Photo: A townhouse condo that took off like a single-family.

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

• 80 Maple St., Townhouse condominium (1993). Sold: $715,000. Listed at $639,000. Living area: 2,008 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 66 days.

• 133 White St., Condominium (1928). Sold: $513,000. Listed at $515,000. Living area: 1,431 sq.-ft. 7 rooms, 2 bedrooms, 1 baths. On the market: 87 days.

Two former two families now individuals condominiums sold last week with differing outcomes. The newly-converted condo that once was a multiple family on White Street was able to hit its list price of just more than $500,000.

While over on Maple Street, the more traditional townhouse hit the right note for one buyer resulting in a $75,000 premium over the $639,000 list price. The final sales price is a whopping $150,000 more than the town’s appraised value of $561,000 and $220,000 more than when was last sold in 2009.

The nearly quarter-century old townhouse does provide three bedrooms and approximately 2,000 square feet, although the interior appears to have all the hallmarks of a townhouse; open floor plan, narrow room on the ground floor – note how tiny the living room is (is it more a living “space” with the small divider separating the entry way/front door), an updated but smallish kitchen area, and not so spectacular room details.

But with the medium price of single-family homes reaching the high six figures, buyers are willing to put down extra for a condo that resembles a traditional residential structure even if it does share a common wall with its neighbor. Take a look at the newly-constructed townhouse that sold last month on Trapelo. Despite being located across the street from the Fire Department headquarters, next to the VFW, a funeral parlor, a popular park and fronting a busy state highway, it sold for a million dollars. 

Photo: Small and livable on the Elm.

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

• 17 Little Pond Rd., Colonial (1947). Sold: $750,000. Listed at $779,000. Living area: 1,542 sq.-ft. 7 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths. On the market: 123 days.

• 54 Elm St., Brick Colonial condo (1928). Sold: $549,000. Listed at $549,000. Living area: 1,162 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 2 bedrooms, 1.5 baths. On the market: 62 days.

Today, many home buyers wouldn’t deem it worth their time to view a house that is smaller than 2,000 square feet. And as for new construction, 3,000 square feet appears the new minimum. Anything smaller is too “cozy” (translation: SMALL) for most modern families, the thinking goes. 

But do you need a “great room” – remember when they were called living rooms? – with a kitchen the size of would equip a good-sized restaurant (so you can microwave dinner) in a floor plan in which you need roller skates to navigate the manse? Is it necessary to have five bedrooms when you only have two kids and relatives come by once a year and stay at the Meridian? A full size “play” space with the jacuzzi that no one uses? You’re a success of what you do, not what you own.

For a growing number of people, minimizing their footprint and their lives has become an important aspect of their lives. And there is a segment of the housing market to match these new demands. There is the extreme “tiny” home (300 square feet) phenomenon going on in the South and West – there aren’t any of these in Belmont … yet! – and the growing popularity of home designs and plans for homes with under 1,000 square feet, again outside of New England. 

A pair of properties that sold this week in Belmont show why you would be wrong to think that big is better. The classic center-entry Colonial – just a bit over 1,500 square feet – on Little Pond shows what a little living care can go a long way to bring warmth and a modern feel to a fairly standard post-war design. The kitchen was upgraded with design smarts behind it, with new appliances and warm cherry color cabinets and Cambria countertop (Yes! anything but granite!). Space is not wasted here; you do most of your eating at the kitchen table adjacent where you cook (what a concept), and the bikes are parked beside the side door. The living room is a hop and step way and there is a dining room that is fine for most events; the stairway leads to three bedrooms and the full bathroom which was updated. Again, not a master suite in the boudoir but a bedroom that serves its function. Not a half acre out back for the coyotes to roam but a place for a grill and games. 

The condo on Elm is fascinating as it was a single family segmented into condos. I know something of this as my grandfather and his employer, a banker, “bought” – they foreclosed on an elderly man and threw him into the street in 1930 – a beautiful 1874 Colonial Revival with Victorian elements on Aldersey Street in Somerville. They literally split the house down the middle including dividing the grand staircase (!) and master bathroom.

But here, a magnificent brick and frame Colonial was converted into condominiums in 2010 with the space separated horizontally (thankfully!) with the first-floor space having 38 percent ownership and the second and third floor with 62 percent (with 1,900 square feet).

As a side note; what a great way to foster affordability to Belmont by taking those big homes and turning it into condos or apartments. Solidly built, they can be converted with a little care allowing buyers who can’t afford a seven-figure mortgage into Belmont.

Sure it’s 1,100 square feet, but the buyer is getting a condo with a sense of largeness, big rooms and lots of windows, which, if smartly used, you can create a loft feel which is pretty cool. The kitchen is spare but again, just a few upgrades and you can have a combo kitchen/dining area. Plus, no stairs and a big porch where you can spend summers getting a bit tipsy on wine coolers. 

3,500 square feet? So passé! Go small.

Photo: A million no matter how you count it. 

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

• 35 Radcliffe Rd., Ranch (1975). Sold: $701,000. Listed at $679,000. Living area: 1,557 sq.-ft. 7 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 2 baths. On the market: 67 days. 

• 329 Mill St., Ranch (1955). Sold: $714,000. Listed at $747,900. Living area: 2,092 sq.-ft. 7 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 131 days.

• 54 Hurd Rd., Colonial (1926). Sold: $1,000,000. Listed at $995,000. Living area: 2,644 sq.-ft. 10 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 70 days. 

The quintessential Belmont Colonial; on a side street (Hurd Road, with its tumbling elevation change) on a “squat” lot (6,400 sq.-ft.) with lots of room for kids and just general living. So how much is the oh-to-typical Belmont house is going for? 

The sellers did know how to crunch the numbers: one a prominent math professor – he has a well-known theorem in number theory named after him! – while his spouse is a mathematician, computer expert and biologist. Don’t have to worry about how much to tip or split a check when you’re out with this Belmontian couple. When the wife was named this summer to a big-time position in San Diego, the house purchased exactly 30 years ago for $259,000 was placed into a market in which family homes are at a premium. 

What a boom for the homeowners: The typical 30-year mortgage is paid off, the sale is pure profit, and they got great use from a wonderful house. Win, win, win.

And what a nice well-cared for house with an up-to-date kitchen. It’s also in that zone of homes that are within “walkable” distance for elementary, middle and high schools, so you don’t have to drive the kids every morning (“I don’t care if it’s a snow day, you’re still walking to school.”)

And for the past three years, the assessed value has shot up $130,000. 

• 2014: $776,000
• 2015: $832,000
• 2016: $906,000

And the sum of it all: a cool million for the homeowners.

But still, a million for a 90-year-old house in a neighborhood that isn’t the first place people will look for a seven-figure house is a bit much to swallow. But this is Belmont, 2016. I will not be surprised if the Board of Assessors come to the Selectmen in December with its property tax rate recommendation with the data showing the median home in Belmont tops $1,000,000. 

Let’s do the time warp again

The house on Radcliffe is likely one of the last ranch-style homes built in town, in 1975 when they were seen as out-dated (townhouses where the “cool” structures being built.)

I just want to show the photos of the interior – which is all original as the couple who built the house sold it – which is like opening an interior designers book from the mid-1960s. Wow, The vibrant pink bathroom, patterned wallpaper, the iron railings. And the kitchen: words can’t express this look into this time tunnel: much like Howard Carter’s experience opening King Tut’s tomb. 

But you can’t be that critical of the owners choice: it’s of its time when it was furnished, an age that’s best remembered in photos.

 

Photo: Cozy and affordable on Maple in Waverley.

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

• 202 Beech St., Second-floor condo (1928). Sold: $396,000. Listed at $429,000. Living area: 1,646 sq.-ft. 8 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths. On the market: 151 days.

• 47 Maple St., Condo (1910). Sold $311,000. Listed at $329,900. Living area: 1,027 sq.-ft. 4 rooms, 1 bedroom, 1 bath. On the market: 145 days.

If you don’t mind cozy – less than 1,100 square feet so keep your elbows up – then the condo on Maple should have been considered. With only a single bedroom, a bath and two other rooms, it would be inexpensive for Belmont – about a third of the median price of Belmont homes that is nearing $900,000 across town – but you do get something for your money: century-old molding, restored hard wood floors, nice size living room and some unique cubby corners. I wonder who bought this rather nice condo? A young couple thinking of staying for a few years while starting a family?  An investor who can rent this for $2,000 a month? 

Photo: Belmont (left) and Lake Oswego. No contest.

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

• 48 Middlecot St., Brick and shingle ranch (1953). Sold: $785,000. Listed at $749,000. Living area: 1,423 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths. On the market: 52 days.

The one residential sale last week in Belmont is a fairly standard post-war ranch-style single family. The house on Middlecot Street in the heart of Winn Brook, that sold about $100,000 over its assessed value, has a treadbare feel to it – just look at the wear patches on the kitchen flooring and door frame. In addition, there’s a thrown together vibe through out the interior, from the hidious  1970s paneling in the basement to the mismatching bathroom detail. 

So, is the best $785,000 can get you? Or better yet, what can you get in communities that resemble our “Town of Homes”? It didn’t take long to find one; a 45 hour, 3,088 mile road trip due west.

Lake Oswego, Oregan is an upscale suburb of Portland (Portlandia!) known for its residential character. It has an outstanding school district that attracts aging hipsters who decide they would rather invest in a pricy home then stay in their artsy Portland loft and spend a fortune on private school fees. Its impressive downtown (it’s a harbor!) and shops supports a population of 36,000 with a per capita income of $53,000, compared to Belmont’s $57,000.

So here it is: for $758,000 this remodeled Craftsman Bungalow could have been yours. It’s so pretty, a late example from 1930 that was lovingly restored and renovated. The fireplace’s decreative surround, wood floors and the traditional four-over-one windows are all nice touches. Along with a landscaped yard, you get 1,000 additional  square feet, two full bathrooms and nice-sized bedrooms. 

Just for comparison, the Craftsman basement is thought out in color scheme and arrangement while the Belmont cellar is just creepy.

Why can’t we have nice things? 

 

Photo: Watch out below! Horace Road house listing falls.

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

• 4 Goden St., Multifamily (1915). Sold: $886,000. Listed at $895,000. Living area: 2,715 sq.-ft. 12 rooms, 5 bedrooms, 2 baths. On the market: 114 days.

• 219 Channing Rd., Brick-front Ranch (1959). Sold: $640,000. Listed at $675,000. Living area: 1,432 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 2 baths. On the market: 94 days.

• 42 Horace Rd., Colonial (1917). Sold: $815,000. Listed at $945,000. Living area: 1,938 sq.-ft. 9 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 148 days.

The Colonial on Horace Road would appear to be priced at nearly $950,000 to squeeze ever penny out of the 99-year-old house. And why not, with “average” homes in the Winn Brook neighborhood and close to the High School on the south side of Concord Avenue selling for just north of $1 million, here was an attempt by the buyer to reap the benefits of a hot market. With an ample number of bedrooms, close to the Wellington, Chenery and High School, and with some lovely interior features – wooden floors, a corner china cabinet and double French doors – this structure looked like a sure deal for the seller.

But for this modest home near to Common Street, the market for “average” was cooling. Rather than riding the fall sales period ever higher, this house took a tumble, falling nearly $150,000 in value from the opening list price to final sale:

• Aug. 21, 2015: $945,000 (Original list)
• Oct. 7: $899,000
• Nov. 5: $875,000
• Jan. 8, 2016: $815,000

Not so the brick ranch on Channing, which some lucky person got for a song. OK, it borders the commuter rail tracks but what the buyer is getting is a well-maintained, cosy house with a landscaped backyard. And just think what it will be once the new community path is constructed adjacent to the property line (wink, wink).