14 Responses to “Boston Luxury Condos” »»

1. Bradley
   Comment by Bradley | 06/10/09 at 7:30 am

   Get ready for another sale! According to the Globe, our governor is selling his suburban manse for a downtown Boston condo.

   The boom continues….

2. Anon
   Comment by Anon | 06/10/09 at 7:58 am

   The governor’s house in Milton is worth $1.7M according to Zillow (down from a $2M peak), so the starting price at $1.925M might be on the high side.

   Also in today’s market, could the governor and his wife still qualify for a new mortgage given their huge mortgage on their 2nd home in Western Mass?

   Regardless, I recommend taking a look at 45 Province given that it is only a few blocks away from the State House.

   The Bryant in the South End might also be a good choice because units are more spacious and the elevators are more private because they are shared with a smaller number of units.

3. J
   Comment by J | 06/10/09 at 9:37 am

   They bought the house for around 560k, and now have an ARM of 1.28 million + a 299k line of credit on it. That’s in addition to the 4 million ARM they have on their home in the Berkshires. According to the Globe, their monthly payments likely top 30k. The Globe also states that Patrick says he isn’t under financial pressure to sell the home. Where’s the money coming from? It seems like they are pretty strapped, but who knows.

4. Mike
   Comment by Mike | 06/11/09 at 3:11 am

   “The boom continues….”

   Laughable. The market is struggling just to maintain prices in the face of a plummet in transaction volume. Do you understand what the term “boom” means in relation to markets? Here are two definitions that might help you understand:

   9. a rapid increase in price, development, numbers, etc.: a boom in housing construction.

   10. a period of rapid economic growth, prosperity, high wages and prices, and relatively full employment.

   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boom

   Neiter of those definitions apply to the current Boston real estate market.

   Mike

5. Bradley
   Comment by Bradley | 06/11/09 at 4:37 am

   Well Mike, can you explain why Back Bay and Beacon Hill prices continue to increase? Why someone paid $300 large on a parking space, of all things? In light of the recession that’s going on elsewhere in the country, I’d say that we’re doin pretty frackin’ amazing.

6. Mike
   Comment by Mike | 06/11/09 at 4:49 am

   One guy with more money than sense does not a market make Bradley. This is an isolated incident that does not disprove the much larger data sample that shows the market just bumbling along.

   And meager price gains do not a boom make. Once we see broad market prices running 10-15% increases year over year, then I’ll agree that “boom” is an approriate term. And you might want to check your information – based on what John’s posted here, I don’t think Beacon Hill is showing much increase at all.

   If you think the condition of this market is “pretty frickin’ amazing”, how would you describe a real boom period, such as 2000 – 2006? There’s no way to spin the current market to suggest it even remotely resembles that period. Trying to do so is a disservice to others and yourself.

7. Bradley
   Comment by Bradley | 06/11/09 at 6:13 am

   I would also note that most properties in the Back Bay, South End and B. Hill that are coming on the market which previously sold in the 2005-2007 timeframe, allegedly the peak of the “bubble”, are routinely, *routinely* being listed for significantly higher prices than they sold for back then.

   Examples:

   232 W. Canton #3: sold for $425k in ‘06, now listed for $489.

   113 St. Botolph, sold for $2,130k in ‘05, now listed for $2, 345k

   13 Bond St, sold $1,128k in ‘06, now listed for $1,350k.

   Those are just a few. None apear to have had any major renovations.

   This in the *worst* recession since the 1930’s?? You think these people are THAT deluded that they’re going to list at unrealistic prices?

   Could it be that the market is actually going pretty damned good, prices are stable to rising, and that a thorough market analysis resulted in these higher list prices?

   If the market were truly that awful, why would these places be commanding higher prices than during the so-called bubble??

   Perhaps it’s because the downtown market is immune from price declines because of its highly desireable location and high concentration of well-paying jobs?

8. Mike
   Comment by Mike | 06/11/09 at 6:48 am

   Bradley, I DO think that those listers are deluding themselves and their prices ARE unrealistic. Maybe they’ve been listening to you. Maybe, due to the way they financed their purchases, they have no choice but to try for those prices to cover what they owe. I think that’s a MUCH likelier scenario than your pie-in-the sky suggestion that they were supported by a “thorough market analysis”.

   Just because they would LIKE to get those prices, does not mean they WILL get those prices. You haven’t figured that out? When you measure actual sales prices (i.e., reality, not hopes and dreams), the numbers look quite a bit different.

   Are you honestly suggesting we should use the seller’s asking price as an indicator of market value? Why not use the buyer’s offer as an indicator? Oh yeah, right, because neither is a good represntation for the price at which a transaction WILL ACTUALLY OCCUR.

   Mike

9. Mike
   Comment by Mike | 06/11/09 at 6:56 am

   “Perhaps it’s because the downtown market is immune from price declines because of its highly desireable location and high concentration of well-paying jobs?”

   No Bradley, as much as you might wish and hope and pray that the downtown market is immune, it is not. History is replete with examples of people who deluded themselves into this kind of thinking, and paid the price.

10. Mary
    Comment by Mary | 06/11/09 at 7:34 am

    Nice try Braddy,

    Even the person who bought 232 W. Canton way back in 2003 lost money, he paid 429k and sold for 425 in ‘06

11. Mike
    Comment by Mike | 06/12/09 at 6:37 am

    Hey Bradley, regarding your comment about the downtown market’s immunity, here’s a little recent history from anothe rarticle on this board about another group making that particular suggestion:

    “Once dubbed “recession proof” by real estate sales agents, luxury condo sales have fallen by 47 percent in 2009. From January through mid-May, only 128 condominiums sold at $700,000 or more, according to real-estate tracker the Warren Group. There were 240 sales in the same period of 2008.”

    Hmmm….next up South end condos?

12. Bradley
    Comment by Bradley | 06/12/09 at 7:08 am

    *shrug* I’ll grant you that in terms of raw numbers of units sold, the numbers are down. But how interesting that prices are actually on the rise? Back Bay is up…. Natalie Jacobsen sold her Atelier 505 unit in the South End for significantly more than she purchased it. 98 million dollar plus sales so far this year… during the “Great Recession”?? How can this be?

    Could it be that there are still plenty of qualified buyers and that there is still plenty of demand?

    I’ll take it!!

13. Peter
    Comment by Peter | 06/12/09 at 8:37 am

    Would be nice if someone posted price data on $/ft basis by zip code or district for the past few years.

    My impressions are that;
    – prices have stopped rising for the most part in downtown, yet there hasn’t been a big rollover yet.
    – inventories are up dramatically as measured by # of units on market vs # of sales per month.
    – market data used by real estate brokers is typically skewed toward the most positive light, which recently has been abusing the fact that the wealthy can still afford to move and are therefore continuing to transact in their $1M+ price range. Therefore aggregate statistics show median sale price up but it isn’t comparing apples to apples.

    Another way to get a true assessment is to comb the LINK database, which I don’t have access to, and take every one of those 98 sales in 2009 and show the appreciation since the year that unit last transacted. Then show the result for each cohort year side by side, if that makes sense.

    Does anyone have this data?

14. John Ford
    Comment by John Ford | 06/12/09 at 9:31 am

    Peter, next week I’ll try to provide you with the information that you requested, if I can.

Leave a Reply »»