2/2 With Millennium Park Views is Listed $210,000 Under the 2010 Price: 6 N. Michigan
This 2-bedroom in 6 N. Michigan at 6 N. Michigan across the street from Millennium Park in the Loop came on the market in March 2019.
This building was converted into condos in 2008 and has 119 units with a parking garage and a doorman.
This unit has the preferred Millennium Park and Lake views, including of the Bean.
It has 10 foot ceilings and oversized windows with dark hardwood floors.
The kitchen has Scavalini cabinets, quartz countertops and luxury stainless steel appliances including a Bertazzoni range.
The master suite has a spa bath with natural stone.
It doesn’t look like the second bedroom has a window.
The unit has the features buyers look for including central air, washer/dryer in the unit and garage parking, which must be sold with the unit, is available for $40,000.
The seller is giving an incentive:
* * * VALUE PRICED!!! * * * BUYER INCENTIVE–SELLER WILL PAY ASSESSMENTS THRU END OF 2019!! * * *
The unit has a monthly assessment of $1234 a month which seems high for the square footage and age of the building. Anyone know why?
Originally listed in March 2019 for $632,600, it has been reduced to $475,000 plus the $40,000 for the parking for a total of $515,000.
That’s $210,000 under the 2010 price of $725,000.
Are prices falling in the GreenZone?
Christina DelGreco at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #502: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1295 square feet
- Sold in July 2010 for $725,000 (included the parking)
- Sold in April 2017 for $610,000 (included the parking)(price per Zillow as the CCRD doesn’t list a sales price)
- Originally listed in March 2019 for $632,600
- Reduced numerous times
- Currently listed for $475,000 (plus $40,000 for parking which must be sold with the unit)
- Assessments of $1234 a month (includes heat, a/c, gas, parking, doorman, cable, exercise room, exterior maintenance, lawn care, scavenger, snow removal and Internet)
- Taxes of $14,035
- Central Air
- Washer/dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 17×12
- Bedroom #2: 12×10
- Living room: 17×14
- Kitchen: 11×10
- Walk-in-closet: 8×6
- Foyer: 7×5
So if you agree to close in 30 days, the seller is going to pick up the second half of December’s assessment. This incentive is a whopping $600. Maybe one of the dumbest things I have seen in a listing.
Ah yes the notorious parking games… just fuck off with that ya shysters, what a complete and total turn off
as for the unit, kind of cool you can see the bean right out your windows, I can’t imagine how noisy and crowded it is near this place is 24/7 though, not for me for sure
2.7% property tax rate? That HOA bill doubled since I’ve last looked at those units and the taxes tripled(previously tax frozen).
Best decision I ever made was getting out of the area (Owned in Legacy next door and I thankfully washed on my sale. Comps are down 10% in 2 years since I sold) I should go back to my old posts here for a good cringe. It’s like a cognitive dissonance time capsule. I was wrong and basically everyone else posting here was right about the area and the building.
“Maybe one of the dumbest things I have seen in a listing.”
Made a lot more sense when it was originally listed in March.
sweet movie theater, lol.
Parking games? What’s wrong with charging for parking separately? That’s what I did when I sold my Chicago condo.
Also, did the penthouse in this building ever sell? I remember a huge blank space that was available for years before the owner built it out and then couldn’t sell for many more. Not as bad as the fordham penthouse but still.
“What’s wrong with charging for parking separately?”
Check out the word that starts with an m and ends with a ust:
“$40,000 for parking which must be sold with the unit”
What’s “wrong” with it is that not optional. Like advertising a single shoe for $100 (second shoe = $50), but only selling them in pairs. Or selling a house, and listing the garage (on the same lot) as a separate price.
Why not list it for $300k, with $175k for fixtures, and $40k for the parking (purchase of unit MUST include fixtures and parking)??
Where there is a requirement that the unit owner also own the associated parking space, and the parking is listed as a separate price, I would never ever offer more than the asking price for the unit alone. Yes, that would possibly cause me to miss out on a unit I wanted, but it’s just so asinine.
For some reason, this building leaves me cold. It’s too bad, because it’s such a historic structure, but the units I’ve seen look like they were built for a cheap condo development in Roselle and then installed on Michigan Avenue.
The lobby sucks, the windows aren’t very big, and smaller units like this one feel cramped and sterile…The assessments are way too high for a unit of this caliber.
It’s not priced badly, but even in the ‘hot’ 500k market, there are probably better options, minus the view.
“Parking must be sold with the Unit”– It’s odd phrasing, but I wonder if this just means that they aren’t willing to sell the parking space separately before they sell the unit (and it’s possible that that you must be a unit owner in the building to be able to own a parking spot). If either of those are the case, it could have been spelled out more clearly.
“I wonder if this just means that they aren’t willing to sell the parking space separately before they sell the unit”
It’s entirely possible that the condo dec requires that the unit and the parking be owned together, even tho the parking is a separate tax parcel (instead of a limited common element).
We have seen here on cc parking listed as separate where it IS a limited common element, which absolutely cannot be sold separately–the parking is actually part of the unit.
They’ve got this realtor listing game backwards. People may put the top end of their search in the “financial stretch” category so as to not miss something truly special, but it doesn’t work the other way around. If $475 is the top of someone’s range, they aren’t suddenly going to be considering a purchase that is really $515K.
Why not list it at $515K and cut out all the nonsense about purchasing the parking separate? Even better, why not list it at $510K and claim you are “crediting” $5K towards assessments? Parking in an urban core area for an “in town” unit like this is virtually worthless given ride sharing – – and since it isn’t optional to not purchase it, they really do need to stop playing games if they hope to sell. This listing makes me think the seller is not forthright. I wouldn’t want to do business with them. Also, sheesh, rent some furniture from Cort and stage this place. Sell a “lifestyle” and not a cramped/mediocre looking unit that actually costs more than you listed at.
Given the 3/4 walls on the second bed, this is a mediocre 1 bed plus den except for the fact that you look at the bean and oh, I do love a Bertazzoni stove. That is like the only high end thing in this unit though.
I have to believe street noise is an issue–possibly a huge issue– on the fifth floor of a unit at this location.
14k in taxes for a unit this size is also freakin brutal and is probably the largest cause of the price drop
2010 was a hell of a time. “It’s going to be a 900K unit in 5,10 yrs max!)
Financials don’t make sense here at all.
1300 sq ft in new lux rental is about 4300. So tax/assessment here are 2400 a month. Is tying up 470k worth saving 1900 a month when you know more tax hikes coming. 8% return on 500k is 40k a year. Way more than the cost savings. This feels over priced by 170k.
Parking spaces in this building have separate pin numbers from the units and therefore can be sold separately unless there is something in condo by laws to prohibit.
“unless there is something in condo by laws to prohibit.”
The seller is asserting such in their listing. Should we assume they are lying to us?
This stretch of Mich Ave doesn’t deliver like Upper East side along Central Park. Add to that the crime right outside the door.
The location and the views from its windows, are the only things this bland, dull apartment has going for it. What a shame that that the possibilities of this lovely old building were squandered, to build these fugly, ordinary units.