why new builds in mclean lose values over time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 3 houses you list are pretty bad examples. These were all built right at the height of the housing boom.

OP is just trying to talk people into buying into an area where new homes are cheaper.

He claimed the new builds lose value; then, when shown many do not, he tried to turn it into a discussion as to whether they were a good investment.

I'd suspect people who can afford $2-3M homes are fairly savvy about how much of their net worth they want tied up in real estate, and how much equity they are prepared to put at risk.

[Anonymous]

There's certainly a "new home premium" which doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. Cars, sure. They really only last 5 yrs headache free (especially european luxury cars) and ~15 yrs before most people get rid of them. Houses will last 100+ yrs. Headache wise, there are ALWAYS headaches with houses. New houses might have a few less headaches, but they're not hassle free to make them worth paying 10% more over say a ~15 yr old comp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 3 houses you list are pretty bad examples. These were all built right at the height of the housing boom.

Bingo. Home prices peaked in 2006 and hit bottom around 2012. To test your hypothesis, you'd need a lot more data and would need to control for the general economic conditions and home price trends at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3 houses you list are pretty bad examples. These were all built right at the height of the housing boom.

Bingo. Home prices peaked in 2006 and hit bottom around 2012. To test your hypothesis, you'd need a lot more data and would need to control for the general economic conditions and home price trends at the time.

but the peak prices for those listings were 2008 and 2010. After the crash. Which IIRC didn't hit McLean that hard anyway.

But yeah, its not exactly a big sample.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3 houses you list are pretty bad examples. These were all built right at the height of the housing boom.

Bingo. Home prices peaked in 2006 and hit bottom around 2012. To test your hypothesis, you'd need a lot more data and would need to control for the general economic conditions and home price trends at the time.

but the peak prices for those listings were 2008 and 2010. After the crash. Which IIRC didn't hit McLean that hard anyway.

But yeah, its not exactly a big sample.

Either way, beats living in a townhouse in Annandale, doesn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3 houses you list are pretty bad examples. These were all built right at the height of the housing boom.

Bingo. Home prices peaked in 2006 and hit bottom around 2012. To test your hypothesis, you'd need a lot more data and would need to control for the general economic conditions and home price trends at the time.

but the peak prices for those listings were 2008 and 2010. After the crash. Which IIRC didn't hit McLean that hard anyway.

But yeah, its not exactly a big sample.

Either way, beats living in a townhouse in Annandale, doesn't it?

I have no idea. Not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biggest issue is this area doesn't see a huge influx of wealthy people able to afford 2-3m. Lots of growth in people able to afford 500-1m. So you have high demand and stagnant (even decreasing) stock of cheaper SFH for the latter crowd.

Also, older 2-3m houses compete with new builds/tear downs. Frankly if I had 2m, why wouldn't I build new? None of your examples are the pinnacles of design, quality, or tradition.

Also, there are a lot of companies that relocate their employee and furnish the house, etc. - if the company pays for everything, footing the bill, why buy a house that is older than new?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's certainly a "new home premium" which doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. Cars, sure. They really only last 5 yrs headache free (especially european luxury cars) and ~15 yrs before most people get rid of them. Houses will last 100+ yrs. Headache wise, there are ALWAYS headaches with houses. New houses might have a few less headaches, but they're not hassle free to make them worth paying 10% more over say a ~15 yr old comp.

100+ years now, maybe. But this area, remember, didn't see money until late 1990's - early 2000's - hence all the 1950's small brick boxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People pay a new home premium, not unlike a new car premium.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3 houses you list are pretty bad examples. These were all built right at the height of the housing boom.

Bingo. Home prices peaked in 2006 and hit bottom around 2012. To test your hypothesis, you'd need a lot more data and would need to control for the general economic conditions and home price trends at the time.

So far no one is able to show examples of rising home value in mclean's 2M+ market....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3 houses you list are pretty bad examples. These were all built right at the height of the housing boom.

Bingo. Home prices peaked in 2006 and hit bottom around 2012. To test your hypothesis, you'd need a lot more data and would need to control for the general economic conditions and home price trends at the time.

So far no one is able to show examples of rising home value in mclean's 2M+ market....

Liar. Already done in a prior post.

[Anonymous]

even homes built in the recession dont go up in value

https://www.redfin.com/VA/McLean/2119-Elliott-Ave-22101/home/9483112
sold for 2.1M in 2013, and 2.2M in 2017, not enough to cover seller cost

https://www.redfin.com/VA/McLean/1940-Virginia-Ave-22101/home/28647523
sold 2.0M in 2011, and 2.05M in 2017, again cant cover seller expense

https://www.redfin.com/VA/McLean/1505-Brookhaven-Dr-22101/home/9411091
sold 1.8M in 2013, and 1.76M in 2016, losing money+seller cost

https://www.redfin.com/VA/McLean/1400-Harvest-Crossing-Dr-22101/home/9849360
sold 2.05M in 2005, and 1.8M in 2017, while teardown in mclean gained at least 300-500k in value during this period...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3 houses you list are pretty bad examples. These were all built right at the height of the housing boom.

Bingo. Home prices peaked in 2006 and hit bottom around 2012. To test your hypothesis, you'd need a lot more data and would need to control for the general economic conditions and home price trends at the time.

So far no one is able to show examples of rising home value in mclean's 2M+ market....

Liar. Already done in a prior post.

did you even bother to click into those links.....if anything those links are indicating a stale housing market in mclean

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:even homes built in the recession dont go up in value

https://www.redfin.com/VA/McLean/2119-Elliott-Ave-22101/home/9483112
sold for 2.1M in 2013, and 2.2M in 2017, not enough to cover seller cost

https://www.redfin.com/VA/McLean/1940-Virginia-Ave-22101/home/28647523
sold 2.0M in 2011, and 2.05M in 2017, again cant cover seller expense

https://www.redfin.com/VA/McLean/1505-Brookhaven-Dr-22101/home/9411091
sold 1.8M in 2013, and 1.76M in 2016, losing money+seller cost

https://www.redfin.com/VA/McLean/1400-Harvest-Crossing-Dr-22101/home/9849360
sold 2.05M in 2005, and 1.8M in 2017, while teardown in mclean gained at least 300-500k in value during this period...

There's a difference between homes going up in value, and how much profit the sellers make. You really are an idiot.

[Anonymous]

At certain price points the price stagnate for a while.

Your best investment at that price range is to build new.

We recently built a 8000SF home in a good McLean zip code inside the beltway for 1.3M (Inc land) and it was appraised at 2.3M this year.