In-ground Swimming Pools In Chicago Area

[Deleted member 80407]

<_<

I inspected a property in the northwest suburbs of Chicago which had an inground swimming pool. I have encountered these before and gave no value for the superadequacy due to the short term seasonal use and the cost to maintain.

Had a conversation with a CM from a large national lender who commented that he has seen some appraials in the Chicagoland area which appraiser's were giving some value (about 20-25% of the cost). My response to the statement was: Will the typical buyer pay more for this superadequacy? My answer to this question is no. The appraisal is being completed on a 2055 form with an interior inspection and therefore, I cannot show the cost of the superadequacy in the cost approach. Wondering if any Chicago appraiser's give value for in-ground swimming pools? An inquiring mind is trying to determine what his piers are doing regarding this issue. Any response will greatly be appreciated.

 

[Lee Lansford]

I've worked in some phase of residential real estate for the past 29 years, the past 22 years as a residential appraiser, in the suburban and Chicago markets.

The short answer to your question: "It depends!" (Isn't that just about always THE answer?)

In some of the more "upper-bracket" communities where in-ground pools are not unusual, I've have seen evidence that the market pays something for the pool.

In some instances, in other lesser-valued (but still mid-range values) neighborhoods, I have seen instances were the pool had an ADVERSE effect upon both marketability and MV (i.e., most people don't want a pool, the pool took up a sizable percentage of the small rear yard etc.).

Search the MLS for "remarks" (?) and enter in "pool" (and other similar descriptive terms) for your subject neighborhood; you may have to search over an extended market area. It will take some work, but I believe that with some analysis you will be able to reach a conclusion.

And, you can always enquire of Realtors who had properties--with pools--listed and sold as to their opinion on the matter.

Lee

 

[Jim Onderisin]

I agree with Lee. Sometimes 'yes' and sometimes 'no'.

Take a Chicago suburban market with $150,000 to $250,000 houses. Do you sometimes see in-ground pools. Yes. Frequently? Not really. In that market, fewer people can afford to install and maintain them. Buyers looking in that market don't expect or want them. Contribution to value might be less than the cost to fill-in the pool, which is what eventually happens to them.

On the other hand, some markets with the $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 properties have higher instances of in-ground pools. Not only do more of the properties have pools, but they are superbly maintained, have elaborate decking and equipment, and generally have cabanas or changing houses with bathrooms, party kitchens or wet bars, etc. I'd say there's contribution to value in those markets. The problem is that houses in those markets are usually so differentiated that it is difficult to isolate the contributory value of the pool alone. At least, I haven't been able to figure out how to practically do that.

 

[Pat Butler]

I'm in the Chicago market too. One thing that I've seen is that an in-ground pool will affect the marketability of the house. However, whoever buys the house will most certainly want the pool- otherwise they wouldn't have bought it. So they'll usually place some value on the pool, but the marketing time might increase. I've usually seen a little bit of positive contribution from the pool.

 

[Deleted member 80407]

<_<

I have started phone interviewing with the local realtors within the northwest suburb of Chicago. So far, I have spoke with three listing agents who had active properties with inground swimming pools in the city. The reported marketing times of the three listings were 136 days, 78 days, and 97 days. All of the listing agents agreed that the market was limited for buyers of such properties with in-ground swimming pools.

Spoke with one listing agent who just closed a property in August of this year. The original asking price was $397,500 which was dropped to $379,900 before acquiring a contract 36 days later for $364,000. According to this listing agent, the property would have sold for this amount wheter or not it had an in-ground pool.

Have a couple of more selling agents to interview.

 

[Charles Witt]

I did a paired sales analysis in my market a few months ago and found that an inground pool of decent size with fencing, patio, etc. showed an $8,000 - $14,000 contribution to value even though the least cost to install was $24,500. Although pools are in less than .01% of properties, some buyers will readily pay something for a pool if that is what they want. Fifteen years ago it took an arm and a leg plus a double amount of listing time to sell a home with a pool. Not so today! But real estate is like the weather, changing with time.

 

[DTB]

Concur with the rest of the Chicago boys. If it's in an area where pools are expected or desired, I'm usually able to find comps with pools.

If it's an area with a great lack of pools, that kinda explains why it isn't worth much in those areas.