Chicago Sizzle: Multiple Offers For Houses Outside of the GreenZone This Spring

3338 n rutherford

Sales have picked up all around Chicagoland this spring, and not just in the GreenZone.

Finally, the sizzle is hitting ALL markets.

As the Chicago Tribune reports:

The story of a handsome brick bungalow with a touch of green trim in Elmwood Park may not be the norm. But neither is it the exception in a local housing market that is putting up some strong numbers in some surprising corners.

The updated two-bedroom home was listed a little on the high side, for $199,000, but Terrance Matthews, an agent with Coldwell Banker Honig-Bell, hoped it nonetheless would attract some interest. He and the seller were not disappointed, despite the fact that Elmwood Park was among the many communities hit by foreclosures.

“We had 31 showings in four days,” Matthews said. “Two (offers) were $20,000 over asking price, two were $15,000 over, one was at asking price and one was about $8,000 below.”

The home went under contract in less than a week, and the sale closed in early March, for $220,000.

The “hot” areas are not necessarily where you might think.

The hot areas are scattered throughout the Chicago area, according to data from the Chicago Association of Realtors. Within Chicago, they include neighborhoods like Albany Park, the Near West Side, West Lawn, Ashburn and Dunning. In addition to Elmwood Park, suburban communities seeing new strength include Libertyville, Prospect Heights, Tinley Park and Lockport.

As we’ve chattered about, however, buyers want “new” so the property either should be new construction or renovated. Renovated and/or rehabbed properties with new kitchen and baths are selling almost instantly. If you have older finishes and haven’t bothered to upgrade anything in 10 to 15 years, it will be more challenging.

In Libertyville, an end-unit townhouse with hardwood floors went under contract in 10 days and sold for $380,000, 96 percent of its list price. “Anything under half a million is selling really fast, almost instantly,” said Doug Anderson, an agent at Blue Fence Real Estate.

In Chicago, Pat Cardoni, an agent with Insider Show Homes, works with a rehabber that targets neighborhoods it sees as on the upswing, such as West Lawn and Dunning. After a complete renovation, a West Lawn bungalow went on the market in mid-December at $239,900. It sold in late February for $239,000.

With mortgage rates near historic lows, unemployment around 5.5%, and the stock market at record highs, could there be a better time to be buying/selling a home?

Why isn’t more inventory coming on the market?

What are Chicago’s hottest neighborhoods? [Chicago Tribune, Mary Ellen Podmolik, April 17, 2015]

54 Responses to “Chicago Sizzle: Multiple Offers For Houses Outside of the GreenZone This Spring”

  1. In other words, you were wrong about this year (again).

    “Why isn’t more inventory coming on the market?”

    Most people move up when they buy. Sure your 250k condo went to 350k. But the 500k place you wanted is now 700k.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +6 (from 14 votes)
  2. When new construction condos heat up, magically watch the inventory go up…They’ve only been building rental stuff for the last 6 years, chuck is right a majority of people don’t move down, they move up. First time buyers are buying these pos’s in the boonies since they can’t afford anything nice.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 7 votes)
  3. Trying to decide which Trib comment I like better:

    “The hottest Chicago neighborhoods are far Northwest Side snoozers followed by downtrodden, ticky-tacky, tract housing in Tinley Park and Libertyville? What gives?”

    or

    “bring your concealed carry permit. You will need it [in Logan Square].”

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
  4. A rising market can be bad for many move-up buyers. Which scenario is “better”?

    a) Buy condo for 250k. Goes down to 200k and you sell. The house you move to goes from 500k to 400k. Net cost = 450k (ie, you bought at “the bottom”)

    b) Buy condo for 250k. Goes up to 350k and you sell. The house you move to goes from 500k to 700k. Net cost = 600k (ie, you bought at “the top”)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
  5. Well assuming 20% down payments, in a) you have to come up with $130k in down payments plus transaction costs less any mortgage pay down

    In b) you have to come up with $50k in down payments plus transaction costs less any mortgage pay down.

    A) may be cheaper if we’re all paying cash. B) is much more feasible for most buyers. Also makes for a much more liquid market

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
  6. In scenario A, you don’t move into a $400k house, you move into a rental because you lost your original downpayment as well as every single PITIA payment you made along the way.

    A smart person in scenario B still moves into a $500k house, but gives up some combination of location/space to do so.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  7. “A smart person in scenario B still moves into a $500k house, but gives up some combination of location/space to do so.”

    Combining w/ W’s point:

    The more likely reality is that, with the $150k in cash from the initial DP + gain they buy the $700k house without dipping (much) into savings for the new DP.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  8. I’m going w (c):

    c) Buy condo for 250k. Goes up to 450k and you sell. The house you move to goes from 500k to 900k. Net cost = 700k (ie, you bought above “the top” but who cares as you got your dp and tranx costs more than covered, and paying more for the new place is okay as you’ll just have a bigger profit when you sell again)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
  9. Most people move up when they buy. Sure your 250k condo went to 350k. But the 500k place you wanted is now 700k.

    This makes no sense. Prices are going up more than in 2007. More than the boom!

    And there was PLENTY of inventory then (excluding all the new construction condos even.) There were PLENTY of SFH, townhouses, older construction condos. Hundreds of new listings would come on the market every single day and I know that because I was running this blog back then and had the same trackers going as I have now. If there are even half of the amount of 2007 I think, “wow- a lot has come on the market.”

    Those buyers had the SAME problem with their move-up property also going up.

    So what’s the REAL issue?

    And it’s not all just first time buyers but I agree that’s a problem. They still only make up 28% of the market.

    I just saw a comment by a Fannie official talking about how if they didn’t loosen first time buyer restrictions (it’s now easily 3% to 5% down- you don’t HAVE to have 20% to buy- you just pay PMI)- then it would take first time buyers 20 YEARS to buy. 20 YEARS!

    Bah ha ha ha ha ha!

    Yeah- this housing market is “normal.”

    NOT.

    So why isn’t it? Why is it so distorted???

    Where is the inventory? Prices are past peak- if not higher. Why aren’t all the accidental landlords selling and cashing in and getting out of that property? Is it because they think prices will only keep going up?

    Barron’s had housing as its cover story this week- acknowledging that prices are back at or above peak in most of the country now but that it looks like the housing market is slowing.

    Um…yeah.

    Because incomes aren’t rising. You can’t have double digit housing price gains and single digit rises in income- not unless mortgage rates go another leg down.

    Low mortgage rates are the only thing keeping the balls in the air.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)
  10. And historically low interest rates are here to stay. I agree, the lowering of the down payment percentage is not good for the long term housing market. But either is QE infinite in Japan, QE in Europe, constant bailouts of distressed countries, etc. it’s just America’s financial problems look great compared to other countries. So sovereign wealth funds and pensions will continue to buy U.S. Bonds which will keep rates low. And with low rates, prices will continue to increase.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  11. “Why aren’t all the accidental landlords selling and cashing in and getting out of that property?”

    Because they are like “shadow inventory”.

    “This makes no sense. Prices are going up more than in 2007. More than the boom!”

    The funny thing is, you have reported how “bad” every year has been since 2011, but here we are with prices past peak. How did that happen if the market was so “bad” the last 4 years? How many times have you said “if you didn’t sell this year, you missed your chance”? You are worse than the realtors saying “buy now or be priced out”. At least they were right.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +8 (from 10 votes)
  12. Sabrina, I too am astonished that prices have gone past the peak prices of 2007. I live in the north side close to Ravenswood. It is amazing to see home prices back to 800K and 1.3M.

    The fundamentals don’t make sense. But people are desperate to “own” their own house. It looks like people have not learned their lesson from the past.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  13. The market seems very interesting. Some properties are selling very very quickly at prices above bubble. Others seem to sit for no apparent reason. Here are a couple fantastic properties that I would have thought would have sold instantly but they languish with multiple price drops and real-estate agent gimmicks (delisiting than relisting)

    https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2836-N-Greenview-Ave-60657/home/12556800?utm_campaign=instant_listings_update&utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_content=home_image

    https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/3726-N-Claremont-Ave-60618/home/13389835

    I get the feeling that this is a blow-off top. Lumber prices are falling into the toilet. The general consensus from most is that interest rates are going to rise in June or Sept so buy now before the party is over. This is foolish on many levels but it is what I’ve been hearing. Nevermind that rising rates would portend lower home prices and that rates aren’t going to rise any time soon (and maybe never again in our lifetimes IMHO). It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months as this reality becomes clearer.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  14. “Why aren’t all the accidental landlords selling and cashing in and getting out of that property?”

    I’ll try to field that question. Usually it’s an issue of timing and finding the sweet spot between:

    ** when your tenant’s lease is up (may/june and Sept/Oct typically)
    ** how much mortgage you can afford to eat while the place is empty (showing a place with a renter is challenging)
    ** how quickly you can sell before you have to reconsider and get another paying tenant back in your place. (real estate transactions are still quite Byzantine in this regard and that ain’t changing any time soon)

    BTW: we prefer Reluctant Landlord over Accidental Landlord

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)
  15. “bring your concealed carry permit. You will need it [in Logan Square].”

    The Tribune pretty much includes the entire Northwest side of Chicago as Logan Square. The 2900 block of Milwaukee is Avondale where said incident happen.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  16. Prices are not past peak in most parts of the city. I am in touch with plenty of would-be sellers that are still at risk of bringing money to closing or have so little equity that they are better off renting it out at a small monthly positive cash flow that also pays down their mortgage.

    And every year when prices go up a bit more of the reluctant landlords come out of the woodwork. I’m seeing plenty this year.

    There is nothing abnormal about this market other than the low inventory levels. Prices have to rise.

    IAR releases sales tomorrow. As I mentioned they should report Chicago up about 12.3% over last year.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)
  17. I’m too busy to post the March data this morning. I’ll post it tonight along with some other market condition stuff I’ve seen recently.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  18. There is nothing abnormal about this market other than the low inventory levels. Prices have to rise.

    So you are admitting it is “abnormal” then because inventory hasn’t been this tight in nearly a decade. Is that “normal”? No. That is bubble conditions. Chicago has plenty of land and space. Inventory should NEVER be a problem. We’re not constrained by geography like San Francisco. Proof is the fact that they’re currently building 6,000 apartments.

    At some point, you have a breaking point. When do we reach it? What happens when we hit it? Will it mean flat prices for years as mortgage rates RISE?

    Few on this site have ever lived through a rising mortgage rate environment when the monthly payment for a property is actually moving higher. None of us know what the result will be.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  19. Sorry Nimesh- but for some reason your comment has disappeared. If you post again- only sign in using your FIRST name (NOT your full name) and it should go through the moderation filter. I have approved you to sign in using your first name only.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  20. Prices are clearly not that high because plenty of people are still underwater – or close to zero equity. Inventory is low because prices are not high enough and renting a home out makes more sense for a lot of people. If prices rose another 10% there would be plenty of inventory.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  21. “Prices are clearly not that high because plenty of people are still underwater – or close to zero equity. Inventory is low because prices are not high enough and renting a home out makes more sense for a lot of people. If prices rose another 10% there would be plenty of inventory.”

    But prices are BACK and HIGHER in most parts of the GZ. So we shouldn’t need prices to rise another 10% to have people be able to sell there. They’ve been paying the mortgage for 10 years! They should have enough equity built-up there to easily sell in the GZ (outside the GZ where the prices haven’t risen as much is a different story.)

    But inside the GZ, the inventory remains extremely low so that there are bidding wars on homes in Lakeview and Ukrainian Village, for instance. But plenty of people should be able to list in both of those neighborhoods and walk away with $50,000 to $100,000 or more (based on the listings I’m seeing.)

    That 2/2 that was $400,000 in 2005 is now being listed for $475,000 to $500,000 in some cases. Yes, it’s true. The $400,000 2/2 is going away. It’s now a half a million dollars.

    Welcome to 2015.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
  22. Maybe it really is the problem Chuk and others have said. They can’t move up because even though they’re making $50,000 on the sale of the Lakeview condo, the Park Ridge house is now $150,000 more than 10 years ago so the extra $50,000 doesn’t get them very far.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
  23. I’m looking at data for 530 N Lake Shore. Plenty of units there have closed in the last year at lower prices than they sold for in the last 10 years.

    There are 2/1s in Wrigleyville that will sell for less than the owner paid for them and at some point the owner figures they will just rent it.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  24. A number of people that bought between 2005 and 2008 were able to purchase only because of an interest only ARM. My aunt in the burbs bought a place then and is still 70k underwater on it, yet still has 2 years left on her 10 year interest only ARM. Demanded she refinance since she was paying a 6.375% rate. If others in the green zone did the same thing, they haven’t paid any equity down yet on their interest only arm. They could have refinanced back in 2013 with another 7 year interest only arm at around 2.75-3%.
    So if people did that, they are not necessarily above water on their mortgage.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
  25. “The Tribune pretty much includes the entire Northwest side of Chicago as Logan Square”

    The stoooopid Tribune map ( http://boundaries.tribapps.com/# ) has Logan Square running from:

    North Ave to Belmont/Kennedy, Western/Kennedy to Pulaski,

    EXCEPT Palmer Square, which is

    west side of Milwaukee to east side Kedzie from Fullerton to Armitage. So the California blue line stop isn’t in Logan Square, according tot he Trib.

    Still makes more sense than their definition of Lake View, which includes Lane Tech, and their concept of the Lathrop Homes “neighborhood” which includes the west side of Ashland, from Diversey to Fullerton, and everything west to the river.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  26. “We’re not constrained by geography like San Francisco”

    Not by physical geography, no, but by socioeconomic geography to a significant extent…Sure, the whole west side south of North and west of Kedzie is cheap and available, but it’s completely undesirable.

    And SF’s restrictions are largely zoning/NIMBY restrictions, too. If they allowed much higher density in large swaths of the city, then there’d be far more than 6,000 apartments under development there.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  27. “And SF’s restrictions are largely zoning/NIMBY restrictions, too. If they allowed much higher density in large swaths of the city, then there’d be far more than 6,000 apartments under development there.”

    They’ve already built thousands! The 6,000 are just those currently under construction. This is on top of the 10,000, in the South Loop alone, that were built in 2005-2008. They’ve built THOUSANDS of high rise units.

    And no- we’re NOT constrained by geography due to socioeconomics or no one would be paying $400,000 for a bungalow in Portage Park.

    Have you ever driven west in the city of Chicago to its border? It’s mostly middle class with some pockets of lower middle class. I wouldn’t exactly call Galewood “undesireable.” Nor would I call Jefferson Park, Edison Park, Oriole Park and on and on “undesireable.”

    McKinley Park on the southwest side is not “undesirable.” Neither is Beverly or Morgan Park.

    Chatham used to be entirely middle class but it is changing now. Pullman was also not that bad during the boom but the bust was hard on that area.

    Get out and drive around. The city is really much bigger and more diverse than your 2 mile radius in River North or Lincoln Park.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)
  28. “There are 2/1s in Wrigleyville that will sell for less than the owner paid for them and at some point the owner figures they will just rent it.”

    Not that many. Not in this market. Depends on what location and the finishes.

    You have to get out in the GZ more Gary. I would say 80% to 90% are selling for more than they paid now. Some much, much more. It’s crazy what prices are doing out there.

    But, again, you have to pay to buy something else and those prices are crazy too.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  29. I see stuff in the Green zone all the time and I’m not seeing a widespread bubble. Sure, there are pockets and single family homes have fared well in the right areas. But I just gave you the example of 530 N Lake Shore and I’m sure 512 N McClurg doesn’t look great either and if I spent time on it I’d find other examples of where values are not back to peak.

    And oh, BTW, once you exclude all the properties that don’t have readily available sales histories in the right time frame and homes that have been remodeled your sample size gets pretty small pretty quickly.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  30. Wow. One building. I can give you ten buildings just down the street from 530 N LSD where values are at or above peak.

    I have said over and over again- it depends on what the location is and the finishes. In River North, for instance, some buildings like 300 W. Grand haven’t gotten back to peak because it was already an older building with mostly older finishes in the units. Same with 333 W Hubbard. But even many units in 333 W Hubbard are selling for past peak (depending on finishes.)

    Look at the Silver. Well past its peak.

    How is the Montgomery holding up? I’m sure it depends on the size of the unit in there.

    Past peak in The Pearson in Streeterville. What about Olympia Centre? Depends on the units in there- if you remodeled, then you’re past peak.

    10 W. Delaware- past peak. Townhouse developments- mostly past peak but depends on the size of the townhouse and, again, finishes and age of the townhouse.

    There are SO many factors! Some buildings have just been, frankly, more popular than others. If your unit doesn’t have parking, it’s at a disadvantage. If you’re above commercial spaces, you might not get peak with the tighter regulations. Was the building filled with foreclosures in the last 8 years? Might not be above peak yet.

    Anything that is new- or looks new- is above peak.

    Got a 3-bedroom in a good school district? 95% of those are above peak.

    Yeah- it’s a good time to be someone in the GZ who bought 9 or 10 years ago. Now is the time to get out!

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
  31. “10 W. Delaware”

    ???

    10 east or 2 west?

    10 East was completed in ’09, and wasn’t sold out. There are 5 sales in the last 6 months–all higher than their 2010 priors, all of those 2010 prior being parts of bulk unit sales.

    Walton on the Park shows 3 sales in the past 6 months. 2 (big) losers, and one winner.

    Neither of those buildings have any solid evidence of being “past peak”.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  32. So I think the conclusion is that some units in some buildings in some areas are past peak. And it helps if you’ve invested $100K in remodeling because then you might be able to sell for $80k more than you paid originally.

    This from Crain’s: “As many as one-quarter of all Chicago-area homeowners with mortgages owe more than the home is worth, and another 17 percent are “effectively under water,” meaning the proceeds from a sale of their home won’t cover the costs of moving to a new one, according to RealtyTrac.

    http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20150421/CRED0701/150429982/cant-find-a-chicago-home-to-buy-join-the-club

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  33. “Yeah- it’s a good time to be someone in the GZ who bought 9 or 10 years ago. Now is the time to get out!”

    and live where? rents are skyrocketing in nice areas as well…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  34. Check out the sales at 2642 N Racine. These are not above peak prices. I see this stuff all the time. I guess I could report it here every time I see it if that’s what it’s going to take to prove that prices have a long way to move up.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  35. “and live where? rents are skyrocketing in nice areas as well…”

    I disagree – while rents are skyrocketing for new/ relatively new apts I believe rent is trending down for grade B units in nice areas. Ex: 400 N LaSalle, a 17 year old condo bldg with pool, workout room, doorman etc. & significant % of investor ownership. Rent for 1015 sq ft 1 bed plus den, 1.5 bath apartments w/in unit W/D but without hardwood or stainless etc. have trended down to $2.10-$2.20 psf (see #2707 & 2907) vs $2.25-$2.40 psf in previous years. I believe same pattern is happening with rents for similar quality Gold Coast condo units. Off season anomaly or new trend?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  36. “Check out the sales at 2642 N Racine.”

    Not “new” enough and kinda weird, too.

    See: “I have said over and over again- it depends on what the location is and the finishes.”

    This is a B location for LP, and it’s B- on the finishes. So throw it out.

    It’s the corollary to Stev-o’s rules for buying smart in LP: If it’s not past peak, that’s because the location or finishes aren’t ‘hot’ in the current market.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  37. or maybe people are unwilling to pay so much for a old rehabbed unit when you can pay the same for a brand new one? This will clearly put pressure on the outdated rentals, but new rents in these new river north buildings are insane, nearly 3 bucks a sqft/month!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  38. “rents in these new river north buildings are insane”

    There is a 861 sf 1/1 in 400 LaSalle that’s currently pending, with a $350k list. With the taxes and assessments, it only reaches a 6 (simple) cap at that price with rent at basically $3 psf.

    People are kookoo.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  39. So basically we will say that prices are past peak over vast swaths of desirable areas except for the contrary examples which we will ignore after the fact.

    Here is what I believe. I believe there is a lot more randomness to real estate prices than anyone wants to believe. It’s a function of what else is on the market and what buyers happen to be in the market at a given time. I’m not saying that there are no discernible patterns, just that those patterns are hard to see. I see things that don’t make sense all the time.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  40. “Have you ever driven west in the city of Chicago to its border? It’s mostly middle class with some pockets of lower middle class. I wouldn’t exactly call Galewood “undesireable.” Nor would I call Jefferson Park, Edison Park, Oriole Park and on and on “undesireable.””

    Since when are any of those areas south of North Avenue?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  41. “Check out the sales at 2642 N Racine. These are not above peak prices. I see this stuff all the time. I guess I could report it here every time I see it if that’s what it’s going to take to prove that prices have a long way to move up.”

    Gary- why don’t you post all the sales that aren’t past the peak and I’ll post all the ones that are and we’ll see who wins, right?

    Jesus.

    Prices are past peak for the vast majority of the buildings/properties in the GZ. If you don’t own one, or it’s the basement unit or you still have black appliances, than my condolences.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  42. “Yeah- it’s a good time to be someone in the GZ who bought 9 or 10 years ago. Now is the time to get out!”

    “and live where? rents are skyrocketing in nice areas as well…”

    Sonies- if they’ve lived there for 10 years they are now 35, instead of 25. They are married and have one and maybe 2 kids. The schools suck where they live in the Ukrainian Village. So they REALLY want to just get out of their cramped condo where they have to walk through snowdrifts to the car parked behind the building and they want to buy a house with a yard in the suburbs.

    Of course, the problem is, the inventory is low in the suburbs too.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
  43. “This from Crain’s: “As many as one-quarter of all Chicago-area homeowners with mortgages owe more than the home is worth, and another 17 percent are “effectively under water,” meaning the proceeds from a sale of their home won’t cover the costs of moving to a new one, according to RealtyTrac.”

    I posted this in the other article! Thanks for reading it! :)

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  44. “I see stuff in the Green zone all the time and I’m not seeing a widespread bubble.”

    I never said I was seeing a widespread bubble either. Not with those sales numbers!

    When mortgage rates rise again, sales will decline again. It’s so obvious it’s comical.

    Of course, if mortgage rates never rise again (which many people believe) then we’ll just go along with a distorted market which really works against first time buyers.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  45. “Prices are past peak for the vast majority of the buildings/properties in the GZ.”

    You cited a building on Delaware that could be interpreted to be one of 2 buildings. *Neither* of those two have actual evidence of being “past peak”, as I showed.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  46. RK:

    “Here are a couple fantastic properties that I would have thought would have sold instantly but they languish”

    Re: Claremont house. You familiar with that neighborhood? That’s a total B (I’d say minus–but if you don’t like neighbors across the street, maybe a plus) location, and $2m is tippy-top of the market for the hood–indeed, most of the houses that hit $2m are on wider than 30′ lots, and/or have at least one more bedroom.

    They priced *way* too aggressively on the high side, and that’s the issue. As nice as it looks inside, I can’t see it getting much more than 3731 Oakley (list: $1.799), which is (imo) a nicer location away from Western.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  47. “Claremont house….3731 Oakley”

    What’s w all the paved backyards? Did the nyt say that grass is out or something?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  48. “What’s w all the paved backyards? Did the nyt say that grass is out or something?”

    Taxes already pay for the watering and mowing of lots and lots of grass, in parks. If we lived in the burbs or had a double lot, I’d want our own lawn. But at our current (regular city lot) house, the backyard is about 40 percent wood decking, 40 percent stone, and 20 percent playground-grade wood chips. The side and front yard areas are bark.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  49. “What’s w all the paved backyards?”

    Dunno. Don’t like. Wouldn’t want grass, if I had that little space, tho, either, so most of the options are compromises. I’d put in fieldturf, myself.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  50. “Dunno. Don’t like. Wouldn’t want grass, if I had that little space, tho, either, so most of the options are compromises. I’d put in fieldturf, myself.”

    paved seems too hot for the hot times. turf? is that (or something like it) what’s installed here?

    https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/3823-N-Paulina-St-60613/home/13388085

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  51. “is that (or something like it) what’s installed here?”

    That looks almost like carpet, just rolled out across a semi-prepared area. I’m sure it’s not, but it looks very meh.

    I mean the good stuff, like the Latin School soccer field in Lincoln Park:

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lincoln+Park+Turf+Field/@41.916416,-87.629426,3a,75y/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s55314051!2e1!3e10!4m7!1m4!3m3!1s0x880fd36f3fb23da1:0xa2cd73156bbbef79!2s1800+N+Lake+Shore+Dr,+Chicago,+IL+60614!3b1!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0xccbc6fd49b70e8ed

    Apparently, it’s around $8 psf, installed. Price psf goes down somewhat with larger areas (mobilization costs are fairly high).

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  52. “I mean the good stuff, like the Latin School soccer field in Lincoln Park:”

    or logan sq:

    http://logansquarist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Mayor-and-Amb-High-5.jpg

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  53. ^ lol at that picture DZ, looks like he’s defending himself from those kids

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  54. “^ lol at that picture DZ, looks like he’s defending himself from those kids”

    lol indeed. my son was at the ceremony (opening the soccer field) and pulled on rahm’s suit jacket from behind. rahm turns aroudn w a major WTF look on his face ready to engage in hand-hand combat, then realizes it’s a 4 y.o. and that there are photogs around. [at least 25% of that story is true]

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Leave a Reply