http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/mcsam-buys-les-building

McSam buys LES building

150 Delancey Street
Sam Chang is still busy wheeling and dealing. His firm McSam's latest purchase is a two-story commercial building at 150 Delancey Street on the Lower East Side, which he bought for $12.25 million, according to city records posted today. Chang has already filed for a permit to build a six-story hotel. The seller was Greg Manocherian of Pound Ridge, N.Y. Last week, Chang sold a Times Square area parcel in the early stages of construction for $59 million, far above the $13.48 million he paid in 2006. McSam also bought the neighboring 152-154 Delancey Street for $3.5 million from an entity listed as Delancey Properties Inc. Massey Knakal handled the sale of 150 Delancey Street.

HMMM - yeah you guys are right the rezoning will not present ANY opportunities to make RE money........

oh yeah Sam paid $378 per buildable BEFORE the rezoning has actually been approved. Could this mean $400-500 per buildable after the rezoning is a sealed deal?

Sam has not made any money on his LES bet, nor do I think he is. He better be careful or he will end up as the next Harry Mackalowe, who almost lost the GM Building to foreclsure.

hmmm - Chang, Fischer, Pomeranc all BUIILDING lux in the LES. New lux development on Houstaon and D, planned lux development on Pitt and Grand, Trump looking to build two 50 story lux towers farther east and south of Pitt.

I guess BJW and the rest of you poster were right - no one wants to build on the east side of the LES.

oh yeah Steve - I do remember you saying that the rezoning offered no real RE upside. Tell that to the guys who just sold to Chang. They now have 15.5 million reasons why you were totally wrong.

Oy, petrfitz, you're STILL hanging on to this? Curious about the proposed developments you're listing here, specifically Trump and the one you mention on Pitt and Grand. Any links? And I don't think anyone ever said that no one wants to build there; the point was, it a) won't be the windfall you think it is, and b) will be VERY difficult for that part of town to become what the "prime" parts of the LES are now. You can put dozens of "luxury" towers out there, but that won't bring better transportation, all the needed amenities (although this is arguably the one thing that COULD eventually be remedied), or avoid all the less-than-desirable housing in the area. It's a huge stretch to think this will pan out so well. Did you also read the Curbed post on this - here's a direct quotation: "Perhaps the impending LES rezoning damaged the value a bit".

BJW - in his brilliance says "It's a huge stretch to think this will pan out so well" hmm the resoning has even passed and you have major developers - Chang, Trump, Fischer, Pomeranc in the neighborhood. Lux on D - see the curbed article, lux on Pitt and Grand - find the article yourself "Henry Street Settlement starting to drill for lux footing, Trump is looking at the PAthmark location.

BJW - keep hanging onto to your loser of a point. Its making you a fortune!

Tell the guys who owned these units on Delancy about your position. They will laugh at you 15.5 million times.

petrfitz, no need to get belligerent; I'm just stating my opinion here. Completely your right to disagree, as it is mine. I saw the proposed building on Ave D. When that's finished and renting, I think you'll maybe be on to something, but nothing's really happened there yet. Same can be said of these other locations, especially Trump "looking at the Pathmark location." Isn't that on Cherry St? That's quite far out - I'd be surprised if anything really happens over there. And I thin the sellers of that Delancey property are relieved to have unloaded it, as they took $1m under asking.

I've heard the Trump Cherry Street rumor many times but I'be been told that there was such huge community opposition to the loss of the`Pathmark that Trump withdrew. What's really the story? The Cherry street location is not a bad one at all. It's just a few blocks from the soon to be renovated Seaport and the ever expanding FiDi. Also, it's an easy walk from there to the courthouses area so it's convenient for lawyers, et al. The views from the building(s?) would be spectacular.

BJW - continues to show why he works in health care and not RE - "And I thin the sellers of that Delancey property are relieved to have unloaded it, as they took $1m under asking."

Yeah they have 15.5 million reasons why they are relieved.

BJW - stay in Williamsburg, you are fit to play with the big boys across the river.

petrfitz, I have no idea what they originally bought those properties for, but if they were expecting $16.5m or paid something close to that to buy it, then they probably aren't throwing parties and retiring to the Bahamas. And I'm not sure what my job or Williamsburg have to do with any of this.

ahh they paid nothing for it originally and asked for an over inflated price. you are a moron if you think that those guys didnt cash out massively.,

Really? They got those properties for free? Well then I congratulate them.

BJW - also since you are saying that no one will develop east of the LES, then you must have done a bit of cursory research and have an understanding of who already owns a good portions of the poperties on Pitt, Ave C, etc?

Do I know what's there? Sure. Parts of Ave C are ok actually (esp around 9th). Pitt is just bad.

I asked you since you are saying that no developer would build on C,D and Pitt - do you know who owns the majority properties on these streets?

Obviously you do not.

The majority of properties on Pitt Street (which you proclaim over and over that no developer would ever want to do anything on) are now owned and have been for quite a while by Paul Stallings.

I guess Paul Stallings would never develop properties would he? As a matter of fact on one of the Pitt Street blocks Paul owns about 70% of the buidings on this block (the very block receiving doubled FAR). He also has properties on C and in between C and D.

why would a developer like Paul own in these areas that you say no one would ever develop on? Why is Sam Chang buying nearby properties? Fischer already building a half block over? And Trump buying farther east and south?

Do you think that the blocks named in the rezoning are just chosen haphazardly? Do you not think that major developers have identified these blocks long ago and made sure that the rezoning would allow them maximum development? Or do you actually think that these blocks were just picked by the Planning Commision to receive double buildable FAR for some unknown reason?

Grasshopper - you are very naive and uninformed.

petrfitz, I never claimed that developers wouldn't do that. Developers have a job, and they'll always seek out investments. But as is the nature of all investments, some are successful, and some aren't. And to further complicate matters, different developers have different goals. My point was, and is, that those areas are pretty big gambles. These big developers can most likely afford to go after these high-risk, high-reward kinds of properties. If a small handful pan out, then it usually would have been worth the trouble. If you can convince me that Pitt St will flourish without amenities, transportation, and in spite of some of the housing over there, then we can see eye-to-eye on this.

back peddled back peddled.

BJW says: "But as is the nature of all investments, some are successful, and some aren't"

by arent successful investments - you mean like buying a condo in Williamsburg? I hear that they are giving Wburg condo units away if you sign up for a 2 year contract on Verizon mobile.

"The majority of properties on Pitt Street (which you proclaim over and over that no developer would ever want to do anything on) are now owned and have been for quite a while by Paul Stallings.

I guess Paul Stallings would never develop properties would he? As a matter of fact on one of the Pitt Street blocks Paul owns about 70% of the buidings on this block (the very block receiving doubled FAR). He also has properties on C and in between C and D.

why would a developer like Paul own in these areas that you say no one would ever develop on? Why is Sam Chang buying nearby properties? Fischer already building a half block over? And Trump buying farther east and south?

Do you think that the blocks named in the rezoning are just chosen haphazardly? Do you not think that major developers have identified these blocks long ago and made sure that the rezoning would allow them maximum development? Or do you actually think that these blocks were just picked by the Planning Commision to receive double buildable FAR for some unknown reason?"

Where did the FAR double? Certainly not on Pitt St.

Call it a backpedal, but you now agree with that?

Far doubles on Pitt street and Chrystie St, parts of D.

Maybe you could help me with the math then. I see an FAR of 3.44 being changed(proposed) to 6.02. Haven't been able to find any place where it doubles yet.

3.44 going to 7.2 - dont know what you are reading.

R7A 4.0FAR
R7B 3.0 FAR
R8A 6.02 FAR
R8B 4.0 FAR
C4-4A 4.0 (residential) FAR
C6-2A 6.02 (residential) FAR

Sources - http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/evles/evles2.shtml
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/evles/evles3.shtml

That 7.2 number you are talking about is for developments that include affordable housing...

yes and the rezoning sole purpose is basically to guarantee affordable housing being built. All impact models based on affordable housing inclusions. Developer incentives given to include affordable.

CB3 and borough PResidnet request affordable is mandated.

Dont even try to argue that affordable wont be built to the fullest. You will be embarrassed.

"yes and the rezoning sole purpose is basically to guarantee affordable housing being built." You spin so much you really should be a politician. Even the city doesn't spin it that far....

"Developer incentives given to include affordable." They always are. You can still get a 421-a in Manhattan with affordable housing. There are all sorts of bonuses given out for affordable housing, community facility space, plazas open to the public etc.

"CB3 and borough PResidnet request affordable is mandated." They can request that it is put into the proposal or that incentives are offered. That is about it though.

"Dont even try to argue that affordable wont be built to the fullest. You will be embarrassed." It won't. Who is going to build it? The developers you cite above? Trump (luxury); Chang (hotels); I don't know of anything Stallings has put up besides the Rivington Hotel; Fischer? The architect?

You can keep spinning and spinning all you want, it is hurricane season after all.

Stallings has at least two large rental buildings, and I mean large luxury in the East Village and thats just the rentals, doesn't include the six families he bought and turned into rentals (not sure how many). The guy lives next to Bon Jovi in the Hamptons. He's a big player.

As to the LES overall, below from the Villager. They've GOT to clean up these little scumbag kids running around looking for marks. I myself have gotten into with them but I can defend myself.

"Attacked on Clinton

Police arrested Michael Whigham and Matthew Rivera, both residents of the Samuel Gompers Houses at 70 Pitt St., for beating and robbing two young men around 2 a.m. Thurs., Aug. 7, on Clinton St. between Stanton and Rivington Sts. According to the charges filed by the Manhattan District Attorney%u2019s Office, the suspects shouted anti-gay epithets at the victims, punched and kicked them and ran off with a cell phone the victims had dropped during the attack."

The Fed - it is obvious that you know nothing about the rezoning. Please stop embarassing your self.

TA - its about 20-30 six families. Several other larger buildings, and you forgot THOR. But nah - he has no intention of developing the properties he owns on Pitt or C.

"The Fed - it is obvious that you know nothing about the rezoning. Please stop embarassing your self."

Only what I read from the city, which should be a reliable source, yes?

I'll admit that I can't measure up to your poor grammar, name calling, immature/childish tactics and general disregard for FACTS. You are much better at that than I.