While originally priced from $869,000 to $975,000 fifteen months ago, the three “remaining new homes” at 310 Townsend were recently listed from $750,000 to $775,000 (representing reductions of between fourteen and twenty-three percent). All three listings are also advertising $20,000 in additional incentives (another 2-3% of the purchase price).
No word on how many/if any of the other forty-three (43) units have been retained by the developer rather than sold.
∙ Listing: 310 Townsend #105 (2/2) – $750,000 [MLS] [Floor Plan]
∙ Listing: 310 Townsend #209 (2/2) – $750,000 [MLS] [Floor Plan]
∙ Listing: 310 Townsend #310 (2/2) – $775,000 [MLS] [Floor Plan]
∙ 310 Townsend: Available And Selling [SocketSite 10/07]
Damn stuff keeps coming down I might even be able to grab something
2/2 in the 650-700K range
Look very carefully at the floor plans. Try to find the windows. If you do find a window, note that it is on a lightwell.
Check out the upper level for #105: One samll window and rooms without any window.
The units facing onto Townsend have promise, but some of these remaining units only appear useful as storage lockers.
From the MLS:
One of 3 remaining new homes at closeout prices.
Uh? The theory goes that the last places in a desirable location should sell for more than the first one. That’s a rule of supply and demand.
Closeout prices? That’s a new one.
I agree redseca2, first thing I saw was no windows. That’s hard to sell in any market.
Developers frequently discount the remaining properties. It’s easy to understand why, from the developer’s perspective. Don’t look at it from a consumer’s point of view.
I took a tour of this place last month. Let me see if I can spin this a little.
The windows in the 2nd and 3rd floor units offer views of historic architecture with modern structural accents. (The windows face a brick building about 10 feet away with a steel fire escape staircase filling that 10 feet)
Anybody notice the 2’x2′ cross beams in the high ceilings? I found them to be “overbearing”.
Looked at these when they first came on the market, and the floor plans are terrible. If I remember correctly, in the cheapest units, the only window faced inward, toward the hallway?
Uh? The theory goes that the last places in a desirable location should sell for more than the first one. That’s a rule of supply and demand.
Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever. It’s possible that these are the 3 least desirable units, that’s why they haven’t sold. And what, exactly does supply and demand have to do with it? I’d argue that in this case supply and demand is working. There was no demand, so they lowered the price to a point where they think someone will want to buy it.
“Developers frequently discount the remaining properties. It’s easy to understand why, from the developer’s perspective. Don’t look at it from a consumer’s point of view.”
Isn’t this really true only in the past year or so? My recollection with new developments from 2000-08, whether condos or SFHs, was that the first releases were typically the cheapest, and they kept raising prices with every release until the final releases, which were nearly always the most expensive. I don’t personally recall any specific instance prior to 2007 where a developer had to DISCOUNT the price for the last few homes.
Seems to me it’s just a sign of the times. Put another way, you could say that “developers frequently discount the remaining properties” in markets where prices are declining or expected to decline, while “developers frequently [apply a premium to] the remaining properties in markets where prices are rising or expected to rise.”
Well, the problem is that these three supposedly “poor” units should have already been priced to reflect that. Reductions are not a good sign, no matter how you cut it.
I’m not a realtor, but I’ve always heard the last units are usually the least desirable and get discounted to close buildings out (I hate agreeing with Fluj…) So that doesn’t surprise me.
I would be very interested to hear everyone’s opinion regarding this point : “No word on how many/if any of the other forty-three (43) units have been retained by the developer rather than sold.”
I toured 310 Townsend half a year ago when hardly any units were sold – and I find it hard to believe they’ve cut down to just 3 since then, as the place just isn’t that impressive for the price, and considering our current market. I’d be AMAZED if the developer hasn’t retained a few to inflate the #’s. I’m wondering about the legality of doing this? Are they required to disclose how many units are developer retained to a prospective buyer? If so, at what point must they disclose it – when you express interest in the property, or when you actually lay down an offer, or what?
Not shocking that these haven’t sold… agree that many of the units were strange in shape and had less than optimal window situations (no window, no view, etc). Also, the ones on Townsend were like ovens when I visited.
On top of it, the agent I worked was really smug when showing the units. All questions were answered with that “whatever, somebody will buy these” attitude that was so prevalent until recently.
When I WAS looking, I saw a couple of these units several months ago, probably in January. If you like looking out your living room window at a fire escape and a brick wall that you could practically reach out and touch, this might appeal to you. As for me … I couldn’t even be given one of these units. The intrusive structural beams into the living room and other room(s) in the unit and the fact that the windows looked into a brick wall were a complete turn-off. Nothing special about the finishes/fixtures either.
“Seems to me it’s just a sign of the times. Put another way, you could say that “developers frequently discount the remaining properties” in markets where prices are declining or expected to decline, while “developers frequently [apply a premium to] the remaining properties in markets where prices are rising or expected to rise”
There are many variables. Trying to consisely sum up exactly what it is in a tidy sentence or two isn’t going to be easy. There are too many moving parts, no the least of which is competition.
Anon, thanks for the clarification. I was commenting without the insight of what these units were like.
If these are undesirable units, then the prices should reflect that. As for the supply and demand rule, it should apply for apples-to-apples comps. Maybe they didn’t price them accordingly. Another theory would be that if they had priced them to sell, it would have made the better units look pricey in comparison.
As for whether some of the units were sold, isn’t the sale data public already? We could see which have been sold to real buyers, couldn’t we?