Turns out, there IS a limit

And not just in Riverside, as these transactions from all parts of town show.

5 Old Mill Lane

5 Old Mill Lane

5 Old Mill Lane, 14,000 sq.ft of questionable taste on 2 acres, sold for $10.375 million. That’s  lot of money, for some of you, but the sellers paid $11.2 million for it in 2007. They originally priced it at $12.750 this past winter, but that proved overly optimistic.

5 Irvine

5 Irvine

5 Irvine Road, Old Greenwich’s price trajectory also illustrates, maybe, that there’s  a ceiling after all. It’s marked down today (pictures will be posted soon, I assume), for $2.835 million. That’s a lot for a house with a FARport instead of a garage to keep Stamford bicycle thieves at bay, but it sold for $2.750 in 2004, $2.875 in 2005, and $3.225 in 2007. This time around, in 2012, it started at $3.350 million before falling back to earth. Welcome back to 2004, if someone’s lucky.

31 Vista is not a new listing, but its agent switched brokers and took this property with her. Given its history, her old broker was probably glad to see it go. It’s been for sale since early 2010, when it wanted $16.750 million, and has been at its current price, $8.995, for more than a year. Not happening. I’m not sure what a waterfront building lot’s worth over here: I’d guess around $5 million, but whatever that price is, that’s what this place is worth.

6 Meadowcroft

6 Meadowcroft

And here’s a surprise: 6 Meadowcroft, which started at $17.4 million in 2011 and finally reported a contract on its last price of $13.750 million a few months ago is back on the market, still at that $13.750 price. The contract was reported as fully executed, no contingencies, so I wonder whether the defaulting buyer walked from his 10% deposit? That would hurt.

14 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Contracts, Inventory, pricing

14 responses to “Turns out, there IS a limit

  1. Anonymous

    5 Old Round Hill Lane trading for 92% of its 2007 price is an achievement, I didn’t think that part of town was that close to the high prices.

    • That’s a good point. It’s possible that the sellers put some major bucks into improvements since their purchase in 2007 but I don’t know that and it’s pretty-much irrelevant: if the basic house sold for just 8% off its peak then indeed, that’s a significant come back from the 2010 trough, when there were no buyers for these houses at all. A dearth, by the way, that I think was attributable to caution on the part of the wealthy, rather than the disappearance of their money.

    • Anonymous

      Who wants 14000sf on only 2 acres in the sticks?

  2. A Buzzard

    I’m pretty sure Old Mill Lane is in Stamford. Maybe Old Mill Road?

  3. South of Village

    pls educate me – why “of questionable taste”? It’s a Granoff architected Shingle-style house with tasteful finishes on the inside? thanks

  4. South of Village

    i don’t think it’s off the charts either, but it just seems like your typical build style that works in today’s high end new construction market, so i was just curious if there was anything you found to be unusual about it?

    • No no, not at all. I did like the Kali-Naagy designed house next door better; for some reason, Kali-Naagy seems to get room proportions better or, I should say, more pleasing to my eye. But I do start out with a prejudice against 14,000 sq.ft. houses because, again to my taste, they just feel too big from the start.

  5. South of Village

    got it thanks

  6. Anonymous

    Granoff houses look like ass.

  7. Anonymous

    the development is “Old Round Hill Lane” It was developed by Alex Kaali-Nagy, and was a BIG success . Some of the lots they sold off- Most were designed and built by them.