Are these H St. NE / Capitol Hill houses priced appropriately?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Think it closes around $750k-$770k. |
Anonymous
I clicked so I could disagree with you but you are so right. |
Anonymous
Tennessee Ave is pending. |
Anonymous
Just noticed that the long-sitting Emerald Street house is "in need of some work," per the listing, which usually means "in need of a lot of work" in realtor-speak. |
Anonymous
That 8th street house is just so, so unfortunate on the outside. Like it is hard to find a more unwelcoming facade -- no yard, the color scheme screams "prison" to me, the ancient window units sticking out. Like I look at this house and I look at the asking price and it almost makes me mad. I see stuff in this neighborhood that feels overpriced all the time, but this one probably takes the cake. And the shame is that if they dropped the price to something more reasonable, it would sell and the new owners would likely brighten it up so it didn't look so depressing. Sigh. |
Anonymous
It's not as bad as some I've seen and the two-tone paint almost works, IMO. Maybe it would be better with more muted shades? I don't know. But there's something very urban-looking about it in a way that's not true of most Capitol Hill rowhomes. |
Anonymous
Urban is putting it nicely. There's some creative photo editing of the facade in the listing, and the Google Streetview gets you closer to reality. But in person, that little row is entirely depressing. The door is maybe four steps to the bus stop in front of it, and it's a particularly narrow stretch of sidewalk. Buses in your front "yard" all day. No thanks. $599k would have been a better starting price. There are some really nice 2br renovations in the $700k range, and this house just can't compete. |
Anonymous
This closed today for $878,693. For 2BR and 1,056sf. Time to learn to love the suburbs. |
Anonymous
That price seems really unreasonable even in these strange times. I'd probably broaden my search to other neighborhoods around the city--or accept being a long-term renter--before high-tailing it to the suburbs. The benefit of being a long-term renter in DC is that it's basically like owning a property, but without all the extra expenses. DC tenant law makes traditional leases worthless, and there are very limited circumstances in which a landlord can reclaim the property. Squatters rights for the win! |
Anonymous
I stopped by the open house for 1115 C NE and it showed really well—not well enough for what it sold, IMO, but I can see between that and the location why at least a couple of people got silly with their offers. Although C is kind of a busy street, come to that. And yeah, we're renting in CH. We love the neighborhood, and there's an advantage to living in an old house that someone else has to pay to fix (OTOH, it means they have no incentive to replace crummy low-end appliances or drafty windows, either). But it would be nice if buying were at least an option. |
Anonymous
|
Seeing all these tiny row homes going for 800+ makes condo living look more appealing. The problem is that even moderately sized condos (@1000 sq ft, 2 bed, 2 bath) can cost 700-900k on the Hill, because most of the new condos being built are high end. I feel like there's a huge market for 2 bedroom condos for under 600k, but that's virtually impossible to find at this point unless you are talking about an older building (which may not even have central air or the ability to put washer/dryers in units because of the ventilation issues). You can find them in Trinidad but even that is shifting, and in order to get something more affordable, you have to buy a ground level unit or something in the worst part of the neighborhood or something tiny.
I know no one wants to hear this, but I wish they'd build more midsize condo buildings with low fees and minimal amenities. Yes, I'd prefer a row home. But I value being in this neighborhood more than I value owning a SFH, so if I can't afford one, I can't afford one. But it would be nice, for those of us willing to make the compromise in order to stick around for the proximity, the neighborhood feel, and the schools, if there was an affordably priced option. Instead, I feel like people like me will just be priced out until it's not possible to live here unless you are very wealthy, which will actually fundamentally change the neighborhood a lot more than just building out some of the main thoroughfares with multifamily housing would. |
Anonymous
That all makes sense, but I just don't see us downsizing into a condo. I think we'll either end up renting long-term (which leaves the question of what happens when we get closer to retirement age) or accept that we can pay less than half of the price of a Capitol Hill rowhome and take the Metro to many of the places we like around the Hill. I wouldn't be able to take afternoon walks down to the National Mall, but that walk has made me cranky ever since the stupid fence went up around the Capitol (different rant). |
Anonymous
At the same time, though, if you're in the market for a Capitol Hill home and have the financial means, why on earth would you choose a condo when you could pay the same price for a similarly sized rowhouse with at least some outdoor space, no neighbors above and below you, and zero ridiculous condo fees? When we were in the market for our first home as a married couple in like 2008, we thought for sure we were going to be living in a chopped-up rowhouse condo until we saw a comparatively priced two-bedroom rowhouse on Pickford Place NE (which has been mentioned in this thread). After that, the choice was clear. I feel like there are so many of these small rowhouses on CH that it's not worth it for developers to build condos apart from the luxury buildings directly on H Street. There's too much competition in the neighborhood. But yeah, it also makes these small houses ever more expensive. |
Anonymous
I mean, you are kind of answering your own question -- those tiny row homes are now more expensive than condos. If your option is an 800 sq ft row home with proportions that are almost unlivable if you have a kid (like a teeny tiny second bedroom, a first floor so narrow you can't have even a small dining table, no outdoor space or parking, etc) or a less expensive 1200 ft condo that is much more livable and where you might actually be able to have a kid or two, then why choose the tiny house? Often condos are more livable even when their square footage is similar because if it's all one level, you don't have to accommodate stairs, and usually the really narrow row homes don't get chopped up, so you have more width to work with. And the choice is moot if you can't afford the row house. It actually is possible to get a condo on CH for 500-600k, often with more square footage than one of these tiny houses, sometimes with other features like a patio, a decent sized deck, or parking. Basically, if you want to stay in the neighborhood and you want to own, lots of people have simply been priced out of even the smaller row homes and condos are the only available option. You can always move to another neighborhood to get the row home if that's important to you... but that's another neighborhood with a different cost/benefit analysis. Many of us really, really want to stay in CH and are willing to make some compromises. But "paying an extra 300k over my budget" is not really available to me. Condo living is. |
Anonymous
|
Thoughts on this one? Certainly spacious!
https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/5-Walter-Houp-Ct-NE-20002/home/9908709 |