3-Bedroom Lakeview Townhouse Sells for $60K Under 2014 Price: 820 W. Wolfram
We chattered about this 3-bedroom fee simple townhouse with indoor/outdoor living at 820 W. Wolfram in Lakeview several times over the last 4 years.
It came on the market completely renovated in 2014.
The 2014 chatter is here.
Then, it returned to the market in April 2018 asking more than the 2014 sales price.
We chattered about it twice in 2018 including in June 2018. You can see our chatter here.
If you recall, this 6-unit complex was built in 1979.
This unit was a front, street facing unit, which was remodeled with all modern finishes.
It had a glass wall that opens to a protected, walled landscaped garden that faces the street.
The kitchen had white modern cabinets with Wolf, Bosch and Subzero appliances and “waterfall” countertops.
There were frosted sliding room doors and walls of marble.
The third bedroom was on the third floor with the other two bedrooms on the second floor.
This floor had walls of solid glass doors that opened and closed depending on how you want to define the space.
There was no basement.
The townhouse had central air and a parking space which appeared to be an outdoor space.
The listing made a big deal out of the fact that this townhouse is “fee simple” which means there’s no assessments.
Originally listed at $815,000 which was $40,000 over the 2014 purchase price, it finally sold 5 months later for $715,000.
That’s a loss of $60,000 for an apple-to-apple property (i.e. it had the same finishes and features.)
I haven’t cribbed about an apple-to-apple loss on a GreenZone property in a LONG time. Probably since the 2012-2013 era.
And this is the first post-housing crash property that I’ve covered where the owner took a big loss.
It’s just one property.
But is it another sign that the housing market is changing?
Are we entering into a new type of housing market for the first time since the bottom of the bust in 2012?
And are sellers (and buyers) prepared for where the housing market might go next? Buying and holding even just 3 to 5 years was easy over the last 5 years. Will it be so going forward?
Brad Lippitz at Compass Real Estate had the listing again. In 2014, he was also the owner. You can still see the pictures here.
Unit #F: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed (but old listings show these townhouses as 1530 square feet)
- Sold in April 1990 for $360,000
- Sold in November 1993 for $197,000
- Sold in August 2013 for $80,000 (according to public records)
- Renovated
- Originally listed in June 2014 for $799,000
- Sold in August 2014 for $775,000
- Was originally listed in April 2018 at $815,000
- Reduced
- Sold in October 2018 for $715,000
- No assessments because it’s fee simple
- Taxes are now $11,220 (they were $6916 in 2014)
- Central Air
- Parking included
- Washer/dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 17×15 (third floor)
- Bedroom #2: 12×11 (second floor)
- Bedroom #3: 12×11 (second floor)
- Terrace: 20×15
“Are we entering into a new type of housing market for the first time since the bottom of the bust in 2012?
And are sellers (and buyers) prepared for where the housing market might go next? Buying and holding even just 3 to 5 years was easy over the last 5 years. Will it be so going forward?”
LOL Wut?
Using a crappy property that someone overpaid for as a proxy for the market is foolish
The market is tightening and marginal properties or ones people overpaid are going to feel the brunt. Shocking I know.
Agree with Johnny. The subject is hideous and would be better off bulldozed.
“I haven’t cribbed about an apple-to-apple loss on a GreenZone property in a LONG time. Probably since the 2012-2013 era.”
1750 Grace was a loss in 2014. on an 8-year hold.
As is often noted, you make your money in real estate on the buy.
As Johnny notes, this unfortunate seller simply overpaid in ’14. Probably in part because it was brand new fresh at that point.
The ’13 transfer was for $80k, on the record, but was an estate sale, and the Buyer is a broker, so there may well have been a side deal.
ah yes the home with the porch pit
to be clear, I was referring to the exterior. It is one of the ugliest buildings I have seen. I much prefer exterior beauty, because it’s very hard to correct that. Interiors can be changed updated without much hassle.
“very hard to correct [this sort of exterior”
nigh impossible in a condo. Can you imagine trying to get enough agreement to avoid a lawsuit?
Good point anon
and yes, this isn’t a condo, but I assume that the exterior is subject to some sort of common governance, so basically same issue.
In this case, I think the loss is due to the “greater fool” problem. The seller could not find a greater fool.
The idea of releasing those huge double doors to open up to the great outdoors seems wonderful in someone’s imagination. The reality is that the great outdoors includes a large variety of flying insects and creepy crawlers who would gladly accept the invitation to come into the home.
…and mice. In this weather, if those doors were opened there is a virtual certainty that mice would accept the invitation to come into the home.
“mice”
Is that what you call Rattus norvegicus?
I remember when this complex was built in 1979 (I had a friend who lived on the same street). Anyway, ugly exterior then and now. I guess $700,000 is the going price for a Lakeview townhouse now. Seems expensive.
@anon “and yes, this isn’t a condo, but I assume that the exterior is subject to some sort of common governance, so basically same issue.”
I own a townhouse with a similar fee-simple-no-assessments structure. There is no common governance, no association, etc. What we have is a covenant saying we can’t materially change the exterior look with some very limited exceptions (eg some have roof decks, some don’t, those that don’t are allowed to add one).
IME that led to sharing information between neighbors (what brand/color paint did you use for your railings, where did you buy a replacement light globe, etc) as opposed to an association dictating “you must use this color/globe/etc”
It also means that on pricier things, people have made different choices. eg windows and garage doors. Ours is at an age where some of that stuff is needing replacement. At a glance, you generally don’t notice because it’s the same color, but if you look closely you can tell that there are differences.
dangit, forgot my conclusion. I suspect that if we wanted to change the exterior of our building, we would need 100% agreement. There isn’t any association declaration/bylaws to say that a majority or supermajority of some kind could change the covenant. IANAL, but I suspect that all parties would need to agree. Huge barrier there getting everyone to agree to a replacement look and to pay for it. I could easily see one owner saying f it, it looks fine to me or I can’t afford it. No 100% and you’re done.