A depressing sale on John Street

Definitely not depressing for listing broker Barbara Zaccagnini, who just reported this sale at $5,000,000 and who represented both sides of the transaction, but for the rest of us, this is confirmation of the continuing difficult selling climate for Greenwich’s backcountry.

63 John Street first came on November 2012, at $9,949,000 (Town assessment presumes a market value of $10,030,100…ha!). Two years and four big price reductions later (down to $6,900,000) it finally gets the deal done at a paltry $5M, yikes!

This was a BIG property, with 13.61 acres, a pristine but boring 1980’s French-style main house of about 5,000 sq. ft., an equally large, but much newer “guest” house, designed by the firm of Hilton VanderHorn, a small cottage for security and/or staff, and various barns and outbuildings, everything in perfect condition. Oh, and pond, meadows, hills. you name it.

All that for five million shows you how far the backcountry’s values have diverged from the rest of the Town. Really amazing.

63 John Street, off upper Round Hill Road. Owner had no need to sell, but after two years of waiting, decided to let it go cheap.

63 John Street, off upper Round Hill Road. Owner had no need to sell, but after two years of waiting, decided to let it go cheap.

Check out the photos on the link below…(on first-time visits with a mobile device, just click “no thanks” if you don’t want the (useful) Houlihan Lawrence app, then you’ll be sent to the listing).

63 John Street

5 thoughts on “A depressing sale on John Street

  1. To me, it’s a boring property. A saddle of maintenance…but the benefit is land and water…i.e. planting your own orchards, vineyards, produce gardens….going for self-sustaining is the benefit…as far as the house itself…kitchen is so marginal….and otherwise just boring….the self-sustaining aspect at a lower entry point is the only thing that makes it interesting….These society dames don’t seem to get how passe they are

  2. You can add a very high end kitchen for $200K. If you want a self sustaining agricultural proposition you probably aren’t looking at this property.

  3. Not that I need or could afford this much house and land, but I think it looks great. Also convenient to Lone Pine Kennel, for when I need to drop off the dogs, which my Riverside location is not. As I’ve said before, for what decent houses in OG and Riverside go for these days, I would think buyers need to start looking at back country, as it represents value by Greenwich standards. Particularly if one is going the private school route, as there are several good options within reasonable distance of this property.

  4. People don’t want to live 20+ minutes from civilization. And this is a weird property. It’s much easier to sell one 10,000sf house than two 5,000sf houses. This house might’ve gotten much closer to ask had the former been the case. I don’t find the land anything remarkable. It looks fake–“manicured” is right. Not an equestrian property, either. Who wants 13 acres of pruned hedges? Backcountry made sense for the independently wealthy who enjoyed a bucolic lifestyle of horses, dinner parties, private clubs, and overseeing small agricultural operations. Today’s Greenwich buyer wants proximity to take-out Chinese, good public schools, a “great room”, and a zip code.

Comment (anonymously, if you wish) On This Post....

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s