Expensive semi detached homes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most expensive house is almost 2x bigger than the least expensive and considerably bigger than the mid-priced house.

But a big issue is the fact that the least expensive house has only 2 BRs. That's a big problem for many buyers. (Why in the world would you renovate an almost 2k sqft house down to only 2BR? Madness.)

Why though? Why are 3 small bedroom better than two large ones?

Because parents don’t want their kids to share a room. And couples can want separate offices. And people like having guest rooms. The market for a 2-BR house is much smaller than a 3-BR house.

Certainly a much smaller market for 2 BR but I mean, in that location and condition it seemed to find a buyer instantly. People with kids at home sometimes forget that outside their world exists a buyer pool where not everyone is a married couple with two children under 18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most expensive house is almost 2x bigger than the least expensive and considerably bigger than the mid-priced house.

But a big issue is the fact that the least expensive house has only 2 BRs. That's a big problem for many buyers. (Why in the world would you renovate an almost 2k sqft house down to only 2BR? Madness.)

Why though? Why are 3 small bedroom better than two large ones?

Because parents don’t want their kids to share a room. And couples can want separate offices. And people like having guest rooms. The market for a 2-BR house is much smaller than a 3-BR house.

Certainly a much smaller market for 2 BR but I mean, in that location and condition it seemed to find a buyer instantly. People with kids at home sometimes forget that outside their world exists a buyer pool where not everyone is a married couple with two children under 18.

OP here. I guess my question was why is there such a price differential between these houses 3 houses? Would the first house have gone under contract at 1.5 or 1.7?

[Anonymous]

The first one has amazing light (so many windows) and a lovely yard, plus a garage and a separate parking spot.

The second one, while technically bigger than the first, looks cramped and dark. That backyard is extremely sad and oddly shaped. The photos are not doing it any favors and it appears it was not staged.

The third one is a massive newer built home (2005) in a completely different category than the first two - 100 year old row homes. The scale, size, window size, room size, etc. are all vastly superior in the third home, hence the higher price.

The third one

[Anonymous]

It's the size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the size.

There is a 400 sqft difference between 1st and 2nd house.

[Anonymous]

What about this one then? Bigger than both the first and second, but priced in between

https://redf.in/javA8J

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most expensive house is almost 2x bigger than the least expensive and considerably bigger than the mid-priced house.

But a big issue is the fact that the least expensive house has only 2 BRs. That's a big problem for many buyers. (Why in the world would you renovate an almost 2k sqft house down to only 2BR? Madness.)

Why though? Why are 3 small bedroom better than two large ones?

Because parents don’t want their kids to share a room. And couples can want separate offices. And people like having guest rooms. The market for a 2-BR house is much smaller than a 3-BR house.

Certainly a much smaller market for 2 BR but I mean, in that location and condition it seemed to find a buyer instantly. People with kids at home sometimes forget that outside their world exists a buyer pool where not everyone is a married couple with two children under 18.

OP here. I guess my question was why is there such a price differential between these houses 3 houses? Would the first house have gone under contract at 1.5 or 1.7?

Part of the dramatic difference between 1 and 2 is 1 was (intentionally) underpriced with great updated interior and well-done photos—a perfectly executed listing. And 2 is the exact opposite: it’s got awful dark photos (even if those are the coming soon photos its not a good look) and is overpriced, perhaps by quite a lot which is a bad strategy overall. It looks like they don’t know what they’re doing.

Put more simply, I think when the actual final purchase price of 1 and 2 are revealed the gap will be much smaller.

3 is an entirely different style of house and category, but is also overpriced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most expensive house is almost 2x bigger than the least expensive and considerably bigger than the mid-priced house.

But a big issue is the fact that the least expensive house has only 2 BRs. That's a big problem for many buyers. (Why in the world would you renovate an almost 2k sqft house down to only 2BR? Madness.)

Why though? Why are 3 small bedroom better than two large ones?

Because parents don’t want their kids to share a room. And couples can want separate offices. And people like having guest rooms. The market for a 2-BR house is much smaller than a 3-BR house.

Certainly a much smaller market for 2 BR but I mean, in that location and condition it seemed to find a buyer instantly. People with kids at home sometimes forget that outside their world exists a buyer pool where not everyone is a married couple with two children under 18.

OP here. I guess my question was why is there such a price differential between these houses 3 houses? Would the first house have gone under contract at 1.5 or 1.7?

Part of the dramatic difference between 1 and 2 is 1 was (intentionally) underpriced with great updated interior and well-done photos—a perfectly executed listing. And 2 is the exact opposite: it’s got awful dark photos (even if those are the coming soon photos its not a good look) and is overpriced, perhaps by quite a lot which is a bad strategy overall. It looks like they don’t know what they’re doing.

Put more simply, I think when the actual final purchase price of 1 and 2 are revealed the gap will be much smaller.

3 is an entirely different style of house and category, but is also overpriced.

So the first will sell over asking and the second under. I actually went to the open house for the first and it’s nice, but feels very small. The bedrooms are not big bedrooms, but normal size ones. Nice closet in the main bedroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most expensive house is almost 2x bigger than the least expensive and considerably bigger than the mid-priced house.

But a big issue is the fact that the least expensive house has only 2 BRs. That's a big problem for many buyers. (Why in the world would you renovate an almost 2k sqft house down to only 2BR? Madness.)

Why though? Why are 3 small bedroom better than two large ones?

Stats for resale: more bedrooms always = more money, even if one of them seems like a total sham/ closet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most expensive house is almost 2x bigger than the least expensive and considerably bigger than the mid-priced house.

But a big issue is the fact that the least expensive house has only 2 BRs. That's a big problem for many buyers. (Why in the world would you renovate an almost 2k sqft house down to only 2BR? Madness.)

Why though? Why are 3 small bedroom better than two large ones?

Because parents don’t want their kids to share a room. And couples can want separate offices. And people like having guest rooms. The market for a 2-BR house is much smaller than a 3-BR house.

Certainly a much smaller market for 2 BR but I mean, in that location and condition it seemed to find a buyer instantly. People with kids at home sometimes forget that outside their world exists a buyer pool where not everyone is a married couple with two children under 18.

Even a single person can want a bedroom, an office, and a guest room. Even a couple with no children can want a bedroom and two offices, or a bedroom, one office, and a guest room. Even an unmarried couple with only one child under 18 can want some combination of all those things. And if you only want two bedrooms there are much cheaper ways to find that than buying a single family home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most expensive house is almost 2x bigger than the least expensive and considerably bigger than the mid-priced house.

But a big issue is the fact that the least expensive house has only 2 BRs. That's a big problem for many buyers. (Why in the world would you renovate an almost 2k sqft house down to only 2BR? Madness.)

Why though? Why are 3 small bedroom better than two large ones?

Because parents don’t want their kids to share a room. And couples can want separate offices. And people like having guest rooms. The market for a 2-BR house is much smaller than a 3-BR house.

Certainly a much smaller market for 2 BR but I mean, in that location and condition it seemed to find a buyer instantly. People with kids at home sometimes forget that outside their world exists a buyer pool where not everyone is a married couple with two children under 18.

Even a single person can want a bedroom, an office, and a guest room. Even a couple with no children can want a bedroom and two offices, or a bedroom, one office, and a guest room. Even an unmarried couple with only one child under 18 can want some combination of all those things. And if you only want two bedrooms there are much cheaper ways to find that than buying a single family home.

Even a single person can want a pony, but I don’t see why it matters because that house went under contract right away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about this one then? Bigger than both the first and second, but priced in between

https://redf.in/javA8J

No pictures