Good Deal or Not? Former Judging Building Edition
26 January 2009 1:00 PM | By Prince Of Petworth in Good Deal or Not?, Neighborhoods - Park View, Neighborhoods - Petworth, Real Estate - Park View, Real Estate - Petworth
This home is located at 3573 Warder Street, NW:
The flier says:
“PARK VIEW CONDOMINUMS!. .Luxurious 2-Level Loft-Style Condominium Residences w/ gated PARKING INCLUDED! Large (1175-1420 SF) units w/ balc, granite, cherry kit. cabs, SS Appl. , Brazilian wood flooring, video-monitored secure entry & ADT system, Jacuzzi baths, recessed lighting, flat-screen ready, walk to METRO! (2/2 & 2/2/1 floor plans available! Eight units offered from $369K – $423K”
More info and photos on the 2 bed/2.5 bath can be found here. More infor and photos on the 2 bed/2 bath can be found here.
A reader writes:
“I received this glossy postcard (like the kind strip clubs scatter about) trumpeting the virtues of this house. I remember some time back you featured it while it was under construction; your readers proceeded to flay it. Now it’s been gussied up, repackaged as “green”…You might want to revisit.”
Revisit I shall! So the 2 bed/2.5 bath is going for $423,000 and the 2 bed/2 bath is going for $369,000. Do you think either are a good deal? And of course what do you think about the units and building itself?
Follow PoP on twitter
Join the PoPville Flickr pool
26 January 2009 1:20 PM | Just J Said:
No thanks. That building will be the neighborhood eyesore for years.
26 January 2009 1:31 PM | Anonymous Said:
yeah. not the ugliest building ive seen. but not one i would want to come home to every night. also. for that price you could not just get a house in that very neighborhood. but you could get a nice house in that neighborhood. im too lazy to look myself but I bet there is a nice house within 3 blocks of that condo for the same price.
26 January 2009 1:35 PM | DCDave05 Said:
I checked them out during an open house. The units themselves are fairly nice inside. However, the outside architecture reminds me of cheaply constructed, military base housing. The exterior paint color is also pretty ugly, not sure what they were thinking there, the color definitely doesn’t add any curb appeal.
26 January 2009 1:51 PM | DC_Chica Said:
I object to the fact that they appear to have cut down the trees behind the house and paved the entire thing???
26 January 2009 1:57 PM | Anonymous Said:
I think for the sq feet and the proximity to Metro, the asking prices are fair, especially compared to most of the other condos in the area. I don’t think for $360 you could get a nice rowhouse that close to the Metro. Sure you could get a fixer-upper but it’d end up being more expensive with what you’d spend on maintenance.
26 January 2009 2:03 PM | Anonymous Said:
great view off the deck of the concrete slab….. who would want to look at that eyesore while grilling up a nice steak? I think there is a two bed two bath with more sq feet than the unit for 469. I saw it not too long ago. on new hampshire ONE block from metro. much nicer finishes. MUCH nicer curb appeal. parking and large deck off unit. 399,000
26 January 2009 2:06 PM | Take5 Said:
“for that price you could not just get a house in that very neighborhood. but you could get a nice house in that neighborhood”
I challenge you to find a nice house in that part of Parkview for less than $500,000
26 January 2009 2:11 PM | Hoodrat Said:
As compared to other condos which are so close to metro, it’s probably a pretty good deal. it at least LOOKS like it is large, well put together, pretty inside, and fully decked out. (i’m also not sure what is up with the outside paint color.)
I just think condos are vastly overpriced in this market. It is just hard to imagine buying this instead of a smallish rowhouse. Note that the bigger one is priced at 423k. I think you CAN get a rowhouse for that. Anybody else think the condo market adjustment must be yet to come?
26 January 2009 2:22 PM | Anonymous Said:
Take5, I didn’t write the comment you quoted and this is further south and honestly I’m not too familiar with this area to say if the block is comprable, but what do you think of this listing:
http://www.redfin.com/DC/WASHINGTON/742-HARVARD-St-NORTHWEST-20001/home/10032054
26 January 2009 2:22 PM | Anonymous Said:
id say these condos are valid comps. and much nicer looking. and closer to the metro. looks like they started out at 450 and reduced below 400. these much uglier condos further from the metro will likely be reduced to at least that.
http://www.redfin.com/DC/WASHINGTON/3660-NEW-HAMPSHIRE-Ave-NORTHWEST-20010/unit-1/home/17286649
26 January 2009 2:45 PM | Anonymous Said:
not in parkview but the same distance to the metro in what I think most would consider a better, safer location. a full house renovated that has already been reduced once and will likely end up going for even less.
http://www.redfin.com/DC/WASHINGTON/1005-QUEBEC-Pl-NORTHWEST-20010/home/10033754
26 January 2009 2:48 PM | Anonymous Said:
in parkview. half a block from said condos. need to rip out carpet and bugg floors and install your own granite counters but the stainless appliances are already in place. and why live in parkview without a VIEW of the PARK. check out the street view view you would have from the front porch… no brainer in my mind. these fugly condos are not a good deal
http://www.redfin.com/DC/WASHINGTON/3610-PARK-Pl-NORTHWEST-20010/home/10042933
26 January 2009 2:53 PM | AngryParakeet Said:
dc-chica: I looked up the property in a bird’s eye view map program showing the building under construction. The back yard used to be a row of garages/shacks – no trees or yard.
26 January 2009 3:31 PM | DC_Chica Said:
AngryParakeet, there are clearly trees in the old satellite shot at the bottom of the redfin page, but it’s possible that the tree trunks themselves are actually on the neighbors property. Either way, I agree with Anon@2:03, the concrete is ugly and not what I would hope to see off the back of my deck!
26 January 2009 4:10 PM | Stacy Said:
If you took this one, you’d be just as close to the metro and have a spare bedroom (although the second bathroom is a half not a full)–you could fix it up pretty nicely with the leftover hundred grand. http://www.redfin.com/DC/WASHINGTON/3638-WARDER-St-NORTHWEST-20010/home/10042273
And I also think this one is a TON cheaper and nicer (especially on the outside) though I don’t know enough to compare the areas: http://www.redfin.com/DC/WASHINGTON/646-IRVING-St-NORTHWEST-20010/unit-02/home/17945794
26 January 2009 4:13 PM | anon Said:
Actually the view out the back is super. You can see the entire park on floors 3 and 4
26 January 2009 4:17 PM | Your a pickle and I am 2 Said:
These are ugly and way over priced. I guess the developer missed the memo about the economy…
26 January 2009 5:20 PM | Alex Said:
Stacy’s first one looks like a good deal to me.
26 January 2009 5:22 PM | peaceyall Said:
this is right around the corner from where i live so i walked by it everyday as the old purple house was replaced by this monstrosity. seeing how they built this thing, i wouldn’t trust it. they tore down everything except the front face and the front porch “foundation” – similar to the yellow building they did two houses over. that porch is already slanting downwards. the siding seems terrible. i wonder how the sound insulation is.
26 January 2009 9:36 PM | Park View Said:
Using the word architecture when describing the structure itself is an insult to architects everywhere. Clearly, no one with talent designed this building. It just is. Not only is the form not pleasing, the color is not harmonious with its surroundings. I just don’t know what they were smoking when they cobbled this beast together.
27 January 2009 12:25 AM | bogfrog Said:
I like it as a stand-alone property; in the picture it seems both California and Asian. I wonder if they took a house plan initially designed for another location and then found land in DC to build a replica. Inside looks like your generic condo;
meanwhile, Stacy’s first one looks phenomenal!
27 January 2009 5:16 PM | double wide dude Said:
It looks like a three story double wide.