Renovated Vintage 2-Bedroom in East Lakeview with a Garage: 619 W. Addison
This 2-bedroom corner vintage unit at 619 W. Addison in Lakeview came on the market in August 2020.
Built in 1916, this courtyard building is a co-op with 27 units.
It also has garages behind the building as well as a common laundry room and storage.
This unit has been renovated but still has some of its vintage features.
It has crown molding throughout the living and dining rooms and unique barrel vaulted ceilings in the dining room.
The listing says the chef’s kitchen has been renovated and has white cabinets, a stainless steel farmhouse sink, quarter counter tops, stainless steel appliances, a white tile backsplash and a walk-in pantry.
The bedrooms both have several walls of windows.
The listing says there is custom Elfa closets.
The bathroom has also been renovated and has a walk-in shower.
It doesn’t have central air, but has window units, but the listing says that central a/c is allowed with board approval.
Additionally, according to the floor plan, it appears to have in-unit washer dryer, but is it already installed?
The listing says:
“In unit full size washer/dryer, as well as option to add unit dedicated w/ d in common laundry area”
This unit is one of those that has a 1.5 car private garage available for an extra $49,000. According to the listing, it’s available to the buyer or a current shareholder only.
There are no pets allowed in the building.
There are also no rentals allowed.
Because it’s a co-op, the monthly assessment includes taxes.
This building is located in the heart of Lakeview, just blocks from the lake, Belmont Harbor, Wrigley Field, shopping, restaurants and the Red Line.
Originally listed in August 2020 for $275,000, it has been reduced $25,000 to $250,000 plus $49,000 for the parking.
The listing says that the board allows 90% financing.
Is this a better deal than renting in this neighborhood?
Leigh Marcus at @Properties has the listing. You can see the pictures, including the 2017 listing pictures for some reason which shows what they did to the unit, as well as the floor plan, here.
Unit #1: 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 1150 square feet (according to Zillow)
- Co-op
- Sold in November 2017 for $230,000 (according to Zillow)
- Originally listed in August 2020 for $275,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $250,000 (plus $49,000 for private garage parking space)
- Assessments of $635 a month (includes taxes, heat, gas, scavenger, snow removal, exterior maintenance)
- Taxes are in the assessment (co-op)
- No central air- window units. Listing says central air can be added with board approval
- Washer/dryer in the unit? (can’t tell but it’s on the floor plan)
- Gas fireplace
- Bedroom #1: 14×12
- Bedroom #2: 14×7
- Living room: 19×12
- Dining room: 16×12
- Kitchen: 8×8
- Laundry room: 8×3
- Foyer: 9×6
- Deck: 13×8
Nice unit and the Bath and Kitchen we’re nicely remodeled.
Neither the 17 or current sell has any photos of the purported Laundry room
Price seems reasonable.
It’s a nice unit but not a true 2 bedroom. The second bedroom doesn’t have a closet and is more of a den/sunroom.
“No pets allowed in the building”
Gosh, I can’t imagine committing to an investment in a home knowing that getting a dog or a cat would be prohibited.
No pets and no rentals so if you are like this person and sunk way more $$ in than you should have and suddenly you find you have to move (that price chop wreaks of “must” versus testing the market), you are SOL. This co-op features all the worst aspects of being a renter and an owner rolled up in to one.
Nice job with the reno – – since Co-Op boards can be difficult sometimes you usually see a lot of old units that desperately need a refresh and the reason no one has done it yet can frequently be the Co-Op. . . but I actually a tiny bit bad for these folks but not completely since I am guessing these were the rules when they bought the place.
I would NEVER buy an apartment in a condo or co-op that didn’t have a rental policy. No one knows what tomorrow may bring for them and the ability to rent your unit out could save you from financial ruin. Not to mention – – and other mortgage folks can chime in because my info is second hand – – but I thought the % rentals in a building doesn’t really figure into the lender’s underwriting any more or the number has to be absurdly high as a % of the total units. This Co-Op board needs to get with the times. I get banning air bnb and short term rentals but you should always be flexible on long term rentals – – for one thing the unit owners’ interests are aligned with everyone else especially when they have sunk money into the unit as they have here.
As one who has owned two condos, one of which was in a building that came to be controlled by investors, I can state that the worst thing that can befall a condo building is to have a preponderance of rentals. When my first building was “deconverted” back to rental, I made very sure that my next purchase was in a building occupied mostly by owners.
However, I still don’t rest easy, and am among those fighting for a rental cap of no more than 10% of the units to be rented.
Too many rentals still makes it difficult to get financing- as a rule, lenders do not like to finance in a building with more than 20% of the units rented, and the FHA requires a complex be at least 80% owner-occupied. Worse, too many investor owners makes it more difficult to obtain financing for major capital repairs and improvements.
However, the worst thing about rentals in condo buildings, are the condo investors themselves. I have no problem with most of the tenants who rent- it’s their landlords who are the problems. Having dealt with a building that was 80% investor-owned, I can state that most condo investors are extremely parasitical, and care nothing about the quality of life for the occupants as long as they can collect their rent. They want the benefits of investment property ownership without the work involved, and expect “the association” to make sure that all the common elements are maintained and the bills paid, and they resist expenditures that make the building more attractive and pleasant to live in.
Very nice unit for the price with two caveats:
One – get rid of those window units and put in central air. They’re just plain ugly.
Two – as long as it’s not on the side of the building facing Broadway. I don’t love the idea of buses going by my window every five minutes.
Seems like a nice unit and okay price for what you get. Separate living & dining room, oversized garage, spacious balcony. No pets allowed in the building though? Not even a cat? Yeah that’s a crazy co-op rule probably because there’s been a crazy catlady or three in this building’s history.
My upstairs neighbor has a cat and if not for the catfood he has shipped I wouldn’t even know it existed. It’s really not a problem at all.
I am a fan of no rentals though–this makes it clear that this building is for sale for those who want to live here. Investors can go elsewhere and everyone buying knows that all the other people who live there have a vested financial interest in the building.
I hear you Dan #2, but this building doesn’t face Broadway directly, but rather Addison. Either way, I wouldn’t want a bus going by often.
Bluestreak, I must have the wrong building in mind, but yeah, Addison is no bargain.
I never imagined any of these low-rises were co-ops.
I’ve always rather liked this building, but the cooperative ownership structure and the no-pets restriction, are instant deal-killers for me.
@Laura You can allow renters and still deter investors – – just require owner occupancy for a minimum of 12-24 months before they can rent.
When was the last time you or someone you know in a building with a lot of renters applied for a mortgage? I am genuinely curious as my understanding is that right now, the %of renters really doesn’t matter.
I only know one person who owned a condo that was de-converted and it was about 4400 north-ish area between Clark and the Lake. Best thing that ever happened to him. He bought the place in 2007-ish when literally EVERYONE thought you had to own. His income increased rapidly and he wanted to move on but the real estate collapse left him with no other option but to rent it out. When a de-converter came along the only people who griped at all were the ones who were doing about the same as they had when they purchased their units and they weren’t particularly sophisticated (by this point the writing was on the wall that a 1 BR condo was going to be a tough sell given all the new rental product). He made money on the deal – – everyone did. They were compensated for reserves and common elements of the building.
“When was the last time you or someone you know in a building with a lot of renters applied for a mortgage? I am genuinely curious as my understanding is that right now, the %of renters really doesn’t matter.”
Russ: Any ideas if it matter much anymore how many renters there are for the mortgage?
When I bought my first condo,it was cash-only, and much cheaper than it would have been if financing had been available. It was made plain to all prospective buyers that financing was difficult to impossible to obtain because of the high percentage of investor ownership.
It was a gorgeous old apartment, and it seemed like a great opportunity. I thought, just a few more owner-occupants, and we can turn this building. But it wasn’t to be.
Now, many people wondered why I griped about the de-conversion, as I sold the unit for $46,000 over my cost basis. I made money, didn’t I? Well, not exactly, since I had to scramble to replace it with something comparable with my net proceeds, which were of course reduced not only by my proportionate share of the usual agent commission and legal fees, but by the additional additional legal fees pursuant to the condo-to-rental conversion. In addition, I had to incur moving expenses, and the legal expenses of another purchase. The only thing that made it all worthwhile for me, was being able to score a place in a building that was infinitely better and that I’ve always loved, and I at least broke even, though barely.
Others are not so lucky. Many people bought condos in buildings since converted back to rental, at the peak in 2005 for much higher prices than their units sold for when converted back to rental. Sure, they fetched a higher price for the unit than they would have if they’d sold it as an individual unit, but that is no consolation to people who have been doggedly paying on their mortgages to preserve their credit, and who are, because of the conversion to rental and subsequent sale at prices far lower than those they paid, stuck with mortgage deficiencies that are sometimes enormous. As Illinois is a “recourse” state where a lender can pursue a borrower for the deficiency after a foreclosure or other forced sale, the hapless borrower leaves the place with impaired credit and no ability to replace the unit. For this reason, I believe no conversion should take place without 100% ownership approval.