Update on 334 W. Menomonee in Old Town

334 W. Menomonee in Old Town has been a mysterious building. 

334 W. Menomonee, in the historic triangle, is Melrose Partners’ historic conversion into 18 luxury condos. The finishes were more upscale than you would find in other nearby conversions such as Crilly Court. But so were the prices.

334-w-menomonee-_2.jpg

As far as I can tell from the records, only four units out of 18 have sold in the building.

It has been marketed since January 2007. Several of the units have been rented in the meantime.

Others are still appearing for rent on Craigslist.

The units range from studios to two bedroom/two baths. There is no parking with the building.

334-w-menomonee-livingroom.jpg

334-w-menomonee-bathroom.jpg

334-w-menomonee-kitchen.jpg

Only three units are currently on the market from the developer.

Unit #201: 2 bedroom, 2 bath, 1400 square feet listed at $775,000 (listing says 1 car parking but there is NONE with the building so perhaps they’re paying for a rental garage nearby)

Unit #204: 1 bedroom, 2 bath, 900 square feet listed at $489,000

Unit #106 has recently been re-listed. If you’ve been following the building, it’s been listed several times before.

(Thanks to the tipster who sent me the listing information on the unit.)

Unit #106: 1 bedroom, 1 bath, duplex down (no square footage but probably around 850-900 square feet)

  • First listed in January 2007 for $520,000
  • Reduced in June 2007 to $469,000
  • Reduced in September 2007 to $449,000
  • Reduced on October 18, 2007 to $399,000
  • Increased on October 29, 2007 to $469,000
  • Reduced in January 2008 to $429,000
  • Reduced in late January 2008 to $419,000
  • Currently listed for $419,000

Whew!

If you were a buyer, what price would you offer?

29 Responses to “Update on 334 W. Menomonee in Old Town”

  1. I think they are slowly coming to grips with reality that a 1/1 isn’t quite worth near a half million, not even in Old Town. Beautiful unit, except do those windows extend below the sinkline?

    Judging from the list data it makes one wonder what was going on at the developer last Sept & Oct. Assuming 900sf, at 400k you’re still talking $450/sf. This developer has to be pretty bad at math to not see that as uncompetitive.

    0
    0
  2. Who needs math? “It’s different here.”

    0
    0
  3. I’d offer $315,000 plus whatever parking deal they are throwing in for unit #202- no matter how nice the finishes are (and they look beautiful!) at the end of the day its still only a 900sq one bedroom without parking in an area where parking is impossible.

    I think this is a case where the developer spent WAY too much on the finishes and now has an inflated sense of what the units are worth. I looked at a vintage 3bdrm unit at 210 E. Pearson, less then 2blks from the lake, across from the Contemporary Art Museum and park for around $500k – a little elbow grease, couple of gallons of paint and about $25-30k and I could make it look as nice as 334 Menomonee…

    0
    0
  4. I’ve been looking at these units since I moved to Chicago last December. I might still rent in the building to get to know it a bit, and watch the prices keep falling…then move in on something.

    For this 1/1, I can see somebody paying 350k – but it wouldn’t be me. I was looking at unit 102 – a 2/2 duplex down, which I believe someone associated with Melrose (the developer) was occupying. It was recently just pulled from MLS (10 days ago maybe?) – last ask was $599k, down from $650k, I believe?

    Anybody play johnny low-ball with this developer? What leg can they stand on these days? They can’t even rent some of these units — even those prices are crazy.

    0
    0
  5. I checked several of these out in an “open house” last summer. The finishes are indeed top notch; combined with high ceilings and big windows, these units ‘feel’ very classy, and of course the setting on Menomenee is quite quaint.

    That said, many of the layouts were quite awful and perplexing; weird shaped/sized rooms, a 1 bed, 2 bath unit, etc. Some of the lower floor units got awful light. All in all, it strikes me as a conversion that probably shouldn’t have been done with luxury finishes, given the obvious constraints posed by the building. The conversion should have either been affordably priced units for entry-level buyers (especially in light of no off-street parking), or even the whole building should have just been rental from the start.

    Poorly played by the developer, IMNSHO.

    0
    0
  6. The finishes are nice (and very hard to find in Chicago at any price point, given developer’s penchant for cherry or maple cabinets and beige travertine and other materials that reek of a 10-year-old conversion). However, I found the craftsmanship a bit subpar on the units I toured when I looked up close. Some of the trim on the lower level had big gaps between it and the carpet, and the woodwork just looked like fairly cheap, separate pieces of wood nailed together to look like more expensive, custom milled baseboards and moldings. The iron railings on the duplex stairs looked fairly generic and some of the duplex down windows literally overlook garbage cans in an alley. Overall, I left feeling like the developer was really relying on the finishes to sell the space, and if you’re taking that approach, then the finishes should be flawless.

    0
    0
  7. It’s beautiful and quirky. The quirkiness gives it added value, I feel. But it is asking too much to expect people to pay such a price with no parking in an area where parking is already impossible.

    $350K sounds about right for this.

    0
    0
  8. Mjam, Here is the mls history for unit #102. It doesn’t appear that the developer has a grasp of reality.

    List Date Date Orig $ Last $
    For Sale 9/20/2006 Cancelled 6/25/2007 $640,000 $549,000
    For Sale 6/28/2007 Cancelled 10/15/2007$599,000 $599,000
    For Rent 8/22/2007 Cancelled 10/25/2007$3,300 $3,300
    For Rent 10/10/2007Cancelled10/19/2007$2,600 $2,600
    For Rent 10/19/2007Cancelled11/21/2007$2,900 $2,900
    For Rent 11/21/2007Cancelled12/3/2007$2,900 $2,900
    For Rent 12/4/2007 Cancelled 12/13/2007$3,300 $3,300
    For Rent 12/13/2007Cancelled2/21/2008$3,300 $3,300
    For Sale 10/18/2007Expired 4/17/2008 $649,900 $629,000

    0
    0
  9. Maybe someone should clue this developer in that $489,000 is too much to ask for ANY one bedroom in Chicago. He wouldn’t have gotten this price even last year, much less now.

    0
    0
  10. Laura,
    Living not so far away from this, I feel parking is surely not impossible there, the entire surrounding neighborhood is all permitted to Zone 143… you can generally expect to park within about 1 block of your place, but at price points above $400K, that is alot to ask. And of course, with street parking, you have to be mindful of periodic street sweeping, snow plowing, etc. Many a $50 ticket in my day…

    For laughably impossible street parking, check out East Lakeview. Yowza.

    0
    0
  11. G –

    Where do you get your rental MLS info?

    Thx!

    0
    0
  12. Yes, David, Lakeviw parking. When I moved there in 1987, I got rid of my car, which I had intended to do in any case.

    I once rented a van to haul some huge pieces of stretched canvas, and after cruising for a parking space for a solid hour and a half, gave up and drove clear over to Lincoln and Ashland to park, and took the 77 bus back over to my apt. There was NO PLACE to park between Sheridan Road and Southport, absolutely no place.

    This has always been OK with me. However, were I paying $400K plus for a one bed apt, I’d want a space provided on principal, if only to accommodate guests.

    0
    0
  13. LV east yes it IS impossible to park on the street most of the time. In the AM its not as bad though (after dawn) and on weekends with the suburban crowds it is easier to get a spot. Renting a spot is fairly reasonable (mine is $175/mo unchanged for 3 yrs and now the lot has a camera on it and I’m a half mile from Wrigley Field). If you live just a little northwest street parking is much easier. My friends on the southport corridor can find a close spot most of the time. Oh and they’re renters and their net housing bill is far below loan owners there 😀

    0
    0
  14. condoshopper,

    I have full access to what was f/k/a MLSNI, now Midwest Real Estate Data, LLC (MRED.)

    0
    0
  15. INFO FROM A TENANT OF 334 W MENOMONEE.
    PLEASE READ IF LOOKING TO BUY OR RENT.

    I’ve been living at 334 Menomonee since the early part of this year, so I feel compelled to offer my opinions to anyone interested in buying or renting.

    1. First off, there seem to be very problematic noise issues associated with the building. From what I understand, this was Melrose Partner’s first multi-family renovation. As a result, sound proofing investments seem to have been minimal if attempted at all. Several renting tenants have terminated their leases early because of noise (one is involved in a lawsuit I believe) and a couple of renters have been asked to leave. One of the buyers has had his unit’s ceiling soundproofed but he recently indicated to me that the results have been mixed at best. Melrose actually issued a letter to all residents in January requesting that occupants remove their shoes immediately upon entering their units (No, I’m NOT making this up!!).

    2. A decision was made to allow pets in the building after initial renting efforts failed. As a result, the majority of the building’s renting occupants now have dogs. Barking in the hallways is common, the first floor on humid days smells of animals, and we have poop clean-up issues all along the sidewalks outside of the building. Though, the poop problem seems to be getting better with the warmer weather.

    3. Yes the finishes seem spectacular, but if you look closely you’ll see big flaws in the quality of the materials used and in the workmanship. If you’re touring the building, look down the hall and you’ll note that most of the trim and sheet rock along the walls buckles and curves rather than remaining reasonably plum. The unit next to mine (duplex, first floor) was being completed in January as I moved in so I got a chance to see things prior to paint. The trim Melrose used (even around the windows) is compressed particle board and not real wood so beware of moisture. In my bath shower grout is already separating but in fairness, this may have resulted from last month’s earthquake. Many of the light fixtures and hardware are from big box discount retailers though the plumbing detailing seems to be of good quality (Waterworks). The privacy glass in the bathrooms is simply plastic film. Many of the units variously lack towel holders, toilet paper holders, logically placed electrical outlets, etc. The common areas do not seem to be climate controlled and have been unusually hot and getting hotter as of late.

    4. For some reason, industrial ugly brown wall to wall carpeting was used in the hallways. Some one said this was done to combat noise issues in the hallways but the carpet chosen was low, industrial and of cheapest grade. You’ll note too if you tour the building, the walls and common areas are showing very obvious wear due to the high percentage of renters in the building and early move-outs.

    5. The floor plans and selling prices found at the developer’s website are not accurate. Many of the units at the site are being advertised as SOLD, and attached are very high, very fictitious closing prices. Some of these are the very same units listed above for purchase or rent today. Also, the original floor plans you see at the website have In most cases had a planned closet eliminated in favor of living space. Most 1 BR units in the building have only one closet to serve the entire unit and usually this closet must house the washer/dryer unit. As you can imagine, storage and dressing areas are very tight. I have some neighbors who have resorted to sacrificing a bathroom in favor of storage or have used part of the living space to place odd portable closets. My unit is a 1BR duplex which I am making work for now, but I will not renew my lease based on this flaw.

    6. There is absolutely NO parking associated with the building, so I’m not sure what the developer might be advertising for unit 201. Piper’s Alley is the closest retail parking option which is a .5 mile walk. Permit parking is what most residents in the building are using, but good luck during the day. The 5pm changeover seems to be OK though.

    7. Finally, if you’re looking to buy, I’d expect special assessment charges when Melrose finally turns the building over to any future condo association. Clearly this developer is very reluctant to put any further money into the building. This means that little projects are not being completed. As an example, you’ll note there are no exterior address numbers on the building. The common area hallways and staircases will have to be repainted and repaired after all the rental moves, etc. Little things such as these are common and too numerous to list here.

    Finally, only 4 units sold originally in the fall out of 18 total units. A fifth unit sold (2BR) last month, but its sales price from what I understand included additional remodeling. I’ve spoken with this tenant, and it is clear she was new to the Chicago market, and had completed little research prior to this very quick close. This leaves the rest as rental units or empty.

    Hope the info helps.

    0
    0
  16. This is very interesting…

    The developer’s website claims the following units as SOLD!!
    http://www.melrosepartners.com/menomonee/floorplans.html

    Unit 304 for $499k
    Unit 303 for $489k
    Unit 204 for $489k
    Unit 202 for $489k
    Unit 203 for $479k
    Unit 201 for $729k
    Unit 105 for $469k

    But here’s reality…

    Unit 304 is a rental
    Unit 303 is a rental
    Unit 204 is currently MLS listed for $489k
    Unit 202 is a rental
    Unit 203 is a rental
    Unit 201 is currently MLS listed for $775k
    Unit 105 is a rental

    This seems dishonest at best.

    0
    0
  17. Thanks Greg.

    Maybe an investor is buying a bunch of the units as rentals? I don’t know. Otherwise, the developer is maybe just trying to say that those units aren’t available. (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt.)

    Melrose is known for putting out a good product. They’ve just gotten caught in the market downdraft with very expensive product. They are also trying to sell 1919 N. Sheffield.

    0
    0
  18. Oh- Unit #102 DID sell.

    Closing price was $599,000- well above what it was listed at last fall. (See G’s listing info above.)

    Maybe that buyer didn’t use an agent? The buyer’s realtor would have had access to all the price changes on that unit.

    Yep- sometimes you DO need an agent.

    0
    0
  19. Sabrina,

    Yes, as I said previously Unit 102 (2BR duplex) did sell last month. I’m not sure if a realtor was used or not, but I have spoken briefly with the young girl who has moved in. This transaction happened very fast and I’m quite clear that her family (parents) handled the transaction from out of town. My impression is that price wasn’t much of a concern for this particular buyer. But you never know, maybe there’s more buyers like this out there.

    As far as all the “sales” listed on the Melrose website. Unfortunately no, the floor plan link above hasn’t been updated or changed for almost a year. I suspect these high “selling” prices are an attempt to hide what we’re all becoming very aware of – Melrose is having one heck of a time selling these units. With the market forecast to drop again next year, this building will be interesting to watch.

    0
    0
  20. What would a buyer pay?

    The S&P/Case-Shiller report came out this morning. The report shows a 14.4% drop in prices nationwide and a 15.3% drop for their urban top 10 metro index.

    So, take unit #106: It failed to sell last year when listed at $399k. Apply S&P’s figures and you’re looking at a fair value today of only $338k. I know these are rough numbers, but I think that’s about what it would take today for things to start moving in this building, at least in the 1BR market.

    I thought it interesting that at the developers other property, 1919 N Sheffield, they reversed course in the renovation and combined the planned smaller apartments into four larger sq footage upscale units. Still the pricing there seems somewhat out of touch with the market, but again it will be interesting to watch.

    0
    0
  21. UPDATE:

    During the Old Town Art Fair I had a chance to mix with many of our residents. We have a lot of new renters in the building and they all seem to have moved in in the past month. It looks like most of the building is now rented out (not purchased). But not knowing our new tenants all that well, I wasn’t comfortable asking about their rental prices.

    So to review, the building has 18 units. Only 5 units have sold, and just about all of those did so last year. Some of the initial renting tenants abandoned their leases due to the problems described above, and now we have a fresh round of renters in place almost all of which have moved in this past month. I’m not sure if there was a rental rate cut which would explain this surge, and we’ll have to see how this group fairs.

    The developer’s strategy seems to be a reliance on the rental market moving forward. So what specifically defines the barrier between a “condo building” and “apartments”?? What recourse would owners have in a building like this if they thought they were purchasing in a condo building but today find themselves surrounded by renters??

    0
    0
  22. Streeterville Realtor on June 26th, 2008 at 10:09 am

    Hi Greg,

    I believe (everyone please correct me if I’m wrong) that after a certain number of years (I think it is 3), the developer has to turn over the management to the board (owners). You all can then vote to outlaw rentals in the building, forcing the developer to sell them.

    0
    0
  23. Well, but this begs an interesting point.

    What if only a handful of the units remain sold as seems to be the case with this building? Can those three or four owners band together, file suit, and thus oust a developer when this time frame expires? Call me a cynic but what’s to keep a developer from just “selling” their units to another paper company to start this three year clock over again? Maybe the taxes? I don’t know.

    Sabrina is this a new thread? I’m not seeing it show up in the building’s archive section.

    0
    0
  24. Just to clarify, I’m a renter, not an owner.

    I don’t want to speak for any of the owners but I know some are not happy with the situation as it stands today.

    0
    0
  25. If I was a renter I’d be happy and lease a boat and slip with my extra cashflow and I’d invite the owners out boating every once in awhile to help raise their spirits.

    0
    0
  26. Oh la la, Bobby Boy.

    Judging the latest Case/Shiller numbers, I’d say Greg you better buy a really BIG boat and plan on holding on to it for a while. There’s a LOT of developers “underwater” right now and the water keeps rising.

    Me thinks Jack Daniels might be more effective than a boat!!

    0
    0
  27. any updates on recent sales? am I insane to consider a 2 bdr/2 ba?

    0
    0
  28. The developer has been renting out the units for the last several years. There are 16 units and I think only 4 have sold. Nothing has sold for quite awhile in the building.

    You can contact the developer, Melrose Partners, to find out if any of the 2/2s are being rented and available for purchase (as I know they sold several of them- and there were only like 4 2/2s in the building.)

    Anyone know anything else?

    0
    0

Leave a Reply