S&P/Case-Shiller released its November home price index numbers. Washington, DC metro area home prices fell 2.4% month-over-month, 19% over the past year, and 28% since the market peak in May 2006.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation has pretty much vanished. (Thank falling energy prices.) This means nominal and real house price decline numbers are roughly the same over the past year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hopefully this Lance guy wil pipe in...
ReplyDeleteHere we go again. Case Shiller is inaccurate why? Because, yes, it includes West Virginia in the Washington DC market.
ReplyDeletePeople who live in WVA work in DC so why not include their home sales?
ReplyDeleteIt's a respected model, one that has credibility with other economists. Which index can you point to that is more credible?
"Here we go again. Case Shiller is inaccurate why? Because, yes, it includes West Virginia in the Washington DC market."
ReplyDeleteYeah - case shiller admitted as much when they noted the CS index overestimates the declines close to the city, and underestimates the declines far out yonder.
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/052708_Housing_bubbles_collapse.pdf
With the exception of Neil, I think we all get that though...
"case shiller admitted as much when they noted the CS index overestimates the declines close to the city, and underestimates the declines far out yonder."
ReplyDeleteI will second case shiller on this point. This is certainly true in the Washington, DC area.
"case shiller admitted as much when they noted the CS index overestimates the declines close to the city, and underestimates the declines far out yonder."
ReplyDeleteI will second case shiller on this point. This is certainly true in the Washington, DC area.
Yeah Lance and bunch of others were saying 7-15%.
ReplyDeleteBut BUT BUT BUT...the "professional services sector is growing!"
Thanks for the data James.
"WVA is just like DC and the close-in suburbs."
ReplyDelete"No it's not."
"You only think it is because you're emotionally invested."
"No, a good portion of the run-up in prices in DC is due to gentrification and other externalities."
"Poor deluded idiot."
"Ignorant fool."
The completion of this thread has been a public service provided by IBC, LLC. Helping people live more productive lives.
Comments thread closed.
Noz said...
ReplyDeleteYeah Lance and bunch of others were saying 7-15%."
Yep - and we will say it again, since as the other owner of this blog, DAVID noted, it varies hugely depending how close you are to the city:
Average price change 2007-2008
DC Proper +1.1%
Arlington -3.5%
Alexandria -6.3%
Fairfax -17.7%
Loudoun -24.7%
PWC -34.7%
The 6 areas above are also ranked in order to their proximity to the city. See the difference?
Yes...and now graph the rate of change and see if it is slowing, speeding up, increasing, decreasing.
ReplyDeleteYou are stating a value at a single point...but no indication of the slope of the trend.
Guess what...I'll bet PWC will bottom out quicker than any of the other areas.
"You are stating a value at a single point...but no indication of the slope of the trend."
ReplyDeleteFair enough heres the rate of change by area 2005-2008
DC
2008 +1.1%
2007 +1.7%
2006 -0.8%
2005 +18.2%
Arlington
2008 -3.5%
2007 +1.5%
2006 -0.6%
2005 +20.6%
Alexandria
2008 -6.3%
2007 -0.5%
2006 +3.3%
2005 +21.1%
Fairfax
2008 -17.7%
2007 -0.2%
2006 -0.1%
2005 +22.7%
Loudoun
2008 -24.7%
2007 -5.6%
2006 +0.1%
2005 +24.9%
PWC
2008 -34.7%
2007 -8.7%
2006 +1.5%
2005 +24.8%
No clear trend at all in DC proper. Arl & Alex look down a bit, but kinda noisy. Not so for the rest of them. Clearly, the music stopped for all of them in 2005, but while some basically stagnated, others got trhown into reverse.
"Guess what...I'll bet PWC will bottom out quicker than any of the other areas."
Maybe - why dont we check a forward looking indicator like days on the market. If there was just a lag, you would think the huge price declines cause PWC homes sell ultra fast, whereas DC homes linger for days and days and days.
Here is our most recent days on market Dec 2008:
DC - 78
Arl - 70
Alex - 84
Ffx - 96
Lou - 104
PWC - 108
Why - whats this??? Even after years of huge price declines, PWC is still the clear laggard in terms of market health? By this forward looking indicator, PWC looks to be the last one to bottom out.
Sondis said...
ReplyDeleteNo clear trend at all in DC proper.
You must have a special version of excel. Mine shows a trend.
Noz said...
ReplyDelete"Guess what...I'll bet PWC will bottom out quicker than any of the other areas."
Apparently Noz, you didnt read what else case shiller told us:
"relatively stonger demand for housing will limit price declines in neighborhoods with shorter work commutes, better schools, easier acess to work...When combined with large inventories of unsold housing on the edges of urban areas, this shift in preferences will mean that prices for homes in outlying neighborhoods (READ PWC) will continue their more rapid decline and will be slower to rebound when housing markets finally start to recover."
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/052708_Housing_bubbles_collapse.pdf
So not only are you arguing against Sondis, you are arguing agianst Case Shiller - the same ones who have been arguing for years that there was a bubble. Are you telling me that in this case, Case Shiller is wrong?
PS - Sondis, it sounds like you understand this thing pretty well too. Where have you been for the last 4 years when I was fighting the neil (no area is different) wars of 2006-2007?
"robert said...
ReplyDeleteNo clear trend at all in DC proper.
You must have a special version of excel. Mine shows a trend."
Again the last 4 years.
DC
2008 +1.1%
2007 +1.7%
2006 -0.8%
2005 +18.2%
Its clear the bubble burst in 2005 - but what about since? A bullish perspective was that 2006 was THE downturn and its only UP from here. That however is stupid.
Personally, I see a 7-15% drop for DC proper - a staggering loss when you consider its performance for the last 3 years. However, given the forward looking indicators like days on market, & the words of case shiller, I see no chance it returns to 2001 prices as does NOZ.
Anon - ive been here lurking for a while. Its only once I really became comfortable with the data and such that I started posting.
Oh my goodness!! Arguing against Case Shiller...what is the world coming to?
ReplyDeleteGive me a break man...use your brain. Just because Case Shiller or JD Powers or whoever else says something, are you just going to believe them and not do your own research????
You're a frog in water that's being turned up slowly to a boil bud.
Enjoy.
Sondis,
ReplyDeletelet me digest your numbers and I'll get back to you.
By the way, what is your source? Is it that document you posted earlier?
One other thing...why does the data start at 2005? Can you go back further?
ReplyDeleteANON:
ReplyDeleteGo ahead and graph this link for DC...
Look at the slope at the end:
Tell me what it is:
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/CSHomePrice_History_012724.xls
Which includes the following:
District of Columbia DC, Calvert MD, Charles MD, Frederick MD, Montgomery MD, Prince Georges MD, Alexandria City VA, Arlington VA, Clarke VA, Fairfax VA, Fairfax City VA, Falls Church City VA,
Fauquier VA, Fredericksburg City VA, Loudoun VA, Manassas City VA, Manassas Park City VA, Prince William VA, Spotsylvania VA, Stafford VA, Warren VA
The data can be quickly obtained here:
http://novabubblefallout.blogspot.com/2009/01/s-november-home-price-index.html
Zillow shows a flat ride with some ups and downs..but the downward tredn is there..and just begining.
http://www.zillow.com/local-info/VA-Arlington-home-value/
See here on this document, page 27:
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/SPCS_MetroArea_HomePrices_Methodology.pdf
Price versus mortgage rates. Mortgage rates are essentially bottomed out and will be on the rise...any predictions to what will happen to home prices according to this Case Shiller graph? Let me help...they'll go down. As a matter of fact, the graph clearly shows a downturn at the end. And they downturn will be proportional at best, if not accelerated in return.
All the while, the OFHEO ranked (2007 data) DC at a reasonably good -2.9% loss in 1 year and about -2% for the quarter...this was already the beginning of the downturn.
James has posted many good posts that show and backup such trends for the latest days. Go check them out.
Essentially, as I have pointed out, DC is following and will continue to follow national trends pertaining to large metropolitan cities.
I believe we are already 19.7% down from the peak in DC...
"Noz said...
ReplyDeleteGive me a break man...use your brain."
Hold up - do you disagree with what they are saying? It sounds very plausible to me and very consistent with the data for the last 4 years.
ANON:
ReplyDeleteLook at their data. Always look at the data...cross reference, correlate.
The data shows otherwise. It's quite clear a downward trend exists. If by what they mean by "weathering better than other areas"...well hope so...I'd hate to be in PWC.
"If by what they mean by "weathering better than other areas"...well hope so...I'd hate to be in PWC."
ReplyDeleteThats all I was trying to get at.
You started this thread by saing:
"Yeah Lance and bunch of others were saying 7-15%."
Thats when we pointed out that the case shiller number includes hard hit and easy hit places which is representative of how neither one of them is doing.
I think you are arguing because you think I or someone else here thinks DC or any other area is "immune". Thats bullshit. No place was immune, evey place will get hit. However, some will get hit hard, and some will not. Thats all I was trying to point out.
Oh, as for where Sondis got his data, Im not sure, but he probably got it from here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mris.com/reports/stats/
Honestly, the fact that you dont know this tells me alot. Many of us here could bury you in all sorts of data going down to individual zip codes in the DC area.
I could give it to you all now, but honestly, I wont because I kinda enjoy the parallels between you and neil. A boisterous LA guy, making the same mistakes as he did. For example:
"Guess what...I'll bet PWC will bottom out quicker than any of the other areas."
Jury is out on that, but given the forward looing data (which I also have), its likely to be false.
Also your statement.
"as I have pointed out, DC is following and will continue to follow national trends pertaining to large metropolitan cities."
That one is patently false. We know that for certain. By some measures we were the cause of the whole thing. By other measures, we were in line with every other metro area. By no measure are we a laggard.
The paralelles between you and neil are striking, down to the same mistakes and everything. Its just your very late to the DC party.
Just a reminder, I was in the same boat as you 4 years ago, eager to show why all areas in and around DC were going to get destroyed by subprime, alt A, job loss, substitution effect, etc. etc. etc.
However, as I delved deeper and deeper into the data, thats when I realized how consistent it was - turns out some areas are indeed different after all.
In the end, I think you will learn this too, or you will just grow tired and run away like Neil did.
Again, before you get to angry with your response - no place is immune, but some are innoculated.
What we know is that the data shows that prices in DC are teeter-tottering.
ReplyDeleteThat's a fact. It has nothing to do with where I am from, what city I live in, etc. That's an excuse you use to bolster your comments...which you need not do.
Because of the instability of prices, coupled with an appalling outlook on the economy, a tightening credit market, etc etc, point towards the national trend of declines like everywhere else in this country.
Places that you call inoculated are so not because jobs, not because of gentrification...but because of already prevailing wealth. That's a fact too.
I ask Sondis where he gets his data because many times in the past, people arguing points you try to make lift the data from real estate sponsored sites. Which are a joke.
The places that are "different" as you say are already well beyond my reach....it's the places I can afford like any average joe living on the US that I need to care about.
What you don't seem to understand that this trend is happening everywhere...where gentrified places feel "better off"...will weather better. So let them.
Too many areas around the world and within this country that are far more gentrified, have better standards of living, have better job markets, etc etc..than DC that are getting hit hard.
I think you need to realize that you are at the top of the roller coaster ride that has traveled level for a while.
Your time will be up soon. And 7-15% will be numbers you'll be begging for IMO.
"Noz said...
ReplyDeleteThe places that are "different" as you say are already well beyond my reach....it's the places I can afford like any average joe living on the US that I need to care about."
Then what the hell are you arguing about? The only people here making the "its different here" argument are the pumpers of DC proper, Arlington and (sometimes) Alexandria. Alltogether these 3 areas are very tiny areas, less than 1/10th of the entire DC metro area, and frankly not all that nice or wealthy. These and only these are the "its different here" areas.
No one here makes that argument about places like Fairfax, or Loudoun - the 2 wealthiest counties in the ENTIRE USA. Its NOT different there. No one makes that argument about PWC, or PG or Montgomery, or Calvert or Charles or really the 90+ percent of the DC area where "average joes" can afford and where currently homedebtors are on their nees begging and screaming for mercy.
You notice how despite my bullishness there is very little pushback from anyone on this site? Bubble blogs are by their nature very bearish. However, no one here seems willing to refute these stats other than you.
The reason, I suspect is that very few people care. Even those that can afford the core areas, very few would want to live there with their tiny cramped houses, lack of personal space, and high crime rates.
Years ago, the blog moderator David pointed out how the core areas would probably do much better than the rest of the 90% of the DC area which is now begging and screaming for mercy.
The new moderator James, pointed out how the core areas were doing much better than the 90% of DC begging and screaming for mercy.
Its only you that seems to give any pushback to this assertion - the core areas are doing better, and are likely to continue doing better.
Now, as I have clearly established, (or have now hopefully estailshed) - all we are talking about here is three tiny, miniscule areas compared to the 90+ percent of the area that has succumbed to pure devastation.
If all you care about is the 90 percent of the DC area where average joes can afford and where homedebtors are lining up for their burial, why are you so worked up about the remaining 10%?
ANON:
ReplyDeleteI'm arguing because you and people like you keep saying DC is special but it's not because there's wealth there...but rather new jobs, gentrification, and whatever other nonsense you want to throw at it.
What stats are you referring to that I'm refuting and what not? I keep telling you that the stats and graphs I've looked at all indicate the market is going down. DOWN. And there's no resistance to it going DOWN.
Other people here don't post because probably they are smart...unlike me...who keeps wasting my time trying to make you understand that point. What's so hard to understand? What are you arguing about anyway?
I made predictions based on what I see...you made different predictions. It's as simple as that.
I state that what is happening in DC can be found to be happening else with even stronger signals of supposed "hope" yet those places are falling apart. Why is that so hard to swallow?
Let me ask you a simple question. Would you say that 10% you talk about in DC is composed of the same types of people economically speaking as people in Beverly Hills or Bel Aire or San Marino?
Just curious.
"Other people here don't post because probably they are smart"
ReplyDeleteUhh no. We dont post because the "core wars" were waged years ago.
Noz, you have given this anonymous troll a precious gift - a new sparring partner. Thankfully this guy was nearly done dancing on Neil's grave and you riled him up again.
Yes it is infurating that his "immune areas" are still sitting there, smugly, hardly falling at all, but for the vast majority of us who come here because we dont want to buy there, we really dont care.
And you, anonymous troll - we get it, you won we lost. Have fun in your seedy little crime infested immune areas. Cut this guy Noz some slack and GET OVER YOURSELF!!!!
@Anonymous:
ReplyDelete"Even those that can afford the core areas, very few would want to live there with their tiny cramped houses, lack of personal space, and high crime rates."
But the enduring questionis: are these areas too expensive because no one wants to live there? Or is it the other way around? ;)
@Noz
"Let me ask you a simple question. Would you say that 10% you talk about in DC is composed of the same types of people economically speaking as people in Beverly Hills or Bel Aire or San Marino?"
Jebus Cripes, you really are determined to demonstrate your ignorance of the local market, aren't you?
@Noz:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dchousingprices.com/
Check the Sept '08 numbers. Old City I and Old City II are--for all intents and purposes--the Gentrification Belt.
And, no, those $400k row houses aren't all being snapped up by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. ;)
If I may, I think the issue is Noz may believe he is dealing with housing bulls version 1.0. These bulls were the clueless know nothings citing from their talking points memo (i.e. real estate only goes up, etc.). They were countered by bears version 1.0 with their generic talking points (no place is immune, etc). These guys ruled the roost at this blog from 2005-2007 when the bears 1.0 clearly won.
ReplyDeleteWhat emerged then was a different type of bull version 2.0. They had stats, nuanced arguments, willingness to abandon theories that dont work, etc. As time went on, they overwhelmed the bears 1.0, and basically swept them out of here too during the "core wars".
The core wars raged for about a year, and some very respectable bears version 2.0 emerged. Both sides drew, and now everyone is taking a wait and see approach. In the mean time, alot of us sat back, learned, gained a ton of "institutional knowledge" about the forces that may or may not be affecting DC. Its not just stats, its the articles, the exchanges, the research papers, the revelations about foreclosure rates by county, Alt A loans by county, leading indicators, phantom inventory rates, etc. etc.
New Bears version 1.0 come here time to time, realize they would need to devote a substantial amount of time to get up to speed to debate bulls 2.0, and move the conversation forward, and generally lose interest. The most recent one went by the handle "Patience" I think.
So thats why I think you got the cold reception here. The articles and arguments you cite are very reminiscent of bears 1.0. Thats not to say, you couldnt whip any of the bulls 2.0, however, you are at least a years worth of institutional knowledge, disadvantage.
Now, if you wanted to take the time to get up to speed and debate them, that would be a welcome change. I am dismayed in that I (wanting to buy) are in general agreement with them about the fate of the "core". Thus, it is my hope that someone would be willing to take the time and effort to pour over everything we learned here, and see if there was some trend, some little thing that the bulls v 2.0 missed. They have a very strong circumstantial case, but it is by no means however, airtight.
Cheers...
By the way, to the anon or anons who continue to dance on Neil's grave, im not sure if you know this, but Neil eventually capitulated on the core DC on his blog.
ReplyDeleteIf I recall, after about 6-8 months of poring over the DC data, DC went from "one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse" to one of those with "the least downside risk". And on the DC core, he went from it being "down 40% in nominal terms" to "at most a 20% drop".
Admittedly, he didnt ever state that here, but the fact that he owned up to it is admirable IMHO. So in my book, he deserves alot more slack than those who just simply ran away.
I will admit however, I thought "got bacon? Sizzle-Lien" was hysterical!
Amy @ 4:19:
ReplyDelete"Yes it is infuriating that his 'immune areas' are still sitting there, smugly, hardly falling at all, but for the vast majority of us who come here because we dont want to buy there, we really dont care."
We're still in the middle of the correction process. Implicit in the "immunity" argument is the idea that the run up in prices in "immunozones" was caused by different and fundamentally-sound reasons that were wholly independent of the "unsound" causes of the run up in, say, PWC. Do you so the flaw in this assumption?
If an area was so intrinsically desirable to live in, any run up in prices would be matched by an equal run up in rents, and we know that didn't occur. That reflects a class of buyers who are not purchasing the value of the property as a place to live (as a renter does), but rather, are paying for future expected appreciation. This is the very definition of a bubble.
And it's not all rosy in the "immunozones." The fact that sales in "immune" Alexandria and Arlington are at 1998 levels reflects that the market there is indeed changing, and not for the better. Though prices of consummated sales may not be dropping by much, wiling buyers are scarcer. Ask yourself this: If all the houses sold in N. Arlington in April 2005 were relisted in April 2009, would they take much longer to sell, for much less money? I say they would.
Bid-ask stare downs are common in real estate corrections; areas where owners have greater means to hold out will take longer to correct. But I have more confidence in math and fundamental metrics than I do in emotional nonsense whereby someone says their asset class is "immune" from the laws of economics. I'm also one of those who has left this site. There are other real estate blogs with moderated and more informative comments.
If an area was so intrinsically desirable to live in, any run up in prices would be matched by an equal run up in rents, and we know that didn't occur..
ReplyDeleteSure this is anecdotal, but the folks next door to me are renting a 1100 sq ft row house for $1800/mo.
If you'd tried to charge that much for rent in this neighborhood 10 years ago, you'd have been laughed at, then probably shot in the kneecap. Looking through the rentals on Craig's List, the going price for a two bedroom townhouse looks to be around 1500-2000.
So, yeah, there has been a corresponding run-up in rents as well.
"Terminator X said...
ReplyDeleteIf an area was so intrinsically desirable to live in, any run up in prices would be matched by an equal run up in rents, and we know that didn't occur."
This is not always true. As I was explaining on the other thread, it depends upon whether you are using an income approach (i.e. rents), or a highest best use approach. (i.e. what, other than its current use, would generate more revenue from this property).
In urban areas, highest best use, is commonly, but not always the prevailing factor. Suppose you have a 1,200 sf shack in a very mixed use district. 2 buyers approach.
Buyer A wants to live there so uses a cost (i.e. rents) approach. He takes rent value (say 1,000 a month) and use a multiplier (say 150) to get a price. (Say 150K).
Buyer B is a developer, looking for land in said mixed use district, wants to put up a 30 story office building. Its cost feasible, (i.e. he can derive X million in rents) if the land acquisition cost is >750K.
Guess which offer our buyer will choose? Obviously B, and in this case, the property would never even come close to panning out in terms of rising rents.
This happens all over the place, but more so the more desirable the underlying land is. The rents approach is probably appropriate for 90% of the US, but arlington isnt one of them.
Terminator - heres a great, real world example, I remember showing my students.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/04/AR2006050401906_pf.html
If I recall correctly, the place was the last remaining rowhouse in an otherwise completely demolished block (developer had bought the rest).
Unfortunately, there is no picture, but I can assure you this place was a DUMP. Being as generous as I could possibly be, the place would have rented for 4K a month. Use whatever multiplier you want, but under a rents approach this place was worth 900K - max...
If you read the story, the dumass owner turned down an offer of 2.5 million from the developer. Again, under the highest best use approach, the place (really just the underlying land) was worth 2.5 million, far far above what rents could ever conceivably rise to.
There was no prologue, but I am pretty sure the developer said FU, and eventually built all around them (left right back, etc.)! The moment that happened, the highest and best use had collapsed, and suddenly its highest best use was the current use - a slummy office building.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/04/AR2006050401906_pf.html
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation has pretty much vanished. (Thank falling energy prices.)
ReplyDeleteExcellent! We have a new paradigm; inflation is gone and energy is permanently cheap! Things REALLY ARE different this time! Nothing will ever change. EVER! Whee!
"If you'd tried to charge that much for rent in this neighborhood 10 years ago, you'd have been laughed at, then probably shot in the kneecap."
ReplyDeleteI never said that rents have been flat for the past ten years. I should have been clearer. My point is that rents did not increase at the same rate as prices, indicating that buyers were paying for more than the inherent desirability of the neighborhood (after all, that's what renters pay for as well).
Perhaps my own anecdote will help: I own in Del Ray (Alexandria City), which has been greatly improved over the past 15 years. Rents have roughly doubled in the past eight years while prices have tripled (at a minimum). Why would a renter pay twice as much for a something while a buyer pays three times as much? The answer is that the buyer is paying for more than the "new and improved" Del Ray; the buyer, taking note of recent price increases, is paying for future expected price increases. The buyer may also be apprehensive that current appreciation is permanent and that he'll soon be "priced out forever." Bubbles are created when buyers stop valuing assets on the basis of their intrinsic usefulness and start valuing assets on the basis of what they can sell it for in the future.
And remember well the glib idiots who posted here in 2005 that there was no bubble anywhere. They offered many "plausible sounding" reasons why price increases were justified; we now know in hindsight how wrong they were. For every situation, however absurd, someone will offer plausible sounding reasons to justify the absurdity if there is money on the line. The "immunozone" gibberish is the same "there is no bubble" nonsense on a smaller scale.
"Unfortunately, there is no picture, but I can assure you this place was a DUMP. "
ReplyDeleteSheese, if you knew how to use Google, you'd have a picture of that place at your fingertips.
dcgis.dc.gov also has a picture available.
Remember people, nothing ever changes, gentrification was a myth. Rental parity here we come!!!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803395.html?sid=ST2009012900039&s_pos=
"The rents approach is probably appropriate for 90% of the US, but arlington isnt one of them."
ReplyDeleteI agree that "highest best use" is an appropriate measure of valuation, but I doubt that it is driving prices in the "immunozones." Perhaps you have academic literature to the contrary. Have you checked into the amount of current listings in N. Arlington that are zoned for mixed use? My guess is that most buyers in N. Arlington are paying for the dwelling unit and are not competing against commercial developers because the land is zoned for singly family residential use.
Another best use could be tear downs, but for that to be plausible it would require that the value of the new house exceed the cost of purchasing the old house and building the new house. Not to mention the cost of jumping through zoning hoops and dealing with the opposition of neighbors.
Here is my question....
ReplyDeleteIf I can get on the metro and get off at central station....why is my area not considered "dc metro area"?
"Terminator X said...
ReplyDeleteHave you checked into the amount of current listings in N. Arlington that are zoned for mixed use? My guess is that most buyers in N. Arlington are paying for the dwelling unit and are not competing against commercial developers because the land is zoned for singly family residential use."
Ive never looked at Arlington, but its often block by block. The ones that are on busy streets likely do have the multi use zoning (essential for true highest best use). The more quiet residential ones do not, however they can usually get some sort of variance. Most often they go for more density -- my guess is some areas in Arlington has guys who subdivide and have 2 or 3 houses where only 1 used to be?
"Another best use could be tear downs, but for that to be plausible it would require that the value of the new house exceed the cost of purchasing the old house and building the new house. Not to mention the cost of jumping through zoning hoops and dealing with the opposition of neighbors."
I bet thats your primary driver. Ive never been to N. Arlington but based on what I hear about the McMansions, (and the anti McMansion Zoning) youve probably hit the nail on the head.
PS - thanks for the pleasant exchange. I stated this on the other thread, and get called a troll. Its nice to know not everyone here has lost their head.
Stick around please, this blog needs you.
Does anyone have the average price change over the last 4 years for montgomery county Maryland?
ReplyDeleteIs this area similar to Arlington at all?