This 2-Bedroom St. Michael’s Loft is $51,100 Under the 2001 Price: 1660 N. Hudson in Old Town
This 2-bedroom St. Michael’s loft at 1660 N. Hudson in Old Town has been on the market since February 2012.
In that time it has been reduced to $309,900, which is $51,100 under the 2001 price.
No, it’s not a short sale nor is it bank owned.
The loft has 14 foot high ceilings with large windows.
The listing says there is a “new kitchen” with cherry cabinets and stainless steel appliances.
The second bedroom is lofted and open to the rest of the unit. According to the notes left by Redfin agents on the unit, the lofted bedroom has shorter ceiling heights (maybe around 6 feet?).
In the pictures, the lofted bedroom appears to be used as a family room.
The loft has central air, washer/dryer in the unit and head, indoor garage parking.
Is this a deal for the location?
Paul Gorney at Prudential Rubloff has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #2J: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed
- Sold in December 1988 for $223,000
- Sold in July 1998 for $247,000
- Sold in July 2001 for $361,000
- Originally listed in February 2012 for $344,900
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $309,900 (includes parking)
- Assessments of $470 a month (includes cable)
- Taxes of $5208
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 16×16 (main level)
- Bedroom #2: 12×17 (second level)
Given what other units in the building are under contract for, this seems like a good price even though it seems to lack outdoor space. Certainly this seller is more realistic than thier neighbor with a 3/3 asking well over $900k and expecting more than they paid in 2008!
The low celing in the second “bedroom” stinks, but if you are couple looking for a 1 bedroom with extra space, this isn’t a bad place.
If this unit gives head, that could certainly sweeten the deal too!
“The loft has central air, washer/dryer in the unit and head, indoor garage parking.”
“Given what other units in the building are under contract for…”
You don’t know what the other units in the building are under contract for. MLS does not show the contract price – it shows only a closed sale price after the transaction is closed. I’ve told you this before, but you don’t seem to understand it, and you keep saying it wrong here.
Lacking outdoor space, and a real second bedroom is not ideal, but I think this will sell near ask.
I never said that I knew the contract price. You are taking my word far to literal. However, if the condo is listed at $399k and under contract that means the buyer and seller found a mutually agreeable price which most likely is not significantly lower than the list price otherwise the seller wouldn’t have priced it where he or she did. You cannot tell the price until after closing, but in most cases it will not be more or less than maybe 10% or so from list. Of course there are exceptions, but they are exactly that.
You don’t know what the other units in the building are under contract for. MLS does not show the contract price – it shows only a closed sale price after the transaction is closed. I’ve told you this before, but you don’t seem to understand it, and you keep saying it wrong here.
I’m going ot sotp commenting as much because my reaciton si the same: uggggly and over pirced. All in after gut rehab would be 550k
pardon my spelling
“pardon my spelling”
Yeah, watch it bub, everyone knows there are 7 g’s in ugggggggly.
“You cannot tell the price until after closing, but in most cases it will not be more or less than maybe 10% or so from list. Of course there are exceptions, but they are exactly that.”
Chicago sfh/condo/th closed in February 2012:
Total 1,224
Median SP as % of LP = 95.8%
Average SP as % of LP = 94.4%
% of total closed at +/- 10% of LP = 71.8%
is there anything worse than those cheap fireplaces in all these new (cheap) ass condos?
G, out ouf curiousity, if 71.8% were within +/- 10% of LP, how about 15 and 20%? I’m curious if those outside 10% are way outside or pretty close.
Thanks!
Strange, living in an ex-church has its appeal, but living in an ex-parochial school is just appalling.
I wonder why the ’88 buyer saw so little price appreciation. Unlucky timing?
“I never said that I knew the contract price. You are taking my word far to literal”
“Given what other units in the building are under contract for” does indeed mean that the price is exactly known, not that you are making some guess based on the list price or other assumptions. That’s what the “given…” construction means. Just admit that you’re wrong or misspoke, it’s not a big deal, sorry I was a dick before but I’m just correcting wrong information and apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of the list price in a pending listing.
I will admit I misspoke if you take it literally, but I think most people know that “given…” meant “given that the list price is X and it is under contract…” without me wanting to type on forever…
Tremendously pretty building.
Tremendously hideous apartment.
“Lacking outdoor space, and a real second bedroom is not ideal, but I think this will sell near ask.”
Is this unit an outlier?
Not a distress sale (so Clio can’t argue that all the “deals” are distress sales).
New kitchen with stainless steel.
C/A, W/D and indoor parking.
Priced under the 2001 price and STILL not selling.
I thought the GZ was fine? I thought it was only Englewood that was seeing the downturn?
“I wonder why the ’88 buyer saw so little price appreciation. Unlucky timing?”
1. 88 was pretty close to peak of the 80s bubble.
2. Miami Vice wasnt retro cool enough in ’98. Imagine what the 1988 decor of this place would have been.
“I wonder why the ’88 buyer saw so little price appreciation. Unlucky timing?”
Old Town wasn’t that great in the 80s and 90s would be my guess. Remember, no condo boom happening in the city then.
How DARE you speak badly of Old Town! j/k
I can say the 90’s weren’t bad at all – 80’s getting sketchier and sketchier.
Now if I talk to some bubs who were around when the Kennedy was going in…WOWSERs the stories they tell about Old Town and Lincoln Park at the time.
Regarding the unit itself:
I tend to like a street a bit further east and north closer to Wells, but here you are closer to the brown line stop for working in the loop.
Assessments are reasonable for a building of this age and you have the stability of a larger pool of units.
I haven’t been in this unit so can’t comment on how low the ceilings are.
It’s nice to see how some larger buildings have held up over the years.
The biggest issue with this unit and a good number of the others on the second floor of the building is the ceiling height in the lofted area. It essentially renders this a one bedroom. The units on the first floor have ceilings about a foot higher in the loft areas and the third floor units have true second stories in them (and most of the rooms have skylights.
Also, the area under the loft has a very low ceiling hieght as well,
benjamon9, here is the sale price % of list price distribution for Chicago sfh/condo/th closed in February 2012:
+/- 5% 45.5%
+/- 10% 71.8%
+/- 15% 82.4%
+/- 20% 89.6%
+/- 25% 93.7%
+/- 30% 95.3%
+/- 35% 96.2%
+/- 40% 97.6%
+/- 45% 98.3%
+/- 50% 98.7%
+/- 55% 98.9%
+/- 60% 99.2%
+/- 65% 99.3%
+/- 70% 99.8%
+/- 75% 99.9%
+/- 100% 100.0%
“Priced under the 2001 price and STILL not selling.”
It has only been listed for 1 month, and the change from original list to $309K seems recent, so I think it should sell rather quickly at that list price.
anon, I’d agree 88 was pretty close to the 80s bubble peak. If charts can be believed, the YOY % change in Chicago home prices was greater in 88 than any single year between 2000 to 05 — which is saying something.
http://www.blytic.com/Player.aspx?key=a9b0730c7af74a1681b50f5b69c4a717
Maybe it says after the 87 crash people piled into real estate thinking it was safer, less volatile, producing that cycle high in 88/89, like the thinking of re buyers post-9/11? Who knows.
I can imagine the 98 buyer upgraded the unit too. It’s too bad we don’t know how much if any was thusly spent. I’m obviously struck by the fact that after only 3 years the 98 buyer sold for a 46% profit, which leaves me where I began, thinking the 88 buyer paid too much and sold 10 years later for much too little.
“1. 88 was pretty close to peak of the 80s bubble.?
2. Miami Vice wasnt retro cool enough in ’98. Imagine what the 1988 decor of this place would have been.”
My guess is the 98 price was low because not much was done between 88 and then and the 98 buyer rehabbed it to get the large profit by 2001. Seems to make sense to me.
“Old Town wasn’t that great in the 80s and 90s would be my guess. Remember, no condo boom happening in the city then.”
I’d agree, Sabrina, but no condo boom happening in the 80s and 90s would help the case I’d like to make: the 88 buyer did worse on her investment, even though she ‘made’ 10k upon sale, than will the current owner, who is facing a 50k loss, assuming it sells near current ask.
From 88 to 98 the Chgo home price index rose 34%. But the 88 buyer captured only 10% of that gain upon sale in 98, a whopping 24% less than the index, which seems to me so bad it’s almost hard to do, given that it was a ‘cookie-cutter’ condo located in a good nabe that imho probably appreciated more between 88 and 98 than it did between 01 and 2012, and, your point, there was little or no new OT condo supply added during the 80s & 90s.
Assuming the current seller gets something close to ask, she’s looking at 14% nominal loss, not including upgrades. That hurts but she can console herself with the fact that during her tenure the index fell 4%, so she underperformed it by only ~ 10%, not terrible given the circumstances, and much better than the 88 buyer who underperformed it by a massive 24%.
So I’d suggest the current seller, assuming she escapes with only a 50k loss, will have done comparatively better than the 88 buyer, who ostensibly made $10k profit — a case in point for my thinking that re is much riskier/volatile than most people, especially lenders, presume.
“there was little or no new OT condo supply added during the 80s & 90s.”
In the Triangle, of course not, but Eugenie Terrace was completed in ’87 and 1309 Wells in ’90 (yeahyeahyeah, 1309 was tied up in litigation for most of a decade, and was rental during that time; still built as condos, when it was still basically across the street from teh Oscar Meyer plant)
Good pic of the Oscar Meyer plant, from Division:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uicdigital/6145037296/in/photostream/
The unit under contract that was listed at $399K has a 525 sq. ft. outdoor brick patio (though less sq. ft. in the unit). How do you place a value on that type of private outdoor space in the Old Town area? The added leisure lifestyle is worth quite a bit IMO. A beautiful building and the location is great. Walking distance from the Brown Line and Wells Street, without the congestion. Street parking that is usually readily available. $1MM+ units in the same building. Seems like this unit is actually UNDERVALUED!
My fiance and I actually visited this unit. It’s really nice–the kitchen is a bit small, but very updated. The first bedroom is large with great closet space. The living area is huge.
Major downside: My fiance literally could not stand up without hitting his head in the lofted area. He’s 6’4” and had to stoop a lot in order to walk around. The upstairs space is literally unusable for anyone over about 5’10”–and even short people like me would have to take care not to jump, or throw their hands up in the air, or wear high heels, etc. Even the first bedroom underneath the loft has such low ceilings that you’d have to be cognizant of these things.
It’s a great value if you’re small and never plan to entertain tall (or average-sized) guests. If this isn’t true of you, then it’s a little over-priced for an odd 1-BR.
agree. ug-mos too bad, old town is such a good location. the prettiest thing about this one is the outside of the building. there isn’t much that’s nice to say about this unit.