Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not as many sidewalks as Needham or Wellesley and definitely less of a town center, but better commuter rail options and $1.5m will go considerably further than either. Schools are generally ranked between Needham and Wellesley.
Westwood is a great town and I know you live there and know it well. I'm curious as to why you say it has better commuter rail options than Needham or Wellesley. I believe there are only two stations in Westwood and Needham and Wellesley both have more stations than that.
Westwood is a great town and I know you live there and know it well. I'm curious as to why you say it has better commuter rail options than Needham or Wellesley. I believe there are only two stations in Westwood and Needham and Wellesley both have more stations than that.
Only two stations, but both on different lines. That gives you additional flexibility on times as well as a backup when there's a huge backup on one of the lines (which happens every month or so).
The other advantage is that the Providence/Stoughton line is faster than the Framingham/Worcester and especially the Needham lines. It's 43 minutes from Needham Heights and about 35 from Needham Junction to South Station, but only about 38 minutes from Sharon and 25 from Route 128 Station in Westwood.
Of course, if the OP is looking to walk to the station, Needham and Wellesley have a better chance of having a station nearby. The neighborhoods within walking distance of a station in Westwood tend to be considerably more modest than the OP's budget. There are some $1m+ houses that are arguably within walking distance, but not many and not particularly close.
So I suspect the OP will want to focus on Needham/Wellesley, but should at least look at Westwood, where $1.5m will buy a nice 3500+ sqf house on 1+ acre, with easy driving access to two commuter rail lines and pretty good schools. There aren't as many sidewalks in the 1+ acre lot part of town, but that's true many places with lots that big.
Of course, if the OP is looking to walk to the station, Needham and Wellesley have a better chance of having a station nearby. The neighborhoods within walking distance of a station in Westwood tend to be considerably more modest than the OP's budget. There are some $1m+ houses that are arguably within walking distance, but not many and not particularly close.
That neighborhood off of Blue Hill Dr is really nice and there are a lot of new & newer houses that have been built in there recently. You can walk to the train station from there and when it's built you'll be able to walk to University Station (or whatever the current name of the shopping plaza is). You might need $1.6M to get a new house in that neighborhood though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom
So I suspect the OP will want to focus on Needham/Wellesley, but should at least look at Westwood, where $1.5m will buy a nice 3500+ sqf house on 1+ acre, with easy driving access to two commuter rail lines and pretty good schools. There aren't as many sidewalks in the 1+ acre lot part of town, but that's true many places with lots that big.
You can get all that (minus the 1 acre lot) in Needham at the same price. It's interesting talking to people buying a house because some people are absolutely insistent on having an acre. Other people could care less about having that much land. While others are strongly opposed to having an acre or more (don't want the up keep, taxes, etc). Different strokes for different folks!
That neighborhood off of Blue Hill Dr is really nice and there are a lot of new & newer houses that have been built in there recently. You can walk to the train station from there and when it's built you'll be able to walk to University Station (or whatever the current name of the shopping plaza is). You might need $1.6M to get a new house in that neighborhood though.
Shh! That's where my wife wants us to move! $1.5m is probably the tippy-top of that neighborhood unless you start from scratch. There just isn't much inventory over there, though, as it's a small, very specific neighborhood. I'm not sure that most people would consider the route walk-able, either (I would, but I'm weird).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePRU
You can get all that (minus the 1 acre lot) in Needham at the same price. It's interesting talking to people buying a house because some people are absolutely insistent on having an acre. Other people could care less about having that much land. While others are strongly opposed to having an acre or more (don't want the up keep, taxes, etc). Different strokes for different folks!
I did not know that. I know in my budget range Needham has a considerably higher $ft^-2, so that's good to know. Looking at some of the $1.2-1.5m houses online it does seem like they are squeezed right on to a tiny lot, which is my definition of a McMansion (although build quality likely factors in to many definitions and is harder to judge through the internet). There is a lot more in that price range in Needham (and probably even more in Wellesley), so I definitely think that those are the places for the OP to look.
Shh! That's where my wife wants us to move! $1.5m is probably the tippy-top of that neighborhood unless you start from scratch. There just isn't much inventory over there, though, as it's a small, very specific neighborhood. I'm not sure that most people would consider the route walk-able, either (I would, but I'm weird).
Seems walkable to me. I'm not sure there's a sidewalk and I probably wouldn't want my little kids walking that alone, but I would do it.
The only problem with that neighborhood is that I believe they are going to be making some road changes in that area because of University Station which might bring traffic noise closer and also I heard they are dead ending Blue Hill Dr which will make driving to the train or University Station a much longer route from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom
I did not know that. I know in my budget range Needham has a considerably higher $ft^-2, so that's good to know. Looking at some of the $1.2-1.5m houses online it does seem like they are squeezed right on to a tiny lot, which is my definition of a McMansion (although build quality likely factors in to many definitions and is harder to judge through the internet). There is a lot more in that price range in Needham (and probably even more in Wellesley), so I definitely think that those are the places for the OP to look.
In the $1.5M range you could see a new or newer house on a lot sized anywhere from 1/4 acre to maybe 1/2 acre in Needham depending on location and size/age of the house. There is way more construction going on in Needham than many other similar area towns and that was a trend that's been constant over almost the last 10 years. The amazing thing is that they're all teardowns. Very few new streets/sub-divisions.
As an aside, I don't ever look at $/sf. It doesn't really tell me anything that's useful. If our housing were more uniform like it is in my recently developed parts of the country it would be something I might consider. Alternatively, it can work in some of the ultra high price ranges of markets like NYC where there really aren't any comps.
As an aside, I don't ever look at $/sf. It doesn't really tell me anything that's useful. If our housing were more uniform like it is in my recently developed parts of the country it would be something I might consider. Alternatively, it can work in some of the ultra high price ranges of markets like NYC where there really aren't any comps.
I think $/sf can work as a comparison tool between 2 similar homes in the same town which are different sizes. For example a 2400 sf. colonial and a 2800 sf colonial in Needham. Same age, lot size, # of bedrooms, etc. The only difference is say, the smaller home has 3 full baths, a deck, central air and a 2 car garage and the larger one has 2.5 baths, no deck, no central air and a 1 car garage. You make adjustments to the price based on these differences, then you compare the $/sf of the adjusted prices. How else would you know if a smaller house is overpriced compared to the larger house?
We will look more at Westwood. Our kids spend a lot of time at Hale Reservation and the fact that a Target is going in is definitely a plus. It seems a little sleepy, but I have heard great things about the schools and the new library looks really great. I have a feeling for us we will fall in love with a house and it's immediate location and then convince ourselves that the town is right. We don't care too much about the size of lot or need to spend our whole budget, we just need at least 4 beds (prefer 5), 2.5 baths, a family room and would love a first floor study. I just wanted to come up with a shorter list of towns so the hunt doesn't seem so overwhelming.
I think $/sf can work as a comparison tool between 2 similar homes in the same town which are different sizes. For example a 2400 sf. colonial and a 2800 sf colonial in Needham. Same age, lot size, # of bedrooms, etc. The only difference is say, the smaller home has 3 full baths, a deck, central air and a 2 car garage and the larger one has 2.5 baths, no deck, no central air and a 1 car garage. You make adjustments to the price based on these differences, then you compare the $/sf of the adjusted prices.
Those don't sound like similar houses to me at all. There are a million problems with comparing two houses using $/sf and one is that not every square foot in a house is of equal value. Also, how do you compare two houses on a $/sf basis when both houses are identical but one is on an 1 acre lot while the other is on 1/2 acre? The $/sf will be wildly different between them. You can make adjustments as you suggest but the statistic is so averaged out that the margin for error is extremely slim. A small adjustment in $/sf when extrapolated out will result in a hug difference in the valuation of the house.
IIRC you are in some kind of numbers oriented profession (accountant or engineer or something along those lines). People in these professions always obsess over $/sf. People who can't let go of $/sf analysis in this area in my experience either don't end up with a house or end up paying something well different from market value (i.e. they are either grossly under or over valuing houses because on their flawed analysis).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parsec
How else would you know if a smaller house is overpriced compared to the larger house?
Who cares?
If I'm in the market for a house, I just want to know I'm paying a price in line with what others are paying for a similar size house. In order to do that, you just look at comparable sales. There will be adjustments to make because no two houses around here are identical and it helps to have someone helping you who knows how to interpret the comps and is familiar with them.
Those don't sound like similar houses to me at all. There are a million problems with comparing two houses using $/sf and one is that not every square foot in a house is of equal value. Also, how do you compare two houses on a $/sf basis when both houses are identical but one is on an 1 acre lot while the other is on 1/2 acre? The $/sf will be wildly different between them. You can make adjustments as you suggest but the statistic is so averaged out that the margin for error is extremely slim. A small adjustment in $/sf when extrapolated out will result in a hug difference in the valuation of the house.
If I'm in the market for a house, I just want to know I'm paying a price in line with what others are paying for a similar size house. In order to do that, you just look at comparable sales. There will be adjustments to make because no two houses around here are identical and it helps to have someone helping you who knows how to interpret the comps and is familiar with them.
Thanks, this is helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePRU
IIRC you are in some kind of numbers oriented profession (accountant or engineer or something along those lines). People in these professions always obsess over $/sf. People who can't let go of $/sf analysis in this area in my experience either don't end up with a house or end up paying something well different from market value (i.e. they are either grossly under or over valuing houses because on their flawed analysis).
I'm in finance, so not only do I work with numbers all day but I analyze them. I believe every number has a meaning (have you ever watched Numb3rs?), so it was very hard for me to let go of the $/sf analysis. You described my situation exactly. Lost a few houses using $/sf analysis and my realtor used to be a computer programmer so he was big on this too. I had to change up my offer strategy. You've obviously been around the industry long enough to correctly stereotype my profession with that comment
As an aside, I don't ever look at $/sf. It doesn't really tell me anything that's useful. If our housing were more uniform like it is in my recently developed parts of the country it would be something I might consider. Alternatively, it can work in some of the ultra high price ranges of markets like NYC where there really aren't any comps.
All measures have their place. I'm sure using $/sf is a bad way to price a particular house is a bad move, but as a rough way of measuring the relative affordability of a town, averaged over all real estate, it's the simplest effective metric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parsec
I'm in finance, so not only do I work with numbers all day but I analyze them. I believe every number has a meaning (have you ever watched Numb3rs?), so it was very hard for me to let go of the $/sf analysis. You described my situation exactly. Lost a few houses using $/sf analysis and my realtor used to be a computer programmer so he was big on this too. I had to change up my offer strategy. You've obviously been around the industry long enough to correctly stereotype my profession with that comment
I'm sure the correlation coefficient between house size and sales price is positive, so $/sf isn't totally useless. I think the biggest problem, especially around here, is that it assumes a zero intercept. Especially in towns where the lot has as much if not more value than the house this makes no sense. A better model would be
(town offset) [$] + X [$/sf] * house area [sf] = price [$]
As MikePRU has mentioned, the real model is more complicated than that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
