62 Ridge Street, $7.450 million, is still available, much to its builder’s disappointment. It’s a really nice house and I like its architecture, inside and out, but Ridge Street? I don’t get it and, so far, neither do buyers. This was one odd choice of locations to build such a beautiful house. But, as sellers love to point out, “all it takes is one buyer to fall in love with the place.” heck, valantine’s Day is just around the corner (and so is I-95, the car dealer and the rail road, for this house) so maybe we’ll see some action.
I saw another house, address not given here, that has me wondering. Beautiful yard but a squeezed, narrow archictecture that made me wonder why the designer didn’t take advantage of such a large lot. Not to make the house bigger – Lord knows, it’s big enough, but to spread out a little more. And an entire wing devoted to a master bedroom suite, especially when that suite is comprised of what are essentially a number of separate rooms, held no appeal to me. All of which should be taken with a huge grain of salt, though, because I start off from a personal bias against over-large houses and then temper that with whatever my current clients are looking for. If I see a house that’s large for my taste and has a layout that I know won’t satisfy my clients, of course I’m predisposed to dislike the thing. Doesn’t mean you won’t like it so don’t be put off by my comments, ever. Similarly, beware of the houses I do like. I know of several instances where clients of other agents inisted on seeing houses that I’d praised in my old column, even when their own agent who was working with them and knew what they liked told them they’d hate it. Each time, they went, they saw, they hated the place. So there you have it.
But all that said, there are still some awfully big price tags attached to houses that, in my opinion, are going to have a hard time finding buyers.