Beautiful landscaping. Too much?

[Esox]

I would not make a negative adjustment but I would warn your client that grounds maintenance would likely be higher in the summer because of the exotic landscaping.

I more than likely won't even mention it, but was thinking outside the box. Remember, the appraisal is being made for relocation purposes. The clients want these properties sold in 120 days, and that is difficult at best under current conditions. My experience with relo, and I have a lot of it, is that features outside the norm, especially some sort of super-adequacy, are generally not a good thing. They make the property specific to a more limited number of buyers. Especially when I can tell by the current list price in comparison to the competition that the homeowner thinks this property is special because of the landscaping.

He is probably going to get 50 or so more days to market this property on his own, then he'll get his buyout. That ruins 40% of my 120 days, and leaves 70 days going into the fall in what I feel is a market that is softening. Of course, that's why they give me a forecasting adjustment.

That's why I think there is a possibility this landscaping may in fact be a negative when you consider I am developing an anticipated sale price estimate based on 120 days, NOT market value. Big difference.

To the poster that brought up the state board. Thanks for scaring me. I'll probably have trouble working on this appraisal now because I'm so shook up. Unbelievable. It's a discussion, relax a little bit. Head over to the Urgent Help forum and tell some poor inexperienced person that they're not qualified to complete the assignment they're asking about. LOL.

Kevin

 

[G-man]

I have seen one or two properties with extensive landscaping take longer to sell or sell for similar values as surrounding properties. One property comes to mind was in an area of Toledo, OH near The University. The owners were biology profs and the front & year yards had exotic plants, large bolders and an irrigation system. I appraised it and mentioned the landscaping but could not find any support for an increase in value. It sold a few years later for a price very typical for that type of home in its neighborhood.
As another example, my neighbors house sold a few years back. Very nicely landscaped. The couple, especially the husband, was very anal regarding their property. He'd have a fit if lawn clippings from my mower blew on his drive way (Heaven Forbid!). They sold the home to a single mom who works nights. They removed 1/2 the plants because the new owner didn't want the hassle of the yard work.
Trying to determine which buyers would love over the top landscaping and who wouldn't is beyond our S.O.W.
I sometimes mention to owners, if they ask, that the only time landscaping counts in an appraisal is if the property doesn't have any.
If the yard is nicely landscaped, mention it, and any associated costs of its upkeep, in the report. The Relo company may want to know that if the home sits vacant for a couple of months, or more in this market, that the bill to maintain this garden of eden may exceed their expectations.

 

[c w d]

Whether or not landscaping is too much or too little has nothing to do with our own preferences. Considering Atlanta's recent requirements to drastically restrict water, the continuing burdens on our municipals' water systems, the environment, etc, etc, etc, my opinion is to fertilize less, water less and use less pesticides. This has the effect of allowing weeds into my lawn. But, not every home owner feels the same way. My next door neighbor has a beautiful lawn. While I would like to have such a lawn the effort, expense and consequences of it are more than I'm willing to accept. Would I use my own preference I would bias my appraisals. Unless the yard is significantly different than the surrounding neighborhood, nicer than typical or worse than typical I don't worry about the minutia. If the yard is an over/under improvement then the market data may bare that out. But, not always. In the case that it doesn't, either through effects on marketing times or sale prices then I don't worry about it any longer. The reason being is: yards are in some cases are very personal. People either love their yards or view them as a necessary evil. It makes their effect on value or marketing very subjective per individual. Measuring that effect, IMO, is ultimately impossible, if there is no clear and noticeable affect in paired data analysis. How does one prove a positive when arbitrarily it can be positive, neutral or negative?

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Colorado went through a prolonged drought and many people let their landscaping go. Paired sales analysis shows they are now paying for that in diminished property values. A well maintained lawn and nice landscaping adds to buyer appeal and thus higher sales prices.

It's really very simple. Forget you are an appraiser and for a moment pretend you are a buyer. You have two homes, side by side, let's even say identical models. One has a pristine yard, beautiful grass, nice shrubs, and flowers. The other wasn't maintained...it's gone to weeds, shrubs are scrawny and untrimmed, there are no flowers. Now...which one, since all else is equal, which one would you buy? If you said..."well, of course, the one with the nice yard"...then the question becomes..."if you couldn't have that one, what would you offer on the other one?".

Why do you suppose builder's spend thousands of dollars landscaping their model homes? I rest my case!

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Why do you suppose builder's spend thousands of dollars landscaping their model homes? I rest my case!

and a good case you have made. Sure there is excessive landscaping. I appraised a fellows estate once. Seems his "signficiant other" [guy] and he has spent $35,000 in landscaping their home with such exotica as Koi plants from Japan...They also made a discovery about Bella Vista Village...There are lots of deer and they are very fond of Koi....

But landscaping sells. Mike brings up another point. The cost of landscaping is increasing and its increasingly high. Water cost up. Fuel costs. Fertilizer costs. I think I won't be alone in remembering when the typical yard was whatever grass that typically grew and mowed. We didn't have weed eaters. We didn't fertilize lawns, or smooth them, roll them...in other words it looked like my lawn in the country.

Cities have adopted ever more stringent regulations and those often means forcing people to mow lawns regularly while on the other hand restricting water useage. And some subdivisons forbid all but irrigated green lawns even in desert climates. (and creating a lawn in the desert where many people were sent to get away from allergies literally brings the allergy with them.)

People are beginning to "buck up" over this issue of obsessive behavior, which Dave Berry claimed rather than live near someone with an unkept lawn, they prefer to live next to a "communist ****ographer".... www.losethelawn.com/lose_lawn_article.php

In fact, I predicted a couple years ago that the housing downturn would impact the local lawncare business. Apparently it hasn't. It has been excessively wet two years running, so mowing has been non-stop since March and with all the vacant homes about, mowing services are being hired by the banks to take care of the vacated homes.

 

[Esox]

It's really very simple. Forget you are an appraiser and for a moment pretend you are a buyer. You have two homes, side by side, let's even say identical models. One has a pristine yard, beautiful grass, nice shrubs, and flowers. The other wasn't maintained...it's gone to weeds, shrubs are scrawny and untrimmed, there are no flowers. Now...which one, since all else is equal, which one would you buy? If you said..."well, of course, the one with the nice yard"...then the question becomes..."if you couldn't have that one, what would you offer on the other one?".

Why do you suppose builder's spend thousands of dollars landscaping their model homes? I rest my case!

You've completely missed my point. There is no doubt that poor or no landscaping is more easily shown to be a negative. Three houses from this property is a house similar in size, quality, style, exterior appeal, and site. It is also nicely landscaped, but not to the extent or in the exotic fashion of the subject. I am putting myself in the place of the buyer and not as an appraiser. I'm suggesting there are buyers, and maybe more than we think, that would look at these two properties if listed at the same price, and be drawn to the more simple, yet attractively landscaped option. There are buyers that would be daunted by the prospect of caring for the landscaping of my appraisal subject. Admit it, you know you want to.

There are a number of other alternatives to the subject available in the subdivision. Put yourself in the place of buyers having the lawn care allergy to which Coach Potato and I have admitted. Then admit this landscaping could possibly have an affect on getting this property to sell within 120 days. I don't think one response in this thread has acknowledged that I'm doing an ERC appraisal here. Granted, the right buyer could come along where this could be a positive, but the more typical buyer won't want the hassle. They want a pretty yard, but don't want to take care of the native prairie exhibit in the Botanical Gardens.

Granted, it's easier to just ignore the landscaping, but for ERC these days I find myself considering property features and amenities from different angles. I know it's an adjustment that's most likely impossible to support, and a spade full of dirt and worms best left unturned.

What the hell, it's something to talk and think about besides mortgage brokers, skippies, and slow business. A few new comp check threads could be interesting, though.

Kevin

 

[Jungle Boy]

In certain areas around here, if a property does not have at least $100,000 worth of landscaping, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

In most areas around here, a property would sell at a discount if it didn't have at least some landscaping. Landscaping always costs money. Just like a driveway or lighting.

Sure, the next hurricane could blow it away, but if the typical buyer is willing to pay more for a property which has been landscaped (generally this is the case in this area), then it has to add value on the effective date of the appraisal.

As an appraiser, we should always put ourselves in the shoes of the typical buyer within that neighborhood.

In some neighborhoods, the majority of homeowners don't do their own landscape maintenance - they pay others to do it. So the maintenance question should be - how much money is it going to cost to maintain it, and not how much time is it going to take to maintain it.

If the properties in the neighborhood are larger, and in the $million plus range, then $500 - $5,000 + / month for maintenance could be the norm.

If HOs are mowing the lawn and trimming the trees, then we need to approach it from that angle.

KDunn, I know I am not addressing your posts. Just adding in a few thoughts after reading thru some other posts on this thread.

 

[Richard Carlsen]

Up here in the north country, we call Winter the great equalizer. You cannot see the landscaping for nearly 6 months out of the year. And I have never been able to prove that a buyer will pay more for a highly landscaped house while I remember one that was done to a "T" when I was selling houses that was rejected by a Buyer because tending the landscaping would take too much time, effort and money.

I just make sure that I mention the wonderful landscaping in the report so when the HO gets a copy he doesn't come back yelling that I overlooked all of his beautiful plantings. Then the landscaping is ignored in the value analysis as it is one of those intangibles that I just cannot measure in a low density market.

 

[Charles Knutson]

I agree with Mike Garrett -- superior landscaping improves curb appeal, which has a positive impact on both marketability and value. In now way would I consider this over improved landscape a negative; I might even give it a small positive adjustment, but nothing more than that.

Some years ago, a million dollar home I was appraising was in the process of having $180k of landscaping installed. The homeowner could have done less, but the finished product met the neighborhood norms. $50k worth of landscaping on high dollar homes is a low budget job, in most cases.

In response to the question, "How can I make my home worth more?" I have a pat answer -- fresh paint, and make it look like a model home. Superior landscaping falls into the model home category, but it's not something I'd ever recommend -- not cost effective for the return on investment. In some older homes (generally in high demand areas) installing new kitchens and baths can return more than the cost; but in most cases, the homeowner is lucky to break even.

But I'll always view superior landscaping as positive amenity -- homebuyers appreciate how it looks, not how much it will cost to maintain.

 

[Bearslide]

You've completely missed my point. There is no doubt that poor or no landscaping is more easily shown to be a negative. Three houses from this property is a house similar in size, quality, style, exterior appeal, and site. It is also nicely landscaped, but not to the extent or in the exotic fashion of the subject. I am putting myself in the place of the buyer and not as an appraiser. I'm suggesting there are buyers, and maybe more than we think, that would look at these two properties if listed at the same price, and be drawn to the more simple, yet attractively landscaped option. There are buyers that would be daunted by the prospect of caring for the landscaping of my appraisal subject. Admit it, you know you want to.

There are a number of other alternatives to the subject available in the subdivision. Put yourself in the place of buyers having the lawn care allergy to which Coach Potato and I have admitted. Then admit this landscaping could possibly have an affect on getting this property to sell within 120 days. I don't think one response in this thread has acknowledged that I'm doing an ERC appraisal here. Granted, the right buyer could come along where this could be a positive, but the more typical buyer won't want the hassle. They want a pretty yard, but don't want to take care of the native prairie exhibit in the Botanical Gardens.

Granted, it's easier to just ignore the landscaping, but for ERC these days I find myself considering property features and amenities from different angles. I know it's an adjustment that's most likely impossible to support, and a spade full of dirt and worms best left unturned.

What the hell, it's something to talk and think about besides mortgage brokers, skippies, and slow business. A few new comp check threads could be interesting, though.

Kevin

I believe your concern may be warranted, especially as this is an ERC appraisal. While good landscaping versus none can be detrimental, overkill may be as well. Had one sale here in a very high end area that had much longer days on market and then finally sold further below list than typical. I called the Realtor to find out what had been the problem (I was going to use this sale as a comp) and she said the extensive landscaping was putting buyers off - that she was hearing comments like "oh, it's gorgeous, but I don't want to have to work that hard" or "I can go broke on other things besides paying a gardener". I had other sales that were more viable without trying to reach an adjustment for that featrure, but in the process of shooting pics of the other comps, I drove by this particular property - and a good bit of the landscaping had been removed and replaced with grass.

Perhaps Realtors active in that market (good ones who have been around awhile) could point you to some similar sales, even if older? If there are other sales with similar influence, you might be able to come up with a supportable adjustment.