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 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.
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....
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.
Anonymous wrote:People pay a new home premium, not unlike a new car premium.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:The 3 houses you list are pretty bad examples. These were all built right at the height of the housing boom.
Anonymous wrote:The 3 houses you list are pretty bad examples. These were all built right at the height of the housing boom.