greening the mls
TRANSCRIPT
Greening the MLS An Examination of High Performance Housing Transactions in the Washington, D.C. Real Estate Market RealEstate Business Intelligence, LLC September 2014
Overview RealEstate Business Intelligence (RBI) performed an analysis of 2013 residential sales transactions in the District of Columbia real estate market. Specifically, RBI compared the effects of high performance housing (HPH) features to “conventional” homes on key market metrics. The key market metrics analyzed included sale price, time on market, price per square foot, and seller net (or seller proceeds). Broadly, the team found that HPH sales were 18 percent of total sales in 2013, and that these homes’ sale price was 23 percent more on average. A further breakdown is provided in the 15 accompanying figures and the appendices.
Background As part of the research for this analysis, studies compiled in other real estate markets were identified. These revealed a potential for sales price premium or reduced market time to sell residential properties that included features which improved energy efficiency by increasing performance - hence the term “high performance housing (HPH).” These features are either built-in with new construction or retrofitted by homeowners during renovation and remodeling projects. As the central hub for real estate market transactions, multiple listing services (MLSs) play an important role in conveying “green” or HPH characteristics of individual properties to potential buyers in the marketplace. Well-advised consumers can then make more informed decisions about which properties meet their needs. A February 2013 article on the National Association of Realtors website stated:
MLS listings are emphasizing the eco-friendliness of homes. When potential buyers are considering a home or condominium, more and more of them are no longer just looking to see how many bedrooms and bathrooms it has or if the kitchen is equipped with stainless steel appliances and granite countertops. Some also want to know if the refrigerator has an Energy Star designation, if the toilets are low-flow, or how energy efficient the windows are. Features that make homes use less energy are becoming more important selling factors, REALTORS® say. And they are studying ways to help their clients go green by taking specialized classes and by highlighting environmentally friendly features via the Multiple Listing Service (MLS).1
This RBI study set out to establish a usage baseline of HPH features by real estate professionals in the District of Columbia. Data was examined from the period January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2013 to capture and review any fluctuations in use over time and to determine the impact of other trends affecting market activity (such as interest rate changes or regulation). While this longer-term information is used in this report to create context, the conclusions in this analysis are based on activity during the last complete seasonal real estate cycle (calendar year) of real estate transactions, January through December 2013.
District of Columbia Real Estate Market Review To understand the current real estate market in the District, we must quickly review its recent history and consider the market drivers that have made the region one of the most desirable real estate markets in the country. The pre-recession housing bubble that affected real estate markets across the nation also affected the District. Figure 1 shows the dramatic increase in inventory (Active Listings) in Q4 2005 as many sellers listed properties for sale to take advantage of increases in sale prices. Interestingly, the rate of sales remained at a relatively constant rate of 300 per quarter over the last 10 years.
Figure 1
1 “Selling Green,” by Judy Newman. Printed Feb. 8, 2013 at www.realtor.rog/articles/selling‐green. Accessed online September 2014.
Figuremphto puapproRece
The Distractiv10.6 forecsales
re 2 shows shasis was placurchase and oval, relaxedession.
Figure 2
aftermath of rict was not ovity in the Dis percent marclosures (bank.
Figure 3
teady gains iced on home affordability lending rest
the recessionone of them. strict. After rket share. Tk-owned prop
in sale price ownership, it actually dectrictions and
n dealt seriouFigure 3 showtwo years, fr
This was dowperties) accou
through 2004t was ironic tcreased. To credit guidel
us blows and ws the relativrom 2009 to wn from the unted for 0.7
4 and 2005 ahat as home presolve that lines and set
long-term covely short-liv2011, the per Q4 2009 hig percent of al
ahead of the prices increasdilemma, th
t the stage fo
onsequences ved duration orcentage of bgh level of 1ll sales and sh
large inventosed, fewer qu
he mortgage or what wou
to many metof significantbank mediate18.9 percent hort sales had
ory bubble. Wualified buyer
industry, wild later beco
tropolitan mat foreclosure ad sales accou of all sales. d a 2.3 percen
While a largers could affordth regulators
ome the Grea
arkets, but thand short salunted for only In Q2 2014nt share of al
er d ’
at
e e y 4, ll
Figurmarkshowand cmore
The BeingdwelsegmQ1 2
re 4 demonstket, the numbews a breakdowcondo/coop (e supply than
Figure 4
e Distric
g the urban cllings are apar
ment is detach2009 and Q2 2
Figure 5
trates the imper of days it twn of inventoapartment sty demand.
ct’s Rea
core of a larrtment style,
hed properties2014.
pact of excesstakes for a proory by residenyle) homes. A
l Estate
ge metropoli condos, and (20.2 percen
s inventory ooperty to secuntial single-faAll three hom
Market
itan region wcoops (32.4 p
nt). Figure 5 s
on the marketure a ratified amily home t
me types perfo
Today
with limited lapercent) or toshows the qu
t from 2006 tcontract aftertypes. These formed simila
and space, thownhouses (4uarterly numbe
to 2010 with r it comes on are detached
arly during th
he majority o7.4 percent). er of MLS sa
increased me the market. T, townhouse
his timeframe
of the Distric The smallest
ales for each h
edian days onThis chart alsoor row house
e since all had
ct’s residentiat housing typhome between
n o e, d
al e n
FigurHowtownthe hquartof the
re 6 shows a ever, the effe
nhouses have highest price ter for the pae five most re
Figure 6
relatively conect of very low steadily incre points, typicst decade, anecent quarters
nstant medianw inventory heased in sale cal of most md median prics have seen de
n sale price ohas been the m price by 14.6
markets with ces have averetached home
f the condo/cmain driver be6 percent. Ththis housing
raged just unes median sale
coop segmentehind increas
he small, sing type mix. D
nder $600,000e prices avera
t over the passing sale pricegle-family detDetached sal
0 in the same age $765,000
st two years nes. For the patached segmeles have aver period. How.
near $400,000ast three yearsent commandraged 300 pe
wever, four ou
0. s, s
er ut
Figurprevi
Imp RBI’MLS
An acounrelatitransEfficto red
re 7 shows thious five year
Figure 7
pact of G
s review of sS system. The
1)
2)
3)
additional grontertops and fively few traportation fea
ciency optionsduced sample
he current marrs. Multiple c
Green a
sold transacti four categori
) Third PartBuilding C
) Energy Efheating/co
) Transporta
oup, Environmfiber cement ansactions thaatures, we cos was selectede size, analysi
rket’s extremecontract offers
nd HPH
ons identifiedies were:
ty Verified. TCouncil or thefficient. Thesoling or appli
ation. These f
ment Quality siding, or reat had these mpared HPHd. These 1,40is at the zip co
ely high levels and single d
on Prop
d three group
These are feate National Asse features aiances, or a ta
features identi
features, idenecycling mea features, the
Hs to non-HP08 sales repreode level may
ls of buyer dedigit days on m
perty Tr
ps of green or
tures that cousociation of H
are usually inankless water ify proximity
ntified recycleasures in plaey were excluPHs for only esent 17.7 pery prove to be
emand for avamarket are no
ransactio
r eco-friendly
uld be certifieHome Buildernstalled withr heater). to bus, rail, s
ed materials ace such as ruded from th those listingrcent of the 7 more informa
ailable propero longer unus
ons
y property att
ed by an entirs. in the premi
subway, shop
installed by trainwater harhis study. Togs where one7,954 sales inative in future
rties relative tual occurrenc
tributes used
ity such as th
ises (such as
pping, or groc
the seller suchrvesting. Sinco isolate the e or more of n the District e studies.
to the ces.
by the MRIS
he U.S. Green
s Energy Sta
cery.
h as Silestonce there wer effect of th
f the Locationfor 2013. Du
S
n
ar
e e e n e
Figuure 8
Figur
Figuwithsalespresehousaccosalesor pemini(ConpercChas
re 9. HPH Perc
ure 9 shows thhin each of thes occurred duented some dsing at the timounted for 18 s in the Distriercentage of Himum of 3.5 pngress Heightent in zip codse).
cent of market
he percentagee 21 zip codes
uring 2013. Aldegree of highme of sale. Ov percent of theict in 2013. THPH sales, rapercent in zipts) to a maximde 20015 (Frie
t share by zip–
e of HPH sales where residll of these are
h-performanceverall, HPH sae total residen
The market shange from a p code 20032 mum of 29.1 endship/Chev
–2013 Sales
s ential
eas e ales ntial hare,
vy
Figur
Figur
re 10. HPH 201
re 11. HPH me
13 sales distrib
edian sale pric
bution by zip co
ce by zip code,
ode.
2013 sales
Figure 10sales in performanthe DistriresidentiaHPH salesales wer(Congresin zip cod
Figure 1associatedrange frocode 200of $1,0(Georgeto
Overall, residentiaThe medproperty representeprevious y
0 shows the each zip c
nce attributesict in 2013. Oal sales in 20es. The smare three sales Heights) ande 20009 (Du
11 shows thd with each om a minimu32 (Congress042,500 inown/Burleith)
the medianal properties dian sale prsales in 201ed a 9.3 peryear.
number of rcode presentis at the time
Out of the tota013, there w
allest numberes in zip codnd the highestupont/Adams
he median zip code. Thum of $167,s Heights) to an zip cod).
n sale price was $585,00
rice for all 13 was $475rcent increas
residential ing high-of sale in
al of 7,954 ere 1,433
r of HPH de 20032 t was 210 Morgan).
sale price hese values ,475 in zip a maximum de 20007
for HPH 00 in 2013. residential ,500. This
se from the
Figur
Figur
re 12. Median
re 13. Median
n sale price per
n days on mark
rcentage differ
ket percentage
rence, HPH vs
e difference, H
Non‐HPH
HPH vs Non‐HP
PH
Figure 12 shmedian sale presenting hattributes andinclude thesesale. Twentyexamined in variance whenon-HPH me(Downtown) variance—thaexceeded the this zip code. The HPH me(20008 Woodouble that ofOverall, medproperties deover their non
The Days number of din the MLS negotiated DOM, loweare considervalues are cLower DOMseller concnegotiationsinventory, negotiating
Figure 13 between HPThe high p20032 (305.sample size zip codes, HDOM as nonhad greater D
hows the perprice between
high performd residential pe attributes (noy of the tw this report dere HPH mediedian sale pr presented at is, the non- HPH median
edian sale pricodley/Clevelanf non-HPH ($
dian sale pricemonstrated an-HPH counte
on Market days from whe until a ratifiebetween buy
er values (fewred favorableconsidered faM indicates cessions, ands. Higher Dmore buyer strength for th
shows the PH and nonpercentage d.6 percent) ca of HPH saleHPH sales hn-HPH sales.DOM than no
rcentage diffen residential p
mance housingproperties thaon-HPH) at thwenty-one z
demonstrated aian sale price rice. Zip codthe single
HPH median n sale price fo
ce premium innd Park) wa932,500 vs $4
ce for HPH ra 30 percent erparts.
(DOM) meaen a propertyed purchase cyer and sel
wer days on the to the selleavorable to t high demand seller str
DOM indicate options, anhe buyer.
percentage n-HPH medidifference in an be attribut
es (3 out of 85had fewer or In 12 zip codon-HPHs. pro
erence in properties g (HPH) at did not he time of ip codes a positive exceeded de 20036
negative sale price or sales in
n zip code as nearly 479,250). residential premium
asures the y is entered contract is ller. With he market) er. Higher the buyer. nd, fewer rength in es excess
nd greater
difference an DOM. zip code ted to low 5). In nine the same des, HPHs operties.
Figur
Figur
re 14. Average
re 15. HPH mo
e sale price pe
onths supply of
er square foot p
f inventory (M
percentage dif
MSI)
fference, HPH
H vs Non‐HPH
Figure 14 shaverage sale HPHs and no
Sales in Heights/Deasquare foot square foot comprise onzip code, toutperformefoot by 33.7code has onsale prices icode have premium for
Figure 15 sho(MSI) for HPmonths it takrate in the maaccount seasoaverage salessix months ofmarket. Lesssellers' markeavailable; mobuyers' markbuyers to purcodes have MOverall, the Mmonths. Theidentical and available invdemand. Theput upward pnon-HPH pro
hows the perce price per squon-HPHs.
zip code anwood) hadof $218. Thewas $163. W
nly 9.9 percenthe HPH pred the non-H7 percent. Ane of the moin the Districbeen succes
r their propert
ows the MonthPH by zip codekes for inventoarket. The calonal fluctuatios rate of the prf supply is cons than four 4 met as there are ore than six m
ket as there arerchase them. N
MSI less than fMSI for HPH e MSI for all s demonstratesentory relative
e extreme sellepressure on prioperties.
entage differeuare foot betw
20019 (d an HPH pe non-HPH p
While HPH pnt market sharrice per squ
HPH price peAt $249,900, ost affordablect. Sellers inssful in capties’ HPH attr
hs’ Supply of e. MSI is the n
ory to sell, givlculation takesons by applyinrior 12 monthsnsidered a balmonths is cons more buyers
months is consie more homes Nineteen of thfour months. in the Districtales in 2013 w
s the severe she to continueder's market conicing, on both
ence in ween
(Benning price per price per
properties re in this
uare foot er square this zip
e median n this zip pturing a ributes.
Inventory number of en the sales s into ng the s. Four to anced sidered a than homes
idered a for sale than he 21 zip
t was 1.7 was virtually hortage of d buyer ntinues to HPH and
Apppendix
Figure 16
20001, H20002, C20003, C20004, C20005, L20006, W20007, G20008, W20009, D20010, C20011, 120012, C20015, F20016, C20017, B20018, B20019, B20020, A20024, S20032, C20036, D20037, WDistrict o
Zip code, Loca
Howard U/ShawCapitol Hill/NoCapitol Hill/SouCentral, WashinLogan Cir/ThomWashington, DGeorgetown/BWoodley/CleveDupont/AdamsColumbia Hts/M16th St Hts/CrsColonial Vlg/TaFriendship/CheCathedral Hts/ABrookland/CathBrentwood/LinBenning Hts/DeAnacostia/HillcSW WaterfrontCongress HeighDowntown, DCWest End/Foggof Columbia (A
ation
w, DC rth, DC uth, DC ngton, DC mas Circle, DC C urleith, DC eland Pk, DC s Morgan, DC Mt Plt, DC stwd, DC akoma, DC evy Chs, DC AU Pk, DC holicU, DC coln, DC eanwd, DC crest, DC t, DC hts, DC C gy Btm, DC All zips)
Median 2014
$520,000 $525,000 $602,000 $425,500 $465,000 $326,000 $838,000 $$392,500 $499,450 $500,000 $524,995 $648,152 $849,325 $487,500 $350,000 $353,000 $230,000 $247,450 $258,970 $198,000 $387,500 $435,000 $475,000
Sale Price ‐ Au2013 %$455,000 $500,000 $555,750 $437,000 $485,000 $350,000
$1,050,000 $440,000 $497,250 $532,000 $417,000 $291,750 $850,000 $696,000 $450,500 $397,500 $177,500 $200,500 $278,000 $164,000 $366,000 $427,000 $461,000
ugust M% Change
14.3% $55.0% $58.3% $6‐2.6% $4‐4.1% $5‐6.9% $2
‐20.2% $9‐10.8% $40.4% $5‐6.0% $525.9% $4122.2% $5‐0.1% $9
‐30.0% $8‐22.3% $3‐11.2% $329.6% $223.4% $2‐6.9% $220.7% $15.9% $31.9% $53.0% $4
Median Sale Pr2014 20550,000 $51512,850 $49602,750 $59451,000 $44536,000 $45258,500 $23927,000 $90448,750 $53517,000 $48545,000 $54499,000 $44575,000 $54950,000 $86807,500 $73397,500 $38399,900 $35204,000 $18235,000 $19288,000 $25153,500 $14355,000 $35500,000 $44499,700 $47
rice ‐ Year to D013 % Cha5,000 69,000 29,000 09,000 09,250 165,000 102,450 20,000 ‐159,900 50,000 00,000 135,500 56,000 96,000 95,000 36,000 120,000 134,000 219,897 107,900 30,000 15,000 129,000 4
Date ange 6.8% 2.8% 0.6% 0.5% 6.7% 0.0% 2.7% 5.3% 5.5% 0.9% 3.4% 5.4% 9.7% 9.7% 3.3% 2.3% 3.3% 1.1% 0.8% 3.8% 1.4% 2.4% 4.3%
Figure 17
Zip code, Location # Sales ‐ August # Sales ‐ Year to Date
2014 2013 % Change 2014 2013 % Change20001, Howard U/Shaw, DC 61 71 ‐14.1% 531 476 11.6% 20002, Capitol Hill/North, DC 75 67 11.9% 596 571 4.4% 20003, Capitol Hill/South, DC 39 42 ‐7.1% 310 335 ‐7.5% 20004, Central, Washington, DC 6 8 ‐25.0% 41 39 5.1% 20005, Logan Cir/Thomas Circle, DC 21 29 ‐27.6% 127 150 ‐15.3% 20006, Washington, DC 1 1 0.0% 4 8 ‐50.0% 20007, Georgetown/Burleith, DC 47 42 11.9% 349 358 ‐2.5% 20008, Woodley/Cleveland Pk, DC 38 39 ‐2.6% 248 275 ‐9.8% 20009, Dupont/Adams Morgan, DC 72 110 ‐34.6% 625 737 ‐15.2% 20010, Columbia Hts/Mt Plt, DC 35 31 12.9% 309 193 60.1% 20011, 16th St Hts/Crstwd, DC 50 56 ‐10.7% 479 449 6.7% 20012, Colonial Vlg/Takoma, DC 14 10 40.0% 101 100 1.0% 20015, Friendship/Chevy Chs, DC 15 28 ‐46.4% 135 137 ‐1.5% 20016, Cathedral Hts/AU Pk, DC 48 43 11.6% 349 334 4.5% 20017, Brookland/CatholicU, DC 17 22 ‐22.7% 119 109 9.2% 20018, Brentwood/Lincoln, DC 21 10 110.0% 127 109 16.5% 20019, Benning Hts/Deanwd, DC 32 32 0.0% 220 240 ‐8.3% 20020, Anacostia/Hillcrest, DC 16 14 14.3% 172 134 28.4% 20024, SW Waterfront, DC 19 28 ‐32.1% 162 142 14.1% 20032, Congress Heights, DC 8 12 ‐33.3% 78 53 47.2% 20036, Downtown, DC 12 17 ‐29.4% 112 77 45.5% 20037, West End/Foggy Btm, DC 19 40 ‐52.5% 143 199 ‐28.1% District of Columbia (All zips) 666 752 ‐11.4% 5,340 5,225 2.2%
Figure 18
Figure 19