Open House Reports - Upper West Side - March 2009

gaongaon---don't know how to tell you this, but we're not talking about the college..we're talking about the public high school.

Right, and the middle class will never flock en masse as long as there is a 1) private alternative that is highly rated and to which the ultra rich will sends their kids and 2) there are public housing projects that are in the same school zones

3) and there are metal detectors at the doors and cops posted along the street.

Columbiacounty: Isn't Brandeis about to be rechartered?

Getting back to elementary schools, here's the D3 zone map that was proposed last fall. I don't know how much of it was ratfied.
http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0BD3CDC4-6D0A-470F-9937-919AD5D6B562/43778/06D03ProposedZonesSchoolRelocationsSchoolsIdentifi.pdf

I think no matter which version was adopted, 771 WEA was slated to stay in the catchment for PS75, but the overall composition of the PS75 catchment may have changed. So that's something to consider for the longer term.

Columbia, I understand completely. OTOH, I think a seriously concerned parent should be considering Scarsdale, Manhasset, Great Neck, etc. for their kids school years,with a pied-a-terre in the city. OK, now I'll shut up.

245 West 104th St. #6E vs. #15C
Co-ops 2 beds 2/1.5 baths
6E: ↓$899,000 Mt.$1339. #15C: $985,000 Mt.$1359
Traffic: #6E: light; #15C: moderate.

As we've discussed elsewhere in this thread, most good buildings have weaker lines. At the Armstead, it's more like a weak wing. The western half of the building - especially on lower floors - is mostly dark and undistinguished. The elevator landings resemble service corridors. The "C" and "E" lines comprise two thirds of the west wing. In their standard formats, both are compact 2BR/1.5BA layouts. The "E" line is probably a bit bigger, but "C" benefits from southern exposure and better use of space. Until recently, these entry-level lines carried seven-figure price tags. That changed in January, when #6E slipped below $1MM. Then $15C hit the market three weeks ago at $985K. #6E cracked $900K last week.

#6E seems a creation of the Manhattan Valley bubble - dark and viewless with problematic bones, but embellished with a fancy kitchen and baths. The kitchen comprises the small original galley, plus most of what was once the dining area. Even so, the kitchen is much smaller than it looks in the pictures. Although well-appointed, it would probably frustrate a serious cook with a layout that separates the appliances from much of the prep and storage space with a breakfast bar and a structual column. The bigger problem is that once the meal is ready, there's no good place to serve it. The living room pulls double duty as LR/DR - triple duty really, because it's also the only passage to the bedroom wing. The room isn't big enough for the job, and it faces an airshaft. I guess the idea is to eat most meals at the breakfast bar, which seats two on stools.

#6E has been augmented with a walk-in shower in what was formerly the half-bath off the MBR. The bathroom fixtures would probably look great in a Soho loft; to me, they seem incongruous in such a modest apartment. The bedrooms would benefit from some freshening, but there's nothing to be done about the views of walls and fire escapes.

Aside from the lack of a second full bath, #15C is a clearly superior property. The renovated kitchen is small but bright and adequate for most purposes. Pet dishes may be a red flag; I didn't check carefully for animal damage. The windowless dining area is of credible size. The living room and master bedroom face south down Broadway, with great light and mostly open views all the way to the San Remo. The Ariel towers are eyesores and block part of the skyline; at least they are skinny. A wise buyer would research the degree to which the views are protected.

The smaller bedroom, with the en-suite half bath, is of good size but lacks closet space and privacy, as it connects directly to the dining area. The room currently houses a bed and a crib - a clue to the owners' situation. The BR2 window faces north past the Clebourne to 106th Street. That view is narrowed by the edge of 245, but still not bad. The bathrooms have been updated tastefully in period style. It is not clear whether a shower could be added to the half bath.

The competitive situation here is interesting. #6E was reduced to $899K on Friday, reflecting lack of interest and pressure from the new listing upstairs. The owners of #6E have relocated, and the apartment will be sold. #15C appears less motivated. On the other hand, the Halstead team handling #15C tends to compete aggressively, and the owners appear to have outgrown their home. If neither apartment sells soon, the downward pressure on #6E will be especially intense.

What I don't understand is why Brandeis never improved given the massive gentrification of the UWS? It was what's now called an "underperforming" HS in the 1970s and I gather it still is. Everything else has changed in that neighborhood, why not Brandeis?

"The kitchen comprises the small original galley, plus most of what was once the dining area. Even so, the kitchen is much smaller than it looks in the pictures. Although well-appointed, it would probably frustrate a serious cook with a layout that separates the appliances from much of the prep and storage space with a breakfast bar and a structual column. The bigger problem is that once the meal is ready, there's no good place to serve it. The living room pulls double duty as LR/DR - triple duty really, because it's also the only passage to the bedroom wing. The room isn't big enough for the job, and it faces an airshaft. I guess the idea is to eat most meals at the breakfast bar, which seats two on stools."

We looked at another unit with the same layout and would have had to redo the kitchen. Unfortunately, now that there is another one that has been renovated, we see that they messed up the kitchen, as you pointed out. I hate breakfast bars. Do people want to line up like they're eating at a diner? I think this open kitchen movement should be stopped before it destroys more Manhattan apartments. Sigh.

Are there threads for open houses in neighborhoods other than UWS or should everything go in this one?

I'd say feel free to start a new thread for the other parts of town.

I'm not a fan of the open kitchen. However, if you have young children and your kitchen is not big enough to contain the kids, it's difficult to cook if you don't have an open layout.

It seems like mixing kids and cooking is a recipe for disaster. Ha ha. I know what you're saying but the solution is terrible, in my opinion. Kids should learn to sit at a table and eat a meal. I can't imagine anything more depressing than lining up at the breakfast bar, staring at the dirty pots and pans, and not being able to make eye contact with the people you're eating with..

Not to take this thread off into childcare, but I wouldn't let a kid wander around a kitchen where they can pull down pots and pans full of hot food and injure themselves. They do make playpens and cribs to keep the kid corralled until the meal is ready. I remember my mother-in-law talking about how these modern mothers let their kids run wild in the kitchen and that she never put up with that, and she raised three kids.

407PAS: You really can't pass judgment until you have your kids. And I know the old school "lock your kids up in playpen" philosophy. With one kid, it's a piece of cake - lock them up in playpen, or whatever. With more than 1 kid, it's a little different. I could also choose to put my kids in front of a TV while I cook, but that's not my parenting philosophy either. FWIW, I think the more common practice with suburban moms of my parents' era was cooking with the kids in the kitchen. The trouble is when you have kids in the city, and you don't have space for an eat-in kitchen. The point of having an open/semi-open kitchen is that you can see what the kids are up to, not that the kids are in the kitchen itself. Anyway PAS I think it's hopeless to explain until you have more than 2 kids yourself.

It's not about sitting at a table and eating. That's after the meal prep - but I totally understand parents who keep their kids at the bkfast bar too - there are some kids who are very active and will literally reach out and knock things over.

My solution was to design a semi-open kitchen. From the dining room, you cannot see the dirty dishes. The kitchen is open to the living room but does not have a breakfast bar or an island (not a fan of either). I can do meal prep while the kids play in the living room, kids are nowhere near the hot areas. The kids & I eat at a small table in the kitchen for bkfast and lunch and we adjourn to dining room for family dinners. If need be, to seal off the kitchen is a very small job - we purposely designed it this way for a more formal layout when the kids are older.

IMO, kitchen layout is VERY important when you have kids. We've been looking at a lot of classic 6's and most of the kitchens, b/c they are walled off, do not allow you to keep an eye on kid(s) while in the kitchen (which is a lot when you're a mom!). I just brought this issue up with my husband the other day. I've seen 1 or 2 classic 6's that, through renovations or natural layout, would work, but most do not. Makes me wonder if we should look at more postwar buildings...

Yes, NYC10023 - semi-open would be ideal...

Lizyank: you're the native NYCer, so this is only a hypothesis of mine - schools reflect gentrifying neighborhoods if there isn't a large public housing component in the zone and if the pace of gentrification is slow/moderate.

Based on this theory, it was simple for PS199 and PS87 to gentrify as there are no large projects in the zone. The catchment area for high schools are bigger, and thus, the barrier to improvement comes from middle-class parents who are not willing to share the high schools with kids from the projects. The DOE lured back MC parents in some areas with G&T programs because that was a way of isolating the kids of the gentrifiers from the traditional intake of the schools.

Another reason for the lack of improvement to schools in some areas is the type of gentrification that took place. Slow and steady gentrification tends to mean families who initially move to the area for the lower cost of housing and then stay and improve schools because they don't want to move, can't afford private, etc. When you have insta-gentrification as in luxury towers constructed in the PS191 zone, it's harder for the school to gentrify because those families tend to have money and can afford private and are not exactly the types to compromise. You have 2 distinct tribes there - public housing & luxury towers as opposed to UUWS where you have/had lower-cost housing that prompted families to move up there and in some cases, they stayed to improve the school situation.

Another theory I have is that the families who improved PS199 & PS87 have in the past come from out of the catchment area - the "flight to quality" - they have been for a long time the better schools in the entire D3. So when they were under-enrolled, the students from the most committed "public school" families gravitated there, no surprise that they were quick to improve. Poorer performing schools like PS191 don't attract this sort of thing, and neither do "worst of the bunch" schools like Brandeis. One solution may be to make PS191 open to enrollment from outside D3, say to people from midtown (Hell's Kitchen area) who are zoned for PS111 (a much poorer
performing school than PS191) in the hopes that PS191 will attract these families.

nyc10023,
It is nice to see that you designed the space so it can be closed off again easily. We have not seen that in a lot of re-done apartments and have just walked away as a result. The kids will eventually be old enough to spend a few moments by themselves without getting into trouble, one would hope.

The kitchen re-do that is mentioned in this thread is a complete mess, in my opinion, because they eliminated the dining room. That's a big mistake. A dining room is a rare and valuable commodity in this city.

Here is my pick for the worst kitchen redo in the world.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/closing/757753

You'll have to look at the tiny picture on the right of the page, the listing is gone. The guy ripped out the kitchen wall and put huge breakfast bar in the middle of the living room. The burners have no hood over them, absolutely ridiculous. This place took forever to sell, not a surprise.

In a traditional classic 6 situation, I would not expand the kitchen into maid's as I think there is greater value in keeping the maid's room. I would look for a classic 6 with a kitchen across from the living room. Open up the wall between kitchen & hallway (pocket doors if you like). Have the kids play in the living room.

Oh yeah, we get to judge apartments we haven't set foot in and kids we haven't had, after all, this is StreetEasy. ;-)

It seems like people re-make their apartments for kids and produce apartments that are hard to re-sell. That goes for all of those over-priced joined apartments and these open California kitchens. Maybe people should raise their kids in the suburbs, if they want the space of the suburbs.

Thanks, PAS. The only drawback to my kitchen if it were closed is that it is a little out of proportion - basically, it will be a 18 foot long kitchen which is too big for most people. They would probably prefer more space in the living room. That's not a huge deal either because I could have a couple of cabinets removed to shorten the kitchen, it would be just more $ than putting up sheetrock.

PAS: in our market (10023), the market for large apartments is dominated by families with children. Once one kid leaves for college, families tend to downsize again. I personally don't love an open kitchen, it's just good for a few years. And as for people re-making apts, well, those were the bubble years, luxury kitchens for people who don't cook, etc. Though now that the market is headed down, people aren't compromising on what they think is most desirable for their families either (witness UWSmom search for an open kitchen).

Unfortunately, can't remake a rental...
But, agree about keeping the maid's room intact.

407 - huh? I am talking about apartments I have seen (my feet have been on the floors) and a kid that I gave birth to....

oh, i see, by "we" you mean "you"....

uwsmom,
Yeah, you got it, I was poking fun at myself and at the other thread where the agent got upset at people who were passing judgement on her listing without ever having set foot in the apartment.

nyc10023,
I'm not a big fan either of luxury kitchens for people who don't cook, or renovations that don't seem to take cooking into account. My wife cooks every night and finding a good kitchen is a large factor in our apartment search.

An eighteen foot long kitchen is huge, that's for sure. Our kitchen is eleven feet long, which is pretty big for a small apartment. My wife is happy cooking in it. We would love to have a real dining room. Maybe some day, if all those dining rooms have not been turned into kitchens by the time we look at them.

These insights into child-rearing are interesting. (I myself am full of advice, notwithstanding not having any.) I remember my total befuddlement at friends' home life, TV families, etc. My own parents thought of kids as live-in servants, and get upset when their grandchildren can't fetch them coffee, make drinks, etc. We were cooking/cleaning/washing/raking/mowing as soon as we could handle the tools and reach the knobs. We all have the scarred fingers of line chefs.

As a serious cook, I find storage an issue in remade kitchens. I put a homemade meal on the table every night (even when working full time) by cooking forward - cooking in quantity and freezing, and also by having a full pantry so I don't have to run out and find ingredients for a recipe. I love the idea of an open kitchen so I can talk to my dinner guests while cooking (now that the kids are out of the house) but where would I keep my cans of tomatoes and beans and my pots and pans, not to mention platters and wine glasses for Thanksgiving? I'm spoiled by the kitchen I have now, and though I want to move into someplace different/smaller, it's hard to imagine where all the kitchen things would go.

LOL NWT - "live-in servants" is a slight stretch, but i think you do children a disservice by being too lenient.

trinity - that's why semi-open kitchens are nice. You still get 2 or 3 walls of cabinets and can interact with the rest of the living space.

my bottom line - a family sized apartment should function well for a family. This means a semi-open kitchen IMO

NWT,
LOL, my suburban upbringing was also full of a lot of labor. My city living is pretty cushy in comparison. No snow to shovel, leaves to rake, roof to fix, garden to plant and weed, wood to cut and split, lawn to mow, etc. Ah.....retirement.

Yes, the loss of storage space is a big problem in these open kitchens. You can kiss a whole wall of cabinets goodbye.

Yikes, did I say 245 W104th #15C had a view of the San Remo? Make that the Eldorado. Hey, it was cloudy.

One twin-towered CPW apartment building is much like another for view purposes.

Great writeups as usual. I saw 245 W 104 6E just after the price was cut to 1.075M in the fall. The gals running the open-house were just gaga about what a steal that was and how it was going to sell in the next 26 minutes. Had it been priced at 899K then, they might have had a prayer. Now, not so much.

243 Riverside Drive ("The Cliff Dwelling") #1202
Co-op 2 beds 2 baths
$1,250,000 Mt.$1847
Traffic: Moderate

First, let's talk about the view, because it's the only reason to consider this apartment. It's a nice view. In the winter, there's an lot of Henry Hudson Parkway and clay tennis court in the foreground; still pretty nice. In the warm-weater months, when the trees leaf out, it's probably lovely. It's worth noting, though, that the west-facing windows in the kitchen and living room are much narrower than they look in the floorplan; perhaps they were drawn to include the rather wide frames. So the river view is more fragmented than panoramic. The southern view from the other rooms is more cohesive, and quite open.

#1202 is a join - not a bad one, but the lack of direct communication between the kitchen and dining room is a giveaway. Condition is good, including the kitchen and both baths. Overall, the apartment is comfortable though not especially spacious. The building is problematic. The common hallway on twelve is awful - run down and rather dirty. The unattended, Aztec-themed lobby is also less than welcoming. And the position of the building, perched on a narrow lot on the most exposed part of Riverside Drive, offers little privacy or protection from the winter wind.

#1202 could be an interesting option for a buyer who wants some of the jauntiness of a brownstone floorthrough, but also loves a full river view. Just don't expect your friends to be too impressed.

291 Central Park West #5W
Condo 3 beds 2.5 baths
$2,800,000 CC $1131 RET $949
Traffic: Very light

291 CPW is an odd little condominium, carved from the back of the old Dwight School building, on a block between two CPW landmarks, the St. Urban and the Eldorado. The side-street entrance is equipped with remote-controlled doors that give an impression of high security. The lobby is attended; otherwise, the condo is no-frills.

#5W does have some of the Old World charm touted in the listing, but mostly it's an apartment of near misses. The "South views of Central Park" are a sliver of trees visible only at a sharp angle. The dining room features handsome plasterwork (or at least something that resembles plasterwork), but is too narrow for lavish entertaining. The "new windowed, eat-in kitchen" is marred by cheap-outs like a Magic Chef oven. The "stunning bay window" in the "sun-filled Master Bedroom" enjoys what could be a splendid view of the St. Urban... if it were just a few floors higher. The other bedrooms face ugly airshafts and rusty fire escapes. The bathrooms look OK until closer inspection reveals the cheap Formica and the mismatched flooring. Overall, the neatly cut birch logs in the ornamental fireplace are an apt metaphor for this apartment, which seems to be masquerading as a luxurious home. The masquerade itself isn't the problem; the steep price tag is.

W81st I quite agree, a $2.8M apartment on CPW without a park view is quite the oxymoron. Similar to an expensive apartment on RSD w/o a river view. Without the view, I'd prefer to be more central in location.

FYI- 245 W 104 6E at the Armstead is under contract.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/392773-coop-315-w-86th-st-upper-west-side-new-york

I saw this one the other day. Estate condition but a real apartment that's been a real apartment for a long long while. This agent's listing is insane, though.

345 West 70th St. #2B vs. #5C
Co-ops 2/3 beds 2 baths
#2B: ↓$899,000 Mt.$1047 LL11 Assmt.$235. #5C: $1,195,000 Mt.$1209 LL11 Assmt.$247
Traffic: Light

Poor little 345 West 70th is immersed so deeply in Trump Canyon that StreetEasy has difficulty distinguishing listings at 345 from those in the glass boxes the surround it. (See http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/341-west-70-street-manhattan, where several Riverside Blvd listings erroneously appear.) Once you find it, 345 is a rather shabby, amenity-free throwback to the gritty, Pre-Trump days south of 72nd. And it seems to be a building with some issues, based on a Local Law 11 assessment that will extend for several years.

The apartments, however, do have some charm. That's especially true of #2B, a well-preserved five. There is nothing grand about this home. The rooms are rather small, and the apartment is currently so overtaxed that the dining room features a changing table and diaper genie. If you imagine the space more flatteringly furnished, however, it could really be quite nice in a compact, circa-1915 petit-bourgeois way. The kitchen has been nicely redone, with quality details and efficient use of space. The bathrooms are a fairly harmonious blend of original and reproduction. Because the apartment fronts directly onto Freedom Place, light streams in during the day. Unfortunately, so does bus noise; and the view from the main rooms is bookended by Lincoln Towers to the east and Trump Place to the west.

According to BHS, an offer has already been accepted on #2B. That's not surprising. The current ask is slightly below the price the owners paid in early 2005.

Three floors higher, #5C is being offered FSBO. Unlike #2B, #5C has been extensively renovated in a manner that sacrifices pre-war detail for clean lines and vibrant colors. The dining room has been converted to a bedroom, with well-designed closets. As a result, the entertaining space is quite small, but again, there's good light from the south along Freedom Place - and less noise on the fifth floor. The middle bedroom is quite small. The rear one (the real master) is of decent size, and has an en-suite bath. The kitchen and baths are modern and stylish; they may offer more form than function. Overall, the reno isn't to my taste, and the apartment appears to be priced several months behind the market; but if you're curious, you can check it yourself at http://www.wealthmagnet.org/thegift.

By the way, Elena Barskaya had a listing at 345 last year. She occasionally posts here, so maybe she can share some insights on the building.

Did anybody go to the open houses at 440 West End 7E and 10E. I was told that there were offers on both of them a few weeks back, but couldn't help wondering if the brokers were bluffing.

I saw 440 WEA Apt 10E. The broker told me the price wss negotiable and didn't mention any offers. Very few lookers.

255 West 84th St. #8B vs. #4C
Co-ops 2/3 beds 2 baths
#8B: ↓ $1,395,000 Mt.$2517 Elevator assmt.$317.
#4C: ↓ $1,345,000 Mt.$2183 Elevator assmt.$275. (Rebates offered)
Traffic: moderate

The Aameda is an elegant Ajello creation with mostly excellent layouts. It is also a building that has proven expensive for its shareholders in recent years. The Christo-like wrapper is finally gone, the restoration of the façade is complete and the ambitious “green” roof is nearly done, but more work will follow. Boiler and elevator projects are next on the agenda.

Despite high running costs, 255 retained its luster during the boom. A year ago #12E, a mint, Broadway-facing classic six, sold for $2.5MM despite maintenance of nearly $2/sq.ft. Recently, though, shareholders were jolted by the sale of #12A, a corner eight-into-seven in fair condition, for just $2.3MM.

Now two smaller family apartments on the south side of the building are battling for scarce buyers, and neither is faring well. #8B came to market about two months ago as an FSBO. That didn’t work. Now the owners, who paid $1.645MM in early 2007, have turned to Elliman, asking $1.395MM. The in-building competition is #4C, listed in November with Corcoran and now asking $1.345MM after two modest cuts.

#8B is what brokers call a “unique” apartment, which is almost never a compliment. In this case it denotes the loss of the master bedroom from the original, generous classic-six layout of the “B” line. The rump floorplan isn’t terrible – just quirky and rather cramped. A windowless dining area has been created from the former foyer. The original hall bath has been joined with the former dining room to create a master suite. The original master bath is now the hall bath, but it occupies an odd position at the far east end of the apartment, where the master suite once stood. The south-facing windows that remain, in the living room and second BR, enjoy a mostly open city view.

Everything is in good condition, the prewar feel is well preserved and the maid’s room is a respectable third BR. The apartment generally presents well. I just don’t see much of a market for a choppy five-room apartment with monthlies of close to $3K.

#4C has the same problem with maintenance and assessments. To lessen the sting, the owner is offering rebates of almost $19K. The apartment is pleasant. As in #8B, the dining room has been converted to a bedroom, and the foyer serves as a dining area. There’s enough space and light to entertain, but a table that seats more than six would pose a traffic hazard. The kitchen and baths are in good shape, as are the apartment’s details. The second bedroom (the former DR) adjoins the small nursery/maid’s room through a side passage. It could be a good arrangement for small children because both rooms have easy access to the little maid’s bath. For teens (not to mention guests), a hall bath that doesn’t require passing through little sister’s bedroom might be a better choice.

The current price difference #8B and #4C - 3.5% plus $19K in rebates - is probably in the ballpark or maybe a bit small. #8B has an extra bathroom and better exposure. #4C has a real master and perhaps better flow. The comparison may be academic, because neither apartment seems to be generating great interest at the current prices. #4C appeared to draw more traffic on Sunday.

Sorry - "Alameda".

One last note - the heading of the previous post should indicate that #8B has three baths, not two. I didn't actually see the maid's bath, because there was an animal gate blocking the kitchen wing, and I chose to let the sleeping dog lay. FWIW, I didn't notice any animal damage in the apartment.

I have always liked the Alameda because of grey bricks - a little different from the reds & beiges of the Upper West Side. In the summer of '05, an sponsor/estate/needs everything 8-room (11A) went on the market for high 2s and sold very quickly for just over 3.3m. So the 2.3m number for 12A seems like a deal. We're reaching back beyond summer '05.

The sale of 12A at 255 W. 84th has just been posted on the New York City website for $2.3mm, way down from the initial ask.

Streeteasy lists the sale of an apartment in the same building for $3.3 million in June, 2005. The New York City property records do not list which apartment that purchaser bought. However, the records do seem to show that the same buyer refinanced 11A later on, leading to the thesis that 11A sold for $3.3 million, or nearly 35% above the 12A price, in mid 2005.

Since mid 2005 was still two years (and perhaps 20 to 30%) below peak, does this affirm the conclusion that (1) current prices should be 30 to 35% below 2005, (2) 2005 was 25% below peak, and therefore (3) current prices are 45 to 50% below peak?

any thoughts, facts, confirmations or refutations please.

I don't see how 8B can sell at those prices.

Westie, as much as I love you you forgot one key detail in this apartment. They sold the last bedroom to 8A at some point. Can a classic 5, even in the Alameda, with a high Mt., sell at $1.4mm?

And if 8B was bought in '07, it wasn't even them that benefitted from the sale of the bedroom. Unfortunately I think they are in for some more pain up ahead. (though they should benefit from any comps if no one bothers to compare it to the rest of the line.

AvUWS: Don't get me started on #8A. That's a thread in itself. I agree with you about the pricetag on #8B.

On another thread, NYC10023 just confirmed for me that indeed, 255 W. 84th 11A sold for $$3.3 mm in 2005.

To me, that is solid evidence that 12A which just closed at $2.3 mm shows prices down 30% from mid 2005, and since mid 2005 was at least 25% below mid 2007, the 11A comp suggests at least a 45% uppwer west side drop from mid 2007 peak price.

West81st - I thought you would love 8A. Looks like in addition to the BR of 8B they also bought a BR and bath from the other side. Odd location for the BR but probably nice for staff or a guest room.

They made a grand apartment even grander.

AvUWS: Not a big fan of #8A. Chopping the masters off two beautiful classic sixes to expand an eight just doesn't sit right.

ah, so it is more a matter of mourning the 6's that gave their life so 8A could exist.

That and a bit of sour grapes. Chalk it up to my envy of the owners' ability to accumulate oversized UWS properties - without any sign of financial hardship - when they're on record saying they'd rather live downtown.

In the great SE tradition of screening information for the subset of that information that can be presented as supporting a conclusion that the poster has already reached, EEEE1's post about confirmation of the 255 W. 84th 11A 2005 sale omits NYC10023's thoughtful caveats to the 12A price. West81st's very informative posts this morning put specifics around the valuation issues that NYC10023 raised and EEE1 ignored. Blow-by-blow here: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/9797-255-w-84th-a-line-30-price-drop-from-2005-can-anyone-confirm

And regardless of whether the 12A comp is down 30, 40 or 45%+, this is ONE data point. It demonstrates relative value of one line in one building, not "(3) current prices are 45 to 50% below peak" or "at least a 45% uppwer west side drop from mid 2007 peak price." Give us a break.

Personally, when I look down from where we seem to be today, I still see a void, a black hole (or whatever similar cliche you prefer). I don't know where the bottom is, but by the time this settles out, I expect that we will see changes off peak that few of us, if we're honest with ourselves, ever conceived of. My crystal ball certainly wasn't that clear in 2007. Some people's were, but many fewer than will likely claim credit in 2011. However, to be credible that new reality has to be built with evidence, one comp at a time. Picking one sale with specific valuation issues (and then simply ignoring those issues in any case) and trying to draw sweeping conclusions does more harm than good to the credibility of the argument.

Is anyone familiar with the building at 112 W. 72 St? I am considering getting an apt there.

Minor update on 255 West 84th #4C: Just reduced $50K, to $1.295MM. The last sales in the line were #11C and #12C, both for $1.6MM in 2005 and 2006 respectively.

sidelinesitter - as my grandpa would say, "God bless ya, honey"!

Sidelinesitter: I guess the reduction at 255 W. 84th 4c represents a second data point of a 30% reduction off of 2005.

how many data points doth one need before you detect a trend?

EEEE1: In those south-facing apartments, the difference in elevation is a big factor. Also, we don't know the condition of the high-floor units at the time of sale. Lastly, even if the Alameda HAS declined 30% from 2005, or 45% from peak, or whatever, you have to keep in mind that some unknowable portion of the decline is specific to this address, because of the spike in maintenance and assessments, and the hits to the building's allure.

Oh, I see a trend. See the last paragraph of my previous post.

That's different from picking out one data point and making sweeping generalizations about the price level in a whole neighborhood. Granted, you're now up to two data points from different lines in the same building, assuming you're willing (as it seems you are) to ignore the good work the West81st and nyc10023 have done on the actual facts of the situation and how they may affect comparability.

The basic problem here is the one I noted in the first sentence of my previous post - cherry-picking data that specifically supports a conclusion that has already been determined, in this case that the UWS market is down nearly 50% from the peak, which it isn't in any broad way. The possibility that it might get there (i.e., that there is a trend in that direction) is different from the minimally supported argument that it is actually there now.

The dust is beginning to settle on the duels at 771 West End Avenue:

#5B (aka $5-B) was reduced from $1.495MM to $1.35MM, and sold for $1.25MM
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/441026-coop-771-west-end-avenue-upper-west-side-new-york

#9B fell from $2.150MM to $1.595MM, and sold for $1.495MM
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/376778-coop-771-west-end-avenue-upper-west-side-new-york
(When I told the listing agent "This is a $1.7MM apartment," she said I was crazy. Turns out she was right, but not the way she meant.)

#5A closed last week, but the tax filing has not reached ACRIS yet.

#7A has been in and out of contract, and continues to face competition - now from #12A.

One other note about #7A. I thought the late owners were long-time occupants. Actually, the 2003 Rolling Sales Report shows that #7A changed hands in August 2003 for $1.475MM.