What $1.2 Million Buys You in the DC Area

by UrbanTurf Staff

Last week in In What X Buys You, UrbanTurf looked at homes in the $380,000 price range. This week, we head to the opposite end of the price spectrum.

What $1.2 Million Buys You in the DC Area: Figure 1

A Stone Colonial in Chevy Chase

This renovated four-bedroom sits on a deep, landscaped lot in Chevy Chase. The stone colonial has a large living room, dining room and a bright sunroom on the main level, as well as a good-sized deck off the back of the house. Our favorite feature is the attic that could be used for a variety of purposes, and has not one, but three skylights.

Photo courtesy of HomeVisit.

What $1.2 Million Buys You in the DC Area: Figure 2

A Four-Bedroom Yellow Farmhouse

This home is located in Barnaby Woods, a neighborhood adjacent to Chevy Chase DC that is not very well known among many downtown DC residents. The updated yellow four-bedroom sits on a cul-de-sac, and has a new kitchen, roof and HVAC systems. In addition to a large deck and garage, the house has a sauna downstairs where you can sweat it out.

  • Full Listing: 3004 Oregon Knolls Drive (map)
  • Price: $1.195 million
  • Bedrooms: Four
  • Bathrooms: 3.5
  • Year Built: 1991
  • Listing Agent: Helen Dodson, Keller Williams Capital Properties

Photo courtesy of TruPlace.

What $1.2 Million Buys You in the DC Area: Figure 3

Checking All The Boxes Off Columbia Road

There are a two things that seem to be on a lot of home buyer’s checklists these days: a parking space and a legal rental unit. This five-bedroom has both, as well as a very attractive interior. The Ontario Road rowhouse is spread out over four levels and still has a lot of its original details, as well as nine-foot ceilings and three separate outdoor spaces.

  • Full Listing: 2721 Ontario Road NW (map)
  • Price: $1.245 million
  • Bedrooms: Five
  • Bathrooms: 3.5
  • Year Built: 1905
  • Listing Agent: Thomas Daley, TTR Sotheby’s International Realty

Photo courtesy of HomeVisit.

See other articles related to: what x buys you

This article originally published at http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/what_1.2_million_buys_you_in_the_dc_area/8392


  1. Mildred Pierced said at 7:41 pm on Tuesday April 22, 2014:
    <i>things that seem to be on a lot of home buyer’s checklists these days: a parking space</i> Yet we are being told that developers should be allowed to build units without a parking space. Something doesn't compute.
  1. Aaron said at 7:46 pm on Tuesday April 22, 2014:
    I give the Ontario Street five days on the market before it's under contract.
  1. SmartGrowther said at 9:02 pm on Tuesday April 22, 2014:
    Mildred A parking space is on the check list of lots of homebuyers. But there are also homebuyers (and even more renters) who are car free. So it makes sense to let developers evaluate their market and determine if parking is worthwhile. Lots of homebuyers are in the market for kitchen with an island, or a 2nd bathroom - but the zoning code does not require those. Just folks who prefer a 2nd bathroom (and are willing to pay what it costs) won't buy a unit without one, the folks who prefer a unit with a parking space will avoid the parking free buildings.
  1. James said at 9:02 pm on Tuesday April 22, 2014:
    Doubt it--wrong side of Rock Creek.
  1. StatusQuoer said at 9:42 pm on Tuesday April 22, 2014:
    <i>Lots of homebuyers are in the market for kitchen with an island, or a 2nd bathroom - but the zoning code does not require those.</i> But it does require that <i>first</i> bathroom, just as it should require a reasonable amount of parking.
  1. SmartGrowther said at 9:46 pm on Tuesday April 22, 2014:
    A first bathroom is required for all units, old and new. Offstreet parking is not required in DC for units built before 1958, which were grandfathered in. If a parking space is health need, like that first bathroom, how is it that its fine that older homes do not have them? Clearly a parking space is not a health need - if anything the folks who don't have cars are doing more for their health 😉
  1. SmartGrowther said at 9:52 pm on Tuesday April 22, 2014:
    and also note - you can make a policy case that the 1958 code parking minimums still make sense even downtown - I was merely pointing out to mildred how the fact that some people have a parking space on their checklist is quite compatible with allowing developers to not build them. We have a fitness center on our checklist, and I suspect we are not alone in that - but the zoning code does not mandate them for all new buildings. Nor should it.
  1. Car user said at 4:04 pm on Thursday April 24, 2014:
    SmartGrowther, it's great that you are car-free - congratulations on that. Many people still need cars in this city, and many neighborhoods need visitors from other neighborhoods to come and shop, which is facilitated by available street parking. Requiring developers to provide parking spaces helps reduce demand for street parking, by ensuring that residents don't take up all of the street spots. One thing I find funny about this whole debate is that car-free advocates tend to be left-wing on most policy issues, and democratic voters. But they take a very right-wing stance on parking, saying that the free market should rule and developers can do whatever they want. The problem is that developers have a lot more power in the market (they can formulate a vision for a building, block or neighborhood and implement it) whereas individual buyers have a binary take-it-or-leave it decision. You therefore cannot assume that developers and the free market will arrive at the optimum result. In fact history shows that the opposite is true - back in the bad old days, developers didn't even provide hot water in some buildings until they were forced to do so. If you want a city with fewer cars, that's great, go ahead and advocate for that. But let's maintain some intellectual honesty in the discussion. We cannot expect the free market to arrive at an optimal result for parking. If we decide that we need parking in new construction, for example to reduce pressure on street parking, then we will probably need to require this by legislation. Smart growth people actually remind me of small government republicans on this issue. It seems that your strategy is to attempt to choke off parking and thereby force people to give up cars, all under the guise of advocating for affordable housing (as if eliminating parking requirements will make housing affordable - it won't). Just as republicans want to choke off tax revenue in order to force government spending to decrease. It would be more honest for republicans to simply advocate for less spending, and for smart growth people to simply advocate for fewer cars.
  1. smartgrowther said at 9:30 pm on Friday April 25, 2014:
    I am not car free (and never said I was, where did you get that from). One does not have to be car free to appreciate better public policy. And I am not a leftist, more of a Clintonian - achieve progressive goals, but with market means. And that is precisely what this does. You mention reducing the demand for street spots. That could be done by charging a higher rate for RPP's - that would fairly place the burden on all, including owners of grandfathered properties, and would generate revenue for the District. Clearly the problem here is that a scarce resource, on street parking, is given away for free. You mention hot water, but that is a health issue. We do not mandate amenities which is what parking is. Reducing the requirement to build parking whether people want it or not, will lead to some reduction in the number of cars. It will ALSO lead to a reduction in the cost producing housing. I want progressive goals, but I believe enough in the working of the market that I believe that added supply will decrease prices,all other things being equal.
  1. smartgrowther said at 10:43 pm on Friday April 25, 2014:
    and again, as to the hot water comparison - we require ALL units to provide hot water, old and new. We do NOT require older buildings and rowhouses to provide off street parking. Obviously it is not a necessity. People want new buildings to have offstreet parking, to minimize the chances they won't be able to find an on street spot. But if on street spots are so scarce, why are RPP's so cheap?
  1. James said at 10:38 am on Tuesday April 29, 2014:
    "But if on street spots are so scarce, why are RPP’s so cheap?" Great question!

DC Real Estate Guides

Short guides to navigating the DC-area real estate market

We've collected all our helpful guides for buying, selling and renting in and around Washington, DC in one place. Visit guides.urbanturf.com or start browsing below!