wash if you have money in the bank to pay off your loan (as might be the case for 3F) and you have more money left for another downpayment.

251W89, 3F will be an interesting one to watch. Bought at the very top of the market, borrowed around 80%. As the market has gone down at least 20%, they'll be lucky to not have to bring cash to the table. This could be a short sale, guys and only the 3rd one that I've seen listed on the market on the UWS so far.

nyc10023: The sad thing is, by the prevailing standards of the day, they did everything right. We were all SUPPOSED to borrow money and buy the best home we could possibly afford. They weren't even especially leveraged, for 2007. And still, they will probably lose it all: the original downpayment on their coop, the profit they made when they sold it, plus the additional equity they kicked in when they bought the condo.

Trinityparent: Trade-ups and trade-downs in themselves are essentially price-neutral. They are subject to market forces, but do not constitute much of a market force in themselves. You can take this apartment as an example. Somebody will buy it - probably somebody with a growing family. But the birth or expectation of that extra baby has very little influence on the price her parents will be willing, able or compelled to pay. Family demographics are relevant only to the extent that they affect aggregate demand. And if this recession is severe enough to deter families from adding children (certainly possible, considering the cost of raising kids in NYC), then demographics could actually contribute to the downward trend in prices for large family apartments.

I googled the owners a bit, hopefully he diversified a bit when things were good. If so, I'm not feeling too sorry for them. Just as I wouldn't expect anyone to feel sorry for us if we had to sell.

Walter,

Speaking from personal experience, I owned a condo in Philly in 06 in probably the nicest area. I moved to NYC and listed the apartment for sale (bubble not popped yet) and despite 3 price cuts (bubble popped) had very few offers (in fact only one in writing) and ultimately sold it for less than I bought it for in 2005 (about 5% loss) after carrying it for 10 months (about another 5% loss). Yes, stupid to buy and sell so quickly, but I didn't know I was going to move. I could have continued to carry it indefinately and been able to afford a normal lifestyle. I could have rented it, but 1) rents would not have covered the monthly costs, 2) could only rent full years, i.e., not monthly and 3) beleived having it rented would make it harder to sell. I think I was smart for selling it even at the loss. So sellers like myself will force the market down - granted if I still worked/lived in Philly I would not have sold.

Here's one that closed 100K below 2005 price. Listing says it's renovated, but tough to see in the tiny pics.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/348795-coop-157-west-79th-street-upper-west-side-new-york

09/07/2005
Previous sale closed for $1,328,000
09/13/2008
Listed in StreetEasy by Halstead Property at $1,495,000
09/30/2008
Price decreased to $1,395,000
11/11/2008
Halstead Property listing entered contract
01/14/2009
Sale closed for $1,280,000

245 West 99th (Ariel West) #14B: just reduced $504K, to $2.995MM. The new price is 4% below the pre-construction price paid by the owner. More significantly, the price is 39% below the last sponsor sale in the line. I think #15B is a legitimate comp, although the listing was tweaked at some point in its lifespan. #11B, which sold for $4.6MM, definitely is a true comp.

(Note: Omitting other preconstruction comps because layouts may have been altered.)
--------Recorded Sales----------|--------Previous Listings----------
CURRENT ... #14B ............................ |↓ $2,995,000 4 beds 4 baths 2,725 ft²
07/22/2008 #15B $4,900,000 ........ |
05/12/2008 #11B $4,607,500 -6.6% | ↑ $4,935,000 Sold 5 beds 4 baths 2,725 ft²
01/11/2008 #14B $3,130,000 ........ |

West81st - the broker for 14B owns a B-line unit herself. It can't be comfortable seeing prices settle below your purchase price.

nyc10023: Probably worth considering when you read her assertion that it's "THE VERY BEST line at the Ariel." Some of us regard that as faint praise anyway. When I registered on SteetEasy, I seriously considered "ArielHater" as a screen name.

the ariel is a bloodbath and, quite frankly, rightly so. those buildings never made any sense to me at all.

No dog in this fight, but besides Lisa, I know two families that live in the building (friends of kids), and they really enjoy living there. They like the building, like the area, and there certainly are tons of kids in both of the buildings.

HR: Unfortunately, if a bloodbath does develop, it will mostly be innocent blood.

Patient09: My only gripe is the architecture. I agree the quality of life is terrific. I made the mistake of taking one of our kids there. Love at first sight.

yep, you, like most of us old enough to care prefer many other aspects to a building, not to mention investment potential (i.e. holding its value on a relative basis).

I don't love the look of either Ariel West or East (though my fav. line is the whole floor plan at E but E lacks the pool & facilities, have to walk across the street). When these units first came on line in early 06 (?), I had the opportunity to buy - but I thought, hmm, why should I pay a 40% premium over the equivalent prewar co-op in the area just for the pool & playroom?

What would you consider the prewar co-op comps (if there is such a thing) to the Ariels? 245W107? 235W102? 924, 800, 789, 878WE? 258 through 340 RSD?

nyc10023: That's a bit like asking "Which apple most closely resembles an asparagus?" But I'll bite.

For top-end pricing, the surprising answer is the Armstead (245 W104), because the funny little guy from "O Brother Where Art Thou?" paid a gazillion dollars for the penthouse.

Among the buildings you mentioned, I think the Clebourne (924 WEA) is notable. At the other end of the scale, 235 W102 (Broadmoor) and 878 WEA would not have come to mind. Going by location and architectural distinction, the Gramont (215 W98) probably SHOULD compete with Ariel, but it's rather faded at present. Among pre-war condos, 905 WEA has aspirations. We'll see how that goes.

what's the verdict on 110 riverside? because we have quite a classic 7 with that now has a price beginning with a 2:

110 Riverside Drive 4B

STREETEASY HISTORY
09/26/2008
Listed in StreetEasy by Brown Harris Stevens at $3,800,000
11/28/2008
Price decreased to $3,500,000
01/24/2009
Price decreased to $3,300,000
03/03/2009
Price decreased to $2,900,000

the comps--two slightly higher, one slightly lower--from 2006 and 2005 may not be relevant because they are high floor units with river views. still, lovely apartment.

HR: I have to tread carefully here. Interesting provenance on that apartment, for students of modern design. Needs some work. Love the building and location. Fourth floor isn't a huge problem in the usual "uh oh, low floor" sense, because 83rd-84th is a fairly quiet stretch of Riverside, and the #5 bus runs so infrequently. Unfortunately, I think the view is partly blocked by the rocky hill just inside Riverside Park. (That hill is also a favorite hangout for drunken teens, so watch out for broken glass.)

I have a hard time imagining this one dropping below the mid-twos, but we're in uncharted territory now. What seems clear is that #4B will perform price discovery for the whole building, and maybe the whole neighborhood. The interior and rear-facing sixes, currently asking $1.8-2.0MM, face a bleak future.

west81st,

provenance? care to drop a more explicit hint?

HR: You have mail. Let's stick to comps here.

Similar to the Ariel West listing discussed above, 272 West 107th now has its first resale asking slightly less than the original sale price. The difference here is that 272 opened in 2004, so sea level is much lower.
--------Recorded Sales----------|--------Previous Listings----------
CURRENT ..... #6B ............................ |↓ $1,195,000 2 beds 2 baths 1,239 ft²
02/16/2005 #6B $1,200,000 ........ |

110 Riverside 4B is a dump. I was so angry with the price when I visited it and saw what it actually was that I almost lost it with the agent. It should go for 2 or less. the condition is a shambles. The kitchen and bank look out on ugly alleys. The living room is cramped. If I want green I'll pay $10 grand for a solarium rather than the sh***ty view of Riverside Park.

sorry, back. Bank is where the money is (not in this lousy apartment).

EEEE1. I have to recuse myself from this one. As I said, needs some work.

755 West End 8A is back on the market with a 20% cut:

StreetEasy History
09/13/2008 Previously listed in StreetEasy by Elliman for $2,595,000
02/28/2009 Elliman listing temporarily off-market at $2,100,000
03/05/2009 Listed in StreetEasy by Corcoran at $2,100,000

Recorded Sales:
02/22/2008 #14A $2,765,000
03/05/2007 #4A $2,000,000 -7.0%
06/14/2004 #14A $2,250,000

correction: 4A is not a comp, it is a smaller apartment (only a classic 6 whereas this unit is a classic 7). this is legitimately below the 2004 comp.

320 west 76th
StreetEasy History
12/06/2007 Previously listed in StreetEasy by Corcoran for $1,175,000
07/23/2008 Corcoran listing temporarily off-market at $949,000
03/05/2009 Listed in StreetEasy by Brown Harris Stevens at $849,000

recorded sales
12/19/2007 #3F $1,060,000

happyrenter, I think 755 WEA was already down to $2.1 in December. Looks like they just dropped Elliman and went woth Corcoran.

Keep up the good fight happrenter/West81st!

I like the 320W 76th locale.... and 755 WEA sorta works for me also.... keep the chops coming... the DJIA just hit 6500.... that number will have a tremendous psychological impact on NYC RE sellers... 6 months ago... no one even considered it a possibility

"that number will have a tremendous psychological impact on NYC RE sellers"

why 6500? i'm not into numerology but don't get why 6500 would scare somebody but 7000 don't. 7 is a lucky number?

i'm no numerologist either, but all you need is simple arithmetic to see that this one is getting ugly:

565 West End 16C

STREETEASY HISTORY
09/02/2007
Previously listed in StreetEasy by Corcoran for $2,200,000
02/15/2008
Previous sale closed for $2,350,000
07/25/2008
Previously listed in StreetEasy by Warburg for $2,150,000
10/16/2008
Previous sale closed for $2,010,000
01/29/2009
Listed in StreetEasy by Elliman at $2,100,000
03/05/2009
Price decreased to $1,995,000

this is just bizarre: first it sells for a shocking 2.350 in february 2008. then it sells for 2.010 in october 2008. now it's asking 1.995 in march 2009 and the broker is practically begging for offers ('LET"S MAKE A DEAL'). this is just strange.

Pretty steep fall at 314 West 100. The other units are all over priced, but this one is leading the pack and is a pretty good sized 1 BR with LR and separate DR - could easily have a couple with a baby in this unit:

08/19/2008 Listed in StreetEasy by Corcoran at $911,929
09/14/2008 Price decreased to $822,821
12/05/2008 Price decreased to $760,000
02/27/2009 Price decreased to $680,000

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/343194-condo-314-west-100th-street-upper-west-side-new-york

starfish,

that apartment could fall a good deal. no views at all (rear yard, inner court) and a very small living room. but it is at least getting into the realm of possibility with the latest cut.

340 west 86th
STREETEASY HISTORY
10/15/2008
Listed in StreetEasy by CBHK at $1,395,000
10/23/2008
Price decreased to $1,365,000
11/12/2008
Price decreased to $1,299,900
12/19/2008
Price decreased to $1,199,900
01/28/2009
Price decreased to $1,124,900
03/04/2009
Price decreased to $1,099,000

recorded sale
10/24/2008 #3C $1,420,000 +1.8%

this one is strange: listed at a loss right at the moment it was purchased by the 'cartus financial corporation.' i wonder if this was part of a relocation package for the previous owners?

HR: "this one is strange: listed at a loss right at the moment it was purchased by the 'cartus financial corporation.' i wonder if this was part of a relocation package for the previous owners?"

Of a flopped (failed) flip.

Happyrenter: Re. 565 WEA, don't go there.

ok....that sounds ominous.

sure does. Wasn't this apartment discussed a while back. A lawyer and an event planner IIRC. They bought a larger place down the street FWIW.

Does 565 have cooties?

No comp here that I can find but worthy of note. This is the Rachel Realty office in the Sabrina. Just dropped $300K from their 1 month old listing. Good luck and bon voyage.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/379046-condo-241-w-97th-st-upper-west-side-new-york?email=true

this looks like 2004 or earlier pricing to me:

200 West 79th 16D
STREETEASY HISTORY
03/05/2009
Listed in StreetEasy by Elliman at $689,000

01/28/2009
Listed in StreetEasy by Shares of New York at $695,000

recorded sales
08/07/2007 #5D $879,000
12/08/2006 #3D $761,000 -4.3%
09/12/2005 #6D $765,000
11/15/2004 #8D $665,000

16D actually represents a very significant discount to 15D as it has a renovated kitchen and bath and 15D is basically a dump. 22% discount to the much lower floor peak comp.

Well here's an optimistic one. Raised the price $60K. Isuspect they were getting low ball offers at $499K so raised the price so if bids came in at 15%-20% lower would still get higher price. Not sure if that's such a good strategy.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/372853-coop-677-west-end-avenue-upper-west-side-new-york

255 WE went into contract. Nope, it wasn't me.

pace of drop, picking up the pace, chasing the market down.
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/358634-coop-41-central-park-west-lincoln-square-new-york

STREETEASY HISTORY
10/17/2008
Listed in StreetEasy by Corcoran at $7,300,000
11/06/2008
Price decreased to $6,700,000
11/22/2008
Price decreased to $5,995,000
02/27/2009
Price decreased to $5,600,000
03/07/2009
Price decreased to $5,000,000

I'm calling 4.5m on 41CPW, 4B. Great apt.

I say no sale on 4B. My intrepretation of "FINAL PRICE REDUCTION – SEE THIS APARTMENT BEFORE IT IS GONE!" is that the sellers are drawing a line in the sand. If they don't get an offer close to the new ask, I think they're staying.

Come to think of it, why do people draw lines in the sand? If the point is that the line won't move, wouldn't it make more sense to draw it in cement?

agree, no sale if they are done lowering price. maybe they will stay and enjoy the apt themselves.

2,200 f2
tiny jack n jill kids rooms
looks in great condition
nice balconies
maintenance $2.28 f2
floor too low for view of park
$1,400 per * 2,200 = $3,080,000

Hehe, so I'll offer 3m contingent on the sale of my place.

Aren't the balconies at Harperley Hall more like fire escapes? And watch out for the litigious diva upstairs.

True but there is a certain ersatz charm to HH. Doesn't quite look like any of the 20s/30s era buildings or the Prasadas of CPW. As for Madonna, she's hardly ever there.

Another possible interpretation of the screaming headline (all caps AND an exclamation point, no less)in the 41CPW listing is that they have a bid in the mid-4s or so and are reducing to see if they can flush out a better bid before accepting (or, failing that, so the discount to listing price doesn't look so large when the trade prints with a 4 handle). Any takers for that theory?

41CPW owner ( based on ACRIS) -looks like he bought in '04 for 3.1m all cash. Self-employed RE investor (hmm).

Sidelinesitter: Excellent point.

nyc10023: nice work sleuth. My $3,080,000 seems quite reasonable then. 2004 pricing. Not too many would argue about. Some think prices are lower, some higher, but 2004 is probably a central tendency.

upper west end just keeps getting worse and worse. this is below the same unit price from 2005 but could go a lot lower:

771 West End 8FG
STREETEASY HISTORY
05/24/2005
Previous sale closed for $1,011,000
07/22/2008
Listed in StreetEasy by Halstead Property at $1,275,000
09/09/2008
Price decreased to $1,225,000
09/30/2008
Price decreased to $1,195,000
11/06/2008
Price decreased to $1,150,000
03/09/2009
Price decreased to $999,999

What about the 7s in 771 West End? It's a beautiful building and they're happy family apartments.

Trinityparent: For what it's worth, I have some insight from the listing brokers for #5A and #7A. I can share via e-mail if you're interested. My address is my streeteasy screen name at gmail.com.

happyrenter..Interesting on w end ave 771 8fg...BUT can I ask what is price psf (it didn't seem clear to me) [AND MAY I SUGGEST TO ALL THAT POST THAT EVeRYONE ALWAYS MENTION PRICE PSF00t...I'm a novice on here but seems to me the only clear way to ballpark evaluate things] and if it's anywhere near a thousand...I still assume no one in their right mind would buy.

jim,

this is a comp thread, not a price psf thread. we are bench-marking apartments to same-line prices, so ppsf is irrelevant for the purpose of analyzing market direction.

more to the point, i am not going to post ppsf for the simple reason that i have absolutely no way of knowing the square footage on any of these apartments. brokers always lie about square footage so i am not going to divide a price by a made up number.

999,000 / 1,197 f2 = $835 per f2

The interesting thing about 771WES 5A @ 2.3mm & 7A @ 2.6mm is that 12A sold for 2.3mm in December. Are they delusional or do they think closer to the building entrance garners a premium?

HR: ppsft is ALWAYS a valuable piece of additional information. Why not learn two things instead of one. If you can learn more about a particular line in a building that can become valuable to comparing it to lines in other buildings. You are correct in that this thread should focus on comps, but I for one will never pass up valuable info.

happyrenter..I've enjoyed quite a few of your posts, so I don't want to be on anyone's enemy's list (I don't even try to follow all the personalities on this thing, and find all these personal disputes to be a tedious distraction), but i think you are way overstating your case about ppsf. Just because there are irregularities in square footage quotes, does not render them utterly irrelevant and, to be realistic, everyone looks at them relative to price, even knowing there are flaws. IT's a question of order of magnitude -- to say you have no way of knowing exact sf, is very different from not knowing, roughly, whether something is say 900 sf or 1150. I also don't think ppsf is irrelevant to a comp thread because the purpose of the comp thread ultimately must be to allow people to assess investment merits, for which I would think ppsf is relevant. Anyway....it is easy to give info I suggest, and many will find it useful, so why object?,..(again,,,,not trying to irritate you..and i like many of your posts)

P09: FWIW, I think 771 WEA #8FG is closer to 1000 square feet.

Meanwhile, the real IYCDMMWC-UWS news is breaking on another thread, courtesy of Liquidpaper:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/9112-best-priced-units-right-now

315 West 106th St. #14A was just reduced $695K, to $2MM.
--------Recorded Sales----------|--------Previous Listings----------
CURRENT ... #14A ............................ |↓ $2,000,000 4 beds
02/16/2005 #6A $2,450,000 ........ |
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/347779-coop-315-west-106th-street-manhattan-valley-new-york

#14A appears to be in excellent condition, and has river views from several rooms. #6A was an estate sale, but there's no listing available, or even a floorplan.

Forgive me if this has been posted before, 250 W. 94th, 10H, listed on SE at $1.595, on Corcoran at $1.495 and originally at $1.995. 4H sold 07/08 for $1.87, estate sale. Pictures don't show kitchen, always a concern, but nice layout. Was on my OH list recently, but I didn't make it.