How Hot Is The Market? Listed at 15% Above the 2009 Price at 448 W. Wrightwood in Lincoln Park
We last chattered about this 7-unit vintage building at 448 W. Wrightwood in June 2011 when a first floor unit was being marketed as being like the apartment in the movie “The Break-Up.” (which was actually filmed on a sound stage)
Unit #1, a 3/2 with 2100 square feet sold within 5 months, in June 2011, for $20,000 above the 2007 purchase price at $660,000.
See our prior chatter here.
Now Unit #3E, a top floor 3-bedroom, has come on the market at $699,000.
It also has vintage features including original woodwork, french doors, coffered ceilings, and original built-ins.
It has two outdoor spaces, one overlooking the front of the building and a deck in the back.
The kitchen has white cabinets, granite and wood counter tops and stainless steel appliances.
The unit has central air, washer/dryer in the unit and garage parking.
It is listed about 15.5% higher than the 2009 purchase price.
In a market with low inventory, will this unit sell for that much of a premium?
Kris Mork at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #3E: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed, garage
- Sold in December 1994 for $332,000
- Sold in August 2000 for $570,000
- Sold in November 2006 for $558,000
- Sold in April 2009 for $590,000
- Currently listed for $699,000
- Assessments of $375 a month
- Taxes of $9339
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 15×13
- Bedroom #2: 14×10
- Bedroom #3: 11×9
- Family room: 15×14
- Laundry room: 4×4
The market out here in Cary is like Hansel – so hot right now! Hahaha! Zoolander!
I think that 1994 price looks about right
You’re paying a lot of extra money for a third bedroom that’s pretty small, seems to me. At 11X9, it’s OK for a baby, I suppose, or an office. If this were a 2/2, it would be far cheaper and perhaps not much smaller.
The listing calls this a “penthouse.” This has to be the worst abuse yet I’ve seen of that word. Top floor doesn’t mean penthouse! It just means top floor.
I will say that although it’s not a penthouse, it does look like a very nice unit that’s well presented. However, it’s way overpriced.
I’m conflicted with this one. It is a nice looking place and definitely has a lot going for it. $699k seems to be a reasonable ask with the sale of #1 at $660, but from the 2009 listing I don’t see what the sellers have done to deserve $100k over what they paid.
If they in fact just got a great deal in 2009, why try so hard to oversell the place? This is not a penthouse as Dan #2 pointed out and they are trying to add extra rooms by calling the very large (23×14) dining room two different rooms (8×14 dining and 15×14 family). Even selling the rear deck as having “urban skyline views” seems to be a little bit of an exaggeration from the picture. If the place is so great, which this place does seem to be…why exaggerate and fib so much?
“why exaggerate and fib so much?”
Aren’t realtors risking a ethics complaint if they don’t?
“I don’t see what the sellers have done to deserve $100k over what they paid. .. If they in fact just got a great deal in 2009”
’09 price was esentially the ’00 price, so seems like a “deal”. And the $699 is based off the sale of #1–how can you justify asking *less* (or even the same) as the ground floor unit, even in a flat/declining market? If they get an offer of $660k, and don’t take it, they’re nuts, but 5% extra to be top rather than bottom seems about right, at least on the ask.
Off-topic, but aaaaargh – so frustrated and have to vent!
I’m trying to lease out a unit and they are telling me by law I can’t put “no children” in the ad because it’s discriminatory.
Gimme an f’in break, what kind of a commie law is that and how is this a capitalist country?
So mad right now.
Yeah, yeah, I realize you can screen the prospective tenants, but just so mad that this is a law!
My place is like the apartment in Money Never Sleeps. Can I use that as a marketing ploy?
Some building have 4 floors of “Penthouses”. At least this is the top floor – not a penthouse with 3 floors above it.
That is certainly not a penthouse. There’s not even a roof deck, and the terrace lacks privacy.
@Milkster, fair housing laws are there for a reason. You actually cannot legally screen tenants out who have children just because of that.
“they are telling me by law I can’t put “no children” in the ad because it’s discriminatory.”
Dude, step lightly, or you’ll have the Housing Police up in your grill. Heard/read/saw an ad about housing discrim recently that included “the schools around here aren’t very good” as a possible signal of discrimantory intent. So, be careful out there.
Milskter,
It’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of familial status, among other things. If ya don’t like it get out of the landlording biz, it might just not be for you bud.
“they are telling me by law I can’t put “no children” in the ad because it’s discriminatory.”
How about just listing the requirements that you prefer as tenants. Treat it like a personal ad, also add pictures of an ideal tenant. Heck, it might even go viral and and you’ll get a ton of free advertisement.
Or just realize it’s 2012.
place looks pretty nice. Agree 100k over the 09 price seems steep, but if they got a deal they got a deal. Looking at the other sale in teh building, this looks fairly priced.
Having the top floor and owning the “penthouse” or best unit, is worth alot of peace-of-mind, plus you don’t ever have to take attitude from any of your neighbors, since you own the best unit.
“Or just realize it’s 2012.”
Oh, yeah? How is that?
That’s a stupid statement.
Are you telling me that suddenly the children of 2012 do not put additional wear and tear on a vintage unit?
I’d agree if this unit offered more, or was in a 3 flat top floor, or a mid or high rise. no attitude from any neighbors? what about the neighbors that share the party wall with you on the top floor, or who can see right to your balcony that’s separated only by a non-transparent, non-opaque metal fence?
Pretty Woman this is not!
pent·house/?pent?hous/
Noun:
An apartment on the top floor of a tall building, typically luxuriously fitted and offering fine views.
A structure on the roof of a building housing machinery or equipment.
“@Milkster, fair housing laws are there for a reason. You actually cannot legally screen tenants out who have children just because of that.”
Whatever.
What about laws to protect property owners?
Housing law in Chicago and NY is skewed in favor of tenants.
If I end up with some retread who destroys property or doesn’t pay, they get a free ride until I can evict them. I’ve been burned before and I intend on preventing that any way I can.
“@Milkster, fair housing laws are there for a reason. You actually cannot legally screen tenants out who have children just because of that.”
You can, however, run credit checks & background checks and deny any applicant for any reason (you just can’t tell them why)…
“Housing law in Chicago and NY is skewed in favor of tenants.”
The Fair Housing Act is nationwide federal law. You cannot discriminate based upon age, gender, race, religion, or national origin.
“Are you telling me that suddenly the children of 2012 do not put additional wear and tear on a vintage unit?”
I think he means that laws have evolved a lot over the years and are in favor of tennants in most cases. A lot of it is over correcting. I am a bit surprised you are shocked to discover this, haven’t you been a landlord for a while now?
How difficult is it to evict tenants? E.g., for an experienced/knowledgable landlord with tenants whose lease has expired?
“The Fair Housing Act is nationwide federal law. You cannot discriminate based upon age, gender, race, religion, or national origin.”
you forgot familial status, which Milkster is pissed about.
Okay, let me edit that.
Housing courts always find in favor of the tenants.
And DZ, what are you supposed to do if they F you before the lease has expired??
“And DZ, what are you supposed to do if they F you before the lease has expired??”
My question was prompted by, but not in response to, your posting. Know some people who may be getting evicted.
I am sympathetic to your point of view, as kids really are different from non-kids and it’s not clear to me that families are in particular need of protection against unwarranted discrimination. Maybe I don’t know enough about the history of familial discrimination.
Having said that, it’s also not clear to me I’d rule out families with kids as tenants if I were a landlord. I’m pretty sure we’ve improved the condition of the place we’re renting. My kid is rougher on a place than an ideal adult tenant, but much less rough than a bad adult tenant.
“what are you supposed to do if they F you before the lease has expired??”
Have a lease that allows termination upon default, after notice and opportunity to cure. Then make sure you send them the defualt notice quickly, and at least you have a basis, after they fail to pay up. yeahyeah, housing court hassles, etc., but you can get the lease “terminated” which is as good as expired.
“you forgot familial status, which Milkster is pissed about.”
Ooops. I was thinking discriminating against children fell under discriminating based upon age, so I thought I had the bases covered. But you’re correct, familial status is a separate point.
Yeah, even if you don’t agree you don’t want to mess with fair housing laws. You stand a much better chance of getting screwed by posting what you did than by renting to a family.
Anyway, if you could discriminate against families, what’s to stop everyone from doing the same thing? Then where are these people supposed to live if they can’t buy?
Too busy (hence my late comment on an ELP post) to say much, but: (1) pretty surprised that the first floor unit fetched so much; (2) people need to relax a bit re: brokers using “penthouse”; (3) there should certainly be a premium for being on the top floor (it’s a vintage place, and nobody’s overhead; street noise is that much farther removed; the rear deck is almost certainly more appealing than the one below; only one other unit comes to your floor, whereas the first/second floor residents have all other residents stomping past their doors); (4) pros: this place really is quite nice (solid looking building; nice wood trim and other details throughout the unit; I like the family room/dining room set up (though living/dining would be better); the kitchen is open and bright, and sensibly leads to the deck (rather than through a bedroom); looks like the most recent improvements were the bathrooms, which look nice; (5) cons: no powder room; easy fix, but they need new appliances (and the mic needs to go and a hood needs to go in).
$600k(ish) wouldn’t be that crazy, from either party’s perspective (less so from the recent buyer of #1).
Assuming the folks on the second floor have rear decks, I wonder if the four upper units have ever considered enclosing the front balconies. I would.
I’m not sure it it is a good deal, but I really like this apartment. Great location, great space, great schools. Great for a family. Only downside is three flights up with groceries, kids, dogs, etc. Oh, and the small association which is a potential deal breaker; been there, done that; lots of hassle. But a nice, airy place in the tree tops.
“Anyway, if you could discriminate against families, what’s to stop everyone from doing the same thing?”
The market. If families truly caused more wear and tear (which I’m not convinced is true) and in ways difficult or costly to recover via security deposits, then charge them for it.
“The market. If families truly caused more wear and tear (which I’m not convinced is true) and in ways difficult or costly to recover via security deposits, then charge them for it.”
Makes sense, but could you really get away with price discimination? Wouldn’t that get you in the same kind of trouble?
Unless you mean deduct after the fact via the security deposit…
“Makes sense, but could you really get away with price discimination? Wouldn’t that get you in the same kind of trouble?”
Was answering your hypothetical where you could (were legally permitted to) discriminate on the basis of family, number kids, etc.
@milkster
“Or just realize it’s 2012.”
Oh, yeah? How is that?
That’s a stupid statement.
Are you telling me that suddenly the children of 2012 do not put additional wear and tear on a vintage unit?
Milkster, relax before you stroke out. A) You’re being a little douchey to people in here who are trying to nicely answer your questions and address your frustration. Don’t shoot the messenger. B) You chose to be a landlord. You either did the appropriate research or should have. If you don’t like the environment in which you are operating, find a different environment more in keeping with your own values and preferences.
Oh mah word. SO much ignorance in here about renting and appropriate laws. HUD/fair housing is the LEAST of your concerns given this city.
This is why I laugh and laugh and laugh at all the realtors/brokers/commenters that are like “great rental opportunity!!” on certain listings. Sorry, but renting is tough industry and if kids are honestly your personal Alamo as a landlord, then lol to that.
“DZ (June 12, 2012, 1:41 pm)
How difficult is it to evict tenants? E.g., for an experienced/knowledgable landlord with tenants whose lease has expired?”
It’s ridiculously expensive and time consuming. It takes months. I could go into great detail, but meh.
One more comment, since this rental-bent in this thread has me riled:
About 5 years ago, I had a woman come to me wanting a 1 bedroom apartment for herself and her daughter. I had nothing available, and she wanted to be near the French school out of Abraham Lincoln Elem (which is quite the popular program).
She did not want to pay for a 2 bedroom, and did not want a studio. She found a 1 bedroom she wanted elsewhere in the hood, but they told her they would not rent to her and she needed to rent a 2 bedroom for her and her child based on their “occupancy standards.”
So I gave her one of my cards, and wrote on the back of it…
FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT
FAMILIAL STATUS
HUD
…and told her to show that to them and insist on the 1 bedroom she wanted.
I never heard from her again. I hope she got that place. I’m no saint, but that situation was bullsh*t. My mom grew up in a typical mid-century Catholic family household — a 2 bedroom/1 bath with a finished attic and a shower-stall that was built in the basement. My mom and my aunt shared a full size bed in one bedroom, and all five of her brothers shared the attic in bunk beds as their collective room.
And somehow, this woman was required to spend the coin on a two bedroom, for just her and her daughter, when they were willing to sacrifice space so her child could attend the school of their choice?
Bullsh*t, I say. I was happy I educated someone that day about the Federal Fair Housing Act. I hope the peppy agent or whomever crapped their pants when reading my handwritten note. Maybe she qualified based on application criteria — maybe she didn’t. The point is that straight out she wasn’t even given the chance. “Mother/daughter? 2 bedroom for you. You cannot have the 1 bedroom.” No.
I understand the desire for discretion, but some of this is just beyond the pale. A collegiate party couple could rent the one bedroom, but the mother/daughter needed a 2 bedroom? Yeah. Some of this crap needs to be called out.
Milkster, my recommendation.
Double security deposit, so instead on $2000 per month it is $4000.
$50 fee per nail hole in wall to justify proper repair.
That will scare any family away.
By the way, families don’t screw you. Bad tenants screw you. Frat boys, dirty girls, drug addicts, tenants that are constantly behind on the rent, young professionals who are up all hours of the night pissing off your neighbors, people who say they don’t have pets and then buy a dog.
Just make sure to ask enough in rent to cover the repairs at the end.
“Milkster, my recommendation.
Double security deposit, so instead on $2000 per month it is $4000.
$50 fee per nail hole in wall to justify proper repair.
That will scare any family away.”
That is illegal. You CANNOT do this. If anyone finds you out to be offering different terms and conditions, HELLO HUD/RAIN OF ETERNAL FIRE!
Moreover, security deposits in Chicago are so over-regulated it is pointless to even ask for them. You best document every nick and flaw from cradle-to-grave of the tenancy, and beyond that you need to do so much to even accept a SD nowadays that it is way prohibitive for any landlord.
I swear, people.
“If families truly caused more wear and tear (which I’m not convinced is true) and in ways difficult or costly to recover via security deposits, then charge them for it.”
I’m not convinced of it either. Ever see the apartment of a couple of recently graduated 20-somethings? Usually disgusting. Families at least might have incentive to clean every once in awhile and know better than to put a scalding hot pot on the marble counter tops.
Aren’t there “bodies per bedroom” standards in the rental industry? Example:One adult and one kid in a 1-bed apt ok; two adults and one kid or one adult and two kids no.
“A) You’re being a little douchey to people in here who are trying to nicely answer your questions and address your frustration.”
Excuse me for having a pulse and a backbone and expressing what many of you think but are too lame to voice. I’d like to see some of the PC hypocrites on this board put their own place up for rent and then preach the same bull. The only people who offered helpful advice were anon tfo and OP Lurker. To me, not permitting children is the same as not permitting smokers.
“Moreover, security deposits in Chicago are so over-regulated it is pointless to even ask for them.”
Uhhhhhh, wrong.
You just have to put the security deposit in an interest-bearing savings account and return the funds plus interest when they move out.
Not. That. Hard.
“You just have to put the security deposit in an interest-bearing savings account and return the funds plus interest when they move out.
Not. That. Hard.”
Highest rate is 1.05% and you call that interest? Hahaha.
Also if you’re a small time amateur LL like many posters stuck with an in towner here on CC are, you still have to provide that check for $1.49 each year or else it’s just another court continuance for a tenant or reason to dismiss your collection for unpaid rent/security deposit. Yeah you think it’s a minor thing but you’d be amazed how a procedure for landlords can so easily be ignored/neglected. Chicago is very renter friendly. Probably the reason my landlord recently offered to refund my security deposit–the paperwork overhead really doesn’t make sense.
http://www.bankaholic.com/money-market/
“Milkster, my recommendation.
Double security deposit, so instead on $2000 per month it is $4000.
$50 fee per nail hole in wall to justify proper repair.”
“That is illegal. You CANNOT do this. If anyone finds you out to be offering different terms and conditions, HELLO HUD/RAIN OF ETERNAL FIRE! ”
Well what I’m saying is it shouldn’t be illegal. You can take a pet deposit, so why not a child deposit?
boiztwn, you are obviously a huge pain in the ass.
landlords probably see you coming a mile away and wouldn’t rent to you either.
“boiztwn, you are obviously a huge pain in the ass.
landlords probably see you coming a mile away and wouldn’t rent to you either.”
I wouldn’t either. I’d see his flaming arse coming a mile away and either quote him much higher rent or outright refuse to rent to him. Thank gosh the Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply to his affliction.
“Bob (June 13, 2012, 6:20 am)
Thank gosh the Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply to his affliction.”
Yes it does, in the State of Illinois! Tee hee, wrong again! 🙂
I love how me just telling you what’s really up makes me “PC” or a “pain in the ass.” Sillies. Especially since you already got security deposit law wrong, Milkster. Private landlords love to think that somehow these laws don’t apply to them because… they’re… private? Unfortch for you they do, and some here — myself included — are just trying to spare you potential damages. Oh well! But here, I’ll give you a helpful link:
http://www.chicagoeviction.com
I suggest you read his various posts.
oh Milkster… You really better read that summary copy of the Chicago Tenant Landlord Office that’s attached to the standard lease you use. It’ss mandated that you give a copy of it (CTLO) to the tenant. Then get the FULL CTLO, so you know WTF you’re doing. The ONLY way you can be selective is by having really really high financial requirements; credit rating over a certain number, income standards, and so on. but, you have to apply the same rule to each and every applicant. Just wait til the day a Fair Housing “tester” comes to apply one of your properties…
And Lassie, I did once locate some occupancy standard, but it ended up seeming more like “square feet/people”. It’s not enforced much, unless something happens like a fire, and they find out there’s 20 people living in a 1 BR apartment.
Milkster–just because you don’t agree with the laws doesn’t mean you can get away with flouting them. Any landlord (myself included) will tell you that boiztwn very clearly knows what he is talking about and is actually helping you in a big way. The problem with security deposits is that a violation of the ordinance (and there is no right to cure) will open you up to possible legal action resulting in you awarding the tenant two times the security deposit plus court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. If you are renting out your condo (and not living in it with that person) then it sounds like you are going to be subject to the ordinance (there are exclusions) so you would be very wise to read into that (but there are many others that were discussed above such as fair housing laws) to avoid very panful financial repercussions later.
I sympathize with both sides here. I think rental laws are ridiculously biased against landlords. My sister owned a three flat in a not so great area and she found that who her best tenants were had NOTHING to do with race, familial status, or gender preference and EVERYTHING to do with their willingness to work with the landlord. (This was especially true since she realized that there was no way to evict them under the current Housing Laws!) So the tenants she preferred were those who, for example, if they lost their job or couldn’t pay the rent on time, would contact her to set up a payment plan. How you screen for this I do not know. I think that, like Boiz, she ended up thinking that screening was pointless. The only guiding principle she had at the end of her experience was that she would prefer a tenant for whom the rental was going to be a “home”–that is, living in this apartment was a desirable thing for them, not just a place to camp for a while. This lead her to prefer to rent to single women with children, oddly enough: for them, the apartment was a home and they took care of it, even if they couldn’t always pay their rent on time. They would work with her so that they could keep ‘their home.’
“and there is no right to cure”
Yeah, that’s pretty extreme. Maybe it balances out though as I imagine the vast majority of tenants (incl myself for a long time) do not know about this, so it’s a mechanism to get (most) landlords to perform.
I once tried to get my landlord to stop sending me the annual interest, as I was annoyed at having to deposit the tiny check, which I still felt obliged to deposit, every year. He told me he couldn’t. He did return my entire deposit a year or two ago.
“Well what I’m saying is it shouldn’t be illegal. You can take a pet deposit, so why not a child deposit?”
Milkster sounds like Dan.
“Well what I’m saying is it shouldn’t be illegal. You can take a pet deposit, so why not a (insert milkster’s ethnicity here) deposit?
Funny, too, what she thinks about boiztwn and his advice. He’s obviously a very knowledgeable management or rental professional, especially in LV/LP.
I began writing a comment in response to Milkster’s positions. Delete. What would be the point?
Govern yourself accordingly, Madam/Sir.
Back to the unit. I live around the corner and I’ve always wished this building would fix their garbage situation. Cans always seem to be overflowing and abundant, hanging out by the small parking area next to the sidewalk. It’s smells and looks low rent. As far as the price, a recent 3 bed 2 bath sold in 2626 for under 500k and you have actual amenties (which you pay for) like a pool, doorman, small gym etc. The price seems really high. It’s not that fabulous.
Great point, Schill. I’d rather have a 3 BR at 2626 for less money any day than live here, even with the vintage features and outdoor space. I like the self-contained feeling of a high rise, as well as the amenities.
Schill, and Dan #2, considering that a 3BR in 2626 sold for under $500k (of which we have no clue of the condition….it could have needed tons of work) and the last unit in this building sold for $660, obviously many people prefer AND will pay a premium for vintage non-highrise buildings. You cannot compare this to 2626 Lakeview.
The taxes on the subject property are obviously higher than a $500k 3 bed at 2626, but other than that, I’m not so sure that such a place would be materially less expensive on a monthly basis (assuming one can close the subject property in the very low $600’s, which should be the max). This place has fees of $375/mo (parking included); fees at 2626 on a 3 bed, plus monthly rental on one parking space (even at the resident rate), is likely upwards of $1,400/mo (give or take $100). That extra $1,000/mo would more than cover an additional $100k in mortgage amount. And (in theory, at least) one might hope to “get some of that money back,” unlike fees. Plus, while it’s not a big amount, the interest portion of that $1,000 is tax deductible, unlike condo fees.
Not saying that I prefer this sort of building over a full service building (given the right building and unit, I’d prefer to be in a building versus a walk-up or SFH/RH), just that the cost of the subject property (which is probably 500 sq ft larger than the $500k 3 beds at 2626, has private outdoor space, and is not located in a building with dozens and dozens of units that haven’t been updated in a generation) isn’t that different.
“assuming one can close the subject property in the very low $600?s, which should be the max”
Why should this place close in the very low $600’s at the max if the first floor unit went for $660k? Is a top floor unit with an extra outdoor area worth less than a ground floor unit?
I’m not discriminatory, I’m equal opportunity.
I don’t want children in my units no matter what color they are.
OMG, relax already.
For those of you with no sense of humor, that was a joke.
In all seriousness, thank you for all the good advice which came out of this thread.
Yours too, Boi.
My worst tenant was a few years back in DC.
He was a single dad who had a fancy high profile job working under someone very well known in the White House.
He stopped paying the rent, damaged the unit, wouldn’t leave and it turned out he had a drug problem.
“He stopped paying the rent, damaged the unit, wouldn’t leave and it turned out he had a drug problem.”
Milkster- the celebrities or well-known tenants can be just as bad as anyone else. I’m thinking of all the lawsuits out in Hollywood against actors and actresses for not paying rent.
Here’s a situation with a SF Giants pitcher just recently where the landlord sued:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/giants/story/2011-10-06/tim-lincecum-lawsuit/50683722/1
BTW, the garbage cans described above do not belong to the 448-450 building, but the one next to it.