Area home-sale deals show another monthly increase

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Home-sale agreements in the Indianapolis area rose nearly 12 percent in October compared with the same month last year, marking the sixth straight month of year-over-year increases.

In the nine-county metropolitan area, sales agreements climbed to 1,541 last month, an increase of 163 from the same time last year, according to a report released Thursday by F.C. Tucker Co., the city's largest residential real estate firm.

Year-to-date sales agreements are down 1.2 percent from the same period in 2010.

Jim Litten, president of F.C. Tucker, attributed the improvement in the housing market in part to historically low mortgage rates.

“An increase in sales prices and tightening inventory are both signs of a stabilizing housing market,” he said in a prepared statement.

Year-to-date average sale prices are up 1.4 percent in 2011, from $150,333 to $152,371.

Available homes for sale in the nine-county region dropped 12.5 percent in October, with 13,972 homes on the market, 2,019 fewer than in October 2010.

Marion County saw a 13.3-percent increase in October sales agreements from a year earlier, from 617 to 699.

The number of sales agreements in the residential hotbed of Hamilton County, though, dropped 8.1 percent, from 297 to 273.

Hendricks County saw a 33.6-percent increase in sale agreements, from 107 to 143.



  • Spoofing about real estate recovery
    Someone has to have it wrong: Recently, Yahoo claimed that Indianapolis was one of the worst real estate markets. Now, this article suggests that a recovery is underway. Someone has to be incorrect.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

  2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

  3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

  4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

  5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.