After months of researching the internet, reviewing countless pictures and trying to visualize your furnishings in a home you finally are ready to call an agent to physically visit your final choices. Your persistent attention to the details of the inside of the house, those images that are most evident and marketed, are front and center in your mind when you arrive. That is when you have the first opportunity to judge how the architecture interacts and relates to the site it sits on. Is there any flow, visual or otherwise, from the inside to the outside. Is the interior environment dim as a result of the architecture or a refection of the siting and orientation of the home. Is the site heavily vegetated backing to preserve or is it on a pond, Golf Course, lake or water feature? Your first impression should actually be the most reliable, absent any other physical or safety concerns pertaining to either, as you narrow your choices.
Interestingly, Appraisers have indicated to me that they often apply no adjustments one way or the other when valuing a home situated on water, golf or preserve amenities. Their experience indicates that there are at least as many (approximately equal) number of homeowners that prefer one over the other. Based on this some feel, that if that is loosely or objectively accurate, that an adjustment is not warranted. I would argue that this is highly dependent on what is typical and expected of the the buyer in a given marketplace where there are clear cut choices. With all due respect Appraisers know this and do apply adjustments in these circumstances. That being said the value of treed preserve is higher if there is very little of it vice versa if water views are equally absent. In light of this logic and in one persons view and tainted by preference I believe there is a case for adjustments to opinions of value. It is generally expected and more typical in the northeast Florida market area (unless the practice of clear cutting was employed) that the average PUD has a generous tree cover affording more preserve lots then water or golf sites, typically. Accordingly, a water or golf view site by it’s relative scarcity should command a positive adjustment equal to the contributory market reaction derived from paired sales.
If that is all too much to digest think of it this way. In the absence of treed lots they become more desirable to the audience looking for treed lots and vice versa. With respect to personal preference some people like trees and privacy and others prefer broader views provided by sites adjacent to water and golf courses. Typical and expected are the operative terms influencing who is doing the valuing. As a buyer, as I have witnessed, it is true that the desire for each is about equally divided. The fact that water and golf views are typically in shorter supply leads me to believe they have greater value overall. You be the judge.