another loft in New York Times, another inexpensive renovation, with 400 shoes

more shores shoes in basement storage!
Wasn’t it just the other day that I wondered whether the New York Times, in fact, disproportionately represented Manhattan lofts in living/design pieces, or whether I just happened to notice the instances in which it does due to being … well … Manhattan Loft Guy? (You say “yes” here; it was my November 4, that bento box loft in Noho also provides a Quote Of The Day, about a piece in the On Location feature in the Thursday Home & Garden section.)

Today’s example of Times love-of-lofts (confirmation bias at work??), from the Sunday Habitats feature in the real estate section, The Sanctuary of the 400 Shoes, provides yet another confirmation that one can do a lovely loft renovation in Manhattan for less than you’d think. That bento box of “1,300 sq ft” was under $200/ft; this shoe-closet-plus-”900 sq ft”-loft was about half that.

how much work did they do?
The attention of Constance Rosenblum and her Times editor were elsewhere, but it certainly seems as though there was a substantial renovation here, if not a full gut job. The accompanying slideshow shows what they have, but we have to make some educated guesses about what they started with, based on those slides and this general description:

When the couple discovered the place … it was considerably less pristine. The oak floors were uneven, dotted with holes and speckled with ink, a reminder of the building’s days as a printing factory. The steps to the loft were so narrow, negotiating them took considerable guts.

***

Over a period of seven months, and after an outlay of about $100,000, the couple created a sleek, mostly open space filled with lively works of art and examples of Italian design

The kitchen is almost certainly completely new (in the same location as before, most likely). There are no photos of the bathroom, or any mention in the text, but what are the chances that this oh-so-chic-and-tidy couple with a Jetsons kitchen would not have put in a similar bathroom?

Let’s assume they did little structural work. Apart from replacing the narrow stairs to the lofted (low ceiling-ed) office / guest room, they probably had to add that featured shoe closet in the (tiny!) bedroom. And we have no idea if they had to upgrade any plumbing or electrical, or put in fancy stuff like in-wall sound or upgraded windows.

Tom Keller, call your editor
They say the loft is “900-square-foot” and that they “bought [it] for $840,000 in spring 2008 — ‘the peak of the market,’ [as one of the couple] noted gloomily”. Our data-base shows the llft is “840 sq ft”, but let’s take them at their word about the size. That means their renovation of “about $100,000” cost them about $110/ft. (About $120/ft if our data-base is correct about the size.) But I am not going to take their word for the purchase price or date, though the Times did, without checking public records.

They should not be “gloomy” about having bought at the top of the market, because they didn’t. I guess memory plays tricks even on 37 year old minds, because city records have their deed as dated March 14, 2007, a good year before “the peak of the market”.

paging the Walt Disney children’s chorus
Yes, friends, it is a small loft world after all. I came ThisClose to linking to their March 2007 purchase when I was recently in the building, my October 26 what is your loft worth after a major FIRE? 12 East 12 Street loft goes for more than you’d think. (The Times already identified their building, though without the address, by naming the well-known restaurant there.) Their loft purchase in 2007 is the most recent in six figures in this building to the fire-gutted #7NE sale that I talked about in that Oct 26 post.

I ended up not linking to their sale then because of uncertainty about the size: while our data-base has it as 840 sq ft, Property Shark has it at “1,724 sq ft”. With the NY Times article and slideshow today, it is obvious that the lower figure is at least in the ballpark; my best guess is that this was probably originally a larger condo unit that got broken up at some point since it was converted to condos in 1984, but the city measurements have not caught up to that change.

no need for gloom
As I mentioned, this oh-so-chic-and-tidy couple bought in March 2007, so they did not pay a Peak price. Based just on general market trends, their current value is likely to be more or less what they paid for it. Depending on the actual size of that burned out loft upstairs, it might be worth a good bit more.

City records (per Property Shark) show that fire-gutted unit (#7NE) as “1,200 sq ft” but our data-base shows “900 sq ft”. #7NE sold on September 24 as a total gut job, after having sold (pre-fire) at The Peak in April 2008 for $999,000. I’d say that #7NE is more likely to be “900 sq ft” than “1,200 sq ft” based on these prices. (If #7NE is really one-third larger than this couple’s loft, then they really did over-pay a year before The Peak.) The thrust of my October 26 post was that the post-fire buyer got a pretty good deal; if so, this oh-so-chic-and-tidy couple should have no fears about holding their place in The Market after having paid $840,000 and invested in a $100k renovation, compared to someone paying $800k for a “900 sq ft” total gut 6 weeks ago.

Not least because they seem to have created a home they both love; indeed, “an ideal refuge”. So, to the oh-so-chic-and-tidy couple: congratulations on your upcoming wedding and enjoy your loft!

© Sandy Mattingly 2010