34 Prince Street

The site is unusual: roughly 8,500 square feet of land with a footprint about 74 by 113 feet, wrapping from Prince Street through toward Mott. The building is low — four to six stories depending on which section and which record you read — which in a C6-2 district means it is dramatically under-built relative to what the zoning would allow. It is under-built because it is landmarked, and that is the trade the neighborhood made in 1966.

The seven residences run from roughly 2,600 square feet to roughly 4,800 square feet. Unit 1B is a garden-level duplex of about 4,778 square feet across two levels with a patio; unit 2A is a five-bedroom of about 3,678 square feet spread over a garden level, first floor and second floor. Others are single-level four-bedroom homes on the upper floors. The offering plan's floor plans, on file, show double-height living space, interior courtyards and a considerable amount of exterior area for a building of this footprint.

One disclosure in the plan is worth repeating because it is the kind of thing that is easy to miss on a walk-through. The terrace appurtenant to unit 2A — which the plan notes could be described as a landscaped front courtyard — is below grade, and the sponsor disclosed in terms that it may therefore be of limited utility. That is an honest disclosure and it should be tested in person.

The first full year of condominium operation projected in the offering plan totalled roughly $604,000 of income and the same in expenses, split about 79 percent residential and 21 percent community facility by common interest. Lobby staffing and janitorial services were contracted out to third-party vendors rather than carried as in-house payroll — a structure that keeps a seven-unit budget manageable but gives the board less direct control over service levels than a staffed building.

The amenity program is small and specific: an attended lobby, a fitness room, a yoga studio, a temperature-controlled wine cellar, bicycle storage, and a dedicated storage unit for each residence. There is no pool, no children's playroom and no roof deck, which is consistent with what an individual landmark designation permits.

The building is low-rise and falls outside the Facade Inspection and Safety Program's coverage of buildings greater than six stories; no FISP filings appear in city records. That is not a reason to relax about the exterior. On an individually landmarked 1826 brick building, façade and roof work is both more likely and more expensive than on a modern structure, and it must clear Landmarks review before it can clear the Department of Buildings. Ask for the reserve position, the capital plan, and any Landmarks permit history before contract.

The community facility unit is the other operational variable. It carries a fifth of the common interest, it is owned by an institution rather than a resident, and its use, hours and traffic are a legitimate diligence question for anyone buying on the lower floors.

Marketing material for the project frequently describes nine homes: seven condominiums and two townhouses. The condominium contains seven residences. The two townhouses are separate fee tax lots carved out of the parent lot by a 2013 subdivision filing and are not condominium units at all:

• 38 Prince Street — block 494, lot 22; an 1826 house, one dwelling unit, individually landmarked
• 233 Mott Street — block 494, lot 23; a single-family house newly built in 2017 on the same protected site under its own new-building application, individually landmarked

The offering plan sets up a service relationship between them and the condominium rather than an ownership one. The sponsor, as owner of the townhouse properties, agreed that the condominium board would provide concierge, package receipt, sidewalk cleaning, snow removal and garbage collection to the townhouses for $4,000 a month, prepaid two years in advance at the first unit closing, terminable by either party on sixty days' notice after an initial two-year period — and the plan warned expressly that the condominium may not rely on that income once the prepayment runs out. In the plan's first-year budget that $48,000 was roughly eight percent of total projected income. Whether it is still being paid, and by whom, is a question for the current audit.

Ownership form: Condominium. Purchases close through the Board of Managers' right of first refusal rather than a cooperative board approval — 30 to 45 days is typical.

Pied-à-terre, LLC, trust and foreign ownership: All permitted under the standard condominium framework.

Subletting: Permitted. Minimum lease terms should be confirmed with the managing agent.

Pets: Not documented in public records. Confirm the house rules.

Deposits: The offering plan required a 10 percent deposit at contract and a further 10 percent at the earlier of six months or thirty days after the plan was declared effective.

Sponsor rights: The plan carried the standard special-risk disclosure that the sponsor retained the unconditional right to rent rather than sell residential units. In practice the sellout completed: every residential unit has been conveyed to a separate, unrelated purchaser.

Flip tax: Not documented in public records.

Real estate taxes: No abatement on the residential unit lots. Underwrite full unabated taxes against the current bill for the specific unit, and disregard the exempt value that appears at the building level.

Recent sales

Recent closings at this building, curated by The Roebling Team research desk. 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) cleared a median $2,829/sf across 1 sale. Median listing discount 3.1% 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 1-00494-7503) and verified listing data. Apartment-level facts (line, condition, asking-price context) curated and cross-verified by The Roebling Team research desk. 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.

Ignore PLUTO on this lot. The city's land-use file dates the building to 1900 and carries it at 4.5 stories and the address 32 Prince Street. The Landmarks Preservation Commission's building database dates construction to 1825–1826, the residences are addressed 34 Prince Street, and Department of Buildings filings carry five and six stories. Any automated valuation built on the PLUTO record will be wrong at the foundation.

Split the tax record by unit lot. The exempt value visible at this address belongs to the church's retained community facility unit. Your residence has no abatement.

Individual landmark, not district. Exterior work requires a Certificate of Appropriateness, and an individual designation is the more restrictive form. Confirm the Landmarks permit history for anything already done and price in review time for anything you plan.

Ask whether the townhouse service payments are still coming in. The offering plan built $48,000 a year of townhouse service income into the first-year budget and warned that the condominium could not rely on it after the sponsor's two-year prepayment. That is roughly eight percent of the original income line in a seven-unit building.

Understand the community facility neighbor. A fifth of the common interest sits with an institutional owner in a 6,267-square-foot unit on the same site. Ask about its use and its schedule.

Walk the outdoor space at the right time of day. The plan itself discloses that unit 2A's terrace is below grade. Garden and courtyard space in a low-rise landmarked building varies enormously in usable light.

Lead with the building, not the finishes. An 1826 individually landmarked convent and school converted to seven homes is a story no competing listing can tell, and the designation is verifiable on the city's own record.

Correct the public data proactively. Buyers and their agents will pull a record that says 1900, 32 Prince Street and 4.5 floors. Handing them the LPC entry and the final Certificate of Occupancy up front removes a source of doubt.

Be direct about taxes. No abatement, full assessment. Present the number with a True Monthly Carrying Cost analysis rather than letting a buyer's attorney find it.

Price against large downtown homes with outdoor space, including townhouses. Seven-unit building averages are not a pricing tool.

If you're considering 34 Prince Street, also evaluate:

• 11 Prince Street — 22 residences in a 1900 building on the same street; the nearest Nolita condominium alternative at conventional density
• 8 Prince Street — 44 residences in a 1915 building converted in 1984; the larger, older Nolita conversion
• 199 Mott Street — 11 residences plus commercial in a ground-up Nolita condominium; boutique scale, new construction
• 250 Bowery — 24 residences, 2013 ground-up; the contemporary alternative a few blocks east
• 25 Bond Street — 10 residences, 2008; the closest peer for very low density and very large homes downtown
• 40 Bond Street — 2007, 27 apartments plus five townhouses; the other downtown building that pairs condominium units with townhouses on one site
• 129 Lafayette Street — circa-1911 printing loft converted in the mid-2000s; the loft-conversion comparison
• 133 Mulberry Street — 18 residences, 1920 building, one block west
• 123 Baxter Street — early-2000s condominium at the southern edge of the neighborhood
• 195 Prince Street — 15 residences in a converted SoHo loft building on the same street, west of Broadway