117 West 17 Street loft flies off the shelf, but was the terrace free?

how quick is Q-U-I-C-K?
I generally tell people that the ballpark timing numbers are that it often takes 60 days from contract to closing in a Manhattan condominium, 90 days in a coop, though there are always some that take longer or shorter. The recent sale of the Manhattan condo loft #2D at 117 West 17 Street was both a little shorter-than-typical, at 50 days from contract to closing, and pretty quick to contract, at 39 days from coming to market to contract. For those of you scoring at home, that is 89 days from beginning to end, and deserves an asterisk on your scorecard. I hope they had time to pack.

the secret is that there is no secret
The secret to a quick sale of a Manhattan loft (or apartment, for that matter) is, of course, setting an asking price that is recognized immediately by The Market as appropriate. (For just 2 examples, see my October 29, how to sell a loft quickly? (not a secret!) another 808 Broadway loft does it, and my August 31, pricing right to (yes!) sell quickly at 55 Liberty Street.) It also helps if there is a clear plus factor, something about the loft that differentiates it from most other lofts available for sale. In this case, this “1,320 sq ft” loft (modestly babbled as “a spacious 1,300 sq ft”) was asking $1.45mm and got that quick deal at $1.4mm — confirmation that The Market approved of the price — and the plus factor was the “400 sq ft” terrace.

modesty in expression, as well
The fact that they got a contract here in seven weeks with a 3.4% ‘discount’ shows they were not ‘greedy’ here (personally, I hate that word to describe a pricing strategy, but you do hear it used, don’t you?). There is also a curious modesty in the broker-babble. Both Property Shark and StreetEasy (as well as our data-base) count this loft as “1,320 sq ft” so this listing is the unusual one that rounds size down from a documented measurement. But the rest of the babble is somewhat muted, as well.

Maybe there is no chef in this household, but to describe a large open kitchen with solid wood cabinets and top of the line appliances as a “large open kitchen with solid wood cabinets [that] is complimented by top of the line appliances” is … well … modest, at least in comparison to industry custom and standards. Note that the photographer loves the kitchen: 2 of 7 photos are full-on kitchen shots, and two others have kitchen views. Not coincidentally, the camera also loves that (cast-iron?) column —  a very loft-y element absent from the babble. Yes, I see that the terrace is “magnificent” and “landscaped” (with about a dozen pots; this is landscaping??), but the overall babble is more subdued than is typical. Just sayin’.

about that modest price
Anyone who did any digging at all would have seen that the #2D asking price of $1,060/ft (ignoring the outdoor space) compares very well to the last sale at the Brooks Van Horne (is it modest for the agent to drop that “e”, or is that something else?), which was #5C on January 21 at $1.275mm for “1,200 sq ft” ($1,062/ft). Let’s just say that that babble exudes enthusiasm: “gut renovated”! “no expense has been spared”! proper proper names are used, and materials are identified (I can’t get over #2C’s “solid wood” kitchen cabinets, sorry). (Although it would have been nice if this agent also used that trailing “e”.)

The competing listing descriptions imply that #5C has a higher level of finish than #2D. This may not actually be true, but I will accept it for present purposes. Anyone who thinks that #5C is worth more on the interior than #2D because of the #5C renovation still has to adjust for the value of the #2D terrace. Whether The Market used The Miller’s analysis for valuing outdoor space (my May 6, riffing with The Miller on the value of Manhattan terraces, decks + balconies) or not, if you apply the lower end of the typical range of values of outdoor space in proportion to indoor space at 25%, the adjusted “1,420 sq ft” and $1.4mm sale price computes to an adjusted $986/ft for #2D, or $76/ft lower than the #5C value in January.

With #2D asking an unadjusted $1,060/ft 9 months after #5C sold at $1,062/ft, the dialogue between the #2D marketing and The Market begins on strong footing. It immediately engages as “modest” pricing, and survives the deeper level comparison of condition (#5C may be in better shape) because #2D has that unusual plus factor of the terrace. After all, one can buy #2D and make the condition the equal of #5C merely by spending money, but that #5C buyer has no way to replicate the #2D terrace at any price.

Note that if the condition of the two lofts is similar, the #2D terrace was free. So I guess The Market priced them with different levels of finishes.

one more turn around the modesty loop
Once you get into the sales history in a mature loft building like Brooks Van Horne these things can go on forever, but I will just do one more. When #5C came to market in the still-a-bit-chilly May 2009, it lasted only 4 weeks at $1.495mm ($1,246/ft). When it came back in August 2009, it held at a more modest $1.375mm ($1,146/ft) until finding the contract that closed on January 21 at $1.275mm ($1,062/ft).

Here is how I know that the $1.375mm ask was modest: when #5C last sold on May 19, 2006 the clearing price was $1.315mm ($1,096/ft). Asking 4.6% more in August 2009 than the sale price 39 months is … err … modest. Even if it did not result in a gain from that earlier sale.

Enough with the modesty … stay dry today, people!

© Sandy Mattingly 2010