it’s the exposures, Mars; why stunning loft at 161 West 15 Street sold under $1,200/ft

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

making the most of what you’ve got didn’t help this Chelsea loft (much)

In a world in which a Manhattan loft needing a great deal of work can sell near $1,200/ft, it is rather jarring to see that the “1,200 sq ft” Manhattan loft #5E at 161 West 15 Street (in the Jensen Lewis Building) just sold for $1.395mm, given that the broker babble carries on about such things as a [s]tunning authentic flatiron* loft”, and “12′ barrel ceilings”, and a “sun flooded southern exposure”, and “mint condition designer excellence”, and “open chef’s kitchen featuring a custom island, terrific storage, a 6 burner Viking range, LG fridge, Bosche dishwasher and a 46 bottle Liebherr wine fridge” and “gorgeous built-in book shelves”, and “a home office area … big enough to create a full second bedroom”, and a “[f]ully renovated modern bathroom with a Jacuzzi tub”, and an “in wall speaker system”, and (finally) “gorgeous cherry hardwood floors”. That’s a lot of … stuff. (*But it’s not Flatiron, not at the corner of Seventh Avenue.)

The sellers were under no illusions, however, as the $1.395mm clearing price on October 7 was exactly what they were asking when they started marketing on June 21; the full-price contract was fairly quick, by July 23. That’s $1,163/ft, or only $150/ft more than the gut renovation loft in Noho that I hit in my October 10, classic loft project at 644 Broadway sells above ask after difficult price discovery (as just one such to-be-gutted loft sale). To be fair, loft #5E is not the only loft seemingly punished by The Market (it is in the same dollar neighborhood as the Tribeca loft I hit in my October 22, having it all in Tribeca for relatively little, as 405 Greenwich Street condo loft goes for $1,173/ft, for example.)

Unlike that northwest Tribeca loft (whose low value is still something of a mystery to me), there are two good reasons for the #5E valuation: location and shape. First, I don’t hate on the northeast corner of 7th Avenue and 15th Street, but the market has never loved this building (more, below). Just as the sellers could do nothing to change their address, they were stuck with the shape of the loft (the second explanation for a market penalty).

The #5E floor plan looks like the leftover space, after the architect who worked on converting this former commercial property into residential lofts more than 30 years ago got done allocating space to the other units on the floor. The shape is almost a backwards “F”, with the bottom stub housing an interior “bedroom” and all the windows on top in the living room and kitchen (facing south, in fact, so if the floor plan were oriented with north at the top it would look almost like an “L”).

The problems start with that single exposure. Yes, you can put a second bedroom in that southeast corner (as the alternate floor plan suggests), but then your sun will drench just  a little less and you will have to squeeze your living room and dining area into a smaller space, butting up against the custom kitchen island.

The problems continue at the dark end of the loft, the only logical use for which is as an interior bedroom. With the bathroom, laundry, and entry massed together, there’s not much flexibility to make a real master suite (assuming you could convert the laundry to a master bath). You’d need a new closet for the master suite (if there’s a second bath), at which point the master is shrinking to an un-master scale. In short, there is one awkward choice to be made after another, if one were tempted to make this a place where more people than can fit in the master can sleep.

But as the listing photos show, that front room is lovely, as is, drenched in sun, with wonderful proportions aided by the 12 foot ceilings. Yet … $1,163/ft.

there is a hard ceiling in this loft building

The two sales in the building this year were the “1,750 sq ft” Manhattan loft #6H in May at $1,005/ft and the “1,170 sq ft” #6B in March at $1,090/ft. The larger one reads (in the babble and the photos) as needing some updating, but has more layout options than #5E even though it also has a single exposure and only 4 windows. Shiny bathroom aside, the smaller loft could also use some upgrades, but also has a rectangle that would permit more options than #5E (in this case, for a second interior room, but still).

At $1,163/ft, modest as that is, #5E seems to be the building record holder on a dollar per foot basis. The “1,620 sq ft” unfortunately timed “penthouse” loft #7A sold for $1.975mm in December 2008 (contract was just after Lehman, alas), but there’s 600+ sq ft of terrace space to be adjusted for. Adjusting at the lower end of The Miller’s rubric (outdoor space valued at 25% of the interior) that yields an adjusted value for #7A of $1,116/ft. Loft #5E keeps its building record crown, modest as it is at $1,163/ft.

There are many bad layouts in this building. I hit another well renovated but low selling loft here in my March 16, 2012, spectacular renovation does not prevent 161 West 15 Street loft from closing down 7% since 2006. (By “low selling”, I mean $955/ft.) Way (way!) back on December 26, 2007, in my 161 W 15 drops down to add up to contract (when I was still writing about active listings), I talked about the layout of loft #2H, which finally closed at The Peak (well, April 30, 2008, but off a December 2007 contract, obviously) for $984/ft:

challenge of the (nearly square) footprint is obvious: the 4 west windows are it, so you either put any bedrooms on the dark walls near the front door (as the seller has done) or use all the windows for bedrooms and have the public space in the dark. With the plumbing along the north wall, the larger of 2 bedrooms in the current configuration is a stroll-in-PJs from the ‘public’ bathroom, with the smaller (guest) bedroom en suite. Hardly an ideal layout, but perhaps the most logical one once you have decided to maximize the windows and light. Especially as those second floor windows overlook Seventh Avenue.

In between those visits to Jensen Lewis, I hit a very brave sale at $911/ft in my July 21, 2009, courage is rewarded / 161 West 15 Street sells in the sweet spot of a cold market. Again, the layout was awkward:

Billed as having a “unique T-shaped layout”, the #2A footprint is instead almost square (it is more a clunky reversed “L” than a “T” in my alphabet picture book), with very good (large, broad) windows in the living room and dining area but no other windows. Hence the use of glass panel doors in the 2 (interior) bedrooms and (interior) office.

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 shoe closes drops.

Seekers of “value” who prefer to sleep in total darkness, take note.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

111 Fourth Avenue pad proves you can sell a loft without a kitchen

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

loft living is often a lifestyle choice; living without a kitchen always is

I am thinking “bachelor pad”, but perhaps the tiny (550 sq ft??) Manhattan loft #12D at 111 Fourth Avenue is merely a pied-à-terre. I don’t often see things I have never seen before in the downtown Manhattan loft market, but this is a new one on me: the beautiful loft with an open floor plan has a wet bar, but no kitchen. That didn’t stop it from selling; to the contrary, it zoomed through the market at a 15% premium to the asking price, at a fascinating premium over a recent sale in the building (with a kitchen, of course).

This sequence tells me that multiple people were clamoring to live the wet bar life:

July 23 new to market $950,000
Aug 13 contract
Oct 9 sold $1.115mm

This sale tells me that while the “dramatic open city views” were a serious plus factor, they can’t account for enough of the market love behind the $1.115mm sale of #12D: loft #5D recently sold for (only) $971,500 with the same footprint as #12D but a very different floor plan (including a boring old, if “renovated windowed”, kitchen), with “sweeping views overlooking Lower Manhattan”. Indeed, #5D has more usable space than #12D due to a mezzanine.

We’ll get back to #5D, but doesn’t the #12D floor plan look like a junior suite in a classy hotel? There’s no bedroom door, just a gap between shelving / storage units. In fact, the ‘bedroom’ is below legal standards as it is only 7 feet long (long is a funny word to modify “7 feet”). In exchange for a conventional bedroom, there’s also a sitting area on that raised platform (junior suite!), 2 steps up from the living room. Trust me: the original living room would feel cramped at (say) 15 x 10 feet and a hard wall to the ceiling on the bedroom side, even with those tall windows opposite the bedroom. In contrast, the sitting room plus living room opens to the full width of the space. And the living room extends to the entry wall because … voila! … there’s no kitchen.

Genius in optimizing a tiny space, so long as the (short?) frig and tiny sink tucked into an always-out-of-frame corner of the sitting room suffice.

Genius, so long as you don’t need even a cooktop. (The sellers had a table that looks more “dining” than “conference”, so maybe there were some plates and tableware in one of the cabinets; if so, the sellers washed dishes by hand in a sliver sink or in the bathroom. Or maybe this is a take-out only space, with disposable plates, etc.)

Genius, when you compare the old and new floor plans and see just how that kitchen shrunk the living area.

And (one more time) genius in realizing that someone other than the sellers would appreciate the benefits of kitchen demolition and open loft living on a small (but now much larger) scale. Again: asking $950,000 and getting $1,115,000 in a deal that took 3 weeks.

Nicely played, ladies; nicely played.

another unconventional omission from a typical loft lifestyle

I don’t know if this loft would be described as optimized for entertaining, but I can see how it would be. Compared to the original floor plan, there is much more room for a large group to mingle (over cold drinks and cold or catered food) and a much better flow. But unless there is something hidden in that tall desk on the south wall, they didn’t host any Oscar or Super Bowl parties here. There’s no television evident in this loft, as lived in by the recent sellers. Talk about an unconventional lifestyle!

You could put one on the wall behind the dining table, or on the back wall of the sitting room, but in each choice you would be taking a space beautifully optimized, as is, and reducing the current optimization.

I’d love to know, when these sellers did have guests, whether guests were more likely to first notice the lack of a kitchen or of a TV. Bet you a quarter it was the TV.

the boring comp (every loft should have one!)

Meanwhile, back in the 5th floor …. Loft #5D was no slouch, either. Babbled as having those wonderful views, plus being “sun-drenched”, plus that renovated kitchen, plus a “beautiful bathroom”, this loft came out at $925,000 and also zoomed: to contract within 4 weeks nearly $50,000 above ask. Nothing to be ashamed of in that campaign.

Compared to #12D, loft #5D has the added utility of an office space and much storage fitted under those 13’2″ ceilings in about half the space. (I assume [hope!] that the mezzanine is what pushes #5D to “750 sq ft”, as it is impossible to find that many feet on the lower level only.) There are a lot of mini-lofts in this building with some mezzanine space; The Market clearly appreciated #5D.

Just not as much as #12D.

Color me surprised. Color the Conventional Wisdom chagrined. (“Thou shalt not renovate idiosyncratically.”) Color me impressed, and glad that this old dog saw a new trick. I do have to wonder if the buyer got a mortgage, and how the appraiser treated the wet bar in a comps analysis.

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

price discovery is hard for Lion’s Head loft at 121 West 19 Street

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

even a loft that sells with the coveted green background can have problems

At (very) first blush, the “2,177 sq ft” Manhattan loft #3A at 121 West 19 Street (the vaunted Lion’s Head Condominium 2006 loft conversion in prime Chelsea) looks like another bit of bad news for buyers who are trying to avoid being steamrolled by The Market: sold at $2.375mm on October 16, a healthy $80,000 above its asking price. Having sold above the (last) asking price, this loft sale is marked on the Master List of downtown Manhattan loft sales between $500,000 and $5,000,000 with a green background in the “cleared at” column. But there’s more to the story than that, despite the wearing of the green.

If that last asking price of $2.295mm is legitimate (considered below), that was the third asking price in only the latest sales effort. The loft did not sell over 3 months at the end of 2012, or in 5 months spanning 2008-09. Granted, that first effort to resell by the original owner picked pretty much the worst 5 months one could have picked to launch a marketing campaign (unless one were immediately successful in securing a contract), but the whole effort was protracted, full of fits and starts:

Aug 4, 2006 new development purchase $1,731,025
Aug 12, 2008 new to market $2.9mm
Oct 22 $2.75mm
Dec 3 $2.6mm
Dec 17 $2.5mm
Jan 24, 2009 $2.495mm
Feb 4 off the market
Sept 12, 2012   new to market $2.395mm
Dec 20 off the market
June 26, 2013 $2.68mm
Aug 6 $2.525mm
Aug 28 $2.295mm
?? contract
Oct 16 sold $2.375mm

You have to appreciate that chase down from $2.9mm to $2.495mm, in the same way one appreciates a slow motion car wreck or the loft I hit yesterday (142 Duane Street loft sells up a million after chilly purchase, lovely renovation) that had a similar episode at a similar time. The guy was wrong about The Market’s appreciation for his loft in the 4 weeks he had before Lehman fell in which to make a deal, and he remained wrong as he chased a market with few buyers down, down, down, never catching up.

He found the right price when he came back in late 2012, but that was the right price for 2013 not for 2012. He aborted a second time.

For some reason he thought that starting again 6 months later $205,000 above the last asking price was the right approach, but this time he was more nimble, dropping in 6 weeks and again in another 3 weeks. (I am not convinced that the last price drop on StreetEasy really preceded the contract, as our listing system has nothing about this sales campaign, but let’s humor StreetEasy and the listing agent and treat it as though the loft was finally offered to the public at  a price below market, and that The Market recognized this fact and bid it back up to market value.)

Net-net, that’s only 13 months of active marketing across 4 calendar years, asking 9 different prices, and finally selling at a small premium to last ask (ha!) but 18% off the first ask. But he got out. At a (gross) gain of $644,000 (37%). You don’t have to be Charlie Sheen to call that winning.

caution: numbers on nearby lofts may cast a pall

Just don’t bother Charlie Sheen with the details on loft #8B, which also failed to sell after Lehman and also sold above ask in 2013. That one cost the original owner $1,812,485 to buy in May 2006 but earned that owner $2.8mm when it sold this past June, quickly (25 days to contract) and 10% above ask. Or with #9E, which resold in May this year at a 58% premium to the original purchase cost. (Loft #5A resold in June [only] 36% above the new development purchase, so maybe the “A” team can commiserate.)

I have a feeling that StreetEasy’s new daddy Zillow will not know how to handle … er … Zestimate lofts at the Lion’s Head; certainly not, Lion’s Head lofts like #3A.

for this loft, it’s not the finishes or the floor plan, it’s the windows

Loft #3A has the quality finishes common to the new development (jojoba dark wood floors, Poggenpohl, Viking, granite, and Kohler Purist fixtures, a 5 fixture master-bath with marble floors and Poggenpohl double vanity) plus the additional benefit of “an outdoor terrace … transformed into a mini spa sauna (the only outdoor sauna in NYC!) with a cedar lined enclosure”. (I have no idea if that is the only outdoor sauna in New York, but that certainly seems unlikely or, if true, unlikely to hold its solo crown.) The loft takes advantage of the 16 foot ceilings by partially duplexing a 3rd ‘sleep area’ and an office above the kitchen and dining area, yielding “2,117 sq ft” with 2-bedrooms+sleep-area+office. Plus that terrace-with-sauna.

It is weird that they marketed the loft without a single interior photo directly showing the 16 foot ceilings (“an art collectors dream”). You only get an indirect peak of the high ceilings in the 4th and 10th listing photos, but perhaps they decided that the window curtains don’t photograph very well. Those two listing photos are the only two with windows, yet they don’t show the windows. Only the curtains, closed. Of course, you know why listing photos show curtains rather than windows; because the windows don’t show anything. Rather, that there is nothing to see out the windows, but for a neighboring building.

If you click on Google view from the StreetEasy listing you can see how close the the north side of the Lion’s Head is to the abutting building on 20th Street sits; or look at the window photos in the #5A listing, with “a wall of glass looking north to open skies” only 2 floors above loft #3A. That will put a damper on marketing.

This much of a damper: $1,091/ft for #3A (unadjusted for tiny [dark!] terrace and sauna), compared to $1,165/ft for #5A, $1,364/ft for #9E, and $1,454/ft for #8B. But at least the #3A guy got out, and now can live in the light, with his 37% (gross) gain.

Yes, I think the Lion’s Head might break the Zestimator.

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

142 Duane Street loft sells up a million after chilly purchase, lovely renovation

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

getting it right in buying, fixing, selling … a Tribeca loft trifecta

Axioms are axiomatic for a reason. In the case of the recently re-sold “2,000 sq ft” Manhattan loft #3A at 142 Duane Street the seller got it right not only in buying low and selling high, but in a renovation in between. The truly fascinating part of the story will remain a mystery, as the guy managed to buy at $1.91mm in June 2011 after his seller blew his own opportunity to sell before The Peak, then blew his opportunity to sell at The Peak, and then blew his own opportunity to sell before The Peak decayed into nuclear winter. (Dates, numbers, to follow.) The guy took what had been a charming and well-renovated loft and turned it into a “[s]pectacular triple mint” loft before selling it on October 10 for $2.925mm.

We’ll play with the respective broker babble and listing photos to estimate the scope of work between “[s]pectacular triple mint” and “unique and freshly inventive”, but there is no way the guy spent anywhere near seven figures in the upgrade and the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index suggests that the overall Manhattan residential real estate market was up only 14% from the purchase at $1.91mm and the sale at $2.925mm. Nicely played, sir; nicely played.

(In the sort of digit serendipity that makes me smile, the June 2011 purchase price of $1.91mm happens to match exactly the StreetEasy Index of June 2011 of 1.91k, making it so easy to see that the recent sale at $2.925mm vastly exceeds the Index change to 2,188 [for September 2013, the last value available] … I love when that happens.)

The StreetEasy Index implies the guy out-performed the market by … let’s see … 2,925 (minus) 2188 = 737 = $737,000 = 34%. I wonder how much of that $737,000 was due to dollars spent between 2011 and 2013?

reading between the lines of broker babble and loft listing photos, for fun (his profit)

When the loft was last marketed before the recent seller purchase, in 2009, it boasted of being “unique”, “freshly inventive”, and “innovative”. The features then included:

14 ft. ceilings, original fluted cast iron columns and exposed beams …. wood-burning fireplace. …open kitchen [with] custom cabinets, glass tile back splash and top appliances including Viking stove and ovens, vented to outdoors, Bosch dish washer, Sub-Zero. Even a sensor activated fresh water bowl for dogs! Smartly designed office nook, delineated by a sliding door, provides work space or potential 2nd sleep area. The master bedroom suite is enclosed by a floor-to ceiling movable wall and includes a generous pass- through closet corridor and elegant master bath with double sinks, soaking tub and glass-enclosed shower. Utility room houses unit mechanicals, washer dryer and provides storage. CAC. Hardwood wide-plank oak floors and ample closets throughout.

The floor plan from that era reveals that the major limitation in the loft is the single exposure. With only 4 windows on the north wall, I guess the invention and innovation (if not the uniqueness) was to put a long sliding door on the master suite in the northwest corner (that, when open as in listing pic #3) brings light from that corner window into the main space, and separating the office nook from the main space with another sliding door and a partial wall that does not reach the ceiling (compare listing pix #2 and #3), bringing light into the main space from the northeast window. Absent these light-bearing elements the main space would have but two windows, both rather remote from the living, dining and kitchen areas.

(Or maybe the unique, innovative and inventive thing was the “sensor activated fresh water bowl for dogs”.)

When sold recently, the new loft has a floor plan with the office down the east wall to touch the kitchen and changed a new entry to the master suite. The new master suite doors are frenched with “Reclaimed Double Fir Doors”, the office has “Hand-crafted Barn Doors”, and the kitchen has been (somewhat) upgraded to:

Open Chef’s Kitchen w/ Pantry, Viking, Miele and Sub Zero appliances, Whitehaus Farm Sink, Wine Storage, Concrete Countertops and a stunning Walnut Breakfast Bar

I say (somewhat) upgraded because I read the respective kitchen photos as showing the same double oven, range with hood, and frig, the same cabinets with different facing, and new counters on the back wall and on the island (with a new walnut facing on the island … er … breakfast bar). Apparently, he switched dishwashers from Bosch to Miele, also changed kitchen sink, and completely redid the master bath. Many of these things could fall into merely cosmetic upgrades (it is hard it say without having seen both iterations in real life), but there is little doubt that The Market loved the whole picture. (There is no mention of whether the “sensor activated fresh water bowl for dogs” survived.)

Reading between the lives as to what the two iterations say about someone’s life, I would bet a quarter that the 2011-purchaser-turned-2013-seller did not plan to move so soon. Very few people would re-do what appear to have been high-end kitchen and baths in that short an expected turnaround, as the conventional wisdom is that you won’t get your money out by making, for example, an “A” kitchen into an “A+” kitchen.

But the $737,000 “excess” gain over the StreetEasy Index tells you that it all worked out for the guy. And the new loft is certainly more appealing, largely due to moving that office function away from the windows but also due to quality materials like the Reclaimed Double Fir Doors and the Hand-crafted Barn Doors. (They may not appeal to everyone, but they did appeal to the recent buyer. And to me.)

this is what missing The Peak of the overall Manhattan market looks like for a Tribeca loft

I have to go back to the travails of the recent seller’s seller, in much the same way as a slow motion car wreck is irrestible:

July 6, 2007 new to market $2.45mm
Nov 3 $2.3mm
Feb 22, 2008     $2.2mm
Aug 2 $2.15mm
Jan 5, 2009 $1.975mm
July 2 off the market*
June 7, 2011 private sale $1.91mm

(*On this kind of dispute, I prefer the inter-firm data-base over StreetEasy; it obviously did not sell or go into contract then.)

That seller’s best shot was wasted at $2.45mm and $2.3mm, when this loft did not sell in what is still the most active Manhattan market ever. (The StreetEasy Index bounced between 2,110 and 2,119 in these 8 months.) The Peak passed, but prices held relatively strongly until Lehman knocked the chair out from under the market in September 2008.  (The StreetEasy Index bounced between 2,140 and 2,119 in these 7 months, then volume fell off the table, with the Index falling to 1,830 as the seller gave up in July, on its way to a bottom of 1,790 in January 2010 .) This seller’s reactions were always too little, too late; a classic following The Market down, but never catching it.

I’d love to know why that seller chose not to test the public market in 2011, but he actually out-performed the market based on his February 2005 purchase at $1.65mm. He sold at a 15.8% gain (that private 2011 sale at $1.91mm) and over the same period the StreetEasy Index was up (only) 8.5%. Plus, he apparently saved a sales fee on the exit. (Our listing system has the 2005 data that confirms he bought then in the same condition as when he sold in 2011.)

does this remind you of another loft nearby?

Regular and attentive readers of Manhattan Loft Guy will think this all sounds familiar. Fans of an efficient market will be thrilled to know why this is familiar. Two days after loft #3A went into contract the substantially identical loft directly above came to market. I hit that loft when it sold more quickly, in my October 25, 142 Duane Street loft up 48% since 2005, 35% since 2008. Those attentive readers already know the punchline: #4A sold very quickly for $2.9mm on September 12 (contract within 2 weeks). When I say “substantially identical” loft, I mean having not only the same footprint but the same layout (with an office off the kitchen and a master bedroom in the northwest corner), and with finishes that mimic those of #3A down to special doors. The most significant difference I see in these lofts is that the 4th floor still has a tin ceiling.

The dates suggest that the fact that these two lofts did not go head to head was not a coincidence, especially as the same agent represented both. One day I may do post about the considerations when neighbors with substantially similar lofts both want to sell … do they go head to head and let The Market pick a winner, or do they proceed in sequence? In this case the results suggest they both got top dollar, but I can imagine situations in which that is not so easy to predict. Note to self ….

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

diversion about the guy on the subway who won the internet by letting another guy sleep

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in caution no real estate content, internet and blogosphere — No Comments ↓

did you see this yet?

Chances are, you saw something on the inter-tubes about the older guy in the yarmulke on the Q train who let a younger black guy in a hoodie stay asleep on his shoulder. After all, it also made the dead tree media (Daily News piece, here.) The person who put a photo from an opposite seat had the photo go viral, as the kids say, to the extent that Yarmulke Guy’s sister in Montreal saw it and called him. That guy wins the internet.

Now comes the backlash. Weird, that.

Because no well-intentioned deed on the inter-tubes will go unchallenged, there is now a discussion about whether people like Yarmulke Guy may have contributed to people like Sleeping Guy missing his stop. (From The Atlantic Cities, here, citing many comments to that effect on the original source, Reddit.)

Sheesh, people. A random act of kindness (tikkun olam!) was committed by Yarmulke Guy. Sleeping Guy was responsible for getting his ass off the train when necessary. In this case Sleeping Guy did not miss his stop, as The Atlantic Cities reports, to the great relief of Concerned Citizens Everywhere.

Yes, he might have overshot. In which case Sleeping Guy would be more careful next time he is tempted to catch 40 winks while moving underground. Or, he will start to carry a sign to hold in his lap while he naps, alerting samaritans of all persuasions where he needs to get off.

Set an alarm if you are afraid of missing your stop. Or go higher tech and get the Android-only app mentioned by Atlantic Cities that senses where you are in the NYC subway system. Or, as the song put it back when I was just starting to use the subway every day, don’t sleep in the subway, darlin’.

Shalom Sleeping Guy. And Yarmulke Guy.

 

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Keystone Loft at 38 Warren Street pushes the envelope, envelope opens

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

will this sale re-set values in this 2002 south Tribeca loft conversion / expansion?

The last time I hit a loft sale in the Keystone Building at 38 Warren Street (March 13, Keystone loft at 38 Warren Street sells up 15% in 11 months), the story line involved a (then) record-setting sale. In four sales since then, all in the newly built upper floors, that story continues. Let’s start with the “1,955 sq ft” loft #7B, right next door to the loft I hit on March 13 when it broke a $/ft record to hit $1,338/ft. Loft #7B just sold for an even $3mm, or an uneven $1,534/ft, but that’s no longer enough to get a building record. Such is life in SoP (South of Prime) Tribeca these days.

Let’s look at the loft first, the various envelope-stretching numbers next.

layout is more unusual than the finishes

The #7B broker babble claims it was “meticulously renovated” but it is difficult to see many changes over the pretty high base-line from 2002.

a design eye for couture european-style elegance distinguishes this condominium residence from its competition. … dining room features built-in banquette …. Expansive chef’s kitchen has black granite counters, double-sink and top-of-the-line appliances including Sub-Zero refrigerator and wine cooler. … Well-proportioned master suite has spa bath, enormous walk-in closet, 3 additional closets and home office or nursery. Large second bedroom with en-suite bath has walk-in closet. Rich wood flooring and custom HVAC radiator covers throughout. This comfortable home was meticulously renovated to maximize space with functionality.

The kitchen looks and sounds like the #8B kitchen, but for cabinet fronts being white over natural. The banquette must be new, as are the radiator covers. The master bath photo resembles that of #8B.

Whatever differences in finishes there may be to distinguish #7B from the competition (in the building and elsewhere), the “1,955 sq ft” 2-bedroom layout strikes me as unusual. It is not that the floor plan is optimized as a 2-bedroom+office, as that office could be expanded into a third bedroom if the doorways and closets back there get rearranged a bit; it’s that much less than half the space in the loft is public. To an unusual extent, this loft is optimized for bedroom living. The master suite without the office and that closet is larger than the living / dining room; with the office and closet, the master suite is larger than the living / dining room plus the kitchen. The second bedroom is, of course, additional private space.

Maybe it is a combination of the (relatively) low ceilings and the amount of furniture in the living room, but I don’t get a sense of volume from the living room photo. You see a great many 2,000 sq ft 2-bedroom lofts in which well more than half the loft is public; many of these are billed as ‘great entertaining spaces’ so I have to wonder what the antonym is for that bit of broker babbling. A “great place to nest”??

Regardless of shapely challenges or benefits, based on the difference between #7C at $1,338/ft in February and #7B at $1,534/ft in October, I’d be tempted to think there was more meticulous work done than meets the camera, or was babbled about. But there are other data points in between.

that envelope is already in tatters

As mentioned, the “1,850 sq ft” 2-bedroom #7C set a building record for $/ft for purely interior space when it sold in February at $2.475mm. Let’s put aside (a) the May 23 sale of #6A at $2.4mm because in addition to the “1,248 sq ft” interior 2-bedroom space that loft came with “1,153 sq ft” of terraces, and (b) the June 14 sale of #9A at $2.1mm because that included 600+ sq ft of terrace. But in between #7C at $1,338/ft and #7B at $1,534/ft we also had:

  • #8A Oct 10 $2mm $1,603/ft

That sits on the interior 2-bedroom “1,248 sq ft” layout in common with #6A and #9A. Loft #8A blew #7C’s (short-lived) building record for $/ft even further out of the water than #7B did.

The #8A broker babble is pretty enthusiastic, seemingly matching that of #7B but for that opaque “meticulously renovated” angle. I could talk myself into #8A being more valuable than #7B because “[a]ll windows have extraordinary downtown skyline views”, an element not mentioned about #7B.

I could also make an argument that #8A is worth more than #7B on a $/ft basis for that set of buyers who need exactly 2 bedrooms, for whom the extra space in the “B” unit is unwanted (unaffordable?) luxury. But that smacks of over-determining principles from sparse data points.

Regardless, I can confidently say that building values should continue to match those newly re-set here, at least for the new upper floors. For so long as current market conditions continue. Even in SoP Tribeca.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

$146/ft for a “minimal” “gut” renovation of Orchard Street loft featured in the New York Times

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in renovation opportunities and rew — No Comments ↓

loving the people who love Manhattan lofts, and the lofts they love

Did you see the On Location feature in today’s Home & Garden Section of the New York Times? If you did, I hope it made you smile. Here’s a précis of what you can read about (and see, through the miracle of the inter-tubes; in this case, the slideshow) in Staying in Character by David Hay: in Act One, Canadian actors with kids about to leave nest instantly fall in love with (and buy) a Lower East Side loft; in Act Two, they “face the reality that the makeshift kitchen and bathroom weren’t functional and the general dilapidation of the space was dispiriting”; in Act Three, they complete a renovation that was more about restoring character than gutting. Renovation cost: $350,000 for a “2,400 sq ft” loft. Closing Titles: and they create new family traditions here … and live happily ever after. (We can only hope.)

Fascinating piece with wonderful photos. Loft snob that I am, I love the fact that these folks were drawn to the authenticity of the space (“wood floors still showed the dents made by sewing machine treadles nearly a century earlier”), if not their grasp of recent history (I don’t know this specific block, but would be surprised if long timers would also be “amazed that so much of the surrounding Lower East Side neighborhood remained unchanged as well”). Welcome to the downtown Manhattan loft world, Canadian actors. It is wonderful to see your appreciation of what makes lofts, lofts.

The piece is also fascinating for the window on renovation costs. That $350,000 comes to $146/ft for a “2,400 sq ft” Lower East Side loft with (only) a “makeshift kitchen and bathroom [that] weren’t functional and the general dilapidation of the space [that] was dispiriting”. There’s no mention of how much demolition was required, but there was precious little actual building. Most of the work described by Hay was restorative:

  • replacing the plumbing and wiring
  • brick walls and tin ceiling meticulously patched and cleaned
  • exposed the old iron beams running down the center of the ceiling
  • repaired floorboards to eliminate creaking
  • “to preserve the openness of the former industrial space … [there is] a ‘cocoon’ at one end of the living area: a bed surrounded by translucent linen curtains that hang from a circular track”

The more structural aspects were:

  • increasing the height of 4 windows
  • a new kitchen (prices given only for the island a stainless steel wall, $14,000/each)

There is one photo of one bath, with cast-iron tub “surrounded by glass mosaic tiles from the Tile Spark”, but no indication of costs there, or of how many bathrooms there are in the space.

Clearly, most of this $350,000 budget went to labor rather than materials. The new stuff includes the kitchen, likely that bath, and the new wiring and plumbing. The old stuff made new with lots of work include the century-old flooring, brick walls, tin ceilings, and the 4 now-taller windows. Fascinating, but hardly detailed enough to extrapolate to another project, alas.

you can’t believe everything you read about Manhattan lofts, in the Times or in broker babble

Of course I was curious about what the loft looked like before the transformation from “general dilapidation” to … er … restored character. Of course there were enough hints in the article to easily track down the loft. Don’t tell reporter Hays, but the Old Grey Lady’s facts (presumably all derived from the owners and their architect) don’t quite square with the public record.

First, the Canadians mis-remembered how long they’ve owned the loft. (Weird, that.) It wasn’t 2008 when they bought, but April 26, 2010 when they paid $2.2mm for the loft. At that time, the sellers (and their very experienced agent) did not think the loft was in a state of “general dilapidation”, or that the kitchen and bath were “dysfunctional”. In fact, the loft was marketed in 2010 as a mix of old and new, with no hint in the broker babble that this was a project (even to a habitual reader-between-lines):

Rustic, romantic, poetic… authentic 2400SF full-floor loft …in the heart of Downtown’s Lower East Side! … rambling home featuring an enormous Living/Dining room with exposed brick walls, original pressed-tin ceilings, cast-iron columns, century-old pine floors + light from 4 exposures. The industrial kitchen with reclaimed restaurant fixtures is open to the entertaining space and features a vintage farmers sink, restored 1950’s O’Keefe & Merrit stove, butcher-block counter-tops and stainless steel appliances. There are 3 Bedrooms, 2 renovated spacious bathrooms (one with cast-iron soaking tub), and a separate pantry with Washer-Dryer.

(Note especially the renovated baths and cast-iron soaking tub.)

There is a hint in the listing photos that some renovation was in order for the 2010 buyers, but it is not a renovation that the Canadian actors did; in fact, they made the same character-based choice to not do that renovation that the previous owners made.

Remember the “cocoon” (“to preserve the openness of the former industrial space …  a bed surrounded by translucent linen curtains that hang from a circular track”)? Compare 2010 listing photo #4 to slides #3 and #6: the curtains are different and the track that was rectangular is now circular. The former owners had “preserve[d] the openness of the former industrial space” by having a no-walls ‘master’ sleep area in exactly the place now guarded by the $4,600 horse.

Remember the Canadian kids? They’ve got 2 kids in college in New York. There’s no mention of bedrooms in the article and no photos of the back of the loft. Here is the floor plan in 2010. I will bet you a quarter the loft still has those two bedrooms in the back, over Orchard Street, as all the photos in the 2013 slideshow are consistent with this floor plan. And the kids have to sleep somewhere when they visit. And if the grown-ups are not going to sound-proof themselves in for sleep, they should want anyone else sleeping there to be behind (real) walls.

One man’s “dilapidated” is another woman’s “authentic charm”, so maybe this is just quibbling …. Check the condition of the flooring, brick walls, columns, and (especially) the tin ceiling in the 2010 listing photos. Does “dilapidated” come to mind. (I didn’t think so.) No doubt, there was work to be done in bringing these elements into top condition, especially if the floors creaked. But it is hard for me to reconcile the 2010 listing photos and babble with the claim of such “general dilapidation of the space [that it] was dispiriting” in the New York Times text.

With the babble, photos and floor plan from 2010 in hand, here is where I think most of that $350,000 went:

  • new kitchen
  • one new bath (probably) with one salvaged cast-iron tub
  • new electrical and plumbing
  • 4 windows brought closer to the floor
  • repairing the sub-floor (in places?), reinstalling the century-old flooring

I suspect these items were no big deal:

  • re-glaznig the brick walls (they seem to be brighter in 2013; better photos??)
  • some repair of tin ceiling (it looked pretty good in 2010)
  • stripping the beam (painted in 2010)
  • the cocoon
  • leaving all the walls exactly where they were in 2010

If I win that $0.25 bet, the only change in the floor plan from 2010 to 2013 will be pivoting the kitchen from facing the south wall to facing that bathroom wall. And the only demolition will be that old kitchen, probably one bath.

No wonder $146/ft can get you a spread in the New York Times.

what a modern renovation looks like in this loft space

Remember that “the designer they hired to make the loft more livable, had done a modern renovation of another space in the building, but that wasn’t what they had in mind”? I will bet you another quarter that this loft, serially unsold and available for rent, is that modern renovation. Same footprint, same tin ceilings, same columns and beams, (possibly) the same flooring, but no visible brick, dropped ceiling in places, and a floor plan that is the reverse of the authentic loft upstairs (bedrooms to the east, public space to the west, over Orchard Street).

You have to appreciate the potential in lofts when you see these neighboring lofts with completely different character and layouts.

The Market did not appreciate this one however. Remember that the Canadians paid $2.2mm for the 5th floor in April 2010? Coincidence or not (I vote: not), the 4th floor never competed head to head with the 5th floor, but had been offered for sale at $1.9mm into the Summer of 2009, then again at $2.2mm from April through November 2010 and again for 8 months in 2011 by the same agent who sold the 5th floor to the Canadian actors. Didn’t sell.

No, I don’t think that the 5th floor was in a dispiriting state of “general dilapidation” when the Canadians bought it in 2010. But that’s the origin story they tell themselves about buying in 2008. Fine for them. Fine for the New York Times, as it generated a lovely piece with lovely photos by David Hay. It just ain’t necessarily so. Theater people!

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

288 West Street loft up 11% over 2011 instead of 15%

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

does the Index owe this Tribeca loft $90,000?

You know I do this only in part to remind you, gentle readers, and more so to remind me: the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index is 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. (Speaking to self ….) Got that? The recent sale of the “2,200 sq ft” Manhattan loft #4E at 288 West Street in the extreme northwest corner of Tribeca is yet another reminder. The loft was just sold for $2.55mm by the guy who paid $2.3mm for it in August 2011. Had this pair of same-loft sales fit perfectly into StreetEasy’s Index, the resale would have been just over $2.64mm. Life doesn’t work that way (speaking to self …).

The loft is a beauty, with massive beams and columns, exposed brick and sprinklers / piping, and long picture windows to frame the Statue of Liberty and river views. The recent broker babble claims the loft is “newly renovated” but you know how it is with babbling … it is hard to know how recent a “new” renovation is, or how extensive a “renovation” is. In this case, we have the benefit of the more detailed babbling and photos from 2011. While it is no sure thing to make these assessments from such sources, it appears to me as though the 2011-buyer-turned-2103-seller put a different stain on the columns and beams (I like the grey!), replaced some kitchen cabinets (and range hood!) with a shelf, and changed marble counters for poured concrete. The kitchen is otherwise the same as before, as is the master bath, as are any identifiable things I can see in the two sets of photos, including the nicely distressed floor boards. There is no current floor plan, but I see nothing to suggest that the 2011 floor plan has been changed.

That ain’t what I would call “newly renovated”, but there you have it: some cosmetic changes to the kitchen and a new color tone for the beams and columns. The 2011 buyer lived much less fussily in the loft than his sellers, however. The 2011 listing photos play up a rustic charm, but show an awful lot of furniture and just … stuff. The 2013 photos have fewer (but larger) pieces of furniture, fewer distracting things on the walls, and no rugs. The loft looks (to my eyes, at least) much better in 2013 than in 2011. (The former rustic columns and beams look great to me in grey.)

But as we already know, the concrete counters instead of marble and the colored columns and beams, and even the clean staging,  resulted in a resale that was somewhat below expectations. Some $90,000 short of the Index increase, before considering that the recent seller also put in some “renovation” money with the few changes I noted. (The counters look like the only significant expense, but none of it was recouped.) I suspect the guy planned to live there longer than 2 years, as it is an uneconomic move to replace marble counters with poured concrete for resale in such a short time. (Indeed, I am not sure such a change is ever an economic move, but more a matter of personal style or even simply gilding the lily.)

serendipity is nice, but getting same Tribeca building loft sale pairs twice is simply beyond

Sharp-eyed readers of Manhattan Loft Guy will remember the views from this loft, as I hit it when it sold last time in my September 16, 2011, why did 288 West Street lofts close with such a wide spread? (in the new blog platform). Back in the day, my post was about the comparison between the sale of #4E at $1,045/ft and the contemporaneous sale of the slightly smaller loft #2W at $1,386/ft. With lofts in similar condition and with similar views it was obvious that The Market knew something about those two lofts that I could not see in looking at the respective broker babble and listing photos. Of course there was, and a very helpful agent from a family of loft aficionados clued me in in the comment hyped in my edited text. At this point, alas, my new platform does not (yet!) have the comments from the old platform but that bit of functionality awaits further coding by my oh so helpful geek pal. In the meantime, that key comment on the old platform is here, but that is a balky platform so the gist is: the “E” line has lot line windows both north and south, putting at risk most of the windows in #4E and all of the windows with those Statue of Liberty and river views.

Hence, #4E at $1,045/ft and #2W at $1,386/ft, both in August 2011. Makes a great deal of sense, right?

It was delightful to have those two sales 9 days apart to drive home for me the fact that there was something going on between these two lines in this 2-lofts-per-floor classic loft building. Imagine my surprise, then, on seeing that #4E has once again been paired with a “W” loft sale. The “1,800 sq ft” loft #3W sold on October 9 (the day after #4E sold for $1,159/ft) for … (wait for it) … $2,117,000. That’s $1,176/ft for those of you too lazy to find the calculator function on your smart phones, which is (even without a calculator) essentially flat to #4E.

Wait … what? Loft #3W just sold for $1,176/ft two years after #2W sold for $1,386/ft. There’s got to be an explanation, right?

the more I know about some lofts, the more confused I get

The good news is that we know what condition #3W was in when it sold last month. The bad news (for those, like me), persuaded about the Lot Line Window explanation for the 2011 spread between #4E and #2W is that #3W was in pretty nice condition. See the full babble for details, but the headline is that it has been “[r]enovated and restored to retain the original character”, very likely the equal of the condition of loft #4E. Worse, for fans of efficient market analysis, it does not appear as though loft #3W was being actively marketed publicly immediately before its sale at the surprising $2,117,000.

Sorry to get into the weeds of Manhattan real estate listings systems, but this gets a little complicated. I take the inter-firm data-base that feeds our listing system as more reliable than StreetEasy on listing history. Both sources agree that loft #3W had been offered for sale from August to December 2011 at prices ranging from $2.485mm to $2.25mm. They also agree that the loft was brought back to market at $2.25mm from June into October 2012, but they disagree about what happened a year ago October. StreetEasy has “listing sold” and a closing 49 weeks later; the REBNY data (for what was a REBNY firm listing) has it as “expired” in October 2012, with a (non-public) sale recorded in October 2013 at $2,117,000.

I have to go with the REBNY inter-firm data on this, and conclude that the #3W sale last month was not the direct result of public marketing, so is not necessarily reflective of market value. Certainly, the fact that #2W sold for $2.495mm in August 2011 suggests that #3W in October 2013 at $2,117,000 is below fair market value. Except that #3W failed to sell while being professionally exposed to the public market at (only) $2.25mm from June into October 2012. Ouch. Even with lower ceilings on the 3rd floor than the 2nd, with the same views and similar condition, loft #3W should have sold for more than #2W a year earlier … but it failed to sell at a lower asking price.

Sometimes my brain hurts. This sequence makes my brain hurt:

  1. August 15, 2011 #2W $1,386/ft
  2. August 24, 2011 #4E $1,045/ft
  3. June – October 2012 #3W not worth $1,250/ft
  4. October 7, 2013 #4E $1,159/ft
  5. October 8, 2013 #3W $1,176/ft

One unsuccessful campaign aside, willing sellers parted with those lofts on those dates to willing buyers, at those values. If I accept that the lot line windows versus protected views accounted for $341/ft in value between the two lofts that sold in 2011, how to account for the much smaller value differential involving those same windows and views in 2013? If some of the ‘gap’ is due to #3W selling in a non-public sale, we have to struggle to deal with the 2012 non-sale well below where #2W had sold.

In a rational world, this can’t be rationalized. I hate when that happens.

is this that celebrity?

I don’t usually notice such things, but the deed record for #4E contains a trustee with the same name as a successful-in-dollars actor, with an address in the right zip code. (And I didn’t realize until Using The Google that the other trustee is his wife.) That’s got to be them, though it doesn’t mean the trust bought the loft for their personal use. If you see them in the neighborhood, let me know.

That is all.

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

should 80 Chambers Street loft be embarrassed? (resells over ask, but only 6% over 2006)

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

no reason to anthropomorphize Manhattan lofts

Silly me: no, the “1,056 sq ft” Manhattan loft #11B at 80 Chambers Street should not be embarrassed because it sold for only 6.3% more last month than it sold for in May 2006, even though the StreetEasy Condo Index says that you ‘get a feel’ for the overall Manhattan residential real estate market by knowing that the Index was up 11% in that period. First, lofts don’t have feelings (only values). More importantly, the October 2013 and May 2006 sales are just two data points that comprise one paired resale set, in a large number of such sets that, in their aggregation, comprise the Index. Plus, this paired resale set is hardly much of an outlier: it trends in the right direction, just not as dramatically as the Index value, just as there are similar paired resale sets that trend ‘too high’ than the Index. Yes, Virginia, the Index is just a single number per month that gives you a feel for how the overall Manhattan market is doing.

modesty is also not a virtue for Tribeca lofts, though it can be for sellers

Given that the recent seller paid $940,000 on  May 1, 2006 (not on StreetEasy, but in our data-base; trust me), asking $995,000 to resell on March 15, 2013 strikes me as a more modest suggestion than many sellers would make. That modesty worked, as the closing price of $999,000 reflects either a bidding skirmish or a purchaser concerned that another would emerge, so she had to offer a Make My Day price.

I will spare you the details, but will note that the listing history is equivocal about when the contract was signed, both in StreetEasy and in our listing system (it was a Corcoran listing). Long story, short: our system shows an offer accepted by May 2, at which point open houses stopped being scheduled and after which the listing officially expired and was revived. (It is a sad world in which I cannot even rely on the Corcoran listing system for complete and accurate information about Corcoran listings.) Having a deal by May 2 makes sense for a sale above ask, even if that deal took some (unknown number of ) days to get into contract, and then didn’t close until October 17.

a small loft with many charms, proportion not among them

Loft #11B is a 1-bedroom loft for people who want a fair amount of space with nice finishes. The loft is outfitted with the appliances and materials with which it was first sold by the developer in 2004, a high-middle range fitting the condo’s status as planned as rentals, updated to condo in a multi-stage development. (The StreetEasy building page has the story: a single office building was converted with three parts and three entrances into an office portion on bottom, planned rentals turned into condos in the middle, and [more] deluxe condos in the top.) But loft #11B was shaped with a (shudder) cookie cutter, so is not a favorite of loft snobs.

The loft is shaped like the front end of a classic Long-and-Narrow Manhattan loft, about 23 feet wide, but only one exposure. (Floor plan, here.) The result is a very decent sized (single) bedroom and a main space that is 40 x 12 feet, not quite a bowling alley but likely to lack the sense of volume the gross square footage might imply. (See listing pic #2 for a lack of volume.) I wonder if it echoes.

The problem with adapting large footprint office buildings to residential use is that there is so much space far from the windows. Hence, three unit lines in the 80 Chambers part of the building are 1-bedrooms with more than 1,000 sq feet (B, C, E other than on the 15th floor) because they have only one exposure. Not very loft-y. (Says loft snob, clutching loft pearls.)

But it is what it is, and there’s a market for that. At $946/ft, most recently.

a curiously strong loft sale in this bottom-right corner of Tribeca, after all

You’d think that if anyone should feel embarrassed in the building, it should be loft #15B, which sold in January for (only) $870,000 in identical condition and layout as #10B. But then you realize lofts don’t have feelings the overall market was up 10% in that period so the adjusted same-month-price (a term I think I just made up) for #15B last month was $957,000, only 4% below #10B. So maybe that’s within the range of market noise. And that sale was the highest for a 1-bedroom loft in the building since #10B sold for $940,000 on September 29, 2008 in a bit of a miracle of good timing. (That contract was signed August 30, just 2 weeks before Samson Lehman pulled the house down.)

And that sale of #10B matched that of #11B in May 2006, oddly enough. Not get too deeply into the weeds, but that May 2006 that set the first leg of the paired sale set for #11B seems, in retrospect, to be too high; meaning, the recent seller paid too much back then. StreetEasy doesn’t have the closed sales data before #10B in September 2008, but our listing system does.

No 1-bedroom loft in the building has yet cracked 7-figures, though there were several sales in the upper $990s in 2007 and 2008. The record on an absolute dollar level is the $999,000 that #11B just sold at, matched twice before. The record on a dollar per foot basis is the $946/ft at which #11B just sold, matched once before at The Peak (the “1,056 sq ft” #11C also sold at $999,000 on January 22, 2008, per our system).

Putting all that together to attempt a graceful exit, the recent sale of #11B at $999,000 looks (a little) low in comparison to its prior value of $940,000 in May 2006. But it is still a building record for a 1-bedroom, matching the record set at The Peak. In retrospect, the #11B seller should not be offended (sellers can react that way) because it is not personal, but she overpaid back in the day. No longer breaking news, but that’s where recent data lead: backwards.

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

why not? Chelsea Mercantile loft with forever views sells for $2,336/ft

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

quality sells, Chelsea brand name loft conversion, too; and views!

Don’t take my word for it (I will prove it down below), but there are not many Manhattan lofts that re-sell at or above $2,000/ft, even before adjusting for outdoor space. Any sale starting with a “2” in $/ft will jump out at you if you look at deed records for Manhattan loft sales regularly; follow the “2” with a “3” and you are in rare company. The “1,327 sq ft” Manhattan loft in that Chelsea icon, #18C at 252 Seventh Avenue (Chelsea Mercantile) is that rare bird, having sold on October 10 for $3.1mm after spending 10 weeks trying out $3.2mm and then $3.3mm. The broker babble is enthusiastic, of course (as we’ll see more below), and the Merc is the Merc (or, is “the sought after Chelsea Mercantile Condominium”). The glory of the place is what is outside, a long way off (including the Statue of Liberty, One World Trade, and the Woolworth Building) and what is not outside, up close (anything obstructing that view to the harbor 3 miles away). Is there a group of Manhattan coop or condo owners more invested in the continuation of only low rise development in prime Chelsea than the south-facing high floor owners at the Merc?

To repeat, two thousand, three hundred thirty-six dollars a foot.

The finishes are lovely, of course, though the main stuff is probably standard issue deluxe option for this 2000 game changing new development. Either that, or the selling team got bored praising the view and this rather odd assortment of custom features:

This home offers unprecedented features, includes a full Crestron Smart Home Control System throughout, Lutron lighting system, Lutron electric recessed dual shade system both black out and sun shades, Audio/ Video system throughout with Blue Ray DVD, ipod dock, Sirius Satellite Radio, WiFi throughout and wireless laser printer/ fax/ scanner/ copier. With additional sound proofing in ceilings and walls makes this apartment unbelievably quite. [sic]

This is probably not such an odd assortment of features in broker babble for a top-tier condo loft, but it is unusual to see these mentioned when there is no mention of the kitchen, no mention of the bathrooms, no use of proper proper names other than Crestron and Lutron. (Seriously, to note that here is a wireless laser printer/ fax/ scanner/ copier, of unknown make, without mentioning plumbing involving Waterworks, Miele or Bosch is … weird.)

hard to comp with downstairs loft

There is a very recent, very nearby sale of a very similar loft, one that would ordinarily be a wonderful basis from which to judge the #18C sale (did I mention $2,336/ft?). Loft #17C has exactly the same floor plan, it sold only 3 weeks before #18C, and (while there is no mention of audio or window systems, or of soundproofing) was sold after enthusiastic (if vague) broker babble:

11 foot ceilings, beautiful hardwood floors, super-sized windows and a W/D. An oversized living room / dining room opens up to a state of the art chef’s kitchen complete with high-end appliances, ample cabinet space and an 8 foot (granite) island. The spacious master bedroom enjoys a grand en-suite marble bath and closets galore.

That one also claimed skyline and Statue views. At first blush, the $2.795mm at which #17C sold is almost preposterously short of the $3.1mm garnered by #18C. Well, at second blush, too, especially as a quick scan of the StreetEasy history shows that #17C came to market on “June 14” at $2.795mm and found its contract by “July 16”. It’s not complicated, but that was June 14 last year and July 16 this year, interrupted by not just 13 months but one tenancy. (Note the “Investors only[;] Tenant in place” that starts that babble from June 2012.)

Looks like whoever rented #17C in October 2012 was clever enough to match the old asking price before his tenancy expired, to induce the owner to avoid “all the hassle” of listing the place again. (Either that, or someone else who knew when the tenancy would end and had an idea the owner might part with the loft at the last asking price.)

Future buyers at the Merc are going to want to use the #17C sale as a comp as much as future sellers will use the #18C sale. But only one of them was a result of public marketing. If any “friends” of the #17C sellers share the news about #18C, I have to believe the #17C sellers will be more than a little upset. Probably upset to the tune of $305,000 (less whatever it costs to soundproof a “1,327 sq ft” loft and to fully outfit it with wiring of all kinds and a ” wireless laser printer/ fax/ scanner/ copier”). Pretty upset, indeed.

about those other Manhattan lofts sold in the twos

I had to go back about 200 loft sales on the Master List of downtown Manhattan loft sales between $500,000 and $5,000,000 to find as many as 10 sales at $2,000/ft or higher. That’s to July 18 on the list, last updated October 26. At least two of those ten involves private outdoor space, and so would likely adjust below $2,000/ft. Only one was higher than $2,336/ft, a loft with direct Madison Square views that may have gotten a society boost for having Presidential connections that sold above ask at $2,471/ft.

A rare bird is #18C at 252 Seventh Avenue, indeed. And a bird that kicked its neighbor’s tail feathers.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Top