Milan detached homes: does energy performance change the offer?

C

common_hill

First-time buyer
I’m comparing detached homes in two Milan neighbourhoods, mostly asking between €747,000 and €1,121,000. In my small sample the median marketing time is about 114 days, but differences in condition make the average figures very noisy. I also have +8.3% as the reported price movement, though I’m not convinced it describes these particular streets.

The decision is whether to negotiate hard on weaker energy performance or simply reject those properties. Are buyers treating it as grounds for a lower offer, or moving on because the likely work is too uncertain? Recent completed sales would help, but the citywide average seems nearly useless here.
 
It can lead to either outcome. A buyer who otherwise likes the house may price the expected work into an offer; another may avoid the uncertainty entirely. I would not mix renovated and unrenovated homes when reading that 114-day figure. Compare completed sales within each neighbourhood, then separate them by condition and stated energy performance. Asking-price movement alone will not show the discount actually accepted.
 
The first constraint is how much cash the buyer will still have after completion. Mortgage buyers may offer the same price as cash buyers yet be far less able to absorb windows, heating work or other energy upgrades straight away.

I would also redraw the comparison on a street-by-street basis. With detached homes, a boundary that crosses only a few streets can mix very different plots, access and surroundings. As a next step, separate financed and cash scenarios, then see whether either still supports an offer once the likely works are included.
 
Aarav’s financing point is important. Bruno, I’d also split your sample by whether the energy issue is isolated or part of generally deferred maintenance. A poor rating in an otherwise sound, updated house is a different negotiation from a property needing heating, windows and cosmetic work together. The latter may sit longer because buyers cannot confidently estimate the total commitment.
 
A sample this small cannot isolate energy performance unless the other differences are controlled. Plot, layout and overall renovation condition may explain more of the 114 days than the energy rating itself.

For example, an inefficient but otherwise updated house should not be grouped with one that also needs windows, heating and extensive interior work. I would compare recent completed sales in those condition groups and check whether the +8.3% describes asking prices, achieved prices or a wider Milan index. Without that definition, it is not strong evidence for these streets.
 
Look at what disappeared as well as what sold. Withdrawn stock can make the visible market appear healthier if difficult homes simply vanish rather than complete at a lower price. New-listing volume also matters: buyers are more likely to skip an inefficient house when several substitutes arrive, but may negotiate when choice is thin.
 
A simple property-by-property table may answer more than another city average. Record first observed asking price, later reductions, days until each reduction, current status, general condition and energy information. Add the closest completed sale you can find in the same small area. You are looking for a pattern: do weaker properties cut early, linger unchanged, sell below comparable homes, or get withdrawn?
 
I disagree slightly with the idea that a long listing automatically creates leverage. Some sellers can wait, and 114 days may include homes priced optimistically from the start. Price-cut timing tells you more: a recent reduction may mean the seller has adjusted expectations, while months without movement could indicate little motivation. Energy performance only helps your offer if the seller accepts that buyers value it.
 
Don’t negotiate from the rating alone. For any shortlisted house, identify what is actually producing the weak performance and which improvements are realistic for that specific building. Then obtain cost estimates before deciding on an offer. That turns “poor energy performance” from a vague objection into a property-specific budget—and may also reveal that walking away is the better choice.
 
I’d now narrow this to two or three genuine candidates. Ask each agent about prior reductions, time at the current price and the seller’s preferred timeline, without assuming the answers guarantee motivation. If financing is involved, discuss the renovation budget with the lender before bidding. Then base the offer on nearby completed sales plus documented work, rather than applying one percentage discount across every inefficient home.
 
The useful conclusion may be that +8.3% and 114 days are context, not valuation tools. Within your two neighbourhoods, compare each candidate against the closest completed alternatives and the current flow of new listings. If an energy weakness is measurable and fixable, negotiate. If it sits alongside uncertain structural or general-condition costs, moving to the next listing may be more rational than chasing a nominal discount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top