toothbrush loft at 48 Mercer Street closes flat with 2007

2007 flat has a better curve than 2005 flat
The Manhattan loft #3W at 48 Mercer Street (Hohner Building) was a quick sale this holiday season, starting out on October 26 and closing on December 23. That’s q – u – i – c – k work, indeed. But te real story of this $3mm sale has to do with that four-letter word, f – l – a – t. This sales was the second sale of #3W in three-and-a-half years and both were at $3mm. Still, it is better for a recent flat seller to have been flat off 2007 values than for a seller, like the little loft seller in my January 19, 90 Hudson Street loft earned $500/mo since last sale (2005), to be (essentially) flat off 2005 values.

elegance + volume = toothbrush!
This classic Long-and-Narrow loft is billed as toothbrush-ready, with the wrinkle of a slight bulge in the back and a rear plumbing stack for the quiet master suite. The rest of the plumbing lines up along the middle of a long wall, permitting a second suite (here, a screening room), a third (full) public bathroom, and a “L” kitchen that is both typically placed and babbled as “perfectly situated”. I guess that is “perfect” in the sense that this is exactly where the overall layout logically suggests the kitchen should be, as proven by the fact that nearly all Long-and-Narrows with plumbing stacks in the middle put the kitchen there. Whatever.

With “2,500 sq ft” “1,911 sq ft”, a width of 24 feet, and 13 foot ceilings there is a palpable volume to the place. (Look, especially, at the 6th and 7th photos to see how well really large art fits.) Finishes are claimed to be “[e]legant [and] timeless”, with “state of the art” lighting (check all the large pieces!), the central air has 2 zones, and that well-situated kitchen is full of proper, proper names (and has a partial wall that makes this a not-quite-the-typical-open-kitchen). This loft benefits from itself being “perfectly situated”, in the sense that it looks west directly over the rooftops of the low buildings across the street, permitting unusual sky and light for a 3rd floor loft in mid-Soho.

bless their flexible hearts
Not only were these sellers willing to sell at the price they bought for in May 2007 (and did so quickly, as noted), but they were negotiable. The October 26 ask was $3.5mm, the contract 6 weeks later (December 4) was $3mm. Props to them and their agent (Meg Siegel of Sothebys) for recognizing what The Market would offer.

better to be lucky than smart
How much of life is timing? These folks bought in May 2007 and sold in December 2010, both times for $3mm. Their sellers in May 2007 had better timing. They bought the loft (in what appears to be essentially the same condition as when it sold the last two times) from the sponsor in April 2003, so they held it for about 6 months longer than the second owners. But that original sale was at $1.52mm.

Of course, one can usually only ‘take the money and run’ when realizing a huge gain like that if one … well … runs. Putting that 100% appreciation into other high-value Manhattan real estate would only move the real estate wealth around. I wonder if the 2003-buyers-turned-2007-sellers planned from the time they bought from the sponsor to leave town after only 4 years. But that’s what they appear to have done, as the notice address for their sale is in Alabama. I’d guess they would have had trouble finding any house in Birmingham in 2007 on which to spend more than six figures. Nice arbitrage! (So long as they don’t come back.)

did you find 2,500 of those feet?
My first draft of this used the size in the last two listings, which matches what is in our data base: 2,500 sq ft. But that space does not look 100 feet long, and the common stairwell and elevator certainly eat into the (rough) rectangle. I used “1,911 sq ft” when I entered it on my Master List of Manhattan Lofts Sold Since November 2008 because that is what StreetEasy uses, which I have always assumed is sourced at city records. When I noted the discrepancy I checked the Condo Dec on ACRIS.

You may have to do some clicking to find it, but Schedule B to the Declaration [page 22 of 79] provides “approximate square foot area of unit” #3W as “1,911.27”. That’s a rather large stretch to 2,500, no?

© Sandy Mattingly 2011