Tribeca . . . looking for guidance and opinions

Oh, it's so individualized!

I like 73 Worth -- I think the having a loft apartment PLUS a doorman is absolutely the best of both worlds.

None of my clients however, has ever agreed with me.

Not to sniff at your $2mm, but in general, you're not going to get good views at your price point in 'best' Tribeca. (Which, since you're from out of town, is generally considered to be north of Chambers. I also think there are some great units off Church, but in general, the "desirable" areas are consideered to be West of West Broadway.)

What else? Residents love love love 200 Chambers. It's really just one of those buildings that was the right product in the right place at the right time. Parts of the building face each other -- imagine being on a slope of the letter "W" -- so the cheaper apartments are not going to be the view units, they're going to look back at the building. 101 Warren came along slightly later, and billed itself as more luxurious, but didn't sell out as well, possibly just from being later. Sell-thru is an important point if you're looking for mortgage financing, I don't know if you're cash buyers or not.

If you're looking at that corner of the world, you should include Riverhouse (1 River Terrace, aka Leo Di Caprio's building) too. It's technically BPC, but you save some money for crossing the highway, and for paying high maintenance. In return, you get to look at the river.

Tower 270 in contrast is five years older, which you're going to see in the kitchens and in the taxes.

If you have additional questions, you can email me at ali {at} dgneary {dot} com. I get a lot of email so please stick "streeteasy" in the subject line.

Good luck!

ali r.
{downtown broker, Harvard '87}

I posted some info here
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/6382-tribecasohowest-village
Not all relevant to you because you won't care about ps234 unless it impacts resale value.
However, the point I made about views is important. You're only going to get views in 200 Chambers, 101 Warren, 92 Laight, 90 Franklin, 25 and 27 North Moore (Icehouse and Atalanta) to name the best known ones.
I have friends in 73 Worth and the floorplans are great - nice big lofts - but you will generally have views of the windowless monolithic verizon tower so that's probably a no no given your main criteria.

I know northern bpc also (River house that ali mentions) and though it is great in the warm months, it is brutally cold and windy in winter - you can often lean into the wind and basically be held up by it sometimes) and the west side highway does act as a big enough barrier, along with the walk being quite long - to prevent you from leaving bpc once you have come home.

I agree with Ali that 2MM is not enough for a 2B/2Bath with views. You could get a 1BR wth fantastic views in 200 Chambers and 101 Warren. 90 Franklin is an old conversion and you can tell. It is also too expensive, The smallest units are 1900 sqft 2b/2bath units and anything with a view (about 7 floor and up) is going to be wy over 2MM.

I have ever been in Tower 270 and have always had an aversion to Chambers st(it is basically a very busy 2 way thruway) but there are some very spacious units (judging from floorplans alone) and this place is priced lower psf than the heart of tribeca even though a lot of apts there will have great views which, as I said in the thread I linked to - you cannot say about what most people consider to be the heart of tribeca.

I need to head out for a few hours but will be happy to give more info later this evening.

Ali and Divvie:

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for.

Ali--was really hoping you would reply; when we start looking in earnest, I will get in touch with you, but I don't want to waste your time or have you spinning your wheels right now, since we're still at least 6-9 months out (need to see if the (much reduced) bonus check will bounce and whether it is likely to be the last).

Are either of you willing to make an educated 'guestimate' as to where prices per square foot may start to equilibrate in 'best' Tribeca for a loft/condo with some view? . . . Won't hold you to it . . . promise . . .

Prime tribeca will bottom at $600-700 / sq ft. May be lower than that but that's my over / under.

princetonbabe, I'll be here.

I used to work on Wall Street and I wouldn't make forecasts then, so I don't really wanna make 'em now - except to say I'm somewhat bullish. I can foresee seven years of crab-walking sideways, which I know puts me in the minority.

FWIW, Jon Miller said on a panel that I moderated that credit needs to come back (we haven't had any in a year and a half) and then the recovery starts two years after that.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Ali R.,

Slightly confused by your comment. You say that you are "somewhat bullish" but then say you foresee 7 years of crab-walking sideway - which implies to me that you anticipate flat growth over that period (i.e. no growth).

If that's the case, why are you somewhat bullish? Or is it that you are somewhat bullish because others have predicted things to be so much worse?

prothchild, the latter. I am "somewhat bullish" only by comparison -- there are many posters on this board who are predicting (or perhaps they are potential buyers who are hoping) that there is 20-40% more skid left to go.

My background is that I have lived in NY for 20 years -- I worked on Wall Street in the late 80s -- and I see this recession as being more like a protracted version of the dot-com bust than a return to the severe housing dip of the late 80s/early 90s. In part, I think the city is nicer now than it was twenty years ago, so it has a larger customer base; in part, I think today's low interest rates (5/6%) will help keep the market from collapsing.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

I am no economist but somehow this seems much bigger than anything we faced in the 80's and 90's and my feeling is the worst is yet to come. We have soared to great heights faster and higher than in any time I can remember(been here 27 years) I don't think we can "print" our way out of this one...but I hope you are right.

I have never seen people this frightened even friends with relatively secure jobs, I don't think low interest rates and a nicer city will be enough. Also most of the new population here is not the typical city dweller, they have more in common with Honda pilot driving soccer moms/dads in the burbs. As services begin to dwindle here and the city becomes more like the "city" again I think a lot of these people are going cut and run. The families with 2.2 kids are not going to stick around long if they witness even one mugging on Hudson street.

Maybe I have been reading to much doom stuff?

Ali-i hate to be a downer, but i don't think 5-6% interest rates are a reality for NYC buyers of 2 bedroom 2 bath units. There are very few banks willing to make a loan above the $620k, the down payment requirments are huge, and considering that the stock market is down 50% (potential buyers net worth), and companies are laying people off (with that number constantly increasing). At the end of the day pricing is built on supply and demand, and right now people don't qualify for loans or just can't afford to pay the prices being asked and the supply is building up.

Ali - I would agree with you if major changes weren't happening today in the finance industry's compensation and employment. I would not underestimate how many finance jobs are being permanently eliminated (ie not coming back for 5+ years) and how much comp is going down. I know math doesn't equal reality but let's throw around some #s just for debate. Assume prices at their peak were too high by 30-40% relative to rents and incomes (you can make an argument that the % is higher than that but I think the majority would agree with 30-40%). So prices need to decline by 30-40% just to be in equilibrium with 2007 rents and incomes.

Rents are down 10-20% - that's a fact, even though the market reports put it at closer to 5% down - I'm looking at renewing my tribeca doorman building lease right now and rents are down 15-20% from when I signed my lease a year ago. Assuming the same price/rent ratio, prices now have to decline 40-60%.

Financial services makes up ~33% of NYC's income (at least in 2007). It's probably much higher than that when you factor in industries that make their money off of finance (lawyers, consultants, etc) but let's go with 33% to be conservative. At least half of that income is gone for the next 3-4 years, if not more. PE firms won't be paying out any carry for 5+ years. Many, many HFs will close up shop or if they stay open they won't be paying out carry for 3-4 years. Comp at the highest paying IBs was down 50% vs 2007. Headcount at virtually all IBs is down 25%+ from peak and that number is rapidly increasing (you'll see another major round(s) of layoffs at the IBs in the next 3-4 months). I think we will see a 10-15% permanent (permanent for the next 5+ years, that is) reduction in NYC white collar jobs (my definition is PE, HF, IB, law, consulting, accounting, media sr mgmt, etc - no offense to anyone out there). So using income ratios prices would need to come down 50-70% from peak to be in equilibrium with historical ratios.

While I'm hoping that prices follow your prediction, I think that's wishful thinking to be polite. I'm a renter and would like to buy so you would think that I'd want prices to decline. The reason I hope you're right is that my comp will probably be higher if prices follow your prediction bc that would mean the recession / depression we're in right now ends up not being that bad. However, I believe this is the worst recession / depression since the Great Depression and the % declines I laid out above will end up being realistic / optimistic (markets usually overshoot to the upside/downside). My two cents.

So you must live in 88 Leonard, 50 Murray, 89 Murray 105 Duane or 121 Reade.
I agree, rents in tribeca are down and you provide some interesting analysis based on your rental and financial services knowledge.

Let me give the OP the benefit of my buying experience in 10013 in the last few years to round off the picture:
As I have said in threads with aboutready, in 1998 you could buy a classic tribeca loft for about $400 psf.

By the start of 2000 that figure had risen to about $550 psf. End of 2000 and it had reached $650.
Prices remained steady until 9/11/01 whereupon the last three months of that year there were virually no deals so you cannot really judge the ppsf.

Suffice it to say that despite the sales market basically stagnating (in terms of # of sales in tribeca - the only market I followed this closely) from then until Q1 03, in 2002 we reached about $750 psf.

During this period (huge wall st layoffs - I think around 60,000 all told)some magnificent lofts came onto the market that I have never seen again. Such as a 2500 sqft 3br/3ba with about 500 sqft terrace on the 6th floor of the Dietz Lantern building plus some great, huge lofts on North Moore and Franklin. Also the Bazzini building lofts came on the market at that time. Again, I have not seen these come back on the resale market - which, incindentally, leads me to another point I once made which is that when prices collapse then it is unlikely that the ideal apartment will come on the market so if you are looking for that Dietz Lantern type of apt to appear at a huge discount, it may never happen. We may end up seeing, in this current decline, a larger number of the less desirable apts trading at a discount whereas the more desirable ones won't even be listed.

As I said these lofts stayed on the market for months with many staying unsold for over a year around March 2003 when sales suddenly took off. It was partially the elimination of uncertainty of whether we were goint to war or not and partly as a result of Wall st hiring again.

In 2004 prices hit the magic $1000 psf number which was astounding at the time.
Since then new construction prices hit at least $1500 psf in 2006-2007 with some resales hitting $2000 psf.

In 2000 Wall st had 200,300 employees and this number dropped 18% very shortly after 9/11.
So lets say the nadir was 2001/2002 when prices were at about $700 psf.

Some ppl here think we will go down to 2003/2004 prices which is anywhere between $750 and $1000 psf in tribeca.

Because 2004 showed such a huge increase to $1000 psf then maybe this number is too high. This, coupled with the $700 level during the last wall st recession leads me to believe that the worst case scenario could be $700 psf which is a 50% decline at least from peak transaction prices. Hmmmm, I'm with Ali here and don't think we will get to those types of declines.

Not sure what it will be of course and I would guess at $1000 psf.

Hi Princeton babe. I work with the #1 group for downtown sales at Brown Harris Stevens. Please let me know if you have any interest in chatting.

Stay away from 89 Murray. About half the people who live there are being subsidized by tax dollars. I have a friend who lives there and was shocked to find out that welfare moms and former drug dealers got apartments in that building.

It sure is lonely out here. There are people in my firm who agree with you all above, using many of the same well-thought out arguments.

However, I don't buy the "Wall Street is going to take us down 50%" argument. Wall Street has gotten its butt kicked before. If you look at NYS Dept. of Labor stats, what's remarkable is that the mugging is relatively consistent -- when Wall Street dives, the sector loses 25% of its jobs. Not 20%, not 40%; consistently a quarter. In some ways, 10013, those jobs never do come back (remember when the stock exchange had people in it?) but in other ways, Wall Street at its peak always makes and spends outrageous amounts of money.

Of course, since those Wall Street jobs are disproportionately high-income jobs, losing them drags down the whole city.

However, that happened in 2000-2001, and we also experienced a terrorist attack, and we didn't see a decline in real estate prices anywhere near the order of 40%.

Recessions happen. Jim Grant will argue that if you don't allow them to happen, you end up even worse off -- which may be some of what the country is seeing. I am sorry we're in a recession now, but we have a mayor is as smart as anybody who could want in this situation.

In the long term, I agree that housing prices are gonna track employment. But we have a pretty diversified jobs base in the city -- I know publishing is getting killed too, but, say, health care appears to be holding up. Citywide, we have a great source of labor and skills in our immigrants.

That leaves one other issue, of the "correction" in rent-to-buy ratios that we were "due" for -- prices too high relative to rents and incomes -- and I think some of that ratio expansion is because it's more fun to live here. I hear burkhardt saying families aren't going to want to stick around when there's a mugging, but can I really bring you back to the 70s, when my friends' parents bought on Central Park West despite the killings, or on the Upper East Side despite having to step over mountains of garbage rotting from the strike? Or let's even go back to the late '80s, when I as a single woman found Tribeca with its crackheads and its giant rats scary, even though I wanted to go to its cool restaurants, and when I didn't like living in Park Slope because there was a rapist in the subway and it took private security patrols to stop people (more crack effect) from ripping radios out of cars. And schools? My friends all went to Hunter and Bronx Science and to Stuyvesant, and if they couldn't get in they went to Horace Mann. Now, you can get a pretty decent safe public education for your kid in large swaths of the city. We're not yet at the point we should be at -- decent safe public education for all New York kids -- but we sure are closer.

I agree we need credit to create volume -- I feel dledven's pain about getting a mortgage, and that's a big reason why we're losing deals. I look forward to trying to borrow $400K and being told that my six-figure earnings history means nothing because I don't have a job -- but I feel like Obama will loosen credit a little, and that will help.

And now spring is coming, and some places will move, and then some watchers on the sidelines will be galvanized by losing places they were eyeing. We've come down 20%, depending on whose stats you use; that feels like a lot. I've been hoping to trade up for years, and I'm still not jumping up three rungs of the ladder, but I like what I'm seeing.

The real estate market could be light and sideways for a long time, until Wall Street recovers -- but I feel like there will be little, if any, additional price skid across the broader market. The exception might be, say, $20 million properties might become $10 million ones -- but I don't think $3 million and below is going to see much more price drop.

Of course, I know, it's a very lonely view.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Cracker Boy, remember that you're not allowed to post on real threads.

Anyone who thinks that the adjustments that are occuring within Wall Street, and now the broader economy, are anything like past downturns do not understand the magnitude of problems. The unwinding of this credit bubble, which has been building for decades is so beyond the scope of any financial pullbacks since the Great Depression.

To think, otherwise, is wishful thinking. There is a reason the Federal Reserve is pulling untested tricks out of their bag. It is because the crisis we are currently facing is very, very bad. I do not know when, or at what level, the real estate market will reach equilibrium. All I DO KNOW is that we are nowhere near that point.

By way of background, FWIW (not much), I worked on the Street in for the 80's and 90's as an Investment Banker and what is happening now bears no resemblance to those times. It is much worse by orders of magnitude...

larsr

Wow AgentRachel! A BHS broker hitting the street for clients? Tell Andrew C. Keith says hello.

Divvie and Ali - you make some very good points.

I was in financial services during 9/11 (still am today) and the post-9/11 downturn was a hiccup compared to what's going on today in terms of permanent job losses and comp reductions. Also, comparing the post-9/11 manhattan real estate mkt to today is comparing apples and spaceships - it seems like people are glossing over the fact that we've just finished experiencing the largest US real estate bubble in at least the last 100 years. We're now entering (or already in) the worst recession in what is probably the last 75 years. This sounds sensationalist but it's really just the reality of our situation today. I'm sure we could dream up some other crappy things to add to the situation but that's about as bad as you could ask for with respect to US real estate (in particular NYC since this recession is compounded by the credit issues which are directly impacting employment and comp). Not trying to be debbie-downer, just to put things in perspective. We're talking about the perfect storm (to the downside) in NYC real estate in the last 100 years.

Diversified job base? Majority of NYC employment is financial services, law, consulting, accounting, media, publishing, tourism and the service industries (doctors, restaurants, etc) - yes, there are plenty of other industries here but they make up the minority of jobs and income. Literally every single one of these industries is hemorrhaging jobs and comp. Diversification only helps if the industries aren't correlated. Vast majority of NYC law firms have laid off 10%+ and will likely lay off 25-40% by the time they're done. Vast majority of large NYC-based media companies has laid off 10%+ and will likely lay off 15-25% by the time they're done. These jobs are gone for the next 3+ years and only a very small fraction will be replaced with new jobs in NYC at smaller firms. I think we'll see 10-12% unemployment in NYC in the next 12-18 months (and that's after a lot of people have already left the city because they won't find jobs so they won't be counted as unemployed in NYC). The NYC economy is completely f*cked for the next 3-4 years. Bloomberg realizes this and that's why he's moving so swiftly with some of his proposals. I would agree with you that prices would probably decline another 10% or so and then be flat for a while if the economy was already starting to improve - we're probably 12-18 months away from that at a minimum. I seriously doubt current sellers can hold out 2-3 years - if they're selling today it's either because (1) they have to due to financial constraints or (2) they think real estate mkt is only going to get worse. Otherwise they'd just hold on for 2-3+ years.

I think buying manhattan real estate today (or advising someone to do so) is extremely reckless given our current economy (which is getting worse, not better, by the way) and how little prices have declined thus far (call it 20% down from peak). I know RE brokers need to make a living but I would do that by trying to drive down prices down as quickly as I could to increase transaction volume (if I were a broker), not by trying to convince everyone that it's OK to buy today at current prices.

Thanks for the response NYC10013

I don't disagree with a lot of what you have said but this part is a key phrase for me:
"I seriously doubt current sellers can hold out 2-3 years - if they're selling today it's either because (1) they have to due to financial constraints or (2) they think real estate mkt is only going to get worse. Otherwise they'd just hold on for 2-3+ years."

Again, I wonder if we will see a 2500 sqft 3br/3bath apt in the Dietz Lantern building (higher than the 2nd floor and not with all windows facing the courtyard) come onto the market any time soon, or anything of similar quality for that matter (I'm talking tribeca here) because it has not happened yet and you would have expected to have happened already.

The current sellers who cannot hold out for 2 years are not selling anything desirable, 101 Warren flippers at peak 2007 prices notwithstanding of course.

Great discussion.

I think a lot of people are anchored on peak prices. They believe that NYC would decline 50%-ish only if quality of life diminished dramatically a la the 1970s (crime, nearly bankrupt gov't, white flight, etc.) But I would ask those people to imagine NYC in 1999: it was pretty safe, there were plenty of good restaurants and bars, young people were flocking here, Wall Street was booming. . .and residential prices averaged $400 psf. Is it really that dramatic to say that real prices will return to the level that prevailed during those not-very-dark times?

Divvie, NYC10013, Ali and everyone else--my deepest gratitude for all these insightful and thoughtful comments--this has turned into a great thread.

AgentRachel--thanks, too for the headsup.

As for our personal situation with regards to buying, I think it's doubtful we'll make a move in 2009, much to my chagrin. If it were up to me, we would have jumped in probably at the height of the frenzy, but the cooler, wiser head of my spouse, as usual, prevailed. For what it's worth and for all the tangible reasons NYC10013 and divvie expressed so well, I think Manhattan real estate will take a long, long time to realign and equilibrate--things were too good for too long to give up it up quickly, and important information (i.e, current comps, services that aggregate listings and track price chops, etc.) has only recently become accessible enough to turn this into a reasonably transparent market for prospective buyers like me. It sounds like some buyers out there are acting a bit boorish at the moment (i.e., very lowball bids on multiple properties), probably because so many sellers and developers acted like real boors over the last few years (payback is tough, I guess . . .)

I agree with divvie that spectacular apts will probably not come on the market, but even if, due to personal situations, they eventually come up for sale, they will always fetch a premium. The question is relative--a premium to what? No one can hold on forever--illness, job loss, divorce, death, etc., and these life-changing events, unfortunately, can't always be postponed until the market strengthens.

I suppose my spouse and I represent one small, potential purchaser demographic--'mature' couples with older/grown children who've lived in the suburbs all/most of our lives and are looking to capture/recapture the magic of city life before it's time to head to assisted living. We personally wouldn't touch a coop with a 10 foot pole at this stage in our life (not interested in 'pledging' for the frat/sorority and having a potentially quirky group of people decide if we're good enough for them to take our money, or having someone tell us how many days a year our children and their friends can come for a visit, etc.) I'll go to out on a limb and assume there are more like us who feel the same, and that we'll gladly pay some premium for a condo.

But back to Tribeca: 12B in Atalanta (25 N. Moore) seems like a good apartment although the psft is too rich for me, but am I missing something, or are the bedrooms a bit undersized, and is the larger bedroom actually an enclosed terrace? Sort of looks like it from the floorplan . . .

Also sounds like 101 Warren should be added to West 67th's thread about neigbors undercutting each other--Unit 1230, a 1 bdr with almost 1300 sqft and a listing price of 1.625 M is in contract (anyone have any idea for how much?) while Unit 830, a 1 bdr with 975 sqft is listed at 1.695 M (a $100K reduction, to boot). What am I missing here?

10013, if I'm reckless to tell people to buy at current prices (something I myself am looking to do so I've got my $$ where my mouth is) what did that make any real estate broker who worked in '06 or '07?

Markets cycle, and then they correct. The proper way for a homeowner to deal with this information is to see a home as a good to be consumed and enjoyed long-term, but not as an investment. If we get back to this Robert Kiyosaki-ish view, it will be good for us as a nation.

However, let's not make the mistake, as market watchers, of extrapolating the current trend and calling it judgment. Saying "down down down" now, especially in hopes of generating new sales volume, is just as reckless as saying "up up up" was in 2006.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Ali - I like most of your posts so don't take this the wrong way. With all due respect (as Ricky Bobby would say), what brokers did in 06 or 07 is irrelevant as to whether it's reckless to recommend buying today.

I agree with you that a home is a good to be consumed but that's assuming prices are increasing at normal historical rates - prices will decline at record rates (or thereabouts) for the next 12-24-36 months - so buying now is not "consumption", it's approaching lunacy. Who in their right mind would make the largest purchase of their life assuming their down payment is going to erased and then slowly come back over 10-15 years?

Saying down down down is not reckless if that's where prices are going. Assume prices are going down another 30% - who cares if it happens in a week or a month or two years? It's only "reckless" if prices should remain flat using fundamentals and the entire broker industry is trying to talk it down for some reason.

"Markets cycle, and then they correct. The proper way for a homeowner to deal with this information is to see a home as a good to be consumed and enjoyed long-term, but not as an investment. If we get back to this Robert Kiyosaki-ish view, it will be good for us as a nation.

However, let's not make the mistake, as market watchers, of extrapolating the current trend and calling it judgment. Saying "down down down" now, especially in hopes of generating new sales volume, is just as reckless as saying "up up up" was in 2006."

Maybe that's how a homeowner should look at things, but for potential buyers, it's a different story. If I'm using my life's savings on a downpayment and taking on over a million dollars in debt to buy an apartment, it better damn well be a reasonable investment. Otherwise, I'll rent.

I don't think any of the bears are merely extrapolating from current trends. There was enormous real estate appreciation in the past 5 - 7 years due to a massive real estate bubble. Those prices weren't real - they were inflated by bubble psychology and economics. That's all gone. Bubbles don't deflate just a bit - they pop. Prices won't have floored until we have given back every bit of appreciation that has occurred in the past 5 - 7 years that was not based on fundamentals that continue to exist. So long as anybody is pretending that 2005 or 2006 or 2007 prices make one iota of sense, the market still has more room to fall.

10013 and bill, like I said, it's lonely out here -- my husband makes the argument you guys make.

But the answer to "Who in their right mind would make the largest purchase of their life assuming their down payment is going to erased and then slowly come back over 10-15 years?" is:

1) someone who does not feel that you can predict the course of prices over the next 10-15 years with certainty;
(if I felt as certain as you two do, I wouldn't buy either. However, I would also stop being an agent and just take my money and short real estate prices and expect to live on my investments. But my two years working on Wall Street taught me that the only people I've seen make money betting on the direction of markets are people who have access to really special, discrete bits of information.)

and 2) someone who wants to live in a nice apartment (I know not everybody thinks rent/buy is aligned yet, but given that we are willing to make a 30% down payment, what hubby and I can get for our money buying is nicer than we can get for our money renting);

and 3) someone who feels like they're not all that sure about alternative uses for their down payment money -- I just bought some stocks for retirement, but I'm not really sure that I want to go all into the stock market with our cash right now;

and 4) someone who does not believe that they are making the largest purchase of their life, but merely the largest purchase of their life to date. In other words, someone who expects to have more money in the future. Hubby and I have been working for around twenty years (we're in our early 40s) and I expect, realizing that I might be wrong, that we'll be working for at minimum another 20, and we'll save some more money from that. We are going to try to buy a place big enough to ride out a long cycle if we have to, but it's not like our ability to amass capital stops just because we've bought. Just because we are throwing a large portion of the resources we have amassed to date into housing (not all, because we'd buy a co-op) doesn't mean we won't be able to make and save even more money.

So that's the psychology behind it.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

"Who in their right mind would make the largest purchase of their life assuming their down payment is going to erased and then slowly come back over 10-15 years?"

- someone who plans to stay there for 15 years.

"If I'm using my life's savings on a downpayment and taking on over a million dollars in debt to buy an apartment, it better damn well be a reasonable investment. Otherwise, I'll rent."

- your home is not your investment account, it's more like your savings account. Ali is right saying that home is there to provide you with shelter, comfort and quality of life. Try to move from rental to rental with 2 kids or install those california closets that you always wanted in your rental place.

If you want your money to grow look at the other sourses that would give you good return. Were would you invest our days?
- Dow is down, S&P is down, NASDAQ is down.
- Treasuries at 0%?
- Enron and Worldcom were thought to be blue chip in their heyday. Lehman had a sterling track record for over 150 years. The scandals like Madoff will leave a growing number of people reluctant to leave investments in the hands of other people.

- Real Estate, on the other hand offers transperency: you know what you are buying, the yield that you are able to obtain is healthy – particularly relative to Treasuries, you have a significant amount
of control over the performance of the asset and appreciation over the long term will be there. And on top of that real estate is a great hedge against the inflationary cycle which is sure to follow.

It is very difficult as a broker to not sound self serving, but I believe that income produsing property in New York City is an excellent place to park capital.

elena
(broker)

P.S.
Sorry princetonbabe for hijacking your thread.

I think for now we can agree we have major economic head winds ahead. No one knows where this is going to wind up and with no need for extensive technical analysis it would be prudent to at least wait and watch over the next 6 months. It certainly can't hurt as I don't see any signs that buyers are going to rush in and drive prices up.

I understand that buying a home is not like buying a bond or stock and agree you make the decision to purchase a home based on quality of life issues more than technical ones. But that said I would not want to buy a home in a market filled with so much uncertainty with the real potential of seeing a large loss in equity 6 months to a year from now. And the upside to waiting is there is a very good chance you will be able to purchase a home you may not have thought was within reach today. The downside to waiting...prices remain flat.

Actually, burkhardt, the downside to waiting could be that prices go up, but since no poster on this board, including me, who believes that's likely, let's look at the other possible downside . . .

prices remain flat, and the cost of money (i.e. interest rates) go up.

Right now, credit sucks and rates on conforming loans are at five; what if you wait six months . . . and credit still sucks, and rates on those same loans are at six and a half?

In terms of your purchasing power, the market will have moved against you.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

p.s. I don't know rates for nonconforming loans off the top of my head, but same argument.

Ali - your argument assumes prices will stay flat if rates go up (rates will go up significantly given how much money the US govt is printing). I would turn it around on you and say that's another big reason not to buy today - prices will crater even further when rates go up - real estate has an emotional component to it but it's just math in a normal environment - the three main variables in that equation are (1) price, (2) interest rate and (3) how much you make = how much house / apt you can afford. Assuming prices will remain flat when rates go up is completely unrealistic. The current (conforming) low rates is main thing that's keeping the (conforming) real estate market from cratering more than it already has. This topic has been discussed on a couple other threads but it hasn't gotten as much mention in mass media as one would think it deserves. Increased mortgage rates is the next shoe to drop in residential real estate.

There certainly are a lot of ifs either way you slice it. But I will stick to the opinion prices fall another 15-25% and that will more than offset any rate increase. You can't magically get back lost equity but if rates go up 1% and prices down 20% or more as many think you come out ahead. Not only do you save $400k on a $2m dollar property you can simply pay additional money above your fixed payment to offset the erosion of the higher interest rate.

my point is you can implement different strategies to deal with higher rates, if you lose 20% or more in six months you have NO options. It is a game of risk/reward and my money is on wait and see.

"prices remain flat, and the cost of money (i.e. interest rates) go up."

The chance of this combo happening is slim to none. If borrowing rates go up, prices are not staying flat. They are going down even further.

Buying a Manhattan apartment right now is a lousy investment, no doubt about it. However, I am not a strict rent vs buy person, renting sucks unless your goal in life is to live in a cookie-cutter apartment where there is little difference between a rental and owning. So it might make sense to buy to get what you want for your lifestyle, but don't try to spin it as a good investment, it is not.

nyc10013 of course you are 100% correct if rates go up and especially significantly as you assume we will be back to 400-$600 ppsf2. And those who liked gritty old NYC will have their wishes granted.

I think most people would agree prices need to go down another 15-25% from here for most potential buyers to get interested - BUT that assumes rates stay where they are today. I think rates will go up a minimum of 1-2% (if not more) over the next 24 months which would decrease purchasing power by 15-40% (or more). So prices would need to drop 30-65% from here if (when) that scenario plays out. Not pretty.

Ok, so thread are totaly hijacked :) so I don't feel bad anymore

"the three main variables in that equation are (1) price, (2) interest rate and (3) how much you make = how much house / apt you can afford"

- Actually amount of mortgage depends on the income (rufly 4 times of yearly income).
Purchase price depends on the assets (cash in bank).
At higher price bank would like to see that you have more teeth in the deal, so your down payment comes up to 30%

elena
(broker)

elena
(broker)

Amount of mortgage depends on income (3) and interest rate (2) - if the max mortgage you qualify for is $1mm at 5% interest rate I can pretty much guarantee you the max mortgage you qualify for at 8% interest rate will be less than $1mm. Normal market is 2.5-3x income. I'm assuming that the average buyer has enough cash in the bank to afford the down payment for the mortgage they can afford and enough in reserves (may be optimistic given our country's savings rate). So the last variable in my equation becomes price - say your dream apt is $3mm but you can only afford $2mm given your income and mortgage rate. If the price comes down to $2mm you can afford that apt so that's the kind of apt you can afford.

OK back on topic.

!2B in the Atatanta. Overpriced at $1600 psf and reduced only 6 days ago.
I actually saw a B line unit back in 2002 and have friends in this building.
It used to be a windowless cold storage warehouse and they cut the large windows in during the conversion in 2001. In the beginning the units were being sold as raw units with just bare concrete and plumbing stacks but it came onto the market at a time when things were slowing and sales only started to happen when the developer started offering finished units. I saw one such finished unit.

BTW a developer friend of mine claimed that the structural integrity of the Atalanta was severely compromised when they cut the windows out but I have never heard or read that since.

Those bedrooms are not on a terrace - I think those are floorboards because the huge 50' LR has polished concrete floors. A left over from the original raw space sale or maybe because that was a fleeting tribeca fad back in 2001 - witness the polished concrete floors in 195 Hudson which was also converted at the same time. I guess ppl who see this place are put off by those floors and the cost to install hardwood for such a large space in addition to the price reduction only happening 6 days ago.
2nd bedroom is small and they obviously wanted to do the huge loft like LR space which is always difficult to furnish unless you do some kind of amazing kids jungle gym - but that's just me.

I think 101 Warren will yield a lot of bargains both in sales and rentals. There were too many investors buying into it.

As I said I know ppl in the Atalanta and the Icehouse, 124 Hudson, 92 Laight, the Dietz Lantern, 66 Leonard, 62 Beach, the Hubert and others and a lot, especially in the Icehouse and Atalanta, bought early and are firmly ensconced so I expect to see fewer listings in the above mentioned buildings than in 101 Warren which is brand new and as I said had a lot of investors buying in as opposed to the families in the buildings I mentioned.

So as useful all this market and financial analysis is, there have been a lot of other threads where the same issues have been argued and if this thread is specific to tribeca then I believe I have a lot to offer so lets try and stay on topic shall we?

Ok then, Franklin Tower, originally built as a bank so lots of windows. Any comments on what people think of the building's gym?

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Tiniest gym in the world.
You have to climb a set of stairs to reach it after taking the freight elevator to the top.
I imagine it would be quite scary being there alone at night
Should not be mentioned in any RE ads if one were an honest broker.

Elena, Re: "Real Estate, on the other hand offers transperency: you know what you are buying"...

The probalem is that RE is like trading on margin. One does not buy the entire place, but rather commits to payments over 30 yr. And if the first three of those years look like one could lose a job -- i.e. just being rightsized with one's entire department... then no, one will not buy.

I think theburkhardtgroup is right on. Quality of life goes through a paradigm shift. Living in a rental for a family of four is OK. What's not OK, is being committed to a mortgage while one of the family earners might lose a job.

Those thinking Mnh appts wont go through a 50% loss because sellers wont take a 50% loss are wrong. Decreases come in gradation -- first sellers lose only 10%, next round of sellers loses another 10% and so on until we hit 1998 figures.

All, I am ready to make a bet -- today's buyers will be tomorrow's sellers. If I lose we go for drinks at a decent place, my invite, bill not to exceed $200 :) I dont know of a good way to short NY RE, so here you go. Initially my metrics is to find three sellers in 02/01/10 or earlier who either bought or went into contract as of 12/01/08. If more than one taker I'll chose the best conter offer :)))

So, who wants to put their money where their mouth is being long NY RE? COME. ON.
:)))

Thank you divvie,
What do you think of Juilliard Building, The Munitions Building, Bazini building, Mohawk Atelier, The Sugar Warehouse and Textile Building?

elena

divvie-once again, many thanks for bringing the thread back to Tribeca-specific information!

Funnily enough the only two buildings that don't have anyone I know living there are the Mohawk and bazzini. But I do have opinions on them;)

I've been typing in my iPhone for too long however so I'll reply in more detail later.

Trying to do market research Elena or trying to figure out if you know me:)

I think it's clear I'm not a broker. Just a TriBeCa resident who got a bit too obsessed with real estate back in the 90's.

no, divvie, I am not trying to figure out who you are. However I do appreciate your opinion on the subject.
Thank you.

elena

Just kidding.

So the Mohawk - it coulda been a contender. Despite the building being sold to Bouley many years ago and never going anywhere until he sold it to the developers a few years ago, it still wasn't late to the condo conversion party - I think units went on sale in 2004 - but it took another 3 years to complete and combination with the little 5 story building next door was botched beyond comprehension.

They combined the gorgeous and large corner building with said 5 story, rather nondescript, building on Duane by making the living area in the Mohawk building and the bedrooms in the other building. The problem was not the looks but the fact that the floors were not on the same level in each building so you had to go down a set of steps to reach the bedrooms which had ceilings which were only 8'. Split ranch? I'm not sure about burb house terminology.

Common charges and RE taxes were also high with no amenities except a doorman. That's the problem with a small number of units and a doorman. Also the building spans two tax lots, hence the high taxes.

Bazzini has amazing layouts and as an older building is solidly built. I remember this building going on the sales market after a 2 year rental period due to a 1031 tax exchange issue at I think $1.75MM for 2700 sqft back in 2002 or 2003. Great location in the heart of tribeca but it suffers from the lack of views I talked about before due to independence plaza. You do get decent western light however on the 3rd floor and up because you are not directly facing on of the three independence towers.

I remember the Juilliard being the building that families were upgrading to back in 2000 when their 2br/2Ba walk up lofts in tribeca got too small. The timing was perfect for a building with big family sized apts but I don't like the location. That part of Leonard is narrow and dark and there have been problems with the guy who owns the garage next door who once owned Buster's Garage. Google for more info on that.

Munitions has huge lofts, great for families and entertaining. Again it is a small building with a doorman so monthlies are high. Good location also if you like southern tribeca. close to subways, Whole foods, restaraunts.

Sugar Warehouse also has nice big family sized apts with mostly huge double height LRs and Master BRs with lower ceilinged (is thata word?) 2nd and 3rd bedrooms due to those being on a second level within maybe an 18' total height. great hudson river views from some apts and piers 25 and 26 are going to be great when they're finished but this area is a bit of a trek to the subway. Not as bad as living on York avenue on the UES for example. In fact it is not bad at all but if you live on North Moore or Franklin and move the Sugar Warehouse then it will seem far.

Textile has great layouts also and now that the Knitting Factory has shut its doors (which is sad for many ppl I know) there won't be noise issues anymore at 3 or 4 in the morning. Only issue is that there are a lot of international owners here so it can get quite lonely. It's not your typical family filled tribeca building. Location is not perfect because it is so far East in tribeca but it is close to subway access.

Great insight, divvie. And yes, thanks for staying on topic. Seems like people on Streeteasy these days can't help themselves but to descend into mindless speculation about how low the market is going.

It's interesting to spend a few minutes speculating, but I've never seen so many people spend so much time speculating about the answer to a question they can't possibly know the answer to.

Anyhow, your analysis of the various buildings throughout Tribeca is really invaluable. Have really enjoyed reading all your insights as a prospective Tribeca buyer (no sooner than 9 months).

At some point, divvie, you're going to have to come clean and tell us where you see the best opportunities among these buildings. If you were buying in Tribeca today, which building(s) would you be targeting (and yes, I imagine it depends a bit on one's preferences)?

divvie--any thoughts about 161 Hudson Street, 5C, listed for $2.595 by Corcoran?

divvie - thanks for the comments. Any thoughts on 53 N. Moore or 62 Beach?

> Hi Princeton babe. I work with the #1 group for downtown sales at Brown Harris Stevens.

Do you really want to admit that after all your ranting about how the market isn't going down on this board?

Hey, I'm a buyer who has seem a bunch of Tribeca...not a broker but my thoughts on the apts listed.

161 Hudson doesn't have much charm as a building, I've seen 3 apts there and they all feel sterile. The one on 9 was designed by Michael Smith (designing WH for Obama).

53 N. Moore had a big price drop today. Nice place, too contemporary for my taste--kitchen is totally stainless steel. Outdoor space is up a very large spiral staircase and (although private) is shared with the building. Building also doesn't have much charm.

62 Beach is a very cool bachelor pad, I'd get it if I were on Entourage. 3 levels, spacious/voluminous, hot tub, theater. My gf hated it, I loved it. Definitely worth seeing just as a cool factor.

155 Franklin 3S is my favorite on the market in that price range...any reason it's not on your list? What about 173 Duane?

kubiedoo--since you're another source of info on Tribeca--what are your thoughts on Tower 270? Looks great to me (a neophyte), but for some reason, not many people seem to know much about it.

155 Franklin 3S is going to have issues when the garage next door is sold (it's on the market right now) and a new development goes up (who knows when it will happen but it will eventually given the size of the lot) - the living room side windows will have to be filled in and the master bedroom windows will get almost zero light. Plus you'll live next to a construction zone for 2-3 years.

173 Duane is huge but there are a couple issues relative to comps - (1) it needs a pretty serious renovation, (2) the ceiling height is only 9 feet which sucks for an apt that is as wide and deep as it is - the sq ft makes the ceilings feel even lower and (3) the windows are very blah for an apt in that price range ($4mm+ once renovation is done).

NYC10013--very appreciative of your input on 155 and 173; the latter was a non-starter for us because it's a coop--seems reflected in the pricing.

I sold a 17th floor unit(approx.1900F2) there about one year ago. It's a nice building and from the north side, up that high you have wonderful city/river views. I like the very long art deco entrance/lobby and the building has a nice furnished roof deck. There was a small gym on the floor as well as a children's playroom. The obvious negative is the location on Bway and Chambers...

Buyers also need to check with Tribeca co-ops to see what their responsibilities will be. For example, sometimes the board decides that the new buyer should soundproof their unit -- a process which isn't cheap.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

What about this unit in the Grabler building?

http://www.brownharrisstevens.com/detail.aspx?id=963504

has had almost a 2M price drop since being put on the market 6 months ago .. 4000 sq ft, < 1000sq/ft starts to look pretty attractive

OMG, my heart is palpitating about this one . . . now, if it only had a view . . .

Sorry I'm late to the latest batch.

Agree with the assessment of 161 Hudson. Also this is on a bad corner - Hudson and Laight - due to heavy traffic volume on Hudson in the evenings that is basically at a standstill down to Jay St every Friday during summer from midday to about 8pm as ppl head out of town. Laight is West bound exit of the Holland tunnel.

I've always liked 53 northmoore. Nice and large 2BR units in a solid building - actually 3 buildings - with enough apts to make monthlies fairly low and converted early enough in this decade not to be socked with extortionate RE taxes. Only downside, which does not affect you princetonbabe, is that I don't recall ever seeing a 3BR or larger apt there. Even the penthouses are 2BRs. there are sone small 2BRs there. 1400 sqft squarish apts that don't look too appealing. also kithcens and bathrooms, if original to conversion, badly need updating.

62 Beach is also one of the earlier big conversions. Done at the same time as 53 nmoore but with higher end appliances and finishes. Not many resales in the last few years so this one has been flying under the radar for me.

BTW, lots of families with snall children in 161 Hudson and 53 norhmoore so par for the course for tribeca. As I said, of the buildings dicsussed so far, only 66 Leonard seems to be devoid of children.

That's a lot on sale in the Grabler building -- almost a quarter of the units.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

My bad . . . it DOES have a view.

Any idea, ali, why so many units are for sale in this building right now--or just a case of trying to get out while the getting is still possible (sort of) . . .

The Grabler building - read this old article on how this part of tribeca was seen as a B location.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05EEDD143EF93BA25753C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

What I would say is that the advantage of those lofts (48 Laight - but this is on Hudson so suffers from same problem as 161 Hudson - Grabler, 28 Laight etc) is that the equivalent of a whole block is taken up by the holland tunnel exit loop, instead of a bunch of buildings, so you get great southern light and not bad views.

Grabler was priced meaningfully under market when it first came on the market due to very large spaces which if priced at par $ psf rates would have made them much more expensive than other units available at the time, and also due to the B location status as mentioned above so it sold out fairly quickly and there have been few resales. Until now. So I guess ppl are cashing out with a two bagger at least for whatever reason - with at least some probably having to sell due to layoffs unfortunately.

What about 415 Greenwich/Tribeca Summit? Seems like there are a bunch of units available and I would imagine developer ready to negotiate given the market conditions.

That's a question for superquant.

But there does seem to be an unusually large number of apts still available. Possibly as a result of get out clauses in contracts. The developer had many problems with this development and it dragged on for years.

I like the Grabbler, I sold there early on for $440 psft essentially a white box. Lower floor units face a wall at the back, there is also a garage but with limited spots that were sold. Barrie always seems to have a few units priced significantly less than others in the same building. I don't know if it's intentional or just a fluke? Same thing happened at the South Star... I like the fact that it's on that little cul-de-sac makes it easy to park/unload after shopping or a trip. The noise isn't to bad from the circle and much easier on the eyes since its completion.
No reason for units to be for sale other than the usual stuff...

A bit confused about the status of a couple of new developments in Tribeca: 5 Franklin Place, 56 Leonard, 143 Reade and 60 Beach.

Streeteasy shows listings in contract for all of them, but I was under the impression that a couple of them are in limbo (particularly 5 Franklin and 56 Leonard)

Are they all moving forward? Are any of them finished?

Thanks, again

I would argue that Grabler is still not "prime" in terms of location.

In terms of whether new projects are dead or not -- well, every broker works for the seller, so we're not going to say anything to flat-out discourage you. All I can do is report general climate -- in which there's a lot of speculation on the future of 56 Leonard along the lines of not-gonna-happen. Here's a link from curbed.com with an interview with Louise Sunshine talking about troubles with construction financing:

http://tinyurl.com/csgatl

My understanding of 5 Franklin is that it is also in limbo-land, and again I'm going to refer you to curbed.com as my outside, verifiable news source.

60 Beach is a different beast because it is not ground-up construction, it is a conversion, and I have not been in it but I had friends who didn't like the location and the presence of pre-conversion renters. possibly a moot point as my system doesn't show anything for sale there.

On 143 Reade Artisan Lofts, I'm going to refer you to the separate streeteasy thread.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Princeton Babe, I know Tribeca quite well and would advise staying away from buildings which are in the preconstruction, or under 50 percent sold phases, you will only get yourself mired in a never ending headache for a number of reasons which I won't delineate here, as I could talk forever:) I would stick to resales, or buildings which are mostly sold. Also, for SURE there will be a couple of defaults in some of the nicer buildings which have started to close, and one can negotiate some good deals in these events.

Also ali, quick question-
"well every broker works for the seller"-- can you extrapolate? Not every broker has a fiduclary obligation to the seller if they are working on behalf of the buyer, it depends on the agency relationship. The payment of commission (who it comes from) is not the determining factor in agency relation in New York State.

Nycbrokerdax--your points are all well taken; thanks. Can you provide any more specific guidance as to "the nicer buildings which have started to close"? Are you referring to anything more recent than 200 Chambers and 101 Warren? Still trying to get my bearings in this area . . .

Brokerdax, I hear you, but here's the point that has still never been resolved to my satisfaction: what you can we, as real estate industry people, say about specific buildings IN ABSENCE of a fiduciary relationship with a specific buyer?

There are buildings in Tribeca that I know from residents in them have mice; there are buildings in Tribeca that I know from attorneys have terrible financial structures. But as much as that knowledge comes from valid sources, and as much as I would like to show it off to princetonbabe to capture her as a customer, I think I can't show it off UNTIL she is captured as a customer. It seems like the easiest way to recruit new development buyers would be to jump onto the chat boards and loudly p*ss on the worst buildings, because you'd genuinely be helping buyers avoid some terrible risks, and that some of those grateful buyers would reward you with loyalty, fiduciary relationships, and sales commissions.

But that approach also just seems really unethical. Until a buyer hires me to cross over to that side of the table, I work for the buildings. Period. While I do have a duty of fairness to present a complete picture of the buildings, it's a betrayal of the buildings' trust to lead with their weaknesses.

I asked this question a couple of years ago at a REBNY ethics committee panel -- specifically I said, "how do you expect me to work the new development market in a world where the Orion has widespread complaints about the quality of the floors, and the Sheffield has buckled floors in their model apartments? I could say that as a journalist, but can say I that as a REBNY member?" and the committee was completely flummoxed by the question -- and asked me to rephrase it in general terms and avoid using the names of specific buildings. (They never really answered it, BTW).

One more note: I have since placed a client in the Orion after giving him a long lecture about agency and a very balanced portrait of the building's strengths and weaknesses, and he's been very happy there.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Princeton Babe - I rent at 99-101 Warren; we looked at 200 Chambers during our search. While 99-101 is on the south-side of Tribeca and doesn't offer the character of the cobblestone streets, it's a very nice building to live in and 2 minutes from the heart of the action in beautiful Tribeca; you can't beat the locale to Whole Foods either - I eat there every night; pathetic! All units have washer/dryer; the staff is great. The fitness center is state of the art (although the cardio TVs aren't operating yet; soon). I have heard some owners are annoyed by the relatively high monthly maintenance costs (26 staff I believe on property; including a "Wellness Center" that is staffed and not actively used, I believe). We've also heard people complaining about building noise (the building "moans" when it's extremely cold and windy) and poor ventilation (people are complaining about neighbors' cigarette smoke seeping into their apartments -- we have NOT had this problem at all). They've just informed us that parking in the building will be $700 for a sedan (not sure about SUV); access within the building -- you don't have to go outside. Bottom line -- we really enjoy the building as renters and feel very privileged to live there. Tall ceilings; modern kitchens; top-of-the-line everything -- it's definitely worth checking out if you're okay foregoing the character and charm of the older buildings. If you can afford the added splurge of 99-101 Warren, I feel it's a nicer building than 200 Chambers -- strictly basing this on looking at a bunch of units; I obviously have no idea what it's like to live in 200 Chambers (people seem to really like that building as well; perhaps is more bang for your buck?)

60 Beach has started to close, or at least should start in first week of march.

It's amazing how poor the quality of NYC condos are. As front_porch said, even new construction have poor finishes, and most of the older apartments have rodent problems.

It's a shame that even the affluent in NYC live in such horrible conditions.

Toronto--thanks for the detailed info about 101 Warren; it's definitely close to the top of my watch list

Ali--understand your dilemma and have been very impressed about your thoughtful approach to things.

Quantum--please, please please . . . tell me this isn't the start of a Chicago vs. NYC detour . . . those of us hungry for knowledge about Tribeca deserve a little space too

princetonbabe, my last post has nothing to do with Chicago. I'm just adding to what Ali said about the poor quality of new NYC condos and conversions. It's just hard to find a nice top-notch building in Manhattan.

It's not in Tribeca but I have a client going into the Laurel (one of the reasons I don't want to comment in-depth on 56 Leonard, another Alexico building) and it's really nice. The finishes I have seen in completed apartments are everything that we were promised in the model apartment . . .

ali r.
{downtown broker}

I don't know that much about Tribeca conversions but note prices in the Dietz building. Don't you think that
1996 was a much happier time in the economy:

The $10 million condominium conversion of the 1897 Dietz Lantern Factory at 429 Greenwich Street, between Laight and Vestry Streets -- according to its developers TriBeCa's largest loft conversion -- is almost finished -- with 23 of its 28 lofts sold.

The City Wine and Cigar Company, a private club with wine storage for its members and a restaurant and tasting room open to the public, will take up the entire 7,000-square-foot ground floor.

The lofts, which range from 2,100 square feet on a low floor for $550,000 (not sold) to a 6,000-square-foot penthouse for $2.4 million (sold), each come with two-and-a-half limestone-tiled baths and kitchens with cherry cabinets and granite counters.

"The people buying these lofts are paying the price for these extra touches," said Barrie Mandel, the agent handling the lofts for the Corcoran Group. "But at the same time, they want the downtown look: They're asking us to leave all the original hardware, the old factory doors, the nuts and bolts of the lantern factory."

The imposing nine-story brick warehouse, with its arched windows and central tower, was purchased, along with an adjoining stable building at 435 Greenwich, for $2.7 million by Martin Joffe, who developed the Odeon Building at 145 West Broadway, and by Rolf Hoffmann, a German developer. They are projecting a fall occupancy.

I bought a Chelsea doorman studio with a view of the Empire State Building in 1996 for $65,000. $550K was a bloody fortune back then. As you can see from the article, they sold the penthouse for nearly what the developer had paid for the entire building.

You have to go back way more than a decade to find prices where Tribeca was "cheap."

ali r.
{downtown broker}

550k was not really a fortune to a young single professional - unattainable at that point in time but not out of sight. Back then, I could envision a not-too distant future with my boyfriend when we could afford that 550k loft. Together, we made 200k but didn't have significant savings. The greatest price acceleration relative to our incomes was in the 1996-1998 time frame. We could have bought a classic 6 in 1996 for what a 4 room apartment (smallish 2-bedroom) on the Upper West Side traded for in 1998.

Princetonbabe-
sorry for the late response, I was just able to get back in front of my computer.
To clarify what I meant about staying away from buildings that are not yet 50 percent sold or in preconstruction, is not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the design or construction of these buildings themselves, simply that to go into contract right now for something like this gives you zero stability. There are issues involving the bank being willing to lend to individual buyers in these buildings, not to mention back financing that can be withdrawn if not enough contracts are signed within a certain time period, and then having your money sit in an escrow account while the developers decide their next move. These things are already really happening. The catch 22 of the day is that the banks are saying to developers in these cases "ok, we will loan to your buyers if over 51 percent of people have signed contracts to purchase with NO MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY" . In turn, the developers cannot find a buyer in this market who would sign a contract with this risk.
This is why I feel that buying into already established buildings, which do include some recent conversions and new constructions is simply a much more sure thing and less of a risk to a buyer who is looking in the current market
In answer to your question about the nicer buildings, I personally think that 101 Warren over all did a nice job, and I have to say that for a conversion the Artisan Lofts has very unique finishes and some great floor plans.

Ali-
also apologies for the late response. Before I respond in more detail to your previous post, let me preface by saying that I have followed some of your commentary here on the board to buyers and sellers, and I can see that you choose your words carefully and give people great advice, and are realistic and straightforward in your assessments of both the market and the anxiety around buying today. So for that I give you major credit:)
I do want to point out the following though--
"Until a buyer hires me to cross over to that side of the table, I work for the buildings. Period. While I do have a duty of fairness to present a complete picture of the buildings, it's a betrayal of the buildings' trust to lead with their weaknesses."--
Actually, this is not quite accurate, there is no longer sub agency fiduciary responsibility between broker's firms in New York State, it has been rendered inert by state laws several years ago. For example, it used to be that say you were an agent at Elliman, and you had a client who was buying into a development or resale apartment that was represented by a Corcoran agent, you were considered a sub agent of that original broker relationship that provided thee exclusive agreement, and therefore were duty bound by a fiduciary obligation ironically to the "other side" of the deal. This was deemed a conflict of interest, as many buyers were under the impression that the agent had THEIR fiduciary rights as first and foremost, and the state passed laws rendering the sub agency relationships in this case void.
Meaning, that in the case that you are an agent at DG Neary for example:) you have no fiduciary obligation to any building/developer unless they are selling through DG Neary, regardless of having a buyer or not.
Apologies for the technicalities-- on the flip side I agree that one should avoid bad mouthing specific buildings and I think that both you and I generally post diplomatically.
Jeez, sorry i am longwinded, I need to learn to post more effeciently.

Princetonbabe,

my wife and I dream of moving into a Tribeca condo loft one day, and since prices started to decrease we have been looking around. I can confirm it is impossible to find a 2bd/2br for less than $2m unless you compromise on location, quality, light or views. We went to quite a few OH recently and there is nothing out there for $1.5m which would appeal us. On the other hand I bet that there is plenty of potential 10013 buyers out there hence if prices really hit the 750psf or less as mentioned in this thread, we will see activity picking up regardless of the state of the economy.

Guys, be warned... Quantum is Rufus, who was rejected by his dream school and dream city, Columbia and New York City. He loved the city until sour grapes set in...

So he spends all of his day posting on NYC real estate boards (even though he's never been here) trying to talk down the city...

This is all well documented...
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/8131-rufus-mystery-solved

He is so jealous he spends all day trying to post negatively about NYC.

Man, this guy is so pathetic...

"got rejected at columbia business and am pretty devastated."

"Oh well. I have to spend an extra year in shitty Chicago and reapply for round 1 next year."

"I've been to NYC several times but haven't really partied extensively. But almost everyone I've talked to who lives there tells me how NYC is so much fun and doesn't really get boring, people are interesting, etc. To what extent is this true? What makes NYC so much more fun than other cities like LA, SF, Boston, Chicago, etc.?"

"I live in Chicago but have been to NYC quite a few times and noticed a very sharp difference in the respective social scenes. Chicago seems much more fratty and bar oriented while NYC is a bit more upscale and pretentious. The girls in NYC also dress a lot better as well. I would like to hear opinions on this subject from those of you familiar with both cities."

"Thanks for the encouragement. I'm just really bummed out since I'm 27 years old, and now is the perfect time to go. And socially, I'm extremely dissatisfied with Chicago and really want to be in NYC. I just have to improve my application for next year and hope things turn out better"

Now that he's been rejected multiple times, he's changed his story a bit.

Ignoring him is probably best.

"Ignoring him is probably best".

Which is what ppl in this thread were doing very well until you chimed in.
But seriously, it is helpful to newbies to point him out though I do like the fact that princetonbabe called him out immediately.

BTW, I forgot to mention a favorite of mine. The Hubert. This one was priced at a premium to the market when it first came onto the market at about $1100 to $1200 psf and it languished for a little whiel until March 2003 (the afore mentioned removal of uncertainty when 2nd gulf war started) when sales took off. Nice big layouts, good workmanship, impeccably run. Still commands a premium. Location is not perfect but at least Hubert St is a quiet cobble stoned street.

NYC10023 what kind of jobs did you and your bf have in 1996? 200K combined seems pretty high for that time. My combined income with my gf was about 150K back then (both in finance) and is much higher now but I still remember 150K went a long way in those days.

nycbrokerdax -- I love your response and appreciate your taking the time to make them so detailed.

However, that view of subagency is not what I learned in my Spada [for outsiders, that's the real estate licensing textbook used in NY] -- p.55 "When co-operating brokers accpet the offer of subagency associated with a seller's listing, however, they work through the listing broker and are therefore the principal's subagent, as are the sales associates in the listing agency's office."

Is that just old? I took my New York license in 2006.

ali r.
[downtown broker}

hi Ali, yes I think that is the confusion, I believe the state passed the legislation in late 2006, I wish i could recall the exact verbiage they used, but essentially you are only bound by subagency now if it is a listing from within your own firm, and there are no subagency relationships between firms, instead all the agencies were supposed to change the wording in their exclusive agreements and co broke agreements between firms to have this other specific kind of wording which delineated the relationship. I remember that we had a memo go out throughout the firm at the time notifying us of the change, and updating all of our exclusive materials. It is funny because it was in the forefront of my mind when I was reading your post only because I am doing my continuing education right now and we just were going over the laws of agency again.

> > Ignoring him is probably best
> Which is what ppl in this thread were doing very well until you chimed in.

Well, not quite. I posted because folks were actually responding to him.

> But seriously, it is helpful to newbies to point him out though I do like the fact that
> princetonbabe called him out immediately.

Which was great, but I have found that he doesn't respond to the subtle... BUT the long call out usually stops him cold.

Sorry if I bothered you guys, I just know this worked on other threads....

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2015/07/07/shocker_tribeca_is_home_to_nycs_most_expensive_zip_codes.php

Shocker: Tribeca Is Home to NYC's Most Expensive Zip Codes
Tuesday, July 7, 2015, by Jessica Dailey

The data gurus at PropertyShark crunched the numbers on home sales over the last 18 months to find the most expensive zip codes in the United States (h/t CNBC), and New York City snagged three of the top 15—and the Upper East Side is not among them. The three priciest areas are all south of Houston Street, which is somewhat surprising considering all the record-breakers that happened much farther up the island over the last year. The highest ranked NYC zip code, 10013, includes most of Tribeca took the sixth spot with a median sale price of $2.8 million.

Zip codes do not match up with any neighborhood boundaries, and some are quite small, so the data does not correlate with the boundaries used by market reports. That said, it's not surprising to see any of these zip codes on the list, as they all border each other. The area of 10013 is mostly Tribeca, but it claims a good chunk of Soho, too, and it saw 431 sales since January 2014.

The second priciest NYC zip code is 10007. With a median price of $2,763,711, it came it right behind 10013 at number 7. This area is smaller and includes the part of the Financial District that brokers have rebranded as Tribeca, as well as the blocks around the court houses and City Hall. It saw 126 sales.

And the third Manhattan zip code on the list is 10282, which came in 13th. This is basically just Battery Park City, and there were 30 sales. The median price is $2.4 million.

A New York zip code did take the top spot, but it was not within the five boroughs. The Hamptons town of Sagaponack came in as the most expensive area, with a median pice of $5.125 million.

Most expensive home in 2013: http://www.thepinnaclelist.com/property/tribeca-loft-mansion-144-duane-street-new-york-ny/ now rentals: http://streeteasy.com/building/144-duane-street-new_york