Valuation check: 5-bed, 1,720 sq ft Seattle country home at $1,120,000

S

slate.modern

Property investor
Established
Five bedrooms within roughly 1,720 sq ft made me reconsider this property more than the dated finishes did. The light and location first caught my attention, but the rooms may be either efficiently arranged or too cramped to support the asking price.

This Seattle country home is listed at $1,120,000 and is in average condition. I have three active listings to compare with it, but only one completed sale. How would you test differences in size and condition without giving the adjustments false precision?

My next step is to verify that all 1,720 sq ft is usable living area. If the bedrooms are functional, I would focus next on micro-location and outdoor space; if they are compromised, I would treat the bedroom count as a weak valuation point. Any lease term attached to the property also needs confirming.
 
With only one completed comparable, I’d avoid presenting any adjustment as precise. For a sensitivity table, I might test dated condition at 3%, 5% and 8% below an otherwise similar renovated property. Those are scenarios, not claimed market adjustments.

For floor area, use marginal value rather than multiplying every missing square foot by the comparable’s full price per square foot. The biggest missing fact is the exact micro-location, closely followed by usable outdoor space.
 
Is the full 1,720 sq ft finished, permitted living area, and are all five bedrooms genuinely functional? Five beds in that footprint could mean an efficient layout or cramped rooms, and buyers may treat those very differently.

I’d also want the completed sale’s distance, sale date, condition, lot characteristics and parking. Without those, it may be a weak anchor despite being the only closed transaction.
 
Agreed on the layout question. I’d add that a floor-area adjustment should not compensate twice for the same issue. If smaller rooms and limited storage are already reflected in a condition or functionality deduction, don’t also apply an aggressive square-foot adjustment.

I disagree slightly that outdoor space is automatically second-most important. If the insurance concern is property-specific rather than general, an actual quote could move the usable budget more than the garden.
 
The asking price works out to roughly $651 per sq ft, but that number can conceal lot value, parking, layout and micro-location. I’d use it only as a prompt for questions, not as the valuation method.

Also, lease length and service charges should only enter the analysis if this property actually has that tenure or shared-cost structure. For a standalone home, parking, access and outdoor usability are likely more relevant comparisons.
 
This is helpful. I don’t yet have enough detail to confirm whether every part of the stated 1,720 sq ft is permitted finished area, so I’ll treat that as unresolved rather than assuming it. I’ll also separate bedroom functionality, parking and outdoor space instead of hiding them inside one broad condition adjustment.

Next steps are to get the completed sale details, clarify the insurance issue and build low/base/high cases around the closest genuinely comparable property.
 
That approach is safer than averaging the three listings with the one sale. Listings show seller expectations; the closed sale shows what cleared, though it still needs to be genuinely comparable.

For each scenario, reconcile three figures: the closed-sale adjustment, a cautious price-per-square-foot cross-check, and an itemized allowance for dated finishes. If one result is far outside the others, identify the assumption causing it rather than simply taking the midpoint. Then compare that range with the formal appraisal and the $1,120,000 ask.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top