Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
jairosmom

Need help updating home...

Michelle
9 years ago

Hi all. I'm hoping for some help from the experts!

Attached is a link to a home own by my inlaws, who have both passed. As you can see, it has a gorgeous location in a beautiful northern Michigan resort town.

The house is appraised at 1.2m, but it's not selling. It's 50 years old, and aside from the kitchen, hasn't had much updating.

Can you please offer some suggestions on updates to help it sell? We'd like to start with lower cost updates, then move to more higher cost as need be.

Thanks a BUNCH!!
http://www.nglrmls.com/content/mls-1781350/#

Here is a link that might be useful: House Listing

Comments (113)

  • marcolo
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    (Sorry, mtnrdredux, I was fighting autocorrect at the same time as that weird forum bug that claims your post is a dupe.)

    Here's the worst part of the methodology:

    surveyed nearly 500 real estate agents nationwide

    How would a real estate agent know how much more a home sold for because it had clean shower doors and new mats? If they can so precisely predict what a house would sell for in a given condition, why are there ever any price reductions? Why aren't their recommended prices perfect every time? What's more, how do they know what a homeowner spent retouching kitchen paint, fixing a leaky faucet or buying towels? What part of their jobs involves homeowners handing them receipts from Home Depot or Bloomingdale's?

    There's a lot of sweet money around real estate transactions because most of it is borrowed, typically. So it attracts a lot of flies who want a taste of it. Including stagers.

    I think staging works best when it's either cheap, transformational or both. Sure, move a bookcase out from in front of a window. Clean out a hoarder's house; that makes sense. Maybe even add a backsplash or replace a countertop in a kitchen, if you have a good eye and you notice that a couple of small changes would happen to make a dated kitchen look like it's just been completely renovated to a first-time buyer.

    I don't think the OP is in the position to do anything either cheap or transformational in that house.

  • schicksal
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The things that jumped out at me were what some of the others said. First, the countertops. Some kind of granite for the kitchen and bathroom would be a big improvement. Also carpeting in the bathroom for us anyway, is a huge turnoff. Moisture + carpet = yuck.

    Others already mentioned the zoo in the basement - maybe people are having a hard time looking past that because otherwise it's a pretty cool room.

  • _sophiewheeler
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    ''I don't think the OP is in the position to do anything either cheap or transformational in that house.''

    +1001

    Except drop the price. That would make it much more attractive in a buyer's eyes. All of the gallons of paint in the world cannot help that single incurable defect. When an over priced home has 100K in renovations thrown at it, it's still an overpriced home.

    You want to sell, focus on the property. Market it as a teardown. What does a similar lot lcation demand pricewise? That is your market value. Takeaway the location on the lake and you would have a 50 year old ranch in a depressed economy state that would be lucky to be worth 100K. The total value is in the location. Market that.

    Market value is a different animal entirely than appraisal value. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks the home is worth, even an expert. If no buyer comes forward at that price, then the expert is obviously wrong.

  • palimpsest
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I think the OP left the discussion a long time ago, but I think there are two essential issues here that have been touched on but not really answered:

    Separated from the lake shore setting, what would the value of the physical structure of the house be? I grew up in a similar, isolated, picturesque, cold sort of spot, and there, on a regular lot, you could buy this house for 10-15% of the list price of the OP house. So what is it on a nice street of Traverse City, Michigan, no lake?

    $100,000 invested could be a lot more than about 10% of the value of the physical structure.

    The other thing is, if you invested $100,000 in the property and net 95% of it, which seems extremely high, you would *still come out $5000 short of what you would do if you just dropped the price $100,000 (and less aggravation).

    I posted the pictures here of my friend's dad's house and last May when she listed she asked me for advice and I said "Clean it out, leave a few things staging wise to give an idea of room sizes and price it at least $80K less than the more updated comps and sell it as a fixer upper."

    She was extremely insulted. After a ton of negative feedback she cleaned it out. This week, she finally got an offer of $109K less, from a contractor who is going to gut it. With the additional 6 months of bills, and aggravation from various siblings telling her to fire the realtor, get the house sold, do this and do that ad nauseum.

  • jdez
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Michelle - Paint the outside of the house, brick and all. Change out the gold pulls and knobs in the kitchen to black. Remove the animals because apparently this a huge turn off to others. That is all I would do.

  • busybee3
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    and, just a comment re the above pics that annie showed of the staged family room- a buyer for that house might walk into the stylish room and think, '1st thing I will need to do is hire a carpenter to add a mantel so we can hang our kids' stockings at christmas-geez I wonder how much that will cost-- this house is at the top of our budget-better factor that cost into our offer...'
    MAYBE simply cleaning up and moving furniture would have been a better decision... you never know.

  • LucyStar1
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    jmc01, you stated that the house has no furnace. The listing shows that it has natural gas heat. Gas heat uses a furnace. So it does have a furnace.

  • jterrilynn
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The animal heads and such are pretty common for the region as there is a large population of outdoorsmen. I haven’t lived in the state for many years so can’t say I have my finger on the pulse but I do have family still living in MI. As a whole Michiganders work to play! So, who knows about that hot tub as far as being a turn-off. Some would look at it as a great excuse for a winter party. It’s a whole different kettle of fish up there. I still believe the biggest turnoffs are the teal-ish countertops and the front facade of the house and the price. The price is too high.

  • lilylore
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Posted by marcolo: The principle of marginal utility is not to be debated or discussed here. It is to be learned and understood. It's basic arithmetic, not something people on a message board get to hold an opinion on. There's no shame in not taking, or not passing, Econ 101. But nobody is going to help the OP with derp.

    The term derp is mildly offensive, but I am finding it hard to be offended, because I am unsure if you are talking about me, or offering an apology by way of Self-deprecation,

    Regardless of that, I am sorry, but the importance of your comment evades me. I am not debating the principle of marginal utility , I am questioning if and how it might apply to this discussion? The principle of marginal utility is an economics term and was developed for the stock market. This is a "Home Decorating & Design Forum", (I don't even know if the GW has an econ and stock investment forum). If I were to take a course in Econ 101, perhaps I would be able to debate the principle, which surely has nuances. But until then, or until you decide to take the time to help the OP by explaining how this principle affects the sale of this home, I have to applaud you for knowing more on the subject of Stock Investment Economics than I do. But there is one word of caution I might offer, the name "Economist", is considered much more insulting than "derp" in many forums (even though sometimes they mean the very same thing), so, I'd stick to Derp, if I were you.

    This post was edited by Lilylore on Thu, Nov 20, 14 at 14:00

  • palimpsest
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I think in the case of any property for sale the question is whether it makes economic sense to do anything except lower the price, and the basic disagreement in this thread is about economics: does it make sense to update this house or just lower the price?

  • jterrilynn
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    It is tricky! Lowering the price makes the most sense either way. However, even at a lower price it would be hard to get them in the door with the looks of the façade (in that lower but still high bracket). Unless is just sold for land value. Or a few changes were to be made to make it more turnkey for second home buyers. This conversation is probably mute anyway if several family members are involved and have already dreamed of winning the house proceeds lottery. The house will sit as they often do while everyone keeps on dreaming and refusing to budge or do some work.

  • Annie Deighnaugh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I'm reminded of Sen Moynihan: everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

    MR=MC is about maximizing profits, not about the stock market.

    It relates to this discussion as presumably one is hoping to maximize their profits on the sale of their home.

    Here is a link that might be useful: MR=MC in 60 seconds

  • lilylore
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Posted by AnnieDeighnaugh: MR=MC is about maximizing profits, not about the stock market.
    It relates to this discussion as presumably one is hoping to maximize their profits on the sale of their home.
    Here is a link that might be useful: MR=MC in 60 seconds

    MR=MC is about producing in multiples, and finding the most profitable number to produce an item at. As far as I can tell, this topic is about selling a single home not selling multiple homes. Again, I am not about to debate the vagaries of MR=MC or how it relates to The Principle of Marginal Utility (which is about the stock market). However, no one has been able to show how these miraculous, learned and highly unchallengeable principles actually apply to this particular property.

    Simply dropping the name of an economic principle without demonstrating exactly and directly how it affects the sale of this particular house, looks like grandstanding by someone who has nothing useful to contribute.

    I could say you should stage this home and rehab the bath because of E=MC2, and while the theory of relativity is undeniable and you might be a fool to debate it, it might seem even be more foolish to apply it to a house sale where it has no relevance, or where one was unable to provide the proofs of how it merits the sale of the house.

  • marcolo
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Let's get this thread to 150.

  • mtnrdredux_gw
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Honestly, truly, Lily, and I am not trying to "grandstand" and neither is Annie or Marcolo, but, believe it or not, MR=MC has a lot more to do with the decision this homeowner is trying to make then the teal countertop does.

    This homeowner wants to make the most money out of the sale. She should not spend any money to do anything to the house unless she has a reasonable expectation that she will get back the money she spends and more.

    I don't imagine that last sentence is actually controversial, and that is really all we are saying when we invoke the concept of marginal cost.

    So, really, honest engine, we should stop bickering about that part of this thread because I don't think it's really the part that is at the heart of why people disagree about what to do.

    IMHO...
    The trickier part of the discussion is HOW do you assess whether one has a "reasonable expectation" of getting back more than you spend to fix the place up for sale?

    Like in the one table Annie posted, how do you know that if you spend $75 on staging you can expect to get back as much as $3,999? Sign me up!

    Really how the heck did some study calculate that? We can do 15,000 threads arguing that one!

  • palimpsest
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I think it's perfectly reasonable to throw marginal utility out the window if the house in question is going to be lived in for any length of time. Then I think it's a matter of creating an environment that makes you happy and a decision about how much you are willing to risk not getting a great return on. I am personally depressed when decisions seem to be based on the potential tastes of some generic buyer.

    But this is a situation where selling with the least investment and for the best price given the circumstances seems to be the priority.

  • GreenDesigns
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    In an area where older homes are being torn down so that larger, more modern homes can be constructed in their place, it makes no sense to try to sell an older home of this layout and condition as a residence.

    If there were regulations in place limiting teardowns or the size of infill replacements, then, it might make sense to try to create some modern touches or even renovations in a contemporary vein. Those modern kitchens and baths would have value for someone who wanted to live in the home. The market would show a good price difference between updated homes and ''original'' ones.

    That price difference would have to at least cover the anticipated expense to modernize the home though, which is the whole argument here. A cursory look at the other homes for sale appears to show that the home is overpriced for either scenario though.

  • Annie Deighnaugh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I think it's perfectly reasonable to throw marginal utility out the window if the house in question is going to be lived in for any length of time. Then I think it's a matter of creating an environment that makes you happy and a decision about how much you are willing to risk not getting a great return on.

    That's because you are receiving utility on your investment by living there in the environment you enjoy. So it's not that you are throwing MU out the window...it's that the utility is coming back to you in a non-monetary form.

  • marcolo
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Actually, even that is monetary. It's the owner's imputed rent..

    Anyway, this thread is an example of why you should be cautious about buying a property from an estate until it's been probated and the executor has the power of sale. When the family is involved, people make business decisions on irrational emotional grounds.

  • mtnrdredux_gw
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Yes yes yes. Plus Annie I think is ascribing economic value to "enjoyment", which we can all recognize exists even if it's difficult to measure.

  • palimpsest
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Marcolo:

    My friend who is selling her father's house and didn't want to hear in May that she needed to clean it out, price it $75K less and accept $100K less than the ones that have been better maintained and have new baths and kitchens is dealing with just that.

    She sold for $109K less, after 6 months to a contractor who's going to gut it.

    So she's dealing with one sibling who has been saying "Get it sold! I want *my* money"! and one who is furious because she sold out to a vicious developer who is going to tear the heart out of their family legacy. The hyperbole is all hers, not mine.

    I'm glad my dad decided to sell his house now, so it's clear to everyone that it is actually his house and his money.

  • marcolo
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I was thinking of starting a thread on this: my mom's condo was just on House Hunters.

    Not her exact unit, but one down the hall. Priced for way more than we sold it for several years ago. It had been only very superficially updated, which we could have done easily. But the real reason for the price difference was simply that the market has improved. We could have waited, too.

    But we didn't, and I can't understand why anybody would wait under those circumstances. We live a full days drive away. And when a house is unoccupied, anything can happen. Pipes can burst. An electrical fire could start. Somebody could break in and trash the place. Or the market could go the other way and collapse. We wanted it off our hands as soon as possible.

    This endless dallying that heirs indulge in is insane.

  • lilylore
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Posted by marcolo: "There's a lot of sweet money around real estate transactions because most of it is borrowed, typically. So it attracts a lot of flies who want a taste of it. Including stagers."

    There is also a lot of interest from the public around the subject of real estate and selling a house, and it attracts a lot of know-it-alls who like the sound it makes when they pound their chests. Including people who got a 3.0 in econ. 101 and people who know just enough about real estate to 'make them dangerous'.

    Posted by mtnrdredux: "She should not spend any money to do anything to the house unless she has a reasonable expectation that she will get back the money she spends and more."

    Right and I don't believe anyone has refuted that? I haven't. People have suggest that a quick sale at a reasonable price might also be a benefit of staging.

    Posted by GreenDesigns: "In an area where older homes are being torn down so that larger, more modern homes can be constructed in their place, it makes no sense to try to sell an older home of this layout and condition as a residence."

    It could make perfect sense. You can't go by recent tear-downs alone. For one thing the tear-downs show that this is a desirable area, no investor tears down a perfectly good and unsalable home way out in the boon docks to erect a new one, when they have 1,000s of acres of undeveloped land to choose from. Second, the ideal tear-down is the worst house in a valuable neighborhood on the largest plot of land. It is less desirable to choose an okay house on the smallest parcel of land, like this one appears to be. If this house is indeed worth close to $1,000,000; then it is likely that the near-by tear-downs where modest homes, perhaps two room 1920s fishing shacks that happened to sit on a huge parcel of land, being the first to build on the lake, likely the best parcel of land. But I do agree with you when you say that the home appears to be overpriced. That doesn't necessarily mean that staging or doing modest upgrades won't affect the final price, and be worth the investment.

    Posted by marcolo: "Let's get this thread to 150."

    That sounds awfully cynical and mean spirited, even if it is a joke. Is that something someone says when they feel like they are losing a "debate"? Or when they feel like they need to win an argument, but can't?

    There are some folks who do seem to need concrete, mathematical or statistical proof before they take any kind of action, or form an opinion. Sometimes, even the statistics and opinions of professionals are not enough, when it can't be tested in a lab. I am reminded of the famous story when Raymond Loewy 'proved' the value of design, by redesigning the Lucky Strike package, and offering to take no fee unless the redesigned package sold more than the previous packaging. It did of course.

    Any kind of design for sales is a crap shoot. However, stores like Target have made it the essence of their brand, and are doing very well. Corporations all know the importance of image, brand and advertizing and spend billions on it. Yet there is no concrete evidence (of the type people here are clamoring for to prove staging is beneficial) to even prove how, what kind or if any particular advertizing scheme will work for a particular product being sold. It's always a crap shoot. Yet, wise corporations continue to spend billions a year on that crap shoot -and those that don't, tend to fall to the wayside rather quickly and quietly.

    This post was edited by Lilylore on Sat, Nov 22, 14 at 16:30

  • jdez
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I can't figure out how you use bold and italics on your posts. I don't see that option on my screen. Is that a cut and paste type of deal?

  • nosoccermom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Well, according to classical and neoclassical economics, decisions are made based on information and cost-benefit analysis.

    However, we all know that in reality, people's decision making process is much more complex because it also involves psychological factors. Check out behavioral economics, for instance.

  • live_wire_oak
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "For one thing the tear-downs show that this is a desirable area, no investor tears down a perfectly good and unsalable home way out in the boon docks to erect a new one, when they have 1,000s of acres of undeveloped land to choose from."

    Sure they do. It's all about location. An older home in a more desirable location gets torn down all the time by someone who wants a more modern home with the 10' ceilings, 3 acre bathroom and the rest of the new home features in the location that they want. Happens all the time in the local resort area 90 minutes from town. Homes on the lake are more valuable than the lots way off of the lake. Even relatively newish 15 year old lake houses in prime locations get torn down by some folks if the lot is prime enough, and the person wants something different bad enough. It's about location, not the appeal of the house on the lot.

    Heck, a 10 year old doctor's office in my town was just torn down and a CVS pharmacy erected in it's place. It was about location. There was nothing wrong with the doctor's office at all. The town just developed so that the location became a premium location next to a grocery store with a traffic light. The location was much more valuable to CVS than the existing perfectly fine building. So, the doctors got to locate to a new location in an even nicer building. And CVS got their location.

  • lilylore
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Posted by live_wire_oak :... It's all about location. An older home in a more desirable location gets torn down all the time by someone who wants a more modern home...

    It's not just location to consider, though, in buying a property for tear-down and there are probably several veto points to consider, besides the following three.

    In the CVS scenario, it might go like this:

    1. Location (poor location: veto)
    2. Size of lot (too small for their store and parking: veto)
    3. Existing building (too small, wrong lay out: tear down)

    If the lot were too small, and they were unable to obtain the adjoining properties, then no amount of location, location, location would make the property attractive to CVS. The same goes for lake front tear downs.

    In the case of this particular property, I have to go with what others have observed: that this is one of the smallest lots on the lake, and perhaps even too narrowly situated to the shore (meaning a new house may need to be backed up closer to the road, which may have another set of restrictions). In that case, the square footage of the house that is extant may be all that is available.

    In fact, a tear down of this property may be problematic because of the size of the lot, new laws may have been written so that a tear down might result in an even smaller footprint for a building. There also might be limits to building upward. If that were the case, considering that tear downs are common on this lake, it would be an indication that a major remodel (minor tear-down) of the kitchen and bath might be profitable.

    This post was edited by Lilylore on Fri, Nov 21, 14 at 13:43

  • marcolo
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Or not.

  • nosoccermom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Link to thread about four houses that are almost identical in location, terms of size, number of BRs, BAs, etc., one obviously staged, the others not or to varying degrees.

    Here is a link that might be useful: updated vs non-updated or what's staging?

  • palimpsest
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    But when it comes to teardowns, aren't there two or three basic scenarios?

    1) The price and scope of modification of the existing structure makes tearing it down and replacing it either more economically sound, or at least feasible.

    2) The buyer wants the property strictly for the location and will tear down an adequate house to build exactly what they want in that location. Money may not be that much of an issue.

    3)--And I think this is an extension of 1): the house I so distressed that it can't be saved (or it's cheaper to start over).

    I don't see that there are condition issues in this property, just that it is considered dated, so wouldn't this house only really be a teardown in scenario (2)?

    As I said up-thread, if this were to be a 2nd residence, where I come from the buyers would be primarily concerned with location and condition and not so much esthetics. But I also grew up in, and now live in an area where plenty of "average" people have vacation properties, so maybe I am missing some of the nuances. The "averageness" of the owners became apparent post-Sandy when the market was flooded with properties (no pun intended) owned by people who could afford to keep the property but not remodel it to current codes and standards. And , at the shore, even where people *do electively tear-down and rebuild the decision is primarily a business one. Larger newer houses hold more renters and command higher rents and a higher caliber of renters.

  • nosoccermom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I agree. If you look at comparable properties, this doesn't look like a tear-down at all. However, it also looks like OP has been scared away.....

  • marcolo
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    It's pretty hard to generalize from a few pictures. I've seen houses that amazed me online because they seemed like such a steal. Then you get there. Or then you get the scoop from the realtor. And, not so much.

    The coasts are also completely different markets from the rest of the country. The boom proved this very definitively. On the coasts, there's certainly a resurgent market for pseudo move in ready ("Granite countertops! Collapsing roof! Let's buy it!") homes among those who perceive themselves as the busiest people, like, ever. But there are a lot of places where the demand just isn't there to justify the work.

  • Shelley Graham
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    When we were selling our last home three years ago we found that potential buyers didn't like the retro bar that we thought was so cool...a 50's style room that we used for entertaining. So we took the house off the market, ripped out the bar, and turned it into a den. The house sold three weeks after we finished the project.

    IMO, the biggest problem with this house is the indoor hot tub. It immediately reduces your buyer pool. People with young children, or older folks with grandchildren, will consider it a definite no, or will have to figure on removing it (read extra money). I suggest you either remove it or get an estimate for removal and be prepared to offer that as a credit.

    Another problem I see, especially for parents of small children, is the lack of a visible yard where kids can be supervised. The elevated deck doesn't look too kid appealing.

    Hope the market improves, and that spring will bring a buyer your way!

  • amykath
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I sure hope that Michelle will chime in here.

  • arcy_gw
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Update/not update that is the debate. Answer is: it DEPENDS. Even HGTV could not disguise the fact that houses priced well--SELL. They have had several shows centered on staging/quick selling/ what ever and EVERY TIME after they spend little or a lot fixing "the issues" in the house the house sells BECAUSE THEY LOWERED THE PRICE!! The only show I know of that speaks differently is this Flip or Flop. Those two SEEM to be taking people to the cleaners with their updates. That is ONE real-estate market, however. I have noticed there are commercials that use as their catch phrase "never DYI again!!" Perhaps we are now a society that cannot envision what something could be--we want what we want and we want it perfect and we want it NOW ! Doesn't bode well for any home say five years in...all homes require "work" as the years roll by.

  • Annie Deighnaugh
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Actually, even that is monetary. It's the owner's imputed rent.

    Not really. Yes you can use imputed rent to calculate the value of the services you are receiving from your house, but your new counter doesn't actually pay you money so the value received is nonmonetary. Pal's implication was making a change that would not add, or may even detract, value to a future buyer, but would add enjoyment to the current owner, so the value received would be nonmonetary utility.

  • marcolo
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Arcy, Flip or Flop is about flipping. That's a whole nother animal from staging, or from a homeowner doing their own updates. First of all, the flippers on that show buy their houses for nothing at auction. There's an old saying among real estate investors: you make your money when you buy your house, not when you sell it. Meaning, everything depends on getting the property at the right price. Pay too much and you'll never make a profit when you sell. Then, the flippers have an army of contractors they use all the time. Repeat customer get better prices. You could never renovate a whole house for what that couple pays. It's like the difference between retail and wholesale.

    Maybe the most important part of this is that a successful flipper buys houses where the ONLY problem is condition. They won't pick an undesirable location and they won't buy a house they can't price competitively. So when they fix the condition, the house is now perfect.

  • jterrilynn
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Okay back to the original question. I did this mock-up but am not going to fine tune because the op seems to be gone and I don’t love the looks of that second door by garage.
    But, as far as updating the front…would it be worth it to do some painting, replace the front door/& side lite with a larger cedar and glass door, add some simple inexpensive columns on each side of entry and adjust the landscape and add a few new outside lights? My goal here was to get the front to somehow have relation with the back.
    Would it help get people in the door? Since they may have to lower the price anyway would any front updating be worth it?

  • jterrilynn
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I’m curious! Do you think it would be worth say spending around $5,000 t0 $6,000 (owners doing some painting and such but hiring an electrician and door installer) on the front just to get people in the door?

  • marcolo
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Wouldn't it be cheaper just to pull that photo from the listing?

  • jterrilynn
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Good point Marcolo! But, if these are out of state 2nd home buyers or are maybe 2nd home buyers from way south of the state (which I think is a higher probability) wouldn't they want a front shot before making the trip? Just wondering...I don't know.

  • nosoccermom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Folks,
    I had posted the above link to four houses, which are extremely similar and sold within three months with a difference in sales price of over 100K (765K-850K). You can see what difference updates or no updates made.
    At least it shows some concrete examples of what's been discussed. Or do you rather discuss in the more abstract/academic?
    Looks like OP has already disappeared.

    Here is a link that might be useful: example sales of updated vs non-updated homes

  • marcolo
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "You can see what difference updates or no updates made.
    "

    It shows nothing of the kind. It shows four houses and their prices.

  • jterrilynn
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    My personal opinion on the mock-up is that although drastic changes couldn’t be made without a lot more$$$$ I think it at least reads that the house has been maintained to a point by bringing in a look closer to this decade. “If” the buyer pool has even a 50% chance of being a 2nd home buyer that may be very important here. Yes maybe some will think of leveling it but others may think they could live with it and make some changes in the interior at their leisure and time in finding people to do the work with them out of town or state. Even with the scenario that the price might need dropping some I think maybe not as much with a small under $6000 front improvement. The original façade does not lend its self to showing the house as maintained at all.

  • nosoccermom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    @marco
    Huh?
    Care to explain?
    You see four houses that are almost identical in terms of location, size, layout, style, amenities, time of sale. You can see different degrees of updating, colors, time on market, sales price and asking price.

    This post was edited by nosoccermom on Mon, Nov 24, 14 at 12:11

  • Oaktown
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    (I have not had a chance to read all of the previous posts.)

    In the calculation of whether it makes sense to put in $ to make $, Michelle should figure in carrying costs/lost rent while the updates are done, unless the tenant is willing to cooperate. Also the costs of Michelle's family's own time (and headaches) for dealing with any updates.

    I agree with loves2read that the tenant + winter situation could make this a tough sell in the near term except for buyers looking for a fixer-upper/tear down. Spring + no tenant could be a whole different ball game.

    Good luck, Michelle!

  • voila
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The "updated" houses shown are all in Maryland? Not sure how this relates to a house on Lake Michigan.
    Sorry, I would have to rip out that striped wood floor. Is it a cheap grade hickory? I doubt it is Tigerwood. Some people want updates, some people like to make their own choices. Price doesn't necessarily determine that either. I know a wealthy couple (think Forbes list) who own many houses (lake, ski, beach, city). When they bought in my old neighborhood, the only thing the wife did (to all her houses) is to have it painted Navaho White. Didn't even change the worn carpet.

  • nosoccermom
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I was referring to the discussion of whether staging or updating made sense, which quite frankly veered off the original question, and tried to go from the very academic to at least some concrete examples. However, it looks like we have lost the OP already. Never mind.

  • jterrilynn
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I don’t believe we completely lost the op. Sometimes posts are like car wrecks in that people can’t help but have a peek even if they don’t like what they see. Or, perhaps the op just got busy.
    I like to think that either way something in the posts has been useful in making up one’s mind on what to do. That’s why I did an update mockup (see full exclamation above). Sometimes it’s hard for people to imagine the possibilities, sometimes it’s just down to expecting miracles without spending anything and sometimes it’s complicated (as in this case).

  • lazydaisynot
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I think the existing facade is just fine; I prefer it to the mock-up above.