old school gut-me loft sells at $926/ft at east end of Chelsea

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods chelsea — No Comments ↓

love the truthful broker babbling describing this (quintessential?) Chelsea loft

“[F]air condition and livable” is damn fine praise to describe the “1,980 sq ft” Manhattan loft on the 2nd floor at 106 West 26 Street, a small late condominium conversion in what has become a valley of rental towers. I am not so thrilled that the loft is saddled with the vague label “expansive” (it ain’t gonna grow) but that is a typical and minor misdemeanor in Manhattan loft babbling. The “quintessential” claim is a higher grade misdemeanor to my snobbish eyes, as I see a tin ceiling, some exposed brick, and exposed pipes, which don’t seem sufficient to earn a quintessence, not with ceilings that are only 10 feet high, no architectural details of note, no interesting window frames, and new-ish flooring, but Your Mileage May Vary. To continue to damn the loft, the light out back is non-existent and the direct light in front will be limited from this second floor, though standing in the front east windows you may get an angled slot of light from the nearby 6th Avenue corridor. Factor in the coming gut renovation to a two bedroom loft, and your (the buyer’s) net investment jumps to around $1,200/ft, or almost $2.4mm.

count the ways a Manhattan loft can scream “gut me, please”

The babble notes, as stated, that the place is in “fair condition and livable” but few $2mm buyers are satisfied with merely livable space; instead, most buyers would accept the invitation presented by “endless opportunities to renovate and create your dream home”. The photos are few: two of the interior, one an angled view of  a kitchen of dubious quality suggesting an all-in-one trip to Home Depot 18 or more years ago, and none of the (only 1.5) bathrooms. The floor plan is presented with a proposed alternate (always a scream for gutting) that more rationally uses the space and what little light escapes into this second floor.

That front bedroom is recommended to disappear (a smart move that opens the brighter set of 3 windows to the public space); the two nubby appendages  on each long side in the middle of the loft are similarly targeted (another smart move that opens the middle of the public space to just a bit more light); the extravagant “storage room” was someone’s idea of how to use formerly cheap space that is much better used (as in the proposed alternate) for a dressing room and master bath for a proper master suite; and the silly set of closets along the long west (right) wall are proposed to be reallocated to a second full bath and home office, instead of presenting (as they do now) as closets that just kept getting added (these owners must have acquired a lot of ‘stuff’ over the years, resulting in  8 closets plus that extravagantly wasteful ‘storage room’ plus another “130-square-feet of [additional] storage space”).

Following the babble’s suggested dream home in the alternate floor plan is a gut job that would transform a 3-bedroom 1.5 bath light-challenged loft that is too narrow in the middle and not narrow enough toward the rear into a 2-bedroom 2.5 bath loft that maximizes the ability of light to flow from the south windows. As logically proposed, the present bath and a half  disappear, the kitchen stretches, 2.5 new baths appear in new locations, and the the additional conveniences include that home office and a washer-dryer. If the plumbing and electrical systems are up to modern standards (hardly a given), maybe you can build this out for $200/ft, but certainly not if you want central air (note the air conditioner in the front room visible in the exterior photo). As I said, probably a $1,200/ft buy+gut expense, all in.

Note that you get more photos in a 2010 rental listing for this loft than in the current sales listing, another fact that shows how modestly this sales campaign was conducted. In particular, rental listing photo #5 shows what I meant above about the kitchen reflecting “an all-in-one trip to Home Depot 18 or more years ago”.

fill in the blank: comping is ____

Forget trying to use same building sales to comp this market. The Past Activity tab on the StreetEasy building page shows exactly one other loft ever changing hands since the building was converted to condominium in 1996. That was the 3rd floor, which was sold in a “needs work” primitive form by the sponsor as the overall Manhattan residential real estate market was beginning to thaw in July 2009. That listing history is a little funky, and kinda sad, as the sponsor brought the 3rd floor to market too high (obviously, in retrospect) at $1.6mm 10 weeks before Lehman fell yet sold above the (reduced ask) at $1,501,918 a full year after coming to market. That unit is not even a simple direct comp, even adjusting for time, as it came with “200 sqft of private outdoor space” that must have been stuck on the (dark!) rear of the loft.

much diligence is due in a small Manhattan loft building still under sponsor control after all these years

The 2nd floor listing claims that this 5-story building has 5 units, which must include the ground floor commercial space (a dry cleaner these days). The only sales visible on StreetEasy are of this 2nd floor last month, the 3rd floor as another sponsor sale in 2009, and some kind of related party transaction of the 4th floor in what appears to be from the sponsor to the condo that may not coincidentally match the closing date of the 2nd floor last month. With so few units, any buyer is banking on the financial responsibility of other unit owners, which is a standard form of Small Building Risk. With the 4th floor now (and lately!) owned by the condo and no record of the 5th floor or commercial unit ever changing hands, it appears that the condo or the sponsor may still own the 60% or so common interest represented by these three units, with the civilian buyers from 2009 on the 3rd floor and now the 2nd floor owning about 40% between them. In other words, they remain junior partners of the sponsor and/or sponsor, and very limited partners at that.

This allocation of ownership is not a standard form of Small Building Risk.

But if anyone should be able to appreciate and asses this specific form of Small Building Risk, it is the 2nd floor buyer. Unless there are two guys with this non-Smith-or-Jones name, the buyer is not a civilian, but a very active Manhattan and Long Island City (at least) residential real estate agent who frequently represents condo developers. So you’d expect him to drive as hard a bargain as one can. Here are five digits that suggest that he did drive a hard bargain: 8 3 2 8 5, which is the unusually non-round number portion of the clearing price of $1,832,850. A number like that, for a listing like this, is more likely to be a sign that the negotiation got to a final stage of Split the Difference (avoiding the oh-so-typical purchase price ending in “$…,000) rather than signaling a bidding war.

Best of luck to that Real Estate Guy in his renovation. If anyone gets invited to the post-renovation house warming event in 6 or more months, please report in.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,

another loft goes at 288 West Street, direct river views in Tribeca earn $1,432/ft

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods tribeca — No Comments ↓

there are river views, and there are river views

The year end sale of the “1,850 sq ft” Manhattan loft #2W at 288 West Street in the far west corner of Tribeca is an occasion for ‘we’ve been here before’. My first thought was to try to remember which line in this building has the more protected views of the Hudson River, because that issue was the crux of my September 16, 2011, why did 288 West Street lofts close with such a wide spread?. Of course, there are some hints that #2W enjoys protected views: it’s the “W” line in a building that faces West Street and the river; and it sold at the $1,432/ft in the headline. But, we really have been here before, as the purchase in August 2011 by the recent sellers of #2W was one pole for that September 16, 2011 post about the wide spread between this very same W-line loft sale and an E-line loft sale. Bear with me as we wind around in the building and the Manhattan Loft Guy archives; we’ll come back to #2W at $1,432/ft soon….

To recap: in 2011, loft #4E sold for $1,045/ft at about the same time that loft #2W sold for $1,386/ft. Both lofts boasted lovely river views. It took some help from “a very helpful agent from a family of loft aficionados” for me to realize how scary the phrase ‘lot line windows’ should be for loft buyers who should be concerned about the future of some lovely views. (The post link above is to the post import4ed into the new platform; the very helpful comment has not [yet] made it into the new platform, so for that detail you need to go here.)

Remember: we’ve been here before, in the sense of in the building. The other sale in the East v. West pair from September 16, 2011 was one of the subjects of my November 6, 2013, 288 West Street loft up 11% over 2011 instead of 15%. Again, in that post 5 months ago, #4E played the lot-line neighbor in a pair with a “W” with direct river views that could not be bricked up. Problem was, there wasn’t a big enough spread between #4E at $1,159/ft and loft #3W at $1,176/ft, both last October, to fit the Lot Line Hypothesis. Check that November 6 post for details about those sales, and my resultant confusion (unabated, to date), but it’s time to move to the present.

why did this lovely Tribeca loft with river views sell for so little, relative to 2011?

Loft #2W appears to be in exactly the same condition prior to its last sale for $2.65mm as it was when it sold in August 2011 for $2.495mm. Last time, it was “Triple Mint gut renovated”, though without a lot of detail in the broker babble. This time the money rooms are more extensively babbled (the kitchen: “poured concrete counter-tops, stainless steel appliances including a Wolf oven, Miele dishwasher, Subzero refrigerator, and wine fridge”; the master bath: “a luxurious Zen-like bathroom with his and her sinks, rain shower and a cast iron claw foot bathtub”), but the photos look the same (same light fixtures over the same kitchen island; same tub).

And, there are, of course, the same views:

magnificent views of The Hudson River, The Statue of Liberty, Governor’s Island, Ellis Island, The Woolworth Building, and the Conservancy Park

From $2.495mm in October 2011 to $2.65mm in December 2013 is a gain of only 6%. In that same period, the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index is up to 2,240 from 1,890, or 18%. Forgive me for again quoting Manhattan Loft Guy, this time from November 6, 2013, about the Index as:

a tool (a very useful single-number tool) that “gives a feel” for the overall Manhattan residential real estate market at different points in time; it does not predict or tell you what a given downtown Manhattan loft even should be (should have been) worth at any point.

The Index is made up of paired sales like this #2W in October 2011 and #2W in December 2013. Loft #2W is exactly the sort of most useful data pair for the Index, in fact, as it is in exactly the same condition (less only invisible wear and tear) in both sales.

To recap, one more time: the gut renovated #2W with magnificent views that includes the Statue of Liberty sold in December at a much smaller gain over the sale 26 months earlier than the overall Manhattan residential sales market, at last as measured by the Street easy Index. That follows the odd neighbor sales in the building in October 2013 of #4E and #3W, sales that have to have disappointed fans of an efficient market and fans of the Lot Line Window Hypothesis specific to this building.

Repeat after me: comping is hard. The Market is weird (sometimes).

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

loft lovers trade light on Fifth Avenue in Flatiron for dark space on 24th Street in Chelsea

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods chelsea, loft neighborhoods flatiron — No Comments ↓

Manhattan loft voyeurs unite!

Long-time readers of Manhattan loft Guy know that I am interested somewhat obsessed with the choices that folks make when it comes to Manhattan lofts. The folks who traded the “1,750 sq ft” Manhattan loft #7B at 105 Fifth Avenue were evidently enamored of light and condition (the space was babbled as being “stunningly renovated” and was “bathed in natural light”, with “stunning architectural details”), but maybe they needed more than 2 bedrooms in that lovely loft at the corner of 18th Street in oh-so-prime Flatiron. (That was the condition in which they bought the loft, way back in 2007.) Something changed, however, as things often do.

Maybe they needed a challenge, or more sleeping spaces, or preferred to be able to sleep more easily through a bright morning. Instead of 2 bedrooms with that wonderful light and beautiful condition, they opted for the much larger loft #3N at 40 West 24 Street (“2,600 sq ft”), which needed a total gut job to be brought to the equivalent condition to their former Flatiron loft but could never have similar light or views. Interesting, the choices that Manhattan loft lovers make ….

dollar for dollar, even Steven

Financially, they bought at an even $2mm, but there’s probably at least a half million dollar renovation budget (if they could do a high quality renovation just under $200/ft). The broker babble doesn’t quite say a gut renovation is required, but it isn’t hard to read between the lines (“Older renovation waiting to be Fine Tuned”), or to draw that inference from the listing photos, or to ponder the weird floor plan of this 3-bedroom-plus-studio-with-separate-office. (Plus, I’ve seen it; trust me: this is a total gut.) So the purchase looks like a net investment north of $2.5mm, adding the minimum ballpark for a gut renovation without surprises into the equation, compared to their sale of the beautiful and sunny old loft at (I loves me some symmetry) $2.55mm.

My guess is that they did a much better renovation than $200/ft would support, so let’s start with the old place to see what they gave up to get the extra space and all that darkness.

would you make this trade?

The old kitchen (in listing pic #3) “boast[ed] Thassos marble counters and top tier appliances from Fisher Paykel to Sub-Zero and Thermador[….,] a wine fridge and breakfast bar” and is open to the main living space; the new kitchen is not boasted of at all, though shows in listing pic #7 as dark and in the floor plan as floating off the stairwell and elevator entry, mostly closed to the living-space-without-windows (maybe the kitchen is intended only for breakfast and snacking, as the broker babbled about options for other meals “Enjoy Eatly for Dining, Shake Shack for Lunch”).

The old master bath is not described, but appears in listing pic #6 as neat, clean and new, probably finished in teak to match the various built-ins; the new master bath … doesn’t exist. One full bath sits next to the kitchen and opens to the main living space and the other sits off what the floor plan labels as the largest “bedroom” but is, in current reality, part of the “Separate Office w/ private entrance and own kitchen and bath” (see listing pic #10). In truth, the listing photo of that first bathroom (#9) shows a decent bathroom; it may simply be in the wrong place in any likely renovation scenario.

The light in the old place is wonderful (or, as babbled, the loft is “bathed in natural light”), with the 6 large  windows in the living room facing the corner of Fifth Avenue and 18th Street. I’ve seen the light in the new place (so to speak) and it is nothing to brag about. Hence, there is no babbling about light (only about “10 Oversized Windows”) and the photos mainly show windows with window treatments closed (read between those lines, careful buyers!) or with the buildings across 24th Street evident even in a photo taken at the other end of a bedroom (as in listing pic #5).

The old loft is smaller (at “1,750 sq ft”) but that corner loft has two exposures and easily fits two bedrooms, leaving the actual corner for the nicely proportioned living room / kitchen / dining rectangle. The new loft is much larger (“2,600 sq ft”) but plays small due to the single exposure and the possibility that the plumbing stacks limit the flexibility of a new layout to have 3 real bedrooms and an open living area that incorporates more than the first four windows (counting from that corner “study” by the elevator). Logically, the elevator end of the loft should be the public space, but anything other than a galley kitchen against that stairwell wall seriously encroaches into the public space. Make that dark “studio” corner a media or dining room and give the other end of the loft to the bedrooms, with two windows each, with the last one (the current separate office) as an en suite master (the second kitchen becomes a master bath, the current bath by the entrance might drop to a half, depending on what is done with the plumbing stacks on the opposite dark wall).

Creative design might make the West 24th Street project simpler than it looks to me, but the end result of any renovation seems to be 3 rather than 4 bedrooms due to the window shortage, and 3 rather than 2 bedrooms because they had 2 bedrooms on Fifth Avenue. Looks to my unprofessional-but-practiced-eye that this is a total gut (erase all the lines on the floor plan; don’t be limited by the current plumbing choices unless by dire necessity) rather than merely “fine tuning” an older renovation. Especially given the quality of the finishes that the West 24th Street buyers enjoyed in their old loft on Fifth Avenue.

net-net, dollars make sense (for them)

I’d be surprised if they could get the same quality without spending more than $200/ft, so (as noted up front) they are likely to spend in purchase + renovation more than Fifth Avenue sales price. Doesn’t mean it’s not a good result for them (the contrary: they feel that it is a good trade, taking everything into account, and no one knows better than they do), but it is a fascinating trade.

Whatever renovation they did, they must have a good team. They bought the new place on West 24th Street on May 29 last year and sold the old place on December 12, just over 6 months later. That’s pretty quick work (assuming they moved in on West 24th Street just as they sold Fifth Avenue), with coop board approval for renovation plans, Department of Building approval for a gut renovation, and (d’oh) the renovation itself. These are conservative folks: they didn’t put the old place on the market until a week after buying the new loft. (It’s always nice to have the financial flexibility to buy a $2mm loft needing a $500,000 renovation while still carrying a $2.55mm loft.)

Nicely played, Flatiron-turned-Chelsea loft owners. Nicely played. Enjoy!

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

loft porn for loft lovers, as 112 Prince Street loft closes at princely $1,830 in upper prime Soho

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods soho — No Comments ↓

right in line with expectations, set by recent neighboring loft sale

If you’ve been reading Manhattan Loft Guy for a while you know I am a snob for the more classic and loft-y lofts. So my second response to the main listing photo of the recently sold “2,500 sq ft” Manhattan loft #5 at 112 Prince Street was to wipe the drool off my keyboard. When I then noticed that it sold for $4.575mm, I was pleased that people putting real dollars into these things share that appreciation. Check off the boxes: tall exposed beam ceilings, cast iron columns, wood beams, huge windows. My third response was to observe that, nice as that loft is and nice as that $1,830/ft is, it is pretty much right in line with the last sale in the building (two floors below, on September 25 at $4.4mm), followed by (is this a Level Four reaction?) an appreciation for how two well-finished lofts with identical footprints in the same building can look so different.

It’s been a while, and that’s a lot to chew on, so let’s take this slowly.

funny price history, if you find loft numbers amusing

The loft needed a discount to sell had both a price increase and a negotiated discount before selling, ‘settling’ at a slight discount that was closer to the last asking price than to the first one:

June 22, 2013   new to market $4.495mm
June 24 $4.65mm
July 15 contract
Jan 8, 2014 sold $4.575mm

(I choose to ignore that post-contract off-the-market thing reported on StreetEasy and in our listings data-base on the theory that the loft was not marketed again after the first reported contract, so the “second” contract is more likely a data issue than a (truly) second contract.)

The mechanism that is The Market does not permit double-blind studies, but I would be fascinated to know what would have happened to this loft had it stayed at the first asking price, rather than jumping $170,000 two days after launch. If there was but a single bidder, it likely would have gone to contract at ask ($4.495mm), in which case the quick bump up made the seller some money he otherwise wouldn’t have gotten. But if more than one buyer was interested in bidding off that original price (an untestable hypothesis, granted), the seller might have gotten a higher price than $4.575mm.

The fair market value of the loft is tautologically $4.575mm. My rumination is about asking price dynamics. Priced as it soon was ($4.65mm), the loft was over-priced, in the sense of above-the-market, if by only a little (1.6%). That hardly seems a significant difference, but if priced below-market, if by only a little (1.7%), the loft may have attracted more than one bidder. (In a hypothetical efficient market with full information.) Bidders under competition have an unknown element to deal with that is missing from a simple bilateral negotiation, so such bidders have been known to pay more than market price. (Skip the tautology problem there, please.)

Again, in dollars not a big deal, either way. But this sort of history intrigues me enough to start spinning what-if scenarios. Pardon the interruption….

Did I mention that the loft is a classic beauty? Well appreciated enough that The Market snapped it up quickly at $1,830/ft despite being a small (5-unit) coop that (technically) can only be sold to an artist. Having “no maintenance for 7-9 years” helps, as does the high level of finishes, the 2-zone central air, all that light, and a prime Soho location.

same Soho building, same loft footprint, but different floor plan, different look

Don’t be distracted by the gap between closing dates: the 3rd floor loft was sold just before loft #5 came to market, and is a fascinating comp. First, same building, same footprint (d’oh). Second, the two sales can coexist in the notional rational market, allowing for differences in floor height and market noise. Third, they play to different preferences, with the 3rd floor covering the ceiling beams and placing less emphasis on the brick walls, plus having a more open great room in a classic Long-and-Narrow floor plan with two bedrooms splitting the rear wall. The floor plan upstairs is very different, fitting 3 bedrooms plus a media room (4th bedroom) along one long wall, while putting the kitchen on the opposite long wall from its placement on the 3rd floor.

I love the fact that there are such differences in two lofts, separated only by a loft between them. And I love the fact that this building has such flexible options, with plumbing stacks so widely separated as to permit the kitchens and the bathrooms to be in such different places in each loft.

Here is the all but contemporaneous listing history of the 3rd floor, which closed well before loft #5 by some quirks in party preferences or bank approvals or something:

June 4 new to market $4.495mm
June 22 contract
Sept 28 sold $4.4mm

Look again at the history for #5: to market the same day as the 3rd floor went to contract, (originally) at the same asking price. The 5th floor took 5 more days to get to contract (a trivial difference) and got $175,000 more (a not so trivial difference).

why $175,000?

Both lofts were marketed as in top condition, but if you read between the lines one of them has a renovation in its future. The 3rd floor splits the back wall into two bedrooms, but notice what is in the southeast corner of each loft, in the second bedroom on the 3rd floor: an elevator, babbled as “a manual elevator with plans in place to convert to automatic”. Apart from being impossibly charming for visitors, a manual elevator has to be worked … you know … manually, so shouldn’t be left anywhere other than the ground floor by polite neighbors. You won’t  make any friends by leaving it idle on the 3rd floor, so someone has to walk down the stairs to get it if you want to use it to take things down, or to walk back up to the 3rd floor after using it to enter the loft (with groceries, or furniture, or grannies) so that the next resident to enter the building doesn’t have to go searching for it.

That manual aspect explains why the 3rd floor would have the bedroom array that it does: they probably don’t use the elevator very often, so it is not so inconvenient to have it open into the second bedroom. (The “entry” on the 3rd floor floor plan is from the stairs, which is another hint of how that loft has been used.) But when the building goes to the trouble of converting the elevator to an automatic system, the elevator is suddenly much more convenient, and having it open into a “bedroom” is suddenly much less convenient. Hence, it is likely that the new owners of the 3rd floor will have to squeeze a smaller second bedroom onto that back wall, while allowing a proper elevator vestibule. Not such a simple change, with no option to steal space from the mater bedroom due to the bathroom placement. With that perspective, the otherwise weirdly shaped second and third bedrooms in loft #5 begin to make more sense.

Which is a roundabout way of suggesting The Market appropriately valued loft #5 over the 3rd floor, well within the range of market noise.

And with that, after so long way from the WordPress keyboard (a vacation trip to London plus business, people, and life, which are likely to recur but which I will resolve to let not be such long distractions), I will stop before I find something else to love about these lofts ….

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

a diversion worth a super day?

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in caution no real estate content — No Comments ↓

back in the saddle again, if briefly

I held off blogging this piece from last week’s New York Times Sunday Magazine, as it is ever more timely today. The provocative headline, Is It Immoral To Watch the Super Bowl?, provokes, as it is intended to do. The piece is a bit more nuanced, with writer Steve Almond introducing his neighbor Sean to carry the conflicted male psyche burden, with an interesting and highly relevant back story.

As Almond notes, it is easy to come across as a self-righteous jerk when soap-boxing on this field. So the best approaches are, to my mind, personal accounts of why This Particular Person has unhooked from the NFL. Almond does this well, in part by observing how the seemingly passive fans create the context in which players calculate income and celebrity against the risk of grievous injury:

The struggle playing out in living rooms across the country is that of a civilian leisure class that has created, for its own entertainment, a caste of warriors too big and strong and fast to play a child’s game without grievously injuring one another. The very rules that govern our perceptions of them might well be applied to soldiers: Those who exhibit impulsive savagery on the field are heroes. Those who do so off the field are reviled monsters.

The civilian and the fan participate in the same basic transaction. We offload the mortal burdens of combat, mostly to young men from the underclass, whom we send off to battle with cheers and largely ignore when they wind up wounded.

I have many many friends who will spend 4+ hours this evening doing the XLVIII thing. (At some point, I will spend a half hour or so watching the commercials on the interwebs.) I won’t argue with them, though some of them are curious about my decision, now 2 full seasons long.  But thoughtful commentary like Almond’s will inexorably combine with parents nervous about their young sons starting down that sports path.

drip … drip … drip

I don’t think we will see a Super Bowl C.

Tagged with: , , ,

Manhattan real estate is a funny business: the curious case of the Lower Soho loft at 49 Howard Street

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods soho — No Comments ↓

loft takes 3 years to contract, data are hard to track (sigh)

If you took a look at the Past Activity tab on the StreetEasy building page for 49 Howard Street (aka 307 Canal Street) you wouldn’t know that the deed reflecting the very recent sale of the “1,813 sq ft” loft #4S for $1.6mm has been a long time in the making. After all, when you scroll down you see marketing activity dated April 26, 2010 at $1.4mm “off-market”. Click on that “#4S” and you might miss the “active listings: #4S” hyperlink, which finally brings you to an “in contract” listing with a long, tortured and misleading history that is evident on the Overview tab on the StreetEasy building page … but who looks at “Current Listings” when StreetEasy has a deed record?? One point being, I hope this glitch in tracking listings on StreetEasy is not an example of Zillowification. Another point being, like my mind, data integrity is a terrible thing to waste. Let’s start by unpacking the “current” (ha!) listing that just sold.

For purposes of counting days on market on the Master List of downtown Manhattan loft sales between $500,000 and $5,000,000, I use 90 days as (an arbitrary) the longest period a loft can have been off the market (long story, short, any reasonable system must allow for some days off the market, in my opinion). Hence, loft #4S is carried on my list as coming to market on November 30, 2010 because it was on the market continuously after that (indeed, with no breaks at all, let alone a break of 91 days or more after that) leading to the sale 2 weeks ago. (Ignore, for the moment, the StreetEasy “[l]isting is no longer available” dated March 13, 2013, which I will explain below.) In human terms, however, note the prior history, when the loft was offered for sale from May 7, 2008 until April 26, 2010 (with two short periods off the market in those nearly 24 months). Thus, you could look at this remarkable journey as lasting from May 2008 until January 2014, with the loft being off the market for only 10 of those 68 months. Funny business, indeed! Let’s look at the loft before coming back to that remarkable journey with a table, and more ….

seller lived in this loft backwards

There are 11 listing photos of loft #4S, nearly all of which catch at least a corner of the bed. In a loft that claims “1,813 sq ft” that’s a strange focus, but the fact that there are no kitchen photos is a hint that most buyers would view this as a renovation project. That, and the broker babbling “[c]reate your own layout or keep the floor plan completely open”. The floor plan used to market the place is likely, therefore, to be a proposal, with a “bedroom” across the (dark) back wall of the loft (note also the “L” kitchen in the plan, which is not evident in the photos). As 9 listing photos tell us, the sellers put a bed up front near the 3 windows. It is (still!) a free country, so you can sleep wherever you want (especially in an open loft), but this choice is unconventional. Not only do you see the bed from everywhere in the loft, it sits about 4 feet from the edge of the kitchen (see, especially, listing pic #11).

I get it that some folks just don’t want to sleep without windows, but if you zoom in on the map (or consider the alternate address) you know that south windows in a loft spanning from Howard to Canal face Canal. Judging from the absence of babbling about finishes and the overall look of the loft, those 3 windows about (35 feet?) above Canal Street must bleed a fair amount of ambient noise, from an environment characterized by 24 hours of traffic heading between the Holland Tunnel and Manhattan Bridges (taxis and buses and trucks, oh my!), with evening rush hours especially … er … ambient.

The loft would be a classic Long-and-Narrow but for the stub gallery leading from the entry way back in the rear. All the plumbing seems to be on the long west wall and, as mentioned, the only 3 windows face south. Maybe the kitchen can be moved back (north), in which case you could have a kitchen / dining area at the (dark) north end, one or two (interior) bedrooms (one a master, en suite), and an open living area in the light and ambience noise afforded by Canal Street. Bet you a quarter the new owners put at least $300,000 into the space and another quarter that they don’t sleep on Canal.

a flippin’ dream, unfulfilled

The interesting thing about the fact that the recent seller tried to sell as early as May 2008 is that he bought it in February 2008 (for $1,425,550). Our listing system notes that this building was a rental before converting to condominium, so it’s possible that the guy lived there before it was a condo. The full history of the loft suggests not, however, as he (while trying to sell) rented the place out a year and a half after buying it. That full history also suggests that he didn’t make much money on the flip, even though selling at $1.6mm that for which he had paid (only) $1,425,550. The long-promised and long history would be timely here:

Feb 5, 2008 sponsor sale $1,425.550
May 7 new to market $1.7mm
April 23, 2009 (for rent) $6,000
June 21 $5,500
Aug 18 (rented)
Aug 19 $1.45mm
Oct 26 hiatus
Jan 11, 2010 back on market
Feb 25 hiatus
Mar 16 back on market
April 19 $1.4mm
April 26 off the market
Nov 30 back on market $1.5mm
Feb 17, 2011 $1.45mm
June 10 $1.4mm
June 29 $1.42mm
Aug 29 $1.375mm
Oct 27, 2012 $1.42mm
Mar 22, 2013* contract
Jan 10, 2014 sold $1.6mm

That’s a lot to unpack!

First, you have a sponsor sale at The Quarter Formerly Known As The Peak (even though a sponsor sale, that is pretty close to fairly representing that market, as our system has that contract signed as of October 23, 2007). Then you have the nearly immediate attempt to flip at a price treated as fanciful, at which the erstwhile flipper held through the nuclear winter and dropped only after he had rented the loft in August 2009, when the overall sales market in Manhattan had thawed. Then the long period of being ignored by The Market (except when off the market for 6 months) at prices bumping up to $1.5mm and zigging down to $1.375mm. My asterisk has the contract date in our listing system and ignores the subsequent history in StreetEasy before the deal closed two weeks ago, as that history is not compatible with there having been a contract signed in March 2013.

From StreetEasy, the loft went off the market in March (instead of into contract), then came back in November at $1.6mm, then found a contract by December 29 that closed January 10 at that $1.6mm. But there’s no indication in the inter-firm data-base that anything happened between the contract (again, March 22) and the closing. If the intra-industry reporting is correct, the loft took a very long time to close after that contract and it closed 13% above ask … after that tortured history. While odd, that seems more likely to me than that it came back in November and then went to contract a month later, with the same REBNY member who had earlier kept the REBNY system up to date bit who (this time) did not (if StreetEasy is correct). I don’t believe it.

Whether I am right in relying on the REBNY system or StreetEasy is right (from what source??) is a maddening bit of uncertainty to anyone who cares about transparency. (Hint: that should be you.) Forget questions about efficient or rational markets vic we don’t have correct data. Either the loft sold well above ask (above every asking price over nearly 6 years other than the first one) and for some reason took almost 10 months to close, or the loft sold exactly at a new asking price that was not circulated among REBNY firms and then closed within 2 weeks. Neither scenario is logical, but one (at least) is not factual. You can believe what you like, but you must agree that this state of data uncertainty should be embarrassing for any self respecting real estate trade group, and would not be tolerated in the smallest MLS in the land. (Sigh)

flipping a loft neither for fun or profit

From the top-line numbers, the IRS would have little interest in this guy and this loft. He sold at $1.6mm after buying at $1,425,550, a gross gain of $174,450. This is well under the individual non-recognition of gain if this was his primary residence at the end, but wait … there’s less. Of course he paid a brokerage fee on the sale (6%, per our listing system, or $96,000) and state and city transfer fees on the way out (1.825% = $29,200), so there’s not much left anyway. And we now the guy was at it for more than 5 of the last 6 years, so there could not have been much fun in that.

You’d have to look at that 2009 rental listing again to catch the punchline:

This SoHo loft was “gutted” in late February.

I have no idea what condition the loft was in when purchased from the developer in 2008, except (a) it costs $1.425mm then and (b) had not yet been gutted. Meaning, the 2008-buyer-(eventually)-(a-long-time-later)-turned-2014-seller gutted it after buying it. One has to wonder why he did that, given that the result was a 1-bath open loft with no finishes worth bragging about, but (as the headline says) Manhattan real estate is a funny business.

Just for fun, let’s assume he paid at least $49,250 for the demo and (mild) rebuilding. That brings his net gain (counting only the prices, transfer fees and sales fee on exit, demo + build-out) to … zero dollars and zero cents. No profit there, and less fun.

Manhattan real estate is a funny business. (Ahem)

been here before, of course

This post has gone on long enough, so I won’t do much more than link to my last post about sales in this building. Check that November 11, 2010, nice flipping loft at 49 Howard Street, for a slew of cool angles, including a bleak block history and a Scorsese film name check, a deep dive into the residential history of the building (insider prices!), a graffiti artist book link, a YouTube video of an odd tour in the building (with Italian audio), and a bathtub in a bedroom. Fun stuff, but too much to get into this long into a long post … so: That is all.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,

stunning Tribeca loft with great light sells for $1,037/ft but it’s on Chambers Street, and 4 flights up

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods tribeca — No Comments ↓

more exploration of the bottom layers of the downtown Manhattan loft market

I’ve been hitting a bunch of (relatively) low-priced downtown Manhattan lofts lately (for the two of you who have forgotten how to scroll up: December 10, NoLIta neighbor buys neighbor’s modest loft at 225 Lafayette Street at a modest price, December 18, true artists’ loft goes under $1,000/ft in Soho, not the $1,250/ft they wanted, December 23, Chelsea loft at 233 West 26 Street with classic floor plan + Empire State views sells for (only) $1,087/ft, January 14, beautiful “turn key” Chelsea loft at 126 West 22 Street goes for (only) $1,189/ft; why?, and January 15, in a world unusual loft floor plans, this One Bed Wonder at 40 West 15 Street takes a cake). Let’s stay in that trough one more day, at least, and get back to that most classic of classic downtown Manhattan loft neighborhoods, my own TRIangleBElowCanal. You haven’t forgotten the headline yet, so you know that the Tribeca loft presented for your consideration today is the “1,350 sq ft” loft #5 at 126 Chambers Street, and you know that it sold at $1,037/ft in part because there are a great many stairs involved.

You know from the broker babble that this is the top floor and that there is no elevator (props to the sales agents for managing expectations on that crucial detail) and that the space is we’ll appointed in that classic-but-renovated manner:

former artist’s studio … renovated into a stunning full floor loft … on the top floor of a boutique coop built in the late 1800’s. … oversized windows and multiple skylights throughout, this walk up loft is streaming with light all day long. … expansive living room, dining area and an open chef’s kitchen. The custom kitchen comes with carrara marble counter tops and top-of-the-line stainless steel appliances. … incredibly spacious and flexible layout can easily accommodate an additional bedroom and bath. Separate storage and laundry room with LG washer and dryer. Dramatic features include dark stained hardwood floors, 11’+/- ceilings height and exposed brick walls.

The babbling about an “expansive” living room (my, how I hate that babbled locution) and “incredibly spacious … layout” obscures the fact not available publicly, as far as I can tell, but revealed to the trade (only) in our listings data-base: the loft is (as stated above) “1,350 sq ft”. Note that this is a delightfully reasonable “measurement” if one takes the interior room dimensions of the floor plan  (yeah yeah yeah: “for illustrative purposes only”; “consult your own architect”, etc, disclaimer, etc, disclaimer) as reasonable. I get a box 23 x 59 feet (= 1,357 sq ft) without discounting for the public stairwell or supplementing by the practice of measuring not from interior dimensions, but from the outside wall surface or the middle of the outside wall surface). Delightfully reasonable, indeed.

Did I mention that the entire package is worth (only) $1,037/ft? I guess I did….

let us count the downtown loft market deficits

Obviously, the loft suffers for being 4 flights of stairs up from the street (though some of that deficit is offset by the skylights pouring light into so many places in the loft). The loft also suffers by being oh-so-near-but-so-NOT-in-prime-Tribeca, with the street that the 4 flights connect to being the all-night traffic mess also known as Chambers Street. (The traffic will be a mess even when the water main project is done, of course.) In addition to buses and taxis and cars (oh my!) all day and night, this stretch of Chambers suffers from some down-market street retail. (With Exhibit A being The Patriot, I don’t think I need other exhibits.)

Long-time Manhattan Loft Guy readers know that I can quibble with the best of them. This footprint does not strike me as either spacious or flexible, particularly not “incredibly” so, but that’s the way the babble breaks. To me, this is exactly and forever a 1-bedroom loft, though you can add a second (interior) room opposite the kitchen (though that would split the big skylight awkwardly and squeeze the open kitchen and push the dining table closer to the front) or one could add a (real) bedroom in the front corner (at the cost of reducing ‘volume’ and light in the public space. Both choices are do-able; neither, to me, is optimal. But if you buy it, you can ‘ruin’ it any way you like ….

To review: lots of stairs off a busy street to get to a sunny classic Tribeca loft with limited flexibility. If you guessed that The Market would value this at $1,037/ft … come on down!

in loft marketing, might ladders be the new guitars?

Has anyone else noticed how many lofts are marketed with photos that include guitars? I had a series of downtown lofts to tour with a client a few months ago in which at least 3 of 5 lofts had guitars on display, in one case merely as display but in the others on stands, as if strummed often. And you see a lot of loft marketing photos in which guitars are featured. I hope these are all sincerely used guitars rather than staged accessories, but … what to make of the pair of wooden ladders leaning against the brick living room wall in loft #5?

The ladders are pictured in 3 of 7 listing photos, despite having little obvious utility at this end of the loft. We’re not talking about library ladders that slide along a track in front of a tall wall of books here, just 2 ladders leaning against an otherwise blank brick wall. Perhaps the shorter one would help accessing the top shelf books on the opposite wall, but a short step-stool in the laundry room would be closer and probably more sturdy than these ladders.

Sad to say, they look art-y to me, at least in the trying-to-be sense. I hope this is not a trend.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

in a world unusual loft floor plans, this One Bed Wonder at 40 West 15 Street takes a cake

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods flatiron — No Comments ↓

a floor plan for every Manhattan loft buyer, a buyer for every floor plan

Maybe the people who just paid $2.1mm for the “2,000 sq ft” Manhattan loft #4B at 40 West 15 Street in the busy bottom left corner of Flatiron like it just the way the long-time owners had it: no (legal) bedroom, no interior walls that touch the ceiling apart from closets and bathrooms, and the two bathrooms both inside what passes for a bedroom. But I doubt it. The floor plan is odd enough, but when you see on the listing photos that the funky curved wall in the “bedroom” and the walls that mark the office in front of that bedroom don’t quite reach the ceiling … well, that’s just weird. Or, to be less judgmental (New Year’s resolutions still being fresh), you could say the the space is optimized for however many people sleep in that bedroom; with no walls that completely close off that room, everyone will hear if someone is playing that piano, or watching television, or clicking on a keyboard in that office. And, anyone needing to use a bathroom will have to come into the bedroom to do so.

I will bet you a quarter that the new owners will erase those lines on the floor plan and start over. Or (if I lose) a dime that they will push the bedroom walls to the ceiling and straighten that curved wall so that someone can get to that first bathroom without entering the bedroom.

I will bet you another full quarter that the loft has had this configuration however long these recent sellers have owned the space. (At least since 1996, which is the earliest mention of them in a spotty set of coop records on Property Shark.) Note that the broker babble has but a single word describing any of the finishes positively:

true loft details- approximately 10’ ceilings, huge windows, and open space. Currently configured as a 1 bedroom with a windowed office, but the open floor plan can be easliy be converted as one’s needs demand. There are 2 full marble baths and great closets, including a huge walk in. The open kitchen and large island will appeal to any home cook and the large open space suits in home entertaining as well. Additional features include a private deck as well as a washer and dryer in the apartment.

(That word is “marble”, in case it slid by.) I can’t get a good enough look at the kitchen to be sure, but I see nothing in the babble or in the photos to suggest that there is anything deluxe, let alone “meticulously” or otherwise renovated, in the loft other than the marble in the two baths. No custom this, or built-in that; no proper proper names of appliances, fixtures or materials (marble aside). The babble damns with the faintest of praise, calling the office “windowed”, the closets “great” or “walk in”, the kitchen “open”. There’s a private deck in the babble that is the 60 (or so) sq ft balcony on the floor plan, but there’s no photo of that amenity and no claim about light, there or in the loft generally.

Obviously, I think there is nothing special about this space, including specifically about how it is laid out and finished. I suppose the surprise (for me, at least) is that it just sold for $1,050/ft in a coop that is one common roof deck and one bike storage room from being a no-frills coop. The sellers were profligate with the space, using it all to benefit the denizen(s) of the single bedroom. But the “open floor plan” is, as they say, “easily … converted” (to one real and one interior bedroom, with minimal changes; to three sleep areas, with a little more figuring).

 the neighbors are indifferent to this loft sale

Of course no one is going to brag about a downtown Manhattan loft sale at $1,050/ft, not even the buyers if the loft has as many blah points as this one. The sellers could not have been too disappointed, in that the clearing price seems to have met their reasonable expectations, given that they started on August 26 at $2.25mm and were in contract within 2 months less than 7% off the ask. Maybe the former neighbors who sold the “2,000 sq ft” loft #2A 18 months earlier at an even $2mm were pleased to see #4B went for (only) $2.1mm, given that the overall market is up 11% from July 2012 to December 2013 (per ‘the feel’ provided by the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index, of course) and that lower floor loft was babbled as faintly as #4B, with a single exposure, no true bedrooms, and a series of walls too shy to touch the ceiling.

The most recent sale in the building is not as directly comparable to #4B as is #2A, because the “1,500 sq ft” loft #1A is not only smaller but has a mezzanine with sleep loft. By now you will have no trouble appreciating the lack of enthusiasm in that broker babble, and will not be surprised that it sold on September 26 at $1.61mm, or $1,073/ft. Pretty much on par with #4B three months later, for a loft in pretty much the same condition with a (different) set of single exposure layout issues.

There are some lovely lofts in lovely loft buildings on this block (like at 60 West 15 Street, without even considering newly built or being built condos down the block). Lofts at 40 West 15 Street have not sold like them. I’d love to see what The Market would do with a loft here after it has been minted. Until then, we pretty much know the story.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

beautiful “turn key” Chelsea loft at 126 West 22 Street goes for (only) $1,189/ft; why?

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods chelsea — No Comments ↓

not many bedrooms in this loft

I am not saying (yet) that the reason the “2,161 sq ft” Manhattan loft #5S at 126 West 22 Street (in the Chelsea Flats) sold for (only) $2.57mm is the lack of the plural “s” in the “bedroom” feature, but that’s a reasonable place to begin the inquiry of why this “[b]eautifully appointed” condo loft sold under $1,200/ft. Of course, there are obvious parallels to the “1,700 sq ft” coop loft 7 blocks due south that I hit yesterday (did a famous guy set $/ft loft purchase record at Jensen Lewis building at 161 West 15 Street in Chelsea?), including that each loft is optimized for a single bedroom, but this one’s a condo forcryingoutloud. Let’s hold that comp for a little while and plumb the interior of loft #5S.

The brief broker babble twice notes the location is “prime” but has only this to say about what’s inside this loft:

turn-key, pre-war, condo loft. Beautifully appointed with limitless possibility for reconfiguration. 2100+ sq ft, pin-drop quiet, southern exposure, over sized windows, 11′ beamed ceilings, central AC, custom closets, washer/dryer. Keyed elevator, private storage

Note the lack of babbling about the kitchen or the baths, other than the generic that it has all been “[b]eautifully appointed”. Note that listing photos #3 and #4 are consistent with the kitchen and master bath being “[b]eautifully appointed”, but also consistent with them being not-so-lux. Note the floor plan, which shows a master suite larger than many 1-bedroom apartments. Again,, this is a “[b]eautifully appointed” condo in a prime location that sold for only $1,189/ft.

Interesting that the sellers expected this result, as they came to market at (only) $2.595mm on August 21 before negotiating to only a courtesy discount to sign the deal by November 4 that closed on December 30 at $2.57mm.

it is not fair to blame the neighbors, but …

Yesterday’s loft was also modestly babbled, was also a One Bed Wonder, was also a modest result compared to the overall downtown Manhattan loft market, but whereas that one set a building record on a dollar/foot basis, this one lags. That Jensen Lewis loft seems not to have been the equal of a “stunning” neighbor that sold for less (confounding efficient market theorists throughout the land). This one at the Chelsea Flats has an obvious superior: loft #7S has the identical footprint (though a simple 2-bedroom floor plan) and boasted a “super mint condition” to justify selling on October 1 at $2.85mm, or $1,319/ft and an 11% premium to #5S three months later.

The more detailed babble on #7S includes:

south light, extra high ceilings, solid prewar construction, privacy and a grand entertaining space; with hardwood floors, custom lighting, surround sound, CAC and excellent storage throughout. Loft 7S offers a stunning living/dining room with separate breakfast area, private office, two pristine bathrooms and two spacious bedrooms. The master bedroom wing has a massive walk in closet; master bath oasis with double sinks, Kohler soaking tub and separate shower. Chef’s kitchen includes island with black granite counters, Wolf stove, Sub Zero and wine cabinet; a shelved utility room with vented Tromm LG washer/dryer. There is a separate 3′ by 6′ storage unit on the floor

I can’t swear that the kitchens are so different apart from the proper proper names on the #7S appliances, but the overall look is certainly more deluxe in the higher loft. (Love that masterful master closet in listing pic #4.) But one has to credit the assessment of the #5S sellers and agents, who came to market well below the #7S contract price, and The Market, which brought #5S to close well below the #7S clearing price. The clear consensus view is that the difference between #5S at $1,189/ft and #7S at $1,319/ft is fairly stated as the difference between “[b]eautifully appointed” and “super mint condition”.

This conclusion is amply supported by the other time this footprint sold in 2013. Loft #10S took rather a long time to sell at $2,631,500 in March 2013. It reads as though between #5S and #7S in quality, has a no-true-bedroom floor plan with 2 interior rooms, and gets still better light (“sun flooded”) without clearing the building behind. Considering the paired resale StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index is up 10% from March to December 2013, the small nominal spread between #5S at $2.57mm and #10S at $2,631,500 appears to be delightfully rational. In fact, the trio of “S” units on the 5th, 7th and 10th floors harmonize quite well with the StreetEasy Index (efficient market theorists throughout the land rejoice!).

So … blame the neighbors for the #5S sale at (only) $1,189/ft, in the sense that this building simply does not command premium prices, notwithstanding a “prime” Chelsea location and condo status. Whether it makes sense or not from a larger market perspective, facts is facts.

To anyone still wondering about a One Bed Wonder discount here … nah. The three “S” sales rationalize quite well despite three rather different room configurations. No doubt, due to the ease of shifting the room array to suit.

To ‘value’ conscious downtown Manhattan loft buyers … bookmark 126 West 22 Street.

did a famous guy set $/ft loft purchase record at Jensen Lewis building at 161 West 15 Street in Chelsea?

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods chelsea — No Comments ↓

is this Chelsea loft fit for a master of the universe type?

The name matches, down to the middle initial and the out of state notice address on the deed record, but the “1,700 sq ft” Manhattan loft #5J at 161 West 15 Street (Jensen-Lewis Building) just doesn’t seem to me the (stereotypical) sort of loft for a scion of a publishing fortune who was, himself, head of a major investment bank. (The curious can do their own darn googling, but mine yielded this, among many other sources.) The corner loft does have “wonderful features”, as babbled, including 12 foot vaulted ceilings, “great light” (though not many windows), “custom built-ins and designer lighting”, and a “big open cook’s kitchen”. The largely open floor plan is, as they are won’t to say, “perfect for entertaining”. The coop is claimed to be the “best Chelsea prewar loft building”, but note what is missing from this short list of amenities and building features: “low maintenances, great financials, live In super ,full time porter and is in centrally located at the gateway to NYC”. (Hint: it starts with “door” and ends with “man”, or “person”.)

If the buyer is the same guy with that name that I googled, he can easily afford a 15 Central Park West type of abode, with a long list of amenities that might include a humidor or pet spa or shared wine cellar and would certainly include staff too many to count. If That Guy, I’d be shocked (nay, impressed), though I’d assume this loft would be a pied-à-terre for someone with a Vero Beach address and all those dollars. But if The Guy is not That Guy ….

not a terrific loft footprint within which to set a building record

Look again at the floor plan: any “great light” in the loft is evident in the main listing photo, encompassing the living room wall of windows. There’s one other window along that wall in the home office, but the other few (two) windows might let in some light, but the one in the office looks at brick (listing pic #3), while the one in the bedroom (listing pic #4) is bleached out. The shape is an irregular rectangle, with the useful windows taking up about half the length of one long wall. The listing photos do a great job of lighting areas in the loft that lack natural light: the kitchen and den included. This is a “1,700 sq ft” One Bed Wonder not because someone was profligate with space and light, but because there are not many options for having a second bedroom. (Shrink the present bedroom and expand the office??)

Remember: there are “wonderful features” in this loft, but the broker babble is still rather muted. In full:

This brilliant corner loft in the best Chelsea prewar loft building has wonderful features. It offers 12’ vaulted ceilings, huge windows and great light in a pin drop quiet atmosphere. Currently configured as a 2 bedroom 2 bath, it can also easily work as a 3 bedroom. The large open living room is perfect for entertaining, and has a big open cooks kitchen with georgeous marble counters, a Viking range and a perfect breakfast bar,. The loft also has a separate laundry room, great storage, custom built ins and designer lighting. The Jenson Lewis building is considered to be one of the best run loft buildings on one of Chelsea’s best blocks. The coop also has low maintenances, great financials, live In super ,full time porter and is in centrally located at the gateway to NYC.

There are precious few proper proper names mentioned, or proper proper materials. Some Viking, some marble, and that’s it. There are custom built-ins, designer lighting, and that “perfect” breakfast bar. I am going to guess that the (dramatic?) step-up bedroom with the rounded entrance (in pic #1 and especially in pic #3) is stepped up to keep that (raised)master bath on the same floor level as the bedroom; otherwise it is an aesthetic element lost on me.

With all this damning-with-faint-praise, go back to the headline: this loft sold for more on a dollar per foot basis than any loft in the building, ever.

Sharp-eyed readers of Manhattan Loft Guy who stay one step ahead of me know that the next link will be to my November 15, it’s the exposures, Mars; why stunning loft at 161 West 15 Street sold under $1,200/ft, which was a bit of a head-shaker about a nearby loft in  better condition than #5J seems to be that sold for only $1,163/ft. This one went for $1,353/ft, despite having only little a little more light to go along with a less luxurious renovation. I hinted at the end of that post that this one was newly in contract:

Yes, folks, there is a reason The Market is unwilling to pay premium prices for even a “stunning” renovation of an “authentic” loft. Expect that situation to continue, at least until this contract shoecloses drops.

The shoe has dropped. The old record set by a beautiful-but-layout-challenged loft has been eclipsed by a lovely-(without-being-beautiful)-and-yet-light-challenged loft, and it is not even close. The smaller (“1,200 sq ft”) loft #5E sold for $1,1632/ft n October; the larger (but still “1,700 sq ft” 1-bedroom) loft #5J just sold for $1,353/ft. I hope it is obvious that I don’t understand that spread.

Not to be mean to people with essentially unlimited financial resources, but I have to wonder if the buyer was That Guy and he just didn’t care. Sellers were asking $2.5mm and he paid (only) $2.3mm. Win, win.

If the buyer is not That Guy, then that buyer (whoever he is) overpaid. Based on a long set of building comps that show that this building is typically discounted by The Market. Except in this case.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,
Top