Greening the MLS An Examination of High Performance Housing Transactions in the Washington, D.C. Real Estate Market  RealEstate Business Intelligence, LLC September 2014 

  

Overview RealEstate Business Intelligence (RBI) performed an analysis of 2013 residential sales transactions in the District of Columbia real estate market. Specifically, RBI compared the effects of high performance housing (HPH) features to “conventional” homes on key market metrics. The key market metrics analyzed included sale price, time on market, price per square foot, and seller net (or seller proceeds). Broadly, the team found that HPH sales were 18 percent of total sales in 2013, and that these homes’ sale price was 23 percent more on average. A further breakdown is provided in the 15 accompanying figures and the appendices.  

Background As part of the research for this analysis, studies compiled in other real estate markets were identified. These revealed a potential for sales price premium or reduced market time to sell residential properties that included features which improved energy efficiency by increasing performance - hence the term “high performance housing (HPH).” These features are either built-in with new construction or retrofitted by homeowners during renovation and remodeling projects. As the central hub for real estate market transactions, multiple listing services (MLSs) play an important role in conveying “green” or HPH characteristics of individual properties to potential buyers in the marketplace. Well-advised consumers can then make more informed decisions about which properties meet their needs. A February 2013 article on the National Association of Realtors website stated:

MLS listings are emphasizing the eco-friendliness of homes. When potential buyers are considering a home or condominium, more and more of them are no longer just looking to see how many bedrooms and bathrooms it has or if the kitchen is equipped with stainless steel appliances and granite countertops. Some also want to know if the refrigerator has an Energy Star designation, if the toilets are low-flow, or how energy efficient the windows are. Features that make homes use less energy are becoming more important selling factors, REALTORS® say. And they are studying ways to help their clients go green by taking specialized classes and by highlighting environmentally friendly features via the Multiple Listing Service (MLS).1

This RBI study set out to establish a usage baseline of HPH features by real estate professionals in the District of Columbia. Data was examined from the period January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2013 to capture and review any fluctuations in use over time and to determine the impact of other trends affecting market activity (such as interest rate changes or regulation). While this longer-term information is used in this report to create context, the conclusions in this analysis are based on activity during the last complete seasonal real estate cycle (calendar year) of real estate transactions, January through December 2013.  

District of Columbia Real Estate Market Review To understand the current real estate market in the District, we must quickly review its recent history and consider the market drivers that have made the region one of the most desirable real estate markets in the country. The pre-recession housing bubble that affected real estate markets across the nation also affected the District.   Figure 1 shows the dramatic increase in inventory (Active Listings) in Q4 2005 as many sellers listed properties for sale to take advantage of increases in sale prices. Interestingly, the rate of sales remained at a relatively constant rate of 300 per quarter over the last 10 years.   

Figure 1 

                                                            1 “Selling Green,” by Judy Newman. Printed Feb. 8, 2013 at www.realtor.rog/articles/selling‐green. Accessed online September 2014. 

 Figuremphto puapproRece 

 The Distractiv10.6 forecsales       

re 2 shows shasis was placurchase and oval, relaxedession.

Figure 2 

aftermath of rict was not ovity in the Dis percent marclosures (bank.

Figure 3 

teady gains iced on home affordability lending rest

the recessionone of them. strict. After rket share. Tk-owned prop

in sale price ownership, it actually dectrictions and

n dealt seriouFigure 3 showtwo years, fr

This was dowperties) accou

through 2004t was ironic tcreased. To credit guidel

us blows and ws the relativrom 2009 to wn from the unted for 0.7

4 and 2005 ahat as home presolve that lines and set

long-term covely short-liv2011, the per Q4 2009 hig percent of al

ahead of the prices increasdilemma, th

t the stage fo

onsequences ved duration orcentage of bgh level of 1ll sales and sh

large inventosed, fewer qu

he mortgage or what wou

to many metof significantbank mediate18.9 percent hort sales had

ory bubble. Wualified buyer

industry, wild later beco

tropolitan mat foreclosure ad sales accou of all sales. d a 2.3 percen

 

While a largers could affordth regulators

ome the Grea

 

arkets, but thand short salunted for only In Q2 2014nt share of al

er d ’

at

e e y 4, ll

 Figurmarkshowand cmore  

 

The BeingdwelsegmQ1 2

 

re 4 demonstket, the numbews a breakdowcondo/coop (e supply than

Figure 4 

e Distric

g the urban cllings are apar

ment is detach2009 and Q2 2

        Figure 5 

trates the imper of days it twn of inventoapartment sty demand.

ct’s Rea

core of a larrtment style,

hed properties2014.

pact of excesstakes for a proory by residenyle) homes. A

l Estate

ge metropoli condos, and (20.2 percen

s inventory ooperty to secuntial single-faAll three hom

Market

itan region wcoops (32.4 p

nt). Figure 5 s

on the marketure a ratified amily home t

me types perfo

Today

with limited lapercent) or toshows the qu

t from 2006 tcontract aftertypes. These formed simila

and space, thownhouses (4uarterly numbe

to 2010 with r it comes on are detached

arly during th

he majority o7.4 percent). er of MLS sa

increased me the market. T, townhouse

his timeframe

of the Distric The smallest

ales for each h

 

edian days onThis chart alsoor row house

e since all had

 

ct’s residentiat housing typhome between

n o e, d

al e n

 FigurHowtownthe hquartof the 

 

re 6 shows a ever, the effe

nhouses have highest price ter for the pae five most re

Figure 6 

 

relatively conect of very low steadily incre points, typicst decade, anecent quarters

nstant medianw inventory heased in sale cal of most md median prics have seen de

 

n sale price ohas been the m price by 14.6

markets with ces have averetached home

f the condo/cmain driver be6 percent. Ththis housing

raged just unes median sale

coop segmentehind increas

he small, sing type mix. D

nder $600,000e prices avera

t over the passing sale pricegle-family detDetached sal

0 in the same age $765,000

st two years nes. For the patached segmeles have aver period. How.

 

near $400,000ast three yearsent commandraged 300 pe

wever, four ou

 

0. s, s

er ut

Figurprevi

 

Imp RBI’MLS

An acounrelatitransEfficto red

re 7 shows thious five year

 Figure 7 

pact of G

s review of sS system. The

1)

2)

3)

additional grontertops and fively few traportation fea

ciency optionsduced sample

he current marrs. Multiple c

Green a

sold transacti four categori

) Third PartBuilding C

) Energy Efheating/co

) Transporta

oup, Environmfiber cement ansactions thaatures, we cos was selectede size, analysi

rket’s extremecontract offers

nd HPH

ons identifiedies were:

ty Verified. TCouncil or thefficient. Thesoling or appli

ation. These f

ment Quality siding, or reat had these mpared HPHd. These 1,40is at the zip co

ely high levels and single d

on Prop

d three group

These are feate National Asse features aiances, or a ta

features identi

features, idenecycling mea features, the

Hs to non-HP08 sales repreode level may

ls of buyer dedigit days on m

perty Tr

ps of green or

tures that cousociation of H

are usually inankless water ify proximity

ntified recycleasures in plaey were excluPHs for only esent 17.7 pery prove to be

emand for avamarket are no

ransactio

r eco-friendly

uld be certifieHome Buildernstalled withr heater). to bus, rail, s

ed materials ace such as ruded from th those listingrcent of the 7 more informa

ailable propero longer unus

ons

y property att

ed by an entirs. in the premi

subway, shop

installed by trainwater harhis study. Togs where one7,954 sales inative in future

rties relative tual occurrenc

tributes used

ity such as th

ises (such as

pping, or groc

the seller suchrvesting. Sinco isolate the e or more of n the District e studies.

to the ces.

 

by the MRIS

he U.S. Green

s Energy Sta

cery.

h as Silestonce there wer effect of th

f the Locationfor 2013. Du

S

n

ar

e e e n e

           Figuure 8   

    

 

 

Figur

 

Figuwithsalespresehousaccosalesor pemini(ConpercChas

 

re 9.   HPH Perc

ure 9 shows thhin each of thes occurred duented some dsing at the timounted for 18 s in the Distriercentage of Himum of 3.5 pngress Heightent in zip codse).

cent of market

he percentagee 21 zip codes

uring 2013. Aldegree of highme of sale. Ov percent of theict in 2013. THPH sales, rapercent in zipts) to a maximde 20015 (Frie

t share by zip–

 

e of HPH sales where residll of these are

h-performanceverall, HPH sae total residen

The market shange from a p code 20032 mum of 29.1 endship/Chev

–2013 Sales

s ential

eas e ales ntial hare,

vy

 

Figur

Figur

re 10.  HPH 201

re 11.   HPH me

13 sales distrib

edian sale pric

bution by zip co

ce by zip code, 

ode. 

2013 sales      

 

                        

 

Figure 10sales in performanthe DistriresidentiaHPH salesales wer(Congresin zip cod

 

Figure 1associatedrange frocode 200of $1,0(Georgeto

Overall, residentiaThe medproperty representeprevious y

0 shows the each zip c

nce attributesict in 2013. Oal sales in 20es. The smare three sales Heights) ande 20009 (Du

11 shows thd with each om a minimu32 (Congress042,500 inown/Burleith)

the medianal properties dian sale prsales in 201ed a 9.3 peryear.

number of rcode presentis at the time

Out of the tota013, there w

allest numberes in zip codnd the highestupont/Adams

he median zip code. Thum of $167,s Heights) to an zip cod).

n sale price was $585,00

rice for all 13 was $475rcent increas

residential ing high-of sale in

al of 7,954 ere 1,433

r of HPH de 20032 t was 210 Morgan).

sale price hese values ,475 in zip a maximum de 20007

for HPH 00 in 2013. residential ,500. This

se from the

Figur

Figur

re 12.   Median

re 13.   Median

n sale price per

n days on mark

rcentage differ

ket percentage

rence, HPH vs 

e difference, H

Non‐HPH  

 

HPH vs Non‐HP

 

PH  

Figure 12 shmedian sale presenting hattributes andinclude thesesale. Twentyexamined in variance whenon-HPH me(Downtown) variance—thaexceeded the this zip code. The HPH me(20008 Woodouble that ofOverall, medproperties deover their non

 

The Days number of din the MLS negotiated DOM, loweare considervalues are cLower DOMseller concnegotiationsinventory, negotiating

Figure 13 between HPThe high p20032 (305.sample size zip codes, HDOM as nonhad greater D

hows the perprice between

high performd residential pe attributes (noy of the tw this report dere HPH mediedian sale pr presented at is, the non- HPH median

edian sale pricodley/Clevelanf non-HPH ($

dian sale pricemonstrated an-HPH counte

on Market days from whe until a ratifiebetween buy

er values (fewred favorableconsidered faM indicates cessions, ands. Higher Dmore buyer strength for th

shows the PH and nonpercentage d.6 percent) ca of HPH saleHPH sales hn-HPH sales.DOM than no

rcentage diffen residential p

mance housingproperties thaon-HPH) at thwenty-one z

demonstrated aian sale price rice. Zip codthe single

HPH median n sale price fo

ce premium innd Park) wa932,500 vs $4

ce for HPH ra 30 percent erparts.

(DOM) meaen a propertyed purchase cyer and sel

wer days on the to the selleavorable to t high demand seller str

DOM indicate options, anhe buyer.

percentage n-HPH medidifference in an be attribut

es (3 out of 85had fewer or In 12 zip codon-HPHs. pro

erence in properties g (HPH) at did not he time of ip codes a positive exceeded de 20036

negative sale price or sales in

n zip code as nearly 479,250). residential premium

asures the y is entered contract is ller. With he market) er. Higher the buyer. nd, fewer rength in es excess

nd greater

difference an DOM. zip code ted to low 5). In nine the same des, HPHs operties.

Figur

 Figur

re 14.   Average

re 15.  HPH mo

e sale price pe

onths supply of

er square foot p

f inventory (M

percentage dif

MSI) 

fference,  HPH

 

H vs Non‐HPH 

Figure 14 shaverage sale HPHs and no

Sales in Heights/Deasquare foot square foot comprise onzip code, toutperformefoot by 33.7code has onsale prices icode have premium for

Figure 15 sho(MSI) for HPmonths it takrate in the maaccount seasoaverage salessix months ofmarket. Lesssellers' markeavailable; mobuyers' markbuyers to purcodes have MOverall, the Mmonths. Theidentical and available invdemand. Theput upward pnon-HPH pro

hows the perce price per squon-HPHs.

zip code anwood) hadof $218. Thewas $163. W

nly 9.9 percenthe HPH pred the non-H7 percent. Ane of the moin the Districbeen succes

r their propert

ows the MonthPH by zip codekes for inventoarket. The calonal fluctuatios rate of the prf supply is cons than four 4 met as there are ore than six m

ket as there arerchase them. N

MSI less than fMSI for HPH e MSI for all s demonstratesentory relative

e extreme sellepressure on prioperties.

 

entage differeuare foot betw

20019 (d an HPH pe non-HPH p

While HPH pnt market sharrice per squ

HPH price peAt $249,900, ost affordablect. Sellers inssful in capties’ HPH attr

hs’ Supply of e. MSI is the n

ory to sell, givlculation takesons by applyinrior 12 monthsnsidered a balmonths is cons more buyers

months is consie more homes Nineteen of thfour months. in the Districtales in 2013 w

s the severe she to continueder's market conicing, on both

ence in ween

(Benning price per price per

properties re in this

uare foot er square this zip

e median n this zip pturing a ributes.

Inventory number of en the sales s into ng the s. Four to anced sidered a than homes

idered a for sale than he 21 zip

t was 1.7 was virtually hortage of d buyer ntinues to HPH and

Apppendix 

Figure 16 

20001, H20002, C20003, C20004, C20005, L20006, W20007, G20008, W20009, D20010, C20011, 120012, C20015, F20016, C20017, B20018, B20019, B20020, A20024, S20032, C20036, D20037, WDistrict o

Zip code, Loca

Howard U/ShawCapitol Hill/NoCapitol Hill/SouCentral, WashinLogan Cir/ThomWashington, DGeorgetown/BWoodley/CleveDupont/AdamsColumbia Hts/M16th St Hts/CrsColonial Vlg/TaFriendship/CheCathedral Hts/ABrookland/CathBrentwood/LinBenning Hts/DeAnacostia/HillcSW WaterfrontCongress HeighDowntown, DCWest End/Foggof Columbia (A

ation 

w, DC rth, DC uth, DC ngton, DC mas Circle, DC C urleith, DC eland Pk, DC s Morgan, DC Mt Plt, DC stwd, DC akoma, DC evy Chs, DC AU Pk, DC holicU, DC coln, DC eanwd, DC crest, DC t, DC hts, DC C gy Btm, DC All zips) 

Median 2014 

$520,000 $525,000 $602,000 $425,500 $465,000 $326,000 $838,000  $$392,500 $499,450 $500,000 $524,995 $648,152 $849,325 $487,500 $350,000 $353,000 $230,000 $247,450 $258,970 $198,000 $387,500 $435,000 $475,000 

Sale Price ‐ Au2013  %$455,000 $500,000 $555,750 $437,000 $485,000 $350,000 

$1,050,000 $440,000 $497,250 $532,000 $417,000 $291,750 $850,000 $696,000 $450,500 $397,500 $177,500 $200,500 $278,000 $164,000 $366,000 $427,000 $461,000 

ugust  M% Change 

14.3%  $55.0%  $58.3%  $6‐2.6%  $4‐4.1%  $5‐6.9%  $2

‐20.2%  $9‐10.8%  $40.4%  $5‐6.0%  $525.9%  $4122.2%  $5‐0.1%  $9

‐30.0%  $8‐22.3%  $3‐11.2%  $329.6%  $223.4%  $2‐6.9%  $220.7%  $15.9%  $31.9%  $53.0%  $4

Median Sale Pr2014  20550,000  $51512,850  $49602,750  $59451,000  $44536,000  $45258,500  $23927,000  $90448,750  $53517,000  $48545,000  $54499,000  $44575,000  $54950,000  $86807,500  $73397,500  $38399,900  $35204,000  $18235,000  $19288,000  $25153,500  $14355,000  $35500,000  $44499,700  $47

rice ‐ Year to D013  % Cha5,000  69,000  29,000  09,000  09,250  165,000  102,450  20,000  ‐159,900  50,000  00,000  135,500  56,000  96,000  95,000  36,000  120,000  134,000  219,897  107,900  30,000  15,000  129,000  4

 

Date ange 6.8% 2.8% 0.6% 0.5% 6.7% 0.0% 2.7% 5.3% 5.5% 0.9% 3.4% 5.4% 9.7% 9.7% 3.3% 2.3% 3.3% 1.1% 0.8% 3.8% 1.4% 2.4% 4.3% 

  Figure 17 

Zip code, Location # Sales ‐ August  # Sales ‐ Year to Date 

2014 2013 % Change 2014 2013  % Change20001, Howard U/Shaw, DC  61  71  ‐14.1%  531  476  11.6% 20002, Capitol Hill/North, DC  75  67  11.9%  596  571  4.4% 20003, Capitol Hill/South, DC  39  42  ‐7.1%  310  335  ‐7.5% 20004, Central, Washington, DC  6  8  ‐25.0%  41  39  5.1% 20005, Logan Cir/Thomas Circle, DC  21  29  ‐27.6%  127  150  ‐15.3% 20006, Washington, DC  1  1  0.0%  4  8  ‐50.0% 20007, Georgetown/Burleith, DC  47  42  11.9%  349  358  ‐2.5% 20008, Woodley/Cleveland Pk, DC  38  39  ‐2.6%  248  275  ‐9.8% 20009, Dupont/Adams Morgan, DC  72  110  ‐34.6%  625  737  ‐15.2% 20010, Columbia Hts/Mt Plt, DC  35  31  12.9%  309  193  60.1% 20011, 16th St Hts/Crstwd, DC  50  56  ‐10.7%  479  449  6.7% 20012, Colonial Vlg/Takoma, DC  14  10  40.0%  101  100  1.0% 20015, Friendship/Chevy Chs, DC  15  28  ‐46.4%  135  137  ‐1.5% 20016, Cathedral Hts/AU Pk, DC  48  43  11.6%  349  334  4.5% 20017, Brookland/CatholicU, DC  17  22  ‐22.7%  119  109  9.2% 20018, Brentwood/Lincoln, DC  21  10  110.0%  127  109  16.5% 20019, Benning Hts/Deanwd, DC  32  32  0.0%  220  240  ‐8.3% 20020, Anacostia/Hillcrest, DC  16  14  14.3%  172  134  28.4% 20024, SW Waterfront, DC  19  28  ‐32.1%  162  142  14.1% 20032, Congress Heights, DC  8  12  ‐33.3%  78  53  47.2% 20036, Downtown, DC  12  17  ‐29.4%  112  77  45.5% 20037, West End/Foggy Btm, DC  19  40  ‐52.5%  143  199  ‐28.1% District of Columbia (All zips)  666  752  ‐11.4%  5,340  5,225  2.2% 

 

 

 

 

Figure 18 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 19