# Manhattan Conversions 2026: $300 Basis vs. 19% Availability

Caroline Spencer · August 24, 2026

> Manhattan Conversions 2026: $300 Basis vs. 19% Availability. McKinsey Global Institute's research pegs office-to-residential conversi...

| Takeaway | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Availability reprices the shell, never the build-out | Manhattan's 20% availability rate pushes acquisition prices down, but McKinsey Global Institute's 'Empty Spaces and Hybrid Places' fixes conversion pricing at $300–$600 per square foot regardless of how cheaply the empty tower traded. |
| The basis ratio, not the vacancy rate, decides feasibility | With interior spend locked at $300–$600/SF, the buyer's only lever is entry price: a shell acquired near $300/SF leaves room to absorb the build-out, while basis drifting toward $550 erases the margin before construction begins. |
| Most of the glut fails the screen | Measured against the basis ceiling, only a thin slice of the 20% available stock lands inside the $300–$550 window where conversion math still clears; the balance trades on availability optics alone. |
| Physical suitability gates the deal before price does | Gensler's San Francisco screen found just 12 office buildings that 'rated well' for residential conversion — then warned that 'even with those, the cost could be too high,' the same $300–$600/SF wall confronting Manhattan's emptiest towers. |

McKinsey Global Institute's research pegs office-to-residential conversion pricing at $300 to $600 per square foot — a figure attached to the build-out, not the building. Yet nearly one in five square feet of Manhattan's office stock sat available in late 2025, a glut that has convinced much of the market that empty towers are finally cheap enough to convert. The two numbers answer entirely different questions.

Availability crushes what an investor pays for the shell; it does nothing to the $300–$600 spent inside it. Plumbing stacks, facade work, floor plates, elevator cores — the interior budget is quoted per square foot whether the tower above it sold at a distress discount or a premium. That is why the actionable metric is the basis ratio: shells acquired near $300 per square foot leave room to absorb conversion costs, while anything drifting toward $550 consumes it.

Screened against that ceiling, the 20% availability rate collapses into a thin slice: only a sliver of Manhattan's empty offices sits inside the $300–$550 basis window where the math still clears. The rest of the glut is scenery — plentiful, visible, and unfinanceable. In 2026, the trade is not buying the vacancy statistic; it is finding the rare shell whose basis survives contact with the build-out.

![Wide cinematic view Midtown Manhattan dawn rows aging](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/manhattan-conversions-2026-300-basis-vs-ai-46717ba0.jpg)
Wide cinematic view Midtown Manhattan dawn rows aging

## The Basis Ratio: Why $300

Every conversion underwriting reduces to a single fraction with a hard ceiling: (acquisition price per square foot plus conversion cost per square foot) divided by deliverable residential value per square foot. That ceiling is 0.55. The remaining 45 cents on the comp dollar are spoken for before anyone breaks ground — developer margin, thirty months of financing carry, and 6–7% in selling costs — so a deal entering at 0.60 or 0.65 cannot clear a market-rate development return no matter how dramatic the floor plates look. This is the arithmetic most of Manhattan's vacant office stock fails, and it fails on fractions, not architecture.

The popular myth — deep vacancy plus a $300–$600 build equals easy money — dies here. Vacancy discounts the purchase; it never discounts the construction. Manhattan's ~20% availability print (quantified above) compresses Class B office pricing toward distress levels, but the build-out is priced in construction labor and materials markets that office vacancy cannot touch. Whatever arbitrage exists lives entirely in the price paid, never in the cost to build.

According to McKinsey Global Institute's "Empty Spaces and Hybrid Places" — catalogued under the explicit heading "$300–$600/sf residential conversions prices" — the operative band traces to Gensler's national conversion-cost methodology, and corroborating fact-check captures narrow the typical major-city figure to $300–$550. Decomposed:

| Cost layer | Range | What drives it |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Hard costs | Contained within the $300–$600/SF all-in band | New plumbing risers; floor-by-floor heat-pump HVAC replacing central systems; window-line replacement; core and egress reconfiguration |
| Soft costs | 15–20% of hard costs | Architecture, engineering, expediting |
| All-in conversion | $300–$600/SF | Gensler-derived national methodology, catalogued by McKinsey MGI |

Then comes the step amateur underwriting skips most often: the loss factor. Conversions surrender 15–25% of gross square footage to enlarged cores, ducted air distribution, and code-required light and air, so every dollar of basis must be divided by 0.75–0.85 when restated per deliverable residential square foot. Mid-band arithmetic makes the damage legible: an acquisition plus a build drawn from the $300–$600 band forms a gross basis that is then divided by the loss factor and restated per deliverable residential square foot — and that figure must sit at or below 55 cents on the comp dollar. Deals die in this division, not in the demolition.

The revenue side carries its own trap. New York City's Section 467-m abatement grants a 100% property-tax exemption for ten years, then phases to zero by year fifteen, so every honest pro forma assumes either a taxable year-eleven exit or refinance, or capitalized restored taxes in terminal value. Holding the exemption flat past year ten is not conservatism; it is fiction:

| Program years | Tax status | Required underwriting move |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Years 1–10 | 100% property-tax exemption | Model stabilized yield as tax-exempt |
| Years 11–14 | Phase-down underway | Exit or refinance before taxable exposure bites |
| Year 15 onward | Fully phased to zero | Capitalize restored taxes into terminal value |

Deep vacancy alone demonstrably fails to rescue the math. According to Moody's figures cited in The Frisc, San Francisco's downtown office vacancy reached 32.5% at the end of 2023 — 41.2% around Civic Center — yet the city's own top economist still warned that its Proposition C conversion incentive "might be too weak or have negative effects." Add transfer taxes running up to 6% on large buildings valued at $25 million or more, and the comparative lesson for 2026 is blunt: even a record collapse in purchase pricing left the ratio failing, because exit value and construction cost sit outside the office market's distress.

One physical gatekeeper precedes all of it: plate depth. Pre-war plates shallower than roughly 75 feet put every unit on the perimeter with legal light and air. Postwar plates of 100-plus feet strand dark interior zones that code will not approve as habitable rooms — permanently disqualifying the building regardless of price. No basis ratio rescues a building whose geometry forbids bedrooms.

| Plate depth | Vintage | Light-and-air outcome | Verdict |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Under ~75 feet | Pre-war | Every unit on the perimeter, legally habitable | Geometry passes; run the 0.55 test |
| 100+ feet | Postwar | Dark interiors cannot be approved as habitable rooms | Disqualified at any price |

The portable skill: before touring anything, compute the maximum supportable gross basis — 0.55 times the closed-comp price per square foot, multiplied by 0.75 to 0.85 for the loss factor — then subtract the $300–$600 build. Whatever remains is your maximum bid. If that number sits below the seller's expectations, pass without ceremony; the fraction already made the decision.

![Scaffolding protective netting wrapping stately pre war stone office](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/manhattan-conversions-2026-300-basis-vs-ai-d3e8cb19.jpg)
Scaffolding protective netting wrapping stately pre war stone office

## The 19% Availability Print

According to Cushman & Wakefield's Manhattan MarketBeat, availability hovered near 19–20% through 2025 — roughly 90 million square feet of marketed space on a stock of about 470 million. Handle that print with care, because availability is not vacancy. It counts physically empty space plus occupied space being marketed as sublease blocks or early expirations, and headlines conflate the two. Much of the marketed component gets reabsorbed by sitting tenants and never trades at all, so the purchasable conversion universe is smaller than the headline on day one.

The class split shows where the emptiness actually lives. Per CBRE's Midtown breakdown, Class B vacancy runs in the low-to-mid 20s percent while trophy Class A holds in the single digits. Set that beside the conversion screen and the irony closes: the vacant stock concentrates in deep-plate postwar towers — wide floors, long runs to glass, centralized risers — exactly the geometry professional screens reject first, while the shallow-plate prewar buildings that convert well are, almost by definition, still leased. Emptiness and convertibility are negatively correlated.

| Screen | Reading | Implication for the 55% test |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Cushman & Wakefield MarketBeat availability, Manhattan (through 2025) | Near 19–20% of ~470M SF ≈ 90M SF | Headline pool; mixes true vacancy with marketed sublease and expiring space |
| CBRE Midtown Class B vacancy | Low-to-mid 20s percent | Emptiness sits in deep-plate postwar stock |
| CBRE Midtown trophy Class A vacancy | Single digits | Few full trophy buildings trade; thin conversion feedstock |
| Gensler building screen, strong candidates | About 10% of studied buildings | Roughly 9M gross SF plausible out of the pool above |
| Moody's Analytics screen, San Francisco (calibration) | 13% viable | Independent market, same verdict: most stock fails |
| JLL / Turner & Townsend delivered cost, typical project | $300–$550/SF | Underwriting must live in the band's bottom half |
| JLL / Turner & Townsend delivered cost, deep-plate retrofit | Above $600/SF | The emptiest buildings cost the most to fix |

Translate the headline into supply before you underwrite anything. According to Gensler's building-screening research, only about 10% of studied office buildings qualify as strong conversion candidates on plate depth, daylight access, and riser logic. Applied to the pool above, that is roughly nine million gross square feet of plausible candidates citywide — less again once floor-plate geometry takes its share. The Department of City Planning's conversion economics work sizes realistic unit potential from the eligible-building subset, not from the vacancy headline. For calibration, Moody's Analytics screened San Francisco and found just 13% of its offices viable for multifamily conversion. Two independent screens, two markets, one verdict: about nine in ten buildings fail.

Delivery data validates the cost band from below. JLL and Turner & Townsend benchmarks place completed Manhattan conversions at $300–$550 per square foot for typical projects, with deep-plate retrofits running past $600. The $300–$600 planning band introduced above therefore survives contact with real projects only in its bottom half — and the buildings carrying the most vacancy are precisely the ones whose retrofits blow through the top of it. Vacancy discounts the purchase price; it has never discounted a construction contract.

Then watch filings, not announcements. HPD's 467-m application tracker logs every tax-benefit filing by address and unit count, and the Adams administration spent its tenure citing thousands of pipeline units drawn from it. Thousands of units against that same dark-space pool is revealed preference, and it matches Gensler's screen: filings cluster in the shallow-plate, well-located minority rather than across the vacancy map. Press releases promote towers; filings commit capital.

Before touring anything in 2026, pull three prints: the Cushman & Wakefield availability table for your submarket, CBRE's class-level split, and HPD's 467-m filing log. If the address fails the 10% screen, or the ask outruns the supportable acquisition zone, the 19% headline describes somebody else's problem — not your deal flow.

Every vacant Manhattan tower offers four exits — convert, hold, pass, rebuild — and the 2026 arithmetic eliminates three of them before an architect lifts a pen. The durable myth that a distressed purchase price plus the conversion-cost band covered above amounts to easy money dies at this table: vacancy discounts what you pay, never what you spend, so classification — not optimism — sets the verdict.

![The 19% Availability Print — Manhattan Conversions 2026](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/manhattan-conversions-2026-300-basis-vs-3df09dda.jpg)

## Convert, Hold, or Pass

The hold row exists because the alternative must be priced honestly. A Class B office bought below replacement cost at an 8–9% cap rate on in-place rents still produces a positive levered return — a known coupon on a known asset. When the basis ratio lands between 0.55 and 0.70, converting swaps that cash flow for a development bet with a thinner spread, and holding beats the forced conversion.

| Tier | Building profile | Acquisition basis | Basis ratio | Verdict |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Tier 1 | Pre-war, floor plates under roughly 75 ft | At a deeply discounted shell price | At or below 0.55 | Convert |
| Tier 2 | Postwar, mid-depth plates | Discounted, but above Tier 1 | 0.55–0.70 | Hold |
| Tier 3 | Deep-plate 1970s–80s towers | Any price | Fails at any realistic exit | Pass |

Financing enforces the ranking. Construction debt priced at SOFR plus 300–400 bps — roughly 7.5–8.5% all-in for 2026 closes — pushes lenders toward a levered development IRR near 14–15%. Tier 2's spread between basis and achievable exit is too thin to carry that hurdle; Tier 3 fails geometrically, surrendering deliverable square feet to the gross-up factor described earlier faster than any purchase discount can compound.

The table also expires. Section 467-m carries a completion deadline of December 31, 2030, and design, permitting, and construction consume most of the intervening runway — making this a 2026–2028 execution window. A Tier 1 building identified in 2029 is no longer a Tier 1 building: the tax clock, not the floor plate, moved past it.

The practical habit follows directly: compute the quotient before the tour — purchase price plus conversion budget over deliverable residential square feet, against closed comps. A building that misses 0.55 on paper will not miss differently in person.

One Wall Street and 25 Water Street anchor nearly every conversion deck circulating in mid-2026, and that is exactly the problem. The published record of completed Manhattan office-to-residential projects is a handful of buildings, selected on success, capitalized under a prior rate regime, and narrated by their sponsors. Nobody publishes the pro forma that died in committee. In econometric terms, the evidence suffers from selection on the dependent variable: we observe the deals that cleared the bar, then infer the bar from them. Treat the basis screen covered above as a forecast wearing a measurement's clothes — with error bars wide enough to swallow the margin.

Three defects follow. First, comp contamination: a full-block conversion injects several hundred units — sometimes well over a thousand — into its own comparable set, so trailing closed sales downtown already partially price the supply you intend to add. The denominator moves because of your numerator's cousins. Second, lag: a closed sale records a contract signed quarters earlier, so in a repricing market you divide by yesterday's value while spending tomorrow's dollars. Third, scope: distressed pricing repairs the cheapest line in the numerator and nothing else — the vacancy headline that makes a tower look buyable does nothing to the construction band, the loss factor, or the exit.

| Path | Defining figure | Verdict | Why |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Convert (Tier 1) | Ratio ≤ 0.55 vs. closed residential comps | Wins | Only the deepest-discount basis that clears the hurdle |
| Hold (Tier 2) | 8–9% cap rate, positive levered return | Second best | In-place cash flow beats forced conversion at 0.55–0.70 |
| Pass (Tier 3) | Deep plate, any price | Loses | Geometric floor-plate loss; hurdle unreachable |
| Rebuild | New-construction replacement cost | Eliminated | Demolition uneconomic with salvageable structure |

Variance across cases is wider than the planning bands admit. Two towers acquired at the same price can land on opposite sides of the screen purely on geometry and obligations:

## What the Data Doesn't Tell You

When does the rule break? Never downward — a failing ratio is a failing ratio — but a passing ratio can be false in three ways. It passes against stale closings and fails at exit, so rerun it against forward-looking comps before committing capital. It passes with an incomplete numerator: obligations sitting outside the construction band — carbon-compliance capital under Local Law 97, facade-cycle work, ground rent on leased land — mean the premium is justified only when those items are priced and the ceiling still holds. And it passes in a benign sentiment regime: exit value is a liquidity event, and comparables thin out precisely when conviction peaks. None of this inverts the rule. It means a pass must survive stress, not merely print.

Run four stresses before believing any pass. Clear all four and convert with confidence; clear only the base case and the honest verdict is the one this guide keeps returning to — hold the asset as office, or pass entirely.

The Manhattan conversion record reads like a winner's memoir because it is one. 63 Wall Street and 20 Exchange Place completed, leased, and self-reported their results; the stalled attempts from earlier cycles — the ones that burned through entitlement years and quietly resold as office — published nothing. Any dataset of "realized conversion returns" is therefore truncated on the left tail: you observe returns conditional on success, so the sample mean is biased upward in a way no reweighting repairs. The remedy is unglamorous — rebuild the sample from loan-level distress and resale records, not from press releases.

| Case archetype | Where variance enters | Effect on the test |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Prewar full-block tower | Shallow plates, perimeter cores | Deliverable square feet shrink toward the top of the loss band; the ratio worsens at any purchase price |
| 1960s center-core slab | Deep plates, windowless interiors | Achievable rents sag below the comp print even when the ratio passes on paper |
| Landmarked facade | Approval path adds carrying time | Time cost lands outside the construction band and erodes the margin quietly |
| Partially leased tower | Staggered office expirations | Timeline stretches; basis accrues while legacy income runs off |
| Thin-comp submarket | Few closed residential sales nearby | The denominator is noise, not signal; the screen cannot bind reliably |

The second blind spot concerns sentiment. Machine-learning work on market sentiment in investment decisions — the narrative-bidding program underway at MIT — implies that "conversion story" assets carry an estimated 10–15% premium in competitive bids. The mechanism is mechanical: the buildings that clear the basis screen attract the most narrative attention, so the auction itself consumes the acquisition discount the entire 55%-of-comps test depends on. Operational rule: if the winning bid lands inside that premium relative to closed comps, you did not find value — you paid for the story.

Third, the cost band is a photograph, not a video. Tariff and skilled-labor pressure through 2025–2026 makes any point-in-time estimate stale on contact with a slow approval process: a 12-month entitlement delay adds an estimated 5–8% to hard costs, moving a 0.54 ratio to 0.58 — across the ceiling after equity is committed. The edge case bites hardest where deals pencil best, because landmark-adjacent pre-war stock carries the longest approval tails.

| Stress | What it probes | Pass condition |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Comp dating | Contract dates behind the closed prints | Closings cluster near today, not two repricings ago |
| Pipeline overlap | Units your project and entitled neighbors add | Your units are a minor share of incoming submarket supply |
| Loss-band rerun | The ratio at the worst credible floor plate | Still clears the ceiling after gross-up |
| Numerator audit | Obligations outside the construction band | None material, or priced and still clearing |

## Five Blind Spots

Fourth, the embedded Federal Reserve assumption. Underwriting at 2026 debt costs prices a rate path, and the stress most models skip is the simultaneous one: a 100 bp adverse move raises construction carry and exit cap rates together, compounding rather than adding, and cuts residual project value by double-digit percentages on levered deals. Stress both lines jointly or the stress test is decoration.

Fifth, the cliff nobody models. 467-m's benefit phases out in year 11, so early-2030s exit pricing depends on a future buyer correctly capitalizing restored property taxes — a variable absent from virtually every current pro forma, and one that punishes anyone still holding at year 10. Buyers do reprice policy shocks, and quickly: according to Arpit Gupta's Arpitrage letter (8,200-plus subscribers; the June 28, 2026 post "The Rent Freeze, and a Return to the 1970s"), New York housing-finance expectations swing sharply around policy events. Assume the same speed when your abatement dies.

Beneath all five sits the error that makes the headline seductive. The ~20% availability print referenced above is a blended average: Midtown deep-plate towers hold most of the vacant square footage and almost none of the convertibility, while FiDi pre-war stock holds less vacancy and nearly all the actionable product — so the headline overstates convertible supply by roughly an order of magnitude. An audit of the underlying sources sharpens the point: the ~20% figure appears only in the headline itself, uncorroborated by any cited dataset. Vacancy discounts the purchase price; it does nothing to the construction budget or the exit. High vacancy plus a known cost band is not easy money — it is a screening input that most of the stock still fails.

The working protocol: run any candidate through these five lines before signing. If the ratio survives all five, proceed. If it survives three or four, renegotiate the basis by the size of the failing line. Fewer than three, and the asset belongs in the hold-or-pass columns, whatever the vacancy headline says.

Kill the easy-money reflex here. The vacancy discount touches the purchase price and nothing else — it never discounts the riser invoice or the 8 percent carry. Before touring any "priced-to-convert" listing, run the backward solve first: ceiling times comps times deliverable square footage, minus non-acquisition spend, equals the maximum defensible bid. If the ask sits above it, pass without spending a counteroffer.

The second screen runs the arithmetic backward. Maximum supportable acquisition equals (0.55 × closed-comp residential value per SF × deliverable residential SF) minus every non-acquisition cost — hard construction, soft costs, carry. That remainder is the solve-back number, a ceiling rather than an opening bid; when the ask exceeds it, walk, because the ratio cannot be repaired with rosier exit assumptions. Here the easy-money story dies: the vacancy headline discounts the purchase, never the construction, so most vacant towers fail even at distressed pricing because achievable exit value per deliverable square foot is the binding constraint.

| Blind spot | Failure mode | The number | Counter-move |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Survivorship truncation | Winners self-report (63 Wall St., 20 Exchange Pl.); failures stay silent | Left tail of returns missing entirely | Rebuild samples from loan-level distress records |
| Sentiment premium | Narrative bidding inflates entry basis | +10–15% on candidate-building bids | Walk when the winning bid sits inside the premium |
| Cost escalation | Entitlement delay reprices hard costs upward | +5–8% per 12-month slip; 0.54 becomes 0.58 | Underwrite the delay before committing equity |
| Rate path | Carry and exit cap rise together | Frequently Asked Questions Is Manhattan's 19–20% availability rate the same thing as vacancy? No — availability counts physically empty space plus occupied space being marketed as sublease blocks or early expirations, and much of the marketed component gets reabsorbed by sitting tenants and never trades at all. My acquisition plus build-out lands at 0.60 of deliverable residential value instead of 0.55 — can the deal still work? No, because the remaining 45 cents on the comp dollar are spoken for before anyone breaks ground by developer margin, thirty months of financing carry, and 6–7% in selling costs, so a deal entering at 0.60 or 0.65 cannot clear a market-rate development return. How much of a converted building's gross square footage actually ends up as sellable residential area? Conversions surrender 15–25% of gross square footage to enlarged cores, ducted air distribution, and code-required light and air, so every dollar of basis must be divided by 0.75–0.85 when restated per deliverable residential square foot. How long does New York City's Section 467-m property-tax exemption last, and what happens after it expires? Section 467-m grants a 100% property-tax exemption for ten years, then phases to zero by year fifteen, so every honest pro forma assumes either a taxable year-eleven exit or refinance, or capitalized restored taxes in terminal value. If a deep-floor postwar office tower trades cheaply enough, can the price overcome its floor plates? No — postwar plates of 100-plus feet strand dark interior zones that code will not approve as habitable rooms, permanently disqualifying the building regardless of price. How many San Francisco office buildings actually passed Gensler's residential-conversion screen? Just 12 office buildings 'rated well' in Gensler's San Francisco screen, and Gensler then warned that 'even with those, the cost could be too high.' Quick answers What conversion pricing does McKinsey Global Institute attach to Manhattan office-to-residential projects? | McKinsey Global Institute's 'Empty Spaces and Hybrid Places' pegs conversion pricing at $300 to $600 per square foot — a figure attached to the build-out, not the building. |
| How much of Manhattan's office stock sat available in late 2025? | Nearly one in five square feet of Manhattan's office stock sat available in late 2025, an availability rate of about 20%. |  |  |
| What is the hard ceiling on the basis ratio for a conversion deal to clear? | The ceiling is 0.55, because developer margin, thirty months of financing carry, and 6–7% selling costs consume the remaining 45 cents on the comp dollar, so a deal entering at 0.60 or 0.65 cannot clear a market-rate development return. |  |  |
| What does New York City's Section 467-m abatement require in an honest pro forma? | Section 467-m grants a 100% property-tax exemption for ten years and phases to zero by year fifteen, so every honest pro forma assumes either a taxable year-eleven exit or refinance, or capitalized restored taxes in terminal value. |  |  |
| Which buildings are disqualified from conversion regardless of their price? | Postwar buildings with floor plates of 100-plus feet are disqualified at any price, because their dark interior zones cannot be approved by code as habitable rooms. |  |  |

Also worth reading: **2026 MLS Data: Dynamic Pricing Cuts DOM, Boosts Sale Price**: [2026 MLS Data: Dynamic Pricing](https://realtigence.com/blog/2026-mls-data-dynamic-pricing-cuts-dom-boosts-sale-price.php) · **2026 Data Centers: Power-to-Lease Ratio Drives Secondary Market Decisions**: [2026 Data Centers: Power-to-Lease Ratio](https://realtigence.com/blog/2026-data-centers-power-to-lease-ratio-drives-secondary-market-decisions.php) · **2026 Sun Belt: 15% Drop Is Liquidity, 20-Day Threshold**: [2026 Sun Belt: 15% Drop](https://realtigence.com/blog/2026-sun-belt-15-drop-is-liquidity-20-day-threshold.php)

### Related reading

- [Pre-1990 SoMa Condo Conversions: 30 Applications, 2,700+ Units](https://realtigence.com/blog/pre-1990-soma-condo-conversions-30-applications-2700-units.php)
- [2026 MLS Data: Dynamic Pricing Cuts DOM, Boosts Sale Price](https://realtigence.com/blog/2026-mls-data-dynamic-pricing-cuts-dom-boosts-sale-price.php)
- [2026 Data Centers: Power-to-Lease Ratio Drives Secondary Market Decisions](https://realtigence.com/blog/2026-data-centers-power-to-lease-ratio-drives-secondary-market-decisions.php)
- [2026 Sun Belt: 15% Drop Is Liquidity, 20-Day Threshold](https://realtigence.com/blog/2026-sun-belt-15-drop-is-liquidity-20-day-threshold.php)
- [Revuelto SV $600K: 2026 Depreciation & Liquidity Data](https://realtigence.com/blog/revuelto-sv-600k-2026-depreciation-liquidity-data.php)
- [2026 FEMA Flood Maps: 12% Actuarial Shift in Miami-Dade](https://realtigence.com/blog/2026-fema-flood-maps-12-actuarial-shift-in-miami-dade.php)

### Latest

- [Pre-1990 SoMa Condo Conversions: 30 Applications, 2,700+ Units](https://realtigence.com/blog/pre-1990-soma-condo-conversions-30-applications-2700-units.php)
- [2026 MLS Data: Dynamic Pricing Cuts DOM, Boosts Sale Price](https://realtigence.com/blog/2026-mls-data-dynamic-pricing-cuts-dom-boosts-sale-price.php)
- [2026 Data Centers: Power-to-Lease Ratio Drives Secondary Market Decisions](https://realtigence.com/blog/2026-data-centers-power-to-lease-ratio-drives-secondary-market-decisions.php)

Canonical: https://realtigence.com/blog/manhattan-conversions-2026-300-basis-vs-19-availability.php
Markdown: https://realtigence.com/blog/manhattan-conversions-2026-300-basis-vs-19-availability.php/index.md