504 North StreetAnother price cut on North Street
This spec house has enjoyed an interesting pricing history. Originally listed for $11.795 in November '06, it was bumped to $12.960 7 months later. A year after that, the new higher price having inexplicably failed to produce a buyer, its price was reduced to $11.995 and today, 6 months after that drop, it's been cut $1.4 million to $10.595. What's the right price? Obviously its builder doesn't know but, eventually, the market will tell him.
Posts
8 comments:
This is one ugly house. We couldn't believe that weird light-colored stone they were using everywhere. I think the price is about $7, if they are lucky. Mariani isn't selling his (fairly attractive) houses at $8 and change on Sabine and Dairy Rds, so highly unlikely this (far less attractive, to my eyes) house is going for anywhere near double-digits.
Interesting History on that House.
To Quote you from April 30th 2004:
504 North Street
This is a house that you have no doubt admired for as long as you’ve lived in Greenwich—I know that I have. It’s the narrow, pink house set at the corner of North and Dingletown Road amid a three plus acre lawn. Narrow, but certainly not small (well, 5,684 square feet probably feels cramped to today’s wunderkind, but they can always add on). Built in 1931 and modeled, I’m told, on an original Bermudian design, this is a real beauty. A great, two story entranceway, high ceilings throughout and wonderful views of that lawn. It needs work; probably a lot of work, if it is to be completely modernized, but it was a real pleasure to finally get inside this home and satisfy my curiosity after appreciating its exterior’s charm for almost fifty years. Jan Milligan’s got it, for $3,995,000.
Yes - it eventually sold for $3.5 million and, of course, was razed. Too bad, I think - the original added grace and charm to that corner while the new one, in my opinion, detracts.
Chris - are you sure that is the right pic for the house? Isn't the house on the corner of North/Dingletown a hulking Victorian looking place with a row of evergreens (half of which are dead, as I see every morning on my way to work) along the North Street side?
That's a weird choice of adverb: "inextricably failed to produce a buyer."
I agree with anonymous #1 about the ugly stone they're using everywhere. It looks like some kind of stick-on faux stone siding.
Inextricably, inexplicably, where's that damn copy editor when I need her?! (Thanks for the heads up)
I'm pretty sure it's the right picture, since I pulled it from the MLS listing but you're right, it's the house with the dying trees. We realtors sometimes go out of our way to get a picture that looks like the house we want to sell, not the house we have to sell. Donald Rumsfeld, of course, would disagree.
That house also is sited kinda strangely - the backyard drops off and you have an excellent view of the roof of the (relatively small) house next to you.
This one is a clunker. There are just too many houses available on North Street (much less everywhere else) for a not-attractive house on a fairly busy corner to sell.
The big problem is that while these things could sell when there was high demand and low supply, they won't move when that situation is reversed. There are too many houses for sale for any of this home's supposedly-"unique" features (the lawn, say) to overcome.
The builder working on that monstrosity on the North Street Merritt Parkway entrance ramp - I have to wonder what he is thinking. He bought that property when things started to crumble. He broke ground well AFTER things started to fall apart and houses just yards from that (horrible, by the way) location were standing empty and not selling. Why move forward with the project?
Chris - do builders somehow think their offerings are so "unique" that they will sell regardless of market condition or location? Because NONE of them will be in business if their egos outweigh basic economics and rationality.
Current Equity Analyst
Post a Comment