22 Mercer Street closes up since 2007


but not as well as neighbor
The Manhattan loft #2D at 22 Mercer Street closed on March 4 at $3.05mm, which makes for 2 interesting comparisons. First, it had been purchased in the initial offering of this relatively new condo conversion in January 2007 at $2.95mm, so it will (eventually) be added to my much-loved March 5 post, data dump: 20 Manhattan lofts sold in 2007 + recently. Second, that small gain of 3.4% was outdone by the original #2A buyer, who sold that loft on November 19 at a nearly 20% premium over the original purchase.

Both #2D and #2A have 2 bedroom, 2.5 baths layouts; both are oddly Long-and-Narrow (click on floor plans to understand); they are similar in size. Nevertheless, the developer pegged them at very different per-foot values. The original sale price for #2D ("2,392 sq ft") computes to $1,233/ft, compared to #2A ("2,047 sq ft") originally at only $1,030/ft. The recent sales close that gap quite a bit: #2D = $1,275/ft; #2A = $1,233/ft ($2.525mm).

developer error, or something I am missing?
What was the developer thinking, when pricing #2D to a 20% premium over #2A in the original offering? (Actually, the spread was even a little bigger, as #2A sold in December 2006 above the $1,000/ft asking price.) The aftermarket closed that spread to nearly a rounding error, at 3.4%. I can’t figure it out from the listing descriptions or the two floor plans — both of which are odd enough that you should click through to them. Neither is a great layout; neither is a classic Long-and-Narrow. Both have only 3 windows on one narrow living room wall, with the bedroom windows all seemingly view-less.

The developer knows a lot more about this building, these layouts, and available light than I do, but it’s just weird that the developer thought there was such a difference in value between these two same-floor lofts and that the aftermarket disagrees.

© Sandy Mattingly 2010

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply