Seattle at $1,145,000: seasonal pause or wider pricing gap?

N

nico.north

Seller
I’m tracking Seattle listings around $1,145,000, and the saved properties are behaving very differently. Well-presented detached homes appear to move in roughly 88 days, while those needing work linger. I’m also seeing a visible asking-to-sale gap near 8.0%.

For December 2025, does this look like seasonal noise or increased buyer selectivity? I’d especially value completed transactions or direct neighbourhood observations rather than citywide headlines.
 
The first missing fact is sample size. An 8.0% gap across a handful of unusual homes can mean very little, especially in December. Count the completed sales, then separate homes needing work from those considered well presented before drawing a market-wide conclusion.
 
Which asking price produced the 8.0% figure: original list price, latest list price, or price immediately before agreement? A property reduced before selling can show three very different stories depending on the denominator.
 
I’d also define the 88 days more carefully. Is that time to pending status or time to completed sale? If you are comparing closing dates with active-listing time, the groups may cover different market periods.
 
I’m not yet convinced this demonstrates greater selectivity. “Needs work” is subjective, and those properties may simply have been priced too ambitiously for their condition. That is a pricing issue unless comparable, correctly priced homes also began taking longer.
 
Citywide grouping will blur the answer. Split the Seattle properties by the neighbourhoods you actually follow, then by detached-home condition and a sensible price range around $1,145,000. An exact price point may leave too few completed deals.
 
Transaction volume matters as much as the discount. If very few properties completed in December 2025, one heavily reduced sale could pull the apparent gap toward 8.0%. Show the count and the individual gaps rather than only an average.
 
December can mix autumn listings that finally closed with fresh homes introduced during a quieter period. I would group properties by listing month as well as completion month. Otherwise the 88-day figure may be describing an older cohort, not December buyer behaviour.
 
A simple table would resolve much of this: neighbourhood, condition, original ask, final ask, sold price, listing date, pending date and completion date. Keep withdrawn or still-active listings in separate columns so they do not get mistaken for completed outcomes.
 
These replies expose the weakness in my opening: the 8.0% observation is not yet a clean paired comparison, and I have not shown the number of completed sales behind it. I’ll separate original from final asking prices and use pending time rather than blending it with completion time.
 
That will help, but don’t discard the unsold homes entirely. Completed transactions tell you what cleared; active, expired or withdrawn listings show what did not. Increased selectivity could appear in both the sold discount and the proportion that fails to reach a deal.
 
Also avoid treating an 8.0% ask-to-sale difference as an 8.0% fall in property values. Sellers can begin above what comparable buyers will pay. You would need matched sales over time to say the underlying market moved by that amount.
 
Using a band around $1,145,000 makes sense, but keep it narrow enough that the properties remain comparable. If the band captures substantially different homes, condition and location will overwhelm the pricing pattern you are trying to identify.
 
The “needs work” category needs consistent criteria too. Cosmetic presentation and major unfinished work should not sit in one bucket. Buyers may tolerate one while discounting the other sharply, which could explain the split without any broader change in Seattle demand.
 
For the seasonal question, compare December 2025 with equivalent periods rather than the immediately preceding busier months. Use the same definitions each time. If transaction counts are thin, report the distribution and outliers instead of forcing a single percentage.
 
Policy timing should only enter the explanation if there was a specific change whose effective date overlaps these listings and completions. Otherwise it becomes an easy story attached after the fact. First see whether the pattern survives the neighbourhood and condition splits.
 
One more complication: price history. A relisted property can appear new even though it has been seeking a buyer for much longer. Record reductions and relisting gaps, or both the 88 days and the 8.0% figure may understate the seller’s full journey.
 
Are the December 2025 figures final, or could some statuses and completed prices still be updated? Preserve the date when each entry was recorded. That makes later revisions visible instead of silently changing the result.
 
Could the OP post a few anonymised rows once the table is cleaned? No addresses are needed—just neighbourhood grouping, condition category, dates and the three prices. That would let members test whether the apparent discount is broad or driven by one or two properties.
 
The practical conclusion so far is narrower than “buyers became selective.” The saved listings suggest a split worth investigating, but sample size, December timing, listing revisions, condition and geography could each create it. A paired transaction table should show which explanation survives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top