2 Years Later, 2-Bedroom Old Town Townhouse Is Now $4K Under the 2002 Price: 1732 N. Mohawk
We’ve chattered about this 2-bedroom townhouse at 1732 N. Mohawk in Old Town several times this year.
See our August 2011 chatter here.
The townhouse has actually been on the market for 2 years. It was recently reduced another $25,000.
Back in August, a couple of you thought it would probably sell around $370,ooo to $375,000.
It is now listed at $375,000 which is $2,500 under the 2002 price.
You’ll recall that the townhouse, which is at the back of the property, has the living/kitchen area on the main floor, 2 bedrooms on the second level and then a den on the third level with skylights.
It also has a 300 square foot private rooftop deck on the third level.
There are hardwood floors on the main level and both bedrooms have new carpet.
The kitchen has maple cabinets, stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops.
Built in 1988, it has central air and 2-car tandem parking.
The seller is now offering $5,000 credit to a buyer for a pre-12/30/2011 closing.
Will this property finally sell in 2011?
Scott Berg at Berg Properties has the listing. See more pictures here.
Unit #C: 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, den, 1500 square feet
- Sold in September 1992 for $208,500
- Sold in June 1994 for $218,500
- Sold in May 2000 for $306,000
- Sold in October 2002 for $377,500
- Sold in August 2005 for $499,000
- Sold in April 2006 for $499,000
- Originally listed in November 2009 for $519,000
- Reduced
- Was listed in April 2011 for $439,000
- Reduced
- Was listed in May 2011 for $435,000 (includes 2-car tandem parking)
- Reduced
- Was listed in August 2011 for $400,000 (includes 2-car tandem parking)
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $375,000 (includes 2-car tandem parking)
- Assessments of $100 a month
- Taxes of $6435
- Central Air
- Private Roof Deck: 18×17
- Bedroom #1: 15×12 (second level)
- Bedroom #2: 11×10 (second level)
- Den: 11×10 (third level)
1996 pricing will soon be the new 1999 pricing. That’s my new theory for a lot of markets. Not all and it will vary widely between properties even on the samw block. Buy long term at the 1996 price and it’ll all be ok.
“Buy long term at the 1996 price and it’ll all be ok.”
Buy ~30% under the last bottom (in real $$ $100-’96usd = $144-’11usd)? Yeah, that should be an okay risk.
Also, in other news, the sky is blue, water is wet and the sun rises in the east. Film at 10.
btw, HD is suggesting that this would be okay at ~$225k. Which, +cpi, is ~$325k. Which also seems pretty okay to me.
$499 *was* nuts, of course.
The sun does not rise in the east if you are on a concorde heading west. Anons rules of thumb miss exceptions like the times we live in.
370k should move it today but its a 300k property by 2016.
“Anons rules of thumb miss exceptions like the times we live in.”
Film at 10.
“370k should move it today but its a 300k property by 2016.”
So, you’re going to be living in your studio for another 5 years? Or are you predicting meaningful USD deflation?
Also, did you not notice that $370 is the *actual* current offer? So, again, film at 10.
Depends on meaningful. I see 5 years now of middle single digit price declines for chicago RE. And no I’m sick of the studio but planning to own in 1-2. Makes the case for moving to rent a bit of a bleh. Not too worried about price declines by then. Already killer foreclosure deals in GZ popping up (ie 209k 2/2 at 3037 n damen w garage spot) by 2 years I’ll have my pick of the litter.
“3037 n damen”
1. All three units in that building were REO this year; the other two sold and resold for $375 and $438.
2. The pic of the bath shows that the faucet and doorknob were removed (or never installed).
3. Bet there’s no kitchen. bc of #2 + no pic.
4. Everything on that stretch of Damen from Diversey to at least Roscoe–make sure you get a *really* good inspection. Many (maybe most) are fine, but some of them are complete, utter sh!tboxes, with worse than average construction. Everyone I’ve known who lived in one of those (not *that* many, but still) had water inflitration problems.
Oh its a mccrapbox and its got its mccrapbox problems like possibly water infiltration but its a 2/2 in the gz with a garage spot setting comps for others.
This featured listing is surely better on location (proximity to downtown matters more than proximity to a taqueria again!) and probably build quality. But more than 70% better?
I think mccrapboxes in general will get hit real hard but this one does have location going for it at least. (3037 n damen equidistant between hip 20something hookup spots so a poseur location case could also be made but tgt mkt doesnt have high paying jobs the fico and the downpayment anymore).
Agree with Bob. The 2BR market in CHI is definitely in a 5+ year secular decline.
I would not even consider buying in the 2BR segment at anything over $200/sf.
This is a $300k property, plain and simple. Maybe not this round, but in 3-5 years for sure.
Remember what the Redfin agent said: “The unit is in the rear, not the front unit that is pictured. Small, dark rooms”
I stand by my $300k.
“I would not even consider buying in the 2BR segment at anything over $200/sf. ”
Sure, but this is a 2/2.5, in a plus location. And Bob’s example isn’t actually habitable, and the sales of the other two units *in the same building* didn’t set comps for themselves when they’d been made habitable and both sold for more than this place.
But do you think that $225k–in nominal $$– is likely?
HD, if it’ll be ok at 1996 prices, that means you’ll buy when we get to 1980 prices, right?
Anon, in addition to your info on 3037 Damen:
1. Unit 1 had a comment from Redfin saying, “Severe water damage”
2. For Unit 2, not only was the doorknob and faucet never installed it appears the bathroom cabinet door is missing.
3. The duplex down sold when bank owned for $233,500 in May and $438,500 rehabbed in Sep/Oct
4. The “penthouse” sold when bank owned for $203-208k in May (probably the same buyer) and $375k in May/Aug fully rehabbed.
Why didn’t the buyer buy #2 also? If the toop floor went for $203-208, this one probably needs to come down a little more anyways. I also feel bad for the buyer of #1 and 3. This building sounds like a nightmare….
“Anon, in addition to your info on 3037 Damen”
Bob:hd as reo with major flaw:house on freeway.
SoPoCo Lurker (December 1, 2011, 4:15 pm)
Remember what the Redfin agent said: “The unit is in the rear, not the front unit that is pictured. Small, dark rooms”
I stand by my $300k.
That would be $200/sq ft. in a weird part of OTT. You’ve into that part where you’ve got crazy zoned housing. I don’t think it would go that low.
Question for Google-bot: What is the total lot size assuming you could get the whole lot?
3037 Damen.
I had a co-worker who lived around there 10 years ago in new contruction then. He sold right away and moved since he had water issues becuase the developer/developers built crap around that area.
Also, that area is a thumbs down. Why bother living in Chicago if you live around there?
“Also, that area is a thumbs down. Why bother living in Chicago if you live around there?”
Tell me where in the suburbs you could live walking distance to a park with a pool AND a Costco that isn’t crappy apartments under a high voltage right of way?
“What is the total lot size assuming you could get the whole lot?”
Appears to be 24×122. And it is “only” 3 units, with aggregate AV of 136,373.
Ok so pretty close to a standard 25 x 125…
There are teardowns for about 700k in OTT so this has a way to go if you are going to pick up the whole lot and build one of the many mansions on this street
I would never buy a rear unit. Doesn’t matter how great the neighborhood is.
I think it is priced appropriately… the thing that hurts this place is that it overlooks a parking lot for Section 8 housing on larrabee.
“Tell me where in the suburbs you could live walking distance to a park with a pool AND a Costco that isn’t crappy apartments under a high voltage right of way?”
WhoTF is walking to Costco??? Haha.