645 n kingsbury

Will the Reduction in FHA Loan Limits Impact Condo Sales? 645 N. Kingsbury in River North

Jan 8 • River North • 1728 Views • 11 Comments

This 2-bedroom in Admirals Pointe at 645 N. Kingsbury in River North came on the market at the end of November 2013.

It was bank owned in 2013 and has been renovated.

The unit, with south, west and city views, has new dark hardwood floors and ceiling fans.

It also has a new kitchen with dark cabinetry, granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances and a glass tile backsplash.

There is only one picture of a bathroom and it appears to be the original bath.

Other 2013 listings in the building touted Admiral’s Pointe as being “FHA approved.”

In 2013, the FHA loan limit was $417,000 which most of the 2/2s, which were selling in the $300,000s, in the building would have qualified for.

But in 2014, the FHA loan limit has fallen to $365,700 in Chicago.

This unit is listed at $439,900, which was still above the old loan limit, but not by much. (There’s always room for negotiation.)

But in 2014, it is WELL above the FHA loan limit.

Unless it is significantly reduced, it’s not falling under the limit.

Will the reduction in the loan limits hit sales of these $400,000 2/2s hard in FHA approved buildings?

Thomas Besore at Streeterville Properties has the listing. See the pictures here.

Unit #1902: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1225 square feet

  • Sold in March 2002 for $362,500
  • Sold in March 2006 for $390,000
  • Sold in August 2010 for $295,000
  • Lis pendens foreclosure filed in March 2012
  • Bank owned
  • Sold in June 2013 for $265,000
  • Originally listed in November 2013 for $439,900
  • Currently still listed for $439,900
  • Assessments of $716 a month (includes a/c, gas, cable, doorman)
  • Taxes of $5183
  • Central Air
  • Washer/Dryer in the unit
  • No parking included
  • Bedroom #1: 13×12
  • Bedroom #2: 13×12

Related Posts

11 Responses to Will the Reduction in FHA Loan Limits Impact Condo Sales? 645 N. Kingsbury in River North

  1. anon (tfo) says:

    I miss Bobbo. One of his hobby horses.

  2. Sabrina says:

    I wonder what this will eventually sell for? I don’t think a 2/2 in this building has sold over $400,000 in a long, long time (maybe five or six year- basically the last time was during the boom.) This doesn’t include parking. If you include the parking it is really $470,000. In Admiral’s Pointe!

    Wasn’t there just a 3-bedroom for sale in one of the high rises on Grand (Grand on Grand, I think) for like $425,000?

  3. Fred says:

    Yeah, there’s no way this sells above $400k. 2402 has been listed at $415 + 25k since October with no takers. This is a prime example of why listing times are up.

  4. dahliachi says:

    Looks like it was never ‘bank owned’, but bid up at auction from 193k to final sale price of 265k by third party.

  5. David says:

    If I listed a 1BR for $1 million and it didn’t sell, would that be evidence that prices in the rest of the market were going to fall?

  6. anon (tfo) says:

    “If I listed a 1BR for $1 million and it didn’t sell, would that be evidence that prices in the rest of the market were going to fall?”

    Better question: If you list for $1mm, and it doesn’t sell, and you reduce it to $400k, and it does, what does that tell you about price trends?

  7. David says:

    It would tell you absolutely nothing because it’s a single point of data, not a trend. I’m just trying to point out that taking an over-priced example such as this one and putting it forth as evidence that prices will or should drop is not convincing.

  8. chuk says:

    That’s what some people do when the data doesn’t agree with their bias.

  9. Sabrina says:

    “Better question: If you list for $1mm, and it doesn’t sell, and you reduce it to $400k, and it does, what does that tell you about price trends?”

    This would tell me that prices are rising because the original list indicates greed.

  10. anon (tfo) says:

    “This would tell me that prices are rising because the original list indicates greed.”

    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Srsly?

  11. Pete says:

    Federally guaranteed loan limits SHOULD fall. Its not the government’s proper role to subsidize the inflation of housing prices. If the market cannot provide for higher prices on its own, then that’s the market’s way of saying prices are already high enough. Don’t ignore the invisible hand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

« »