What Happened to NYT's "Residential Sales Around the Region"?

We have twice poked fun of the New York Times for the strange inaccuracies in some of the "sales" that are listed in the "Residential Sales Around the Region" column of the weekly "Real Estate" section. This section profiles (by region) sales in various price ranges. We have never quite been able to figure out what the New York Times means by "sale" since sometimes these sales are verifiable in ACRIS and other times, just seem to be pulled out of a broker's press release thin air. For example, we still haven't seen a city filing for the supposed sales at 60 Beach Street and 101 Warren that we previously wrote about.

So, even though we thought the section was sometimes blatantly inaccurate (such as the reported $745,000 sale of a 20 Pine 2 bedroom, 2 bath isn't there like, an intern that could have checked that out? that was actually a small 1 bedroom), we kind of liked the section and are surprised that it seems to be gone from the New York Times. In the era of ACRIS and Streeteasy, you might argue that publishing residential sales isn't really necessary anymore, however we tend to agree with this poster on Streeteasy who notes, "I'll miss seeing the sales I'd never otherwise see...[like in] Rockland County." (touche, touche)

New York Times, 'sup? Are you guys done with this section for good?

More BS from the NYT on Supposed Residential "Sales" in Tribeca

Last week, we took a hard look for the first time at the New York Times' "Residential Sales Around the Region" weekly column, which profiles "sales" in the New York City area. We'd always assumed they were actual sales (with accurate stats) until we actually recognized one of the units last week, the uber-new Tribeca condo building at 60 Beach Street which so far shows zero closed units (still true today, folks) yet somehow popped up in the NYT column last week as having "sold" a $3.75 million unit (a seriously troubled price range, as any reader of any New York real estate blog knows) right at the asking price (whatever).

Yesterday therefore, we also had to raise another eyebrow at the Sunday Times reported sale for $6.44 million (also right at the asking price, whatever) at 101 Warren Street, a building with which we are very familiar and cannot recall anything listed at that price. Of course, if you check out ACRIS or Streeteasy, nothing has sold at 101 Warren in this price range since 2008 and the 3BR, 2.5BA listing is nowhere to be found on Corcoran's site (at least, not for $6.44 million).

In fact, in all of Tribeca, there have only been three real sales in the past month, all at substantial discounts off of the ask. At 50 Warren St, the 3rd floor unit sold for $3 million, 20% lower than the ask. At 73 Worth, #4B sold for $2.69 million, 16% lower than the ask. And finally, at 155 Franklin Street, #3S brings us home for $2.575 million, 14% lower than the ask. Any one of these real sales are a much better view of the Tribeca high-end market (duh) than the misleading nonsense that the NYT has now published for the second week in a row.

Exactly What Does the New York Times Mean by a Residential "Sale"?

Like many New Yorkers, we get just a little bit excited every Saturday (or Sunday morning if you're buying at the newsstand) to read the New York Times Real Estate section, long the guilty pleasure of owners and renters alike who enjoy reading the timely cover stories (including this week's article about rental scam artists) and following people just like you and me in columns like "The Hunt".

Although we devour the Real Estate Section, one weekly column that we usually only glance at is called "Residential Sales Around the Region" which features four columns of price ranges and apartments/houses that "sold" in each of those ranges in various areas around New York City and surrouding suburbs. Based on the language in this section, we had always assumed that the residences featured here were actually "sold" (e.g. there was deed transfer) and that the sales price was actually the amount that the buyer paid the seller at closing.

Normally, we don't recognize the properties featured in this column, which usually sell for around the asking price (starting to smell fishy already in this market) and have sometimes been on the market for as little as 2 weeks (ditto). Today however, we did recognize a property: 60 Beach Street in Tribeca, where according to the New York Times, a 3BR, 2BA just "sold" for $3.75 million which also happened to be the listing price (yeah, right).

Although this condo conversion is seriously out of our price range, we're still vaguely familiar with the development and are almost 100% certain that nothing has started closing there yet. When we poked on over to Streeteasy/ACRIS, it turns out that we are right. There have been no deeds filed at this building, so whatever the NYT considers to be "sold" is either "In Contract" (which is not sold New York Times, hello) or (best case) this $3.75 million apartment is the very first closing at 60 Beach Street and the paperwork is on it's way to City Hall.

Either way, we're certainly a touch annoyed. Come on NYT...we've occasionally defended you against naysayers that claim that you are industry lackeys but this is a tad egregious. Did this unit really sell? If so, who the heck is paying the asking price for a $3.75 million unit, a price range that we all know is severely distressed and would never generate this type of sale.

Apparently, the $1 million all-cash "starter apartment" is back! (whatevs)

"Honk if you think it's over!" screams the headline from this week's front page Sunday New York Times Real Estate Section article, which profiles buyer Luke Sager, a "recent Harvard graduate and co-captain of the college soccer team", who apparently has been involved in an all-cash bidding war over this 1BR listing at 225 Fifth Avenue in Midtown South. Although Bond New York conveniently left off the unit #, we believe that this is #2D, which sold for a whopping $1.35 million back in August of 2007 . Now, 22-year old Luke's parents is/are purchasing the unit for $925,000, all in cash, a discount of almost 32% from the Q3 2007 purchase price.

Are we honking? Maybe a little peep for this unit and some of the other ultra high-end units mentioned in this seriously biased article, that interviews only brokers and focuses predominantly on townhouses and other ultra-expensive properties that have seen price cuts of 50% or more. Can deals happen at 50% off of 2007 prices? Of course they can, but these types of deals are not representative of the state of the overall market, an issue that the article glosses over.

Perhaps Josh Barbanel should change the title of this article to "Brokers Say Market is Picking Up (duh, brokers always say that) for Properties Trading at 30-50% off of 2007 Prices (double duh)".