- Year built
- 1861
- Type
- Condominium
- Units
- 11
- Floors
- 6
- Landmark
- No
- Pets
- Not documented in public records — confirm with the managing agent
Every recorded sale at this building, 2005–2025
Price-per-square-foot over time, the line- and floor-premium curves, and every recorded sale.
- Median $/sf
- $1,581
- Listing discount
- 3.2%
- Recorded sales
- 25
- On record
- 2005–2025
This is an eleven-unit condominium made out of two buildings that were never meant to be one. No. 79 went up in 1861–62 for a dry goods importer, in the Italianate manner, with a cast-iron storefront from the Architectural Iron Works catalogued in Badger's 1865 book. No. 81 replaced a two-story wooden house twenty years later, in 1881, when Charles C. Haight designed a Romanesque Revival loft for the Hopkins estate on a twenty-five-foot plot. The two stood as separate commercial buildings for nearly sixty years, one filled with book binders and corset makers, the other with pocketbook manufacturers and shoe-polish blenders, until a brass and copper company bought them in 1919 and cut them together internally to run as a single warehouse. They have been one building since, and they have shared a signband ever since.
That history is legible on the street. Two façades of different decades and different architectural arguments sit side by side under a single roofline, and the conversion did not try to reconcile them. What the conversion did instead was rebuild everything behind them. The architect's report on file, dated December 1, 2002, describes a new traction elevator in a newly constructed shaft, new egress stairs, new wood window sash, new plumbing services, a new heating system with a new boiler, new electrical service and distribution throughout, a new roof, and sprinklering to the penthouse level. Before that work there was no certificate of occupancy on the property at all — the buildings had been non-fireproof commercial structures for a hundred and forty years.
The resulting inventory is eleven full-floor-per-side lofts, two per floor across the lower plates and one at the top, in the range of roughly 1,900 to 2,150 square feet, with ceilings running from about twelve to fifteen feet. Four residences carry private terraces. Two carry skylights. The two first-floor units own designated cellar areas. And Unit 1E includes something almost no Tribeca residence has: a one-car garage inside the building, on the north side, documented in the offering plan on file.
What the building does not have is equally important. There is no doorman and no attended lobby — entry is by audio/video intercom with strikes at the street vestibule and the elevator lobby. There is no building laundry room; every unit was delivered with hook-ups instead, and the sponsor supplied neither washers, dryers, nor refrigerators. Buyers coming from full-service condominiums should weigh that service posture, and the common charges that go with it, before they fall for the plates.
Architecture and unit composition
The combined lot runs approximately fifty feet along White Street and roughly a hundred feet deep — two twenty-five-foot commercial lots joined. The two elevations are inventoried separately in the Landmarks Preservation Commission's designation report and are described there in detail.
No. 79 carries painted stone above the first story, three bays of openings per floor framed by paneled pilasters with prominent stringcourses, a central third-story pediment that gives the façade a Second Empire frontispiece, and round-arched double-hung wood sash. Its cast-iron storefront columns and piers survive from the 1860s. No. 81 is brick, now painted, with two bays above the base: the wider western bay groups tripartite iron-framed windows vertically inside a corbelled brick arch, cast-iron lintels above the second and third stories carry rosette ornament, and a continuous archivolt with carved bosses runs across the fourth-story arches. Haight's arch composition on a twenty-five-foot plot is singled out in the designation report's essay as one of the district's more inventive narrow-lot façades.
Above that, the conversion added penthouse levels of masonry bearing sidewalls with steel beams and metal joists, set back from the street. The designation report recorded both buildings at five stories in 1992; city records now carry six, plus the penthouse additions. Buyers should treat the floor count as six plus penthouse and read the specific unit's level from the recorded floor plans rather than from a listing description.
Unit designations run E and W by floor — 1E and 1W at the street, through 5E and 5W, with 6W as PH2 at the top. There is no 6E. The two first-floor units are the ones with cellar rights and, in 1E's case, the garage.
Building operations
The building runs lean. Access is by audio/video intercom rather than staff; the elevator is a 2000s traction installation with its machine room on the roof above the 81 White penthouse; the roof terrace is a general common element; storage sits in the cellar; and the superintendent's facility is a cellar provision rather than a resident apartment. Heat is gas-fired, with fin-tube radiation at the front and rear of each floor. A gas-fired emergency generator was added on the roof in 2012.
With eleven units carrying the entire fixed cost of an elevator, a sprinkler system, a boiler, a roof and two landmarked façades, the per-unit exposure to any capital event is high by definition. This is the single most important diligence item in the building. Ask for the current budget, the reserve balance, the assessment history, and the status of the current Local Law 11 cycle before contract, and ask specifically what the board's plan is for the two façades — landmarked masonry restoration on a small denominator is where boutique loft condominiums get expensive.
Policy framework
Ownership form: Condominium. Transfers close through the board's right of first refusal rather than a cooperative approval, which produces predictable 30-to-45-day timelines.
Pied-à-terre, subletting, LLC, trust and foreign ownership: All permitted under the standard condominium framework. Minimum lease terms for subletting should be confirmed with the managing agent.
Home occupational use: Permitted under the recorded declaration, subject to applicable law.
Pets: Not documented in public records. Confirm with the managing agent.
Financing: No board-imposed ceiling. Lender requirements govern. Note that a lender may treat an eleven-unit condominium differently from a large one on project-eligibility grounds — establish this early.
In-unit washer/dryer: Permitted; hook-ups were provided in every unit at conversion, appliances were not.
Flip tax: None appears in the offering plan on file. Confirm whether the by-laws have been amended since 2005.
Real estate taxes: No abatement or exemption applies. Underwrite the full current bill on the specific unit and run True Monthly Carrying Cost analysis against it.
Landmark compliance: Any exterior alteration requires LPC review. Window replacement, storefront changes and rooftop work on this lot should be budgeted with an LPC filing and its calendar built in.
Local Law 97
- 2024–2029 annual penalty
- $0 (under cap)
- 2030–2034 annual penalty
- $4,801/yr
- Per unit / month range
- $0 – $36
Source: NYC LL84 benchmarking and PLUTO · The Roebling Research Library. City record last verified September 2026.
See full Local Law 97 analysis — emissions history, scenarios, methodology →Recent sales
The building trades as boutique Tribeca loft product: large full-floor-per-side plates in a landmarked pair of nineteenth-century buildings, at a scale that produces very few transactions in any given year. Recent activity has centered around the low-to-mid three-million-dollar range, with roughly forty deeds recorded across the eleven unit lots since the 2005 sellout — a turnover rate of a little over three transactions per unit in twenty-one years, which is low even for Tribeca.
On a dollars-per-square-foot basis the building prices in the mid band for converted Tribeca lofts, below the full-service amenitized condominiums on Hudson and Greenwich Streets and above the walk-up co-op loft stock. The service level is the reason for both. Comparables should be drawn from small converted loft condominiums with limited staff rather than from doorman buildings, and the garage attaching to Unit 1E should be valued separately rather than folded into a per-foot number. Index any market statement to the last complete year. Unit-level transaction history is maintained in The Roebling Research Library and shared with clients during diligence.
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.
| Date | Unit | Apartment | Price | PPSF | vs. Ask |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28, 2025 | 4E | 2 BR · 2 BA · 2,000 sf | $3,162,500 | $1,581/sf | -4.0% |
| Jun 1, 2022 | 5W | 1 BR · 1.5 BA · 1,913 sf | $3,700,000 | $1,934/sf | -5.1% |
| Dec 14, 2021 | 3W | 2 BR · 1.5 BA · 1,913 sf | $2,598,000 | $1,358/sf | +0.0% |
| Aug 3, 2021 | 3E | 2 BR · 2 BA · 2,134 sf | $3,250,000 | $1,523/sf | +0.0% |
| Jul 9, 2021 | 2W | 2 BR · 2 BA · 1,913 sf | $2,680,000 | $1,401/sf | +1.2% |
| Jun 29, 2020 | 6WPH | 2 BR · 2.5 BA · 1,850 sf | $2,200,000 | $1,189/sf | -11.8% |
| Feb 15, 2019 | 1E | 3 BR · 4.5 BA · 5,314 sf | $4,073,750 | $767/sf | -7.4% |
| Dec 21, 2018 | 4E | 2 BR · 2 BA · 1,991 sf | $2,650,000 | $1,331/sf | off-mkt |
Market read. Most recent trades (2025) cleared a median $1,581/sf across 1 sale. Median listing discount 3.2% from the last ask — a recurring negotiation gap worth pricing into any offer or listing strategy.
The retrade record
Lines that have traded more than once in the public record — the building’s appreciation arc, apartment by apartment.
Full closing history with price-per-square-foot over time, the complete retrade record, and every line that has traded.
Sales sourced from NYC Department of Finance recorded transfers (BBL 1-00172-7502) 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.
What to know if you’re buying
The year built in city data is wrong, and it matters. Public land-use data reports 1915. The buildings date to 1861–62 and 1881 per the Landmarks Preservation Commission's designation report and the architect's report on file. Any automated valuation or insurance quote built on the 1915 figure is working from a false vintage.
You are buying into two landmarked façades on eleven units. That is the building's principal financial risk. Read the reserve position and the assessment history, and ask the board directly about the Local Law 11 cycle and any planned masonry restoration.
Confirm what the apartment actually contains. The sponsor delivered units with washer/dryer hook-ups, plumbing, venting and outlets, but supplied no washers, dryers or refrigerators. Original-condition units may still need appliances and, in some cases, kitchen build-out.
Ask about the garage. Unit 1E carries a one-car garage inside the building. If you are buying 1E, confirm its current legal status and use; if you are buying anything else, do not assume parking rights.
Establish the service level in advance. No doorman, no attended lobby, no laundry room. Package delivery, contractor access and building services all work differently here than in a staffed building.
Verify LPC obligations for your renovation plan, and lender eligibility for your loan. Interior work is generally outside the Commission's jurisdiction; anything touching windows, the storefront or visible roof massing is not, and requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. Separately, small condominiums with commercial-scale histories can trip lender project-approval rules — have that confirmed before you go to contract.
What to know if you’re selling
Correct the vintage in the marketing. "1915" appears in third-party data and understates the building by twenty to fifty years. The LPC designation report entries for 79 and 81 White Street are the citable record: Thomas & Son, 1861–62, and Charles C. Haight, 1881. That is a better story and a true one.
Lead with the plate, the ceiling and the count. Roughly 1,900 to 2,150 square feet on a full floor-per-side, twelve to fifteen foot ceilings, and only eleven owners in the building. Scarcity is the argument.
Present the 2002–2005 rebuild as an asset. New elevator, new stairs, new sash, new plumbing, new boiler, new electrical, new roof, full sprinklering. Buyers who assume a nineteenth-century loft carries nineteenth-century systems need to be told otherwise, with the architect's report as the source.
Be direct about the service level and the tax posture. No doorman and no abatement are both findable in five minutes. Presenting them up front, alongside a True Monthly Carrying Cost analysis, produces better outcomes than letting them surface in diligence.
Same-building comparables are thin. With eleven residences and roughly forty recorded deeds since 2005, pricing has to be built from line, floor, terrace and condition rather than from a building average.
Comparable buildings
If you're considering 81 White Street, also evaluate:
- 55 White Street — 16-residence 1861 loft conversion condominium, two blocks west on the same street; the nearest peer on vintage, scale and district
- 155 Franklin Street — 10-residence conversion of an 1882 sugar warehouse; the closest match on unit count and boutique service posture
- 137 Duane Street — 19-loft condominium in a circa-1864 building converted in 2004; the same conversion generation
- 166 Duane Street — Duane Park Lofts, a 1911 building converted to condominium in 1997; the earlier-conversion loft alternative
- 195 Hudson Street — 27-residence conversion of the former U.S. Rubber Company Building, 1929; larger plates, larger denominator
- 145 Hudson Street — 21-residence 1928–29 building converted in 2000 with added top floors; the Art Deco loft alternative
- 169 Hudson Street — small Tribeca loft condominium; another low-unit-count building where capital exposure per owner is the key diligence item
- 374 Broadway — the much larger condominium on the same tax block; a contrast in scale and service level, and a reminder that block 172 holds several unrelated condominiums
- 108 Leonard Street — 152-residence conversion of the New York Life Insurance Company Building; the full-service Tribeca condominium at the opposite end of the operating-scale spectrum
The neighborhood
For the full corridor — architecture, schools, transit, and pricing across Tribeca — read The Roebling Team Guide to Tribeca.
How to read the facts on this page. Items attributed to an offering plan describe the building as it was offered at that filing — unit mix, square footage, the amenity program as planned. They are not a statement about how the building operates today. Tax and compliance figures are sourced separately to current City records and carry their own dates. House rules, staffing and fee policy can change by board resolution without any public filing: treat every policy line here as a starting point for diligence and confirm it with the managing agent.
Considering a move at 81 White Street Condominium?
Request a private building brief with the relevant comparable sales, current and off-market availability, and an apartment-specific view of value.
Own an apartment here? See what it would sell for.
A Private Pricing Opinion — what your apartment at 81 White Street Condominium would likely sell for today, what it costs to sell, and what you’d walk away with — reviewed personally against condition, exposures, renovation quality, and the competition actually on the market.