Going on a world (house) tour with Debbie and Harry

Debbie and Harry, a musical duo with blond hair and a bit of stardust, have bided their time.

They outlasted CBGB’s. They toured the world. Now, they want an apartment.

Both Debbie and Harry are New Yorkers In the Flesh. They’ve waited a long time to invest, operating in Slow Motion. Simply put: they’ve been Dreaming of a place on the Lower East Side.

They engaged More For LES in 2025.

For a while, I thought they’d Just Go Away. Nothing available seemed to hit the mark. I wondered: Will Anything Happen? We took a pause.

Then, Debbie reached back out. She said, “Call Me . One Way Or Another we will make a purchase, and I won’t leave you Hanging on the Telephone.”

The fact of the matter is that they wanted to answer the question: “What are people actually paying for apartments?”

They’d spent plenty of time on platforms like StreetEasy. They’d even read our long-form report, 20 Years, 4 Co-ops, and 10002. While they had access to listings, they couldn’t get a clear or timely view of where transactions were ultimately landing. They were stuck interpreting list prices and then, months later, looking back to measure the delta between list price and sale price. Even that was problematic.

Once I understood, I rang Debbie back. I said, “I get it. You want to be Living in the Real World. Sometimes, That’s the Hardest Part. But, I’m going to make it easy.

Here’s what I did:

Rather than rely on individual comps or delayed updates, I pulled the full set of recorded transactions from NYC Department of Finance Rolling Sales Data for zip code 10002, covering the period from April 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026. I also pulled the Manhattan-wide records, for context. I structured the data into a usable view of the market and dove in.

This is what I learned. During the period of examination, the raw dataset contained 408 recorded transfers, meaning 408 transactions where property in 10002 changed hands. I removed transactions recorded at $0, which typically represent sponsor allocations, internal transfers, or non-arms-length deeds. (One example of a non-arms-length deed is an intra-family gift.) I also excluded parking spaces, storage units, and classifications tied to commercial or non-residential use where they were not relevant to Debbie and Harry’s residential search.

The intent? To isolate transactions that reflected negotiated outcomes between buyers and sellers for residential property.

After filtering, 293 transactions remained. These represented the set of sales that we could use to understand how the market behaved over the year.

Within those 293 transactions, activity was concentrated in a small number of property types. Co-op elevator buildings and condominium elevator units accounted for the majority of trades, with the remainder distributed across smaller categories including walk-ups, mixed-use properties, and small-scale condo buildings. It broke down like this:

Co-ops – Elevator (D4)
Total: 116
% of Total: 39.6%
Avg Price: $871,547
Median Price: $745,000

Condos – Elevator
Total: 102
% of Total: 34.8%
Avg Price: $2,016,636
Median Price: $1,445,000

Rental Buildings – Walk-up
Total: 16
% of Total: 5.5%
Avg Price: $5,364,938
Median Price: $4,625,000

Co-ops – Walk-up
Total: 12
% of Total: 4.1%
Avg Price: $1,164,583
Median Price: $650,000

Condo Store / Mixed-Use
Total: 11
% of Total: 3.8%
Avg Price: $16,717,900
Median Price: $7,550,000

Small Condos (2–10 units)
Total: 10
% of Total: 3.4%
Avg Price: $1,493,000
Median Price: $1,350,000

Let’s look one level deeper, now, at the co-op activity, re: Elevator (D4), because a meaningful portion of the overall activity was concentrated within several large co-op complexes in the neighborhood, e.g., Seward Park, Hillman Housing, East River, and Amalgamated.

Seward Park
Bldgs: 383–387 Grand, 264–268 E. Broadway, 413–417 Grand, 208–212 E. Broadway
Total: 42
% of Total: 14.3%

Hillman
Bldgs: 500 Grand, 530 Grand, 550 Grand
Total: 22
% of Total: 7.5%

East River
Bldgs: 575 Grand, 568 Grand, 455 FDR, 477 FDR
Total: 19
% of Total: 6.5%

Amalgamated
Bldg: 504 Grand
Total: 7
% of Total: 2.4%

Together, these four mainstays accounted for 90 transactions, representing approximately 30.7% of all recorded market activity in the dataset.

I shared this with Debbie and Harry, but not without Manhattan-wide context. (Why subject myself to the Rapture?)

Manhattan (All Transactions)
Total: 15,066
10002 Share: 293 (1.9%)

Condos – Elevator
% of Total: 37.4%
Median Price: $1,620,000
Avg Price: $3,610,000

Co-ops – Elevator (D4)
% of Total: 34.9%
Median Price: $850,000
Avg Price: $1,460,000

Co-ops – Walk-up
% of Total: 4.5%
Median Price: $590,000

Rental Buildings – Walk-up
% of Total: 2.5%
Median Price: $3,805,815

Condo Store / Mixed-Use
% of Total: 1.1%
Avg Price: $24,500,000

Small Condos (2–10 units)
% of Total: 1.7%

Here’s what I told Debbie and Harry: If we boil it down to the Atomic level, 10002 offers an excellent entry point. In this neighborhood, where co-op elevator buildings represent a larger share of transactions than across Manhattan (39.6% vs. 34.9%), they trade at lower median prices ($745K vs. $850K). Meanwhile, condominium elevator units also trade below Manhattan medians ($1.445M vs. $1.62M) and at lower average prices.

Relative to the broader Manhattan market, 10002 offers incredible value. Debbie and Harry know: Best to get in while the Tide is High .