June 2026: is $1,170,000 reasonable for a Phoenix warehouse?

C

chalk.handy

Homeowner
The seller is looking for around $1,170,000, and I am hesitant to treat that as reasonable just because waiting may mean losing this warehouse. For June 2026, I have been following properties from $936,000 to $1,404,000 in the two Phoenix neighbourhoods we prefer rather than relying on a citywide average.

The active group has been marketed for about 35 days, but a vacant warehouse may be discounted for very different reasons from an occupied building in poorer condition. I want to compare recent completed sales, withdrawn stock and any price cuts before reading this as a market shift. What evidence would make you act now: closely matched condition, signs of seller motivation, or a consistent pattern among vacant properties?
 
Thirty-five days by itself would not persuade me that the market has changed. Those are asking prices on active properties, and the range is wide enough for condition and occupancy to explain a lot. I’d separate vacant from occupied warehouses, then compare recent completed sales within each neighbourhood. Otherwise one awkward building can distort the small group.
 
How tightly did you draw the neighbourhood boundaries? A warehouse just across a boundary may compete directly, while one technically inside it may serve a different buyer. I’d also want to know whether the $1,170,000 property is broadly comparable in condition to the rest. The citywide figure may be too broad, but a very narrow sample can be noisy in the opposite direction.
 
I agree about the sample, but I wouldn’t dismiss vacancy as mere property variation. A vacant building can expose financing and carrying-cost concerns that an occupied one does not. The useful signal would be whether vacant listings are receiving earlier price cuts than similar occupied stock, especially if new-listing volume is also rising.
 
Getting withdrawals wrong could lead to either overpaying now or waiting for a weakness that is not really there. A listing removed after 35 days is not equivalent to one that sold, yet excluding it entirely can make the remaining stock appear stronger.

I would keep each withdrawn warehouse in the weekly record with its last asking price, condition and occupancy status. If vacant properties repeatedly disappear while occupied ones complete sales, that tells a different story from sellers withdrawing simply because they will not accept lower offers. The reason may not always be visible, but the missing listing should still remain part of the timeline.
 
Recent completed sales should help, but they may reflect negotiations that began under different conditions. I’d match them as closely as possible on neighbourhood, vacancy and condition, then note the original asking price and any cuts. Seller motivation can still produce an outlier, so I would not let one low completion reset the value of the whole group.
 
Maja’s withdrawal point is important. A simple weekly table could show each property’s asking price, days marketed, occupied or vacant status, price-cut date and whether it sold or disappeared. After several updates, you’ll be able to distinguish listings merely ageing from sellers actually responding.
 
For the specific $1,170,000 warehouse, I’d also ask what evidence supports that price within its own neighbourhood. If the answer relies mainly on citywide averages or on the top end of your $936,000–$1,404,000 range, that is weaker than a genuinely comparable completed sale.
 
I’d treat this as inconclusive rather than as a clear early turn. Before deciding, compare the property with the nearest completed sales, inspect the condition differences, trace price cuts and withdrawals, and clarify whether vacancy affects the buyer’s financing. If several similar warehouses start cutting prices while new listings accumulate, that would be more persuasive than the 35-day marketing period alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top