In our prior house, a 1911 four square (arts and crafts style), it had radiators initially and no duct work to work with. it cost $30K to put in very small flexible tubes for the AC and a very high speed blower in the attic (because of the small diameter of the tubes). For another $10K, we were able to add the heating to that and rip out the radiators. Great for humidifying in winter and dehumidifying in summer. So $30K to $40K, but that was in the mid to late 90s. Costs would have gone up.
In our current mid-century modern house (very large and sprawling), there is central air for part of the house and six mini-splits (I think they are around $5K each, though that may be a little high) for AC (two of them also provide heat – they are new and I think current mini-splits pretty much all do both). There is no basement and no attic so they decided to use mini-splits when they put in AC.
I don’t know what to make of Redfin or Zillow’s estimates. We bought our house just before the Pandemic. I thought we paid about 20% below market and the price we paid was about 20% below the town’s assessed value.
The Zillow Zestimate is 72% above what we paid. The Redfin estimate is 135% above what we paid. Hard to see that either of them is right. Zillow may be right when one takes into account the renovation we are just completing, which the Zestimate does not currently do. So, I would not take great comfort from their work.
My 26 y/o D is currently living at home with me and H. She pays her expenses that are only hers (car, insurance, clothes, etc) but we don’t charge her for anything that we’d have if she wasn’t living wit us. I’d still have to pay for things like heat the house and pay for Hulu if she’s her or not. She’s saved a ton of money. I think of it as helping buy a house some day.
My D and SIL bought a great little house in Ballard’s Sunset Hill area close to two years ago for something over $1 M. Then up until the rate hikes really started kicking Zillow was showing ridiculous appreciation. Now most of that has evaporated, though they’re still over what they paid and they put money down. Their interest rate of course is great.
He works for his family’s business, which seems almost recession proof (they made more money during the pandemic than ever), and D works for one of the Big 4 and demand there doesn’t seem to ever retreat.
They may go under purchase value at some point if things really get bad, but you have to play the long-game with your home. You need one, and if you’re not paying your mortgage, you’re paying rent. Of course, in the doomsday scenario the rent would go down (you’d expect), so they’d be paying a mortgage that is higher than rent.
Having lived here for a very long time, I’ve been listening to stories of impending doom of people fleeing Seattle over Boeing, the homeless, woke liberals, the [truly] dysfunctional city council, high costs, etc. etc. and it never comes to pass. I’m confident that house in Ballard will sell for $2 M before it’s all said and done. Not now, but it will. Mark my words.
Unfortunately, it earned its name “the NW Split”. Builders went absolutely crazy building those in the PNW in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Just a rectangle 3 story box with a second floor entry. I hate them and they are still everywhere.
Imagine this, just quadrupled in size. On a postage stamp lot without a garage or any off-street parking.
ETA: we were walking around a neighborhood where we had a meeting with our friends, and saw some examples of this style. These are all detached houses that are about one room wide and three rooms deep. These are suburban so have garages. Similar houses in the city have none.
Looks wonderfully efficient and good for the environment. What’s the alternative: a house that’s too small for a family because so much of the cost goes in land or a house that’s so far out of town they have an hour plus commute every day? And a transit system that ends up chronically underused because houses are so spread out that you have to drive to the light rail station?
I find it ironic that upthread people were complaining that homes are too expensive for their kids but no one wants to make the compromises necessary to build houses and apartments that they can afford. Density is the only answer!
Our downtown in the Bay Area is now filled with modern apartment complexes that make it so much more livable than a decade ago. But residents in the richer towns still try to prevent townhome-style housing being built that might let in people who aren’t tech billionaires or basketball stars:
Not at 4-5,000 sft, $2-3M price tag, and zero parking space for the two cars per house minimum (if rented out, could be more than 2). These are not affordable units we are talking about. These are Ballard Boxes.
A traditional 4000-5000 sq ft home would use half an acre or more of land. So is it better to put 16 of them in one acre and leave 7 acres for more affordable houses, or use 8 acres and not have any more houses there? Or should we ban building big houses and force larger families to go elsewhere?
I don’t get this obsession with trying to ensure that only supposedly “affordable” houses are built, which often leads to builders not building anything at all, because the economics don’t work for the developer. Here’s what happened in New York for example:
More supply rather than less at whatever size and price point will put downwards pressure on pricing across the board.
If everyone thought they were too ugly then the price would be lower and the developer would make less money. Developers aren’t deliberately trying to lose money, quite the opposite. Should we mandate that they “beautify” the houses in some way so buyers get less value for money?
It’s better to use the land as efficiently as possible, since that reduces the overall cost of the end product, and in a competitive market, the price. Why would a developer build one 4000 sq ft townhouse rather than two 2000 sq ft apartments? Because the former is more profitable (or sometimes because there are parking mandates or height limitations that prevent a more optimal choice). That only happens if the market for 4000 sq ft houses is relatively undersupplied compared to the market for 2000 sq ft apartments.
I totally agree w/ Bunsen Burner that these are UGLY. Townhouses can be built with more thought. Imagine the row-houses you often find in Europe, or areas of cities like Boston. Tall, 3-story (or more), with gardens and yards (either personal or to share), walkable communities with mass transportation. Still much higher density, with character.
It takes planning, and thought, time and cooperation to change zoning laws and pre-conceptions. Developers are not in the business to do any of that. From my experience, most calculate the bottom line only (apologies to sensitive developers on this site).
I once had a political representative explain the reason they allowed an insensitive residential development near me (excessive forest clearing, full land scraping instead of working with topography) was because that was what “market forces” dictated. But most people (that I know) prefer more sensitive alternatives. It is possible. Sensitive alternatives often mean the bottom line can be profitable – but perhaps not quite as much. Sensitive alternatives often involve changing zoning laws, more meetings, potential new restrictions on land-owners, and forethought or creativity in design.
Happy to show some alternatives if someone wants to start a separate thread, as this is a tangent.
