limits of the loft form / 448 Greenwich St

1,300 sq ft = 1 BR
I touched yesterday on a beautiful little loft that – with only “1,100 sq ft” – is fit for no more than one couple, or even one person (minimal drop at minimal beauty / 8 West 13 Street drips) that had a price drop this weekend. I cam across another (relatively) small loft that has been on the market for a while that is limited by its shape to being only a 1 bedroom.

448 Greenwich Street 5^th floor has been on the market since June, staring at $2.05mm but holding at $1.995mm since September. Said to be “1,300 sq ft”, it is not quite big enough to be a One Bed Wonder, though it is suitable only for a 1 bedroom layout.

squeezing + wedging
The footprint is classic Long-and-Narrow, with the emphasis on narrow. At 17 feet narrow there is no way to squeeze 2 bedrooms in that back area, hemmed in as it is by the mechanicals and stairway on the long north side and by the bathrooms on the long south side. While there is an ‘office’ with a window (‘office’ is a room title often converted to nursery or bedroom), that less than 9 x 7 foot room is wedged between kitchen and bathroom, so can’t be expanded an inch.

This unit has the benefit of 4 exposures, with 2 windows north and 3 south to go along with the 3 each that are front and back.

pause to appreciate the appreciation
The very handsome building was converted to condos in 2003, with the first sales in 2004. The 5^th floor sold for $895k in March 2004 and the 4^th floor for $880k in February 2004; curiously, these two full floor lofts are shown in city records as “1,146 sq ft” (5^th) and “1,148 sq ft” (4^th), perhaps via a typo. Nothing in the current listing description suggests that the March 2004 buyer has made any changes to the space or finishes.

Can this micro-nabe support a no amenities (not to discount the ‘fantastic’ common roof deck) condo at nearly $1,500/ft (if “1,300 sq ft” is tight)??

© Sandy Mattingly 2008