Skyline Views and Under the 2014 Price in SoNo: 860 W. Blackhawk in Lincoln Park
This 2-bedroom in SoNo at 860 W. Blackhawk in the Clybourn Corridor of Lincoln Park came on the market in July 2019.
SoNo was built in 2009 just as the financial crisis hit. It has 198 units and a parking garage. It’s a doorman building.
If you recall, originally, the units were drastically reduced in order to sell them during the recession.
A second building was constructed nearby and it was rentals.
The listing for this unit says it has unobstructed south, east and west skyline and city views.
There are walnut hardwood floors throughout.
The listing says there is designer lighting, window shades and custom closets.
The kitchen has modern dark cabinets, granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances and an under mount sink. There’s also an island.
The unit has a split floor plan.
The master suite has a spa-like marble bath. The second bedroom has a custom murphy bed.
The unit has an large covered terrace, central air, washer/dryer in the unit and parking is included.
Originally listed for $685,000 in July 2019, it has been reduced to $629,000 which is under both the 2017 and 2014 prices.
Is this a deal?
Akos Straub at Berkshire Hathaway Homeservices has the listing. See the pictures and floor plan here.
Unit #2002: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1438 square feet
- Sold in February 2010 for $478,000
- Sold in September 2014 for $634,000
- Sold in July 2017 for $665,000
- Originally listed in July 2019 for $685,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $629,000 (includes parking)
- Assessments of $814 a month (includes heat, a/c, gas, doorman, cable, exercise room, exterior maintenance, lawn care, scavenger, snow removal, Internet)
- Taxes of $12,056
- Central Air
- Washer/dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 21×12
- Bedroom #2: 14×12
- Living room: 24×14
- Kitchen: 24×9
- Foyer: 15×5
- Balcony: 12×10
everything looks dated and needs to be cosmetically updated. seems like a reasonable price.
GTFO with that square footage. This box in the sky is no more than 1100 – – and that is rounding up.
Nice views and I don’t think it *needs* any updating. Finishes look fine. We have to get away from being such a wasteful society – – when finishes were cheap to begin with and dated they always look bad and need replacing. I am not necessarily getting the vibe that everything in here is particularly cheap. Not top quality but not nothing either. I would add a tile backsplash in the kitchen and bath and new bath medicine cabinets (possibly, have to see them and the vanities up close) to start. Over time replace appliances…but not ripping anything out for the sake of *needing* the latest trend.
They won’t get their asking price given there are a ton of options out there at this price point. It seems no one wants to live here for very long not to mention you can rent the equivalent of this for much less and not expose yourself to tax uncertainty and the ill-liquidity of a commodity-level unit in down condo market Putting 20% down means locking up a nice chunk of change for the privilege of still paying just shy of $4350/mo (including assessments, taxes, insurance, all of which have a way of INCREASING over time) Meanwhile, a similarly sized 2/2 in New City is listed at $3500/mo, which seems absurd to me because I am older and would never pay that for rent but it is a $900/savings relative to this!
I have heard the amenity deck with outdoor pool is in the rental tower . . . and that summer time weekends by the pool can be less than family friendly as a result. Is that true? The mere fact that the ownership tower wouldn’t have a separate amenity deck strikes me as odd, but certainly is what is keeping the assessments this low in a high rise.
Looks like something from the Soviet era.
Incredibly, Soviet art was better and more interesting than the modern garbage art some designer put in this building. Looks like anywhere USA in any big city.
While the square footage may be a bit exaggerated, I doubt its 1100, probably closer to 1350 or 1400.
My baby brother lives in the rental tower next door. While the rental building has been upkept very well ( common areas updated, humongous gym and rec area, separate yoga and peloton studio, etc ), this building has aged really poorly.
Not sure why but the condo association obviously doesn’t invest much in upkeep. The hallways / elevators and common areas outside of the lobby are often dirty and look worn out.
Also, the condo tower has no pool, which is surprising to me, as the rental tower has one.
“I have heard the amenity deck with outdoor pool is in the rental tower . . . and that summer time weekends by the pool can be less than family friendly as a result. Is that true? The mere fact that the ownership tower wouldn’t have a separate amenity deck strikes me as odd, but certainly is what is keeping the assessments this low in a high rise.”
Yeah , I don’t think the condo owners are allowed to use the rental towers pool so that solves that problem, lol.
“Meanwhile, a similarly sized 2/2 in New City is listed at $3500/mo, which seems absurd to me because I am older and would never pay that for rent but it is a $900/savings relative to this!”
3500 is beyond reasonable for a new construction 2 bedroom in this market.
That would be a really crappy, small 2/2 at new city probably with 0 view. The similar units are probably 4k range. My brothers 2/2 in the rental tower is around 3750 with parking and that is still a ‘decent’ deal for this neighborhood.
“when finishes were cheap to begin with and dated they always look bad and need replacing. I am not necessarily getting the vibe that everything in here is particularly cheap.”
everything in this place looks cheap and dated. just look at the light fixtures in the bathroom. Hollywood lights in something built in 2010? C’mon.
The Hollywood lights aren’t designer? I do dig the Sputnik light
When did engineered flooring become Hardwood?
Agents should get punched in the face for every lie they have in the ad.
“GTFO with that square footage. This box in the sky is no more than 1100 – – and that is rounding up.”
Assuming that the measurements on the floorplan are legit (hmmm…), I think that 1438 is actually pretty close BUT most likely includes the balcony.
“Looks like something from the Soviet era.”
You would know HH as you lived through all those decades.
The second building, now the rental with the pool, was slated to be condos, too, and they would have shared the amenities. With a poor condo market, the developer chose to offer for rent.
First time I’ve ever agreed with HH about anything.
“Yeah , I don’t think the condo owners are allowed to use the rental towers pool so that solves that problem, lol.”
My information comes from a condo unit owner – – so maybe the do have access to the pool? Not sure if they would have to pay extra for it like an additional fee on top of the regular assessment.
FWIW, I own a SFH, essentially in this location (a little SE of here), and my all in including taxes and insurance is $1500 less than what your brother pays for rent, so sure my perspective is a little skewed… I did buy it when the economy was down and there were no “qualified buyers” (and fewer “qualified sellers”), so my cost of living skews low for the area. I will never sell my place and will opt to rent it out when I decide to move away considering how lucrative that apparently will be!
“FWIW, I own a SFH, essentially in this location (a little SE of here), and my all in including taxes and insurance is $1500 less than what your brother pays for rent, so sure my perspective is a little skewed… I did buy it when the economy was down and there were no “qualified buyers” (and fewer “qualified sellers”), so my cost of living skews low for the area. I will never sell my place and will opt to rent it out when I decide to move away considering how lucrative that apparently will be!”
1. Your info is wrong – the condo owners can’t use the pool.
2. ….You own a single family home in ranch triangle (‘west Lincoln park’) and your all in with tax and assessment is 2250?. No. I don’t believe that.
Unless, by “near here” – do you mean you brought one of the SFH’s near the Jewel or Target back when the market was terrible? (And I’m talking like 12+ years ago), Because that’s the closest I can imagine. Even then, those went for what, 500k? No way your all in is that low, unless you paid like 300k down payment or something ridiculous like that.
Even the crapppppppy section A infested townhouses by the Mariano’s rent for nearly 4k.
*section 8. Sorry my mic software sucks.
“I own a SFH, essentially in this location (a little SE of here), and my all in including taxes and insurance is $1500 less than what your brother pays for rent”
$2250. With ~half of it being tax and insurance.
So you’ve got a ~$275k (original face) mortgage, and you assign a 0.00% expected return on your illiquid equity.
Honestly, to compare apple to apples, you should at least count the imputed rent net of the carrying cost and income tax as part of your total cost.
LOL Riz, Yes way my all in is that low . . . I am older than you and have idiot-savanted (?) my way through three home sales which afforded me the ability to keep my cost of living low. @Anon (tfo) – – not following your comment entirely but you are good at math.
From my perspective I do not understand – why anyone would buy this when clearly, based on what is available in effectively the same location, you can pay $900/mo less? even if it is a full 200 SF smaller or on a lower floor with no view, why throw away money like that – – $900 is a long way towards retiring earlier, traveling more etc. Now if you were getting something extra out of the deal – – like an extra bedroom and great public schools, that would be an entirely different story but I guess the calculus is a very personal one.
Now you also have two new towers nearby in lease-up – – the next phase of Old Town Park on Wells just south of Division and the “double TOD” deal on North Ave @ Larrabee (forget the name). With yet another tower going vertical on the Old Town Park site, and several smaller new construction rental and condo buildings on Wells, Sedgewick and North Ave, there is going to be some pressure on rents in this little sub-market and I have to believe, condo prices as well. People who can pay those rents are clearly renters by choice and my hunch is they will continue to choose not to own since the high rise condo stock is starting to get long in the tooth. Places like the Subject unit should just convert to rental if they can. Clearly the owners have moved out so presumably they didn’t have so much equity tied up in the unit that they were trapped there, but they may have to give up any notion that they are going to get that equity back any time soon. Also if they rent it out they can lower their taxable income — depreciation is a beautiful thing. Does this building enforce a rental cap?
“not following your comment entirely”
just sayin that your $800k +/- in equity has some ‘cost’ associated with it, too. Maybe only CD rate, but that’s still $1k/mo.
Which is why I suggested imputed rent, as its more tied to the asset–if you could rent the place to a hypothetical perfect tenant for (say) $5250/month, take out your carry, net the taxes out of the profit, call it a little shy of $2,000 net, so maybe a $4,000/month real cost.
Or you could model the risk of your long position, but that’s outside my internet commenting capabilities, for certain.