Blog Layout

Rainbow Row Market Value

Paul Attaway • Feb 15, 2022

Would you spend $200,000 for all the homes on Rainbow Row?

It seems like every week, in conversation with friends, someone says: “Did you hear what the Jones’ got for their house?” 


Residential real estate markets everywhere are red-hot. The unprecedented demographic changes occurring in our country are driving values in some places to all-time highs as everyone wants to move from here to there. The City of Charleston is a beneficiary of these changes. 


My wife and I have lived in Charleston off and on for seven years and made it our permanent residence a little over a year ago. On one of our walks recently, we saw the usual crowds taking photos in front of Rainbow Row and I started wondering what these homes were worth before they became Rainbow Row and what they are worth today. 


But what is Rainbow Row? Rainbow Row is a stretch of thirteen buildings and fourteen homes[1] on the west side of East Bay Street north of Tradd Street and south of Elliot Street overlooking the Cooper River as it pours into the Charleston Harbor.


The definition of iconic is “relating to or the nature of”. Rainbow Row certainly meets this definition for it encapsulates the nature and history of Charleston. Beginning in 1931, a row of homes on the west side of East Bay with street addresses running from 79 through 107 were renovated by private citizens dedicated to restoring these homes to their former glory. The same can be said for the City of Charleston over the last ninety years.


The homes comprising Rainbow Row were part of the original land grant to the Lords Proprietors in 1663, were built in the 18th century, and have survived and/or suffered extensive damage from two major fires that ravaged the City (1740 and 1778) and an earthquake in 1886. These buildings were initially built to serve as both residential and commercial structures. The wealthy owners lived upstairs and operated businesses on the ground floor. Owing to their proximity to the wharfs, most of the businesses catered to the international trade occurring in the harbor.



Overtime, the businesses suffered and as result so did the home values. The businesses suffered for two reasons. First, the wharfs moved upriver to more navigable locations and so too did the associated businesses. Secondly, and more importantly, the Civil War devastated the City of Charleston. Once the wealthiest city in the colonies, Charleston was now a backwater town struggling to find an industry around which to grow. As a port city, it was no longer a desirable destination. Quite simply, what we now know as Rainbow Row was a rundown part of town occupied by tenement housing. 


Things began to change in 1931, when several forward-thinking women started purchasing and renovating the homes. The first to do so was Dorothy Porcher Legge. On June 1, 1931, she purchased 99-101 East Bay, renovated the home, and painted it a pastel pink as a nod to Charleston’s Colonial-era, Caribbean roots. She also wanted to brighten up the neighborhood; most of the other homes were a drab grey.  Others, including Susan Pringle Frost and Louise Graves, followed in her footsteps, renovating homes on the same stretch, and painting them the various pastel colors of blue, green, yellow, and pink.


So, what are these homes worth today? I looked up the addresses on Zillow. Therefore, for what worth Zillow is, here are the values of the 14 homes:


  • Total Value:  $37,437,600   
  • Highest value of any one home on the Row per square foot:  $1,038
  • Lowest value of any one home on the Row per square foot:  $536
  • Average square foot price of the homes on the Row:  $782


To determine the value of the homes when they were purchased, I had to do a little digging. My goal was to determine the market value of the homes comprising Rainbow Row in 1931 in total and on a square foot basis. I visited the Register of Deeds Office for the County of Charleston at the northwest corner of Meeting and Broad Street. The computerized records for most of the homes only go back to the 1990s. However, I did find a few recorded Deeds of Trust on microfiche and was able to learn what some of the homes sold for. 


The two oldest sales I found on record were for 105 East Bay and 99-101 East Bay. In 1932, 105 East Bay sold for $500 or $0.25/sf. Either this sale was effectively a gift, or the house was so rundown as to be uninhabitable. On June 1, 1931, the transformation of this row of homes was kicked off with Dorothy Porcher Legge’s purchase of 99-101 East Bay for $8,300 or $4.18 per square foot. Some of the other homes on the block were purchased by simply paying the back taxes so the per-square-foot-price Mrs. Legge paid would have been high by comparison. 


In a Google search, I found a WSJ Report that listed the average size of a newly built home in 1931 as 1,213 square feet and the average median home value as $5,609 or $4.62 per square foot. Given that the home at 99-101 East Bay is listed on Zillow today as 4,150 square feet in size, the price Mrs. Legge paid seems low on a square-foot basis compared to the nationwide average assuming the house at 99-101 today is substantially the same size as it was in 1931. But since this stretch of East Bay was largely abandoned and run down, the price seems right.


So, if we simply use the square-foot price Mrs. Legge paid for 99-101 East Bay in 1931 as our baseline, and we assume that the total square footage of the fourteen homes has not changed dramatically, we can conclude that in 1931, the homes comprising Rainbow Row had a market value of: $202,736


The value of these homes has increased by a factor of 185 times. Had you purchased all thirteen buildings in 1931 and sold them today, your ROI would be 18,366%. I recognize that I have excluded from the cost of the investment the property taxes paid over the years and the renovation and maintenance costs, but I thought this was a fun exercise, nevertheless.


Some things never change (or is it that the more things change, the more they stay the same), including that Charleston is a charming city, and the wisdom of the adage, buy low and sell high.




[1]
 The number of homes has changed over time from 13 to 14 as structures under one roof have been broken out into two addresses or two addresses have been combined into one home.


By Paul Attaway 28 Jul, 2022
We all know what fiction is and we have a general understanding of what historical fiction is – narratives that take place in the past and involve an imaginative reconstruction of events and/or characters, real or imagined. But what do we call a story set in the not-so-distant past? Before considering a definition, let’s look more closely at historical fiction.
By Paul Attaway 28 Jul, 2022
A Lesson From Lewis Carroll: RESEARCH IS THE ESSENTIAL RABBIT HOLE FOR ANY WRITER
By Paul Attaway 16 Jun, 2022
This week the U.S. Open returns to The Country Club in Baseline, Massachusetts, and it seems fitting as recent events in the world of professional golf have highlighted what it means to be a professional golfer and launched conversations as to why we love and play the game. It seems fitting because in 1913, twenty-year old amateur Francis Ouimet [1] , shocked the world beating the best in the game at The Country Club to become the first amateur and only the second American to win the US Open, a tournament that had been played since 1895, and in the process wrote chapter one of the story in this country of what it means to be a professional athlete. Last week, the upstart tour, LIV, hosted its first tournament. The tour is underwritten by the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund which means the players are being paid by Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, MBS to his friends, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. This blog post is not about the propriety of accepting pay from the ruler of an authoritarian nation, not that the questions surrounding the payor and his motives aren’t important or worthy of discussion, but because that’s not what I want to write about today. No, today, I’ve been thinking about the essence of competition, what we love about it and how it plays out in the game of golf specifically. The Spirit of Competition From the game’s inception, money has been wagered on the outcome and the primary form of competition is what we call match play. The winner is the player who wins the most holes regardless of the total score at the end of the round. In match play there’s only one winner. Match play is still the most popular form of competition. At public and private courses around the country today amateurs playing weekend golf are likely to wager with friends using a match play format. Even today, a Scottish town may have one public golf course, but it could have had multiple private golf clubs all sharing the same course, and from the earliest days, these clubs would host tournaments, each club putting up their best players against the other clubs’ best. Further, it was not uncommon for the members of a club to send their best to a neighboring town to play a match or series of matches against a team sponsored by another club. The winner might receive a jacket, a cup, trophy, or medal of some sort. In some cases, a small cash prize would be paid, the money for which had been collected from the club’s membership. Membership in these clubs was typically reserved for the wealthiest, people who could spend the time required to master the game. Often, the club would send their head pro to compete for the club. In those cases, the membership would cover the player’s travel expenses. The point being, though, there was only winner; no second place. The Spirit of the Game and the Professional Golfer In the late 1800s and early 1900s, many of the world’s top golfers were amateurs and the professional golfer was the club pro who made his living as the head professional at a private club. His duties would have included making clubs and giving lessons. When Francis Ouimet won the US Open in 1913, nearly every golf professional was an employee of a private club and frankly they were looked down on as second-class citizens. As the game of golf exploded in this country following Francis Ouimet’s victory and the prospects of someone making a living playing tournament materialized, much was written about the beauty and purity of the amateur playing for the love of the game as contrasted with the professional who plays for money. Buried in these words is a fair amount of class-based elitism. Amateurs competing on the world stage at the time were wealthy men who could afford to join private clubs and take hours off to play the game each week. Simply stated, they looked down on working-class people and that’s what a professional was, working class. That’s all the more reason why Francis Ouimet’s victory was so shocking; he was an amateur for sure, but he was poor and from a working-class family. He was not your traditional, wealthy amateur. The arrogance of the guardians of the game was on full display when in 1916 the USGA stripped Francis Ouimet of his amateur status because they concluded he was profiting off his fame by using it to promote the success of his sporting goods store. A few years later, in response to an outpouring of support for Ouimet, the USGA quietly reversed its decision. (Francis Ouimet continued to compete as an Amateur and won the US Amateur Championship in 1931.) While elitism still exists today throughout our culture, in the game of golf, the professional reigns supreme. The attitude towards the professional golfer began to change in the 1930s and 1940s and the great amateur Bobby Jones was instrumental in that change. Around this time, a yearlong tournament schedule was developed, and it became possible for a player to make a living travelling the country playing tournament golf. Match play gave way to stroke play as the dominant form of competition as TV became a larger presence and it was deemed that stroke play was an easier format around which to develop a television audience. For the tour to survive, however, players must have a realistic chance of making enough money even if they don’t win. So, today, a purse is divided up amongst the top finishers at a tournament. But still, the better you play, the more you make. So, while you no longer need to place first to win money, the spirit of the competition was still there. Furthermore, there was no guaranteed money. Often, you had to qualify on a Monday to play in the tournament and then if you did, you had to make the cut after the first two days if you were to make any money. Yes, the spirit of competition survived. Now don’t get me wrong. I know how much money the top players make today; they’re not struggling to survive, but they had to work hard, and they earned their money by winning regularly. Nevertheless, the tour can be grueling because if you don’t make the cut after the Thursday and Friday rounds, you don’t get paid and then you move on to the next tournament, often the very next week. The PGA Tour does provide a pension for its members. However, your payout is a function of what you put in: the number of tournaments you play, the number of cuts you make, the number of Wednesday Pro-Ams you play, and how well you do in the tournaments, for instance. In other words, the better you perform, the more you make. I haven’t even touched on what it takes to become a PGA Tour Member. The competition is intense. Playing for more than just money But the PGA Tour and European Tour player is also playing for more than just money. They are playing for their place in history. Great tradition surrounds many of the stops on these tours. And then there are the Majors: The Open, The US Open, the PGA Championship and The Masters. Finally, two of the most pressure packed events are the Ryder Cup and the Presidents Cup, biannual tournaments played between the best players from the United States against the best European players and the best players from the rest of the world, respectively. There are no cash prizes at these two events. Just pride, national pride. Although golf is a solitary game – you against the course or you against another player or the field – and it might appear as if you are only playing for yourself, I don’t think that’s the case. From the earliest days, golfers played for their town or their club. Today, weekend golfers put together bets by which your foursome is playing another foursome. Professional golfers today compete for their country in the Olympics, the Ryder Cup and the Presidents Cup. Even PGA Members who when tournaments seemingly for themselves are elevating the stature of the PGA Tour which benefits not just themselves but their fellow Tour members. The LIV Tour So, what to make of the LIV Tour? Last weekend, the LIV hosted its first tournament and the field of 48 players included a few big names such as Dustin Johnson and a host of names that only the most ardent golf fan would have recognized. The players were paid to join the tour and last place at the event earned $120,000. At the Canadian Open being played at the same time, five players tied for 48 th place and each one took home $22,567. If you missed the cut that week then you made nothing. The Canadian Open has been played since 1904 and former winners include: Walter Hagen, Sam Snead, Byron Nelson, Arnold Palmer, Lee Trevino, Nick price, Jim Furyk, and Tiger Woods. Jack Nicklaus has seven runner-up finishes at The Canadian Open. On the LIV Tour, you get paid to show up, win or lose. Who cares? I guess we’re supposed to be impressed by the great play. I love golf but am the first to admit that I rarely watch it on TV beyond the majors, which, by the way, are acknowledged as minor national holidays in our household. I watch the majors because of the tradition, the history, and the stakes other than the money. Yes, I watch because they are the best players in the world but also because they are putting themselves out there. They eat what they kill. And simply stated, some tournaments just mean more than others. The competition on the PGA Tour and the European Tour is real. The nerves are real. Especially at the Ryder Cup and Presidents Cup. How can I get excited about watching folks play golf when they can finish dead last and still get paid and would have already been paid just for foregoing another tour? Independent Contractors, they say The players that have fled the PGA and European Tours for the safety of the LIV Tour make a lot of noise about being independent contractors and claim that means they should be able to do what they want. Yes, members of the PGA Tour are independent contractors and, yes, they are contractually obligated to enter a minimum number of tournaments each year, but I wonder if Dustin Johnson and Phil Mickelson are independent contractors anymore. We’ve read that Mickelson was paid $200 million to join LIV. Was he wired this money in one lump sum a few weeks ago or will it be paid out over time? I have a feeling it will be paid out over time and that he is obligated to play in the tournaments and promote the LIV Tour. Sounds to me more like he’s an employee of Mohammad bin Salman. The PGA has suspended Phil. I wonder what MBS will do if Phil decides to stop playing in his tournaments? For the love of the game In 1913, an amateur shocked the golf world. The romance of playing purely for the love of the game gave way to the reality that only a handful of people could spend their lives playing golf without a financial care in the world and room for the professional was accommodated. With the ascendency of the professional, an amateur hasn’t challenged the top players since the days of Bobby Jones but that’s okay. When I watch the world’s best golfers competing to win a trophy on a famous course that was previously won by Walter Hagen, Jack Nicklaus, or Ben Hogan for instance, I see players playing not just for the money but for the love of the game and for their place in history. I’m heading to the driving range now. I’m playing tomorrow, and in my foursome, we will throw balls up on the first tee to determine teams and then compete in a $20 Nassau. Second place gets nothing! [1] The story was immortalized by Mark Frost in his book, The Greatest Game Ever Played: Harry Vardon, Francis Ouimet, and the Birth of Modern Golf and popularized by the movie The Greatest Game Ever Played, based on the book.
Show More
Share by:
Book a Tour