We Love Authentic Lofts: 711 S. Dearborn in Printers Row
We’ve chattered many times about the authentic lofts in the Donohue Building at 711 S. Dearborn in Printers Row.
A new 1-bedroom unit has come on the market with the west facing view, the big windows and the brick walls.
Here’s the listing:
SOPHISTICATED URBAN ELEGANCE ABOUNDS IN THIS SPACIOUS NYC STYLE LOFT. GORGEOUS WEST FACING REHABED UNIT IN GRAND DAME OF PRINTERS ROW; DONOHUE LOFTS W/SERENE VIEW OF PRINTERS ROW PARK.
ORIG HRWD FLS, SOARING 12′ HEAVY TIMBER CLNGS, EXP BRICK, CHEF’S KIT W/ MAPLE CABS, LG/KITCHENAID S/S APPLS. SPA-BATH W/ TRAVRTNE MARBLE, GROHE FXTRS & VINTAGE ASIAN VANITY. IN UNIT LNDY W/BOSCH FRNT LDRS. PRKG AVAIL FOR RENT/PURCH
Tom Feddor at Keller Williams has the listing. See more pictures and a virtual tour here.
Unit #602: 1 bedroom, 1 bath, 1500 square feet
- Sold in September 2003 for $290,000
- Sold in September 2005 for $320,000
- Currently listed for $384,900
- Assessments of $670 a month
- Taxes of $4502
- No central air (one window unit)
- No parking (but available for rent or purchase in the neighborhood)
$670/month for assessments? seems high to me.
It’s the South Loop, idiot! You can’t list it for River North prices and expect it to sell. Hell, this would be overpriced for a similar property in River North.
It’s…. the.. music! I feel my hand twitching to write a check right now for this over-priced unit!
Nice place though.
In my Chicago experience there seems to be an abundance of derelicts that congregate in parks with fountains – similar to Printer’s Row Park…
Anyone know if that is the case for this location?
But they can’t just give it away!!!!
No C/A? Come on.
Those rooms don’t look large enough to total 1500 sq. feet for a 1BR/1BA…
If it’s actually 1500 sq ft, then the assessment is quite reasonable, especially if it includes heat. Now, if it doesn’t include heat…
Fair Value = $180,000
heh. this unit is priced reasonably for this particular building. a 1600 sq ft unit went about 7 months ago for 400k, for instance.
the assessments DO include heat. central air is permitted and several of the units in this building and in 727 do have it – but one little window unit will get the job done in a space this size – 1500sft.
regarding the park space between Federal and Dearborn, with the fountain . . . per the most recent/best info, the parks dept is going to re-do that entire space and close it off to vehicle-traffic and improve the public space there. not sure what the plan is.
The parks district has owned the empty lot next to it for years with the intent to connect it to the existing park but the bids to move forward with the plans have come in too high. There is no date for breaking ground.
The Donohue Building looks like it is sinking in one section. Other than that worrying issue, the building has incredible spaces and the neighborhood is interesting.
According to the mls, only one unit has sold in 711-727 S Dearborn this year. Here are all of the sales from the past 3 years:
#801 12/05
#1012 8/06
#504 2/07
#512 4/07
#606 6/07
#207 7/07
#508 11/07
#611 2/08
There are currently 6 units for sale (301,304,404,505,601,602.) Based on the past 3 years of sales activity, current inventory stands at 27 months. However, given how ‘times have changed,’ it might be more accurate to base it on the 2 sales in the past year, which puts inventory at 36 months. It would probably be most accurate to base absorption on the most recent 3-6 months, but there seems to be a big problem with those calculations.
For the current sellers, at least.
currently, at 711 S. Dearborn (the Donohue Building), there is one unit under contract (unit # 601 – listed at 364.9k), and then, yes, 6 on the market. there are no properties listed for sale in 727 S. Dearborn – the Donohue Annex.
first (and we have discussed this on this blog previously – as comments to other posts by our fearless blog leader! he he), in some instances, and especially in these buildings, properties are sold between owners and off of the mls. i know one on the 6th floor went like that in Feb. or so – in the mid-400s.
based on the information that IS available on the mls, one unit at 711 S. Dearborn closed in the past 12 months – unit 508. in addition, another unit closed at 727 S. Dearborn – unit #611, for 400k.
good time to be a buyer and make a deal! 😉
Eventually Sold for $350K, I had two offers, one was $350, which we accepted too soon because I then received an offer for $375K. The $350K held on and would not let us out of the deal, so we ended up closing at $350K.
This was 2 years ago though- right?
No record of unit 602 selling on the Tribune as of today after 2005. So if this did sell it must’ve just sold recently (we’ll continue to check on that Tom). Unit 601 did sell for 345k on 12/15/2008 however.
Sales volume has definitely slowed in this building.
2011 sales YTD: 1
2010 sales: 1
2009 sales: 2
2008 sales: 2
2007 sales: 4
2006 sales: 0
2005 sales: 8
2004 sales: 4
2003 sales: 9
2002 sales: 4
2001 sales: 5
Redfin shows #602 selling on 3/17/2009 for $345,000. I’m not sure why the Tribune wouldn’t have it.
But I agree with you Bob- the volume definitely has slowed.
Why are we talking about it 2 years later? (is my question.)
Is it about to come back on the market? ha!
We’re talking about it because we want to have correct information published. Yes, $345K was the price it closed at you are correct. The point is property in the Historic District has always sold for a premium and will continue to do so. People want to live in the District especially on Dearborn.
If you were so interested in the accuracy of the information, why did you mis-state the closing price in your April comment?
Wow- 2 years is FOREVER in Chicago real estate. The price likely has fallen anywhere from 10% to 20% (or more) in just that time period. It’s amazing when I look back at what we were chatting about in 2008 and 2009. We were naive then about what was about to happen (as were a LOT of buyers.)
I am seeing lots of 2008 purchases come back on the market as well as 2009 and even some 2010s now. The declines continue to be brutal.
Not much has been on the market in this building lately as I’ve been checking. There are a few listed across the street at 720 S. Dearborn though.
Wait- I take that back. I didn’t notice that #403, a large 1-bedroom has just come on the market.
The Donohue is one of Chicago’s premier loft buildings. There just isn’t really anything else in the city like it.
403 seems nice but over priced
Talking about over priced, look at this:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/711-S-Dearborn-St-60605/unit-301/home/14092450
“We were naive then about what was about to happen (as were a LOT of buyers).”
NOT MOST OF US HERE!
Blah blah blah blah. Just another excuse why nothing is selling. ‘There is a premium to live here’.
Too f-ing bad all the buyers willing to pay the premium are no longer in the market.
“The point is property in the Historic District has always sold for a premium and will continue to do so. People want to live in the District especially on Dearborn.”
HD – what’s the matter? bad day at the open houses?
It was a GREAT day at open houses actually. NOw that I have a baby, I can’t go out drinking during football games with the friends…does’t make for happy baby and happy wife if I’m drunk at 4:30 p.m. on a sunday. Anyway, the Realtor(tm) speak gets to me some time. at least in this market, they’re all trying to sell these shitholes at premium prices and every so often some mark is suckered into buying. There are no deals out there, which makes me feel alot better about NOT buying these days.
“clio on September 11th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
HD – what’s the matter? bad day at the open houses?”
“NOT MOST OF US HERE!”
That’s true. If you were reading Crib Chatter in 2008/2009 you might not have been as naive as others. But plenty of Crib Chatter readers didn’t heed G’s and HD’s warning (among others) and still bought in 2008 (AND 2009.)
Yes- some were knife catchers. Some thought they were getting “deals” back then only to see prices in their neighborhoods continue to drop well under what they paid just 3 years ago.
This is why I warn people that if they’re buying – make sure you can stay there for at least 10 years. You can’t control everything in your life (divorce, job relocation etc.)- but buyers now have to think for the very long haul.
I actually went to some open houses today. I didn’t see anyone else but that could have been due to the Bears game (which clearly would have cut down traffic.)
The marketing data that the realtors were passing out consisted of articles telling me why it’s a good time to buy. Sort of funny, because I’m not paying $439,000 for your house listed on the market for 18+ months. Plenty of room to drop the price too but too stubborn to do any real reductions.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/1841390/low-ball-offers-not-all-homes-are-distressed-properties
With propaganda like this, no wonder realtors aren’t selling any properties. More anti-lowball propaganda.
“I will NEVER forget my first low ball offer on a home that my Buyers wanted to make. I couldn’t find any reason to offer a lower price than it was but my clients insisted that they low ball. “Lets ask 20% less because that is what all the TV shows say to do” is what they told me. This was my clients’ dream home. They absolutely loved it but wanted to see if they could get real deal. I advised strongly against it but did as they asked. Days went by with no word from the sellers agent. Finally, the agent called me back to tell me that they are rejecting the offer and do not want another offer from my clients. WOW! I was not expecting that. I had the unpleasant task to tell my clients. They were not happy to say the least. I asked the other agent why they don’t want another offer from us, you know what he told me? Because he has been in Real Estate for 50 years and knows that my clients will NEVER be satisfied~just by looking at the offer received. His clients were totally offended.”
50 years in the biz? Hahahha times have changed old man, get with the program. Lowballs are the new full price offers.
The internet is FULL of anti-lowball propaganda. Even though lowball is code word for ‘MARKET PRICE’
Again, maybe seller’s agents got their client to consider these ‘market price’ offers, they could make next month’s payment on their lexus suvs….
Yeah- a lot of the stuff on the market is the picked over properties. The renovated flips- if they’re priced right- sell quickly. The foreclosures at dirt cheap prices sell quickly. Some properties in “prime” areas that are unusual sell quickly (i.e. a single family home in Blaine or Bell under $600k.)
Everything else is sitting.
As I’ve said many times- a $400,000 house, even at these interest rates, is NOT middle class housing. A cop and a teacher shouldn’t be buying that. $150,000 to $250,000 is middle class housing.
It’s crazy how many $400,000+ houses there are STILL on the market outside of the GZ.
The realtors cars in the driveways on the homes I visited today: Lexus, infinity, volvo….
I bet it’s getting hard to make that payment…
“As I’ve said many times- a $400,000 house, even at these interest rates, is NOT middle class housing. A cop and a teacher shouldn’t be buying that. $150,000 to $250,000 is middle class housing. ”
In the area I looked I doubt the current owners could afford to repurchase their home, even in their peak income earning years..
http://www.up2daterealestate.com/2009/05/15/5-reasons-your-low-ball-offer-is-rejected/
“We should probably discuss what makes a lowball offer. In my opinion, an offer that is 20% below the market value definitely qualifies. No matter what the seller’s motivation I can tell you they are not likely to sell a house 20% below the asking price. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, (homeowner in foreclosure and property is not listed for sale) but a home that is marketed with a real estate agent is highly unlikely to sell at such a steep discount. “
i like the real estate commercial that says that housing creates jobs so make sure to support regulation that promotes housing. it’s your patriotic duty on 911
“As I’ve said many times- a $400,000 house, even at these interest rates, is NOT middle class housing. A cop and a teacher shouldn’t be buying that. $150,000 to $250,000 is middle class housing. ”
Your average cop & teacher in Chicago are probably pulling in at least 125k combined with paid for health insurance and other benefits, a 400k house at 4% interest rates is not really that huge of a stretch sabrina,
The big issue now is down payments. Nobody has them because their equity in their homes has been destroyed, and very few “middle class” people can save up 80,000 to buy a house on top of retirement and children’s education savings.
In fact, I’d wager that a huge majority of people probably thought they would use their existing home equity to purchase their next house. And my guess is that they will, in the future when the loan gets paid off more. Or when the time expires in order to save up enough for that down payment.
Sonies- you can buy that $400k house with probably $15k down. So that’s not really the problem anymore (as long as you have FHA, Fannie, Freddie.) It’s more of a problem at the higher bracket- where you DO need the downpayment.
If a cop and a teacher can buy a $400k house- then they are NOT middle class. Maybe just a cop or just a teacher then (with only one spouse working.) No way you’re doing it with one income under $80k.
Besides, yes- even with $125k in income – $400k IS a stretch if you’re also saving for retirement, have 2 car payments, might have student loans, have credit card debt AND are saving for your own kids college education. Oh- and maybe some family vacations to Disney World.
Those people would be “rich” if they bought a house worth under $250K or $200k. I don’t get it. Why do people want to spend half their income on their darn house? An asset that won’t go up in value for years and years?
By the way- in my opinion- earning $125k a year is upper middle class income. It’s only something like 9% or 10% of all households in America make over $100k.
This is the data for Illinois in 2010 from the census bureau for those over $200k (which is even fewer):
% of Households Earning $200K+: 4.4%
Total Households: 4,759,579
Households Earning $200K+: 208,385
Median Income: $53,413
“Why do people want to spend half their income on their darn house?”
Because they spend more than 1/2 their time in it.
“An asset that won’t go up in value for years and years?”
How do you know? And who says they need it to go up? You seem to be confusing investing with home ownership.
By the way- this 1-bedroom at 70 W. Burton went under contract before I could post about it.
It was listed for $80,000. No interior pictures.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/70-W-Burton-Pl-APT-707-Chicago-IL-60610/3854599_zpid/
“Why do people want to spend half their income on their darn house?”
“Because they spend more than 1/2 their time in it.”
This is THE dumbest statement I think I’ve ever seen on Crib Chatter (and that says a lot.)
There’s a reason the banks (pre-mania) never lent you more than 28% of your monthly income. Because it doesn’t make any sense! You cannot live a “normal” life with that much of your income going towards debt repayment.
And now there is NO REASON to EVER pay 50% of your income for housing in the Chicago area. No reason at all. There are houses out there in good neighborhoods for $100k (or less.) Some need elbow grease. Some don’t.
I really don’t get it. But I still see it. Still see the people stretching and in way, way over their heads. And the banks still lending to them (backed by the US taxpayer, of course.)
Why do they do this to themselves? Why do they put themselves under that much financial stress?
You said:
“Besides, yes- even with $125k in income – $400k IS a stretch”
That is hardly 1/2 their income.
“And now there is NO REASON to EVER pay 50% of your income for housing in the Chicago area.”
I beg to differ. Depends how much one earns. If a childless couple earns 400K (I know such a couple) and they never plan to have kids, and have secure jobs, they can save for retirement and still pay half of their income for housing.
Your statement is true for most people but not for everyone. This is why I fund the concept of fixed percentage tax unfair. 50% of a huge salary goes a long way as opposed to 50% of a low income.
“By the way- in my opinion- earning $125k a year is upper middle class income. It’s only something like 9% or 10% of all households in America make over $100k.”
that doesn’t matter since we’re talking about Chicago specifically and people who actually have the means to buy (upper 50% usually)
what does the price of a home or average income in Detroit have to do with housing here?
I’d say 125k is perfectly middle class, those families barely pay 15% in income taxes after deductions! Yeah you’re “upper class” in Cincinatti or some other rustbelt BF Egypt town but here in Chicago i’d say you are middle class
and please Sabrina find us some middle class homes for 100k in a “good” neighborhood to chatter about, I’d love to see them, and read the comments about getting killed or raped, or listen to the el tracks or freight rails, or or whatever
nobody is “choosing” to pay 400k when there are acceptable substitues for 100k, give me a break!
“and please Sabrina find us some middle class homes for 100k in a “good” neighborhood to chatter about, I’d love to see them, and read the comments about getting killed or raped, or listen to the el tracks or freight rails, or or whatever”
Sonies- have you ever LEFT River North? Seriously???
I can show you 75 houses for sale right now in Berwyn at $100k. You’re not getting raped or killed or whatever else in Berwyn.
Buy this rehabbed house with its fancy kitchen for just $100k! Whoops- someone who is smart already is because its under contract!
http://www.coldwellbankeronline.com/ID/2179667
If you look around, there are lovely homes all over the suburbs (and the non-GZ parts of the city) that can be had for CHEAP.
The city is BIG Sonies. Have you been up to West Ridge lately? Have you been over to Jefferson Park? Have you been to Galewood? Have you been to Beverly?
I didn’t think so. There are plenty of properties in many parts of the city that are cheaper than they have been for the past 10 years. You might be competing with the professional rehabbers though (which is a problem I’ve been seeing out there.) The banks are taking the all cash offers.
Heck- buy a rehabbed property for cheap.
I’ve seen some rehabbed homes in Oak Park selling for in the lower $300,000s for what is, basically, a completely new house (with Central Air etc.) Still a stretch for a middle class family but not the upper middle class one.
“I’d say 125k is perfectly middle class, those families barely pay 15% in income taxes after deductions! Yeah you’re “upper class” in Cincinatti or some other rustbelt BF Egypt town but here in Chicago i’d say you are middle class”
Wrong!
Only about 10% of Illinois households make over $100k a year. No different than that of the nation really.
Do you have any idea how massive the Chicagoland area is? Seriously. Rent a zipcar and go drive around. Ever been to Oak Forest and its street after street of $150,000 houses? Have you been out to Jefferson Park with its row after row of bungalows? None of which sold for $400,000 until just 5 years ago?
Go into the stores and go into the restaurants and tell me that everyone in those neighborhoods is NOT middle class. They are. Mile after mile of thousands of middle class homes. Not many in those neighborhoods making $125k a year.
big whoop thats in the burbs, there’s millions of similar homes all over the country, and berwyn, please!
If i’m going to live in the burbs, i’m going to at least live somewhere warm because they’re all the same. I grew up in the burbs and know a lot about areas all over the place, and I know I wouldn’t want to live in many of them. especially the ones where I could find a family sized house for 100k
how are the schools in JP or Galewood?
Beverly blows now, a lot has changed there, and I don’t want to send my kid to Catholic school
anyway I don’t want to have this burbs vs. city debate again because its so dumb, but there just aren’t any properties for under 225k where I would live in this town
“50% of a huge salary goes a long way as opposed to 50% of a low income.”
Tell it to the bank. There are still underwriting standards and 50% of income is a huge risk to a bank. They’ll do it only if the US government backs it in case of default. Surprise! The rich people loans that AREN’T backed by the taxpayer now have very tight restrictions. They want more downpayment and bigger skin in the game. I doubt they’re lending on the jumbos at 50% of income- but maybe Russ can fill us in on what they’re doing now since he’s on the front lines.
Of course- the normal underwriting standards were thrown out the window in the last 10 years.
also sabrina, in chicago 15% of households make over 100k (according to http://www.simplyhired.com/a/local-jobs/city/l-Chicago,+IL
and that isn’t even including most smart small business owners and under the table folks which are numerous
“anyway I don’t want to have this burbs vs. city debate again because its so dumb, but there just aren’t any properties for under 225k where I would live in this town”
It’s not a city v. suburb debate Sonies.
It’s a city v. Greenzone debate.
You all want to live in one of the greatest cities in the world, within 2 blocks of the lake, the trendy restaurants, the nightclubs, the museums and have amazing schools and you all think you’re entitled to it for $225k. You’re not.
We’ve seen a few properties that are that cheap (in the big co-op buildings along the lake, for example). But for the most part- the bigger units aren’t selling that cheaply.
But for a middle class family that wants to live a good life- Chicago is a fantastic place to live (relative to other large US cities) with great housing stock, great schools (outside of the city), great cultural amenities. I could go on and on.
Many Chicago neighborhoods are correcting back to “middle class.” I know Homedelete gets frustrated at the pace of it in some of the non-GZ neighborhoods like Portage Park and Irving Park. But it’s just taking time to reset.
This is the most optimistic I’ve been about housing in a long, long time. Heck, even in the GZ, you can now get SFH properties under $350,000 if you’re willing to put in some elbow grease and do a rehab. There are also lots of opportunities in up and coming neighborhoods like West Town, Pilsen and Avondale.
There are plenty of properties that don’t require you to break the bank.
There was a good article in the special Home section of the Tribune today about a guy who bought a beautiful vintage house in Wicker Park in the early 1990s. It was being used as a boarding house and was in awful shape. He got it dirt cheap because we all know how the neighborhood was back then. The banks wouldn’t even give him a rehab loan because the neighborhood was so bad.
How many of you are willing to take the same chance now?
Sonies- 15% of the Chicago population is nothing. Drive out to the city’s western limits. There are row after row and street after street of middle class housing. Those houses shouldn’t be over $150k. There simply isn’t the income to support anything more.
“and that isn’t even including most smart small business owners and under the table folks which are numerous”
I’m guessing that the underground economy is large component of the total economic activity in the U.S. And the dirt spreads everywhere. Wachovia and Citibank all have rich histories laundering drug money. It’s probably what kept them afloat.
“a single family home in … Bell under $600k.”
I’m from Missouri … You should know the next request.
“You all want to live in one of the greatest cities in the world, within 2 blocks of the lake, the trendy restaurants, the nightclubs, the museums and have amazing schools and you all think you’re entitled to it for $225k. ”
Ohhh Bob sad Sabrina forgot the el. Remember this demographic has an aversion to public transit that isn’t rail.
Properties have a high premium near el stops where you don’t have to worry about getting hustled or mugged in Chicago it seems.
“big whoop thats in the burbs, there’s millions of similar homes all over the country, and berwyn, please!”
And this is why I predict dire things for Chicagoland burbs: transplants will have little loyalty to them as they’re mostly interchangeable and why not hightail it to a better climate if you can?
Seriously should house prices and taxes in burbs here be twice as high or more as say Indianapolis’ ones if burbs are 25 mins from downtown? Haha don’t think so.
I know cops and fire fighters, and in general, they’re not buying $400k homes. As investments during the boom maybe, but not for their personal residence. Many of them have poor credit too so they always pay a higher interest rate. And many are divorced so there is child support/maintenance.
Honestly, from my vast experience, if you are making 100k or less, even a 2000 a month mortgage (piti plus hoa) is too much, after the car payments, gas, food, etc. I see families struggling all the time. I regularly see families with 80k of income who hace troble with 1600 when you factor in other debt. Job loss, injury etc, always happenes, and they struggle.
“Honestly, from my vast experience, if you are making 100k or less, even a 2000 a month mortgage (piti plus hoa) is too much, after the car payments, gas, food, etc. I see families struggling all the time. I regularly see families with 80k of income who hace troble with 1600 when you factor in other debt. Job loss, injury etc, always happenes, and they struggle.”
You’re changing the terms. No one else was talking about a HHI below $100k buying a $400k house. Yes, especially with HHI below $100k, 4x income is definitely stretching; that’s why the example is $125k and 3.2x income, which makes a significant difference.
I’m not changing the terms, I’m expanding them. Life is expensive and not everyone is good at managing their money.
“I’m not changing the terms, I’m expanding them”
You know, it’s really hard to buy a $400k house when you’re living on disability checks.
And don’t say that’s absurd, it’s just an expansion of the discussion.
what if one party is on disability but the other party is a streets and sans foreman making $110k for a total of $125,000 a year? Can they afford a $400,000 house?
“anon (tfo) on September 12th, 2011 at 7:36 am
“I’m not changing the terms, I’m expanding them”
You know, it’s really hard to buy a $400k house when you’re living on disability checks.
And don’t say that’s absurd, it’s just an expansion of the discussion.”
“what if one party is on disability but the other party is a streets and sans foreman making $110k for a total of $125,000 a year? Can they afford a $400,000 house?”
What if they make a total of $42,500, thru disability, holding a cup on a corner and some small time drug dealing (oxy and some medical mj)?
You want to “expand” the discussion from $125k HHI buying a $400k house (3.2x HHI, and easily under your golden 28% ratio) to $80k HHI buying the same damn house–which no one here has seriously suggested is a good idea. I want to expand it even further.
Fannie/Freddie and FHA all pretty much will go to 50% debt ratios if their automated underwriting system approves the loan. Most of the jumbo/portfolio lenders cap at 45%, although many won’t go above 38%.
The thing is as you make more money, higher DTI isn’t as bad as it is with lower incomes. If you make a couple hundred grand per year, even at 50% DTI, you still have quite a bit of disposable income and really shouldn’t be struggling.
Most of the higher DTI deals we see these days have extenuating circumstances. For example, investment banker changes firms and underwriting guidelines won’t allow bonus history with new employer. Another the borrower might be semi-retired so DTI is high but has a million or more in cash and could easily payoff the mortgage. Sometimes you just have people on fixed incomes who live very simple lives outside of their home.
During the bubble, Freddie actually didn’t have a DTI limit. You could literally get a Freddie approval with like an 80% DTI. If I recalled correctly, Fannie maxed out at 65%. Some of the higher DTI limits were driven by trying to make the mortgage process more efficient, but it wound up getting abused and used for mortgage fraud.
Sabrina,
Are you confident in the long term future of Berwyn? I have lived in the city and the western suburbs all of my life and, well, I”m just not sure. I know it is getting a different crowd, but it could go bad very quickly–a la its eastern neighbor, Cicero, which has lots of gang shootings. I think Berwyn is an interesting choice: it has great housing stock (lots of bungalows) and good proximity to downtown. But I think even at 100, 000 it is a judgement call.
I’d buy a nice, but fixer-upper mid century modern in Lagrange Park for 150,000 (and get the ability to send my kids to one of the best high schools in the state–Lyons Township) before I woudl buy in Berwyn.
anon(tfo) – wow you’re groggy this morning….get out of your pj’s, go grab a coffee from the kitchen, turn on CNBC and start doing whatever it is you do to make a living.
Me too, endora re: mid century modern lagrange park house
Berwyn blows and is really on the cusp with this bad lower-middle class economy and continued outsourcing of blue collar jobs and could revert to a suburban craphole like maywood or villa park sooner than you think
the southern half of villa park isn’t too bad. the northern half is pretty crappy. cicero has taken a turn for the worse. they can’t hardly give away some of those bungalows out there.