so many incorrect prices finally sell 73 Worth Street penthouse loft above ask

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods tribeca — No Comments ↓
don’t see many June sales with snow in Manhattan loft listing photos

It took four listing prices to sell the “1,997 sq ft” Manhattan penthouse loft #PHD at 73 Worth Street on June 26. One way to say it took a long time to sell is like this “188 Days on StreetEasy”. Here’s another way to show that a summer sale took a long time:

what’s that stuff on the terrace??

The four asking prices, incorrect as they were, were incorrect in different ways. As that cruel truth teller that is The Market proved, the first two prices were too high but the last two were too low.

Dec 2, 2014 new to market $4.695mm
Dec 8 $4.495mm
April 23, 2015   $4.195mm
May 13 $3.995mm
June 8 contract
June 26 sold $4.25mm

The table tells me that there may have been a disagreement between sellers and their agent about the right price at which to start (note the drop after 6 days), that the sellers were pretty stubborn about maintaining that second asking price but (once begun) not stubborn about further discounts. Indeed, apparently too quick to make the second and third price drops.

Comparison to the last 80 or so sales in my Master List of downtown Manhattan loft sales under $6 million confirms that this penthouse loft hardly sold quickly, even after the drop to $4.195mm, as about a quarter of the lofts sold since May 1 (as of now) took 30 days or less to go to contract. Penthouse D took 46 days after that price drop, and even 26 days after the drop below $4 million. Not a quick sale, by any measure, but starting the price with a “3” provoked at least two buyers to push the price above ask.

I’d love to know where those two buyers were before May 13. Maybe they weren’t yet in the market, or maybe they didn’t think they could make a deal at a reasonable number off of the $4.495mm ask. It seems pretty clear that either one of them could have bought the loft at $4.195mm right after April 23, and possibly lower into the middle of May.

Somewhere toward the end of May the second buyer emerged, and the two (or more) pushed the price back up above the third (April 23) asking price, within about 5% of the $4.495mm ask that had been unsuccessful for 4+ months.

It’s a funny business sometimes.

The Market did not love the new kitchen as much as the sellers did

The folks who just sold Penthouse D for $4.25mm paid $2.425mm to buy it in June 2012. They took what had been an “open gourmet kitchen finished with top of the line appliances, gorgeous granite countertops and Bisazza glass mosaic tile backsplashes [that] will make any chef happy” and they created a “newly renovated chef’s kitchen [that] boasts top of the line appliances, natural stone countertops, Bisazza glass mosaic tile backsplashes”; they added some “[o]ther enhancements to the first floor space[:] custom wall coverings, a built-in/ under-stair wine storage system, and an EcoSmart bioethanol fireplace”.

I wish the photos permitted a more direct view of the kitchens, by which to better guess how extensively renovated the new kitchen was:

this Bisazza is white (or clear) + cabinets don’t go to the ceiling

After:

this Bisazza is dark (or highly reflective??), upper cabinets go the ceiling, but don’t the lower cabinets look familiar??

The photo angles are not quite the same, but the floor plans suggest the kitchen array is exactly the same in 2015 as it was in 2012, with the range and oven just out of frame in the 2015 kitchen photo. In other words, I doubt this was a completely new kitchen. The sellers thought that their improvements added significant value (the “newly renovated” kitchen, plus the “custom wall coverings, a built-in/ under-stair wine storage system, and an EcoSmart bioethanol fireplace”). It is impossible to know, but all too tempting to guesstimate, what the recent sellers spent in improve the loft after purchase in 2012.

Had they left it alone, the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index implies that the penthouse would have been worth something above $3 million this year (adding 26% to their June 2012 market price). Of course, they sold for $4.25mm, at least $1 million more than the StreetEasy Index implies.

What did it cost to re-do the kitchen, add custom wall treatments, build a storage system to fit under the stair, and add a gas fireplace? Something less than a half million bucks and, likely, much less than a half million bucks. In other words, these 2012 buyers crated significantly much more value than it cost them to re-do the kitchen, add custom wall treatments, build a storage system to fit under the stair, and add a gas fireplace.

I bet they created considerably more value than even the tasteful (and successful) sellers that I hit in my June 5 post, there are spectacular Manhattan loft renovations, then there’s this 54 East 11 Street loft renovation, and much more value than the sellers in my June 11,spectacular renovation of Village penthouse loft is not quite as well received as renovator hoped at 42 East 12 Street, and in my June 4, million dollar renovation at 144 West 27th Street?, three recent attempts to play Guess The Budget.

are you on LinkedIn?

If you are on that meet-up for professionals you might have seen my attempt to synthesize the Guess The Budget posts (above) and the classic Real Estate Industrial Complex media chestnut typified by “Small Renovations, Big Payoff” from the New York Times a while back. That was my June 26, Renovation Cost v. Resale Value: some real Manhattan loft stories, and I encourage you link with me on LinkedIn to see other to-be-written posts that build off of the blog posts here that tend to focus on one loft sale.

if it’s a Manhattan loft building, it should be a Manhattan loft

73 Worth Street is obviously a loft building, having been converted to residential condominiums from some prior commercial or industrial use. Penthouse D doesn’t look very loft-y, does it? Ceilings are not very high, there are no classic loft structural elements (columns, beams, exposed brick walls), though the floorpan is largely open (devoid of load-bearing elements). That’s because the duplex penthouses were added to the structure when it was converted, built on top of the roof (as proper penthouses are) and set back form the edges of the roof (hence the proper terraces).

You can see a typical loft interior in the building in my March 10, nice flip at 73 Worth Street, but why is a foundation doing that??, which also dealt with a kitchen upgrade from a lovely kitchen to (presumably) an even more lovely kitchen. If you don’t have the patience to click around for another blog post, note how different the kitchen of #2B appears than that of Penthouse D:

the column and ceiling height scream LOFT

In a more perfect world, I might not include Penthouse D as a “loft” sale, or I would at least more publicly agonize over whether loft buyers would be interested in such a space. Not today, boys and girls; not today.

and no riffing today, either

Relatedly, I am not going to try to figure out what these three (apparently lovely) terraces (“over 800 square feet”) are worth, in comparison to the interior space.

a great many places to play outdoors

Long-time Manhattan Loft Guy readers are familiar with my May 6, 2010, riffing with The Miller on the value of Manhattan terraces, decks + balconies, and maybe they can guess why I am not going to riff today.

As noted above, the interior space of Penthouse D is not very loft-like. Therefore, it is not directly comparable to the interior space in a loft such as #2B, linked above in that March 10 post. You simply cannot estimate the value on a dollar per foot basis of the Penthouse D interior by extrapolation from the observed value of the #2B interior … the spaces are too different.

This is the unusual instance in which the best comp for this penthouse at 73 Worth Street is probably another true (built on top) penthouse elsewhere in Tribeca instead of another loft at 73 Worth. (No penthouse at 73 Worth other than #PHD has sold since 2011, so that’s quite a while.) But I digress….

So I will stop. For today.

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

loft ‘carved out’ of Gilsey House ballroom shows it

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods nomad — No Comments ↓
not all residential Manhattan loft conversions yield rational floor plans

The Gilsey House at 1200 Broadway (in what can now be termed The Greater Ace Area) is one of the most spectacular large loft buildings in Manhattan, let alone in NoMad, or South Midtown, or whatever micro-nabe label you care to apply to this micro-nabe. Unlike a loft conversion of an industrial or warehouse building, the Gilsey House was built as a hotel for the swells about a hundred years ago, so the facade reflected aesthetic ideals of its time. A beauty:

cast-iron, strong horizontal elements, beautiful detailing, at an angled corner looking down toward Madison Square (never noticed before how the corner windows are different on each floor)

The “2,400 sq ft” loft #2E at 1200 Broadway was, as you know from the headline, “carved out of the hotel’s 2nd floor ballroom”, in this case with “15’7″ ceilings, exposed brick walls and soaring windows that capture a glimpse of the top of The Empire State Building”; i.e., it faces north to get that view sliver glimpse. You’d think that with soaring(?) windows and very tall ceilings, there’d be this huge sense of volume in the loft.

Having seen many lofts in this building over the years, but never having seen this one, I think you’d be wrong. The main listing photo is as good as it gets:

it’s a big box, but not *that* big

There are only three (widely separated) areas with the high ceilings:

an air shaft breaks up the north wall + a mezzanine covers the east wall and splits the east-west axis

I’m guessing that about half the footprint is mezzanined, leaving full (double) height over the living room (as pictured above), half of the dining room, and part of the main floor media / bedroom. That leaves less than 8-foot ceilings anywhere the mezzanine extends, such as in the media room:

am I the only one who involuntarily ducks a head when viewing this photo?

Look again at the floor plan. How many “bedrooms” do you see? As the New York City building code requires that each dimension of a (legal) bedroom be at least 8 feet and have a window or skylight, the correct answer is … none. If the grown-ups in the space sleep in the largest room upstairs, they get light from being open to below (and being open to the first northwest window); or they could choose quiet and live in the en suite “den”(?) with the wall of closets but no window.

Do you see any photos that actually show the outside, or much light? (Hint, hint.) I assume there is that view glimpse of the Empire State Building (why lie about something like that??), but note that the drapes or window treatments are closed in every listing photo. If the (many) lights weren’t on, and walls and ceiling not such a bright white, I’m not sure how light this loft would actually look in real life…. (See, especially, the 4th pic, of the full height portion of the dining room.)

‘carving’ out a loft doesn’t generate premium pricing

You won’t find any bragging about finishes in the broker babble, only bragging about bones. Although the kitchen and pictured bath look fine, the marketing campaign didn’t emphasize their quality. Hence, (only) $1,104/ft in a lovely coop with maintenance barely over $1/ft. There’s no premium here for anything.

The last sale in the building was the north-facing “1,850 sq ft” loft #5G with full-on (“bright”) views of the Empire State Building and lots of bragging about finishes. Adjusting for the time difference between that sale in September at $2.35mm ($1,270/ft) and the current market, the beautifully finished and bright #5G would be worth (only) about $1,300/ft as of February (the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index is up only 2% from September to February, the last month in the Index).

Loft #5G has a pretty rational floor plan, though only 2-bedrooms, to go along with the lovely finishes:

no place to squeeze a 3rd BR, alas

Hence, a time-adjusted $1,300/ft for #5G, compared to the ‘carved out’ floor plan of loft #2E at (only!) $1,104/ft. That’s a spread of about 17% for the better light, much better (simplex, 12 foot ceilings!) layout, and much better finishes in favor of #5G over #2E. Carving can be hard….

my, how times have changed around here (or not)

When this building was converted to residential coops (our listing system says 1979) this was a pretty sketchy gritty area, with SROs nearby and no upscale interesting street retail, though you had many choices for ‘fine’ perfume, cheap sunglasses, or T-shirts. Just imagine what the street life was here, based on the fact that shareholders did not trust each other enough to permit them to buzz anyone into the building. Instead, there was an intercom system, but residents had to go down to the front door to let anyone in. This building has a large footprint, and even with three elevators, it would take several minutes for someone to walk the long hallway upstairs, take the elevator down, then walk the long hallway downstairs to let anyone in, friends, relatives, or delivery people. It’s been a while since I’ve been in the building, but I wonder if the “new video intercom system” permits residents to buzz people in without leaving their loft; given that there are (still) “key-locked elevators”, it seems that residents (still) have to (at least) walk down the hall to bring up visitors.

Can anyone who has been in the Gilsey House recently help me out here?

Speaking of times having changed … this post from July 2007 was at least the fourth time I blogged about lofts at the Gilsey House. Unfortunately, the links in that long ago post to even more long ago posts no longer work. (I hate when that happens.) But the 1980 New York Times article that I referenced there (again without link … really?!?) noted that a photographer who was still in the building in 2007 paid all of $19/ft for “2,000 sq ft” of raw space in 1980. (That is not a typo, but nineteen dollars per square foot.)

Yes, times have changed.

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

111 Mercer Street loft gains $922,438 in 19 months, or did it?

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods soho — No Comments ↓
developer left money on the table, skewing Manhattan loft market stats

The big story about the “2,024 sq ft” Soho loft on the 3rd floor at 111 Mercer Street is in the headline: the folks behind the trust that paid $4,327,562 to buy the loft from the developer in October 2013 just sold it for $5.25mm. That’s a gain of 21% in those 19 months. In obvious contrast, of course, the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index is up only 12% over that same time. But here’s an example of how new development sales screw up paired resale indexes like that of StreetEasy: there was rather a long time between contract signing and closing on that sponsor sale (as so often occurs) and the Index from contract signing ( November 2012) plus 90 days to the recent resale is up 26%. That puts a different spin on it, doesn’t it?

Gauged from the change in market conditions from contract (adjusted for a typical 90 days to sale) to resale (or, to the latest month in the StreetEasy Index), the price history for this original buyer actually under-performed The Market.

Maybe this is the sort of thing only of interest to people who obsess about the quality of market data, and struggle with extrapolating from broad market gauges to individual sales data (who … moi??), but it is at least A Quirk Worth Noting.

this is how absurd the Soho condo loft market is

The 3rd floor loft is wonderfully finished (“triple-mint … the perfect blend of modern sophistication and historic pre-war detail”) in the manner of a proper uber-loft circa 2012, but this one also claims some upgrades. First the uber-finishes:

oversized wood-frame weighted windows, an open grey oak Varenna island kitchen with Calacatta Gold marble counters, Dornbracht Tara chrome fixtures, Miele appliances including a vented hood and built-in coffee maker, plus a Sub-Zero wine refrigerator. The master suite includes a dressing room and a glorious Waterworks master bath with free-standing Empire tub, elegant Grove Brickwork tile, a custom Arpad Baksa-designed walnut vanity with black granite slab countertop, an oversized steam shower, heated chrome towel rack, and a honed 24″ x 24″ Basaltina Inca Gray tile floor with radiant heat.

Now the “many” custom additions, apparently taking this loft beyond “uber”:

including elegantly paneled walls, custom 5″ wide-plank floors, beautiful cove lighting and seamless wiring throughout.

I have no idea what “elegantly paneled walls” are as an upgrade, and I can’t see evidence of that feature in any listing photos, including the main one:

I can see lighting + flooring, and a hint of no-seam wiring, but no paneling

It ain’t cheap to replace a floor (did they lift the kitchen island?) or to repaint after adding new wiring and new lighting, so that ‘under-perform’ label wears a little heavier.

Wonderful finishes aside, the loft is your basic (and limited) Long-and-Narrow in a very small condominium conversion (4 units) in what may be a no-frills condo. The listing description list of amenities is short, somewhat vague, and has a critical modifier:

virtual doorman and the service and facilities of the nearby Nolitan Hotel, owned and managed by an affiliate of the 111 Mercer developers, Veracity (additional fees may apply).

If you’ve seen one Long-and-Narrow Manhattan loft floor plan, you’ve seen a million:

modest room sizes, no side windows … apart from the extra half-bath, the floor plan is nothing special

For $2,594/ft, this is what you get in a Soho loft. Day-um.

You could have put $500/ft into the slightly larger Soho loft on busy Broadway that I hit in my June 13, Soho loft with the most awkward kitchen sells above ask at 543 Broadway, and still be $700/ft less costly than this loft. (That hypothetical renovation budget should be adequate to fix the awkward kitchen and dress the entire loft in uber-fashion.)

Or you could have stayed off noisy Broadway and bought the 2010 version of an uber-loft just a bit south on Mercer Street (“Luxury details abound”!!), as the “2,000 sq ft” loft #2B at 22 Mercer Street closed last month for $1,890/ft. The 2010-uber finishes sound much like those of 2012:

mahogany framed arched windows, 13′ ceilings, a large wood burning fireplace mantled in Pietra Cardoza soapstone, and an ornate, turn of the century Juliette balcony …. The open Bulthaup kitchen is a chef’s dream with Gaggenau, Miele, and SubZero appliances, floor-to-ceiling pantry space, and wine storage. Luxury features include customized floor-to-ceiling closets, wide plank walnut floors, triple glazed CitiQuiet windows, Crestron touch lighting panels, built-in speaker system, central air and heat, and a laundry room with washer/and vented dryer. Both bedrooms have en-suite baths, the master features a steam shower with body spray jets, a 6′ tea-for-two soaking tub, European bidet, and a dual vanity.

That 22 Mercer Street footprint is a variation of the classic Manhattan loft Long-and-Narrow but offers the same utility as the 2-bedroom+2.5bath 3rd floor loft at 111 Mercer Street:

modest room sizes, full laundry room, ‘extra’ half bath; maybe a little more ‘volume’ due to the great room proportions and ceiling height

There is a reason the 111 Mercer Street specimen sold for a 37% premium over the 22 Mercer Street specimen (The Market can’t be wrong, right?), but that reason escapes web-based observation. (22 Mercer has a doorman in real life, by the way.)

pricing adventures, as The Market corrects

There were at least two buyers who thought that the 3rd floor loft at 111 Mercer Street was under-priced, though the sellers and their agents were doubtful:

Jan 26 new to market $5.15mm
Feb 24 $4.995mm
Mar 20 contract
May 20 sold $5.25mm

That’s rather a long time (and one price drop too many) for a loft to sell above ask. Perhaps (perhaps!) that price drop attracted buyers who had (what they thought was) a hard limit of $5 million who, when faced with competition, ponied up another 5% to buy the loft of their dreams. This surmise is consistent with the facts.

I’m still curious about the spread between 111 Mercer and 22 Mercer. Prince and Spring is a nicer block than Grand and Howard, and certainly closer to prime Soho. Not so nice as to generate a 37% premium by itself, however. Day-um.

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

perfect floor plan of 112 East 19th Street loft emphasizes volume

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in lofts in other neighborhoods — No Comments ↓
sometimes, simple is the best solution for a Manhattan loft layout

I had put aside the “1,950 sq ft” Manhattan loft #8F at 112 East 19 Street (Ruggles House) when I added it to my Master List of downtown Manhattan loft sales earlier this month (it closed on May 1, but the deed wasn’t filed until the end of last month). The sales price ($3.2mm, or $1,641/ft) is kinda sorta impressive in this somewhat stodgy coop (truly) in the heart of Gramercy, and one of the pioneering coop conversions (1973!). But it was the exceedingly simple, exceedingly efficient floor plan that caused me to bank the headline above and a link to the listing for a future (now, present) Manhattan Loft Guy post. Does it seem obvious that this is the ideal 2-bedroom floor plan for this footprint?

simple squares + rectangles that leave a great Great Room

In real life, those straight lines permit the sense of volume evident in this photo:

window after window, beam after beam, the space just rolls away from you …

The simple design lends itself easily to being broken up, not by walls, but by furnishings, into discrete areas (first, dining, then two seating areas). The 11 foot ceilings and huge windows help make the space feel as large as possible, while the beams give the high enough focus points to enhance the sense of distance.

Again, this is simple stuff, but (to me) there is a subtlety about the result that impressed me even before I looked back at prior iterations of this space. In fact, it used to look like this:

an extra bedroom, but not many long straight lines or right angles

I can’t find any publicly available listing photos that go with the floor plan above, which is taken from the 2010 listing that generated a sale at $2.025mm. But here’s what the loft looked like in 2005, when (per our listing data base) it was offered for sale without selling:

raised dining area, dropped ceiling, + the edge of the curved wall, with fewer windows in the (not so great) room

And here is the same room, taken from the dining area, with the third bedroom at the end:

the other end of the curved wall is at far right, with another curve at the ceiling + the column rounded off

There is little sense of ‘volume’ in the space, as pictured in 2005. To me, the architecture is too clever by half: it was obviously done on purpose to offer rounded surfaces of various kinds (the massive column!) and to break up the space radically. Note, especially, the experience on entry, from the floor plan: you enter and make a hard right turn before bumping into that (angled!) wall, at which point you won’t have much sense of the windows, or the width of that window wall. The dropped ceiling (of various heights) is of the same mindset that raised the flooring at the dining area end of the open space. Again, obviously on purpose.

Now look again at the ‘now’ floorpan and main current photo: the ceiling is evidently dropped in the foyer, but the experience of quickly stepping down into the great room and quickly seeing the width and height of the main space is a completely different experience than the (sad!) visitors before 2011 had. You wouldn’t know that the 2005 photo just above and the 2015 main listing photo pictured the same space.

This is why I love looking at lofts, especially at lofts that change over time (and have listing photos and floor plans that help appreciate the changes): you see that true loft spaces, with their high ceilings, large windows and few load-bearing elements, lend themselves to a variety of uses. In a prewar apartment, you rarely even can open up walls (if permitted by the coop board, you’d likely mess with some platonic proportions), so the renovations tend to be more cosmetic; with lofts, as I often say, you can ‘erase the lines’ and start over, respecting only the limitations of specific plumbing stacks.

The folks who created the open #8F loft did so sometime after buying in May 2010 at $2.025mm. They resisted the invitation of the 2010 broker babble to just dress the space up:

With a little TLC … you can own and create a fabulous apartment in the heart of Gramercy Park.

The scale of their renovation is less evident from the two floor plans than from the photos or the new listing description. (After all, the plumbing rooms are essentially where they were, and the two 2015 bedrooms are where two were in 2010, though they are configured very differently.)

meticulously renovated …. Sprawling and sundrenched, the grand scale home has 11-foot beamed ceilings, beautiful prewar architectural details and has light streaming in from 12 windows across 3 exposures. A 12-foot entry foyer leads into a grand entertaining expanse spanning almost 50-feet with 8 enormous north facing windows. The state-of-the-art chef’s kitchen has ample room for dining and has been outfitted with custom cabinetry, Samsung double-door fridge, Bosch dishwasher, a Bertazzoni Stove and temperature-controlled wine storage. This airy, light-filled residence features pristine wide-plank white oak flooring throughout and there is a washer/dryer. The serene master suite has a luxuriously appointed bathroom with a generous double-shower and a sprawling custom-designed walk-in closet. A second spacious bedroom suite situated along the East wing of the home enjoys open city views and features ample closets and an impeccably appointed bathroom.

Regular readers of Manhattan Loft Guy may be surprised that there are few elisions in the broker babble boxed above. While in most cases the comments such as “grand scale”, “grand entertaining expanse”, and even “airy, light-filled” are examples of agents who simply try too hard, here they accurately describe the space (granted, I left in the cliche “serene master”, but the agent earned it). And, intentionally or not, these flights of whimsy highlight the differences that the 2015 sellers made after becoming 2010 buyers. None of these descriptions (“grand scale”, “grand entertaining expanse”, “airy, light-filled”) could fairly have been used in the 2010 babble.

If you still need convincing, I’ve not done this well, but here’s another 2015 photo, against which to compare the 2005 raised dining area photo above:

how could this be the same loft??

I hope these folks made a ton of money by creating a beautiful (simple!) Gramercy loft

In this round of Guess The Budget, I am clearly rooting for the 2010-buyers-turned-2015-sellers-after-renovating. We start with a simple timing adjustment, guesstimating what the loft would have been worth in 2015 had they not radically improved it. Using the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index as a single number proxy to represent the change the overall Manhattan residential real estate market, the loft bought at $2.025mm in May 2010 would be worth about $2.7mm now (the Index is up 33% from May 2010 to February 2015, the [still!!] last month in the Index). They just sold it for $3.2mm. Uh-oh ….

That leaves them (only) $500,000 to work with in a renovation budget. Any more than that, and they realized less than $1 in value for every dollar in the renovation budget; any less than that, and they got more than par. What are the chances that they could have done all this work (ceilings and floors, kitchen and baths, and [per our listing system] new windows) for less than $256/ft? Possible, but I’m worried ….

The finishes in this loft off Gramercy Park are not babbled quite as enthusiastically as the renovated-then-sold lofts I hit in a sequence earlier this month.

I worry about the Ruggles House sellers, because I so much like what they did (seemingly simple, delightfully rendered), and because $256/ft might not have covered it. Maybe the floor and ceiling work is not as expensive as I’d fear. And they didn’t move any plumbing, or install central air.

In a very real sense, the Guess The Budget game I play is irrelevant to their experience. They spent money well, in creating a new space that was far superior to the space that they bought. They got the benefit of living in that wonderful space for four years or so. I obviously have no idea what their financial situation is, or where they went after leaving East 19th Street, but I have no reason to guess they were disappointed in the round trip experience.

I will continue to play the Guess The Budget game, of course. For an outsider, it’s fun.

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

if you squint long enough, 44 Lispenard Street loft outperformed The Market

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods tribeca — No Comments ↓
playing with numbers in Tribeca … just playin’

StreetEasy is hit-and-miss with past sales history of Manhattan lofts, but with the “1,527 sq ft” loft on the 3rd floor at 44 Lispenard Street (in the original triangle / trapezoid below Canal) we have a multi-step history that goes back to 1998, when this 5-unit cast-iron loft building was converted to condominiums. The same loft that was bought from the sponsor in January 1998 for $458,500 was sold by that first owner in September 2003 for $1.1mm, then resold for $1.7mm in December 2006, and reached $2.3mm when it was sold again last month. Regular readers of Manhattan Loft Guy know how much I rely on the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index, which I consider to be the best single number proxy for activity in the overall Manhattan residential real estate market and which goes back to January 1995, so we have an opportunity to take this loft’s history almost all the way back to the start of the StreetEasy Index.

Of course, the StreetEasy Index, as they modestly put it, only

gives you a feel for how the Manhattan Condo Real Estate market performed over the past 15 years. [sic! it’s 20 years since 1995, StreetEasy folks]

The Index can’t be used, without more, to predict what a given loft will be worth in current market conditions based on past sales history, but it is useful tool. Looking at four sales of the 3rd floor loft over the past 17 years, we get a very macro sense of how this loft did in comparison to the overall market.

The more recent sales in the sequence show this loft only modestly outperformed The Market (while the overall market is up 23% from December 2006 to February 2015, the loft’s value increased 35%; from the earlier sale, the overall market is up 78% September 2003 to February 2015, while the loft’s value increased 109%), but the long view skews heavily to over-perform: the Index values tripled from January 1998 to May 2015 (up 203%) but the loft’s sale prices quintupled (not a word I get to use every day) from January 1998 to May 2015 (up 402%).

This is fascinating, or not, depending on your tolerance for market indexes in a non-commodity market such as Manhattan lofts. For me, such a long perspective is for fun, and just a bit of grist for wondering why these values deviate from the Index. Before wandering down that path, let’s consider the merits of this loft at this time.

a challenging Long-and-Narrow footprint, rendered coldly

I can’t put my finger on why, but this loft leaves me cold.

it’s not fair to hold staging against the loft, but …

As a professional, I should be able to look past the decor and finishes to bones pretty easily. We’ve got a nice long brick wall, exposed sprinklers, and high ceilings, with modern touches such as the Boffi kitchen and central air. Yet … I don’t see any character. Maybe it is better in real life, and perhaps it is the rather desultory effort to put some furniture in the space, and some items in the kitchen cabinets that off-puts me, but there’s nothing that excites me here.

The bragging is mostly about the finishes you see in the photo above:

full-floor loft, complete with 12.5ft ceilings direct private keyed elevator, North and South exposures, oversized wood framed windows, hardwood floors, and exposed brick walls, … that old-Tribeca vibe. …  a ducted central A/C and heating system, … a master suite that features Poliform walk-through closets and a Bazzazi tile bath with Kallista whirlpool tub, separate glass shower, Grohe fixtures and a custom double vanity.

… build-in [sic] speakers throughout. … ceilings are double layered for sound insulation.

… open Boffi Kitchen with Sub-Zero fridge, Meile dishwasher, Thermador range and Grohe/Franke sink.

No photos of the Poliform closets or the master bath with the proper proper names, alas. I have to guess its because these features look even less ‘lived in’ than the bare walls, stick furniture, and 19th century television in this redundant photo:

not a large budget for staging

I’ll eat my hat (figuratively) if the sellers were actually living in this loft when these photos were taken.

There’s no doubt (even without earlier listing photos) that the loft was just sold in the same condition as when the recent sellers bought it in December 2006. Here’s that broker babble:

12.5 ft. ceilings (double layered for sound), wood floors, exposed brick walls. Central A/C and heat, custom wiring/lighting and in-ceiling speakers. Large open Boffi Kitchen with Sub-Zero fridge, Meile dishwasher, Thermador range and Grohe/Franke sink. The master suite features Poliform walk-through closets, Bazzazi tile bath with Kallista whirlpool tub, separate glass shower, Grohe fixtures and a custom double vanity. W/D.

Thus, none of the change in value from $1.7mm to $2.3mm is due to a change in condition. This loft really did out-perform The Market, if modestly, in this time (again: while the overall market was up 23% from December 2006 to February 2015, the loft’s value increased 35%).

I also took a shot at the footprint in my sub-head above. It’s not the sellers’ fault, or even the developer’s. Most likely the reason the elevator is in the wrong place (for residential purposes) is that a late 19th century owner wanted to add the convenience of an elevator to an industrial building built without one, and added the elevator in the least expensive place: right on the front of the building (perhaps, originally, opening on to the sidewalk); the fact that the elevator blocked one of only three front windows was hardly important more than 100 years ago.

Long-and-Narrow, with windows front + back, but fewer windows because of the elevator (I hate when that happens)

Go back up to the first photo above to see how much that front corner window is missed. Again, it is nobody’s fault (nobody still alive, at least), just unfortunate.

not hating on the building, just this loft

The Market treated this loft pretty well, at least in historical pricing terms. And it didn’t take long, as the loft came to market on January 5 for $2.5mm and found the contract by March 8 that closed on May 19 at $2.3mm. $1,506/ft is hardly exceptional for a Tribeca condo loft, but this is a small no-frills condo (“private storage in the stairwell and basement”; no other amenities).

This loft is so … er … blah, that I didn’t realize at first that I was in this building two years ago. My buyer loved the 4th floor loft back then, but couldn’t crack the problem of laying out a 2-bedroom that wouldn’t ruin the charm of that space. The 4th floor could hardly look more different than the 3rd floor:

same brick, a similar kitchen, but a wonderful ‘feel’

Even the front of the 4th floor loft has a more open feel than on the floor below:

still only 2 front windows, but without that lofted closet (see the 3rd fl floor plan again)

I hit yesterday two same-building lofts further west in Tribeca that have very different looks. (That’s my June 17, Cobblestone Lofts seller surprised, disappointed that market at 28 Laight Street is so rational, of course.) While those lofts had similar footprints (and floor plans, in fact), they were not full-floor lofts or otherwise on top of one another. At 44 Lispenard Street, the 4th floor loft that sold in 2013 sits directly on top of the 3rd floor loft that sold last month,

What’s weird is that, though both are full-floor lofts, they have different footprints, hence, different floor plans. You see (above) that the “1,527 sq ft” 3rd floor really does use the entire rectangle of the building, less only that front corner elevator. But the “1,470 sq ft” 4th floor loft has another piece missing:

does the common stairwell sit in the southeast sliver? then where is it on the floor below??

You simply cannot squeeze a second bedroom onto this 4th floor footprint, not without an interior room that would ruin something else that is beautiful in the loft. (See that first photo above.)

The 4th floor is a wonderful 1-bedroom loft, though not quite big enough to qualify as a Manhattan Loft Guy One Bed Wonder. So the buyer pool for the 4th floor was limited to 1-bedroom buyers, unlike the larger pool for the 3rd floor. That buyer pool upstairs, while limited, was enthusiastic: that smaller loft came to market on April 4, 2013 at $2.15mm and was in a post-war contract within three weeks, closing at $2.35mm on July 18, 2013. Adjusting for time (with the StreetEasy Index, of course, up 16%), the 4th floor would be worth above $2.7mm in the current market.

That comparison makes sense, doesn’t it? The 4th floor should be worth at least 15% more than the 3rd floor, even as a 1-bedrrom-only, or 23% more on a dollar-per-foot basis. Put a $350/ft renovation budget into the 3rd floor (without touching the Boffi kitchen or the Waterworks master, that should go quite far) and you’d have something comparable to the 4th floor.

Fascinating! Much more interesting than an Index-based set of 17-year old numbers.

 

 

 

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

Cobblestone Lofts seller surprised, disappointed that market at 28 Laight Street is so rational

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods tribeca — No Comments ↓
… while fact-based outsiders smile

The folks who just sold the “3,216 sq ft” Manhattan loft #3A at 28 Laight Street (Cobblestone Lofts) in the spillway of the Holland Tunnel in northernmost Tribeca thought a year ago they were selling a $6 million loft. They weren’t, and they needed two price drops and a major negotiated discount to sell last month for 7-figures less than their first ask. On the one hand, as an empathetic human, you hate to see that happen to anyone; on the other hand, as an informed observer of the Manhattan residential loft sales market, neighbors who were offering a larger loft down the hall took a long time to sell while asking the same price as the loft #3A sellers, so there’s some comfort to the rational way this played out.

Putting the dual (and dueling) histories in the same table, we see how #3A and the “3,577 sq ft” loft #3E did in overlapping marketing campaigns:

#3A April 4, 2014 new to market $6.25mm
#3A April 26 $5.995mm
#3E May 2 new to market $5.75mm
#3E June 5 change firms, not agents
#3A Nov 22 $5.75mm
#3E Dec 1 contract
#3E Jan 12, 2015 sold $5.35mm
#3A Feb 23 contract
#3A May 28 sold $5.09mm

For similarly large lofts on the same floor of the same building, there are fascinating differences in the interiors of #3A and #3E. For now, it is obvious that the #3A sellers believed their loft to be rather superior to loft #3E, but we’ll defer that aesthetic review until we pound on the table above.

There is an old saw that listing agents sometimes use in pricing conversations with sellers who want to ask an … er … aggressive price:

you won’t sell your unit at that price, but by asking that price, you will help a neighbor sell their loft

Isn’t it obvious that the #3E sellers came to market at $5.75mm one week after the #3A sellers dropped their ask to $5.995mm in order to take advantage of the fact that the smaller #3A was priced above #3E? And isn’t it obvious that the #3E sellers were comfortable holding at $5.75mm so long as the #3A sellers were comfortable holding above that price? And isn’t it obvious that any buyer interested in one of these lofts from May through November 2014 would also have considered the other?

The Market, of course, didn’t like either of these lofts at their asking prices, but at just about the same time that a serious buyer was negotiating to drive a discounted deal for #3E, the #3A sellers decided to match the asking price. That didn’t work, at least not for some months and not until a serious change in expectations.

The result for loft #3E was a sale at $1,496/ft, a 7% discount to ask, after sitting on the same ask for seven months. The result for #3A was a sale at $1,558/ft, 11% off the last ask ($741,000 off!) and 19% off the first asking price ($1,241,000 off!!) after sitting on the market for 10 months. All the while that they competed with their #3E neighbors, the loft #3A sellers behaved as though The Market should prefer their smaller loft to the larger one even on absolute dollars. In this, they were wrong. They weren’t wrong that their loft should be worth more on a dollar per foot basis, which leads us to consider the aesthetics.

two lofts that don’t look like they are in the same building

Loft #3A has a traditional (some might say ‘classic’) loft look:

open joists, exposed electrical + sprinklers, exposed (whitewashed) brick walls

Loft #3E has a very sleek look:

dropped ceiling with recessed lighting (+ a/c?), fancy fireplace surround, modern (not very loft-y) light fixtures; I’m not seeing any brick

If not for the very similar scale and ceiling height, and the identical flooring and windows, you’d not guess these two lofts are on the same floor of the same building.

In the case of the more ‘authentic’ 3-bedroom + 2.5 bath loft #3A, it’s all about the charm of the interior:

exudes 19th Century charm, warmth and sophistication. Original architectural details include exposed, white-washed ceiling joists, original exposed whitewashed brick, an inviting wood-burning fireplace and wide plank maple floors. … open, maple & granite kitchen has a huge pantry and vented, Thermadore appliances.

Sitting just north of St. John’s Park (which I refer to more accurately as the Holland Tunnel spillways), south-facing units at Cobblestone Lofts (like #3A) get terrific light, and open views, as babbled:

Incomparable light streams in from the oversized, South-facing windows. There are additional windows on the North, West & East sides. The home has high ceilings throughout and the large windows frame direct vistas of Freedom Tower [sic; One World Trade Center] and south Manhattan from the major rooms.

yes, 4 exposures, but don’t expect much light in the north end of the loft

Instead of the light and views of #3A, the 3-bedroom + 2.5 bath loft #3E emphasizes “quiet”, as well as finishes:

on the quiet side of the building, … an elegant foyer … leads to the massive Living Room with a row of north-facing windows and a wood burning fireplace. A large recently renovated Walnut kitchen basks in light from a row of south-facing windows and features a pantry. The kitchen features Sub Zero, Miele, Thermador and Bosch appliances with White Aleutian stone countertops and Calcutta marble backsplashes, not to mention the 40-bottle Lliebherr wine fridge. … The Master Suite features huge closets, expertly fitted out with a generously scaled 5-fixture bathroom.

The floor plan is very similar:

essentially, a mirror image of #3A, no? just 316 sq ft larger (a few feet here, a few feet there …)

As noted, for the six months in which both lofts were actively for sale it is inconceivable that anyone interested in one of these lofts would not also have seen the other. A buyer might prefer the sleek look of #3E to the more classic #3A, but a dollar sensitive buyer (is there another kind of buyer??) might reasonably have inferred before November 22 that the larger loft #3E could more easily be negotiated than the smaller loft #3A.

In fact, of course, both sets of sellers were negotiable, but the #3E folks found it much easier to hold closer to the $3.75mm that they both were asking at the end of their respective marketing campaigns. Loft #3E sold for more dollars; loft #3A sold for a higher price per foot.

But it certainly appears as though the loft #3A sellers were disappointed.

it is difficult to assign value to this light and that view

The $62/ft difference between the two lofts strikes me as curiously small. All the windows in loft #3E seem to look at brick; while the three south windows in both the living room and master bath in loft #3A enjoy the long open views toward the new World Trade tower. The tunnel is a distraction from the view, or worse, but that’s a very small premium for ‘a’ view, which loft #3E entirely lacks.

Curious, indeed, for an outsider trying to figure out how the impersonal market works. Infuriating, perhaps, for individual loft sellers trying to convince individual loft buyers that the view and light are premiums worth much more.

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

Soho loft with the most awkward kitchen sells above ask at 543 Broadway

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods soho — No Comments ↓
a triangle, if only on paper

How far would you consider it acceptable to walk to the refrigerator to get, say, vegetables to wash in the sink? If you said “really far, and please, can we put a door in the way as well?” then you might be the seller of the “2,300 sq ft” Manhattan loft on the 7th floor at 543 Broadway in the heart of Soho, which sold (above ask!) for $3mm on May 14. or perhaps you were the seller before that, when the same loft, in the same condition and configuration, sold for $2.275mm two years earlier. (We’ll get to that anomaly in a bit, but stay with me n the kitchen, please.) I wouldn’t have thought there were two people with such a preference, but that’s the fun of looking at Manhattan lofts every day … you see some things that are very impressive and you see some things that are weird.

This kitchen doesn’t look too weird, on first look:

sounds good: “open kitchen with top-line, stainless steel appliances including wine storage, gas range, a large pantry and a center island”; it is a big space, with lots of storage; there’s even the thoughtful addition of electric outlets in the island

And the pantry is large:

wait, what’s that RF in the pantry??

It is a bit of a cliche in kitchen design to talk about The Work Triangle. Here’s one basic treatment, with guidelines!

it is a triangle — albeit an imaginary one — that has always been an important element of a kitchen’s design and functionality.

The “work triangle” is defined by the National Kitchen and Bath Association as an imaginary straight line drawn from the center of the sink, to the center of the cooktop, to the center of the refrigerator and finally back to the sink. The NKBA suggests these guidelines for work triangles:

  • The sum of the work triangle’s three sides should not exceed 26 feet, and each leg should measure between 4 and 9 feet.
  • The work triangle should not cut through an island or peninsula by more than 12 inches.
  • If the kitchen has only one sink, it should be placed between or across from the cooking surface, preparation area, or refrigerator.
  • No major traffic patterns should cross through the triangle.

Efficiency is the triangle’s main goal, as it keeps all the major work stations near the cook, without placing them so close that the kitchen becomes cramped. The work triangle is also designed to minimize traffic within the kitchen so the cook isn’t interrupted or interfered with.

 It’s a great convenience to have a refrigerator in the pantry, but not so convenient to have the refrigerator in the pantry. Without walls, there is a triangle from the frig to sink to stove, but there are walls, so the triangle is broken. Frig to stove involves a U-turn in this set-up.
You will often see prewar apartments with tiny kitchens that, after expansion, have a refrigerator around a corner, or separated from the main body of the kitchen. I’ve never seen a huge kitchen in a large loft set up like this, however. There are so many different ways to design this kitchen so that the frig is easily accessible from the sink, the stove and the prep surfaces that it is almost as if the frig placement was a design feature rather than a bug. Without disturbing the footprint, you could put the frig where some of the cabinets are, or put two low units under the counters on either the island or the corner near the sink. And if you were stuck with putting the frig in the pantry, you could put it near the door instead of on the far wall opposite the pantry door.

My experience of visiting this loft with a buyer in 2013 was a bit surreal. We’d seen but hadn’t studied the floor plan in advance, and were more focused on the mess of walls and plumbing in the back of the loft (how to rationalize that part of the layout?) than on the large open kitchen. When we went into the pantry and the lightbulb went off in my head, my buyer was puzzled about why I was chuckling. I pointed to the frig, which he thought a wonderful convenience, until he realized that the frig was the frig. I don’t think anyone else at the open house got the joke.

The Market and Manhattan Loft Guy, not on the same page (again)
As noted, I saw this loft with a buyer in 2013, when it could have been had for $2.275mm (had been had for $2.275mm). It wasn’t worth it to my guy then, as there was just too much work for his taste. To him, it was a total gut job, a matter of erasing all the lines on the floor plan and starting over. Or, if that Waterworks bathroom in back was worth saving (and building around), leaving the back pretty much as is and rationalizing the kitchen. That the kitchen had to be reconfigured (if not gutted) seemed obvious to him. And to me.

But we know that is not what happened, and that the buyer in 2013 at $2.275mm did quite well for herself in selling last month. The overall Manhattan residential real estate sales market was up 20% in those two years (per StreetEasy’s Manhattan Condo Index, of course). That simple time adjustment implied that the loft would be worth about $2.75mm in 2015, so a data nerd might think that the 2013 buyer was pushing it a bit by coming to market on December 12 at $2.85mm.

Of course, in the real world at least two buyers thought the $2.85mm asking price was a bargain, and the new owner just paid $3mm for the same loft in the same condition as when it sold for $2.75mm 24 months earlier.

I assume there is a renovation budget on top of the purchase price, but you never know.

windows are sorta awkward, also

The broker babble highlights the south exposure (those five windows on the long wall in the floor plan above).

This is the first floor that clears the neighboring southern building and therefore has windows facing south as well.

While true, this feature is not as much fun in real life as on paper. Start with the building photo, which includes that neighbor to the south.

7 is the floor just below the arched windows; see what’s south at that level?

Here’s what the windows contribute in real life, in this case in the master bedroom:

you’ll never see out that window, but without it this isn’t a “bedroom”

These five south windows are real windows, they just don’t do as much as most windows do. Not that it mattered in 2015: asked $2.85mm, sold for $3mm. Even with those windows up by the ceiling and that frig-in-pantry. Go figure.

out-performing The Market, even in a very mature Soho market

Soho hasn’t been an up-and-coming real estate sales market for many years. As a well developed (“mature”) submarket, the theory is that there should be limited opportunity for outsized gains, and limited risk, compared to markets that are ‘developing’. But theories are macro, and individual sales are data points.

As I noted above, the overall Manhattan residential real estate market is up 20% from May 2013 to February 2015, while this 7th floor loft went from $2.275mm to $3mm. (When will StreetEasy update the Manhattan Condo Index beyond February 2015??) The Index suggests that this loft would have been worth about $450,000 more this year than the $2.275mm the recent seller paid to buy it in May 2013. Instead, the loft was actually worth $725,000 more (a gain of 32%).

Go figure.

 

 

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

spectacular renovation of Village penthouse loft is not quite as well received as renovator hoped at 42 East 12 Street

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods village — No Comments ↓
Manhattan loft renovations don’t get much more gut than this

In the broker babbling world, it seems that no modifier faces a bridge too far. Most often, these flights of linguistic fancy crash and burn (“unique” should be allergic to modifiers), but in the case of the “1,760 sq ft” penthouse loft #7 at 42 East 12 Street the locution “total gut renovation” is a useful introduction. On the one hand, a gut is a gut is a gut, as there is no category for demolition beyond “total”, which is what “gut” means (should mean); on the other hand, a loft that, once gutted, has been rebuilt with new flooring (“sound proofed with extra insulation”), and central air, and a dropped ceiling with custom lighting and sound, and new windows, and radiant bathroom floors, and “Steve Morris’ custom iron columns” takes the loft into “uber” territory. Lots of loft renovations claim “[n]o expense was spared”, but few of those replace the floors and sub-floors or install new columns.

In other words, let’s not talk about demolition, let’s talk about creation. The recent sellers of this Greenwich Village penthouse loft created a wonderful loft out of a loft that, when they bought it in December 2012 for $2.4mm, had been babbled as having “exposed brick walls in excellent condition [and] original tin ceilings”, yet it “await[ed] your creative input, taste and design”. It was then a loft in which (cue the punctuation machine …) “[e]ndless possibilties abound!”

Their input, taste and design had a preference for brick but not for tin ceilings, alas. So the living room that used to look like this:

brick, but also tin ceilings (with exposed electrical and sprinkler) + window a/c

became this:

perhaps even more brick, but new ceiling, new windows, and those custom columns

A totally different feel, right?

playing with numbers, a Manhattan Loft Guy tradition since 2006 …

Before getting to more of the loft’s charms, let’s skip to the bottom line. The December 2012 buyers thought The Market would love their “creative input, taste and design” a bit more than it did, as they came out at $4.2mm on October 16, 2014, and needed a price drop to $3.95mm to get into the contract by February 20 that closed on April 30 for (only) $3.7mm. That had to sting.

The StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index implies that the loft would have been worth without any renovation just over $3mm (the Index is up 27% from December 2012 to February 2015). You see where this is going, right? We played Guess The Budget about renovations in Chelsea (in my June 4, million dollar renovation at 144 West 27th Street?) and on a Greenwich Village block just south of today’s loft (in my June 5, there are spectacular Manhattan loft renovations, then there’s this 54 East 11 Street loft renovation), so I won’t repeat the principles or process (or limitations!).

In the earlier case, I guesstimated that the High Kicking Seller didn’t profit much because of the renovation from a round trip (with renovation) of a “2,400 sq ft” loft on a very similar schedule to that of today’s penthouse loft. (That one was bought in November 2012 for $1.65mm, renovated “beyond aesthetic reproach”, and sold last month for $3.125mm.) The “2,200 sq ft” loft on East 11th Street looked like a very different Guess The Budget result, having been bought in June 2011 for $1.925mm and sold in April for $4.3mm, with (very likely) a significant premium for the renovation.

Today’s penthouse loft didn’t reach the dollar level of the 54 East 11 Street level, but it’s only “1,760 sq ft”, so it closed higher on a dollar-per-foot basis ($2,102/ft v. $1,955/ft). Sadly, for the recent sellers, the 42 East 12th Street penthouse was purchased for $2.4mm, while the 54 East 11th Street loft was (only) $1.925mm. That one was babbled as using materials that “exceed that of the finest hotels”, so it may well be the equal in quality of today’s loft a block north.

The economics of the two round trips are very different, with the sellers of the 54 East 11th Street loft having created significantly more value through the renovation than a simple adjustment for time and condition would imply. Today’s penthouse sellers? Not so much, as the loft would have been worth about $3mm if they hadn’t gutted it; they got only $3.7mm after what is clearly a magnificent re-creation. That $700,000 difference is (only!) about $400/ft, so if that’s what the 42 East 12 Street renovation project cost, they were flat.  Any more than $400/ft for the renovation, and The Market yielded less than a dollar in sales price for every dollar spent in renovating.

Assuming a $400/ft renovation budget at 54 East 11 Street, however, and those sellers realized about $700,000 more than A + B, where “A” is the time-adjusted value of the loft and “B” is a renovation creating one dollar in value for every dollar in budget. That’s about $1.78 in value for every $1 spent, after the time adjustment. For the 144 West 27th Street recent seller, the math is more daunting still. That seller broke even (i.e., got dollar for dollar for the renovation) with a budget of $300/ft and above that The Market yielded less than a dollar in sales price for every dollar spent in renovating.

It’s arithmetic like this that tells me that most people don’t buy lofts that need renovation with the plan to sell in just a few years. There’s just not enough money in it, and too much uncertainty. None of these sellers (at 144 West 27th Street, 54 East 11th Street, or 42 East 12th Street) lived in their loft more than a couple of years post-renovation, and they carried two residences in the time it took to do their renovation. There are eight million stories in the naked city, and these three sellers can tell at least three of them. I suspect the stories had little to do with economics, and more with Life . At least, I hope so.

meanwhile back in the penthouse on 12th Street …

Like the West 27 Street renovation, and unlike the East 11th Street renovation, the penthouse renovation at 42 East 12 Street left the prior layout substantially unchanged. In this case, the classic Long-and-Narrow footprint used to have a single bedroom across the rear; now it has two.

Before: basically, no walls, with the front corner fitting a home office and all the plumbing behind the elevator

After: walls added only to split 2 BRs in rear; still a home office in front; plumbing rooms are all new, but located as before (a little longer, but on the same wall)

There are only so many ways to split up a classic Long-and-Narrow loft that has no side windows. The 2012 owners were happy in a One Bed Wonder with the authentic loft elements of brick, tin ceilings, exposed mechanicals. The new 2012 buyers brought their “creative input, taste and design” to the finishes, but there’s nothing creative about an owner who needs two bedrooms to split the rear wall in a Long-and-Narrow Manhattan loft. They liked the authentic brick, but not the tin ceiling, or the sprinklers.

I love that they didn’t sheath the plumbing riser, but am uncertain about the custom columns (which don’t appear to, you know, hold anything up):

After, looking to the (now closed) bedroom end, with new columns + an old riser

 

Before: we see all the way to the rear wall, we see the riser (+ pipes later re-routed), + we see no need for columns on the right wall

As with the 54 East 11th Street renovation, the 2012 buyers at 42 East 12th Street dropped the ceiling, obscuring the tin ceilings and sprinklers. I’m not a fan, generally, but admit the overall look is clean, and lovely. As a snob, however, I wish they wouldn’t do that.

some former neighbors are jealous

I love it when there are fairly recent sales in small loft buildings that yield reference points for post-renvaotion very recent sales. That was the case with each of the renovated lofts discussed here.

At the 6-unit 42 East 12 Street, we have a September 2014 sale of the “Pristine Gut Renovated” 2nd floor loft at $2.975mm. The simple time adjustment permitted by the StreetEasy Index is nearly flat, as the 2% gain in the overall Manhattan residential real estate market implies a current value for the 2nd floor of just under $3.05mm.

While both the 2nd floor and the 7th floor penthouse are fairly described as gut renovated, as we know that describes the scope of demolition but not the quality of the new loft. The 2nd floor broker babble and photos don’t suggest that these two lofts are truly comparable in condition. The Market thinks they are more than $600,000 apart in value, only a small portion of which is likely due to one being 60+ feet higher than the other. Light only gets you so much additional value, even from two skylights.

The 7th floor is just in a different league as far as gut renovations are concerned.

this is creative, but what is it??

this is the wall leading to the rear BRs; what are they growing on the floor??

I’ve seen a loft with a koi pond, and lofts with green (living) walls. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a wall dedicated to ceiling to floor plant lights, and (ivy??) before. And looking at this column, and knowing it isn’t structural … I don’t like it. Not authentic. Too much effort. YMMV (For the sellers, their mileage varied, a lot.)

 

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

there are spectacular Manhattan loft renovations, then there’s this 54 East 11 Street loft renovation

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in renovation opportunities and rew — No Comments ↓
… and The Market loved the Village loft renovation!

I really appreciated the renovation … er … cosmetic upgrade in that celebrity loft I hit yesterday, one on which so many characters were typed wondering about Bang For The Buck. (That’s my June 4, million dollar renovation at 144 West 27th Street?, obvs.) But I love the renovation of the Manhattan loft on the 5th floor at 54 East 11 Street (Atheneum House), just to the west of Grace Church in the central Village. I’m a little surprised by the depth of my ardor, as it lacks classic loft elements that I generally swoon over, such as columns and beams, and (relatedly) has a dropped ceiling, which I usually view as a missed opportunity. But there are bricks aplenty for us classic Manhattan loft snobs, and enough wood to delight my eye, even within the very sleek kitchen and bath finishes. I’m not the only one who loved it: someone just paid $305,000 over ask to own it (asking $3.995mm since February 4, it found that contract by March 2, and closed for $4.3mm on April 6).

Looks like we have (probably) bigger bucks spent here on East 11th Street than on West 27th Street, and (almost certainly) a much bigger bang.

We lack photos in the Before condition, on StreetEasy and in our listing system, but we know it sold four years ago for $1.925mm with a listing description that neither said anything about finishes nor directly implied this was then a renovation project. We know it had this floor plan:

a One Bed Wonder! note that the plumbing is all along the west wall

The footprint is classic Manhattan loft Long-and-Narrow, not so narrow at 22 feet wide, in this case with the flexibility of four west windows not used. (If you only need one bedroom, you only need one bedroom, no matter how large the space.)

The 2011 buyers certainly needed more than one bedroom, so they made this out of that classic Manhattan loft Long-and-Narrow footprint:

2 of the 4 west windows are used for BRs, with the baths moved to the east wall

You’re not supposed to say “family” in a listing description (for anti-discrimination concerns that are, to me, vastly overblown in this context), but I can use that description of the loft, as configured and pictured. After all, it takes a family to use this area (described on the floor plan, somewhat hilariously, as “play area / office”):

Note To Self: add slide and treehouse to my home office

And while you don’t need a family to make wonderful use of “a 23 foot floating Corian island” as kitchen / dining space, it certainly helps to have a brood for every meal, including at breakfast in the adjoining “breakfast room” that comfortably seats five:

babbling a Greenwich Village loft without restraint, without my usual ellipses

Regular readers of Manhattan Loft Guy know that I usually delete the more … er … poetic elements of broker babble when recounting in this blog the features of a loft. I will make an exception in this case, even to the point of italicizing parts that I usually leave out, as in this instance the listing description offers a perspective that I value:

ceilings of approx. 12ft and custom designed metal & English white oak bookshelves set against an exposed brick wall. Opposite the bookshelves is an 18 foot wide media platform also of white oak. This space gets strong even light throughout the day from 4 oversized north facing windows. The balance between materials such as wood, metal and glass creates the perfect soothing and modern environment. Adding to this tranquility is the lack of noise on this stretch of 11th street between Broadway and University Place.The living space flows uninterrupted into the dining & kitchen area which is dominated with a 23 foot floating Corian island. This island was custom built inside the apartment to be seamless and functions as a dining table and kitchen workspace — perfectly configured to balance casual home living with larger, more formal gatherings. Top quality appliances and finishes were used throughout the loft, and in the kitchen they include; Miele stovetop, Verona oven, Liebherr refrigerator, MGS faucets, a Julien sink and a Luceplan Hope lighting fixture. The far end of the kitchen has a charming seating banquet for quick meals and is lighted by 2 more large windows. Opposite this eating nook is a customized child’s play area with a built-in fort/treehouse. If this use of the alcove is not appropriate for your lifestyle it can easily be transformed into a home office.The second half of the apartment houses a guest washroom, 3 bedrooms and 2 full baths as well as a full-size laundry room. To compare these private quarters to a resort like a Mandarin or Four Seasons would be an understatement — the quality of the stones, wood and hardware used exceed that of the finest hotels. Space has been maximized in all parts of the apartment delivering abundant storage that is fully integrated into the layout without effecting the modern sensibility throughout. The master bedroom is the oasis you will by now expect to find with a continuation of the various wood and stone textures that make the entire home so unique. The millwork in the bedrooms is hand crafted walnut, the light is supplied by a Linestra lamp and a Discoco pendant light — all in addition to the 4 large southern facing windows. As you enter the master bathroom you are transported to a Zen-like spa where you are introduced to a Terramai teak wood lined wet area consisting of a Davinci Collection shower and Zuma Wetstyle tub. The double vanity has MGS & Fantini Milano faucets and the Kerasan toilet is wall mounted.The amount of detail that has gone into this masterful renovation is impossible to capture in pictures — in order to fully experience the beauty, tranquility and sophistication of this home you must come see it all in person.

I am truly sorry never to have seen this loft in real life, as I can readily appreciate that the photos don’t do it justice. Careful readers will note that I started this excerpt just after the broker babble used the cliche “gracious living space”, but, that misdemeanor aside, the listing description makes the sort of promises that are easy to measure in real life, and that will be held against the agent (worse, against the loft and its value) if the promises are not kept. So I can easily assume that the quality of this work, while suggested by the photos, in fact, is the equal far exceeds the quality of finishes and materials in the best hotels. (The $305,000 premium to ask is additional support.)

calling a bath a “Zen-like spa” is only a cliche if it’s not *really* a Zen-like spa; this one might well be

I can’t leave the loft without showing the main listing photo, the one that first made my heart soar in loft lust:

though not a fan of dropped ceilings … ooo-la-la!

It helps (a lot!) to have 22 feet across to work with, 12 foot ceilings to work under, and thigh-to-ceiling windows … but then you have to deliver a lovely loft. Signed, sealed, and delivered! At $1,954/ft in a no-frills coop, off the Gold Coast.

playing Guess The Budget!

I toyed yesterday with bang-for-the-buck numbers to assess the market impact of a truly lovely (if limited) renovation, hoping (for The High Kicker’s sake) that the budget on West 27th Street was $300/ft rather than $400/ft. Hard to see how all the work on the 5th floor at 54 East 11th Street was done for less than $400/ft, right? (Maybe more.)

Even at $400/ft, however, this renovation more than earned its keep. Adding that renovation budget to the 2011 purchase price ($880,000 + $1.925mm = $2.805mm) and adjusting for time (per the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index, up 29% since June 2011), you’d expect the 5th floor loft to be worth a bit more than $3.6mm.

This just in from the Department of the Glaringly Obvious: $4.3mm is quite a bit more than $3.6mm. So if the guess of a $400/ft budget is correct, and if the StreetEasy Index provides a valid way to adjust for time, the 5th floor renovation added about $1.77 in value for every $1 in renovation expense. Bang for buck!

Bounce the budget up to $500/ft, for [redacted] and giggles …. Adjust the baseline ($1.1mm + $1.925mm = $3.025mm)  for time, to a bit more than $3.9mm. See the report from the Department of the Glaringly Obvious, still vividly valid at this level. Bang for buck!

Try the same math games at $600/ft, I dare ya. (Hint: there’s still six figures in added value from this renovation.)

I not only love this loft aesthetically, I admire it arithmetically. Sigh.

what will the neighbors think?

When the 5th floor loft came on the market in February, the last closed sale in the building was a very nice, very light 7th floor loft, which (our system reveals) closed for $3,787,000 in November 2013. That broker babble is not quite as enthusiastic or persuasive as the set of 5th floor promises quoted so extensively above, but the 7th floor has “historic City views” and six more west windows than the 5th floor. Adjusting only for time (again with the help of the StreetEasy Index), the 7th floor would have been worth about $4.2mm had it come to market with the 5th floor in February. How much more is the 7th floor light, views and windows worth, and how much more is the 5th floor condition worth? (The finishes are very different, much more ‘classic’ on the 7th floor, but darn it, I prefer the 5th floor.) I dunno, and I am not going to guess.

It will be interesting to see where new owners on lower floors soon set values for one very rustic, very brick-y, very well-finished-if-to-your-taste loft, and for another loft, perhaps not as nicely dressed. There’s also the matter of a penthouse project “with numerous possibilities” (and with solaria but no outdoor space) to be valued by The Market, eventually. In a 10-unit coop, there should be a great deal of 2015 market data, instead of the single $1,954/ft data point extant.

My guess is that the 5th floor will hold its building record into 2016. I will now wipe my keyboard of any telltale drool.

 

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

million dollar renovation at 144 West 27th Street?

by Sandy MattinglyPosted on Posted in loft neighborhoods chelsea — No Comments ↓
lovely loft, interesting price above ask, sold by …

The recent sale of the “2,400 sq ft” Chelsea loft #7R at 144 West 27 Street at $3.125mm is old news by now to people who follow real estate gossip news (even though the sale was May 14 and the deed filed only on May 27), but the identity of the owner is only one element. The loft sold 4% over ask and needed only 11 days to get to contract, it did not sell two years ago in a brief campaign (3 weeks) at $3.25mm, it was beautifully renovated (some would say “incomparable and beyond aesthetic reproach”) after having been purchased in November 2012 for $1.65mm, yet it did not dramatically over-perform the hyper-local market. And for inside baseball fans only, the seller did not (formally) market it.

As with all cool Manhattan loft properties, we should start with the cool loft.

The broker babble lists things that were renovated in 2013:

8″ wide oak floors, central AC, radiators, electrical, windows, motorized shades, marble kitchen countertops, 6-burner Bertazzoni oven with commercial-quality outdoor ventilation system, Sub-Zero appliances, and LG washer/dryer system are all NEW. Also renovated were the powder room and the second marble bathroom, which has an extra-deep Tuma soaking tub.

The new master bath is ensconced in stone, possesses a couplet of marble sinks, and contains an oversized shower with rainforest showerhead.

One thing that’s interesting is that the layout of the loft changed only a little, from this

note the location of all the plumbing rooms + dimensions in the master suite

to this

new plumbing, but in the same places; master suite has a new entry wall, 2nd BR extends east, 3rd BR added

I don’t see evidence that anything else changed in the layout. But new floors, new central AC, new radiators, new electrical, new windows, new motorized shades, new marble kitchen countertops, new top-end kitchen and laundry appliances (with that professional exhaust), plus 2.5 newly done bathrooms … had to cost a few bucks.

The scale and the quality of work is evident from the Before and After main listing photos, of pretty much the same view and almost the same angle:

BEFORE: maple floors, beams + sprinklers painted to match the ceiling

 

AFTER: don’t think I’ve seen beams bleached to match the floor before; nicely complemented by the (copper?) finish on the sprinklers

If you toggle back and forth between the different angles in the 2012 and 2015 listing photos, it even appears as though the built-ins survived the renovation, but have been streamlined (lightened up) a bit. I have to admit, the ‘cosmetic’ work is dramatic, and a dramatic improvement over the almost rustic, heavier look of the loft Before.

Of course I am curious about how much this project cost, as the savvy seller put $1.65mm in to buy it November 2012, then launched on this vast renovation (a “collaboration between architect Eric Cohler and designer Paris Forino [that] is incomparable and beyond aesthetic reproach”); which was pretty quick work considering that brief marketing in May – June 2013), and then sold it for (date I say ‘only’?) $3.125mm last month.

I hope it wasn’t a million dollar renovation, in cost. (At “2,400 sq ft” of new floors, a/c, windows, shades, kitchen and 2.5 baths, etc, etc, a million dollar budget between architect Eric Cohler and designer Paris Forino is only $417/ft.) Let’s hope they spent only $300/ft, to give us some numbers to play with, before we get to the other elements of the sale that interest me.

If they spent $720,000 on the 2013 renovation on top of the 2012 purchase of $1.65mm, we can adjust that ‘nut’ for the change in market to resale to get an idea (nay, a guesstimate) of how well this buy-fix-sell worked financially. The overall Manhattan residential real estate market, as measured by the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index, is up 27% from November 2012 to February 2015 (the last month in the Index so far, alas), from 191.14 to 243.76.

The simple arithmetic of the Index gain times the purchase + $300/ft renovation budget implies that the loft would be worth just over $3mm today (February, alas). You see what I am so curious about that they actually did spend on the renovation. If $300/ft, they basically got dollar for dollar in increased value for the renovation by selling at $3.125mm, applying the market timing adjustment from the StreetEasy Index (close enough in big round numbers). A budget less than $300/ft, and they took more money out than they put in; a budget more than $300/ft and … (you see where this goes).

The more precise you try to be in applying these general guesstimates, the more likely that you are straining the data. But (on my assumptions) if they paid $400/ft for the “beyond aesthetic reproach” renovation, they only got about $0.80 back for every dollar. Interesting, indeed, at least to me.

how does the neighbor’s renovation compare, two floors below?

The “3,200 sq ft” loft #5R was the last loft sold in the building before #7R. It was sold by its owners in June 2013 for $3.35mm, or $1,047/ft. No offense to those owners, but I am not convinced that they got a market price (even getting $100,000 over ask), as I am not convinced that their loft was fully exposed to The Market. That quibble aside, the StreetEasy Manhattan Condo Index implies that a loft worth $1,047/ft in June 2013 would be worth about $1,235/ft as of February 2015. That’s within 5% of the dollar-per-foot value of the “beyond aesthetic reproach” #7R. Hmmm ….

The owner described #5R in 2013 as having been “gut renovated in 2011”, with “a definite WOW factor”, plus these specifics:

beautifully restored original maple floors, and walls of double height eco-friendly quiet windows. … brand new 6 zone central AC, an insta hot water tankless water heater, brand new high end stainless steel appliances, a washer/dryer, newly remodeled kitchen cabinets, a glass backsplash, and a restaurant grade 6-burner oven with commercial vent. … a 5 piece master bath with a soaking tub, glass shower and a television.

I would think the recent #7R sellers think that their renovation was of a higher quality, but those civilian owners of #5R got a dollar-per-foot price in June 2013 that scales (with the StreetEasy Index timing adjustment) to 95% of that achieved by the professional marketing campaign for #7R, just successfully concluded 4% over ask. Hmmm ….

you know who sold loft #7R, but when did the buyer know?

Readers of Curbed, watchers of Bravo, even readers of the New York Post, know the recent seller of #7R. Curbed covered it when it was a new listing five months ago, and again right after it sold, even before the deed was filed; Curbed might have been alerted to the sale by a New York Post item that identified the buyer as “British beauty Evelyn Webster, a Time Inc. executive vice president in charge of business operations and strategy” (also noting the celebrity seller, of course). I imagine that the listing was all over The Instagram, as well.

If you didn’t follow these media, however, you wouldn’t know from the Elliman listing who the seller was. Here’s the 2015 listing from Elliman, with one listing agent identified and pictured. (The StreetEasy listing has the same info about the listing agent, singular.) That’s not the seller.

Here’s the (short term) 2013 listing from StreetEasy, not accessible any longer on Elliman. There are two listing agents. And there are two words toward the end of the 2013 broker babble that are not in the 2015 broker babble: “Broker Owner”. I assume this was done on purpose, with the two words deleted from the 2015 listing, and only one of two (famously) teamed agents pictured on the listing, with the “Broker Owner” photo and name omitted. These are professionals, right?

This irks me. Perhaps only me.

I’ve carped about this “Broker Owner” thing before, including in my May 24, 2012, 40 Mercer Street news: nothing says successful new development like a 7-figure gain since 2007, where I relied on a timely notice circulated within the Real Estate Board of New York:

Outside counsel to REBNY’s residential real estate division write today:

Title 19 Sections 175.4, 175.5 and 175.6 of the NYCRR [the State’s rules and regulations, codified] do require a real estate broker to make disclosures to the other parties involved in a real estate transaction when the real estate broker has an ownership interest in the property involved in the transaction.

Those regulations do not specify when that disclosure is to be made, but counsel suggests it be made in writing when the NYS agency disclosure form is provided, and if that form is not required, at “first substantive contact”. Personally, I recall having often seen “broker/owner” at the end of broker babble on a sales listing, so I know that at least some agents do it that way. I assume this agent / seller did the right thing, but I think the better course is to put it in the listing description instead of (or in addition to?) relying on a separate written document to be provided.

I assume that in this case the buyer buyer was properly informed that the Million Dollar Listing Guy was the seller of #7R and that his business partner was the seller’s agent. I just don’t understand why agents don’t do this up front, in the broker babble.

I couldn’t find it in a quick search, but I recall another instance in which A Famous Manhattan Agent sold a loft, but was absent from the listing materials, and there was no mention of “Broker Owner” in the listing on the web. In that instance, the (single) listing agent was a junior team member, and that sale was the only one on her agent page that she had (purported to have) as her own exclusive listing, as ll her other listings were as part of the Famous Agent Team. Again, I don’t know what potential buyers were told face to face in any of the sales, but there seemed to have been a conscious effort to strip out from at least the web a bit of information that New York State law requires be given to buyers. Just as there seems to have been a conscious effort to delete the “Broker Owner” from the web listing for #7R, and to picture only one half of a two-person team as ‘the’ listing agent, singular.

Makes us look bad, no?

 

 

 

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