Price drops in and around Rotterdam
More homes in and around Rotterdam whose asking price was recently cut.
BETA: Below are risk factors that can negatively affect this home's value. Note: the data below may be incomplete (some homes are missing data), may contain errors and is not always up to date. Points of interest in the neighbourhood may be missing or incorrect. The figures and estimates are indicative and open to interpretation. No rights can be derived from them. Always do your own research.
Albertina Sisulupad 212
Apartment at Albertina Sisulupad 212 in Rotterdam (Afrikaanderwijk neighbourhood). The home was built in 2025 and has 141 m² of living space, 2 bedrooms and energy label A+. The nearest railway station is Rijnhaven (372 m). The nearest primary school is Nelson Mandela (90 m).
Price & status history
- Relisted21 Jun 2026€ 519,500−€ 53,000
- Relisted18 Jun 2026€ 572,500+€ 47,500
- Listed for sale3 Jun 2026€ 525,000
Property details
- Living area
- 141 m²
- Construction year
- 2025
- Property type
- Apartment
- Bedrooms
- 2
- Energy label
- A+
- WOZ value
- € 423,000
- Ownership
- Freehold
- Estate agent
- —
Age composition of the neighbourhood
Share of residents per age group in Afrikaanderwijk, compared with the Dutch average. Source: CBS.
Features
- Number of hazardous businesses within 1 km
- Multiple within 1 km2
- Serious noise nuisance from neighbours (neighbourhood)
- Much neighbour nuisance8.5%
- Odour nuisance sewerage/water treatment (% seriously bothered)
- High3%
- Odour nuisance from road traffic (% seriously affected)
- High4%
- Apparent temperature on a sunny day
- Extreme heat stress50 °C
- Large industrial businesses within 5 km
- Heavy industry nearby13
- Heat stress class
- Extreme heat stress (level 2)extreem_2
- PFAS measurement above norm (closest)
- Above the standardYes
- Can find cooling outside the home
- Few people find cooling outside33.3%
- Able to find cooling in the property
- Few people can cool off indoors35.6%
- Zoning purpose (main category)
- Residential arearesidential area
- Building status
- In useBuilding in use
- Plot area (cadastral plot)
- Very generous plot6,218 m²
- Plan status
- Finalfinal
- Calculated CO₂ emissions
- Low emissions9 kg/m2/yr
- Energy index (primary fossil)
- Efficient (label A/B)41 kWh/m²/yr
- Energy label
- EconomicalA+
- Avg. natural gas consumption
- Economical420 m³
- WOZ value year-on-year change (municipality)
- Rising property values9.4%
- Background concentration SO₂
- Very low0.996 µg/m³
Stations
Construction plans & permits in the neighbourhood
Tap a category to show or hide it.
9 permits · 1 construction plan within 500 m · 28 zoning plan amendments within 5 km. Click the map for each permit’s description.
Schools
15th percentile — low · LIB · grade 8: 39 pupils · total 320 pupils
Disadvantage score 75 — more disadvantage than 94% of schools
83rd percentile — high · LIB · grade 8: 37 pupils · total 328 pupils
Disadvantage score 76 — more disadvantage than 94% of schools
23rd percentile — low · IEP · grade 8: 22 pupils · total 193 pupils
Disadvantage score 57 — more disadvantage than 88% of schools
5th percentile — low · IEP · grade 8: 22 pupils · total 189 pupils
Disadvantage score 46 — more disadvantage than 82% of schools
67th percentile — average · LIB · grade 8: 66 pupils · total 551 pupils
Disadvantage score 45 — more disadvantage than 82% of schools
71st percentile — average · IEP · grade 8: 10 pupils · total 151 pupils
Disadvantage score 49 — more disadvantage than 84% of schools
51st percentile — average · IEP · grade 8: 36 pupils · total 231 pupils
Disadvantage score 86 — more disadvantage than 96% of schools
61st percentile — average · IEP · grade 8: 18 pupils · total 205 pupils
Disadvantage score 54 — more disadvantage than 87% of schools
12th percentile — low · IEP · grade 8: 23 pupils · total 201 pupils
Disadvantage score 82 — more disadvantage than 96% of schools
7th percentile — low · LIB · grade 8: 43 pupils · total 268 pupils
Disadvantage score 105 — more disadvantage than 98% of schools
62nd percentile — average · 93% passed · CE avg 6.5 · VBO/MAVO/HAVO/VWO · 112 exam candidates
31st percentile — average · 88% passed · CE avg 6.4 · VBO/MAVO · 95 exam candidates
47th percentile — average · 93% passed · CE avg 6.4 · VBO/MAVO · 146 exam candidates
9th percentile — low · 83% passed · CE avg 6.2 · VBO/MAVO/HAVO/VWO · 163 exam candidates
87th percentile — high · 100% passed · CE avg 6.6 · VBO/MAVO · 87 exam candidates
no exam results · VWO
81st percentile — high · 98% passed · CE avg 6.6 · VBO/MAVO/HAVO/VWO · 132 exam candidates
95th percentile — high · 97% passed · CE avg 6.8 · VWO · 76 exam candidates
97th percentile — high · 100% passed · CE avg 6.8 · VBO/MAVO · 148 exam candidates
no exam results · VBO/MAVO/HAVO/VWO
Source: DUO Open Education Data · raw figures, not adjusted for the pupil population.