This real estate listing caught our eye because it’s the largest and most expensive house we remember seeing in the neighborhood recently.
The remodeled home at 516 N. 62nd St. is 4,590 square feet and has nine bedrooms, including a legal apartment. The home was built in 2001 and is listed at $1,375,000. It has an expansive kitchen, large entertaining areas, lots of natural light, and killer views.
33 responses so far ↓
1 tallgal // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Good luck in this economy! This isn’t the Eastside and we want to keep it that way.
2 etta // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:22 am
The term “conspicuous consumption” comes to mind. From Wikipedia:
“In the U.S., a trend in the 1950’s towards large houses began, with the average size of a home about doubling over a period of 50 years. This trend has been compared to the rise of the SUV, also often a symbol of conspicuous consumption. People have purchased huge houses even at the expense of the size of their yard, the inability to save funds for retirement, or a greatly increased commute time, up to a couple hours. Such large homes can also facilitate other forms of consumption, in providing extra storage space for vehicles, clothes, and other objects.”
3 GreanBean // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:03 am
Reminds me of the article I read that said that a modern home was twice as energy efficient per square foot as a home built in 1950. Oh, but they forgot to mention that the average modern home has twice the square feet of the average 1950 home.
4 Stupid Hippie // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:03 am
Rich people = genocide
5 Ivy // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:12 am
Waste apologists = too stupid to live
6 Trix // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:54 am
It’s a lovely house, but do they really think they can sell it at that price? With the economy the way it is still? Nuts.
7 Neighbor // Jun 3, 2009 at 10:37 am
Also from Wikipedia: “Shut up, hippies, and get a real job.”
Want to blame someone for this listing price? Start with the assessor. Tax assessments are up ridiculously.
Blaming your neighbors for trying to sell a great-looking house is preposterous. I’m happy to see a well-maintained home in a neighborhood increasingly overrun with shabby, trashy, overgrown rental bungalow fire-traps. I hope the new owners are awesome and enjoy their time in this place — and I hope these snarky blog comments (and the simple fact that the Powers That Be decided to waste a blog post on this) don’t sway anyone from moving in.
8 Neighbor // Jun 3, 2009 at 10:41 am
And for the record, there are in fact comps of equal or greater home prices within blocks of this house. It’s not the “most-expensive house in the neighborhood.” And it’s not hard to find what is.
9 Veronica // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:07 am
I’m with you Neighbor. I can’t afford that house, but it is lovley and I hope they sell quickly.
I live in the neighborhood as well and I would rather see well maintained homes than seedy homes no one takes care of.
10 etta // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:15 am
A home can be lovely and well-maintained and 1/4 of the square footage of this home.
11 roomie // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:22 am
9 bedrooms !!! Boy - I have always wanted to have a bed and breakfast - that would be some killer rentable space…..or some sort of rooming house - of course in my dreams all of my boarders would be authors and artists and scientists and we would have the most wonderful dinner conversations as we watch the sun set over the lowlands of Ballard
12 Stupid Hippie // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Big homes = Bellevue = fascism!
13 Whopper // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“The term “conspicuous consumption” comes to mind”
It’s funny isn’t it, how it’s always conspicuous when it’s not you doing the consumption.
14 Neighbor // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:07 pm
@10: So the hell what? What do you personally have against the sellers of this home? Even if I were agree with your Wikipedia-fueled call for sense and sustainability, your short-sighted attack comes off as petty and unwarranted. Grow up.
15 Neighbor // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I’m missing a “to” in line 2. Whatever.
16 Veronica // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Oh etta, how fun it is to state the obvious. Of course that home is HUGE, but I still prefer it to a property that is not maintained.
I wish them the best of luck.
17 Veronica // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:22 pm
P.S. My teenage nephew edits on Wikipedia. Nice source. Very accurate, like teenagers!
p.s. My commute is 20 minutes by bike and I’m set for retirement.
18 etta // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Happy reading, Veronica.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1902veblen00.html
19 Whopper // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“A home can be lovely and well-maintained and 1/4 of the square footage of this home.”
Which in Phinney means between $400,000-$550,000 home. My, how inconspicuous.
Etta, it must be tough being so humble?
20 Trix // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:09 pm
And who says a smaller home can’t be well maintained?
I normally wouldn’t jump in to such a bloody dog fight but the point that only a home as big and expensive as this can be well maintained is just ridiculous.
My brother and his wife have a perfectly lovely little three bedroom house that’s exactly the room they need and also very clean and well decorated (they collect antiques).
Unless you’re the Brady Bunch 9 bedrooms is just silly.
21 rob // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:11 pm
there are plenty of $1m plus homes in phinney. there are five on market now and plenty in the area that sold for over $1m. even in this economy.
http://www.redfin.com/search#lat=47.66943344220906&long=-122.35555171966553&market=seattle&min_price=1000000&sold_within_months=1200&status=1&v=4&zoomLevel=15
it’s all because we live in the best hood in the city.
22 Whopper // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“Unless you’re the Brady Bunch 9 bedrooms is just silly.”
Why not live and let live? Such intolerance of other peoples’ lifestyles around here. I mean, if they’re not breaking any laws, whose business is it?
23 Veronica // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Won’t waste my time precious etta, my impression is that you aren’t a very reliable source, and full of horse-hooey to boot.
Well, I’m off to consume now. I hope no one is offended if I pump some dough into the local economy, stuff my closets full of my spoils, only to turn around and donate it all later.
Later-V
24 Stupid Hippie // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Oh no, people have more money and bigger homes than me!
Better start spitting venom at them.
25 nearby // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:44 pm
My understanding through the grape vine is that this house is connected with the “castle + AUD” that got built on the corner of 61st and Freemont and complaints about either home are probably applicable to both. Yes, the prior house that was at 61st and Freemont was in bad shape but it got worse in the time while the builder was waiting to put up the new home and could have been restored if bought by someone else.
In terms of price, it isn’t that far off from the big yellow house or the “eco-box” that are both farther down towards aurora and are both over $1 million. A high price is fine if they can get it. That should mean all of our neighboring houses might still be worth something.
The objection to the house mentioned in this post and the new one they built is usually that they are both grossly outsized for the neighbohood and the lot sizes. The yellow house on 61st is “only” 3,000sq feet but still manages to fit into the neighborhood and it would be hard to tell if it was a full remodel or new construction. The eco-box at the bottom of the hill also manages to somehow fit in better and doesn’t tower over its neighbors quite as much.
To Veronica and similar posts, what seedy homes are you referring to? After a block or so from Aurora there are almost no unmaintained homes south of 65th till the zoo. Not every home is polished and pretty but it’s not like that part of phineywood is in some sort of dire need for gentrification.
26 Tiktok // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:48 pm
More than 500 square feet per person is nice, but a luxury.
27 david stoesz // Jun 4, 2009 at 6:16 am
Class resentment is alive and well! Only now it takes the form of environmental shaming. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’m full of resentment myself.
28 Whopper // Jun 4, 2009 at 8:07 am
I know how you feel David. I resent people living in $1.3 million homes when I’m so poor all I can afford on Phinney is a $450k bungalow. Where to channel my anger?
29 Tiktok // Jun 4, 2009 at 12:33 pm
“Class resentment” always means “the not-rich resenting the rich”, never vice versa. Just call it “Wealth Resentment” and be done with it.
30 Stupid Hippie // Jun 4, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“the not-rich resenting the rich”
Yes, all those ‘not rich’ living the ghetto life up on Phinney in $400-500k bungalows, passing judgment on people living in $1.3 mill homes. Must be tough being so not-rich on the Ridge.
31 Tahomajim // Jun 4, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Great publicity folks…. 30+ comments…. I’m not interested in the house except to watch. I will write, even in this economy, selected homes will fetch that price. The one across from the zoo on 59th sold for 1.2 million. One on 67th is listed at 1.2 million (has not sold,YET). I’d say don’t poo-poo this neighborhood….. Our land and location is valuable…… to some….. if already own…. don’t complain.
32 Lime D. Zeze // Jun 5, 2009 at 8:42 am
Wow…you holier-than-thou folks put the “mental” in judgmental.
33 Tahomajim // Jun 5, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Lime D.
Please explain……we’re not mind readers, only neighbors…. BTW, I’m not holy at all. Is that OK?
Leave a Comment