Daily Archives: February 7, 2013

The blight spreads down under

 

Say goodnight to the Jolly Swagman

Say goodnight to the Jolly Swagman

Australia Health Ministry bans blowing out birthday candles by children. Might spread cooties to a wallaby, I suppose. Hey, medical care is funded by the government down  there and if they want to dictate behavior they can and they will. Fortunately that can’t happen here in the land of the free.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

And the market resumes

Five reported accepted offers today for single family homes and a bunch of condos, rentals and a multifamily, none of which I follow unless I have a client interested in them.

Finding buyers were these houses.

25 Perna

25 Perna

25 Perna, Riverside NoPo, $585,000 (all prices are asking, not necessarily selling)

16 Hearthstone, Riverside, $1.7 million

5 North Ridge, Havemeyer next to the Big Dig, $829,000

76 Valleywood

76 Valleywood

76 Valleywood, $1.495

366 Stanwich, $2.095.

76 Valleywood is no surprise – while I thought I might have priced it at $1.395 I was obviously wrong. I like this street and the house is a charmer.

366 Stanwich’s sale, if it happens, will close a loong saga. The seller bought it for $2.738 million in 2006, which may have seemed like a bargain because it had been priced at $3.4 in 2004 and then sat, but when they tried to resell it for $2.999 back in 2009 they met the same buyer resistance. Now, four years and a slew of price cuts later, it seems they’ll be getting out from under. Hmm.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Riverside again

 

16 Hearthstone "Drive"

16 Hearthstone “Drive”

16 Hearthstone, $1.7 million (!) has an accepted offer after just 17 days, which usually indicates that someone’s paying close to full price. I suppose this makes sense for a family who wants into Riverside for under $2 and plans to pretty much leave the house as is (although when a listing says, “expand, renovate or start anew” it’s a strong hint that the house has exhausted its shelf life) or they plan to replace it with a $1.5 million structure and be all in at $3.2.

I hope though, that a builder’s buying it because he’ll lose his shirt, and two years from now the foreclosing bank will be interested in some serious discussions about price.

Or that’s my take on the Riverside boom, anyway, especially Hearthstone, where there are five or six new homes being built that will have to fetch at least $3.4 million apiece to justify the $1.4 third-of-an-acre lots they sit on. If all goes well the street will be transformed into a wealthy enclave of mini-pads and everyone will be happy. My skepticism about that scenario, however, stems from the history of the Hearthstone speed bumps.

Hearthstone’s a short stretch of road connecting Lockwood to Hendrie and as such serves as the main conduit to Riverside School and I-95. For decades, the residents installed speed bumps to slow the steady flow of traffic whizzing by their homes and for decades the town made them remove them because Hearthstone’s a public, not private street and no one may impede traffic on it. The bumps were finally permanently removed, but the traffic that inspired them remains. In fact, it’s probably doubled since battle was first joined. If potential buyers for those $3.4 million homes decide that a Concours d’Escalade is a bit much to bear all day, every day, and look elsewhere, bummer.

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

And we’re back

Two good ones, I thought, 115 Dingletown and 32 Copper Beech, but neither is a house for the typical family of mom, dad, three children and a cute French au pair.

115 Dingletown Rd

115 Dingletown Rd

115 Dingletown, a contemporary priced at $2.195 million, is pretty neat, and perfect for, say, a down-sizing couple or brave young investment bankers just starting on their career and with a tiny budget with which to buy shelter. It’s quirky, and has those spiral staircases invented by architects to torture human beings and demonstrate a firm grasp of the modern school’s disassociation of form and function, but it’s also open and light. The master bedroom suite opens to the terraced pool pictured here and even on a grey day like today, with bare trees and patches of old snow (I have no idea how listing agent Janet Milligan Photoshopped in the greenery in the pictures, but she’s a genius in so many areas, why not digital imagery?) it felt like the perfect place to wake up to in the morning. Very nice – I’d move in tomorrow.

32 Copper Beech

32 Copper Beech

32 Copper Beech, $2.6 million, is a complete mindblower, and I used the exterior shot to demonstrate, once you click on the interior shots, how you can completely transform a nondescript, unprepossessing 1965 house into something spectacularly new. MOMA in the suburbs, or something like that. Again, though, it’s a bit of a rabbit warren and lacks the standard playroom spaces that a barrel full of children and a rainy day demand, but someone who doesn’t need that will find a great house on an excellent street, close to town. This one was the talk of the broker circuit today – everyone who saw it loved it although I wasn’t alone in wondering who it might fit among their clients. If this house were in Westport, where buyers don’t seem so insistent upon traditional, it would sell in a heartbeat. As it is, I think it will still sell quickly – certainly the price is reasonable – but only to a certain buyer. Conventional it is not. But if you’re having difficulty envisioning what you can do with an older home, go see this one. At the very least, it will open your eyes to possibilities you might otherwise not consider.

Only because I’m a kind soul do I refrain from identifying a third new listing on today’s tour, but I’ll describe it as a plain old builder’s special, down a very long driveway on a street that doesn’t command much above the low $2s. There’s nothing wrong with the house – it looks quite comfortable, and clearly the sellers have put money into it, but being pretty active showing houses in a broad spectrum of prices these days I thought it looked acceptable for something priced in the street’s low $2s range. But when I rechecked its price I discovered that it’s been priced a million more than what reality dictates. Really?

I understand sellers’ desire to recover what they’ve put into a house and perhaps net a modest profit, but what possesses agents to go along with such an impossible dream? Money will be spent on futile advertising, time will be wasted showing the house to non-buyers and a year or so from now the owners will fire the agent and hire a new one because it’s all the fault of that poor first agent for “failing to market it properly”. Again, the sellers I understand, Why an experienced agent accepts such a challenge baffles me.

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

It’s open house Thursday!

A modest collection of new listings (including a small bungalow on Sound Beach Avenue next to the highway that I think I’ll pass by) and I’ve targeted nine that may justify spending the gas to visit – as a devoted follower of Al Gore, I am acutely conscious of my carbon footprint, so I’m selective these days. Of those nine, at least two are wildly overpriced and ordinarily I’d skip them and wait a year until their owners got serious but they’re on the way to some of the others and what the heck, if I see them now I can spend the next year saving my clients’ time by warning them off them. It’s all about efficiency in this business.

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

If I thought they’d kept silent to protect our country, I’d be impressed

Moi?

Moi?

New York Times, Washington Post, knew about secret drone base in Saudi Arabia a year ago but spiked the story at the request of the White House. How many secrets did these two papers disclose during the Bush administration despite pleas from the White House and even the Pentagon, which said, accurately, that disclosure would cost American lives? So their claim that they sat on this story out of deference to national security concerns is risible. Enemies of the people.

15 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

When your neighbor’s tree falls on your house, does anybody hear?

Rep. Jimbo Himes (D., CT) drops tree on neighbor's home

Rep. Jimbo Himes (D., CT) drops tree on neighbor’s home

In view of at least the threat of tomorrow’s anticipated snowstorm and accompanying high winds, this little article will explain the law. Who pays? In short, and the bad news I had to pass on to disappointed clients many times back in my days of ambulance chasing is, you do.

The exception: if the tree in question was known by your neighbor to be in danger of falling. Notice, followed by inaction, shifts the liability. So it goes.

You want a second opinion? Ask Attorney Barbara Clay.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized