Condos on Valley Road

340 Valley Road is a project of 10 units built in 2007. They’re nice enough, but they aren’t doing so well. One, unit 3, sold for $2.3 million back in July – the buyer must be feeling lonely by now because with the exception of Unit 8 which has been rented, he has no neighbors. I can only sympathise with that buyer – it is no doubt a crummy feeling to look around and realize that, probably unwittingly, you’ve become a pioneer. I hope his contract had a price protection clause because otherwise, unless this developer is remarkably well financed, I’d expect some dramatic price drops in the coming months. Nothing’s happened yet but then again, “nothing” is a broad term – these condos don’t seem to be going anywhere.

UPDATE:  The same builder put up what I thought a teriffic house on 83 Howard Road but it, too never sold. I blame that on trying to sell a house in Northeastern Greenwich, always a tough sell, on 0.5 acres in a 4 acre zone. Not even room for a pool and this was a weekend house, in my opinion. You come out to the country for the weekend, you want a pool. The asking price of $4.2 million didn’t help matters an, either. Too bad – nice house.

83-howard-rd

7 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Cos Cob, current market conditions, pricing, spec houses

7 responses to “Condos on Valley Road

  1. Cos Cobber

    I have been waiting for you to bring this project up for discussion. I thought this project was ambitious in a hot market, but now….

    And yes, I feel very bad for the lone buyer.

  2. Anonymous

    $2.3m is that location! For a condo! Retard.

    Why anyone would pay that much for a condo cramped onto a lot with so many others is beyond me. I understand wanting to downsize and get rid of onerous obligations that come with a single family house but consider this: If the buyer had bought a single family home, let’s say on Old Stone Bridge, Cat Rock, Cognewaugh, Mimosa for that amount (assuming he likes the area) and used the amount of money he pays for condos fees towards hiring a gardener/maintenence crew, he would be in a much better position. Condos in that area don’t make much sense when they are more money than comparable single-family homes. He would have been much better off buying a smaller townhouse along Milbank in downtown Greenwich.

    Let’s face it, the buyer is a sucker.

  3. Anonymous

    “I hope his contract had a price protection clause ”

    Didn’t know you could put one of those into a home contract – learn something new every day.

  4. J

    By the way, how was the builder able to shoe horn so many homes in one lot?

  5. christopherfountain

    Heck if I know, but Frank Farricker fought them and couldn’t get anyone else on the P&Z to join his battle so he’d know. I’ve just emailed him and I’ll post his reply. Right, Frank?

  6. christopherfountain

    And the answer is ….
    “Conservation zoning permits this kind of density when 40% of the land is set aside in perpetuity. It was designed for 10 acre± sites like Georgetowne North and Weavers Hill, but this application was (sadly) given a waiver, and the land set aside was the unbuildable junk to the left of the buildings.”

  7. TOWNY

    Forgive me, but dosent the structure(in the pic. above) look like retail/office, sans the chimney’s?