Guess the closing price of this 160 m² new-build flat

[learnTheBlueprint]

Let’s lock in estimates before the listing changes. The trade-off is whether to treat the large floor area as a premium or the one-bedroom layout as a limit on demand.

The new-build flat is listed at ¥182,100,000 and has spent 36 days on the local market. It measures 160 m² and is described as being in average condition, which is an unusual label for a new property.

Give one predicted closing price and name the two details that matter most to your estimate. I would also be interested in whether a previous reduction, actual defects or the possibility of creating another bedroom would change your number.

 

[shareTheSignal]

¥176,000,000. My two facts are the 36 days without a deal and the average-condition description. Neither screams distress, but together they suggest the asking price may need a modest concession.

 

[weighTheEmber]

¥171,500,000. I’m weighting the single bedroom more heavily than nbakker is, because 160 m² is a lot of area for that bedroom count and may narrow the buyer pool. The missing fact for me is the layout: can another proper bedroom realistically be created?

 

[shareTheSignal]

That is the strongest argument for going lower. I treated the floor area as a positive, but David is right that buyers do not value every square metre equally. I’d still stay at ¥176,000,000 unless the plan shows a large amount of circulation or otherwise awkward space.

 

[EarlyGlass]

My number is ¥181,000,000. The two drivers are the 160 m² floor area and its new-build status. I’m less convinced that 36 days alone earns a large discount.

 

[EarlyGlass]

Luis’s ¥181,000,000 estimate is still plausible, but I hesitate over the description of the condition. “New-build” could mean the unit has never been occupied, while “average” might refer either to basic finishes or to work that remains outstanding.

The missing fact is what that label covers. If it only describes presentation and specification, I would stay at ¥181,000,000. If an inspection identifies defects or remedial work, I would revise the estimate to below ¥178,000,000.

 

[sparrow.quiet]

¥168,000,000. I’m using the one-bedroom configuration and the full 36 days as my two facts. A huge one-bedroom can be attractive, but it needs the right buyer; extra floor area does not automatically compensate for limited sleeping rooms.

 

[anika.dean]

Before locking a number, is there one completed sale in the same development or a genuinely similar building? That would matter more to me than the condition label. I’d also want to know whether ¥182,100,000 is the original asking price or follows earlier reductions.

 

[EarlyGlass]

A completed sale would help only if the floor, outlook, area and layout were reasonably close. Otherwise it could create false confidence. On the information given, my two useful anchors remain the 160 m² and the asking price, which is why my estimate stays near the ask rather than following the lower guesses.

 

[EasyEcho]

¥173,000,000. The asking price is my starting point, while current financing costs are the reason I’m allowing a wider negotiation margin. Their impact depends on the buyer and local lending terms, though, so I would not try to calculate a precise financing discount from the details provided.

 

[shareTheSignal]

I think Karim may be giving financing too much weight. Different bidders can respond very differently to borrowing costs, whereas the property-specific issue—160 m² arranged as one bedroom—affects everyone evaluating this flat. Has there actually been a price reduction? If not, 36 days may simply be the seller testing the market.

 

[SharpPorch]

¥175,200,000. The ask works out to about ¥1.138 million per m², so floor area is one driver; the other is the one-bedroom limitation. I’d next compare it with the one completed sale mentioned in the discussion, but only after adjusting for size and layout rather than copying its headline price.

 

[EarlyGlass]

The sensible next step is to make a small comparison table: original ask, any reductions, days listed, floor area, bedroom count, floor and condition for this flat and the completed sale. Without those missing details, the guesses between roughly ¥171 million and ¥181 million mostly reflect how each person interprets the layout.

 

[BriskMap]

I’ll split the difference at ¥177,450,000. My two facts are that 36 days is long enough to support some negotiation, while 160 m² gives the seller a reason not to accept a deep cut. I would change that number materially only if the completed sale or reduction history showed the asking price was out of line.

 

[shareTheSignal]

I’m locking in my original ¥176,000,000. The later comments strengthened the case that layout is the big unknown, but no new fact establishes a defect or an earlier reduction. Ibrahim’s figure is plausible; I’m simply allowing a little more room for the average-condition description.