295 Greenwich Street (Greenwich Court)

The North Building rises eleven stories over a cellar to roughly 100 feet, stepping back at the second floor and again at the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth — a massing that produces terraces on the upper lines and keeps the street wall low against Greenwich Street. Large recessed windows in sliding sash animate the brick. The commercial unit occupies the ground floor and cellar with frontage on all three streets, which is why the base of the building reads as retail on every side.

The residences occupy floors two through eleven. As offered there were 128 of them in this building; the Department of Finance's current unit-lot series carries 127, and across both buildings the original 261 residences have consolidated to 259. Combinations here have been modest by Tribeca standards — this is a building of apartments rather than lofts, and the plates were designed as apartments from the start.

The practical consequence for a buyer is that layouts are conventional and legible: defined bedrooms, real kitchens, and, on the setback lines, private outdoor space. The value spread across the building runs on floor, exposure, terrace and — most of all — renovation condition, because a building delivered in 1986 and 1987 now holds a wide mix of original, lightly updated and fully gut-renovated apartments.

Greenwich Court is staffed rather than amenitized. Each lobby carries a uniformed concierge around the clock and a doorman from morning until midnight; there are rooftop recreation decks, cellar laundry rooms, common storage rooms and storage bins, and mail, package and refuse rooms. There is no garage, no pool and no fitness room anywhere in the plan. For a Tribeca buyer this is a specific trade: more people at the door than most buildings of this size, fewer facilities than a new-construction condominium.

The audited statements through 2023 establish the financial position for that period. They report no mortgage and no line of credit — no debt at all — and its reserves have been rising, from roughly $1.5 million to roughly $2.3 million across the most recent two audited years we hold. That improvement was not organic. The board levied a special assessment effective 1 March 2022 equal to 30 percent of residential common charges for that year, payable over 24 months, to fund the balance of two capital programs and rebuild reserves. Both programs are complete: a facade restoration in 2022 and a lobby and hallway renovation in 2023, alongside smaller electrical and HVAC capital items. Common charges then rose about 4 percent effective 1 January 2024.

Two cautions from the same statements belong in any diligence file. The auditor observes that the condominium's governing documents do not require the funding of future major repairs and that no reserve study has been performed — so the current reserve balance is a board decision rather than a funded plan against a component schedule. And building staff participate in the Local 32BJ multiemployer benefit funds, whose pension fund has been certified in the yellow zone and is operating under a rehabilitation plan; that is an industry-wide condition rather than a building-specific problem, but it sits in the cost trajectory of every union-staffed building in the city. A claim brought against the utility over corroded water-service piping serving both buildings was settled in 2023, and one further property-damage matter remained in early discovery at the last statement we hold, expected to fall within liability coverage.

We publish only what the documents support. The declaration and by-laws — Part II of the offering plan, where a right of first refusal, a transfer fee, and the pet, sublet and pied-à-terre rules would be set out — are not in the copy on file in The Roebling Research Library, and Part I is silent on all of them.

What Part I does establish: purchasers pay a contribution to the reserve fund at closing, set at $250 as offered; the commercial units may be leased, subleased, subdivided and partitioned by their owner without board consent and may be used for any lawful purpose the board cannot further restrict; and sponsor control of the board ran until the earlier of the third anniversary of the first closing or the sponsor's common interest falling below 20 percent, a threshold long since passed.

Management-sourced records describe the building as permitting pets, pieds-à-terre and investor ownership, which would be unremarkable for a condominium of this vintage. We have not verified it against a governing document and neither should a buyer. Put each question to the managing agent in writing before signing.

Recent sales

Recent closings at this building, from The Roebling Research Library. Prices are the transfer amounts recorded with the NYC Department of Finance; apartment-level detail is checked against the building’s own file in The Roebling Research Library before publishing.

Market read. Most recent trades (2026 to date) cleared a median $1,404/sf (floor-adjusted) across 6 sales. Floor-adjusted means each sale is restated to a constant mix of floors, so the figure can differ from the plain median of the sales listed above. Median listing discount 1.9% from the last ask — a recurring negotiation gap worth pricing into any offer or listing strategy.

Sales sourced from NYC Department of Finance recorded transfers (BBL 1-00137-7502; each condominium apartment is its own tax lot). Apartment-level facts (line, condition, asking-price context) curated and cross-verified in The Roebling Research Library. Not all transactions cross-verify with ACRIS records — sponsor and LLC purchases sometimes record at stipulated values rather than market price; square footage from recorded condo declarations and offering plans.

Underwrite the condominium, not the building. One declaration covers 275 and 295. The reserve position, the assessment history and the capital program are shared. Read the audited statements for the whole entity.

Do not take the year built from PLUTO. It is zero, and so is the Department of Finance's. The building was completed in 1986–87 and occupied from spring 1987, established from the offering plan and the recorded deed run.

The 2022 assessment is over — confirm nothing has replaced it. The 30 percent assessment funded the facade and lobby programs and has run its 24-month course. Ask the managing agent whether any new assessment has been adopted and what the current common-charge schedule is.

Ask for a reserve study. The auditor has flagged that none exists and that the governing documents do not require major-repair funding. On a nearly forty-year-old building with a facade cycle behind it, that is the right question to put to the board.

Get the by-laws. Right of first refusal, transfer fee, sublet and pet rules are not in the plan copy in general circulation. Have your attorney obtain Part II from the managing agent.

Confirm the lot. Block 137 holds six condominiums. Comparables pulled by street number rather than by billing lot will mix this building with 92 and 74 Warren Street.

Mansion tax may apply. Run pricing through the Mansion Tax Calculator.

Present the dated balance sheet. The audited statements through 2023 describe no mortgage or line of credit, rising reserves, and the facade and lobby programs completed in 2022–2023. Supply the latest financial statements, assessment ledger and capital-work records to establish today's position.

Explain the two-building structure before a buyer's attorney finds it. It is an advantage — scale, staffing and shared cost — but only if it is presented rather than discovered.

Have the completion date documented. A buyer or appraiser pulling PLUTO will find a zero. Supplying the offering plan's completion language up front prevents an unnecessary question.

Position against the lofts honestly. The apartments are apartments. The concierge desks, the roof deck, the storage and the staffing are the argument, not ceiling height.

If you're considering 295 Greenwich Street, also evaluate:

• 275 Greenwich Street — the South Building of the same condominium; same declaration, same board, same budget
• 92 Warren Street — twelve-residence loft condominium on the same tax block, a very different product
• 74 Warren Street — four-residence conversion on the same block
• 101 Warren Street — full-amenity Tribeca condominium on Warren Street with a much deeper facility package
• 200 Chambers Street — large full-service condominium on the same Chambers Street spine
• 125 Greenwich Street — new-construction condominium further south on the same avenue
• 311 Greenwich Street — neighbouring Greenwich Street building
• 145 Hudson Street — the loft-conversion alternative in northern Tribeca
• 415 Greenwich Street — converted Tribeca warehouse condominium with amenities