Through a Glass, Darkly
There was just about zero real estate activity to report on for the week between Christmas and New Years (in part because the Greenwich MLS, our central data bank, was off sipping spiked eggnog) so let’s look ahead, instead, and make some predictions that will probably look foolish a year from now. First, I think that the hot market of the fall will resume in mid-January and roar right through spring. The diminished inventory this fall left a lot of buyers still looking for homes and the combination of new listings, continued low interest rates and a fat year for Wall Street will combine to keep things hopping. There will be a bare handful of houses available for under a million dollars in Riverside and Old Greenwich south of the Post Road and, south of the village, nothing under a million – five. In Central Greenwich, the last house under a million sold last fall, for $950,000. That should mean good news for sellers in other areas of town and bad news for buyers everywhere. Prices for houses under three million (he said, pulling a figure from behind his ear) will be twenty percent higher by spring than they were the year before. I confess to a complete inability to predict the high end of the market, because there is still so much remaining inventory and more new construction being added all the time.
Rental rates will continue to fall, putting added pressure on home-owner investors. So far, this decline has not affected sale prices; I think that this lacuna between rents and prices will continue unfilled, for awhile, anyway, due to the huge demand for owner-occupied homes. But a tough year ahead for landlords.
Houses will continue to be torn down and replaced, all to the great consternation of long-time residents. There was a thoughtful letter to the editor of Greenwich Time recently complaining about just this process — thoughtful, but only half-right. The writer complained about the disappearance of one house on Pell Place (off Arch, over-looking Binney Park) that he must not have seen in its glory. I did. It was a 50’s ranch, in very poor condition, perched on a great piece of land. It sold in a bidding war in the fall of 2002 for, I think, $1.1 million and was replaced by a very nice house that sold this year for $3.4 million. I don’t think the town will miss the first house, and its replacement is a huge improvement to the neighborhood. But the writer also was miffed at the scheduled destruction of a house just two doors down, an 1855 farmhouse on Arch Street, and I join him in his sorrow. It’s a great looking house that, from the outside, at least, looks as though it could be restored and even expanded while preserving its lines. But I wasn’t inside it, so I don’t know what structural problems might have existed. The letter writer blamed the “real estate industry” for all this; as though we don’t live in town ourselves, or are greedy enough to destroy our own town for the sake of a commission. In fact, Greenwich has never valued its older housing: I can think of no other town, settled as early as ours was, that has so few old houses. That’s regrettable, but it reflects a process that was going on long before we agents got involved. The real reason for the present day phenomenon is the scarcity of land. There are few, if any buildable lots in town anymore, so prices rise and, as they do so, buyers build more expensive houses to justify the expense of the land. The logical end to this, of course, is high-rise apartment buildings. It may relieve that preservationist letter writer to know that, if it comes to that, most of us agents will flee town ahead of him.
Stone Deaf
One of the worst developments of the past few years and something that increased in 2003 is the popularity of dressed stone. This taste for masonry has been a boon to the Mexican economy — I have no doubt that Greenwich is responsible for at least half the twenty-three billion dollars repatriated to the stone cutters’ homeland each year — but it comes at a high price to residents. In years past, once a house’s foundation was laid and the walls were up construction activity moved inside and quiet would be restored to the neighborhood. No longer; the masons are kept busy outside until the house is completely finished, sawing and splitting granite for walls, facing and stairs and making a racket that rivals fingernails on chalkboards for pleasantness. Only leaf-blowers can drown it out. Perhaps 2004 will see a new fad: origami houses. Until then, hold onto your earplugs.
There was just about zero real estate activity to report on for the week between Christmas and New Years (in part because the Greenwich MLS, our central data bank, was off sipping spiked eggnog) so let’s look ahead, instead, and make some predictions that will probably look foolish a year from now. First, I think that the hot market of the fall will resume in mid-January and roar right through spring. The diminished inventory this fall left a lot of buyers still looking for homes and the combination of new listings, continued low interest rates and a fat year for Wall Street will combine to keep things hopping. There will be a bare handful of houses available for under a million dollars in Riverside and Old Greenwich south of the Post Road and, south of the village, nothing under a million – five. In Central Greenwich, the last house under a million sold last fall, for $950,000. That should mean good news for sellers in other areas of town and bad news for buyers everywhere. Prices for houses under three million (he said, pulling a figure from behind his ear) will be twenty percent higher by spring than they were the year before. I confess to a complete inability to predict the high end of the market, because there is still so much remaining inventory and more new construction being added all the time.
Rental rates will continue to fall, putting added pressure on home-owner investors. So far, this decline has not affected sale prices; I think that this lacuna between rents and prices will continue unfilled, for awhile, anyway, due to the huge demand for owner-occupied homes. But a tough year ahead for landlords.
Houses will continue to be torn down and replaced, all to the great consternation of long-time residents. There was a thoughtful letter to the editor of Greenwich Time recently complaining about just this process — thoughtful, but only half-right. The writer complained about the disappearance of one house on Pell Place (off Arch, over-looking Binney Park) that he must not have seen in its glory. I did. It was a 50’s ranch, in very poor condition, perched on a great piece of land. It sold in a bidding war in the fall of 2002 for, I think, $1.1 million and was replaced by a very nice house that sold this year for $3.4 million. I don’t think the town will miss the first house, and its replacement is a huge improvement to the neighborhood. But the writer also was miffed at the scheduled destruction of a house just two doors down, an 1855 farmhouse on Arch Street, and I join him in his sorrow. It’s a great looking house that, from the outside, at least, looks as though it could be restored and even expanded while preserving its lines. But I wasn’t inside it, so I don’t know what structural problems might have existed. The letter writer blamed the “real estate industry” for all this; as though we don’t live in town ourselves, or are greedy enough to destroy our own town for the sake of a commission. In fact, Greenwich has never valued its older housing: I can think of no other town, settled as early as ours was, that has so few old houses. That’s regrettable, but it reflects a process that was going on long before we agents got involved. The real reason for the present day phenomenon is the scarcity of land. There are few, if any buildable lots in town anymore, so prices rise and, as they do so, buyers build more expensive houses to justify the expense of the land. The logical end to this, of course, is high-rise apartment buildings. It may relieve that preservationist letter writer to know that, if it comes to that, most of us agents will flee town ahead of him.
Stone Deaf
One of the worst developments of the past few years and something that increased in 2003 is the popularity of dressed stone. This taste for masonry has been a boon to the Mexican economy — I have no doubt that Greenwich is responsible for at least half the twenty-three billion dollars repatriated to the stone cutters’ homeland each year — but it comes at a high price to residents. In years past, once a house’s foundation was laid and the walls were up construction activity moved inside and quiet would be restored to the neighborhood. No longer; the masons are kept busy outside until the house is completely finished, sawing and splitting granite for walls, facing and stairs and making a racket that rivals fingernails on chalkboards for pleasantness. Only leaf-blowers can drown it out. Perhaps 2004 will see a new fad: origami houses. Until then, hold onto your earplugs.
posted by Chris Fountain at 8:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home