the fact that I hate spiral stairs did not matter to Noho penthouse loft buyer at 10 Bleecker Street at $2.9mm

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

crown jewels of Manhattan lofts can be expensive

I admit it: one of the things I am most loft-snobby about is a spiral stair. To me, nothing else says cramped or cheap quite as well as a spiral stair. For a loft that just sold for $2.9mm (as the “1,200 sq ft” penthouse loft #7D at 10 Bleecker Street just did), the issue should not be cheap-as-in-can’t-afford-better, though this particular stairway does not impress; here, the issue must be that the owners did not want to dedicate more floor space to a larger stairway. Looking at the scale of the space, that is understandable, but no less unfortunate.

My qualms aside, The Market thought the place was a hit: to market at $2.995mm on July 25, in contract by October 18, sold on December 17 at $2.9mm. One look at the floor plan is all it takes to forget the “2,164 sq ft” quoted by StreetEasy; the interior of this penthouse loft #7D might be a little bigger than #6D, which was quoted as “1,100 sq ft” when it sold in April 2011 (our listing system has it at “1,200 sq ft”). Maybe StreetEasy free-lanced and added the outdoor space to an interior measurement (something I have never before observed), which would get to “2,164 sq ft”, more or less. (The lovely floor plan claims the private roof garden is “900 sq ft”; our listing system says “800 sq ft”.) We’ll get to the difficult comping analysis for this space below, but note that counting every outside foot as worth every inside foot, the adjusted per-foot value is $1,340/ft and any more reasonable outdoor valuation drives the adjusted price per foot much higher, while the highest price for a loft in the building (before this) was $1,300/ft for a much larger loft with much more enthusiastic babbling about the finishes.

Let’s look at what a trust just paid $2.9mm for.

a wonderful 1-bedroom but not a One Bed Wonder

Long-time readers of Manhattan Loft Guy know that my locution One Bed Wonder refers to loft spaces set up as 1-bedroom units that are unusually large for so few sleeping spaces. Penthouse loft #7D doesn’t qualify, although you could imagine squeezing a second bedroom into the footprint at the far wall, you’d likely ruin the space if you did. It works as a 1-bedroom much better than it works as a 2-bedroom. Indeed, it works wonderfully as a 1-bedroom in part because if you add a bedroom you are adding people (large or small) who will need additional storage space, and this loft is built out for people who do not need much storage space.

Look at the modest bedroom. Barely 144 sq ft, it has a single closet (the master bath has twice the closet space of the bedroom). There’s a tiny closet on entry, a reasonably sized coat closet before you get to the kitchen, the other half of the “custom built-in” wall that faces the living area, and a very narrow bit of storage in the living room that seems optimal for canvasses or easels or stretchers (see the main listing photo, but look closely because it is easy to miss). In other words, the space as built is optimized for however many people sleep in that one bedroom. And, if there are two of them, they shouldn’t have many clothes. Or stuff.

I suspect the broker babbling is too modest about the finishes, unless I am simply fooled by the bright shiny objects (and surfaces) evident in the listing photos of the kitchen, full bath, and powder room. The quality of material or finishes are hardly bragged about:

prewar corner loft, an exceptionally quiet home with oversized windows wrapping west and south, and two skylights, you will find a large, open plan kitchen with stainless cabinets and white corian countertops. Enjoy the graciously sized living room with a wood burning fireplace, high ceilings, hardwood floors , full second bath, and customized work/storage space. The serene bedroom features a generously sized en suite bath, and custom closets.

Contrast that restraint with the description of the crown jewel:

The crown jewel of this home is the gem of a private roof deck- meticulously landscaped, this private space has it all! Perfect for entertaining. thoughtfully designed- with custom furniture, lighting, hidden storage, fully automated watering system, and outdoor shower.

That enthusiasm extends to the photography, as there as many listing photos of the roof deck as there are of the interior, with several attempts at ‘art’ in those outside shots. (Listing pic #10 is one of the most unusual listing photos you will see; a very successful shot, to me.) With the inclusion of actual humans outdoors (something you almost never see in standard marketing, unless the subject of snark as Bad Listing Photos) the obvious emphasis on this loft is that roof, the “crown jewel” and “gem”. Here is enthusiasm about finishes: “thoughtfully designed- with custom furniture, lighting, hidden storage, fully automated watering system, and outdoor shower”.

I’ve said it before, so you know I will say it again: outdoor space is something that some people will “overpay” for.

busting the comps machine

The last time anyone bought an interior space in this coop about the size of the #7D interior was that #6D sale in April 2011. There was a palpable enthusiasm in that babbling, but my best guess (reading between liners of babble and photos) is that the #7D interior was probably nicer than that of #6D. But it had better be. Loft #6D sold for $1.325mm and a simple (crude) time-adjustment based on the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index suggests it would have been worth only about $1.5mm last month, when #7D sold. Bump that up a very generous $100,000 if you really prefer the #7D interior finishes to those of #6D, and you get an implied interior-only value for #7D of $1.6mm, or $1,333/ft.

Of course, if you do that, you are left with the roof deck being valued at … (wait for it) … $1.3mm, or $1,444/ft if it is really the “900 sq ft” that are claimed. You could live in the interior space even through a polar vortex; not having seen evidence of upstairs heating or enclosures, no one has likely been up there in the last few weeks, and the full value of the roof deck is available only 8 or so months a year. (So far.)

Anomalous as this result may be, I am inclined to credit it, even though it would make this loft+roof sale an extreme outlier if one is used to riffing with The Miller about the value of outdoor space.

Comping at #7D from another (hyper-local) direction, the last sale in the coop was a ground floor townhouse-like loft, with a lower level below grade. The “1,900 sq ft” loft #1C sold for $2.15mm on June 14. On the one hand, you’d adjust the nominal $1,131/ft as a comp for the #7D interior as nearly half of #1C is below grade; on the other hand, the finishes there were very enthusiastically babbled, so are very likely to be of higher quality than on the 7th floor. Net-net, adjust the comp-size of #1C to “1,600 sq ft” (valuing the lower level at about two-thirds of the upper level) and you’re at $1,343/ft, rather remarkably (coincidentally?) close to the $1,333/ft I got above with the time-adjustment and condition adjustment based on the #6D sale in 2010.

Or come at this from another direction, still without leaving the building.  The “2,500 sq ft” loft #3B (aka “3F”) was in better condition than #7D when it sold 2 years ago at $3.25mm (“gut renovated past perfection”, to quote the impossible babble), or $1,300/ft. If you adjust only for time, that would imply a value of about $3.75mm ($1,500/ft) for #3B last month based on the StreetEasy Index, not so far above the other comp analyses for the #7D interior given the “past perfection” condition of #3B. (Sharp-eyed readers will remember my post about that sale, the celebrity buyers, and the fascinating back story to the loft renovation, my February 7, 2012, back story on celebrity Noho loft purchase at 10 Bleecker Street is about the sellers.)

You can’t persuade me that the interior space of loft #7D was worth much more than these same-building comps imply … something under $1,400/ft. If you are as persuadable as I am, then you will agree that we are probably looking at the most anomalous of penthouse lofts: one in which the “900 sq ft” roof deck was worth more than the “1,200 sq ft” interior, on a dollar-per-foot basis.

Weird, but (apparently) true. That’s my story, and I am sticking with it.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

raw loft space in prime Greenwich Village location goes above ask at $1,120/ft

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

there’s a thin loft line between raw and gut

There’s no chance that anyone would have been tempted to buy the “2,000 sq ft” Manhattan loft on the 2nd floor at 56 East 11 Street and hope to salvage anything usable (appliances, bath fixtures … anything) before doing a complete renovation. After all, the terse broker babble says

Approximately 2,000 sq.ft of raw space. 12 foot ceilings. Needs FULL renovation. Bring your architect.

And the marketing campaign features not a single interior photo, just a building shot with a floor plan that is more a footprint, as it lacks indications of any interior walls, any kitchen, any bathroom facilities. Again: “raw” space needing “FULL renovation”.

Chances are that there are some walls, and some place to cook and use a sink, and probably a toilet, but the listing is a warning to think only of starting over. With these … er … hints that no one would buy this loft and consider moving in, this loft is different from the invitation to a buyer to bring an architect to the small Tribeca loft I hit yesterday (in my January 7, one of the rare small lofts of Tribeca sells at 151 Hudson Street in need of architect for $1,374/ft). Somebody there might have been tempted to leave the architect home and simply move in to the finished-but-not-so-highly small loft, particularly if pushing $1,374/ft to the table to buy had depleted the buyer’s financial capacity.

Don’t do that here (“raw” space needing “FULL renovation”). Somebody just bought this second floor loft for $2.24mm, apparently to avoid someone else buying it instead. The spare listing history on StreetEasy corresponds to that in our listing system (to market July 21 at $1.95mm, price increase on July 29 to $2.1mm, contract by August 22, and sold on December 19 for that $2.24mm), but there’s one interesting wrinkle in our listings system. I’d have guessed that the price was raised after an cheek-by-jowl open house, but the first open house was not until July 31. Reading between the lines, the phone (and email) lines must have been on fire for the seller to raise the asking price so quickly and before an open house. Also interesting, there were only two more open houses, on August 4 and 7, after which there had to have been enough active and qualified bidders for the seller to forego other open houses before signing a contract by August 22.

As you know, that contract was at $2.24mm, 7% higher than the bumped ask and 15% higher than the first ask.

what’s your renovation budget to go from raw loft to design magazine level design?

I’d be impressed if you could spend as little as about $300/ft on the second floor loft to create a space that is not only mint-y but of a quality to be used in model and commercial shoots, and featured in New York Magazine’s design issue. But that’s what The Market seems to think. The 6th floor loft in the building sold on August 29 at $2.875mm (with a contract that was only 8 weeks before the 2nd floor deal) with very enthusiastic babbling and very shiny photos.

designed by interior designer Bruce Bananto…. soaring 12′ nickel-tin ceilings and huge double-hung windows that reflect and disperse the stunning light …. Sleek chef’s kitchen has top-of-the line stainless steel appliances and beautiful Corian countertops and island …. Two full Euro-style bathrooms. … professionally wired for video, audio, cable TV and has CAT-7 wiring for high-speed internet. There are also 16 audio ports pre-wired throughout the living room, kitchen, bedroom and both bathrooms, and 6 speakers wired in the wall so bulky speakers won’t take away from the sleek minimal design.

With “stunning” light at that height, there should be a premium for being on the 6th floor rather than the 2nd. The difference between the sales prices was $635,000 ($317/ft) and you’d expect the nearly 50 feet difference in height over 11th Street must be worth at least $35,000. So no more than $300/ft in the observed market value between #2 and #6 was due to timing (8 weeks apart, which accounts for some) and condition, two elements that push in opposite directions.

Humor me, and assume for the sake of simplicity identical market conditions during the two marketing campaigns that concluded with contracts on June 26 and August 22. Somebody just paid $1,120/ft for the opportunity to completely build out a raw loft on this block just east of University Place, while somebody else spent $1,437/ft four floors higher to buy a loft that is oh-so-done (in fact, “a gem, [that] has appeared in TV commercials, modeling shoots, and New York Magazine’s annual design issue”).

Looks like one of those instances in which a bidding war drove a beyond-market deal, except for the tautological problem that a market deal is a market deal.

as with so many Manhattan loft buildings after all these years, we’ve been here before

(Though we’ve only been here once before; it’s a small building.)

Sharp-eyed Manhattan Loft Guy readers remember that I hit a same-loft paired sale set in my July 13, 2010, 56 East 11 Street loft was hot in 2005, sold again in 2010. That post touched on the “meticulously renovated” 8th floor, which was sold on June 16, 2010 for $2.1mm by the folks who bought it (in that meticulous condition) in November 2004 for $2.005mm. My point then was how disappointing that resale must have been. I wasn’t using the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index in those days for the simple (single-number!) tool that it is, but if I had been I’d have noted that between those two sales the Index was up nearly 11%, so the $95,000 ‘gain’ (less than 5%) was a market under-performer.

By reference to the June 2010 8th floor sale, the recent 2nd floor sale was, of course, $140,000 higher in absolute dollars. But the 8th floor was “architecturally stunning” compared to the raw 2nd floor, so height and condition are two comp adjustments to be made in addition to timing. From June 2010 the StreetEasy Index was up 17%, which would imply that the 8th floor is now worth about $2.46mm. Using the November 2004 8th floor value as the baseline for the Index (up 30%) implies a value of only $2.6mm in the current market.

But we’re just playing around with Index values that are intended to give ‘a feel’ for overall market conditions. Both of those calculations based on the 8th floor imply values too low compared to actual sales of the 6th floor and the 2nd floor in 2013. The 6th floor comp suggests the 2nd floor seller did very well in provoking buyers into that frenzy to $2.24mm; the 8th floor Index-based comp suggests the 2nd floor seller did very very well.

That’s enough for a well played, sir; well, played. There ya go.

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

one of the rare small lofts of Tribeca sells at 151 Hudson Street in need of architect for $1,374/ft

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

right size, but hard to see as starter loft at that price

There are not many lofts in Tribeca the size of the “963 sq ft” Manhattan loft #6 at 151 Hudson Street and if its recent sale at $1.325mm is indicative of The Market, there’s hardly any “starter loft” market left in Tribeca. It’s bad enough that the footprint allows pretty much the single floor plan option already in place, with the sole bedroom at the east end (forget 2 bedrooms; it’s less than 1,000 sq ft), the kitchen in the middle next to the bathroom plumbing stack, with most of the loft open. There are windows along the long south wall, but the whole space is only about 45 x 19 feet.

One more thing: there’s some bragging about bones (“manual freight elevator [, …] authentic old world charm….[,] exposed brick, 10’ ceilings”) but none about finishes, with this fraught hint: “[b]ring your architect and recreate this home to its full potential”. That kitchen might be okay, but there’s no mention or photo of the bathroom. That hardwood floor may need some work (in addition to stripping that bright blue paint) and the brick wall in the bedroom is painted red and in the living room, white. So add a renovation budget to the $1,373/ft purchase price, taking the loft project just a bit more beyond ‘starter loft’ values.

One more more thing: the authentic old world charm that the manual freight elevator adds to the loft experience is not without cost. Somebody has to take it down to the first floor, and leave it there. (That’s the ‘charm’ of a ‘manual’ elevator.) That someone then has to get himself / herself back up without disturbing the elevator. I.e., walk the stairs. (Only 3 flights, but still.)

Yes, Virginia, Tribeca ain’t cheap.

The kitchen is almost embarrassingly large in scale, in relation to the rest of the place. Chances are very good that the two steps that raise the kitchen are cosmetic (someone’s idea of a design flourish, from back in the day) rather than required to run the plumbing underneath. (The plumbing risers must be in that wall between the bath and the kitchen, with the sink and washer-dryer on that wall.) So add a modest demolition charge to the renovation budget, to get a space than can all be on the same level.

The recent rental listing for loft #4 shows what loft #6 can be, and even suggests an alternative use of the space. It might be a little bigger (“1,118 sq ft”, they say) but has the same shape and south exposure. In this unit, the floor plan is flipped, with the kitchen to the east of the baths (there are 2!) and the bedroom up front near the elevator, with the living room at the east. The photos show a much nicer level of finishes in unit #4. (Note the elevator photo in the 4th photo if you doubt what I said about the elevator having to be taken down to the ground floor after use.) That rental broker babble also hints at the much more primitive condition of the upper loft.

Built in 1910 with a brick masonry façade and beautiful stone details, 151 Hudson was fully renovated in 2010 as a boutique condominium with only 8 residences.

Although “fully renovated in 2010 as a boutique condominium”, I suspect that unit #6 was not included in that boutique-y renovation. The unit #6 interior looks nothing like the unit #4 photos. Nothing in the building has changed hands since the 2010 conversions, so there are no hyper-local comps.

it can be hard to make sense of even the most simple loft numbers

Neither StreetEasy nor our listings system makes it easy to know where in the building loft #6 is. In many small loft buildings, you would expect a unit numbered six to be the 6th floor. But not this time. If you click the Overview tab on the StreetEasy building page, you get this helpful description of the building’s layout:

Recently converted prewar corner 6 story yellow brick with charming terra-cotta details,condominium loft building…. Law Firm on ground floor… floors 2, 3 and 4 are split with East and West units….2 lofts per floor, 5th and 6th floors are full floor lofts, with the 6th floor having the majority of the roof privately…. […] There are 2 large freight elevators East and West sides of the building. … West units have a Hubert entrance East units(2,3 and 4th floors) have a Hudson Street stairway entry both East and West elevators open onto Hubert Street.

Now notice the different addresses associated with the deed record for the sale of loft #6: while the seller is identified as in “#6” at 151 Hudson Street, the buyer is an LLC in “#4E”. In numbering units in the condo, it seems that the first floor commercial unit must be condo unit #1, the second floor seems to have units #2 and #3, the third floor #4 and #5, the fourth floor #6 and #7, with the fifth and sixth floors being (ugh) #8 and #9. (Note this recent rental listing for “#9”, a ” top floor unit”.)

Sadly, the Past Activity tab on the StreetEasy building page mixes condo unit numbers and what might be called post office addresses, so the loft #4 rental listing I noted above with the more glossy finishes and flipped floor plan is unit #4 on StreetEasy for rental purposes but when you click on the floor plan with this listing it is identified as “#3W”, and it was “#3W” when it was offered for sale in 2010. (It didn’t sell then, asking $1.295mm for 4 months toward the end of 2010, even though it seems to have been in much better condition than #6 [aka #4W].)

Things as simple as identifying which unit is which should not be so difficult.

Back to the beginning. A rather small Tribeca loft that definitely needs some work and has a complicated relationship with a manual freight elevator and 3 flights of stairs just sold for $1,373/ft directly behind the Holland Tunnel spillways. “Starter loft” buyers weep.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

New York Times charmingly shows what a $233/ft Flatiron loft renovation looks like

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

Manhattan loft owners are not necessarily funnier than others, but they have more choices

Maybe it is all the Auld Lang Syne-ing of late, but isn’t yesterday’s New York Times On Location feature in the Home & Garden section, Love In the Wings, the most romantic bit of real estate news you are likely to see in the Old Grey Lady? I mean … c’mon: The Guy buys a “1,500 sq ft” loft in Flatiron before 2001; The Guy has enough interest and taste to collect torn pages from design magazines to decide (among other things) to become “obsessed with glass tiles”; The Guy lived with peeling walls for more than ten years instead of renovating because he “was hoping to do it with somebody”; The Guy finally breaks down to engage a designer; within 6 months of completing a $350,000 renovation built with that “somebody” in mind, in 2011 he met that “somebody” on line, she moved in within a year, they had a baby, and are engaged to be married. Of course she loves his renovation (“[o]therwise, he assured himself [as he was doing the work, before she appeared on the scene], ‘she’s not the right person for me'”).

Sounds like RomCom to me.

While that is a lovely angle, the insight into design choices and budgets for a loft with peeling walls is what really interests me. He hired a “designer” rather than an architect, but the work is described as a “renovation” rather than a redecoration. (And it cost $350,000.) There’s little description of the “before” space apart form the peeling walls reference, but reading between the lines of the feature The Guy got a new kitchen and a new double-sinked and glass-tiled master bath,  at least, to go along with the wall of closets for that future “somebody” and the other storage items mentioned.

Otherwise, there’s no mention of upgrading electrical or plumbing, or installing central air, or moving walls, or in-wall sound, or the other elements of a “gut” or “meticulous” renovation that can add thousands to a budget. Of course I’d like to know more about the details, but my guess is that this was a very extensive renovation that completely changed the ‘skin’ of the place but did not include new floors, walls, or wiring. On the one hand, The Guy did spend $350,000 on a project that he had been collecting ideas for over a ten-year period, so it is not likely that he would have skimped on anything and it is clear that he had the means to do anything reasonable.

On the other hand, the photos (the Slideshow is here) look like he started with the footprint of the loft two floors above his (that would be this footprint) and ended up with a floor plan and ‘look’ that is probably very similar to that one (though of higher quality in finishes). Note, for example, the angled kitchen in the 3rd slide, and the narrow library-turned-nursery in Slides 4 and 5 that looks very similar to the second bedroom on that upstairs floor plan (see the 7th photo in this listing for what that room probably looks like, with one window behind the Ikea rocker in Slide 5). No matter how clever your designer (or architect) there are only so many solutions to that footprint that involves a true master suite (it’s gotta be on the west wall) and has a second room (nursery, library, bedroom, whatever; it’s either going to share a wall with the master as on the floor plan included from upstairs or it will be on the east wall taking that last south window). While there are more choices in a “1,500 sq ft” loft with no load-bearing walls, just one column, and multiple plumbing risers than there would be in an “apartment” of the same size, there are only so many ways to slice and dice a space with only one exposure.

While carpentry expenses are, therefore, limited, there is almost no limit to what one can spend on ‘skin’. That kitchen, for example, has “a sleek expanse of Poliform stainless steel counters and lacquered cabinets” and those magical hidden lighting sources (Slide 3), while there’s a $14,000 bookshelf unit in the library-turned-nursery (Slide 5), and none of the visible items in the master bath (Slide 8) came from Home Depot or Ikea, for sure for sure. There’s a thin line between “renovation” and “redecoration”, especially when the project involves built-in storage and closets, as in the waiting-for-somebody loft. But this $350,000 project certainly included things not generally counted as “renovation” (the $5,000 upholstery on that queen bed [Guy … only a queen??] in Slide 9, or the $5,000 glass coffee table in Slide 7, for example) as well as stuff that would be in a renovation budget ($14,000 for the bookshelves if they are fixed to the walls in the nursery, of course, or the $840 lamp over the kitchen island in Slide 3).

Seems as though The Guy got a lot of bang for his buck, however you might allocate the $350,000 between decoration and renovation. All for ‘skin’, apparently, but still only $233/ft. Nicely played, Guy; nicely played. And congratulations on the baby and upcoming nuptials.

Who would you cast in the RomCom movie?

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

diversion is not about lofts, but about Manhattan real estate

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in manhattan real estate business — No Comments ↓

perhaps not very diverting, but there you go

Sheesh … the last weekend of the year already. I’ve noted a few End Of Year Review type pieces for future comment, most of which I will likely never get around to commenting on. But tomorrow’s 3-part featured article in the New York Times Sunday Real Estate section, In 2013, the High End Ruled, is a good place to start in the manner of a diversion. The headline and the headline-generating-elsewhere-data refer, of course, to the invasion of the ridiculously priced new condominium developments in Manhattan that came to market and/or sold in 2013 addressed in the first two parts, authored by Michelle Higgins and Robin Finn. While I appreciate the Matt Yglesias take on why having 88 million dollar condo sales is good for a city, I am not especially interested in this part of the residential real estate market as a part of the industry, but it does concern me as a citizen of New York. But for today’s diverting purposes, I am more interested in the last part of the piece by Constance Rosenblum, which is sort of appended to the other two parts. Particularly in sequence after prior parts celebrating the wonderfulness of ridiculously priced new condominium developments in Manhattan, this brief mention of costs and benefits of landmarking districts leads me to wonder.

On the one hand, the spokesperson for the Landmarks Preservation Commission notes that “issues like neighborhood stability and neighborhood pride” are “sorts of benefits [that] cannot be measured”. On the other hand, “issues like neighborhood stability and neighborhood pride” don’t sound very much like what a “landmarks” commission should be concerned with. Picking out still more hands, these conversations tend to be dominated by people taking maximalist and opposite positions, with the Real Estate Board of New York being the poster child for DEVELOP! and the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation being a CHANGE IS EVIL poster child. Since areas with organizations like GVSHP tend to be well-heeled and politically connected they tend to be more successful at keeping “non-contextual” development out than areas more on society’s fringes. Hence, the West Village on its bad days can feel like Disneyland, as the successes of GVSHP lead to increasing premiums for living in that oh so well preserved mix of 19th century, 20th century, and (some) 21st century buildings (nearly all at small scale, especially off the avenues); meanwhile, new housing at large scale gets built on the margins (Hudson Yards, for now). Yet … not nearly enough new housing units are built to satisfy the demand just from new households.

There are costs to the rest of Manhattan when the West Village succeeds in blocking new development, while the ‘benefits’ of blocking new development accrue only in the West Village, making the West Village an even more expensive place to live.

Of course this is complicated. But public debate seems not to acknowledge the huge policy complications that lie between the maximalist positions of DEVELOP! and CHANGE IS EVIL. Especially with a City Council culture that over-weights the local Council Member’s view on local issue (a culture that privileges each local member at the expense of the city). The Old Grey Lady could do better.

This is more of a drive-by than an analysis of a fraught topic, so I could do better, too. But I find it diverting. Maybe to-be-continued in that master piece (or series) I keep thinking about (but never writing) about … (cue the theme from Jaws) … gentrification.

Tagged with: , , , ,

what is “original” about Tribeca loft that went for $1,438/ft at 109 Reade Street?

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

(mis) adventures in Manhattan loft babbling

Sometimes I suspect that I take this stuff too seriously. When I read the broker babble for the “1,321 sq ft” Manhattan loft on the 4th floor at 109 Reade Street I expected to see a well-preserved but primitive loft. That’s because the loft was marketed as “[a]n original Tribeca condo loft” with a list of features that are a mix of new and old (perhaps even “original”):

wood-burning fireplace, 12 ft ceilings throughout, satin oak hardwood floors, recessed lighting, exposed brick, washer & dryer eat in kitchen, granite counter tops, stainless steel Bosche appliances, wood cabinets and large island custom for the space. A totally zen master bath with a 5.5 foot Kohler cast iron soaking tub with rain shower head. The 2nd bathroom is beautifully designed with Carrera marble.

From the sounds of it, the plumbing rooms are new, but the high ceiling, brick, and flooring should qualify as original. But “the loft” as original? Only in location. While the kitchen looks a bit primitive (listing pic #2), it is not even very old. You can’t see it on the inter-tubes, but our listing system shows that when the loft was purchased by the recent sellers in November 2008 (for $1.695mm; we’ll get to that story below) it was marketed as “[r]enovated and reconstructed in 2007”. The kitchen was described without much detail (Bosch appliances; strangely mis-spelled then as “Bosche” by a different agent than the one who mis-spelled that firm in the 2013 babbling) with “two elegantly designed bathrooms. … master has an oversized cast iron soaking tub with combined shower [and t]he second bathroom is beautifully designed with a wall mounted sink and a tumbled carrera marble shower”. Hardly “original”.

From then to now, the old floor plan shows one change: the 2008 kitchen had some kind of movable kitchen island (apparently more of a work station than a common island) while there was clearly a built-in island in the current version. Otherwise, the floor plan is identical, then and now, with no hint in the recent babble of other changes.

Not to belabor the point (not much more, at least) but the loft is more “classic” than original, with those ceilings, brick, and hardwood flooring, and all else “[r]enovated and reconstructed in 2007”. Also classic: the Long-and-Narrow footprint with two bedrooms splitting the rear wall and plumbing in two clusters on opposite sides of the long walls, in the middle. I’d need a consult with a more informed historian of Tribeca lofts, but I strongly suspect that the fireplace was not original to the loft as built for factory or warehouse purposes 130 or so years ago. I have a higher degree of confidence that there elevator was not part of the original building, though in this case the elevator was added to the best place on the floor plan for residential use: alongside the public stairway on one long wall, and far enough from the front windows to retain the best possible light and width in the public part of the loft.

making sense of the dollars, in Tribeca loft history

The 4th floor sold for $1.9mm on November 21 in, as noted, one island short of the same condition in which the recent sellers bought it in November 2008 for that $1.695mm. That’s a pretty good return for building a kitchen island (the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index is up only 3% over that same period). The recent sellers had a little bit of trouble figuring out what The Market would offer for the loft (they started at $2.195mm on August 9 and needed a price drop to $1.995mm on October 10 to get the contract by November 4 at $1.9mm that closed later last month); their sellers had even more trouble, per our listings system:

Mar 18, 2008 new to market $1.895mm
April 8 $1.85mm
Aug 22 $1.695mm
Oct 8 contract
Nov 21 sold $1.695mm

Those folks in 2008 had the right idea, they were just a bit too late and too optimistic to maximize their return, coming to market just as The Peak quarter was ending and needing that price drop to make a deal after 5 months at the new asking price. (Those 2008-buyers-turned-2013-sellers were brave in signing that contract 3 weeks after Lehman fell and roiled the financial markets.)

The 2008 seller was not here very long. StreetEasy has the purchase on March 30, 2007 at $1.5mm but no details about the condition or the marketing campaign. Our listings system has hints that the loft was then in essentially the same condition then as when it sold a year and a half later, which is, of course, essentially the same condition as it just sold in. In selling for $195,000 more than they paid, these short owners also outperformed the market (at least, based on the ‘feel’ you get for the overall market from the StreetEasy Index, which was up [only] 7% in this period).

We can do this one more time. StreetEasy has the earliest sale of this loft that is also in out listings system, in June 2002 at $700,000. Our system adds the price history and some indication that the loft was not quite in the condition in which it sold in 2007: there was only a bath and a half (not two full), though it did have the brick, wood flooring and high ceilings that make this a classic Tribeca loft. No way to tell what the 2002 buyer’s renovation budget but the paired sales June 2002 to March 2007 show the loft more than doubled in value over that time, while the StreetEasy Index was up (only) 51% in that period. Not likely that the unknown post-2002 renovation budget significantly changed the impression that this loft outperformed the market in those now-ancient days.

To recap:

  • June 4, 2002 $700,000
  • March 30, 2007 $1.5mm
  • November 21, 2008 $1.695mm
  • November 21, 2013 $1.9mm

Probably not an unusual sequence for a classic Tribeca loft. I don’t see the number anywhere on the ‘net, but that 2002 seller was an original buyer in the 1989 condominium conversion, as you can see if you can access this record on Property Shark. That couple stayed 13 years; in the 11 years after they left the loft turned over 3 more times. I wonder if the loft was in “original” condition in 1989.

making sense of the feet, or not

StreetEasy thinks the 4th floor loft is “1,500 sq ft”, which would yield a value of $1,267/ft in the recent sale. My headline, however, says $1,438/ft because Property Shark says “1,321 sq ft”. I hate when this happens. (To see only one rant, see my November 2, 2010, the square footage dilemma: REBNY “leads” by protecting brokers, not buyers, as the mother of all such Manhattan Loft Guy posts.) I assumed that both StreetEasy and Property Shark used condo measurements based on ACRIS, but in this case the synchronicity breaks down. I take Property Shark in this case because I can verify where it came from, even though it runs the risk of using different size standards for different lofts: from The Shark you can click through to the Condo Declaration on ACRIS (or, go there directly), page 24/94 of which is part of Exhibit A, which shows the lofts on the 3rd and 4th floors were “1,321 sq ft”. Of course it makes a big difference for comping purposes whether this loft just sold at $1,438/ft or $1,267/ft.

I can’t do anything about that problem, except on a strict one-on-one basis, which the Master List of downtown Manhattan loft sales between $500,000 and $5,000,000 is only a beginning for. Be warned.

Not to belabor this point (also), but StreetEasy used “1,377 sq ft” as the size of the 5th floor loft when it sold for $1.3mm in July 2010. That is the same size as from Exhibit A of the Condo Dec. That floor plan is, of course, virtually the same as the one for the 4th floor; if it really has 56 feet that the two lower floors lack it must be from the configuration of the public stairwell at this height. Regardless, the similarity of that 5th floor plan to the 4th floor plan suggests that the developer delivered these lofts in 1989 with the same basic configuration: two bedrooms splitting the back wall, a half-bath with washer-dryer next to the master bath, the distinctive angled walls of the bath area and the fireplace. Somebody dropped the ceiling across the middle of the loft (presumably, the sponsor) (see listing pic #5 for where the ceiling is dropped and not, and pic #1 for the unfortunate impact on the front windows).

Fans of broker babble will prefer the 5th floor use of “authentic loft” and “original oak plank floor”, and the admonition to “[b]ring your architect/contractor”.  The record for this condominium unit on Property Shark reveals (if you click around enough) that the 5th floor was sold in 2010 by the first individual owners, who purchased the loft in 1994 from the bank that bought it from the sponsor (in a work-out??) in 1991. We have that 1994 sales price in our listings system: $203,000. That’s probably a bit more than the 4th floor sold for in 1989, but is an interesting data point for classic Tribeca lofts.

That is all.

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

Chelsea loft at 233 West 26 Street with classic floor plan + Empire State views sells for (only) $1,087/ft

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

the money shot is private from this angle in this Chelsea loft

Long-time readers of Manhattan Loft Guy know that I tend to stare at floor plans. In previous cases of trying to divine the sequence of usage and renovation implied by a current floor plan I have even claimed Floor Plan Whisperer status. In the case of the floor plan for the “2,000 sq ft” Manhattan loft #8E at 233 West 26 Street, however, the issue with the floor plan is not evident from the floor plan itself; you have to look at the broker babble. As quoted below, the babble is remarkably restrained, with perhaps the key selling point being the “open city views of the Empire State Building”. It can be a significant premium to get an iconic view from public space as large as the living room in this loft but, while Empire State Building is one of the icons in Manhattan loft neighborhoods, the two walls of this living room that are essentially glass from knee-to-ceiling provide a view of the Empire State Building perhaps only in a standing-at-the-window sense.

Here’s the babble about the interior, with the only real bragging in my italics to … er … underline how modestly the charms of this loft have been described:

10 ft ceilings; 21 oversized double paned windows; exceptional light; a very large and open living space; 2 bedroom, 2 bath apartment , wood floors throughout, washer/dryer in the unit, Southern, Eastern & Northern exposures, & open city views of the Empire State Building. The master bedroom is North facing and boasts its own walk-in closet and ensuite bath with double vanity and large shower stall. The second bedroom is also North facing with two large windows and plenty of space.

(I don’t consider it bragging about a loft to say there are “wood floors throughout”, or that there’s a washer-dryer, or that the master bath has a shower stall or double vanity; nor do I consider it proper boasting to claim a walk-in closet. But you may be more liberal in what you’d put in italics than I have been.)

My read of this very modest babble is that the interiors of the loft are … er .. nothing special (or, as they say, nothing to write home about) and the listing photos are perfectly consistent with that. (Note that there are no direct kitchen views, and no bathroom photos.) It’s the windows that make this loft: that there are 21 of them, that they are “over-sized” and double-paned, that they admit “exceptional light”, and, of course, that they have those open city views that include the Empire State Building. If you toggle between listing photos #3 and #5 you will see the same rooftop brick superstructure on the nearby rooftop. To get the view from #5, you almost certainly have to be standing between the couch and the window.

Yes, you can see from the Empire State Building from the living room windows, but note the then-current furniture array in the listing photos. The couch faces away from the Empire State Building view, and the ‘view’ from the chair with the best angle in that direction gets you only the pic #3 angle. You probably can’t see it at all (other than the tip of the spire) from the dining room windows on that wall.

If you play around with Google StreetView for this address, you will see that that the direct view from the front living room windows (at the top of the floor plan) is at the handsome Capital Building (the live-work coop at 236 West 26 Street with the [beige?] brick facade), with the side view looking at the living room corner at its (limestone?) neighbor to the east, and then on down 26th Street. Listing pic #4 shows that the north-facing bedroom views are not very open. Bottom line: it is fair game to claim an open city view that includes the Empire State Building, especially in marketing; just don’t think that people sitting down in the loft actually get to see that view.

Stand at that window, especially at night and especially with an adult beverage, and enjoy your icon.

how much is a glimpse worth?

To put the sale of #8E into perspective, the last sale in the building was a difficult comp a year ago, when the “1,450 sq ft” ground floor (and below) duplex loft #1E sold for $862/ft in much better condition than #8E (“newly renovated … architecturally-designed with impeccable attention to detail”). Another years before that, the “2,000 sq ft” #5W also sold in much better condition than #8E (“mint condition …. meticulously renovated to the highest standard … Viking appliances, two new baths with European fixtures, Bosch washer and dryer, … and it’s fully wired for surround sound and DirecTV”), for $937/ft. Obviously, this has not been viewed by The Market as a premium Chelsea coop.

Loft #8E took a while to sell in a very busy 2013 market, in retrospect due to some painful price discovery (omitting two 3-week periods off the market):

April 23 new to market $2.75mm
June 24 $2.25mm
Oct 14 contract
Nov 21 sold $2.175mm

You know from the headline that that’s $1,087/ft, which is 26% higher than the renovated but light- and layout-challenged #1E in October 2012 and 16% higher than the tres-minty #5W in December 2011. What ‘feel’ does the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index give us for the overall Manhattan residential real estate market at those times?

  • December 2011: 1,890
  • October 2012: 1,970
  • October 2013: 2,184 (the most recent month in the Index)

Thus, on timing alone, the Index suggests a same-loft sale in October (November) should have been 11% over one of October 2012, and 16% over December 2011. We are not dealing with same-loft sales, of course, but sales of a smaller and much darker #1E (in better condition) in October 2012 and of a same-size loft in much better condition #5W in December 2011.

In other words, the poor light and comparatively poor layout of #1E caused #8E with its view to much over-perform, despite the difference in condition. How much of the difference in favor of #8E is due to the view is especially difficult to say because of the other countervailing differences. Loft #5W is easier because it is the same size, and is a fascinating comp in that #5W in December 2011 and #8E in November 2013 perform exactly as expected by the Index, as though they were the same loft. The Index implies that the much better condition of #5W was exactly offset by the much better light and the open view that famously includes an angle for the Empire State Building. Wow.

To bring #8E up to the #5W (“the highest”) standard, #8E needs a new kitchen, 2 new baths, and perhaps only some detailing. Guesstimate $125,000 for the new plumbing rooms and we’d still have $75,000 left for a miscellany of finish upgrades to stay at a $100/ft budget for the “2,000 sq ft” #8E. (With floors, walls and windows in good shape in #8E, this seems quite reasonable without central air in #5W so long as no major plumbing or electrical upgrades are needed.) Under those assumptions, the much better light and the famously open views in #8E are worth $200,000.

Change the assumptions (or, learn the facts!), and you still have two market judgments two years apart that are perfectly rational if the value of the light + view in one is precisely offset by the value of the meticulous renovation of the other.

By no means can you apply this trade-off to any other pair of same-building lofts, but in this case of 2,000 sq ft siblings, it works. Perhaps coincidence is lining up adjustments for timing, condition, light, and view for this pair of neighbors in exactly the right mix. Wow, indeed.

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

a seasonal no-lofts diversion is not about that (this) season

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

but it does involve the shortest day of the year

Let others divert with visions of sugar plums, etc, today is the shortest day of the year, which means it is the darkest day of the year, which means that Manhattan Loft Guy will offer a diversion of the season based on darkness. The season is, of course, baseball, and the darkness is, of course, the coming tragedy (farce?) known as the New York Yankees 2014 season, followed by the New York Yankees 2015 season, followed by the New York Yankees 2016 season, followed by the New York Yankees 2017 season, followed, perhaps, by hope.

Rany Jazayeril does his typically superb job of baseball analysis in this piece (The New Normal) this week on Grantland, with this telling sub-head:

Robinson Cano and Mariano Rivera are gone. Derek Jeter is old. It’s time to accept that 2013 wasn’t a fluke: The Yankees aren’t good, and they aren’t getting better.

I’ve been saying the same thing for a while. Stuck with big contracts that will vastly overpay aging (former) stars for another few years, the Yanks just don’t have many options. The minor league system would have produced somebody (anybody) (Bueller?) in 2013 if there was anyone who could contribute at the major league level. And the free agent game has changed, dramatically. In a Rany nutshell:

But the dramatic increase in revenue throughout the game has made it possible for even small-market teams to sign their best young players to long-term deals well before those players reach free agency, meaning that by the time they do hit the open market, they’re in their early 30s and declining instead of being in their late 20s and peaking.

In other words, those cupboards are bare. In the meantime, you’ve got nothing to trade, so that’s another bare cupboard.

Pass the eggnog. Then the whiskey.

Tagged with: , , , ,

in Tribeca, much better to have been the second owner of this 1 York Street loft than the first

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

loft gymnastics on the upper edge of Tribeca: what a real estate back flip looks like

This kind of move is not easy to pull off: the guys who bought the “1,784 sq ft” Manhattan loft #4F at 1 York Street from the sponsor in June 2008 sold in 2010 at a loss of about $376,000. That buyer got The Memo (you know it: the punchline is buy low, sell high) and just resold for a $700,000 gain. That’s a weird sequence, suggesting that the original buyers were under some financial duress. From June 2008 to November 2013 (up 13%) actually looks great in relation to the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo index (“up” only 1% from Then to Now), but there was a bloodbath in between.

The middle part of this sequence is what duress must look like:

June 26, 2008 sponsor sale $2,596,537
Dec 31, 2008 new to market $2.85mm
May 15, 2009 $2.795mm
May 27 $2.695mm
July 21 $2.545mm
Aug 25 $2.495mm
Mar 30, 2010 contract
April 9 sold $2.22mm
Jan 9, 2013 new to market $3.3mm
Mar 6 $3.15mm
June 28 change firms
Aug 30 contract
Nov 22 sold $2.925mm

Here’s another data point on the same path: according to our listings system there were 39 weekend open houses between January 4, 2009 and March 14, 2010 … that’s 39 weekends with open houses out of 62 possible weekends. Busy agents, and sellers who have spent an amazing amount of time getting their home into open house condition.

Obviously, something happened that made it important to these owners to sell this place, something that caused these folks to start selling at the depth of market trough, and then keep digging deeper and deeper and trying harder and harder. Indeed, as the rest of the market was recovering the original owners dropped below their original cost, and then further. It took 8 months below that cost to find their exit, at another 10% off the last asking price.

If this sounds familiar to you, you’ve been reading Manhattan Loft Guy since May 9, 2010, when my flipping (down) at One York / is this the first resale?, was a brief hit that opened with:

Looks to me as though the Manhattan loft  #4F at 1 York Street (imaginatively known as One York) has been the first to flip, and it was not a happy Ozzie Smith flip.

In fact, that was the first flip in the building, with the sponsor continuing to sell units into May 2011 (StreetEasy building page, Past Activity tab, here).

some recent history, a nearby loft that casts doubt

Fun as it was (for me) to revisit this classic from 2010, let’s turn to the happy news and the happier owner. Guy bought for $2.22mm in April 2010, sold for $2.925mm 43 months later. $705,000 = fun! (As is 32%, especially when ‘the feel’ you get for the overall Manhattan residential real estate market from the StreetEasy Index is that the overall market was up [only] 18%).

Only a quibbler would point out that the same unit, one floor above, sold for $3.05mm on July 11, 2012, and would point out that that #5F sale implies that #4F should have sold 16 months later, say 10% more if the only comp adjustment were time.

Yes, that comp suggests #4F should have sold for more than it did. On the other hand the original owner was the #5F seller, and he made just a tad short of a half million bucks on the deal. The recent #4F seller was the second owner (as we have seen) and he made just over $700,000 (ditto). So all dollars are relative, even if the #4F seller left a few on the table.

He tried for more (asking $3.3mm and $3.15mm) before ‘settling’ at $2.925mm after 8 months of marketing. StreetEasy Index be damned, that looks like the best the market would offer, which is (by definition) a fair price. And: $705,000.

celebrity non-sighting

I originally thought the well-timed buyer-turned-seller might have been an MTV exec, but the middle initials don’t match. Nonetheless, nicely played, sir Robert T.; nicely played.

 

 

opportunity in Tribeca lost, and quantified, as buyer delay over that darn storm at 92 Laight Street loft cost about $200,000

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

same river view, same River Loft, but more money to buy with less water

Here is a graphic indicator of market velocity, at least in the Manhattan residential real estate market niche of uber-condo loft properties in far west Tribeca: there’s a very good reason why the “2,128 sq ft” Manhattan loft #6D at 92 Laight Street (in the tower portion of River Lofts) did not sell when offered for $4.5mm from August 2012, yet it sold on December 4 for $4.71mm. I missed it at first, even when looking at the detailed history from that 2012 campaign, but the reason the loft did not sell then but did sell this year has to do with the river, but not in a good way: that contract last year was signed October 9, 2012; remember what happened a few weeks later? Among other tragedies from that storm, a parking attendant in the garage below River Lofts was killed when the river came down the ramp. (New York Times, here.) As of nearly 5 months later, the lobbies and mechanicals were still so damaged that residents had not yet returned to these two buildings (416 Washington Street is the older, er … more authentic loft-y part), per a Seen and Heard update from the estimable Tribeca Citizen on March 13.

Had the closing of that October 9 contract for loft #6D preceded the storm by even a day, title would have passed and the new owners would have found themselves homeless immediately. (I don’t know the contract price, but assume a full price deal.) Here is some really cruel economic hindsight: if those October 2012 (non-)buyers had it to do over again and knew exactly what would happen with building repairs and The Market, might they have elected to close anyway, perhaps getting  a break from the seller on common charges and taxes until the loft was habitable again?

Not everyone could have afforded to do that, even in my hypothetically prescient world, as there would still be a mortgage to pay, but it’s an interesting fantasy question. Instead of closing in November 2012 at $4.5mm (probably), someone just closed on December 4 at $4.71mm. That $210,000 would have paid for a lot of mortgage (even monthlies, if no discount from the sellers who couldn’t have lived there either, for a long time) and still had money left over.

Of course, the October 2012 (non-)buyers could not have known when the building repairs would be done (the start in June 2013 and stop in July and re-start in September suggests the sellers didn’t know either, even when they thought they did; note this from the June listing: “River Lofts is in the process of installing a new lobby”) and could not have known what The Market would do. In the event, The Market (as measured given a feel for by the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index) was up 11% in that year, which is actually smaller than the gain from the 2012 ask and the 2013 clearing price.

Enough with the hypotheticals, let’s look at the loft….

not a lot of public room in this luxury 3-bedroom loft

The most interesting thing (to me) about the floor plan is that the living and dining room is not very big; indeed, it is probably smaller than the master suite. I assume the furniture display on the floor plan is from sponsor marketing in 2005, but do you see how close the living room seating is to the kitchen island, and to the dining room table? Yikes. After you fit in a large master suite and two decent-sized other bedrooms, and then account for an entrance hallway and a left-turning gallery to get to the public space … there’s not much public space left in “2,128 sq ft”. Even the combination of kitchen plus living/dining is not much larger than the master suite.

Interesting choice by the developer, obviously preferring the 3 current bedroom set-up to 2 bedrooms with a much larger public space. (Imagine a master suite oriented down to the entrance instead of across, with only one other bedroom: the kitchen could then be pushed back to align with the entrance.) I’m not saying they were wrong (The Market suggests the opposite), just that it is interesting how non-loft-y this floor plan is.

And, yes, The Market likes the way this “2,128 sq ft” footprint has been allocated: the folks who paid $2,204,511 to buy in July 2005 just got out at $4.71mm.

And, of course, this is a luxury condominium, with “[e]very detail … thought through from the high speed wiring ,to the plank floors to the Varenea kitchen complete with subzero refrigerator, bosch stove and miel dishwasher and washer/dryer”, to the direct elevator access to the garage that helps make this a magnet for shy celebrities. That $4.71mm comes to $2,213/ft (before adjustment for a very modest balcony) for a 2005 version of an uber-condo loft, the luxury of which is likely surpassed by the 2013 vintage commanding even more stratospheric dollars per foot.

Sellers did all right, even after living through the can’t-live-here post-storm period (d’oh: $2,204,511 into $4.71mm; and $4.5mm [probably] into $4.71mm more recently). I do wonder about how those October 2012 non-buyers feel after all that, but I will have to be content with just wondering. Alas.

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