The Harrison

Special_K: about 6 weeks ago

ccdevi, your welcome. didn't know that you needed the education on the basics as well.

ccdevi: about 6 weeks ago

What a dumb post.

street_easy: about 6 weeks ago

Once again, if that provides some consolation to those who ended up not being able to get a seat when the music of the real estate bubble stopped playing, then more power to them.
Some people will have gotten screwed. That's the way the ball (bubble) bounces.

ccdevi: about 6 weeks ago

Special K, are you kidding me? Did you really just feel the need to explain that someone who buys an asset for less will do better with respect to that asset then someone who buys the identical asset for more. Thanks.

"To pay a few hundred thousand more than you needed to because you bought just prior to the real estate bubble bursting is painful financially"

street_easy, while in some sense that's true, one could say in that in other situations as well. for example, when I bought my 2br in 2003 for $800k, I was a little bummed because the people who I bought it from had paid a lot less then that 4 or 5 years earlier. Course I sold it in 2007 for $1.3 so I don't exactly stay up at night worrying about it.

street_easy: about 6 weeks ago

For the non economists among us (like me) let me break it down. To pay a few hundred thousand more than you needed to because you bought just prior to the real estate bubble bursting is painful financially (b/c we all have other things we could have done with that few hundred thousand). You can rationalize all you want about cash flow etc as anyone who got suckered would.

West81st: about 6 weeks ago

Sorry, didn't notice that Special_K made that point already.

West81st: about 6 weeks ago

You also can't borrow against home equity if you don't have any.

Special_K: about 6 weeks ago

agreed.

ManhattanRE: about 6 weeks ago

Agreed. So, in this case, the notion that the mark-to-market loss impacts an upcoming expense is a red herring, as originally posted. Nobody wants to lose money and you'd rather pay less for an asset than more. That's obvious and I wasn't suggesting anyting to the contrary.

I have no idea how many people fall into which category, but I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between. I went through this in the '80's. History has a way of repeating itself, both on the upside and on the downside. Markets go up, sometimes too much. They also go own and at times overcorrect.

The bottom line: sales were made at the top of the market. That impacts value no doubt. But the doom and gloom is overplayed, in my view. If you have the cash, you weather the storm and move on. Those that bought in this building will be fine--as long as they weren't looking to flip their unit. They would have done better had they bought earlier or later, but they bought when they did. And what they bought is a quality building in a quality location which, in my view, relative to other buildings should do fine.

Special_K: about 6 weeks ago

so your point is, i have $5mm in the bank and if i take a $500k loss, then i can still pay for college? hmm... let me run my calculator, i think your math checks out. you are right, anyone who has $5mm will be able to afford college for their kid. surprise, surprise. and what % of 2 bd buyers of a $1.5mm 2 bd at the peak actually has $5mm in the bank vs. my scenario of down payment plus some extra left over?

no matter how you shake it, bake it, twist it, or turn it- couple A is worse off by the tune of $500k.

ManhattanRE: about 6 weeks ago

Assume your facts, but both couples have $5 million in the bank.

Special_K: about 6 weeks ago

"But that's not the point. It's a cash flow issue."

Ok, so in my example let's assume 4 year college for one child is private university is $150k all-in. Just making that number up for purpose of illustration. Couple A only has $100k in the bank now. Assuming they want a buffer of $50k against unforseen emergency/job loss etc (given they have a $1.2mm mortgage), they can only spare $50k. So they are short $100k of cash for school.

For couple B, right after they bought their house, they can spare $150k of their $200k in cash. enough for school.

In neither case are we selling the condo. In fact, couple B could still sell their condo and access their (assuming no trx costs for simplicity) their $200k in equity while Couple A can't even do that because they are underwater already.

ManhattanRE: about 6 weeks ago

I understand the difference between tax losses and mark-to-market losses. But that's not the point. It's a cash flow issue. If the value of an asset you own is underwater but your cash flow is fine, you can pay for college out of cash flow and wait for the value of the asset to recover. Only if you were going to sell the condo to pay for college, thereby realizing the loss, will you actually "lose" the money for tuition.

Special_K: about 6 weeks ago

"Third, losses only occur when there's a sale, so the notion that people won't be able to put their kids through college in a few years is a red herring. "

tax losses are only realized with a sale, but economic losses happen regardless. this has been addressed so many times, it's surprising people still think that mtm losses don't affect them. Two identical couples buy in this building. Both are similar in every way and have $400k in the bank. Both buy identical 2 bds in this bldg, Couple A buys for $1.5mm, and Couple B buys later when prices have fallen to $1.0mm. They both put 20% down. So where are we right after Couple B buys??

Couple A now has $100k in the bank and owes $1.2mm on a mortgage. They are underwater on the apt by $200k so their net worth is -$100k. Can't afford college on that. Couple B now has $200k left over after the down payment AND has $200k equity in their house. That's not a red herring, that's your kids' tuition.

"Those that bought units in that building will do fine over time."

So by "doing fine" i assume that you mean, over a very long period of time, couple A can recoup their losses and break-even on a nominal basis on their apartment. If so, ok - given enough time, i agree. But i don't characterize that as doing fine. In my book, Couple B did a heck of a lot better. In fact, by the time Couple A breaks even, Couple B will be up $500k in their house.

ralph24: about 6 weeks ago

Luckily, the overwhelming majority of buyers does not need the blessing of streeteasy bloggers to buy. Nor does that majority need to justify the buying.
It's just us, idle mind.

ManhattanRE: about 6 weeks ago

I think that's right. In analyzing it, you need to separate the timing of the purchase and what has been purchased. Nobody wants to buy at the top of the market and many people who bought a unit at that building may have done that, but that shouldn't be a negative on the building itself. It's in a prime location, built by a developer with a proven track record and has amenities that many people look for. Those that bought units in that building will do fine over time. Anybody looking to flip will be hurt. Anybody looking to live there for a number of years will do fine. This crisis will pass, but the quality of the location and the building will still be there.

West81st: about 6 weeks ago

I agree that the pricing will leave many buyers regretting the timing of their purchase. I just don't see the Harrison as a prime candidate for white elephanthood, cheesy facade notwithstanding.

Thebus36: about 6 weeks ago

Its cognitive dissonance. And this building is so overpriced. Unbelievable is correct. People are delusional.

kgg: about 6 weeks ago

Well, at least it's convenient to Candle Bar.

unbelievable: about 6 weeks ago

you people are delusional...it's the same euphoria that drove this market up. i suggest you save your money, or sell your overpriced apts. and go buy some tulips. this building is awful.

ManhattanRE: about 6 weeks ago

That's well said. First, I suspect that anybody who bought early there is still above water since there were price increases along the way. Second, there clearly was demand for the building and there will be going forward. Buildings don't sell that quickly if there isn't something compelling about them and, don't forget, most of the sales were in '08, when there were already concerns about the markets. The building sold extremely well into some headwinds. That doesn't mean that prices won't go down, but that building should fare no worse than other sales over the same period and may fare better, given the changes on both 76th Street (Avis and the garages gone) and 77th (Hertz gone). Third, losses only occur when there's a sale, so the notion that people won't be able to put their kids through college in a few years is a red herring. Fourth, as for noise, there are many, many high-priced buildings that are on noisy streets (the Time Warner Center, Astor Place, Park Imperial, the Chatham--all Related buildings, all have the same "noise concerns" and all have done well).

For what it's worth, I like the exterior, except for the green trim, but we should wait until it's completed before we pronounce it good or bad.

I'm sorry my brother didn't buy there (decided not to buy at all). I think the building will do very well and anybody in it for the long run will do well.

West81st: about 6 weeks ago

"White elephent?" s/b "elephant".

West81st: about 6 weeks ago

I don't think the Harrison is in any great danger of becoming a white elephent. It's right in the middle of everything that makes the UWS great - easy walking distance to AMNS, CMoM, the JCC, Zabar's, Fairway, Citarella, and both Central and Riverside Parks. For entertainment, There's an off-Broadway theater and a major music hall around the corner, Lincoln Center and two multiplexes within ten blocks and Time Warner Jazz or Symphony Space/Nimoy-Thalia less than a mile away. Although Amsterdam in the 70s has historically been a dim spot in the center, That has already changed considerably with the Apple Bank building anchoring the southern end. The last holdouts of seediness - like the porn shop near 74th - look fairly out of place these days. There could be some backsliding during a recession, but that's true of a lot of gentrified areas.

If you're looking for white elephants, I nominate 455 CPW.

ccdevi: about 6 weeks ago

"I think it's quite amusing how so many people that post on this website seem so angry with the choices that other people make?"

yup

Humla: about 6 weeks ago

I have zero 'buyers remorse' and I think it's quite amusing how so many people that post on this website seem so angry with the choices that other people make?? I live in the neighborhood, I love the location and as far as the facade of the building, well, I have never bought (nor would I recommend anyone to) an apartment based on the look of the outside. What matters is the inside of your apartment, the lobby and the amenities.

street_easy: about 6 weeks ago

what will matter is people will have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars more than those apts will be selling for in a yr or 2, money that they could have used for their kids college.
Overpaying hundreds of thousands of dollars? you don't think that will matter? of course you don't.

Anthony205: about 6 weeks ago

I hate brokers. I am far from being one. All I know is that this place will be call home by a lot of great people; buyers remorse? maybe a few will think that way. The rest I believe will be happy to live there and make it a great place, a home of their own and at the end of the day that is all that will matter.

street_easy: about 6 weeks ago

fmw you are so right. I walked by there the other day it was unpleasantly loud even by NYC standards. Open your $1500 per sq ft low floor apt and hear that racket in your small 2 bedroom? Incredible. No doubt many buyers will be asking themselves "what were we thinking?"

Thebus36: about 6 weeks ago

Anthony 205, take off your broker hat for one second and try to give an honest assessment. This building is being laughed at in the neighborhood as an overpriced, top of the market, white elephant.
The phony exclusive, snooty talk that you spew is so yesterday. Nobody will care who lives in this building.It is completely disingenuous of you to suggest that people who purchased are not having some buyer's remorse. The value of these apartment's are down a minimum of 10-15% from where they were purchased.

Anthony205: about 6 weeks ago

There is no other building like this one in the area and with the flagship equinox and proximity to great schools and stores and restaurants, people who purchased will be pleased with their investment, great service from the staff and will be the envy of all of those who cannot afford to live here anyway but wish they did and will try to be friends with someone that lives there just to take a peak at a place that is far from their reach.

ccdevi: about 6 weeks ago

"I'd take something in a neighborhood that's been considered top luxury for over 100 years over something that opened yesterday on a block with a history of not-so-nice stereotypes, especially when the prices are comparable."

I'm thinking of an analogy involving Lehman (or Bear) and Google. But perhaps I'll just say nah, Park Ave sucks.

dlafronz: about 6 weeks ago

As i predicted on this thread 4 months ago, this will be the building on the UWS where people will look back(if they aren't already) in 1 year's time and say, " what were we thinking when we paid $1,500-1,800/square ft for this apartment!".
And after seeing how he fascade of the building looks like something out of Las Vegas, I suspect we will be reading on this thread the cognitive dissonance responses of people who bought into this building. Just waiting for the, "You don't know what you are talking about, we are thrilled with buying at the top of the market!"
Sorry for the Schadenfreude, but it is true.

mrsblogs: about 6 weeks ago

I'd take something in a neighborhood that's been considered top luxury for over 100 years over something that opened yesterday on a block with a history of not-so-nice stereotypes, especially when the prices are comparable.

Humla: about 6 weeks ago

Faux brick/prefab brick panels are not the same thing, but I assume that's what you mean. I'd take that over cheaply made, buckling all glass curtain wall any day!

fmw: about 7 weeks ago

Amsterdam Avenue is ungodly loud. Lots of trucks use the avenue. The traffic never ends.

And, the other posters are right . . . the faux brick is cheesy and ugly.

Humla: about 7 weeks ago

Matter of taste, obviously, but I much prefer the 70's to the 60's/Lincoln Center. Much more of a neighborhood up there, in my humble opinion.

rufus: about 7 weeks ago

definitely overpriced for the area. if you want to spend that much to live in upper west side, look at the west 60's, closer to the park.

Humla: about 7 weeks ago

You really cannot compare the two just by the price. One is coop one is condo. One is 50% down, one has 421A tax abatement, new construction health club, hardwood floors, large windows, terraces, etc... Location is just a question of taste. As far as sales, I believe they are doing quite well, just a few units left. They sold the majority of them so quickly, and being related, they can probably afford to sit on a few units for a while.

ccdevi: about 7 weeks ago

should you really be spending the same money on new construction on Amsterdam Ave.?????

yes

mrsblogs: about 7 weeks ago

Huge, palatial, Park Ave. pre-wars are going for $3-$4 million...should you really be spending the same money on new construction on Amsterdam Ave.?????

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/211244-coop-1192-park-avenue-carnegie-hill-new-york

My, how times have changed!