Is Being Close to Wrigley Field Still a Selling Point? 3531 N. Sheffield in Lakeview
his 2-bedroom duplex down at 3531 N. Sheffield in Lakeview is just a half a block away from Wrigley Field.
It has 12 foot ceilings.
One bedroom is on the main floor and the second bedroom is on the lower level.
There is also a family room on the lower level.
The kitchen has white cabinets and stainless steel appliances.
It has the features that buyers look for including a washer/dryer in the unit and central air.
It also has a unique feature of 3 car tandem outdoor parking spots for an extra $20,000.
The unit was originally listed 15 months ago, in May 2011.
It has been reduced $46,000 to $309,000.
We’ve chattered in the past about Wrigley Field being used as a selling point for properties.
Is that still the case in this market?
This unit is listed $3,000 under the 2001 purchase price.
Is it a deal?
Jay Wallace Camp at Jameson Sotheby’s has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #1S: 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, duplex down, no square footage listed
- Sold in July 1996 for $209,500
- Sold in May 2000 for $300,000
- Sold in February 2001 for $312,000
- Sold in April 2006 for $388,000
- Originally listed in May 2011 for $355,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $309,000 (plus 3-car tandem parking for $20,000)
- Assessments of $271 a month (includes cable)
- Taxes of $6870
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 14×11 (main floor)
- Bedroom #2: 16×10 (lower level)
- Family room: 15×14 (lower level)
I’m as big a Cubs fan as anyone, but the thought of drunken frat boys confusing my yard/building for a urinal doesn’t sound too appealing, nor does the roar of the Red Line in the back.
Would be a negative for me….
Off topic, but did anyone else see that mortgage applications fell 7.4% as mortgage rates rose last week?
Rates rose to 3.86% on a 30-year.
Refis fell 9% (not surprising there.) Purchase apps were up 0.9%.
What happens when rates REALLY rise? This is something I’m watching. They’re not going to stay at record lows forever.
Being close to Wrigley definitely a selling point for me!
Rates are not going to really rise for a long time. The real story is that purchase applications are still up even with an increase in the rates. Everyone has already refinanced if they can, of course re-fis are down.
“Is Being Close to Wrigley Field Still a Selling Point?”
For a 20-something single male, yes. For someone past that point who wants a family, no. I live in Lakeview right now (LSD and Addison) and cannot wait to get out of there. It was great in my early 20s, but now that I’m ready to start a family, I want a family friendly place, not a condo next door to Chicago’s largest frat party.
“What happens when rates REALLY rise? This is something I’m watching. They’re not going to stay at record lows forever.”
how long is forever? because rates will remain historically low (under 7%) until at least 2020
And if the euro goes kaput in an unorderly fashion we could be at sub 4% rates for another decade or even longer
The main issue that is causing this to not sell is the fact that the El runs along the back. All the properties on the east side of Sheffield or west side of Wilton in this area have struggled to sell or sold at substantially reduced prices in this market. For example, see 3738 N Wilton Ave #6, which is a top floor 3/2 on market for under 300 (has become a short sale). A duplex down like this listing along the tracks is a hard sell. Being this close to Wrigley may be a negative for some, but if this was simply on the other side of the street, its prospects would be much better.
Seems like a good value $/sq ft.
You could make a nice mint every other day in the summer on those parking spaces. ($25 ea at least)
I think its a good value. I wouldn’t want to live here now in my life but 10 years ago I would. But I was already living in Wrigleyville 10 years ago
I was sick of living around wrigley at age 25 I can’t imagine most people would want to stick around ON sheffield for very long, unless of course they have a rooftop deck with a view of the stadium, that would be fun I guess
Well, there ARE schools, day-care centers, playground parks, etc. in the area so SOMEBODY must consider “Wrigleyville” to be a family-friendly area! I could see myself buying this for my own use if I had the cash available.
LOLZ
Off topic, but I have a question CCers: ” I live at a condo building where some renters are not paying neither their rents nor the assessments for the units that are going through foreclosure. I was wondering is there a way to make these people pay their assessments? ” I don’t see why the rest of us should pay for their utilities, amenities, and so on. Thank you.
On a related note, take a look at this….
http://www.bairdwarner.com/property/15759192
There is such a thing as too close to the Friendly Confines. I can’t resist. I cannot imagine that this price is even vaguely in the ballpark.
This place would be too noisy with Wrigley down the block and the El behind.
This place went under contract fairly quickly; it’s as close to Wrigley as the subject property: http://www.bairdwarner.com/property/15533970/
Re. the 1123 W. Addison post –
It’s intriguing but probably overpriced considering so much renovation is needed. That stretch of Addison is a complete mess 81 days of the year (when the Cubs play) but otherwise is actually kind of nice, with good housing stock. I’ve always liked the idea of converting a Lakeview two- or three-flat into an SFH, but I’d choose a side street if I could.
“There is such a thing as too close to the Friendly Confines. I can’t resist. I cannot imagine that this price is even vaguely in the ballpark.”
Really depends on the state of the reno, and whether it’s remotely financeable.
Marea:
Confused by your question. Renters don’t pay assessments, owners do. Can you clarify the situation? And you really can’t “force” them to pay the assessments. The bank that takes ownership will be responsible for those unpaid assessments.
“The bank that takes ownership will be responsible for those unpaid assessments.”
Limited to 6 months.
Thank you GMT and anon (tfo). The owner is going through foreclosure and is not paying his assessments. The renter is not paying not paying the rent (fair given that the owner is not making mortgage payments), but he is not stepping up to pay the assessments of the unit. So it seems unfair to me. Cannot the condo association evict the renter and then rent out the unit?
Marea: unless your association is renting those units out, the renter doesn’t have an obligation to you, only to the owner of the unit they are renting. It sounds like the owner isn’t trying to collect rent from his tennant and is merely waiting for the bank to take possession.
Look at it this way, even if the tennant paid rent to the owner, there’s no way to guarantee the owner would siphon that money back toward paying his assessment if he’s letting his unit get foreclosed upon.
“because rates will remain historically low (under 7%) until at least 2020”
When we thought we found a property and were ready to make an offer, rates moved up slightly. Given my luck, I suspect when we finally do put in a contract, the pre-approval lock will expire and the rates will shoot up that week and remain until two minutes after our closing 😀
“The owner is going through foreclosure and is not paying his assessments. The renter is not paying not paying the rent (fair given that the owner is not making mortgage payments), but he is not stepping up to pay the assessments of the unit. So it seems unfair to me. Cannot the condo association evict the renter and then rent out the unit?”
A. The Association cannot hold the renter liable for the assessments given that he/she does not own the unit.
B. The renter cannot withhold rent payments because the owner is going through a foreclosure. That renter is still liable for paying his/her rent.
So is there anything the condo board can do to protect itself in the future. For instance, can it put some clause/provision in all rental agreements?
I think the real question (this specific place notwithstanding) is where does Wrigleyville end, and Boys Town and “SoPo” begin? And what about the Mos Isley atmosphere engulfing a block in each direction from Belmont & Clark? It’s not really any of those.
People who think the larger area is only chock full of twentysomethings & people looking to party should go waltz by Nettlehorst or Hawthorne right before or after school, where one can see turbo stroller moms and the like at full strength.
There are more kids than you can shake a stick at who live in those LSD high rises and in the single family and two/three flats (not so much the condos, in my experience) all over the area.
“So is there anything the condo board can do to protect itself in the future. For instance, can it put some clause/provision in all rental agreements?”
Absolutely not.
“Absolutely not.”
Um, cite please? For it to be “absolutely not” there has to be a statute, and I haven’t heard of one.
You might be able to require that the owner include such a clause in any rental agreement, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to have some sort of right of action against the renter if the owner doesn’t include such a clause.
Condo associations are generally very weak, unless you live in Florida, at which point they’re the hand of God. Given that it’s not codified, I have a hard time believing that any judge/jury would permit an assocation to go after the renter regardless of an agreement between the owner and renter.
Please take a look at the following, sourced from http://cooperator.com/articles/921/1/When-Owners-Fall-Behind/Page1.html
“In the situation where a condominium unit owner leases his or her unit rather than occupying it and the unit owner fails to pay his or her common charges, Real Property Law Section 339-kk authorizes condo boards to collect rent payments directly from the unit owner’s tenants. This is accomplished by simply sending a notice to the tenants, in accordance with the statute, advising them to start making monthly rental payments to the condominium rather than the unit owner. The condominium can continue collecting monthly rent directly from the tenants until the unit owner’s common charge arrears are cured. An ancillary benefit of sending the 339-kk notice to the unit owner’s tenants is that it may cause the unit owner some embarrassment, which by itself may spur the unit owner to pay his or her arrears.”
The question is if Illinois has anything similar.
Marea, that’s from New York. We’re in Illinois.
“but that doesn’t mean you’re going to have some sort of right of action against the renter if the owner doesn’t include such a clause.”
So, you’re saying that it’s illegal under Chicago or Illinois landlord tenant law to (1) have a three party agreement, (2) have a third party beneficiary, (3) require the tenant to pay the association directly for “additional rent”, and failure to do so leads to recourse in favor of the association (turn off cable, whatever)?
What makes it impossble to grant the association recourse against the tenant for non-payment? Are you saying that *no matter what* an Association could not take action against a tenant for failure to comply with Association rules? If it were a “no dogs, no smoking” building and the tenant brought in 8 dogs for 24/7 cigars and poker, and the owner refused to take action, the rest of the building is just stuck with no recourse except fining the owner?
I’m not saying any of those are a good idea for the LL, the T *or* the Association, but want to understand why they are “absolutely not” possible.
Ok, here we go… slightly right, slightly wrong… this should be informative for all though:
735 ILCS 5/9-104.2
It states that if a condo owner is delinquent, an association may file a Notice and Demand for Possession on the Owner. In short, a notice is delivered to the owner stating that he has 30 days to get current with his dues. If he’s not current at the end of the 30 days, the association can take possession (however, there’s a 60 day hold on possession, thus giving the owner even more time to get current). Once the association has possession, it can then have the renter pay his rent directly to the association. If the renter refuses, the association can evict the renter. Once the dues are current, the association releases it back to the owner. FYI, the association can add on legal fees to this, so you should consult your assocation’s attorney ASAP.
Anon, check my post just below yours. Illinois law essentialy requires the association to first go after then owner and then it can focus on the tenant once the owner fails to pay up.
“So, you’re saying [a bunch of things that I didn’t say]…”
No. I’m saying that the full extent of the renter’s obligations are those set forth in the rental agreement and applicable law, and adding or having a provision in the condominium agreement, rules, etc. (to which the renter is not a party) doesn’t alter the renter’s obligations. If the owner does add provisions that give the condo association rights as against the renter, then those would be enforceable to the extent permissible and enforceable under applicable law (local and state). If those third party beneficiary-type terms are not in there, then it’s a question of the applicable law as to whether the condo association has any right to pursue anything with the tenant.
I know something like this is possible in Illinois/Chicago because it is happening in the highrise I live in. A unit was foreclosed on, purchased in a sheriff’s sale, and rented out (I don’t know whether the renting out occurred before or after the sale). The renters are paying rent directly to the association for back assessments.
I do not know all the details surrounding the situation or the logistics to make it happen since I am not a board member. This is just anecdotal evidence that something like this does indeed exist in Illinois/Chicago.
“I know something like this is possible in Illinois/Chicago because it is happening in the highrise I live in.”
The details involve going after the owner first, then taking possession, and then having the renter pay the association. I still highly doubt that there’s any legal way for an association to go directly after the renter without first going after the owner and taking possession of the unit.
Also, Marea, don’t you have an association lawyer??? He/she should know all this, and if he/she doesn’t, then in the words of Trump, “You’re fired!”
“This place went under contract fairly quickly; it’s as close to Wrigley as the subject property: http://www.bairdwarner.com/property/15533970/ ”
Being just north of the field (like 3713 Sheffield) makes a big difference from a crowd and noise perspective as all the bars/restaurants are south. The property in this post is in between O’Malley’s Liquor Kitchen as well as Dark Horse, the Yard, Nissei Longue, etc. on Sheffield. Lots of stuff going on there. And many people walk south on Sheffield to get to bars on Clark. However, the bars/restaurants north of the stadium are all on Clark, so people walk west first to get over. Of course, there’s Murphy’s at the corner of Sheffield and Waveland only a few doors down, but that’s really only packed during games. Though both deal with the same El noise, but perhaps the rooftop deck at 3713 makes up for that a bit.
“No. I’m saying that the full extent of the renter’s obligations are those set forth in the rental agreement and applicable law”
first, apologies for quoing you and then conflating a response to all the “can’t do that” comments.
second, I slightly misread your comment.
third, marea asked about the ass’n requiring a clause in leases, which is the reason I misread, as I assumed that context.
Marea — your condo assoc. would need to get a lawyer on this and do a lien/ etc.. You guys can’t just swoop in and demand $ from the renter.
This will take some time and legal fees. You can add the legal costs in and try to get them back from the owner, but I’m guessing that the owner is in a huge financial hole as is. Good luck!
Just don’t take this out on the renter. That’s not fair — I’m sure they’re having a crappy time of it with a landlord who’s not paying his mortgage and are in limbo. They do need to keep paying their rent, but at a certain point in the foreclosure process it’s hard to know to whom they owe it.
“Anon, check my post just below yours. Illinois law essentialy requires the association to first go after then owner and then it can focus on the tenant once the owner fails to pay up.”
That doesn’t deal with marea’s question about adding requirements to future leases that give the ass’n more rights and that you said were “absolutely not” available to the association.
From your cite, it would seem to be ill-advised to add requirements, as it would be burdensome in multiple ways that would outweight the benefits of possibly shortening the 90 day period before taking possession under that statute. It might make sense to require inclusion of a reference to that statute and an acknowledgement by LL and Tenant of the consequences of non-payment of the assessment.
Back to topic… As a SFH vs as a condo are two different stories, too. I would have to think about a condo building twice as hard in that area. I don’t think so. For a SFH I could overlook it but probably not for more than 5 years.
Considering if you were not paying HOA on SFH the price difference to go up a bit to 395k could get you a renovated 3br SFH two blocks north, 3816 N Wilton for example. It too backs up and faces the El. It’s not a bad looking place at all though, cute even, and the back could be improved a lot for privacy (I drove by), and there’s a 1 car garage. http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/3816-N-Wilton-Ave-60613/home/13383451
“Um, cite please? For it to be “absolutely not” there has to be a statute, and I haven’t heard of one.”
you’d be altering the parties involved in the lease and would have to legally nullify it with eviction or transfer the lease to the association, which itself requires certain notices in chicago, and who knows if is even legally possible without an actual change in ownership. A third party (association) could not just go in and say “hey your lease is null here is a new one with our name on it” without some sort of court authorization. If the association required that they were a party to the lease from the get go, regardless of if they are current or not, then it seems a lot more cut and dry, but an association would be absolutely idiotic to do that and allow themselves to be a party to all related lawsuits.
Fred — you’re talking about a very different situation. The unit has already been through foreclosure, purchased, etc. It has been through the legal hoops. The condo assoc. board can’t just knock on someone’s door and ask for $ without jumping through the hoops themselves. Otherwise we’d be in the Wild West.
Marea, it’s also possible that the renter is living out his security deposit (often owners in foreclosure won’t/can’t refund that). Your real problem is btn the condo assoc. and the owner.
Anon, I still have a hard time believing that any judge would allow such a clause to be enforceable. The law clearly states the rights and remedies for a condo association to collect assessments. In order for a condo association to force a renter to pay the dues, the assn would have to file in court and provide the agreement between the condo owner / assn / renter. At that point, I’m about 99% sure the judge would make it null and void given the laws already on the books and force the assn to file a claim against the owner, per the above cite.
Moreover, it doesn’t appear that condo assns can file for wage garnishments. Their sole recourse is to use the property to collect assn dues. To do so, they have to take possession and you can’t take possession from a renter, you have to take it from the owner.
“At that point, I’m about 99% sure the judge would make it null and void given the laws already on the books and force the assn to file a claim against the owner, per the above cite”
1. That requires the Tenant to decide to litigate rather than pay according to the terms of the lease.
2. That’s definitely not “absolutely not”, in any event.
3. You’re saying that a lease that clearly states “pay association $500/mo and LL $1,000/mo” wouldn’t be enforced by a judge? Assume, for discussion, that the ass’n has an on-site management office, that’s the stated place for payment of rent and that the LL agrees to pick up his rent check there. Still unenforceable?
Thank you all for the information.
As for:
“Just don’t take this out on the renter. That’s not fair — I’m sure they’re having a crappy time of it with a landlord who’s not paying his mortgage and are in limbo. They do need to keep paying their rent, but at a certain point in the foreclosure process it’s hard to know to whom they owe it.”
It is nothing personal against renters. We just don’t want the others to carry the cross for them. They are living rent free for 2 years, enjoying a full amenity building while the rest of us are paying for their utilities and all the services they are enjoying.
“It is nothing personal against renters. We just don’t want the others to carry the cross for them. They are living rent free for 2 years, enjoying a full amenity building while the rest of us are paying for their utilities and all the services they are enjoying.”
I’m sorry, but WTF is wrong with you guys!? HIRE A LAWYER! Two years and you haven’t consulted a lawyer!?!?!?
“I’m sorry, but WTF is wrong with you guys!? HIRE A LAWYER! Two years and you haven’t consulted a lawyer!?!?!?”
I *totally* agree with GMT on this one. You’ve now (probably) flushed at least 18 months of assessments.
We have just moved in and I have attended some meetings, trying to gather some information, before suggesting action to our board. But, I am with you as far as the WTF sentiment goes.
All of this assumes the bank doesn’t have a recorded assignment of rents on the property. Once they are in a position to enforce that, it makes this hypothetical rental income kind of a moot point.
What “full amenity building” doesn’t have a lawyer on speed dial (or at least the management co has one on speed dial), automatically filing a lien after a few months of an owner not paying association fees? Is it self managed, or by WL, or one of its competiors (not that it has many)? I managed some real rinky-dink associations about ten years ago, and even those boards had the sense to instruct me to call the association’s lawyer to set things in motion.
And, have these “renters” told you that they’re not paying anything? Or did the unit “owner”? In any event, it doesn’t matter. (If the renters had agreed to pay, and were in fact paying the unit owner all along, say, something like 10 times the market rate for rent on such a unit, would you and your fellow unit owners feel any obligation to give the renter some money back?)
Perhaps it’s time to forget about the free-riders at your building, and focus on getting new board members and replacing the management.
Your association may be able to change the bylaws to state that access to building amenities are conditional on being current with assessments.
A friend lives in a building and one of the amenities is Direct TV purchased by the association – a bulk package for all units. Whenever a unit owner fails to pay the assessments, the association calls Direct TV and service is turned off until the association is paid. So far, it has worked.
If your building has key fob access to the pool and exercise area, rooftop deck, etc, you could turn that access on and off on an individual basis – just make sure all access to the unit stays on all the time. If your building is still stuck in the past with actual keys or unlocked doors, maybe you need to recommend a technology upgrade.
There is key fob access to the pool and gym and parking. I am not sure about all the details so I cannot blame the board yet. The renter, a lawyer himself, told me he has not paid in years, but there might be law suits and whatnot against him. I wanted to gather some information before bringing this up. Given what GMT said, I cannot see why it should have taken this long though. Seems I have some investigating to do. Thanks again!
“The renter, a lawyer himself, told me he has not paid in years”
now we know where HD came up with his down payment for the home in Niles/Mt Prospect
“The renter, a lawyer himself, told me he has not paid in years, but there might be law suits and whatnot against him.”
“Law suits and whatnot against him”?????
So you have no clue about any of this, and your beef is still really against the owner. GMT and anonny are absolutely right — the board/assoc should have consulted a lawyer two years ago, and the way they handle things needs to change. Half-baked vigilante justice against the “free-riders” isn’t the way to go. Tenants pay rent, not assessments, unless there’s a lien.
Now seems like a good time to call in a lawyer and set up a procedure for what to do not just in this case, but in general for the future. Chicago’s “full-amenity buildings” are going to keep encountering these problems over the next few years.
“Now seems like a good time to call in a lawyer and set up a procedure for what to do not just in this case, but in general for the future. Chicago’s “full-amenity buildings” are going to keep encountering these problems over the next few years.”
Keep encountering it? They’ve been “encountering it” for at least 4 years now. I don’t know of any of the large high rise buildings, even the priciest, that haven’t had at least one foreclosure (but I’m sure someone could point one or two out in this city with hundreds of high rises.)
I’m surprised at all the outrage over this person’s question.
Yes- the association can go after the assessments from the renter. But yes, they need a lawyer to do so. In the cases I’ve seen, the association files a lawsuit against the owner and the renter for the back assessments. The association then takes over the unit and works out a deal with the renter so that the renter pays rent to the association (which covers the back assessments and current assessments.) They do this until the bank actually takes the unit.
For example, I know someone who was paying $1800 a month to the landlord who, it turns out, hadn’t paid the mortgage or assessments for nearly 3 years. They were sued by the association, who, at the same time took over the unit. They then came to an agreement to pay $1500 a month directly to the association. They did so for about 8 months before the bank gave them 30 days to leave the unit. The bank then took the unit.
Any large building should already know this procedure. It’s pretty standard.
“What “full amenity building” doesn’t have a lawyer on speed dial (or at least the management co has one on speed dial), automatically filing a lien after a few months of an owner not paying association fees?”
Yes! Thank you anonny.
“What happens when rates REALLY rise? This is something I’m watching. They’re not going to stay at record lows forever.”
we’re going from ZIRP to NIRP. They’re not going anywhere!
if you lock the tenant out of amenities based off of bylaws, you’re altering the terms of the lease technically, and while that doesn’t present a legal issue between you and owner or you and renter, it presents one additional between owner and renter and gives them a reason to withhold rent if necessary. so you would have to consider what someone with no money would do when sued by both the tenant and the association at the same time, who would be paid first or at all. My guess though is he tenant would likely move and there would be no tenant willing to move in that would pay a market rate in that property.
” In the cases I’ve seen, the association files a lawsuit against the owner and the renter for the back assessments. ”
No offense, but you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
Marea, I assume your building has a property mgmt company. Would be interested to know what guidance they’ve (not) been giving the Board on this. I’d consider getting rid of them and the Board. 🙂
On that subject, anyone have any good experiences with condo prop mgmt companies and be willing to throw some recommendations out there?