Jump to content

"$1 million pad not what it used to be"


nativehou

Recommended Posts

Did anyone else notice a certain quote from Lisa Gray's column in today's Chron? The column, titled "$1 million pad not what it used to be", discusses the status of high-end realty in Houston, including tear-downs making way for the huge monstrosities people want now.

While it's not a direct quote, Martha Turner, of Martha Turner Realtors, said this -- "In Hunters Creek and Piney Point, Turner said, a nothing-special 1950s house, 1,500 to 2,500 square feet, can sell for $800,000. Nine months later, that house will be gone, and the new one on the lot will command $2.4 million. In Tanglewood, any house under $1 million is a teardown.

I know some of these homes have serious issues and some are nicer than others, but Martha isn't doing Houston a favor by calling them "nothing special." Maybe it was the columnist's choice of words, but regardless, that's what ended up in the paper.

We need more realtors like rps who will speak up for the "nothing special" homes!

http://search.chron.com/chronicle/openDocu...p;selectedPath=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

both Gray and Anderson (who was (is?) part of the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission) have been strong proponents in the preservation realm - it's funny to see their attitudes on these folks (Gray: look at these rich folks (tongue-in-cheek)...Anderson: i get a huge commission).

my favorite quote:

Someone had thoughtfully furnished the yawning space between the Jacuzzi and the marble-topped sink with a big round ottoman: a place for the weary to rest while crossing the vast lavatory expanse.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In Hunters Creek and Piney Point, Turner said, a nothing-special 1950s house, 1,500 to 2,500 square feet, can sell for $800,000. Nine months later, that house will be gone, and the new one on the lot will command $2.4 million."

That's a lot of profit for the developers/builders. It's easy to see why the older houses vanish when people are willing to pay through the nose for the "opulence" they get in these new homes. It's just too bad the new houses are so uninspired (according to my tastes anyway). Honestly, I don't think I would be such a preservationist over some of the "nothing special 50's ranch homes" if the newer homes were incredible modernist buildings.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know some of these homes have serious issues and some are nicer than others, but Martha isn't doing Houston a favor by calling them "nothing special." Maybe it was the columnist's choice of words, but regardless, that's what ended up in the paper.

Realtors should sell homes of all types and should not discrimintate, she is being "the Imus" and calling sub one million dollar homes nappy headed hos!

Shame on her!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it's not a direct quote, Martha Turner, of Martha Turner Realtors, said this -- "In Hunters Creek and Piney Point, Turner said, a nothing-special 1950s house, 1,500 to 2,500 square feet, can sell for $800,000. Nine months later, that house will be gone, and the new one on the lot will command $2.4 million. In Tanglewood, any house under $1 million is a teardown.

http://search.chron.com/chronicle/openDocu...p;selectedPath=

Turner didn't mean to diss '50s houses. She was, unfortunately, just describing the market: Unless a house in Memorial is over 4,000 square feet, it's bulldozer fodder. To survive a sale, an older, smaller house has to be "special" enough to attract a Mod fan able to spend $800K. And if you're looking for a Mod in that price range, you can be picky.

I need to write soon about the gigantism afflicting most new houses. But the truth is, I don't understand it. I mean, I see why builders like big houses: Since price is largely determined by square footage, the bigger the house, the bigger the builder's profit. But why do *buyers* want gigantic houses? Any ideas?

--Lisa, from the Chron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to write soon about the gigantism afflicting most new houses. But the truth is, I don't understand it. I mean, I see why builders like big houses: Since price is largely determined by square footage, the bigger the house, the bigger the builder's profit. But why do *buyers* want gigantic houses? Any ideas?

that would be interesting - some warped sociological keeping up with the mega-joneses, perhaps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to write soon about the gigantism afflicting most new houses. But the truth is, I don't understand it. I mean, I see why builders like big houses: Since price is largely determined by square footage, the bigger the house, the bigger the builder's profit. But why do *buyers* want gigantic houses? Any ideas?

--Lisa, from the Chron

From the builder's perspective, it is all about the same. They'll provide whatever the consumer is willing to buy, and if it is a larger product, then yes they're going to make more money on that home, but they're also going to put more resources into it, so to some extent, it nets out. Ultimately, competitive pressures among builders keep their profits pretty reasonable at the end of the day.

More or less, it comes down to money on the consumer's part. When you have more than you know how to spend, there is a tendency to purchase more space because it is at least marginally more useful. The correlation between an individual's financial stregnth and their home size goes back many centuries. As society grows wealthier, more people are able to afford the larger homes.

I'm sorry that it doesn't make for a very juicy story, but it really is a pretty simple matter. Just my two cents, but I think that a much more interesting article would acknowledge the above, but might focus more attention on people who live far below their means. See what makes them tick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to write soon about the gigantism afflicting most new houses. But the truth is, I don't understand it. I mean, I see why builders like big houses: Since price is largely determined by square footage, the bigger the house, the bigger the builder's profit. But why do *buyers* want gigantic houses? Any ideas?

--Lisa, from the Chron

Great to hear from you, Lisa!

I don't understand the current mindset either. Status can be shown in many ways. Size of a house doesn't need to be one of them. I rarely go into our formal living room/dining room and I often feel guilty that the room is being wasted. I feel like I need to plan times to go in and read in there. That's the power of TV I guess. We spend most of our time in the room with the tv and the laptop. Gives me those "Oh NO, I'm becoming my parents! moments."

There are times where I wish the bathroom was a bit bigger (even the master bath only has one sink!), but at the same time, it's not so bad sharing get ready time with my wife. And I can go to the guest bathroom if need be.

The new Dwell features homes under 1000 square feet, but I don't think any of them are in Texas.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new Dwell features homes under 1000 square feet, but I don't think any of them are in Texas.

Jason

Actually, and surprisingly, one of the feature home is in Houston. It's in the Regency House, a highrise on Westheimer near Kirby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to write soon about the gigantism afflicting most new houses. But the truth is, I don't understand it. I mean, I see why builders like big houses: Since price is largely determined by square footage, the bigger the house, the bigger the builder's profit. But why do *buyers* want gigantic houses? Any ideas?

--Lisa, from the Chron

Hi, Lisa:

I really appreciated the column yesterday. Very well done. Personally, I only know one couple that has a monstrous house. They tore down a beautiful ranch and built a 6,500 sf Mediterranean style home. And they have no children!

Why would someone choose to not only build that type of house, but MAINTAIN it! My god, what are the electricity bills in something like that? And certainly they're paying housekeepers to keep it clean and neat. There is such an emphasis now on pampering yourself that it has extended to the physical house. I guess they feel they "deserve it", but what are you giving yourself? In my opinion, it's just a constant maintenance headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is property taxes. Very few individuals are willing pay Houston property taxes on a $1,000,000 lot when that lot does not include a home of a similar caliber.

Property taxes (which are really more assoicated with the State than any particular municipality) do distort the housing market, but generally, they act to 1) depress land values, because the real estate asset is bundled with an offsetting liability, and 2) depress investments in taxable improvements to the land. This means that there is actually a tax disadvantage to building larger homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turner didn't mean to diss '50s houses. She was, unfortunately, just describing the market: Unless a house in Memorial is over 4,000 square feet, it's bulldozer fodder. To survive a sale, an older, smaller house has to be "special" enough to attract a Mod fan able to spend $800K. And if you're looking for a Mod in that price range, you can be picky.

I need to write soon about the gigantism afflicting most new houses. But the truth is, I don't understand it. I mean, I see why builders like big houses: Since price is largely determined by square footage, the bigger the house, the bigger the builder's profit. But why do *buyers* want gigantic houses? Any ideas?

--Lisa, from the Chron

It's a status and marketing thing. We're told that's what we should want and so we strive for it. We're told that his and her water closets, his and her walk-in closets, heated salt water swimming pools, 4 car garages, 30 foot tall entry foyers, mud closets (since when does the average socialite get muddy?), home theaters, and all of the rest of the junk are absolute MUSTS.

People just follow the herd and the herd wants all of that junk now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went home last night and opened up the new Cite they gave us with our membersip. Coincidentally enough it has an article by Houston Mod Board Member Michelangelo Sabatino and it discusses 6 new (since 2000) houses of around 2000 sq. ft. and how many builders forget about ecological responsibility with the large houses being built. Not only are the big houses expensive to maintain, often they are energy drainers.

Part of Houston Mod's mission is to educate people on the benefits of modern living, and that includes just this kind of discussion. I don't know if we can help turn it around, but articles in Cite and the Chronicle certainly help.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...