It’s not too difficult to interpret our MLS’ guidelines for showing Square Footage in our listings. And for the new townhomes we list and build, it’s especially simple since we have building plans to work with. I’ve talked about this before, most recently on Rain City Guide.
The way to do it “right” is pretty logical. List your Finished Square Footage “SFF” (nearly all townhomes are 100% finished), take that total to your Total Square Footage “ASF” field (approximate square footage), and you’re done. The ASF is the critical field as this is what gets put into the Square Footage line in all listings as they get fed into the online database, and it’s the denominator in the price/psf calculation that all buyers see in the MLS listing.
The temptation that many agents (and I assume, their builder clients) fall prey to is including the garage square footage in the ASF total as a way to appear larger. As an example, I have a listing here that is a 2 bedroom townhome, with 1010′. At our list price of $325,000 that works out to be $321/psf. If I add in my 215′ garage, that figure drops to $265/psf. What a better deal! Except my garage shouldn’t be counted as finished or unfinished “living” space.
Here’s the skinny from the MLS on the topic:
NWMLS Legal Bulletin 15:
SFF – Finished: Does not include attics and basements unless they are finished living space. For instance, if there is a furnace in the middle of the room or it is suitable only for storage, do not treat the room as finished living space. Let your common sense guide you.
SFU – Unfinished: Unfinished, but potentially livable rooms should be in the “SFU – Unfinished” category. If the attic or basement has a ceiling which is too low for anyone but kids to walk around without bending over, do not include it in the unfinished or any other category. The test is whether it is potentially livable space. Such praises as “nice large storage attic” are common and should not result in any problem. Again, let your common sense guide your conclusions.
Garages: DO NOT INCLUDE THE GARAGE in the total square footage, even if it is in the basement. The same is true of carports. The listing will show whether or not there is a garage. If you feel compelled to say more than “two car garage,” do so in the “Remarks” section.
ASF – Total: Add together the finished and unfinished space to get the “ASF – Total.”
There are about 160 townhome listings in North Seattle right now — about 16% of the residential market. In reviewing EACH of these, one by one, I’ve found that about 60% of the agents do it the right way. Here are the five star agents (and the builders they represent) who are giving the public what they want: Accurate information!
Doug Holman, RPA – Real Property Development Company (this is us…)
Steve Kennedy, Re/Max – Howland Homes
Gabe Rosenshine, Alchemy Real Estate — Great Northern Land Co., Creative Builders, Howland Homes (and others). Greg says he’s a huge proponent of accurately showing the true square footage and not including garages.
Greg Stamolis — DPA Construction, Noland Homes, and others. In speaking with Greg he was also vehement about doing it right.
Michael Chou, Re/Max — Ashworth Homes, RPDC, others
Mike Peters, Re/Max — Ashworth Homes, others
Stuart Vincent, Windermere — Seaquest Homes, Seattle Signature Homes
Bob Bennion, Windermere — Farrow Homes
I’m sure there are other agents that are doing it as prescribed, but these guys jumped out while I was doing the search and talking to them about their processes.
At the other end of the spectrum there are a few agents who should know better, showing garage square footage as part of the total square footage. And worse, they’re doing it without even disclosing that fact. Maybe my next post will be to point out these offenders and the builders who are either telling them to do it that way, or not telling them not to.
A few builders that I spoke with said “I’d do it right if everyone else did, but I don’t want to be at a competitive disadvantage because my square footage looks less than the guy who is including his garage.”
If everyone did it the same, this wouldn’t be an issue. I think that consumers are more and more demanding accurate, precise information. Before they ever visit a townhome they’ve seen it online, and they are entitled to get good, unqualified information that can be relied upon from all sources.

Unfortunately this is a problem in new construction up and down the price ladder (not just townhomes) and resales too. It can become particularly pronounced when a 3 bay 900 sq. foot garage is being added to the heated figure. I watched a Lake Forest Park new construction home get listed 3 different times with 3 different totals. In resale homes, often without the benefit of archtectual plans or appraisal, being accurate can be more difficult but most agents still err on the side of misleading figures. Any agent who’s been around the block knows a 1968 style 16 in Maple leaf is not really 1820 square feet above grade as advertised. It’s a 910 square foot above grade footprint with a lower level that requires investigation.
Comment by Doug Holman — June 8, 2008 @ 9:34 am
As an appraiser I am not an expert on quantity take off and I will use the architects data. If I have to perform quantity take off on a building and determine area myself I will put a special assumption in the appraisal report stating so and that I could be wrong. My E&O insurance will not cover me for this so I have to do this. Also, I frequently see condo declaration maps that disagree on area quantity with the architect (crazy but common). In this case I will put a special assumption that one party is correct and if this proves wrong the report is invalid.
On a grammatical note I have to say I am opposed to use of the term “square footage”. It seems this is a spoken term that has become part of the language. I refer to the writing guide “Elements of Style” which cautions that just because you can say it does not mean you should write it. Thus, this term does not appear in any of my appraisal reports. E.G.: “a subject property can contain 600 SF”, or more precisely, 600 square feet.
Finally, the mathematical notation in the article should be corrected: Do not write $321 psf or $321/psf (ughh!). Rather, you should write $325 per square foot or $321/SF. Remember, you you are presenting a ratio which includes numerator and denomonator. This can also be stated as (321)x($1/1SF).
Play golf!
Comment by Norm Strickland, MAI — July 16, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
Norm, thanks for visiting the blog and for the grammatical tips. I haven’t been so enlightened since Karen Mikolasy’s AP English class back in ‘79!
Comment by seattlebroker — July 17, 2008 @ 9:09 pm