17 Months Later, Bucktown Brick Cottage Priced Under $460K and Still Available: 1641 N. Claremont
This 3-bedroom brick cottage at 1641 N. Claremont in Bucktown has been on the market since October 2008.
It has been reduced by $89,100 during that time.
Built in 1988, it has central air and a 2 car garage along with a backyard.
It has unfinished attic space and a slab basement.
The kitchen appears to have the original cabinets and white appliances.
The county records show it as having building square footage of only 966 square feet.
Of the three bedrooms, 1 is on the second floor and 2 are on the main floor.
Anthony Zaskowski at Property Consultants Realty has the listing. See the pictures here.
1641 N. Claremont: 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, no square footage listed, 2 car garage
- Couldn’t find any prior sales history
- Originally listed in October 2008 for $549,000
- Numerous reductions
- Currently listed at $459,900
- Taxes of $6082
- Central Air
- Unfinished attic
- Bedroom #1: 10×11 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 9×10 (main floor)
- Bedroom #3: 8×9 (main floor)
Would make a nice project for ~$100k less. Not the worst location, but *def* not “most private and desireable” street. How can he claim it’s on a culdesac in the listing details?
The listing reads: “TIRED OF SEEING HOMES IN WRONG LOCATION?”
My answer: No, not really, but thanks for asking. This home is so far from “DAZZLING.” Then again, so rarely do I find myself dazzled by a less than 1000 square foot home with what appears to be a dirt front yard. Not much of a chance that these bedrooms will dazzle even given that they are, on average, 90 square feet each.
What? He asked the question! I had to answer it.
Definitely not close to the “most desirable street”, right? I’m not over in that section as much, but when I look at houses north of North Ave, I want to be northeast of Milwaukee. I’m not saying it’s a bad area (I don’t really know) but I’m pretty sure it’s not prime.
It is (just barely) in Pulaski Elementary, for which I hold out some hope.
Is there more than one pic? I just see the front of the house.
“Is there more than one pic? I just see the front of the house.”
Redfin has more. Still only one BR pic and the only pic of the 2d floor is of raw attic space. So, I’m a little dubious about the 3 br claim.
“Definitely not close to the “most desirable street”, right?”
Yeah, definitely, definitely not. Not the worst, but not even close to the best–by any standard I can think of.
Here is the link to redfin — one would think that after 17 months, the agent would (1) put more than one picture on his company’s website, (2) clean that place up, and/or (3) get better pictures.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1641-N-Claremont-Ave-60647/home/12570736
Doesn’t that look like a backyard you would want to “decompress” in?
private street??? really interested in their rationale on that one…its not private in any sense: not a dead end, not gated, its a block from 2 busy streets (Western & North).
Claremont PL??? their is not Claremont Pl here, its Claremont Ave. I guess its too much to expect an agent to know what street the property is on.
@Jon
-Maybe he meant to say ‘a yard to decompose in’…
-I agree that the listing is atrocious. At least there is little chance that he will be getting paid for his crappy work anytime soon. Time for the owners to move on: either in agent, in price point, or from the idea of selling in general. At 17 months at the same price & agents I can’t think that they are serious. (Or if they are serious then they are detached from realty and the agent is not doing his job at bringing them back.)
“A yard to decompose in” – Hilarious.
My guess is that this place will go for land value because nobody wants to pay in the $400s for a one bedroom place with bedrooms fit for elves and a scary attic on a concrete pad…
Here’s another one in the area that I think is so overpriced it’s not even funny. I walk the dogs past it every day and it’s just not an $800+ place. http://www.trulia.com/property/3004040532-1922-N-Oakley-Ave-Chicago-IL-60647
by “one bedroom” I meant “one bathroom” – the closeness in room sizes confused me.
Jon, what’s the closest to a good value for a SFH in that area among current listings (that you don’t want to keep for yourself)?
“GREAT BACK YARD TO DECOMPRESS.”
lol WUT?
@Jon & Tom you guys are crackin me up
I just don’t see how this is a good deal in any way shape or form. This is a house you could buy for 10k in some neighborhoods in the city…
DZ, well since you asked… Here are some thoughts, but take this more as my answers to a pop quiz (so don’t everyone jump on me for choices…) rather than as a studied exam.
I’m a sucker for just about anything on Cortland. Not the best price, but when you consider that the cottage on Oakley is $825K…
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1818-W-Cortland-St-60622/home/13355145
Decent price (under $650K), but a little too close to the Kennedy for me:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1834-N-Marshfield-Ave-60622/home/13355118
I think this place is priced about right given the 152’ lot:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2028-W-Shakespeare-Ave-60647/home/13357512
Two others I think are priced about right:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1911-N-Hoyne-Ave-60647/home/13356357
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1928-N-Hoyne-Ave-60647/home/13356025
Too expensive, too close to Fullerton, but love it (along with the huge SFHs on Churchill a block west of Damen – 2 of which are about $1.3M):
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2318-N-Oakley-Ave-60647/home/13356863
I really don’t think that the best values on SFHs are in Bucktown though – I have seen better things in Wicker Park and south. But those are my thoughts.
“This is a house you could buy for 10k in some neighborhoods in the city”
And that would cost much more in others. That’s not a valid criticism. Lot’s probably still “worth” ~$250k here.
yeah, that 1922 N Oakley place baffles me, too. sure, it looks nice inside, but it’s not terribly big, and not 200k better than the other SFH’s for sale in the area. maybe over-renovated?
this one on Bell just went “pending” recently. maybe it’s the bidet?
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1626-N-Bell-Ave-60647/home/13354792
incidentally, i’ve seen that “TIRED OF SEEING HOMES IN WRONG LOCATION?” line in a couple of this company’s listings. the problem with asking a rhetorical question like that is when people answer “no” in their head, you lose some credibility instantly.
another one i see a lot is “THIS HOME IS EVERYTHING YOU’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR.” i know cutting and pasting makes things easier for agents, but now that everyone is on redfin and coming across the same cut and pastes so often, they might want to put a little more effort in…
The pics looked better than I was expecting on redfin. Going off the agents site I was assuming worse. I assume if you just get a single front pic in this day and age you are hiding something. Something bad.
The price is the problem to me. At least dip down into the 300’s.
“this one on Bell just went “pending” recently. maybe it’s the bidet?”
Short sale, so you may have another crack at the bidet.
Ugly and weird, but seemingly livable. Not a bad location. I can see it selling at $400k, easily.
“yeah, that 1922 N Oakley place baffles me, too. sure, it looks nice inside, but it’s not terribly big, and not 200k better than the other SFH’s for sale in the area. maybe over-renovated?”
See this one:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1918-N-Oakley-Ave-60647/home/13356665
DZ – exactly. can’t understand how it’s 2 doors down yet 300k more. maybe they get better weather 2 doors north?
now the 1922 home does have 3 bedrooms up…but how much more is that really worth?
“now the 1922 home does have 3 bedrooms up”
And, notwithstanding the listing, only 3 BRs. Check the FP on the tour link. Does appear to have a ~400 sf additional, which you could use to explain–maybe–$80k of price difference.
Only have 2 BRs up, w/ the 3d in the basement, simply makes the market a lot smaller–anyone with or thinking of 2 younger-than-HS kids knows that arrangement will not work. So its the childless and single child parents with a desire to have a small-ish SFH in B’town on a short lot as the market. I think that market is not so big.
Big question is whether 1922 is a better or worse deal than the 2075 N Oakley place.
“Big question is whether 1922 is a better or worse deal than the 2075 N Oakley place.”
That’s like asking if you like Beavis or Butthead better. Or whether you’d rather be shot or stabbed. Neither of these places should be put in the same sentence as “deal.”
“That’s like asking if you like Beavis or Butthead better. Or whether you’d rather be shot or stabbed. Neither of these places should be put in the same sentence as “deal.””
C’mon. 2075 is definitely worse than 1922, b/c, for the same price:
1. Condo
2. Higher % living space in basement
3. 3 v 3.5 baths.
“Tired of seeing homes in wrong location?”
Yes. And this is another one of them. Move it east of Damen and we’ll talk.
Almost a half million for one bathroom = fail.
It’s laughable that anyone would want to pay anything like $450K for a shack like this. This place was built as Worker Housing, a place for some blue collar family to live.
Things have surely been strange in housing for the past 30 years. Houses in beautiful neighborhoods like West Rogers Park, that are almost palaces and have incredible architecture and details are going begging while dumps like this in post-industrial brown-lot neighborhoods are considered “trendy”.
“DZ, well since you asked… Here are some thoughts, but take this more as my answers to a pop quiz (so don’t everyone jump on me for choices…) rather than as a studied exam.”
Thanks, Jon. Many of those look interesting. I’ve looked at 1928 N Hoyne, which is the one where the realtor had college student housesitters, one of whom urinated during our visit. Urinating college student, or not, it didn’t work for us with our kid as all three bedrooms were on different levels. Might be an ok value if you could make the short sale work and if the layout worked for your living situation.
I hadn’t seen 1818 W Cortland, guess it was just listed. The wet bar right by the dining table seems like an odd design choice to me.
DZ – I was interested in what you saw with 1818, and from an entertaining point of view that would be a great layout. Now, people don’t have to trek downstairs to a separate bar area and then they also wouldn’t congregate (more than usual) in the kitchen!
Though it is odd from the point of view that most other places don’t have a wet bar in the dining room.
“DZ – I was interested in what you saw with 1818, and from an entertaining point of view that would be a great layout. Now, people don’t have to trek downstairs to a separate bar area and then they also wouldn’t congregate (more than usual) in the kitchen!”
I haven’t been inside 1818. It looked strange to me from the perspective of sitting down to a formal dinner with a sink a couple of feet from the table. It’s not a large dining area. It could just be a little alcove I suppose but not sure there is anywhere else to put a reasonably sized dining table.
Here are 2 others that I think are decent in the area:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2026-N-Honore-St-60614/home/13355689
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2016-N-Honore-St-60614/home/13356385 (we went through this one and the layout is a little odd, but the price is right…)
And I am thinking someone got a deal here if it went for ask or under:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1725-N-Winchester-Ave-60622/home/13355580
Again, just my opinions.
“It’s laughable that anyone would want to pay anything like $450K for a shack like this. This place was built as Worker Housing, a place for some blue collar family to live. ”
You say this all the time, but “worker housing” today is trailer parks and suburban apartment complexes–the standard of living and cost of construction is soo different that it doesn’t matter what it was built as, it matters what has been done in a reno–not that this one satisfies anyone’s reasonable current requirements. The converse of your view, of course, is that homes on South Boulevard were built for the UMC, so today’s working wealthy should congregate on King Drive (which I know you don’t believe).
Come on people, you all know that RE in desirable areas will always be expensive. You either got to suck it up and pay through the nose or move to a different neighborhood, or even the suburbs. This is the city and sfh’s in desirable areas cost big bucks. So many amenities, such great value. Either shut up and get into a bidding war for this highly desirable property, or move to Plainfield where housing costs less than 400k and you will forever be car dependent. Suck it up and pay bc if you don’t some power couple or powerful banker or young internet guy with tons of cash will snap this up.
“Too expensive, too close to Fullerton, but love [2318 Oakley]”
It’s not too expensive if it is *exactly* what you’re looking for–I’m not sure who it works best for–with the full in-law on the lower level and the other 2 bedrooms separate from the master uber-suite. And it’s not too close to Fullerton, unless the complaint is really “too far from [whatever]”. I hate the short lot, but could learn to live with it, I think.
One question for the Bucktown/Wicker experts. I’ve noticed with Bucktown SFH listings that a lot have a nursery or young kid’s room I’m not sure if that just tells me that it’s a popular area for such families and that they move from time to time as everyone does, or if all the families with young kids are fleeing.
Fleeing CPS. Ditching the aligator before its too late.
Yeah I think they saw the demographics for Wells High school and shit their pants
Jon –
Those are all nice homes, which I assume have nice gardens. Which is where they’ve been growing what they’re smoking thinking they’re getting those prices.
HD –
“Come on people, you all know that RE in desirable areas will always be expensive. You either got to suck it up and pay through the nose or move to a different neighborhood, or even the suburbs. This is the city and sfh’s in desirable areas cost big bucks.”
I’m searching for the line between sarcasm and truth in here. So far I haven’t found it. I’m starting to think your complaint really is that you can’t afford the city and it’s just so darn unfair.
“It’s not too expensive if it is *exactly* what you’re looking for–I’m not sure who it works best for–with the full in-law on the lower level and the other 2 bedrooms separate from the master uber-suite.”
There’s a $2MM or so house at 2035 W Dickens I like in many respects (way out of my price range), which also has an in-law unit, which seems odd in this price range. I can’t see wanting to rent the unit out. Too nice for nanny quarters I think (although maybe nannys to the wealthy demand better accomodations). And not nice enough for your actual in-laws.
“Come on people, you all know that RE in desirable areas will always be expensive. You either got to suck it up and pay through the nose or move to a different neighborhood, or even the suburbs. This is the city and sfh’s in desirable areas cost big bucks. So many amenities, such great value.”
If you believe that (a) prices in NW burbs are now somewhat reasonable and (b) you find them to be reasonably comparable amenity wise, why not buy a place out there? Buy a nice foreclosure property in Palatine. That seems like what you should do if really believe what you say.
I was talking to a teacher the other night and she said that in the Stevenson high school district, there tended to be a lot of turnover because parents would move to the area forjr high- high school and then sell after graduation, and the high school population remained constant around 4,000. She told me that due to the economy and the inability of FB’s to sell and ‘move up’ (otherwise known as the end of the Ponzi scheme), they’ve projected a loss of over 600 students for next year. That’s huge, 4000 students down to 3400 because of the RE market and the economy.
“There’s a $2MM or so house at 2035 W Dickens”
It’s $769K if that’s the one you are thinking of… And the realtor says “bring your sunglasses” whatever the F that means.
I do like the Damen to Armitage to Western to Fullerton square, but not really for over a million. The line of houses on the south side of Churchill just west of Damen warrant those prices in my opinion.
As for families fleeing, I say RUN FOR THE HILLS! More for those of us in unorthodox situations where some of these home really work.
“It’s $769K if that’s the one you are thinking of… And the realtor says “bring your sunglasses” whatever the F that means.”
Got listings mixed up, that’s why I couldn’t find the site:
http://2029dickens.com/
I think that mortgage DQ stats, high unemployment rates, and the general malaise in the turnover in the sfh market show that in fact its not just me who can’t afford the city. The generation slightly older than me (late 30’s and 40’s) is slowly discovering that the Ponzi scheme has come to an end, and that the younger generation to whom they intended to sell their homes (at a generous profit) has a limited number of high earning power couples with dual incomes is limited and that the competition for their housing dollars is fierce.
“I do like the Damen to Armitage to Western to Fullerton square, but not really for over a million. The line of houses on the south side of Churchill just west of Damen warrant those prices in my opinion.”
I like the Damen/Armitage/Western/Fullerton square a lot too. My wife thinks there aren’t enough mature trees on Churchill.
It’s just a matter of time before HD moves back to the burbs.
No, it’s just a matter of time before the seller flee to the ‘burbs. I’ve been living here since I was 17 and shipped myself off to college, I have no intentions of leaving anytime soon.
But these sellers obviously do. If you have an expensive ass sfh in wicker park or bucktown and a couple of young children, where do you go from there? Me thinks naperville or barrington. The problem is that again, these sellers, slightly older than me, are slowly recognizing that my slightly younger cohort is unable and unwilling to participate in their ponzi scheme and ultimately they’re the ones left holding the bag. And that my friends, the inability of many of these sellers to recognize their losses, is one the reasons that $460k for a house like this, in a highly desirable area, so close to so many amenities, priced under half a million!!! – still hasn’t sold.
“#DZ on March 16th, 2010 at 8:33 am
One question for the Bucktown/Wicker experts. I’ve noticed with Bucktown SFH listings that a lot have a nursery or young kid’s room I’m not sure if that just tells me that it’s a popular area for such families and that they move from time to time as everyone does, or if all the families with young kids are fleeing.”
“#kms on March 16th, 2010 at 9:15 am
It’s just a matter of time before HD moves back to the burbs.”
“That’s huge, 4000 students down to 3400 because of the RE market and the economy.”
And here, “the economy” means all the people who can no longer afford their mortgage in L’shire and are moving elsewhere thru f/c, strategic or otherwise.
““bring your sunglasses” whatever the F that means”
To avoid being dazzled by the wonderfulness that is this house.
“Too nice for nanny quarters I think (although maybe nannys to the wealthy demand better accomodations). And not nice enough for your actual in-laws.”
I know people in the ‘burbs who have in-law space that is not as nice as either of those, altho it may be a bit larger. If divorced/widowed grandma is primary daytime caregiver, then the space seems more than nice enough–Oakley more than Dickens, b/c it’s more part of the house, rather than being so separate looking (if not feeling).
“And that my friends, the inability of many of these sellers to recognize their losses, is one the reasons that $460k for a house like this, in a highly desirable area, so close to so many amenities, priced under half a million!!! – still hasn’t sold. ”
Dude, that has very little–directly–to do with why THIS property hasn’t sold. It’s not anyone fleeing anywhere, this place is just an overpriced dump in a merely okay location. The “problem” (other than the overpriced part and the dump part) it is having is that there is no longer a market for overpriced dumps to be torn down or to-the-frame reno’d in merely okay locations.
What’s the fair price anon(tfo) for this dump in a merely OK location? it looks walking distance to the el, to restaurants, close to the highway, near other high incomed rich folk….I’m just trying to figure out what bucktown merely OK sfh’s should sell for. According to some people on this site, it should be really expensive. $460k to me seems awfully cheap for a SFH on the northside so close to downtown.
“$460k to me seems awfully cheap for a SFH on the northside so close to downtown.”
Maybe that’s ok for an ok place, but this really isn’t that. Who wants to pay close to a half million for less than 1,000 square feet, 2 bedrooms on the main level and no basement. Not me.
“I know people in the ‘burbs who have in-law space that is not as nice as either of those, altho it may be a bit larger. If divorced/widowed grandma is primary daytime caregiver, then the space seems more than nice enough–Oakley more than Dickens, b/c it’s more part of the house, rather than being so separate looking (if not feeling).”
Are the people you know living in $1.5-2.0MM houses? And are they basements in-law units? Maybe it’s the basement part that gives me the most pause. I feel like if I can afford a $2MM house, I can afford not to have the parents living in the basement (and NOT to have renters in my basement either).
Wow 2029 Dickens is awesome.
2029 dickens was published in chicago home + garden a few years ago. http://www.chicagohomemag.com/Chicago-Home/September-October-2008/Light-Fantastic/
i loved it then and love it even more now. it’s a tasteful and thoughtfully-done rehab. if i only had $2+ million to spend on a home…
“Are the people you know living in $1.5-2.0MM houses? And are they basements in-law units?”
Just checked–$1.6mm. And yes, at least partly in the basement.
Also have a (older) friend in EsEff (mission) whose mother was living in the “basement” (obviously not actually underground) with ~6′ ceilings. Just depends on the parent, the kids + g’kids and the overall family dynamic. If g’ma (or g’pa, or both) are both (1) really part of the family and (2) pretty independent nonetheless, I don’t think it would be a problem, with appropriately designed space–which (esp Oakley, as I expressed) seems to me to be. I would totally not mind having that space, together with normal-family free-range of the rest of the house, and I wouldn’t feel bad about parent/in-laws down there (I’m presuming, w/o checking, radiant-heated floors).
2029 W. Dickens:
$1,650,000.00 WaMu Mortgage (best lender, ever!) 11/2006
Lot purchased 06/16/2004 for $600,000
Lot dimensions 34.5 x 100
Agent Owned/Interest
Genius quote of the year:
“If you want to make a little money in real estate, you start low and look for a building that’s got good bones,” Owner of 2029 W. Dickens
I’m confident they’ll make ‘little money’ on this property, if they make any money at all.
I would love to see the terms of this $1,650,000 WaMu mortgage. I have my hunches about the terms of this mortgage….I’ll check it out at the county building (I have to head over there for something else anyway) so I’ll report back later.
“and I wouldn’t feel bad about parent/in-laws down there”
Basements and arthritis are bad combos
“What’s the fair price anon(tfo) for this dump in a merely OK location?”
Dude, you seriously getting your sarcasm up on *this* property? About which no one has anything nice to say? And mostly served only as a jumping off point for talking about nice (but overpriced) SFHs in B’town?
As I said above, the lot is probably still “worth” $250k for someone with a plan to use it and, assuming (w/ danger) that the structure/foundation/roof are in good shape, one who intended to reno it and live here for a while *might* be able to get comfortable with it as a project for around $350k. Less, of course, being more. $450k for this place is well beyond fantasy.
“Basements and arthritis are bad combos”
So are second floors. And non-grade-level entries. And pickle jars. I guess if mom’s moving in, I need to by a ranch-style house in Joliet or something, eh?
“So are second floors. And non-grade-level entries. And pickle jars. I guess if mom’s moving in, I need to by a ranch-style house in Joliet or something, eh?”
two words…hoverround 🙂
come on, my thing on CC is sarcasm and repeating the same mantra over and over again, yours is discussing the pedantic tidbits of neighborhood boundaries and lot sizes.
“#anon (tfo) on March 16th, 2010 at 10:15 am
“What’s the fair price anon(tfo) for this dump in a merely OK location?”
Dude, you seriously getting your sarcasm up on *this* property? About which no one has anything nice to say? And mostly served only as a jumping off point for talking about nice (but overpriced) SFHs in B’town?
As I said above, the lot is probably still “worth” $250k for someone with a plan to use it and, assuming (w/ danger) that the structure/foundation/roof are in good shape, one who intended to reno it and live here for a while *might* be able to get comfortable with it as a project for around $350k. Less, of course, being more. $450k for this place is well beyond fantasy.”
“So are second floors. And non-grade-level entries. And pickle jars. I guess if mom’s moving in, I need to by a ranch-style house in Joliet or something, eh?”
Buy the Shakespeare house Jon linked to. Give them the master suite on the top floor with private elevator entrance. All for under 900K.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2028-W-Shakespeare-Ave-60647/home/13357512
WaMu should receive some sort of corporate award or gold star for the areas of proper and rigid internal controls and excellence in corporate governance.
“the Shakespeare house Jon linked to”
I don’t like it. I do love the “look at the low taxes” thing, b/c the sale will set them up for a big hike in the next re-assessment–but, for now, the AV went down a little bit from 08 to 09.
Another new Bucktown listing, another family with infant(s) fleeing to the suburbs.
This is listing close to 2004 price, which was 25 percent above what I assume was the new construction (possibly pre-construction?) price in 2002.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2146-W-Homer-St-60647/home/13355671
“Another new Bucktown listing, another family with infant(s) fleeing to the suburbs.”
Or maybe they’re having a 3d kid and moving to a different house in the ‘hood, or closer to whatever-private-school-little-kimmy-got-into.
Or do you know something I’m not taking the time to chase down?
“Or maybe they’re having a 3d kid and moving to a different house in the ‘hood, or closer to whatever-private-school-little-kimmy-got-into.
Or do you know something I’m not taking the time to chase down?”
No other intel. Just going with the HD everyone’s fleeing CPS view of the world, for no particular reason.
“Just going with the HD everyone’s fleeing CPS view of the world, for no particular reason”
Ha! Checking out dude, I suspect that little Kimmy got into one private school or another. I’d guess Parker, if cornered.
The ’02 price on Homer in $730k and the ’04 price was $938k and now it’s listed for $950k! the lot sold for $275k in 2000.
anon(tfo) if little Kimmy got into Parker, they are moving because they’re fleeing the local CPS school, isn’t that true?
Aww they wanted to be hip and trendy and bought in Bucktown. Then mommy crapped out a kid or two (how did THAT HAPPEN?) and now they want to flee to the burbs because they can’t afford the private school nut along with their outsized mortgage nut.
I have no sympathy for people like this. But they aren’t as effed as most stuck in big mortgage-land. Given this is a cottage with a 2-car garage whats really killing this place is only one bathroom.
FINISH THE DAMN ATTIC AND PUT A BATH UP THERE! Boom 500k there ya go.
Why are you going to putting a bathroom in the attic? Do you plan on installing a shower that’s 4 feet tall?
“anon(tfo) if little Kimmy got into Parker, they are moving because they’re fleeing the local CPS school, isn’t that true?”
No.
“Aww they wanted to be hip and trendy and bought in Bucktown. Then mommy crapped out a kid or two (how did THAT HAPPEN?) and now they want to flee to the burbs because they can’t afford the private school nut along with their outsized mortgage nut.”
Dude, the kid discussion has *NOTHING* to do with the posted property. The posted property is a dump with no evidence of children (as opposed to childlike) inhabiting it.
No Bob, according to posters on cribchatter – you must assume that everyone with an outsized mortgage originating between the years ’04-’08 can easily afford it, along with private school, and the buyers are ‘moving up’ to a larger place in a better hood for their growing family. It’s a cardinal sin to assume that people would actually want to move to the suburbs for the better schools and more affordable priced housing, and you will get ridiculed for even suggesting the same.
“The ‘02 price on Homer in $730k and the ‘04 price was $938k and now it’s listed for $950k! the lot sold for $275k in 2000.”
The list minus a small discount is pretty much at the 2004 nominal price. That doesn’t strike me as egregious. I do wish I knew more about the 2002 price. The seemingly identical house next to it sold for $690K in 2002 (lot for $138K in 2000).
The list seems competitive with if not better than some of the places Jon posted. It meets a lot of our requirements. The layout works for us. I do not like the style of the outside front of the house at all. And it’s a short lot.
“you must assume that everyone with an outsized mortgage originating between the years ‘04-’08 can easily afford it, along with private school, and the buyers are ‘moving up’ to a larger place in a better hood for their growing family”
Didn’t check the mortgage history on the Homer house, did you?
But, for fun, I’ll just start assuming that everyone of these houses is actually shadow f/c inventory, despite the lack of any evidence of default.
DZ–you should offer $700k for the Homer house–I’m sure the bank will take it, b/c it’s clearly inferior to the average Palatine house (look at the school–brown children go there!), and those are having trouble selling for two-fitty.
“Why are you going to putting a bathroom in the attic? Do you plan on installing a shower that’s 4 feet tall?”
When a person is taking an inordinate amount of time in the bathroom (friend’s #2 post-burritotime, female with makeup, etc) and I’ve been drinking a lot of brews and really need to go trust me you’d prefer Bob duck down to go vs. in that smallish yard.
” I do not like the style of the outside front of the house at all. And it’s a short lot.”
Are there *any* B’town houses you are looking at under $1.2mm on *not* short lots?
The adjacent alley is good and bad–the extra light is nice, but the noise might be annoying. Does the gator deck give you a view of any grease dumpsters (for extra gator spotting fun)?
“Are there *any* B’town houses you are looking at under $1.2mm on *not* short lots?”
Not many. A couple Jon linked have bigger lots (including the elevator house you don’t like). Some of the blocks east of Damen seem to have close to uniform ~125 foot lots. Not sure I’ve seen a block west of Damen with anything other than 100 foot lots in general (based just on inferring stuff from listings).