It's not easy being green--1533 Morton Street, Alameda, CA
The "green" eco-friendly house at 1533 Morton Street has been on the market for a while, but only recently did it come to my attention it's highly deserving of a writeup on the blog, so here it is. Touted as a very advanced design with all sorts of ecologically sensible features, from solar panels to recycled or recyclable building materials, 1533 Morton St. has the following specs:
Why would that be? It looks great on paper--big lot, big house, all the right things for the well-heeled, environmentally conscious Bay Area buyer (if you talk to agents they'll tell you those wealthy San Francisco 30-somethings with 1 1/4 children are flocking to Alameda by the boatload), and an arguably reasonable price per square foot (in context; I'd never pay that much for anything, but given the way houses are priced in Alameda, it's priced reasonably well). The agent is clearly targeting that population:
With that in mind, some of the features of the property make you wonder whether they were indeed an enlightened decision on the architect's part:
All that being said, what I would like to know is who in their right mind would buy a high-end-ish eco house on half a lot (with no room for grass or trees), with a big ol' antique owned by someone else in the way of street access. And be willing to deal with the indignities of a monthly $50 HOA fee. If this and the front house were marketed as one of those two-houses-on-one-lot deals, and priced at $990,000 for the pair, it might be different, although I have a hard time imagining how the mortgage works out assuming you rent one or the other; these are pretty distinctive properties catering to a very small pool of potential tenants, so vacancy rates would likely be high.
Did anybody at the design firm that perpetrated this dual monstrosity do a market analysis before creating not one but two unsellable white elephants?
Lastly, one thing that's been bothering me for a long time is how agents for large houses often boast of potential "au-pair" quarters. Who keeps au-pairs in 2009?
3 bedrooms, 3 1/2 bathrooms, 1,500 sqft, ~6,100-sqft lot, MLS(r) #40404178, $899,000At $360 / sqft, it's almost priced correctly, and you'd think with all those green features and potential energy savings, it'd be gone by now. But it's not--it's been on the market for almost 5 months as 8/29/09, and dropped its price from $969,000 to $899,000 on July 1.
ALAMEDA'S 1ST NEW "GREEN" INFILL. [...] UBER ENVIRONMENTAL HOME. NEWLY CONSTRUCTED "SOLAR" l GREEN HOME EMBELLISHES TODAY'S HIGHLY COVETED GREEN DESIGN. [...] GREAT HOME OFFICE, GUEST ROOM OR AUPAIR.
Why would that be? It looks great on paper--big lot, big house, all the right things for the well-heeled, environmentally conscious Bay Area buyer (if you talk to agents they'll tell you those wealthy San Francisco 30-somethings with 1 1/4 children are flocking to Alameda by the boatload), and an arguably reasonable price per square foot (in context; I'd never pay that much for anything, but given the way houses are priced in Alameda, it's priced reasonably well). The agent is clearly targeting that population:
Both the Environmental Home and the immaculately restored Historic Home are located on one large lot, contiguous to the Gold Coast region of Alameda. The highly recognized Alameda Schools are within close proximity, as well as parks, markets, shops and restaurants. Take the Ferry, BART or Bus to San Francisco. Ferry Ride takes only 20 relaxing minutes. A beautiful commute.Maybe the fact that there's a big tall 3,700-sqft house on the narrow 6,100-sqft lot RIGHT IN FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY is giving potential buyers pause (note the helpful sign pointing to today's house on the front lawn; I wonder if you're allowed to keep it after you buy to help direct your friends to your housewarming party):
(photo courtesy of reader C.F. Thanks!)
With that in mind, some of the features of the property make you wonder whether they were indeed an enlightened decision on the architect's part:
In an educated effort, the architect opted to place the home’s public rooms one story above ground in order to take advantage of natural light, heat and views, while the ground level cleverly gives way to the perfect space for au pair quarters, additional family room, gymnasium or a Zen garden retreat. The uppermost level holds spacious, light-filled and naturally air-conditioned sleeping quarters.... or merely an attempt to cope with the inevitability of a very large building mere feet away across the lot, perhaps blocking some of the sunlight during the day? Maybe one of those pesky city regulations requiring enough parking for everyone caused the designer to say "I know! Let's put the maid and the car below the house! That way we have parking, and the solar panels can actually see the sun part of the time! This house will sell in minutes!"
All that being said, what I would like to know is who in their right mind would buy a high-end-ish eco house on half a lot (with no room for grass or trees), with a big ol' antique owned by someone else in the way of street access. And be willing to deal with the indignities of a monthly $50 HOA fee. If this and the front house were marketed as one of those two-houses-on-one-lot deals, and priced at $990,000 for the pair, it might be different, although I have a hard time imagining how the mortgage works out assuming you rent one or the other; these are pretty distinctive properties catering to a very small pool of potential tenants, so vacancy rates would likely be high.
Did anybody at the design firm that perpetrated this dual monstrosity do a market analysis before creating not one but two unsellable white elephants?
Lastly, one thing that's been bothering me for a long time is how agents for large houses often boast of potential "au-pair" quarters. Who keeps au-pairs in 2009?
Miscellaneous