Price drops in and around Amsterdam
More homes in and around Amsterdam 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.
Glitterstraat 190
Apartment at Glitterstraat 190 in Amsterdam (Grunder/Koningshoef neighbourhood). The home was built in 2007 and has 96 m² of living space, 3 bedrooms and energy label A. The nearest railway station is Ganzenhoef (458 m). The nearest primary school is Openbare basisschool Wereldwijs (440 m).
Price & status history
- Relisted2 Jul 2026€ 425,000−€ 20,000
- Listed for sale3 Jun 2026€ 445,000
Property details
- Living area
- 96 m²
- Construction year
- 2007
- Property type
- Apartment
- Bedrooms
- 3
- Energy label
- A
- WOZ value
- € 480,000
- Ownership
- Leasehold
- Estate agent
- —
Age composition of the neighbourhood
Share of residents per age group in Grunder/Koningshoef, compared with the Dutch average. Source: CBS.
Features
- Share of renewable energy
- Low share renewable0%
- Odour nuisance sewerage/water treatment (% seriously bothered)
- High2.1%
- Odour nuisance from road traffic (% seriously affected)
- High3.2%
- Apparent temperature on a sunny day
- Extreme heat stress43 °C
- Heat stress class
- Extreme heat stress (level 1)extreem_1
- Aircraft movements per hour (nearest airport)
- Very busy54.1 per hour
- Residents in 100m grid cell
- Very densely populated155 persons
- Liveability score
- clearly below average-0.1398 score
- Score nearest primary school (percentile)
- Low (bottom quarter)19%
- Satisfied with the property (neighbourhood)
- Bottom 25% (lowest satisfaction)87.8%
- Zoning purpose (main category)
- Residential designationresidential
- Building status
- In useBuilding in use
- Plot area (cadastral plot)
- Very generous plot1,193 m²
- Calculated CO₂ emissions
- Low emissions20 kg/m2/yr
- Energy index (primary fossil)
- Efficient (label A/B)109 kWh/m²/yr
- Energy label
- EconomicalA
- WOZ value year-on-year change (municipality)
- Rising property values11%
- Number of hazardous businesses within 1 km
- None in the neighbourhood0
- Background concentration SO₂
- Very low0.509 µg/m³
- Distance to waste incineration facility
- Far away15.5 km
Stations
Construction plans & permits in the neighbourhood
Tap a category to show or hide it.
5 permits · 1 construction plan within 500 m · 23 zoning plan amendments within 5 km. Click the map for each permit’s description.
Schools
19th percentile — low · IEP · grade 8: 43 pupils · total 454 pupils
Disadvantage score 48 — more disadvantage than 83% of schools
21st percentile — low · LIB · grade 8: 62 pupils · total 511 pupils
Disadvantage score 168 — more disadvantage than 100% of schools
52nd percentile — average · LIB · grade 8: 18 pupils · total 188 pupils
Disadvantage score 75 — more disadvantage than 94% of schools
14th percentile — low · LIB · grade 8: 28 pupils · total 211 pupils
Disadvantage score 88 — more disadvantage than 96% of schools
3rd percentile — low · LIB · grade 8: 37 pupils · total 331 pupils
Disadvantage score 114 — more disadvantage than 99% of schools
6th percentile — low · LIB · grade 8: 26 pupils · total 179 pupils
Disadvantage score 77 — more disadvantage than 95% of schools
5th percentile — low · LIB · grade 8: 20 pupils · total 253 pupils
Disadvantage score 65 — more disadvantage than 91% of schools
44th percentile — average · LIB · grade 8: 35 pupils · total 264 pupils
Disadvantage score 28 — more disadvantage than 69% of schools
10th percentile — low · LIB · grade 8: 26 pupils · total 269 pupils
Disadvantage score 40 — more disadvantage than 79% of schools
77th percentile — high · LIB · grade 8: 38 pupils · total 227 pupils
Disadvantage score 64 — more disadvantage than 91% of schools
4th percentile — low · 81% passed · CE avg 6.0 · VBO/MAVO/HAVO/VWO · 282 exam candidates
2nd percentile — low · 79% passed · CE avg 5.8 · VBO/MAVO · 33 exam candidates
25th percentile — low · 95% passed · CE avg 6.1 · VBO/MAVO/HAVO · 38 exam candidates
no exam results · VBO/MAVO/HAVO/VWO
no exam results · HAVO/VWO
no exam results · PRO
1st percentile — low · 69% passed · CE avg 5.9 · VBO/MAVO/HAVO/VWO · 118 exam candidates
6th percentile — low · 86% passed · CE avg 6.0 · VBO/MAVO/HAVO/VWO · 7 exam candidates
39th percentile — average · 90% passed · CE avg 6.4 · VBO/MAVO/HAVO/VWO · 271 exam candidates
2nd percentile — low · 76% passed · CE avg 5.9 · VBO/MAVO/HAVO/VWO · 130 exam candidates
Source: DUO Open Education Data · raw figures, not adjusted for the pupil population.