Jul. 30, 2007 - 372 Fifth little loft / NY Times On The Market
so small but so tall
Sunday’s On The Market feature in the Sunday real estate section of the NY Times included a Manhattan loft that is only “744 sq ft”, #3P at 372 Fifth Avenue. This former mercantile space (Best & Co., at one point) was converted to lofts about 25 years ago, many of which are rather small. But there are high ceilings, original structural elements (terra cotta vaulted ceilings, steel column), and an open layout.
Offered through Mara Flash Blum of Sotheby’s for $729k since early July (maintenance is $787/mo), #3P is one of those unusual small-but-true lofts.
The Pros vs. Cons analysis in the Times seems pretty fair:
PROS: This apartment in the former Best & Company department store has eye-catching details like vaulted terra cotta ceilings and a restored original steel column. The kitchen and bath were recently renovated with sleek finishes, including slate tile and black granite counters.
CONS: The apartment has only one window and has no view.
This building has a peculiar distribution of maintenance obligations, to say the least. #3P is $787/mo for what is said to be “744 sq ft”, while #10H is said to be “800 sq ft” (with a “300 sq ft” terrace) and is offered by Corcoran for $649k (with an offer accepted), with the notation that the asking price reflects the maintenance of $2,511/mo.
© Sandy Mattingly 2007
|
Comments (2) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link
View more entries tagged with: Fifth Avenue, Small Loft, Terra Cotta, Ny Times, Maintenance
|
Oct. 12, 2007 - RE: 372 Fifth little loft / NY Times On The Market |
| Posted by Nick Thorne |
| Huge Problems with maintenance and financials in this building. Reflected by the weird maintenance distribution and equally weird financial statements. The curious relationship it has with the store tenants on Fifth Avenue is also something to watch.. Maintenance has been steadily rising in this building with each annual report. so Id watch this one to see what the real maintenance will be in a few years. |
| Permanent Link |
Oct. 12, 2007 - RE: 372 Fifth little loft / NY Times On The Market |
| Posted by Sandy Mattingly |
Your comment caused me to look more closely at the distribution of shares in the building and to get a sense of maintenance history. I should do a full entry about how shares are allocated and maintenance gets set (when converted, shares should be allocated based on some notion of market value differences), but that is for another day.
Here’s the short story for this building.
I found 22 units that we have both the number of shares and a maintenance figure from when they were offered for sale, from 2004 through current sales. The data are consistent enough that I am confident that (a) the maintenance was $1.35/share in 2004 and/or 2005, and (b) the maintenance is (has been) $1.55/share in 2006 or 2007.
Two comments about the data set. (1) I can’t be certain about the years, because I can’t be sure the maintenance was updated or when the board changed maintenance, though it is generally at the beginning of the fiscal [calendar?] year. (2) One 2007 listing shows maintenance of $1.57/share, which is either an error or the result of rounding, I suspect; in any event it is close enough to $1.55/share.
I don’t think I would characterize a maintenance increase from $1.35/share to $1.55/share over three years (15%) as outrageous, but I don’t know what the prior history has been. If it happened over only two years, it would be of more concern, but there are many conceivable explanations that could be reasonable – depending on the prior history, of course.
It is hard to be very precise about share allocations without knowing the official sizes of these coop lofts, but – after a close review -- the anomalies seem to have explanations.
The 10th floor units in my sample definitely have more shares than typical, but that is because they have terraces or balconies. #10H is an example, with the “300 sq ft” terrace. #10F also has relatively many shares for a 1-bedroom (1,132 shares), but it also has a terrace.
The 3rd floor units have high ceilings (14 feet), so there is a rationale for allocating them more shares because of that. So it is understandable that #3L has more shares (1,121) than #7L (1,115).
Guess that was not such a short story, after all….
I have no information about other financial issues in the building, including the relationship with the stores. What have you heard about that, Nick?
THX for stopping by and for leaving a trace! |
| Permanent Link |
|
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