One great deal goes to contract, and a white elephant

361 Stanwich Road

361 Stanwich Rd

316 Stanwich Road asked $1.699 and went in just a few days. This wouldn’t sell for all of last year but I thought it was the best two-acre lot in central mid country Greenwich and fruitlessly showed it several times this winter before it was officially relisted. Unfortunately for me, the clients who “got it” couldn’t afford it and those who could afford it didn’t agree with my assessment of its value. Forget the perfectly-livable house on this site, that’s free; the two flat acres alone were worth the asking price.

27 Oakley Lane, off North Street and fronting the reservoir, sold for $6.8 million in 1998, tried for $10.750 back in 2010 and gradually sank back to that 1998 price last year. Today it has a contract. The house is a grand old thing, built in 1930, but I’d guess it’s not worth restoring and will be headed for the dumpster. Great land, though, and five acres of it.

17 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

17 responses to “One great deal goes to contract, and a white elephant

  1. Anonymous

    Central Greenwich? Seriously?

  2. The New Normal

    if 2 acres on Stanwich that far north (although still south of Merritt) is worth 1.7mm, what would 2 acres off on North/Lake/Round Hill go for?

  3. Libertarian Advocate

    Leading horses to water….

  4. Cos Cobber

    I’m not surprised about 316 stanwich. Your alternatives for a home in move in condition in a + school district for under $2MM are slim.

    the key for any buyer at this point is to avoid listings with substantive – uncorrectable negative factors – such as being adjacent to I-95, flood zone issues or adjoining commercial uses. Av

  5. Central Greenwich Long-Time Resident

    Houses on Cottontail/Pin Oak right next to that start in the $800s. These mostly have 1 acre lots though and have the Cos Cob zip code. Still a lot of differential for 1 acre vs 2 (and on a quiet street – not Stanwich) with same school district (North Street and Central). Some things defy explanation.

  6. D

    Loved this place and I think the house as-is is perfectly acceptable – couldn’t understand why this sat for so long. Especially for under $2M. Wish I had the budget.

  7. Anonymous

    11.7K taxes, oh my. And a house for free. What a deal.

  8. Central Greenwich Long-Time Resident

    I don’t agree that the house is free. It has a pool, tennis court and an over 3,000 square foot house. Maybe the lot is $1.2 or $1.3 at most.

    • Anonymous

      If the house is torn down then somebody thinks the land is worth the purchase price, i.e. a free house. I tend to think the lot is worth the purchase price.

    • Lot’s worth, I’d say, between $1.35-$1.65. The pool is nice, but adds nothing in value, the tennis court detracts from the value by taking up half the back yard but that can be resolved in a morning’s work with a bulldozer. The house is a perfectly good house, but to my mind that’s what made this whole package so attractive: it’s free or, if you insist, almost free. Either way, compare it to the recent sale of a 0.3 acre lot, with a genuine tear-down, on Hearthstone, for $1.7.

      • Anonymous

        Question is why 12 Cottontail right next door on 1.16 acres is $875,000? Is the Cos Cob zip code stuck on mid-country Greemwich costing our town hundreds of millions in market value?

        • More likely it’s due to 12 Cottontail being grossly undersized – an acre in the two-acre zone and this severely restricted by the FAR penalty imposed on such lots. If you’re looking for millions in lost, and therefore untaxable market value, start your search at the offices of the P&Z and the RTM, which is supposed to control that band of bureaucrats.

  9. Central Greenwich Long Time Resident

    An FAR of 4500 square feet is pretty big in the scheme of things. Do you think that maximum FAR is so important in light of the fact that so many expensive Greenwich houses are just sitting on the market? For most families 4500 square feet on an acre is a lot of space.

    • It’s not so much the needs and wants of a particular family, it’s the loss of 3,400 sq. feet of potential expansion (7,840 vs. 4,500). You and the mavens of the P&Z may believe that no one needs a house larger than 4,500 sq.; the market opinion differs. Many residents applaud results like these but they shouldn’t pretend that there are no economic consequence.

    • Anonymous

      It is a lot of space, and some people who only need 4,500 sq ft may view an undersized lot as advantageous and cheaper. It does not alter the fact that a 2 acre lot next door that allows a 8,000 sq ft house is worth a lot more.