Has the market cooled down drastically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a theory that two similar homes for sale in a neighborhood is bad for both of the sellers. Not sure why this is but it seems to work this way.

It makes buyers suspicious, that there's a reason everyone is trying to get out.

Mi know. I'm just explaining that gut feeling of hesitation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to buy the older, unrenovated home for $100K less. In your home, you got to pick your finishes. If I spend $100K less on the structure, I can afford to pick my finishes--just like you did.

Fair enough..With an additional 100K you could renovate your kitchen, bathrooms, paint and maybe the flooring to your taste..but what about the costs of roof replacement, HVAC replacement, wiring replacement..and what about additional closet space and larger rooms, open floor plans..but no amount of renovation is going to get you a larger kitchen with pantry if it is tiny to begin with, or larger rooms, or more bathrooms (I don't know how people survived on just 2 1/2 baths - now even a TH has 3 baths). You could only work with the small space that you have and renovate that..

From what I've seen, the houses priced 100K less do not have upgrades, have very small rooms, closet and storage space negligible..the reason we bought our home new was because we could get more value for the money - for 100K more we had so much more space and the house was new (and we didn't have to worry about replacing roof, HVAC, wiring)

[Anonymous]

I do agree with the posters saying that people look suspiciously when we list new homes for sale..We actually waited for our neighbor to close before listing ours..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to buy the older, unrenovated home for $100K less. In your home, you got to pick your finishes. If I spend $100K less on the structure, I can afford to pick my finishes--just like you did.

Fair enough..With an additional 100K you could renovate your kitchen, bathrooms, paint and maybe the flooring to your taste..but what about the costs of roof replacement, HVAC replacement, wiring replacement..and what about additional closet space and larger rooms, open floor plans..but no amount of renovation is going to get you a larger kitchen with pantry if it is tiny to begin with, or larger rooms, or more bathrooms (I don't know how people survived on just 2 1/2 baths - now even a TH has 3 baths). You could only work with the small space that you have and renovate that..

From what I've seen, the houses priced 100K less do not have upgrades, have very small rooms, closet and storage space negligible..the reason we bought our home new was because we could get more value for the money - for 100K more we had so much more space and the house was new (and we didn't have to worry about replacing roof, HVAC, wiring)

You're talking like a McMansion owner.

The features you mention in the first paragraph absolutely factor into the price people offer for new houses. I would prefer a smaller well built home with finishes I choose than a large house with someone else's finishes.

As for the second paragraph - I don't think that a new house means you don't have to worry about the roof, HVAC, wiring, etc. There are a lot of greedy developers in DC who build shoddy houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to buy the older, unrenovated home for $100K less. In your home, you got to pick your finishes. If I spend $100K less on the structure, I can afford to pick my finishes--just like you did.

Fair enough..With an additional 100K you could renovate your kitchen, bathrooms, paint and maybe the flooring to your taste..but what about the costs of roof replacement, HVAC replacement, wiring replacement..and what about additional closet space and larger rooms, open floor plans..but no amount of renovation is going to get you a larger kitchen with pantry if it is tiny to begin with, or larger rooms, or more bathrooms (I don't know how people survived on just 2 1/2 baths - now even a TH has 3 baths). You could only work with the small space that you have and renovate that..

From what I've seen, the houses priced 100K less do not have upgrades, have very small rooms, closet and storage space negligible..the reason we bought our home new was because we could get more value for the money - for 100K more we had so much more space and the house was new (and we didn't have to worry about replacing roof, HVAC, wiring)

You're talking like a McMansion owner.

The features you mention in the first paragraph absolutely factor into the price people offer for new houses. I would prefer a smaller well built home with finishes I choose than a large house with someone else's finishes.

As for the second paragraph - I don't think that a new house means you don't have to worry about the roof, HVAC, wiring, etc. There are a lot of greedy developers in DC who build shoddy houses.

+1, was just about to say that OP sounds like she has a mcmansion. Mcmansions have really fallen out of favor, having been exposed for the shoddy construction and wastefulness they are. 2.5 bathrooms would be ideal for our family (1 kid now, another one planned in the future). I can't imagine needing a third. And Mcmansions are just so out of scale-- a "large" kitchen in a mcmansion is way too big, unless your family is huge or you entertain large groups all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to buy the older, unrenovated home for $100K less. In your home, you got to pick your finishes. If I spend $100K less on the structure, I can afford to pick my finishes--just like you did.

Fair enough..With an additional 100K you could renovate your kitchen, bathrooms, paint and maybe the flooring to your taste..but what about the costs of roof replacement, HVAC replacement, wiring replacement..and what about additional closet space and larger rooms, open floor plans..but no amount of renovation is going to get you a larger kitchen with pantry if it is tiny to begin with, or larger rooms, or more bathrooms (I don't know how people survived on just 2 1/2 baths - now even a TH has 3 baths). You could only work with the small space that you have and renovate that..

From what I've seen, the houses priced 100K less do not have upgrades, have very small rooms, closet and storage space negligible..the reason we bought our home new was because we could get more value for the money - for 100K more we had so much more space and the house was new (and we didn't have to worry about replacing roof, HVAC, wiring)

You're talking like a McMansion owner.

The features you mention in the first paragraph absolutely factor into the price people offer for new houses. I would prefer a smaller well built home with finishes I choose than a large house with someone else's finishes.

As for the second paragraph - I don't think that a new house means you don't have to worry about the roof, HVAC, wiring, etc. There are a lot of greedy developers in DC who build shoddy houses.

Also, there are plenty of older homes where these systems have already been replaced. None last a lifetime. I agree that the age of the systems matters in how people value a house, but it is not a given that a house built 20 or 50 years ago has 20- or 50-year-old systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to buy the older, unrenovated home for $100K less. In your home, you got to pick your finishes. If I spend $100K less on the structure, I can afford to pick my finishes--just like you did.

Fair enough..With an additional 100K you could renovate your kitchen, bathrooms, paint and maybe the flooring to your taste..but what about the costs of roof replacement, HVAC replacement, wiring replacement..and what about additional closet space and larger rooms, open floor plans..but no amount of renovation is going to get you a larger kitchen with pantry if it is tiny to begin with, or larger rooms, or more bathrooms (I don't know how people survived on just 2 1/2 baths - now even a TH has 3 baths). You could only work with the small space that you have and renovate that..

From what I've seen, the houses priced 100K less do not have upgrades, have very small rooms, closet and storage space negligible..the reason we bought our home new was because we could get more value for the money - for 100K more we had so much more space and the house was new (and we didn't have to worry about replacing roof, HVAC, wiring)

You're talking like a McMansion owner.

The features you mention in the first paragraph absolutely factor into the price people offer for new houses. I would prefer a smaller well built home with finishes I choose than a large house with someone else's finishes.

As for the second paragraph - I don't think that a new house means you don't have to worry about the roof, HVAC, wiring, etc. There are a lot of greedy developers in DC who build shoddy houses.

+1, was just about to say that OP sounds like she has a mcmansion. Mcmansions have really fallen out of favor, having been exposed for the shoddy construction and wastefulness they are. 2.5 bathrooms would be ideal for our family (1 kid now, another one planned in the future). I can't imagine needing a third. And Mcmansions are just so out of scale-- a "large" kitchen in a mcmansion is way too big, unless your family is huge or you entertain large groups all the time.

I agree with you generally, but interesting that you chose the bathroom example. I have a family of 4 with 2.5 baths. It is absolutely fine, but I don't think one more bath would be overly extravagant and there are occasional times it would be useful. Six+ baths you might find in a McMansion is a different story.

[Anonymous]

OP, which area area you in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to buy the older, unrenovated home for $100K less. In your home, you got to pick your finishes. If I spend $100K less on the structure, I can afford to pick my finishes--just like you did.

Fair enough..With an additional 100K you could renovate your kitchen, bathrooms, paint and maybe the flooring to your taste..but what about the costs of roof replacement, HVAC replacement, wiring replacement..and what about additional closet space and larger rooms, open floor plans..but no amount of renovation is going to get you a larger kitchen with pantry if it is tiny to begin with, or larger rooms, or more bathrooms (I don't know how people survived on just 2 1/2 baths - now even a TH has 3 baths). You could only work with the small space that you have and renovate that..

From what I've seen, the houses priced 100K less do not have upgrades, have very small rooms, closet and storage space negligible..the reason we bought our home new was because we could get more value for the money - for 100K more we had so much more space and the house was new (and we didn't have to worry about replacing roof, HVAC, wiring)

You're talking like a McMansion owner.

The features you mention in the first paragraph absolutely factor into the price people offer for new houses. I would prefer a smaller well built home with finishes I choose than a large house with someone else's finishes.

As for the second paragraph - I don't think that a new house means you don't have to worry about the roof, HVAC, wiring, etc. There are a lot of greedy developers in DC who build shoddy houses.

+1, was just about to say that OP sounds like she has a mcmansion. Mcmansions have really fallen out of favor, having been exposed for the shoddy construction and wastefulness they are. 2.5 bathrooms would be ideal for our family (1 kid now, another one planned in the future). I can't imagine needing a third. And Mcmansions are just so out of scale-- a "large" kitchen in a mcmansion is way too big, unless your family is huge or you entertain large groups all the time.

The talk about "McMansions" being "out of favor" and "out of scale' is favored by those who listen only to the sound of their own voices, yet regularly contradicted by others who prefer looking at data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/the-ultimate-symbol-of-the-pre-recession-boom-is-back/?utm_term=.67d3c72c966d

http://www.newsweek.com/big-houses-us-are-back-and-theres-growing-housing-bubble-631568

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanefitch/2014/12/10/big-houses-and-sprawling-suburbs-are-back-and-better-than-ever/#18979a62ce32

[Anonymous]

This happens every summer. The market is just not as hot as it is in the spring of fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to buy the older, unrenovated home for $100K less. In your home, you got to pick your finishes. If I spend $100K less on the structure, I can afford to pick my finishes--just like you did.

Fair enough..With an additional 100K you could renovate your kitchen, bathrooms, paint and maybe the flooring to your taste..but what about the costs of roof replacement, HVAC replacement, wiring replacement..and what about additional closet space and larger rooms, open floor plans..but no amount of renovation is going to get you a larger kitchen with pantry if it is tiny to begin with, or larger rooms, or more bathrooms (I don't know how people survived on just 2 1/2 baths - now even a TH has 3 baths). You could only work with the small space that you have and renovate that..

From what I've seen, the houses priced 100K less do not have upgrades, have very small rooms, closet and storage space negligible..the reason we bought our home new was because we could get more value for the money - for 100K more we had so much more space and the house was new (and we didn't have to worry about replacing roof, HVAC, wiring)

You're talking like a McMansion owner.

The features you mention in the first paragraph absolutely factor into the price people offer for new houses. I would prefer a smaller well built home with finishes I choose than a large house with someone else's finishes.

As for the second paragraph - I don't think that a new house means you don't have to worry about the roof, HVAC, wiring, etc. There are a lot of greedy developers in DC who build shoddy houses.

+1, was just about to say that OP sounds like she has a mcmansion. Mcmansions have really fallen out of favor, having been exposed for the shoddy construction and wastefulness they are. 2.5 bathrooms would be ideal for our family (1 kid now, another one planned in the future). I can't imagine needing a third. And Mcmansions are just so out of scale-- a "large" kitchen in a mcmansion is way too big, unless your family is huge or you entertain large groups all the time.

The talk about "McMansions" being "out of favor" and "out of scale' is favored by those who listen only to the sound of their own voices, yet regularly contradicted by others who prefer looking at data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/the-ultimate-symbol-of-the-pre-recession-boom-is-back/?utm_term=.67d3c72c966d

http://www.newsweek.com/big-houses-us-are-back-and-theres-growing-housing-bubble-631568

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanefitch/2014/12/10/big-houses-and-sprawling-suburbs-are-back-and-better-than-ever/#18979a62ce32

None of these, even the WP, focus on the D.C. area.

[Anonymous]

Its always the price. Drop it about 3% to 5% and see the interest shoot up.

The market has not cooled in any significant way. Yes sales are down compared to earlier in the spring but so are new listings which still means it remains a sellers market. The median Day on Market for the area even in June is around 11 which indicates an extremely hot market. Nearly half the homes coming on the market even in the summer are moving in less than 11 days - yours isn't one of them because you priced it too high.

In Feb, there will be more buyers around but there will also be inventory which probably means you will still run into the pricing problem....i.e. the second rule of real estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to buy the older, unrenovated home for $100K less. In your home, you got to pick your finishes. If I spend $100K less on the structure, I can afford to pick my finishes--just like you did.

Fair enough..With an additional 100K you could renovate your kitchen, bathrooms, paint and maybe the flooring to your taste..but what about the costs of roof replacement, HVAC replacement, wiring replacement..and what about additional closet space and larger rooms, open floor plans..but no amount of renovation is going to get you a larger kitchen with pantry if it is tiny to begin with, or larger rooms, or more bathrooms (I don't know how people survived on just 2 1/2 baths - now even a TH has 3 baths). You could only work with the small space that you have and renovate that..

From what I've seen, the houses priced 100K less do not have upgrades, have very small rooms, closet and storage space negligible..the reason we bought our home new was because we could get more value for the money - for 100K more we had so much more space and the house was new (and we didn't have to worry about replacing roof, HVAC, wiring)

You're talking like a McMansion owner.

The features you mention in the first paragraph absolutely factor into the price people offer for new houses. I would prefer a smaller well built home with finishes I choose than a large house with someone else's finishes.

As for the second paragraph - I don't think that a new house means you don't have to worry about the roof, HVAC, wiring, etc. There are a lot of greedy developers in DC who build shoddy houses.

+1, was just about to say that OP sounds like she has a mcmansion. Mcmansions have really fallen out of favor, having been exposed for the shoddy construction and wastefulness they are. 2.5 bathrooms would be ideal for our family (1 kid now, another one planned in the future). I can't imagine needing a third. And Mcmansions are just so out of scale-- a "large" kitchen in a mcmansion is way too big, unless your family is huge or you entertain large groups all the time.

The talk about "McMansions" being "out of favor" and "out of scale' is favored by those who listen only to the sound of their own voices, yet regularly contradicted by others who prefer looking at data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/the-ultimate-symbol-of-the-pre-recession-boom-is-back/?utm_term=.67d3c72c966d

http://www.newsweek.com/big-houses-us-are-back-and-theres-growing-housing-bubble-631568

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanefitch/2014/12/10/big-houses-and-sprawling-suburbs-are-back-and-better-than-ever/#18979a62ce32

None of these, even the WP, focus on the D.C. area.

Neither did PP, but the logic of your post escapes me because this region is more suburb-centric than most. DC accounts for only a small fraction of its population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to buy the older, unrenovated home for $100K less. In your home, you got to pick your finishes. If I spend $100K less on the structure, I can afford to pick my finishes--just like you did.

Fair enough..With an additional 100K you could renovate your kitchen, bathrooms, paint and maybe the flooring to your taste..but what about the costs of roof replacement, HVAC replacement, wiring replacement..and what about additional closet space and larger rooms, open floor plans..but no amount of renovation is going to get you a larger kitchen with pantry if it is tiny to begin with, or larger rooms, or more bathrooms (I don't know how people survived on just 2 1/2 baths - now even a TH has 3 baths). You could only work with the small space that you have and renovate that..

From what I've seen, the houses priced 100K less do not have upgrades, have very small rooms, closet and storage space negligible..the reason we bought our home new was because we could get more value for the money - for 100K more we had so much more space and the house was new (and we didn't have to worry about replacing roof, HVAC, wiring)

You're talking like a McMansion owner.

The features you mention in the first paragraph absolutely factor into the price people offer for new houses. I would prefer a smaller well built home with finishes I choose than a large house with someone else's finishes.

As for the second paragraph - I don't think that a new house means you don't have to worry about the roof, HVAC, wiring, etc. There are a lot of greedy developers in DC who build shoddy houses.

+1, was just about to say that OP sounds like she has a mcmansion. Mcmansions have really fallen out of favor, having been exposed for the shoddy construction and wastefulness they are. 2.5 bathrooms would be ideal for our family (1 kid now, another one planned in the future). I can't imagine needing a third. And Mcmansions are just so out of scale-- a "large" kitchen in a mcmansion is way too big, unless your family is huge or you entertain large groups all the time.

The talk about "McMansions" being "out of favor" and "out of scale' is favored by those who listen only to the sound of their own voices, yet regularly contradicted by others who prefer looking at data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/the-ultimate-symbol-of-the-pre-recession-boom-is-back/?utm_term=.67d3c72c966d

http://www.newsweek.com/big-houses-us-are-back-and-theres-growing-housing-bubble-631568

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanefitch/2014/12/10/big-houses-and-sprawling-suburbs-are-back-and-better-than-ever/#18979a62ce32

None of these, even the WP, focus on the D.C. area.

I don't think that matters. Not every trifle has to specifically focus on DC area to apply. Just looking outside at all the McMansions still being built IN the DC area is proof enough they haven't "fallen out of favor." Builders are building them, and people are buying them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to buy the older, unrenovated home for $100K less. In your home, you got to pick your finishes. If I spend $100K less on the structure, I can afford to pick my finishes--just like you did.

Fair enough..With an additional 100K you could renovate your kitchen, bathrooms, paint and maybe the flooring to your taste..but what about the costs of roof replacement, HVAC replacement, wiring replacement..and what about additional closet space and larger rooms, open floor plans..but no amount of renovation is going to get you a larger kitchen with pantry if it is tiny to begin with, or larger rooms, or more bathrooms (I don't know how people survived on just 2 1/2 baths - now even a TH has 3 baths). You could only work with the small space that you have and renovate that..

From what I've seen, the houses priced 100K less do not have upgrades, have very small rooms, closet and storage space negligible..the reason we bought our home new was because we could get more value for the money - for 100K more we had so much more space and the house was new (and we didn't have to worry about replacing roof, HVAC, wiring)

You're talking like a McMansion owner.

The features you mention in the first paragraph absolutely factor into the price people offer for new houses. I would prefer a smaller well built home with finishes I choose than a large house with someone else's finishes.

As for the second paragraph - I don't think that a new house means you don't have to worry about the roof, HVAC, wiring, etc. There are a lot of greedy developers in DC who build shoddy houses.

+1, was just about to say that OP sounds like she has a mcmansion. Mcmansions have really fallen out of favor, having been exposed for the shoddy construction and wastefulness they are. 2.5 bathrooms would be ideal for our family (1 kid now, another one planned in the future). I can't imagine needing a third. And Mcmansions are just so out of scale-- a "large" kitchen in a mcmansion is way too big, unless your family is huge or you entertain large groups all the time.

The talk about "McMansions" being "out of favor" and "out of scale' is favored by those who listen only to the sound of their own voices, yet regularly contradicted by others who prefer looking at data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/the-ultimate-symbol-of-the-pre-recession-boom-is-back/?utm_term=.67d3c72c966d

http://www.newsweek.com/big-houses-us-are-back-and-theres-growing-housing-bubble-631568

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanefitch/2014/12/10/big-houses-and-sprawling-suburbs-are-back-and-better-than-ever/#18979a62ce32

None of these, even the WP, focus on the D.C. area.

I don't think that matters. Not every trifle has to specifically focus on DC area to apply. Just looking outside at all the McMansions still being built IN the DC area is proof enough they haven't "fallen out of favor." Builders are building them, and people are buying them.

Of course it matters. Nothing is more location sensitive than real estate. What happens in Phoenix, Tampa, or even LA has almost no impact on D.C. What happens in ashburn had almost no impact on Bloomingdale or Columbia Heights.

In terms of market activity, are they being sold as quickly and for as much? I am in fairly close in Bethesda and two new builds in the neighborhood that could be considered McMansions sat for almost a year and sold for hundreds of thousands less than the original asking price. So, sure they sold, but it certainly seemed like the builder miscalculated demand.