Sugar is sweet but 79 Laight Street closing is better

new-ish Tribeca condo under $1,100/ft
The NY Post Just Sold feature today has some of the basic info about a Manhattan loft in pretty prime Tribeca that was converted in 2002 (a relatively high level of building amenities):

TRIBECA $2,525,000

79 Laight St.

Prewar three-bedroom, three-bath loft condo, 2,332 square feet, with dining room, step-down living room with woodburning fireplace, Viking, Bosch and Thermador kitchen appliances, beamed ceilings and central AC; building features doorman, gym, children’s room and storage. Common charges $1,751, taxes $1,008. Asking price $2,499,000, on market 14 weeks. Brokers: Bill Kowalczuk and Lisa Nederlander, The Corcoran Group

What the Post does not say (does not know) is that this listing (#5D) started at $2.695mm on June 14 before dropping to $2.499mm on July 29. From there, it was quick and sweet: they got into contract within 3 weeks. The marketing noted this was "priced for a quick deal", which they got, but I can’t tell if that copy was added when they dropped the price, or whether it came with the original $2.695mm price. Regardless, they got that quick deal.

did the neighbors help?
When #5D came to market in mid-June, the neighbors at #5G had been on the market for 6 months already, first asking $3.25mm for "2,820 sq ft", then dropping to $2.995mm in April. (It is weird that the #5G closed listing has dropped off Corcoran’s site, but StreetEasy comes to the rescue, here.) It is probably not a coincidence that #5D dropped their price within five weeks of #5G signing a contract, but I wonder if either the neighbors talked or the Corcoran agents talked — the contract price for #5G was $2.8mm — since it would have been very useful for the #5D sellers to know that their neighbors were in contract under $1,000/ft. (Sometimes neighborly ‘competition’ helps, unlike in my November 30, neighborly competition leads to neighborly mistakes? the laboratory at 24 East 22 Street.)

layout premium for #5D simplex?
The descriptions of the two units imply that they are of a similar level of finishes, so what accounts for the difference in value between the two units? If anything, #5G has better light and more windows, but that larger unit commanded about $100/ft less than the smaller (by nearly 500 sq ft) #5D. I suspect it is the duplexing

at #5G that — despite the light and windows — gives less of a sense of spaciousness there than in the "smaller" #5D. #5D has three widely separated bedrooms, with a good-sized master suite, and a living/dining/kitchen open sequence of 40 feet. #5G has a more square lower-level with living/dining/kitchen of 35 x 27 feet, but the bedrooms are all on the upper floor, in a fairly conventional (‘apartment’-like) array. Duplexes just don’t have the sense of space of simplexes — even (especially?) duplex lofts.

That’s the only thing that comes to mind to explain different ways The Market valued these two units. But there is contrary data ….

sweeter still in 2007?
The best prices I see to date in this building are for two low floor units last year: #2E closed with a deed filed May 30, 2007 at the $3.1mm asking price for "2,420 sq ft"; and #3A closed with a deed filed on November 6 at $4.33mm for "3,555 sq ft". On the one hand, #2E is a triplex (even less loft-y than a duplex, usually), but the finishes described here are pretty over-the-top, and at a different level than either 5th floor loft.  I can’t say whether the #3A finishes are similar to (or better than) the 5th floor finishes, but #3A is a duplex (darn). The plus factor for #3A must be the direct river views — but that is quite a premium (over #5D and #5G) for river views. [update 12.5.08: see the hints from Reader Jess in the Comments about those river views, and #3A finishes]

© Sandy Mattingly 2008