I Want a Beautiful House

I got a very interesting call from a woman yesterday. She said she was looking for a beautiful house. Beyond that, she didn't have a whole lot of criteria in terms of price or size or style. She just asked me to send her listings of houses I considered "beautiful".

In 8 years of selling real estate here, I've never gotten that request. I get requests for big, small, private, secluded, lakefront, riverfront, farmhouses, rustic, charmers, contemporaries, estates, great deals or cheap. No one has ever asked for simply "beautiful." In our MLS, I can select from hundreds of different criteria, but "beautiful" isn't one of them. So I went through and picked out a selection of houses that I considered beautiful for one reason or another. It was a challenge. I was somewhat shocked at how short my final list was. 9 houses from the Sullivan MLS plus 3 others that aren't MLS listed. Of the 12, a couple of them are kind of stretches because the setting may not rise to the standard of the house. (One of my favorite 'beautiful houses' — the Felipe farmhouse on Obernberg Road — isn't in this group because it just went into contract.)

Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. There is another group of houses just below these that I would categorize as "very nice" but that don't quite evoke the same "this is really lovely" response.

The exercise of selecting "beautiful" houses was eye opening. I spend most of my time showing houses that don't rise to that standard. But that's a standard that many buyers — even if they don't articulate it directly — hold. We tend to ascribe the sluggishness in the market almost totally to the economic downturn, but maybe a part of it is that we don't have a lot of beautiful houses to seduce buyers. Are they just waiting for prices to come down, or are they holding out for a truly beautiful house?

Comments

[Bix]

Of the houses you listed, the only one that I thought was purty was the one in Livingston Manor/Callicoon.

Maybe buyers are holding out for houses that meet their particular specifications. In my case, the wood burning fireplace and space for two offices is what clinched it. If a buyer knows what he or she wants, the decision-making process is much easier.

[Nick]

Not sure if you're referring to the same one, but the only house there that really stands out as truly honest to goodness exceptional is the super modern one. Personally I wouldn't actually want to own the "Dwell Magazine Style" house myself. Especially in Sullivan, maybe you could impress people with it in East Hampton or something. But I can appreciate the style nonetheless and that one really does look like a fantastic example of the genre. I could see people falling in love with that one.

And all the other ones definitely have more than one thing strongly appealing about them. Though in same cases the prices seem a tad high. Which I guess is a good thing, since that makes me feel better about my place. But still...

The irony that kills me is the fact that the most expensive house listed, which does seem like a nice place despite the horrible photos, is so poorly "dressed" and photographed. I mean you're asking someone to fork over something like a million dollars. Hell just mortgage interest on that place for a year would bring a family of four above the U.S. median income. But you don't have the resources to find someone with a good camera and at least some semi-pro skill to take photos of the place. I know companies that spend hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars in marketing effort to grow a business to the point where it has a million dollars in revenue. Yet people won't call up the local community college or newspaper or wedding photographer and ask them to come over and spend an hour getting some decent photos. And if it's the end of summer and your photos are all snow-covered that sends a pretty clear message that you don't want sent.

All that said, those places make for great browsing. A few stand out. The B&B style one (#26158) is really tasteful, plus the lakefront is compelling at that price. But you do wonder how in hell 8 bedrooms squeeze into that floorplate. You have to figure there's no place to put a queen bed without touching all four walls, let alone the master suite. Still it is beautiful. And #26202 is just supremely tasteful.

It's interesting though. Even cherry-picked, and even at this price range, they all seem to have *some* compromise. The colonial is stunning but on almost no acreage and river view isn't waterfront. While #27157 is classic Catskills and I can't say I'd mind having it... but the land and size at that price plus the development fees make it a good chunk of change. And so on, I guess you can never have it all... they really are all very, very nice... (well except for #26774 which I still can't figure out at all). But I love that you've posted some higher end stuff where they're not just pretty good, but the kinds of places you could envision wanting to have in the family for decades. I love these kinds of posts, don't forget to throw 'em in every now and then.

[ar]

For the most part, these prices seem astonishingly reasonable. Lots of people paid north of $300K for a lot less house just a year or two ago.

[Bix]

Not really fair to say "your" pictures, as David is not the listing agent for any of these. But I agree with you in general. When house-hunting last year I was astounded at how poorly and non-"staged" the houses were. I watch that show "Stagers" on cable and see all the things people in the Catskills are not doing.

The house I wound up buying, for instance, had peeling exterior paint, beautiful wood floors hidden by carpeting, and two porches that could have been easily and cheaply dressed up (just as I've done with them). The pictures on the website gave no inkling of how large the grounds were.

I've seen much worse elsewhere. Apart from the usual inaccessible houses, I saw houses filled with junk, a crappy eyesore of a half-falling barn right in the front yard, etc. etc. I saw one house (a bit out of my price range) with gorgeous, park-like grounds and a fantastic view, none of which was evident from the listing.

[Bix]

I forgot the most amazing thing in the house I bought: the square footage was actually *understated* in the listing by a good 15%, as measured by the appraiser.

I'm surprised any houses sell at all, they are so poorly presented.

[Tom P]

You really have to wonder if people actually want to sell a place when you see real estate photos of a deck that is completely drenched from a rain-soaked afternoon.

Come on people, don't assume buyers will automatically picture your property on a sunny day. It's up to you to be there with your camera when the sun is out.

And also, if you happen to be home when potential buyers arrive, don't talk about family health problems or how grandma passed away in the back room; and make sure Fido's drool-soaked toys are out of view. Amazing really.

[Bix]

Sorry for swerving o/t, but this is relevant to us all and not sure where to post this (my poor Proboards site getting so little activity): big fracking fluid spill at a gas drilling site very close to Sullivan County. See http://www.propublica.org/feature/frack-fluid-spill-in-dimock-contaminates-stream-killing-fish-921 The local papers don't always pick up on this but ProPublica is on the story.

[keith]

I've posted some links at the end of the gas drilling blog that Dave posted on 9/10. The intent to drill on the western end of Sullivan County may help explain all the "for sale" signs I see when I drive through there. Maybe there's a scramble to sell since the houses will be even more unmarketable if and when drilling commences. I seem to think prospective buyers will not find flammable tap water to be a desirable feature.

[David Knudsen]

Actually, Keith, there hasn't been any measurable surge in houses on the market. At the end of September, 2008 there were 1,206 single family homes listed for sale in the Sullivan MLS. Today there are 1,186. So I think you're fielding an opinion about people fleeing western Sullivan County that really isn't backed up by facts.

[keith]

Dave,

Point taken.

[keith]

I was a little curious about the selection of the Narrowsburg area for initial gas drilling. My guess is the rational is that there are no NYC reservoirs in that region of Sullivan County. The metro areas of this country is increasingly where the $ is, while the rural areas become poorer. And the metro areas have the vast majority of the demand for natural resources. NYC has a vested interest in those rural areas in NY and PA where their reservoirs are located and can afford the legal battle with the gas companies. With the advent of horizontal drilling I was curious about the length of the horizontal drill hole and whether you could drill horizontally across the property line into unleased land. It sounds like they can now drill horizontally 1600 meters (a mile!!) and I was not surprised that it sounds like they can drill into unleased land (although it sounds they still have to at least offer a lease deal to that owner).