3-Bedroom Duplex Down in Lakeview Sells for $77K Under the 2005 Price: 3251 N. Racine
We chattered about this 3-bedroom duplex down at 3251 N. Racine several times in the last year.
See our December 2010 chatter here.
In our last chatter, there really weren’t many guesses as to what this property might sell at- but it was guessed it would be under the last nearby comp on Seminary of $415,000.
The unit just closed at $407,900.
If you recall, the kitchen had 42 inch maple cabinets, stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops.
2 out of the 3 bedrooms were on the main floor, with the third in the lower level.
It had the things buyers look for such as central air, washer/dryer in the unit and deeded parking.
Mark Pasquesi at Prudential Rubloff had the listing.
Unit #1: 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2200 square feet
- Sold in August 1995 for $225,000
- Sold in June 1999 for $320,000
- Sold in September 2005 for $485,000
- Originally listed in June 2010 for $459,900
- Reduced
- Was listed in August 2010 for $449,900 (parking included)
- Reduced
- Was listed in December 2010 for $434,900
- Sold in May 2011 for $407,900
- Assessments of $145 a month
- Taxes of $6614
- Central Air
- Side-by-side washer/dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 15×12 (main level)
- Bedroom #2: 13×11 (lower level)
- Bedroom #3: 11×10 (main level)
- Family room: 25×18 (lower level)
yawn
$90k overpriced. Sucka.
Good price for sellers: good for the “market”.
Sabrina, did you see that the previously-featured Portage Park ornate bungalow is relisted for $599,000? Must be $300,000 more than averaged MLS-listed Portage Park bungalow at this point.
So the sellers took a $77,000 hit plus commissions? Wow. That hurts. Even though it didn’t go under $400k, this is another negative comp for the immediate area.
Seems like a fair price given the comps. Not a steal but not sure why you say it is 90K overpriced HD. Hope they will enjoy their new home b
“Sabrina, did you see that the previously-featured Portage Park ornate bungalow is relisted for $599,000? Must be $300,000 more than averaged MLS-listed Portage Park bungalow at this point.”
The crowd was already discussing it on the old thread so I don’t see the point of doing a post on it again just yet.
http://cribchatter.com/?p=8559
As you recall, it sold a year ago. So we’ll see what the “market” is for it 12 months later (as the Chicago market has deteriorated further in that time.)
I’ll do another post in it after they do a reduction (or two.)
I love the house. It’s fantastic. But it takes a particular buyer in that location. And you may think it’s WAY overpriced compared to the others- but it’s also at least double the size and was built for someone who was rich. So- it’s NOT the average Portage Park bungalow (of which some of the nicer ones are trying to get around $350,000.)
All things considered, the prices roughly make sense and are unsurprising: 320 pre-bubble; 485 near the peak; 408 today. The fact that today’s sale price is so low has more to do with the fact that it’s a dup-down (the downsides and ubiquity of which are well known) than overall market conditions. I know of condos – that are not dup-downs – that had similar pre-bubble and peak prices, but which have recently closed in the mid-400’s (i.e., 30k or so down from peak, not more than 70k as with this property).
“not sure why you say it is 90K overpriced HD”
Because it’s $90k more than the ’99 price. That’s HD’s schtick.
There is a clear trend towards the 1999 price.
“There is a clear trend towards the 1999 price.”
There used to be a clear trend toward being priced out forever.
HD, this closed pretty much in between the late-90’s, pre-bubble price and the bubble price. I’d say that’s the “trend”: closing somewhere in the middle of those two pricing time periods, give or take 10% or so (depending on the quality/location of a particular unit, etc.).
wow, I bet this person feels smart now…
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/3325-N-Racine-Ave-60657/unit-C/home/13382668
it’s a townhouse in the hawthorne court bunch just up racine from this. less square feet, closed off the master loft to make a tiny 3rd bedroom, closed at 460k last month.
just curious, do folks here consider Racine a “big” street or not? it has traffic lights when it intersects with arterials, but otoh it’s clearly residential outside of a tavern here and there.
nonya, not sure what you mean.
“just curious, do folks here consider Racine a “big” street or not? it has traffic lights when it intersects with arterials, but otoh it’s clearly residential outside of a tavern here and there.”
Not big but not really a side street either. Plus, any street that was the locational identifier for any professional sports team can’t really be a side street, can it?
The 3325 property was another 10% down sale.
“I have $46,000. What is the most amount of money can I borrow?”
“The 3325 property was another 10% down sale.”
Well, if you think prices are going to go down, wouldn’t it make sense to put down as little as possible, even if you could afford more? Why not just put down 3.5% on an FHA?
@annony –
saying the price on that hawthorne court one seems really high. the duplex downs in that area of lakeview usually go for more than the smaller townhouses. this duplex down isn’t huge, but it’s still 2200 sqft. that hawthorne one is probably 1900-2000 sqft (it’s one of the detached garage ones, so it has a full basement, others have an attached garage, so a smaller lower level space). Also, the hawthorne one is in a middle one, and those always felt kinda like a beehive to me.
nonya,
I agree, the fact that the hawthorne property is a middle unit is certainly suboptimal. But while it’s a couple hundred sq ft smaller, I’d say that a TH (in basically the same location), that appears to be in nicer shape than this dup-down, is more desirable, even if it’s 40k or so more. All of its living space is above ground, and there’s nobody overhead. Short of the almighty SFH, a nice TH is highly prized…certainly head and shoulders above most dup-downs.
Scratch that about all of its space being above ground. That said, I’d still take the Hawthorne TH over this dup-down.
down payments are the single biggest factor keeping home prices in check. the 10% down, 3.5% down, and during the boom, 115% financing, along with no lending standards, contributed greatly to the increase in prices.
the price drops of late have been from tightened lending standards and the requirement of down payments of 10% or more for anything other than an FHA loan. get rid of the FHA 3.5%’ers and require 20% and prices will finally reach some resemblance of a bottom.
There’s also the issue of a lot less sellers paying closing costs, the short sellers are refusing to come up with either closing costs or repair credits, meaning a buyer has to pony up even more upfront, as we just found out.
“the price drops of late have been from tightened lending standards and the requirement of down payments of 10% or more for anything other than an FHA loan. get rid of the FHA 3.5%’ers and require 20% and prices will finally reach some resemblance of a bottom.”
That’s right HD. Imagine what would happen if we even just required 10% down from everyone? As I’ve said many times- if you look at enough of the sales from 2004-2008, you’ll soon realize that only a small fraction of all buyers put anything more than 5% down. They didn’t need to. So the $400,000 2/2 WAS really equivalent to renting because you only needed a few thousand dollars to move your furniture in.
But now, the whole situation has changed (and keeps changing.) Now- you can either rent OR you can save $40,000 (or more) and THEN buy your property. Renting and buying are no longer equivalent. Buying is much more serious (and expensive) now- despite interest rates being near record lows.
When those go up- there will be even more problems in the housing market. But for now- at least low rates are keeping the patient alive. Just barely.
Sabrina,
once again, you fail to realize that either rents or sales prices are going to go up – no question about it. If nobody buys, then they are going to rent and rents are going to go up. Sure there is a 1-2 year lag – but believe me, it is coming. Anyone who doesn’t realize this really is a complete moron.
anonny – I personally agree, would rather have a townhouse than a duplex down myself. But, if you look around that part of lakeview, the duplex downs tend to go for more.
Even for a townhouse though, I’d take this one:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1348-W-Fletcher-St-60657/home/13365314
over that Hawthorne one. I was in one of the others a couple years ago, liked it better, and now one is listed for 20k less and has no association.
Clio why do you feel the need to insert moron in every argument you make. Even if you are right it will creat hostile feelings and the other person is much less likely to get rationally engaged.
Don’t worry miumiu. He doesn’t know any other words.
Why the change of heart, miumiu? It wasn’t long ago that you would insult and ridicule, mostly in defense of clio (with name-calling, too.)
Raising the down-payment requirement will be the death knell for even more Chicago property sales. Realistically, how many people in the prime home-buying phase of live (even with two incomes) can save up 10%, let alone 20%, of the price of a decent condo/house in a “nice” (not even “prime”) neighborhood? With student loans, car loans, maxed-out credit cards etc. hounding them? Thank goodness we still have the FHA loans and a small handful of 100% programs still on life-support.
This isn’t the 1950s when a single-wage-earner family could easily save up $1,000 down on a $5,000 starter home in Levittown!
G, you are the one who called me, a snob, an evil person, Milkster the b word and call people systematically a lier. When I started using cc, Bob was the master of using “idiot”, now seems Clio has caught up or maybe I just missed his comments earlier. I think people have read enough of our posts to judge for themselves.
I don’t condone bullying behavior regardless of whom it is targeted towards. I don’t like making fun of people because they are rich or poor, are for or against certain investments, etc… We can disagree without being disagreeable. You were the one who was insulting me without knowing anything about me because I did not always agree with your doom and gloom. If you go back and read my posts, you’d see that I have always maintained that I don’t know much about housing market and I am here to learn and I have indeed learnt from most of the folks here, including you. Unlike you, I don’t think “you are either with us or against us,” and certainly don’t hold grudges.