heights_yankee Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 What I'd like to find is a modest-sized house (2000-2200 sf) on a full-sized (6600 sf) lot, or at least a 2/3 sized lot where there's at least a semblance of a back yard. Unfortunately, the supply of houses like this is pretty thin. Newbuilds of this size tend to be built on half-sized lots, which I can't help but think will make resale more difficult (an example), and while there is some older construction on the market that fits this description, good ones are few and far between. i've mentioned this before, it might even be in this thread... but the unfortunate thing a lot of builders do is throw up a zero-lot line home before a buyer has a chance to say "i'd like yard instead of a media room and game nook." any house with a decent sized lot seems to be plucked up by a developer before you or i could have a change to decide what we want to do... anyway, good luck with your house hunt and i'm certain you'll enjoy the heights if you settle here (esp with kids. i truly think this is the most family friendly neighborhood in the city. mostly b/c of all the friendly families ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 i've mentioned this before, it might even be in this thread... but the unfortunate thing a lot of builders do is throw up a zero-lot line home before a buyer has a chance to say "i'd like yard instead of a media room and game nook." any house with a decent sized lot seems to be plucked up by a developer before you or i could have a change to decide what we want to do...This seems to be true. A quick search this morning on HAR turned up exactly one non-corner lot with >40 feet of frontage and alley access and it's got an option pending.However, it's not solely a case of developers not understanding that people want yards. There's a significant opportunity cost involved in NOT subdividing a lot. An example:A developer buys a standard-sized Heights lot (50 x 132 = 6600 sf) for $30/sf. Round numbers that's $200k. He subdivides the lot, puts up two 2000 sf houses, and maybe sells them for $360k net of commissions and interest (again, round numbers to simplify the exercise). Let's say his building costs are $80/sf (no idea if this is realistic). That means he nets $360k + $360k - $200k (lot cost) - $320k (building cost) = $200k. In order to compensate for the opportunity cost, to build a 2000 sf house on an un-subdivided lot, he would have to get $560k ($200k for the lot, $160k in building costs, plus the $200k profit from above). Add in commissions and interest, that means a price to the buyer well north of $600k, which is a tough sell for a 2000 sf house in the Heights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marksmu Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 When I was out looking, I first looked at the smaller bungalows - I would have been fine with them - even greatly preferred the yard, but the wife wanted a big closet. She would not budge on this issue. The older homes dont have the closet. So we started looking for new builds and I could not find what I wanted - a nice home, on a large lot with a real Yard. So then I started trying to buy a house not worth renovating to build something we wanted - but we quickly found we could not compete with the builders speed - often buying a house before it was even listed on HAR through standing arangements with money hungry realtors. We ended up having to pay substantially more than we initially wanted to get the big yard and the large closets - I am in one of those homes that does tower over my neighbors - in fact my first floor is above the roof of the home next door...but my house does not stand out on my street...its set back properly, its built more than the minimum setbacks on the sides, and though its taller and larger - I do not feel it has changed the character of the street at all, its McMansion look is quite stunning, especially when fully lit up. The smaller homes are still scattered throughout the area and it does not look one bit funny to me to see a big house next to a small one. In fact I find it attractive. I like the diversity of the homes - to me as long as its not a developer throwing up the same house every 3 lots it looks great! In this area you can still describe your house to somebody trying to get there and they can find it without having to read only numbers - I just hope the heights doesnt become a place you cant find houses without the numbers. I despise the suberbs for this very reason.I love the areas with new homes as much as I love the areas of all small old homes. Personally, I prefer the large ones - alot prefer the small ones - to this end nobody will ever be happy. So Im just happy with what I have, and if others are not - its their problem. This seems to be true. A quick search this morning on HAR turned up exactly one non-corner lot with >40 feet of frontage and alley access and it's got an option pending.However, it's not solely a case of developers not understanding that people want yards. There's a significant opportunity cost involved in NOT subdividing a lot. An example:A developer buys a standard-sized Heights lot (50 x 132 = 6600 sf) for $30/sf. Round numbers that's $200k. He subdivides the lot, puts up two 2000 sf houses, and maybe sells them for $360k net of commissions and interest (again, round numbers to simplify the exercise). Let's say his building costs are $80/sf (no idea if this is realistic). That means he nets $360k + $360k - $200k (lot cost) - $320k (building cost) = $200k. In order to compensate for the opportunity cost, to build a 2000 sf house on an un-subdivided lot, he would have to get $560k ($200k for the lot, $160k in building costs, plus the $200k profit from above). Add in commissions and interest, that means a price to the buyer well north of $600k, which is a tough sell for a 2000 sf house in the Heights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heights_yankee Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 This seems to be true. A quick search this morning on HAR turned up exactly one non-corner lot with >40 feet of frontage and alley access and it's got an option pending.However, it's not solely a case of developers not understanding that people want yards. There's a significant opportunity cost involved in NOT subdividing a lot. An example:A developer buys a standard-sized Heights lot (50 x 132 = 6600 sf) for $30/sf. Round numbers that's $200k. He subdivides the lot, puts up two 2000 sf houses, and maybe sells them for $360k net of commissions and interest (again, round numbers to simplify the exercise). Let's say his building costs are $80/sf (no idea if this is realistic). That means he nets $360k + $360k - $200k (lot cost) - $320k (building cost) = $200k. In order to compensate for the opportunity cost, to build a 2000 sf house on an un-subdivided lot, he would have to get $560k ($200k for the lot, $160k in building costs, plus the $200k profit from above). Add in commissions and interest, that means a price to the buyer well north of $600k, which is a tough sell for a 2000 sf house in the Heights.actually, none of the homes i am thinking of are on subdivided lots. i am thinking primarily homes in woodland heights and that chunk of the heights between 6th and 11th, studewood and the blvd. i walk these streets almost daily and the houses i am thinking of are all one house on one lot. most are the house taking up the whole lot except for the set back and green space between the garage and the house. some have some kind of yard but barely enough for a playscape for kids and definitely not enough room for a pool or any kind of outside recreation. and, yes, these houses all list for and sell for upwards of $500-600k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heights_yankee Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 When I was out looking, I first looked at the smaller bungalows - I would have been fine with them - even greatly preferred the yard, but the wife wanted a big closet. She would not budge on this issue. The older homes dont have the closet. So we started looking for new builds and I could not find what I wanted - a nice home, on a large lot with a real Yard. So then I started trying to buy a house not worth renovating to build something we wanted - but we quickly found we could not compete with the builders speed - often buying a house before it was even listed on HAR through standing arangements with money hungry realtors. We ended up having to pay substantially more than we initially wanted to get the big yard and the large closets - I am in one of those homes that does tower over my neighbors - in fact my first floor is above the roof of the home next door...but my house does not stand out on my street...its set back properly, its built more than the minimum setbacks on the sides, and though its taller and larger - I do not feel it has changed the character of the street at all, its McMansion look is quite stunning, especially when fully lit up. The smaller homes are still scattered throughout the area and it does not look one bit funny to me to see a big house next to a small one. In fact I find it attractive. I like the diversity of the homes - to me as long as its not a developer throwing up the same house every 3 lots it looks great! In this area you can still describe your house to somebody trying to get there and they can find it without having to read only numbers - I just hope the heights doesnt become a place you cant find houses without the numbers. I despise the suberbs for this very reason.I love the areas with new homes as much as I love the areas of all small old homes. Personally, I prefer the large ones - alot prefer the small ones - to this end nobody will ever be happy. So Im just happy with what I have, and if others are not - its their problem.again, i totally see your points but i do have to add that it's not so black and white. i live in a 1930 bungalow in an area with a historic designation- no new construction allowed. however, i have a 3/2 with a huge master bedroom and very substantial closet and almost all the modern amenities i want. i do not have a yard, but i could. it's paved (not by us and we are always debating tearign up the back half of the driveway, but my son loves it for his trike and sidewalk chalk. we all know the kids are the bosses so...). we did not lift a finger to renovate any part of this home. we live in it as we bought it. it exists. i am not saying that's what you should have done, marksmu. not at all. i am just saying that there is a lot of shades of gray in the old vs new discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 actually, none of the homes i am thinking of are on subdivided lots. i am thinking primarily homes in woodland heights and that chunk of the heights between 6th and 11th, studewood and the blvd. i walk these streets almost daily and the houses i am thinking of are all one house on one lot. most are the house taking up the whole lot except for the set back and green space between the garage and the house. some have some kind of yard but barely enough for a playscape for kids and definitely not enough room for a pool or any kind of outside recreation. and, yes, these houses all list for and sell for upwards of $500-600kHmm...try $700-900K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heights_yankee Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Hmm...try $700-900K. listen, you. i said "upwards!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 actually, none of the homes i am thinking of are on subdivided lots. i am thinking primarily homes in woodland heights and that chunk of the heights between 6th and 11th, studewood and the blvd. i walk these streets almost daily and the houses i am thinking of are all one house on one lot. most are the house taking up the whole lot except for the set back and green space between the garage and the house. some have some kind of yard but barely enough for a playscape for kids and definitely not enough room for a pool or any kind of outside recreation. and, yes, these houses all list for and sell for upwards of $500-600kExactly. Since a single 2000 sf home on a 6000+ sf lot isn't attractive economically to the developer, in cases where the builder doesn't (or can't, due to minimum lot size restrictions) subdivide, he builds something with 3500+ sf and sells it for north of $700k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poyea Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 What we did was buy a small, 2/1, (1050 sq ft) bungalow (1915) on a 6600 ft lot that was already nicely updated. And then we added on 1,300 sq ft, including a large LR, master suite, with 2 large walk-in closets (his/her, with hers being the larger one of course), plus a 2 car garage. So, the original, smaller bedrooms with small closets are now the secondary bedrooms. So, we have a one-story, 2,350 sq foot house, on a "normal" lot. From the street, it looks like a modest bungalow, but as we say when we walk around the hood, it is "sneaky big". We matched the trim and hardwood floors as well. Other than the pure size of the rooms, you can't tell between the old and new.So, while we paid high $/ft initially, the add-on at $140/ft makes the total all-in cost of ~$200/ft, well within the range for comparable resales, likely with some profit already built in. Just an idea that worked for us. And, the plus is that you can design the add-on as you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rammer Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 What happens when you string several Heights McMansions next to each other on the same street? A giant McApartment complex. Truly ghastly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heights_yankee Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 What happens when you string several Heights McMansions next to each other on the same street? A giant McApartment complex. Truly ghastly. actually, there are a couple sections (like 8th and beverly) where there are several new homes together BUT they have kept all the trees. the trees make a huge difference and the area is quite nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 What happens when you string several Heights McMansions next to each other on the same street? A giant McApartment complex. Truly ghastly. You get West. U. - except replace the 80's version of the McMansion, the brick colonial, with what we have here. We may have to wait out the recession but it'll happen on some blocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 actually, there are a couple sections (like 8th and beverly) where there are several new homes together BUT they have kept all the trees. the trees make a huge difference and the area is quite nice...There is also a string of them in the 800 or 900 block of Oxford. I don't find them to be hideous, but it does not look like the rest of the neighborhood by any stretch of the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 What I'd like to find is a modest-sized house (2000-2200 sf) on a full-sized (6600 sf) lot, or at least a 2/3 sized lot where there's at least a semblance of a back yard. Unfortunately, the supply of houses like this is pretty thin. Newbuilds of this size tend to be built on half-sized lots, which I can't help but think will make resale more difficult (an example), and while there is some older construction on the market that fits this description, good ones are few and far between.I've been obsessively monitoring houses that fit this description on HAR. A total of 5 houses fitting this description (2000-2500 sf on a 5000+ sf lot) have sold so far in January. Time on the market was 6, 7, 9, 24, and 30 days. A small data pool to be sure, but that's quick in this market. Hopefully builders will take notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heights_yankee Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I've been obsessively monitoring houses that fit this description on HAR. A total of 5 houses fitting this description (2000-2500 sf on a 5000+ sf lot) have sold so far in January. Time on the market was 6, 7, 9, 24, and 30 days. A small data pool to be sure, but that's quick in this market. Hopefully builders will take notice.is one of these the former "putt putt house" we discussed (i believe) earlier in this thread? the renovation is really gorgeous and it sold within 10 days of listing. yes, developers, please note. there are a lot of bungalows in Proctor Plaza ripe for renovation. they will sell quickly at a good price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 is one of these the former "putt putt house" we discussed (i believe) earlier in this thread? the renovation is really gorgeous and it sold within 10 days of listing. yes, developers, please note. there are a lot of bungalows in Proctor Plaza ripe for renovation. they will sell quickly at a good price.Many were new (or newer) construction. The point being that there is a market for modest sized (<2500 sf) homes on reasonable-sized (>4500 sf) lots, which can be offered at a somewhat lower price point. This is especially true when, as is the case currently, the rate spread between conforming and jumbo mortgages is close to 500 basis points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.