New listings

Four discussed here.

29 Byfield

29 Byfield

The unfortunate Mr. Tsoi has another of his failed projects back on the market, this time 29 Byfield Drive, now owned by his lender and priced at $4.3 million. The mortgage was $3.5. Can you say $3.1?

63 Winthrop, new construction, didn’t sell at $4.295 so it’s back today at $4.395. Call me crazy, but if a house can’t sell in Riverside’s heated market at one price, I see no reason to raise that price. But we’ll see how this works out. UPDATE: It worked out very well, thank you – accepted offer reported just this afternoon. Whoo boy – all those new houses on Hearthstone now look like good bets. I still hear the faint whiff of “Popcorn.com” in the air, but an awful lot of people made an awful lot of money on the .com boom before it went bust, so hey, go for it, if  that’s your inclination.

9 Frost

9 Frost

9 Frost Road, off of Lake, is a 1929 house asking $4.595. Maybe – its pictures look alluring and this is a wonderful neighborhood, so I’m looking forward to seeing it. It seems pricey, but depending on how much work it needs it could be a great buy. Two acre lot.

808 North Street

808 North Street

And 808 North Street is still with us, years and years, brokers and brokers after it was first put up for sale. It did sell, new, for $11.3 million in 2000 and those buyers have been trying to sell it again, intermittently since 2004, starting at $13.9 and drifting ever downward since. Today’s price is $10.988. Yawn.

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

13 responses to “New listings

  1. anonymous

    Wow Frost was owned a an early Hedgie who gave the rink at Brunswick, etc. You want to see how tastes have changed, just look at the dining room. Phew. Ye Olde Cottagee look not so popular now.

  2. Pippa

    A veritable potpourri of homes.

    By-By Byfield. Cold and boring. Cookie cutter. Must be no electricity running to house as all photos shot without lights on. And agent didn’t have a flash attachment either.

    Frost looks loved, lived in, well-maintained. All to the good.

    Interior of 808 North much better than exterior. I’ve always said that house won’t sell because it’s on a cul-de-sac.Who pays $11m to live on a cul-de-sac? 808 needs to be on a driveway of its own. It’s size and price command it. Since it isn’t and can’t be changed, good luck.

  3. D

    808 North is a colossal joke! I love the “paneled study” pictured – its like a closet. Then to top it all off, over $80K in taxes. Never should have been built.

  4. Anonymous

    So 63 Winthrop accepted an offer?

  5. Mickster

    Winthrop has a deal at the higher price – there you go buddy Riverside Rocks!!

  6. CF,

    While we are talk about new listings it has led me to something I can not figure out.

    How come some listings show the address as “undisclosed” as opposed to the actual address? I see this mostly with Sotheby’s.

    Is there a particular strategy, reason or advantage for them to do this? Anyone with the slightest computer and searching skills can usually figure out the address anyway. What am I missing?

    -ShedLess

    • It’s a hold over from the days when real estate brokerages had a monopoly on information, so potential buyers would have to call the office to find the address. The idea of course was not necessarily to sell that particular house – the brokers don’t give a “darn”, so long as they can grab you as a customer – “you wanna buy a house? We got houses!”. Same reason they still run newspaper ads without addresses and hold public open houses (with addresses, obviously) – it’s not about selling the house, it’s about grabbing buyers.

      There are of course some homeowners who don’t want their addresses plastered on the Internet and who specifically ask that the address not be posted but as you note, the address is pretty easily gleaned from other sources, so that’s not the reason, usually. As always, follow the money.

  7. Former Greenwich Resident

    Chris, do you think you are just wrong being so bearish the real estate market in Greenwich? You have expressed your skepticism so often but recent transactions have just proven you wrong? While it is early, but I’m assuming that the amount of leverage that buyers employ these days, even in Greenwich, is far more conservative than it was in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Lower leverage and cheaper rates on financing does not sound to me like a recipe for disaster, does it?

    • I’m not sure what I’m observing here, Former. There is certainly a lot of activity – the lack of inventory shows that, as well as the number of houses going to contract, but except for Riverside and Old Greenwich, I’m not seeing any sales at prices that surprise me. In other words, houses that I (and the agents I speak with – we do talk about such things) ought to go for “X” do indeed go for X or don’t sell at all. That’s a good sign, I think, that the market’s still rational. It’s also a sign, however, that owners of overpriced homes shouldn’t expect a rising market to bail them out.

      Riverside and Old Greenwich continue to surprise, but whether that’s due to a permanent sea change or some temporary aberration beats me. I thought the 2007 prices for new construction almost absurd, yet today’s sale of the $4.3 Winthrop house, to me a house very similar to those selling for $3.850 back in ’07, indicates we’ve far exceeded prices at the top of the last wave.

      My hunch is still that we’re engaged in the greater fool game here in my neck of town, but the only thing certain is what is actually happening, not some guess on my part. And for now, possibly into the future, prices are soaring. Go figure.

  8. Anon

    I wonder if there is upward pressure on the lower price ranges. Most pressure would seem to be under $1 million because little is on the market. I guess the under $2 million is quite popular at the right price.

    I see the house on Birch Lane is sitting for $1.9. My guess is that no one likes the cemetery. The other house that surprises me is on Ferncliff for $1.2. Not quite sure why that house is still on the market and not sold. why that was not

  9. Former Greenwich Resident

    Which was the house that sold for $3.85m back in 2007? The thing is, the Veronas, the Hendries, the Winthrops – they are all setting the benchmarks now. There are enough of these, in the same proximity, and sold during 2010/2011/2012 that I don’t think you can say that they are purely one-offs now. When the Veronas were first sold, those numbers were a bit of a surprise. But now …

    Do you remember back during the good ol’ days, how buyers were financing these $3m/$4m/$5m transactions? Lost of debt / lots of cash? LTVs?

  10. Former Greenwich Resident

    Is there a distinction between old houses and new constructions? People seem willing to pay a premium price for new constructions (and rightfully so).

    26 Bramble, with a list price of $3.395m, and which sold for $3.497m. That one was surprising.

    • Anonymous

      People are starting to have some fun with cash, whilst pushing others around.
      Wish I had a stack to offer 100k over ask
      Boys and Girls getting competitive again
      ….here we go people!!