Category Archives: Mid Country

Open House report

Three suitable for comment, in my opinion.

20 West End Avenue

20 West End Avenue

Star of the day was undoubtedly 20 West End Avenue, $4.189 million. The drawback first: it’s on a long, shared driveway, and everybody hates those. That out of the way, the house is fantastic: open, beautifully finished, just livable and unstuffy. I didn’t hear a negative word about it from the dozen or so brokers who were there when I was, and in this nasty business, that’s unusual. Is this the right price? Who knows, but it feels about right.

340 Stanwich

340 Stanwich

340 Stanwich’s price I’m not so sure about. It’s asking $3.495 million which, on first walk-around, I figured was at least $1.2 too much, but that’s before I went outside. Inside, it has a nice, but cluttered layout that looks as though it would make for excellent entertaining space. The clutter can be removed of course (one man’s clutter, by the way, is someone

view from 340 Stanwich patio

view from 340 Stanwich patio

else’s prized possessions, I get it – but I’m looking at it from a buyer’s perspective, not a collector’s). There are bedrooms upstairs that feel like a ski lodge dormitory but that could also be changed.

It’s the outside that transforms this place – 3.5 acres, including a pool an a great lawn sweeping down to Frye “Lake” (I was told by father that any body of water you can see across is a pond “unless”, he added, “you’re a real estate agent”. I’m a real estate agent now, a life decision that would have my father spinning in his grave, if he had a grave, so I’ll go with “lake”).  But all that land poses a problem: it, and the pool, and the Frye Whateveryoucallit, are down a long, steep stairway built into a rock wall. Not a big problem at all for an active family, but the house itself will presumably a couple of old fogies who need its first-floor bedroom. So that’s a conundrum, but one I’m sure will be worked out by the market. Stay tuned.

40 Winthrop

40 Winthrop

40 Winthrop Drive in Riverside is priced at $3.395 million, a price that gave me pause when it came on this week and still has me a little unconvinced after seeing it; a little, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if it sold for this price. I think I’ll follow the lead of our president and Senator Markey and vote “present”.

Plus side: very nice inside, good layout, and a fantastic yard, in the back and on the (western) side. These days, finding an acre of yard in Riverside is just about impossible, and an acre on Winthrop, a beautiful, traffic-free street within easy walking distance of the schools and trains, is even rarer. If someone pays what I consider to be a premium for this location and this acreage, I wouldn’t be surprised.

I do think, however, that if you’re reaching for top dollar, it would be wise to spend a little bit up front to make a good first impression. This is a pretty plain looking house as is, and a rusty handrail on the front steps, an uneven, sagging stone walkway to the front door and a banister on the third floor that threatens to fall off in your hand raises questions, unjustified, surely, that maintenance wasn’t in the budget during this owner’s tenure. I am not saying that the house is in poor condition; to the contrary, it appears to be in great shape, overall, but as a general tip to homeowners thinking of selling, fix up the minor cosmetic problems that detract from a home’s appearance. You know what your grandmother told you about first immersions? It’s still true.

21 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Mid Country, Neighborhoods, Old Greenwich, pricing

We’re back!

First, some market activity that was reported while I was out enriching the Saudis.

4 Cat Rock

4 Cat Rock

4 Cat Rock Road closed, for $1.750 million after 302 days on market. Nice old (1908a house and nicely renovated, it’s real problem was that it sold for $1.880 in 2005, was improved, yet sold for $1.860 in May, 2011, and when this was put back on a year later at $1.995, buyers balked, probably because they saw the price decline and speculated that it would continue down. If that’s what they guessed, they were right.

1361 King Street

1361 King Street

1361 King Street sold, $2.125 million ($2.495, ask), proving only that you can get a lot of house for $2 million if you’re willing to live under the flight path a long way from town. Some people are.

5 Butler Street

5 Butler Street

5 Butler Street, Cos Cob, on the other hand, didn’t linger. It was priced at $835,000 and went via bidding war for $842,100. As an aside, it’s often smart to throw in an odd number in one of these things. Win or lose, you don’t want to tie, which will only set off another round of bidding.

15 Upper Cross

15 Upper Cross

And waay, way up in nose bleed territory, 15 Upper Cross whacked a cool million from its price today so that what would have cost you $9.1 million yesterday can be yours today for $8. That’s an improvement over its 2011 price of $11.995 but, at least to my taste, this is about the land this old pile of stone sits on and not the house itself. So, what’s five acres near the Banksville border worth? Not $8.1 million, certainly, so we can anticipate more price reductions in the years to come. Of course, that’s just my opinion of the house; someone else may come along who falls in love with the place and will pay for the privilege of restoring it. Maybe.

14 Comments

Filed under Back Country, Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Cos Cob, Mid Country, Neighborhoods, pricing

Sale, contract, price cut

No, no the same property, three different ones

9 Shore Acre

9 Shore Acre

9 Shore Acre Drive, Old Greenwich, asked $3.195, got $3,050,80 (there’s nothing as annoying to an agent then getting caught up in one of these end-stage nickel-and-dime negotiations when the reward for those last coins is so little. Important, no doubt, for the parties, but a 5% commission on eight eighty-bucks, divided four ways, is $1 each. And it may take three weeks to get to that dollar.

9 Paddock Drive

9 Paddock Drive

9 Paddock, up on the Merritt off of Lake, has a contract. Started at $2.695, dropped to $2.495, which is what it was purchased for in 2002. I liked this house very much. Paddock is a nice little dead-end street, this house itself was opened up and expanded and has a great yard, and the highway noise is not too noisy. Compared to what you’d get elsewhere in this price range, it’s a lot of house.

And, of course, convenient to transportation.

12 Shore Rd

12 Shore Rd

And 12 Shore Road, also in Old Greenwich, has suffered another price cut and is now priced at $2.675, q huge improvement over its first price when it was built in 2011, $3.495. I thought the house was great when I saw it back then, with direct frontage on Tomac Cove, but it didn’t strike me, or any buyer, as a $3.5 house. Now, it looks like a relative bargain.

7 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Contracts, current market conditions, Mid Country, Neighborhoods, Old Greenwich, spec houses

Contract, price cut

65 Rockwood Lane

65 Rockwood Lane

65 Rockwood Lane, $2.2 million, is reported as under contract. Pretty plain vanilla, I just mention it for readers who are keeping track of the mid country activity.

45 Baldwin Farms So.

45 Baldwin Farms So.

45 Baldwin Farms So. has cut its price $500,000 and now asks $4.995 million. I’ve always liked this house, and so have my clients. It’s down a long driveway and its only real yard is a bitty thing on the side, but it’s right on the small pond that runs along Baldwin Farms Road, and that more than makes up for its lack of a back yard. It is, to my taste, beautifully made and designed and I’m miffed that only now is it approaching a sensible price (the bank looming overhead probably is helping in that acceptance of reality). Ogilvy brought it on when it was new in 2008 for $9.750 million and in the years since I’ve shown it repeatedly, but always the price was out of whack with its real market value. Now it’s probably below that value, but of course, there’s the five-year stigma dragging it down and putting off buyers. I (and probably a dozen other agents) could have sold this in the low $5s way back when, but it as asking nearly twice that at the time, and none of my clients even bothered to bid.

7 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Mid Country

Sale, new

 

496 Valley Road

496 Valley Road

496 Valley Road sold for $1.441 million. This was a great little house, perfect for a couple with grown or no kids and workable for those who might still be afflicted by them. It’s in great shape, and, while I might have moved a wall or two round to tweak its layout, it was in move-in condition. Showed it to four different buyers and couldn’t move it; I prefer to consider that their, not my loss.

64 Park Avenue So.

64 Park Avenue So.

New listing or more accurately, back on the market, is 64 Park Avenue South, still asking $2.195, still hoping that a buyer will appear. The market’s so strong down south of the Village that this time they may get it. 1987 construction, 2,400 sq. feet, single, detached garage and a pool where the back yard used to be, it’s not a bad house for the right buyer.

1 Comment

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Mid Country

The Board has reopened, so here’s some real estate news

No open houses today of interest – look for that aspect of this scam to resume next week, after school kids get settled in, but we do have two price adjustments reported, one down, one up.

80 Clapboard Ridge

80 Clapboard Ridge

80 Clapboard Ridge has taken the more conventional route and dropped its price, after failing to sell since 2012. Started at $6.495 429 days ago, today it can be yours for just $5.250 million. That wouldn’t seem a preposterous price: looks like the owners paid $2.9 million for the land in 1987 (really? For 2 acres?) and built this 9,500 sq.ft. house on it in 1988, so that must be worth something. I’d guess that the land itself is still worth around $2.5 million, so the house, less that land value, comes in at (gezuntagezunta…) $263 per sq.ft.  That’s below replacement cost.

20 Mackenzie Glen

20 Mackenzie Glen

Just east of 80 Clapboard, the owner of 20 Mackenzie Glen has taken the opposite tack and raised his one-acre building site $100,000 and it will now cost you $1.895 million to wrest this from his grasp. The land has been for sale since before the breakup of gondwanaland, starting at $2.695 in 2007 and remaining at that price for a full year despite the market’s failure to respond favorably, then dropping in 2009 to $1.995 and eventually $1.795 in 2009 and holding there until today when, as noted , you have been punished for your delay.

Mackenzie Glen is a decent street, in a convenient-to-town location, but this particular parcel is comprised mostly of a house on a hummock and some overgrown scrubland down a cliff. A house could be built on the rise, the scrubland cleared (assuming what looks like wetlands aren’t), and you’d have a nice place. The trouble, at least so far as clients of mine and their builders have concluded, is that the cost of preparing that site precludes building a respectable house here for $3 million, if you must pay $1.8 for the land. Now that you’d have to pay $1.9 for that land, the difficulty has increased. But for someone looking to build a $5 million house, perhaps this higher price will make sense.We’ll hope for the owner’s sake that another 1,492 days won’t have to elapse before that buyer appears.

18 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Mid Country, Neighborhoods, Riverside

Contract and a new listing

534 North Street

534 North Street

Just about my favorite house in town, 534 North Street, is finally under contract. This 1819 Federal is a treat to drive by and a reminder, however bitter-sweet, of what North Street once was. The price that did the job was $2.395 million (that’s the last asking price; presumably the actual selling price will be less). The owners tried to get $3.295 million last year but no one bit. Overshooting by a million bucks will do that to a house.

 

 

 

Fountain's selling tip of the day: If you want to charge $4.5 million for your house, don't use a photo taken in mid-March for a late August debut, and stain the freakin' deck.

Fountain’s selling tip of the day: If you want to charge $4.5 million for your house, don’t use a photo taken in mid-March for a late August debut, and stain the freakin’ deck.

Under new listings, 5 Grimes Road in Shorelands (Old Greenwich) is up, asking $4.495. This was built in 1991, so probably didn’t get hammered by Sandy but much of Shorelands did. Readers? Experience? Insights? $4.5 seems pretty steep to me, but we’ll see.

Comments Off on Contract and a new listing

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Contracts, current market conditions, Inventory, Mid Country, Neighborhoods, Old Greenwich, pricing

Price cut on Round Hill, land sale in Riverside

286 Round Hill Road

286 Round Hill Road

286 Round Hill Road has taken yet another price cut and is now down to $3.250 million. This is a great house, built in 1900 (renovated and expanded since), on 3.5 acres in the 2-acre zone, and all-in-all, feels like a wonderful place to live. But it was  placed for sale in 2009 at the daunting price of $5.375 and although as the years passed that price dropped, it moved slowly, step-by-step, inch-by-inch, so that now, when it’s probably priced about where it should have been four years ago, a buyer’s response upon seeing it the first time is likely to be “why should I buy what no one else wants?”  Don’t let this happen to you.

12 Long View, Rvsd

12 Long View, Rvsd

Over in Riverside, where people do still want to live, 12 Long View Avenue (the short strip connecting Gilliam and Armstrong) has gone to contract after just two weeks, at $2.9 million. 0.8 acre in the R-12,000 zone and two separate building lots, but this buyer’s taking both, so look for a large house*. This is probably wise, because so much of the property is wetlands that a single house will be easier to fit around them, rather than trying to cram two houses onto what dry land there is.

The house it will be replacing, by the way, is the ugliest house I have ever seen, anywhere. The Fountain boys grew up just a few doors down on Gilliam Lane and have watched in wonder as over the decades owners came and went while the structure remained. Back in the 50s Popular Mechanics awarded it a prize for requiring the least maintenance of any home in the country, but it looks like a slate-sided outhouse and aside from the nostalgia of it all, I don’t think the neighborhood will miss it.

* it occurs to me that a builder may have bought both lots with the intention of building two houses. In my opinion, this would be the wrong choice, regardless of the presence of those wetlands, because there’s such a shortage of large (by Riverside standards) lots, a builder can expect a premium for building on one. Look at Kali-Naggy’s experience on Marks Road, also in Riverside. He took a lot of, I think, 0.6 acres, split it in two and tried selling the resulting houses for $4 million each. He never got it.

15 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Contracts, Mid Country, Neighborhoods, pricing, Riverside

Mid country land is coming back fast

12 Flagler

12 Flagler

12 Flagler Drive, 2 acres, has an executed contract. It was listed at $2.7 million and went in just 15 days, so it’s a safe assumption that it will be selling for close to that asking price, at least.

21 Flagler

21 Flagler

This compares to the 2012 sale of 21 Flagler for $2.425 which, although it had a perfectly nice house on it, was valued and sold as land. In fact, I believe the house has already disappeared. 25 took forever to sell, but that’s because it started out at $3.5 in 2010, which was just silly.

25 Flagler

25 Flagler

And speaking of 2010, that’s when 25 Flagler sold, for $2.3. Another 2-acre lot. I’d say all three parcels were just about equal, although my personal preference was #21 – a bit of wetlands at its western border, but a fine yard all the same, and that 1930s house, a colonial reproduction, could have served as a most excellent house for a buyer with more modest taste. All that said, I’d guess that over the past three years we’ve witnessed a $400,000 increase in the price of a good mid country building lot.

487 North Street

487 North Street

The five acres at 487 North a client of ours bought late last year for $4.750 backs up to Flagler, and looks like a good deal today.

4 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Contracts, Mid Country

Contract on Gatefield Drive

28 Gatefield Drive

28 Gatefield Drive

Reported today, 28 Gatefield Drive, asking $3.795 million, is under contract. Nice house, and a good price for the seller, but I wonder if he thinks it was worth keeping the property in showing condition for 746 days as he slowly worked his price down from $4.650? I wouldn’t.

It’s an Ogilvy listing, however, so at least there’ll be no 10% Buffet Give Back fee.

6 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Contracts, Mid Country, Neighborhoods

Strikes me as rich, but we’ll see

129 Dingletown Rd

129 Dingletown Rd

129 Dingletown (corner of Stanwich, down a cliff) was  a terrific, modernized caretaker’s cottage when it sold via bidding war ($1.485 asked, $1.494 got) in March of 2012. The new owners have renovated it again  and have now put it back up for sale at $3.449 million. I like this house and its location, and there’s even some nostalgia value, for me: Pal Nancy lived there after college with the owners’ granddaughter. That said, $3.5 million? For two acres (with, I believe, an easement across) and a small home?  I haven’t seen it yet, though I’m sure I’ll like it a lot, but that price gives me pause. Speaking just for myself, if someone came to me with this listing expecting to more than double his money a year after he purchased it, renovations notwithstanding, I wouldn’t bite. There’s a saying in the legal profession, “your most profitable cases are the ones you don’t take.” I stand by that bit of wisdom.

7 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Mid Country, pricing

Ridgeview Avenue foreclosure hits the market

9 Ridgeview Exterior

9 Ridgeview Exterior (question: if they’ll go to the trouble of photoshopping in clouds, why not make the weeds go away?)

9 Ridgeview Ave is now up for sale by the company that bought its paper, and asking $2.999 million. I’d be in no rush to pay that: the place has sat empty for four years and last time I heard of an inspection done on its carcass, the news was not good. The failed owners paid $2.3555 for this 0.98 parcel (RA-1 zone) in July, 2007 so there’s your land value as of the height of the market. The house itself? I doubt you’d find a builder willing to finish it, because of liability exposure and the uncertainty of what’s happened to the basic structure during its long period of neglect.

n.b.: there’s a $4.7 million mortgage shown on the land records for this place – no telling how much of that was actually advanced before construction was abandoned, but whatever went out won’t be coming back.

Stairway to nowhere

Stairway to nowhere

Screen Shot 2013-08-27 at 10.34.34 AM

9 Ridgeview

9 Ridgeview

16 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Foreclosure, Mid Country, spec houses

Real estate news that snuck in late yesterday afternoon

Two more sales and a contract.

33 Boulder Brook

33 Boulder Brook

33 Boulder Brook Road, asked $5.495 million, got $5.050. Market’s coming back for newish construction in mid country. When built in 2008, this was priced at $6.875 and languished on the market until November, 2011 when its price had dropped to $5.495 and sold for $4.882. This time it started at $5.495 and quickly found a buyer.

169 Stanwich Rd

169 Stanwich Rd

169 Stanwich was priced at $1.750 million this spring and it too found a buyer in a short time, closing yesterday for $1.675. This is a nifty property, set way off Stanwich on a private road that’s shared by something like 10 other homes. Good land, very private, but it has a kitchen that looks like an afterthought, and not much elsethat makes sense either, to anyone used to the normal houses of, say, post- 1952. But whether someone likes quirky or is looking to build, this one appears to have sold for land value alone, so the buyer will have some great flexibility in deciding what to do with it.

3 Dingletown (gloomy sky courtesy of PhotoShoppe)

3 Dingletown (gloomy sky courtesy of PhotoShoppe)

And speaking of land value, 3 Dingletown Road, $2.295 million, reports a contract. The asking price –  we don’t know the accepted price, yet –  seems a tad high for just a two-acre lot here, but it would appear to me that the house itself adds no value, so we’ll see.

7 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Mid Country

And still another whopper sale

76 Winding Lane, $11.750 million, has a contract. 17,000 sq. feet, 4.55 acres close to town, truly a spectacular house – this one I get. Started at $14.950 three years and three agents ago, but Tamar Lurie was in the chair when the music stopped. Best to be the first-born son, second wife and third broker.

76 Winding Lane

76 Winding Lane

17 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Mid Country

Half-price sale at 313 Stanwich Road

313 Stanwich Rd

313 Stanwich Rd

Asked $6.495 in 2009, fetched $3.255 million 1,423 days later. Sometimes aging on the vine improves neither homeowners nor their homes.

(Probably not helped by this room’s decorating job, a style popular among the snowmobile set in the Adirondacks but in Greenwich, not so much.

The "Flap Jacks and Bacon Room", Greenwich, CT

The “Flap Jacks and Bacon Room”, Greenwich, CT

9 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Mid Country

The death of suburbs?

What will the Back Country smell like in 2019? Depends.

What will the Back Country smell like in 2019? Depends.

As boomers age, suburbs lose their appeal.

While much of this smacks of the usual liberal, “force people back into the cities where we want them to live”,  some of the author’s points do reflect what we’re witnessing here in Greenwich, as demand for the Back Country wanes and compact (or “congested”, your choice) neighborhoods like Riverside are increasingly popular.

And then there’s this whole set of demographic changes that we’re going through: an oversupply of large, single-family houses in conventional suburbia and an undersupply of what the next generation and aging baby boomers are going to want, which is more walkable communities.

What does “the end of the suburbs” mean for boomers who own homes there now?

It’s funny. The boomers even more than the Millennials are the big question mark. Everybody in the housing industry is dying to know where the boomers are going to live as they get older.

Many of them want to age in place, whether that’s because of the financial crisis or because they’ve built strong ties to their community. That’s all well and good until they ultimately vacate their home. With so many boomers, there’s not going to be as big a market of people interested in buying their houses.

In a blog post I wrote about how boomer home sellers can hook Millennial buyers, I quoted a housing analyst who warned that “the great senior sell-off” later this decade could cause the next housing crisis. Should suburban boomer homeowners be scared that the end of the suburbs is coming?

It depends on the kind of suburb they’re in. What people are looking for in single-family homes in the suburbs is changing, and if your house doesn’t meet the desires of future buyers, it might be a tougher sell.

Let’s talk about different types of suburbs. You draw a distinction between outer-ring suburbs and inner-ring suburbs. What’s the difference, and why does it matter?

Inner-ring suburbs tend to be a little bit older, with smaller lots that are closer together and where people walk more. Plus there’s some place to walk to.

But valuations in those types of communities are coming back up now. And many people think that’s where the Millennials are going to want to be, rather than outer-ring suburbs, because they’re closer to downtown, houses are a little smaller, you can walk around more, and it’s a little livelier.

So are you saying the further out someone lives in the suburbs, the more financial risk they’ll be taking when they want to sell?

Yes.
….

Are suburban boomers who’ll want to sell their homes going have to accept bargain-basement prices due to a lack of buyers?

Look, the housing market’s coming back. But I think if you own a home in the suburbs, selling sooner rather than later is probably better. The prospects for selling to Millennials in the future aren’t good, unless you’re living in a place with a really, really good school district.

Won’t Millennials move to all types of suburbs once they have kids?

Everybody says wait till they have children; then they’ll do what their parents did and just go right back to suburbia. But there are going to be plenty of other options for them. And a lot of Millennials don’t like to drive — they’re not getting their drivers licenses as frequently as in the past.

What will the end of the suburbs mean for boomers who want to move for retirement?

It depends. If they want to go to a Sunbelt place, there are lots of bargains to be had there now.

But if not, what they’ll want is a community that offers some pedestrian activities and some sense of liveliness without a heavy reliance on a car.

That’s what you say Millennials want, too.

Right. And if you jumble those two groups up, that produces something that sociologists and urban planners say is really good.

One of the things about the suburbs people complain about is that they’re so homogenous — not racially (although they are), but in terms of age and life purpose. Everyone is in their 30s to 50s raising young children.

In the old days, what made a vibrant neighborhood was having young people and old people, rich people and poor people living together in different shapes and sizes of houses and from different walks of life. Maybe the walkable community of the future will combine the old and young.

16 Comments

Filed under Back Country, Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Cos Cob, Mid Country, Old Greenwich, Riverside

Three great houses, sitting in a row

Who wants ’em, except me? Three homes, built 1926, 1819 and 1919, respectively, lined up on North Street (just below Taconic) and all looking for buyers.

532 North

532 North

Today 532 North Street dropped its price from last April’s $5.750 million to $4.995, possibly kicking off a recapitulation of its last go-rond in 2005, when it started at $5.895 and finally sold for $4.550. A lovely house, on 2.71 acres, but the listing makes no mention of renovations since its 2005 purchase (indeed, the last year mentioned for such items as a new kitchen, pool and pool house is 2000), so I’m not sure why it started where it did. Nevertheless, a great old house.

534 North

534 North

Next door at 534 North Street, appreciators of old homes can pick up an 1819 Federal, asking $2.395 and almost certainly negotiable after so much time on the market. I’ve always admired this house, and having toured it on its first broker open house day, I like it as much inside as out. But you’ll want to do some serious updating.

542 North Street

542 North Street

The bargain of the trio is probably 542 North Street, built in 1919, completely redone over the years and now asking $3.995. I don’t know how firm the owners are at that price but they paid $3.6 million for it just last year and in my experience it’s hard to get far from a year-old-price, added improvements or not. You want to replace perfectly good kitchen appliances with ones more to your taste, or add a nice marble kitchen work table go ahead, but you shouldn’t necessarily expect someone else to pay you for your efforts. This one’s on 1.86 acres, slightly undersized for the R-2 zone, but not enough to worry about. I liked it very much and one of my clients proclaimed it “her dream house” – but she and her husband have decided to look in Riverside, at least for now. Sound familiar?

So there you have it: three gracious homes, all built before North Street traffic grew to what it is today. I’ll be watching their fates with interest.

9 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Mid Country

Mid country fringe still hurting

 

11 Londonderry

11 Londonderry

11 Londonderry Road has sold for $1.3 million, which I’d calculate was broken down between $1 million for the land and $200,000 for the house. That’s a pretty good deal for the buyer even given the house’s location on a swamp bordering the Merritt Parkway. This last sold for $1.410 million in 2002, the buyers added an 800 square foot addition and completely renovated it, then put it back up for sale in 2010 for $2.250 million, a rather preposterous price, it turned out.

But a very decent house, and even that swamp has a great bird-watching walkway-platform (perfect for bowhunting from, I’d guess, but these days ….) At $1.3, I could learn to put up with the Parkway noise. It does, however, illustrate the foolishness of paying a premium for a challenged location and then sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars more into the place. The new buyers have made out quite well here; the sellers, not so much.

21 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Mid Country

Mid country sale and contract

 

21 Mountain Wood

21 Mountain Wood

21 Mountain Wood, $2.8 million, has sold. I really like this house and so did its buyer. Your tastes may differ of course, but that’s why, until the socialists take over completely, we have different kinds of homes.

 

 

 

 

 

33 Boulder Brook

33 Boulder Brook

And for those with more conventional yearnings, 33 Boulder Brook was available until today, asking $5.495 million. It sold for $4.882 in November, 2011, so I can’t imagine why it’s selling for more but presumably it is (its contract, but not final price, was reported today). Certainly a sign that the free fall in mid country ended (new, this tried and failed to get almost $7 million back in 2008), and is inching back.

2 Comments

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, Mid Country

See, I got this theory …

39 Boulder Brook, the house we all love to hate, or at least love to follow its progess, has bounced around the market since April, starting at $8 million something, dropping dropping dropping until it hit $4.998 and finally withdrawn from the market last week. But now it’s back, better and more expensive than before. That’s right, the builder has raised the price back to $5.498, the same price it wouldn’t sell for all summer. Why? Well, the stress could have gotten to him and that was the only number he could scratch out with a crayon before they hauled him away or, perhaps, he felt that his own effort looked shabby when the two other new houses on the street are asking $6.5 million. “What’s wrong with yours?” buyers might have asked, “that it’s so much cheaper?”

The answer, according to some people, is,”plenty”, but rather than address that issue, why not close the gap a little?

That’s just my guess and you are free to come up with your own theory. I will point out that, although they are asking $6.5 million, the other two houses haven’t sold. Nor has this one, come to that, even at its old price. This is getting to be fun in a horrified bystander kind of fashion. Soooee!

1 Comment

Filed under Buying/Selling Greenwich Real Estate, current market conditions, Mid Country, pricing, spec houses