Sold in Belmont: The Blue Colossus Colonial of Dalton Road

By 1 Comment

Photo: The Colossus of Dalton.

A weekly recap of residential properties sold in the past seven-plus days in the “Town of Homes.”

• 21 South Cottage Rd. Townhouse condominium (2010). Sold: $1,400,000. Listed at $1,499,900. Living area: 3,700 sq.-ft. 9 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 3.5 baths. On the market: 204 days.

• 185 Dalton Rd. Colonial (2014). Sold: $1,435,000. Listed at $1,450,000. Living area: 4,040 sq.-ft. 10 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 72 days.

• 15 Albert Ave. Antebellum “Old Style” house (1853). Sold: $567,500. Listed at $649,900. Living area: 1,608 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths. On the market: 78 days.

• 11 Rayburn Rd. Ranch (1952). Sold: $950,000. Listed at $969,888. Living area: 1,983 sq.-ft. 7 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 3 baths. On the market: 82 days.

Drive down Dalton Road from Washington Street and you’ll encounter a familiar symmetry of houses in this typical residential neighborhood of Belmont, which for the past six decades has allowed generations of folks the ability to live in a community with great schools and safe streets.

But now … out of the ground … emerges … the blue Colossus of Dalton! In a community where homes max out at 2,000 square feet, this massive mass squats its 4,000 square feet of livable space down onto a 7,000 square-foot lot, like a fattened goose waiting to become foie gras.

This colonial-style house feed growth hormones lauds over the neighborhood, blocking out sunlight, depriving the neighbors of a view (other than a wall) and dominates the sight line of all the neighboring properties. This sort of house would look great … on a cul-de-sac in a gated community in Atlanta! It’s then appropriate to view the trio of third-floor, front-facing dormers as castle turrets, from where the new owner can view their “common” neighbors from the heights of this eighth wonder of East Belmont.

I have just one query for the architect: You forgot the moat.

And to boot, it’s visually and architecturally boring. It’s a box! I swear the designer must have graduated from the University of LEGO.

Simply put, the Colossus of Dalton is a crystal clear example of what can only be called space pollution – not the debris hovering above the earth, but a builder’s disregard of the neighbors and lot size to cram as much into a space that no one ever thought would be subjected to this level of land abuse.

In the past, big homes were to be placed on big lots, so not to impose yourself upon the community that was laid out with more modest housing in mind. If you wanted to build a big house in Belmont, head over to the Hill or Marsh Street. But not anymore. This construction of mostly shapeless mega-residentials is occurring throughout Belmont. A quick spin around Plymouth, Bradford, Arthur and Brighton will find four super-sized homes including what surely be the poster child of “big and ugly” at the corner of Arthur and Brighton.

Is it any wonder why many in the Shaw Estates neighborhood are rushing to next month’s Town Meeting to have a moratorium placed on similar buildings? (And not that this is a Belmont-centric reaction; the Los Angeles City Council has placed a two-year moratorium on McMansions in several neighborhoods.)

Why is this happening in Belmont? As they say, God isn’t making any more land, and developers are coming in to exploit that fact in a town many people still want to come to live.

Let’s make no mistake, this trend of mega-homes is only based on extracting a big profit without much effort. You need only look as far as the Colossus: The lot was once home to a six room, three bed, 1 and a 1/2 bath Garrison Colonial built in 1952 with 1,600 square feet of space. In 2013, developer Marsh & Oldham Homes purchases the building for $610,000, knocked it down, put up the “box” for $367,500, and takes off for home in Billerica with a tidy $500,000 profit. And the neighborhood is left with a blue Colossus too big for its lot’s britches.

And there’s the rub – they leave Belmont’s established neighborhoods with these oversized McMansions thumbing its noses at the need for privacy, proportionality, and community.

Does that mean there can never be new construction in Belmont. Of course not. In fact, there are three wonderful examples of new construction fitting into an existing neighborhood a two-minute walk from the Colossus on the Cambridge side of Grove Street: architect Keith Moskow’s “Red House” (a bit big at 2,800-square-feet but it could be scaled downward) adjacent to builder-developer Duncan MacArthur’s house detailed with plated copper and the former brick ranch at 161 Grove St. demolished to build a wonderful 2,600 square foot airy modern house.

Any of those would have been a welcome addition to a neighborhood.

Housing Trust’s First-Time Homebuyer Program Now Taking Application

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont’s first-time homebuyers assistance program.

Belmont’s Housing Trust has created a First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program (HAP) to help low- and moderate-income families purchase homes in town. The HAP program will help participants purchase a condominium, single-family or two-family home. 

Three eligible households, picked by lottery, will receive financial assistance using Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding to purchase homes with a maximum sales price of:

  • $289,300 for a one-bedroom,
  • $341,000 for a two-bedroom, or
  • $362,600 for a three-bedroom unit.

There are income limits: for example:

  • a two-person household can have income up to $55,800.
  • a four-person household can have income up to $69,700.

And buyers must agree to a long-term deed restriction on the property purchased, to keep it affordable for future purchasers. 

Applications are available now by contacting Jennifer at Metro West Collaborative Development, Inc. at 617-923-3505 x 4 or jvc@metrowestcd.org or visit its website.  

There will be informational meetings on Thursday, April 30, at 7 p.m. and Saturday, June 6 at 10 a.m. at the Belmont Public Library, Flett Room. 

Applications are due by June 15, and lottery will be held on June 23.

Sold in Belmont: A Well-Designed Kitchen/Eating Area Sells This 95-Year-Old House

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Where the kitchen is located.

A weekly recap of residential properties sold in the past seven days in the “Town of Homes.”

• 41 Pequossette Rd. Center-entry Colonial (1922). Sold: $984,900. Listed at $950,000. Living area: 2,028 sq.-ft. 8 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 3.5 baths. On the market: 67 days.

• 52 Alexander Ave. “The White House” Modern colonial, new construction (2014). Sold: $1,885,000. Listed: $2 million. Living area: 3,500 sq.-ft. 9 rooms, 5 bedrooms, 4 full baths. On the market: 208 days.

• 51 Davis Rd. Ranch (1953). Sold: $499,900. Listed at $550,000. Living area: 1,137 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 2 baths. On the market: 80 days.

• 215 Brighton St. “Old Style” brick house (1929). Sold: $725,000. Listed at $689,000. Living area: 1,504 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 2 baths. On the market: 70 days.

Four unique homes sold in Belmont last week, with something special in each.

• Do you want to see how to renovate a kitchen? 41 Pequossette Rd. is the place; smart design from sectioning off a place for the preparation with glass kitchen cabinets with drawers and storage, a cooking area, a flush inset refrigerator, a correctly-sized (i.e. small) eating island with the dining area set into a quirkily designed addition that was built with three large windows and a glass door to the porch. Add a minimum number of lighting fixtures and a splash of design features (tiles), you have a kitchen that makes for efficient cooking and enjoyable dining. It certainly brings a modern “pop” to the nearly century old house in the Benton Estates. 

Screen Shot 2015-04-09 at 2.26.48 PM Screen Shot 2015-04-09 at 2.26.59 PM Screen Shot 2015-04-09 at 2.27.10 PM Screen Shot 2015-04-09 at 2.27.31 PM

• The “White House” at 52 Alexander Ave. has it all: modern construction that is special in so many ways with its clean lines and European design sensibilities. In addition, its location has become a big plus, less than a block from the new location of Foodies and the Belmont Farmers Market. If the new owner is a foodie, you’ve struck gold.

• The simple ranch at Davis Road was purchased for just under $500,000 which has brought entry in the the community with an inexpensive residential property. 

• Since the past owner bought the house at 215 Brighton St. for $578,000 early in 2013, they spent $12,000 on the roof, $21,000 to put in a patio and repair the outside stairs and did a good job on the kitchen (love the large floor tiles). They sold it for nearly $150,000 above the past sale price in two years; that’s an annual appreciation rate of $75,000. Not bad. 

Sold in Belmont: Reasonable Sales Prices on Three Below Medium Priced Homes

By 1 Comment

Photo: 37 Bartlett Ave.

A weekly recap of residential properties sold in the past seven days in the “Town of Homes.”

• 20 Winter St. Brick Ranch (1961). Sold: $650,000. Listed at $649,000. Living area: 1,248 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 75 days.

• 37 Bartlett Ave. Framed Colonial (1905). Sold: $540,000. Listed at $579,000. Living area: 1,334 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 208 days.

• 103 Shaw Rd. Custom-crafted Ranch (1955). Sold: $815,000. Listed at $809,900. Living area: 1,562 sq.-ft. 7 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 1-full, 2-half baths. On the market: 71 days. 

Three reasonably priced homes, all below Belmont’s median house value of $850,000, sold this week.

For two, the ranch on Winter and the old Colonial on Bartlett, the final sales price was less than 10 percent from the town’s assessed value: The Ranch sold for $650,000 with an assessed value of $592,000 (about nine percent) and the Colonial bought for $540,000 with a town valuation of $494,000 (right at eight-and-a-half percent).

The outlier this week was the custom ranch on Shaw Road in the Shaw Estate’s neighborhood, which has seen house prices bumped up by a smattering of “McMansions.” The final sales price was $815,000, exactly 20 percent greater than its valuation of $652,000.

While hardly a representation of the entire residential market, could this be a harbinger of a more reasonable sales season where values closely relate to true valuations or is that the impact of the snowiest winter ever with buyers staying on the sidelines?

Come back in July for the answer.

Sold in Belmont: Renovation Rescues Ranch, Sees A Nice Bounce

By Leave a Comment

Photo: 104 Winter St.

A weekly recap of residential properties sold in the past seven days in the “Town of Homes.”

• 104 Winter St. Brick Ranch (1950). Sold: $725,000. Listed at $735,000. Living area: 1,900 sq.-ft. 5 rooms, 2 bedrooms, 2 baths. On the market: 104 days.

There is a show on the HGTV cable channel called Renovation Realities in which DIY (do it yourself)-ers upgrades rooms in their homes using their brawn to put some needed value in their abode.

But sometimes, only a pro can do the proper job. That’s the case of the brick early ranch on Winter Street. Before a new owner put down $65,000 into the structure in 2009, the house was a dump, and a dangerous one to boot. A home inspector noted the building – which was owned by the same family for more than 50 years – had “severe structural damage” and a “very dated condition” of its interior leading the town assessors to rate the house as “very poor” with the assessed value falling below $500,000 in 2010.

The new owner – who purchased the house for $550,000 – put in replacement windows, remodeled the kitchen and both bathrooms, finished the basement as well as the necessary structural work done after 2008 sale. The assessors upgraded its ratings to “at least above average.”

And nearly six years later, photos show an inviting “new” house; polished wooden floors, an open floor plan (not very energy efficient) providing nice sight lines. The living room “area” has a great fireplace with ceramic tiles which provides a nice touch. The basement has new wood floors (but why is the stairway carpeted?) with French doors leading outside to the backyard.

But potential buyers soon realized that, while a bright space, there’s not much space; the new basement nearly doubles the livable space. In fact, the town still calculates the total space as 1,200 sq.-ft. While the seller placed a bed in the cellar, the official number of bedrooms is just a pair.

That’s why this fine space would only handle a $735,000 list price when it went on sale in early December. When no one nibbled by the New Year, down went the sales price to $719,000 in mid-January.

But unlike many Belmont houses, the drop in the listing brought people to the site. By March, there was more than just interest; buyer activity pushed the price up to $725,000.

So, spend some now, cash out later.

Sold in Belmont: An Overpriced Cape Required Owner to Take a Haircut

By Leave a Comment

Photo: A nice Cape in Winn Brook, but is it worth $789,000?

A weekly recap of residential properties sold in the past seven days in the “Town of Homes.”

• 208 Grove St. Center-entry Colonial (1940). Sold: $782,000. Listed at $729,000. Living area: 1,750 sq.-ft. 8 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths. On the market: 125 days.

• 76 Hoitt Rd. Cape (1951). Sold: $700,000. Listed at $789,000. Living area: 1,659 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 1.5 baths. On the market: 129 days.

• 100 Lexington St., Condominium (1977). Sold: $230,050. Listed at $219,900. Living area: 756 sq.-ft. 3 rooms, 1 bedrooms, 1 baths. On the market: 37 days.

Is there an unwritten rule in Belmont that says home sellers and salespeople are required to suspend all reality when pricing real estate?

For example, a simple, clean, classic Cape on Hoitt Road, a block from the Winn Brook. A past owner made a terrible mistake by knocking down a wall to supposedly create an open floor plan – sorry, but it looks like a VFW function hall with that pillar in the middle of the room – but all-in-all, an OK place.

So what were they thinking originally listing it at $789,000? Really? Did the salesperson take a good look at the 80s kitchen, the 70s bathrooms and the 50s upstairs bedrooms? You are asking someone to pay out nearly $3,500 a month in mortgage payments (5 percent down, 4 percent mortgage) for 30 years (!) to live in a house with less than 1,700 square feet? That comes out to $450-per-square foot. That’s nuts. The town assessed the house for $632,000 last year.

That price was so out there one has to believe the seller is thinking they are living in Belmont, California where the medium house price is greater than a $1 million.

And once again, the broker/seller had to swallow hard and admit a mistake was done after potential buyers too a step back when they heard what it would cost them. And they swallowed $89,000 to a far more reasonable $700,000.

Why not price all homes at $1 million and see where it goes.

On the Market: A Classy Colonial, A Heavenly Backyard, It’s Standing

By Leave a Comment

Photo: 208 Grove St. 

A sample of Belmont homes “on the market” ranging from the affordable, the average and the quite expensive.

21 Garfield Rd. Colonial (1937). 2,506 sq.-ft. of livable space: 8 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. Two-car garage. A quarter-acre lot. Price: $1,195,000.

What’s special: Colonial + dead-end street + Belmont Hill = $1 million-plus. This house is a statement of restrained good taste; the interior molding is period perfect, wonderful light oak floors, high sill windows, a new (but smallish) kitchen with cabinets matching the floor’s coloring, a porch off the living room and understated rooms upstairs (but what’s with that half-bath with the stand-alone shower? A bit too narrow to work) that includes an attic office space. Only glaring issue: why did they scare the roof by jamming in a pair of skylights? They’re an eyesore and skylights never work they way you hope. A bit pricey at nearly $1.2 million for 2,500 square feet, but it works. 

The first sentence of the sales pitch: “This classic, hip-roof Colonial, with 4 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, is ideally located at the end of a cul-de-sac on Belmont Hill.”

208 Grove St. Center-entry Colonial (1940). 1,750 sq.-ft. of livable space: 8 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths. One-car garage, attached. A .16-acre lot. Price: $729,000.

What’s special: The backyard. It’s fantastic; a patio for eating and sitting, a great grass yard and a perennial garden on the edges. Great for kids and adults who want family time outside. The house has a finished basement (that could use a refinishing), nice details – a solid mantel over the fireplace – a renovated kitchen and a full-year porch. While it does face a busy roadway, an owner/family is just a walk from Grove Street Playground. Hopefully, the new owners will remove that silly stone paneling on the right side of the front door. No one’s saying, “My, what intricate stone work!” They glance at it and think, “What are they hiding?” 

The first sentence of the sales pitch: “Pristine, ‘move-in-ready’ center-entrance colonial, in desirable Burbank School area. 8 Rooms, 3 bedrooms and 1 full and 1 half bath comprise the 1,750 sq.-ft. living space.”

51 Davis Rd. Ranch (1953). 1,137 sq.-ft. of livable space: 6 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 2 baths. No garage. A tenth-of-an-acre lot. Price: $550,000.

What’s special: Your entry point into Belmont. This is a classic post-war house, built fast to accommodate the demand for single-family homes in the 1950s. Not much to look at but no one is buying this as anything but their jumping-off point to something better. Not a charmer (the town assessor’s gave it a quality rating of “C”) but this ranch does have a finished basement, it’s close to businesses and the bus to Harvard. Bet it’s sold sooner than you’d think. It appears sturdy enough to stand a few more years before a contractor demolishes it to throw up a new, bland and boring two-family on the site. 

The entire sales pitch: “A chance to make this home your own, this wonderful 3 bedroom, 2 bath corner lot home offers a great location. Close to schools, public transportation, and other amenities.”

Sold in Belmont: The Single Ugliest Residence in Belmont Sold, Which is a Good Thing

By 2 Comments

Photo: The ugliest residential building in Belmont. 

A weekly recap of residential properties sold in the past seven days in the “Town of Homes.”

• 92-94 Baker St. Concrete multi-family (1971) Sold: $744,000. Listed at $699,000. Living area: 2,688 sq.-ft. 12 rooms, 6 bedrooms, 2 full, 2 half baths. On the market: 42 days.

There is only one addition that could improve the esthetics of the multifamily sitting near the corner of Hittinger and Baker streets, and it comes at the end of a timing fuse.

The Baker Street two-family apartment building is Belmont’s ugliest residence. It’s a concrete block of nothingness that, unfortunately, plays into the area’s industrial vibe.

Certainly residents will say the equally deplorable condo tower in Cushing Square (built around the same time), the apartment blocks on Lexington Street or some of the Hill’s new upscale “McMansions” – we’ll get to them soon enough – are equally as awful. And I am not just speaking from a Belmont perspective: this eyesore would be inappropriate in any community, be it Belmont, Lexington, Somerville, Malden or Dorchester.

Screen Shot 2015-03-12 at 11.01.37 AM

The building is so unappealing the salesperson could not find a single photograph for the sales portfolio that didn’t create an impression that the structure was anything than a wing of a prison complex. I guess the best photo is one which the evergreens shields the unsightly image from the public.

The exterior’s unlovely coldness is equalled inside with boring square blocks for rooms with a lone interesting architectural detail, a fireplace without any depth or volume. Everything is flat and dull – windows flush to the wall, doors that are more like panels – although the living and bedrooms do have wood floors. It’s a building that demonstrates an architect who never attended to spend even the most minuscule effort on this structure.

This building demonstrates the ethos of modest housing development in the 1960s and 1970s: build it cheap without regard or thought to whoever would be the resident. Blame the contractor and town officials at the time for allowing the construction of this abomination to occur.

Yet, this afterthought sold in just over a month at nearly $50,000 more than its original list price. People saw beyond the hideous nature of the structure to purchase it, so it won’t – hopefully – be demolished. And this is a good thing. It’s ugly, inappropriate and, more important, affordable. Because of its unappealing look, it will never reach the same rent or price of a similarly-sized unit in a two-family on, let’s say, Hammond Road. 

Even if this building remains an apartment or is converted into condominiums by an off-site owner, these units will allow a couple or a young family to get their toes into a town that doesn’t have many reasonably-priced housing outlets for those seeking a safe place to live with a (still) good school system.

So let’s take the good with the really horrible, horrifically bad.

 

2014 Was a Good Year to Sell Real Estate in Belmont

By Leave a Comment

It’s official: 2014 was a very good year for anyone selling real estate in Belmont as the average sales price for a home – be it a Colonial, a condo or an up-and-down two family – increased by more than five percent, according to the data compiled by  McGeough Lamacchia Realty of Waltham.

The firm included an Infographic “map” of Belmont real estate data.

The housing market remained strong in Belmont in 2014, with a total of 320 homes – single-family, condos and multi-family – sold at an average sale price of $748,839, about five and a half percent increase from 2013.  The total number of homes sold in 2014 is 11 fewer than in 2013, which is part of a trend that contributed to overall home sales in Massachusetts being down 1 percent in 2014.

  • Single-family: 169 sold in 2014 versus 179 in 2013, for an average price of $976,919 which is $60,000 more than last year’s average of a little more than $910,000.
  • Condominiums: 91 condominiums sold in 2014 compared to 98 in 2013, with an average sold price of $595,454, an increase from 2013’s average of $573,301.
  • Multi-Family: 60 homes sold in 2014, as opposed to 54 in 2013. The average sale price in 2014 was $674,145, nearly $35,000 more than the average in 2013. This makes multi-family homes the only category to both see more homes sold, and an average higher sale price.

While hardly anyone can call the average housing price as “cheap,” Belmont remains affordable compared to Cambridge and Lexington, where a single-family home can cost up to $314,556 more when you look at average sale prices. Arlington, Waltham, and Watertown come underneath Belmont’s average price for a single-family home by anywhere from 34 to 53 percent.

Sold in Belmont: Supply and Demand Effecting Prices on Farnham

By 1 Comment

A weekly recap of residential properties sold in the past seven days in the “Town of Homes.”

• 119 Farnham St. Cape (1938) Sold: $750,000. Listed at $699,000. Living area: 1,200 sq.-ft. 7 rooms, 2 bedrooms, 1.5 baths. On the market: 52 days.

• 33 Trowbridge St. Brick spilt level (1957) Sold: $600,000. Listed at $685,000. Living area: 1,435 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 2 bedrooms, 2 baths. On the market: 148 days.

• 115 Farnham St. Sideways Garrison Colonial (1932) Sold: $728,000. Listed at $799,000. Living area: 1,740 sq.-ft. 7 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 52 days.

Three homes close enough to the commuter rail line for their new owners to hear the trains traveling to and from Boston were sold this week at prices well below Belmont’s median price of $845,000. What may come to a surprise to many, it was the smallest of the trio – a classic Cape on Farnham Street, a five-minute stroll to Belmont Center – that brought in the most for its seller, a cool three-quarters of the million dollars for 1,200 sq.-ft. of livable space. Compare that to the house one door down the street with an extra bedroom, half-bath and 500 sq.-ft. sinking to $728,000.

Sure, there are plenty of reasons for the difference in price: needed repairs, renovations, lot size, the terrible decision to place the side of the Colonial facing the street and more. Or it could have been the entry of the a second home into the market at a price that appeared to be a bargain. Let’s see how it worked out.

The larger house at 115 Farnham went on the market in November, 2014 at $799,000, more than $110,000 greater than its assessed value by the town. Likely the coming holidays and winter’s arrival deadened the market and so it sat at that price into the New Year.

Come Jan. 6, 119 Farnham hits the market at $699,000. While it too is well above its assessed value of $571,000, it’s the bargain on the street compared to the house one door down. The pressure of added supply and a lower cost alternative forced the hand of those selling 115 Farnham, who cut the price by $50,000 that day.

Here’s where supply and demand took charge: greater eyes viewing the more “affordable house” at 115 Farnham brought in more competition and bids at the expense of the larger house a few feet away.

When the sales were completed, the smaller house sold for $180,000 more than its assessed value while the larger home brought in a little more than $50,000 above its value. The winner in this case are the new owners at 115 Farnham, getting a bargain while over at 119, the new owners will love their new house just as much at $625 per square foot.