Raise your hand if you’ve either heard somebody say, or if you’d said yourself, “It’s a great house….but it backs onto the train tracks.”
Is that an automatic deal-breaker? Or simply something to factor into the overall value proposition?
I shot this video last night of not one, but two GO Trains passing by each-other, behind the fenced backyard of this house. Let me know what kind of value you’d put on not having this behind your home…
Seriously, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I literally sat there like a fool for a half hour to get that shot, but I digress…
So what is the consensus here?
Automatically a deal-breaker?
Or something you factor into the decision and value proposition?
If we had an unlimited budget, we’d never consider a house with a train passing by it every hour, but alas, very few of us have never-ending financial resources, and in the 2016 market, for the right house, you almost have to consider this.
But how do you quantify something like this?
When it comes to pricing single-family homes, we put the highest emphasis on the location, then we start to look at the property itself and a variety of criteria.
But at what point do we look at what’s around the specific property? Not the neighbourhood or the location, but a specific item like a train track behind the house?
Does that come before anything else; before location, and act as a non-starter? Or does it come after you’ve already decided to have a look at the property, and thus it’s something you evaluate at the end?
I’ve had clients with houses above the subway, I’ve had clients with houses on major streets, and I’ve had clients with trains in their backyards. They all say the exact same thing: “You get used to it, and over time you don’t hear it any more.”
Could you deal with that train?
Would you be okay buying an $825,000 house for $750,000 if it meant you had the train in your backyard?
Or is it a deal-breaker right off the hop?