what a difference a year (and a view) makes, as 161 Grand Street closes

then v. now, spectacular v. move-in, view v. not-so-much
The Manhattan loft #4B at 161 Grand Street closed last week for $1.71mm after a relatively brief (successful) campaign. This "1,831 sq ft" "beautiful and spacious" loft was marketed as being in "move-in" condition — a relatively modest description for a unit with marble baths and "top of the line" kitchen, but that is what they said.

They started to market January 15, asking $1.9mm, dropped to $1.795mm on St. Patrick’s Day and found the contract 2 months later that closed last week. The $1.71mm clearing price represents exactly 10% off their January starting point, and $934/ft, all of which are pretty reasonable seller outcomes these days.

This relatively modest description and relatively modest price contrasts significantly with the July 2008 sale of #9A. That "1,800 sq ft" loft was billed as "spectacular", with a "magnificent" entertaining space, chefs kitchen and "extraordinary" skyline views (including of the Police Building, just down the street). The Market loved that loft, as it cleared in July 2008 at $2.75mm, having come to market in April at $2.9mm and finding a a contract in 2 months. That computes to $1,500/ft.

is it The View, Mars?
I can only speculate about the difference between these two sales of similar sized Manhattan lofts in the same building 11 months and seven figures apart. #4B claimed "great city views east and west", but 60 or more feet higher #9A had those "extraordinary" views. The #4B layout is too stubby to be a Long-and-Narrow, but presents only 7 windows, while the corner layout of #9A has not only twice the windows (15) but each room has at least one long wall of windows (the corner LR / dining space has two). I have to guess that #9A’s finishes were to some degree at a higher level, but it is hard to imagine that difference was terribly significant in light of the proper proper names invoked at #4B. The obvious calendar differences between contracts reached in June 2008 and May 2009 are significant, but June 2008 was already post-peak (though pre-Lehman).

Why was #9A 50% more valuable than #4B? Using a (generous) ballpark of 20% as the local market decline for a non-prime loft micro-nabe (sorry, Police fans) and 5% for the finishes, it has got to be the layout, the windows and the views that account for the largest part of the #4B vs. #9A differential. At this order of magnitude, somebody paid $500k for a better layout with more windows and great views. Interesting….