(The following is a sponsored post from Kris Murphy & Daniela Dombrowski, www.Key2SeattleRealEstate.com)
Wallingford and Tangletown continue to be highly sought after by today’s home buyers.
It is no wonder with our continuing technology boom that people want to live close to the job centers and avoid the I-5 commute at all costs. As we know, our neighborhood is very accessible and convenient and it offers restaurants, shops, parks and other goodies and you don’t even need to leave to cover your daily needs or for entertainment and recreation.
Statistics in the table below are based on home sales in the area outlined on the map above and are derived from the Northwest Multiple Listing Service data.
| June – Sept 28 2015 to 2016 Home Sales Comparison | 2015 | 2016 | Difference | % |
| Number of Closed Sales | 111 | 101 | -10 | -9.0% |
| Average Days on Market | 11.6 | 14.1 | +2.5 | +21.5% |
| Median List Price | $665,000 | $725,000 | +$60,000 | +9.0% |
| Median Sales Price | $707,000 | $759,000 | +$52,000 | +7.4% |
| List to Sales Price Ratio | 106.3% | 104.6% | -1.7% |
| # | List Price | DOM | |
| Pending & Pending Inspection – Current September 28 2016 | 23 | 799,950 | 14 |
| Active Capture – Current September 28 2016 | 22 | 744,750 | 27.3 |
We captured all closed sales for June 1 – Sept 28, both for 2015 and 2016. The number of closed sales has decreased by 9.0% from 111 closed sales in 2015 to 101 closed sales in 2016. In June, we were seeing an uptick in inventory predicting a possible slow down. In our neighborhood, the higher inventory was gobbled up in no time by hungry consumers. However, we are seeing a slowdown in home sales in the higher price brackets, over 1 million in outlying neighborhoods.
The median sales price has increased by 7.4% year over year, so we are still experiencing significant appreciation and the median sales price in the neighborhood for those three months was $759,000.
The average home sold 4.6% over the list price.
There are currently 22 active single family homes, including townhomes on the market in Wallingford. In reviewing this list, it is often homes in less desirable locations (arterial locations or close to the freeway), or homes that are overshooting a bit on price and may need to come down that are experiencing longer market times.
What the Trends are Telling Us
The following charts capture Wallingford and Green Lake (area as defined by NWMLS data) real estate trends for 2015 and 2016. This bar graph tells us how many homes were available for sale (light green), how many went under contract (red line), and how many sales closed each month (dark green). The dark green bars and red line tell us that demand is far outpacing supply and is buying/selling activity is even stronger than last year at this time. The low number of listings in August is fairly typical as we usually see a slow down at the end of summer when the weather is hot and people are on vacation. When September numbers become available, we will see that inventory has been on the rise again after Labor Day. The highest number of homes (56) went pending in May but buying/selling activity has remained over the summer as well.
In the chart below, the line at the top represents the relationship between sales and original list price. You can see that most months this year have seen a higher percentage of increases than in 2015. Between 3% and 10% over list price in 2016 versus between 0% and 6% over list in 2015. To receive a solid offer 10% over list price is no longer unusual even with just a couple of buyers competing. The days a home stays on the market is still very low and properties are kept on the market for one week or so before taking offers in order for the market to see the listing and gather as many offers as possible as well as give buyers the chance to make their offers as compelling as possible.
Generally, with the diverse housing stock in our neighborhood we don’t feel that the price per square foot is a very consistent measure. The reason for this is that condition and finishes vary widely, and often agents list unfinished space as finished so the price per sqft is often not a very reliable metric. However, this chart shows an upward trend in price per square foot for most months in 2016 compared to 2015. We are essentially at $400 per square foot in our neighborhood. Of course, this is an average and quite often smaller homes have a higher price per square foot and larger homes have a lesser price per square foot.
Finally, this chart illustrates months of inventory (or absorption). It is derived based on a calculation dividing the number of active homes for sale by the number of homes that have closed in a given month and attempts to project how many months it will take for the entire available inventory to sell. Anything under 2 months of inventory represents a sellers’ market. You can see that for the last 15 months, inventory was almost always under 1 month, illustrating our current crazy sellers’ market.
What does this mean for the consumer?
It is still a great time to sell and you have not missed the hot market, at least in our neighborhood. However, consumers are selective, so don’t think you can slap on a high price tag and do nothing to get your home ready for market.
If you are a buyer looking to purchase in Green Lake or Tangletown, strap on your seatbelts and get a great agent who knows how to navigate this market effectively so you can place a winning bid on the home of your dreams.
Kris Murphy ([email protected]) and Daniela Dombrowski ([email protected]), www.Key2SeattleRealEstate.com, are Wallyhood sponsors and real estate brokers who live and specialize in the Wallingford and Green Lake neighborhoods. They practice out of the Keller Williams Greater Seattle office located on the corner of Stone Way and N 45th St.
Great info, thanks for posting.
A friend just sold their condo in the building next to the future apodments at 50th Street and 1st Ave N. The list price was aligned to the neighborhood comps and traffic was very heavy on open house days. It sat unsold for a month and there were three price reductions because every potential buyer was concerned about the construction noise, loss of views/sunlight, etc. All of which is to say “location, location, location.” And which of you know where the next apodment or view/light killer is going up? Get ready!
But, but, but, I thought allowing more density was supposed to INCREASE property values? I mean, who wouldn’t want to live nextdoor to that?
Any increase in my property values is on the backs of those less fortunate. I have no right to any increase in value. Any suggestion that I do is fueled by greed and racist ideation.
If the property value increase is due to your own personal work, like improving the building quality or what not, it’d still be yours. If your property value increase is due to Amazon and Google trying to hire more people in your neighborhood and you are not some executive in those companies, I think it’s more arguable how much you “deserve” that.
In fact, in the event that you sell such a property, you ought to write a check to Bezos or whatever high tech exec of your choice, who really deserves it.
I’m going to ask my friends to reach out to TJ and see if they can cut him a check from their condo sale. He deserves it as much as Bezos.
I am more for proper capital gain tax that pool the money into the public.
More density is supposed to decrease property values. More supply making the neighborhood more affordable.
“More density is supposed to decrease property values.”
And you expect existing property owners to say “sure, go ahead, decrease my property value by tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to be nice?” Especially after the way single-family homeowners and neighborhoods have been treated by the city with regards to HALA?
I don’t think so.
No, we’re saying “don’t use political power to enrich yourself at the expense of families who are younger and poorer.”
Bryan I’m not trying to “enrich” myself. I have no plans to sell my house and try to make a bundle off of it. I moved here for the long term because unlike you I happen to love Wallingford the way it is. I know pretty much everyone within a one block radius of me and I called many of them friends. We all watch out for each other, our kids play together and we even celebrate the holidays together. So I’ll be dambed if you think I’m going to just roll over and allow the mayor, big moneyed developers, and the urbanistas from ruining the neighborhood I decided to settle down and raise a family in.
Those younger and poorer families have plenty of other less expensive neighborhoods from which to start out in.
I see a lack of younger and poorer families playing together and celebrating holidays together as our neighbors and friends as a loss to the neighborhood we decided to settle down in.
But to each their own.
Bryan, I’m just curious. Why the privileged perspective of making lower income people move to you? Why aren’t you moving down to live with them and bring your vision to life? I’m surprised I haven’t seen a moving van loading up your things for a journey to White Center or some such. You could be living a much happier, fulfilled life.
“You could be living a much happier, fulfilled life.”
Probably not, I am pretty damn happy.
It must be your privilege. Remember, the poor are probably down there wishing wealthier people would move in and help improve their neighborhoods and yet there you sit, content to let them come to you. It’s a shame.
Well put, Nelly!
Do you folks know what you’re treating as a joke? This aspect of America’s history (and present) isn’t actually funny.
“If you people can’t afford to live in our town, then you’ll just have to leave.” With these words, Bill Haines, the Mayor of Mount Laurel, New Jersey, in 1970, rejected a proposal by the town’s African-American community to build an apartment complex. Haines claimed that the town’s zoning for large-lot, single-family homes could not yield to allow apartments. (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=ylpr )
And only if the Native Americans had stronger zoning regulations back then!
Is it SJW Friday?
I’m not treating it as a joke. I honestly want to know why you don’t move to a lower-income neighborhood to achieve a greater income balance. You could do it right now. I’m sure they would welcome you and your gentrification with open arms.
Well, in a city that’s traditionally done neighborhood based planning, if everyone who cared about socio-economic integration moved out of the wealthier neighborhoods, then socio-economic integration would happen in precisely “never.”
So arguably I am duty bound to stick it out here. (Maybe we should even have bought in Laurelhurst or Broadmoor.)
That’s spurious. You’ve proved everything I ever needed to know about you. And I hope people who may have curiously watched your posts will know you for the racist, economic-class poster child that you are. Pushing back against living with lower income people — you’re really a piece of cake, Bryan. SHAME.
Wallingford has a much easier access to key locations in Seattle. It would make more sense to pack more people here, as opposed to locations like White Center. It actually makes much more sense for people who don’t like density to move to White Center. With its inconvenience, the day of zoning up there would be far away or never.
It is very obvious that you love Wallingford the way it was. The argument has been how much the society should help you on getting what you wish. I think you can understand that neighborhoods change all the time.
The argument is also how much society should help YOU on getting what you wish.
That too. And I wish for better life for more people. I think with that you can see how easy I could have demonized you like you demonized developers. So just drop the fake morals and the entitlement. The society don’t owe you a Wallingford that’s frozen in time. You should fight for it because that’s what you want, but you don’t have moral high ground.
Neighborhood advocates routinely get demonized already, as NIMBY’s, racists, exclusionists , you name it.
It’s not about who has the moral high ground. It’s about whether people are actually entitled and have a right to affordable housing anywhere and everywhere they want. You seem to believe that people have a right to expect affordable housing in a place like Beverly Hills. I believe differently.
I see little reason that Beverly Hills need to zone up. It’s not specifically convenient or abundant with jobs. The only thing it stands out is the cluster of rich people.
And you do know the reason Seattle housing issue is mostly due to all the strong restrictions, right? You have what you have because of strong government forces making it so for you. Why should a democratic government serve the best interest of only a few?
And once again I need to remind you that Aurora is close to jobs, and very convenient for transit and other services, as are many other more affordable neighborhoods within the city limits. But I don’t hear you agitating for the city to build affordable housing there.
Actually, Beverly Hills is right on a bus line that connects a busy business center with a lot of high rise office buildings, hotels, and a shopping center to Santa Monica. It’s about as convenient as anything can be in Los Angeles.
All the reasons you list for why Wallingford should be upzoned are the same reasons that no affordable housing will be built in this area – people with the most money get the first choice, and all those techies with six figure incomes want convenience.
And it makes way more sense to just zone up areas closer to Santa Monica. Beverly Hills isn’t convenient, if you are thinking in the way dense cities are designed. Think New York or Tokyo or even Vancouver, and you’ll see. Yes, New York has affordable housing issue also, but can you imagine New York with zone up restrictions like Seattle?
Oh nonsense! Have you ever been to LA?
Why do so many of your posts sound like they are written by at least two people?
Well, it’s about that – entitlement to affordable housing here – to the extent that someone might fantasize about that heppening, but really no one with any sense expects these initiatives to appreciably add to affordable housing in Wallingford (“affordable” to households below AMI.)
And the irony of people like Bryan constantly playing the race card is that policies they push are responsible for gentrifying places like Harlem and the CD. They should go know on the doors of the few minorities that still live in the CD and ask them what they think of all that wonderful new density and how much it’s helped make it affordable to attract and keep minority home buyers.
Why the minorities are squeezed out? Actually not because of the build-up, but because of the build-up being too slow.