It Isn’t Easy Selling Green

I first wrote this about a year ago when Dan and I went through a LEED certified townhouse that was for sale, but I was afraid my wording was too harsh, so I never published it. But a year later the place still hasn’t sold so I’m stripping out the details of which house it is, reworking some parts, and putting up the post.

The townhouse we saw is a gut renovated townhouse that was one of the first to get LEED certification (it achieved “silver” certification). Everything in this townhouse is “green”. The plywood is green (at 3 times the cost), the dumpsters of garbage were recycled (a 1.5 times the cost), the paint is “green” (and I’m not referring to the color), there are 3 huge solar panels on the roof, the insulation is incredible (composed of things like closed cell foam and recycled blue jeans), the heating and cooling very high efficiency – EVERYTHING about the house is green. The project is even got fairly substantial national recognition and had all sorts of big name sponsors (who donated things like appliances).

It’s been finished for a while and on the market for about two years, yet it still hasn’t sold. Here’s why I think that is…

#1 – The Price

When we went through the house another couple was also looking at it. As they left a guy shouted to them from a van “how much are they asking for that place?” Their answer summed it up nicely – “Too much”.

The asking price at that time was $2.79M down from an initial asking price of $2.995M when they put it on the market two years ago (it’s now down several hundred thousand more). Simply put, NOTHING in Harlem is selling for that price. The top of the market right now is about $2M, and things were selling for even less two years ago when they priced it at $3M.

Compared to other townhouses at the high end of the market this one’s primary advantage is all the green technology, but the question is how much will someone really pay to be green? A million dollars? That’s a lot of money.

#2 – The Layout

The layout to me just seemed odd. The living room was TINY, the dining room HUGE, there are huge wide hallways with wasted space throughout the building. On one floor there are two bathrooms across the hall from each other – you’d think they’d connect at least one to the bedrooms that were right next to them. The workspace for the kid’s computers didn’t make a lot of sense to me. I understand why parents might like that, but aren’t parents buying laptops for kids these days? Plus it’s incredibly specific to a particular market segment. You have to have kids of a certain age to find that a good feature.

There were lounge spaces on each of the two upper floors instead of bedrooms. When asked why there weren’t more bedrooms the answer was that that more bedrooms would have made it even more difficult to comply with LEED standards. As a result they only managed to fit 3 bedrooms into an owner’s unit that should have had 4 to 6 bedrooms. There were also 2 bedrooms on the ground floor that I’m not counting, but that raises a whole other issue (see the next section – C of O Issues)…

That said, the top floor master bedroom suite was pretty nice. The terrace off the master bedroom was extremely pleasant.

#3 – C of O Issues

For some reason after doing all that work, the owners still haven’t gotten a new C of O three years later. Legally it’s still a C5 Rooming House that’s SRO restricted. The renovations were done legally, but for one reason or another they never took the final step. I can see on the DOB website that they put some more work into it last year, but still no C of O.

When they do get it, the plan was for it to be a single family home which seems odd to me. That’s just too big of a house to be single family. 2 family with a ground floor rental is a lot more practical. In fact they’ve set it up for a 2 family, put in the plumbing, etc. Why they didn’t file to convert it to a 2 family to start with, I just don’t understand.

#4 – The Level of Finish

While there were some very nice aspects to the house, overall the finishes were of uneven quality. The stairs are a good example. They have this cool LED lighting that’s a very nice touch, but apparently the budget was tight and they couldn’t finish the stairs the way they wanted to and so they covered the center railing with sheetrock with the metal end posts poking through (and the metal was rusting). At $3M (or any price over $2M) people expect better finishes.

What Will It Sell For?

The odd layout and wasted space make it difficult to price. I think the new square footage is about 5000 sq. ft – which is quite big – especially for a single family home. If it weren’t for the inefficient use of space $450 to $500/sq. ft. would be reasonable based on the comps and that would come out to between $2.25M to $2.5M. Based on square footage they’re finally priced right. But my gut tells me it won’t sell for that ’cause it’s got the “issues” I talk about above. I’d guess the sale price will be closer to $2M – possibly even lower.

The issue is that they purchased the place in early 2008 (really bad timing) for $1.45M and given the fact that they did a rather expensive renovation that included major structural work and absurdly expensive “green” materials, I’m guessing they’ll lose money – even at their current asking price the losses could be substantial. If they’re paying a mortgage it gets even worse given high carrying charges.

What Does It Mean?

It’s sorta sad to see a demonstration project of green architecture end in people losing money, but that seems to be the likely outcome. While I think it’s great to be green, I don’t see the point of being green at all costs. From what I’ve read LEED is an absurdly difficult standard for existing structures, but the owners and their sponsors had committed to living by LEED and by the time the expenses were mounting and the market crashing it was too late – the financial damage had been done.

In my mind the project points out that LEED isn’t a standard Harlem townhouse renovators should strive to live by. Instead, be green in ways that are practical and relevant to what we’re working with – old, imperfect buildings.

And be less dogmatic about the whole green thing… For example plywood is green by it’s very nature since it’s made up of wood byproducts that are waste material, or “junk” wood from young trees that come from well-managed, renewable forests. You’re really not achieving much by paying 3 times more for “green” plywood.

To me energy efficiency is the name of the game. Use closed cell foam insulation when possible. Have efficient boilers and zoned heating and cooling. Have energy efficient windows. But don’t try to be so green that it causes you financial problems. Done properly being green should benefit your bottom line – not hurt it.

NYTimes: Wouldn’t You Like Some Tasty Spam?

I got this e-mail today from the NY Times. I’ve never seen anyone actually try to market spam and try to make it seem like it’s a privilege to be subjected to advertising and marketing…

That’s right… Subscribe now to our TimesLimited service that will send you spam – after all spam is tasty, right? Everyone likes spam… How can you resist? And the best part is that it’s a limited offer… Yeah, right… If receiving spam is limited to a special club membership – sounds like a good reason not to be part of the club.

All in all – pretty funny.

Nice boat in the picture though… It’s even beating upwind 🙂

Home Trends for 2011

I just got a promo e-mail from Marvin Windows and they did a survey of architects to figure out the home trends for 2011 – we’re actually doing quite a few of them…

#1 – New life for old materials

We’re repurposing the the non-rotten floor joists in our place and making them into a screen between the stairwell and the hallway. Other than recycling bricks from new openings when we close old openings (not really “new life”) we’re not doing much with old materials because we don’t have much in the way of old materials to work with. Unless you count the fact that we’re giving new life to an old shell…

#2 – Designing for yourself

This one we’re definitely doing. We’re doing 2 family instead of 3 because we want to use the back yard and we’d only have a roof deck if we did 3 family. And Dan’s getting two “bedrooms” for his art studio – which is a rather extravagant use of space in Manhattan. We’re also doing things like putting the kitchen in the front of the building (which isn’t very popular), because we like it that way… All in all we’re liking the fact that we’re working with a shell  – we can do anything we want – there are no walls or staircases we have to work around.

#3 – Natural Materials

This is the one we’re not doing so much. Yeah, there will be wood floors, doors and windows. But that’s not all that out of the ordinary. The few places where we’re having solid wood doors are dictated by FDNY (they’re fire doors), and the all wood windows are dictated by historic preservation and budget (the aluminum clad windows were more expensive).

#4 – “Trad-Mod”

“Traditional-Modern” style sorta describes our aesthetic. We do mix traditional elements into a generally modern décor – but that’s nothing new for us.

#5 – Relaxed outdoor living

This is definitely a big thing for us. We wanted a garden – that’s one of the major points of getting a townhouse. Dan wants to be able to barbecue, etc. A roof deck just wouldn’t have been the same. We’ll have both – it’ll be interesting to see which we use more.

#6 – Energy efficiency & sustainability

We take a rather Republican view about energy efficiency and sustainability – we do it because it saves us money. Sure, we don’t want to kill polar bears, but honestly we don’t really care how “green” our renovation is. Recycled materials don’t save us money, but we will have great insulation, energy efficient windows, efficient zoned HVAC, dual-flush toilets, etc. So energy efficiency – yes. Sustainability – not so much.

Since we hit at least partially on all 6 trends, does that make us “trendy”?  lol

What Things Are Selling For In West Harlem

The other day I looked at what things were selling for in and around Mount Morris Park, so I figured I’d do the same thing for West Harlem (Sugar Hill & Hamilton Heights). I did a radius around a friend’s place in the middle of the historic districts up there and what I found was that prices per square foot just aren’t as high in West Harlem as they are around Mount Morris Park.

Square Feet $/Sq. Ft.
Address Date Price Official Actual Official Actual Class
406 W 146 27-Aug-10 $526,050 4,510 4,250 $117 $124 C0
410 Convent 21-Dec-10 $1,450,000 3,328 3,328 $436 $436 B1
413 W 148 30-Dec-10 $1,120,000 4,760 4,400 $235 $255 B1
761 St Nic 16-Nov-10 $707,500 5,673 5,400 $125 $131 C5
466 W 144 01-Oct-10 $2,000,000 5,895 5,775 $339 $346 B1
197 E’combe 06-Oct-10 $923,793 2,802 3,334 $330 $277 C5
423 W 141 18-Nov-10 $1,100,000 3,440 3,150 $320 $349 C0
515 W 152 31-Jan-11 $610,000 3,764 3,871 $162 $158 B3
524 W 140 15-Dec-10 $920,000 2,825 2,430 $326 $379 C3
102 E’combe 01-Oct-10 $525,000 3,790 3,400 $139 $154 A9

Red lines are 1 and 2 family. Blue is 3 family. Black is 4+ family & SROs.

There are fewer sales to work off of, and none of the shells were in as bad shape as the ones near Mount Morris (the West Harlem shells all had windows), so it’s hard to do an exact comparison. Also, some of the sales on the list had odd histories with auctions and lis pendens just before the last sale – I’m not sure they’re good comps since other things may have been in play on those sales.

Regardless, while one sale did hit $2M, what you’ll notice is that the price per square foot for that sale was only mid-$300s/sq. ft. – about $100/sq. ft. lower than in Central/South Harlem. Only one sale got above $400/sq. ft.

When I did the same analysis 5 months ago I saw the same trend – West Harlem prices just aren’t as high on the high end – which leads me to the same conclusion – West Harlem is a great place if you want to pay a bit less for well-kept house. That’s also consistent with the low prices in South Washington Heights – just north of Sugar Hill.

The other conclusion is that because there’s less of a gap between shells and the high end there’s less opportunity to make money renovating a shell in West Harlem than further south.

Genetic Testing Gives Helpful Warning Signs

I bought myself a genetic test from 23andme.com for Christmas and the results just came back and I’ve got a 37% chance of getting prostate cancer. Given that there are very few men in my family (so not much of a family medical history for prostate cancer) that’s really useful information. (I have 4 sisters and no brothers, my dad had 5 sisters and no brothers, and my mom only had 1 brother.) While I’m not going to worry about it too much, I think I’ll find a proctologist and get regular exams for prostate cancer. 37% is pretty substantial risk.

I’m also at increased risk for age related macular degeneration (9.5%), melanoma (4% + my father has had skin cancer), and a few other things – all of which are still pretty unlikely even with “elevated risk”. There are also a few diseases where I’ve got a lower than average risk – Restless Leg Syndrome, Rheumatoid Arthritis, etc.

They also break down how likely drugs are to work on me. I’m more likely than average to be a heroin addict 🙂  Coumadin (which I think my father takes) will work better on me than most people, and so on.

Being gay I’ve always wondered if I was immune or resistant to HIV. Turns out I’m neither. (10% of Northern Europeans are resistent and 1% are immune to most forms of HIV). There’s are also genes that can predict whether your likely to be one of the lucky few whose bodies can keep HIV in check without medication – one of those genes suggests I’m completely average and have no special protection, but emerging research on another gene suggest I may have a little protection – that I’m 2.9 times more likely than average to be someone who’s body can control HIV.

The report said I had a 72% chance of having blue eyes, and if I didn’t have blue eyes there was a 27% chance my eyes would be green, with brown being highly unlikely. Well, I had blue eyes as a kid, but now my eyes are green. I also found out that I don’t taste some bitter things the way other people do and that affects my food preferences.

Then they break down my family history. I had always been told my mom was Scotch-English and my dad was Scotch-Irish, but I had no clue what that meant. Were those Scots who went to England and Ireland (e.g. Chinese-Canadian are Chinese that moved to Canada), or was it a mix of Scotch, English and Irish? Well, the report didn’t clarify those questions, but they did show me that my mom comes from Northern European ancestry and my dad comes from more Eastern European ancestry. Here’s the map of mom’s “Scotch-English” ancestry – she’s haplogroup H1…

maternal ancestry

And here’s the map of dad’s “Scotch-Irish” ancestry – he’s haplogroup R1a1a (the most common group in Europe)…

paternal ancestry

The report goes on and on and on (they map over 900,000 points on the genome)… In most cases the results were average and not all that interesting, but there was enough that was interesting that I’m glad I took the test. Knowing my risk of prostate cancer justified getting the test all on it’s own.

I got the test during a holiday sale back in December. It cost a total of $170. They used to charge $500, but reworked their technology so they can do moer data points (900,000+ rather than 300,000+) at a lower price. The price has gone back up by $100, but still lower than it was. There are some big names behind the company including Google and some big well known biotech firms. If you’re interested, I suggest you try it. However, if you live in New York the test is illegal. They can mail it here, but you have to go out of the state to spit into the test tube and mail the test.