Take the Water Taxi to Work from Your 3-Bedroom Streeterville Townhouse: 424 E. North Water
This 3-bedroom townhouse at 424 E. North Water, in the East Water Place development, in Streeterville is located between the Chicago River and the Ogden Slip.
With water taxis departing nearby on the Ogden Slip or on Michigan Avenue, a commuter could take to the water for the trip to the office.
Most people don’t even know townhouses exist in this part of Streeterville.
It has 3 levels and is the lay-out with the garage and a bedroom on the first level, the living/dining and kitchen are on the second level and the other two bedrooms are on the top floor.
This property also has a roof-top deck to take in the skyline, and Navy Pier fireworks, and a balcony.
The kitchen has stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops.
Sara McMurray at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #424-D: 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2200 square feet, 1 car garage
- Hard to figure out the records but it looks like it sold in March 1997 for $305,000
- Originally listed in April 2010
- De-listed
- Currently listed for $699,000
- Assessments of $400 a month
- Taxes of $11649
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 14×12 (third floor)
- Bedroom #2: 11×12 (third floor)
- Bedroom #3: 11×9 (main floor)
Always thought this was a great location and that the development looked pretty cool. However, the floor plan looks pretty narrow – must be 14 feet – and the bedrooms are split by two floors. And here’s the real kicker: unit E recently sold in a short sale for 551K after being rented out. Of course, I have no idea what condition that one was in.
Hi,
FYI, there is a land lease fee on top of the assessments.
LAND LEASE $705.00 PER MONTH AND $1000. PER MONTH ESCROW FOR REAL ESTATE TAXES. LAND CAN BE PURCHASED.
Quite narrow and tunnel-like. Would be a little better reorganized as a 2 bedroom and price accordingly. %00K would be more like it. How much foot traffic along the river walk passes by in the summer/noise?
Sorry 500K
kudos to the agent for pix and descriptions, tho
Why stuff a fireplace in at that spot? It forced the furniture configuration the current occupants have into the main living areas as a long hallway. Seems like a pretty place just 4-5′ short on the width. The pictures make it look like the staircase eats up 1/2 of the width of the building.
Thanks for the update about the land lease David. The public listings don’t mention this extra cost.
I wonder how much it takes to buy the land then?
If you capitalize that lease payment at 8% you get about 106K. At 5% it would be 169K. So that gives you some idea.
We looked at one of these units once. I believe it was the same layout (there’s a range) as this one but not certain. I think it was listing at $900K during peak bubbly times. Felt crazy narrow and most of the units felt on top of each other. Plus we’d go broke from buying groceries at Fox and Obel.
Is it safe to have a indoor garage next to a bedroom?
I can tell from the price before i looked at the pictures it doesnt face or back up to the river.
I would rather 86 the 3rd bedroom first tear out the closet and turn it into a real den/family room/media room.
is the roof top a shared thing? i would hate to have neighbors walking above your bedroom.
“kudos to the agent for pix and descriptions, tho”
Seriously, what a very well done listing. Of course, shame on the listing agent for not including anything about the land lease. You’re looking at about $2100 a month before any mortgage payment, which is pretty steep.
Either way, it’s a nice looking place, but I agree that it seems pretty narrow.
“Chef’s kitchen” sighting.
“is the roof top a shared thing? i would hate to have neighbors walking above your bedroom.”
I think separate but not very private feeling.
“kudos to the agent for pix and descriptions, tho”
Absolutely. My beef with this development is how much the area feels like a concrete jungle 6 mos out of the year. From these pics it looks like a rainforest.
“shame on the listing agent for not including anything about the land lease.”
It’s in the agent remarks, which is not visible to the consumer but is visible to the agent. The problem with the MLS is that these remark fields are really small so you routinely have to put stuff in the agent remarks.
I like the high ceilings but I think the place is too narrow and it makes it look smaller than it probably is
“And here’s the real kicker: unit E recently sold in a short sale for 551K after being rented out. Of course, I have no idea what condition that one was in.”
The listing agent here was the buyer’s agent on the E unit. Look how much more attractive the development looks in McMurray’s pictures than in the other listing:
http://www.urbanrealestate.com/property/424-E-North-Water-Unit-E-CHICAGO-IL-60611-M7DGERECX7TGU.html
Or than in the previous listing for this place, for that matter
so what exactly happens at the end of the land-lease?? in 88 years..
Philadelphia row house living at Chicago prices. The land lease is a show stopper for anyone with a 500-550k budget thinking about stretching for something unique. The narrowness doesn’t bother me much because it is open on both ends, and elevated. The roof deck is awesome.
***
Thanks for the update about the land lease David. The public listings don’t mention this extra cost.
I wonder how much it takes to buy the land then?***
you can’t buy the land, per se, as the land was packaged together into a trust by the original owners of the land (Chicago Dock Co) separate from the actual development.
IIRC, the land got sold to an investment group??? In 80-ish years, the terms of the lease will need to be renegotiated. This arrangement is not uncommon in the UK but didn’t catch on here….for obvious reasons.
I’m too lazy to google-fu to confirm my recollection.
“you can’t buy the land, per se”
But the agent remarks do say you can purchase the land.
“It’s in the agent remarks, which is not visible to the consumer but is visible to the agent. The problem with the MLS is that these remark fields are really small so you routinely have to put stuff in the agent remarks.”
Fail. The agent had room enough to suggest an herb garden outside the kitchen and to suggest that the new owner grill and listen to the birds singing. I think she could have spared a few words to mention that – oh, btw – you’re going to be coughing up an extra $1700 a month to live here. Eh, let her waste her time explaining this when she’s showing it to people that get turned off by this giant expense and less than upfront tactics.
“an extra $1700 a month”
Everything reads like it’s ~$700 for the land lease and ~$12k/yr total for taxes. Unless you know of a tax free property, that’s not really $1700 “extra”, tho it certainly is more than $700 extra–or you just look at teh asking price as ~$850k instead of $700k. Which I think we all agree is a little rich.
“…And Navy Pier fireworks”.
No Navy Pier Fireworks this yr.
Confusion totally helps to get buyers through the door!
This is so perfect – with the leased land you could be a buyer and a renter! You can tell all of your friends that you bought a place AND when they chuckle you can tell that you rent too! Win/Win.
Weren’t there some shenanigans with the land lease and the building on the south side of North Water street (on the river)? I seem to recall a lawsuit against the developer because the original buyers were led to believe that nothing would be built between their property and the river. Does anyone else remember that?
Meant to add – This area has always struck me as problematic. It seems like it’s really close to everything, but actually, other than the River East 21 multiplex and the Dominicks, most places you’d want to go are kind of a hike. But everything’s close enough that you feel like a jerk taking a cab, and factoring in wait times, the bus takes just as long as walking.
I thought this was a great deal at first. The location is great. Living in the heart of the city in a townhouse is fantastic, much better than a condo (who wants to deal with elevators).
The land lease seems insane to me. This isn’t England. Plus, why should the taxes be so high if the land is leased? The city is just being greedy. I would think the main value in this property is the land/location, not the building. The taxes should be minimal.
“Fail. The agent had room enough to suggest an herb garden outside the kitchen and to suggest that the new owner grill and listen to the birds singing.”
None of that appears in the MLS remarks. I think any decent buyer’s agent is going to see the lease and call it to their client’s attention before things get too far down the road. And most good listing agents don’t want to waste anyone’s time showing a property that the buyer can’t afford. At some point you even start grilling the buyers about whether or not they should even look at the place.
“None of that appears in the MLS remarks. I think any decent buyer’s agent is going to see the lease and call it to their client’s attention before things get too far down the road.”
Hold up. The listing – where the agent has no limits on words – includes this fluff commentary but makes no mention of the land lease. Not every buyer is working with an agent.
“Plus, why should the taxes be so high if the land is leased? The city is just being greedy. I would think the main value in this property is the land/location, not the building. The taxes should be minimal.”
1. Everywhere in the city the improvements are the vast majority of the AV.
2. I’m sure it’s a net lease, with the tenant responsible for paying taxes.
3. In either case, the taxes are indicative of a total MV of a little under $1mm–which isn’t the actual market price. Seems ripe for an appeal.
I have looked at these in the past. If I remember correctly, a buyer can purchase the land for 300*monthly land lease. The existing owners got an option to purchase a few years back for 200*lease. I am surprised nobody has mentioned the giant hole next door…
The last two units sold for well under 600 (the short sale already mentioned, and a foreclosure for 500k (456D) a while back).
I looked at a couple of units in this development. I’d like them, but for the money I had to spend to rid the place of its suburban vibe (i.e., oak cabinets/ banisters; boring baths), I passed.
Off point, but there are fireworks at Navy Pier this year. I saw them from my window last night. As in years past, they’re every Wednesday and Saturday nights (much to my dismay). If you lived in this ‘hood, you’d agree the novelty wears off after the first week (since they go from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend).
I am the listing agent for this property – please come to my Open House next Sunday July 11 from 1:30 – 3:30 and let me know what you think after you’ve been inside! Thanks for the comments – taken to heart (and with a grain of salt). I thought the $1000 per month for taxes should be obvious since the taxes are noted as $11,649.13. The land purchase price is 500 x current land lease ($705) so $352,500. I agree a tax appeal is in order! 456-E sold for $750k in March with land included. That unit is immediately adjacent to the Spire hole. 424-E was in rough shape, lots of deferred maintenance after years as a rental. It will be a gorgeous home when renovations are complete, owners haven’t moved in yet.
At least living here would help to keep you skinny. No way a fat person buys a place with those narrow hallways.
Land lease over in 88 years and then owners held hostagge to renegotiate? What does that mean? If they fail to aggree on a new price could they take the land back?
When things are this complicated it means someone is trying to hide something
straighforward and simple is best