Hi Guys! I saw that this is one of the incoming features and sounds really promising: could you provide some more details? For example, what do you exactly mean by "land Type"...like rural vs infill? Thanks!
Along the same lines, I have a parcel I'm interested in comping that's zoned commercial. Is there a way to only comp it with other commercial properties, or do you not generally see that much of a variation between commercial and residential comps?
I love that ! I consider the following to be the five most critical aspects to be considered when "comping" a specific type of land:
infill Vs rural: the $/acre can sensibly change between infill and rural properties so the cost for 2 acres in a subdivision in Town may be sensibly different from the cost of those same 2 acres in the middle of nowhere. This feature would represent a terrific asset for both the user sniping urban areas and the one chasing rural lots outside of urban sites.
acreage :actually I'mnot sure if this is already incorporated in the current algorhytm to pick the comps but, in case it's not, we all know that $/acre can change depending on the size of the lot (normally - not a rule - the smaller is the lot, the higher is $/acre). Ideally, we want a property to be "comped" with other falling into a range of similar acreages
slope vs flat: this is also a cool feature, especially for those areas (like Colorado) where desert and mountains can coexist.
locked vs unlocked: I understand the difficulties to include this into the algorithm. Of course the differentiation would be based exclusively on what is visible from the map and not on the presence - or not - of any recorded easements. Although difficult to implement, this would be a real game changer. As you'r probably aware, there are investors specialized on land locked properties and then working on easements afterwords. At the same time, for MY business model, I would like to keep the landlocked properties (lower in value) out of my comps' basket. I believe that both the profiles would welcome this feature very much!
improved vs not improved: it's related to the presence of infrastructures on the properties (ex barns, sheds etc) used as comps and that may affect the value. As fior nr 4, I think it's implementation may risult not too easy but you can probably work on it.
I didn't include developed vs undeveloped (presence of utilities) not because I don't consider it relevant (the contrary...it would be a massive plus) but only because I don't see how this could be done without engaging the County...but taking this as a brain storming session, I share it here.
Thanks for your work and I look forward to seeing your improvements!
Our intent with this feature is to be able to use characteristics of the land (i.e forest vs desert, flat vs sloped) and incorporate that into our modeling. Rural vs infill would certainly be a piece of that! It has been a slow moving feature, but we are hopeful that we can have something out in the coming months!
If you have any ideas or feedback for this, we would love to hear it!
Along the same lines, I have a parcel I'm interested in comping that's zoned commercial. Is there a way to only comp it with other commercial properties, or do you not generally see that much of a variation between commercial and residential comps?
I love that ! I consider the following to be the five most critical aspects to be considered when "comping" a specific type of land:
infill Vs rural: the $/acre can sensibly change between infill and rural properties so the cost for 2 acres in a subdivision in Town may be sensibly different from the cost of those same 2 acres in the middle of nowhere. This feature would represent a terrific asset for both the user sniping urban areas and the one chasing rural lots outside of urban sites.
acreage : actually I'm not sure if this is already incorporated in the current algorhytm to pick the comps but, in case it's not, we all know that $/acre can change depending on the size of the lot (normally - not a rule - the smaller is the lot, the higher is $/acre). Ideally, we want a property to be "comped" with other falling into a range of similar acreages
slope vs flat: this is also a cool feature, especially for those areas (like Colorado) where desert and mountains can coexist.
locked vs unlocked: I understand the difficulties to include this into the algorithm. Of course the differentiation would be based exclusively on what is visible from the map and not on the presence - or not - of any recorded easements. Although difficult to implement, this would be a real game changer. As you'r probably aware, there are investors specialized on land locked properties and then working on easements afterwords. At the same time, for MY business model, I would like to keep the landlocked properties (lower in value) out of my comps' basket. I believe that both the profiles would welcome this feature very much!
improved vs not improved: it's related to the presence of infrastructures on the properties (ex barns, sheds etc) used as comps and that may affect the value. As fior nr 4, I think it's implementation may risult not too easy but you can probably work on it.
I didn't include developed vs undeveloped (presence of utilities) not because I don't consider it relevant (the contrary...it would be a massive plus) but only because I don't see how this could be done without engaging the County...but taking this as a brain storming session, I share it here.
Thanks for your work and I look forward to seeing your improvements!
Art
Hi Arturo,
Our intent with this feature is to be able to use characteristics of the land (i.e forest vs desert, flat vs sloped) and incorporate that into our modeling. Rural vs infill would certainly be a piece of that! It has been a slow moving feature, but we are hopeful that we can have something out in the coming months!
If you have any ideas or feedback for this, we would love to hear it!