Calling West 81st: Price predictions

dmf13: I'm flattered that you asked for my opinion. Honestly, my crystal ball is no better than anyone else's, but I'll be happy to share my thoughts, for what they're worth:

222 RSD #5A: As has been noted elsewhere, the ask of $2.1MM is already 5% below the price the owners paid in 2006. 222 is a tricky building, because it's so different from its neighbors. #5A seems pretty close to fairly priced already. The question is how many buyers are interested in 80s construction on RSD. Also, every year the trees get a little taller, making the fifth floor a little less attractive. The sellers look motivated, so I won't be surprised if this one falls to $1.8MM or so.

333 CPW #33: Not sure what the problem is here. Again, the ask seems attractive. The built-ins and the fishbowl dining room (which might be better used as a bedroom) probably narrow the buyer pool, but the overall value proposition seems good. If it keeps falling, I think you have to attribute it to the market, not the apartment, the building, or anything BHS is doing.

239 CPW #4C: Of the three listings you mentioned, this is the only one that could fairly still be called overpriced. Even here, the case is shaky, because the closest thing I see to direct, competitive, on-market comps are over on Riverside Drive. My feeling is that the second tier on CPW (like 239) is roughly comparable, price-wise, to the top tier on RSD. If you buy that premise, then similarly-sized (and somewhat less view-challenged) apartments like the #6C at 110-118 RSD are fair comps. At this point, I'd take 110 RSD: $200K cheaper (and probably negotiable), lower monthlies and 35% down rather than the prohibitive 50% at 239 CPW. #4C is vacant and also listed as a rental. I think the owners will ultimately take what they can get.

Gun-to-head, if these apartments ultimately sell, my useless predictions would be:
222 RSD #5A: $1.95MM
333 CPW #33: $2.75MM
239 CPW #4C: $1.75MM

I went back to my notes and the listing sheet for 333 CPW #33, and I should mention the pleasant surprise about the views: because the apartment faces the playground, the park view is largely unobstructed, even from the third floor. True, it's a playground, not the Reservoir, but as playgrounds go, it's a very nice one. Also, the south-facing window in the living room really does have a clear line to the Empire State Building - at least until Time Warner-type construction wraps around Columbus Circle to Central Park South.

Granted, the renovation is very "ten years ago" with all those built-ins, but that wouldn't stop me if I had $3MM and a yen for park views.

222 RSD - yep, anomaly for RSD and is always priced lower than what you might think given that it's a condo.
333 CPW - for some reason, always priced under nearby buildings. Classic 9s with no views sold for mid3s to high 3s recently, which is low for CPW. A similar apt (low floor park view 6) at 322 CPW (a lesser building) had trouble selling for 1.7 back in the summer of '05, so I'm not sure what the bottom is for this kind of apt.
239 CPW - very tough board, and a classic 6 on higher flr sold for less at the ht of market.

Thanks for the input--saw 222 RSD today-- nice, sunny apartment, but very 90's in terms of granite floors in foyer and tired bathroom marble and fixtures.
ALso saw 333 CPW--great views, but blocked by built-ins--really didn't like the building lobby or hallways-- very old and tired.

nyc10023: I have to fact-check you slightly on 239 and 333 CPW.

Re. 333: "Classic 9s with no views sold for mid3s to high 3s recently"
#36 fits the description, but it closed for $4.65MM in February. .

Re. 239: "a classic 6 on higher flr sold for less at the ht of market"
The last six above the fourth floor to sell for under $2.1MM appears to have been #6C. It closed for $1.625MM in January 2005. Not the top of the market by any means, especially considering the likelihood that it went to contract months earlier. Nonetheless, we agree on the more important point that #4C is simply not a very enticing apartment.

As for matters of taste, I agree that the public spaces at 333 are tired, though I don't think they need anything more than freshening. Personally, I like the building and its low-key charm. I also think it's worth noting that the last sale of an apartment on the southeast corner of that building was #101, which sold for $6.495MM in 2006. Tenth floor, and about 50-60% bigger than #33, but still somewhat relevant as a comp with many qualifications.

West81st, the key phrase is "somewhat relevant." That tenth floor apartment is over 60% bigger, had a beautiful renovation, and has full open views of the park and the skyline. If it sold for $6.495, how much should this apartment sell for? I just don't think there is any real way to calculate. I would say that if #101 sold for more or less 2000/sq foot, this apartment, requiring significant renovation, should not sell for more than 1200/sq foot.

333's apt. really doesn't require significant renovation if you like the built-ins (I personally don't)-

I don't either. I guess I am assuming that most buyers would renovate that thing.

happyrenter: Two points in reply...

1) #33 doesn't NEED anything. It's in move-in condition. The built-ins may not be to everyone's taste (how many people want a dining room that looks like the conference room in LA Law?), but that's an aesthetic issue. Clearly, for a buyer who hates the style, the apartment isn't a great value because of the money required to redo it.

2) Ironically, my view is more bearish than yours and 10023's. You both seem to feel that the inherent flaws of the Turin in general and #33 in particular explain the downward price spiral. I think it's a pretty great property (though one with some warts), and that it comps out much higher than the current ask, so the 30%+ price drop shows how completely screwed the low-luxe market currently is.

Happyrenter: OK, but "most" buyers are beside the point. It only takes one.

Yes West81st, it only takes one, and apparently that one hasn't emerged--in part, I imagine, because the styling of the apartment is all wrong. You had a very smart discussion on the 'loftlike' apartment near Columbia (I forget the exact link) that you liked a lot but felt suffered positioning issues. That's somewhat like the issue here: the aesthetics of this apartment go beyond decor and would require renovation to undo, and they are wrong for this apartment in this building in this location. Even if I liked the built ins quite frankly I would still use them to discount the apartment because I would assume that other buyers wouldn't.

Now, as for bullish-ness and bearish-ness, I am bearish on the market in general, but I also think we have to be realistic about this apartment--it doesn't have a spectacular park view like the tenth floor apartment, it is much smaller than the tenth floor apartment, and it has (to be polite) a very singular aesthetic. So if we are going to use the 10th floor as a comp, I simply believe that the ppsf we use has to be much lower. Am I wrong?

happyrenter: Absolutely right about the tenth-floor apartment. If there were a more recent sale on that corner of the building, I wouldn't include #101 in the analysis at all. Since there's no direct comp, you have to assemble a picture from diverse fragments.

I do think you're overstating the aesthetic problem. Other than two sides of the dining room, #33 is pretty vanilla and very nice. The kitchen, baths and bedrooms are all quite conservative and use space very efficiently; ditto the living room, except for the one wall it shares with the DR. The floors and windows are excellent.

I agree that the steel-and-glass doors on the dining room are nuts, especially with young kids (of which the current owners appear to have three or four; go figure). So replace them with some sheetrock and a door, add some sheetrock around the big built-in, and you have a fourth bedroom. Or leave the doors alone for now and use the space as a family/media room. Either way, put the dining room table in the great room - which is plenty big - and the obstructed DR view is solved: the head of the table gets a clear line to the ESB. The other end looks at the park. Not bad.

This is coming from somebody who doesn't like the built-ins at all. Again, I'm not saying the style of the apartment is a plus, just that it's a much smaller problem than the general carnage in this segment of the market.

West81st, we agree :).

I know you don't really follow downtown, but any thoughts on these apartments i have been following:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/358645-coop-51-fifth-avenue-greenwich-village-new-york
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/231290-condo-45-christopher-street-west-village-new-york
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/345766-coop-30-fifth-avenue-greenwich-village-new-york

Happyrenter: No clue about the Village, though I'm scraping my jaw off the floor after looking at the price drops on the last two. Not that asking prices mean anything; but the downward acceleration in the $2-4MM category is striking.

too bad. we need a resident expert on the village around here! this area actually shot up quite disproportionately during 2004-2006, and then a few apartment sold at insane prices in 2007 (2200 ppsf for an apartment in 33 5th that needed a renovation. craziness) and a lot of sellers seemed to get overconfident. so i don't take those original asking prices too seriously, although they are data points nonetheless.

the hard thing about the village is that there are so few largish prewar apartments that it's just hard to find comps. the only really interesting one i can find is for 45 5th. It is a combination of two basically equal-sized one bedrooms, one of which, two floors higher, sold for over 1.5 million in 2007 and needed a renovation. So compared to that, this is real movement.

Back to CPW....do the subway lines under/very close to the buildings ever lead to rumbling in the apartments. I have experienced just that in one of my friends low floor apartments in the 60's. Is one building 'better built/insulated' than another?

walterh7: I've never heard/seen anyone mention that as a problem at any of the grandes dames along CPW. FWIW, it should only be 50% as big an issue on CPW as it is on Broadway, since the southbound A/B/C/D trains run beneath the northbound ones, rather than side-by-side. Even on Broadway, where all four tracks are just below street level, it's not something you hear much about.

One more note about that southeastern view from the 333 CPW #33: I think this recent sale at the Alden suggests that the market will pay up for that position, even on the third floor of an also-ran building:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/233135-coop-225-central-park-west-upper-west-side-new-york
Again, it's a bigger apartment, and the location is slightly better, but the main attraction is the same. Also, the maintenance on combo apartments at 225 CPW is ungodly high, which offsets the some of the appeal of the extra floorspace.

West81 - Have you looked at the apartments at 905 West End Ave. Though a bit north for you they seem to be your "type". Of course the asks are too high and I know how you feel about conversions.

AvUWS: Yes, I saw a low-floor "show" apartment. Very dark, very dull. Value might be better on the higher floors.

Until they introduced the seller-financing gimmick, 905 WEA was just another bland conversion. Now I see it as something more sinister: an attempt to dupe buyers into overpaying for apartments they can't afford by artificially reducing the monthly payment. Sounds like what got us into this mess.

A seven-year balloon with a thirty-year amortization schedule is basically an IO. With the market dropping, do you really want to bet your livelihood that you can refi in seven years? It doesn't make sense unless you have a lot of cash. And if you have a lot of cash, you also have much better options than 905 WEA.

And by the way, I don't like "stealth" price cuts in general. Just reduce the damn price. Fooling around with closing costs and subsidized financing just adds fog to a market that suffers enough from a lack of transparency.

West81st - I am with you there. In fact, a lot of the problems we face today are because a lot of shenanigans were played to get people financing they should not have been able to get. If people think that no-doc loans didn't go to people in NYC they are sadly mistaken. I know from someone close who got such a loan that you could get one up to $1 million in NYC prime without much problem.

I know less about the property than you but I just don't think that apartments that size in that area are worth that much without some other type of special amenity (view, outdoors, etc.). I love the area, but a park or museum block it isn't.

333 CPW:
Apt 36 - 4.65m - 3/6/08
Apt 76 - 3.8m - 8/9/07
Apt 106 - low 3m because the 4.4m includes the adjacent 6-room apt - 4/7/06

So that's where I get my mid-3s figure; Apt 36 is an anomaly to me, not sure why it went so high other
than condition. I am very bearish, in fact. Just think that the Turin was not hot at the best of times, and
will do worse now.

239 CPW - Both the C & E lines are classic 6es - the C is completely courtyard-facing, while E has a side on 84th street. Assume that they're equivalent.
14C - 3.175m ( I don't have any links, but somehow this apt had views of something???)
6E - 2.75m
3E - 1.75m
(the last 2 were both latter part of '06) and 3E had a price drop; 6E was mint condition

6C - 1.625m

AvUWS: I guess the sponsor financing wasn't a big hit. Now they're cutting prices.
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/218311-condop-905-west-end-avenue-upper-west-side-new-york

333 CPW just dropped another $200K, to $2.799MM. http://www.bhsusa.com/detail.aspx?id=940700

Today's open house must have been another disappointment.

Let me say that 222 RSD is a great condo building, of mostly stable owner residents and a few renters. 5A was a failed flip. The owner successfully flipped a smaller unit in the building and then raised his bet. The apartment needs an update, so the owner shouldn't have let this listing get so stale. He first tried to sell the unit without even repainting red walls at a higher price, but has relented and repainted and dropped his price. He lost his bet, but it's a fine apartment for a "real" buyer willing to do what others in the building have done: new floors and a new kitchen=bargain condo on Riverside Park and a quick commute--walk to express transportation, or ready access to West Side Highway. If the owner hadn't lost so much money on carrying charges, he could have staged it properly to sell it.

Hmm... new kitchen and floors sounds like the price is still much too high

There are great apartments in great buildings up and down RSD that aren't selling--and that don't need new floors and new kitchens! This apartment is significant;y overpriced.

As for 333 CPW, looks like an attractive price--compare it to 230 CPW, 5A--very similar layout and views and while 230 has come down a lot in price, it's now almost 1 million over 333. Can't see that the 10 blocks south is worth that differential.

dmf13: Interesting comp. 230 has a higher floor (though not necessarily a more open view) and lovely finishes, plus a somewhat better building, location and elementary school catchment. 333 has the southwest corner exposure, which is a big asset on CPW. The footprints look similar. I think 333 is slightly smaller, but not by nearly enough to explain the difference in maintenance; that might have more to do with 230 being a combination apartment in a building where the monthlies run higher anyway.

If the price were the same, 230 would win. At the moment, they seem much farther apart than the differences justify.

I concur, west81st. the difference in maintenance alone should be worth 200k in favor of 333, and the southwest corner can make a big difference. the owners at 333 are certainly cutting aggressively. very interesting where it ultimately sells.

I didn't mean to imply that 222 RSD 5A needs a new kitchen and floors to be livable--the building is only 20 years old, and the kitchen was remodeled along the way. It is just that the building has many apartments with breathtaking views because it stands taller than its neighbors, and several owners have upgraded the floors or done gut renovations, so that their apartments are completely up-to-date. The hallways and elevators have just been remodeled. As a condo, 5A is a diamond in the rough.

Here's the problem, PMG: whatever advantage the apartment has as a condo, it gives back as a post-war. This wouldn't be true everywhere but it is very, very true on Riverside Drive. The people who buy on RSD want prewars--Riverside and West End are the most consistently prewar avenues in the city. 222 stands out, but not in a good way.

333 CPW is the kind of apartment that, when it finally sells, will signal a new era in comps. I mean, if they cut another 200K to finally get rid of it, and the buyer gets an additional 200K reduction to close the deal, the sale price would be almost 50% off the original 2007 listing. Right?

An additional 600k off the price would bring it to a 50% reduction, so yes, 400k off this price would be close. Now, that was simply an asking price--it may have been an inflated asking price.

If you like 333, take a look at 69 5th Avenue:
STREETEASY HISTORY
07/24/2008
Listed in StreetEasy by The Argo Corporation at $3,300,000
08/15/2008
Price decreased to $2,950,000
09/11/2008
Price decreased to $2,850,000
09/17/2008
Price decreased to $2,599,000
10/16/2008
Price decreased to $2,499,000
10/24/2008
Price decreased to $2,299,000
11/14/2008
Price decreased to $1,995,000

People who buy condos don't have many choices south of 96th St on RSD: 22, 190, 222 and 230. All of these are prewar, except 222, that is true. But 222 is not a run of the mill, cookie cutter building. There are only 6 units per floor, with a mix of family sized apartments as well as one bedroom and studios As I've said, the upper floor views are spectacular, partly because the post-war building allows for larger windows then its prewar neighbors and also because it is taller than its neighbors. 222 also has the advantage of being fully sold, and not having any RS/RC tenants. In my mind 222 stands out in a good way for condo buyers. Not everyone is cut out for coop living and condos are real property with no transfer restrictions.

To each his own, PMG. I certainly recognize the value of a condo, I just expect that on that stretch of RSD move buyers want a prewar, that's all. That's part of why I expect this apartment to struggle to find a buyer in this market.

One of the problems is that the owner lives in a CPW coop and he hired a RSD coop specialist. He should have hired a broker/brokerage that attracts more condo buyers for greater visibility of his unique offering. I don't know the owner, but ACRIS provides enough details.

PMG: Thanks for the ACRIS hint. The owner of 222 RSD #5A has quite a paper trail, and some serious lienholders waiting for him to sell.

333 CPW went to contract. Looks like Trompiloco's guess was in the ballpark.

Wow, that would be amazing West81st! I mean, it's still like 1.5M above my budget but nevertheless a promising sign for next year if it closes at 40-50% below OLP. Right? Is it below the 2.75M you predicted?

West81st, where do you see that 333 went into contract?

Wait for it...

umm, ok

cryptic :)

... Wait for it...

... Now.

http://www.bhsusa.com/detail.aspx?id=940700

239 CPW just dropped another $299K, to $1.8MM
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/364312-coop-239-central-park-west-upper-west-side-new-york

222 RSD continues to languish at $2.1MM.

West81.. you the man! or woman? Everybody just hold off putting in a bottom until I buy, Pls! I gotta getz me the new IWC...

Techie... maybe u coulda got this for what your 18x 1drm cost? .....

that apartment at 239 CPW could easily sell for under $1.4. you could not pay me to live in an apartment like that, it essentially has no windows. who is going to pay nearly $2 million to live in a dark windowless cave? i don't care where the building is, that apartment is horrendous.

239 CPW #4C - It's actually kind of sad when you think about it. Here is a high-end 3BR pre-war apartment in a beautiful building along CPW that was just purchased this past summer, and now it can't be sold. The owners seem desperate, too. Who would have thought that buying anything at 239 CPW - such a well-established pre-war building next to the park would have been such a risky move resulting in perhaps a $500,000 loss (or more)? Wow, that's a lot of money to lose in real estate! There was definitely a time when people thought that a family-sized apartment on the UWS could absolutely not go down in value since demand was fierce and there was such a shortage of supply. Well, not anymore. I wonder if private schools will no longer have wait-lists in '09 - another thing that no one would have predicted a year ago!

Nannies must really be hurting, too! And, so sad for the ones who didn't get paid on the books - they're not even entitled to unemployment benefits! Some Christmas!

MrsBlogs,
Was it was purchased last summer? This is SE's history:
10/25/2007 Listed in StreetEasy by Elliman at $2,750,000
01/15/2008 Price decreased to $2,699,000
03/07/2008 Price decreased to $2,595,000
04/04/2008 Price decreased to $2,475,000
06/03/2008 Price decreased to $2,395,000
06/16/2008 Elliman listing no longer available
11/07/2008 Listed in StreetEasy by Rand Realty NY for $2,099,000

Was it was purchased last summer? I don't think so.
The ACRIS report is so convoluted I can't decipher it.

mrsblogs:
239 CPW 4C was not purchased last summer. The owners had lived there for at least five years, prior to moving out recently.

I hope nshipley will weigh in on 239 CPW. It's her listing.

239CPW 4C needs to be priced at around 1.5 - at this price, it will be more attractive than other no-view Classic 6es in the neighborhood, and someone will jump at the CPW address. There are people who have to have a CPW address, even if they're in the back of the building.

My wife and I have thought about this apt a bunch lately. May not ever get there, but it has value at 500psf in IMHO. Key thing to remember in this mkt and thru '09, buyers will discriminate. No park view, 2nd floors, near fire depts, noisy interesections etc.. it all matters. #4C = no park view = no premium, it might as well be on Amsterdam.

In the apartment's defense, it HAS windows. Unfortunately, they face a really ugly wall (the side of the Rodeph Sholom, I think - the school, unfortunately, not the temple.)

bfgross... that means it's got a lot of give in price... unless they took out a bunch of helocs. Funny that really shouldn't factor into price .... but for some reason... the "I bought at x or I got mortgage of y therefore I need to get x +" mentality is like a mantra for this asset class (RE).

Hey mrsblogs... been reading my exit2 loves fest?

I try not to make a habit of talking about my own exclusives on this board, but I’ve been asked. Here’s my perspective on 239 CPW: First of all, I am the listing broker, although another broker had it for a very long time at a very different price under very different circumstances. The apt is no longer furnished, so it doesn’t show quite as well, but it’s a HUGE, rambling apt that is currently 3 bedrooms with an eat in kitchen and a separate half bath. The dining room could easily convert to a fourth bedroom with a separate dining area. It has a FUNCTIONING WOOD BURNING FIREPLACE. It’s in excellent condition…the kitchen and baths are renovated, and the kitchen is a very cool and modern look, though it may not be for everyone. It has a poured concrete island with poured concrete floors and stainless counters. It’s in a gorgeous full service building with full time doorman as well as elevator operator. Does it have views? Nope, not at all. Does it get adequate light? Absolutely.

I think at this price, this apt is an extraordinary opportunity for the right buyer. The location is excellent, and it really can accommodate a growing family. If you want views and this size, then be prepared to spend at least $500,000 more, and not in the 80’s and CPW. (I’ll be very curious to see what 333 went for, but that 3rd bedroom sure was small).

Nychousewhisperer.blogspot.com

Thanks, Nan. Good luck with it. You're right - the price on 333 CPW will be a bellweather when it comes in, despite the chopped-up kids' rooms.

N Shipley,
Obviously everybody on this board has their own biases. To your points, I agree with some of them. It most certainly is a top flight building in a top flight location. Im not sure I pay much of a premium for a FUNCTIONING WOOD BURNING FIREPLACE. I do have to agree about the look of the kitchen. I found it to be really odd, with that poured concrete island was, to me, an eyesore, and its shape not particularly functional. I also dont understand why you would describe this apartment as huge and rambling. It is no more huge or rambling than any other well layed-out classic six in any decent prewar. If you mean to say that the rooms are generously proprtioned, then I would agree, but the 1800-1900 sq ft that the apartment measures is about the same as any other classic six, provided it is a true classic six (two beds, maids, dining room, living room, kitchen etc).

The obvious problem area in this unit other than the weird kitchen (which can be fixed) the lack of light. Adequate light is obviously in the eye of the beholder. Is it the darkest apartment ive ever seen? Nope, not at all. But it is pretty dreary. A couple of the windows face smack dab into a brick wall five feet or less away. The other issue i noticed was that the MBR window faces out directly onto the playround of the Rodelph Sholom school. I have no idea what time kids are playing in that playground, but if I were a buyer I would want to make very very sure I wasnt setting myself up for noisy playtime at hours I was not prepared for, say on a Sunday morning or something.

One of the points made in an earlier thread was that in this market, for properties with significant issues like this one, people are no longer wiling to compromise with the idea that "its a great building" or "its a great neighborhood". I am not here to bash this apartment in any way. I do however agree with the sentiment that apartments like this are going to take big hits to get sold, and the premium that was being paid over similarly sized apartment in slightly lesser buildings and locations is going to shrink dramatically.

My wild and useless guess is that this apartment will sell in the next few months for between 1.5-1.6 million.

bfgross: Excellent analysis of apt's space, light, layout, location & quirks.
Ms. Shipley: Thank you for posting. It is a very nice apt & I'm sure the right buyer will be thrilled to have it.

WIll 333 CPW be a bellweather? After all, 230 CPW just went into contract--it had a very similar layout, and was priced at 3.7m. We dicussed it already, but I found the apartment needing some updating and short one bathroom, so that's the apartment I'd really like to see the price at which it sold.

Here are a few other possible UWS bellweathers currently in contract:

90 RSD #11E
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/206296-coop-90-riverside-drive-upper-west-side-new-york
90 RSD #16G
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/365154-coop-90-riverside-drive-upper-west-side-new-york
90 RSD #15F
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/346038-coop-90-riverside-dr-upper-west-side-new-york

And a few more:
240 West 102nd #63
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/155661-coop-240-west-102nd-street-manhattan-valley-new-york
15 West 84th #2A
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/355041-coop-15-west-84th-street-upper-west-side-new-york
490 WEA #3B
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/335966-coop-490-west-end-avenue-upper-west-side-new-york

And a good one on the top floor of the Alameda to complete the list:
255 West 84th #12A
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/351620-coop-255-west-84th-street-upper-west-side-new-york

We could start a betting pool on the closing prices, but there's too much inside information around.

The Alameda 8-room will indeed be a bellwether. In the summer of '05, Apt 11A (which was a sponsor apt, estate condition) closed for over 3.3m. We're at '04 levels on the UWS.

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?ListingID=783412&Region=NYC

nyc10023: There have been some serious engineering issues at the Alameda since 2005, and #12A was at Ground Zero. Still - even if the sale requires a small asterisk - it's quite an apartment for the price.

dmf13: Didn't mean to blow off your bellwether at the Bolivar. Great apartment, but between the price and the maintenance, it's at least one bracket above the range of my radar.

No problem, West81st-- I'm just trying to figure out the one million dollar difference between 333 and 230 CPW. Not trying to be unrealistic about the state of the market, but there are obviously still buyers out there paying big prices.

I already feel sorry for the buyer of 90 RSD 11E. Given the pricing on the other two in the building, its gonna hurt.

I have been watching 239 CPW for awhile--it's almost to our price point. I actually love the kitchen and know that the views aren't much to rave about, but my main concern is that I've been told the building has a difficult board and my feeling is that the times are fragile enough without going through the hours of work and emotional commitment required to do a board package, only to be turned down.

The UCC filing for 333 CPW #33 came through on Thursday. Tax statement should follow shortly, with the purchase price.

BTW, the UCC is also in for 15 West 84th St. #2A - another deal where Lisa Lippman made lemonade from a competitor's lemon.

UCCs don't really tell you very much, except who the buyer and lender are, and that the deal wasn't all-cash.

keep up the good work Westie :)

west81 - where do you access this info?

bender1961... you don't ask the oracle any questions... you just thank him and go along in your merry way :)

I'm no oracle. Well, maybe Cassandra. Seriously, it's all in ACRIS.

Elsewhere on that list of possible bellwethers:

490 WEA #3B closed on December 17th for $1.85MM, $500K below ask.

The UCC came in last week for 240 West 102nd #63. No tax filing yet.

The sale of 90 RSD #15F for $1.53MM has been discussed at length on other threads. #11E and #16G are still pending, as are 255 West 84th #12A and 230 CPW #5C.

15 West 84th came in at $1.925MM. http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/closing/793809

west81st, those sellers did much better than i thought. not bad.

Egads, the 15W84 people made out like bandits. Very lucky.

dmf13: 230 CPW #5C closed for $3.3MM, down from an initial ask of $4.5MM and a final ask of $3.7MM.

333 CPW #33 closed for $2.49MM, 44% below Corcoran's original ask and 11% below the final ask at BHS.
http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2009022700830001

255 West 84th #12A closed for 2.3MM, 30% below the original ask and 15% below the final ask.

http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/Scripts/DocSearch.dll/Detail?Doc_ID=2009031001038001

There are some extenuating circumstances with the Alameda in general and this unit in particular, but still... eight-into-seven, top floor, prime UWS.

Are we seeing the same level or correction elsewhere or is high-end of UWS leading the pack? With these comps, are we now at 2002 pricing or earlier?

jmkeenan: There aren't any good same-line comps for either sale, so it's really hard to say where they fit on the historic timeline of boom and bust. Each of these transactions also had its own quirks. Anyway, in such a slow market, it's hard to find enough data to support broad conclusions about a percentage decline, either in specific segments or the market as a whole.

I do follow this property class (10024/5 low-luxe 3BR) rather closely, and the Q4 contracts are uniformly brutal for sellers. If I were advising a serious seller, I would suggest asking 2004 and expecting 2003. I don't think there's any hard data to suggest we're at 2002 yet. On the other hand, the data mostly trails reality, and reality seems to be moving pretty fast.

By the way, once you get past 2003-2004, tracing the co-op market back in time becomes a game for insiders (real insiders, not the StreetEasy kind), because there's so little public information.

For what it is worth, I think the A line in 255 went for 1.7-2ish in the beginning of 2000. I know the NYT had had a classic 6 in the building as one of its "recently sold" blurbs at $1.5 in that year. I also know they must have sold an A-line in estate condition in that year or the next. (unless the sponsor renovated themselves.)

AvUWS: It's worth a lot. Thanks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/15/realestate/residential-sales.html
Did you really do that from memory?

Yes. And though I do have a scary memory (maybe because I am one of the squares who never did drugs) I don't remember other sales in detail, only general prices from that time. I happen to know that building well and the A line in detail. So I had noticed that listing at the time. I do see I was off on the price. But then there is no mention of renovation or not and that would make a big difference.

I would think mining those "sold" mentions from the NYT and the NYP from '03,'02, etc. to find some comps to compare to from that time. And realize that most of the mentions are the most bullish ones released by the R/E brokerages, so any time a current comp drops below it, we are getting close or at that time period.

Considering that '01 and '02 didn't see big rises in price (dot.com crash, 9/11) I would think that from '03 to '99 will be a small leap in % but a very big one psychologically (10 years of increase wiped out before calculating for inflation).

Westie - I am nominating you to do it. :p

You have just the right curiosity, tenaciousness, and skill (not to mention a touch of OCD I think) to get the job done.

Only meant as a compliment, we are all sure!

AvUWS - a couple of points on rate of appreciation in late '90s / early 2000s. First, a tiny detail. I recall the soft-ish period (more moderate price appreciation) as more '02 to mid '03, not so much '01 and '02. Basically nothing traded at the end of '01 after 9/11, the beginning of '02 was a bit soft and then things went generally but moderately up until mid '03, at which point they took off for about 4 years. I have seen various data sources over the years that generally support that profile. Here is a recent one that isn't the best support for the curve that I describe, but does validate the more rapid rate of increase after 2003. http://www.urbandigs.com/2009/02/how_big_was_the_big_apple_bubb.html
My own experience of being in the market in '02/'03 and buying in mid-'03 is also consistent with this pattern. The market didn't feel very different from, say, year-end '02 to mid '03, but was clearly different when we closed late '03 from when we went to contract at midyear; same-line comps in the building just took off immediately afterward. Obviously our timing was fortunate.

A second point on the unbandigs link is that the upward slope from '99 to '01 was pretty steep and I think the leap from '99 to '03 was bigger than you recall (mostly due to '99 to '01, not '01 to '03). I first looked to buy in '99, decided not to and ended up buying at a much higher price point in '03. It was not a small % change over than 4 year span.

As if things weren't tough enough for the owners of 239CPW #4C, after cutting from $3.3MM to $1.8MM, they now have to contend with the neighbors downstairs. #3C was just listed for $1.695MM. Also, I think there was a large maintenance increase in recent months that can't be helping any of the listings at 239 CPW.

#4C has been at $1.8MM since December. (It may be rented in the near term, since the current rental listing mentions July 1 availability.) If anyone had taken the "under" on my rosy $1.75MM prediction, I'd be buying the Shackburgers.

You're very optimistic about 239CPW. That board is tough. And if you're a financially solid buyer, there is so much to pick from out there - why would you pick a 1.75m C6 with no view? I say, 1.4m.

nyc10023: True that. But what would you have said six+ months ago? $1.75MM looks wildly optimistic now, but it seemed like a pretty bearish call back then.

I think we've been through this exercise before. There was another non-park view C6 at 239CPW that sold quickly at the ht of the boom for 1.6ish. I don't know the intimate details of this building, but pricing (and the people who live there) lead me to believe that the board is picky. That drives prices downwards for the non-park view apts. Having said that, if you're a space hog and you have to be on this stretch of CPW, wasn't there an attempt to sell 2 C apts as a possible duplex combination a while ago? Assuming the board allows duplexing, 3/4C isn't a bad combo possibility at 3m. The rooms are large, and I can see a place for the staircase in the foyer (maybe cut a foot or 2 into bedroom 2).

Oh, and the manned elevator would drive me barmy. But people love that.

That was an "E" line six that sold for 1.75m (E being superior to D).

"As if things weren't tough enough for the owners of 239CPW #4C, after cutting from $3.3MM to $1.8MM, they now have to contend with the neighbors downstairs. #3C was just listed for $1.695MM. Also, I think there was a large maintenance increase in recent months that can't be helping any of the listings at 239 CPW."

oh boy! to my surprise it hurts to see such price cuts. are those chairs included?