loft that missed The Peak at 30 West 15 Street comes back to sell, modestly but successfully

very quiet local market
30 West 15 Street is a classic Manhattan loft building of its type: a handsome 12 story building built about 100 years ago with 21 coop units (converted 1980), and a North unit and South unit on nearly all floors (with varying floor plans per floor), on a block with a wide range of uses (not just similar loft buildings, a union hall, a high school and a church food program, but a state-of-the-art-in-1989 condo next door [Grosvenor House] and a state-of-the-art-in-2008 condo down the block [The Oculus]).

There is a significant shareholder population that has been here for at least 20 years, and only five lofts there changed hands between 2005 and 2007, and just one since then. That one is #10N, which made half-hearted (tenth-hearted??) attempts to sell in 2007 and 2008, but it missed The Peak. When it sold two weeks ago, ir probably got about as much as it could have gotten back in 2007 (briefly) leading into (and in 2008 over) The Peak. Weird.

The listing history:

I don’t recall a loft sales history with two such mild bouts of interest in selling. Those 8 days in June 2007 represented the best chance to sell into a strong market; it just wasn’t much of a chance. Coming back for a month the next summer can hardly be described as a serious attempt to sell, especially at a price that did not fit the loft or the building.

But people are entitled to make their own decisions, and their own mistakes. It is surprising, however, that an agent would take a listing for a month in 2008 after an owner pulled the 2007 edition after 8 days.

the most deservedly understated broker babble ever?
There is not much practical difference between the former listing description and the 2010 campaign, except that 2007-08 agent did not like to use sentences. The first one explicitly says “needs TLC”, while the second is a model of understatement. All the modifiers have to do with the neighborhood (“prime Chelsea”), the building (“beautiful boutique”), or the bones (“spacious”, “outstanding light”, “traditional loft ceiling heights”, “outstanding size”) with an invitation about the condition, not a condemnation: “would welcome an upgrade”.

No one not off the bus from the Midwest this week would be unprepared for a primitive loft, though they might be surprised by the Empire State Building view if they had not studied the floor plan. (There may be a reason for this specific bit of modesty; see below.)

tripping over the feet
The 2008 listing claimed “1,300 sq ft”, while the recent listing said nothing about size. Just for fun, note the differences between the room dimensions given in the old floor plan and the new one; similar, but by no means exact; same firm, different agents. I wonder who made the measurements. I suspect that two other measurements taken today by different people taken today would generate numbers within the same range, but no exactly the same. Sigh.

strong price, nonetheless
At “1,300 sq ft” the price-per-foot calculation could not be easier for this $1.3mm sale. For a space that needs work (or, that “would welcome an upgrade”) that is a pretty good price, very likely reflective of that surprising Empire State view (but, but, but … remember to see below).

The much larger #2N had 14 foot ceilings (larger than “traditional”, I am sure) and the benefit of a frothy market when it sold quickly for $1,005/ft in September 2007 ($1.91mm for “1,900 sq ft”). #3N is only slightly larger than #10N and sold for a robust $1,177/ft in June 2007 ($1,737,500 for “1,475 sq ft”; for some reason, StreetEasy missed that listing but it was new on February 28, 2007 and in contract by June 4; the only relevant babble is that the kitchen and bath were renovated). #3S was in top condition when it sold for the top price per foot in the building in May 2007: “meticulously renovated” with “top of the line appliances”, “custom millwork throughout”, marble baths; this “2,500 sq ft” loft sold for $2.9mm, or $1,160/ft.

It is that flurry of activity in Spring and Summer of 2007 that makes the June 2007 feint to the market by the #10N owners (8 days at $1,192/ft) and July 2008 “effort” (32 days at $1,227/ft) all the more baffling. There must have been a lot of people interested in this building then especially during that Spring froth of 2007. They probably would not have been very interested in #10N around $1,200/ft even if it had stayed on the market long enough for people to find it, but someone might then have been willing tp pay more than $1,000/ft for that view.

Funny thing is, though, that it probably would not have fetched a lot more than $1,000/ft even back then, given the #10N condition and the extensive comps in the building.

Funny thing is, the December 23 sale of #10N at $1.3mm is a pretty strong price, especially if that Empire State Building view is in danger. (In 2007 and 2008, that view may not have been in quite so obvious danger.)

what is Alchemy building across the street?
Other than a June 10 Curbed piece that mentions a "28-30 story structure", I can’t put my finger right now on the exact size and shape of the new condominium building to go up across the street (darn that internet!), but the Empire State Building views from #10N may be at risk. Alchemy Partners, the developers of The Oculus at 50 West 15 Street paid $16.625mm to buy the 6-story union building directly across the street at 31-35 West 15 Street, and another $13.77mm to buy development rights from the high school down the block to the west.

Again, I can’t tell the exact size and shape, but Alchemy told the New York Times on July 25: “[w]e’re building an addition for St. Xavier High School and a residential tower on top of it with 60 to 65 units.” (With the develoment rights deal, presumably that is a very large as-of-right structure.)

It is hard to believe that the view survives.

Did the sellers know about development plans after Alchemy bought the union building and the development rights on June 17?  Did buyers ask about those plans? Did the lawyers find out during due diligence before the October 20 contract?

hmmm … Did the sellers pull the listing in July 2008 because the (then shorter!) development plans hit the press, and the [stuff] hit the proverbial fan?

Inquiring minds want to know….

© Sandy Mattingly 2011