Purchased for $1.125 million in 2006, the 1,548-square-foot unit #218 within the Oriental Warehouse at 650 Delancey Street was subsequently remodeled and now sports a modern kitchen and two remodeled baths.

Eight months ago, the two-bedroom unit, which comes with two deeded parking spaces and secured storage in the building’s garage, returned to the market priced at $1.995 million.

Withdrawn from the MLS in January, the unit was re-listed this past March with a $1.895 million price tag.

And having been listed anew for $1.795 million last month, the sale of 650 Delancey Street #218 has just closed escrow with an “over asking” contract price of $1.85 million and only “45 days on the market” according to all industry stats and aggregate reports.

And while $1,195 per square foot certainly isn’t cheap, keep in mind that the median sale price for South Beach units as a whole has been running closer to $1,400 per foot.

21 thoughts on “Officially Over Asking at the Oriental Warehouse”
  1. Geez, it took 8 months to sell, completely remodeled, with two parking, at one of the best properties in South Beach, and they had to sell at a huge reduction to comps.

    Over asking indeed.

  2. Get out of here. South Beach lofts have by no means been trading at a ~$1400 a foot. You’re comparing new condos and re-traded lofts.

    1. Exactly! Sometimes it feels like author has a conclusion in mind (eg the market is softening) and cherry picks things to prove his/her point.

        1. Maybe so, tho’ a quick search I just did, for recent loft sales in this general area (355 Bryant, Clocktower, 400 Spear, 346 1st, 601 4th St., 301 Bryant, and other Oriental Warehouse sales), shows a fairly tight range of $1000-1200/sq. ft. The Feb. 2019 sale of #411 at 650 Delancey sold at $1084/sq. ft., so I think the sellers here did about as well as could be expected.

        2. You need to get off it, Socketsite. Lofts are a separate category. Your South Beach 1400 median take was flatly wrong.

          1. We’re well aware that lofts are but one segment of the market. But as we actually wrote and included for context above, “while $1,195 per square foot certainly isn’t cheap, keep in mind that the median sale price for South Beach units as a whole has been running closer to $1,400 per foot.” And no, that’s not simply the median sale price for “new condos.”

          2. So your readers were meant to “keep in mind” that another category was trading more like 1400 a foot median, even though the loft category was not. Got it. Wait. Nope. Still makes zero sense, other than you forced a narrative, were wrong, and got called out on it.

          3. No, they were to keep in mind that “while $1,195 per square foot certainly isn’t cheap,” “the median sale price for South Beach units as a whole,” which includes lofts, “has been running closer to $1,400 per foot.”

          4. I don’t think so. Lofts have been selling at a 1000 per foot median over the past calendar year.

          5. I used the word think but it’s a fact. Not too difficult to follow. And you were talking median, not average, if we’re going to play copy editor on here. Wow.

        3. Must be new here. Most of us are used to the bias here

          Drawing the same downward conclusion over the past 7+ years from data while the market has been going up.

          1. We can certainly understand how such an assertion might make you feel better, but unfortunately it’s factually incorrect.

            We did, however, note the first signs of a market slowdown back in late 2015. And lo and behold, it just so happens that inventory levels started ticking up soon thereafter, sales volumes dropped, rents peaked and actual declines, as measured on an apples-to-apples basis, began to emerge.

            But you do highlight an important point, which is that the real estate market doesn’t move overnight. And in fact, the cracks in the market, which have since widened and spread, first emerged a few years ago.

          2. What is the case for a market slowdown beginning in late 2015? Because it certainly is not evidenced by q4 2015 vs q4 2016. And so on, and so on … Broken clock, something or other springs to mind …

  3. Have folks lived in lofts like these? Where can guests stay, or a newborn, or kids? It sure looks nice, but for 1600 square feet, seems inefficient. I suppose when all the natural light comes from only one wall, there are very few design and layout choices available.

    1. The tri-level lofts are the best config IMO. The units that are 1st floor: office/guest, 2nd: main living, 3rd: loft bedroom. That gets you a place with all the high-ceiling and light-filled fun, but with a real “room” when you need it.

    2. Guests stay in the “Family Room”, but they don’t stay too long. Kids are why suburbs were invented – not many in this ‘hood.

    3. My in-laws had a unit at this location. We would stay there while they watched the kids. It was loud and not very comfortable.

      1. It’s really just a large studio. The “master bedroom” has no doors and the “family room” has no windows. Can’t beat the view though….

        1. That’s what I thought, too – a large studio. And even for a couple, the layout offers very little privacy for one person to be by themselves for a bit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *