25 Stiles Lane, (link includes both houses discussed here) 4 acres and a good looking house, asked $4.495 million and got $4.395. That’s quick work for a house in nosebleed territory (way up Bedford near the Armonk? New Bedford? border) but housing price trackers, take note: this sold for $5.150 in 1999. A client asked me just today whether we were all the way down to 1999 prices and I answered, “only in exceptional circumstances”. I guess this was an exceptional circumstance, although certainly those weren’t financial because the seller is not and never will be in financial difficulties, or we’re now below 1999, at least in those fringe areas I harp on.
On the lower end of the scale, 74 Longmeadow Rd in Riverside’s NOPO area asked $1.675 and got $1.375 million. This was an estate sale so the records don’t go far enough back to know what it sold for last time but I’m sure there was a healthy margin here, especially if one doesn’t adjust for inflation. The house itself is almost irrelevant because this has direct frontage on Mianus Pond. I mentioned this property a few months ago and said I’d love to live here. I still would.
1900 house, renovated in 2003, at 17 Ledge Road, Old Greenwich, asking $4.199. Seems like a lot to me, what with just a bit over 3,000 square feet in what looks rather like a gate house, but then, I don’t care to live on Ledge Road at 4.2 million dollars.. It’s a popular road, so someone else probably will. Probably.
Could be a good deal or not; depends, I suppose, on how much was put into those renovations. 9 MacKenzie Glen came up for sale today asking $5.350. The owners paid $5.500 million for it in 2006 and the listing notes “renovations” in 2009. Mackenzie’s a good location, off North Street and across from Clapboard Ridge, and this was, as I remember, a well built house – it won a HOBI award back in 2006 but, while good builders seem to be the consistent winners of that trophy, what do catamaran sailors know about home building? Plus, I’m suspicious of anything passed around by one’s peers – sort of like “Realtor of the Year”.
Asking a tad under a 2006 price seems on its face to be aggressive but that’s what negotiations are for and besides, maybe those renovations add value – at the very least at this price, they’re the homeowner’s gift to you. Beats a box of chocolates.
Peek-a-boo, I see you!
538 Round Hill Road cut its price today from $6.250 million to $5.2 (but what’s up with that awful picture? Somebody never read the admonition not to hide your lamp under a bushel, I think). Great location up near Leona’s and Malcolm’s, good views to the west. The east not so much, because this is built on a slope, facing east. A 1953 house showing its age when it sold for $3.750 in 2005, the new owners added on and presumably redid the interior. Depending on how extensive that renovation was, $6.250 might not have been a ludicrous price in, say, 2006 but in this market, buyers obviously value it for less.
Not that odd, but this house at 132 Riverside Avenue has front stairs leading to the second floor. It was built in 1963 and has been a rental most of that time so a string of owners have made out well here. In 1968 or thereabouts I stopped on my walk home from Eastern (kids actually walked to school back then, or rode horses) and asked the man who was building those stairs what was up. He explained that he was the owner/landlord (now lived in California, if I recall) and that potential tenants always complained about having to bring their groceries from the first floor upstairs to the kitchen on the second, so he was redoing things to eliminate that problem.
At fourteen, I wasn’t sure how walking upstairs outside was any different from walking up on the inside, besides being wetter, but the guy’s strategy obviously worked, because it hasn’t been changed in the 44 years since.
Asking price is $1.995. In 2005 the previous owner listed it at $1.780 and almost immediately cut it to $1.645. It sold for that $1.645 right away, for a total time on market of just 48 days. Smart guy, and an object lesson for those sellers who drop their price in tiny slices, leaving their product lingering on the market,.
Because of stories like this (from the Guardian, of course).
A changing climate isn’t just about floods, droughts and heatwaves. It brings erupting volcanoes and catastrophic earthquakes, says Bill McGuire in London.
The idea that a changing climate can persuade the ground to shake, volcanoes to rumble and tsunamis to crash on to unsuspecting coastlines seems, at first, to be bordering on the insane. …. The fact that it does reflects a failure of our imagination and a limited understanding of the manner in which the different physical components of our planet – the atmosphere, the oceans, and the solid earth, or geosphere – intertwine and interact.
If we think about climate change at all, most of us do so in a very simplistic way: so, the weather might get a bit warmer; floods and droughts may become more of a problem and sea levels will slowly creep upwards. Evidence reveals, however, that our planet is an almost unimaginably complicated beast, which reacts to a dramatically changing climate in all manner of different ways; a few – like the aforementioned – straightforward and predictable; some surprising and others downright implausible. Into the latter category fall the manifold responses of the geosphere.
Disagree? You’re a simpleton with limited understanding. That includes every scientist on earth.
The Times’ Mr. Friedman is fond of extolling China’s model as “the way to get things done” but this report from China (and endorsed by China’s next leader) says that the economy is in serious trouble if the country doesn’t introduce more of a free market and dump the corrupt bureaucrats who are enriching themselves and entrapping the masses in continued poverty. If (some) Chinese can see that, why do you suppose Friedman and his employer are so eager for us to emulate their current failed system? Oh, wait a minute …
A joint report by the World Bank and China’s Development Research Centre has warned that the low-hanging fruit of state-driven industrialization is largely exhausted.
“As China’s leaders know, the country’s current growth model is unsustainable,” said Robert Zoellick, the World Bank’s president. “This is not the time just for muddling through. It’s time to get ahead of events.”
It can no longer rely on imported technology to keep up blistering growth averaging 9.9pc since Deng Xiaoping began to throw open the economy in 1978 and unleashed the nation’s pent-up commercial energy. “China has reached another turning point in its development path when a second strategic, and no less fundamental, shift is called for,” it said.
The report has been seized upon by Politburo reformers battling hardliners and vested interests. Li Keqiang, groomed to take over as premier this year, offered his “unwavering support” for the findings.
He faces tenacious resistance from factions within the party, who insist that the country’s resilience through the global capitalist heart attack of 2008-2009 has vindicated state control of key industries and banks.
The report said China’s growth will slow to 7pc later this decade and 5pc by the late 2020s even if China embraces deep reform. Stagnation lies in wait if it clings to the dirigiste model.
“The forces supporting China’s continued rapid progress are gradually fading. The government’s dominance in key sectors, while earlier an advantage, is in the future likely to act as a constraint on creativity,” it said.
“The role of the private sector is critical because innovation at the technology frontier is quite different in nature from catching up technologically. It is not something that can be achieved through government planning.”