Today, and Today, and Today we'll decide with Sam
Finding a 1BR for Sam Masur
Today, we’ll say farewell to our Sam Masur series because Tomorrow, Yes, Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, More For LES shifts to a two-day/week distribution.
Why? A few reasons, phrased as rhetorical questions:
Who has time to read this awesomeness six days/week?
Who has time to write this awesomeness six days/week?
Who wants to read a six-part story that repeats the same overview and drips a singular property?
There’s more to it, of course, but rest assured that this move reflects our shift into more expansive growth , more ambitious ventures , and deeper and more meaningful value to you, dear More For LESsies .
Okay, so what’s the scoop with Sam?
Sam Masur has his eye on a 1-bedroom on the Lower East Side . He’s looking to spend between $600,000 and $900,000 , and he has great credit . He’ll put 20% down, while targeting a 30-year fixed mortgage at a 6.25% interest rate . The building must have elevator access .
Here’s what he’s seen:
Having reviewed each of these properties, my conclusion is fairly straightforward.
Sam’s budget flexibility is unusual; most buyers don’t have a roughly $300,000 spread between their budget floor and ceiling . That range has worked decisively in his favor, allowing the search to move beyond questions of affordability and toward questions of preference, scarcity, and long-term value .
At this stage, the field narrows to two clear contenders:
568 Grand Street #J2004 (East River Housing Cooperative)
387 Grand Street #K2002 (Seward Park Housing Cooperative)
The price difference between them is modest — about $25,000 — and, at a high-level, they present as comparable apartments. However, the distinctions between them are meaningful .
The unit at 568 Grand Street presents as more visibly updated. The floors are not original, the walls appear freshly painted — possibly even skim coated — with unworn molding, as well as radiator covers and vents from heat sources. The kitchen reads as newer and leans more modern in its aesthetic . One of its strongest features is the tiled terrace, which offers open views and direct proximity to East River Park . Overall, it feels polished and turnkey, with outdoor space and exposure doing much of the heavy lifting.
The apartment at 387 Grand Street tells a slightly different story. It sits closer to original condition but remains clean, functional, and well suited to a single buyer/occupant. The parquet floors are intact, and while the kitchen was redone at some point — featuring a dining bar and newer appliances — the bathroom remains untouched, with classic subway tile , standard fixtures, and cobwebbed vent holes . As opposed to East River, the building’s location is further west, providing more convenient access to public transportation — other than the NYC Ferry, of course . The unit is within Seward Park, which typically carries a location premium. Plus, the building’s elevators have recently been redone .
What truly distinguishes these apartments from the other three, and what makes them difficult to comp, is the presence of a terrace . Measuring approximately 125 square feet, the outdoor space is substantial by New York City standards. There are very few units across these co-ops with balconies of this size, and that scarcity matters. It not only supports a pricing premium but also creates the potential for outsized appreciation over time , particularly as private outdoor space continues to be highly valued.
Both buildings meet Sam’s non-negotiable criteria , including elevator access, which is especially important given his background. When weighing the full picture — location , transportation access , building upgrades , the rarity of the outdoor space , and long-term value potential — the balance ultimately tips in favor of 387 Grand Street, #K2002 — despite some of the updates to the East River unit.
Which would you have chosen?
