As we wrote two weeks ago:
While 290 Frederick is still searching for a buyer at 22 percent under its 2007 price, the single-family home down the street at 119 Frederick is finally in contract.
Purchased for $2,350,000 in 2001 and having been “lovingly remodeled” in 2004, the grand Edwardian returned to the market priced at $3,095,000 in December 2008. Reduced, withdrawn, and relisted a few times since, this past May its list price was reduced to $2,100,000 before going into contract five months later (two weeks ago).
While a sale at asking will likely be reported by some as simply 11 percent under its 2001 price, keep in mind that won’t account for the value of the remodeling. And rumor has it, the budget for said remodeling ran around a million dollars. Yes, $1,000,000 on top of the $2,350,000 paid in 2001.
But hey, at least a lot of remodeling and investment helps boost neighborhood medians.
And as a plugged-in reader added:
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the custom-made tiger striped Tibetan rug on the staircase (with the head of the tiger meeting the intricately laid parquet floor in the entryway).
It’s “renovations” like this, and the custom sewing table, and the hand painted skylight that was painted opaque to block the light in the kitchen (yes, you read that right), the faux wood painted paneling in the office and the front steps imported from Italy etc. etc. etc. that could easily push the budget to the rumored $1m. I, too, heard that number from the listing agent.
Yesterday the sale of 119 Frederick closed escrow with a reported contract price of $1,725,000 ($469 per square foot) for the District 5 “grand Edwardian.” Call it 27 percent ($625,000) under its 2001 purchase price not accounting for the renovation.
∙ Last Asking 11% Less Than 2001 (Not Accounting For That Remodel) [SocketSite]
∙ Two 2 Million Dollar Sales And Now Two Months At 22 Percent Less [SocketSite]
∙ Medians Are Up, But Don’t Confuse That With Increasing “Prices” [SocketSite]
Why don’t you just go ahead and fade the sideburns while you’re at it.
In other words, it sold for its 1996 price.
Now the listing agent will have a very compelling story to tell their next client who wants to sell after a quirky “renovation”.
Realtor: “Some of the details are more than a little off-putting. Who’s your decorator?”
Seller: “Audrey Brandt, why do you ask?”
So with a loss to the seller of around $1.5mm on a 10-yr hold, a sale at $1mm below the current assessment and at 27% below the 2001 price — far more if adjusted for inflation — the new buyers got a nice home in a great neighborhood for just about the cost of comparable rent, thanks to record low rates, which won’t last forever, and prices will fall further when they rise.
Shows where things are heading. The “owners premium” was a ’00s phenomenon, and we’re reverting back to sanity. Call this sale a leading indicator.
So the rich get fair home values either on the high end (seller doesn’t care about losses) or through forclosure auctions (cash required) while the rest of us are locked out of the market due to the seller not being able to close for a loss…
A magnificent outcome and wonderful comp. As an aside, records show that the owner now lives in Ft. Lauderdale.
Was it a wonderful comp in 2001? Apparently nobody thought so. There hasn’t been a more expensive purchase in 5-B since. All highly personalized, for some indeed bordello-esque, arguably worsening, definitely light lessening, inarguably core problem non-addressing remodels aside. Nice area though, and I agree this was a decent buy this time.