Sep. 24, 2006 - how close is that hotel in the window? Light, lost; lowers lucre
More change + less light in Flower District loft = less value
I’ve had my internet eye on a West 28th Street loft for a buyer customer and had a chance to see it at an open house today. 1300 sq ft of “[u]nique loft with beautiful hardwood floors, original tin ceilings, open kitchen, 2 bathrooms, great light” seemed like something to check out, either at its September 14 price of $995k or especially at its September 20 price of $800k (it started in April at $1.195mm).
What’s down with that pricing? The listing agent (Paddington Zwigard at Brown Harris) sells a lot of lofts; she knows her stuff.
Having seen it “in person” I must say that the loft needs a lot more work than the listing (details here) implies. I knew already that the block is very commercial, with the last vestiges of the wholesale flower businesses on both sides of 28th St, but I was surprised at how worn the hallway was. But a lot of old loft buildings in commercial areas have crummy hallways and busy street scenes.
accounting for big dollar reductions
Although the unit needs a lot of work, that’s not the point of this story or the reason for its pricing slide. The unit is in the back of the building, not too far from the back of its 29th St neighbor, with four large windows giving some light from the rear. Four large windows on the east provide most of the light (and all of the “great light” touted in the listing). Today.
Seems that there is a 16 story hotel planned for the burned out commercial shell next door. The agent at the open house did not know how close the new hotel would come to the windows in 4D, but expressed the view that “all” eastern light would be lost.
Labor Day might not have been happy
That owner and Zwigard must have had a painful heart-to-heart after Labor Day (remember the post about post-Labor Day price drops?). They decided to drop $155k the week after Labor Day, then another $195k a week later. That is serious pain.
I will try to figure out when news of the hotel plans got out, but it looks as though the owner or agent discovered that problem this month.
test case of 2D with no light
Interesting that the same footprint on the second floor has been for sale since June – without any eastern windows at all. #2D was initially offered at $995k but that post-Labor Day discussion resulted in a drop to $925k. Without any light except from the rear windows, that unit is marketed by Corcoran’s Adam McLaughlin as “a quiet, generous space to create an urban sanctuary” “on the second floor in the rear of the building, [with] low light”. Note the white floors, white walls, white ceilings in the listing photos – they know they are dealing with a poorly lighted space.
So no surprises about light for anyone visiting 2D. But 4D visitors are in for a big surprise – and an explanation for dramatically dropping dollars.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (4) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: 131 West 28 Street, New Hotel, Lost Windows
|
Aug. 17, 2006 - Chuck Close lighting unresolved – stay tuned
That fascinating issue about whether a developer would get a variance to block the light of Noho artists’ studios (including that of Chuck Close) will continue for another month, and may be heading towards a negotiated resolution. I blogged about it in July; here’s an update.
Big artist calls out big art’s big guns
The Zoning Committee of Community Board 2 hearing that was to consider the variance application in mid-August has been adjourned while the developer talks to the artists whose light is at stake. Once again The Villager has the story.
Not surprisingly, the case attracted major interest in the art world, and The Villager describes two letters sent to government officials, one from Glenn D. Lowry, the Museum of Modern Art’s director, and one from Nan Rosenthal, a curator in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Department of 19-century, Modern and Contemporary Art.
The letters emphasize the importance of Close’s work, as you would expect from their sources. From a public policy perspective, however, I hope there will be commentary about whether and under what circumstances an “artist’s easement for light” should be required, or purchased.
Lowry wrote
“I understand the need for development. I also believe that a balance should be found between new construction and the protection of artists whose work has helped define a neighborhood and, in fact, our city. I would urge the Board of Standards and Appeals to carefully review the plans of the proposed project to insure that the building does not adversely affect Mr. Close’s working environment. Mr. Close is one of the United States’ leading artists and has long been an advocate of New York City’s importance as the cultural capital of the country,” Lowry wrote.
Ms. Rosenthal took the same tack:
“The project will block light from artists’ studios of long standing at 20 Bond St., including that of Chuck Close, the United States’ most brilliant colorist”. “Light is essential to Close’s work. Without it, Close will be forced to leave the building and Noho for brighter space, very likely moving his studio out of the city.”
“Close is not just an extraordinary painter and printmaker, he is also ‘Mr. Art World.’…. Close is handicapped (he had a spinal aneurysm in 1989 and is confined to a wheelchair) and having a studio where he can move his canvases easily from ground floor to basement mechanically — and still have light — is crucial.
“Please ask the developers to select a different plan,” Rosenthal urged.
Not surprisingly, the chair of CB2’s Zoning Community was impressed by the letters.
“Obviously, he’s a big shot because you get letters from two major museums about him specifically,” she noted. “It’s not just some little art gallery in the Village.”
Nothing against Chuck Close, but I wonder what would have happened if the developer had not needed a variance to build something that would block light from the 20 Bond Street artists. But for the variance request, the City would have nothing to say about the plans.
Like views, all light is provisional in Manhattan
While I don’t know this for sure, it appears that this is a situation of someone taking for granted the “fact” that they would always have light, because they “always” had. Presumably, Close and friends would have had the opportunity to offer cash to the owners of the undeveloped lot in order to protect “their” light, but they probably figured that they did not have to.
This is a situation similar to the folks at Lincoln Towers who had terrific Hudson River views (see the blog entry that got me started on Mr. Close’s situation), looking over rail yards that could “never” be developed – until The Donald did.
Stay tuned until late September.
Is your light at risk?
In the meantime, if you really need the light you currently enjoy in your loft, maybe you should research the development possibilities between you and the sun.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (3) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: None
|
Jul. 30, 2006 - More on lofts with views / Big Sky Country in the West 30s
LOTS of light near the Lincoln Tunnel
I went to a broker open house tour last week, which featured some beautiful lofts from 36th to 39th Streets between 8th and 10th Avenues. For purposes of this quick post, I only want to highlight how much sky (some with terrific views) is available to lofts in this not-yet-fashionable loft neighborhood.
Note that the two interior photos below do not feature well just how open the views are (a mistake by the listing agents, IMO). As I told the broker on one of these listings, that neighborhood features many lofts with views that are elsewhere available only for another million (or two) dollars.
As grist for a future blog post, a couple of these buildings have nearby development slated which will impact some of the views, but that is for another day….
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (4) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Views, West 30s
|
Jul. 18, 2006 - light more precious than views to an artist / more on losing views...
More than a river view or an Empire State Building-centered panorama, artist Chuck Close will miss his light, if a proposed NoHo development occurs, putting a unique spin on he question about the value of “views” I addressed last week.
Chuck Close depends on his north light
Lincoln Anderson in The Villager reports that Close’s Bond Street ground floor studio is in jeopardy if a Lafayette Street condominium is permitted to fill in a small space next to his studio. The proposed development would be a 7-story condo on Lafayette.
The main part of development would be ten to twenty feet from his studio, which would limit the north light in the studio. But a small portion (apparently a single story) would fill in the lot adjoining the studio, which varies from six to ten feet wide, and which would be flush against Close’s west wall, covering his windows on that side.
The developer needs a variance for any residential construction, so Close and other artists in the same building (as well as those nearby who are sympathetic) have the opportunity to marshal public opinion.
AIR at issue, but even AIR use could be fatal to the north light
One issue is the Artists In Residence restrictions still in pace on residential buildings in SoHo and Noho (which I would have said are all but dead, before seeing this article and City Council Member Gerson’s concerns about AIR remaining viable), but the more interesting issue (to me, and perhaps to Close) is the possibility of any new building eating his light.
The article explains why this studio is so important to Close. The ground floor location suits his wheel chair, he can bring canvases up from the basement through a slit in the floor and a pneumatic lift, and the main north light (supplemented by his two western windows) comes in through skylights (he paints under the skylights). He has used the studio for 18 years and now does four portraits a year.
The paintings sell for “a lot,” he said, “probably an obscene amount.”
Rauschenberg, et al. beget Schrager (a different kind of ‘artist’)
As Close says, the current values in the neighborhood flowed from the artists who have been there for years.
“Nobody wanted this neighborhood. We saved it,” he said on Tuesday, showing a visitor around his space. “Ian Schrager wants to build here [down the block on Bond Street] now because of the cachet.”
Close has some heavy artist firepower in his neighborhood.
Other notable artists, including Robert Rauschenberg, Robert Mapplethorpe, Frank Stella, Brice Marden, Jean-Michel Basquiat and Robert Franks, have also made or continue to make Noho their home, Close wrote in a July 7 letter to the Board of Standards and Appeals, which will consider the variance applications at its July 18 meeting.
Why didn’t he buy it?
Close’s argument boils down to a claim that no one should be able to build in such a way that eliminates his light because the original use of that space was as a courtyard between “his” building and a now demolished townhouse. If he were not the special artist that he is, with the physical limitations that he has, this would be an almost laughable argument. If keeping that space empty was so important to him, he could have bought it, probably with the “obscene” money he makes for his portraits.
In his favor, perhaps, is that the proposed use needs a variance from the Board of Standards and Appeals, but it appears that even an as-of-right development on that site would be fatal to the light in the studio.
The Zoning Committee of Community Board 2 will issue an advisory ruling before the BSA hearing tonight. After that, eh losing side may pursue administrative or judicial appeals. But Close maintains that if the developer is allowed to proceed he will have to leave the city.
The stakes are high
“This [the studio] can’t be easily duplicated,” he said. “If I lose my light, I’m gone”
Essentially, Close is claiming some sort of artist’s-light-easement, which has never been recognized in any court so far as I know. There is not enough detail in The Villager article to be able to tell if there are any compromise shapes or accommodations that can be made to preserve the studio’s light. I suspect that Close would (and should) be wiling to pay a lot of money to keep hi slight by reducing the developer’s “rights’ to build, if such a result is even feasible.
The intersection of Art, politics and Real Estate
But the developer certainly runs the risk that he will be denied his necessary variances because BSA listens to the neighborhood artists and Council member Gerson. If he does, I wonder if he will build whatever he can there as of right (or sell to someone who will), accomplishing the same result for Close.
© Sandy Mattingly 2006
|
Comments (5) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Artist Studio, Light, Noho, Artistinresidence, Chuck Close
|
Jul. 11, 2006 - Now you see it (and pay for it), now you don’t / what are views worth?
The article talks about a (non)buyer on the seventh floor at 21 East 22 Street with (that day) “city views” and a partial view of Madison Square Park, whose feet got cold when plans were discovered to build a 40-story residence at 20 East 23 Street.
Similarly, some owners at The Century, 25 Central Park West (at 62nd and 63rd Streets) are losing Central Park views with the construction of the full-block 15 CPW, which has a 20 story tower in front of a 43 story tower. This new building will also take some park away from some lower floors at the Mandarin at Time Warner.
Fired! Your view has been Trump'd…
The article also talks about the views lost at 100 UN Plaza (52 stories at First Avenue and 48th Street) when the 90-story Trump World Tower (truly ‘Trump-over-sized’) was finished five years ago just to the south. I don’t know if values at 100 UN Plaza have recovered yet. Owners facing south in 100 UN Plaza (easily half of the units) lost nearly all of their southern views 15 years after the building was built.
What goes around…
Ironically, the article uses the Lincoln Towers buildings (about ten 30-story towers along West End Avenue in the high 60s) as an example of development that can both destroy views and increase real estate values. When the Towers were built in the late 1950s, anyone to the east that used to enjoy Hudson River boats and colorful New Jersey tinted sunsets lost all of that. But – over time – the introduction of so many new residents increased services over time and, thus, property values in the neighborhood.
"The construction of the Lincoln Towers [on the Upper West Side] worked as a positive," Kammerer said. "The expensive limestone buildings enhanced the neighborhood."
When an entire complex of properties like the Lincoln Towers is developed, it elevates the value of neighboring properties, translating into higher property values.
"There is a loss of scenic view but the association to the new units and upgrade in retail services increases the property value," Miller said. "However, more times than not, the view is blocked, but the neighborhood remains unchanged."
Trump’d again!
What’s weird about this example is that it was The Donald’s development over the old rail yards in the West 60s that caused the west-looking Lincoln Towers apartments to lose 95% of their river views, beginning with the first ‘Trump Place” apartments on ‘Riverside Boulevard’ in 1999.
The Lincoln Towers folks undoubtedly looked out over the rail yards for forty years and figured no one could build over that. No one but The Donald, as it turned out.
My sense if that there had been about a ten or fifteen percent differential within Lincoln Towers for apartments with river views, which was eliminated essentially overnight once the Trump Place towers started going up (eight towers in eight years), but that values have gone up, nonetheless. In contrast to the Miller quote above, in this case, the neighborhood improved. ("There is a loss of scenic view but the association to the new units and upgrade in retail services increases the property value," Miller said. "However, more times than not, the view is blocked, but the neighborhood remains unchanged.") Driving prices north.
But the Lincoln Towers folks (and the 100 UN Plaza folks) who lost the views lost the views. I suspect that in most cases they would – if offered such a hypothetical choice –have opted to keep the views and lose the added-Trump-value.
Increasingly valuable, increasingly fragile
Appraiser Mitchell Maxwell Jackson has data suggesting that the value of a “view” has increased dramatically, just as the scope of new development puts more views at risk.
“In 1983, apartments without views compared to apartments with views had a 10 percent difference in the price. But in 2005, the same apartments were resold with a 38 percent difference in price, the analysis found.”
The differential is undoubtedly greater when “the view” being valued is a great view. Once again Trump provides relevant data, since his buildings are either overlooking park or river (Trump Place at Riverside Boulevard, Trump International Tower at Columbus Circle) or are really tall (Trump Tower, 68 stories on Fifth Avenue at 56 Street), or both (Trump International).
In looking at three Trump condos and comparing “view” apartments to “non-view” apartments in those buildings, Mitchell Maxwell Jackson found:
“In 1983, the difference in prices of a two-bedroom apartment with a view was 31 percent. In 1995, the difference was 71 percent, and in 2004, the difference in prices for an apartment with a view was 148 percent.
"The markets now recognize the value of light and views and developers now price much more aggressively for this," Jackson said.”
Add 40% to take your breath away
Overall, Jonathan Miller puts “breathtaking views” at a huge premium:
“The impact of view on overall property values can vary, with breathtaking views making up 20 to 40 percent of a given apartment's value, said Jonathan Miller, president of appraisal firm Miller Samuel.”
Using protection?
The best (only?) way to understand the risk and life-expectancy of a given view is to hire a zoning attorney to review the parcels in the relevant sight line. Then, take a deep breath and try to guess what the future will bring. What changes in the city might make it possible that the present zoning could change enough to change (destroy) your coveted view? My crystal ball is fuzzy….
Again, take another deep breath: as Miller says “"Enjoy the view while it lasts,"”
(He notes that “lot line” views can have a particularly short life time, but that is a segue for a different post….)
Bottom line for many lofts – feh?
Classic (original) lofts in original loft areas tended to have more to do with ‘sky’ than ’view’, so their values are not as dependent on views. (Some of the original Soho lofts barely have any light to begin with; many financial district lofts have ‘canyon views’ and light, with a short visual prospect) The newer uber-lofts in condo towers are more dependent on views for value, of course.
Even with the older lofts, there have certainly been instances of new buildings spoiling views and, in some cases, even light.
Residents of the American Thread Company (260 West Broadway) with north views on lower floors are losing nearly all of their northern exposure with the construction of the new boutique hotel on what had been a one-story AT&T garage facility. They had enjoyed the view and light for 25 years.
Residents on the west side of 261 Broadway are losing all of their view and most of their light with the construction of a tower next door (the broker who last year sold one high floor unit that was affected conducted open houses with butcher paper on three or four windows so that everyone understood what would happen – brilliant!). Also a 25 year old view.
|
Comments (5) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Manhattan, Lofts, Views, Trump
|
|
on matters of interest to Manhattan coop or condo loft apartment dwellers, buyers, sellers, and others, especially about New York City real estate
Links
• Home
• View my profile
• Archives
• Email Me
• Blog Manager
|
RSS Blog Feed