Valuation check: 140 m² new-build flat in Lisbon, asking €823,400?

[CleverEmber]

I’m assessing a 5-bed new-build flat in Lisbon, approximately 140 m², asking €823,400. Light and location appear to be its strongest features, while the finishes look dated or at least below what I would expect from the description. Transaction costs would also sit outside my valuation.

I found three asking-price comparables but only one completed sale. The asking price works out at roughly €5,881 per m², though I do not want to rely on that figure without adjusting for size and condition. What adjustment range would you use, and which missing fact would most change your view? I’m assigning nothing to future appreciation and will obtain a formal local appraisal before relying on a figure.

 

[measureTheFlag]

I would anchor to the completed sale, not the three asking prices, then reconcile the differences property by property. For condition, estimated remedial costs are more defensible than an arbitrary percentage—especially if “dated” means cosmetic rather than defective. The missing fact most likely to overturn the result is the precise micro-location. Lisbon-wide price-per-m² comparisons can hide major differences between streets and buildings.

 

[story.sharp]

Before adjusting for floor area, what does the 140 m² include? If one listing reports internal space while another includes circulation, storage or other areas, the apparent discount or premium may be meaningless. I’d also want to know whether the flat has parking or private outdoor space and whether those features are included in the comparable prices.

 

[bakesAndView]

I’m less comfortable than Camila with treating one completed sale as an anchor. It may be the best evidence available, but a single sale can still be a poor match. Also, “new-build” and “dated finishes” pull in opposite directions. Is this newly completed, an older unsold unit, or simply a recently refurbished flat being marketed as new? That answer affects how I’d grade the condition.

 

[fair_bridge]

Exact street, floor and position within the building would matter more to me than a broad condition adjustment. The stated strength is light, but that needs to be tested against orientation, outlook and whether another building could obstruct it. I’d also compare service charges. A superficially similar flat can carry a meaningfully different ongoing cost, which buyers may reflect in offers.

 

[fair_bridge]

On condition, I would use scenarios rather than one percentage: as-present value, value after cosmetic updating, and value if the finishes indicate more substantial work. Deduct the expected work and an allowance for disruption from the improved figure, without assuming the whole cost is recovered. Keep transaction costs separate so you can distinguish the property’s value from the total cash required.

 

[SmallChart]

Why is lease length among the possible missing facts? If there is a lease or another limitation on the interest being sold, that could dominate every per-m² adjustment. If it is a conventional flat sale and lease length is not applicable, I would remove it rather than importing assumptions from another market. The ownership documents and any restrictions should be clarified locally.

 

[SmallChart]

Beatriz’s scenario approach also exposes how thin the evidence is. I’d make a comparison sheet with the completed sale first, then the three asking comparables, recording area definition, exact micro-location, floor, light, parking, outdoor space, condition and service charges. Only adjust items you can describe consistently. With no appreciation in the base case, any acceptable offer then has to work on today’s evidence and total acquisition cost.