Valuation check: 2,260 sq ft townhouse in Seattle, asking $1,015,000

The seller wants $1,015,000 for this Seattle townhouse, and I am not yet convinced the available evidence supports it. It is a 3-bed of about 2,260 sq ft in average condition, with good light but dated finishes.

I have found three active listings and just one closed transaction. The sold property may be the better starting point, but only if its block, parking, ownership structure and condition are genuinely comparable. For example, a smaller townhouse with a garage on a stronger street could still be worth more.

How would you allow for the extra floor area without applying the headline price per square foot to every foot? I would also welcome views on which missing detail matters most: exact micro-location, parking, outdoor space, HOA costs or any leasehold element. I plan to get a local appraisal once those facts are clearer.

I’d anchor on the completed sale and use the three listings mainly to understand the current competition. For floor area, don’t multiply every extra square foot by the overall price per square foot; additional space often has a different marginal value. For condition, itemise the dated elements and test a renovation allowance rather than applying a vague percentage. Parking would be my biggest missing fact, closely followed by the exact micro-location.

One completed sale is not automatically a good anchor. How recent is it, how close is it, and does it match the townhouse’s ownership structure? A smaller home on a better block with parking could require several interacting adjustments, making the apparent precision misleading. I’d also clarify whether “service charges” means condo/HOA dues and whether any leasehold interest is actually involved.

That is the gap in my notes: I have one closed transaction, but not yet enough verified detail to know whether it deserves more weight than the active listings. I’ll confirm its sale timing, block, parking, outdoor space and ownership structure, then separate any recurring charges from condition costs. I also take the point that the floor-area adjustment should be marginal rather than based on the headline price per square foot.

Average condition is the part I would keep in proportion. It is tempting to deduct a full renovation budget when the finishes look tired, but dated kitchens and cosmetic preferences do not put a home in the same category as one requiring major work.

The itemised approach mentioned above should give a calmer result: identify actual defects separately from optional updating, then compare that allowance with the closed sale. I would also leave vacancy and carrying costs out of the market-value calculation unless they influence typical buyers. They may affect one party’s negotiating limit, but that is different from the townhouse’s value.

A practical way forward is to build three columns for each comparable: verified physical differences, recurring ownership costs, and location/amenity differences. Adjust for parking and outdoor space separately, treat excess floor area cautiously, and use an itemised condition allowance. Then calculate a range using the closed sale alone and another using all four comparables with reduced weight on asking prices. If both ranges sit far from $1,015,000, investigate why before negotiating or commissioning the appraisal.