3-Bedroom in the Heart of Taylor Street Sells for $67K Under the 2005 Price: 1408 W. Taylor
We last chattered about this 3-bedroom unit right in the heart of Taylor Street at 1408 W. Taylor in November 2010.
See our prior chatter here.
Back then, the primary discussion was on whether or not this area should be called “Little Italy” or “Taylor Street.”
I had called it “Tri-Taylor” which wasn’t, apparently, correct either. So this time I’m going for “Taylor Street.”
On the market for 21 months, it finally sold for $67,000 under the 2005 purchase price.
If you recall, this new(er) construction unit wasn’t one of those small 3-bedrooms as it had 1540 square feet.
It was a double corner unit with two balconies and had 11 foot ceilings.
The building only had 2 units per floor but it did have an elevator.
The kitchen had cherry cabinets, stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops.
This is located in an area where there are hot restaurants and bars- and more seemingly opening all the time.
Was this a deal?
Eugene Fu at @Properties had the listing.
Unit #202: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1540 square feet, 1 car parking included
- Sold in June 2005 for $392,000
- Originally listed in July 2009 for $414,900
- Reduced several times
- Was listed in November 2010 for $375,000
- Reduced
- Sold in April 2011 for $325,000
- Assessments of $315 a month
- Taxes of $5618
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 13×14
- Bedroom #2: 10×11
- Bedroom #3: 10×10
That closed higher than I thought it would. Gary – do you have any comps? Has anything similar sold lately? How are values on Taylor Street holding up? I thought you could buy a SFH in nice condition in this area for about the same price.
Executed Recorded Document Type Amount
04/20/2011 04/27/2011 MORTGAGE $308,750.00
Of course it closed higher than most people thought it would. This buyer bought a house with a little more than a tax refund and a 401(k) withdrawal, and a stream of income.
“I thought you could buy a SFH in nice condition in this area for about the same price.”
i’d love to see some listings that back this up.
The 5% FHA loans are all over the place, especially for younger first time buyers. Realtors and brokers are pushing them primarily because younger buyers have little savings for a down payment. In particular the suburbs are filled with 20 and 30 somethings buying 3.5% FHA homes in the $300,000 dollar range. Amazing to think what those homes would sell for if 20% down was required on every purchase. How long would it take a 28 year old couple to save $60,000?
Hi jfmiii –
Sabrina profiled 2423 W Grenshaw which is a little further west. I’ll admit I am not familiar with the neighborhood:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2423-W-Grenshaw-St-60612/home/13258126
It has been reduced to 299.9K.
2423 w Grenshaw = WEST OF WESTERN
“WEST OF WESTERN”
Lolz, HD. By half a block. Yes.
“The 5% FHA loans are all over the place, especially for younger first time buyers. Realtors and brokers are pushing them primarily because younger buyers have little savings for a down payment.”
But what does that really matter? Yes, I understand the “skin in the game” concept. But how is buying something with 3.5% down much different than renting? If you are renting, you have to come up with xx per month to pay the rent, regardless of your savings. If you are an owner, you have to come up with the same xx per month to pay the mortgage. If the renter stops paying the owner has to try to evict them. If the buyer stops paying the owner (bank) has to foreclose. Both owners then need to find a new tenant.
“Sabrina profiled 2423 W Grenshaw which is a little further west. I’ll admit I am not familiar with the neighborhood:”
That 1.25 miles makes a *huge* difference in this part of town.
Still, I’m with you on the rowhouse preference, especially when it’s 10% cheaper.
I don’t know if it’s that people don’t have 20% to put down, they’d just rather not take the risk with the cash they worked so hard to save. Today’s buyers are going in knowing that there’s still a good chance that prices will dip even further, but also knowing that it’s now easier than ever to walk away if that does happen. Only losing 3.5% if you walk is a lot better than walking from 20%.
I agree with chukdotcom: walking away from a 3.5% downpayment, if a lot easier, makes this no more than a rental type situation walking away from a damage deposit. Perhaps people shouldn’t own if thay are unable to save a certain size downpayment that makes ownership more reliable again
Yes, this is a good deal, no question, and it’s cheaper to own a place like this than it is to rent one.
However, I would consider 1540 square feet, even if it’s an honest number, to be on the small side for a three bedroom. It’s not tiny, but I consider 1600 the floor for a big two bedroom. Still a nice space at a nice price.
I know that 20% down sounds like a lot, heck it does to me too; but you really have to wonder what effect it would have on valuations if everyone that got a mortgage had to put 20% down.
20% is a substantial, but prices would also be more affordable to begin with; when most people ponder the prospect of paying 20% there’re probably thinking of it within the pricing structure of the current market.
Heck, the entire housing bubble might not have happened if everyone had to put at least 20% down…
” Today’s buyers are going in knowing that there’s still a good chance that prices will dip even further, but also knowing that it’s now easier than ever to walk away if that does happen. Only losing 3.5% if you walk is a lot better than walking from 20%.”
I think the option of ‘walking away’ of getting too much weight in this discussion; Yes, it gets al ot of attention in the press because it’s controversial and somewhat of a new idea.
But somehow I doubt that many people weigh in that option when they’re considering if they want to put down 3.5% or 20% (for those who can afford to).
You absolutely cannot get a single family home in this neighborhood for what this condo sold for @325,000.
In the past 6 months, a rowhome has sold @ 820 bishop for 575,000 and that is a great deal.
1429 Lexington is for sale for 1.2 million and 1435 W. Flournoy is also for sale @ 1.2. 900 Carpenter is under contract, but listed at 1.3 million. This area is all little Italy and is different than University Village in my opinion. I consider the borders to be HAlsted to the East, Ashland to the West, Harrison North, and Roosevelt South. A 2/2 Condo closed on Taylor (across from Tuscany) for 340,000 this past month.
What do you think these rent for?
Assuming the buyer is doing a 7-year ARM at 3.25% (you know you can’t live in a place like this forever, espeically with kids).
Mortgage – $1,344
Taxes – $533
Assessments – $315
Insurance – $75
Total – $2,267 a month nut. Seems they are at rent parity. They get a ~guaranteed nut* for 7-years and they can paint the walls.
Seems like renting would be better in this situation.
*assuming no specials/large assessment increases. Bla bla taxes …
Craigslist doesn’t have any comparable rental properties.
ARMs scare me. This is a 3BR, 2 Bath and I can for sure live with kids here if I have too, I’d rather compromise on living arrangements than take risky mortgages. To me ARMs were for the bubble era. Now is the time to get fixed. But of course I am pretty conservative.
“Assuming the buyer is doing a 7-year ARM at 3.25% (you know you can’t live in a place like this forever, espeically with kids).”
“I thought you could buy a SFH in nice condition in this area for about the same price.”
Not a chance. SFHs in that area can be in the $500-700k plus range.
I thonk that the Grenshaw prop, yes 1/2 blk west of Western, is a great condo alternative, albeit another neighborhood….but not far, at all.
There’s another rowhouse, just west of Western, that looks pretty good. It’s a block south of Harrison, so it backs to the nicer Harrison Corridor condos, and is waaay closer to the el. Thoughts? I think it’s a bit overpriced, but could go around $300k.
http://www.trulia.com/property/12562854-2426-W-Flournoy-St-Chicago-IL-60612
4.5% 30-year would be $1,563.* So $219 more a month to do a 30-year (at a good rate) bringing the total to $2,486. No idea what this would rent for though as HD said hard to find anything comparable to rent.
I lived in the area for two years and I liked it a lot. I have a lot of family in the western burbs so it was great for popping on 290. Also when I visted friends by the lake it was really easy and fast to take Congress to LSD. Reverse Blue Line commute was also great as I could usually get a seat and the ride was really fast. Even with all that I don’t think I would want to own here, but great area to rent in your 20s (as opposed to Wrigely which I was never a fan of).
*plus you pay less towards principle.
I think the option of ‘walking away’ of getting too much weight in this discussion; Yes, it gets al ot of attention in the press because it’s controversial and somewhat of a new idea.
Not a new idea in California and Florida, it has been going on for years. Some are buying another home that they rent. If something happens, then they walk away from the first house that is underwater and move into the rental property. Non-recourse states have many more keys in the mailbox than recourse states.
And yes, there is a world of difference between Taylor Street/Little Italy and west of Western. Properties are not comparable due to the difference of neighborhood.
Perhaps rather than ‘walking away’, I should have said losing the place – covering having to sell/short sell/give it back/get foreclosed on because of sickness, job loss, relocation etc. People don’t want to sink their cash into an investment they can’t easily liquidate, if at all, and there’s a much bigger chance of them needing it these days.
I love this area too but I’d be concerned with the developments along Roosevelt just to the south. Are these projects or not? I cant get a straight answer. If it’s market rate than I’d feel comfortable buying here, if it’s just more CHA disguised as new condos than prepare for the same crap again like the ABLA homes.
I’ll agree with everyone who says that Taylor Street/Little Italy and the west end of Tri-Taylor are too different to compare properties in.
Jennifer Luhm: That block of Flournoy is pretty quiet for the area, but the next block south on Lexington/Campbell has a lot more problematic West side activity (dice games, drinking, hanging out in the middle of the street, drug dealing), probably due to the half dozen scattered site CHA buildings on Lexington. The Western Blue Line stop also has a lot of robberies and thefts, though if you aren’t holding your smartphone in your hand and obliviously talking on the phone it’s a lot less likely.
Nico: The vast majority of the Roosevelt Square buildings are section 8 housing. AFAIK, people stopped buying into the market rate housing in 2006. The market rate housing generally has balconies and garages, the subsidized housing never has balconies and usually doesn’t have garages. It has many of the same issues the ABLA homes do, though from what I understand, it is easier to get kicked out of Roosevelt Square vs CHA subsidized housing.
Who’s idea was it that people would $400,000 to live next to section 8 neighbors? Can’t this city just let the development happen naturally? Let’s face it, as long as the CHA is involved these neighborhoods will never fully rebound. What a waste of prime property.
“Who’s idea was it that people would $400,000 to live next to section 8 neighbors? Can’t this city just let the development happen naturally? Let’s face it, as long as the CHA is involved these neighborhoods will never fully rebound. What a waste of prime property.”
Unfortunately, as this is just another example, our city of Chicago is the best and most conspicuous example of crony capitalism in the U.S.
This will just continue until the population starts to put aside the absurd political correctness and starts using logic instead of irrational and erratic emotion to drive decision making in city planning.