I’m seeing an apparent 7.2% price movement in a small sample of Lyon small multifamily listings between €121,400 and €182,200, but I’m not convinced it represents the market. Renovated properties seem to move quickly, while those needing work sit and take cuts. Median marketing time is about 58 days, though condition makes the average noisy. Are buyers negotiating because of service charges, or simply rejecting high-charge properties and choosing another listing?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lyon small multifamily: is the apparent 7.2% drop real?
- Thread starter otis.elm
- Start date
Usually the negotiation shows up in the purchase price, not in the service charges themselves. A buyer cannot bargain away an ongoing building cost with the seller, so an unattractive charge level reduces what the property feels worth. If the charges are unclear or poorly explained, moving to the next listing is often easier than trying to price the uncertainty.
Are these entire small buildings or individual units within multifamily buildings? Service charges mean something quite different in those two cases. Also, does the 7.2% compare like-for-like asking prices, or does it mix neighbourhoods and renovation levels? Without those details, the result could mostly be a change in the sample.
I’d be cautious about using 58 days as a market signal. A renovated listing that sells promptly and a neglected one that remains available after several reductions are almost different products. The median hides that split, while the 7.2% figure may just reflect more unrenovated stock entering your sample.
Recent completed sales would help settle this. Listings tell you what sellers hoped to receive; completed prices tell you where buyer and seller finally met. I would separate renovated and unrenovated properties, then compare original asking price, final visible asking price and completed price where available. Otherwise condition and negotiation are being folded into one number.
Don’t leave withdrawn stock out. A property that disappears may have sold, been withdrawn, or returned later with different presentation or pricing. Counting every disappearance as a sale will make marketing time look shorter and demand stronger. New-listing volume matters too: the apparent fall could come from a different mix rather than sellers cutting comparable properties by 7.2%.
Buyer financing may explain why charges matter even when the headline price is affordable. Buyers tend to think in terms of total recurring outgoings, so two similarly priced properties can feel very different once charges and likely renovation costs are considered. I’d record whether the listing gives a clear charge figure rather than treating all missing entries as zero.
The timing of reductions could be revealing. Are sellers cutting after a few quiet weeks, or only after the property has been sitting around the 58-day mark? Early cuts suggest motivated or realistically advised sellers. Late, repeated cuts may indicate that the original price ignored condition or recurring costs.
Neighbourhood boundaries are another trap here. “Lyon” can combine properties that buyers would not regard as substitutes, even when their prices and building sizes look similar. I would rerun the sample using tighter areas before deciding there has been a broad 7.2% movement.
I agree that recurring outgoings affect affordability, but I wouldn’t group every service-charge figure together. Buyers may react differently to an ordinary recurring amount, an unexplained amount, or costs associated with anticipated building work. The useful comparison is not merely high versus low; it is clear and supportable versus uncertain.
Seller motivation could be driving the split you noticed. An owner who has already renovated may have a property that is easier for buyers to assess, while an owner selling something tired may still expect the renovated price. The latter sits until expectations change. That is not necessarily evidence that all Lyon small multifamily values fell by 7.2%.
A simple tracking sheet would make this clearer: tight location, condition, first asking price, each reduction date, current status, days listed, stated charges and whether the property was withdrawn. Keep completed sales in a separate column rather than assuming a removed advert completed. After that, compare medians within each condition and neighbourhood group.
gardensAndSignal
Landlord
I’d also challenge “renovated goes quickly” until the renovation quality and price are considered. A renovated property may sell quickly because it was priced conservatively, not merely because work was completed. Conversely, a well-located property needing work can move if the discount is credible. Condition and pricing need to be read together.
On the original service-charge question, I suspect both behaviours occur. A buyer stays and negotiates when the property is otherwise hard to replace. If several comparable listings are available, high or poorly explained charges provide a reason to leave. That is why new-listing volume and the number of genuine substitutes belong beside the charge figure.
The safest conclusion for now is that the sample shows a divided market, not yet a confirmed Lyon-wide fall. Tighten the neighbourhoods, split by condition, track withdrawals and reduction dates, and add completed sales where possible. If the 7.2% movement remains after those adjustments, it becomes much more persuasive; if it disappears, the original result was mainly mix and seller motivation.