Tough Comps: 165 Versus 171 Greene
Last spring we mocked the owners of 171 Greene’s attempts to try to sell their 1990’s vintage townhouse for $2,500,000 (after failing to sell it as condos for $1,000 per square foot). A recent sale of an identical neighboring building at 165 Greene Avenue shows just how nuts this pricing was. Originally listed in the…
Last spring we mocked the owners of 171 Greene’s attempts to try to sell their 1990’s vintage townhouse for $2,500,000 (after failing to sell it as condos for $1,000 per square foot). A recent sale of an identical neighboring building at 165 Greene Avenue shows just how nuts this pricing was. Originally listed in the summer of 2006 for $1,650,000 (which we called “crazily overpriced” at the time), 165 Greene finally closed last month for $1,350,000. In the end, it looks like we were a little too pessimistic though: We said at the time that we thought they’d have to come down to $1,250,000. Of course, if you factor in the extra year of carrying costs it took to sell the place, we weren’t far off the mark. As for 171 Greene, it’s no longer on the market. According to the former broker, it has sold as condos. According to ACRIS, the seller just paid off his mortgage and StreetEasy shows that Unit #2 sold in October for $599,000, well below the original asking price in the high-$700’s. A neighbor reports that two of the floors are now occupied. Even at the lower prices, it looks like the owner who went the condo route probably made $400,000 or so more than the one who sold his building as a house.
Houses of the Day: The Ugly Stepchild Problem [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
Condo of the Day: Another Greene Ave Joke [Brownstoner]
House of the Day: Crazily Overpriced on Greene [Brownstoner]
Does anybody know where a picture of the demolished mansion may be found?
For those who weren’t here back when, there was once a mansion on the property now occupied by these townhouses. It was demolished prior to landmarking, and the lot was bought by a developer named Menachem Shagalov, who hired Bricolage to design the houses. Both were ignorant of landmark legislation, and the first design presented to CB2 looked a lot like Tel Aviv – yellow stucco with wrought iron balconies. They couldn’t figure out why anyone objected…and that ramp in front of the houses was supposed to be for wheelchair access to all the doors, but is now completely blocked by multiple illegal low walls and downspouts. Still, Tel Aviv looked worse…
It should be noted that these buildings are designed to be sub-divided — we looked at 175 Greene a few years ago and it would be tricky to to refit the building to anything other than three apartments unless you gut the whole thing and start over.
171 might be slightly nicer, if only because it probably has a better view of the back yards. 175 had a really beautiful view of the back yards and a direct view of the church that is on Lafayette.
171 sat vacant for the better part of a year after a competent but uninspired modern renovation. the middle unit sold for a lot less than the orig asking, but the other units still look vacant. not sure how you make $400K when you’ve only sold one unit for $600K. regardless, assuming the other units sell, the developer will most likely make a good profit holding costs folded in and everything.
165 hadn’t had any work done to it at all. which is one of the primary reasons for the price difference. that building features old white formica kitchens and well used appliances. the seller probably could have gotten more condo-ing the place, but it would have required a good infusion of cash and a fair amount of time to make it equivalent to 171.
These buildings are generic, but seem good for people who need 2 rental incomes to afford their mortgage. also, they were built as 3 families, so they haven’t destroyed an old beauty to carve out rental apartments. and, look, no fedders boxes!
Don’t you think $100k is a bit of a stretch for annual costs just to seem like you know what you are talking about? Looks like the owner owed less than 200K on the property, paid just under 7k in taxes annually and probably had almost 4k in monthly rental income. Where is he being hurt by sitting on the property for a yeat to get closer to his asking price?
Is it really that interesting to hear how some anonymous person managed to find a way to squeeze out a smaller than anticipated, but still ridiculous, profit by sub-dividing their generic pile of bricks?