On the "If you can demonstrate market movement with comps..." thread, hsw9001's mentioned that pricing appeared very sticky for 1BR units on Riverside Boulevard. I decided to follow up with some research, and I was drawn to 220 RSB as a benchmark because data seemed abundant for current listings and past sales.

So far, I have charted the "A" and "B" lines; I excluded the upper floors because layouts and views differ. The first result set appears below (I hope the formatting is OK):

Date ----- Apt. - Recorded Sales -| -Current/Previous Listings--
ACTIVE ... #10A .................. | ↑ $1,099,000 979 ft²
ACTIVE ... #11A .................. | ↓ $1,125,000 979 ft²
ACTIVE ... #17A .................. | ↓ $1,055,000 979 ft²
ACTIVE ... #??A .................. | ↓ . $899,000 979 ft²
07/22/2008 # 3A .. $875,000 . 0.0% | ... $875,000 979 ft²
07/08/2008 # 6A. $1,057,500. -2.5% | . $1,085,000 979 ft²
06/20/2008 #14A .. $998,000 -13.2% | . $1,150,000 979 ft²
09/06/2007 # 5A $1,125,000 ....... |
08/07/2006 #18A $1,050,000 ....... |
11/10/2005 # 4A $1,049,000 ....... |
08/24/2005 # 7A $1,080,000 ....... |
06/06/2005 #12A . $925,000 ....... |
04/22/2005 # 5A . $979,000 ....... |
09/01/2004 #15A . $855,000 ....... |
07/19/2004 #11A . $837,000 ....... |
07/09/2004 #17A . $835,000 ....... |

It's just one line in one building, so it may not mean much, but I'll venture a few observations:

- The seller of #5A timed the top nicely. (I think she threw in a 24 sq.ft. storage unit, but still...)
- The seller of #6A has been breathing a big sigh of relief in his new digs at Battery Park City since July 8th.
- #3A and #14A may have been canaries in a mineshaft that leads back to 2005, possibly 2004.
- The owner of #10A is whistling past the graveyard.
- The owners of #11A, #17A and the other, unidentified A-line listing are sweating profusely.

Caveats:
- The units are not identical. For example, #11A has some nice upgrades.
- The $899K listing is with Nestseekers; it could be a bait-and-switch.

I'll post the "B" line next. There are fewer data points, but the trend is fairly striking.

Let's try that table for the "A" line one more time:

Date ----- Apt. - Recorded Sales ----| ---- Current/Previous Listings --
ACTIVE ... #10A ............................ | ↑ $1,099,000 979 ft²
ACTIVE ... #11A ............................ | ↓ $1,125,000 979 ft²
ACTIVE ... #17A ............................ | ↓ $1,055,000 979 ft²
ACTIVE ... #??A ............................ | ↓ . $899,000 979 ft²
07/22/2008 # 3A ... $875,000 .. 0.0% | .. ↓ $875,000 979 ft²
07/08/2008 # 6A. $1,057,500. -2.5% | ↓ $1,085,000 979 ft²
06/20/2008 #14A .. $998,000 -13.2%| ↓ $1,150,000 979 ft²
09/06/2007 # 5A $1,125,000 ........... |
08/07/2006 #18A $1,050,000 .......... |
11/10/2005 # 4A $1,049,000 ........... |
08/24/2005 # 7A $1,080,000 ........... |
06/06/2005 #12A . $925,000 ........... |
04/22/2005 # 5A . $979,000 ............ |
09/01/2004 #15A . $855,000 ........... |
07/19/2004 #11A . $837,000 ........... |
07/09/2004 #17A . $835,000 ........... |

So do you think the $899k unit is for real? If so, the sellers of 10A, 11A, and 17A must want to kill that guy for underpricing them so much.

It appears that the $899k unit is for real. It is unit #4A:

http://www.nestseekers.com/Properties/5103

On to the "B" line. No closed sales here in 2008, but the two open listings tell a grim story:

Date ----- Apt. - Recorded Sales ----| ---- Current/Previous Listings --
ACTIVE ...... #5B ............................... | ↓ $899,000 880 ft²
ACTIVE ...... #4B ............................... | ↓ $899,000 880 ft²
11/20/2007 #14B ... $931,125 -5.5% | ↓ $985,000 880 ft²
09/07/2007 #16B ... $999,000 ........... |
11/10/2005 # 4B $1,049,000 ........... |
07/15/2005 # 5B ... $925,000 ........... |
03/04/2005 # 9B ... $850,000 ........... |
06/22/2004 #10B ... $795,000 ........... |

#4B and #5B have two related problems: They are south of their 2005 prices, they are probably driving each other down. Again, I'm assuming the NestSeekers listing (#4B) is legit.

Thanks, Alpine. That jibes with this combination listing for #4AB, with the same NestSeekers agent:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/95274-condo-220-riverside-blvd-lincoln-square-manhattan

Anyway, the guy they should kill is #3A. He set the market by selling for $875K. (I think he had to pull the trigger because he was carrying two apartments.)

In the future, be ready to see some nasty comps for 200 Riverside Blvd. There are several units there in forelcsure, including 3A.

So 4A and 4B are both for sale with the same agency? That souds interesting. Perhaps they are owned by the same person who planned to combine the units???

Re. 4A and 4B: Different names, but same family.

The other 1BR lines are harder to analyze (less recent activity, more variation in layouts). I do see a couple of repeat listings that could become trendsetters if the owners need to sell:

Date ----- Apt. - Recorded Sales ----| ---- Current/Previous Listings --
ACTIVE ...... # 8G ............................... | $1,169,000 902 ft²
07/03/2008 #18G ............................... |↓$1,185,000 902 ft²
06/03/2005 # 8G $1,150,000 ........... |
06/07/2004 # 8G ... $857,500 ........... |

$1.169MM seems ambitious for #8G, considering that #18G (same floorplan, ten floors higher) was on the market for over a year, most recently at $1.185MM, before being pulled off in July. Even at the asking price, a $19K increase over three years wouldn't cover inflation, let alone transaction costs.

Date ----- Apt. - Recorded Sales ----| ---- Current/Previous Listings --
ACTIVE ...... # 7R ............................... |↓ $899,000 696 ft²
3/19/2007 # 8R ... $834,000........... |
11/3/2005 # 7R ... $880,000........... |
5/13/2005 # 8R ... $860,000........... |

The Elliman listing touts 7R as "Investor/1031 Exchange opportunity to buy luxury apartment with tenant in place." I don't know enough about investment property to comment on the persuasiveness of that pitch, and a lot depends on the terms of the current lease. But with similar units renting just north of $3K/month, $899K looks pricey. By the way, the "R" line is one that seems to vary a lot, so I'm not sure #8R is a perfect comp.

Declines always start slow and you wake up one day and you're down 20%. If someone seriously needs to sell I wouldn't be waiting to long, it could cost you hundreds of thousands by this time next year.

Wow, that is considerable. That being said, I always thought there was WAAAY too much inventory in that spot, which to me is essentially cut off from the rest of the UWS by Lincoln Towers and such. And Trump is a good marketer, but some of his buildings are just ass (I think of all the low 60s gold and black cap).

Granted, some part of town has to take the lumps first, thats as good a spot as any.

Great analysis West81st as always.

The prob with the A line is that the bedroom has an irregular configuration, small window and is North facing (which means most of the time you are looking into another building). At least the South facing gets more light. The B line I think also faces north and perhaps into the building it self, which I think what "garden facing" really means. The R line is east facing which is ok b/c there is a big park in between Lincoln Towers apartments, which to me like public housing (nonetheless it does look nice inside). So I think the apartments which are nonideal, there is softness.

To me, the main reason to live on RIverside Blvd is for the river views. Otherwise why would anyone want to pay a premium and trek 2 avenues or more, in the cold windy winter, to the subway? The G line has at least partial river views and I'd be curious to see how it fars in the long run. At 220 Rsd Bvld I haven't seen 1 bdrms with a full river view. Maybe they haven't come on the market.

I am keeping my eye out on this area b/c it seems that there is massive inventory and it would be interesting to see how keen sellers are.

I have been there chasing these apts for 3 months now.
3A is foreclosure.. 5B is a relo deal..
A line configuration is bad, no light in the apt and you cannot do much with the 'large' BD as most of the A lines are advertised.

"That being said, I always thought there was WAAAY too much inventory in that spot, which to me is essentially cut off from the rest of the UWS by Lincoln Towers and such. And Trump is a good marketer, but some of his buildings are just ass"

EW, the only thing I would change about this statement is by replacing "some of" with "all of"

JuiceMan, why would you say so ? We are seriously considering to buy a unit here very soon.
Any insights will be appreciated.

narayap, my issues with Trump are exactly what EW mentioned. Lots of overblown hype that match the overblown prices, just because it has the Trump name on it. In fairness, I just hate Trump and think the product produced is rarely worth the price tag that comes with it.

That said, my opinion of the RSD developments is that they are far away from civilization and transportation (for NY standards), lower units have great views of the west side highway, and in the winter, it is cold as hell over there. These apartments seem to be coming down to a price I feel is more realistic for what you are required to give up to live there, but there also seems to be a ton of inventory. I’m not saying it this is the worst place in Manhattan to live, I would just be aggressive in negotiations at this point in time.

I don't think this is really a trump building - I think he licensed his name to the developers. I'm not a fan of most of his buildings, but they usually do have nicer finishes than this... At any rate, I can definitely see big declines in this part of the "uws." The area is too sequestered and the whole development is completely contrived and devoid of character. It's like Diet Battery Park City.

> I don't think this is really a trump building - I think he licensed his name to the developers.

Per the trumpnation book, thats been most of his "developments" for years.

> but they usually do have nicer finishes than this...
Check out all that trump parc / whatever the hell on the upper east side. Fairly crappy quality. He might put it into trump tower and the international hotel (which was a refinish, not new construction), but the majority of the step down stuff has always been pretty lousy. Trump Place is actually better than those from what I've seen...

Revisiting the "A" line at 220 RSB, #11A was just reduced another $50K, to $1.075MM
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/183512-condo-220-riverside-boulevard-lincoln-square-manhattan

Anyone know how much the Trump name adds to the prices at Trump Place? Let's say you took the same exact 1 bedroom apartment and put it into a non-Trump building, how much cheaper would it be?

The A-line configuration is not a good one. The light is bad, there are no views at all regardless of the floor. Clearly, the asking price does not justify the space offered.
The building offers a lot of amenties at a decent monthly cost. Low taxes make it attractive.
Not sure how the taxes would be once abatement is over.

There appears to be some weakness in the "D" line as well:

Date ----- Apt. - Recorded Sales ----| ---- Current/Previous Listings --
08/14/2008 # 9D $1,200,000 -11.1% | $1,349,000 1 bed 1 baths 1,052 ft²
05/02/2008 ............................... | $1,300,000 ↓ 1 bed 1.5 baths 1,052 ft²
09/18/2007 ............................... | $1,500,000 1 bed 1.5 baths 1,052 ft²
09/17/2007 #15D $1,399,900 ..............|
10/04/2006 ............................... | $1,350,000 ↓ 1 bed 1.5 baths 1,052 ft²
05/25/2006 ............................... | $1,870,000 1 bed 1.5 baths 1,052 ft²
11/14/2005 #12D $1,300,000 ........... |
11/01/2005 ............................... | $1,275,000 1 bed 1.5 baths 1,052 ft²
05/31/2005 #11D $1,250,000 ........... |
05/05/2005 #10D $1,050,000 ........... |
04/19/2005 # 8D ....$900,000 ............. |
03/25/2003 #11D ....$584,250 ............. |

Looks like the real money was made at least three years ago. Since then, nothing much has happened. By the way, I'm not sure #15D has the same footprint as the others.

this seems to match the trends that the article in the sun is talking about

#10A is now asking $1.059MM. No more whistling past the graveyard; but I doubt a $40K cut is enough.
http://www.prudentialelliman.com/1001879

#11A has reduced to $1.075MM. With its upgrades and throw-ins, #11A might still be a better value.
http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&listingid=1192937

Meanwhile, #4A is still out there at $899K:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/167101-condo-220-riverside-blvd-lincoln-square-new-york

In other news, #7R is off the market. Couldn't get $899K, after selling in 2005 for $880K.

Maybe he should have put the building in LIC, all still apparently the only place in the city still selling.

I suspect that the 'A' line will sell closer to $900/sq ft as was 3A. I think the majority of the nonriver views in these Riverside Blvd should sell closer to $1000/sq ft if not less.

Another update: #8G is now $1.1MM, or 4% below the owner's 2005 purchase price.
See:
http://www.olshan.com/property.php?id=183920

It's interesting to see Olshan touting "Price slashed below original purchase price!" as a selling point. It's also somewhat misleading. #8G originally closed in early 2003 for $763,688:
http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2003012702503003

It changed hands again in June 2004 for $857,500. The current owner, a Canadian partnership, bought #8G in June 2005 for $1.15MM:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/closing/26665

So $1.1MM is a bargain only in relation to the resale price near the end of a big run-up. It's still 44% above the REAL original price, recorded five and a half years ago.

The Changs did well. The Maltzes did even better. Our friends from Vancouver, on the other hand, may be wishing they had invested closer to home.

West81st, loved your analysis. Great last line!

Yeah, it's always the last guy in the run-up (ponzi-scheme?) that gets burned.

> It's still 44% above the REAL original price, recorded five and a half years ago.

Thats just asking. If it sells for 5% under asking - no stretch there - that is 37%, and 10%, that is 30%. Your return over a boom period comes down to 5% annual... (not including any transaction costs)

The difficulty with this kind of analysis is that even whilst looking at a number of different lines, you're still considering a VERY small, statistically insignificant number of datapoints. One must also consider varying degrees of renovation in the apartments; if the owner has not upgraded anything, a unit sold in 2005 (closer to date of original construction) may well be in better shape than a unit sold in 2008. Finally, particularly in a place like Trump Place, where high floors can have breathtaking views and low floors can have you staring into breath-choking fumes of cars on the west side highway, it's exceedingly difficult to compare apartments on different floors, even if they have the same exact layout.

Can you actually stare at breath-choking fumes?

I think that is a misstatement anyway, I ride my bike along the west side path, and there are no choking fumes.

Another update: #11A just undercut #10A with another $50K reduction: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/183512-condo-220-riverside-boulevard-lincoln-square-new-york

#10A will probably follow suit. Maybe those two owners should flip a coin, and the loser should take his unit off the market until the other sells. Otherwise, any sensible buyer who wants an A-line apartment will just wait until they're done beating each other down, then play them against each other in negotiations.

What was the original selling price on these?

Oops... I stand corrected. #10A already went off the market a week ago. Guess he lost the coin flip. The competition for #11A at this point is #17A.

10022: Low to mid 800s in 2004.

10022: The original developer prices were in the high 500s to low 600s.

For example, here's the 2003 deed for #11A ($611K): http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/ViewImage?Doc_ID=2003030301015001

...and here's #17A ($585K): http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/ViewImage?Doc_ID=2003022000776001

The current listing for #11A and #17A both opened a little under $1.2MM, or about twice the 2003 prices. Neither is still owned by the original buyer.

Just to reclarify W81's numbers, the following are all closings on the A/B lines between 8/06 and the present (from floors 3 - 20; apartments on higher floors have different configurations):

5A - 9/07 - $1,125,000
6A - 7/08 - $1,057,500
18A - 8/06 - $1,050,000
14A - 6/08 - $998,000
3A - 7/08 - $875,000

16B - 9/07 - $999,000
11B - 8/07 - $965,000 (WITH STORAGE)
14B - 11/07 - $933,125

I think the conclusion one must reach is that there is no conclusion to reach, yet. If you look at the 'A's in particular, both the second HIGHEST price attained in the last two years as well as the LOWEST price attained in the past two years both occurred in the same month! And on the 'B' line, at a point at which the credit crisis had not yet hit, an apartment that came WITH basement storage sold for $34,000 less than an apartment WITHOUT storage a month later, at a time when it was known that the credit markets had hit a snag.

The point is that one cannot look at so small a sample size and come to any definitive conclusion about the state of the market. Even within the same time periods, there are wide disparities of prices on units with the exact same configuration. Other factors, like upgrades, floor height, the shrewdness of brokers, buyers and sellers (or lack thereof), and the undefinable 'X' factor all play a role.

When we start to see a CONSISTENT trend of decline in a large number of apartments over a fairly extended period of time, then we know that we're in trouble. But to just grab 4 or 5 sales is inconclusive, and can serve to prove a point in any direction, depending on your perspective.

SwK: I don't think anyone on this thread is extrapolating to the broader market. The thread began as an attempt to answer a question specifically about RSB, not about the West Side or Manhattan as a whole. At best, tracking these transactions is like watching fruit flies in a genetics lab. Individually, they are completely uninteresting, but they have the advantage of being numerous and relatively generic.

I agree that the pattern of recent closed sales is erratic and inconclusive. I do believe, though, that if you add the current and failed listings to the mix, a picture begins to emerge. It's a fuzzy picture, and it may have no relevance at all outside the investor-driven market for viewless 1BR apartments on Riverside Boulevard; but it is certainly a picture of a market whose best gains were achieved before 2006, and one that is now headed in the other direction.

So this particular species of fruit fly is mutating back toward 2005. Whether that tells us anything about the rest of the animal kingdom is anyone's guess.

Very critical point alluded to in your post, W81: "investor-driven market". The collection of condos on RSB are particularly - one might even say, uniquely (for NYC) - driven by a disproportionate number of investors. With the long trek to the subway and the dearth of commercial or night-life anywhere near the buildings, this collection has far less appeal to well-heeled owner-occupant New Yorkers than other new developments do. (The sole exception to that rule would be high-floor units with riverviews, which certainly offer a unique product unavailable in most other condos.)

Investors/flippers create artificial demand; they're here when the market is hot, and gone when it's not. Thus, their presence artificially drives up demand and price during boom times, and their withdrawal depresses the markets even more when real estate is no longer sexy. That injection and 'rejection' of investors in other markets throughout the country greatly contributed to the decline in the last couple of years, while NYC's relative paucity of investor-driven increases played a role in protecting the City's prices during the past two years' decline. (In my opinion.)

Thus, now that NYC is on the way down, it is precisely neighborhoods and developments like this - condos with a particular appeal to investors, and a particular lack of appeal to owner-occupants - that one might expect would see the most precipitous decline during the correction we are about to/already experience. But the situation here is 'unique' enough by NYC standards to posit that whatever happens in developments like Trump do not necessarily augur the future in the rest of town.

This thread was started b/c I wondered how all these condos on RSB can maintain their price given the large # either for sale or for rent. The weakest lines seem to have their prices dropping and failing to sell. I agree that the ones I would consider are the ones with the river views, otherwise it is probably not worth the walk to the river (especially during the winter).

Potentially this is where you may be able to find good deals as the market weakens.

Slightly off-topic, but the low-end three-bedroom sector on RSB may be cratering too:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/229038-condo-200-riverside-boulevard-lincoln-square-new-york

$2.3MM in May. $1.575 now, after a $375K reduction this morning. That's $943 per sq.ft.

Since #4J faces southwest from the fourth floor, it might provide a test of SwK's theory about "staring into breath-choking fumes". In any case, $943/sq.ft. for an apartment BHS touts as having "11 foot ceilings and direct river views" seems like a breakthrough, low floor and all.

It's got to be a desperate seller. 2 drops for a total of $600K (25% ) in 2 weeks.

It's got to be a desperate seller. 2 drops for a total of $600K (25% ) in 2 weeks.

desperate or smart?

Wow! 4J is asking the same price as the 2 bdrm next door #4H. Will have to look out for the eventual sale price. I suspect in the transactions in the next 3-6 months will be between those who have to buy and those who have to sell.

I beg to differ with SWK about low floors "staring into breath-choking fumes" for 200, 220 and 240 RSB because the buildings are at a higher elevation. OTOH the statement is true for 120, 100 (Avery) and 80 (Rushmore)

hsw9001: #4J is also $520K below a new Elliman comp on the 7th floor:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/352985-condo-200-riverside-boulevard-lincoln-square-new-york

Although #7D is slightly bigger, the common charges on #4J are actually 10% higher, suggesting that it may be the more valuable property (at least in the view of the developer and, now, the condo board). The difference in total monthlies is closer to 5%, because #7D has higher taxes.

So, is #4J a great opportunity, or is it just the first listing to reflect changed realities?

It's true that the lowest apartments at 200 - 240 are at higher points (relative to the highway) than the lowest apartments at 80 - 120. Nevertheless, apartments that are situated directly above the highway are only slightly less unappealing than those that face the highway directly