diversion about lofts in the movies and a tech mogul’s sex life

spectacular Flatiron loft back in the news

I must say that I can’t figure out why it is recent ‘news’ that The Google Man is in an open marriage,  but I appreciate that The Real Deal did a loft-peeking piece a few days ago that gives me an excuse to reprise my April 20, 2010, Shia LaBeouf doesn’t really live at 31 West 21 Street, about that same loft when Shia LaBeouf only appeared to live in that glorious Flatiron penthouse loft. Funny thing, that, as I started that post by wondering if the loft was soon to famous for appearing in a movie while it is now famous for being a real life sex den. Truth: stranger than fiction, ofcourseofcourse. And by “famous for being a real life sex den” I mean that it generated a Page Six item entitled EXCLUSIVE: Google Boss Schmidt spending big bucks on womanizing. That spin puts the concept of an open loft in a whole new light.

So this post is an unusual diversion for being salacious and for being actually about a loft.

The loft was not publicly offered for sale when I wrote the loft-in-movies post (of course, otherwise I’d not have written about it) but I reviewed in that post past attempts to sell and wondered if it was being quietly shopped in connection with the anticipated movie release.

Fun piece for Manhattan loft lovers in today’s NY Times: Where a Greedy Wall Street Villain Would Feel Right at Home, in which Christine Haughney visits a pretty darn spectacular loft that is featured in the for-Fall-release “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps”. …

No question that this penthouse loft at 31 West 21 Street is fit for a Master of the Universe: 6,000+ sq ft duplex, with a huge roof terrace and Empire State views. it had been offered for sale for three years not too long ago, and there are enough hints in the article (and an agent identified) that there may be active softmarketing going on now. In years past, it was offered for sale at $12.5mm (2006), $16.5mm (2007), and $1.37mm (2008). (The listing dates in the inter-firm data-base are very different from those on StreetEasy.) Haughney says the owner “is now considering asking $12 million to $14 million”.

The owner was low-balling Haughney at $12-$14mm, as the penthouse came out publicly 3 months later at $15mm. (Hence, the lazy journalism trope that Schmidt bought “bought a sprawling $15 million penthouse” when, in fact, he bought a $14.6mm penthouse loft; but then Page Six is hardly journalism….)

While I am bashing Page Six ‘journalism’, let me take another swing, this one with a specific loft hook. (See what I did there??) The Post “reports” about this penthouse loft:

A source familiar with the purchase said: “While everyone in New York wants a doorman, Eric specifically said he didn’t want one. He doesn’t want anyone to see him and his guests coming in and out. …”

No. Everyone in New York does not want a doorman. Pretty much everyone in New York wants a doorman if they are buying a luxury apartment, but there are a great many very expensive Manhattan lofts in non-doorman buildings downtown. Way back on September 16, 2006 I blogged about that in my loft owners open their own doors, doing a quick and dirty survey of open houses of lofts asking between $2.4mm and $3mm. (2006!)

meanwhile, back in 2010

I will close this unusually lofty diversion by diverting into ancient history, as I did in that Shia LaBeouf post. Read that post to see why I closed that one like this:

This started innocently (I swear), with a NY Times piece (and pix) of a spectacular loft. That led to beavers and farm implements, then to swinger’s clubs in the dawn of the age of AIDS, because this building, like many true Manhattan loft buildings, has a long history. How’s that for a Manhattan loft diversion?

Wait … a “swinger’s club”?? The Google Guy may have just looped this back, after all. Enjoy!