Good Deal or Not? “Exquisite Tudor” Edition


This home is located at 1807 Ingelside Terrace, NW:

View Larger Map

The flier says:


You can find more info here and a virtual tour here.

Ingelside Terrace is one of my favorite streets in Mt. Pleasant so I was excited to see one of these tudors for sale. What do you think of the virtual tour? I was pretty blown away. Does $699,000 sound reasonable?

34 Comment

  • I absolutely love it. I think it’s a great deal. That’s a very peaceful, quiet location, too.

  • I would say a bit high..Maybe 550,000. You can get almost the same thing in Petworth for 320,000 and this one is closer to a metro station.

  • Anon – your link is nowhere near \almost the same thing,\ thanks for the laugh.

    $699 sounds reasonable. One just sold down the street for $487k, it only has 1.5 baths, and as I recall needed quite a bit of work.

  • I think both of these comments are off. It isn’t worth $700k, but it is certainly worth more than $550k. I would say a good deal for this house is $650k and a fair price is probably $670.

    • I agree with you on price.

      I will say – is it just me or is this place a bit bland. And some staging (i.e. the barely made bed) wouldn’t have been amiss.

  • I would be shocked if this doesn’t sell for closer to $740k.

    Anonymous above tries to compare Mt Pleasant and Petworth. Wow, it’s weird that a house in Bethesda with these quals would sell for $900k. Bethesda property should sell for more like what Petworth sells for, right Anon?

  • from the Wall Street Journal:

    January 5, 2010, 7:34 AM ET.

    Fed Economist: Housing Is a Lousy Investment.

    Before the housing bust, Americans tended to think their homes were their best and most important investments –- a view promoted by Washington policy makers who made home ownership a top priority. Karen Pence, who runs the Federal Reserve’s household and real estate finance research group, argues at the American Economic Association’s meetings this week that homes are actually a terrible investment.

    Putting aside the fact that home prices have fallen dramatically, she says several factors make homes a lousy investments:

    1.It is an indivisible asset. If you own stocks and bonds and suddenly need a little cash, you can sell some of your stocks or bonds but not all. With a home, on the other hand, “you can’t just slice off your bathroom and sell it on the market.”

    2.It is undiversified. You can buy stocks or bonds in industries or countries all over the world. A home is a bet on one single neighborhood.

    3.Transaction costs are very high when you buy or sell a home because of real estate agent fees, mortgage fees and moving costs.

    4.It is asymmetrically liquid, meaning it’s easy to get money out when home prices are going up. (You just take out a bigger mortgage.) But it’s hard to take money out when prices are going down because refinancing becomes more difficult. Put another way, the leverage that you have in your house with a large mortgage means your investment does well in good times but could be lousy in bad times.

    5.It is highly correlated to the job market, meaning that home prices in a neighborhood tend to rise when the job market is improving in the area and fall when the job market is worsening. This means that your main financial asset provides the smallest cushion to you when you
    might need it most.

    Maybe Washington policy makers shouldn’t work so hard to promote ownership with mortgage interest deductions and other federal subsidies to homeowners. Ms. Pence has been a Washington renter for many years. Ironically, though, she says she’s considering buying a house herself. The reason: Her husband wants a dog and wants to start gardening. That means moving out of the apartment.

    Ms. Pence emphasized that she was speaking on her own behalf, and not for the Fed.

    Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

    This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008

    • Housing was not considered to be an investment the whole time before the bust, it was only considered an investment in the time between the bust and the beginning of the boom. Prior to the boom it was well recognized that a home or apartment is a terrible investment unless it is being used for income generation. But when the boom began the old doctrines were forgotten because of the delusional belief that home prices could never decrease. In the past, the rule of thumb was that you had to hold a home for at least 5 years in order for it to appreciate in value enough for you to make back the transactions costs to sell it. For that reason, people who had no intention of staying in one area for 5 years would not consider buying a home. But when home prices started to see double-digit gains year-over-year, people who would have rented someplace for the duration of their two-commitment to a particular city decided that instead of “throwing away” their money on rent they would “invest it” in a home because when they were ready to sell it in a couple of years, they were sure to realize a huge return. This mindset was greatly facilitated by banks that allowed people to buy homes with no money down and pay no interest for the first few years of a loan. A lot of people realized some spectacular gains in the early part of the boom by using this strategy. But a whole lot more got burned by it when the boom went bust.

      There are any number of excellent reasons to buy a home for yourself. But the creation of an investment asset is not one of them. I have no idea whether the price for this property is good, but if whoever buys it buys it because they want to live in that home, not build wealth through the acquisition of that home, they will be fine.

      • Your analysis goes all the way back to about the year 2000 or so. That’s excellent, except for the fact that the world existed prior to 2000; and many people beleived in homeownership as an investment during that pre-historic time.

        The government encourages homeownership through tax incentives. Some of these incentives currently serve to subsidize the real estate market. Whoops; instead of “subsidize”, I meant to say “stimulate”.

        Bottom line: mortgage rates are going up in 2010, mortgage defaults are going through the roof in 2010, asking prices are coming down in 2010, and anyone going into $X00,000 debt to be able to do some gardening in a backyard that is owned by a bank (via a mortgage loan) isn’t exercising good judgement.

        Buying this place and staying there 20 years may work out in the end.

      • I agree with everything you wrote, especially the importance of the 5-year rule. Housing is a good *long-term* investment.

        As for this house, I think the price may be close to right or it may sell for as low as 650 as others suggested, but it’s certainly not going to go *over* list as Neener suggested. A bidding war after 50 days on the market? That’s just laughable.

    • Economists will point out the obvious faults with this.

      #1, nowhere does it take into effect the minimum cost of housing. Without that, it’s crazy insane.

      Take your mortgage and upkeep costs, minus the tax break but plus the upkeep costs then subtract what your rent would be if you didn’t own that house. The difference between them is your cost to own the house. It so happens that my mortgage minus the tax break is about $500 per month less than a comparable rental. Now, I regularly drop about $500 per month in upkeep and repair.

      It is stupid to read the above without looking at housing costs as a requirement.

      • Um, costs for housing have fallen lately; both for rentals and purchases. I don’t watch TV, but I don’t need to watch TV to stay informed about macroeconomic trends.

        • was that in response to my complaint about poor analysis? When I rented in DC I got a 2 bedroom at 1100 sq ft for $650 per month on CT Ave. Can I get that now? Because I have a friend paying $2500 in rent.

  • If it was a “good deal” or the right price, it would be sold by now….

  • a friend of mine owns that house. its a great place, updated and well-maintained. hasnt sold cos it went on the market at the worst possible time, at thanksgiving. ill bet it sells soon. having a back porch overlooking the park is pretty special.

  • I really like it and agree that it’ll probably go around $650-70.

    Laughing at the comparison to the house on New Hampshire Ave. They’re nothing alike.

  • It’s lovely, but seems slightly overpriced. For $700k in this market I’d want stainless appliances, a slightly better looking master bath (love the original tile, HATE the red paint and cheap looking sink stand), a better and or wood back deck, and a little more attention to detail.

    Clean up the yards, repaint the front wall, rake the leaves, put something pretty on the front porch, move the tv from in front of the fireplace in the den, take the pictures on a sunny day – all easy and cosmetic, but likely to get people more willing to cough up the extra dough.

    I’d pay S650k, if I had it. You can’t beat the neighborhood. Yes, it’s a long walk to the metro, that’s why they have buses.

  • I’ve always liked this little set of “Tudor” houses at the end of Ingleside. The rest of the houses on this block are nice but these are really charming.

  • From the pics, the place seems awesome and in a great neighborhood. The only drawback is that there doesn’t seem to be any central AC…or am I missing that? If that’s the case, maybe that fact is reflected in the lower price.

  • House in good location (good transportation options) will continue to appreciate so yes housing is one investment vehicle.

  • I’m with peewee herman – will go for between 650K-$670K

  • the limited availability in that neighborhood will help the sellers get close to the price that they’re asking for. mount pleasant listings aren’t all that common, let alone one for a decent sized house for under 750k. i’d call it a deal.

    Miss Otis, I’d love to sell you a house. You’d pay 50k more for a raked lawn, a new coast of paint and stainless appliances? Deal.

  • I’m with Pee Wee as well. $650K sounds about right. It’s a great home and a wonderful back yard.

  • I’d say $650, too. $700 is too much – these houses are just a bit small to sell for $700. They should list this for $650 & try to get some interest instead of sitting on it at $700.

  • This is an OK price, though I’m with those guessing it sells for slightly less than asking price. I like that street quite a bit, and the pictures show a fairly nice home, albeit a little small. It will charm the pants off somebody when foot traffic to open houses picks up. I’ll guess 680k is what we see on GDON revisited.

  • You are definitely paying for the neighborhood/proximity to park on this one. I bought in far north Petworth this summer and looked at two houses with this *exact* floor plan on NH Ave. that were in the mid 300s. I love the house, though–if only our price range was 300K higher…

  • Everyone, this is a Bill Panici house. When in the last year has he sold a house for less than asking price? He’s been pretty right-on-the-money during this downturn.

  • A 3-BR with garage on a sleepy street surrounded by the park for 700K? Definitely. You’ll wind up driving to work or the supermarket since it’s a little haul to the 42/S-line, and the Metro is a 20 minute walk, but cruddier houses in Mt. P go for more.

  • Why do agents still write their descriptions as if they’re paying per letter for an ad in the back of the Penny Saver?

  • And in all caps, too. Note to Bill Panici, Weichert Realtors: People read real estate listings online, not just Realtors.

Comments are closed.