Thursday, April 24, 2008

Now we're talking!

Can you say $290/sq.ft.? I knew you could! I am using some restraint to not put an offer in on this house. Why? Because I think the best is yet to come. But this is not bad at all.


4700 NAGLE AVENUE, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
(MLS #: F1752937)




Bedrooms: 3
Full Baths: 3
Square Feet: 2,015
Lot Size: 6,290 Sq. Ft.
Year Built: 1951
Listing Date: 02/01/08
Last Sale: 06/14/06
Sales Price: $950,000


Price Reduced: 02/11/08 -- $704,900 to $654,900
Price Reduced: 03/03/08 -- $654,900 to $639,900
Price Reduced: 04/23/08 -- $629,900 to $584,900



Per Sq. Ft. Stats:
Based on List Price: $290
Based on Zestimate™: $386
Based on Cyberhomes estimate: $452
Sold Homes: $433

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would be interested in this lovely large house too, but it is in the shadow of the 101.

kate said...

Indeed, the 101 is not far away. But this is a nice little neighborhood and that is a big ole house.

The yard is small and filled with a pool -- but still, this is the right house for somebody and that's a good price even in today's market.

Anonymous said...

Come on, you know you want to buy that house...

kate said...

Heee! I can't help but salivate over a south of the 101 house priced below $600k -- 2000+ sq. ft. no less! It's just that I haven't seen one in so long!

But cool heads prevail.

l.a.guy said...

"I would be interested in this lovely large house too, but it is in the shadow of the 101."

You'd be surprised how effective the wall along that stretch of the 101 is at blocking out freeway noise. I looked at a few houses along the 101 and was surprised how quiet and peaceful those neighborhoods are. On the flip side once you get east of the 170 there is no wall and the freeway noise is very audible if you are within a block of it.

I think 2003 prices are about as good as you're likely to see in general. Even using 2001 as a benchmark for the last time homes were sensibly priced, they still would have gone up at 3-5% annually due to higher construction costs. You simply can't build the same house in 2008 for the same price you built it in 2001.

Emil said...

l.a.guy wrote:

"I think 2003 prices are about as good as you're likely to see in general. Even using 2001 as a benchmark for the last time homes were sensibly priced, they still would have gone up at 3-5% annually due to higher construction costs. You simply can't build the same house in 2008 for the same price you built it in 2001."

Your statement has one big flaw: Most of these houses were built in the 40's, 50's and 60's. They are overpriced even at 2003 prices.