Sold in Belmont: Affordability in Housing, in Threes

By Leave a Comment

Photo: 14 Scott Rd., Belmont.

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

• 20 Ericsson St. #3, Top-floor condominium (1908). Sold: $386,000. Listed at $415,000. Living area: 930 sq.-ft. 5 rooms, 2 bedrooms, 1-full bath. On the market: 58 days.

• 29 Thayer Rd. Condominium (1958). Sold: $233,750. Listed at $259,900. Living area: 602 sq.-ft. 4 rooms, 1 bedrooms, 1-full bath. On the market: 163 days.

• 14 Scott Rd. Colonial (1934). Sold: $750,000. Listed at $699,000. Living area: 1,880 sq.-ft. 7 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths. On the market: 77 days.

Housing affordability continues to be a challenge in Belmont where the medium housing value ($847,000 for a single-family house) results in homeowners needing to pay out $3,900 a month in mortgage payments (30-year/4.5 percent/10 percent down) along with $10,000 annually in taxes.

So it’s heartening to see three properties – each with hardwood floors – that fit the bill in getting your foot in the door to live in Belmont. There is the top-floor condo on the street that literally is on the Cambridge line. I thought Oxford was the border of the People’s Republic yet Ericsson Street, with some nice century-old structures, including the two-bedroom condo which is spread over 930 square-feet. The new owners get some original detail, a very cool dining area with fun angled windows, plenty of solid doors and a new-ish kitchen. And the owners got it for a $30,000 discount by waiting out the seller.

You can tell the condo on Thayer Road was viewed in the early 60s as the height of modern living; open floor plan, freed from ornamentation, a tightly-spaced kitchen which wasn’t used that much because owners were dining out and bring home takeout during those swinging times. (I could see Joan P. Holloway living in these digs.) This condos have the basics which many want while saving up for the next move. And the owner(s) will be living in about as inexpensive abode Belmont has, at $233,000. (Inexpensive for Belmont; this is what you’ll get for the same money in Charlotte, NC.)

Even the brick/frame Colonial on Scott Road, just on the base of Belmont Hill, is on the less expensive side of most single-family homes. It’s boxy, with a curved staircase (no photos of the kitchen, hmmmmm) and a nice sized backyard; all for $750,000. 

Sold in Belmont: Belmont Hill Spec Manse Sells Below List, Assessed Value

By Leave a Comment

Photo: 529 Concord Ave.

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

• 529 Concord Ave. Blown-out Colonial (2013). Sold: $1,960,000. Listed at $2,250,000. Living area: 4,954 sq.-ft. 12 rooms, 5 bedrooms, 4-full, 2-partial baths. On the market: 113 days.

• 78 Grove St. Townhouse condominium (1986). Sold: $590,000. Listed at $539,000. Living area: 1,452 sq.-ft. 7 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 57 days.

The big Colonial off Concord Avenue has everything you’d want in a mansion – new construction, volumes of interior space (about 5,000 square feet), a great kitchen (with the exception of Granite countertops), red oak hardwood floors, nicely-designed bathrooms, fine landscaped grounds and, wow, what a view of Boston. 

Screen Shot 2015-05-14 at 5.20.42 PM

So why didn’t the new manse on the Hill hit the list price – selling at a quarter of a million dollar discount – and, more telling, couldn’t hold up to the town’s assessed value of $2,467,000? Especially at a time when inventory/supply is still considered low.

One reason could be there’s little to compare this structure to – new construction on previously undeveloped land. The developer likely threw out a number ($2.25 million) to see if it would attract some buyer with the need for lots of space. The construction cost was less than $700,000 so it’s not like its going to be a loss on next year’s tax form.

But who is the market for this Colonial on the Hill? If you could pluck $2 million down on a special space, why not head to the Seaport District of Boston? Or a place in Concord with its better roads? Is it trying to lure wealthy families into town? Many of those buyers won’t abandon communities where they have established roots. Or it could be that not that many people will abide the light beams from hundreds of cars traveling up the hill at night as they make the turn onto upper Concord Avenue?

Only the market knows. 

Sold in Belmont: From Stately to Stark, Spring Market Finally Blooms

By 2 Comments

Photo: 252 Common St. Belmont.

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

• 33 Evergreen Way. Brick and frame Colonial (1967). Sold: $1,260,000. Listed at $1,199,000. Living area: 3,337 sq.-ft. 9 rooms, 5 bedrooms, 3-full, 2-partial baths. On the market: 88 days.

• 21 Garfield Rd. Colonial (1937). Sold: $1,320,000. Listed at $1,195,000. Living area: 2,506 sq.-ft. 8 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 53 days.

• 53 Upland Rd. Bungalow (1920). Sold: $600,000. Listed at $569,000. Living area: 1,475 sq.-ft. 6 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 1 baths. On the market: 46 days.

• 692 Pleasant St. An antique single-family in the Italianate style (1851). Sold: $895,000. Listed at $895,000. Living area: 3,188 sq.-ft. 12 rooms, 6 bedrooms, 4.5 baths. On the market: 99 days.

• 2 Meadows Lane. Townhouse condominium (2011). Sold: $1,261,243. Listed at $1,274,748. Living area: 2,780 sq.-ft. 8 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 117 days.

• 252 Common St. “Stately” Brick Colonial (1937). Sold: $929,000. Listed at $1,039,000. Living area: 2,634 sq.-ft. 10 rooms, 5 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 321 days.

• 30 Harding Ave. First-floor condominium (1925). Sold: $438,500. Listed at $400,000. Living area: 1,165 sq.-ft. 5 rooms, 2 bedrooms, 1 baths. On the market: 49 days.

• 11 Thayer Rd. Condominium (1958). Sold: $229,900. Listed at $229,900. Living area: 650 sq.-ft. 4 rooms, 1 bedrooms, 1 baths. On the market: 55 days.

• 15 Thayer Rd. Condominium (1958). Sold: $210,000. Listed at $230,000. Living area: 612 sq.-ft. 4 rooms, 1 bedrooms, 1 baths. On the market: 83 days.

After weeks of a handful of properties changing hands, real estate salespeople and Realtors are cheering as potential buyers are getting off the fence and deciding to put their money where they want to live.

Of the nine residential properties that turned over last week, there were a couple of high-end Belmont Hill colonials – a beautiful 1930-era residence and a heavy, brick faux-Colonial with an out-of-place four-column overhang (awful) – in which each sold above its listed price. 

On the other end of the income spectrum, three very affordable properties were sold, including one, a 600 square-foot essential (a bedroom, a kitchen, a bath and a living room) on Thayer Road in Waverley Square that went for slightly more than $200,000. 

The real surprise is a house that actually is “stately” as described in the sales copy. Located between  Hillcrest Road and Long Avenue (Realtors: Please stop calling this area Walnut Hill. I never heard anyone call the streets between Common and Goden from Orchard to Washington by that moniker.), this is a real beauty: Oak floors, lots of French doors, a restful enclosed patio, a curved interior staircase(!), an OK kitchen, a bricked driveway and a built-out attic. So how did this solid house fail to sell when it came on a supply-scarse market? Take a look how the list price just fall away like a Red Sox outfielder:

Original List Price: June, 2014: $1,039,000

July, 2014: $979,000

August 2014: $949,000

October 2014: $929,000.

Sales price: $929,000

After falling nearly $100,000 in four months, the owner draw the line in the sand and had to wait half-a-year before a buyer came by. If this property was on “the Hill,” it’s likely the Colonial would be kept more of its value. But being on a busy road and the “bigness” of the house could have put doubt in the minds of potential buyers. 

A final note: a wonder old house on Pleasant Street sold this week, an 1850s antebellum house that once was the home of a son of the Little Brown Publishing founder. Yet would you be surprised if this treasure, but cramped, structure will soon see a “demolition” permit on the front door? It’s on a third of an acre of land in a desirable section of town. We’ll see. 

Sold in Belmont: A Belmont Hill Colonial With A View

By Leave a Comment

Photo: 68 Richmond Rd. 

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

• 68 Richmond Rd. Brick and frame Garrison Colonial (1937). Sold: $1,157,500. Listed at $1,179,000. Living area: 3,180 sq.-ft. 9 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 4.5 baths. On the market: 55 days.

Real estate is really about location. Not to say that the Garrison Colonial on Richmond wouldn’t have sold for a million plus dollars. In fact, this Depression-era building has a lot going for it – with the exception of the center-island stovetop  – from the period detail, new features (beautiful fireplace), the size (3,000 + square feet with a built-out basement), a traditional floor-plan and the wonderful wall painting that greets visitors. 

But it was likely begin on the sunny side of Belmont Hill and having a view of Boston from the third-floor suite (as you gaze out of, what, that roof outcrop is not a dormer or a widow’s walk. Go figure) in addition to the great lack of supply out there which resulted in this house selling for a quarter-of-a-million dollars greater than the town’s assessment. Not a bad investment since the last time the house was sold 11 years ago for $690,000.

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.

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.

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.