A steal in SOHO?

Look carefully, this loft is made of paper.

Correction!Pls. ignore my comment.

I think it is the lack of windows

This price is consistent with other sales in building. A quick look at the comparables shows apts in this building tended to take a long time to sell even at the height of the market and many underwent very substantial price reductions in the process. So in terms of this particular building, the unit you ask about is not priced low. That leads me to suspect there is a reason the building cannot garner higher prices. It may be building quality, precise location on the block (e.i., over a subway and the whole place shakes every 3 minutes), finances, or business structure. The unit you mention also looks like it would be quite dark and appears to be a lower floor without any side windows and the sleeping areas are windowless.

If you go to the open house, let us know what you find!

Crap.

Typical (in a bad way) SoHo loft, with windows at only one (!) end. All the 'sleeping rooms' are illegal, of course. Way too thin.

Good only as a bowling alley.

The square footage of 2300 seems to be calculated incorrectly. It is 20 wide and at the most 100ft deep - 2000 sq ft. That combined with very little light and an extremely busy location justifies the low price. Perhaps it is still too high.

All you need to do is look at the floor-plan to see what's 'wrong'. The windowless cubby-holes they call 'sleeping areas' make me shudder--talk about dreary.

Great if you're a vampire or into spelunking, though...

This is a GREAT loft if your a vanpire who hates sunlight. It's the next best thing to living in an underground bomb shelter.

Also, it only has one bathroom, which (even setting aside the lack of windows in the sleeping areas) would make it difficult to use as a two bedroom.

After reading the comments, I had the check out the listing. Um, it's a 2000+ SF apartment with 2 windows. Why on earth would someone pay $1.75MM to sleep in windowless rooms?!?!

Might be great as a warehouse, I guess.

Last summer this place would have sold for $2.5M and the buyer would have been ecstatic to get it. Of course it would of been bought with 5% down and no income verification. Two months after he/she would have had appraised, resulting in the approval of a $250,000 HELOC.

WOW how times have changed. It's actually funny reading old post of some people. Last year about 95% of the posters would have said this was a great deal. It's nice to see those who stuck around are at least able to change their minds, I admire that much more then some idiot that keeps towing the company line. Thank you.

Can we have a show of posters, wind the clock back 12-18 months and think about it from the bullish market's perspective of 12-18 months ago. Ok, so how many of you would have thought that this was a great deal last year and you would have actually paid up to $2.5 million for the apartment? Be honest about it and let's put dco's challenge to the test honestly.

The apartment's footprint is 100 by 20; let's call that 2,000 square feet. Using Miller Samuel data (which includes Tribeca, because SoHo by itself is too small a data sample) in 2Q, co-op footage in studios (which technically, this is) went for $852 a square foot. That would imply a price on paper of $!,704,000.

now, I'm not from Elliman so I don't know if this is how they priced it -- but you can make an argument for starting with that "average" studio price and then upcharging a little because the apartment is so big.

Lofts sell on light and windows, but they also sell on volume and on kitchens, and I can't comment on those two factors because I haven't been in the space.

ali r.
{downtown broker}