Let's try something new for Manhattan Loft Guy. I give you two sales of same-size lofts in the same building, with condensed descriptions and listing histories, and you guess which one is from 2009 and which one is from 2005.

 

Both are said to be "1,600 sq ft", set up as two bedrooms and two baths. Both have high ceilings.

 

The Manhattan loft #6S at 29 East 22 Street was marketed as having "very bright" south and east exposures, a newly renovated master bath (with double sink), lots of storage, and (generally) in "excellent condition". (And, by the way, the second bath is inside the second bedroom / den.) Reading between the lines, there is not a lot of bragging going on, other than about the location, space, utility, and volume.

 

The Manhattan loft #3N at 29 East 22 Street was marketed as having north and east exposures, a "spacious" great room, split bedrooms, "abundant" storage, but nothing about any renovations. As with #6S, reading between the lines, there is not a lot of bragging going on, other than about the location, space, utility, and volume. In other words, the two lofts are pretty equivalent. (If the views were better in #6S than #3N I suspect we'd have heard of that in the listing descriptions.)

  

#3N $1.15mm ($719/ft) 

#6S  $1.375mm ($859/ft)
 

 

One of these Manhattan lofts closed on June 18, 2009, the other on February 9, 2005. Which is which?

 

If you are in doubt, the listing histories should help:

 

#3N
to market at $1.85mm
3 price drops in 10 months, to $1.395mm
contract after 11 months, closing after 14 months at $1.15mm ($719/ft) 

#6S

to market at $1.41mm

4 weeks to contract, closed 3 months later at $1.375mm ($859/ft)

Yes, it was #3N that closed one month ago, 16% lower than what #6S got almost 4.5 years ago. YIKES. I can't think of another loft with an implied loss of value like this since 2005 (assuming that the two lofts are as comparable as they appear to be; neither of the web listings are available on StreetEasy; indeed, neither of the listings appears on StreetEasy; is it because it is a true condop??).

 

© Sandy Mattingly 2009