Milan goes from rental to condo to rental
July 06, 2009 05:30PM By Candace Taylor
The Milan
The Milan Condo on 23rd Street in Chelsea is going to need a new name.
Joining the ranks of New York City's many "nondos," the 42-unit conversion will remain a rental building rather than going condominium as planned.
The Milan, which hit the market in June of 2008, failed to sell enough units in time for its condo offering plan to be declared effective, according to Douglas Wagner, president of Benjamin James Real Estate, the exclusive marketing and sales agent at the building. Instead, the now-vacant units will be leased out, said Wagner, whose company has already started marketing rentals there.
The credit crisis and stringent lending requirements have stalled sales for new condo projects all over the city. Still, the Milan's situation is rare because it's one of only a few residential conversions, which have a time limit for declaring the offering plan effective, unlike new-construction condos, according to real estate lawyer Meg Goble, a partner at Hanley & Goble, who is not involved with the building.
Located at 120 West 23rd Street between Sixth and Seventh avenues, the Milan was constructed as a rental building in 1987. The owner, Manhattan-based Milan Associates, has since renovated the building with condo-quality finishes, like hardwood floors, sandstone tiles and mahogany cabinetry. The asking price of a 575-square-foot junior one-bedroom there was $515,000, according to Streeteasy.com, while a two-bedroom, two-bath unit was priced at $1.285 million.
Today, one-bedrooms in the now-vacant doorman building, where each apartment has a balcony, rent for $2,700, Wagner said, while two-bedroom units start at $4,100.
"We wanted to rent quickly," he said.
In order for the offering plan to be declared effective, Wagner said, 15 percent of the units needed to be sold by the end of June. Instead, rising interest rates and customers' inability to get mortgages slowed sales as the deadline neared.
"The [deals] were stunted by the increase in interest rates," he said.
Phone calls to Milan Associates were not returned.
When rental buildings are converted to condos, Goble explained, the offering plan must be declared effective within 15 months from when the attorney general's office accepts the plan.
"If you don't make that date, your plan is out the door," she said.
If the developer fails to sell enough units in time, the project reverts back to a rental building and buyers get their deposits back, she said. Wagner didn't say how many contracts had been signed, but said some buyers received their money back.
The 15 months can't be extended and the developer can't file a new offering plan for at least a year, Goble said.
That's one reason most of the city's new condos are ground-up construction: Converting an occupied building means a longer approval process and is often fraught with complications, such as the headaches experienced at much-publicized projects the Apthorp and Sheffield 57.
"You don't see too many occupied buildings going condo," she said.
The Real Deal reserves the right to delete any comment it finds to be rude, obscene, racist, sexist, bigoted, irrelevant or repetitive, as well as inappropriate comments about anyone's personal appearance or advertisements. The Real Deal does not endorse any comments posted on its Web site nor does it verify the veracity of comments or the identity of posters.
Comments
Anonymous
This is the second time this building has been a Nondo! It was originally built in the late 80's as a condo and didn't sell during the last real estate crisis. Now they timed it wrong yet again! Well, that and the fact that this is a terrible building.
Comment #1 Posted By: Anonymous 07/06/09
Anonymous
BJA is down to one very small office.
Comment #2 Posted By: Anonymous 07/06/09
Anonymous
yes number 1 and also because it is owned by the Chelsea equvelant of the Beales of Grey Gardens.
Comment #3 Posted By: Anonymous 07/07/09
Anonymous
The management at this building is incompetent. I would avoid this building at all costs. Recently a doorman was arrested for fraud - nice work guys.
Comment #4 Posted By: Anonymous 07/07/09
Anonymous
This is a horrible building with poor quality finishes. If they had tried to sell the units at $600 sq/ft (rather than almost $900 sq/ft), they might have gotten more takers.
Comment #5 Posted By: Anonymous 07/07/09
Anonymous
What happened to Benjamin James? Looks as if they shrunk significantly. Are they going to make it?
Comment #6 Posted By: Anonymous 07/07/09
Anonymous
Benjamin James is going bye-bye
Comment #7 Posted By: Anonymous 07/07/09
Anonymous
Owner is a bad bad man
Comment #8 Posted By: Anonymous 07/07/09
Anonymous
Does anyone know what happened over there? I thought they used to have 4 offices. Who is the owner?
Comment #9 Posted By: Anonymous 07/07/09
Anonymous
as many condos today, developers want to stay blind to the reality and that's what they get if they would have priced right they would not have such issues good luck
Comment #10 Posted By: Anonymous 07/07/09
Anonymous
Oh, blame it on the economy. Blame it on rising interest rates. But heaven forbid they blame it on the ridiculous pricing. As the old saying goes, you reap what you sow...
Comment #11 Posted By: Anonymous 07/07/09
Anonymous
crazy bat could have gotten over $20 MM to just sell the building. Now,he would be lucky to get half that. Greedy Mary.
Comment #12 Posted By: Anonymous 07/07/09
Anonymous
Blame everyone but the stupid marketer/broker who told the developer he could get $900/ft in this sham of a building. This building will not sell $1 over $500-$600/ft. Price it correctly and we don't have these issues.
Comment #13 Posted By: Anonymous 07/08/09
Anonymous
13 - owner could have sold the whole building to other investors for $500- 600 a foot. But he could not get out of his own way...
Comment #14 Posted By: Anonymous 07/08/09
Anonymous
SCHADENFREUDE...
Comment #15 Posted By: Anonymous 07/08/09